Frame

Meeting Summary - 0/14/2025 RTCBTF Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
01/16/2025

<h2><img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-14-2025-RTCBTF-hero.png" width="815" height="608" /></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=301b0004-fe0f-4173-b18f-b880172963c1">▶️</a> 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Matt Mereness</h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=32b748d3-eeb4-4d96-a7fc-8fb5a4344a3e">▶️</a> 2 - RTCBTF Updates and Issues - Matt Mereness</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/2_RTCBTF_Update_01142025.pdf">2_RTCBTF_Update_01142025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on market trials and the readiness for QSEs and vendors to start submitting into ERCOT's sandbox environment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Telemetry requests opening for AS ramp rate submissions linking to network model setup.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Progression towards a rolling start in May without changes in project scope.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Addressing four main policy issues in NPRRs related to AS proxy offers, ramp scaling factor, AS demand curves, and RTC state of charge duration parameter.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on AS awards eligibility to prevent accidental awarding without explicit qualification.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Upcoming January 23rd meeting to delve into AS qualification and other NPRR draft concepts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"> Mentioned (January 15th) PRS meeting agenda including discussion about telemetry and reporting around wholesale storage load.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement for urgency in NPRR submissions with a target date of January 28th for PRS consensus.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=67defb1d-9290-4a5a-be2f-90a81767b458">▶️</a> 3 - Discussion of NPRR for RTC+B Parameters -ERCOT Staff</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/3_NPRR_Parameters_01142025.pdf">3_NPRR_Parameters_01142025.pdf</a> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/DRAFTXXXNPRR-01RTCBTFFourParametersPolicyIssues.pdf">DRAFTXXXNPRR-01RTCBTFFourParametersPolicyIssues.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reminder about the deferred 4 parameters from 2019, 2020 that need to be incorporated into protocols: AS Proxy Offer Floors, Ramp Rate Sharing, ASDCs for RUC, and Ancillary Services Requirements (State of Charge).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus that these parameters should be integrated into protocols rather than standalone TAC approved artifacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Goal to file an NPRR as a work in progress by January 28th, allowing for further analysis and adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of filing language with flexibility to change parameter values based on ongoing task force evaluations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Target to complete analysis by March before trials commence in May 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The timeline is outlined with key dates: NPRR filing by January 28th, PRS approval on March 26th, TAC approval March 26th, ERCOT board approval by April 8th, and into PUCT consideration by May 15th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis on the need for these parameters to be resolved in time for market trials by May and go live in December 2025.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=7e65b80b-9d32-418c-bafc-4a24ade65c91">▶️</a> 3.1 - Ramp Rate Sharing - NPRR Language</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on memorializing the scaling factor of 5/7ths into protocols as it is currently used and considered best practice.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aim to ensure the SCED base point plus the product of the scaling factor does not exceed the HDL for Reg-up and similarly for Reg-down in the LDL.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e4ae4f8c-a4ba-448d-94f2-3262fd6b8661">▶️</a> 3.2 - AS Proxy Offer Floors - NPRR Language with more ASDC Discussion</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proxy AS floor for reg up is set to be the minimum of $2,000 or a specific point on the AS demand curve.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion highlighted gaps in completing the AS demand curve details, notably filling placeholders with precise numbers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about the current option of linking proxy offers to the last highest offer, potentially risking effectiveness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR demands further decisions on whether the same demand curves are applicable for RUC or if different curves are needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A draft of the NPRR reflecting these discussions is under review, with future adjustments anticipated.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants expressed concerns that proxy offers might inadvertently hit the cap, suggesting further exploration of offer limits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was emphasis on avoiding a similar scenario to current proxy offers in energy markets that affects market performance.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a33f88bc-3410-43a5-9459-905c10fc460a">▶️</a> 3.3 - ASDCs for RUC Discussion - NPRR Language and Presentation</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/RUCASDCsRTCBTF011425_rh7ec21q87xv.pdf">RUCASDCsRTCBTF011425_rh7ec21q87xv.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis on RUC's role as a reliability backstop to meet AS plans.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of new capability to optimize energy and ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on internal analysis for RUC optimization using the RUC RTC tool.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of using ASDCs for DAM and SCED in RUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possible need for attaching a floor price at the tail end of the demand curve.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Issues regarding current demand curve structure and its effectiveness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RUC engine optimization and real-time AS demand curve differences.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about market distortions due to differences in RUC and real-time curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification sought on non-spin as a NERC requirement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about including ASDC modifications in protocol revisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to bring more information on floor pricing and ASDC modifications by next meeting.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=229d6c9d-9dea-4279-b296-d8932b1d4090">▶️</a> 3.4 - AS Duration Requirements - Initial Discussion</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/3.RTCTF_Duration_Requirements_Topic_Introv4.pdf">3.RTCTF_Duration_Requirements_Topic_Introv4.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ancillary services are important for reliability, supply-demand balancing, and reducing operational risks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NERC rules apply, specifically BAL-002 requiring a BA (balancing authority) for contingency reserves restoration within 90 minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of under forecasting net load risks and necessity of real-time resource availability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">History of net load under-forecasting with growing renewable resources correlating to forecasting errors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Duration requirements should align with under forecast risks and system energy needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current protocol misalignment regarding AS duration criteria discussed with intentions to correct it.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comparison with other North American system operators, with most using a 60-minute duration for AS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT studying historic data and planning further analysis and recommendations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about real-time AS duration aligning with market design features.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the economic incentives and potential market behaviors due to duration requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of the difference between qualification and real-time criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions for real-time duration criteria aligning with operational risks and market dynamics.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions and concerns about how duration requirements are monitored and enforced in real-time under RTC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about feasibility and practicality of current and proposed systems to ensure reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus towards the need for continued analysis and validation of duration criteria.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=52e98314-c921-43a1-9f66-ff6a4a2984d2">▶️</a> 4 - Proposed changes for AS Qualification - Nitika Mago</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion involved review of previous meeting's agreement on changing automatic qualification for ECRS and Non-Spin.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The need for a qualification process for all resources seeking to provide ECRS and Non-Spin was emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Drafting of NPRR language is underway to replace automatic qualification with a mandatory qualification process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration for an additional SCED constraint to validate capability information of resources is being discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Draft red line language is expected to be ready for review by the next meeting on the 23rd.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Synchronization of misalignments in protocols might be addressed in the NPRR depending on ongoing discussions about duration.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=33a1f0b1-ba3d-4615-9048-ae2e605726c0">▶️</a> 4.1 - Follow-up on discussion of IRR AS Qualification</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Testing and validation of telemetry are essential parts of the qualification process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Testing will include the ability to submit offers in market systems.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes in interactions with systems expected when RTC goes live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Batteries need to meet a state of charge requirement (2 hours for the state of charge, 4 hours for Non-Spin) to qualify.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concern about equating batteries state of charge requirements with IRRs uncertainty of output.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Testing includes verifying IRRs can guarantee production for specified durations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Real-time forecast data, especially at the hourly level, plays a key role in vetting capabilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Planned updates to SCED engine to improve forecast awareness and validate input data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing discussion on how standalone resources like wind or solar farms will be tested for qualification.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion emphasizes that qualification isn't a straightforward test but a dialogue to ensure offered capabilities align with product duration requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Qualification does not distinguish between co-located vs. standalone resources; it depends on the physical capability barring network constraints.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=6e3715ee-cba6-47d5-af59-a3a7677e3e7e">▶️</a> 5 - Review of any Market Feedback on Market Trials Handbooks - Matt Mereness</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was an error in the live date as 2024, which needs correction.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Entry criteria for ERCOT's actions are established and satisfactory.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A method for starting market calls is in place and was previously communicated.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There will be an increase in complexity regarding open loop SCED testing, telemetry checkout, and closed loop testing.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5a3a14be-0df5-45f2-a9dd-b1682894b0ca">▶️</a> 5.1 - QSE Market Submissions - Handbook #1</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/5_RTCB_Market_Trials_Handbook_1_MarketSubmissions_12102024_v2.pdf">5_RTCB_Market_Trials_Handbook_1_MarketSubmissions_12102024_v2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The current handbook discussed is considered easy and may not receive many comments for the next round.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The handbook outlines the process between May 5th and 30th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Handbook 1 focuses on simplifying market submissions similar to current processes.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=05dd819b-5100-433f-9ae4-f11c65419ea8">▶️</a> 5.2 - QSE Telemetry Check-Out - Handbook #2</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/5_RTCB_Market_Trials_Handbook_2_TelemetryPointCheckout_12102024_v2.pdf">5_RTCB_Market_Trials_Handbook_2_TelemetryPointCheckout_12102024_v2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion focused on the establishment of telemetry points between ERCOT and participants to ensure readiness for telemetry tests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No additional comments or discussions were needed from participants.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=085b5b86-3a5a-40fb-8438-b58a02bb9c24">▶️</a> 6 - Discussion of AS Demand Curves - Jonas Kersulis-IMM</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=7bcea452-6e8e-4fce-bb7c-d68fc5ceef3e">▶️</a> 6.1 - ASDC Sensitivity Analysis for different ASDC Proposals and Draft NPRR</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/6.2025-01-14RTCBTF-IMMASDCStudyResults.pdf">6.2025-01-14RTCBTF-IMMASDCStudyResults.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction to the AS Demand Curves (ASDC) study result update and explanation of previous results with the AORDC disaggregation technique called blending.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders suggested adjustments to the blended ASDCs focusing on maximum prices and partitioning of the 3,000 megawatt MCL capacity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for larger simulation studies to build confidence in results and study sensitivity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Desire for analysis to include long term trends, seasonality, and more diverse intervals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for more data to be made available for stakeholder review.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Detailed explanation of adjustments made to ASDC shapes, including changes to maximum prices and MCL capacity partitioning parameters.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentation of three ASDC scenarios: kp 1.15 baseline, unchanged IMM blended curves, and new adjusted blended curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggested adjustments:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Adjust max prices to increase demand gap between RegUp/RRS and ECRS/Non-Spin</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Adjust MCL partitioning parameters to shift additional demand from ECRS and Non-Spin to RRS</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Visual comparison of ASDCs before and after adjustments, highlighting shifts in maximum prices and narrowing of ECRS and Non-Spin demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Oncor's methodology for conducting a sensitivity study was outlined, emphasizing the adoption of historical market data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A key challenge identified was the difficulty in isolating the effects of ASDC shape due to simultaneous changes in proxy offer methodology and ASDC shapes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Trevor Safko from LCRA questioned whether isolating changes in proxy prices had been considered to better understand their impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The study included multiple methodologies, primarily focusing on proxy prices intersecting the demand curve at 95%, which resulted in challenges in analyzing effects clearly.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion emphasized the importance of isolating one design change to see its effects distinctly.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew Reimers mentioned that data from the study would be released by the end of the week.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were requests for broader intervals to be covered to understand impacts under more steady-state conditions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The study included 3,017 SCED intervals targeting different seasonal conditions for a holistic analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two sets of studies were done, covering specific high-demand intervals and running a one-interval-per-day analysis from June 10, 2023, through the end of 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The preliminary results suggested differences in procurement volumes and pricing for ancillary services using different ASDCs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The kp 1.15 curves tended to show larger Non-Spin shortages on average but lower shortages in other products.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were discussions about offline capacity adequacy and its reflection during shortages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about potential reliance on RUC and the varying real-time price signals of energy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Appreciation for extended analysis was expressed, with further questions raised about error margins under different conditions.</li> </ul> <h3>Key Takeaways</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The blended ASDCs resulted in modest decreases in energy costs, but higher prices for Non-Spin.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Adjustments in the ASDCs promote revenue sufficiency and resource adequacy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was discussion on whether current curves used for ASDC are the best fit for future scenarios.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about how alterations might affect real-time pricing and subsequent market responses.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=e5855998-d3d6-4d56-8b04-b9637666309d">▶️</a> 7 - Refreshed RTC Efficiency Cost Savings - Matthew Schmidt</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=61d8e526-d329-4e94-bb89-833c9f339779">▶️</a> 7.1 - ERCOT Study of Annual RTC Cost Savings in 2023-2024</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/2025-01-14_RTC_benefit_study_results_RTCBTF.pdf">2025-01-14_RTC_benefit_study_results_RTCBTF.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction to the RTC benefits study to update IMM estimates from 2018.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Analyzed categories: consumer value, reliability impacts like transmission congestion, and efficiency value.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Focus presented on consumer value and reliability value.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Methodology explanation with energy value calculations using system Lambda and price adders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">AS value was calculated using both IMM's 2018 approach and a new ERCOT approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about the IMM approach in comparison to real market conditions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification requested on the ORDC curve used in the current and past studies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment that the 2018 study didn't use ORDC-related curves, but ‘rectangular’ curves instead.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">50 operating days were randomly sampled from 5 seasons between 2023 and 2024 for study purposes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two scenarios were modeled reflecting different summer conditions to extrapolate annual values.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"> 2023 shows more than twice the impact reduction compared to 2024 across various metrics.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An increased energy value impact with RTC was noted, compared with a previous IMM report figure from 2018, especially pronounced in summer 2023.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A notable decrease in congestion rent was observed, particularly in summer 2023 compared to 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A unique positive constraint violation cost of $3.1 million was noted in summer 2024, potentially due to model limitations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The total estimated cost savings for 2023 is $6.4 billion, and $2.5 billion including 2024, compared to an 2018 IMM reported figure of $2 billion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discrepancies in AS value and MCPC reduction were discussed; clarification required between IMM and ERCOT approaches.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The study data includes system-level analysis; resource-level data is noted as significantly large, potentially critical for deeper analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about misinterpretation of data by policymakers, particularly in terms of consumer and reliability values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requests for additional data, potential impacts on the reliability standard, and resource type analysis were highlighted as future considerations. </li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=118d4698-7996-4988-95d5-b06c61e508ae">▶️</a> 8 - Other Business</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f122aabf-2988-4657-b712-54f20c2e3942">▶️</a> 8.1 - WMS Question about WSL in Load Forecast</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/8.RTCB01-14-25WSLandLoadForecastingQuestion1-13-251345.pdf">8.RTCB01-14-25WSLandLoadForecastingQuestion1-13-251345.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The presentation covered the question of how WSL will be treated in load forecasting once the RTCB project goes live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion started with issues around estimating 4CP intervals and battery charging consumption inclusion in load forecasts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The charging consumption by batteries is included in load forecasts and generation dispatch but will change with RTC+B implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RTC+B will introduce a single model energy storage resource, eliminating the workarounds in place.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new model will simplify how energy storage resources are represented and ensure charging consumption values of single model ESRs are excluded from load estimates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current method results in incorrect load forecasts by including battery charging; RTC+B aims to correct this.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Tim Carter raised concerns about battery impacts on load forecasts, highlighting issues with the current net calculation method.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions connected to NPRR1253 and its impact, with focus on whether it provides a resolution to 4CP issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Future plans include analysis and recommendations on AS duration requirements and potential handbook edits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns addressed about proxy offers and the implications on demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preparations for the next meeting involved providing data for stakeholders to review and discuss potential NPRRs for adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Action items included understanding savings implications from different technology types and addressing NPRR with framework consensus.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=c36dc805-1b44-40da-bd6f-8d05735a410b">▶️</a> 9 - Adjourn</h2> <h2> </h2>