Frame

Meeting Summary - 10/18/24 WMWG Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
10/18/2024

<img src="/storage/docs/2024/10/101824WMWGHero.png" width="829" height="467" /> <h1> </h1> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=b07d099e-44e4-422d-ac79-609c87d0aab2">1</a> - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt</h1> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=e72f5eb9-9c03-4c4c-a461-b02a5148d637">2</a> - Questions on Standing Reports - Blake Holt</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No questions were raised about the standing reports.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=668378e9-9069-4a44-84a1-730137d23899">3</a> - Notice on Open Action Items - Blake Holt</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt highlighted several stagnant open action items assigned to WMWG and proposed removing them unless objections are raised.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The group seeks feedback by next month's meeting to recommend retaining or removing these action items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The first item on reviewing EPA regulations remains due to recent Supreme Court decisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Item two  on reviewing wholesale market queues for scarcity pricing could be struck; ERCOT's new RTC may address this.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The minimum threshold to post WSL information action was deemed potentially obsolete by new NPRR461 initiatives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Item to increase settlement granularity to 15-minute intervals was briefly mentioned.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King suggested some action items may be redundant due to current or planned measures and updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Amanda Frazier proposed redlining the document for the next meeting, reflecting suggested changes.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=e9c669d8-828c-4a8c-a17c-e5cfa532a9ef">4</a> - Pricing Impacts of LDL Override Decisions made during 4/8 Eclipse - ERCOT Staff</h1> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/PricingImpactsofLDLOverride_r1.pdf">PricingImpactsofLDLOverride_r1.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cory Carswell, an engineer with ERCOT, presented an analysis on pricing impacts from LDL overrides during the April 8 solar eclipse.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT implemented several precautionary measures, including procuring an additional gigawatt of non-spin ancillary services, issuing LDL overrides to coal resources, and committing resources through the HR process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The analysis focused on the net impact to energy value during the LDL override period, finding a minimal total net impact of approximately $70,000, primarily in the Houston load zone.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Marginal system cost changes, resource mix, and congestion costs between original and rerun scenarios showed minor variances.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Original scenarios saw increased coal generation due to LDL overrides; without them, natural gas replaced coal generation with minimal overall resource mix change.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Congestion cost impact was minimal, with consistent constraint management across the system observed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Net energy value impacts were most notable in the Houston load zone but remained minimal overall.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions addressed involved the minimal RDPA run effects corroborating the findings.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=6af8c6f5-ec10-4435-a056-fb1ca109d66f">5</a> - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposit of Large Load Interconnection Studies - NPRR1202 Commenters</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1202 has been inactive for a while, but recently received many comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR is technically on hold as the LFLTF is dormant.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=2bbe7a62-7679-41a1-85a5-123d0288c96d">5.1</a> - Longhorn Power Comments - Bob Wittmeyer</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Wittmeyer discussed changes to the proposal to treat large loads and generators equally and eliminate refundable deposits for a maintenance fee.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The goal is to speed up the process of connecting generation and load to the ERCOT system by addressing current bottlenecks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is a significant backlog of projects partly due to a shortage of integration engineers at ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Wittmeyer suggests building a pool of funds to hire additional staff and expedite projects, without preferential treatment for any entity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Efforts are being made to ensure new fees are not passed onto residential or small commercial customers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Wittmeyer is seeking feedback on other systems impacted by new connections and ways to support funding shortages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT CFO Richard Schiele clarified that most of ERCOT’s operations are funded by a system administration fee, and interconnection fees cover specific operational costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion touched on how funding decisions are made by ERCOT and approved by the PUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further comments were discussed in regard to NPRR1202 and its implications, with a call for emails on systems affected.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=8de3e344-0463-4e50-ba6d-c29d383d83c7">5.2</a> - ERCOT Comments - Bill Blevins & Doug Fohn</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT highlighted actions taken to address issues from the large load task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A new fee system for large loads has been proposed to clean up the project queue.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Rules have been introduced in PGRR115 to remove inactive projects if no interconnection agreement is reached within 180 days.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT has added a team and contractors to handle the increase in workload related to large loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A recurring fee is under consideration, but further rules are needed first to assess its necessity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments were generally supportive of NPRR and the introduction of fees over deposits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were questions and suggestions regarding where collected fees would be applied.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about fee utilization and ERCOT's ability to use additional funds for staffing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An upfront fee was supported as a means to filter speculative projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion acknowledged ERCOT's limitations due to budget constraints defined by the commission.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments concluded with acknowledgment of the necessity to expedite interconnections to benefit consumers.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=517ffdbe-38c3-4328-af45-673ea6499b2f">6</a> - NPRR1229, RTM CMP Energy Payment – Tentative Discussion - Lucas Turner</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">STEC is preparing additional comments on NPRR1229.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion postponed to next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No discussion on this item today.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=f0231422-5c09-441e-9f49-226c74b0e8c7">7</a> - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service – Group notice that discussion is moving to SAWG - Blake Holt</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1235 was previously discussed at WMS last month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current discussions on NPRR1235 have been moved to SAWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Group is informed to be ready to handle specific tasks as NPRR1235 progresses.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=e0ed89da-0efb-41d6-af27-0ceb76a6e957">8</a> - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee - Katie Rich</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on NPRR1241 regarding firm fuel supply service availability and hourly standby fee.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich updated that discussions with stakeholders are ongoing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New language is being developed to create a more linear curve for setting penalties and clawbacks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Draft language is being prepared to share with stakeholders before the next meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ino suggests holding comments until the new language is submitted by Katie.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=a54212cc-ed00-4f7b-a81d-055a42a14567">9</a> - Group Discussion on CARD Allocation Methods - WMWG Participants</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recap of proposed CARD allocation methods: IMM's average over 500 peak demand hours per month, Georgetown's use of last year's 4-CP averages, Luminant's top 60-120 hours per month approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew Reimers raised concerns about Shams Siddiqi’s proposal potentially leading to CARD exceeding 4-CP, possibly incentivizing consumption during intervals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Wittmeyer questioned the logic of tying CARD revenue, derived from congestion due to lack of transmission, to those who pay for transmission.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shams argued that the allocation is a netting process to minimize market distortion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio presented an analysis showing potential disparities in CARD allocation, particularly in the western load zone.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was general support for Shams' approach as it aligns costs with those paying transmission costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were shared about timing and lag issues with 4CP-based allocations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some participants prefer Luminant's method due to its balance of complexity and seasonality preservation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was discussion about the potential impact of new loads and deviations in current allocation share.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about changing the summer months allocation method due to the strong 4-CP signals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants emphasized the need for a clear methodology that doesn't incentivize adverse behavior.</li> </ul> <h3>Next Steps</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consider drafting an NPRR based on the discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes suggested presenting the discussion outcomes and options to WMS for a vote.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Formal concept vote at WMS to direct subsequent protocol language development.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further collaboration with ERCOT staff to finalize proposals.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=b331926e-d2aa-41cb-badd-2511ba06a015">10</a> - Other Business - Blake Holt</h1> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The next ERCOT meeting is scheduled for November 11.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">David Detelich raised concerns about NPRR1253 related to charging load and load signals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">David is uncertain if NPRR1253 solves the issue of mismatches in load signals, particularly concerning the 4-CP signal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were questions about whether ERCOT's load forecast incorporates feedback loops that exclude WSL or charging load.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion on NPRR1253 remains tabled at PRS; comments are awaited from ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A suggestion was made to potentially refer questions to a working group for further exploration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio and others discussed the need for more education on how load forecasting and charging loads from energy storage resources are incorporated.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It was agreed to possibly provide educational materials at a future meeting regarding load forecasting.</li> </ul> <h1><a href="/sharing/?token=08d22d40-678d-4cc6-9181-fb971f7da150">11</a> - Adjourn - Blake Holt</h1>