Meeting Summary – 09/19/24 TAC Meeting

1 – Antitrust Admonition – Caitlin Smith

2 – Discussion of Stakeholder Process and Communications – Caitlin Smith/ERCOT Staff

• Stakeholder Process 091924_rev2_pdf
• Mini workshop on stakeholder process and communications.
• Previous discussions at the July 25 and August 29 open meetings.
• References to NPRR1224 and NOGRR245.
• Importance of communication improvements in the TAC process including subcommittees and working groups.
• Need for transparent communication to the board and PUC.
• Focus on making sure information on contentious issues is communicated earlier.

2.1 – Review of Current Stakeholder Process

• Ann Boren provided a high-level review of current stakeholder structure and process.
• Explanation of ERCOT stakeholder committee structure, including working groups, task forces, and subcommittees.
• Description of subcommittees (PRS, RMS, ROS, and WMS) and their roles as voting bodies.
• TAC’s role in the process and its composition as laid out in the bylaws.
• Details on the voting structures for TAC and subcommittees.
• Explanation of the revision request process, focusing on NPRRs.
• Role of PRS in the language consideration and impact analysis of NPRRs.
• Review process by TAC for NPRR recommendations.
• Potential for R&M to review NPRR requests if opposing votes occur in TAC.
• Board receives recommendations from both TAC and R&M for final decision-making.
• PUC has the final approval on revision requests.
• Comments can be filed at any time during the stakeholder process.

• If TAC has a different recommendation than R&M, both recommendations go to the board, with presentations from the TAC recommendation by the TAC chair and the R&M recommendation by the R&M chair.
  
  

2.2 – Possible Process Improvements

• Potential drafts or proposals discussed: modifying subcommittee voting threshold, minimum time requirements for revision requests at TAC, and encouraging formal comments.
• Subcommittee voting threshold currently at 50%. Proposals include higher thresholds to encourage earlier debates and better records.
• Cory Philips reported very few revision requests met the 50% but did not meet the two-thirds threshold in recent history.
• Minimum time requirements between PRS and TAC suggested, potentially similar to PUC’s 30-day requirement.
• Encouragement for stakeholders to file formal comments to ensure transparent and early communication of positions.
• Discussion on making the process more formalized for stakeholders to engage and better filtering of ideas.
• Concerns raised over modifying voting thresholds which might hinder smaller participants and stifle idea flow.
• Feedback on potential impacts of raising the voting threshold and delaying processes versus solving real issues.
• Proposal to increase time between PRS and TAC to avoid rush decisions.
• Formally recognizing conversations and compromises happening between PRS and TAC in formal comments.
• Discussion on formalizing commission review processes to address discomfort and ensure due process for appeals.
• Ideas on improving stakeholder process involving commissioners, board members, and general approach to complicated issues.
• General agreement on importance of filing formal comments to show seriousness and level of stakeholder engagement.
• Highlighting difference in roles of TAC and the board post-Senate Bill Two, and dealing with resulting procedural confusion.
• Feedback from Barksdale English representing commission staff, encouraging more consensus and thoughtful discussions.
• Suggestions on revisiting responsibilities and roles for better market reliability and driving consensus through the body.

2.3 – Stakeholder/TAC Communications to Board

• Discussion on NPRR1190 and its impact on fairness and reliability.
• Clarification needed on TAC’s role and how it communicates directly with the board without ERCOT’s filter.
• The existing process allows for stakeholder comments but may need changes.
• Questions about the quality and content of feedback from both corporate and tech members to the board.
• Ensuring that stakeholders can address the board directly if desired.
• Discussion on the historical context of policy decisions, particularly the shift from a zonal to a nodal market design.
• Encouraging the board to reach out to stakeholders if they have specific questions not addressed by ERCOT.
• Comments on enhancing the communication process between TAC and the board.
• Recommendations for presenting information and enabling direct stakeholder engagement in board meetings.
• Potential for a more systematic approach to stakeholder engagement in board interactions.
• Possibility of forming a subcommittee to focus on improving communications and processes between TAC and the board.

2.4 – Comments to the Board on Revision Requests

• Clarification that the process for making comments to the board has always existed.
• Comments can be made directly to the board in written form or verbally.
• Discussion on how TAC members sometimes vote no without significant follow-up.
• Board has the option to ask stakeholders for follow-up questions.
• ERCOT is encouraged to provide its views on certain items, such as NPRR1190.
• Stakeholders and TAC members should utilize the existing process to make their points known.
• Board is data-driven and looks for a complete picture from TAC, especially when no votes are present.
• Discussion of potential ways TAC can provide more complete data to the board.
• Mentioned the importance of more detailed comments from members on close votes or non-unanimous recommendations.
• Board seeks full perspective and understanding on issues, especially when segments have different perspectives.
• Suggestions on improving the communication process between TAC and the board, including capturing more detailed data on close or controversial votes.
• Discussion on how the board can better engage with TAC and corporate members for a complete data-driven recommendation.
• Potential process improvements suggested to enhance board understanding and decision-making.
• Consideration of historical context and experience in interpreting segment voting patterns.
• Comments on how to handle no votes and abstentions effectively.
• Suggestions about ERCOT’s potential role in providing additional comments or data in certain cases.
• Stakeholders provided feedback on how to improve transparency and clarity in communications to the board.

3 – Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes Vote Caitlin Smith

• Motion to approve the August 28, 2024 meeting minutes as revised by TAC added to combo ballot.
  • Concerns about the timeline for subsequent NOGRR filing post-PUC approval, expected in October, aiming for board submission in February.
  • Difference between market trial timeline and what QSEs were attesting to noted.
  • Support for earlier training on certain items.
  • Discussion on simulator functionality and tracking outcomes between real-time co-optimization engine and current ODC, especially regarding committed capacity.
  • Bob Helton raised concerns about separate invoices.
  • Discussion on issues with completing membership requests tied to weatherization report emails; ERCOT indicated this will not be an issue after this year.
  • Ned Bonskowksi Submitted edits to the minutes to capture high-level discussion points and member concerns.
  • Concerns raised about ERCOT summarizing stakeholder positions to the board
  • NOGRR245 Bifurcated Approach
  • Real-Time Co-Optimization
  • 2025 Membership Application Process

4 – Meeting Updates Caitlin Smith

The Public Utilities Commission met twice on August 29 and September 12.

• No revision requests were up for adoption during these meetings.

5 – Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions Ann Boren/IMM

• 5-revision-request-summary-091924_rev1.pdf
• Eight revision requests are on the TAC agenda this month
• Five of the revision requests are sponsored by ERCOT and three by market participants.
• Reasons for revisions include:
  • Two being board and/or PUC directives
  • Five general system process improvements
  • One regulatory
• NPRR1188 has a budgetary impact of $1.8-$2.5 million.
• NPRR1244 has a budgetary impact of $70k-$100k 
• The remaining revision requests have either no impact or are captured in other revision requests.
• ERCOT supports all revision requests and provides positive market impact statements.
• CFSG has reviewed all requests and found no credit implications.
• IMM supports NPRR1188 and has no opinion on the remaining revision requests.

6 – PRS Report – Vote – Diana Coleman

Diana Coleman from CPS Energy presented the September PRS report. Three key items were considered in the report:

6. PRS Presentation to TAC 091924.pdf

6.1 – NPRR1188, Implement Nodal Dispatch and Energy Settlement for Controllable Load Resources

• Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1188 as recommended by PRS in the 9/12/24 PRS Report and to recommend approval of OBDRR046 as submitted and the 6/27/23 Impact Analysis carries unanimously.
  • NPRR1188 proposed by ERCOT to change dispatch and pricing for Controllable Load Resources (CLRs) in response to market design blueprint phase one.
  • IA: Between $1.8M and $2.5M. Priority 2026; Rank 390
  • PRS unanimously recommended approval as amended by July 15 Oncor comments on August 8.
  • PRS unanimously endorsed and forwarded the revised August 8 report and June 27, 2023 IA with a recommended 2026 priority and rank of 390 on September 12.

6.2 – NPRR1237, Retail Market Qualification Testing Requirements

• Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1237 as recommended by PRS in the 9/12/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.
  • The item NPRR1237 had no opposition and was described as having no impact.
  • NPRR1237 originates from CenterPoint.
  • It sets conditions for ERCOT to require all competitive retailers, both new and existing, and TDSPs to complete retail market qualification testing.
  • PRS unanimously approved NPRR1237 as amended by the August 6 RMS comments on August 8.
  • In September, there was unanimous support to endorse and forward it to TAC with the August 8 PRS report and the August 27 impact analysis.

6.3 – NPRR1244, Clarification of Controllable Load Resource Primary Frequency Response Responsibilities

• Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1244 as recommended by PRS in the 9/12/24 PRS Report; and the 9/13/24 Revised Impact Analysis; with a recommended priority of 2026 and rank of 4710.
  • Minor IA title change and comments on priority and rank for NPRR1244 from Priority Power aligning PFR provisions to provide ECRS and PRC calculation.
  • August 8: PRS voted to recommend approval as submitted. September: Voted to endorse and forward to TAC the August 8 PRS report as revised by PRS with September 6 impact analysis.
  • ERCOT expedited review suggested moving 1244 priority to 2026 due to RTC commitments, new rank 4710.
  • Proposed moving NPRR1237, NPRR1188, and NPRR1244 to combo ballot. Recusal for NPRR1188 noted and separate ballots decided for NPRR1188 and OBDRR046.
• Topic: Discussion on NPRR1247
  Details: NPRR1247 tabled due to lack of urgency and need for ERCOT white paper clarification. Stakeholders required more information before voting.
• Topic: Future Action for NPRR1247
  Details: ERCOT to prioritize the document and clarify it separately from NPRR1247’s proposed language.

Contributions:

• Speaker: Troy Anderson
  Role: ERCOT Portfolio Management
  Contribution: Suggested moving NPRR1244 priority to post-RTC (2026) and new rank.
• Speaker: Barksdale English
  Role: Commission Staff
  Contribution: Queried about NPRR1247’s delay and requested clarity on urgency and language from ERCOT.
• Speaker: Matt Arthur
  Role: ERCOT
  Contribution: Provided assurance on NPRR1247 urgency being separate from white paper guidance.

7 – Revision Requests Tabled at TAC Possible Vote Caitlin Smith

7.1 – OBDRR046, Related to NPRR1188, Implement Nodal Dispatch and Energy Settlement for Controllable Load Resources

• See item 6.1 for ballot details.

7.2 – OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era

• For energy storage resource terminology alignment for the single model era.
• Decision to keep the item tabled while waiting for associated NPRR1246.

7.3 – NPRR1215, Clarifications to the Day-Ahead Market DAM Energy-Only Offer Calculation

• Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1215 as recommended by TAC in the 6/24/24 TAC Report as amended by the 8/1/24 ERCOT comments as revised by TAC added to the combo ballot.
  • NPRR1215 was initially approved by TAC and the board but ERCOT identified issues led to the board remanding it back to TAC for edits and corrections.
  • ERCOT filed comments on August 1 addressing identified issues, specifically changing “credit reduction” to “credit exposure”.
  • Further changes deemed necessary were made during subsequent reviews.
  • Alfredo Moreno with ERCOT confirmed that all required corrections have been addressed, and the item is ready for approval.
  • No additional questions or concerns raised by participants.
  • A recommendation to approve NPRR1215, incorporating August 1 ERCOT comments and other necessary revisions by TAC, was made.

8 – RMS Report – John Schatz

• Brief verbal update regarding Texas set 5.0 and MarkeTrak SCR817, both retail projects.
• MarKeTrak training held with over 165 attendees.
• Commendation for Tammy Stewart from ERCOT for her excellent training.
• Another training session planned closer to the implementation date of Texas set 5.0 at the end of October.
• Texas set 5.0 testing in progress with all existing retail market participants and new representatives involved.
• TDSPs working with ERCOT to get testbed transactions flowing next week.
• WMS in the middle of an email vote to approve a revised version of the Texas set 5.0 implementation plan.
• Modifications made to the implementation plan for clarity regarding specific transactions at 06:00 a.m. on Saturday.

9 – ROS Report – Vote – Katie Rich

ROS_Update_to_TAC 9 19 24.pdf

9.1 – NOGRR263, Related to NPRR1244, Clarification of Controllable Load Resource Primary Frequency Response Responsibilities

• Motion to recommend approval of NOGRR263 as recommended by ROS in the 9/9/24 ROS Report; and the 9/13/24 Revised Impact Analysis added to combo ballot.

9.2 – NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service

• Motion to table NOGRR264 added to the combo ballot.
  • Approved IAs for NOGRR264 and NPRR1235, both back at TAC.
  • PGRR107 amended with ERCOT August comments.
  • NPRR1180 is at PRS, believed to be approved and will return for IA and added to ROS October agenda for potential modifications based on ERCOT comments.
  • AS methodology had some extensions, more details at WMS.
  • Next meeting is October 3, WebEx only.

9.3 – Major Transmission Elements MTE List

• Motion to approve the Major Transmission Elements (MTE) List as presented added to the combo ballot.

10 – WMS Report – Eric Blakey

WMS Report To TAC – September 19 2024.pdf

• Two items will be voted on: Proposed changes to AS services and congestion revenue rights auction mitigation.
• New feature at WMS: Monthly large load interconnection reports. Last report showing an increase of 4,439 MW since August update.
• NPRR1241 tabled and referred to WMWG.
• NPRR1202 remains tabled.
• NPRR1229; concerns about cost recovery and policy alignment raised.
• Additional comments submitted by Celtics Electric co-op regarding NPRR1229.
• Discussion about whether to approve, reject, or seek policy decision from PUC on Revision Request 1229.
• Eric Goff mentioned NPRR1229 should be rejected because creating payments to generators to turn off can lead to unintended consequences. The current market design already sends a lower price signal to generators when ERCOT needs less power from then.
• Next WMS meeting scheduled for October 7.

11 – Proposed Changes to Ancillary Service Methodology for 2025 – Possible Vote – Luis Hinojosa

TAC_2025_AS_Methodology_09192024_v5.pdf

Broad Picture:

• Discussed past changes to AS methodology such as NPRR1224 and NPRR1232.
• Emphasized need to review and approve AS methodology through stakeholder processes and PUCO review.

Timeline and Stakeholder Process:

• Started discussions in July for the AS methodology.
• AS study in parallel with the legislature, PUC, IMM, and ERCOT due in September 2424.

Regulation Service Changes:

• Switch to using net load forecast error instead of historical regulation deployment and net load variability.
• Data now incorporates wind and solar ramping inputs, improving visibility.
• Proposed methodology suggests an increase for 2025.

Responsive Reserve Service Changes:

• No methodology changes.
• IFRO for 2024 updated, setting RRS-PFR limit to 1365 MW.
• Slight increase of 9 MW due to updated RS table.

Concerns Raised:

• Reduction in regulation during winter mornings causes operational concern.
• Queries on potential risks due to regulation reduction and flat RRS values.

ERCOT Changes:

• Three changes proposed: adjusting sunset hour coverage, aligning frequency recovery portion with RRS methodology, and using the greater of the two capacities for ERCOT quantity.
• Overall decrease in ERCOT quantities for 2025 from 2024.

Non-spin Changes:

• Change to use four-hour net load forecast error for hours ending 23 to 6 instead of six-hour error to reflect available offline resources.
• Slight increase from last year but would have been higher without methodology change.

Stakeholder Comments and Concerns:

• Concerns regarding relying on RUC for covering net load forecast errors.
• Discussions on how changes affect capacity margin and need for further analysis.

Evolution Roadmap:

• Probabilistic analysis for 2026.
• Dynamic calculation of ancillary services closer to operating day for 2027.

Vote on 2025 Methodology:

• Motion to endorse the 2025 Ancillary Service Methodology as presented by ERCOT passed with one opposed and two abstentions.

Additional Disclosures:

Jeff McDonald (IMM) did not oppose but mentioned they’d prefer lessons from AS study incorporated.

12 – Large Flexible Load Task Force Report – Bill Blevins

• Task force to go into hibernation mode, potentially canceling some upcoming meetings.
• Reported growth in potential large load from 12GW in 2019 to around 54GW currently, driven by crypto mining and AI data centers.
• Breakdown of the 54 GW includes ~30GW crypto, ~19GW for AI data centers, and 4-5GW potentially hydrogen-related.
• Proposed rules for interconnection process moving forward, focus on loads greater than 1 GW requiring multiple connections.
• Asked to ask TAC on where to update reporting large load queue: TAC, ROS, or WMS; transparency and centralization important.
• Discussion on customer information and its privacy; ERCOT navigating statutory obligations while aiming for transparency.
• Recognition of significant progress made by the task force, approved 15GW for future interconnections.
• Feedback on the need for detailed, transparent reporting on new load development, including timelines and impacts. 
• Bill Barnes mentioned he will support NPRR1234 so that the collection of more granular information of large loads will be available to report on.

13 – Credit Finance Sub Group Report – Brenden Sager

TAC_CFSG_20sept2024.SD.pdf

• Reviewed NPRRs and EAL change calculations and credit exposure updates.
• Update on NPRR1205: Changes include adjusted ratings requirements and doubling credit limits, affecting bank acceptability at ERCOT effective November 1.
• Performance and surety bonds changes: new credit limits and ratings adjustments.
• Discussed the EAL calculation: Determines collateral requirements using max history of real-time liabilities, day-ahead factors, and forward adjustment factors.
• Credit team’s nearing completion of a proposal for more effective matching of obligations to invoices.
• Eric Goff requested for ERCOT credit department to present a proposal at a future TAC meeting.
• Continuation by Loretto (NRG): Further discussion on netting real-time and day-ahead, forward adjustment factor adjustments, and considering caps on RFAF.
• Review of several NPRRs with no credit implications; all were operational.
• Increase in total potential exposure from $1.81 billion to $1.88 billion from July to August 2024, due to higher real-time and day-ahead prices.
• No unusual collateral call activity in August.
• Breakdown and comparison of various types of credit exposure and collateral posted at ERCOT.
• NPRR1205: Monthly update on collateral limits for banks, showing no over-collateralization.

14 – RTC+B Task Force Report Matt Mereness

14 RTCBTF_TAC_Update_09192024_v2.pdf

• Two-part presentation covering usual slides and AS demand curve white paper.
• Announcement of go-live date for RTC+B; market trials starting May 5, 2025, and going live on December 5, 2025.
• Outline of completed actions and future milestones including parameter reviews for AAS proxy offer curves.
• Acknowledgment of remaining issues and policy settings needed before market trials.
• RTC simulator now operational; studies to be provided at next task force meeting.
• Discussed market trials plan review and approach to training readiness with feedback from task force.
• Summarized history and current issues regarding AS demand curves and ancillary services demand curves.
• ERCOT’s commitment to resolving policy issues by April 2025 to ensure go-live readiness.
• Discussions included potential changes to ORDC and as demand curves, with the need to consider impacts on ancillary service products.
• IMM to provide analysis and recommendations within the next few weeks, aiming for resolution before April 2025.

15 – ERCOT Reports

15.1 – Potential Price Corrections – Matt Young

15.1.1 – Aug. 9 – 10, 2024 – Incorrect Resource Data Impacting the Real-Time Market

Potential Price Corrections Aug. 9-10 ’24 – Incorrect Resource Data Impacting the Real-Time Market.pdf

• Issue was identified on August 9, 2024, and fixed on August 10, 2024.
• SCED intervals were rerun with the corrected resource data.
• Market notices were issued on August 20 and September 17, 2024.
• Criteria for price correction require either a 2% impact and more than $20,000 or a 20% impact and more than $2,000.
• Five counterparties met the criteria over the two days.
• On August 9, the largest impact was approximately $24,000 and 3.73%.
• On August 10, the largest impact was approximately $4,500 and 42%-43%.
• Net charge difference on August 10 was approximately $281,000 with a 1.56% difference.
• Approval will be sought at the October board meeting and presented at the October 9 RNM committee meeting.

15.1.2 – Aug. 20, 2024 – Incorrect Recall of ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service

Potential Price Corrections Aug. 20 24 – Incorrect Recall of ECRS.pdf

Date of Issue: August 20, 2024

Issue Description: Incorrect recall of ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) due to a software defect in the UI.

Details

• Operators attempted to recall 500 MW of ECRS but recalled 2000 MW due to the defect.
• System LAMBDA was approximately $850/MWh before recall and spiked to the offer cap of $5,001MWh after the recall.
• The spike continued for about 25 seconds before operators corrected the recall.
• System LAMBDA then dropped to approximately $284/MWh after correction.

Fix Implemented: August 28, adjustment made to interface to prevent recurrence.

Market Notifications

• Two market notices sent out: one for the 30-day board approval period, one for settlements analysis.

Impact Analysis

• 37 counterparties impacted: 36 under Criteria 1, 1 under Criteria 2.
• Maximum financial impact for a single party: $597,000.
• Maximum percentage impact: 41.05% for both criteria.
• Total changes to ERCOT charges: Approximately $3.5 million.
• Overall change: Approximately 2.4%.

Future Actions

• Seeking board approval on October 10, 2024.
• Presenting the issue at the RNN.

15.2 – CRR Performance Issues Update – Alfredo Moreno

CRR-TAC_09192024_final.pdf

• High volumes and complexity in CRR auctions observed.
• Recent performance issues and current risks assessed through studies.
• Potential CRR mitigation measures for the current auction closing today.
• Detailed explanation of increasing variables in auctions: settlement points, CRR account holders, and counterparties.
• Approval of NPRR1188 adding resource nodes, potentially increasing paths and transactions.
• Increase in transaction numbers causing runtime issues; highlighted with example sequence six taking over 365 hours.
• Significant time spent on evaluating CRR system performance and technical capabilities; latest software update showing a 10-30% performance boost.
• Studies conducted on a reduced capacity setting revealing auction runtimes of 230-250 hours, exceeding ERCOT’s preferred 100-hour runtime.
• Emphasis on the continuous increase in market activity leading to performance risks in long-term sequence auctions.
• Mitigation plan includes splitting time of use transactions to manage oversubscription; triggering adjustments if transactions exceed 133,000.
• Focus on CRR calendar preparedness for potential adjustments.
• Ongoing plans to discuss midterm and long-term solutions, including revising CRR transaction thresholds to avoid auction readjustments.
• Discussion on technological capacity limitations and considerations for future improvements, including cloud outsourcing.
• Community input on prioritizing entities with load/resources in CRR auctions and suggestions to better align with growing solar energy needs.

Conclusions

• Risk mitigation measures for the current auction are in place, with the potential of triggering transaction adjustments if thresholds are exceeded.
• Midterm and long-term solutions will be further discussed in upcoming meetings (CMWG, WMS, TAC).
• Exploration of technical constraints and potential future solutions, including cloud computing, will continue.

15.3 – ERCOT 2025 Membership Application and Agreement Follow-Up – Katherine Gross

ERCOT 2025 Membership Application and Agreement Sept 19 TAC 09162024.pdf

• Catherine Gross provided updates on the 2025 membership application and agreement process.
• The membership application process will launch tomorrow.
• Authorized representatives may face login issues if they haven’t logged into the public portal prior to April 24.
• Options to resolve login issues include creating new credentials or designating a different representative.
• Support is available via portalsupportercot.com for those encountering issues.
• A market notice and email will be sent out tomorrow with details on the process.
• Current system credentials used last year should still work, with some exceptions.
• Data and cryptocurrency centers will be classified as industrial consumers for the 2025 membership year.
• ERCOT supports broader discussions about updating membership segments to reflect the modern market.
• Most centers currently fit into the industrial consumer segment, but this is subject to future discussions.

Questions and Remarks:

• Bill Barnes
  • Question: Asked about the email coming out and how it relates to the public portal.
  • Response: Clarification that the public portal is separate from the weatherization portal causing issues.
• Eric Schubert
  • Remark: Expressed concerns about cryptocurrency centers fitting into the industrial segment.
  • Response: Consensus to use the industrial category for one year and to review segment compositions going forward.
• Clayton Greer
  • Question: Inquired about the timeline for broader discussions on segment compositions.
  • Response: Discussions will start for 2026 membership and are expected to take a year.
• Jennifer Schmitt
  • Remark: Emphasized the need for representative stakeholder involvement and urged for immediate discussions.
  • Response: ERCOT will look into how to initiate discussions.
• Bob Helton
  • Remark: Mentioned the need to review entire membership balance when altering any segment.
  • Response: Considerations will include the impact on all segments.

16 – Other Business

• Priyanka Partisarathy from ERCOT provided an update on their mobile app.
• An enhanced version of the mobile app will be released by the end of this month.
• The new app is a complete rewrite with various enhancements.
• Encouragement for all attendees to download the ERCOT mobile app if they haven’t already.
• New features include an improved home screen with real-time data and a user-friendly lower navigation tray.
• Popular ERCOT dashboards, including grid conditions, supply and demand, and fuel mix, are accessible in the app.
• Meeting calendar function added, allowing users to add meetings to their personal calendars.
• Personalized home settings and dark mode options are now available.
• Push notifications for grid condition changes, including Texans alerts and EEA alerts.
• Encouragement to update or download the app when the new version is released.

17 – Combo Ballot – Vote – Caitlin Smith

• Motion carried unanimously