Frame

Meeting Summary - 07/23/24 WMWG Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
07/24/2024

1 - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt <a href="/sharing/?token=38301fa8-fd81-4dcd-a5d6-0d8de510e9bb" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2</a> - 2025 AS Methodology Discussion - Nitika Mago <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Luis Hinojosa presented an overview of the ancillary service methodology for 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The <a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/23/wmwg_2025_as_methodology_07242024_.pptx">presentation</a> aimed to get stakeholders updated on current methodologies, data, and expected calculations for the coming months.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion will continue with PDCWG, ROS, & WMS in subsequent months before finalizing the proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The goal is to report the methodology to PUC by November or December.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No changes are expected for RRS, ECRS, and Non-Spin methodologies, but changes are being considered for regulation service.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new methodology might switch from net load ramping to intra hour net load forecast error.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PSRR (Predicted Solar Ramp Rate) thresholds were implemented in June 2023, which has allowed better predictive capabilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Analysis on the impact of large flexible loads (LFLs) on regulation is ongoing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on setting regulation quantities based on intra-hour errors and impacts from dynamic PSRR was covered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was mention of a proposal to consider changes to the methodology for regulation service and other potential changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback was requested regarding the new potential methodologies and their implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions and feedback were received on various aspects from attendees: regulation exhaustion, battery impacts, FFR quantities, and inertia impacts among others.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric recommended discussing inertia dips in the WMS meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans to publish a refreshed inertia white paper in response to PUC studies were mentioned.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No adjustments are currently being made for FFR quantities but a study was suggested for future considerations.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=da413bb3-37fe-40f7-a829-16abc4aac482" target="_blank" rel="noopener">3</a> - NPRR1149 State of Charge Monitoring - Luis Hinojosa <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A <a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/23/as_provision_and_perfomance_related_to_insufficient_soc_report_template_v3-3.pptx">report template</a> was shared to generate discussion and feedback, previously discussed at WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The report aims to provide insights on AS obligation shortfall due to SOC and performance monitoring for events with low SOC concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The report includes data on SOC shortfall calculations related to ancillary services, converting shortages to megawatt values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback is sought on report content and helpfulness for understanding available data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was discussion about showing individual ESR failures versus system-level shortfalls.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reports would not reflect individual QSE actions and their resource management strategies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Luis clarified the difference between the monitoring (not a compliance check) and actual performance obligations under NPRR1186 & NPRR1149.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions were made to make the reports more indicative of true performance versus perceived insufficiencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Final clarifications indicated no compliance exposure from these reports; they are intended to monitor SOC behavior.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Performance monitoring for RRS with low SOC examines how many ESRs were evaluated and failed based on telemetry.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Monitoring includes megawatt responses per BAL-TRE performance metrics, noting insufficient SOC intervals.</li> </ul> Action Items: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Collect additional feedback on report structure and content by the end of July.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Present a production version of the report using July data for the August 30 WMWG meeting.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=6f9037b8-49f4-4673-a91f-f2a60812ef75" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4</a> - NPRR1232 ECRS Standing Deployment Discussion - ERCOT Staff & Group <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about implementation and compliance were discussed, with specific details about a 30-second window for ECRS response each hour.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich requested ERCOT to step through the specifics of the language and implementation, including examples.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Nitika provided a <a href="/sharing/?token=a090f25d-1821-4b0b-87fb-89d69582bd11">detailed walkthrough</a> of the language and examples of how ECRS deployment works.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the percentage value ERCOT posts for ECRS and how it's intended to preserve ECRS for frequency-related issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The need for a price floor under the standing deployment concept was discussed, with suggestions to amend the language in NPRR1232 to include it.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake and Andrew asked about the impact of NPRR1232 on QSEs' systems and implementation timelines, with Nitika acknowledging the impact on QSE vendors and timelines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a consideration for an alternative approach using two offer floors to protect frequency-recovery capacity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Brett Burkhead <a href="/sharing/?token=9fb40652-9795-481e-9f57-2f3a38a57a26" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raised concerns</a> about each QSE needing to make system changes and costs involved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fei inquired about the posting of monthly hourly percentage requirements and obligations of QSEs under bilateral trades.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Nitika clarified that the percentage posting in December wouldn't change unless a reliability issue justifies it and detailed QSE obligations in response to standing deployment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about compliance if QSEs do not respond to standing deployments were raised and addressed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steve Reedy <a href="/sharing/?token=bcf18f48-0074-4a19-8f07-ecd9187fda10">sought clarification</a> on the impact of NCLRs on ECRS obligations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew asked about the implications if NPRR1224 passes through the PUC with a $750 offer floor.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Nitika acknowledged the need to see the outcome of NPRR1224 before deciding on further actions for NPRR1232.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about a potential two-tiered offer floor for frequency-based ECRS based on system-wide offer caps.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Summarized actions included looking into implementation timelines, exploring a trade example, and pending comments based on decisions expected on Thursday.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=d4a1af83-6f39-4d3f-9c55-dd200a8467fe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5</a> - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service Operational Discussion - ERCOT Staff & Group <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments filed by Sierra Club, TSPA, and joint commenters of Eolian, Spearmint, and Form Energy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TSPA requests ERCOT to commit to another NPRR that will add a four-hour battery storage component.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT discussed the complexities of including ESRs and the need for an offline status for such resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns around legislation, policy guidance, and the technical feasibility of including ESRs in the current NPRR were raised.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of the potential benefits of including longer duration storage, like batteries, to enhance service reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus on the importance of considering innovative solutions and additional NPRR filings to address the complexities posed by ESRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">LCRA supports the eventual inclusion of batteries and acknowledges cost and ramp-up concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Future discussions anticipated to explore more detailed solutions for these issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for a subsequent NPRR timeline was highlighted for more complex solutions.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=0a12e868-e927-475b-9fc9-643f8d06fb48" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6</a> - NPRR1229 Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment Policy Questions - Ino Gonzalez <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on NPRR1229 related to the real-time congestion management plan (CMP) and energy payments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eno Gonzalez provided an overview indicating ERCOT's neutral stance and the need to understand NPRR's implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Alex Lee gave a presentation explaining CMP, its definition, purpose, and an example scenario impacting generators.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Detailed policy questions raised by ERCOT, focusing on operationalization, costs, process verification, financial impacts, and payment caps.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about ERCOT's responsibility towards damages and the process of determining and compensating opportunity costs and bilateral contract financial losses.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on potential issues related to resource online readiness and adjusting settlement equations to reflect NPRR's intents.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Input from Lucas, NPRR sponsor, addressing some operational concerns and emphasizing risk compensation for resources due to ERCOT's actions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">General agreement that further discussion and feedback will be necessary, with the intent to revisit the topic in the next meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next steps include gathering substantial feedback on policy questions and aggregating stakeholder responses for clarity.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=857dea49-de5f-42c3-ab3f-f9278bbc5136" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7</a> - Other Business - Blake Holt <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King provided updates on NPRR1149, identifying and planning to fix a small error in the logic of ancillary service failed quantity charges calculation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Implementation fix for NPRR1149 is scheduled for later this week; settlement corrections targeted before the final settlement of the first operating day error noticed (June 28th).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mohammed El-Madhoun updated on NPRR1058, noting its implementation on August 22nd and upcoming market notices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1058 includes a new 60-day report for energy resource updates and a requirement for explanation when updating energy offer curves, initially optional for backward compatibility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt asked about the character count for the freeform entry field; it's set to 126 characters initially optional but will become mandatory.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Brad raised concerns about the practicality of providing accurate reason codes in automated systems; further clarifications were provided by Mohammed and Ryan.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steve Reedy highlighted that the changes in NPRR1058 were driven by IMM concerns about market power abuse and suggested consulting with IMM for specific concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No further business was discussed and the meeting concluded, with a break scheduled before the RCWG meeting.</li> </ul> 8 - Adjourn - Blake Holt