Meeting Summary - 12/04/24 WMS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
12/04/2024

<h2><span style="font-weight: 400;"><img src="/storage/docs/2024/12/20241204WMS%20Hero.png" width="882" height="662" /></span></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=f7505fb5-671c-440e-8249-5df0949b9cfc"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 0 - Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton</span></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=e2b09172-103e-4d07-b4a4-ae437d21c6c5"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=7afae8e6-118c-4f1b-ad01-69a08d3eb887"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=1de9a784-5902-4beb-894b-b0a4e0a60c77"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 3 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update Eric Blakey</span></h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">TAC approved several protocol changes including NPRR1180 (inclusion of forecasted load in planning analysis) and NPRR1247 (incorporation of congestion cost savings test in the economic evaluation of transmission projects).</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">There was a discussion about ERCOT board and stakeholder engagement over the past year and steps to increase stakeholder communications with PUC and ERCOT.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">PUC staff is now attending the TAC meetings, and more information is included in TAC reports for revision requests.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT Board Chairman Bill Flores attended the meeting, expressed appreciation for stakeholder input and intends to attend TAC meetings more often.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The ERCOT Board has started a process to get to know each TAC member to better understand their needs and improve the protocol process.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=00f21385-b1d7-4877-9280-4bf51b85f844"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 3.1 - Review concept of Annual Settlement Trigger related to NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs</span></h2> <p><a href="/storage/docs/2024/12/03-1190nprr-26-tac-report-103024_bbarnes.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">03-1190nprr-26-tac-report-103024_bbarnes.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The proposal was approved and first brought to TAC, then to the Board, but was tabled in August and remanded to TAC in October 2023.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Bill Barnes proposed new language to address consumer concerns about potential dramatic increases in HDL override payments.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The proposed language includes an annual settlement trigger for HDL override payments exceeding $10 million, prompting a review by ERCOT of operational costs and reliability, as well as financial loss criteria.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The $10 million trigger was set high, based on historical data and specific events like URI, to signify an exceptional event.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The usual amount of HDL override payments is typically under $1 million, and the trigger amount is considered a low threshold in the larger market context.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stakeholders are encouraged to review the proposal and provide feedback at an upcoming WMWG meeting scheduled for December 10th.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">There was support for referring the proposal to WWG for further discussion, and appreciation was expressed for the continued effort to move the proposal forward.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=d212b5eb-becd-4c23-8f29-f1a29da253b7"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 4 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items</span></h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">There were no ERCOT operations or market items to discuss.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=8dd130eb-d94d-48d7-85b4-693d5cc5c454"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 5 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=644d506e-dcc3-4be5-9437-870e3815942e"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 5.1 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Motion to request PRS continue to table NPRR1256 for further review by the WMWG added to the combo ballot.&nbsp;</span></li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1256 addresses the settlement of Must-Run Alternatives (MRA) of Energy Storage Resources (ESRs), focusing on the absence of fuel costs but inclusion of charging costs.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Protocols do not currently allow settling ESRs as MRAs, necessitating changes for alignment with past RFP methodologies.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Compensation for MRAs involves standby, deployment, and variable payments using the same structure as for other resources like generation and demand response.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Concerns raised about how duration components and testing determine qualified capacity for MRAs, and how deployment impacts are reflected in pricing.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion surfaced around testing methodologies for storage resource capacities, with a suggestion to bring in experts from the testing group.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The NPRR1256 was tabled and recommended for further examination by the WMWG due to unresolved discussions on pricing impacts and testing procedures.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Clarification sought on whether MRAs would have the same pricing impacts as RMRs and considerations for how these are captured in system protocols.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">General agreement on the need for more comprehensive discussion and analysis, with plans to bring up these points in upcoming working group meetings.</span></li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=6eecaf72-9663-4e79-90a5-98646f95109c"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=438474f2-1685-421a-830b-28ac7b7f1cf4"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 6.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1070 is under review, awaiting ROS language.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The item was referred by PRS to both WMS and ROS for feedback.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eric Goff provided comments recently, bringing the market monitor up to speed.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Joint commenters filed comments on PGRR119, related to NPRR1070.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Efforts are underway to revise and simplify NPRR1070, removing completed sections.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">A preamble is being prepared to provide historical context and streamline future discussions.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Revised documents are expected before the next meeting.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=7dc25c52-1409-4a9d-a4b1-73377777fb50"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 7 - Congestion Management Working Group - CMWG - Alex Miller</span></h2> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/07-cmwg-update-2024-12-wms.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">07-cmwg-update-2024-12-wms.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">CMWG met on November 19th with discussions on several heavy topics.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Update on CRR long-term option solutions which include administrative guardrails to avoid delays in market operations and auction limits.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1261 addresses operational flexibility for CRR auction limits to avoid conservative limits and allow more stakeholder flexibility.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">TAC approved reducing the limit to 3000 per CRR account holder, effective from the recent auction in November, to assist in reducing large numbers of bids.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Market redesign study is ongoing for moving the multi-month product; preliminary results are promising.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Exploration of options to reduce participation by working with vendors on a pricing report for transparency.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Development of a new time-of-use product covering the solar peak period, expected for discussion in January.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stakeholders requested additional details on auction solution times and hardware performance improvements, to be discussed in the next meeting.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1230 methodology discussion for setting transmission shadow price caps with periodic updates to stakeholders.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Recent event analysis showed temporary high peak shadow prices preventing flow violations and was successful.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT provided a counterfactual analysis proving the necessity of higher shadow price caps in specific situations.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5cbee3f8-064c-47de-9d3d-949799bf6f5d"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 7.1 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk - CMWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT staff and sponsors are working on language revisions for NPRR1214, including data source changes from metering to telemetry.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Additional sections are needed to incorporate the locational adder, with a minor change to restore an item moved to post RTC.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion to continue as new comments from sponsors are expected.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Review of parking lot items assigned to CMWG, one being increasing transparency on GTCs and curtailments, with a consensus to keep it after slight name adjustments.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Recommendation to remove the item on creating smaller load zones for aggregation due to lack of sponsor, interest, and ongoing changes.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Concerns were raised about the complexity and impact on retail markets if load zones increase materially.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on the need for a valley load zone, opposed by some due to lack of large flexible loads.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">CMWG suggested keeping the first parking lot item and removing the second with agreement from the stakeholders.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Planned revisit of NPRR1214 discussion in December, post reception of additional comments.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Ppending comments for NPRR1214 to be shared shortly, with a focus on administrative settlement point expansions.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Agreement to update the agenda for further discussion of the points raised.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=5d9a4118-108c-468c-a061-bdc84e8fd3c0"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 8 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Mark Patterson</span></h2> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/08-dswg-update_map_Dec4.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">08-dswg-update_map_Dec4.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The meeting was held on November 18 without the chair or vice chair present.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Key issue discussed was changes in RIOO related to load resources.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Updates made include shortening the modeling timeline for load resources from 45 days to 30 days.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Created documentation to aid market participants in RIOO registration, available on ERCOT's website.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Updated on NPRRs, specifically NPRR1226 (demand response monitor) and NPRR1253 (forecast/estimate 4CP interval).</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Comments for NPRRs in stakeholder process for over three months, with PRS comments planned for next week.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1260 mentioned as a cleanup of protocol language rolled out in June.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on NPRR1253 comments filed yesterday, with substantive changes expected next week.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">David Detelich asked a question related to load forecast and ESR charge; Blake Holt responded with a planned meeting on December 10 with Sam Morris for further discussion.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=47d412b6-fcd4-400c-957c-a5ac7b185469"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 9 - Meter Working Group - MWG - Michael Blum</span></h2> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/09-meter-working-group-wms-update-4dec24.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">09-meter-working-group-wms-update-4dec24.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">MWG met on November 20th.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussed PGRR028 with new comments from ERCOT on loss compensation methodology changes.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Current focus on projects with current limiting reactors and how the new methodology might affect them.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Old methodology remains approved while the new one is being reviewed.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stakeholders reviewing the edits in PGRR028 with a follow-up meeting on December 19.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Scenarios discussed where loss compensation will be required based on voltage transformer placement.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR discussion was mixed, considering whether to recommend tabling or withdrawing the NPRR.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The submitter from NextEra is no longer with the company, and their representative will review their position.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">A presentation by Eolian discussed auxiliary loads and the challenges with netting at different voltage levels.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Consideration to submit an NPRR to raise the 500kW limit in protocol 10.3.2.3(6) to facilitate preferable meter setups.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eolian to work internally regarding NPRR submission.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Next MWG meeting scheduled for December 19.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f068ddbf-febd-4ed3-afa4-d8badf646626"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 9.1 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NextEra is considering withdrawing NPRR1200.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Tom Burke will discuss the issue with NextEra and report back next month.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Consensus to allow NextEra time to decide on withdrawal before a motion for rejection is made.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=97c4b9f3-1a7e-42b5-b888-74f271c1f018"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 9.2 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">SMOGRR028 remains tabled.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=9ffad9f7-b4d1-439a-9525-8c52d1780a98"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 10 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson</span></h2> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/10-241204-sawg-report-to-wms.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">10-241204-sawg-report-to-wms.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Focused on the Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) study.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussed the Demand Response Resource Service (DRRS) topic.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Presentation by TRE on the Inter Regional Transmission Capability study.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on NPRR1219 implementation for December Capacity, Demand, and Reserves (CDR) preparation.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Kevin Carden from PowerGem presented ELCC study results.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT's models include considerations for copper sheet modeling and associated rules of thumb.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion about average ELCC related to gross peak and marginal ELCC related to net peak.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6243ac18-e636-45dc-9b2a-83ed4c48191d"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 10.1 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service - SAWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Stakeholders discussed NPRR1235, including comments from Luminant suggesting using FIP and market heat rate to set cap price.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Gordon Drake from ERCOT presented two concepts for DRRS and will take comments until January 10th.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">IMM discussed filed comments with access to these comments available via a provided link.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1235 will return to SAWG for further discussion after PCT meeting on December 19 and comments filed by January 10.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Mark Henry from TRE presented on Inter Regional Transmission Capability Study by NERC, with a presentation link provided.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Pete Warnken discussed the upcoming CDR release on December 20 and mentioned decisions on the load forecast.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT to use current load forecast without updates; considerations include contracted loads and officer letter loads in CDR load forecast.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Next SAWG meeting scheduled for December 24.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Questions raised regarding unresolved issues related to ESR MRAs in NPRR885 and price cap protocols.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=e36e5196-e12e-4830-9f5f-b3fd85eb4c93"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 11 - Resource Cost Working Group - RCWG - Blake Holt</span></h2> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/11-wms_update_rcwg_20241204.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">11-wms_update_rcwg_20241204.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Leadership update: Karan Sudhu from RWE Renewables is anticipated to become the chair for 2025.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">No December meeting is scheduled.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Leadership roles will be voted on in February.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=1a5e9441-2616-4b06-a1da-4eb0427ecc16"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 11.1 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process - RCWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Motion to endorse NPRR1251 as revised by WMS added to the combo ballot.</span></li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT presented new language allowing Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) to restock either from existing inventories or through new fuel purchases.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The recovery costs can be documented based on new fuel purchases within 30 days post-approval or the price index of fuel oil on the operation day plus a transportation cost adjustment.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">RCWG supports the proposed language and recommends approval.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">A minor textual change was proposed for clarity, changing 'deployment' to 'each deployment' for consistency.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The current discussion included approval of desktop edits without additional comments from other groups.</span></li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=8235c5ec-e311-4a0e-8fa4-acd0ebf9d6a5"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 11.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Motion to recommend approval of VCMRR042 as amended by the 11/11/24 Luminant comments added to the combo ballot.</span></li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Luminant proposed using annual index prices for SO2 and seasonal index prices for NOx, particularly from April through August for the ozone season.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT will calculate monthly averages using index prices from the first 15 days of the prior month.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">A gray box feature was added for future use of daily index prices when ERCOT systems are automated.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">RCWG supports Luminant's November 11th comments and recommends approval.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on adding the item to the combo ballot without a formal motion.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eric noted necessary system changes and a future impact analysis but mentioned current manual processes will continue.</span></li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=fb121c38-8a98-4914-b5d1-2d6a8560ba17"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 12 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Blake Holt</span></h2> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/12-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-november-11-meeting.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">12-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-november-11-meeting.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Austin Rosel from ERCOT explained EPS meter issues leading to price resettlements and mitigation measures.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eric Goff proposed drafting a large load report to aggregate data while protecting confidential information.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eric Goff discussed plans to publish the large load report monthly, with TAC review, modifying data to protect customer information.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT will update WMWG on WSL Load treatment in the midterm forecast at the December meeting.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Curry Holden discussed DAM communications desk procedure updates post an October 2023 incident, aiming for more frequent communication.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on how to handle open action items, with suggestions to assign champions for parking lot items.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">They reviewed impacts of existing and proposed EPA regulations with plans for future discussions.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Recommendation to remove the 'wholesale market cues for scarcity pricing' item due to its general nature.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Reviewed the concept of establishing a minimum threshold with NPRR1041, recommending its removal.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussed loss factors related to UFE reporting, suggesting a sponsor be assigned.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on unclear items related to DAM settlements and RDPA inputs from SCED and PUC involvement.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Questioned the necessity of items related to early deployment of reserves with suggestions to revisit in future meetings.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=78c2efbd-573e-4523-813a-fc8af69af9d8"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 12.1 - Proposed Changes to CARD Allocation Methods - Vote</span></h3> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/12-card-allocation-impacts-dec-wms-final2.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">12-card-allocation-impacts-dec-wms-final2.pdf</span></a></p> <p><a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/12/12-cog-proposal-on-card-and-crrba-allocation-120424.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">12-cog-proposal-on-card-and-crrba-allocation-120424.pdf</span></a></p> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on CARD allocation proposals with no consensus on a single proposal.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Multiple proposals considered from IMM, City of Georgetown, and Luminant, with City of Georgetown suggesting a system-wide allocation.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Acknowledgment of the work put into proposals; this is a preliminary step before the formal protocol process.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Agreement to proceed with a straw poll instead of a formal vote to avoid triggering ERCOT requirements.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Need for ERCOT's input on the best implementation solution before voting.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Concerns over the impact of zonal allocation and the potential distortion of price signals in different regions.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on the need for further analysis by ERCOT to understand the price impacts of different proposals, particularly on the West zone.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Recommendation for a system-wide allocation instead of zonal to avoid price distortions.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Acknowledgment that continued zonal allocations could result in distortions in west zone pricing.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">A general acknowledgment that while people have preferences, more analysis is needed before any vote.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion of other proposals and their potential unintended consequences and complexities.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Decision to revisit the issue at a WMS or WMWG meeting with additional analysis and more data requested.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=c2f0ab93-2e5a-4c2d-8d81-64a929670d5b"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 12.2 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion on NPRR1202 has concluded and it can be removed from the list.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Other items are to remain on the list for further action.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e4517e33-26c0-43ee-a7f0-7828b6bf8ec4"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 12.3 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">STEC provided new comments on November 4th, based on ERCOT and WMWG feedback.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Proposed changes included reducing the maximum days for payments, setting a cost cap of 500,000, altering recovery provisions, and disqualifying certain resources from fund recovery.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">ERCOT agreed that these comments addressed many concerns, though further language adjustments were needed.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eric Goff requested clarification on the alignment of NPRR1229 with NPRR1190's proposed resolution.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Discussion is expected to continue in the next meeting on the 10th.</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=64851836-c4f7-4ff1-b253-e0993a2c08db"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 12.4 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - WMWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Luminant comments filed 12.03.24</span></li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6875ced8-f74f-474b-99b9-5d46a14c33ec"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 12.5 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee - WMWG - Possible Vote</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Comments have been filed on NPRR1241 and will be discussed in the next WMW meeting.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Received feedback from other members on NPRR1241.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=dba7517c-04b9-408b-8e95-edcf3aeafad0"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Motion to approve the combo ballot passed unanimously with no abstentions.</span></li> </ul> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><img src="/storage/docs/2024/12/20241204%20Combo%20Items.png" width="870" height="79" /></span></p> <h2><span style="font-weight: 400;"><img src="/storage/docs/2024/12/20241203%20WMS%20Combo.png" width="883" height="869" /></span></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=2750ae86-6eae-493a-993f-b667bd94279d"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 14 - Notice of Withdrawal - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d0aa6856-cbad-4640-9764-5255bbac83d1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 14.1 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042 SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">NPRR1242 pertains to VCMRR042 concerning SO2 and NOx emission index prices used in variable cost calculations.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The proposal was withdrawn by Luminant.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Withdrawal followed discussions at the November 15th resource cost working group meeting.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=38979e2a-0703-42a7-b4ae-8b39c7d67a98"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 15 - Other Business - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=db064c69-7f83-4ea8-a9e9-4779e1239445"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 15.1 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee</span></h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Addressed open action items from CMWG and WMWG, emphasizing the importance of updates and efficiency.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Katie complimented the format of the agenda and expressed hope for its continuation in the following year.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Recognition of Eric's leadership as the WMS chair over the last two years, highlighting his dedication to understanding the wholesale market.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Acknowledged the contributions of individuals and support services; special thanks to Brittany, Susie, Pamela, Matt, Dave, and Jim for their assistance.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Expressed gratitude for the opportunity to chair the group and optimism for its future success.</span></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Point of order raised regarding committee procedural rules about chair membership.</span></li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=a656b5bd-8a5b-42ce-b7ca-1aad2912e37e"><span style="font-weight: 400;">▶️</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> 16 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey</span></h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Eric Blakey adjourned the meeting.</span></li> </ul>