Frame

Meeting Summary - 07/17/24 RTCBTF Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
07/19/2024

1 - Antitrust Admonition - Matt Mereness <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=e37bed85-e02f-4385-8214-224ac5ca25d5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2</a> - RTCBTF Update and Issues Calendar. <img src="/storage/docs/2024/07/RTCBT%20Update%20july17.png" width="806" height="603" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing information sharing within the Board Technology and Security subgroup.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Implementation plan and go-live sequence set for publication by September 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market highly interested in go-live date, potentially between December 2025 and mid-2026.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of market trial sequence and market participant buy-in emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT confident in the sequence and timing of activities leading to the go-live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Completed topics include RUC capacity short process (NPRR1236) and verifiable cost manual change.</li> </ul> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=4b3a0db0-41f9-48a4-8ee5-55a5e31b67e3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">3</a> - Issue 3 – Framework for Periodic Analysis Comparing RTC and the Current ORDC Design - ERCOT Staff Summary: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Progress Update:</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/16/Issue%25203%2520SCED%2520Simulation%2520Tool%2520Progress%2520Update_07172024.pptx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Presentation</a> deailed progress on ERCOT's internal RTC+B SCADA simulator tool. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Python-based production scale tool, not the Excel-based tool with fixed system size.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Optimizations and Model Updates: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Initial setup had red-highlighted areas as incomplete; some simplifications were made.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NFRC constraints simplified to regular linear constraints, eliminating the need for binary variables.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Some ESR functionalities postponed to focus on historical data analysis.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current Tool Capabilities and Limitations: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Able to replicate results of smaller Excel tool.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Able to solve production-scale cases, supporting non-sequential, multi-interval simulations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ongoing work on pricing runs and improved output visualization.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Remaining Work and Timeline: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Focus shifted to obtaining historical study results and comparing post-RTC simulated results to pre-RTC outcomes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">All tasks in progress; team aims for study results by September.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion Points: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Explanation of why binary variables are not needed for NFRC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification of conditional constraints related to NFRC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Tool documentation and potential open-source deployment discussed.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Technical Questions: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Complications of using Pyomo and CPLEX for optimization.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Possibility of making the tool open-source while ensuring compatibility with ERCOT databases.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Flexibility in altering input values for future simulations.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">User Feedback and Interaction: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns on how changes in AS plans or ASDC curves can impact price formations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Detailed questions on the constraints and applicability of the optimization model.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> 4 - Issues 9-10 – Market Readiness - Matt Mereness <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=2bb24dd6-b22c-4e9e-809b-fac544a435b1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4.1</a> - Market Trials Plan - Matt Mereness <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two clarifying NPRRs were developed to address protocol alignment gaps over the last five years.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed initial drafts with RTCBTF, opting for PRS and TAC processes for expert review and efficiency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentation planned for framework simulator, covering its functionality, design, and progress.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market readiness update involves a market trials plan released last month with no red lines received.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on queasy attestation, aiming for a next-week release; seeks cursory review and feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Detailed walkthrough planned for RTC-specific NPRR changes; aiming for a careful review of each change.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review of much larger draft NPRR, NOGRR, PGRR, OBR for single model concepts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Standing discussion on as demand curves and their alignment with PUC policies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to hold a settlements-focused discussion in August for detailed understanding of extracts and changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal to create a spreadsheet summarizing scope changes for RTC projects, covering protocol sections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the similarity of current market readiness efforts to the past transition from zonal to nodal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmation that concepts from early white papers on nodal transition were utilized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to note the successful borrow from nodal transition to provide reassurance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification that the current effort is less complex and expensive compared to nodal, with fewer tools involved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment of using lessons learned from nodal.</li> </ul> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=b74f771d-c9d0-48bb-9f32-c9b9412a8e9d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4.2</a> - Draft QSE Attestation - Matt Mereness <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Control room restrictions on testing at specific times, e.g., 7:00 PM in August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preference for testing during less challenging operational periods, e.g., 10:00 AM to noon.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Operational warning signs would cause test delays.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need to plan around market trials and go-live dates despite weather variability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Challenges standing up parallel systems during peak seasons.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential to move open loop testing outside peak summer periods.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Draft QSE attestation focuses on ensuring QSEs are aware of timelines and specifications but avoids strong commitments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Legal team involvement to avoid putting QSEs in a binding commitment box.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Attestation aims at assuring market readiness and vendor engagements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of reaching out to all QSEs to ensure awareness of project timelines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether failure to attest should lead to QSE decertification, emphasizing the necessity of protocol references.</li> </ul> Action Items <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Revise attestation draft to remove commitment language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consider moving open loop testing out of peak summer periods.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Prepopulate attestations to include QSEs details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Send market notices confirming dissemination of attestations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Create a form for updating accountable executive contacts.</li> </ul> Questions and Concerns <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Who should be considered an accountable executive?</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for settlement specifications to be posted for clarity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mechanism for updating accountable executive post-attestation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">QSE decertification implications and protocol references for non-compliance.</li> </ul> Participant Comments <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarify levels for accountable executives and request for settlement specs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Process for updating accountable executive.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Tie QSE non-compliance to protocol authority.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Send to both AR and BAR, allow for POC updates via form.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ensure resource entities know if QSEs are not compliant.</li> </ul> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=30fa7efa-d815-4e7b-89c9-d4fc6c585c08" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5</a> - Issue 15 – Clarifying Revision Requests - Dave Maggio/Kenneth Ragsdale <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio introduced the topic, focusing on additional clarifying NPRR for RTC, two categories: RTC-specific and single model.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RTC explanation of changes spreadsheet to be reviewed, word document link broken but emailed out.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Errors and clarifications observed over time in the RTC language: some settlement formulas were incorrectly specified, technical clarifications needed, and updates from other passed NPRRs needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Goal of changes: correct language errors, clarify technical requirements, update language to reflect current standards without changing policy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">First change discussed: Section 4.2.1.2 - Removing minimum 0.1 MW quantity for ancillary service assignments to ensure settlements remain revenue neutral in real time.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation by Maggie: Real-time redistributions of ancillary services require removing 0.1 MW threshold for revenue neutrality during reallocation based on updated load ratio share.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sean's question clarified that all loads will have an obligation regardless of size to maintain revenue neutrality.</li> </ul> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=0d0fd438-56fb-4b3d-88aa-26e83f6f298d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5.1</a> - Draft NPRR for RTC - Dave Maggio <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Correction of mislabeled section header for draft NPRR and changes related to ancillary service offers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Updating language for NPRR1093, introducing a subtype of non-spin provided by non-controllable load resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on how to handle offers that exceed real-time offer caps after day-ahead market (DAM). Offers will be expired, and QSE will be notified.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes in Section 4.4.9.4.1 involve the mitigated offer cap for hydro resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=e43faa6b-ee25-439e-844f-6b29e3d76163">Update to Section 4.4.12</a> adjusts for changes in the value of lost load and minimum contingency level, reflecting updated historical analysis dates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Minor change: Removal of 'per hour' in one of the settlement formulas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on adding floors to ORDC and its impact on ancillary service demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes to NPRR552 involve the RUC optimization for dispatching controllable load resources (CLR) for energy, an effort that will require separate scope.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 6.3: Correction of references to SASM and inclusion of ancillary service prices in the significance threshold for price corrections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 6.4.1: Reverting to the previous language for ancillary service trades and self-provision limits based on ancillary service position.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Update to reliability deployment price adder to include policy changes from NPRR1081.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 6.6.9.1: Corrections for energy storage resources and combination cycle train references in settlement formulas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 6.7.4: Minor cleanup to remove incorrect settlement point attributes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 6.7.5.1: Addition of max zero to avoid negative outcomes in calculations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 7.9.3.1: Removed incorrect references to charges in allocation of payments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 19: Inclusion of ancillary service offers in total impact assessment during event mitigation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Section 25: Reference inclusion for energy storage resources related to market suspension process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on interface specifications that align business requirements and NPRR changes.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/07/RTC%20Explanation%20Changes.png" width="755" height="563" /> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=74b34532-f8d0-4162-8a5e-f1f79338d0b2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5.2</a> - Draft NPRR, NOGRR, PGRR, OBDRR for Single Model - Kenneth Ragsdale <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/12/Issue-15_Single-Model-Catch-All-Summary-7-10-24-1045.pptx">Presentation</a> of six slides covering NPRR, NOGRR, PGRR, and one OBDRR</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of a procedure for identifying resource node locations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes focus on the transition to a single model for energy storage resources (ESR), eliminating existing combo models.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Language updates in documents to reflect the single model, aiming for implementation with RTC+B go live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No budgetary impact expected; these changes are primarily language updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Revisions to eliminate outdated combination model language and replace with ESR terminology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steps for final review and posting of documents in the next couple of weeks, including stakeholder feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the removal of specific 'blue language' used in previous protocols and changes to the single model.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification that these updates do not require moving meters or resource nodes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">List of contributors to the revisions, emphasizing a collaborative effort.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Goals include seeing ESR across all relevant areas affected by NPRR1014.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Open discussion about certain technical and procedural aspects of the revisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No opposition noted for ERCOT filing these documents before the next meeting.</li> </ul> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=d74e39a5-a1c4-4159-bcb0-abe164b1fa6f" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6</a> - Issue 18 – Placeholder for MPs Discussion of AS Demand Curves <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Placeholder for MP discussion on AS demand curves - updates and the backcast tool's results are expected to inform future decisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion will likely continue, particularly around September when more data is available.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sean suggests using an Excel spreadsheet tool to see impacts and possibly move forward with NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Open discussion on the best means to document any changes before involving the PUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports discussion but is not making changes currently.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on integrating related issues into the simulation tool framework to streamline efforts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sean raises concerns about indifference payments for unused capacity and their inclusion in NPRR1214.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave clarifies that ancillary service adders could make resources indifferent in some scenarios.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steve suggests studying simulation outcomes to see if headroom is allocated to ancillary services, which could solve the issue indirectly.</li> </ul> <a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=b935e74f-f669-454e-becd-3e61a984173c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7</a> - Other Business <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants are asked to notify any legal issues by Friday of this week.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Received feedback on referencing specific protocols in the attestation and potential disqualification.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to communicate proactively when releasing information to authorized representatives and backups.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A spreadsheet with specific queries will be included in market notes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement to review and challenge the market trials plan over the next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Periodic analysis updates will be provided, possibly with a voiceover next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on optimizing meeting agendas, including potential for time-specific segments for settlements discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">All NPRR's will be filed, with reviews for any issues in upcoming meetings.</li> </ul> 8 - Adjourn