ERCOT Regional Planning Group Meeting Notes - 1/25

Agenda

1)    Antitrust Admonition

2)    Miscellaneous Updates (ERCOT, 5min)

3)    2021 RTP Review (Yan, 30min)

a)    ERCOT presentation posted and given.

b)    More than half of all of the 67reliability projects identified in the 2021 RTP study were in the West/Far West study region. The Permian Basin load forecast from the IHS Markit study was adopted in the 2021 RTP.

c)     Study results for the San Antonio Area Study also were provided.

d)    A question was asked about the ESR assumptions and ERCOT explained that they want to provide some additional information for this type of resource. ERCOT was looking at resources that were located within the region itself and that were under the dispatch control of ERCOT operators over their entire range. ERS’s only fall into the category if they have sufficient state of charge and duration. Handling ESR in this way made the study more technology neutral. (Here they didn’t look at look at thresh holds that might be approved as a result of PGRR095.)

e)    A question was asked about economically driven projects and how they play to assess those in the future. ERCOT is awaiting clarity from the PUC in a future rulemaking and, therefore, did not conduct an evaluation of economically-driven projects. They did conduct economic analyses, but from the aspect of looking at congestion and root causes of needs for projects.

4)    2022 RTP Load Review (Yan, 20min)

a)    ERCOT presentation posted and given regarding the preliminary numbers for the 2022 RTP study. The IHS Markit numbers are included, similar to the 2021 study.

b)    TSP’s are asked to review the preliminary numbers and provide feedback. If there is additional load/contract information, please contact ERCOT for consideration by February 4^th.

c)     ERCOT was asked whether they plan to include the growth in crypto loads in addition to the IHS Markit study. They replied that they plan to include the crypto currency loads that have signed contracts that are verified by ERCOT.

d)    ERCOT is going to use the non-coincident peak for each weather zone and calculate the peak for each zone. ERCOT will also try to share the actual load data used.

e)    A question was asked about whether the IHS Markit study remains relevant. ERCOT considered this and thought that the study remains relevant and reliable. ERCOT explained the process that they went through to validate the reasonability of this data, and they are considering how to maintain or update that data.

5)    Long-Term West Texas Export Study Review (Haesler, 20min)

a)    ERCOT presentation posted and given. Two preferred options to increase transfer capability across west Texas were presented. There are nearly 70 MW of IBR’s to be installed by 2023, many of which are in west Texas.

b)    The presenter was asked whether the study was modeled with an updated TSAT and the answered that this used PSSE. In general, planning studies don’t used TSAT for dynamic analysis, however, these should be equivalent. What is presented here are VSAT limits derived from the iterative analysis and ERCOT would expect dynamic stability limits to be more restrictive. This approach helps identify items that can be used for further analysis. The limits derived from VSAT were then used for the economic analysis.

c)     Another stakeholder asked how the IBR’s are being dispatched in the model since they include ESR’s. The ESR’s were dispatched at 0MW, but allowed to provide VAR support, consistent with other planning studies.

d)    ERCOT was asked about their expectations for transfer limits if they batteries in the queue were in operation. In addition to the reliability portion of the study, the economic portion allowed the batteries in the study to be fully deployed. ERCOT stated that beyond that is difficult to speculate about the impact of batteries to transfer capability.

e)    The options presented don’t get rid of the west Texas interface constraint, but they improve the transfer capability and reduce curtailment. There was some discussion about GTC and GTL’s vs the stability interface being modeled in the planning study, which is not the same set of limits as those for the GTC’s. The GTC’s and GTL’s come out of a different source for real-time operations.

f)     ERCOT was asked about how to bridge the gap between the proposed solutions (in 2023 and 2030 study horizons) and the time frame to get new transmission projects approved and built. ERCOT examined several options, including reactive only options, in an attempt to bridge this gap. A combination of additional circuits and reactive support were also examined, but the precise size and location of reactive support is not identified. Additionally, reactive support alone is not a near-term solution due to the additional operational risk that it imposes.

g)    ERCOT was asked which year should be used for calculation for production cost savings and answered that there isn’t a current economic analysis approach (for the same reason discussed under agenda item1 – awaiting PUC economic criteria direction). Therefore, there is not a year for determining production cost savings. ERCOT hesitated to set a scope for hypothetical studies.

h)    A stakeholder asked whether the dynamic limits are posted anywhere and ERCOT answered that they aren’t currently posted, but they can look at a way to provide this data, such as posting a “most limiting value” without provide specific data.