[00:00:02]
I WANNA WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE MARCH 26TH, UH, TAC MEETING.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM IN THEIR SEATS, AND I'LL START WITH THE MEETING REMINDERS, WHY THEY DO THAT.
UM, IF YOU ARE ON THE WEBEX, YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF INTO THE CHAT.
UH, WE'RE USING A MANAGED QUEUE.
IF YOU'RE IN THE MEETING ROOM, YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF, OR IF YOU HOLD UP YOUR CARD, ERIN'S, IN THE FAR RIGHT CORNER OF THE ROOM, AND SHE WILL ENTER YOU IN THE CHAT.
UM, AS WE APPROACH THE BALLOTING PROCESS, IF YOU ARE A SEATED TECH MEMBER, AND ON THE WEBEX, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AS WE, UH, GO TO YOUR SEGMENT.
AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE CAST YOUR VOTE, PLEASE RETURN TO THE MUTE FUNCTION.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM, IF YOU WILL.
IF YOU'RE HERE TODAY, PLEASE SIGN IN.
AND THEN THE FINAL MEETING REMINDER IS THAT IF FOR ANY REASON THE WEBEX ENDS, PLEASE GIVE US JUST A FEW MINUTES.
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE SAME LOGIN INFORMATION, AND IF WE AREN'T ABLE TO USE THAT, WE WILL SEND SOMETHING TO THE TAC LIST SERVE.
SO PLEASE GIVE US A FEW MINUTES TO DO ALL THOSE JUMPS.
AND WITH THAT, CAITLYN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND CAN BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
[1. Antitrust Admonition]
THANK YOU, SUSIE.UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THE ANTITRUST IS ON THE SCREEN.
TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN
UM, SO THERE'S MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE.
UH, IT IS MARCH 26TH, I THINK THIS IS OUR MARCH TECH.
THIS IS OUR FIRST, I THINK, NORMAL TIME IN PERSON MEETING OF THE YEAR, UM, AND MAYBE THE FIRST ONE OF THOSE SINCE LIKE LAST SEPTEMBER.
IF YOU ARE STILL NOT ON THE LIST FOR LUNCH, UH, REACH OUT TO CALLIE, AND THAT'S, UH, CALLIE@GOLFPOLICY.COM TODAY FOR PROXIES AND ALT REPS.
UM, AND THE CO-OP SEGMENT, JOHN PACKARD, UH, FOR STACK HAS ALT REP LUCAS TURNER IN THE INDEPENDENT POWER MARKET MARKETER SEGMENT.
REMI, UH, MICHELLE HAS ALT REP SHANE THOMAS, AND THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT.
ALICIA LOVING AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, HAS ALT REP, UH, CHE, I THINK, UH, ERIC GOFF IS REPRESENTING LANCIA ON NPRR 1234.
AND, UH, FOR THOSE ITEMS, THE PROXY WILL GO TO NAVA WITH OPEC.
ALL RIGHT, RICHARD, WE MISSED YOU LAST MONTH.
DO WE HAVE A MARCH THEME OF THE MONTH? WE, WE DO FOR THIS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING? UH, THE THEME IS, UH, NO ACRONYMS. YEAH.
SO, UM,
WELL, I THINK YOU WILL, UH, UH, LEARN TO HATE IT AS MUCH AS MY ATTORNEYS DO.
UM, IT WAS GONNA BE A LONG MEETING ANYWAYS, SO WE'LL JUST SEE, UH, IF THAT'S MAKING THE MEETING TAKE LONGER.
AND, UH, WE CAN ADJUST AS, UH, WE KNOW HOW TO DO FOR, FOR AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF ENTERTAINMENT, UH, AND ATTENTION.
UH, FOLKS CAN KEEP TRACK AND WE COULD VOTE AT THE END OF THE MEETING ON THE BIGGEST LOSER.
UM, OKAY, NOW WE ARE ON TO THE
[2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
APPROVAL OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOT TO THE TECH.UM, THE, SO WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 27TH.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE, DID WE HAVE SUGGESTED CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS? I KNOW WE WERE THINKING ABOUT SOME.
OKAY, SUZY, WE DIDN'T GET ANY.
UM, SO I WOULD PROPOSE PUTTING APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 27TH MEETING MINUTES ON THE COMBO BALLOT, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS.
[3. Meeting Updates]
OUR MEETING UPDATES.I BELIEVE THAT FEBRUARY 25TH, UH, SPECIAL BOARD MEETING ACTUALLY HAPPENED BEFORE THE LAST ATTACK.
AND, AND THERE WEREN'T ANY REVISION REQUESTS CONSIDERED THERE ANYWAYS.
UM, WE HAD ALSO AN OPEN MEETING FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ON MARCH 13TH, AND THEY APPROVED ALL REVISION REQUESTS, UM, FROM THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING.
AND THOSE WILL ALL GO INTO THE PROTOCOLS ON APRIL 1ST.
WE ARE ACTUALLY GONNA SWITCH THINGS AROUND A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE, OH, WAIT, SORRY, I SKIPPED AHEAD.
[4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions (Part 1 of 2)]
ARE ON TO OUR REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARIES, UH,[00:05:01]
MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS.I JUST SKIPPED THE ACRONYMS. ALL RIGHT.
YEAH, I, I THINK I'M GONNA TRY TO SKIP SOME WORDS TOO, SO I DON'T HAVE TO FILL OUT ACRONYMS.
FOR THE REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY, THERE ARE 12 REVISION REQUESTS ON THE TAC.
I ALREADY DID IT
UM, I'LL POINT OUT THAT FIVE ARE URGENT FOR REASONS FOR REVISION.
EIGHT ARE UNDER THE GENERAL SYSTEM AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.
OBJECTIVE ONE TWO FALL UNDER THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, UM, FOR IMPACTS 1234 HAS A 600 TO 800 K BUDGETARY IMPACT AND 180 TO 220 K ANNUAL RECURRING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR STAFFING.
AND THEN SYSTEM CHANGE REQUEST 8 29 IS 100 TO 200 K.
AND THEN FOR THE ERCOT OPINIONS AND MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS, WE DO SUPPORT ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS HERE.
AND WE HAVE PROVIDED POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR ALL OF THEM.
UM, FOR THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR OPINIONS, THEY DO SUPPORT 1268, UM, 1270 AND OPPOSE 1269.
AND THEN NO OPINION ON THE REMAINING REVISION REQUESTS.
AND I'LL LET IMN SPEAK TO THAT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO, OR WE CAN SPEAK TO IT UNDER THE, WHEN WE ACTUALLY TAKE IT UP.
SO, UM, WE'LL WAIT TO TAKE THAT UP UNDER THE REAL TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION.
UM, SO NOW THE NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT WE HAVE SOME SCHEDULING ISSUES.
[Items 7 & 8]
TO THE REVISION REQUEST.WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP SEVEN AND EIGHT, BECAUSE TODAY WE'LL TAKE UP, UH, FIVE AND SIX TOGETHER.
AND SO LET'S GO AHEAD TWO SEVEN, WHICH IS REVISION REQUEST TABLED AT THIS COMMITTEE.
GER 2 64 CAN REMAIN TABLED, AWAITING NPRR 1235.
AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE, I'LL DO IT SOMETIMES THE RELIABILITY OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT.
UH, WE ARE TAKING UP, KATIE, ARE YOU READY? THIS, IT REALLY WAS MY IDEA, BUT I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT I'M THE ONE THAT TALKS THE MOST, SO I KIND OF BEAT MY OWN DRUMS, SO I'LL PROBABLY BREAK THE RULE TOO.
UM, SO THERE ARE THREE VOTING ITEMS BEFORE YOU TODAY.
UM, WE HAD ONE, JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THIS S NOGA 2 74, UM, 1217 CAME TO US SOME TIME AGO.
UM, AND FOLKS FINALLY GOT COMFORTABLE WITH, UM, REMOVING THE VDI.
SO THIS ONE WENT THROUGH QUICKLY.
AND THEN, UH, PICKER ONE 15 AND PICKER ONE 19 WERE AT, UM, PLWG FOR A WHILE.
UM, AND THEY HAVE NOW BEEN APPROVED.
SO THEY'RE ON YOUR VOTING ITEMS LIST FOR TODAY.
AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE, UM, WE TABLED.
SO WE TABLED SOME NEW ITEMS THAT CAME TO US.
AND THEN, UM, THE, NO, 2 65, I THINK THAT ONE'S COMING BACK FOR IA REVIEW.
AND THEN I THINK, UM, ERCOT VOTED TO, TO TABLE THIS TO SEE THE OUTCOME OF SB SIX.
AND THEN IF YOU GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE FOR ME, YOU CAN SEE WHAT REMAINS AT, AT ROSS AND WHERE THEY ARE, AND THEN THE SECOND PAGE AS WELL.
AND THEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS NEXT THURSDAY.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR KATIE? WE HAVE A COUPLE OF VOTING ITEMS FROM THAT.
UH, WE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE NOER 2 74 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE THREE SIX ROSS REPORT, FIGURE ONE 15 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE THREE SIX ROSS REPORT.
AND, UH, ONE 19 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE THREE SIX ROSS REPORT.
I SEE A COMMENT FROM JOHN RUS HUBBARD.
CAN, CAN I ASK FIRST, CAN WE PUT NOER 2 74 AND PICKER ONE 19 ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD, COREY AND PUT
[00:10:01]
THOSE TWO ON THE COMBO BALLOT BECAUSE I, I BELIEVE THIS COMING DISCUSSION IS ON, UH, ONE 15.UH, JOHN RUSS HUBBARD WITH TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS.
UM, SO I KNOW THAT ONE 15 HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, UH, AT, AT SUBCOMMITTEES, AND I'M SORRY, BUT I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, UH, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO DISCUSS IF, UM, THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE.
UH, FIRST A, A BROADER QUESTION.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL APPLY TO NEW INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS AND NOT ONES THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY.
UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A SCENARIO THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT.
SO I'VE HEARD THAT LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION REQUEST CAN EXPIRE.
SO I WAS HOPING SOMEONE AT THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS, UH, COULD CONFIRM THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN.
AND IF SO, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? UM, SO THIS IS AG SPRINGER, UH, ERCOT, UM, YEAH, I CAN, I CAN ADDRESS THAT.
SO THE, THE STRUCTURE IN P ONE 15, UM, IS THAT THE STUDY RESULTS ARE, IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY KIND OF LOCK IN THOSE STUDY RESULTS, THAT AGREEMENTS NEED TO BE SIGNED, UH, FOR INTERCONNECTION WITH THE INTERCONNECTING TSP, AND THAT EVIDENCE OF THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED TO ERCOT.
AND UNTIL THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE SIGNED, IF THERE IS ANOTHER LOAD THAT HAS BEEN STUDIED AND SIGNS IN THE INTERIM THAT WOULD CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDIES, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE EITHER, UH, AN UPDATE TO THE STUDY OR, UM, AN OPINION FROM THE INTERCONNECTING TSP THAT NO UPDATE IS REQUIRED.
THERE'S ALSO IN SECTION, I BELIEVE IT IS 9.2 0.3, SOME OTHER SCENARIOS SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE, UH, THE TYPE OF END USE THAT'S BEING, UH, DONE AT THE SITE THAT WOULD, UH, REQUIRE A NEW, AT LEAST, UH, STABILITY STUDY TO BE PERFORMED.
SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS ABSENT, UH, AGREEMENTS BEING SIGNED THAT COULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE, UH, A RE STUDY.
BUT SO LOADS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE QUEUE OR THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PROCESS, THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS WOULDN'T APPLY TO THEM UNLESS THERE WAS SOME MODIFICATION SET OUT ON 9.2 0.3 BY, BY IN THE QUEUE.
CURRENTLY, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE, THE INTERIM QUEUE? YES.
UM, SO THE INTENT IS THAT WHEN THIS LANGUAGE BECOMES EFFECTIVE, UM, THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE APPLIED TO ANY, UH, PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT, AGAIN, MET THE, UH, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF 9.4 AND 9.5, WHICH AGAIN, IS COMPLETION OF STUDIES AND, UH, EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENTS.
SO IF THERE IS A PROJECT IN THE INTERIM QUEUE RIGHT NOW THAT ONLY HAS, FOR EXAMPLE, PART OF ITS FULL SET OF STUDIES COMPLETED, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS AND, AND CONSIDERED PART OF THE, THE FORMAL PROCESS.
THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION, UH, COREY, IF YOU COULD SCROLL DOWN TO SECTION 9.2 0.5, UH, SUBSECTION TWO.
UM, THIS TALKS ABOUT, UM, ASKING QUALIFIED SCHEDULING ENTITIES TO CURTAIL, UM, TO ISOLATE LOADS WITH CO-LOCATED GENERATION.
UM, SO I, I GUESS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS, I, FIRST, I'D, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW DOES ERCOT ENVISION THIS, UM, HAPPENING AND, AND WHEN? SO, UM, I, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THIS, THAT PARAGRAPH SPEAKS ONLY TO THE CAPABILITIES OF THE EQUIPMENT.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS, IS IT'S, UM, MUCH LIKE WE HAVE FOR GENERATION, IT'S A PROHIBITION AGAINST HARD TAPPING, A LARGE LOAD.
UM, AND SO IT REQUIRES THAT IT BE CONNECTED THROUGH, UH, A BREAKER CAPABLE OF INTERRUPTING FAULT CURRENT.
UM, THERE'S ALREADY LANGUAGE, UH, IN THE NODAL PROTOCOLS THAT GOVERNS, UH, OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS, UM, FOR BOTH TO, UH, TOS AND QSE.
UM, AND, UH, THERE THERE'S NO INTENTION THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE USED TO BE IN OPENING BREAKERS ON LARGE LOADS.
BUT I WILL POINT TO THE LAST, THE PRESENTATION WE GAVE AT THE LAST LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE, UH, EARLIER THIS MONTH ABOUT THE OSCILLATION EVENT THAT WE OBSERVED FROM A LARGE LOAD.
AND THAT IS AN INSTANCE WHERE, YOU KNOW, HAD THAT, UH, OSCILLATION PROS TO MORE IMMINENT THREAT TO THE, THE RELIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM THAT, THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AN INSTANCE WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO UTILIZE, UH, THAT BREAKER.
SO THAT, I KNOW, I KNOW THIS LANGUAGE IS CAPABLE, BUT I, I GUESS MY CURIOSITY IS WHEN Y'ALL WOULD UTILIZE THAT LANGUAGE, AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S WHEN A LOAD MIGHT HAVE CREATE OSCILLATION ISSUES OR POSE RELIABILITY ISSUES ON THE SYSTEM.
AND I, I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
[00:15:01]
HOW WE'RE, UH, HOW CONNECTIONS ARE BEING DONE IN THE INTERIM PROCESS RIGHT NOW.THIS IS FORMALIZING IT IN THE PLANNING GUIDE.
UM, I, I, I GUESS I HAVE A SLIGHT CONCERN AROUND SOGS BEING INCLUDED.
AND THEN THE CONCEPT OF QFS, I DON'T THINK IS KIND OF FULLY FACTORED INTO THIS LANGUAGE.
SO, UH, WITH SOGS, SELF GENERATORS DON'T HAVE AN, HAVE NO IN, THEY CAN'T HAVE THE INTENT OF SELLING ENERGY AT WHOLESALE, AND SO ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE ISOLATING THE LOAD, UM, THAT COULD CREATE ISSUES WITH THEIR SELF GENERATION, UM, REGISTRATION.
AND THEN SECOND FOR QFS, UM, A LOT OF THEM, THE LOAD HAS TO BE RUNNING AT SOME LEVEL.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO ISOLATE THE LOAD.
I WAS REREADING THE PARAGRAPH, UH, NOT MIKE, BUT YEAH, I, UM, YEAH, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS LANGUAGE, WE, THIS WAS DISCUSSED I THINK PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT SCENARIO WAS BROUGHT UP, BUT I, YEAH, I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THERE.
IT WOULD EXIST EITHER WAY, RIGHT? WITH OR WITHOUT THIS LANGUAGE THAT LET THAT CONCERN EXIST, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S A, A, YOU JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I, IN THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS AND THE CAPABILITY, MY UNDERSTANDING AS THE NON-ENGINEER, SO CORRECT ME, BUT WHAT IT WAS, THE IDEA THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN ANY SITUATION WHERE THE TO WOULD SAY, OH, I GOTTA ROLL A TRUCK TO GO DISCONNECT THAT LARGE LOAD BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO IT REMOTELY.
IT'S NOT THAT ERCOT WOULD BE INSERTING ITSELF INTO ANY TO OR TSP PROCEDURES.
IT'S JUST WE WANTED TO TAKE OUT THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT TIME WINDOW OF, HEY, WE HEAR YOU, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S AN ISSUE, GIVE US 30 MINUTES OR SO, AND WE'LL TRY TO RECTIFY IT WITH THESE LOADS BEING THIS LARGE, WE DIDN'T WANT THAT TO BE A, AN ISSUE, SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE CAPABILITY WAS THERE SO THAT FOR ANY OF THE OTHER SCENARIOS THAT WERE GONNA EXIST, NO MATTER WHAT WE, THIS LANGUAGE WAS ENSURING THAT, THAT AT LEAST THAT ONE ISSUE OF NEEDING TO PHYSICALLY GO OUT THERE TO DO IT ONCE ALL THE CHECKS HAD BEEN MADE AND ALL THE HOOPS HAVE BEEN JUMPED THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT PERSONNEL ARE SAFE, EQUIPMENT IS SAFE, YADA, YADA, YADA, THE TSP WOULD BE ABLE TO HIT A BUTTON AS OPPOSED TO ROLLING A TRUCK.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A CAPABILITY TO ISOLATE THE LOAD, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHUT OFF THE GENERATION AS WELL.
I'VE BEEN ALSO TRYING TO PULL UP, UH, THE, THE COMMENTS THAT WE FILED, UH, ADDRESSING THIS, BUT THERE IS ALSO LANGUAGE, AS COREY MENTIONED IN THE PROTOCOLS THAT GOVERNS, UM, WHEN, YOU KNOW, ERCOT WOULD ISSUE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS AND WHEN THEY, YOU KNOW, AND THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR EXCEPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE PHYSICAL, UH, PHYSICAL DAMAGE, HARM, UM, I THINK, UH, UH, BEING IMPOSSIBLE WOULD ALSO FALL UNDER THAT.
AND THEN THIRD, UM, I THINK GOOGLE FILED SOME COMMENTS ON THIS, BUT THE LANGUAGE IN 9.2 0.5 SUB, THE FIRST SUB THREE, I THINK THERE'S TWO, UM, IS, UM, ABOUT LIMITING CONFIGURATIONS TO LESS THAN 1000 MEGAWATTS.
I I THINK THIS ISSUE IS ALSO BEING HANDLED IN BIGGER 1 22.
AND SO I, AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME ONGOING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THIS, UM, AND, AND THE NEED THAT ERCOT IS TRYING TO SOLVE.
AND SO I WAS CURIOUS IF ERCOT WOULD BE OPPOSED TO STRIKING SUB THREE AND, AND LETTING THAT DISCUSSION CONTINUE FORWARD AT, FOR PICKER 1 22.
UM, YES, ERCOT WOULD BE OPPOSED TO STRIKING THAT LANGUAGE.
UM, I WILL MENTION THERE IS AN ONGOING STUDY THAT I THINK WE'RE EXPECTING RESULTS IN APRIL, UM, TO DETERMINE IF THE, THE THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IS THE RIGHT NUMBER, UM, GIVEN THE, THE CURRENT, UH, KIND OF CONFIGURATION OF THE SYSTEM.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS, UH, RISK TO FREQUENCY STABILITY IS, UH, PRESENT AND GROWING.
UM, AND SO THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT, UM, LIMIT A THOUSAND, UH, MEGA, UH, CONNECTION TO BELOW A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THAT IT BE CONNECTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ANY SINGLE CONTINGENCY WOULD, WOULD NOT DROP MORE THAN A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS.
AND SO, UM, PICKER 1 22 IS BROADER THAN THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS SORT OF, UH, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THE LOW HANGING FRUIT.
UM, AND SO WE, WE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO STRIKING THIS LANGUAGE.
UM, SO THOSE ARE MY BROAD QUESTIONS, BUT I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE SENATE BILL SIX CONTEMPLATES SOME OF THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS, UM, PIGGER.
AND, AND SO THE, AND THE VERSION THAT WAS AT LEAST APPROVED BY THE SENATE, UH, SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH SOME OF THE SECTIONS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, 9.2 0.5, UM, TALKS ABOUT THERE BEING BREAKERS CAPABLE OF INTERRUPTING OR ISOLATING LARGE LOAD.
BUT SENATE BILL SIX HAS EXCEPTIONS FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES.
AND I KNOW YOU SAID THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE AROUND HOW OUR
[00:20:01]
CUT'S GONNA USE IT, THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT STILL IT'S ABOUT THE CAPABILITY IN SENATE BILL SIX IN ADDITION.UH, AND, AND SO, UM, SO INSTEAD OF FRONT RUNNING SENATE BILL SIX, YOU KNOW, I'D RECOMMEND TABLING IT FOR A FEW MONTHS, AND THAT WOULD ALSO GIVE TIME FOR THAT APRIL STUDY TO VERIFY WHETHER A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IS THE RIGHT LEVEL.
UM, I THINK IT'S ONLY A COUPLE MONTHS.
UM, SO YEAH, I ASK, I SUPPORT OR RECOMMEND TABLING IT IF PEOPLE ARE OPEN TO IT.
ERIC SCHUBERT, WERE YOU OUT OF THE QUEUE OR IN THE QUEUE? UM, YEAH, I'M IN THE QUEUE.
BRIEFLY, I JUST WANNA REEMPHASIZE THE POINT THAT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE, UM, CO-LOCATION OF, OF GENERATION AND LOAD, UH, AND DOING DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES NEED TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
AND SO I THINK WHAT JOHN'S TALKING ABOUT IS CRITICAL INDUSTRIAL LOADS, UH, NEED TO BE EXEMPTED TO A DEGREE FROM SOME OF THE PROVISIONS HERE FOR MATTER, PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND I THINK THAT ONE SECTION YOU TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THIS ONE IS ONE OF THOSE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AS REALLY A SITUATION WHERE WE CAN ISOLATE A LOAD SOME IN SOME CASES FROM THE GENERATION, UH, WITHOUT CAUSING SOME REAL PROBLEMS. SO I THINK JOHN'S IDEA OF WAITING UNTIL SB SIX PASSES MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
SO WE CAN WORK OUT SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES ON THAT AND INVOLVE SAFETY.
BILL BARNES? YEAH, JOHN RUSS'S QUESTIONS, UM, TRIGGERED ONE FOR ME, AG, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE ACTUAL INTENTION OF THE, UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE BREAKERS IN BOTH PARAGRAPH ONE AND TWO HERE? IS THAT INTENDED TO ISOLATE THE LOAD? SO TO TRIP THE LOAD OFF, OR BOTH HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO ALSO, UH, TRIP THE GENERATOR? THE INTENT.
AND SO THIS WOULD REALLY ONLY BE IN PARAGRAPH TWO SINCE PARAGRAPH ONE IS SPEAKING JUST TO STANDALONE, STANDALONE.
UM, BUT THE INTENT WAS FOR THE THERE TO BE CAPABILITY TO ISOLATE THE LOAD WITHOUT TRIPPING THE GENERATION.
AND IT, UH, IS ERRA OPPOSED TO TABLING THIS? I THINK WE WOULD BE, YES.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH MANY MONTHS OF DISCUSSION AND I, I KNOW THAT, UM, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DO NEED TO, TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE ISSUES.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO, UH, A FOLLOW UP FIGURE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S SOME OTHER AREAS IN THE, UH, INTERCONNECTION PROCESS LAID OUT IN SECTION NINE WHERE WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS THAT SOME TWEAKING MIGHT BE NEEDED, BUT, UH, WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TODAY.
UM, CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE, UH, THE IMPORTANCE OF TRYING TO GET THIS, THIS BALL MOVING.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A LONG TIME AND, AND JUST GETTING THIS, YOU KNOW, SOLIDIFIED WILL, WILL BE HELPFUL IN, IN LETTING ERCOT START WORKING THROUGH THE QUEUE.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT'LL PROVIDE BENEFITS FOR, UM, FOR THE MARKET IN GENERAL TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ON FROM AN INTERIM PROCESS, UH, BUT CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE, THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED.
AND I, I'M GUESSING THAT ERCOT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, CLEAN UP SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
UM, YOU KNOW, I'M GUESSING THAT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BECOME A, AN ALMOST A, UH, UH, LIKE ALMOST A FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
YOU KNOW, IT WAS LIKE, GET THIS IN AND THEN DO SOME CLEANUP SHORTLY.
UH, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, YEAH.
WE, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO, TO DOING, UH, YOU KNOW, A FOLLOW UP PICKER FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I MEAN, I, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING THIS FORWARD, BUT THERE IS ONE, ONE CHANGE, AND IT'S ACTUALLY IN PARAGRAPH THREE RIGHT DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM.
AND THIS IS, IT IS JUST A PRINCIPLE ISSUE THAT Y'ALL HAVE HEARD ME GRIPE ABOUT BEFORE, WHICH IS HAVING, UH, YOU KNOW, CUTOFF DATES THAT ARE IN THE PAST.
AND MARCH 1ST, 2025 IS NOW MORE THAN THREE WEEKS BEHIND US.
SO, UH, IF WE, IF WE ENDORSE THIS TODAY, THEN I ASSUME THIS GOES TO THE APRIL BOARD AND THEN ONTO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL IN, IN MAY.
SO LIKELY THE, THE SOONEST IT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE IS JUNE.
SO I, I'D BE INTERESTED IN, UH, WOULD ERCOT OPPOSE A TABLETOP EDIT TO CHANGE MARCH 1ST TO JUNE 1ST? NO, I THINK WE'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
UH, THAT WOULD BE, UH, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S HELPFUL TO, TO MOVE IT FORWARD, I'D, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BIGGER ONE 15 WITH A TABLETOP EDIT TO MODIFY, UH, MARCH 1ST TO JUNE 1ST, 2025.
AND, AND RECOGNIZE IN THE MINUTES PLEASE THAT, UM, THAT, YOU
[00:25:01]
KNOW, THERE'S A COMMITMENT TO COME BACK AND, AND DO CLEANUP.WE, I, I'M GUESSING WE WILL ALSO NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT ON NPR 1234.
SO WOULD YOU GUYS BE OKAY WITH WAITING TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM TO WHEN WE GET TO NPR 1234? SO WE COULD DO KIND OF A MINI COMBO BALLOT? SURE.
AND IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE BOTH OF THEM SO WE CAN BE EFFICIENT IN, IN THAT.
LET'S WAIT TILL WE GET TO THAT, GET TO THAT ON THE AGENDA IN THE PRS REPORT, THOUGH.
SO DO I WITHDRAW THE MOTION FOR NOW? YOU DIDN'T GET A SECOND.
YOU DIDN'T GET A SECOND, BUT YOU COULD WITHDRAW IT.
YEAH, SHE, YOU GOT A SECOND, BUT WE COULD ALSO TAKE UP 1234.
I DON'T THINK DIANA'S GONNA, WELL, THE PRS REPORT, I WANTED TO ROLL INTO RTC, BUT 1234 IS SEPARATE FROM RTC.
SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND TAKE UP WE DO, WE DO THE INVERSE ALL THE TIME.
WHERE, WHEN PRS HAS RELATED GERS OR PIGGERS, WE'LL THROW THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT SO THAT WHEN YOU, WHEN ROSS OR THE WMS CHAIR GETS UP, THEY SAY, YOU'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED MY REVISION REQUESTS.
THIS IS THE INVERSE HAPPENING TO PRS.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON NPR 1234, THOUGH, I THINK IT WOULD BE THE SAME FOLKS DISCUSSING ONE 15 IF THERE'S, I THINK THERE'S MORE, THERE'S DIFFERENT ISSUES THAN THAT, CORRECT? I THINK YOU'RE, I THINK YOU'RE REASONABLY SAFE.
IS THIS A NEW, WHERE DOES A NEW QUEUE START WITH ERIC? OKAY.
UH, WE'RE FINE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH 1234, BUT WE WOULD LIKE A MOTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO TABLE BIGGER ONE 15.
SO WE, WE ARE GONNA NEED SEPARATE BALLOTS FOR EACH.
SO LET'S, LET'S DO THE BALLOT ON ONE 15 AND THEN LET'S DO 1234 WHEN WE, 'CAUSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA HAVE DIFFERENT VOTES FOR EACH.
SO THEY SHOULD GO TOGETHER TO THE BOARD, SO THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER THEM ALL AT ONCE.
AND I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED THROUGH MUCH OF IT, BUT THEY MIGHT REFER TO EACH OTHER.
SO TABLING ONE, THEY DO, YEAH.
LET'S, LET'S TAKE THE VOTE ON ONE 15 AND SEE WHERE THAT LEAVES US.
CAN WE STICK WITH THE MOTION AND SECOND, OR DO WE NEED TO, HE WANTS TO TABLE THE DARN THING A SECOND, BUT THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION.
THERE WAS A MOTION FROM NED AND THE SECOND FROM MARTHA ON GER ONE 15.
CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT? YES.
WELL, I, I'LL TALK, I'LL REFER TO YOU IN TERMS OF PROCEDURE, BUT WE'D LIKE TO VOTE TO TABLE.
DO YOU DO, DO YOU DO THE TABLE VOTE BEFORE YOU DO THE, WELL, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT VOTING ITEMS. IN THIS CASE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN NPRR AND A PIGGER.
AND THE IDEA OF, IF YOU APPROVE THE NPRR, BUT TABLE THE PIGGER, YOU'VE EFFECTIVELY TABLED THE NPR AS WELL.
'CAUSE IT CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE OTHER.
SO IF SOMEBODY'S MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE PIGGER ONE 15 YES.
SOMEONE COULD BLOCK THAT WITH A MOTION TO TABLE IT.
THERE'S A MOTION TO TAPE APPROVE ON THE FLOOR.
IF ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER CONVERSATION ON ONE 15, WE CAN CONTINUE THAT.
BUT WE'RE WAITING ON DISCUSSION ON 1234.
E ERIC, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON ONE 15? UH, YES.
I'D LIKE TO BASICALLY MOVE, MOVE THE TABLE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO ERIC SCHUBERT'S.
SO NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ON PIGGER ONE 15.
UM, LET ME JUST MAKE SURE, SEE WHO WANTS TO BE IN THE QUEUE STILL.
JOHN RUSS? NO, UH, GARRETT, ARE YOU STILL IN THE QUEUE? THE SECOND BILL BARNES, ARE YOU IN THE QUEUE FOR ONE 15? NO, 1 12 34.
MARK DREYFUS, ARE YOU IN THE QUEUE FOR ONE 15? YES.
I I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION PROCEDURALLY, ON THE NOTION THAT WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND CLEAN THIS UP AFTERWARD, WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THAT? IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS? OR IS THAT ENVISIONED AS SOME KIND OF FUTURE PLANNING GUIDE REVISION REQUEST? IS THAT A QUESTION FOR ERCOT? I, I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR
[00:30:01]
ERCOT AND THE MOTION MAKER WHO SUGGESTED THAT THAT BE IN THE MINUTES.'CAUSE JUST MY VOTE MAY DEPEND ON WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR MOVING FORWARD.
THAT'S DO YOU WANT ME TO YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, MARK.
UM, THE THOUGHT WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER PLANNING GUIDE, REVISION REQUEST TO, UH, CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE, SO BASICALLY GET THIS MOVING.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS AG MENTIONED, THE, YOU KNOW, THIS'LL START TO, UH, LET THEM MOVE THROUGH ITEMS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE QUEUE.
AND, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT ARE, ARE NEEDED, I THINK THERE'S CLEARLY A, A LOT OF INTEREST AND PRESSURE IN, IN GETTING THAT DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY.
SO, UM, BUT WHAT I HEARD FROM THE DISCUSSION IS THAT THERE ARE, THE, THE EXISTING LANGUAGE GIVES OUR CUT SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOUNT FOR UNIQUE SCENARIOS LIKE THE ONES THAT WERE MENTIONED WITH POTENTIALLY SELF GENERATORS OR PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, CONCERNS.
AND THEN GIVEN JUST THE TIMING OF WORKING THROUGH THE INTERCONNECTIONS IN THE QUEUE, I, I, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME, YOU KNOW, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG AG, BUT I, I'M THINKING THAT THERE'S PROBABLY ENOUGH TIME TO GET THOSE CHANGES PUT IN PLACE BEFORE.
AND I SEE, YOU KNOW, COREY'S HIGHLIGHTED THE, UH, THE PROJECT DURATION, YOU KNOW, THE TIME FOR ALL OF THIS TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
THERE'S PROBABLY ROOM TO GET THAT UPDATED AND, AND PUT IN PLACE BEFORE, UM, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, RISK OF ANY REAL IMPACT.
IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE.
I, I, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR I'M NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I AGREE WITH SOME THAT THERE'S ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, RECONCILED.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, A YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A, A STUDY THAT'LL ADDRESS THE, THE THOUSAND MEGAWATT LIMIT IN THERE.
SO CLEARLY THERE ARE THINGS THAT, THAT ARE GOING TO COME BACK.
BUT, UM, YEAH, THIS ONE'S BEEN FLOATING FOR A WHILE AND THERE'S GOOD BENEFITS AND, AND MOVING IT FORWARD TODAY, UH, MAYBE I'LL LEAVE IT.
MARK, DOES THAT HELP? SO, SO THE RESPONSE IS THAT WE CAN COME BACK WITH A FUTURE, UH, PLANNING GUIDE, REVISION REQUEST THAT WILL NOT AFFECT ANY OF THE APPLICANT'S CURRENTLY IN PROCESS.
IF THAT'S CORRECT, THEN, YOU KNOW, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THE, WITH THE PLANNING GUIDE REVISION REQUEST.
HATE TO DO THIS, BUT WE HAVE AN ANOTHER LUNCH EMERGENCY.
UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE PENDING ORDERS THAT WEREN'T COMPLETED, AND SO THOSE WILL BE REMOVED AT 10 30.
SO MAYBE CHECK AND MAKE SURE YOUR ORDER WAS COMPLETED.
ALRIGHT, NOW WE ARE RICHARD ROSS, IS YOUR QUESTION ON ONE 15? IT WAS, BUT I JUST WANTED OKAY.
CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME OKAY? YES.
UM, I'M, UH, UP IN DALLAS, SO UNFORTUNATELY COULDN'T BE THERE TODAY, BUT, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I I THINK WE GOT, UH, THIS MOVED OUT OF ROSS, UM, AFTER A LONG REVIEW AT PLWG FOR THE PIGGER, AND THEN THE NPRR WAS RECENTLY JUST APPROVED WITH JUST ONE, UM, OPPOSITION VOTE.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE REASON WE WOULD NOT MOVE THIS FORWARD? UH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR JOHN AND HE'S IN THE QUEUE.
SO YEAH, JOHN RU HUB WITH TIC.
UM, THEY, GOOD, GOOD QUESTION, BILL.
I, I, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE REASONS.
I THINK FIRST IS SENATE BILL SIX CONFLICTS WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN HERE.
AND SO GIVING TIME FOR SENATE BILL TO SEE THE RESULTS OF SENATE BILL SIX, I THINK TWO, GIVING ERCOT TIME TO COMPLETE ITS STUDY ON WHAT THE RIGHT LEVEL OF MEGAWATTS TO, TO LIMIT INTERCONNECTIONS TO.
UH, THREE, TO WORK OUT THE ISSUES BETWEEN QFS AND SELF GENERATORS AND THE LANGUAGE IN 9.2 0.5 SUB TWO.
UM, AND I'D LIKE TO, I GUESS, REMIND ERCOT, UH, WHEN THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS IT, SOME OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR LOADS TO BE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THOSE.
UM, ENERGY IS NOT OUR MAIN POINT OF BUSINESS, AND SO WHEN THERE'S THINGS AT PLWG OFTENTIMES WE DO NOT ENGAGE IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS UNTIL LATER.
UM, DOES THAT, YEAH, I GUESS I, I JUST WANNA, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I NECESSARILY AGREE.
WE HAVEN'T GIVEN A PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR PROBABLY SINCE WE PUT THE MARKET NOTICE OUT, SO SEVERAL YEARS.
[00:35:02]
AND, UM, WE HAVE MADE MULTIPLE PASSES AT TRYING TO DO THIS.UM, AND ALL WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS JUST GET AN INTERCONNECTION PROCESS IN, UH, WE TOOK OUT SOME OF THE MORE, UH, CONFRONTATIONAL OR BIGGER ISSUES.
UM, WE WERE ALSO HAVING LOTS OF LARGE LOADS THAT WERE ASKING TO PUT MULTIPLE GIGAWATTS, UM, CONNECTIONS IN PLACE.
SO THE 1000 MEGAWATT LIMIT WAS TO, UM, FACILITATE DURING THIS INTERIM PROCESS SOME SORT OF NOTIFICATION TO THE LARGE LOADS THAT WERE COMING THAT YOU CAN'T JUST CONNECT UP, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE GIGAWATTS ON A SINGLE CONNECTION.
SO THOSE WERE PUT IN DUE TO REQUEST AND DISCUSSIONS FROM FOLKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO THIS.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT WHILE WE ARE WORKING ON THE STUDY, AND WE WILL, THAT'S I THINK PERTAINING TO 1 22 MOSTLY.
UM, THIS ONE JUST PUTS A LIMIT ON HOW BIG A CONTINGENCY WE CAN HAVE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE STUDY NECESSARILY WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED.
I THINK THAT AFFECTS BIGGER 1 22 MORE THAN IT DOES, OR, OR 1 22 MORE THAN IT DOES THIS ONE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO S STILL SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD SINCE IT'S PRIMARILY DEALING WITH INTERCONNECTIONS AND WE HAVE A HUNDRED GIGAWATTS IN THE QUEUE.
JOHN, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? YEAH.
UH, AND BILL, I APOLOGIZE FOR KIND OF RAISING THESE, THESE ISSUES.
I, I THINK PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS THAT THE LANGUAGE HAS CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY BETWEEN WHAT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED, UH, A AND NOW A, AS YOU SAID.
UM, SO, AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGES IS KEEPING UP WITH THOSE CHANGES.
SO ALTHOUGH CONVERSATION HAS BEEN ONGOING, UM, IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW ALL THE CHANGES.
UM, AND SO AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR RAISING THESE ISSUES LAST MINUTE.
UM, BUT THEY ARE STILL SERIOUS CONCERNS DESPITE THE TIMING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE, UM, ON THE TABLE.
ARE WE ANY MORE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE UP THIS MOTION? RIGHT, COREY? GO AHEAD.
ALRIGHT, ON YOUR MOTION TO TABLE PICKER ONE 15, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS WITH NAVA FOR ERIC.
ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU.
MARK DREYFUS? NO, THANK YOU, NICK.
JOHN PACKARD? NO, THANK YOU, KYLE.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
RESPECTFULLY, NO, THANK YOU, SIR.
SO NOW WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
ALRIGHT, ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE MOTION TO APPROVE AS REVISED BY JACK, UH, AS REVISED BY TECH AND THE DESKTOP EDITS.
OKAY, WE'RE READY WHEN YOU ARE, COREY.
[00:41:30]
OKAY.SO THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF P ONE 15 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE MARCH 6TH ROSS REPORT AS REVISED BY TAC.
AND THE LOAN REVISION FROM TODAY'S TAC IS AS NED PROPOSED MOVING THAT MARCH 1ST DATE UP TO JUNE 1ST.
EVERYBODY GOOD? ALL RIGHT, THEN ON THIS MOTION, WE WILL BEGIN UP AGAIN WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH NAVA FOR ERIC.
AND OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BOB HILTON.
KEITH GOT YOU IN CHAT AGAIN, KEITH.
AND MUNIS RUSSELL? YES, THANK YOU, JOSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON P ONE 15 DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD, BRIAN.
I, I KNOW THAT, UH, ANN LIKES TO ASK FOR REASONS FOR ABSTENTIONS OR, OR, UH, UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO VOCALIZE, UM, THAT, UM, FOR ME IT HAS TO DO WITH, AND THIS IS ALSO FOR THE BENEFIT OF ERCOT, IT HAS TO DO WITH THIS, UH, PARAGRAPH 9.2, 0.5, PARAGRAPH TWO, WHERE THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A QSE TO, UH, HAVE A REMOTELY CONTROLLABLE, UH, BREAKER THAT COULD BE OPENED, UH, THAT'S CONTROLLED BY THE QSE.
AND SO, UM, THERE JUST AREN'T PROTOCOLS YET OR PROCESSES AROUND WHAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
UM, AND SO IF I'VE GOT A, A CRITICAL LOAD THAT'S CO-LOCATED WITH ONE OF MY GENERATORS, UM, I JUST WANNA HAVE GOOD PROCEDURE AROUND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE A CLEANUP PROTOCOL THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS MORE, UH, DETAIL AROUND THAT.
BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE, UM, WITH THIS AT, AT THIS CURRENT STATE.
[00:45:01]
THE EXPLANATION.UH, JEREMY, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO QUESTION AND CLARIFY THAT STATEMENT AND MAKE SURE IT'S NOT THE QSCS RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE A CONTROL, THE ABILITY TO REMOTELY CONTROL THIS BREAKER, RIGHT? THEY ONLY HAVE TO PASS ON INSTRUCTIONS.
THAT'S THE WAY I READ THE LANGUAGE, THE REVISED LANGUAGE.
I, I HAVEN'T SEEN Y'ALL'S EDITS, UM, IN PARTICULAR TO RELATED TO THIS, BUT I, I KNOW THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAD ON THIS.
UM, WE JUST DON'T WANT A PERSON TO HAVE TO GO INTO THE FIELD.
SO WE WANT SOME ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN QUICKLY DISCONNECT THE LOAD IF WE HAVE TO.
OF COURSE, WE WOULD MAKE PHONE CALLS TO TRY TO AVOID THAT.
UM, BUT IF WE NEED TO, WE BE, NEED TO HAVE SOME REMOTE CONNECTION, NOT A, A PERSON HAVING TO DRIVE OUT.
UM, AND THIS IS AG SPRINGER OR KA, UM, I'LL JUST ALSO REITERATE THAT THIS, THIS LANGUAGE SPEAKS TO THE CAPABILITY.
UM, AND I'VE BEEN OVER HERE TRYING TO, TRYING TO PULL UP THE, THE SECTION THAT WE REFERENCED IN ONE OF OUR COMMENTS, UM, RELATED TO OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS AND, UM, CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT INCLUDING PHYSICAL SAFETY AND RI RISK OF DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE EXCEPTIONS TO COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS.
I THINK THOSE WOULD BE APPLICABLE HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE CLARIFYING, UH, CLARIFYING NPR, I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK CRITICAL FACILITY DESIGNATION IS, IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN, THAN, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DATA CENTER TYPE LOADS THAT WE'RE SEEING CO-LOCATE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, UH, EXCUSE ME, UH, THAT WOULD BE, UH, UH, PART OF THAT AS WELL.
SO, UM, BUT I DO, I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE, AND THIS WAS, UH, A LARGE PART OF THE DISCUSSION AROUND THIS LANGUAGE AT PLWG OVER THE, THE LAST SIX MONTHS OR SO, THAT THIS IS RELATED TO ONLY THE CAPABILITY.
AND AS BILL BILL SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR, UH, THAT THAT LOAD NOT TO BE HARD TAPPED AND, UH, FOR, UH, IT TO BE POSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS REMOTELY AND NOT REQUIRE, UH, SOMEBODY TO PHYSICALLY GO TO THE SITE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT DISCUSSION? 'CAUSE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE WE, THAT'S IN THE FIGURE THAT WE JUST APPROVED.
UM, I'M GOING TO, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING I WAS TOO DISTRACTED BY THE NO ACRONYMS. UM, ON, ON
[4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions (Part 2 of 2)]
AGENDA ITEM FOUR, THE REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY IN ERCOT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENT AND OPINIONS, UM, I WANTED TO FLAG SOMETHING I THINK, KEITH, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER.WE, WE HAD NPR 1190 AT TECH LAST, LAST MONTH IN FEBRUARY.
AND, AND ERCOT HAD AN OPINION OF SUPPORT THERE, AND THEY NOTED THEY MIGHT BE CHANGING THAT OPINION.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DID, AND I THINK THAT WE MIGHT BE KICKING OFF KIND OF A POLICY OR DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT, UM, WHEN, WHEN ERCOT HAS NO OPINION.
SO I WAS HOPING KEITH OR SOMEBODY AND, AND LEGAL COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
YEAH, I CAN, UH, SPEAK, SPEAK TO THIS ONE.
SO THE, THE CONCERN WITH, WITH 1190, UM, UH, WAS, WAS REVOLVING AROUND THE NATURE OF IT BEING, UH, COST ALLOCATION ITEM.
AND SO GENERALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT, UH, AN NPR, UH, WE, WE ASKED THE QUESTION, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS RELIABILITY? DOES THIS AFFECT MARKETS? UM, AND IF IT, IF IT DOES, WE, WE GENERALLY HAVE AN OPINION THAT THE CHALLENGE HERE WAS TO WHAT EXTENT IT WAS AFFECTING EITHER ONE OF THOSE.
AND I THINK OUR VIEW WAS THAT IT WAS PRETTY LIMITED.
UM, AND, AND SO IT, IT, IT SEEMED TO BE MORE OF A COST ALLOCATION ITEM RATHER THAN A RELIABILITY OR A MARKET INCENTIVE.
SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE FELT IT FELT IT BEST TO, UM, LOOK AT IT FROM, UH, A NO OPINION.
ALTHOUGH I THINK THE, THE CONCERN WITH 1190 WAS, WELL, WELL, DIDN'T WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN, IN 1190 TO CHANGE THE, THE CAP? AND, AND THE ANSWER WAS THAT'S AN ANALYTICAL CAP, UM, THAT BASICALLY
[00:50:01]
SAID, HEY, ERCOT, YOU'RE GONNA DO SOME WORK.UM, AND SO WE FELT THAT, YEAH, WHETHER IT WAS WORKING, US DOING WORK AT 10 MILLION OR THREE AND A HALF MILLION, WE FELT THAT THE THREE AND A HALF MILLION WAS AN APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION.
SO WE SUPPORT THAT AND WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THAT.
UM, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, WE LOOK AT IT AS, UH, AS NO OPINION ON IF, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO IT, WE THINK THE CAP AT 3.5 MILLION MAKES SENSE.
IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO IT, UM, IN TERMS OF COST ALLOCATION, THEN WE'RE OKAY MOVING FORWARD.
I THINK OUR VIEW IS, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT OTHER, OTHER REGIONS, UM, FOR INSTANCE THERE THEY HAVE, UM, STATE COMMITTEES THAT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, NOT NECESSARILY, UM, UM, SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UH, ERCOT AND OTHER REGIONS THAT THEY LOOK AT IT AS, AS, AS A STATE QUESTION VERSUS AN ERCOT QUESTION.
SO WE WERE, UM, CONSIDERING A SHIFT IN OPINION.
SO YOU'LL SEE GOING FORWARD, UH, THERE MAY BE OTHER NPRS WHERE WE MAY SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE NO OPINION, UH, 'CAUSE WE'VE ASSESSED IT AS A COST ALLOCATION QUESTION.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
I DID WANNA FLAG THAT ONE JUST BECAUSE I THINK ERCOT SUPPORTED AND, AND WE DID VOTE IT OUT WITH ERCOT COMMENTS AND THEN WE SORT OF CHANGED THE OPINION, UM, BEFORE WE GOT TO THE BOARD.
BUT I, I UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION OF, OF MOVING FORWARD, ERIC.
SO I AM ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING AND I'M GOING TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHERE I'M, I DON'T WANNA RE-LITIGATE 1190 FOR THE 15TH TIME WHEN I SAY THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT I DO THINK THE WAY YOU SAID SOMETHING CAN GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO THE PROCESS OF ABOUT ER OPINIONS IN GENERAL.
THAT WILL LEAD ME TO BRIEFLY TIPTOE DOWN THE, THE PROCESS OF TALKING ABOUT 1190 AGAIN AND THEN COME RIGHT BACK UP.
UM, SO OBVIOUSLY WE STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT 1190 IS JUST A COST ALLOCATION ISSUE, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARKET INCENTIVES, WHICH IS WHY WE MADE A BIG DEAL OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND, ALRIGHT, 1190 DONE.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT YOU HAVING TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING IS OR ISN'T A PARTICULAR SET OF ISSUES, UM, TO LEAD YOU TO THEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO NO OPINION IS A DIFFICULT TASK.
AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO IT IF I WERE YOU.
UM, AND MANY YEARS AGO, ERCOT FOUND NO BENEFIT TO WEIGHING IN ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING WAS A GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA AND JUST LET THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS GO THROUGH WITH SOMETHING.
AND I THINK THAT WAS WISE AT THE TIME AND ONLY THROUGH THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS OF EXTREMELY CONTENTIOUS MARKET DESIGN HAVE PEOPLE TRIED TO PUT YOU IN THE SPOT.
UM, AND SO I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO REACT INTO THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT MIGHT BE THE MOST PRUDENT THING TO NOT WEIGH IN ON A PARTICULAR ITEM IF IT'S GOOD OR A BAD IDEA IN THIS CONTEXT BECAUSE IT REALLY SERVES YOU NO BENEFIT AND WILL ONLY LEAD TO PEOPLE LIKE ME SAYING, HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT MY ISSUE WASN'T IMPORTANT WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR BENEFIT.
I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT LATER.
I
I'M, I'M HAPPY FOR HIM TO NOT RESPOND.
DON'T HAVE TO, DON'T TO RESPOND.
I JUST THOUGHT YOU MIGHT WANT TO, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, TO SPEAK WITH HIM.
I THINK, UM, I THINK HE TALKED ABOUT A SHIFTING WORLD.
I THINK YES, THE WORLD HAS SHIFTED.
UH, I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE OPINIONS, YES, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE OPINIONS, BUT I THINK WHAT WE SEE HERE IS THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE WON'T HAVE OPINIONS AND TIMES WHERE WE WILL.
UH, I JUST GONNA FOLLOW UP ON ERIC'S COMMENT.
UM, ONE THING YOU SAID BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT, UH, A BIT, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT OTHER, OTHER AR OTHER RTOS HAVE STATE COMMITTEES.
THE RTO IS AUTHORIZED BY SB SEVEN BY THE LEGISLATURE.
UH, THE RULES COME UP THROUGH THE COMMISSION AND THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED HERE.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PARTICULARLY ON RELIABILITY ISSUES IF ERCOT COMES TO OPINE, BUT DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A CHAIN OF, OF, IF NOT COMMAND, OF POLICY AND, AND OTHER DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
AND I THINK TO FOLLOW UP ON ERIC, YOU
[00:55:01]
HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE COMMENTING ON IS AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL.IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT IS PUCT JURISDICTION, BY ALL MEANS FILE SOMETHING THERE.
BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IMPACT THE MARKET TO SOME DEGREE, THAT'S NOT REALLY ERCOT JURISDICTION IN THAT REGARD.
AND SO WITH THE CO KEEP THE COMMENTS IN MIND THAT THIS RTO IS STRUCTURED VERY DIFFERENTLY AND GOVERNED VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN, THAN YOUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES.
'CAUSE IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE HERE.
YEAH, AND, AND I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, AND, AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT.
I THINK WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT PARTICULARLY WITH COST ALLOCATION QUESTIONS, MOST OTHER REGIONS DON'T TOUCH THAT FROM THE RTO PERSPECTIVE.
AND SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHY WOULD WE WANT TO MAKE AN OPINION ON SOMETHING THAT NOBODY HAS AN OPINION ON IN OTHER REGIONS? AND SO I THINK WE WERE AGREEING THAT YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE STATES, WHETHER IT'S A COMMITTEE, THE PUC, WHOEVER, THEY'RE THE ONES DRIVING THAT POLICY, AND I THINK THAT'S A PARTICULAR AREA THAT, THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T, UM, LEAVE IT TO THE, THE POLICY LEVEL FOR THAT.
SO I, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY VIOLENTLY AGREEING WITH YOU THAT WE CLEARLY SEE THIS AREA AS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE THE POLICY DIRECTION ON AND NOT US, AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATES.
DID YOU HAVE A NO, I AGREE GENERALLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THERE? ALL RIGHT, SO THAT WAS US REVISITING AGENDA ITEM FOUR.
[5. PRS Report (Vote) (Part 1 of 2)]
TO THE PRS REPORT.SO WE WE'RE GONNA DO THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
UM, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE DIANA GO THROUGH HER REPORT, UM, AND SEE IF WE CAN HANDLE ALL THE REVISION REQUESTS EXCEPT FOR THE RTC REVISION REQUESTS.
THEN WE'LL HAVE TWO PRESENTATIONS FROM ERCOT.
THAT IS KIND OF THE MORE GENERAL RTC UPDATE, UM, INCLUDING THE MEETING YESTERDAY AND THEN ONE FROM DAVE MAGGIO ON THE, THE ANALYSIS ON 1269.
UM, I THINK THOSE NPRS ARE ALL KIND OF INTERTWINED.
SO, WE'LL, WE'LL WAIT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE RTC AND PRRS.
UM, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AS WELL.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL START WITH DIANA.
UM, AND JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'RE HOLDING DISCUSSION ON THE, THE RTCN PRRS UNTIL AFTER THE OUR CUT PRESENTATIONS.
SO WE HAVE A FEW REVISION REQUESTS THAT WE WANTED TO PROPOSE TO T THIS MORNING.
UM, LIKE KAITLYN SAID, WE'RE GONNA SKIP 1268 AND 1270.
THIS IS COMING TO US FROM ERCOT ON MARCH 12TH.
PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT URGENT STATUS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FEBRUARY 12TH, 2025 NO IMPACT IA.
AND THEN THE REVISION REQUESTS THAT HAD UNOPPOSED BUT HAD SOME IMPACTS.
THE FIRST ONE WAS 1256, ALSO COMING TO US FROM ERCOT ON MARCH 12TH.
PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FOR, TO TAG THE FEBRUARY 12TH PRS REPORT AND THE OCTOBER 14TH IA WITH THE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY AND RANK THAT WE SEE THERE ON THE SCREEN.
WE ALSO HAD ONE SYSTEM CHANGE REQUEST ON MARCH 12TH.
PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE FEBRUARY 12TH PRS REPORT IN THE MARCH 11TH IA WITH THE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY AND RANK THAT'S THERE ON THE SCREEN.
AND THEN THE ONE THAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP HERE IS 1234 ON MARCH 12TH, PRS VOTED TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE FEBRUARY 12TH PRS REPORT AND THE MAY 28TH, 2024 IA WITH THE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY AND RANK THAT WE SEE THERE.
UM, SO ON 1256 WE HAVE A DESKTOP EDIT.
THE SETTLEMENTS CREW AND THEIR ENDLESS DILIGENCE REALIZE THAT HERE WITHIN THE GRAY BOX, THE PARAMETER M-R-A-C-R-F IS WHAT WAS TRYING TO BE USED.
BUT WE HAD NEGLECTED TO REMOVE AN R UP HERE IN THE EXISTING SO THAT THESE WERE GONNA BECOME M-R-A-R-C-F, WHICH WOULD BE GIBBERISH 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT DEFINED ANY FURTHER DOWN.
SO THE DESKTOP BED, IT WOULD JUST BE TO STRIKE THESE STRAY RS SO THAT THIS PARAMETER BECOMES M-R-A-C-R-F AS USED ELSEWHERE AND DOWN BELOW.
[01:00:01]
AN AS REVISED BY ERIC.I, I'M HAPPY TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE DESKTOP, UH, EDITS ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
BUT IT LEADS ME TO ASK A QUESTION THAT I'VE AVOIDED ASKING FOR A WHILE, WHICH IS, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE REALLY CHECKED THAT ALL OF THESE WERE RIGHT?
WAS IT, IT'S IT'S PROBABLY BEEN A WHILE.
I'M SURE, I'M SURE AN AUDIT WOULD UNCOVER NOTHING, BUT I'D, I'D LIKE TO JUST BE SURE.
IT MIGHT BE, UM, ANN
ARE YOU VOLUNTEERING ERIC? NO.
I HAVE TO SAY THOUGH, MOST OF THE QUESTIONS COME AFTERWARDS RIGHT AFTER THEY GET APPROVED AND, AND THEY'RE TARGETING, UM, SOME COMPENSATION OR LACK OF COMPENSATION QUESTIONS COME UP AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE WE CHANGE THE PROTOCOLS AGAIN.
UM, WELL SOMETIMES I JUST, I'M SORRY.
UM, MANY TIMES WE DO GET QUESTIONS DURING THE, UH, EVALUATION, UH, CREATION PROCESS OF THE NPR.
RIGHT? WE JUST DON'T SHARE WITH ALL OF YOU.
I'M HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE A PROCESS.
I JUST, UM, I I IMAGINE SINCERELY THAT 99 TO 100% OF THEM ARE CORRECT.
IT IS THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MAYBE DOUBLE CHECK.
WE TAKE A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CORRECT THERE.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE IT AN ACTION ITEM? NO.
ENO SAID WE CAN TRUST THEM AND I WOULD NEVER GO HAVE A FOLLOW UP STATEMENT FROM THAT.
I LIKE THE AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT EQUATIONS THAT ARE ONLY TRIGGERED BY A DISPUTE.
MEANS ENO HAS TO DO THEM HIMSELF.
SO THESE ARE BURNED INTO HIS MEMORY
IS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH, UH, THE DESKTOP EDIT? SO I THINK WE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE PUT, UH, THE THREE NON RTC REVISION REQUESTS THAT ARE, WERE, UH, UNANIMOUS ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
SO IT WOULD BE NPR 1273 IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PRS REPORT AND THE, THE THREE 12 PRS REPORT, NPR 1256 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND REVISED BY T, IS THAT HOW YOU PUT IT? OKAY.
AND THEN SCR 8 29 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE THREE 12 PRS REPORT.
ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THESE GOING ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT.
UM, SO NOW LET'S GO TO NPR 1234.
UH, I BELIEVE WE WILL NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR THIS.
UM, BUT DOES ANYBODY WANT DISCUSSION? I THINK BILL BARNES WAS IN THE QUEUE.
I, I RECALLED THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION, UH, THAT ERCOT WAS GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE COST OF, UM, PROCESSING LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION REQUEST AND SUGGEST A LARGER FEE AT SOME POINT.
UM, I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA SEE COMMENTS FILED AMENDING THAT FEE UPWARDS.
UM, AND THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
AND I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT.
THIS IS A SPRINGER I CAN, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT BILL.
WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE THOSE, THE ANALYSIS DONE, UH, AND COMMENTS FILED PRIOR TO TAC.
UM, THE ANALYSIS IS, UH, UNDER REVIEW INTERNALLY RIGHT NOW.
UM, I WILL SAY IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE.
IT WILL BE AN INCREASE, BUT NOT A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE FEE.
SO, UM, AS WE, UH, STATED MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT ROSS, UH, WE, I THINK OUR PREFERENCE AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO FILE AN NPR ADJUSTING THE, LET THE, LET THE FEE GO THROUGH AS IS AND THEN ADJUST ALL THE GENERATION AND LOAD INTERCONNECTION FEES IN THE SUBSEQUENT NPRR.
UM, SIMILAR TO JOHN RUSS'S COMMENTS, IT'S, IT LOOKS LIKELY THIS FEE WILL INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY, UM, THROUGH SENATE BILL SIX, UH, WHICH WE THINK IS JUSTIFIED.
AND SO I, I KNOW ERCOT HAD A CONCERN OR AN ISSUE WITH THE BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING.
UH, WE JUST HOPE YOU GUYS GET THAT WORKED OUT BY THE TIME WE CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND, AND IMP INCREASE THE FEES.
I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1234 IF WE NEED ONE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO BILL'S MOTION SECOND
[01:05:01]
FROM BLAKE? UH, YES.THERE WERE ALSO, OR COMMENTS, I THINK AG YOU YOU'LL SPEAK TO THOSE? YES.
COREY, IF YOU CAN HELP ME OUT, GET 'EM UP ON THE, AND THESE WERE A LANGUAGE CHANGE, RIGHT? BECAUSE, UH, NPR 1246 WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THESE ARE, ARE JUST MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES TO ALIGN WITH 12, UH, NPR 1246.
UH, SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SPOTS WHERE, UM, THERE NEEDED TO BE REFERENCES TO ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES, UM, UH, IN, IN PLACES WHERE WE HAD ONLY REFERENCED, UH, GENERATION RESOURCES.
UM, AND SO THERE WERE EDITS MADE, UH, TO, UH, BRING THAT INTO ALIGNMENT.
SO 12, 12 46 THAT THE PC JUST APPROVED LAST WEEK, THAT MADE THE GRAND SWEEP THROUGH ALL OF THE EXISTING BLACK LINE TO ADD IN ESRS EVERYWHERE.
SO AS WE'RE HEADING TOWARDS THE SINGLE MODEL, WE DIDN'T LOSE COVERAGE OF BATTERIES, BUT BECAUSE 1234 WAS DRAFTED MANY MOONS AGO IN THE COMBO MODEL ERA, IT HAD LOTS OF LANGUAGE THAT WAS ONLY REFERENCING GENERATION RESOURCES BECAUSE AT THE TIME, THAT WOULD'VE COVERED HALF YOUR BATTERIES.
SO NOW TO ALIGN WITH 1246, IT'S JUST DROPPING ESR REFERENCES THROUGHOUT IN PLACES THAT 1246 DIDN'T CATCH BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST IN THE EXISTING BLACK LINE.
THEY'RE ONLY IN THE 1234 RED LINES.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON 1234? SO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, FROM BILL AND A SECOND FROM BLAKE, AND WE DID APPROVE ONE 15.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THE WAITING FOR ONE OR THE OTHER ISSUE.
IT'S ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS AMENDED BY THE 3 25 ERCOT COMMENTS.
WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS WITH NAVA FOR ERIC? YES.
ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BOB HILTON.
KEITH GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, KEITH.
AND OUR MUNIS RUSSELL, I RUSSELL YOU STILL WITH US? YES.
YEAH, I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE JUST APPROVED 1, 2, 3, 4, EVEN THOUGH IT TOUCHES ON SOME OF SENATE BILL SIX STUFF, ERCOT IS OBJECTING TO NPR 1238 BECAUSE IT TOUCHES ON SOMEONE SENATE BILL SIX STUFF.
I'M GOING TO BE CHALLENGING ERCOT ON THEIR OBJECTION TO 1238 BECAUSE WE NEED THAT JUST LIKE WE NEED 1, 2, 3, 4.
MIKE? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO, I THINK, BOB, FOR THAT, UH, WE ARE AGGRESSIVELY IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU AND, UH, WE'RE THE SPONSOR OF THAT, BUT I ENCOURAGE Y'ALL TO GET ENGAGED AND INVOLVED BECAUSE THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AND, UH, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT.
OKAY, NED? I JUST WANTED TO OFFER A WORD OF SUPPORT FOR ALSO MOVING FORWARD ON 1238.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US TO MAKE FORWARD PROGRESS ON THESE ISSUES AND,
[01:10:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE LEGISLATION WILL COME AND THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT NEED TO CHANGE WHEN WE COME BACK AROUND, BUT, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S ONE THAT WE CAN WORK TO, TO MOVE THE BALL FORWARD ON.CLAYTON, YOU AGREE WITH BOB? DO YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY.
AND THAT ONE IS CURRENTLY AT PRS? MM-HMM
DIANA, DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO YOUR PRS REPORT OR, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THE PRS REPORT.
SO NOW WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE RTC
[6. RTC+B Task Force Report]
UM, PLUS B PRESENTATIONS FROM ERCOT.I WAS THINKING WE WOULD HAVE MATT PRESENT.
AND THEN DAVE HAS A PRESENTATION ON 1269.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT IMM HAS SOME VERBAL COMMENTS WE CAN GET TO AFTER THAT.
AND THEN THERE WERE JOINT CONSUMER COMMENTS FILED LAST NIGHT, AND THEN T-C-P-A-I THINK WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THEIR PRS COMMENTS.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE ORDER OF OPERATIONS? OKAY.
AND FOR MATT'S PRESENTATION, UM, I THINK WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THE PRESENTATION BEFORE WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE.
SO, SO QUESTIONS ON, YOU KNOW, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE SLIDES ARE OKAY, BUT MAYBE, MAYBE HOLD YOUR FIRE UNTIL AFTERWARDS.
ALRIGHT, SO I WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THE FIRST COUPLE SLIDES, THE HOUSEKEEPING OF THE R-T-C-B-T-F.
UH, AND THEN MY PURPOSE IS TO KIND OF SET, UM, DAVE UP.
THE SUMMARY OF THE NPR IS KINDA THE ROAD TO THE FINAL FOUR FOR THESE NPRS AS THEY'RE HERE AT TAC TODAY.
UH, YOU'VE SEEN THIS SLIDE IS THE IDEA OF WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE POLICY ISSUES ON TOP THE, UH, MARKET READINESS ISSUES ON THE BOTTOM.
WHAT WE DID TALK ABOUT YESTERDAY WAS QUITE A BIT ON THESE, UH, POLICY ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO NPR 1269, WHICH ENCAPSULATES A MAJORITY OF THOSE.
UH, WE SPENT TWO HOURS YESTERDAY TO REEDUCATE CHALLENGE, ASK QUESTIONS AND DO EXPLORE AND, UM, HOPEFULLY GOT THE EMAIL TO POSSIBLY LISTEN IN, UH, THE STATE OF CHARGE AND AS DURATION.
THAT IS A TOPIC, UH, THAT HAS BEEN, UM, DEVELOPING WITH NITKA.
AND SO SHE BROUGHT FORWARD 20 SLIDES TO KIND OF UNPACK WHAT DOES STATE OF CHARGE MEAN FOR BATTERIES AS IT RELATES TO OUR ANCILLARY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
WHERE'S THAT BALANCE OF HOW LONG THE DURATION SHOULD BE? AND SO THAT'S THE START OF THREE MEETINGS ON THOSE.
UH, AND THEN ON THE MARKET READINESS HANDBOOKS WE'RE SIX WEEKS OUT ON THE FIRST SET OF, UH, TRIALS STARTING.
AND SO JUST STARTING TO FIRM THOSE UP.
AND THEN WE REVIEWED THREE NEW TRAINING MODULES.
WE ONLY GOT THROUGH TWO OF THEM.
IT WAS A LATE DAY YESTERDAY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON.
UM, AND THEN TWG IS LATER TODAY.
HERE'S THE ONE THAT, UH, I WANT TO JUST KIND OF RING THE BELL ON.
WE SENT A MARKET NOTICE OUT ON MARCH 13TH WITH THE DUE DATE OF NEXT MONDAY.
AND THE IDEA WAS MARKET TRIALS ARE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.
I KNOW THE 20 QU I SEE EVERY DAY.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER 80 QUEASY? SO WE PUSHED OUT THIS EMAIL.
UH, WE HAD DONE THIS FOR THE RTC ACCOUNTABLE EXEC BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
SO THIS IS THE IDEA OF GET THE NOTICE OUT THERE, ASK THEM TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF THE TESTING ENVIRONMENTS ARE ALREADY OUT THERE.
OUR MARKET TRIALS ARE ACTUALLY LIVE, UH, SYSTEM-WISE, AND THEN MAKING AWARE THAT THEY HANDBOOKS ARE OUT THERE.
WE NEED THE TELEMETRY MODELING CHANGES ALREADY COMING IN AND JUST THOSE DEADLINES THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
SO THE, THE FEEDBACK IS JUST TO ASK THEM TO RESPOND TO THE EMAIL.
NO ATTESTATION, NOTHING FANCY, JUST TO, ARE YOU THERE NOW, FEEDBACK.
SO I WILL BE SHOWING THIS DASHBOARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND I, SO THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WHEN YOU SHOW UP RED IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, I KNOW THE PHONES RING AND SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW.
SO THE NPRS THAT I WANTED TO WALK THROUGH TODAY IS I HAVE A SLIDE FOR EACH OF THESE.
THE REASON WE NEED RESOLUTION ON THOSE TODAY IS THE TIMELINE BELOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST COUPLE MEETINGS WAS, UH, WE'VE HAD A SERIES OF SIX R-T-C-B-T-F MEETINGS ON THESE ISSUES.
UM, TODAY'S APPROVAL SETS THE STAGE FOR BOARD APPROVAL IN APRIL SO THAT WE CAN DEVELOP THE CODE AND PARAMETERS TO DIAL THOSE IN FOR OUR MARKET TRIALS.
THAT'S THE GIST OF IT, THAT'S WHY WE NEED IT.
SO IN TERMS OF NPR 1268, JUST THE ONE SLIDE, UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS WE HAVE PROTOCOLS OF THE APPROVED AS DEMAND CURVES, AS DEMAND CURVES ARE IN SHORTAGE SITUATIONS, WHAT DOES THE PRICE BECOME AND THE FORMATION OF THOSE.
AND SO THE IDEA WAS THE IMM HAD AN IMPROVEMENT ON SHAPING THOSE AS DEMAND CURVES.
UH, THEY BROUGHT THAT FORWARD BACK IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
THEY FILED THE NPR ON JANUARY 28TH.
AND SINCE THEN THERE'S BEEN CLARIFYING COMMENTS FROM BOTH ERCOT AND HUNT ENERGY.
THERE IS UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AT THE PRS MEETING AND THE IMM FILED MINOR CORRECTIONS AND COMMENTS ON MARCH 19TH.
SO ATTACK MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE MARCH 19TH COMMENTS.
[01:15:02]
IN TERMS OF NPR 1270, THIS WAS ONE THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.IT'S CLARIFYING THE REMOVAL OF AUTOMATIC ANCILLARY SERVICE QUALIFICATIONS.
UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.
THERE IS A AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION CURRENTLY AND PROTOCOLS TO TAKE OUT.
UH, THE IDEA IS WE WOULD GO LIVE ON RTC AND PEOPLE THAT AREN'T NORMALLY AWARDED AS WOULD MAGICALLY BE AWARDED AS IF THEY'RE SC DISPATCHABLE.
SO THE IDEA IS TO PULL BACK FROM THAT AND PUT EVERYONE THROUGH A QUALIFICATION PROCESS JUST LIKE IT HAPPENS TODAY.
UH, THAT IS ALSO LINKED TO THE RISK OF PROXY OFFERS.
HAD WE NOT DONE THAT, THERE IS THE RISK OF ALL OF THESE UNKNOWINGLY PARTICIPATING QU NOT HAVING PUT IN THE FULL OFFERS, AND WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE PROXY OFFER CURVES.
SO AGAIN, THIS ADOPTION OF 1270 HELPS TO NARROW AND CLOSE THE DOOR ON, UH, THE EXPOSURE TO PROXY OFFER CURVES.
UM, THIS NPR WAS FILED ON JANUARY 28TH BY ERCOT.
NO COMMENTS RECEIVED UNANIMOUS PRS APPROVAL.
OKAY, SO THOSE ARE THE TWO EASY ONES.
AND THEN THERE'S 1269, AND I HAVE THREE SLIDES ON THIS ONE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS, AGAIN, WE HAD THOSE POLICY ISSUES ON THAT FIRST SPREADSHEET, THREE ISSUES THAT NEEDED TO BE VETTED AND COMPLETED SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT BACK IN 2020 WHEN THE RTC TASK FORCE TOOK THOSE ON.
THEY WERE STICKY, THEY WERE NOT FOR RIGHT THEN AND THEY WERE DEFERRED INTO NOW.
AND SO THE NOW IS HOW DO WE DO RAMP SHARING? IS POLICY ISSUE ONE, POLICY ISSUE TWO WAS THE PARAMETERS FOR AS PROXY OFFER FLOORS, WHICH WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
IF AN OFFER'S NOT THERE, WHAT NUMBER DOES ERCOT ADMINISTRATIVELY PUT IN PLACE? AND THEN THE THIRD ONE WAS RUCK STUDIES.
RUCK TODAY USES A PENALTY FACTOR IF WE'RE RUNNING LOW AND WE NEED SOMETHING, THERE'S PENALTY FACTORS THAT HELP FORCE ERCOT TO IDENTIFY A COMMITMENT.
AND SO WHETHER USING THE AS DEMAND CURVES IN THE RUCK STUDY WOULD WORK AND SO ON.
NUMBER ONE, THE SCALING FACTORS FOR RAMPING HAS BEEN SUPPORTED.
THOSE RED LINES ARE BAKED IN NO ISSUE.
NUMBER TWO, THE PARAMETERS FOR AS PROXY OFFER FLOORS, UH, HAS BEEN AN EVOLVING DISCUSSION.
SO WE CAN JUST KINDA WALK THROUGH THAT.
ORIGINALLY ERCOT PROPOSED AND THE IMM SUPPORTED A $0 PROXY OFFER FLOOR.
WHILE MOST STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF A $2,000 PROXY OFFER FLOOR, UH, AFTER EXTENSIVE DEBATE OVER PRICE DISTORTIONS ON BOTH EXTREMES, LIKE THERE'S NO WAY TO GET THIS RIGHT.
WHEN YOU ADMINISTRATIVELY DO SOMETHING, IT'S GONNA HAVE A NOT NORMAL EFFECT.
AND SO IT'S THE FRONT OF THE LINE BACK OF THE LINE, WHERE DO YOU PUT THESE OFFERS IN THE STACK? AND SO LOOKING AT THOSE EXTREMES, ERCOT PROPOSED A COMPROMISE OF USING THE MINIMUM OF $2,000 OR X PERCENT, SOME VALUE ON THOSE AS DEMAND CURVES.
WHAT PERCENT ON THAT CURVE WOULD BE THE VALUE TO STUB IN ON THE EMPTY OFFER? AND SO THEN ERCOT FOLLOWED UP WITH COMMENTS THAT SET THAT VALUE TO 95% OF THE ACCS.
UH, THE IMM AND TIEC HAVE BOTH SUBMITTED CONCERNS WITH THIS APPROACH, UH, NAMELY THAT THE $2,000 IS TOO HIGH.
ALSO, I THINK THE IMM SAID THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO GET AT THIS.
WE KNOW THERE'S SYSTEM LIMITATIONS.
WE CAN'T USE THE PERFECT VERIFIABLE COST, BUT THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO GET AT IT.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE THAT ONE STANDS.
NUMBER THREE WAS, I KIND OF LAID THIS OUT ALREADY, SO I'LL JUST QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE SLIDE.
SO, UH, THE A SDCS THAT WERE GONNA BE USED IN R SO ERCOT WAS ABLE TO STUDY USING THE RECEIVED TOOLS FROM OUR VENDOR FOR RUCK THAT'LL BE USED IN RTC.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN RUNNING THROUGH THIS USING THE STUDY TOOL, UH, TO ENSURE THERE'S ENOUGH CAPACITY TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR ENERGY AND AS REQUIREMENTS, UH, AGAIN, AS IT WAS IN THE KEY PRINCIPLES, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THERE WOULD BE TIME FOR A STUDY OF THE AS ADCS IN THE R TOOL.
ERCOT PROVIDED THAT ANALYSIS TO THE TASK FORCE USING THE ADCS THAT ARE THE REAL TIME MARKET AND DAY AHEAD.
AND GENERALLY IT CREATED EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WAS LOOKING TO DISPATCH WASN'T EFFECTIVE IN ECONOMIC SOLUTION AND COULD BE USED BY R WITH ONLY MINIMAL CHANGES.
UM, HOWEVER WE WERE FINDING CASES, UM, IN TERMS OF COMING UP SHORT IS THE EASIEST WAY TO SAY IT.
SO DETERMINE A SPECIFIC VALUE TO USE AS AN A SDC FLOOR.
ERCOT EVALUATED CASES WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT CAPACITY THAT COULD BE COMMITTED BY ROCK OR USE THE AS OR TO PROVIDE ANCILLARY SERVICES.
BUT WHERE THE R PROCESS WOULD NOT SOLVE FOR THOSE INCREMENTAL AMOUNTS, IT WOULD, BUT IT WOULD NOT SOLVE FOR THOSE AMOUNTS TO MEET THE AS PLAN.
SO AGAIN, ERCOT NEEDS TO PROCURE 8,000 MEGAWATTS OF THESE SERVICES.
RUCK ENSURES WE HAVE THE LOAD FORECAST PLUS THOSE SERVICES COVERED.
SO WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO COME UP SHORT? SO ERCOT PROPOSED, UM, THAT $15 BE THAT FLOOR ON THE A SDC FOR THE R TOOL AND THAT WAS FINALIZED AND THAT WAS PUT IN COMMENTS ON MARCH 3RD BY ERCOT.
SO THAT'S WHAT R NEEDS TO SOLVE IS OUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION.
[01:20:01]
TCPA ON THE HEELS OF THAT FILED COMMENTS TO PROPOSE A FLYING THAT SAME $15 FLOOR TO REALTIME AND THE DAY AHEAD MARKET ASS DEMAND CURVES.SO WE'D HAD ONGOING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ADCS, UM, THROUGHOUT 2024 WHEN ERCOT IDENTIFIED THAT THE FLOOR NEEDED IN WAS NEEDED IN R MULTIPLE MARKET PARTICIPANTS VOICE BELIEF THAT THE FLOOR SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO REAL TIME TO PROVIDE A SIMILAR PRICE SIGNAL FOR SELF-COMMITMENT.
WHEN ERCOT IDENTIFIED THE A SDC, OH AND I HAVE THIS BULLET TWICE.
SO ERCOT PROVIDED A STUDY FOR PRS AND THAT'S WHAT DAVE WILL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE TO DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY AND MARKET IMPACTS OF THAT $15 FLOOR.
SO IT'S ONE THING TO SAY A FLOOR IS NEEDED, BUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IF WE DO IT? SO IT'S A BACKCAST OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT DAVE HAS TO OFFER.
SO WHAT CAME TO YOU TODAY IN TERMS OF THE PRS APPROVED VERSION WAS THE TCPA COMMENTS.
UM, THAT WAS THREE CONSUMERS VOTED AGAINST IT, ALL OTHER SEGMENTS SUPPORTED.
AND WHAT IT REFLECTS IS THE AS PROXY OFFER FLOORS A MINIMUM OF THE 2000 OR 95% THE R-A-S-D-C FLOOR WITH A $15 FLOOR, AND THEN THE REAL TIME MARKET ADCS WITH A $15 FLOOR.
SO I HOPE THAT ROADMAP KIND OF SHOWS WHERE WE'RE AT.
AND CAITLIN, THIS IS WHERE I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU AS TO HOW TO TAKE THE NEXT STEPS.
OKAY, WE HAVE ANOTHER LUNCH ISSUE.
IT'S NOT THE CALIFORNIA CLUB SUB, BUT THE CHICKEN B ME IS NOT AVAILABLE SO PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE.
IF YOU ORDERED THE CHICKEN B ME, UM, I JUST NEED YOU TO GO INTO THE LINK AND CHOOSE ANOTHER OPTION, UM, JUST BECAUSE IT WILL NOT LET US PLACE THE ORDER.
AND THE CHICKEN BOMB ME IS KNOWN AS THE CBM FOR ANYONE WITH THE ACRONYMS.
UM, SO I, I GUESS I WOULD POSE A NON LYNCH RELATED QUESTION TO THE GROUP ON IF WE, IF THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO ADD NPR 1268 AND 1270 TO THE COMBO BALLOT, IF THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR THAT OR IF WE'D LIKE TO NOT COMBO THOSE OR, OR WAIT UNTIL LATER.
UH, I DO THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON 1269 BEFORE TAKING, UH, 1268.
UH, I THINK THE ACTION ON THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW THE PROXY, IF THE PROXY OFFICE FLOORS ARE LINKED TO THE ASCS, THERE CAN BE, UM, INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
AND SO I I'D APPRECIATE DEFERRING A DECISION ON WHETHER TO ADD THAT TO THE COMBO BALLOT BEFORE, UH, UNTIL AFTER WE'VE HAD OUR DISCUSSION ON 1269.
UM, BUT 1270, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH.
OKAY, SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND ADD 1270 TO THE COMBO BALLOT NOW AND THEN WAIT TO MAKE A DECISION ON 1268.
DOES ANYBODY OBJECT TO PUTTING 1270 ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT COREY.
UM, MATT, I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE DAVE'S PRESENTATION ON 1269.
DAVE, I'LL BE AT THE PODIUM DRIVE-IN FOR YOU.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
SO I'LL DO MY BEST TO, TO KEEP THIS MOVING ALONG.
OBVIOUSLY LIKE TO SHARE THE DATA WITH YOU AND TALK THROUGH THE POINTS.
UH, AND HOPEFULLY I'LL, YOU ALL CAN HEAR ME CORRECT? IT'S NOT WORKING.
CAN YOU? PRETTY GOOD IF YOU CAN SPEAK UP A LITTLE.
YEAH, YOU, IT'S NOT SUPER CLEAR OR SUPER LOUD.
LET ME, LET ME TRY AND I'VE TURNED ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP.
I'LL, I GUESS I'LL TRY AND SPEAK LOUDLY.
UM, UH, I, IF IT'S LOW ENOUGH, DO YOU ALL WANT ME TO TRY AND DIAL IN VIA PHONE? I CAN DO THAT AS WELL.
IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE KIND OF, OKAY.
RICHARD SAYS, USE YOUR OUTSIDE VOICE
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE ONLY VOICE I HAD.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR OV
SO I GUESS IF WE, TO GET INTO THIS, THE, THE PRESENTATION HERE IS GOING TO BE A, A SLIGHTLY CONDENSED VERSION OF WHAT WE SHARED WITH THE, THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE, THE TASK FORCE YESTERDAY.
UM, MATT GAVE A A A GOOD INTRODUCTION TO THE OVERALL TOPIC, BUT THIS IS REALLY GOING TO BE ABOUT, THIS PRESENTATION AT LEAST, IS GOING TO BE ABOUT THE EXTENSION OF THE ANSLEY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE TO THE DAY AHEAD AND REAL TIME MARKET.
[01:25:01]
YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE TWO.UM, I, I GUESS IF FOLKS HADN'T FOLLOWED ALONG AS COMPARED TO WHAT WE PRESENTED AT THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, THIS IS SIMILAR ANALYSIS BUT IS AS ADDED DATA TO WHAT WE PRESENTED THERE.
IT REALLY ISN'T CHANGING THE CONCLUSIONS, BUT WE EXPANDED THE ANALYSIS JUST TO, TO ENSURE THAT OUR CONCLUSIONS WERE HOLDING AS WE LOOKED AT MORE DAYS AND MORE HOURS.
UM, AND IT, IT REALLY IS MORE OR LESS THE EXACT SAME MATERIAL AS WE SHARED WITH THE TASK FORCE YESTERDAY, JUST REMOVING SOME OF THE, THE EXTRA DETAILS.
UH, MOVING TO, TO SLIDE THREE, BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL ANALYSIS ITSELF, JUST WANTED TO KIND OF LAY OUT OUR PERSPECTIVE SPECIFICALLY ON THE CONCEPT OF APPLYING THIS AN SERVICE DEMAND FLOOR TO BOTH THE DAY AHEAD AND THE REAL TIME MARKET.
SO, UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR UP FRONT, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS CONCEPT MOVING FORWARD.
UM, WHAT HAS REALLY, UH, HELPED US TO THINK ABOUT THIS IS THINKING ABOUT THE ANSLEY SERVICE QUANTITIES WE SEE TODAY.
UH, WE, AND I'LL, I'LL HAVE A, A GRAPH OR TABLE LATER THAT SORT OF DEMONSTRATES THIS, BUT IN, IN THINKING ABOUT THOSE QUANTITIES, WE THINK THERE, THERE IS LEGIT CONCERN THAT THE DAY AHEAD IN REALTIME MARKET PRICING IS GOING TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO INCENSE SELF COMMITMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE TAIL AMOUNT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES.
AND AS A, A FUNCTION OF THAT, THAT IS GOING TO LEAD TO MORE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE ERCOT OPERATORS SEEING A NEED TO GIVE RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND NEEDING TO DO SO EVEN WHEN THERE'S SUFFICIENT RESOURCE CAPABILITY OTHERWISE.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, I I GUESS WE'RE, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY TALKING ABOUT A A R AT ALL COSTS.
UH, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NECESSARILY THE, THE SCARCITY CON, YOU KNOW, TRUE SCARCITY CONDITIONS THAT WE SEE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE CONDITIONS WHEN THERE IS PLENTY OF RESOURCE CAPABILITY AVAILABLE, BUT IT, WE'RE JUST NOT SEEING THE CORRECT INCENTIVE TO TRY AND MEET THOSE TAIL AMOUNTS OF ANSLEY SERVICES.
AND WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE TAIL AMOUNTS, WE'LL HAVE SOME ILLUSTRATIONS OF HOW THE FLOOR IMPACTS THE DEMAND CURVES LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION.
UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND THINKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC VALUE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THIS QUESTION CAME UP, UH, ABOUT SORT OF WHERE THE VALUE CAME FROM.
SO THE, THE $15 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR WAS TECHNICALLY DERIVED FOR WHAT WE PROPOSING FOR RUCK, BUT IT IS A, A RELATIVELY MODEST DEMAND CURVE PRICE FOR SMALLER LEVELS OF SHORTAGES AND WELL BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES THAT WE SEE FOR REGULATION AND RESPONSE AND RESERVE THAT WERE PART OF 1268.
SO, UM, WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS OF NPR 1268 TODAY, BUT THERE ARE MINIMUM PRICES FOR REGULATION AND RESPONSE RESERVE IT THE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THERE ARE 250 AND A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VALUE OF $15 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR FOR, UH, ERCOT CONT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE AND NONS SPIN, THAT DOES SEEM LIKE A, A FAIR AND UH, MODEST VALUE TO, TO HAVE FOR THOSE TYPES OF S AND UM, IN THINKING ABOUT THE FLOOR, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WITHIN THE PRESENTATION, ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT THE FLOOR ALLOWS IS FOR OFFERS BELOW THAT $15 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR TO CLEAR AND SUPPORT IN MEETING THE PLAN WHEN THAT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE OTHERWISE.
SO AS WE GET THROUGH SOME OF THE EXAMPLES, WE'LL SEE SOME CONDITIONS IN WHICH ESSENTIALLY THE, THE VALUE OF MEETING THE PLAN UNDER THE EXISTING ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVES WITHOUT A FLOOR IS, UH, NEAR OR EQUAL TO $0.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS, EVEN IF WE SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, A NON SPEND OFFER OF SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF $1 OR $2 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR, THAT WON'T CLEAR IN ACTUALLY HELPING US TO, TO MEET THE ANCILLARY SERVICES PLAN.
WE WILL GO SHORT ON ANCILLARY SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE PLAN BEFORE WE CLEAR THOSE, THOSE COMPETITIVE AND, AND MODEST OFFERS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES.
UH, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN SORT OF BELABORING THIS POINT, SO I WON'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON IT, BUT JUST WANTED TO CALL OUT THAT THE, IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE DISTINCTION THAT THIS IS A FLOOR ON THE AS DEMAND CURVES AND NOT A FLOOR ON PRICE FOR, FOR ANSLEY SERVICES.
SO AS WE KIND OF GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS EXAMPLES, YOU'LL SEE IN MANY CASES THAT IT, IT IS NOT THAT THE, THE PRICE FOR ANSLEY SERVICES, SPECIFICALLY THE ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE
[01:30:01]
SPEN IS BEING SET TO THE $15.YOU ACTUALLY SEE A NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH IT'S OFFERS THAT ARE SETTING THE PRICE THAT ARE BELOW THAT VALUE.
AND, AND THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE SEE TODAY, UH, IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET AND, AND, AND IN FACT, WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT WITH WHAT I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH REGULATION AND RESPONSIVE WHERE THERE IS A MINIMUM PRICE, UH, IN THE HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS IN THE CASE OF THOSE TWO SERVICES.
BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO SEE THE PRICE CLEAR AT, AT ANY GIVEN DAY.
AND LASTLY, I, AND, AND I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WAS SPOKEN TO AS PART OF THE JOINT COMMENTS, UH, YESTERDAY, WE DO FEEL THAT THE, THE DEEPER CONCERN, UH, FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO THIS CONCEPT SEEMS TO BE THE QUANTITY THAT FEED INTO THE ANSLEY SERVICES PLAN.
UM, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, UH, ONGOING WORK RELATED TO THAT WHERE THERE'S, UH, LATER THIS YEAR WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FULL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TOOL THAT WOULD HELP US IN DETERMINING THE ANSARY SERVICE QUANTITIES THAT'S INTENDED TO BE IN PLACE FOR, UH, NEXT YEAR 2026.
AND THEN TALKING ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF CLOSER TO THE OPERATING DAY ANSARY SERVICE, UH, QUANTITY DETERMINATION, WHERE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY TAKE EFFECT OF THE, PERHAPS THE YEAR AFTER IN 2027.
AND I THINK THE, THE GENERAL EXPECTATION IS ON AVERAGE THAT THIS WOULD LEAD TO SOME ANSI SERVICE QUANTITY REDUCTIONS, AT LEAST IN SOME HOURS.
AND ONE OF THE BENEFITS IN LOOKING AT, UH, AND BEING DISCUSSED AS PART OF THIS FLOOR APPROACH IS TO THE DEGREE WE SEE ANY REDUCTIONS IN THE ANS SEARCH QUANTITIES, THAT THIS CONCEPT WILL AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT.
IN FACT, AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE EXAMPLES, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF, UH, MONTHS AND HOURS WHERE THE FLOOR IS TECHNICALLY IS BEING THE FLOOR PROCESSED.
I GUESS IT'S TECHNICALLY BEING APPLIED, BUT IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T AFFECT THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVES.
AND WE HAVE AN ILLUSTRATION OF THAT, UH, LATER ON.
UH, THIS WAS AN ADDED SLIDE AFTER THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, UH, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO JUST TO SET THE STAGE ON WHAT THE ANSLEY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES DO.
SO JUST AS FOLKS ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS, THE, THE ANSLEY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES ARE INPUTS INTO THE OPTIMIZATION AND REPRESENT A WILLINGNESS TO PROCURE A CERTAIN VOLUME OF ANSLEY SERVICE AT A GIVEN PRICE.
SO THE, THE LOWER THE PRICE, THE MORE MEGAWATTS THE OPTIMIZATION IS WILLING TO PROCURE, AND, AND VICE VERSA, THE, THE HIGHER, THE HIGHER THE PRICE, THE, THE LESS THE, THE OPTIMIZATION IS GOING TO WANT TO PROCURE.
UM, THE NEXT BULLET IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING I, I, UH, UPDATED.
SO YOU, IF YOU SEE THAT THIS WAS POSTED, UH, AGAIN, THAT WAS A, A, A LATE POSTING AFTER THE TASK FORCE MEETING YESTERDAY TO, TO FURTHER CLARIFY THIS POINT.
UM, BUT UNDER THE NODAL PROTOCOL REVISION REQUEST 1269, YOU CAN THINK OF A FLOOR ON THE ANSLEY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE AS REPRESENTING A MAXIMUM PRICE THAT IS WILLING TO BE PAID TO ACHIEVE THE FULL ANSLEY SERVICE PLAN.
SO, AS AN EXAMPLE, THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK ABOUT THE MAP, I THINK USE AN EXAMPLE OF TALKING ABOUT, UH, 8,000 MEGAWATTS BEING THE OVERALL TOTAL ANSARY SERVICE PLAN.
WHAT IS THE, THE MAXIMUM PRICE THAT THE OPTIMIZATION SHOULD BE WILLING TO PAY TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THAT FULL 8,000 MEGAWATTS OF, OF ANCILLARY SERVICES? NOW, TO THE DEGREE THERE'S SUFFICIENT RESOURCE CAPABILITY TO MEET DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY AND ANSLEY SERVICES AS COMPARED TO THE PLAN, UH, OFFERS ARE REALLY WHAT'S DRIVING THE PRICE, NOT THE ANSLEY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES THE FLOOR, UH, CAN ALLOW MORE OFFERS TO BE AWARDED, AS WE KIND OF DESCRIBED WITH THE ONE OF THE PREVIOUS BULLETS, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE FLOOR ITSELF AT SETTING THE PRICE WHERE THE ANSLEY SERVES DEMAND CURVES IN GENERAL AND WITH THE PROPOSED FLOOR PRIMARILY COME INTO PLAY IS WHEN THE PROCUREMENT IS SHORT RELATIVE TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN.
MATT, LET'S JUMP TO THE, TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO THIS REALLY GOES BACK TO, TO ONE OF THE POINTS I WAS, UH, REFERENCING EARLIER IN THINKING ABOUT THE ANSLEY SERVE QUANTITIES THAT WE SEE FOR THE, THE NEAR FUTURE HERE.
SO, AND THE BOTTOM TABLE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE SUMMED SERVICE PLAN FOR EFFECTIVELY THE UP ANCILLARY SERVICES OR EXCLUDING REGULATION DOWN IS THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT FOR THE YEAR 2025.
AND SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING A-O-R-D-C, WITHIN THE PROTOCOLS AND UNDER NPR 1268, THE AGGREGATE OPERATING RESERVE DEMAND
[01:35:01]
CURVE IS GUARANTEED TO GO TO $0 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR AT 10 GIGAWATTS OF ANSLEY SERVICES AND GOES TO PENNIES, UH, PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR WELL BEFORE THAT.AND SO AS YOU THINK ABOUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLAN, IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER IN MANY HOURS, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS, IS THAT THE OPTIMIZATION IS GOING TO BE UNWILLING TO PROCURE THE FULL ANSLEY SERVICE PLAN UNLESS IT'S FREE OR NEARLY FREE.
AND, AND ONE MONTH THAT STANDS OUT IN PARTICULAR IS MAY.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR ENDING 13 FOR MAY, OR OUR ENDING 14TH FOR MAY, THOSE ARE KIND OF SOME OF THE BIGGEST NUMBERS YOU SEE ON THE TABLE.
WE WILL ESSENTIALLY ONLY MEET THAT ANSI SERVICE PLAN IF ALL OF THE ANSI SERVICES BEING OFFERED, OR AT LEAST CLEARED, I GUESS IS THE BETTER WAY TO SAY IT, ARE GOING TO BE AT $0 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR.
SPECIFICALLY THINKING ABOUT THE NONS SPEND AND, AND ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE.
SO WE, WE HAVE A PLAN, WE HAVE THIS ANSLEY SERVICE PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN DEVELOPED DEVELOPING, AND OBVIOUSLY WE REVIEW WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS EACH YEAR, BUT WE WON'T PROCURE THAT PLAN AND VALUE THE PROCUREMENT OF THAT PLAN UNLESS IT'S EFFECTIVELY FREE.
UM, I GUESS AS, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT, UH, WHILE A FLOOR WILL NOT AFFECT THE ACCS AT ALL IN SOME HOURS, AND WE DO SEE A NUMBER OF HOURS IN WHICH AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE WE DO SEE LOWER VALUES WHERE THE FLOORS REALLY DON'T COME INTO PLAY.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOURS LIKE YOU SEE IN MAY, THE HAVING A FLOOR IS GOING TO BE THE ONLY METHOD IN WHICH WE'RE ABLE TO PROCURE THE ANSI SERVICE PLAN, EVEN IF THERE'S MORE THAN SUFFICIENT RESOURCE CAPABILITY THAT'S AVAILABLE OUT THERE ON THE SYSTEM.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT FOR THE ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE AND, AND NON SPINNING RESERVES.
SO WITH MATT, WITH THAT, WE'LL JUMP TO THE NEXT TWO SLIDES.
UH, I'LL BE FAIRLY QUICK, UH, ON THESE NEXT TWO.
UH, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AT THE NEXT TWO SLIDES IS ESSENTIALLY THREE EXAMPLES THAT PROVIDE, UH, OR TRY TO PROVIDE SORT OF THE FULL SPECTRUM OF HOW THE DEMAND CURVE FLOORS MAY COME INTO PLAY.
UH, FOR THE FIRST GRAPHS ON THE TOP OF THIS, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN HOUR IN AUGUST OF 2024, LOOKING AT OUR ENDING 20.
NOW THE GRAPHS AND ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT ARE, ARE ACTUALLY THE SAME.
THE, THE GRAPHS ON THE RIGHT ARE SIMPLY A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THEM, SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE IMPACTS OF THE FLOOR.
UM, I I GUESS ONE OF THE KEY POINTS OF INCLUDING THE NON ZOOMED IN VERSIONS OF THE GRAPH IS JUST TO NOTE THAT IN GENERAL, I WOULD SAY THE THE SHAPE OF THE, THE CURVES ARE, ARE REALLY STAYING THE SAME.
IT IT IS REALLY TALKING ABOUT JUST THESE TAIL ENDS.
UH, AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE TOP RIGHT CORNER, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE FLOORS WOULD BE FOR THIS PARTICULAR HOUR.
UM, AROUND, UH, LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT THE START LOOKING AT NONS SPIN THE GRAY LINE AT ABOUT 17, UH, 50 MEGAWATTS, YOU SEE THAT THE VALUE ON THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVE GOES TO AROUND 15.
UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE ACTUAL PLAN FOR NONS SPIND IS, UH, 1942.
SO BETWEEN AROUND 1750 AND 1942, YOU SEE THAT THE, THE $15 FLOOR IS APPLIED BEYOND THE ANSI SERVICE PLAN FOR NONS SPIND.
IT GOES BACK TO THE EXISTING CURVE.
UM, BUT AT LEAST UP INTO THE ANSI SERVICE PLAN, YOU SEE THAT THE, THE FLOOR IS APPLIED.
UH, YOU SEE SOMETHING SIMILAR FOR ECRS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT, UH, OF COURSE A SLIGHTLY, UH, SHIFTED VERSION WITH THE, WITH HIGHER MEGAWATTS JUST BECAUSE THE, THE PLAN WAS HIGHER FOR THIS PARTICULAR HOUR.
BUT THE OVERALL, YOU SEE SORT OF THE SAME EFFECT.
NOW IN THE CASE OF E ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE TAIL THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE PLAN.
SO YOU, YOU DON'T SEE THAT THAT DROP DOWN, UH, AFTER THE FLOOR.
BUT, BUT OVERALL, IT'S THE, THE SAME, UH, SIMILAR PATTERN THAT WE SEE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE MIDDLE CASE WHERE WE SEE SOME IMPACT BY THE FLOOR.
UM, BUT THERE'S SORT OF LESS TAIL WHERE IT'S APPLICABLE TO, UM, MAY, UH, IN THE GRAPH ON THE BOTTOM IS THE, THE SORT OF THE, THE FAR END OF THE SPECTRUM ON ONE SIDE WHERE THERE'S, UM, ESSENTIALLY VERY HIGH ANCI SERVICE PLAN.
AND SO YOU SEE THAT THE FLOOR APPLIES FOR A MUCH LONGER TAIL.
UM, AGAIN, IF YOU WANNA FOCUS ON NONS SPIND, YOU SEE THAT, UH, BOTH CURVES ESSENTIALLY HIT AROUND $15.
IN THIS CASE, PROBABLY SOMETHING CLOSER TO 1700
[01:40:01]
MEGAWATTS OF OF NONS SPIN.UH, AND THEN FOR ALL OF THE MEGAWATTS BEYOND THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVE A MUCH LARGER NONS SPIN PLAN FOR THAT PARTICULAR HOUR IN THIS CASE, UH, OVER, UH, 4.4 GIGAWATTS, YOU SEE THERE'S A, A MUCH LONGER TAIL ON THE CURVE.
AND MATT, NEXT SLIDE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF MAY WAS ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM.
UH, AUGUST IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM.
SO THIS IS LOOKING AT AUGUST, UH, 20, 24 HOUR ENDING 20, I'M SORRY, OCTOBER 20, 24, HOUR ENDING 21.
UH, THIS IS A CASE WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAD A LOWER ANSLEY SERVICE PLAN KIND OF ACROSS THE BOARD.
UH, AND SO YOU SEE, EVEN AFTER YOU ZOOM IN WITH THE ANSI SERVICE PLAN THAT WE HAVE, THE VALUES ARE ALREADY ABOVE THE $15 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR WHERE WE HIT THE ANTE SERVICE PLAN.
SO THERE IS NO IMPACT OF THE FLOOR, EVEN THOUGH THE, THE SAME PROCESS IS APPLIED.
UM, JUST SORT OF, KIND OF DIGGING INTO THE DATA WE SAW FOR 2024 AND, AND THE PART OF THE REASON FOR USING 2024 DATA IS THAT'S LINKED TO THE ACTUAL STUDIES THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MOMENT, UH, ALTHOUGH I EXPECT SORT OF SIMILAR PATTERNS IN IN OTHER YEARS.
UM, BUT WHAT WE SAW LOOKING AT THE 2024 DATA IS THAT THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVES FOR AROUND A THIRD OF THE MONTH AND HOUR COMBINATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE, AS THE ANSAR DEMAND CURVE FLOOR PROPOSAL AT ALL.
UM, FOR THE REMAINING TWO THIRDS, THERE IS, THERE IS SOME IMPACT AND IT OF COURSE VARIES BETWEEN THE, THE TWO EXAMPLES WE SAW ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDES.
ALRIGHT, MATT, UH, JUST A, A FEW MORE SLIDES, UH, TO GO, ALTHOUGH I KNOW WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION BEYOND THAT.
SO JUST TO KINDA LAY OUT THE, THE STUDY THAT WE DID, UM, WE EFFECTIVELY LOOKED AT THREE DIFFERENT CASES FOR OUR ANALYSIS.
UM, FIRST WAS SIMPLY LOOKING AT THE REALTIME QUANTIZATION WITHOUT ANSLEY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE FORCE.
A SECOND CASE IS LOOKING AT REALTIME IZATION WITH THE FLOORS IN PLACE.
AND WE RAN A THIRD CASE AS WELL WHERE WE DERIVED OUTPUTS FROM CASE ONE AND TWO.
AND THE REASON WE CAME UP WITH THIS THIRD CASE IS BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE REALTIME IZATION TODAY, WE SEE A LACK OF ANSA SERVICE OFFERS TO USE WITHIN OUR SIMULATION WORK.
AND SO THAT MEANS THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE SIMULATION, THE OFFERS ARE DOMINATED TO A LARGE DEGREE BY PROXIES INSTEAD OF USING ACTUAL COMPETITIVE OFFERS SUBMITTED BY THE MARKET.
AND SO WHAT WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO DO WITH THIS THIRD CASE WAS ISOLATE THE IMPACTS OF THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVE FLOOR TO ONLY THE TIMES IN WHICH THE, THE, THE FLOOR ITSELF IS WHAT IS SETTING PRICE.
SO, UH, ANY, SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE THREE CASES WE'LL WALK THROUGH.
UM, AND AGAIN, REALLY THE, AS YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THIS FLOOR, YOU CAN REALLY VIEW THE, THE QUOTE UNQUOTE RIGHT ANSWER AS SOMETHING BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE FOR CASES TWO AND THREE.
UH, CASE TWO IS AN EXTREME EXAMPLE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SEE THE, THE $15 DEMAND CURVE FLOOR AND YOU SEE THE OFFER STACK DOMINATED BY PROXIES, THAT WOULD BE THE OVERALL IMPACT.
UH, IF YOU SEE, UH, THE $15 PER MEGAWATT FLOOR.
BUT YOU SEE THE MOST OF THE OFFERS ARE AN EXTENSION OF WHAT WE ALREADY MORE OFTEN SEE TODAY.
SO REALLY THE, WE EXPECT THE, THE, THE ACTUAL OUTCOMES TO BE SOMETHING BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
SO IN TERMS OF THE DATASET, WE LOOKED AT, UH, ABOUT 12,000 OR SO, UH, UH, REAL TIME MARKET INTERVALS ACROSS SEVEN MONTHS AND 216 OPERATING DAYS.
UM, WE, WE BROKEN THIS OUT TRYING TO CAPTURE DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE YEAR.
UM, WE ALSO EXPANDED THE ANALYSIS BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR, UH, AT THE PROTOCOLS SUB SUBCOMMITTEE.
UH, THEY WERE HAD POINTED OUT THAT IN OUR ORIGINAL ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD SHARED, UM, WE WERE EMULATING SOME ANALYSIS THEY HAD DONE FOR 1268 AND LOOKED AT THE NET PEAK LOAD HOURS.
UM, WE EXPANDED THAT TO LOOK AT OTHER HOURS WITHIN THE DAY, UM, WHERE WE MIGHT SEE MORE MARGINAL SHORTAGES.
SO TRYING TO LOOK AT BOTH THE MORNING AND MID MIDDAY HOURS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DONE.
[01:45:01]
WE ALSO HAD ORIGINALLY FOCUSED JUST ON 20, 24 MONTHS, AND WE WENT BACK AND ADDED SOME, UH, MONTHS FROM 2023 TO SEE IF THE CONCLUSIONS HELD.GOING BACK TO THAT, UH, AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE METRICS, WE LOOKED AT, LOOKING AT, UH, ACCOUNT OF INTERVALS, WHETHER DEMAND CURVE FLOORS ARE ACTUALLY SETTING PRICE, UH, LOOKING AT THE AVERAGE PRICE AND TOTAL VALUE OF ENERGY AND ANCI SERVICES AND HOW THEY WOULD BE IMPACTED BETWEEN THESE THREE CASES, AS WELL AS FINDING, LOOKING AT THE, THE QUANTITY ADVANCE SERVICE PROCUREMENTS, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, SHORTAGES.
ALRIGHT, MATT, I SEEING NOTHING IN THE QUEUE NEXT TO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO FOR THE FIRST, UH, UH, SET OF GRAPHS HERE, UM, THIS IS LOOKING AT, UH, SOME SUMMATION DATA ACROSS THE VARIOUS MONTHS THAT WE WOULD ANALYZE.
SO WITHIN EACH OF THESE MONTHS, THERE'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF HOURS.
SO THAT'S AT LEAST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
UH, ON THE TOP LEFT GRAPH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE INTERVALS IN WHICH THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVE FLOOR SET THE PRICE.
AND THIS IS TRUE WHETHER, WHETHER IT'S FOR ECS OR NON SPIN, UH, WE FLAGGED IT.
AND, AND WHAT WE SAW, AND THIS WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAD SHARED IN IN OUR EARLIER ANALYSIS, IS THAT ACROSS THE FULL STUDY WINDOW, THE DEMAND CURVE FLOOR FOR EITHER OF THOSE TWO SERVICES SET, THE PRICE FOR, UH, ONLY 177, UH, INTERVALS ARE ABOUT 1.4%.
SO THAT'S LOOKING AT THE, HOW MANY TIMES IT SAID IT ACROSS THAT FULL 12,000, UH, INTERVALS THAT WE LOOKED AT.
UM, INTERESTINGLY, THE, THE, WE SEE A LOT OF THESE, UH, ACTUALLY HAPPENED, UH, IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, THAT PARTICULAR STUDY MONTH.
ALTHOUGH, UM, ALSO INTERESTINGLY, THAT WAS OF COURSE A, A A, UM, A MONTH IN WHICH WE SAW MORE SHORTAGES IN GENERAL.
SO, UM, WHILE WE ACTUALLY SEE THAT IT SET THE PRICE MORE OFTEN IN THAT PARTICULAR MONTH, THE, THE ACTUAL OVERALL IMPACT WAS SOMEWHAT DIMINISHED FOR AUGUST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS SIMPLY A, A A MONTH WHERE WE WERE MORE SHORT.
ON THE BOTTOM LEFT GRAPH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE OVERALL CHANGE IN PROCUREMENT, UH, OF EITHER ERCOT CONTINGENCY, UH, ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE OR NON SPEND.
IT'S REALLY HARD NOT TO USE THE ACRONYMS. UM, UH, WHAT WE SAW IS, AND THIS IS LOOKING AT CASES TWO AND THREE, UH, OVER CASE ONE, WHAT WE SAW WAS ON AVERAGE AN HOURLY PROCUREMENT INCREASE OF THOSE TWO SERVICES OF 92, UH, MEGAWATTS, OR, OR ABOUT 2%.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONE POINT THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE HERE IS THAT REALLY THESE PROCUREMENT INCREASES ARE FOR INTERVALS WHERE THE SHORTAGES WERE WERE RELATIVELY MARGINAL.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NECESSARILY THOSE, THOSE DAYS OF DEEPER LEVELS OF SCARCITY.
UM, AND AS A FUNCTION OF THAT TOO, UH, WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS ANALYSIS IS THAT WITH THE FLOORS WE SEE AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROCUREMENT AMOUNTS, BUT SHORTAGES ARE NOT ELIMINATED AND, AND NOR SHOULD WE EXPECT THEM TO BE FULLY ELIMINATED.
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THESE CASES IN WHICH WE SEE THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF CAPABILITY THAT'S OUT THERE TO MEET THE SERVICES.
IT'S ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE VALUING THOSE SERVICES AND TRYING TO PROCURE IT FROM THE FOLKS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
SO THAT WAS FOCUSED MORE ON THE, UH, THE PROCUREMENT AND, AND THE HOW OFTEN WE SETTING THE PRICE.
THIS IS LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS TO, UH, PRICES AND COSTS.
UH, THIS IS LOOKING AT, UH, BOTH ENERGY AND ANSLEY SERVICES.
UH, I GUESS I, I DIDN'T NECESSARILY CALL IT COST, I'M REFERRING TO IT AS AS VALUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
AND, AND THE REASON I'M DOING THAT IS WE, WE OFTEN GET INTO THE POINT OF HOW MUCH FOLKS ARE HEDGING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THE, I, THIS IS A USEFUL WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT.
SO WHEN I TALK ABOUT VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SLIDE, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE PRICE MULTIPLIED BY THE AWARDS, EITHER THE, THE BASE POINTS AND THE TERMS OF ENERGY OR, UH, THE ANSLEY SERVICE AWARDS IN THE CASE OF ANSLEY SERVICES.
AND AGAIN, JUST TO EMPHASIZE, UH, WITH THE LACK OF OF REALTIME ANSLEY SERVICE OFFERS, UM, WE, WE ARE COMING UP WITH CASE TWO AND CASE THREE TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THAT FULL SPECTRUM OF, UM, OF OUTCOMES.
CASE TWO PROVIDES THE HIGHER END, UH, EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PRICE CHANGES.
AND CASE THREE IS REALLY THE, THE OTHER END OF THE, THE SPECTRUM THERE.
UH, IN TERMS OF RESULTS, WHAT WE SEE IS THAT THE INCREASE IN PRICES AND VALUES BETWEEN CASES ONE AND THREE ARE, ARE, ARE REALLY NEGLIGIBLE.
[01:50:01]
PROBABLY CLEAR IN SOME OF THE OTHER GRAPHS THAT WE HAD SHARED WITH THE TASK FORCE, BUT JUST TO PROVIDE KIND OF A, A SUMMARY VALUE, UH, WHAT WE SEE IS THE, THE TOTAL INCREASED VALUE ACROSS BOTH ENERGY AND ANSLEY SERVICES BETWEEN CASES ONE AND THREE IS, UH, ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS.AND SO THAT'S LOOKING AT, UH, TOTAL, UH, OF ABOUT, UH, UH, 4.6 UH, BILLION AS THE OVERALL BASELINE.
SO THAT'S AN INCREASE OF, UH, 0.03% IN TERMS OF VALUE ACROSS ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT CASE THREE.
UH, CASE TWO IS THE KIND OF THE MORE EXTREME IMPACT.
UM, EVEN IN THAT CASE, WE VIEW THE, THE CHANGE IN OVERALL PRICES AND VALUES AS BEING INCREMENTAL, UH, WITH THE PERCENT INCREASE IN, IN AVERAGE ENERGY PRICES AND TOTAL ENERGY VALUE AT 0.4 AND 0.5% RESPECTIVELY.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT KIND OF THE SAME METRIC I JUST SHARED WITH CASE THREE AND LOOK AT THE TOTAL INCREASED VALUE OF BOTH ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES, THAT GOES UP TO 1.1%.
MAYBE THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS, AND AGAIN THIS IS, UH, MORE CLEAR AS YOU GO THROUGH THE MONTHLY DATA THAT WE SHARED WITH THE TASK FORCE AND THE PROTOCOL BUSINESS SUBCOMMITTEE, THE, IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE INCREASED PRICING FOR THE ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE AND NON SPEND, IN THE CASE OF CASE TWO, EVEN IN THAT MORE EXTREME EXAMPLE, YOU DO SEE PRICES THAT ARE STILL IN ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER ANSLEY SERVICES AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN TERMS OF HISTORICAL OUTCOMES WITH THE DAY AHEAD MARKET.
UH, AND JUST TO KIND OF HIT SOME OF THESE, THESE KEY POINTS, AGAIN, AGAIN, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S LEGITIMATE CONCERN THAT THE, THE MARKET PRICING FOR THE DAY AHEAD IN REAL TIME, UH, IS GOING TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO INCENT SELF-COMMITMENT FOR THESE TAIL AMOUNTS.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE KEY POINT HERE IS THAT THAT'S EVEN TRUE WHEN THERE'S SUFFICIENT RESOURCE CAPABILITY.
OTHERWISE, UH, IN THINKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC VALUE, WE DO FEEL LIKE THE $15 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR IS A, IS A MODEST VALUE TO HAVE ON THE DEMAND CURVE FOR THESE SMALLER LEVELS OF SHORTAGES.
IN THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE SEE ACROSS, UH, OTHER MARKETS AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE SEE EVEN FOR REGULATION AND RESPONSIVE AND THAT THE IMPACT OVERALL PRICES IS, IS FAIRLY MINIMAL.
AND, AND AGAIN, THIS THE LAST POINT ABOUT AS WE THINK ABOUT THE, THE ANSLEY SERVICE PLAN QUANTITIES AND THAT BEING, UH, REALLY A, A MAJOR UNDERLYING CONCERN FOR THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED THERE, WE DO HAVE THE, THE EFFORTS UNDERWAY IN REVIEWING THAT.
SO, MATT, WITH THAT, I, I THINK I'VE HIT ALL THE, THE MAJOR THINGS I WANTED TO TOUCH ON.
I'LL STOP AND UH, TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, CAITLYN.
I WAS GOING TO TURN NOW TO JEFF FOR, FOR SOME COMMENTS FROM THE IMM.
IS THAT OKAY? SURE, YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
AND SO ARE WE RESTRICTING OURSELVES TO ONE NPR OR THE OTHER? IS THIS JUST THE PACKAGE? WE STILL HAVE, UH, 1269 AND 1268, BOTH KIND OF LIVE, SO I THINK, I THINK BOTH ARE FAIR GAME.
YEAH, I, I, I ACTUALLY, AND, AND THANK YOU DAVE FOR THE NICE PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT 1268 BECAUSE IT CAME FROM US AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE A BIT.
UM, I WILL COMMENT A LITTLE BIT ON, UH, 1269.
SO OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT, UH, WE DO OPPOSE THE $15, UM, OR NOT THE 15, YEAH, THE $15 PRICE FLOOR IN DAY AHEAD MARKET AND, AND REALTIME MARKET.
UM, AND WE ALSO OPPOSE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR THE PROXY OFFER.
UM, I'LL COVER THE PROXY OFFER FIRST 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S PROBABLY SHORTER.
AND THEN I'LL, I'LL GO INTO, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR POSITION ON THE $15, UM, A SDC PRICE FOR.
SO, SO ON THE PROXY OFFER, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD A LOOK AT, UH, AVERAGE OFFER PRICES FOR THE TYPES OF RESOURCES WHERE PROXY OFFERS ARE, ARE PREVALENT OR APPEAR TO BE MORE PREVALENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, TO US IT LOOKED LIKE $15 WOULD REFLECT, UH, A COMPETITIVE OFFER PRICE IN THAT CASE.
UM, I THINK THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, FAR OVER STATES, YOU KNOW, WHAT AN APPROPRIATE PROXY OFFER PRICE WOULD BE.
AND MY POSITION IS A PROXY OFFER SHOULD BE CHOSEN TO REFLECT A COMPETITIVE OFFER AND THEREFORE BE LET THE LEAST OBSTRUCTIVE TO PRICE FORMATION.
UM, AS OPPOSED TO, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT
[01:55:01]
ZERO MAY NOT REPRESENT A COMPETITIVE OFFER FOR SOME OF THESE RESOURCES.UM, SO ZERO COULD REPRESENT, UH, AN OBSTRUCTION TO MORE EFFICIENT PRICE FORMATION, BUT, UH, EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH PROXY OFFER, UM, CERTAINLY DOESN'T REFLECT A COMPETITIVE, WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FOR A COMPETITIVE OFFER AND CERTAINLY, UH, INJECTS MORE BIAS OR INEFFICIENCY INTO PRICE FORMATION.
SO, SO WE WOULD AGREE TO SOMETHING IN THE ZERO TO $15 RANGE OR SO.
UM, BUT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, I THINK FAR OVERSTATES WHAT A REASONABLE PROXY OFFER PRICE WOULD BE, AND I, AND I FEEL LIKE IT IS, UH, LIKELY TO INTERFERE WITH COMPETITIVE PRICE FORMATION.
I I WILL NOTE WE SPENT SOME TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE OFFER OBLIGATION IS IN ERCOT.
UM, AND AFTER TALKING THROUGH THAT AND COMPARING NOTES ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER RTOS, YOU KNOW, I'LL MAKE A, AN ORAL RECOMMENDATION THAT ERCOT SHOULD BE MORE EXPLICIT ABOUT WHAT THE OBLIGATION IS AND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE FOR NOT MEETING THAT OBLIGATION.
IT'S ACTUALLY, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, FAIRLY IMPLICIT, UH, IN THE RULES THE WAY THEY'RE WRITTEN, IF YOU HAVE APPRO, IF YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION, IT SHOULD BE MUCH MORE EXPLICIT THAN IT IS.
AND THEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESCRIBE COMPLIANCE MEASURES FOR, FOR THOSE THAT DON'T.
IN, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THESE RESOURCES ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO OFFER IN AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE OFFER, WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE DEBATING, UM, OVER WHAT TO DO WHEN THEY DON'T.
THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE PRESCRIBED, UH, IN, IN A VERY REASONABLE WAY.
IT COULD, IT COULD INCLUDE, UM, A COMPETITIVE OFFER THAT IS SUBMITTED IN APPROVED, UH, BY THE PARTICIPANT OF THE, IT SHOULD INCLUDE THAT.
UM, OTHER THINGS THAT COULD INCLUDE ARE, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE FOR, YOU KNOW, REPEATED NON-COMPLIANCE, UM, FEES FOR REPEATED NON-COMPLIANCE AND SO FORTH.
BUT MAKING THIS MORE EXPLICIT AND CODIFYING IT, UH, USING A COMPETITIVE BASELINE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, MY RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT.
SO, UH, MOVING ON TO THE $15 A SCC PRICE FLOOR.
SO, SO I WANNA START ON THAT BY NOTING THAT, UH, MYSELF AND MY TEAM ARE ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF HAVING COMMITMENT AND DISPATCH DECISIONS MADE IN THE DAY AHEAD, IN REAL TIME MARKET AND PRICED, UH, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, BIDS AND OFFERS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
YOU GET THE BEST PRICE FORMATION THAT WAY.
UM, AND YOU ALSO, AND I, AND I KNOW I'M PREACHING TO THE CHOIR IN HERE, BUT, BUT YOU ALSO GET PRICE SIGNALS THAT INCENT BOTH SHORT TERM ACTIONS FROM GENERATION OR SUPPLY.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE A LONG TERM EFFECT THERE.
AND ONE OF THE BIG, UM, DISCUSSIONS HERE IN TEXAS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE? ARE WE SIGNALING FOR NEW INVESTMENT APPROPRIATELY? DOES THE CURRENT MARKET PROVIDE ENOUGH OF A SIGNAL TO, UM, TO INCENT NEW INVESTMENT TO MEET FUTURE FORECASTED DEMAND IN THE RA CONS CONSTRUCT? SO, SO WE ARE ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF HAVING AS MUCH IF NOT ALL, PRICE FORMATION DONE IN THE DAY AHEAD, IN REAL TIME MARKET WHERE IT CAN PROVIDE THE RIGHT SIGNAL AND WHERE EVERY PARTICIPANT IS SUBJECT TO THE PRICES THAT ARE PRODUCED IN THOSE MARKETS.
SO, SO HAVING SAID THAT, YOU MAY WONDER WHY DOES JEFF OBJECT TO HAVING A $15 PRICE FLOOR, UH, IN REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE USING IT IN REC.
AND IT TURNED OUT, AND YOU PROBABLY FOLLOWED, I THINK ANDREW'S DONE A VERY GOOD JOB, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTING OUR POSITION THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN EVOLVING OVER THE LAST, YOU KNOW, MONTH OR TWO.
IT TURNS OUT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST DO WE TAKE THE $15 PRICE FLOOR FROM REC AND APPLY IT IN THE OTHER TWO MARKETS.
SO OUR POSITION IS, AND, AND YOU'VE HEARD THIS, UH, FROM MYSELF OR MY TEAM AND OTHER, OTHER STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THAT THE AS PLAN NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ASPECTS OF THAT.
ONE OF THEM IS USING MORE OF A STOCHASTIC APPROACH TO MATCH, UM, THE AS PROCUREMENT TO RELIABILITY VALUE IN A, IN A, IN A STOCHASTIC EXPECTATION FRAMEWORK.
UM, ANOTHER ASPECT OF THAT IS WE'VE MADE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, DURATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
[02:00:01]
ECRS AND NONS SPIN.SO TAKING A STOCHASTIC APPROACH AND MATCHING YOUR, YOUR PROCUREMENT TO THE VALUE OF RELIABILITY THAT IT PRODUCES WILL LIKELY, UH, REDUCE THE AS PLAN TO SOME DEGREE REDUCING THE DURATION CURVES, OR NOT THE DURATION CURVES, BUT THE DURATION REQUIREMENTS WILL INCREASE THE SUPPLY THAT'S AVAILABLE, UM, IN SOME CONTEXT.
AND BOTH OF THOSE THINGS WOULD WIND UP REDUCING THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, UH, REDUCING THE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING THAT PRECIPITATED THE $15 PRICE FLOOR.
SO, DOING SO, SO AS WE'VE DEBATED INTERNALLY OUR POSITION ON THE $15 PRICE FLOOR, YOU KNOW, WE'VE COME TO REALIZE WE, WE, WE DON'T OBJECT OVERTLY TO, TO HAVING THE CORRECT VALUATION REFLECTED IN THE DAY AHEAD IN REAL TIME MARKET.
OUR OBJECTION WAS REALLY ABOUT OTHER ASPECTS THAT LED TO THE NECESSITY FOR THIS.
SO, SO WE STILL OBJECT TO TAKING THAT $15 AND MOVING IT INTO THE DAY AHEAD IN REAL TIME.
WHAT WE'D, WHAT WE'D PREFER TO SEE IS AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS OVER PROCUREMENT.
AND AS I'LL NOTE, AND I I, I WON'T GET THE PERCENTAGE EXACTLY RIGHT, SOMEONE MENTIONED 8,000 EARLIER, I THOUGHT I SAW 9,000, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 40 AND 55% MORE AS IS PROCURED NOW THAN BEFORE YURI.
AND IT'S COME IN DIFFERENT STAGES BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AND MADE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT REEVALUATED AND HAVE THE AS PLAN MORE CLOSELY REFLECT, YOU KNOW, MARGINAL, UH, RELIABILITY CONCEPTS.
AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE, UH, DURATION REQUIREMENTS REEVALUATED AND REASSESSED.
HAVING DRRS COME IN WILL ALLOW FOR A LOWER DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR NONS SPIN.
SO, SO THERE'S, THERE ARE ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE THINK TOGETHER HAVE SORT OF PRECIPITATED THIS NEED FOR $15 IN A REC, A $15 A SDC PRICE FLOOR.
WE, WE THINK THAT THOSE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, UH, IN THE SHORT TERM AND THE NEED FOR THIS $15 PRICE FLOOR WOULD GO AWAY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, IN LIEU OF DOING A $15 PRICE FLOOR IN REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE CONSIDER USING OR LEVERAGING THE, UM, RELIABILITY ADDER, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS AND IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS, UH, THIS TYPE OF ACTION AND FOCUS EFFORT ON TRYING TO REEVALUATE AND, AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE CONSPIRED TO MAKE $15 A REASONABLE PROPOSAL FOR REC.
SO ANYWAY, I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
SETH, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD OR YEAH, I, I HAVE THINGS I WAS GONNA GO TO CONSUMERS AND TCPA, BUT IF, IF YOU GUYS WANNA GO AHEAD NOW, THAT'S FINE TOO.
UM, THAT THAT'S YOUR DISCRETION.
IF, IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE LIKE A YEAH.
ABILITY TO PRESENT AND THEN GO THROUGH THAT, THAT'S TOTALLY COOL.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR JEFF THOUGH THAT SAID, YEAH, I THINK GO AHEAD.
OH, UH, JEFF, AND I'VE SHARED THIS WITH ANDREW MANY TIMES AND YOU PROBABLY HEARD IT, UM, THROUGH HIM, IS I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED ON THE LEVEL OF CONCERN FROM THE IMM ON THE PROXY OFFERS.
THIS IS JUST SPECIFIC TO THAT PART, UM, MAINLY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE IN THE 20 PLUS YEARS OF OUR MARKET THAT PROXY OFFERS HAVE HAD ANY IMPACT ON PRICING OUTCOMES.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY MENTION IN THE STATE OF THE MARKET REPORTS.
UM, AND YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS MADE ME WONDER, I I WOULD THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE EASIEST THINGS TO MONITOR, PICKING ON YOUR, THE LAST M IN YOUR ACRONYM AND SURVEIL AND DETECT THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH A LOWER PROXY OFFER, IS THAT CREATES OPERATIONAL ISSUES IN RTC.
BECAUSE IN OUR EXPERIENCE, AND, AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS WHEN OFFERS ARE NOT SUBMITTED, TYPICALLY THAT MARKET PARTICIPANT IS HAVING SYSTEM ISSUES, TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THEIR TELEMETRY SYSTEM.
THAT I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE THAT IN OUR CASE, THE ONLY TIME WE HAVEN'T SUBMITTED OFFERS WHEN WE WERE DOING A DATABASE LOAD OR AN EMS CHANGEOVER.
AND SO THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES, IF YOU HAVE A, A PROXY OFFER THAT IS LOW, YOU'RE GONNA BE LOADING UP ANCILLARIES ON RESOURCES THAT ARE NOT CAPABLE OF RESPONDING AT THAT TIME.
THAT IS TO US A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM, UH, THAN ANY TYPE OF PRICE INFLUENCE.
AND I'M JUST, I, I WOULD ASSUME, AND THE QUESTION IS THE IMM HAS PROCESSES IN PLACE TO DETECT AND MONITOR WHEN OFFERS ARE NOT SUBMITTED, AND A PROXY IS USED AS A FLAG IN 60 DAY REPORTS THAT
[02:05:01]
YOU CAN, THAT WE SEE.AND THIS WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR THE IMM TO, TO MONITOR AND FLAG ANY ISSUES.
AND THAT TO US, AND THIS WAS KIND OF MADE CLEAR BY OUR FORMER, FORMER IMM, IS THERE IS AN IMPLIED REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT AN OFFER IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT AN OFFER, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT WE'LL GET AN RFI FROM THE IMM AND YOU'LL ASK QUESTIONS, WHY DID YOU NOT SUBMIT AN OFFER? AND IF YOU THINK THAT THERE IS ANY NEFARIOUS BEHAVIOR, THERE WOULD BE A, UM, ENFORCEMENT AND A PENALTY THAT IS LIKE BLOCKING AND TACKLING FOR WHAT YOU GUYS DO.
SO, UH, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE PROCESSES YOU HAVE IN PLACE TODAY TO MONITOR, UH, THE USE OF PROXY OFFERS AND HOW YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? SO WE DO HAVE, UM, SO THE, HOW I THINK ABOUT IT MIGHT BE REPETITIVE TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO COVER IT AGAIN.
UM, WE DO HAVE CODE THAT SCREENS FOR, UH, INCOMPLETE BIDS OR, OR OFFERS NOT SUBMITTED, UH, AND SO FORTH.
SO WE ARE, WE ARE ABLE TO SEE THAT.
I THINK YOUR, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION BACK AT YOU, BUT IF YOU'RE HAVING EQUIPMENT ISSUES THAT PROHIBIT YOU FROM, UH, RESPONDING TO INSTRUCTIONS OR, UM, COMMUNICATING THE RIGHT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RESOURCE, THAT PUTS YOU ON SOME FORM OF OUTAGE, DOESN'T IT? SO IT IT'S USUALLY VERY BRIEF.
THEN SECONDS OR MINUTES AND THEN IT'S RESOLVED.
UM, TYPICALLY, BUT THAT SO, SO IN THE, IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR COMMENT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S VERY BRIEF, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO RESPOND OR, OR WHY YOU WOULD HAVE A PROXY OFFER INSTEAD OF A, YOU KNOW, A, A COMPLETE SUBMITTED OFFER IF IT'S BRIEF.
I WAS, I WAS HEARING YOUR COMMENT AS THOUGH THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, AN HOUR LONG OR TWO HOURS LONG, AND SO IT WAS PROHIBITIVE IN SOME SORT.
SO I'M NOT SURE I CAN ADDRESS THAT PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
'CAUSE I, I DON'T SEE THAT THE ISSUE MAYBE THE WAY YOU DO, YOU COULD, YOU'RE FREE TO EXPLAIN IT MORE IF YOU LIKE.
UH, WELL, JUST THAT THE LACK OF EVIDENCE I, I THINK IS THE, WHAT'S MADE ME WONDER PERSONALLY, WHY YOU'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT THIS.
SO YOUR QUESTION IS, AND THE ABILITY TO DETECT IT AND PROSECUTE IT FAIRLY EASILY.
SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T PROSECUTE STUFF, UM, RIGHT.
WE, WE, WE MAKE REFERRALS TO THE PEC.
UM, SO, SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT HASN'T BEEN THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS A LARGE, IN FACT, I, I KNOW THAT IT IS A SMALL, IT REPRESENTS A SMALL QUANTITY, UH, SO FAR OF CAPACITY.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, BECOMES A LARGER ISSUE, UM, THAN THE LARGER, THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT PROXY OFFERS REPRESENT, THE BIGGER THE IMPACT IT HAS ON THE MARKET, WHETHER IT'S $0, WHICH, WHICH MIGHT BE BELOW A, A COMPETITIVE PRICE, AND SO WOULD SUPPRESS THE REAL TIME PRICE OR $2,000, WHICH IS CLEARLY WELL ABOVE IT.
SO MY, MY ISSUE ISN'T SO MUCH WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED HISTORICALLY BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A SMALLER ISSUE, NOT A NON-ISSUE, BUT, BUT THE REASON THAT I'M OBJECTING TO IT IS BECAUSE IF THIS BECOMES A LARGER ISSUE, IF WE SEE A LARGER AMOUNT OF CAPACITY HAVING TO HAVE A PROXY OFFER, THEN IT'S GONNA HAVE A LARGER IMPACT.
AND SO ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO SUBMIT A PROXY OFFER FOR A RESOURCE, THAT IT REFLECTS A COMPETITIVE OUTCOME.
IT DOESN'T REFLECT A PRESUMED SHORTAGE, AND IT DOESN'T REFLECT PRICE TAKING.
IT JUST REFLECTS A COMPETITIVE OUTCOME THAT'S GOING TO HAVE PROB A, A COMPETITIVE OFFER FROM THE RESOURCE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THE BEST OUTCOME FOR EVERYBODY.
IF IT'S A COMPETITIVE OFFER FOR THE RESOURCE, THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LOSE MONEY, UM, BY HAVING THAT PROXY OFFER SUBMITTED FOR YOU.
AND ALSO YOU'LL SEE PRICE FORMATION NOT DISTORTED BY, UM, UNDERCUTTING COMPETITION WITH A $0 PRICE OR, OR ARTIFICIALLY RAISING THE PRICE WITH A, WITH A, A ABOVE COMPETITIVE OFFER.
I'LL NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND MAYBE YOU, MAYBE YOU HIT ON A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SUBMIT AN OFFER.
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE, THE, I MEAN, IF YOU HAD AN OFFER IN BEFORE THAT WAS LEGITIMATE AND YOU HAVE A SHORT EQUIPMENT ISSUE, YOUR PRIOR LEGITIMATE OFFER SHOULD PERSIST THROUGH THAT.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT TOO WELL.
BUT THE BEST SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE SUBMIT COMPLETE OFFERS AND, AND THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE REASONS EVERY NOW AND THEN HERE OR THERE WHERE YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
BUT MY HUNCH IS, YOU KNOW, THAT REPRESENTS A SMALL PORTION OF THE YEAH, THE TOTAL.
SO JUST SUBMIT COMPLETE OFFERS AND THEN THE PROBLEM GOES AWAY.
[02:10:01]
I THINK THAT'S, I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.AND I THINK THE, THE REALLY, THE DISCUSSION HERE REVOLVES AROUND, UM, IN RTC SINCE WE'LL BE PUTTING ANCILLARY SERVICES AWARDS ON RESOURCES, UH, AND THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR, WHICH IS TYPICALLY THESE ARE TECHNICAL ISSUES WHEN OFFERS ARE NOT, AREN'T SUBMITTED, THAT THAT'S MORE OF A RISK.
I'M WONDERING IF THE BEST WAY TO BRIDGE THIS GAP WOULD BE FOR THE IMM TO DO, SAY A MONTHLY REPORT GOING FORWARD AS FAR AS RTC ON OFFERS THAT ARE, UM, SUBMITTED OR NOT SUBMITTED AND ARE SET ON PROXIES.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK BETTER FOR, FOR ALL OF US SO THAT WE CAN KEEP AN EYE ON IT.
I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE INFORMATIVE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD VERY EASILY ROLL INTO OUR MONTHLY REPORT.
UM, AND THAT SATISFIES THE, UH, PUBLIC REPORTING ON NON-COMPLIANCE ASPECT THAT I, THAT I MENTIONED.
UM, AND, AND MAYBE IF WE DO THAT, WE'LL SEE MORE PARTICIPANTS SUBMITTING COMPLETE OFFERS.
FAYE, DID YOU WANNA, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR JEFF, OR CAN YOU HOLD UNTIL AFTER WE, WE GET TO THE OTHER COMMENTERS? UM, MY QUESTION OR COMMENTS ARE, UH, CLOSELY RELATED TO WHAT BILL HAS ALREADY ASKED.
SO MAYBE I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND, UM, STATE MY COMMENTS IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, I ALSO HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PROCESS IMM, UH, AND ERCO HAVE IN PLACE TO MONITOR, UM, MARKET PARTICIPANTS THAT, UH, FAILED TO SUBMIT COMPLETE OR DID NOT SUBMIT, SUBMIT, UH, AS OFFERS.
UM, SO I THINK JEFF ALREADY ANSWERED FROM THE IMM UM, PERSPECTIVE.
WE ALSO SUPPORT, UH, IF GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE A MONTHLY REPORT TO, TO TRACK THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR.
UM, AND MY COMMENT IS, UH, I THINK I, I ECHO WITH BILL THAT THE PROTOCOL ALREADY IMPLIES THAT RESOURCES MUST SUBMIT AS OFFER.
SO IN PARTICULAR, I THINK NPR TEN TEN SIX 0.491, UH, WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT ANCILLARY SERVICE AWARDS.
SO THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS QSCS REPRESENTING RESOURCE THAT ARE QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE AN ANCILLARY SERVICE MUST SUBMIT VALID ANSARY SERVICE OFFERS FOR USE IN REAL TIME CLEARING.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT SENTENCE IS THIS SHOULD PREVENT, UM, QSCS OR RESOURCES FAIL TO SUBMIT OR, UH, SUBMIT INCOMPLETE OFFERS REPETITIVELY OR INTENTIONALLY.
UH, ERIC, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE COMMENTS, JOINT COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED YESTERDAY? SURE.
SO, UM, O OPEC AND RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER, AS WELL AS MANY OF THE OTHER CONSUMERS IN THIS SEGMENT, UM, HAVE SPOKEN, UM, TO OUR CAT STAFF AND, UM, OTHERS, UH, SEVERAL TIMES AND EACH OTHER.
AND WE REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, THIS PROPOSED POLICY APPROACH.
AND IT DOESN'T HELP TO ADDRESS OUR UNDERLYING CONCERNS TO SAY THAT, WELL, IT WON'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, UM, OR IT'S, UM, A SMALL IMPACT OR IT'S RELATED TO A DIFFERENT THING THAT YOU ALSO DISLIKE.
OUR, OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE UNDERLYING APPROACH AS TO WHY YOU WOULD INSTITUTE A FLOOR WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL RESOLVE SOMETHING.
UM, WE WOULD, WE'RE JUST GENERALLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, UM, UNNECESSARILY INTERVENING, UM, IN MARKET OUTCOMES.
AND OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED CURVE.
UM, BUT, UM, IN, IN GENERAL, IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A CURVE TO BE ABLE TO INDICATE A LACK OF VALUE THAT'S SOMETHING IS DEMANDED.
THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL APPROACHES THAT YOU SEE GENERALLY, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, THE POINT OF THIS IS TO ALLEVIATE, YOU KNOW, SOME POTENTIAL FOR RUCKS.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE STATED PREVIOUSLY, WE
[02:15:01]
HAVE CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED OUR CAT'S USE OF THE ROCK TOOL, UM, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR YEARS.AND, UM, BUT WHAT THE R TOOL DOES IS OCCASIONALLY OR KAT DOES NEED DIRECT SOMETHING.
UH, SOMETIMES THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT COMMITMENT, UH, TO RESOLVE OVERALL CAPACITY OR THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT COMMITMENT FOR A LOCAL ISSUE AND ER ACCOUNT HAS TO WRECK.
AND, UM, IT'S JUST A, A METHOD TO KEEP THE SYSTEM SECURE UNDER WHAT IS HOPEFULLY UNUSUAL CONDITIONS THAT DON'T OCCUR VERY OFTEN.
UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, ERCOT, UM, IS GOING TO BE PUT IN A SITUATION WHERE I TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT IT ROCKS IN THIS NEW CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HASN'T OCCURRED IN THE PAST DUE TO A CHANGE IN OUR MARKET DESIGN, I WOULD MUCH RATHER TO PUT ER ARCHIVE IN THE HOT SEAT TO JUSTIFY WHY THEY WERE DOING THOSE RUCKS.
UM, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO RUCK, UM, FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED, OR IS IT MERELY A R TO MEET A SEEMINGLY ARBITRARY ANSWERING SERVICES PLAN AND NOT AN ACTUAL RELIABILITY CONDITION? UM, THAT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE.
UM, THAT I AGREE IS RELATED TO THE OVERALL ANCILLARY SERVICES PLAN.
UM, BUT IT'S INDEPENDENT OF IT AND A DISTINCT QUESTION.
UM, INSTEAD, UM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO HERE IS TO MAKE A STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO THE MARKET TO AVOID HAVING TO ASK THOSE UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF ERCOT DESIRE TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF RESERVES AND, AND THE IMPACTS ON, ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL UNIT COMMITMENT TO MEET THAT.
UM, AND AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE WE WERE TO MODIFY THE AN TO SERVICES PLAN TO MAKE INSTANCES OF A BAD OUTCOME LESS FREQUENT, DOESN'T MEAN THAT I WOULD SUDDENLY SUPPORT CREATING A SITUATION THAT COULD LEAD TO BAD OUTCOME.
'CAUSE I WOULD JUST PREFER TO AVOID THEM.
UM, AND IN SUMMARY, UM, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR THAT SHOWS THAT ANY OF THIS IS NECESSARY TO DO BEFORE WE GO TO, TO MARKET GO LIVE.
ALL OF THIS CAN BE CONSIDERED AFTER WE HAVE REAL TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION WITH EVIDENCE OF ITS IMPACT.
UM, SO WE WOULD JUST PLEAD WITH TAC AND THE BOARD, UM, TO JUST DEFER THIS, UM, DECISION INTO THE FUTURE.
UM, AND TO THAT END, UM, WE PROPOSED MODIFYING THE, UM, PRS REPORT TO HAVE THE FLOOR CHANGE FOR $15 TO $0.
BUT THE CONCEPT OF THE FLOOR IS, UH, IN, UH, THE PROTOCOLS, UM, AND WE WOULD COMMIT TO, UH, CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTUAL OUTCOME IS TOGETHER WITH OTHER, UM, TAC MEMBERS AND OUR CUT STAKEHOLDERS AND, AND OUR CUT.
BUT WE JUST DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO DO IT THIS TIME.
AND, AND WE HOPE THAT Y'ALL, UH, CONSIDER OUR PERSPECTIVE.
UM, I'M GOING TO ASK MICHELLE TO DO MAYBE A, A BRIEF SUMMARY OF TCPA COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED FOR, FOR PRS, JUST FOR, FOR EVERYBODY WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BE A PRS.
YEAH, I ABSOLUTELY, AND I, I APPRECIATE IT, MICHELLE RICHMAN ON BEHALF OF TCPA, UM, I APPRECIATE WHERE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT, UM, PERSPECTIVES ARE COMING FROM.
I THINK AT THE CORE, THIS IS ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE MARKET TODAY, UM, AND ENSURING THAT WE ARE PROCURING ANCILLARY SERVICE QUANTITIES THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE MARKET AND NOT THROUGH OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS LIKE RUCK.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WHEN YOU ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT A SERVICE HAS NO VALUE TO IT, WHERE WOULD BE THE INCENTIVE FOR SELF COMMITMENT? WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION, UM, CANDIDLY AT THE PUC, WHICH IS WHERE THAT DISCUSSION IS APPROPRIATE ABOUT WHAT THE ANCILLARY SERVICES QUANTITIES ARE, WHAT THEY SHOULD BE.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN, IN THIS VENUE.
UM, AND I THINK THE, THE ISSUE HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE PUTTING COMPETITIVE OFFERS BEFORE YOU PUT SOMETHING THAT'S AN OUT OF MARKET ACTION OR A PROXY OFFER.
[02:20:01]
UM, THAT'S WHAT OUR COMMENTS ARE, ARE GEARED TOWARDS.UM, IN TERMS OF NO ANALYSIS, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, BOTH ERCOT AND THE IMM HAVE HAVE DONE SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, JEFF AND I HAVE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS AND THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THAT WE AGREE ON THEN THAT WE DON'T AGREE ON, TO BE QUITE CANDID.
UM, WE ARE COMING AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THIS IS THE MARKET WE HAVE TODAY, THIS IS WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DIRECTED ERCOT TO DO IN TERMS OF OPERATING THE GRID.
AND WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WHAT ERCOT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO DO IS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE MARKET AND NOT THROUGH OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS.
I, I WILL ALSO SAY THAT TO SAY THAT RUCK IS NOT, UM, A COMMON THING IS, IS PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE THESE DAYS.
I THINK THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE, THE CASE PRIOR TO THE CHANGE IN OPERATING POSTURE.
UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT DEFINITELY PICKED UP AFTER THE CHANGES, UM, THAT WERE MADE LAST SUMMER TO ECRS.
AND I MEAN, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, WE'VE HAD NEARLY SEVEN GIGS THAT WERE RUCKED TODAY.
SO THOSE ARE EXTREMELY COSTLY TO CONSUMERS.
UM, THOSE ARE OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE AGREE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE SUBMITTING COMPETITIVE MARKET OFFERS.
WE WOULD SUPPORT PUTTING OUT A LIST OF THOSE THAT DON'T.
UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, A, AN OFFER THAT IS A PROXY OFFER SHOULD NOT BE GOING IN FRONT OF A COMPETITIVE MARKET OFFER.
UM, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT OUR COMMENTS, UH, PREVENT.
SO I, I'M HAPPY TO, TO VISIT WITH Y'ALL ABOUT IT.
IT'S COMPETITIVE MARKET VERSUS OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS, AND THAT'S THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT OUR COMMENTS ARE ABOUT.
SETH, THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US.
UM, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR, WELL, I HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS I WANNA MAKE, BUT I WANNA START WITH THE QUESTION ERCOT.
UM, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE, UH, THE MINIMUM, UH, POINT AT THE DEMAND CURVE OF $15, WHICH TCPA WANTS, ARE YOU ABLE TO PROCURE ALL OF YOUR RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT? SO IN OTHER WORDS, AS YOU LOOK OUT AND YOU HAVE YOUR RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT AND YOU GO OUT TO PROCURE THAT WITHOUT THAT MINIMUM POINT ON THE DEMAND CURVE, I'M NOT GONNA CALL IT A PRICE FLOOR 'CAUSE THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS.
IT'S A MINIMUM POINT OF DEMAND CURVE.
UH, ARE YOU ABLE TO PROCURE YOUR WHOLE AS PLAN YOUR OR YOUR AS REQUIREMENTS? DAVE, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT ONE? YEAH, SURE.
AND, AND I GUESS THE, THE SLIDES ARE STILL HANDY.
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE IN, IN SLIDE SIX, I THINK SPEAKS TO THAT.
UM, MATT, ARE YOU, ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL IT UP? YES.
SO I, I GUESS THAT'S PART OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EMPHASIZE HERE, SETH.
I WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD EXPECT IN, AND AGAIN, SORT OF MAY STANDS OUT, BUT I THINK THIS IS TRUE OF SOME OF THE OTHER BUNKS WHERE YOU SEE SORT OF THE, THE REDDISH AND, AND DARKER ORANGE COLORS IS IN, UNLESS THE, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OFFERS THERE THAT ARE ZERO OR A PENNY, WE ARE GOING TO PROCURE SOMETHING LESS THAN THE ANSA SERVICE PLAN, EVEN WHEN THERE'S MAY BE CAPABILITY OUT THERE, BUT IT'S BEING OFFERED AT $1 OR $2 OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE SEE WITH THE GRAPH ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
MATT, IF YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE SEVEN.
SO UNLESS IT'S ZERO PRICED, IT WON'T CLEAR.
SO WHAT, WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THAT IS, IS THAT THERE'S, YOU'RE PLACING NO VALUE ON THAT RESERVE REQUIREMENT OUT, OUT, OUT THE, ON THE TAIL TO PROCURE IT.
SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THERE'S NO RELIABILITY VALUE TO PROCURING THAT EXTRA MEGAWATTS OF RESERVES, BUT YET THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT.
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE A MARKET DESIGN THAT PRECLUDES YOU FOR PROCURING COMPETITIVELY PROCURING THE REQUIREMENT OF SOMETHING.
UH, AND, AND THEN THEREBY ALSO SAYING ANY ADDITIONAL MEGAWATT IN THERE AT SOME POINT BECOMES OF ZERO MARGINAL VALUE.
BUT A, A RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT BY DEFINITION HAS VALUE IN PROVIDING SERVICES TO THAT REQUIREMENT.
THAT, THAT JUST MAKES, THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE, THAT'S ONE THOUGHT OF MINE, THAT THAT'S WHERE, WHERE I KIND OF AM LEANING ON THIS.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER POINT IS, IS THAT DEMAND CURVES THEMSELVES ARE ALREADY, UH,
[02:25:01]
PROTECTIONS AGAINST HIGH PRICES.WE ALL HAVE TO DUMP THE IDEA OF AN ORDC PRICE OUTER THAT'S, WE'RE TOTALLY OUT OF THAT REALM.
THIS IS ACTUALLY SENDING A CAP ON THE SOLUTION WHERE IT WILL VI, WHERE IT RELAX THE SOLUTION, RATHER PROCURING AN AN ADDITIONAL MEGAWATT OF SOMETHING.
UH, THAT'S WHAT A PENALTY VALUE IS.
AND SO IF WE JUST WOULD LET THE MARKET WORK, I WONDER WHERE WE'D BE WITH NO DEMAND CURVE.
UM, I MEAN THESE, THESE CURVES THEMSELVES ARE JUST MEANT TO BE PRICE PROTECTIONS.
AND TO SET THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO IS JUST SEEMS EXTREME TO ME.
UH, AND AGAIN, GETTING BACK TO MY, MY POINTS ABOUT NOT PROCURING THE LIABILITY REQUIREMENT, THAT, THAT DOES NOT RESONATE WITH ME.
THAT, THAT YOU WOULD NOT PROCURE UP TO YOUR RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT OR THAT, UH, THERE, THERE IS MEETING THAT, UH, RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT HAS ZERO VALUE AT SOME POINT.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME EITHER.
UH, BLAKE HOLT, LCRA FOR, FOR US, THE DECISION ON THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
UH, WE THINK THE DO NOTHING APPROACH IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT WE SHOULD RELY ON OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS TO SOLVE ISSUES.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT POSITION OF THIS MARKET.
UH, INSTEAD OUR NORTH STAR NEEDS TO BE INCENTIVES AND OUTCOMES AND ADDING A CAP ON THE PENALTY PRICES WOULD, UH, PROMOTE SELF COMMITMENT AND REDUCE OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS.
AND THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD TAKE.
UM, AND FOR THAT REASON, WE'LL BE SUPPORTING THE PRS DECISION.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'M HEARING FROM BOTH MOST SIDES HERE FROM THE IMM AND THE CONSUMERS, IT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARILY THE ISSUE OF THE FLOOR, IT'S THE CAUSES OF WHY THE FLOOR IS NECESSARY, UH, THAT THEY'RE GETTING AT.
THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT MANY ANCILLARY SERVICES IN YOUR ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN.
YOU KNOW THAT IMS BEEN SAYING THAT FOR FOREVER, UH, BUT THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY IT IS TODAY.
AND, AND I'M KIND OF SURPRISED AT SOME OF THE CONSUMER COMMENTS ABOUT, ABOUT POTENTIALLY RELYING ON R AND THEN TRYING TO DEFEND THAT.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR YEARS TOO.
AND THE BIGGEST ISSUE, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT WE WANT TO GET THIS IN THE COMPETITIVE SIDE IS YOU CAN HEDGE THAT FROM BOTH SIDES.
AND WE'VE HAD MANY, MANY CONVERSATIONS, ERIC, ABOUT THAT.
AND SO I'M SURPRISED AT SOME OF THE POSITIONS HERE ON WHY YOU WOULD WANNA RELY ON THAT AND SAY, LET'S NOT DO IT NOW.
LET'S SEE HOW BAD IT GETS IF WE GO TOO FAR ON THE RUG BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE IT BY LOOKING AT WHAT ERCOT HAS PUT TOGETHER, WHICH IS VERY GOOD DEMONSTRATION HERE.
THERE'S MINIMAL IMPACT BY PUTTING THESE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE TO KEEP FROM GETTING A HIGHER UPLIFT INTO THE CONSUMERS.
WHAT, WHAT CAN BE HEDGED BY BUYING POWER? YEAH.
YOU GOOD? WELL, YEAH, ARE YOU TALKING, BECAUSE I HAVE MY CARD UP.
SOMEBODY SOLVED YOUR PROBLEMS. ALL RIGHT.
SO I HAVE A PRETTY SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF THIS AS WELL, KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT BLAKE SAID.
IT'S REALLY A, A CHOICE BETWEEN WHAT DO WE WANT TO CREATE THE INCENTIVES TO COMMIT RESOURCES? UM, IS IT THE ENERGY MARKET OR DO WE, UM, WANNA CHOOSE A PATH THAT WILL, UH, LEAN MORE ON AN OUT OF MARKET SOLUTION? AND I'M JUST, I'M STRUGGLING, I GUESS, UM, ERIC'S PLURAL, UH, WITH YOUR VIEWS ON 1190, WHICH WAS CONCERN ABOUT USING AN OUT OF MARKET TOOL AND WANTING INCENTIVES IN THE ENERGY MARKET TO DICTATE COMMITMENT AND DISPATCH VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING HERE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU GUYS CAN HELP RECONCILE THAT POSITION.
UH, IS IT OKAY IF I, GO AHEAD.
1190, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS UPLIFT BECAUSE OF ERCOT INSTRUCTION, RIGHT? THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN A TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT.
THE COMMISSION HAD SET IT SET THROUGH A RULEMAKING, DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF CONGESTION.
AND THAT CAN BE A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS.
SCAD DOESN'T CAPTURE ALL OF THAT, BUT THE PRINCIPLE DOES, AND FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHO'VE BEEN IN THE, IN THIS MARKET FOR DECADES, SHOULD HAVE ABILITIES AND CAPABILITIES TO HEDGE AGAINST THAT.
AND IT DOESN'T NEED UPLIFT BECAUSE THESE PARTIES DEAL WITH TRANSMISSION CONGESTION LINES BEING DOWN A
[02:30:01]
GENERATOR, TRIPPING OFFLINE, THAT TYPE OF THING.SO THE MARKET IS ALREADY RICH WITH ALTERNATIVES THERE.
AND, AND THOSE, THOSE COSTS BECAUSE OF THE I-D-L-H-D-L THING SHOULD NOT, UH, BE UPLIFTED TO, UH, SO PARTIES WHO ARE FULLY CAPABLE OF HEDGING ANY KIND OF CONTINGENCY JUST WITH THAT IN TERMS OF THIS IS, I THINK ERIC HIT IT ON HIS RESPONSE.
THERE ARE PEOPLE NOT BUYING THEIR RE REQUIREMENTS.
THAT MAY BE THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO ASK.
WHY ARE THEY SITTING AROUND? WHY AREN'T THEY PENALIZED? RIGHT? BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THIS IS NOT JUST A GENERAL, HEY, WE'RE BUYING A WHOLE POT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES AND, AND DIVVYING UP THE COST TO EVERYBODY.
YOU BRING YOUR OWN, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXTRA COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
SECONDLY, UH, WHEN YOU DO OFFER IN, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF BEING DEPLOYED WITH ENERGY THAT IS WELL ABOVE YOUR MARGINAL COST.
I MEAN, KIND OF BY DEFINITION, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NON SPINNER ECRS, FOR INSTANCE, BREAK UP, BREAK DOWN ANOTHER MATTER.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT HERE.
WE WANT THE MARKET TO, TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
RUCKING IS NOT, IS A, IS NOT THE BEST TOOL, BUT THE, BUT THE THING IS, WHY AREN'T PEOPLE BUYING, OKAY? IS NOT SO MUCH THE, THE SELLING PART.
WHERE ARE THE BUYERS? WHY AREN'T THEY BEING PENALIZED? OR IF THEY FEELING THE PENALTY IS WORTH, IS NOT WORTH THE HASSLE IS WORTH A HASSLE, THEN MAYBE YOU INCREASE THE PENALTY THERE THAT DRIVES BILATERAL CONTRACTING.
AS ERIC WAS SAYING, YOU HEDGE, YOU EITHER SELL, PROVIDE THROUGH A HEDGE, OR IF YOU OWN IT, YOU, YOU BRING IT.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT INCENTIVES HERE FOR THE MARKET.
AND ALSO, UM, THE FACT THAT YOU'RE PULLING A NUMBER FROM RUCK AND THROWING IT IN HERE WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF THAT, THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL.
SO AS WE SAID IN THE COMPROMISE, THERE MAY BE MAYBE THIS CAP IS MORE THAN ZERO, BUT LET'S HAVE SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE RATHER THAN DRAW A NUMBER OUT THERE THAT'S BEEN STUDIED A BIT WITHOUT AND, AND MAKING A, A, A MASSIVE CHANGE.
LET'S GIVE IT SOME TIME AND FIGURE OUT, OKAY, MAYBE IT IS NEEDED THERE, BUT MAYBE IT'S $3 OR $5, SOMETHING TO THAT DEGREE.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE.
UH, ERIC, I DIDN'T, I ASKED THIS QUESTION AT PRS AND I'M, I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOUR OPINION IS, AND I RESPECT YOUR, YOUR VIEWS ON THIS.
UH, YOU ARE, I THINK, ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THIS ENERGY ONLY MARKET.
SO I'M CURIOUS TO HOW YOUR VIEW ON THIS IS, UM, DO YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT RUCK HAS A STRONGER DEMAND CURVE THAN THE REAL-TIME MARKET? I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IN THE SENSE THAT IF RUCK IS, IF RUCK IS DIRECTLY ASSIGNED TO THE SHORTS, THEN THAT'S A PENALTY THAT'S APPROPRIATE, RIGHT? AS OPPOSED TO A MORE BROAD MARKET.
BUT ISN'T THAT COUNTER TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS THAT YOU WANT THE RIGHT PRICE INCENTIVES IN THE ENERGY MARKET TO DRIVE THE BEHAVIOR, NOT WHAT I'M SAYING IS MARKET.
WHAT I WANT IS THAT THE INCENTIVES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE BUYING, WHO AREN'T TO GO OUT AND PROCURE, WHICH WILL RAISE THE PRICES TO THE POINT WHERE SUPPLY AND DEMAND MEET, AND THE OFFER THE PEOPLE OFFER RESOURCE AARY SERVICES, PEOPLE HAVE TO BUY THEM, COME TO AN AGREEABLE PRICE.
BUT IF WE'RE NOT, IT'S TRYING TO GET, IT'S TRYING TO GET THEM TO SAY, HEY, DO IT.
IF WE'RE NOT VALUING THE RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT PROPERLY, THEN THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
WELL, THAT'S WHERE THE R PENALTIES COME IN, ISN'T IT? YEAH.
I THINK THAT, SO THIS DISCUSSION SIMILAR TO RTC, I THINK IS REALLY HIGHLIGHTING THE REAL CONCERN IS THAT IT'S THE QUANTITIES OF ANCILLARY SERVICE PROCUREMENT, NOT REALLY WITH THE DEMAND, THE DEMAND CURVE EXPRESSES WHAT THAT VIEW IS.
SO I, WELL, I I THINK THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY.
I AGREE THAT THE QUANTITIES HAVE, THE QUANTITIES HAVE TO BE REVIEWED GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES.
WE'VE HAD A DEMANDED CHANGE IN TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS.
WE'RE HAVING A LOT MORE STORAGE, UH, DEMAND RESPONSE IS GONNA BE INCREASING.
SO THE, SO THE NEED FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES THEY HAVE MAY CHANGE.
I MEAN, NOT RE UP BREAKDOWN, THAT'S, SO THAT'S A FREQUENCY ISSUE.
BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NON SPEND, ECRS, THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES THAT ARE RAPIDLY CHANGING HERE ALONE SHOULD DRIVE SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT ERIC'S TALKING ABOUT IS JUST TAKE A SECOND LOOK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S NEEDED.
BECAUSE WE MAY BE, ERCOT OPERATIONS IS ALWAYS GONNA BE CAUTIOUS, IF NOT OVERLY CAUTIOUS.
IF THEY AREN'T, THEY SHOULD BE FIRED.
BUT THAT ALSO HAS TO TIE IN WITH HOW THE MARKET WORKS AND THE CHANGING RESOURCE MIX AT THE SAME TIME.
SO HAVING A FURTHER STUDY ON THIS AS WE ARE GOING TO RT OR, UM, RTC, AND AS WE GET MORE STORAGE INVOLVED, THE OTHER TECHNOLOGIES COME INTO PLAY, THEN WE, INSTEAD OF POKING A NUMBER OUT FROM ONE, UH, ONE PART OF THE TOOLBOX AND THROWING IT ANOTHER, LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT'S APPROPRIATE IS INSTEAD FOR A COMPROMISE, WE'RE WILLING TO SAY AN OFFER FLOOR IS ZERO, AND WITH THE IDEA THAT IT COULD BE REVIEWED AND POSSIBLY RAISED.
ERIC, YOU WERE NEXT IN THE QUEUE AS
[02:35:01]
WELL? YEAH.ERIC SCHUBERT, BUT HE KIND, THAT WAS SORT OF RESPONSE TO BILL, BUT DID YOU GET YOUR COMMENTS IN AS WELL? OKAY.
NEXT OTHER, ERIC, I, I'M HAPPY TO BE BRIEF.
UM, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE BILL, POTENTIALLY.
AND SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY IT.
IT'S NOT THAT HOPEFULLY IT'S CLEAR.
I, I, I DON'T WANT ERCOT TO R BUT TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE SLIGHTLY SHORT ON A VERY BIG ANCILLARY SERVICES PLAN, AND THEY COULD CHOOSE TO BE STAY SLIGHTLY SHORT BECAUSE IT'S A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME AND A VERY LONG ENTRY SERVICES PLAN, I THINK I WOULD PREFER FOR THEM TO JUST BE SHORT FOR A COUPLE HOURS IF THERE'S NO ACTUAL RELIABILITY RISK.
AND TO SETH'S POINT, THE RELIABILITY PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT IS MAYBE NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS HANDED DOWN ON HIGH, BUT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DETERMINED THROUGH A NEGOTIATION IN A PROCESS LIKE THIS.
AND IT MIGHT BE OKAY TO SAY IN THIS INSTANCE, WE DON'T NEED TO MEET THE PLAN BECAUSE WE CAN LIVE WITH THIS SHORT AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION TO SAY, IS IT OKAY TO BE SLIGHTLY SHORT ON A VERY BIG PLAN? AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IS IF ERCOT IS PUT IN THE SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE TO EITHER RUCK OR NOT RUCK.
AND THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.
IF WE PAPER THAT OVER BY SAYING IN EVERY SITUATION, THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO NEVER HAVE TO MAKE THAT HARD CHOICE, THEN WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THAT'S, I DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THAT THE SITUATION WE'RE IN IS GOOD, AND THEREFORE I WANT TO CREATE A VERY LOW RISK CHOICE THAT ERKIN HAS TO MAKE ABOUT SHOULD I RECKON THE SITUATION OR NOT.
I THINK THAT IS WORTHWHILE BECAUSE IT'LL LET US REEVALUATE THE CONDITIONS THAT WE ALL THINK NEED TO BE REEVALUATED.
THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.
UM, IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY.
UM, JEFF, YOU SAID SOMETHING EARLIER, AND I WANT TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT BEFORE I DISAGREE.
I DO AGREE THAT, UH, HAVE THE BEST SOLUTIONS TO HAVE ALL RESOURCES SUBMIT COMPLETE OFFERS.
UM, BUT WHERE I DIFFER IS THAT I BELIEVE THE POINT IS A PROXY OFFER IS TO ENSURE THAT THE MEGAWATTS ARE AVAILABLE OR CUT FOR LIABILITY PURPOSES NOT TO ACHIEVE A PRICING OUTCOME.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, I BELIEVE, AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE PUT ON OUR CUP, BUT I BELIEVED IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO UTILIZE ALL THE OFFERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND THEN HAVE THE PROXY OFFERS BE $1 BEHIND TO LIMIT THE IMPACT BOTH WAYS OF NOT SETTING AN ARTIFICIALLY HIGH PRICE THAT ERRORS A JUMP TO NOT SETTING A LOW PRICE THAT CUTS OFF OFFERS.
UM, GETTING TO THE POINT ABOUT HOW I WILL BE VOTING TODAY AS AN INDEPENDENT POWER MARKETER, OUR MOST IMPORTANT PART IS PRICE FORMATION, PRICE TRANSPARENCY, UM, AND ALL OF THE PARTS THAT GO INTO THE WAY THE PRICES ARE FORMED IN ERCOT BEING AS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE, RELYING ON THE QUESTION OF IF A ROCK WILL OR WILL NOT HAPPEN, UM, IS A, IS A VERY PAINFUL CONCEPT FOR US.
UM, AND NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY.
I WAS, MY PREDECESSOR WAS MUCH MORE VOCAL ABOUT, ABOUT MUCH MORE WIDER PARTS OF THE MARKET.
WE AS A FIRM, ARE NOW MUCH MORE QUIETER.
WE HAVE, I'M LOOKING ACROSS AT MANY OF OUR CLIENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS.
SO THIS IS A TOPIC WHERE I GET TO SPEAK PRICE FORMATION, PRICE TRANSPARENCY.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE CANNOT VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE RUCKING.
AND THAT'S HOW I'LL BE VOTING TODAY.
YEAH, THIS WILL BE REAL QUICK, UH, FROM LISTENING TO EVERYTHING I'VE GOT HEARD OUT HERE.
WE NEED TO GET THIS MOVING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, FIGURE OUT WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE NPRR, UH, AS SUBMITTED BY PRS WITH THE TCPA COMMENTS.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I HAVE TO ADD INTO THERE? OKAY.
IS THAT, UH, 69 AND, OR THAT'S 69, I THINK.
[02:40:01]
HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AND THEN I THINK PROBABLY WE CAN PUT 68 ON THE COMBO BALLOT, WHICH WE HAVE NOT DONE YET.OR SHOULD I JUST GET NODS RIGHT NOW? IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH A SECOND? N-M-P-R-R 68 ON THE COMBO? YEAH, FOR, YEAH, I, I'D LIKE TO FIRST, SECOND BOB'S MOTION SECOND, BUT THEN ALSO, UM, AFTER THIS VOTE, THEN COULD WE TAKE UP THAT 'CAUSE SURE.
IF THIS, IF THIS VOTE, THAT'S FINE.
ON NPR 16 12 69, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM BOB HILTON AND A SECOND FROM NED.
AND LET'S FINISH UP THE, THE QUEUE KIND OF WHERE IT IS OR, OR ANY KIND OF LAST DISCUSSIONS ON TO 1269.
UH, BOB, WAS THAT, THAT WAS ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS, JUST THE MOTION? YES.
SO FOLLOWING UP ON MY EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT WHEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN OPINION AND WHERE WE WOULD HAVE AN OPINION, UM, WE HAVE AN OPINION HERE.
UM, UH, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF, UM, 1269.
UH, WE DO SUPPORT, UH, THE, THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF IT, THE, UH, THE PROXY.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THAT WASN'T, UH, THE ERCOT FIRST CHOICE.
UM, IT IS A COMPROMISE, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF HOW IT, HOW IT WAS ACHIEVED.
WE, WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THE COMPROMISE IS, WILL BE EFFECTIVE AND, AND WE SUPPORT IT, UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE FLOOR.
UH, AGAIN, UM, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE FLOOR AS WELL.
UH, I THINK THERE WAS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION ON, ON THIS ITEM.
UH, BUT I DO THINK THAT REALLY THE KEY THAT AS, AS, AS WE SEE IT IS THE RUCK QUESTION.
UM, WE HAVE STUDIED THE, PARTICULARLY THE RUCK CURVE.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE GENESIS AND, AND, AND DAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT, OF WHAT WOULD THE ASCS AND HOW WOULD THAT WORK WITHIN THE RU PROCESS.
THE $15 WAS STUDIED EX EXTENSIVELY AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.
AND WE FELT THAT THAT IS WHAT ACHIEVED THE LEVEL OF, UM, AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF, UH, OF, OF ACTION WITHIN THAT RUCK, UH, ENGINE.
SO WE, WE DO FEEL THAT IS A, THERE'S A GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY THAT NUMBER WAS, UM, PROPOSED.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY, UM, RUCK IS, IS NOT THE SAME AS DAD IN REAL TIME.
BUT I THINK GIVEN THE ANALYSIS THAT DAVE HAS SHOWN HERE, THAT, UM, OUR PREFERENCE IS TO HAVE THE PRICE SIGNALS FOR SELF-COMMITMENT, AND WE FEEL THAT THIS DOES ACHIEVE THAT, UM, IT IS IT THE PERFECT NUMBER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE THAT THERE'LL BE A STUDY I'M SURE AT SOME POINT, AND THE IMM AND OTHERS WILL, WILL, UH, UH, NO DOUBT WILL HELP, HELP REFINE AND, AND WE'LL, WE'LL DO A STUDY AS WELL, BUT WE THINK THAT THIS NUMBER IS, IS EFFECTIVE, UH, TO START.
SO WE SUPPORT IT AND, UH, WE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO, TO SEEING HOW THE VOTE GOES TODAY.
DAVID, KEY, ARE YOU IN THE QUEUE? IF YOU'RE OUT? OKAY.
UM, FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING THE, THE CONSUMER'S COMMENTS ABOUT WANTING TO, UH, COME BACK AND REVIEW, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY AN EASY THING FOR US TO ALL COMMIT THAT WE WILL COME, WE, THERE WILL BE MORE ANALYSIS.
THERE'S NO, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT IN MY MIND.
UM, SO I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ONCE WE HAVE SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME HISTORY WITH IT AND, AND, AND EVALUATE.
UH, SECOND COMMENT WAS REALLY JUST A, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, MY, MY COLLEAGUE MR. GOFF, UH, MENTIONED IN HIS LAYOUT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS BEING, UM, THE, IT BEING RELATED TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LIKE.
UM, WELL, IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE COMMENTS YOU HEAR FROM THE CON YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE CONSUMERS IN THE OPPOSITION HAS REALLY BEEN A PROXY BATTLE ON THE AS PLAN AND NOT ON THE ISSUE THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.
UM, SO WANTED TO AT LEAST RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT THAT HAPPENS ON, ON BOTH SIDES THERE.
UM, AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM, AND I THINK, UH, THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE, THE ACTUAL PROXY OFFER FLOOR.
UM, YOU KNOW, ON THAT ONE, OTHERS HAVE SAID IT WELL, I JUST WANT TO REEMPHASIZE THE POINT OF THAT IS TO HAVE COMPETITIVE MARKET DISCIPLINE TO GET OFFERS IN, IF YOU DON'T GET AWARDED AN ANCILLARY SERVICE AND YOU MISS OUT ON THAT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A VERY STRONG INCENTIVE, OR YOUR BOSS IS GONNA HAVE A VERY STRONG INCENTIVE TO GIVE YOU A STRONG INCENTIVE TO NOT LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN.
OR TO BILL'S POINT, IF YOU HAVE A, AN IT
[02:45:01]
ISSUE THAT PREVENTS THAT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A VERY STRONG INCENTIVE TO GET THAT FIXED, TO GET IT QUICKLY AND, YOU KNOW, FULLY SUPPORT JEFF.YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL WANT TO PUT IN THE, THE SHAMELESS IN, IN YOUR REPORTS, ANY WAY TO, TO JUST ENCOURAGE THAT.
I THINK WE'RE ALL, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT FOLKS ACTIVELY ENGAGING THE MARKET AS THE BEST OUTCOME FOR EVERYONE HERE.
SO, UM, THOSE ARE THE ONLY COMMENTS I HAD.
SETH? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON A POINT THAT ERIC SAID, 'CAUSE I THINK I'M MAKING SOME PROGRESS AND I THINK YOU'RE MAKING PROGRESS WITH, WITH WHERE MY MIND IS.
UM, SO I'M NOT TAKING EXCEPTION THAT THERE COULDN'T BE A CASE WHERE PROCURING THAT EXTRA AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS UP THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT COULD BE ZERO, BUT LET THE MARKET REFLECT THAT AND THE MARKET WOULD REFLECT THAT THROUGH THE COST OF OFFERS AND THE CO-OP OPTIMIZATION.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU'RE FORCING THAT BY SAYING THE MINIMUM POINT AT ZERO, AND YOU'RE SAYING IN ALL INSTANCES, FOR THIS GIVEN AMOUNT OF RELAXATION, WE WILL SYSTEMATICALLY NOT PROCURE AS THE VALUE IS ZERO FOR THIS AMOUNT OF RESERVE DEGRADATION.
AND THAT'S WHERE I GET A LITTLE SIDEWAYS WITH IT.
SO LIKE THAT, THAT KIND OF CALLS INTO QUESTION RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT, AND THAT'S FAIR.
SO LIKE IN NY O FOR EXAMPLE, POTOMACS PUT TOGETHER SOME, SOME PROPOSALS THAT THEY ACTUALLY DYNAMICALLY PROCURE RESERVES TO REFLECT IT.
THIS ISN'T JUST LIKE A STATIC THING ON THE GRID, BUT ABSENT ME HAVING SEEN LIKE A FULL ANALYSIS SORT OF PROVING THAT I'M, I'M RETICENT TO ACTUALLY GO ON AWAY WITH THAT, BUT I DO THINK THAT IF WE DESIGNED SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND LOOKED AT THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE IS MERIT TO IT.
UH, JOHN, RUSS, HUBBARD, JOHN, RUSS HUBBARD WITH TIEC.
UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHARACTERIZING THIS AS EITHER A BINARY BETWEEN OUT OF MARKET OR SUPPORTING OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS OR SUPPORTING IN-MARKET ACTIONS OR AS YOU KNOW, THIS AS A CHALLENGE TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN.
AND I THINK BOTH OF THOSE ARE MISCHARACTERIZATIONS.
UM, FIRST I THINK IT'S UNCLEAR IF ERCOT WOULD ACTUALLY NEED TO RUCK.
IT WOULD DEPEND ON GENERATOR COMMITMENTS.
IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE, THE SITUATIONS IN THE MOMENT WHERE THEY SEE THE RELIABILITY ISSUE.
AND THEN SECOND, UM, THIS ISN'T A CHALLENGE TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN.
UH, THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO A LAST MINUTE, UM, MARKET A A LAST MINUTE CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE MARKET, UM, THAT HASN'T HAD ROBUST ANALYSIS AROUND IT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE IMM AND OR ERCOT HAVE STUDIED THE IMPACTS OF A $15 FLOOR, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY $15 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER.
COULD A LOWER NUMBER BE MORE EFFICIENT AND STILL REACH THE SAME OUTCOMES? COULD A HIGHER NUMBER BE ACTUALLY WHAT'S NEEDED? I, I THINK THAT'S STILL UNKNOWN.
UM, AND SO VOTING FOR SOMETHING JUST TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE BEFORE AND MAKING THIS TYPE OF A LAST, LAST MINUTE CHANGE, UH, SEEMS UNWISE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, ON THE TABLE, UM, FOR, TO APPROVE NPR 1269 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE, UH, MARCH 12TH PRS REPORT.
IKA, OF COURSE, YOU CAN ALWAYS SAY SOMETHING.
UH, I JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR
UH, WHEN WE APPROVED THE AS STUDY, THERE WAS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THERE, LIKE PEOPLE MENTIONED TO GO PROBABLY STAKE CODE DYNAMIC, AND ERCOT WAS GONNA START ON THAT THIS YEAR.
SO IS THIS THE ISSUE YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING SO LONG, JUST ONE MONTH ISSUE? BECAUSE IF 2026 AS IS APPROVED JANUARY 1ST, THERE'S ONLY ONE MONTH OF RTC WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT, AND THEN THE AMOUNTS WILL GO DOWN AND WILL MAKE THESE FLOORS INEFFECTIVE.
IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OR NO? HEY, IKA, I CAN TAKE THAT ONE.
SO I, I THINK THE FLOOR WILL STILL BE APPLICABLE.
I THINK AS WE THINK ABOUT THE PROBABILISTIC APPROACH, THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THAT IT'LL REDUCE THE AS PLAN, UH, FOR SOME HOURS, BUT, BUT NOT ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO I, I EXPECT THAT WE'LL STILL SEE A, UH, A NUMBER OF HOURS IN WHICH THE FLOOR HAS SOME EFFECT, UM, WHERE IT PROBABLY, UH, AND AGAIN, IT, IT'S NOT THAT IT ENTIRELY GOES AWAY, BUT WHERE IT MAY BE EVEN FURTHER REDUCED IS THAT SECOND STEP WITH THE MOVE TO THE DYNAMIC CALCULATIONS WHERE THE, THE VALUES FOR THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN THAT WE POST THE YEAR AHEAD OF TIME, UM, WOULD POTENTIALLY REPRESENT A, A PORTION OF THE OVERALL, UH, PLAN THAT WE HAVE.
[02:50:01]
AND WE WOULD FILL THAT IN WITH INCREMENTAL AMOUNTS AS WE GOT CLOSER TO THE OPERATING DAY.YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD AGAIN, FURTHER REFINE IT AND REDUCE THE ANS SERVICE QUANTITIES GENERALLY.
UM, SO THAT MAY MAKE, THAT MAY MAKE THE BIGGER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO STEPS, BUT IT STILL MAY NOT SORT OF ELIMINATE THIS, THIS PROCESS ENTIRELY.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT WE DISCUSSED PERHAPS AT THE TASK, BUT AT THE TASK FORCE THAT'S PERHAPS WORTHWHILE BRINGING UP IS, UM, AND, AND THIS IS SOMETHING ACTUALLY ANDREW I THINK HAD SHARED DURING THE TASK FORCE YESTERDAY, IN PARTICULAR, THIS IDEA OF PERHAPS IN THE LONGER TERM WE LOOK AT THE ANCI SERVICE DEMAND CURVES MORE GENERALLY, AND THINK ABOUT THE, THE FACT THAT THE, THE SHAPE FOR THE UNDERLYING AGGREGATE CURVE STAYS THE SAME FOR ALL HOURS, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PART OF THE OVERALL PROCESS NEEDS TO BE RETHOUGHT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT OUR ANSI SERVICE PLAN VARIES SO MUCH FROM ONE HOUR TO THE NEXT.
SO, UH, ANYWAY, THAT, THAT'S A SORT OF PARTIALLY RELATED TO THE, THE QUESTION YOU HAVE.
THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS WE THINK LONG TERM ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT.
BUT AT LEAST FOR THE 2026, IT'S STILL GONNA BE APPLICABLE.
BUT LESS THAN TODAY, AT LEAST, AGAIN, WE'LL SEE SORT OF WHAT THE, THE PROBABILISTIC TOOL, UH, OUTPUTS, BUT THAT, THAT IS THE EXPECTATION THAT WE'LL AT LEAST SEE SOME HOURS WHERE THERE'S A REDUCTION.
MY SECOND QUESTION IS ON THE, WHAT HAS BEEN MISSING HERE? LIKE, YOU TAKE COST IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS VERY SERIOUSLY.
SO, UH, WHAT ABOUT THE RACK? RIGHT? IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, IF YOU DON'T PROCURE COMPETITIVELY, THEY SAID WE WILL RACK IT AND THAT SHOULD HAVE A COST IMPACT.
YOU HAVE TO REIMBURSE THE GENERATORS AND THEN THE DEPLOYMENT, OTHER IMPACT.
CAN ERCOT BETWEEN NOW AND BOARD PROVIDE SOME DATA THAT EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE FLOORS, THERE IS STILL SOME COST AND HOW MUCH THAT IS, IS THAT A POSSIBLE EXERCISE? YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, IKA.
WE WILL, WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND, AND TRY AND FIND SOME, SOME FORM FOR, FOR SHARING THAT DATA.
AND I, AND I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY TWO PARTS TO THINK ABOUT.
IF YOU, YOU THINK ABOUT THE, THE COST OF THE RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENTS.
THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE POTENTIAL COST OF THE ACTUAL COMMITMENT ITSELF AND, AND POTENTIALLY LEADING TO THE, THE MAKE CALLS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
THERE WOULD ALSO BE THE, UM, RELIABLY DEPLOYED PRICE ATTER PROCESS THAT WOULD INCREASE THE, THE COST BECAUSE OF THE R TO TRY AND SORT OF OFFSET FOR THE FACT THAT THERE WAS THIS INSTRUCTION.
SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE TWO COMPONENTS OF IT.
I'LL, UM, UH, WE'LL TAKE THAT BACK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN GET TOGETHER.
AND MY LAST QUESTION IS THE PROXY OFFER.
UH, OUR ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS, UH, WILL THAT EVER BE THE CASE THAT'S SETTING THE PRICE SINCE PEOPLE ARE STILL LEARNING DURING THE TRIALS TO SUBMIT OFFERS IN THE REAL TIME AS SDCS? AND THAT WILL BE THE FIRST, I THINK, PROXY OFFER FOR AN ANSWER SERVICE.
UH, IS THERE, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF A PROXY OFFER? 2000, SETTING THE PRICE MARKET CLEARING PRICE, ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY DAYS, OR WILL YOU HAVE MORE DATA DURING THE MARKET TRIALS AND YOU CAN SAY, NO, EVERYBODY'S DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
YEAH, AND I CAN AT LEAST TAKE IT.
I WOULD PROBABLY POINT TO, TO THE, THE LATTER SUGGESTION YOU HAD.
SO MAYBE IT'S ALSO WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT THE, OF COURSE, IT'S, AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THE LANGUAGE, THE PROXY OFFER FLOOR IS THE MINIMUM OF $2,000 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR.
AND THE INTERSECTION, UH, ON THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVE, AS, AS MATT HAD LAID OUT IN THE PRESENTATION, THE, BECAUSE OF THAT, THE, THE, THE $2,000 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR IS REALLY APPLICABLE MORE TO REGULATION AND RESPONSE PRESERVE.
UM, SO I THINK YOU'LL SEE PROXY OPERA FLOORS POTENTIALLY SETTING THE PRICE FOR THE ERCO RESERVE SERVICE IN NONS SPIN.
UH, BUT THAT'LL BE MORE DRIVEN BY THE 95TH PERCENT OF THE DEMAND CURVE THAN IT WILL THE TWO, THE 2000, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, COREY, I THINK WE CAN TAKE IT AWAY.
ALRIGHT, ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1269 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS.
THANK YOU, UH, LUCAS FOR JOHN? YES.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
[02:55:01]
YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN.STILL WITH US, KEITH? OH, GOT YOUR YES.
SEVEN OPPOSED, ONE ABSTENTION.
UH, SO 1268, CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY.
NED SAYS YES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO WHAT NED SAYS.
UM, OKAY, SO THAT IS WITH THE, I I HAS COMMENT.
YES, THERE WERE, RIGHT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL IMM CLARIFYING COMMENTS ON THAT.
WERE FILED THREE 19, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, NO, WE JUST MUCH, BUT IF WE, WE WANNA PULL THEM UP, WE MISLABELED A, A PARAMETER.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY NON IMPACTFUL IF YOU LOOK, IT WAS JUST A MISTAKE.
SO HAVE YOU GONE BACK THROUGH THE PROTOCOLS AND LOOKED FOR ALL YOUR
WE'D BE HAPPY TO REVISE IT LATER IF WE HADN'T.
SO WE, WE HAVE THE COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED BY THE IMM TWO NPR 1268 ON MARCH 19TH.
UM, IF, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE, WE ALSO DID GET A IMPACT ANALYSIS AFTER PRS ON, UH, MARCH 18TH.
SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL, BUT IT'S NO IMPACT, RIGHT? YEP.
SO IT'S, IT'S RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE THREE 12 PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE THREE 19 IMM COMMENTS AND THE THREE 18 IMPACT ANALYSIS.
AND WE STILL GOOD FOR THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
SO WHY DON'T WE BREAK UNTIL ONE.
AND AS A REMINDER, WE TOOK UP THE PREVIOUSLY TABLED REVISION REQUESTS, UM, AS WELL AS THE ROSS REPORT BEFORE, UM, P AND RTC.
SO WE WILL BE ONTO THE WMS REPORT AFTER LUNCH, AND THEN WE WILL BE TOTALLY IN ORDER OF, OF THE AGENDA.
AND IF PEOPLE ARE ENERGIZED, WE CAN TRY THE NO ACRONYMS. ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE EVERYBODY AT ONE.
ALRIGHT, ARE WE READY TO START AGAIN? BLAKE AND OTHER TECH MEMBERS? I HAVE BAD NEWS FOR YOU.
WE NEED TO, AS OUR FIRST ITEM AFTER LUNCH,
[5. PRS Report (Vote) (Part 2 of 2)]
WE NEED TO RECONSIDER NPRS 1234 AND P ONE 15.UM, THE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DATE EDIT HAD SOME OTHER IMPLICATIONS.
SO I ERCOT IS, IS GOING TO TALK TO US ABOUT THOSE AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
YEAH, SO THE CHANGE TO JUNE 1ST, 2025 AND THE PGRR, I THINK THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER INSTANCES WHERE THEY NEEDED TO BE CHANGED.
SO COREY HAS IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
AND THEN THAT DATE CHANGE ALSO AFFECTED SOME LANGUAGE IN NPR 1234.
I THINK IT PUSHED OUT, RIGHT? SO SINCE WE CHANGED TO JUNE, WE'D HAVE TO PUSH OUT JULY.
IT'S, I DUNNO THAT AGING CAN CORRECT, I DON'T KNOW.
IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THAT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY IN THE SPIRIT OF NED'S NOT WANTING THE MARCH DATE THAT WAS IN THE PIGGER TO BE A DATE IN THE PAST AND IS UNREASONABLE.
SO PUSHING THAT OUT TO JUNE 1ST TRIGGERED US TO GO LOOK AT THE NPRR, WHICH HAD A LOT OF DATES HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE NPRR.
A LOT OF STUFF HAD BEEN STRUCK OVER TIME, BUT THERE WERE STILL THESE LINGERING DATES THAT HAD A, A DEADLINE OF NOM CURSE SUBMISSION BY JULY 1ST, WHICH AGAIN WAS AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN,
[03:00:01]
ASSUMING THIS THING WAS GONNA GET APPROVED MONTHS AGO.SO AG AND I DID A QUICK TRIAGE THROUGH AND PUSHED THESE DATES OUT BY TWO MONTHS IN THE NPRR JUST TO CARRY ON THE SPIRIT OF WHAT NED PROPOSED IN THE PICKER.
YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD THAT THE, THE INTENT WITH THE CHANGE TO THE, UH, NPR WOULD BE TO NOT HAVE A COMPLIANCE DEADLINE.
THAT WOULD BE UNLIKELY, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NPRR.
SO, UM, WE WANTED TO GIVE MORE TIME FOR THAT INFORMATION TO BE GATHERED.
WELL, NED, I THINK THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU INTENDED WHEN YOU MADE YOUR MOTION, ISN'T IT? I, THESE ARE JUST SIMPLY CONFORMING CHANGES.
I WOULD CONCUR WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS VOTING ON.
WELL, I WISH WE COULD GO DO THAT, BUT, UM,
AND THEN WE HAVE TO TAKE TWO SEPARATE BALLOTS FOR PG ONE 15 AND 1234.
OKAY, WELL WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST.
SO FIRST WE HAVE TO DO MOTION.
AND SO FOR THAT WE CAN DO RECONSIDER BOTH.
NPR 1234 AND P ONE 15 TOGETHER.
SO CAN I GET THAT MOTION IN SECOND? YES.
BILL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT? I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
YOU CAN TAKE, YOU CAN DO THE NEXT MOTION.
SO CORY'S GONNA RUN THROUGH THAT BALLOT REAL QUICK.
SO ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER 1234 AND ONE 15, WE WILL START UP AGAIN WITH CONSUMERS.
UM, AND BECAUSE THESE ARE THE TWO THAT ERIC HAS HIS PROXY TO NAVA, WE'LL LOOK TO NAVA FOR 1230, VOTE ON FOR ERIC.
ONTO THE CO-OPS, MIKE? YES, THANK YOU, BLAKE.
JOHN, OR ACTUALLY LUCAS FOR JOHN? YES.
ONTO THE INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
THANK YOU SHANE FOR RASHMI? YES SIR.
ONTO THE I REPS BILL? YES, THANK YOU.
KEITH GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, KEITH.
AND FAYE FOR ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU.
OKAY, MOTION CARRIES UNOPPOSED TWO ABSTENTIONS.
SO NOW WE'VE ESSENTIALLY BACKED UP TO 1234 AND ONE 15, SO WE CAN TAKE NEW MOTIONS ON THOSE.
SO ONE 15, THE MOTION WILL LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT NOW IT WILL CONTAIN A FEW MORE DESKTOP EDITS.
SO THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT Y'ALL APPROVED WAS THIS SLIDING OF MARCH TO JUNE.
SO NOW DIRECTLY BELOW IT WE'RE LINING UP THIS PARAGRAPH THAT REFERS BACK TO IT TO ALSO INCLUDE THOSE DESKTOP EDITS.
OKAY, SO IT'S ONE 15 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS REVISED BY TAC.
MOTION FROM NED, SECOND FROM DAVID.
[03:05:03]
OKAY.SO BACK TO MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ONE FIGURE ONE 15 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS AS REVISED BY TAC.
WITH THOSE TWO NEW DESKTOP EDITS TO SLIDE MARCH OUT TO JUNE, WE WILL START UP WITH CONSUMERS AGAIN WITH NAVA FOR ERIC.
YES, THANK YOU LUCAS FOR JOHN? YES, THANK YOU, KYLE.
THANK SIR, CAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU.
YES, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COREY.
KEITH GOT YOU IN CHAT AGAIN, KEITH.
MOTION CARRIES AGAIN WITH THREE ABSTENTIONS.
OKAY, SO NOW IT'S RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1234 AS REVISED BY 3 25 ERCOT COMMENTS AS AMENDED BY T.
SO IT'S SPIRITUALLY YES, IT'S SPIRITUALLY AMENDED BY THE COMMENTS AS REVISED BY TAC.
OKAY, NED, WILL SOMEBODY SECOND IT? OKAY, BLAKE.
UM, OKAY ON THIS MOTION, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1234 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS AMENDED BY THE MARCH ERCOT COMMENTS AS REVISED BY LET THAT DOWN.
SO YOU CAN SEE IT AS REVISED BY TAC, WHICH AGAIN WAS JUST SLIDING THOSE DATES OUT BY TWO MONTHS.
WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH CONSUMERS WITH NAVA FOR ERIC? YES, THANK YOU.
AND THEN ERIC, I'M SORRY, N AND THEN GARRETT.
ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU.
FOR JOHN? YES, THANK YOU, KYLE.
ONTO THE INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
CAITLYN? YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN.
IAN? YES, THANK YOU SIR SHANE FOR REMI? YES SIR.
AND MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
AND ALL THAT TIME DOES COUNT TOWARDS YOUR, UH, ROBERT'S RULES, PROCEDURAL MERIT BADGES.
UM, THOSE WILL BE ISSUED AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
OKAY, I'M GONNA BE EXPECTING THOSE.
ARE WE DONE ON THIS ONE? OKAY, I LIED.
WE ARE NOT TAKING THINGS IN ORDER AS WE ALREADY DID NOT.
[10. Large Flexible Load Task Force (LFLTF) Report (Possible Vote)]
UP THE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE, UH, CONVERSATION NEXT DUE DUE TO SCHEDULES.UM, SO IS THAT BOB OR BILL? I, I THINK WE HAVE A COMING SCOPE CHANGE.
[03:10:01]
WANTED TO BRING TO TAC THAT WE THINK IT IS TIME TO RENAME THE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE, THE LARGE LOAD TASK FORCE.THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE COULD NEVER ACTUALLY DEFINE FLEXIBLE.
WHEN THE CRYPTO MINERS WHERE THIS ALL STARTED CAME IN, THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE FLEXIBLE BY THAT.
THEY MEANT THEY WERE FLEXIBLE WITHIN SETTLEMENT INTERVALS.
ERCOT INTERPRETED THAT TO MEAN WITHIN MILLISECONDS AND THERE WAS SOME DISCONNECT BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS.
UM, WE ALSO WENT AND AFTER IT BECAME CLEAR WE WEREN'T GONNA MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF PROGRESS.
WE, UM, GOTTA HOLD UP THE CUP SO THE CAMERA CAN SEE IT AND USE FOR STEVE RE UM, SO WHERE WE SENATE BILL SIX IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON LOADS AND IT GIVES ERCOT THE, THE AUTHORITY THAT IT WANTS IN TELLING LOADS WHAT TO DO.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S TIME TO CONSIDER, UM, CHANGING THE NAME OF LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE TO LARGE LOAD TASK FORCE.
AND THERE IS A DRAFT SCOPE UM, THAT COREY CAN PULL UP, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IS IT REMOVES THE WORD FLEXIBLE.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO TECH ABOUT BEFORE NEXT MONTH WHEN WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR A VOTE ON THIS, IS THE POTENTIAL THAT WE MAY NEED TO CHANGE THIS INTO A WORKING GROUP.
UM, TASK FORCES EXIST WHEN THE PROBLEM IS ENVISIONED TO BE SHORT TERM AND BE SOLVABLE AND GO AWAY.
UM, LARGE LOADS CERTAINLY APPEAR, APPEAR TO BE HERE TO STAY.
UM, AND THERE ARE OPERATIONAL ISSUES WITH, UM, CITY SIZE LOADS DOING THINGS.
UM, YEAH, ANYTIME YOU HAVE A CITY SIZE LOAD, THEY CAN ALL REACT ROUGHLY AT THE SAME TIME THAT THAT'S A CAUSE FOR CONCERN.
UM, WE'VE ALSO SEEN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY'VE HAD A VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH ISSUES WITH LARGE LOADS.
UM, AND WE HAD A PRESENTATION AT THE LAST LFL MEETING ON THAT.
WE HAVE AN LFL MEETING ON FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK.
AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL, AND THIS WE'LL COME BACK TO TAC NEXT MONTH AS WELL, OF HAVING A DATA CENTER OPERATIONS GROUP UNDER LFL THAT DEALS JUST WITH THE DATA CENTERS AND THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
UM, AND THAT WOULD BE INDEPENDENT POTENTIALLY FROM THE OTHER, UM, LARGE LOADS.
THE REASON FOR DOING THAT IS WE ALL HAVE WAY TOO MANY MEETINGS TO GO TO, AND WE ARE TRYING TO BREAK THIS IN THAT NOT EVERYBODY HAS TO ATTEND EVERY ONE OF THE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE.
SO IF YOU'RE NOT A DATA CENTER, YOU WON'T NECESSARILY, YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME, BUT YOU WON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO DO THAT.
SO THE TAKEAWAY FROM THIS IS WE NEED TO RETHINK WHETHER LFL SHOULD BE A TASK FORCE, IF IT OR IF IT SHOULD BE A WORKING GROUP, AND WHETHER FLEXIBLE SHOULD REMAIN IN THE NAME OR NOT, AND WHETHER WE WANT A DATA CENTER, UM, SUBGROUP UNDERNEATH THAT DID GET A SUGGESTION YESTERDAY THAT THE WHOLE THING COULD ROLL UNDER DSWG.
UM, AGAIN, IN MY MIND, THIS IS A WORKING GROUP.
IT WOULD REPORT THE TAC, IT IS NOT A SUBCOMMITTEE.
IT STILL DOES NOT HAVE VOTING RIGHTS.
ANY NPR WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL R-O-S-W-M-S-P-R-S PROCESS.
SO ANYWAY, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT FOR NEXT MONTH ABOUT THE NEED TO CHANGE OF CHARTER.
IF YOU'RE A DATA CENTER OR INTERESTED IN DATA CENTER OPERATIONS, THERE WILL BE A MEETING ON FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT.
WE'LL ALSO TALK ABOUT, UM, UNDER FREQUENCY LOAD SHEDS ON DATA CENTERS.
UM, AND ONE OTHER THING ON THE AGENDA THAT I FORGOT.
UM, ANYWAY, SO THAT'S THE SUMMARY ON THAT.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT HOW THAT GROUP SHOULD LOOK IN THE FUTURE.
AND YOU WILL BRING A PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE NEXT MONTH? YES.
CAN YOU BRING, YOU KNOW, TWO SLIDES THAT SAY THAT ALL OF THE CHANGES, RIGHT? WE'RE CHANGING THE CHARTER.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A NEW SUBGROUP WITHIN THE GROUP AND CHANGE IT TO US.
YES, WE, WE CAN DO THAT IF HAPPY TO TAKE FEEDBACK IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE ME TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT IS MY INTENT FOR NEXT MONTH.
YOU KNOW, I HEARD HIM SAY THAT HE WANTS TO WAIT TILL AFTER SB SIX.
HE WANTS TO, WHAT? I HEARD HIM SAY THAT HE WANTS TO WAIT TILL AFTER SB SIX BASED ON MY COMMENTS IN 1238
[03:15:01]
EARLIER.NO SENATE BILL SIX DOES NOT CHANGE PHYSICS.
MARTHA AND I HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS.
I THINK WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, OF OF LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP, BEING A WORKING GROUP THAT REPORTS TO, TO TAC.
BUT WE'RE TOTALLY OPEN TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S FEEDBACK AND, AND THAT DISCUSSION, BUT WE, WE AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE A, A WORKING GROUP THAT REPORTS TO, TO TAC.
THAT'S ALL I WAS REALLY LOOKING FOR TODAY, IS THAT WAS THE RIGHT PATH OR NOT.
WE'LL COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
NOW WE CAN DO THE, UH, LONG AWAITED WMS REPORT.
WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO THE LARGE FLEX LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP.
THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT YOUR DAY.
YEAH, BOB, I JUST WANTED TO ADD THE DEMAND SIDE.
WORKING GROUP REPORTS TO WMS, UH, RATHER THAN TAC IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, BUT IT WOULD, UH, THE DEMAND SIDE WORKING GROUP WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE.
IT PROBABLY DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE MARK, BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS LARGE LOAD STUFF IS GONNA BE, THE FIRST PART'S GONNA BE RELIABILITY RELATED.
UM, AND THERE'S DEFINITELY A MARKETS RELATED COMPONENT TO IT AS WELL.
SO I DO THINK THE GROUP PROBABLY NEEDS TO REPORT TO TAC.
UM, BUT I AM CERTAINLY IF TAC THINKS, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH DSWG IS A BETTER OPTION.
GOT NO ISSUE WITH THAT WHATSOEVER.
I I THINK I'D STILL PREFER IT REPORT TO TAC, BUT I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M OPEN TO FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION THERE.
IF, IF WE WANNA HAVE MORE DISCUSSION THIS MONTH OR NEXT MONTH, WELL, I'LL BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK AS A WORKING GROUP UNDER OR NEXT MONTH AS A WORKING GROUP UNDER TAC.
AND WE CAN DECIDE AT THAT POINT IF SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH A BETTER OPTION.
AND IF YOU HAVE A BETTER OPTION, PLEASE EMAIL ME.
[9. WMS Report (Vote)]
TO WMS? HELLO, BLAKE HOLT WITH WMS HERE WITH AN UPDATE ON OUR LAST MEETING.UM, FOR THE, THE FIRST ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AFTER, UM, LAST ACT, THE A DER PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT WAS SENT TO WMS FOR DISCUSSION.
UH, WE TOOK IT UP ON A FEW DAYS NOTICE AND DISCUSSED SOME OF THE NON-CONSENSUS ITEMS IN THE DRAFT.
UH, THERE WERE CONCERNS VOICED ABOUT THE THIRD PARTY AGGREGATION FOR NRS AND PARTICIPANTS WERE INVITED TO BRING BACK REVISED LANGUAGE OR MATERIALS.
UH, I'VE SINCE HEARD PRETTY RECENTLY THAT ERCOT EXPECTS TO BRING BACK SOME MATERIALS FOR NEXT MEETING AS WELL AS ANOTHER INTERESTED PARTICIPANTS.
SO EXPECT A, UH, A BIT OF DISCUSSION AT AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON APRIL THE SECOND.
AND WE DO EXPECT TO EITHER VOTE ON THIS DOCUMENT IN APRIL OR MAY.
UH, THE SECOND ITEM I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR ERCOT TO BRING SOME INFORMATION BACK TO CMWG ABOUT A CONGESTION EVENT ON FEBRUARY 19TH, UH, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO, UH, CONSTRAINT ACTIVATION PROCEDURES.
UH, SO WE EXPECT TO SEE, UH, SOME MATERIAL BROUGHT TO CMWG AT THEIR APRIL 14TH MEETING.
AND LASTLY, WE ENDORSED OR APPROVED A A NUMBER OF ITEMS. UH, I'LL, I'LL NOTE THAT 1214 AND 1271 WERE UNANIMOUS IN SUPPORT.
UH, 1264 HAD ONE ABSTENTION, AND THE COMPANION REVISION REQUESTS WILL REMAIN WITH US UNTIL WE SEE AN IA, UH, WHICH MAY BE IN THE MAY TIMEFRAME, UH, BASED ON THE LAST EMAIL I JUST SAW.
AND THEN FINALLY 1229, UH, HAD SOME NO VOTES, BUT PASSED WITH 80% IN SUPPORT.
UH, I DO WANT TO NOTE A MISS I HAD ON HERE, UH, WE ACTUALLY APPROVED SMUGGER 38.
IS THAT THE RIGHT NUMBER? MM-HMM
UM, WHICH ACTUALLY LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF MPR 1200.
UM, WE, WE APPROVED THE IA, THE NO IMPACT IA, UH, AT OUR LAST MEETING.
UM, AND THAT BEING SAID, THAT'S, THAT'S MY UPDATE FOR WMS. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM SETH.
I JUST HAVE A, A QUICK REQUEST, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS NORMALLY HAPPENS IF TAC GIVES THINGS TO WMS, BUT SOMETHING
[03:20:01]
TO THINK ABOUT.VITEL HAS BEEN TAKING NOTE OF A LOT OF ROCKS THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING, UH, DURING THIS SEASON.
I GUESS IT'S OUTTA SEASON SO THAT THAT HAPPENS, BUT IT'S BEEN MORE THAN WHAT WE WOULD'VE EXPECTED, AND WE SEE IT EVERY DAY.
AND WE'RE WONDERING IF WE CAN GET MORE OF AN EXPLANATION ON WHY THAT'S OCCURRING, WHAT'S DRIVING IT, UH, NOT NECESSARILY GETTING THE SOLUTIONS OR ANY IDEAS LIKE THAT, BUT JUST MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
WHAT, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH OF THIS? IS THAT A REQUEST FROM ERCOT? IT'S A REQUEST FOR ERCOT AND MAYBE YOU WANT THAT HERE OR AT WMSI WOULD THINK IT'D BE PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE WMS, BUT I'LL DEFER TO, YOU KNOW, LEADERSHIP.
YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO SOMETHING FOR WMS. THAT MAKES SENSE.
BRIAN, UM, WHEN I WAS CHAIR OF WMWG, RUCKING WAS A, A, A HOT TOPIC.
AND SINCE THEN, UH, ERCOT HAS PUT TOGETHER A MONTHLY, UH, R REPORT AND IT'S A STANDING ITEM.
UM, AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO JUST LOOK BACK AND ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE A GREAT FORUM.
IT'S EVERY, EVERY MONTH THERE'S A, A R REPORT AND, UH, IT'S, IT GOES BACK FOR YEARS AND JUST MIGHT BE HELPFUL RESOURCE FOR Y'ALL.
I'LL JUST TUNE TO THAT MEETING AND, UM, RAISE, RAISE QUESTIONS.
UM, I GUESS PART OF WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF I JUST GO THERE AND ASK QUESTIONS,
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I, WE'LL, WE'LL BE PREPARED TO PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS.
THEN I'M FINE WITH LEAVING AT WMWG IF EVERYONE ELSE IS.
SO WE WOULD DO THAT AT WMWG? CORRECT.
AND, AND SETH FROM THE LCRA PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS AND WE'VE REACHED OUT IN THE INTERIM, I GUESS BEFORE IN BETWEEN THE, THE WMWG MEETINGS AND HAVE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND ERCOT HAS COMMITTED TO BRING THOSE BACK SO THAT, THAT CADENCE IS USUALLY PRETTY GOOD.
SO YOU CAN YOU WORK WITH AMANDA? ABSOLUTELY.
NED, I DID WANNA RECOGNIZE THE, THE VALUE OF THAT WMWG REPORT.
UM, BUT I THINK, SETH, TO YOUR QUESTION, I THINK THERE'S NOT ALWAYS AS MUCH DETAIL ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE RUX VA FOR TRANSMISSION OR CAPACITY OR, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SEE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT TO T THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING FOR.
THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD SUPPLEMENT FOR THAT.
WW I THINK MAYBE I WASN'T CLEAR.
YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
LIKE MAYBE, UH, THE CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU MIGHT BE HAVING ISSUES WITH OR IF IT'S FOR CAPACITY AND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, HOW YOUR ASSESSMENT WORKS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND YOU'D BE WILLING ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL AT THE WMWG.
AND IF IT'S RELATED TO YOUR HYPOTHESIS ABOUT OUT SEASON, THAT'S I THINK WHAT IAN WHAT, WHAT'S THE LINE THAT YOU LIKE TO SAY, IAN, ABOUT OUT SEASON AND, AND CAPACITY? THE CANARY.
YEAH, THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE FOR THOSE ON THE PHONE, I, I APPRECIATE IT.
WANNA ARTICULATE THE THEORY FOR PEOPLE NOT STARING AND TEXTING AT EACH OTHER.
UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IAN'S THEORY, IF YOU START TO SEE CAPACITY ISSUES DURING ADDED SEASON, IT'S A CANARY IN THE COAL MINE ABOUT OTHER AS ISSUES.
AND SO TO THE EXTENT YOU SEE MORE ROCKS AT THAT TIME, THE REC ISSUE IS RELATED TO THAT.
IT'S DEFINITELY LIKE A, A PRICE BREAKDOWN RIGHT? AT THIS POINT.
'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE CORRECT INCENTIVES IN THE MARKET TO DRIVE SELF COMMITMENT.
SO BE THE THINGS I'M WORRIED ABOUT.
SO WE'LL TAKE THAT UP AT WMWG AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN COME BACK TO US IN YOUR WMS REPORT AND SAY, IF WE NEED TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER OR ANYTHING, I'D BE GLAD TO.
UH, JOHN RICH, SORRY, COMMENT FROM JOHN.
YEAH, SO JUST ADDING ON TO THE, THE WHOLE, THE RUCK DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, THE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAPACITY VERSUS CONGESTION, WHEN WE GET TO THE CONGESTION RUCKS, IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SHIFT FACTORS AND THE, AND THE KIND OF THE, THE LEVEL OF SHIFT FACTORS THAT ERCOT IS RUCKING DOWN TO, TO MANAGE CONSTRAINTS JUST SO PEOPLE GET A FEEL FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS ARE WORKING ON THE SYSTEM AND HOW DEEP ERCOT IS, IS RUCKING TO MANAGE CONGESTION.
I DON'T WANNA BELABOR THIS, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
SO LIKE, WE'RE SEEING SOME OF THE GTCS BRING ON ROCKS FROM AREAS THAT ARE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF WEST TEXAS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS AN OPEN LOOP GTC, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE UNITY SHIFT FACTORS.
SO SOMETIMES THERE'S A, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE TO CONSIDER THERE, BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS TO US THAT JUST SEEM NON-INTUITIVE.
SO THAT, THAT'S DEFINITELY TO ECHO JOHN'S COMMENTS.
[03:25:01]
THANKS SETH.UM, BLAKE, WERE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR REPORT? YES, MA'AM.
UH, WE, WE COULD PROBABLY TAKE ACTION ON SMR. YEP.
SO WE HAVE A VOTING ITEM TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SMR 28 AS RECOMMENDED BY WMS IN THE 3 0 5 WMS REPORT.
I THINK THIS CAN GO ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
[11. ERCOT Reports]
WE ARE ON TO THE ERCOT REPORT.THE FIRST REPORT IS THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STATUS UPDATE FROM JULIE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
ALRIGHT, UH, WELL, I'VE GIVEN THIS PRESENTATION AT TAC A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW, SO, UM, HOPEFULLY Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS.
BUT, UM, JUST FOR ANY NEWCOMERS, UM, THIS IS JUST A MONTHLY REPORT THAT WE GIVE AT TAC, UM, TO REPRESENT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF WHERE THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE IS AT.
SO, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS FIRST SLIDE, OUR QUEUE HAS INCREASED PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS.
UM, THAT TREND HAS PRETTY MUCH CONTINUED EVERY TIME I'VE, UM, COME HERE TO TACK TO PRESENT THIS.
SO OUR, OUR QUEUE CURRENTLY STANDS AT ABOUT 108,000, UH, MEGAWATTS.
UH, SO THAT'S AN INCREASE OF 9,234 MEGAWATTS SINCE THE LAST UPDATE THAT WE GAVE AT THIS GROUP.
JUST BREAKING THAT DOWN A BIT FURTHER, UH, DIFFERENT, UH, STATUSES FOR THESE, UH, LARGE LOAD PROJECTS.
UM, AGAIN, Y'ALL ARE PROBABLY PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THIS, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, UM, BE OBSERVED, ENERGIZED AND APPROVED, UH, ENERGIZED BUT NOT OPERATIONAL, I THINK ARE, UM, PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY CATEGORIES.
THOSE THAT HAVE PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED HAVE RECEIVED OR CO APPROVAL OF OUR PARTNER CONNECTION STUDIES.
UM, AND WE'RE JUST KINDA WAITING ON THOSE.
UNDER ERCOT REVIEW HAVE STUDIES UNDER REVIEW BY ERCOT AND THOSE THAT HAVE NO STUDY SUBMITTED THAT ORANGE CATEGORY THAT YOU SEE, UM, REPRESENT LARGE LOADS THAT HAVE, UM, PROBABLY HAD LIKE A SCOPE OR A SCOPING MEETING, UM, FOR THEM.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE AWARE THAT THEY'RE COMING, UM, BUT WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED STUDIES FOR THOSE NEXT SLIDE.
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, THE TOTAL LOAD OF PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED HAS INCREASED SLIGHTLY WITH APPROVED TO ENERGIZE LOAD REMAINING CONSTANT.
THIS PAST YEAR HAS SEEN 1,827 MEGAWATTS OF LOAD APPROVED TO ENERGIZE NEXT SLIDE.
AND OUT OF THE TOTAL 6,306 MEGAWATTS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE, ABOUT HALF OF THAT RESIDES IN LOADS ZONE WEST.
THE OTHER HALF RESIDES IN THE OTHER LOAD ZONES.
5,231 MEGAWATTS CONSISTS OF STANDALONE PROJECTS.
OF THE 6,306 MEGAWATTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE ERCOT HAS OBSERVED A NON SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 3,315 MEGAWATTS IN MARCH.
AGAIN, THAT IS THE MAXIMUM VALUE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOAD PER MONTH.
AND THE SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION WAS 3,240 MEGAWATTS IN MARCH, 2025.
AGAIN, THAT SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY FEE CONSUMPTION IS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SUM OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL LOADS PER MONTH AT A SINGLE POINT IN TIME.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JULIE THIS MONTH ON A LARGE LOAD UPDATE? BRIAN? HEY, JULIE, THANKS FOR THE CONTINUING, UH, TO PROVIDE THIS DATA.
UM, LAST MONTH I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND, UH, RFIS TO UTILITIES.
UH, WE'RE JUST INTERESTED IN MORE SEGMENTATION OF THE LOAD TYPES.
CAN YOU REMIND US WHEN, UH, ANY REPORTING WILL COME OUT OF THAT? UM, THOSE SHOULD HAVE ALREADY COME OUT, UM, OR COME BACK RATHER TO ERCOT AND BE REFLECTED IN THIS REPORTING.
[03:30:03]
UM, SO WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS LIKE, UH, SEGMENTATION OF LARGE LOADS BY CUSTOMER TYPES.YEAH, I, I THINK WE'RE STILL KIND OF, UH, TALKING THROUGH IF WE WANNA HAVE THAT BE A, A PUBLICLY POSTED A BREAKDOWN, WE DO HAVE THAT INTERNALLY.
UH, I'M NOT ASKING FOR SPECIFIC CUSTOMER DATA, IT'S MORE OF AN AGGREGATION AND YOU'VE PROVIDED SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE PAST, I WANNA SAY LAST AUGUST OR SO.
HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU OFFLINE ABOUT THIS.
YEAH, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO BRING THIS ATTACK.
UM, SHANE THOMAS, SHE, UM, ONE ADDITIONAL DATA POINT THAT WE WOULD FIND USEFUL WOULD BE IF THERE WAS AN ABLE TO KIND OF QUANTIZE THIS INTO SIZE CHUNKS AS WELL.
SO IT KIND OF, HOW MANY PROJECTS ARE, UH, BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, 75 AND 250, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PROJECTS ARE OVER A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS WITH A KIND OF IN LIGHT OF, UH, 1, 2, 3, 4, HAVING SOME SIZE IMPLICATIONS.
IT WOULD KIND OF HELP, UM, WITH THE WAY THAT WE'RE VIEWING THE QUEUE.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT CAN BE PROVIDED WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, GIVING AWAY CUSTOMER SPECIFIC INFORMATION, THAT'D BE USEFUL.
UH, I'D APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
UM, I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE KIND OF BEEN TAKING A LOOK AT INTERNALLY.
I THINK WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PRESENT THAT IN A WAY THAT, UM, ISN'T EXPOSING INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
SETH, I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON YOUR, UM, YOUR TABLE THAT SHOWS THE DATES AND THE LARGE LOAD TRAJECTORY.
SO, UM, I THINK YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THIS IN THE PAST, BUT THAT IS, DOES THAT REFLECT THE RAMP UP SCHEDULES YOU GET OR IS THAT JUST LIKE THIS KIND OF LIKE AN ALL IN REQUEST THAT THEY MAKE AT A SINGLE POINT IN TIME WHERE IT DOESN'T REALLY REFLECT LIKE WHAT THEY PLAN ON PUTTING ONLINE OVER TIME? ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH LIKE LARGE LOADS, IF IT'S PRETTY WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY MAY CITE FOR A GIGAWATT CAPABILITY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE GIGAWATTS GOING IN ALL AT ONCE.
SO YEAH, THE RAMP SCHEDULES, IF THOSE ARE PROVIDED, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE REFLECTED IN THIS CHART, UM, YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT PROJECTS DUE FROM TIME TO TIME, UM, SLIDE OUT SLIGHTLY SO YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU HAVE A JUNE ENERGIZATION DATE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT ACTUALLY GETS PUSHED BACK TO OCTOBER.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE DATES CAN CERTAINLY SHIFT, UM, SORT OF APART FROM A RAMP SCHEDULE IN REAL TIME.
BUT, UM, YEAH, IN TERMS OF THE RAMP SCHEDULE, UM, THAT, THAT IS REFLECTED IN THIS CHART.
DO THE DATES EVER PULL FORWARD OR THEY ALWAYS SHIFT BACK? I, I HAVE TO CHECK, BUT IF THEY DO, I DON'T THINK THEY DO BY MUCH.
YEAH, I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU.
HEY JULIA, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON SLIDE SEVEN AND I'M, I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I'M, I'M 90% SURE I'VE ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION BEFORE, SO I'M GONNA START BY APOLOGIZING.
BUT, UH, THE SIMULTANEOUS PEAK THERE, IS THAT COINCIDENT WITH THE BROADER SYSTEM ON THOSE MONTHLY PEAKS? OR IS THAT JUST SIMULTANEOUS LARGE LOAD PEAK REGARDLESS OF WHEN IT OCCURS? UM, THAT'S THE SIMULTANEOUS, UH, SIMULTANEOUS LARGE LOAD PEAK.
UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REALLY, I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION RIGHT.
BUT WE'RE NOT MEASURING LIKE OVERALL SYSTEM, WE'RE MEASURING THE, THE LARGE LOADS THAT ARE BEING TRACKED THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATIONAL.
SO THAT, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE SUMMER MONTHS, THAT WOULD NOT LINE UP WITH, SAY, THE FOUR CP INTERVALS.
THAT WOULD BE, UH, WHATEVER TIME YOU ACTUALLY HAD THE LARGEST.
NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S FAIRLY CONSISTENT, SO IT MAY NOT MATTER THAT MUCH.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PROBABLY A FAIRLY FLAT LOAD PROFILE, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS, UH, UNDERSTANDING THE, THE, UH, THE DATA IN THE CHART CORRECTLY.
THANKS A G THIS IS AG STRINGER ERCOT.
UM, I JUST, IF WE COULD BACK UP TO, I THINK IT'S, UH, SLIDE THREE OR SLIDE FOUR, UM, THE, THE, THE GRAPH OUT TO 2030 THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT.
UM, I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT HERE, UM, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT, UM, INCLUSION OF RAMP SCHEDULES AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS, YOU KNOW, SCHEDULE SHIFTS ARE REPRESENTED, YOU KNOW, THAT IS ONE, ONE ASPECT, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN, UH, IN P ONE 15, THAT UPON EFFECTIVE
[03:35:01]
DATA OF THAT, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT'S ONE ASPECT OF THIS INFORMATION THAT WILL BE IMPROVED.UM, OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT IT WILL ALLOW US TO PRESENT, UM, MORE ACCURATE AND, AND HOPEFULLY MORE FREQUENTLY UPDATED INFORMATION THAT MORE ACCURATELY GIVES, UH, ATTACK A PICTURE OF, UH, OF HOW THESE SCHEDULES ARE CHANGING AND WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE GOING OUT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS ARE.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT COMMENT AS WELL.
THANK YOU AG HAVE A QUESTION FROM EVAN NEIL? HEY, EVERYBODY.
UM, SO I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON THIS SLIDE THREE HERE.
UM, FOR THE PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED CATEGORY, DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO THE BREAKDOWN OF THAT? OF, OF HOW MANY OF HOW, HOW MANY MEGAWATTS ARE APPROVED, UH, CONTINGENT THAT, UH, TRANSMISSION UPGRADE GETS PUT IN PLACE VERSUS HOW MUCH ARE JUST APPROVED WITHOUT THAT? UH, WE HAVE THAT NUMBER.
I TAKE THAT INTERNALLY AND SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN PRESENT PUBLICLY.
YEAH, THAT'D BE, THAT'D BE FANTASTIC.
IF, IF THAT COULD BE BROKEN DOWN GOING FORWARD.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JULIE? OKAY, THANK YOU JULIE.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PRESENTATION ON THE POTENTIAL PRICE CORRECTION.
SO WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MATT YOUNG FROM ERCOT FOR THAT SIR.
HELLO, UH, MATT YOUNG FROM ERCOT SUPERVISOR MARKET VALIDATION.
I'M GONNA BE GOING OVER POTENTIAL PRICE CORRECTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR OPERATING DAYS BETWEEN AUGUST 12TH AND SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024.
UH, THIS WAS INVOLVED AROUND THE USAGE OF INCORRECT MEGAWATT VALUES AND THE CALCULATION OF CONSTRAINT MAT LIMITS TO GIVE, GIVE A BIT OF BACKGROUND.
UH, WHEN A RESOURCE IN EMS LIMITERS, UH, A DATA QUALITY OF SUSPECT, THEN EMS WILL, UH, USE THAT RESOURCES LAST TO LIMIT HER.
MATT, DO WE KNOW WHY THERE'S AN ECHO IN THE ROOM? I DON'T, DOES DOES SOMEONE HAVE THEIR COMPUTER? UH, IT'S ERIC.
GIVE US JUST A SECOND HERE ABOUT THIS AND SAY SPEAKING.
IT'S SHOWING UP AS, AS SPREAD.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S TRY IT AGAIN, MATT.
UM, SO YEAH, WHEN, UH, RESOURCE TELE LIMITERS, UH, DATA QUALITY AS SUSPECT, THEN EMS WILL USE ITS LAST TOTER MEGAWATT VALUE.
UH, AND IN THE MARKET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, UH, THAT RESOURCE'S TELEMETRY MEGAWATT VALUE IS USED IN A CONSTRAINTS, UH, MATHEMATICAL LIMIT.
UH, IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, UH, THERE WAS A NEW VERSION OF EMS THAT WAS RELEASED, WHICH CONTAINED A SOFTWARE, UH, DEFECT.
AND THIS DEFECT ESSENTIALLY REMOVED M S'S ABILITY TO UPDATE THAT LAST GOOD TOTER MEGAWATT VALUE, UH, WHICH THEN RESULTED IN THE RESOURCES, UH, LAST GOOD TER MEGAWATT VALUE NEVER GETTING UPDATED.
AND ESSENTIALLY THE VALUE THAT WAS IN THERE WAS WHATEVER VALUE WAS THERE WHEN THAT SOFTWARE WAS UPDATED.
UH, THIS COULD HAVE A LARGE IMPACT, UH, IF THESE, UH, FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OCCURRED, IF ONE OR MORE RESOURCES OR TELEMETRY SUSPECT DATA QUALITY, UH, AND THEIR CURRENT MEGAWATT OUTPUT IS VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT STALE MEGAWATT VALUE THAT WAS CAPTURED BEFORE THE, UH, DEFECT WAS INTRODUCED.
AND THEY HAVE A LARGE SHIFT FACTOR ASSOCIATED WITH A BINDING OR VIOLATED CONSTRAINT.
AND SO, ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, UH, LAST YEAR AT APPROXIMATELY 8:35 AM MULTIPLE RESOURCES REPRESENTED BY A SINGLE QSE TELEMETRY, UH, A SUSPECT QUALITY ON THEIR, UH, MEGAWATT RESULTING IN EMS SENDING, UH, A LARGE AMOUNT OF STALE MEGAWATT VALUES TO MMS. UH, WHEN SCED RAN, UH, AFTER THAT, THE, THOSE VALUES IMPACTED THE OPTIMIZATION RESULTED IN SYSTEM LAMBDA SPIKING FROM ABOUT $20 TO ABOUT $200.
UH, SYSTEM LAMBDA THEN RETURNED, BACKED AROUND $27 FOLLOWING THE, UH, TELEMETRY VALUES BEING, UH, NO LONGER SUSPECT.
UH, THIS UNUSUAL SPIKE IN SYSTEM LAMBDA KIND OF PROMPTED US TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON.
IT WAS A, IT OCCURRED IN A, AT A TIME OF DAY THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE THAT.
[03:40:01]
SOME, AFTER SOME RESEARCH, WE IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE AND, UH, UH, NOTIFIED THE MARKET.SO WE SENT OUT A MARKET NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, UH, AND THE ISSUE WAS, UH, FIXED ACTUALLY ON THAT SAME DAY.
THAT MARKET NOTICE, UM, BASICALLY MARKED THE TIMELINE FOR DAYS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE FOR PRICE CORRECTION.
UH, PROTOCOLS STATE THAT, UH, WE HAVE THE PRIOR 30 DAYS FROM, UH, NOTIFYING THE MARKET TO CORRECT.
AND SO, AFTER, UM, ALONG AND ARDUOUS ANALYSIS THAT TOOK, UH, QUITE A FEW MONTHS, UM, WE CAME UP WITH A LIST OF, UH, DAYS THAT MET CRITERIA BASED ON PROTOCOLS.
UH, THE PROTOCOLS STATE THAT IN ORDER TO, UH, GO TO A BOARD FOR A POTENTIAL PRICE CORRECTION, IT HAS TO MEET, UH, COUNTERPARTY IMPACT HAS TO MEET TWO, UH, ONE OF TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIA.
UM, BASICALLY, UH, EITHER 2% AND GREATER THAN $20,000 OR 20% AND GREATER THAN $2,000.
AND OF THE 30 DAYS THAT WE LOOKED AT, UM, THERE WAS 27 DAYS THAT MET THAT CRITERIA.
AND THESE TABLES SHOW, UH, HOW MANY COUNTERPARTIES ON EACH DAY FOR EACH CRITERIA.
THIS TABLE SHOWS THE, UH, LARGEST ESTIMATED IMPACT TO A COUNTERPARTY FOR ANY GIVEN OPERATING DAY.
AND, AND THEN AS WELL AS THE, UH, LARGEST PERCENT IMPACT FOR A SPECIFIC CRITERIA ON THOSE OPERATING DAYS AS WELL.
UM, ANYTHING, ANY IMPACT LESS THAN $20,000 BASICALLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR CRITERIA ONE.
SO, UH, IT, ITS PERCENTAGES WEREN'T INCLUDED.
AND THEN THESE TABLES SHOW THE, UH, MAXIMUM ESTIMATED CHANGE IN CHARGES DUE TO ERCOT.
UH, THE NEGATIVE VALUES, UH, SHOW AN INCREASED PAYMENT TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHILE THE POSITIVES SHOW AN INCREASED CHARGE.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE, UH, INTERRUPT ME, I GUESS.
SO THE, UH, FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO GO OVER, UH, WE, WE, WE ENHANCED THE PRICE CORRECTION PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY DURING THIS, UH, ANALYSIS.
UH, DUE TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF DAYS INVOLVED IN THIS CORRECTION, UH, IT TOOK US QUITE A WHILE.
AND, UM, DURING THAT ANALYSIS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT USING OUR EXISTING METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING IMPACT TO COUNTERPARTIES, UM, THERE WAS, UH, A LARGE AMOUNT OF UNWARRANTED PAYMENTS TO SPECIFIC RESOURCES.
AND BASICALLY THESE RESOURCES WERE THOSE WHOSE BASE POINTS, UH, WERE NOT IMPACTED WHATSOEVER AFTER, UH, SCED WAS RERAN BASICALLY.
AND, UH, NEW PRICES WERE CALCULATED.
UM, AND SINCE THEIR BASE POINTS DO NOT CHANGE, THEN THEY WERE EFFECTIVELY PRICE TAKERS.
UM, UPON DISCOVERY OF THESE PAYMENTS, WE UNDERTOOK, UH, THE ANALYSIS AGAIN, WHICH EXTENDED OUR ANALYSIS TIME.
UM, AND THEN WE LOOKED AT, UH, ONLY THOSE WHO WOULD BE HELD WHOLE UNDER THE, THE NEW METHODOLOGY.
AND THIS RE THIS RESULTED IN A, UH, A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF IMPACTED OPERATING DAYS, COUNTERPARTIES AND CHARGES, UM, UH, DUE
AND SO GOING FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO BE USING THIS NEW METHODOLOGY FOR FUTURE PRICE CORRECTIONS.
GOT A QUESTION FROM ANDY? YES, ANDY GWYN CONSTELLATION, THANKS FOR, UM, PRESENTING THIS TO US.
I, I WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THIS SLIDE ON THE ENHANCED, UM, METHODOLOGY.
IT'S THE BULLET, SUB BULLET ONE UNDER THE SECOND BULLET.
ON HOW YOU RE-DISPATCH, ARE YOU RECALCULATING THE PREVIOUS SC AND NEW SC, BUT KEEPING THE EOCS THE SAME AND SEEING IF THE UNIT MEGAWATT OUTPUT IS CHANGING, AND THAT'S HOW YOU'RE DETERMINING THE PRICE.
SO YEAH, EOCS ARE STAYING THE SAME.
UM, WE BASICALLY, WE IMPLEMENTED, UH, THE CORRECT MEGAWATT OUTPUT THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, UH, RE-RAN SC AND LOOKED AT WHETHER OR NOT THE BASE POINTS CHANGED AT ALL.
AND HOW WERE YOU DOING IT BEFORE THAT CHANGE? UM, THAT'S, THAT'S MORE OF A SETTLEMENTS QUESTION, BUT, UH, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR, UH, BASE POINTS WHEN IT CAME TO DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY IS ELIGIBLE FOR, FOR MAY COLE.
SOMEBODY ON, SINCE SETTLEMENTS WANTS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
[03:45:01]
ARE YOU JUMPING IN FOR AN ASSIST HERE? I AM, BUT MAGGIE'S JUMPING IN AS WELL, SO I'LL, I'LL LET HER STOP.HI, THIS IS MAGGIE FROM ERCOT SETTLEMENTS.
UM, KYLE, MATT ANSWERED IT IS CORRECT.
PRIOR TO THIS ANALYSIS, WE WERE NOT CONSIDERING THE CHANGE IN BASE POINT WHENEVER WE WOULD DO THIS ANALYSIS FOR THE EMERGENCY PAYMENTS.
MAGGIE, SO AS A FOLLOW UP, YOU WERE KEEPING THE BASE POINT THE SAME, YOU WEREN'T RECALCULATING THE BASE POINT, THIS ENHANCED METHODOLOGY WOULD RECALCULATE THE BASE POINT AND THEN APPLY THE NEW PRICES, IS THAT CORRECT? SO PRIOR TO THIS, WE WEREN'T LOOKING TO SEE IF THE BASE POINT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE, UM, I GUESS RECALCULATION.
SO WE CONSIDERED THE ALL RESOURCES, UH, ELIGIBLE FOR EMERGENCY SETTLEMENTS.
I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
UH, THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS MATT.
THIS METHODOLOGY MAKES SENSE TO ME.
UH, BUT WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS, IS THIS METHODOLOGY OUTLINED ANYWHERE IN PROTOCOLS OR IN A GOVERNING DOCUMENT, I GUESS FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES? UM, OR DO Y'ALL SEE A NEED FOR TO ADD ANYTHING TO CURRENT PROTOCOL TO, FOR CLARITY? THE, I THINK THE, UH, THE DETAILED METHODOLOGY IS ISN'T, BUT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED PROTOCOL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SUPPORT OUR DECISION TO DO THIS.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK IF, IF IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO INCLUDE SOME OF THIS, UH, GOING FORWARD IN PROTOCOL.
I DON'T HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS RIGHT NOW, BUT I, I DO SEE VALUE IN, UH, TRANSPARENCY.
UH, SO I'LL THINK, THINK ABOUT THAT.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
HEY, UM, JUST A, A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, WHAT CAUSED THIS, UM, IS, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, UH, THAT YOU NEED TO PUT A, A SUBROUTINE OR SOMETHING IN TO CHECK FOR STALE DATA GOING INTO THESE CALCULATIONS? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S UNNECESSARY AT THIS TIME? UM, I DON'T KNOW A WAY THAT MMS COULD CHECK TO SEE IF THE DATA WERE GETTING IS STALE OR NOT.
UM, THE WAY WE DISCOVERED THIS WAS, UH, WHEN THAT PRICE SPIKE OCCURRED, WE NOTICED A LARGE MEGAWATT, UH, CHANGE IN A, IN A FEW RESOURCES THAT WAS, UH, SUSPECT.
AND SO WE WENT AND, UH, TALKED WITH, UH, OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND, UH, THE, UH, YEAH, I, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO, TO VERIFY THIS.
I, I WAS JUST THINKING SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE THE SAME OUTPUT THAT'S SEEN EVERY FIVE MINUTES OR WHATEVER WE'RE GONNA USE FOR OUR TIME BASE HERE, THAT'S NOT AT A LOW OR HIGH LIMIT, YOU KNOW, TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD, UH, POP A FLAG AND SAY, LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF SOMETHING'S INCORRECT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MATT BEFORE WE TURN 'EM LOOSE? OKAY.
UH, SO WHAT ARE NEXT STEPS? 'CAUSE I'M GONNA HAVE TO THINK THROUGH THE NEW METHODOLOGY, AND THESE WERE SOME PRETTY BIG NUMBERS.
UM, SO WHERE DO WE GO NEXT IN TERMS OF, I'M SORRY, CHANGING ARE, ARE YOU ASKING TO GO BACK AND RESET THE PRICES OR IS THIS JUST AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE? ME PRESENTING HERE? YES.
UH, THIS IS, I MEAN, THESE, THESE NEW PRICES ARE GONNA BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR CORRECTION.
IF THEY APPROVE, THEN WE WOULD GO BACK AND CORRECT THEM.
IS, AND IS THERE NOT A T APPROVAL STEP IN THAT PROCESS, OR IS THAT, UH, ONLY A BOARD CHANGE? I WILL INVITE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CORRECT ME, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS A BOARD DUTY AT THIS TIME, AND THIS IS A, OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEART OR CO HAS COME AND GIVE THIS INFORMATION TO TAC.
I, I'M JUST STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THE, WITH THE BASE POINT CHANGE AND WHETHER THAT'S APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE IT, IT'S A LOT OF WHAT IF THING, AND IF THIS IS A MULTI INTERVAL PROBLEM, THEN YOU HAVE BASE POINT CORRECTIONS, THEN MARKET PARTICIPANTS MIGHT CHANGE THEIR OFFERS
[03:50:01]
AND YOU HAVE NEW BASE POINT CORRECTIONS AND, AND I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU GET THE MARKET FEEDBACK INFORMATION, SO I'M JUST NEED TO THINK IT THROUGH.SO I'M NOT SURE I WOULD, I'M SORRY.
REALLY BE READY FOR THIS TO GO TO THE BOARD WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION.
UM, I, I DO, I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT CORRECTING BASE POINTS.
UH, WE DON'T CORRECT BASE POINTS.
SO, GORDON, DO YOU WANNA JUMP IN HERE ON THIS? I'D BE HAPPY TO, AND, AND I'LL, I'LL TAKE THE, THE FIRST QUESTION FIRST, WHICH IS IN TERMS OF WHY THIS IS BEING BROUGHT TO, TO TACK AND, AND, AND MARTHA, YOU CAPTURED IT.
WELL, THIS IS, WE'RE BRINGING IT TO TACT FOR, FOR INFORMATION.
WE WILL BE BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD AND, AND LARGELY, UH, COMPARABLE MATERIALS TO THE, TO THE BOARD TO EXPLAIN, UM, BOTH THE, THE IMPACTS AS WELL AS THE, UH, COMMENTARY ON NEW METHODOLOGY.
AND TO, TO THE POINT ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF, OF THE BASE POINT.
UH, THE, UH, AS WE PERFORMED OUR ANALYSIS AND WE TOOK THE, THE ACTUAL BASE POINTS THAT WERE, UH, DEVELOPED BY SCED AND THEN COMPARED THEM TO THE, THE RERUN OF S SCED WITH THE APPROPRIATE INPUTS, UH, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THAT, UH, BASED ON THE, UH, BIDS AND OFFERS THAT WERE IN THE SYSTEM AND THE CORRECTED INPUTS, A A RE-DISPATCH BASED ON THE ECONOMICS OF SCED WOULD LEAD TO DIFFERENT BASE POINTS UNLESS THOSE RESOURCES WERE, UM, UH, WERE OPERATING IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY WERE DEMONSTRATING THEY WERE INDIFFERENT TO WHATEVER THOSE OUTCOMES OF SCAD WERE.
SO IF THEY WERE IN A, IN A STATUS THAT WOULD SAY, I'M GOING TO, THIS IS GOING TO BE MY OUTPUT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MARKET CLEARING PRICES OR THE, THE OUTPUTS OF, OF SCAD.
UH, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE, UH, HOW WE ATTRIBUTED TO THAT, UH, WITHOUT A CHANGE IN BASE POINT SIGNALING THAT WITH THOSE RECALCULATED PRICES, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, THEY, THEY WOULD'VE CONTINUED TO OPERATE AT THE LEVEL, HAD THE PRICES BEEN CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND SO THEY WEREN'T RESPONDING TO, UH, THE, UH, THE CHANGE IN DISPATCH.
THEY WEREN'T RESPONDING TO THE, UH, ERRONEOUS INPUTS ARISING FROM, FROM THE STALE MEGAWATTS.
AND THAT'S AT THE HEART OF THE, THAT THE, THE METHODOLOGY HERE TO IDENTIFY THOSE WHO TRULY WERE, UH, AS, AS WOULD HAVE OPERATED DIFFERENTLY.
BUT FOR THESE, UH, THESE INCORRECT INPUTS, UH, THEY'RE BEING HELD WHOLE.
THOSE WHO WOULD'VE OPERATED THROUGH, UM, WERE NOT BEING CALCULATED IN THIS, UH, IN THIS REVISED METHODOLOGY.
SO IF THAT HELPS, UH, WITH THE, THE LOGIC THAT WE WERE EMPLOYING ON LOOKING AT THE, THE BASE POINTS AND IDENTIFYING THOSE THAT WERE NOT CHANGING FROM THE ORIGINAL TO THE RERUN WITH THE CORRECT INPUTS, UM, HOPEFULLY THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL, MARK, BUT HAPPY TO, TO FOLLOW UP YOU FURTHER QUESTIONS, IAN, UM, GORDON, THAT HELPED ME A LITTLE BIT, BUT I WAS HOPING WE COULD DISCUSS THIS MORE SOMEWHERE ELSE AND GET INTO THE WEEDS.
AND IF POSSIBLE, COULD OUR COPY BRING PICTURES, UM, OR DIAGRAMS OR SOMETHING THAT HELPS ME VISUALIZE WHAT THIS IS I'M HAVING, I'M STARTING TO FORMULATE WHAT I THINK IT IS, BUT I, IT'D BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME TO VISUALIZE THIS IF, UM, OUR KO'S WILLING TO DISCUSS IT AT A WORKING GROUP SOMEWHERE, WE'D BE HAPPY TO, TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER, TO BRING THAT, THAT CLARITY, UM, BASED ON THE, THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD HERE TODAY.
UM, HOW CAN ERCOT CHANGE HOW IT PAYS OR CHARGES PEOPLE GOING FORWARD WITHOUT A PROTOCOL REVISION? THAT LAST BULLET, IS THERE A PROTOCOL REVISION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CHANGE? YEAH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROTOCOL ALLOWS FOR THIS MODIFICATION.
I MEAN, MAYBE IT DOES, BUT THAT MAKES ME PRETTY UNCOMFORTABLE.
UM, E EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN DO THAT, I THINK IF THE PROTOCOLS DON'T HAVE, HAVE THE CLARITY TO BE INTERPRETED IN MULTIPLE WAYS THAT CAN RESULT IN A DIFFERENT PAYMENT HERE, I, I'D AT LEAST LIKE TO SEE A SETTLEMENT FORMULA CHANGE OR A FORMULA CHANGE BEFORE WE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT ANYTHING.
I APPRECIATE YOUR STATEMENT AND IT MIGHT BE CORRECT, BUT IT JUST MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.
MAGGIE, DO YOU WANNA JUMP IN HERE? YES.
SO, UM, IN THE PROTOCOLS IN SECTION 6.6 0.9 MM-HMM
IN PARAGRAPH FOUR, WHICH IS WHAT, UM, ALLOWS US TO DO THIS EMERGENCY PAYMENT FOR PRICE CORRECTIONS, THERE IS A SENTENCE WHICH WE WERE LEANING ON THAT MENTIONS HOW
[03:55:01]
THE PAYMENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR QUEASY, WHOSE BASE POINTS WERE INCONSISTENT WITH REAL TIME SETTLEMENT POINT PRICES.SO AFTER DOING THIS ANALYSIS, IF YOUR BASE POINTS WERE CONSISTENT, WE CONSIDERED YOU INELIGIBLE FOR THIS PAYMENT.
WHAT YOU'RE DOING MIGHT BE THE RIGHT OUTCOME.
I I, IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT, IT PROBABLY IS BASED ON LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION, BUT JUST AS A PRESIDENTIAL MATTER, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL THAT IF YOU'RE CHANGING THE WAY YOU PAY PEOPLE, IT GOES THROUGH A PROTOCOL REVISION.
AND MAYBE NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME.
UM, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE DOING THE BEST THAT YOU HAVE, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO GET IN THE WAY OF YOU NOT PAYING SOMETHING YOU DON'T THINK SHOULD BE PAID, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? UM, BUT IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO JUST FOLLOW UP WITH THIS WITH A PROTOCOL REVISION, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU'VE DONE.
WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK, ERIC.
I ALSO WANT TO ECHO THE CONCERNS THAT ERIC HAS.
IT'S, IT'S CONCERNING THAT IF, UH, SOMETHING CAN BE INTERPRETED, INTERPRETED ONE WAY DURING ONE PRICE CORRECTION AND POTENTIALLY ANOTHER WAY DURING ANOTHER PRICE CORRECTION, I THINK IT WOULD BRING LOTS OF CLARITY IF THIS WAS EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT IN PROTOCOL, JUST TO GIVE US THE COMFORT THAT IT CAN'T GO BACK AND FORTH, UH, IN THE FUTURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ARE WE FINISHED WITH THIS PRESENTATION? YEAH.
SO NOW WE HAVE THE OUTAGE COORDINATION OUTAGE CAPACITY CALCULATION AND PROCESS UPDATE.
UH, AND I SEE FRED WALKING UP.
SO I THINK TODAY WE TRY TO PROVIDE A STATUS UPDATE, UH, I THINK LATE LAST YEAR.
UH, WE KIND OF PRESENT THE, KIND OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE UPDATED LONG-TERM LOAN FORECAST AND OUR PROPOSAL TO, I'LL CALL IT TEMPORARY FREEZE, THE M-D-R-P-O-C UPDATE UNTIL WE HAVE, UH, WE CALL THIS RISK BASED METHODOLOGY TO BE, UH, REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTED.
SO WE CONTINUE TO FREEZE OUR M-D-R-P-O-C, SO WE STILL USE THE M-D-R-P-O-C.
WE HAS BEEN POSTED FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, UH, TO MANAGE THE RTGS.
SO TODAY WE'LL TRY TO PROVIDE A QUICK STATUS UPDATE.
WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A KIND OF STATUS UPDATE BEFORE WE COME TO THE RED LINE, UH, REVISION REQUEST.
UH, AT, AT THE SAME TIME, AGAIN, ALONG WITH ALL THE KIND OF SYSTEM CHANGES, I KNOW WE TRY ALSO IDENTIFY A WAYS, HOW CAN WE IDENTIFY WAYS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RESOURCE OUTAGE CAPACITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, TO MAINTAIN A SYSTEM NEED AS WE SEE THE NEED.
SO I THINK TODAY ALSO TRY TO SHARE SOME CONCEPTS WITH THE GROUP, LOOKING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.
AND, UH, OUR INTENT IS TO HAVE THOSE CONCEPT, PROBABLY EVENTUALLY CONVERT IT TO THE NPRR, UH, FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS REVIEW.
BUT AGAIN, BEFORE WE REALLY POST IT, I WANT TO KIND OF SHARE WITH THE GROUP, UH, TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK AND THE SUPPORT.
I THINK THESE ARE THE SAME SLIDES THAT WE PREVENT, UH, WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE WHOLE BACKGROUND IS, UH, TODAY'S M-D-R-P-O-C IS BASED ON DETERMINISTIC APPROACH, UH, WHICH WE HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
UH, INCREASING CHALLENGE DUE TO THE UNCERTAINTY AND THE KIND OF QUICKER CHANGE OF THE SYSTEM.
SO WE THINK A BETTER WAY TO IDENTIFY OR, AND DETERMINE THE M-D-R-P-O-C MASS DAILY RESOURCE PLAN OUTAGE CAPACITY IS THROUGH A RISK BASE.
I THINK A ADVANTAGE FOR RISK BASED, UH, APPROACH IS IT HELP US TO QUANTIFY THE RISK ASSOCIATED CAPACITY ALLOWED FOR, UH, PLAN OUTAGE TO BE TAKEN.
AND THEY ALSO HELP US TO RECOGNIZE IF WE DO NEED TO ADJUST THE, UH, CAPACITY TO SUPPORT OR REQUIRED OUTAGES, WHAT'S THE, I WOULD SAY POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE GRID RELIABILITY.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE, THE RATIONAL WE TRY TO MOVE TO THIS, UH, RISK-BASED APPROACH.
SO I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS NOW, OR I CAN E EITHER ONE.
BILL BACK ON THE PRIOR SLIDE, CAN YOU REMIND US, UH, WHAT SPECIFICALLY YOU'RE DOING FOR BATTERY CAPACITY? I SEE IT AT
[04:00:01]
THE BOTTOM THERE.SO TODAY, I THINK, UH, WITH OUR CURRENT METHODOLOGY, WE ASSUME ZERO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE, UH, ENERGY STORAGE BASED ON THE, I'LL CALL IT EXISTING METHODOLOGY.
WE DO RECOGNIZE THE, THE, THE CONTRIBUTION FROM ESR.
SO IN THIS, IN THIS RISK BASE, I THINK WE ARE CURRENTLY STILL EXPLORING THE DIFFERENT IDEAS.
ONE OF THE IDEA IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MORAL ASSUMPTIONS IS A NUMBER USED BY THE, THE MONTHLY, THE MORAL REPORT.
THAT IS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL INPUT TO ASSUME THE ENERGY STORAGE CONTRIBUTION IN THE M-D-I-P-O-C POPULATION.
WE ASSUME ZERO NOW, BUT YOU WILL ASSUME SOME AMOUNT WHEN YES SIR.
WHEN IS THAT GONNA START? WHEN THIS ONE, UH, GOT IMPLEMENTED? SO THE STATUS RIGHT NOW IS WE STILL CONTINUE USE OUR CURRENT M-D-I-P-O-C, WHICH WE HAS BEEN FREE DUE TO THE, UH, THE LONG-TERM LOW FORECAST IMPACT MM-HMM
SO WE TRY NOT TO UPDATE THAT ONE BECAUSE ONCE WE UPDATE WITH THE LATEST LONG-TERM LOW FORECAST, AS I CAN SHARE LAST TIME, THE M-D-R-P-O-C REDUCE SIGNIFICANTLY.
SO OUR APPROACH RIGHT NOW IS LET'S KEEP, IS WHAT WE CALCULATED PREVIOUSLY AND, UH, MOVE THIS RISK BASE.
AND, UH, THE, IN TERMS OF SCHEDULE, I THINK I WOULD SAY OUR PLAN RIGHT NOW IS COME BACK NEXT MONTH WITH A PRELIMINARY RESULT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE A ENERGY STORAGE CONTRIBUTION.
AND ONCE I, I AGREE WITH THAT GOING FORWARD, LIKE WE'RE GONNA INPUT A HUGE LOAD FORECAST IN HERE, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH GONNA LIKE, SHRINK THE WINDOW TO TAKE PLANT OUTAGES TO PROBABLY ZERO.
BUT I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T INCORPORATE BATTERY BATTERY CAPACITY RIGHT NOW TODAY IN THE MATH.
'CAUSE THERE ARE LIKE 10 GIGS OF BATTERY STORAGE RESOURCES AVAILABLE.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, IS THEY CAN, I MEAN, WE SEE TWEETS ABOUT THIS, LIKE THEY, THEY COME IN AND THEY HELP THE GRID SO THAT THERMAL CAN TAKE OUTAGES, BUT THEY'RE, THEY GET NO CREDIT IN THIS, UH, CURRENTLY.
SO IS IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO IN THE NEAR TERM WHILE WE TALK ABOUT THIS OTHER THING? UM, I CAN GO BACK TO DOUBLE CHECK IT.
I THINK TO YOUR POINT, AT, AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LATEST LONG TERM FORECAST.
SO IT'S KIND OF, YES, WE DO NOT CONSIDER ESR, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE NOT INCORPORATED THE GROWTH OF A LONG-TERM LOW FORECAST AS WELL IN THE CURRENT M-D-R-P-O-C, BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN GO BACK TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
SO I THINK ONCE WE GO TO THE RISK BASE, ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTION WE TRY TO DECIDE IT OR KIND OF CONSIDER IS WHAT IS THE CRITERIA? WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE RISK, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW WE DETERMINE THE M-D-R-P-O-C? SO I THINK THIS AGAIN, IS A, A CONCEPT.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TESTING RIGHT NOW IS WE PLAN TO USE WHAT'S THE CURRENT M-D-R-P-O-C HAS BEEN USED RIGHT NOW AS OUR REFERENCE, BECAUSE THAT IS A, AS THE M-D-R-P-O-C WE HAS BEEN USED AND THE OPERATOR SYSTEM.
SO IT'S KIND OF OUR, UH, THE REFERENCE POINT.
AND THEN ONCE WE IDENTIFY, THEN WE WILL BASED ANOTHER, UH, ANOTHER RISK LABEL AND START TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE, THE FUTURE INFORMATION SUCH AS LOAD GROWTH, UH, WIND, SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE INTO ACCOUNT, IDENTIFY WHAT IS THE M-D-R-P-O-C NUMBER, AND, UH, KNOWING THE SYSTEM CHANGE ALL KIND OF VERY QUICKLY.
SO WE DO CONSIDER THE NEED TO HAVE AN ANNUAL REVIEW OR REGULAR REVIEW TO MAKE SURE WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH M-D-R-P-O-C AND THE RECOGNIZE WHAT THE RISK LABEL, UH, TO SUPPORT THAT M-D-R-P-O-C.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION FROM ERIC GOFF OR COMMENT? YEAH.
THIS MIGHT BE, UM, TO TACK AND WMS RATHER THAN TO ERCOT.
UM, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, AS A BODY WE'VE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THIS CALCULATION IN THE PAST AND ITS IMPACT AND THE ABILITY OF GENERATORS TO TAKE NECESSARY OUTAGES.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT ERCOT HAS FROZEN IT BASED ON HOW THE METHODOLOGY TREATS THE LONG-TERM FORECAST AND WHETHER THAT WERE DUE TO THE OUTCOME, WHICH MAKES SENSE.
IT WAS A GOOD THING FOR THEM TO HAVE DONE.
UM, BUT THE MANY OF THE, THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE MORE ARE ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS MAYBE IS THE BEST WAY TO SAY THAT.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE A, IT'S A WAY TO PRESENT, UM,
[04:05:03]
A WHAT IF SCENARIO SIMILAR TO THE CDR.I'M NOT TRYING TO CAST JUDGMENT ABOUT ITS INTENTION OR ANYTHING WHEN I SAY IT, IT JUST, UH, PRACTICALLY THE MORE IS NOT NECESSARILY AN OPERATIONAL THING
UM, AND, UM, IT MIGHT BE EXTREMELY VALUABLE FOR WMS TO DEVELOP ITS OWN, UM, SUGGESTION FOR HOW TO REFORM THIS GOING FORWARD THAT CAN BE DONE SIDE BY SIDE WITH ERCOT RATHER THAN WAITING FOR ERCOT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND REACTING TO IT.
JUST GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TIMING OF GETTING OUT OF THE ZEN.
AND I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE WORK FOR WMS, BUT I WONDER IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR WMS TO TAKE UP THIS ITEM SOONER RATHER THAN LATER AND NOT WAIT FOR ERCOT TO DEVELOP A, A ACCOUNT, A PROPOSAL.
LET'S SEE WHAT BRIAN IS ABOUT TO SAY.
YEAH, I'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE THINK.
UM, ERIC, I, I LIKE YOUR IDEA.
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF, UH, THIS WAS JUST A-T-C-P-A EXERCISE, BUT WE DID KIND OF, I REMEMBER COME UP WITH A LIST OF, OF PROBABLY HALF DOZEN, DOZEN DIFFERENT, UM, WAYS TO IMPROVE THE M-D-R-P-O-C AND CHIEF AMONG THEM WAS INCLUDING BATTERY CAPACITY IN THE CALCULATION.
UH, I CAN'T RECALL AT THIS MOMENT IF, UM, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE JUST BATTED AROUND INTERNALLY OR IF WE ALSO SENT TO ERCOT.
BUT I, I, AS A FIRST STEP, I WOULD, UH, TOTALLY SUPPORT A SEPARATE WORKSHOP ON THIS TO, UH, JUMPSTART THE CONVERSATION ABOUT PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS RATHER THAN WAITING FOR, UH, AN NPRR TO COME OUT AND THEN RED LINE IT.
AND I, I REMEMBER TCPA DID DO THAT WORK AND IT WAS HELPFUL AND HELPED DEVELOP MY OPINION ON THIS.
SO I APPRECIATE THE WORK Y'ALL DID.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT AN ACTION ITEM, ERIC? YEAH.
HOW DO WE DO THOSE NOW? IS THERE A PROCESS? I THINK WE LOOK AT OUR FRIEND MARTHA AND
SO WHEN WE HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, HOW MICHELLE RICHMOND AND I CAN SHARE IT, THE CHILDREN, THE ACTUAL WORK, UM, AND THEN WE, YOU KNOW, OKAY.
SEE IF BLAKE WILL TAKE IT TO WMS AND THEN HE WILL PROBABLY SEE IF OUR OTHER FRIEND AMANDA FRAZIER WILL TAKE IT UP AT WMWG.
IS, IS HOW I THINK IT WOULD WORK.
DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU WANT TO EMAIL I SPECIFIC WORDS TO ME, MARTHA, AFTER THE MEETING? OR DO YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE MIGHT LOOK LIKE? UM, NO, I DON'T.
I THINK I'VE KIND OF EXPRESSED THE IDEA SUFFICIENTLY FOR PEOPLE TO REACT TO IT LATER WHEN WE GET TO THOSE MEETINGS.
BUT IF PEOPLE WOULD FIND IT VALUABLE, I'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH MARTHA TO GET SOMETHING SPECIFIC.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE RECORDED IT.
AND KIND OF IN LINE WITH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.
I WOULD APPRECIATE THE VOLUNTEERING FROM THE GENERATOR COMMUNITY THAT HAS TO ACTUALLY DO THIS RATHER THAN MEET US TALK ABOUT IT, BUT WE CAN WORK IN ON IT TOGETHER.
THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM REGARDING MAYBE PERHAPS DEVELOPING OUR OWN METHODOLOGY AND YOU WILL RECEIVE WORDS LATER.
ANN BLAKE, DID YOU WANNA COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA REITERATE A SPECIFIC RE REQUEST ON AN ACTION ITEM WOULD BE HELPFUL OKAY.
TO CAPTURE AND AS WELL AS A CHAMPION, UH, SO WE CAN KIND OF, I CAN HELP GUIDE THAT DISCUSSION.
DO YOU WANT TO, ERIC, DO YOU WANNA WORK WITH MICHELLE AND MARTHA AND I OFFLINE? SOUNDS GREAT.
UNLESS BILL'S ABOUT TO VOLUNTEER TO TAKE IT ON.
I'M NOT, I'M JUST GO, GO AHEAD.
VOICING SUPPORT FOR, UH, EITHER A WORKSHOP OR A, A MORE DEDICATED DISCUSS, THIS IS BECOMING A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE AND DISCUSSION TOPIC THAN A 15 MINUTE UPDATE ATTACK.
AND I KNOW WE HAVE ALL PROVIDED, OR THERE'S, THERE HAS BEEN A ROUND OF COMMENTS, UH, WHERE MANY IDEAS WERE PRESENTED TO ERCOT AND I, WE NEVER REALLY GOT A RESPONSE FROM ERCOT ON LINE BY LINE WHY THEY DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA OR THAT IDEA.
SO I THINK, UH, DEDICATING DISCUSSION ON THIS, UH, MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
I THINK FRED'S PROBABLY BEING TOO NICE.
UH, I MEAN, THE POINT IS, IS THAT WE'VE LISTENED TO THOSE THINGS AND WE ARE COMING TO YOU SOON WITH A PROPOSAL AND HE'S KIND OF GIVING YOU A HEADS UP RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO APPROACH SOMETHING THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM FOLKS AND WE'VE ALREADY, SO IT'S NOT A, I THINK ERIC GOFF SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DOING
[04:10:01]
THIS IN PARALLEL.SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE ARE JUST A, A MONTH OR SO AWAY FROM ACTUALLY ROLLING IT OUT.
WE'RE GIVING YOU A HEADS UP THIS TIME AS TO WHAT IT'S GONNA ENTAIL, BUT WE'LL HAVE MORE OF THE FACTS READY SOON.
AND SO, UM, I I DON'T THINK THERE'S, UH, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO START A PARALLEL PROCESS AT THIS POINT.
INSTEAD, LET US GO AHEAD AND ROLL THIS OUT AND THEN WE WILL MORPH IT IF NEEDED BE.
ARE THE, IS THERE MORE IDEAS THAN THE FLEX CONCEPT? SO THERE'S, THERE'S MORE COMING THAN WHAT IS PREVIEWED HERE? 'CAUSE I WE'RE, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THAT AND DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GONNA HELP.
WELL MAYBE LET HIM GET THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL OKAY.
UH, CAN WE TAKE NED'S QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL LET FRED RESUME? SURE.
UM, I, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, FRED, YOU AND DAN BRINGING SOME, UH, SOME OF THESE FEEDBACK POINTS TO US.
I THINK ANY IMPROVEMENT IS, IS POSITIVE, FRANKLY.
I THINK, UH, IF ANYTHING, I I HOPE YOU TAKE THAT AWAY, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE APPRECIATE MOVEMENT AND YOUR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS TOPIC.
UH, THIS IS THE ONE I, THIS IS THE OTHER CANARY IN THE COAL MINE THAT I'D LIKE TO, UH, BRING UP.
SO WE'VE HAD TWO CANARIES TO SO FAR TODAY.
UH,
SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S YEAH.
SO IF YOU'RE BRINGING SOMETHING FORWARD, I'M HOPING THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION AND WHAT YOU BRING, BUT THEN ALSO THE DISCUSSION AND, AND HOPE WE'LL BE OPEN TO, UH, JUST DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT'S IN THAT AS WELL.
LET'S, I DO HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT NEXT STEPS, BUT LET'S FIRST LET FRED FINISH HIS PRESENTATION.
SO I THINK WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION QUICKLY, UM, KIND TO SHARE, I THINK THE, THE WORK WE ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW, THIS IS, I THINK THAT THE, THE TARGETING WE ARE SHOOTING FOR IN TERMS OF HOW TO DETERMINE M-D-R-P-O-C, UH, FROM THE RISK BASED PERSPECTIVE IS TRY TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS M-D-R-P-O-C LABEL WE CAN SUPPORT THE SYSTEM NEED, UH, FOR THE, THE GENERATION ASAID TO TAKE OUTAGES AT, AT THE SAME TIME.
UH, WHAT'S THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY THE LOCAL OPERATION NEED TO MANAGE THE RELIABILITY? SO, ROUGHLY SPEAKING, I THINK, UM, WE ARE, WE ARE LOOKING FOR, LIKE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE, WE ARE WORKING ON IS WHAT IS M-D-R-P-O-C FROM RISK-BASED PERSPECTIVE, WE CALCULATED THAT CAN BE TRANSLATED TO WHAT THE POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD NUMBER OF A, AND WE MAY NEED TO RECALL SUBJECT TO THE REAL TIME AND THE WEATHER CONDITIONS.
UM, SO THIS KIND OF THE TARGETING WE ARE, WE ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW.
AND AT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK BASED ON OUR PRELIMINARY WORK, I THINK WE KIND OF REVIEW WHAT IS OUR CURRENT M-D-R-P-O-C PROVIDED.
UH, WHAT WE FUNDED IS FOR THE SPRING SEASON AND THE FOURTH SEASON HAPPENED TO BE THE LTG SEASON, UH, IS WE, WE FOUNDED THE SPRING SEASON.
I THINK M-D-R-P-O-C POTENTIALLY MAY HAVE SOME, UH, FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE EXTRA, UH, TO MAINTAIN THE DESIRE, UH, RISK LEVEL AT THE SAME TIME FOR THE FOURTH SEASON.
AS YOU KNOW, THE, THE WEATHER CONDITIONS, THE, BETWEEN THE SUMMER AND THE WINTER THAT THE, THAT THE TRANSITION BECOMES SHORTER AND SHORTER AND ARE CERTAINLY BECOME BIGGER AND BIGGER.
I THINK THE RISK FOR THAT, UH, HAS BEEN KIND OF INCREASED.
SO ON THE OTHER SIDE FOR THE FOURTH SEASON, WE PROBABLY SEE THE POTENTIAL, UH, THE NEED TO, I WOULD SAY MAINTAIN OR EVEN REDUCE THE M-D-R-P-O-C IF WE DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THE SAME RISK LEVEL FOR BOTH SEASONS.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A HIGH LEVEL KIND OF OUR OBSERVATION RIGHT NOW.
AND ANOTHER ONE WE ARE THINKING RISK BASE IS NOT GOING TO BE A ONE RISK FOR THE ENTIRE FIVE YEARS.
WE ARE THINKING THAT THE RISK BASE IS PROBABLY BASED ON PRECIS PER YEAR.
AND THE REASON FOR THE PER YEAR IS OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO TAKE ACCOUNT THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE NEW GENERATION COMMITMENT.
IT GENERALLY NOT AVAILABLE, UH, THREE OR FOUR YEARS LATER.
SO WE TRY TO TAKE THAT ONE INTO ACCOUNT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SOME VARIATION ABOUT A POTENTIAL RISK LABEL CON UH, CONSIDERATION.
SO LET'S KIND OF UPDATE FOR M-D-R-P-O-C.
AS I MENTIONED IN THE BEGINNING, ON OUTSIDE OF M-D-R-P-O-C, I THINK FOR THE CURRENT
SO WE TRY TO SHARE WITH THE GROUP, UH, THIS IS THE CONCEPT WE TRY TO CONSIDER RIGHT NOW
[04:15:01]
IS YOU CAN, FOR, FOR THE CHART, YOU CAN SEE THE FIRM AND D-R-P-O-C IS GONNA BE THE NUMBER CALCULATED BASED ON THE RISK BASE OR DETERMINISTIC APPROACH TODAY, UH, AS LIKE THE PRO NUMBER.AND THE PROCESS IS ESSENTIALLY WILL BE CONSISTENT AS WHAT IT IS TODAY.
HOW WE REVIEW THE OUT G REQUEST AND HOW WE APPROVE THE REQUEST PLAN OUTAGE CAPACITY.
UH, WE TRY TO THINK ABOUT HOW, HOW CAN WE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY ON TOP OF IT.
I THINK THAT THE IDEA RIGHT NOW IS WE CALL IT FROST BALL, ESSENTIALLY, IS ON TOP OF THE CALCULATED AND D-R-P-O-C.
MAYBE WE CAN, UH, HAVE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY SUBJECT TO WHAT ADDITIONAL ACCEPTABLE RISK OR ADDITIONAL FIXED NUMBER, UH, AS AN EXAMPLE, 1.502 GIGAWATT ON TOP OF FIRM AND D-R-P-O-C THAT THE EXTRA CAPACITY WE CAN SUPPORT THE, UH, TG REQUEST UNDER THE CONDITION THAT OF CAPACITY AND THE RESOURCE FOR LOT OF CAPACITY.
THEY CAN BE FLEXIBLE IN A WAY TO RETURN TO SERVICE.
UH, WHEN WE SEE THE NEED SUCH AS AS A AND CONDITION, I, I THINK THAT THE OVERALL, WHAT WE SEE IS, UH, FOR THE WHOLE SEASON, UH, WE CAN GET A LOT OF EXTRA HOURS FOR THE OUTAGES AND POTENTIALLY, UH, SUPPORT EXTRA CAPACITY.
AND, UH, WE HAVE PROSPERITY ON THE SYSTEM SIDE, GET YOU HELP TO RETURN TO SERVICE, UH, WHEN WE SEE THE NEED.
AND A LOT OF NEED IS EXPECT, HOPEFULLY NOT A LOT.
QUESTION FROM ERIC GOFF OR SOMETHING FROM ERIC GOFF COULD BE A COMMENT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY I APPRECIATE THAT Y'ALL ARE WORKING ON THIS, AND MY COMMENTS EARLIER WEREN'T TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR FROM ERCOT ON THIS, BUT, UM, I GUESS TO THE EXTENT THAT UNCERTAINTY AROUND THIS METHODOLOGY AND HOW IT CAN WORK, UM, MIGHT POTENTIALLY MAKE IT, UM, SO THAT WE INADVERTENTLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR GENERATORS, TAKE THE OUTAGES THAT THEY NEED.
IT'S JUST A REAL SERIOUS CONCERN FOR ME.
AND SO, UM, I HOPE THAT STATEMENT ISN'T, THAT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE DRAMATIC, BUT IT JUST PRACTICALLY, I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO DO, UM, AT LEAST IF NOT PARALLEL EFFORTS, PARALLEL THINKING, SO THAT WAY THE MARKET PARTICIPANT CAN BE PREPARED WITH IDEAS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BELIEVE WILL LEAD TO INCREASED OUTAGE CAPACITY IN A RELIABILITY WAY, IN A, IN A, SOMETHING THAT CAN BE STILL OPERATED RELIABLY IF NECESSARY, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH OPTIONS.
UM, AND, UM, I, I'M NOT TRYING TO SET UP A ANTAGONISTIC POSTURE ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE SO WE CAN MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND RESOLVE THIS.
UM, FRED, WHEN I SAW THIS, MY THOUGHT WAS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE OPENS UP SOMETHING AND FINDS SOMETHING WRONG.
UM, SO IT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR ERCOT IN TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THIS FLEX AMOUNT TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, UM, WHAT, WHAT'S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IN IF THESE MEGAWATTS OF, UM, SO I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
UH, SOMEONE STARTS SOMETHING, THEY'RE JUST DOING A SIMPLE INSPECTION AND THEY FIND A HAIRLINE FRACTURE, UM, BECAUSE THEY'VE FOUND IT, THAT THAT PART NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, REPAIRED, ET CETERA, AND THEREFORE IT DEFINITELY CAN'T MAKE IT BACK WITHIN THAT 48 HOURS.
UM, SO FACTORING THAT INTO EITHER ERCOT, UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT MAY HAPPEN OR INTO THE AMOUNT THAT YOU ALLOW FOR THAT, I THINK IS PRETTY IMPORTANT.
AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST, UM, SAME KIND OF VEIN IS, UH, ERIC'S BEEN SAYING TO, UM, HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THIS IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
[04:20:01]
ENERGY.UM, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, UM, ON THE
SO THE FIRST IS, UH, FRED, HOW DO YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE CAPACITY FOR RESOURCES THAT CAN RETURN TO SERVICE WITHIN 48 HOURS? DO YOU ALSO NEED TO ISSUE SOMETHING LIKE THE A AND TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION? SO THE FIRST QUESTION, IT IS THE RESOURCE OWNER AND THE QSE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR CAPABILITY TO RETURN TO SERVICE WITHIN 48 HOURS SUBJECT TO THE OUTAGE REQUEST, UH, YOU ARE WORKING ON.
SO IT WILL NEED TO COME FROM, YOU WILL COME FROM THE OWNER AND THE QSE.
DO THEY INDICATE THAT IN THE OUTAGE REQUEST OR WHEN YOU ARE ANTICIPATING CURRENTLY? YEAH, CURRENTLY IT IS NOT.
AND THAT'S HOW WE PROPOSE THIS ONE.
AND, UH, AS YOU SAY, IF THIS ONE IS ADOPTED, THEN YES, THE INFORMATION SUCH LIKE THAT ONE WILL BE, UH, REQUIRED.
AND, UH, AGAIN, FROM THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF ARE WE ASKING FOR EXACTLY RETURN SERVICE HOURS NUMBER, OR JUST AS A POTENTIAL BINARY, DO YOU EXPECT TO COME BACK WITH THE 40 A OR MORE THAN 40 A LAST OTHER ONE? I THINK IT, UH, AS SOMETHING, AS A CONCEPT RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT'S THE, THE THRESHOLD WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
UM, MY, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, DO YOU PLAN TO POST AND UPDATE THE FLEXIBLE AMOUNT ON THE SAME OR SAME TIMELINE AS YOU'RE CURRENTLY POSTING AND UPDATING THE FIRM? UH, AMOUNT? YEAH.
AGAIN, IF THIS CONCEPT IS BEING CONSIDERED, I THINK OUR PLAN IS TO HAVE ALL THE TRANSPARENT INFORMATION AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
SO ON TOP OF WHAT WE PROVIDED TODAY, I THINK, UH, WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER COLUMN OR TWO TO SHOW THE IMPACT AND, UH, THE NUMBER FOR THE FLEX BOARD AS WELL.
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANNA, OH, I SPOKE TOO SOON, ANDY.
ON ON THAT SAME NOTE, FRED, ON THIS RETURN TO SERVICE WITHIN 48 HOURS, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT NOW THAT YOU'LL BE GATHERING THAT DATA FROM ALL RESOURCE OWNERS, THAT THIS PROPOSAL LOOKS LIKE YOU'LL ONLY BE PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY FOR THE INCREMENTAL RESOURCE THAT CAN RETURN TO SERVICE, BUT WOULD YOU BE PROVIDING MORE POTENTIALLY, UM, FIRM CAPACITY IF ALL RESOURCES ARE ABLE TO POTENTIALLY TELL YOU THAT FLEXIBILITY TO RETURN TO 48 HOURS? BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ISSUE AN A N AND IF THEORETICALLY THE ENTIRE FLEET OF RESOURCES COULD RETURN THE SERVICE WITHIN 48 HOURS, THAT FREES UP CAPACITY FOR YOU TO YEAH, ALLOW FOR THAT SPACE.
CAN YOU, YEAH, AND I WOULD SAY, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
UH, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS KIND OF, UH, TODAY WE TRY TO SHARE WITH YOU AS A CONCEPT.
THOSE ARE REALLY INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION, IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS.
AND, UH, I THINK OUR INTENT FOR NOW, OUR THINKING IS FOR THE RESOURCE, UH, USING OTHER FLEXIBLE CATEGORY, THE RESOURCE NEED TO HAVE THAT CAPABILITY SUCH A LOT.
AS YOU POINT OUT, WHEN WE SEE THE POTENTIAL TIGHT EMERGENCY CONDITION WHERE WE NEED TO ISSUE AN A A N THAT IS THE FIRST TARGET OR FIRST RESOURCE GROUPS, WE EXPECT TO GET A SUPPORT FROM THEM BEFORE OR KIND OF AFTER, OR BEFORE WE ASK FOR THE REGULAR RESOURCE PLAN OUTAGES KIND OF APPROVED UNDER THE FIRM AND D-R-P-O-C LARGER CONCEPT.
YOU WANNA KEEP GOING? THANK YOU.
AND I THINK THIS IS MY LAST SLIDE.
I THINK, UH, WITH A LOT OF M-D-R-P-O-C DISCUSSION TODAY, UH, I THINK, UH, OFTEN NOW I SAY OCCASIONALLY WE DO SOME, WE DO SEE SOME SPATIAL CONDITION WE MAY NEED TO CONSIDER TO ACCOMMODATE A LETTER REQUEST, BUT THAT REQUEST COULD, UH, HAVE RESULTING IN THE EXCEEDENCE OF M-D-R-P-O-C.
OBVIOUSLY WE TRY TO MINIMIZE THAT ONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN, BUT WE THINK, UH, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PUT A LANGUAGE IN A PROTOCOL, UH, AS KIND OF REFERENCE WE CAN EXCISE WHEN WE REALLY INTO THAT SITUATIONS, LIKE A LITTLE THREE, UH, I I HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SLIDE, THEN WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH THE QSE AND THE RESOURCE OWNER TO SEE HOW WE CAN BASE SUPPORT YOUR TG REQUEST UNDER THOSE SPATIAL CONDITIONS.
[04:25:01]
THIS ARE KIND OF THE ONE WE LAY OUT, UH, WOULD, UH, POTENTIALLY CAN ALLOW US TO SUPPORT YOUR OUTAGE, EVEN IT COULD EXCEED AND B-R-P-O-C.SO WHAT ARE THE, SO BEFORE I STEPS FROM
YEAH, SO I PROBABLY WANT TO RESPOND.
I THINK WE PRESENTED LAST TIME AND WE PRESENTED OVER THE YEARS.
OUR PLAN FOR M-D-R-P-O-C IS TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT OUTAGE WINDOW FOR THE WHOLE YEAR TO SUPPORT THE REQUIRE OUTAGES.
OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND, UH, THE WINDOW WILL PROVIDE IT AT SOME PERIOD, MAYBE IT'S REALLY POPULAR, NOT EVERYONE CAN TAKE ON.
BUT, UH, FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, WE DO HAVE ENOUGH WINDOW FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE ON.
SO WE TRY TO WORK WITH YOU DO OUR BEST TO COORDINATE WITH YOU.
BUT I WOULD SAY EVEN AS OF TODAY, M-D-R-P-O-C PROVIDED ENOUGH CAPACITY.
BUT MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR, FOR DAN.
SO WHAT, WHAT INFORMATION ARE WE GETTING FROM ERCOT AFTER THIS POINT? LIKE, WHERE, WHERE ARE WE IN THIS PROCESS? ACTUALLY, THAT'S PROBABLY STILL A FRED QUESTION.
SO I HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE, SO, OH, OKAY.
SO THE, THE SCHEDULE WISE, UH, TODAY WE KIND OF PROVIDE AN UPDATE, UH, THE SCHEDULE.
THE NEXT MONTH WE WILL PRESENT THE RAY LINE M-D-R-P-O-C METHODOLOGIES AND THE ASSOCIATE PRELIMINARY RESULT OF M-D-R-P-O-C PER OTHER METHODOLOGY.
AND, UH, PER THE PROTOCOL, WE DO NEED TO ISSUE THE MARKET NOTICE.
UH, KIND OF AS FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS, IT IS FOR 10 DAYS AND THEN PER REQUIREMENT, THE METHODOLOGY NEED TO BE APPROVED BY BOARD DIRECTOR BEFORE WE FORMALLY ADOPT IT.
DO WE HAVE A DEADLINE ON THIS? IS THERE A DATE? WE NEED BOARD APPROVAL BY THE, THE BOARD, I THINK.
DOES THIS NEEDS TO GO TO JUNE BOARD OR IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? SOME LIKE, I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THERE A, A DEADLINE WE HAVE BEFORE WE NEED, NEED THIS CHANGE? I PLEASE CORRECT ME.
I THINK MY SCHEDULE IS TRY TO GET IT UP FOR THE POINT RATE REVIEW, UH, AS SOON AS WE CAN.
SO PUT A SCHEDULE HERE, UH, AFTER APRIL, WE ARE GOING TO ISSUE MARKET NOTICE AND FOR THE 10 DAYS COMMON PERIOD, AND WE WILL TRY TO RESPOND TO RECEIVE COMMENTS THAT WE SHOULD BE READY FOR POINT RATE REVIEW IN.
I DON'T WHAT, WHAT'S THAT DATE FOR JUNE 4TH.
UM, LET'S, LET'S GO TO THE, THE Q WE HAVE NOW, NED.
UM, LOOK, LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE RED LINES THAT YOU HAVE, FRED, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M SURE THAT FOLKS HERE WILL BE, UH, HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH, UH, WITH YOU AND YOUR TEAM, UH, AHEAD OF TIME.
ANY, ANY IDEAS THAT COME UP, UM, MAYBE HELP TO EXPEDITE, EXPEDITE THAT, THAT COMMENT PERIOD.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO VOICE SUPPORT FOR HAVING, YOU KNOW, MORE, UH, CALL IT SAFETY VALVES IN THE PROCESS.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT THAT YOUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE ENOUGH, UH, ROOM FOR ALL GENERATORS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THEIR, THEIR NEEDED MAINTENANCE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE, I THINK WE ARE REALLY GETTING TO THE POINT NOW WHERE YOU SEE THAT, THAT, THAT HEADROOM REALLY START GETTING TIGHT, NOT JUST IN THE, THE CURRENT YEAR, BUT IN, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT TWO, THREE, EVEN EVEN OUT INTO 2029, YOU START SEEING SOME PERIODS WHERE IT LOOK IS STARTING TO LOOK TIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT IS, THAT IS A SIGNAL THAT WE, WE REALLY DO NEED TO, TO HAVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO, TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE AND, AND GIVE OUR CUT TOOLS TO, YOU KNOW, RESPOND TO SCENARIOS WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, THE MATH MAY NOT WORK OUT EXACTLY, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN, YOU CAN KIND OF LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WELL, WE, WE WOULD MUCH RATHER TAKE A RISK OVER, YOU KNOW, THIS SHORT PERIOD VERSUS HAVING, YOU KNOW, AN ISSUE SHOW UP DURING THE PEAK PERIOD, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT LATER JUST BECAUSE YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO, TO GET SOMETHING IN WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE WINDOW.
SO, UM, I, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS, UM, LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AND, AND SUPPORT THAT, UH, THAT OUTCOME.
THE, THE LAST ITEM I, I, I DO WANNA MENTION THOUGH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S PROBABLY A NATURAL TIE IN WITH THE RELIABILITY STANDARD ASSESSMENT, UH, THAT'S GOING TO BE, UH, COMING UP I GUESS IN 2026.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF IS A COMBINATION OF BOTH OF, YOU KNOW, AN OPERATIONS AND A, AND A PLANNING AND A, AND A
[04:30:01]
AND A MARKETS, UH, ISSUE.BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MARKET DESIGN DOESN'T SUPPORT ENOUGH DISPATCHABLE GENERATION TO ALLOW THE DISPATCHABLE GENERATION TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY TAKE ALL OF ITS NEEDED OUTAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THAT CREATES RELIABILITY RISKS, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT TO BE, UH, INCORPORATED INTO THAT ANALYSIS.
SO JUST, YOU KNOW, FLIP THAT BALLOON UP SINCE WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BEFORE WE GET TO IT.
BILL BARNES, IS IT, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE DOCUMENT THAT HOLDS THIS.
IS IT A BINDING DOCUMENT? IT IS.
IS THAT, I MEAN, WE'RE, THIS IS APPROACHING LIKE BREAKING THINGS, SO, UM, OKAY.
AND SO THERE'LL BE ROUNDS OF COMMENTS AND YOU'LL, YOU'LL CONSIDER STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON THE RED LINE VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE SENDING AROUND.
IAN, FRED, JUST SO I REMEMBER, THERE WAS AN NPRR THAT CREATED M-D-R-P-O-C, BUT THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF IS NOT IN THE PROTOCOLS AND THEREFORE DOESN'T NEED ANY STAKEHOLDER APPROVAL, CORRECT? YEAH.
SO THE PROTOCOL REQUIREMENT IS THE METHODOLOGY IS ITS OWN DOCUMENT, BUT ANY CHANGE TO THE METHODOLOGY WILL REQUIRE MARKET NOTICE.
STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS, THEN WE WILL NEED AT LEAST GO TO THE
I WAS JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE TIMELINE THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH.
SO IT'S NOT ANOTHER BINDING DOCUMENT, IT'S A METHODOLOGY DOCUMENT.
AND IT IS POSTED ON ERCOT.COM, BUT BILL, NOT TO GET TOO FAR INTO IT, BUT ANY ERCOT ACTION IS APPEALABLE.
SO KIND OF HOW WOULD YOU APPEAL A BUSINESS PRACTICE MANUAL? DIDN'T WE HAVE THAT SAME PROBLEM WITH 1186? TALK ABOUT IT LATER.
BUT THE RULES ARE PRETTY CLEAR.
BRIAN, JUST ONE MORE POINT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT.
YES, OPERATIONALLY THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S ALSO SUPER IMPORTANT COMMERCIALLY BECAUSE, UH, GENERATORS DEPEND ON KNOWING HOW MUCH INVENTORY THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SELL, UH, TO HEDGE FORWARD.
AND SO IF YOU'RE LIMITED ON WHEN YOU CAN TAKE OUTAGES, THAT LIMITS WHEN YOU HAVE INVENTORY THAT YOU CAN SELL.
AND SO THIS COULD HARM LONG-TERM HEDGING, AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO JUST HAVE CERTAINTY THAT WE'RE ABLE TO, UM, HAVE THE INVENTORY THAT WE'RE SELLING FORWARD, WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR REVENUE TO, YOU KNOW, UH, SUPPORT THE, UH, THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR BUSINESSES.
YEAH, I, I, I WOULD SAY WE RECOGNIZE LOVED ONE, BUT I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE CONSIDERATION GO GOING TO THE RISK BASE IS IF THERE IS A CONSIDERATION TO ADJUST M-D-R-P-O-C, THE RISK BASE WILL HELP TO PROVIDE A INDICATOR WHAT THE IMPACT TO THE RISK.
UM, TO, I GUESS, I THINK IT WAS IAN WHO HAD THE QUESTION.
WE, WE CAN VOTE ON THIS, YOU KNOW, IF WE, WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE AT AT THE RIGHT TIME, I'M SAYING SO, BUT WE COULD SAY WE COULD TAKE A VOTE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAYING TECH DOES OR DOES NOT ENDORSE.
AND THEN I WAS GONNA GO TO ERIC AND SAY, I MEAN, WOULD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STILL HAVE AN ACTION ITEM? WE, WE CAN CERTAINLY, I TAKE DISCUSSION WHEREVER TECH WANTS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN PUT IN MY TECH REPORT TO THE BOARD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, RIGHT? THE, THIS IS THE TECH DISCUSSION, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DEVELOPED.
WE, WE, WE DID TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND WE ENDORSED OR DIDN'T ENDORSE.
SO THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONS WE HAVE.
SO I, I THINK WE COULD KEEP IT REALLY HIGH LEVEL AND, UH, ASK IF WMS BELIEVES THAT IT IS WORTH DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY TO BRING IT BACK TO TAC OTHERWISE TO LET US KNOW WHY NOT.
UM, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, BUT I MIGHT USE THE POOR CHOICE IN WORDS.
I WASN'T ASKING TO HAVE A VOTE ON IT IF THE TECH WISHES TO THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
I WAS JUST MORE TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE TIMELINE ERCOT WAS WORKING WITH.
SO UNDERSTOOD AND DIDN'T MEAN TO, TO SAY THAT YOU WERE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD, BUT WE, WE ALWAYS CAN IF WE WANT TO, IF WE WANT TO PROVIDE TAC ENDORSEMENT OR NOT ENDORSEMENT.
[04:35:01]
I THINK NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN DOWN NOW, BUT MAYBE E ERIC GOFF, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GO TO WMS AND MAKE THAT REQUEST OR SOMETHING? YES.I'LL, I'LL BE THERE AND I'M, I'M HAPPY TO COLLABORATE WITH TCPA BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN LEADING THE CHARGE ON THIS.
DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU, BLAKE? OKAY, GO, GO AHEAD, DAN.
YEAH, I THINK, I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I GUESS I WOULD ENCOURAGE IS 'CAUSE ERIC SAID, UM, COMPETING OR SOME WORD LIKE THAT EARLIER, AND I, THAT SETS OFF MY SPIDEY SENSE.
BUT, UH, THE, UM, I, I THINK THE, THE IDEA OF DOING THINGS PROBABILISTICALLY BECAUSE IT APPROPRIATELY ACCOUNTS FOR, UH, KIND OF THE UNCERTAINTIES AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, AND ALSO LETS PEOPLE KNOW KIND OF WHAT'S THE RELIABILITY, IT, IT SHOULD TIE IN TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OTHER KIND OF RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS WE'RE DOING.
AND I, UH, AGREE THERE MAY BE A WAY AT SOME POINT OF, OF WORDING WORKING IN THE RELIABILITY STANDARD INTO IT, UM, THE IDEA OF A FLEXIBLE M-D-R-P-O-C THAT FOR YOU, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING MORE IF THEY CAN COME BACK, THAT THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN KEEP THOSE KIND OF THINGS TOGETHER.
SEEMS LIKE THE OTHER PIECE THAT'S MISSING THOUGH IS THE WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE GOT LOAD GROWTH AND WE GOT GENERATION GROWTH.
AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING OUT, YOU KNOW, FOUR YEARS IN THE FUTURE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOULD BE, HOW IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM THE PLANNING GUYS HAVE, HOW DO THEY PLAN THE SYSTEM WHEN YOU'VE GOT, UH, NOT ENOUGH GENERATION TO MEET THE LOAD? AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE SOME INPUT ON HOW WE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT, SOME STAKEHOLDERS WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR FUTURE YEARS, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.
YEAH, I'M SURE WE HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THAT.
I I THOUGHT ABOUT REACTING TO IT RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'D BE PRODUCTIVE AND MAYBE WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT WMS MEETING.
ANY, ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT? NO.
WE ARE ONTO THE SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP WORKSHOP UPDATE.
HI, CAITLYN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING AT OTHER CAC MEETINGS ABOUT LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS AND LOOKING AT UPDATING THEM.
UM, ORIGINALLY THE ISSUE CAME UP AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, UM, BECAUSE FOR, UM, DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTERS, UM, WE HAD NOTICED THAT SOME OF THOSE ENTITIES WERE, UM, BE, UH, APPLYING TO BE PART OF THE LARGE, OR WERE PART OF THE LARGE COMMERCIAL SEGMENT, AND SOME WERE PART OF THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT.
AND SO FOR CONSISTENCY, UM, ERCOT DETERMINED THAT THOSE BEST FIT INTO THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT UNDER HOW OUR BYLAWS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, THE BYLAWS HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKED AT, UM, IN DETAIL IN MANY YEARS, AND TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN.
AND SO WE HAD ASKED IF STAKEHOLDERS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS, UM, IN MORE DETAIL AND DISCUSSING THEM IN MORE DETAIL TO, TO TALK ABOUT UPDATES, UM, INCLUDING CLARIFYING THOSE DEFINITIONS FOR, UM, TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST FIT FOR, UM, DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTERS.
UM, SO WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON FEBRUARY 14TH.
UM, PEOPLE INFORMALLY DISCUSSED IDEAS, AND THEN WE ASKED THAT WE GET SUBMITTED, UM, KIND OF INFORMALLY, BUT SUBMITTED TO ERCOT, UM, IDEAS ABOUT POSSIBLE CHANGES.
AND, UH, WE DID RECEIVE THREE DIFFERENT WRITTEN UP, UM, PROPOSALS OR SUBMISSIONS.
AND IF YOU LOOK ON OUR WORKSHOP PAGE AND FIND OUR FEBRUARY 14TH WORKSHOP, YOU CAN SEE THOSE THREE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS.
AND ALSO, UM, SUZIE CLIFTON WORKING WITH KAITLYN ALSO, UM, THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU GOT, GOT THOSE POSTED TO TODAY'S TAC MEETING PAGE.
SO IT'S UNDER KEY DOCUMENTS UNDER ITEM 11.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE PROPOSALS.
UM, I'M NOT GONNA GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THOSE THREE PROPOSALS, UM, BUT, UH, ONE WAS BY CALPINE CONSTELLATION IN RA, AND IT WAS REGARDING, UM, SUBSEGMENT SUBS, SEGMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL, UM, THE INDUS INDEPENDENT GENERATOR SEGMENT.
UM, ANOTHER PROPOSAL WAS BY NEXTERA AND LONE STAR REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION ENTITY.
AND THEN ANOTHER PROPOSAL WAS BY TIC ERCOT STEEL MILLS AND TEXAS BLOCKCHAIN
[04:40:01]
TOGETHER.UM, THEY HAD A PROPOSAL REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS.
AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHO'S INTERESTED TO LOOK AT THOSE COMMENTS, AND I'M GONNA MAKE SURE I SEND A MARKET NOTICE WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO TO REMIND EVERYONE.
BUT, UM, ANY RESPONSES TO THOSE PROPOSALS CAN BE SUBMITTED, UM, BY APRIL 18TH.
UM, AND THOSE CAN BE, UM, EMAILED TO US AS WELL.
UM, AT THE APRIL 8TH BOARD MEETING, UM, WE'RE GONNA GIVE A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS THAT CAME IN SO FAR.
AND THEN WHEN WE GET THE RESPONSES ON APRIL 18TH, ERCOT IS GOING TO LOOK AT THOSE AND SEE WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK WITH, UM, MEMBERS AND INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS TO SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A CONSENSUS RED LINE VERSION.
AND SO I WOULD HOPE, SINCE THOSE RESPONSES ARE COMING IN ON APRIL 18TH, I I WOULD HOPE THAT BY THE, OR ON THE APRIL 23RD TECH MEETING, I CAN GIVE AN UPDATE ON THAT.
UM, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER ANOTHER WORKSHOP IS NECESSARY.
UM, IF EVERYONE THINKS THAT THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED SO FAR ARE GREAT, THEN MAYBE WE DON'T NEED A WORKSHOP.
UM, BUT IF THERE'S, UM, DISAGREEMENT, THEN WE CAN, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT WHETHER ANOTHER WORKSHOP WOULD BE HELPFUL.
UM, AND THEN THE IDEA IS, IS THAT BY THE JUNE 23RD, UM, HR AND G UH, COMMITTEE BOARD MEETING, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, UM, PRESENT HOPEFULLY A CONSOLIDATED RED LINES AT THAT MEETING.
AND THEN, UM, IDEALLY AT THE SEPTEMBER 23RD BOARD MEETING, HAVE LIKE A MORE FORMAL, UM, AMENDMENT PROCESS.
UM, BECAUSE WE, THIS HAS ALL BEEN PRETTY INFORMAL AS OPPOSED TO UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF OUR BYLAWS, THERE'S A WAY WHERE AT ANY CORPORATE MEMBER CAN FORMALLY, UH, ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS, BUT AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL TRY AND SEND A MARKET NOTICE IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT APRIL 18TH IS THE RESPONSE DEADLINE.
UM, I KNOW WE'RE GETTING LATE IN THE DAY, BUT I DID FLAG THIS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED, UM, SINCE I THINK THIS IS KIND OF OUR ONLY FORUM TALKING, BUT FOR APRIL 18TH.
SO IF YOU, IF YOU WANTED TO, IF YOU SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL, UH, AND I WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, I, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO DO IT, BUT I'M OPEN TO IT NOT BEING A GOOD TIME AS WELL, SINCE IT'S ALMOST 3:00 PM
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR CATHERINE? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE
[12. Other Business]
ON TO OTHER BUSINESS.UH, FIRST IS THE 2026 BLOCK CALENDAR.
IT SAYS MY NAME, BUT I, THAT HAS TO BE ANN.
YEAH, THIS IS JUST THE INITIAL DRAFT IF YOU GUYS WANNA REVIEW IT.
THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE FIVE BOARD MEETINGS NEXT YEAR, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TAC SCHEDULED FOR THE NINE MEETINGS, WHICH I THINK HAS WORKED OUT SO FAR THIS YEAR.
IT WORKED OUT, BUT IT'S, WE WERE KIND OF FRONT LOADED, RIGHT? LIKE THE FIRST FIVE MONTHS.
WE HAVE A TECH MEETING EVERY MONTH, AND THEN THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR WE, YEAH, WE FALL OFF IN JUNE AND SEPTEMBER, I THINK.
IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS, JUST LET US KNOW.
ANNE, WE, I THINK WE JUST WANTED TO DO A QUICK UPDATE ON THE BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.
WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS LAST MONTH.
UM, SO, SO THE PLAN IS TO HAVE SOME STAKEHOLDERS SPEAK AT THE BOARD MEETINGS NOW AT THE, THE FULL BOARD, UM, SINCE, SINCE R AND M IS KIND OF BEING ABSOLVED INTO IT, AND WE WILL BE PRESENTING ON HOT TOPICS.
THE KIND OF FRAMEWORK WE PROPOSED WAS HAVING THREE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS FOR EACH TOPIC.
UH, THE FIRST TOPIC IS TRANSMISSION PLANNING.
SO WE WERE THINKING IOUS, INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS, AND INVERTER BASED RESOURCES.
[04:45:01]
NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON THAT OR, OR MUCH FEEDBACK AT ALL.UH, MARTHA AND I HAVE BEEN COORDINATING WITH JOHN ROSS HUBBARD, UM, ON, ON THIS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL US, YOU KNOW, STOP DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING OR, OR GIVE US FEEDBACK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
HEARING NONE, I THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
SO WE'LL PROBABLY JUST BE PROPOSING TO ERCOT, UM, ONE, ONE SPEAKER FOR INVERTER BASED RENEWABLES, ONE SPEAKER FOR IOUS, AND ONE SPEAKER ON THE CONSUMER SIDE.
KEITH, I THINK WE CAN GO TO YOU IN THE, UH, MARKET DESIGN FRAMEWORK WORKSHOP, UPDATE COMMENTS.
WELL, WE, WE WERE ORIGINALLY PLANNING TO DO IT TODAY, BUT I THINK THE, WE WERE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAD A WEIGHTY AGENDA, SO WE MOVED IT TO NEXT MONTH.
SO, UM, WE'LL ANTICIPATE HAVING A TACK ON TO TACK, UH, AT OUR APRIL MEETING.
UM, I THINK, UH, SO IN, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, UM, I, I WAS, I WAS HOPING TO GET A PRESENTATION OUT, UM, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHERS HAVE SOME COMMENTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO PROVIDE, I THINK THAT'S FINE AS WELL.
WE CAN, WE CAN USE THAT AS MATERIAL FOR THE MEETING.
SO, AND I THINK WE WERE PLANNING FOR ABOUT 90 MINUTES.
IF WE NEED MORE, THEN LET ME KNOW, BUT I THINK THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE GONNA SHOOT FOR.
DIFFERENT OTHER BUSINESS TOPIC IF YOU'RE THROUGH WITH YOURS, KEITH? YES.
OH, ARE WE DONE WITH KEITH? OKAY, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO JUST IN MY QUEST TO STREAMLINE THE ACTION ITEMS, THERE'S ONE THAT I NOTICED THAT LOOKS LIKE MIGHT BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR REMOVAL.
UM, IF WE COULD JUST TAKE A REALLY QUICK LOOK AT THAT.
IT'S THE FOURTH ONE DOWN ON THE ACTION ITEM LIST FROM MARCH 21ST, 2023, DEVELOP A PROCESS TO SUPPORT TAC GOAL NUMBER 18 FOR REMARKET DESIGN RELIABILITY WINTER STORM AREA.
I TRACED BACK THE MARCH, 2023 TAC MEETING MINUTES, AND, UH, TRACKED THIS ONE DOWN TO MARK DREYFUS ACTUALLY WHO, WHO I CONSULTED WITH YESTERDAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS ACTIONABLE OR STALE.
AND SO I'D APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE, THIS ACTION ITEM, WHETHER IT CAN BE REMOVED.
WELL, THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR.
UM, THAT ITEM WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A, A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE THAT WE ADOPTED SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO GO THROUGH EACH MONTH AND EVALUATE, UH, NEW POLICIES THAT WE ADOPTED IN THE WAKE OF WINTER STORM URI.
AND, UH, THAT OBJECTIVE WAS NEVER FULFILLED FOR VARIOUS REASONS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THIS ROOM AT LENGTH AT THAT TIME.
AND AS THAT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE FOR THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS WAS WITHDRAWN BY THIS GROUP, I THINK THE ASSOCIATED STALE ACTION ITEM SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN AS WELL.
ARE ANY OBJECTIONS TO REMOVING THIS ACTION ITEM IN NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA? UH, SUSIE, CAN I LEAVE THAT WITH YOU TO TAKE CARE OF FOR NEXT MONTH? YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BUT MAYBE IN THE SPIRIT WE CAN REMOVE ONE EVERY MONTH.
THAT'S, I WAS, I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY PUT ACTION ITEMS AS A STANDING OTHER BUSINESS ITEM AND SEE IF WE CAN ACTION ANY OF THEM.
ANY OTHER, OTHER BUSINESS? CAN
[13. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
WE GET A MOTION? AND SECOND ON THE COMBO BALLOT? I GOT SO MANY.UH, LET'S GIVE THE MOTION TO DAVID AND A SECOND TO BOB WHO HAS SOMEWHERE TO BE
SO THE, UH, COMBO BALLOT ITEMS ARE ON THE SCREEN.
LET'S LOOK 'EM OVER AND THEN, UH, COREY CAN GET STARTED.
ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS.
[04:50:01]
THANK YOU.HAD TO LEAVE US, UNLESS YOU'RE ON THE PHONE.
NICK DISCOUNTS YOU IF YOU'RE DIALED IN.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
UNDER OUR IOUS, KEITH, DOUBLE CHECKING THE LIST.
I THINK WE MAY HAVE LOST KEITH.
HOW ABOUT DAVID? YES, THANK YOU, RICHARD.
AND THEN, YES, KEITH, I'VE GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT.