Frame

Meeting Summary - 07/10/24 WMS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI Summary
07/11/2024

1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey 2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=a2e8c577-341e-464d-ae12-45cc6b03dd77">3</a> - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes - Vote - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=605343ef-2aac-4904-bdc8-cbcbb63f5bcd">3.1</a> - June 5, 2024 <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was no opposition to adding the minutes to the combo ballot</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4273f4a4-6b83-423f-9a36-2e01e1a0a4db">4</a> - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update - Jim Lee <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC approved all voting items presented, including NPRR1216, OBDRR051, VCMRR039, NPRR1190, NPRR1215, NPRR1225, and PGRR106.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC provided feedback to WMS on additional actions related to new EPA rules, greenhouse gas rule, and mercury and air toxic standards rule.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC recommended keeping updates on these EPA rules on the radar, with working groups Winwig and SAWG tasked to monitor developments.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=cc37de90-8abf-48f7-858f-04eb13600865">5</a> - ERCOT Operations and Market Items, Dave Maggio <a href="/sharing/?token=a023f8b8-99ac-4200-8197-1ddb27aec4d1">5.1</a> - Auction Revenue Distribution CARD and Calvin Opheim <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of a problem and several potential solutions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preference for one solution but open to discussing others.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aim to have a detailed discussion and endorsement at the next meeting in August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three options will be laid out for consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Final goal to incorporate the chosen option into an NPRR along with an associate impact analysis.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=e705ca19-734d-4fb2-b455-f0a056be26c6">5.2</a> - CRR Balancing Account - CRRBA <h4>Key Discussions:</h4> <h5>Allocation of Congestion Revenue</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT discussed revisiting the allocation methodology for congestion revenue.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Currently, allocation is based on relative consumption during the peak interval of the month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Under NPRR1030, the allocation would switch to a monthly load ratio share.</li> </ul> <h5>NPRR1030</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposal aimed to spread the allocation across the entire month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initially, concerns arose about changing the allocation for all loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The compromise was to apply changes only to DC Tie exports.</li> </ul> <h5>Concerns about Flexible Loads</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is now concerned that flexible loads also exhibit behavior affecting allocation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There's a need to address this issue beyond DC Tie exports.</li> </ul> <h5>ERCOT's Preferred Option</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT prefers using a full monthly load ratio share.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">This method guarantees solving the problem.</li> </ul> <h5>Alternative Options</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Option 1: Daily load ratio share based on the peak day of the month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Option 2: Blending monthly and daily load ratio shares together.</li> </ul> <h5>Comments and Questions</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about changing the allocation methodology for all loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some commented that changing the methodology might lead to new issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were discussions about the history and intent of CARD.</li> </ul> <h5>Next Steps</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review the different options carefully.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consider the impact on flexible loads and DC Tie exports.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=8e5d34b4-1dbf-469e-83ef-a22a1e0670a1">5.3</a> - IMM CARD Analysis - Andrew Reimers <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The background and history of CARD were reviewed, highlighting potential adverse incentives for load behavior.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The calculation window for CARD has a significant impact on load value and behavior, with longer intervals reducing the value per megawatt hour.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Crypto miners can economically inflate demand to capture high CARD revenue during peak intervals, causing price inflation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Different CARD distribution methodologies were compared: current peak interval, peak day alternative, and whole month distribution, with the latter reducing incentives to maximize load ratio share.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The IMM proposes a shift to a whole month distribution for CARD to minimize adverse economic incentives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Support for ERCOT's preferred solution to distribute CARD revenue over the whole month was emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on 4CP and its impacts on market efficiency and cost recovery, with suggestions to retain 4CP allocation at least during summer months.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about the CARD's role as a type of refund for transmission ratepayers were raised, noting policy implications for loads that avoid transmission costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions and opinions from various members highlighted a general agreement on reducing incentives that increase peak loads and considering monthly load ratio share-based allocations.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Continuation of the discussion on possible CARD distribution methodologies and their implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preparing for an NPRR to be filed with consensus from WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presenting any additional information or updates in the next month's meeting.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=360d5679-f21d-48df-85f7-7c46d9a0eb7d">5.4</a> - Report template to track AS Provision & Performance issues related to insufficient State of Charge, Luis Hinojosa & Sam Fabricant <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of a report template to track AS shortfall caused by State of Charge (SOC)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent implementation of NPRR1186 on June 27, improved state of charge management for SCED dispatch to support ancillary service obligations</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Background on NPRR1186 and NPRR1149 - neither currently account for SOC or any shortfall in ancillary services</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal to generate a monthly report tracking AS shortfall due to insufficient SOC, including mock data since NPRR1186 was only recently implemented</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation of failure to provide (responsibility but insufficient SOC) and failure to perform (event request but no energy dispatched)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Details on calculations for megawatt shortfall and its impact across Non-Spin, ECRS, RRS, and regulation</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">August production version of the report to be created with July data</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requests for feedback from stakeholders on the report content and usefulness</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarifications on interpretations of megawatt shortfall calculations and implications for stakeholders</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of using specific metrics like ERCOT ballot TRE-001 logic for performance evaluations</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback sought on definitions and thresholds for low SOC as indicators of failure</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Determination of a formal version with real data starting in August, use of 20% SOC as a variable for initial analysis</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about how shortfall calculations and ancillary service provision are reported, including suggestions to look at the QSE level</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification requested on the components of the shortfall and how it's calculated</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Use of both mock and real data to illustrate failures in SOC</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Caitlin Smith, Michael Jewell, and Bob Wittemeyer's input on potential misleading aspects and technology neutrality</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement to follow up at Work Management Working Group (WMWG) for further detailed discussions and feedback</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgement of TAC and board's request to keep monitoring SOC effects on ancillary services</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next steps including refinement and clarifying the intent of the template as a non-mandatory, responsive measure.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=5c789011-5e2d-4343-ae25-09b9a0200706">6</a> - Resource Cost Working Group - RCWG - Blake Holt <h3>Summary:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RCWG met on June 25 to discuss VCMRR041, which aims to replace the current index price subscription for NOx and SO2 with fixed prices: $3/short ton for NOx and $2/short ton for SO2.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's justification: The annual index pricing has been stagnant for the past five years. The fixed prices would remain until new EPA requirements or a competitive market arises, or as directed by TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Luminant expressed interest in a seasonal index price approach and maintaining the subscription to quickly respond to political changes. They are considering proposing a user fee for the subscription costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Luminant plans to present additional language and a new NPRR to RCWG in July.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT cautioned that prolonged discussions might force recommitment to the existing subscription for index pricing. Corrected timelines indicate that VCMRRs spend two meetings at WMS and then proceed to further approvals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich (Luminant): Plans to draft and file new VCMRR and NPRR with feedback from RCWG quickly.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ino clarified that VCMRR041, as submitted by ERCOT, will skip PRS because it has no impact and will spend two months at WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Vendor reports no trades have occurred for annual and seasonal prices in the last five years.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT prefers stopping the subscription until a market for emissions arises, while also acknowledging Luminant's alternate proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">US Supreme Court stopped the EPA's good neighbor plan, affecting NOx control implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM is requested to provide a recommendation regarding liquidity in the emissions market.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=f9b0ac38-e8ff-4a01-9675-d4dbd8832092">6.1</a> - RCWG Leadership - Vote - Blake Holt Summary: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on leadership update before the report.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=780c82ec-6a9d-4e3d-92a4-090918261bf8">6.2</a> - Vice Chair - Kiran Sidhu, RWE <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current vice chair Kiran Sidhu has changed employers and is now with RWE Renewables.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about adding confirmation of support for Kiran Sidhu's continued leadership to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgement and agreement to add to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=2f847243-25ee-4fbf-981c-b6daa2683219">7</a> - WMS Revision Requests - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=35e448c7-a09b-4472-9337-f8277291cbcd">7.1</a> - Impact Analysis - Vote - Eric Blakey <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Zero impact</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposal will be added to the combo ballot</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=bc35c8f0-f47c-48f5-8973-993e836af6c8">7.2</a> - VCMRR040, Methodology for Calculating Fuel Adders for Coal-Fired Resources <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on WMS revision requests, VCMRR040</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approved language last month</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=bc35c8f0-f47c-48f5-8973-993e836af6c8">8</a> - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Nathaniel Mancha <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Covered two NPRRs, presentation NPRR1226 and NPRR1217.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1226: Discussed demand response monitoring, including data sharing to improve market transparency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1217: Focused on removing verbal dispatch instructions for load resource and ERS deployments, with implementation expected by December 1 of this year.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=8c289c47-a916-4318-9941-78661f858aab">9</a> - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson <a href="/sharing/?token=c7a3587d-095e-4baa-b445-d826cc701001">9.1</a> - SAWG Leadership - Vote <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kevin Hanson confirmed as SAWG chair and will be added to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Thinesh presented 2023 distributive generation report estimating 48 MW, with a moderate forecast of 6 GW of rooftop solar by 2032.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Lamb and Sam Morris presented on the updated long-term load detailed analysis with key points including dispatchable and non-dispatchable loads, and load forecast impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the speculative nature of new contracts and executive letters, with concerns about their impact on market messaging.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Witmeyer questioned the assumption of 24/7 load for hydrogen, with responses indicating the unproven nature of its flexibility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Schubert raised points about non-dispatchable industries' potential for peak shaving, with responses highlighting consistency issues in response.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Pete Warkin provided updates on the CONE study, reliability standard, volume update, and August Mora report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Final announcements included a low wind risk profile addition, CDR NPRR work in progress, and an upcoming preliminary volume value based on survey data expected in mid to late July 2024.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=dd344e4d-29f9-46dc-98d1-2d074acb7315">9.2</a> - Chair Kevin Hanson, Black Mountain Energy Storage <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kevin Hanson has changed employers from National Grid to Black Mountain Energy </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kevin Hanson will remain as chair.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=ce4d8bef-a03b-45b6-8f4b-28adf56250b0">10</a> - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Blake Holt <a href="/sharing/?token=c4283c4d-24c2-4127-a8e6-562e141f910b">10.1</a> - WMWG Leadership - Vote <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Added to combo ballot </li> </ul> 10.2 - Chair: Blake Holt, LCRA <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt to step forward into the chair position.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=1d19cf1f-72c6-4171-8168-89860a4f65d1">10.3</a> - Vice Chair - Amanda Frazier, Treaty Oak Clean Energy <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Announcement of Amanda Frazier taking the vice chair position.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=a47e84f0-c9cd-43f6-8ce5-92f2b2715047">11</a> - Metering Working Group - MWG - Michael Blum <a href="/sharing/?token=86d83c4d-e6a6-46bd-8dc0-b1589adf2210">11.1</a> - Procedure Update - Vote <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Procedure document hasn't been reviewed since 2003.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It's high time to take a fresh look; working group has done so.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether to approve today or bring it back next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Brittany Albright suggested cleanup: standardize the name 'metering working group' vs 'meter working group'.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need to choose one name and standardize it on the ERCOT website.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next month's meeting will finalize the name standardization.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=8e63e20e-4103-491f-a04f-0ae056107eca">12</a> - WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SMOGRR028 was referred to MWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">MWG has not yet met to discuss the item.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The item will remain tabled for now.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=83b39773-9a0b-414c-89db-a38cc71d659a">12.1</a> - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors (MWG) <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SMOGRR028 referred to MWG and remains tabled</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=a8aac160-8396-4ea8-bc16-a30545fa0401">12.2</a> - VCMRR041, SO2 and NOX Emission Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake reported on VCMRR041.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Awaiting comments on VCMRR041 and NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to keep these items tabled for now.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=35deb2ee-0958-443d-a2d6-56199e664307">13</a> - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=4d90614a-dbee-4026-a890-e6410a162c72">13.1</a> - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of NPRR1229 by stack on May 6.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initial discussion by PRS recommended the referral to WMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised by various members about the proper group (WMS or WMWG) to handle the policy discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about the importance of policy decisions before addressing compensation details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">LCRA expressed interest in reviewing settlement equations and questioned the operational status of the market settlements working group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment that the market settlements working group is in place, chaired by Heddie Lookadoo</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shuye Teng emphasized the need for policy direction before delving into settlement details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Lucas Turner (STEC) reiterated the urgency of the issue for the upcoming summer but understood another group might need to take it on.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Opposition from a member regarding creating new payments when the energy market should handle them.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ino expressed that extensive policy issues need to be resolved before moving forward and highlighted multiple groups' involvement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about PRS's direction suggesting WMWG to handle policy discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff suggested that WMWG handle the policy discussion first.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal for a list of policy issues to be prepared by ERCOT to aid in the discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement to table NPRR1229 to WMWG with a prep list of policy issues for discussion at the next meeting.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=590ad7f8-0f64-4e24-b66d-e88c321aad5d">13.2</a> - NPRR1232, Standing Deployment of ECRS in the Operating Hour for a Portion of ECRS that is Provided from SCED-Dispatchable Resources <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1232 filed by ERCOT on May 6, referred on June 13.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Nitika provides overview; discussed previously at the board and reliability committee.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for urgent basis consideration emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on improvements in deploying ECRS, referencing earlier conversations from April.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal for releasing a portion of ERCOT's ECRS capacity similar to Non-Spin.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about percentage release targets and compliance implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Implementation concerns: telemetry setup, involvement of vendors, and effect on QSE systems.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions for potential leverage edits to address compliance issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal that specifies release percentage of ECRS from SCED resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bryan Sams proposes tabling NPRR1232 for WMWG discussion citing complexity and compliance risk shifting to QSEs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt questions the reliability need vs. price formation intent of NPRR1232; suggests alignment on AS plan.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about resource burden on QSEs and system change requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Implementation timeline and costs from vendors unclarified at this stage.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sean questions linkage with NPRR1224 regarding the offer floor.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of IMM feedback and broader policy discussions to ensure NPRR1232 fixes intended issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric and Caitlin support further discussions at WMWG and possible policy-level deliberations at WMS or TAC.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=bcb16ce7-24b1-4fdf-bcb6-f1fb99217ae8">13.3</a> - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1235 is the Reliability Reserve Service as a standalone ancillary service, filed by ERCOT on May 29 and referred from PRS on June 13.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion aimed to walk through the language and ensure detailed understanding, without urgency to move it through quickly.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments from the Sierra Club regarding the proposal were acknowledged, with open invitation for further discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recommendations made to refer this item to WMWG (Wholesale Market Working Group) and SAWG (Supply Analysis Working Group) for detailed review.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich from Luminance noted DRRS as an alternative to PCM for resource adequacy with undefined quantity, suggesting further exploration by SAWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Operational details will primarily be examined by WMWG, while long-term resource adequacy impacts to be reviewed by SAWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for the inclusion of batteries in DRRS was noted, acknowledging it might pose implementation challenges but should be discussed at WMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preliminary impact analysis indicates a projected cost of $3 to $5 million and an implementation timeline of 16 to 24 months.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=f9474884-26da-44ba-87bf-d54f7138ff17">14</a> - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=bb336146-5860-4d96-8a32-d548a5e56285">14.1</a> - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=2ac47205-89c5-4f0a-ab1c-0622954e91c6">14.2</a> - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=ba6410e4-b384-4fb9-98fd-d7e59e1944aa">14.3</a> - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=36ae9433-5d43-4f97-aace-992cdec588ae">14.4</a> - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk CMWG <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=1c3c5b81-4bd1-4428-8520-31846c20bd86">14.5</a> - NPRR1219, Methodology Revisions and New Definitions for the Report on Capacity, Demand and Reserves in the ERCOT Region CDR - SAWG <h4>Summary:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT filed comments on July 9th for suggested changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether WMS should approve the changes with ERCOT comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff suggested tabling the item for now and revisiting it later.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kevin Hanson agreed with tabling it and recommended checking consistency of comments in the next meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus to keep the item tabled and review it at the next SAWG meeting.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=13c31842-0a1b-47f7-a869-2d1a2ba9514d">14.6</a> - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor - DSWG <h4>Floyd Trefny:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presented the demand response monitor concept initially at the large flexible load task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requested an aggregate display of demand response compared to LMP on the ERCOT website.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasized that individual load data would not be exposed, only aggregate data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggested the possibility of more granular internal analysis by ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Indicated that the proposal was well-received by the large flexible load task force and demand side working group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighted the importance of the tool for understanding load response to LMP.</li> </ul> <h4>Eric Goff:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Expressed readiness to move forward pending Matt's input.</li> </ul> <h4>Matt Mereness:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed internal deliberations involving management, legal, and website sides at ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Supported the concept but had concerns about committing to a new public dashboard via NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggested the current content and audience-focused design of ERCOT public dashboards.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Indicated ERCOT's interest in providing transparency but not sure if it will be in dashboard form.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mentioned existing tools in control rooms that might be adapted but no current plan for delivery.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Neutral stance on NPRR, suggesting it could be considered more as a report.</li> </ul> <h4>Shams Saddiqi:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Raised concerns about the calculation method for demand response in NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggested that factors like temperature, weather, and production changes could affect load.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed a more precise calculation method potentially utilizing machine learning.</li> </ul> <h4>Floyd Trefny:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledged that the current method might not capture all load responses.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasized the importance of aggregate data over individual load data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stressed the timely need for a demand response monitor due to increasing flexible loads.</li> </ul> <h4>Sam Morris:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed how load fluctuations in steel mills and other industrials would be reflected in aggregate data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmed that aggregate data would smooth out individual noise to provide valuable information.</li> </ul> <h4>Shams Saddiqi:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggested leaving calculation methods flexible for ERCOT to determine the best approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed working with ERCOT outside of protocols to refine the method.</li> </ul> <h4>General Discussions:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus on the importance of addressing demand response monitoring.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possibility of delaying the discussion to further refine and address comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement on forming a small group to collaborate on solutions.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=617daa4a-081e-47f3-8de9-e841f149599d">15</a> - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey <img src="/storage/docs/2024/07/July10WMSComboMoitons.png" width="1133" height="243" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/07/July10WMSComboBallot.png" width="1073" height="1075" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion approved unanimously.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=e0bce860-9380-4ca8-b9c1-f031bef7fa4f">16</a> - Other Business - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=5109c181-0aa8-4e87-8324-6e263802302f">16.1</a> - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of nearing year-end reviews.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review of agenda's back showing one open action item and five parking lot items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Items mostly under WMWG or CMWG, except for EPA discussion assigned to SAWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement for CMWG and WMWG to review open items and suggest removals if necessary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No reports from CMWG or MSWG.</li> </ul> 17 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey <a href="/sharing/?token=546cc28f-17ca-4fc2-b196-9e7eb9f6c936">18</a> - Future WMS Meetings - August 7, 2024 <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next meeting scheduled for August 7, 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan for an in-person meeting next month.</li> </ul>