12/04/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 0:28:07
Duration 2:49:27
Loaded: 16.64%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 2:21:20
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • Item 0 - Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
    00:00:37
    Good morning, this is Susie Clifton with ERCOT. We're going to go ahead and get
  • 00:00:40
    started here. Could someone on the WebEx confirm you can hear me? Okay,
  • 00:00:44
    I can hear you. Yes. All right, thanks. Just very quickly
  • 00:00:48
    with some meeting reminders, there is a
  • 00:00:52
    sign in sheet outside this meeting room. If you're here today in person,
  • 00:00:55
    please make sure to add your name to that so that we can
  • 00:00:58
    capture that you were here in person in the meeting minutes. If you were on
  • 00:01:02
    the WebEx. As we approach the balloting process today,
  • 00:01:07
    please make sure you unmute yourself as we approach your segment. And then after
  • 00:01:10
    you have cast your vote, please return to the mute function.
  • 00:01:14
    If you're here in the meeting room when we're voting or when you want to
  • 00:01:17
    make a comment, or even those on the WebEx,
  • 00:01:21
    you can enter yourself in the chat.
  • 00:01:24
    Or if you're in the meeting room, just hold up your CARD. Brittany's over here
  • 00:01:27
    in the corner, and her and Jim will be able to
  • 00:01:30
    enter you in the chat if needed. Please wait
  • 00:01:34
    for the chair to recognize you before you begin speaking.
  • 00:01:37
    And then finally, if the WebEx ends for any reason,
  • 00:01:41
    give us just a few minutes and we'll get started back up again. If there
  • 00:01:44
    are any issues with that same WebEx meeting details,
  • 00:01:48
    then we will send something out to the listserv. Otherwise, you should be able to
  • 00:01:52
    use that to get started. And with that, Eric, we. You have a quorum and
  • 00:01:55
    are ready to get started today. Okay, thank you,
  • 00:01:58
    Susie. Thank you, members for
  • 00:02:02
    being here in person and online. And for guests,
  • 00:02:05
    Eric Blakey, pardon Isles Co-Op. This year's Chair
  • 00:02:09
    of WMS.
  • 00:02:13
    We have a hopefully light agenda, so maybe I did
  • 00:02:16
    not jinx it.
  • 00:02:20
    Thank you, sir. Let's go forward with the
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
    00:02:24
    antitrust admonition. To avoid raising
  • 00:02:27
    concerns about antitrust liability, participants in ERCOT activities
  • 00:02:31
    should refrain from proposing any action or measure that would exceed
  • 00:02:35
    ERCOT's authority under federal or state law.
  • 00:02:38
    For additional information, stakeholders should consult the Statement of Position
  • 00:02:42
    on Antitrust Issues for members of ERCOT committees,
  • 00:02:45
    subcommittees and working groups, which is posted on the ERCOT website,
  • 00:02:50
    and the disclaimer that all presentations for
  • 00:02:54
    the meeting are received and posted with the acknowledgement that
  • 00:02:58
    they are considered public in accordance with the website content procedures.
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
    00:03:03
    Okay, let's go to agenda review.
  • 00:03:06
    The agenda was posted. A couple of
  • 00:03:10
    things I want to note. First of all, it only took
  • 00:03:13
    me two years to realize the value in
  • 00:03:17
    arranging our agenda the way that Ross arranges
  • 00:03:22
    theirs. So hopefully y'all will find that an improvement.
  • 00:03:26
    We put the rather than separating all the tabled
  • 00:03:29
    items into one group. We have sorted those
  • 00:03:33
    into with the various working
  • 00:03:36
    groups that we have assigned them to. So what we intend to do
  • 00:03:40
    is when we get to those items, we'll have the working group report
  • 00:03:45
    and then if there's any action that they
  • 00:03:49
    recommend that we take on those tabled items,
  • 00:03:52
    we can do that all at once. So hopefully that's
  • 00:03:56
    an improvement and we can have a little more efficient discussion.
  • 00:04:01
    The other thing I want to highlight is when we
  • 00:04:05
    get to the WMWG report,
  • 00:04:10
    we have an item proposed changes
  • 00:04:14
    to CARD allocation methods and we'll talk about this more
  • 00:04:18
    further. We've talked quite a bit in leadership
  • 00:04:21
    about how we intend to handle
  • 00:04:25
    this, and again, we'll talk about it more when we
  • 00:04:28
    get there. But we're probably just going to have
  • 00:04:33
    a quick update from ERCOT on their position on
  • 00:04:37
    the three options that have been presented and then
  • 00:04:40
    we will take a straw poll. It will
  • 00:04:44
    not be a formal vote as posted
  • 00:04:49
    on the agenda, because when you have a vote that triggers
  • 00:04:52
    other requirements, we're just going to have a straw poll
  • 00:04:56
    and so just want to kind of lay that out so that you're not surprised
  • 00:05:00
    when we get to that agenda item. Was there anything
  • 00:05:03
    else that anyone was hoping to see added to the agenda
  • 00:05:08
    today? Yes, Eric,
  • 00:05:12
    I don't want to be annoying about it, but on the straw poll topic
  • 00:05:17
    is it might be worthwhile for us to talk about
  • 00:05:22
    how we're going to vote before we actually vote,
  • 00:05:25
    because I think there are multiple people that can
  • 00:05:28
    maybe make a motion that could pass a straw poll. And so it'd just be
  • 00:05:31
    good to all agree to what we're going to do before we do
  • 00:05:34
    it. Okay. And we'll have that discussion. Sounds good. I do want to
  • 00:05:38
    be. Yeah, I do want the group to be supportive of that
  • 00:05:41
    direction, but also just keep in mind that it's
  • 00:05:45
    not a binding vote and we're still presenting this to
  • 00:05:49
    ERCOT for feedback and information. There's been a lot of good
  • 00:05:52
    work, you know, by several groups
  • 00:05:56
    already on the three options. ERCOT is going to take this
  • 00:06:00
    information and decide, you know, which approach to file,
  • 00:06:03
    and then when the protocol change is filed, we'll have all the normal
  • 00:06:08
    processes in place to address that. So just wanted to
  • 00:06:12
    lay that out, though, so that there was no surprises and
  • 00:06:16
    let y'all kind of be thinking about what you think the best
  • 00:06:19
    option should be when we get there. And again, Blake will be
  • 00:06:22
    covering that. Anything else?
  • Item 3 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update Eric Blakey
    00:06:27
    All right, Item number three is the TAC update.
  • 00:06:31
    I just have A verbal update.
  • 00:06:35
    TAC approved several protocol changes including NPRR1180 inclusion of forecasted load and planning analysis
  • 00:06:39
    and NPRR1247 incorporation of congestion
  • 00:06:42
    cost savings test and economic evaluation of transmission projects.
  • 00:06:47
    Also of interest was TAC discussed the ERCOT board
  • 00:06:52
    Also of interest was TAC discussed the ERCOT board
  • 00:06:56
    and stakeholder engagement over the past year and steps
  • 00:07:00
    to increase stakeholder communications with PUC and ERCOT.
  • 00:07:04
    PUC staff is now attending the TAC meetings
  • 00:07:07
    and more information is now included in the TAC reports for
  • 00:07:11
    revision requests. ERCOT Board Chairman Bill
  • 00:07:14
    Flores was at the meeting and expressed appreciation
  • 00:07:18
    for the input. I think he intends to attend the TAC
  • 00:07:22
    meetings more often and I thought it was really good dialogue
  • 00:07:26
    when he was there and I think that's really a good
  • 00:07:30
    step and appreciates
  • 00:07:34
    the input and engagement from stakeholders. Explained that the Board has
  • 00:07:38
    begun a process to get to know each of the TAC members to better understand
  • 00:07:41
    their needs as well as improve the protocol process.
  • 00:07:45
    Before we talk about 1190, which was also discussed at TAC,
  • 00:07:49
    was there anything else anyone wanted to to mention that
  • 00:07:53
    came out of the TAC meeting?
  • Item 3.1 - Review concept of Annual Settlement Trigger related to NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs
    00:07:58
    Okay, so we have this item review concept of
  • 00:08:02
    annual settlement Trigger related to NPRR1190
  • 00:08:06
    High dispatch limit override provision for
  • 00:08:09
    increased load serving entity costs Tag
  • 00:08:13
    discussed this. As you recall, we had approved
  • 00:08:17
    this proposal. It went to TAC and then it went to the Board and
  • 00:08:23
    it expands an existing make whole provision for
  • 00:08:27
    queasys that have suffered losses due to receiving a high dispatch
  • 00:08:31
    limit override to allow additional queasies to
  • 00:08:34
    be eligible for a payment. It was presented to the Board in
  • 00:08:38
    August and tabled and then in October the
  • 00:08:42
    board remanded this to tacit. So TAC had an initial discussion
  • 00:08:45
    in October with quite a bit of discussion
  • 00:08:49
    about the background and different
  • 00:08:53
    historical and steps for going forward.
  • 00:08:57
    Bill Barnes has discussed
  • 00:09:00
    a proposal and I believe he's filed his proposal so
  • 00:09:04
    that we could at least see what he
  • 00:09:08
    had in mind. And I think our desire is to let
  • 00:09:12
    him present this to the body today,
  • 00:09:16
    but then move this to further
  • 00:09:20
    discussion at WMS is sort of the direction we
  • 00:09:23
    were thinking. But Bill, you want to take us through your proposal?
  • 00:09:28
    Yeah. During discussions of 1190 at
  • 00:09:33
    TAC and the Board level, there were concerns expressed by
  • 00:09:37
    consumers about the changes in 1190 potentially leading to
  • 00:09:42
    dramatic increase in the amount of HDL override
  • 00:09:45
    payments. We share the concern
  • 00:09:49
    that that would be an unintended outcome of this change.
  • 00:09:53
    And so to help address the concerns that we heard from consumers,
  • 00:09:57
    we added or I'm suggesting some language
  • 00:10:00
    that stakeholders can review and
  • 00:10:04
    we will seek feedback and more Robust
  • 00:10:07
    discussion at the WMS meeting. But if you want to scroll down to that language
  • 00:10:13
    highlighted in yellow, this is I believe is posted
  • 00:10:17
    on the WMS agenda on the webpage. Right.
  • 00:10:20
    Okay. And simply the concept
  • 00:10:24
    is to have an annual settlement trigger that
  • 00:10:28
    if that triggers exceeded by the total amount of HDL override
  • 00:10:32
    payments in the calendar year, then ERCOT will bring
  • 00:10:35
    back to TAC suggestions on
  • 00:10:38
    how to reduce both the cost operationally. So what is the
  • 00:10:43
    underlying kind of reliability reason why we're seeing increase
  • 00:10:46
    in HDL overrides themselves? And then also
  • 00:10:50
    a review of the demonstrable financial loss
  • 00:10:54
    criteria that's in the settlement provision in the section
  • 00:10:58
    1C above. So just basically a wholesale review of the
  • 00:11:02
    entire HDL override process itself. And the settlement allowance
  • 00:11:06
    here, the $10 million. I got a couple questions on
  • 00:11:09
    that. Where did that come from? Took a look
  • 00:11:13
    at historical HDL override payments and
  • 00:11:17
    set the trigger at an amount that is obviously on the high
  • 00:11:21
    end because we want this to be an exceptional event. And the
  • 00:11:25
    URI HDL override payments were exceeded
  • 00:11:29
    $10 million. Also 10 million is
  • 00:11:33
    actually a pretty low bar in terms of the amount of energy
  • 00:11:39
    payments in the market. This would be like well below
  • 00:11:42
    0.1%. So we felt like that
  • 00:11:46
    was a reasonable trigger and that if we exceeded 10 million then
  • 00:11:49
    there is clearly something going on that we should be taking a look at for
  • 00:11:52
    HDL overrides since we've only exceeded that once during URI.
  • 00:11:55
    On average it's the amount of HTL
  • 00:11:59
    variety are usually under $1,000,000.
  • 00:12:02
    So the purpose of the discussion here is to tee up the language for
  • 00:12:06
    review for stakeholders and then public service
  • 00:12:09
    announcement that we'll be seeking thoughts feedback
  • 00:12:13
    from other stakeholders at the WMWG
  • 00:12:16
    meeting the morning of December 10th, I believe.
  • 00:12:22
    So I don't know if we need a formal motion to keep it tabled or
  • 00:12:25
    refer to WWG or we can just do that.
  • 00:12:32
    Brittany, do you have a.
  • 00:12:37
    We can just refer. Okay. Okay. So we will refer this
  • 00:12:41
    to WWG. Any initial questions or
  • 00:12:44
    comments on this proposal? Yes, Eric,
  • 00:12:47
    we had some back and forth bill over email, but just to talk
  • 00:12:51
    about it in public. Appreciate Bill suggesting
  • 00:12:55
    something to continue to move this forward.
  • 00:12:59
    We are evaluating it still both the number
  • 00:13:03
    and you know, what happened when the trigger hits and
  • 00:13:06
    look forward to participation at WWG. Thank you.
  • 00:13:10
    Thank you all both for your work on this. Really appreciate
  • 00:13:14
    Bill bringing this out and presenting prior
  • 00:13:18
    to our meeting so that we could be aware of the idea and
  • 00:13:22
    just really appreciate the efforts to help move this forward.
  • 00:13:25
    So if there's nothing else,
  • Item 4 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
    00:13:30
    we will move to further
  • 00:13:34
    in our agenda to item four, which I don't believe we have any ERCOT
  • 00:13:38
    operation or market items,
  • Item 5 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey
    00:13:42
    is that right? So we have item number five, which is
  • 00:13:46
    a new protocol revision, Subcommittee referrals.
  • Item 5.1 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs
    00:13:51
    This first one or this only one is NPRR1256
  • 00:13:54
    settlement of MRA of ESRs.
  • 00:13:58
    And this was proposed by ERCOT on October
  • 00:14:02
    14th.
  • 00:14:05
    It changes language and select provisions of section 6
  • 00:14:09
    of the protocols related to must run alternatives. The settlement changes
  • 00:14:13
    reflect the storage resource MRAs
  • 00:14:17
    would not have fuel costs but would have costs associated with charging.
  • 00:14:21
    I believe Ino or Maggie were
  • 00:14:25
    listed as resources for this
  • 00:14:29
    NPRR. I wanted to see if anyone from them or anyone from ERCOT
  • 00:14:33
    wanted to say anything more about this proposal.
  • 00:14:36
    Morning Eric. I'm here. Hi Ino.
  • 00:14:40
    This is. This follows the same methodology that we established
  • 00:14:46
    in the MRA RFP.
  • 00:14:50
    Currently the protocols do not have a placeholder
  • 00:14:55
    or the provision for settling ESRs
  • 00:15:00
    as MRAs. But in the previous RFP we
  • 00:15:05
    included ESRs to possibly provide
  • 00:15:08
    an MRA service. So now we're trying to incorporate the
  • 00:15:12
    same methodology in the protocols. And that's the
  • 00:15:17
    objective of this NPRR.
  • 00:15:22
    It follows very similar to a generation resource in a
  • 00:15:26
    way.
  • 00:15:33
    I'll be happy to walk through the equations if you want me to, but I'm
  • 00:15:35
    not sure this. Yeah, before we do that, let's.
  • 00:15:39
    Bill Barnes, you have a comment? Sorry, you know, I haven't had a chance
  • 00:15:42
    to review this. I'm curious,
  • 00:15:45
    how do you guys treat the duration component of
  • 00:15:49
    the storage resource in an MRA type
  • 00:15:53
    of procurement? So you're trying to address a transmission constraint.
  • 00:15:58
    Let's say you've got a two hour battery.
  • 00:16:02
    How do you think through that testing?
  • 00:16:05
    I'm more curious about the qualified capacity
  • 00:16:08
    for the MRA. How do you determine that? Correct. We, we can
  • 00:16:12
    definitely test them. We most likely going to be testing these resources before they.
  • 00:16:16
    They can provide the service. If they submit an offer
  • 00:16:19
    for an MRA and based on that
  • 00:16:23
    test that's the capacity they're going to be able to provide
  • 00:16:27
    consideration, which is kind of like a load resource. Okay,
  • 00:16:31
    thanks, Eric Goff.
  • 00:16:36
    You know, is this just price times quantity
  • 00:16:39
    or is it more than that? Well, actually you don't
  • 00:16:43
    mind?
  • 00:16:47
    I'm not sure if I can actually. You have control.
  • 00:16:51
    Thank you. If you can scroll down a little bit.
  • 00:16:57
    So for MRAs we have three types
  • 00:17:00
    of compensation. We have the standby payment every
  • 00:17:05
    time there's a deployment payment and a variable payment.
  • 00:17:10
    This is exactly how we treat generation Resources,
  • 00:17:13
    demand response, other generators, same format,
  • 00:17:17
    same calculations.
  • 00:17:22
    So the standby payment is whatever's
  • 00:17:26
    in the contract. The deployment
  • 00:17:30
    payment is whatever's in the contract. And it's similar
  • 00:17:33
    to. So but
  • 00:17:37
    just to walk us through a little bit, because I think it's possible we might
  • 00:17:41
    be able to vote this through today if we discuss it. And so
  • 00:17:44
    I want to talk about a little bit. So this, the standby payments, whatever they
  • 00:17:48
    offer, if we agree with that offer, that'll be the standby
  • 00:17:51
    price. Yep. Okay. And the variable, the deployment
  • 00:17:55
    payment, they're going to be able to submit a price.
  • 00:18:00
    Can you scroll up to the deployment amount, please?
  • 00:18:04
    Actually, that's it right here. Yeah, I'm sorry, you had it
  • 00:18:08
    right there. They're gonna submit a deployment price.
  • 00:18:11
    And. And that's in the contract. It'll be in the contract.
  • 00:18:15
    That's correct. So you have visibility to those,
  • 00:18:19
    determine those prices or costs,
  • 00:18:22
    and then MRAs are
  • 00:18:27
    accounted for by the energy market in the same way rmrs
  • 00:18:31
    are. So in terms of price impacts, everything else.
  • 00:18:36
    No, there's no provision right now in the protocols to
  • 00:18:41
    basically. I'll get to that in a second. An RMR is not the
  • 00:18:44
    same. We treat it separately. They're going to be their offer.
  • 00:18:48
    Their offer is going to be at the cap. That's what you mean? Yes.
  • 00:18:52
    This. It will be the system on offer. Caps will be supposedly
  • 00:18:55
    last to be deployed, but we're
  • 00:18:59
    not going to rerun SCED to take out that
  • 00:19:02
    resource megawatt like we do in RMR
  • 00:19:06
    or ROC. Okay.
  • 00:19:10
    That's in the current protocols as well for any MRAs.
  • 00:19:21
    Okay. Bill.
  • 00:19:25
    Oh, Blake. Hole. I'm sorry,
  • 00:19:29
    did I. Are you done with your questions, Eric? I'm done enough.
  • 00:19:32
    Okay. Okay. Sorry about that. Blake Cole.
  • 00:19:36
    Blake Cole. LCRA. This may be out of scope from this NPRR,
  • 00:19:40
    but I had a similar question around a
  • 00:19:44
    deployment impact for an MRA resource,
  • 00:19:49
    if that would be captured in the reliability deployment price header or not.
  • 00:19:53
    Eric. Maybe. Eric, you were getting at that
  • 00:19:56
    point and I don't know if the language is in
  • 00:20:00
    this NPRR, but in that section,
  • 00:20:03
    an RMR deployment is one of the criteria that is
  • 00:20:07
    considered in that calculation. And then there's also
  • 00:20:11
    a second part to that sentence that says that any
  • 00:20:14
    capacity secured for in an agreement
  • 00:20:18
    to avoid an emergency event. I'm curious if
  • 00:20:22
    MRA falls under that category or not.
  • 00:20:25
    I don't believe so, but I'm going to let others opine
  • 00:20:30
    on this. But my recollection from working on NPRR885,
  • 00:20:34
    which introduced the MRAs that wasn't the case but
  • 00:20:39
    we just to let you know we have not implemented
  • 00:20:43
    NPRR885 okay so it's still in gray box
  • 00:20:46
    language. This NPRR will add
  • 00:20:50
    to that gray box if it may be Matt or
  • 00:20:54
    Dave Magic is on the line. If they think that
  • 00:20:59
    we're going to rerun SCED then they need to opine.
  • 00:21:02
    I don't believe that's the case now.
  • 00:21:05
    RMR yes Rock Yes.
  • 00:21:09
    Just to follow up, I think it might be out of scope from this.
  • 00:21:13
    We don't initially have concerns with the settlement logic here.
  • 00:21:16
    So not trying to slow that down. No no I understand. Do want to kind
  • 00:21:20
    of work through the pricing impacts. So I mean if you guys wanted
  • 00:21:24
    we could table this and try to get you a better answer next time.
  • 00:21:29
    That's something you guys want to do but I'm
  • 00:21:34
    willing to get it out if we can have that
  • 00:21:38
    discussion. But if you want to plant to a working group that might make
  • 00:21:41
    more sense too but don't want to stop the discussion.
  • 00:21:45
    Bill. So we have a real
  • 00:21:48
    world example right. There was a 200 megawatt battery that submitted an MRA
  • 00:21:53
    offer.
  • 00:21:56
    So I still got a couple more questions on
  • 00:21:59
    how you determine how much capacity they should get paid for.
  • 00:22:03
    So I'm 200 megawatt battery. The qualified capacity
  • 00:22:07
    or contracting capacity, I can't remember the terms is determined through
  • 00:22:11
    testing. So can you explain how you tested that battery or how
  • 00:22:14
    you would test? Well I'm not
  • 00:22:18
    sure. Honestly I'm not sure how we're going to test it. But I do
  • 00:22:21
    know we're going to test those resources. The operations
  • 00:22:25
    will test those resources and they'll give us a number, a megawatt value to
  • 00:22:29
    use to pay. But I'm not, I'm not gonna,
  • 00:22:32
    I'm not gonna pretend that I know. I guess my
  • 00:22:36
    this goes back to the duration like so they
  • 00:22:40
    need to resolve the constraint for 3 hours,
  • 00:22:44
    2 hours 15 minutes. Like how do you determine the
  • 00:22:48
    capacity value to resolve a constraint? That is the question.
  • 00:22:53
    It might be maybe a good idea to bring somebody from maybe
  • 00:22:58
    from the testing group. If you call it they will
  • 00:23:02
    do this analysis and give you the answer. I'm not sure. I think
  • 00:23:05
    I would like to hear that. Why don't we
  • 00:23:09
    table and refer which working group would you
  • 00:23:12
    recommend? Well definitely I would say
  • 00:23:16
    wnwg. Okay. I think that's. And I
  • 00:23:20
    can. We can bring the group individuals that will be
  • 00:23:24
    testing this capacity and on the, on the deployments we're
  • 00:23:31
    going to have a single model soon right so almost
  • 00:23:35
    a year to the day that
  • 00:23:39
    will change how these are deployed. Is there any way we could deploy the ESR
  • 00:23:43
    in the single model environment like a,
  • 00:23:46
    like a traditional generation resource through a ruck construction? I think we're
  • 00:23:49
    going to have to also address that later on. That would solve
  • 00:23:53
    the pricing problems. Yep.
  • 00:23:56
    I don't see any reason why the RUC engine can't see an ESR and
  • 00:24:00
    commit them. I understand.
  • 00:24:02
    Okay, thanks. Okay,
  • 00:24:06
    so is there any further discussion? I think
  • 00:24:09
    the indication is we will
  • 00:24:14
    table and refer NPRR1256
  • 00:24:18
    to WMWG. And is there any
  • 00:24:23
    comment or discussion on that?
  • 00:24:27
    We'll include this on the combo ballot. Is that okay?
  • 00:24:31
    I appreciate the questions. I'm glad this came up because this
  • 00:24:34
    is exactly what we're looking for to make sure that you guys
  • 00:24:38
    understand how we're going to deploy, test and
  • 00:24:42
    settle these resources. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:24:46
    Ino. Brian, I see you in the chat, but I
  • 00:24:49
    think you just. Oh, you hit. You want to follow up,
  • 00:24:52
    Brian, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. So Blake
  • 00:24:56
    was asking a question about how MRAs are treated in
  • 00:24:59
    the RDPA and we didn't really
  • 00:25:03
    get a good answer there. I think, you know, phoned a
  • 00:25:07
    friend or tried to phone a friend and asked for some help from agio
  • 00:25:11
    on that.
  • 00:25:17
    And the reason I'm asking is I think we have like a.
  • 00:25:21
    Besides just like the storage
  • 00:25:25
    MRA scenario that Bill mentioned, there's just.
  • 00:25:29
    At the board yesterday there was a lot of chatter about the MRA
  • 00:25:34
    potential for bronig wanting to.
  • 00:25:40
    Okay, Brian, thank you. We have Gordon in the room.
  • 00:25:43
    Gordon, thanks very much. Gordon Drake from ERCOT.
  • 00:25:47
    We're looking into the question now and perhaps
  • 00:25:50
    germane to the discussion that was held at the board yesterday around
  • 00:25:54
    in pursuing that option for the mobile gen, how they would
  • 00:25:58
    be registered and then that I think triggers how the
  • 00:26:01
    systems do or do not automatically pick them up. So we're working through
  • 00:26:05
    that right now, Blake, and can bring that back and probably bring
  • 00:26:08
    that to the discussion at WMWG around this as well to
  • 00:26:12
    complement the conversation on this NPRR. That would
  • 00:26:15
    be great. Thank you, Gordon. Brian, any other
  • 00:26:18
    questions? Yeah, I just, you know,
  • 00:26:21
    generally there's a principled
  • 00:26:25
    point an MRA wouldn't exist unless
  • 00:26:28
    it was to replace an rmr.
  • 00:26:33
    And I would think that it should be treated the same way in
  • 00:26:37
    terms of price impact.
  • 00:26:41
    That's been to my comment. Thank you,
  • 00:26:46
    Gordon. Yeah, I think to
  • 00:26:50
    the extent that we, if we recognize them in the
  • 00:26:53
    systems as rmr, then it should flow
  • 00:26:57
    through and if we can give it the
  • 00:27:01
    opportunity to be to have units committed through RUC
  • 00:27:05
    and they have that right status, then it should be treated as they
  • 00:27:08
    are today. We're just working through some of the implementation impacts of
  • 00:27:11
    that and understanding how the system will see them
  • 00:27:15
    to make sure that we have the appropriate treatment.
  • 00:27:18
    Eric, I have a comment. Please understand
  • 00:27:21
    that MRAs, the entities
  • 00:27:24
    that compress it, participate as an MRA is not just generation resources or batteries.
  • 00:27:29
    Right. It's also demand response. There's also other generators and
  • 00:27:34
    that's one of the reasons why we
  • 00:27:37
    cannot necessarily treat them all like our
  • 00:27:41
    generation resources in the system.
  • 00:27:49
    Thank you. Ino. Any other comments or questions?
  • 00:27:57
    Okay, thank you for that discussion.
  • 00:28:04
    We will table and refer and include that as
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
    00:28:07
    part of our combo ballot. All right,
  • 00:28:11
    moving to item 6,
  • 00:28:15
    revision request table to PRS and refer to WMS.
  • Item 6.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
    00:28:19
    We have this NPRR1070.
  • 00:28:23
    My understanding is we're still awaiting ROS language,
  • 00:28:26
    but is there any comments or discussion on this on
  • 00:28:30
    this item? Eric,
  • 00:28:34
    I just have a question. Did PRS
  • 00:28:38
    refer this to us or did ROS request that we provide feedback?
  • 00:28:46
    I have to ask my experts. I thought it was referred
  • 00:28:49
    to us, but on NPRR1070.
  • 00:28:54
    Yes, yes, it was referred by PRS to
  • 00:28:58
    WMS and to ROS. Okay, thanks. I thought so.
  • 00:29:02
    I just wasn't clear. I couldn't remember. I have
  • 00:29:05
    a brief comment. I will just note that we are Eric Goff,
  • 00:29:09
    thank you for you made some comments recently.
  • 00:29:13
    We did get the market monitor up to speed
  • 00:29:16
    on the history of it and now
  • 00:29:20
    that 1247 is moving along,
  • 00:29:23
    joint commenters did recently file comments on PGRR119 which
  • 00:29:27
    is related to this and takes a piece of NPRR1070.
  • 00:29:31
    So we are working on revising,
  • 00:29:35
    simplifying, trimming it down to the pieces that are left
  • 00:29:39
    and bringing it current. And we'll work on a on
  • 00:29:42
    the preamble to remind people of a little bit of
  • 00:29:45
    the history and where the relevant information can be found so
  • 00:29:49
    that we can streamline discussions once those are filed.
  • 00:29:52
    So that should be coming before the next meeting. Thank you.
  • 00:29:55
    Thank you. Very good.
  • 00:29:58
    Thank you, Alex. Any other questions?
  • 00:30:03
    Okay, good. Segue into Alex Miller
  • 00:30:06
    and the Congestion Management Working Group report.
  • 00:30:12
    Thank you, Eric.
  • Item 7 - Congestion Management Working Group - CMWG - Alex Miller
    00:30:16
    All right, we did Condition Management Working group met
  • 00:30:19
    on November 19th. We had a
  • 00:30:23
    had a good meeting with several heavy topics.
  • 00:30:26
    We have regularly been discussing the CRR
  • 00:30:30
    long term option solution times issues
  • 00:30:33
    and solutions and we
  • 00:30:37
    got a great update. The administrative guardrails that were suggested
  • 00:30:41
    are moving forward. There is an NPRR1261 for
  • 00:30:45
    operational flexibility for the CRR auction limits
  • 00:30:48
    and that would allow market operations instead
  • 00:30:52
    of having to go to TAC for every adjustment, which means multiple
  • 00:30:56
    stakeholder meetings and
  • 00:31:00
    months of delay. This proposal is for market
  • 00:31:04
    operations to be able to specify the limits for each auction with
  • 00:31:08
    notice to avoid one single conservative limit for all the
  • 00:31:12
    auctions because they are finding their. Rather than driving and holding a
  • 00:31:15
    lower limit for all auctions, there are certain ones that are
  • 00:31:19
    more challenging to solve and so they can have the lower limit
  • 00:31:23
    for that and then higher limits for the other auctions
  • 00:31:27
    in the series. That would allow more flexibility
  • 00:31:30
    for stakeholders. That one should be
  • 00:31:34
    coming to us soon to discuss.
  • 00:31:37
    Pretty straightforward, just moving that,
  • 00:31:41
    moving that authorization and simplifying. We would still discuss these issues
  • 00:31:46
    in the workgroups, but not having to go through all the layers to get to
  • 00:31:49
    TAC. They also did recently TAC approved
  • 00:31:54
    reducing the limit to 3000 per CRR
  • 00:31:57
    account holder for the long term options. And that was already effective
  • 00:32:02
    for the most recent auction in November. So that should
  • 00:32:06
    help reduce some of the large numbers
  • 00:32:10
    of bids for affecting just a few stakeholders.
  • 00:32:14
    The market redesign or moving the multi month product.
  • 00:32:17
    They are still studying the impact of that. They do want to make sure that
  • 00:32:21
    it would have a positive impact
  • 00:32:25
    on the solution times before actually changing
  • 00:32:29
    the available products. The preliminary results are promising.
  • 00:32:32
    They'll continue to look at that and if it
  • 00:32:36
    continues to look good, they will be introducing another NPRR
  • 00:32:40
    for that as well. Two other options that are being
  • 00:32:44
    pursued is they are continuing to work with the vendor
  • 00:32:48
    to look at getting a pricing report to hopefully reduce
  • 00:32:52
    some of the participation. That's just for price discovery.
  • 00:32:56
    We can't really know how big of an impact that will be,
  • 00:32:59
    but it makes sense to have that transparency and potentially reduce
  • 00:33:03
    some unnecessary bidding behavior. And the
  • 00:33:07
    concept of a new time of use super peak kind of
  • 00:33:10
    covering that solar peak period that is ongoing
  • 00:33:14
    being developed. We expected we would discuss it in December,
  • 00:33:18
    but we're actually going to bump that to the January meeting and will
  • 00:33:22
    kick off a discussion around this new potential,
  • 00:33:25
    potential time of use product that will allow people to focus their bids
  • 00:33:29
    on the time periods that are most important to them.
  • 00:33:33
    And then some ongoing requests that we've had
  • 00:33:37
    are additional details. Sorry, one more bullet point on that one
  • 00:33:41
    on the more details on solution time. So how long
  • 00:33:45
    are the auctions taking? Stakeholders are interested in
  • 00:33:48
    that and what are the hardware improvements that are being done in parallel
  • 00:33:51
    that are improving the performance. And so
  • 00:33:55
    it is going to come to the next meeting to discuss what they're doing
  • 00:33:58
    in parallel to these, to these market Changes.
  • 00:34:03
    All right, thank you.
  • 00:34:10
    NPRR1230 Methodology
  • 00:34:13
    for setting transmission shadow price caps. TAC did ask for
  • 00:34:17
    periodic updates to stakeholders and the
  • 00:34:21
    group did support hearing more about event based
  • 00:34:25
    updates. You know how, what are the actual impacts of this?
  • 00:34:28
    So ERCOT staff brought a very short turnaround
  • 00:34:32
    presentation. There had been an event two days earlier where
  • 00:34:37
    this higher peak shadow price was
  • 00:34:42
    implemented on the two GTCs
  • 00:34:46
    that this, that this particular NPRR did impact.
  • 00:34:50
    They did a counterfactual analysis. So going back and saying what if we
  • 00:34:53
    had not had this in place, what would have happened? And looked at
  • 00:34:58
    what if the cap had been held at the standard 5251
  • 00:35:04
    instead of being allowed to go up to over $12,000 per megawatt
  • 00:35:08
    hour. And it did show that with
  • 00:35:12
    that if they had had the lower cap
  • 00:35:15
    system LAMBDA would have been lower but both GTCs
  • 00:35:20
    would have violated the flows
  • 00:35:23
    in contingency and because the generation on
  • 00:35:26
    the herding side would not have seen enough price impact to curtail.
  • 00:35:31
    So they did show that it's, it's working. We will
  • 00:35:35
    continue to hear from them as we, you know,
  • 00:35:38
    look at the alternatives or what
  • 00:35:42
    the impacts of this are or what
  • 00:35:45
    would happen. And also knowing that this was a temporary situation
  • 00:35:49
    for this very specific type of GTC
  • 00:35:53
    that was done to prevent
  • 00:35:57
    overloads of thermal limits needing
  • 00:36:01
    that higher transparency. But also a very tricky situation
  • 00:36:04
    where it's right on top of a load center and impacted
  • 00:36:08
    has a lot of impact from a lot of generators with relatively low shift factors.
  • 00:36:12
    So this one is interesting to study. It was interesting
  • 00:36:16
    to see this real life example that the impact was very
  • 00:36:20
    short duration and did not have any,
  • 00:36:24
    a large impact on the total daily basis and
  • 00:36:28
    price differentials in the area. But we really appreciated ERCOT staff
  • 00:36:32
    bringing this on such short turnaround.
  • 00:36:36
    I don't see any questions on that one to the next
  • 00:36:40
    one.
  • Item 7.1 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk - CMWG - Possible Vote
    00:36:45
    We did have NPRR1214 on the
  • 00:36:48
    agenda. The ERCOT staff and the sponsors are
  • 00:36:52
    continuing to work on the language revisions. There are a few more tweaks
  • 00:36:55
    that ERCOT staff sees needed including allowing
  • 00:36:59
    for the data source to be from
  • 00:37:05
    telemetry rather than only metering.
  • 00:37:08
    There are some additional sections needed to fully incorporate the locational adder.
  • 00:37:12
    So there are a couple more places that that needs to be included.
  • 00:37:15
    And then the sponsor noted one minor change to restore
  • 00:37:19
    one item that was struck when they edited to
  • 00:37:23
    move the implementation to post rtc. So a, a correction
  • 00:37:28
    there. But they had not filed
  • 00:37:32
    the comments yet. They were continuing to work on it. So we expect we'll continue
  • 00:37:35
    to Discuss this one. So we are asking to hold this one
  • 00:37:39
    with the expectation of new filed comments.
  • 00:37:48
    Okay. And then the other item we owed you,
  • 00:37:52
    Eric, was review of the parking lot items assigned to CMWG.
  • 00:37:56
    So there were two items that we saw in the parking
  • 00:38:00
    lot. One was the review increased transparency and policy awareness
  • 00:38:04
    of GTCs and curtailments.
  • 00:38:08
    And on both of these we didn't have a strong opinion and
  • 00:38:11
    of course we'll defer to WMS, but we thought it made sense to keep this
  • 00:38:15
    item, maybe perhaps tweak
  • 00:38:19
    the name of it a little bit. But we do, you know,
  • 00:38:22
    we do have ongoing support and
  • 00:38:26
    updates on policy changes that are impacting GTCs and
  • 00:38:29
    we do expect ongoing policy awareness discussions through 2025.
  • 00:38:34
    So we thought it made sense to keep this one for us.
  • 00:38:38
    Maybe it's not necessary. So we'll again defer to
  • 00:38:41
    you on the other item, creating smaller
  • 00:38:45
    load zones for aggregation. We thought it made sense to remove
  • 00:38:48
    this one. We had had the updates. The IMM
  • 00:38:51
    came several times and shared a potential methodology considering
  • 00:38:56
    current congestion patterns. There are some concerns
  • 00:39:00
    on the timing of when to do that, how often would
  • 00:39:03
    it need to change and will congestion patterns be changing
  • 00:39:06
    significantly over the next few years? So at this time there's not
  • 00:39:09
    a sponsor. So we didn't know if you wanted to keep that
  • 00:39:13
    when in the parking lot or not. And I see Andrew in the,
  • 00:39:17
    in the chat with a question. Yeah, Andrew, go ahead.
  • 00:39:21
    Hello, everybody. Good morning. Yeah, so we
  • 00:39:25
    presented all of this at CMWG
  • 00:39:28
    and are more or less done with our work on that topic.
  • 00:39:32
    The response we've gotten from ERCOT is that there isn't
  • 00:39:35
    really personnel or energy and enthusiasm
  • 00:39:39
    to pursue this. So I think it would need more
  • 00:39:43
    stakeholder interest or something like
  • 00:39:47
    that to kind of nudge more effort
  • 00:39:51
    on this. And so we still think it's something that should be done,
  • 00:39:55
    but until something moves on that,
  • 00:39:58
    it's probably not going to advance
  • 00:40:02
    any further than it is now.
  • 00:40:05
    That's a great summary. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:40:10
    Eric, didn't this.
  • 00:40:15
    This was an IMM recommendation, but I think ERCOT also
  • 00:40:19
    recommended it as part of the market design blueprint.
  • 00:40:25
    Right. Where we were looking at additional load zones
  • 00:40:29
    is that. Am I misremembering that?
  • 00:40:33
    Yes. Matt, Marina's up. I'm trying to recall. I don't think ERCOT disagrees
  • 00:40:37
    with it. It's just we can't do everything right now. Yeah. So it's flight pattern
  • 00:40:40
    is full type moment. Not a apathy and disinterest.
  • 00:40:45
    It's an efficiency that is interested for looking
  • 00:40:48
    to be gained but at this point it's just kind of on the sideline.
  • 00:40:51
    Okay, I'm not trying to put you in the spot
  • 00:40:56
    with this question, but I remember this issue first
  • 00:40:59
    coming up due to the demand response
  • 00:41:04
    in the south load zone that ERCOT found to be against
  • 00:41:08
    their expectations. Has ERCOT continued to
  • 00:41:11
    see that kind of demand response in this offload zone? And if you don't know
  • 00:41:14
    the answer, is that something we can get in the future?
  • 00:41:19
    I'll note that down. Thanks. Thank you,
  • 00:41:22
    Eric. Any other discussion?
  • 00:41:30
    Yes, Shane Thomas Shaw. I'll make
  • 00:41:33
    another comment on that. For the load zones is I want to
  • 00:41:37
    say that there's a limitation on the timeline for that in
  • 00:41:42
    PUC statute to where it can't take place faster
  • 00:41:46
    than like seven years or is it three years?
  • 00:41:49
    I thought, I thought it was much longer than I expected. When I looked it
  • 00:41:52
    up, I want to say it was like yeah, because the CR position.
  • 00:41:55
    So it's a three year out type change. Yeah. Okay.
  • 00:41:58
    No, it's a good point, Bill.
  • 00:42:01
    We continue to be opposed to creating
  • 00:42:07
    many new load zones mainly due to the impact on
  • 00:42:10
    the retail market. It's difficult to create
  • 00:42:14
    retail product offers. You're pricing each zone separately
  • 00:42:19
    or consumers that are in the zip codes within those zones. So if we
  • 00:42:23
    increase the number materially, that will naturally increase the risk premium
  • 00:42:26
    that reps have to put onto retail offers. Makes the
  • 00:42:30
    whole pricing process
  • 00:42:34
    way more difficult. If we're just talking about adding a valley load zone,
  • 00:42:38
    maybe that's something we can consider. But also believe
  • 00:42:42
    that the need for this, which was primarily driven
  • 00:42:45
    by the thought we would have a lot of large flexible loads,
  • 00:42:50
    doesn't seem to be playing out like we thought in we will have large
  • 00:42:55
    non flexible loads. So I think the benefit of doing this
  • 00:42:59
    doesn't really exist anymore. Thanks. So was that opposition to MA
  • 00:43:03
    NY or MINI?
  • 00:43:07
    Both Table
  • 00:43:11
    that discussion. Okay.
  • 00:43:17
    Any other comments or questions?
  • 00:43:21
    I would like to get a WMS direction
  • 00:43:26
    for these two recommendations.
  • 00:43:29
    CMWG is recommending they
  • 00:43:33
    keep the first one on the parking lot and they've recommended removing
  • 00:43:37
    the load zone issue.
  • 00:43:40
    We could always add it back later.
  • 00:43:44
    You know, I was just telling Jim parking lot items
  • 00:43:49
    tend to get forgotten. So I,
  • 00:43:53
    I don't have a lot of support
  • 00:43:58
    internally for parking lots, but it sounds
  • 00:44:02
    like this, this is a good recommendation.
  • 00:44:05
    I wanted to see if we have any concern
  • 00:44:09
    or comments on keeping
  • 00:44:14
    the first and removing the second.
  • 00:44:19
    Sounds like Alex, we can make that
  • 00:44:23
    change.
  • 00:44:26
    I appreciate that work and discussion I think
  • 00:44:29
    it was very helpful and we'll always
  • 00:44:33
    keep this in our mind and if we need to bring it back, we can
  • 00:44:37
    do so at that time. The. Thank you.
  • 00:44:42
    Was this your last slide? It was the
  • 00:44:45
    slide before. On 1214 you
  • 00:44:51
    say the Working Group recommends bringing
  • 00:44:56
    it back in December. Just want to be sure WMS
  • 00:45:00
    supports that and we'll have that discussion
  • 00:45:04
    again in December.
  • 00:45:07
    Yeah, it sounds like we should have additional comments coming,
  • 00:45:10
    so we thought it's to hold it, but definitely
  • 00:45:14
    defer to WMS. Thank you. All right.
  • 00:45:18
    Yes, Austin. Yes. So we
  • 00:45:22
    were working on comments. We kind of have
  • 00:45:25
    a, the, the, the meeting cycle snuck up on. It's only
  • 00:45:29
    two weeks between meetings. So we
  • 00:45:32
    do have like a pre draft of comments for 1214 that
  • 00:45:36
    I was hoping to share on Friday. It's more administrative in nature.
  • 00:45:39
    It's just expanding. You know, we have a settlement point on the price adder.
  • 00:45:43
    So there's a lot of other parts of the protocols that needed to be changed.
  • 00:45:47
    So I was hoping to post kind of the unofficial comments this so
  • 00:45:50
    people could look at on Friday and then get them in the, you know,
  • 00:45:54
    the ERCOT process for review. And do you formally post it? I can't promise a
  • 00:45:57
    timeline on that. But, but the, I think all the, you know,
  • 00:46:01
    the heavy lifting on getting the right protocol sections and
  • 00:46:05
    everything cleaned up and updated is done now. It's just got to work its way
  • 00:46:08
    through the process. Great. Thank you, Austin, for that update.
  • 00:46:12
    Any other questions or comments?
  • 00:46:15
    I will. Thank you for bringing that up, Austin. And it did put
  • 00:46:19
    out a very tentative agenda for Friday, knowing it's short notice
  • 00:46:23
    after this meeting. So I was planning to update the agenda,
  • 00:46:26
    post WMS in case there are any other referrals. And I'll
  • 00:46:30
    make sure we have that sorted in time to discuss this as well. Thank you.
  • 00:46:35
    Okay, Any other questions? Thank you,
  • 00:46:39
    Alex. Appreciate your work and very good
  • 00:46:43
    report. Next is item 8, demand side working
  • 00:46:46
    group. We have Mark Patterson. Yes, can you hear
  • 00:46:50
    me? Yes, sir. All right, thank you.
  • Item 8 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Mark Patterson
    00:46:54
    We, we met on November 18.
  • 00:46:58
    This was a very short meeting. Neither our chair
  • 00:47:01
    nor our vice chair was available for that meeting. But there was one
  • 00:47:05
    important issue that we really didn't want to wait till early next year
  • 00:47:08
    to communicate to the dswg. And that was
  • 00:47:12
    changes that we've been working on
  • 00:47:15
    in Rio pertaining
  • 00:47:19
    to the load resources. For those
  • 00:47:22
    of you that aren't that close to the load resources,
  • 00:47:26
    the original Rio implementation didn't include load resources,
  • 00:47:30
    but during last year that was implemented
  • 00:47:34
    and there were a number of issues that we had to work
  • 00:47:37
    through. But the key point is we've created two
  • 00:47:42
    things. We were able to shorten the timeline
  • 00:47:46
    for the modeling for the load resources. We've cut
  • 00:47:50
    that from 45 days down to 30, just that
  • 00:47:53
    they're not as complicated as they are for generation resources. So that allowed
  • 00:47:58
    us to do that. And then the other thing was that
  • 00:48:05
    we've created documentation that
  • 00:48:08
    help will help market participants work through the
  • 00:48:12
    registration in Rio. So those are all posted now
  • 00:48:15
    on the demand response portion of
  • 00:48:19
    the ERCOT website for those of you that are interested.
  • 00:48:24
    So we just wanted to communicate all that and hopefully this will help the
  • 00:48:28
    stakeholders. Let's then move on to the next slide.
  • 00:48:35
    The other thing is I've been trying it's
  • 00:48:38
    been very difficult. I've kind of committed to DSWG
  • 00:48:42
    to try to keep them updated on various activities going
  • 00:48:45
    on in the demand response world. That includes NPRRs.
  • 00:48:50
    Really the top two are the ones that I
  • 00:48:53
    spent most of the time talking about, which is 1226,
  • 00:48:59
    which is the demand response monitor and NPRR1253,
  • 00:49:03
    which had to do with the helping
  • 00:49:07
    market participants, I guess
  • 00:49:11
    forecast or estimate a 4CP interval.
  • 00:49:16
    I have committed to and those have been in the stakeholder
  • 00:49:20
    process now for already about, oh, I guess three, four months.
  • 00:49:24
    I've committed to bring comments to PRS for
  • 00:49:29
    consideration for next week. Hopefully they'll get filed probably
  • 00:49:33
    not this week because I'm actually on vacation this week be filed
  • 00:49:37
    the first part of next week but ahead of PRS. So stay tuned
  • 00:49:41
    and look forward to a discussion on those two items at PRS next
  • 00:49:44
    week and then the other items here just probably more
  • 00:49:48
    give a heads up that
  • 00:49:54
    of other things going on, I didn't spend a whole lot of time talking through
  • 00:49:59
    NPRR1260. That was just a cleanup. NPRR some
  • 00:50:02
    items that were that were inadvertently
  • 00:50:08
    removed from the protocols when we when we rolled in
  • 00:50:12
    for for ERCOT last last June.
  • 00:50:16
    But we had to get that language back into the protocols and
  • 00:50:20
    that's that's really about the only update I have for this group today.
  • 00:50:23
    Any questions?
  • 00:50:26
    Okay, Mark, thank you very much. Any questions?
  • 00:50:32
    David Detelich, is that just a comment? NPRR1230,
  • 00:50:36
    NPRR1253 Comments spelled yesterday.
  • 00:50:39
    You haven't read them yet, I guess.
  • 00:50:48
    Go ahead, Mark. Now, I didn't know if that was a question
  • 00:50:52
    for me or for David.
  • 00:50:58
    David, do you want to expand on your question?
  • 00:51:02
    Oh yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Mark said that he thought comments
  • 00:51:06
    were posted, so I looked real quick and saw they weren't there as
  • 00:51:10
    of yesterday.
  • 00:51:13
    I have the question. Forget the WMWG or less
  • 00:51:17
    WMS about looking at the load forecast
  • 00:51:21
    or the impact of the ESR charge on the
  • 00:51:24
    load forecast. Was there somebody available to talk about
  • 00:51:28
    that or
  • 00:51:32
    schedule a time to talk about that? Is that a question for.
  • 00:51:35
    I see Blake has his CARD up. Are you asking for
  • 00:51:39
    WMWG?
  • 00:51:45
    Well, yeah, wherever the discussion. I'll let Blake. I forget.
  • 00:51:49
    I forget what, where I asked it. I think at WMS asked.
  • 00:51:52
    Okay, Blake. Hey, David, this is Blake. We've been talking to
  • 00:51:56
    ERCOT and I believe Sam Morris will come to the
  • 00:52:01
    December 10th WMWG meeting to give
  • 00:52:05
    you some more insight into your question.
  • 00:52:09
    So stay tuned. And then
  • 00:52:13
    just to connect the dots on David's comments. So ERCOT did File
  • 00:52:17
    comments on NPRR1253 yesterday, but that was Troy Anderson just requesting more
  • 00:52:20
    time for the IA to be completed. So what Mark is talking about
  • 00:52:24
    is substantive changes next week or
  • 00:52:29
    at least business comments next week.
  • 00:52:32
    Okay, that's great.
  • 00:52:36
    Thank you for that clarification. Mark, did you have anything else?
  • 00:52:40
    No, I. No, I do not. All right,
  • 00:52:43
    thank you for stepping in for leadership.
  • 00:52:46
    A great report. Appreciate the information.
  • 00:52:50
    All right, let's go to Meter Working Group
  • 00:52:54
    and Michael Blum.
  • 00:52:58
    Yes. Can you hear me, Eric? Yes, sir.
  • Item 9 - Meter Working Group - MWG - Michael Blum
    00:53:02
    All right, great. Thank you. Yes. So the Meter
  • 00:53:05
    Working Group met on November 20th.
  • 00:53:09
    The big discussion item we had was PGRR028.
  • 00:53:13
    There were some fresh comments
  • 00:53:17
    from ERCOT on that PGRR that
  • 00:53:21
    reflected language on the loss compensation
  • 00:53:26
    part and basically a shift in the methodology
  • 00:53:31
    that occurred at our April 30th
  • 00:53:36
    meter working group, essentially going from
  • 00:53:39
    a model we've looked
  • 00:53:43
    at, from a transformer, going from that loss
  • 00:53:48
    methodology to one that resembles like cable
  • 00:53:53
    losses. So during
  • 00:53:57
    the discussion it was brought up if there
  • 00:54:01
    has been a small number of
  • 00:54:04
    projects that had these current limiting reactors
  • 00:54:10
    and used the methodology originally
  • 00:54:14
    proposed in the PGRR,
  • 00:54:18
    but questioned if the
  • 00:54:22
    losses of this new methodology would require those current
  • 00:54:26
    projects to be those projects
  • 00:54:31
    to utilize the new methodology. So for
  • 00:54:34
    now, the old methodology is all
  • 00:54:41
    right until the Meter Working Group has recommended
  • 00:54:46
    this, this change to
  • 00:54:53
    the change in the methodology. Right now where we stand is the
  • 00:54:57
    stakeholders are reviewing this new
  • 00:55:01
    PGRR edit.
  • 00:55:06
    We're meeting again on December 19
  • 00:55:10
    to undo a consensus
  • 00:55:14
    that this, these, these recent edits are what we
  • 00:55:19
    would want to recommend or not going forward.
  • 00:55:23
    So lastly,
  • 00:55:28
    the. There were a few scenarios presented by
  • 00:55:31
    ERCOT on when this
  • 00:55:36
    loss compensation would be required.
  • 00:55:39
    Essentially when the
  • 00:55:44
    voltage transformers on the battery side
  • 00:55:49
    are on the battery side of the
  • 00:55:52
    current limiting reactors, there wouldn't be any compensation required.
  • 00:55:56
    But when they're on the, let's say, utility side of
  • 00:55:59
    the current limiting reactors, then that would warrant
  • 00:56:04
    loss compensation. So that
  • 00:56:08
    pretty much wraps up the discussion on the PGRR028.
  • 00:56:12
    We can move on here
  • 00:56:16
    to the NPRR where
  • 00:56:22
    the discussion here the consensus remained the same.
  • 00:56:25
    That meter working group recognized smarter was
  • 00:56:28
    the better technical solution at addressing the
  • 00:56:32
    loss compensation for criminal limiting reactors, but couldn't
  • 00:56:37
    quite come to a consensus. It was a bit mixed on whether we'd recommend
  • 00:56:44
    the NPRR to remain tabled or
  • 00:56:48
    to proceed.
  • 00:56:52
    As in not by proceed,
  • 00:56:55
    I mean recommend not approving the
  • 00:56:59
    NPRR. During the discussion, it was brought up that the
  • 00:57:05
    submitter, who is from Nextera,
  • 00:57:09
    is no longer with the company, but there
  • 00:57:13
    was a representative there at the meeting and they
  • 00:57:17
    were tasked to review their position with
  • 00:57:21
    understanding that this SMOGRR028 right
  • 00:57:25
    now is our solution
  • 00:57:29
    to this issue that the working group is most
  • 00:57:34
    actively pursuing right now. So we have
  • 00:57:37
    this NPRR that's tabled. We're looking
  • 00:57:41
    at see if in the next few
  • 00:57:46
    weeks or so if the NPRR
  • 00:57:49
    is withdrawn by the the
  • 00:57:54
    submitter company.
  • 00:57:59
    So moving on to
  • 00:58:02
    the next item, please.
  • 00:58:07
    All right, this presentation,
  • 00:58:12
    there was a presentation by Elion regarding
  • 00:58:18
    auxiliary loads.
  • 00:58:22
    Right now there's the.
  • 00:58:26
    There is two ways to feed the
  • 00:58:30
    auxiliary loads, typically done at the transmission
  • 00:58:34
    level. Another mode is at the distribution level.
  • 00:58:40
    There's been some concerns by various TD TSPs
  • 00:58:44
    on when both are present,
  • 00:58:47
    how to do the netting in
  • 00:58:54
    that scenario where there's basically two voltage
  • 00:58:58
    levels. There was
  • 00:59:01
    a suggestion
  • 00:59:05
    made that perhaps raising the limit
  • 00:59:10
    that's cited in the protocol 10.3.2.36,
  • 00:59:17
    there's a 500 kilowatt limit raising that
  • 00:59:22
    would allow the more
  • 00:59:29
    preferable setup of
  • 00:59:33
    a TDSP meter red
  • 00:59:38
    meter serving as the ox load on the distribution
  • 00:59:42
    level to avoid
  • 00:59:47
    it being introduced into the netting arrangement when transmission is also
  • 00:59:51
    present. So anyway, the Elion
  • 00:59:55
    is considering working internally to
  • 00:59:59
    see if they'd submit an NPRR to
  • 01:00:03
    raise that limit. But that's
  • 01:00:09
    all I have on that discussion, so.
  • 01:00:11
    Okay. Michael, you have a question in the room from Bill.
  • 01:00:16
    Yes, just some following. The increase
  • 01:00:21
    in the 500kW limit is to avoid having the EPS meter
  • 01:00:24
    installed there. These sites would just use TDSP
  • 01:00:28
    red meters. On the distribution level.
  • 01:00:32
    Yeah, on the distribution. That's the purpose of increasing the limit.
  • 01:00:36
    Yes. Okay, thanks.
  • 01:00:40
    Yep, thanks for the question. Okay. Any other questions?
  • 01:00:45
    I do not see any in the room. Was that your last slide?
  • 01:00:49
    Well, there's always one more slide. Just go ahead. I'm sorry, very quickly
  • 01:00:54
    on Other discussions,
  • 01:00:57
    like I mentioned earlier, there's another meter working group meeting
  • 01:01:02
    on the 19th of this month. Right now
  • 01:01:06
    our only topic planned is the SMOGRR28 discussion.
  • 01:01:11
    Since the stakeholders are getting
  • 01:01:14
    some time to review the edits.
  • 01:01:18
    That's, that's why we recommended
  • 01:01:22
    having that meeting. So that's
  • 01:01:28
    all I have. Okay. Great report.
  • 01:01:31
    Thank you, Michael, for your leadership and for
  • 01:01:34
    getting this, these issues addressed
  • 01:01:39
    and meeting again next month. I wanted to just go
  • Item 9.2 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG - Possible Vote
    01:01:43
    through these two voting items. SMOGRR028 the
  • 01:01:47
    group is recommending that that remain tabled. I will see
  • 01:01:50
    if there's any questions or comments on that proposal.
  • Item 9.1 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG - Possible Vote
    01:01:54
    I think that sounds like a good plan. On
  • 01:01:57
    NPRR1200 it was mentioned that Nextera was considering
  • 01:02:03
    withdrawing. I wanted to see is there anyone from Nextera on the line?
  • 01:02:12
    I know last month we were discussing, I think
  • 01:02:15
    it was this one that we were discussing rejecting.
  • 01:02:20
    I don't sense that there's, there's a lot of
  • 01:02:24
    interest that I can't even tell that Nextera is interested
  • 01:02:28
    anymore. It sounds like they've,
  • 01:02:32
    they've maybe gone to other priorities.
  • 01:02:36
    Is there any, any discussion on whether we should
  • 01:02:39
    keep this tabled and let, and let them withdraw or
  • 01:02:44
    is there any, any proposals anyone would like to make because
  • 01:02:50
    we could just leave it tabled and bring it back next month.
  • 01:02:55
    IVAN So I raised this last month and I was prepared to make a motion
  • 01:02:58
    to reject it. I think I agree. I don't hadn't heard
  • 01:03:02
    any interest in keeping it alive. And since
  • 01:03:06
    no one's here, I wouldn't be opposed to adding it to
  • 01:03:10
    combo ballot for rejection. But.
  • 01:03:13
    Okay. So is there any,
  • 01:03:16
    let's see if there's any questions or comments on that direction without
  • 01:03:20
    taking a formal motion so that we don't get into that
  • 01:03:24
    quagmire. Tom Burke,
  • 01:03:28
    go ahead.
  • 01:03:32
    Yeah, I follow this and I'm actually going to be talking with
  • 01:03:35
    them in a few days.
  • 01:03:39
    I don't want to speak for them. I don't think they have
  • 01:03:42
    a strong feeling
  • 01:03:46
    about either way. But if, if it's easier
  • 01:03:50
    to have them withdraw, I'll mention that and get
  • 01:03:54
    back to everybody next month. So either
  • 01:03:58
    way I think we'll probably be fine without actually speaking for them.
  • 01:04:03
    I think for them it might be better if they withdrew it.
  • 01:04:08
    Just if I was to give free advice, I think that would
  • 01:04:12
    be a better, that way they could bring something back and you
  • 01:04:17
    know, if they decided to, if it's rejected,
  • 01:04:20
    it might have a little different flavor.
  • 01:04:24
    So I, you know, I'm willing to,
  • 01:04:28
    to let it go and see if they want to file
  • 01:04:32
    their withdrawal they can get with ERCOT and file that.
  • 01:04:35
    I think it would be a cleaner plan but it sounds
  • 01:04:39
    like you might could communicate that WMS
  • 01:04:43
    may be ready to reject if they're not,
  • 01:04:48
    unless there's other reasons that we need to know. We just, we're not really giving
  • 01:04:52
    any compelling reasons to keep it on
  • 01:04:56
    our plate. So yeah, I'll communicate that and, and get
  • 01:05:00
    back with you hopefully sooner
  • 01:05:03
    and then otherwise at the next WMS meeting.
  • 01:05:07
    Okay. Is that okay, Ivan?
  • 01:05:10
    Yeah, that's fine. We'll give them an opportunity to withdraw it and if not I
  • 01:05:14
    will be prepared to make that motion. Okay. I think that, I think that's fair.
  • 01:05:17
    Yeah. Okay, thanks. Thanks. That's helpful info input
  • 01:05:21
    to share. So thanks. Thank you for being
  • 01:05:25
    the message the messenger before
  • 01:05:29
    we get to item 10. I,
  • 01:05:33
    you know showed real rookie class by forgetting
  • 01:05:37
    to announce our proxies and alternate reps.
  • 01:05:41
    So I want to better late than never.
  • 01:05:45
    Plus we got a new one so I can go ahead and include that.
  • 01:05:48
    Teresa Allen with Avon Grid has given her vote to Tom Burke.
  • 01:05:53
    Annie Win with Constellation has alternate rep
  • 01:05:57
    Shu Tang. And Resme has alternate
  • 01:06:01
    rep Shane Thomas. And Anush with Demand
  • 01:06:04
    Control 2 has alternate rep Chris Hendricks.
  • 01:06:07
    So apologies for failing to
  • 01:06:11
    do that. Let's. Let's TAC item
  • 01:06:14
    10 and then we'll go to break. So Kevin Hanson,
  • 01:06:19
    you're up. Yeah. Can you guys hear me okay? Yes,
  • 01:06:22
    sir. Very good. Let's go next slide please.
  • Item 10 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson
    01:06:25
    Appreciate it. So this month at the Supply
  • 01:06:29
    Analysis Working Group the meeting was focused on the effective
  • 01:06:33
    Load Carrying Capability study.
  • 01:06:36
    Next we were discussing the DRRS discussion.
  • 01:06:40
    Next we had a presentation from TRE on the Inter Regional
  • 01:06:43
    Transmission Capability study. And finally we had the somewhat discussion
  • 01:06:47
    on the NPRR1219 implementation of December
  • 01:06:51
    CDR preparation. So first we had a
  • 01:06:55
    presentation from Kevin Carden of Para Gem
  • 01:06:58
    with the ELCC study results. The study can be found.
  • 01:07:02
    Presentation can be found at that link below a
  • 01:07:05
    couple summary notes coming from that presentation is one
  • 01:07:13
    ERCOT's models of copper sheet Again not. No,
  • 01:07:16
    no. Currently some rules of thumbs Also when we're looking at. When you're looking at
  • 01:07:20
    the analysis results is that the average ELCC associated with gross peak
  • 01:07:23
    and the margin marginal ELCC associated with net peak.
  • 01:07:27
    There is a question in the chat I see about. We have an idea what
  • 01:07:31
    day the December CDR will be released. I'll let that point. I'll let. I think
  • 01:07:35
    Pete working is on the line. Let me address that and real quick he's
  • 01:07:38
    there.
  • 01:07:47
    Who's who did you say? Kevin Warren.
  • 01:07:52
    One question there with regards to the CDR timeline.
  • 01:07:56
    He's on the line right there.
  • 01:08:03
    Given it's not, we'll keep on continuing on the presentation. Sorry about that.
  • Item 10.1 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service - SAWG - Possible Vote
    01:08:06
    Okay, next there was a discussion
  • 01:08:09
    on NPRR1235 DRRS. There was multiple
  • 01:08:13
    comments and by different stakeholders. Luminan discussed
  • 01:08:16
    their file comments would suggest using FIP and a market heat rate to
  • 01:08:20
    set the cap price. Their example I believe was 150MMBtu
  • 01:08:24
    per megawatt hour times the FIP. They're a
  • 01:08:27
    link to their their comments are is in the presentation here.
  • 01:08:31
    Next there was a presentation by Gordon Drake of ERCOT
  • 01:08:34
    presenting two possible concepts for DRRS. And one thing
  • 01:08:38
    I put slides is that Gordon will take comments through
  • 01:08:42
    January 10th of next year with regards to
  • 01:08:46
    their possible concepts.
  • 01:08:49
    And finally the Imam discussed their filed comments in the presentation
  • 01:08:53
    or I mean their comments and they those may be
  • 01:08:57
    accessed at this link as well. So next
  • 01:09:01
    slide please.
  • 01:09:08
    So NPRR1235 okay,
  • 01:09:12
    so I just saw a note from Pete says December 20th will be the CDR
  • 01:09:16
    release for this year. Okay.
  • 01:09:19
    NPRR1235 will return to SOG next month for further discussion after
  • 01:09:23
    the PCT has met on on December 19 and
  • 01:09:27
    also when the comments are filed. Those comments are filed on the 10th
  • 01:09:30
    of January. Next Mark Henry from TRE presented
  • 01:09:34
    on the Inter Regional Transmission Capability Study from NERC. There's a
  • 01:09:38
    link to that presentation as well. And finally
  • 01:09:42
    Pete Warren discussed the upcoming CDR and
  • 01:09:46
    as I just mentioned the Pete just put in chat there that December 20th
  • 01:09:49
    is the date for the new CDR coming in. And Pete also
  • 01:09:53
    mentioned that internal ERCOT means we'll finalize the load forecast views.
  • 01:10:00
    Yeah, can you hear me now? This is Pete. We hear you now.
  • 01:10:04
    Good, good, good. So yeah,
  • 01:10:08
    I have some news about what we're going to be doing with the load forecast.
  • 01:10:11
    So at the SOG meeting that wasn't decided yet
  • 01:10:16
    in terms of how we're going to be treating that in the CDR.
  • 01:10:19
    So we did get a decision. So what we're going to be doing is
  • 01:10:23
    we're going to be using the current load forecast
  • 01:10:28
    so it's not going to be updated. And the reason why is because there's not
  • 01:10:31
    enough of a change in terms of the forecast
  • 01:10:34
    values to justify that. So all the data that's been
  • 01:10:38
    posted on ERCOT.com that's all available.
  • 01:10:42
    We've got the load forecast methodology document out there as well.
  • 01:10:47
    So no changes. And then the important decision was
  • 01:10:50
    how to treat the contract
  • 01:10:54
    loads and what's called the officer letter
  • 01:10:57
    loads. So what we're going to be doing is we're going to be including those
  • 01:11:01
    components as the official CDR load forecast.
  • 01:11:06
    So that will be included. And again we'll have a tab
  • 01:11:10
    in the CDR to list what those values
  • 01:11:14
    are. And then as far as scenario analysis will
  • 01:11:18
    show reserve margins if you exclude
  • 01:11:22
    those two categories of loads. And again that's the new contracted
  • 01:11:26
    loads and officer letter loads.
  • 01:11:40
    Okay. I think that addressed the load question.
  • 01:11:44
    And so lastly on my my slides
  • 01:11:48
    is that the next slide meeting will be scheduled for Friday the 24th
  • 01:11:52
    next year. So. And that's it. All right,
  • 01:11:56
    Kevin, great report. Thank you for your leadership.
  • 01:12:00
    I see a question from Markham Watson. I think he was asking
  • 01:12:03
    about the release day. Unless there was something else.
  • 01:12:09
    I will, I will pass that. Any other questions or
  • 01:12:12
    comments?
  • 01:12:16
    Thank you Pete, for the update. It was very helpful.
  • 01:12:21
    And we
  • 01:12:25
    will move to item 10
  • 01:12:30
    and a half which is the break and we will
  • 01:12:34
    take 10 minutes. Be back around 10:15. Hey Eric.
  • 01:12:37
    Yes, I'm sorry, interrupting. I guess
  • 01:12:41
    I want to make sure everybody hears this because I
  • 01:12:45
    don't like to leave this unresolved pretending
  • 01:12:49
    to the ESR MRAs in
  • 01:12:55
    NPRR885 when we introduce MRAs
  • 01:12:59
    there was in the comments section we made a note that
  • 01:13:03
    stated that the NPRR did not address CRISPR
  • 01:13:07
    mission and I have not seen any changes
  • 01:13:11
    to that effect since then. And part of the reason, as I
  • 01:13:15
    said before is because MRAs can be other generations
  • 01:13:18
    demand response and it was never addressed. And I understand
  • 01:13:22
    people have questions but it doesn't mean
  • 01:13:26
    we cannot address it in the future. But as far as I know that has
  • 01:13:30
    issue has not been addressed yet.
  • 01:13:32
    Transformation for generation resources and batteries.
  • 01:13:35
    On the other hand, any offers will have to be at the
  • 01:13:38
    cap. That language is not in the protocols but
  • 01:13:43
    we include that in the rfp. So that's
  • 01:13:46
    the only sort of price formation, if you will, that we would have
  • 01:13:50
    is making sure those resources are sitting at the
  • 01:13:54
    cap. Thanks. Thank you. Ino,
  • 01:14:00
    any comments to that?
  • 01:14:04
    All right. Well that just helps
  • 01:14:08
    our time. We'll take a break until 10:55.
  • 01:14:12
    See you then.
  • 01:25:09
    All right, here's your one minute warning and we'll get started at 10:55.
  • 01:25:35
    Okay, 10:55. Let's get back to
  • 01:25:38
    the agenda item 11, resource cost working Group and
  • 01:25:42
    Blake Holt.
  • 01:26:08
    Before we get there, I need to go back and address Brian
  • 01:26:11
    Sams.
  • 01:26:14
    Brian, we see your question about existing load
  • 01:26:18
    forecast. For avoidance of doubt, post a link to that forecast
  • 01:26:22
    in the chat. Pete, are you
  • 01:26:26
    still in the line.
  • 01:26:29
    He may have dropped off.
  • 01:26:33
    Now, Brian, we can follow up with Pete separately if that's okay.
  • Item 11 - Resource Cost Working Group - RCWG - Blake Holt
    01:26:41
    All right. This is Blake Holt with RCWG.
  • 01:26:45
    We have two voting items to discuss today that we
  • 01:26:48
    spoke about at our last meeting. Brittany, if you could
  • Item 11.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG - Possible Vote
    01:26:51
    go to Slide 2. Thank you. The first one is VCMRR042,
  • 01:26:56
    which deals with the index prices used
  • 01:27:00
    for SO2 and NOx in the verifiable cost process.
  • 01:27:04
    Luminant presented some new comments to incorporate these
  • 01:27:08
    things. For SO2,
  • 01:27:12
    they propose using annual index prices for all
  • 01:27:15
    months. And for NOx, they propose using seasonal
  • 01:27:19
    index prices for or using April through August
  • 01:27:23
    index prices to be used in subsequent months for
  • 01:27:27
    May through September in the ozone season. So the way this would work
  • 01:27:31
    is, for the effective month, ERCOT will calculate monthly
  • 01:27:35
    averages using index prices published during the first 15
  • 01:27:39
    days of the prior month. And then additionally,
  • 01:27:42
    a gray box was added to allow ERCOT to use daily index
  • 01:27:46
    prices for both of the emission products
  • 01:27:50
    when ERCOT systems are developed to automate the process.
  • 01:27:54
    Overall, RCWG was Supportive of Luminance November
  • 01:27:58
    11th comments to the VCMRR and
  • 01:28:02
    recommended approving. I will note that Ino
  • 01:28:05
    and Katie Rich are in the room if there are any further
  • 01:28:09
    questions.
  • 01:28:12
    Okay, let's go ahead and address this voting item. Is there any
  • 01:28:16
    Ino or Katie or anyone else, any comments on this
  • 01:28:20
    recommendation to support
  • 01:28:25
    with Lumina's comments? Yes, Katie. Blake, you did a great job laying
  • 01:28:28
    it out and I just wanted to thank Ino for working with us
  • 01:28:32
    on this version of the revision.
  • 01:28:35
    I think it'll be a great improvement once we get to automated
  • 01:28:38
    and being able to update those calculations automatically. I think
  • 01:28:42
    that will save ERCOT staff a lot
  • 01:28:45
    of time as well. So we appreciate it.
  • 01:28:48
    Great. Any other comments?
  • 01:28:52
    I see this is being added to the combo ballot without
  • 01:28:55
    a formal motion, so I wanted to see if there's support to
  • 01:28:59
    add this to approve the VCMRR042 as
  • 01:29:03
    amended by the 1111 luminant comments.
  • 01:29:06
    Any comments or concerns with that approach?
  • 01:29:11
    Eric? Yes, sir. I just want to point out that I also agree that I
  • 01:29:15
    want to thank Blake and Katie for working
  • 01:29:18
    with us. I believe this is a much better product than what we have right
  • 01:29:22
    now. I do want to point out though, that there's a
  • 01:29:25
    system change associated with this VCMRR that we're going to
  • 01:29:30
    come back next month with an impact analysis, but until
  • 01:29:33
    there's a system change, we're going to be able to do this manually
  • 01:29:38
    just like we're doing it right now. Awesome. Thank You.
  • 01:29:42
    Thank you, Ino. Thank you Blake and Katie
  • 01:29:45
    for your work on that and glad to see that move forward.
  • Item 11.1 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process - RCWG - Possible Vote
    01:29:50
    Blake. No problem. Onto the next Item,
  • 01:29:53
    which is NPRR1251,
  • 01:29:57
    which is updated firm fuel supply replacement
  • 01:30:00
    cost recovery. And so the way this works currently is
  • 01:30:05
    following a firm fuel supply deployment and a subsequent
  • 01:30:09
    ERCOT approval, a QSC may restock their
  • 01:30:12
    fuel to restore their ability to generate at their
  • 01:30:16
    award level. ERCOT presented new language
  • 01:30:19
    in this NPRR that adds this clarity. The QSC
  • 01:30:23
    may restock using existing inventories or with
  • 01:30:27
    new fuel purchases. And when they request recovery
  • 01:30:30
    for this, their replacement
  • 01:30:34
    costs can be based either on the new fuel purchases with
  • 01:30:39
    corresponding documentation made with within 30
  • 01:30:42
    days after the approval, or they can choose to use the fuel oil
  • 01:30:46
    price index price from the operating day of the approval
  • 01:30:50
    plus 5 cents a gallon to cover transportation costs.
  • 01:30:55
    RCWG was supportive of the language after
  • 01:30:58
    discussion and would recommend approval.
  • 01:31:01
    Great. Katie. We had a
  • 01:31:05
    tiny but meaningful desktop edit.
  • 01:31:13
    If it's okay with you, I would prefer to let the
  • 01:31:17
    group know what the change is going to be, but maybe we want to make
  • 01:31:20
    the desktop edits at PRS that way. These are not
  • 01:31:24
    comments from WMS, if that's okay with
  • 01:31:27
    you. Sure.
  • 01:31:30
    Do you want me to tell the group what it is? Brittany, what are we
  • 01:31:34
    sure. Brittany, if you can open up the comments the NPRR please and
  • 01:31:40
    scroll down to. I think it's paragraph five.
  • 01:31:43
    Yeah, 3.14.5, paragraph five.
  • 01:31:47
    There you go. So go ahead, Katie, I'll let you explain. Yeah,
  • 01:31:50
    so we just wanted to be consistent with the
  • 01:31:53
    new section or the blind fuel by adding following
  • 01:31:58
    each deployment deployment we felt like it meant every
  • 01:32:01
    time it was deployed. So we just wanted to say following each
  • 01:32:05
    deployment of ffss.
  • 01:32:09
    That seems like a pretty simple change, you know, you think we could make that
  • 01:32:12
    and well, it's up to you guys
  • 01:32:16
    if you want to change it. And then it'll be comments from WMS instead of
  • 01:32:19
    comments. I think it'd be cleaner. Yes. That's a pretty simple. Okay,
  • 01:32:23
    that's fine with me. Then I got. I was following instructions from
  • 01:32:27
    Micro Rules, but you guys decide what's best. I mean,
  • 01:32:31
    I'll leave it to the group what we want to move forward,
  • 01:32:34
    but I think it would be just cleaner to change that word D
  • 01:32:37
    to each and that
  • 01:32:41
    way we don't have to have uncertainty about what
  • 01:32:45
    PRS is looking at.
  • 01:32:50
    And so these comments include the.
  • 01:32:54
    The were
  • 01:32:59
    there was this ERCOT's comments? Yes. There's no
  • 01:33:03
    additional comments to this. This is ERCOT's original. This is our job.
  • 01:33:06
    So the so these are just approval with
  • 01:33:11
    desktop edits from this meeting. Okay.
  • 01:33:15
    Can we add this to the combo ballot for approval and
  • 01:33:24
    letting Brittany catch up and we will add
  • 01:33:28
    this to the combo ballot.
  • 01:33:44
    Just while we're waiting, I just want to highlight Pete Warren,
  • 01:33:47
    I appreciate you adding the links that were requested in
  • 01:33:51
    the chat and so anyone interested should
  • 01:33:55
    look in the chat to see those links to the hourly load
  • 01:33:59
    profile, hourly load forecast file and associated
  • 01:34:02
    methodology report.
  • 01:34:06
    And with that we are getting the the
  • 01:34:09
    motion as it would be on the combo ballot.
  • 01:34:13
    And any questions or concerns hearing
  • 01:34:19
    None. Thank you very much.
  • 01:34:24
    Blake. Does that cover your report?
  • 01:34:27
    Just two more updates. We discussed leadership at the
  • 01:34:31
    last meeting and the Vice Chair Karan Sudhu with
  • 01:34:35
    RWE Renewables is willing to step up
  • 01:34:38
    into the chair role for 2025 and
  • 01:34:42
    then also we do not have a December meeting and that's it.
  • 01:34:48
    Do we vote on that Brittany on
  • 01:34:52
    leadership in February? In February. Gotcha.
  • 01:34:56
    Very good.
  • 01:35:00
    Anything else for Blake on the Resource Cost
  • 01:35:04
    Working group?
  • 01:35:08
    Thank you Blake. Now let's go to Blake with the Wholesale
  • 01:35:12
    Market Working group report item 12.
  • Item 12 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Blake Holt
    01:35:27
    Thanks Brittany. We can move to slide three.
  • 01:35:31
    We have just some general items that were discussed.
  • 01:35:35
    Austin Roselle with ERCOT came and answered some questions
  • 01:35:39
    about an EPS meter issue that drove some price
  • 01:35:44
    resettlements and explained explain the issue and the mitigation
  • 01:35:48
    measures that were put in place to perform prevent this
  • 01:35:52
    from going into effect in the future.
  • 01:35:56
    Mr. Goff additionally brought up an idea
  • 01:35:59
    for drafting a large load report.
  • 01:36:03
    The report would focus on potentially aggregating information
  • 01:36:07
    at a minimum of three sites per area to prevent disclosure
  • 01:36:11
    against of confidential information.
  • 01:36:15
    This was just briefly touched on but the feedback was generally
  • 01:36:19
    positive. I do want to see if Eric would like to maybe
  • 01:36:23
    give an overview of that right now. Sure, yeah,
  • 01:36:26
    I've drafted that up actually and
  • 01:36:31
    I am happy to discuss
  • 01:36:36
    it. But essentially it calls for
  • 01:36:41
    the report to be published on a monthly basis and to be reviewed
  • 01:36:45
    by tac.
  • 01:36:48
    And the it
  • 01:36:53
    would aggregate across multiple dimensions
  • 01:36:59
    such as location, size,
  • 01:37:02
    interconnection date,
  • 01:37:05
    use anything else we can do and give ERCOT
  • 01:37:09
    the right to modify
  • 01:37:13
    some of the data to keep it generally approximately
  • 01:37:19
    correct rather than specifically correct to avoid customer protected
  • 01:37:23
    information.
  • 01:37:25
    So I'm still getting some feedback on it, but I hope to submit
  • 01:37:30
    it sometime this month.
  • 01:37:34
    Thanks Eric. And finally the last thing we kind of
  • 01:37:37
    touched on earlier with David from cps,
  • 01:37:41
    just an update to the group that ERCOT will be coming
  • 01:37:44
    to the December 10th WMWG meeting to update us
  • 01:37:48
    on how WSL Load is treated in the midterm
  • 01:37:51
    load forecast.
  • 01:37:54
    Next slide.
  • 01:38:03
    Curry Holden from ERCOT's dam team presented an
  • 01:38:07
    update on ERCOT's dam communications desk
  • 01:38:10
    procedure. The changes are in response to lessons Learned
  • 01:38:13
    from an October 2023 incident where there was an extended
  • 01:38:17
    DAM timeline on a weekend. ERCOT determined that it
  • 01:38:21
    needs to communicate more frequently and clearly should some
  • 01:38:24
    situations like this occur reoccur. And so its new
  • 01:38:28
    procedure will be to provide notices as soon as an incident is discovered
  • 01:38:32
    and at least hourly until they determine a resolution.
  • 01:38:35
    So ERCOT will title these notices as
  • 01:38:39
    presented on the screen so that market participants can
  • 01:38:42
    identify and prioritize these updates. So these
  • 01:38:45
    would include DAM status updates, DAM close postponement
  • 01:38:49
    as insufficiency, DAM solution postponement and
  • 01:38:52
    DAM abort notice templates. We'll all use the new
  • 01:38:56
    styling and ERCOT intends to implement these changes
  • 01:39:01
    today.
  • 01:39:05
    Yes, I just wanted to thank. So we had reached out to quite a few
  • 01:39:07
    queasies after the 2023 incident where this is
  • 01:39:11
    day Head market wasn't run until three in the afternoon because we had
  • 01:39:14
    a system issue on a system issue. So the hourly updates are key.
  • 01:39:18
    The other thing that DAM notice contacts
  • 01:39:21
    is so for people that have listeners on those messages that go out,
  • 01:39:25
    that's a way that you can program it to pick it up. So we're trying
  • 01:39:27
    to introduce consistency and frequency into these delays so that there's
  • 01:39:31
    some knowing of it's happening, it's still happening,
  • 01:39:34
    and then once resolved that it all goes through these common threads. So it's subtle
  • 01:39:38
    and we just put it down at that level down to that group for
  • 01:39:43
    consistency. But we hope that helps. So thank you. Thanks for your feedback.
  • 01:39:49
    Thanks, Matt. Next slide.
  • 01:39:58
    We also had a discussion on the open action items list,
  • 01:40:04
    specifically the parking lot items. And our recommendation to WMS
  • 01:40:08
    is that for any of the items that are on the parking lot
  • 01:40:12
    that we nominate a champion who could work on that
  • 01:40:15
    item. If one is so
  • 01:40:19
    interested. We do have a
  • 01:40:22
    list of those red line items in the meeting materials which we can
  • 01:40:26
    discuss now or at agenda agenda item
  • 01:40:29
    12, whatever y'all would like to do.
  • 01:40:35
    I'm happy to go ahead and knock that out if you,
  • 01:40:38
    if you like. Brittany, would you mind pulling those
  • 01:40:41
    up?
  • 01:40:52
    Right. Thank you very much. For the first item,
  • 01:40:56
    it was reviewing impacts of existing and proposed EPA
  • 01:41:00
    regulations. And after discussion, we've reached
  • 01:41:04
    out to some folks in the generator community
  • 01:41:07
    and we think we can probably schedule a discussion early
  • 01:41:10
    next year. So we're kind of working through timelines right now,
  • 01:41:14
    but we Recommend keeping this one on the open action
  • 01:41:18
    items list. Scroll down
  • 01:41:22
    to the next one. It was pretty general.
  • 01:41:25
    Review wholesale. Wholesale market cues for scarcity pricing.
  • 01:41:29
    We recommended taking it off of the list as it was very general
  • 01:41:33
    unless there's any specific direction from WMS.
  • 01:41:38
    This just so I'm clear, this is a WMS
  • 01:41:41
    assignment, not a tax assignment. Do we know?
  • 01:41:46
    That's a good question. I think I'm being told it's a WMS.
  • 01:41:50
    So. Okay, I think this is a good one to tee
  • 01:41:54
    up and see if there's any concerns from WMS
  • 01:41:59
    or if there's any further direction anyone would like to provide to WMWG
  • 01:42:03
    on this item.
  • 01:42:10
    I'm not seeing any Blake, so I think. I think we're good with
  • 01:42:13
    your recommendation.
  • 01:42:17
    Sounds good. The next parking lot item was
  • 01:42:21
    review a concept of establishing a minimum threshold
  • 01:42:25
    to a post total wsl.
  • 01:42:28
    Our understanding is this item is complete with
  • 01:42:32
    NPRR1041 so we would recommend removing it from the list.
  • 01:42:38
    And the final or the next item has
  • 01:42:42
    to do with loss factors in relation to UFE reporting.
  • 01:42:47
    It was our thoughts that it would be helpful to assign a sponsor
  • 01:42:51
    if there's an interested party.
  • 01:42:55
    The task seemed a little unclear with
  • 01:42:59
    our interpretation.
  • 01:43:02
    Any feedback from anyone? Is there a champion that
  • 01:43:07
    had brought this forward that would like to make
  • 01:43:11
    an appeal or if
  • 01:43:15
    not, I would support your recommendation. And for what
  • 01:43:18
    it's worth, we presented this at the meeting and requested feedback as
  • 01:43:22
    well and haven't heard anything, so I think that's pretty safe.
  • 01:43:26
    And then the final item was reviewing a few
  • 01:43:29
    different things like dam settlements at 15 minute
  • 01:43:32
    increments fewer than or
  • 01:43:37
    more frequent than 5 minute dispatch from SCED
  • 01:43:41
    and then also RDPA inputs. These items
  • 01:43:45
    were also a little vague and unclear.
  • 01:43:49
    So it would be helpful to get more direction from WMS if there's
  • 01:43:54
    any desire for us to unpack these further.
  • 01:44:00
    And also that last bullet, I guess gives
  • 01:44:04
    me a little pause. It mentioned something about being directed by
  • 01:44:08
    the puc. I just want to I guess be sure that we haven't missed
  • 01:44:12
    an assignment from the PUC.
  • 01:44:19
    That would be my only question. This way that's
  • 01:44:23
    worded it implies there's something but
  • 01:44:27
    maybe this is just something
  • 01:44:31
    that's already designed in and we
  • 01:44:34
    don't wait. Yeah, I'm unclear
  • 01:44:38
    if this one was directed by the PUC specifically, but I
  • 01:44:42
    think we had an example pop up today where folks
  • 01:44:45
    in the room are questioning certain inputs into the price
  • 01:44:49
    adder. So I think it's something we're that we've got a Pulse on
  • 01:44:52
    Anyways, so we do have WMWG
  • 01:44:56
    does have an action item to kind of trace that specific topic down
  • 01:45:01
    in upcoming meetings. So any.
  • 01:45:06
    Yes, Ken, doesn't this go away
  • 01:45:09
    with Co optimization? That's a year away.
  • 01:45:15
    RDPA will still be around with quantumization.
  • 01:45:19
    Okay, but the rdp. Okay,
  • 01:45:24
    but I guess the question is does this
  • 01:45:28
    merit a parking lot or is this something that we're already doing? It sounds like
  • 01:45:31
    we're already doing it, so I would support removal
  • 01:45:35
    unless someone has other concern or question shams.
  • 01:45:40
    Yeah, I wasn't clear on what early deployment of reserves,
  • 01:45:45
    but I think it's in under RTC.
  • 01:45:49
    RDPA is our only tool to
  • 01:45:52
    account for all ERCOT out of market actions that
  • 01:45:56
    suppress market prices. I think it's worth re examining
  • 01:46:00
    if we adequately accounting for all out
  • 01:46:04
    of market actions including this early deployment of reserves.
  • 01:46:11
    Okay, thank you.
  • 01:46:16
    All right, that's. That's it for the open action items.
  • 01:46:19
    And Brittany, we can probably go Back to
  • 01:46:24
    Slide 6.
  • 01:46:30
    Do you want to keep that last item for one more month and discuss or
  • 01:46:33
    do you want to remove it specific to the RDPA
  • 01:46:37
    or the other items bulleted items there? I think to his
  • 01:46:41
    question about rdpa. Yeah, that's. That sounds fine.
  • 01:46:44
    Okay, let's just leave that one. You could work with Susie
  • 01:46:48
    on how to edit that. I think that would be helpful.
  • 01:46:51
    Okay, we'll do.
  • Item 12.3 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG - Possible Vote
    01:47:03
    Thanks Brittany. The next item we discussed was NPRR1229
  • 01:47:08
    Real Time Congestion Management Energy payment.
  • 01:47:11
    STEC had produced some new comments on November 4th
  • 01:47:15
    which were developed after considering feedback from ERCOT and WMWG.
  • 01:47:20
    The comments reduce the proposed maximum days
  • 01:47:24
    of that this payment would be in effect. They insert a
  • 01:47:27
    cost cap of 500,000 and replace real time
  • 01:47:31
    opportunity cost recovery with recovery of the
  • 01:47:34
    variable components of DAM obligations. They also disqualify
  • 01:47:38
    resources who agree to the CMP from recovering
  • 01:47:42
    funds. ERCOT agreed that the comments resolved many of their concerns
  • 01:47:46
    concerns Although language changes were still needed to
  • 01:47:50
    make sure that everything is synced up with the spirit of the compromise.
  • 01:47:54
    There was a comment from Mr. Goff that said it
  • 01:47:57
    would be helpful to understand how this would fit
  • 01:48:01
    into the proposed resolution for NPRR1190
  • 01:48:04
    that we discussed earlier. And so I think it would probably
  • 01:48:08
    be appropriate to take this back up next month to see
  • 01:48:11
    what the ideas are there. So anticipate
  • 01:48:15
    talking about this again on the 10th next
  • 01:48:19
    slide.
  • Item 12.1 - Proposed Changes to CARD Allocation Methods - Vote
    01:48:26
    Finally, we had another touch point on the CARD allocation
  • 01:48:31
    proposals and let the group know that it was
  • 01:48:35
    WMS intention to arrive at some sort of a decision
  • 01:48:38
    today on a path forward I
  • 01:48:43
    see ERCOT has some comments that they probably want to
  • 01:48:46
    have today, so I'll hold off in speaking for them.
  • 01:48:50
    But in general there was not consensus from the group on
  • 01:48:54
    a single proposal. There was actually support
  • 01:48:57
    expressed for each one by various parties.
  • 01:49:03
    I will say that city of Georgetown did add something new to
  • 01:49:06
    their proposal, which is the removal of a zonal allocation for CARD
  • 01:49:11
    and they proposed more of a system
  • 01:49:14
    wide allocation. But. Eric,
  • 01:49:19
    willing to see how you want to proceed on this
  • 01:49:22
    item today? Yeah, I'll tell you my preference
  • 01:49:26
    and I certainly want to do whatever the group wants, but I
  • 01:49:29
    guess I just want to step back and remind folks that
  • 01:49:35
    we're not voting for an NPRR. We don't have a,
  • 01:49:39
    we don't have language, we have concepts.
  • 01:49:42
    We have three, three different proposals, one from the imm,
  • 01:49:46
    one from Georgetown, one from Luminant.
  • 01:49:49
    And I want to first say how much I appreciate the
  • 01:49:53
    work that went into each of those proposals. I think,
  • 01:49:56
    I think this was a good effort to help
  • 01:50:01
    identify solutions to an
  • 01:50:04
    issue that was identified by ERCOT.
  • 01:50:08
    And just really want to say how much I appreciate
  • 01:50:12
    the work that went into the proposals.
  • 01:50:16
    I think this was exactly what ERCOT was hoping to see
  • 01:50:21
    because this is all preliminary to the formal
  • 01:50:26
    protocol process that we'll all have a chance to
  • 01:50:30
    participate in through prs through.
  • 01:50:33
    It may get assigned back to WMS.
  • 01:50:37
    So I want to keep that in context that while
  • 01:50:41
    ERCOT has asked for direction,
  • 01:50:45
    there's nothing binding. I don't, I don't see anything binding in your
  • 01:50:49
    vote. When you see the actual language in a protocol,
  • 01:50:52
    you may have concerns and want to vote a different way.
  • 01:50:56
    So I think, and there may be new members, I mean, who knows what's going
  • 01:50:59
    to happen next year. So I'd like
  • 01:51:02
    to try to keep it sort of simple as far
  • 01:51:06
    as letting the members give
  • 01:51:10
    their direction, at least from what we're calling
  • 01:51:13
    a straw poll. Because if we, if we call this a
  • 01:51:17
    formal vote, then we trigger all kinds of ERCOT requirements.
  • 01:51:21
    And so I think we'd like to just keep this
  • 01:51:25
    as a straw poll. It's indicative for
  • 01:51:29
    ERCOT to know what the, what the general feeling of WMS
  • 01:51:33
    is. And we've had several
  • 01:51:38
    discussions now at wmwg. We've, we've discussed it at this subcommittee
  • 01:51:43
    a couple times. So I don't know that
  • 01:51:47
    additional discussion is going to change any opinions
  • 01:51:53
    and I'm going to turn it over to Eric. But the one thing I would
  • 01:51:56
    say before we take a straw poll vote is
  • 01:52:01
    get some input from ERCOT as to which
  • 01:52:04
    of the three do they see
  • 01:52:08
    is the best solution for implementation?
  • 01:52:11
    To resolve the issues and allow
  • 01:52:15
    that to be considered by the members when they vote. So before we
  • 01:52:20
    do that, I'm going to turn it over to Eric.
  • 01:52:22
    So I've talked to a few people that
  • 01:52:26
    seem to be okay with two of the suggestions.
  • 01:52:31
    And so if
  • 01:52:35
    there's a vote for one of them,
  • 01:52:39
    you know, the classic problem is, well, how do you express
  • 01:52:42
    your opinion about the other thing? And so it'd be great if someone
  • 01:52:45
    were to make a motion that gave sort
  • 01:52:49
    of like some sort of ranked thing to say, we like option
  • 01:52:53
    A, but are okay with option B. But maybe
  • 01:52:57
    people don't want to do that. Somebody else is going to make the motion?
  • 01:53:00
    I think so.
  • 01:53:05
    Okay, well, if nobody's going to make the motion, I would maybe
  • 01:53:10
    suggest I'm okay with Vistra's
  • 01:53:14
    proposal as the top choice and Georgetowns as the second choice.
  • 01:53:20
    Throwing it out there just for discussion. Somebody's going to talk first.
  • 01:53:23
    Okay. We were going to go around everyone
  • 01:53:27
    and let everyone do what you do. Oh, forget that.
  • 01:53:30
    Yeah, but yes,
  • 01:53:35
    Brittany, there are a couple of presentations
  • 01:53:38
    that are also posted to this item. And so
  • 01:53:42
    I didn't know if you all be looking at those. And I also didn't know
  • 01:53:45
    if that was actually a motion or if it was a
  • 01:53:48
    straw poll discussion item. I don't think I'm allowed to make a motion.
  • 01:53:52
    Yeah, again, this is, this is weird territory for us because
  • 01:53:56
    we're, we're being asked to give WMS opinion
  • 01:54:02
    and we were requested to let everyone give a vote.
  • 01:54:07
    And so it kind of, kind of triggers.
  • 01:54:11
    We could have a vote and we could say, eric, make a motion
  • 01:54:15
    on option three. And then we all vote on option three.
  • 01:54:18
    And then Katie says, but what about option two? So we make a motion on.
  • 01:54:21
    And then we, we have to do that three times. We were trying to
  • 01:54:25
    avoid that since it's really not even a formal protocol, it's just
  • 01:54:29
    a, it's just directional.
  • 01:54:34
    And when it gets to the formal voting, after they file it, you may decide
  • 01:54:38
    to do something else. So I'm gonna go to Bill,
  • 01:54:42
    but I do want to again get the opinion
  • 01:54:45
    of ERCOT as to which of the options they would
  • 01:54:48
    prefer. So go ahead. Yeah, my questions
  • 01:54:51
    were about the ERCOT presentation and their results,
  • 01:54:55
    because that differed, I think, from what we saw from the IMM
  • 01:55:01
    that were concerning for us, because I think we would have a problem with
  • 01:55:04
    proving any methodology that reduces the disbursement for residential customers.
  • 01:55:09
    Okay,
  • 01:55:13
    we'll go to Shams and then we'll, we'll go to ERCOT.
  • 01:55:18
    Yeah, I think, you know that this
  • 01:55:22
    is an important issue. It's a lot of money, you know, $2 billion we're allocating
  • 01:55:26
    and I don't think the market has the full analysis and information
  • 01:55:31
    they need. Like, you know, Georgetown identified
  • 01:55:34
    this problem about zonal location allocation
  • 01:55:37
    and the numbers we have in our presentation of $20 under the Vista agreement
  • 01:55:42
    is based on system wide allocation. If you
  • 01:55:45
    keep the zonal allocation, the price
  • 01:55:49
    impact on the west zone is going to be closer to $40.
  • 01:55:53
    You know, and we would love to have ERCOT do those analysis and
  • 01:55:57
    tell us what that impact will be. If you have LFLs in the
  • 01:56:00
    west zone and the price is being artificially reduced
  • 01:56:04
    by $40, that is going to change behavior.
  • 01:56:10
    And similarly with the IMM proposal, that's also going to have a higher impact
  • 01:56:14
    than what we have in our presentation. So those kind of issues really haven't
  • 01:56:18
    been analyzed.
  • 01:56:21
    And the reason we're doing this is we don't want to
  • 01:56:25
    send distorted price signals to the market and we need
  • 01:56:28
    to know the level of distortion under each proposal. Thank you,
  • 01:56:34
    Bill. So Shams raises a really good point
  • 01:56:37
    that I didn't really think through as
  • 01:56:42
    we've discussed this past few months. Actually admit that I forgot
  • 01:56:46
    we did it like an interzonal and then intrazonal allocation of
  • 01:56:50
    Sierra auction revenues. I do think that
  • 01:56:54
    is a, probably a separate policy issue that we need to revisit. Whether we should
  • 01:56:58
    continue to do that. Systems changed, where the
  • 01:57:02
    major constraints are, have changed. I think our entire
  • 01:57:06
    posture on building transmission to resolve congestion
  • 01:57:10
    has changed dramatically. We have a whole new part
  • 01:57:14
    of the planning process that's based on congestion and
  • 01:57:17
    resolving congestion. So I think there's a pretty
  • 01:57:21
    strong case to be made that we don't need to do interzonal
  • 01:57:25
    auction disbursements anymore. Should all just be system wide.
  • 01:57:30
    That's part of this discussion. It's probably a separate
  • 01:57:34
    topic. And I agree we could probably benefit from some analysis From ERCOT
  • 01:57:38
    on so and ERCOT's
  • 01:57:42
    analysis in the table is really what kind of brought that to light. Appreciate them
  • 01:57:46
    doing that. Thanks. Thank you, Andrew.
  • 01:57:52
    Yep. Hey, so we
  • 01:57:55
    initially did the work that we did based on the
  • 01:58:01
    problems that ERCOT had indicated and concerns
  • 01:58:05
    as far as load behavior. And so we took the
  • 01:58:08
    approach that we did specifically oriented around
  • 01:58:13
    incentivizing load behavior away from Jason CARD.
  • 01:58:18
    So the disparity between our proposal and Sean's proposal
  • 01:58:22
    is really based on kind of that perspective of the problem,
  • 01:58:26
    the more we worked on it and the more we got,
  • 01:58:29
    the more Sean's proposal evolved, the more okay we are
  • 01:58:33
    with his proposal. Conceptually.
  • 01:58:38
    The only thing I'd add to that is there are some concerns
  • 01:58:42
    both on our end and ERCOT's end about the implementation of this
  • 01:58:46
    proposal. Mainly disparities
  • 01:58:50
    between how 4CP and CARD are
  • 01:58:55
    calculated, allocated, you know, the regions don't line up
  • 01:58:59
    one to one. There's this lag between when
  • 01:59:03
    your costs and revenues are,
  • 01:59:06
    you know, calculated versus when they're distributed.
  • 01:59:10
    Those are all things that would have to be worked out. But in general,
  • 01:59:13
    conceptually, we're more okay with Sean's proposal than we were initially
  • 01:59:18
    and wouldn't necessarily put up a big fight
  • 01:59:21
    if that was the direction that the market decided to go.
  • 01:59:27
    Thank you, Andrew, Katie.
  • 01:59:31
    Thanks, Eric. So I agree with what
  • 01:59:35
    Bill was saying about having ERCOT look at that analysis.
  • 01:59:38
    I do have concerns about getting rid of the intrazonal and having
  • 01:59:42
    the shift from, you know, folks that are in the Houston zone,
  • 01:59:46
    you know, now getting reimbursed for loads in the West
  • 01:59:49
    Zone. So definitely okay with having,
  • 01:59:53
    you know, or look at that a little deeper because I
  • 01:59:57
    think that was an issue that was brought up kind of towards the
  • 02:00:00
    end of this overall discussion about which option is appropriate.
  • 02:00:04
    So that kind of changes the tone of things.
  • 02:00:09
    Thank you. If there's no one else.
  • 02:00:12
    Austin, are you going to present for ERCOT?
  • 02:00:16
    Yes, sir, I can. It might be.
  • 02:00:20
    It seemed like you're trying to go to a vote, maybe not have another discussion,
  • 02:00:23
    but maybe that's Ship is sailed. So it might be easier if we bring
  • 02:00:26
    it. Yeah, bring up my presentation. Thanks.
  • 02:00:30
    Yes, we could scroll so we all know
  • 02:00:34
    why we're here. I don't think I need to talk about this slide. Go to
  • 02:00:37
    the next slide. Here's a summary of the three options. I think everyone
  • 02:00:42
    is familiar with those. Go to the next slide.
  • 02:00:48
    Okay, so, yeah, I think I heard like three things. One is,
  • 02:00:51
    what's ERCOT's opinion,
  • 02:00:54
    what's about the zonal, non. Zonal, and maybe there's a discrepancy between
  • 02:00:57
    our analysis and the IMMs. So I
  • 02:01:02
    don't think we like Andrew. I don't think we would put up a fight against
  • 02:01:05
    any of the options. We do prefer either the vistra,
  • 02:01:09
    the IMM options. They seem targeted towards
  • 02:01:12
    the issue at hand.
  • 02:01:16
    We kind of have some lingering concerns is the word we
  • 02:01:20
    used, and some unease about linking the 4CP
  • 02:01:23
    with the CARD allocation. There could be some unforeseen
  • 02:01:29
    things arising from that maybe some weird incentives.
  • 02:01:33
    I brought up a really kind of a fringe example last time.
  • 02:01:38
    There could be more. That could be it. I don't know. It just seems like
  • 02:01:43
    there could be some unintended consequences connecting these two concepts.
  • 02:01:48
    One happens, mostly happens at the Commission. The other one happens at Archive.
  • 02:01:52
    There could be, you know, just some
  • 02:01:55
    feedback from one into the other when we make future changes as well. Now,
  • 02:01:58
    I did say at the last meeting and I still stand by it,
  • 02:02:01
    in terms of implementation complexity, order of magnitude, they're probably
  • 02:02:05
    all pretty similar. However, the city of
  • 02:02:09
    Georgetown 1 is the most complicated of the three,
  • 02:02:12
    so it would have a higher IA. But I don't think we're jumping an
  • 02:02:17
    order of magnitude. And I do think it'll
  • 02:02:20
    be complex to explain and understand over time because
  • 02:02:24
    we have this lag in the 4CP values using the previous 4CP
  • 02:02:28
    values for today's allocation. But then we got to adjust it by removing inactive
  • 02:02:32
    entities, speaking from administering
  • 02:02:37
    the settlements. I like simple, but we're happy to do more
  • 02:02:40
    complicated things if that's what you all think is more appropriate.
  • 02:02:43
    So I guess we're sorting them.
  • 02:02:47
    I would say we probably go vistra. IMM. City of Georgetown would be our preference.
  • 02:02:54
    And then if you go to the next slide.
  • 02:03:01
    Oh, this has been telling me what I'm doing. If you go to the next
  • 02:03:04
    slide to the analysis, I'll just explain it with the
  • 02:03:08
    numbers on the page. So there's two tables here.
  • 02:03:13
    The first table includes the zonal allocations.
  • 02:03:17
    So we look at the distribution of CARD revenue for the system wide and we
  • 02:03:21
    look at it for the zones under the different proposals.
  • 02:03:24
    And then we calculate the ratio per class based
  • 02:03:27
    on the revenues, not based on the load values.
  • 02:03:30
    Right, because there's different revenues and different load ratio shares
  • 02:03:34
    for each month. So we multiply the price times the quantity first to get a
  • 02:03:37
    total dollar amount. This is the allocation of dollars to classes.
  • 02:03:44
    So the city of Georgetown method shams combined.
  • 02:03:48
    So the last column is the city of Georgetown method.
  • 02:03:52
    You see a 4CP method there. That 4CP
  • 02:03:56
    method assumes we still have the zonal allocations and the
  • 02:03:59
    system wide allocation shams, collapse them together into one.
  • 02:04:03
    So that's that far right column. That's just assuming everything is system wide.
  • 02:04:08
    Or some requests for additional analysis. Maybe I missed the first part. Maybe that's already
  • 02:04:12
    being supplied in the second table. So the second table
  • 02:04:15
    takes the methodologies outlined by everyone and
  • 02:04:19
    assumes system wide allocation, no zonal allocations first. So we
  • 02:04:23
    just apply the same methodology to the big bucket of
  • 02:04:26
    revenues. All summed together and that's why you
  • 02:04:29
    see the four cp one matching the city of Georgetown one on the upper table
  • 02:04:33
    and then matching the city of Georgetown in the right hand table.
  • 02:04:38
    The so, so we've been talking about CARD, CARD,
  • 02:04:41
    CARD, CARD. There's also the balancing account that's, that's allocated the same way. I think
  • 02:04:45
    the IMM analysis did not include the balancing account. It's a smaller
  • 02:04:49
    portion. I think it's fine. It's like probably half of the system
  • 02:04:54
    wide allocation. We included it,
  • 02:04:58
    we did run it without it and double checked our numbers with the IMM's numbers
  • 02:05:01
    and they matched but then we included the balancing account
  • 02:05:04
    since that's part, that's one of the revenues that should be allocated this
  • 02:05:08
    way. So we included that in these analysis and that's why you might see a
  • 02:05:11
    slight, slight difference in our numbers from the IMM's.
  • 02:05:15
    And maybe you had a different issue that you noticed that I'm not aware of.
  • 02:05:20
    Yeah, so there we go.
  • 02:05:25
    Oh, is that it? Yeah, that's.
  • 02:05:29
    We have a queue. Let's go to Andrew Reimers.
  • 02:05:33
    Yeah, thank you. So I was just
  • 02:05:36
    in the chat reiterating that we, we share the same concerns that
  • 02:05:40
    ERCOT listed as far as the city of Georgetown proposal.
  • 02:05:43
    My comments earlier were simply to say that those aren't necessarily
  • 02:05:48
    deal breakers for us at this point if that's the direction
  • 02:05:51
    the market decides to go.
  • 02:05:55
    And Austin is correct that our analysis did not
  • 02:05:58
    include the balancing account. So thanks for adding
  • 02:06:02
    those in for us.
  • 02:06:07
    Thank you, John. Russ.
  • 02:06:10
    Yep. TIEC filed some comments
  • 02:06:15
    on Monday expressing, really expressing support for the IMM's
  • 02:06:19
    proposal because that one most accurately matches loads
  • 02:06:23
    exposure to congestion rent. I think ERCOT's analysis shows
  • 02:06:27
    this but the other approaches being discussed appear to be more results oriented and
  • 02:06:31
    arbitrarily shifting revenues between load classes and
  • 02:06:35
    they really continue the subsidization between classes and shift a larger
  • 02:06:38
    share of revenues to other unrelated
  • 02:06:43
    to the exposure based on how congestion rate is
  • 02:06:48
    paid. And I think it's important to remember that congestion occurs because there's
  • 02:06:51
    a lack of transmission facilities to deliver energy to load under
  • 02:06:54
    certain scenarios. So allocating congestion rents based
  • 02:06:58
    on who pays for transmission facilities under Georgetown's
  • 02:07:02
    suggestion doesn't follow cost, causation or logic.
  • 02:07:05
    And so I think given the options before WMS we asked
  • 02:07:09
    stakeholders and ERCOT to support the IMM's
  • 02:07:12
    proposal. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:07:15
    Shams.
  • 02:07:19
    Yeah, for ERCOT I guess the analysis we were looking for
  • 02:07:23
    is what would be if we don't do zonal CARD Allocation,
  • 02:07:27
    you know, assuming about 100 hours for Vista and 500 hours for the
  • 02:07:30
    IMM, what would be the price impact on
  • 02:07:34
    the west load zone? And I think you'll find that number to be
  • 02:07:37
    quite large. And if our concern
  • 02:07:41
    is people chasing that price signal
  • 02:07:45
    in the west zone, you're getting a lot of these flexible loads are locating
  • 02:07:49
    there. So you're going to send a very strong signal for them to
  • 02:07:52
    take that into account. You're talking about a lot of money for
  • 02:07:57
    those hours. So that's the analysis we would like
  • 02:08:00
    to see is, you know what is. I mean we have in our presentation an
  • 02:08:04
    estimate but that estimate is based on system wide allocation.
  • 02:08:10
    So the west zone would have much higher location. I was wondering if
  • 02:08:14
    ERCOT and the IMM have a position on
  • 02:08:17
    at least the system wide allocation so that we
  • 02:08:21
    don't distort the prices in the west even more.
  • 02:08:25
    I'd love to hear those thoughts, you know, if you
  • 02:08:29
    have any feedback on that issue.
  • 02:08:36
    So for clarification, what is the impact on the energy price if
  • 02:08:40
    we do the. Okay, definitely out
  • 02:08:43
    of my realm of expertise there. I'd probably have to have
  • 02:08:47
    some chats with the pricing people to see how
  • 02:08:51
    to do that. Yeah, we didn't look at it that way. I do think
  • 02:08:55
    it's a good point. It's sort of a more
  • 02:09:00
    fundamental point about how these revenues
  • 02:09:03
    should be distributed that you know, we could do the calculation
  • 02:09:07
    but I think the stakeholder process should
  • 02:09:10
    kind of make a determination about which of these,
  • 02:09:13
    whether there should be a zonal component in these allocations.
  • 02:09:17
    I will say as far as the magnitudes that we calculated,
  • 02:09:21
    if you included the whole month, which was our initial
  • 02:09:25
    proposal, you reduce the price
  • 02:09:29
    impact in the west load zone down to dollars per megawatt hour.
  • 02:09:32
    Hour. Which was part of the reason we went with such
  • 02:09:36
    a large. It was allocating it that way.
  • 02:09:40
    That number goes up. If you only include 500 hours,
  • 02:09:43
    it might be more than $10 megawatt hour. It's something on that order
  • 02:09:47
    of magnitude. So it isn't trivial. As far as
  • 02:09:50
    you know, earning $10 megawatt hour on top of your
  • 02:09:54
    break even price. If your break even price is $80 megawatt hour is pretty
  • 02:09:58
    non trivial. So again that is a,
  • 02:10:02
    that was sort of a compromise position based on trying to limit
  • 02:10:06
    moving money around between load classes.
  • 02:10:09
    So those are just some points for reminding
  • 02:10:13
    folks kind of the route we took to these proposals.
  • 02:10:18
    Yeah, thanks Andrew. That's really good feedback. That's kind
  • 02:10:22
    of the numbers we were looking at like $10 for the West. Yep.
  • 02:10:25
    But for the Vista proposal we're looking more like $40
  • 02:10:30
    per megawatt hour. That's a huge impact. That sounds correct to me too.
  • 02:10:34
    Yeah. So the market really needs to think about that. Our market
  • 02:10:38
    prices, unless you have scarcity,
  • 02:10:41
    that's a very large impact on
  • 02:10:45
    the peak hour prices. If you're going to decrease
  • 02:10:49
    those by $40. Thank you,
  • 02:10:52
    Shams. Bill. Yeah, the west
  • 02:10:56
    zone is actually a really good example of why we should not
  • 02:11:01
    continue to do the zone allocation. Because the congestion pattern is an
  • 02:11:04
    export constraint. Right. So when the congestion is the worst the
  • 02:11:08
    system is pulling, the prices are going to be as low, we're going
  • 02:11:12
    to be the lowest for the loads that are in the west zone and then
  • 02:11:14
    we're going to give them congestion rent on top of that. So it just exacerbates
  • 02:11:18
    the issue that Shams is describing. So we really should move away from
  • 02:11:23
    a zonal allocation. But my question is to
  • 02:11:27
    Austin. How did you actually do the math on the top
  • 02:11:30
    table? Did you actually create
  • 02:11:34
    buckets of congestion that are interzonal and intrazonal
  • 02:11:38
    and then apply each method based on
  • 02:11:42
    that breakdown? So for example, like the Vista or the IMM
  • 02:11:46
    proposal, you would find the top 100 or 500
  • 02:11:50
    hours in that zone.
  • 02:11:52
    Okay. Yep. So you did the math
  • 02:11:56
    twice basically for the different buckets.
  • 02:11:58
    Yeah, so we did. We took the system wide auction
  • 02:12:04
    revenues and balancing account and applied the VISTRA methodology.
  • 02:12:07
    The methodology calculated those revenues and then
  • 02:12:10
    we applied the methodology to each zone reach one of the methodologies
  • 02:12:14
    with that zone's rep, you know, effective revenue and
  • 02:12:17
    then added them all. Yeah. So I think Mr.
  • 02:12:21
    Chair, this is going to turn into a bigger issue. Like I would first policy
  • 02:12:24
    cut I would say is we need to only do system wide allocations
  • 02:12:28
    and then we figure out which one of those we think is the best.
  • 02:12:32
    Thank you, Bill. Yeah. I think a question we're going to have for
  • 02:12:36
    Cottage when this working group meeting concludes.
  • 02:12:41
    We are going to see what they need from us after this
  • 02:12:45
    discussion because we were of the impression
  • 02:12:48
    we needed a vote today and sounds like there's still some more discussion
  • 02:12:52
    that people are wanting to have. So I'd like to be
  • 02:12:56
    sure we're on the same page. Let's go back to the queue and Andrew.
  • 02:13:03
    No, no, I don't have anything to add. Okay.
  • 02:13:07
    Coleman Lewis. Question. Yes, thank you. A three
  • 02:13:10
    part question. Zonal allocation is how we're doing the allocation today,
  • 02:13:14
    correct? Yeah. The top table is
  • 02:13:18
    how. So the top table is how we're doing it today where we have the
  • 02:13:22
    separate zones and a system wide, we have two, we have multiple buckets and
  • 02:13:26
    that current column in the top table is how it's
  • 02:13:29
    happening today, how the settlement's happening right now.
  • 02:13:33
    So the discussion is that if we change how we're allocating
  • 02:13:36
    to a different methodology, it'll increase the west or change
  • 02:13:40
    the west pricing by $40 megawatt hour on average. I just want to
  • 02:13:43
    clarify that. Yeah, maybe, maybe I
  • 02:13:47
    can clarify that point. The whole point
  • 02:13:51
    about that. $40 megawatt hour is basically the incentive
  • 02:13:54
    that the load has to chase CARD. And so
  • 02:13:58
    you're saying what's the benefit you get from capturing CARDs
  • 02:14:03
    in dollars per megawatt hour such that you'd want to run above
  • 02:14:06
    your break even price. So if your break even price is $80amegawatt
  • 02:14:10
    hour, that CARD benefit is so substantial that
  • 02:14:13
    if you were to run during those intervals,
  • 02:14:17
    you're getting an extra 40ameg watt hour and so you'd operate
  • 02:14:21
    above your break even price up to $40
  • 02:14:25
    in addition to your break even price. Does that make sense?
  • 02:14:29
    Yeah, thanks for clarifying that. Second question is ERCOT studied.
  • 02:14:32
    If we move to system wide allocation, how that would shift CARD
  • 02:14:36
    allocation between from where it's allocated
  • 02:14:40
    today zonally to how it would be allocated if
  • 02:14:44
    we change it in future by zone instead of just load
  • 02:14:48
    class.
  • 02:14:52
    What was the instead of load class we
  • 02:14:55
    see analysis here showing how the percentages would change by load
  • 02:14:58
    class, residential, small, commercial, noe and large cni. If we
  • 02:15:01
    changed the allocation from zonal to system wide, has there
  • 02:15:05
    been any analysis done and how the allocation would shift between
  • 02:15:09
    zones like
  • 02:15:14
    a delta revenue per zone? Don't think,
  • 02:15:17
    I mean we may have that. We can maybe pivot the data to get that,
  • 02:15:21
    but we didn't, we didn't focus on that or publish anything on that.
  • 02:15:26
    Okay, I think that would be helpful to see.
  • 02:15:29
    And last question, if we're changing how we're allocating CARD or proposing how
  • 02:15:33
    we allocate CARD, is there any simultaneous discussion or proposal about how
  • 02:15:36
    we charge congestion rent to the market,
  • 02:15:40
    making it instead of zonal hub to zone to a system wide
  • 02:15:43
    methodology?
  • 02:15:50
    I'm not part of any of those discussions.
  • 02:15:55
    I just, I would think it makes sense. If we're going to change CARD allocation
  • 02:15:59
    to system wide, would it not make sense to also charge congestion rent
  • 02:16:03
    system wide or at least the price be formed on a system wide basis?
  • 02:16:15
    Doesn't that undermine a nodal market?
  • 02:16:22
    I just, I'm just unclear on why we would change CARD to
  • 02:16:25
    a system wide allocation methodology if we weren't going to change congestion rent
  • 02:16:29
    to system wide as well. If I could answer
  • 02:16:33
    that, I'm, I think I'm up next on the queue.
  • 02:16:36
    Yeah, go ahead, Sean. Yeah, so that would be
  • 02:16:39
    the worst outcome, you know, because the whole reason
  • 02:16:43
    we're in nodal market is to provide congestion pricing.
  • 02:16:47
    People locate in the right places and that's what's happening. You see load going
  • 02:16:50
    into the west zone. You go, you're saying, you know, because of the
  • 02:16:54
    nodal price signal. So if you take the
  • 02:16:57
    allocation based on who pays for CRRS
  • 02:17:01
    congestion, then you've taken away all the
  • 02:17:05
    nodal price signal, the congestion price signal. Let's say we just give it back
  • 02:17:08
    to the CRR of people that are buying the CRRs. That would be
  • 02:17:12
    the ultimate, you know, giving it back to people who actually paid
  • 02:17:16
    for it. That doesn't make any sense.
  • 02:17:19
    So that's why, you know, trying to keep the
  • 02:17:23
    price signal the most pure. The City
  • 02:17:26
    of Georgetown proposal does that because it sort of
  • 02:17:30
    burns both buckets. It burns the CRR
  • 02:17:33
    bucket and burns the T-cost bucket.
  • 02:17:36
    So what it's doing by doing that is it's keeping the full
  • 02:17:41
    nodal impact, congestion impact pure
  • 02:17:45
    in the whole market. We definitely want to keep
  • 02:17:49
    the nodal market. So for that same reason, I'd say it makes sense to allocate
  • 02:17:52
    CARD on a basis.
  • 02:17:57
    I don't follow the connection between the two
  • 02:18:04
    shams. You had another question?
  • 02:18:08
    Yeah. So, you know, we added a slide
  • 02:18:12
    on the presentation that I guess as people are seeing, you know,
  • 02:18:15
    we really haven't discussed this early, but we did after the WMSWG
  • 02:18:19
    meeting we did some analysis and if I could just present that one slide
  • 02:18:22
    at the end of my presentation, that'd be helpful.
  • 02:18:38
    So this is our sort of
  • 02:18:43
    estimate of the comparison of the three proposals.
  • 02:18:48
    So first we looked at shifting of CARD allocation from residential
  • 02:18:52
    noise to large CNI. The City of Georgetown
  • 02:18:56
    proposal does zero percent. Of course, we didn't have ERCOT's analysis.
  • 02:19:00
    This is based on IMM's analysis at the
  • 02:19:03
    time. So it doesn't, because it's based on the very peak
  • 02:19:07
    hours, the CP hours. Vista proposal
  • 02:19:11
    does 3% shift of
  • 02:19:14
    those CARD revenues and diamond proposal does about six,
  • 02:19:18
    six and a half percent shift. I think those are still consistent with the ERCOT
  • 02:19:21
    analysis. The energy price distortion,
  • 02:19:24
    this is what we're talking about to chase CARD outside
  • 02:19:28
    4CP. City of Georgetown is $0 per megawatt hour,
  • 02:19:31
    so there's no price distortion.
  • 02:19:34
    Whereas Vista proposal and this is basically taking
  • 02:19:37
    it, you know, on a system wide basis it's $20.
  • 02:19:42
    So effectively you're reducing loads on SPP
  • 02:19:46
    by that amount. But again as we discussed for the
  • 02:19:49
    west load zone this will be more like $40 per megawatt hour which is a
  • 02:19:53
    very significant incentive to chase that.
  • 02:19:56
    The imam proposal, this is, the 500 hour proposal was more like
  • 02:20:00
    $4 per megawatt hour. And as,
  • 02:20:05
    as diamond mentioned, you know, for west load zone it's more like
  • 02:20:08
    10 would be $10 per megawatt hour.
  • 02:20:14
    We felt like it's an equitable CARD allocation by
  • 02:20:18
    load zone because you know the load zone west
  • 02:20:22
    load is 13%, roughly 13% of the
  • 02:20:26
    ERCOT load. Yet they get 35% of the CARD
  • 02:20:30
    zonal CARD revenues which is almost three times what
  • 02:20:35
    their load ratio share is. So we felt like, you know, our proposal
  • 02:20:39
    of doing it all on a, on a system wide basis
  • 02:20:42
    makes sense. It's all allocated. And now that we talked about
  • 02:20:46
    this today, you have to sort of do it. If you're going with the Vista
  • 02:20:49
    proposal and also Even with the IMM
  • 02:20:52
    proposal you would want to do it because $10 is not insignificant.
  • 02:20:57
    So yes, our proposal does that. The other two proposals
  • 02:21:01
    don't have that system wide allocation. Does it reduce the incentive
  • 02:21:05
    to avoid forced CP and net generation
  • 02:21:10
    and load? The city Georgetown proposal
  • 02:21:13
    does that. It reduces incentive to avoid 4CP whereas
  • 02:21:17
    the other two actually increases the
  • 02:21:21
    incentive to chase 4CP because even during the summer months you're
  • 02:21:25
    spreading that over more hours and not the CP hours.
  • 02:21:28
    So I think that has some benefits. You know, just thinking about
  • 02:21:32
    from a system wide basis, you know that you're reducing that 4CP.
  • 02:21:36
    So now consumers will be more, the whole market will
  • 02:21:40
    be more geared towards, okay, let's build the transmission that we need for
  • 02:21:44
    reliability for getting the generation in instead of,
  • 02:21:49
    you know, consumers always haven't focused on oh I'm footing the bill for all the,
  • 02:21:53
    all this transmission edition.
  • 02:21:56
    So I think it has some secondary benefits.
  • 02:21:59
    But so this is our comparison of the
  • 02:22:03
    three proposals and I think more discussion will get people more
  • 02:22:08
    comfortable with the Georgetown proposal. So I really appreciate that maybe we
  • 02:22:12
    discussed this once more at WMWG with ERCOT analysis on
  • 02:22:16
    what the impacts would be on the west load zone of these proposals.
  • 02:22:23
    Okay, thank you Shams. John. Russ.
  • 02:22:28
    Yeah, I just, I wanted to mention Shams
  • 02:22:32
    had said that it doesn't make sense to, for you to
  • 02:22:36
    reallocate these revenues back to people who are paying CRRs
  • 02:22:43
    and I'd agree but I Think it's notable that the
  • 02:22:47
    people facing congestion rent are not always the people
  • 02:22:51
    who are purchasing CRRs and those are very different.
  • 02:22:56
    And so I think allocating back to those who are paying congestion rent is
  • 02:23:02
    how it should be done.
  • 02:23:08
    Thank you. Ken, question or
  • 02:23:12
    two for Shams. What was the, what was their original
  • 02:23:15
    reason that we did the zonal allocation back in the day?
  • 02:23:20
    If I remember correctly, this was.
  • 02:23:23
    Some of us were there, but basically it was actually concerned
  • 02:23:27
    from load in the north load zone. They were concerned at that time there was
  • 02:23:31
    a lot of intrazonal congestion and the north load zone.
  • 02:23:34
    So they were concerned that their prices would be much higher.
  • 02:23:37
    So if they were to get that allocation, that would sort
  • 02:23:41
    of offset the fact that going to nodal would increase their price quite
  • 02:23:45
    a bit. I believe that's. Wouldn't you agree? That was the discussion.
  • 02:23:49
    Yeah. Okay, good. I'm reason that. Okay.
  • 02:23:53
    And so the zonal allocation now is going,
  • 02:23:57
    you said 35% to the west. To west zone.
  • 02:24:00
    Yeah, it's very. So it's, it's actually working the
  • 02:24:04
    complete opposite as was intended because the west zone is actually
  • 02:24:08
    the lowest, you know, energy weighted pricing.
  • 02:24:13
    Exactly. It's doing exactly the opposite. Okay, all right,
  • 02:24:16
    I get it. Thanks. Thank you,
  • 02:24:20
    Ken. Katie, Rich.
  • 02:24:23
    Thanks, Eric. So we actually did what I think
  • 02:24:27
    what folks are asking ERCOT to do and obviously
  • 02:24:31
    would ask them to do this independently, but we took a
  • 02:24:34
    look at the different prices in the zones
  • 02:24:38
    and then the system LAMBDA. So if you think about system LAMBDA,
  • 02:24:42
    this is the location that experiences no congestion.
  • 02:24:45
    So that means that any of the difference between the price of a
  • 02:24:49
    particular location and system LAMBDA represents
  • 02:24:52
    the premium that loads pay for congestion.
  • 02:24:55
    So a couple points that we wanted to make.
  • 02:24:59
    Returning congestion from March to loads that only were around
  • 02:25:03
    in July, you know, doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we talked about
  • 02:25:06
    that temporal concept being an issue and
  • 02:25:10
    then, you know, returning money to loads in Houston at the same
  • 02:25:13
    rate as those in the west, you know, even though
  • 02:25:17
    west loads are the ones that mainly paid for that congestion
  • 02:25:21
    makes even less sense to us. So if we're
  • 02:25:24
    taking this back to WMS, I would ask that ERCOT does
  • 02:25:28
    a similar analysis to show what that shifts looks like and
  • 02:25:31
    what the delta and the prices would be.
  • 02:25:36
    Thank you, Katie Coleman Lewis, just a quick
  • 02:25:40
    comment. I think if it makes sense to look at how much west loan CARD
  • 02:25:43
    is allocated relative to load ratio share, we should also look
  • 02:25:47
    at how much congestion rent is paid by zone on a load ratio
  • 02:25:50
    share and compare that. I think we'll find a similar comparison.
  • 02:25:58
    Thank you. Shams.
  • 02:26:01
    Yeah. How much congestion rent or in congestion
  • 02:26:05
    each zone is paying is reflected in their zonal price.
  • 02:26:09
    And the west zone, if you look over the long term, west zone on average
  • 02:26:13
    has the lowest price. So the congestion that's incurred within the west
  • 02:26:16
    zone, it's more because of all this renewables
  • 02:26:21
    IRRs that you have in the west zone that are trying to hedge to the
  • 02:26:23
    west hub. That has nothing to do with load.
  • 02:26:26
    They're just trying to get that power out. So I think there's a disconnect
  • 02:26:31
    there in how people are thinking about why the west load
  • 02:26:34
    zone is paying more or in congestion they're not. They're actually paying the least
  • 02:26:39
    on average.
  • 02:26:44
    Okay, we have an empty queue. I want to ask ERCOT
  • 02:26:49
    what they would request of WMS given this discussion.
  • 02:26:55
    We're prepared to vote, but we're also hearing
  • 02:26:58
    a lot of desire that this
  • 02:27:02
    go to WMWG at least one more time.
  • 02:27:05
    And so if that would be okay. I want to, I just want to be
  • 02:27:08
    sure that we're, we're honoring what
  • 02:27:11
    we've been requested from ERCOT.
  • 02:27:16
    Well, I heard a lot of requests and to be honest, I don't think
  • 02:27:19
    I got them all written down or understood all of them, 100% on an additional
  • 02:27:23
    analysis requested. So if
  • 02:27:26
    more data is being required, requested to help make the decision, I would think we
  • 02:27:29
    would be open to that. However, I would probably need some more.
  • 02:27:33
    I would need some, maybe try to pare that down a
  • 02:27:36
    little bit. And I probably need to lean on some of the market design folks.
  • 02:27:39
    I'm not exactly, you know, I'm the settlements guy, so I'm not totally sure
  • 02:27:42
    about some of these, Some of these analysis are being requested.
  • 02:27:47
    That being said, I don't think we could turn that around. I think WWG
  • 02:27:50
    is next week, so we would, I think we'll
  • 02:27:53
    be, look, we will be looking at prolonging this at least into January,
  • 02:27:56
    maybe February, if that's what's needed.
  • 02:28:00
    Okay. I'm not sure how strong people's opinions are or
  • 02:28:03
    feelings on going down some of these rabbit holes. I really have no idea
  • 02:28:08
    how people are feeling. So I think some additional
  • 02:28:12
    time is fine on our end.
  • 02:28:17
    We can't implement this overnight anyways. We got RTC coming,
  • 02:28:22
    so we probably do have some time. Although that being said, I think I
  • 02:28:26
    heard a lot of different requests for different ways to look at this. I'm not
  • 02:28:30
    sure if there is an answer or
  • 02:28:33
    there is the answer. I think people are going to have their unanswered
  • 02:28:38
    and we might not be able to get there. So I'm afraid we
  • 02:28:42
    may be looking at more than a couple months to sort this
  • 02:28:46
    out, but happy to support that if that's what is needed.
  • 02:28:50
    So I guess I'm just kind of rambling here.
  • 02:28:55
    If people are prepared to vote, if this is just kind of, you know,
  • 02:28:58
    it'd be nice to have more, but I think we're ready to go, that would
  • 02:29:02
    be great. But if we really do need some more solid analysis
  • 02:29:06
    to make the decision, we will absolutely support
  • 02:29:10
    that. Okay.
  • 02:29:14
    I do think it may not be the next wmwg,
  • 02:29:17
    but maybe the one after that. Sounds like
  • 02:29:22
    at least some of these questions and, but ultimately it's,
  • 02:29:26
    this is for ERCOT's use in
  • 02:29:29
    preparing a proposal that clearly
  • 02:29:33
    you have, you have folks that have preferences
  • 02:29:38
    and maybe with the additional information we could come to consensus.
  • 02:29:42
    But ultimately this is going
  • 02:29:45
    to be an ERCOT proposal. I want to go back to the queue.
  • 02:29:49
    We have Ryan King. Ryan?
  • 02:29:53
    Yeah, thanks. I think actually Austin probably put it as well as it could
  • 02:29:57
    be put. I think the one request that I would
  • 02:30:01
    have is I agree there was a lot of requests
  • 02:30:06
    for analysis and points of view here and maybe I
  • 02:30:10
    can work with either the
  • 02:30:13
    WMS or maybe WMWG chair just
  • 02:30:17
    to get an agreed upon set of
  • 02:30:21
    analysis or additional analysis that is required and then
  • 02:30:24
    our team can put this on. But I would echo the sentiment that just
  • 02:30:28
    given where we are and the next WMWG
  • 02:30:32
    being in less than seven days, we would probably be looking at having
  • 02:30:36
    something in the new year. But the initial thing is
  • 02:30:40
    we just want to make sure that we understand the request so that we
  • 02:30:43
    can meet it effectively. Thanks. Thank you,
  • 02:30:47
    Ryan. Andrew. Yeah. I just
  • 02:30:51
    want to clarify again, and this is
  • 02:30:54
    sort of related to the last thing I said, but if we are interested
  • 02:30:58
    in looking at how all of these things shake out
  • 02:31:02
    without the zonal allocation, then really a
  • 02:31:06
    lot of the analysis that's been done already
  • 02:31:09
    would need to be redone on that basis. And so that
  • 02:31:13
    that decision on whether there should be a zonal allocation in
  • 02:31:17
    there is pretty consequential. And so the vistra
  • 02:31:21
    analysis and the analysis we've done so far all assumes
  • 02:31:25
    that we maintain the same load ratio
  • 02:31:28
    share zonal, non zonal concepts.
  • 02:31:32
    And so, you know, we could rerun the
  • 02:31:36
    numbers without that. It does really mean kind of redoing
  • 02:31:40
    all the work that we've already done. And so maybe some direction
  • 02:31:43
    on the pros and cons of
  • 02:31:48
    doing that or not doing that would be helpful. As far as prioritizing
  • 02:31:51
    the work that we're going to do.
  • 02:31:56
    Yep, I agree. Thank you, Andrew. Blake.
  • 02:32:01
    Blake Holt. From the LCRA perspective, if we were to
  • 02:32:04
    go to some sort of straw man today, we're prepared to give an
  • 02:32:08
    opinion on proposal and also opinion on zonal
  • 02:32:12
    versus system wide.
  • 02:32:15
    From the WMSWG perspective, it seems like there is
  • 02:32:19
    a desire to talk about this further. I think that's something we can
  • 02:32:22
    host again. But I would recommend,
  • 02:32:25
    if you've made a request, please reach out to me and
  • 02:32:28
    ERCOT and let's coordinate on what exactly
  • 02:32:32
    they need to produce and what exactly you're looking for so
  • 02:32:36
    we can have a productive conversation and try to move this along.
  • 02:32:39
    Yeah. Thank you Blake. Very good.
  • 02:32:42
    Chams. I think from what Andrew,
  • 02:32:47
    you described before, I think the IMM has already done that analysis
  • 02:32:51
    with the zonal allocation. What would be the price impact
  • 02:32:55
    of the VISTA proposal and IMM proposal on the West Zone prices,
  • 02:33:00
    Is that correct, Andrew?
  • 02:33:03
    Yep, that's correct. What we haven't done is
  • 02:33:07
    what are the system wide price impacts
  • 02:33:11
    if we remove the zonal component?
  • 02:33:14
    So it would shift those numbers around among the zones.
  • 02:33:19
    I think you're right. It would tend to shift them around in a way where
  • 02:33:22
    you're removing the negative incentives of
  • 02:33:25
    the current CARD allocation. So I think that's a valid point. It's just we haven't
  • 02:33:30
    run the numbers that way. Yeah, I think that's
  • 02:33:33
    the main number we need is, you know, with the zonal allocation because
  • 02:33:37
    that's our biggest concern is with the zonal allocation. You know, you're looking
  • 02:33:41
    at, I think Andrew mentioned $40 per megawatt
  • 02:33:45
    hour and I even like to get Andrew's sort
  • 02:33:50
    of opinion on that. If the IMM would be
  • 02:33:53
    okay with the VISTA proposal adding $40 to the West Zone,
  • 02:33:56
    is that acceptable? Because I, I wouldn't think you
  • 02:34:00
    have so much LFLs going in there that they would definitely
  • 02:34:03
    respond to a $40 price signal. Andrew, do you have an opinion on that?
  • 02:34:08
    Yeah, I mean I share that concern that seem, I mean if you're talking about
  • 02:34:11
    resources whose break even prices,
  • 02:34:15
    you know, $80 megawatt hour, you're increasing the break even price by
  • 02:34:18
    50%. And so that's pretty big.
  • 02:34:26
    So the only part missing is if we go
  • 02:34:29
    to a system wide allocation, what is the impact which we
  • 02:34:33
    did a very rough calculation which is like we just
  • 02:34:36
    divided $2 billion with, we assumed for
  • 02:34:40
    the 100 hours or 500 hours, we assumed 80,000 megawatts
  • 02:34:45
    times, you know, the 100 hours, 500 hours. So it's very simplest,
  • 02:34:49
    but I mean, that's sort of the
  • 02:34:52
    very conservative estimate of what the impact would be. But I'm sure
  • 02:34:56
    ERCOT and the MM can do a much better job just using a simple calculation
  • 02:35:00
    like that to tell us what the impact's going to be.
  • 02:35:03
    Okay, well, along the lines of what you're saying, Shams and I
  • 02:35:07
    would, I would kind of propose that we probably do punt on this for now.
  • 02:35:11
    If removing the zonal portion
  • 02:35:15
    of the allocation is something people are interested
  • 02:35:19
    in, it's conceivable that the only change
  • 02:35:23
    that we need to make to CARD is to remove the zonal allocation.
  • 02:35:28
    And then we don't even need to mess with all
  • 02:35:31
    of this stuff about the number of hours
  • 02:35:35
    included in it. I mean, that's such a big percentage of things that it
  • 02:35:38
    isn't what we looked at initially. But if we were going to change the calculation
  • 02:35:42
    that fundamentally, that might already resolve a lot
  • 02:35:46
    of the issue without doing anything else. That, and I'm only making these points
  • 02:35:49
    not to belong the conversation, but to say,
  • 02:35:53
    you know, that would add another completely different
  • 02:35:57
    option on the table for resolving this issue. It's such a big
  • 02:36:01
    difference compared to what we've looked at so far.
  • 02:36:05
    Okay. Okay, thanks.
  • 02:36:10
    Thank you. Any other comments?
  • 02:36:16
    All right, what I hear is support
  • 02:36:19
    to not vote today.
  • 02:36:23
    I hear agreement from ERCOT that
  • 02:36:27
    that's. That's okay with their schedule, that if we
  • 02:36:30
    don't vote that that's okay.
  • 02:36:33
    We will allow Debbie and Debbie G.
  • 02:36:37
    To continue the discussion. They have a meeting next week,
  • 02:36:41
    but the real discussion will come up in January
  • 02:36:45
    and ERCOT will prepare the requested
  • 02:36:49
    analysis and folks can
  • 02:36:53
    get with Blake to be sure that specific
  • 02:36:57
    requests are forwarded to ERCOT or where it
  • 02:37:01
    needs to go. I hope we found this
  • 02:37:05
    discussion helpful. Again, this is sort of
  • 02:37:08
    novel for me. I don't know if WMS has ever been
  • 02:37:13
    asked to weigh in on a
  • 02:37:17
    path, and with ERCOT being a
  • 02:37:21
    little bit indifferent as to the path, really wanting to do what
  • 02:37:24
    they think we should would recommend. And I
  • 02:37:28
    think this is a good development. So I know it's hard, but I
  • 02:37:31
    appreciate the discussion and I hope we can ultimately
  • 02:37:35
    get to a resolution that everyone's comfortable
  • 02:37:39
    with. Anything else on that?
  • 02:37:47
    Blake, I know we're still in your item 12, just to
  • 02:37:50
    be sure.
  • Item 12.2 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG - Possible Vote
    02:37:53
    NPRR1202. I understand y'all concluded your discussion, so we could
  • 02:37:57
    probably remove that from your list. That's correct.
  • 02:38:00
    Everything else good to stay on the list. I will note that there
  • 02:38:04
    were some comments filed on NPRR1241 that
  • 02:38:08
    we will discuss at next week's meeting. Awesome.
  • Item 12.4 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - WMWG - Possible Vote
    02:38:13
    And there's some comments pending on NPRR1238.
  • 02:38:18
    Correct,
  • 02:38:21
    Katie? Well, Blake stole my thunder,
  • 02:38:25
    but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up that we did File
  • Item 12.5 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee - WMWG - Possible Vote
    02:38:28
    comments on NPRR1241. Believe this is a
  • 02:38:31
    significant improvement in the language. We got the feedback that
  • 02:38:35
    we were looking for for other members,
  • 02:38:39
    and so hopefully we can move this forward at the next WMWG.
  • 02:38:43
    So we look forward to that discussion on Tuesday.
  • 02:38:48
    Great. Thank you all very much. Anything else,
  • 02:38:51
    Blake? With that item
  • Item 13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey
    02:38:55
    13 combo ballot, we have
  • 02:38:59
    a couple of items we've added to the combo ballot list. We'll put those on
  • 02:39:02
    the screen to remind folks.
  • 02:39:06
    Do highly encourage an affirmative vote
  • 02:39:10
    on the combo ballot. If you have any need
  • 02:39:14
    to abstain or reject
  • 02:39:17
    on any of these, we ask you to let us know. We will
  • 02:39:20
    do a separate ballot.
  • 02:39:23
    Otherwise, I will be looking for a motion to approve the combo
  • 02:39:26
    ballot. Jim Galvin.
  • 02:39:30
    Anyone else want a second?
  • 02:39:33
    Blake? All right,
  • 02:39:36
    turn it over to Brittany. Thank you. Thanks,
  • 02:39:39
    Eric. All right, you have three items on your combo ballot
  • 02:39:44
    regarding NPRR1256 and NPRR1251. And
  • 02:39:48
    VCMRR042.
  • 02:39:53
    Beginning the consumer segment with Eric Goff.
  • 02:39:56
    Yes. Mark Smith.
  • 02:40:02
    Yes. Preeti Patel.
  • 02:40:10
    Yes. Thank you. And Rick Arnett.
  • 02:40:15
    Yes. Thank you. Thank y'all.
  • 02:40:20
    Onto the cooperative segment. Blake Holt. Yes, ma'am.
  • 02:40:26
    Lucas Turner.
  • 02:40:29
    Yes. Eric Blakey.
  • 02:40:32
    Yes. Thank you. And Jim Calvin. Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:40:39
    Hey, Independent generator segment. Tom Burke for Theresa Allen.
  • 02:40:44
    Yes. And Tom for yourself.
  • 02:40:47
    Yes. Thank you. Shuye Teng for Andy
  • 02:40:51
    Nguyen.
  • 02:40:58
    Sheri was on the phone. I see
  • 02:41:02
    she's still muted.
  • 02:41:05
    And we'll watch for you in the. Yes, thank you.
  • 02:41:10
    Thank you. Thank you. And Brian Sams.
  • 02:41:20
    Brian, looks like you're still on mute. Perhaps we'll
  • 02:41:28
    come back or watch for you in the queue. Independent power
  • 02:41:32
    marketers. Shane Thomas for Resmi Surendran.
  • 02:41:38
    Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Amanda De Leon.
  • 02:41:43
    Yes, thank you. Robert Anklam.
  • 02:41:46
    Yes, thank you. Ian Haley.
  • 02:41:49
    I don't know if Ian joined us today.
  • 02:41:53
    I don't think I ever saw him. Okay,
  • 02:41:57
    thank you.
  • 02:42:01
    Ira. Segment. Chris Hendricks for Anoush Farhangi.
  • 02:42:05
    Yes, thank you. Joshua Chambers.
  • 02:42:15
    Joshua, I see you online, but you're still muted.
  • 02:42:20
    Amir Khan. I don't know if Amir
  • 02:42:24
    was able to join us today either. Susie, has he
  • 02:42:28
    joined? No. Okay, thank you, Josh.
  • 02:42:31
    Joshua Chandler. Oh, thank you, Josh. We see in
  • 02:42:35
    the thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:42:40
    IOU segment. David Withrow.
  • 02:42:43
    Yes, David. Ivan Velasquez.
  • 02:42:47
    Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I've gotten a couple of MAMS today.
  • 02:42:51
    Jim Lee. Yes, sir. Thanks.
  • 02:42:58
    All right, finally, municipal segment. David Detelich.
  • 02:43:04
    Yes. Thank you. Ken Lindbergh.
  • 02:43:07
    Yes. Curtis Campo.
  • 02:43:10
    Yes. And Fei Xie. Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:43:14
    Thank you. Let's see. I think I was going to go back to
  • 02:43:17
    someone. Brian Sams might
  • 02:43:25
    have just stepped away.
  • 02:43:39
    Motion carries unanimously. Thank y'all. Thank you.
  • Item 14 - Notice of Withdrawal - Eric Blakey
    02:43:43
    Okay, let's move to item 14, notice of withdrawal. Just to
  • Item 14.1 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042 SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
    02:43:47
    let everyone know, NPRR1242 related to VCMRR042
  • 02:43:51
    So 2 NOx submission and index prices used in variable
  • 02:43:55
    cost calculations on November 15. This was withdrawn
  • 02:43:59
    by Luminant in consideration of the discussions at the November
  • 02:44:02
    15th resource cost working group meeting.
  • 02:44:08
    Under other business item 15.
  • Item 15 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
    02:44:11
    We've had some good updates on the
  • Item 15.1 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
    02:44:14
    open action items, parking lots from CMWG
  • 02:44:18
    and WMWG. I think those probably
  • 02:44:22
    form the, if not all of the items
  • 02:44:25
    on our list. And so we will make those updates and
  • 02:44:30
    just really appreciate working group leadership
  • 02:44:34
    addressing those and keeping those efficient.
  • 02:44:37
    Katie.
  • 02:44:40
    I didn't mean to interrupt, Eric. I just wanted to say that I
  • 02:44:44
    really like the form format of today's agenda and hope that continues into
  • 02:44:48
    next year. I appreciate
  • 02:44:52
    ROS giving us the example and
  • 02:44:56
    can only apologize that it took me two years to catch on.
  • 02:45:00
    So. Yeah.
  • 02:45:05
    So any other business? Anyone? Yes.
  • 02:45:08
    All right, before we adjourn, as some
  • 02:45:12
    of you know, this will be Eric's last
  • 02:45:16
    WMS meeting as chair. And I wanted
  • 02:45:19
    to take a moment to recognize and thank Eric for
  • 02:45:23
    his leadership he's demonstrated over the last two years.
  • 02:45:27
    Yeah, it might have taken you two years to get the agenda
  • 02:45:31
    to a place where it's efficient,
  • 02:45:35
    but better late than never. That we said. But yeah,
  • 02:45:38
    Eric and I came into WMS leadership with a much lesser
  • 02:45:41
    understanding of the wholesale market than we have today.
  • 02:45:45
    But that's not due to lack of trying. And you
  • 02:45:48
    know, we are where we are here today because of Eric's dedication and
  • 02:45:52
    the countless hours he's invested in kind of learning the nuances
  • 02:45:56
    of the wholesale market. So I'm honored to
  • 02:45:59
    have served with Eric both at RMS and now
  • 02:46:03
    at WMS and, you know, truly appreciate his leadership
  • 02:46:06
    and his diplomacy and his dedication to the ERCOT market.
  • 02:46:10
    So please join me in giving Eric a
  • 02:46:13
    round of applause and thanking him for his services. WMS chair,
  • 02:46:19
    now you made. I need a tissue.
  • 02:46:24
    Wow. I wasn't expecting that. Yeah, this is my last WMS
  • 02:46:28
    this year, so it was, man, a huge
  • 02:46:32
    honor to get to chair this group. Something I never,
  • 02:46:35
    ever would have imagined that y'all would let me do this.
  • 02:46:39
    So thank you. Thank you for your support. Thank you for the
  • 02:46:43
    contributions to the meetings. That's what made it work.
  • 02:46:47
    Brittany and Susie,
  • 02:46:50
    man, you guys are awesome. Pamela,
  • 02:46:54
    historically, she was helpful and great. And Matt,
  • 02:47:00
    Dave, and man, all the support. We get a
  • 02:47:03
    lot of good support. And I just really want
  • 02:47:08
    to recognize how good this.
  • 02:47:12
    The meeting support service is for WMS
  • 02:47:18
    and the working group leaders. You know, we spend so much time trying
  • 02:47:22
    to. Trying to find working. I think that's real. The real role
  • 02:47:25
    of the chairs to find working group leadership.
  • 02:47:29
    But I'm very grateful to each one that served.
  • 02:47:33
    It was a great team this year. And so.
  • 02:47:37
    And then my buddy Jim couldn't do it without Jim. So thank
  • 02:47:41
    you all very much. I wish this
  • 02:47:45
    group well next year. I know it's going to be great, and I can't
  • 02:47:49
    wait to see what happens. So I just
  • 02:47:52
    have a point of order. I. I don't think there's anything in our procedures that
  • 02:47:56
    says that the chair has to be a member of the committee.
  • 02:48:01
    Okay, let's test that there.
  • 02:48:06
    Wow. Well, thank you.
  • Item 16 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey
    02:48:10
    With that, let's adjourn and
  • 02:48:14
    have a great Christmas holiday and a new year.
  • 02:48:17
    Thank you.
20241204-wms-ballot-combined
Dec 03, 2024 - xls - 113 KB
02-agenda-wms-20241204
Nov 26, 2024 - doc - 144 KB
03-1190nprr-26-tac-report-103024_bbarnes
Dec 01, 2024 - docx - 80.9 KB
07-cmwg-update-2024-12-wms
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 468 KB
08-dswg-update_map
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 151.7 KB
09-meter-working-group-wms-update-4dec24
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 50 KB
10-241204-sawg-report-to-wms-v0
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 3.8 MB
11-wms_update_rcwg_20241204
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 38.1 KB
12-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-november-11-meeting
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 620.3 KB
12-wms_assigned_action_items_for_wmwg
Nov 26, 2024 - docx - 48.8 KB
12-card-allocation-impacts---dec-wms---final2
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 157.1 KB
Meeting-materials-20241204
Nov 26, 2024 - zip - 10.4 MB
12-cog-proposal-on-card-and-crrba-allocation-120424
Nov 26, 2024 - pptx - 74.3 KB
12-tiec-wms-crrba-card-comments
Dec 01, 2024 - doc - 32 KB
Meeting-materials-20241204
Dec 01, 2024 - zip - 10.5 MB
Revision-requests-wms-20241204
Nov 26, 2024 - zip - 5.4 MB
Meeting Materials
Dec 02, 2024 - zip - 10.5 MB
Revision Requests
Dec 02, 2024 - zip - 5.4 MB
Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
Starts at 00:00:37
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:02:24
2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:03:03
3 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:06:27
3.1 - Review concept of Annual Settlement Trigger related to NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs
Starts at 00:07:58
4 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
Starts at 00:13:30
5 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:13:42
5.1 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs
Starts at 00:13:51
6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:28:07
6.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
Starts at 00:28:19
7 - Congestion Management Working Group - CMWG - Alex Miller
Starts at 00:30:16
7.1 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk - CMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 00:36:45
8 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Mark Patterson
Starts at 00:46:54
9 - Meter Working Group - MWG - Michael Blum
Starts at 00:53:02
9.2 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:01:43
9.1 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:01:54
10 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson
Starts at 01:06:25
10.1 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service - SAWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:08:06
11 - Resource Cost Working Group - RCWG - Blake Holt
Starts at 01:26:41
11.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:26:51
11.1 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process - RCWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:29:50
12 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Blake Holt
Starts at 01:35:27
12.3 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:47:03
12.1 - Proposed Changes to CARD Allocation Methods - Vote
Starts at 01:48:26
12.2 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 02:37:53
12.4 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - WMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 02:38:13
12.5 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee - WMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 02:38:28
13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:38:55
14 - Notice of Withdrawal - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:43:43
14.1 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042 SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
Starts at 02:43:47
15 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:44:11
15.1 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
Starts at 02:44:14
16 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:48:10