▶️ 2 - Questions on Standing Reports - WMWG Participants
No questions were raised on the posted reports from ERCOT.
2.1 - 2.6 - Not Discussed
▶️ 3 - WSL Treatment in Load Forecasts - Sam Morris
Discussion on how ERCOT currently treats wholesale storage loads (WSLs) in midterm and short-term load forecasts, where WSLs are included in telemetry but removed during settlement.
Concerns raised about skewed load forecasts due to inclusion of WSLs in day-to-day forecasting which affects the 4CP calculations and market operations.
Consideration of exclusion of battery charging loads from forecasts to focus on true retail demand vs. WSL demand.
Mention of previous systems set up in 2012 when battery storage was minimal, and now under discussion to change equations with RTC+B updates.
Discussion on challenges of removing WSL from forecasts and ensuring consistent reporting and calculation in future updates.
Questions about integration into RUC engine and potential impacts on forecasting and market operations.
Consensus on the need to address the issue at RTC task forces ensuring forecasts align with new state of charge calculations and market dynamics.
▶️ 4 - NPRR1256, Settlement for MRA of ESRs - ERCOT
NPRR1256 introduces changes for MRA settlement for Energy Storage Resources (ESRs).
Focus on how storage duration is treated in MRA procurement and settlement.
Discussion on MRA deployments treatment in the reliability deployment price adder process.
Settlements for MRA energy storage resources will be similar to generation resources, except no fuel component for ESRs.
Variable payments for storage resources consider the cost to charge during non-contracted hours.
Addressed the question regarding charging at a negative price; variable price is considered for the calculation.
Potential system changes and their timelines remain uncertain.
Clarified battery treatment during testing for MRA contracts.
Future ERCOT meeting planned to discuss real-time co-optimization and battery testing for resource evaluation.
Participants require more information on testing processes to determine battery capacity and resolve transmission constraints.
Decision to delay recommendation until further clarity on testing is achieved.
▶️ 5 - Mitigation Concept for NPRR1190, HDL Override Provision for Increased LSE Costs - Bill Barnes
Bill Barnes presented a proposal to address consumer concerns about NPRR1190 to prevent substantial increases in HDL override payments.
The changes aim to ensure fair payment and settlement treatment for all types of resources, not just those in competitive territories.
Concerns were raised about the potential significant rise in HDL payments, and the need for review if payments exceeded $10 million annually.
A historical context was provided comparing current HDL override numbers to past OOM (Out of Market) payments in the zonal market.
The proposal includes a $10 million trigger for review to avoid significant impacts similar to past OOM payments.
Eric Goff expressed concerns about setting a precedent with NPRR1190 that could result in additional charges and sought more time for consumer consultation.
Blake Holt and Austin Rosel supported the review process, agreeing that NPRR1190 should prevent payment issues while being flexible in managing exceptions.
Discussions included options for hard caps on payments and the practical complexities of implementing such caps.
▶️ 6 - Discussion of above Mitigation Concept in relation to NPRR1229, RTM CMP Energy Payment - WMWG Participants
NPRR1229 was placed on the agenda to discuss its relation to a decision on the compromise for NPRR1190.
The discussion on NPRR1229 is paused and will continue next month.
NPRR1241 has new comments and logic changes proposed by Luminant.
The new approach presents a more linear calculation method for availability factors, addressing feedback from earlier discussions.
A significant change in the proposal is the reduction of the unavailability threshold from 75% to 50%, making it more punitive compared to previous versions.
Participants generally expressed support for the new version, finding it more reasonable and aligned with expectations, compared to the original NPRR1241 and current protocols.
The new proposal aims to incentivize better resource availability by implementing a linear claw-back function instead of a fixed day claw-back.
Consensus was reached among attendees to recommend NPRR1241 to the WMS for approval.
▶️ 8 - The return of CARD/RRBA, Part 1 – To Zone or Not to Zone? - Blake Holt
Discussion on the allocation of CARD revenue and whether to maintain zonal allocations or move to a system-wide allocation.
Current system allocates revenue to zonal and non-zonal buckets based on whether the CRR sources and sinks within the same congestion management zone.
A proposal was made to investigate a system-wide allocation and update previous analyses.
New proposal suggests removing zonal allocation and capping CARD distribution at T-costs, transitioning to system-wide allocation if necessary.
Challenges in forecasting future CARD revenues and T-costs exist, with basic historical trend analyses being the main available method.
Some stakeholders expressed concerns over removing zonal allocation due to potential shifts in revenue distribution totaling billions.
Acknowledged that the issue might persist into February with ongoing discussions needed; possibility of postponing until after legislative session.
Identification of purported gaming behavior with potential exploitation of current CARD allocation methods was noted.
Stakeholders requested more analysis on current CARD returns, problem size, projected impacts, and implementation timeframes.
Next steps include revisiting the discussion in January, with data and analyses being pivotal to informed decision-making.
