[00:00:05]
GOOD MORNING.THIS IS SUSIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED THIS MORNING, FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO ASK EVERYBODY IN THE MEETING ROOM IF YOU COULD PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.
YOU APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION.
JUST A COUPLE MEETING REMINDERS.
UH, THE NORMAL ONES THERE IS A, UH, SIGN IN OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN IF YOU'RE HERE IN PERSON TODAY, REGARDLESS IF YOU'RE A CONSULTANT, SEATED TECH REPRESENTATIVE, UM, ERCOT STAFF OR JUST ATTENDING, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN SO WE CAN CAPTURE THAT FOR THE MINUTES.
UM, IF YOU ARE IN THE MEETING ROOM AND, UM, YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION OR DISCUSSION, YOU MAY USE YOUR CARD AND ERIN IS HERE IN THE CORNER, AND SHE WILL ENTER YOU INTO THE CHAT, OR YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF INTO THE CHAT.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU ON THE WEBEX, WE ARE USING THE CHAT TO QUEUE FOR MOTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS.
PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING.
AND AS WE GET TO THE BALLOTING PROCESS, IF YOU WILL, UH, AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF IF YOU'RE ON THE WEBEX.
AND THEN AFTER YOU CAST YOUR VOTE, PLEASE RETURN TO THE MUTE, MUTE STATUS.
AND THEN IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, GIVE US JUST A FEW MINUTES AND WE WILL GET STARTED, UH, WITH THE SAME WEBEX MEETING DETAILS.
AND IF WE ARE UNABLE TO DO THAT, WE WILL SEND NOTICE TO THE T LISTSERV.
AND WITH THAT CLEAR, WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED.
AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THIS MORNING.
AND, UH, WELCOME EVERYONE TO OUR SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023 TAC MEETING.
[1. Antitrust Admonition]
LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT, UH, COREY IS ON THE BALL.WE'VE GOT THE ANTITRUST ADMONITION ON THE SCREEN.
GOT THE DISCLAIMER THERE AS YOU'RE READING THROUGH THAT.
WANTED TO DO A FEW ITEMS OF HOUSEKEEPING HERE.
SO, FIRST OF ALL, WE DO HAVE A HANDFUL OF PROXIES THIS MORNING.
SO, UH, GARRETT KENT WILL BE PROVIDING HIS PROXY TO BILL SMITH ONLY AFTER 1:30 PM WHICH I'M HOPING WE'RE NOT HERE THAT LATE.
UM, ERIC GOFF WILL HAVE, UH, PROVIDE HIS PROXY TO NAVA, UH, FOR 1186 WHILE HE'S REPRESENTING TESLA.
UM, AND HE'LL ALSO PROVIDE HIS PROXY TO NAVA FOR NOER 2 45.
WHILE HE'S REPRESENTING NEXTERA ON THAT, WE DO HAVE SOME ALTERNATE REPS AS WELL.
WE'VE GOT CHRISTIAN POWELL, WHO'S PROVIDED HIS ALTERNATE REP TO MR. ERIC BLAKEY.
SO, UH, COLIN MARTIN, UH, HAS PROVIDED, UH, HIS ALTERNATE REP TO MARTHA HENSON THIS MORNING.
AND THEN LASTLY, IF WE GO PAST 1215, DAVID WILL BE PROVIDING HIS ALTERNATE REP TO DIANA COLEMAN.
SO THOSE ARE ALL OF OUR ALTERNATE REPS AND PROXIES FOR THIS MORNING.
UM, WANTED TO THROW IT OVER TO RICHARD REAL QUICK FOR OUR PHRASE OF THE DAY.
SO, OKAY, THE PHRASE OF THE MONTH, ACTUALLY, MONTH, MONTH, SORRY, IT'S ALL MONTH LONG.
UH, IS, UH, MAMA SAYS SO, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAMA SAYS, IF YOU HAVE A, DON'T JUST BRING YOUR PROBLEMS, BRING YOUR SOLUTIONS.
UH, BE COURTEOUS AND, UH, DON'T BREAK THE LAW, UH, IN THE COURSE OF THE MEETING.
[2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
GO AHEAD AND GET ROLLING IN WITH OUR AGENDA.SO WE'VE GOT THE AGENDA UP IN FRONT OF US THIS MORNING.
FIRST THING WE'VE GOT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE TAC MEETING MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THOSE? SEEING NONE AROUND THE ROOM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THOSE TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
[3. Meeting Updates]
WE'VE GOT ARE MEETING UPDATES FROM THE AUGUST BOARD MEETINGS AND THE SEPTEMBER P U C T MEETINGS.UM, JUST WANTED TO NOTE, AS FAR AS THE AUGUST BOARD MEETINGS OF ARE CONCERNED, THE BOARD DID APPROVE ALL REVISION REQUESTS EXCEPT FOR N P R R 1186, WHICH IS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, WHICH WAS REMANDED, UH, FOR A VERY LIMITED PURPOSE TO US TO ADDRESS, UH, THE DEPLOYMENT ISSUE THAT THEY DISCUSSED DURING THE R AND M AND BOARD MEETINGS.
UH, ON SEPTEMBER 14TH, THE COMMISSION APPROVED O B D R R 0 4 7, AND THAT ONE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 15TH.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE MEETING? UPDATES FOR THE BOARD OR P U C TEAM MEETINGS? ALRIGHT.
[4. Review of ERCOT Market Impact Statements/Opinions and IMM Opinions]
RIGHT.SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, REVIEW OF ERCOT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS AND THE I M M OPINIONS, ANN.
UH, SO FOR THE REVISION REQUEST HERE AT TAC THIS MONTH, ERCOT IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF P G R 1 0 5 OR NORE 2 45 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS.
UM, ERCOT DOES SUPPORT N P R 1184 AND SCR 8 24, AND I'M SURE WE CAN DISCUSS, UM, 1 0 5 AND 2 45 LATER ON IN THE AGENDA UNDER THE ROSS REPORT.
UM, FOR THE I M M OPINIONS, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN OPINION ON 1 0 5 11 84 8 24, BUT THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF NOGA 2 45, AND I'LL LET THE I M M SPEAK TO THAT IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
[00:05:03]
I DON'T SEE.GOOD MORNING, THIS IS CARRIE BIVINS.
YEAH, WE, WE DO SUPPORT THE ROSS RECOMMENDED VERSION AT THIS TIME.
UM, I UNDERSTAND FROM THE ERCOT COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE TABLED FOR MORE DISCUSSION.
AND IN THAT CASE, WE WILL, OF COURSE, UH, LISTEN IN ON THAT DISCUSSION.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? OKAY, SEEING NONE,
[5. Revision Requests Remanded to TAC (Vote)]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS THE REVISION OF REQUEST THAT WAS REMANDED TO TAC, WHICH WOULD BE N P R R 1186.UM, DID WANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED, UM, EVER SINCE THE BOARD MET ON AUGUST 31ST.
UH, WE DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM AUGUST 31ST FROM A ASPIRE POWER VENTURE.
UH, WE'VE GOT, UH, SEPTEMBER 16TH JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENTS, SEPTEMBER 19TH ERCOT COMMENTS, UH, WHICH PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CHANGES, SEPTEMBER 22ND, OCTOPUS ENERGY COMMENTS.
AND THEN LASTLY, WE'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS FROM EOLIAN AS OF SEPTEMBER 25TH.
I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO START THIS MORNING WOULD BE TO START OUT WITH THE ERCOT COMMENTS.
I BELIEVE, UH, DAN, I THINK YOU'RE UP TO TALK TO THOSE.
UH, IF YOU DON'T MIND STARTING THERE.
I DID WANNA SAY THAT, UH, AGAIN, I WANNA LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TODAY TO THE VERY NARROW ISSUE THAT WAS REMANDED TO US BY THE ERCOT BOARD.
UM, ANY SORT OF DISCUSSION THAT DEVIATES FROM THAT INTO 10 96 AND OTHER AREAS I'D LIKE TO CURTAIL.
UH, AND WE WILL PROBABLY STEP IN IF WE START GETTING OFF TOPIC ON, ON SOME OF THOSE AREAS.
SO, UH, SO I WANNA REMAIN VERY FOCUSED ON, ON THE VERY EXPLICIT ISSUES THAT WE WERE ASKED TO ADDRESS.
UM, SO AS WE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THE, UM, WE HEARD BACK FROM THE BOARD AND OTHER DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD MEETING, UM, WE TOOK THAT BACK IN HOUSE AND CONSIDERED THE HOW TO ADDRESS THIS LIMITED ISSUE.
UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS REMANDED TO, TO T.
UM, AND WHAT WE PROPOSED IS THAT, UM, WE CHANGED THE MINIMUM S O C REQUIREMENTS FOR E C R S AND NONS SPEND SO THAT THEY SLOPE DOWN FROM THE FULL HOURLY AMOUNT AT, AT THE MEGAWATT.
SO IF, IF THEY'RE SELLING A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS OF, OF E C R S WOULD START WITH A HUNDRED MEGAWATT HOURS OF ENERGY THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE, THAT WOULD BE THE STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT, AND IT WOULD DROP TO ZERO BY THE END OF THE HOUR.
UM, THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, UH, THAN WHAT WE HAD BEEN PROPOSING.
UH, BUT IT DOES RESOLVE THE, UH, STRANDED, UH, ENERGY ISSUE AS IT WAS CALLED.
I SHOULD PUT LITTLE QUOTE MARKS AROUND THAT.
THE STRANDED ENERGY ISSUE DEFINITELY SOLVES IT DURING, UH, UH, SCARCITY CONDITIONS.
UM, AND, UM, IT ALSO RESOLVES SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES.
UM, NOW IN DOING THAT, WE ARE, UH, CONCERNED THAT IF YOU LOOK OUT, SAY FOR NONS SPIN, THE BATTERY THAT'S PROVIDING, UM, UM, NONS SPIN IN OUR FOUR MAY NOT EVEN BE CHARGED UP YET.
AND SO, UH, IT MAY TOTALLY BE DEPLETED, BUT IT'S PLANNING ON CHARGING UP BEFORE THEN.
AND IF WE LOOK AT, UH, WE HAD HAVE A DEPLOYMENT, WE GET INTO TIGHT CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF A FORECAST ERROR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CHARGE.
AND SO WE'VE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ENFORCING THE RIGHT LEVEL OF, OF, UM, UM, COMPLIANCE AROUND THAT.
AND SO WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD THAT, UH, WE IMPLEMENT A COUPLE OF, UH, ADDITIONAL NPRS OR MAYBE ONE N P R THAT DOES TWO THINGS, UM, THAT WOULD, UM, ADD MORE, UM, UH, UH, COMPLIANCE AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES RELATED TO FAILURES TO PROVIDE, UM, THAT AND HAVE THOSE BE KIND OF AUTOMATED.
UM, SO THAT IF THEY'RE NOT MAINTAINING ENOUGH, UH, STATED CHARGE REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE A FAILURE TO PROVIDE.
I MEAN, THAT, UM, UNDER THE, THE CURRENT MECHANISM THAT'S APPLIED TO EVERYBODY ELSE, UM, AND THE, UM, THAT POTENTIALLY WE WOULD DISQUALIFY RESOURCES IN GENERAL, UH, FOR, UM, REPEATED FAILURES TO PERFORM OR IF THEY DON'T PERFORM DURING, DURING ANY KIND OF KIND OF, UH, WHEN THEY'RE DEPLOYED, UH, DURING A GRID EMERGENCY OR OTHER OTHER EVENT.
UM, AND SO WE'D ASK FOR THE BOARD TO, TO, TO, TO APPROPRIATELY BALANCE THE RISK, UH, WITH REDUCING WHAT WE HAD BEEN, UH, ASKING FOR IN 1186 AND MOVING
[00:10:01]
THAT THERE'S, THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL RELIABILITY RISK, BUT TO OFFSET THAT AND TO, TO MITIGATE IT, WE'D ASK FOR KIND OF ENHANCED, UH, COMPLIANCE AND, AND PENALTY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE.AND SO, UH, WE WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO APPROVE THESE, UM, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL BOARD PRIORITY NRR, WHICH WE HAVE NOT DRAFTED YET, AND TO, TO, UH, CLIFF'S, UH, ADMONITION.
WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THOSE WOULD BE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DRAFTED YET.
UH, BUT, BUT WE WILL BE ASKING FOR SOMETHING RELATED TO THAT FROM THE BOARD.
WE'LL PUT A LITTLE MORE STRUCTURE AROUND IT BEFORE THEN.
UM, AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE, THE, THE, THE KEY, UH, I THINK IT SOLVES THE PROBLEM THAT WE WERE, UH, ASKED TO SOLVE.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S IN OUR COMMENTS.
SO I DIDN'T SEE WHO CAME UP FIRST.
SO WE'VE GOT EMILY AND BILL, I'LL DEFER TO EMILY LADIES FIRST.
YEAH, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION.
UM, DAN, AS I UNDERSTOOD THE DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD, IT WAS REALLY FOCUSED AROUND E E A AND, AND EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.
IS, IS WHAT ERCOT IS PROPOSING WITH THESE COMMENTS, UM, IT IT SEEMS TO BE BROADER THAN THAT, IT SEEMS TO BE THE STATE OF CHARGE, UM, ALL THE TIME.
IT, OR IS IT ONLY AN E E A, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US? YEAH, SO IT, IT, THE, THE CHANGE THAT WE ARE MAKING, I GUESS IT WASN'T JUST DURING EA IT WAS DURING SCARCITY MORE GENERALLY, WHATEVER, HOWEVER THAT'S DEFINED.
AND THERE WAS SOME DEBATE AT THE BOARD AS TO HOW SCARCITY IS DEFINED, BUT, UH, UM, SO WE, UM, IT, IT SOLVES THE PROBLEM FOR THAT IN A WAY THAT THAT ALSO RESOLVES SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT FOLKS HAD ADDRESSED.
BUT THAT'S REALLY THE KEY FOCUS OF IT, SO THAT WE'RE, WE'RE RESOLVING IT DURING THOSE SCARCITY ISSUES AND THOSE SCARCITY TIMES.
COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE.
UM, ARE YOU JUST REFERRING TO MAKING SURE THAT ERCOT HAS THE PROPER PROCESS TO IDENTIFY WHEN A FAILURE OCCURS AND ASSESSING? UM, WELL, ONE IS CLAWING BACK ANY DAY AHEAD ANCILLARY SERVICE PAYMENTS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MADE AND THEN ASSESSING THE, BASICALLY THE PENALTY, WHICH IS IF THEY'RE, IF ERCOT HAS TO REPLACE THAT IN A CHASM, THOSE THAT ARE SHORT, THE ANCILLARY HAS TO HAVE TO PAY THAT REPLACEMENT COST.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? IS THERE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THAT THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT WOULD, UM, LOOK DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS TODAY? SO, SO BASICALLY WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THAT'S APPLICABLE TO ALL RESOURCES TODAY, OTHER THAN ADDING KIND OF AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IN THAT FOR THE UNIQUE TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BATTERIES, WHICH ARE THAT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN STATE OF CHARGE IN ORDER TO, TO BE CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THOSE ANCILLARY SERVICES DURING THE HOUR.
THAT'S WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE TODAY IS BASICALLY MONITORING THAT.
WHEN YOU SEE THAT'S DEFICIENT, YOU'RE NOT MAINTAINING THE CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE THE ANCILLARY.
SO THEN YOU'LL, YOU WOULD BASICALLY FLAG THAT AND IT WOULD FLOW THROUGH THE SYSTEM LIKE IT DOES FOR EVERY, EVERY OTHER GENERATION RESOURCE? I, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
IT'S, AND WITH THE, WITH THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE GONNA BE AUTOMATING THIS, IT'S KIND OF A MANUAL PROCESS TODAY.
TO BE AUTOMATING IT, THAT CLARITY IS HELPFUL.
THEN THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD, UM, WHICH I APPRECIATE ERCOT TAKING A, A CLOSER LOOK AT AND RELAXING, UM, ESSENTIALLY THE DURATION LIMIT IN, IN HOW THOSE ARE TREATED.
UH, AND WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE CARRYING RESERVES, MY QUESTION IS, IF ERCOT IS NOW GOING TO ALLOW ESRS TO MAINTAIN STATE OF CHARGE OVER THE COURSE OF, OF ONE HOUR, WHICH IS THE INCREMENT THAT THE PRODUCT IS SOLD IN, WHY WOULD YOU STILL MAINTAIN A DURATION LIMIT DURING QUALIFICATION? YEAH, SO THE, THE, UH, INTENT IN MAINTAINING THE QUALIFICATION LIMIT IS TO, UM, ENSURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF PROVIDING SOME DIVERSITY ACROSS THE NUMBER OF RESOURCES THAT ARE PROVIDING THOSE.
SO THAT IF, IF SOMEONE DOESN'T MOVE THEIR OBLIGATION TO A D A UNIT THAT HAS SUFFICIENT STATED CHARGE OR, OR, OR, UM, UH, CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING THE ANCILLARY SERVICE.
AND THEN, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T HAVE TOO MANY EGGS IN ONE BASKET.
AND SO THERE, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT, BUT ALL THE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT WOULD, WOULD REQUIRE SYSTEMS CHANGES THAT WOULD THEN HAVE THE EFFECT OF DELAYING R T C.
AND SO THIS IS THE MECHANISM FOR MAINTAINING THAT, THE KIND OF DIVERSITY OF WHO'S PROVIDING THE ANCILLARY SERVICES.
NEXT, IN THE QUEUE, WE'VE GOT ERIC GOFF, FOLLOWED BY BOB HELTON AND COMMISSIONER GLOCK FELTY,
[00:15:01]
UH, ERIC GOFF AS CLIFF NOTED EARLIER ON BEHALF OF TESLA FOR THIS ITEM.UM, I GUESS TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE INTERRELATED.
UM, SO I'LL JUST ASK AT THE SAME TIME, UM, HOW IS YOUR PROPOSAL DIFFERENT THAN N P R 1149, WHICH WAS THE SYSTEMATIC ENTRY SERVICE FAILED QUANTITY CHARGES? THAT'S BEING CURRENTLY IN, UM, I THINK PLANNING RIGHT NOW, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
AND THEN YOU JUST MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AVOIDING R T C IMPACTS.
COULD YOU TALK MORE ABOUT THE PLAN TO AVOID R T C IMPACTS AS YOU TALK ABOUT THESE PRIORITY NPRS? YEAH, SO I, UM, IF I GET SOMETHING WRONG.
SO, 1149 AS WRITTEN TODAY, DOES NOT HAVE STATE OF CHARGE RELATED TRIGGERS WITHIN IT.
SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE NEW N P R R WOULD BE BUILDING IN THOSE TRIGGERS SO THAT 11 8 49 BASED LOGIC THAT YOU HAVE CAN NOW BE ALSO ASSESSED TO STATE OF CHARGE.
SO WOULD IT DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 1149 IN ORDER TO DO THAT? WE DON'T THINK, UH, UH, SO RIGHT NOW WE'VE NOT YET TALKED, TALKED, TALKED THROUGH ALL OF HOW 1149 WOULD WORK OUT AND WHERE THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE WOULD FIT IN.
UH, 1149, CERTAINLY, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IS IN THE, UH, UH, WE, WE'VE STARTED PLANNING FOR THE PROJECT.
WE DO THINK THERE'S A WAY TO, IF IT WAS JUST TO BE THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PULL IT IN TO THAT 1149 SCOPE, WE'VE NOT FULLY THOUGHT THROUGH IT, BUT AT LEAST BASED OFF OF WHAT WE KNOW OR WHAT WE THINK WE WANT TO DO, THAT SCOPE IS SMALL ENOUGH TO WHERE WE THINK IT CAN BE ADDED IN AND THEREFORE NOT IMPACT R T C.
LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT BOB HILTON NEXT.
UH, THE FIRST ONE IS WITH THIS ONE CHANGED THE WAY IT IS, AND THIS IS REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE THE STOP GAP BETWEEN NOW AND R T C, DOES THAT CHANGE THE NEXT N P R R THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE WRITING? OR IS THIS GONNA BE WHAT YOU LEAVE BETWEEN NOW AND R T C AND THEN THIS WILL CONTINUE AFTER R T C IN SOME SHAPE OR FORM, OR YOU STILL SEEING SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES? SO, BOB, IS YOUR QUESTION, HOW, HOW DOES THE LANGUAGE WRITTEN IN 1186 UH, SET UP WHEN, UH, R T C IS HERE? YEAH, YEAH.
ARE YOU GONNA MAKE ADDITIONAL CHANGES LIKE YOU HAD PLANNED ON WITH THE ORIGINAL 1186? SO TO, UH, SO THERE IS A, UM, MATT IS SITTING HERE, WE ARE WORKING ON ANOTHER, UH, N P R R FOR R T C.
UH, I THINK I, AS YOU START TALKING, SEEING WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH STATE OF CHARGE THERE, AT LEAST IN OUR MIND, SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE RELATED LANGUAGE WE PUT FOR S O C COMPLIANCE IN SECTION EIGHT DO NOT, ARE NOT REQUIRED.
UH, SO WE WILL NEED TO COORDINATE HOW WE, UH, WHAT NPRS OR HOW WE WORK THE PROTOCOL, UH, CHANGES IN SO THAT WE, THOSE LANGUAGE CAN BE TAKEN OUT.
SO THAT IS CERTAINLY, UH, UH, THAT, UH, THAT ASPECT, WHICH IS PORTION OF 1186 COMPLIANCE THAT IS IN THERE SHOULD NOT APPLY IF R T C S O C CHANGES THAT WE ARE DESCRIBING.
WHAT THE COMPLIMENT IS, THANKS AND NOW SET.
THAT LEADS ME TO MY SECOND ONE.
THE SECOND ONE IS ON THE COMPLIANCE SIDE.
AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT YOU WANNA MAKE THIS AN AUTOMATIC IN THE SYSTEM THAT WILL TRIGGER THE PENALTIES FOR COMPLIANCE.
AND THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS, OF COURSE, THAT'LL HAVE TO BE TIED TO THE ABILITY IN REAL TIME.
IF I SWITCH THAT OVER TO ANOTHER, ANOTHER RESOURCE THAT THAT OBLIGATION I HAVE TO SWITCH SO THAT YOU DON'T GET PENALIZED.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT MAY BE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM.
AND WITH THIS BEING A STOP GAP, THEN, IS THAT REALLY THE WAY TO GO? JUST BE MY QUESTION, WHATEVER YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE NEXT N P R R COMPLIANCE, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
AND THEN FINALLY, UH, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THIS DOES BESIDES, UH, BEING ABLE TO GET SOME STRANDED MEGAWATTS DURING, DURING THE, UH, TIMES WHENEVER YOU'RE IN AN EMERGENCY, IF I DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION, THE OTHER PIECE THAT THIS WAY IT WAS IF I DIDN'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION, THE LA THE NEXT HOUR, I STILL HAD TO HOLD OUT AND THIS REDUCES THAT.
I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANYMORE.
SO RATHER THAN, THAN HAVING TO HOLD SOMETHING OUT FOR SOMETHING I DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION FOR IN THE NEXT HOUR, I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT ANYMORE.
SO I THINK THAT'S A REAL POSITIVE WITH THIS.
[00:20:02]
YEAH.MY QUESTION, UH, WAS, UH, DAN, AS YOU THINK ABOUT, UH, THESE ADDITIONAL NPRS, UM, ARE THEY TOTALLY DRIVEN TOWARDS PENALTIES AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THE ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT YOU HAVE BID INTO OR HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO PROVIDE? I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE, MAINTAIN THE CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING THE ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT YOU'VE, UH, BID IN TO PROVIDE AND BEEN COLLECTED TO PROVIDE THROUGH THE RESOURCES THAT YOU'RE POINTING TO AT THAT TIME AS BEING THE ONES THAT ARE PROVIDING THAT ANCILLARY SERVICE, THEN, THEN YES.
SO, WELL, SO, SO YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT OF DIFFERENT STIPULATIONS IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCE, THAT YOU HAVE TO POINT TO THE RESOURCE THAT IT'S GONNA PROVIDE TO, AND THAT YOU ARE, UM, YOU ACTUALLY DO PROVIDE IT.
UM, BUT I, I THINK THE, THE, THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE HERE IS, IF YOU'RE DOING THESE PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, WHY DO YOU EVEN NEED TO KNOW THE STATE OF CHARGE? YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING BOOTSTRAPS AND SUSPENDERS ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THE PENALTY STRUCTURE WITHIN ERCOT WILL BE ENOUGH FOR THE MARKET TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, NOT FOR ERCOT TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROBLEM AND, AND HAVE THE SOLUTION EVERY SINGLE TIME.
SO I, I THINK THAT WHAT, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THE DISTINCTION IS WE DON'T WANT TO, UH, JUST ASSESS WHETHER SOMEONE HAS THE CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE WHEN WE ACTUALLY NEED IT, UH, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY DEPLOYED.
BUT INSTEAD WE WANT TO BE, UH, MAKING SURE THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY PROVIDING IT ALL ALONG IN CASE WE WERE TO NEED IT.
IT'S KINDA LIKE, UH, UH, YEAH, YOU DON'T WANNA, YOU DON'T WANNA, SO WHAT, WHAT HAP WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND A GENERATOR THAT TRIPS, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS A BOILER TUBE LEAK OR THAT A TRANSMISSION LINE TRIPS, THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION, BUT YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ON THE SYSTEM.
AND IF, IF A SYSTEM ELEMENT FAILS THAT IMPACTS THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE A SERVICE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN, WHERE DO YOU SEE A DISTINGUISHING DIFFERENCE THERE? IT, IT'S, IT'S, DO THEY HAVE THE, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, UH, FORECAST UN FORECASTABLE THINGS LIKE UNIT TRIPS AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, BUT YOU, YOU CAN, UH, YOU DO HAVE CONTROL OVER WHETHER YOU MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT STATE OF CHARGE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
AND SO THAT IT'S, IT'S WHAT'S CONTROLLABLE VERSUS NOT.
AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE CONTROLLING THE THING THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
I WHAT YOU SAID IS YOU WANT TO CONTROL WHAT YOU WANT TO CONTROL THEM, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID AT OUR OPEN MEETING, WHICH IS YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK LIKE A COAL PLANT.
SO I STILL GO BACK AND THINK THAT Y'ALL ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE ON THIS, AND, YOU KNOW, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT.
YOU WE'RE SPENDING A WHOLE LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT ON AN INTERIM MEASURE THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED WITH R T C.
AND WE ARE NOW, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, WE'LL TAKE UP TWO ERCOT BOARD MEETINGS, WE'LL TAKE UP MULTIPLE P U C MEETINGS, WE'RE BARKING UP THIS, THIS ISSUE, AND I, I JUST THINK WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON IT, AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ANY MORE RELIABILITY ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHETHER YOU KNOW, A STATE OF CHARGE OR NOT.
SO, UM, Y'ALL CAN GO ABOUT YOUR, UH, PROCESS, BUT AS IT COMES DOWN TO ME AT THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE I STAND, JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW.
NEXT IN THE LIST, WE'VE GOT, UH, DOUG AND I, I APOLOGIZE, I'M PROBABLY GONNA BUTCHER YOUR LAST NAME, PATRICA.
UH, ACTUALLY THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
UM, YEAH, DOUG PETRU, TEXAS ADVANCED ENERGY BUSINESS ALLIANCE.
UM, I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH HERE, BECAUSE, UH, THE WAVE STAFF HAS BEEN ADDRESSING FUTURE N P R R COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE FRAMING IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL RESOURCE, BUT, UM, THAT LINE THERE, UH, AN ADDITIONAL N P R R MAY BE NEEDED TO IMPOSE SYSTEM LEVEL LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF RESPONSIVE RESERVE E C R S AND NONS SPEND THAT ER SARS ARE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE.
UM, MY READING OF THAT WAS THAT FUTURE N P RRR MAY RESULT IN HARD CAPS FOR THOSE SEGMENTS OF RESOURCES TO PROVIDE THOSE SPECIFIC SERVICES IN THE FUTURE, OR AT LEAST THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, IS MY READING OF THAT, UH, ACCURATE? YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WE'RE, UH, THIS IS KIND OF A, IF THE OTHER PROTECTIONS DON'T WORK, WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO THIS IN THE FUTURE.
[00:25:01]
IS NOT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'D ASK TO BE A BOARD PRIORITY N P R R AT THE, UH, OCTOBER BOARD MEETING.THE SECOND THING IS THAT, UM, UM, THE ONLY REASON THIS WOULD BE NEEDED IS THAT SOME OF THE OTHER PROTECTIONS WEREN'T WORKING.
UM, AND BECAUSE THIS WOULD REQUIRE A SY AND THE REASON, THE REASON THIS IS, IS, UH, UH, NOT OUR PREFERRED APPROACH IS THAT, UH, IT WOULD REQUIRE SYSTEMS CHANGES THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO, TO IMPACT THE R T C SCHEDULE.
AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.
WE'D RATHER USE THE OTHER PROTECTIONS.
AND THEN, UH, THE THIRD THING IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE, UH, CURRENT LIMITS WE HAVE IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE, UH, METHODOLOGY TODAY THAT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF, UH, WHAT CAN BE PROVIDED BY A CERTAIN, UH, RESOURCE TYPE, UH, BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
AND SO THAT'S VALID, BUT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DO THAT HERE, UH, AT THE CURRENT TIME.
UH, BUT I'M, I WAS JUST CLARIFYING THAT THIS WOULD, SHOULD WE GET TO THIS POINT, THIS WOULD ENTAIL AN ADJUSTMENT OF A CAP ON ESRS TO PROVIDE THESE SPECIFIC SERVICES.
I'M READING THAT CORRECTLY, THAT IF, IF ALL THOSE OTHER PROTECTIONS YES.
SOMEWHERE CAN WE MOVE FORWARD.
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, UH, IN TERMS OF THAT LINE OF OBSERVED SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE, I, IS THERE A PARTICULAR THRESHOLD FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ACROSS ESRS THAT STAFF ENVISIONS AS, YOU KNOW, BEING THE, UH, SORT OF APEX FOR WHERE WE TURN TO THESE KINDS OF MEASURES? BECAUSE THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY OPEN LANGUAGE, AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, THERE'S A MORE FIRM WAY TO DEFINE SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANT RELIABILITY ACROSS THE SEGMENT, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE TO ASK FOR.
BUT I, I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN PARTICIPANTS WOULD BE UNNECESSARILY PUNISHED, UH, FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THEIR PEERS.
SO IS THERE A WAY THAT, UH, STAFF IS CONSIDERING DEFINING THIS OR IS THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DEFINE THIS? I MEAN, I, WE HAVE NOT DEFINED SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN PROPOSING TO, UH, IMPLEMENT AT THIS POINT.
THE INTENT WAS TO SAY, WELL, IF, IF ALL THE OTHER STUFF DOESN'T WORK, WE'RE WANTING TO WARN THE BOARD THAT WE MAY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE THAT THAT'S NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT WE DON'T SEE ANY NON-COMPLIANCE AND THEN THIS WON'T BE NEEDED.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A, A FAR OFF MEASURE.
I JUST WANTED TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.
UH, NEXT IN THE LIST WE'VE GOT BRIAN SAMS FOLLOWED BY CHRIS HENDRICKS.
I'M DAN, I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT JUST THE TIMING OF THE, THE EXPECTED COMPLIANCE N P R R AND IF THE, IF THERE'S A EXPECTATION THAT THE RELEASE DATE WOULD BE AT THE SAME TIME THAT 1186 IS RELEASED, OR IF THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME GAP.
UM, AND THEN I HAVE KIND OF A SUBSEQUENT QUESTION ABOUT, UH, JUST THE POTENTIAL FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO MONITOR, CREATING ADDITIONAL RISK.
AND IN THE BUSINESS CASE, YOU TALK ABOUT PROCURING POTENTIALLY MORE ANCILLARY SERVICES TO COVER THAT RISK.
CAN YOU COMMENT ONE ON THE TIMING AND TWO ON JUST AS QUANTITIES AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT THERE, PLEASE.
UM, SO FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, I MEAN, THIS BOARD PRIORITY N P R R PROCESS IS A LITTLE NEW.
UM, OUR INTENT IS TO PUT SOME STRUCTURE AROUND IT, WHAT WE, WHAT WE WOULD BE PROPOSING, UH, BY THE TIME OF THE BOARD MEETING IN OCTOBER.
SO THE, I GUESS THE ANN MAY HAVE TO HELP ME HERE, BUT, BUT I MEAN, THE, THE, THE PRESUMING THAT YOU GUYS APPROVED SOMETHING TODAY, THEN THAT, THAT N P R R, THE REVISED N P R 1186, WE GO BACK TO THE BOARD IN OCTOBER, WE'D TRY TO PUT SOME STRUCTURE AROUND WHAT THOSE, UM, UM, WHAT WOULD BE IN THOSE, UH, UH, BOARD PRIORITY NPR R SO THAT THEY COULD PROPOSE THAT BACK TO US TO IMPLEMENT.
UH, AND THEN, SO, SO I GUESS THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE IN THOSE.
AND I THINK OUR INTENT WOULD BE AT LEAST TO PROVIDE SOME STRUCTURE AROUND THAT BY THE BOARD MEETING.
UM, THE, UM, AS FAR AS THE QUANTITIES ON THE ADDITIONAL, AS WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT YET.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IKA HAS ANY
[00:30:01]
ADDITION, BUT WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THOSE QUANTITIES YET AND THOUGHT THROUGH WHAT, WHAT STATISTICALLY WE MIGHT NEED TO DO THERE.BRIAN, I KNOW YOU HAD A FOLLOW UP.
JUST REAL QUICK, IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, PULL YOUR MICS CLOSER TO YOU.
'CAUSE IT'S IF'S GETTING KIND OF HARD TO HEAR.
SO, UH, LET, LET'S SAY, JUST FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT 1186 IS APPROVED.
UH, THE, THE SET OF COMMENTS IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN OCTOBER.
YOU RECEIVE DIRECTION, UH, FOR A PRIORITY N P R, UM, I THINK THE BOARD MEETS NEXT AGAIN IN DECEMBER.
IS THE EXPECTATION THAT THE COMPLIANCE PIECE WOULD BE DONE BY DECEMBER, AND THEN WHEN 1186 IS RELEASED, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE COMPLIANCE, UH, COMPONENT? OR IS THERE SOME LIKE GAP IN TERMS OF, UH, 1 11 86 IS RELEASED AND THAT, THAT, THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I, I MEAN, I THINK IDEALLY THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
SO 1186 WOULD BE APPROVED IN OCTOBER, AND THEN, UH, THEY WOULD TELL US TO COME BACK WITH AT THE DECEMBER BOARD WITH THESE FLESHED OUT N P R R SO THAT THEY COULD APPROVE THEM AT THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING.
AND THEN I, I GUESS THE SECOND COMMENT IS IF THERE IS SOME GAP BETWEEN THE COMPLIANCE COMPONENT, I WOULD BE CURIOUS, UM, JUST TO UNDERSTAND BETTER HOW YOU ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT THE IMPACTS FOR AS QUANTITIES FOR, UH, 24, BECAUSE ALL OF THAT TIMING KIND OF COMES TOGETHER IN DECEMBER.
SO MAYBE ONE THING I WANTED TO REITERATE.
I THINK, UH, AS FAR AS STATE OF CHARGE IS CONCERNED, ALL WE ARE LOOKING TO DO IS AUTOMATE ACCOUNTING OF IT AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE PROTOCOLS TODAY LIKELY HAVE GIVEN ENOUGH, UH, FLEXIBILITY TO OUR COURT.
UH, WHAT WE ARE REALLY WANTING TO DO IS AUTOMATE THE PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHY IT IS TYING BACK INTO 1149 THE WAY IT IS.
AND THE TIMELINE DAN MENTIONED, IS CERTAINLY THE IDEAL ONE THAT EVEN WE WANT TO CHASE SO THAT THE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE WORKING ON CAN CONTINUE AND DELIVER OUT AT THE SAME TIME.
SO THAT WAS JUST ONE POINT TO MAKE.
WE'VE NOT GONE BACK AND TALKED ABOUT, UH, HOW TO CHANGE THE METHODOLOGY FOR 1186 PREEMPTIVELY.
UH, WE ARE WORKING ON PUTTING OUR THOUGHTS TOGETHER FOR THE OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER ROUND OF DISCUSSION.
SO WE WILL TRY TO BRING BACK SOME IDEAS, UM, TO THAT END, UH, IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, ON THE UP AND UP AND WE'RE KEEPING EVERYTHING MOVING ALONG HERE, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING, SPENDING A LOT OF TIME STARTING TO TALK ABOUT COMPLIANCE METRICS AND POTENTIAL NEXT NPR R SO, UH, BUT I THINK THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUR TOPIC OF DISCUSSION TODAY.
SO IF WE CAN KIND OF TRY TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY, UM, ANYTHING THAT'LL BE COMING UP SUBSEQUENT WOULD BE A SUB, A SEPARATE N P R R.
AND SO WE CAN DISCUSS THOSE LATER.
BUT, UH, SO I, I HAVEN'T HEARD A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE HERE TODAY IN FRONT OF US.
I'D, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT FOCUS THERE.
SO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE ROLL THROUGH THE COMMENTS.
SO NED'S NEXT, UH, FOLLOWED BY CHASE SMITH.
THANK YOU, CLIFF AND DAN, IT'S AWKWARD SINCE YOU'RE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME,
UM, I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE, THE QUESTION THAT EMILY HAD, UM, AT THE START OF THE CONVERSATION, UM, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW ERCOT COMMENTS ADDRESS THE, THE, THE QUOTE UNQUOTE STRANDED MEGAWATT ISSUE AND, YOU KNOW, THINKING THROUGH HOW WE SAW SOME ANCILLARY SERVICES RELEASED OVER THE SUMMER FOR SCARCITY CONDITIONS.
AND SO I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD, UM, EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THINKING ABOUT HOW THE RELEASE OF THOSE ANCILLARIES DURING SCARCITY CONDITIONS, UH, MAY OR MAY NOT ADDRESS THE, THAT ISSUE THAT ERCOT COMMENTS ARE ARE ADDRESSING.
SO I, I THINK THE, UM, UH, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THOSE KIND OF SITUATIONS IS RELEASING ANCILLARY SERVICES.
I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UH, MIS UH, MISUNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE BUYING ANCILLARY SERVICES FOR THOSE KIND OF CONDITIONS.
AND WE'RE NOT, THAT'S MORE A MATTER OF WHEN WE RUN OUT OF CAPACITY, YOU START TO RELEASE YOUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT IF YOU'RE, UM, UH, YOU MAY SAVE A THOUSAND DOLLARS INTO YOUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT TO PAY FOR NEW BREAKS OR MEDICAL BILLS OR SOMETHING.
BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO THAT KIND OF SITUATION, UM, WHERE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, SAY YOU LOST YOUR JOB AND YOU NEED TO PAY FOR FOOD, YOU'RE GONNA RELEASE THAT SAVINGS AND USE IT FOR THAT.
AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IN, IN THIS KINDA SITUATION.
WE'RE RELEASING THOSE ANCILLARY
[00:35:01]
SERVICES.UM, THAT'S NOT WHY WE BUY 'EM.
AND SO, UM, WHEN WE GET INTO THOSE, UM, THOSE KIND OF CONDITIONS, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE WE GET INTO LOAD SHED, THAT WE'VE DEPLOYED AS WE'VE RELEASED THOSE RESERVES, INCLUDING STATE OF CHARGE ON BATTERIES THAT ARE, ARE, HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE THE ANCILLARY SERVICES.
WE WANNA RELEASE THAT TOO BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE, UM, UM, UM, STARTING TO HAVE TO SHED LOVE BECAUSE WE'RE OUTTA CAPACITY.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
UH, THAT, THAT WAS THE WHOLE ISSUE AROUND THE SCARCITY, UH, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE BOARD IS BEING ABLE TO RELEASE.
NOW IT MAY BE WHAT'S KEPT IN RESERVE TO MAINTAIN P R C DURING THOSE SCARCITY CONDITIONS, BUT UH, AT LEAST IT WOULD BE RELEASED TO SCAD AND WE WOULDN'T BE HOLDING IT BACK, UM, ARTIFICIALLY.
SO THAT'S, THAT WAS REALLY THE WHOLE INTENT.
SO IN THOSE INSTANCES WHEN
YEAH, ALTHOUGH IT'S A, I GUESS THE, THE CURRENT COMMENTS ARE A BROADER, UH, CHANGE THAN SIMPLY IN THE SCARCITY CONDITION.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE THINKING OF, WELL, THE, THE, THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE THAT WE SAW, UM, AT LEAST ONCE WHERE, WHERE, BECAUSE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT YOU HAVE TO CHARGE BACK UP IS YOU'RE NOT DEPLOYED TO TWO X AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HOUR IF YOU'RE TRYING TO CARRY, IF THAT HAPPENS AND YOU'RE IN NEAR SCARCITY CONDITIONS, YOU COULD BE GOING THE WRONG WAY.
AND SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF GENERATION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE, THE SYSTEM, UH, WHICH COULD DRIVE US CLOSER TO SCARCITY IF WE'RE CHARGING.
AND SO, UH, THAT WAS, THAT'S THE CURRENT COMMENTS, FIX THAT PROBLEM AS WELL.
UM, I DID ALSO JUST WANT TO, THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENT AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE US DOWN THE WRONG PATH, BUT I DID WANT TO, UM, ECHO SOMETHING THAT BOB HAD MENTIONED.
AND, AND
HI, CLIFF, CAN YOU CONFIRM? YOU CAN HEAR ME? YES, SIR.
THIS IS CHASE FROM THE SOUTHERN POWER.
UM, REAL QUICK, I'LL START OFF WITH A, A QUICK COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATE ERCOT, LEAH'S COMMENTS AND THE CHANGES TO ADDRESS THE STRANDED ENERGY ISSUE.
UH, I HAD, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR DAN OR, OR, OR ICK AND POTENTIALLY, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY ERCOT ABOUT SHORT TERM DURATION, ESRS, AND, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY USING THEIR STATE OF CHARGE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S IN PROVIDING AN ANSWERING SERVICE OR IN THE ENERGY MARKET.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT SOME CHANGES TO CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE, UH, IN, YOU KNOW, IN CASE THAT STATE OF CHARGE IS DEPLETED, HA HAS ERCOT CONSIDERED OR DOES IT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY MAKING SOME CHANGES TO SOME MARKET RULES? SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, THE, THE ABILITY TO ISSUE A HOLD YOUR STATE OF CHARGE TO AN E S R, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWED BY SOME SORT OF A, A LOST OPPORTUNITY COST ANALYSIS TO, YOU KNOW, DETERMINE IF, IF AN E S R WAS TOLD TO, TOLD TO HOLD THEIR STATE OF CHARGE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS REASONS, EITHER THERE ISN'T A SHORTAGE OF ENERGY SUPPLY AND PRICES GO DOWN, THAT THAT E S R IS NOT PENALIZED FOR HOLDING THEIR STATE OF CHARGE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ENERGY ANSWERS SERVICE MARKET AS KIND OF SCHEDULED, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND LOST OUT ON THAT OPPORTUNITY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GIVE ERCOT A, YOU KNOW, A, AN OPTION TO, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS IF THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT THERE BEING IN, IN A SHORTER SITUATION, AN INSUFFICIENT STATE OF CHARGE ACROSS THE FLEET, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A MARKET SOLUTION TO HOLD THAT STATE OF CHARGE APPROPRIATELY, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT SUCH ESRS THAT THEY'RE TOLD TO HOLD THEIR STATE OF CHARGE ARE COMPENSATED APPROPRIATELY.
[00:40:02]
MM-HMM.YEAH, SO I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE, UM, I MEAN I THINK THERE'S AT LEAST ONE OTHER I S O THAT DOES SOMETHING KINDA LIKE THAT.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S EXACTLY THAT, BUT, UM, UM, I'M THINKING THAT'S GONNA BE MORE, UM, MORE INTRUSIVE BY THE I S O INTO, UM, THE ESRS OR POCS MANAGING THEIR, THEIR STATE OF CHARGE IN CONDITIONS, YOU KNOW, THAT MAYBE DON'T FIT INTO THIS.
AND I'M ALSO THINKING IT'S PROBABLY, IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE SYSTEMS CHANGES.
SO FOR THIS INTERIM PERIOD, UH, IT MAY BE MORE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN DO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
BUT I, I THINK I MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT THOUGHT ON THAT.
SO WE CERTAINLY, UH, HAD, UH, SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND IDEAS, UH, THAT FOLKS ARE USING TO US, UH, UH, WITH THE, WITH THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE WERE PUTTING IN 1186, SUCH THAT, UH, R UH, IS A LITTLE MORE AWARE ON STATE OF CHARGE.
UH, AND, UH, SCED IS A LITTLE, UH, UH, IS, UH, MORE SMARTER IN HOW IT'S DISPATCHING AND PRESERVING, UH, A, UH, A STATE OF CHARGE FOR S SO C ARE THINGS WE CAN DO TODAY.
MANY OTHER FOLKS WHO APPLY THINGS LIKE THIS HAVE A SINGLE MODEL ALREADY, UH, AND HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT MARKET STRUCTURE, UM, FOR A, UH, SO WE DIDN'T SEE THE SAME CONCEPT FULLY APPLYING TO US, CERTAINLY NOT IN THE INTERIM.
UH, THERE ARE TOOLS AND WHAT WE DO IS REALLY VERY LIMITED.
UM, UH, SO IN THAT REGARDS, 1186 IS MORE ELEGANT BECAUSE IT IMPACTS DISPATCH, UH, THROUGH THE SC PROCESS, UH, AND ENSURES THAT SC DOESN'T GIVE BASE POINTS THAT MAY, UH, EAT TO CHARGE ON THE BATTERY THAT, UH, IT'S CARRYING, UH, AN AS OBLIGATION ON, AND THE ROCK CHANGES WERE MORE ELEGANT TODAY AND MORE IMPACTFUL IN A WAY.
BILL, JUST WANNA VOICE A FUTURE CONCERN, I GUESS.
UM, IT'S THAT LAST SENTENCE AND I, I'M READING THAT TO BE ERCOT WOULD NEED TO SEE AND ACTUALLY OBSERVE, UH, NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES BEFORE THERE WOULD BE ANY DISCUSSION ON INCREASING PROCUREMENT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES TO OFFSET THAT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERPRETING THAT TO BE.
UM, AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE ERCOT TO MAKE SURE YOU ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER DONE THAT BEFORE WHERE WE'RE BUYING MORE ANCILLARIES TO OFFSET POOR PERFORMANCE BY A RESOURCE AND THAT SHIFTS THE FINANCIAL RISK FROM THE PROVIDER TO THE LOADS AND THAT WE'LL HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THAT.
SO JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT MAY ACTUALLY BE BAD GRAMMAR, BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT WAS THAT, UM, IF WE OBSERVE NON-COMPLIANCE, THEN WE MAY DO THIS ADDITIONAL N P R R, AND SO MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE HIT PARAGRAPH THERE.
AND BECAUSE THE, IN THAT WE WOULD NOT, UM, IF WE, IF WE SEE THE NEED TO INCREASE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE BECAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANCE.
THANK YOU FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO DO THAT.
LOOKS LIKE THE QUEUE IS EMPTY AT THIS POINT.
UM, I KNOW WE DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS FILED BY THE LIST OF FOLKS THAT I HAD PROVIDED EARLIER.
I DID WANNA GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THEIR COMMENTS IF THEY SO CHOSE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM ASPIRE JOINT COMMENTERS, OCTOPUS, OR OLIAN THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THEIR COMMENTS? JULIANA SEN OH, GO AHEAD.
JULIAN WITH BAKER BOTS ON BEHALF OF IAN, I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK TOO.
UM, IAN, IAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATES, UH, OR CO'S LATEST COMMENTS TOWARDS ADDRESSING THE STRANDED CAPACITY ISSUE, BUT STILL HAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS REGARDING THE IMPOSITION, IMPOSITION OF COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS FOR FAILURE TO MANAGE STATE OF CHARGE.
UM, EVEN IF THE BATTERY DOES NOT FAIL TO PROVIDE OR IF THE BATTERY'S Q S E UH, MOVES, ITS ANCILLARY SERVICE RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITY TO ANOTHER RESOURCE, UM, WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH COMPLIANT METRICS ARE UNNECESSARY AND DISCRIMINATORY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTERS? WANNA PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COLOR? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, THE QUEUE IS EMPTY.
THAT BEING SAID, UM, I DON'T THINK THIS ONE'S GOING TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
SO ANYHOW,
[00:45:06]
I'LL BE THE LAST TIME.BOB MOVES TO APPROVE, I ASSUME.
YEAH, AND I'LL CAVEAT THAT WITH, TO KIND OF GO OFF OF WHAT JULIANA WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHERE IT APPEARS THAT WHAT JULIANA IS SAYING IS GOING TO BE THE ARGUMENT OVER THE NEXT P N P R R, NOT THIS ONE.
BOB, DOES THE MOTION ON THE SCREEN COMPORT WITH WHAT YOU WANT? SURE.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE GOT A SECOND FROM DAVID KEY, SO, OKAY.
SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
THE MOTION IS ON THE SCREEN IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER.
WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK.
NICK, ARE YOU WITH US? I ALL RIGHT.
UH, BILL SMITH? YES, THANK YOU.
UH, NAGE FOR ERIC? YES, THANK YOU.
AND THEN NAGE? YES, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, EMILY? YES, THANK YOU.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
BRIAN? YES, THANK YOU, CAITLIN.
THAT WAS AN ABSTAIN, I'M SURE.
I TRIED TO MAKE A MAMA SAID JOKE, BUT, UH, THE MOMENT PASSED.
JAY HARPEL YOU WITH US? I SAW YOU COME OFF MUTE, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR VOTE.
UH, UH, JAY, I CAN TAKE YOUR VOTE AND CHAT IF YOU CAN HIT ME WITH THERE.
UH, DAVID? YES, THANK YOU, UH, MARTHA FOR CALLING? YES, THANK YOU.
JAY AND MS, OR NO? AND I'M HERE ABOUT, YES.
IS THAT YOU NICK? THIS IS NICK.
I WAS ON, YEAH, I WAS DOUBLE MUTED.
ONE OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THANKS VERY MUCH.
[6. PRS Report (Vote)]
ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS OUR P R S REPORT.MARTHA HENSON WITH ENCORE WITH THE P R S UPDATE.
THERE ARE TWO VOTING ITEMS FOR TAC TO CONSIDER TODAY BASED ON PR S'S WORK EARLIER THIS MONTH.
BOTH OF THESE ARE UNOPPOSED AND 1184 WAS SPONSORED BY 10 NASCA.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY CURRENTLY ERCOT PAYS INTEREST ON CASH COLLATERAL, UH, HELD FROM COUNTERPARTIES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
AND THE DETAILS OF THAT CALCULATION ARE ONLY PROVIDED UPON REQUESTS BY A COUNTERPARTY.
SO 1184 IS CHANGING THAT INTEREST CREDIT TO A MONTHLY, UM, BASIS BY ERCOT, AND THEN ALSO CREATING A REPORT THAT WOULD POST ERCOT INTEREST CALCULATION.
AND THIS N P R HAD A TWO PHASED IMPLEMENTATION.
UM, MOST OF IT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED WITH LESS THAN 10,000 O AND M AND NO PROJECT.
AND THEN THERE IS A SOMEWHAT SMALL PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH A PORTION OF IT THAT IS A
[00:50:01]
HUNDRED AND A HUNDRED, A HUNDRED TO 150,000 IN COSTS.I BELIEVE THAT'S REFLECTING THE REPORT OF THE INTEREST CALCULATION.
UH, THE SECOND ONE HERE IS A SYSTEM CHANGE REQUEST THAT WAS SPONSORED BY GENESIS CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES.
IT'S BASICALLY ASKING ERCOT TO INCREASE THE RIO FILE SIZE THAT CAN BE UPLOADED AS PART OF, UH, GENERATION INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS.
AND THIS ONE WAS, UH, LESS THAN 10,000 O AND M IN COST.
AND BOTH OF THESE WERE UNOPPOSED CLIFF.
LET'S PAUSE THERE FOR JUST A SECOND.
CORY, IF YOU CAN PULL UP THE, UH, BUSINESS CASE, UH, SINCE WE DO HAVE A IA THAT'S, UH, A LITTLE BIT ON THE HIGHER SIDE BETWEEN A HUNDRED AND 150 K, WE CAN PULL UP THE BUSINESS CASE REAL QUICK AND REVIEW THAT.
UH, SO WE'LL MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S INFORMED BEFORE WE MOVE THIS ONE ALONG.
OKAY, SO YOU SEE THE BUSINESS CASE IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE'LL PAUSE FOR JUST A SECOND SO YOU CAN READ THROUGH THAT.
AND MARTHA DID, PR DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING IT, SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANYTHING HERE THAT IS, THAT IS NEW TO ANYONE.
HAVING REVIEWED THE BUSINESS CASE, SO WE'VE GOT N P R R 1184 AND S C R 8 24 IN FRONT OF US.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO EITHER ONE OF THOSE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THOSE TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE THOSE TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
UM, MARTHA, YOU WANNA, IS THAT CONTINUE? YEAH, THIS ISN'T A VOTING ITEM, JUST A NOTIFICATION THAT THE, THE N P R R, UH, THAT I SPONSORED HAS BEEN REJECTED, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING I, THAT I MISSED.
AND, UM, BASICALLY JUST TINY BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS IS THAT, UH, THERE WAS A ATTACK DIRECTIVE TO P R S TO, UH, ADDRESS WHAT THE P R R OR PRIORITY OR VISION REQUEST PROCESS SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND SO, UM, AS PART OF THAT EFFORT, THERE WAS, THERE WAS AN N P R R THAT WAS CREATED TO COVER THAT.
UM, THERE'S SOME, UH, INFORMATION IN HOUSE BILL 1500 THAT INFORMS OR WILL INFORM HOW DIRECTIVES TO ERCOT ARE ISSUED.
ULTIMATELY, THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE A P U C RULEMAKING.
AND SO THIS N P R R BASICALLY BECAME MOOT.
AND SO RATHER THAN HAVING TACK VOTE ON A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, P R S TOOK A VOTE TO REJECT IT.
SO THAT'LL CLEAR IT OFF THE PILE.
AND THEN, UM, THERE WILL BE SOME REPLACEMENT, I'M SURE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE ONCE THE P U C RULEMAKING IS COM COMPLETED.
AND THAT'S EVERYTHING I THINK.
THERE'S ONLY A FEW OF US THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PAIN OF GOING THROUGH A NOTICE OF REJECTIONS, SO WELCOME TO THE CLUB.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MARTHA ON THE P R S REPORT? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON
[7. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)]
TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.UH, REVISION REQUEST TABLED AT TAC.
SO WE'VE GOT O B D R R 0 4 6 THAT IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
UM, ON JULY 25TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUSLY TO TABLE O B R R 0 4 6.
UH, JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UH, WE'RE STILL AWAITING N P R R 1188, WHICH IS ITS COMPANION.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TODAY.
[8. RMS Report]
MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, THE R M SS REPORT.ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT AT OUR LAST R M S MEETING WAS THE NASS V E D M VERSION 1.6 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE.
UH, MOST PEOPLE HERE ARE AWARE OF THIS, BUT TEXAS SET TRANSACTIONS, UH, CONTAIN THE DATA AND NAS B ENCRYPTION COVERS THAT.
AND, UM, THIS IS THE GUIDE THAT INCLUDES THE PROTOCOL FOR HOW WE DO THAT, AND IT'S SENT ACROSS THE INTERNET, SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THE SECURITY THAT'S NEEDED.
UM, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE, UH, CHANGED IN THIS VERSION.
ONE, I GUESS THE BIGGEST CHANGE IS THE REMOVAL OF F T P AS AN OPTION FOR COMMUNICATION WITH ERCOT.
UH, THAT DOES NOT PROHIBIT MARKET PARTICIPANTS FROM SUPPORTING F T P POINT TO POINT.
AND, UM, ACTUALLY WE'RE GONNA BE USING F T P, UH, WITH LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT, UM, ONCE THEY'RE IN THE MARKET UNTIL, UM, ANOTHER, UH, PLATFORM CAN BE, UH, DEVELOPED.
UM, SPEAKING OF LP AND L UM, THE TRANSITION TO COMPETITION, THINGS ARE LOOKING, UM, GOOD.
[00:55:01]
FERC, UH, FINAL OUTCOME IS GONNA BE DECIDED, UM, ACCORDING TO THIS TIMELINE, THEN LUBBOCK COULD BE COMING INTO THE MARKET TO THE RETAIL MARKET IN MARCH.UM, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THERE IS A WINDOW FOR CUSTOMERS TO CHOOSE A RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER THAT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED FOR LUBBOCK TERRITORY.
UM, CUSTOMERS THAT DO NOT SELECT ONE, THEY WILL BE ASSIGNED TO ONE OF THE DEFAULT REPS THAT IS ALSO CERTIFIED FOR, UH, LUBBOCK TERRITORY.
OKAY, BEFORE I GO ON, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
UM, WHAT WE WANNA DO IS KEEP WORKING AT L R I T F.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT RECENTLY WE CAME ACROSS, UH, AND DISCOVERED THAT ANOTHER R M G R R IS GOING TO BE NEEDED.
HOWEVER, THE PROCESSES THAT NEED TO SUPPORT LUBBOCK FOR RETAIL COMPETITION ARE, UM, NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED.
IT WILL JUST BE ENHANCEMENTS TO WHAT'S ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE R M G R R.
AND BASED ON THE TIMELINE OF THE GOVERNANCE'S PROCESS, IT'LL PROBABLY BE, UH, MARCH OR APRIL OF NEXT YEAR.
THIS IS THE TRANSITION TO RETAIL COMPETITION.
IT'S OUR TIMELINE AND IT'S GOT OUR ACTIVITIES ON THERE.
SO WE DO REVIEW THESE ACTIVITIES AT THE L R I T F MEETINGS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, IT'S VERY BUSY AND IT HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT, UH, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FERC SETTLEMENT, UM, AGREEMENT AND WHEN WE EXPECT EVERYTHING TO BE FINAL AND, UH, THE ACTIVITIES COMPLETED AND THE IMPLEMENTATION AND CUT OVER.
SO, UM, PLEASE JOIN US AT L R I T F IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN, UH, WHAT'S GOING ON THERE OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
THE RETAIL MARKET TRAINING TASK FORCE.
WE'VE GOT SOME TRAINING COMING UP.
UM, WE'VE GOT THE TEXAS SET IN-PERSON TRAINING, UH, THAT'S GONNA BE TAKING PLACE AT, UH, CENTERPOINT IN HOUSTON.
WE'VE ALSO GOT RETAIL 1 0 1, AND THAT'S GONNA BE WEBEX ONLY.
UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT FOR AT LEAST FOR RIGHT NOW, WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE INSTRUCTOR LED MARKET TRACK AND RETAIL ONE-ON-ONE TRAINING VIA WEBEX AND TEXAS SET WILL BE IN PERSON AND WILL NOT BE, UH, VIA WEBEX.
THERE IS A TEXAS SET MODULE ONLINE WHERE, UH, PEOPLE CAN TAKE AT THEIR CONVENIENCE, UM, IT'S A COUPLE OF HOURS AND, UM, GET THE TRAINING AT ANY TIME.
UM, THE RETAIL MARKET TRAINING TASK FORCE CO-CHAIRS CAN BE CONTACTED AND ARE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS FOR TRAINING, WHICH ARE DISCUSSED AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING.
AND THESE ARE ACTIVITIES OF OUR WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCES.
UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT.
THE, UM, T D T M S, THEY'RE WORKING ON S E R EIGHT 17, WHICH IS A COMPANION TO TEXAS AT 5.0.
UH, THE TEXAS SET AND THE MARKET COORDINATION TEAM.
THEY'RE FINISHING UP SOME OF THE DETAILS FOR CODES AND, UM, THINGS NEEDED TO SUPPORT 5.0 ALONG WITH THE CUT OVER TIME AND, UM, TESTING THAT'S GOING TO NEED TO BE DONE.
AT OUR LAST TAP MEETING, I PROVIDED AN UPDATE INDICATING WHY WE STILL NEED TO DO ANNUAL PROFILE VALIDATION.
UM, AT THIS NEXT MEETING THERE WILL BE A HEAVY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND, UM, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MAYBE A N P R R WHERE WE WOULD EITHER ADJUST REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL VALIDATION OR PROFILES.
UM, IT'S KIND OF UP IN THE AIR.
I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN, UH, SOME OF THOSE EMAILS.
AND, UM, A SUGGESTED N P R R THAT COULD END UP BEING, UM, SENT THROUGH FOR, UM, DISCUSSION AT, UH, P R S AND IN TECH.
UM, IN ADDITION, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND MAKE MAYBE LIKE A WHITE PAPER ON WHY WE NEED ANNUAL VALIDATION AND PROFILING.
AND THE REASON WE NEED THAT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED THIS LAST TIME.
WE DID HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION CAPTURED, BUT IT WAS IN A POWERPOINT SLIDE, AND WE REALLY NEED LIKE A WORKING PAPER, LIKE A WHITE PAPER SIMILAR TO WHAT A LOT OF THE OTHER STANDARD FORUMS DO.
AND, UM, JUST KIND OF MEMORIALIZE THAT AND WE COULD, UH, HAVE P W G LOOK AT IT EACH MONTH, UH, EACH YEAR AND, UM, JUST UPDATE IT OR, UH, BRING IT UP DATE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE, WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS ARE.
[01:00:01]
RIGHT, DEBBIE, WE GOT A QUESTION FROM BRIAN SAMS. THANK YOU.UH, THANKS FOR THE UPDATE AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS GANTT CHART WHERE LUBBOCK IS FULLY GONNA TRANSITION TO ERCOT AT THE END OF DECEMBER.
UM, CAN YOU HELP ME REMEMBER, UH, WHAT KIND OF NOTICE THE MARKET RECEIVES FOR THIS REMAINING 30% THAT COULD BE COMING OVER OR WILL BE COMING OVER? WHAT KIND OF MARKET NOTICE? YEAH, IF ANYTHING.
JUST, I, I MEAN, IS THERE, UM, SOMETHING THAT, THAT ERCOT WOULD BE SENDING OR THAT, THAT LUBBOCK WOULD BE SENDING THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, ON X, Y, Z DATE, THE REMAINING LOAD WILL BE PART OF, WILL BE SERVED BY ERCOT? I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR ERCOT.
UM, DEPENDING ON THAT RESPONSE, WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THE L R I T F OR R M S SENDS SOMETHING OUT ONCE THAT'S COMPLETE AND JUST GIVE KIND OF LIKE AN UPDATE.
UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED RELATED TO THAT, UM, FOR MARKET NOTIFICATIONS IS REALLY THE, UM, TESTING NOTIFICATIONS IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR TERRITORY.
I JUST, I VAGUELY RECALL SOMETHING FOR HAPPENING FOR, UH, RAYBURN AND MAYBE FOR, UH, EAST TEXAS COOPERATIVES AND MAYBE EVEN LUBBOCK THE FIRST TIME THEY TRANSITIONED SOME OF THEIR LOAD OVER.
IT JUST, I THINK IT'S, IT'S HELPFUL.
I WILL CERTAINLY, UM, CHECK ON THAT AND REPORT BACK.
YEAH, AND THIS MATT MARINES WITH ERCOT ALSO DO THE SAME ON OUR SIDE, JUST TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DEBBIE? SEEING NONE, THANKS FOR THE UPDATE, DEBBIE, ALL
[9. ROS Report (Vote)]
WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THE AGENDA.SO WE ARE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS OUR R O SS REPORT.
KATIE'S, KATIE'S TEED UP THIS MORNING TO DO THE R OH, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT ERIC WAS GONNA GIVE IT
UH, JUST, UH, AT SOME POINT IT'LL BE APPROPRIATE.
I THINK WE'RE ON A, WHEN MAMA SAYS YOU NEED TO
YEAH, KATIE RICH, UH, VICE CHAIR FOR, FOR ROSS.
UM, THREE VOTING ITEMS UP FOR TODAY.
TWO OF THOSE WERE QUITE CONTROVERSIAL AT THE LAST MEETING.
UM, AND BY, YOU KNOW, THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED FOR, FOR TAC, I THINK YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND.
SO THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FILED BY AKAT AND UH, P U C STAFF ON THESE.
BUT, UH, WE DISCUSSED NOER 2 45 AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING.
AND THEN WE, WE HELD A SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSIDER THIS NOER AS WELL AS THE IA WITH URGENT STATUS TO BE ABLE TO GET IT TO TAC TODAY.
UM, ERCOT PROVIDED AN UPDATED PRESENTATION, UM, TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED.
UM, THERE'VE BEEN NUMEROUS SETS OF COMMENTS FILED, UM, DURING THIS, UH, NO G PROCESS.
AND THEN NAMELY NEXTERA FILED SOME COMMENTS TO TRY TO FIND A COMPROMISE ON THE TIMELINES AND BASED ON SOME O E M FEEDBACK.
UM, AND THEN SOUTHERN POWER PROVIDED DESKTOP EDITS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT MOTION TO APPROVE NEXTERA'S COMMENTS AS REVISED BY ROSS, IT PASSED WITH A VERY NARROW MARGIN, UH, 54 4 0.8% IN FAVOR WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS.
UM, SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ONE THAT'S BEEN THAT CLOSE IN A WHILE.
UM, ON PICKER 1 0 5, UM, THIS WAS APPROVED BASED ON, OKAY, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE UNMUTED, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO KEEP YOUR MIC MUTED WHERE YOU CAN, WE'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK ON OCCASION.
OKAY? YEAH, I DON'T LIKE HEARING MYSELF FOUR OR FIVE TIMES
SO, UM, NOGA OR PIGGER 1 0 5 WAS APPROVED BASED ON THE SEVEN SIX ROSS REPORT WITH THE 6 27 IA.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT ERCOT FILED COMMENTS ASKING FOR IT TO BE, UM, REJECTED OR INDEFINITELY TABLED.
UM, AND RATHER THAN THAT, WE, UM, HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE IT BASED ON THOSE THINGS.
THERE WERE SEVEN ABSTENTIONS, BUT 90% IN FAVOR.
UM, ERCOT COMMENTED, UM, IN ITS RESOLUTION ON DIRECTIVE ONE, CONCERNING ALLOCATION OF CERTAIN COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH, UH, SOUTHERN CROSS, WHICH IS NOW SPIRIT.
UM, THAT ERCOT CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO NEED TO ADDRESS THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS OF NEW TRANSMISSION FACILITIES BECAUSE THE, UM, CURTAILMENT PRINCIPAL IN PIGGER, UM, OH 77 PRECLUDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TRANSMISSION TO ACCOMMODATE DC T FLOWS.
SO AGAIN, I KNOW THAT ERCOT AND P U C STAFF HAVE FILED COMMENTS ON THAT ONE.
[01:05:01]
UM, ON THE MAJOR TRANSMISSION ELEMENTS, WE, UM, APPROVED THAT BASED ON OW G'S CONSENSUS.AND THEN JUST A COUPLE MORE ITEMS, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT TO GET THROUGH FOR THOSE, UH, TWO VOTING ITEMS. UM, WE ENDORSED O T W G LEADERSHIP MANUEL SANCHEZ WITH ENCORE.
AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT NICE LIST OF ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE STILL UNDER A REVIEW, AND WE TRY TO KNOW WHICH, UM, WORKING GROUPS, THOSE ARE ETSS, SO FOLKS KNOW WHERE TO PLUG IN.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 5TH.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS WEBEX ONLY, AND THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CONCLUDE BY 1:00 PM BECAUSE THERE'S AN R T C PLUS B MEETING AFTER THAT, RIGHT, MATT? YES.
UM, WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR KATIE BEFORE WE CIRCLE BACK TO, UH, THE THREE VOTING ITEMS THAT WE HAVE? OKAY, THANKS, KATIE.
SO, ALL RIGHT, LET'S CIRCLE BACK TO THE THREE, THE VOTING ITEMS. WE'LL START WITH NOER 2 45.
UM, AS KATIE POINTED OUT, WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED, UM, MOST NOTABLY THE ERCOT COMMENTS REQUESTING TABLING OF THOSE.
SO, UM, ERIC, DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST OR CAN I DEFER? OKAY, LET'S, LET'S GO TO ERCOT FIRST.
UM, DAN, YOU WANNA KICK IT OFF? YEAH.
SO, UM, THE, THE VERSION OF NORE 2 45 APPROVED BY ROSS THAT, UH, DOES NOT RESOLVE THE RELIABILITY RISKS THAT WE WERE INTENDING NORE 2 45 TO RESOLVE.
UM, THE, THE SECOND THING IS THAT, UM, WE'RE ASKING TO TABLE THIS BECAUSE THIS WAS APPROVED BY ROSS, AND WE FEEL THAT, UH, ADDITIONAL DATA WOULD BE HELPFUL TO FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY TACKING THE BOARD.
AND SO OUR INTENT IS TO, UH, ISSUE SOME RFIS, WHICH WILL BE COMING OUT SHORTLY, UH, TO THE DIFFERENT, UM, UM, INVERTER BASED RESOURCES AND TO THE OEMS OF THOSE INVERTER BASED RESOURCES TO, UM, UM, ASK MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES BECAUSE WE WANT NO 2 45 TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE AS, THAT ARE, IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM, MAINTAIN THE CURRENT, MAINTAIN THE RELIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM THAT, THAT CONSUMERS EXPECT, AND, UH, BUT, BUT DO SO IN A WAY THAT'S TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOLKS TO DO THINGS THAT, THAT THEY JUST TECHNICALLY CANNOT DO.
AND SO THAT'S THE, UH, WITHOUT, AND, AND, AND IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT THEY CAN DO IT, EVEN IF THEY'RE, UH, IT REQUIRES OTHER THINGS TO BE ADDED, THEN THAT'S OKAY.
UH, WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE RELIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM.
AND SO WHAT WE WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THAT WE'RE ISSUING MORE, UM, UH, SOME RFIS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO BRING MORE BACK TO THE TABLE AT THE NEXT TAC MEETING.
UM, AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WE ASK FOR TABLING.
UM, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO, OUR INTENT IS TO, TO DRAFT SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
BASICALLY, WE GOT THESE COMMENTS OUT THAT SAID, LET'S TABLE THIS, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE COME BACK WITH MORE DETAILED COMMENTS, UH, FOR THE NEXT TAG MEETING.
ERIC, UM, OH, AND BY THE WAY, STEVEN ALISE IS ON THE PHONE, UH, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS AS THEY COME UP.
'CAUSE I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, SO, OKAY.
YEAH, ERIC GOFF FOR THIS AGENDA ON BEHALF OF NEXTERA, UH, AS I WAS AT ROSS, UM, WE CERTAINLY DON'T OPPOSE OUR CAT'S REQUEST FOR TABLING.
UM, AND, UH, HAVE BEEN WORKING ON ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE ROSS RECOMMENDATION THAT I'VE SPOKEN WITH MANY OF Y'ALL ABOUT.
UM, WE WERE TRYING TO RUSH TO GET THOSE DONE BEFORE TAC.
UM, BUT WHEN WE RECEIVED NOTICE THAT ERCOT WAS GONNA ASK FOR TABLING, WE DECIDED TO TAKE A COUPLE MORE DAYS ON THAT.
BUT I CAN DESCRIBE WHAT WE'RE INTENDING TO DO THERE, AS I THINK I'VE DESCRIBED TO SOME OF Y'ALL.
UM, ONE IS TO, UM, CONSIDER CHANGING THE COMPLIANCE DATE FOR NEW RESOURCES TO AN EARLIER DATE IN 2024, BUT PROVIDE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO IT BASED ON DETAILS.
T B D, UM, THOSE, THOSE DETAILS.
T B D MIGHT BE THINGS SUCH AS, UH, TECHNOLOGY TYPE, UH, OR, YOU KNOW, CONTRACTING SPECIFICS OF THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE PAST, UM, BEFORE THIS NO G WAS, UH, WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
UM, HAPPY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, GO IN WHICHEVER DIRECTION TAC PREFERS ON ON THOSE ITEMS. UH, AND THEN TWO, UM, THE OTHER SET OF CHANGES THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE, UM, WILL BE TO TIGHTEN
[01:10:01]
UP THE COMMERCIAL REASONABILITY AND TECHNICAL TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY SECTIONS.UM, ONE IS TO, UM, ALLOW ERCOT TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW IN THAT, UM, COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY, UH, COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY REVIEW.
SO IF ERCOT WANTS PEOPLE THAT USE A CERTAIN O E M TO STUDY WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN SWAP OUT A CONVERTER OR CHANGE AN INVERTER SETTING, OR ANY OTHER ITEM THAT ERCOT WOULD LIKE FOR A SPECIFIC REVIEW OF, UH, THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS A REQUIRED ITEM, AS WELL AS IF YOU FAIL TO DO THE COMMERCIAL REASONABILITY AND TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT, UM, IN A TIMELY FASHION, THAT ORCA ACTUALLY CAN LIMIT YOUR OPERATIONS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A, NOT JUST A PROTOCOL VIOLATION FOR FAILURE TO DO THIS VERY IMPORTANT TASK.
WE HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS IN THERE THAT ARE AROUND ROSS COORDINATION OF THESE ITEMS TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR EVERYBODY.
UM, THAT SAID, WE'RE HOPING TO GET THOSE FILED IN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS AND WORK WITH ERCOT ON THEM.
UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, OTHER PEOPLE HAD SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UM, ERCOT COMMENTS, BUT, AND I, I DO HAVE ONE, WHICH IS, UM, DO YOU KNOW THE TIMING OF THOSE RFIS AND, AND THE CONTENT YET? UH, EITHER, UH, AT, AT SOME POINT, UM, AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MIGHT BE FILING? AND I GO, DOES IT NOT RELATE TO THE COMMENTS? DAN, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT OR YOU WANNA KICK THAT OVER TO STEVEN? NO, I'LL DEFER TO STEVEN ON THAT ONE.
STEVEN? YEAH, THIS IS STEVEN LEA FROM
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, SIR.
YES, TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENT ABOUT WHAT'S UPCOMING, UH, FOR THE R F I TO THE RESOURCE ENTITIES SHOULD GO OUT THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, IT'S JUST GETTING INTO THE DOCUSIGN TOOL.
IT'LL BE PRELOADED WITH EACH UNIT.
AND IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE SIEMENS GAA COMMENTS AS FAR AS THE GRID KIND OF APPROACH, IT'S, IT'S SIMILAR IN NATURE.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WITH SOME DATES, UH, BUT BY AND LARGE IT'S GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO THAT AND SEEMS TO ALIGN WITH, UH, WHAT DIFFERENT ENTITIES HAVE SHOWN US ALONG THE WAY.
BUT I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK.
UH, WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE DOING VERY SIMILAR FOR THE OEMS SIEMENS MEAS COMMENTS WITH THE GRID, ONCE AGAIN, KIND OF SHOWS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
UH, WE'RE ASKING THEM ON A MODEL BY MODEL BASIS.
UH, WE'RE ASKING THE RESOURCE ENTITY SIMILAR QUESTIONS, BUT REMEMBER THAT, UH, THE RIDE THROUGH IS A PLANT BASED REQUIREMENT, NOT JUST UNIT, UH, SO THAT THE OEMS CAN TALK TO THE TURBINES AND INVERTERS AND THEN THE RES NEED TO ENSURE THAT THEIR RESPONSES COMPREHENSIVELY INCLUDE THEIR VISION OF, UH, COMPLYING AT THE PLANT LEVEL.
UH, THE, THE O E M R F I WILL MOST LIKELY GO OUT LATER THIS WEEK, AND WE'RE TARGETING ERCOT COMMENTS SOMETIME EARLY NEXT WEEK.
UM, THOSE ERCOT COMMENTS DO, UH, RESTORE, UH, A LOT OF OUR EXISTING LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD IN THE ERCOT AUGUST 18TH PROPOSAL.
BUT WE'RE ALSO CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT, UH, SOME OF THE OEMS HAVE REACHED OUT TO US THAT SAID COULD AFFORD, UH, A WIDER ADOPTION.
UH, THINGS LIKE BEING ABLE TO, UH, RETROFIT, UH, TO MEET I E E E 2,800 WITHIN 24 MONTHS, UH, FOR THOSE THAT, UH, ARE PAST THE 6 1 23 DATE.
UH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE CONTINUING TO LISTEN, WE'RE CONTINUING TO TAKE ANY TARGETED SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS, AND WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO LISTEN TO ANY OTHER IDEAS THAT, UH, ENSURE WE CAN ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY RISK.
CAN I, JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
UM, SO, SO IF YOU'RE ISSUING THE RFIS TODAY AND LATER THIS WEEK AND THE COMMENTS NEXT WEEK, DO YOU EXPECT TO GET R F I RESPONSES BEFORE YOUR COMMENTS ARE DRAFTED? OR IS THERE NOT A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT'S IN THE R F I AND WHAT'S IN THE COMMENTS? I THINK THE RELATIONSHIP, THE STEVENS LEASE WITH ERCOT, I THINK THE RELATIONSHIP IS REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE.
UH, SO WE MOST LIKELY ARE GONNA SUBMIT COMMENTS SAYING, WE THINK, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD, THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL HELP ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY RISK.
UM, IF WE GET FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE RES, WE MAY FURTHER CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS AS BASED ON THAT INFORMATION THAT WE GET.
[01:15:01]
ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE ASSESSING BOTH, BOTH THE CAPABILITIES AND THE RISK ON THE SYSTEM AND TRYING TO FIND THE BEST OUTCOME.SO THOSE RFIS RIGHT NOW ARE TENTATIVELY GOING TO ALLOW UNTIL NOVEMBER 6TH, UH, FOR THE RES TO RESPOND.
WE WANT IT TO BE REASONABLE IN THE TIMEFRAME, AND OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE MAY NOT GET THAT INFORMATION BACK IN, IN TIME FOR OCTOBER TAC, AND, AND WE MAY END UP IN, IN THE DECEMBER TAC ACTUALLY CONSIDERING THAT INFORMATION.
SO THAT JUST LEADS ME TO MY FINAL COMMENT FOR CONSIDERATION.
UM, AND I I, THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY A RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME, BUT IT'S SOMETHING FOR JUST TAC MEMBERS AND TCAT TO THINK ABOUT IS IF THAT GETS US TO NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AND MAYBE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AFTER THE R F I, UM, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO TRY TO BIFURCATE THIS SO THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT PASSES, THAT ADDRESSES NEW RESOURCES WHILE WE CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING ON THE OLDER RESOURCES BASED ON ALL THIS INFORMATION? UH, SO THERE'S NOT A DELAY, UH, THAT'S EXCESSIVE FOR, FOR RULES AROUND NEW RESOURCES.
I, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
I JUST WANNA RAISE THE QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION OVER THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS.
MAY I RESPOND? GO, GO AHEAD, STEVEN.
YEAH, JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THE BIFURCATING.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE TRIED TO CREATE SEPARATION FOR THE NEW, UH, VERSUS LEGACY, BUT I, I JUST WANT TO BE PRETTY CLEAR, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE NEW, DON'T GET ME WRONG, THAT WE, WE'VE GOTTA SET THE NEW REQUIREMENTS TO MEET THE TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY THAT CAN GIVE US ADDITIONAL RESILIENCE.
BUT THE FAILURES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AND THE RISK IS ON THE EXISTING IBR.
AND SO IBR TYPE ONE AND TYPE TWO WGS HAVE HAD SIGNIFICANT PERFORMANCE FAILURES THROUGH THE YEARS.
AND SO, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THE VALUE IN MOVING FORWARD, BUT WE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FOCUS IS ON THE LEGACY BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WITH THE PERFORMANCE FAILURES.
SO WE'VE GOT BOB HILTON FOLLOWED BY BILL BARNES, DAVID ARI, AND BOB WHITMEYER, AND THEN JOHN RICH AS WELL.
SO YEAH, ACTUALLY ERIC COVERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS.
ONE OF THEM WAS WHEN WERE THEY R FIS DUE, WHICH IS, I'M UNDERSTANDING NOVEMBER THE SEVENTH.
SO, UH, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY REASONABLE.
I WAS MORE WORRIED ABOUT A REAL SHORT TIMELINE, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR A WHILE.
GETTING IT ALL, ALL ON PAPER FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD IS, YOU KNOW, NOT THE EASIEST THING IN THE WORLD TO DO.
I'VE ALREADY, AS OF LAST NIGHT, STARTED SETTING UP A TEAM
I WAS REALLY ENCOURAGED WHEN I HEARD, WHEN I READ THESE COMMENTS, I'M LESS ENCOURAGED AFTER THIS CONVERSATION.
UH, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, ORIGINALLY WHAT I THOUGHT IS WE WERE GONNA SIT DOWN, WE'RE GONNA GET THESE RESPONSES BACK.
WE WERE GONNA SEE WHAT IS TECHNICALLY AND FEASIBLY ABLE TO BE DONE FROM A REASONABLE AND TECHNICAL STANDPOINT.
AND NOW I'M HEARING THAT ERCOT IS GONNA COME BACK WITH COMMENTS BEFORE THEY EVEN KNOW THAT.
SO I'M A LITTLE BIT DISCOURAGED ABOUT THAT.
BUT HOPEFULLY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IF NEED BE, CAN BE FILED TO TAKE TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT AFTER THE RFIS GET IN.
SO I THANK YOU FOR WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
I APPRECIATE GETTING THAT R F I OUT THERE AND GIVING US THE TIMEFRAME WE CAN DO, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE PIVOT COMES WHEN THOSE COME IN TO WHERE WE CAN BIFURCATE, NOT BIFURCATE OR WE CAN GO TO TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC, OR ACTUALLY EVEN DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF WHETHER PHASE JUMPING IS GONNA BE THIS DATE AND, AND RIDE THROUGHS ANOTHER DATE.
I THINK THAT'S THE KEY TO THIS WHOLE THING.
AND ACTUALLY, UH, WITH THAT, UNLESS CAN THIS GO ON THE COMBO VIOLENCE? IS ANYBODY GONNA BE OPPOSED TO THIS? OR DO I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TABLING OR YEAH, THE TABLE TABLING WOULD, YEAH, WE CAN LOOK AROUND THE ROOM.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO MOVING THIS TO THE COMBO BALLOT? SUSIE AND ANN CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I BELIEVE WITH MR. GOFF ASSIGNING HIS ALTERNATE PROXY FOR THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL ISSUE, WE CAN'T MIX THE ISSUES ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
SO EVEN A SIMPLE MOTION TO TABLE, WHICH WILL HOPEFULLY BE UNANIMOUS.
SORRY, RATHER QUICK WOULD BE YEAH, STANDALONE.
AND YOU HAVE TO BUY ERIC AT THE NEXT PRE-TAX MEETING.
OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT A MOTION FROM BOB.
SO, ALRIGHT, WE'LL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, UH, AT THIS POINT.
THAT BEING SAID, SO WE'VE GOT, UH, BILL BARNES NEXT.
IS IT, IS THE EXPECTATION WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING ON THIS AT THE OCTOBER TAC? I MEAN, I, I JUST, I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION FOR ERCOT.
YOU'RE COLLECTING MORE INFORMATION
[01:20:01]
THROUGH RFIS TALKING TO OEMS, WHICH HOPEFULLY GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT ANSWER.AND THEN, AND THEN WHAT, AND I, I KINDA SHARE BOB'S CONCERN.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF DOING ALL THAT IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA PICK THE INPUT? OKAY, STEVEN, YOU WANNA PICK THAT UP? SURE.
AND TO CLARIFY, WE'VE BEEN TAKING INPUT ALL ALONG AND WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO TAKE INPUT AND, YOU KNOW, I ENCOURAGE THOSE.
UH, ERIC, IF Y'ALL ARE WORKING ON ADDITIONAL EDITS, PLEASE REACH OUT TO US.
UH, I THINK WE'RE ALWAYS GONNA COME UP WITH A BETTER PRODUCT IF WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE YOU FILE COMMENTS.
UM, REALLY WHERE WE HAVE, UH, PROBABLY A BIT OF A DISCONNECT IS REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
I THINK SINCE OGRE 2 0 8, UH, TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE HAS INCLUDED SUPPLEMENTAL DYNAMIC REACTIVE RESOURCES THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED.
I THINK WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY CAPABLE TO CO-LOCATE BATTERIES, WHICH YOU DON'T NEED A LOT OF STORAGE CAPACITY BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY TRYING TO COMPENSATE THE RIDE THROUGH FOR, YOU KNOW, A FEW SECONDS TO A FEW MINUTES.
THOSE THINGS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO THE TABLE.
THESE ARE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE OPTIONS AND THE RISK WARRANTS LOOKING AT THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, EVEN IF THE O E M DOESN'T HAVE A, A CLEAR SCENARIO FOR, FOR AN RE TO MOVE FORWARD AND POTENTIALLY THEY CAN EVEN BE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE IF THOSE THINGS ARE EVALUATED.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE'RE NOT, UH, PUTTING OURSELVES IN A CORNER IN THE SOLUTION SPACE BECAUSE OF THE RISK THAT'S INVOLVED.
UM, IT, IT WILL END UP BEING IF, IF EXEMPTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS, UH, EN MASS, UH, END UP BEING PART OF THE SOLUTION, IT'S GONNA END UP BEING A POLICY DECISION FOR REGULATORS AND, UH, VOTING BODIES TO ACCEPT THE RISK ON THE ERCOT SYSTEM.
AND SO WE'RE, WE'VE TRIED TO CONSISTENTLY COMMUNICATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF RISK AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE RISK THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
UM, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY SOLUTION IS REALLY ADDRESSING THAT RISK.
AND SO WE HAVE YET TO SEE A SOLUTION BROUGHT TO THE TABLE OTHER THAN WHAT ERCOT HAS PROPOSED THAT ADDRESSES THE RISK.
WE'RE HOPEFUL, UH, HEARING ERIC'S COMMENTS THAT Y'ALL, THE GENERATORS ARE NOT DONE COMING UP WITH SOLUTIONS, BUT THAT IS A, A, A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THIS NOER TO ENSURE THAT, UH, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN A RELIABLE FASHION.
UH, NEXT IN THE QUEUE WE'VE GOT, UH, DAVID RI.
I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON ERCOT PLAN HERE.
I THINK SEVERAL OF 'EM HAVE BEEN COVERED BY OTHERS.
UM, ON THE R F I TO THE RESOURCE ENTITIES, HOW ARE THE RESPONSES TO THAT R F I? HOW DO YOU ENVISION THAT, I GUESS, BEING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ERCOT HAD PROPOSED AND WHAT WAS IN THE ROSS, UM, APPROVED VERSION THAT WAS PROPOSED THAT CONTEMPLATED WHAT I THINK IS SIMILAR INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED IN LIKE JUNE OF 24 OR DECEMBER OF 24 IN A, IN A REPORT THAT WOULD BE FILED.
THEN I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME INFORMATION BUT NOW WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET IT IN THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, MONTH OR SO RATHER THAN, UM, IN THE NEXT YEAR? SO IT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
UM, AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, I THINK THERE'S A REFERENCE TO AN R F I TO THE OEMS, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, ARE WE, IS ERCOT GOING TO SEND AN R F I TO THE OEMS THAT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, CONFIDENTIAL OR IS IT THAT THEY'RE ASKING THE OEMS TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS? THANKS.
THIS IS STEVEN SLI WITH ERCOT.
I'M GONNA ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION THEN ASK YOU TO, TO RESTATE THE FIRST, IF YOU DON'T MIND, DAVID.
'CAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW IT.
OUR PLAN IS TO SUBMIT COMMENTS ASKING THE OEMS TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS SO THAT IT'S NOT CONFIDENTIAL.
I THINK, UH, THE GE COMMENTS, UH, THAT WERE MADE VERBALLY AT R O S HIGHLIGHTED, I THINK AN AN ISSUE THAT, THAT YOU'VE RAISED IN THE PAST WHERE, UH, WE'RE NOT ALL HEARING THE SAME THING.
UH, WE HAD A SUBSEQUENT, SUBSEQUENT MEETING WITH GE AFTER THE R O S MEETING AND WE SAID, LOOK, YOU TOLD US THIS, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID PUBLICLY, AND THEY SAID THEY REASSESSED.
AND, UM, SO INSTEAD OF 2000 TURBINES, IT WAS 4,800 TURBINES.
NOW, UH, THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN WHEN AT ONE POINT THEY DID, AND THEY SHOWED US A TIMELINE ON A POWERPOINT SLIDE DECK, AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT MORE THAN ONCE.
SO I THINK THAT THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF THE INFORMATION CHANGING, UH, WE'RE GONNA ASK OEMS TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT.
BUT IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR FIRST QUESTION, PLEASE, AND, AND MAYBE I CAN TRY TO ANSWER IT.
[01:25:02]
SURE.UM, THE FIRST QUESTION WAS JUST TRYING TO COMPARE AND CONTRAST WHAT
RECOGNIZING THAT THERE WAS GOING TO TAKE TIME FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE RANGE OF CAPABILITY AND OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THAT CAPABILITY AND SO ON.
RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND ERCOT DESIRE TO UNDER, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT FOLKS CAN DO AND WHAT THEY THINK THEY CAN DO IN THE FUTURE.
AND I THINK BY ALL MEANS, RIGHT, WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE IT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF ERCO T'S EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT'S GONNA BE PROVIDED IN THE NEXT MONTH, CONSIDERING THAT A BROADER RANGE OF THAT INFORMATION WAS ANTICIPATED TO BE COLLECTED AND REPORTED ON, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A YEAR FROM NOW IN SOME CASES.
YEAH, I, I DO THINK IT IS GONNA BE SIMILAR INFORMATION.
IT'S NOT GONNA HAVE ALL OF THE, LIKE, TELL ME YOUR CURVES RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NOT GONNA HAVE SOME OF THE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.
IT'S REALLY GONNA BE, UH, LOOKING AT THESE REQUIREMENTS.
DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN MEET 'EM AT THIS UNIT? UH, REMEMBERING THAT BY AND LARGE, RIGHT? AND EVERYTHING FROM 2014 ON THE CURVES AREN'T CHANGING.
UH, WHAT'S, WHAT IS CHANGING IS THERE'S MORE PARAMETERS AND COORDINATION THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR.
SO HOPEFULLY SOME OF THE RES HAVE, UH, LOOKED AT PROTECTIVE RELAYS ON THEIR SITES.
UM, HOPEFULLY THEY'VE LOOKED AT THEIR CONTROL SETTINGS, UH, BECAUSE THE O E M PIECE IS JUST PART OF THE PUZZLE.
AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS NOW, SO WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION TO COME BACK.
UH, IF THE RES DON'T HAVE THIS INFORMATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST GONNA SHOW IN THE RESPONSES, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T KNOW AND WE PUT IN THE R F I IF YOU DON'T KNOW, HERE'S HOW YOU WOULD RESPOND.
UH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS SNAPSHOT IN TIME, UH, AND HOPEFULLY HELP THAT INFORM, UH, THE WIDER, BROADER DECISION MAKING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OUR COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED ARE FROM THE, THE WIND SIDE.
I THINK WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THE SOLAR AND THE BATTERIES, YOU KNOW, ARE SAYING AS WELL AND, AND GET A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK.
AND, AND HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS US HAVE CLARITY BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMENTS KEEP MAKING CERTAIN ASSERTIONS ON BOTH ENDS THAT THE, THE DATA WILL HELP US SEE WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
AND THE LAST QUESTION, WHICH I THINK SOMEBODY ELSE ANSWERED OR ASKED, BUT I HADN'T HEARD THE ANSWER, WAS, WHAT IS ERCOT EXPECTATION FOR WHAT HAPPENS AT THE OCTOBER TAC MEETING, GIVEN THE TIMELINE FOR THE R F I RESPONSES? YEAH, THIS SLY WITH ERCOT, I THINK AT THE OCTOBER TECH MEETING WITH ERCOT COMMENTS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
I THINK THAT THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, POTENTIAL DISCUSSION IF, IF, UH, THERE'S ANOTHER SET OF EDITS THAT NEXTERA SENDS.
SO I THINK THAT THERE'S GONNA BE DISCUSSION.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL BE ABLE TO VOTE ON IT IN OCTOBER BECAUSE, UH, UNLESS THE GENERATORS AND THE OEMS RESPOND QUICK MORE QUICKLY THAN THE TIME PERIOD ALLOWED, THEN UH, WE WON'T HAVE A COMPLETE SET OF DATA.
SO I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE DISCUSSION IN OCTOBER AND THEN BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD IN DECEMBER BASED ON THE TIMELINE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DAVID? NO, THANK YOU.
BOB WHITMEYER? YES, STEVEN, SPEAKING OF TIMELINE, WE'RE SKIPPING ROSS IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA DO THIS IN OCTOBER.
WE HAVE A ROSS MEETING SCHEDULED IN NOVEMBER, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ADDRESS THIS.
WE HAVE A TAC MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER IN A BOARD MEETING LATER IN DECEMBER, MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS AWAY.
WHY? YEAH, Y OCTOBER VERSUS GOING TO ROSS AND GETTING A FULL HEARING GOING TO NOVEMBER, GOING TO DEC EARLY DECEMBER TAC AND DECEMBER BOARD.
'CAUSE IF WE APPROVE THIS ON OCTOBER 24TH, IT'S STILL DECEMBER BOARD.
THIS IS STEVEN SLI WITH ERCOT.
I THINK AS FAR AS THE PROCESS STANDS, UM, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO WHATEVER T DECIDES THAT THEY WANNA REMAND IT BACK TO R O S OR, UH, LEAVE IT TABLED HERE.
I THINK, UH, R O S HAS HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION.
I, I DO THINK THAT, UM, IF, IF WE JUST CONTINUE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS
[01:30:01]
IT THERE VERSUS OTHER STAKEHOLDER, STAKEHOLDER FORUMS, I MEAN, NOTHING PRECLUDES US FROM DOING THAT.I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE.
IF TAC WANTS TO TABLE IT FOR DISCUSSION HERE OR SEND IT BACK TO R O S TO STILL COME BACK, YOU KNOW, IN TIME FOR THE DECEMBER T.
EITHER WAY, I THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED THE R F I INFORMATION.
AND EVEN THOUGH WE SAY NOVEMBER 6TH, UH, REAL WORLD APPLICATION IS NOVEMBER 6TH, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET SOME RESPONSES.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE BAD DATA ISSUES.
WE HAVE TO FOLLOW UP AND, AND CLEAN UP.
THERE'S 350 RESOURCE ENTITIES OF, FOR ABOUT 450 UNITS.
SO THIS IS NOT A LIGHT UNDERTAKING ON OUR PART TO TRY TO GET THIS DATA PUT TOGETHER SO THAT IT CAN PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT.
STEVEN, IF WE'RE NOT, I'M SORRY, I'M CONFUSED.
WE'RE NOT GETTING THE DATA BACK UNTIL NOVEMBER 6TH.
WHAT ARE WE DOING IN OCTOBER 24TH AT THE TAC MEETING? YEAH, I THINK, AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, BOB, I, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME COMMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO COME OUT FROM MECO, IT SOUNDS LIKE POTENTIALLY FROM NEXTERA AND THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, UH, MAYBE EVEN SOME DIRECTION AT THE OCTOBER TAC.
BUT I THINK LOOKING AT THE TIMELINES, UH, MORE THAN LIKELY, WHILE WE CAN GET THE IA DONE ON THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION, UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ALL THE R F I INFORMATION BACKED BY THE OCTOBER TAC.
SO MORE THAN LIKELY, UNLESS WE GOT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IN BEFORE, UH, THE DUE DATE, WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR ANOTHER, UH, TABLING TAC IN OCTOBER AND POTENTIALLY SOME DISCUSSION THERE BASED ON THE COMMENTS FILED BY
ALL RIGHT, BOB, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, NO, YOU'RE GOOD.
THANK YOU, CLIFF, THIS IS JOHN RICH WITH NEXTERA.
UM, DAVID ASKED A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS, SO, UM, I HAVE JUST A FEW MORE.
SO, UM, FIRST OF ALL, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE R F I RESPONSES ARE GOING TO BE, UH, PUBLIC BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, THE DISAGREE, I'LL CHARACTERIZE IT AS DISAGREEMENT REALLY HAS JUST BEEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE SAME FACT BASE AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING OFF OF.
SO I HOPE, I HOPE THAT THAT WILL GO A LONG WAY TO HELPING US REACH KIND OF A CONSENSUS AND, AND MAYBE, UM, GETTING CLOSER TO A SETTLEMENT.
UM, AND THEN THE, THE SECOND QUESTION THAT I HAD IS, UM, THE, THE GRANULARITY ON THE R F I, IT RELATES BACK TO DAVID'S QUESTION AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE TIMELINE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE, IN THE, IN THE, IN YOUR DRAFT NOER FOR THE INITIAL REPORTING VERSUS WHAT'S GONNA BE ASKED HERE.
IS IT GONNA BE, IS THERE GONNA BE ENOUGH GRANULARITY ON, ON WHAT, UH, WHICH REQUIREMENTS CAN AND CAN'T BE MET FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE, FOR THE DATA TO BE, YOU KNOW, SUPER REALLY HELPFUL? OR IS IT JUST GONNA BE HIGH LEVEL BECAUSE, UM, YEAH, I THINK UL GRANULARITY AND SPECIFICITY WILL GO A LONG WAY TO HELPING RESOLVE CONFUSION THAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR.
YEAH, I THINK, ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIEMENS MESA COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, THEY PROBABLY GIVE A A PRETTY GOOD, UH, VISUALIZATION AS FAR AS THE GRANULARITY OF OUR R F I, UM, YOU KNOW, AS AN ENGINEER, I, I KIND OF WANTED TO GO INTO A LOT MORE DETAIL.
I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE BOTH, UH, THE TIMELINESS OF THE RESPONSE, THE ASK AND THE LIFT FOR THE RES WITH THAT GRANULARITY AND, AND TRIED TO ALIGN WHAT, YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN SHOWN AT I B R W G.
WHAT'S WHAT'S BEEN SHOWN AT, AT OTHER MEETINGS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE RES HAVE KIND OF DONE A, A GREEN RED PASS OR FAIL KIND OF ANALYSIS OR ASSESSMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN.
AND, AND I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR THIS TYPE OF ASSESSMENT SO THAT WE CAN AGGREGATE AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO TAKE A, A WHOLE FLEET WIDE LOOK AT THE DATA THAT'S PROVIDED TO US.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ANALYSIS, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF SHOWS WHERE THE CHALLENGES ARE, RIGHT? A CHANGE OF FREQUENCY, MULTIPLE V R T COMBINATIONS, PHASING WILL JUMP.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT HELPS US TO SEE, WELL, MAYBE IF WE, UH, ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME TO MEET SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT MAYBE THAT'S WHERE WE CAN COMPROMISE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING TO LOOK FOR THAT INFORMATION.
UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER CHALLENGES I THINK THAT, THAT ARE INSURMOUNTABLE TO, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO NOT IDENTIFY OTHER
[01:35:01]
CHALLENGES THAT ARE INSURMOUNTABLE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE, THE SUITE OF SOLUTIONS FOR THOSE THINGS THAT MAY ALSO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE OF PERHAPS REPLACING, YOU KNOW, THE TURBINE OR THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ENTIRE ROTOR AND, AND CONVERTER ASSEMBLY.AND, YOU KNOW, I, I SUPPORT THIS APPROACH.
I THINK IT'S VERY CONSTRUCTIVE AND, UM, I'M OPTIMISTIC, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE SEE THIS DATA.
I KNOW, I KNOW YOU'VE ANSWERED IT LIKE FOUR TIMES, BUT THE, THE RESOURCE OWNER AND THE O E M DATA WILL BE DUE, UM, NOVEMBER 6TH.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA TRY TO GIVE EVERYBODY ABOUT THAT SAME TIMEFRAME AND, AND HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY SEE YOU HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO PROVIDE THAT.
UM, BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE'RE ASKING BOTH IS THE OEMS, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO GIVE YOU THEIR PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT REQUIREMENTS LIKE, UH, THE PROTECTION SYSTEM COORDINATION, UH, OR THE CONTROLS COORDINATION, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT COMPREHENSIVELY, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR FREQUENCY PROTECTION ON YOUR FEEDER SYSTEM OR, OR LOOKING AT YOUR POWER PLANT CONTROLLER AND HOW IT INTERACTS WITH THE, THE LOCAL CONTROLS ON THE INVERTER AND, AND TURBINES.
THOSE, THOSE CONCEPTS HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, EVALUATED BY THE RESOURCE ENTITY AS WELL.
UH, NEXT UP WE'VE GOT TOM BURKE FOLLOWED BY NED, FOLLOWED BY ERIC, AND THEN DAN.
UM, I'M REALLY JUST MORE OF A COMMENT LIKE, UH, ADD ON TO WHAT BOB SAID.
I THINK WE'D HAVE A MUCH BETTER DISCUSSION AT R O OSS ON THIS TOPIC.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S GONNA TAKE A COUPLE OF R O S MEETINGS TO ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING THAT IS CLOSER TO WHAT IS WANTED.
AND, UM, OTHERWISE I THINK IT'S GONNA BE BACK AND FORTH AND TABLED A LOT LONGER THAN FOLKS ARE HOPING.
UM, I'M GONNA INVOKE THE, THE PHRASE OF THE MONTH, UH, WITH A, WITH THE FISM.
AND YOU KNOW, MAMA SAID THE FIRST RULE OF GETTING OUTTA HOLES IS TO STOP DIGGING.
AND, UH, ERIC, WHAT YOU MENTIONED AT, AT THE OUTSET ABOUT POSSIBLY BIFURCATING, THIS SEEMS LIKE A WISE CHOICE TO CONSIDER.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE ACTION, I THINK, MUCH EASIER AS A BODY SETTING THE RULES GOING FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN START TO MAKE INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY CONCERN THAT ERCOT IS, IS, RIGHT.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A REAL RELIABILITY.
WE ALL RESPECT THAT AND WANT TO WORK ON THAT, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING, UH, HERE TODAY IS IT'S A, IT'S A MUCH STICKIER AND, UH, HARDER, HARDER, UH, UH, NUT TO CRACK ON HOW YOU ADDRESS THAT WITH THE EXISTING RESOURCES.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE RFIS THAT ARE GOING TO NEED, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN A MONTH, PROBABLY SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO CLEAN UP THE DATA THAT'LL HELP INFORM THAT DISCUSSION.
TOM, YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT IT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE OF, UH, EXTRA TURNS TO WORK THROUGH THAT.
SO IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDIENCY, WE SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE BIFURCATION APPROACH.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME MORE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE, UM, BUT I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, START TO MOVE TOWARDS WRAPPING UP IF WE CAN.
UM, SO I, I JUST WANT TO THANK ERCOT, UH, FOR THE THOUGHTFUL APPROACH, UH, THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, UH, IN TERMS OF MOVING TOWARDS A SOLUTION.
UM, STEVEN, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SOME TIME NOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THE COMMENTS WITH YOU BEFORE WE FILE THEM.
WE WERE TRYING TO GET SOMETHING RUSHED BEFORE TODAY'S MEETING AND DIDN'T HAVE TIME.
UM, AND, UM, I, I DO THINK THAT IT, UM, AS WE TALK ABOUT BIFURCATION, IF WE GO THAT ROUTE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN STOP TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING FLEET.
IT, IT JUST MEANS CAN WE DECIDE ONE THING SOONER THAN THE OTHER THING, UM, AND, AND MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH, WITH SOME SORT OF, UH, CERTAINTY FOR THE, THE NEW, UM, FACILITIES.
UM, AND, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET TO A PLACE, UH, THAT WE, UH, EVEN, EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A COMMON PERSPECTIVE, WE AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE A COMMON SET OF FACTS THAT COULD LEAD TO A COMMON PERSPECTIVE.
SO, I, I'M, I'M HOPEFUL, AND, UH, WE'LL SEE HOW THE NEXT FEW MONTHS GO.
SO, UH, DAN, YEAH, SO STEVEN MAY WANT TO, UH, ADDRESS THE BIFURCATION THING, BEF, AND THEN I'LL SAY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
I THINK, STEVEN, YOU DID TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BIFURCATION.
[01:40:01]
REITERATE OR ADD TO THAT? YEAH, I, I THINK JUST TO COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST WITHIN THE NOER, WE, WE TRY TO BIFURCATE THE, THE, THE TWO, YOU KNOW, SETS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW MOVING FORWARD AND FOR EXISTING.I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF ANY ENTITY WANTS TO, TO PROPOSE A SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, NOER TO, TO DO THAT, WE, WE'LL DEFINITELY GIVE THAT CONSIDERATION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH, IT, WE KEEP HEARING BIFURCATION, BUT THEN THERE'S THIS, LIKE, WE WANT TO ALLOW A WINDOW FOR, UH, LONGER WINDOWS SO THAT GENERATORS THAT HAVE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS OR, OR WHAT, YOU KNOW, CAN, CAN HAVE ANOTHER TIME IF WE MOVE THE WINDOW OUT INTO A FUTURE DATE, WE THINK THAT THERE'S JUST GONNA BE A RUSH OF, OF GENERATORS THAT TRY TO GET SGI IN PLACES.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE, THE LARGER REQUIREMENTS, THE TECHNOLOGY IS OUT THERE.
EVEN G S SAID, EVEN WHEN SOME OF THE OLDER MODELS, IF THEY HAPPEN TO PURCHASE A, A VINTAGE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS OLD, UM, THEY CAN COME ONLINE POTENTIALLY RETROFIT WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, UH, A COUPLE YEARS AND, AND BE ABLE TO GET TO THE I E E E 2,800 SET OF REQUIREMENTS.
I, I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE APPROACH FOR US TO MAKE SURE, UH, THAT WE GET THE NEW CAPABILITIES GOING.
BUT I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, NOTHING PREVENTS AN ENTITY FROM, UH, PURCHASING EQUIPMENT AND ENHANCING THE RESILIENCY AND, AND MAKING SURE THAT IT CAN COMPLY TODAY.
UH, THEY, THEY CAN DO THOSE THINGS EVEN IN ABSENCE OF REQUIREMENTS, AND WE'RE ENCOURAGING EVERYBODY TO DO THAT.
AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING SO SINCE I E E 2,800 WAS ADOPTED IN APRIL, 2022.
UH, SO THIS IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER, BUT I THINK WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FOCUS AT THE, THIS NOER TOGETHER SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE HOW IT WORKS TOGETHER.
SO, AND I GUESS WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS, IS THE, UM, I MEAN, WE WERE ORIGINALLY TRYING TO PUSH THIS TO THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING.
UM, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE RECOGNIZE THERE'S STILL MORE DATA COMING IN.
WE REALLY DO WANT TO GET IT TO THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING.
UM, AND SO, UH, AND, BUT THERE IS, I THINK THIS, THIS DATA THAT WILL COME IN FROM THE, THE, THE, UM, RES AND THE ACUTE, THE OEMS WILL HELP IN SO THAT WE'RE ALL INFORMED, UH, WE WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE AS MUCH TIME AS WE CAN.
NOT UNTIL, YOU KNOW, 20, 24, BUT AT LEAST GET AS GOOD A DATA AS WE CAN BY IN TIME TO INFORM THAT DECISION AT THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, ON THE ISSUE OF WHAT, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AT OCTOBER, UH, TAC MEETING.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, I THINK IT PROBABLY ULTIMATELY MAKES SENSE TO WAIT TO VOTE ON THIS UNTIL WE HAVE TIME TO COMPILE THE DATA THAT COMES IN FROM, AND EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO SEE THAT.
AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANNA TELL THE STAKEHOLDERS HOW TO USE THEIR TIME, BUT
DAN GOT TWO MORE IN THE QUEUE, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA CLOSE OFF CONVERSATION.
SO WE'VE GOT MARK, UH, DREYFUS, FOLLOWED BY KATIE RICH.
THANKS, CLIFF, I, I JUST WANNA ASK OUR CUT TO POST OR CIRCULATE THE RFIS SO THE REST OF US WHO ARE NOT RECIPIENTS OF THOSE RFIS CAN SEE THEM.
ALL RIGHT, IT'S A GOOD ASK MARK.
I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SENDING IT BACK TO ROSS.
A COUPLE OF POINTS ON THAT ONE.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT AT SEVERAL MEETINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT GOT US TO THE POINT WE ARE TODAY.
AND, AND TWO, ON THE TIMING OF THE MEETING.
SO THE NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 5TH.
ERCOT SAYING THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE FILING COMMENTS UNTIL EARLY NEXT WEEK.
I MEAN, WE'RE IN A POINT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE GET ONE DAY TO REVIEW COMMENTS.
I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES FOR A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION AT ROSS.
AND THE SECOND THING IS THAT THE NEXT MEETING IS NOVEMBER 2ND, WHICH IS PRIOR TO WHEN THE RFIS ARE DUE.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT DATA WOULD BE COLLECTED OR THERE WOULD REALLY BE MUCH CHANCE TO, TO TALK ABOUT RESULTS OF THAT.
SO WHILE I RESPECT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE REQUEST, AND WE'LL DO WHATEVER IS ASKED OF US, I REALLY THINK KEEPING IT HERE AT TAC MAKES THE MOST SENSE.
UH, THERE WERE TWO COMMENTERS THAT I HAD SEEN YEAH.
SO WE HAD, UH, TIM JAYCO, AND THEN, UH, THAT'S IT.
OR ONE COMMENTER, I'M SORRY, TIM JAYCO.
AND MY APOLOGIES FOR, FOR MISSING YOU THERE, TIM.
SO THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS
[01:45:01]
OFF AND, AND MOVE TO A VOTE.SO TIM, TIM, YOU STILL THERE? ALL RIGHT.
OKAY, THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OFF CONVERSATION ON THIS.
AND I'M SORRY, CAN YOU, AH, THERE YOU GO.
UM, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
UM, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU, TIM.
SORRY, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YEAH, TIM, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
ALRIGHT, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS JUST TO ADDRESS.
FIRST STEVEN'S COMMENT ABOUT THE GE AND ITS RESPONSES.
AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE RELIABILITY OF THE GE FLEET.
MORE THAN HALF OF THE ERCOT WIND TURBINE FLEET IS GE WIND TURBINES.
AND WE'VE PROVIDED A RELIABLE PRODUCT THAT HAS MET OR CUT REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS WE LOOK AT I E E 2,800 AND THE WAY IT'S DEFINED, IT WAS INTENDED TO BE, UH, APPLIED TO NEW UNITS AND NEW GENERATION GOING FORWARD, AND LESS, LESS ABOUT THE RETROACTIVE AND REACTIVE UPGRADE APPROACH.
WE DO CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE RELIABILITY IN ERCOT.
GE HAS, HAS DONE THAT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
UM, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, GE IN TERMS OF ITS RELIABILITY, ADHERENCE TO THE GRID REQUIREMENTS HAS, HAS MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
I HAVE JUST TWO, TWO QUESTIONS, UH, FOR FOLKS THAT CAN ANSWER.
UH, ONE IN TERMS OF THE R F I IS THE REQUEST FOR RESPONSE AROUND ANY SOLUTION THAT'S FEASIBLE OR FINANCIALLY REASONABLE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE FEASIBLE.
AND SECOND CLARIFYING IS THE NOVEMBER 6TH DATE.
IS THAT THE O E M RESPONSE DATE OR RESPONSE DATES FROM THE, TIM COULDN'T HEAR YOUR SECOND QUESTION VERY WELL.
I THINK IT PERTAINED TO THIS NOVEMBER 6TH DATE, BUT, UH, STEVEN, WE'LL, WE'LL KICK THOSE QUESTIONS OVER TO YOU FOR RESPONSES.
YEAH, THIS IS STEVEN SLI WITH ERCOT.
I, I THINK JUST REAL QUICK, UH, WE ARE PLANNING ON GIVING NOVEMBER 6TH FOR THE O E M RESPONSES, VERY SIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT S SS G R E HAS PROVIDED HERE.
I THINK GE VERBALLY DISCUSSED THIS, UH, MAYBE NOT, UH, TO THE SPECIFIC DETAILS, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH PARAGRAPH THERE, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'LL BE ASKING FOR BY 11 SIX.
UH, I DO WANT TO JUST COMMENT, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE GE TURBINES, I, UH, ERCOT IS NOT TRYING TO TO POINT FINGERS AT, AT, AT ANY O E M.
UH, I, I THINK THAT THERE ARE OLDER GE TURBINES THAT ARE MORE CHALLENGED JUST BECAUSE THERE'S QUITE A BIT, UH, THAT ARE OLDER AND, AND THEY'VE, UH, PER, YOU KNOW, RIGHTFULLY DISCLOSED WHERE THEY'RE, THEY HAVE SOME CHALLENGES AND, AND SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, SO THAT EVERYBODY'S CLEAR.
ANY, UH, PARTICULAR W G R THAT WAS INSTALLED BEFORE NOVEMBER 1ST, 2008, DOES NOT HAVE ANY VOLTAGE WRITE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS HERE IN ERCOT.
UH, THEY ARE EXEMPTED IN THE RULES.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE STILL THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, PROVIDES SOME LEVEL OF, UH, OF REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, AS IT AS IT POSES.
BUT I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE CHALLENGE HERE.
UH, WHEN, WHEN ENTITIES SAY THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, UH, THERE, THERE WASN'T A, A LOT.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT HISTORY IS GOING TO BE KIND OF TALKED THROUGH IN SOME OF OUR COMMENTS, I THINK TO HELP SHAPE UP, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROGRESS OF THIS ISSUE THROUGHOUT TIME.
SO, OKAY, THAT CLOSES OFF DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, COREY, WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN TEE UP THE, THE BALLOT PLEASE.
2 45 WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS.
NICK FEHRENBACH STILL WITH US?
[01:50:08]
I WILL COME BACK.ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
CORY, YOU ONTO OUR IPMS. JEREMY? YES.
KEITH? YES, THANK YOU, RICHARD.
YES, THANK YOU MARTHA FOR CALLING.
ALL RIGHT, THANKS VERY MUCH, CORY.
UH, JUST TO RECAP, SO THE NEXT DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WILL BE AT TAC NEXT MONTH.
UM, STEVEN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WHAT, WHAT IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND RECAPPING WHAT YOU EXPECT THE DISCUSSION AT TAC NEXT MONTH TO LOOK LIKE.
I THINK, UH, THERE'S A FEW FOLKS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
STEVEN, YOU STILL THERE? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK STEVEN JUMPED, DROPPED OFF.
I, I, I THINK TO, TO RECAP, I, I THINK THE, THE INTENTION IS KIND OF, UH, IS REALLY THE, YOU KNOW, ERCOT EXPECTS TO FILE COMMENTS AND, AND PROBABLY HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THERE.
AND IF IT SOUNDS LIKE NEXTERA IS ALSO WORKING ON SOMETHING AND, AND I, AND I THINK THE DISCUSSION WOULD PROBABLY CENTER AROUND BOTH OF THOSE.
UH, I, I THINK WE'VE ALSO BEEN WORKING ON THE IA FOR THE, THE ROSS APPROVED, UH, UH, NORE 2 45 TOO.
SO I EXPECT THOSE WOULD BE THE DISCUSSION POINTS.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR RECAPPING, JOHN.
OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT VOTING ITEM.
WE HAVE, UH, PICKER 1 0 5 DELIVER DELIVERABILITY CRITERIA CRITERIA FOR DC IMPORTS THERE.
UM, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT COMMENTS FROM ERCOT AND COMMISSION STAFF REQUESTING, TABLING FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE TWO SETS OF COMMENTS OR ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO TAKE UP? GO AHEAD, EMILY.
YEAH, I'M DOING A MOTION TO TABLE, CORY, UH, THAT'S UP TO THE GROUP.
UH, IF EVERYONE'S FINE WITH IT BEING ON THE COMBO BALLOT, THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL ERIC ASSIGNMENTS.
THIS COULD GO ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
I WOULD SUGGEST COMBO ON THIS ONE.
ANY, ANY OBJECTIONS TO MOVING THIS ONE TO THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE PICK 1 0 5 TO THE COMBO BALLOT FOR TABLING.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE WE HAVE UNDER THE R O S VOTING ITEMS IS THE MAJOR TRANSMISSION ELEMENTS LIST.
UM, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE MAJOR TRANSMISSION ELEMENTS LIST? SEEING NONE, YOU SEE THAT LIST IN FRONT OF YOU.
IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, WE WILL MOVE THIS ONE TO THE COMBO BALLOT AS WELL.
SO THAT IS THE LAST ITEM UNDER THE R M SS REPORT.
ANYTHING IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL, I'M SORRY, R O S REPORT.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, UH, FOR KATIE ON THE R O S REPORT? OKAY, THAT BEING SAID, UM, I SHOW, OH, SORRY.
OH YEAH, I SHOW 1124 ON THE CLOCK RIGHT NOW.
LET'S TAKE ABOUT A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
WE GOT A FEW ITEMS STILL TO RUN THROUGH, SO, UH, LET'S COME BACK AROUND 1135 IF WE COULD.
[10. WMS Report]
ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP WE'VE GOT THE W M[01:55:01]
S REPORT.UH, SO WHILE ERIC'S GETTING TEED UP FOR THAT, UH, WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK TO MATT.
HE HAD AN UPDATE ON THE LUBBOCK INTEGRATION.
YEAH, SO I DID SOME RESEARCH AND IT TURNS OUT WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS WE DID ON THE LUBBOCK COMMUNICATION SO THAT ERCOT WOULD BE DOING A FILING, UH, WITH THE P U C WOULD ALSO BE DOING A MARKET NOTICE.
IF YOU WANNA FOLLOW A BREADCRUMB TRAIL, YOU CAN LOOK BACK AT JUNE 1ST, 2021.
THAT'S THE LAST TIME WHERE IT WAS DONE, WHERE THERE'S A SERIES OF MARKET NOTICES AS WELL AS THE MARKET NOTICE AFTER IT WAS COMPLETE.
SO THERE'S THE PERSPECTIVE WE PLAN TO SWITCH, BUT THEN THERE'S THE OPERATIONAL UNCERTAINTY OF WHETHER OR NOT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS AND THEN THE MARKET NOTICE AFTERWARDS.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? DO YOU KNOW WHAT LISTERVS YOU'RE GONNA SEND THOSE TO THE SAME AS LAST TIME? NO, I, I'LL, I'LL SEE IF I CAN LOOK AT THAT.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS MATT FOR LIKE THE, THE RESEARCH THERE DURING THE BREAK.
ERIC BLAKEY, THE W M S CHAIR AND I WILL, UH, GO THROUGH OUR REPORT FROM OUR MEETING MOSTLY, UH, DISCUSSING OUR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER THE SIXTH.
WE, UH, HAD OUR STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT.
WE'D BEEN TALKING ABOUT HAVING THE REPORT FROM CARRIE, I THINK STARTING IN JUNE.
AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT IN SEPTEMBER.
IT WAS REALLY WELL RECEIVED AND, UM, DISCUSSED PRIMARILY THE FIVE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE MARKET PERFORMANCE.
UH, NUMBER ONE, IMPLEMENT A MULTI INTERVAL REAL-TIME MARKET INSTITUTE, A HUNDRED PERCENT R CLAWBACK ALLOW TRANSMISSION RECONFIGURATIONS FOR ECONOMIC BENEFITS.
CHANGE THE LINEAR RAMP PERIOD FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICE SUMMER DEPLOYMENTS TO THREE HOURS AND SHORTENED THE HISTORICAL LOOKBACK PERIOD TO FIVE YEARS FOR CERTAIN CALCULATIONS.
IN THE O R D C, WE ALSO HAD A, UH, REPORT FROM ERCOT ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATED OFFER, CAP FOR ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE, AND A REPORT ON TER E S R AND AUXILIARY LOAD CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES AND ELIMINATION OF PROVISIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE.
UH, THERE WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITING THE POOL OF RESOURCES THAT CAN PROVIDE E C R S.
ERCOT SAID THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO IMPACTED RESOURCES, UM, BUT OTHERS WERE ENCOURAGED TO REACH BACK TO ERCOT IF THEY HAD NOT HEARD.
UM, AS FAR AS ISSUE DISCUSSION, UH, TAX JEN SCHMIDT, UH, WITH RHYTHM WAS, UH, AT OUR MEETING AND PRESENTED A DISCUSSION ON WHOLESALE MARKET QUEUES FOR SCARCITY PRICING.
UH, THERE WAS A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INFORMATION AND THE ISSUES WERE REFERRED TO W M W G FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
AND WE ENDORSED R C W G LEADERSHIP ENDORSING BLAKE HOLT WITH L C R A AS THE CHAIR OF R C W G AND THE SUPPLY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP.
WE ENDORSED GREG LACKEY THE C P S ENERGY AS THE VICE CHAIR.
FINALLY, WE, WE ALSO, UH, AGREED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR TRANSMISSION ELEMENTS LIST THAT, THAT WE JUST APPROVED, UH, DURING THE ROSS REPORT.
NEXT SLIDE, WE HAD A NEW P R S REFERRAL, N P R 1190 HIGH DISPATCH LIMIT OVERRIDE PROVISION FOR INCREASED NO E LOAD COST.
THIS ADDS A PROVISION FOR RECOVERY OF A DE DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL LOSS ARISING FROM A MANUAL HIGH DISPATCH LIMIT OVERRIDE TO REDUCE REAL POWER OUTPUT.
REVISED LANGUAGE WOULD ALLOW COMPENSATION FOR SUCH A LOSS.
IT WAS WRITTEN TO ADDRESS LOSSES INCURRED BY NOISE.
BUT AS AT W M SS IT WAS MENTIONED, IT MAY APPLY TO A BROADER GROUP AND WE REFERRED THIS TO W M W G AND, UM, ON SMM SMOG 27 TO MOVE O B D TO SETTLEMENT METERING OPERATING GUIDE.
UM, THIS WAS MOVED TO THE SETTLEMENT GUIDE TO STANDARDIZE THE APPROVAL PROCESS AND AMENDS THE DESIGN PROPOSAL FORM TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IDENTIFYING, UH, ANY AND ALL DISTRIBUTION SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SERVE A PROJECT.
AND FINALLY, UH, ACTION ON TABLED ITEMS N P R 1172.
[02:00:01]
UH, FUEL ADDER DEFINITION MITIGATED OFFER CAPS AND RUT CLAWBACK.UH, THIS WAS FILED BY CONSUMERS.
IT REMOVES THE MITIGATED OFFER CAP MULTIPLIERS AND CHANGES THE RUT CLAWBACK FROM 50%.
THE 100% CONSUMERS FILED COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 5TH REFLECTING SOME COMPROMISES THEY HAD REACHED.
AND THESE WERE ENDORSED BY W M SS AT OUR MEETING.
UM, AND I SEE BOB'S IN THE QUEUE.
DO YOU WANT ME TO, LET ME FINISH UP THIS LAST SLIDE AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
UH, AND THESE ARE JUST THE, THE PENDING ITEMS THAT ARE, THAT ARE TABLED THAT ARE UNDER OUR REVIEW.
YOU CAN SEE THE, UM, THE GROUPS.
THEY ARE, THEY ARE LOOKING, UH, TO REVIEW.
UH, THE ONE I'LL MENTION IS V C M ARE 37 FUEL LADDER DEFINITION.
THIS WAS WITHDRAWN DUE TO W M S ENDORSEMENT OF 1172.
UH, OUR NEXT MEETING IS, UH, OCTOBER THE 11TH.
AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST THING IS, IS, UH, FOR THE NEW CHAIR OF R C W G, MAMA SAYS, BLESS YOU, HARD
I HOPE HE HAS AS MUCH FUN AS SOME OF US PAST CHAIRS DID.
ON A SERIOUS NOTE ON THE, UH, MITIGATION, UH, RECOMMENDATION FROM ERCOT ON THE ESRS, UH, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THAT? OR ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO KEEP THAT? W SS ARE YOU GOING TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING TO TACK ON THAT? OR JUST WHERE IS THAT GOING? THAT MAY BE FOR ERCOT.
YEAH, I'LL NEED SOMEONE FROM ERCOT.
THERE'S SOMEONE, LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE'S HERE.
HI, UH, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
RYAN KING WITH, SO THE, THE NEXT STEPS WITH REQUEST TO, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, THIS ISSUE IS THAT WE ACTUALLY DID HAVE AN INITIAL DISCUSSION AT THE C M W G LAST WEEK WHERE, UM, WE KIND OF EXPLORED SOME OF THE ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR STATE OF CHARGE, UH, PARDON ME, FOR E S R MITIGATION.
AND WE ALSO USED, UH, THE EXAMPLE USED IN IN KAISO AS KIND OF A FRAMEWORK TO START TO THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE, UM, ISSUES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.
AND, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, THE DESIGN IN KAISO WAS OR WAS NOT INSTRUCTIVE FOR ERCOT.
WE PLAN TO COME BACK TO THE C M W G WITH SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS THAT WAS REQUESTED.
UM, THERE WAS ALSO A, AN ANOTHER OPTION I IDENTIFIED IN THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'LL BRING FORWARD, BUT I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT AT THE POINT WHERE WE WOULD HAVE A FIRM RECOMMENDATION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE.
UM, BUT AS I SAID, WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, UH, IS WORKED THROUGH AND WE'LL KIND OF WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO FORM HOPEFULLY A, A UNANIMOUS OPINION WITH RESPECT TO WHERE WE GO FROM HERE TO W M S AND ALSO TO TACK BY THE END OF THE YEAR AS WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER THE, UH, NOTAL PROTOCOLS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ERIC? OKAY.
[11. Credit Finance Sub Group (CFSG) Report ]
ALL RIGHT.NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA, WE'VE GOT OUR CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP UPDATE.
SO WE GOT BRENDAN SAGER TEED UP FOR THAT.
BRENDAN, HELLO EVERYBODY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR.
SO THIS IS, UH, FROM OUR 20 SEPTEMBER MEETING LAST WEEK.
UH, WE LOOKED AT ALL THE RRS GOING THROUGH THE, UM, TRANSOM AND, UM, VOTE ON THEM WHETHER THEY HAVE CREDIT IMPACTS OR NOT.
UH, WE HAD A FEW ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION, A NEW INVOICE REPORT CHANGES AS AN ESTIMATE, AGGREGATE LIABILITY, UH, PROPOSALS AND ANALYSIS.
UM, WE, UH, LOOKED AT LETTER OF CREDIT CONCENTRATION LIMITS AND SURETY BOND POLICY, UH, PRESENTATION FROM ERCOT AND THEN, UH, N P R 1112 ON THE UNSECURED CREDIT THAT IS BEING REMOVED FROM THE MARKET.
AND THEN THE REGULAR CREDIT EXPOSURE UPDATES.
SO THESE ARE THE FOUR, UH, NPRS WE LOOKED AT, UH, WE DISCUSSED AND, UM, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONSIDER, UH, OPERATIONAL WITHOUT CREDIT IMPLICATIONS.
UM, MY CO-CHAIR, LORETTO MARTIN FROM N R G, REQUESTED A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF INVOICES AS A CHECK TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF VARIOUS PENDING PAYMENTS.
UH, AT THE AUGUST MEETING, AUSTIN ROSELL PRESENTED A DRAFT, UM, THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THESE, UH, ON THE
[02:05:01]
SEPTEMBER MEETING HE, UM, PRESENT, HE PRESENTED A DRAFT N P R THAT COULD EFFECTUATE THE DRAFT REPORT THAT WAS SHARED AT THE AUGUST MEETING.BUT ERCOT IS NOW LOOKING WHETHER THEY WANT TO SPONSOR THE N P R R, UH, BECAUSE IT, UM, UH, THEY, THEY MAY HAVE A DUPLICATIVE EFFORT GOING ON IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.
SO WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THIS AND, UH, WE'LL PRESENT ADDITIONAL DETAILS AT FUTURE MEETINGS.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON? YES, SIR.
UM, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN COMPREHENSIVE LIST THREAD INVOICES? DOES THAT MEAN A IT'S BASIC.
UH, WELL, ERCOT MENTIONED THAT, UM, THERE WERE SOME WAN WIDE AREA NETWORK INVOICES THAT HAD BEEN OUT FOR A LONG TIME THAT I GUESS WEREN'T PAID FOR.
SO IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A LAUNDRY LIST OF INVOICES AND SOME LIKE THE JUAN INVOICE, UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MAY NOT, UH, BE EXPECTING.
UM, SO BASICALLY IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT COVERS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE POSSIBLE PENDING INVOICES.
SO IT'S NOT ALL, I GUESS WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT'S BEING TRYING TO BE SOLVED? IS IT NOT ALREADY CLEAR WHAT INVOICES ARE OUTSTANDING? UH, YEAH, BASICALLY, UM, JUST A LIST OF INVOICES THAT YOU MAY, LIKE, THE ONE INVOICE THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE E R O INVOICES.
SOME OF THESE COME UP QUARTERLY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE BY ATTRITION, YOU KNOW, NEW PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHEN TO EXPECT THINGS.
UM, SO YEAH, IT'S JUST TO GET BASICALLY EVERY DAY A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT'S OUTSTANDING FOR EACH COUNTERPARTY.
I MEAN, UM, I GUESS TO THE EXTENT THAT HAS A LOW IMPACT ANALYSIS, THAT WOULDN'T BE A, AN ISSUE, BUT I, I WOULD THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF WHAT THEIR INVOICES ARE AND SO I, I WOULD HATE FOR US TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON, ON THAT.
BUT IF IT'S A LOW IMPACT AND DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TIME, I'M, I GUESS I'M NOT OPPOSED.
YOU CAN KEEP, YOU CAN KEEP ROLLING.
YEAH, UH, UH, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND, BRENDA, WE GOT AUSTIN IN THE QUEUE.
AUSTIN USING A NEW AUDIO SYSTEM SO YOU ALL CAN HEAR.
UM, UH, YEAH, SO WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT IT.
THERE'S, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING THAT'S GONNA TAKE A LOT OF RESOURCES TO, SO, YEAH.
YEAH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
USING A DIFFERENT MICROPHONE TODAY.
I SHOULD HAVE EXPERIMENTED AT HOME FIRST.
ALRIGHT, ERIC, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS THAT WE KIND HAD SIMILAR THOUGHTS OVER HERE.
SO WE ACTUALLY WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT, LOOK AT THE COST BEFORE WE MADE A DECISION, SO THANK YOU.
AND I GUESS ONE MORE POINT SINCE YOU'RE ON THE LINE TOO, AND I, I'D ALSO HATE FOR IF THERE WAS SOME MISCELLANEOUS INVOICE THAT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THIS REPORT FOR SOME REASON.
'CAUSE IT WAS ISSUED MANUALLY THAT SOMEONE WOULDN'T USE THAT AS A REASON TO HAVE NOT PAID THE INVOICE BECAUSE THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY OF MANUAL INVOICES.
WE HAD THAT THOUGHT, BUT THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM.
YOU CAN KEEP ROLLING, BRENDAN.
THE, UH, WE NEXT LOOKED AT THE ESTIMATE AGGREGATE, UH, LIABILITY CHANGES IN ANALYSIS, UH, DC AND RAINBOW REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE E A L REPORT THAT, UH, REPRESENTS PARAMETERS DEFINING THE COUNTERPARTY'S COLLATERAL OBLIGATION TO THE MARKET.
UH, THE CREDIT TEAM RAN TWO SCENARIOS, NUMBER TWO AND THREE AND, UH, PRESENTED THE PRELIMINARY E A L AND TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FINDINGS AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING.
THE, UH, DETAILED GAP ANALYSIS OF SCENARIOS ONE AND FOUR WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE FUTURE.
UH, SCENARIO TWO INVOLVES APPLYING FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AGAINST REAL-TIME LIABILITY AND REMOVING MAX FUNCTIONS FROM THE 40 DAY LOOKBACK PERIOD.
SO BASICALLY THE ALGORITHM WORKS BY, YOU KNOW, THE CORE OF ITS INVOICE SETTLEMENT EXPOSURE, AND THEN TWO, THIS IS APPLIED, UH, SORT OF A FORWARD LOOKING MULTIPLIER IF PRICES ARE INCREASING AND THEN ALSO HAS A LOOKBACK THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR A TRANSITION EVENT.
UM, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THOSE DIFFERENT PARAMETERS.
UH, AND THEN SCENARIOS THREE INVOLVES A COUNTERPARTY LEVEL, CUSTOMIZED FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR BASED ON A RATIO OF FORWARD AND SETTLE PRICES.
UH, THE MEMBERSHIP MORE AND MORE IS DISCUSSING, WANTING TO HAVE, UM, THE REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD INVOICE EXPOSURE NETTED BECAUSE I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKES MORE ECONOMIC REFLECTS THE
[02:10:01]
ECONOMICS OF THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE IN THOSE MARKETS.SO, UH, WE WILL CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE E A L CALCULATION METHODOLOGY.
UM, SO THE ERCOT CREDIT TEAM REPORTED ON, UH, STRENGTHENING THE CREDIT QUALIFICATIONS OF LC INSURE BOND ISSUERS.
UH, THIS IS, UH, THEY PRESENTED AND PROPOSED A YET UNFILED N P R COVERING COLLATERAL ERCOT WILL LEAVE THE CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR THE LCS AT THEIR CURRENT LEVELS.
THE, UH, MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE RATING FROM MOODY'S S AND P AND FITCH IS A MINUS FOR A LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUING BANKS.
US BRANCHES OF FOREIGN BANKS WILL NEED TO BE RATED, UH, SURETY BONDS WILL HAVE THE SAME RATINGS REQUIREMENTS AS LETTERS OF CREDIT BANKS.
THERE'S A LIMIT OF 100 MILLION PER ISSUER FOR THE BONDS AND, UH, FINANCIAL SIZE 12 FROM AM BEST.
SO THERE'S DISCUSSION AROUND, UM, THE DWINDLING POOL OF ACCEPTABLE BANKS AND RUNTIMES FOR COUNTERPARTIES TO, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THEIR BANKS FOR, TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES FOR CREDIT FACILITIES, LENDING AGREEMENTS, AND SO ON.
AND SO NOW TO JUST THE REGULAR UPDATES, UH, FROM THE CREDIT GROUP.
UM, TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE INCREASE FROM 2.66 BILLION IN JULY TO 3.66 BILLION IN AUGUST.
TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE INCREASED DUE TO HIGHER REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD PRICES, AS WELL AS FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS.
THE, WE LOOKED AT DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL, WHICH IS SECURED COLLATERAL IN EXCESS OF TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE, CR LOCKED A C L AND DAM EXPOSURE.
SO THIS DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL INCREASE FROM 4.43 BILLION TO 4.91 BILLION IN AUGUST, AND THERE WAS NO UNUSUAL COLLATERAL CALL ACTIVITY.
UM, SO HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH, TYPES OF, UH, INSTRUMENTS THAT PEOPLE USE, MARKET PARTICIPANTS USE TO SUPPORT THEIR COLLATERAL OBLIGATIONS.
SO SOMETHING TO REMEMBER NEXT WEEK, WE, I MENTIONED 1112 BEFORE, SO THE GREEN LINE AND THE BLUE OR THE GREEN AND THE GRAY BLOCKS WILL BE DISAPPEARING.
AND IF WE LOOK IN AUGUST, THAT'S ABOUT $1.4 BILLION OF, UH, UNSECURED COLLATERAL THAT, UH, IS GOING AWAY.
UH, SO AT THE SAME TIME, HER CUT'S LOOKING AROUND CHANGING SOME OF ITS CREDIT POLICY.
SO THERE IS HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY'S READY TO GO.
UM, THEY HAVEN'T REPORTED ANYTHING, UM, YOU KNOW, OF PARTICULAR CONCERNS, BUT, UH, IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE TO KEEP IN MIND.
UM, AND THIS, YOU KNOW, IS FOLLOWING THE SORT OF EXPECTED CYCLE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, HEAT DRIVEN, UH, UH, INCREASING THE INVOICES AND INCREASING THE COLLATERAL EXPOSURE.
OH, THIS IS THE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL.
UM, YEAH, JUST COLLATERAL OVER AND ABOVE.
HOWEVER, YOU NEED TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UH, COLLATERAL, UH, TO GET ACCESS TO BIDS IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET.
SO THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT THAT IS FOR.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANY QUESTIONS? BRENDAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, BACK ON PAGE SIX, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING A DWINDLING POOL OF ACCEPTABLE BANKS.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY THAT POOL IS DWINDLING OR HAS THERE BEEN ANY RESEARCH ON THAT? WELL, I, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF THE MACROECONOMIC PICTURE OF, YOU KNOW, JUST PEOPLE BEING CONCERNED ABOUT BANKS AND THE, YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN, UH, SILICON VALLEY BANK.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK BANKS ARE, ARE BEING DOWNGRADED IN GENERAL.
AND THEN, UM, THERE'S THE CONCENTRATION LIMIT FACTOR.
THEY, THEY, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, HERE WE'RE MIGRATING, YOU KNOW, $1.6 BILLION OF UNSECURED CREDIT INTO THE SORT OF EXISTING POOL OF, OF WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE LETTERS OF CREDIT.
UM, SO YES, THERE IS IT, IT WAS DISCUSSED ERCOT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE WORKING, I THINK WITH LIKE HALF A DOZEN COUNTERPARTIES THAT I THINK THEY MAY HAVE SOME, UM, CONCERNS ABOUT, BUT, UH, THEY'RE ALLOWING A BIT MORE OF A RUNTIME.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS PEOPLE ARE INFORMED AND AWARE, UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S HAPPENING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR BRENDAN? OKAY, SEEING NONE THAT CLOSES OUT THAT REPORT, THANKS AGAIN, BRENDAN.
[12. Large Flexible Load Task Force (LFLTF) Report]
NEXT ON OUR LIST, WE'VE GOT, UH, THE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE REPORT.SO I BELIEVE AGS QUEUED UP TO PROVIDE THAT.
[02:15:02]
YEAH.UM, UM, SO, UH, YEAH, BILL IS, IS UNABLE TO TO BE HERE, SO I'M, I'M PINCHING FOR HIM.
UM, UH, SOME UPDATES ON LARGE LOAD TASK FORCE, UH, LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST MONTH.
UM, SO WE'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS, UH, SEPTEMBER 6TH AND SEPTEMBER 25TH, UM, MAINLY FOCUSING ON COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, EITHER FILED FORMALLY OR JUST, UH, SUBMITTED TO THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR ON N P R 1191 AND THE RELATED REVISION REQUESTS.
UM, THE TASK FORCE ALSO ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS TO BE PROVIDED, UM, RELATED TO SOME OF THE RELIABILITY RISKS THAT THESE NPRS ARE ADDRESSING.
UH, SO THAT WAS PROVIDED AT THE SEPTEMBER 25TH MEETING.
UM, SO THAT INCLUDED, UH, THE SIZE AND THE FREQUENCY OF WHICH WE WERE SEEING LARGE LOAD RAMPING EVENTS, UM, AN ANALYSIS OF LARGE LOAD PRICE RESPONSIVE BEHAVIORS.
SO IN, IN OTHER WORDS, UH, HOW, HOW OFTEN DO WE SEE LARGE LOADS CURTAILING, UH, WHEN SYSTEM, EXCUSE ME, I'M A LITTLE BIT UNDER THE WEATHER THIS, THIS MORNING.
UM, WHEN, UH, UH, WHOLESALE PRICES, UH, GO ABOVE WHAT, UH, THE LIKELY STRIKE PRICE FOR SOME OF THESE LOADS ARE, UM, AN ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR DURING THE E E A EVENT ON SEPTEMBER 6TH.
AND, UH, ALSO, UH, ANALYSIS OF RECENT, UH, VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH EVENTS WHERE WE SAW, UH, SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF LARGE LOADS TRIPPING.
UM, SO THAT THOSE WERE PROVIDED ON THE 25TH TO, UH, GUIDE THE DISCUSSIONS, UH, AROUND THE REVISION REQUESTS GOING FORWARD.
UH, CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? ACTUALLY, CAN WE SKIP, SKIP ONE MORE AHEAD SOMEHOW.
MY SLIDE GOT OUT OF ORDER, SO IF WE COULD SKIP TO SLIDE FOUR PLEASE.
UM, SO, UH, FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR, UM, GIVEN THE, THE SORT OF NUMBER AND DIVERSITY OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ON N P R 1191 AND THE, THE RELATED REVISION REQUESTS, UH, THE TASK FORCE, UH, PLANS TO HOLD MORE FREQUENT MEETINGS, UH, ROUGHLY TWICE PER MONTH THROUGH EARLY 2024.
UM, AND THE, THE APPROACH WOULD BE TO FOCUS EACH MEETING ON ONE, ONE TO TWO TOPICS, UM, WITH THE GOAL OF EITHER, UM, AT THE END OF, UH, THE SECOND MEETING, EITHER ACHIEVING CONSENSUS OR COMPETING PROPOSALS TO TAKE TO TACK FOR DIRECTION.
UM, AND THAT WOULD KIND OF MIRROR HOW, UH, OTHER TASK FORCE LIKE R T C AND AND BS TASK FORCE HAVE, HAVE BEEN, UH, UH, OPERATED.
UM, AND THE, THE IDEA WOULD BE TO TACKLE SOME OF THE TOPICS WITH GREATER AGREEMENT FIRST AND, UH, THEN ADDRESS SOME OF THE MORE CONTENTIOUS TOPICS THAT HAVE, UH, UH, LESS CONSENSUS.
UM, SO IF WE GO BACK TO SLIDE THREE, UM, SO IN DETAIL, UH, THE IDEA WOULD BE WE WILL ADDRESS EACH TOPIC TWICE, UM, AND HAVE TWO MEETINGS FOCUSED ON EACH ONE.
UH, THE STAKEHOLDERS, UH, ARE INVITED TO FILE FORMAL COMMENTS, UH, WITH ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT ERCOT HAS PROPOSED IN 1191, UM, AS WELL AS ANY DISCUSSION MATERIALS FOR THOSE MEETINGS SEVEN DAYS PRIOR.
UM, EACH TOPIC WILL BE DISCUSSED TWICE, AND THE GOAL BEING AT THE END OF THE SECOND, UH, MEETING THE TASK FORCE WILL EITHER HAVE ARRIVED AT CONSENSUS OR, UM, A SET OF COMPETING PROPOSALS TO BE TAKEN TO TACK FOR, FOR A VOTE FOR TO GIVE THE, THE TASK FORCE DIRECTION.
AND ONCE, ONCE THAT DIRECTION HAS BEEN GIVEN, THEN, THEN ERCOT PROPOSES TO REVISE N P R O 1191 TO REFLECT THE DIRECTION THAT HAS BEEN AGREED ON.
UM, AND THAT WAY WE, WE HOPE TO AVOID, UH, UH, CAN SORT OF CONTINUE BACK AND FORTH WITH MULTIPLE REVISIONS, UH, TAKING TIME, UH, AWAY FROM ADDRESSING THE ISSUES.
UH, SO IF WE COULD GO TO SLIDE FIVE.
UM, SO REALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO BRINGING THIS UPDATE TO TAC, UH, THE TASK FORCE IS LOOKING FOR TAX SUPPORT OF THIS APPROACH.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR, BASED ON THE SCHEDULE I PUT UP THERE, UM, A COUPLE OF THE MEETING DATES MAY SHIFT SLIGHTLY JUST BASED ON, UH, ROOM AVAILABILITY, BUT LIKELY THE FIRST PROPOSALS WOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE DECEMBER 4TH PACK MEETING.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL, UH, PAUSE AND TAKE QUESTIONS.
SO WE'VE GOT, UH, LOOKS LIKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, WE'LL START WITH CLAYTON GREER, WHO WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM TODAY, SURPRISINGLY.
YEAH, UH, I, I THINK THAT PROBABLY THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS
[02:20:01]
ONE OF THE THRESHOLD QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS RAISED BY T I E C AS TO, UH, JURISDICTION.I THINK THAT A LOT OF THESE PRESUME, UH, A LEVEL OF AUTHORITY THAT ERCOT HAS THAT MAY NOT EXIST LEGALLY.
AND BEFORE WE, UM, SPEND A TON OF TIME DOING THIS, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THAT QUESTION ANSWERED AS TO WHETHER ERCOT ACTUALLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THIS ON, UH, ON A BROAD BASIS ACROSS THE MARKET THAT THAT WASN'T RHETORICAL, BY THE WAY.
AND, UH, UH, CLAYTON, AND YEAH, I THINK THAT CAME UP AT THE, THE TASK FORCE MEETING YESTERDAY AS WELL.
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY FROM, FROM ERCOT LEGAL ON THE CALL, BUT I WILL, UH, TAKE THAT COMMENT BACK TO AGAIN.
AND I, UH, SO I, I, MY, I GUESS MY POINT BEING THAT, UM, A LOT OF THESE ISSUES I THINK ARE ABOVE OUR PAY GRADE AND MAY BE BETTER HANDLED AT THE COMMISSION UNDER A RULEMAKING TYPE, UH, STRUCTURE.
UM, I KNOW THAT THEY'LL PROBABLY APPRECIATE ANY WORK THAT WE CAN GET KNOCKED OUT AT THE TASK FORCE LEVEL TO TRY TO HELP FRAME THE ISSUES, UM, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS HOPING THAT WE MAYBE ACCOMPLISH YESTERDAY, BUT IT WAS, I, I DIDN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE WE REALLY GOT THE ISSUES FRAMED VERY WELL.
YOU KNOW, I, I WILL JUST SAY, AND AGAIN, UM, UH, I, WELL, I DO SEE DAVIDA HAS, HAS JUST JOINED, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ERCOT LEGAL ENTIRELY, BUT THAT IS IT.
I I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ERCOT LEGAL AGREES THAT, UH, ERCO DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY IN THIS AREA.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING SOMETHING FORMAL ON THAT.
AND, AND DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT OPPOSED, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I, I THINK THAT ALL THESE ARE REAL PROBLEMS. I JUST, UH, MY CONCERN IS THAT I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE MAY WIND UP JUST OUT OF THE MATTER OF EASE TARGETING TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OR A CERTAIN TYPE OF CUSTOMER, CERTAIN TYPE OF LOAD, AND NOT, UM, APPLY THIS.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT ERCOT HAS APPLIED THIS BROADLY ACROSS THE MARKET IN A, UH, NON-DISCRIMINATORY FASHION.
SO THAT I, THAT I AGREE WITH AND, AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVE FORWARD.
I JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED, I THINK THEY NEED TO BE ANSWERED REALLY BEFORE WE COME UP WITH A LOT OF CONCLUSIONS.
UH, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE FROM ERCOT LEGAL IN THE ROOM.
AND, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I THINK I'D RATHER PUNT THAT CONVERSATION TO, UH, THE TASK FORCE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, RATHER THAN TAKING IT UP HERE.
CLIFF, THEY'RE ON THE, HAS A COMMENT.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO DAVITA THEN REAL QUICK.
AND THEN, UH, WE'LL JUMP BACK OVER TO MARTHA HENSON.
AND, AND BEING MINDFUL OF WHAT I JUST HEARD, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF, BUT YES, THE BRIEF RESPONSE IS THAT ERCOT IS OF THE OPINION THAT WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENACT, UM, THE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IN THE, IN THE SUITE.
UM, IN, IN, TO KEEP IT SHORT, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROVISIONS IN PUR THE TALK ABOUT T'S AUTHORITY.
ITS DELEGATED AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO, UM, COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE CAN PUT IN PLACE.
AND THOSE WITH RESPECT TO RELIABILITY ARE VERY BROAD.
AND BASED ON THAT, AND GIVEN OUR STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS WHEN EVERY ANYBODY IS, UM, THREATENING THE RELIABILITY OF THE BULK ELECTRIC SYSTEM.
OF COURSE, THAT AUTHORITY IS LIMITED TO WHAT IS REASONABLE AND TARGETED, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO PROVIDE.
ALL RIGHT, MARTHA, THANKS, CLIFF.
SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I ACTUALLY REALLY APPRECIATE THE PLAN THAT ERCOT HAS PUT TOGETHER FOR THIS.
THAT GIVES US SOME STRUCTURE OVER THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS ON WHAT TO FOCUS ON AND WHEN, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT AT THE TASK FORCE MEETING YESTERDAY, AND ALSO WHAT THE ROLE OF TAC WILL BE IN THIS EFFORT.
AND I KNOW AG EXPLAINED THAT THE INTENT IS TO HAVE, I THINK CONCEPTS, UH, BROUGHT TO TAC FOR DIRECTION SINCE TAC CAN VOTE AND OBVIOUSLY THE TASK FORCE CAN'T.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, IT STRIKES ME THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS AND THE BEST FORCE IN R T C IS THAT TO ME, I THINK BEST AND R T C WERE INITIATIVES THAT WERE BROADLY SUPPORTED BY STAKEHOLDERS OUT AT THE OUTSET, OR THEY CAME FROM SOME DIRECTIVE BY THE COMMISSION.
AND THIS FEELS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TO ME, AND ALSO I'VE SEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED AND ARTICULATED VERBALLY THAT INDICATE TO ME THERE ARE GONNA BE SOME STRONG DISAGREEMENTS WITHIN CERTAIN SEGMENTS ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCEPTS THAT ARE PRESENTED OR HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE REVISION REQUEST.
[02:25:01]
ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT'S PROPOSED HERE.I GUESS IT DAWNED ON ME SINCE YESTERDAY'S CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, ERCOT INDICATED THAT IT WOULD TAKE, UH, TAKE THE FEEDBACK FROM TAC ON THESE CONCEPTS AND TRANSLATE THOSE INTO REVISIONS TO THE REVISION REQUESTS.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE COULD BE THINGS THAT TAC VOTES ON THAT ERCOT STAFF DOESN'T ACTUALLY AGREE WITH.
AND I'M, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER TODAY, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT SOME MORE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY ERCOT WOULD HAVE A VOICE OF THEIR OWN IN THIS PROCESS THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TAC OPINION THAT'S, THAT'S GIVEN ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND I'M NOT SURE YET HOW WE WOULD RECONCILE THAT.
SO, COREY, YOU'RE GIVING ME A WEIRD LOOK.
IF, IF ERCOT IS GONNA TAKE THE TAC OPINION AND TRANSLATE THOSE INTO COMMENTS ON THE REVISION, BUT ERCOT ITSELF HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM WHAT TAC RECOMMENDED.
HOW, HOW DOES ALL THAT GET RECONCILED AT THE END? WELL, I, I, I'LL DEFER TO AG AND DAVITA, BUT WE HAD SIMILAR ISSUE IN R T C AND BEST FORCE.
'CAUSE EVEN WITH THAT, THAT HIGHER DIRECTION, THAT BROAD SUPPORT, THERE WERE STILL LOTS OF DIFFERING OPINIONS OF, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO GET FROM A TO B, BUT THERE'S 50 DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT.
AND ALL 50 OF THOSE HAD THEIR DIFFERENT CHAMPIONS.
AND SO THERE WERE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO TAC TO SAY, WE KNOW THE END GOAL, WE WANT TO GET TO, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY OF DOING THAT? AND ATTACK VOTE ALLOWED US TO CLEAR THE DECK AS BEST WE COULD, AND THEN ERCOT WOULD WORK WITH THE CHAMPIONS OF THOSE THINGS TO SAY, BASED ON THAT TAC DIRECTIVE, WHAT'S THE BEST, CLEANEST, MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DRAFT LANGUAGE TO PUT INTO COMMENTS TO 1,007 OR 10 14 OF THOSE NPRS TO ACHIEVE THAT.
AND SO OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD THE ERCOT STAMP ON THEM IN THE FORM OF, YOU KNOW, THE WORDS THAT WERE CHOSEN, BUT THE, THAT WAS WITH THE TAC DIRECTION OF THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT, THIS IS WHAT TAC WANTS THESE NPRS TO BECOME.
ERCOT HELPED FACILITATE DRAFTING THOSE COMMENTS TO DO THAT.
SO I THINK IN THAT RESPECT, L F L T F WILL LOOK THE SAME.
NOW, MAYBE WE HAVE MORE ISSUES COME UP BECAUSE IF THERE'S A LOT MORE VOICES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, OPPOSED TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OR IN SOME SPONSORS ALL OF THE ASPECTS OF IT, WE MIGHT HAVE A LOT MORE TACK VOTES.
BUT THE, THE MECHANICS WOULD BE THE SAME THING THAT IF, IF TWO THIRDS OF TAX SAY THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT, THAT'S KIND OF QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE COMMENTS WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT WOULD GET DRAFTED, UH, WITH ERCOT, ERCOT HELPED TO DRAFT THE LANGUAGE.
NOW IF, TO YOUR POINT, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE SO, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THE, OUT OF THE RANGE OF WHAT ERCOT WOULD SUPPORT, AND THEN WE WOULD HELP DRAFT THE COMMENTS TO ACHIEVE THE T DIRECTIVE, YES, THE ERCOT OPINION OR A SEPARATE SET OF DISTINCT ERCOT COMMENTS ABOUT HOW WE THINK LANGUAGE COULD BE BETTER.
BUT I, I THINK, THINK BECAUSE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO GET TO THE BEST OPTION, COMPROMISE IS GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, RIDDLED THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS IT WAS WITH BEST FORCE IN R T C.
SO I, I, RIGHT, I, I GUESS MAYBE JUST TO BE A LITTLE MORE, UH, DISCREET ABOUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY, I THINK THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE, YOU KNOW, UH, THERE'S JUST A COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO A CERTAIN CONCEPT.
I'M JUST GONNA THROW OUT AN EXAMPLE.
VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH PROVISIONS FOR LARGE LOADS AND TAX SAYS, NO, THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE SET OF REQUIREMENTS.
WE KNOW ERCOT THINKS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND SO JUST, WE DON'T HAVE TO SOLVE THIS TODAY.
BUT I JUST WANNA THINK ABOUT HOW THAT ULTIMATELY GETS RESOLVED AND IN, INTO A FORMAT THAT, YOU KNOW, MOVES ON FROM TAC FORWARD.
YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY THEN IN THAT SITUATION, WE'RE BACK TO COMMENTS.
MUCH LIKE WE'VE HAD COMMENTS ON NORE 2 45 COMMENTS ON N P R 1186.
THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD COME BACK TO BE, TO WHERE IT WOULD BE A SET OF COMMENTS PRESENTED TO P R S TECH, THE BOARD, AND ONTO THE P U C JUST TO SEE WHAT THE WILL OF THE MARKET IS.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LARGE FLEXIBLE O TASK FORCE AG? ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD? NO, UH, NOTHING ELSE FROM ME.
[13. RTC+B Task Force Report (Vote)]
NEXT UP WE'VE GOT, UH, THE UPDATE FROM OUR R T C PLUS B TASK FORCE.SO MATT WAS TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS ONE.
SO I HAD FIVE SLIDES TO RUN THROUGH THIS MORNING.
UH, WANTED TO GIVE A REFRESHER TO ANYONE THAT MISSED THE KICKOFF MEETING.
KIND OF A HOW WE'RE TACKLING THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE, UH, AND WHERE OUR FOCUS IS.
WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 8TH.
UH, WE DID GO THROUGH THE PURPOSE AND APPROACH.
WHAT I DID IS DECONSTRUCTED A LITTLE BIT OF THE, UM, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT THING, THE, THIS IS ON TAPE TOO.
[02:30:01]
YOU APPROVED THE CHARTER, PULLING BACK THE CHARTER AND SAYING HERE'S WHAT WE MEAN IN TERMS OF MORE DETAIL.SO IT'S KIND OF WALKING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THAT.
THEN WE PAUSED AND SPENT TWO HOURS, UH, WHERE DAVE MAGIO HELPED PROVIDE A REFRESHER OF THE REAL-TIME CO OPTIMIZATION KEY PRINCIPLES N P R 1007 THROUGH 14.
HERE'S THAT, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
UH, AND THEN A DEEP DIVE ON SINGLE MODEL BY KEN RAGSDALE.
SO THE IDEA IS TO GET ALL THE SCOPE IN FRONT OF PEOPLE AGAIN.
AND THEN WE TOOK NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR, AND THAT WAS DAVID KEY FROM C P SS ENERGY AND KEN MCINTYRE FROM PLUS POWER.
UH, KEN REACHED OUT LAST WEEK AND SAID HE WON'T BE ABLE TO SERVE.
UM, SO AT THIS POINT, DAVID KEY IS THE CANDIDATE FOR VICE CHAIR, AND THEN WE HAD A STATE OF CHARGE DISCUSSION FOR R T C.
UH, SO S MORTY OPENED UP WITH A WHITE PAPER AND THAT HAD BEEN POSTED A WEEK BEFORE.
IS THE IDEA, WALKING THROUGH THE MECHANICS OF WHAT THAT STATE OF CHARGE CONCEPT LOOKS LIKE? UH, THE WAY KO'S TRYING TO TACKLE THIS IS TO LOOK AT THE STATE OF CHARGE WITH ALL THESE PARAMETERS SO THAT WE DON'T GET CAUGHT IN THE DURATION HOLE OR GET CAUGHT IN THESE DIFFERENT PIECES.
IT'S MECHANICALLY, WE NEED THE VENDOR TO START DEVELOPING AN OPTIMIZATION.
AND THE WAY THAT WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT STATE OF CHARGE CAN BE HANDLED IN A LOT OF WAYS, BUT THERE'S KEY INPUTS AND KEY OUTPUTS AND WE CAN PARAMETERIZE THINGS IN THE MIDDLE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO CONTAIN THAT RISK BY PARAMETERIZING AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND GETTING THAT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE.
UH, SO THE NEXT TWO R T C B T F MEETINGS ARE DEDICATED TO THAT STATE OF CHARGE CONCEPT.
UM, AND I I WILL SAY I KNOW I HAD COMMITTED LAST WEEK IN AN EMAIL THAT WE'RE GONNA SEND OUT THE DRAFT, UM, PROTOCOL LANGUAGE BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
WHAT WE'RE HAVING IS WE'RE, WE'RE REPURPOSING R T C MEETINGS FOR 1186 MEETINGS.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUTTA THAT CYCLE AND BREAK ONTO, UM, FOCUSING ON R T C.
AND SO WHAT WE HAD, UM, FOR R O S NEXT WEEK FROM TWO O'CLOCK TO FIVE O'CLOCK, HOPEFULLY NOT TILL FIVE, IS WE DO PLAN TO HAVE SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE AS WELL AS THAT CONCEPT WHITE PAPER AND ANY MARKET FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AT THAT POINT.
AND SO THEN ALSO IN NOVEMBER 1ST WILL BE AFTER THE W M S MEETINGS TO ALSO DO THE, UM, STATE OF CHARGE.
AND SO REALLY THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS GROUP IS TO PRESENT CONCEPTS AND ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DESIGN R T C, WE HAVE 98% OF IT.
THAT LAST 2% IS A BIG DEAL THOUGH.
AND IS THE, WHAT DOES THE ROADMAP LOOK LIKE TO GET TOWARDS, UM, THAT STATED CHARGE PIECE.
AND SO ONE OF THE LESSONS LEARNED WE HAD FROM R T C T F WAS THE IDEA OF ERCOT GETS A WHITE PAPER OR SOMETHING OUT THERE IN THE FIELD TO PLAY.
YOU HAVE ANOTHER MEETING TO TALK ABOUT COMMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES, WHO HAS A BETTER WAY TO, YOU KNOW, GET THIS DONE.
AND THEN IF WE GET STUCK TO ESCALATE IT UP TO TAC WE'RE NOT GONNA NECESSARILY USE THAT FOR STATE OF CHARGE BECAUSE WE HAVE A REVISION PROCESS RUNNING IN PARALLEL TO THIS.
BUT WE WILL USE THESE AS DEEP DIVE MEETINGS TO GET INTO THE DETAILS, UH, TO HELP CLARIFY ITEMS. AND THEN THE LAST PIECE IS JUST WHAT I VOICED OVER A SECOND AGO IS THE IDEA OF PENS DOWN.
WE'RE NOT OPENING UP R T C DESIGN, IT'S THE IDEA OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT.
SO NPRS 1007 THROUGH 1013 OR THAT IT'S 550 PAGES OF PROTOCOL LANGUAGE.
SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THAT, IT'S A REMINDER TO GO BACK TO 13 PAGES OF KEY PRINCIPLES.
THAT'S JUST WHAT WE'RE CHANGING AND WHY.
ON THE BATTERY SIDE, WE DID SOMETHING SIMILAR FOR THE BATTERY ENERGY TASK FORCE.
WE GAVE A, UM, WHERE THE DISCUSSION POINTS AND POWERPOINTS WERE TO HELP DEVELOP N P R 10 14.
AND THEN THE LAST THING AGAIN IS THE STATE OF CHARGE ACCOUNTING CONCEPT.
UM, WE, WE ARE KEEPING THAT IN A BOX.
IT'S THE IDEA OF ERCOT HAS SIZE, WHAT IT'S BRINGING FORWARD IN TERMS OF THE SCED PIECE, THE RUCK PIECE, AND DOVE DAY AHEAD MARKET PIECE.
AND TO SAY THIS IS WHAT THE VENDOR HAS SAID THEY CAN DO ALREADY WITHIN THIS THREE AND A HALF YEAR PROGRAM.
AND WE NEED TO TRY AND STAY IN THAT BOX AND NOT OPEN UP A NEW, UH, BROAD NEW CONCEPT.
DO YOU WANT TO STOP HERE ERIC, OR JUST KEEP GOING? NO, UH, GO AHEAD.
YOU CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS NOW.
SO WE'VE GOT CLAYTON GREER AND THEN ERIC GOFF
UM, ARE YOU GONNA GO TIME CERTAIN ON THAT ON THE MEETINGS OR ARE YOU GONNA GO RIGHT AFTER THEY FINISH? THEY, WE WERE GONNA GO RIGHT, WE ARE GONNA GO TIME CERTAIN AT TWO O'CLOCK FOR BOTH OF THOSE MEETINGS.
UNLESS EVERYONE HERE SAYS, DON'T WASTE MY DAY, JUST MAKE IT RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER ONE.
I PREFER TIME CERTAIN 'CAUSE I KNOW THEM, PEOPLE WILL KNOW WHEN TO BE IN PLACE AND READY TO ROCK, BUT I'M OPENING, I GOT ONE THUMBS UP.
UM, WHAT RISKS DO WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENTING R T C ON SCHEDULE AND HOW ARE WE MANAGING THOSE RISKS? UM, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I, I COULD DO IT NOW AND I CAN DO IT AT THE END.
UH, IF I WERE TO, MAYBE WHAT I NEED TO SERVE UP IS THE CRITICAL PATH THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO SEE.
THE CRITICAL PATH WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW IS IF YOU WERE TO WALK OVER TO TAYLOR, THERE ARE PEOPLE MEETING AND GOING THROUGH
[02:35:01]
THE M M S SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS TO GET TO OUR VENDOR AND THAT M M S PIECE IS KINDA LEADING THE CHARGE 'CAUSE IT'S SCARED R DAY AHEAD MARKET AND THEN ALSO SOME SETTLEMENTS FOLKS ARE TALKING AND SOME E M S FOLKS ARE TALKING AND THAT GROUP IS TRYING TO BUTTON UP THOSE M M S REQUIREMENTS TO GET TO OUR VENDOR IN OCTOBER SO THAT THEY CAN START TO WORK ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN GET INTO THE DEVELOPMENT STREAM IN 2024, WHICH IS MORE THAN A YEAR OF DEVELOPMENT BEFORE ERCOT EVEN GETS CODE BACK TO START TESTING IN 2025.SO OUR CRITICAL PATH ON THE STATE OF CHARGE IS WE'RE GONNA STILL GIVE THEM SOME REQUIREMENTS, BUT SAY, WAIT ANOTHER 60 DAYS TO GET THE STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENTS ALSO ON TOP OF IT AS A DELTA AND THEN MARCH FORWARD WITH THAT.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DELAY TO R T C, IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET THE REQUIREMENTS SET AND WE'RE WILLING TO PARAMETERIZE AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO THEN DEFER SOME OF THE POLICY DISCUSSIONS SO WE CAN GET THE MECHANICS TO OUR VENDOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
SO AGAIN, MY CRITICAL PATH IS BOARD APPROVAL OF THAT R T C STATE OF CHARGE N P R BY THE END OF THE YEAR SO THAT OUR VENDOR CAN MOVE FORWARD.
AND THERE'LL BE PARAMETERS ONLY.
YOU THINK? PARAMETERS ONLY, YES.
I, YEAH, I'LL CONTINUE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.
I, UM, BECAUSE I, I REALLY THINK IT'S JUST ESSENTIAL THAT WE STAY ON SCHEDULE.
UM, THIS HAS SUCH ENORMOUS BENEFIT FOR CONSUMERS, UM, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES.
UH, THE ONE OTHER THING WE'RE TRYING TO BE SENSITIVE TO IS 1186.
WE, THE DRAFT LANGUAGE WE WERE PREPARING TO RELEASE ACTUALLY HAS THE 1186 LANGUAGE WOVEN IN WITH THE RTCS JUST SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT GOES AWAY VERSUS WHAT STAYS.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO RECONCILE EVERYTHING SO PEOPLE AREN'T TRYING TO TAKE TWO COMPLICATED CONCEPTS AND RECONCILE 'EM IN THEIR MIND.
WE'RE ACTUALLY PUTTING IT INTO A REVISION LANGUAGE THAT YOU'LL NEVER REALLY SEE, RIGHT? THE N P R WILL NOT LOOK LIKE THIS, BUT AT LEAST YOU CAN RECONCILE, OH, HERE'S WHAT 1186 DID.
THIS IS GOES AWAY, BUT THIS IS WHAT R T C DOES.
SO WE'RE HOPING TO TRY AND KEEP THAT MOVING ALONG.
OKAY, MAMA SAID ROME IS NOT BUILT IN A DAY.
THERE'S A LOT TO TACKLE ON THIS ONE.
AND SO THREE YEARS FEELS REALLY FAR AWAY AND REALLY CLOSE AT THE SAME TIME.
SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE REALLY BIG, SOME OF THEM ARE SMALL.
UM, BUT THE FIRST HALF OF THAT LIST IS WHEN WE GOT DONE WITH THE R T C TASK FORCE.
THERE IS A PARKING LOT OF STUFF.
THE SECOND HALF IS ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT WE'VE BEEN TABULATING AS OTHER NPRS OR THINGS HAVE COME UP AND WE KNOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS GET TO A POSITION AS WE START NEXT YEAR IS WHAT ARE THE NOW PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW IS STATE OF CHARGE FOR R T C.
THE 2024 PROBLEMS ARE, WHAT DO WE NEED TO GET INTO MARKET PARTICIPANT HANDS THAT YEAR? YOU KNOW, THE INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS.
YOU ALSO PROBABLY WANT SOME OF THE, UH, POLICY TYPE DECISIONS LIKE THE PARAMETERS FOR AS PROXY OFFERS ON THE FIRST ONE, START TO GIVE THOSE HARDER POLICY THINGS THAT'LL TAKE MONTHS TO GET THROUGH AND THEY'RE THE ONES TO GET THROUGH.
SO WE'RE HOPING TO KIND OF LIKE WE DID FOR R T C IS STAGE THESE DIFFERENT PIECES ON A ROADMAP TO SAY, WELL LET'S SOLVE THIS WITH THIS, WITH THIS.
SO IT BUILDS ON EACH OTHER TO GET TO A SOLUTION AND NOT JUST NOT JUST COME IN AND TRY TO TACKLE EVERYTHING AT ONCE.
SO WE'RE GONNA KIND OF RAMP INTO THOSE ACTIVITIES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE TASK FORCE.
'CAUSE SOMEONE CAN ASK WHAT DOES CUTOVER LOOK LIKE IN 2026? WE CAN GET STUCK ON THAT FOR A LONG TIME.
IT'S NOT THE TIME FOR ALL THE ANSWERS.
SO, UH, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WHAT DO WE NEED FROM TAC TODAY? UH, WE ARE ASKING TO CONFIRM THE LEADERSHIP FOR, UH, MYSELF AND MR. DAVID KEY.
UH, ALSO THE AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE R T C STATE OF CHARGE.
UH, AGAIN, IF THINGS GO WELL, THIS IS WHAT THE, WITH NO SPECIAL MEETINGS, THIS IS THE PATH TO GET THERE.
IT'S, UH, SEVEN MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 8TH, OCTOBER 5TH.
OCTOBER 12TH WOULD BE THE FIRST, UM, P R S INITIAL REVIEW OF THE N P R.
THEN AGAIN IN NOVEMBER WE GET ANOTHER ART TASK FORCE CUT AT IT.
THEN WE HAVE THE P R S APPROVAL IN NOVEMBER.
IF THINGS ARE GETTING WEIRD, MAYBE IN NOVEMBER WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING, BUT ULTIMATELY TO GET TO TAC ON DECEMBER 4TH AND BOARD ON THE 19TH.
SO THAT'S IS IT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT? YOU'RE GETTING OFF EASY TODAY, MATT.
ALL RIGHT, SO ANYHOW, THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT BEING SAID, UH, YOU'VE SEE THE LEADERSHIP THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT FORTH BY THE TASK FORCE.
SO, UH, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO, IF POSSIBLE, IS, UH, MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF MATT MORENOS AS CHAIR AND DAVID KEY'S VICE-CHAIR.
AND IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS TO PUTTING THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT, THAT WOULD BE WELL LIKED.
ALRIGHT, NEXT UP, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE ERCOT REPORTS.
SO WE'VE GOT, UH, THE FIRST REPORTS ARE 2023 UNDER FREQUENCY LOAD SHED SURVEY RESULTS.
SO WE'VE GOT JAKE TEED UP FOR THAT.
UH, JAKE, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, TIM ONE, THE PANELISTS CONFIRM THEY CAN HEAR ME? YES, SIR.
[02:40:01]
ALL RIGHT, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME THANK ALL THE ENTITIES INVOLVED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2023 ERCOT U F L S SURVEY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE SUCCESSFUL SURVEY DATA FOR YOUR REVIEW.FOR A QUICK BACKGROUND ON THE SUMMARY ON ERCOT NODAL OPERATING GUIDES REGARDING U F L S SURVEYS.
WE CAN SEE THE ERCOT NODAL OPERATING GUIDES SECTION 2.6 0.1 SUBSECTION ONE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDER FREQUENCY LOAD SHEDDING AND THE LIST AND LISTS THE REQUIRED LOAD SHED, UH, AMOUNTS.
WE CAN ALSO SEE A REFERENCE TO SUBSECTION TWO BELOW IT.
UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PRESENT THOSE PARTICIPATING ENTITIES, THE PREVIOUS DATES FOR THE SURVEY AND THE SUBSEQUENT REPORTING PRESENTATIONS TO FOLLOW.
WE CAN SEE WE'RE ON THE FINAL PRESENTATION OF SEPTEMBER, UH, 26 REPORTED TO TECH.
THE OVERALL RESULTS ARE REFLECTED BELOW.
WE CAN SEE THAT ACCORDING TO THE 3 9 5 U F L S REQUIREMENT, ALL THREE STAGES WERE SATISFIED AT 7.06, 18.93 AND 30.95%.
THE ERCOT LOAD OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY WAS 51,290 MEGAWATTS.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S, UH, SURVEY FOR COMPARISON.
REVISIONS FROM APPROVED NOGA 2 2 6 REGARDING THE OPTION TO IMPLEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL ANTI.
SO U F L S STAGES IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BUT NOT REQUIRED ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 TOS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE LOAD RELIEF REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AND INSTALL U F L S STAGES BY UTILIZING LOAD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UTILIZED TO MEET THE 58.9 AND 58.5 HERTZ STANDARD U F L S, UH, STATED.
WE CAN ALSO SEE A REFERENCE TO THE NOG, UH, SECTION TWO BELOW FOR YOUR REVIEW.
UM, ERCOT COMPLIANCE APPRECIATES ALL THE ENTITIES PARTICIPATION IN THE 2023 U F L S SURVEY.
UH, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF ENTITIES THAT CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE SINCE, UH, THIS IS OUR LAST PRESENTATION OF THIS U F L S SURVEY.
UH, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT NOW, BUT COME UP WITH ONE LATER, UH, I WOULD, UH, REQUEST THAT YOU SEND AN EMAIL TO COMPLIANCE@ERCOT.COM.
ALL RIGHT, THANKS VERY MUCH, JAKE.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR JAKE ON THE U F L S SURVEY RESULTS? OKAY, SEE YOU DONE.
[14. ERCOT Reports]
NEXT STEP, WE'VE GOT OUR SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2023 EEA TWO EVENT OVERVIEW.DAN, I THINK YOU'RE TAKING, TAKING THAT ONE WELL, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION TODAY, I'M GONNA DO IT FROM UP HERE.
SO NED AND BOB DON'T HURT THEIR NECKS, UM, HAVING TO TURN AROUND.
SO, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST KIND OF PROVIDE A VERBAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT WENT ON ON THAT EVENING, UM, AND THEN, UH, LET YOU ASK, ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, AS YOU ASK QUESTIONS, I'D ASK YOU TO KEEP IN MIND THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE I MAY NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT BECAUSE WE DON'T ALL COULD EASILY DRIFT INTO E C I I INFORMATION.
AND SO, UH, DON'T ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THAT.
UM, SO IN THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 6TH, ERCOT ISSUED AN EEA LEVEL TWO AND ENTERED INTO EMERGENCY OPERATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE RELIABILITY OF THE GRID.
ROTATING OUTAGES WEREN'T NEEDED.
UM, THE LOW RESERVE CONDITION WAS DUE TO A VARIETY OF THINGS, INCLUDING VERY HIGH DEMAND.
WE HAD A NEW ALL TIME, UH, SEPTEMBER PEAK ON THAT DAY, UH, BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TEMPERATURES.
UM, WE HAD RELATIVELY LOW WIND OUTPUT.
AND THEN WE GOT INTO THE END OF DAY SOLAR RAMP, UH, WHERE THE SOLAR WENT AWAY.
UM, AS THE SUN WENT DOWN, IT RESULTED IN LESS GENERATION IN WEST TEXAS, UM, THAT RESULTED IN INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES IN WEST NORTH AND KIND OF CENTRAL TEXAS.
EVERYTHING NORTH OF THIS TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT, UM, TO MEET THE, SO THERE WAS BASICALLY WE WE'RE GETTING INTO WHERE WE HAD VERY LOW RESERVES NORTH OF THAT CONSTRAINT TO MEET THE VERY HIGH DEMANDS IN THAT AREA.
UM, SOME ADDITIONAL RESOURCE OUTPUT WAS AVAILABLE IN THE AREA SOUTH OF SAN ANTONIO TO HELP
[02:45:01]
SERVE THAT DEMAND.UH, BUT IF WE USE THAT OUTPUT, IT WOULD RESULT IN A SEVERE OVERLOAD OF A TRANSMISSION ELEMENT IN THAT AREA.
THIS HIGH RISK TRANSMISSION LIMITATION CAUSED ERCOT TO NEED TO MANUALLY RESTRICT THE FLOW OF, OF, UH, GENERATION FROM SOUTH TEXAS TO THE REST OF THE GRID.
AND WE DID THAT IN SUCH A WAY THAT APPROPRIATELY BALANCED THE RISK FROM THE TRANSMISSION OVERLOAD AGAINST THE RISK OF NEEDING TO ENTER E E A, UH, TO ACCESS THE ADDITIONAL RESERVES.
SO AT THE LOWEST POINT, B R C APPEARED TO BE 2104 MEGAWATTS, UM, AS ERCOT REDUCED GENERATION IN SOUTH TEXAS.
UM, TO ALLEVIATE THIS SEVERE TRANSMISSION OVERLOAD AS IT WAS REQUIRED TO DO TO PROTECT SYSTEM RELIABILITY, GRID FREQUENCY BEGAN TO DROP AND IT GOT DOWN TO A, A LOW OF 59.77 HERTZ.
UM, WITH OVER 2000 MEGAWATTS OF OPERATING RESERVES, FREQUENCIES SHOULD NOT HAVE DROPPED TO THIS LEVEL, UH, BECAUSE THE REQUIRED PRIMARY FREQUENCY RESPONSE FROM MANY UNLOADED GENERATION SHOULD HAVE INCREASED THOSE UNITS OUTPUT TO MAINTAIN FREQUENCY.
ERCOT OPERATORS RIGHTFULLY CONSIDERED THIS P R C VALUE TO BE SUSPECT AND TOOK ACTION BASED ON THE SYSTEM FREQUENCY.
ERCOT OPERATORS, UH, MITIGATED THE DROPPING FREQUENCY BY ENTERING DIRECTLY INTO E A TWO TO ACCESS ADDITIONAL OPERATING RESERVES, SPECIFICALLY DEPLOYING LOAD RESOURCES THAT PROVIDE AN ANCILLARY SERVICE CALLED RESPONSIVE RESERVE.
UH, THE RELEASE OF THE LOAD RESOURCES WORKED EFFECTIVELY.
UM, ERCOT IS GOING TO BE SENDING RFIS TO THE RESOURCES WHOSE REPORTING OF THEIR AVAILABLE CAPABILITY MAY HAVE LED TO THE MISLEADING P R C VALUE AND MAY RECOMMEND, IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD N P R UH, 10 85 THAT WAS INTENDED TO IMPROVE THE, THE REPORTING OF THE DATA THAT WE NEED FOR P R C.
WE MAY HAVE TO RECOMMEND ANOTHER N P R R TO STRENGTHEN THOSE REPORTING ISSUES.
UM, AFTER IMPLEMENTING E TWO ERCOT IMPLEMENTED A TRANSMISSION SWITCHING ACTION THAT HAS BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH REDUCED THE LOADING AND ALLOWED GENERATION, MORE GENERATION FROM SOUTH TEXAS TO, UH, TO BE INCREASED.
THIS ALLOWED US TO RESTORE THE RESERVES AND ALLOWED ERCOT TO EXIT E E A QUICKLY.
ERCOT IMPLEMENTED THE SWITCHING ACTION AGAIN THE FOLLOWING DAY, UH, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO, TO, TO, SO, AND WE AVOIDED THE NEED TO CURTAIL AS MUCH GENERATION ON THAT NEXT DAY.
UH, AND WE'RE, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO USE THAT AS NEEDED.
UH, AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE ALSO GONNA WORK WITH THE TRANSMISSION OWNERS IN THE AREA TO LOOK FOR OTHER SOLUTIONS, UH, THAT MAY PARTIALLY MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE TRANSMISSION LIMITATION PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE NEW TRANSMISSION PROJECT FROM SOUTH TEXAS TO SAN ANTONIO THAT THE BOARD APPROVED IN THE, IN THE LAST MEETING PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT CAN GET IMPLEMENTED.
SO WE'LL, WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR OTHER OPTIONS.
AND SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE WITH THE CAVEAT I MENTIONED EARLIER.
SO WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF CARDS IN, IN THE QUEUE HERE, AND I WANT FOLKS TO BE MINDFUL.
I, I THINK, UM, WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE AS FAR AS TAX CONCERNED.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS IN TERMS OF WHERE WE THINK MAYBE SOME, UH, ISSUES COULD, OR, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS THAT WE IDENTIFY COULD BE IMPROVED.
AND SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A REFERRAL TO ROSS TO TAKE A LOOK AT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT OCCURRED DURING THIS TIME PERIOD.
UM, AND IF THERE ARE ANY, ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN MAKE, UM, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING WHETHER WE HAD THE RIGHT THRESHOLD FOR THE EA TRIGGER, YOU KNOW, THE P R C ISSUE AS YOU IDENTIFIED AND SO FORTH.
SO, UH, SO WHAT WE'LL REFER THAT TO, UH, KATIE AND CHASE TO PICK UP THERE.
UH, SO THAT BEING SAID, GIVEN THE QUEUE WE HAVE, WE'VE GOT BILL TO START WITH SETH COCHRAN, CLAYTON GREER, AND THEN, UH, NED BONKOWSKI.
ON THE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT, ONCE UPON A TIME WE WOULD HAVE RULES IN PLACE WHERE IF WE WERE IN A, NEAR AN E E A OR TIGHT CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF WHERE WE'RE WE'RE AT WITH P R C, WE WOULD EITHER IGNORE TRANSMISSION CONGESTION OR WE WOULD, UH, OPERATE AT LIKE, SAY THE EMERGENCY LIMIT OR EXTEND THE TIME BEFORE ACTION WAS TAKEN.
I JUST, WE, THAT WAS KIND OF A CONTROVERSIAL THING AT THE TIME WHEN WE MADE THAT CHANGE.
I THINK IT WAS A NERC IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ERCOT BELIEVES NERC, THE NERC STANDARD REQUIRED, BUT I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT.
AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS REGARDING THE, UM, INTEGRITY OF P R C
[02:50:01]
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY INDICATIONS ON WHERE DO YOU THINK THOSE ISSUES RESIDE IN TERMS OF QUALITY OF, UM, THE P O C DATA THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, WHICH IS YEAH, SO PRETTY CRUCIAL.I'LL, I'LL, I'LL DO THE SECOND ONE FIRST.
UH, THE, THE, I I, I THINK, AT LEAST FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR, AND OF COURSE LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GONNA BE ISSUING RFIS AND WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION BY THE TIME THIS GOES TO ROSS, BUT I'D, I'D, I'D KINDA LUMP THE INTO THREE CATEGORIES.
WE HAD, UM, UM, PROB SOME, SOME JUST, UH, HSLS THAT WERE PERHAPS NOT CORRECT UNITS COULDN'T ACTUALLY GET THERE.
UM, THAT WAS SOME OF THE, THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE ADDRESSED IN, IN P R 10 85.
UM, THERE WAS ANOTHER CA CLASS THAT WAS, WE, THE P R C WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT, UH, FROM THOSE UNITS THAT WERE CURTAILED BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE IN, IN SOUTH TEXAS, BUT THEN THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TO FREQUENCY AND SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHY THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TO FREQUENCY.
AND THEN THE THIRD CATEGORY IS WE SEEM TO HAVE SOME BATTERIES THAT HAD RUN OUT OF STATE OF CHARGE, BUT WERE STILL TELLING US THEY HAD CAPACITY AVAILABLE.
AND SO I THINK IT WAS THOSE THREE, UH, THINGS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT SO FAR.
BUT LIKE I SAID, BY THE TIME WE GET TO ROSS, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THE, UH, RFIS BACK AND CAN, CAN FLESH THAT OUT FURTHER.
I GUESS LEMME, SORRY I DIDN'T ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUE.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS WE CAN LOOK AT THAT, BUT I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO ENFORCE THAT CONSTRAINT REGARDLESS.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SWITCHING ACTIONS.
ARE, ARE THOSE PLANS, UH, PUBLIC ON OR POSTED ON M I S NOT PUBLIC, BUT POSTED? UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE POSTED NOW OR NOT.
THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T AT THE TIME BECAUSE WE WERE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS, UM, UH, AND I I THINK THIS IS ALL PUBLIC, BUT IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, THEN FINE.
UM, I NOTICED THAT WELL, THE SHADOW PRICES ARE PUBLIC, UM, AND I NOTICED THAT THE SHADOW PRICE ON A CONSTRAINT IN QUESTION WENT UP TO THE BASE CASE, UH, WHEREAS UH, IT'S A THERMAL OVERLOAD.
SO DID THAT SWITCHING ACTION, IS THAT WHAT PERMITTED THE SHADOW PRICE TO BE MANAGED AT THE, THE BASE CASE, UH, SHADOW PRICE INSTEAD OF THE 3 45 KV THERMAL SHADOW PRICE CAP? I THINK AT, AT ONE POINT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE TRYING WAS TO IMPLEMENT A, A WHAT WOULD BE A BASE CASE OVERLOAD OR BASE CASE CONSTRAINT TO TRY TO GET, UH, SC TO MANAGE THIS SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT MANUALLY.
THAT MAY BE THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
UM, I MEAN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT 'CAUSE WE, YEAH, WE CAN TALK, YOU HAVE OPERATIONS NOTICES THAT REFER TO IT.
IT'S THE, UH, THE, THE DELLS OR THE DEMS A N FIVE.
UM, THAT'S THE ONE I'M REFERRING TO.
UM, IT'S A THERMAL OVERLOAD, BUT I NOTICED IT WAS BEING MANAGED AT THE SHADOW PRICE CAP OF THE BASE CASE.
TO THE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN, MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT MORE AT ROSS.
WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST.
UM, AND YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE COULD BE NEW CMPS THAT COME OUT, UH, AS A BRIDGE TO, BEFORE THE SAN ANTONIO PROJECT IS, IS PUT IN PLACE.
IS THAT, DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT? THOSE WOULD BE NEW.
WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS, WHETHER THAT'S A C M P OR, OR SOMETHING ELSE, UH, THAT WILL, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GONNA BE THERE, THAT NEW LINE WON'T BE THERE FOR SEVERAL MORE YEARS, OBVIOUSLY.
I SAW FREDDIE GARCIA JUMP INTO THE QUEUE.
SO I'M WONDERING IF, UH, FREDDIE, WERE YOU LOOKING TO RESPOND TO ONE ASSESS QUESTIONS? YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, SIR.
I, I WAS JUST RESPONDING ON THE C M P PIECE THAT, THAT SAID THAT, UH, QUESTION ON IT, IT, IT WASN'T, THE C M P WAS NOT POSTED AT THE TIME WE WERE CURRENTLY COORDINATING WITH THE, THE TOS ON TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, TESTED AND DO SOME STUDIES.
UM, WE WERE STILL COORDINATING WITH THEM ON GETTING THAT POSTED IS, AS DAN MENTIONED, WE ARE LOOKING AT A VARIETY OF, OF OPTIONS, UM, AND COORDINATING WITH THOSE TO THOSE TOS AS AS APPROPRIATELY.
SO, UH, WE'LL TRY TO GET ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, COORDINATED AND, AND, AND, AND UP FOR EVERYBODY, UM, ON THE I S FOR EVERYONE AS SOON AS WE CAN.
THANK YOU, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE ERCOT TRANSPARENCY.
UM, I'VE SEEN SIMILAR SITUATIONS IN OTHER ISOS AND YOU DON'T FIND OUT POSTMORTEMS LIKE THIS UNTIL MONTHS LATER.
SO I HAVE RECOGNIZE THAT ERCOT HASS BEEN GIVING US INFORMATION ALONG THE WAY AND I, I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
[02:55:01]
UH, I WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE BALANCING THE CONGESTION AGAINST THE POWER BALANCE.UM, DAN IS, WAS THAT WHENEVER YOU WERE TRYING TO MODIFY THE, UM, THE SHADOW PRICE LIMIT, THE, THE CAP, I THINK IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE TRYING TO MANAGE THE OVERLOAD OF THE, THE CONSTRAINT WITH THE POWER BALANCE, THE RISK OF THE OVERLOAD WITH THE RISK OF THE SYSTEM.
AND I THOUGHT THAT, THAT THAT SCED HANDLED THAT AUTOMATICALLY.
I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT I CAN SAY THERE.
UM, IT, SC NORMALLY DOES TRY TO BALANCE THAT, BUT WHEN IT, UH, RUNS OUT OF POWER BALANCE, THEN THE COST OF, UH, NOT BEING POWER BALANCE IS 5,000 AND THE COST OF OVERLOADING THE CONSTRAINT IS 4,500.
AND IF IN, AS WE'VE DESCRIBED IT HERE, YOU HAVE A, UM, UM, HIGH RISK TRANSMISSION LIMITATION THAT MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THAT'S PROBABLY AS FAR AS I CAN GO.
JUST SO JUST HELP ME TO WORK THE MATH.
I MEAN, SOME OF THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE PRICES ARE IN EACH OF THE ZONES, BUT, UM, OR EACH OF THE REGIONS.
BUT, UM, UH, THE POWER, THE IDEA WAS THE POWER BALANCE IS HIGHER PRICED, SO YOU'LL VIOLATE THE CONSTRAINT BEFORE YOU VIOLATE THE POWER BALANCE.
IS THAT, AM I MISSING SOMETHING? THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN THE OPTIMIZATION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE, THE POWER BALANCE IS FIVE, $5,000, $5,001 IN THE BASE CASE, UH, SHADOW PRICE CAP IS 5,000.
SO THE RIGHT, THAT WAS INTENTIONAL.
AND SO THAT WORKS FINE IF UNITS HAVE A REALLY HIGH SHIFT FACTOR.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE AS HIGH A SHIFT FACTOR, THERE MAY NOT, UM, THAT MAY HELP.
AND, UM, WE HAD SIMILAR QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THERE ARE WAYS TO HELP SCAD TO RESOLVE, UH, SITUATIONS LIKE THAT AND WOULD LIKE TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT THAT AS WE, YOU KNOW, DO THE NEXT, NEXT FEW ROUNDS OF THIS.
UM, ANOTHER, UH, THING THAT WE'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT.
AND IF, IF YOU HAVE SOME, UH, COMMENTARY ON IT TODAY, GREAT.
IF IT NEEDS TO WAIT UNTIL ROSS, THAT'S FINE TOO.
UM, BUT UNDERSTANDING HOW ERCOT, UM, CALCULATED THE AMOUNT OF GENERATION THAT NEEDED TO BE, UH, MAINLY DISPATCHED DOWN IN ORDER TO, UH, RESOLVE THAT CONSTRAINT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I MEAN, I, I, I THINK GENERALLY WE WERE TRYING TO, UH, START WITH THE ONES WITH THE HIGHEST SHIFT VECTOR ON THE CONSTRAINT AND MOVE DOWN DOING THE MATH KIND OF AUTOMATICALLY.
SO WE WOULD WELCOME A WAY TO, UM, UM, UM, FOR SC TO DO THAT MORE AUTOMATICALLY, BUT APPROPRIATELY, UM, REFLECT THE, THE RELATIVE RISKS INVOLVED.
DAN, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO TAC TODAY WITH THIS INFORMATION.
UM, THE AUGUST 17TH FREQUENCY EVENT MADE US THINK A LOT ABOUT WHAT WE ALSO SAW ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, AND SO WE WERE HOPING ERCOT COULD LOOK AND SEE IF THOSE ARE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE THREE ISSUES YOU RELATED TO P R C, UM, OR IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT AND LET, UH, THE MARKET KNOW.
WE GOT STEVE REEDY, ERIC GOFF, AND SETH COCHRAN AGAIN.
UM, AT THE P SORRY, AT, YEAH, UM, AT THE P U C TESTIMONY, UM, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO ABOUT 1500 MEGAWATTS OF H D L OVERRIDES TO, UH, HELP OUT THE TRANSMISSION.
I'M JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WAS THAT REDUCING THE OUTPUT BY 1500 MEGAWATTS OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT, UH, 1500 MEGAWATT SIZE OF GENERATION THAT WAS AFFECTED? I THINK IT'S THE SIZE OF GENERATION THAT'S AFFECTED.
BUT FREDDY, IF YOU'RE STILL ON, CAN YOU, I KNOW YOU LOOKED INTO THIS.
HEY, STEVE, CAN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I I DON'T KNOW IF I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO, YEAH, SORRY, I WASN'T, I WASN'T PARTICULARLY CLEAR.
I MEAN, LIKE, LET'S SAY THERE WERE, THERE WAS ONE RESOURCE THAT HAD AN H D L OVERRIDE AND ITS H D L WAS LOWERED FROM 150
[03:00:02]
TO A HUNDRED, WOULD YOU COUNT, WOULD THAT IN THE TOTAL BE A 50 MEGAWATTS OF H D L OVERRIDE OR YOU'D SAY 150 MEGAWATTS OF RESOURCES WERE WERE OVERRIDDEN WHEN YOU CAME UP WITH THAT 1500? I SORRY, GO AHEAD.YEAH, IT, IT WAS, IT WAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS THAT WERE REDUCED, I GUESS, AND, AND WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE TO MANAGE THE CONSTRAINT.
IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION ACCURATELY.
I MEAN, I CAN, I LOOKED, I CAN LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS AND PROVIDE SOME MORE CLARITY, BUT WE WERE TRYING TO REDUCE WHAT GENERATION THAT WAS ONLINE TO GET UNDER THE CONSTRAINT AS BEST AS WE COULD.
SO IF THERE HAD BEEN NO H D L OVERRIDES, THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A HUN UH, 1500 MEGAWATTS MORE PRODUCTION IN THE SOUTH POTENTIALLY, YES.
UH, ERIC GOFF, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE RELEVANT IN THIS SITUATION OR NOT, UM, BUT AT ROSS, UH, TO THE EXTENT IT IS, IF WE COULD ALSO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE RELEVANT TRANSMISSION ELEMENTS WERE DYNAMICALLY RATED.
THIS IS VERY, THOSE LINES ARE DYNAMICALLY RATED.
AND, AND THAT CASE, MAYBE JUST IF WE CAN LOOK INTO CONFIRMATION ABOUT HOW THE, HOW THEY'RE RATED AND, AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE CAN BE ANY IMPROVEMENTS OR FIXES ONE WAY OR THE ANOTHER.
REMEMBER, DYNAMIC RATINGS HELP DURING COOL WEATHER.
THEY MAY GO THE WRONG DIRECTION DURING HOT WEATHER.
ALL RIGHT, SETH? YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT BILL SAID.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO DURING EMERGENCY IS IGNORE DOUBLE CIRCUIT CONTINGENCY CONSTRAINTS, SO YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET MORE POWER OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT TREATING THEM AS ONE CONTINGENCY ON THE COMMON TOWER.
IS THAT SOMETHING, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER? YOU'RE YOU'RE VERY CLOSE.
UM, I WAS JUST BASICALLY SAYING, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BILL WAS TALKING ABOUT DURING EMERGENCIES IS YOU CAN IGNORE DOUBLE CIRCUIT CONTINGENCY CONSTRAINTS, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THAT WAS PART OF THE ACTIONS THAT YOU HAD UNDERTAKEN.
UM, IF YOU CAN'T, THIS IS DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE.
UNDER THE NEW E E A TRIGGER LEVELS THAT ARE COMING INTO PLACE, WOULD THIS HAVE BUMPED US INTO AN EEA THREE? BECAUSE OF THE FREQUENCY? SO THE, THE NEW EA UH, TRIGGER LEVELS ARE ONLY CHANGING THE P R C.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE CHANGING THE FREQUENCY LEVELS, AND SO, UH, PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED.
I HA I HAVE THAT IT DOES 59.8 FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME.
WELL, SO THAT ONE WAS INADVERTENTLY AND, AND, UM, LEFT OUT.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, IN, IN THIS CASE, THEY WENT TO EEA TWO, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
UNDER THE OTHER WE MIGHT'VE JUMPED EA THREE, NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED TO SHED LOAD, BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THEY DID THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE THEY COULD GO INTO EEA TWO AND WE STILL HAD LOAD RESOURCES AVAILABLE THAT WERE QUICK ENOUGH.
SO, UM, THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND REFER THIS ISSUE TO R O S.
LOOKS LIKE ERCOT IS GONNA HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DATA TO PROVIDE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
I WAS COLLECTING A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD THERE.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, WANT TO R O S TO LOOK INTO THESE SPECIFICALLY, BUT WE MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT COME UP THAT WE'D LIKE THEM TO REPORT BACK ON AS THEY'RE DOING THEIR ANALYSIS.
BUT, UM, THE ISSUES I GRABBED WAS, UH, THE E E A THRESHOLD, THE E A TRIGGER THERE.
WAS THAT APPROPRIATE? HOW WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF, UH, UNDER, UNDER THE NEW E I E E A PARADIGM? UM, P R C CALCULATIONS.
WE WANT A REVIEW OF THOSE, UM, RELAXATION OF CONSTRAINTS DURING E E A AND A REVIEW OF OTHER ACTIONS SUCH AS CMPS BEFORE OR DURING EEAS IF NECESSARY.
AND THEN, UH, MANAGEMENT OR REDUCTION OF H D L OVERRIDES, UH, TO THE EXTENT THOSE ARE NECESSARY UNDER THESE TYPES OF EVENTS, UH, PARTICULARLY THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH EEAS.
SO THOSE ARE A HANDFUL OF ISSUES THAT I THINK R O S UH, SHOULD COME BACK TO US AND, AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON.
I DON'T HAVE A TIME CERTAIN ON THAT, BUT WOULD LIKE TO, TO SEE THAT PROBABLY SOONER THAN LATER.
[03:05:02]
THAT BEING SAID, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY.[15. TAC Structural and Procedural Review Discussion]
NEXT AGENDA ITEMS, AGENDA ITEM 15 ARE TAX, STRUCTURAL AND PROCEDURAL REVIEW DISCUSSION.SO IT IS THAT TIME OF THE YEAR FOR US TO START DOING A LITTLE BIT OF SELF-REFLECTION.
UM, AND LOOKING AT THE, THE WAY THAT WE'RE ORGANIZED, THE WAY THAT WE'RE STRUCTURED AND, AND THE PROCEDURES THAT WE EMPLOY, UH, LEADERSHIP FOR EACH OF THE DIFFERENT SUBCOMMITTEES RECEIVED AN EMAIL, UH, FROM STAKEHOLDER SERVICES, UH, A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
UH, THAT BEING SAID, WHAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO DO IS TO START THAT SELF-REFLECTION PROCESS ON THERE.
THAT EMAIL WENT OUT ON SEPTEMBER 14TH.
UH, GENERALLY THE SAME TYPES OF QUESTIONS THAT WE USUALLY ASK THEM TO, TO REVIEW, UH, WITH A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS THERE.
BUT IN GENERAL, WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE SUBCOMMITTEES TO DO IS REVIEW THEIR SCOPE AND PROCEDURES, REVIEW THEIR OPEN ACTION ITEMS LIST, UH, LOOK AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING GROUP AND TASK FORCE MEETINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, UH, BEING USED AND, AND BECOMING A, A WISE USE OF TIME.
UH, AN EFFECTIVE USE OF TIME IN THAT REGARD.
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCES ARE ALIGNED WITH THE APPROPRIATE SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND THEN, UH, LASTLY, BUT PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR SUB SUBCOMMITTEES WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCES ARE STILL NECESSARY.
UH, SO THAT BEING SAID, WHAT WE NORMALLY DO, WE SEND THAT, UH, LIST OF QUESTIONS OUT TO, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP.
THEY WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
WE ULTIMATELY END UP HAVING A INDIVID, UH, INDEPENDENT WEBEX, UH, FOR TAC.
UH, RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13TH AT ONE 30 IN THE AFTERNOON.
THAT WOULD BE A WEBEX ONLY MEETING FOR US TO HEAR FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEES IN THAT REGARD.
AND SO WE WOULD GET THEIR FEEDBACK AND THEIR RESPONSES TO THOSE QUESTIONS.
UH, THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THAT AFTERNOON MEETING UNLESS WE HEAR OTHERWISE.
AGAIN, THAT WILL BE WEBEX ONLY, NOT IN PERSON.
UH, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE PROCEDURE? UM, AND THE UPCOMING OCTOBER 13TH MEETING.
SEEING NONE, WE'LL GET THAT ON THE CALENDAR.
UH, OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT, UH, THREE OTHER ITEMS UNDER OTHER BUSINESS RIGHT NOW.
SO WE'VE GOT THE L C R A LOAD ZONE CHANGE REQUEST.
DOES IT MAKE SENSE IF I JUST, ALRIGHT, GOOD.
UH, SO WE WANTED TO BRING FORWARD, SO L C R A, UH, AND EMILY CAN CHIME IN HERE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.
UM, L C R REQUESTED TRANSFERRING LOAD, UH, THERE'S A PROTOCOL SECTION 3.4, 0.2 0.1, WHICH IS LOAD ZONE MODIFICATIONS.
AND THE IDEA IS, IS COMPETITIVE LOAD ZONES AND NO LOAD ZONES ARE ADDED, DELETED, OR CHANGED.
THAT'S A BOARD APPROVAL TYPE ITEM.
UH, SO L C IS REQUESTED, UM, AN ACQUIRING PART OF THE HAMILTON COUNTY ELECTRIC CO-OP LOAD 24 MEGAWATTS.
THAT MAY NOT BE THE PRECISE NUMBER.
WE'RE GONNA BE WORKING ON THAT BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING, UH, WHICH WAS ACQUIRED FROM BRAS.
AND THAT'S GONNA BE MOVED INTO THE L C R A LOAD ZONE.
UM, CURRENTLY THE L C R A LOAD ZONE IS APPROXIMATELY 39 50.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A SCALING, IT'S 24 MEGAWATTS COMING INTO A 3,950 MEGAWATT ZONE.
AND WE HAVE MORE DETAILS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO THE REASON WE'RE HERE AT TAC TODAY IS WE DON'T LIKE TO SURPRISE YOU AT THE BOARD WITH ANYTHING IS WHY DIDN'T YOU TALK TO US? SO NO ACTION IS NEEDED FROM TAC TO EXECUTE THIS PROTOCOL REQUIREMENT.
SO ERCOT STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE ADDITION OF THE LOAD INTO THE LOAD ZONE.
UH, AND THAT'S PURSUANT TO THIS PROTOCOLS ABOVE.
ALSO, UM, AS A PROTOCOL REQUIREMENT, THERE'S THIS 48 MONTH WAITING PERIOD AS THEY TRANSITION INTO THAT.
SO, UH, THE NEXT SLIDE IS A, A GOOD PICTURE WITH A TYPO ON THE TOP IT SAYS ELER IS REQUESTING TO TRANSITION TO MEGAWATTS.
THAT WAS STILL THE 24 MEGAWATTS.
SO IT'S IRONIC, I TRIED TO CHANGE 25 TO 24 AND JUST MESSED IT ALL UP.
BUT, UM, SO ANYWAYS, THE, IF YOU ZOOM IN ON THIS, UM, THAT'S THE AREA OF TEXAS THAT IT'S IN, AND THEN YOU PAN TO THE RIGHT.
CURRENTLY THE LOAD IS IN THE NORTH LOAD ZONE FOR THAT HAMILTON CO-OP.
AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN BELOW, THE IDEA IS TO SWITCH FROM THE NORTH ZONE IS TO THEN DROP IN ANOTHER PIECE OF L C R A YELLOW.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEFT SIDE, THAT'S THE L C R A PIECES OF THEIR FOOTPRINT.
AND SO THIS WOULD THEN BECOME PART OF THEIR FOOTPRINT IN THE ZONE.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW THAT TRANSITION FROM ONE TO THE OTHER.
UM, AND I'LL LEAVE AT THAT FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND I SEE EMILY IN THE QUEUE.
JUST A COUPLE OF OF POINTS TO CLARIFY.
SO HAMILTON COUNTY, UM, IS AN EXISTING L C R A WHOLESALE CUSTOMER AND THE MAJORITY OF THEIR LOAD HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY SERVED BY L C R A AND IS IN THE L C R A LOAD ZONE.
SO REALLY JUST WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO LOOK AT HERE IS HAVING ALL OF THE HAMILTON LOAD IN THE SAME LOAD ZONE, WHICH WE THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTOCOLS REQUIREMENTS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WE STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOUR YEAR TRANSITION TIMELINE, UM, TO ACCOUNT
[03:10:01]
FOR ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, AUCTION UH, ISSUES, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THE QUEUE, WE'VE START WITH, UH, CLAYTON, GO TO BRIAN SAMS, ERIC GOFF, AND SETH COCHRAN.
CLAYTON, UH, THE PCRS THAT ARE ALLOCATED TO L C R A WILL, WILL THIS CHANGE THE, UH, THE CONFIGURATION OF THOSE? NO, I MEAN I KNOW IT'S A SMALL PIECE.
NO, SO YOU'RE GONNA EXCLUDE THIS LOAD FROM THE PCR R.
THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PCRS, BUT I THINK THEY SOURCED, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU SOURCE IT DOESN'T SYNC TO L C R A LOAD ZONE AND THIS BECOME PART OF THAT LOAD ZONE.
NEW PCRS ARE GENERATED AND ER AGREE YES.
BUT I'M SAYING THAT THE, THE EXISTING PCRS THAT YOU HAVE, IS IT, YOU KNOW, IT SOURCES AT THE GENERATOR BUT THEN SYNCS IN L C R A LOAD ZONE, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO THIS DOES CHANGE THAT A LITTLE BIT.
NO, I I'M NOT TRACKING THAT CLAYTON.
MATT, MAYBE YOU EMILY, WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SAY IS IT SINKS IN THE L C R A LOAD ZONE RIGHT NOW AND YOU'RE GONNA MODIFY IT BY 24 MEGAWATTS AT A 39 THOU.
AND SO THEORETICALLY THE LOAD ZONE SINK CHANGES A LITTLE BIT.
AND SO THE VALUATION OF THE PCRS CHANGES JUST A LITTLE BIT JUST BECAUSE THE LOAD AGGREGATE YOUR SINKING THE QUESTIONS OF OUR EXISTING PCRS WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO BE INCREASED IN TERMS OF WHAT SINKS IN ELSEWHERE.
LOAD ZONE, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PREMISE OF THAT.
IT'S JUST THINK PART OF THE EQUATION CHANGE
MORE METERING POINTS COULD SINK IN THE LOAD ZONE, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION.
SO NO, NO NEW PCRS, BUT MY, MY CONCERN IS NOT WITH THIS, BUT IF THIS BECOMES PREVALENT, YOU KNOW, IT BECOMES LARGE, THEN WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE, THE SYNC PORTION OF THAT EQUATION.
UM, IF THIS REPORT EXISTS, I'M NOT AWARE OF IT.
UM, BUT IS THERE A REPORT THAT SHOWS WHICH BUSES ARE IN WHICH LOAD ZONES? I MEAN, IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO CREATE THIS MAP, BUT I'D HAVE TO, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.
I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT ONE.
I, I THINK THE DATA SOMEWHERE, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN THE PUBLIC FACING REPORT OR NOT.
I DON'T THINK IT IS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN FOLLOW UP.
AND, AND ONE THING THAT WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT TOO MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE BOARD IS TO SEE THAT LIST YEAH.
BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK WITH ERCOT ABOUT THAT, HOW THEY PLAN TO PRESENT THIS.
IT COULD BE, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CREATE A NEW REPORT NECESSARILY.
IT COULD JUST BE A ONE-TIME PROVISION TO THE ACAT BOARD WOULD BE FINE TOO BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE VERY OFTEN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY, SEEING NED NEXT STEP IS A REPORT ON THE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE.
SO WE JUST HAVE THE ONE SLIDE.
SO THERE WAS A, UH, COMMISSION FILING LAST WEEK.
I HAVE THE LINK TO THE FILING.
WE ALSO HAD IT IN THE TAC PACKET.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF DO A, A LEFT AND RIGHT KIND OF WALKTHROUGH OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.
IN TERMS OF LAST, YOU KNOW, WE'VE PROCURED TWICE.
FIRST TIME WAS THE 20 22, 20 23.
THAT'S NOVEMBER 1ST THROUGH MARCH 15TH.
RESOURCES THAT WERE OFFERED IN THIS TIME WAS 32 RESOURCES WERE OFFERED IN, UH, PROCURED 19 OF THE 19 PROCURED 32 OF 32.
ALSO PROCURED, SAY THE FIVE QUEASY STILL, UH, THE CAPACITY PROCURED, SO IT WAS 2,900 LAST TIME, NOW IT'S 3,300.
UH, PROBABLY THE BEST VOICEOVER ON THAT.
YOU CAN GO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES, BUT A LOT OF IT'S WHERE THE ALTERNATES, UM, WERE STREAMLINED TO WHERE WE GOT MORE PRIMARIES IN PROJECTED COST.
I REMEMBER ABOUT HALF OF THAT WAS CLAWED BACK, UH, THIS YEAR STARTING AT 29.88 MILLION ON THEIR PROCUREMENT.
AND SO THE RESERVE TYPE, UM, 18 WERE FUEL OIL.
UM, AND AGAIN, 18 OF THE 19 WERE FUEL OIL AND SIMILAR LAST TIME, 31 OF THE 32 WERE FUEL OIL AND THEN JUST THE ONE NATURAL GAS.
UH, WE JUST DID WANNA NOTE ALSO IS THAT, UM, THESE WERE ALL UNDER THE PHASE ONE QUALIFICATION FOR FIRM FUEL.
SO THERE'S NO OFFERED RESOURCES UNDER THE PHASE TWO PIPELINE, UM, SPECIFICATIONS.
BUT THAT'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, BRIAN? THANKS MATT.
[03:15:01]
UH, GENERATION RESOURCES THAT WERE PROCURED FOR 2324 ARE, HAS ANY OF THAT, I GUESS, UM, NEW FACILITIES? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? YEAH, NONE OF THESE WERE NEW FACILITIES.ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MATT? OKAY, SEEING NONE.
[16. Other Business ]
UH, AN UPDATE ON THE REVISION REQUEST TIMELINE AND P U C T APPROVAL.ANN, ALL RIGHT, I THINK EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF THIS, BUT JUST WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION SINCE IT DOES SHIFT THE REVISION REQUEST TIMELINES A LITTLE BIT.
UM, THERE WAS AN INTERIM PROCESS ADOPTED BY THE PC AT THEIR AUGUST OPEN MEETING.
SO FOR REVISION REQUEST RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE BOARD, THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THEM NO EARLIER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER ERCOT FILES THOSE REVISION REQUESTS WITH THE COMMISSION.
AND THEN THIS MEMO WAS FILED BY STAFF LAST WEEK SHOWING, UM, TIMELINES FROM BOARD TO P U C OPEN MEETING DATES.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, THAT IS THE LAST ITEM UNDER OTHER BUSINESS.
I DO HAVE ONE MORE THING WE'LL TAKE UP AFTER THE COMBO BALLOT, BUT THAT
[17. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
BEING SAID, IT IS TIME FOR THE COMBO BALLOT.GOT A RELATIVELY SHORT LIST THIS TIME, GUYS.
SO ANYHOW, I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE COMBO BALLOT.
GOT A MOTION FROM BOB, A SECOND FROM ERIC.
ALL RIGHT, COREY, IT'S ALL YOURS.
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT.
WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK.
BILL SMITH? YES, THANK YOU, ERIC.
ONTO THE ENGINE INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
BRIAN? YES, THANK YOU, KAITLYN.
ONTO THE IPMS. JEREMY? YES, THANK YOU.
KEITH? YES, THANK YOU, RICHARD.
YES, THANK YOU, UH, MARTHA FOR CALLING.
WE ARE PAST NOON, SO DIANA, FOR DAVID.
UM, ONE LAST THING BEFORE WE LEAVE.
UM, I DON'T THINK RICHARD'S PHRASE COULD HAVE FIT ANY BETTER THIS MONTH.
SO FOR ONE SPECIFIC PERSON IN HERE, UM, MAMA SAYS IT'S TIME TO RETIRE
AND SO THAT BEING SAID, UH, FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT KNOW, BLAKE GROSS WILL BE RETIRING HERE, UH, I BELIEVE AT THE END OF THE MONTH, CORRECT.
AND SO ANYWAYS, UH, THIS WILL BE HIS LAST TIME WITH US AT ATTACK MEETINGS.
SO HE'S BEEN A, OBVIOUSLY A LONGSTANDING, UH, PILLAR OF THE STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITIES CONTRIBUTED QUITE A MU UH, QUITE A BIT OVER THE COURSE OF HIS YEARS, UH, THAT HE'S BEEN ENGAGED HERE AND HAS OBVIOUSLY MENTORED A NUMBER OF FOLKS, UH, THAT HAVE GONE ON TO BE VERY SUCCESSFUL.
UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO EXTEND OUR THANKS TO BLAKE FOR ALL THAT HE'S DONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF RICHARD WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING MORE IN THAT REGARD.
YOU, YOU HANDLED IT WELL EXCEPT FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, MAMA SAID SOMETIMES YOU CAN HAVE DESSERT FIRST.
AND SO WE DO HAVE CAKE OUT IN THE, UH, LOBBY AREA FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN STICK AROUND AND, UH, WISH BLAKE YOUR WELL WISHES AND, ALRIGHT, SOUNDS GOOD.
SO, ALL RIGHT, THAT BEING SAID AGAIN, OCTOBER 13TH FOR OUR, UH, WEBEX MEETING TO DISCUSS THE STRUCTURAL AND PROCEDURAL REVIEW.
[03:20:01]
OUR NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 24TH.CURRENTLY PLANNED TO BE IN PERSON, SO THIS MEETING'S ADJOURNED.
VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT WWW WEBEX COM.