Production data from July is now included in the report.
The report, which monitors ancillary services carried by ESRs and their state of charge (SOC), is now available and will be posted monthly on the WMS page.
Failure to provide based on SOC is calculated by EMS, including failure to perform analyses for FME and non-FME events.
Slides discussed failures due to low SOC and actions taken with PDCWG.
Clarification provided on how evaluated ESRs are determined and their performance metrics.
Confirmed the need for contacting underperforming ESRs.
Definition provided for 'failure' in the context of primary frequency response (PFR) - failure to meet at least 0.75% of the expected response for an event.
Discussion on the relationship between SCED dispatches and low SOC impacting PFR.
Consensus on making the report a regular agenda item for questions.
Suggestion to consider the aggregate SOC of batteries in ancillary service procurement due to the increasing penetration of batteries.
Mention of a standard revision in progress to better evaluate batteries, indicating potential changes in how batteries are assessed.
4 - Pricing Impacts of LDL Override Decisions made during 4/8 Eclipse - Cory Carswel
Request made at WMS for details on price impacts of low dispatch limit (LDL) override instructions during April eclipse.
ERCOT team still working on the analysis.
Other priorities have delayed the analysis.
Discussion on this topic deferred to September.
5 - NPRR1230 Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED - Monitoring - Blake Holt
The ERCOT board approved NPRR1230 at their August meeting.
Approval by the PUC is expected by late September, with an effective date of October 1.
The new methodology involves dynamic shadow price calculations at TAC.
There was a recommendation for regular monitoring of the new methodology's effectiveness, and ERCOT supports this.
Discussion needed on whether the monitoring should be done by WMWG or CMWG.
ERCOT's previous analysis included violation relief in megawatt-hours and the market solution's dollar impact.
Suggestion made that CMWG handle the analysis due to its focus on congestion management.
No objections raised; will suggest to WMS that analysis should be referred to CMWG.
Ryan King from ERCOT supported the suggestion and mentioned they have no updates to share due to other priorities.
Next steps include planning to provide more information on the potential impacts of the NPRR.
6 - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service - Next Steps - Ryan King
Ryan King emphasized the need to codify discussions from stakeholder workshops regarding the DRRS.
ERCOT proposed a two-phase approach to NPRR1235, with Phase One focusing on areas with high confidence and Phase Two discussing concerns such as energy storage integration.
There is a commitment from ERCOT to start discussions on Phase Two within the year.
Clarification was made that ERCOT cannot make firm guarantees about implementation timelines due to dependencies on completed NPRR designs and IA assessments.
Bill Barnes supported the phase approach and stressed the importance of including ESR capacity in the RUC engine to meet statutory requirements.
Michael Jewell was concerned about the eligibility of ESRs to participate in DRRS and felt this should align with legislative intent.
Discussion on how DRRS resources would be applied in market settings and the need for clear guidelines on inclusion in the RUC engine was raised.
Stakeholders expressed interest in deploying four-hour batteries and ensuring market signals support longer duration batteries.
Specific points of NPRR1235 were highlighted, such as the ancillary service demand curve and scaling factors to ensure DRRS appears cheaper in the RUC engine.
Questions and clarifications were made regarding self-deployment for DRRS.
There was no final consensus from stakeholders on moving NPRR1235 forward, with some supporting moving ahead with the current NPRR and others wanting ESRs included in the first phase.
ERCOT received comments from staff and questions they posted.
ERCOT ready to help staff and market participants with NPRR.
Current NPRR as written cannot be implemented.
Significant policy decisions need to be made.
STEC provided comments and a draft of the NPRR with changes.
Policy question about paying for repair costs as well as capital expenditures.
STEC made it clear the intent was to pay for repairs, working to clarify that in the NPRR.
Policy question on paying lost opportunity payments during the outage period and its duration.
Clarification needed on paying lost opportunity vs. bilateral contracts.
STEC clarified that if paying for bilateral contracts, you will not pay for lost opportunity and vice versa.
Policy questions on paying for lost opportunity need to be addressed by stakeholders.
Example scenario: generator cannot go offline due to high repair costs.
Discussion on communication and advance notice for CMP between ERCOT and STEC.
Lucas and Freddie provide insights on forming CMP agreements and the necessity for operating instructions for significant operational risks.
Concerns about the non-optional nature of operating instructions and potential guardrails.
Suggestion to discuss policy issues at the next TAC meeting, considering if these policy decisions should be brought to the PUC.
Acknowledgment of the significant impact of repair costs on the market.
Need for high-level visibility for significant policy impacts.
Ongoing work to clarify points in NPRR without implying ERCOT's agreement with its concepts.
8 - NPRR1238 Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - ORDC Implications - Katie Rich
Katie Rich introduced the topic and the context of the NPRR, referring to the need to discuss implications on market prices and deployment triggers.
The NPRR addresses price formation partially through the inclusion of VECL deployments and the termination of the RDPA.
Bob Wittmeyer raised concerns about early curtailments resulting in no response during trigger pulls by ERCOT and questioned the necessity of additional adders.
Katie and others discussed the potential impact on ORDC and the possibility of incorporating it into the NPRR.
Blake Holt from LCRA and others clarified their understanding of ORDC capacity calculations and the inclusion of offline capacities.
Additional discussions on ORDC methodology, settlement calculations, and the need for telemetry to track curtailed loads.
Steve Reedy recapped that Katie suggested a method to calculate deployed MWs of VECL, and subtracting that from the RTOL cap calculation, potentially increasing ORDC adder prices.
Katie Rich agreed to draft language for next month’s meeting to provide clarity and allow for internal consideration.
ERCOT (specifically Austin from settlements) mentioned the potential need for impact analysis once the language is drafted.
