Luis Hinojosa presented an overview of the ancillary service methodology for 2025.
The presentation aimed to get stakeholders updated on current methodologies, data, and expected calculations for the coming months.
The discussion will continue with PDCWG, ROS, & WMS in subsequent months before finalizing the proposal.
The goal is to report the methodology to PUC by November or December.
No changes are expected for RRS, ECRS, and Non-Spin methodologies, but changes are being considered for regulation service.
The new methodology might switch from net load ramping to intra hour net load forecast error.
PSRR (Predicted Solar Ramp Rate) thresholds were implemented in June 2023, which has allowed better predictive capabilities.
Analysis on the impact of large flexible loads (LFLs) on regulation is ongoing.
Discussion on setting regulation quantities based on intra-hour errors and impacts from dynamic PSRR was covered.
There was mention of a proposal to consider changes to the methodology for regulation service and other potential changes.
Feedback was requested regarding the new potential methodologies and their implications.
Questions and feedback were received on various aspects from attendees: regulation exhaustion, battery impacts, FFR quantities, and inertia impacts among others.
Eric recommended discussing inertia dips in the WMS meeting.
Plans to publish a refreshed inertia white paper in response to PUC studies were mentioned.
No adjustments are currently being made for FFR quantities but a study was suggested for future considerations.
3 - NPRR1149 State of Charge Monitoring - Luis Hinojosa
A report template was shared to generate discussion and feedback, previously discussed at WMS.
The report aims to provide insights on AS obligation shortfall due to SOC and performance monitoring for events with low SOC concerns.
The report includes data on SOC shortfall calculations related to ancillary services, converting shortages to megawatt values.
Feedback is sought on report content and helpfulness for understanding available data.
There was discussion about showing individual ESR failures versus system-level shortfalls.
Reports would not reflect individual QSE actions and their resource management strategies.
Luis clarified the difference between the monitoring (not a compliance check) and actual performance obligations under NPRR1186 & NPRR1149.
Suggestions were made to make the reports more indicative of true performance versus perceived insufficiencies.
Final clarifications indicated no compliance exposure from these reports; they are intended to monitor SOC behavior.
Performance monitoring for RRS with low SOC examines how many ESRs were evaluated and failed based on telemetry.
Monitoring includes megawatt responses per BAL-TRE performance metrics, noting insufficient SOC intervals.
Action Items:
Collect additional feedback on report structure and content by the end of July.
Present a production version of the report using July data for the August 30 WMWG meeting.
Concerns about implementation and compliance were discussed, with specific details about a 30-second window for ECRS response each hour.
Katie Rich requested ERCOT to step through the specifics of the language and implementation, including examples.
Nitika provided a detailed walkthrough of the language and examples of how ECRS deployment works.
Discussion on the percentage value ERCOT posts for ECRS and how it's intended to preserve ECRS for frequency-related issues.
The need for a price floor under the standing deployment concept was discussed, with suggestions to amend the language in NPRR1232 to include it.
Blake and Andrew asked about the impact of NPRR1232 on QSEs' systems and implementation timelines, with Nitika acknowledging the impact on QSE vendors and timelines.
There was a consideration for an alternative approach using two offer floors to protect frequency-recovery capacity.
Brett Burkhead raised concerns about each QSE needing to make system changes and costs involved.
Fei inquired about the posting of monthly hourly percentage requirements and obligations of QSEs under bilateral trades.
Nitika clarified that the percentage posting in December wouldn't change unless a reliability issue justifies it and detailed QSE obligations in response to standing deployment.
Concerns about compliance if QSEs do not respond to standing deployments were raised and addressed.
Andrew asked about the implications if NPRR1224 passes through the PUC with a $750 offer floor.
Nitika acknowledged the need to see the outcome of NPRR1224 before deciding on further actions for NPRR1232.
Discussion about a potential two-tiered offer floor for frequency-based ECRS based on system-wide offer caps.
Summarized actions included looking into implementation timelines, exploring a trade example, and pending comments based on decisions expected on Thursday.
5 - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service Operational Discussion - ERCOT Staff & Group
Comments filed by Sierra Club, TSPA, and joint commenters of Eolian, Spearmint, and Form Energy.
TSPA requests ERCOT to commit to another NPRR that will add a four-hour battery storage component.
ERCOT discussed the complexities of including ESRs and the need for an offline status for such resources.
Concerns around legislation, policy guidance, and the technical feasibility of including ESRs in the current NPRR were raised.
Discussion of the potential benefits of including longer duration storage, like batteries, to enhance service reliability.
Consensus on the importance of considering innovative solutions and additional NPRR filings to address the complexities posed by ESRs.
LCRA supports the eventual inclusion of batteries and acknowledges cost and ramp-up concerns.
Future discussions anticipated to explore more detailed solutions for these issues.
Need for a subsequent NPRR timeline was highlighted for more complex solutions.
6 - NPRR1229 Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment Policy Questions - Ino Gonzalez
Discussion on NPRR1229 related to the real-time congestion management plan (CMP) and energy payments.
Eno Gonzalez provided an overview indicating ERCOT's neutral stance and the need to understand NPRR's implications.
Alex Lee gave a presentation explaining CMP, its definition, purpose, and an example scenario impacting generators.
Detailed policy questions raised by ERCOT, focusing on operationalization, costs, process verification, financial impacts, and payment caps.
Concerns about ERCOT's responsibility towards damages and the process of determining and compensating opportunity costs and bilateral contract financial losses.
Discussion on potential issues related to resource online readiness and adjusting settlement equations to reflect NPRR's intents.
Input from Lucas, NPRR sponsor, addressing some operational concerns and emphasizing risk compensation for resources due to ERCOT's actions.
General agreement that further discussion and feedback will be necessary, with the intent to revisit the topic in the next meeting.
Next steps include gathering substantial feedback on policy questions and aggregating stakeholder responses for clarity.
Ryan King provided updates on NPRR1149, identifying and planning to fix a small error in the logic of ancillary service failed quantity charges calculation.
Implementation fix for NPRR1149 is scheduled for later this week; settlement corrections targeted before the final settlement of the first operating day error noticed (June 28th).
Mohammed El-Madhoun updated on NPRR1058, noting its implementation on August 22nd and upcoming market notices.
NPRR1058 includes a new 60-day report for energy resource updates and a requirement for explanation when updating energy offer curves, initially optional for backward compatibility.
Blake Holt asked about the character count for the freeform entry field; it's set to 126 characters initially optional but will become mandatory.
Brad raised concerns about the practicality of providing accurate reason codes in automated systems; further clarifications were provided by Mohammed and Ryan.
Steve Reedy highlighted that the changes in NPRR1058 were driven by IMM concerns about market power abuse and suggested consulting with IMM for specific concerns.
No further business was discussed and the meeting concluded, with a break scheduled before the RCWG meeting.