[00:00:01]
AND WITH THAT, KAITLYN, WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED.WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THIS MORNING.
[1. Antitrust Admonition]
WE GET STARTED, THE ANTITRUST ADMONITION IS ON THE SCREEN TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY.PARTICIPANTS IN ERCOT ACTIVITY SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED ALCOTT'S AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.
AND THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ERCOT WEBSITE.
THIS IS OUR FEBRUARY TECH MEETING.
IT'S OUR FIRST, UH, IN-PERSON TECH FOR 2025.
WE, WE HAD TO MOVE OUR JANUARY TO WEBEX DUE TO WEATHER.
AND, AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR ACCOMMODATING THE LATE 11:00 AM START.
UM, WE, WE MOVED IT BACK DUE TO THE SENATE B AND C HEARING, AND, AND HOPEFULLY IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR OUR, OUR FRIENDS AT PUC AND ORCUTT STAFF TO LISTEN AND PARTICIPATE.
WE DO HAVE LUNCH COMING AT 1230.
UM, I THINK WE'LL TAKE A LITTLE BREAK THEN.
IF YOU STILL NEED TO BE ON THE LUNCH LIST, PLEASE REACH OUT TO CALLIE.
I WILL PUT THAT EMAIL ADDRESS IN THE CHAT FOR PROXIES AND ALT REPS TODAY.
UM, ON THE INDEPENDENT POWER MARKETER SEGMENT, REMI AT SHELL HAS ALT REP SHANE THOMAS, AND THE IOU SEGMENT.
ABBY JOHN, RICHARD ROSS HAS ALT REP, DAVID, UH, WITHROW.
AND WE ARE GOING TO NEED THE THEME OF THE MONTH FROM YOU,
RUSSELL FRANKLIN, UM, HAS, HAS ALT REP, UM, CURTIS CAMPO.
DO YOU, YOU REALLY DO HAVE IT.
AS IN, SHOULD ANYONE BLOW A GASKET ON THE GOVERNANCE REPRESENTATION ISSUE? THEN WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING IS THE BREAKFAST PLATE AT THE BUFFET ISN'T GETTING ANY BIGGER.
SO YOU, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN COOKIES FOR A, UH, LATE BREAKFAST, GO, GO AHEAD.
AND I THINK THAT IS DUE TO KEITH.
AND WE HAVE COOKIES ON THE SIDE.
[2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
AGENDA ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 22ND TECH MEETING MINUTES.I, I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANY CORRECTIONS.
UH, SO I WOULD PROPOSE PUTTING APPROVAL OF THOSE MEETING MINUTES ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
UM, ALL RIGHT, I SEE A BUNCH OF NODS.
[3. Meeting Updates]
ARE ON TO MEETING UPDATES.UM, THIS IS WHERE WE GO OVER THE PC AND ERCOT BOARD MEETINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE OUR, OUR JANUARY TECH MEETING.
UM, WE DID HAVE A BOARD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 4TH.
THE BOARD APPROVED ALL REVISION REQUESTS AND CONFIRMED TECH LEADERSHIP.
UM, SO, SO THANK YOU TO STAKEHOLDERS AND THE BOARD FOR THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK WITH YOU.
UH, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY REVISION REQUESTS AT THE, THE PUC AT THE OPEN MEETING, UH, IN THE INTERIM, BUT THERE HAS BEEN PUC DISCUSSION.
THERE WAS A STAFF MEMO AS, AS WELL AS SOME DISCUSSION AT AN OPEN MEETING ABOUT THE A DR PILOT PROGRAM AND MOVING THAT TASK FORCE FROM THE PUC TO ERCOT.
I THINK DAVE HAS A PRESENTATION.
I'M LOOKING AROUND FOR HIM, BUT I'M SURE HE IS ON THE PHONE.
UM, SO I'D PROPOSE WE, WE START WITH DAVE'S PRESENTATION AND THEN MOVE ON TO OUR STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? LITTLE FAINT.
OH, LEMME SEE IF I CAN TURN UP THE VOLUME A LITTLE BIT HERE.
TURNED IT TO THE, TURNED IT TO THE MAX.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S A LITTLE BIT, UH, A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO PROJECT.
SO, AS, AS FOLKS ARE LIKELY AWARE, UH, WHEN THE, ON, ON FEBRUARY 6TH, THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, UM, FILED A, A MEMO RECOMMENDING THAT THE, THE PILOT PROGRAM BE MOVED TO THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
UH, AND, AND AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, UH, AT THE OPEN MEETING ON FEBRUARY 13TH, THE, THE COMMISSION SUPPORT THIS RECOMMENDATION AND TRANSITION.
SO REALLY THE GOAL OF TODAY IS TO SET THE STAGE A LITTLE BIT FOR, FOR WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THE A DER TASK FORCE, WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THE PILOT, AND, UH, HOPEFULLY START TALKING ABOUT, UM, WHERE THIS SHOULD LIVE WITHIN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND, AND ALLOW US TO BEGIN MOVING FORWARD.
[00:05:01]
UM, OUR TRANSITION TO PHASE THREE, WHICH I'LL, I'LL GET INTO IN A LITTLE BIT IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.FIRST, JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.
THIS IS, UH, THIS IS PROBABLY SOME STUFF THAT, UH, SOME OF THE TAC MEMBERSHIP HAS NOT NECESSARILY BEEN FOLLOWING OR, OR BEEN THINKING ABOUT RECENTLY.
BUT, UH, JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF STATUS ON THE PILOT, UH, WE BEGAN THE PILOT IN LATE 2022, UH, OR LATE 22.
UH, AND WE'RE CURRENTLY IN PHASE TWO.
AND ONE OF THE BIG COMPONENTS, AND THIS WILL TIE INTO SOME OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND PHASE THREE, IS THAT FOR THE, UH, THE A DERS, THEY'RE REQUIRED UNDER TODAY'S DESIGN TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING CLR PARTICIPATION MODEL.
AND IN TERMS OF ANSLEY SERVICE, UH, PROVISION, THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO PROVIDE NONS SPIN AND ECRS.
UH, WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE ADRS THAT HAVE BEEN QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKET.
UM, THAT'S SORT OF BEEN OBVIOUSLY ONGOING.
I THINK ONE THING I, I WANNA NOTE IS WHILE WE'VE HAD, UH, MOST OF THESE THREE ADRS PARTICIPATING FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME NOW, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN GROWING IN SIZE OVER TIME.
SO NOT ONLY IS IT JUST SORT OF A COUNT OF ADRS, BUT ALSO JUST SEEING SOME GROWTH OVERALL IN THE, THE MEGAWATTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE THREE.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THE THREE ADRS WE CURRENTLY HAVE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING, UM, WE ALSO HAVE EIGHT ADDITIONAL, UH, UH, POTENTIAL ADR WHERE THEY'VE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE AGGREGATION FORM.
THAT'S SORT OF THE FIRST STEP IN GETTING AN A DR INTO THE PROCESS.
UM, WE HAVE EIGHT ADDITIONAL THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
UH, AND THOSE ARE AT VARIOUS STAGES OF REGISTRATION AND QUALIFICATION.
UM, SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN A LITTLE, UH, STAGNANT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE THAT ARE STILL BEING, UH, WORKED ON IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL CAPACITY.
THIS IS INCLUDES BOTH THE QUALIFIED AND THE POTENTIAL A DR CAPACITY.
WE HAVE JUST OVER, UH, 25 MEGAWATTS, UH, CAPABLE CAPABILITY FOR ENERGY.
UH, AND THEN, UH, 11 MEGAWATTS FOR NON SPEND AND 8.8 MEGAWATTS OF ECRS.
UM, IT MAY BE HELPFUL JUST TO POINT OUT IN TERMS OF THE THREE ACTIVE, UH, THE AMOUNT FOR ENERGY IS AROUND 15 MEGAWATTS.
SO A, A GOOD PORTION OF THE TOTAL 25 AND MOST OF THE NONS SPIN AND, AND ALL OF THE ECRS IS, IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM THOSE THREE ACTIVE A DERS.
UH, FROM THERE, WE'LL, WE'LL JUMP INTO, UH, KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH THE TASK FORCE ON THE, ON THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.
SO, UM, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE IN PHASE TWO OF THE PILOT.
WE'VE BEEN IN PHASE TWO SINCE THE EARLY PART OF LAST YEAR, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE TASK FORCE AND, AND WORKING ON DEVELOPING A GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT TO MOVE TO PHASE THREE.
UM, OUR ORIGINAL GOAL WAS TO HAVE THAT TO THE BOARD IN APRIL.
SO THE, THE THE NEXT MEETING HERE IN A LITTLE OVER A MONTH.
UM, UM, I THINK SOME OF THAT WILL, WE CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE AS PART OF THIS TRANSITION.
UM, BUT, BUT KIND OF PUTTING THAT ASIDE FOR A MOMENT, UH, THE CHANGES FOR PHASE THREE HAVE FOCUSED ON A, A FEW KEY AREAS.
UH, THE FIRST ONE IS, IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST.
SO AS I MENTIONED AS IT STANDS TODAY, THE, THE WAY THAT A DR PARTICIPATE IS BY UTILIZING THE CLR PARTICIPATION MODEL.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE HAS BEEN CREATING A BARRIER FOR PARTICIPATION, PARTICULARLY JUST THAT, THAT SMOOTH THAT FOLLOWING OF THE SMOOTH FIVE MINUTE DISPATCH FROM SC.
AND SO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT AND WHAT WE PROPOSE FOR PHASE THREE IS TO MOVE TO A MODEL WHERE THE ADRS CAN PARTICIPATE MUCH MORE LIKE THE NON-CONTROLLED BELOW RESOURCES.
AND, AND IF FOLKS HAVE, UH, BEEN FOLLOWING THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, WE'VE KIND OF REFERRED THIS, UH, AS, UH, MORE, UH, BLOCKY TYPE, UH, RESPONSE.
AND, UM, ANYWAYS, AND, AND THE KEY PART HERE IS THAT THEY, THEY WOULDN'T BE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING THROUGH, UH, SCED IN REAL TIME, BUT THEY COULD BE PROVIDING ANCILLARY SERVICES.
AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE FOR THE NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES TODAY.
UH, ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WE'VE ALSO GOTTEN INTO IS ALLOWING THIRD PARTY AGGREGATORS TO, UH, MORE DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE A DR PILOT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS NCLR TYPE PARTICIPATION.
UH, AND WE'LL GET A LITTLE BIT INTO IT IN THE NEXT SLIDE, BUT, UM, WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IN THEIR CURRENT GRAPH IS THAT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL PREMISES OR DEVICES THAT MAKE UP THE AGGREGATION ARE LARGER THAN A HUNDRED KW.
UH, THE LAST ITEM ON HERE IN TERMS OF UPDATES FOR THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS UPDATES TO THE PILOT PARTICIPATION LIMITS.
UM, PROBABLY MOST, UM, NOTABLE IS THE MOVE TO DOUBLE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN THE PILOT.
SO THAT MOVE HISTORICALLY, THOSE HAVE BEEN LIMITED
[00:10:01]
TO, UH, 80 MEGAWATTS OF TOTAL PARTICIPATION FOR ENERGY AND 40 MEGAWATTS EACH.FOR THE TWO ANCILLARY SERVICES, WE ARE DOUBLING ALL OF THOSE TO 160 FOR ENERGY AND 80 FOR THE ANCILLARY SERVICES.
UH, THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER ITEM BEING DISCUSSED AS PART OF THE PARTICIPATION LIMITS AND, UH, ANOTHER CHANGE WE'RE MAKING AS PART OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
BUT AGAIN, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT, UM, THE NEXT SLIDE.
ALRIGHT, SO ITEMS TWO AND THREE FROM THE PREVIOUS LIST ARE A COUPLE OF, UH, OUTSTANDING NON-CONSISTENT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE FOR PHASE THREE OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT.
UM, PROBABLY, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, CONTENTIOUS IS THE FIRST ONE, BUT I'LL, I'LL TALK ABOUT BOTH OF THEM HERE.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS PROPOSED AS WE MOVE TO PHASE THREE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THIS MOVE TO THE NCLR TYPE PARTICIPATION MODEL, WAS TO TRY AND FIND WAYS FOR, UM, MORE DIRECT PARTICIPATION FROM THIRD PARTY AGGREGATORS.
UH, AND I, AND I GUESS FOR KIND OF DESCRIBING OUR, NOW WHEN WE HAVE THE, UH, FOLKS WHO REPRESENT THE NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES IN THE MARKET TODAY AND PROVIDING ANCILLARY SERVICES, THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A REQUIREMENT THAT THE, THE QC THAT'S REPRESENTING THE RESOURCE IS ALSO THE QC THAT REPRESENTS THE LOAD.
SO THIS IS, UM, SORT OF SOMETHING WE ALLOW WITH NCR TODAY AND THE SUBJECT CAME UP OF WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD ALLOW IT FOR A DERS THAT ARE USING THIS PARTICIPATION MODEL.
UM, I GUESS WE, IN, IN THE DISCUSSION, WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT BOTH OF THE, THE FULL SPECTRUM OF RESO OF, OF, OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO THAT ONE, JUST, UH, ALLOW IT ALL TOGETHER, UH, VERSUS, UH, TWO, UM, ESSENTIALLY KEEPING THE STATUS QUO FOR THE A DR PILOT WHERE THAT DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF THIRD PARTY AGGREGATORS WOULD, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
UH, THE COMPROMISED SOLUTION THAT WAS VOTED ON, UH, BY A MAJORITY OF THE TASK FORCE WAS TO ALLOW THIRD PARTY AGGREGATORS FOR NCR TYPE ADRS WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL PREMISES OR DEVICES THAT MAKE UP THE AGGREGATION ARE LARGER THAN A HUNDRED KW.
UH, AND REALLY THE IDEA BEHIND HAVING THIS KW THRESHOLD WAS, AGAIN, THAT COMPROMISE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE PREMISES, UM, WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS AND WOULD TEND TO BE, UH, MORE SOPHISTICATED ABOUT THEIR ENERGY PROVIDER AND ARRANGEMENTS.
SO THEY, YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT ANOTHER WAY THEY WOULD BE, TEND TO BE MUCH MORE ENGAGED IN, IN INTERACTING WITH THEIR ELECTRIC PROVIDER.
UH, AND, AND REALLY THE GOAL HERE IN TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED WAS TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN OPENING UP THE PILOT FOR INCREASED COMPETITION AND CONCERNS AROUND CONSUMER PROTECTION.
UM, AGAIN, THERE, THERE WAS OPPOSITION TO THIS.
UM, I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE GROUP, UH, WAS, UH, CONTENT WITH THE COMPROMISE, UH, BUT THERE WAS A MINORITY THAT EXPRESSED CONCERNS AND, UH, EFFECTIVELY PROPOSED THAT THE CONCEPT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT ALTOGETHER.
SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD REALLY MEAN, UH, MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO WHERE THIRD PARTY AGGREGATORS, UH, COULD PARTICIPATE INDIRECTLY, UH, THROUGH, YOU KNOW, INTERACTION WITH THE ELECTRIC PROVIDER, BUT NOT DIRECTLY, UH, WITH THE CUSTOMER.
I'M FINE WITH DAVE CALLING HIS OWN.
I WANTED TO GET THE NOD FROM THE CHAIR BEFORE
UM, THANK YOU DAVE FOR, FOR, UM, BRINGING, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND, AND CATCHING THE GROUP UP.
UM, I AGREE THE A DR TASK FORCE HAS DONE A LOT OF, UH, IMPORTANT WORK AND, AND FINDING WAYS TO, UH, TO HELP INTEGRATE DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES, UH, FROM, YOU KNOW, SMALLER, UH, SMALLER LEVELS INTO THE, UH, INTO THE ERCOT MARKET IN A WAY THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE REST OF THE RESOURCES IN THE MARKET, UH, PARTICIPATE.
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT, UH, AN IMPORTANT FEATURE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE'S PARTICIPATING ON A, ON A EQUAL, EQUAL FOOTING.
AND, UH, YOU'VE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB AND, AND REALLY KIND OF PUTTING A CARROT OUT THERE, RAISING THE BAR AND, AND, AND GETTING, UM, UH, GETTING THAT FRAMEWORK SET UP.
UM, AND I THINK SPEAKING AS A, UH, A MEMBER OF THAT TASK FORCE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WAS BROAD SUPPORT FOR THE, UH, BLOCKIE PARTICIPATION MODEL.
UH, BUT AS YOU NOTED, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DIS UH, DISCOMFORT AMONGST SOME TASK FORCE MEMBERS REGARDING THIS, UH, THIRD PARTY AGGREGATION.
AND, UM, BY PROBABLY NO SURPRISE THAT I, I'M RAISING MY HAND BECAUSE I WAS ONE OF THEM, AND, UH, WANTED TO AT LEAST LAY SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS OUT FOR, FOR TAC TO CONSIDER, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
[00:15:01]
IT REALLY ACTUALLY HEARKENS BACK TO SOME PRECEDENTS THAT TAC CONSIDERED, UH, MORE THAN A DECADE AGO IN THE LOADS AND SC UH, V TWO, UH, DISCUSSIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY WRESTLED WITH HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH A THIRD PARTY THAT IS EFFECTIVELY, UM, THROTTLING THE LOAD THAT A LOAD SERVING ENTITY HAS HEDGED AND, YOU KNOW, SUNK ACTUAL VALUE IN TRYING TO MANAGE.AND OF COURSE, AS, AS ALL OF YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO MANAGE YOUR, UH, LOAD POSITION THAT IS BALANCED ON A NICE EDGE IN THE ENERGY ONLY MARKET, IF YOU'RE, UH, IF YOU'RE LONG AND SUDDENLY, UH, YOU'RE SHORT, THAT'S USUALLY WHEN, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PRICES HAVE DROPPED BELOW WHERE YOU HAD HAD TO HEDGE THAT POSITION.
AND IF IT GOES UP FROM WHERE YOU WERE, THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY BUYING IT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE.
AND SO IT'S PUNITIVE ON BOTH SIDES, AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR LOAD SERVING ENTITIES TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT RIGHT.
SO JUST TO RE YOU KNOW, REMIND FOLKS, WHEN WE DEALT WITH THIS, UM, ABOUT A DECADE AGO, THE POLICY OF TAC WAS TO, UM, ESTABLISH A CROSS SETTLEMENT AT WHAT WAS CALLED LMP MINUS DOLLAR PROXY G, UH, WHERE THE, THE SETTLEMENT OF THIRD PARTY, UH, PARTICIPATION WOULD BE, UH, NETTED OUT WITH A, A PROXY FOR THE VALUE OF THE HEDGE THAT THE LOAD SERVING ENTITY HAD.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE POLICY WAS VOTED ON AND DETERMINED BACK THEN BY TAC.
UM, BUT I THINK THIS, THIS PROPOSAL REALLY RAISES THAT WHOLE CONCEPT ANEW, UH, IN ADDITION TO LOTS OF CUSTOMER PROTECTION ISSUES THAT REALLY AREN'T NECESSARILY THE PURVIEW OF TAC, BUT ARE ARE STILL IMPORTANT NONETHELESS.
SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AS, UH, AS A MAJOR CONCERN AND SOMETHING THAT REALLY I THINK GOES BEYOND THE, THE SCOPE OF THE PILOT AND IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, I, I WANT US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT OR, OR, YOU KNOW, IF THE APPROPRIATE, UM, THE APPROPRIATE SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, AS WE'RE CONTEMPLATING THE, THE, THE PILOT IN THIS NEXT PHASE AND HOW TO GET IT TO THE BOARD IN A TIMELY FASHION.
DAVE, DO YOU WANNA FINISH YOUR SLIDES? YEAH, PLEASE.
SORRY IF I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF BY, UH, BY REFERRING NO, THAT'S FINE.
I DO THINK I, I KNOW I DON'T WANNA RUIN THE PUNCHLINE, BUT I THINK WE'RE CONSIDERING TWO THINGS WHICH ARE LIKE, WHERE TO PUT THIS AND THEN THE MAJOR PHASE THREE ISSUES.
SO I THINK MAYBE AFTER YOUR SLIDES, WE TAKE THOSE ONE AT A TIME.
SO YES, I, I DID MENTION THERE WERE TWO NON-CONSENSUS ITEMS. I, I, AGAIN, THE, THE FIRST ONE HERE I THINK IS PROBABLY THE MORE CONTENTIOUS.
THE, THE SECOND ONE WAS REGARDING A CHANGE TO THE PILOT LIMITS.
BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY WITHIN THE DRAFT GOVERNING DOCUMENT, THERE ARE CHANGES THAT GIVE ERCOT STAFF ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO INCREASE PILOT LIMITS WITHOUT A GOVERNING DOCUMENT UPDATE.
AND SPECIFICALLY THE, THE LANGUAGE CHANGES ARE EXPANDING THAT DISCRETION TO INCLUDE, UH, A LIMIT ON THE, ON AN INDIVIDUAL QSCS ABILITY TO REGISTER MORE THAN 20% OF THE CAP.
UM, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, AND THIS WAS ACTUALLY FROM ERCOT STAFF, WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT CAP ALTOGETHER.
UM, THAT CAP IS LARGELY DESIGNED AROUND RECOGNIZING THAT AS WE WERE STARTING THIS PILOT, THAT UH, THERE WERE PROBABLY SOME FOLKS WHO WERE FAIRLY READY TO TRY AND PARTICIPATE, AND THERE WERE FOLKS WHO WERE GONNA NEED SOME MORE TIME.
AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAD OVERALL LIMITS FOR THE PILOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO ESSENTIALLY PUT SOME LIMITS ON INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES TO, TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE GETTING A BROADER SPECTRUM OF, OF PARTICIPATION IF WE SOLVED THAT TYPE OF INTEREST.
UM, UH, UH, WHERE THIS LANDED IS, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS STILL SAW VALUE IN HAVING A LIMIT.
UH, IT WAS PROBABLY MADE LESS IMPORTANT BY THE INCREASE IN THE OVERALL LIMIT FOR THE PILOT.
UM, BUT AT, AT LEAST TO THE DEGREE WE DO SEE IT START TO CREATE CONCERNS IN TERMS OF GETTING MEGAWATTS INTO THE PILOT, WE NOW HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCRETION WITHOUT NECESSARILY GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF GETTING A NEW GOVERNING DOCUMENT, UH, APPROVED.
SO REALLY THE, THE, THERE WAS NO REAL STRONG OPPOSITION, BUT THERE WERE SOME PARTIES WHO PREFERRED THE LIMIT AND, AND KIND OF LIKED THE LANGUAGE AS IT WAS.
SO WITH THAT, WHAT WE CAN JUMP TO THE LAST SLIDE, AND THIS IS REALLY TO KICK OFF, KAITLYN, THAT THE CONVERSATION YOU DESCRIBED, THE MOST IMMEDIATE TASK, UH, FOR TAC WILL BE DECIDING WITHIN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WHERE, WHERE THIS REALLY SHOULD LIVE AND WHERE WE WOULD HAVE, UH, DISCUSSIONS GENERALLY REGARDING THE PILOT.
UM, OF COURSE THE MOST IMPORTANT FIRST STEP WILL BE DECIDING ON THESE NON-CONSENSUS ITEMS SO WE CAN GET MOVING, UH, WITH THE WRAPPING UP PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT AND, AND TAKING IT TO THE BOARD.
UM, YOU KNOW, I MAYBE ONE THING TO NOTE
[00:20:01]
IS AS WE THINK ABOUT THE, THE PILOT AND THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT AND, AND THE FACT THAT WE, WE HAVE SOME CONTENTIOUS NON-CONSISTENT ITEMS, YOU KNOW, WILL BE IMPORTANT THAT, UM, WE MAKE USE OF THE VOTING STRUCTURE, UH, THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.UM, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS WOULD BE AT LIKE THE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL, UH, THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION AND, AND CLEAR VOTES ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD ON SOME OF THESE, UM, THESE ITEMS THAT MAY NOT HAVE CONSENSUS.
UH, BUT WITH THAT, UH, I'LL STOP AND, AND, AND SEE, UH, TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, KAYLA.
SO I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY, UM, THE SOUNDS LIKE THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO KIND OF HOUSE THIS GROUP AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL OR HOUSE THIS DISCUSSION.
I, I THINK THAT WHERE WE'RE GOING IS NOT TO CREATE A NEW A DER TASK FORCE AT ERCOT, BUT TO TAKE THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE AT THE PUC TASK FORCE, PUT THEM SOMEWHERE IN THE EXISTING ERCOT STAKEHOLDER FRAMEWORK.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT A, A VOTING SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL.
YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY OUR CURRENT THOUGHT IS NOT TO HAVE A, A NEW TASK FORCE STOOD UP FOR THIS, THAT IT WOULD BE PART OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UH, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY I THINK SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS COULD HAPPEN AT LIKE A WORKING GROUP LEVEL, BUT WE WILL BE LOOKING, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, TO THE DEGREE WE HAVE NON-CONSISTENT ITEMS AND, AND WE KNOW THAT WE ALREADY DO HAVE THAT, UM, TO, TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SOME PLACE WHERE WE CAN VOTE AND, AND, AND HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO THAT IS A, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE OVERALL PLACEMENT.
UM, BILL BARNES, JUST THE REACTION IS THE THING, FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND WOULD BE WMSI THINK THESE ISSUES ARE ALL KIND OF RELATED TO TOPICS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THAT FORUM OR ONE OF THE WORKING GROUPS UNDER WMS, LIKE D-S-W-G-E.
SO THAT SEEMS LIKE A, A, A GOOD OPTION FOR WHERE THIS, WHERE WE END UP, I GUESS, REFERRING THIS MATTER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? ALRIGHT, I SEE, UH, LET'S DO BLAKE AND THEN NED.
UM, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WMSI, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.
I, I THINK GIVEN THE CONTENTIOUS ITEMS THAT MAY BE UP, A VOTING STRUCTURE MAY MAKE SOME SENSE TO HELP GET A RESOLUTION.
UH, I ALSO JUST WANNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE HEARD MAJOR CONCERN, I HAVE HEARD, UH, LACK OF CONSENSUS.
UM, AND, AND WHEN I HEAR THOSE TWO TOGETHER IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF A STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSION, SOMETIMES THOSE TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET TO A RESOLUTION.
SO PERHAPS MOVING IT TOWARDS A, A WORKING GROUP OR EVEN HAVING LIKE A DEDICATED WORKSHOP LIKE WE'RE SEEING WITH DRS OR, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES WHERE WE HAVE A TIME CERTAIN TO TALK ABOUT A, A FOCUSED ITEM MIGHT MAKE SOME SENSE.
UH, JUST WANTED TO THROW THOSE IDEAS OUT THERE, UH, FOR THE GROUP.
I THINK IF A SUBCOMMITTEE HAS OWNERSHIP OVER IT, SO SORT OF THE, THE OWNERSHIP AND WHERE WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE VOTED ON, I THINK SENDING SOME OF THOSE ISSUES TO DSWG WOULD, WOULD BE FINE.
UM, I DID SEE, I THINK I SAW LIKE A HAND RAISE FLY FLY BY IN, IN THE WEBEX.
UM, COULD YOU PLEASE PUT THE, THE SEER THE Q IN THE CHAT AND I, JORDAN DID IT.
UM, SO BOB HILTON, I THINK YOU WROTE IN THE CHAT, BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR STATEMENT? NO, I'M JUST WANTING TO AGREE WITH WHAT BILL SAID, BUT THEN AGAIN, ALSO WHAT WHAT BLAKE SAID TOO, I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT IT.
SO THAT'S ALL I WAS GONNA SAY.
OKAY, NED? YEAH, THE, THE QUESTION I HAD IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PILOT AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE PILOT WAS ORIGINALLY STRUCTURED TO BE A THREE YEAR PILOT, THREE-ISH YEAR, AND I THINK THIS PHASE THREE WOULD BE THE KIND OF THE LAST LEG OF THAT AND BEFORE MOVING INTO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE A A REAL MARKET, UH, INTEGRATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO GET A SENSE FOR, AND, AND DAVE MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU, YOU ALLUDED TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT BEING TO GET TO THE APRIL BOARD.
IS THAT STILL WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO HIT WITH PHASE THREE? AND, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE, WHAT COMES AFTER THAT? YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE PREPARE THE STAKEHOLDERS TO GO THROUGH THAT, THE, THE PROCESS TO SAY REVIEW REVISION REQUESTS THAT WOULD, WOULD KIND OF MOVE BEYOND THE PILOT STAGE AND JUST BE, YOU KNOW, BECOME A, A REAL MARKET TOOL? RIGHT.
SO MAYBE I'LL, I'LL TACKLE THE, THE FIRST QUESTION FIRST.
[00:25:01]
THE GOAL FOR GETTING TO THE BOARD, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY I, IN A PERFECT WORLD, WOULD, WE WOULD STILL GET TO THE, TO THE APRIL BOARD.THAT PROBABLY IS FAIRLY UNREALISTIC JUST AS PART OF THIS TRANSITION, BUT I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN TRY AND GET A PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT TO THE BOARD IN JUNE.
UM, IN, IN PART THAT'S CERTAINLY JUST TRYING TO COME TO RESOLUTION ON THE NON-CONSENSUS ITEMS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME MORE STRUCTURAL CHANGES WE HAVE TO MAKE TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY SUBSTANTIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, BUT, UH, EVEN THE WAY THE DOCUMENT IS WRITTEN, IT'S, IT'S WRITTEN IN THE CONTEXT OF, UM, ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS HAPPENING AT A A DR TASK FORCE AT THE COMMISSION.
SO JUST KIND OF CLEANING UP SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE.
SO, UH, ANYWAYS, UH, ALL THAT TO SAY, I, I THINK OUR FOCUS AND HOPE WOULD BE TO HAVE APPROVAL AT THE BOARD IN JUNE.
UM, I, I GUESS ON THE, THE SORT OF LONGER TERM, WHAT DOES THIS TURN INTO AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? UM, THE, THE, AS YOU SAID, THE, I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE THE PILOT GO FOR A MINIMUM OF, OF THREE YEARS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE KIND OF COMING UP ON, ON THAT THREE YEAR ANNIVERSARY HERE IN THE FALL.
UH, I THINK THE, THE QUESTION IS WHAT CAN WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PILOT, PARTICULARLY THIS NEW PARTICIPATION MODEL? I WOULD SAY THAT THAT REALLY IS THE BIG PIECE.
YOU KNOW, DO WE SEE THAT REALLY, UH, CHANGE THINGS? IS THAT WORKING, UM, FOR A DR PARTICIPATION? AND AT THAT STAGE, ONCE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND WE LOOK AT POTENTIALLY WRITING PROTOCOLS THAT THAT NPRR PROCESS REALLY JUST WOULD FOLLOW THE NATURAL STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD EVEN BE UNIQUE TO THIS OR THE PILOT OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
THAT WOULD JUST BE LIKE ANY OTHER NPRR.
THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO IF I'M JUST KIND OF PARROTING BACK TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, THE THOUGHT IS YOU'D, YOU'D WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF TRACK RECORD WITH PHASE THREE, UH, YOU KNOW, CALL IT WHAT, SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR? UM, OR PERHAPS LONGER, UM, BEFORE MOVING INTO THE, THE, THE REVISION REQUEST STAGE TO, TO MOVE IT FROM PILOT TO REAL MARKET? I, I THINK WE WANNA AT LEAST YES, HAVE A FEW MONTHS OF THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION AS WE THINK ABOUT, UM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN 2025 IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ON OTHER DEMAND RESPONSE TYPE PROGRAMS. I THINK WE'LL ALSO WANNA KEEP TABS ON HOW THAT'S INTERACTING WITH THE PILOT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
BUT, UM, BUT I, I DO THINK WE AT LEAST HAVING A, A HANDFUL OF MONTHS UNDER OUR BELT TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S WORKING, UH, BEFORE, UH, FINALIZING THE, THE, THE PROTOCOL LANGUAGE WOULD MAKE SENSE.
IT'S PROBABLY ALSO MAYBE JUST WORTH NOTING WITH THE, WITH THE VARIOUS PROJECT EFFORTS AND KIND OF THE, THE, THE BACKLOGGED
EVEN IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE NPR TODAY, I DO THINK THERE'S, UH, QUITE A BIT OF, UH, QUITE A PATH BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET TO IMPLEMENTATION AND GETTING ALL THESE CHANGES PROPERLY.
AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S A FAIR POINT.
THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND AS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, OF THE NON-CONSENSUS ITEMS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ONE THAT I'D FLAGGED IS THE ONE THAT REALLY WOULD HAVE THE, I THINK, THE MOST HAIR ON IT AND THE MOST TIME TO RESOLVE AND, AND REALLY ADDRESS IN A HOLISTIC WAY.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF THAT IS THE ONE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE THE MOST TIME AND EFFORT, I THINK PULLING THAT ONE OFF AND, YOU KNOW, I, I SUSPECT THAT WMS CAN REACH SOME AGREEMENT ON WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES THAT YOU MENTIONED AND THE SECOND NON-CONSENSUS ITEM, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, I SUSPECT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO, TO VOTE ON THAT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME BROAD IMPLICATIONS AS THE, THE FIRST ITEM.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE PATH THAT MAY ACTUALLY STILL MAKE GETTING TO THE APRIL BOARD POSSIBLE, UM, OR FRANKLY EVEN THE JUNE BOARD BECAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SOLVE THE, THE CROSS SETTLEMENT ISSUE WITHIN, UH, BUT BY JUNE EITHER.
BUT, UM, JUST THOUGHT I'D PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PULL THAT ONE OFF? WOULD YOU WANNA KEEP THAT ONE HERE OR JUST KIND OF SEPARATE THE DISCUSSIONS? WELL, WE'RE RECOMMENDING AT WMS, SO IN, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE NON LSE PARTICIPATION OPTION MM-HMM
IN A WAY THAT ADDRESSES THAT CONCERN, YEAH, WE WOULD NEED TO STAND UP NEW SETTLEMENT PROTOCOLS.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT'S OUTSIDE THE, THE NARROW SCOPE OF OKAY, TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO GET EXPERIENCE WITH THESE RESOURCES, INTEGRATING THEM INTO THE MARKET, REALLY TESTING
[00:30:01]
OUT WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT'S POSSIBLE BEFORE TRYING TO HAVE THE, THE BROAD HOLISTIC SOLUTION.BUT CAN WE HAVE WMS FIGURE THAT OUT WITH BLAKE LISTENING TO YOUR THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RIGHT NOW? OF COURSE, OF COURSE.
THAT'S WHY I SAID JUST A RECOMMENDATION AND, AND A THOUGHT FOR EXPEDIENCY.
UM, THIS IS MONICA BACHER SCHRADER ON BEHALF OF ENCHANTED ROCK.
I'VE GOT A FEW COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, ON THIS TRANSITION FROM THE TASK FORCE TO ERCOT, UM, FIRST, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION IN ITS CREATION OF THE TASK FORCE DID OUTLINE A PROCESS FOR RESOLVING ISSUES BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE TASK FORCE AND PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION.
AND THERE WAS A VOTE THAT RESULTED IN A SUPER MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR THOSE TWO COMPROMISED SOLUTIONS OR NON-CONSENSUS SOLUTIONS AS OUTLINED BY DAVE.
UM, AND SO WE RECOMMEND THAT IN THIS TRANSITION OF THE EFFORT TO THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER BODY, WE RECOMMEND THAT THEY CARRY FORWARD THAT TASK FORCE VOTE BECAUSE THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAVE HAPPENED WITHIN THE TASK FORCE ALREADY.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE VOTED ACCORDING TO THAT PROTOCOL THAT THE COMMISSION LAID OUT, AND IT WAS DONE BETWEEN THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE TASK FORCE CONSULTATION WITH PUC OR COT STAFF.
UM, AND THAT SHOULD ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNING DOCUMENT TO MOVE FORWARD, HOPEFULLY ON ITS INTENDED, UH, SCHEDULE FOR THE APRIL BOARD MEETING.
BUT I DO, UM, UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS POSED BY, UM, DAVE AND AND NED ON THE TIMELINE.
UM, ANOTHER ANOTHER POINT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TASK FORCE GIVEN THAT VOTE HAS OUTLINED A NUMBER OF WORK ACTIVITIES FOR THE FUTURE.
AND SO, UM, IT MAKES SENSE FOR THAT TO BE THE NEXT STEP FOR THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
UM, AND SPEAKING OF, WE DO WE AGREE THAT IT MAKES SENSE THAT DUB, UM, THAT A SUBCOMMITTEE TAKES ON THE, THIS TASK FORCE EFFORT, UM, AS THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT FROM ERCOT AND THAT'S ALL.
LET ME SEE IF WE CAN HANDLE THE FIRST ISSUE FIRST, UNLESS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON WHERE THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED? SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED A VOTE, BUT I'M LOOKING AT BLAKE, SO CAN WE HAVE THIS GO TO WMS AND SORT OF WMS OWNS IT, IF YOU NEED TO REFER IT TO, TO SETTLEMENTS OR TO DSWG, THAT THAT'S FINE, BUT HAVE WMS OWN IT? YES, I, I, I AGREE WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND I, I APPRECIATE THE FLEXIBILITY TO KIND OF BIFURCATE OFF ISSUES IF NEEDED OR IF THAT'S WHERE WE ARRIVE AT.
SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
I THINK WE DEFINITELY WANT A SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL, V VOTING LEVEL TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HAVE OWNERSHIP OVER IT BEFORE IT COMES BACK HERE OR HOWEVER WE WOULD DO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, BUT I THINK THE, THE GROUPS AT WMS MAKES SENSE FOR DISCUSSION TO, ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GET BACK TO MONICA'S COMMENTS.
UM, I, IT LOOKS LIKE DAVE IS IN THE CHAT TO RESPOND.
I THINK I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE ANYTHING IN PHASE THREE.
THEY SORT OF RECOMMENDED IT COME OVER HERE AND SO I, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SOME VAGUENESS IN, IN HOW THAT GOVERNING DOCUMENT APPLIES RIGHT NOW, BUT, BUT DEFINITELY RECOGNIZING THAT THAT MAJORITY VOTE, BUT IT, BUT THAT IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION BEFORE IT CAME OVER HERE.
UM, AND I'LL, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, DAVE.
AND ACTUALLY I WANTED YOU TO QUICKLY RESPOND TO SOMETHING NED UH, SAID, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I I YOU ARE RIGHT.
I, I THINK THAT WAS, UM, THAT IS KIND OF THE LAY OF THE LAND.
THERE OBVIOUSLY WAS QUITE A BIT OF DEBATE I WOULD SAY WITHIN THE A DR TASK FORCE, UH, STARTING, UM, DURING THE LATTER PART OF LAST YEAR ON THESE TOPICS.
AND THERE WAS A VOTE, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A VOTING BODY WITHIN THAT TASK FORCE, BUT THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO SORT OF FINAL BLESSING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FROM THE COMMISSION.
UH, AGAIN, I, I KNOW WE'LL HAVE THIS DEBATE MORE AT WMS AND GET INTO THE WEEDS.
I GUESS I, I DID WANNA JUST RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT SAID SPECIFICALLY THIS IDEA OF, UH, IF, IF THE, WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE NON-CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION THAT DID COME FROM THE TASK FORCE FOR THE THIRD PARTY, UH, PARTICIPATION, UH, THAT, UH, A NEW TYPE OF SETTLEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND THAT SOME FOLKS MAY BE INTERESTED IN SEEING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARILY REQUIRED.
UM, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE DO HAVE THIS TYPE OF PARTICIPATION FOR N CLRS TODAY AND THERE IS NOT A, THE
[00:35:01]
SORT OF SETTLEMENT THAT, THAT THAT WAS DESCRIBING.SO IT MAY BE OF INTEREST TO CERTAIN PARTIES, BUT I, I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE IT AS A REQUIREMENT AND WE CAN GET MORE INTO THAT AT THE WMS DISCUSSION.
UM, I WAS ALSO GOING TO ASK, I ACTUALLY, NOT BEING ON THE A DR TASK FORCE, I'VE NEVER SEEN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, OR AT LEAST NOT THE CURRENT MARKUP.
I I BELIEVE THAT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES HAVE ALREADY BEEN MARKED UP.
WOULD, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ERCOT TO POST THOSE EITHER TO THIS TAC MEETING PAGE OR TO THE, THE NEXT WMS PAGE? YEP.
ACTUALLY WE CAN PLAN TO DO BOTH.
WE'LL GET A, WE'LL GET A DRAFT UP AND JUST INCLUDE IT IN PART OF THE MEETING MATERIAL, SO IT'S NICE AND EASY, BUT OF COURSE, WE'LL, WE'LL GET IT OUT THERE AS WELL FOR OKAY.
UM, THE WMS AS WE GET INTO THE, THE DETAILED DISCUSSION THERE.
AND I'M, I'M CORRECT THERE THAT YOUR VER THE CURRENT VERSION ALREADY HAS THE PROPOSED MARKUP OF THESE CHANGES PHASE THREE CHANGES FROM OUR CUT? YES, IT DOES.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IT WOULD HAVE ALL THAT, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME MORE, UM, NOT CON CHANGING ANYTHING CONCEPTUALLY, BUT SOME CLEANUP ITEMS JUST TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS TRANSITION.
BUT, BUT I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD WORRY FOLKS.
I THINK FOLKS CAN GET THE GIST OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE DRAFT AS IT STANDS.
UM, ERIC, ERIC OR KELLY, DO YOU WANNA MAKE THIS LUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT SO I DON'T HAVE TO READ A TEXT MESSAGE ON MIKE? WE HAVE AN URGENT LUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT.
SORRY DAVE, WHAT YOU SAID IS IMPORTANT TOO, BUT THIS IS ABOUT THE, I I, THE CALIFORNIA CLUB IS OUT AT EY MIKE'S, SO, OKAY, SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME USING DOORDASH, UM, AND THE CALIFORNIA SUB CLUB IS OUT.
UM, IT WAS STILL ON DOOR DASH'S MENU
SO IF YOU HAVE ORDERED THE CALIFORNIA SUB CLUB, I NEED YOU TO GO INTO THE LINK, CHANGE YOUR ORDER
THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME USING IT.
WE'RE ALL GOING THROUGH
UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE AND THANK YOU.
UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.
I JUST, ERIC SHOVED A PHONE WITH LOTS OF WORDS IN FRONT OF MY FACE AND I FIGURED IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR SOMEONE TO JUST SAY THE SITUATION THAN ME TRY TO READ IT AND TRANSLATE.
UM, AND I, I REALIZED I DIDN'T POST CALLIE'S EMAIL IN THE CHAT.
DAVE, WERE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR COMMENTS OR DO YOU WANNA MAKE THEM AGAIN NOW THAT WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA SUB CLUB FIGURED OUT? UH, I, ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? AND I, AND I COMPLETELY GET IT.
HAPPY TO, HAPPY TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU ALL OR ANY FINAL COMMENTS FROM THE REST OF YOU.
UH, NED, UH, WELL THERE, THERE ARE COOKIES.
SO IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR CALIFORNIA SUB CLUB, THEN WE'LL LET YOU EAT CAKE.
UM, SO DAVE, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, YOU KNOW, ON THE THOUGHT OF POSTING THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL FOR FOLKS THAT ARE REVIEWING THAT.
UM, AND I KNOW FROM THE LAST VERSION I SAW, I THINK SOME OF THE, UH, ITEMS THAT ARE NON-CONSENSUS WERE ALREADY FLAGGED, BUT, UM, JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING THOSE SO FOLKS CAN, CAN SEE WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD COME OUT IF, UH, IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE GROUP WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL.
YES, I THINK THOSE ARE FLAGGED ALREADY, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF COMMENT BOX AND, AND REFERENCES PRESENTATION OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS? I THINK WE WILL HAVE DISCUSSION AT WMS AND WE WILL SEE IT BACK AT TAC WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON, WE'RE MAKING GOVERNING DOCUMENT BOARD.
YEAH, SO TR I THINK IF FOR APRIL BOARD WE'D NEED IT BACK AT NEXT TAC FOR JUNE BOARD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW EARLY JUNE BOARD IS, IS IT, WOULD MAYT GET IT TO JUNE BOARD? OKAY.
[4. 2025 TAC Goals/Strategic Objectives (Vote)]
WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE 2025 GOALS SLASH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.UM, WE SPOKE ABOUT THESE IN JANUARY AND, AND BASICALLY THE SITUATION WAS OUR GOALS LIST HAD BEEN BECOME A LITTLE BIT UNWIELDY ON SOME ITEMS, NOT A LOT OF CONSISTENCY IN THE, THE ITEMS, RIGHT? SOME WERE REALLY BROAD AND NOT ACTIONABLE AND SOME WERE NARROW AND ACTIONABLE, BUT WE WEREN'T
[00:40:01]
HOLDING OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE.UM, SO, SO MARTHA HAS TAKEN ON THIS PROJECT OF REVAMPING THE GOALS.
WE'VE HAD SOME MEETINGS OFFLINE WITH ERCOT STAFF AND SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP.
SO WE DID KIND OF A, A REBRAND.
THESE ARE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES NOW, UM, THEY MORE CLOSELY PARALLEL THE ERCOT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ARE, ARE THOUGHT AS THEY WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EVERGREEN.
I SEE THE SLIDE UP, SO I WILL HAND IT OVER TO MARTHA.
YEAH, SO AS WE KIND OF STARTED CONTEMPLATING THESE IN JANUARY AND LOOKING AT THE PREVIOUS GOALS, THEY WERE ABOUT TWO PAGES LONG AND WE WERE APPROACHING 20 OR SO INDIVIDUAL GOALS AND IT JUST SORT OF SEEMED LIKE THEY WEREN'T REALLY SERVING MUCH OF A PURPOSE.
SO AFTER THE JANUARY MEETING, I SPENT SOME TIME LOOKING AT THOSE AND SORT OF MAPPING THEM USING COREY'S WORK, ACTUALLY THE WAY HE MAPS HER VISION REQUESTS TO T GOALS.
AND IT HIGHLIGHTED SORT OF THE TOP THREE, WHICH WERE IN SOME FORM OR FASHION ON THE PREVIOUS VERSION.
THESE HAVE BEEN REWORDED A LITTLE BIT, BUT THESE WERE THE ONES THAT HAD THE VAST MAJORITY OF REVISION REQUESTS MAPPED TO THEM, UH, LAST YEAR.
AND THEN FOUR AND FIVE ARE NEW BUT NOT NEW IN THE SENSE OF, UH, THESE ARE THINGS THAT TAX BEEN DOING FOR YEARS.
UH, SO FOUR IS ABOUT PROVIDING POLICY PERSPECTIVES, UM, TO THE BOARD.
AND THEN FIVE IS ABOUT BOARD ENGAGEMENT.
SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO USE SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT, UH, DOESN'T NEED A LOT OF REVISIONS YEAR TO YEAR.
UM, AND THEN WE WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING TO BEEF UP THE ACTION ITEMS PROCESS AND CAPTURE THINGS THERE WITH A PERSON WHO SUGGESTED THE ITEM AND ENHANCE THE TRACKING THERE SO THAT WE COULD USE THAT AS MORE OF THE CHECK THE BOX SORT OF, UH, DOCUMENT TO, UM, MANAGE WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND AS CAITLIN SAID WITH THE REBRAND, THE IDEA IS TO CHANGE IT TO STRATEGIC INITIATIVES BECAUSE GOALS MAY HAVE BEEN A BIT OF A MISNOMER.
WE WEREN'T REALLY ABLE TO ACTUALLY MEASURE ANY OF THE PREVIOUS 20 OR SO ITEMS OR SAY THAT WE HAD ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING REALLY.
SO THESE WOULD BE MORE TIMELESS, UM, WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE LOOKING TO CHECK BOXES OR EDIT THEM TOO MUCH YEAR TO YEAR.
BUT THAT, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE PROPOSAL, UM, FOR 2025.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY INITIAL FEEDBACK ON THIS TODAY.
IF WE GET INTO NEEDING TO, UH, HEAVILY WORDSMITH IT, I'D PROBABLY SUGGEST THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, TEE THOSE THINGS UP TODAY AND THEN SEND ME AN EMAIL AND CAITLYN TOO AND WE CAN, UH, SORT OF EDIT THOSE AND BRING BACK A NEW VERSION FOR NEXT MONTH.
I I THINK YOU TEED IT UP, UH, CORRECTLY.
I THINK WE CAN TAKE COMMENTS BOTH ON SORT OF THE, YOU KNOW, QUOTE UNQUOTE REVAMP, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LIKE THIS STYLE.
AND THEN ALSO ON THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, IF, IF THERE'S A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THE OBJECTIVES, UM, WE, WE DO HAVE, AS WE'VE ALREADY SAID, ONE MORE TAC MEETING AND IT STILL WOULD GET TO THE SAME APRIL BOARD.
AND SO WE CAN JUST KIND OF TAKE THAT AS WE SEE WHAT FEEDBACK IS.
UM, ON LINE TWO, YOU TALK ABOUT COST EFFECTIVE MARKET DESIGN CHANGES, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD COST OF EFFECTIVE IN THE PHRASE PROMOTE MARKET SOLUTIONS.
SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST SAYING PROMOTE COST EFFECTIVE MARKET SOLUTIONS.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU REPEAT THE SUGGESTION, ERIC? I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU.
UM, IN, IN LINE TWO, YOU HAVE COST EFFECTIVE MARKET DESIGN CHANGES.
I THINK THE TERM MARKET, UH, COST EFFECTIVE SHOULD ALSO BE PUT IN NUMBER THREE WHERE IT SAYS PROMOTE COST EFFECTIVE MARKET SOLUTIONS.
UM, MARTHA, I KNOW YOU PUT A LOT OF WORK IN THIS.
UH, THIS IS MUCH IMPROVED FROM MY COMPLAINTS INTO THE VOID, AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU ACTUALLY ACTUALIZED IT.
UM, I AM HAPPY TO ASK THIS QUESTION IN 2026 TO GIVE US PLENTY OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, BUT I WONDER IF WE NEED TO SAY 2025 OR IF WE COULD JUST SAY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES THAT WE REVISIT FROM TIME TO TIME.
SO NOT PUT A YEAR ON IT, IS YOUR SUGGESTION.
AND THEN NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION EVERY YEAR UNLESS WE CHOOSE TO.
I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT.
I'M HAPPY TO BRING IT UP IN A YEAR.
I THINK WE SHOULD BRING IT UP IN A YEAR.
I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW ERCOT, YOU KNOW, HAS LIKE THE THREE YEAR TIMEFRAME THAT'S ON THERE.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO COMMIT OURSELVES TO THAT, BUT FAIR POINT.
I SHOULD SEE HOW THIS YEAR GOES.
[00:45:01]
ALL RIGHT.I DON'T THINK DATING AT 2025 PRECLUDES 2026 MAYBE.
MARK DREYFUS, THANK YOU CHAIR.
UM, AND THANKS TO MARTHA FOR, FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
I, I AGREE WITH HER COMMENTS THAT THE, THE WAY WE HAVE WOUND UP WITH THESE GOALS SINCE THEY ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED BY THEN TAC CHAIR, REED COMSTOCK, UM, ARE NOT REALLY SERVING MUCH OF A PURPOSE AND ARE NOT PARTICULARLY MEASURABLE.
I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON TARGET ON THAT.
I JUST WANT TO SUGGEST ONE SMALL CHANGE IN ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHERE WE SAY PROVIDE POLICY PERSPECTIVES ON PERTINENT ISSUES, THAT WE CHANGE IT TO TECHNICAL AND POLICY PERSPECTIVES SINCE THAT'S OUR FIRST NAME.
UM, I GUESS I'LL MAYBE SEE, UH, WHETHER THE PREFERENCE IS TO JUST MAKE THESE SMALL CHANGES TODAY AND APPROVE TODAY, OR WHETHER FOLKS WANNA SEE THESE MARKED UP.
THESE SEEM PRETTY MINOR TO ME.
CAITLYN, DO YOU HAVE A STRONG FEELING ON HOW WE WANNA PROCEED FROM HERE? I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING AND I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS IN THE QUEUE.
WOULD ANYBODY OBJECT TO JUST MAKING THOSE TWO CHANGES? UH, SO ADDING COST EFFECTIVE TO MARKET SOLUTIONS IN THREE AND THEN ADDING TECHNICAL AND POLICY PERSPECTIVES TO FOUR.
DO YOU WANNA KEEP 2025? YES, I'D, CAN WE KEEP 2025? I'M HAPPY TO THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A WHOLE YEAR.
WELL, I WAS, I WAS, I WAS GONNA SAY, I AS USUAL, I AGREE WITH ERIC GOFF.
UM, I THINK EVEN IF YOU TAKE OFF THE 2025 TO MARTHA'S POINT SHOW THAT THESE AREN'T TIME SPECIFIC, THAT SOMEHOW IN 2026 OR 2027, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES, BUT YOU DO HAVE AN APPROVAL DATE, SO YOU CAN MEASURE, YOU KNOW, AGAINST THAT AS, AS YOU'RE SORT OF LINED IN THE SAND TO SAY, HEY, HAVE WE REVISITED THIS EVERY TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, WHATEVER CADENCE YOU WANT.
SO THERE WOULD BE A TIMESTAMP, BUT IT WOULDN'T PRESENT THIS AS THOUGH THESE ARE ONLY YOUR OBJECTIVES FOR 2025.
I'M FINE WITH WHAT COREY HAS SAID.
AND WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THESE TO GET THEM TO THE BOARD.
SO I'D PROPOSE COMBO BALLOT DATED FEBRUARY 27TH, 2025.
[5. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions]
WE ARE UP TO REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY,I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ANN AND THEN THE IMM.
UM, WE JUST HAVE A COUPLE THIS MONTH FOR TAC REVIEW.
UM, NPR 1241, THIS FALLS IN THE GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENT BUCKET, AND IT HAS NO IMPACT.
ERCOT DOES SUPPORT APPROVAL OF IT AND HAS PROVIDED A POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENT.
AND THE IMM DOES SUPPORT 1241.
THEN VCMR OH FOUR TWO, THIS FALLS INTO THIS STRATEGIC STRATEGIC PLAN.
OBJECTIVE TWO, BUCKET NINETY TWO, A HUNDRED TWENTY K IMPACT.
UM, AGAIN, ERCOT SUPPORTS APPROVAL OF THIS ONE AND PROVIDES THE POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENT, AND IMM DOES SUPPORT IT AS WELL.
UM, JUST QUICKLY, UH, NPR 1190 IS TABLED HERE, BUT WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL SETS OF COMMENTS ON THAT.
SO JUST A REMINDER, UM, FOR THAT REASON FOR REVISION, IT IS A GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENT, NO IMPACT.
ERCOT CURRENT OPINION IS THAT THEY DO SUPPORT IT.
HOWEVER, I BELIEVE WE ARE REVISITING THAT OPINION.
UM, AND SO THAT COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE THE, DO YOU KNOW, IS THE SUPPORT BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF COMMENTS.
SO I, I THINK THE, THE THOUGHT HERE IS WE'RE WE'RE JUST GENERALLY EVALUATING, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT, AND WHERE ERCOT WILL PROVIDE AN OPINION.
AND I THINK, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL KNOW IN, IN A, IN A, A WEEK OR TWO WHAT, WHAT I THINK OUR POSITION WILL BE HERE.
SO I THINK, I THINK IT'S, WE, WE WON'T TAKE LONG, BUT I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE CONSIDERING, UM, CONSIDERING THAT, AND WE'LL, WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO.
AND WE'LL HAVE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION HERE IN A MINUTE.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THE SUPPORT WAS RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VERSION BASED ON X COMMENTS.
I, JEFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD FOR THE IMM? UM, NOT MUCH.
I, I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SUPPORT IN CONCEPT HAVING MORE
[00:50:01]
GRANULAR, MORE ACCURATE PRICES FOR EMISSIONS COSTS AS ARE USED IN, IN THE VERIFIABLE COST CALCULATIONS.SO IN PRINCIPLE, THAT I THINK, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA IN RESULTS, IN A MORE ACCURATE OUTCOME, UM, REGARDING THE CLAW BACK, UM, WE SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, MOVING AWAY FROM A KNIFE EDGE, UH, APPROACH TO THE CLAW BACK AND HAVING THE CLAW BACK REFLECTIVE OF THE EXTENT OF NON-COMPLIANCE, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT.
UM, SO AT A PRINCIPLED LEVEL, WE SUPPORT BOTH OF 'EM.
[6. PRS Report (Vote)]
OKAY.I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE PRS REPORT.
I BELIEVE ANDY IS GIVING THAT TODAY, WHEREVER YOU WANT TO GIVE THE REPORT FROM ANDY.
IT'S A, IT'S A LIGHTER ONE, SO I, I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO STOP YOU AFTER A SLIDE.
ANDY WYNN, YOUR PS VICE CHAIR.
UM, IT'S VERY SHORT REPORT REVISION REQUEST RECOMMENDED, UM, NPR 1241 FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE, AVAILABILITY AND HOURLY STANDBY FEE.
THIS WENT LARGELY UNOPPOSED AND, UM, THERE WAS NO IMPACT ON THE IA.
UM, ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS ALL WE DID, THERE WERE A LOT OF NEW ITEMS AT PRS, WHICH WE DID HAVE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS.
UM, AND THEN ALSO AS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT, WE DID DISCUSS THE NEW REALTIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION ITEMS. UM, BOTH THE IMM AND ERCOT DID TEE UP SOME KEY, UH, REVISION REQUESTS THAT WERE PUBLISHED BASED ON A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO.
UM, IN THE REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION TASK FORCE.
UM, JUST WANTED STAKEHOLDERS TO BE AWARE THAT IN ADDITION TO DISCUSSING THEM AT THE RTC TASK FORCE, UM, PLEASE BE ENGAGED AND GET YOUR FOLKS ON BECAUSE AT THE NEXT PRS WE ARE LOOKING TO MOVE THOSE ITEMS, UM, SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE RTC STAYS ON THE CORRECT TIMELINE.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO THE VOTING ITEM WE HAVE IS NPR 1241.
UM, I, I PROPOSED TO PUT IT ON THE CONVO BALLOT.
I KNOW WE HAD ONE ABSTENTION ON LANGUAGE AT PRS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR THIS.
IS, IS EVERYBODY FINE WITH NPR 1241? UM, UH, AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE 2 12 25 PRS REPORT GOING ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
SO NEXT, UH, STILL UNDER THE SORT OF PRS UMBRELLA, WE, WE HAVE A PROJECT UPDATE FROM TROY.
HE'S BEEN TYPICALLY DOING THESE JUST AT, AT PRS, BUT I, I ASKED HIM TO COME TO TAC I THINK WE CAN GO LIGHTER ON THE, THE REGULAR PROJECT UPDATE, BUT HE HAS SOME GOOD SLIDES ON IMPACT ANALYSIS ACCURACY THAT COVER, I THINK THE, THE LAST THREE YEARS, 22 THROUGH 24.
AND THAT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD JUST THING TO DO TO, TO RAISE SOME OF THESE PROJECT ISSUES AT, AT THE TECH LEVEL.
I KNOW A BIG ISSUE FOR PRS IS, IS THE TIMING OF THESE PROJECTS.
WE HAD KIND OF A BACKLOG I THINK DURING, AFTER WINTER STORM URI AND THEN DURING RTC.
SO I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR US TO BE AWARE OF NPRS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PASSED A LONG TIME AGO, BUT, BUT HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND, AND WE CAN ALL BE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO RESOLVE THAT.
I'M TROY ANDERSON WITH ERCOT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT.
AS KAITLYN MENTIONED, MAY HAVE A COUPLE DIFFERENT ITEMS TO, UH, BRING TO YOU TODAY.
UH, FOR STARTERS, I KNOW MANY TAC FOLKS ARE PLUGGED INTO PRS REGULARLY, BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T, UH, THE PRESENTATION THAT'S POSTED IS WHAT I PRESENT EACH MONTH AT PRS WITH DIFFERENT PROJECT UPDATES ON THE STATUS OF REVISION REQUEST IMPLEMENTATIONS.
UH, YOU SHOULD TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MORE RECENT, UH, ACTIVITY IN THE QUEUE.
I'VE GOT THIS RECURRING SLIDE THAT KIND OF PULLS BACK A LITTLE AND LOOKS AT THE WHOLE YEAR, OBVIOUSLY.
UH, 2025 IS A MAJOR RTC PLUS B FOCUS.
AND THEN THIS SLIDE IS KINDA SHARING WHAT THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES WITHIN THE ERCOT PROJECT REALM ARE.
AND IT'S KIND OF AN EXPLANATION WHY WE HAVE A, A BUILDING BACKLOG OF REVISION REQUESTS THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE.
THERE'S ABOUT 50 ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN RECENT YEARS THAT ARE YET TO BE DELIVERED ACROSS ABOUT SECOND QUARTER OF LAST YEAR.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AT PRS GOING THROUGH THOSE AND ACTUALLY HAD ONE BUBBLE UP THAT WE IMPLEMENTED, UH, MID LAST YEAR BEFORE WE HAD, YOU KNOW, RTC FREEZES.
BUT, UH, WE EXPECT THIS YEAR TO DO ANOTHER REVIEW OF ALL OF THAT LIST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A
[00:55:01]
POST RTC PLAN AS WE GET CLEAR OF RTC IN DECEMBER, MOVING FORWARD IN 2026.BUT THE TOP OF THIS SLIDE IS KINDA SHARING WHAT HAVE BEEN THE HIGH THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN PROTECTING BY HOLDING BACK ON SOME OF THESE OTHER REVISION REQUESTS.
NOW TO THE POINT CAITLIN BROUGHT UP ABOUT IMPACT ANALYSIS.
UH, EVERY YEAR I COME BACK TO PRS AND TALK ABOUT WHAT ACCURACY ARE WE EXPERIENCING WITH OUR IA ES ESTIMATES COMPARED TO THE FINAL COST OF THE PROJECTS TO DELIVER.
WELL, OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE DELIVERED 29 PROJECTS THAT DELIVERED NUMEROUS REVISION REQUESTS.
UH, THE TOTAL SPEND ON THAT WAS ABOUT 14 POINT A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THE REPORTING HERE IS BASICALLY COMPARING WHERE DID THE COST AND DURATION HIT COMPARED TO THE ESTIMATE WE GAVE YOU WAY UP FRONT IN THE IA.
SO IF THE DOT HITS RIGHT ON THE GREEN LINE, THAT MEANS IN THIS CASE COST.
THE COST OF THE PROJECT FELL WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE IA.
BEFORE I PROCEED, LET ME JUMP AHEAD.
SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DIFFERENT DOTS ARE, THERE YOU GO.
THE BLACK DOTS ARE MARKET SUBMITTED, THE BLUE DOTS ARE ERCOT SUBMITTED.
YOU'LL SEE 29 PROJECTS, 15 OF THEM FELL RIGHT WITHIN THE RANGE.
COST-WISE, SEVERAL OF THEM, I THINK IT'S FIVE OR FOUR OR FIVE OR WITHIN LIKE 20% OF THE MAX.
AND THEN A FEW MISSED THE MARK BY QUITE A BIT.
SO YOU MAY WONDER WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
SO THAT DOT NUMBER 19 IS THE ONE THAT WAS ABOUT 500% OFF DOT UH, 19 IS COMPLIANCE METRICS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICE SUPPLY RESPONSIBILITY NPRR 10 40.
THAT ONE WHEN IT CAME IN, WE HAD AN IA OF 20 TO 30 K.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS A, A SIMILAR REPORT TO SOMETHING WE ALREADY HAD PREVIOUSLY BUILT, BUT AS WE GOT INTO IT, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT THREW US OFF.
WE ENDED UP HAVING TO BUILD A DATA MART TO SUPPORT IT 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T QUITE HAVE THE DATA STATION THE WAY WE NEEDED.
TOOK TWO RELEASES TO GO LIVE WITH, WITH THIS ONE WE NEEDED TO DO A REFRESH A TEST DATA AND THEN WE CHANGED THE SOURCE TOOL BEHIND THE WHOLE THING.
SO ULTIMATELY, RATHER THAN THE, UH, THE 30 K COST, IT COSTS IS 189 K, WHICH IS 160 OVER AND 500% OVER.
SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE WHERE PERCENT WISE, IT LOOKS, YOU KNOW, REALLY SCARY.
UM, PRS ASKED ME TO DO THE SIMILAR REPORT BASED ON JUST COST.
AND SO TWO SLIDES DOWN IS THE SAME THING.
AND YOU SEE DOT 19 WITH THE 160 K OVER, NOT QUITE AS, UH, MUCH OF A FACTOR.
SO SMALL PROJECTS THAT RUN QUITE A BIT OVER TEND TO HAVE HIGH PERCENTAGE VARIANCES.
NOW WE DO HAVE A FEW THAT WENT UNDER, FOR EXAMPLE, DO EIGHT, THAT'S NPRR 1108.
THE ERCOT SHALL APPROVE OR DENY ALL RESOURCE OUTAGE REQUESTS.
THAT ONE WAS 300 TO 400 K ON THE IA AND IT CAME IN AT 1 73.
SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE WHERE WE HAD KIND OF A DATE CERTAIN WE WERE TRYING TO MEET AND WHEN WE CLEARED THE DECK TO GET SOMETHING DEPLOYED BEFORE SUMMER USUALLY.
AND THEIR MUCH MORE LIKELIHOOD THAT, UH, WILL, WILL COME IN UNDER.
BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK THE MESSAGE HERE IS THAT AS YOU GET IAS AND YOU'RE CONSIDERING THEM, LIKE THE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT A MINUTE AGO, THE V-C-M-R-R, I WANT YOU TO HAVE RELATIVE COMFORT THAT THE NUM THE INFORMATION YOU'RE GETTING IS REASONABLY ACCURATE.
CONSIDERING THIS IS A, AN UPFRONT ESTIMATE OF A FUTURE PROJECT.
NOW WE DO A SIMILAR MEASURE ON DURATION.
DURATION IS MORE CHALLENGING IN MY OPINION.
UM, IN THIS CASE, 11 OF THE 29 FELL WITHIN THE DURATION, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING MORE COME IN UNDER THAN WE HAVE HISTORICALLY.
UM, IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD A LOT ON THE LINE, A WHOLE BUNCH OVER, AND ONE OR TWO BELOW THE LINE.
WELL, IN THIS CASE, YOU SEE EIGHT OF THE 29 ACTUALLY CAME IN FASTER THAN THE IA HAD REPORTED.
AN EXAMPLE THERE IS, UH, DOT NUMBER 28, THAT'S THE COMBINATION OF 1131, WHICH IS CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE PARTICIPATION IN NONS SPEND AND 10 58, WHICH IS RESOURCE OFFER MODERNIZATION.
THAT ONE, WE HAD A SIX TO NINE MONTH ESTIMATE ON THE IA.
WE CAME IN AT 4.7 MONTHS, SO THAT'S THE, THE 20 SOME PERCENT BELOW THE ESTIMATE.
SO SIMILARLY, UM, I THINK WE DO A DECENT JOB ON THIS ESTIMATE, UH, PLUS OR MINUS 20% YOU COULD MENTALLY ADD TO AN IA THAT YOU SEE AND, AND YOU'RE GONNA HIT, YOU KNOW, 80 PLUS PERCENT OF THE, OF THE ITEMS. OKAY.
[01:00:01]
CAITLIN.AND, UM, THANK YOU TROY, FOR BRINGING THIS INFORMATION.
THIS IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S HELPFUL TO SEE I WAS, YOU KNOW, FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I FOUND THAT PLUS OR MINUS 20% IS, UH, IT'S, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD BAR TO HIT FOR ANY KIND OF PROJECT WORK.
YOU KNOW, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GONNA FIND UNTIL YOU, UH, OPEN THE WALLS UP AND, UH, USUALLY YOU FIND THERE'S COMPLICATIONS.
SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER, BUT USUALLY NOT.
SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ESTIMATES OR ESTIMATES.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION THAT WOULD HELP CONTEXTUALIZE THE, THE GREEN LINE I, I'M GUESSING, BUT, UH, DON'T KNOW RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
ARE A LOT OF THOSE THE ZERO IMPACT, UH, PROJECTS? NO, ZERO IMPACTS ARE NOT ON THIS CHART, NOT ON THE SLIDE AT ALL.
THESE, THESE ARE PROJECTS ONLY ON THE GREEN LINE MEANS IT HIT WITHIN THE RANGE.
SO IF I SAID, IF WE SAID SIX TO NINE MONTHS AND IT TOOK US SEVEN AND A HALF, THEN THAT ZERO VARIANCE FROM THE IA.
AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW WITH ALL OF THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE REVISION REQUESTS THAT ERCOT IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT, THERE'S ALSO BEEN THE DISCUSSION AT PRS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE AGED REVISION REQUESTS AND WHICH ONES CAN BE PUT PUT IN.
WHEN ARE THOSE REPRESENTED ON HERE? UM, OR IS THAT, THAT'S SEPARATE.
THESE ARE ONLY PROJECTS THAT HAVE WENT LIVE, THAT HAVE GONE LIVE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
UM, THE AGING LIST, I HAVE A GOAL, AND I THINK, I BELIEVE I SHARE IT WITH, WITH ANDY AND DIANA AT PRS, THAT WE WANNA GET THROUGH THAT LIST AGAIN HERE IN 2025.
SO THAT GOING INTO NEXT YEAR, WE HAVE A, HAVE EXPECTATIONS ON THE PLAN IN THE POST RTC PROJECT REALM.
UM, I GUESS WITH THAT I CAN CLOSE WITH A COUPLE COMMENTS HERE.
WE ALSO TALK ABOUT, UH, PRIORITY AND RANK AT PRS.
AND I KNOW THAT MIGHT BE QUITE NEBULOUS TO MANY FOLKS, BUT THE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS PRIORITY MEANS OUR TARGET YEAR TO START SOMETHING, AND THEN THE RANK IS A SORT ORDER WITHIN THE PROJECT LIST.
MOST ITEMS WE ADD TO THE END OF THE QUEUE AND WORK THEM IN, BUT SOMETIMES WE SAY THAT A NEW ITEM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A PREVIOUS ONE, IN WHICH CASE WE, WE BUMP IT UP AND THAT'S WHAT THE, THE REG IS.
OTHER, OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, QUESTION FROM IAN TROY.
UM, JUST WANTED TO REITERATE HOW MUCH INFORMATION I THINK YOU GAVE TO US AT PRS AND AGAIN TODAY.
AND JUST WANNA THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I THINK I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ASKED PREVIOUSLY FOR MOVING AWAY FROM JUST PERCENTAGES, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED US.
IT, IT HELPS ME TO SHOW THAT AN ITEM THAT LOOKED, YOU KNOW, OFF THE CHARTS PROBLEMATIC IN ONE VIEW IS MAYBE JUST, YOU KNOW, A BIT OF A MISS ON ANOTHER VIEW.
I'M SURE THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT LIKE THAT FOR THEIR END OF YOUR REVIEWS.
ANYTHING ELSE? OH, I SEE MARK.
I, I'M JUST WONDERING 'CAUSE I, 'CAUSE I DON'T REALLY FOLLOW, HOW MUCH VISIBILITY DO YOU HAVE ON ISSUES LIKE THIS WITH THE TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BOARD? I HAVE NOT REPORTED THIS PARTICULAR METRIC TO THAT GROUP, BUT I'M ALWAYS THERE IN ATTENDANCE IF QUESTIONS COME UP ABOUT IAS OR PROJECT PERFORMANCE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING, UH, WORTH SHARING JUST AS WE THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH SHARING HERE.
I'LL, I'LL PASS THAT TO MY LEADERSHIP.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
[7. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)]
WE ARE ON TO REVISION REQUESTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY TABLED AT TECH, UM, NPR 1190 AS WE, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS WAS REMANDED BY THE BOARD LAST OCTOBER.UM, AND THEN WE TABLED THE, THE NPR AT THAT TIME.
SO I THINK A FEW THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE WE, WE LAST HAD 1190 ATTACK.
THERE WERE RELIANT COMMENTS ON ONE 30.
UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS AT WMS YESTERDAY.
WE HAD COMMENTS FILED BY ERCOT AND RE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS.
UM, SO I'D PROPOSE THAT WE HEAR FROM ALL OF THOSE FOLKS JUST TO KIND OF LEVEL SET ON THE BACKGROUND.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE SUBSTANTIVELY TAKEN THIS ONE UP AT TECH IN A FEW MONTHS.
UM, BILL, I THINK I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO GO OVER RELIANCE, UH, JANUARY 30TH COMMENTS AND THEN WE CAN HAVE BLAKE COVER WMS DISCUSSIONS AND THEN GO TO ERCOT AND RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER COMMENTS.
IS THAT A OKAY PLAN FOR EVERYONE? SURE.
[01:05:01]
UH, YEAH, SO, UM, THE RELIANT COMMENTS ON 1190 REPRESENT, UM, DISCUSSION AMONGST STAKEHOLDERS ON HOW TO ADDRESS, UM, CONCERNS EXPRESSED ON 1190, UH, BY CONSUMERS REALLY THROUGHOUT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES AND AT THE ER CAP BOARD, WHICH, WHICH LED TO THE REMANDED BACK TO ATTACK.UH, WE REFERRED THIS TO WMS AND SPENT SOME TIME WORKING ON A CONCEPT THAT ACKNOWLEDGES, UM, THE GOAL OF THIS NPR, WHICH IS NOT TO INCREASE THE COSTS MATERIALLY, UH, AS A RESULT OF HDL OVERRIDES, BUT TO ALLOW FOR A MORE EQUITABLE AND FAIR ACCESS TO THE SETTLEMENT TREATMENT AMONGST ALL PARTIES THAT COULD BE IMPACTED BY AN HDL OVERRIDE.
AND SO THE CONCEPT IN THE RELIANT COMMENTS IN INCLUDE A, AN ANNUAL KIND OF SETTLEMENT COST TRIGGER OF $10 MILLION THAT IF THAT IS HIT INSIDE OF A SINGLE YEAR, THEN THAT WILL TRIGGER A REVIEW OF NOT ONLY THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS THAT CAUSED THE HDL OVERRIDE ACTIVITY TO INCREASE ESSENTIALLY WISER CUT USING THIS THING MORE THAN WE WOULD PREFER 'EM TO USE IT FOR.
UH, AND ALSO THE SETTLEMENT ASPECTS AND WHAT COSTS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE, UH, 1190.
AND IF THAT IS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE INCREASE, UH, WHICH WOULD PROMPT A REVIEW AND POTENTIAL REVISION TO THE METHODOLOGY.
SO, UM, THIS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT, UM, A STEP WHERE WE COULD REVIEW THAT IF THERE IS AN INCREASED COST REVIEW THAT, AND THEN MAKE CHANGES TO THE METHODOLOGY IF, UH, THE EXPECTATIONS FOR WHAT THIS DOES IS OUTSIDE OF, UM, WHAT WE WERE HOPING WOULD WOULD HAPPEN.
SO, AND THEN THE $10 MILLION THRESHOLD, I JUST LOOKED AT HISTORY AND TOOK, UM, TOOK A, A NUMBER THAT WAS ON THE VERY HIGH END OF, UM, THE HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF WHERE THESE ANNUAL COSTS COME OUT.
AND SO THAT IS, UH, THAT'S THE RELIANT COMMENTS.
BLAKE? YEAH, BLAKE HOLTZ SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WMS, UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF FLAVOR OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HEARD AROUND, UH, THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF VOCAL STAKEHOLDERS THAT THOUGHT THIS WAS A REASONABLE APPROACH AND WERE SUPPORTIVE OF, UH, BOTH THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT AND ALSO A RE-REVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY SHOULD THAT THRESHOLD BE HIT.
UH, THERE WAS SOME COMMENTARY THAT WAS A, OPPOSED TO THE, THE CONCEPT, UH, NO ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THE CONCEPT, UH, FROM, FROM CONSUMER SPECIFICALLY.
I THINK, UM, AND HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED, BUT I THINK THEY'RE JUST OPPOSED TO THE NPR 1190 CONCEPT ON PRINCIPLE.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE CONVERSATION'S PLAYED OUT IS, IS WE'VE KIND OF REACHED A POINT OF, UH, I GUESS NO MORE, NO MORE PROGRESS, NO MORE FURTHER PROGRESS ON THIS SITUATION.
I THINK WMS HAS CONCLUDED DISCUSSIONS AND FOLKS HAVE KIND OF DEVELOPED POSITIONS AROUND WHERE THIS CURRENTLY STANDS.
UM, I THINK I'LL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH COMMENTS, BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROBABLY BE ALIGNED WITH THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SEND THIS BACK TO WMS IF WE DON'T RESOLVE IT TODAY.
I THINK WE CAN TABLE IT HERE AT TECH.
UH, ERCOT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, AUSTIN, ARE YOU ON TO OR YOU'RE HERE TO COVER, UH, COMMENTS FILED YESTERDAY? YES, MA'AM.
SO YEAH, WE FILED COMMENTS YESTERDAY.
SORRY, THEY'RE SO LAST MINUTE.
UM, THESE COMMENTS ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE OVERALL OPINION, LIKE KEITH MENTIONED EARLIER.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE OUR OPINION IS CONTINGENT ON IF YOU ALL, UH, ADOPT THESE COMMENTS OR NOT.
THESE COMMENTS WERE MEANT TO BE JUST AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE THRESHOLD THAT, UH, RELIANT, UM, INCLUDED IN THEIR COMMENTS.
JUST LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL NUMBERS.
UM, THE 10 MILLION IS ON THE HIGH END, LIKE BILL MENTIONED.
UM, IT COULD BE THAT WE NEVER, AND IF IT WE, WE MAY NOT HIT THAT THRESHOLD.
AND SINCE THIS IS JUST AN ANALYTICAL CAP, NOT NECESSARILY A HARD PRICE CAP, WE THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO BRING THAT NUMBER DOWN TO A, TO A, TO A SMALLER NUMBER THAT, UM, MIGHT BE MORE LIKELY TO BE HIT TO BE ANALYZED TO, TO, TO LOOK AT THE, UM, TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, UH, I MEAN, REALLY THAT'S IT.
SO, UM, AND THEN SO THERE'S REALLY NO RISK OF, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE IN THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR NOT GETTING, UH, GETTING, SOAKING UP ALL THE, ALL THE COMPENSATIONS PEOPLE INTO THE YEAR, NOT BECAUSE IT'S JUST A, UH, ANALYTICAL TRIGGER.
SO BASED ON THE, ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, 10 MILLION WAS DURING YURI.
SINCE THEN WE'VE HAD, UH, THE, THE PRICE CAP LOWER TO 5,000, THE EMERGENCY PRICING PROGRAM COME DOWN TO 2000.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE BASICALLY RATIOED DOWN
[01:10:01]
THE AMOUNTS DURING YURI, UM, BY TWO, A BLEND OF, UH, FIVE NINES AND TWO NINES TO COME DOWN TO THAT 3.5 MILLION NUMBER.MARK, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL ERIC DOES RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER COMMENTS? OKAY.
ERIC, CAN YOU LAY OUT THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER COMMENTS? UH, YES.
SO FIRST OF ALL, UM, I WANTED TO REITERATE THE JOINT COMMENTS ON OCTOBER 2ND.
UM, WE ALSO WANTED TO GET SOMETHING IN, IN A TIMELY FASHION, AND SINCE THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY, WANTED TO REMIND PEOPLE OF OUR POSITION.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY, I I I THINK THE WAY BLAKE CHARACTERIZED IT AS FAIR, UM, WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT, YOU KNOW, RELIANT AND WS DID IN EVALUATING THIS.
AND IT SEEMS, OR KAT'S TAKING A PIN TO IT TOO, BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS KIND OF THE UNDERLYING POLICY SINCE WE HAVE WITH THE NPRR.
UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF US, UM, ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE REMAIN OPPOSED TO IT.
UM, AND, UM, WE'LL CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION IN WHATEVER FUTURE APPROPRIATE VENUE THIS LANDS IN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY NEED TO BELABOR THIS.
UM, YEAH, I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN KEITH'S COMMENT EARLIER THAT ERCOT IS REEVALUATING THEIR POSITION.
I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS A 10-YEAR-OLD ISSUE SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPEAL OF KOCH INDUSTRIES.
UM, ALL THE POSITIONS ARE PRETTY WELL ENTRENCHED.
I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY THE BOARD SENT IT BACK TO US SINCE THERE'S A 10 YEAR RECORD OF THIS ISSUE.
AND, AND IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE THE BOARD'S REMAND WAS GONNA LEAD TO MUCH, THOUGH.
I REALLY APPRECIATE BILL'S EFFORT TO COMPROMISE AND ERCOT NEW VALUES, WHICH I'VE BEEN CONSIDERING BECAUSE I LIKE WHEN THIS ORGANIZATION COMES TOGETHER TO REACH SOME, SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME POINT.
BUT, UH, I'M STRUCK BY KEITH'S COMMENT AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD GIVE US SOME FLAVOR OF IT.
SO THE THE FLAVOR IS, AND, AND I I REALIZE SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS, WELL, WE DIDN'T, WE JUST PUT IN SOME COMMENTS AND ARE WE DISAVOWING OUR OWN COMMENTS? AND THE ANSWER IS NO.
UM, I THINK THE COMMENTS AND, AND AUSTIN MADE A CRITICAL POINT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING TO IS KIND OF THE MECHANICS OF THIS ANALYTICAL CAP, NOT THE MERITS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD, SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO A COST ALLOCATION, RIGHT? AND SO THOSE ARE TWO DISTINCT POINTS THAT I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE.
SO WE ARE NOT DISAVOWING OUR POINT OF THE ANALYTICAL CAP.
I THINK WE, WE FEEL THAT YES, THE ANALYTICAL CAP, UM, AS PROPOSED BY RELIANT WAS HIGH AND AS AUSTIN SAID, THERE'S, THERE'S GOOD REASONS WHY WE THINK IT PROBABLY COULD BE LOWER AND SHOULD BE LOWER.
UM, AND, AND REALLY THAT BURDEN WOULD, WOULD REST A LOT ON, ON ERCOT IN TERMS OF EVALUATING AND, AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE PROCESS.
SO, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DISAVOWING THAT COMMENT.
UM, I THINK THE, THE QUESTION THAT, THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH IS, AND, AND I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED THROUGHOUT HERE, IS IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT IT'S A PURELY COST ALLOCATION QUESTION, UM, WHAT IS THE ERCOT ROLE IN THAT? AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT.
MARK, DOES THAT COVER YOUR QUESTION FOR NOW? OKAY.
UH, BOB HILTON, YOU CAN PASS ME ON BY KEITH PRETTY MUCH ANSWERED EVERYTHING I WAS GONNA ASK.
BILL BARNES, WELL I DIDN'T WANT TO, DID KEITH, YOU FULLY COVER KO'S VIEW ON THIS OR DID AUSTIN NEED TO PRESENT THE ERCOT COMMENTS? HE DID.
WELL, I JUST, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD, YOU HAD ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEEDED TO ADD TO NO, NO, I, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD KIND OF AT THIS TIME.
I THINK THE RESPONSE OF THE, OKAY.
UM, SO JUST ON THE NUMBER ON THE, THE VALUES THEMSELVES, UM, I HONESTLY ADMIT I DIDN'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON MY QUOTE ANALYSIS ON DETERMINING 10 MILLION.
PROBABLY TOOK ME FIVE MINUTES TO LOOK AT THE HISTORY AND SAY, OH, THIS SEEMS REASONABLE.
THE WHOLE INTENTION WAS THAT I, THE, THE GOAL OF SELECTING 10 WAS NOT TO LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS EVERY YEAR AND ONLY WHEN, UH, WE HAD EXCEPTIONS.
[01:15:01]
UM, BUT LOOKING AT ERCOT COMMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, YEAH, THE PRICE CAP'S LOWER NOW, I THINK THREE, FOUR, 5 MILLION IS REASONABLE, WILLING, WILLING TO GO WITH THAT APPROACH.SO I, I'M ANTICIPATING WE'RE GONNA NEED A VOTE ON THIS.
UH, SO I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION ON ERCOT COMMENTS, UM, IF, UH, IF THAT'S THE WILL ATTACK.
SO A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 2 26 COMMENTS.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON BILL'S MOTION? NED, ARE YOU A SECOND? I'LL SECOND AND COMPLIMENT BILL ON HIS TIE.
UM, ANY COMMENT, MARK? YEAH, I WANT, I REALLY WANT TO THANK BILL FOR TAKING THE TIME AND INITIATIVE TO TRY AND STRIKE A COMPROMISE FOR THE GROUP.
I, I WOULD'VE LIKED THE COMPROMISE BETTER IF IT WAS A, A HARD STOP RATHER THAN A, THAN A PAUSE FOR STUDY.
BUT, UH, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A, AN ISSUE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR 10 YEARS, WE'RE WITH CONSUMERS AGAINST THE MARKET AND WE'VE MADE REALLY NO, NO CHANGE FROM THAT.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE COMPROMISE AND VOTE FOR THE NPRR AS BILL'S PROPOSED WITH ERCOT CAP.
I DON'T EXPECT ANY OF THE OTHER CONSUMERS TO DO SO, BUT I DO WANT TO, TO JUST EMPHASIZE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF ENTRENCHED ISSUES AND I LIKE WHEN WE ALL COME TOGETHER.
I THINK WE CAN TURN IT OVER TO COREY.
ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1190 WITH THE 2 26 ERCOT COMMENTS, WE WILL START UP WITH OUR CONSUMERS WITH ERIC GOFF.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BOB HILTON.
ONTO OUR IPMS. SETH? YES, THANK YOU SHANE FOR REMI.
KEITH, NICKS YOU WITH US? I GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT.
UH, ABBY FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU.
AND THEN DAVID FOR RICHARD? YES.
THANK YOU, JOSE? YES, THANK YOU.
AND THEN CURTIS FOR RUSSELL? YES, THANK YOU.
OKAY, THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S WORK ON THE COMPROMISE.
THIS WILL GO BACK TO THE APRIL BOARD, IT WAS REMANDED.
UM, ANN WILL WORK WITH CON CONSUMERS AND, AND I, I THINK WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU AS WELL.
UM, MY, MY SORT OF UNDERSTANDING WAS JUST THERE, THERE'S NO NUMBER BASED ON THAT KIND OF FRAMEWORK THAT, THAT A, A COMPROMISE WOULD GET TO.
JUST TO REITERATE, WE APPRECIATE THE WORK OF BILL AND ERCOT TO TRY TO FIND A COMPROMISE.
AND LIKE MARK SAID, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS GOOD AT.
JUST FUNDAMENTALLY, WE WANT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE AND, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER VENUES TO DO THAT.
SO WE APPRECIATE TAX CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, UM, AS, AS MARK TALKED ABOUT THE BOARD REMANDED, BUT I, I THINK WE HAVE INFORMATION ENOUGH TO, TO TALK ABOUT THE COMPROMISE WE WE GOT TO AND, AND WHY PEOPLE WERE STILL OPPOSED.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION THAN, THAN WE HAD LAST TIME AT THE BOARD.
ALRIGHT, UM, ALICIA, UM, QUICK QUESTION.
I ALSO WANNA THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS.
[01:20:02]
MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS THE EXACT SAME VOTE, UH, TALLY EXCEPT FOR ONE THAT WENT TO THE BOARD LAST TIME? TWO.TWO, TWO CONSUMERS VOTED YES FOR THIS.
UH, NUMBER 2 64 CAN REMAIN TABLED.
UM, WHILE WE WAIT FOR NPRR 1235, I BELIEVE THERE'S A WORKSHOP TOMORROW.
MAYBE IT, IT WILL BE SUPER FUN AND EXCITING.
[8. RMS Report]
WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE RMS REPORT.THIS IS GONNA BE SHORT AND SWEET.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY VOTING ITEMS FOR TECH TODAY.
RMS APPROVED OUR 2025 RETAIL LEADERSHIP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A HEALTHY MIX OF REPS AND TDS.
PS WE ACTUALLY HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE HOLDING MULTIPLE LEADERSHIP ROLES, SO WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE FOLKS WITH US.
JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON NPRR 1266.
WE WANT TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A TWIST ON THIS.
WE WOULD LIKE ERCOT TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT THE CUSTOMER BILLING CUSTOMER INFORMATION FILE CAN BE USED.
THAT FILE IS SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE REPS TO ERCOT MONTHLY.
IT IS USED FOR MASS TRANSITIONS, BUT IT WAS ALS IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR THE VOL, UH, PROJECT.
AND IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THE DATA IS BETTER IN THE CBCI THAN IN THE TDSP LIST, WE THINK WE SHOULD GO IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE PUCT APPROVAL.
OUR WORKING GROUP AND TASK FORCES HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY PROFILING.
WORKING GROUP IS EXTREMELY BUSY LAST YEAR DUE TO TEXAS SET AND LUBBOCK COMING INTO THE MARKET.
WE DID NOT HAVE ANNUAL VALIDATION THIS YEAR.
WE ARE GONNA HAVE ANNUAL VALIDATION FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL.
SO THAT GROUP IS, IS REALLY BUSY.
THEY'RE ALSO TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRATEGIC WITH THE PROCESSES SURROUNDING PROFILES AND, UM, ANNUAL VALIDATION.
THE RETAIL MARKET TRAINING TASK FORCE HAS REALLY ALSO BEEN VERY BUSY.
WE'VE UPDATED THE MARKET TRACK, ALL THE RETAIL TRAINING MODULES AND THE INSTRUCTOR LED MATERIALS FOR, UH, WITH TEXAS SET 5.0 AND THE MARKET TRACK SCR EIGHT 17 CHANGES THAT BOTH WENT IN, UH, THIRD QUARTER LAST YEAR.
DEBBIE, DO YOU WANNA TAKE QUESTIONS AS YOU GO? OH, YES, PLEASE.
IT LOOKS LIKE ERIC GOFF HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT.
CAN WE GO BACK ONE SLIDE ON THE CUSTOMER BILLING INFORMATION? SO, UM, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION FROM RMS HERE TO CONSIDER IT, IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CAUTIOUS AND CAREFUL ABOUT USING THE CUSTOMER BILLING AND CUSTOMER INFORMATION, UH, DATA THAT HAS SOME INDIVIDUAL INFORMATION ABOUT EVERY CUSTOMER IN THE STATE AND RETAIL CHOICE.
AND, UM, THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THAT.
AND I RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THAT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
I JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT THE SECOND TIME WE'RE USED FOR SOMETHING AND I APPRECIATE ITS UTILITY, BUT I WANT TO BE JUST SUPER CAREFUL WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION IN THERE.
UH, AND I KNOW I'M NOT SAYING THAT ANYONE'S NOT BEING CAREFUL WITH IT, I JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE DO THINGS RIGHT.
UM, THOSE FILES ARE EXTREMELY WELL PROTECTED BY ERCOT.
WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT CUSTOMER NAME WITH, COMPARED TO THE TDSP NAME IN OUR LIST, UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 575 EASY IDS.
UM, THAT IS A SMALL SUBSET OF THE ACTUAL DATA PROVIDED.
HOWEVER, IT IS A LOT OF WORK BECAUSE THOSE ARE ACROSS, UM, ACROSS T DSPS, ACROSS REPS.
THERE'S A LOT OF GATHERING THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ANALYSIS.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANNA LOOK AT THIS IS THAT THE TT DSP NAME MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT IS, I DON'T KNOW, 15 OR 20 YEARS OLD AND IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED.
AND SOMETIMES YOU THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET A MOVE IN, BUT MAYBE YOU DON'T.
SOME OTHER THINGS HAPPEN, NAMES ARE ADDED, THEY MIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY.
AND WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HAVE THE MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION, WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE NPRR.
SO ABSOLUTELY, I, AND I CAN KEEP THIS IN MY RMS UPDATES GOING FORWARD, JUST TO GIVE YOU A TAKE ON WHERE WE ARE IN THE CONSIDERATIONS BEING GIVEN.
BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY, ERIC, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
WE DO NOT AT ENCORE, WE DO NOT EVEN ASK FOR THE CBCI FILE FOR A MASS TRANSITION UNLESS THERE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE GOOD INFORMATION AND THEN
[01:25:01]
WE GATHER IT FROM ERCOT.THEY'RE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THE FILES.
YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE WE'VE GOT SOME GOOD PROCESSES IN PLACE.
I JUST, I MAY BE BEING A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL USE FOR THIS, FOR THINGS THAT IT WASN'T INTENDED AND EACH ONE MIGHT BE A GOOD CASE ON ITS OWN.
I JUST WANNA BE CAREFUL AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL APPROACHING THIS DILIGENTLY.
UH, JUST QUICKLY, TEXAS SET IS LOOKING AT UPDATING THE TEXAS MARKET TEST PLAN.
WE DID REVISE SOME OF THE SCRIPTS FOR, UM, THAT WERE IN THE, THE LAST FLIGHT BECAUSE, UH, THINGS WERE NEEDED TO BE TWEAKED.
WE WERE TESTING THE WHOLE MARKET FOR TEXAS AT 5.0.
AND SO WE HAVE NEW MARKET PARTICIPANTS COMING IN AND, UM, WE WILL KEEP GOING ON FOR, WITH THE THREE TEST FLIGHT EACH YEAR, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE TESTING ACCURATELY SUCH THAT THINGS WILL WORK IN PRODUCTION AND WE'LL ALSO BE PROVIDING SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME, SUCH THAT THE SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDERS WILL BE AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE TESTING AND WHY.
SO WE ARE MAKING SOME, SOME UPDATES TO THAT.
LASTLY, THE TEXAS DATA TRANSPORT MARKET TRACK SYSTEM WORKING GROUP.
WE ARE WORKING WITH ERCOT AND THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO CONTINUE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INADVERTENT GAINS.
SOMEBODY USED A BAD WORD YESTERDAY DURING THE MARKET TRACK TRAINING, A SLAMMING, AND WE HAVE INADVERTENT GAINS, SO DON'T, DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THAT.
UH, I THINK IT IS KIND OF A WIN.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND MENTION THIS.
OUR MARKET HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY, AND RIGHT NOW THE NUMBER OF INADVERTENT GAINS IS AS SMALL AS IT HAS BEEN IN LIKE 10 YEARS.
SO I THINK I KIND OF THINK THAT'S A WIN.
DO WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO? ABSOLUTELY.
OUR NEXT MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED.
WE HAVE A REALLY LIGHT AGENDA AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY VOTING ITEMS COMING FORWARD, AND THERE WAS NOTHING REALLY PRESSING.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON APRIL 1ST AT NINE 30 HERE AT ERCOT.
UM, LASTLY, WE ARE MOVING OUR MAY MEETING BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH ERCOT INNOVATION SUMMIT.
SO THAT WILL BE POSTED AND UPDATED TO THE ERCOT CALENDAR SOON.
[9. ROS Report]
KATIE, ARE YOU READY WITH THE REST REPORT? I AM.I'LL GIVE COREY A SECOND TO PULL IT UP.
SO, UM, JUST LIKE RMSI THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN A WHILE WE'VE COME WITH NO VOTING ITEMS FOR YOU, BUT NOTHING FOR YOU TODAY.
NOT THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN BUSY.
UM, WE DO HAVE SOME, SOME RECENT ACTIONS.
SO, UM, 1234 WENT BACK TO PRS, UM, AND THEN WE HAVE IA REVIEW ON A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT PICKERS.
UM, WE, UM, DID REFER 1265 OVER TO N-D-S-W-G FOUR REVIEW, AND THEN 1229, WE, WE HAD THIS TABLED FOR QUITE A WHILE AND WE WERE LOOKING TO SEE HOW IT CAME OUT OF, UM, WMWG, BUT BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE SAW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S REALLY JUST RELATED TO FINANCIAL, UM, ISSUES.
AND SO THERE WAS REALLY NO ROLE FOR ROSS.
SO INSTEAD OF KEEPING THIS TABLED, UM, IN PERPETUITY, WE DECIDED WE COULD JUST GO AHEAD AND REPORT BACK TO YOU GUYS THAT WE'RE DONE WITH OUR PIECE OF IT.
AND NEXT SLIDE WE HAVE OUR WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP.
MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BLOWN THAT UP.
BUT, UM, THE, THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE OPEN SEAT FOR VICE CHAIR ON P-D-C-W-G.
UM, KAITLYN, YOUR HUSBAND SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR LEAVING CHAD ALL ON HIS OWN.
I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN DO ABOUT IT.
I CAN GUARANTEE HE'S NOT LISTENING RIGHT NOW.
SO WE, WE'LL, WE'LL GET AHOLD OF HIM SOMEHOW.
AND THEN AS ALWAYS, I SHOW YOU A LIST OF WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, STILL OUT THERE AND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THOSE ITEMS WHERE YOU CAN TUNE IN.
SO THAT'S THE NEXT TWO SLIDES.
AND THEN LASTLY, UM, WE HAVE OUR NEXT MEETING NEXT THURSDAY.
IT WILL BE IN PERSON COUPLE OF, UM, ITEMS HERE TO FLAG FOR YOU THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR KATIE? OKAY.
[10. WMS Report (Vote)]
ALL RIGHT.I THINK WE CAN GET THE WMS REPORT PULLED UP.
WE DO HAVE A VOTING ITEM HERE.
BLAKE, ARE YOU READY? YES, MA'AM.
[01:30:01]
BEHALF OF WMS. JUST WANTED TO HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM OUR FEBRUARY 5TH MEETING.UH, WE DISCUSSED TRANSITIONING OUR GOALS TO THE TAC APPROACH OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
SO, UH, I'LL BE WORKING TOWARDS THAT AND WE WILL DISCUSS NEXT MEETING ON OUR IDEAS.
I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND STEER ROUND BULLET NUMBER TWO THERE, BUT I, I DO WANT TO, UH, RECOGNIZE, UH, MARK'S COMMENTS IN TERMS OF A, A COMPROMISE I, I REALLY APPRECIATE AS, AS WELL THE, THE NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD ON THIS.
I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A, AT A GOOD SOLUTION, UM, ONTO THE ITEMS WE'VE ENDORSED OR APPROVED.
UH, WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT VC MRRO 42 SEVERAL TIMES TODAY, AND WE ACTUALLY FORWARDED ON THE WMS REPORT AND THE IA TO T TODAY FOR A VOTE.
UH, JUST AS A QUICK REMINDER, THIS ONE INTRODUCES SEASONAL PRICING FOR NOX DURING MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, AND RETAINS ANNUAL, UH, INDEX PRICES FOR SO TWO OCTOBER THROUGH APRIL.
UM, I GUESS WE'LL CONTINUE THROUGH THE REST OF THE REPORT AND THEN COME BACK TO THIS, THIS ITEM FOR A POTENTIAL VOTE.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM WE APPROVED WAS SMUGGER 28.
UH, THIS ONE EXTENDS GUIDELINES FOR LOSS COMPENSATION TO INCLUDE LIMITING REACTORS.
MWG HAD SOME PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS HERE, AND THAT ACTUALLY, UH, WITH LED TO WITHDRAWAL OF MPR 1200.
UH, SO SMOG 28 COVERS THE CONCERNS THAT WERE INTRODUCED THERE.
AND THEN FINALLY, UH, WE ALSO RECOMMENDED NPR 1256, WHICH INTRODUCES ESRS AS A POTENTIAL MUST RUN ALTERNATIVE AND JUST LANGUAGE IN THERE TO EFFECTUATE THAT.
AND THEN FINALLY, SIMILAR TO, UH, SOME ACTIONS THAT, THAT ROSS TOOK, UH, FOR NPR 1238, UH, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO MARKET RELATED DISCUSSIONS NECESSARY FOR THIS ONE.
UH, IT'S STILL ACTIVELY BEING DISCUSSED AT ON THE ROTH SIDE.
SO WE COMMUNICATED BACK TO, UH, PRS THAT WE'VE CONCLUDED OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ONE.
AND WITH 1202, UH, THIS ONE INTRODUCES, UH, REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS, UH, AND FEES FOR LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTIONS.
UH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE HEARD FROM ERCOT THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING INCORPORATING SOME OF THESE CONCEPTS INTO NPRR 1 2 3 4.
UH, SO WMS HAS DECIDED, OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE CONCLUDED ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
AND THEN FINALLY OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE NEXT WEEK ON MARCH THE FIFTH.
UH, I MAY WORK WITH SUSIE OFFLINE TO TRY TO INTRODUCE THE, THE ADDER, UH, AGENDA ITEM SO WE CAN START DISCUSSIONS.
UH, BUT I'LL, I'LL GET WITH YOU OFFLINE ON THAT.
SO FOLKS AT LEAST JUST BE PREPARED TO, UH, START DISCUSSIONS ON MARCH 5TH.
SO WE ARE LOOKING, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT THE VCMR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION.
I'M NOT SURE I MISUNDERSTOOD, UH, BLAKE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.
THE, UH, WITH VCMR 0 42, THE SO TWO, UH, APPLIES EVERY SINGLE MONTH OF THE YEAR WHILE THE NO IS, SO IT ONLY BE APPLICABLE, UM, BASICALLY DURING THE SUMMER SEASONS MAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER.
I, I'M NOT SURE IF I CAPTURED YOU COMMENT.
I I PROBABLY MISSTATED THAT, YOU KNOW, GOOD CATCH.
IS THAT CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY? IT'S CLEAR FOR NED.
UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF VCMR 42 AS RECOMMENDED BY WMS IN THE TWO FIVE WMS REPORT.
IS THIS A COMBO BALLOT ITEM? YES, BUT I DID HAVE A QUICK COMMENT.
SO THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT IT AT WMS. AND SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT WE LIKE ABOUT THIS IS THAT THIS INTEGRATES THESE COSTS INTO THE MARGINAL COST OF BURNING FUEL IN THEORY.
SO WHERE THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT MAKE WHOLE PAYMENTS OR WHATEVER ELSE, IT'S IN THE PRICE.
WE LIKE THAT AND THAT'S WHY WE LIKE THE NPR.
AND I THINK WE HEARD SIMILAR COMMENTARY EARLIER FROM THE IMM ABOUT THIS APPROACH.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S ADD THAT TO THE COMBO BALLOT.
COREY, WE ARE REALLY MOVING ALONG.
UM, SO NEXT IS THE CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP.
LORETTO, ARE YOU READY FOR THAT REPORT?
[01:35:21]
LORETTO, ARE YOU ON TO GIVE THIS REPORT? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.LUNCH WILL BE HERE IN 15 MINUTES AND I CONFIRMED KEVIN IS NOT LISTENING, SO HE CAN VICE CHAIR.
LORETTA, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MIGHT BE MUTED STILL.
DO YOU WANNA CALL BACK IN? I WOULD MOVE ON, BUT OUR NEXT ONE IS SORT OF A LONG ITEM.
I THINK LUNCH WILL, YEAH, 15 MINUTES.
WHERE'D KEYS GO? WHERE BILL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL A JOKE? IT LOOKS LIKE LORETTO IS HAVING SOME AUDIO ISSUES, SO, UH, SHE REQUESTED THAT WE COME BACK TO HER.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF A SHORT ITEM TO GO TO NEXT.
UM, KEITH MARGARET DESIGN FRAMEWORK ITEM'S PRETTY SHORT, BUT HE ABANDONED US.
UM, CATHERINE, DO YOUR UPDATE.
[13. ERCOT Reports (Part 1 of 4)]
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO, UH, CATHERINE GROSS WITH THE SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP WORKSHOP UPDATE.THAT WAS THE KIND OF AWKWARD PAUSE.
HI, THIS IS CATHERINE GROSS WITH ERCOT.
UM, WE HAVE TALKED BEFORE AT TECH ABOUT LOOKING INTO OUR BYLAWS AND LOOKING AT POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THOSE.
UM, WE DID HAVE A WORKSHOP ON FEBRUARY 14TH TO GO OVER IDEAS ABOUT, UM, POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS.
THERE WERE FOUR DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT PROPOSED, UM, CONCEPTS OR IDEAS FOR CHANGES.
UM, ONLY ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES PROVIDED SOME WRITTEN RED LINES OF THE BYLAWS.
AND SO TO BETTER EVALUATE, UM, POSSIBLE CHANGES, WE ARE GOING TO, WE DID ISSUE A MARKET NOTICE LAST WEEK WHERE WE ASKED FOR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT PROPOSED RED LINES TO THE BYLAWS BY MARCH 14TH.
AND THEN, UM, WE WILL POST THOSE RED LINES ONTO OUR WORKSHOP PAGE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THEM.
AND THEN RESPONSES TO THOSE RED LINES WILL BE DUE BY, I THINK IT'S APRIL 18TH.
AND WE'LL PLAN TO GIVE A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW TO THE BOARD ON APRIL, THE APRIL BOARD MEETING, BUT THEN TO HAVE MORE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE IN JUNE AND SEPTEMBER.
SO WILL WE GET A NOTICE WHEN THOSE RED LINES GET POSTED TO THE TECH PAGE? UM, YES, I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT.
AND THEN WHAT IS, THERE'S NOT REALLY A PROCESS, I GUESS WE DON'T NEED TAC APPROVAL OR ANYTHING FOR RED LINES.
WOULD YOU BE LOOKING FOR TAC ENDORSEMENT? LIKE IS IT JUST SORT OF A, I THINK IT'S JUST AN AWARENESS THING.
AND PEOPLE, PEOPLE CAN FILE RESPONSES TO ANY OF THOSE.
SO YOU ARE GETTING RED LINES RIGHT NOW.
YOU WILL LET US KNOW AND POST THOSE TO THE TECH PAGE, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE SOME TIME FOR RESPONSES AND ALSO
[01:40:01]
DISCUSS AT APRIL TECH.I CAN, YEAH, I CAN PLAN TO COME BACK AT EACH AT SUBSEQUENT TAC MEETINGS TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE, THE RED LINES WILL BE POSTED TO THE WORKSHOP PAGE.
BUT I'LL, I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT APPEAR ON THE TAC PAGE OR A LINK FOR THAT.
COULD WE JUST SEND A NOTE TO THE TECH EXPLODER AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE WORKSHOP PAGE OR JUST OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR CATHERINE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
[11. Credit Finance Sub Group Report]
YOU HAVE AUDIO NOW? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN.WE MET ON FEBRUARY 19TH, NOT ONE P.
AND, UM, IT WAS A VERY SHORT MEETING.
WE HAD, UM, THE OPERATIONAL NPRS THAT WERE WITHOUT CREDIT IMPACTS.
I'LL REVIEW THOSE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, ERCOT GAVE US THE REVISIONS, THEIR DRAFT NPRR FOR THE REVISIONS TO THE EAL FORMULAS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW.
AND THEN WE HAD THE REGULAR CREDIT EXPOSURE UPDATE.
SO WE REVIEWED THE, THESE THREE NPRS AND NONE OF THEM WERE DETERMINED TO HAVE CREDIT IMPACTS.
AND ON THE CREDIT HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER AND JANUARY, THE TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE INCREASED OR SLIGHTLY TO 1.96 BILLION.
THE TP INCREASED DE, UH, TRY THAT AGAIN.
THE INCREASED DUE TO HIGHER PRICES AND FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS, THE AVERAGE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL SLIGHTLY RAISED FROM 3.98 BILLION IN DECEMBER TO FIVE POINT 10 BILLION IN JANUARY, 2025.
AND THERE WERE NO UNUSUAL COLLATERAL CALL ACTIVITY.
AND THIS IS THE, THE CHART, THE ANNUAL CHART THAT SHOWS THE CHANGES IN COLLATERAL POSTED BY, UM, TYPES OF COLLATERAL.
AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VIEW SHOWING HOW THE COLLATERAL CHANGED DURING THE TIME PERIOD.
AND THE, UM, MONTHLY REPORT ON WHERE THE BANKS STAND WITH WITHOUT OUTSTANDING, UM, CAPACITY AVAILABLE.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
[13. ERCOT Reports (Part 2 of 4)]
WE ARE GONNA STILL LOOK FOR ONES THAT ARE SHORT, SO WE'RE GONNA JUMP BACK DOWN TO ERCOT REPORTS, UM, IN KEITH'S MARKET DESIGN FRAMEWORK UPDATE.YEAH, THIS IS A FAIRLY QUICK, QUICK UPDATE.
I THINK REALLY THE, THE KEY IS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT NEXT MONTH IS THE, THE SHORT OF IT.
UH, I THINK THE, THE THOUGHT IS WE, WE DEFINITELY HAD A, A REALLY, UM, LIVELY DIALOGUE LAST TIME AND, UM, I THINK WE DEFINITELY HEARD, UH, SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT WERE WRITTEN AND, AND SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT, THAT PRESENTED.
UH, SO WE'D LIKE TO TO PUSH THAT TO, TO MARCH INSTEAD OF UH, UH, HAVING IT TODAY.
I THINK THE OTHER THOUGHT IS THAT IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF A TACK ON TO THE TACK MEETING, PARDON THE PUN.
UM, UH, RATHER THAN HAVE IT WITHIN THE MEETING, I THINK THAT WAS, UH, SOMETHING WHERE IF THERE, IF THERE ARE ITEMS THAT, THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE CONTENTIOUS AND SOME MAYBE MORE ENGAGED THAN OTHERS, WE'LL WE'LL SORT OF PUT IT AT THE END OF THE, OF THE MEETING, UH, AS ITS OWN SEPARATE ITEM.
AND SO WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT.
BUT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS, THERE WAS SOME, SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS.
UH, WE'LL, WE'LL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT.
UM, UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE KEY KEY POINTS THAT WE TOOK AWAY IN TERMS OF PURPOSE AND, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, POTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES, UH, THAT, THAT FOLKS HAD OFFERED UP AS WELL.
SO I THINK, I THINK WE'LL HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THAT, UH, NEXT MONTH.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR KEITH? ERIC? UH, YES, KEITH, HOW WOULD YOU INTEGRATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH WHAT WE VOTED ON EARLIER IN TERMS OF TECH, UH, ANNUAL GOALS IN TERMS OF MARKET DESIGN AND COST EFFECTIVENESS AND OTHERS? ARE YOU GONNA, IS THAT GONNA BE UNDER UNDERLYING SOME OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS? I, I THINK WHAT'S, WHAT'S INTERESTING IS, AT LEAST THE WAY I TOOK THE, THE TACT GOALS, THEY, THEY KIND OF CONNECT WELL WITH I THINK KIND OF THE, THERE'S WHAT THE BOARD, UH, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OR SORT OF TAX STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
AND, AND I THINK THAT, UM, WHAT WE'LL
[01:45:01]
SEE IS THAT THERE, THERE'S DEFINITELY, UM, CONNECTION, UM, BETWEEN ALL OF THAT.I THINK THE, THE PURPOSE IS, IS TO NOT HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
I THINK THE GOAL WAS TO TRY TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT AND, AND CONNECT WITH THAT.
AND I THINK, I THINK THEY WILL ULTIMATELY CONNECT WITH, WITH WHAT THE BOARD AND, AND TACK IT ULTIMATELY DOING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KEITH? OKAY.
JULIE, ARE YOU BY CHANCE ON TO DO THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STATUS UPDATE? YEAH, SURE THING.
I'M THE SUPERVISOR OF THE LARGE LOAD INTEGRATION TEAM.
JUST GONNA PRESENT THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE UPDATE THAT Y'ALL SEE FROM US EVERY MONTH AT TAC.
AS EVERYONE CAN SEE
UM, THE QUEUE WENT UP AGAIN BY ABOUT 15 GIGAWATTS, UM, IN THE LAST MONTH SINCE THE LAST, UH, UH, TACK UPDATE THAT WE PROVIDED.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT INCREASE HERE.
THE QUEUE NOW SITS AT ABOUT 99 GIGAWATTS, AND THAT INCLUDES A COMBINATION OF NEW STANDALONE AND CO-LOCATED PROJECTS AS WELL AS SEVERAL PROJECT CANCELLATIONS.
UM, BUT EVEN WITH ALL THAT WE'RE, WE'RE STILL 15 GIGAWATTS HIGHER THAN WE WERE BEFORE.
NEXT SLIDE, AND REFLECTING THAT 99 GIGAWATTS, AGAIN, MOST OF YOU HERE HAVE SEEN THIS SLIDE BEFORE.
UM, WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF THE LOADS IN OUR QUEUE.
SO NO STUDY SUBMITTED MEAN THAT A LOAD REQUEST HAS BEEN, UH, SUBMITTED TO ERCOT.
WE KNOW MEGAWATTS SIZE AND RAMP SCHEDULE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE STUDIES YET.
UNDER ERCOT REVIEW MEANS WE ARE REVIEWING THEIR STUDIES, PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED, UM, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THOSE THAT ARE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE BUT NOT OPERATIONAL ARE LOADS THAT HAVE RECEIVED, UH, CONTROL ROOM APPROVED TO ENERGIZATION, BUT THEY HAVE NOT, UM, ENERGIZED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND, UH, OBSERVED ENERGIZER, UH, THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, SEEN, UH, BY OUR OPERATIONS.
NEXT SLIDE FOR AIR COD APPROVALS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, YOU CAN SEE THE TOTAL LOAD OF PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED.
UM, THE PAST YEAR HAS SEEN 1,827 MEGAWATTS OF LOAD APPROVED TO ENERGIZE NEXT SLIDE.
AND OF THE TOTAL 6,306 MEGAWATTS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE, ABOUT HALF OF THAT RESIDES IN LOADS UN WEST.
THE REST RESIDES IN OTHER LOAD ZONES.
5,231 MEGAWATTS CONSISTS OF STANDALONE PROJECTS AND ABOUT A THOUSAND CONSISTS OF CO-LOCATED PROJECTS.
OF THE LOADS THAT WERE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE, WE'VE OBSERVED A NON SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 3,322 MEGAWATTS FOR FEBRUARY, 2025.
THIS IS CALCULATED AS SUM OF THE MAXIMUM VALUE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOAD PER MONTH.
AND IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SEE THE SAME DATA FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS PEAK OF 3,109 MEGAWATTS IN JANUARY, 2025.
SORRY, THAT SHOULD READ FEBRUARY 25.
AND THIS IS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SUM OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL LOADS PER MONTH.
JULIE, CAN WE TAKE SOME QUESTIONS HERE? WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CUE.
UH, THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE LAST SLIDE.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE SLIDE THREE IN THE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE BUT NOT YET OBSERVED ROW.
WE SEE A JUMP INCREASE FROM 1390 IN 2028 TO 1690 AND 29 AND 30.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON THERE? IS THAT A LOAD RAMP? YEAH, YEAH, FOR SURE.
UM, SO FOR THOSE THAT ARE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE, WE HAVE A LOAD RAMP.
SO WHAT THAT PROBABLY REPRESENTS IS A LOAD
[01:50:01]
THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED TODAY.UM, PERHAPS PART OF THAT LOAD IS ALREADY, UM, OPERATIONAL TODAY.
UM, BUT UH, IT HAS A RAMP SCHEDULE THAT, YOU KNOW, INCREASES INTO 2029 OR 2030.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD INCREASE BY, YOU KNOW, SOME AMOUNT BY THOSE YEARS.
AND THEN WE ARE STILL STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR OBSERVED ENERGIZED IS AT 46 16 WHEN YOUR NONS SIMULTANEOUS PEAK OBSERVED IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER AND MUCH LOWER.
YEAH, AND I, I THINK WE CAN, UH, GET Y'ALL SOME CLARITY ON THAT.
SO OBSERVED ENERGIZED IN THIS SLIDE IS REFERRING TO THE OBSERVED ENERGIZED PEAK.
UM, AND, AND WE HAVE THAT UPDATED NOTE HERE FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT.
SO IF YOU SEE THAT FIRST BULLET POINT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE, OBSERVED ENERGIZED PROJECTS THAT HAVE APPROVED, RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE FROM ERCOT OPERATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE ALL TIME NON NON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK LOAD CONSUMPTION.
SO SINCE THOSE, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALLY EACH LOAD HAS ENERGIZED, UM, THAT'S LOOKING AT THE, THE PEAK, UH, THAT EACH LOAD CONSUMED KIND OF REGARDLESS OF TIME.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDES, I THINK IT'S SIX AND SEVEN OR FIVE AND SIX, I ALWAYS FORGET, BUT UM, AT ANY RATE I'M COMPLETE.
UM, SO THIS IS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION, RIGHT? SO IT'S FOR THAT SPECIFIC MONTH, THE NON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK CONSUMPTION FOR EACH LOAD, AND THEN THE SLIDE AFTER, UM, IS SHOWING THE SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION.
YEAH, SO THE RECONCILE, THE 46 16, GOING BACK ONE SLIDE, YOU'RE BASICALLY TAKING, UH, THE ALL TIME MAXIMUM AMOUNT NONS SIMULTANEOUSLY PEAK CONSUMED BY EACH CUSTOMER SOMEWHERE IN THIS CHART, WHICH MAY HAVE HAPPENED THREE MONTHS AGO, UH, FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER, AND THEN ADDING THAT ALL UP TO GET YOUR 4 46 16, CORRECT? YES.
I WAS, I WAS, UH, BILL GOT MY OTHER QUESTION, BUT ON THIS ONE, ON THE MONTHLIES, HOW ARE YOU DIVIDING THE MONTHLY UP? BECAUSE WHENEVER WE SUBMIT LOAD RAMPS, IT'S ALWAYS BY YEAR.
UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN SOME CASES WE, WE GET MONTHLY RAMPS, SO.
OKAY, SO THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE, THE TSP? IT CAN BE, YES.
YEAH, SOME, SOME LOADS ENERGIZE, UH, IN A RAMP SCHEDULE AND SOME ENERGIZE ALL AT ONCE, DEPENDS WHAT'S IDENTIFIED ON THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN.
ARE YOU GOOD, CLAYTON? YEAH, I'M FINE.
BRIAN? UH, THIS, THIS QUESTION COULD BE FOR EITHER SLIDE TWO OR THREE, UH, JUST WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF, OF INCREASE IN THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE, UM, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF THIRST FOR THE TYPE OF, OF LOADS THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE.
UM, I THINK BACK IN AUGUST, UH, YOUR, YOUR GROUP PROVIDED SOME SEGMENTATION OF, OF THE LARGE LOWS BY, UM, REALLY BY INDUSTRY.
UH, AND IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE PROSPECTIVELY, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, UH, YEAH, WE, WE CAN TAKE THAT INTERNAL.
UM, YOU'RE, THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN ASKED THIS AG I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA COMMENT ON THIS QUESTION.
UM, I, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE, THE INTEREST.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A, UM, A REQUIREMENT IN THE INTERIM PROCESS THAT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS PROVIDED.
AND SO WE DO HAVE SOME OF IT, UM, THROUGH PREVIOUS RFIS, BUT IT'S VERY MANUAL PROCESS.
SO I THINK CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, ON PASSAGE OF, UH, NPR 1234 AND P ONE 15 AND IMPLEMENTATION, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN PROVIDE ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
UM, AND WE'LL LOOK AND SEE IF, UH, HOW FEASIBLE IT IS TO DO BEFORE THEN.
UM, WHEN YOU SAY ONGOING BASIS, WHEN MIGHT WE START SEEING THAT? UH, WELL I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON, UH, APPROVAL OF, OF THOSE NPR, THE NPR ON THE PIGGER AND THE IMPLEMENTATION.
UM, 'CAUSE AT THAT POINT THERE'S INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE MODEL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MUCH MORE EASILY CLASSIFY, UM, THESE LOADS.
[01:55:01]
OKAY, NED.UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US.
THIS IS ALWAYS, UH, I THINK ONE OF THE, THE REPORTS THAT FOLKS HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN.
SO APPRECIATE YOU, UM, BRING, BRINGING IT FORWARD AND, AND TAKING OUR QUESTIONS.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION BOTH ABOUT THE, THIS SLIDE, SLIDE TWO AND SLIDE FIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, STARTS WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT OF THE TOTALS THERE, THE, THE VAST MAJORITY IS NOT CO-LOCATED WITH, UH, GENERATION PROJECTS WITH, WHICH IS, I THINK IS JUST IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT GIVEN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAPPENING JUST THIS MORNING, UM, UH, A FEW MILES, UH, CLOSER TO DOWNTOWN.
AND, UH, SO I WANTED, WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, UM, IS JUST SOMETHING TO, FOR US ALL TO BE COGNIZANT OF.
UM, AND ON SLIDE FIVE IN PARTICULAR, I NOTICED, YOU KNOW, THERE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CO-LOCATED, IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN APPROVED TO ENERGIZE SO FAR.
IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A, A SUBSET, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ONE SIXTH OF THE TOTAL AND MOST OF IT HAS ALREADY, UH, HAD AN OBSERVED SIMULTANEOUS NONS SIMULTANEOUS PEAK.
SO WHAT I, WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT IS IN LATE JANUARY, ERCOT ALSO STARTED PUBLISHING A WEEKLY REPORT OF THE APPROVED PRIVATE USE NETWORKS, THE APPROVED CO-LOCATED GENERATION AND LOAD PROJECTS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE SYSTEM TODAY.
AND THAT'S ABOUT 16,700 MEGAWATTS OR SO.
UM, AND I WAS CURIOUS, IS THIS THE 976 MEGAWATTS THAT YOU SEE ON HERE? IS THAT INCLUDED IN THAT REPORT? DO YOU, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW? I'M GONNA HAVE TO DEFER TO AJ ON THIS ONE.
YEAH, I, I, THIS IS AG SPRINGER.
UM, I, I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT FOR SURE.
UM, SO I'D HAVE TO CHECK AND GET BACK.
I WOULD THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS REPORT CONTAINS ONLY LARGE LOADS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE INTERIM PROCESS, SO IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY A SUBSET OF THAT REPORT.
UM, BUT I'D HAVE TO CHECK AND GET BACK.
I I FIGURED IT WAS PROBABLY COMING FROM TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS AND SO THAT, THAT MAY BE THE, THE CASE.
BUT, UM, IN, IN EITHER CASE, I, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL JUST TO BE, UH, BE AWARE OF THE, THE RELATIVE SIZE AND, AND THE FACT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF CO-LOCATED, UH, GENERATION AND LOAD ON THE SYSTEM.
BLAKE HOLT, LCRA, UH, JULIE, MY, MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY ON THIS SLIDE SLIDE FIVE, UH, I REMEMBER A REQUEST TO, TO BREAK OUT THE OTHER CATEGORY AND INTO SEPARATE LOAD ZONES.
I'M CURIOUS IF, IF Y'ALL HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT, UH, ANY PROGRESS BEEN MADE OR IS THERE, ARE THERE DISCLOSURE CONCERNS THERE, THERE ARE STILL DISCLOSURE CONCERNS AT THIS TIME.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE STILL EVALUATING THAT WE'RE, WE'RE AWARE THAT, UH, THERE'S APPETITE FOR, FOR THAT DATA.
AND THEN ANDY WHEN WANTS TO BE ADDED TO THE QUEUE AFTER THAT.
SO MY QUESTION ON PAGE NUMBER, SLIDE NUMBER TWO, SO THAT 15 GIGAWATT OF LARGE LOAD THAT MAKING 99 RIGHT TOTAL, SO WHAT CATEGORY ARE THAT 50 GIGAWATT LIKE, UH, IS ALREADY APPROVED TO ENERGIZE OR PLANNING STUDY ALREADY APPROVED OR OB OBSERVED ENERGIZED? WHAT IS THE STATUS THERE? YEAH, SO THIS REFLECTS THE NEW REQUESTS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IN THE PAST MONTH.
UM, AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WITHOUT GETTING INTO INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS INFORMATION, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY RARE THAT A PROJECT GETS IN THE QUEUE AND, UM, IS ENERGIZED
SO I, I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE GONNA BE REQUESTS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE EITHER HAD AN INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTED, OR AT THE VERY LEAST A STEADY SCOPE.
UM, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF THOSE REQUESTS.
SO THEY'RE JUST UNDER REVIEW, RIGHT? CORRECT.
OKAY, ANDY? YES, THANKS CAITLIN.
AND, AND THANKS JULIE FOR, FOR THIS INFORMATION IN THE SPIRIT ON, ON MORE INFORMATION.
UM, I WAS CURIOUS IF THERE'D BE A WAY FOR YOU TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THIS THROUGH THE LENS OF ENTITY AND THEIR AFFILIATES AND HOW MANY PROJECTS OR BEING SUBMITTED THROUGH THE QUEUE? AGAIN, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THE PROTECTING THE CUSTOMER CLASS INFORMATION,
[02:00:01]
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT Y'ALL CAN, YOU KNOW, ANONYMIZE THAT INFORMATION BUT GROUP THEM BY ENTITY TYPE AND THEIR AFFILIATES, IT, IT COULD BE SOME POTENTIAL USE FOR INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S A HANDFUL OF ENTITIES THAT MIGHT BE SUBMITTING A MAJORITY OF THESE TYPE OF, UM, LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS.SO, UM, ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ON THAT FRONT TO, TO ADD TO THE TRANSPARENCY, THIS WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JULIE? WOULD YOU JUST ANNOUNCE THAT THERE'S AN LFL MEETING ON TUESDAY? THERE'S AN L-F-L-T-F MEETING ON TUESDAY.
WILL THERE BE COOKIES?
WELL, YOU CAN TALK, YOU CAN TALK TO BOB ABOUT IT AFTER TECH.
FOR THOSE THAT AREN'T ON MIC, BOB SAID YES,
I WAS TRYING TO BE AN HONEST BROKER.
UM, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT I PROPOSE WE DO NOW LUNCH.
I WAS GOING TO ASK US TO PLAY IT UP HERE AND ERCOT WAS VERY ACCOMMODATING, BUT THERE'S NOTHING TO PLAY NOW.
UM, BUT FOR THOSE WHO NEED TO GET SOMEWHERE ELSE, I WOULD SAY LET'S TAKE THE COMBO BALLOT UP NOW BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OUR VOTING ITEMS. UM, HAVE LUNCH, COME BACK AT ONE 30 AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RTC PLUS B AND THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DISCUSSIONS I THINK WILL BE FAIRLY ROBUST.
UM, SO, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING IS TO DO COMBO BALLOT LUNCH AND THEN TAKE, TAKE UP THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
NED'S NODDING SO WHILE LOOKING AT SOMETHING ELSE, BUT THAT'S OKAY, CLAYTON.
YEAH, EVEN THOUGH THE HEARING IS OVER, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO BACK IN TIME AND, AND, AND STREAM FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU MISSED.
YOU, YOU CAN STILL WATCH THE HEARING, BUT SOME PEOPLE WANT TO BE WHERE THEY'RE FRIENDS AND YOU KNOW, LOVED ONES WHO ARE DOING TESTIMONY OR WHATEVER.
[15. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
DO THE COMBO BALLOT.I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
KEY MOTION TO APPROVE NED SECOND.
GIVE FOLKS A SECOND TO TAKE SCREENSHOTS.
ALWAYS GET IMMEDIATELY AFTER A MEETING REQUEST FOR WHAT WAS ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER, AFTER THE COMBO BALLOT'S TAKEN AND THE MEETING ENDS, EITHER SUSIE OR I, USUALLY SUSIE GETS THESE APPROVED COMBO BALLOTS POSTED TO THE MEETING PAGE.
SO IF YOU GUYS AREN'T FURIOUSLY TAKING NOTES ON A 70 ROW COMBO BALLOT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, IT'LL BE ON THE MEETING PAGE WITHIN THE HOUR OR TWO AFTER THE MEETING ENDS.
BUT ON THIS MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMBO BALLOT, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS WITH ERIC GOFF.
ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BOB HILTON.
CAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN.
I'VE BEEN DOUBLE DOG DARED TO ABSTAIN, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO
THANK YOU FOR RESISTING PEER PRESSURE.
THANK YOU, UH, SHANE FOR REMI? YES, SIR.
KEITH, I CAN TAKE YOU IN CHAT AGAIN, KEITH, THAT'S EASIER FOR YOU.
YEP, GOT YOU IN CHAT AS A YES.
KEITH EBY FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU DAVID FOR RICHARD? YES, THANK YOU.
SO, SOUNDS LIKE LUNCH IS HERE.
WE'LL BREAK FOR ABOUT 30 MINUTES FOR LUNCH AND PLAN TO GET STARTED AROUND 1 35 OR SO.
[02:05:05]
OKAY, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE RUDE.ALRIGHT, I THINK WE CAN START TACK UP AGAIN.
[13. ERCOT Reports (Part 3 of 4)]
ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO START OFF WITH, UM, ANDY GALLO AND THE NOER 2 45 INFORMATION COLLECTION.ANDY, ARE YOU ON THE LINE? I AM.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, PRETTY FAINT.
OH, UM, OH, THAT'S, THAT'S MUCH BETTER.
SO, UM, NOT MUCH OF AN UPDATE.
JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT, UM, DOCUSIGN ENVELOPES WENT OUT ON FEBRUARY 19TH TO ALL RESOURCES THAT ARE IN THE NETWORK OPERATIONS MODEL OR THAT HAVE A PRODUCTION LOAD DATE.
UM, THERE WAS ALSO A MARKET NOTICE ON THE SAME DAY, UM, THAT DOCUSIGN PROCESS SHOULD BE USED FOR COMMISSIONED RESOURCES OR THOSE THAT HAVE, UH, A CURRENT PRODUCTION LOAD DATE.
UH, IF YOUR RESOURCES IN THE GENERATION INTERCONNECTION OR MODIFICATION QUEUE, UH, YOU SHOULD USE THE TEMPLATE THAT IS POSTED ON THE RESOURCE INTEGRATION WEBSITE, UM, ON THE ERCOT PUBLIC WEBPAGE AND SUBMIT THE INFORMATION THROUGH RIO.
AND THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THAT INFORMATION IS APRIL 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
AND WE ALSO DID POST A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS DOCUMENT ON THE RESOURCE INTEGRATION WEBSITE.
UM, I CAN, I, I CAN PUT THAT LINK TO THAT IN THE CHAT IF THAT WOULD HELP.
UM, AND THEN, UH, ALSO WE HAVE OUR SECOND WORKSHOP, UH, SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 10TH.
AND THEN LASTLY, I JUST WANTED TO REMEMBER, UH, REMIND EVERYBODY THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, THIS PROCESS, YOU CAN SUBMIT THEM TO NOER25@ERCOT.COM.
THAT'S A MAILBOX MONITORED BY MYSELF AND OTHERS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM.
UM, AND WE TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, UH, THE BEST WE CAN AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
UM, WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PRODUCTIVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ANDY? I DO, I KIND OF WISH I HAD THAT EMAIL ADDRESS DURING THE T DISCUSSIONS LAST YEAR, SO THEN YOU CAN KIND OF, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO.
[12. RTC+B Task Force Report]
WE ARE MOVING NEXT TO, UM, RTC PLUS B.ANDY GAVE US A LITTLE PREVIEW DURING PRS.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A LONGER, UH, DISCUSSION TODAY.
AND I, I THINK WE JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE AWARE.
THERE WILL BE AN RTC PLUS B NEXT WEEK, A PRS THE WEEK AFTERWARDS, AND THEN MARCH TECH MAYBE TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT.
UM, AND SO WE REALLY ONLY HAVE ONE SHOT AT THESE AT, AT MARCH CHECK TCC IN ORDER TO GET THEM TO APRIL BOARD, WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED FOR KEEPING GO LIVE IMPLEMENTATION ON TIME.
UM, SO I THINK WHAT WE WILL DO IS HAVE MATT GO THROUGH THESE SLIDES, GO, GO THROUGH 'EM ALL TOGETHER AND THEN WE WOULD TAKE UP 1268 IN MORE DETAIL AFTER THAT.
I KNOW THERE'S COMMENTS AND THEN IF ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE UP 1269 IN MORE DETAIL, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
SOUND GOOD TO EVERYONE? ALRIGHT, GOOD PLAN.
AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA TALK MAINLY ABOUT THE NPRS AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, BUT I DO WANNA JUST KIND OF SET THE STAGE, WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST TAC MEETING AND THE SCHEDULE THAT WE'RE ON.
UH, SO FOR TODAY, THIS IS THE SAME SLIDES THAT YOU'VE SEEN FOR MONTHS.
WHAT WAS ADDED TWO MONTHS AGO IS WHAT'S ON THE LEFT SIDE IN PURPLE IS THIS IDEA OF AN EARLY RELEASE AREA OR A SANDBOX THAT PEOPLE CAN START TO, WHETHER IT'S A VENDOR OR AN IT SHOP, CAN START TO USE THEIR TEST CERTIFICATES TO ACCESS THE SYSTEM.
SO WE'LL ACTUALLY HAVE REAL TIME IZATION PLUS BATTERIES UP AND RUNNING NEXT FRIDAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA EXPOSE THE SERVERS TO THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS.
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO USE THEIR MOAT CERTIFICATES.
UH, WE SENT A MARKET NOTICE ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY.
AND SO, UH, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TRANCHE INTO MARKET TRIALS, BUT IT'S NOT THE MARKET TRIALS YET.
THAT'S WHAT BEGINS IN MAY, WHICH IS REALLY FAR AWAY.
SO, UM, IT'S GETTING HERE FASTER THAN YOU THINK AND UM, BUT THIS IS JUST KINDA A SHAKEOUT PERIOD.
UM, IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM, IT HAS NOT CHANGED.
WE HAVE THIS WEIRD THING WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGE PROGRAM, IT'S HOW DO YOU ACCOMMODATE NPRS THAT COME ALONGSIDE AND HOW TO FOLD IN.
SO THESE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN FOLDED IN.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE, UH, 2024 OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
OBVIOUSLY WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT 12 68, 69, AND 70.
THOSE WILL BE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE PASSED AND WILL GO INTO SCOPE, BUT THEY HAVE NO MARKET PARTICIPANT IMPACT
[02:10:01]
CHANGES.SO THE CHANGES THAT WE MAKE WILL IMPACT ERCOT SYSTEMS, BUT IF YOUR SHOP SAYS, WHY ARE WE STILL ADOPTING RTC PROTOCOLS? ISN'T THAT GONNA BREAK THINGS? AND THE ANSWER IS NO, NOT FROM AN INTERFACE PERSPECTIVE.
SO AGAIN, THESE ARE CHANGES TO HOW WE TREAT THINGS INSIDE OF THE ENGINES THEMSELVES.
IN TERMS OF THE PROGRESSION THAT WE'VE BEEN MOVING THROUGH, IT'S BEEN FOCUSING ON, UH, THESE ISSUES TO RESOLVE IN THE TOP LEFT HAVE BEEN THESE OPEN ITEMS FOR POLICY TYPE DECISIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE REHASHED AND SETTLED BEFORE GO LIVE.
AND SO THE PROGRESSION IS TO GET THROUGH THESE ISSUES TO GET DOWN INTO MARKET TRIALS.
AND SOME OF THESE GO IN PARALLEL, BUT WITH MARKET TRIALS BEING IN MAY, LIKE CAITLYN SAID, WE'RE IN FEBRUARY.
AND SO THE IDEA IS GETTING TO THE APRIL BOARD WITH RESOLUTION ON, AND THESE ARE THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS THIS FIRST BOX ARE THREE POLICY ISSUES.
THE AS PROXY OFFERS, UH, THE SCALING FACTORS ON, UH, THE SHARING OF AS RAMPING WITH ENERGY AND THE AS DEMAND CURVES FOR USE IN RUCK.
SO ALL OF THOSE ARE FOLDED INTO NPR 1269.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE WITH THE TARGET FOR THE APRIL BOARD.
THE SECOND RED BOX IS THE IDEA OF THE REVISING THE AS DEMAND CURVES.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, IMM HAD PROPOSED CHANGES TO, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
THIRD BOX IS A CLEANUP OF 1270 AND ALSO REMOVING AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE IN SCED.
AND SO THESE RED BOXES ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAR OUT THE WAY TO ULTIMATELY GET TO THE SECOND HALF OF THE SCREEN, WHICH IS MARKET TRIALS AND GO LIVE.
SO THESE ARE THESE LEFTOVER ISSUES.
UH, THE ONE PIECE IS UNDONE AT THIS POINT.
THEY'RE STILL NOT, UM, FAR ENOUGH ALONG FOR THE MARKET ENGAGEMENT YET IS THE STATE OF CHARGE AND AS DURATION.
UH, AND SO NITKA IS STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT.
WE'RE RUNNING STUDIES ON STATE OF CHARGE WITH RTC AND START AND LOOK AT WHAT THOSE PARAMETERS LOOK LIKE AND HOW TO BRING THOSE FORWARD, UH, WITH TARGET OF A JUNE BOARD RATHER THAN APRIL.
SO IN TERMS OF THE KEY DISCUSSIONS, UH, I PUT THE MARKET READINESS.
WE HAVEN'T SPENT AS MUCH TIME ON IT AS THE OTHERS, BUT IF WE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT, WE WON'T TALK ABOUT IT.
SO I JUST WANT TO KIND PAUSE AND SAY FROM A READINESS PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE HAD ALREADY HAD TAC APPROVE THE MARKET TRIALS PLAN, WHICH IS THE FRAMEWORK FOR ALL THESE PIECES, PARTS TO WORK.
AS WE'RE ROLLING OUT THESE HANDBOOKS, WE AGREED THAT TAC DOESN'T NEED TO APPROVE THOSE.
THE TASK FORCE IS HELPING TO MANAGE THE SCOPE OF THOSE.
AND SO AT THIS POINT WE'VE COMPLETED HANDBOOK ONE, WHICH IS SQUEEZY SUBMISSION TESTING, UH, HANDBOOK NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE QUEASY TELEMETRY CHECKOUT.
AND NOW WE'RE IN THE DRAFT PHASE AND REVIEW OF HANDBOOK NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE OPEN LOOP SC.
THAT'S THE IDEA OF ERCOT RUNNING SC IN AN OPEN LOOP OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERY FIVE MINUTES.
AND THE MARKET STARTS TO SEE SCED PRICING SHOW UP.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KNOCK OUT IS SHOULD THE MARKET SUPPORT THAT SEVEN BY 24 FOR TWO MONTHS OR JUST BUSINESS HOURS FOR A COUPLE DAYS A WEEK? THE THING IS, WE ALL HAVE TO AGREE HOW TO PLAY TOGETHER BECAUSE IF WE HAVE GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
SO IT'S LIKE WHEN DO WE ACTUALLY FOCUS ON SC TO GET REASONABLE RESULTS PUBLISHING SO THAT PEOPLE CAN TEST THEIR SYSTEMS AND SEE HOW IT LOOKS? UH, AND THEN IN PARALLEL TO THAT IS THE QUEASY TELEMETRY TESTING.
IT'S THE IDEA OF THE QUEASY NEED TO SET UP ALL THESE NEW POINTS THEY NEED TO BE TESTING THEM AND COORDINATING WITH ERCOT TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE SET UP.
AND THEN THE LAST PIECE IS, I WAS THINKING ABOUT GOING AHEAD AND POSTING, UH, FOR THE OPERATOR TRAINING SEMINAR THAT STARTS AT THE END OF MARCH.
UH, THE SLIDES THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED FOR THAT WE WILL PROBABLY WORK THROUGH WITH R-T-C-B-T-F, NOT FOR THEIR APPROVAL, BUT JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY AND TRAINING PURPOSES THAT, UH, WILL POST THOSE MATERIALS.
AND THEN WE DID UP ADD ANOTHER VIDEO TO THE LIBRARY.
SO WE'RE UP TO FOUR VIDEOS IN OUR LIBRARIES.
UM, NOT GETTING A LOT OF YOUTUBE HITS, BUT YOU KNOW, EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS, BUT THE TELEMETRY CHANGES, TRAINING VIDEO, REALLY COOL STUFF.
SO, UH, BUT ABBY DID A LOT OF WORK FOR IT AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
OKAY, SO LET'S, LET'S PIVOT TO THE, THE, THE NPR STUFF.
SO THE THREE NPRS THAT ARE OUR TARGET IS 12 68, 9 AND 70.
UH, THOSE HAVE BEEN FILED AND WE'VE HAD EXTRA STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS.
IF I DON'T SAY IT AGAIN AT THE END.
THANK YOU FOR THE THREE EXTRA MEETINGS.
WE'VE DONE TWO EXTRA MEETINGS.
THIS WILL BE THE THIRD ONE FOR THE TASK FORCE ON JANUARY 13TH, 23RD, FEB SEVENTH, 19TH, AND THEN MARCH AND 25TH.
ALL THIS IS THE MARCH TO THE FINISH LINE ON GETTING THESE NPRS APPROVED AND TO BOARD APPROVAL.
UM, AND THE MAIN REASON WE NEED THAT IS FOR THIS YELLOW WINDOW IS THE REFACTORING WITH THE APPROVAL OF THOSE NPRS THAT WE CAN CODE OUR SYSTEMS, DIAL 'EM IN THE PARAMETERS CODE IS NEEDED, AND BEGIN MARKET TRIALS ON WHAT WE'LL GO LIVE WITH.
IF PEOPLE SAY, WHY DO YOU NEED IT? NOW THAT'S THE WHY THERE'S ACTUALLY SYSTEM IMPACTS TO THIS.
SO WE FLAGGED IT AS NO IMPACTS FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM A PROGRAM WE DO HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE CODE CHANGES.
SO WHAT ARE THOSE CHANGES? UM, SO MPR 1268, THIS WAS FILED BY THE IMM FOR MODIFYING THE AS DEMAND CURVES.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAD CLIFFS ON THE CURVES.
NOW WE HAVE RAMPS IN THE CURVES THAT KIND OF EASES IN AND OUT ON THE PIECES PARTS.
[02:15:01]
FILED A MODIFIED BLENDED CURVE THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL NPR 1268.UH, THE IMM THEN PROVIDED CLARIFYING COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 5TH, AND THEN ERCOT OFFERED CLARIFYING COMMENTS ON THAT.
I'M FULL, I'M KIND OF UNFOLDING THESE TO SAY, WHERE'S THE STAKEHOLDER MOMENTUM? THAT IS THE PATH WHERE THE MOMENTUM IS.
THAT WOULD BE APPROVAL, POTENTIALLY ATTACK NEXT MONTH.
SO A NON-CONSENSUS ITEM WAS HUNT ENERGY HAD WANTED TO REVISIT THE A RDC CURVE.
SO THERE'S THE SLICING AND DICING UNDER THE CURVE, AND THEN THERE'S THE OVERARCHING CURVE AND THEY PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE CALCULATIONS FOR THOSE CURVES.
UH, THERE HAS NOT BEEN THE, THE WORDS, I CHOSE THESE WORDS CAREFULLY.
UM, IT'S A NON-CONSENSUS ITEM AT THE TASK FORCE.
WE DON'T HAVE VOTES, WE JUST DO CONSENSUS.
AND THAT JUST WASN'T GETTING TRACTION.
SO AFTER TWO MEETINGS, THE STAKEHOLDERS WERE LEANING TOWARDS IT BEING A REASONABLE IDEA TO BE ON ANOTHER NPR AND WHETHER THAT'S FOR GO LIVE OR AFTER NPR.
SO THERE'S NOT TO SAY IT'S WRONG, IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT NOW AS PART OF 1268.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THIS FILE COMMENTS WERE FILED TWO DAYS AGO FROM TCPA THAT I'M GONNA COME BACK TO.
I DON'T WANT TO HIT JUST YET 'CAUSE THAT'LL KINDA UNFOLD IN OUR DISCUSSION HERE.
SO THAT'S 12 68, 12 69, HAD THREE PIECES OF IT.
I'M JUST GONNA TALK ABOUT TWO PIECES.
SO THIS IS IF A, UM, IF WE HAVE AN INCOMPLETE OFFER FOR MCQUAY OR NO OFFER FOR MCQUAY, WHAT DOES ERCOT FILL IN THE BLANK WITH? AND SO THERE'S BEEN MOMENTUM IN FAVOR OF USING A, UH, PERCENTILE OF THE AS DEMAND CURVE.
SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A VALUE, LOOK IT UP ON THE 95TH PERCENTILE OF THE CURVE, PLUG IN THE NUMBER, AND THEN THAT'S WHAT ERCOT FILLS IN THE BLANK WITH.
UM, THE IMM FILED COMMENT SAYING THEY BELIEVE THAT THE AS PROXY OFF FLOOR SHOULD BE ZERO, UM, IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING SOME SORT OF COST BASED LANGUAGE.
SO OTHER NOTES IS THAT EVERYONE BELIEVES PROXIES DISTORT THE MARKET.
IT'S WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM.
ALSO CONSENSUS THAT THIS RISK WAS GREATLY DECREASED BY THE NEXT NPR.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE.
THE NEXT NPR DOES NOT ALLOW THE AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF OFFERS FOR, UM, OR THE QUALIFYING OF ANCILLARY SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR NONS SPIN AND ECRS.
SO CURRENT PROTOCOLS SHOW THAT IF YOU ARE A SC DISPATCHABLE RESOURCE, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY AWARDED NONS SPIN AND ECRS 1270 CLOSES THE DOOR ON THAT.
IT SAYS YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH QUALIFICATION JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.
SO WE ARE NOT JUST ACCIDENTALLY AWARDING THINGS.
SO IT SOUNDS GOOD IN PRINCIPLE, BUT THERE'S A CERTAIN LEVEL OF READINESS TESTING THAT NEEDS TO BE.
AND OR THE CONCERN FROM THE GROUP WAS A MARKET DISTORTION OF ALL THESE SERVICES COMING IN UNEXPECTEDLY AND IT DISTORTS THE MARKET WITH SYSTEM GENERATED OFFERS INSTEAD OF MARKET BASED OFFERS.
UH, AND THEN ERCOT WILL BE FILING COMMENTS, UM, LATER THIS WEEK TO CODIFY THAT THAT X PERCENT IS A 95% AS WELL AS THE NEXT PIECE, WHICH IS THE RUCK.
SO THE AS DEMAND CURVES WE TALKED ABOUT IN 1268 WE'RE ACROSS THE BOARD.
IT'S FOR THE DAY AHEAD IS FOR REAL TIME.
AND WE STUDIED IT FOR USE IN RUCK.
AND AS WE STUDIED IT FOR USE IN RUCK, THERE IS THE CONCEPT, THERE IS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH IS TO IMPLEMENT A RUCK FLOOR ON THE AS DEMAND CURVE TO ENSURE THAT MOST OF THE AS DEMAND IS SECURED BY RUCK.
UM, THE LEVEL OF THAT NUMBER IS IN THE 10 TO $20 RANGE.
AND SO LEMME KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH IT.
IF RUCK IS RUNNING ON AS DEMAND CURVES AND YOU NEED TO HAVE ENERGY AND AS CAPACITY FOR THE NEXT FEW HOURS, WHEN IT SEES A REAL LOW VALUE ON THE AS DEMAND CURVE OF PENNIES, IT'S NOT GONNA COMMIT ANYTHING.
THERE'S NOT A VALUE, THERE'S NOT SOMETHING TO IT.
SO AS ERCOT STUDIED THE IDEA OF THE CURRENT CURVES, WE ARE COMING UP SHORT ON RUCK.
THE OPERATOR WOULD RUN IN RUCK AND MAYBE HUNDREDS OF MEGAWATTS SHORT, BUT BY DIALING IN 10 TO $20, ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT LITTLE LIFT ON THAT FLOOR CREATED A RUCK OPTIMIZATION SET IC CAPACITY.
LET'S MOVE THINGS AROUND AND SOLVE, UH, FOR THAT CAPABILITY.
SO THEN THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT BULLET.
IF RUCK HAS A FLOOR ON THOSE AS DEMAND CURVES.
SO THERE'S MOMENTUM TO THE IDEA THAT THAT SAME A SDC FLOOR IN RUCK SHOULD BE APPLIED TO REAL TIME IN DAY HEAD MARKET AS SDCS.
AND THAT RELATES TO THE IMM PROPOSAL, WHICH IS HERE'S THE SHAPE OF THE CURVES.
THIS SAYS, TAKE THE SHAPE OF THE CURVES AND PUT A FLOOR IN IT.
AND THEN THAT'S WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE THAT WERE FILED BY TCPA.
SO I'LL KIND OF MOVE ON, BUT WE'RE GONNA BACK THE TRAIN UP TO GO DEEPER INTO THAT AS WE NEED TO.
UH, THE AS RAMP SHARING, THERE'S NO ISSUES ON THAT.
AND THEN NPR 1270, THERE IS STRONG CONSENSUS IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE.
THIS IS THE ALBEIT EASY ONE FOR TAC APPROVAL.
THAT'S NOT THE ONE TO WORRY ABOUT, BUT THE OTHER TWO THERE ARE.
AND SO THE NEXT STEPS FOR THE MEETING IS THAT WE DO HAVE A, UM, A MARCH 5TH.
SO ONE WEEK FROM TODAY AFTER WMS FROM TWO TO FIVE IS WE'RE GONNA TAKE ANOTHER SHOT OF THOSE NPR DISCUSSIONS TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY COLLABORATION, CONSENSUS BUILDING, WHATEVER IT LOOKS LIKE TO PREPARE FOR PRS, WHICH IS THEN THE NEXT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12TH.
SO THAT'S OUR MARCH TWO, OUR FIRST
[02:20:01]
VOTE AND APPROVAL OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.UH, SO AT THE NEXT MET TAC MEETING, UH, IS, UH, BEING PREPARED TO VOTE ON ALL THREE NPRS FOR THE APRIL BOARD CONSIDERATION.
SO THAT I SEE, UH, ONE QUESTION.
SO WE HAVE THE OPTION NOW, WE DO WANT TO GO BACK AND KIND OF LET ON 1268 AND 1269 TO KIND OF LET THE PEOPLE THAT SPONSOR THOSE TEE THEM UP THE COMMENTERS WALK THROUGH.
SO THIS IS CAITLYN AND I HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS IS THE EDUCATION MOMENT TO WHERE WE CAN SAY, NOW LET'S OPEN UP THOSE TWO, UM, NPRS THAT HAVE NON-CONSENSUS POSITIONS TO GET THOSE OUT ON THE TABLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.
BUT CAITLYN, DO YOU WANNA STICK WITH THAT OR ASK WITH, UM, IF ERIC'S COMMENT IS ON THIS PRESENTATION, I WOULD SAY GO AHEAD.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE YEAH, THE COMMENTS ON 1268.
WELL, WHAT I WOULD ASK IS, YOU, YOU'VE GONE AGAINST DUR IM IN A COUPLE CASES, AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, AND I DON'T SEE THE IMM HERE.
FOR ME, THE QUESTION IS, HOW STRONGLY DO YOU FEEL ABOUT OPPOSING WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS? IS IT A CASE OF, WELL, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT WE CAN MANAGE IT? OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT AND WANNA PURSUE, UH, IN TERMS OF YOUR OPINION VERSUS WHAT'S DEVELOPED? UH, COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH CONSENSUS YOU'RE REFERRING TO? COULD YOU BACK UP THE SLIDES? YEAH, AND ERIC, I MEAN, JUST RESPECTFULLY I'LL SAY WE'RE GONNA DIVE THROUGH THAT AND YEAH, ANDREW'S ACTUALLY PLANNING TO SPEAK TO EACH OF THESE.
THEN WE'LL LET, WE'LL DO IT THEN.
BUT YOU'RE GETTING TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO, WHICH IS WHERE WE AT BY THE END OF THE MEETING, BY THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.
I THINK WE SHOULD START WITH 1268.
CORY, DO YOU MIND DRIVING SO WE DON'T MAKE PEOPLE SICK? AND THERE WERE TCPA COMMENTS, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, APOLOGIES, I, I ASKED THEM TO SPEAK A COUPLE DAYS LATER.
THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN FILING THESE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE RTC MEETING, BUT NED OR SHANE, I THINK IS, IS GONNA SPEAK TO THESE COMMENTS.
YEAH, SHANE, THOMAS, MICHELLE, I CAN SPEAK TO THEM.
APOLOGIES FOR NOT, UH, MAKING IT INTO THAT.
I'VE GOT A SNOT NOSE, 2-YEAR-OLD HOME WITH ME, UH, IN THE OFFICE.
SO, UM, OUR COMMENTS ARE PRETTY, UH, SIMPLE.
AND MATT ALREADY ALLUDED TO THE REASON BEHIND THEM, REASONING BEHIND THEM.
THAT IS, IF RUCK IS NEEDING A FLOOR SO THAT THE ENTIRE AS PLAN CAN BE PROCURED, IT, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO PUT THAT FLOOR INTO THE REAL TIME ADCS AND THEY HAVE, UH, ADCS SO THAT WE'RE NOT WRECKING 'EM IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT WE'RE GETTING THIS, UH, FULL PROCUREMENT IN REAL TIME.
AND THERE'S A FEW THINGS I WANNA POINT OUT ABOUT, UM, WHAT THIS MEANS.
UM, ONE, I START OFF BY TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE CONFUSION AROUND THE USE OF THE WORD FLOOR HERE.
SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHAT ERCOT IS PROPOSING FOR R DOESN'T SET A FLOOR AS IN A MINIMUM PRICE.
THIS BY PUTTING A FLOOR ON THE ADCS, YOU'RE ACTUALLY JUST RAISING THE MAXIMUM PRICE.
SO, AND KIND OF A WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT NOW IS, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, DEMAND CURVES THAT ARE USED IN PROCUREMENT, AND THOSE ARE JUST BOXES AT $5,000 STOPPING AT THE, UH, PROCUREMENT AMOUNTS.
THIS ISN'T GOING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, DRASTICALLY INCREASE THE PRICES ON ANCILLARY SERVICES.
IT'S JUST GOING TO ALLOW, UM, THE FULL AMOUNT TO BE PROCURED AT A HIGHER VALUE.
SO AS THE, AS PLAN INCREASES, THE MAXIMUM VALUE IN THE ADCS FOR PARTICULARLY ECRS AND NONS SPEND DECREASES.
AND SO IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO SHORT AS THE LARGER PLANS ARE NEEDED AND
SO THE HIGHER RISK OF THIS, THE SYSTEM IS IN HIGHER RISK PERIODS OF THE SYSTEM, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE MORE LIKELY TO GO SHORT, WHICH SEEMS, UH, LIKE NOT A GREAT PLAN.
UM, WE THINK THAT THE A SDC SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO PROCURE THE ENTIRE AS PLAN IN MOST CASES.
AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE DEBATE THE AS PLAN'S SIZE, UH, SEPARATELY.
I THINK THERE'S ALREADY SOME THINGS,
[02:25:01]
UH, IN THE WORKS TO GET, UH, IMPROVE THE AS PLAN, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THE AS DCS DESIGNED SO THAT THE FULL PLAN IS PROCURED THE, UH, THE WHAT WE, WE HAVE THIS, UH, COMP, THIS ONE LINE ADDED TO THE, THE, THE END OF SECTION 4, 4 12 TO PUT THE FLOOR ON.AND WE HAVE, UH, JUST THE VALUE OF X IN THERE.
AND THIS IS JUST IN REFERENCE TO THE X THAT ERCOT HAD IN THE R UH, CHANGES IN 1269.
WE THINK WHATEVER THEY COME UP, WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THEIR STUDY AS BEING SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE, UH, TO GET THE FULL PROCUREMENT OF THE AS PLAN, UH, WILL WORK HERE.
AND ADDITIONALLY, THEIR CHANGES IN 1269 WON'T BE NEEDED, UH, WITH THIS, UH, THESE FOURS HERE.
AND THE FINAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UM, ERCOT, UH, RUCK CHANGES, UH, RUCK A SDC CHANGES AND THESE CHANGES IS THAT THIS AFFECTS, IT SAYS ANY, UH, ALL ADCS AND WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS, IT'S ALSO CHANGING ECRS, UH, POTENTIALLY THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY FLOORS FOR, UH, REG AND RRS THAT THE IMM PROPOSED, UM, AT 250 AND A HUNDRED DOLLARS RESPECTIVELY THERE.
UM, SO THIS WILL JUST PUT FLOORS OF $15 FOR ECRS AND NOT SPEND.
UM, I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH THE PROXY OFFERS STILL IN 1269, UH, WITH, IF YOU'RE USING A 95, UH, 95%, UH, NUMBER THERE FOR THEIR X PERCENT.
BUT THOSE ISSUES ARE, UH, GREATLY LESSENED
SO LITTLE INCREASE THE PRICE THERE.
'CAUSE THERE WAS STILL SOME CASES, IF YOU'RE USING 95%, PARTICULARLY FOR NONS SPIN AND TIMES OF HIGH PROCUREMENT, THAT THE NUMBER WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, A DOLLAR.
SO, UM, REALLY WE'RE JUST INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PRICE OF ECRS AND NON SPIN FROM BEING AT TIMES, UH, VERY SMALL OR CLOSE TO ZERO TO BEING $15 AS A MAXIMUM PRICE BEFORE YOU'RE WILLING TO GO SHORT ON NONS SPIN OR ECRS.
I SEE A QUESTION FROM ERIC FOR THESE COMMENTS, RIGHT, ERIC? YES.
UH, JUST I'LL ASK THE I AMENDMENT AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S MY NAIVETE HERE, BUT GIVEN THE PROPOSAL HERE OUT OF A FLOOR, HOW WOULD YOU SEE, DO YOU SEE ANY, ANY POTENTIAL FOR GAMING OR WITHHOLDING TO TRY TO GET TO THAT FLOOR? I MEAN, IF YOU ANALYZE THAT OR IS THE, BECAUSE YOU'RE, BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA SEE SOME TIMES GIVEN ALL THE RENEWABLES IN THE SYSTEM OF VERY LOW ENERGY PRICES MM-HMM
AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF DURING THOSE TIMES, DO YOU SEE THE RISK OF POSSIBLY WITHHOLDING DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES FROM THE MARKET TO TRY TO GET A HIGHER PRICE? YOU KNOW, IT IS LESS OF AN ISSUE IF YOU'RE RUNNING GENUINELY SHORT 'CAUSE DEMAND'S OUTSTRIPPING SUPPLY, RIGHT? BUT ON THE OTHER END, UM, HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THAT OR IS THAT A CONCERN? THANK YOU.
SO, UH, ANDREW REIMER'S, IMM, UH, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
THE WAY I WOULD RESPOND TO THAT IS THAT THIS $15 FLOOR IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES IS AN UNCOMPETITIVE FLOOR.
AND SO IF YOU'RE INSTANTIATING AN UNCOMPETITIVE PRICE THERE, THEN THE POTENTIAL FOR UNCOMPETITIVE OFFER BEHAVIOR IS MORE PRONOUNCED.
AND SO THAT TYPE OF THING COULD BE MORE OF A PROBLEM.
UM, MORE STRAIGHTFORWARDLY, YOU'RE JUST PRICING A LOT OF NONS SPIN ABOVE WHAT ITS MARKET AND RELIABILITY VALUE ACTUALLY WOULD BE.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS NOW, I'M TRYING TO GET YOU A MORE CLEAR NUMBER, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON AVERAGE MOVING 700 MEGAWATTS OR SO OF NONS SPEND FROM A PRICE BELOW $15 TO A FLOOR OF $15.
AND SO YOU COULD SAY LIKE, IT'S NOT A VERY BIG PRICE OR WHATEVER, BUT YOU'RE TAKING A PRETTY BIG PART OF THE OVERALL NONS SPEND PLAN AND APPLYING AN ARBITRARILY HIGH PRICE TO IT.
AND SO SURE IT GAMING IT IS ONE OF MANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD ARISE FROM THIS KIND OF FLOOR.
[02:30:01]
THAT IS MY QUESTION.AND IF I CAN RESPOND ON THAT TOO, THAT, SO THE, I WOULD EXPECT WITH THE FLOOR HERE, I MEAN, JUST LIKE I MENTIONED THAT LIKE CURRENTLY THE PRICE COULD BE $5,000 FOR ONE MEGAWATT SHORT, BUT WITH, WITH THIS, WE WOULD STILL EXPECT THE PRICE TO BE IN THE SAME RANGE THAT IT IS CURRENTLY.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE SUSPECT IF OFFERS, YOU KNOW, TRAIN DRASTICALLY AFTER RTC AND I WOULD EXPECT THE IRONMEN TO BE ALL OVER THAT.
UM, WHAT'S, WHERE THIS IS COMING INTO PLAY IS THE TIMES, UM, WHEN THERE ARE SC, WHEN THERE IS SCARCITY, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD EXPECT THIS, UH, THIS FLOOR TO KIND OF COME INTO EFFECT.
NOT, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SUNNY OCTOBER DAY
CAN WE MOVE ON FOR NOW, ERIC, OR DID YOU WANNA RESPOND? IT'S JUST ONE LAST DIRECTLY TO THAT COMMENT MEAN IF THERE, UH, IT, AS I SAID, A A SUNNY WINDY DAY WITH LOW LOAD, YOU'RE GIVING THERMAL INCENTIVE, THERMAL GENERATION INCENTIVE TO WITHHOLD ON DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE WITHHOLDING DURING SUMMER PEAK.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE WITHHOLDING DURING WINTER PEAK.
BUT THESE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU MIGHT END UP WITH SOMEONE SAYING, WELL, WHY SHOULD I PUT IN THERE? I'LL WAIT FOR THE FLOOR TO TRIGGER THEN.
YOUR MICROPHONE'S NOT WORKING.
I, I GUESS WOULD NOW BE A GOOD TIME FOR ME TO GIVE OUR SPIEL ON THE NPRR OR DO WE WANT, DOES SHANE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? SO WE, WE HAVE QUITE A CUE.
I THINK THEY WERE PROBABLY RESPONDING TO ERIC SCHUBERT'S COMMENTS.
SO DO YOU THINK THAT'S OKAY? AND THEN WE'LL GO TO, TO YOURS OR WE'LL SEE.
AND I, I HAVE GOTTEN A COUPLE QUESTIONS, UM, ON WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION NOW.
UM, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MATT AND I TALKED A COUPLE TIMES IN PREPARATION FOR THIS TECH.
IT REALLY IS THAT IF WE DON'T, WE KIND OF ONLY GET ONE BITE AT THE APPLE AT MARCH TECH, BUT IF IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES AND THAT THESE THINGS CAN BE RESOLVED AT, AT RTC PLUS B, UM, WE CAN CUT OFF CONVERSATION, BUT I, I THINK IT WAS AT LEAST GOOD TO RAISE THE OPEN ISSUES.
UM, SO THAT IF YOU HAVE OPEN ISSUES, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO GO TO RTC PLUS B AND PRS AND, AND WORK THOSE OUT.
DOES THAT SATISFY EVERYBODY? OKAY.
YEAH, I HAVEN'T FULLY MADE UP MY MIND ABOUT THIS, BUT ERIC, LIKE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR CREATING INCENTIVE TO WITHHOLD WHEN THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DISPATCHABLE GENERATION ONLINE BECAUSE THERE'S WIND AND SOLAR, BUT THAT'S ALSO LIKE THE EXACT TIME WHEN YOU NEED RESERVES.
SO LIKE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO JUST HIT YOUR DEMAND CURVE AND THEN FOREGO THE PROCUREMENT OF THE RESERVES.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE THERE'S A, THERE'S A BALANCE THERE, RIGHT? IN THEORY, BUT THERE STILL IS THE INCENTIVE TO SAY IF I WAIT TILL THE LAST SECOND, THEN THEY'LL PUT IN, THEY'LL PUT IT AND I'LL RAISE THE PRICE.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE A SUBSIDY RATHER THAN TRYING TO ADDRESS BEHAVIOR'S, THE CONCERN, I'M NOT REALLY TAKING A ASIDE, I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IT FROM BOTH, BOTH SIDES RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN, UH, ANDREW, UM, WHEN YOU, UH, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, THE FLOORS ARE, UH, YEAH, WHEN, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE FLOORS ARE SORT OF A DISTORTION TO REFLECTING THE RELIABILITY VALUE, ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT BASICALLY
THE AND HOW'S THAT, HOW'S THAT SET JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION, WHAT, WELL, THE, THE WAY IT'S ACTUALLY SET IS BY THE AGGREGATE ORDC, RIGHT? AND SO, WHICH IS A DEBATABLE INSTRUMENT, BUT THE, THE PRINCIPLE WE'RE OPERATING ON IS THAT WE'RE CHOPPING APART THE AGGREGATE RDC AND THAT THAT WOULD HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO, YOU KNOW, AS YOU ARE HAVING, AS YOUR RESERVES ARE REDUCING FROM THE FULL AS PLAN, THERE'S SOME PROBABILITY OF FIRM LOAD SHED.
AND THAT CONNECTION IS WHERE THAT PRICE WOULD COME FROM.
DOES ANYONE PUT DATA BEHIND THIS? LIKE HOW OFTEN A FLOOR WOULD BE CONTROLLING? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SORT OF IDEA? WE LOOKED AT IT IN THE, AS AS STUDY AND FOUND THAT YOU COULD, I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF OUR POSITION ON REDUCING THE NONS SPIND PLANT COMES FROM IS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED THAT YOU COULD REDUCE THE NONS SPIND PLANT CONSIDERABLY ALREADY AND HAVE A PRETTY SMALL IMPACT ON LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY.
AND SO THE SAME THING WOULD APPLY HERE WHERE THIS KIND OF MEME ABOUT THE A SDC NEEDS TO BE PRICED ENOUGH THAT YOU'RE PROCURING THE WHOLE AS PLAN MM-HMM
THAT, THAT KIND OF MIGHT MAKE SENSE CONCEPTUALLY,
[02:35:01]
IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE CURRENT MARKET PARADIGM WHERE YOU PROCURE ALL OF YOUR AS IN DAY AHEAD, AND THEN IN REAL TIME YOU HAVE A VERTICAL DEMAND CURVE ESSENTIALLY.BUT WHEN YOU HAVE REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS THE MINIMUM AS, I MEAN, THERE'S, YOU PROCURE AS MUCH AS, AS IT MAKES SENSE TO PROCURE BASED ON HOW EXPENSIVE IT IS.
AND SO EVEN, EVEN THE PREMISE THAT YOU WANT THE ASCS TO BE ENOUGH THAT YOU'RE GENERALLY, OR ALWAYS, OR AT A MINIMUM, PROCURING THE WHOLE AS PLAN DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE WITH WHAT THE POINT OF RTC IS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU THERE.
UM, CAN I JUST, YOU, YOU ASKED A QUESTION, SETH, YOU SAID, HAS ANYBODY DONE ANYTHING? AND SO DAVE DAVE'S GONNA JUST CHIME IN ON THAT SPECIFIC POINT.
YEAH, THIS, I DO WANNA ADD A LITTLE BIT TO, TO THE QUESTION YOU ALL ASKED.
I, I MEAN, I GUESS I, I WANNA CALL OUT THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING THE, UH, RTC SIMULATION, SO LOOKING AT HISTORICAL DAYS TO COMPARE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT UNDER REAL TIME AUTHORIZATION AS COMPARED TO WHAT WE SAW UNDER THE CURRENT MARKET DESIGN.
OF COURSE, UH, ANDREW AND HIS TEAM HAVE DONE A LOT OF THAT ANALYSIS AS WELL.
UH, I WILL SAY THIS HAS BEEN A HARD THING TO TACKLE TO REALLY GET A FEEL FOR THAT, IN PART BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE REAL TIME OFFERS FOR ANCI SERVICES.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY PREVALENT, I THINK, FOR SOME OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE PROXY OFFERS, WHICH IS PART OF 11, I'M SORRY, 1269.
UH, I MEAN, THAT BEING SAID, ON A TYPICAL DAY, WE TEND TO HAVE MORE RESERVES THAN, THAN WE HAVE WITHIN THE ANSI SERVICE PLAN.
I WOULD GENERALLY EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE.
UH, I HAVEN'T NECESSARILY THOUGHT ABOUT ERIC'S POINT OF VIEW, SO I WANNA GO BACK AND THINK ABOUT THAT, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE POINT HE WAS MAKING EARLIER.
BUT I, I WOULD SAY HISTORICALLY WE TEND TO HAVE MORE RESERVES THAN THE ANSI SERVICES PLAN, IF THAT'S HELPFUL, SIR.
I MEAN, IN THAT CASE, IF YOU HAVE MORE RESERVES, IT'S NOT GONNA HIT THE MAIN, THE, THE DEMAND CURVE ANYWAY.
AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE, AT LEAST THE EXAMPLE THAT SHANE WAS USING OF, OF, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE MORE THAN THE PLAN AND, AND PEOPLE ARE OFFERING COMPETITIVELY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT CLEARING ON THE DEMAND PROGRAM.
WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CUE, ANDREW, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS TO THIS NPRR IN CASE THAT ANSWERS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET THERE? THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
UH, SO FOR THOSE OF YOU, I'LL, I'LL GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE NPRR IN GENERAL AND THEN RESPOND TO THESE COMMENTS AND, AND ONE, BUT ONE THING THAT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING IS THAT, UH, 1268 AND 1269 HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE INTERMINGLED WITH EACH OTHER.
AND SO I'LL TRY TO MAKE CLEAR HOW THOSE THINGS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.
UH, WE DETERMINED LAST SUMMER, REALLY OVER THE COURSE OF OUR ANALYSIS ON 1224, THAT THE KP ONE 15 ADCS THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR RTC HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH HOW THEY WERE DESIGNED.
NAMELY, IF YOU PRICE ALL OF THE PRODUCTS, UH, HOMOGENOUSLY AND HIERARCHICALLY, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR SCED TO CO OPTIMIZE BETWEEN THE PRODUCTS BECAUSE ALL OF THE ECRS IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ALL OF THE NONS SPIN.
AND SO AT THESE MARGINS WHERE SCED, IF THE CURVES WERE PRICED MORE, UH, EFFECTIVELY, WE SC D MIGHT WANT TO GO SHORT OF SOME ECRS BECAUSE IT CAN CONVERT IT TO ENERGY MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN IT CAN CONVERT NONS SPIND TO ENERGY EFFICIENTLY.
YOU'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO GET EFFICIENT DISPATCH AND PRICING OUTCOMES IF YOU DESIGN THE CURVES THAT WAY.
SO WE SPENT THE FALL MAKING A NEW SET OF CURVES THAT ESSENTIALLY RE AGGREGATES OR RE DISAGGREGATES THE AGGREGATE ORDC IN SUCH A WAY WHERE ALL OF THE PRODUCTS ARE SLOPING DOWN TO A MINIMUM PRICE.
IN THE CASE OF ECRS AND NONS SPIND, THAT MINIMUM PRICE IS ZERO.
WE DID IMPOSE PRICE FLOORS ON RRS AND REG LARGELY OUT OF AN EFFORT TO ASSUAGE ERCOT OPERATIONAL CONCERNS ABOUT PRESERVING THOSE PRODUCTS.
AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD TEND TO ARGUE THAT ALL OF THESE CURVES SHOULD SLOPE TO ZERO, JUST MATHEMATICALLY, AND IT'S REALLY JUST A FUNCTION OF EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF IT IS GETTING PRICED BELOW A CERTAIN LEVEL, UH, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, SINCE WE'RE STUCK WITH THE AGGREGATE ORDC AND WE WANTED TO PRODUCE A SET OF CURVES THAT OUR COT OPERATIONS WOULD BE HAPPY WITH, WE IMPOSED THESE FLOORS ON REG AND RS.
WE DIDN'T GET THE SAME FEEDBACK ON ECRS AND NONS SPIN.
AND MORE PRACTICALLY, THESE ARE PRODUCTS THAT REALLY ARE ON SOME LEVEL MEANT TO BE CONVERTED TO ENERGY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY'RE PRODUCTS WHERE WHEN YOU'RE HAVING A RAMPING ISSUE OR A NET LOAD FORECAST ISSUE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THEY ARE PROCURED IN ADVANCE SO THAT WHEN YOU NEED THEM, YOU CAN CONVERT THOSE RESERVES TO ENERGY.
[02:40:02]
UH, SO WE'VE MADE IT THROUGH VARIOUS ROUNDS OF RTC, WE SUBMITTED THE NPRR AT THE END OF JANUARY, UH, WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE MARCH TECH IN PARALLEL, ERCOT SUBMITTED NPRR 1269, WHICH INCLUDES, UH, A BIT OF A BUFFET OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD COMMENTS ON.UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE MOMENT IS THE R OFFER FLOOR.
I, WE'VE HELD OFF SUBMITTING FORMAL COMMENTS ON THAT PART AT THIS POINT.
UH, BUT I HAVE BROUGHT UP OUR CONCERNS IN THESE MEETINGS, WHICH IS THAT WE WERE REALLY HOPING THAT THIS DIDN'T, THAT THIS WASN'T IMPLEMENTED WITH AN EYE TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT R ALWAYS PROCURED THE WHOLE AS PLAN.
THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE PLENTY OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE ARE KNOWINGLY GOING SHORT ON THE AS PLAN AND PRINTING NON-ZERO PRICES FOR NONS SPIN OR ECRS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, AND THOSE WOULD BE, THE VALUE OF THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PRICES CLEARED ON THE AS DEMAND CURVES.
THE FEEDBACK WE GOT WAS THAT, AT LEAST ON SOME MARGIN, THE REAL RATIONALIZATION FOR HAVING THESE RUCK OFFER FLOORS WAS THAT YOU COULD GET A SIMILAR LIKE MEGAWATT COMMITMENT SOLUTION AND A SIMILAR COST, BUT PRESERVE MORE OFFLINE NONS SPIN IF YOU IMPOSE A SMALL OFFER FLOOR ON NONS SPIN IN RUCK.
AND SO WE'RE ACCEPTING THE POINT THAT RUCK IS A, A DIFFERENT KIND OF TOOL THAN THE REALTIME MARKET OR THE DAY AHEAD MARKET AND ALREADY HAS KIND OF DIFFERENT PENALTY FUNCTIONS IN IT.
YOU KNOW, THE THE EXAMPLES, IT, IT, IT SCALES DOWN THE COSTS OF MARGINAL COSTS OF ENERGY.
IT HAS A MUCH HIGHER SHADOW PRICE FOR TRANSMISSION VIOLATIONS.
UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS IN WHICH R IS NOT REALLY AN ANALOGOUS MODEL TO SC AND SO HAVING DIFFERENT PRICE CURVES IN THERE ISN'T INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC TO US.
BUT NOW THAT THIS IS SWINGING BACK AROUND TO, OKAY, WELL IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT IN RUCK, THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE SAME OFFER FORS IN SC AND DAM.
THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM FOR US AND MIGHT BE A DEAL BREAKER.
AND WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER REMOVING THIS NPRR BEFORE PRS IF WE DETERMINED THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO GET PASSED WITHOUT THE IMPOSITION OF SOME KIND OF OFFER FLOOR.
AND, UM, FIRST OFF, ANDREW, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO YOU.
AND I KNOW GIANNIS ALSO PUT IN A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS, AND AS I, I KNOW THE AMOUNT OF MAN HOURS THAT HAS BEEN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A BUNCH, SO JUST SINCE NOT EVERYONE AT TAC HAS BEEN PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I, I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A HAND FOR, FOR THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT IS.
'CAUSE UM, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SWEAT EQUITY IN IT, FOR SURE,
UM, I I KNOW THAT'S A, IT'S A TOUGH ONE.
UM, I, I, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON HOW THE DISAGGREGATION WORKS THAT I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY THOUGHT OF LIKE A MONTH AGO, BUT, UM, CAME AS I WAS LOOKING AT IT AGAIN LAST NIGHT, SO I'LL, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE.
UM, I, I ALSO WANTED TO, UM, I DID WANNA FLAG ONE, ONE CONCERN, AND, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS, I THINK YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT THESE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES ALSO RESULT IN A LOWER TOTAL OBJECTIVE FUNCTION, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS PART OF THE EFFICIENCY OBJECTIVE.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK AS WE ALL START TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION, WE ALSO NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A, UH, REAL TENSION THERE WITH, UM, THE OUTCOME THAT THAT WILL HAVE WITH, UH, WITH REGARDS TO HOW WE MEET THE RELIABILITY STANDARD.
NOW, I KNOW THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS IS MEETING ONE, UH, EFFICIENCY OBJECTIVE, BUT IT HAS IMPACTS IN OTHER PLACES.
AND SO, UH, I WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
UM, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY NOT HUGE.
UH, I KNOW IN THE, IN THE BACKCAST WORK THAT THE IMM, UH, PROVIDED THE DETAILS ON, WE LOOKED AT IT AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 1%, WHICH IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT HUGE, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT NOTHING.
UM, SO THAT, THAT WAS ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO FLAG.
UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO THINGS ABOUT THE, THE WAY THAT YOU'VE STRUCTURED IT THAT'S, UM, THAT I THINK DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, WHICH IS IT LETS YOU REFLECT, HEY, IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS TYPE OF CAPACITY THAT WE NEED FOR OUR ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN, IT LETS THAT SIGNAL, YOU KNOW, IT RAISES A FLAG AND SAYS TO THE MARKET, HEY, WE, WE NEED SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND IT HELPS ERCOT MAYBE BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, NUANCED IN HOW IT SENDS THOSE, THOSE SCARCITY SIGNALS.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S VALUE TO THAT AS WELL.
[02:45:01]
THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC OF THE FLOOR, IN THE, UH, IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES, I, I ACTUALLY THINK THE PRINCIPLE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING FROM ISN'T NECESSARILY THE, THE A OR DC, AND HOW DO YOU MATCH THAT EXPLICITLY? IT'S DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AT LEAST THE SAME INCENTIVES IN THE MARKET THAT EXIST FOR THE ERCOT FOR WHAT THE OPERATORS USE? AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHERE I THINK TCPA CAME FROM WITH THIS, IS IT'S A PRINCIPLE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE OPERATORS ARE GOING TO DO SHOULD ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MARKET TO DELIVER THAT SOLUTION.AND FRANKLY, AS SOON AS WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT MOVING TO A DIFFERENT ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE TO USE IN RUX, THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE, WE KIND OF STEPPED AWAY AS A GROUP FROM THE PURE A OR DC PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA USE THIS DIFFERENT, UH, SIGNAL FOR EVALUATION IN RUX, AND, AND IF WE PLAY, PLAY THAT OUT, THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GAMING THAT YOU WOULD SEE IS THE ADCS FOR REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD DON'T REFLECT THE FULL, UM, THE FULL VALUE OF WHAT THE ERCOT OPERATORS ARE TRYING TO GET.
AND SO THE, YOU END UP LEANING ON RUCK MORE, AND I THINK ALL STAKEHOLDERS HAVE EXPRESSED DIS UH, YOU KNOW, DISPLEASURE WITH RUCKS.
AND SO IT'S THE CONCERN THAT THAT MIGHT, THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY INCREASE IF WE HAVE THAT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE, UH, THE MARKET ADCS AND THE R ADCS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT ENDS UP BEING A, ACTUALLY, I THINK OF BIT MORE OF A BUYER SIDE MARKET POWER ISSUE WHERE THEY'RE KIND OF COMMANDING COMMITMENT, UH, UH, THROUGH RUCK, AND THEN THAT HAS, UH, OTHER ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH UPLIFT AND, UM, EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY GETS UPSET WITH THAT.
SO, UM, BUT I ALSO WANNA UNDERSCORE, I THINK, SHANE, YOU HIT THIS ALREADY IN YOUR LAYOUT, BUT I DO WANNA UNDERSCORE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SAY ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE FLOOR, THAT DOES NOT MEAN PRICE FLOOR.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S KIND OF WEIRD ABOUT THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES.
THEY'RE NOT FLOORS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY CEILINGS.
AND SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE PUTTING A FLOOR ON THE CEILING, I KNOW THAT GETS A, IT DOES A LITTLE BIT OF BRAIN DAMAGE, BUT IT REALLY IS JUST LEAVING SOME HEADROOM FOR A COMPETITIVE, UH, SOLUTION THAT, THAT CAN REFLECT THAT, THAT VALUE THAT THE, UH, ERCOT OPERATORS ARE CONSIDERING WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT AT ROCKS.
UM, BUT I WOULD EXPECT IN, IN, IN MOST INSTANCES, YOU'RE GONNA SEE, UH, THE ACTUAL CLEARING PRICE COME IN BELOW THAT ANCILLARY SERVICE DOMAIN CURVE.
SO, UM, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
HOW DID YOU MAKE ALL THE MICROPHONES START BLINKING AT THE SAME TIME? THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER.
MAGIC, BUT MANY
UM, I'LL SAY WHAT WILL GUIDE OUR DECISION ON, ON THIS ONE SPECIFIC TO THE TCPA COMMENTS IS, IS HOW WILL ERCOT CHOOSE TO OPERATE IN TIMES OF AS SHORTAGE? WILL THEY R TO FULFILL THE PLAN? IF SO, IT MAY MAKE SOME SENSE FOR US TO INSERT AN IN MARKET CURE INSTEAD OF RELYING ON AN OUT OF MARKET ACTION TO FULFILL THE PLAN.
UH, SO THAT'S, THAT WILL, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING WE'LL BE LOOKING TO UNPACK AT THE TASK FORCE.
UM, IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY AS A REFORM GENERATOR, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UM, IF A GENERATOR WAITS TILL THE LAST SECOND AT THIS POINT, UM, THAT WOULD BE MULTIPLE HOURS BEFORE THEY WOULD HAVE TO START UP, AND THAT'S WHEN ERCOT WILL ROCK THEM.
UM, THERE IS NO MORE WAITING TILL THE LAST SECOND IN OUR, IN OUR CURRENT REALITY.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, SAYING THAT HOLDS WEIGHT.
IT MAY ONE DAY IF WE GET BACK TO A TIME WHERE, UM, THE FORCES ABOVE US, UM, ALLOW THE MARKET TO GET BACK TO KNIFE'S EDGE TIMES TO CREATE PRICING OUTCOMES.
UM, BUT AT THIS POINT, UM, I, I CAN, I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY PUTTING PERSONAL MONEY ON THE FACT THAT, UH, THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD BE AVOIDED BY THE OPERATIONS TEAM RUCKING.
UM, THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT TO BE, UM, UH, SPEAKING DOWN TO THE OPERATIONS TEAM, JUST, UM, THE ORDERS THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO ERCOT ARE YOU DO NOT GET CLOSE TO THINGS AND THEREFORE, UM, YOU WOULD NOT SEE ANYONE BEING ALLOWED TO WAIT TILL LAST SECOND TO COMMIT A UNIT.
UM, THE IMM HAS SAID THAT THEY MAY FEEL THE NEED TO PULL THIS NPRR, UM,
[02:50:01]
SORRY, CAN YOU REMIND THIS GROUP, UM, CAN THIS NPR BE PULLED? I THOUGHT THERE WAS RULES THAT IF IT HAD MOVED BEYOND A CERTAIN PLACE OR A CERTAIN THING THAT IT COULD NO LONGER BE.AS A DILIGENT MEMBER OF THE PRS COMMUNITY, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
THERE ARE, THERE IS A MOMENT AT WHICH YOU CAN NO LONGER WITHDRAW IT AT PER SECTION 21.
THAT'S ONCE PRS RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SOME VERSION OF THE LANGUAGE, THEN YOU CAN'T WITHDRAW IT ANYMORE ON YOUR OWN.
THEN IT BECOMES A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THAT TECH HAS TO APPROVE.
HOWEVER, 1268 HAS JUST BEEN TABLED FOR DISCUSSION.
SO IT IS STILL WITHIN THE SPONSOR'S PURVIEW TO PULL IT ANYTIME PERFECT.
UP UNTIL PRS TAKES A SUCCESSFUL VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL ANYTIME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
HOPEFULLY MARCH 12TH, WE WOULD THE I IS FREE WITHDRAW WHENEVER THEY PLEASE.
APPRECIATE YOU BEING A WALKING RULE BOOK.
AND MAYBE FOR CLARITY, MATT OR ANDREW, THIS CAN, WE DON'T QUOTE UNQUOTE NEED 1268, LIKE, LIKE RTC CAN BE IMPLEMENTED ON TIME RC GO WOULD FUNCTION YEAH.
THERE IS APPROVED PROTOCOL LANGUAGE FOR THE AS DEMAND CURVES RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS A, THE IMS IMPROVEMENT TO IT.
THE NPR ITSELF IS REDLINING THE RTC GRAY BOXES.
SO TO THEIR POINT WITH ABSENT 1268, YOU'LL GET WHAT THE GRAY BOXES IMS PROPOSE SOME CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE GRAY BOX.
BUT YEAH, ABSENT THAT, IT'S COVERED BY THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED FROM 2020.
JUST FOR PURPOSES OF DEADLINE FOR RTC DEADLINE EXISTS, BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THIS.
WE WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANGUAGE.
UM, SO JUST A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS ON THAT.
UM, WITH, UM, IT JUST DOES REVERT BACK.
UH, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE SAYING THIS ISN'T NECESSARY.
THIS, THERE'S KIND OF AN EVEN GREATER, I THINK, ISSUE WITH PARTICULARLY NONS SPEND USING THE, THE OLD METHOD AND, AND GREATER NEED FOR A FOUR.
UM, BECAUSE OF IT HAVING A HIGHER SHARE OF THE END OF THE A-O-R-D-C, UM, TENDS FOR IT TO HAVE A LOWER, UH, TAIL.
AND SO IT WOULD INCREASE THE TIMES WHERE IT WOULD GO SHORT ON NONS SPIN, AND THEN THAT ALSO IS REFLECTED IN R UM, SO, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE RTCB TASK FORCE AND, YOU KNOW, I WANNA THANK EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN, UH, A PART OF THAT.
WE'VE GOTTEN SOME A LONG WAY AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF ITERATIONS AND DATA TO GET AT THIS POINT.
UM, THE IMS PLAN, UH, ARE, YOU KNOW, THE BASE OF THIS, UH, 12, UH, 68, WE THINK IT OFFERS A LOT OF BENEFITS, UH, OVER THE EXISTING PLAN.
AND IT ALSO PUTS IN A LOT MORE OPTIONALITY FOR, YOU KNOW, FUTURE USES.
UM, WE THINK ONE THING THAT IS FOR SURE IS THAT THESE ASCS, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY CONFINED BY HAVING TO MIMIC ORDC ARE SUBOPTIMAL.
UM, I THINK PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE COULD AGREE ON THAT.
UM, AND SO THERE'S GOING TO BE THE NEED TO TUNE THESE UP, UH, POST GOES LIVE.
UM, BUT THIS, I THINK, PUTS US IN A MUCH BETTER PLACE AND GIVES US MORE, UH, FLEXIBILITY ONCE, ONCE WE'RE IN THAT WORLD TO CONTINUE TO TUNE THIS THE SAME WAY THAT WE'VE TUNED RDC IN THE PAST.
YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY I'M THINKING OF, UM, THE POTENTIAL TO NEED TO, UH, ADJUST, UH, MARKET MECHANISMS AFTER THE, UH, RELIABILITY STANDARD STUDIES CONDUCTED NEXT YEAR.
UM, BUT, UH, YEAH, WE THINK THAT THIS IS A, A GOOD WAY TO GO, GO, UM, AND IS TO, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, POTENTIAL FOR, TO GET WITHDRAWN, I THINK, UM, THAT WE'D PROBABLY JUST GO AHEAD AND TRY AND ADD IT TO 1269.
SO, UM, 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, UH, UNDER THAT SCENARIO.
[02:55:06]
OKAY, KEITH, AND THEN, YEAH.I'LL, UH, I'LL AGAIN PLUG THE RTCP MEETING NEXT WEEK AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO COME OUT AND, UH, JOIN IN ON THE DISCUSSION.
UH, I THINK JUST, JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS.
I THINK, UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON, ON SHANE'S LAST POINT, I THINK, UM, ERCOT WAS THINKING THAT 1269 WAS NATURALLY A BETTER SPOT FOR THIS, UH, THESE COMMENTS THAN THAN 1268, PARTLY BECAUSE THE, THE, THE COMMENTS ABOUT 12, 12 69 ARE EXPLICITLY RELATED TO THE NEED TO ADJUST THE RUCK, UM, PART OF THE, THE PROCESS AND THIS, THIS IS JUST AN ADD-ON TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN 1269.
SO IT, IT JUST SORT OF SEEMED MORE NATURAL TO BE, BE A PART OF THAT AND SORT OF AGREEING WITH SORT OF SHANE'S LAST POINT.
BUT I THINK THERE WAS ONE COMMENT THAT, THAT ANDREW MADE THAT, AND, AND I THINK NED MADE A, A FOLLOW-UP COMMENT THAT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR A SECOND IS THE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IT'S SORT OF THE NEED FOR, FOR 1269 AND, AND WHY WE THINK THAT THAT NPR IS NECESSARY.
UM, WE DO SEE INSTANCES WHERE WE, WE DON'T WANT TO END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE WE, WE END UP RELYING ON RUCK.
AND I THINK WHAT WE SEE IS THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE, THE RUCK ISN'T GONNA COMMIT RESOURCES, AND OUR SENSE IS THE OPERATORS ARE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND RUCK THINGS, AND, AND THAT'S NOT WHERE WE WANT TO BE.
UH, I THINK THE, THE CONCERN AND WE APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CONCERN THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP BY TCPA, AND AGAIN, MAYBE THE, MAYBE THE WRONG NPRR, BUT, UM, WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS, IS HAVE A COMMITMENT DECISION IN BROOKE THAT IS NOT BEING REFLECTED IN THE PRICING, UM, OR THE PRICING FORMATIONS OCCURRING IN THE DAY AHEAD IN REAL TIME.
AND SO WHAT WE, WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS THE SELF COMMITMENTS THAT AVOID THE NEED FOR THE RUCKS RATHER THAN JUST RELYING ON RUCK TO, TO OCCUR.
SO, UM, IF, IF WE CAN REFLECT THAT CONSISTENTLY, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S VALUE THERE.
SO, SO ULTIMATELY, I, I THINK THERE WAS SOME GOOD POINTS THAT WERE MADE.
UM, I, I THINK EVEN ANDREW SUGGESTED, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE COMMENTS IN 1268, YOU KNOW, HAVE IT IN 1269, WHERE, WHERE IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE NATURAL GIVEN THAT THAT'S THE, THE GENESIS WHERE IT'S AT.
SO THOSE ARE OUR THOUGHTS FOR NOW AND, AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT THIS AS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
AND, UH, I'M JUST RESPONDING TO A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP.
SO, LIKE SHANE SAID, UH, AS WE'VE PRESENTED IN R-T-C-B-T-F, UH, THE AVERAGE NONS SPEND PRICING OUTCOMES USING R CURVES ARE A GOOD BIT HIGHER THAN THEY ARE WITH ERCOT CURVE.
SO ONE OF THE MAIN KIND OF WAYS THAT THE KIND OF REVENUE SITUATION THAT NED WAS TALKING ABOUT GETS SPLIT IS MORE REVENUE ENDS UP IN NONS SPEND AND YOU END UP WITH LESS, UH, EXTREME PRICING COMING FROM THE OTHER PRODUCTS JUST BECAUSE THERE'S MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRADING OFF BETWEEN PRODUCTS.
UH, AS TO THIS FLOOR POINT, AND THIS IS SORT OF AN OBVIOUS POINT THAT I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF EARLIER, UH, I TAKE ALL OF THE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE AGGREGATE RRDC BEING IN MORE HARMONY WITH ERCOT OPERATIONAL DECISIONS.
UH, AND THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THE HEN COMMENTS ON 1268 THAT ARE, UH, NOT BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW ADDRESS A LOT OF THE SAME THING, WHICH IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST IN REFORMULATING THE A RDC ITSELF, WHICH IS WHAT IMPOSING THESE OFFER FLOORS WOULD TEND TO DO.
SO 1268 DISAGGREGATES, THE O-A-O-R-D-C DIFFERENTLY THAN KP ONE 15, BUT IT RE KEEPS THE AGGREGATE ORDC INTACT.
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP THE DEBATE ON HOW THE AGGREGATE RDC SHOULD BE SHAPED, THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN A SEPARATE NPRR.
UH, AND I THINK THERE'LL BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT HOW THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
UM, I, I THINK THERE ARE QUITE A FEW OF OUR MEMBERS THAT HAVE, HAVE GOTTEN OUR POINT ACROSS.
[03:00:01]
I JUST WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR, OUR COMMENTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO SET A PRICE FLOOR.UM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION HAS MADE IT CLEAR THROUGH THEIR DIRECTION THAT THEY WANT TO AVOID WATCHES.
WE WANNA CON THAT THEY WANT TO CONSIDER THE CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS THAT ERCOT HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN DOING, AND THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES ARE COT NEEDS TO PROCURE IN THAT ENDEAVOR ARE DONE THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE MARKET, THROUGH MARKET SOLUTIONS AND NOT THROUGH OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS.
AND THAT'S THE GOAL OF THIS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THIS WILL GET PROCURED THROUGH RUCK AND, AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE WAY TO GO.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT HERE, ERIC.
ONE IS JUST TO CLARIFY, SOMEONE, SOMEONE ELSE MADE IT EARLIER, YOU'RE STILL GONNA NEED RUCK.
I UNDERSTAND THE DEBATE ON, ON CAPACITY, BUT WE'RE STILL GONNA NEED IT ON UNIT, ON LOCATION SPECIFIC TIMES, RIGHT? AND SECONDLY, UH, TO MICHELLE'S POINT, I THINK THE CONCERN IS THE TRADE OFF THAT YOU'RE NOW PUTTING A VARIABLE IN THAT KIND OF COMES BACK TO WHAT KIND OF GENERATION SUBSIDIES DO YOU WANT TO INSERT? I THINK GIVEN THE, BECAUSE WHAT YOU, YOU, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SHORTAGE DURING PEAK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMMITMENT ISSUE DURING TIMES THAT AREN'T PEAK.
AND, UH, I MEAN WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE DRRS INVOLVED GOING FORWARD, WHICH IS A COMMITMENT TOOL TO GET DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES AVAILABLE WHEN THERE'S A FORECAST ERROR AND OTHER THINGS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS ONE, ONE WAY THAT YOU CAN GET AROUND ALL THIS DEBATE IS SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA SET ASIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR ERROR, RIGHT? CERTAIN THINGS COME THERE AND THERE IS A CASH FLOW ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AND THAT ALSO REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF TIMES THAT YOU WOULD BE SETTING UP AN ALERT SITUATION.
SO I JUST WONDER IF THIS DISCUSSION TO SOME DEGREE IS SUBSTITUTING FOR, UH, DRS ARRANGEMENT.
UM, AND ERIC, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION ABOUT HOW DRS PLAYS INTO THIS.
MAYBE WE'LL FIND OUT MORE TOMORROW.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK ON FROM A TIMELINE STANDPOINT, IT'S STILL GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, A YEAR OR MORE AFTER GO LIVE.
AND SO IT, IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF WAITING ON THAT THOUGH NECESSARILY, UH, IN THAT INTERIM PERIOD.
UM, 'CAUSE I THINK THE SAME QUESTION'S BEEN ASKED BY, BY A LOT OF US.
UM, SO IT'S, UH, IT'S A GOOD, IT'S SOMETHING GOOD TO INCLUDE IN, UH, IN THAT DISCUSSION.
UM, YOU KNOW, ANDREW, YOU, YOU RAISED THE, THE POINT ABOUT MOVING AWAY FROM THE A RDC AND I, I, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A SPACE FOR THAT DISCUSSION FOR WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THE NEXT MONTH THAT MAY BE A BIT LARGER THAN WHAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BITING OFF MORE THAN WHAT WE CAN CHEW SINCE IT HAS TO BE
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE NEXT MONTH FOR, YOU KNOW, ERCOT TO PROGRAM IN HOW IT'LL SLICE EVERYTHING UP WITH CONSENSUS WITH, WITH CONSENSUS.
UM, SO RECOGNIZING THAT THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT WILL BE HAD.
I, I THINK WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO DO IS TAKE A VERY, VERY NARROW APPROACH, WHICH IS HOW, HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE MARKET, GIVING THE MARKET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SOLVE FOR WHAT THE OPERATORS WANT TO SEE.
THEY STILL HAVE IT, RIGHT? THEY STILL HAVE THAT AS A TOOL IF IT, UM, AND CERTAINLY FOR LIKE LOCATIONAL AND TRANSMISSION ISSUES, TO YOUR POINT ERIC, UM, THAT'S STILL THERE.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, IT'S A, I CONSIDER IT A RIFLE SHOT, RIGHT? IT'S, WE, WE MAINTAIN THE AGGREGATE ALREADY C SHAPE FOR NOW 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW AND IT'S GONNA BE A LONGER DISCUSSION.
UM, BUT WE ALIGN THE OPERATIONAL AND THE MARKET, UH, INCENTIVES WITH THIS ONE SMALL CHANGE.
I THINK, ALRIGHT, SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO OFFER, SO WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS THIS IS WHY WE WANTED TO GET IT ON THE TABLE.
WE DIDN'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN NEXT MONTH WHEN WE'RE UNDER THE GUN.
SO NOW IS THE TIME TO ENGAGE AS
[03:05:01]
NEEDED.IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ROOM, I'M NOT GONNA PUT WORDS IN ANYONE'S MOUTH FOR WHETHER OR NOT WE RECONFIGURE SOME OF THESE POLICY ISSUES TO POSTURE THEM, UH, SO THAT THERE'S A CLEAR LINE OF AS TO WHICH ONE IS SOLVING AND NOT SOLVING, AND THEN CLARIFYING VOTES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
UM, YOU CAN SEE IT'S GONNA BE INTERESTING.
UM, AND AGAIN, FOR PRS LEADERSHIP AND TAC LEADERSHIP, IF YOU NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT PLAN BS FOR ANY OF THESE OR AN EXTRA CYCLE, UH, THERE IS THAT RISK, UM, JUST TO CONSIDER.
BUT HOPEFULLY THAT'S NOT NEEDED.
SO AGAIN, I, I PUT THE DATES UP HERE ONCE AGAIN, SO, SO IT'S MARCH 5TH, NEXT WEDNESDAY IS R-T-C-B-T-F, THEN PRS IS THE NEXT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12TH LITTLE SHINY BOX HERE, AND THEN ULTIMATELY TO MARCH 26TH TACK.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA TIME TODAY.
UM, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF, SO THANK YOU.
I WON'T ASK ANYONE TO COMMIT TO SAYING IF THEY'RE WITHDRAWING OR FILING COMMENTS, BUT THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THAT'S A PRETTY TIGHT TIMELINE.
SO RTC IS IN A WEEK, AND THEN PRS IS A WEEK LATER.
THERE'S 14 DAYS BETWEEN PRS AND TAC.
SO TIME FOR A EXTRA PRS OR A PREEMPTIVE EXTRA TAC, BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY TIME FOR EXTRA T BETWEEN TAC AND THE BOARD.
MAYBE WE, WE COULD MEET TWO DAYS LATER IF WE WERE STILL UP IN THE AIR AT TECH, AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TODAY.
BUT THERE'S PROBABLY ROOM FOR AN EXTRA PRS IF, IF THAT BECOMES NECESSARY.
UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE INVITE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON FROM PUCT STAFF TO ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S, IT'S A POLICY ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED.
WE KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'RE LISTENING TO THIS MEETING.
THEY WEREN'T IN PERSON, YOU KNOW, THE, THE HEARING AND OTHER CONFLICTS.
UM, BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AT, OR THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST AWARE OF AND, AND CAN CHOOSE TO BE AT THE, THE RTC AND THE, THE PRS.
WE GOOD ON THAT ONE? ALL RIGHT.
[13. ERCOT Reports (Part 4 of 4)]
REBECCA AND KEITH, I'LL GIVE YOU TIME TO GET READY.UM, SO THIS IS A ERCOT BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT UPDATE.
UM, TECH LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN WORKING WITH, WITH ERCOT AND AS WELL AS THE ERCOT BOARD.
AND SO ERCOT HAS A PROPOSAL HERE.
UM, I, I THINK I'D PROPOSE LETTING KEITH AND REBECCA GO THROUGH THESE SLIDES.
I THINK I WILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS, UM, BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD AFTER THAT, AND THEN WE CAN OPEN IT UP MORE BROADLY FOR DISCUSSION CO I THINK WE CAN SKIP TO SLIDE THROUGH THE CONTENT SLIDE.
I KNOW WE KIND OF INTRODUCED THIS CONCEPT LAST MONTH.
THERE'S BEEN OBVIOUSLY CHANGES AFTER THE SPECIAL BOARD THAT THERE IS NO LONGER GONNA BE AN RM COMMITTEE.
SO PART OF THIS PROPOSAL IS MOVING, THIS CONCEPT OF HAVING MARK PARTICIPANTS COME, UM, TALK ABOUT POLICY INITIATIVES TO THE FULL BOARD ON DAY TWO.
ANOTHER, UM, CHANGE FROM, WE TALKED ABOUT LAST MONTH IS BUMPING THE SCHEDULE BACK WAS PRETTY AGGRESSIVE TO TRY TO ROLL THIS OUT IN APRIL.
WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO, UM, START WITH TRANSMISSION PLANNING, BUT WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT BACK TO THE JUNE BOARD.
AS KAITLYN MENTIONED, WE'VE SPENT TIME WITH, UM, KAITLYN AND MARTHA AS TECH LEADERSHIP, ALSO WITH JULIE ENGLAND AS, UM, R AND M LEADERSHIP.
I THINK SHE'LL STILL BE SERVING A ROLE AS MORE OF A LIAISON TO T AND HANDLING THOSE R AND M ISSUES.
SO THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE A BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON ISSUES FROM A MARKET STANDPOINT.
A BIG PART OF THIS IS WE'RE FOCUSED ON INSIGHT VERSUS ADVOCACY.
UM, THE PROPOSAL STILL IS TO HAVE A SEGMENT INVITED TO THE BOARD AND THEN, UM, ON THE SUBJECT MATTERS, PROVIDE FROM ERCOT AND THE BOARD PERSPECTIVE, KIND OF THREE OR FOUR PROMPTS OF INTEREST TO HELP FACILITATE THE PRESENTATION AND THEN CYCLE THROUGH THE SEGMENTS.
SO TWO TO THREE A CYCLE, AND THEN IT WOULD ROTATE, UM, BASED ON THAT TOPIC, SO IT WOULDN'T BE THE SAME, UM, SAME SEGMENT, SAME COMPANY, SAME SPEAKERS EACH TIME.
SO IT'S REALLY, UM, IN OUR PROPOSAL, IT'S UP TO THE REPRESENTATIVES TO COORDINATE THAT DISCUSSION, KIND OF BASED ON THAT FRAMEWORK, AND THEN, UM, WORK WITH TECH LEADERSHIP TO HELP IDENTIFY WHO THAT WOULD BE EACH CYCLE.
KEITH, DID YOU, YEAH, JUST, JUST A QUICK POINT.
AND SO JUST TO REITERATE, UM, SOMETHING THAT, THAT REBECCA WAS NOTING IS WE SORT OF SEE THIS AS ERCOT DOESN'T WANT TO COME AND PICK FOLKS AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THESE PEOPLE TALK.
[03:10:01]
IT'S REALLY THE PARTICIPANT'S OPPORTUNITY TO FIND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE CREATE INTERACTION BETWEEN SEGMENTS, THE BOARD AND, AND THIS IS A, IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
AND SO THERE'LL BE SOME LEARNING GOING ON HERE.
UM, BUT THESE ARE A COUPLE TOPICS OF INTEREST, UH, THAT THEY'VE EXPRESSED.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WANNA WORK WITH YOU TO, TO HELP MAKE THIS WORK.
UM, WE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH REBECCA AND KEITH.
WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH JULIE.
UM, THE, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHT WAS, AND I AM TOTALLY OPEN TO, TO FEEDBACK IF, IF THIS IS THE WRONG DIRECTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS TODAY WE, WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF TWO THINGS, LIKE HOW WE ARE SETTING THIS UP AS A, A FRAMEWORK GOING ON.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY THESE TWO UPCOMING MEETINGS.
UM, WE ARE STARTING WITH A, A TOPIC FROM, FROM WORK OUT ON THE BOARD.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PICK THREE SEGMENTS FOR EACH TOPIC, AND THEN THE TAC MEMBERS IN THAT SEGMENT REALLY LEAD PICKING THE, THE PERSON TO SPEAK FROM, FROM THAT SEGMENT.
IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY FROM TAC.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S A PRETTY KIND OF FAIR WAY TO DO IT.
UM, AND, AND GET SOME OF THE, THE WORK OFF, OFF OUR PLATE, RIGHT? IT, IT'LL BE KIND OF UP TO THE SEGMENT LEADER.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT ALLOWS, UM, TO GET MORE PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT? IF THERE'S SOMEBODY IN THE GENERATOR SEGMENT, UM, THAT'S NOT ME OR, OR NED OR BOB OR BRIAN THAT YOU HEAR FROM ALL THE TIME, THEN, THEN WE CAN REACH OUT TO THAT PERSON AND FIGURE THAT OUT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WHAT REBECCA HIT ON THAT WE PICKED UP ON FROM THE BOARD TOO, WAS REALLY, THIS IS INSIGHT AND PERSPECTIVE.
AND SO I THINK INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE SEGMENT, HAVING THREE ALLOWS FOR THAT, INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, ADVOCACY.
IT'S REALLY KIND OF LIKE HOW I THINK ABOUT THIS TOPIC DAY TO DAY FROM, FROM MY POSITION IN, IN THE MARKET.
SO FOR, FOR JUNE WITH THE PROPOSED TOPIC, UM, FROM ERCOT, THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING I'D PROPOSE, UH, WE WE TURN TO THE IOU SEGMENT, UM, PROBABLY AN INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER OR, OR SOMEBODY FROM THE CONSUMER SEGMENT.
UM, AND THEN I WOULD SAY SOME, ONE OF THE SEGMENTS WITH, UH, INVERTER BASED RENEWABLE REPRESENTATION.
THOSE ARE JUST KIND OF IDEAS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
AND THEN LOOKING AT, OR, YOU KNOW, I DID THINK ABOUT THEM
UM, AND THEN IN SEPTEMBER, THE PROPOSED TOPIC BEING RTC PLUS B, I KNOW THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT MARKET TRIALS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE WANNA SEND THREE, THREE GENERATORS UP THERE TO TALK ABOUT HOW GOOD OR BAD MARKET TRAIL WERE.
SO I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A, A BIG GENERATOR WITH A, A BIG QSC SOMEBODY.
AND THEN FOR THE SECOND SEGMENT, SOMEBODY FROM PROBABLY THE POWER OF MARKETER SEGMENT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY GET TO HEAR ABOUT LIQUIDITY.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE THINGS, UM, THAT SOMEBODY IN THAT SEGMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WITH A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE FOR THE THIRD SEGMENT, IF, IF, IF WE DON'T WANNA REPEAT CONSUMERS AND MAYBE A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY OR A, A RETAILER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT WAS MY IDEA, WAS TO, TO START WITH THE THREE SEGMENTS, YOU KNOW, HAVE, HAVE TECH LEADERSHIP HELP PICK ONE PERSON EACH FROM THE SEGMENT AND, AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, GOING ON THE, THE FRAMEWORK OR THE THEME OF PERSPECTIVE AND, AND HOW THEY THINK ABOUT IT.
DO WE, REBECCA AND KEITH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE TOUCHED ON THIS.
DO WE NEED, I GUESS WE DON'T NEED TO CHOOSE THE ACTUAL JUNE PERSON NOW.
UM, I, BUT, BUT WE'D WANT SOME LEAD TIME BEFORE THAT MEETING, PROBABLY LATE APRIL.
WE'D WANT A GOOD IDEA MID-APRIL.
SO, I MEAN, PART OF THIS IS WE HAVE INTERNAL, YOU KNOW, DEADLINES FOR GETTING BOARD AGENDAS AND MATERIALS.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, FEBRUARY, WE'RE LOOKING AT JUNE FOR THE FIRST SESSION.
I THINK IF TAP MEMBERS HAVE FEEDBACK, YOU CAN TALK TO ERCOT OR YOU CAN TALK TO MARTHA AND KAITLYN.
WE CAN KIND OF GET THIS PLAN SOLIDIFIED.
AND THEN, UM, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN HAVING MEETINGS WITH JULIE, SO OUR GOAL IS TO KIND OF HAVE A PLAN AND AT LEAST IDEAS OF THE SEGMENT IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO FOR TRANSMISSION PLANNING.
I THINK WE HAVE SOME MORE TIME TO REFINE, UM, BASED ON FEEDBACK FOR SEPTEMBER AS WELL.
IF, UM, TAC DIRECT, UH, MEMBERS WANT TO TALK TO, UM, TAC LEADERSHIP OR ERCOT, I THINK THAT'S OUR NEXT STEP.
UM, IT MAY BE HELPFUL IF T MEMBERS,
[03:15:01]
UH, NOT THE TAC EXPLODER, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS ARE EMAILED OUT, UM, JUST A ROUGH OVERVIEW OF THOSE BOARD TIMELINES SO THAT WE COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT AND, UM, BETTER PREPARE OUR OWN CONVERSATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, WE DO NOT LET ERCOT DOWN IN, UH, PROVIDING THE BOARD THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE ON THE TIMELINES YOU DO.I THINK WE'LL HAVE SORT OF NEXT STEPS, HOPEFULLY AT THE END OF THIS MEETING.
AND, AND THAT CAN BE ONE OF THEM.
GO AHEAD, NED, PLEASE, CAITLIN, UH, FOR, FOR THESE SESSIONS ABOUT WHAT IS THE, THE TIMEFRAME AND, AND, YOU KNOW, LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE TAC REPRESENTATIVES.
HOW, HOW CAN WE, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT PROBABLY 10 MINUTES FROM EACH PERSON, SO MAYBE LIKE A 40 MINUTE TOTAL SESSION.
SO EACH, EACH SEGMENT OR INDIVIDUAL GETS 10 MINUTES, AND THEN AT THE END, A 10 MINUTE Q AND A, THE LEVEL OF, OF DETAIL, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE CAN IN THIS, YOU KNOW, SECOND TO LAST BULLET, THE, THE PROMPTS, I THINK WE CAN MAYBE NAIL THAT DOWN.
I, I, I WOULD TREAT THIS FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE BOARD AND, AND WE CAN TRY TO GET MORE FEEDBACK DIRECTLY FROM THE BOARD.
IT'S SORT OF LIKE HOT TOPICS AND SO PRETTY HIGH, HIGH LEVEL, RIGHT? I THINK MAYBE THEY DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO TRANSMISSION PLANNING WHEN THEY HEAR A REALLY HIGH NUMBER LOAD FORECAST.
HOW, HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE THINK ABOUT IT? AND SO, I I PROBABLY PRETTY HIGH LEVEL, BUT WE CAN GET MORE FEEDBACK ON THAT.
SO I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT 10 MINUTES WITH, YOU KNOW, FIVE MINUTES OF EXPECTED QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD IS, IS THE TARGET.
UM, I THINK IN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BUILDING THIS CONCEPT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO POINT TO, UM, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS WITH ERCOT SMES IN THE LAST YEAR.
I KNOW WE DID ONE WITH, UM, DAVE MAGGIO AND KIND OF INVESTMENT, YOU KNOW, DECISION PLANNING WE'D DONE WITH JEFF BILLOW AND KIND OF LOAD FORECASTING.
SO IT'S KIND OF IN THE LINE OF THAT.
BUT FROM A MARKET PER PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, THESE, THEY WERE, I THINK THOSE WERE BILLED AS EDUCATION, BUT IT'S REALLY INSIGHT AND, UM, PERSPECTIVE FROM A MARKET PER PERSPECTIVE ON SELECTED TOPICS.
AND SO KEY ISSUES, I MEAN, THE BOARD HAS THOUGHTS.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK I WOULD'VE THOUGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MARKET TRIALS EXPERIENCES FROM A RTC, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS FROM A BOARD DIRECTOR.
SO WE'LL HAVE KIND OF THOSE FRAMEWORK TOPICS, UM, OF WHAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT.
BUT IT REALLY IS, YOU KNOW, A TIME SLOT TO OFFER PERSPECTIVE FOR, UM, SEGMENTS ON THAT ISSUE.
IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE, IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO ALSO GET, YOU KNOW, MORE GUIDANCE ON THIS, YOU KNOW, SUBTOPICS THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO HEAR ON.
SO IF IT'S MARKET TRIALS VERSUS SOMETHING ELSE THAT MIGHT HELP US AS A STAKEHOLDER BODY, THEN SELECT.
YEAH, THAT'S JUST KIND OF ONE OF THE BULLETS.
SO, I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ALL OF US, AND IT'S, UM, EVOLVING.
SO THESE ARE THE FIRST TWO FOR THIS YEAR.
IT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE'D LIKE TO KEEP DOING AND GIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR.
IT'S ONE OF THE GOALS FOR THIS YEAR.
UM, BUILDING ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, KIND OF ONE-ON-ONE SESSIONS.
SO I KNOW WE'VE MENTIONED OUR TIMELINES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT HAD BEEN, UM, AT THE APRIL BOARD, OUR TIMELINES TO KINDA HAVE SPEAKERS AND SEGMENTS IDENTIFIED WOULD'VE BEEN THE 24TH OF THIS MONTH.
SO IT, IT'S KIND OF A SIX WEEK CYCLE.
UM, SO I THINK WE CAN COME BACK AND MAYBE APRIL WITH ANOTHER UPDATE ON THIS TO, TO KIND OF SOLIDIFY THE CONCEPT FOR JUNE.
SO ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS? WHAT ARE NEXT STEPS DO YOU THINK? I MEAN, MARCH TAC WOULD STILL GIVE US ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE WE NEED DECISIONS.
SO SHOULD WE COME BACK AND IN MARCH AND MAKE THAT DECISION? YEAH, I THINK, UM, MARCH OR APRIL WE COME BACK WITH A FRAMEWORK.
I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF, IF AGAIN, TAC MEMBERS HAVE THOUGHTS, UM, WE REACH BACK OUT TO ERCOT AND, UM, TAC LEADERSHIP.
'CAUSE WE'LL BE HAVING ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS IN THAT INTERIM TIME TOGETHER.
AND ALSO WITH, UM, IT WAS LIKELY JULIE FROM THE BOARD, AND I WILL SAY, JUST BASED ON A MESSAGE I GOT, IF YOU DID NOT WATCH THE SPECIAL BOARD, UM, THEY DID ANNOUNCE NEW BOARD COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP.
AND PART OF THAT, UM, GOING BACK TO THAT MESSAGE WAS THAT R AND M, UM, AS A STANDALONE COMMITTEE, KIND OF THEIR JURISDICTION MATTERS WERE CORE ISSUES.
AND SO THEY'RE GONNA BE TAKEN UP AT THE, UM, MAIN BOARD, AND THAT'LL BE RULED ALL INTO THE, THE BOARD AND THE OTHER THREE COMMITTEES WILL BE STANDALONE.
SO I'LL LEAVE EVERYBODY WITH MY, THE, THAT PROPOSAL ON, UM, YOU KNOW, THREE, THREE SEGMENTS AND THE SEGMENTS KIND OF TAKE THE LEAD ON, ON
[03:20:01]
PICKING THE MEMBER.UM, AND WE CAN GET FEEDBACK ON THAT.
AND THEN AS WE THINK ABOUT JUNE, YOU KNOW, THE SEGMENTS I WOULD PROPOSE ARE IOU, UM, A CON CONSUMER, PROBABLY AN INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER, AND THEN SOME, SOMEBODY WHO COULD REPRESENT PROBABLY A INVERTER BASED RENEWABLE, INVERTER BASED RESOURCE I'M STARING AT, AT JUST 'CAUSE YOU'RE THE MOST ENGAGED.
AND SO, LIKE, I HAVE TO MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH SOMEBODY.
UM, BUT PLEASE SEND FEEDBACK TO, UH, REBECCA AND KEITH AND MARTHA AND I, I GUESS.
UM, AND SO I GUESS WE'RE LOOKING AT A-N-P-R-R.
IT'LL GO THROUGH THE NORMAL STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT SHE WANTED TO COME GIVE US A HEADS UP.
YES, THAT'S A DECENT WAY TO SUMMARIZE IT.
WE WANTED TO AT LEAST SHARE SOME BACKGROUND, UH, AROUND, UH, UH, SOME ANALYSIS WE DID, BUT WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON A DAY NOVEMBER 10TH, UM, 2024.
AND, AND WHAT LED US TO SUBMIT NPR AT 1273 THAT NPRR IS NOT IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT WE DID REQUEST URGENCY ON IT.
SO, UM, SO THAT IT WOULD BE A CHANGE WE WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE, UH, GOING INTO SUMMER.
SO WITH THAT SAID, UH, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE TIME.
I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF, BUT WHY, WHY NOVEMBER 10TH? NOVEMBER 10TH WAS A DAY WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE USED OFFLINE NONS SPEND.
WE USED ACTUALLY NONS SPEND, UH, SCED DISPATCHABLE, ECRS AND, UH, UM, UH, STORED ENERGY.
AND IN THE ESRS ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES WAS RELIED UPON TO SERVE LORD FOR SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE HOURS.
YOU WILL NOTICE THE THEME OF THOSE HOURS.
IT WAS DURING THE EVENING, UH, PERIOD, BEGINNING 4:00 PM UH, THIS DAY WAS INTERESTING TO US ALSO BECAUSE THE, AT A SYSTEMWIDE LEVEL, THE STATE OF CHARGE ON OUR STORAGE RESOURCE FLEET DROPPED TO AN ALL TIME MINIMUM VALUE OF, OF ABOUT, UH, 1,460 MEGAWATT HOURS.
SO THAT'S ROUGHLY 11% OF THE TOTAL, UM, CAP CAPABILITY IN THE FLEET BY THE, BY THE TIME, UH, UH, SUN HAD SET AND THE LORD HAD STABILIZED.
SO THIS DECK SHARES AN ANALYSIS OF THE WORK THAT, UH, WELL REVIEW THAT ERCOT CONDUCTED OF THIS DAY FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, SOME OBSERVATIONS THAT LED IN OUR MINDS TO THE NEED FOR, UH, NPRR 1273, AND SOME ADDITIONAL OUTREACH THAT ARCO HAS STARTED CONDUCTING AS A RESULT OF IT.
SO I'LL TRY TO SET IT UP AS, UH, THREE DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF TOPICS WE SAW.
BUT BEFORE WE GET THERE, HERE'S, UH, UH, A SUMMARY SLIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT PROJECTIONS.
SO, GOING INTO THE DAY, UH, WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT TIGHT BASED OFF OF THE, UM, GENERATION OUTAGES AND THE FORECAST FOR WIND.
IT WAS, UH, SUPER LOW, UH, OR UNUSUALLY LOW AS I PUT IT HERE FOR THAT SE FOR THAT TIME OF THE SEASON.
ANECDOTALLY, WE HAD ISSUED AN ADVANCED ACTION NOTICE FOR NOVEMBER 11TH, SO, WHICH IS THE NEXT DAY, UH, UH, UH, UH, UH, IN EARLY A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO, UH, OPERATIONS, UH, OF NOVEMBER 10TH.
BUT WE WERE INFORMED THAT THERE WERE NOT, UH, GENERATION OUTAGES THAT COULD BE DELAYED OR RESTORED.
SO THIS GRAPHIC THAT YOU'RE SEEING IS FROM AN INTERNAL TOOL THAT WE HAVE, UH, WHICH WE USE TO VISUALIZE SUPPLY, UH, FORECASTED SUPPLY ON THE SYSTEM, UH, MADE UP USING THE CURRENT OPERATING PLANS THAT WE HAVE, UH, SUBMITTED TO US, THE FORECAST FOR WIND, SOLAR, AND LOAD.
AND REALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, UH, IT'S, IT'S STACKING UP SUPPLY.
I'LL USE MY MOUSE TO JUST SHOW IT TO YOU.
'CAUSE I KNOW THAT FOR ME, THIS, WE, WE LOOK AT THIS EVERY DAY.
SO IT'S VERY, UH, THIS POINT OF TIME HERE SEPARATES HISTORY FROM FORECAST.
SO EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON THIS SIDE IS BASICALLY, UH, ACTUAL DATA THAT HAS JUST BEEN PLOTTED.
UH, BUT ON, I'M MORE SO FOCUSED ON THE FORECAST AND ON THE FORECAST SIDE, UH, THE BLACK HERE SYMBOLIZES TOTAL ONLINE THERMAL CAPACITY THAT WE SAW IN COPS AT 10:30 AM THE MORNING, UH, UH, UH, THE MORNING, UH, OF, UH, UH, THE MORNING OF, UH, NOVEMBER 10TH.
UH, THEN THE NEXT STACK ON TOP IS THE SOLAR CAPACITY.
UH, THE FORECASTED SOLAR CAPACITY.
STACKED ON TOP IS FORECASTED WIND.
AND THIS GRAY LINE ON TOP IS, WE CALL IT QUICK START.
SO ANY OFFLINE QUICK START THAT IS OPERATING IN A MODE WHERE IT CAN, UM, COME ON, UH, COME ON, UH, UPON A SC DISPATCH IS LOTTED RIGHT HERE.
AND THE CAPACITY ON TOP OF THE QUICK STARTS IS CAPACITY FROM STORAGE RESOURCES.
NOW, THIS RED DOTTED LINE HERE IS FORECAST, AND I THINK THIS
[03:25:01]
SNAPSHOT STARTS AT 11:00 AM SO CERTAINLY, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, WE HAD SUFFICIENT SUPPLY, UM, TO COVER THE DEMAND PLUS RESERVES THAT WE EXPECTED IN THE INITIAL PART OF THE DAY.BUT AS WE START GETTING TOWARDS THE EVENING, HOWEVER, YOU'LL NOTICE THIS LINE HERE IS 16.
SO, UH, OUR ENDING 17 AND ON THE SUPPLY STACK, UH, AS SO THE STARCH DWINDLING IS RELYING MORE SO ON THE CAPACITY OF STORAGE RESOURCES TO SERVE DEMAND.
NOW, AT THIS POINT, THIS PARTICULAR LOOK DOES NOT TAKE STATE OF CHARGE INTO ACCOUNT.
IT'S PURELY A MEGAWATT VIEW, AND AT LEAST, UH, GOING INTO, UH, THE EVENING HOURS ON THAT DAY, WE WERE ALREADY FORECASTING TO BE RELYING ON STORAGE CAPACITY FOR SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE HOURS FROM A COMMITMENT PERSPECTIVE, ALL AVAILABLE GENERATION THAT COULD BE ONLINE WAS ONLINE OR PROVIDING ANCILLARY SERVICES.
THERE WERE TWO OR THREE UNITS THAT BECAME AVAILABLE THAT WERE ON OUTAGE, BUT BECAME AVAILABLE AT TIMES ON NOVEMBER 10TH.
BUT THESE COULDN'T BE STARTED IN TIME FOR THE EVENING PEAK.
UH, SO THAT'S JUST SOME SOMETHING ELSE WORTH NOTING.
SO THEN WHAT HAPPENED IN OPERATIONS AS THE NET LOAD IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS INCREASED, UH, STORAGE RESOURCES STARTED DISCHARGING BEGINNING AROUND 4:00 PM SO IF YOU FOLLOW THIS RED LINE ON THE GRAPH, THAT'S THE OUTPUT FROM SOLAR RESOURCES AND THE, THE BOUNDARIES.
SO HOW HIGH THEY CAN GO, UM, IS PLOTTED, UH, ON THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM OF THIS GRAPHIC.
AND THERE IS THIS LINE IS THE STATE OF CHARGE ON THE STORAGE RESOURCES.
SO AS THEY START INJECTING, YOU START SEEING THE, UH, THE STATE OF CHARGE DECLINE.
SO AROUND 4:00 PM UM, STORAGE WAS, UH, THE FLEET WIDE, A PERCENTAGE STATE OF CHARGE WAS AROUND 92%.
UM, AND OF COURSE, MAX OUTPUT FROM STORAGE RESOURCES PEAKED AT AROUND 4:21 PM UH, THEY WERE INJECTING ABOUT 4,265 MEGAWATTS.
AND THEN THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON, HOUR, EVENING HOURS, THEY KEPT INJECTING.
AND THE LOWEST POINT OF STATE OF CHARGE WAS AROUND 9:03 PM.
UM, STATE OF CHARGE WAS AROUND 11.61% AT THAT TIME.
UM, AND, AND LIKE I MENTIONED, WE ALSO RELEASED ECRS AND DEPLOYED OFFLINE NON SPEN THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE EVENING.
NOW, A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT.
SO FROM HERE ON, I'M GONNA JUST PROBABLY START SPENDING SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT OUR OBSERVATIONS, UH, FROM OUR ANALYSIS.
THE FIRST OBSERVATION WAS RELATED TO PRC.
NOW FOR, FOR NOTE, WE, UH, THERE IS A COMPONENT WITHIN PRC THAT HAS, UH, ACCOUNTS FOR HEADROOM ON STORAGE RESOURCES.
IT ACCOUNTS ON ANY HEADROOM THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED FOR 15 MINUTES NOW, BETWEEN 6:00 PM AND 10:00 PM ON THIS DAY, PRC, UM, UH, THIS RED LINE RIGHT OVER HERE STAYED WELL ABOVE OUR EEA LEVELS.
IT IS PLOTTED AGAINST THE PRIMARY Y AXIS.
SO I WAS AS HIGH AS 10,000 IN THIS CHART, AND, UH, DROPPED TO SOMEWHERE AROUND 5,200, UH, AT AROUND 6 58, SO CLOSE TO 7:00 PM BUT IT STAYED WELL ABOVE OUR EEA LEVELS.
EVEN AT 9 0 3 WHEN STATE OF CHARGE ON THE FLEET OF, UH, STORAGE RESOURCES WAS THE LOWEST, ABOUT 3,400 MEGAWATTS OF PRC.
THIS, UH, PINK SHADED ZONE RIGHT HERE IS PRC FROM STORAGE RESOURCES.
SO ABOUT 32, 3400 MEGAWATTS OF PRC WAS COMING FROM STORAGE, AND THAT WAS ABOUT 55% OF THE OVERALL PRC ON THE SYSTEM AT THAT TIME.
SO I, WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THIS DAY, AT LEAST ONE THING, UH, THAT BECAME CLEAR TO US WAS PRC AS IT WERE ON THIS DAY, WAS NOT A GOOD INDICATOR OF HOW CLOSE TO THE EDGE THE SYSTEM WAS OPERATING AT.
AND, AND PARTICULARLY, UH, WHY, WHAT PROMPTED US TO GO BACK AND START THINKING ABOUT PRC ONCE AGAIN, WAS THIS IDEA OF FROM, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ENERGY NEEDS, SPECIFICALLY AS THE SYSTEM GETS CLOSER TO AN EEA THREE, UH, BY ONLY ACCOUNTING ON HEADROOM, THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED FOR 15 MINUTES.
SO WHEN WE ARE HEADING CLOSER TO AN EEA THREE, REALLY IT'S ONLY HEADROOM ON THE SUPPLY STACK THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
WE'VE ALREADY DEPLOYED ALL OF OUR LOAD RESOURCES.
SO WHEN WE ARE, THAT, WHEN WE ARE CLOSE TO AN EEA THREE, ONLY ACCOUNTING ON HEADROOM THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED FOR 15 MINUTES MAY NOT GIVE A CARD SUFFICIENT TIME TO TAKE MANUAL ACTIONS.
SO THAT'S WHAT, UH, UH, SOMETHING THAT PROMPTED US TO GO TO REVISIT THE PRC CALCULATION AND RESULTED IN US SUBMITTING NPRR 1273.
UH, I GO THROUGH THIS ONE QUICKLY AS NOT, UH, I MEAN, NRC REQUIRES US TO OPERATE, UH, THE SYSTEM SUCH THAT WILL DECLARE AN EEA THREE WHEN, UM, WHEN WE DON'T HAVE, UH, OPERATING RESERVES TO MEET OUR SINGLE LARGEST CONTINGENCY, UM, OUR CART MONITORS
[03:30:01]
PRC AND WILL DECLARE, UH, A EEA LEVEL THREE AND, AND INITIATE FIRM LOAD SHED WHEN PRC DROPS BELOW 1500 AND IS NOT EXPECTED TO RECOVER.AND WHEN OUR COURT ORDERS, UM, A LOAD SHED, THE TOS HAVE ABOUT 30 MINUTES TO RESPOND.
SO ON A TIGHT OPERATING DAY, AS DEMAND APPROACHES SUPPLY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES ARE RELEASED, UH, PRCS VALUE WILL BECOME CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN TELLING THE CONTROL ROOM WHEN TO TAKE AN ACTION.
WHEN WE SUGGESTED 15 MINUTES TO BE USED IN ACCOUNTING OF PRC, UH, IT'S WHAT WAS IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS WAS MORE SO AMOUNT OF ENERGY NEEDED FOR A FREQUENCY EVENT, WHICH TYPICALLY TENDS TO BE TIGHT.
HOWEVER, UH, UH, WE ALSO NOW WE LOOK AFTER LOOKING AT THIS DAY, THE VALUE OF PRC IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT WHEN WE ARE HEADING CLOSER TO AN EA AND TO US, THE PRC VALUE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ENERGY THAT CAN BE SUSTAINED LONG ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR US TO GO TAKE THE LOAD SHARED ACTIONS WE NEED.
AS A RESULT, WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, AT LEAST IN NPRR 1273 TO INCREASE THAT DURATION, UH, FOR PRC HEADROOM ON BATTERIES FROM 15 TO 45 MINUTES.
UM, AND LIKE THE LAST NOTE HERE IS ALSO NOTED IN THE NPRR, THIS NPRR DOES NOT IMPACT ANY OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BATTERIES.
IT'S PURELY CHANGING HOW A CART CALCULATES, UH, THE HEADROOM ON THE SYSTEM AND HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS.
UH, I'LL PAUSE IF YOU WANT TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
I, I WANNA UNDERSTAND MM-HMM
WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING AS THE PROBLEM.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT PRC WAS INACCURATELY COMPUTED, OR THAT THE PRC VALUE WAS INACCURATE, OR THAT WE HAVE SPECIFIED THE COMPUTATION OF PRC INSUFFICIENTLY SO THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING THE VALUE FROM IT THAT WE WANT? I IF THAT QUESTION WAS CLEAR.
SO ON THIS DAY, HAD WE BEEN COMPUTING PRC USING, UM, 45 MINUTES AS OPPOSED TO 15 MINUTES, I'LL PROBABLY JUST USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.
INSTEAD OF LANDING SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO FIVE THOUSAND FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED, WHERE WE DID, IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD HAVE DROPPED TO SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO 3,800.
SO WE WOULD STILL NOT BE IN AN EEA, BUT AT IT WOULD BASICALLY BE MORE, UH, IT WOULD BE REFLECTING THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT STORAGE HEADROOM COULD SUSTAIN FOR A 45 MINUTE PERIOD.
SO THIS DAY IS DIFFERENT MM-HMM
THAN SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2023, WHEN, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT ERCOT REPORTED TO THE BOARD THAT THE, THE COMPUTATION WAS INCORRECT.
UH, ONE, WHEN, WHENEVER WE REACH, UH, WHEN WE REACH TO THE EDGE OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE LIKE TO DO IS LIKE TO DO, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO IS ASSESS, UH, USE THOSE, UH, CALCULATIONS TO ASSESS, UH, UM, HOW THE SYSTEM PLAYED OUT ON SEPTEMBER 6TH.
WHEN WE LOOKED AT PRC AND ON ITS MINIMUM PERIOD, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING TO SEE IS WE SAW FREQUENCY WAS NOT HOLDING, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE PRINTING A VERY HIGH PRC VALUE.
AND AT LEAST ON THAT DAY, WHERE WE LEFT IT AT WAS THE AMOUNT OF HEADROOM THAT WAS ON THE SYSTEM ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY WAS ON RESOURCES THAT COULDN'T HAVE INJECTED BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE CONSTRAINT.
THAT WAS ONE PORTION OF IT, AND THE SECOND PORTION OF IT WAS CAL.
THERE, THERE ARE ALWAYS TELEMETRY ERRORS IN, UH, INFORMATION THAT IS SUBMITTED TO US ON THOSE EDGE CASES.
YOU DO FIND OUT THAT, HEY, THE HSL BEING TELEMETRY MAY BE ACCOUNTED AGAINST A FORECASTED TEMPERATURE CONDITION THAT DIDN'T MATERIALIZE.
SO THERE WERE TWO THINGS DRIVING ERRORS ON PRC ON THE SEPTEMBER 6TH CASE THIS DAY.
ALSO, I'LL TALK ABOUT OBSERVATION TWO, WHERE THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF ERROR IN TELEMETRY THAT YOU SEE WITHIN PRC, BUT WHAT WE ARE MORE SO WORRIED ABOUT IS IF WE LEAVE THE CALCULATION TO USE A 15 MINUTE HEADROOM, WHEN WE REACH CLOSER TO AN EEA THREE POSITION, WHERE REALLY ALL WE HAVE IS PRC TELLING US HOW MUCH ROOM'S ON THE SYSTEM, WE COULD BE PRINTING A CLOSE TO 1600 MEGAWATT OR 1500 MEGAWATT NUMBER, BUT IT MAY NOT GIVE US ENOUGH, IT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE HELD, UH, FOR LONG ENOUGH TILL WE CAN HAVE A LOAD SHED COME AND PROVIDE SOME RELIEF.
SO WE DO NEED, IF THERE IS 1500 MEGAWATTS OF HEADROOM ON THE SYSTEM, WE DO WANT IT TO HAVE ENERGY BEHIND IT THAT CAN AT LEAST GIVE US ROOM TO GO TAKE OPERATING ACTIONS, GIVE THOSE LORD SHE INSTRUCTIONS, AND GET A RESPONSE FROM THOSE.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I GUESS MY
[03:35:01]
CONCERN IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE HAD THIS, THE SECOND ISSUE YOU DESCRIBED ON SEPTEMBER 6TH MM-HMMTHAT SOME RESOURCES WERE NOT AVAILABLE, THEY WERE NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE DATA THAT YOU WERE RECEIVING ABOUT THOSE RESOURCES.
AND IT'S A SMALLER PROBLEM ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PROBLEM IS FIXED AND ADDRESSED MM-HMM
AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE, THE TIMELINE FOR THE HEADROOM THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING.
UH, I SAW THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT THAT CAME IN.
UM, CAN, CAN YOU TAKE THAT ALSO, UH, YEAH.
REAL QUICKLY, NIKA, THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
SO I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I GOT THIS CLEAR IN MY HEAD ALSO.
SO THIS IS REALLY, THERE WASN'T AN ISSUE WITH A LACK OF STATE OF CHARGE FROM STORAGE.
IT'S THAT YOU'RE JUST MAINLY LOOKING AT THE TIMEFRAME.
UH, AND I THINK I, I, I FULLY GET THAT, THAT WHEN IT LOOKS OUT THERE, IT SEES 15 MINUTES OF, OF THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT CAN BE USED MM-HMM
BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE YOU 30 MINUTES TO ACTUALLY MAKE A RESPONSE AS THAT GOES DOWN.
AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THAT 15 MINUTES AFTERWARDS.
SO YOU WANT TO EXPAND THAT TO THE 45 TO GIVE YOU TIME TO MAKE THE OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE.
IS THAT RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, SO HERE'S THE SECOND OBSERVATION.
AND LIKE I MENTIONED, THERE WAS ONE.
UH, SO WE'VE TYPICALLY TALKED, WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EVENTS LIKE SEPTEMBER 6TH AT HSL TELEMETRY ISSUES.
UH, BACK THEN, THE, UH, WE'VE SPENT MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT THERMAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING THE NPRR THAT WE PUT OUT FOLLOWING URI, IF MY NUMBER'S RIGHT.
AND NPRR 10 85, UH, IT WAS ADDRESSING QUITE A BIT AROUND PUTTING GUARDRAILS, UH, AROUND WHEN RESOURCES START EXPERIENCING ISSUES THAT PREVENT THEM FROM FOLLOWING DISPATCH INSTRUCTION.
WE HAD COINED A NEW RESOURCE STATUS THAT THEY COULD OPERATE IN.
NOW, WHAT WE SAW ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY, WE ALSO SAW SOME STORAGE RESOURCES STRUGGLE TO FOLLOW DISPATCH WHEN THEY WERE AT OPERATING AT LOW SOC.
UH, I'VE GOT THREE EXAMPLES HERE.
UH, THEY ARE A LITTLE, UH, I'LL POINT THOSE OUT REAL QUICK.
THE BLUE LINE'S TELLING YOU WHERE, UH, THE MEGAWATT OUTPUT FROM THE RESOURCE, THIS, UH, RED PURPLE-ISH LINE IS, WHAT IS THEIR EXPECTATION? UH, SO THIS INCLUDES ANY REGULATION INSTRUCTION, THEIR UDBP.
SO ANY RAMPING THEY WERE DOING TO THEIR BASE POINT.
AND YOU CAN SEE, UH, YOU CAN SEE EARLY ON IN THE AFTERNOON, YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THE BLUE LINE.
THE BLUE LINE IS LITERALLY ON TOP OF THE EXPECTATION.
BUT THEN AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE END OF THE DAY, UM, UH, AS THE SOC STARTS DECLINING, THERE SEEMS TO BE A SEPARATION.
UH, IT STARTS COMING IN EARLY ON, UH, AND THEN THERE'S ONE MORE HERE.
THIS ONE'S MORE TIGHTER TO SEE, UH, 'CAUSE IT IS REALLY TOWARDS THE TAIL AROUND 8:00 PM YOU START SEEING THIS HAPPEN.
SO WHEN WE SAW THIS, WE WERE CERTAINLY CURIOUS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS DRIVING THIS, THE SEPARATION BETWEEN, UH, NOT BEING ABLE TO FOLLOW DISPATCH INSTRUCTIONS.
UH, WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER TOOLS THAT NOW ALLOW US TO MONITOR THIS MORE SO ON A CONSISTENT BASIS AND ARE ISSUING RFIS TO CERTAIN RESOURCES WHO WERE INVOLVED TO HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WHAT MAY BE DRIVING, UH, THIS BEHAVIOR.
UM, AND, AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE POINT THAT WAS BEING MADE AROUND, LET'S MAKE SURE WE ARE ADDRESSING TELEMETRY ISSUES IN, IN, IN CERTAIN CASES, WHAT WE ARE FINDING IS THESE MAY BE RELATED TO, UM, INACCURACIES IN COMPUTING TELEMETRY.
SO THE, OUR OUTREACH IS PROMPTING FOLKS TO THINK THROUGH, UH, THESE SITUATIONS AND TAKE ACTIONS.
UH, WHENEVER, UH, LET ME MAKE ONE MORE POINT BEFORE I STOP AGAIN, I SEE A QUESTION WHENEVER WE SEE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE EXPECTATION AND WHERE THE UNIT'S OPERATING, THAT THERE MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF HEADROOM THAT WE START COUNTING IN PRC, WHICH IS NOT DELIVERABLE.
SO THAT IS WHAT MAKES US WORRIED ABOUT THESE SITUATIONS.
AND I'LL PAUSE, I'LL TAKE THE QUESTION AGAIN.
UM, QUESTION ON THE BASE POINT DEVIATION.
WERE THE DEVIATIONS, UM, EXCEEDING THE THRESHOLDS THAT WOULD'VE, UM, UH, STRUCK THE BASE POINT DEVIATION CHARGES OR WERE THEY WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE BOUNDS? I I'M JUST CURIOUS
[03:40:01]
IF, IF Y'ALL HAD THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.I DON'T HAVE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, ANDY.
AND LIKE I SAID, MOSTLY OUR OBSERVATION HERE OF EVEN POINTING THIS OUT WAS WHENEVER YOU SEE THIS SEPARATION, USUALLY, UM, UH, WHAT IT, UH, WHAT IT PROMPTS IS IT AUTOMATICALLY STARTS ADDING MEGAWATTS INTO PRC.
'CAUSE IT SEES, HEY, I'VE GOT MORE ROOM ON THIS UNIT.
AND OUR WORRY IS, UH, IF THIS IS AN OUTCOME, IF THIS SEPARATION BETWEEN WHERE YOU ARE EXPECTED TO OPERATE VERSUS WHERE YOU ARE OPERATING IS BECAUSE OF OPERATIONAL ISSUES, THEN THOSE MEGAWATTS ARE NOT DELIVERABLE, THOSE MEGAWATTS SHOULDN'T BE COUNTED IN PRC.
SO WE WERE STRICTLY LOOKING AT IT, UH, FROM THAT LENS TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARE OPERATING SO AT SUCH LOW SOC, WHAT SORT OF ISSUES COULD BE DRIVING THIS BEHAVIOR.
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT AND, AND UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT.
I WAS, THE QUESTION WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE MAGNITUDE OF, OF THE POTENTIAL DEVIATION BETWEEN THE RESOURCES.
BUT I APPRECIATE Y'ALL, YOUR, YOU KNOW, INSIGHTS ON THIS ISSUE.
YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, THANKS AGAIN ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S PRETTY INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, UH, THERE WAS A GOOD QUESTION BROUGHT UP ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DEVIATIONS MM-HMM
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVIATION IS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC EVENT.
SO I COULD SEE WHERE YOU COULD PASS THAT OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE DURING THIS PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME.
SO, SO I FULLY, YEAH, YEAH, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT NOW.
SORRY, I DON'T WANT, I DID NOT MEAN TO NO, THE, THE ONLY, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD, WHICH ISN'T RELATED TO THOSE, IS YOU INDICATE THAT YOU'RE ISSUING RFIS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THOSE ARE GOING TO OR WHAT COMPANIES THAT IS OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT ARE THEY ALREADY ISSUED OR WHAT IS A TIMEFRAME THAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON ISSUING? SOME OF THESE WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED.
'CAUSE NOW SINCE NOVEMBER 10TH, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW MORE DAYS WHERE, UH, WE'VE SEEN, UM, STATE OF CHARGE DECLINE, UM, BELOW 20%.
SO, UH, SO WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SENT SOME OF THOSE OUT, BOB, AND LIKE I SAID, OUR INTENTION HERE WAS NOT TO, YOU KNOW, CALL OUT BASE POINT DEVIATION PER SE, BUT MOSTLY TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT BEHAVIOR WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU, UH, WE ANECDOTALLY HEARD THAT THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, UH, SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OPERATING BEHAVIORS THAT MAY, THAT MAY NOT ALLOW RESOURCES TO OPERATE OR HOLD THEIR OUTPUTS WHEN OPERATING AT LOW SOCS.
SO WE ARE RIGHT NOW SIMPLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BEHAVIOR, UH, THAT WILL LEAD TO THIS SORT OF, UH, UM, THIS SORT OF, UH, OUTCOME, UH, STRICTLY AGAIN FROM THE LENS OF ARE THERE IMPROVEMENTS WE CAN MAKE TO THE PRC CALCULATION.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEE WHAT YOU COME OUT WITH.
AFTER, UH, YOU GET ALL THOSE BACK.
AND THERE'S ONE MORE SLIDE, AND THIS ONE'S MORE SO TOWARDS SYSTEM WIDE STATE OF CHARGE, UH, FOR, UH, AND ITS EFFICIENCY FOR PROVIDING A PS NOW.
UH, AND THIS CHART IS A LITTLE, UH, BUSY.
SO I'LL, I TRY TO MAKE SURE I WALK YOU THROUGH AND JUST, UH, THESE THREE CURVES THAT LOOK LIKE AN S OR AN INVERTED S FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, UH, ARE PLOTTING THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF, UH, A STATE OF CHARGE, BUT IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.
UM, UH, AND THEN, UM, WE'VE ALSO GOT THE STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT FOR A S UH, THAT IS PLOTTED IN THIS RED LINE RIGHT HERE.
UM, THE GREEN LINE, UH, IS THE STATE OF CHARGE FROM ALL ESRS THAT WERE CARRYING, AS IN, UH, DURING, AT THAT PARTICULAR INSTANT THIS EVENING.
AND, AND WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE, AL MAYBE I'LL JUST PUT IT RIGHT HERE, IS THERE, I, WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THESE TIMEFRAMES OVER HERE.
THERE ARE TIMEFRAMES AT, AT THE TOP OF EVERY HOUR WHERE THE GREEN LINE DROPS BELOW THE EXPECTATION, AND, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR HOUR, IT DROPS BELOW FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES, AND THEN, UM, COMES OUT OF IT, UH, FOR ABOUT 30 MINUTES, 25 MINUTES, SO ON.
SO OVERALL, THERE WERE, AS THE, AS BATTERIES WERE BEING USED TO SERVE LOAD, THERE CAME A POINT WHERE THE AMOUNT OF, AS THEY WERE CARRYING AND THE STATE OF CHARGE, UH, THAT THEY HAD WASN INSUFFICIENT.
BUT THEN WHAT WE ALSO LOOKED AT IS WE ALSO WENT IN AND LOOKED AT THE QSE THAT, UH, WAS REPRESENTING, UH, THE BATTERY AND WHAT WAS, UH, THE OVERALL STATE OF CHARGE ON THEIR FLEET.
AND THAT'S THIS MIDDLE LINE RIGHT OVER HERE.
AND EVEN THAT YOU'LL NOTICE STARTS CONVERGING AS YOU GET DEEPER INTO THE EVENING.
IT STARTS CONVERGING ON TOP OF THE GREEN LINE AND THE LAST LINE'S, THE SYSTEM WIDE, UH, STATE OF CHARGE ON BATTERIES.
SO OVERALL ON THIS DAY, YOU NOTICE EVEN THAT DROPS BELOW THE, UH, BELOW THE REQUIREMENT AT TIMES.
SO OVERALL, WHAT WE NOTICED WAS THERE
[03:45:01]
WERE SEVERAL, UH, THERE WERE SEVERAL INSTANCES IN THE EVENING ON THIS DAY WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY STORED IN THE BATTERIES WASN'T SUFFICIENT TO THE, FOR THE AMOUNT OF UP AS THEY WERE CARRYING.NOW, IN OUR MINDS, RTC, UH, WHEN IT COMES, UH, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, SHOULD HELP ON EVENINGS LIKE THIS BY EITHER AUTOMATICALLY MOVING THE, AS TO THE RESOURCES THAT ARE CAPABLE OR NOT JUST ASSIGNING AS AT ALL, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TIMES WHEN ENERGY IS MORE VALUABLE TO SERVE LOAD.
SO THAT WAS THE LAST OBSERVATION I HAVE.
SO AGAIN, SUMMARY, NOVEMBER 10TH WAS A TIGHT OPERATING DAY, UH, WITH A NEW, WITH HIGH OUTAGES AND UNUSUALLY LOW WIND.
UM, ANALYSIS FROM THIS DAY HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED FOR OUR CAR TO REVISIT ENERGY ACCOUNTING FROM STORAGE IN PRC, AND WE HAVE CONSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED NPR AT 1273.
UH, WE'VE MADE SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS, UH, UH, THAT, THAT HAVE HIGHLIGHTED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES THAT WE MAY GAIN WHEN RTC IS HERE.
AND ARE, I, I NOT IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING SOME ADDITIONAL OUTREACH TO UNDERSTAND SOME OPERATING BEHAVIOR THAT DIDN'T MATCH EXPECTATION.
HOL, LCRA, UH, NITKA ON YOUR PREVIOUS SLIDE, UH, PROBABLY NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DIGEST, BUT I, I DO WANNA QUESTION SORT OF THE TAIL END OF THE CURVE.
ARE THESE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH STATE OF CHARGE TO COVER THE ASSIGNED AS RESPONSIBILITY? AND IF SO, WERE THEY THESE INSTANCES CLAWED BACK ON THE PAYMENTS THEY RECEIVED? WE DON'T, UH, THE, UH, THE CLAW BACK THAT OCCURS OCCURS BASED OFF OF, UH, SHORTFALLS IN MEGAWATT CAPACITY AND NOT ENERGY TODAY.
SO THERE WOULD NOT BE A CLAW BACK STRICTLY BECAUSE THE, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUICE.
IT, WE WOULD LOOK AT WAS THE QSE ABLE TO ASSIGN IT'S A S EVERYWHERE? YEAH, THAT, THAT FLEXIBILITY IS PROBABLY LOST WITHIN THE, THE SUBTOTALING HERE.
SO THE PREVIOUS, BOB, ARE YOU IN THE QUEUE AGAIN? YEAH, I AM.
JUST REAL QUICKLY, UH, ON THE SAME SLIDE, UH, I'M, I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE, UH, READING THIS ON THE SCREEN TO UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU INDICATE IN HERE THAT THE Q SES FOR THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR THE E ESR SOC MM-HMM.
THEY, THERE WERE TIMES WHENEVER APPARENTLY THEIR SOC WAS BELOW WHAT THEIR OBLIGATION WAS.
UH, IS IT, IS THERE A PLACE ON HERE? AM I MISSING IT TO WHERE THE TOTAL SOC FOR ALL ENERGY STORAGE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, UNDERSTANDING THAT EASIER TO TRANSFER FROM, YOU KNOW, UH, ESR TO ESR WITHIN YOUR PORTFOLIO, BUT YOU CAN ALSO DO QSE TO QSE TRADES TOO.
UH, SO, SO I'M CURIOUS TO SEE JUST HOW FAR IT GOES.
SO THE, THE PURPLE LINE BOB IS THE SYSTEM WIDE SOC ON ALL STORAGE.
AND THE, THIS MIDDLE ONE RIGHT IN BETWEEN, SO IF I, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK, THE MIDDLE LINE IS THE SOC ACROSS THE QSC THAT WAS CARRYING AS ON ANYONE, ANY ONE OF ITS RESOURCES AT THE TIME.
UM, SO TO, UH, IN, UH, WHEN YOU, TO, TO US, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PURPLE LINE, DROPPING BELOW THE STATE OF THE EXPECTED STATE OF CHARGE FOR THE UP AS ALL BATTERIES WERE CARRYING, THERE ARE PERIODS WHERE THE PURPLE LINE IS BELOW RED.
IT'S MORE SO CLEAR IN THIS HOUR, WHICH IS HOUR ENDING 21.
SO BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE IN THIS 30 MINUTE PERIOD, THERE IS A DECENT AMOUNT OF TIME WHEN THAT PURPLE LINE, SO SYSTEM WIDE ENERGY ACROSS ALL THE BATTERIES WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR THE UPPER A, SOME BATTERIES WERE CARRYING.
IT WAS JUST KIND OF HARD FOR ME TO SEE ON THIS.
NO, I, I, I, I CONFESSED THIS WAS A PRETTY BUSY CHAT TO BUILD.
SO NI I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW.
IS THAT THE, OF YOUR PRESENTATION'S? THE END OF MY PRESENTATION? WE WANTED TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU.
I'M HOPING THIS, WELL, THIS NPRS SHOULD BE TEED UP NEXT WEEK AT PRS.
SO THIS WILL BE AT THE MARCH PRS MEETING? YES.
ANY FINAL QUESTIONS FOR NATIKA? OKAY.
[14. Other Business]
THING ON THE AGENDA IS OTHER BUSINESS.JUST A QUICK, UH, RUNDOWN HERE OF A COUPLE CHANGES, UH, I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE ACTION ITEM LIST.
UM, LAST MONTH, ROSS LEADERSHIP TOLD US THAT, UH, THEIR WORK ON THE FIRST ACTION ITEM RELATED TO THE RTC KCS, I'M SORRY, THE BEST FORCE K TCS IS DONE EXCEPT
[03:50:01]
FOR KTC 15 FIVE BLACK STAR SERVICE.SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE REMOVE 15 THREE AND 15 FOUR, AND MATT HAS ALSO SAID THERE'S NO NOTHING GOING ON AT R-T-C-B-T-F ON THESE.
SO WE WOULD BE CHANGING R-T-C-B-T-F TO ROSS.
AND THE ONLY THING LEFT WOULD BE THE BLACK START SERVICE, WHICH IS AT THE BLACK START WORKING GROUP.
UM, THESE DON'T HAVE NUMBERS ON THEM, BUT THERE'S ONE FROM 8 22 23 RELATED TO NPR 1171 AND DSRS ON LOAD SHED FEEDERS.
UH, BRIAN SAMS AT ONE POINT HAD WANTED TO DEVELOP A PROBLEM STATEMENT RELATED TO MO MOBILE GEN OF CONSULTED WITH BRIAN IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.
HE'S NO LONGER INTERESTED IN DOING THIS RIGHT NOW, SO I'D PROPOSE WE REMOVE THIS ACTION ITEM AS WELL.
HE'LL BRING IT BACK LATER IF THINGS CHANGE AND IT'S SOMETHING HE WANTS TO, UH, WORK ON MORE.
AND THEN THERE'S TWO THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED.
THOSE CAME FROM ANDY WYNN WITH CONSTELLATION.
YOU'LL SEE THAT AT THE VERY END.
THESE WERE DISCUSSED LAST MONTH BY ANDY.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS TO REVIEW R OPT-OUT TIMELINE PROVISIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER MODIFICATIONS ARE POSSIBLE, UH, REVIEW IMPACTS TO CLAW BACK DURING SELF COMMITTED HOURS.
AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS LOOKING AT FUEL TRANSPORTATION AND CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON MITIGATION AND VERIFIABLE COSTS.
SO HE WROTE THESE
AND WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THESE BE REFERRED TO WMS BLAKE.
CAN WE, UM, COUNT ON YOU TO, TO TAKE THESE AND WORK WITH ANDY ON DEVELOPING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT FOR THESE? YES, MA'AM.
WE'LL DO I, I THINK THE FIRST ITEM HAS BEEN SENT TO WMWG ALREADY, AND THEN I'LL, I'LL GET WITH HIM ON THE SECOND ITEM AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU, ANDY, WAS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD HERE? UH, NO.
THANKS MARTHA, UH, APPRECIATE, UH, TAX, UH, LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE ON THIS AND APPRECIATE YOU TOO, BLAKE, AS WE WORK THIS THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND FOR OTHER INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS, I HAVE REACHED OUT TO A FEW OF YOU.
UM, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING FURTHER, PLEASE REACH OUT AND I'M HAPPY TO, UH, WORK WITH YOU, UM, TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
CAITLYN, DO YOU WANNA TAKE BACK OVER OR DO YOU WANT ME TO ADJOURN THE MEETING? MINE STARTED BLINKING.
UM, ARE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR OTHER BUSINESS TODAY BEFORE WE ADJOURN THE MEETING? OKAY, THANKS VERY MUCH.
YOU'LL HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON.