[00:00:03]
THIS IS SUSIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT.
UH, WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE JANUARY TAC MEETING.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED THIS MORNING, JUST GONNA KIND OF GO OVER SOME MEETING MANAGEMENT TIPS THAT WE NORMALLY COVER.
UM, IF YOU ARE IN THE MEETING ROOM AND YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, PLEASE USE YOUR, UH, MEETING CARD AND HOLD IT UP AND BRITTANY'S OVER HERE IN THE RIGHT CORNER OF THE ROOM, AND SHE WILL GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF FOR YOU AND ENTER YOU IN THE CHAT.
OR YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF IN THE CHAT YOURSELF.
UM, IF YOU'RE ON THE WEBEX, OF COURSE, WE'RE USING THAT FUNCTIONALITY.
AND PLEASE WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED.
ALSO, AS WE APPROACH THE BALLOTING PROCESS, MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE ON THE WEBEX AND WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT, THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND, UM, UNMUTE YOURSELF.
AND THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE SURE TO CAPTURE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENTLY.
THEN MUTE RETURN TO MUTE STATUS AFTERWARDS.
ALSO, WE WOULD ASK EVERYBODY IN HERE TO SIGN IN.
THERE'S A SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THE ROOM, MARKET PARTICIPANTS, SEATED REPS, UH, STAKEHOLDERS, ERCOT STAFF.
PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN SO WE CAN CAPTURE YOU CORRECTLY.
AND THEN IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY MEETING, ANY REASON, PLEASE GIVE US JUST A FEW MOMENTS AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET THAT, UH, RESTARTED WITH THE SAME MEETING INFORMATION OR SEND SOMETHING OUT TO THE TAX OR SERVER.
OKAY, SO IF CORY WILL HOLD UP THE ANTITRUST
[1. Antitrust Admonition]
ADMONITION, WE'LL GO GO THROUGH THAT DOCUMENT.I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERYTHING HERE.
THIS IS LOCATED ON THE ERCOT, UH, WEBSITE UNDER THE GOVERNANCE TAB, AND THERE'S THE ANTITRUST ADMONITION AND THE DISCLAIMER.
[2. Membership Introductions]
UH, MEMBERSHIP INTRODUCTIONS IS NEXT ON THE ITEM.WE'D LIKE TO THANK ALL THE RETURNING TAC REPRESENTATIVES THAT CAME BACK TO SERVE THIS YEAR, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF NEW MEMBERS I WILL JUST HIGHLIGHT REAL QUICK.
UH, IN THE CONSUMER INDUSTRIAL SEGMENT, ERIC SCHUBERT WITH LINDEN CHEMICAL, WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF NEWLY SEATED REPRESENTATIVES, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE BEEN PARTICIPATING FOR SOME TIME.
BLAKE HOLT, LCRA, ERIC BLAKEY, PEC JOHN PACKARD STACK IN THE IPM SEGMENT.
IAN HALEY IS BACK WITH MORGAN STANLEY AND WELCOME ALL OF YOU ALL NEWLY AND RETURNING.
ALL RIGHT, UH, I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND GO OVER THE ALT REPS AND PROXIES THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
IN IOU SEGMENT, WE HAVE KEITH NICKS, UH, HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO STACEY WHITEHURST AND FOR PROXIES.
UM, BOB HILTON HAS GIVEN HIS, UM, PROXY TO KAITLYN SMITH AT 1115 AND THE CONSUMER COMMERCIAL NICK HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO MARK DREYFUSS AND ALSO IN THE CONSUMER RESIDENTIAL.
ERIC GOFF HAS GIVEN HIS TO NAGE FOR NOGA 2 45 ONLY.
[3. Election of 2024 TAC Chair and Vice Chair (Vote)]
NOW WE'LL MOVE TO THE ELECTION OF THE 2024 TAC CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, JUST TO REMIND Y'ALL OF THAT PROCESS.AND TO, UH, LET THE NEW FOLKS KNOW WE'LL BE OPENING THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS FOR THE CHAIR.
I DO NOT NEED A SECOND FOR THAT.
UH, THEN IF THERE'S ONLY ONE NOMINATION RECEIVED, WE'LL HAVE BY ACCLIMATION, WE'LL HAVE OUR NEW LEADERSHIP.
AND IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE NOMINATION, WE HAVE LITTLE PAPER BALLOTS HERE TO DO, AND WE'LL DO THE WEBEX FOR THOSE ON, UH, WE'LL DO EMAIL FOR THOSE ON THE WEBEX.
AND SO THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE VICE CHAIR.
SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PROCESS BEFORE WE BEGIN? OKAY.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND START, UH, ASKING FOR NOMINATIONS FOR 2024 TAC CHAIR.
OKAY, I THINK WE HAVE BOB IN THE CHAT.
AND I BELIEVE BOB IS NOMINATING KAITLYN SMITH.
YEAH, I NOMINATE KAITLYN SMITH.
YEAH, SORRY, KAITLYN, DO YOU ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? YES, I ACCEPT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? FORT CHAIR.
BY ACCLIMATION WE HAVE KAITLYN SMITH BACK AS 2024 CHAIR.
ALRIGHT, NOW WE'LL MOVE TO VICE CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR THE 2024 VICE CHAIR? UH, I'D NOMINATE COLIN MARTIN.
AND LET'S SEE, DOES COLIN ACCEPT THE NOMINATION? I ACCEPT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? OKAY, SEE NONE IN THE ROOM AND NONE ON THE CHAT.
COLIN, WELCOME TO THE 2020 VICE CHAIR FOR TAC.
ALRIGHT, IF EVERYONE WILL GIVE THEM JUST A FEW MINUTES, THEY'LL GO AHEAD AND COME BACK TO THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND GET SET UP AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED.
[00:07:26]
ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE, UH,[4. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
CAN KEEP GOING WITH AGENDA ITEM FOUR.UH, THANK YOU AND THANKS TO COLIN, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO A GOOD YEAR.
UM, SO AGENDA ITEM FOUR IS APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING, MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY EDITS OR COMMENTS, BUT, BUT I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME REVISIONS FROM ERCOT.
SUSIE, CAN YOU GO OVER THOSE? YES.
KAITLYN, WE DID GET SOME REVISIONS FROM NED AND HE'S GOING TO SPEAK TO THOSE REVISIONS NOW.
AND THEN CORY HAS THEM, UM, POSTED HERE.
SO THESE WILL BE AS REVISED IF WE ACCEPT THESE MINUTES.
UM, MICROPHONE, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
UM, IT'S, UH, ONE MINOR TYPO CORRECTION, AND THEN ONE, UH, CLARIFICATION TO, FROM THE DISCUSSION FROM NPRR 1201 AT THE, AT OUR LAST MEETING IN DECEMBER.
UH, ONE IS JUST, UH, NPR 1181 WAS THE ONE AHEAD OF, UH, BEFORE THAT ONE, SO I THINK THERE WAS JUST A TRANSCRIPTION THAT'S FIXING THAT.
AND THEN THE OTHER, UH, CLARIFICATION THERE IS THAT THE, UH, THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD WAS THAT NPR 1201 WOULD NOT IMPACT EITHER COURT ORDERED RESETTLEMENTS OR RESETTLEMENTS THAT ARE PENDING A COURT DECISION.
AND IT'S A FINE NUANCE THERE, BUT IT'S, UH, I THINK THE SAME PRACTICAL OUTCOME.
SO I, I HOPE THAT'S, UH, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND NOT CONTROVERSIAL, BUT OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, SIR? I DON'T SEE ANY.
SO I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT THE MINUTES WITH THESE EDITS ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
IS THAT CORRECT? ALRIGHT, I SEE A NOD FROM COREY.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT UNLESS SOMEBODY OBJECTS.
[5. Meeting Updates]
SO MOVING ON, WE HAVE THE MEETING UPDATES.UM, SO WE MET LAST ATTACK ON DECEMBER 4TH.
WE HAD PUC OPEN MEETINGS ON DECEMBER 14TH AND JANUARY 18TH.
AND THEN THE ERUPT BOARD MEETINGS ON DECEMBER 18TH AND 19TH.
ALL REVISION REQUESTS THAT THOSE MEETINGS WERE APPROVED EXCEPT FOR NPRR 1186 AND THE BO, THE PUC REMANDED THAT TO THE BOARD AT THIS LAST, UM, JANUARY 18TH OPEN MEETING.
[00:10:01]
THE SUGGESTED MODIFICATION WAS TO REMOVE A PARAGRAPHS CONCERNING SECTION 8.1.I BELIEVE THIS WILL GO TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GET AHEAD OF ANYTHING ON THE BOARD HERE, BUT I WILL, UM, LEAVE IT UP FOR A QUESTION OR COMMENT AND I SEE BILL BARNES IN THE QUEUE.
UM, WE HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS KIND OF ABOUT THE STATE OF THE WORLD, UH, WITH THE REMAND AND WHAT THE EFFECT OF 1186 IS AT THIS POINT.
I THINK THERE'S A, CERTAINLY A LOT TO PARSE FROM THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION ON 1186, UM, AND 1209.
WE ACTUALLY, OUR CONCERNS WERE MORE RELATED TO 1209, BUT ON WHAT THE REMAINING LANGUAGE IN 1186 THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, I GUESS THE, THE QUESTION WE HAVE IS WHAT WE SEE IS, UM, FUNCTIONALITY THAT WILL SET THE, HAS BASED ON REMAINING STATE OF CHARGE, UM, TO PROVIDE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND THEN WHAT ADDITIONAL STATE OF CHARGE IS AVAILABLE FOR AN INJECTION BASE POINT.
SO THAT SEEMS TO IMPLY TO US THAT IF THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT STATE OF CHARGE TO DELIVER OR, OR TO PROVIDE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE, UM, AND HAVE ADDITIONAL ENERGY AVAILABLE, THEN THE HAS WILL GO NEGATIVE.
UH, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I GUESS? CAN I, UH, YEAH, GO, GO AHEAD.
CAN KENAN, IS IKA ON ON THE LINE? I THINK SHE SHOULD PROBABLY ANSWER THIS IF SHE'S AVAILABLE.
DAVE, CAN YOU HELP WITH, WITH THAT? I, I GUESS SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE QUESTION WITH THE HASSLE IN THE CASE WHERE WE DO THE, THE, THE COMBO MODEL ERROR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE HASSLE WOULD GO TO ZERO UNDER THE LOGIC THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT UNDER THE, THE OTHER PORTIONS OF 11 E SIX, BUT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY WHERE A CASE WHERE A HASSLE WILL GO NEGATIVE.
I GUESS THE, THAT'S THE PART WHERE WE'RE KIND OF CONFUSED ON IS THERE'S THIS, DURING THESE DISCUSSIONS, SOME, UH, THOUGHT THAT AN ESR COULD LIKE IGNORE THEIR ANCILLARY SERVICE, UH, RESPONSIBILITY AND DEPLOY ADDITIONAL ENERGY IF ENERGY PRICES WERE HIGH.
BUT UNDER THIS FUNCTIONALITY, IT SEEMS LIKE SCED WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
IT WOULD TAKE, IT WOULD BASICALLY TAKE, HAS DOWN TO ZERO, AND THEN THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL ENERGY LEFT IN THE NEXT SCED PRINT FOR AN INJECTION BASE POINT.
SO THE BASE POINTS WOULD GO TO ZERO, OR WOULD THIS BE A CASE WHERE E SR BASICALLY IGNORES THEIR BASE POINT AND THEN THERE WOULD BE BASE POINT DEVIATION CHARGES THAT WOULD CLAW BACK THE ENERGY? THAT'S, I'M JUST NOT REALLY SURE WHAT, HOW, HOW IS THIS GONNA WORK? YEAH, AND I, I THINK IT CAN PREVENT THEM FROM NECESSARILY BEING DISPATCHED AT THAT POINT.
NOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, UM, ENSURE THAT THEY HAD SUFFICIENT STATED CHARGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I THINK THAT WAS SORT OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF, SO IT, IT, IT CAN STOP THINGS FROM SORT OF GETTING WORSE IS MAYBE THE WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.
UM, BUT IT CAN'T NECESSARILY, UM, SORT OF CREATE THE OBLIGATION FOR COMPLIANCE TO, TO ACTUALLY MAINTAIN IT.
AND I THINK THAT WAS SORT OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOME OF THE LOGIC INSTEAD VERSUS SOME OF THE COMPLIANCE AND, UH, FINANCIAL PENALTIES PUT INTO THE OTHER PORTIONS OF 1186 AND THEN 1209.
SO I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT'S REALLY A DISTINCTION OF SORT OF PREVENTATIVE AND CREATING AN OBLIGATION IF THAT, IF THAT'S HELPFUL DISTINCTION.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF WHAT I THINK THE DISCUSSION AMONGST STAKEHOLDERS, UH, SHOULD BE REGARDING THE CONVERSATION AT THE, AT THE OPEN MEETING, WHICH, UM, THERE WERE A FEW THINGS TO, I THINK PARSE FROM THAT IS, ONE IS THAT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE DECISION AT THE COMMISSION WASN'T A GREEN LIGHT TO SELL ANCILLARY SERVICES IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET, COLLECT THE PAYMENT, AND THEN NOT PROVIDE IT IN REAL TIME.
UM, THAT WAS, I THINK, CLEAR AMONGST THE DISCUSSION.
UM, AND THAT ACTUALLY THE COMMISSION RULES PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING.
SO WE WERE, STAKEHOLDERS HAD PURPOSELY TABLED 1209 TO DISCUSS THAT PART FOLLOWING DECISION ON 1186.
AND IT, I, I THINK PART OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AS THE COMMISSION IS WE'RE, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
1209 IS GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN, WHICH I THINK BECOMES EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IF WE'RE NOT ENFORCING COMPLIANCE ON
[00:15:01]
1186.I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHERE WE STAND WITH 1209.
UM, YES, GO AHEAD AND RESPOND OR CUT.
I, I THINK WE'RE STILL EVALUATING, UH, WHAT, WHAT TO DO WITH 1209, BUT THERE WAS DISCUSSION I THINK AT THE COMMISSION ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS THAT 1209 CAN'T BE.
UM, I, I THINK THERE WAS ALSO THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT PORTING ERCOT, UH, YOU KNOW, ALSO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, IN TRACKING CERTAIN THINGS FROM A, FROM AN ERCOT, UH, THE RELIABILITY RESPONSIBILITY STANDPOINT.
SO, UH, WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE ON ON THAT IS THAT, UM, WE, UH, HAVE SOMETHING READY ON 1209 FOR PRS, UH, AND I THINK THE TEAM IS WORKING ON THAT.
UH, AND THEN WE ALSO TAKE JUST THE TOPIC OF WHAT, UH, WE THINK NEEDS TO BE, UH, REPORTED AND INTERACT WITH STAKEHOLDERS AT ROS AND WMS, UM, TO, TO SOLICIT KIND OF FEEDBACK ON WHAT, WHAT WE'RE THINKING.
THAT'S HOW I WOULD PROPOSE WE DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
UM, OF COURSE, THAT'S TAX DECISION, SO I'M JUST THROWING OUT A POTENTIAL WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, BUT, UH, ULTIMATELY I THINK AS FAR AS THOSE TWO GROUPS GO, WHAT Y'ALL DECIDE IS, IS MORE MATERIAL.
AND DO YOU THINK, WILL THAT BE PART OF THE BOARD DISCUSSION TOO, PERHAPS SOME DIRECTION FROM THEM? I MEAN, I, WELL, ONE IS WE AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH, RIGHT? IF, IF WE'RE NOT GONNA IMPLEMENT 1209 AS FILED, BUT WE STILL NEED TO, UM, ENSURE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, CONSUMERS NOT BEING CHARGED FOR AN ANCILLARY SERVICE THAT'S NOT BEING PROVIDED, THEN WE NEED TRANSPARENCY, RIGHT? WE'RE GONNA NEED TO SEE PROBABLY FAIRLY FREQUENT REPORTS ON HOW MUCH ANCILLARY SERVICES ARE NOT BEING FULLY PROVIDED AND WHAT THE DOLLAR COST OF THE CONSUMER IS.
SO, I, I, I'M REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE PUTTING, SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD, UH, UH, SO, BUT I EXPECT THIS TYPE OF CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN THERE AS WELL.
UM, AS I'M SURE EVERYBODY HERE IS AWARE, 1186 WAS LIKE A BOARD DIRECTED NPRR, UM, I THINK 1209 WAS ALSO, BUT I'M, I'M NOT ABSOLUTELY SURE ABOUT THAT.
SO, UH, I THINK THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A, A LOT TO SAY, UH, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
UM, SO I, I EXPECT THAT TO BE DISCUSSED, BUT I DON'T WANNA MAKE ANY PROMISES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT BIND THEM AS FAR AS WHAT, WHAT THEY WANT TO TAKE UP AND WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP.
I SEE A QUEUE, UH, ERIC GO OFFICE FIRST.
UM, NOT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT BILL WAS DISCUSSING, ALTHOUGH I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT BEING RESOLVED.
UM, BUT MORE ON THE PROCEDURE OF, UM, CANON.
MY, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT 1209 WAS THE BOARD PARTY IN PR AND 1186 WAS NOT, WHICH IS FINE.
AND, BUT I DON'T THINK WE EVER CONTEMPLATED WHEN WE DEVELOPED THE BOARD PARTY PROCESS THAT SOMETHING WOULDN'T PASS IF IT WAS A BOARD PRIORITY.
RIGHT? AND SO I DON'T, AS WE RESOLVED 1209, WE JUST MIGHT ALSO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THINK THROUGH WHAT, WHAT IS THIS PROCESS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? HOW CAN WE BEST MAKE, BE SURE IT ACCOMPLISHES THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE OTHER NPRR 1186, WE ENDED UP TABLING A BOARD PRIORITY NPRR, WHICH MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE, RIGHT? UM, AND SO I THINK WE JUST ALSO NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT PROCESS IS AND HOW TO MAKE IT, MAKE SURE IT BEST WORKS FOR WHAT THE BOARD WANTS.
I, I MEAN, I THINK THE PROCESS WAS BUILT IN O TO EXPEDITE SOMETHING GETTING TO THE BOARD.
THAT PART OF IT, I THINK SEEMS TO BE, TO BE WORKING.
UM, I GUESS THE OTHER PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE, THE REMAN, THAT TYPE OF DYNAMIC, AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, HOW THEY WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT.
UM, CERTAINLY IT PROBABLY IS INCUMBENT ON US TO MAKE SURE WE RAISE THE ISSUE TO THEM.
SO I, I, I THINK I CAN TAKE THAT HOMEWORK IF, IF YOU AGREE WITH MY KINDA PARSING OUT OF THAT.
[00:20:01]
THINK I AGREE WITH 98% OF IT, JUST MAYBE THE ONE ASTERISK IS LIKE, I THINK WE HAD VERY GOOD REASON TO TABLE 1209 TWICE AT PRS BECAUSE OF THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION, BUT WE DID, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS NOT THAT COMMISSION DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, I, I MEAN IT DIDN'T ACHIEVE IN THIS CASE AN ACCELERATED REVIEW BECAUSE THERE IS OTHER FACTORS AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OKAY WITH THE BOARD IN GENERAL.YOU KNOW, UM, IF THERE, I I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T, UM, MAKE THEM FEEL THAT THEIR DESIRE FOR PRIORITIZATION WAS NOT, UH, CONSIDERED HIGHLY BY US.
UM, SO I MEAN, I THINK IF I REMEMBER IT RIGHT, BETWEEN 1186, UH, BEING FILED AND 1209 WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE BOARD MEETING WHERE THEY COULD HAVE EXPRESSED RIGHT, UH, DISAPPOINTMENT, WHATEVER THEIR THOUGHTS WERE.
AND, AND THEY DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE AN ISSUE.
I THINK THEY UNDERSTOOD THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN 1186 AND 1209.
SO I, I'VE NOT HEARD THAT BEING RAISED AS AN ISSUE BY THE BOARD.
AGAIN, I I, I'M KIND OF UNCOMFORTABLE SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD SURE.
BUT THEY DIDN'T, THEY NEVER SAID, OH, I'M UPSET THAT 1209 HASN'T MOVED FORWARD.
I, I, I, I APPRECIATE I'M TRYING TO INTERRUPT YOU.
I, I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I'M THANKFUL THAT IT WORKED OUT THAT WAY.
UM, I JUST, UH, AS WE'VE USED THAT PROCESS FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE SHOULD JUST KICK THE TIRES.
E ERIC, I THINK IT'S IN THE PROTOCOLS, THE BOARD PRIORITY PROCESS.
SO MAYBE REVISIT IT AND PUT IN AN EXCEPTION THERE FOR, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT GET HELD AT THE COMMISSION.
IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE KIND OF LOOKING TO FOR FORWARD-LOOKING MAYBE? OKAY.
THAT, THAT, THAT SORT OF DISCUSSION.
SO WE COULD MAYBE PUT A NOTE THERE TO, TO REVISIT THAT PROTOCOL SECTION ON, ON BOARD PRIORITY AND PRRS FOR KIND OF FORWARD-LOOKING PROCESS.
UM, CAN I MOVE ON TO THE QUEUE? YOU'RE GOOD, ERIC.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR KAAN, UH, KAAN WITH, YOU KNOW, 1186 AND 1209.
WE'RE GONNA BE JUST TEMPORARY UNTIL WE GOT TO REALTIME CO OPTIMIZATION.
AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THESE TWO INTERFERING WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REALTIME CO OPTIMIZATION CONVERSATION WITH WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT, MAYBE ADDING OR CHANGING 1209 TO, IN THAT, IS THAT GONNA FIT INTO A TEMPORARY TIMEFRAME WITHOUT AFFECTING RTC IMPLEMENTATION? SO CURRENTLY, UM, IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS ISSUE THAT IS NEEDED FOR REALTIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION, UH, IN PR 1204, UH, ADDRESSES ALL OF THAT, THERE MAY BE SOME RESOURCES THAT HAVE TO WORK ON SOME OTHER ELEMENTS OF 11 86, 12 0 9, BUT I, I THINK THAT IS UNLIKELY.
UH, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY WANNA FOLLOW UP WITH ONE TEAM THAT'S, THAT'S NOT HERE THAT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT FOR A FINAL ANSWER.
BUT THE KEY THING I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU TODAY, AND I'M LOOKING AT MATT, BUT WITH 1204, THE RTC PROJECT HAS WHAT IT'S, WHAT IT NEEDS.
AND WE HAVEN'T WORKED WITH THE, WHAT KANA IS ALLUDING TO THE TEAMS THAT ARE CRANKING OUT THEIR PRODUCTION, UM, DELIVERIES IN THE INTERIM AS WELL AS WORKING ON RTC AT THE SAME TIME.
THEY HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK AT AND STUDY WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO PIVOT TO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT TOO CONCERNED, BUT WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT.
DOES THAT COVER YOUR COMMENTS THERE, CANON? I MIGHT, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF I, CAN I SAY ONE MORE? GO AHEAD.
YEAH,
I MEAN, THE WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT 11 86, 12 0 9, IS THAT THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, THE, THE HEAVY LIFTING PART OF THOSE TWO NPR R IS THE COMMISSION SAID WE DON'T WANT TO DO THOSE RIGHT NOW.
SO WHAT REMAINS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A HEAVY LIFT TO ME.
I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO ASK THE TEAM, MATT.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.
UH, I, I AGREE AND THAT'S THE WAY I SAW IT.
BUT WHENEVER YOU MENTIONED YOU WERE LOOKING AT CHANGING SOME THINGS, UH, FOR
[00:25:01]
SOME REPORTING IN THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD IS IF THAT WAS GONNA HAVE ANY, ANY EFFECT.BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT PROBABLY HAS LESS OF AN EFFECT OVERALL THE WAY IT IS NOW.
DID WE NEED SOMETHING ELSE FROM MATT? OKAY, GREAT.
UH, FOLLOWING UP ON BILL'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE HASSLE WOULD BE SUB TO ZERO, UH, YOU COULD STILL, UM, GET A CHARGING BASE POINT BASED ON YOUR BID AS LONG AS YOUR BID WAS ABOVE THE LMP, UM, YOU COULD STILL GET A CHARGING BASE POINT AND YOU COULD, UM, YOU KNOW, MOVE YOUR, AN ANSWERING SERVICE TO THE CLR SITE.
IS THAT CORRECT? STILL? AND, AND I GUESS THAT MAY BE DIRECTED TO ME THAT ANSWERING BILL'S QUESTION BEFORE THAT.
I GUESS I WAS JUST IN, IN TERMS OF THE LOGIC ITSELF, THE, THE WAY IT IT FUNCTIONS TODAY IS THAT THERE IS, THERE IS A LOW FLOOR IN TERMS OF WHAT THE BASE POINT CAN BE, THE HASSLE CALCULATION SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GENERATION SIDE.
AND THAT IS ZERO, OR IT'S ACTUALLY, IT'S ACTUALLY SET BY THE LOW ANSI SURFACE LIMIT, WHICH PRESUMABLY IS, IS ZERO FOR THESE TYPES OF RESOURCES.
SO, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME, THERE'S CERTAINLY THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONTROL LOAD RESOURCE COMPONENT OF THE BATTERY TO GET A BASE POINT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE ITS, ITS CHARGE AND FEED INTO ALL THOSE CALCULATIONS.
SO ALL THAT WOULD BE, WOULD BE HAPPENING WITHIN THE MATH AND THE RESOURCE LIMIT CALCULATOR.
AND, UM, ERCOT PROVIDED GUIDANCE IN, IN P 1186 ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FIRST ALLOCATING YOUR UP AN THREE SERVICES ON THE GR SIDE, CLR AND THEN TO THE CLR SIDE.
I, I'M ASSUMING THOSE STILL APPLY EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT IN THE PROTOCOLS, BUT, UH, ALL THAT GUIDANCE WOULD STILL APPLY, RIGHT? DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? YEAH, I, I MEAN, BUT THE BUSINESS PRACTICE MANUALS ARE STILL, I MEAN, THEY, THEY ARE NOT BINDING, OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
THEY ARE STILL OUR GUIDANCE FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE LOOKING TO SEE HOW THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, SEND TELEMETRY, SEND IN COPS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO, SO FOLKS SHOULD BE USING THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR GUIDANCE.
AND CERTAINLY SOME OF THE MORE RECENT CONVERSATIONS ON HOW TO MOVE YOUR ANCILLARY SERVICES ACROSS THE TWO COMPONENTS THAT MAKE UP THE ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE WOULD ALSO STILL APPLY.
AND I GUESS NATIKA WAS ALSO JUST MESSAGING TO ME.
UM, BUT JUST TALKING ABOUT, THERE WAS SOME RECENT DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC SPECIFICALLY, AND THAT'S INTENDED TO COME EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY ONE.
DOES NATIKA NEED TO RESPOND? IF YOU DON'T MIND? I THINK THAT DAVE COVERED IT.
I THINK DAVE COVERED, UH, SHAMS, UH, THERE WAS A CHANGE ALSO TIED TO THAT TELEMETRY, UH, GUIDANCE AND WE WOULD BE EFFECTIVE EFFECT LOOKING TO MAKE THAT EFFECTIVE COME FEBRUARY.
SO THERE ARE MARKET NOTICES OUT ALREADY TALKING ABOUT THAT.
SO THAT CHANGE YOU'RE REFERRING TO EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY ONE IS IN THE MARKET NOTICE? YES.
THIS IS MORE TIED TO REGULATION PARTICIPATION FACTOR AND WHAT SYSTEM CHANGES WE WOULD NEED SO THAT, UM, UH, ESRS CAN SEND, UH, PARTICIPATION FACTORS MORE APPROPRIATELY IN A REGIME WHERE YOU ARE SETTING ALL OF YOUR, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICES FIRST TO FILL UP THE, THE GEN SIDE, THE HSL SIDE OF YOUR RESOURCE.
BUT YES, THERE IS A LOT OF DETAILS, UH, IN THE MARKET NOTICES LUIS MADE PRESENTATIONS BOTH AT ROSS AND WMS. SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND ALL OF THOSE DETAILS.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO BRIAN SAMS. OKAY.
SO I, I HEAR THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME REPORTING REGARDING, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICE AWARDS AND ENSURING THAT THE RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN AWARDED ARE CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THEIR AWARD.
UH, I, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT WE MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AT A PROSPECTIVE PRS AND ROSS MEETING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF THE TIMING.
LIKE THERE'S A PRS MEETING ON THE FEBRUARY 8TH, THE BOARD MEETING IS FEBRUARY 27TH.
IS THIS GONNA BE BEFORE OR AFTER THAT? THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IS, UM, UN UNDERSTOOD.
I THINK 12, OH, THE 1209 ISSUE, WE WILL NEED TO ADDRESS THAT OR AT LEAST PUT OUT SOME KIND OF ROADMAP.
UM, IT MIGHT NOT BE FINAL, BUT I, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING AT PRS ON FEBRUARY 9TH.
ULTIMATELY, THE ITEM IS REMANDED TO THE BOARD AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM THE COMMISSION.
SO, UH, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE A FINAL ANSWER UNTIL THEN.
REGARDLESS, WE HAD ALWAYS CONTEMPLATING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND,
[00:30:01]
AND THINGS LIKE THAT.THAT'S A NORMAL PART OF ERCOT INKS BUSINESS.
UM, BUT THERE MIGHT MAY BE DATA POINTS THAT ARE USEFUL BEYOND THE THINGS WE'RE CONTEMPLATING.
AND TO THAT END, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK WE WANT, IS RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMISSION AND THAT WE WANNA REPORT ON.
AND Y'ALL MIGHT SAY, WELL, I'M INTERESTED IN THIS, OR WHY DO YOU NEED THAT? AND SO WE'D LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
IT SEEMS LIKE PART OF THAT FITS INTO WMS AND PART OF IT FITS INTO ROS TO ME.
SO THERE'S A FEW THINGS GOING ON.
UM, SO THE BOARD WILL TAKE UP 1186 IN FEBRUARY.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT AFTER THAT WE MIGHT WANT IT TO COME BACK HERE FOR SOME OF THE CONTINUED LANGUAGE QUESTIONS ONCE WE SEE THE FINAL VERSION.
YEAH, I MEAN, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, I MEAN, THEY MIGHT REMAND IT TO TAC EVEN OR OKAY.
SO I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA DEAL WITH IT.
BUT THEN CONCURRENTLY YOU'RE PLANNING, ERTA IS PLANNING TO BRING A ROADMAP OF 1209 TO PRS BEFORE THAT FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING? YES.
I, I THINK, UM, I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSING WHAT 1209 CAN AND CAN'T BE GIVEN THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS, SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO 1209.
SO, UM, I THINK WE, WE'VE STARTED WORKING ON THAT.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE LIKE THE FINAL ANSWER OR NOT, BUT WE'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT AT PRS.
UM, I THINK THE FINAL, THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD AT THE BOARD MEETING IN TERMS OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE WE STAND IN TERMS OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
THAT WAS ALSO AS DISCUSSED AND THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED THE INTEREST, AND I DON'T SEE THAT BEING TIED TO ANY OF THE NPR R SO THAT I THINK WE COULD GET GOING ON.
SO THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT FEBRUARY.
WM S AND ROSS, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING.
AGAIN, Y'ALL GET TO, UH, SET THE AGENDA FOR WMS AND ROSS.
SO 1209 AT FEBRUARY PRSA KIND OF DRAFT ROADMAP DISCUSSIONS ON REPORTING AT FEBRUARY ROSS AND FEBRUARY WMS. AND THEN THE BOARD WILL TAKE UP 1186 AT FEBRUARY BOARD, WHICH IS AFTER ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS.
SO, SO REGARDLESS, I THINK WE WILL WANT TO DISCUSS WHERE ALL THOSE PATHS ARE GOING AT FEBRUARY ATTACK.
UH, BILL BARNES, BRIAN, DID THAT ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS? IT, IT DID, AND I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS BE ATTACK PRIORITY FOR ROSS AND WMS TOO.
I, I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IT HERE TO KEEP TRACK OF THOSE SOUNDS LIKE FOUR DIFFERENT TRACKS ARE HAPPENING.
SO I, I THINK DISCUSSION HERE WOULD BE GOOD, UM, ON A CONTINUED BASIS.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING.
UM, SO TO MEET THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTIVE TO US ON TRANSPARENCY, WE ARE CONSIDERING POSSIBLY REPURPOSING 1209 TO BE A REPORTING? NO.
SO THE, THE COMMENT ABOUT JUST, WE COULD JUST CREATE AN ASSIGNMENT AT WMS FOR ERCOT TO PRODUCE REPORTS MONTHLY ON AS SHORTAGES AND DOLLAR COST TO CONSUMER.
THAT, THAT IS, WE DON'T NEED AN NPR TO DO THAT.
UM, AND, AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK THE ASSIGNMENT ON THE REPORTING WAS TO ERCOT, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.
UM, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE INTERACT WITH YOU ON THAT.
AND I JUST WANT TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR THAT.
WE NEED TO HAVE A BROADER DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE INCLUDE, WHAT DATA'S THERE, HOW WE TRACK IT.
AND, UH, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION AND IT'S A, A, UH, KAAN, I APPRECIATE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL TO, TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
UH, TWO SUGGESTIONS I'D LIKE TO PUT IN THE QUEUE FOR, FOR THAT.
UM, ONE IS ERCOT HAS THE NEW DASHBOARD WIDGET WITH, UH, ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES AND, UH, THEIR CHARGING AND DISCHARGING.
HAVING AGGREGATE STATE OF CHARGE, UH, ADDED TO THAT MAY BE AN EASY WAY FOR FOLKS TO, TO JUST SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE.
AND, UM, ALSO IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICES MONITOR, UM, THAT MAY BE ANOTHER REPORT THAT CAN SHOW, YOU KNOW, IN REAL TIME AS THINGS ARE HAPPENING, WHAT THE AGGREGATE STATE OF CHARGE IS ON ESR CARRYING ANCILLARY SERVICES.
IF YOU DON'T MIND SENDING ME AN EMAIL SO THAT I GET THAT DOWN RIGHT.
[00:35:01]
ERIC BLAKEY, I JUST WANT TO, UH, SAY WMS WE'LL BE GLAD TO ADD THIS TO OUR AGENDA.
I JUST WANNA BE SURE WE'RE, WE'RE HITTING THE MARK.
ARE YOU EXPECTING TO HAVE LIKE AN INITIAL PROPOSAL OF WHAT YOU, YOU SEE REPORTING? OR WERE YOU ENVISIONING THAT WMS WOULD START BRAINSTORMING? OR WHAT DO YOU ENVISION FOR THAT? I, I, I WOULD PREFER TO BRING YOU SOMETHING WITH, WITH OUR THOUGHT PROCESS AND YOU CAN ENHANCE A QUESTION, UH, WHAT WE HAVE ON THERE.
SOME OF IT MAY BE NEEDED FOR OUR PURPOSES, SO I WOULD WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE WILLING TO TAKE ANYTHING OFF, BUT WE JUST DON'T CATCH EVERYTHING THAT, THAT ARE NEEDED, MAYBE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OR, OR OTHER REASONS.
UM, AND WOULD JUST REALLY ENJOY INTERACTING WITH THE EXPERTS ON THE MARKET SIDE AND ON THE RELIABILITY SIDE ON, ON THIS ISSUE.
AND APPRECIATE THAT EXPERTISE.
I BELIEVE THE QUEUE IS CLEAR ON THIS.
ARE WE WRAPPED UP ON THE 1186 ISSUE? JUST, JUST REAL QUICK, BACK TO ERIC'S COMMENTS.
DOES THE, DOES THE PATH FOR 1209, IS IT ANY DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT WAS A BOARD PRIORITY NPRR, I WOULD THINK BOARD WOULD'VE TO SAY IF THEY WANT IT WITHDRAWN.
BUT DOES THE PROCESS CHANGE AT ALL? BECAUSE IT'S A BOARD PRIORITY NPR, AND I KNOW WE'RE GONNA STUDY THAT, SO I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER TODAY.
IT WASN'T CAPTURED IN THE QUEUE, BUT WE DID A KIND OF INFORMAL RAISED HAND METHOD.
ARE WE WRAPPED UP ON 1186? OKAY.
I THINK WE HAD ONE OTHER ITEM, UM, WE WANTED TO DISCUSS ON, ON THESE MEETING UPDATES.
MARK IS ON THE NEXT ITEM, I BELIEVE.
UM, SO WE, THE BOARD DID APPROVE OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY.
I BELIEVE IT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION, OR THEY APPROVED THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY.
UM, BUT WE HAD RECOMMENDED TO REVISIT THAT THIS YEAR, AND I BELIEVE MARK WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR REELECTION.
UM, AT OUR MEETING LAST MONTH, UH, WE CONSIDERED THE ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY.
WE HAD A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION, UH, INCLUDING PRESENTATION FROM, UH, THE IMM, UH, WHERE HE, UH, PRESENTED THEIR ANALYSIS THAT SUGGESTS THAT WE MAY HAVE INTRODUCED A 12 AND A HALF BILLION DOLLAR INEFFICIENCY INTO OUR MARKET WITH THE, UH, INTRODUCTION THIS SUMMER OF ECRS.
UM, AFTER OUR DISCUSSION, WE, WE AGREED TO VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, TO THE BOARD, THE, THE ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY, UH, GIVEN ERCO T'S COMMITMENT TO RE STUDY, UH, THE ECRS METHODOLOGY PRIOR TO THE SUMMER.
AND I THINK THERE'S A, A DATE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THAT TIME IS COMING QUICKLY, AND I THINK WE NEED TO, UH, SPEND SOME TIME, UH, MAKING SURE THAT THAT STUDY, UH, MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMITTEE TO MOVE FORWARD AND REEVALUATE THE ECRS.
UM, I, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
I MEAN, I HAVE BASIC QUESTIONS.
UM, DOES ERCOT VALIDATE THE ANALYSIS THAT CAME FROM THE IMM? UM, DID WE ACTUALLY INDUCE SHORTAGE BY OUR OPERATION OF ECRS? THESE ARE CRITICAL QUESTIONS, UH, FOR US TO REEVALUATE THE SERVICE AND UNDERSTAND WHETHER WE'VE REALLY INTRODUCED INEFFICIENCY AND INTO OUR MARKET.
SO I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR MOVING FORWARD TO, TO, UH, CHARACTERIZE THAT STUDY AND FIND OUT WHAT THAT STUDY'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
WHETHER WE, WE DO THAT AT WMS OR WE HOLD A WORKSHOP, UH, AS I SAID LAST MONTH, I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO CONSUMERS.
IT HAS HAPPENED SINCE WINTER STORM URI.
WE MAY HAVE INTRODUCED AN ENORMOUS INEFFICIENCY INTO OUR MARKET AND UNDERMINED OUR MARKET MODEL.
AND SO WE NEED TO TAKE THIS SUPER SERIOUSLY IN THE THREE MONTHS THAT WE HAVE TO DO IT AND MAKE SURE WE GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO REEVALUATE.
DOES ERCO WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? YEAH, I BELIEVE THE OPERATIONS TEAM HAS ALREADY STARTED WORKING ON
[00:40:01]
LOOKING AT, UH, SOME, UH, SOME ISSUES, UH, BETWEEN THE TAC MEETING AND THE BOARD.WE DID ENGAGE, UH, THE IMM ON SOME THINGS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE SOME MORE WORK TO DO THERE.
UH, I'M HAPPY TO LET WIN, TAKE THE MIC AND GIVE HER PERSPECTIVE, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME FOLLOW UP ON SOME, UH, IDEAS THAT, ON BOTH SIDES THAT, THAT WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH, UM, THAT'S IN THE OPERATIONS TEAMS, UH, TO-DO LIST OR INBOX, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO WANT TO CALL IT.
UM, AND THAT IS ALRE THAT, THAT STARTED HAD, AS WE, AS THE METHODOLOGY WAS MOVING TO THE BOARD.
I DON'T WANNA SAY ANYTHING'S COMPLETED.
WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO, BUT THAT WORK HAS STARTED.
UM, BILL BARNES, I THINK SIMILAR TO MARK'S QUESTION IS REALLY MORE REGARDING THE PROCESS, UH, AND HOW THAT JIVES WITH THE COMMISSION'S PROCESS, WHICH WE HAVE JUST, UM, SEEN A, A MEMO FILED OR A LETTER FILED JOINTLY BETWEEN ERCOT AND I BELIEVE THE IMM THAT PROPOSES A REALLY GOOD LIST OF DISCUSSION ITEMS REGARDING THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY AND HOW TO EVALUATE HOW MUCH WE'RE BUYING AND WHAT WE ACTUALLY NEED.
AND THEN A TIMELINE, A PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW, WHICH IS STARTS SOON.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW, HOW WE ALIGN THAT INITIATIVE WITH THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY.
DO THEY BECOME ONE, ESSENTIALLY? I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA DUPLICATE EFFORTS AND MAKE ERCOT GO OFF AND DO A BUNCH OF STUFF FOR US WHEN THEY'RE DOING THE SAME THING FOR THE COMMISSION OR VICE VERSA.
SO JUST CURIOUS HOW THOSE TWO INITIATIVES WORK TOGETHER AND FEED ON ONE ANOTHER AT SOME POINT.
AND BILL, YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH ME ON THIS, BUT MY, MY RECOLLECTION OF THE COMMISSION LIST OF ISSUES AND THE TAC LIST OF ISSUES ARE, ARE DIFFERENT.
UM, I THINK THE COMMISSION IS MUCH MORE FOCUSED ON, HEY, WE DON'T CURRENTLY GET TO REVIEW OR APPROVE THE AS METHODOLOGY.
IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO, UH, PROCURE AS, UH, RATHER THAN THIS MINIMUM QUANTITY A YEAR AHEAD THAT ACTUALLY MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE? UM, BUT IT HAS OTHER BENEFITS? UH, I THINK, SO I THINK THEY'RE ASKING SOME MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS AROUND THE AS METHODOLOGY VERSUS ECRS AND THE QUANTITY AND POSSIBLY WHEN ECRS WAS RELEASED AND THAT TYPE OF QUESTION.
SO IN MY MIND THEY WERE KIND OF ON TWO SEPARATE PATHS.
I AM HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED OR, OR TAKE FEEDBACK ON THAT.
IF IT'S NOT, IF THEY'RE NOT DUPLICATIVE EFFORTS, THEN, THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ADDRESSES MY CONCERNS.
BUT I, I MEAN, I SEE SOME OF THE DISCUSSION ITEMS IN THE OUTLINE ARE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, BUT, ALRIGHT, UH, UH, THE, THERE I I'M SURE THERE IS SOME OVERLAP IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE POINTING TO.
UH, IS YOUR EXPECTATION WE WOULD HAVE THAT, THE T DISCUSSION BEFORE THE INITIATIVE AT THE COMMISSION KICKS OFF? Y YES.
I MEAN, WE COMMITTED TO TAC TO BRING SOMETHING IN A APRIL.
WAS IT APRIL OR BEFORE OR SO? OR APRIL OR BEFORE.
FOR THE GOAL WAS SOMETHING FOR THE SUMMER IS THE WAY I REMEMBER IT, BUT THERE WAS A APRIL DISCUSSION IN THERE ALSO.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE TO DO HONOR, HONOR THAT, UM, I'M HAPPY TO BE, UH, INSTRUCTED BY THE COMMISSION TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF, IF THAT DOESN'T ALIGN.
JUST REALLY BRIEFLY, IT WASN'T JUST A COMMITMENT TO T IT WAS A COMMITMENT TO THE
UM, AND, UH, WHILE THERE IS SOME OVERLAP, AS I READ THE MEMO THAT WAS FILED, UM, THERE'S, UM, UH, NOT A AS MUCH OF A TIMING OVERLAP.
SO PERHAPS THE ECRS THING COULD INFORM THE DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENS LATER.
BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP.
I THINK DUE TO TIMING, WE JUST NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMMITMENT TO, AS YOU POINT OUT THE BOARD.
[00:45:01]
WHAT FOR MERCA? SO I, I THINK, UM, AGAIN, WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE IMM ON WHAT SOME NEXT STEPS ARE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, UM, THAT, UH, TAC UH, EXPRESSED AND THEN BRING, UH, A PROPOSAL, UM, THAT MAINTAINS RELIABILITY, BUT COMES UP WITH, UH, POSSIBLY WAYS TO, UH, REDUCE QUANTITIES OF ECRS OR REDUCE, UH, OR RELEASE THOSE QUANTITIES SOONER.AND THAT PROPOSAL WOULD COME TO TECH? I, I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT SHOULD START ITS JOURNEY.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT TRADITIONALLY GOES TO ROS AND UP, BUT, OKAY.
UM, I THINK WE, WE CAN LET, WE CAN LET T KNOW TO GET TO TAC OKAY.
BY THE, BY THE COMMITTED, UH, DATE.
AND WE WILL LET THE LISTSERV KNOW AT LEAST IF IT'S GONNA SHOW UP AT A SUBCOMMITTEE BEFORE HERE.
UM, USING THE OLD CARD, UH, METHOD, UM, I I, I APPRECIATE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WORKING ON THIS ALREADY AND THAT YOU'RE COMMITTED TO BRINGING SOMETHING, UM, UH, WITH PROPOSALS BY THE APRIL DEADLINE, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE THE STAKEHOLDERS NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN A MUCH EARLIER DATE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCOPE IS AND TO SEE IF THAT SCOPE REALLY SATISFIES THEIR NEEDS.
SO I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING BROUGHT IN DURING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER THAT'S IN A, IN A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OR WE HAVE A WORKSHOP, BUT, BUT I DON'T WANNA WAIT TILL APRIL TO SEE THE END PRODUCT WITHOUT HAVING HAD A ROLE FOR STAKEHOLDERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT END PRODUCT.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FEEDBACK AND WILL TRY TO BE RESPONSIVE.
UH, I NEED TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE THERE ARE RESOURCES TO MEET YOUR REQUEST, BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE AND WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO FACILITATE YOUR, YOUR REQUEST.
I THINK A SCOPE OR PRELIMINARY RESULTS WOULD BE GOOD.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS TOPIC? WHICH WAS THE MEETING UPDATES? OKAY.
[6. Confirmation of 2024 Subcommittee/SubGroup Leadership (Vote)]
WE CAN MOVE ON TO CONFIRMATION OF 2024 SUBCOMMITTEE AND SUBGROUP LEADERSHIP.I THINK CORY IS GONNA PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN.
SO WE DO HAVE, UH, ONE OPEN SPOT.
UM, THE, WE HAD A ROSS CHAIR ELECTED IN JANUARY AND SHE HAD A JOB CHANGE, AND WE WILL HAVE A ROSS, UH, ELECTION FOR CHAIR IN FEBRUARY, BUT EVERYBODY ELSE IS AS UP ON THE SCREEN.
AND, AND THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO, WHO IS IN A CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR SPOT.
AND SO I BELIEVE, UM, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS AND I THINK WE CAN ADD IT TO THE COMBO BALLOT UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
CORY, CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ADD A CARD? YEAH.
I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT JUST TO LET FOLKS KNOW ON THE, THE CHANGEOVER AT ROSS, UM, I HAVE, UH, RELINQUISHED MY SEAT AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS THIS WEEK TO, UH, ELECT A REPLACEMENT.
AND SO, UH, PENDING THE OUTCOMES OF THAT, THEN, UM, I THINK WE'LL WE'LL BE TEED UP TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION OR FOR ROSS TO SELECT NEW LEADERSHIP.
SO I, I THINK THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE.
AND YOU CAN, UH, BOTHER NED OFFLINE IF YOU WANT TO BE INFORMED OF, OF THE PLAN FOR, UH, ROSS.
AND I'M, I'M SURE HE'LL TAKE FEEDBACK, UH, ON, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS AS WELL.
AND GOOD WITH ADDING IT TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
SO WE CAN, WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
[7. 2024 TAC Goals (Vote)]
ARE ON TO TECH GOALS AND I THINK, UH, I SET IT AS A QUESTION MARK BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS THE 2023 TECH GOALS THAT WE COPIED AND PASTED FOR 2024.I, I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS AND THINK ABOUT REVISIONS.
UM, SO WE, WE CAN VOTE ON THIS TODAY OR WE CAN DEFER AND, AND VOTE ON IT NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD
[00:50:01]
PROBABLY BE MY RECOMMENDATION, SO WHERE EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.UM, SO LAST YEAR WHEN WE CONSIDERED GOALS, I ASKED THAT YOU INDULGE ME BY INCLUDING ITEM NUMBER 18 IN THE GOAL LIST.
TO, TO LOOK BACK AT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE'VE ADOPTED AND EVALUATE THOSE TO SEE IF THEY, UH, MET OUR NEEDS TO SEE IF THEY WERE, THEY WERE CONTRIBUTING, WHAT WE'D ASK FOR THEM TO CONTRIBUTE OR, OR IF ANY MODIFICATIONS WERE, WERE APPROPRIATE.
UM, I RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE RESOURCE ISSUES AND A LOT ON OUR PLATE, BUT, UH, I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO REALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PARTICULAR GOAL LAST YEAR.
I, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT LOOKING BACKWARDS AND EVALUATING OUR MARKET AND, AND ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THAT MARKET IS, IS CORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE WE'RE DEALING WITH A LOT.
SO I'M NOT GONNA ASK THAT 18, UH, BE IN THE GOALS AGAIN NEXT YEAR.
I THINK WE CAN DROP IT, UM, BECAUSE I, I, I KNOW WHAT THE PICTURE LOOKS LIKE, SO, UM, OTHERWISE I THINK WE HAVE A, UH, AN OUTSTANDING SET OF GOALS THAT MEET OUR NEEDS AND WE, WE GET A LOT TO DO.
OKAY, SO YOU'D LIKE TO DELETE 18.
ARE THERE ANY, OKAY, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A QUEUE.
UH, BOB HILTON, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR DO YOU JUST WANNA SAY WAIT FOR NEXT MONTH? I, I WOULD SUGGEST WE WAIT FOR NEXT MONTH, ESPECIALLY WITH MARK WANTING TO WITHDRAW 18.
I WANNA THINK ABOUT THAT A WHILE.
AND, UH, I THINK SIMILARLY TO BOB, I CAN CERTAINLY SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN 18 THAT WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED FOR THIS YEAR ANYHOW.
UM, AND MAY BE GENERALIZED SINCE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT REMOVED FROM WINTER STORM URI AND MM-HMM.
IT'S NOT 2023 ANYMORE, BUT, UM, I THINK THERE MAY STILL BE A CHARGE THAT IS GENERAL AND IT KIND OF HITS THE SAME CONCEPT, UM, THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE EVEN IF IT'S NOT A, LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE ELEMENT EVERY MEETING.
JUST HAVE THAT AS AN OVERARCHING.
YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, I THINK THE YEAR DATE HAS TO BE CHANGED AND I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT MAKES MORE SENSE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE OFF YEAR.
UM, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY AMBITIOUS TO HAVE, HAVE THAT LAST YEAR WITH HALF THE, THE YEAR END AND SESSION ON ELECTRICITY.
SO, UM, I I THINK THAT'S GOOD TO REVIEW.
I WAS GONNA SAY, I, I THINK I'VE HEARD THIS MORNING MAYBE SOME REQUESTS FOR GOALS OR TECH ACTION ITEMS RELATED TO 1186 AND I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING ON ANCILLARY SERVICES MIGHT NEED TO BE CAPTURED THAT'S NOT CAPTURED IN HERE.
UM, SO I, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, ECHO THAT RECOMMENDATION AGAIN TO MAYBE GIVE EVERYBODY A MONTH TO, TO PROPOSE CHANGES AND TAKE THIS UP IN FEBRUARY.
AND I SEE ROY TRUE IN THE QUEUE.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT, AND THAT IS, I THINK THAT, UH, TROY ANDERSON HAD, UH, HAD MADE A STATEMENT, UH, LAST MONTH, I BELIEVE, UH, FOR THE PRS, THAT THAT, UH, THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME REVIEW THAT WAS PERFORMED, I BELIEVE IT WAS BY STAFF, BUT THEY WERE GONNA GET BACK WITH THE, UH, PARTICIPANTS, THE STAKEHOLDERS, UH, WITH SOME OF THE, THE REVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BUT HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
AND I THINK THERE WERE SOME OF THEM THAT MAYBE, UH, HAVE, UH, OUT OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE APPROVED.
SO I THINK MAYBE THIS MIGHT, UH, GO A LITTLE WAYS TOWARDS WHAT I THINK BOB WAS TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT EXACTLY, BUT I THINK IT IS, UH, MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS? SO I THINK WE CAN DEFER THIS.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.
AND THEN, UM, WE DID WANNA BRING UP ONE OTHER TOPIC UNDER THIS ITEM, WHICH IS THE, UM, STRUCTURAL REVIEW WE DO THE, THE TECH WORKING GROUP SUBCOMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE STRUCTURAL REVIEW.
WE DO THAT RIGHT NOW ANNUALLY.
I THINK WE WANTED TO RAISE THE IDEA OF POSSIBLY MOVING THAT TO EVERY OTHER YEAR IF ANYBODY HAS COMMENT ON THAT.
UM, AND ANNE, I'LL DEFER TO YOU.
DO WE NEED FORMAL ACTION IF WE'D WANNA DO THAT? I DON'T THINK WE NEED FORMAL ACTION.
[00:55:01]
TECH AS AN AGREEMENT WITH IT, WE CAN PRESENT THAT CONCEPT TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD AND SEE, GET THEIR FEEDBACK.DOES ANYBODY HAVE OBJECTION TO THAT? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PRESENT MOVING THAT ANNUAL REVIEW TO, UH, EVERY TWO YEARS.
BIANNUAL IS TRICKY 'CAUSE IT CAN MEAN, YOU KNOW, TWICE A YEAR
[8. Review of ERCOT Market Impact Statements/Opinions and IMM]
UM, NEXT WE ARE ONTO OUR ERCOT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND ERCOT OPINIONS AND IMM OPINIONS.UM, AND DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO THE ERCOT STATEMENTS ON REVISION REQUESTS? YEAH.
UH, BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, CAN WE BRING UP THAT REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY THAT WAS POSTED TO THE TAC PAGE? I DON'T THINK IT'S UNDER AN ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM.
UM, SO ON JANUARY 1ST, WE IMPLEMENTED THE NEW CHANGES TO THE REVISION REQUEST FORM AND THE TAC REPORT THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE DECEMBER TTAC MEETING, UM, IS STILL KIND OF A WORK IN PROGRESS AND A WORK IN PROCEDURE.
UM, BUT THE NEW TAC REPORT REQUIRES TAC TO CONFIRM THAT WE'VE REVIEWED CERTAIN THINGS WHEN MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THAT INCLUDES THE OPINIONS OF IMM AND ERCOT, THE CFSG REVIEW, THE IA REASON FOR REVISION, ET CETERA.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS WE'RE GONNA POST THIS GRID THAT CONTAINS MOST OF THOSE ELEMENTS, UM, FOR TAC TO REVIEW EVERY MONTH, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM QUICKLY.
SO WE'RE TRYING NOT TO DISRUPT THE TAC PROCESS TOO MUCH THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.
AND THEN THE DESCRIPTION, JUSTIFICATION, COMMENTS WE'LL JUST REVIEWED WHEN WE REVIEW THE REVISION REQUESTS.
SO, SO, UM, I'LL JUST GO OVER A FEW THINGS THAT I'LL POINT OUT.
UM, AS FAR AS IMPACTS GO 12 11, 11 70 OR LESS THAN 5K, UM, NO, 2 45 IS LESS THAN 10 K WITH THE 480 TO FIVE 70 K RECURRING O AND M.
AND THEN NPR 1208 HAS A 40 TO 60 K IMPACT, AND SCR 8 25 HAS A ONE 50 TO TWO 50 K IMPACT.
UM, FOR THE REASONS FOR REVISIONS, WE'VE GOT SIX THAT FALL UNDER THAT STRATEGIC PLAN.
OBJECTIVE ONE, UM, THREE UNDER OBJECTIVE TWO, TWO THAT ARE REGULATORY AND THREE THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVE.
UM, FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND POINT OUT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE CHANGING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BOX SINCE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE.
UM, AND 21 ADMINISTRATIVE REFERS TO NON SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES SUCH AS UPDATING SECTION REFERENCES OR CORRECTING ACRONYMS. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING THESE REVISION REQUESTS ARE TIED TO.
SO WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT TO GENERAL SYSTEM AND OR PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.
I THINK THAT'S MORE ACCURATE OF, UM, WHAT PEOPLE ARE PICKING THERE.
UM, CFSG HAS REVIEWED ALL OF THE NPRS AND THEY DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THEM REQUIRE CHANGES TO CREDIT MONITORING ACTIVITY OR THE CALCULATION OF LIABILITY.
UM, FOR THE ERCOT OPINIONS AND MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS, WE DO SUPPORT ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS, UM, AGAIN, EXCEPT FOR NORE 2 45 AND PGO 1 0 5.
UM, AND THEN THE IMM SUPPORTS 1170 AND PGR 1 0 5 AND HAS NO OPINION ON THE REMAINING REVISION REQUESTS.
UM, I WILL STATE THAT THEY DID CHANGE THEIR OPINION ON NOVEMBER, 2245 FROM SUPPORTING THE ROSS VERSION TO NO OPINION.
AND I'LL LET IMM SPEAK TO THAT IF THEY WANT TO.
SO, UH, I GUESS THE DIFFERENCES FROM THE LAST SET OF OPINIONS, THE FIRST OFF BEING 1170, WHICH WE SUPPORT THE, UM, EFFORT TO REFLECT FUTURE FUEL LIMITATIONS THROUGH COP EMISSIONS, WHICH, UH, WAS A SUBSTANCE OF THAT NPRR.
AND THEN THE CHANGE FOR NORE 2 45 WAS, I THINK SINCE THE ROSS APPROVAL OF THAT VERSION, THERE HAVE BEEN A SLEW OF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS THAT, UM, SOME OF WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE.
AND SO, UM, THE CHANGE IN OUR OPINION IS, IS DUE TO THAT.
COULD EVERYBODY HEAR THAT? IT WAS A LITTLE FAINT, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
MAYBE NEXT TIME CLOSER TO THE MIC.
UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THERE? OKAY.
AND THANKS ANNE FOR LAYING THAT OUT AND NOT MAKING US CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF, OF ADMINISTRATIVE.
SO WE'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY, UM, AS THIS NEW, UM, REQUIREMENT WE HAVE.
[9. PRS Report (Vote)]
WE ARE MOVING ON TO THE PRS REPORT AND WE HAVE A NEW FACE.SO I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO MARTHA WHO CHAIRED PRS FOR, FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
UM, AND I KNOW SHE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND HARD WORK ON THAT, AND THAT WAS, I THINK, A BIG STANDING OVATION FROM CORY
[01:00:01]
IT'S A HIGH BAR, BUT YOU CAN DO IT, DIANA.AND I BELIEVE ALL OF THESE ARE UNOPPOSED, SO I WON'T STOP YOU.
UM, SO SOME ARE NO IMPACT AND SOME ARE IMPACT, AND I'LL LET YOU RUN THROUGH IT AND THEN WE CAN TRY TO GET THESE ON THE COMBO BALLOT OR OTHERWISE VOTE AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION.
DIANA COLEMAN FROM CPS ENERGY WITH THE JANUARY PRS REPORT.
ALL OF THE, UM, PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WE HAVE FOR TAX CONSIDERATION TODAY, WERE UNOPPOSED.
THE FIRST FOUR THAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT, UM, HAD NO COST ASSOCIATED, UH, WITH THOSE CHANGES.
HEY, DANA, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE IN THE MIC RIGHT NOW.
FIRST ITEM IS 1179 COMES TO US FROM ERCOT.
THIS ENSURES THAT QUEASY THAT REPRESENT GENERATION RESOURCES THAT HAVE AN EXECUTED AND ENFORCEABLE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT AND FILED A SETTLEMENT DISPUTE TO RECOVER THEIR ACTUAL COST INCURRED WHEN INSTRUCTED TO OPERATE DUE TO A R.
THIS IS ENSURING THAT THE QUEASY, UH, PROCURE THEIR FUEL ECONOMICALLY AND ALSO CLARIFIES THE FUEL COSTS THAT MAY BE INCLUDED FOR, UM, FUEL DELIVERY OUTSIDE OF THOSE RUCK COMMITTED INTERVALS.
NEXT, WE HAVE 1195 FROM STACK THAT ASSIGNS THE EPS METERING FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE OWNER OF THE METERING FACILITIES WHEN SUCH ITEMS ARE NOT OWNED BY A-T-D-S-P 12, 0 6 AND 1207.
BOTH COME TO US FROM ERCOT 1206, CLARIFIES THE TYPES OF QUES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A HOTLINE AND 24 7 DAY PER WEEK CONTROL OR OPERATIONS CENTER.
AND THEN FINALLY, 1207 PERMITS THE INCIDENTAL DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION AND CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF A TOUR OR OVERLOOKING VIEWING OF THE ERCOT CONTROL ROOM.
SO AGAIN, ALL FOUR OF THESE WERE UNOPPOSED AND HAD NO COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
THESE FOUR ALSO WERE UNOPPOSED, BUT DID HAVE SOME COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
THIS IS DEFINING THE INSTANCES IN WHICH A QUEASY THAT REPRESENTS A GENERATION RESOURCE THAT RELIES ON NATURAL GAS AS THE PRIMARY FUEL SOURCE WHEN THEY SHOULD NOTIFY ERCOT ABOUT DISRUPTIONS OF THEIR RESOURCES, GAS SUPPLY.
AND THE COST FOR THIS IS LESS THAN $5,000.
1208 IS CREATING A NEW REPORT ENTITLED THE ERCOT INVOICE REPORT, WHICH IS, WHICH LISTS THE ERCOT INVOICES ISSUED FOR THE CURRENT DAY AND THE DAY PRIOR AT A COUNTERPARTY LEVEL.
THE IMPACT ON THIS PROPOSAL IS 40 TO $60,000.
1211 IS MOVING THE METHODOLOGY FROM THE OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS INTO THE PROTOCOLS IN SECTION 22, AND THE COST FOR THIS IS LESS THAN $5,000.
AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE ONE SYSTEM CHANGE REQUEST, UM, THAT IS COMING TO US FROM TENAS.
THIS IS CHANGING OR MODIFYING THE ERCOT CONTROL ROOM, UH, VOICE COMMUNICATION CONFIGURATIONS TO ALLOW FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR QUEASY AND THEIR SUBIES.
THE IA ON THIS ONE IS BETWEEN 150 AND $250,000.
THE COST ON THIS, UH, FOR THIS CHANGE WOULD NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE PROJECT'S IMPLEMENTED.
SO 2025 AT THE EARLIEST, AND AGAIN, THOSE WERE ALL UNOPPOSED.
UM, SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE PUT ALL EIGHT OF THESE ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
UH, NOT OPPOSED TO PUTTING ALL OF THEM ON THE COMBO BALLOT, BUT DID WANT TO GIVE ONE VOICEOVER ON NPR 1206.
UM, THERE WERE SOME GOOD EDITS THAT WERE MADE, UM, IT AT PRS TO, TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN, UM, IF A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A QUEASY AND A SETTLEMENT ONLY, UH, DG THAT ARE TRYING TO SPLIT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE, THE EXTENDED TIMELINE, BUT THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, HAVING A REVIEW OF THE, THE OVERALL PROCESS FOR A QUEASY AND A RESOURCE THAT ARE TRYING TO SPLIT UP.
UM, AND, AND TRYING TO, UH, EXPEDITE THAT SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE PARTIES THAT ARE, UH, POTENTIALLY AT THE BITTER END OF A, OF A COMMERCIAL DISPUTE.
UM, YOU KNOW, BEING FORCED TO, UH, CONTINUE THEIR, THEIR ALIGNMENT.
SO, UM, BUT CHANGES IN HERE WE'RE GOOD.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE FINE PUTTING THAT ON THE COMMA BALLOT.
YOU MAY ASK A QUESTION, KENNAN, SINCE YOU SO NICELY GOT IN THE QUEUE.
SO WHAT, WHAT'S THE PATH FORWARD ON THE MISSING PARTS? THE DISCUSSION AT PRS WAS TO, UM, THAT MAYBE THAT WOULD COME OF AT WMWG, UH, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.
UM, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE, I THINK.
YEAH, YOU GET THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR ME.
[01:05:02]
I, ALRIGHT.ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, SIR? OKAY.
SO I, I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT ALL EIGHT OF THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
I WILL NOT READ THROUGH THEM NOW.
UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S THE EIGHT THAT WERE IN THIS PRESENTATION.
UM, I THINK THEY'RE ALL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE JANUARY 11TH PRS REPORT.
AND WE'LL SEE THOSE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THEM.
[10. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)]
SO NOW WE ARE ON TO THE REVISION REQUESTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY TABLED AT TAC.UM, AND I THINK THIS IS THE, THE BIG ONE FOR TODAY.
WE HAVE NOUR 2 45, WE DISCUSSED THIS AT TAC IN DECEMBER.
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL SETS OF COMMENTS COME IN AND I SEE ERIC CHANGING SEATS.
I, I KNOW HE HAS, NAVA HAS HIS PROXY AND HE'LL BE REPRESENTING SOMEONE ELSE.
UM, SO WE'VE HAD SEVERAL SETS OF COMMENTS COME IN.
WE DO HAVE A ERCOT PRESENTATION.
UM, SO I, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS TAKE THE ERCOT PRESENTATION FIRST AND THEN LET THE COMMENTER SPEAK TO THEIR COMMENTS, UM, AND THEN HAVE DISCUSSION.
I AM TOLD THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE TOTAL PRESENTATION AND COMMENTS TO 30 MINUTES BY THOSE WHO WILL BE MAKING THEM.
I THINK THAT'S AMBITIOUS, BUT I WILL APPLAUD THE EFFORT.
UM, BUT MAYBE WE COULD TRY TO KEEP THAT TO ROUGHLY 30 MINUTES.
AND THEN THE, THE DISCUSSION AND, AND MOTIONS AND VOTING TO, TO ROUGHLY 30 MINUTES AS WELL.
BUT WE, WE WILL SEE HOW THAT TURNS OUT.
THIS IS STEVEN SLI WITH ERCOT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? FIRST YOU ARE A LITTLE QUIET, BUT HOW ABOUT NOW? IS THAT BETTER? I'M FINE WITH THAT.
IF EVERYONE ELSE IS IT, IT'S BETTER.
IT'S STILL A LITTLE QUIET, BUT, OKAY.
I'LL TRY TO SPEAK UP, BUT, UH, JUST LET ME KNOW IF I NEED TO ADJUST VOLUME.
I'M PRINCIPAL OF SYSTEM OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT WITH ERCOT.
AS MENTIONED, WE'LL TRY TO KEEP, UH, THE PRESENTATION BRIEF AND ALLOW MORE TIME FOR, FOR QUESTION AND DISCUSSION.
UM, I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE, THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE TO NOER 2 45, LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE PRESENTED AT THE DECEMBER TAC.
UH, I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS SLIDE.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR, UM, TO THE PREVIOUS, UH, PRESENTED OVERVIEW ON ON NOGA 2 45.
SO, THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ERCOT SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 8TH OF THIS YEAR, UH, WHICH TEXAS RE DID COMMENT AFTERWARDS THAT THEY, THEY LARGELY, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, AGREED WITH ERCOT POSITION ON THESE COMMENTS.
UH, IT DID ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, POTENTIAL RISK OF RETIREMENTS.
WE GOT CLARITY FROM FERC ORDER 9 0 1.
SO WE TRIED TO ALLOW, UH, EXCEPTIONS.
SO ESSENTIALLY, UH, PARAMETERIZATION SOFTWARE UPGRADES AND WHAT WE'RE CALLING, UH, LIGHT OR MINOR HARDWARE UPGRADE KITS THAT HAVE BEEN TOLD TO US, WHICH AREN'T A LOT OF UNITS, UH, YOU KNOW, BUT THERE ARE SOME WHERE THE OEMS HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE AVAILABLE.
UH, THEY WEREN'T SIGNIFICANT COSTS.
ERCO TRIED TO PROPOSE A BRIGHT LINE CRITERIA TO THAT AROUND 20% WE'RE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, IS THAT THE RIGHT VALUE? UH, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE THESE READILY AVAILABLE UPGRADE KITS, UH, THAT COULD BE INSTALLED ON SOME TURBINES, UM, IF NEEDED TO ALLOW THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT ABSENT OF THAT, MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE MODELED, MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S NO, UH, SEVERE RELIABILITY IMPACT TO THE SYSTEM, UM, THESE EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE ALLOWED.
SO IT, IT, IT DOES NOT PRESERVE THE BROAD EXCEPTIONS THAT EXIST TODAY, BUT IT BASICALLY SAYS, YOU TELL US WHAT YOU CAN DO, AND THAT BECOMES YOUR PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN OTHER PLACES OF THE PROTOCOLS WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST REACTIVE CAPABILITY AS AN EXAMPLE.
BUT THIS IS BY AND LARGE, THE, THE BIGGEST CHANGE THAT SHOULD MITIGATE ANY OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT RETIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS THIS, THIS OFF RAMP WHERE IF YOU CANNOT MEET THE, THE REQUIREMENTS, THE RIDE THROUGH
[01:10:01]
CURVES, YOU CAN HAVE DOCUMENTED TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS.SO WE HOPE THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE LARGELY VIEWED AS ACCEPTABLE, AND THIS WAS THE MAJOR BARRIER FOR US TO, TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE ALSO REMOVED THE SPECIFICITY AND CLARITY REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR LEGACY IIV FOR ROW COUGH AND PHASE ANGLE JUMP.
UH, WE DID BASICALLY RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO.
WE'RE, WE'RE LARGELY SILENT ON THAT, AROUND THE, THE AMOUNT OF DEGREES AND THE AMOUNT OF, UH, ROLL CALL FOR OR PERCENT CHANGE IN FREQUENCY.
SO WE DO CLARIFY THAT VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY, IF THEY'RE WITHIN THE NO TRIP ZONES, THE IBR MUST RIDE THROUGH.
AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AT I-B-R-W-G-I-E-E 2,800, UH, DASH TWO MEETINGS WHERE THESE TOPICS WERE DISCUSSED.
AND THAT IS THE, UM, CONSENSUS AROUND WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS WERE.
WHEN THERE'S A FAULT, THESE PARAMETERS, WHICH ARE HARDLY, YOU'RE HARDLY ABLE TO EVEN MEASURE, UM, SHOULD NOT BE TRIPPING OFF.
AND IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WHERE THESE ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED, UH, BY A LARGE SET OF THE LEGACY IIV THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY.
SO WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE TO TAKE THAT DISCUSSION OUT OF PICTURE.
UH, WE SAW THAT WAS A, A CHALLENGE IN THE RFI, AND SO WE'VE REMOVED THAT.
UM, WE'VE ALSO MODIFIED THE MULTIPLE EXCURSION REQUIREMENT FOR LEGACY IDRS, UH, TO MAXIMIZE CAPABILITY IF THEY USE A COUNTER, IF THEY'RE MONITORING IT, AND JUST SIMPLY ENSURE THAT THEY CAN RIDE THROUGH NORMAL TSP RECLOSE SCHEMES.
WE, I'VE LISTED THOSE, UM, I THINK THE TSPS HAVE INDICATED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A BRIGHT LINE CRITERIA WOULD BE BETTER THAN JUST COORDINATING.
THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE IS THAT THE FIRST ATTEMPT'S WITHIN ONE SECOND, SECOND ATTEMPT IS BETWEEN 10 AND 20 SECONDS.
UH, GE RECOMMENDED THAT WE TAKE THIS LANGUAGE OUT.
IF THE TSPS FELT THEY DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE THIS PROTECTION IN THERE OR CUT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS A MAJOR HOLDUP, WE CAN, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND FOLLOW UP WITH AN OGRE TO ADDRESS, UH, THIS COORDINATION LATER.
BUT THAT IS OUR PROPOSAL RIGHT THERE AS WE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWERED THE REQUIREMENTS TO JUST ESSENTIALLY BE WHERE STATUS QUO IS TODAY.
LIKEWISE, ON, UM, OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS, WE RESTORED THOSE, UH, BUT WE PUT GUARDRAILS, UH, SO THAT WHEN THE ACTUAL POTENTIAL SEVERITY OF THE EVENT IS GREATER THAN OUR MOST SEVERE SIGNAL CONTINGENCY, UM, THEN WE WOULD, WE WOULD, UH, POTENTIALLY NOT AUTOMATICALLY, UH, IMPOSE OPERATIONAL RESTRICTIONS.
SO THAT MEANS IT WAS A MAJOR, MAJOR EVENT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE PERFORMANCE FAILURE CANNOT BE MITIGATED WITHIN 90 CALENDAR DAYS WHEN THE LOCATION, UH, HAS A POTENTIAL TO MATERIALLY AFFECT KNOWN STABILITY LIMITATIONS OR WHEN THE IBR, UH, OR WGR EXPERIENCES MORE THAN ONE FAILURE IN THE PRIOR 36 MONTHS, OR IF IT PRESENTS AN IMMINENT SAFETY OR EQUIPMENT RISK ON THE
SO WE, WE WERE TOLD IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, NOT JUST HAVING IT BLANKET WAS CONCERNING.
SO WE, WE LISTENED TO THE FEEDBACK, WE PUT ADDITIONAL GUARDRAILS, UH, BUT ONCE AGAIN, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS NECESSARY TO MANAGE THE RISK DUE TO THE EXTENSION OF THE TIMELINES THAT WE'VE, WE'VE PUT IN OVER 2 45.
UH, FINALLY, WE'VE ALSO MADE SOME OTHER CLARIFICATIONS HANDLING OF ACTIVE CURRENT REDUCTIONS DURING THE FALL.
SGI MODIFICATIONS FOR LOAD ONLY ADDITIONS WOULD NOT TRIGGER REQUIREMENTS TO MEET IEE 2,800.
THIS WAS, UH, A FEW PEOPLE REACHED OUT TO ERCOT.
WE WANT TO BE REAL CLEAR HERE.
UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE MODIFYING THE BUSES TO ATTACH THE LOADS, IF YOU'RE MAKING, YOU KNOW, OTHER BALANCE OF PLANT CHANGES TO JUST INTERCONNECT IT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR TRIGGERING.
UM, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR CLAUSE, IT'S REALLY, YOU ARE MODIFYING THE TURBINES, THE INVERTERS, YOU KNOW, THAT GENERATION EQUIPMENT ITSELF IS WHAT WE THINK WOULD THEN TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT IF YOU'RE ONLY ADDING THE LOAD, YOU'RE ONLY ADDING THE NECESSARY CONNECTIONS FOR THAT LOAD.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WOULD TRIGGER, UH, A REVIEW PROCESS TO THEN HAVE TO MEET IEEE 2,800 IN THE FUTURE.
WE ALSO HAD ADDITIONAL LIMITED EXCEPTIONS.
[01:15:01]
NEW IIV TO COME IN AFTER JUNE 1ST, 2023, AS LONG AS THEIR COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS DATE IS BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2026, THEY CAN HAVE, UM, LIMITED EXCEPTIONS.SO WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO, INSTEAD OF PUSHING IEEE 2,800 OUT FOR EVERYBODY, LET'S KEEP IT AT JUNE 1ST, 2023.
AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE CHALLENGED IN MEETING IT, THERE IS THIS OFF RAMP ONCE AGAIN TO HAVE DOCUMENTED LIMITATIONS.
SO WE FEEL LIKE THAT SHOULD ADDRESS MANY OF THE CONCERNS RAISED AROUND, UH, ADOPTION OF IEEE 2,800.
ALSO POTENTIALLY GIVEN ADDITIONAL EXTINCTIONS, UH, WHEN THERE'S UPGRADES AVAILABLE, THEY JUST WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL TIME ALL THE WAY OUT TO 12 31 28.
UH, WE ALSO ARE BEING VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT AROUND IBR, UH, HAVING TO HAVE SLOWER RESPONSE TIMES THAN REQUIRED, UM, IF NEEDED FOR RELIABILITY PURPOSES.
BUT WE'RE STILL SAYING, AND THIS IS A, A POINT OF DIFFERENCE, I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER COMMENTS, THAT SSR MITIGATION SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON THOSE SLOWER RECOVERY RATES.
THAT IF YOU NEED THE FAST CONTROLS AND SSR MITIGATION, THAT SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO, TO PROVIDE IF THE SYSTEM NEEDS THAT.
OTHERWISE, WE MAY HAVE RELIABILITY ISSUES.
THE RELIABILITY IMPACT OF THE ERCO PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS.
THE KEY TAKEAWAY, WE PRESENTED THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES AT THE PREVIOUS DECEMBER T, BUT THE EXEMPTIONS THAT WE'RE ALLOWING SHOULD HELP FASTER ADOPTION OF THE AVAILABLE IMPROVEMENTS.
BUT THERE IS AN EXPENSE, RIGHT, THAT YOU ARE GONNA HAVE A LEVEL OF CONTINUED RELIABILITY RISK AND THE ASSOCIATED IMPACTS, THOSE IMPACTS MAY, UH, ARE GOING TO BE FELT BY OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS POTENTIALLY.
UM, WE WANT TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS ONE PART OF MULTIPLE, UH, OF THE OVERALL SOLUTION.
WE NEED THE SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS GRID FORMING TO COME IN, MODELING AND TESTING IMPROVEMENTS.
WE NEED ALL OF THESE THINGS TO HELP SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
AND THESE EXEMPTIONS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY, UH, CLEAR EXPECTATIONS AROUND OPERATING RESTRICTIONS.
THE MODELS AND CONTINGENCIES NEED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THESE LIMITATIONS, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE PROPER COORDINATION.
SO THIS PROPOSAL ASSUMES A WILLINGNESS TO TAKE ON MORE RELIABILITY RISK, AND THEN WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT RISK WITH THESE OTHER THINGS.
UH, AND THAT IS LARGELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT FERC ORDER 9 0 1 SAYS, UH, TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTIONS.
THIS JUST DEMONSTRATES KIND OF THE EVOLUTION IN OVER 2 45.
UM, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THIS IS POST HINDSIGHT VIEW OF IT, WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE JUST MADE MULTIPLE ITERATIONS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY BALANCE THE RELIABILITY RISK ON THE IMPACT TO THE OWNERS.
AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE THAT WITH THIS JANUARY 8TH, 2024 VERSION OF NOGA 2 45.
AND YOU'VE SEEN THAT LAST BOTTOM RIGHT.
THERE IS A MEASURE OF RESIDUAL RISK THAT THE EXEMPTIONS CREATE.
AND IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AND THAT RESIDUAL RISK THEN HAS AN IMPACT ON OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND CUSTOMERS.
SO WE JUST WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT.
BUT FERC ORDER 9 0 1 REQUIRES THAT NERC ENSURES THE IMPACTS OF THE EXEMPTIONS ARE ADDRESSED BY PLANNERS AND OPERATORS.
AND TO MANAGE THE RISK OR CUT HAS TO ENSURE LIMITATIONS ARE REFLECTED IN PLANNING AND OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT.
WE HAVE TO DO THAT SO THAT WE CAN REMAIN IN MINUS ONE SECURE THAT MAY RESULT TO NEW STABILITY LIMITS OR CONGESTION.
IT MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NEEDED.
UH, IF EVENTS HAPPEN ON THE SYSTEM AND THERE'S SHARP FREQUENCY DECLINES, THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT SPINNING MACHINES.
SO WE WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT AS WE DO OUR BEST TO BALANCE THIS BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, THERE IS AN IMPACT ON OTHER CUSTOMERS AND SO, AND OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS, AND WE WANT THEM TO, TO CLEARLY SEE THAT SO THAT WE ALL MAKE THIS CONCERTED, UH, EFFORT TO, TO DO THIS BALANCE.
UH, WE WERE ASKED TO KIND OF PRO PROVIDE A TIMELINE.
[01:20:01]
KEY TAKEAWAY HERE IS WE SHOW UP IN THE VERY FRONT LEFT IF T APPROVES, UH, THE ERCOT VERSION TODAY, WHICH WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR, UH, THERE IS AN ERCOT BOARD APPROVAL ON ON FEBRUARY 27TH.THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT APRIL 11TH PUCT APPROVAL.
MAY 1ST, UH, IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT.
NOW, I, I WILL JUST PAUSE HERE AND TAKE A SECOND TO SAY, WE GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS THAT CAME IN YESTERDAY, WHICH DOES BY AND LARGE TELL US THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST SOME, UH, GENERATOR OWNERS THAT STILL WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, OUR POSITION IS THAT THAT VERSION STILL, UH, DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THE RELIABILITY OBJECTIVE.
UH, THERE'S JUST NOT ENFORCEABLE LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN USE, UH, WHERE THE IBR IN OUR OPINION ARE, ARE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT CHANGES, UM, THAT THEY CONSIDER COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE IN THAT PROPOSAL.
AND SO, IF ONE OPTION HERE TODAY IS, IF THERE IS STILL STRONG, UH, MOVEMENT TO WHERE THE ERCOT VERSION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THERE COULD BE A, A SPECIAL CALL TAC MEETING SOMEWHERE TO ALLOW MARKET RULES SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE PREPARED FOR THE BOARD.
UM, IF THERE WAS A DESIRE TO FURTHER MODIFY THE ERCOT VERSION, UH, BEFORE, UH, IN TIME SO THAT WE COULD STILL STAY ON THIS SCHEDULE BEFORE THE BOARD APPROVAL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
UH, IN BETWEEN TODAY AND THE BOARD APPROVAL AND THOSE TWO SLOTS, ASSUMING WE CAN STILL KEEP ON THIS, THIS PATH, THERE ARE SOME KEY MILESTONE DATES FOR LEGACY IDRS THAT ARE LISTED AND FOR NEW IBR BASED ON THE ERCOT PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
SO WE JUST TRIED TO GIVE THIS VISUAL, UH, I'LL LET EVERYBODY KIND OF ABSORB THAT LATER, NOT DIVE INTO IT TOO MUCH, BUT THIS WAS NEARLY PROVIDED AS A VISUAL AID.
FINALLY, ERCOT STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE TAC MEMBERS ADOPT THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY ERCOT.
WE FEEL THAT THEY'RE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
WE TOOK ALL THE RFI FEEDBACK, UH, IN FACT WE DID FURTHER OUTREACH TO THE OEMS EVEN AFTER THAT.
AND, AND BY AND LARGE, OUR REDUCTION IN REQUIREMENTS, COUPLED WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, HAS REALLY GOT A PATH FORWARD FOR EVERYBODY.
AND THE LEVEL OF EXCEPTIONS, BECAUSE WE PULLED OUT SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AROUND, UH, ROW COUGH, AROUND, UM, PHASING JUMP REDUCED THE MULTIPLE EXCURSION REQUIREMENTS.
UH, WE'RE IN A, A MUCH, MUCH LOWER LEVEL OF EXCEPTIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO, UH, GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO ALLOW.
SO WE REALLY FEEL LIKE THIS MITIGATES THE RISK OF ANY KIND OF RETIREMENTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, BEING PROPOSED THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UH, ANY KIND OF CAPACITY ISSUES BECAUSE OF NUMBER 2 45, WE'VE ALLOWED, UH, A PATH FOR EVERYBODY.
WE THINK THAT OUR VERSION ALIGNS WITH PERK ORDER 9 0 1.
WE THINK WE CAN STILL ACCOMPLISH A MAJORITY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SSA EVENT AND NERC RELIABILITY GUIDELINES.
AND WE HAVE A PATH FORWARD WITH IEE 2000 THAT STILL TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, UH, ANY ISSUES THAT THEY MAY HAVE AS THEY TRANSITION INTO THIS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS NEW STANDARD, IT ALLOWS FOR EXCEPTIONS AND EXTINCTIONS.
SO WHILE WE STILL ENCOURAGE ENTITIES TO DO NOT DELAY BECAUSE OF THIS CRITICAL RELIABILITY RISK THAT WE HAVE, UH, WE THINK WE'VE PUT FORTH THE VERSION HERE WITH THE JANUARY 20, 24 COMMENTS THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, THAT IS ENFORCEABLE, THAT ACCOMPLISHES THE OBJECTIVES THAT WE SET FORTH IN A VERY BALANCED MANNER, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT 12 MONTHS OF FEEDBACK.
SO I'LL PAUSE THERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTERS THAT WANT TO PRESENT THEIR POSITION.
I SEE A QUESTION FROM BOB HILTON.
YEAH, JUST, JUST REAL QUICKLY, UH, STEVEN, I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS HAVE DONE.
I THINK THE WHOLE MARKET STAKEHOLDERS AND ERCOT HAVE COME A LONG WAY ON THIS, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN.
UH, ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO TRIGGER THE, THE, UH, THE, UH, CALLING RE RE UH, HAVING TO COME UP TO STANDARDS WHENEVER I RETROFIT A, A FACILITY, UH, MY QUESTION IS,
[01:25:01]
AND YOU MENTIONED A FEW THINGS THAT BROUGHT ONE TO MIND IS IF, IF I'M HAVING SOME BLADING ISSUES ON A, ON A WIND FACILITY AND WE HAVE TO HAVE TO CHANGE OUT SOME BLADES, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A LARGE NUMBER, I DON'T KNOW, UH, OR A SMALL NUMBER, WOULD THAT FALL INTO YOUR DEFINITION OF A RETROFIT? THAT WOULD HAVE TO BRING THE I BS BACK UP TO, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS? I WOULD SAY IT SHOULD NOT.AND IF THE LANGUAGE IS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH ON THAT, LET'S FIX THE LANGUAGE.
BUT THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION, THAT CHANGING THE BLADES, DOING MAINTENANCE IS GOING TO TRIGGER NEEDING TO MEET THE HIGHER REQUIREMENTS.
OKAY, ERIC, I THINK YOU WE'RE WAITING FOR YOUR TURN.
UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON STEVEN'S PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT, THANKS STEVEN.
AND I WANNA SAY THAT SLIDE SEVEN IS REALLY IMPRESSIVE WITH ALL THE SCALES.
THAT'S LIKE A LOT OF TIME IN ONE SLIDE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, ERIC, ARE YOU SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF JOINT COMMENTERS? UH, YES.
I'M REPRESENTING NEXTERA, WHO IS ONE OF THE JOINT COMMENTERS, THE OTHER JOINT COMMENTERS ARE ON THE LINE AND READY TO SUPPORT THIS CONVERSATION.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, UM, THANK YOU STEVEN FOR THE PRESENTATION, AND WE'VE HAD GOOD DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, EVEN AS OF LATE YESTERDAY, AND WE APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME AND ATTENTION YOU PUT UNDER THIS.
I ALSO WANTED TO, UH, APOLOGIZE TO TACK FOR THE COMMENTS THAT WERE, UH, PUBLISHED, UM, LATE YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, UM, FOR THEIR TIMING.
WE THINK THEY'RE VERY GOOD COMMENTS.
WE'RE NOT APOLOGIZING WITH THE CONTENT, BUT, UH, WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, YOU HAVE HAD, UH, A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE.
UH, WE SUBMITTED THEM, UH, A FEW DAYS EARLIER.
UM, BUT WE KNOW THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX, UH, OPERATING GUIDE REQUEST, AND IT JUST TAKES SOME TIME TO REVIEW.
SO I ALSO WANTED TO THANK MARKET RULES FOR THEIR DILIGENT AND, UH, EXPEDITIOUS TURNAROUND ON THAT, PARTICULARLY AARON, WHO DID A LOT OF THAT WORK.
UM, BUT I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WEREN'T PUBLISHED UNTIL, YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY.
UM, BECAUSE OF THAT, AS I'VE TALKED TO YOU, SOME OF THE MEMBERS TODAY BEFORE THE MEETING, SOME OF YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO, UM, TAB THIS AND WHY WE'RE NOT SEEKING TABLING, UH, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO TABLING IT, UM, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A SPECIAL CALL MEETING AS STEVEN SUGGESTED.
UM, SO IF, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION Y'ALL WANT TO GO TODAY, THAT'S OKAY.
HOWEVER, UM, WE, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE A VOTE TODAY, UM, IF DESIRED BY TAC AND, UM, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN ERCOT DESIRED, UM, APPROVAL TIMELINE AT THE FEBRUARY BOARD.
SO TO DO THAT, YOU WOULD NEED TO EITHER DO IT AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING, I MEAN AT THE NEXT TAC MEETING, OR HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING.
UM, WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE ROSS RECOMMENDATION, UM, BUT HAVE MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THAT, UH, WITHIN THE JOINT COMMENTER FILINGS THAT WERE, UH, FILED, OR EXCUSE ME, PUBLISHED YESTERDAY.
UH, ONE, UH, SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS THAT WE, UH, IN RESPONSE TO THE LAST CONVERSATION AS WELL AS THE FERC ORDER 9 0 1, UM, WE WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT SOFTWARE FIRMWARE SETTINGS CHANGES ARE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE IF THEY'RE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO, IF, IF, IF THERE'S SOME REASON THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE NOT, WE'D HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT THE CASE.
UM, BUT THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT, UH, TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE SOFTWARE FIRMWARE SETTING EXCHANGES ARE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE.
SO WE THINK THAT'LL ADDRESS MANY OF THE ISSUES, UH, AND ALIGN WITH THE, WITH THE, UH, SPLIT AT FOR QUARTER 9 0 1, WHICH SAID, NERC CONSIDER MAKING A, AN EXCEPTION FOR HARDWARE, BUT NOT FOR SOFTWARE.
UM, SO WE TRIED TO, TO MATCH UP WITH THAT.
UM, MANY OF THE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED SINCE ODESSA, UH, WERE FIRMWARE AND SETTINGS CHANGES.
UM, AND SO THIS WOULD CREATE, UM, A, A TOOL FOR ERCOT, UM, AND THE RELIABILITY MONITOR AND THE COMMISSION TO SAY THAT MAKING THOSE FIRMWARE CHANGES IS REQUIRED BY THE CHANGES IN NOGA 2 45 IF THEY'RE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
UH, SECOND WE PULL IN THE DATE.
UM, SO ROSS RECOMMENDED FOR NEW RESOURCES THAT THERE'S AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE NEW REGULATIONS IN JUNE OF 2026.
WE'RE SUGGESTING JUNE OF 2024.
[01:30:01]
UH, SIGNS AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS THEY'RE WAITING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IEEE 2800.2, WHICH PROVIDES THE TESTING STANDARDS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH IEE 2,800, WHILE ERCOT IS NOT COMPLETELY IMPLEMENTING 2,800 THROUGH NOGA 2 45, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE HEAVILY OVERLAPPING AND AND STRONGLY, UM, UM, ARE, ARE ARE HIGHLY IMPACTED BY, BY THAT OUTCOME.AND I 2,800 AND SOME OF THE OEMS HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONFIRM TO THEIR CUSTOMERS THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH I 2,800.
AND TO DO THAT NEED THOSE TESTING STANDARDS DEVELOPED.
SO THIS WOULD BIFURCATE BETWEEN THOSE THAT ARE DOING THAT AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT, MANY OF THE OEMS HAVE SAID THEY WILL NOT WAIT AND THEY'RE READY TO GO SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
SO WE, WE HOPE THIS IMPACTS A LIMITED NUMBER OF OEMS. UM, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, YOU KNOW, THE DISAGREEMENT WITH ERCOT IS ABOUT, UH, THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING MARKET.
UM, AND WHETHER ERCOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT AND EXPENSIVE RETROACTIVE REGULATIONS IN THE COMPETITIVE WHOLESALE MARKET.
UM, THE STATE IS RELYING ON INVESTORS TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN THE GENERATION IN THIS STATE, AND MODIFYING RULES AND RETROACTIVE REGULATIONS, UH, COULD HURT INVESTOR SENTIMENT, UM, EVEN IF THEY'RE INVESTING IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF POWER PLANT.
UH, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT, UM, CAN MAKE INVESTORS QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEIR INVESTMENT IS AT RISK.
AND WE THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL POINT THAT WE HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER.
UM, WE THINK THAT THE ROSS REPORT AS MODIFIED BY THE JOINT COMMENTERS IS A BETTER APPROACH.
UM, ERCOT PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR AUTHORITY TO LIMIT YOUR OPERATIONS THAT STEVEN WENT OVER THAT ARE IN, UH, THE JANUARY ERCOT COMMENTS, WE BELIEVE CONTINUE TO GRANT ERCOT DISCRETION TO MODIFY, UH, YOUR ABILITY TO OPERATE HOWEVER THEY WANT.
UM, SIGNIFICANTLY THAT'S BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE PROPOSED REASONS IS IMPACT ON SYSTEM STABILITY, WHICH, UH, IS AN ISSUE FOR MANY IBR, IF NOT ALL OF THEM.
AND SO WE THINK THIS WOULD CONTINUE TO IMPACT, YOU KNOW, ALMOST EVERY IBR AND IT DIDN'T SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE OUR CAT'S AUTHORITY.
UM, ALSO WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSED CUTOFF BETWEEN WHAT IS AN EXPENSIVE UPGRADE OR AN UPGRADE KIT AS ERCOT SUGGESTED, UM, IS ARBITRARY.
UM, WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS REASONABLE TO, TO MODIFY DEPENDS ON MANY FACTORS.
UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE LOCAL LMP, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A LONG-TERM PPA OR NOT THE AGE OF THE EQUIPMENT, THE, THE STATUS OF THE EQUIPMENT, WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RESOURCE IN THAT AREA TO PRODUCE MEGAWATTS, UM, AND, UM, THAT COMPLEX NARRATIVE AND, AND, AND NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY, THE PERSON THAT KNOWS THAT BEST IS, IS THE RESOURCE ENTITY.
UM, I WANNA POINT OUT A COUPLE MORE THINGS.
UM, UNDER OUR PROPOSAL, WE, WE SET THE STANDARD AT THE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND SAY THAT ALL EXISTING RESOURCES MUST MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IF IT'S COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE AND TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TO DO SO.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS ENFORCEABLE.
UH, STEVEN, YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, ERCOT LEGAL HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO, UM, REITERATE AND CONFIRM THAT IF IT'S COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE, IT IS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THAT INVESTMENT, UM, UNDER THE PROTOCOLS AND THE OPERATING GUIDES.
UM, WE THINK THAT WE'RE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH FUR CODE TO 9 0 1 AS WE MENTIONED, BUT I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, BOTH STEVEN AND I HAVE SAID WE THINK WE'RE ALIGNED WITH 9 0 1.
UH, THAT PROCESS STILL HAS WORK TO DO, UH, AT NERC AND AT FERC.
UH, SO THE, THIS STUFF THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, LIKE I MENTIONED, WE'RE OPEN TO FURTHER REVISIONS IF DESIRED.
IF, IF WE THINK THAT IT'LL LEAD TO A CHANGED OUTCOME.
THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU ALL SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT AN AMBER AT LEAST IS STABLE, SO YOU HAVE SOME TIME TO CONSIDER A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, DELIBERATION, BUT ALSO HASTE.
UM, SO I SAW BRIAN SAMS I THINK WAS FIRST IN THE QUEUE WITH A QUESTION ON THE SPECIAL TECH MEETING.
ERIC, I ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY, UH,
AND UH, I'M SENSITIVE TO A LOT OF THE THINGS YOU SAID, UH, ESPECIALLY ABOUT HAVING INVESTOR CERTAINTY.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, LIKE I'D HEARD BOTH YOU AND STEVEN SAY, HEY, LET'S WORK TOGETHER.
IS THERE, CAN WE JUST CUT OFF A LOT OF THE, THE DEBATE AND SCHEDULE SOMETHING? AND
[01:35:01]
IF YOU WANT TO MAYBE, SO, UM, SO THERE'S A, ANN AND I WERE LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR.SO, UM, THE ISSUE IS FEBRUARY T IS FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO EVERYTHING CONSIDERED AT FEBRUARY TAC, UM, IS NOT GOING TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD.
AND SO I GET ONE, ONE OPTION WOULD BE THAT WE COULD MOVE THAT REGULAR TAC MEETING UP A WEEK.
I THINK WE HAVE SOME, SOME TIME.
IT'S CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE 21ST.
UM, AND PRSI BELIEVE IS THE EIGHTH.
IS THAT RIGHT? AND SO WE, WE COULD PROPOSE MOVING UP AND JUST DOING OUR REGULAR TECH MEETING, THE 14TH, AND I WILL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ASK THE PDC CHAIR, HE'LL MOVE THE MEETING.
UM, BUT THEN WE COULD ENSURE LIKE ANYTHING FROM PRS THAT NEEDED TO GET TO US COULD GO TO FEBRUARY BOARD, OR WE COULD DO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE COULD JUST KEEP THAT FEBRUARY TECH MEETING AS IS AND DO KIND OF A, A SPECIAL, UM, TECH.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAYS WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FOR THAT.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS.
I KNOW THE INFO CAST MEETING, UM, IS, IS THE WEEK OF THE 12TH AND SOME PEOPLE NEED TO SCHEDULE AROUND THAT.
SO I THINK IF WE DID A SPECIAL ATTACK MEETING, WE COULD STILL HAVE IT ON THE 14TH AND THAT WOULD STILL GET TO THE BOARD.
UM, I DO WANNA CONFIRM THOUGH, BEFORE WE DECIDE TO MOVE OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED T MEETING THAT IT DOESN'T MESS UP ANY TIMELINES, BUT I, I THINK IT'S OKAY.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT DOESN'T MESS UP? LIKE ANYTHING LIKE GOING FROM HERE? OKAY, YEAH.
SO WE, WE COULD HAVE OUR REGULAR MEETING THE 14TH, I THINK SO.
AND SO THIS COULD JUST GO TO REGULAR FEBRUARY ATTACK MIGHT JUST SLIDE YOUR PRS MEETING BACK THEN.
FEBRUARY PRS WOULD THEN BE WITHIN A WEEK.
SO NOTHING COMING OUTTA THE FEBRUARY PRS WOULD BE PROPERLY NOTICED FOR ATTACK MEETING ON THE 14TH, WHICH WE, YOU COULD WAIVE NOTICE OR YOU COULD BACK YOUR PRS MEETING UP AS WELL TO KEEP IT IN LINE AND SAID IT WAS OKAY.
SO I ASSUMED WE WOULD MAYBE WAIVE NOTICE.
YEAH, WE COULD, BUT, BUT IF THAT'S TOO COMPLICATED, WE COULD JUST SCHEDULE THIS, BUT THAT THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN EXTRA MEETING.
WE WOULD JUST KIND OF ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING IN IN FEBRUARY WOULD GET TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD.
YEAH, WE, WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE FOR PRS AND TCC WHEN THEY HAVEN'T MET WITHIN THE WEEK, WE'VE WAIVED NOTICE.
WELL, MAYBE LET'S KEEP GOING IN THE QUEUE.
'CAUSE LAST TIME I DID THIS AND WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS GOING, IT WAS KIND OF A MESS.
SO, WE'LL, WE'LL LEAVE THAT AS AN OPTION, UM, AND, AND GO DOWN THE, THE QUEUE.
SO STEVEN, YEAH, THIS IS STEVEN CELIS WITH ERCOT.
UH, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS, UM, TO, TO PULL TRANSPARENCY INTO, UH, A VERY QUICK REVIEW LAST NIGHT OF THE JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENTS.
AND, UM, I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE, THE MEETING.
WE HAD A DISCUSSION YESTERDAY AND, AND THEY POINTED OUT SOME THINGS THAT I HADN'T YET REVIEWED, WHICH WE, WE DO SEE AS, AS POSITIVE CHANGES.
BUT ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT I THINK WE JUST, MAYBE WE'RE MISSING IT, BUT WHERE IS THE REQUIREMENT TO ACTUALLY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT ANY COMMERCIAL REASONABLE UPGRADES? THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER IT, THAT YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE TO ANNUALLY LOOK AT IT AGAIN, BUT WE'RE MISSING ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT SOMETHING.
I, I JUST, THAT'S A KEY KEY POINT OF DIFFERENCE.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO COMMENT ON THE IEE 2,800 ENFORCEMENT DATE, THAT BY AND LARGE WE'RE GONNA HAVE CHALLENGES WITH ANY FUTURE DATE, UM, PUSHING IT OUT.
'CAUSE THEN THERE'S GONNA BE THIS RUSH OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT SIGNINGS JUST TO AVOID IEE 2,800 WHERE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR MULTIPLE YEARS.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, I WANT TO COMMENT SO THAT EVERYBODY ELSE UNDERSTANDS THE PROPOSAL BY THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION ASKS ALL IBR, NOT JUST THE, UM, SO THE LEGACY IDRS THAT ARE TWO THOU PRE 2008, 20, PRE 2014, THEY'RE RESTORING THOSE EXCEPTIONS, THOSE BROAD EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE THERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY MOVING FORWARD AND THIS IS HOW WE INTERPRET IT.
YOU'RE STILL ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE BROAD EXEMPTIONS AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM, RIGHT, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.
AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE THAT IS IN A LEGACY IVR AFTER 2014 UP TO TODAY,
[01:40:02]
THE PROPOSAL BY THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION IS YOU HAVE TO MEET THE HIGHER VRT REQUIREMENTS THAN WHAT ERCOT IS PROPOSING.SO WE WANT TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT.
THAT IS AN IMPACT ON ALL THE OTHER IDR BETWEEN 2014 AND TODAY, THAT THAT PROPOSAL ASKS FOR YOU TO MEET THE HIGHER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THOSE, THEN WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO MANAGE AND GO THROUGH.
AND ALL OF THAT IS VERY TRANSPARENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE RFI RESPONSES THAT WE PRESENTED ON IN, IN DECEMBER.
SO THERE'S JUST THESE LARGE FUNCTIONAL DISCONNECTS THAT IF WE DO NEED TO MODIFY, WE REALLY, UH, UH, PROPOSE THAT LET'S START FROM THE ERCOT VERSION AND IF WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT.
OTHERWISE, IT'S GONNA TAKE SIGNIFICANT TIME THAT I DON'T THINK WE CAN EVEN MAKE IN A COUPLE WEEKS TO TRY TO START FROM THE OTHER END ON THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION AND TRY TO MAKE IT WORK.
AND I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR JOINT COMMENTERS.
SO ERIC SAID HE COULD ANSWER THAT.
STEVEN, YOU, YOU ASKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, UH, COMMERCIAL REASONABLE EFFORTS ARE REQUIRED AND OUR COMMENT STATE AND TWO PLACES, ONE FOR FREQUENCY, ONE FOR VOLTAGE, THAT THE, UH, GENERATOR QUOTE MUST MAKE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE PARAGRAPHS.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO IT.
WE THINK IT IS REQUIRED, BUT IF YOU WANT IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT WORDS TO, TO MAKE YOUR LAWYERS FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE'D BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
UM, I, I, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS YOU SAID THAT I'D WANT TO RESPOND TO IF WE WERE GONNA HAVE THE VOTE TODAY, BUT I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO ANSWER BRIAN'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING OR NOT BEFORE I RESPOND, YOU KNOW, WITH SUBSTANCE, EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I DUNNO IF THERE'S A MOTION FROM SOMEONE ON THAT OR NOT.
I MEAN, I, I'M HAPPY TO SPEND VALENTINE'S DAY WITH YOU GUYS.
UH, IF IT'S, IF IT, I, I JUST, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE MEETINGS BETWEEN NOW AND, AND, UH, THE 14TH AND HAVE A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO THE 14TH TO HAVE A, UH, ANOTHER SET OF COMMENTS THAT HOPEFULLY EVERYONE IS STACKED HANDS ON.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE, IT IS BE MINE ON THE NPRR.
UM, THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS EITHER VERSION RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO WE, WE TALKED TO ERCOT AND WE COULD MOVE OUR REGULAR TAC MEETING UP A WEEK TO THE 14TH.
SO THEN THAT'S THE FEBRUARY TAC MEETING.
THIS COULD BE TABLED TO FEBRUARY, AND THEN EVERYTHING FROM FEBRUARY TAC CAN GO TO FEBRUARY BOARD AND WE COULD WAVE NOTICE ON THE THINGS COMING OUT OF PRS.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE SIX DAYS BETWEEN PRS AND TECH.
AND WE WOULDN'T NEED A MOTION TODAY 'CAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE.
IS THAT RIGHT? COREY SAYS THAT'S RIGHT.
NOW YOU, YOU COULD ALSO HAVE A SPECIAL TECH MEETING ON THE 14TH.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE YOUR OFFICIAL MEETING.
SO THEN JUST DEAL, WE COULD ALSO HAVE THE SPECIAL TECH MEETING, SO THEN WE'D HAVE THAT SPECIAL TECH MEETING, THE 14TH, AND THEN REGULAR FEBRUARY TAC MEETINGS.
THE, AND THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT 21ST AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIVE NOTICE, BUT WE'D HAVE TWO MEETINGS.
MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO HAVE FEBRUARY TAC MOVE IT UP TO THE 14TH AND JUST HAVE ONE MEETING AND HOPE THAT BRIAN'S SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ADVICE IS TAKEN SO THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT ON IT ON ITS OWN, YOU KNOW, AN ENTIRE MEETING.
BUT THAT, YEAH, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE MY PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE FEBRUARY TECH ON THE 14TH INSTEAD OF THE 21ST.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? WE CAN DO THAT REMOTE SINCE IT'S VALENTINE'S DAY.
OKAY, SIR, ARE YOU MOVING THE WHOLE THING? WE'RE MOVING THE WHOLE THING.
WE'RE MOVING FEBRUARY TECH TO THE 14TH AND WE'LL, WE'LL DO IT FULLY REMOTE.
AND, AND I, I GUESS THE EXPECTATION IS THAT ERCOT AND ERIC ARE GONNA HAVE, GONNA TRY TO KUMBAYA ON AS MUCH AS THEY CAN,
[01:45:01]
BUT WE'LL HAVE ERCOT.WHAT, WELL, UM, BUT THEN WHAT I'M HEARING FROM ERCOT, AND I'M SORRY I, I PUT MY CARD UP, BUT YEAH.
UM, UH, UH, WORD WE'RE GONNA GET, YEAH, THAT'S PHRASE THE MONTH.
UM, WE'RE GONNA GET A VERSION UPDATED OF THE ERCOT COMMENTS THAT WOULD REFLECT THE KUMBAYA ELEMENTS.
AND IF IT'S EVERYTHING, IT'S GREAT.
IF IT'S NOT, WE'LL HAVE A DEBATE ON THE, THE REMAINING ISSUES THAT, UM, ARE, ARE ON THE TABLE AND WE'LL GET THIS THING MOVING SO THAT WE CAN FINALLY GET THIS ISSUE ADDRESSED ONCE AND FOR ALL.
THAT'S BEEN A PROBLEM FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
AND IT IS A RELIABILITY ISSUE.
SO, OKAY, I'M UNDERSTANDING IT THAT THAT'S THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY.
SO HOPEFULLY WE COULD GET COMMENTS A WEEK IN ADVANCE OF THAT MEETING.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO SEE, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA OVER PROMISE THAT THERE WILL BE A SETTLEMENT, BUT IF THERE IS WE'LL GET IT DONE EARLY ON.
I I THINK WE STILL HAVE BIG DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE A ADJUSTMENT CALL AT THAT MEETING, BUT WE'LL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM IF WE CAN.
I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE JUST THE SPECIAL TECH MEETING SOONER IN, IN CASE OF NEEDING ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON IT.
BUT THAT, BUT THEN THAT DOESN'T GET US TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD.
WE REALLY ONLY HAVE TIME FOR THE ONE MEETING BEFORE FEBRUARY BOARD, WHETHER WE MOVE REGULAR FEBRUARY ATTACK OR NOT.
YEAH, I I THINK THE FEBRUARY 14TH, UH, MEETING IS A PRUDENT IDEA TO GIVE TIME PEOPLE, PEOPLE TIME TO CONSIDER.
UH, WE, WE'LL HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, STEP ONE OF OUR DISCUSSION WITH ERCOT IS ARE WE MODIFYING THE JOINT COMMENTS, COMMENTS OR THE ERCOT COMMENTS? OKAY.
AND SO THERE'S A LOT FOR US TO TALK ABOUT AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING IT.
WE STILL HAVE THE QUEUE, SO MAYBE WE CAN TACKLE SOME OF THAT.
BUT, SO THE PLAN WOULD BE FOR CLARITY, WE ARE GOING TO NOT HAVE A QUOTE UNQUOTE SPECIAL TAC MEETING, BUT WE WILL MOVE THE REGULAR FEBRUARY TAC MEETING, UM, FROM FEBRUARY 21ST TO FEBRUARY 14TH.
WE'LL DO THAT FULLY REMOTE TO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING SCHEDULES ON PEOPLE.
UM, AND THEN EVERYTHING FROM FEBRUARY BOARD, INCLUDING THIS CAN, OR FROM FEBRUARY TAC, INCLUDING THIS CAN GO TO FEBRUARY BOARD, AND WE WILL WAIVE NOTICE FROM FEBRUARY 8TH PRS AND WE WILL POLITELY SUGGEST THAT WE SEE COMMENTS A WEEK OR SO IN ADVANCE SO WE CAN DIGEST AND KNOW THAT WE ARE GETTING A, A COMPROMISE OR NOT AHEAD OF THE DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT, DAVE RI I THINK YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE.
HI KAITLYN, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? I CAN HEAR YOU.
SO I HAD ORIGINALLY ENTERED THE QUEUE, UM, TO MAKE MORE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS, BUT CONSIDERING WHERE THIS IS HEADED PROCEDURALLY, I THINK MAYBE THE, THE BETTER THING TO DO HERE WOULD BE TO ALLOW ANYONE WHO'S, UH, INTERESTED IN MAKING A MOTION TO DO THAT.
AND IF FOR SOME REASON THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE HEADED, THEN I CAN ALWAYS RE-ENTER THE QUEUE.
AND WE DO NOT NEED A MOTION BECAUSE THIS WILL STAY TABLED.
SO IF YOU WANT TO OKAY, GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT THAT, GO, GO AHEAD.
I MEAN, I THINK OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THE DISCUSSION HAS, UM, SHOWN SO FAR RIGHT THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME AREAS WHERE, UM, WITH ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION WITH ERCOT, UM, WE CAN CLARIFY SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE, UH, WE'RE NOT APPARENT TO THEM.
AND SO IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK TOWARDS A RESOLUTION IF FOR SOME REASON WE CAN'T, AT LEAST WE CAN KIND OF CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE FOR THE TAC FOLKS WHERE THE DIFFERENCES REMAIN SO THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT KIND OF WHAT THE PROPOSALS ENTAIL.
UM, AND I GUESS IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHANGES THAT THE JOINT COMMENTERS MADE TO, TO IMPROVE UPON THE ROTHS APPROVED VERSION.
AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT WE ARE KIND OF DEEMING NON-PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS DEEMED TO BE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE IS CERTAINLY A, A LARGE STEP THAT COULD HELP.
SO IN ANY EVENT, WE CAN FOLLOW UP MORE ON THAT, BUT THAT, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.
UH, BILL BARNES, IT'S A QUESTION FOR ERIC.
UM, YOU MENTIONED A FEW TIMES YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL, THE JOINT COMMONER'S PROPOSAL.
UM, I ASSUME THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHAT WAS FILED YESTERDAY THAT NOT, OR THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION.
WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR PROPOSAL? SO OUR PROPOSAL IS MODIFYING THE ROSS PROPOSAL TO TIGHTEN THINGS UP.
AND WHAT, IN LIKE INCREMENTALLY DID YOU CHANGE COMPARED TO THE ROSS? YEP.
TWO MAJOR THINGS AND ONE MODEST THING.
UH, ONE IS TO BE CLEAR THAT SOFTWARE FIRMWARE AND SETTINGS CHANGES ARE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE IF THEY'RE TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, UNLESS WE CAN PROVE SOMEHOW THAT THEY'RE NOT, WE THINK THAT'S A, A BIG CHANGE.
[01:50:01]
IS WE'RE PULLING IN THE DATE FROM JUNE 26TH TO JUNE 24 FOR, UH, AFFECTING NEW RESOURCES, UNLESS THE OEM SIGNS AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT THEY'RE DELAYING THE AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT DUE TO I 2000.2.AND THE THIRD THING WE DID THAT IS MODEST, IS TO CREATE AN AFFIDAVIT FORM IN THE EVENT THEY DO THAT.
I MEAN, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
AND JUST IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS WE'RE FOLLOWING HERE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES ARE CONTINUING TO MAKE PROGRESS, WHICH IT, I MEAN THIS SHOWS THAT YOU ARE RIGHT, THIS GIVES ON BOTH SIDES.
LIKE THEN I THINK WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW MORE TIME FOR THAT DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE.
I MEAN, THE ULTIMATE WIN HERE IS IF THERE CAN BE A COMPROMISE REACHED AMONGST THE PARTIES THAT ARE IMPACTED IN ERCOT.
SO, UM, YEAH, THANKS FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.
APPRECIATE YOU GUYS APPRECIATE BEING OPENMINDED.
UH, I, I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO FIND EITHER A VOTE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER HERE OR COMPROMISE.
UM, I DON'T WANT THIS TO END UP IN LITIGATION 'CAUSE WE ALL WANT THIS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
MARK TRIFUS, UH, THANK YOU CHAIR FOR LIFE.
UM, I, I WAS NOT PREPARED TO VOTE FOR TODAY.
SO I, I, UH, AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL TO SHIFT THE MEETING.
UM, I, I AM STRUGGLING WITH THIS ISSUE AND, AND WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH AS A NON-TECHNICAL PERSON IS HOW I BALANCE THE RELATIVE RISKS OF THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS.
ON ONE HAND, WE HAVE THIS, THIS RELIABILITY RISK TO THE GRID, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF, OF SHUTDOWN OF RESOURCES AND IN INVESTMENT INCENTIVE.
UM, AND, AND I'M STRUGGLING, I THINK AS A NON-TECHNICAL PERSON BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO EVALUATE.
SO IF THE HOPED FOR SETTLEMENT TALKS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, AND I HOPE THEY ARE, UM, I, I THINK ERCOT COULD PROVIDE ME SOME DATA THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN MY DECISION MAKING.
AND I THINK I HAVE THIS DATA, UM, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT ERCOT HAS RECEIVED FROM THE OEMS AND BASED ON THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FLEET AND WHAT RESOURCES ARE WHERE I'D LIKE TO HEAR ERCOT, UH, ESTIMATE OF THE SHARE OF RESOURCES THAT CAN COMPLY WITH THE, THE SCHEDULE THAT, THAT, UH, STEVEN PRESENTED ON THE SLIDE.
AND I'D LIKE THAT TO BE PUBLIC SO THAT THEN THE, THE RESOURCES COULD RESPOND AND, AND AGREE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE CAPABLE OF COMPLYING.
AND THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO HELPING ME, UH, BE ABLE TO BALANCE THE RELATIVE RISKS OF THE, THE TWO ALTERNATIVES.
UH, I SEE STEVEN NEXT, SO MAYBE HE CAN HELP WITH HELP US WITH THAT TOO.
YEAH, I JUST TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION AND THEN I GOT, UH, I THINK A, A FINAL COMMENT.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE, THE MAGNITUDE AND, UM, OF THE ISSUE OF THE PROBLEM, THE ODESSA EVENT REPORTS AND ARE, ARE A GOOD CAPTURE, UH, AS WELL AS FERC ORDER 9 0 1 DISCUSSION IN, IN PARTICULAR, READING SOME OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS HELPED TO FRAME UP THE SEVERITY OF THIS ISSUE.
UH, THE REAL DIFFERENCE HERE IS, UM, WE WE'RE ALL VERY FAMILIAR WITH RELIABILITY RISK FROM, UH, UH, WE RUN OUT OF CAPACITY AND WE GET INTO EEAS.
THIS RISK IS DIFFERENT IN THAT IT CAN RESULT IN A COMPLETE SYSTEM BLACKOUT AT ANY, ANY TIME THAT WE HAVE A FAULT AND THEY DON'T RIDE THROUGH AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
AND SO IT'S A DIFFERENT RISK IN THAT ASPECT THAT WE'RE, AND THAT'S WHY FERC HAS TAKEN THE MEASURE IN ORDER 9 0 1 TO SAY, THIS NEEDS TO BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED, ALLOW EXEMPTIONS FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
AND OVER TIME AS THEY REPLACE, UH, THAT RISK THAT IS RESIDUAL WILL GO AWAY.
AND IN BETWEEN THAT TIME PLANNERS AND OPERATORS HAVE TO MITIGATE THAT RISK.
THAT'S A REAL HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW WITH WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AND, AND WHY THIS IS, UM, SERIOUS FOR US TO, TO TACKLE.
AND IT'S KOTS IN A UNIQUE POSITION IN, IN NORTH AMERICA IN THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF IDR CONNECTED TO THE SYSTEM AND ARE ON THAT LEADING EDGE THERE WITH THE AMOUNT.
[01:55:01]
IS HIGHER FOR US.UM, SO, SO STEVEN, YOU, YOU ISOLATED EXACTLY WHAT IS MY PROBLEM AND THE ISSUE THAT I'M, I'M TRYING TO BALANCE.
I I DO HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RELIABILITY RISK IS OF SHORTAGE.
UM, WE, WE LIVED THROUGH 2021, WE LIVED THROUGH SEVERAL TIGHT SUMMERS AND WE LIVED THROUGH THE EVENT OF LAST WEEK.
AND SO IN, IN MY NON-TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK, I CAN, I CAN WORK THROUGH WHAT THOSE RISKS LOOK LIKE TO ME.
ON THE OTHER HAND, UM, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THERE'S AN EXISTENTIAL RISK TO THE GRID, WHICH NO ONE WANTS, RIGHT? UM, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO EVALUATE THE RISK OF THAT.
IF, IF NO TURBINES ARE ABLE TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS, THEN I HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE POTENTIAL SEVERITY OF THOSE RISKS.
IF ALL BUT A HANDFUL OF TURBINES MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN I THINK THE RISK IS DIFFERENT AND, AND I NEED SOME WAY OF THINKING THROUGH THAT.
SO WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO, TO TAKE THE OEM DATA AND THE FLEET DATA AND GIVE US AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH RESOURCES YOU THINK WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN ERCOT SUGGESTED VERSION AND THE TIMELINE THAT'S IN THE CHART? I, I, I THINK THAT WILL HELP US, UH, EVALUATE, WILL HELP ME EVALUATE THE EXISTENTIAL RISK TO THE GRID.
CERTAINLY, WE'LL, WE'LL BRING FORWARD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THE DECEMBER TAC PRESENTATION, UH, ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT WITH THE RFI RESPONSES, BUT TO JUST VERBALLY SAY IT HERE AND WE'LL PRESENT IT AT THE NEXT TAC MEETING, OUR BEST ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE OEMS TALKING TO US, ALL IDRS, ALL WG WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH NOGA 2 45 BECAUSE WE GIVE THE EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS AND EXTENSIONS FRAMEWORK THAT WE'VE ALLOWED.
SO THE, THE WAY WE FRAMED IT UP IN ERCOT PROPOSAL IS, HERE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS.
DO YOUR BEST TO MAXIMIZE YOUR CAPABILITY AND MEET 'EM.
AND WHEN YOU CANNOT, SO LONG AS YOUR OEM VALIDATES THAT YOU CANNOT MEET IT, THERE IS A PROCESS, A FRAMEWORK FOR US TO ALLOW LIMITED EXCEPTIONS TO RECOGNIZE THOSE LIMITATIONS.
SO ALL IBR AND WGS SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE.
THE AMOUNT OF EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE AROUND TWO GIGAWATTS OF CAPACITY WITH THE LATEST CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSED.
THAT'S BASED OFF OF WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED AS FAR AS INFORMATION.
MAYBE IT'S GIVE OR TAKE A GIGAWATT, BUT THAT'S THE LATEST INFORMATION WE HAVE.
THAT'S WHY WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND OUR VERSION BE WHAT WE WORK FROM, UH, BECAUSE WE'VE GIVEN ALL OF THAT THOUGHT AND PUT IT INTO OUR PROPOSAL, THAT'LL ENSURES WE'VE TAKEN ALL THE FEEDBACK AND BALANCES EVERYTHING OUT FOR EVERYONE.
CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION SO THAT I'M, I'M CLEAR ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID, COREY, COULD YOU GO TO THE, TO THE TIMELINE CHART THAT'S IN STEVEN'S PRESENTATION? SO WHAT I, WHAT I THINK I JUST HEARD YOU SAY IS THAT ALL BUT TWO GIGAWATTS OF THE FLEET SHOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THIS TIME TIMELINE AND THAT TWO GIGAWATTS OF THE FLEET WILL REQUIRE SOME EXCEPTION TO THE TIMELINE.
IS THAT WHAT IS, DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? I WOULD SAY THAT THE, THEY WOULD MEET ONE OF THE TIMELINES, RIGHT? SO SOME ARE GOING TO NEED THE EXTENSION FROM 2025 TO 2027.
AND, AND WHAT THAT ASSUMES IS THAT BY AND LARGE, OUTSIDE OF A COUPLE OF GIGAWATTS, IT SHOULD BE PARAMETERIZATION AND SOFTWARE UPDATES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE.
SO IF I, I, I DON'T HAVE VALIDATED DATES FROM THE OEMS WHEN THEY LOOK INTO EVERYTHING AND SAY, I CAN SCHEDULE THIS ALL OUT, BUT TO THE BEST OF THE INFORMATION THAT THEY PROVIDED TO ME, THERE'S ABOUT TWO GIGAWATTS THAT BEYOND PARAMETERIZATION
[02:00:01]
AND SOFTWARE UPDATES, THEY CAN, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE RETROFITTING, UH, TO RECORD FOR THEM TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.SO WE HAVE A PROCESS TO HANDLE THAT.
YOU CAN GET AN EXCEPTION AND THE EXCEPTION ACCEPTS YOU FROM THE PORTION THAT YOU CANNOT MEET.
AND IT, IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU A BROAD EXEMPTION THAT SAYS YOU DON'T HAVE TO MEET ANYTHING.
BUT WE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT LIMITATION AND WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT FE QUARTER 9 0 1, YOU KNOW, REALLY, YOU KNOW, SET FORTH AS THAT PROCESS AND WE TRIED TO ALIGN WITH IT, BUT ALL IBR OR WGS HAVE A PATH FORWARD THAT THEY CAN COMPLY.
CAN WE MOVE ON IN THE QUEUE? UH, NEXT IS CHASE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE OTHER BRIEF COMMENT IN THAT I, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MOVING UP THE TAC MEETING IN TWO WEEKS OR OR SO, TWO TO THREE WEEKS, I FEEL LIKE WORST CASE WE CAN EACH HAVE CHANGES IN OUR VERSIONS TO GET CLOSER.
I, I CAN'T COMMIT THAT IN TWO TO THREE WEEKS.
I CAN, WE CAN GET THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION TO A LEVEL THAT WORKS, BUT I, I DO THINK THAT THERE'S VALUE IN, AT, AT WORST CASE, WE BOTH SUBMIT COMMENTS TO A VERSION THAT COULD GET CLOSER TO COMPROMISE.
BUT THIS TIMELINE HINGES ON FEBRUARY BOARD APPROVAL, CORRECT? YES.
AND, AND SO THERE, AND THAT'S COMING FROM ERCOT, THE, THE WANT FOR THE BOARD APPROVAL ON THIS TIMELINE, RIGHT? RIGHT.
IF, IF THERE WAS A PATH FORWARD THAT WE EVEN NEEDED MORE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT, THEN I, I THINK LET'S DO THAT, RIGHT? WE NEED TO TAKE THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT, BUT IF WE JUST HAVE DESPAIRING DIFFERENCES IN, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THESE ARE THE, WE JUST CAN'T AGREE TO, I THINK AT THAT POINT WE JUST NEED TO PUSH IT ON TO THE NEXT, NEXT LEVEL.
I, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
SO WE'LL HAVE THAT FEBRUARY ATTACK ON THE 14TH.
UM, AND, AND I THINK THAT'S A, A FAIR COMMITMENT.
SO IF, WE'LL, WE'LL SHOOT FOR A COMPROMISE, BUT IF NOT, HOPEFULLY WE COULD HAVE THOSE VERSIONS MAYBE A WEEK AHEAD FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND AND CONSIDER.
UM, SO DOES THAT WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS FOR NOW? STEVEN
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS CHASE SMITH.
CAN YOU CONFIRM? YOU CAN HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, CHASE SMITH'S SOUTHERN POWER, I WANTED TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE IN RESPONSE TO MARK'S QUESTIONS.
UM, MARK, I THINK, YOU KNOW, STEVEN POINTED OUT TO THE RFI RESPONSES AND THAT SUMMARY PROVIDED TO THE DECEMBER TAC MEETING, AND I THINK THAT IS USEFUL AND GOOD INFORMATION, UM, AND THAT ALL OF TAC MEMBERS SHOULD REVIEW THAT IN, YOU KNOW, IN ALL THE COMMENTS AS WE HEAD INTO THIS, UH, THE UPCOMING FEBRUARY MEETING.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT JUST A COUPLE PIECES OF CONTEXT FOR THE THAT RFI RESPONSE, UM, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS GOOD INFORMATION, BUT IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE.
AND SO I THINK THE FIRST POINT IS THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ITEMS ANSWERED, YES, THIS IS TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, BUT ULTIMATELY MAY NOT BE ADOPTED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE SOLUTION.
AND A RESOURCE ENTITY MAY INSTEAD DECIDE THAT THEY WOULD PREFER NOT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND INSTEAD TO RETIRE THAT EQUIPMENT.
UH, SECOND THE, YOU KNOW, THE RESPONSES FOR, TO THE, SPECIFICALLY THE RS APPROVED VERSION ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A SOLUTION THAT WAS COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE AND TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
UM, WHETHER IT WAS A YES OR NO, THAT WAS AT A SINGLE POINT IN TIME.
UM, BUT THE R OSS APPROVED VERSION DOES REQUIRE AN ANNUAL ONGOING REVIEW AND REPORTING TO ERCOT OF TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIALLY FEASIBLE SOLUTIONS.
AND IF THERE ARE, IF THERE'S NEW INFORMATION AND NEW SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE, UM, THOSE IDRS ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THEM.
[02:05:01]
UM, AND THEN THIRD, YOU KNOW, THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE RFII THINK FORCED RESPONDENTS AT TIMES TO, TO ENTER IN THE SAME RESPONSE, EVEN THOUGH IF IT WAS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A A NO TO WHETHER THERE WAS A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE AND TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE SOLUTION COULD MEAN THAT THERE IS NOT A SOLUTION THAT'S EVEN AVAILABLE.
UM, OR THERE'S A SOLUTION AVAILABLE BUT IT'S NOT COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE OR IT COULD MEAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
AND, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THAT ONGOING REVIEW.
UM, AND IF CHANGE, IF THAT CHANGES, THEN YOU KNOW THAT THAT ENTITY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE ACTIONS.
UM, SO I, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS, UM, IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF STEVEN'S COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT, THE JOINT COMMERCE HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE A SUBSET OF THE LEGACY FLEET THAT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES MEETING.
AND, UM, MY OWN OPINION IS THE EXACT AMOUNTS OF THAT IS QUITE UNCERTAIN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE IEE STANDARD IS STILL RELATIVELY NEW AS FAR AS BEING ADOPTED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THE TESTING PROCEDURE IS STILL UNDERWAY AND BEING COMPLETED AND, UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN HAVING DETAILED DISCUSSIONS WITH OEMS OVER TIME, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SOLUTION HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND IS READY TO DEPLOY VERSUS, UM, A COMMUNICATION THAT WE THINK THERE WILL BE A, THERE'LL BE A PATH FORWARD, BUT THERE'S STILL WORK TO BE DONE TO ACTUALLY DESIGN AND DETERMINE IF, IF THERE WILL BE A TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND COMMERCIAL REASONABLE SOLUTION AVAILABLE.
SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE AND I DON'T WANNA GO TOO MUCH FURTHER.
UM, SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.
WE'RE GONNA NEED LIKE NEW INITIALS TOO, 'CAUSE C SMITH, YOU KNOW, MAKES ME THINK I'M IN THE QUEUE, SO WE'LL GO, UH, TO, TO NED.
CAITLYN, YOU SAID I WAS IN THE QUEUE
UM, WELL, I'LL BE, I'LL BE FAST.
I, I SUPPORT THE PATH THAT WE'RE ON TO, YOU KNOW, BRING THIS BACK AND TRY TO FIND COMPROMISE.
I REALLY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TAC TO, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT BE PUT IN A POSITION OF TRYING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO RELIABILITY RISKS AND, AND REALLY GET TO A, YOU KNOW, HELP DRIVE A SOLUTION THAT MINIMIZES BOTH POTENTIAL RELIABILITY RISKS, BOTH THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INSTANTANEOUS ONE THAT STEVEN HAS HAS BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A REAL ONE.
AND, UH, TO ECHO RICHARD'S, UH, RICHARD'S COMMENTS OR SOMETHING, IT'S NOT FOR FUN.
UM, SO SUPPORT, TRYING, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT, THAT IS A UNIQUE ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THAT IT DOES WARRANT LOOKING AT THE EXISTING RESOURCES, AND I THINK EVEN THE JOINT COMMENTERS HAVE, UH, HAVE, HAVE, YOU KNOW, DEMONSTRATED AN UNDERSTANDING OF THAT AND APPRECIATE THEIR, UH, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY THAT WOULD BE A BIG, A BIG CONCERN FOR A LOT OF FOLKS.
UM, BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.
UM, AND FRANKLY IT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE MAY CONTINUE TO SEE WITH SOME INVERTER BASED RESOURCES BECAUSE OF, UM, SOMETHING I'VE LEARNED THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS THE OEM UH, SUPPORT DYNAMIC IS, IS DIFFERENT FOR IBR THAN IT IS FOR TRADITIONAL THERMAL RESOURCES.
JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VENDOR ECOSYSTEM FOR SUPPORT AND THE, THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MODELS CREATES, UH, DIFFERENT CHALLENGES THERE.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT LEARNING.
AND AS YOU KNOW, AS WE HOPEFULLY FIND COMPROMISE ON THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ERCOT TO, TO BE MINDFUL IF THERE ARE FUTURE, UM, SIMILAR SITUATIONS THAT WE DO TAKE A BIFURCATED APPROACH AND, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS NEW RESOURCES FIRST AND QUICKLY AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN SEPARATE EXISTING RESOURCES AND TAKE THOSE UP ON A MORE DELIBERATE TIMEFRAME.
BECAUSE I THINK HAVING THEM STUCK TOGETHER IN THIS PROCESS HAS ACTUALLY MADE THIS, YOU KNOW, GO A LOT LONGER THAN, THAN IT COULD BE.
WE COULD HAVE ALREADY STOPPED, STOPPED DIGGING THE HOLE AS A MARKET AND, UM, AND, AND NOT HAVE BEEN TIED UP FOR THIS LONG.
SO, UH, I THINK WE'RE MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.
REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S WORK ON THIS.
LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY SEEING, UH, SINGING KUMBAYA OR, UM, EXCHANGING VALENTINE'S.
UM, I WOULD'VE CHOSEN I CHOCHO CHOOSE YOU, UH, PERSONALLY, BUT, UH, ANYWAY, UM, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT INSTEAD.
IS THAT THE, THE VALENTINE'S
DAVE, ARE YOU ON STILL? YEAH, THANK YOU, CAITLIN.
UM, I DID WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS I THINK REALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED HERE.
AND I GUESS I'LL, I'LL START BY SAYING THAT I AGREE WITH, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT CHASE MADE REGARDING, UM, THE RISK FOR EXISTING RESOURCES.
UH, THERE'S, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE, THERE IS NOT A PATH FORWARD FOR EVERY SINGLE, UM,
[02:10:01]
IBR KIND OF CONTRARY TO, TO THE ASSERTION THAT STEVEN MADE.AND I THINK THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE'LL CERTAINLY NEED TO DRILL DOWN ON TO SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IS.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE MAKE COMMENTS THAT, THAT, UH, DETAIL THAT QUITE A BIT AND SOME OF THAT MIGHT HINGE ON THE WAY THAT ERCOT APPLIES.
ITS KIND OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING EXCEPTIONS.
AND SO MAYBE THEY'RE PLANNING TO EXERCISE THAT DISCRETION MORE BROADLY THAN THEIR COMMENTS INDICATE.
AND CERTAINLY WE'LL DRILL INTO THAT.
BUT EVEN IF YOU WERE TO ASSUME THAT THAT WERE TRUE, TRUE, YOU KNOW, THE COMMENT THAT I HEARD WAS THAT MOST OF THE CHANGES WOULD BE PARAMETERS AND SOFTWARE CHANGES.
AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK WHAT'S CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND IN THE JOINT COMMENTERS, UH, MODIFY MODIFICATIONS, THE ROSS APPROVED VERSION, THOSE ARE PRECISELY THE TYPES OF CHANGES THAT WOULD BE DEEMED COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE, RIGHT? IT'S, IT, THAT'S THE PRESUMPTION.
SO YOU, WE HAVE TO MAKE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE EFFORTS TO COMPLY AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.
THAT'S THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, WHICH WE CAN MAKE FIRMER IF IT'S NOT CLEAR.
UM, WE MUST MAXIMIZE THE CAPABILITY TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE OR TO COMPLY, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING.
IT'S NOT, EITHER THERE'S SOMETHING I CAN DO TO REACH THE TARGET OR NOTHING, AND SO I CAN KIND OF SIT BACK, UM, AND, AND THERE'S ANNUAL UPDATES FOR THE EVALUATION OF ANY KIND OF MATERIAL CHANGE AND WE'RE OPEN TO MORE FREQUENT UPDATES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
RIGHT? BUT THE POINT IS, IF, IF THAT REALLY IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT ALL THE TWO GIGS, IT'S MOSTLY PARAMETERS AND SOFTWARE, THEN THERE'S EVERY REASON TO THINK THAT THE JOINT COMMENTERS VERSION WILL ACHIEVE THAT.
AND THEY'LL DO THAT WITHOUT, UM, DISCOUNTING COMMERCIAL REASONABLENESS ENTIRELY.
SO THAT I, I THINK THAT THAT'S A CRITICAL POINT AS PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THE, THE COMPETING PROPOSALS.
SO I THINK THE QUEUE IS CLEAR.
I THINK WE ACTUALLY MADE IT PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT HOUR, MAYBE A LITTLE OVER.
UM, SO THE PLAN IS TO HAVE FEBRUARY TECH ON THE 14TH.
WE WILL DO IT WEBEX ONLY, SO WE DON'T NEED CANDY OR VALENTINE'S EXCEPT THE, THE VIRTUAL KIND, I GUESS.
UM, AND WE'LL MAKE THAT A REGULAR FEBRUARY MEETING, SO EVERYTHING CAN GO TO THE BOARD.
WE DO NOT NEED A MOTION BECAUSE IT IS TABLED, AND WE WILL, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE THERE TO BE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES AND COMMENTS POSTED, UM, A WEEK AHEAD IF POSSIBLE.
UM, SO WE, LET'S CLOSE OUT THE REST OF THESE REVISION REQUESTS THAT ARE TABLED HERE.
I BELIEVE THE REST CAN REMAIN TABLED HERE.
SO 1193, UM, WE'RE WAITING THE SMUGGER AT WMS, SO THAT CAN STAY TABLED.
UM, O-B-D-R-R 46 CAN STAY TABLED.
UM, AND THEN THE PI R 1 0 5, I BELIEVE IS BEING DISCUSSED AT THE COMMISSION, AND THAT CAN REMAIN TABLED.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT? OKAY.
AND THEN I WAS GOING TO PAUSE HERE FOR A BREAK, AND I AM UP, YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE FEEDBACK ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME OF THAT BREAK.
I WOULD SAY JUST TILL 12, BUT IT COULD BE A LUNCH BREAK.
WE PROBABLY HAVE AN HOUR AND A HALF OF AGENDA LEFT, SO WE'LL BREAK TILL 12, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE, UM, UP THE REST OF THE AGENDA.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET BACK STARTED IF Y'ALL CAN TAKE YOUR SEATS.
[11. RMS Report (Vote)]
THINK NEXT UP WE'RE GONNA HAVE RMS WITH DEBBIE MCKEEVER.[02:15:02]
I GOT THREE SIGNS.THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
RMS HAS ONE VOTING ITEM WE WOULD LIKE TAC TO APPROVE R-M-G-R-R 1 79.
THIS IS RELATED TO, UM, TDSP, TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ELECTRIC ENERGY FACILITY DEPLOYMENT, TRANSACTIONAL PROCESSING, WHICH IS AKA MOBILE GEN.
SO, UH, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, UM, BRING THIS BEFORE YOU WITH URGENT STATUS.
WE NEED TO INCLUDE IT IN THE 2024 TEXAS SET 5.0 VERSION RELEASE, WHICH IS GOING IN NOVEMBER 10TH OF THIS YEAR.
IT WILL, UM, ALSO NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TEST FLIGHT.
I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE HOW THAT WOULD PLAY OUT, BUT WE DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TESTING EVERYTHING TO THE EXTENT WE NEED TO.
UM, IT WAS PROVIDED OR DEVELOPED, UM, PARTIALLY BY TEXAS SET AND SOME OF THE VOLUNTEERS SUCH AS KATHY SCOTT, UM, AND KYLE PATRICK, AND WHAT IT'S DOING IS ACTUALLY ADDING A CODE IN THE TRANSACTION.
SO IN THE EVENT THAT MOBILE GEN IS DEPLOYED, THE COMPETITIVE RETAILERS WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT WHEN IT COMES THROUGH THEIR SYSTEMS, THOSE TRANSACTIONS.
SO ANYWAY, IT IS REALLY GONNA BE A BIG HELP.
AND DEBBIE, I BELIEVE THERE IS A DESKTOP EDIT THAT WAS PROVIDED.
AND WHAT WAS THE DESKTOP EDIT? IT'S TO REMOVE THE WORD, HOWEVER, IT'S VERY SMALL.
SO DEBBIE, I THINK THE EDITS IN PARAGRAPH ONE, THE DESKTOP EDIT, IF YOU WANNA SCROLL DOWN THERE.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESKTOP EDIT IS REMOVING, UM, THE FOLLOWING.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A LIST ANYMORE, SO IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE FOLLOWING.
SO WILL IT BE AS AMENDED AND MOVED TO THE COMBO BALLOT? YEP, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
THANK ANY CONCERNS ON PUTTING THIS ON THE COMMON BALLOT WITH THE DESKTOP EDITS? OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD.
UM, I DO WANNA MAKE YOU AWARE OF THE STATUS OF THE LUBBOCK, UH, POWER AND LIGHT, UH, ENTRY INTO COMPETITION.
AND, UH, WE ARE GOING REALLY STRONG.
WE'VE IRONED OUT A LOT OF THINGS.
UM, LUBBOCK HAS BEEN AMAZING AS ERHA AND THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, EVERYBODY INVOLVED IS LED BY THREE CO-CHAIRS.
CHRIS RALLY WITH ENCORE, MICHAEL GERHART WITH LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT, AND SHERRY WEAKEN WITH, UM, TXU.
IT IS COUNTLESS HOURS THAT WE'VE BEEN PUT IN.
TRULY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER SEEN ANYTHING, UH, DEVELOP THIS QUICKLY AND GET ALL OF THE RESPONSES IN THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN TIME FOR, UM, COMPETITION.
UH, THE KEY DATES, UM, THERE WAS A SHOPPING FAIR, UM, THIS WEEK, AND, UH, THERE'S GONNA BE ONE ON THE 10TH.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE IMPORTANT IN THAT THE CUSTOMERS ACTUALLY GET TO GO TO THE CIVIC CENTER AND TALK TO THE COMPETITIVE RETAILERS AND ASK 'EM QUESTIONS AND GET CLARIFICATIONS.
SO THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF HICCUPS, BUT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE, UM, THE TIME THE COMPETITIVE RETAILERS AND LUBBOCK AND THE CITY HAVE ALL BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AND ANSWER
[02:20:01]
ANY QUESTIONS AND HELP THE CUSTOMER UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING.[12. ROS Report (Vote)]
UH, NEXT UP WE'LL MOVE TO THE ROSH REPORT.I BELIEVE WE HAVE ALEX MILLER ONLINE.
SO, UM, ON THE VOTING ITEMS FOR TODAY, THIS FIRST ITEM SHOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE NEXT PAGE.
IT'S NOT ON THE TAX AGENDA FOR TODAY, BUT TO NOTE THAT ROSS DID VOTE TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE FOR A PR 1210, WHICH CHANGES THE FREQUENCY FOR THE NEXT START RESOURCE TEST AND LOAD CARRYING TEST FROM EVERY FIVE TO EVERY FOUR CALENDAR YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THAT ALSO ALIGNS WITH NERC REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE IA SHOWED NO COST FOR THIS, UM, OR CO SPONSORED IT.
SO WE DID APPROVE, ENDORSE THAT NPRR ON THE, UM, TAX VOTING AGENDA.
TODAY IS PICKER 1 0 9, UH, DYNAMIC MODEL REVIEW PROCESS IMPROVEMENT FOR INVERTER BASED RESOURCE MODIFICATIONS.
ROSS DID VOTE TO, UH, ENDORSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE NOVEMBER 17TH ERCOT, UH, REVISIONS AND THE IA, WHICH SHOWED, UH, 0.6, FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE IMPACT, WHICH WOULD BE ABSORBED WITH CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS TO REVIEW MORE DYNAMIC STUDIES.
AND THEN, UM, THEY CURRENTLY DO.
AND, UM, THIS WAS REVIEWED BOTH BY I-B-R-W-G AND PLWG.
AND THE, UH, LATEST REVISIONS DID CLARIFY THAT THE PROCESS ALLOWS FOR TEMPORARY IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDED CHANGES.
ROSS ALSO DID, UH, AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, UH, INSTALL NEW LEADERSHIP FOR 2024.
KATIE RICH WAS VOTED AS CHAIR.
I WAS VOTED AS VICE CHAIR, AND I'M FILLING IN, UM, SINCE KATIE DID CHANGE JOBS.
AND BY THE NEXT ROSS MEETING, WE WILL HAVE THAT SORTED AND BRING BACK TO TAC IN FEBRUARY.
THE, UM, FINAL CHAIR, UH, POSITION.
AND ON THE, UM, OTHER RECENT ROTH ACTIONS, WE ALSO DID A VOTE TO ENDORSE NOER 2 61, WHICH IS, UH, PART OF THE WORK THAT'S GOING FORWARD.
TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, SOME OF THE PROCEDURES ARE MOVING FROM OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS INTO THE NODAL PROTOCOLS FOR TRANSPARENCY.
SO THEY ARE MOVING THIS PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING RRS LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES INTO THE NODAL PROTOCOLS.
THERE IS VERY LOW COST, UH, SHOWN IN THE IA AND SOME IMPACT TO WEBSITE MIS CHANNEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, UH, A SIMPLE MOVE OF, OF REQUIREMENTS FROM, FROM DOCUMENTS INTO THE PROTOCOLS.
AND SO THAT WAS ENDORSED BY ROSS AT THE LAST MEETING.
THE NEXT TWO SLIDES DO SHOW OUR, UM, OUTSTANDING REVISION REQUESTS THAT EITHER ARE REMAIN TABLED UNDER REVIEW BY WORKING GROUPS, OR THAT HAVE BEEN ENDORSED BY ROSS.
AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO MONITOR IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE.
THE, UM, NEXT OTHER ITEMS THAT WE DID DISCUSS OUR WORK GROUPS ARE, UH, WE EXPECT TO BRING THAT FINAL LIST FOR WORK GROUP LEADERSHIP TO T IN FEBRUARY.
AND WE ARE ALSO REVIEWING THE ROSS GOALS FOR 2024, WORKING OFF OF THE 2023 GOALS.
AND OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE, UH, ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
THE QUEUE IS CLEAR, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT PETER 1 0 9 ON THE COMMON BALLOT UNLESS THERE'S ANY COMMENTS FROM THE ROOM HERE, NOT SEEING ANY.
[13. WMS Report]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE WMS REPORT, UH, WITH ERIC BLAKEY, AND HE'S MAKING HIS WAY UP TO THE PODIUM, MOUSE, WHEELER, ARROW, ARROW.ERIC BLAKEY WITH PERINA ELECTRIC COOP.
AND, UH, THIS YEAR'S CHAIR OF WMS, UH, WITH THIS MONTH'S UPDATE, UM, WE HAD, UH, WE HAD A REPORT, UH, AT THE TIME WE WERE, WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW EMERGENCY PRICING PROGRAM.
UM, AT THAT TIME, WE WERE, I GUESS, FOUR DAYS AWAY FROM A WINTER STORM
[02:25:02]
THAT HIT JANUARY 14TH.UH, SO THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
IT'S A, IT'S CURRENTLY A MANUAL PROGRAM, SO I WANNA REALLY EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO TODAY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR WOULD LIKE FOR US TO, TO EITHER MAKE A CHANGE OR RETAIN, UH, ONE OF THESE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
UM, SO FIRST IS TAC ASSIGNMENT, UH, REMAINING K TCS FROM BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE TASK FORCE.
UH, AND YOU SEE THESE LISTED, UH, 15 DASH THREE DASH FOUR AND DASH SIX.
UH, THE STATUS IS, IS WE WOULD, UH, REFER THESE TO THE RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE, IF THIS IS STILL A PRIORITY.
UM, NEXT WE HAVE REVIEW ISSUES RELATED TO NPR 1105 OPTION TO DEPLOY DISTRI DISTRIBUTION VOLTAGE REDUCTION MEASURES PRIOR TO, UH, ENERGY EMERGENCY ALERT.
UH, THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT WAS REMOVED AS PART OF THE TAX STRUCTURAL REVIEW.
NEXT, WE HAD HAD THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ORDER REGARDING EMISSION LIMITATIONS, FUEL LIMITATIONS, AND INCREASED RUCK ACTIVITY AND POTENTIAL MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND, AND THE C-S-A-P-R NOX SEASON ALLOWANCE.
UH, DURING THE T STRUCTURAL REVIEW, THIS WAS CHANGED.
THE WORDING WAS CHANGED TO REVIEW IMPACTS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED EPA REGULATIONS ON THE ERCOT MARKET AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE ERCOT GRID AND THE FUTURE RESOURCE MIX.
UH, STATUS IS, THIS IS CURRENTLY ON HOLD PENDING, UH, COURT RULING ON THE GRANT OF A STAY.
THE NEXT IS REVIEW OF RUCK COMPENSATION FOR GAPS, INCLUDING REVISION REQUESTS.
THERE WAS A JOINT, UH, WORKSHOP BETWEEN THE RESOURCE COST WORKING GROUP AND WMWG, UH, WORKSHOP ON RUCK AND VERIFIABLE COST THAT WAS HELD IN AUGUST.
UH, SO I BELIEVE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD COMPLETE OUR, OUR REVIEW, BUT WE COULD KEEP THIS AS AN ONGOING ITEM IF THAT WOULD BE DESIRED.
THE CAPACITY CALCULATION FOR CONSERVATION APPEAL INSTALLED CAPACITY VERSUS SEASONAL MAX, THIS TIES BACK TO THE SEVEN 13 ERCOT CONSERVATION APPEAL, AND THIS WAS REMOVED AS PART OF THE STRUCTURAL REVIEW.
NEXT, UH, REVIEW OF EFFICIENCY OF ERS PROGRAM STEMMING FROM DISCUSSION OF SELF DEPLOYMENT OF ERS DURING JULY 13TH, DEPLOYMENT OF IT, AGAIN REMOVED AS PART
[02:30:01]
OF THE STRUCTURAL REVIEW.AND FINALLY, NPR 1177, HOLISTIC REVIEW OF COST RECOVERY ISSUES AND STANDARD LANGUAGE FOR FIRM FUEL SUPPLY CONTRACTS.
THIS WAS ASSIGNED LAST SUMMER AT THE 5 23 AND SIX FIVE TAC MEETINGS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED AS PART OF NPR 1177.
UM, AND THEN JUST TO, TO MENTION OUR OPEN ACTION ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.
UH, MOST OF THESE ARE NOW COMPLETE.
THE ONLY REMAINING ITEM IS REVIEWING THE WHOLESALE MARKET QUEUES FOR SCARCITY, UH, SCARCITY PRICING.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S OUR LIST.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS OR EDITS THAT, THAT WE NEED TO TAKE BACK TO WMS? GREAT.
NOT SEEING ANY COMMENTS, UH, ERIC, REALLY APPRECIATE THE THOROUGH REVIEW AND UPDATE ON THE TAC ASSIGNMENTS.
UH, JUST REAL QUICK, THESE ARE OUR WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP, UH, FOR 2024.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY A VERY SPECIAL THANK YOU TO ALL OF THESE FOR, FOR STEPPING UP AND, AND FILLING THESE ROLES.
UH, WE ONLY HAVE TWO VACANCIES AT THE MOMENT.
ONE IS THE VICE CHAIR OF, UH, THE DEMAND SIDE WORKING GROUP, AND THE OTHER IS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE RESOURCE COST WORKING GROUP.
UH, THE OTHERS HAVE BEEN FILLED.
I BELIEVE THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED.
AND, UM, IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED IN THESE VACANT POSITIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
UM, BUT OTHERWISE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR, UH, PARTICIPANT LEADERSHIP IN, IN LEADING THESE GROUPS.
OUR NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 7TH.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[17. ERCOT Reports (Part 1 of 2)]
I THINK WE'RE GONNA GO OUTTA ORDER ON THIS NEXT ONE.WE'RE GONNA JUMP DOWN TO ERCOT REPORTS.
THE FIRST ITEM, UH, AND DAVE MAGGIO IS GONNA COME GIVE US AN, UH, UPDATE ON THE EIGHT ER PILOT PROJECT, PHASE ONE REPORT AND PHASE TWO GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
WHICH ONE YOU WANNA START WITH? I'M JUST GONNA DO THE, THE PRESENTATION.
DO YOU DO BREATHING OR PRESENTATION NOTES? PRESENTATION, YEAH.
ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR ACCOMMODATING MY SCHEDULE.
UH, SO I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE, UH, A DER PILOT PROJECT.
AND I GUESS THERE'S A FEW THINGS I'D LIKE TO DO.
ONE, I'LL TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE, UH, BUT ALSO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN TERMS OF, UH, OF PHASE TWO OF THE PILOT.
AND THERE ARE SOME INCREMENTAL CHANGES THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO TAKE TO THE BOARD, UH, TO MOVE INTO A PHASE TWO IN FEBRUARY.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MATERIAL TODAY, THERE'S ACTUALLY A, A FEW DIFFERENT FILES.
UH, THERE'S THE PRESENTATION, UH, BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS A PHASE ONE REPORT, UH, TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND, AND THINGS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT FOR PHASE TWO.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PHASE TWO GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS GIVEN THAT THE CHANGES ARE RELATIVELY SMALL, THE BEST WAY TO COME UP WITH THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT WOULD BE TO TAKE WHAT WE HAD FOR PHASE ONE AND TO DRAFT RED LINES TO IT.
SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN TERMS OF WHEN THIS IS A, A DRAFT PHASE TWO DOCUMENT.
IT'S REALLY RED LINES TO THE PHASE ONE, AND I'LL GET INTO, BY THE WAY, OF COURSE, SOME OF WHAT WE INCLUDED AS THOSE, THOSE CHANGES.
UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO FORMS OF THOSE RED LINES THAT I WANNA MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF.
THERE IS A VERSION THAT SIMPLY HAS ERCOT COMMENTS.
SO THAT IS, UH, SOMETHING WE PUT TOGETHER AND WE SHARED WITH THE A DER TASK FORCE.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE ARE SEVERAL FOLKS WHO'VE PROVIDED COMMENTS TO, UM, WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN TERMS OF CHANGES IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
UH, I THINK WE ARE ACTUALLY GOOD WITH ALMOST ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED, UH, AND MAYBE JUST SORT OF MAYBE NITPICKING ON SOME OF THE SPECIFIC WORDING.
UH, BUT WE'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO A SORT OF AN ERCOT VERSION THAT WE'LL BE TAKING TO THE BOARD.
SO THAT'LL BE SOME WORK WE'LL HAVE, UH, GOING ON HERE IN THE, IN THE UPCOMING WEEKS.
AND IN FACT, WE ARE HOPING TO TAKE OR PROVIDE, UH, COMMENTS BACK TO THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS, UH, HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THIS WEEK THAT, THAT'S AT LEAST MY GOAL RIGHT NOW.
UH, IN TERMS OF ACTION FORT, THERE'S NOT, UH, A REQUEST FOR A VOTE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
HOWEVER, WE DID WANT TO GIVE TACT THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SEE WHAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT, UH, TO SEE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR PHASE TWO AND, AND SEE IF THE GROUP HAS ANY FEEDBACK BEFORE WE DO TAKE IT TO THE BOARD, UH, IN LATER PART OF FEBRUARY.
SO IN TERMS OF JUST KIND OF A, A CURRENT STATUS OF THINGS, UH, WE HAVE TWO A DERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET, BOTH IN TERMS OF ENERGY AND NONS SPIN.
UH, THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE LATE AUGUST.
UH, IN TERMS OF THE MEGAWATTS, THEY'VE, ON THE ENERGY SIDE, IT'S 9.4 MEGAWATTS
[02:35:01]
AND IT'S 3.1 MEGAWATTS IN TERMS OF NONS SPIN.UH, THE, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN UPDATE TO THIS NUMBER AS OF, I THINK JUST AROUND THE MIDDLE OF LAST WEEK.
UH, WE NOW HAVE SEVEN A DERS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING WHAT'S CALLED THE, THE DETAILS OF THE AGGREGATION FORM.
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY, UH, A FORM THAT THE AGGREGATOR PUTS TOGETHER THAT SAYS, HEY, HERE'S ALL THE DEVICES OR PREMISES THAT I'M INTENDING TO INCLUDE.
I'VE RUN THIS BY THE DSP AND NOW ERCOT, THIS IS THE AGGREGATION I PLAN TO BRING YOU ALL AND MAKE SURE IT'S MEETING ALL OF THE RULES OF THE PILOT.
AND WE HAVE SEVEN FOLKS WHO'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND HAD THAT APPROVAL.
UH, THEY NOW HAVE THE STEP OF THAT, THAT APPROVAL'S OCCURRED ACTUALLY GETTING INTO THE MODEL, GOING THROUGH THE, THE, THE QUALIFICATION AND VALIDATION PROCESS TO GET TO THAT NEXT STEP OF ACTUAL COMMERCIAL OPERATION.
SO THAT, THAT WORK HAS STILL ONGOING.
UM, BUT THEY'VE, THEY'VE MADE IT PAST THAT, THAT FIRST HURDLE IN TERMS OF WHERE WE SEE THE A DR, AND THIS INCLUDES ALL NINE, UH, BOTH THE TWO THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE SEVEN THAT ARE IN THE WORKS, UH, THEY'RE SPREAD RIGHT NOW BETWEEN THE NORTH, SOUTH AND HOUSTON LOAD ZONES WITH THE BIGGEST CONCENTRATION BEING IN THE HOUSTON AREA.
SO THAT'S, UH, SEVEN OF THE 13 OR SO TOTAL MEGAWATTS IS IN HOUSTON.
AND SIX OF THE NINE AERS THAT WE HAVE FORMS APPROVED, APPROVED FORMS FOR ARE ALL IN THAT ZONE.
AND JUST AGAIN, HERE NOW THAT WE'VE STARTED TO SEE SOME PARTICIPATION, LOOKING TO SEE WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO, UH, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PILOT, IT, UM, FOR FOLKS WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR, UH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME SYSTEM LIMITS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF PARTICIPATION WE CAN SEE IN THE PILOT.
UH, THERE IS AN 80 MEGAWATT CAP IN TERMS OF ENERGY AND A 40 MEGAWATT CAP IN TERMS OF NONS SPIN.
UH, SO WE HAVE A TRACKING SPREADSHEET THAT'S, UH, ON THE WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PILOT THAT TRACKS WHERE WE ARE RELATIVE TO THOSE LIMITS AND TO ACTUALLY HELP ENCOURAGE SOME, UM, SPLITTING OUT OF THE AGGREGATIONS ACROSS THE DIFFERENT LOAD ZONES AND SOME GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY.
THERE'S A PROCESS IN THE PILOT IN WHICH WE ALLOCATE THOSE SYSTEM-WIDE LIMITS OUT TO THE LOAD ZONES.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE IT BROKEN OUT IN THIS PARTICULAR WAY.
UH, YOU KNOW, I, I TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE MEGAWATTS.
WE ARE REALLY NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THOSE CAPS AT THIS POINT.
UH, THE, AGAIN, THE GREATEST CONCENTRATION IS IN HOUSTON.
UM, BUT EVEN IN THAT CASE WE'RE ONLY ABOUT 35% RELATIVE TO THE, THE CAP FOR THE HOUSTON ZONE.
LOOKING AT IT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ENERGY.
SO QUITE A BIT OF ROOM TO GO SO FAR.
AND THERE ACTUALLY IS SOME FREEDOM WITHIN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
IF WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO THESE LIMITS AND WE ARE FEELING COMFORTABLE, WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE UPDATES TO THESE, THESE SYSTEM WIDE LIMITS WITHOUT NECESSARILY GOING BACK TO THE BOARD WITH THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT UPDATE.
BUT PHIL, YOU HAD A QUESTION ON THAT? DID I THINK SETH'S CARD WAS UP FIRST THOUGH? I'M SORRY, SETH, I MISSED IT.
UM, HOW DO YOU, JUST GIVE US A LITTLE BIT ON THE ACTUAL PROCESS ON HOW YOU SET THE LIMITS.
I YOU, YOUR LAST POINT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT.
IF WE APPROACH AND GET CLOSE TO THE LIMITS, WHAT, UH, CHANGES ARE YOU ALLOWED TO MAKE IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT? HOW WOULD YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU LOOK AT TO DECIDE HOW TO ADJUST THE ALLOCATION AMONGST THE LOAD ZONES? SO THE SPLITTING OUT AMONGST THE LOAD ZONES IS ACTUALLY DRIVEN BY JUST THE RATIO OF LOAD, AND THERE WAS A PARTICULAR SNAPSHOT OF TIME THAT WE PICKED TO DO THAT.
UM, I GUESS FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE LOOKED TO SEE IF WE PICKED DIFFERENT SNAPSHOTS, IF THAT SORT OF MOVED IT IN TERMS OF A DIFFERENT TIME SLICE AND, AND IT REALLY DIDN'T.
SO WE JUST KIND OF PICKED A, I THINK IT ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO IF, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, LIKE AUGUST OF 2022 WAS THE SLICE OF TIME THAT, THAT WE USED TO COME UP WITH IT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE SYSTEMWIDE LIMITS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW TO COME UP WITH THE ALLOCATION OF LOAD ZONES IN TERMS OF THE SYSTEM-WIDE LIMITS, THAT WAS LARGELY DONE AS A, A FUNCTION OF, UH, I GUESS NEGOTIATION WITH THE A DR TASK FORCE MEMBERS IN PARTICULAR.
UM, I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S NECESSARILY A WHOLE LOT OF SCIENCE IN TERMS OF UPDATES WE'D MAKE TO IT.
IT'D BE, IT'S REALLY MORE OF KIND OF A, A COMFORT FEEL AND, AND SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD TALK THROUGH WITH THE TASK FORCE BEFORE MAKING THOSE UPDATES.
BUT, BUT WE DO HAVE THE FREEDOM WITHIN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL AGAIN, TO MAKE THAT CALL AS ERCOT, UM, AND, AND CHANGE ANY OF THOSE SYSTEM-WIDE LIMITS.
SO THAT'S ALL SORT OF SPELLED OUT IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR PHASE ONE.
AND WE'VE LEFT ALL THAT LANGUAGE IN FOR PHASE TWO.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE CONSIDERING ADDING ECRS AS WELL.
WOULD THAT LIMIT LOOK SIMILAR TO NON SPEN FOR, FOR THE TIME BEING AND, AND GIVEN WHERE WE'RE SEEING IT, WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED RIGHT NOW IN THE LANGUAGES TO, YES.
AND I'LL OBVIOUSLY TALK ABOUT ECRS, BUT TO HAVE THE SAME 40 MEGAWATT LIMIT FOR NOW, SETH, AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SKIP YOU.
ONE IS, IS THIS MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PAIRED WITH BATTERIES? IS THAT WHAT'S SO RIGHT NOW? SO THERE'S, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO AGGREGATE EITHER AT THE PREMISE OR THE DEVICE LEVEL.
I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR ARE ACTUALLY AGGREGATING THE DEVICES AND THE SOLAR ITSELF IS NOT PART OF, AND I, I THINK THIS IS PRETTY ACROSS THE
[02:40:01]
BOARD, THE SOLAR ITSELF IS NOT PART OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING CONTROLLED.SO IT'S NOT ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY PART OF THE AGGREGATION.
IT WOULD BE THE ACTUAL JUST STORAGE THAT WOULD BE AT THE PREMISES STORAGE.
AND ARE THESE IN SC WITH LOAD ZONE SHIFT FACTORS? YES.
YEAH, WE'LL TOUCH UPON A LITTLE BIT.
THAT'S, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID AS PART OF THE INITIAL PHASE ONE.
WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE WITH PHASE TWO, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT MAY HAVE SOME FLAWS.
AND SO, UH, WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE SOME ANALYSIS ALREADY THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE REPORT AND I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT MOVING FORWARD.
ALRIGHT, BRIAN, I I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION ON YOUR ECRS COMMENTS.
WHEN YOU SAID THE SAME 40 MEGAWATTS, DO YOU MEAN 40 MEGAWATTS IN ADDITION TO THE NONS SPIND CAP OR 40 MEGAWATTS TOTAL FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES? IT IS A, IT IS A SEPARATE CAP ON EC ECRS IS HOW WE PROPOSE IN A LANGUAGE.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME NUMBER BUT NOT THE SAME CAPACITY IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT.
THIS IS JUST A KIND OF A QUICK SUMMARY OF SOME OF OUR OBSERVATIONS OF PARTICIPATION SO FAR.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IN THE PILOT, UM, BUT THIS IS LOOKING AT, FOR THE TWO THAT WE HAVE, HOW ARE THEY PARTICIPATING AND WHEN ARE THEY PARTICIPATING IN THE MARKET? UM, THIS IS GOING THROUGH DECEMBER AT THIS POINT.
SEE, ONE THING, I'LL KIND OF PAUSE HERE FOR A SECOND.
I DID WANNA MENTION FOR THE REPORT RIGHT NOW, A LOT OF THE DATA WE'VE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT THAT'S OUT THERE IS THROUGH NOVEMBER.
THAT WAS A FUNCTION OF MEETING WITH THE TASK FORCE BACK IN DECEMBER TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THESE SAME TOPICS AND WHAT WE WANTED TO THINK ABOUT FOR PHASE TWO, WE ARE INTENDING TO UPDATE SOME OF THE, THE INFORMATION TO INCLUDE THROUGH JANUARY, BUT JUST SORT OF WAITING FOR THAT, THE MONTH TO END, OF COURSE, BEFORE WE DO THAT.
UH, BUT GOING BACK TO THE MATERIAL IN TERMS OF, OF THE PARTICIPATION WE'VE SEEN UP TO THIS POINT.
SO THERE'S A, A TOTAL INTERVAL COUNT, UH, ABOUT 60% OF THE TIME OF ALL INTERVALS.
WE ARE SEEING THESE ADRS PARTICIPATE IN DISPATCH.
SO THEY'RE SHOWING AS ONLINE AND AVAILABLE WITH A BID INTO THE MARKET TO PARTICIPATE, UH, ABOUT A THIRD OF THE TIME THAT THEY ARE IN THAT MODE OF ONLINE AND AVAILABLE THAT WE'VE SEEN THEM PROVIDING NONS SPEND.
UM, BUT AS YOU MAY EXPECT, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT THAT THESE RESOURCES GETTING DISPATCHES IS A FRACTION OF THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S 46,000 PLUS INTERVALS THAT THEY'VE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR DISPATCH THROUGH DECEMBER, THE ACTUAL PERIODS IN WHICH THEY'VE BEEN DISPATCHED.
SO THAT'S AN ACTUAL REQUEST TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION AND POTENTIALLY INJECT PHYSICALLY AT THE, AT THE, THE PREMISES IS 459.
UH, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THIS IS, IS FAIRLY INTUITIVE, AT LEAST WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR.
AND THIS IS THE, THE DATA THAT'S SORT OF AVAILABLE IN, IN DISCLOSURE REPORTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE IS THE BIDS INTO THE MARKET HAVE BEEN INTO THE RANGE OF HUNDREDS OF MEGAWATTS OR, OR HIGHER.
SO OF COURSE THAT'S NOT A, A REGULAR PRICE THAT WE SEE INTO THE MARKET.
SO THEY'RE, AGAIN, AVAILABLE FOR DISPATCH, BUT NOT NECESSARILY BEING ASKED TO CHANGE THEIR, THEIR LEVEL OF CONSUMPTION, UH, ON A REGULAR BASIS.
ALTHOUGH THAT'S STILL A, A, A, A FAIR NUMBER OF VENABLES FOR US TO, TO LOOK AT AND TO GET A FEEL FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE RESOURCES.
UH, IN TERMS OF TIME OF DAY, AND THERE'S AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT.
WE'RE GENERALLY SEEING THE ENERGY DISPATCH PARTICIPATION BE BETWEEN AROUND SIX IN THE MORNING AND, AND 20 AN HOUR ENDING 20.
UH, THAT'S NOT PROBABLY A, A HARD RULE ON ALL DAYS, BUT I THINK IS THE GENERAL, UH, I GUESS PATTERN OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF NON SPENDING HOURS HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN THAT, SPECIFICALLY SEEING, UH, HOUR ENDING SIX THROUGH 17 BEING THE PRIMARY TIME WHERE THAT'S WHEN THE MOST NONS SPINS BEING CARRIED BY A DERS.
SO AGAIN, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT, UH, WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE THINKING FOR PHASE TWO.
AND, AND SOME OF THIS IS, IS REALLY SOME, SOME LOW HANGING FRUIT.
AND, AND I WOULD AGAIN MAYBE TALK ABOUT, I SAID THE CHANGE ARE INCREMENTAL.
PART OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS PHASE TWO IS WE, WE'VE LEARNED SOME THINGS, WE'VE GOTTEN COMFORTABLE WITH SOME THINGS, WE CAN MAKE SOME CHANGES, BUT WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE DON'T, AREN'T THE POINT OF MAKING SYSTEM CHANGES.
SO WHAT CAN WE STILL DO NOW THAT WE'VE LEARNED SOME THINGS WITHOUT MAKING SYSTEM CHANGES WITH, YOU KNOW, SYSTEM CHANGES PERHAPS BEING WHAT WE WOULD THINK OF AS THE NEXT PHASE.
SO ONE OF THEM IS SORT OF A KIND OF A, OH, WE NEED TO FIX THAT TYPE OF MOMENT.
WE WERE LOOKING AT THE TELEMETRY VALIDATION, UH, FOR THESE FIRST FOLKS WHO WERE GOING THROUGH.
AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THERE WERE PERIODS THAT THE DEVICES WE WERE TRYING TO VALIDATE IN TERMS OF TELEMETRY WE'RE EFFECTIVELY IDLE.
SO YOU'RE TAKING A A PERCENT OF A VALUE THAT WAS ALREADY EFFECTIVELY NOTHING.
AND OF COURSE IF THE VALUE WASN'T ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, THEY WERE FAILING THOSE INTERVALS.
AND THE WAY THAT THE RULE WAS WRITTEN IS THAT THEY HAD TO PASS A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE INTERVALS.
SO OF COURSE THAT, THAT SEEMED NONSENSICAL.
WE, WE HAD SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THAT IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD, BUT WE FOUND IT KIND OF THOUGHT OF AN EASIER WAY TO DO THAT, WHERE WHEN WE SET UP OUR TEST WINDOW THAT IF THERE ARE PERIODS IN WHICH THE, THE A THE DEVICES AND AGGREGATION
[02:45:01]
ARE EFFECTIVELY IDLE, WE WON'T ACTUALLY INCLUDE THOSE IN THE EVALUATION.NOW WE DO NEED AT LEAST SOME PERIOD OF TIME, UH, WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE A, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ON HERE, BUT THERE, THERE'S A MINIMUM NUMBER OF INTERVALS THAT THEY CAN'T BE IDLE.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE DEVICES DOING SOMETHING AND WE CAN ACTUALLY AGGREGATE AND, AND VALIDATE SOME DATA.
UM, BUT, BUT NOT GETTING STUCK WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, MEASURE, UH, THESE RESOURCES AT THE, ANYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE WATT, UH, CERTAINLY IT WAS BELOW KILOWATT LEVEL OF LOOKING AT IT.
SO WE DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS, BUT THAT WAS JUST A, A REAL EASY THING TO GET RESOLVED, UH, MOVING FORWARD, UH, IN THE PHASE TWO.
UH, THE SECOND IS, BILL, WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND PARTICIPATION, UH, ADDING ECRS ON TOP OF NONS SPIN.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SOMETHING I THINK WE JUST NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH.
WE HAD THE NEW TYPES OF RESOURCES WE WERE JUST IMPLEMENTING, UH, ECRS AND IN FACT WE HAD KICKED OFF THE PILOT BEFORE WE HAD EVEN IMPLEMENTED ECRS.
UM, BUT NOW WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH.
IT'S BEEN SOMETHING A NUMBER OF THE, UH, PARTICIPANTS HAVE BEEN VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING.
AND SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD TO ADD THAT TO THE LIST OF ANSLEY SERVICES THAT ADRS CAN PROVIDE.
AGAIN, WITH THAT, WELL, THERE'LL BE A SYSTEMWIDE CAP ON IT LIKE WE HAVE FOR NONS SPIN.
UM, BUT ADDING IT TO THE MIX OF, UH, THE PILOT.
SO THOSE ARE, I THINK PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF THE RED LINES.
THERE ARE SOME LESSONS LEARNED AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN LOOKING AT THAT AT LEAST WANTED TO BRING UP.
UM, ONE OF THEM IS THE, IS LOOKING AT THE COMPLIANCE METRICS AND PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR, UH, ARS AS FOLKS LIKELY KNOW, WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING CONTROL LOAD RESOURCE AND SPECIFICALLY THE AGGREGATE LOAD RESOURCE PARTICIPATION MODEL THAT WE HAD IN PLACE WHERE THESE ARE, THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, THESE AGGREGATIONS ARE PARTICIPATING AND, AND FOLLOWING SCED DISPATCH.
UM, AND WE, IN LOOKING AT THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS FOR THEM, THERE IS A, A TWO MEGAWATT THRESHOLD.
UM, WHAT OF COURSE, UH, WE'VE SEEN WITH A DERS, AND THIS ISN'T UNEXPECTED THAT THEY TEND TO BE FAIRLY SMALL IN NATURE.
SO, UH, SMALL TO THE POINT WHERE YOU WOULD ACTUALLY NEVER CATCH THEM UNDER SOME OF THESE PERFORMANCE METRICS.
NOW OF COURSE WE HAVE ALL THE DATA TO, TO LOOK AT PERFORMANCE AND TO ANALYZE IT REGARDLESS OF THESE THRESHOLDS.
UM, BUT IT DOES SUGGEST AS WE THINK ABOUT A DDR PARTICIPATION MOVING FORWARD, WHERE THEY'RE LIKELY GONNA BE, UH, A SIZE THAT'S RELATIVELY SMALL TO WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING WHEN WE PUT THESE PARAMETERS IN PLACE.
I THINK WE'LL, WE'LL WANT TO REVISIT THAT, THAT TWO MEGAWATT THRESHOLD.
SO NOT A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'RE GONNA KEEP LOOKING AT PERFORMANCE AND, AND ANY LONG-TERM, UH, PLAN, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT, THAT THINKS ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ITEM BILL.
UM, WOULDN'T WE WANT TO APPLY THE SAME, UM, COMPLIANCE THAT WE ARE ADOPTING 1186 TO THESE RESOURCES AS WELL? I MEAN, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY AGGREGATIONS OF HOME BATTERIES.
WHY WOULD WE TREAT ONE BATTERY DIFFERENT FROM ANOTHER BATTERY RESOURCE? WELL, I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THE SAME, GENERALLY THE SAME METRICS ARE BEING APPLIED IN TERMS OF WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE, THE FAILED QUANTITIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UM, I GUESS ONE IS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE GUARANTEED THAT THESE ARE ALL STORAGE.
THEY MAY BE A COMBINATION OF THINGS.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN NECESSARILY APPLY THAT.
NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK AT IS TO THE DEGREE THESE AGGREGATIONS INCLUDE STORAGE, CAN WE GET A HANDLE ON WHAT, WHAT A AGGREGATED STATE OF CHARGE MEANS? UH, AND SO MAYBE THAT SORT OF FACTORS INTO IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WE'VE NECESSARILY BEEN VIEWING THIS AS EXACTLY GOING TO BE BATTERIES.
UM, BUT AGAIN, ACTUALLY I, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT HAD COME UP IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE STATE OF THE STATE OF CHARGE FOR, FOR AN AGGREGATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOT BROUGHT UP IS BECAUSE WE UTILIZE THE CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE PARTICIPATION MODEL FOR THIS PILOT, ADRS CAN'T UPDATE THEIR BIDS INTO THE MARKET AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT PERIOD, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY ALLOW FOR ESRS UNDER NPR.
WAS IT 9 86 THAT WE DID THAT UNDER THE TASK FORCE? SO I KNOW WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO CHANGE THAT FOR ALL RESOURCE TYPES UNDER NPR 10 58, BUT THERE'S ALREADY SOME KIND OF DISTINCTIONS WE'RE SEEING BETWEEN THESE AGGREGATIONS AND STORES, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF PARTICIPATION BY STORAGE AGGREGATIONS.
UH, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS, AND WE ALREADY KIND OF KNEW THIS GOING INTO PHASE ONE, IS THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION THAT THIS NEED TO FOLLOW SCD DISPATCH BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO DO THIS WITHOUT MAKING SYSTEM CHANGES, BUT THAT NEED TO FOLLOW DISPATCH WAS GOING TO BE A BIT OF A BARRIER.
SO WE HAD PUT INTO ALREADY THE PHASE ONE GOVERNING DOCUMENT A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS.
YOU KNOW, IS THERE SOME OTHER FORM OF PARTICIPATION MODEL THAT WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT WOULD REALLY
[02:50:01]
OPEN UP THE DOOR FOR MORE PARTICIPATION IN THE PILOT THAN JUST PARTICIPATION BY AGGREGATIONS IN THE LONG TERM? AND THE, I GUESS AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE IDEA WAS COULD WE ALLOW FOR SOME SORT OF BLOCKY RESOURCE TYPE? AND BY BLOCKY, I MEAN SOMETHING MORE AKIN TO WHAT WE SEE WITH THE NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES WHERE THEY ARE PROVIDING ANSLEY SERVICES, THEY'RE PARTICIPATING IN THE MARKET, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWING THE FIVE MINUTES.SO I THINK THAT STILL MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
UM, I THINK PARTICULARLY IN THE RECENT MONTHS, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TASK FORCE MEMBERS BRING THIS UP AS A BARRIER.
I THINK WE'RE TRYING JUST TO GET OUR MINDS AROUND BEFORE WE START MAKING SYSTEM CHANGES, MAKE THAT INVESTMENT, YOU KNOW, IS IS IT GONNA BE WORTH IT? WILL IT INCREASE, YOU KNOW, INCREASE PARTICIPATION? IS THERE SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WE SHOULD DO THAN NECESSARILY WHAT WE DO FOR THE NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES TODAY? SO SORT OF A LIST OF KIND OF THE, THE QUESTIONS AND I THINK THEY'RE MORE OR LESS COPY AND PASTED RIGHT OUT OF THE, THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
BUT, UH, CAITLYN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FIRST? I DO HAVE A QUESTION AND I I THINK THAT'S TO DISTINGUISH ME FROM CHASE, BUT I'M GONNA TAKE MY ATTACK CHAIR HAT OFF FOR A SECOND ON THE LAST SLIDE FOLLOWING ON BILL'S QUESTION ON THE KIND OF STATE OF CHARGE AND COMPLIANCE, THESE, BECAUSE IT COULD BE BATTERIES OR IT COULD BE OTHER TECHNOLOGY AND THEY'RE AGGREGATED, ARE THEY SUBJECT TO THE DURATION REQUIREMENTS IN 10 96, THE, THE FOUR HOURS FOR NON SPEN AND THE TWO HOURS FOR ECRS? THEY ARE, AND IN FACT, THAT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN SOME OF THE PUSH FOR WHY THERE WAS INTEREST IN TRYING TO EXPAND IT TO ECRS IS BECAUSE IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE STORAGE, THEN THE, THE FOUR HOUR, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR FOR NONS SPIN WAS, WAS A BIT OF A BARRIER, UH, TO, TO MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.
SO THAT, THAT, THAT WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST ARGUMENTS FOR WHY FOLKS WANTED TO SEE ECRS INCLUDED.
BILL, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON, UH, SLIDE NINE HERE? I I DID.
UM, IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW BLOCKY RESOURCE, AN AGGREGATIONAL BLOCKY RESOURCES FOR AN A DR, I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND WE MAKE THE SAME CHANGE TO THE A LR PROGRAM.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UM, YOUR TRADITIONAL SMART THERMOSTAT PROGRAMS THAT COULD PROBABLY RESPOND BETTER.
SO I JUST, IT WE SHOULD CONSIDER DOING BOTH IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT CHANGE.
IN FACT, YOU KNOW, IF WE STILL SORT OF, SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE CHOSE THE MAYBE
SO MAYBE THAT'S A SORT OF, YOU COULD DO THAT IN ONE FILE SWOOP AND THAT WOULD BE, UM, A GREATER BOON IN BENEFIT WE MIGHT SEE FROM MAKING IT.
AND WHEN YOU SAY ACCOMMODATE BLOCKY RESOURCES, WOULD YOU NO LONGER REQUIRE THEM TO BE DISPATCHABLE AND SC AND IT WOULD JUST LUCK AN NCLR DEPLOYMENT, IT WOULD YOU JUST DROP THE WHOLE LOAD WITHIN A CERTAIN RAMP PERIOD AT A HIGH LEVEL THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING.
MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, BUT AT A HIGH LEVEL THAT'S, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD GREATLY IMPROVE PARTICIPATION OF SMART THERMOSTAT PROGRAMS. I CAN TELL YOU.
SO I MEAN THAT, THAT'S, IT WOULD BE A HUGE BENEFIT, SO, OKAY, THANKS.
YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK.
AND, AND AGAIN, THAT IS I THINK ONE OF THE AREAS WE'RE SEEING PARTICULARLY MORE RECENTLY THAT THAT'S THE BIGGEST ITEM THAT I THINK FOLKS ARE BRINGING UP FROM THE POINT OF, OF ERCOT AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO, TO HELP.
SO, UH, LASTLY, AND THIS GOES BACK SETH, TO, TO YOUR QUESTION IS RIGHT NOW WE IN PART JUST USING THAT PARTICIPATION MODEL, WE ARE USING LOAD ZONE SHIFT FACTOR AND SETTLEMENT.
I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS HAS SOME RELIABILITY RISK IF THE WAY THAT THESE AGGREGATIONS EXIST WITHIN THE SYSTEM DOESN'T ALIGN WELL WITH HOW THE LOAN ZONE'S ACTUALLY SET UP.
AND IN FACT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE CHANGES LIKE SETTLEMENT ONLY RESOURCES AND SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND THESE LARGER CONTROL LOAD RESOURCES ABOUT TRYING TO MOVE TO NODAL DISPATCH AND SETTLEMENT.
AND THIS OBVIOUSLY WOULDN'T BE EXACTLY NODAL 'CAUSE THEY COULD STILL BE CONNECTED ACROSS MULTIPLE POINTS IN THE SYSTEM.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT.
ONE IS THE IDEA OF USING A QUASI NODAL SHIFT FACTOR OR SOMETHING AKIN TO WHAT WE DO FOR COMBINED CYCLES TODAY WHERE THERE'S A, A LOGICAL RESOURCE NOTE THAT'S WEIGHTED ACROSS POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT POINTS OF INTERCONNECT TO COME UP WITH, UH, A, EXCUSE ME, WITH A SHIFT FACTOR, UH, TO, TO, TO COME UP WITH THE, THE SHIFT FACTOR THAT FEEDS INTO THE SC AND DISPATCH AND ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
UM, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE DO.
WE WOULD KIND OF HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO WAIT ALL THE DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE SYSTEM IN WHICH THE, THE, THESE DEVICES ARE CONNECTED, AT LEAST FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE, THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM.
UM, WE COULD ALSO CONSIDER SOME OTHER OPTIONS, UH, LIKE THEY DO IN CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY HAVE SUB ZONES.
[02:55:01]
COULD ACTUALLY BREAK DOWN THE LOAD ZONES INTO SUB SUB ZONES AND DO AGGREGATIONS WITHIN THOSE POINTS.UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF KICKING THE CAN ON THIS IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY PROPOSING A SPECIFIC CHANGE.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, WE BEGAN DOING ANALYSIS ON THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY COMPARING THE CURRENT LOAD ZONE SHIFT FACTOR TO WHAT WE COULD GET IF WE WENT TO SOME FORM OF QUASI NOAL.
AND THE WAY WE DID THAT IS IN THAT DETAILS OF THE AGGREGATION FORM, WE ACTUALLY DO KNOW WHERE THESE DEVICES ARE IN TERMS OF THE, UH, IN TERMS OF THEIR, THE, THE SUBSTATION AT THE ERCOT TRANSMISSION LEVEL.
AND WE USE THE, JUST THE CAPACITY OF THE DEVICES WITH, AT EACH OF THOSE ZONES, OR I'M SORRY, AT EACH OF THOSE POINTS ON THE SYSTEM TO COME UP WITH THE WEIGHTING.
SO YOU COULD EVEN GET MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT.
BUT THAT WAS A, A FAIRLY COMPLEX WAY TO START OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR LOOKING AT THIS HALF YEAR DATA OR SO, IS THAT THE IMPACT IS RELATIVELY SMALL.
WE'RE NOT SEEING A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOAD ZONE SHIFT FACTOR AND THIS QUASI NODAL SHIFT FACTOR.
UM, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY, I I THINK WE KNOW THE, THE RISK EXISTS AND IT'S VERY EARLY TO MAKE A CALL ON THAT.
SO IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONTINUE PURSUING.
UM, WE CAN OF COURSE FOCUS ON JUST THE ADRS THAT WE SEE PARTICIPATING, BUT WE MAY WANT TO EXPAND IT TO SORT OF SIMULATE OTHER A DERS AND HOW THEY MAY WORK, UH, RELATIVE TO THIS DIFFERENCE.
UH, MAYBE LOOKING BACK AT SOME MORE, UH, HISTORICAL AND MAYBE EVEN PRESUMPTIVE CONGESTION PATTERNS AND HOW THAT MAY AFFECT IT AS WELL.
SO SOME VERY EARLY, UH, WORK ON IT, UH, BUT IT'S STILL AN OPEN QUESTION THAT'LL BE PART OF PHASE TWO AND LIKELY MOVE INTO THE, THE LATER PHASES.
AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE THINK IS A DIFFERENT ANSWER IS THE RIGHT ANSWER IN THE LONG TERM, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT SYSTEM CHANGES, THE THINGS OF THAT THAT WE, WE WOULD HAVE TO INVEST IN AND PRIORITIZE WITH OTHER THINGS GOING ON.
UM, ONE IS KITO ACTUALLY ALREADY DOES THAT THEY HAVE DISTRIBUTION FACTORS OUT TO THE INDIVIDUAL PREMISES THAT THEY ROLL UP TO ONE INDIVIDUAL RESOURCE.
THE SUB LAPSE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO ARE JUST AGGREGATION BOUNDARIES.
SO TODAY YOU'RE USING THAT, THE LOAD ZONE BOUNDARIES.
UM, I, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK AS IT EXPANDS, UH, YOU MIGHT SEE SOME INTERACTIONS THAT YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT WOULDN'T BE GOOD WHERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN THE SOUTHWOOD ZONE, SORT OF A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE, RIGHT, WHERE THE VALLEY INTERACTS WAY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT, UH, SOUTH OF SAN ANTONIO WOULD.
UM, I THINK, UH, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS WHEN, WHEN YOU, UH, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, WOULD THESE POINTS BECOME COMMERCIALLY BIDDABLE POINTS IF YOU WENT TO, BECAUSE TODAY IT'S ALL AT THE LOAD ZONE, SO YOU KNOW, IT'S BIDDABLE BY, BY VIRTUE OF HAVING THE LOAD ZONE BIDS AND OFFERS AND THINGS IN DAY HEAD MARKET.
BUT IF YOU WENT DOWN TO THESE GRANULAR LOCATIONS, WOULD THERE BE HEDGING MECHANISMS, UH, FOR, FOR THESE ADRS? YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO THINK MORE ABOUT THAT.
I, MY MEMORY IS THAT WE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE LOGICAL RESOURCES AND NODES THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND HOW THEY'RE BIDDABLE.
NOW, MAYBE THAT IS LESS IMPACTFUL BECAUSE YOU REALLY HAVE VERY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE POINT OF INTERCONNECT IS DIFFERENT, LET ALONE WILDLY DIFFERENT
UM, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE PRESUME WOULD WE WANT THESE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO HEDGE, BUT I, I GUESS I HAVEN'T GONE TO THAT NEXT LEVEL OF DETAIL YET THIS POINT.
YEAH, I GUESS JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S THE, THE SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, WE, WE PLAN TO TAKE, UH, A NUMBER OF ITEMS TO THE BOARD.
YOU, IT'LL INCLUDE A, A PRESENTATION THAT WE'LL SHARE IN ADDITION TO THE PHASE ONE REPORT AND A, UH, PHASE TWO GOVERNING DOCUMENT PROPOSAL.
AGAIN, THAT'LL BE LOOK IN THE FORM OF RED LINES TO THE PHASE ONE GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
AND FOR THE PHASE ONE REPORT, WE'LL BE REFRESHING SOME OF THE STATISTICS IN THERE TO, TO HAVE THROUGH JANUARY.
AND BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT, UH, A DR TASK FORCE MEMBERS WHO PROVIDED FEEDBACK, AGAIN, IS ALL SORT OF SITTING IN THAT, THAT SECOND DOCUMENT.
UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH A LOT OF THE CONCEPTS THAT ARE PUT IN THERE.
I JUST HAVE TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE COMMENT VERSION THAT WE WILL TAKE OF THE BOARD AND, AND WE HOPE TO DO THAT WITH THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS TO GIVE, GIVE OUR FEEDBACK ON THEIR FEEDBACK HERE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE GROUP I'M SEEING? NO.
WELL THANK YOU AGAIN AND THANK YOU FOR, UH, ACCOMMODATING MY SCHEDULE TODAY.
[14. Credit Finance Sub Group (CFSG) Report]
OKAY.WERE WE, WE WERE GONNA GO BACK TO THE CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YEAH.
BRENDAN HERE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEP, WE CAN HEAR YOU BRENDAN.
HEY, EVERYBODY, UH, HERE WITH THE, UH, RESULTS FROM OUR MEETING ON FRIDAY, SINCE IT WAS SO RECENTLY, WE
[03:00:01]
WON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE BALLOT THIS WEEK.UH, WE LOOKED AT OUR USUAL NPRS, UH, WE CHANGED THE CFSG CHARTER ENDORSED NPR 1205.
UH, OUR OFFICERS ARE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR, SO VOTED IN BY A ACCLIMATION.
UM, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING THE EAL CHANGE PROPOSALS AND A LETTER OF CREDIT CONCENTRATION LIMITS.
I'LL JUST NOTE THESE WERE ALL OPERATIONAL AND 1208, UM, UH, STARTED FROM WITHIN.
THIS IS A CREATION OF AN INVOICE REPORT THAT STARTED AT CFSG.
UH, ERCOT STAFF ASKED US OR PROPOSED A CHANGE IN OUR CHARTER, WHICH WE AGREED TO, WHICH IS TO, UH, REMOVE THE TAC ANNUAL REVIEW REQUIREMENT.
UM, GOING FORWARD, TAC WILL APPROVE ANY CHANGES BUT NO LONGER REVIEW THE, UH, IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES, IT'S NO LONGER REQUIRED TO REVIEW IT.
AND THIS WOULD KIND OF AVOID A SITUATION WHERE IF FOR SOME REASON T DIDN'T VOTE TO APPROVE IT AND THERE WERE NO CHANGES, THEN YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD IMPACT THE STATUS OF THE CHARTER AND THE GROUP.
AND OH, THAT'LL BE UP FOR YOUR NEXT MEETING TO VOTE ON.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT A LETTER OF CREDIT, UH, CONCENTRATION LIMITS.
UH, I BROUGHT THIS UP LAST TIME.
UM, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR A LITTLE BIT.
UH, IF YOU JUST NOTE, JUST, UH, THIS WAS FROM THE REPORT FROM NOVEMBER, SO IF YOU'LL NOTE, WE HAD TWO REDS, TWO YELLOWS, UH, FOUR ORANGES, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE WAS GREEN AND IT IMPACTED IT, IT LEFT 65% OF THE, UH, LC PORTFOLIO UNIMPACTED.
SO NOW YOU SEE WE HAVE SIX REDS FROM TWO, UM, YOU KNOW, THREE YELLOWS.
SO, UH, AND NOW WE HAVE 42% OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT PORTFOLIO UNIMPACTED.
SO THIS IS GETTING TO BE KIND OF A PROBLEMATIC SITUATION.
UM, SO, UH, WE HAD, UH, ERCOT HAD BROUGHT UP A WHILE AGO MAYBE, UH, MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS.
UM, THEY REACHED OUT TO US FOR A PLAN.
UM, SO OVERALL THERE ARE 38 BANKS WITH THREE POINT $13.3 BILLION TOTAL ISSUER LIMIT, UH, OF WHICH ERCOT RECEIVED 321 LCS WITH AN AGGREGATE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 7.7 BILLION.
SO THAT'S 42% AGGREGATE AVAILABLE.
THEY HAD ASKED US TO COMMENT ON IT.
OH, IS THERE ONE BEFORE THAT? I BELIEVE THERE IS.
WELL, UH, LEMME JUST TELL YOU, UM, WHAT LUMINANT, UH, CHIMED IN TO.
UM, WE BASICALLY AGREED TO, THERE ARE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE, BUT I, YOU CAN JUST LEAVE IT ON HERE, BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU FROM THE, UH, LETTER OF CREDIT DISCUSSION IN OUR GROUP.
UM, SO THESE ARE CALCULATED BASED ON, UH, PERCENTAGES OF THE ISSUERS TOTAL NET WORTH.
UH, SO AT, AT FOR INSTANCE, AAA AND MOODY'S, UH, AA, THEY GET 2% OF THE, UH, NET ISSUER OR 1% PREVIOUSLY.
NOW THEY GET 2%, AND AT THE MINIMUM LEVEL, AT A MINUS A THREE, THEY GOT 0.7% AND WE DOUBLE THAT TO ONE 40.
UM, SO IT WAS JUST, WE JUST DOUBLED IT IN A S SCALER MANNER ACROSS THE WHOLE PORTFOLIO.
SO NOW BASICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS WILL LEAVE A COUPLE OF, I BELIEVE NATIXIS WILL STILL BE, UH, IN VIOLATION OR NOTE CREDIT IS, IS VERY CLOSE TO THAT TWO, UH, OH, THERE WE GO.
UM, YEAH, NATIXIS IS, UH, WAS ABOVE THE DOUBLING THE LIMIT, BUT UM, IT SHOULD OPEN UP SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE AVAILABLE ISSUER CAPACITY.
UM, OKAY, UH, SORRY FOR THE BOUNCING AROUND THERE.
UM, SO YEAH, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT ON THAT, UH, THE, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS GONNA BE A MINUS A THREE WITH, UH, ANY, UM, AGENCY THAT, UH, THEIR RATING, UM, NOTHING, NO BANKS WILL BE ACCEPTED BELOW A MINUS OR A THREE SPLIT RATINGS.
IT'S GONNA BE THE LOWER OF, UM, THE RATINGS, THE, THE RATINGS DEFINED AS LONG-TERM, ER, SENIOR UNSECURED, UH, LONG-TERM COUNTERPARTY RISK ASSESSMENT, AND FOR US OFFICES OF FOREIGN BRANCH.
SO IF YOU HAVE A, A FOREIGN LC, YOU NEED TO HAVE A US BRANCH, UH, AND IT MUST HAVE, THAT BRANCH HAS TO HAVE THE RATING.
[03:05:02]
ONE AFTER THAT.AND THEN WE, WE TALKED ABOUT SURETY BONDS AS WELL.
THEY WANTED TO UPDATE THE POLICY REGARDING IT.
IT INCLUDES THE SAME, A MINUS A THREE REQUIREMENT AND THE LOWER OF LANGUAGE PER SPLIT RATINGS.
THE SURETY BONDS ARE SUBJECT TO A $10 MILLION LIMIT PER COUNTERPARTY, PER ISSUER, AND AN OVERALL LIMIT OF A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER ISSUER FOR CORP FOR ERCOT COUNTERPARTIES.
AND THE OVERALL LIMIT IS AGGREGATED FOR THE ENTIRE CORPORATE FAMILY IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLE INSURANCE COMPANIES BELONG TO THE SAME CORPORATE FAMILY, AND THE SURETY BOND MUST BE ISSUED, UH, BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY WITH A MINIMUM FINANCIAL SIZE CATEGORY OF 12 AS DETERMINED BY 8:00 AM.
UH, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, UM, ESTIMATE AGGREGATE LIABILITY CHANGES, UM, CHANGES TO THIS CALCULATION.
THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT DRIVES, UM, THE COLLATERAL OBLIGATION AND ANY POSTINGS TO ERCOT, UM, RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, MARKET ACTIVITY.
UM, SO DC AND RAINBOW REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE EAL THAT, UH, THAT REPRESENTS, UH, PARAMETERS DEFINING COLLATERAL OBLIGATIONS.
UH, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO, UH, HAVE SETTLEMENT FROM REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD COMBINED IN THE CALCULATION.
AND THIS IS TAKING ERCOT A WHILE TO DIG IN AND, AND LOOK AT THAT, AND WE'LL LOOK AT THAT TODAY.
UH, SO THE CURRENT STATUS IS THESE, UH, FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS THAT WE HAVE BASED ON, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, FORWARD PRICES AND SETTLEMENT PRICES APPLY SEPARATELY TO DAY AHEAD AND REAL-TIME ACTIVITIES.
UM, WE'RE ALSO EVALUATING THE LOOKBACK PERIOD DESIGNED TO PRO PROTECT AGAINST A DEFAULT MASS TRANSITION.
UH, THIS VARIES, BUT IT CAN REFLECT UP TO 40 DAYS OF INVOICES AND FINANCIAL MARKET ACTIVITY.
UM, WE'RE EVALUATING THE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS, WHICH AGAIN, ARE THE RATIO OF FUTURE AND PAST PRICES.
SO IF YOU KNOW THINGS ARE GOING ALONG AT, SAY, $50 A MEGAWATT HOUR, AND THE MARKET'S STARTING TO GO UP TO A HUNDRED, 200, 300, THEN THAT RATIO OF THAT $300 PRICE TO THE $50 PRICE WOULD APPLY TO YOUR INVOICE EXPOSURE AND DRIVE UP YOUR, UM, COLLATERAL OBLIGATION.
UH, THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE CONTINUING TO DO FOR A WHILE.
UM, AND THE CREDIT TEAM IS EVALUATING FOUR SCENARIOS WE'VE LOOKED AT SO FAR, SCENARIO TWO, WHICH IS THE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AGAINST THE REAL-TIME LIABILITY AND REMOVING A MAX FUNCTION, UH, DURING THE 40 DAY LOOKBACK PERIOD.
AND WE'VE LOOKED AT, UH, SCENARIO THREE, WHICH INVOLVES CUSTOMIZED FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS BASED ON, UH, WELL CUSTOMIZED FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS.
SO WE REVIEWED, UH, SCENARIO ONE AT OUR MEETING ON FRIDAY.
SO THIS IS THE ONE THAT, UH, IS APPLYING A SINGLE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR TO THE NET FORWARD LIABILITY, WHICH REFLECTS THE NETTING OF REALTIME AND DAY AHEAD.
UH, SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, 1.5 TIMES THE SEVEN MOST RECENT OPERATING DAY REALTIME ESTIMATES, PLUS THE SEVEN MOST RECENT, UH, DAY AHEAD OPERATING DAYS.
UH, IF THE SETTLED DATA IS AVAILABLE, YOU SETTLED, OTHERWISE USE ESTIMATES WITH NEW PRICE CAP.
UM, THE, WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT CHANGING THE FA THE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO 21 FUTURE DAYS.
AND THE, AND THAT'S IN THE, UH, ERCOT DAILY NORTH CURVE, UM, COMPARED TO THE MOST RECENT, UH, REAL TIME SETTLEMENT POINT PRICES.
UM, AND THAT IS HAD THE SEVEN POINT, THE DENOMINATOR SEVEN DAYS HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 14 DAYS.
SO BASICALLY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IF THAT, AS THESE PRICES ROLL THROUGH, THAT $300 PRICE ROLLS THROUGH THE FORWARD MARKET COMES DOWN, UM, WE GET THAT, UH, HIGHER PRICE, UH, MOVED OUT OF THE SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT FASTER.
UH, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT UNBUILD LIABILITY EXTRAPOLATED, UM, WHICH IS THE LAST 14 DAYS OF REAL TIME INITIAL STATEMENTS PLUS LAST 14 DAYS OF DAM INITIAL STATEMENT AVERAGE BASED UPON, UM, REAL-TIME, INITIAL OPERATING DAYS, TIMES M TWO, WHICH IS A, UM, A ONE OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE, UM, DAYS OF TO A MASS TRANSITION EVENT.
AND THEN USING THE SAME REAL-TIME OPERATING DAYS FOR THE DAY AHEAD MARKET AS WELL.
SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A LOT TO EXPLAIN, BUT, UM, SOME HIGHLIGHTS FROM WHAT WE TOOK AWAY FROM THIS ANALYSIS IS, UH, THE TPA, THIS KIND OF SMOOTHED OUT THE OVERALL SHAPE OF THE CURVE, UH, RELATIVE TO THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY, WHICH TENDED TO HAVE DOUBLE TOPS, UM, WHEN THE PRICES WOULD KIND OF ROLL ON AND ROLL OFF.
SO NOW SINCE WE'RE JUST APPLYING ONE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR TO BASICALLY,
[03:10:01]
UH, SMOOTHED OUT INVOICE, SINGLE INVOICE PERIOD, IT JUST SORT OF SMOOTHS EVERYTHING OUT.UM, THE SHAPE OF THE, UH, TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE CURVE IS MORE GRADUAL, DOES NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S SMOOTHER THAN THE CURRENT METHOD.
THE, ALSO THE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR IS NOT AS VOLATILE AS THE EXISTING, UM, REAL TIME ADJUSTMENT FACTOR.
UH, AND WHEN, UH, WHEN APPLIED AGAINST THE, UH, NET LIABILITY, UM, INVOICE EXPOSURE, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T OVERTAKE THE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE, WHICH WAS LOOKED AT IN SOME OF THE HISTORICAL METHODS.
SO AGAIN, UH, THIS IS
YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF GRAPHS AND, AND, AND THINGS, SO IT'S KIND OF A DIFFICULT THING TO PIN DOWN.
BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, WE'RE, WE'RE, LOOK, THIS IS THE THIRD OF THE FOUR SCENARIOS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE SORT OF COME TO A CONSENSUS, I'LL BE ABLE TO PRESENT A MORE CONSOLIDATED VIEW.
UM, LET'S SEE, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
AND THE ONE OF THE OTHER UPDATES WAS ERCOT, UH, SENT OUT A MARKET NOTICE THAT IT WAS GONNA IMPLEMENT AN AUTOMATED PROCESSING SYSTEM.
SO ON INVOICES, THEY REQUESTED THAT, MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY ADD THE FULL INVOICE ID.
ALPHA NUMERIC, UH, IN THE REMARK DETAILS OF YOUR WIRES MUST BE RECEIVED BY 10:00 AM ON THE DAY AFTER THE INVOICE WAS ISSUED.
FOR OUTSTANDING INVOICES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INTRADAY TPEA THAT IS CALCULATED IN THE AFTERNOON.
UH, AS A REMINDER, DON'T PAY JUAN AND ERO INVOICES INTO THE MARKET BANK ACCOUNT.
THERE'S SEPARATE WIRING INSTRUCTIONS ON THOSE.
UH, MAKE SURE THE COUNTERPARTY NUMBER, YOUR DUNN'S NUMBER AND THE REMARK DETAILS OF THE WIRE, UH, COLLATERAL FOR CRS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 3:00 PM ON THE LOCKED DATE.
UH, SO NOT BY THE END OF BUSINESS BY 3:00 PM IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ACL FOR THE CR BEING INITIATED SAME DAY.
AND THAT'S CENTRAL TIME FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT IN CENTRAL TIME.
UH, ERCOT WILL BE MAKING FOLLOWING CHANGES TO ITS PROCEDURES.
ALL EMAILS FOR NONPAYMENT WILL BE SENT EARLIER IN THE DAY AND, AND IN THE AFTERNOON IF REQUIRED.
AND I THINK THEY'RE AUTOMATING THIS PROCESS RATHER THAN SENDING OUT, YOU KNOW, THE REMINDERS FROM THE CREDIT STAFF.
AND AS A REMINDER, PER PROTOCOL SECTION 9 7 1, ANY PAYMENT NOT RECEIVED BY 5:00 PM ON ITS DUE DATE WILL BE CONSIDERED LATE.
HEY, BRENDAN, WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE.
SETH SETH'S QUESTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
WERE YOU ON SLIDE 12, SETH? WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO GO TO THE SLIDE, BUT YEAH, IT WAS ON, ON THE EAL CHANGES.
I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT IT, IT MIGHT SOUND LIKE THE GOAL HERE IS TO REDUCE CREDIT, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS AT ALL.
IT'S TO GET THE RIGHT PROFILE.
AND IN SOME CASES, WE'RE SEEING THROUGH THE ERCOT BACK TEST THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ELIMINATING POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE GAPS.
SO WE'RE ELIMINATING OVER AND UNDER COLLATERALIZATION, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.
SO I, I THINK IT'S A VERY WORTHWHILE EFFORT.
AND IF YOU'RE NOT PLUGGED IN, I THINK YOU REALLY SHOULD, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SOME BENEFITS HERE AND WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY SEEING THAT IN THE BACK TEST.
AND YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT, SETH.
AND I, I WOULD JUST ADD, YEAH, WE DEFINITELY KEEPING AN EYE ON MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT UNDER COLLATERALIZED.
SO I, I THINK THAT'S A PRIORITY FOR THE GROUP, YOU KNOW, UH, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT, UM, SITUATIONS WHERE MAYBE WE COULD DO A LITTLE BETTER TO PREVENT OVER COLLATERALIZING.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK HE CALLED ON YOU, BILL.
THERE IS SOME CONCERN WITH THE TIMING THAT THIS IS A PRETTY BIG, UM, SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION.
OBVIOUSLY IT IMPACTS ALL OF US THAT HAS TO PAY ERCOT OR RECEIVE PAYMENT.
WAS ANY CONCERN EXPRESSED AT THE CSFG ON POTENTIALLY PUSHING THIS IMPLEMENTATION BACK A LITTLE BIT TO ALLOW STAKEHOLDERS TO PREPARE, OR, UM, ARE WE STILL PLANNING TO DO THIS NEXT WEEK OR THIS WEEK? WELL, I, I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES.
THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO IT NEXT WEEK.
SORRY, IT'S GONNA BE DONE ON FRIDAY.
OR, YEAH, YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S, YEAH, THIS FRIDAY.
UM, YEAH, THIS IS KIND OF AN INTERNAL TO ERCOT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO BE PAID, I GUESS.
SO, UM, YEAH, I, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT SUGGESTS IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE.
KANAN, BILL, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PARTICULAR ISSUES IN WITH THAT DATE?
[03:15:01]
NOT FOR, NOT FOR US.UM, BUT I THINK THE, THIS CHANGE WAS DISCUSSED I THINK AT A FORUM BEFORE COVID IT, IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS WITH THE ER TREASURY FOLKS FOR A WHILE AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NEEDED.
LIKE THEY WERE DOING ALL THIS MANUALLY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, NOT A GOOD SITUATION, BUT THEN IT, IT KIND OF RESURFACED WITH THE MARKET NOTICE.
SO I, YEAH, I, I, I MEAN, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, IF THERE IS SOME ISSUE WITH ANYBODY LISTENING TO THIS, ERCOT WOULD VERY MUCH WANT TO KNOW THAT.
I MEAN, NOT THAT BECAUSE YOU THINK, I HAVEN'T HEARD T HAPPEN, BUT THIS IS A, CAN I JUST IMPROVEMENT A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT? IF SOMEONE DOESN'T, FOR EXAMPLE, INCLUDE THE DUN NUBER IN THE WIRE, UH, INFORMATION, WOULD IT BE REJECTED OR WOULD IT NOT BE AUTOMATED AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSED? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
UM, BUT SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT LISTENING MAY BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN.
AUSTIN, I KNOW YOU WERE, YOU WERE LISTENING.
ANYBODY FROM ERCOT ABLE TO ANSWER ERIC'S QUESTION TYPICALLY? WELL, I'M, I'LL TRY TO ANSWER FROM OUR EXPERIENCE WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE WE FORGET TO PUT THE INVOICE ID OR WHATEVER.
UM, WE'LL GET A FOLLOW UP FROM THE ERCOT TREASURY DEPARTMENT BASICALLY SAYING, WHERE DO YOU WANT THE MONEY TO GO? WHAT, WHAT INVOICE IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE APPLIED TO? WELL, THEY TAKE YOUR MONEY.
YEAH, I, I, I'LL, I'LL TRY AND TRACK DOWN AN ANSWER FOR THAT, ERIC, BUT I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
IT MIGHT NOT HURT TO SEND THAT OUT ONE MORE TIME TOO, SINCE, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.
ANOTHER A REMINDER, ANOTHER REMINDER MARKET NOTICE.
THANK YOU FOR BOTH ALL THE FEEDBACK, AND IF SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
UM, SO, UH, SOME OF THESE CHANGES ACTUALLY REQUIRE SYSTEM CHANGES OR, UM, AUTOMATION REQUIRED ON THE QC SIDE, AND NOT EVERYONE, UH, MIGHT BE READY.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE, WE MIGHT HAVE ISSUES WITH AUTOMATICALLY PUTTING THE INVOICE ID, UH, THE FIRST BULLET.
AND BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH
HEY, WITH SMI, I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME TROUBLE HEARING YOU.
OH, I, I WAS JUST ANSWERING THE, OR GETTING SOME FEEDBACK TO ANNE'S QUESTION THAT WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? THE PROBLEM IS THAT SOME OF THESE AUTOMATION, UH, SOME OF THESE THINGS MIGHT REQUIRE AUTOMATION ON THE, UH, PAY SIDE AND THE AUTOMATION MIGHT NOT GET COMPLETED BECAUSE WE ONLY GOT ONE MONTH NOTICE, AND IT WAS, IT CAME DURING THE DECEMBER, UH, BREAK TIME.
UM, SO BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME OF THE
AUSTIN SAYS HE'S AVAILABLE NOW.
DO WE NEED FOLLOW UP FROM HIM? AUSTIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE DISCUSSION.
I WAS DEALING WITH A ISSUE AND I DID NOT HEAR THE DISCUSSION.
SO IS THERE A, UM, I, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE COVERED THEN.
UM, BUT THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THIS MOVE TO THE NEW PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM BY JANUARY 26TH.
[03:20:01]
IF I'M REMEMBERING THE DATE RIGHT, I DON'T SEE IT ANYMORE.UM, AND, UH, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT IF WE CAN'T GET IT IN THROUGH THE AUTOMATED PROCESS, IS THERE A BACKUP PROCESS? WHICH REMI ANSWERED THAT, THAT THERE IS.
UM, AND I THINK THERE'S JUST GENERAL CONCERN THAT THAT DATE IS COMING VERY QUICKLY AND THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO SEND OUT ANOTHER MARKET NOTICE.
AND SORRY, I MISSED THE CONVERSATION.
THIS, THIS IS, UH, ACTUALLY BEING DRIVEN BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HERE, BUT WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME QUESTIONS I'M MORE AWARE OF, OF IT.
UM, AND YES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS KIND OF A SOFT START.
THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE AND WILL EVENTUALLY NEED TO SUPPORT THEIR AUTOMATED SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, THEY JUST SENT A MARKET NOTICE, UH, WITH THESE, UM, CHANGES AND REQUIREMENTS IN IT.
AND IF PARTICIPANTS AREN'T ABLE TO GET THEIR SYSTEMS TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS, YOU KNOW, IN AN AUTOMATED FASHION BY THE 26TH, THAT IS OKAY.
HOWEVER, THEY DO PLAN, THE LONG-TERM PLAN IS TO POSSIBLY EVEN CODIFY THIS IN THE PROTOCOLS.
SO EVENTUALLY, UM, THE PLAN IS TO HAVE THIS BE STANDARD FOR EVERYONE.
HOWEVER, YES, THE, THEY, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE 20, THE JANUARY 26TH DATE IS COMING PRETTY QUICKLY.
AND, AND, UH, AND, AND IF YOUR SYSTEM IS NOT ABLE TO, TO DO ALL THIS AUTOMATICALLY, YOU SHOULD STILL BE ABLE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS LIKE YOU DID BEFORE.
UM, WHILE, WHILE THEY TRANSITION OVER, I CAN, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL BRING THAT FEEDBACK TO, TO THE TREASURY GROUP AS WELL.
I THINK THEY WERE, THEY WERE CONTEMPLATING A SECOND MARKET NOTICE, SO I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THEM AS WELL.
SO THIS IS FRIDAY AND WE'RE EXPECTING MAYBE ANOTHER MARKET NOTICE, BUT IT'S KIND OF A SOFT LAUNCH.
I THINK WE ARE WRAPPED UP ON THIS TOPIC.
BRENDAN, I THINK YOU HAD A COUPLE MORE SLIDES.
UH, THIS IS THE USUAL UPDATES THAT WE GIVE EVERY MONTH.
UM, THE TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE INCREASED FROM 1.29 BILLION TO 1.3 BILLION FROM NOVEMBER TO DECEMBER, UH, INCREASED DUE TO HIGHER FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS IN DECEMBER.
UM, WE'LL LOOK AT, UH, DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL, WHICH IS THAT IN EXCESS OF TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE, CR LOCKS ACL, AND DAM EXPOSURE.
UM, AVERAGE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL DECREASE FROM 4.24 BILLION IN NOVEMBER TO 4.13 IN DECEMBER, UH, WITH NO UNUSUAL CALLS.
UH, NOTHING TOO EXCITING TO REPORT HERE.
UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST FOLLOWING KIND OF THE SEASONAL PATTERN AND, YOU KNOW, MOST OF OUR COLLATERAL THAT WE HOLD IS IN LETTERS OF CREDIT AND THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED AND WE ARE DEALING WITH.
YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE AN NPR ON THAT SOON.
UM, AND YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE UNSECURED CREDIT WENT AWAY, AND THAT'S THAT.
UH, OKAY, NEXT SLIDE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE LAST ONE.
AND THIS IS JUST LOOKING AT THE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL FOR, UH, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT TRACKS SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE ANY, UH, COLLATERAL OBLIGATION TO ALLOW COUNTERPARTIES ACCESS TO THE DAY AHEAD.
AND SO NOTHING REALLY EXCITING THERE.
UM, AND NEXT SLIDE, WHICH I THINK IS QUESTIONS.
[15. Large Flexible Load Task Force (LFLTF) Report]
I HAVE THE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE.NEXT IS BILL BLEVINS GONNA GIVE THAT.
UH, DON'T HAVE, UH, HOPEFULLY I CAN HELP YOU.
I'LL GET BACK ON, UH, SCHEDULE A LITTLE BIT.
UM, WE HAD A MEETING DECEMBER 11TH, WHICH IS AFTER I THINK Y'ALL'S LAST HACK.
UM, WE HAD ALSO SOME SCHEDULED MEETINGS THAT WE CANCELED.
ONE WAS JANUARY 3RD, UM, THAT WAS RIGHT AFTER THE HOLIDAY.
AND JUST DUE TO THE TIMING, IT WAS HARD TO GET, UM, ALL THE PEOPLE WE NEEDED, UM, FOR THAT MEETING.
AND THEN, UH, WE CANCELED THE ONE, UM, LAST WEEK.
UM, 'CAUSE IT HAPPENED TO BE ON KIND OF THE COLDEST WEATHER DAY, AND WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE, UM, NEEDING TO BE THERE, AT LEAST ON THE ERCOT SIDE, UM, FOR SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UH, RAMP RATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, BUT WE HAD THE COLD WEATHER, SO WE JUST DECIDED TO CANCEL IT AND WAIT TILL, UH, THE NEXT MEETING.
SO OUR PLANS ARE, UH, FEBRUARY, UM, FIRST PART OF FEBRUARY, I THINK
[03:25:01]
FEBRUARY 5TH IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING TO PICK UP SOME OF THOSE TOPICS AND CONTINUE WORKING ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN.UM, AND WE'RE CONSIDERING WHAT ADJUSTMENTS WE CAN MAKE TO MAKE SOME OF THE, UM, UH, THINGS THAT WE NEED FOR LARGE LOAD, UH, MOVE FORWARD.
UM, I GUESS I WOULD PUT OUT, WE'LL, WE'LL, UH, AT THE NEXT MEETING, GIVE A, A NEXT UPDATE.
I JUST LOOKED BACK, UM, DECEMBER, UH, 11TH MEETING.
I THINK WE HAD LIKE 3000 MEGAWATTS THAT WAS, UM, APPROVED FOR ENERGIZATION.
AND I JUST LOOKED AT IT THIS MORNING AND I THINK WE'RE UP TO AROUND 4,400 MEGAWATTS.
SO WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAD BEEN IN THEIR PLANNING STUDY APPROVED STATE MOVE FORWARD.
UM, SO PROBABLY ABOUT A GIGAWATT, UM, INCREASE FROM THE LAST REPORT.
UM, DECIDED TO MOVE FROM THE PLANNING STEADY APPROVED INTO ACTUALLY GETTING INTO OUR MODEL.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME MOVEMENT ON, UH, ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL LOAD.
WE'VE KIND OF SEEN A LITTLE, UM, PAUSE IN SOME OF THE INCREASES IN THE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE AMOUNT BEFORE THAT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PICKED UP AGAIN.
BUT THAT, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I'VE GOT AS FAR AS UPDATES.
AND, UH, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE, THAT Y'ALL GET BACK TO THE OTHER ITEMS. ALL RIGHT, THANKS BILL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY,
[16. RTC+B Task Force Report]
MOVING ON TO RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE REPORT.I'LL KEEP THIS RELATIVELY QUICK.
UM, AGAIN, HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF IS THE CHAIR, AND THEN DAVID KEYS, THE VICE CHAIR OF THE RTCB TASK FORCE.
UM, WE'RE SETTING THE STAGE THIS YEAR.
WE'VE PIVOTED OUT OF THE NPRR FOR STATE OF CHARGE INTO THE END GAME, WHICH IS WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO REALLY IMPLEMENT RTC AND ACCOMMODATE ALL THE LEFTOVER ITEMS FROM A, EVERYTHING FROM PARAMETERS SUCH AS PROXY OFFER, CURVES, UM, VALUES, AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO GET TO THE END GAME? AND SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH IS TO REMIND THE TEAM THE TASK FORCE, WHAT THE SCOPE IS.
IT'S THE NPRS ONE OF THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS IS, WHERE ARE THOSE PRINCIPLES WE TALKED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO SO WE CAN FIND OUT WHY DID WE DO WHAT WE DID? THOSE ARE THE LINKS THAT WE'VE KEPT AT THE TASK FORCE AND HAVE ON THE SLIDES HERE.
UH, SECOND MAJOR BULLET IS THE OBJECTIVE.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE TASK FORCE? IT IS REALLY AN IMPLEMENTATION GROUP.
IT IS WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO REMOVE BARRIERS OR GET CONSENSUS ON ITEMS THAT WE NEED DETAILS BEFORE GO LIVE.
A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE IS HOW MANY LOAD FREQUENCY CONTROL TESTS DO WE NEED TO DO WITH THE QUEASY BEFORE GO LIVE FOR NODAL? WE HAD A LOT OF THOSE.
WE MAY JUST NEED 3, 2, 4, 6 HOUR TYPE TESTS.
AND DO WE NEED THOSE? SO IT'S CONFIRMING THOSE THINGS THAT DON'T END UP IN PROTOCOLS, BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO AGREE TO THE GROUND RULES AS TO HOW WE'RE IMPLEMENTING.
AND THEN THE LAST PIECE IS WE DO WANT TO DO THE THREE AND DONE WHERE WE CAN.
THE IDEA IS FOR ERCOT TO DO ITS DILIGENCE FOR THE FIRST MEETING, TO PROVIDE THE INITIAL CONCEPT, THE RESEARCH BEHIND IT, MEETING TWO, GIVE EVERYONE A MONTH TO DIGEST IT AND THEN SAY WHERE THE ISSUES ARE.
AND NUMBER THREE IS THAT MEETING THREE IS ACHIEVE CONSENSUS, OR THAT SOMEONE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD AN ALTERNATIVE AND WANTS TO ADVOCATE ON THAT TO THE POINT OF ESCALATING IT TO TAC.
AND SO TAC BECOMES THAT DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY FOR US TO THEN FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE STUCK OR WHERE WE CAN MOVE FROM THERE.
AND SO THE WAY WE'VE SET THIS UP IS WE'RE SETTING UP A, UH, RIGHT NOW IT'S 17 ITEMS OF WHAT DO WE NEED BEFORE GO LIVE? BUT A LOT OF THESE ITEMS ARE GONNA GROW.
FOR EXAMPLE, MARKET TRIALS IS ONE ITEM, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S GONNA BLOW OUT INTO A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT THE IDEA IS TO IDENTIFY WHICH ISSUES HAVE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SPREADSHEET, IT'S WHAT'S THE ISSUE TO RESOLVE AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM? AND THEN WHAT TYPE OF ISSUE IS IT A POLICY OR AN ANALYSIS ISSUE OR SOMETHING ELSE? AND THEN IS A PROTOCOL NEEDED? AND THEN ULTIMATELY, WHERE'S THE APPROVAL FOR THESE? SO SOME OF THESE MAY PRECIPITATE AN NPRR, BUT WE JUST WANT TO KIND OF GIVE A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT.
AND REALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS WHEN WILL WE ENGAGE THESE TOPICS? AND SO I SNIPPED IT OFF AT JULY.
MOST OF THESE TOPICS ARE COVERED LATER IN THE YEAR.
UH, BUT IT'S THE IDEA WHICH ONES ARE GONNA HIT THE HIT FIRST.
AND AGAIN, WE DID HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW ITEMS BROUGHT UP AT THE TASK FORCE LAST, UH, COUPLE WEEKS AGO, UH, SUCH AS REVIEWING THE AS DEMAND CURVE, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT POLICIES AND THEN ALSO THE EMERGENCY PRICE PROGRAM.
SO AGAIN, WE HAVE DRRS, WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS ON HERE, HOW DO WE BAKE IT IN AS WE GO ALONG, AND HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE OVER TIME.
AND SO THAT WAS THE FIRST HALF OF THE PRESENTATION.
WHAT IS THE TASK FORCE DOING, UM, FOR TAC, ONE THING I WANTED TO ALSO DO WAS TO BRING EXCERPTS FROM THE BOARD.
UM, SO JP, OUR CIO IS ALSO OUR PMO LEADER ON DELIVERY OF KEY PROJECTS.
HE IS THE ONE THAT'S SPEAKING TO THE BOARD, UH, TECHNOLOGY
[03:30:01]
AND SECURITY GROUP ABOUT WHERE WE AT ON THESE VARIOUS PROGRAMS. SO THIS IS A GOOD CHANCE FOR ME TO ECHO THAT UPDATE TO THIS GROUP FOR ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY HAVE ON THE TIMELINES.AND SO WE'VE TAKEN, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM A SYSTEM VIEW, WE HAVE THREE BOXES ON THE SCREEN THAT KIND OF REPRESENT HOW WE'VE GROUPED THE SUBPROJECTS TOGETHER.
Y'ALL MAY NOT CARE ABOUT THAT IF YOU DO CALL ME.
THE NEXT ONE IS, HOW DID WE BREAK OUT THE MONEY? SO RTC WAS A $43 MILLION PROJECT.
SINGLE MODEL IS FIVE AND A HALF MILLION.
UH, THE STATE OF CHARGE WAS ABOUT A MILLION.
YOU PUT A CIRCLE AROUND THAT, THAT'S 50 MILLION.
BUT THIS IS HOW WE BROKE OUT THAT 50 MILLION ACROSS THESE SUB PROJECTS.
AGAIN, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE, THE CONTROLS AROUND THAT, CALL ME, BUT JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THIS IS HOW IT'S TRACKED IN THE PPL AND OTHER THINGS GOING AROUND.
YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW BEHIND THE SCENES AT ERCOT.
SO WE'RE FINISHING UP REQUIREMENTS.
WE'VE GOTTEN THOSE UP AND SEND 'EM OUT TO THE VENDOR.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY ON SITE TODAY IN TAYLOR TO BE GOING THROUGH THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN DOCUMENTS AS THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO DEVELOP CODE.
SO THEY ARE OFTEN RUNNING OUTTA THE GATE.
SO THE REQUIREMENTS ARE WELL UNDERWAY, BUT ONE THING THAT WE'RE REALLY WORKING HARD TO GET IS INTO YOUR HANDS ARE THE INTERFACE SPECIFICATIONS.
WHAT ARE THE TELEMETRY CHANGES YOU NEED? WHAT ARE THE MARKET SUBMISSIONS CHANGE YOU NEED? IT SOUNDS FAR AWAY, BUT IT'S NOT.
ONE IS ON SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR.
WE WANT TO GIVE YOU THOSE SPECIFICATIONS.
AND THE IDEA IS IN SOMETIME IN 2025, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THERE'S A FLAG HERE THAT SAID INDICATIVE DATES.
WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'LL START THE INTEGRATED TESTING OR THE MARKET TRIALS.
WE DO KNOW THAT IN SEPTEMBER, 2024, WE WANT TO GIVE YOU THOSE MARKET PARTICIPANT INTERFACE SPECS SO THAT YOUR DEVELOPMENT SHOP OR VENDORS SHOULD BE OFF AND RUNNING TO DEVELOP THOSE INTERFACES TO POSSIBLY BE REMOTE TESTING BY MID 2025.
SO ALL THESE THINGS SOUND FAR AWAY, BUT EVERYTHING IS BECOMING MONTHS APART INSTEAD OF YEARS APART.
AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF IT, UH, REALLY FOR BUDGETING PURPOSES AS WELL AS BRINGING THE BELL IN YOUR IT SHOPPER WITH YOUR VENDORS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE PEOPLE IN PLACE FOR THIS.
AND WITH THAT, AND AGAIN, WE HAVE THIS INDICATIVE DATE FOR GO LIVE OUT THERE IN 2026.
SO AGAIN, WE HAVE NO ANNOUNCED DATE.
THE OTHER KEY PIECE THAT COMES OUT OF THIS SEPTEMBER, 2024 IS THAT'S WHEN WE'LL ANNOUNCE THE GO LIVE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE EXECUTION PLAN AND THE PROSPECTIVE GO LIVE DATE AT THAT POINT.
SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU KIND OF THE, THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW AND WE DON'T KNOW, UM, AND WHERE YOU'LL BE INVOLVED.
SO AT THAT, I'LL PAUSE AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
CHRISTIAN FROM BILL BARNES, SLIDE THREE PLEASE.
JUST TRYING TO SQUARE THE, UM, PRETTY SIGNIFICANT POLICY DECISIONS THAT WE STILL NEED TO MAKE OR REVISIT ANYWAY.
NUMBER 18, RIGHT? THE ONE YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT, WE'LL CONTINUE TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT IS, UM, HOW DO WE, UM, UPDATE OR ALIGN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES IN RTC WITH POLICY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS? AND, AND YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A, WE DON'T HAVE A START TIME WHEN WE'RE GONNA START DISCUSSING THAT.
I THINK THAT COULD BE A LENGTHY CONVERSATION.
AND DOESN'T THAT IMPACT THE REQUIREMENTS? OR I GUESS IS THAT JUST A CONFIGURABLE PARAMETER THAT CONFIGURABLE PARAMETERS, WE CAN MOVE AROUND.
AND THEN PROXY OFFERS TWO ITEM ONE.
THESE ARE, THESE AREN'T, LIKE, I KNOW YOU WANT YOUR THREE AND OUT DEAL, BUT I MEAN THESE MIGHT TAKE A WHILE.
AND SO WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE AND AS WE ENGAGE EACH OF THOSE, WE'LL BE OPEN TO THE IDEA OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE TIMEFRAME NEEDED TO GET THOSE DONE.
SO, AND I DID WANT TO JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE ON IT, SO ON THE HOMEPAGE WE WILL MAINTAIN ALL OF THESE AND IF WE ZOOM OUT, YOU'LL START TO SEE THAT EVERYTHING DOES HAVE DATES.
SO IF YOU WANNA SAY, HEY MATT, THIS IS TOO LONG.
AND AT THE NA NEXT TASK FORCE SAY WE CAN'T WAIT UNTIL YOU TALKED ABOUT NUMBER 18 OR WE CAN'T WAIT.
OH, WE DIDN'T GIVE A DATE TO THAT YET.
IN FEBRUARY'S MEETING, WE WILL PROPOSE A DATE WHEN WE ENGAGE THAT.
AND IF YOU WANNA SAY RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT SHOULD BE VERY, VERY SOON, THEN THAT CAN BE PART OF THE INPUT TO THAT.
ERIC AND THEN BOB HILTON, YOU HAD A YEAR OF INTEGRATED TESTING ON THAT SLIDE, WHICH I APPRECIATE IS A NICE ROUND NUMBER.
UM, BUT, UM, DO YOU THINK THAT THE INTEGRATED TESTING, UM, WILL AFFECT DISPATCH OF THE REAL TIME MARKET? OR IS IT, OR, OR, OR NOT? SO INTEGRATED TESTING, THERE IS ER COTS INTEGRATED
[03:35:01]
TESTING IN ITS OWN LITTLE BUBBLE.THE MARKET TRIALS WOULD BE WHERE WE EXPOSE THE SYSTEM AND THE CONTROL ROOM TO THEN MANAGE THE GRID ON A, FOR EXAMPLE, LOAD FREQUENCY CONTROL TEST.
SO THAT WOULD BE A CLOSED LOOP TEST WHERE WE SEND, INSTEAD OF UPDATED BASE POINTS, UPDATED SET POINTS, WHICH ARE THE RTC SPEAK FOR YOUR, YOU KNOW, BASE POINT AND REGULATION SIGNAL.
SO WE WOULD BE DOING THAT A SERIES OF TIMES LIKE WE DID IN NODAL.
BUT NOT FOR DAYS OR WEEKS AT A TIME, BUT ON A WEDNESDAY OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
HOW'S IT GOING, MATT? HEY, WILL DO.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU ON, UM, UH, THE, UH, ORDC AND THE IMPLEMENTATION.
UH, WHENEVER, UH, BILL BROUGHT IT UP, IT MADE ME THINK ABOUT IT IS WHEN WE WERE, WHEN WE WERE DO DOING THE ORIGINAL RTC, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, UH, HOW WE CURRENTLY TODAY PAY ONLINE AND OFFLINE GENERATION, AND THAT WAS PART OF A, THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE RDC AND WE SAID WE COULD DO THAT DURING THE RTC, UH, IF WE CHOSE TO.
AND I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THAT'S STILL THE CASE AND IF, AND DO WE NEED TO BRING THAT BACK UP DURING THE RTC PLUS B? YEAH.
SO I'D LIKE TO BRING IT UP AT THE NEXT TASK FORCE MEETING RATHER THAN HERE.
I KNOW SOME MARKET PARTICIPANTS HAVE HAD IDEAS ON WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
YEAH, I DIDN'T MEAN TO BRING IT UP HERE TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WE COULD GET THAT ON THE AGENDA.
YEAH, AND I'LL FLAG THAT IN THE AGENDA, MAKE SURE WE OPEN THAT ONE UP AND START TALKING MORE ABOUT IT.
AND SORRY ABOUT, ABOUT THE TEXANS, BY THE WAY.
HEY, WE HAD A BETTER SEASON THAN ANYBODY ANTICIPATED, SO I'M ALL GOOD.
[17. ERCOT Reports (Part 2 of 2)]
NEXT UP WE'VE GOT ANNUAL RUCK REPORTING WITH RYAN KING, SIR.UM, VERY HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO, UH, PRESENT ON THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE MARKET IMPACTS OF, UH, RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENT.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M GONNA TRY AND DO IN THESE SLIDES IS LOOK AT, UM, THE RUX THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
AND THE IDEA IS TO REALLY HAVE A, A GOOD DISCUSSION AND A HOLISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE, UH, IMPACT THAT RUCKS HAVE HAD ON ERCOT MARKET OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.
AND ALSO LOOKING AT, UH, COMPARISONS FROM, FROM PREVIOUS YEARS AS WELL.
SO THERE IS A PROTOCOL REQUIREMENT THAT ACTUALLY GUIDES THIS.
SO UNDER SECTION 5.8 OF THE PROTOCOLS, ERCOT IS REQUIRED TO COME TO THE TAC EACH JANUARY, UH, TO LOOK AT THE CAUSES OF RUCKS THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, AND ALSO TO LOOK AT THE SETTLEMENT TREATMENT.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE FORMAT, THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR FORMAT WISE.
UM, I THINK THIS HAS BECOME, AGAIN, KIND OF A REGULAR PRESENTATION THAT ERCOT GIVES EACH YEAR, BUT IT HAS EVOLVED OVER THE COURSE OF, OF SEVERAL YEARS BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AND WHAT STAKEHOLDERS ARE LOOKING FOR.
SO THIS SLIDE REALLY JUST GIVES, UH, A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF, UH, THE NUMBER OF RUCKS THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS YEAR.
SO WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT WE HAVE BROKEN OUT, UH, THE COUNT OF RELIABILITY, UNIT COMMITMENT BY, UH, RESOURCES THAT HAVE OPTED OUT OR THOSE THAT HAVE NOT OPTED OUT OF REC SETTLEMENT.
WE ALSO DO A BREAKOUT BY INSTRUCTED HOURS VERSUS EFFECTIVE RESOURCE HOURS.
AND SO FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T, UH, FAMILIAR WITH THAT, UH, DISTINCTION, UM, YOU CAN SEE IN THE FOOTNOTE BELOW THAT EFFECTIVE RESOURCE HOURS ARE USUALLY A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN INSTRUCTED RESOURCE HOURS FOR THINGS LIKE A RESOURCE TAKING A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO COME ONLINE OR SUFFERING A FORCED OUTAGE, THAT KIND OF THING.
UM, WE ALSO TAKE, UH, A LOOK AT, UH, THE MEGAWATTS THEMSELVES.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, WE COMPARE SOME OF THE, UM, KEY ASPECTS OF, OF THE RESOURCES THAT WERE ERUPT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN SEE IS WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, LSL AND HSL, THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE OPT
[03:40:01]
OUT VERSUS NON-OP OUT IS FAIRLY SIMILAR, BUT THERE IS MORE OF A DIFFERENCE WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT, UM, LDL AND BASE POINTS.AND THAT'S REALLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT FOR THOSE RESOURCES THAT HAVE OPTED OUT OF RUCK SETTLEMENT, THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT, UH, RUCK OFFER FLOOR THAT $250 PER MEGAWATT HOUR OFFER FLOOR.
UM, AND SO AS A RESULT, THEY TEND TO GET DISPATCHED TO HIGHER LEVELS OF OUTPUT THAN THE NON-OP OUT RESOURCES WERE.
SO THIS SLIDE IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE REASONS, UH, FOR UNIT COMMITMENT.
UM, THIS IS, IS BROADLY SIMILAR TO I THINK THE TRENDS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS WHERE, UM, THE MAJORITY OF THE R COMMITMENTS WERE FOR CAPACITY CONCERNS.
YOU CAN SEE, UH, 96.8% IN 2023, AND I'M, I'M GONNA BE LOOKING AT EFFECTIVE RESOURCE HOURS FOR, FOR THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION.
UM, BUT THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF HOURS, UH, JUST OVER 80 WHERE THERE WAS A A R FOR, UH, THERMAL CONGESTION OR VOLTAGE CONCERNS.
UH, AND THERE WERE NO RESOURCE HOURS COMMITTED FOR ANY OF THE OTHER REASONS.
NOW, IN TERMS OF THOSE OPT OUT, THOSE, THOSE BOUGHT BACKED HOURS, THAT REPRESENTS, UM, 20.4% OF THE TOTAL EFFECTIVE RESOURCE HOURS, WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE PRECISELY THE SAME PROPORTION THAT WAS BOUGHT BACK IN, UH, 2022.
AND JUST A NOTE THAT, UH, INCLUDED IN THAT VALUE ARE 27 EFFECTIVE RESOURCE HOURS WHERE THE RESOURCE WAS DAM COMMITTED.
SO, UM, WHILE DAM COMMITMENTS AREN'T NECESSARILY, UH, PHYSICALLY, UH, BINDING, UM, IF A RESOURCE WITH A DAM COMMITMENT SUBSEQUENTLY GETS A, UH, ROCKED, UM, IT IS TREATED FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES AS IF IT DID OPT OUT OF RUCK SETTLEMENT.
SO I THINK THIS SLIDE REALLY GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, CONTEXT TO SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT, UH, I PRESENTED IN THE OTHER SLIDES.
SO YOU CAN SEE, UM, PROBABLY THE MOST NOTICEABLE CHANGES THERE IS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN RUCK IN 2023 COMPARED TO, UH, 20, THE, AT LEAST THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS, 2022 AND 2021.
UM, THAT GOES FOR THE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT AND ALSO THE MONTHLY AMOUNTS ARE, ARE, ARE NOTICEABLY LOWER.
UM, THE HIGHEST MONTH WAS MAY OF 2023.
I TOOK A LITTLE LOOK AT THAT MONTH.
THERE WASN'T NECESSARILY A SPECIFIC DAY, UM, THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE RUCK RESOURCE HOURS.
IT WAS REALLY JUST THE FACT THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS SPREAD OUT OVER THE COURSE, UH, OF A NUMBER OF DAYS IN MAY.
UM, THERE WERE A, A, A, A SMALL AMOUNT OF RUCKS IN AUGUST AND DECEMBER, AND I BELIEVE THOSE WERE MOSTLY AROUND MANAGING CONGESTION.
BILL, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OH, PARDON ME.
ANY COMMENTARY ON THE YEAR OVER YEAR DIFFERENCE, FALL 22 TO FALL 23, SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN RUX? IS THIS GIVING US SOME HOPE? LIKE HAS THERE BEEN PROCESS CHANGES IN THE OPERATIONS, UH, ROOM OR WHAT ANY KIND OF COLOR ON WHAT'S BEHIND THE REDUCTION? UH, I DO HAVE A SLIDE TOWARD THE END, BUT I'M, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO KIND OF GO INTO IT NOW.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M CAREFUL NOT TO MAKE A DIRECT CORRELATION OF, OF CAUSE AND EFFECT HERE, BUT I THINK THERE WERE, UH, A FEW THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SHARE AS CALL 'EM OBSERVATIONS.
UM, I THINK, UH, ONE IS MAYBE JUST A DIFFERENT EXPECTATION IN TERMS OF THE, FROM THE RESOURCE OWNER PERSPECTIVE ABOUT WHAT THE DAY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND REFLECTING THAT, UM, UH, IN THEIR COP SUCH THAT, UH, THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL R MAYBE WASN'T APPARENT, BUT A NUMBER OF FACTORS COULD ALSO DRIVE THAT.
SO IT, IT COULD BE A FUNCTION OF, YOU KNOW, HIGHER DEMAND, UH, WEATHER CONDITIONS.
UM, OF COURSE THE, THE HIGHER ANCILLARY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE, THAT WE WOULD'VE BEEN CARRYING AFTER, UM, INTRODUCTION OF VCRS OR A COMBINATION OF ALL OR, OR NONE OF THESE.
UM, WE ALSO NOTICED THAT ON A SORT OF MONTH BY MONTH COMPARISON FOR MOST OF THE MONTHS, FUEL PRICES WERE LOWER IN 2023 THAN THEY WERE IN 2022.
SO THE, THE, THE, THE SNAPPY WAY THAT I'VE KIND OF THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IS THAT, UM, SOME OF THESE FACTORS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENT ALL THE TIME, AND ALL OF THESE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENT SOME OF THE TIME, BUT, UM, I, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE LIKE A REALLY DEFINITIVE CAUSE AND EFFECT, BUT THOSE, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT, UH, THAT I'D INCLUDE IN THIS PRESENTATION.
I'M GONNA GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR THIS, SO THANKS.
[03:45:02]
UH, WAS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION? SHAS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES.UM, COULD YOU REMIND ME WHEN, UH, ECRS WAS INTRODUCED AND WHEN THE OIDC FLOWS WERE INTRODUCED AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU SORT OF MENTIONED IN RESPONSE TO BILL'S QUESTION THAT, UH, THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE INFLUENCES.
AND I WAS WONDERING, UH, IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT CLOSELY, YOU KNOW, THE RDC FLOOR AND THE ECRS INTRODUCTION, HOW MUCH OF AN EFFECT THAT HAD? SO I THINK ECRS WAS INTRODUCED IN JUNE, AND I FEEL LIKE IT WAS JUNE 9TH.
THAT COULD BE, THAT'S THE DATE THAT'S STICKING AROUND.
UM, AND THE ORDC PRICE FLOORS CAME INTO EFFECT ON NOVEMBER 1ST.
AND HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE IMPACT OF THE, HAVE YOU SEEN ANY CORRELATION? WELL, AS I KIND OF MENTIONED, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO DISCERN WHICH FACTOR CONTRIBUTED TO WHICH DECISION.
UM, ALL OF THEM MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE SOME OF THE TIME AND, AND SORT OF VICE VERSA.
THERE'S JUST, THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT, UH, THAT ARE AT PLAY HERE THAT COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO IT.
BUT, UH, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE IN A POSITION TO NECESSARILY UNTANGLE, UM, YOU KNOW, CAUSE AND EFFECT, UH, WHEN IT CAME TO THIS DECISION.
BUT THERE IS DEFINITELY A NOTICEABLE DECREASE, UM, OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR AND, AND IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR AS WELL.
IS THERE A WAY TO MAYBE LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHER ENERGY PRICES, WHETHER THAT JUSTIFIES SELF-COMMITMENT, OR IS THERE SOME SORT OF, UH, THING WE COULD LOOK AT WHERE WE COULD SAY THAT, HEY, BECAUSE OF THESE CHANGES, THE HIGHER ENERGY PRICES RESULTED IN MORE SELF-COMMITMENT? IS THAT POSSIBLE? OR IS THAT TOO COMPLICATED? WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT BACK CHAMS. I KNOW THAT THE TEAM HAS BEEN DOING SOME, UH, ANALYSIS.
I MEAN, WE, WE, WE GENERALLY DO ANALYSIS EACH MONTH, UH, FOR THE WMWG.
UM, AND WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT AS A FOLLOW-UP TO SEE WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE THAT MIGHT SHED SOME LIGHT ON, ON SOME OF THESE, UH, THE, THE FACTORS THAT ARE REALLY CONTRIBUTING TO, UH, INCREASES IN SELF-COMMITMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE QUEUE? OKAY, WELL, I WILL GO ON THEN.
UM, SO THIS, UM, THIS IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE SAME, UH, INFORMATION I PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY, BUT LOOKING AT, UH, MEGAWATT HOURS.
SO THE, THE TOP, UM, GRAPH IS REALLY LOOKING AT, UM, THE DURATION MULTIPLIED BY THE RESOURCES BASE POINT.
AND THEN THE BOTTOM GRAPH IS LOOKING AT THE DURATION MULTIPLIED BY RESOURCES HIGH SUSTAINED LIMIT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM, UH, THE PATTERN KIND OF LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDES THAT I MENTIONED.
UM, WHEN IT COMES TO BASE POINT, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE VARIATION.
AND THAT'S JUST DUE TO THE FACT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF, THERE ARE, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN A RESOURCE THAT'S RUCK COMMITTED, UH, GETS A DISPATCH ABOVE ITS LDL, BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS, UM, CORRELATED IN, IN AND PATTERN WAYS.
SO THERE'S A, THERE'S, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE IN TERMS OF THE, THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO SLIDE SEVEN AND EIGHT ARE REALLY LOOKING AT, UM, THE AGE OF THE RESOURCES THAT, THAT ARE GETTING RUCKED.
UM, SO WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THERE'S A, A FAIRLY SIMILAR TREND, AT LEAST GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, THAT THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE RESOURCES THAT, THAT ARE GETTING RUCKED ARE IN THAT KIND OF 40, 50, 60, UH, YEAR RANGE.
AND THAT SEEMS FAIRLY CONSISTENT, AT LEAST OVER THE LAST, UM, THREE YEARS OR SO.
UH, THIS SLIDE IS, IS SHOWING THE SAME INFORMATION, BUT INSTEAD OF, UH, LOOKING AT JUST THE, THE AGE, IT'S BREAKING IT OUT BY 10 YEAR BUCKETS.
BUT I THINK IT DOES A, A GOOD JOB OF ILLUSTRATING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MAJORITY OF THESE RESOURCES ARE, ARE 50 PLUS YEARS OLD THAT ARE GETTING INCLUDED IN RUCK.
SO, UM, JUST LOOKING AT, UH, IN TERMS OF, UH, RESOURCES THAT DID NOT SUCCESSFULLY OPT OUT, UH, THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF RESOURCE HOURS WHEN THE RESOURCE WAS DISPATCHED ABOVE IT'S LDL, SO FOR ROUGHLY 39 OF THESE RESOURCE HOURS.
'CAUSE THE LMP FOR IT, FOR THIS RESOURCE WAS ABOVE THAT R OFFER FLOOR.
AND THEN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE HOURS, IT WAS REALLY DUE TO THE APPLICATION OF MITIGATED OFFER CAPS.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS AS WELL.
[03:50:02]
SO NOW WE'LL SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LOOKING AT, UM, THE RUCK IMPACTS REFLECTED IN THE RELIABILITY DEPLOYMENT PRICE ADDER.SO ON THE THE TOP SLIDE, YOU'RE REALLY JUST SHOWING THE NUMBER OF HOURS WHERE THE, UM, UH, DEPLOYMENT PRICE ADDER WAS TRIGGERED DUE TO, UH, A RUCK, AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM LOOKING AT THE AVERAGE DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT HOUR.
SO THE THING THAT STUCK OUT TO US WHEN LOOKING AT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, UH, AUGUST, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A, A VERY FEW, UH, COMMITMENTS DURING THAT TIME, UH, THE COST WAS QUITE HIGH.
SO I THINK I HAD A NOTE HERE ON THE ACTUAL PRICE.
IT WAS ACTUALLY ONE DAY THAT WAS THE PREDOMINANT, UH, CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS, UH, IT WAS AUGUST 17TH AND, UM, THE, UH, DEPLOYMENT PRICE ADDER WAS $248 AND 38 CENTS.
SO THAT, THAT ONE DAY KIND OF BROUGHT THE AVERAGE UP SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE, UH, THE OTHER, UH, MONTHS OF THE YEAR.
SO THESE SLIDES ARE REALLY LOOKING MORE AROUND THE SETTLEMENT IMPACTS OF RUCK.
SO, UH, THE, THE TOP, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RUCK CLAWBACK CHARGES.
UH, THE SECOND GRAPH, THEY'RE LOOKING AT CAPACITY SHORT CHARGES, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME AS MAKE WHOLE PAYMENTS AND, UM, THE SHORTFALL MEGAWATT HOURS.
UM, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT HERE IS, AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THAT THE, THE RUX WERE LOWER THIS YEAR, UM, THE, THE CLAWBACK CHARGES AND MAKE HOLES WERE, WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER, UH, FOR MOST OF THE YEAR.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO TO NOTE.
SO LOWER UPLIFTS USUALLY A GOOD THING.
UH, NO EXCEPTIONAL FUEL COST SUBMISSIONS, UH, FOR THIS SLIDE.
AND I THINK ACTUALLY THAT'S THE SUMMATION OF THE, THE, THE PRESENTATION.
I DID HAVE A SLIDE HERE THAT KIND OF OPINED ON, ON CAUSE AND EFFECT A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK I HIT ALL OF THESE POINTS MAYBE IN THE, THE QUESTION THAT THAT BILL MENTIONED.
UM, CAUSE AND EFFECT, UH, IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO DISCERN, BUT WE ARE COMMITTED TO LOOKING INTO THIS FURTHER AND SHARING THE, THE RESULTS PROBABLY AT, UH, UM, FUTURE WMWG MEETING.
BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR OR REPORT, UH, ON OBSERVATIONS AND FACTORS.
AND TWO THINGS I WANTED TO NOTE, UH, HERE GOING FORWARD IS THAT, THAT THOSE ORDC PRICE FLOORS, OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE INTRODUCED TOWARD THE END OF THE YEAR AND HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN, UH, TOO IMPACTFUL THUS FAR.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR BECAUSE IT HAS A, HAS A, A TIE TO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE INCIDENTAL POLICY CHANGES TO HELP, UM, AFFECT, UH, REDUCTION IN UNIT COMMITMENT, UH, AS WELL AS THE, UH, CHANGES TO THE OPT-OUT.
THIS IS FOR, FOR R SETTLEMENT THAT ARE, UH, COMING INTO PLACE UNDER MPRR 10 92.
WE HAVE, UH, ONE MORE QUESTION THROUGH THE HAND RAISE METHOD.
HI, KEVIN HANSON, NATIONAL GRID.
DID YOU LOOK AT THE EMISSION COST IMPACT FOR 2022? THE EMISSION EMISSION COST NOX PRICES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER IN 2022 VERSUS 2023.
UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE DON'T DO THAT.
UM, SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT, WHAT WOULD BE THE, UM, BE THE IMPACT OF THAT, JUST BE LIKE LESS LIKELY TO RUN BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE PRICES THAT THE
I THINK IAN DID THAT PRESENTATION LAST YEAR, THOSE NUMBERS THERE, BUT IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN WE'VE SEEN THIS PAST SUMMER SINCE THERE WAS ZERO.
SO THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD AN EFFECT AS WELL.
YEAH, NO, THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING TO NOTE.
SO WE COULD MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS WELL AS ANOTHER FACTOR.
UM, SO ERCOT UTILIZES THE EMISSIONS COSTS IN THE CALCULATION OF MAKE ALL PAYMENTS.
UH, WHAT WE USE IS BASICALLY $3 APPROXIMATELY FOR, SO TWO, AND NO, THAT'S THE CLEARING PRICE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
WE'RE NOW USING THAT INCREASED PRICE AT THIS, AT THIS MOMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY, WE'RE NOT OFFICIALLY USING THAT PRICE.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT USING THAT PRICE.
WE'RE USING THE, UH, THE KOREAN PRICE IF PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND PAY FOR THAT PRICE TO GET THAT COMMODITY THAT DID PEOPLE HAVE TO GO OUT AND PAY THAT PRICES THOUGH TO ACHIEVE IT.
SO WAS THAT POSSIBLE PART OF THE ISSUE?
[03:55:01]
MAYBE.SO WE HAVE NOT, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF, UH, GENERATORS PURCHASING THOSE EMISSIONS COSTS AT NOBODY HAS CALLED US AND SAID, HEY, WE INCREASE OUR COSTS AND THEREFORE, UH, THE AIRCRAFT COSTS NEED TO INCREASE AS WELL.
AND IF MACHINES IN 2022 REACHED THEIR EMISSION LIMITS, ARE THOSE CONSIDERED IN THE WRECK DECISIONS? I'M NOT SURE.
I JUST, I JUST, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE.
I, I ONLY DEAL WITH THE COST AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY, ANY COST FROM ANYONE'S, UH, ABOVE THE, UH, HIGHER THAN THE INDEX PRICES THAT WE USE.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING EMISSIONS COSTS IN THE CALCULATION OF MAKE WHOLE PAYMENTS, BUT MAYBE NOT THE COST YOU, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BASICALLY REFERRING TO.
IF, IF I COULD INTERJECT, I THINK I'LL LET KEVIN PASS FINAL JUDGMENT ON THIS, BUT KEVIN'S FOCUSED ON A COMMITMENT, NOT COMMITMENT DECISION BASED ON COST.
AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LOOK BACK.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THIS YEAH.
DATA POINT AS RYAN'S AGREED TO, UM, AT SO POINT, POINT TAKING KEVIN.
I THINK ANDY WYNN SAID HE WANTED TO GET IN THE QUEUE.
YEAH, ACTUALLY, THAT WAS EXACTLY MY COMMENT.
I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE NOT LIMITS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES POTENTIALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, GENERATORS MAY BE DEALING WITH, UH, DUE TO THE INCREASE IN INCREASED FREQUENCY IN ROCK.
AND I KNOW THIS YEAR ROCK HAS BEEN DOWN, BUT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE NOX LIMIT ROLLING 12 CALCULATIONS, WE'VE NOTICED THAT, UM, THAT HAS CAUSED SOME ISSUES ON US GETTING CLOSE TO THOSE LIMITS.
AND SO I KNOW AT, IN THE PAST LAST YEAR WE HAD THE ROUGH WORKSHOP AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THAT WAS IN THE PROCESS, BUT I KIND OF WANTED TO FLAG THE NO LIMITATIONS AS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AS AN ONGOING COST THAT GENERATORS ARE UNABLE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR AT THIS TIME.
SO I, I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE KAAN AND, AND ENO'S COMMENTS ON, ON LOOKING INTO THAT.
YEAH, WE WILL DEFINITELY FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
UM, SO I BELIEVE THE NEXT OR CUT REPORT, REPORT IS THE NPRR ON MARKET RESTART APPROVAL ON MARKET RESTART APPROVAL.
I DUNNO WHERE I'M GETTING AN ECHO.
I DUNNO WHERE I'M GETTING AN ECHO.
THIS IS JOHN LEVINE FROM ERCOT LEGAL.
UH, I WAS AT TECH A FEW MONTHS AGO TO PREVIEW THIS ISSUE.
UH, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS WITH ANNA BERLIN FROM ERCOT LEGAL AS WELL.
AND SHE'S HERE TODAY TO KIND OF GO OVER, UH, THE LATEST AND JUST PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THIS PROPOSED NPR.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO PASS IT OFF TO ANNA.
CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? JOHN, I'M SORRY.
I CAN, I THINK SOMEONE'S GONNA HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR, UH, SPEAKERPHONE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE FEEDBACK WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, IF YOU'LL JUST ENGAGE YOUR MUTE.
SO THIS IS LIN ASSOCIATE CORPORATE COUNSEL WITH ERCOT.
AS A REMINDER, WE PREVIEWED THIS LANGUAGE AT THE OCTOBER TECH MEETING.
SINCE THEN, WE DISCUSSED YOUR FEEDBACK INTERNALLY AND PREPARED THIS PROPOSAL FOR YOUR REVIEW.
THIS SECTION OF THE PROTOCOL DICTATES HOW ERCOT WOULD INITIATE THE MARKET RESTART PROCESS.
IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION 25 36 THAT WE'LL BE UPDATING BECAUSE MARKET SEGMENTS ARE NO LONGER REPRESENTED ON THE BOARD BOARD, APPROVAL OF MARKET RESTART WOULD NOT SIGNIFY MARKET READINESS.
THE FORMER ALTERNATIVE TO BOARD APPROVAL CAN NO LONGER BE ACCOMPLISHED SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE MARKET
[04:00:01]
SEGMENT DIRECTORS OR SEGMENT ALTERNATIVES TO APPROVE A RESTART.WE COULD GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE LANGUAGE NOW REQUIRES BOTH TAC AND BOARD APPROVAL.
BEFORE A MARKET RESTART BOARD APPROVAL WOULD BRING THE COMPANY, COMPANY PERSPECTIVE AND TAC APPROVAL WOULD REPRESENT MARKET READINESS.
SINCE TAC CAN VOTE BY EMAIL, WE DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE AN ALTERNATIVE TO TAC APPROVAL.
BUT SINCE THE BOARD IS NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE ACTION WITHOUT A MEETING, WE HAVE DEVELOPED AN ALTERNATIVE TO BOARD APPROVAL IN THE CASE THAT A BOARD MEETING IS INFEASIBLE.
THIS MECHANISM WOULD ALLOW THE CEO OR GENERAL COUNSEL IF DELEGATED TO APPROVE A MARKET RESTART IF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING APPROVE IN WRITING.
FIRST THE ERCOT BOARD CHAIR OR THE BOARD VICE CHAIR, IN THE CASE OF THE BOARD CHAIR POSITION IS VACANT OR THE BOARD CHAIR'S UNAVAILABLE.
AND SECOND, EITHER THE R AND M COMMITTEE CHAIR OR THE TNS COMMITTEE CHAIR AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL, ERCOT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE A MARKET NOTICE STATING THAT IT HAS OBTAINED THE NECESSARY APPROVALS BEFORE ANY MARKET RESTART.
JOHN AND I ARE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK ON THIS PROPOSAL.
IF THERE'S NO FEEDBACK, WHAT WE, GO AHEAD, JOHN.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IF THERE'S NO FEEDBACK, WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IS, UH, SUBMIT THIS INTERNALLY FOR THE FINAL APPROVALS AND, UH, AND THEN, UH, DROP IT INTO THE, INTO THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
SO WE'LL POST IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND AT THAT POINT PEOPLE CAN, UH, TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE AND, AND COMMENT AS THEY SEE FIT.
AND WE'LL DISCUSS IT AT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ENSUING PRS MEETING.
YOU HAVE FEEDBACK FROM IAN HALEY.
THANK YOU, IAN, HAILEY, MORGAN.
OKAY, STANLEY, THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH FOR WORKING ON THIS.
I'M GLAD, UM, TO SEE WE'RE, WE'RE RETHINKING THROUGH THIS.
UM, THINKING BACK TO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY DID THIS, THE IDEA WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE MARKET WAS AWARE OF THE RESTART.
AND BY HAVING BOTH TAC AND BOARD APPROVAL, I THINK YOU ARE, UM, UH, ACHIEVING THAT.
SO I DO THINK THIS IS GOING DOWN THE RIGHT PATH.
SO JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER FEEDBACK? I DON'T SEE ANY.
SO JOHN, WE WILL JUST LOOK FOR THIS NPR TO BE FILED THIS NEXT STEP.
WELL, IT'LL TAKE A FEW WEEKS FOR US TO, UH, GET THE INTERNAL APPROVALS THAT WE NEED AND, UH, THEN IT'LL DROP INTO THE PROCESS.
UM, SO NEXT, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, SO WE HAVE ONE MORE ERCOT REPORT AND IT IS A VOTING ITEM, UM, THE TNMP, PECOS COUNTY TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, I AM NOT BU UH, MY NAME IS ROBERT GOLAN.
I'M THE MANAGER OF REGIONAL PLANNING.
TODAY I HAVE THE PLEASURE TO GO THROUGH THE TNMP PECOS COUNTY TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
UH, GO OVER THE HIGHLIGHTS, DETAILS OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.
AND WE WILL BE LOOKING TO TAKE THIS TO THE ERCOT BOARD IN R AND M IN, UH, FEBRUARY.
SO TNMP SUBMITTED THE T UH, TNMP PECOS COUNTY TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP OR RPG REVIEW IN AUGUST OF 2023.
THIS WAS A TIER ONE PROJECT THAT WAS ESTIMATED TO COST $108 MILLION.
IT WAS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY NEED IN THE RE AND WARD COUNTIES IN THE FAR WEST REGION, UM, OF ERCOT FOR MAINTENANCE OUTAGE CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY.
SO PURSUANT TO OUR PROTOCOLS, UH, TIER ONE PROJECTS CONSIST OF PROJECTS WITH A CAPITAL COST OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
UH, TIER ONE PROJECTS DO REQUIRE ERCOT BOARD ENDORSEMENT.
UH, BEFORE WE CAN TAKE IT TO THE ERCOT BOARD, WE DO NEED TO PRESENT IT TO THE TAC, UH, RECEIVE YOUR, UH, RECOMMENDATION AND INCLUDE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS INTO THE R AND M AND BOARD MATERIALS.
SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
SO WHEN WE CONDUCTED THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, UH, WE DID, UM, NOTICE, UH, A NUMBER OF VOLTAGE VIOLATIONS, 26
[04:05:01]
OF THEM UNDER MAINTENANCE OUTAGE CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA.ALONG WITH THAT, THERE WAS 52.2 MILES OF 1 38 KV LINE OVERLOADS, AND THERE WERE ALSO FIVE UNSOLVABLE POWER FLOW CONTINGENCIES.
SO WE DID ANALYZE NINE OPTIONS, A HANDFUL OF THOSE OPTIONS.
THERE WERE ALSO ALTERNATIVES, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
UH, SO FROM THAT WE DID SHORTLIST DOWN TO THREE OPTIONS.
UH, AND ESSENTIALLY OPTION ONE WAS SELECTED AS THE PREFERRED OPTION.
IT DOES IMPROVE, UH, THE LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY, OBVIOUSLY ADDRESSES THE RELIABILITY NEEDS SEEN UNDER THE MAINTENANCE OUTAGE CONDITION.
UH, DOES REQUIRE CCN APPROXIMATELY 31.3 MILES, UH, DID HAVE THE QUICKEST ANTICIPATED, UH, IN-SERVICE DATE.
OUT OF THE THREE OPTIONS, UH, THOSE, THOSE DATES WERE PROVIDED BY THE TSPS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE EQUIPMENT.
UH, THE COSTS WERE ALL THREE OPTIONS THAT WE SHORTLISTED WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
I MEAN, THERE'S ABOUT A, A ONE $1.5 MILLION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL THREE OPTIONS.
UH, BUT AGAIN, OPTION ONE WAS SELECTED BECAUSE OF ITS LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY, OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY, AND THE ESSENTIALLY THE QUICKEST IN-SERVICE TIME.
AND IT ALSO CREATES AN ADDITIONAL INTER, UH, 1 38 INTERCONNECTION POINT FOR FUTURE, UH, LOAD ADDITIONS.
SO WE DID PERFORM THIS SUB SYNCHRONOUS RESIDENCE ASSESSMENT ON OPTION ONE.
DID NOT FIND ANY ISSUES IN THAT EVALUATION PER PLANNING GUIDE.
UH, WE DID PERFORM THE CONGESTION EVALUATION.
UH, THIS PROJECT DID NOT, UH, INDUCE ANY NEW CONGESTION ON THE SYSTEM.
WE DID PERFORM BOTH THE GENERATION AND LOAD SCALING SENSITIVITIES.
UH, NEITHER OF THEM HAD ANY, UH, POTENTIAL IMPACT FROM THIS PROJECT.
UM, SO MOVING ON TO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION, UH, ERCOT WILL RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD TO ENDORSE THE OPTION ONE, UH, TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY NEED IN THE RE AND WARD COUNTIES, UH, THAT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION.
THE TSPS EXPECT TO IMPLEMENT THE UPGRADES BY AUGUST OF 2026.
UH, THE NEW ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST IS 114.8 MILLION, AND ERCOT DOES RECOMMEND THAT THE ERCOT BOARD DESIGNATE OPTION ONE AS CRITICAL TO THE RELIABILITY OF THE ERCOT SYSTEM PURSUANT TO THE PUC SUSTAIN RULE 25.101 B 3D.
UH, SO WITH THAT GOING OVER OPTION ONE, IT DOES ENTAIL CONSTRUCTING A NEW OSA TO LEON CREEK, 1 38 KV DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINES WITH RATINGS OF AT LEAST 717 MVA.
IT WILL REQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 31.3 MILES OF NEW RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE WILL BE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1 38 KV SUBSTATION DESIGNATED AS WOODHOUSE.
UH, THIS WILL BE CUTTING INTO THE EXISTING TAR BUSH TO LEON CREEK 1 38 TRANSMISSION LINE, UH, FROM WOODHOUSE.
THERE WILL BE A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TIE GOING INTO THE FORT STOCKTON SWITCH.
UH, ANOTHER 1 38, UH, KV SUBSTATION.
UH, THAT TIE WILL HAVE A, A NORMAL AND EMERGENCY RATING OF AT LEAST 717 MVA AND APPROXIMATELY ONE 10TH OF A MILE, UH, TWO REBUILDS FOR THIS PROJECT.
FIRST IS, UH, REBUILDING THE EXISTING SECOND CIRCUIT FROM RIO PECOS TO GERVIN 1 38 TRANSMISSION LINE, UH, TO 717 MVA OR GREATER.
UH, THIS IS SIX TENTHS OF A MILE, UH, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THAT REBUILD.
AND THEN THE FINAL ITEM IS THE REBUILD OF THE RADIO PECOS TO CRANE, 1 38 KV TRANSMISSION LINE.
AGAIN, NORMAL AND EMERGENCY RATINGS OF AT LEAST 717 MVA.
UH, THIS WOULD BE ABOUT A 23.7 MILE REBUILD.
SO THERE IS THE MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA.
THIS, SO HERE'S THE, THE DOUBLE CIRCUIT REBUILD GOING FROM, UH, OSA DOWN TO LEON CREEK.
UH, HERE'S THE NEW WOODHOUSE SUBSTATION THAT, UH, CUTS INTO THE TAR BUSH
[04:10:01]
TO FORT SOCK.UH, UH, YEAH, THE 1 38 TRANSMISSION ELEMENT.
AND THEN THIS BUBBLE HERE, UH, ESSENTIALLY A, A EXPENDITURE OF, OF WHAT'S SHOWN AT THE WOODHOUSE SHOWING THAT, UH, WOODHOUSE TIES INTO FORT STOCKTON SWITCH.
AND THEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE REBUILD OF THE CRANE TO RIO PECOS.
UH, AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THE, UH, TIER ONE PROJECT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY, OR I DO SEE QUESTIONS.
UH, ERIC GUFF, UM, DOES THIS HAVE ANY, UH, INTERPLAY WITH THE PERMIAN BASIN STUDY? NO, IT DOES NOT.
OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, STACY WHITEHURST, UH, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO ENDORSE, UM, OPTION ONE IS RECOMMENDED BY ORCA.
I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT UNLESS ANYONE OBJECTS.
STACY, I ASSUME THAT'S FINE WITH YOU COMBO BALLOT? YES, MA'AM.
OKAY, JUST A COUPLE OF ITEMS LEFT.
[18. Other Business]
SO WE ARE NOW ON TO OTHER BUSINESS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS YOU, THE ERCOT BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.UM, JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN UPDATE THAT ERCOT IS ROLLING OUT A PLAN TO SUPPORT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WITH, UM, THE INDEPENDENT BOARD.
SO THIS IS THE PIECE OF THE BROADER STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DEVELOPING.
UM, AT A HIGH LEVEL, WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS PRIORITY.
EACH BOARD MEETING THIS YEAR, EXCEPT FOR DECEMBER.
UM, SOME TECH MEMBERS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS AND SMALL GROUP SESSIONS.
SO THAT'LL GIVE YOU GUYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT YOUR COMPANIES, EDUCATE THEM ON ANY ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU.
UM, WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE LOGISTICS OF HOW IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA WORK, BUT WE DO PLAN ON REACHING OUT TO SOME TAC MEMBERS PRIOR TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD, UM, TO START THAT ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY.
IT IS OPTIONAL, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO.
UM, BUT WE'LL ALSO PROVIDE MORE DETAILS.
WE'RE STILL TALKING TO SOME BOARD MEMBERS TO GET SOME FEEDBACK.
UM, AND WE'LL PROVIDE MORE DETAILS AT THE FEBRUARY ATTACK MEETING.
THE, THE LAST ITEM DOWN THERE ON THE WORKING GROUP TASK FORCE, MEETING MANAGEMENT AND AGENDAS IS JUST A REMINDER FOR ALL OF THE WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCES TO HAVE THEIR AGENDAS POSTED A, A WEEK IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
SO EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND, AND CAN PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
I THINK WE'RE, THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE COMMONWEALTH BALLOT OR IAN, SORRY, COLIN.
ONE THING ON THAT, UM, EVERYONE'S HUMAN, UM, THINGS COME IN LATE, BUT I THINK FOR VOTING MEETINGS, IF THINGS DO COME IN LATE, UM, TACT, W-M-S-R-O-S, ET CETERA, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM GET SENT OUT TO THE, THAT GROUP'S EXPLODER.
UM, SO THAT, UH, PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT NEW DOCUMENTS ARE POSTED AND READY, AND THEY MAY BE CALLED TO BE VOTE ON THOSE.
SO, UM, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THINGS COME IN LATE.
I, I'VE HAVE VOLUNTEERED MY TIME BEFORE HERE, UM, NOT, NOT PUSHING FOR THE WEEK IN ADVANCE, JUST PUSHING FOR NOTIFICATION.
[19. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
ALL RIGHT.SO WE HAVE, UM, THE ITEMS ON THE COMBO BALLOT, INCLUDING ALL THOSE, UM, REVISION REQUESTS FROM PRS, AND THEY WERE ALL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE, UH, JANUARY PRS REPORT, EXCEPT 1179 IS RECOMMENDED BY THE DECEMBER PRS REPORT.
UM, I THINK WE WILL NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION.
MOTION FROM DAVID KEY AND SECOND ERIC BLAKEY, OR ALICIA, WHOEVER YOU WANNA GIVE IT TO.
THEN WE HAVE A VARIETY OF SEGMENTS TO SHOW OUR, YOU KNOW,
IT'S A NCES CONSENSUS BASED GROUP.
WHY'D THEY BOTH COME FROM THAT SIDE OF THE ROOM? BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THAT SIDE OF THE ROOM.
[04:15:01]
AHEAD.FOR, WE'RE GOOD ON THE MOTION.
WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS.
ON OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
DO YOU HAVE THE PROXY? WELL, HE WAS COMING AND GOING, SO I WASN'T SURE IF HE WAS, IF HE WAS BACK OR IS IT BACK TO KAITLYN.
ALL RIGHT, KAITLYN, FOR BOB? YES.
JEREMY CARPENTER STILL WITH US? CHAT.
ONTO OUR IOUS, UH, STACY FOR KEITH? YES.
I SEE DAVID MARKED AS NOT HERE, BUT THAT MIGHT BE ON, BE ON THE BALLOT.
THANK YOU ABOUT THAT, COLIN? YES.
OH, SORRY, DIDN'T JEREMY, I'VE GOT YOU IN CHAT.
GOT BOOTED DURING THE VOTE JURY.
ANYONE WHO ENDURED THIS MEETING SHOULD GET A CREDIT FOR BEING HERE VERY MUCH.
THIS WAS A GREAT MEETING, COREY.
IT WAS A HAPPY NEW YEAR MEETING.
AS I TOLD ERIC, EVERY MEETING OF T IS SPECIAL REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CALENDAR SAYS.