11/06/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 2:17:21
Duration 3:18:30
Loaded: 69.27%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:01:09
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:52
    Good morning. We'll get started in a few moments. I'm Pamela
  • 00:00:55
    Hanson with ERCOT. I have some meeting reminders for you to help the meeting
  • 00:00:58
    go more smoothly. If you are here in person,
  • 00:01:02
    please remember to sign in. The sign in sheet is in the hall outside
  • 00:01:06
    the room. We have a managed queue if you'd like to
  • 00:01:09
    join us for the discussion. You are on Webex. Please place your name
  • 00:01:14
    in the chat. If you're in the meeting room, please raise your
  • 00:01:17
    table 10. If you're on Webex or have called into the
  • 00:01:20
    meeting, please remain on mute until the chair recognizes
  • 00:01:24
    you. Should the meeting or audio end unexpectedly,
  • 00:01:28
    please log back in using the same WebEx information posted
  • 00:01:31
    to the meeting page. We vote by ballot.
  • 00:01:35
    When it's your segment's turn to vote, please remember to unmute
  • 00:01:39
    and to check that you're not double muted and then return to mute after
  • 00:01:42
    you have voted. Mr. Blakey, you have quorum whenever you're ready to begin.
  • 00:01:46
    Great. Thank you, Pamela. All right.
  • 00:01:50
    Eric Blakey with Pertinelis Co Op Chair of Wholesale
  • 00:01:54
    Market Subcommittee. I love to see everyone
  • 00:01:58
    getting to see each other again and having good discussions. So if
  • 00:02:03
    you're not here in the room, you're missing out.
  • 00:02:06
    We have somewhat of a full agenda, so we
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
    00:02:10
    will get started. Let's go ahead with
  • 00:02:13
    the antitrust admonition.
  • 00:02:18
    To avoid raising concerns about antitrust liability,
  • 00:02:21
    participants in ERCOT activities should refrain from proposing any action
  • 00:02:24
    or measure that would exceed ERCOT's authority under federal
  • 00:02:27
    or state law. For additional information, stakeholders should
  • 00:02:32
    consult the Statement of Position on Antitrust Issues
  • 00:02:36
    for members of ERCOT committees, subcommittees and working groups. It's posted
  • 00:02:39
    on the ERCOT website and
  • 00:02:43
    also want to announce our
  • 00:02:47
    alternate reps. Today we have For Lucas
  • 00:02:51
    Turner from Stack. In the co op segment, we have
  • 00:02:56
    alternate Rep John Packard. For independent generator
  • 00:03:00
    Andy Wynn with Constellation, we have alternate Rep
  • 00:03:03
    Katie Rich and independent power marketer
  • 00:03:07
    Resmi Surendran with Shell, we have Shane
  • 00:03:10
    Thomas. So glad to have everyone here.
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
    00:03:17
    Next is our agenda overview and
  • 00:03:21
    won't really go into all the details. We have sort
  • 00:03:24
    of a standard agenda. We do have some ERCOT
  • 00:03:29
    reports and then we'll go
  • 00:03:32
    through our NPRRs and tabled items and
  • 00:03:38
    hopefully conclude. Next we
  • 00:03:43
    have the. Oh, let me just ask,
  • 00:03:46
    is there anything that anyone was hoping to see added to the agenda
  • 00:03:51
    that we left out? Okay, Great.
  • Item 3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes – Eric Blakey
    00:03:55
    Next item 3. We have approval
  • 00:03:58
    of WMS meeting minutes and
  • 00:04:02
    I think we're catching up. This month we got both September 11th and
  • 00:04:06
    October 7th meeting minutes
  • 00:04:11
    and let's go ahead and show those on the screen. Did we
  • 00:04:15
    receive any comments? No sir,
  • Item 3.1 - September 11, 2024
    00:04:18
    none. Okay, there's the September
  • Item 3.2 - October 7, 2024
    00:04:21
    and then the October meeting minutes. Like to
  • 00:04:25
    see if there's any opposition to adding this to the consent agenda or
  • 00:04:30
    the combo ballot. I should say combo ballot.
  • 00:04:34
    Thank you. We will add these to the combo ballot.
  • Item 4 - Technical Advisory Committee Update - Eric Blakey
    00:04:38
    Next item number four is the TAC
  • 00:04:42
    update. The TAC met last week on October 30th
  • 00:04:46
    by WebEx. I just have a verbal report
  • 00:04:51
    of some items that I noted that I thought
  • 00:04:55
    were pretty high level items that were discussed.
  • 00:04:58
    The main discussion was over NPRR1190.
  • 00:05:02
    This was the protocol change that was remanded
  • 00:05:07
    back to TAC from the
  • 00:05:11
    board in October we
  • 00:05:14
    presented an overview discussion.
  • 00:05:18
    WMS had done quite a bit of work on
  • 00:05:22
    this proposal. I think starting back in
  • 00:05:26
    September, August or September of last year.
  • 00:05:30
    Our WMWG group had done a tremendous
  • 00:05:33
    amount of work on this proposal and so we were able
  • 00:05:36
    to highlight that for the group. And then
  • 00:05:40
    there was also sort of a history of
  • 00:05:46
    this provision that ERCOT provided. There was
  • 00:05:49
    some good discussion about the proposal and what TAC should do
  • 00:05:54
    and ultimately it was left tabled and so we will
  • 00:05:58
    bring that up next month. The congestion
  • 00:06:03
    revenue rights auction was presented
  • 00:06:07
    that they are going to. Due to
  • 00:06:10
    increasingly high volumes and complexity of CRR
  • 00:06:14
    auctions and performance issues and risk
  • 00:06:18
    the transaction limit will change to 3,000
  • 00:06:22
    and that was approved. The market trial
  • 00:06:27
    plan from the Real Time Co Optimization group
  • 00:06:31
    was presented. Market testing is planned to start on May 5th
  • 00:06:35
    with target load target go live date is
  • 00:06:40
    December 5th of next year. There was an
  • 00:06:44
    update on NOGRR245 and that's implementation. And then
  • 00:06:48
    the next steps, those issues that were
  • 00:06:52
    set sort of pulled out will be addressed through the PUC rulemaking
  • 00:06:58
    rather than priority revision request.
  • 00:07:02
    And then I don't see Eric Goff. Is Eric
  • 00:07:05
    Goff on the line? I want to be
  • 00:07:08
    sure he's available. There was a discussion during the WMS
  • 00:07:12
    update that I provided where I mentioned our
  • 00:07:16
    discussion from last month that
  • 00:07:20
    Eric Goff had raised an issue about an NPRR to
  • 00:07:24
    be developed to memorialize the large load interconnection
  • 00:07:28
    report and the protocols and balance sharing as much data as possible
  • 00:07:32
    while still protecting customer confidentiality.
  • 00:07:36
    I think we received general support from
  • 00:07:39
    TAC to move forward with those discussions and
  • 00:07:44
    I thought here would be a good time or we
  • 00:07:47
    could put it on the agenda for next month.
  • 00:07:51
    But now I see. Bill, you're in the queue.
  • 00:07:55
    Eric, I also see you're on the, on the chat.
  • 00:07:59
    You're. You're here. Do you want to add anything or do you want to make
  • 00:08:01
    a recommendation as to what WMS might want to do with
  • 00:08:05
    this issue? Sure. So I
  • 00:08:09
    think this can be either in the planning guide or in the protocols.
  • 00:08:13
    And I think it might need one round in a working group
  • 00:08:17
    just to see what level ERCOT believes it
  • 00:08:21
    can disaggregate to at the present moment.
  • 00:08:25
    And I think it needs two pieces. One is
  • 00:08:29
    a requirement for the report where that level of desegregation and
  • 00:08:32
    two is some check in required in
  • 00:08:36
    the rules later on to see if we can disaggregate to a
  • 00:08:39
    lower level, you know, at some future point. So maybe in a year we
  • 00:08:43
    check in and see if we can improve the level of granularity.
  • 00:08:50
    Okay, Bill.
  • 00:08:54
    Highly supportive of that effort to get more transparency out there. I was
  • 00:08:57
    actually in the queue for 1190. Okay,
  • 00:09:01
    I'm glad Eric's on. I just wanted to kind of preview a
  • 00:09:05
    concept that we have discussed since
  • 00:09:09
    this issues come back. And we'll probably be discussing it more at TAC,
  • 00:09:12
    but and it's not fully formed, I know Eric's got some
  • 00:09:16
    views on it, but essentially have some type of protection
  • 00:09:20
    in place where if the cost of HDL overrides exceeds some threshold and that
  • 00:09:24
    triggers some action to take place in
  • 00:09:27
    terms of reviewing what contracts are being approved or something like
  • 00:09:30
    that to help address consumers concerns. So just know that
  • 00:09:34
    there's discussions going on to make sure that the work
  • 00:09:37
    on 1190 is productive. Thanks. And Eric, if you have anything to add, feel free.
  • 00:09:42
    Yeah, go ahead, Eric. Yeah, Bill, I think that's
  • 00:09:45
    a clever idea.
  • 00:09:48
    I think I'd want to think about it before we endorse it some. But it's
  • 00:09:52
    fun to note that that's what we did with
  • 00:09:57
    zonal uplift and with local congestion way
  • 00:10:01
    back in the day. So it's kind of ironic that we're doing it for this
  • 00:10:04
    too. But if it's a small enough amount, you know, since we're arguing about the
  • 00:10:07
    principle of it, that might be
  • 00:10:11
    an okay approach. But I would like to
  • 00:10:15
    kind of memorialize the principles in some fashion
  • 00:10:19
    as well, if we can. But you
  • 00:10:23
    know, I think everyone knows we're talking about a relatively small dollar amount and about
  • 00:10:27
    concepts and principles rather than a huge cost at this
  • 00:10:30
    point. But we are worried about slippery slope and your idea addresses that. I'd also
  • 00:10:34
    want to make sure it covered other kinds
  • 00:10:37
    of generator payments for similar
  • 00:10:43
    situations that were included in the cap and not limited to HDL overrides.
  • 00:10:48
    But I think that's a productive Path that I look forward to
  • 00:10:51
    working with you on and seeing if we can make something work.
  • 00:10:58
    Okay, thank you for working
  • 00:11:01
    on that, Bill. That sounds like a positive step forward.
  • 00:11:05
    So glad to see that. Anything else?
  • 00:11:10
    Anyone wanted to add on anything from TAC?
  • 00:11:14
    David? Yes. Yeah. So was 1190 sent
  • 00:11:18
    to WMS or. No, no, 1190 is
  • 00:11:22
    tabled at tax still. Yeah. Okay. This was just an
  • 00:11:26
    update, but it is good to know that there's some discussions going on
  • 00:11:29
    to try and get that more palatable
  • 00:11:33
    to all the different groups. So thank you.
  • 00:11:37
    Anything else?
  • 00:11:43
    Okay,
  • Item 5 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
    00:11:47
    next on item five we have the ERCOT
  • 00:11:50
    operation and market items. So first we'll have Dan Montania
  • 00:11:54
    with ERCOT give the 2024 Q3
  • 00:11:58
    unregistered DG report.
  • 00:12:04
    Dan, are you on the line?
  • 00:12:19
    Dan, if you're having, you may be having trouble,
  • 00:12:22
    we're not able to hear you.
  • 00:12:25
    Does he have a presentation?
  • 00:12:33
    Okay,
  • 00:12:38
    one more time for Dan. Are you available?
  • 00:12:43
    Okay,
  • 00:12:50
    give him a minute. If see
  • 00:12:55
    we could, we could skip and come back to him.
  • 00:13:02
    Yeah, let's. Is Judy. Judy, are you on the
  • Item 5.2 - 2024 Q3 Settlement Stability Report- Judy Luu
    00:13:05
    line? Hi, I'm here. Okay, let's go
  • 00:13:09
    ahead and move you ahead and do the Q3 settlement stability
  • 00:13:13
    report and then we'll go back to Dan.
  • 00:13:20
    That sounds good.
  • 00:13:27
    Hi, this is Judy, I'm from ERCOT Settlements team. I'll be
  • 00:13:31
    presenting the settlement stability 2024 quarter
  • 00:13:34
    three report. Next slide.
  • 00:13:39
    For this quarter we do not have any price changes.
  • 00:13:45
    Next slide please.
  • 00:13:47
    We do have some resettlements due to non price
  • 00:13:51
    errors due to EPS meter being incorrectly stopped in
  • 00:13:55
    the settlement system. This is for November 15th to
  • 00:13:59
    December 12th of 2023 and we have some links
  • 00:14:02
    to the market notices you guys can access and take a look at.
  • 00:14:09
    Next slide.
  • 00:14:13
    Here are all the disputes
  • 00:14:17
    up to quarter three. 100% of the disputes have been
  • 00:14:26
    resolved timely and
  • 00:14:29
    that's pretty much it. Next slide.
  • 00:14:36
    Here we have percent changes between initial
  • 00:14:41
    to final and final to true up changes.
  • 00:14:49
    Next slide.
  • 00:14:57
    Here we have the real time market average,
  • 00:15:00
    median maximum minimum and total changes in
  • 00:15:04
    the millions for 2011-2024.
  • 00:15:16
    And then for here we have the day ahead.
  • 00:15:20
    Market average median maximum minimum total
  • 00:15:23
    charges in the millions for 2011-2024.
  • 00:15:34
    And here you can see the load volume availability
  • 00:15:38
    percentage for
  • 00:15:43
    the ESI ID consumption data.
  • 00:15:54
    And here we have the ESIID count availability
  • 00:15:57
    percentage.
  • 00:16:09
    Next slide.
  • 00:16:13
    And here we have the net allocation to loan
  • 00:16:17
    in the millions for these settlement areas for
  • 00:16:21
    September 2023 to September 2024.
  • 00:16:34
    And then here we have the net allocation to load Given
  • 00:16:38
    by per congestion management zone for September
  • 00:16:42
    2023 up to September 20.
  • 00:16:58
    And lastly on the left we have securitization default
  • 00:17:02
    charges for the last 13 months.
  • 00:17:07
    And on the right we have securitization uplift charges
  • 00:17:12
    for the past 13 months.
  • 00:17:27
    And that's pretty much it for the settlement
  • 00:17:31
    stability report.
  • 00:17:34
    Okay, thank you Judy. We have a question from Eric Goff.
  • 00:17:39
    Thank you. This is a long answer. Maybe we can answer it
  • 00:17:42
    at like WMS or Meta working group, but how
  • 00:17:46
    did the EPS meter get stopped and is there a control in
  • 00:17:50
    place that failed or do we need a control?
  • 00:17:53
    And again we can talk about this in a working group if you prefer.
  • 00:18:00
    This related to that resettlement slide, I think on slide two or
  • 00:18:03
    three.
  • 00:18:09
    Yeah, this is Randy Roberts. This is Randy Roberts
  • 00:18:13
    and I will, I will take that one. The way the
  • 00:18:17
    reason it got stopped is it was a mistake or got made
  • 00:18:21
    there. We use the sim. We use SIM information
  • 00:18:25
    to help manage generation resources
  • 00:18:29
    and meters getting started and stopped in the settlement system.
  • 00:18:32
    And this was a conversion of a
  • 00:18:35
    site that was moving from a doctor
  • 00:18:40
    or a GR site to a settlement only site.
  • 00:18:43
    And when that happens we actually do remove the EPS meters
  • 00:18:47
    from the sim, our operations model.
  • 00:18:50
    So that information got passed over to the settlement team,
  • 00:18:54
    the data Ag team. And using that information
  • 00:18:58
    we stopped those meters. Even though it's
  • 00:19:02
    still going to be an active site as a settlement only generation site,
  • 00:19:06
    we still needed those EPS meters for settlement, but they just
  • 00:19:09
    got pulled from the model. So we've put three different measures
  • 00:19:13
    in place. Now we can discuss those at a,
  • 00:19:17
    at a WMWG meeting if you would like. But we, we definitely
  • 00:19:21
    put in three measures. Three measures that will should
  • 00:19:25
    prevent that from ever happening again. You said all. I want to hear if
  • 00:19:29
    anybody else wants to hear more about the measures. But Randy, it sounds
  • 00:19:32
    like you're talking. Appreciate it. You're welcome.
  • 00:19:38
    Thank you, Randy. Any other questions for Judy?
  • 00:19:44
    Okay, thank you Judy for the update. Appreciate it. Let's go back
  • 00:19:47
    to unregistered DG report, see if.
  • 00:19:51
    Dan, are you able to hear us?
  • 00:20:10
    Dan? (item:5.1:2024 Q3 Unregistered Distribution Generation - Dan Mantena)
  • 00:20:16
    Dan, you might be double muted your device,
  • 00:20:19
    your phone and then also in the Webex app,
  • 00:20:23
    I believe that unmute command is star6.
  • 00:20:31
    Thanks Brittany. Can you guys hear me? There he is. Yeah,
  • 00:20:34
    yeah, loud and clear. We'll get the presentation put on
  • 00:20:38
    the screen. There we go. Okay,
  • 00:20:41
    great. Thank you.
  • 00:20:45
    Good morning everyone. This is Dan Mantina for the strategy report update.
  • 00:20:50
    So for Q3, the total DG in the
  • 00:20:53
    report is just over 2,700 megawatts. And this is
  • 00:20:58
    the second report that we're excluding the
  • 00:21:01
    DG battery energy storage. So that is at
  • 00:21:05
    73 megawatts at the moment. There was a
  • 00:21:09
    6 megawatt jump between the last quarter and this quarter.
  • 00:21:14
    Next slide please.
  • 00:21:20
    This slide just shows the change between Q2 and Q3.
  • 00:21:23
    So there was 81 megawatts of growth.
  • 00:21:28
    Next slide.
  • 00:21:32
    And then this is just a summary slide showing the growth over time.
  • 00:21:36
    So that is all I had. Are there any questions?
  • 00:21:41
    Okay, any questions for Dan?
  • 00:21:47
    All right, thank you so much. Appreciate the update.
  • Item 5.3 - CDR Mockup and NPRR1219 Implementation - Pete Warnken
    00:21:51
    Next we have the CDR mockup and NPRR1219 implementation
  • 00:21:56
    with Pete Warrington. Are you on the line?
  • 00:22:00
    Yeah. Good morning. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes,
  • 00:22:02
    sir. Great.
  • 00:22:08
    All right, so this mockup was shown
  • 00:22:12
    at the Supply Analysis Working Group meeting.
  • 00:22:15
    So there are a couple of changes made subsequent to
  • 00:22:19
    that. So let's start with the
  • 00:22:23
    first tab. It says NPRR1219 changes.
  • 00:22:29
    So this is just for reference information.
  • 00:22:32
    This shows all the different changes that are going to be implemented
  • 00:22:36
    in the CDR report. I don't need to go
  • 00:22:40
    through those now. You can go through that looking
  • 00:22:45
    at the mock up file later on. But you
  • 00:22:48
    know, for the main changes we've got effective load carrying
  • 00:22:51
    capabilities and a major change in how we present the
  • 00:22:55
    unit details table. So that's really sort of
  • 00:22:59
    the main things I wanted to share with you.
  • 00:23:01
    So, Brittany, let's go to the executive
  • 00:23:06
    summary tab in green and
  • 00:23:11
    then scroll to the top. So our intent
  • 00:23:15
    here is to emulate what we do for the
  • 00:23:18
    Mora reports in terms of an executive summary.
  • 00:23:22
    So what we're going to be doing is having some bulleted text,
  • 00:23:27
    mostly canned language, and then update that,
  • 00:23:30
    you know, for each CDR. Again,
  • 00:23:33
    this is much, much easier, I think, to follow what's going on from
  • 00:23:37
    one CDR to the next because you're going to have, you know, a standard,
  • 00:23:41
    you know, reporting format. And then we also intend to have
  • 00:23:44
    some nice graphics. In this example, I'm showing
  • 00:23:48
    the planning reserve margin. Brittany, you could scroll just a
  • 00:23:52
    little bit down.
  • 00:24:02
    So this is just an example of what we can report.
  • 00:24:05
    This is the, you know, the planning reserve margins for
  • 00:24:09
    summer and winter. And the two different lines in each chart
  • 00:24:13
    represent what you would see for the peak load hour.
  • 00:24:17
    That's in blue. And then the orange line would be the peak
  • 00:24:21
    net load hour reporting since we're going to be including that
  • 00:24:24
    in the CDR, both views. So this is just an example of
  • 00:24:27
    what we might provide. Again, we might have something
  • 00:24:31
    different than this, but this is just to give you an idea of the types
  • 00:24:34
    of visuals we want to provide in here. Again,
  • 00:24:37
    this is divided into different categories. So we'll talk about the load
  • 00:24:41
    forecast, what's happening on the resource side,
  • 00:24:44
    you know, new developments and then, you know, overall things that
  • 00:24:48
    we're seeing as far as emerging risks down the
  • 00:24:51
    road. And then one important change to note here
  • 00:24:54
    is that we're going to be reporting for just five years.
  • 00:24:59
    For beyond five years, we'll provide load
  • 00:25:02
    forecast information. But again,
  • 00:25:05
    the main focus for the CDR is the first five years because beyond
  • 00:25:09
    that we don't have good resource information in
  • 00:25:13
    terms of plan projects because they really don't go beyond five
  • 00:25:17
    years. So and the idea is, you know, let's focus on
  • 00:25:21
    the years where we have, you know, good, relatively good data
  • 00:25:24
    and not on the back end set of years where again,
  • 00:25:28
    a lot of that would be speculative.
  • 00:25:31
    All right, let's move on to the spring summer.
  • 00:25:34
    Pete, do you want to take questions as you go or do you save
  • 00:25:38
    them up? We have a Bill Barnes says we can wait till after
  • 00:25:42
    Pete's done. Okay, we'll just wait and hold the questions. Thank you.
  • 00:25:47
    All right. Okay.
  • 00:25:50
    Brittany? Yes, just go to the spring summary tab in yellow.
  • 00:26:00
    So we're going to have ultimately have four tabs for
  • 00:26:04
    each of the four seasons. And you'll
  • 00:26:07
    see the layout here. This is columns D
  • 00:26:10
    through F. So column D is the
  • 00:26:14
    traditional peak load hour information resource availabilities,
  • 00:26:19
    load forecast, etc. And then column E there
  • 00:26:23
    again, this would be the peak net load hour view.
  • 00:26:27
    And we'll have that for each of the five years.
  • 00:26:30
    And then we have separate tabs for each of the seasons.
  • 00:26:35
    The December CDR, we're only going to be reporting on
  • 00:26:38
    the summer and winter, the spring and fall tabs, Those will
  • 00:26:42
    be fully populated next year for the May CDR.
  • 00:26:47
    And just to point out some new line item
  • 00:26:51
    changes or new line items, you'll see row 14,
  • 00:26:55
    we're including distribution voltage reduction. So there's
  • 00:26:59
    going to be an estimate of that. Again, that's a new line item
  • 00:27:03
    that's being reported. And then, Brittany, if you could scroll down
  • 00:27:06
    a little bit more to the resource section there in green.
  • 00:27:17
    Great. So you'll see here
  • 00:27:20
    in red font there I've got just
  • 00:27:26
    a reorganization of the information
  • 00:27:29
    for inverter based resources. Again, this is
  • 00:27:33
    just grouping everything together just to be more convenient.
  • 00:27:37
    But you'll see there we've got again the three wind zones,
  • 00:27:41
    coastal panhandle and other. And then new for
  • 00:27:44
    the CDRs is we're having three new solar regions.
  • 00:27:48
    So those are defined as far west, west other.
  • 00:27:52
    And then we got the energy storage line item as
  • 00:27:56
    well there. So that's all inverter based resource information
  • 00:28:00
    and keep scrolling down.
  • 00:28:09
    Okay, that's good.
  • 00:28:13
    Up a little bit. Thank you.
  • 00:28:17
    So for the planned resource additions, the layout is
  • 00:28:21
    similar to the, you know, the operational resources.
  • 00:28:25
    Another change is we're adding what's called unconfirmed retirements.
  • 00:28:29
    So this is information that we included in the current CDR,
  • 00:28:34
    but we are now incorporating those in the reserve
  • 00:28:37
    margin calculations. So we're assuming that
  • 00:28:40
    a planned unconfirmed retirement is something
  • 00:28:44
    equivalent to like a planned resource. So for these planned
  • 00:28:48
    resources, if we have a retirement, we're going to net that out.
  • 00:28:51
    So you'll see that netting out in row 53
  • 00:28:55
    there, planned generation capacity total. And then in
  • 00:28:58
    red there, net of unconfirmed planned retirements.
  • 00:29:07
    Okay, let's scroll over to the
  • 00:29:11
    unit details tab.
  • 00:29:22
    That's it. So a big change you're
  • 00:29:25
    going to see here is we're no longer going to report
  • 00:29:29
    groupings of resources and you know,
  • 00:29:32
    headers. Everything is going to be in a flat file
  • 00:29:37
    format which is similar to what we do for
  • 00:29:41
    the generation interconnection status report.
  • 00:29:45
    So again mirroring that, we've got notes section
  • 00:29:49
    up at the top. And then in the unit detail section,
  • 00:29:53
    the key change here is we're going to have two new columns which
  • 00:29:59
    label each of the, you know, the units by attribute
  • 00:30:03
    or CDR status. So Brittany,
  • 00:30:07
    if you could highlight column F.
  • 00:30:18
    Okay. And then if you could scroll down a little bit,
  • 00:30:21
    there's, there's some acronym definitions
  • 00:30:25
    down below there. So what this column
  • 00:30:29
    is going to have is for status you're going
  • 00:30:33
    to have a designation for operational,
  • 00:30:36
    that's O, P, E R. And then you'll have,
  • 00:30:40
    you know, extended outage. Again though, that's something that's already in the CDR but
  • 00:30:44
    it's in its own section. So that will be identified by
  • 00:30:48
    an acronym ext, dash out and then
  • 00:30:53
    operational synchronized units. So those
  • 00:30:56
    are units that are, you know, have been synchronized but
  • 00:31:00
    they haven't been fully gone through the testing
  • 00:31:05
    qualification, testing. So they're operational.
  • 00:31:08
    But again it's just a different category of operational resources.
  • 00:31:13
    And then this column can have a value to designate a unit
  • 00:31:16
    as being mothball. So again there's two flavors of that.
  • 00:31:20
    There's mothball sea, which is a seasonal mothball,
  • 00:31:25
    and then moth ind,
  • 00:31:28
    which is an indefinitely mothballed unit. And then
  • 00:31:32
    we've got a code or acronym for plant plan.
  • 00:31:37
    And then if the unit is being repowered. This is an
  • 00:31:41
    existing unit, that's plan rpr.
  • 00:31:47
    And then finally in this list here we have units that are
  • 00:31:50
    planned but are inactive. So that's plan
  • 00:31:54
    ina.
  • 00:31:57
    And then if you could, and then
  • 00:32:01
    column G there, that designates the dates that would be associated with
  • 00:32:04
    outages. And then mothball units. So this
  • 00:32:08
    is an addition from what we showed to SAWG. So it's a new column.
  • 00:32:13
    Okay, then let's move over to column H.
  • 00:32:22
    Okay, so this column identifies, you know,
  • 00:32:26
    various attributes that have previously have been,
  • 00:32:29
    you know, identified as a grouping of resources.
  • 00:32:33
    So for conventional resources it's
  • 00:32:37
    conv and I'm looking at the acronym
  • 00:32:40
    list down below there and each of the rows
  • 00:32:44
    in the table here, that's just a sample row taken from the last CDR,
  • 00:32:48
    just to give examples of what each of these line items would
  • 00:32:52
    look like. So for the
  • 00:32:55
    dct, that's pretty obvious DC tie.
  • 00:32:59
    So that's the identifier for that. And then
  • 00:33:03
    we've been categorizing distributed generation
  • 00:33:06
    resources, DGRs, so we'll have a code for those.
  • 00:33:11
    And then we have two flavors of private use network generators.
  • 00:33:15
    So just the PUN is your typical PUN generator.
  • 00:33:21
    And then we also have an aggregate line
  • 00:33:24
    item which is what we've had in the CDR on a regular basis.
  • 00:33:28
    So for the, for the pun,
  • 00:33:31
    we're going to begin reporting each of the pun units.
  • 00:33:34
    So you'll see a lot more rows in here
  • 00:33:38
    and those will be the individual pun units. However, we still
  • 00:33:42
    aren't going to be reporting, you know, the individual capacities.
  • 00:33:47
    So you're going to see the aggregate
  • 00:33:50
    capacity in the line item with the attribute pund
  • 00:33:54
    agr. And then, you know, at some point we want to be
  • 00:33:57
    able to report everything, but that would have to be in a future NPRR.
  • 00:34:03
    And then we're also going to identify some distribution resources. So those
  • 00:34:07
    are the settlement only variety sodg.
  • 00:34:11
    And then we've got switchable generation resources,
  • 00:34:15
    again the two at the bottom of that box. So you've
  • 00:34:19
    got the ones that are available and then you've got the ones
  • 00:34:22
    that aren't available. So ABA and then
  • 00:34:26
    UNA are the two types.
  • 00:34:30
    And then Brittany? Yeah, if you could go to the very top and then scroll
  • 00:34:34
    over a bit to the right to show, you know, the capacities.
  • 00:34:46
    Okay, that's good. So what we're going
  • 00:34:49
    to be doing is consolidating the capacity
  • 00:34:53
    reporting in this unit. Details table.
  • 00:34:56
    So previously we would have like a winter and summer tab,
  • 00:35:00
    but we're going to include all the capacities in just one table. And I think
  • 00:35:03
    that will make it easier, more convenient, and also easier
  • 00:35:07
    for us to update. So again, you'll have a set of columns for
  • 00:35:10
    spring and each of the other seasons
  • 00:35:14
    as well.
  • 00:35:20
    Yep. So that's, that's the layout for that.
  • 00:35:24
    And then we're going to be including some additional tables
  • 00:35:28
    that you haven't seen before. So, Brittany, if you could scroll
  • 00:35:31
    over to the tab to the right of unit details.
  • 00:35:40
    Okay, so in the previous CDRs,
  • 00:35:44
    we had a tab that shows changes since the
  • 00:35:48
    previous CDR. So we're getting rid
  • 00:35:51
    of that and we're including in that information in other
  • 00:35:55
    tabs. So this tab is all the
  • 00:35:59
    new resources that have become eligible to be included in the CDR.
  • 00:36:03
    So you'll see notes up at the top and then the table below that's
  • 00:36:07
    similar to what you've seen below or in previous CDRs.
  • 00:36:11
    And then major changes to the CDR. We'll include that
  • 00:36:14
    in the executive summary.
  • 00:36:18
    Okay, next tab.
  • 00:36:27
    So in the Mora reports, we have a tab
  • 00:36:31
    that lists the total install capacity ratings
  • 00:36:35
    by fuel or technology type. So what we intend
  • 00:36:38
    to do is create a similar table for the CDR.
  • 00:36:42
    So you'll see that this is pretty much identical to what you see in the
  • 00:36:45
    Morwer reports. The big difference though is that
  • 00:36:49
    for battery storage we're going to include
  • 00:36:53
    a breakout by duration. So you'll see in rows
  • 00:36:57
    27 through 29, for example,
  • 00:37:00
    again, this would be broken out by duration category.
  • 00:37:04
    One hour left, one hour to four hours, and greater than four
  • 00:37:07
    hours. So again, those will be aggregate numbers.
  • 00:37:11
    And we think this is a good set of ranges
  • 00:37:15
    to report. But a final decision hasn't been made.
  • 00:37:20
    So again, if anyone has any comments about what
  • 00:37:23
    duration ranges make sense, and again, we don't want to have
  • 00:37:26
    too much detail. I mean, you can go literally
  • 00:37:31
    every hour duration for every hour. But again, that we
  • 00:37:34
    don't think that's necessary. But we'd certainly like to get comments about
  • 00:37:38
    that. Okay,
  • 00:37:41
    next tab.
  • 00:37:51
    So this tab is called Load Resource
  • 00:37:55
    Scenarios. So this is an example of
  • 00:37:59
    what we could report. ERCOT hasn't made a final decision
  • 00:38:04
    about what to report in this tab and
  • 00:38:07
    how we're going to label things. But this example shows
  • 00:38:11
    what we're calling total regional transmission plan load up at the
  • 00:38:15
    top. So that's rows four
  • 00:38:18
    through seven. So again, this would include what
  • 00:38:23
    we call the officer letter loads, and that would be included
  • 00:38:27
    in the, you know, the regional transmission plan load forecast.
  • 00:38:31
    So this is comparable to the roughly 140 to 150
  • 00:38:35
    gig numbers that have been reported to RPG.
  • 00:38:40
    And then this is a consolidated or condensed
  • 00:38:44
    version of the reserve margin calculation. So we have have the load
  • 00:38:48
    pieces up at the top and then all the generation
  • 00:38:52
    line items are starting at 8 through 13 there.
  • 00:38:56
    And then the planning reserve margin in row
  • 00:38:59
    14. And then this is divided into two seasons.
  • 00:39:04
    Table one is summer, table two, starting in
  • 00:39:07
    row 16 is winter. And again as
  • 00:39:11
    I said before, this is still in development. So what you actually
  • 00:39:15
    see in the December CDR might look different than this.
  • 00:39:20
    Okay, next tab.
  • 00:39:28
    So we're going to be reporting ELCC values
  • 00:39:33
    and this is a rather complicated table but
  • 00:39:36
    basically it's by, you know, time period and by resource
  • 00:39:40
    type. And you'll see here that again we've
  • 00:39:44
    got the five years of reporting
  • 00:39:47
    again broken out by season in row seven
  • 00:39:51
    and then by risk period. So again we have
  • 00:39:55
    a morning, afternoon and evening risk period designated
  • 00:40:00
    and some of the risk periods aren't applicable to certain seasons.
  • 00:40:04
    So that's why you see that NA code in there.
  • 00:40:08
    But the bottom line is we're going to show all these for all of the
  • 00:40:12
    inverter based resource types, the wind,
  • 00:40:15
    solar, and then you'll see battery energy storage systems.
  • 00:40:19
    So we're going to report these for different durations.
  • 00:40:23
    So you'll see that we've got. Brittany, if you could scroll down just a
  • 00:40:26
    little bit.
  • 00:40:32
    So we're going to have a row for each one hour
  • 00:40:36
    increment of duration. And these
  • 00:40:40
    are going to be used in the calculations of the, you know,
  • 00:40:44
    the capacity contribution to solar, wind and
  • 00:40:47
    battery energy storage. And so you're going to see the value differ,
  • 00:40:52
    you know, for all these different time periods. And then,
  • 00:40:56
    you know, one recommendation at SAWG again was to provide more
  • 00:41:00
    details about what ELCC are, you know,
  • 00:41:03
    how they're calculated and how to interpret those.
  • 00:41:06
    So at the end of this workbook there's
  • 00:41:10
    a background tab and we're going to have a lengthy explanation
  • 00:41:14
    of ELCCs. Obviously it's
  • 00:41:17
    a new and more complicated concept than we've had before in the CDR.
  • 00:41:24
    And so if you've got tons of questions.
  • 00:41:28
    Almost done here. So yeah, next tab and
  • 00:41:40
    then scroll over some more. So there's a section of tabs
  • 00:41:44
    that I'm calling documentation. So again
  • 00:41:48
    there's an acronyms tab. You'll see all that. The CDR status
  • 00:41:52
    and the attributes that I reviewed with you again
  • 00:41:55
    up at the top is sort of a general set.
  • 00:42:05
    And then the next tab over the definitions tab.
  • 00:42:09
    So this is the same as you've seen previously again it will
  • 00:42:13
    be updated, you know, to reflect, you know, additional concepts
  • 00:42:17
    and definitions that we include for again,
  • 00:42:20
    CDRs going forward. Next tab.
  • 00:42:32
    This is a new tab and what it does is it shows
  • 00:42:36
    you how we map all the counties in
  • 00:42:39
    the ERCOT region to the wind regions
  • 00:42:43
    and the new solar regions. We get a lot of
  • 00:42:47
    questions about that and this is kind of a convenient way,
  • 00:42:50
    you know, to see how that mapping is. And again,
  • 00:42:53
    you can sort it and filter it the way you want, but I thought this
  • 00:42:57
    would be helpful reference information for readers.
  • 00:43:00
    And then the last tab, as I mentioned already, is the background
  • 00:43:04
    tab. So again we'll mention ELCC
  • 00:43:08
    and again the CDR,
  • 00:43:11
    just how to interpret it. Again, we'll focus on the,
  • 00:43:15
    you know, the peak load hour view versus the net peak load hour
  • 00:43:19
    view because that again, that's one of the biggest changes as well. So we'll,
  • 00:43:23
    we'll have a pretty lengthy section of a background information.
  • 00:43:29
    So that's the mock up, I guess. Let's turn it over to the
  • 00:43:33
    questions. Yeah, you have a queue
  • 00:43:36
    that's building up. So start with Bill Barnes.
  • 00:43:41
    Thanks, Pete. Appreciate the work on this. What a huge
  • 00:43:45
    improvement over what we currently have. Aren't we
  • 00:43:49
    glad as stakeholders that we proved this NPRR when we did so.
  • 00:43:54
    Hi Diana, I just wanted
  • 00:43:58
    to ask a couple questions about one. Obviously, Pete, you've heard this from
  • 00:44:01
    me numerous times, the load forecast.
  • 00:44:05
    And I thought you guys were going to convene maybe at the end of October
  • 00:44:09
    to figure out what load specifically what
  • 00:44:12
    large load you're going to include in the base forecast,
  • 00:44:16
    particularly on those, the main seasonal tabs.
  • 00:44:22
    Any, any update on that?
  • 00:44:27
    We've been having some ongoing discussions and we're going
  • 00:44:31
    to have to come to a conclusion fairly quickly. Obviously,
  • 00:44:35
    we'll certainly let you know at the next SAWG meeting and
  • 00:44:39
    WMS exactly what's happening with that.
  • 00:44:43
    But the bottom line is we're going to have no two views.
  • 00:44:46
    So again we're going to have the transition planning
  • 00:44:50
    forecast and then we'll have something else. But in
  • 00:44:54
    terms of what we're doing, all the official forecast.
  • 00:44:58
    Yeah, we're still working on that. So yeah, I don't have
  • 00:45:01
    any update on that. Two views
  • 00:45:04
    on these tabs. Like the,
  • 00:45:08
    I'm a little bit confused about what you're trying to articulate.
  • 00:45:12
    There'll be two summers.
  • 00:45:16
    Yeah. So for example, on the summer summary tab that
  • 00:45:20
    you see here, we will designate a forecast
  • 00:45:24
    as the official forecast.
  • 00:45:27
    So we'll use that in this tab, the breakdown.
  • 00:45:31
    So the question is whether that's Going to be the transmission
  • 00:45:35
    planning numbers or it could be
  • 00:45:39
    something like just including the contracted loads.
  • 00:45:43
    So that decision is still being worked on.
  • 00:45:47
    But you know, in that scenario tab that I showed you, that would
  • 00:45:50
    have, you know, the alternate scenario numbers.
  • 00:45:54
    So again, you can compare those, what the impact is, you know,
  • 00:45:57
    to the reserve margins of that. So we're going to have, you know, at least
  • 00:46:01
    two forecasts in here, you know, more than, more than likely.
  • 00:46:05
    But again, that decision, you know, still needs to be made.
  • 00:46:10
    Okay. And then you kind of skipped over it, but there's
  • 00:46:14
    a couple black tabs at the bottom that. Data tables.
  • 00:46:18
    We know what's going to be in there or
  • 00:46:22
    is that just a marker? The data table?
  • 00:46:26
    Yeah, yeah. Again, that's just,
  • 00:46:30
    just kind of, you know, indicating the set of tables. Okay.
  • 00:46:34
    Basically everything, everything in, in yellow there. Those are
  • 00:46:37
    the data tables. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it, Pete.
  • 00:46:41
    Yeah, thank you, Pete. Thank you, Bill. Let's go to Ian.
  • 00:46:44
    Ian, you're up. Thank you, Pete. Very excited about the new
  • 00:46:48
    data and can't tell you how many times I struggled with the old
  • 00:46:52
    format. So the flat data is fantastic.
  • 00:46:55
    Good. Yeah,
  • 00:46:59
    yeah, my.
  • 00:47:02
    Yeah. Okay. So the, my only
  • 00:47:06
    concern though on that table, Pete, is when you
  • 00:47:10
    are including those statuses that are now so detailed
  • 00:47:14
    and also expected outage timelines that you
  • 00:47:18
    are very clear somewhere on there that what
  • 00:47:22
    date that snapshot is.
  • 00:47:26
    Just so in case there is a slight delay
  • 00:47:29
    from the time you are taking it to the time we're receiving it. We understand
  • 00:47:33
    what that is. And then my
  • 00:47:36
    other question was, I apologize if I missed this. Is there anything
  • 00:47:40
    about battery co location limiting
  • 00:47:45
    potential output?
  • 00:47:50
    So we'll be tackling the
  • 00:47:56
    sls. So again, those would be, you know,
  • 00:48:00
    you know, limited, you know, batteries.
  • 00:48:03
    Yep. Self limited batteries. Right.
  • 00:48:05
    So we will be accounting for those in
  • 00:48:09
    these numbers. So yes, you know, to answer your question,
  • 00:48:13
    we will be accounting for those units and what the impact will be on.
  • 00:48:16
    On what capacity gets reported. And we're going to be making changes
  • 00:48:20
    to the. Yeah, the generator interconnection status report.
  • 00:48:24
    So we have a separate report that shows, you know, co located batteries.
  • 00:48:28
    So, you know, at some point we're going to have all that information in the
  • 00:48:31
    GIS report rather than broken out in a separate report.
  • 00:48:35
    But yeah, we're going to identify, you know, continue to identify,
  • 00:48:38
    you know, what battery storage units are, you know,
  • 00:48:42
    SLs. Okay. And that's
  • 00:48:46
    in the CDR or will I have to toggle between the CDR
  • 00:48:49
    and old GIS reports?
  • 00:48:54
    We'll identify those in the CDR perfect.
  • 00:48:58
    And so the CDR will have both the limited amount
  • 00:49:02
    and also the nameplate amount in it.
  • 00:49:06
    We haven't decided exactly how we want to display that information.
  • 00:49:10
    Again, currently the way it's handled and this is actually going
  • 00:49:13
    to be in the December CDR is, you know, the SLF
  • 00:49:17
    is going to be in the battery name. And so
  • 00:49:21
    again we may have, let's say a note for
  • 00:49:26
    a cell and it may, you know, designate that, that you know what the capacity
  • 00:49:29
    is for that you know what the, what the self limited
  • 00:49:33
    capacity amount is. So we'll have to do that
  • 00:49:37
    for the December CDR. So that'll be a little bit of a manual process.
  • 00:49:40
    And then once we get, you know, Rio set up with all the
  • 00:49:44
    information that we need, then all that will be automated and
  • 00:49:48
    we'll account for that, you know, in a better way going forward.
  • 00:49:52
    Okay, Pete, thank you very much. I would encourage you guys
  • 00:49:56
    to in future CDRs have both values clearly
  • 00:50:00
    in there just so we as a market can think about
  • 00:50:07
    the ramp times where those batteries may not be limited but are severely needed.
  • 00:50:11
    Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Ian.
  • 00:50:15
    Next is Brian Sams.
  • 00:50:19
    Hey Pete, good morning. Back to the load forecast.
  • 00:50:23
    It sounds to me like that there
  • 00:50:27
    will be some update of the long term peak demand and energy forecast
  • 00:50:31
    that was updated by ERCOT back in July.
  • 00:50:36
    That's a question.
  • 00:50:41
    Yes. So there will be an updated load forecast coming
  • 00:50:45
    up. So that that was explained at the SAWG meeting.
  • 00:50:49
    You're not going to see any differences in contracts.
  • 00:50:54
    We're preparing again a new survey which will
  • 00:50:57
    be going out beginning of next year.
  • 00:51:01
    So you'll see an updated forecast but those will reflect, you know,
  • 00:51:05
    certainly, you know, the economic drivers and other things and
  • 00:51:09
    the large loads that will be updated for next year's load forecast.
  • 00:51:14
    Do you expect that to be posted prior to the CDR?
  • 00:51:18
    Will this all kind of be posted at the same time?
  • 00:51:23
    I'm not sure what the sequence will be on
  • 00:51:27
    that. I'll have to get back to you on it.
  • 00:51:32
    You know, I presume that, you know, the CDR would have the, you know,
  • 00:51:35
    obviously the data, the detailed information and then
  • 00:51:40
    I think maybe follow up on that, you'll see all the forecast files
  • 00:51:44
    that would get posted to ERCOT.com but yeah,
  • 00:51:47
    I'll have to get back to you in terms of what the, you know,
  • 00:51:49
    the specific timeline is.
  • 00:51:52
    Okay, I appreciate that. And just like on the
  • 00:51:56
    load resource scenario tab where you're saying
  • 00:52:00
    that, you know, ERCOT hasn't decided on the contents and labeling just
  • 00:52:04
    to the extent that it's possible to either have links
  • 00:52:08
    or some kind of narrative that shows where the forecast
  • 00:52:13
    since there will be multiple forecasts could
  • 00:52:17
    be located that I think would be beneficial to the reader
  • 00:52:22
    and just helpful generally because
  • 00:52:25
    I think there's a lot of market confusion about the different
  • 00:52:29
    forecasts. Yeah,
  • 00:52:33
    agreed. And the background tab is the perfect spot
  • 00:52:36
    for that. Great. Thank you so much.
  • 00:52:41
    Thank you Brian. Sure. Shane, you're up.
  • 00:52:45
    Shane Thomas Shelley yeah. First start off by echoing everyone's
  • 00:52:49
    appreciation for all the work of your team, Pete. It's tremendous amount of work that's
  • 00:52:52
    gone into putting this new version of the CDR and all the more Been
  • 00:52:56
    a busy year for you guys.
  • 00:53:00
    Then I'll go into the low level stuff.
  • 00:53:03
    Echoing our concerns with having
  • 00:53:08
    enough detail in the CDR reports potentially in that background tab
  • 00:53:13
    sounds well of just describing exactly what's
  • 00:53:17
    included in those calculations when it comes to the officer
  • 00:53:20
    letters and percentages of large flexible loads and things like
  • 00:53:24
    that. He said, I think
  • 00:53:28
    that one of the forecasts is going to be the transmission planning
  • 00:53:34
    load forecast. That's one. Is that the
  • 00:53:37
    one that will be using 50% of the officer letters?
  • 00:53:49
    Well, I guess what, yeah, whatever is in the transmission
  • 00:53:55
    planning forecast that would reflect that. So I
  • 00:54:00
    mean that would include all the officer letter loads
  • 00:54:04
    in terms of what percentage of that is. Yeah, I'm not
  • 00:54:08
    sure exactly what will be in the
  • 00:54:11
    CDR. Again, I think the whole issue of what we're going to be reporting
  • 00:54:15
    needs to be decided. So yeah, I can't, can't comment on
  • 00:54:19
    percentages of officer letter loads that
  • 00:54:22
    are included and that's a load forecasting team
  • 00:54:26
    question and I can certainly forward that on to them.
  • 00:54:30
    Okay. I mean as long as there's good information in the
  • 00:54:33
    CDR that describes how they're used in the calculations, I think it'll be
  • 00:54:37
    very insightful for everyone absorbing this.
  • 00:54:41
    Yeah, yeah. And also there's going to be a methodology document.
  • 00:54:47
    Right. That's going to be posted when the CDR is released
  • 00:54:51
    or you know, shortly thereafter hopefully. But that
  • 00:54:54
    will have a lot of details on it as well. So you know,
  • 00:54:57
    between the CDR itself and the methodology document,
  • 00:55:01
    I think that will be sufficient documentation and plus
  • 00:55:05
    you know, other presentations by the load forecasting team to
  • 00:55:08
    address any questions. So yeah, there should be plenty of material and background
  • 00:55:12
    for everyone. One awesome, thank you so much.
  • 00:55:17
    Sure. Other question I had was
  • 00:55:20
    on the ELCCs you mentioned having them listed for, you know,
  • 00:55:23
    morning, afternoon and evening time frames.
  • 00:55:29
    Well, you're. Are you going to list the times
  • 00:55:33
    that those are associated with or is it like, do you know if it's a,
  • 00:55:38
    is morning 6am to 10am or is it
  • 00:55:41
    going to be like 9? Is it based on a single time
  • 00:55:45
    frame or is it based
  • 00:55:48
    on when we expect like a morning peak versus the evening peak?
  • 00:55:53
    Right, right. Well, that's actually, that's actually a
  • 00:55:56
    good question. And because this is
  • 00:56:00
    really dependent on the out the output of the model runs that
  • 00:56:04
    are being used to come up with the ELCC, that's a little bit squishy.
  • 00:56:09
    So the ELCC study is
  • 00:56:13
    being wrapped up within the next couple of weeks and
  • 00:56:17
    once we see all the output there, then we can determine what
  • 00:56:21
    we're talking about in terms of specific hour ranges
  • 00:56:25
    because risk can bleed across hours.
  • 00:56:28
    So it could be a case where we
  • 00:56:32
    might have to, you know, come up with some adjustments
  • 00:56:35
    to the ELCC fees. You know, for example, you know,
  • 00:56:38
    if we see, see them change,
  • 00:56:43
    let's say from one hour to the next and that, that's pretty, you know,
  • 00:56:45
    clear cut. But again, if things kind of bleed
  • 00:56:49
    over where the value is really covering,
  • 00:56:52
    let's say the, you know, the end of the afternoon and the beginning of the
  • 00:56:55
    evening. So those are, those are
  • 00:56:59
    questions that we'll have to get on top of after we see the ELCC
  • 00:57:03
    study. But we'll definitely have that information.
  • 00:57:06
    So again, we'll post the ELCC study
  • 00:57:09
    and again in the background section we'll describe any methodology
  • 00:57:14
    that we need to apply to get the different risk period
  • 00:57:18
    values put together.
  • 00:57:21
    Okay. And for the timing of the ELCC study,
  • 00:57:25
    is that going to be at the next SAWG or is that.
  • 00:57:28
    Yes, yes, it is that. That's the plan.
  • 00:57:35
    All right, thank you, Pete. Sure. Thank you.
  • 00:57:40
    Next. Dave Dietelich,
  • 00:57:44
    Sir. Thank you. I'll echo.
  • 00:57:47
    I do. I like the new format as well.
  • 00:57:51
    Thank you for your work on this. On the CDR status,
  • 00:57:54
    a couple of questions. So the,
  • 00:57:57
    you know, you said you're identifying the unction firm plan retirements
  • 00:58:01
    and the capacity pending retirement on the summaries.
  • 00:58:04
    Is that, is that going to be listed on the unit
  • 00:58:08
    details page? As far as which units those are, is that
  • 00:58:12
    a CDR status or.
  • 00:58:14
    Yes. Okay, that will
  • 00:58:19
    be, that will be exactly right. So yeah, again, that,
  • 00:58:22
    that will be. Again, it's a, it's a, it'll be a planned unit.
  • 00:58:27
    That, that one might not be set up yet in the mockup.
  • 00:58:31
    We, I don't think I've, you know, identified that one, but that
  • 00:58:35
    will be included. So again, we're going to have the, you know.
  • 00:58:38
    Well actually maybe I did include that something to think of it. Yeah. Brittany,
  • 00:58:41
    could you, could you go to.
  • 00:58:45
    Yeah, go to the unit details table.
  • 00:58:51
    We have a fill in for Britney. So hold on
  • 00:58:55
    one second.
  • 00:58:59
    Matt is multitasking I
  • 00:59:10
    think now very aggressively.
  • 00:59:14
    I wonder if this is consistent with ERCOT policies
  • 00:59:17
    on sharing. But I'm not going to say anything.
  • 00:59:21
    Good point. Well,
  • 00:59:25
    I mean everything that's in here, I mean is public.
  • 00:59:29
    So you know, an unconfirmed retirement that
  • 00:59:33
    has to be backed up by, you know, some public information.
  • 00:59:37
    Again whether it's, you know, an epa,
  • 00:59:40
    some sort of EPA agreement or you know,
  • 00:59:44
    some public announcement or a resource plan or something like that.
  • 00:59:48
    So you know, that's really the bottom line there. And then, you know,
  • 00:59:51
    we'll contact the companies and try to get more detail about that
  • 00:59:55
    unconfirmed retirement and certainly the reporting,
  • 00:59:58
    any reporting limitations of that before we include that in here.
  • 01:00:02
    So. So yeah, it's presumed that that's
  • 01:00:05
    public information and that again there's
  • 01:00:09
    a, you know, stamp of approval from the company to, you know,
  • 01:00:12
    to reflect that information in the CDR.
  • 01:00:16
    Okay, so yeah,
  • 01:00:22
    identifying those units.
  • 01:00:26
    Oh yeah, yeah, right, exactly. So we're
  • 01:00:29
    getting rid of that. So yeah,
  • 01:00:33
    unconfirmed retirements would be in the unit details table.
  • 01:00:38
    And then one thing I did want to mention which actually you
  • 01:00:41
    reminded me about is we did have a tab that
  • 01:00:45
    listed all the retired units, decommissioned units.
  • 01:00:49
    So we got rid of that and we're going to be posting a separate
  • 01:00:53
    report, we're thinking on a quarterly basis.
  • 01:00:57
    So you'd get actually, you know, more updated
  • 01:01:01
    information than you would from the CDR. So it would be like a
  • 01:01:04
    decommissioning report. So it would be similar to the tab
  • 01:01:08
    that you see in the CDR except it will
  • 01:01:11
    be its own report and then obviously updated more frequently.
  • 01:01:15
    So did want to bring that up.
  • 01:01:21
    So yeah, I just want to see if I've got the unconfirmed in
  • 01:01:24
    here. I don't recall. Yeah, if you could scroll to the
  • 01:01:28
    left and
  • 01:01:42
    then. Okay, that's good. And then scroll down below. I wanted to see what I
  • 01:01:46
    have in the text box under CDR
  • 01:01:50
    status. So that's column F.
  • 01:01:56
    I'm thinking. I don't have that in here yet.
  • 01:02:06
    Okay, yeah, I don't have that. But yeah, I'll mark that as
  • 01:02:09
    undo.
  • 01:02:12
    Yeah, we'll have a code for that.
  • 01:02:16
    Thank you. On the inactive planned.
  • 01:02:20
    Inactive, would that be the same units that are on the inactive tab
  • 01:02:24
    of the GIS report? The gis,
  • 01:02:28
    yeah. Yes it would. That's right.
  • 01:02:32
    Okay. Is that capacity going to be excluded from the planned,
  • 01:02:37
    renewable or planned on the
  • 01:02:40
    summaries or is that going to be included?
  • 01:02:43
    Yes, yeah, we're. That capacity
  • 01:02:47
    is going to be excluded.
  • 01:02:50
    Okay, great.
  • 01:02:55
    All right, thank you, Appreciate your help. Thank you, David.
  • 01:02:58
    Bill Barnes. Yeah, Pete, back on the load. I'm just wondering,
  • 01:03:03
    it sounds like you guys are still trying to make a determination on
  • 01:03:07
    the non contracted loads and I was just wondering why
  • 01:03:11
    that's the case. We've had numerous discussions through
  • 01:03:15
    RPG on how the loads that are
  • 01:03:19
    non contracted but backed by TSP officer letters have
  • 01:03:23
    been vetted by TSPs and obviously a high
  • 01:03:26
    level of confidence. Those are real loads. I'm just curious why ERCOT would exclude
  • 01:03:30
    those, why we
  • 01:03:33
    would exclude them.
  • 01:03:37
    Yeah, so for
  • 01:03:43
    the MORA report, we do include some of the
  • 01:03:47
    officer letter loads in there. So, I mean,
  • 01:03:51
    your point is well taken. And it may well be the case that,
  • 01:03:55
    you know, the forecast that includes the officer letter loads will be,
  • 01:03:59
    for the lack of a better term, you know, the primary forecast that you
  • 01:04:02
    would see in here. So yes,
  • 01:04:06
    unfortunately I don't have a firm, a firm decision yet
  • 01:04:10
    on that. Again, discussions are ongoing, so that's
  • 01:04:15
    all I can say about that.
  • 01:04:24
    And then again, just one final
  • 01:04:28
    comment actually. So again, at the SAWG meeting
  • 01:04:34
    we talked about again getting updated information about the
  • 01:04:38
    contracts and we're working on a
  • 01:04:42
    new survey to get more detailed information about
  • 01:04:46
    the contracts and specifically changes,
  • 01:04:49
    you know, to the, to the ramp rates for them and other things so
  • 01:04:53
    we can get better confidence about.
  • 01:04:57
    And again, just, it's just like planned resources where you're again,
  • 01:05:00
    you're tracking them and you make updates based on new information.
  • 01:05:04
    Right. If there's the, you know, delays and such. So we're
  • 01:05:08
    doing the same thing for these loads and so
  • 01:05:12
    that will be part of this, you know, updated RFI that's
  • 01:05:15
    going out early next year.
  • 01:05:28
    Okay, Anything else?
  • 01:05:33
    I don't see any other cards, I don't see any one in the queue.
  • 01:05:36
    So again, I'll reiterate what others have said. Pete,
  • 01:05:40
    you've done a really great job. This is really helpful.
  • 01:05:44
    I think the timing is really important
  • 01:05:48
    and getting this information out and understood
  • 01:05:52
    and appreciate the extra time you took with us today to explain the
  • 01:05:56
    changes and I look forward to continue to work with
  • 01:05:59
    you on that. Great, great.
  • 01:06:03
    Yeah, thanks everyone. Appreciate the compliments on that.
  • Item 6 - Congestion Management Working Group - Alex Miller
    01:06:08
    Okay, next we'll go to agenda
  • 01:06:12
    item 6 and the congestion Management working group
  • 01:06:15
    update. Alex, are you on the line?
  • 01:06:19
    I am, have my audio a
  • 01:06:24
    little muffled, but we we heard you. Okay,
  • 01:06:28
    I, I'll join. Let me dial my phone and connect that
  • 01:06:31
    way. Give me just a minute.
  • 01:07:05
    Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes, much better,
  • 01:07:09
    thank you. Okay, great. Good to know.
  • 01:07:12
    All right, so we did have the Congestion Management Working group
  • 01:07:16
    meeting on October 14th. It wasn't the smoothest meeting ever
  • 01:07:20
    because for me at least that was the first day of the WebEx update.
  • 01:07:24
    But we got through it and had a couple of great
  • 01:07:28
    discussions. So we did have a
  • 01:07:32
    good discussion about the NPRR1230
  • 01:07:36
    methodology for setting transmission shadow price caps. We got an
  • 01:07:40
    update on that and kind of how it was going with
  • 01:07:45
    the first month of implementation with that new higher
  • 01:07:48
    shadow price cap on the South Texas Export Iroles.
  • 01:07:52
    There wasn't a lot of data because it had only been implemented at the beginning
  • 01:07:55
    of October. But they did bring an example
  • 01:07:59
    of from August 19th when
  • 01:08:02
    it wasn't in place and how the schedul would have solved with the
  • 01:08:06
    higher shadow prices. Some of the questions,
  • 01:08:10
    you know, and what it did demonstrate is that it impacted both the
  • 01:08:13
    increased congestion cost and also increased the system lambda.
  • 01:08:18
    And so they will be continuing to bring updates
  • 01:08:21
    on this as there are more examples and more data.
  • 01:08:26
    There were questions about comparing the total cost of
  • 01:08:29
    this solution versus what would have been happening with out of
  • 01:08:32
    market HDL overrides. And so folks
  • 01:08:36
    do want to see what the, what the total impact is of
  • 01:08:40
    the two options and we will continue to
  • 01:08:43
    hear updates on how this is managing the violations in
  • 01:08:47
    that very tricky area.
  • 01:08:53
    All right, and then the next topic.
  • 01:08:58
    We did get another update from the CRR
  • 01:09:02
    long term auctions and the solution time issues
  • 01:09:05
    that we've been having or heard a mention on that, you know, from TAC.
  • 01:09:09
    One step that's been taken there, but we
  • 01:09:12
    do still have the three main bullets are the
  • 01:09:17
    potential administrative guardrails, market incentives and
  • 01:09:20
    increasing performance. And the administrative guardrails
  • 01:09:24
    are the ones that are, they're pursuing
  • 01:09:28
    right now, changing those limits and lowering bids.
  • 01:09:32
    There is going to be an NPRR to enable
  • 01:09:35
    operate market operations to specify the limits for each
  • 01:09:39
    option rather than having to go to TAC every time.
  • 01:09:42
    So that is an expected change that we see coming
  • 01:09:46
    on the market incentive. They were looking at minimum bid
  • 01:09:50
    prices and unawarded bid fees. Those options are
  • 01:09:53
    being paused while the other options are explored first.
  • 01:09:58
    Those weren't the first most
  • 01:10:01
    popular options from the stakeholder perspective and
  • 01:10:06
    concerns about unintended consequences with those. The other
  • 01:10:11
    big issue is the increasing performance.
  • 01:10:14
    They have of course already increased
  • 01:10:18
    the system performance but are
  • 01:10:21
    continuing to look at the impact of removing the multi
  • 01:10:25
    month product. The preliminary results are promising, but they
  • 01:10:28
    are continuing to study that so that they can quantify exactly what the benefit
  • 01:10:32
    will be of that given that there are a lot of stakeholders
  • 01:10:36
    using that particular product. But it is the one that's
  • 01:10:40
    really bogging down the system. Given the
  • 01:10:45
    future results that they see there, they do expect they'll introduce an NPRR
  • 01:10:50
    to change that as well. And those two NPRRs will be separate because they're
  • 01:10:53
    separate approaches and the timing will probably be different.
  • 01:10:56
    Other options that have come up are both
  • 01:11:01
    the opportunity of doing a pricing report so
  • 01:11:05
    that the price discovery participation could
  • 01:11:09
    be reduced. It seems like a lot of the bids are just
  • 01:11:13
    to get the information and so if that can be
  • 01:11:16
    can be reported and available and
  • 01:11:20
    not bogged down the system with bids from people that
  • 01:11:23
    aren't actually wanting to purchase CRRs,
  • 01:11:27
    that would be one option and the concept of a
  • 01:11:30
    different time of use, a super peak that kind of covers that solar
  • 01:11:36
    period and rather than the more extended peak
  • 01:11:40
    time of use. And so that has a lot and
  • 01:11:44
    that could avoid some of the option bidding. So both of
  • 01:11:47
    those are being explored. They're working with a vendor to explore a pricing
  • 01:11:51
    report and we'll next
  • 01:11:54
    month hear more discussion on how that super peak time of use
  • 01:11:58
    concept would work. And as always the
  • 01:12:02
    updates were really appreciated and stakeholders are
  • 01:12:05
    very interested in continuing to hear the updates on how the solution times are
  • 01:12:09
    going, what the improvements are doing
  • 01:12:13
    and what challenges they're seeing.
  • 01:12:17
    Much progress being made on that one.
  • 01:12:21
    And then our third topic,
  • 01:12:28
    we did discuss the NPRR1214 reliability
  • 01:12:33
    deployment price adder fix to provide locational price signals reduce
  • 01:12:37
    uplift and risk. And since this presentation was
  • 01:12:41
    drafted I said here that the draft comments were discussed and that sponsor
  • 01:12:45
    and ERCOT were coordinating but they had not posted yet.
  • 01:12:48
    But they did post. So those comments
  • 01:12:52
    that the sponsor and ERCOT did work
  • 01:12:56
    together on to improve the language have posted. So that may
  • 01:12:59
    be coming to WMS for a vote. But the main changes
  • 01:13:03
    that were made were to incorporate the ERCOT feedback
  • 01:13:07
    and included Items such as 5 minute rather than
  • 01:13:11
    a 60 minute RDPA run, clarity on
  • 01:13:15
    DCT exports, curtailment being modeled as an energy
  • 01:13:18
    storage resource edits to revert to
  • 01:13:22
    the current rules before RTC. This was a
  • 01:13:25
    fairly big one and pretty extensive because the original goal of
  • 01:13:29
    the NPRR was to get it in place as soon as possible but
  • 01:13:34
    the feedback was that it could not be implemented prior
  • 01:13:39
    to RTC and so the this version
  • 01:13:43
    does only have the changes being implemented,
  • 01:13:46
    you know, as After RTC is In Place,
  • 01:13:51
    the ESRs were added to the indifference payment calculation
  • 01:13:56
    and the settlement equations would be at a 15 minute interval.
  • 01:14:00
    There wasn't a lot of stakeholder feedback or questions on
  • 01:14:04
    it. You know, we did just run through the changes
  • 01:14:08
    and you know, we had discussed it, we've discussed it
  • 01:14:11
    at several meetings now, but that was the
  • 01:14:16
    main, you know, gist.
  • 01:14:19
    We just went through the changes that were in that draft and
  • 01:14:23
    no, there weren't any additional concerns brought forward from
  • 01:14:26
    stakeholders. I don't know and I see it
  • 01:14:29
    is further down on the agenda. I don't know if there
  • 01:14:33
    were any further changes to the comments that did post
  • 01:14:37
    versus what we, what we did cover in
  • 01:14:41
    this meeting and that was it for CMWG.
  • 01:14:44
    So, so Alex, on that 1214 and
  • 01:14:48
    I appreciate that update because that you answered some of my questions
  • 01:14:53
    but from, from leadership perspective
  • 01:14:57
    and these comments were filed and we can, we don't
  • 01:15:01
    need to talk about what we're going to do with 1214,
  • 01:15:04
    but I'm just curious, from CMWG,
  • 01:15:08
    I think I said WMWG from
  • 01:15:12
    CMWG leadership, would you be okay
  • 01:15:15
    with this coming back or since you said there was no questions
  • 01:15:19
    or comments, are you thinking you all have exhausted your
  • 01:15:23
    conversations or what's your feelings on that?
  • 01:15:26
    It does seem like we've, you know,
  • 01:15:29
    if you want to send it back one more time that that would be
  • 01:15:33
    fine as well. It does seem like the,
  • 01:15:36
    there wasn't a lot of additional stakeholder feedback.
  • 01:15:41
    I think there's, you know, an understanding of the concept is
  • 01:15:45
    sound. There were just the detailed concerns that was
  • 01:15:49
    kind of back and forth between ERCOT,
  • 01:15:54
    you know, and the sponsor. ERCOT did have concerns and it seems like most of
  • 01:15:57
    those were addressed. But again, I don't know if there were any additional things that
  • 01:16:01
    did change with these later with this last comments
  • 01:16:04
    or if it was pretty much what we did discuss. But it
  • 01:16:09
    was a little bit of a light meeting against some of the web based concerns.
  • 01:16:11
    It was also a holiday, not at ERCOT, but some people
  • 01:16:15
    may have been on holiday. So. But it seemed like we had enough to have
  • 01:16:19
    a quorum and no additional concerns were brought forward.
  • 01:16:22
    So I'll leave that up to WMS, whichever way you prefer
  • 01:16:26
    to do it. No, that's, I appreciate your perspective.
  • 01:16:29
    Brian. Hey Alex. Brian.
  • 01:16:32
    Sam's calpine on the
  • 01:16:36
    DC TIE export curtailment. I assume that's
  • 01:16:41
    a scenario where ERCOT is curtailing the exports
  • 01:16:45
    and not something related to like
  • 01:16:48
    a outage. A DCT outage.
  • 01:16:54
    Yeah. And it just, it was, it was just specific about
  • 01:16:57
    how it would be modeled in the.
  • 01:17:00
    In the system. In the.
  • 01:17:03
    In the model. So it was a. How to represent when that's happening.
  • 01:17:08
    Okay.
  • 01:17:10
    And in the queue, Sean's may want to
  • 01:17:14
    be a lot better at addressing that than I would.
  • 01:17:16
    Yeah, sh. Go ahead. Yeah, it would only be,
  • 01:17:21
    you know, directly exports
  • 01:17:24
    so it's not any outage or anything related to
  • 01:17:29
    the system. So it's more scarcity of some situation where
  • 01:17:33
    necessary to take.
  • 01:17:39
    All right, got it. Thank you.
  • 01:17:43
    Okay. Alex, was that your last
  • 01:17:46
    slide? It is. Yep.
  • 01:17:49
    That was our. Okay. Three topics. Yep.
  • 01:17:55
    Thank you for your report and for your work with CMWG.
  • 01:17:59
    Appreciate it very much. And we'll discuss
  • 01:18:04
    1214 in our tabled items. I do appreciate you
  • 01:18:07
    you looking at 12:30. That was one of our TAC assignments and
  • 01:18:11
    I appreciate you keeping that on your agenda for consideration.
  • 01:18:15
    So thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:18:21
    Okay, where am I?
  • 01:18:28
    I think soggy
  • Item 7 - Supply Analysis Working Group - Greg Lackey
    01:18:33
    Supply Analysis Working Group. Greg, are you on the line?
  • 01:18:36
    Oh, here he is. Hey Greg, you too bad coming
  • 01:18:40
    person day and part of David Delich's entourage today.
  • 01:18:44
    So yeah, thank you for having
  • 01:18:48
    us. Look closer. Yeah,
  • 01:18:51
    okay, you bet. So here's our
  • 01:18:55
    agenda that we covered at last SAWG meeting.
  • 01:18:58
    And as you'll see a lot of this has been covered today already through
  • 01:19:02
    questions and through Pete Warnken. But anyway, we did talk
  • 01:19:05
    about the long term load forecast that was presented by ERCOT staff.
  • 01:19:09
    NPRR1235 was a big part of
  • 01:19:12
    our discussion that day and we'll talk
  • 01:19:15
    about that here a little bit. And then SP presented the December
  • 01:19:20
    CDR preparation. So we'll truncate this a little bit because of
  • 01:19:23
    all those discussions that we've already had. But next slide please.
  • 01:19:31
    And so as I mentioned, you've heard some of this already.
  • 01:19:34
    Updates to the load forecast, to the base economic forecast,
  • 01:19:38
    large flexible load updates, electric vehicle forecast
  • 01:19:41
    updates and rooftop PV forecast was updated as part of this
  • 01:19:45
    process. And I believe as mentioned also
  • 01:19:48
    by contract officer letter, adjustments will remain the same.
  • 01:19:53
    And maybe this helps answer Brian's question about the timing.
  • 01:19:57
    Results will be presented at RPG and SAWG and posted to the website,
  • 01:20:01
    ERCOT website in December. So that's kind of half of your question there,
  • 01:20:04
    Brian. And then the final release that we were told would be in the
  • 01:20:08
    March early April timeframe.
  • 01:20:12
    Do we take questions now, Eric? Does it matter or looks like.
  • 01:20:15
    Yeah, let's go ahead, Brian. Well, I just say this last
  • 01:20:19
    two bullets are a little confusing because in one instance
  • 01:20:23
    there's a final that isn't released until
  • 01:20:26
    March or April. But there's some kind of interim. It sounds like
  • 01:20:31
    I just would appreciate some more clarity
  • 01:20:34
    on what we're actually using in the CDR.
  • 01:20:40
    It sounds like maybe we're going to talk about that again at the next SAWG,
  • 01:20:44
    correct? Yeah, we'll get some details there for you and that's including clarity on
  • 01:20:48
    those. Thank you.
  • 01:20:52
    Next slide please.
  • 01:21:03
    All right, so this is. This is a big part of our
  • 01:21:07
    discussion that day. You know, as Eric mentioned last WMS
  • 01:21:11
    meeting that he was looking for hopefully for some delivery or movement
  • 01:21:15
    on this. We did have a lot of discussion and movement ultimately came to
  • 01:21:19
    didn't come to a consensus as far as thumbs
  • 01:21:23
    up or thumbs down. We want to talk about it at the next SAWG meeting
  • 01:21:26
    as well. But we did get an update or kind of a re
  • 01:21:29
    presentation by Katie. It's very helpful.
  • 01:21:34
    Had a number of suggestions and comments. One was
  • 01:21:38
    made that using the DRS as a resource efficacy
  • 01:21:41
    tool was a policy maybe that was best addressed by the commission and that
  • 01:21:46
    the DRRs should be more technology neutral
  • 01:21:49
    and specifically the point raised there was that it
  • 01:21:53
    shouldn't be able to include battery energy storage as an example
  • 01:21:57
    rather than kind of dictate what the technology should be.
  • 01:22:01
    ERCOT staff mentioned that they will be filing comments on the NPRR
  • 01:22:05
    would be part of the RUC process and ready
  • 01:22:08
    to move forward with that.
  • 01:22:12
    Next slide please. Can I ask you later?
  • 01:22:15
    I listened in on the meeting and I saw a presentation by
  • 01:22:19
    the imm. Yes. And is that on your
  • 01:22:22
    next. You may already have it covered. We have comments on it, but not the
  • 01:22:25
    actual presentation. But yes. Okay.
  • 01:22:28
    Was there a slide to 1235? Am I jumping
  • 01:22:32
    ahead or is that your only slide? There's another one.
  • 01:22:35
    One more. Yeah, let's. I'll let you finish. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Next slide
  • 01:22:40
    please.
  • 01:22:43
    So yeah, it was Jeff McDonald
  • 01:22:47
    did present this next points that he
  • 01:22:51
    his concerns and issues with the the NPRR
  • 01:22:55
    as it was written currently. But one of the first points was DRS should be
  • 01:22:58
    procured and co optimized in real time. He understood
  • 01:23:03
    or stated that that could be a very complicated issue. Not sure
  • 01:23:07
    technically how that was done but he felt like that should be part of the
  • 01:23:10
    NPRR. He said
  • 01:23:14
    also should allow for online assets as well.
  • 01:23:19
    The DRS should have a slope demand curve similar to other
  • 01:23:23
    AS products which I believe that
  • 01:23:26
    was already bought into. We believe that should be is acceptable
  • 01:23:30
    to ERCOT. DRS should be designed
  • 01:23:33
    as an operational reliability product and not as a mechanism for meeting a
  • 01:23:36
    resource adequacy goal with
  • 01:23:43
    the upcoming workshop was mentioned. Of course, that's already
  • 01:23:46
    happened. But the PE staff letter ancillary services workshop on 1031,
  • 01:23:50
    which NPRR1235 was going to be part
  • 01:23:54
    of that as well in discussions. As I
  • 01:23:57
    mentioned, NPRR will return to SAWG next month for further discussions
  • 01:24:02
    and our next meeting, it's on November 22nd.
  • 01:24:06
    Very good. Yeah, yeah. I apologize
  • 01:24:10
    for jumping ahead. I remember you had a second slide.
  • 01:24:15
    But I did want to ask about the imm and I'm glad Andrew came
  • 01:24:19
    to the table. Is the IMM going
  • 01:24:22
    to file comments with these proposed changes?
  • 01:24:25
    Yeah, Andrew Arms with the IMM. We intend to file updated comments
  • 01:24:29
    related to what we presented at SAWG a couple weeks ago.
  • 01:24:33
    Okay. And you said ERCOT was going to file comments. His ERCOT
  • 01:24:37
    also going to file separate comments or are they going to coordinate or do you
  • 01:24:41
    all know? I don't actually know,
  • 01:24:43
    Indrin. I think they would be separate comments in my understanding.
  • 01:24:47
    And Gordon can comment on this if he wants to, is that they have their
  • 01:24:50
    own updated proposal that they're discussing.
  • 01:24:53
    Okay. Hi, Gordon Drake from ERCOT.
  • 01:24:56
    Will we look forward to participating in the conversation on the 22nd?
  • 01:25:00
    And we'll have some more information to bring forward at that time. Very good.
  • 01:25:03
    Okay. Brian. Right.
  • 01:25:07
    Brian. Sam's Kalpan. I'm sorry, I gotta ask here. This first sub
  • 01:25:11
    bullet about should be co optimized
  • 01:25:14
    in real time. Is that something that you're expecting
  • 01:25:19
    to happen in 2025 or is
  • 01:25:23
    this like a RTC 1.2
  • 01:25:27
    or something? I don't think that we would
  • 01:25:31
    insist that it has to be part of RTC Go live. And in fact,
  • 01:25:34
    we wouldn't want it to delay the Go Live for RTC.
  • 01:25:37
    It's more that we're increasingly under the
  • 01:25:42
    opinion that it would be better to put off implementing Dr.
  • 01:25:45
    Rrs than to implement it without it being co optimized
  • 01:25:49
    in real time. And the statutory requirements also
  • 01:25:54
    require it to be procured in real time. And so that's kind of
  • 01:25:58
    where our position has landed at this point.
  • 01:26:05
    All right, so can I just tell you what I think I heard
  • 01:26:08
    and you can grade my paper? You're saying
  • 01:26:12
    that maybe drs shouldn't
  • 01:26:16
    be implemented until it can be co
  • 01:26:19
    optimized? I think that's increasingly our
  • 01:26:23
    position. Okay, thank you.
  • 01:26:28
    Okay. David Dietz.
  • 01:26:33
    Yeah, thank you. I listened
  • 01:26:37
    to a little bit of the PUC workshop, but so is the resource adequacy
  • 01:26:41
    question, has that been answered or is that still open question from the
  • 01:26:45
    that 1235 is supposed to be for resource adequacy or
  • 01:26:49
    DRS. Katie, you can respond.
  • 01:26:53
    Go ahead.
  • 01:26:57
    Sorry you didn't hear Brian's answer. So I guess I'll give you my
  • 01:27:01
    more professional one.
  • 01:27:05
    So the workshop on Halloween
  • 01:27:09
    was a great opportunity to get that in front of commission staff
  • 01:27:13
    and so they will be issuing their recommendations next
  • 01:27:16
    week and then the commission will decide
  • 01:27:20
    soon thereafter at any November open meeting. So I
  • 01:27:23
    think that all of this is starting to align with
  • 01:27:27
    the timing of the SAWG meeting and so hopefully
  • 01:27:32
    we can have this go hand in hand before we
  • 01:27:35
    approve this NPRR.
  • 01:27:44
    Okay, we have Michael Jewell in the queue. Go ahead,
  • 01:27:48
    Mike. Michael? Yeah, thanks Mike. Check real fast. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.
  • 01:27:52
    Cool. One quick question, Michael Jewell, on behalf of Eolian.
  • 01:27:56
    Given the discussions about further delay
  • 01:28:00
    on the implementation of DRS and being sure
  • 01:28:03
    that it can be co optimized in real time, which makes a lot of
  • 01:28:07
    sense, one of the other statutory issues and requirements that
  • 01:28:11
    we have been talking about is the eligibility of ESRs
  • 01:28:15
    to participate. And if we're going to be taking additional time, can we
  • 01:28:18
    go on ahead and address that in the adoption
  • 01:28:22
    of 1235 all at one time rather than
  • 01:28:26
    having that as a separate NPRR Gordon,
  • 01:28:33
    you want to respond? Thank you. Absolutely. I think with what
  • 01:28:37
    we plan to discuss at the November 22 saw the
  • 01:28:41
    conversation about streamline this and bringing it back into a
  • 01:28:45
    common path for all potentially eligible
  • 01:28:48
    resources will be part of that. So that we would proceed with a single
  • 01:28:52
    NPRR that would attract that would address the eligibility
  • 01:28:57
    for resources including ESR as would be or be
  • 01:29:01
    part of a single track NPRR. Awesome.
  • 01:29:05
    Thank you. Thank you,
  • 01:29:08
    Michael. Eric Goff,
  • 01:29:12
    I might have missed part of Michael's question just now,
  • 01:29:15
    but Andrew,
  • 01:29:20
    what's your perspective on this being an offline service
  • 01:29:24
    and co optimizing it? Do you think that those work together
  • 01:29:28
    or do you want to modify who might offer the service
  • 01:29:31
    as well?
  • 01:29:35
    Well, for starters, our position on this
  • 01:29:38
    is that it should be allowed to be provided by online units
  • 01:29:42
    as well. The concern we have about units having
  • 01:29:45
    to be offline is that it can create incentives
  • 01:29:49
    for units to stay offline when it would be more economic for them to be
  • 01:29:52
    online. Right. But that
  • 01:29:55
    said, I don't see any reason that SCHED couldn't
  • 01:29:59
    co optimize the provision of offline
  • 01:30:02
    reserves. It's already going to do so for non
  • 01:30:07
    spin and rrs and things like that where there will be
  • 01:30:11
    more like offline unit telemetry being handled with
  • 01:30:15
    SCAD under RTC. Yep. Okay. Thank you.
  • 01:30:21
    Thank You, Eric. Katie Rich,
  • 01:30:25
    I wanted to go back to something on the CO optimization,
  • 01:30:28
    so I just had a question for Andrew.
  • 01:30:31
    Consider. So doesn't commitment via the RUC engine
  • 01:30:35
    satisfy the real time procurement requirement in the statute? I don't think I got that
  • 01:30:39
    question answered at SAWG. So if you could think about that more and bring
  • 01:30:42
    it back. Well, the issue we've had
  • 01:30:45
    with that concept is there
  • 01:30:50
    seems to be some vagaries around
  • 01:30:55
    procurement commitment and deployment where all of those words can be
  • 01:30:59
    used either differentially or interchangeably depending on
  • 01:31:02
    the point you're trying to make. So for example, the way the statute
  • 01:31:06
    is read, it says that the volume of DRS
  • 01:31:10
    procured has to offset the amount of reliability
  • 01:31:15
    unit commitment. If you're procuring DRS
  • 01:31:19
    in non zero quantities around the clock, but you counterfactually wouldn't
  • 01:31:22
    have actually committed units around the clock, you're going to over procure
  • 01:31:26
    DRS, but then you would deploy DRS
  • 01:31:30
    offsetting RUC. And so it's
  • 01:31:33
    just a little weird how you make all
  • 01:31:36
    of that make sense.
  • 01:31:43
    Thank you, Katie. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you,
  • 01:31:46
    Gordon. Any other questions or comments?
  • 01:31:50
    You know, we talk about the statute. I just keep thinking about December
  • 01:31:54
    1st and I know that we've been given a pass on that, but we
  • 01:31:58
    now talk about it being after RTC, which December
  • 01:32:03
    5th of 2025.
  • 01:32:06
    The state just keeps getting pushed out further and further. And I guess I just
  • 01:32:11
    hope that there's somebody at the higher levels that's
  • 01:32:15
    hearing these discussions and hearing what we're saying and taking this
  • 01:32:19
    to legislative and policymakers to keep
  • 01:32:23
    them apprised of our efforts
  • 01:32:26
    and our thoughts and that we're not ignoring the deadline,
  • 01:32:31
    but we are trying to work around the statutory
  • 01:32:34
    provisions. So anyone
  • 01:32:39
    else have any comments?
  • 01:32:45
    I'd like to go ahead and take our break. I had a request if
  • 01:32:49
    I could hold off WMS till 11:15. So we're doing pretty
  • 01:32:53
    well. If we take a 10 minute break or
  • 01:32:57
    so, will be back at 10:15 or 11:15,
  • 01:33:01
    I'm sorry, on daylight savings. We will be back
  • 01:33:05
    and we'll start back with WMS. Thank you.
  • 01:34:15
    All right, one minute warning. We're going to get started.
  • 01:34:19
    Let everyone have a chance to take their seats.
  • 01:34:41
    All right, we're going to get started again. We're still in
  • Item 8 - Wholesale Market Working Group - Blake Holt
    01:34:45
    the working group reports and we're with item 8
  • 01:34:48
    in the wholesale market working group. Blake Holt,
  • 01:34:51
    you're up. Good morning WMS.
  • 01:34:55
    I'll wait for Brittany to pull up the PowerPoint.
  • 01:34:59
    We last met on October 18th
  • 01:35:04
    and wanted to discuss a few general items
  • 01:35:07
    and some larger items we can move
  • 01:35:11
    to the next slide. In terms of
  • 01:35:14
    general items, we took up the task of looking at our
  • 01:35:18
    aging open action items from WMS,
  • 01:35:22
    so we had some homework for folks to look into those
  • 01:35:26
    and we're aiming at coming back to our meeting next
  • 01:35:30
    week with a REDLINE version of those action items.
  • 01:35:34
    And sort of the ask is if there's anything near
  • 01:35:37
    and dear to your heart, bring it up. If not, we're going to
  • 01:35:41
    recommend that it be removed. Secondly, there was a
  • 01:35:45
    request from a WMS member to review the
  • 01:35:49
    LDL overrides that were issued on the day of the eclipse April
  • 01:35:53
    8th. There's a very good presentation posted to our meeting page,
  • 01:35:58
    but in summary, the pricing impacts were very minimal in
  • 01:36:03
    terms of next discussions coming up. NPRR1229
  • 01:36:08
    the Real Time CMP energy payment was not taken up at the last meeting,
  • 01:36:12
    but there have been some comments filed within the
  • 01:36:15
    last few days. I anticipate discussing this next Monday.
  • 01:36:20
    I believe it's next Monday. The 11th is our meeting.
  • 01:36:24
    That's correct. And then NPRR1241 I've gotten
  • 01:36:28
    some feedback that we'll probably take this up in December.
  • 01:36:32
    We'll have some new language to look at from Luminant.
  • 01:36:36
    And then finally there was a question brought up about related
  • 01:36:40
    to NPRR1253 in terms of how
  • 01:36:44
    wholesale storage load is considered in ERCOT's load forecasts.
  • 01:36:48
    I believe we'll have some material brought back maybe not next week,
  • 01:36:52
    but maybe in December to answer that question.
  • 01:36:57
    Next slide.
  • 01:37:02
    We did have a large discussion on NPRR1202, which is refundable
  • 01:37:06
    deposit of large load interconnection studies.
  • 01:37:09
    Longhorn Power presented their comments which
  • 01:37:13
    expressed a desire to accelerate the process for getting large
  • 01:37:16
    loads interconnected in ERCOT by collecting a fee
  • 01:37:19
    or fees that could be used to hire or contract additional resources
  • 01:37:23
    for ERCOT to improve systems.
  • 01:37:26
    TCPA presented some comments that expressed support for
  • 01:37:31
    Longhorn Powers comments to expedite the
  • 01:37:35
    process, and there was just some general discussion about these
  • 01:37:39
    from other market participants. Some supported the idea of
  • 01:37:43
    using fees to expedite the process.
  • 01:37:46
    Others supported an initial upfront fee,
  • 01:37:49
    but not necessarily the reoccurring fee aspect of
  • 01:37:53
    Longhorn's comments. The IMM suggested
  • 01:37:57
    using some of the fees to offset T costs,
  • 01:38:01
    and some market participants believe that these
  • 01:38:06
    fees would create cross subsidization issues.
  • 01:38:10
    ERCOT staff responded saying that they're supportive of trying to expedite
  • 01:38:14
    the interconnection process, but are not supportive of NPRR
  • 01:38:18
    1202 or an additional fee at this time. Instead, they'd like
  • 01:38:21
    this process to play out through NPRR1234
  • 01:38:26
    and the related PGRR. So in summary,
  • 01:38:30
    you know, the conversation seemed to be at an impasse
  • 01:38:34
    there between market participants, ERCOT and the immigration.
  • 01:38:37
    I do know that some additional comments came in from TIEC in
  • 01:38:41
    the interim, but just wanted to really relay
  • 01:38:45
    that to the group.
  • 01:38:48
    Next slide. And this
  • 01:38:53
    is one of the tabled items that we can discuss,
  • 01:38:59
    you know, what action, if any, we want to take or if we want to
  • 01:39:03
    keep it tabled. I take it that WG
  • 01:39:07
    has exhausted their conversations. Is that it feels
  • 01:39:10
    like. Am I hearing that right? Yeah. Okay, that's good
  • 01:39:14
    to know. Thank you. And then the
  • 01:39:18
    next large.
  • 01:39:21
    I see, Andrew, you'd like to. Yeah,
  • 01:39:24
    I think. I don't know if Dave's on the line. I think Dave Maggio's hope
  • 01:39:28
    with where the card stuff would go today would be that
  • 01:39:32
    WMS would discuss if any of these.
  • 01:39:35
    The concepts we've discussed for the card situation could get written
  • 01:39:39
    into an NPRR. Based on what. Which of the concepts stakeholders
  • 01:39:43
    seem to prefer. I think is what we were hoping to be the outcome of
  • 01:39:47
    this meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Andrew, I thought you were jumping in on 1202.
  • 01:39:51
    I think the next steps we'd like to do is present the CAR
  • 01:39:55
    discussion we've had at WMWG and move forward
  • 01:39:59
    on a path that Andrew kind of outlined. So, Brittany, if you
  • 01:40:02
    wouldn't mind bringing up that other presentation.
  • 01:40:07
    And just so we kind of keep in mind
  • 01:40:10
    that we're wanting to avoid this turning
  • 01:40:14
    into a duplicate of the working group discussion. We're just trying to educate
  • 01:40:17
    the members so that next month we can take a
  • 01:40:21
    vote. So we're not, I guess I would ask if you,
  • 01:40:25
    if you have questions, it's okay to go to WMWG.
  • 01:40:28
    It's okay to talk to the sponsors
  • 01:40:32
    directly. I think Blake has
  • 01:40:36
    put together a really good overview and we can
  • 01:40:39
    answer questions. I just ask that we try to
  • 01:40:42
    avoid getting too deep into the weeds because it can happen
  • 01:40:46
    real easy.
  • 01:40:50
    Yeah, we can move forward to the next slide.
  • 01:40:53
    Just to remind you all of this issue, ERCOT came to us in July
  • 01:40:58
    and highlighted an issue that's come to light for them.(item:8.1:Proposed Changes to CARD Allocation Methods)
  • 01:41:02
    And it was really an incentive that. An adverse incentive that is
  • 01:41:06
    in the card and CRR balancing account
  • 01:41:09
    allocation methodology. Basically loads
  • 01:41:13
    can ramp up in the peak interval of every month and capture
  • 01:41:17
    more of the allocation share of that revenue.
  • 01:41:20
    And so looking for a creative way to allocate
  • 01:41:26
    these funds and mute that adverse incentive
  • 01:41:30
    and on the bottom of the slide you can see the timeline for
  • 01:41:33
    the discussion. This topic's been at WMWG
  • 01:41:37
    in September and October and the working
  • 01:41:40
    group is whittled down the proposals down to three
  • 01:41:45
    proposals. And so today I'd like to give you all highlights of
  • 01:41:49
    those proposals and then like Mr. Blakey said, just give the
  • 01:41:53
    group notice that we're planning on voting on one of these proposals in
  • 01:41:57
    December and ERCOT will take up the mantle
  • 01:42:00
    to draft an NPRR based on that consensus position
  • 01:42:06
    and we can move to the next slide. I will note that the
  • 01:42:11
    more detailed decks or presentations on
  • 01:42:14
    these proposals are posted to the WMS agenda
  • 01:42:18
    if you need them for reference materials. The first
  • 01:42:22
    proposal wanted to talk through was from the IMM
  • 01:42:26
    and the summary of this proposal is to allocate the
  • 01:42:30
    card and balancing account based on the peak 500 hours in
  • 01:42:33
    the month. And the imm took the position that the allocation
  • 01:42:37
    should be the allocation between load
  • 01:42:41
    classes should be based on each specific load classes exposure
  • 01:42:45
    to congestion rent. So they conducted an analysis
  • 01:42:49
    that looked at historical load ratio share weighted
  • 01:42:53
    by hourly congestion rent over each month and highlighted
  • 01:42:57
    the each load classes allocation percentages in
  • 01:43:01
    this historical analysis. And then this is
  • 01:43:05
    denoted by the CR method in this
  • 01:43:09
    chart. And what they attempted to do was increase
  • 01:43:14
    the peak hours load ratio
  • 01:43:17
    share review in that analysis and see which
  • 01:43:22
    bucket best aligned with the CR method in
  • 01:43:26
    terms of similar allocation share between the
  • 01:43:30
    load classes. And they found at this point was around 4 to
  • 01:43:34
    500 hours a month. So that's kind of a very
  • 01:43:38
    simple outline of their approach.
  • 01:43:41
    Some of the pros we heard during discussion is these
  • 01:43:45
    additional intervals reduce incentives for load to change their consumption
  • 01:43:49
    to increase card revenues. And it is easy to
  • 01:43:52
    calculate and understand. Some of the cons mentioned
  • 01:43:56
    was this moves revenues from residential loads to
  • 01:44:00
    industrial loads. Next slide.
  • 01:44:09
    The second proposal was from City of Georgetown Utilities and
  • 01:44:13
    they recommended allocating card and CR balancing account revenues using
  • 01:44:17
    the same allocation that TCOs uses. And many of us know
  • 01:44:21
    what TCOs is allocated to QSCs based on
  • 01:44:25
    the load ratio share of their 4 coincident
  • 01:44:28
    peak intervals between June and September each
  • 01:44:32
    year. Their position was that entities
  • 01:44:35
    that pay for the transmission system should receive an equitable share of the
  • 01:44:39
    benefits that these allocations distribute. Additionally they
  • 01:44:43
    state that by adjusting this allocation the allocation
  • 01:44:47
    to this method it will eliminate real time price distortion
  • 01:44:51
    and also eliminate the distortion caused by
  • 01:44:55
    4CP. There's a natural incentive for load to reduce consumption
  • 01:44:59
    during these intervals. So for a quick example of
  • 01:45:03
    how this would work in practice for each monthly
  • 01:45:06
    allocation in 2024, the methodology would consider
  • 01:45:10
    the average of the 4CP
  • 01:45:14
    load ratio shares from 2023 and
  • 01:45:18
    so on and so forth. Some of the pros we heard is this
  • 01:45:22
    aligns the CRR benefits with the transmission cost incentives.
  • 01:45:26
    And some of the cons is there's a calculation lag that is hard to
  • 01:45:29
    apply and card revenues are not related to transmission costs.
  • 01:45:33
    These are separate issues. Next slide.
  • 01:45:43
    So Vistra had a proposal and this one is basically allocating
  • 01:45:47
    the revenues by averaging the load ratio share
  • 01:45:51
    realized in the top 60 hours for the month along
  • 01:45:54
    with the top 4 hours of the top 15 days,
  • 01:45:57
    peak days for the month. Vista's position is that this
  • 01:46:01
    two factor approach is conceptually straightforward but difficult to
  • 01:46:05
    predict and would disincentivize the behavior.
  • 01:46:09
    Additionally, state Vistra states that this approach has less
  • 01:46:12
    risk of unintended consequences or shifting of the
  • 01:46:16
    allocation between load classes and it includes
  • 01:46:20
    a fewer number of hours than other proposals suggested.
  • 01:46:24
    Some of the pros we heard is this is easy to calculate but hard to
  • 01:46:27
    predict. It would reduce the incentives for load to change
  • 01:46:30
    consumption to increase the card revenues and it keys
  • 01:46:34
    in on seasonality. And a con we heard is this
  • 01:46:37
    is more complicated than the IMM approach.
  • 01:46:42
    So Eric, willing to hear what you'd like to do
  • 01:46:45
    for next steps, but that's a high level overview of the proposals on
  • 01:46:49
    the table. Great job, thank you for doing that.
  • 01:46:52
    I think we're going to go to ERCOT and the imm, but before
  • 01:46:56
    we do, we have a couple in the queue that we'll go ahead and
  • 01:47:00
    see if they had questions about your presentations. So Katie,
  • 01:47:03
    you're up. Not a question. And I understand that
  • 01:47:07
    we are not going through our full presentations that we filed,
  • 01:47:11
    but I do have two slides I'd really like to highlight if we
  • 01:47:14
    can bring those up. So from my presentation,
  • 01:47:18
    if we could pull up slide 12.
  • 01:47:34
    Yep, that's it. Brittany, thank you. So I think there's a component to mine
  • 01:47:38
    that got left out. So our folks did a pretty detailed
  • 01:47:41
    like day to day analysis of what the decision making might
  • 01:47:45
    be. So that led to this idea of a multiplier
  • 01:47:49
    effect. I mentioned this because folks
  • 01:47:53
    to meet like say the average of 100 hours that we had in ours,
  • 01:47:57
    they would have to change their behavior for you know, upwards of
  • 01:48:01
    300 hours. So the reason I want to highlight
  • 01:48:04
    that is I don't think that we need as many hours is what
  • 01:48:08
    the IMM is proposing to get the same
  • 01:48:11
    effect. So wanted to highlight that analysis.
  • 01:48:14
    And then also Brittany, if you would pull up slide 18,
  • 01:48:26
    shout out to Matt for doing the simulation
  • 01:48:30
    analyses that we looked at at the last RTCTF
  • 01:48:34
    meeting. And in those, everyone showed the reduction
  • 01:48:38
    in congestion. So with RTC
  • 01:48:42
    producing that result, the question is, do we need to go down this
  • 01:48:46
    path or can we see what RTC does to solve this
  • 01:48:49
    issue first?
  • 01:48:53
    Thank you, Katie. Bill.
  • 01:48:56
    So I did have a question for Katie and then Blake.
  • 01:49:01
    Katie, I'm curious of why you guys included the two factor part
  • 01:49:06
    to the methodology versus just using the top 60 hours.
  • 01:49:09
    Yeah. So once we went through the examples,
  • 01:49:13
    you can kind of see if you. Brittany, could you maybe go
  • 01:49:17
    back up to one of the
  • 01:49:20
    earlier slides so I can just show the difference here?
  • 01:49:24
    There was one that said like example A.
  • 01:49:32
    So set A. Okay. Right here. So this is like the top
  • 01:49:35
    60 hours. So you can kind of see where they're all kind
  • 01:49:40
    of clustered around those certain hours on the days.
  • 01:49:43
    And then if you go to set B, Brittany,
  • 01:49:49
    next. Next slide. You can
  • 01:49:53
    see when we take that next set.
  • 01:49:56
    Yes, there's some clustering, but it's hitting some different days. So once
  • 01:49:59
    you get to see when we overlap both,
  • 01:50:09
    see how we pick those top hours in red. Right.
  • 01:50:12
    So it spreads it out a little bit more. Yeah, exactly.
  • 01:50:15
    Great. And then for Blake, I was wondering if you
  • 01:50:19
    have any sense of where members are starting
  • 01:50:23
    to coalesce around these proposals.
  • 01:50:26
    If there's any exit polling results you might have
  • 01:50:30
    that might be accurate. Very preliminary. Very preliminary
  • 01:50:33
    exit polls. Did hear.
  • 01:50:37
    Did hear a lot of support for a compromise solution
  • 01:50:41
    which seemed to be where Vistra's was
  • 01:50:44
    falling. I haven't heard anything else
  • 01:50:47
    offline between last meeting and now to give
  • 01:50:52
    me any other indication of where folks are leaning, but that's
  • 01:50:56
    kind of my first take. Okay, let me just tip our hand.
  • 01:51:00
    I see all three proposals as improvements compared to what we're
  • 01:51:04
    doing now. If I had a preference, I would be voting yes
  • 01:51:08
    for a divisor proposal or the city of Georgetown proposal.
  • 01:51:11
    Thanks, Brian. I mean, Bill.
  • 01:51:15
    Now, Brian, Sam's question.
  • 01:51:19
    My question is kind of back to Blake's
  • 01:51:22
    slide on the Vistra proposal.
  • 01:51:26
    In the summary, there's just the end. There's a couple bullets
  • 01:51:29
    on the pros that it was easy to calculate, and the cons, it was more
  • 01:51:33
    challenging than the IMM proposal. When I look
  • 01:51:37
    at this, I guess I don't really see that big of a con,
  • 01:51:40
    but just trying to understand how challenging
  • 01:51:44
    of a con it is.
  • 01:51:48
    I have any insight into how
  • 01:51:53
    much more challenging it would be. From my
  • 01:51:56
    personal perspective, I think it makes
  • 01:52:00
    sense but there is some complexity into
  • 01:52:04
    picking those hours rather than just saying give me the max 500
  • 01:52:07
    hours of the month. That's a lot more simple than
  • 01:52:11
    having the two factor methodology.
  • 01:52:19
    Randy Roberts I
  • 01:52:23
    guess maybe this is actually a question for ERCOT and is there like a huge
  • 01:52:27
    cost difference to do that analysis or is you
  • 01:52:30
    model it once and then you've got the system set up to do
  • 01:52:34
    this? This is awesome.
  • 01:52:37
    I think I can answer that.
  • 01:52:41
    I think all three options, some are probably more complicated
  • 01:52:44
    than others but we're not talking like an order of magnitude difference.
  • 01:52:48
    So I don't really know if that should be part of the decision making
  • 01:52:52
    that you all do. I think it's probably
  • 01:52:55
    goes the order of complexity probably goes IMM
  • 01:53:00
    Vistra Georgetown but like I said there's no, I don't think there's like
  • 01:53:03
    order of magnitude jump. Oh, so you think it might be,
  • 01:53:08
    might be less complicated than the imms. Well,
  • 01:53:12
    Randy Roberts is closer to actually the how these
  • 01:53:15
    calculations will take place and he wants to get in the queue. Yeah, he's in
  • 01:53:18
    the queue. Let's go ahead and go to Randy.
  • 01:53:22
    Randy, are you there?
  • 01:53:25
    Yes, I am here. Great. So my
  • 01:53:29
    first reasoning for getting in the queue was I wanted to point out that for
  • 01:53:33
    the city of Georgetown proposal it
  • 01:53:37
    would be a. We kind of just discovered
  • 01:53:41
    this through internal discussion. So I don't know if it's been talked about
  • 01:53:45
    in you know, external much but if we were to go with that
  • 01:53:48
    proposal, the transmission cost of
  • 01:53:51
    service load ratio shares does not include DCT
  • 01:53:55
    exports. So if we were going to go down that path
  • 01:53:59
    we'd have to bring back the original NPRR1030 that addresses with DC TIES on
  • 01:54:03
    a monthly basis and basically what
  • 01:54:06
    we would do is determine what load ratio share the D.C.
  • 01:54:10
    ties have in total and then that
  • 01:54:13
    would then be a component of taking the
  • 01:54:17
    load ratio share from 4CP and making the
  • 01:54:20
    necessary adjustment so that the DC TIE still
  • 01:54:24
    gets their allocation based on a monthly totals
  • 01:54:27
    and everyone else then would be left with the transmission cost of
  • 01:54:31
    service load ratio share.
  • 01:54:35
    And as far as these proposals, none of them
  • 01:54:41
    are you know, so extreme that it would be a huge
  • 01:54:44
    impact to making the necessary changes.
  • 01:54:48
    So like Austin said, we need to pick the best one
  • 01:54:52
    that we want to utilize and just move forward with that
  • 01:54:55
    cost is going to be, you know, similar between them all close enough to
  • 01:55:00
    where we wouldn't want that to be a deciding factor.
  • 01:55:04
    Okay, thank you Randy. In the
  • 01:55:10
    queue we have Coleman Lewis.
  • 01:55:13
    Yes, thank you. I put my question in the chat but I'll
  • 01:55:17
    Ask it here again out loud. The ERCOT awards CRRs based
  • 01:55:21
    on time of use, Peak weekend, peak weekday, off peak. Do any
  • 01:55:25
    on time of use, Peak weekend, peak weekday, off peak. Do any
  • 01:55:28
    of these three allocation methodologies for Cardan, the CRR balancing account,
  • 01:55:33
    award the money incorporating any of the CRR time
  • 01:55:37
    of use methodology between those time intervals or is it just
  • 01:55:40
    looking at peak hours mid afternoon, late afternoon only?
  • 01:55:50
    If I understand your question correctly, we just look at the monthly revenues
  • 01:55:54
    overall and then we allocate it based on how
  • 01:55:58
    whatever hours these methodologies generate.
  • 01:56:01
    So there's no, there's no overlap between the time of use that this.
  • 01:56:07
    There's no, like partitioning out the time of use revenues or
  • 01:56:11
    CR revenues by time of use when we partition it out in these allocation methods.
  • 01:56:16
    If I'm making sense, if I understand your question correctly,
  • 01:56:20
    my question, I guess, is why don't any of the methods incorporate that
  • 01:56:23
    since CRRs are divided between time of use.
  • 01:56:30
    Coleman, if you don't mind, I'll jump in. The IMM's
  • 01:56:34
    CR method that we compared the 400
  • 01:56:37
    to 500 hours of peak hours against is
  • 01:56:42
    probably the closest thing to what you're describing.
  • 01:56:45
    We would have preferred to move things in
  • 01:56:48
    that direction, but it was suggested that that was
  • 01:56:53
    more complicated for a variety of reasons. And so that's
  • 01:56:57
    more or less why we haven't gone that direction. But having
  • 01:57:01
    the 4 or 500 peak hours would be the closest
  • 01:57:04
    thing to what that kind of methodology would produce.
  • 01:57:12
    Thank you. Okay, Ken Lindbergh, you're next.
  • 01:57:17
    Thank you. So I'm
  • 01:57:21
    in favor of the Georgetown proposal.
  • 01:57:24
    My initial problem with the IMM proposal, and it
  • 01:57:29
    also pertains to the Lumen proposal, was that, you know,
  • 01:57:34
    they Both make the 4CP
  • 01:57:38
    chasing incentives during the summer somewhat
  • 01:57:42
    worse. You know, that's debatable how much worse.
  • 01:57:45
    But, you know, as you, as you make
  • 01:57:49
    it harder, you know, they're trying to solve the problem
  • 01:57:53
    of load increasing and getting
  • 01:57:57
    a card payment. So as you pile on more
  • 01:58:00
    intervals and make it harder and harder for load to
  • 01:58:03
    get that payment and have to respond more, it kind of works the opposite
  • 01:58:07
    way during the summer and for
  • 01:58:11
    4CP avoidance payments. And so what
  • 01:58:15
    a flexible load can do is, you know, some of these summer months,
  • 01:58:18
    it's kind of a one and done or two and done. You know, there's,
  • 01:58:21
    there's, you know, sometimes there's a bunch of days that you have to respond to,
  • 01:58:24
    but sometimes it's, you know, the 4CP
  • 01:58:27
    sticks out like a sore thumb. So under both these proposals,
  • 01:58:32
    what a 4CP flexible load could do is respond
  • 01:58:36
    on that one big day, avoid all
  • 01:58:40
    T cost. And then,
  • 01:58:44
    you know, because it's, you know, over how many intervals, they don't have to
  • 01:58:48
    do anything the rest of the intervals and they'll get a
  • 01:58:51
    large car payment. And so right now that doesn't
  • 01:58:55
    happen. Right now these flexible loads have to make a
  • 01:58:59
    choice. Do I want the 4CP payment or
  • 01:59:02
    do I want the car payment? They can't get both during the
  • 01:59:05
    summer hours. And so that's the problem
  • 01:59:09
    in my mind with both these proposals is they
  • 01:59:15
    make that situation worse. We're making that price
  • 01:59:18
    depression that happens in summer
  • 01:59:21
    peak months. During the peak hours,
  • 01:59:25
    I think these proposals make somewhat
  • 01:59:30
    worse.
  • 01:59:34
    And so the next thing that I like about the Georgetown proposal
  • 01:59:37
    is, you know, we don't have to twist ourselves
  • 01:59:41
    into knots to figure out a, a method,
  • 01:59:46
    you know, the, to stop
  • 01:59:51
    this, this, this behavior.
  • 01:59:57
    You know, we don't have to come up with something for AI
  • 02:00:01
    to tell us how to feed or a consultant to
  • 02:00:04
    charge us, you know, how to optimize. We can just
  • 02:00:08
    fix it with Georgetown's proposal, you know,
  • 02:00:11
    we can just assign the card
  • 02:00:15
    revenue splits just the same,
  • 02:00:18
    the same time we do the T cost and then that
  • 02:00:22
    takes it completely out of that, that takes the card revenue
  • 02:00:26
    completely out of messing with real
  • 02:00:30
    time price formation. And so,
  • 02:00:36
    yeah, and my last point is,
  • 02:00:41
    yeah, there was a, there was a timing con
  • 02:00:46
    on, on the presentation
  • 02:00:49
    for the Georgetown proposal. I actually don't
  • 02:00:53
    see it as a con because right now, when you
  • 02:00:56
    think about how if. Well, let me back up just a little bit.
  • 02:00:59
    If, if you are a believer that the people that
  • 02:01:03
    pay for the transmission system should be the people that
  • 02:01:07
    get the benefit of the transmission system financially,
  • 02:01:11
    then I don't think
  • 02:01:15
    the timing issue, the lag
  • 02:01:19
    that is on this sheet is a bad thing.
  • 02:01:22
    I actually think it's a good thing. And the reason I say that is because
  • 02:01:26
    right now, if a load shows up in ERCOT the next
  • 02:01:29
    month, they're getting card payments for their load with
  • 02:01:35
    as far as T costs, depending on the month they should, if they show up
  • 02:01:38
    in October, they can actually go,
  • 02:01:41
    well, actually they can go 15 months without
  • 02:01:45
    being hit with T cost payments. And so there's a,
  • 02:01:48
    there's a disparity there. You know, there's a lag.
  • 02:01:52
    And so on the flip side, if that same load just
  • 02:01:56
    goes bankrupt, just disappears, card payments immediately
  • 02:02:00
    stop. But they also, you know, they're not going to be paying the T
  • 02:02:04
    cost anymore. And so that'll go on for however long and somebody
  • 02:02:08
    else will have to suck it up. So this, this aligns the
  • 02:02:11
    timing of the revenues and the expenses.
  • 02:02:15
    So the more I think about Georgetown's proposal, it just makes
  • 02:02:19
    more and more and more sense. Thank you.
  • 02:02:24
    Thank you. Next up is Shams
  • 02:02:27
    Shant. Yeah, first of all, thanks, Ken, for those comments.
  • 02:02:32
    I fully agree with what you said. So the
  • 02:02:36
    other two proposals, you still have the price distortion,
  • 02:02:40
    even though it might be more complicated for you to take advantage of it,
  • 02:02:43
    but you still have the price distortion in all the other
  • 02:02:47
    months and in the summer months, of course, as Ken was saying,
  • 02:02:52
    you're making 4CP worse, a larger incentive to
  • 02:02:56
    chase 4CP and you're moving money from
  • 02:03:00
    people who hit by 4CP to others that
  • 02:03:04
    are not paying 4CP. So the
  • 02:03:09
    Georgetown proposal makes it so that there is
  • 02:03:12
    absolutely no price distortion throughout the year.
  • 02:03:18
    And as long as 4CP, apparently 4CPT cost is
  • 02:03:21
    more than twice the amount of card
  • 02:03:26
    revenues and so on. So until you get to a situation where card exceeds
  • 02:03:31
    T cost, I don't know if we'll ever see that. But until
  • 02:03:35
    you get to that point, this is the cleanest way to allocate
  • 02:03:39
    card revenues with no distortion on the market.
  • 02:03:44
    Why provide incentive to more complicated,
  • 02:03:48
    more sophisticated players to be able to chase that hard
  • 02:03:52
    revenues in all the months compared to
  • 02:03:55
    just making it clean and not even giving people that opportunity.
  • 02:04:01
    So the other thing, I sent out the presentation
  • 02:04:05
    providing more details on the Georgetown proposal.
  • 02:04:09
    So you can look at that. And we think, you know,
  • 02:04:12
    implementation wise, you base it on the lse,
  • 02:04:16
    you know, for cp, basically load issue share.
  • 02:04:20
    The other thing we discovered while doing this is that, you know,
  • 02:04:23
    the card revenues for intrazonal
  • 02:04:27
    congestion, you know, the zonal component is,
  • 02:04:32
    you know, what we saw is the west load zone gets
  • 02:04:36
    like 35, 30, about 35% of those
  • 02:04:40
    card revenues, even though they present, they represent about
  • 02:04:44
    13% of the load. So the reason we did
  • 02:04:48
    the zonal, if I remember this is totally off my memory, but the reason we
  • 02:04:52
    did that zonal allocation was when we were designing
  • 02:04:56
    when we're going to nodal loads in
  • 02:05:00
    the north, because at that time the north load zone
  • 02:05:04
    had a lot of intrazone congestion.
  • 02:05:07
    So they were scared that their prices are going to go up
  • 02:05:11
    and they wanted to offset that with these hard
  • 02:05:15
    revenues. But what we're seeing now is the west load zone
  • 02:05:19
    is disproportionately, even though their prices
  • 02:05:22
    in most years are below the other load zones, but they're getting a
  • 02:05:26
    disproportionate share of the card
  • 02:05:30
    revenues, you know, 35% when they represent only 13%.
  • 02:05:34
    So that's almost three times their low. British.
  • 02:05:37
    So we would also like the group to consider,
  • 02:05:41
    you know, since we're making changes to the card allocation that
  • 02:05:45
    making getting rid of the zonal allocation just allocate everything
  • 02:05:48
    on a system wide basis. So that's another
  • 02:05:52
    consideration. We want the group to think about it.
  • 02:05:55
    Thanks. Thank you. Shops Coleman
  • 02:06:00
    Lewis, two quick follow up questions.
  • 02:06:03
    One, I guess I'm not understanding
  • 02:06:07
    how if the intervals like the IMM and Vista
  • 02:06:11
    are proposing either 60, 500, a lot of intervals that
  • 02:06:15
    are not predictable, how does that cause market price distortion
  • 02:06:19
    as the City of Georgetown proposal mentions? And second question
  • 02:06:24
    the city proposal talks about, the equitable solution
  • 02:06:28
    would be for the card in CRRBA
  • 02:06:32
    revenue to be paid to those that receive the transmission system benefits.
  • 02:06:36
    But wouldn't it be more equitable that those that pay congestion rent
  • 02:06:40
    receive those benefits?
  • 02:06:47
    Is that a question for me?
  • 02:06:52
    Yes. Yeah. So you know,
  • 02:06:57
    when we first talked about card revenues when we were designing
  • 02:07:01
    the market, we thought, you know, if there's some way to,
  • 02:07:04
    you could just dispose of that money. Because the
  • 02:07:07
    moment if you think about giving that money back
  • 02:07:11
    to, you know, entities that are paying for congestion
  • 02:07:14
    and stuff, then you're muting the congestion price
  • 02:07:17
    signal. So you don't want to mute that congestion price signal.
  • 02:07:23
    If you, ideally if you paid back all the congestion,
  • 02:07:27
    the CRR revenues that you collected from each entity,
  • 02:07:31
    give it back to them as you know,
  • 02:07:35
    auction revenues, then you've totally muted any
  • 02:07:39
    congestion price signal. So no,
  • 02:07:42
    you shouldn't be giving it back to entities
  • 02:07:47
    that use that to hedge their congestion risk.
  • 02:07:53
    On the other question, so you are still sending
  • 02:07:58
    first of all those two proposals move money. Diamond proposal
  • 02:08:02
    especially moves money away from residential to
  • 02:08:06
    industrial loads. But it still keeps
  • 02:08:09
    the fact that you're adding that revenue on top of
  • 02:08:13
    the lmp, the settlement
  • 02:08:16
    point prices. And so that means there is still
  • 02:08:20
    an opportunity for people to take that into account in their decision of
  • 02:08:24
    how much to consume at different times. And given
  • 02:08:28
    how price sensitive some of these LFLs are, I'm sure
  • 02:08:32
    they'll be able to figure out ways to, you know, they will take that into
  • 02:08:35
    account in their decision and their consumption decisions.
  • 02:08:42
    How would they do that for intervals that are not predictable?
  • 02:08:48
    I'm sure that they'll figure something out. You know, maybe they won't get
  • 02:08:51
    it. Exactly, maybe they will overshoot,
  • 02:08:55
    but there's enough money in there, $2 billion
  • 02:08:59
    being allocated over the year. People will
  • 02:09:03
    figure it out.
  • 02:09:07
    Okay, let's move on. Bob Whitmire,
  • 02:09:13
    can you Hear me? Yes, sir. All right, cool.
  • 02:09:17
    Yeah. So again, you know, transmission cost
  • 02:09:21
    is the exact opposite of card revenue.
  • 02:09:24
    Card revenue is generated from the failure to build transmission,
  • 02:09:29
    not build transmission. But that doesn't mean we couldn't
  • 02:09:33
    put the money anywhere we want to, including, you know, as Georgetown
  • 02:09:37
    has proposed it. But my question is this works
  • 02:09:41
    great for the noise, but what about the retailers that
  • 02:09:46
    might have a significant gain or loss of
  • 02:09:50
    customers? How do we do the card allocation to them?
  • 02:10:00
    Is that a question for me as well? Yeah. Or whoever
  • 02:10:03
    wants to answer it. You're welcome to Sean. Okay.
  • 02:10:07
    Yeah. So what we have in the proposal is that, you know, so it's based
  • 02:10:10
    on your, you know, previous years 4
  • 02:10:14
    CP. So if the LSE typically, I mean we've
  • 02:10:18
    seen in the market that LSEs do not pass
  • 02:10:21
    through card revenues, but if they do pass through
  • 02:10:25
    card revenues, first of all, if a LSC is terminated,
  • 02:10:30
    if it terminates operation, then that
  • 02:10:35
    load is reallocated. The 4CP sort of is reallocated to the
  • 02:10:38
    other entities. So the other entities get the
  • 02:10:41
    benefit of that LSE going away. But if
  • 02:10:45
    they don't go away, they just lose most of their customers.
  • 02:10:48
    They still get a big checked. Yes. So they would still
  • 02:10:52
    get that just like they would
  • 02:10:55
    get the T cost allocation. Well, I guess they won't get
  • 02:10:58
    the T cost allocation. Right,
  • 02:11:02
    right. But yeah, so if their customers like,
  • 02:11:07
    their customers are large loads like you know, LFLs and
  • 02:11:10
    they have some pass through of that,
  • 02:11:13
    then the, the customers would have to sort of contractually.
  • 02:11:19
    Contractually have the ability to move that revenues
  • 02:11:23
    with them if they move. But yeah, if there is no sort
  • 02:11:26
    of contractual, you know,
  • 02:11:30
    agreement on the card revenues and the LSC just
  • 02:11:33
    keeps the card revenues, then yeah, they will benefit in that year,
  • 02:11:38
    the next year. But the next year they wouldn't have because their 4CP would be
  • 02:11:42
    down again. Right. So the following year it
  • 02:11:46
    would self. Correct. Yeah. That's fair.
  • 02:11:52
    Okay, I see no more questions.
  • 02:11:57
    At the risk of prolonging this,
  • 02:12:01
    I do want to ask if ERCOT and IMM have any thing
  • 02:12:06
    you think the voters need to know before we go
  • 02:12:09
    to the polls next month or if you
  • 02:12:13
    want to save that for the discussion at the next
  • 02:12:16
    WMS, which I think would be a great place for it. Any questions
  • 02:12:21
    or any comments? I don't. Andrew from the IMM,
  • 02:12:24
    I don't have anything to add on our proposal. The only thing I will say
  • 02:12:28
    about the City of Georgetown proposal is that the
  • 02:12:33
    move away from the zonal aspects of card is something that wasn't
  • 02:12:37
    really in the proposal when we discussed it at WMS.
  • 02:12:41
    And so the implications of that should probably be looked
  • 02:12:44
    into a little more since the information that was presented over the
  • 02:12:48
    course of the time we were discussing this at WMS didn't really look
  • 02:12:52
    into that. It does resolve one of
  • 02:12:55
    the problems that we had pointed out with their proposal,
  • 02:12:58
    which is that if you did include the kind of zonal
  • 02:13:03
    allocation for card, it's very close
  • 02:13:06
    right now to the T costs that someone that a customer
  • 02:13:10
    in the west load zone might have. And so it's totally plausible that
  • 02:13:14
    tcos and CARD could get upside down from each other. But if you're
  • 02:13:18
    going to remove the zonal component, you eliminate
  • 02:13:21
    that concern. But you're moving money between the zones now.
  • 02:13:25
    And so stakeholders should just be aware that we're not exactly
  • 02:13:28
    sure how all that shakes out since we haven't done the analysis.
  • 02:13:32
    Thank you. Dave Maggio, you have a comment? Hey Eric.
  • 02:13:35
    Yes, I think appreciate all the conversation today. I think you
  • 02:13:39
    already covered a lot of the things that we've been thinking about. I do think
  • 02:13:43
    as far as next WMS conversation, it probably is
  • 02:13:47
    worthwhile having some additional discussion as Andrew laid
  • 02:13:50
    out. Again, I appreciate Shams and City Georgetown thinking
  • 02:13:54
    about the issues that were raised and that does seem like a solution
  • 02:13:58
    to it. Just want to make sure there's not unintended consequences with that.
  • 02:14:02
    So really just thank you all to the whole group for listening
  • 02:14:06
    to it. For all the folks who've been coming up proposals. There's been a lot
  • 02:14:08
    of hard work going into it. So just really thank all the. Thank you
  • 02:14:12
    all for the discussion and work that's gone into this. Thank you.
  • 02:14:18
    Yeah, Dave, I would echo this
  • 02:14:21
    is one of those processes that it's hard when
  • 02:14:26
    you're presented an issue and you said here's a proposal and then
  • 02:14:30
    folks like Vistra and Georgetown work really hard. And so we
  • 02:14:33
    appreciate all that effort to really think
  • 02:14:37
    about this and come up with a resolution before
  • 02:14:40
    we even get to the NPRR stage, which is not our normal
  • 02:14:44
    practice. So I just want to really shout out to everyone
  • 02:14:47
    for their work and hope that it does
  • 02:14:51
    present us an alternative that we can bring forward and
  • 02:14:54
    then get through the process pretty quickly.
  • 02:14:57
    So thank you. Anything else, Blake?
  • Item 9 - WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Eric Blakey
    02:15:01
    All right, thank you.
  • Item 9.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors
    02:15:06
    Next item number 9 is WMS revision request table
  • 02:15:10
    that WMS when NOGRR28 has been at MWG.
  • 02:15:14
    I don't believe they've met and
  • 02:15:19
    so I would suggest that remain tabled.
  • Item 9.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
    02:15:22
    There's any comments? Nope.
  • 02:15:28
    Next is, let's see VCMRR42, (item:9.3:NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042 SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations)
  • 02:15:34
    this has been tabled and referred to RCWG. I don't believe they've
  • 02:15:37
    met, so I don't believe we need
  • 02:15:41
    to take any action on that. Is there any comments?
  • 02:15:48
    We'll have comments that we're filing in advance of the RCWG
  • 02:15:51
    meeting. So hopefully we can move forward after seeing that.
  • 02:15:54
    Awesome. Thank you, Katie.
  • Item 10 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Eric Blakey
    02:15:58
    So that brings us to item 10, which is revision request table
  • 02:16:01
    to PRS. And so let's just
  • 02:16:05
    try to run through these and get a status and see if there's any that
  • Item 10.01 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
    02:16:08
    we can move forward. NPRR1070 this
  • 02:16:15
    was discussed, I believe, at PRS. Eric Goff
  • 02:16:20
    made some comments and
  • 02:16:24
    I think the discussion was around removing the item
  • 02:16:28
    and but he was wanting to hear
  • 02:16:31
    from the imm. And Andrew, I don't know if you had any time
  • 02:16:36
    to look at that. All right, Eric, go ahead. Just to jump into that.
  • 02:16:40
    I'm sorry, Andrew, in a past IMM
  • 02:16:44
    report from before you started your job,
  • 02:16:47
    I think two and three years ago, the IMM said
  • 02:16:51
    something like this. NPRR needed to be done and it
  • 02:16:55
    seems like we're moving towards withdrawing or doing something or
  • 02:16:58
    I don't know what we're going to do with this NPRR. So I just wanted
  • 02:17:01
    to ask you all to take a look at that.
  • 02:17:06
    Okay, cool. We can do that. I'll get back to you on that.
  • 02:17:10
    Okay. I think just having that review, I think folks
  • 02:17:13
    are trying to maybe decide what we need to do with this.
  • 02:17:18
    It's been around a while, so definitely appreciate
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 10.02 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
    02:17:21
    your review on that. 1200 is
  • 02:17:25
    utilization of calculated values for non WSL.
  • 02:17:29
    This is at MWG and again, I don't believe they've met, so that
  • 02:17:32
    should remain tabled. Ivan I actually wanted to bring this one up,
  • 02:17:36
    Eric. Okay, so this one's been out there for about 14 months since
  • 02:17:40
    last September, and it's proposing
  • 02:17:44
    to basically expand sort of a very limited provision
  • 02:17:49
    that was added to the protocols back in 2020 for energy
  • 02:17:53
    storage resources. There was resources
  • 02:17:56
    that had the sort of integrated AUX
  • 02:18:00
    load that couldn't be separately metered. And so a provision
  • 02:18:04
    was created to allow them to use calculated values to limiter
  • 02:18:07
    that. And so this
  • 02:18:11
    NPRR was proposing to expand that very limited
  • 02:18:15
    exception to allow that use for
  • 02:18:20
    series reactors because of
  • 02:18:24
    complicated station layouts or high design costs.
  • 02:18:29
    And so at the same time that this one was filed,
  • 02:18:32
    Smoger 28, which you already talked about, it's been referred
  • 02:18:36
    to the Metering Working group was trying to address
  • 02:18:39
    sort of a similar issue that NPRR1200
  • 02:18:44
    was trying to address. But it takes a different approach to accomplishing that.
  • 02:18:49
    And so the metering working group did take up both of these items almost
  • 02:18:53
    exactly a year ago. And I understand Smoger28
  • 02:18:57
    still has some open discussions, I guess,
  • 02:19:01
    or when they eventually meet,
  • 02:19:04
    there may be some comments on PGRR28.
  • 02:19:08
    But at the time that metering working group met
  • 02:19:11
    a year ago, they sort of expressed a preference
  • 02:19:15
    for PGRR28 as opposed to NPRR1200
  • 02:19:19
    as a better technical solution for what was for the
  • 02:19:23
    issue. So I wanted to offer this one up
  • 02:19:27
    as one that we might consider rejecting and
  • 02:19:32
    allow the discussions for PGRR28 to continue.
  • 02:19:35
    So I wanted to bring that up to the group and see if there's any
  • 02:19:38
    Appetite for projecting NPRR
  • 02:19:42
    1200. Is that a motion or a suggestion?
  • 02:19:46
    I would make the motion. I'd like to add it to the combo ballot.
  • 02:19:49
    But if a motion is necessary, I can. I'm happy to make that motion.
  • 02:19:53
    Do we have a second?
  • 02:20:03
    Well, I don't.
  • 02:20:06
    Okay. So you're. You're saying don't even take a motion to see if
  • 02:20:10
    we can put it on the combo battle with a motion that didn't be rejected?
  • 02:20:14
    That's right. I would ask if there's any opposition to adding into the combo.
  • 02:20:17
    Did I say that right? Okay,
  • 02:20:20
    I see there's a question from Kara.
  • 02:20:24
    Kara, do you hear me?
  • 02:20:27
    Okay. Yes. Is there an opportunity for the
  • 02:20:31
    meter working group to meet again?
  • 02:20:36
    Is there a schedule for the metering working group? Is that the
  • 02:20:39
    question?
  • 02:20:43
    Jim, do you know? I. Eric checked with them and.
  • 02:20:47
    Is there someone in leadership on the line?
  • 02:20:51
    Yeah, this is Michael. Sorry for the double muting. Can you all hear
  • 02:20:54
    me? Yes, sir. Yeah,
  • 02:20:58
    so we don't have a next meeting planned
  • 02:21:04
    as of right now, this topic
  • 02:21:09
    has been discussed and we still have ongoing discussions even
  • 02:21:14
    today about it. I was reaching out to
  • 02:21:17
    some people that are ERCOT, but regarding
  • 02:21:21
    the NPRR1200,
  • 02:21:25
    there hasn't. I think the gentleman who spoke before is correct
  • 02:21:29
    that it was not a.
  • 02:21:35
    That we saw technical issues with it in that the PGRR is
  • 02:21:39
    the more technically sound
  • 02:21:43
    approach. Even though we're having continuing
  • 02:21:47
    discussions about the language on the PGRR.
  • 02:21:53
    If we don't. The only reason I would think
  • 02:21:57
    having the NPRR1200 still active
  • 02:22:01
    is if something about the PGRR
  • 02:22:05
    discussion just completely gets tabled,
  • 02:22:09
    then the NPRR can be rediscussed.
  • 02:22:12
    But that seems unlikely.
  • 02:22:16
    Yeah, thanks, Michael. It's Kara Beckman with Nextera.
  • 02:22:19
    I found a mic that would be just my recommendation
  • 02:22:23
    of the group. This has been initially submitted by Nextera,
  • 02:22:26
    I believe a couple years ago. And I agree that the NOGRR would be
  • 02:22:29
    a fair replacement, but without that meter working group,
  • 02:22:33
    I'm not sure if that path is ready for a vote. Thanks.
  • 02:22:39
    Okay. Eric Goff,
  • 02:22:43
    maybe a path forward of this would be to ask
  • 02:22:47
    the media working group to meet on that issue and
  • 02:22:51
    give Kara time to consider whether she wants
  • 02:22:55
    to withdraw this NPRR and then, you know, we can maybe get an update
  • 02:22:59
    next month about whether we rejected or she withdrawn. Does she progress on
  • 02:23:02
    the NOGRR?
  • 02:23:05
    Does that work? Ivan? Yeah, I think I'm open to that. I just,
  • 02:23:08
    I would know that it's, it's aging and I think at the time it's a
  • 02:23:12
    good idea. You know, at the time it was taken up, I think ERCOT
  • 02:23:15
    acknowledged they wouldn't accept the these exceptions.
  • 02:23:19
    But, but yeah, it's been a while since it was discussed. So if we want
  • 02:23:22
    to meet again and discuss, we can bring it back next month. Michael, does that
  • 02:23:25
    work for you? Can you schedule a working group
  • 02:23:29
    before the next WMS? And we've
  • 02:23:33
    got Thanksgiving in the middle. Just want to be sure it fits with your schedule.
  • 02:23:39
    I guess I want to be sure I understand the scope
  • 02:23:43
    of what we want. Do we.
  • 02:23:46
    Are we saying we want to review the NPRR?
  • 02:23:54
    I think you said you all are going to make some progress on the
  • 02:23:57
    NOGRR and Ivan said the NOGRR is the better approach.
  • 02:24:02
    But you haven't met in a few months. So maybe
  • 02:24:06
    if you all can address the NOGRR and move that forward,
  • 02:24:10
    then it can unstick these issues.
  • 02:24:14
    Yeah. Where the NOGRR stands.
  • 02:24:18
    I'm not hopeful we'll have like the
  • 02:24:23
    compensation meat of it solved
  • 02:24:27
    before, you know, this year when we can meet and discuss.
  • 02:24:31
    But I'm not sure we'll have the language revised
  • 02:24:36
    or any new material brought
  • 02:24:40
    to the team.
  • 02:24:46
    I guess what I
  • 02:24:51
    saw, like there was two things going on. We're talking
  • 02:24:56
    about tabling or not tabling,
  • 02:24:59
    removing this PGRR from the list and whether
  • 02:25:03
    there's a validity in that is that.
  • 02:25:06
    I think that's what I heard before. Yeah, that was the initial
  • 02:25:10
    recommendation was to reject and go with the other NOGRR.
  • 02:25:14
    But I think Kara is asking
  • 02:25:17
    that we allow the working group to discuss so
  • 02:25:21
    that we can get a little more into the
  • 02:25:25
    details and understand what needs to proceed.
  • 02:25:34
    Brian just pulled up the
  • 02:25:37
    metering working group. It looks like the last time there was a meeting
  • 02:25:41
    was April 30th. I don't see anything
  • 02:25:44
    scheduled before the end of the year.
  • 02:25:48
    So I don't know if November is not an
  • 02:25:52
    option, but certainly by December it seems like there should be an opportunity
  • 02:25:56
    to have a healthy discussion.
  • 02:26:01
    Yeah, I think that's. That's the question, Michael. Is there a.
  • 02:26:04
    Is there availability or
  • 02:26:08
    opening to schedule WMS or
  • 02:26:12
    MWG meeting so that
  • 02:26:16
    these issues can kind of get discussed further? And I'm
  • 02:26:22
    receptive to bring that up to the
  • 02:26:26
    stakeholders to have a meeting.
  • 02:26:29
    I guess the, you know, I'm receptive to
  • 02:26:33
    looking to pursue if there's opportunities for another meeting
  • 02:26:37
    in the next month or before the next WMS.
  • 02:26:41
    But I do want to be sure I understand the scope of what we will
  • 02:26:45
    want to discuss. It sounds like we'll want to.
  • 02:26:51
    The core of the meeting will be to try to
  • 02:26:57
    resolve or come to a conclusion on the NOGRR
  • 02:27:02
    until NOGRR 2.
  • 02:27:04
    28. Yeah,
  • 02:27:08
    I think that's right. And if there's a Recommendation to
  • 02:27:12
    reject 1200, I think that would be very helpful
  • 02:27:16
    too. So. Okay.
  • 02:27:18
    Okay. I'll.
  • 02:27:22
    I'll initiate with the stakeholders and see if
  • 02:27:25
    we can get something scheduled. Great.
  • 02:27:29
    Does that work, Kara?
  • 02:27:32
    Ivan. Awesome. All right.
  • 02:27:36
    Thank you for that discussion. Thank you for bringing that up, Ivan.
  • 02:27:39
    Oh, I'm sorry. Bob Helton. Yeah, just to bring up.
  • 02:27:43
    It's not going to get solved if you don't get together and talk
  • 02:27:47
    about it. And from listening to this conversation,
  • 02:27:52
    I was a little disappointed in the reluctance to try to get
  • 02:27:55
    together and solve this. It seems like to me this group is interested in
  • 02:27:59
    that and this group can either do it or not. But this group
  • 02:28:03
    can has the ability to say go solve it and bring
  • 02:28:07
    it back. And even if you need, you can put a date on it to
  • 02:28:10
    when you want to get updates on it. And I don't see that happening here.
  • 02:28:13
    And it seems to be of importance to a lot of people here and I
  • 02:28:17
    didn't see action. So just my comment.
  • 02:28:21
    Yeah, I appreciate that feedback and we'll.
  • 02:28:26
    I don't think it's been for lack of attention. I think it's just.
  • 02:28:29
    It needs to. We need to push this forward. And I appreciate Ivan raising
  • 02:28:33
    the issues that we could discuss. So thank you.
  • Item 10.03 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
    02:28:37
    Let's go to the next on Our list is 1202 and
  • 02:28:42
    this is the refundable deposits for large
  • 02:28:45
    load and believe that
  • 02:28:49
    Blake had discussed this in his report about
  • 02:28:54
    the wholesale market working group discussion
  • 02:28:58
    that they had. And I think to summarize,
  • 02:29:01
    I would say Longhorn is wanting to
  • 02:29:04
    accelerate the approval.
  • 02:29:07
    TCPA has
  • 02:29:11
    indicated their support. We did have some comments Filed
  • 02:29:16
    and I don't have the date. John Ross Hubbard,
  • 02:29:20
    I believe you're on the line.
  • 02:29:23
    This was something that he had asked to be available to discuss,
  • 02:29:28
    but I just want to ask the group.
  • 02:29:31
    Well, first, John Russ, because you. I believe you filed
  • 02:29:34
    comments since WMS and I don't believe there's any
  • 02:29:38
    others. Do you want to just provide a summary of your comments?
  • 02:29:50
    John Russ, are you there? Sorry, I was trying to get
  • 02:29:53
    off mute. Oh, there he is. Yep. Perfect.
  • 02:29:57
    Yeah. So TIC filed these comments to express concern with long haul
  • 02:30:01
    powers and TCPA suggestions.
  • 02:30:05
    We're sympathetic with the sentiment that the interconnection queue is unmanageable
  • 02:30:08
    because of speculative interconnection requests. But Longhorn
  • 02:30:12
    Powers proposed fees are contrary to cost causation principles.
  • 02:30:15
    You know, there hasn't been any evidence that the proposed fees correlate to the cost
  • 02:30:19
    needed to serve large loads. And there's ongoing discussions
  • 02:30:23
    at the legislature and at the PUC that those and
  • 02:30:26
    those venues are more appropriate for this broader policy
  • 02:30:30
    discussion regarding TCPA suggestion
  • 02:30:33
    to prioritize interconnections for loads with PPAs or other
  • 02:30:38
    contractual agreements with Generation Resources.
  • 02:30:41
    You know, this worries us.
  • 02:30:45
    It would prioritize customers based off their commercial arrangements and
  • 02:30:49
    regulated utilities are required to provide open, non discriminatory
  • 02:30:53
    access for loads. And this suggestion would discriminate
  • 02:30:56
    based on judgments about whether the loads intend to.
  • 02:30:59
    Whether and how the loads intend to hedge their energy needs.
  • 02:31:03
    Again, this conversation is happening at
  • 02:31:07
    the legislature, not the PUC. And so this NPRR doesn't
  • 02:31:10
    seem like the appropriate vehicle for these policy discussions. Thanks.
  • 02:31:15
    Thank you. So I think that's
  • 02:31:19
    kind of set the table kind of where Debbie did. Because if I,
  • 02:31:22
    if I'm not mistaken, y'all have exhausted your conversations at least
  • 02:31:26
    as far as you been given so far.
  • 02:31:30
    Doesn't sound like there's 100% consensus.
  • 02:31:33
    There's. There's definitely some that are wanting to pursue this
  • 02:31:37
    aggressively, some that are saying we need to wait for the policy. So I
  • 02:31:41
    guess I just want to throw this open. I don't
  • 02:31:44
    think it needs to stay at WMS unless
  • 02:31:49
    we want to just leave it there as a placeholder or see if
  • 02:31:52
    there's any direction that someone wants
  • 02:31:56
    to provide for discussion and possible action.
  • 02:31:59
    Bill, Mr. Helton beat me
  • 02:32:03
    with his quick hand raise. You can go ahead, Bill.
  • 02:32:06
    You're at the big table. I'll take second here. And I was like,
  • 02:32:09
    david Dilich has this card up to you. I don't know. Sorry, David.
  • 02:32:16
    Oh, well, I would just question,
  • 02:32:19
    did ERCOT still want theirs Instead of this 1202 because
  • 02:32:23
    they said what 1234 is at Ross
  • 02:32:27
    and they prefer that. So and
  • 02:32:31
    I'm. Well, the inclusion of a recurring
  • 02:32:35
    fee on the generators kind of seems what took me
  • 02:32:38
    by surprise out of the field to include in this.
  • 02:32:41
    NPRR not in favor of that.
  • 02:32:45
    I'll listen to the other comments. Thank you,
  • 02:32:47
    David. Mine was similar. I just wondered if ERCOT,
  • 02:32:51
    I know they expressed some concerns with
  • 02:32:55
    the Longhorn comments. I'm just wondering if they had some time to think
  • 02:32:58
    and if that's something they could deal with in terms of collecting fees and
  • 02:33:02
    how to use those funds for operations
  • 02:33:05
    purposes or processing interconnections. I think that the accounting thing
  • 02:33:09
    is what made them a little uncomfortable. I was wondering
  • 02:33:13
    if they discussed that further and might be okay
  • 02:33:16
    with it. I do think we are going to need some type of concept
  • 02:33:20
    like what was proposed in the Longhorn comments, either as
  • 02:33:24
    a bigger interconnection fee, a reoccurring fee,
  • 02:33:28
    refundable deposit, something we need something like this.
  • 02:33:31
    So I'm interested in advancing
  • 02:33:35
    the concept but also don't want to cause problems for ERCOT if this is
  • 02:33:39
    a big deal for them.
  • 02:33:43
    Is there someone from ERCOT, Gordon or
  • 02:33:47
    Matt or anyone that would
  • 02:33:51
    have a response?
  • 02:34:01
    Well, let's go back to the queue. Bob Whitmeyer Yes.
  • 02:34:05
    So a couple of Bob Whitman, 1, I think
  • 02:34:08
    ERCOT is taking another look at 1,
  • 02:34:11
    2, 3, 4 to see if they've captured all the cost
  • 02:34:15
    in there. The fundamental difference though
  • 02:34:19
    in 1202 to and anything else that
  • 02:34:23
    we have discussed is the desire
  • 02:34:27
    to accelerate the queue. Like I
  • 02:34:32
    said in all my comments, I am open to any
  • 02:34:35
    suggestion that accelerates
  • 02:34:39
    the queue. This seems like one
  • 02:34:43
    option that if we can use the money to hire
  • 02:34:47
    people, contractors, whatever, but there
  • 02:34:51
    is a significant amount of economic
  • 02:34:55
    development for the state that is being tied up
  • 02:34:59
    because we cannot get things through the interconnection
  • 02:35:03
    queue. This applies both to generation
  • 02:35:07
    and load. We need a method to
  • 02:35:11
    accelerate what we are doing.
  • 02:35:16
    I think tabling it today probably makes sense. Maybe we
  • 02:35:19
    pull it back from WMSWG and table
  • 02:35:23
    it here or pun it to PRS. But we still
  • 02:35:27
    have not addressed the fundamental issue of how do we
  • 02:35:31
    accelerate this queue so these
  • 02:35:34
    loads and generators can come here and
  • 02:35:38
    they don't go to a different state or a different country.
  • 02:35:42
    Thank you. Thank you,
  • 02:35:45
    Bob. And I'm going to rearrange the queue because Bob
  • 02:35:49
    Helton was supposed to go earlier. I'm going to call on Bob. Go ahead.
  • 02:35:53
    Yeah, thank you very much. That actually Bob Said Bob
  • 02:35:57
    squared said a lot of the things I want to say, I just wanted to
  • 02:36:00
    say, from being one that's completely off affected by
  • 02:36:04
    this, it's not just here to take
  • 02:36:08
    the speculative pieces that are
  • 02:36:11
    in the generation interconnection queue and get them out.
  • 02:36:15
    Because what we also find is when you get into
  • 02:36:19
    actual doing, you know, part one, part two,
  • 02:36:23
    part three, ancillary services approval,
  • 02:36:26
    we're stacked up and they've got more than they could handle.
  • 02:36:29
    And we're willing to support 1202 or something
  • 02:36:33
    along that lines, for us to have the ability to ensure
  • 02:36:37
    that ERCOT has the resources necessary to
  • 02:36:41
    connect these in and get these studies done and connections and commercial
  • 02:36:45
    operations in the most expedient manner they can. And I
  • 02:36:48
    only see this getting worse. Whenever we get into the TEF and
  • 02:36:52
    those resources start hitting the queue, we know they're going to
  • 02:36:56
    come, they're going to get caught up in the same issue between part one,
  • 02:37:00
    part two and part three in ancillary services. And that's really where I'm
  • 02:37:04
    focused on in support of this, not just getting rid of the
  • 02:37:07
    speculative stuff. Thank you, Bob. Eric,
  • 02:37:12
    I just put a comment that I'm going to give my proxy if there's a
  • 02:37:15
    vote to Rick on that. Yep,
  • 02:37:18
    thank you, Michael Jewell.
  • 02:37:28
    Michael, can't hear you.
  • 02:37:46
    Working on double mute.
  • 02:37:50
    Michael, if it's okay, I'm going to skip you and go to David Dietelich.
  • 02:37:56
    Yeah, I have a question. I guess for Longhorn Power,
  • 02:37:59
    the definition of getting through the queue is that just mean the
  • 02:38:03
    studies are done, but then the project's still going to
  • 02:38:06
    sit and wait for, you know, crews and equipment and lead
  • 02:38:10
    times of all the delivery lead times we hear about
  • 02:38:14
    supply chain. So what, what's the definition here,
  • 02:38:17
    his definition of getting through the queue? The focus
  • 02:38:21
    is on getting the studies done by ERCOT
  • 02:38:26
    that allow the rest of that to go forward.
  • 02:38:29
    We will hit the next bottleneck at the TDSPs
  • 02:38:33
    who are also going to need additional resources. But yeah,
  • 02:38:38
    I'll stop there.
  • 02:38:42
    Thank you. All right, Michael Jewell, try you again.
  • 02:38:45
    Are you on the line? Yeah. Can you hear me now? Yes, sir.
  • 02:38:50
    Awesome. I really hate this WebEx update.
  • 02:38:53
    So the Michael Jewell for Priority Power.
  • 02:38:57
    I think the policy of what this is trying to go after with regard
  • 02:39:01
    to helping ensure ERCOT has adequate resources
  • 02:39:04
    and also being sure that we've got serious applicants in the queue,
  • 02:39:08
    we support that. You know, the one thing that
  • 02:39:12
    we have thought about is with regard to the monthly recurring fee,
  • 02:39:15
    we would rather see a higher upfront fee and not worry about the monthly
  • 02:39:19
    recurring fee as well, but fundamentally
  • 02:39:22
    think that this is a definitely a move in the right direction.
  • 02:39:26
    Thank you. Thank you, Michael Blake.
  • 02:39:30
    Blake Holt, LCRA in alignment with Michael
  • 02:39:34
    on that point, we're supportive of a more upfront filter on
  • 02:39:38
    this. Maybe less supportive of the reoccurring fee.
  • 02:39:41
    But I do, I do think it's
  • 02:39:45
    necessary that we hear back from ERCOT. I heard
  • 02:39:48
    at some meeting in the recent past that they were going to re
  • 02:39:53
    review the upfront fee. That was in 1,
  • 02:39:56
    2, 3, 4. I haven't gotten feedback or heard
  • 02:40:00
    a resolution on that. I think maybe that could be a middle ground.
  • 02:40:03
    If that amount is increased in their RE review of the fee,
  • 02:40:07
    then perhaps it may help solve some of the problems
  • 02:40:10
    and get more alignment. So perhaps maybe tabling
  • 02:40:14
    another month to get that feedback to help us make
  • 02:40:18
    some more progress. Just a suggestion there.
  • 02:40:23
    Thank you. Navaraj.
  • 02:40:27
    I just want to see how IMM start
  • 02:40:31
    on this one. I think they
  • 02:40:35
    speak last time a little bit, but I'd like
  • 02:40:39
    to hear more from them. Okay, Andrew, a few things.
  • 02:40:43
    Right. You know who pay the cost. Right. That that thing is
  • 02:40:48
    always struggling for us.
  • 02:40:51
    Right. So we need to first
  • 02:40:55
    we need to hear from their thoughts on that one.
  • 02:40:58
    Okay, sure. I will try to be brief.
  • 02:41:04
    We echoed or commented on some of ERCOT's concerns about
  • 02:41:08
    how they could take in and spend this money.
  • 02:41:12
    The proposal that they could spend it on more interconnection
  • 02:41:17
    analysts and things like that. They seem to have a different
  • 02:41:20
    opinion about how plausible that is. And so that was
  • 02:41:24
    where just the suggestion of applying it towards tcos came
  • 02:41:27
    from. I don't necessarily have any attachment to that suggestion.
  • 02:41:30
    It was just a way to make the flow of money something
  • 02:41:34
    that ERCOT would be comfortable with. As to some
  • 02:41:39
    of the other stuff going on, I think we've determined that a
  • 02:41:44
    fee has less adverse kind of
  • 02:41:47
    economic behavioral incentives than a deposit.
  • 02:41:52
    Kind of sunk cost fallacy type stuff. And so we
  • 02:41:55
    would be more favoring of a fee than a deposit. But I don't know
  • 02:41:59
    how big of a showstopper either of those are. That's more or less our
  • 02:42:03
    opinion at the moment. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:42:06
    That's helpful. Thank you.
  • 02:42:10
    Anyone else? I don't. We have an empty queue.
  • 02:42:15
    There's no cards up. Eric. I'll just say Doug
  • 02:42:19
    Fawn may be able to hop on in a minute. Oh, okay. Doug, are you
  • 02:42:22
    on the line? It looks like he's joining
  • 02:42:26
    right now. Oh, okay. Yeah. Can you hear me?
  • 02:42:29
    Yes, sir, Barely, but yes yeah,
  • 02:42:33
    sorry, sorry. Do we need to bring you up
  • 02:42:36
    to speed on our discussion? Yeah, I think so.
  • 02:42:41
    Okay. We're talking about 1202 refundable
  • 02:42:45
    deposits for large load interconnect studies.
  • 02:42:50
    And you know, we've got Longhorn and
  • 02:42:54
    TCPA who are, who are recommending we move forward
  • 02:42:58
    and expedite and we've got TIEC that
  • 02:43:03
    file comments that are opposed and concerned about
  • 02:43:08
    the policy decision and that we need to wait for policy direction.
  • 02:43:12
    And I know there's been comments previously
  • 02:43:16
    from ERCOT about being able to collect the fees and
  • 02:43:21
    concerns with that. So I think we were just wanting to see what
  • 02:43:25
    position is and what you would recommend WMS
  • 02:43:29
    do if we should leave a table
  • 02:43:33
    or if we should perhaps try to move forward with something.
  • 02:43:37
    Well, yeah, and we spoke. I think it was prs.
  • 02:43:42
    It was me and a few other folks
  • 02:43:46
    were all there to speak on this and we did fall comments and
  • 02:43:51
    I think that what our concern is
  • 02:43:55
    that just the idea of
  • 02:43:58
    just adding a new fee to
  • 02:44:02
    the fee schedule that will automatically result
  • 02:44:05
    in hiring a new staff to
  • 02:44:09
    help expedite the queue.
  • 02:44:13
    It doesn't work like that. Unfortunately. We have issues from
  • 02:44:17
    a budget perspective. Richard Schiel, I think
  • 02:44:20
    touched on this at PRS when he appeared and said that,
  • 02:44:25
    you know, our budget is controlled by the commission in a two year cycle.
  • 02:44:29
    There are concerns about headcount being
  • 02:44:33
    and some of that stuff being kind of driven by our budgeting.
  • 02:44:37
    And we felt like there
  • 02:44:41
    would be difficulties in just passing
  • 02:44:45
    a user fee and hiring a bunch of people. So we feel like
  • 02:44:48
    the better way is to address that through our budgeting and our headcount
  • 02:44:52
    and our spend that is approved through the commission.
  • 02:44:56
    And the other thing is, is that we have already we have
  • 02:45:00
    our recommendation in our comments was that this
  • 02:45:04
    be that this be tabled. And instead we would prefer
  • 02:45:07
    to see NPRR1234 be pushed
  • 02:45:11
    through, which is what we have filed to try and streamline
  • 02:45:15
    and expedite the process.
  • 02:45:19
    And I think there's a companion NOGRR that goes
  • 02:45:22
    with that or a PGRR not exactly sure.
  • 02:45:27
    And so sorry, I wasn't prepared to pull
  • 02:45:30
    that up as we speak. But our recommendation was that if
  • 02:45:34
    we could pass those, we feel like
  • 02:45:38
    that could result in some efficiencies and that if that's still not
  • 02:45:42
    enough, then we could look at other measures and maybe
  • 02:45:45
    there are as far as a fee,
  • 02:45:48
    a user fee, I understand that one.
  • 02:45:52
    The argument for it wasn't that it could be used to up our spending on
  • 02:45:56
    that area, which I'm saying which I've said we've got concerns with. But the other
  • 02:46:00
    thing is I think people have said that using a fee might help
  • 02:46:04
    discourage speculative, you know,
  • 02:46:09
    projects. So that might. There, maybe there is some
  • 02:46:12
    utility there. But our recommendation would be to have 12:34
  • 02:46:17
    pass first. And if there are still problems and it doesn't help, then we look
  • 02:46:20
    at whether a fee that,
  • 02:46:23
    you know, some kind of fee would be appropriate to try
  • 02:46:27
    and discourage speculative filings or
  • 02:46:31
    projects. So that, that's kind of in a nutshell, what we had set
  • 02:46:34
    up here.
  • 02:46:38
    All right, that is very good. Thank you. All right, we have a queue
  • 02:46:41
    again. Let's go back to Bob Helton. Yeah, Doug,
  • 02:46:44
    a quick question for you. You were talking about hiring
  • 02:46:49
    additional FTEs, you know, based on 1202. And I'm
  • 02:46:52
    not necessarily completely there that you'd
  • 02:46:55
    go out and hire some people because I think this is going to fluctuate through
  • 02:46:59
    a period of time through, you know, boom and bust
  • 02:47:02
    cycles. And I was curious if you would have the same theory
  • 02:47:07
    or thought if we looked at what this would really be as a fund
  • 02:47:11
    for a group that would be augmenting
  • 02:47:15
    through contract during busy times. And I
  • 02:47:18
    mean, and what I get there is the more that's in the,
  • 02:47:21
    the more studies that need to be done, everything, you're going to have a higher
  • 02:47:24
    fund. And during the boom times and then as that
  • 02:47:28
    tapers off and you're down to a bus time where there's not that much going
  • 02:47:31
    on, those funds would go away pretty much and then you wouldn't
  • 02:47:34
    need those contractors to do that.
  • 02:47:38
    And so I was looking at this more like a contract with an EPE or
  • 02:47:42
    some other group that has those engineers that as needed
  • 02:47:45
    you had the funds there to go do it on an as needed basis.
  • 02:47:49
    And when it wasn't needed, you wouldn't have them. I'm not really looking at necessarily
  • 02:47:52
    new FTEs. Would you
  • 02:47:56
    look at that differently? Perhaps. And it
  • 02:47:59
    might be good if maybe we had a meeting with some of the SMEs
  • 02:48:03
    that whether it's Bill Blevins or and maybe even Richard
  • 02:48:07
    Scheele from a finance perspective. But I think one concern
  • 02:48:11
    is whether the extent to which contractors can
  • 02:48:16
    really jump in and provide value on
  • 02:48:19
    a short period of time. Like, you know, how long does it take
  • 02:48:22
    to train them up? Would they really be able to just show up for
  • 02:48:26
    a couple of months and provide real value or
  • 02:48:30
    is that something that we feel like is a,
  • 02:48:33
    is a skill that or a skill set that can be
  • 02:48:37
    contracted out? So that's where I don't know, but I
  • 02:48:41
    think that would be one concern is, you know,
  • 02:48:44
    is this the kind of thing that we can just bring in a bunch of
  • 02:48:47
    new people for a short period of time to jump in and do
  • 02:48:51
    the work? So we, like I said, if we want to explore
  • 02:48:54
    that, maybe offline, maybe we could talk to Bill Blevins
  • 02:48:58
    and get his thoughts on how feasible that is.
  • 02:49:04
    But that's one thing I do think is a sir.
  • 02:49:07
    Okay, thank you, Doug. Yeah, yeah, really what I'm trying to do is help build
  • 02:49:12
    Blevins because they're doing a great job the way it is. I don't want anything,
  • 02:49:16
    anything to be taken away from that group. They're doing an excellent job,
  • 02:49:19
    just trying to help. And the only thing I'd add to that is talking about
  • 02:49:22
    the training and everything else is I would suggest you just not going
  • 02:49:26
    out to, you know, just to any, you know, engineering firm to do that.
  • 02:49:30
    I was more looking at this would be like a, you know,
  • 02:49:33
    like a retainer you would have out there and then you would have
  • 02:49:36
    them and know who they are, know which engineers it's going to be,
  • 02:49:40
    and, you know, they're doing the right job for you, and then you just use
  • 02:49:43
    them as needed. So that's the way I would look at trying
  • 02:49:46
    to handle that. So thank you very much.
  • 02:49:50
    Thank you, Bob. All right, Diana, you're up.
  • 02:49:53
    Diana Coleman, CPS Energy. Doug, I just wanted to say thank you for
  • 02:49:57
    those comments. From what I remember at the conversation at PRS
  • 02:50:01
    is that the conversation on how we ensure
  • 02:50:05
    specific funds go to ERCOT staffing and not something
  • 02:50:09
    else, specifically towards this proposed revision
  • 02:50:12
    request. And in ERCOT's comments,
  • 02:50:15
    exactly what Doug said earlier is that they were recommending that 1234
  • 02:50:20
    and PGRR115 be adopted instead of the
  • 02:50:23
    more limited rules that were proposed in 1202
  • 02:50:27
    in the comments that were submitted by Longhorn Power. So that was
  • 02:50:30
    the conversation from last month's prs.
  • 02:50:34
    And if we need to ask folks to have
  • 02:50:38
    subject matter experts or someone else to continue
  • 02:50:41
    that conversation, just please let us know and we'll see how we
  • 02:50:44
    can best support anybody who would like to keep
  • 02:50:48
    that process going. Thank you.
  • 02:50:53
    Thank you, Bill. So, Doug, again, appreciate the
  • 02:50:57
    comments. Sounds like ERCOT's main concern is the imposition on
  • 02:51:01
    staffing and that the additional fees would have to be used, earmarked for
  • 02:51:06
    staffing purposes. It sounds like that creates some administrative
  • 02:51:10
    issues for ERCOT. I'm more interested in having a
  • 02:51:15
    large enough fee that disciplines interconnection requests.
  • 02:51:19
    I'm wondering if the compromise here is if we just increase the
  • 02:51:23
    fee in 1234 and then add a recurring
  • 02:51:27
    fee. What do you think of that idea
  • 02:51:33
    in 1234? Oh, like putting it in the
  • 02:51:36
    1234, maybe. I mean, you know, I think we said at PRS
  • 02:51:40
    that we're not totally against the idea of a recurring fee.
  • 02:51:44
    We understand, you know, what we were mostly reacting to was
  • 02:51:48
    kind of the, the budget side of it that we can't necessarily promise
  • 02:51:52
    that we can fund. You know, but as far as the utility
  • 02:51:55
    of a fee acting as kind of something to
  • 02:51:59
    discourage speculation and people just saving
  • 02:52:03
    a place in the queue when they're, you know, we,
  • 02:52:06
    maybe there is some utility there. Our thought was
  • 02:52:11
    maybe we, you know, past 12 1,
  • 02:52:14
    2, 3, 4, 1234 first and see if that doesn't
  • 02:52:18
    fix the problem. But I don't know,
  • 02:52:21
    you know, if you wanted to propose that in comments to 1234,
  • 02:52:25
    I think we could, we would consider it. I don't, you know,
  • 02:52:29
    maybe there is some value there, but that's,
  • 02:52:34
    you know, we're not totally against that. I think it's something we'd have
  • 02:52:37
    to think about and then finding the, you know, what's the right amount
  • 02:52:41
    is, I guess, kind of a. Another question. What's the
  • 02:52:44
    striking. The right balance between not being overly burdensome
  • 02:52:48
    on people, but also being enough that it discourages
  • 02:52:52
    speculation. So, like, we'd be open to that conversation.
  • 02:52:55
    If you wanted to take a shot at that and some comments and maybe send
  • 02:52:58
    it to us, we'd be happy to talk with you about it.
  • 02:53:04
    Okay. I'm getting a sense that we can keep
  • 02:53:07
    this tabled and I'm getting thumbs up on
  • 02:53:11
    that. So hopefully this discussion was good.
  • 02:53:15
    I know there's camps that want to push this forward
  • 02:53:19
    and there's camps that want to go a different direction. So we're trying
  • 02:53:23
    to just make sure we're keeping the discussion positive and
  • 02:53:27
    going the right way. So hopefully today was helpful.
  • 02:53:31
    (item:10.04:NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk)Let's move on then to 1214.
  • 02:53:37
    This was in the CMWG report and
  • 02:53:43
    there's some joint comments that were filed. And this is the one that we
  • 02:53:48
    discussed briefly. That these comments,
  • 02:53:52
    I believe, were supposed to reflect the discussions
  • 02:53:56
    at CMWG and that there were no further questions.
  • 02:53:59
    And I believe Alex reported they.
  • 02:54:03
    They probably exhausted their discussions. But we could table
  • 02:54:06
    and refer this, or just keep it tabled at CMWG
  • 02:54:10
    and let them discuss these comments and make sure there's no other issues.
  • 02:54:16
    Is there any interest in trying to move this forward or do we want to
  • 02:54:19
    keep it tabled another month and let them look at it.
  • 02:54:24
    I'm seeing head shake on the second option,
  • 02:54:27
    so let's keep this tabled and Alex will
  • 02:54:31
    let you bring this forward at your next meeting and
  • 02:54:34
    make sure that everything's covered the way you want it. And if there's any
  • 02:54:38
    concerns or any comments, you can bring those to our next WMS.
  • 02:54:43
    All right,
  • Item 10.05 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
    02:54:46
    next we have 1229.
  • 02:54:50
    Real time constraint management plan, energy payment.
  • 02:54:56
    This was also at CMWG,
  • 02:55:00
    but Blake, I don't believe y'all discussed this, is that right?
  • 02:55:03
    That's correct. There's been some new comments filed within the last few days that
  • 02:55:07
    I think we probably should take back up to discuss. Okay. At your
  • 02:55:11
    text meeting. Okay. Stack is
  • 02:55:15
    here. Do you want to say anything? No. You're okay with that?
  • 02:55:19
    All right, so that will. We're okay with that.
  • Item 10.06 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
    02:55:24
    Where was it? Okay, very Good.
  • 02:55:28
    All right, 1235, we discussed
  • 02:55:31
    in the soccer. Sorry, I'm in the queue, but not there. Oh, I'm sorry.
  • 02:55:35
    Go ahead. I just got a couple questions
  • 02:55:39
    on text earlier, so I just wanted to connect the dots out loud.
  • 02:55:43
    Bill's earlier idea on 1190 and putting a cap
  • 02:55:47
    on the uplift costs. When I expressed
  • 02:55:51
    openness to discussing that idea and said we might want to look at other uplifts,
  • 02:55:56
    I specifically meant something like this NPRR.
  • 02:56:01
    So just to answer those. I know some people ask
  • 02:56:04
    me those questions directly. I just wanted to connect the dots.
  • 02:56:07
    Thanks.
  • 02:56:10
    And you're talking about 1229. Yeah,
  • 02:56:13
    the. The CMP,
  • 02:56:17
    potentially. If we were going to have a cap on spending
  • 02:56:21
    for one type of generator down payment,
  • 02:56:25
    then I'd want to fit them all into that structure,
  • 02:56:29
    if we have any at all. So I just wanted to connect those dots out
  • 02:56:32
    loud. Okay, thank you.
  • 02:56:39
    All right, 1235, we discussed with SAWG and
  • 02:56:43
    that that will remain tabled. (item:10.07:NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities)Now we're at
  • 02:56:47
    1238. Voluntary registration of loads with table load capabilities.
  • 02:56:53
    This was also under WMS. Did y'all
  • 02:56:58
    discuss. Jodan is here and I'll let
  • 02:57:01
    him provide an update. Go ahead. Yep, yep. This is Jodan
  • 02:57:05
    Wilson from Golden Spread Electric Co Op. And so, yeah, I had a few questions
  • 02:57:08
    on this one. Still just kind of looking for a status. So I was.
  • 02:57:11
    I was curious if ERCOT could give us a status on comments
  • 02:57:15
    that they were looking to provide the last couple months.
  • 02:57:22
    Matt, do you know if there's.
  • 02:57:25
    Do you know Joe Dan who's been working on that one? I'm looking at the.
  • 02:57:29
    I've had a couple people in there. Bill Blevins and Davida
  • 02:57:33
    Dwyer was the first one that started back in August mentioning that there need to
  • 02:57:36
    be comments and system changes. Let me see if I can get Davida.
  • 02:57:42
    And I'll just note we did have some comments that were filed by the
  • 02:57:46
    steel mills.
  • 02:57:49
    Ivan have
  • 02:57:52
    a comment? Well, yeah, I was going to ask if there's
  • 02:57:57
    anything else that WMS needs to look at on
  • 02:58:00
    this NPRR, if the wholesale issues are resolved,
  • 02:58:05
    whether it makes sense to move it forward,
  • 02:58:08
    and if there's any open items that might still be addressed
  • 02:58:12
    at Ross, they can be taken up there. So that's a question whether
  • 02:58:16
    or not there's any open items that WMS still needs to look at for this,
  • 02:58:20
    for this one.
  • 02:58:28
    And I guess I would direct that to Wimwood
  • 02:58:32
    leadership or to
  • 02:58:36
    Blake. This is Blake, I believe a
  • 02:58:39
    few months ago we kind of put the baby to bed on this one.
  • 02:58:42
    There were some pricing concerns that were withdrawn and we
  • 02:58:47
    recommended to kind of get it out of WMSWGs
  • 02:58:51
    off of our plate. So no other market concerns
  • 02:58:55
    to discuss. But I do know that there are some operational concerns
  • 02:58:59
    that are still being hashed out on the Ross side of the
  • 02:59:02
    table. And my memory is the same as Joe Dan's
  • 02:59:06
    is that there were some uptime comments from ERCOT to kind of address
  • 02:59:10
    those concerns. That's my
  • 02:59:13
    memory of where this one's at. Okay, let's go to the queue.
  • 02:59:16
    JD Mills, are you on the line?
  • 02:59:32
    Jd, we can't hear you if you're speaking.
  • 02:59:39
    Oh, you don't. Where did J.D. mills come from?
  • 02:59:48
    I think I meant Joe Dan,
  • 02:59:52
    I was like, I don't know. J.D.
  • 02:59:54
    mills, is there someone from ERCOT that
  • 02:59:58
    is available? No one's.
  • 03:00:03
    No one's picking up the phone or friend. Let's go to Katie
  • 03:00:06
    Rich. Katie,
  • 03:00:09
    I was the one that brought up the issues originally that
  • 03:00:13
    got it to WMSWG. Again, we rescinded that
  • 03:00:16
    knowing that this won't be implemented until after RTC+B.
  • 03:00:19
    So I would be supportive of moving forward on this side and I'd really
  • 03:00:23
    love to move it forward on the Ross side. We're really just waiting for those
  • 03:00:26
    early. I mean, it's come back to us.
  • 03:00:28
    And then I sent it back to OWG because ERCOT
  • 03:00:32
    commented that their comments are imminent and
  • 03:00:36
    then we still haven't seen this. So would love
  • 03:00:39
    to wrap it up on this side and love to wrap it up on the
  • 03:00:42
    Ross side soon as well. Y'all meet tomorrow, Correct?
  • 03:00:45
    So, yes, maybe by tomorrow we can
  • 03:00:49
    get an update on those comments. And so
  • 03:00:54
    what's the will of WMS. Leave it tabled or do
  • 03:00:58
    we want to move it out? Jodan.
  • 03:01:02
    Yeah, I guess I got a question for this group too. When I look at
  • 03:01:05
    the agenda, it does say WMSWG, as Blake said and
  • 03:01:08
    Katie mentioned. I think those issues have been cleared up.
  • 03:01:13
    I do think we need to wait for ERCOT comments, but I would like to
  • 03:01:16
    do that at the ROS if possible, so that we can consolidate this and get
  • 03:01:19
    those discussions into one place so we're not even as stakeholders, not just trying to
  • 03:01:23
    chase it around. So I would prefer to,
  • 03:01:27
    you know, to not table it, to try to move it on and then let
  • 03:01:30
    Ross, as Katie said, you know, take it from there. Because we are in
  • 03:01:33
    two groups right now at the moment. So we could, I guess, send this
  • 03:01:36
    back up to PRS. It was referred to us from WMS.
  • 03:01:40
    Right. I mean, by PRS. I'm sorry.
  • 03:01:44
    So if we wanted to move it off our
  • 03:01:47
    plate, so to speak, can we just get a motion to approve and.
  • 03:01:51
    Or what would we need to do? You actually don't have to take
  • 03:01:55
    action just because it's referred you and say we're not.
  • 03:01:59
    We're going to let Ross. I'm voting on. We're going to defer to Ross.
  • 03:02:03
    But if you do want to move it forward today, I would just need to
  • 03:02:06
    know if it says submitted or with a certain set of comments
  • 03:02:10
    and if you need its own ballot. Yeah.
  • 03:02:16
    Does anyone have a recommendation based on that? Brian? I'd like to
  • 03:02:20
    just take no action on it. I just don't feel comfortable
  • 03:02:23
    endorsing something without having seen whatever subsequent
  • 03:02:27
    ERCOT comments might be coming. So fine
  • 03:02:31
    to just do the path that I think I heard Brittany recommend with
  • 03:02:34
    no action. Just no action. Let. Let the
  • 03:02:38
    discussions consolidate at Ross.
  • 03:02:42
    Yeah, I'm okay with that if we need to. I think at the end of
  • 03:02:44
    the day, though, we've gone to a couple of these meetings where we've asked our
  • 03:02:47
    copper comments and we've taken the same path that, you know,
  • 03:02:51
    is being suggested here. Don't mind
  • 03:02:54
    taking that path, but don't want to continue just to stay stuck and stalled where
  • 03:02:57
    we're at. So I'd really like to implore ERCOT to get us those comments
  • 03:03:01
    as soon as possible so that we can move this out of the
  • 03:03:05
    groups and consolidate it to the right location.
  • 03:03:08
    Ian.
  • 03:03:12
    Mr. Chair,
  • 03:03:15
    respectful suggestion. It seems like there's
  • 03:03:18
    a few items here on our thing that have kind of
  • 03:03:22
    pushed to the back and are now ready to maybe move
  • 03:03:25
    forward or drop off Completely. And maybe in preparation
  • 03:03:29
    for next month's meeting, a strong
  • 03:03:33
    reminder from the chair or vice chair that be prepared
  • 03:03:37
    to vote up or down on these items from last month's meeting.
  • 03:03:41
    May get us moving on a few of these things. But just
  • 03:03:44
    a suggestion. Well, and I think this one is one
  • 03:03:48
    we can see how it goes at Ross if
  • 03:03:53
    Matt can kind of push the message
  • 03:03:56
    internally to at least let us know if they're imminent or if.
  • 03:04:01
    If there's a delay going on. So.
  • 03:04:04
    So yeah. So first, my apologies for not having the right people in the right
  • 03:04:08
    place at the right time. I will talk with Eric about how do we prepare
  • 03:04:11
    when we have this many NPRRs and this many SMEs behind it, not knowing which
  • 03:04:14
    ones are going to pop up. It's a good point of how do we vet
  • 03:04:17
    beforehand and know when they're going to need to be addressed? So that's not an
  • 03:04:20
    excuse and we'll try to do better. But I will at least tee up Bill
  • 03:04:24
    and AG with awareness for ROS tomorrow.
  • 03:04:29
    Okay. Yes.
  • 03:04:32
    Brittany. Hey, one more thing. Should WMS
  • 03:04:36
    decide to not take any action, I think prs would still be interested
  • 03:04:40
    in a report from the chair. Vice chair,
  • 03:04:43
    because this item has been discussed at your working groups,
  • 03:04:47
    right? Yeah. I'm going to suggest we
  • 03:04:51
    just keep it tabled and
  • 03:04:56
    let this play out at Ross tomorrow. And then
  • 03:05:01
    next month we will be prepared to hopefully move it forward
  • 03:05:04
    or, you know, as we've discussed our options.
  • 03:05:08
    So does that help? Okay. Thank you.
  • Item 10.08 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service Availability and Hourly Standby Fee
    03:05:13
    All right, Moving on to
  • 03:05:16
    1241.
  • 03:05:21
    Firm fuel supply service.
  • 03:05:24
    I believe Blake's report said Luminant is working on
  • Item 10.09 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination
    03:05:28
    language for the next WMSWG. So we will keep that tabled.
  • 03:05:33
    1250 is RPS mandatory program termination.
  • 03:05:39
    We voted to table this last month and
  • 03:05:46
    there have been statements to move this forward. Is there any update
  • 03:05:49
    on 1250 that anyone would like to provide?
  • 03:06:00
    I think. I'm sorry, Calvin,
  • 03:06:04
    can you hear me? Yes, sir. Yeah,
  • 03:06:07
    ERCOT. We met with Eric Goff and he
  • 03:06:11
    can confirm, but I believe we have agreement that this
  • 03:06:16
    NPRR can move forward for a vote. And we will work
  • 03:06:19
    with Eric on his upcoming
  • 03:06:24
    NPRR when minimizing his amount
  • 03:06:28
    of duplicative work.
  • 03:06:34
    Okay. Bill.
  • 03:06:37
    And we had, I think ERCOT called comments
  • 03:06:41
    on this to address our concern, which was to make sure the language takes effect
  • 03:06:45
    when that date certain, when that
  • 03:06:48
    program's terminated. So as long as that's included in the
  • 03:06:52
    motion or hover or cut phrase in their comments, we think we could add the
  • 03:06:56
    combo ballot and that should
  • 03:06:59
    be reflected Bill in our comments.
  • 03:07:02
    Okay, thanks. That'd be good. So any
  • 03:07:09
    concern or comments on adding this for approval on
  • 03:07:12
    the combo ballot? Getting thumbs
  • 03:07:17
    up? Courtney, is that.
  • 03:07:20
    I mean, Brittany, is that good enough?
  • 03:07:25
    The motion, if we had a motion,
  • 03:07:28
    since we can't have a motion.
  • 03:07:32
    I think it's motion
  • 03:07:37
    to approve. I submitted. I don't believe there's any comments.
  • 03:07:46
    I think there are ERCOT comments.
  • 03:07:50
    Okay. You'd want the latest ERCOT comments.
  • 03:07:57
    Is that the 10:1 ERCOT comments? Calvin?
  • 03:08:02
    I'd have to look it up, but that sounds reasonable.
  • 03:08:05
    It's been a while. We don't have, like, comments that we've added in the
  • 03:08:08
    last couple of weeks,
  • 03:08:15
    but I don't. I don't believe the ERCOT comments had any red
  • 03:08:19
    lines. That was just us reinforcing that it would have a September 1,
  • 03:08:22
    2025 date. So I think it's as submitted. Correct?
  • 03:08:25
    Correct. Corey.
  • 03:08:28
    Okay, thank you.
  • 03:08:33
    They give you what you need. Okay.
  • 03:08:38
    We will include that on the combo Ballot.
  • Item 10.10 - NPRR1251 Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process
    03:08:41
    And then 1251,
  • 03:08:44
    updated FFSS fuel replacement cost
  • 03:08:48
    recovery process. This was referred to RCWG.
  • 03:08:52
    I don't believe they've met. So, yes, we're planning on discussing this
  • 03:08:56
    on the 15th this week. Awesome. Thank you,
  • 03:08:59
    Blake. So we will keep that table.
  • 03:09:02
    Any other items? I don't believe there's any other tabled items. So with
  • Item 11 - Combo Ballot - Eric Blakey
    03:09:07
    that, let's go to Brittany and have the combo
  • 03:09:11
    ballot. Oh, before we say that, let's see if there's any
  • 03:09:14
    questions or comments on the convo ballot. Let's post
  • 03:09:17
    that so we can see we've got three items.
  • 03:09:21
    And is there a
  • 03:09:25
    motion? Bill. Motion to approve. And second,
  • 03:09:30
    Jim.
  • 03:09:33
    And assuming there's no questions, we will turn it over to Brittany
  • 03:09:36
    for the votes.
  • 03:09:46
    Thank you. We'll begin with the consumer
  • 03:09:50
    segment. Eric,
  • 03:09:53
    this is Rick Garnett. I'm Eric's proxy.
  • 03:09:56
    And yes,
  • 03:10:10
    thank you. Ray. Mark.
  • 03:10:13
    Yes. Preeti.
  • 03:10:24
    See Preeti on the line, but you are muted.
  • 03:10:27
    And we are having trouble with the double mute
  • 03:10:32
    with this webex update. So if folks are unable
  • 03:10:36
    to unmute, please put your vote in the chat.
  • 03:10:40
    On to Rick Arnett for yourself. Yes,
  • 03:10:43
    thank you, Brady. I'll try back in a little bit.
  • 03:10:50
    On to cooperative segment. Blake.
  • 03:10:53
    Yes.
  • 03:10:56
    John for Lucas. Yes, thank you.
  • 03:11:01
    Eric. Yes, thank you.
  • 03:11:04
    And Jim. Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 03:11:10
    Independent generator segment. Teresa,
  • 03:11:23
    Theresa's online with us.
  • 03:11:27
    Tom.
  • 03:11:34
    Tom Burke.
  • 03:11:38
    I see Teresa, but now no Tom.
  • 03:11:45
    Okay, hold on just a second.
  • 03:11:53
    Okay. Katie for Andy.
  • 03:11:58
    Yes, thank you.
  • 03:12:02
    And Brian. Yes.
  • 03:12:07
    Teresa, we will come back to you in just a second.
  • 03:12:11
    Independent power marketers. Shane for Reshmi yes,
  • 03:12:16
    thank you. Amanda yes, thank you.
  • 03:12:20
    Robert yes, thank you. And Ian
  • 03:12:24
    yes, thank you. Brittany thank you.
  • 03:12:28
    Independent retail electric providers. Bill yes.
  • 03:12:32
    Anish yes, please.
  • 03:12:35
    Joshua yes.
  • 03:12:39
    And Amir, I do not believe is with us today.
  • 03:12:43
    Amir,
  • 03:12:50
    investor and utilities. David.
  • 03:12:57
    David I see you in the chat. Thank you. Ivan yes.
  • 03:13:01
    Brittany, thank you. Jim yes,
  • 03:13:06
    thanks. Brittany thank you.
  • 03:13:10
    And we have one pending open seat in your segment finally,
  • 03:13:14
    municipal segment. David yes.
  • 03:13:19
    Ken.
  • 03:13:25
    Ken Lindbergh. There you go,
  • 03:13:31
    Ken, I see you're off mute at least on this
  • 03:13:35
    end.
  • 03:13:38
    Curtis yes.
  • 03:13:44
    And Faye. Yes, thank you.
  • 03:13:48
    Thank you. Anything from Ken
  • 03:13:54
    Lindbergh? Brady I
  • 03:13:57
    see your vote there in the chat in the community
  • 03:14:01
    segment. Thank you.
  • 03:14:05
    Teresa Allen, one more time,
  • 03:14:08
    last call.
  • 03:14:26
    Thank y'all. Motion carries unanimously.
  • Item 12 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
    03:14:29
    Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Brittany item 12,
  • Item 12.01 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
    03:14:33
    we just got a couple items,the open action items
  • 03:14:37
    review. I know Blake mentioned that there going
  • 03:14:41
    through their assignment, assigned items and parking
  • 03:14:45
    lot and so really appreciate y'all looking at
  • 03:14:48
    that and clean that up. David yes,
  • 03:14:52
    you have a comment on that or something other business,
  • 03:14:56
    other. Okay. I didn't add to the agenda
  • 03:15:00
    when you asked for, but in the minutes, you know, it said that I
  • 03:15:03
    had asked about how the charging load
  • 03:15:07
    is incorporated into the load forecast and I believe we said David Maggio
  • 03:15:11
    was going to work on when to talk about that. Is there any update
  • 03:15:14
    on when that might be discussed or assigned to a working group
  • 03:15:18
    or the incorporation of
  • 03:15:21
    the battery charging load into the load daily load forecast?
  • 03:15:26
    Blake so yeah, David, we didn't specifically
  • 03:15:30
    talk about including that on Mondays WMS
  • 03:15:34
    agenda, but I can touch base with Dave to figure out if we
  • 03:15:37
    can get that in December. If that works,
  • 03:15:41
    that'd be great. Thank you, Blake David so
  • 03:15:46
    again, look at the open action items. If there's
  • 03:15:50
    something near and dear that you want to protect or whatever,
  • 03:15:54
    please let us know. Also, just to add,
  • 03:15:57
    there's nominations are underway, I believe, among all the segments.
  • 03:16:02
    So you should be engaged in that process.
  • 03:16:04
    ERCOT's been sending out notes, so you should,
  • 03:16:08
    you know, be looking for that. The participation
  • 03:16:12
    on the committees and subcommittees and working
  • 03:16:16
    groups is vital to our success.
  • 03:16:19
    So we've always been blessed to
  • 03:16:22
    have great talent that
  • 03:16:26
    companies and organizations volunteer to ERCOT.
  • 03:16:30
    So I just want to recognize that and recognize
  • 03:16:33
    all of you again for your participation.
  • 03:16:38
    So I don't believe we have any other reports.
  • 03:16:42
    Anything else anyone wanted to discuss.
  • Item 13 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey
    03:16:46
    The next meeting is December 4th and we
  • 03:16:50
    look forward to seeing you there. And we are adjourned. Thank you.
  • 03:17:01
    Just for.
02-agenda-wms-20241106
Oct 29, 2024 - doc - 143 KB
03-draft-minutes-wms-20240911
Oct 29, 2024 - doc - 246 KB
03-draft-minutes-wms-20241007
Oct 29, 2024 - doc - 240 KB
05-2024-q3-unregistered-distributed-generation-(dg)-report---wms-update
Oct 29, 2024 - pptx - 204.1 KB
05-wms_settlement-stability-report_q3_2024
Oct 29, 2024 - pptx - 917.7 KB
05-cdr_mockup_nprr1219
Oct 29, 2024 - xlsx - 198.6 KB
06-cmwg-update-2024-11-wms
Oct 30, 2024 - pptx - 466.3 KB
07-20241106_supply-analysis-working-group-update-to-wms_v2
Oct 29, 2024 - pptx - 72.5 KB
08-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-october18-meeting
Oct 29, 2024 - pptx - 612.5 KB
08-wmwg-update-on-card-and-crrba-allocation-options
Oct 29, 2024 - pptx - 739.6 KB
08-card-allocation-proposal
Oct 30, 2024 - pptx - 604.8 KB
08-cog-proposal-on-card-and-crrba-allocation-110624
Oct 31, 2024 - pptx - 67.4 KB
Meeting-materials-20241106
Oct 31, 2024 - zip - 3.6 MB
Revision-requests-wms-20241106
Oct 30, 2024 - zip - 4.6 MB
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:02:10
2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:03:17
3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes – Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:03:55
3.1 - September 11, 2024
Starts at 00:04:18
3.2 - October 7, 2024
Starts at 00:04:21
4 - Technical Advisory Committee Update - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:04:38
5 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
Starts at 00:11:47
5.2 - 2024 Q3 Settlement Stability Report- Judy Luu
Starts at 00:13:05
5.1 - 2024 Q3 Unregistered Distribution Generation - Dan Mantena
Starts at 00:20:10
5.3 - CDR Mockup and NPRR1219 Implementation - Pete Warnken
Starts at 00:21:51
6 - Congestion Management Working Group - Alex Miller
Starts at 01:06:08
7 - Supply Analysis Working Group - Greg Lackey
Starts at 01:18:33
8 - Wholesale Market Working Group - Blake Holt
Starts at 01:34:45
8.1 - Proposed Changes to CARD Allocation Methods
Starts at 01:40:58
9 - WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:15:01
9.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors
Starts at 02:15:06
9.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
Starts at 02:15:22
9.3 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042 SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
Starts at 02:15:28
10 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:15:58
10.01 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
Starts at 02:16:08
10.02 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
Starts at 02:17:21
10.03 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
Starts at 02:28:37
10.04 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk
Starts at 02:53:31
10.05 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
Starts at 02:54:46
10.06 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
Starts at 02:55:24
10.07 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
Starts at 02:56:43
10.08 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service Availability and Hourly Standby Fee
Starts at 03:05:13
10.09 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination
Starts at 03:05:28
10.10 - NPRR1251 Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process
Starts at 03:08:41
11 - Combo Ballot - Eric Blakey
Starts at 03:09:07
12 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
Starts at 03:14:29
12.01 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
Starts at 03:14:33
13 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey
Starts at 03:16:46

Help Desk