Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1251 as amended by the 12/5/24 WMS comments carried unanimously with 1 abstention from the Consumer segment.
Melissa raised a question about the necessity of the fuel oil index price.
Eno explained that the fuel oil index price is used when resources utilize existing fuel inventories rather than purchasing new fuel.
The price is capped using the fuel oil index to address difficulties in verifying past purchase costs.
Resource entities can choose to replace utilized fuel or recover costs based on past purchases, but reimbursement for past purchases is capped.
Discussion clarified that new fuel purchases are reimbursed at actual costs, whereas past fuel amounts are limited to the fuel oil index price.
No further questions or concerns were raised about NPRR1251.
▶️ 6.13 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs
Caitlin Smith requested that NPRR1255 be tabled again this month. ERCOT and stakeholders have been having productive offline discussions regarding NPRR1255.
The NPRR deals with the mitigation of ESRs, and stakeholders are generally comfortable with the framework.
Discussions include:
Addressing commitment to ancillary services and the state of charge preservation.
Exploring options like setting a floor on offers for mitigation to consider opportunity costs.
Considering whether there should be a state of charge threshold where mitigation would not apply.
Jupiter might file comments by January based on progress in discussions. No action is required currently, and the item remains tabled for flexibility in further discussions.
Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1261 as submitted added to the combo ballot.
The purpose of NPRR1261 is to provide more operational flexibility by modifying CRR transaction limits.
Samantha Finley from ERCOT explained the need for differentiating transaction limits among auction types to accommodate varying network capacities.
The new transaction limits are intended to prevent issues with hitting limitations and to solve auction processes more efficiently.
Bill Barnes expressed curiosity about the extent of the benefits but supported moving the NPRR forward.
There was consensus among the members about the positive impact and readiness to proceed with NPRR1261.
CMWG and WMS have extensively discussed the issue, leading to a positive perception of the increased transparency and flexibility.
DC Energy filed comments in support of NPRR1261, particularly appreciating ERCOT's engagement with CMWG.
▶️ 7.3 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification
Motion to table NPRR1262 added to the combo ballot.
NPRR1262 is aimed at providing clarity to address litigation concerns related to a patent claim involving Bitcoin mining and CLRs by Lancium.
Lancium has raised objections, preferring ongoing negotiations outside ERCOT's public process due to potential litigation risks.
Matt Arth from ERCOT Regulatory Council supports tabling further discussions to understand implications and consider different stakeholder perspectives.
Bill Barnes expressed concerns about the impact on CLR market participation and requested more details on Lancium's patent claims.
ERCOT has engaged in discussions with Lancium, Cholla, and the Blockchain Council to explore implications of the patent claim and potential licensing without committing to agreements.
Suggestions include delaying the issue's table until the first quarter, allowing a thorough understanding to be developed by involved parties.
There are concerns about whether protocol clarifications could inadvertently involve intellectual property issues outside of ERCOT's purview.
Clayton Greer emphasized that NPRR is a clarification for transparency, not a policy change, aimed at preventing market participation hesitance.
Tabling NPRR1262 will provide more time to address legal interpretations and clarify ERCOT's stance without impacting reliability or stakeholder responsibilities.
▶️ 7.4 - SCR828, Increase the Number of Resource Certificates Permitted for an Email Domain in RIOO
Motion to recommend approval of SCR828 as submitted added to the combo ballot.
Request from NextEra Energy to increase the number of resource certificates for an email domain in the RIOO system.
Current limit of 23 certificates poses challenges for larger market participants.
Proposal from Zach Reich, ERCOT, to increase the limit to at least 50 certificates, with suggestions to increase to 100.
Discussion of system limitations and costs associated with increasing the certificate limit.
Agreement on the need for an IA before deciding on the exact number.
Acknowledgment of similar past requests and the need for a practical and economically viable solution.
ERCOT is developing a roadmap for dashboard implementation, with a target for completion in 2025.
The purpose of the roadmap is to capture recommendations from various stakeholders and establish a formal process for introducing new dashboards and making changes to existing ones.
A form likely hosted on ServiceNow will allow stakeholders to submit requests, which will then be evaluated for broad stakeholder value, data availability, duplication of effort, and long-term viability.
The process includes impact analysis and project prioritization to assess costs, resource availability, and potential conflicts with ongoing projects.
The process will involve transparency and the ability for stakeholders to track the progress of their requests.
Concerns were raised about potential frequent changes to the dashboards and the need for a formal approval process involving stakeholders.
It was suggested that stakeholder feedback should be incorporated into the process, possibly via public forums or direct input opportunities.
Additional dialogue suggested an existing protocol revision request process could be used to incorporate stakeholders’ opinions, but ERCOT maintains dashboards are courtesy postings not formally required.
Stakeholders expressed a desire for more transparency and input, specifically regarding rejected requests and the overall decision-making process.
ERCOT confirmed intentions for transparency and stakeholder notification during implementation phases, but specifics of stakeholder appeal or feedback integration were not fully defined.
