04/03/2025 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 9:19
Duration 1:46:05
Loaded: 8.90%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:36:46
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • Item 0 - Validation for ROS Standing Representatives
    00:00:18
    Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT.
  • 00:00:21
    Welcome everybody to the ROS meeting. Before we
  • 00:00:24
    get started today, I just wanted to briefly
  • 00:00:26
    go over some meeting reminders. Erin does have
  • 00:00:28
    this information in the chat, but we are
  • 00:00:31
    using, the chat function to queue promotions or
  • 00:00:34
    discussions. So please enter yourself into the chat
  • 00:00:37
    and then wait for the chair to recognize
  • 00:00:39
    you. Also, as we approach the balloting process
  • 00:00:43
    for any voting items, you do ask that
  • 00:00:46
    seated representatives unmute themselves as we approach your
  • 00:00:49
    segment. And then after you have cast your
  • 00:00:51
    vote, please return to the mute function. That
  • 00:00:54
    will help us be a little more, efficient
  • 00:00:57
    with that validating process. And then if the
  • 00:01:00
    WebEx ends for any reason, give us just
  • 00:01:02
    a few moments. We should be able to
  • 00:01:03
    restart the WebEx with the same meeting details.
  • 00:01:07
    And if we are unable to use those
  • 00:01:09
    details, we will send something to the ROS
  • 00:01:11
    listserv. So just give us a few minutes
  • 00:01:13
    to process all of that. And with that,
  • 00:01:16
    Katie, we do have a quorum and are
  • 00:01:19
    ready to start when you're ready. Thanks, Susie.
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition
    00:01:24
    If Erin can pull up the antitrust for
  • 00:01:27
    us and while everybody was is reviewing that,
  • 00:01:30
    I'll just talk about the alt reps that
  • 00:01:32
    we have for today. So for Chase Smith
  • 00:01:35
    with Southern Power, we have Kristen Cook. Adam
  • 00:01:38
    Cochran with Tenaska has the alt rep of
  • 00:01:41
    John Barnell. Justin Cockrell with DC Energy has
  • 00:01:46
    the alt rep of Mark Price, and Chris
  • 00:01:49
    Garrity with TNMP has alt rep Rob Bevel.
  • 00:01:53
    I think that's everyone. Right, Susie? This is
  • 00:01:59
    Mark Price from DC Energy. Just a quick
  • 00:02:01
    clarification on that. I'm the proxy for Justin
  • 00:02:05
    Cockrell. It's not the other way around. Thanks.
  • 00:02:07
    That's right. That's what I'm saying. Oh, thanks.
  • 00:02:10
    Got it. Okay. Thanks. Alright. If you would
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review
    00:02:14
    take us back to the agenda, Erin, we
  • 00:02:16
    could go over that quickly. I do have
  • 00:02:18
    one item that I need to take up
  • 00:02:21
    out of order to accommodate working group leadership.
  • 00:02:24
    So we have our meeting minutes. I'll go
  • 00:02:27
    over the TAC update. I do have some
  • 00:02:30
    raw schools for you, so hopefully we can
  • 00:02:32
    get those approved today. We'll take up the
  • 00:02:35
    Black Start working group, and then we'll jump
  • 00:02:37
    into the ERCOT reports, take a look at
  • 00:02:42
    the new PRS referrals. I have one item
  • 00:02:46
    that I asked to be added, which is
  • 00:02:48
    NPRR1278. It has not been referred to us
  • 00:02:51
    yet. So but wanted to do a preliminary
  • 00:02:54
    review since it is associated with PGRR and
  • 00:02:58
    NOGRR NOGRR for advanced grid support. I think
  • 00:03:03
    we are waiting on the IA and then
  • 00:03:05
    language of view on NOGRR275.
  • 00:03:08
    And if you could keep scrolling down. Go
  • 00:03:13
    through our table list. NPRR1264, I don't see
  • 00:03:17
    any action on that. And then start going
  • 00:03:19
    through all of our working groups. And then
  • 00:03:27
    we have the combo ballot. We will have
  • 00:03:30
    already taken care of Black Start working group. We'll
  • 00:03:32
    have the OTWG. And then under other business,
  • 00:03:36
    take a look at one action item to
  • 00:03:38
    see how you'd like to proceed with that
  • 00:03:41
    one. So that that will take us through
  • 00:03:43
    the agenda. Any any questions on that before
  • Item 3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes (Possible Vote
    00:03:46
    we get started? Okay. So next item is
  • Item 3.1 - March 6, 2025
    00:03:54
    approval of the ROS meeting minutes from March.
  • 00:03:59
    Is everyone good with those, or was there
  • 00:04:02
    anyone that needed to abstain? Okay. Well, not
  • 00:04:14
    seeing anything. I think we can add this
  • 00:04:16
    as our first item on the combo ballot.
  • 00:04:35
    Great. Okay. And that will take us to
  • Item 4 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC
    00:04:38
    Update) the TAC update. So what I have for
  • 00:04:42
    you is the three real time cooptimization NPRRs
  • 00:04:49
    NPRR1268, NPRR1269 , and NPRR1270
  • 00:04:51
    were approved. You know, various versions of
  • 00:04:57
    those, the NPRR1268 with IMM's comments,
  • 00:05:00
    NPRR1269 with TCPA comments, and then
  • 00:05:04
    NPRR1270 as filed. And then all of
  • 00:05:07
    our voting items, so we had over NOGGR274
  • 00:05:11
    which was related to eliminating the
  • 00:05:14
    VDI, PGRR115, which was related to
  • 00:05:18
    NPRR1234 with a large load interconnection,
  • 00:05:22
    and then PGRR119, which was stability
  • 00:05:25
    constraint modeling assumptions. Those were all approved, but
  • 00:05:29
    I will, just for, you know, the good
  • 00:05:31
    of the group, say that PGRR115
  • 00:05:34
    did have significant discussions surrounding the timing of
  • 00:05:38
    the study for the interconnection load limit. ERCOT
  • 00:05:42
    has stated that would be mid April, and
  • 00:05:45
    that's being discussed at PLWG, and then concerns
  • 00:05:49
    about isolating colocated load. But, ultimately, it it
  • 00:05:53
    did move forward. And then there were discussions
  • 00:05:58
    of changes to the MDRPOC. We've had
  • 00:06:01
    some earlier discussions about that. That has moved
  • 00:06:04
    over to WMS, and there will be a
  • 00:06:08
    group that's going to look together to put
  • 00:06:11
    together alternative proposal to what's what's currently under
  • 00:06:15
    the the methodology there. So if that's interesting
  • 00:06:18
    to you, please plug in to the next
  • 00:06:20
    WMS. So that's what I've got for you
  • 00:06:23
    for the TAC update. Tried to be as
  • 00:06:25
    thorough as I could. Any questions on that?
  • 00:06:28
    I don't see anyone in the queue currently.
  • Item 5 - ROS Goals/Strategic Objectives (Possible Vote)
    00:06:32
    Okay. Alright. Let's pop over to our ROS
  • 00:06:35
    goals slash strategic objectives if you wanna pull
  • 00:06:40
    those up for me. Great. So what you
  • 00:06:50
    see here is the product of several of
  • 00:06:54
    us. Like, I I wanna thank Shane and
  • 00:06:57
    Cyrus and Sandeep and Alex for providing some
  • 00:07:00
    input as we try to condense our goals
  • 00:07:03
    down. You will see a lot of this
  • 00:07:07
    is the same wording we did manage to
  • 00:07:10
    con condense these down. And so hoping you
  • 00:07:14
    guys would be okay with moving forward with
  • 00:07:17
    this, but wanted to give you a minute
  • 00:07:19
    to review and see if you had any
  • 00:07:21
    comments or questions. Okay. Not seeing any, Erin,
  • 00:07:42
    then would would love to have this on
  • 00:07:45
    a combo ballot, so I'll be able to
  • 00:07:46
    report back to to TAC that we did
  • 00:07:49
    complete our task. And we hopefully have something
  • 00:07:52
    that doesn't need to be revised as frequently
  • 00:07:55
    as annually. Alright. Perfect. Thank you. And then
  • 00:08:01
    from here, I'll let the chair for Black
  • 00:08:06
    Start working group give their update. Katie, can
  • 00:08:11
    you hear me? We can. Go ahead, please.
  • Item 21 - Black Start Working Group
    00:08:16
    Okay. So Black Start working group met on
  • 00:08:20
    March 11. There was about 33 participants. It
  • 00:08:23
    was a closed session meeting. The only topic
  • 00:08:27
    that I can update y'all on is we
  • 00:08:29
    we reviewed a NOGRR that's in a draft
  • 00:08:32
    status status for communication. ERCOT took it, and
  • 00:08:38
    they are looking at it a little bit
  • 00:08:39
    more detailed, and we'll bring it back to
  • 00:08:41
    the Blackstrap working group at the next meeting
  • 00:08:44
    in June. That that's all we we had
  • 00:08:48
    in our meeting. The next meeting is slated
  • 00:08:50
    for June 25. Thanks for your update. Thank
  • 00:09:00
    you. Yeah. Okay. Well, that will take us
  • Item 6 - ERCOT Reports - 9:45 a.m.
    00:09:04
    into ERCOT reports, and we'll kick it off
  • 00:09:09
    with the operations report. Good morning, ROS. This
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 6.1 - Operations Report
    00:09:19
    is Alex Lee from ERCOT. For the month
  • 00:09:23
    of February, the peak demand was 80 gigawatt,
  • 00:09:26
    525 megawatt, which happened on February 20, our
  • 00:09:31
    ending eighth. There was six frequency events, all
  • 00:09:36
    of which were DTE unit trips, then frequency
  • 00:09:39
    all recovered within several minutes. There was no
  • 00:09:43
    ECRS event, and there was no RRS event.
  • 00:09:49
    One OCN was issued due to extreme extreme
  • 00:09:53
    cold weather, and there were three advisories, one
  • 00:09:57
    of which was also related to the cold
  • 00:09:59
    weather, and there were two advisories for TSAT
  • 00:10:03
    being unavailable. There was also one watch for
  • 00:10:07
    extreme cold weather, and there were two solar
  • 00:10:10
    there were solar records happening for all happened
  • 00:10:14
    on February 28, both for the megawatt and
  • 00:10:18
    then the penetrations. There were quite a bit
  • 00:10:22
    of rock commitments, hundred and five, and there
  • 00:10:24
    were several there were quite a bit of
  • 00:10:26
    congestions happening through GTCs as well. With that,
  • 00:10:31
    I'll open the floor for any questions. Thanks,
  • 00:10:39
    Alex. Not seeing anything in the queue. Thank
  • 00:10:44
    you. So I think I think we're good
  • 00:10:46
    this oh, sorry. Kara, go ahead. Hang on,
  • 00:10:50
    Alex. Hey, Katie. Good morning. I it was
  • 00:10:53
    a last minute entry. Just a question on
  • 00:10:55
    the ruck. This is carryover from the TAC
  • 00:10:57
    meeting last week. There was a discussion of
  • 00:11:00
    on getting more visibility possibly on the reasons
  • 00:11:04
    for rocking, specifically when it came down to
  • 00:11:08
    GTC congestion. I think the conversation said from
  • 00:11:12
    TAC that this would be discussed at WMS,
  • 00:11:14
    but just wanted to bring it up, Katie.
  • 00:11:16
    I don't know if ERCOT has any comments
  • 00:11:18
    at this time, or we can wait till
  • 00:11:20
    the next WMS. Alex, did you wanna respond
  • 00:11:28
    to that? Or like she said, wait for
  • 00:11:30
    the May 5 WMWG. Who's that gonna be?
  • 00:11:37
    Sure. I think we're still looking at it.
  • 00:11:39
    I don't think There's just there's just a
  • 00:11:41
    lot of moving pieces. And we need, like
  • 00:11:43
    like, you know Amani, I need you to
  • 00:11:46
    mute. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead,
  • 00:11:56
    Alex. Sorry. I guess we don't have I
  • 00:12:01
    know WMS discussed, and there's a lot of
  • 00:12:04
    internal discussions around how we can clarify those
  • 00:12:07
    as well. I don't unfortunately, we don't have
  • 00:12:10
    anything yet, but we're still looking into it.
  • 00:12:12
    And I probably, WMS will be a we
  • 00:12:18
    could bring it back to the next WMS.
  • 00:12:21
    So I think that's the only update I
  • 00:12:24
    can provide today unless anybody else on our
  • 00:12:28
    call has something to put it. Sounds good,
  • 00:12:36
    Alex. Thank you for the feedback. Thank you.
  • 00:12:43
    Sandeep, you had a question? Yes. Sandeep with
  • 00:12:47
    LCRA. Alex, a quick question. I'm sure you
  • 00:12:51
    all are looking at large load performance. Is
  • 00:12:57
    that something, that you consider adding to the
  • 00:13:01
    report as in if there are any large
  • 00:13:04
    load trips and its impact to frequency? I
  • 00:13:07
    know that's a that's the topic of discussion
  • 00:13:10
    at PLWG and and and the bigger. So
  • 00:13:15
    would be would be interesting to see if
  • 00:13:18
    if that can be added to the operations
  • 00:13:21
    report just to see if just to have
  • 00:13:25
    some collect some experience around that. I know
  • 00:13:28
    you you all probably have that experience already.
  • 00:13:30
    So that's something to consider to see if,
  • 00:13:33
    if we could review, instances when you have
  • 00:13:38
    these trips or or, voluntary curtailments. How does
  • 00:13:43
    that impact, or does that impact frequency at
  • 00:13:47
    all? And so just to mention and thought
  • 00:13:50
    for you all to consider. Thank you, Sanjay.
  • 00:13:56
    Yes. Definitely, we can look into it and
  • 00:13:58
    see what we can bring and add to
  • 00:14:00
    this operations report. Good deal. Thanks. And, yeah,
  • 00:14:10
    others on on ROS can can chime in
  • 00:14:13
    and also add whether it's it's a good
  • 00:14:16
    idea or not not so much not not
  • 00:14:17
    so good idea to be discussed at in
  • 00:14:21
    this report in this forum, and we can
  • 00:14:23
    take it elsewhere and offline. Thank you. Bye.
  • 00:14:34
    Thanks, Sandeep. Alright. Thanks, Alex. I think that
  • 00:14:39
    will now take us to the system planning
  • 00:14:41
    re Good morning, everyone. This is Ping An
  • Item 6.2 - System Planning Report
    00:14:49
    with ERCOT Grid Planning. So far, this month's
  • 00:14:52
    system planning report, I do not have additional
  • 00:14:56
    highlights to bring to us, but I will
  • 00:14:59
    be more than happy to address any questions.
  • 00:15:09
    Thanks, Peng. I was giving folks a second
  • 00:15:11
    to pop in the queue if they had
  • 00:15:13
    anything. Okay. I think we are good. Yeah.
  • 00:15:24
    Thanks, Katie. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Alright. Erin,
  • 00:15:29
    do we have one more report? Okay. Yeah.
  • 00:15:35
    So we have the GTC update. I can
  • 00:15:44
    can you hear me? From work. Can. Go
  • 00:15:49
    ahead. Can you please open the slide? I
  • 00:15:54
    think it it was posted. Hey. Hi. This
  • 00:16:09
    is this is Erin. Yes. Just give me
  • 00:16:13
    one second. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning,
  • Item 6.3 - Generic Transmission Constraint (GTC
    00:16:58
    Update) everyone. This is from Oncor operations support. We
  • 00:17:03
    had two GTC update yesterday. Kinney GTC
  • 00:17:09
    and the panhandle GTC. Can you please go
  • 00:17:12
    to next page? So the the Kinney GTC
  • 00:17:16
    update is based on 2025 Q1
  • 00:17:20
    one QSA study with additional generation
  • 00:17:23
    result in the GTC area. The update pretty
  • 00:17:27
    minor. The interface remain unchanged. And then for
  • 00:17:32
    the GTC limit, there's no stability constraint for
  • 00:17:37
    no product condition. It's the same as the
  • 00:17:40
    the previous GTC limit. And we update a
  • 00:17:44
    few GTC limit for some priority condition. So
  • 00:17:48
    as I said, overall, the update, pretty minor.
  • 00:17:52
    The CDC update became effective on 04/02/2025. So
  • 00:17:58
    that's the type, basically, yesterday. And as always,
  • 00:18:03
    the MI secure place has the most updated
  • 00:18:07
    GTC methodology document. Next page, please. We have
  • 00:18:16
    another GTC Panhandle GTC yesterday. The update is
  • 00:18:22
    based on a GTC study with additional generation
  • 00:18:26
    resources in the Panhandle and nearby Panhandle area.
  • 00:18:30
    The interface definition will be updated to align
  • 00:18:34
    with the in service date of the topology
  • 00:18:37
    change on the interface line. Basically, there are
  • 00:18:39
    some cutting station on the interface definitely interface
  • 00:18:44
    line, so we will need to update the
  • 00:18:46
    interface to accommodate that cutting stations. And then
  • 00:18:50
    the GTC limit change. Overall, the, you know,
  • 00:18:54
    GTC limit kind of increase for both the
  • 00:18:57
    outage condition and no problem condition. Yeah. That
  • 00:19:01
    kind of the quick update. I will be
  • 00:19:05
    more happy to answer questions if there are
  • 00:19:07
    any questions. Thanks for your update. Now we
  • 00:19:14
    have someone in the queue. Go ahead. Hello.
  • 00:19:19
    Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. This is
  • 00:19:24
    Jackson Guo from AT&T Energy. The
  • 00:19:29
    ERCOT increased the time of GDP limit aside
  • 00:19:32
    from yesterday because of more, like, new generation
  • 00:19:37
    connecting to the Panhandle and the nearby Panhandle
  • 00:19:40
    region. But this increase contradict to a previous
  • 00:19:45
    Panhandle GTC study, which said more new generation
  • 00:19:49
    connection to the panel nearby panel regions could
  • 00:19:53
    further suggest voltage stability issues. So I just
  • 00:19:57
    want to know what the theory and the
  • 00:19:59
    reasoning behind these GTC limit increase because of
  • 00:20:03
    new generation connection to the Pan to a
  • 00:20:07
    nearby Pan region? And and, Jack, that that's
  • 00:20:13
    a very good question. So, basically, like that,
  • 00:20:18
    the GDs update is to accommodate additional generation
  • 00:20:21
    source in panel and also near by panel.
  • 00:20:24
    And some generation resulted in near by panel
  • 00:20:28
    are batteries. And as I present before, so
  • 00:20:32
    when we create panel GTC image, we consider
  • 00:20:38
    nearby panel battery to be connected but at
  • 00:20:44
    zero to the patch. So therefore, those batteries
  • 00:20:48
    in nearby panhandle, they basically provide additional reactive
  • 00:20:53
    power support. That's why the GTC may
  • 00:20:57
    limit kind of increased. I hope that answer
  • 00:21:02
    your question. Let me know if you have
  • 00:21:04
    any thoughts. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything
  • 00:21:13
    else on the DTC update? Okay. It looks
  • 00:21:19
    like our queue is clear. Thank you again.
  • Item 7 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS
    00:21:22
    Referrals (Vote)) Thank you. Alright. That will take us on
  • 00:21:26
    to item number seven. These are new, but
  • 00:21:32
    maybe not so new revision requests. So if
  • Item 7.1 - NPRR1272, Voltage Support at Private Use Networks
    00:21:36
    you recall, NPRR1272, we voluntarily took this
  • 00:21:42
    one up. We sent it over to PLWG
  • 00:21:45
    and voltage profile working group. Both have reviewed
  • 00:21:49
    this, and PLWG has asked for more time.
  • 00:21:53
    I think Voltage Profile Working Group needed another
  • 00:21:55
    month as well. So we may have something
  • 00:21:58
    to talk about at the May ROS, but
  • 00:22:01
    for now, it sounds like those groups just
  • 00:22:04
    need more time to work. So any any
  • 00:22:07
    questions or concerns about this one? Okay. So
  • 00:22:20
    we can just keep it tabled. Erin, do
  • 00:22:24
    we need to do anything formal? Hi, Katie.
  • 00:22:29
    This is Erin with ERCOT market rules. So
  • 00:22:32
    since this was formally, referred to ROS, it
  • 00:22:37
    probably would be a good idea to, submit
  • 00:22:40
    comments requesting PRF continue to table, and, it
  • 00:22:46
    would be a and we can add it
  • 00:22:47
    there for, like, a, formal referral to PLWG
  • 00:22:51
    and VPWG. Okay. Perfect. So that's our combo
  • 00:22:56
    ballot item. Alright, Erin. That looks good. What's,
  • 00:23:13
    you have something, Nava? No. Sorry. I think,
  • 00:23:20
    for $12.72. Right? We, yeah, we were talking
  • 00:23:24
    about NPRR1278. We haven't gotten to
  • 00:23:25
    NPRR1274 yet. Yeah. I mean, I
  • 00:23:28
    think, I need to abstain for that also.
  • 00:23:30
    I need a separate valid. Okay. K. Erin,
  • 00:23:57
    do you wanna try to get through December,
  • 00:23:59
    and then we can do a separate ballot?
  • 00:24:06
    That's fine. We'll just need a motion and
  • 00:24:10
    second, before we do the separate ballot. But,
  • 00:24:15
    yeah, we could go ahead and move on
  • 00:24:16
    to NPRR1274 if that's what you
  • 00:24:18
    like to do. Okay. So, Naba, are you
  • 00:24:23
    making you're making a formal motion? No. No.
  • 00:24:27
    No. I'm I'm talking about, NPRR1272,
  • 00:24:30
    not 74. That's correct. Right. So for us
  • 00:24:35
    to do a separate ballot, we need a
  • 00:24:37
    motion and a second. So Nava, I just
  • 00:24:55
    this is Aaron from ERCOT Market Rules. I
  • 00:24:58
    I just wanted to clarify and make sure
  • 00:25:00
    that, what what we would be voting on
  • 00:25:04
    is request PRF continue to table the
  • 00:25:09
    NPRR1272. Oh, I see. So this
  • 00:25:12
    is still still tabled. Okay. Okay. I got
  • 00:25:14
    it. Yeah. I got it. So it yeah.
  • 00:25:17
    Yeah. It's under the PRS's purview, so they
  • 00:25:20
    would be the one that would recommend approval.
  • 00:25:23
    But all this does is asking PRS to,
  • 00:25:27
    continue to table it so discussions can continue
  • 00:25:30
    at the working groups. I got it. I
  • 00:25:33
    got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So,
  • 00:25:36
    it sounds like you no longer need a
  • 00:25:38
    separate ballot, Doug. No. I didn't need it.
  • 00:25:40
    I didn't need it. I'm sorry. Okay. Yep.
  • 00:25:43
    No no worries. Alright. Very good. Thank you.
  • 00:25:48
    Erin, thank you so much for clarifying that.
  • 00:25:51
    Appreciate it. Okay. So that makes it easier
  • Item 7.2 - NPRR1274, RPG Estimated Capital Cost Thresholds of Proposed Transmission Projects
    00:25:54
    for us. So we're okay on December.
  • 00:25:58
    NPRR1274 is indeed new to us. I
  • 00:26:01
    wanted to see if anyone from ERCOT was
  • 00:26:04
    on that wanted to lay this out, and
  • 00:26:07
    then I do have a suggestion for a
  • 00:26:09
    referral. Yes. This is Robert Golan from ERCOT.
  • 00:26:14
    Can you hear me? We can. Excellent. Good
  • 00:26:20
    morning, everybody. Yes. We're bringing this revision request
  • 00:26:24
    to adjust the, capital cost thresholds for RPG
  • 00:26:30
    project submission categorizations. Essentially, based on inflationary data,
  • 00:26:37
    we are proposing to increase the capital cost
  • 00:26:41
    by about 35%. If you scroll down through
  • 00:26:45
    through the body, you'll see that there's just
  • 00:26:47
    a a handful of of places in section
  • 00:26:50
    three point eleven point four point three that
  • 00:26:53
    have been updated to reflect these capital cost
  • 00:26:57
    adjustments. Well, that's that's all all the changes
  • 00:27:04
    for this, revision request. Thanks, Robert. It looks
  • 00:27:16
    like we have, a question in the queue.
  • 00:27:19
    Could you comment on how many projects are
  • 00:27:21
    under the cap for December? Are you referring
  • 00:27:29
    to current projects underway or historical projects? Let's
  • 00:27:37
    do both. Currently, right now, in 2025, we've
  • 00:27:45
    had I'm trying to just do this off
  • 00:27:48
    the top of my head. I think four
  • 00:27:50
    projects that would have been recategorized from a
  • 00:27:54
    tier one to a tier three. There have
  • 00:27:58
    been no adjustments to tier two projects. Yeah.
  • 00:28:05
    Tier threes, those those are pretty much the
  • 00:28:09
    same. I think there's a couple that would
  • 00:28:11
    be that were right at that $2,628,000,000 dollar
  • 00:28:14
    threshold that would be converted essentially to a
  • 00:28:17
    tier four. And then going back through time,
  • 00:28:23
    would need a few days to to pull
  • 00:28:27
    all those numbers. Okay. Thank you. I was
  • 00:28:38
    just trying to get a idea of what
  • 00:28:40
    the scope of this is for for the
  • 00:28:43
    transmission approvals. Thanks. Thanks, Brett. Let's, move on
  • 00:28:50
    to Ether. Ether Noshwadi with Oncor. Robert, thank
  • 00:28:55
    you. Is the number that you quoted for
  • 00:28:58
    a project submitted in 2025 or still under
  • 00:29:01
    review at this time in 2025? Those would
  • 00:29:05
    be projects that have either been submitted or
  • 00:29:08
    approved in 2025 so far. Got it. Thank
  • 00:29:12
    you. Ken, you're next and then Kristen. Hey
  • 00:29:24
    there. Yeah. Ken Bowen, TPS. Just quick question.
  • 00:29:28
    Once this is if and when this gets
  • 00:29:31
    implemented, what is the application? Is it any
  • 00:29:36
    project from that point on that submitted, or
  • 00:29:39
    would projects that are already in flight or
  • 00:29:42
    being reviewed by ERCOT suddenly changed tiers? My
  • 00:29:49
    understanding would be that any project submitted after
  • 00:29:53
    the effective date would be recategorized. Okay. So
  • 00:29:58
    anything that's currently under evaluation would remain under
  • 00:30:01
    its tier classification. Thank you. Okay. Kristen. Yeah.
  • 00:30:17
    Thank you. This is Kristen Cook with Southern
  • 00:30:19
    Power. My question is when when were these
  • 00:30:23
    cost thresholds last, last adjusted? These these cost
  • 00:30:31
    thresholds were implemented in June of twenty eighteen.
  • 00:30:38
    Great. Thank you. Alright. It looks like we
  • 00:30:51
    have a clear queue. Any more questions for
  • 00:30:54
    Robert? Okay. So so my question to the
  • 00:31:00
    group, since we don't oversee RPG, would you
  • 00:31:04
    want to table and refer this over to
  • 00:31:07
    PLWG to allow them to have time to
  • 00:31:10
    look at it? Okay. Ethan agrees with that.
  • 00:31:26
    Anyone disagree? Okay. Thank you, Brett. Okay. So
  • 00:31:43
    so so, Erin, can we go ahead and
  • 00:31:44
    add this to the combo ballot so we
  • 00:31:47
    will table and refer to PLWG? Thank you.
  • 00:31:52
    Thank you. You already got it? Okay. Perfect.
  • 00:31:55
    Sounds good. Thanks. That will take us on
  • Item 8 - NPRR1278, Establishing Advanced Grid Support Service as an Ancillary Service (Waive Notice - Possible Vote)
    00:32:06
    to item number eight. Alright. So NPRR1278 was just filed. It has not
  • 00:32:15
    been to PRS. I wanted to add it
  • 00:32:21
    because this was the NPRR we we talked
  • 00:32:24
    about in theory last month that would allow
  • 00:32:27
    us to have a service for advanced grid
  • 00:32:32
    support. And I know that Bob Helton should
  • 00:32:37
    be on as the sponsor, and I wanted
  • 00:32:40
    to let him lay this one out. Sure.
  • 00:32:42
    Thank you, Katie. Yeah. This one, of course,
  • 00:32:46
    is, if you if you look at it,
  • 00:32:49
    it's creating a advanced grid support service. It's
  • 00:32:51
    it's based on the way Black Start works. It
  • 00:32:55
    it's based on the way Black Start works. It
  • 00:33:00
    would be a yearly contract that is put
  • 00:33:03
    out there to supply that service, and that
  • 00:33:09
    that's kind of the big picture of what
  • 00:33:10
    it is. Now I see three things that
  • 00:33:13
    it does is number one, it provides the
  • 00:33:15
    reliability, requirements that ERCOT was putting into February
  • 00:33:20
    currently. So that is all included in there
  • 00:33:24
    as the qualification side. The second piece it
  • 00:33:28
    does is February is basically going to have
  • 00:33:31
    a requirement for, you know, for energy storage
  • 00:33:36
    to supply this service. What the NPRR does,
  • 00:33:39
    it opens it up to any IBR that
  • 00:33:43
    has the ability to do that or wants
  • 00:33:46
    to upgrade what they have to provide that
  • 00:33:49
    service and then put in and offer in
  • 00:33:51
    for that service. So it opens up a
  • 00:33:53
    lot of different areas, locations, and the number
  • 00:33:58
    of IBRs that would be possible candidates to
  • 00:34:02
    supply this. So I believe that that opens
  • 00:34:05
    that up. And then the third thing that
  • 00:34:08
    I look at this is what it does
  • 00:34:10
    is it provides really a living ancillary service.
  • 00:34:14
    I mean, if you look at at the
  • 00:34:15
    other ancillary services are base basically static and
  • 00:34:18
    have always best, you know, static. It's PFR
  • 00:34:21
    or it's a, you know, ten minute service
  • 00:34:23
    or it's a thirty minute service. What this
  • 00:34:26
    can do, and that's why it's partly a
  • 00:34:28
    year contract instead of longer, is that as
  • 00:34:32
    the grid progresses and as ERCOT sees things
  • 00:34:35
    out there and as the OEMs, are able
  • 00:34:40
    to supply additional additional software and services,
  • 00:34:45
    ERCOT can go out and change this, in
  • 00:34:49
    the RFP process to say, now we're going
  • 00:34:52
    to not only need what we have today,
  • 00:34:54
    we're going to want x, y, or z
  • 00:34:57
    in the future. And then in that next
  • 00:35:01
    contract period or the one after that, they
  • 00:35:04
    could put that in the RFP, and everyone
  • 00:35:07
    will know. And those that wanna participate will
  • 00:35:09
    upgrade and do what they need to do
  • 00:35:10
    to be a part of that service. So
  • 00:35:12
    there's three things that I think that does
  • 00:35:14
    that, that helps reliability and, both now and
  • 00:35:21
    in the future. And if you go through,
  • 00:35:23
    you know, there's gonna be a lot of
  • 00:35:24
    debate on this from, the perspectives of, well,
  • 00:35:29
    some some areas pay for this, other areas
  • 00:35:32
    don't. I think that conversation needs to be
  • 00:35:36
    had. That's why I wrote this thing. So
  • 00:35:38
    I look forward to, answering any questions and
  • 00:35:43
    see where this goes through the process. So
  • 00:35:45
    is there anything else, Katie, you you want
  • 00:35:47
    me to cover on that, or is is
  • 00:35:49
    that kinda do it? I think that's a
  • 00:35:53
    great overview, Bob. So let me see if
  • 00:35:55
    there are any any questions from anyone. That
  • 00:35:59
    was mainly the goal today. Kristen, go ahead.
  • 00:36:08
    Thank you. Thanks for laying this out, Bob.
  • 00:36:12
    Appreciate, I know a lot of work and
  • 00:36:15
    effort went into developing this revision request. I
  • 00:36:19
    guess procedurally, I'm trying to understand, is this
  • 00:36:25
    revision request, does it require that February go
  • 00:36:33
    forward? Like, does it work in tandem, or
  • 00:36:35
    should it be seen as an alternative to
  • 00:36:38
    two seventy two? The way I look at
  • 00:36:41
    that is two seventy two is a a
  • 00:36:45
    standard that's being set that you must apply
  • 00:36:49
    and must be, you know, in compliance with.
  • 00:36:54
    And it's a subset of the IBRs that
  • 00:36:58
    are out there. That's why I said, well,
  • 00:37:00
    I think this is more appropriate to be
  • 00:37:02
    an ancillary service rather than a a standard
  • 00:37:06
    change. And so that's why I wrote that.
  • 00:37:09
    And what I so to answer that, I
  • 00:37:11
    guess, shortly, yes, I think this is an
  • 00:37:13
    alternative to two seventy two. However, it gives
  • 00:37:16
    the same reliability in my mind that two
  • 00:37:20
    seventy two is trying to achieve. Actually, I
  • 00:37:23
    think it gives more reliability both today and
  • 00:37:26
    in the future. So that's the way I
  • 00:37:28
    look at it. Thanks for clarifying. Alright. We've
  • 00:37:36
    got a little short little queue building. Cyrus
  • 00:37:39
    Reid and then Ken Bowen. Yeah. First of
  • 00:37:43
    all, thank you, Bob, for bringing this forward.
  • 00:37:46
    This is an alternative approach that seems, you
  • 00:37:49
    know, worthy of discussion. Has the PUC itself
  • 00:37:54
    weighed in? In the end, this is kind
  • 00:37:56
    of a, you know, sort of a policy
  • 00:37:59
    question. Should this be a requirement? Should it
  • 00:38:02
    be an ancillary services? Has the PUC in
  • 00:38:05
    any way weighed in on this issue, or
  • 00:38:07
    there it really hasn't gotten to that level
  • 00:38:09
    yet? No. It hasn't got to that level
  • 00:38:11
    yet. Thanks for the question. And I I
  • 00:38:13
    would fully expect that that they will have
  • 00:38:16
    some comment one way or another on that.
  • 00:38:18
    Because if you look at, you know, the
  • 00:38:20
    the business case and that and why we're
  • 00:38:22
    doing this, it's kinda still does play into
  • 00:38:25
    a little bit of of the phase one
  • 00:38:28
    URI, you know, voltage support and other event
  • 00:38:32
    you know, and other grid services. So, that's
  • 00:38:38
    why that was stated in there. And, actually,
  • 00:38:42
    I think that should move forward, in tandem
  • 00:38:46
    with this, but that's, of course, at the
  • 00:38:48
    PUC, not here. But I would expect they
  • 00:38:50
    will have some comments on this. Does that
  • 00:38:57
    help, Cyrus? Does that answer your question? Yeah.
  • 00:39:02
    Yeah. Thanks so much. I just didn't know
  • 00:39:03
    if they'd if they'd weighed in, but sounds
  • 00:39:06
    like that would come later. Yeah. You guys
  • 00:39:09
    filing us. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Ken, go
  • 00:39:16
    ahead. Hey. Excuse me. Yeah. Ken Bowen, TPS.
  • 00:39:25
    And to the degree that you can help
  • 00:39:27
    me with any of my confusion, I appreciate
  • 00:39:29
    it. So and maybe I don't know all
  • 00:39:34
    the aspects of this, you know, what advanced
  • 00:39:36
    grid can support. Seems like, you know, to
  • 00:39:40
    some degree, this provides system inertia, I believe,
  • 00:39:43
    and maybe some other aspects. So from that
  • 00:39:48
    perspective, it just seems like, you know, conventional
  • 00:39:51
    generation from the time that the electric system
  • 00:39:54
    first even started has been had the ability
  • 00:39:57
    to provide some of this stuff and and
  • 00:40:02
    has done that without being an ancillary service.
  • 00:40:06
    And so now that IBRs are catching up
  • 00:40:11
    to the base level of reliability that conventional
  • 00:40:14
    units have been able to provide in the
  • 00:40:16
    past, now we're saying that's a, ancillary service
  • 00:40:20
    or an extra thing we're doing. So is
  • 00:40:23
    there now a thought that conventional generators should
  • 00:40:27
    also be paid for this service? Well, to
  • 00:40:31
    answer that that the last question, I've been
  • 00:40:34
    arguing for that for for years and, unsuccessful
  • 00:40:39
    that all of that should have been paid
  • 00:40:40
    for. We had many, many when we were
  • 00:40:43
    developing this market going back and dating myself
  • 00:40:46
    arguing about this particular piece. And, of course,
  • 00:40:51
    it came out in URI after URI that
  • 00:40:53
    that that's been cast over to the commission
  • 00:40:56
    to look at doing that, and it was
  • 00:40:58
    part of phase one, which hasn't been implemented
  • 00:41:00
    yet. So I I think all should be
  • 00:41:03
    paid, for the services that are provided that
  • 00:41:06
    are reliability based. Now with that said, I
  • 00:41:10
    will say that the way this came out
  • 00:41:12
    with February and what it was, it was
  • 00:41:15
    a subset, which I think that was a
  • 00:41:19
    good choice, by the way, they were putting
  • 00:41:20
    that out of of IBRs that would supply
  • 00:41:26
    that for the good of the entire market.
  • 00:41:28
    And that is what really tripped me into
  • 00:41:31
    saying it's an ancillary service, to put it
  • 00:41:35
    that way. The other piece is, like I
  • 00:41:39
    said, this also, is a is an ancillary
  • 00:41:43
    service that is living, and ERCOT can change
  • 00:41:47
    it as the grid progresses. And I think
  • 00:41:50
    that's a really positive thing that's already in
  • 00:41:53
    place. They can change it. Now what would
  • 00:41:57
    this cost? We don't know. There's some out
  • 00:42:00
    there that say, oh, if you can do
  • 00:42:02
    it, there's no cost to it. I I'm
  • 00:42:05
    not buying that, especially after seeing two forty
  • 00:42:08
    five trying to be implemented. That's not working
  • 00:42:11
    out the way that it was, was talked
  • 00:42:14
    about. And so if it's if it doesn't
  • 00:42:17
    cost anything, then you would expect that this
  • 00:42:19
    will be erased to zero, on the RFPs.
  • 00:42:23
    If it is a cost, then that'll be
  • 00:42:25
    associated with that, and I believe there will
  • 00:42:27
    be. And then as we move forward into
  • 00:42:29
    the to the future, if ERCOT needs something
  • 00:42:32
    else, add it into the RFP, and then
  • 00:42:35
    we can, you know, have a higher reliability
  • 00:42:38
    factor in ERCOT as needed as the grid
  • 00:42:42
    grows and changes. Does that help? I mean,
  • 00:42:46
    that's gonna be a big one of the
  • 00:42:48
    big key arguments that we're gonna have. I
  • 00:42:51
    expect most of that will be in WMS
  • 00:42:53
    on the market side of this, and then
  • 00:42:56
    the reliability side will be here. So, I
  • 00:43:00
    look forward to this getting into both groups
  • 00:43:02
    and starting that conversation. But it's a conversation
  • 00:43:05
    we need to have. That helps. Thank you.
  • 00:43:13
    It is there a working group this is
  • 00:43:18
    gonna be sent to you? When it just
  • 00:43:22
    gonna hold it here for policy decisions. I
  • 00:43:28
    think that's a a more of a Katie
  • 00:43:29
    question. Now what, you know, what I would
  • 00:43:32
    expect is when it gets to PRS and
  • 00:43:36
    I think a little surprised. It was in
  • 00:43:38
    May, but that's fine. That we'll we will
  • 00:43:42
    send that over to WMS and ROS, and
  • 00:43:45
    then, of course, y'all can decide if it
  • 00:43:47
    needs to go to a sub subgroup or
  • 00:43:49
    working group underneath y'all. So I'm leaving that
  • 00:43:53
    up to Katie and the rest of ROS
  • 00:43:56
    members. Yeah. Thanks, Bob. Ken, to your question,
  • 00:44:02
    so this wasn't so we basically are waiving
  • 00:44:07
    we would have to waive notice to take
  • 00:44:09
    any specific action on it today, you know,
  • 00:44:14
    which we we could if it met a
  • 00:44:15
    certain threshold. But at this point, I just
  • 00:44:17
    wanted to make sure we we saw it
  • 00:44:20
    as soon as we could. I know that
  • 00:44:22
    Fred Fred's in the queue, but Fred has
  • 00:44:24
    also been patiently waiting to kinda contrast this
  • 00:44:27
    with the NOGRR and PGRR that have been
  • 00:44:31
    out there. And so I really just wanted
  • 00:44:34
    to start the discussion. We can tee this
  • 00:44:38
    up for for next month as well. So
  • 00:44:42
    we can we can send it to a
  • 00:44:43
    working group if if we think it needs
  • 00:44:46
    to go to one. I would probably I
  • 00:44:48
    would probably suggest OWG to get into the
  • 00:44:50
    some of the the technical merits of it,
  • 00:44:52
    though. Okay. But with that, I'll just Yeah.
  • 00:44:56
    Oh, I'm sorry. I was just gonna say
  • 00:44:58
    I don't think I saw it on the
  • 00:44:59
    PRS agenda, but maybe I missed it. But
  • 00:45:02
    it seems like it should have gone to
  • 00:45:03
    PRS first. Right? It's on the May. I
  • 00:45:06
    think, Bob, did you just maybe miss it
  • 00:45:09
    by a day or two? Yeah. I think
  • 00:45:11
    it was a day or two because we
  • 00:45:12
    had some, issues going back and forth with
  • 00:45:15
    market, rules, you know, to get everything the
  • 00:45:18
    way it need to be. Actually, we're gonna
  • 00:45:20
    have to make some additional administrative changes to
  • 00:45:23
    it, that we've figured out since then anyway.
  • 00:45:26
    But, when you're writing something that big, you're
  • 00:45:29
    you're gonna miss something. You know? So we've
  • 00:45:32
    got some administrative stuff we need to do
  • 00:45:34
    with it, but we'll do that after the
  • 00:45:36
    debate starts and figure out if there's other
  • 00:45:39
    comments need to be made to it at
  • 00:45:41
    that time. But yeah. And, actually, ROS, WMS,
  • 00:45:46
    any subcommittee can take up any filed NPRR
  • 00:45:50
    or NOGRR or whatever at any time. It
  • 00:45:54
    doesn't have to be referred to them. And
  • 00:45:56
    I think that Katie was was correct in
  • 00:46:00
    what she's done here is getting it in
  • 00:46:02
    front of everybody, as soon as we can
  • 00:46:05
    since we also have the NOGRR272 out there. So I think this was
  • 00:46:07
    a a a good move by Katie to
  • 00:46:09
    do that and get it on everybody's radar.
  • 00:46:11
    Then I would expect a lively conversation of
  • 00:46:14
    PRS in May because that gives everybody another
  • 00:46:16
    PRS in May because that gives everybody another
  • 00:46:19
    month to go through it. Yeah. Thanks, Bob.
  • 00:46:24
    I think, you know, folks will want to
  • 00:46:25
    go through the compensation and the qualification and
  • 00:46:29
    and and testing and everything pretty thoroughly. So
  • 00:46:35
    thank you guys both. So I I will
  • 00:46:37
    turn it over to Fred. Maybe you have
  • 00:46:40
    some comments on this, maybe you have comments
  • 00:46:41
    on your your number or figure, but, four
  • 00:46:44
    is yours, Fred. Yes. Thank you. Can you
  • 00:46:48
    hear me? We can. Thank you. So I
  • 00:46:53
    I think, Bob, I just kind of, I
  • 00:46:56
    would just say, first of all, the if
  • 00:47:01
    there is a way to continue to discuss
  • 00:47:04
    this one, we start waiting for the PIS
  • 00:47:06
    because it looks less scheduled with this NPRR.
  • 00:47:09
    The the whole discussion will probably likely at
  • 00:47:16
    least better multiple months ahead of it. So
  • 00:47:22
    we would like to definitely continue the discussion
  • 00:47:25
    and hopefully, work together. The I would say
  • 00:47:31
    maybe my next comment is we do have
  • 00:47:34
    several kind of qualified questions or public details.
  • 00:47:37
    Is that something we should bring this one
  • 00:47:41
    up at a working group label, and, what
  • 00:47:44
    is the time frame? It's like a after
  • 00:47:46
    PIs refer to ours? Or Well, Fred, we
  • 00:47:55
    could I'm sorry, Bob. I didn't mean to
  • 00:47:57
    cut you off. I thought that was more
  • 00:47:58
    of a question for me. I mean, we
  • 00:48:00
    could we could go ahead and send this
  • 00:48:02
    over to a working group. It's just, as
  • 00:48:05
    Aaron told me this morning, just if there's
  • 00:48:06
    a slightly different voting threshold. So if folks
  • 00:48:09
    were willing to, you know, waive notice and
  • 00:48:12
    and let us send it over to say,
  • 00:48:13
    OWG to get a head start on this,
  • 00:48:16
    I'd I'd be happy to do that today.
  • 00:48:17
    Okay. Thank you so much. So I think
  • 00:48:20
    at a very high level, I would just
  • 00:48:22
    say there are few items. We it'd be
  • 00:48:24
    good to have some clarification from Bob or,
  • 00:48:28
    that'll sponsor this one. The the first one,
  • 00:48:32
    it'll be good to have a data description
  • 00:48:36
    on what kind of product, this service need
  • 00:48:44
    to be procured and how to quantify. Okay.
  • 00:48:49
    Yeah. That that there's two questions you've got
  • 00:48:51
    there, Fred. And and, the first one is
  • 00:48:55
    is the service that would be provided is
  • 00:48:57
    exactly the same service that you were had
  • 00:49:00
    in the standard, in the PGRR and in
  • 00:49:03
    the NOGRR. It would be exactly the same
  • 00:49:06
    at this point. Now as far as as
  • 00:49:10
    procurement of of how you would do the
  • 00:49:13
    methodology, I was looking at first, let's decide
  • 00:49:19
    whether we wanna do it this way or
  • 00:49:21
    not, and we can go through that. I
  • 00:49:23
    mean, it's it's you're you're gonna put that
  • 00:49:25
    together, you know, in the ancillary service methodology
  • 00:49:28
    on how you would procure that, and there
  • 00:49:31
    are ways to do that. And this one
  • 00:49:34
    actually, unlike other ancillary services, if you felt
  • 00:49:41
    you needed it to be locational, you could
  • 00:49:43
    do that through the RFP period. And and,
  • 00:49:46
    actually, by opening this up to the to
  • 00:49:49
    wind, solar, and storage, to be in there,
  • 00:49:53
    it would give you, in my mind, more
  • 00:49:56
    locations, more, of a a competitive market to
  • 00:49:59
    get that service. So, yeah, Fred, I look
  • 00:50:03
    forward to working with you if this goes
  • 00:50:05
    the way it is, that that we work
  • 00:50:09
    that out on how you do that. Other
  • 00:50:10
    other interconnects do it. I'm sure we could
  • 00:50:13
    do it. Now as far as your NOGRR,
  • 00:50:16
    I'm not trying to stop conversation on that
  • 00:50:19
    because this is gonna end up one of
  • 00:50:20
    two ways. It's either gonna be a standard
  • 00:50:23
    or it's gonna be an ancillary service, but
  • 00:50:25
    it's gonna be implemented one way or the
  • 00:50:27
    other. So we need to continue to have
  • 00:50:29
    the conversations on both and have this debate.
  • 00:50:33
    K. Thank you. And probably just one final
  • 00:50:35
    before, probably save the rest of them for
  • 00:50:38
    the, working group discussion. Our proposal is to
  • 00:50:45
    essentially have the capability and, provide a support
  • 00:50:52
    when the resource is capable and available without
  • 00:50:57
    requiring, maintaining a headroom. So it's unlike the
  • 00:51:04
    ancillary service that you cannot use the capacity
  • 00:51:09
    reserve for the ancillary service portal in energy
  • 00:51:12
    market. So our proposal essentially is where you
  • 00:51:16
    are capable and available and that the support
  • 00:51:20
    is really the transient less than second or
  • 00:51:25
    two for, like, the voltage disturbance and all
  • 00:51:29
    frequency change. That's where we probably needed some
  • 00:51:33
    help. But I I think I understand you
  • 00:51:36
    were you you were kinda idea behind this
  • 00:51:40
    one. I just want to highlight other one.
  • 00:51:42
    And, yeah, looking forward, have, further discussion and
  • 00:51:46
    work together. Thank you. Thanks, Fred. Sean, go
  • 00:51:55
    ahead. Yes. Is this really not, needed to
  • 00:52:02
    be a service because or that's paid for?
  • 00:52:07
    Because I don't believe you're gonna get to
  • 00:52:13
    me, it seems like something that it has
  • 00:52:15
    to be paid for in some way instead
  • 00:52:17
    of you saying that people have it available,
  • 00:52:20
    it's used. It seems like it has a
  • 00:52:24
    cost to it. So is that not right,
  • 00:52:27
    Bob? I I would agree with that. There
  • 00:52:30
    are some that that, will indicate that it's
  • 00:52:33
    that it's likely not, or if though it
  • 00:52:37
    would be minimal, but I haven't bought into
  • 00:52:41
    that yet. I I don't know. You know,
  • 00:52:45
    I go back to February. You know? We're
  • 00:52:49
    spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get
  • 00:52:53
    into compliance with February whenever, you know, it
  • 00:52:56
    was indicated that they were gonna be minor
  • 00:52:58
    cost for the, software upgrades and firmware upgrades.
  • 00:53:02
    So I I don't know what this is
  • 00:53:04
    gonna be, but this will give us the
  • 00:53:05
    ability to go out there and look at
  • 00:53:07
    that cost and then offer it in, based
  • 00:53:11
    on those costs. If the costs are nil
  • 00:53:13
    or small, then you'd expect that this would
  • 00:53:15
    be a race to zero, and there would
  • 00:53:17
    be very little impact on the cost, you
  • 00:53:20
    know, that goes to the market. Okay. And
  • 00:53:23
    that's what I that's what I was wanting
  • 00:53:25
    to know because, for me, it seems like
  • 00:53:29
    it does have a cost, and we shouldn't
  • 00:53:33
    stick people with it without proper compensation. Thank
  • 00:53:44
    you. Thanks for finishing that statement out, John.
  • 00:53:55
    At first, I wasn't sure where you're going,
  • 00:53:56
    but it sounds like you're on Bob's route.
  • 00:53:59
    Okay. I don't see anyone else in the
  • 00:54:01
    queue. I do want to, you know, satisfy
  • 00:54:06
    Fred's request about getting this going. I know
  • 00:54:08
    Bob wants to do that as well. I
  • 00:54:10
    can I can ask working groups to look
  • 00:54:12
    at it without taking any action on it
  • 00:54:15
    today, which is probably good since we haven't
  • 00:54:19
    gotten a formal request, and so it's within
  • 00:54:21
    our purview to do that? I I personally
  • 00:54:23
    think OWG could look at it when you
  • 00:54:25
    start talking about voltage and frequency. I I
  • 00:54:29
    think PDCWG, but but but, Fred, I'll I'll
  • 00:54:33
    take it back to you and and see
  • 00:54:35
    if you're okay with OWG or if you
  • 00:54:37
    had other groups in mind as well. I
  • 00:54:42
    think a lot are good. And I I
  • 00:54:46
    know there is some discussion, but I I
  • 00:54:48
    still think given the nature of the technologies,
  • 00:54:53
    IBM working group is a is a good
  • 00:54:56
    one to focus on the technical discussion as
  • 00:54:59
    well. Yeah. Maybe maybe technical discussion. I wanna
  • 00:55:05
    be very careful. We'll talk about that later.
  • 00:55:08
    But I think that getting it to PDCWG
  • 00:55:11
    and OWG, they they generally drive towards con
  • 00:55:15
    consensus, and so I I think it would
  • 00:55:17
    be good to send it to them. So,
  • 00:55:20
    Erin, I guess there's no formal action we
  • 00:55:22
    have to take. I guess there's nothing to
  • 00:55:24
    be recorded, but I I would ask that
  • 00:55:27
    PDCWG leadership and OWG leadership take this up.
  • 00:55:31
    And then when we get to their updates,
  • 00:55:33
    I'll just I'll I'll just confirm with them
  • 00:55:36
    that they they heard the informal referral. Hi,
  • 00:55:46
    Katie. This is Erin with Margaret Rules. That
  • 00:55:48
    sounds good from a procedure perspective. Perfect. Thank
  • 00:55:52
    you for keeping me on top of things.
  • 00:55:56
    Of course. Alright, Bob. Are you good? I'm
  • 00:56:07
    good. I thank everybody for their time and
  • 00:56:08
    consideration as we move forward with this. Perfect.
  • Item 9 - ROS Revision Requests (Vote
    00:56:12
    - 10:30 a.m.) Alright. Okay. So that takes us to alright.
  • 00:56:26
    So let me see where that one is.
  • Item 9.1 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
    00:56:31
    NOGRR265. That it looks like that I will
  • 00:56:38
    not be coming back to us until May.
  • 00:56:41
    So there's really no action for us to
  • 00:56:44
    take today. So we can leave this one
  • 00:56:47
    parked here and and look forward to seeing
  • 00:56:49
    that seeing that IA in May. Alright. And
  • Item 9.2 - NOGRR275, Eliminate Scheduling Center Requirements for QSEs That Are Not WAN Participants
    00:57:04
    then NOGRR275. So I know Britney is not
  • 00:57:15
    on, but she's the one doing a lot
  • 00:57:16
    of the effort in taking things and moving
  • 00:57:21
    them around out of, like, OBDs. And so,
  • 00:57:29
    you know, I'm open to letting someone lay
  • 00:57:30
    this out, but I think my main question
  • 00:57:32
    is, is there really anything substantive here, or
  • 00:57:34
    is it really just a change in location?
  • 00:57:38
    So I'll open that up to the This
  • 00:57:47
    is Catherine Gross with ERCOT. Can you hear
  • 00:57:49
    me? We can go. Oh, okay. Great. Thanks.
  • 00:57:55
    So I don't think this is just moving
  • 00:57:59
    things around. It is updating the operating guide,
  • 00:58:04
    which I probably should have done in when
  • 00:58:07
    I did NPRR1206, which that
  • 00:58:12
    was approved by the commission last year. So
  • 00:58:14
    this is just I don't think well, it's
  • 00:58:19
    incorporating those edits that I probably should have
  • 00:58:22
    made to the clear binding doc at the
  • 00:58:25
    same time as I did my six. But
  • 00:58:28
    it's just making those same changes so that
  • 00:58:32
    the operator Thanks, Catherine. Did you intend for
  • 00:58:47
    a working group to look at this just
  • 00:58:50
    to verify things? I'm sorry. I see that
  • 00:58:56
    my audio is going in and out, so
  • 00:58:58
    I'll try not to move my head when
  • 00:59:00
    I talk. But, yeah, I think we just
  • 00:59:04
    I get I think it really is just
  • 00:59:05
    aligning with the protocol language, noncontroversial, but I
  • 00:59:12
    think we just, yeah, wanted Okay. I missed
  • 00:59:24
    that very last part about after noncontroversial. Sorry.
  • 00:59:30
    Is this okay? It it so the changes
  • 00:59:34
    should be noncontroversial because they're just aligning with
  • 00:59:38
    the protocol changes, but we just wanted to
  • 00:59:42
    make sure the language was okay with Okay.
  • 00:59:59
    Okay. So what what we could do is
  • 01:00:01
    is maybe give this another month that ROS,
  • 01:00:05
    given your introduction, and see if folks need
  • 01:00:07
    a little more time to just go through
  • 01:00:10
    and and review it. Would everyone be okay
  • 01:00:14
    with that, or is anyone ready to just
  • 01:00:16
    take it up today? Hey. This is Ted
  • 01:00:19
    Harlow with ERCOT. Can you guys hear me?
  • 01:00:21
    Yes. Go I just wanted to add to
  • 01:00:25
    what Katherine said just to clarify that this
  • 01:00:28
    should not be controversial. ERCOT worked with, stakeholders,
  • 01:00:33
    including, ROS to pass NPRR1206 a couple of years ago. Among all all
  • 01:00:36
    the things that it did, it clarified requirements
  • 01:00:39
    for references in the protocols and operating guides
  • 01:00:42
    for scheduling centers and control centers. And we
  • 01:00:45
    we've gone through at 1206 is
  • 01:00:49
    now in the in the protocols, clarifying that,
  • 01:00:51
    control and operating center requirements are those only
  • 01:00:56
    for QSCs that are that we now call
  • 01:00:59
    WAN participants, that have wider network connections to
  • 01:01:02
    our ERCOT, that take verbal instructions, and have
  • 01:01:05
    telemetry connections and so on. So all that
  • 01:01:08
    was done, and we we we did a
  • 01:01:10
    a a lot of work in. Unfortunately,
  • 01:01:13
    we forgot a reference in the the, operating
  • 01:01:15
    guide for scheduling center. So all that this
  • 01:01:19
    NOGRR is doing is aligning the language to
  • 01:01:22
    take out the reference to the scheduling center
  • 01:01:25
    that we did last year, to align it
  • 01:01:26
    to, confirm with the rest of the protocols
  • 01:01:29
    and up and operating guides that the control
  • 01:01:31
    room and operation center requirements are clarified, and
  • 01:01:34
    there's no more reference to scheduling center requirements
  • 01:01:37
    that we took out earlier. So it that
  • 01:01:40
    that's all it was it was doing. So,
  • 01:01:43
    I I think you can probably take it
  • 01:01:45
    I I think you can probably take it
  • 01:01:48
    up today and go on. But if, if
  • 01:01:51
    you wanna refer it, that's fine, but it
  • 01:01:52
    should be really aligning to everything that we've
  • 01:01:55
    already done and in the protocols now for
  • 01:01:57
    a couple of years. We just missed this
  • 01:01:58
    one reference in the operating guides. Okay. Thanks
  • 01:02:04
    for clarifying that. I mean, that makes it
  • 01:02:06
    sound fairly straightforward to me. I'm just looking
  • 01:02:11
    I I throw out options because I'm looking
  • 01:02:12
    for a little direction from ROS members before
  • 01:02:16
    we move forward. So, Kristen, what you got
  • 01:02:19
    for Yes. Thanks, Katie. This is Kristen Cook
  • 01:02:22
    with Southern Power. We appreciate, ERCOT laying this
  • 01:02:27
    out. It's helpful to have that additional context.
  • 01:02:30
    I don't think that, I personally had caught
  • 01:02:34
    that previous language change, but we're supportive of
  • 01:02:38
    this change. We we are in the the
  • 01:02:43
    situation where we have a non WAN participant
  • 01:02:49
    QSE. So, this is a helpful change from
  • 01:02:53
    our viewpoint. We do have a very minor
  • 01:02:58
    red line that we would we would like
  • 01:03:02
    to suggest to ERCOT. So it's very minor.
  • 01:03:08
    Would be happy if we wanna proceed today,
  • 01:03:10
    of potentially doing a desktop edit if ERCOT
  • 01:03:14
    is open or if ERCOT would prefer us
  • 01:03:17
    sending that over just to have more time
  • 01:03:20
    to review rather than being on the spot.
  • 01:03:29
    I understand how again, do you you want
  • 01:03:31
    to go ahead and let us what is
  • 01:03:33
    what is the what is the line? There
  • 01:03:35
    is no rush on this if we need
  • 01:03:36
    to take it somewhere, but if it's a
  • 01:03:37
    if it's a minor one, we can probably
  • 01:03:39
    take it up. Sure. If you could scroll
  • 01:03:42
    down, please, Erin, to it's paragraph two. We're
  • 01:03:50
    wanting to add where it says so within
  • 01:03:57
    paragraph two, that second line, a written backup
  • 01:04:01
    control plan to continue operation, and then we
  • 01:04:04
    wanted to add after the word operation of
  • 01:04:08
    the control or operation center. Got it. Got
  • 01:04:28
    it. Catherine, I don't know if you can
  • 01:04:30
    still hear us, but that sounds like a
  • 01:04:33
    a clarification that's in line with the changes
  • 01:04:37
    that we're making. Yeah. That seems fine. Great.
  • 01:04:41
    Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Kristin. We'll let
  • 01:04:50
    Erin save that. Okay. So with that change
  • 01:05:21
    with this discussion, I'm totally fine with adding
  • 01:05:26
    this to the combo ballot with noting the
  • 01:05:29
    desktop edit by ROS. Anyone have concerns with
  • 01:05:34
    that approach? Okay. Hearing none. Let's go ahead
  • 01:05:47
    and try to add that to the combo,
  • 01:05:48
    Aaron. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Aaron. Okay.
  • 01:06:17
    So now that takes us down to the
  • Item 10 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS (Possible Vote)
    01:06:19
    revision request that have been tabled. As we've
  • 01:06:25
    been discussing, probably let those associated RRs for
  • 01:06:32
    NPRR1264 kind of rest there.
  • 01:06:36
    I think NPRR1264 is over at PRS, so
  • 01:06:42
    I know that Eric Goff is trying to
  • 01:06:44
    get an IA for what that might look
  • 01:06:46
    like, and and ERCOT staff have posed questions
  • 01:06:50
    first. I think may they've maybe got one
  • 01:06:54
    set of responses back from from Constellation. So
  • 01:06:58
    I'm totally fine with letting all of that
  • 01:07:01
    play out in those other subcommittees and then
  • 01:07:04
    circle back to these. So we kind of
  • Item 10.5 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
    01:07:09
    pulled in NOGRR272 and PGRR121 into our discussion of of NOGRR278
  • 01:07:12
    So I'll pause here just to see
  • 01:07:15
    if there was anything else on these two
  • 01:07:19
    or if we we kind of close the
  • 01:07:21
    loop on those for now. Okay. Alright. Thanks,
  • Item 11 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (Possible Vote)
    01:07:24
    Erin. Okay. And then NPRR1264, same thing.
  • 01:07:37
    Let's just see how it it plays out
  • 01:07:40
    over at PRS. And then with that, we
  • 01:07:42
    can start moving into our working group updates.
  • 01:07:46
    We can start with OWG. Is that Ricky
  • 01:07:50
    that's gonna give okay. So Ricky Tyler, just
  • 01:07:55
    making sure you guys heard that I'd love
  • 01:07:59
    for you to take up the discussion on
  • 01:08:01
    NPRR1278 at your next meeting.
  • 01:08:04
    Yeah, Katie. Can can you hear me? I
  • 01:08:07
    can. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. I I have a
  • Item 12 - Operations Working Group (OWG)
    01:08:10
    note to take up, NPRR1278 at our next meeting. I did have it
  • 01:08:13
    down as an informal request. I assume we'll
  • 01:08:16
    get the formal one over email when that
  • 01:08:17
    comes. Right. Yep. After, right, after the May
  • 01:08:19
    PRS referral. But yeah. Thank you. Okay. We
  • 01:08:21
    can go ahead and go to the next
  • Item 12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions (OWG, PLWG
    01:08:26
    (Possible Vote)) slide. NPRR1070, ERCOT is still working
  • 01:08:30
    on the rewrite on the existing one for
  • 01:08:31
    that. So it's still tabled at the OWG,
  • 01:08:36
    but we do expect an update soon. Go
  • 01:08:38
    to the next slide. The 2025 UFLS survey,
  • 01:08:42
    the number of load set stages that everybody
  • 01:08:47
    should be aware is going from three to
  • 01:08:52
    five. 20 five percent of the system load
  • 01:08:54
    shall be equipped with the UFLS. And if
  • 01:08:56
    you're interested in more details, then as shown
  • 01:08:59
    below, you can look up the presentation on
  • 01:09:02
    you're interested in more details, then as shown
  • 01:09:05
    below, you can look up the presentation on
  • 01:09:08
    the OWG 3/20 meeting page.
  • 01:09:11
    And then there was no other businesses. Pretty
  • 01:09:16
    quick meeting. Thanks, Tyler. Don't see any comments
  • 01:09:26
    in the queue for you. I think you're
  • 01:09:30
    oh, Alex, did you wanna say anything else?
  • 01:09:33
    But it looks like the joint commenters are
  • 01:09:35
    working on NPRR1270. Yeah. Just a
  • 01:09:40
    clarification. Thank you. Okay. Let's move along. We're
  • 01:09:55
    doing pretty good on time, so I might
  • 01:09:57
    skip our break for now and move on
  • Item 13 - Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG)
    01:10:00
    to NDSWG. Yeah. This is Phil Hoffer. Can
  • 01:10:07
    you hear me? We can. Go ahead. Okay.
  • 01:10:12
    Yeah. You can go on to the next
  • 01:10:14
    slide there. So we had two items that
  • Item 13.1 - NPRR1265, Unregistered Distributed Generator (NDSWG
    01:10:17
    (Possible Vote)) were referred to us. One was NPRR1265
  • 01:10:20
    on unregistered distributed generation. And so we
  • 01:10:25
    had a meeting on 03/18, but Roshi was
  • 01:10:28
    unable to make it, and so there were
  • 01:10:30
    other SMEs also unable to make it. So
  • 01:10:35
    we need to have further discussion. We basically,
  • 01:10:37
    the things we need to talk about is,
  • 01:10:41
    you know, what kind of additional burden there
  • 01:10:43
    may be on the TSPs for this information
  • 01:10:46
    or, you know, what happens if the distribution
  • 01:10:49
    service providers don't provide it or, you know,
  • 01:10:51
    various questions like that. And then another question
  • 01:10:55
    came up about how to ensure the quality
  • 01:10:56
    and integrity of the data after the initial
  • 01:10:59
    information, you know, like updates, you know, requirements
  • 01:11:03
    for updates. So that was that's kind of
  • 01:11:06
    where we stand on December. And then if
  • 01:11:08
    you can go to the next slide, please.
  • Item 13.2 - SCR831, Short Circuit Model Integration (NDSWG, SPWG, SSWG
    01:11:12
    (Possible Vote)) And then we're also referred, SCR831
  • 01:11:15
    for discussion on short short circuit parameters
  • 01:11:20
    being entered into the operations model model integration.
  • 01:11:25
    And ERCOT gave us a presentation on that.
  • 01:11:27
    This is the first time we've seen it.
  • 01:11:28
    So ERCOT gave us a presentation on it,
  • 01:11:31
    which was super helpful. But, you know, we
  • 01:11:34
    didn't this is the first time we'd seen
  • 01:11:36
    it. So we need, you know, we need
  • 01:11:37
    some time to discuss, you know, kind of
  • 01:11:39
    the same thing. Additional burden on the TSP
  • 01:11:43
    and, you know, if there's gonna be you
  • 01:11:47
    know, what kind of a need there will
  • 01:11:49
    be for, you know, model synchronization between operations
  • 01:11:52
    and planning, and how that will impact, you
  • 01:11:57
    know, the CIM upload the CIM upload of
  • 01:11:59
    operations models. We had some internal discussions at
  • 01:12:02
    AEP the other day on this, but we
  • 01:12:05
    wanna, you know, we wanna talk about this
  • 01:12:06
    as the whole NDSWG. So we will revisit
  • 01:12:10
    both of those at our at our next
  • 01:12:11
    meeting. And that's that's the only updates I
  • 01:12:15
    have. There's also the issue of the ICCP
  • 01:12:20
    handbook. I didn't put that on here, but
  • 01:12:24
    I don't know. You know, we we got
  • 01:12:27
    that in the summer, I think, but then
  • 01:12:30
    it's somewhere else for discussion, and I'm not
  • 01:12:33
    sure not exactly sure where that is, but
  • 01:12:36
    I don't wanna I don't wanna forget that
  • 01:12:37
    that item is out there either. That was
  • 01:12:39
    about, the binding language in the ICCP handbook.
  • 01:12:44
    So that's also on our radar, but it's
  • 01:12:47
    it's out of our hands at this point.
  • 01:12:50
    So that's all I have. Okay. Thanks for
  • 01:13:00
    your update and clarification on the last piece.
  • 01:13:03
    I don't see anything in the queue for
  • 01:13:06
    you. K. Okay. So that will take us
  • Item 14 - System Protection Working Group (SPWG)
    01:13:15
    on down to SPWG. Mark, are you available
  • 01:13:38
    to give the report? Okay. How about we
  • 01:14:02
    circle back and see if they're able to
  • 01:14:05
    join us later? We can go on to
  • 01:14:07
    SSWG. Can you confirm me? Can you hear
  • 01:14:20
    me? We can. Go ahead. Hi. This is,
  • Item 15 - Steady State Working Group (SSWG)
    01:14:26
    Zach Walker on behalf of SSWG. Got a
  • 01:14:29
    quick update today. Go to the next slide.
  • 01:14:33
    So kind of status update, we are still
  • 01:14:35
    currently ongoing with the 25SSWG case build.
  • 01:14:39
    We had our low topology deadline last Friday,
  • 01:14:41
    and then we had our pre dispatch tuning
  • 01:14:43
    meetings, in Houston this past week, and we're
  • 01:14:46
    still kind of on track with our current
  • 01:14:48
    deadlines. We'll kind of meet again here in
  • 01:14:51
    late April at the ERCOT NET Center to
  • 01:14:53
    kind of fine tune and finalize the cases
  • 01:14:55
    for the most part. A quick little PSA
  • 01:14:58
    on that. These are hybrid meetings, and, you
  • 01:15:00
    know, they're available over WebEx, I would encourage
  • 01:15:02
    TSBs to be able to send their SSWG
  • 01:15:04
    reps in person if possible. Just kind of
  • 01:15:07
    a quick ask. This really speeds our tuning
  • 01:15:09
    process and increases participation, and it kinda typically
  • 01:15:12
    leads to some better, higher quality cases. But
  • 01:15:15
    overall, we're still on track for our target
  • 01:15:17
    posting of May 23. And then next item
  • 01:15:22
    we had, we did formally get referred as
  • 01:15:24
    a SCR789. We've kinda been
  • 01:15:26
    discussing this at a high level. We would
  • 01:15:29
    also kind of like some more time to
  • 01:15:30
    kind of work through the requirements of this
  • 01:15:32
    and kind of better determine the scope and
  • 01:15:34
    what this would look like. So we would,
  • 01:15:36
    we're gonna continue working on that. We're also
  • 01:15:40
    gonna be scheduling some joint meetings with SPWG
  • 01:15:42
    and then DSWG to kind of gonna go
  • 01:15:44
    over this and kind of get, synchronized with
  • 01:15:47
    this effort. And then finally, we have a
  • 01:15:50
    couple procedure manual updates that should be coming
  • 01:15:52
    here soon. We're still trying to finalize all
  • 01:15:54
    of those, but they're they're very minor edits
  • 01:15:56
    at this point. So we would expect to
  • 01:15:57
    have these here probably May May or June
  • 01:16:00
    ROS. So but that's the only updates I
  • 01:16:03
    have for SWG. Do y'all have any questions
  • 01:16:05
    for me? Thanks for your update. It looks
  • 01:16:10
    like the queue is clear. Thanks for your
  • 01:16:14
    work on this. And that will take us
  • 01:16:22
    to PLWG. Can you hear me? Yeah. Go
  • Item 16 - Planning Working Group (PLWG)
    01:16:32
    ) ahead, Nina. Okay. Thank you. So planning working
  • 01:16:37
    group. Can we go to the next slide?
  • Item 16.1 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection (PLWG
    01:16:40
    (DWG) (Possible Vote)) PGRR120, SSO prevention for generator interconnections.
  • 01:16:44
    We're still, this one still remains tabled at
  • 01:16:48
    PLWG. We're waiting for comments, from ERCOT, on
  • Item 16.2 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load (DWG
    01:16:54
    (PLWG) (Possible Vote)) this PGRR. PGRR122, the reliability
  • 01:16:58
    performance criteria for loss of load. We did
  • 01:17:03
    review comments, on the LCRA draft. ERCOT had,
  • 01:17:09
    proposed some changes. This figure still remains, tabled
  • 01:17:15
    to allow for some more discussions among the
  • 01:17:18
    TSPs. And, also, this, believe this is coming
  • 01:17:22
    up for discussion at DWG as well. They
  • 01:17:26
    did not meet in March, but they are
  • 01:17:27
    going to in April. So we're just waiting
  • 01:17:30
    to see the, what comes about, from that
  • 01:17:35
    discussion. Next slide, please. NPRR1272,
  • 01:17:42
    the multi supported privacy private use networks archive.
  • 01:17:46
    Bill Blevins gave a really good presentation at
  • 01:17:50
    our PLWG meeting, basically outlining, ERCOT's interpretation of
  • 01:17:56
    the protocol language in three dot one five.
  • 01:18:00
    PLWG has agreed to table NPRR1272 for further discussion.
  • 01:18:04
    I know there's, quite a bit of discussion going on between ERCOT
  • 01:18:09
    and Oxy, who's the sponsor of this NPRR.
  • 01:18:12
    So we're just waiting for, to see what,
  • Item 16.3 - PGRR124, ESR Maintenance Exception to Modifications (PLWG, DWG
    01:18:18
    (Possible Vote))comes about of their discussion. PGRR124,
  • 01:18:23
    this is tabled. We did not discuss it because, Tesla was unable
  • 01:18:28
    to attend the meeting in March, so it's
  • 01:18:32
    on the agenda for the April meeting. And
  • 01:18:36
    I believe that's the end of the updates.
  • 01:18:38
    on the agenda for the April meeting. And
  • 01:18:41
    I believe that's the end of the updates.
  • 01:18:51
    Thanks, Vina. Any questions for Vina? Okay. Thanks
  • 01:18:59
    for all your hard work. Thank you. K.
  • 01:19:06
    Do we have someone on from the voltage
  • 01:19:09
    profile working group? Hi. Good morning. This is
  • 01:19:13
    Wei Wei. So can somebody hear me? We
  • Item 17 - Voltage Profile Working Group (VPWG)
    01:19:19
    ) can. Go ahead. Oh, okay. Good morning, everyone.
  • 01:19:21
    So I don't have a slides today. On
  • 01:19:24
    April 3, last week, VPWG had a closed
  • 01:19:28
    meeting to discuss the NPRR123072.
  • 01:19:33
    So so the members raised some concerns regarding
  • 01:19:38
    the current planning guidelines, the regulations about the
  • 01:19:43
    VSS. So we have, like, a want to
  • 01:19:48
    have it for this NPRR, refer to VPWG
  • 01:19:53
    formally, so which I think it did. And,
  • 01:19:57
    also, we would schedule a follow-up meeting and
  • 01:20:01
    draft the formal comments in the future. So
  • 01:20:04
    that's all. Thanks, So, yep, we we did
  • 01:20:13
    send it over to you formally this morning,
  • 01:20:16
    so feel free to proceed as necessary. That
  • 01:20:26
    takes us on to DWG. Hi, Katie. It's
  • 01:20:36
    Erin. It looks like somebody's in the queue.
  • 01:20:43
    Was the question about where 1272 was sent
  • 01:20:46
    to? It was sent to PLWG and voltage
  • 01:20:49
    profile working group. Okay. Now I think we
  • Item 18 - Dynamics Working Group (DWG)
    01:20:59
    can take up DWG. Hey. Good morning. Fahad
  • 01:21:05
    Khourishee for DWG. I have a short update
  • 01:21:07
    for you today. The upcoming WebEx meeting, is
  • 01:21:12
    scheduled for April 17, and we will be
  • 01:21:15
    having a open session to accommodate the discussion
  • 01:21:18
    for revision request one twenty four as requested
  • 01:21:21
    in the March, ROS meeting. The, meeting details
  • 01:21:26
    are posted to the DWG and ROS, meeting
  • 01:21:30
    pages, and I'll send it out to the
  • 01:21:31
    ROS mailing list as well. So I I
  • 01:21:34
    had reached out to Tesla who's listed as
  • 01:21:36
    the sponsor for this revision request, and I've
  • 01:21:39
    not heard back. So if someone from Tesla
  • 01:21:42
    or the representative are in the meeting, I
  • 01:21:45
    need to get in touch with you just
  • 01:21:46
    to discuss some details, prior to the meeting.
  • 01:21:58
    So I would suggest reaching out to Eric
  • 01:22:01
    Goff. Okay. You if you, don't have contact
  • 01:22:07
    information for him, I can help you with
  • 01:22:09
    that. Okay. Yes. I'll need his contact information.
  • 01:22:12
    So just looking for some guidance here. If
  • 01:22:14
    the sponsor is not present at the meeting,
  • 01:22:16
    do we just proceed with the discussion without
  • 01:22:18
    them, or do we postpone it to the
  • 01:22:20
    next, DWG meeting, which would then be in
  • 01:22:24
    June? Like, what's typical, typically happens in this
  • 01:22:30
    scenario? I mean, you could go either way.
  • 01:22:35
    I think with, you know, your meeting cadence,
  • 01:22:37
    I would probably still take up the discussion.
  • 01:22:40
    Okay. Okay. Sounds good. That's all I had.
  • 01:23:05
    Okay. We can go back. We can go
  • 01:23:07
    on to the IBR update, and then I
  • 01:23:11
    have some proposed revisions to their scope. So
  • 01:23:16
    let's go ahead and let Julia give her
  • 01:23:17
    update. Hi, everyone. Katie, can you confirm that
  • 01:23:25
    you can hear me? We can. Great. Yeah.
  • Item 19 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group (IBRWG)
    01:23:31
    So we had a short meeting, just two
  • 01:23:33
    items, or three items on the agenda. The
  • 01:23:37
    first one, we talked about, performance issues, with
  • 01:23:42
    battery energy storage systems in WMS systems or
  • 01:23:45
    in in WMS territory. So Curtis Holland, brought
  • 01:23:50
    this, talked about tripping events, PFR, AGC coordination
  • 01:23:53
    issues, oscillations, and fires. And then we had
  • 01:23:59
    short discussion about, HRO, in a single resource
  • 01:24:04
    versus aggregated value for defined IRR group. So
  • 01:24:10
    Asilona brought this issue in February, and we
  • 01:24:12
    had a follow-up discussion from ERCOT, on this
  • 01:24:16
    one. So, basically, the conclusion for that one
  • 01:24:18
    was that Asilona will get with ERCOT internally,
  • 01:24:23
    and they will discuss and maybe bring, follow-up
  • 01:24:25
    items to the future IBRWG meetings. ERCOT basically
  • 01:24:31
    believed that, self limiting facility concept can be
  • 01:24:34
    used here, whereas Asiana didn't think it works.
  • 01:24:37
    So that's what they need to discuss. And
  • 01:24:40
    then, I provided the short updates, and talked
  • 01:24:46
    about grid forming battery deployed in in The
  • 01:24:49
    UK, so that's relevant to, advanced grid support
  • 01:24:52
    discussion. And then a couple of, just kind
  • 01:24:56
    of useful resources, that you can see the
  • 01:24:59
    links to, in the report. So this is
  • 01:25:01
    it. That's all we have. Thanks, Julia. I
  • 01:25:09
    don't see any questions for you. I guess
  • 01:25:12
    that will take it over to my portion
  • 01:25:15
    of the update. If Erin, you can pull
  • 01:25:17
    up the IBRWG scope. I just wanted to
  • 01:25:20
    walk through a few changes that were made.
  • 01:25:30
    Hi, Katie. I'm pulling it up now. I
  • 01:25:32
    have a little bit of a lag in
  • 01:25:34
    my computer. No worries. There we go. Sorry
  • Item 19.1 - IBRWG Scope (Vote)
    01:26:01
    about that. Thanks so much, Erin. So, you
  • 01:26:07
    know, as we were kinda working through the
  • 01:26:09
    ROS goals, it, you know, seemed like this
  • 01:26:11
    might be a good time to to take
  • 01:26:13
    a look at the, you know, scope as
  • 01:26:15
    well for for IBRWG. You know, some of
  • 01:26:19
    these are just nonsensitive updates. But if you
  • 01:26:22
    if you scroll down to the membership section,
  • 01:26:26
    Erin, this is taking out the closed session
  • 01:26:31
    piece of it. You know, I did I
  • 01:26:34
    did talk to ERCOT staff about this. It
  • 01:26:36
    doesn't seem to be something that's utilized. In
  • 01:26:38
    fact, it seems to be something that's causing
  • 01:26:40
    a bit of confusion for for people that
  • 01:26:43
    are looking to participate in in IBRWG. So
  • 01:26:46
    this is just clarifying that all the meetings
  • 01:26:50
    are open to the public. I think Julie
  • 01:26:55
    is already getting quite a bit of participation
  • 01:26:57
    in the group, but but certainly don't want
  • 01:26:58
    anything to, you know, stand in the way
  • 01:27:01
    of of getting everyone that's that's interested or
  • 01:27:03
    or needed to be part of the discussion.
  • 01:27:06
    So that was the main change. And then
  • 01:27:10
    if you keep scrolling down, those are substantive
  • 01:27:14
    those are just non substantive updates. There are
  • 01:27:16
    still a couple places where refer to the
  • 01:27:18
    task force instead of a working group. And
  • 01:27:21
    then in this section where it really taught
  • 01:27:23
    you know, this is kind of the section
  • 01:27:24
    that looks similar to other working group scopes,
  • 01:27:29
    but just change this one just to recognize
  • 01:27:33
    how technical in nature a lot of the
  • 01:27:35
    concepts are at IBRWG. So the referral may
  • 01:27:39
    take the form of, you know, can you
  • 01:27:41
    look at x y z technical concept? So
  • 01:27:44
    it's just recognizing and allowing for that. And
  • 01:27:48
    so those are the scope of the changes.
  • 01:27:51
    I don't think they're, you know, super significant
  • 01:27:54
    changes, but but meaningful nonetheless. So I'd love
  • 01:27:58
    to be able to put this on the
  • 01:28:00
    combo ballot. Again, I've I've talked to ERCOT
  • 01:28:02
    staff and and and Julia and made sure
  • 01:28:04
    that, you know, they were all on board.
  • 01:28:06
    So don't don't see anything controversial here. Yeah.
  • 01:28:17
    Go ahead, Freddie. Yeah. Thanks, Kaye, for putting
  • 01:28:23
    this together, and I appreciate you taking another
  • 01:28:26
    look at this. I guess whenever we initially
  • 01:28:30
    put the this, scope together, we try to,
  • 01:28:36
    mimic what other working groups had. And I
  • 01:28:40
    guess the question I have is on the
  • 01:28:42
    as requested there, it's not really clear to
  • 01:28:46
    me what that's that's saying, and and I'm
  • 01:28:49
    not looking at other scopes. I'm not seeing
  • 01:28:51
    that in in that language as well. So
  • 01:28:54
    I I don't know if you could just
  • 01:28:55
    help clarify what what the need or purpose
  • 01:28:59
    of that as requested in that second bullet
  • 01:29:02
    is. Yeah. So, you know, I've I've seen
  • 01:29:08
    what the agenda looks like. There are a
  • 01:29:11
    lot of, you know, issues that are coming
  • 01:29:13
    to that group. Folks are requesting it. Yes.
  • 01:29:16
    They are getting some referrals, but I'm I'm
  • 01:29:19
    just trying to to recognize sort of the,
  • 01:29:22
    again, the the technical nature of the group
  • 01:29:24
    and and what future referrals might look like.
  • 01:29:29
    I mean, within that sentence, the the the
  • 01:29:31
    set aside clause is the most important aspect
  • 01:29:34
    of it. Like, I don't wanna lose that
  • 01:29:35
    aspect of it, but if others are opposed
  • 01:29:39
    to that as requested, I'm fine with taking
  • 01:29:41
    it out. Yeah. I think I think at
  • 01:29:48
    least ERCOT's preference would be to remove that
  • 01:29:51
    as requested. I just don't think it's in
  • 01:29:53
    line with what is another working group's scoped,
  • 01:29:59
    and it it just isn't clear to me
  • 01:30:01
    what that that's really meaning. And and I
  • 01:30:03
    think as we talked about a little earlier
  • 01:30:06
    is that I think most working groups can
  • 01:30:08
    take up any any item at any at
  • 01:30:11
    any time for review. So I I just
  • 01:30:14
    I'm not seeing the need for that that
  • 01:30:16
    that language there. So it we would prefer
  • 01:30:20
    that that be removed. Okay. So we can
  • 01:30:23
    take that out, but but let me let
  • 01:30:25
    me try to clarify, Freddie, what so a
  • 01:30:29
    working group can take something up. Yes. Like,
  • 01:30:32
    today, we took up NPRR1278. It
  • 01:30:34
    wasn't formally referred to us. A working group
  • 01:30:36
    could have done the same. Right? And sometimes
  • 01:30:39
    we've asked them informally to take it up.
  • 01:30:41
    But once there's a referral from ROS, then
  • 01:30:46
    then we may not have the same working
  • 01:30:48
    group look at it. Right? So we may
  • 01:30:51
    decide that NDSWG instead of IBRWG should look
  • 01:30:54
    at it. So in terms of what's most
  • 01:30:57
    helpful to ROS, it would be for that
  • 01:30:59
    working group that got the referral to now
  • 01:31:01
    look at it. Or there may be instances
  • 01:31:04
    when we say, okay. We feel like IBRWG,
  • 01:31:07
    your work is done. It's now at the
  • 01:31:09
    ROS level to, you know, talk about this
  • 01:31:11
    from a policy level or talk about it
  • 01:31:14
    from this level, or you've provided us enough
  • 01:31:16
    information. So I just want to make sure
  • 01:31:19
    that it's clear to everyone how that process
  • 01:31:23
    works. Yeah. I understand that. And if that's
  • 01:31:32
    the case, I don't know if it makes
  • 01:31:34
    sense for it to be specifically in one
  • 01:31:36
    working group's document. If anything, it needs to
  • 01:31:38
    be either in all of them or in
  • 01:31:41
    some other overarching document that at least to
  • 01:31:47
    express that clarity. Okay, Erin. For moving it
  • 01:31:57
    forward today, we can take out as requested
  • 01:32:00
    and leave all of their changes. Okay. I
  • 01:32:17
    don't see any other comments in the queue.
  • 01:32:19
    So I think with that, we can ask
  • 01:32:22
    add this version to the combo ballot. Thanks,
  • 01:32:39
    Erin. I'm gonna go back to let's see.
  • Item 14.1 - SPWG Procedure Manual (Vote)
    01:32:48
    Let me go back to SPWG one more
  • 01:32:52
    time and see if anyone's on. I know
  • 01:32:55
    Susie has tried to reach out as well.
  • 01:32:57
    The only reason I'm doing this is they
  • 01:32:58
    do have a voting item. If not, we
  • 01:33:01
    will just have to leave that and go
  • 01:33:03
    on to our combo ballot. Okay. Alright. We
  • 01:33:22
    will just let them bring this up again
  • 01:33:24
    next month. So, Erin, do you wanna bring
  • 01:33:28
    up what we have on our combo ballot?
  • 01:33:45
    I I love your walk through from last
  • 01:33:48
    month if you wanna do that again this
  • 01:33:50
    time. I'm sorry, Katie. I missed that last
  • 01:33:57
    part. I really liked your walk through from
  • 01:34:00
    last time if you wanted to do that
  • 01:34:02
    this time for us. Absolutely. So on the
  • 01:34:07
    combined ballot for today at ROS, we have
  • 01:34:11
    the February 6 meeting minutes to approve. Also
  • 01:34:14
    to approve the, ROS 2025 strategic
  • 01:34:18
    objectives as presented. We have NPRR1272
  • 01:34:23
    to request PRS continue to table NPRR1272 for further review by PLWG and
  • 01:34:26
    VPWG. We have NPRR1274 requesting
  • 01:34:29
    PRS continue to table for further review by
  • 01:34:34
    PLWG. We have NOGRR275 recommending
  • 01:34:36
    approval as revised by ROS. We have that
  • 01:34:40
    small desktop edit. And then to approve the
  • 01:34:43
    IBRWG scope as revised by ROS. Perfect. Alright.
  • Item 20 - Combo Ballot (Vote)
    01:34:47
    We've got a motion from Chris Hendrix to
  • 01:34:58
    to approve this combo ballot. I think I
  • 01:35:00
    just need a second from somebody out there.
  • 01:35:03
    Second. Alright. For now. Thanks, John. Okay, Erin.
  • 01:35:07
    I think we can take it away. Thank
  • 01:35:17
    you, ma'am. K. Starting with consumers, Cyrus? Yes.
  • 01:35:20
    Mike? Yes. Thank you. Nabaraj? Thank you. Nabaraj?
  • 01:35:27
    Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to
  • 01:35:34
    the co ops. Chris? Yes. Sandeep? Yes. Paul?
  • 01:35:40
    Yes. Tony? Tony Kroski? K. I am not
  • 01:35:49
    seeing Tony. Oh, there we go. I I
  • 01:36:09
    seeing Tony. Oh, there we go. I I
  • 01:36:13
    got you in the chat. Yes. For Tony.
  • 01:36:15
    Thank you. Independent generators, Alex? Yes. Katie? Yes.
  • 01:36:28
    Brett? Yes. Kristen for Chase? Yes. Independent Power
  • 01:36:39
    Marketers, Shane? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. John for
  • 01:36:45
    Adam? Yes. Mark for Justin? Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:36:53
    Dinesh? Yes. K. Independent reps. Kevin? Yes. Jennifer?
  • 01:37:06
    Yes. Thank you. Chris? Yes. Ming? Yes. Investor
  • 01:37:19
    Owned Utilities? Ether? Yes. Rob for Chris Garrity?
  • 01:37:30
    K. I got you in the chat, Rob.
  • 01:37:32
    Thank you. David? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Municipals? Kenneth?
  • 01:37:47
    Yes. Chris? Chris Labrick with DME. Hey. I'm
  • 01:38:17
    not seeing Chris in the participant's list. Amani?
  • 01:38:26
    Yes. Matt? Yes. K. Thank you, everyone. The
  • 01:38:36
    motion carries with all in favor. Thanks, Erin.
  • 01:38:42
    Thanks, everyone. So we already covered the Black
  • Item 22 - Operations Training Working Group (OTWG)
    01:38:49
    Start working group. That just leaves OTWG. I
  • 01:38:52
    believe they have a presentation for us. Manuel,
  • 01:39:29
    are you on? Okay. Well, I guess we
  • 01:39:49
    can wait for that until next month, and
  • Item 23 - Other Business
    01:39:52
    that will take us into other biz. So
  • 01:40:06
    under here, Susie and I, we're gonna take
  • 01:40:11
    a look at these open action items. We
  • 01:40:15
    have one highlighted in green. So if you
  • 01:40:19
    could pull that up for us, Erin. Yeah.
  • Item 23.1 - Review Open Action Items List
    01:40:26
    So we talked about this one a little
  • 01:40:29
    bit maybe a month or so ago, and
  • 01:40:32
    we were waiting to see what happened with
  • 01:40:35
    December. It's gotten back to PRS. So, Chris,
  • 01:40:43
    I'm I'm not putting you on the spot
  • 01:40:45
    because I gave you some notice. But, Chris,
  • 01:40:48
    do you wanna give us an update on
  • 01:40:50
    kind of where you think this is, from
  • 01:40:53
    Golden Spread's perspective now? Yeah. Thanks, Katie. I
  • 01:40:58
    think given the progress of NPRR1238, we can
  • 01:41:01
    go ahead and remove this one at this
  • 01:41:02
    time. It was kind of a parallel consideration,
  • 01:41:05
    but I think we've got a path forward.
  • 01:41:08
    So that that sounds like the the most
  • 01:41:09
    logical thing at this time. Okay. If Katie
  • 01:41:28
    I'm sorry, Katie. This is Susie Clifton with
  • 01:41:30
    ERCOT. Go ahead. This is Susie. We can
  • 01:41:32
    this was an item assigned through TAC. So
  • 01:41:34
    before we remove it here, we'll just need
  • 01:41:36
    to confirm. We've confirmed that ROS has completed
  • 01:41:40
    their activities on it, and now we need
  • 01:41:42
    to take it in your report to TAC
  • 01:41:45
    so that TAC can confirm we are done
  • 01:41:47
    with what they assigned, and then we'll actually
  • 01:41:49
    remove it if you're okay with that path.
  • 01:41:57
    Okay. So so the original TAC assignment to
  • 01:42:02
    look at the load shed in real time.
  • 01:42:07
    I mean, we we did that a couple
  • 01:42:10
    years ago. This actually was a Yuri recommendation
  • 01:42:13
    if you remember that that long list and
  • 01:42:16
    the long spreadsheet. So this this was a
  • 01:42:20
    holdover to see what other action could be
  • 01:42:23
    taken. So the alternative to this was NPRR1238,
  • 01:42:28
    which is now a PRS,
  • 01:42:31
    and so ROS has finished its work on
  • 01:42:33
    it. Is is that sufficient, or is there
  • 01:42:36
    something else you needed? I am just going
  • 01:42:40
    with the standard process. I didn't recall that,
  • 01:42:44
    path that it was taking. The only NPRR1238
  • 01:42:46
    was the only thing that we
  • 01:42:48
    were finalizing. Because I remember we had talked
  • 01:42:51
    about taking it away from before and counting
  • 01:42:54
    is completed, and then Chris had asked us
  • 01:42:56
    to wait. So, you know, I I can't
  • 01:42:58
    recall exactly when that is. But as long
  • 01:43:00
    as that has been completed, that's fine, and
  • 01:43:02
    we can just remove it. Okay. I will
  • 01:43:10
    report this to TAC in my update for
  • 01:43:15
    this month, and I'll try to include that
  • 01:43:17
    history just so there's no confusion on why
  • 01:43:21
    1238 looks a little different from the original
  • 01:43:23
    description. Okay. Yeah. I needed that reminder. Hi,
  • 01:43:31
    Katie. This is Erin from ERCOT Market Rules.
  • 01:43:34
    So are we just leaving it alone until
  • 01:43:36
    you get confirmation from TAC, or you think
  • 01:43:39
    we can just go ahead and strike it
  • 01:43:41
    now? It wasn't clear. I'm sorry. I think,
  • 01:43:46
    Susie, last time we had one of these
  • 01:43:48
    TAC assignments, I took it up the chain.
  • 01:43:51
    And then as soon as TAC was okay
  • 01:43:53
    with it, then we made the change at
  • 01:43:54
    the next meeting. Yeah. And that's consistent. Yeah.
  • 01:43:59
    I just wanna make sure that I was
  • 01:44:01
    there was a little bit of back and
  • 01:44:03
    forth, so I was unsure what direction you
  • 01:44:05
    guys were going. But, yeah, that's consistent with
  • 01:44:07
    what what you've been doing. Okay. Thank you.
  • 01:44:11
    Thanks. Nava, did you have a comment on
  • 01:44:14
    this specific topic? Yes. So just clarifying. I
  • 01:44:19
    mean, the so the ROS is not taking
  • 01:44:21
    any action. I I don't quite understand. My
  • 01:44:30
    action right now is to, put this on
  • 01:44:34
    my next presentation to TAC. And then once
  • 01:44:38
    TAC sounds like they're okay with removing it,
  • 01:44:41
    then I would come back to the May
  • 01:44:44
    ROS and say, let's take it off. But
  • 01:44:48
    no action today. Okay. Got it. Got it.
  • 01:44:52
    Okay. Thank you. Sorry for confusing everyone. Okay.
  • 01:45:02
    I think that was the only thing on
  • 01:45:05
    our other business. Is there anything else for
  • 01:45:08
    the good of the group before we adjourn?
  • 01:45:14
    Okay. Well, thanks, everyone. Enjoy the rest of
  • Item 24 - Adjourn
    01:45:18
    your day. See you next month. Thank you.
2025 ROS Combined Ballot 20250403
Apr 02, 2025 - xls - 138 KB
ROS Agenda 20250403.v2
Mar 31, 2025 - docx - 58 KB
03. Draft Minutes ROS 20250306
Mar 26, 2025 - doc - 269.5 KB
05. 2025 ROS Goals
Mar 26, 2025 - doc - 42 KB
05. TAC Strategic Objectives Approved 02272025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 52.6 KB
February 2025 ERCOT Operations Report Public
Mar 24, 2025 - docx - 1.8 MB
SystemPlanningROS_Feb2025
Mar 17, 2025 - docx - 411.6 KB
06. GTCUpdate_ROS_April_2025
Apr 02, 2025 - pptx - 80.7 KB
11. OWG_ROS_20250403
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 177.7 KB
12. NDSWG report to ROS 20250403x
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 53.4 KB
13. SPWG ROS Update 04-03-2025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 32.9 KB
13. Proposed_spwg_procedures_040325
Mar 26, 2025 - docx - 31.1 KB
14. SSWG_Update_ROS_04032025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 728.2 KB
15. Planning Working Group Update_040325
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 52.9 KB
17. 20250403_DWG Report to ROS - April 2025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 43.3 KB
18. IBRWG_Scope_ROS_Approved_20230706
Mar 26, 2025 - docx - 25.4 KB
19. IBRWG Report to ROS 040325
Mar 30, 2025 - docx - 28.2 KB
21. April_OTWG_Updates
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 607.5 KB
Meeting Materials ROS 20250403
Apr 02, 2025 - zip - 7.2 MB
Revision Request ROS 20250403
Mar 30, 2025 - zip - 3.5 MB
Validation for ROS Standing Representatives
Starts at 00:00:18
1 - Antitrust Admonition
Starts at 00:01:24
2 - Agenda Review
Starts at 00:02:14
3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes (Possible Vote)
Starts at 00:03:52
3.1 - March 6, 2025
Starts at 00:03:54
4 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Update
Starts at 00:04:38
5 - ROS Goals/Strategic Objectives (Possible Vote)
Starts at 00:06:32
21 - Black Start Working Group
Starts at 00:08:16
6 - ERCOT Reports - 9:45 a.m.
Starts at 00:09:04
6.1 - Operations Report
Starts at 00:09:19
6.2 - System Planning Report
Starts at 00:14:49
6.3 - Generic Transmission Constraint (GTC) Update
Starts at 00:16:58
7 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS) Referrals (Vote)
Starts at 00:21:25
7.1 - NPRR1272, Voltage Support at Private Use Networks
Starts at 00:21:36
7.2 - NPRR1274, RPG Estimated Capital Cost Thresholds of Proposed Transmission Projects
Starts at 00:25:56
8 - NPRR1278, Establishing Advanced Grid Support Service as an Ancillary Service (Waive Notice - Possible Vote)
Starts at 00:32:06
9 - ROS Revision Requests (Vote) - 10:30 a.m.
Starts at 00:56:12
9.1 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
Starts at 00:56:31
9.2 - NOGRR275, Eliminate Scheduling Center Requirements for QSEs That Are Not WAN Participants
Starts at 00:57:04
9 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:06:19
10 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:06:19
9.6 - PGRR121, Related to NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
Starts at 01:07:09
10.5 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
Starts at 01:07:09
11 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:07:24
12 - Operations Working Group (OWG)
Starts at 01:08:10
11.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions (OWG, PLWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:08:26
12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions (OWG, PLWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:08:26
13 - Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG)
Starts at 01:10:00
13.1 - NPRR1265, Unregistered Distributed Generator (NDSWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:10:17
13.2 - SCR831, Short Circuit Model Integration (NDSWG, SPWG, SSWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:11:12
14 - System Protection Working Group (SPWG)
Starts at 01:13:15
15 - Steady State Working Group (SSWG)
Starts at 01:14:26
16 - Planning Working Group (PLWG)
Starts at 01:16:32
16.1 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection (PLWG) (DWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:16:40
16.2 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load (DWG) (PLWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:16:54
16.3 - PGRR124, ESR Maintenance Exception to Modifications (PLWG, DWG) (Possible Vote)
Starts at 01:18:18
17 - Voltage Profile Working Group (VPWG)
Starts at 01:19:19
18 - Dynamics Working Group (DWG)
Starts at 01:20:59
19 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group (IBRWG)
Starts at 01:23:31
19.1 - IBRWG Scope (Vote)
Starts at 01:26:01
14.1 - SPWG Procedure Manual (Vote)
Starts at 01:32:48
20 - Combo Ballot (Vote) -  12:40 p.m.
Starts at 01:34:47
22 - Operations Training Working Group (OTWG)
Starts at 01:38:49
23 - Other Business
Starts at 01:39:52
23.1 - Review Open Action Items List
Starts at 01:40:26
24 - Adjourn
Starts at 01:45:18