Frame

Meeting Summary - 01/06/2025 - WMWG Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
01/06/2025

<img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/WMWG_Jan6_HERO_1ssimdopx2gnv.png" /> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=c2b0a745-b36b-4a8e-bffd-7d34e36ba65e">▶️</a>1 - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt</h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=733102ef-4679-4eb1-a885-c352eed37cb9">▶️</a>2 - Questions on Standing Reports - WMWG Participants</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Missing reports observed, specifically forecast reports, possibly due to holidays.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request made to notify the WMWG Exploder when reports are posted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King committed to following up internally to locate missing reports and update the group.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=ac436504-4a28-413e-9c1f-7027032f9150">▶️</a>2.3 - AS Provision and Performance SOC</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/ASProvisionandPerformanceSOCReportDecember.pdf">ASProvisionandPerformanceSOCReportDecember.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A question was raised about the AS provision and performance state of charge report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Unrecognized new material was noticed in the report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Uncertainty existed about having the correct ERCOT SMEs available to explain the content.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Slide 3 and 4 were identified as needing further explanation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King was tasked with following up with Luis and his team for a response.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was no urgency for the item; it was suggested to revisit the discussion in February.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The aim was to understand a trend that ERCOT might be highlighting better.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=7b3d6696-075a-409e-bb2c-43f771ac733a">▶️</a>3 - NPRR1256, Settlement for MRA of ESRs – Testing Question - ERCOT</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the testing and qualification of battery capacity for constraint management within the MRA documentation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation provided on the process of testing batteries as MRAs, similar to the testing of batteries for ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification sought on the standard duration requirements for testing battery capacity in RFPs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further inquiries about the process ERCOT uses to determine the duration requirements for RMR units.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmation that the RFP documents outline the specific duration and capacity requirements for different technologies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recognition of a need for additional NPRR language to specify capacity value calculations for ESRs, including state of charge requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the implications of ESRs not having enough state of charge during standby periods.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to table NPRR1256 for further clarifications and additional language to address capacity payment concerns.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=7dfd082f-3ae1-4eb0-a477-cb95622a7f7c">▶️</a>4 - NPRR1190, HDLO Provision for Increased LSE Costs – Mitigation Concept - Bill Barnes</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/03-1190nprr-26-tac-report-103024_bbarnes.pdf">03-1190nprr-26-tac-report-103024_bbarnes.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion delayed due to timing of the meeting immediately after holidays.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes has not had the opportunity to gather feedback from concerned parties such as Eric Goff.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to postpone further discussion for another month to allow for comprehensive feedback and amendments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to have a more meaningful discussion in February after additional outreach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No further comments heard from other participants, supporting the delay.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=3ff2e17a-4747-4c50-9981-908a7a67cb8c">▶️</a>5 - NPRR1229, RTM CMP Energy Payment – Draft Comments - Lucas Turner</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Lucas Turner worked with ERCOT to clarify and revise the language of NPRR1229 to ensure ease of implementation if approved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Key changes include renaming to 'cost recovery payment' and updates for readability and specificity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Settlement formulas, titles, and conditions required for payment were clarified and restructured.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Major changes included removing the 'real-time market opportunity costs' from the considerations and capping compensation components.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's plan includes three main cost components: recovery for bilateral contract costs, unit damage compensation, and startup payments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Manual calculation of payments will be used until system changes are implemented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Debate occurred over the use of High Sustained Limit (HSL) versus break-point in payments calculation; concerns of potential overcompensation were discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Startup payment logic might not align with other compensation formulas; further alignment might be needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No consensus was reached on using shared caps between NPRR1229 and NPRR1190; more discussions expected.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some additional clarifications by ERCOT are pending for the language of NPRR1229, but they won't impact the main policy components.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It was decided to postpone further discussion on NPRR1229 until after related conversations on NPRR1190 develop further next month.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=a4c2a036-7b0b-4037-b906-c2ca497b65c8">▶️</a>6 - CARD/CRRBA – Preview of Analysis for February Discussion - Austin Rosel</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/CARDAnalysis.pdf">CARDAnalysis.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The analysis needed for the NPRR discussion was delayed due to holidays but is expected by the February meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich requested clarification on TCOS congestion costs and trends over 10 years, and CARD and congestion costs paid by load by zone.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Austin Rosel mentioned they might be ready with the analysis by January 30th meeting and took note of some requested analyses.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion around historical data focused on using a recent 12-month period with suggestions to explore longer timeframes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Data breakdown by load class (residential, commercial, industrial) was suggested and may be included as an appendix.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was confusion and clarification requested on the distinction between congestion costs and congestion rent.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steve provided a potential method to compare load zone prices to system Lambda to determine actual congestion costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The feasibility of completing the expanded analysis by January 30th was uncertain due to new analysis requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Steve suggested including historical years with significant price fluctuations in the West load zone.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Whitmire noted upcoming changes with NPRR1188 affecting nodal pricing for loads.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=0b073fc6-caa0-46d7-8f3f-64d5e828a17e">▶️</a>7 - Other Business – 2025 Meeting dates, Leadership - Blake Holt</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on scheduling 2025 meetings a few days before the next WMS to address coordination issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for feedback on meeting timing and openness to adjusting schedules.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Update on 2025 WMWG leadership nominations: Amanda Frazier for chair and Trevor Safko for vice-chair. No other nominations received.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of Sam Fabricant to address questions regarding the State of Charge report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation of slides related to ESR performance, unit trips, and evaluation of RRS provisioning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on a slide focusing on ESR performance in meeting set points for both GREDP and CLREDP sides.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No changes noted in report data since initial findings in August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Open invitation for any further questions or issues to be addressed.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=389e799f-a29c-4fc7-9158-4c865e85024e">▶️</a>8 - Adjourn - Blake Holt</h2>