A presentation is prepared with fewer than 29 slides, with an accessible appendix for reference.
▶️2 - Discuss purpose of ERCOT’s Proposed Market Design Framework
The primary purpose of ERCOT's Proposed Market Design Framework is to help decision makers, including the ERCOT board, regulators, and legislators, understand and assess market design initiatives.
The framework aims to communicate effectively what each tool in the market design does, facilitating decision-makers' understanding who aren't engaged daily in these processes.
The framework serves as a communication tool to translate complex processes and jargon used in meetings into more accessible language for stakeholders not deeply involved in the day-to-day specifics.
The framework can aid in prioritization by helping to evaluate initiatives, especially when resources are scarce and certain initiatives are mandated by legislation or regulation.
The framework is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all factors influencing market design, nor does it set or supersede existing reliability standards and authority.
Discussion highlighted the importance of connecting the framework with existing and future reliability standards.
The framework should help present complex discussions in a simplified, potentially visual manner for easier external stakeholder understanding.
Stakeholder feedback and questions emphasized the value of using the framework to align various initiatives within the context of overarching market design and priorities.
Discussion on the initial and updated attributes for ERCOT, focusing on positive feedback received.
Three key attributes emerged from previous feedback: Reliability, Affordability, and People, with a particular emphasis on combining two into the Competition attribute.
Affordability is a significant concern for the consumer side, with a focus on creating reliable and affordable solutions.
Importance of inclusive competition to allow different technologies to participate in market mechanisms.
Discussion on the tension between affordability and reliability, and the necessity of achieving reliable and cost-effective solutions.
Consideration of different metrics for affordability, such as avoided costs beyond just consumer costs.
Framework to help reconcile and resolve tensions between different attributes for decision making.
Current initiatives, like RTC, already reflect the framework in practice for larger market design initiatives, not smaller ones like NPRRs.
Discussion on project prioritization at ERCOT and identifying resource availability for prioritizing different initiatives.
Recognition that some NPRRs become obsolete due to delays, prompting a need for better prioritization processes.
Differentiation between efficiency and affordability, with RTC being highlighted as primarily dedicated to efficiency.
Bill Barnes and Ned Bonskowski previously discussed the importance of measurement in evaluating success and reliability standards.
Reliability standards, though not comprehensive, are a good starting point to assess availability, flexibility, and dependability.
The assessment of the ERCOT system's reliability standard will drive initiatives related to market design, priorities, and timelines.
Identification of additional necessary measurements beyond reliability standards was discussed.
Discussion on evaluating DRRS (currently in development) as a tool for flexibility, which involves determining how much flexibility is needed through study and analysis.
Market monitor's annual report highlights efficiency and areas for improvement; it is an assessment and a measurement tool.
Recommendations from the IMM report are evaluated for potential incorporation into frameworks for market efficiency improvement.
Introduction of initiative examples like RTC+B, highlighting benefits such as enhanced efficiency, flexibility, and competition.
DRRS (Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service) as a tool for flexibility, resiliency, and improvement of system dependability.
PCM (Performance Credit Mechanism) was discussed, noting its shelved status but also the attributes it intended to address like availability and dependability.
ORDC (Operating Reserve Demand Curve), known for its role in promoting resource availability through scarcity pricing.
ECRS (Emergency Operations Communications System) as another resiliency tool, ensuring sufficient resources and valuing duration quality.
HB1500 was mentioned, focusing on the dependability of resource output and potential incentives for greater dependability.
Discussion on the illustrative table and framework showcasing how different initiatives and their attributes fit within the market design.
Consensus building on framework scoring, balancing stakeholder perspectives and dialogue on decision-making processes.
Clarification on the objective of the framework to highlight the sum of the parts in market design policy.
Discussions on aligning the framework's outcomes with reliability, affordability, and efficiency objectives.
Acknowledgment of challenges in fully integrating the framework into existing processes without creating incongruities.
Open dialogue about the use of the framework as a presentation tool to better highlight stakeholder perspectives and decision-maker understanding.
Considerations on the ultimate goal of the framework and its relationship with current market design aspirations and reliability standards.
▶️6 - Address Outstanding Questions and Gather Feedback
Discussion of needing clearer guidance from regulators or legislature to align goals and objectives.
Participants emphasized the importance of reliability and flexibility within projects and initiatives.
Concerns about how smaller picture issues like NPRR1190 and NPRR1229 align with the larger framework.
Emphasis on the need for a framework to provide useful information for decision-makers, highlighting the necessity for deep understanding of historical context.
Talk on utilizing the framework in the next steps and continuing its use for board presentation improvements.
Acknowledgment that the ultimate goals and objectives need clearer articulation and direction.
Highlighting the complexity of market designs and the need to balance short-term and long-term efficiencies.
Discussion on prioritization challenges and potential structural changes in handling NPRRs and project prioritization.
Suggestions for improving the prioritization process and possibly setting a broader perspective on issues.
Feedback and Concerns:
Lack of clear delineation of ultimate goals and objectives.
Potential misalignment of smaller initiatives with larger framework goals.
Need for deeper historical context and understanding for decision makers.
Complexity in balancing short-term and long-term market design impacts.
Concerns over efficient prioritization and the need for a revised systematic approach.
Acknowledgment of the need for more comprehensive guidance from regulators.
Action Items:
Continue using the framework and assess its usefulness for decision makers.
Encourage further dialogue with regulators to clarify objectives.
Revisit prioritization methods for projects and NPRRs.
Consider restructuring the framework to incorporate broader perspectives and clear objectives.
