Meeting Summary – 09/24/24 PLWG Meeting

Published: September 24, 2024

1 – Antitrust Admonition – Chair

2 – Agenda Review – Chair

3 – Review of PLWG Meeting Minutes – Aug 13 – Chair

• No comments were received on the draft minutes.
• Minutes were deemed final and posted on the PLWG event page.

4 – General updates – Chair

4.1 – At its Sept 9 meeting, ROS voted to endorse PGRR107 – related to NPRR1180 – Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses – ERCOT’s Aug 28 comments – after desktop edits.

• ROS voted to endorse PGRR107 related to NPRR1180.
• PGRR107 pertains to the inclusion of forecasted load in planning analyses after desktop edits.
• An action item was assigned to review and revise the planning guide regarding capital ‘L’ and small ‘l’ load terminology.
• Changes made around the load terminology resulted in desktop edits and were endorsed by ROS.

4.2 – 2025 PLWG meetings, RPG/PLWG joint meetings or standalone.

• Discussion on whether PLWG meetings should continue to be held jointly with RPG or as standalone meetings.
• Concern over lengthy agendas for both RPG and PLWG, raising the question of adequate time allocation.
• Benefits of joint meetings include travel efficiency, allowing attendees to address both meetings in one trip.
• Suggestions for joint meetings to be scheduled on adjacent days (day before or day after) to accommodate overruns and ensure adequate discussion time.
• Challenge noted in scheduling due to room availability; potential fallback to WebEx for split meetings deemed less optimal for travel purposes.

5 – PGRR115 related to NPRR1234 – Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater

• CenterPoint Energy comments 08/29/24:

  • Key focus on clarifying the load commissioning plan: definition, responsibilities, contents, and updates.
  • Added definitions for “load facility” and “load point”, capitalized throughout the document.
  • Proposed separating generator interconnections (section 5.3.5) and large loads (new section 9.5).
  • Clarifications on data modeling responsibilities: TSP receives and passes data to ERCOT but not responsible for validation.
  • Edits emphasize TSP responsibility for studies and decisions on study requirements due to familiarity with systems and large load relationships.
  • Changed wording from “complete” to “proposed” for the load commissioning plan, recognizing it as a living document.

• Oncor comments 09/09/24:

  • Martha Henson from Oncor presented comments on the PGRR document.
  • Oncor categorized comments into two buckets: modifications through red lines and items seeking more information.
  • Proposed edits to Quarterly Stability Assessment (QSA) language for loads, specifically clarifying responsibility for providing a dynamic load model.
  • Suggested ERCOT review the model early in the process to confirm appropriateness for the study.
  • Discussion on separating load QSA provisions to streamline approach for loads.
  • Request to add distribution providers in the LLIS process to ensure specific mention.

6 – PGRR117 – Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Change

• Resiliency assessment and criteria reflect PUC rule change; second presentation at PLWG.

• Comments received from LCRA; discussed by Andrew in absence of Blake.

• Wordsmithing changes to item one: change position of reliability/resiliency, ‘must’ to ‘shall’.

• Contingency set clarification:

  • P0, P1, and P2.1 as defined by NERC TPL‑001.
  • Common tower outages as defined by ERCOT planning guide §4.1.1.1.

• Proposal to strike power supply language in item B, deemed redundant and covered elsewhere.

• Clarifications on resiliency assessment cases, inclusion of scaled RTP cases as discussed by Robert Golen of ERCOT.

• Questions raised:

  • Impact of adding ‘duration’ in resiliency criteria, whether it should be considered separately or under ‘impact’.
  • Necessity and placement of generation assumptions in item two versus item three.
  • Definition of ‘load loss’ vs. ‘load shedding’ and how to align terminology with current planning guides and protocols.
  • Preventing instability as part of resiliency criteria and its relationship with existing reliability and GTC criteria.

• Comments From Stakeholders:

  • Concerns over adding duration raised by Laurie Block, supported by Mark Bruce and others.
  • General preference for seeing comprehensive package including NPRR expected from ERCOT.
  • Need to ensure ERCOT guidelines align with both legislative requirements and existing planning guides.

• Responses From ERCOT:

  • ERCOT acknowledged ongoing internal discussions and intentions to revise language for clarity.
  • Commitment to incorporate various feedback and re‑evaluate positioning of generation assumptions and load values.
  • Assurance of considering broader spectrum of factors under the term ‘impact’.
  • Working towards aligning terminologies used in different documents and guidelines.

7 – NPRR1247 – Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects

• Laurie Block raised a question about ERCOT’s response to TIEC’s comments on timeline consistency.
• Ping Yang explained ERCOT’s approach to studying‐years, up to six years out due to uncertainties in the future.
• Yang clarified that ERCOT compares annual savings with annual revenue requirements for projects.
• Yang confirmed that ERCOT is open to adding clarifications to address stakeholders’ concerns.
• Dylan Preas brought up reviewing the NPRR1247 language and suggested having ERCOT’s documents for reference.

8 – NERC Topics Roundtable – future topics

• CIP‑014‑4 – Physical Security – topic pending new draft.
• TPL‑008 – Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements for Extreme Temperature Events.
  • The discussion centered around TPL‑008, concerning extreme weather events and transmission planning.
  • Sun Wook, ERCOT, mentioned that two drafts have been developed so far, with the team holding daily virtual meetings to address comments.
  • A new version expected to be issued in early October, followed by a 15‑day comment period.

9 – Review Open Action Items – Chair

• Identification that some documents (including those posted online) lacked listed action items.
• Open action item assigned to PLWG by ROS to review the use of load in the planning guide.
• Discussion on addressing inconsistencies in the use of certain terms (e.g., “large load” versus “little load”).
• ERCOT hasn’t committed to taking the lead on addressing these inconsistencies yet.

10 – Other Business

• A reminder was issued to submit the ROS, PLWG update by Thursday.
• A presentation will be prepared despite not having full input from the working group.
• Discussion emphasized giving ROS members sufficient time to review the presentation before the ROS meeting.

11 – Adjourn

---