04/03/2025 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 1:34:47
Duration 1:46:05
Loaded: 89.41%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 11:18
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • Clip 0 - Validation for ROS Standing Representatives
    00:00:18 Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT.
  • 00:00:21Welcome everybody to the ROS meeting. Before we
  • 00:00:24get started today, I just wanted to briefly
  • 00:00:26go over some meeting reminders. Erin does have
  • 00:00:28this information in the chat, but we are
  • 00:00:31using, the chat function to queue promotions or
  • 00:00:34discussions. So please enter yourself into the chat
  • 00:00:37and then wait for the chair to recognize
  • 00:00:39you. Also, as we approach the balloting process
  • 00:00:43for any voting items, you do ask that
  • 00:00:46seated representatives unmute themselves as we approach your
  • 00:00:49segment. And then after you have cast your
  • 00:00:51vote, please return to the mute function. That
  • 00:00:54will help us be a little more, efficient
  • 00:00:57with that validating process. And then if the
  • 00:01:00WebEx ends for any reason, give us just
  • 00:01:02a few moments. We should be able to
  • 00:01:03restart the WebEx with the same meeting details.
  • 00:01:07And if we are unable to use those
  • 00:01:09details, we will send something to the ROS
  • 00:01:11listserv. So just give us a few minutes
  • 00:01:13to process all of that. And with that,
  • 00:01:16Katie, we do have a quorum and are
  • 00:01:19ready to start when you're ready. Thanks, Susie.
  • Clip 1 - Antitrust Admonition
    00:01:24 If Erin can pull up the antitrust for
  • 00:01:27us and while everybody was is reviewing that,
  • 00:01:30I'll just talk about the alt reps that
  • 00:01:32we have for today. So for Chase Smith
  • 00:01:35with Southern Power, we have Kristen Cook. Adam
  • 00:01:38Cochran with Tenaska has the alt rep of
  • 00:01:41John Barnell. Justin Cockrell with DC Energy has
  • 00:01:46the alt rep of Mark Price, and Chris
  • 00:01:49Garrity with TNMP has alt rep Rob Bevel.
  • 00:01:53I think that's everyone. Right, Susie? This is
  • 00:01:59Mark Price from DC Energy. Just a quick
  • 00:02:01clarification on that. I'm the proxy for Justin
  • 00:02:05Cockrell. It's not the other way around. Thanks.
  • 00:02:07That's right. That's what I'm saying. Oh, thanks.
  • 00:02:10Got it. Okay. Thanks. Alright. If you would
  • Clip 2 - Agenda Review
    00:02:14 take us back to the agenda, Erin, we
  • 00:02:16could go over that quickly. I do have
  • 00:02:18one item that I need to take up
  • 00:02:21out of order to accommodate working group leadership.
  • 00:02:24So we have our meeting minutes. I'll go
  • 00:02:27over the TAC update. I do have some
  • 00:02:30raw schools for you, so hopefully we can
  • 00:02:32get those approved today. We'll take up the
  • 00:02:35Black Start working group, and then we'll jump
  • 00:02:37into the ERCOT reports, take a look at
  • 00:02:42the new PRS referrals. I have one item
  • 00:02:46that I asked to be added, which is
  • 00:02:48NPRR1278. It has not been referred to us
  • 00:02:51yet. So but wanted to do a preliminary
  • 00:02:54review since it is associated with PGRR and
  • 00:02:58NOGRR NOGRR for advanced grid support. I think
  • 00:03:03we are waiting on the IA and then
  • 00:03:05language of view on NOGRR275.
  • 00:03:08And if you could keep scrolling down. Go
  • 00:03:13through our table list. NPRR1264, I don't see
  • 00:03:17any action on that. And then start going
  • 00:03:19through all of our working groups. And then
  • 00:03:27we have the combo ballot. We will have
  • 00:03:30already taken care of Black Start working group. We'll
  • 00:03:32have the OTWG. And then under other business,
  • 00:03:36take a look at one action item to
  • 00:03:38see how you'd like to proceed with that
  • 00:03:41one. So that that will take us through
  • 00:03:43the agenda. Any any questions on that before
  • Clip 3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes (Possible Vote
    00:03:46 we get started? Okay. So next item is
  • Clip 3.1 - March 6, 2025
    00:03:54 approval of the ROS meeting minutes from March.
  • 00:03:59Is everyone good with those, or was there
  • 00:04:02anyone that needed to abstain? Okay. Well, not
  • 00:04:14seeing anything. I think we can add this
  • 00:04:16as our first item on the combo ballot.
  • 00:04:35Great. Okay. And that will take us to
  • Clip 4 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC
    00:04:38 Update) the TAC update. So what I have for
  • 00:04:42you is the three real time cooptimization NPRRs
  • 00:04:49NPRR1268, NPRR1269 , and NPRR1270
  • 00:04:51were approved. You know, various versions of
  • 00:04:57those, the NPRR1268 with IMM's comments,
  • 00:05:00NPRR1269 with TCPA comments, and then
  • 00:05:04NPRR1270 as filed. And then all of
  • 00:05:07our voting items, so we had over NOGGR274
  • 00:05:11which was related to eliminating the
  • 00:05:14VDI, PGRR115, which was related to
  • 00:05:18NPRR1234 with a large load interconnection,
  • 00:05:22and then PGRR119, which was stability
  • 00:05:25constraint modeling assumptions. Those were all approved, but
  • 00:05:29I will, just for, you know, the good
  • 00:05:31of the group, say that PGRR115
  • 00:05:34did have significant discussions surrounding the timing of
  • 00:05:38the study for the interconnection load limit. ERCOT
  • 00:05:42has stated that would be mid April, and
  • 00:05:45that's being discussed at PLWG, and then concerns
  • 00:05:49about isolating colocated load. But, ultimately, it it
  • 00:05:53did move forward. And then there were discussions
  • 00:05:58of changes to the MDRPOC. We've had
  • 00:06:01some earlier discussions about that. That has moved
  • 00:06:04over to WMS, and there will be a
  • 00:06:08group that's going to look together to put
  • 00:06:11together alternative proposal to what's what's currently under
  • 00:06:15the the methodology there. So if that's interesting
  • 00:06:18to you, please plug in to the next
  • 00:06:20WMS. So that's what I've got for you
  • 00:06:23for the TAC update. Tried to be as
  • 00:06:25thorough as I could. Any questions on that?
  • 00:06:28I don't see anyone in the queue currently.
  • Clip 5 - ROS Goals/Strategic Objectives (Possible Vote
    00:06:32) Okay. Alright. Let's pop over to our ROS
  • 00:06:35goals slash strategic objectives if you wanna pull
  • 00:06:40those up for me. Great. So what you
  • 00:06:50see here is the product of several of
  • 00:06:54us. Like, I I wanna thank Shane and
  • 00:06:57Cyrus and Sandeep and Alex for providing some
  • 00:07:00input as we try to condense our goals
  • 00:07:03down. You will see a lot of this
  • 00:07:07is the same wording we did manage to
  • 00:07:10con condense these down. And so hoping you
  • 00:07:14guys would be okay with moving forward with
  • 00:07:17this, but wanted to give you a minute
  • 00:07:19to review and see if you had any
  • 00:07:21comments or questions. Okay. Not seeing any, Erin,
  • 00:07:42then would would love to have this on
  • 00:07:45a combo ballot, so I'll be able to
  • 00:07:46report back to to TAC that we did
  • 00:07:49complete our task. And we hopefully have something
  • 00:07:52that doesn't need to be revised as frequently
  • 00:07:55as annually. Alright. Perfect. Thank you. And then
  • 00:08:01from here, I'll let the chair for Black
  • 00:08:06Start working group give their update. Katie, can
  • 00:08:11you hear me? We can. Go ahead, please.
  • Clip 21 - Black Start Working Group
    00:08:16 Okay. So Black Start working group met on
  • 00:08:20March 11. There was about 33 participants. It
  • 00:08:23was a closed session meeting. The only topic
  • 00:08:27that I can update y'all on is we
  • 00:08:29we reviewed a NOGRR that's in a draft
  • 00:08:32status status for communication. ERCOT took it, and
  • 00:08:38they are looking at it a little bit
  • 00:08:39more detailed, and we'll bring it back to
  • 00:08:41the Blackstrap working group at the next meeting
  • 00:08:44in June. That that's all we we had
  • 00:08:48in our meeting. The next meeting is slated
  • 00:08:50for June 25. Thanks for your update. Thank
  • 00:09:00you. Yeah. Okay. Well, that will take us
  • Clip 6 - ERCOT Reports - 9:45 a.m.
    00:09:04 into ERCOT reports, and we'll kick it off
  • 00:09:09with the operations report. Good morning, ROS. This
  • Clip 6.1 - Operations Report
    00:09:19 is Alex Lee from ERCOT. For the month
  • 00:09:23of February, the peak demand was 80 gigawatt,
  • 00:09:26525 megawatt, which happened on February 20, our
  • 00:09:31ending eighth. There was six frequency events, all
  • 00:09:36of which were DTE unit trips, then frequency
  • 00:09:39all recovered within several minutes. There was no
  • 00:09:43ECRS event, and there was no RRS event.
  • 00:09:49One OCN was issued due to extreme extreme
  • 00:09:53cold weather, and there were three advisories, one
  • 00:09:57of which was also related to the cold
  • 00:09:59weather, and there were two advisories for TSAT
  • 00:10:03being unavailable. There was also one watch for
  • 00:10:07extreme cold weather, and there were two solar
  • 00:10:10there were solar records happening for all happened
  • 00:10:14on February 28, both for the megawatt and
  • 00:10:18then the penetrations. There were quite a bit
  • 00:10:22of rock commitments, hundred and five, and there
  • 00:10:24were several there were quite a bit of
  • 00:10:26congestions happening through GTCs as well. With that,
  • 00:10:31I'll open the floor for any questions. Thanks,
  • 00:10:39Alex. Not seeing anything in the queue. Thank
  • 00:10:44you. So I think I think we're good
  • 00:10:46this oh, sorry. Kara, go ahead. Hang on,
  • 00:10:50Alex. Hey, Katie. Good morning. I it was
  • 00:10:53a last minute entry. Just a question on
  • 00:10:55the ruck. This is carryover from the TAC
  • 00:10:57meeting last week. There was a discussion of
  • 00:11:00on getting more visibility possibly on the reasons
  • 00:11:04for rocking, specifically when it came down to
  • 00:11:08GTC congestion. I think the conversation said from
  • 00:11:12TAC that this would be discussed at WMS,
  • 00:11:14but just wanted to bring it up, Katie.
  • 00:11:16I don't know if ERCOT has any comments
  • 00:11:18at this time, or we can wait till
  • 00:11:20the next WMS. Alex, did you wanna respond
  • 00:11:28to that? Or like she said, wait for
  • 00:11:30the May 5 WMWG. Who's that gonna be?
  • 00:11:37Sure. I think we're still looking at it.
  • 00:11:39I don't think There's just there's just a
  • 00:11:41lot of moving pieces. And we need, like
  • 00:11:43like, you know Amani, I need you to
  • 00:11:46mute. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead,
  • 00:11:56Alex. Sorry. I guess we don't have I
  • 00:12:01know WMS discussed, and there's a lot of
  • 00:12:04internal discussions around how we can clarify those
  • 00:12:07as well. I don't unfortunately, we don't have
  • 00:12:10anything yet, but we're still looking into it.
  • 00:12:12And I probably, WMS will be a we
  • 00:12:18could bring it back to the next WMS.
  • 00:12:21So I think that's the only update I
  • 00:12:24can provide today unless anybody else on our
  • 00:12:28call has something to put it. Sounds good,
  • 00:12:36Alex. Thank you for the feedback. Thank you.
  • 00:12:43Sandeep, you had a question? Yes. Sandeep with
  • 00:12:47LCRA. Alex, a quick question. I'm sure you
  • 00:12:51all are looking at large load performance. Is
  • 00:12:57that something, that you consider adding to the
  • 00:13:01report as in if there are any large
  • 00:13:04load trips and its impact to frequency? I
  • 00:13:07know that's a that's the topic of discussion
  • 00:13:10at PLWG and and and the bigger. So
  • 00:13:15would be would be interesting to see if
  • 00:13:18if that can be added to the operations
  • 00:13:21report just to see if just to have
  • 00:13:25some collect some experience around that. I know
  • 00:13:28you you all probably have that experience already.
  • 00:13:30So that's something to consider to see if,
  • 00:13:33if we could review, instances when you have
  • 00:13:38these trips or or, voluntary curtailments. How does
  • 00:13:43that impact, or does that impact frequency at
  • 00:13:47all? And so just to mention and thought
  • 00:13:50for you all to consider. Thank you, Sanjay.
  • 00:13:56Yes. Definitely, we can look into it and
  • 00:13:58see what we can bring and add to
  • 00:14:00this operations report. Good deal. Thanks. And, yeah,
  • 00:14:10others on on ROS can can chime in
  • 00:14:13and also add whether it's it's a good
  • 00:14:16idea or not not so much not not
  • 00:14:17so good idea to be discussed at in
  • 00:14:21this report in this forum, and we can
  • 00:14:23take it elsewhere and offline. Thank you. Bye.
  • 00:14:34Thanks, Sandeep. Alright. Thanks, Alex. I think that
  • 00:14:39will now take us to the system planning
  • 00:14:41re Good morning, everyone. This is Ping An
  • Clip 6.2 - System Planning Report
    00:14:49 with ERCOT Grid Planning. So far, this month's
  • 00:14:52system planning report, I do not have additional
  • 00:14:56highlights to bring to us, but I will
  • 00:14:59be more than happy to address any questions.
  • 00:15:09Thanks, Peng. I was giving folks a second
  • 00:15:11to pop in the queue if they had
  • 00:15:13anything. Okay. I think we are good. Yeah.
  • 00:15:24Thanks, Katie. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Alright. Erin,
  • 00:15:29do we have one more report? Okay. Yeah.
  • 00:15:35So we have the GTC update. I can
  • 00:15:44can you hear me? From work. Can. Go
  • 00:15:49ahead. Can you please open the slide? I
  • 00:15:54think it it was posted. Hey. Hi. This
  • 00:16:09is this is Erin. Yes. Just give me
  • 00:16:13one second. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning,
  • Clip 6.3 - Generic Transmission Constraint (GTC
    00:16:58 Update) everyone. This is from Oncor operations support. We
  • 00:17:03had two GTC update yesterday. Kinney GTC
  • 00:17:09and the panhandle GTC. Can you please go
  • 00:17:12to next page? So the the Kinney GTC
  • 00:17:16update is based on 2025 Q1
  • 00:17:20one QSA study with additional generation
  • 00:17:23result in the GTC area. The update pretty
  • 00:17:27minor. The interface remain unchanged. And then for
  • 00:17:32the GTC limit, there's no stability constraint for
  • 00:17:37no product condition. It's the same as the
  • 00:17:40the previous GTC limit. And we update a
  • 00:17:44few GTC limit for some priority condition. So
  • 00:17:48as I said, overall, the update, pretty minor.
  • 00:17:52The CDC update became effective on 04/02/2025. So
  • 00:17:58that's the type, basically, yesterday. And as always,
  • 00:18:03the MI secure place has the most updated
  • 00:18:07GTC methodology document. Next page, please. We have
  • 00:18:16another GTC Panhandle GTC yesterday. The update is
  • 00:18:22based on a GTC study with additional generation
  • 00:18:26resources in the Panhandle and nearby Panhandle area.
  • 00:18:30The interface definition will be updated to align
  • 00:18:34with the in service date of the topology
  • 00:18:37change on the interface line. Basically, there are
  • 00:18:39some cutting station on the interface definitely interface
  • 00:18:44line, so we will need to update the
  • 00:18:46interface to accommodate that cutting stations. And then
  • 00:18:50the GTC limit change. Overall, the, you know,
  • 00:18:54GTC limit kind of increase for both the
  • 00:18:57outage condition and no problem condition. Yeah. That
  • 00:19:01kind of the quick update. I will be
  • 00:19:05more happy to answer questions if there are
  • 00:19:07any questions. Thanks for your update. Now we
  • 00:19:14have someone in the queue. Go ahead. Hello.
  • 00:19:19Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. This is
  • 00:19:24Jackson Guo from AT&T Energy. The
  • 00:19:29ERCOT increased the time of GDP limit aside
  • 00:19:32from yesterday because of more, like, new generation
  • 00:19:37connecting to the Panhandle and the nearby Panhandle
  • 00:19:40region. But this increase contradict to a previous
  • 00:19:45Panhandle GTC study, which said more new generation
  • 00:19:49connection to the panel nearby panel regions could
  • 00:19:53further suggest voltage stability issues. So I just
  • 00:19:57want to know what the theory and the
  • 00:19:59reasoning behind these GTC limit increase because of
  • 00:20:03new generation connection to the Pan to a
  • 00:20:07nearby Pan region? And and, Jack, that that's
  • 00:20:13a very good question. So, basically, like that,
  • 00:20:18the GDs update is to accommodate additional generation
  • 00:20:21source in panel and also near by panel.
  • 00:20:24And some generation resulted in near by panel
  • 00:20:28are batteries. And as I present before, so
  • 00:20:32when we create panel GTC image, we consider
  • 00:20:38nearby panel battery to be connected but at
  • 00:20:44zero to the patch. So therefore, those batteries
  • 00:20:48in nearby panhandle, they basically provide additional reactive
  • 00:20:53power support. That's why the GTC may
  • 00:20:57limit kind of increased. I hope that answer
  • 00:21:02your question. Let me know if you have
  • 00:21:04any thoughts. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything
  • 00:21:13else on the DTC update? Okay. It looks
  • 00:21:19like our queue is clear. Thank you again.
  • Clip 7 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS
    00:21:22 Referrals (Vote)) Thank you. Alright. That will take us on
  • 00:21:26to item number seven. These are new, but
  • 00:21:32maybe not so new revision requests. So if
  • Clip 7.1 - NPRR1272, Voltage Support at Private Use Networks
    00:21:36 you recall, NPRR1272, we voluntarily took this
  • 00:21:42one up. We sent it over to PLWG
  • 00:21:45and voltage profile working group. Both have reviewed
  • 00:21:49this, and PLWG has asked for more time.
  • 00:21:53I think Voltage Profile Working Group needed another
  • 00:21:55month as well. So we may have something
  • 00:21:58to talk about at the May ROS, but
  • 00:22:01for now, it sounds like those groups just
  • 00:22:04need more time to work. So any any
  • 00:22:07questions or concerns about this one? Okay. So
  • 00:22:20we can just keep it tabled. Erin, do
  • 00:22:24we need to do anything formal? Hi, Katie.
  • 00:22:29This is Erin with ERCOT market rules. So
  • 00:22:32since this was formally, referred to ROS, it
  • 00:22:37probably would be a good idea to, submit
  • 00:22:40comments requesting PRF continue to table, and, it
  • 00:22:46would be a and we can add it
  • 00:22:47there for, like, a, formal referral to PLWG
  • 00:22:51and VPWG. Okay. Perfect. So that's our combo
  • 00:22:56ballot item. Alright, Erin. That looks good. What's,
  • 00:23:13you have something, Nava? No. Sorry. I think,
  • 00:23:20for $12.72. Right? We, yeah, we were talking
  • 00:23:24about NPRR1278. We haven't gotten to
  • 00:23:25NPRR1274 yet. Yeah. I mean, I
  • 00:23:28think, I need to abstain for that also.
  • 00:23:30I need a separate valid. Okay. K. Erin,
  • 00:23:57do you wanna try to get through December,
  • 00:23:59and then we can do a separate ballot?
  • 00:24:06That's fine. We'll just need a motion and
  • 00:24:10second, before we do the separate ballot. But,
  • 00:24:15yeah, we could go ahead and move on
  • 00:24:16to NPRR1274 if that's what you
  • 00:24:18like to do. Okay. So, Naba, are you
  • 00:24:23making you're making a formal motion? No. No.
  • 00:24:27No. I'm I'm talking about, NPRR1272,
  • 00:24:30not 74. That's correct. Right. So for us
  • 00:24:35to do a separate ballot, we need a
  • 00:24:37motion and a second. So Nava, I just
  • 00:24:55this is Aaron from ERCOT Market Rules. I
  • 00:24:58I just wanted to clarify and make sure
  • 00:25:00that, what what we would be voting on
  • 00:25:04is request PRF continue to table the
  • 00:25:09NPRR1272. Oh, I see. So this
  • 00:25:12is still still tabled. Okay. Okay. I got
  • 00:25:14it. Yeah. I got it. So it yeah.
  • 00:25:17Yeah. It's under the PRS's purview, so they
  • 00:25:20would be the one that would recommend approval.
  • 00:25:23But all this does is asking PRS to,
  • 00:25:27continue to table it so discussions can continue
  • 00:25:30at the working groups. I got it. I
  • 00:25:33got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So,
  • 00:25:36it sounds like you no longer need a
  • 00:25:38separate ballot, Doug. No. I didn't need it.
  • 00:25:40I didn't need it. I'm sorry. Okay. Yep.
  • 00:25:43No no worries. Alright. Very good. Thank you.
  • 00:25:48Erin, thank you so much for clarifying that.
  • 00:25:51Appreciate it. Okay. So that makes it easier
  • Clip 7.2 - NPRR1274, RPG Estimated Capital Cost Thresholds of Proposed Transmission Projects
    00:25:54 for us. So we're okay on December.
  • 00:25:58NPRR1274 is indeed new to us. I
  • 00:26:01wanted to see if anyone from ERCOT was
  • 00:26:04on that wanted to lay this out, and
  • 00:26:07then I do have a suggestion for a
  • 00:26:09referral. Yes. This is Robert Golan from ERCOT.
  • 00:26:14Can you hear me? We can. Excellent. Good
  • 00:26:20morning, everybody. Yes. We're bringing this revision request
  • 00:26:24to adjust the, capital cost thresholds for RPG
  • 00:26:30project submission categorizations. Essentially, based on inflationary data,
  • 00:26:37we are proposing to increase the capital cost
  • 00:26:41by about 35%. If you scroll down through
  • 00:26:45through the body, you'll see that there's just
  • 00:26:47a a handful of of places in section
  • 00:26:50three point eleven point four point three that
  • 00:26:53have been updated to reflect these capital cost
  • 00:26:57adjustments. Well, that's that's all all the changes
  • 00:27:04for this, revision request. Thanks, Robert. It looks
  • 00:27:16like we have, a question in the queue.
  • 00:27:19Could you comment on how many projects are
  • 00:27:21under the cap for December? Are you referring
  • 00:27:29to current projects underway or historical projects? Let's
  • 00:27:37do both. Currently, right now, in 2025, we've
  • 00:27:45had I'm trying to just do this off
  • 00:27:48the top of my head. I think four
  • 00:27:50projects that would have been recategorized from a
  • 00:27:54tier one to a tier three. There have
  • 00:27:58been no adjustments to tier two projects. Yeah.
  • 00:28:05Tier threes, those those are pretty much the
  • 00:28:09same. I think there's a couple that would
  • 00:28:11be that were right at that $2,628,000,000 dollar
  • 00:28:14threshold that would be converted essentially to a
  • 00:28:17tier four. And then going back through time,
  • 00:28:23would need a few days to to pull
  • 00:28:27all those numbers. Okay. Thank you. I was
  • 00:28:38just trying to get a idea of what
  • 00:28:40the scope of this is for for the
  • 00:28:43transmission approvals. Thanks. Thanks, Brett. Let's, move on
  • 00:28:50to Ether. Ether Noshwadi with Oncor. Robert, thank
  • 00:28:55you. Is the number that you quoted for
  • 00:28:58a project submitted in 2025 or still under
  • 00:29:01review at this time in 2025? Those would
  • 00:29:05be projects that have either been submitted or
  • 00:29:08approved in 2025 so far. Got it. Thank
  • 00:29:12you. Ken, you're next and then Kristen. Hey
  • 00:29:24there. Yeah. Ken Bowen, TPS. Just quick question.
  • 00:29:28Once this is if and when this gets
  • 00:29:31implemented, what is the application? Is it any
  • 00:29:36project from that point on that submitted, or
  • 00:29:39would projects that are already in flight or
  • 00:29:42being reviewed by ERCOT suddenly changed tiers? My
  • 00:29:49understanding would be that any project submitted after
  • 00:29:53the effective date would be recategorized. Okay. So
  • 00:29:58anything that's currently under evaluation would remain under
  • 00:30:01its tier classification. Thank you. Okay. Kristen. Yeah.
  • 00:30:17Thank you. This is Kristen Cook with Southern
  • 00:30:19Power. My question is when when were these
  • 00:30:23cost thresholds last, last adjusted? These these cost
  • 00:30:31thresholds were implemented in June of twenty eighteen.
  • 00:30:38Great. Thank you. Alright. It looks like we
  • 00:30:51have a clear queue. Any more questions for
  • 00:30:54Robert? Okay. So so my question to the
  • 00:31:00group, since we don't oversee RPG, would you
  • 00:31:04want to table and refer this over to
  • 00:31:07PLWG to allow them to have time to
  • 00:31:10look at it? Okay. Ethan agrees with that.
  • 00:31:26Anyone disagree? Okay. Thank you, Brett. Okay. So
  • 00:31:43so so, Erin, can we go ahead and
  • 00:31:44add this to the combo ballot so we
  • 00:31:47will table and refer to PLWG? Thank you.
  • 00:31:52Thank you. You already got it? Okay. Perfect.
  • 00:31:55Sounds good. Thanks. That will take us on
  • Clip 8 - NPRR1278, Establishing Advanced Grid Support Service as an Ancillary Service (Waive Notice - Possible Vote
    00:32:06) to item number eight. Alright. So NPRR1278 was just filed. It has not
  • 00:32:15been to PRS. I wanted to add it
  • 00:32:21because this was the NPRR we we talked
  • 00:32:24about in theory last month that would allow
  • 00:32:27us to have a service for advanced grid
  • 00:32:32support. And I know that Bob Helton should
  • 00:32:37be on as the sponsor, and I wanted
  • 00:32:40to let him lay this one out. Sure.
  • 00:32:42Thank you, Katie. Yeah. This one, of course,
  • 00:32:46is, if you if you look at it,
  • 00:32:49it's creating a advanced grid support service. It's
  • 00:32:51it's based on the way Black Start works. It
  • 00:32:55it's based on the way Black Start works. It
  • 00:33:00would be a yearly contract that is put
  • 00:33:03out there to supply that service, and that
  • 00:33:09that's kind of the big picture of what
  • 00:33:10it is. Now I see three things that
  • 00:33:13it does is number one, it provides the
  • 00:33:15reliability, requirements that ERCOT was putting into February
  • 00:33:20currently. So that is all included in there
  • 00:33:24as the qualification side. The second piece it
  • 00:33:28does is February is basically going to have
  • 00:33:31a requirement for, you know, for energy storage
  • 00:33:36to supply this service. What the NPRR does,
  • 00:33:39it opens it up to any IBR that
  • 00:33:43has the ability to do that or wants
  • 00:33:46to upgrade what they have to provide that
  • 00:33:49service and then put in and offer in
  • 00:33:51for that service. So it opens up a
  • 00:33:53lot of different areas, locations, and the number
  • 00:33:58of IBRs that would be possible candidates to
  • 00:34:02supply this. So I believe that that opens
  • 00:34:05that up. And then the third thing that
  • 00:34:08I look at this is what it does
  • 00:34:10is it provides really a living ancillary service.
  • 00:34:14I mean, if you look at at the
  • 00:34:15other ancillary services are base basically static and
  • 00:34:18have always best, you know, static. It's PFR
  • 00:34:21or it's a, you know, ten minute service
  • 00:34:23or it's a thirty minute service. What this
  • 00:34:26can do, and that's why it's partly a
  • 00:34:28year contract instead of longer, is that as
  • 00:34:32the grid progresses and as ERCOT sees things
  • 00:34:35out there and as the OEMs, are able
  • 00:34:40to supply additional additional software and services,
  • 00:34:45ERCOT can go out and change this, in
  • 00:34:49the RFP process to say, now we're going
  • 00:34:52to not only need what we have today,
  • 00:34:54we're going to want x, y, or z
  • 00:34:57in the future. And then in that next
  • 00:35:01contract period or the one after that, they
  • 00:35:04could put that in the RFP, and everyone
  • 00:35:07will know. And those that wanna participate will
  • 00:35:09upgrade and do what they need to do
  • 00:35:10to be a part of that service. So
  • 00:35:12there's three things that I think that does
  • 00:35:14that, that helps reliability and, both now and
  • 00:35:21in the future. And if you go through,
  • 00:35:23you know, there's gonna be a lot of
  • 00:35:24debate on this from, the perspectives of, well,
  • 00:35:29some some areas pay for this, other areas
  • 00:35:32don't. I think that conversation needs to be
  • 00:35:36had. That's why I wrote this thing. So
  • 00:35:38I look forward to, answering any questions and
  • 00:35:43see where this goes through the process. So
  • 00:35:45is there anything else, Katie, you you want
  • 00:35:47me to cover on that, or is is
  • 00:35:49that kinda do it? I think that's a
  • 00:35:53great overview, Bob. So let me see if
  • 00:35:55there are any any questions from anyone. That
  • 00:35:59was mainly the goal today. Kristen, go ahead.
  • 00:36:08Thank you. Thanks for laying this out, Bob.
  • 00:36:12Appreciate, I know a lot of work and
  • 00:36:15effort went into developing this revision request. I
  • 00:36:19guess procedurally, I'm trying to understand, is this
  • 00:36:25revision request, does it require that February go
  • 00:36:33forward? Like, does it work in tandem, or
  • 00:36:35should it be seen as an alternative to
  • 00:36:38two seventy two? The way I look at
  • 00:36:41that is two seventy two is a a
  • 00:36:45standard that's being set that you must apply
  • 00:36:49and must be, you know, in compliance with.
  • 00:36:54And it's a subset of the IBRs that
  • 00:36:58are out there. That's why I said, well,
  • 00:37:00I think this is more appropriate to be
  • 00:37:02an ancillary service rather than a a standard
  • 00:37:06change. And so that's why I wrote that.
  • 00:37:09And what I so to answer that, I
  • 00:37:11guess, shortly, yes, I think this is an
  • 00:37:13alternative to two seventy two. However, it gives
  • 00:37:16the same reliability in my mind that two
  • 00:37:20seventy two is trying to achieve. Actually, I
  • 00:37:23think it gives more reliability both today and
  • 00:37:26in the future. So that's the way I
  • 00:37:28look at it. Thanks for clarifying. Alright. We've
  • 00:37:36got a little short little queue building. Cyrus
  • 00:37:39Reid and then Ken Bowen. Yeah. First of
  • 00:37:43all, thank you, Bob, for bringing this forward.
  • 00:37:46This is an alternative approach that seems, you
  • 00:37:49know, worthy of discussion. Has the PUC itself
  • 00:37:54weighed in? In the end, this is kind
  • 00:37:56of a, you know, sort of a policy
  • 00:37:59question. Should this be a requirement? Should it
  • 00:38:02be an ancillary services? Has the PUC in
  • 00:38:05any way weighed in on this issue, or
  • 00:38:07there it really hasn't gotten to that level
  • 00:38:09yet? No. It hasn't got to that level
  • 00:38:11yet. Thanks for the question. And I I
  • 00:38:13would fully expect that that they will have
  • 00:38:16some comment one way or another on that.
  • 00:38:18Because if you look at, you know, the
  • 00:38:20the business case and that and why we're
  • 00:38:22doing this, it's kinda still does play into
  • 00:38:25a little bit of of the phase one
  • 00:38:28URI, you know, voltage support and other event
  • 00:38:32you know, and other grid services. So, that's
  • 00:38:38why that was stated in there. And, actually,
  • 00:38:42I think that should move forward, in tandem
  • 00:38:46with this, but that's, of course, at the
  • 00:38:48PUC, not here. But I would expect they
  • 00:38:50will have some comments on this. Does that
  • 00:38:57help, Cyrus? Does that answer your question? Yeah.
  • 00:39:02Yeah. Thanks so much. I just didn't know
  • 00:39:03if they'd if they'd weighed in, but sounds
  • 00:39:06like that would come later. Yeah. You guys
  • 00:39:09filing us. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Ken, go
  • 00:39:16ahead. Hey. Excuse me. Yeah. Ken Bowen, TPS.
  • 00:39:25And to the degree that you can help
  • 00:39:27me with any of my confusion, I appreciate
  • 00:39:29it. So and maybe I don't know all
  • 00:39:34the aspects of this, you know, what advanced
  • 00:39:36grid can support. Seems like, you know, to
  • 00:39:40some degree, this provides system inertia, I believe,
  • 00:39:43and maybe some other aspects. So from that
  • 00:39:48perspective, it just seems like, you know, conventional
  • 00:39:51generation from the time that the electric system
  • 00:39:54first even started has been had the ability
  • 00:39:57to provide some of this stuff and and
  • 00:40:02has done that without being an ancillary service.
  • 00:40:06And so now that IBRs are catching up
  • 00:40:11to the base level of reliability that conventional
  • 00:40:14units have been able to provide in the
  • 00:40:16past, now we're saying that's a, ancillary service
  • 00:40:20or an extra thing we're doing. So is
  • 00:40:23there now a thought that conventional generators should
  • 00:40:27also be paid for this service? Well, to
  • 00:40:31answer that that the last question, I've been
  • 00:40:34arguing for that for for years and, unsuccessful
  • 00:40:39that all of that should have been paid
  • 00:40:40for. We had many, many when we were
  • 00:40:43developing this market going back and dating myself
  • 00:40:46arguing about this particular piece. And, of course,
  • 00:40:51it came out in URI after URI that
  • 00:40:53that that's been cast over to the commission
  • 00:40:56to look at doing that, and it was
  • 00:40:58part of phase one, which hasn't been implemented
  • 00:41:00yet. So I I think all should be
  • 00:41:03paid, for the services that are provided that
  • 00:41:06are reliability based. Now with that said, I
  • 00:41:10will say that the way this came out
  • 00:41:12with February and what it was, it was
  • 00:41:15a subset, which I think that was a
  • 00:41:19good choice, by the way, they were putting
  • 00:41:20that out of of IBRs that would supply
  • 00:41:26that for the good of the entire market.
  • 00:41:28And that is what really tripped me into
  • 00:41:31saying it's an ancillary service, to put it
  • 00:41:35that way. The other piece is, like I
  • 00:41:39said, this also, is a is an ancillary
  • 00:41:43service that is living, and ERCOT can change
  • 00:41:47it as the grid progresses. And I think
  • 00:41:50that's a really positive thing that's already in
  • 00:41:53place. They can change it. Now what would
  • 00:41:57this cost? We don't know. There's some out
  • 00:42:00there that say, oh, if you can do
  • 00:42:02it, there's no cost to it. I I'm
  • 00:42:05not buying that, especially after seeing two forty
  • 00:42:08five trying to be implemented. That's not working
  • 00:42:11out the way that it was, was talked
  • 00:42:14about. And so if it's if it doesn't
  • 00:42:17cost anything, then you would expect that this
  • 00:42:19will be erased to zero, on the RFPs.
  • 00:42:23If it is a cost, then that'll be
  • 00:42:25associated with that, and I believe there will
  • 00:42:27be. And then as we move forward into
  • 00:42:29the to the future, if ERCOT needs something
  • 00:42:32else, add it into the RFP, and then
  • 00:42:35we can, you know, have a higher reliability
  • 00:42:38factor in ERCOT as needed as the grid
  • 00:42:42grows and changes. Does that help? I mean,
  • 00:42:46that's gonna be a big one of the
  • 00:42:48big key arguments that we're gonna have. I
  • 00:42:51expect most of that will be in WMS
  • 00:42:53on the market side of this, and then
  • 00:42:56the reliability side will be here. So, I
  • 00:43:00look forward to this getting into both groups
  • 00:43:02and starting that conversation. But it's a conversation
  • 00:43:05we need to have. That helps. Thank you.
  • 00:43:13It is there a working group this is
  • 00:43:18gonna be sent to you? When it just
  • 00:43:22gonna hold it here for policy decisions. I
  • 00:43:28think that's a a more of a Katie
  • 00:43:29question. Now what, you know, what I would
  • 00:43:32expect is when it gets to PRS and
  • 00:43:36I think a little surprised. It was in
  • 00:43:38May, but that's fine. That we'll we will
  • 00:43:42send that over to WMS and ROS, and
  • 00:43:45then, of course, y'all can decide if it
  • 00:43:47needs to go to a sub subgroup or
  • 00:43:49working group underneath y'all. So I'm leaving that
  • 00:43:53up to Katie and the rest of ROS
  • 00:43:56members. Yeah. Thanks, Bob. Ken, to your question,
  • 00:44:02so this wasn't so we basically are waiving
  • 00:44:07we would have to waive notice to take
  • 00:44:09any specific action on it today, you know,
  • 00:44:14which we we could if it met a
  • 00:44:15certain threshold. But at this point, I just
  • 00:44:17wanted to make sure we we saw it
  • 00:44:20as soon as we could. I know that
  • 00:44:22Fred Fred's in the queue, but Fred has
  • 00:44:24also been patiently waiting to kinda contrast this
  • 00:44:27with the NOGRR and PGRR that have been
  • 00:44:31out there. And so I really just wanted
  • 00:44:34to start the discussion. We can tee this
  • 00:44:38up for for next month as well. So
  • 00:44:42we can we can send it to a
  • 00:44:43working group if if we think it needs
  • 00:44:46to go to one. I would probably I
  • 00:44:48would probably suggest OWG to get into the
  • 00:44:50some of the the technical merits of it,
  • 00:44:52though. Okay. But with that, I'll just Yeah.
  • 00:44:56Oh, I'm sorry. I was just gonna say
  • 00:44:58I don't think I saw it on the
  • 00:44:59PRS agenda, but maybe I missed it. But
  • 00:45:02it seems like it should have gone to
  • 00:45:03PRS first. Right? It's on the May. I
  • 00:45:06think, Bob, did you just maybe miss it
  • 00:45:09by a day or two? Yeah. I think
  • 00:45:11it was a day or two because we
  • 00:45:12had some, issues going back and forth with
  • 00:45:15market, rules, you know, to get everything the
  • 00:45:18way it need to be. Actually, we're gonna
  • 00:45:20have to make some additional administrative changes to
  • 00:45:23it, that we've figured out since then anyway.
  • 00:45:26But, when you're writing something that big, you're
  • 00:45:29you're gonna miss something. You know? So we've
  • 00:45:32got some administrative stuff we need to do
  • 00:45:34with it, but we'll do that after the
  • 00:45:36debate starts and figure out if there's other
  • 00:45:39comments need to be made to it at
  • 00:45:41that time. But yeah. And, actually, ROS, WMS,
  • 00:45:46any subcommittee can take up any filed NPRR
  • 00:45:50or NOGRR or whatever at any time. It
  • 00:45:54doesn't have to be referred to them. And
  • 00:45:56I think that Katie was was correct in
  • 00:46:00what she's done here is getting it in
  • 00:46:02front of everybody, as soon as we can
  • 00:46:05since we also have the NOGRR272 out there. So I think this was
  • 00:46:07a a a good move by Katie to
  • 00:46:09do that and get it on everybody's radar.
  • 00:46:11Then I would expect a lively conversation of
  • 00:46:14PRS in May because that gives everybody another
  • 00:46:16PRS in May because that gives everybody another
  • 00:46:19month to go through it. Yeah. Thanks, Bob.
  • 00:46:24I think, you know, folks will want to
  • 00:46:25go through the compensation and the qualification and
  • 00:46:29and and testing and everything pretty thoroughly. So
  • 00:46:35thank you guys both. So I I will
  • 00:46:37turn it over to Fred. Maybe you have
  • 00:46:40some comments on this, maybe you have comments
  • 00:46:41on your your number or figure, but, four
  • 00:46:44is yours, Fred. Yes. Thank you. Can you
  • 00:46:48hear me? We can. Thank you. So I
  • 00:46:53I think, Bob, I just kind of, I
  • 00:46:56would just say, first of all, the if
  • 00:47:01there is a way to continue to discuss
  • 00:47:04this one, we start waiting for the PIS
  • 00:47:06because it looks less scheduled with this NPRR.
  • 00:47:09The the whole discussion will probably likely at
  • 00:47:16least better multiple months ahead of it. So
  • 00:47:22we would like to definitely continue the discussion
  • 00:47:25and hopefully, work together. The I would say
  • 00:47:31maybe my next comment is we do have
  • 00:47:34several kind of qualified questions or public details.
  • 00:47:37Is that something we should bring this one
  • 00:47:41up at a working group label, and, what
  • 00:47:44is the time frame? It's like a after
  • 00:47:46PIs refer to ours? Or Well, Fred, we
  • 00:47:55could I'm sorry, Bob. I didn't mean to
  • 00:47:57cut you off. I thought that was more
  • 00:47:58of a question for me. I mean, we
  • 00:48:00could we could go ahead and send this
  • 00:48:02over to a working group. It's just, as
  • 00:48:05Aaron told me this morning, just if there's
  • 00:48:06a slightly different voting threshold. So if folks
  • 00:48:09were willing to, you know, waive notice and
  • 00:48:12and let us send it over to say,
  • 00:48:13OWG to get a head start on this,
  • 00:48:16I'd I'd be happy to do that today.
  • 00:48:17Okay. Thank you so much. So I think
  • 00:48:20at a very high level, I would just
  • 00:48:22say there are few items. We it'd be
  • 00:48:24good to have some clarification from Bob or,
  • 00:48:28that'll sponsor this one. The the first one,
  • 00:48:32it'll be good to have a data description
  • 00:48:36on what kind of product, this service need
  • 00:48:44to be procured and how to quantify. Okay.
  • 00:48:49Yeah. That that there's two questions you've got
  • 00:48:51there, Fred. And and, the first one is
  • 00:48:55is the service that would be provided is
  • 00:48:57exactly the same service that you were had
  • 00:49:00in the standard, in the PGRR and in
  • 00:49:03the NOGRR. It would be exactly the same
  • 00:49:06at this point. Now as far as as
  • 00:49:10procurement of of how you would do the
  • 00:49:13methodology, I was looking at first, let's decide
  • 00:49:19whether we wanna do it this way or
  • 00:49:21not, and we can go through that. I
  • 00:49:23mean, it's it's you're you're gonna put that
  • 00:49:25together, you know, in the ancillary service methodology
  • 00:49:28on how you would procure that, and there
  • 00:49:31are ways to do that. And this one
  • 00:49:34actually, unlike other ancillary services, if you felt
  • 00:49:41you needed it to be locational, you could
  • 00:49:43do that through the RFP period. And and,
  • 00:49:46actually, by opening this up to the to
  • 00:49:49wind, solar, and storage, to be in there,
  • 00:49:53it would give you, in my mind, more
  • 00:49:56locations, more, of a a competitive market to
  • 00:49:59get that service. So, yeah, Fred, I look
  • 00:50:03forward to working with you if this goes
  • 00:50:05the way it is, that that we work
  • 00:50:09that out on how you do that. Other
  • 00:50:10other interconnects do it. I'm sure we could
  • 00:50:13do it. Now as far as your NOGRR,
  • 00:50:16I'm not trying to stop conversation on that
  • 00:50:19because this is gonna end up one of
  • 00:50:20two ways. It's either gonna be a standard
  • 00:50:23or it's gonna be an ancillary service, but
  • 00:50:25it's gonna be implemented one way or the
  • 00:50:27other. So we need to continue to have
  • 00:50:29the conversations on both and have this debate.
  • 00:50:33K. Thank you. And probably just one final
  • 00:50:35before, probably save the rest of them for
  • 00:50:38the, working group discussion. Our proposal is to
  • 00:50:45essentially have the capability and, provide a support
  • 00:50:52when the resource is capable and available without
  • 00:50:57requiring, maintaining a headroom. So it's unlike the
  • 00:51:04ancillary service that you cannot use the capacity
  • 00:51:09reserve for the ancillary service portal in energy
  • 00:51:12market. So our proposal essentially is where you
  • 00:51:16are capable and available and that the support
  • 00:51:20is really the transient less than second or
  • 00:51:25two for, like, the voltage disturbance and all
  • 00:51:29frequency change. That's where we probably needed some
  • 00:51:33help. But I I think I understand you
  • 00:51:36were you you were kinda idea behind this
  • 00:51:40one. I just want to highlight other one.
  • 00:51:42And, yeah, looking forward, have, further discussion and
  • 00:51:46work together. Thank you. Thanks, Fred. Sean, go
  • 00:51:55ahead. Yes. Is this really not, needed to
  • 00:52:02be a service because or that's paid for?
  • 00:52:07Because I don't believe you're gonna get to
  • 00:52:13me, it seems like something that it has
  • 00:52:15to be paid for in some way instead
  • 00:52:17of you saying that people have it available,
  • 00:52:20it's used. It seems like it has a
  • 00:52:24cost to it. So is that not right,
  • 00:52:27Bob? I I would agree with that. There
  • 00:52:30are some that that, will indicate that it's
  • 00:52:33that it's likely not, or if though it
  • 00:52:37would be minimal, but I haven't bought into
  • 00:52:41that yet. I I don't know. You know,
  • 00:52:45I go back to February. You know? We're
  • 00:52:49spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get
  • 00:52:53into compliance with February whenever, you know, it
  • 00:52:56was indicated that they were gonna be minor
  • 00:52:58cost for the, software upgrades and firmware upgrades.
  • 00:53:02So I I don't know what this is
  • 00:53:04gonna be, but this will give us the
  • 00:53:05ability to go out there and look at
  • 00:53:07that cost and then offer it in, based
  • 00:53:11on those costs. If the costs are nil
  • 00:53:13or small, then you'd expect that this would
  • 00:53:15be a race to zero, and there would
  • 00:53:17be very little impact on the cost, you
  • 00:53:20know, that goes to the market. Okay. And
  • 00:53:23that's what I that's what I was wanting
  • 00:53:25to know because, for me, it seems like
  • 00:53:29it does have a cost, and we shouldn't
  • 00:53:33stick people with it without proper compensation. Thank
  • 00:53:44you. Thanks for finishing that statement out, John.
  • 00:53:55At first, I wasn't sure where you're going,
  • 00:53:56but it sounds like you're on Bob's route.
  • 00:53:59Okay. I don't see anyone else in the
  • 00:54:01queue. I do want to, you know, satisfy
  • 00:54:06Fred's request about getting this going. I know
  • 00:54:08Bob wants to do that as well. I
  • 00:54:10can I can ask working groups to look
  • 00:54:12at it without taking any action on it
  • 00:54:15today, which is probably good since we haven't
  • 00:54:19gotten a formal request, and so it's within
  • 00:54:21our purview to do that? I I personally
  • 00:54:23think OWG could look at it when you
  • 00:54:25start talking about voltage and frequency. I I
  • 00:54:29think PDCWG, but but but, Fred, I'll I'll
  • 00:54:33take it back to you and and see
  • 00:54:35if you're okay with OWG or if you
  • 00:54:37had other groups in mind as well. I
  • 00:54:42think a lot are good. And I I
  • 00:54:46know there is some discussion, but I I
  • 00:54:48still think given the nature of the technologies,
  • 00:54:53IBM working group is a is a good
  • 00:54:56one to focus on the technical discussion as
  • 00:54:59well. Yeah. Maybe maybe technical discussion. I wanna
  • 00:55:05be very careful. We'll talk about that later.
  • 00:55:08But I think that getting it to PDCWG
  • 00:55:11and OWG, they they generally drive towards con
  • 00:55:15consensus, and so I I think it would
  • 00:55:17be good to send it to them. So,
  • 00:55:20Erin, I guess there's no formal action we
  • 00:55:22have to take. I guess there's nothing to
  • 00:55:24be recorded, but I I would ask that
  • 00:55:27PDCWG leadership and OWG leadership take this up.
  • 00:55:31And then when we get to their updates,
  • 00:55:33I'll just I'll I'll just confirm with them
  • 00:55:36that they they heard the informal referral. Hi,
  • 00:55:46Katie. This is Erin with Margaret Rules. That
  • 00:55:48sounds good from a procedure perspective. Perfect. Thank
  • 00:55:52you for keeping me on top of things.
  • 00:55:56Of course. Alright, Bob. Are you good? I'm
  • 00:56:07good. I thank everybody for their time and
  • 00:56:08consideration as we move forward with this. Perfect.
  • Clip 9 - ROS Revision Requests (Vote
    00:56:12 - 10:30 a.m.) Alright. Okay. So that takes us to alright.
  • 00:56:26So let me see where that one is.
  • Clip 9.1 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
    00:56:31 NOGRR265. That it looks like that I will
  • 00:56:38not be coming back to us until May.
  • 00:56:41So there's really no action for us to
  • 00:56:44take today. So we can leave this one
  • 00:56:47parked here and and look forward to seeing
  • 00:56:49that seeing that IA in May. Alright. And
  • Clip 9.2 - NOGRR275, Eliminate Scheduling Center Requirements for QSEs That Are Not WAN Participants
    00:57:04 then NOGRR275. So I know Britney is not
  • 00:57:15on, but she's the one doing a lot
  • 00:57:16of the effort in taking things and moving
  • 00:57:21them around out of, like, OBDs. And so,
  • 00:57:29you know, I'm open to letting someone lay
  • 00:57:30this out, but I think my main question
  • 00:57:32is, is there really anything substantive here, or
  • 00:57:34is it really just a change in location?
  • 00:57:38So I'll open that up to the This
  • 00:57:47is Catherine Gross with ERCOT. Can you hear
  • 00:57:49me? We can go. Oh, okay. Great. Thanks.
  • 00:57:55So I don't think this is just moving
  • 00:57:59things around. It is updating the operating guide,
  • 00:58:04which I probably should have done in when
  • 00:58:07I did NPRR1206, which that
  • 00:58:12was approved by the commission last year. So
  • 00:58:14this is just I don't think well, it's
  • 00:58:19incorporating those edits that I probably should have
  • 00:58:22made to the clear binding doc at the
  • 00:58:25same time as I did my six. But
  • 00:58:28it's just making those same changes so that
  • 00:58:32the operator Thanks, Catherine. Did you intend for
  • 00:58:47a working group to look at this just
  • 00:58:50to verify things? I'm sorry. I see that
  • 00:58:56my audio is going in and out, so
  • 00:58:58I'll try not to move my head when
  • 00:59:00I talk. But, yeah, I think we just
  • 00:59:04I get I think it really is just
  • 00:59:05aligning with the protocol language, noncontroversial, but I
  • 00:59:12think we just, yeah, wanted Okay. I missed
  • 00:59:24that very last part about after noncontroversial. Sorry.
  • 00:59:30Is this okay? It it so the changes
  • 00:59:34should be noncontroversial because they're just aligning with
  • 00:59:38the protocol changes, but we just wanted to
  • 00:59:42make sure the language was okay with Okay.
  • 00:59:59Okay. So what what we could do is
  • 01:00:01is maybe give this another month that ROS,
  • 01:00:05given your introduction, and see if folks need
  • 01:00:07a little more time to just go through
  • 01:00:10and and review it. Would everyone be okay
  • 01:00:14with that, or is anyone ready to just
  • 01:00:16take it up today? Hey. This is Ted
  • 01:00:19Harlow with ERCOT. Can you guys hear me?
  • 01:00:21Yes. Go I just wanted to add to
  • 01:00:25what Katherine said just to clarify that this
  • 01:00:28should not be controversial. ERCOT worked with, stakeholders,
  • 01:00:33including, ROS to pass NPRR1206 a couple of years ago. Among all all
  • 01:00:36the things that it did, it clarified requirements
  • 01:00:39for references in the protocols and operating guides
  • 01:00:42for scheduling centers and control centers. And we
  • 01:00:45we've gone through at 1206 is
  • 01:00:49now in the in the protocols, clarifying that,
  • 01:00:51control and operating center requirements are those only
  • 01:00:56for QSCs that are that we now call
  • 01:00:59WAN participants, that have wider network connections to
  • 01:01:02our ERCOT, that take verbal instructions, and have
  • 01:01:05telemetry connections and so on. So all that
  • 01:01:08was done, and we we we did a
  • 01:01:10a a lot of work in. Unfortunately,
  • 01:01:13we forgot a reference in the the, operating
  • 01:01:15guide for scheduling center. So all that this
  • 01:01:19NOGRR is doing is aligning the language to
  • 01:01:22take out the reference to the scheduling center
  • 01:01:25that we did last year, to align it
  • 01:01:26to, confirm with the rest of the protocols
  • 01:01:29and up and operating guides that the control
  • 01:01:31room and operation center requirements are clarified, and
  • 01:01:34there's no more reference to scheduling center requirements
  • 01:01:37that we took out earlier. So it that
  • 01:01:40that's all it was it was doing. So,
  • 01:01:43I I think you can probably take it
  • 01:01:45I I think you can probably take it
  • 01:01:48up today and go on. But if, if
  • 01:01:51you wanna refer it, that's fine, but it
  • 01:01:52should be really aligning to everything that we've
  • 01:01:55already done and in the protocols now for
  • 01:01:57a couple of years. We just missed this
  • 01:01:58one reference in the operating guides. Okay. Thanks
  • 01:02:04for clarifying that. I mean, that makes it
  • 01:02:06sound fairly straightforward to me. I'm just looking
  • 01:02:11I I throw out options because I'm looking
  • 01:02:12for a little direction from ROS members before
  • 01:02:16we move forward. So, Kristen, what you got
  • 01:02:19for Yes. Thanks, Katie. This is Kristen Cook
  • 01:02:22with Southern Power. We appreciate, ERCOT laying this
  • 01:02:27out. It's helpful to have that additional context.
  • 01:02:30I don't think that, I personally had caught
  • 01:02:34that previous language change, but we're supportive of
  • 01:02:38this change. We we are in the the
  • 01:02:43situation where we have a non WAN participant
  • 01:02:49QSE. So, this is a helpful change from
  • 01:02:53our viewpoint. We do have a very minor
  • 01:02:58red line that we would we would like
  • 01:03:02to suggest to ERCOT. So it's very minor.
  • 01:03:08Would be happy if we wanna proceed today,
  • 01:03:10of potentially doing a desktop edit if ERCOT
  • 01:03:14is open or if ERCOT would prefer us
  • 01:03:17sending that over just to have more time
  • 01:03:20to review rather than being on the spot.
  • 01:03:29I understand how again, do you you want
  • 01:03:31to go ahead and let us what is
  • 01:03:33what is the what is the line? There
  • 01:03:35is no rush on this if we need
  • 01:03:36to take it somewhere, but if it's a
  • 01:03:37if it's a minor one, we can probably
  • 01:03:39take it up. Sure. If you could scroll
  • 01:03:42down, please, Erin, to it's paragraph two. We're
  • 01:03:50wanting to add where it says so within
  • 01:03:57paragraph two, that second line, a written backup
  • 01:04:01control plan to continue operation, and then we
  • 01:04:04wanted to add after the word operation of
  • 01:04:08the control or operation center. Got it. Got
  • 01:04:28it. Catherine, I don't know if you can
  • 01:04:30still hear us, but that sounds like a
  • 01:04:33a clarification that's in line with the changes
  • 01:04:37that we're making. Yeah. That seems fine. Great.
  • 01:04:41Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Kristin. We'll let
  • 01:04:50Erin save that. Okay. So with that change
  • 01:05:21with this discussion, I'm totally fine with adding
  • 01:05:26this to the combo ballot with noting the
  • 01:05:29desktop edit by ROS. Anyone have concerns with
  • 01:05:34that approach? Okay. Hearing none. Let's go ahead
  • 01:05:47and try to add that to the combo,
  • 01:05:48Aaron. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Aaron. Okay.
  • 01:06:17So now that takes us down to the
  • Clip 10 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS (Possible Vote
    01:06:19) revision request that have been tabled. As we've
  • 01:06:25been discussing, probably let those associated RRs for
  • 01:06:32NPRR1264 kind of rest there.
  • 01:06:36I think NPRR1264 is over at PRS, so
  • 01:06:42I know that Eric Goff is trying to
  • 01:06:44get an IA for what that might look
  • 01:06:46like, and and ERCOT staff have posed questions
  • 01:06:50first. I think may they've maybe got one
  • 01:06:54set of responses back from from Constellation. So
  • 01:06:58I'm totally fine with letting all of that
  • 01:07:01play out in those other subcommittees and then
  • 01:07:04circle back to these. So we kind of
  • Clip 10.5 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
    01:07:09 pulled in NOGRR272 and PGRR121 into our discussion of of NOGRR278
  • 01:07:12So I'll pause here just to see
  • 01:07:15if there was anything else on these two
  • 01:07:19or if we we kind of close the
  • 01:07:21loop on those for now. Okay. Alright. Thanks,
  • Clip 11 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (Possible Vote
    01:07:24) Erin. Okay. And then NPRR1264, same thing.
  • 01:07:37Let's just see how it it plays out
  • 01:07:40over at PRS. And then with that, we
  • 01:07:42can start moving into our working group updates.
  • 01:07:46We can start with OWG. Is that Ricky
  • 01:07:50that's gonna give okay. So Ricky Tyler, just
  • 01:07:55making sure you guys heard that I'd love
  • 01:07:59for you to take up the discussion on
  • 01:08:01NPRR1278 at your next meeting.
  • 01:08:04Yeah, Katie. Can can you hear me? I
  • 01:08:07can. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. I I have a
  • Clip 12 - Operations Working Group (OWG
    01:08:10) note to take up, NPRR1278 at our next meeting. I did have it
  • 01:08:13down as an informal request. I assume we'll
  • 01:08:16get the formal one over email when that
  • 01:08:17comes. Right. Yep. After, right, after the May
  • 01:08:19PRS referral. But yeah. Thank you. Okay. We
  • 01:08:21can go ahead and go to the next
  • Clip 12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions (OWG, PLWG
    01:08:26 (Possible Vote)) slide. NPRR1070, ERCOT is still working
  • 01:08:30on the rewrite on the existing one for
  • 01:08:31that. So it's still tabled at the OWG,
  • 01:08:36but we do expect an update soon. Go
  • 01:08:38to the next slide. The 2025 UFLS survey,
  • 01:08:42the number of load set stages that everybody
  • 01:08:47should be aware is going from three to
  • 01:08:52five. 20 five percent of the system load
  • 01:08:54shall be equipped with the UFLS. And if
  • 01:08:56you're interested in more details, then as shown
  • 01:08:59below, you can look up the presentation on
  • 01:09:02you're interested in more details, then as shown
  • 01:09:05below, you can look up the presentation on
  • 01:09:08the OWG 3/20 meeting page.
  • 01:09:11And then there was no other businesses. Pretty
  • 01:09:16quick meeting. Thanks, Tyler. Don't see any comments
  • 01:09:26in the queue for you. I think you're
  • 01:09:30oh, Alex, did you wanna say anything else?
  • 01:09:33But it looks like the joint commenters are
  • 01:09:35working on NPRR1270. Yeah. Just a
  • 01:09:40clarification. Thank you. Okay. Let's move along. We're
  • 01:09:55doing pretty good on time, so I might
  • 01:09:57skip our break for now and move on
  • Clip 13 - Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG
    01:10:00) to NDSWG. Yeah. This is Phil Hoffer. Can
  • 01:10:07you hear me? We can. Go ahead. Okay.
  • 01:10:12Yeah. You can go on to the next
  • 01:10:14slide there. So we had two items that
  • Clip 13.1 - NPRR1265, Unregistered Distributed Generator (NDSWG
    01:10:17 (Possible Vote)) were referred to us. One was NPRR1265
  • 01:10:20on unregistered distributed generation. And so we
  • 01:10:25had a meeting on 03/18, but Roshi was
  • 01:10:28unable to make it, and so there were
  • 01:10:30other SMEs also unable to make it. So
  • 01:10:35we need to have further discussion. We basically,
  • 01:10:37the things we need to talk about is,
  • 01:10:41you know, what kind of additional burden there
  • 01:10:43may be on the TSPs for this information
  • 01:10:46or, you know, what happens if the distribution
  • 01:10:49service providers don't provide it or, you know,
  • 01:10:51various questions like that. And then another question
  • 01:10:55came up about how to ensure the quality
  • 01:10:56and integrity of the data after the initial
  • 01:10:59information, you know, like updates, you know, requirements
  • 01:11:03for updates. So that was that's kind of
  • 01:11:06where we stand on December. And then if
  • 01:11:08you can go to the next slide, please.
  • Clip 13.2 - SCR831, Short Circuit Model Integration (NDSWG, SPWG, SSWG
    01:11:12 (Possible Vote)) And then we're also referred, SCR831
  • 01:11:15for discussion on short short circuit parameters
  • 01:11:20being entered into the operations model model integration.
  • 01:11:25And ERCOT gave us a presentation on that.
  • 01:11:27This is the first time we've seen it.
  • 01:11:28So ERCOT gave us a presentation on it,
  • 01:11:31which was super helpful. But, you know, we
  • 01:11:34didn't this is the first time we'd seen
  • 01:11:36it. So we need, you know, we need
  • 01:11:37some time to discuss, you know, kind of
  • 01:11:39the same thing. Additional burden on the TSP
  • 01:11:43and, you know, if there's gonna be you
  • 01:11:47know, what kind of a need there will
  • 01:11:49be for, you know, model synchronization between operations
  • 01:11:52and planning, and how that will impact, you
  • 01:11:57know, the CIM upload the CIM upload of
  • 01:11:59operations models. We had some internal discussions at
  • 01:12:02AEP the other day on this, but we
  • 01:12:05wanna, you know, we wanna talk about this
  • 01:12:06as the whole NDSWG. So we will revisit
  • 01:12:10both of those at our at our next
  • 01:12:11meeting. And that's that's the only updates I
  • 01:12:15have. There's also the issue of the ICCP
  • 01:12:20handbook. I didn't put that on here, but
  • 01:12:24I don't know. You know, we we got
  • 01:12:27that in the summer, I think, but then
  • 01:12:30it's somewhere else for discussion, and I'm not
  • 01:12:33sure not exactly sure where that is, but
  • 01:12:36I don't wanna I don't wanna forget that
  • 01:12:37that item is out there either. That was
  • 01:12:39about, the binding language in the ICCP handbook.
  • 01:12:44So that's also on our radar, but it's
  • 01:12:47it's out of our hands at this point.
  • 01:12:50So that's all I have. Okay. Thanks for
  • 01:13:00your update and clarification on the last piece.
  • 01:13:03I don't see anything in the queue for
  • 01:13:06you. K. Okay. So that will take us
  • Clip 14 - System Protection Working Group (SPWG
    01:13:15) on down to SPWG. Mark, are you available
  • 01:13:38to give the report? Okay. How about we
  • 01:14:02circle back and see if they're able to
  • 01:14:05join us later? We can go on to
  • 01:14:07SSWG. Can you confirm me? Can you hear
  • 01:14:20me? We can. Go ahead. Hi. This is,
  • Clip 15 - Steady State Working Group (SSWG
    01:14:26) Zach Walker on behalf of SSWG. Got a
  • 01:14:29quick update today. Go to the next slide.
  • 01:14:33So kind of status update, we are still
  • 01:14:35currently ongoing with the 25SSWG case build.
  • 01:14:39We had our low topology deadline last Friday,
  • 01:14:41and then we had our pre dispatch tuning
  • 01:14:43meetings, in Houston this past week, and we're
  • 01:14:46still kind of on track with our current
  • 01:14:48deadlines. We'll kind of meet again here in
  • 01:14:51late April at the ERCOT NET Center to
  • 01:14:53kind of fine tune and finalize the cases
  • 01:14:55for the most part. A quick little PSA
  • 01:14:58on that. These are hybrid meetings, and, you
  • 01:15:00know, they're available over WebEx, I would encourage
  • 01:15:02TSBs to be able to send their SSWG
  • 01:15:04reps in person if possible. Just kind of
  • 01:15:07a quick ask. This really speeds our tuning
  • 01:15:09process and increases participation, and it kinda typically
  • 01:15:12leads to some better, higher quality cases. But
  • 01:15:15overall, we're still on track for our target
  • 01:15:17posting of May 23. And then next item
  • 01:15:22we had, we did formally get referred as
  • 01:15:24a SCR789. We've kinda been
  • 01:15:26discussing this at a high level. We would
  • 01:15:29also kind of like some more time to
  • 01:15:30kind of work through the requirements of this
  • 01:15:32and kind of better determine the scope and
  • 01:15:34what this would look like. So we would,
  • 01:15:36we're gonna continue working on that. We're also
  • 01:15:40gonna be scheduling some joint meetings with SPWG
  • 01:15:42and then DSWG to kind of gonna go
  • 01:15:44over this and kind of get, synchronized with
  • 01:15:47this effort. And then finally, we have a
  • 01:15:50couple procedure manual updates that should be coming
  • 01:15:52here soon. We're still trying to finalize all
  • 01:15:54of those, but they're they're very minor edits
  • 01:15:56at this point. So we would expect to
  • 01:15:57have these here probably May May or June
  • 01:16:00ROS. So but that's the only updates I
  • 01:16:03have for SWG. Do y'all have any questions
  • 01:16:05for me? Thanks for your update. It looks
  • 01:16:10like the queue is clear. Thanks for your
  • 01:16:14work on this. And that will take us
  • 01:16:22to PLWG. Can you hear me? Yeah. Go
  • Clip 16 - Planning Working Group (PLWG
    01:16:32) ) ahead, Nina. Okay. Thank you. So planning working
  • 01:16:37group. Can we go to the next slide?
  • Clip 16.1 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection (PLWG
    01:16:40 (DWG) (Possible Vote)) PGRR120, SSO prevention for generator interconnections.
  • 01:16:44We're still, this one still remains tabled at
  • 01:16:48PLWG. We're waiting for comments, from ERCOT, on
  • Clip 16.2 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load (DWG
    01:16:54 (PLWG) (Possible Vote)) this PGRR. PGRR122, the reliability
  • 01:16:58performance criteria for loss of load. We did
  • 01:17:03review comments, on the LCRA draft. ERCOT had,
  • 01:17:09proposed some changes. This figure still remains, tabled
  • 01:17:15to allow for some more discussions among the
  • 01:17:18TSPs. And, also, this, believe this is coming
  • 01:17:22up for discussion at DWG as well. They
  • 01:17:26did not meet in March, but they are
  • 01:17:27going to in April. So we're just waiting
  • 01:17:30to see the, what comes about, from that
  • 01:17:35discussion. Next slide, please. NPRR1272,
  • 01:17:42the multi supported privacy private use networks archive.
  • 01:17:46Bill Blevins gave a really good presentation at
  • 01:17:50our PLWG meeting, basically outlining, ERCOT's interpretation of
  • 01:17:56the protocol language in three dot one five.
  • 01:18:00PLWG has agreed to table NPRR1272 for further discussion.
  • 01:18:04I know there's, quite a bit of discussion going on between ERCOT
  • 01:18:09and Oxy, who's the sponsor of this NPRR.
  • 01:18:12So we're just waiting for, to see what,
  • Clip 16.3 - PGRR124, ESR Maintenance Exception to Modifications (PLWG, DWG
    01:18:18 (Possible Vote))comes about of their discussion. PGRR124,
  • 01:18:23this is tabled. We did not discuss it because, Tesla was unable
  • 01:18:28to attend the meeting in March, so it's
  • 01:18:32on the agenda for the April meeting. And
  • 01:18:36I believe that's the end of the updates.
  • 01:18:38on the agenda for the April meeting. And
  • 01:18:41I believe that's the end of the updates.
  • 01:18:51Thanks, Vina. Any questions for Vina? Okay. Thanks
  • 01:18:59for all your hard work. Thank you. K.
  • 01:19:06Do we have someone on from the voltage
  • 01:19:09profile working group? Hi. Good morning. This is
  • 01:19:13Wei Wei. So can somebody hear me? We
  • Clip 17 - Voltage Profile Working Group (VPWG
    01:19:19) ) can. Go ahead. Oh, okay. Good morning, everyone.
  • 01:19:21So I don't have a slides today. On
  • 01:19:24April 3, last week, VPWG had a closed
  • 01:19:28meeting to discuss the NPRR123072.
  • 01:19:33So so the members raised some concerns regarding
  • 01:19:38the current planning guidelines, the regulations about the
  • 01:19:43VSS. So we have, like, a want to
  • 01:19:48have it for this NPRR, refer to VPWG
  • 01:19:53formally, so which I think it did. And,
  • 01:19:57also, we would schedule a follow-up meeting and
  • 01:20:01draft the formal comments in the future. So
  • 01:20:04that's all. Thanks, So, yep, we we did
  • 01:20:13send it over to you formally this morning,
  • 01:20:16so feel free to proceed as necessary. That
  • 01:20:26takes us on to DWG. Hi, Katie. It's
  • 01:20:36Erin. It looks like somebody's in the queue.
  • 01:20:43Was the question about where 1272 was sent
  • 01:20:46to? It was sent to PLWG and voltage
  • 01:20:49profile working group. Okay. Now I think we
  • Clip 18 - Dynamics Working Group (DWG
    01:20:59) can take up DWG. Hey. Good morning. Fahad
  • 01:21:05Khourishee for DWG. I have a short update
  • 01:21:07for you today. The upcoming WebEx meeting, is
  • 01:21:12scheduled for April 17, and we will be
  • 01:21:15having a open session to accommodate the discussion
  • 01:21:18for revision request one twenty four as requested
  • 01:21:21in the March, ROS meeting. The, meeting details
  • 01:21:26are posted to the DWG and ROS, meeting
  • 01:21:30pages, and I'll send it out to the
  • 01:21:31ROS mailing list as well. So I I
  • 01:21:34had reached out to Tesla who's listed as
  • 01:21:36the sponsor for this revision request, and I've
  • 01:21:39not heard back. So if someone from Tesla
  • 01:21:42or the representative are in the meeting, I
  • 01:21:45need to get in touch with you just
  • 01:21:46to discuss some details, prior to the meeting.
  • 01:21:58So I would suggest reaching out to Eric
  • 01:22:01Goff. Okay. You if you, don't have contact
  • 01:22:07information for him, I can help you with
  • 01:22:09that. Okay. Yes. I'll need his contact information.
  • 01:22:12So just looking for some guidance here. If
  • 01:22:14the sponsor is not present at the meeting,
  • 01:22:16do we just proceed with the discussion without
  • 01:22:18them, or do we postpone it to the
  • 01:22:20next, DWG meeting, which would then be in
  • 01:22:24June? Like, what's typical, typically happens in this
  • 01:22:30scenario? I mean, you could go either way.
  • 01:22:35I think with, you know, your meeting cadence,
  • 01:22:37I would probably still take up the discussion.
  • 01:22:40Okay. Okay. Sounds good. That's all I had.
  • 01:23:05Okay. We can go back. We can go
  • 01:23:07on to the IBR update, and then I
  • 01:23:11have some proposed revisions to their scope. So
  • 01:23:16let's go ahead and let Julia give her
  • 01:23:17update. Hi, everyone. Katie, can you confirm that
  • 01:23:25you can hear me? We can. Great. Yeah.
  • Clip 19 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group (IBRWG
    01:23:31) So we had a short meeting, just two
  • 01:23:33items, or three items on the agenda. The
  • 01:23:37first one, we talked about, performance issues, with
  • 01:23:42battery energy storage systems in WMS systems or
  • 01:23:45in in WMS territory. So Curtis Holland, brought
  • 01:23:50this, talked about tripping events, PFR, AGC coordination
  • 01:23:53issues, oscillations, and fires. And then we had
  • 01:23:59short discussion about, HRO, in a single resource
  • 01:24:04versus aggregated value for defined IRR group. So
  • 01:24:10Asilona brought this issue in February, and we
  • 01:24:12had a follow-up discussion from ERCOT, on this
  • 01:24:16one. So, basically, the conclusion for that one
  • 01:24:18was that Asilona will get with ERCOT internally,
  • 01:24:23and they will discuss and maybe bring, follow-up
  • 01:24:25items to the future IBRWG meetings. ERCOT basically
  • 01:24:31believed that, self limiting facility concept can be
  • 01:24:34used here, whereas Asiana didn't think it works.
  • 01:24:37So that's what they need to discuss. And
  • 01:24:40then, I provided the short updates, and talked
  • 01:24:46about grid forming battery deployed in in The
  • 01:24:49UK, so that's relevant to, advanced grid support
  • 01:24:52discussion. And then a couple of, just kind
  • 01:24:56of useful resources, that you can see the
  • 01:24:59links to, in the report. So this is
  • 01:25:01it. That's all we have. Thanks, Julia. I
  • 01:25:09don't see any questions for you. I guess
  • 01:25:12that will take it over to my portion
  • 01:25:15of the update. If Erin, you can pull
  • 01:25:17up the IBRWG scope. I just wanted to
  • 01:25:20walk through a few changes that were made.
  • 01:25:30Hi, Katie. I'm pulling it up now. I
  • 01:25:32have a little bit of a lag in
  • 01:25:34my computer. No worries. There we go. Sorry
  • Clip 19.1 - IBRWG Scope (Vote
    01:26:01) about that. Thanks so much, Erin. So, you
  • 01:26:07know, as we were kinda working through the
  • 01:26:09ROS goals, it, you know, seemed like this
  • 01:26:11might be a good time to to take
  • 01:26:13a look at the, you know, scope as
  • 01:26:15well for for IBRWG. You know, some of
  • 01:26:19these are just nonsensitive updates. But if you
  • 01:26:22if you scroll down to the membership section,
  • 01:26:26Erin, this is taking out the closed session
  • 01:26:31piece of it. You know, I did I
  • 01:26:34did talk to ERCOT staff about this. It
  • 01:26:36doesn't seem to be something that's utilized. In
  • 01:26:38fact, it seems to be something that's causing
  • 01:26:40a bit of confusion for for people that
  • 01:26:43are looking to participate in in IBRWG. So
  • 01:26:46this is just clarifying that all the meetings
  • 01:26:50are open to the public. I think Julie
  • 01:26:55is already getting quite a bit of participation
  • 01:26:57in the group, but but certainly don't want
  • 01:26:58anything to, you know, stand in the way
  • 01:27:01of of getting everyone that's that's interested or
  • 01:27:03or needed to be part of the discussion.
  • 01:27:06So that was the main change. And then
  • 01:27:10if you keep scrolling down, those are substantive
  • 01:27:14those are just non substantive updates. There are
  • 01:27:16still a couple places where refer to the
  • 01:27:18task force instead of a working group. And
  • 01:27:21then in this section where it really taught
  • 01:27:23you know, this is kind of the section
  • 01:27:24that looks similar to other working group scopes,
  • 01:27:29but just change this one just to recognize
  • 01:27:33how technical in nature a lot of the
  • 01:27:35concepts are at IBRWG. So the referral may
  • 01:27:39take the form of, you know, can you
  • 01:27:41look at x y z technical concept? So
  • 01:27:44it's just recognizing and allowing for that. And
  • 01:27:48so those are the scope of the changes.
  • 01:27:51I don't think they're, you know, super significant
  • 01:27:54changes, but but meaningful nonetheless. So I'd love
  • 01:27:58to be able to put this on the
  • 01:28:00combo ballot. Again, I've I've talked to ERCOT
  • 01:28:02staff and and and Julia and made sure
  • 01:28:04that, you know, they were all on board.
  • 01:28:06So don't don't see anything controversial here. Yeah.
  • 01:28:17Go ahead, Freddie. Yeah. Thanks, Kaye, for putting
  • 01:28:23this together, and I appreciate you taking another
  • 01:28:26look at this. I guess whenever we initially
  • 01:28:30put the this, scope together, we try to,
  • 01:28:36mimic what other working groups had. And I
  • 01:28:40guess the question I have is on the
  • 01:28:42as requested there, it's not really clear to
  • 01:28:46me what that's that's saying, and and I'm
  • 01:28:49not looking at other scopes. I'm not seeing
  • 01:28:51that in in that language as well. So
  • 01:28:54I I don't know if you could just
  • 01:28:55help clarify what what the need or purpose
  • 01:28:59of that as requested in that second bullet
  • 01:29:02is. Yeah. So, you know, I've I've seen
  • 01:29:08what the agenda looks like. There are a
  • 01:29:11lot of, you know, issues that are coming
  • 01:29:13to that group. Folks are requesting it. Yes.
  • 01:29:16They are getting some referrals, but I'm I'm
  • 01:29:19just trying to to recognize sort of the,
  • 01:29:22again, the the technical nature of the group
  • 01:29:24and and what future referrals might look like.
  • 01:29:29I mean, within that sentence, the the the
  • 01:29:31set aside clause is the most important aspect
  • 01:29:34of it. Like, I don't wanna lose that
  • 01:29:35aspect of it, but if others are opposed
  • 01:29:39to that as requested, I'm fine with taking
  • 01:29:41it out. Yeah. I think I think at
  • 01:29:48least ERCOT's preference would be to remove that
  • 01:29:51as requested. I just don't think it's in
  • 01:29:53line with what is another working group's scoped,
  • 01:29:59and it it just isn't clear to me
  • 01:30:01what that that's really meaning. And and I
  • 01:30:03think as we talked about a little earlier
  • 01:30:06is that I think most working groups can
  • 01:30:08take up any any item at any at
  • 01:30:11any time for review. So I I just
  • 01:30:14I'm not seeing the need for that that
  • 01:30:16that language there. So it we would prefer
  • 01:30:20that that be removed. Okay. So we can
  • 01:30:23take that out, but but let me let
  • 01:30:25me try to clarify, Freddie, what so a
  • 01:30:29working group can take something up. Yes. Like,
  • 01:30:32today, we took up NPRR1278. It
  • 01:30:34wasn't formally referred to us. A working group
  • 01:30:36could have done the same. Right? And sometimes
  • 01:30:39we've asked them informally to take it up.
  • 01:30:41But once there's a referral from ROS, then
  • 01:30:46then we may not have the same working
  • 01:30:48group look at it. Right? So we may
  • 01:30:51decide that NDSWG instead of IBRWG should look
  • 01:30:54at it. So in terms of what's most
  • 01:30:57helpful to ROS, it would be for that
  • 01:30:59working group that got the referral to now
  • 01:31:01look at it. Or there may be instances
  • 01:31:04when we say, okay. We feel like IBRWG,
  • 01:31:07your work is done. It's now at the
  • 01:31:09ROS level to, you know, talk about this
  • 01:31:11from a policy level or talk about it
  • 01:31:14from this level, or you've provided us enough
  • 01:31:16information. So I just want to make sure
  • 01:31:19that it's clear to everyone how that process
  • 01:31:23works. Yeah. I understand that. And if that's
  • 01:31:32the case, I don't know if it makes
  • 01:31:34sense for it to be specifically in one
  • 01:31:36working group's document. If anything, it needs to
  • 01:31:38be either in all of them or in
  • 01:31:41some other overarching document that at least to
  • 01:31:47express that clarity. Okay, Erin. For moving it
  • 01:31:57forward today, we can take out as requested
  • 01:32:00and leave all of their changes. Okay. I
  • 01:32:17don't see any other comments in the queue.
  • 01:32:19So I think with that, we can ask
  • 01:32:22add this version to the combo ballot. Thanks,
  • 01:32:39Erin. I'm gonna go back to let's see.
  • Clip 14.1 - SPWG Procedure Manual (Vote
    01:32:48) Let me go back to SPWG one more
  • 01:32:52time and see if anyone's on. I know
  • 01:32:55Susie has tried to reach out as well.
  • 01:32:57The only reason I'm doing this is they
  • 01:32:58do have a voting item. If not, we
  • 01:33:01will just have to leave that and go
  • 01:33:03on to our combo ballot. Okay. Alright. We
  • 01:33:22will just let them bring this up again
  • 01:33:24next month. So, Erin, do you wanna bring
  • 01:33:28up what we have on our combo ballot?
  • 01:33:45I I love your walk through from last
  • 01:33:48month if you wanna do that again this
  • 01:33:50time. I'm sorry, Katie. I missed that last
  • 01:33:57part. I really liked your walk through from
  • 01:34:00last time if you wanted to do that
  • 01:34:02this time for us. Absolutely. So on the
  • 01:34:07combined ballot for today at ROS, we have
  • 01:34:11the February 6 meeting minutes to approve. Also
  • 01:34:14to approve the, ROS 2025 strategic
  • 01:34:18objectives as presented. We have NPRR1272
  • 01:34:23to request PRS continue to table NPRR1272 for further review by PLWG and
  • 01:34:26VPWG. We have NPRR1274 requesting
  • 01:34:29PRS continue to table for further review by
  • 01:34:34PLWG. We have NOGRR275 recommending
  • 01:34:36approval as revised by ROS. We have that
  • 01:34:40small desktop edit. And then to approve the
  • 01:34:43IBRWG scope as revised by ROS. Perfect. Alright.
    PauseEditCreate clip
  • Clip 20 - Combo Ballot (Vote
    01:34:47) We've got a motion from Chris Hendrix to
  • 01:34:58to approve this combo ballot. I think I
  • 01:35:00just need a second from somebody out there.
  • 01:35:03Second. Alright. For now. Thanks, John. Okay, Erin.
  • 01:35:07I think we can take it away. Thank
  • 01:35:17you, ma'am. K. Starting with consumers, Cyrus? Yes.
  • 01:35:20Mike? Yes. Thank you. Nabaraj? Thank you. Nabaraj?
  • 01:35:27Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to
  • 01:35:34the co ops. Chris? Yes. Sandeep? Yes. Paul?
  • 01:35:40Yes. Tony? Tony Kroski? K. I am not
  • 01:35:49seeing Tony. Oh, there we go. I I
  • 01:36:09seeing Tony. Oh, there we go. I I
  • 01:36:13got you in the chat. Yes. For Tony.
  • 01:36:15Thank you. Independent generators, Alex? Yes. Katie? Yes.
  • 01:36:28Brett? Yes. Kristen for Chase? Yes. Independent Power
  • 01:36:39Marketers, Shane? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. John for
  • 01:36:45Adam? Yes. Mark for Justin? Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:36:53Dinesh? Yes. K. Independent reps. Kevin? Yes. Jennifer?
  • 01:37:06Yes. Thank you. Chris? Yes. Ming? Yes. Investor
  • 01:37:19Owned Utilities? Ether? Yes. Rob for Chris Garrity?
  • 01:37:30K. I got you in the chat, Rob.
  • 01:37:32Thank you. David? Yes. Matthew? Yes. Municipals? Kenneth?
  • 01:37:47Yes. Chris? Chris Labrick with DME. Hey. I'm
  • 01:38:17not seeing Chris in the participant's list. Amani?
  • 01:38:26Yes. Matt? Yes. K. Thank you, everyone. The
  • 01:38:36motion carries with all in favor. Thanks, Erin.
  • 01:38:42Thanks, everyone. So we already covered the Black
  • Clip 22 - Operations Training Working Group (OTWG
    01:38:49) Start working group. That just leaves OTWG. I
  • 01:38:52believe they have a presentation for us. Manuel,
  • 01:39:29are you on? Okay. Well, I guess we
  • 01:39:49can wait for that until next month, and
  • Clip 23 - Other Business
    01:39:52 that will take us into other biz. So
  • 01:40:06under here, Susie and I, we're gonna take
  • 01:40:11a look at these open action items. We
  • 01:40:15have one highlighted in green. So if you
  • 01:40:19could pull that up for us, Erin. Yeah.
  • Clip 23.1 - Review Open Action Items List
    01:40:26 So we talked about this one a little
  • 01:40:29bit maybe a month or so ago, and
  • 01:40:32we were waiting to see what happened with
  • 01:40:35December. It's gotten back to PRS. So, Chris,
  • 01:40:43I'm I'm not putting you on the spot
  • 01:40:45because I gave you some notice. But, Chris,
  • 01:40:48do you wanna give us an update on
  • 01:40:50kind of where you think this is, from
  • 01:40:53Golden Spread's perspective now? Yeah. Thanks, Katie. I
  • 01:40:58think given the progress of NPRR1238, we can
  • 01:41:01go ahead and remove this one at this
  • 01:41:02time. It was kind of a parallel consideration,
  • 01:41:05but I think we've got a path forward.
  • 01:41:08So that that sounds like the the most
  • 01:41:09logical thing at this time. Okay. If Katie
  • 01:41:28I'm sorry, Katie. This is Susie Clifton with
  • 01:41:30ERCOT. Go ahead. This is Susie. We can
  • 01:41:32this was an item assigned through TAC. So
  • 01:41:34before we remove it here, we'll just need
  • 01:41:36to confirm. We've confirmed that ROS has completed
  • 01:41:40their activities on it, and now we need
  • 01:41:42to take it in your report to TAC
  • 01:41:45so that TAC can confirm we are done
  • 01:41:47with what they assigned, and then we'll actually
  • 01:41:49remove it if you're okay with that path.
  • 01:41:57Okay. So so the original TAC assignment to
  • 01:42:02look at the load shed in real time.
  • 01:42:07I mean, we we did that a couple
  • 01:42:10years ago. This actually was a Yuri recommendation
  • 01:42:13if you remember that that long list and
  • 01:42:16the long spreadsheet. So this this was a
  • 01:42:20holdover to see what other action could be
  • 01:42:23taken. So the alternative to this was NPRR1238,
  • 01:42:28which is now a PRS,
  • 01:42:31and so ROS has finished its work on
  • 01:42:33it. Is is that sufficient, or is there
  • 01:42:36something else you needed? I am just going
  • 01:42:40with the standard process. I didn't recall that,
  • 01:42:44path that it was taking. The only NPRR1238
  • 01:42:46was the only thing that we
  • 01:42:48were finalizing. Because I remember we had talked
  • 01:42:51about taking it away from before and counting
  • 01:42:54is completed, and then Chris had asked us
  • 01:42:56to wait. So, you know, I I can't
  • 01:42:58recall exactly when that is. But as long
  • 01:43:00as that has been completed, that's fine, and
  • 01:43:02we can just remove it. Okay. I will
  • 01:43:10report this to TAC in my update for
  • 01:43:15this month, and I'll try to include that
  • 01:43:17history just so there's no confusion on why
  • 01:43:211238 looks a little different from the original
  • 01:43:23description. Okay. Yeah. I needed that reminder. Hi,
  • 01:43:31Katie. This is Erin from ERCOT Market Rules.
  • 01:43:34So are we just leaving it alone until
  • 01:43:36you get confirmation from TAC, or you think
  • 01:43:39we can just go ahead and strike it
  • 01:43:41now? It wasn't clear. I'm sorry. I think,
  • 01:43:46Susie, last time we had one of these
  • 01:43:48TAC assignments, I took it up the chain.
  • 01:43:51And then as soon as TAC was okay
  • 01:43:53with it, then we made the change at
  • 01:43:54the next meeting. Yeah. And that's consistent. Yeah.
  • 01:43:59I just wanna make sure that I was
  • 01:44:01there was a little bit of back and
  • 01:44:03forth, so I was unsure what direction you
  • 01:44:05guys were going. But, yeah, that's consistent with
  • 01:44:07what what you've been doing. Okay. Thank you.
  • 01:44:11Thanks. Nava, did you have a comment on
  • 01:44:14this specific topic? Yes. So just clarifying. I
  • 01:44:19mean, the so the ROS is not taking
  • 01:44:21any action. I I don't quite understand. My
  • 01:44:30action right now is to, put this on
  • 01:44:34my next presentation to TAC. And then once
  • 01:44:38TAC sounds like they're okay with removing it,
  • 01:44:41then I would come back to the May
  • 01:44:44ROS and say, let's take it off. But
  • 01:44:48no action today. Okay. Got it. Got it.
  • 01:44:52Okay. Thank you. Sorry for confusing everyone. Okay.
  • 01:45:02I think that was the only thing on
  • 01:45:05our other business. Is there anything else for
  • 01:45:08the good of the group before we adjourn?
  • 01:45:14Okay. Well, thanks, everyone. Enjoy the rest of
  • Clip 24 - Adjourn
    01:45:18 your day. See you next month. Thank you.
2025 ROS Combined Ballot 20250403
Apr 02, 2025 - xls - 138 KB
ROS Agenda 20250403.v2
Mar 31, 2025 - docx - 58 KB
03. Draft Minutes ROS 20250306
Mar 26, 2025 - doc - 269.5 KB
05. 2025 ROS Goals
Mar 26, 2025 - doc - 42 KB
05. TAC Strategic Objectives Approved 02272025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 52.6 KB
February 2025 ERCOT Operations Report Public
Mar 24, 2025 - docx - 1.8 MB
SystemPlanningROS_Feb2025
Mar 17, 2025 - docx - 411.6 KB
06. GTCUpdate_ROS_April_2025
Apr 02, 2025 - pptx - 80.7 KB
11. OWG_ROS_20250403
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 177.7 KB
12. NDSWG report to ROS 20250403x
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 53.4 KB
13. SPWG ROS Update 04-03-2025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 32.9 KB
13. Proposed_spwg_procedures_040325
Mar 26, 2025 - docx - 31.1 KB
14. SSWG_Update_ROS_04032025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 728.2 KB
15. Planning Working Group Update_040325
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 52.9 KB
17. 20250403_DWG Report to ROS - April 2025
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 43.3 KB
18. IBRWG_Scope_ROS_Approved_20230706
Mar 26, 2025 - docx - 25.4 KB
19. IBRWG Report to ROS 040325
Mar 30, 2025 - docx - 28.2 KB
21. April_OTWG_Updates
Mar 26, 2025 - pptx - 607.5 KB
Meeting Materials ROS 20250403
Apr 02, 2025 - zip - 7.2 MB
Revision Request ROS 20250403
Mar 30, 2025 - zip - 3.5 MB

Help Desk