Meeting Summary – 09/06/24 LFLTF Meeting

1 – Antitrust Admonition – Bill Blevins

2 – Large Load Queue Update – ERCOT Staff

• Julie Stittman, supervisor of the large load integration team, presented the large load interconnection status update.
• Over the past twelve months, the combination of new standalone and co-located projects, as well as several project cancellations, has increased the total queue capacity by 4439 MW.
• Current Large Load Interconnection Queue broken into 4 categories
  • Approved to energize
  • Planning studies approved
  • Under ERCOT review
  • No studies submitted

• Approved to energize:1570 MW approved over the past year; total of 5496 MW currently approved, with 2854 MW in load zone west and 2642 MW in other zones.
• The breakdown of approved projects: 4421 MW standalone and 1075 MW co-located.
• Observed non-simultaneous peak consumption is 3282 MW; simultaneous peak consumption is 2815 MW.
• Discussion on whether the load is flexible or not: currently no such categorization in the process, dependent on future commission projects.
• By 2028, ERCOT has effectively approved a little over 14 gigawatts for large loads.
• Clarification on load ramps and submission requests: both the load ramp and potential transmission upgrades are considered.

3 – NPRR1238 Discussion – ERCOT Staff

• Discussion on NPRR1238, focused on how the language might adjust load shed percentages.
• Clarification on concerns and misunderstandings about NPRR1238 raised by stakeholders, especially regarding its impact on NOIE areas.
• Explanation of the intent behind NPRR1238: to remove interruptible loads from load shed tables and calculate requirements based on actual firm loads.
• ERCOT’s ongoing efforts to develop scenarios based on NPRR1238 language and its load shed impacts.
• Stakeholder concerns about sequencing NPRR1238 with NPRR1234 due to dependencies and the need to move forward collectively.
• Discussion on using NPRR1238 during transmission emergencies and its limitations, with suggested clarifications in the language.
• Importance of moving NPRR1238 along with NPRR1234 due to interconnect limitations and urgency emphasized by stakeholders.
• ERCOT working to provide comments about timeline with NPRR 1234 and to bring a scenario for discussion to the OWG surrounding load shed percentages
• Methodologies for calculating load shed percentages explained, including considerations of changing load ratios over time.
• Approval of NPRR expected around Q1 of next year.
• Manual nature of load shed processes and preference for system-based operations over manual management highlighted.
• Stakeholders’ input sought on the desired length of time for exiting the VECL program and related operational considerations.
• Acknowledgment that changes in load dynamics and flexible loads over time will necessitate ongoing adjustments.
• Consensus on creating a path for transitioning between different load categories, with considerations for transmission studies, interconnection agreements, and system updates.
• Estimated minimum six-month timeline for implementing major changes in load registrations and categories stressed for reliability reasons.

4 – Maximum Size of Single Large Load Connection – Discussion of Revised Concept – ERCOT Staff

Key Topics Discussed:

• Feedback from previous meeting and internal discussions led to a revised approach to large load connections.
• Concept to simplify large load interconnection with a focus on a 1000 MW limit at a single point.
• Plans to file a PGRR (Protocol Revision Requests) and update planning criteria.
• Potential need for updated studies to validate the 1000 MW limit, based on Southern Cross project.
• Operation challenges in maintaining grid stability with large load connections.

Major Decisions Made:

• In comments to PGRR115, a new paragraph will limit large load interconnection at a single point to 1000 MW.
• A separate PGRR will establish that no more than 1000 MW can be lost for any single contingency in a planning study.
• ERCOT will commit to updating studies before final approval of these changes to ensure reliability.

Questions and Concerns Raised:

• Clarification on the term ‘single point of interconnect’ there are ongoing discussions on using either POI or POIB.whether POI or another definition.
• Management of faults in ring bus or breaker schemes; distinction between voltage ride-through and contingency scenarios.
• Modeling requirements for stability studies and potential updates for better load model accuracy.
• Possibility of grandfathering existing points of interconnection versus requiring compliance with new criteria.
• Operational feasibility and potential design challenges if loads exceed the 1000 MW threshold, particularly concerning process interconnections.

Follow-up Actions Planned:

• ERCOT to work on drafting and filing comments for PGRR115 and a separate PGRR for a new planning criterion.
• ERCOT to conduct updated studies to validate or adjust the 1000 MW limit based on current data and scenarios.
• Further discussions and engagement anticipated with stakeholders to refine and finalize these plans.

5 – Schedule of Future Meetings – Bill Blevins/Bob Wittmeyer

• Participant: Bill Blevins
  • Discussion:
    • The task force hasn’t met initial expectations such as developing ways for flexible loads to participate in ancillary services.
    • After completing NPRR134, PGRR115, and NPRR1238, it may be time to hibernate the task force.
    • Future issues to be presented by the legislature by next June are anticipated.
• Participant: Martha Henson
  • Discussion:
    • Clarification requested on the handling of ERCOT NPRR1234.
    • Anticipated that future comments on NPRR1234 will be discussed at ROS.
• Participant: (unknown)
  • Discussion:
    • Suggests hibernating after the current meeting unless specific issues arise, like interconnection discussions.
• Participant: Clayton Stice
  • Discussion:
    • Discussion on managing transition between CLR and non CLR within markets area.
    • Recommendation to shift this discussion to relevant markets forums like WMS or WMWG.
• Participants: Group Discussion (General)
  • Discussion:
    • Question on nodal versus non-nodal status raised, with emphasis on consistent nodal load.
    • Some loads seek to switch based on market conditions, suggesting consistent nodal status to prevent such shifts.
    • Attempts to expand nodal pricing to all large loads were discussed but lacked support.
• Participant: Lee Bracher
  • Discussion:
    • Bitcoin mining and large load participation awareness in other forums suggested.
    • Broadly supportive for nodal pricing. 
    • Brought up the need to address interconnection queue and PFR requirements for CLRs.
• Participants: Agee Springer
  • Discussion:
    • Clarified that issues needing NPRR1188 is separate from PFR requirements for CLRs.
    • Discussed timelines for NPRR1188 and related actions.
• Participant: Michael Jewell (Priority Power)
  • Discussion:
    • Provided updates on timelines for NPRR1244 related to NOGRR263, at PRS next week.
• Discussion:
  • Queue updates to continue at WMS unless a more public reporting method is established.
• Participants: Group Discussion on Next Steps
  • Discussion:
    • Cancellation of some scheduled LFL meetings anticipated unless specific issues arise.
    • Request to TAC for guidance on the best venue for queue updates.

Meeting Adjourned.