Frame

Meeting Summary - 08/30/24 WMWG Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
09/05/2024

<img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/AUGWMWGHero.png" width="576" height="433" /> <a href="/sharing/?token=543b008e-5267-40d4-9af4-260d07b5895a">1 </a>- Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt <a href="/sharing/?token=b3b4e355-b105-4891-a821-ba715e4cc6fd">2 </a>- 2025 AS Methodology - Luis Hinojosa <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Started discussions in July to get feedback and shared proposed methodology in August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Updated data for inertia and IFRO change for Responsive Reserve; minor quantity changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Responsive Reserve: Updated inertia for 2023 and 2024, IFRO changed to 1365.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Regulation: Proposes to switch from net load forecast ramping and accounting for historical regulation deployment to net load forecast error.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Regulation: No changes to FRS or integralACE components, LFL analysis ongoing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ECRS: Recommend taking the maximum of capacity needed between net load forecast error and frequency recovery.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ECRS: Bumped frequency recovery to 70th percentile, changes due to increased solar capacity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Non-Spin: Maintain 6-hour ahead forecast, but move to 4-hour ahead for nighttime hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed data from 2020-2024 to justify comfortable capacity levels in nighttime hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Slight increase in Non-Spin quantities with proposed methodology adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to discuss further in ROS, WMS, and TAC meetings.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4098e366-c822-4377-8cbf-0f58cc2a9c7f">3 </a>- State of Charge Monitoring - Luis Hinojosa <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Production data from July is now included in the report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The report, which monitors ancillary services carried by ESRs and their state of charge (SOC), is now available and will be posted monthly on the WMS page.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Failure to provide based on SOC is calculated by EMS, including failure to perform analyses for FME and non-FME events.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Slides discussed failures due to low SOC and actions taken with PDCWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification provided on how evaluated ESRs are determined and their performance metrics.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmed the need for contacting underperforming ESRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Definition provided for 'failure' in the context of primary frequency response (PFR) - failure to meet at least 0.75% of the expected response for an event.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the relationship between SCED dispatches and low SOC impacting PFR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus on making the report a regular agenda item for questions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to consider the aggregate SOC of batteries in ancillary service procurement due to the increasing penetration of batteries.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of a standard revision in progress to better evaluate batteries, indicating potential changes in how batteries are assessed.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=2a786f65-68f7-415f-8b09-c5ce8483b942">4 </a>- Pricing Impacts of LDL Override Decisions made during 4/8 Eclipse - Cory Carswel <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request made at WMS for details on price impacts of low dispatch limit (LDL) override instructions during April eclipse.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT team still working on the analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Other priorities have delayed the analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on this topic deferred to September.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=ad1a027f-d30e-481c-bc73-7d1ff4a06f5b">5 </a>- NPRR1230 Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED - Monitoring - Blake Holt <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The ERCOT board approved NPRR1230 at their August meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approval by the PUC is expected by late September, with an effective date of October 1.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new methodology involves dynamic shadow price calculations at TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a recommendation for regular monitoring of the new methodology's effectiveness, and ERCOT supports this.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion needed on whether the monitoring should be done by WMWG or CMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's previous analysis included violation relief in megawatt-hours and the market solution's dollar impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion made that CMWG handle the analysis due to its focus on congestion management.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No objections raised; will suggest to WMS that analysis should be referred to CMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King from ERCOT supported the suggestion and mentioned they have no updates to share due to other priorities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next steps include planning to provide more information on the potential impacts of the NPRR.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=8696c409-25bd-402f-9750-54335b565888">6 </a>- NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service - Next Steps - Ryan King <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King emphasized the need to codify discussions from stakeholder workshops regarding the DRRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT proposed a two-phase approach to NPRR1235, with Phase One focusing on areas with high confidence and Phase Two discussing concerns such as energy storage integration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is a commitment from ERCOT to start discussions on Phase Two within the year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification was made that ERCOT cannot make firm guarantees about implementation timelines due to dependencies on completed NPRR designs and IA assessments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes supported the phase approach and stressed the importance of including ESR capacity in the RUC engine to meet statutory requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Michael Jewell was concerned about the eligibility of ESRs to participate in DRRS and felt this should align with legislative intent.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on how DRRS resources would be applied in market settings and the need for clear guidelines on inclusion in the RUC engine was raised.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders expressed interest in deploying four-hour batteries and ensuring market signals support longer duration batteries.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Specific points of NPRR1235 were highlighted, such as the ancillary service demand curve and scaling factors to ensure DRRS appears cheaper in the RUC engine.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions and clarifications were made regarding self-deployment for DRRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was no final consensus from stakeholders on moving NPRR1235 forward, with some supporting moving ahead with the current NPRR and others wanting ESRs included in the first phase.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=ed01cc4b-58a0-46c6-bacf-a4d38e1e3398">7 </a>- NPRR1229 RTM CMP Energy Payment - Policy Questions - Ino Gonzalez <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT received comments from staff and questions they posted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT ready to help staff and market participants with NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current NPRR as written cannot be implemented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant policy decisions need to be made.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">STEC provided comments and a draft of the NPRR with changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Policy question about paying for repair costs as well as capital expenditures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">STEC made it clear the intent was to pay for repairs, working to clarify that in the NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Policy question on paying lost opportunity payments during the outage period and its duration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification needed on paying lost opportunity vs. bilateral contracts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">STEC clarified that if paying for bilateral contracts, you will not pay for lost opportunity and vice versa.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Policy questions on paying for lost opportunity need to be addressed by stakeholders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Example scenario: generator cannot go offline due to high repair costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on communication and advance notice for CMP between ERCOT and STEC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Lucas and Freddie provide insights on forming CMP agreements and the necessity for operating instructions for significant operational risks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about the non-optional nature of operating instructions and potential guardrails.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to discuss policy issues at the next TAC meeting, considering if these policy decisions should be brought to the PUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment of the significant impact of repair costs on the market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for high-level visibility for significant policy impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing work to clarify points in NPRR without implying ERCOT's agreement with its concepts.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=950f587b-c4ea-484e-ba47-51a9be43ab0a">8 </a>- NPRR1238 Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - ORDC Implications - Katie Rich <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich introduced the topic and the context of the NPRR, referring to the need to discuss implications on market prices and deployment triggers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR addresses price formation partially through the inclusion of VECL deployments and the termination of the RDPA.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Wittmeyer raised concerns about early curtailments resulting in no response during trigger pulls by ERCOT and questioned the necessity of additional adders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie and others discussed the potential impact on ORDC and the possibility of incorporating it into the NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt from LCRA and others clarified their understanding of ORDC capacity calculations and the inclusion of offline capacities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Additional discussions on ORDC methodology, settlement calculations, and the need for telemetry to track curtailed loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steve Reedy recapped that Katie suggested a method to calculate deployed MWs of VECL, and subtracting that from the RTOL cap calculation, potentially increasing ORDC adder prices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich agreed to draft language for next month’s meeting to provide clarity and allow for internal consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT (specifically Austin from settlements) mentioned the potential need for impact analysis once the language is drafted.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=af0aa7bb-b25f-4d00-be3e-344e2dc83e6f">9 </a>- NPRR1241 FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee – Initial Discussion - Katie Rich <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about further refinement of clawback and withholding amounts based on recent firm fuel deployments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stair-step approach proposed for FSR clawback criteria:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Minimum, maximum clawback for unavailability greater than 75% of hours</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Reduction decreases to 10% if unavailable for 10% or less of the hours</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comparison with current ERCOT criteria: increase from 90 days.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concern about whether changes would improve service quality, referencing the July 30 settlement report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments on proportionality and thresholds for clawback days.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the relationship between proposed changes and paragraphs 10-14 related to failures due to fuel or non-fuel issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification provided on which paragraphs apply to different situations (watch vs. deployment).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement on the need for further discussion and refinement of percentages/values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich volunteers to summarize the discussion for WMS and continue collaboration on improving NPRR1241.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=36e658ce-ee92-4de5-88e5-8a871f7fa114">10 </a>- Other Business - Blake Holt <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Pushing the CARD discussion from last WMS to next month's meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM is conducting an analysis relevant to the discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Members are encouraged to post materials early or reach out to Ryan King at ERCOT with suggestions.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=1817a4b5-1dd8-46b1-a6d9-d1834381c7ac">11 </a>- Adjourn - Blake Holt