Highlighted changes and updates from the 2019 presentation, focusing primarily on the benefits of real-time co-optimization and the post-batteries project.
Emphasized the increase in battery technology and expectations for the future.
Mentioned the need for updating information over time with more recent study years post-2017.
Discussed the derivation of ancillary service demand curves from ORDC and ongoing conversations about these curves.
Explained CO optimization and its impact on real-time markets, with changes to RUC, day-ahead markets, and SAS.
Outlined communication changes between ERCOT and market participants focusing on high-level tools and telemetry.
Described project parts related to plus batteries in the move to a full single model.
Addressed timeline for testing and information familiar to participants present at every meeting.
Mentioned the intention to update and publish materials, such as training videos, on the RTC+B homepage.
RUC will be modified to co-optimize energy and ancillary services, aiming to reduce the need for additional commitments.
Discussion on how ASDCs will ensure sufficient capacity to meet load forecasts and the ancillary service plan.
Importance of RUC as a reliability backstop necessary to meet NERC requirements.
Co-optimization in RTC may reduce commitments needed to resolve transmission congestion.
Historical analysis to determine effective use of ASDCs is underway, focusing on days with significant negative margins.
Operators will use current operating plans to determine resource capability for each AS project.
Penalty curves are reviewed to enhance RUC, considering cost analysis and historical data.
Current evaluation is being conducted to determine the value of AS shortage and commitment costs.
Discussion of potential requirement adjustments for ancillaries to avoid preventive RUC commitments.
Upcoming steps include stakeholder iterations and further historical case analysis for optimizing RUC.
▶️ 4.4 - Ancillary Service Duration Requirements i.e., State of Charge
Discussion on ancillary service duration requirements for ECRs and non-spin services, questioning changes as they transition to RTC.
Target timeline for reviews is January through March, preparing for an NPRR to be filed by January.
Expectations for stakeholders to document positions, submit informal comments, and participate in discussions for PRS approval by March and TAC in April.
Emphasis on integrating these changes into the market trials environment to ensure code functionality and gather market feedback.
Focus on understanding price shaping during open loop SCED in July and August, with a simulator being a useful tool for analysis.
Acknowledgement of the challenges in finalizing details, with consideration of weekly meetings to address these complexities.
▶️ 5 - RTC Operations Feedback and Approach to 2 Issues - ERCOT Staff
Ancillary services (AS) are undeliverable when energy cannot be deployed due to constraints, termed as 'stranded energy'.
In the current system, undeliverable AS can be managed by moving obligations within a QSE through coordination with the control room.
The control room can manually limit the award of ancillary services to specific resources based on software developed in alignment with rules agreed upon over the past years.
Not all ancillary services have the same impact on congestion. For instance, regulation is deployed automatically and can exceed constraints without immediate system visibility.
Responsive Reserve and other services like ECRS are released to SCED to manage congestion; constraints prevent deployment if they would be violated.
IROLs, if violated, could lead to major system issues. ERCOT has nine IROLs with specific regional impacts.
Deployments of ancillary services can negatively impact IROLs if they exceed limits based on frequency decays.
Responsive Reserve and other services can suppress market prices and reduce self-commitment incentives if they are consistently awarded to constrained resources.
ERCOT is considering tools for operators to restrict AS based on IROL active status and constraints.
Discussion included a range of implementation approaches for managing AS restrictions and operator discretion.
Questions were raised concerning the market implications and the fairness of AS assignment under constraints.
Comments suggested automated solutions to the problem, focusing on reducing operator manual actions.
Other concerns included the handling of day-ahead market risks and the need for a practical implementation by RTC go live.
Discussion on ancillary service qualifications, particularly focusing on ECRs and non-spinning reserves post-RTC.
The introduction of two paragraphs in the protocols by NPRR1011 relevant to the qualification requirements for non-spinning reserves and ECRs.
Automatic qualification was initially envisioned for resources qualified to participate in SCED, allowing them to provide non-spin and ECRs.
ERCOT's view is that all resources seeking to provide ancillary services should undergo a qualification process to ensure telemetry setup and readiness.
Proposal to revise protocols to remove automatic qualification and implement a qualification process for all new resources.
Additional validation proposed to ensure resources' capability meets the requirements of the AS type, which requires software changes.
Plan to draft protocol changes after stakeholder discussions and possibly include them before the new system goes live.
Acknowledgment of stakeholders' views on not automatically qualifying resources due to concerns over certain classes' ability to provide services.
Discussion on compliance obligations for ECRs and non-spinning reserves, including startup obligations and telemetry validation.
Decided that current qualified resources will stay qualified without needing further testing.
Stakeholder support and general consensus on ERCOT's proposals, with some suggestions for additional statutory considerations.
Consideration of separate NPRR for changes related to capability validation.
Emphasis on not touching certain language to allow for smoother implementation without impacting current RTC plans.
▶️ 6 - Draft Market Trials Handbooks - Matt Mereness
Market trials planning document approved by TAC was separated into its own document as a handbook for market trial submissions.
Nine months prior to market trials, ERCOT will publish technical changes and provide resources such as validation rules, EIP specifications, and a business process flow summary.
Nathan Smith delivered a presentation explaining changes, and a recording is available for training purposes.
ERCOT must publish a trials handbook and ensure system readiness; currently, systems are still being prepared.
Weekly WebEx meetings for QSEs from May 5 to June 30, primarily on Mondays, covering expectations and ongoing trial issues.
Cumulative scorecards will be shared to track progress, aiming for all green scores.
Nathan Smith provided a summary of market submission changes relevant to market trials, supporting current operating plan changes and transaction requirements.
Market participants need to perform specific activities from May 5 to June 30 to ensure the modified or new transactions affecting reliability are tested.
Scorecards will be issued for each technology type managed by QSEs.
Focus on testing submissions that impact different resource types such as generation, load, and energy storage.
Conclusion with invitation for questions, noting the straightforward nature of the materials presented and indication of future discussions.
QSEs are required to add telemetry points to their systems for communication with ERCOT, including new ramp rates and ESR telemetry.
An ICCP handbook has been published to guide the process.
Meetings to discuss telemetry occur every Monday, and ERCOT needs telemetry point requests from QSEs.
Telemetry requests will become part of a network model load aimed for early 2025.
Scorecards will track telemetry readiness: green for complete, yellow for partially complete, and red for incomplete.
A market trial starting in May 2025 will test the system without actual SCED running.
Discussion on whether TAC needs to approve the process; general consensus that formal TAC approval may not be necessary.
Need for more detailed examples and training materials, particularly distinguishing between different resource types.
Consensus that TAC should be informed, not necessarily for approval but for awareness.
Responsible executives will be notified once consensus is reached to ensure they understand the requirements.
Action Items:
QSEs to submit telemetry point requests to ERCOT starting immediately.
Provision of training materials and examples related to telemetry and dispatch.
Consideration of informing TAC of the developments for broader market awareness.
Notification plan for responsible executives once all points are settled.
Timeline:
Telemetry Point Requests: January-February 2025
Scorecards Initiated: Mid-May 2025
Telemetry Checkout Completion: June 30, 2025
Operator Training Seminar: March 2024
▶️ 7 - Review of Parameters for AS Proxy Offers - Dave Maggio
Discussion initiated on AS proxy offer floor with participation from Andrew, Shane, Ned, and Dave Maggio.
Dave Maggio presented an approach involving AS proxy offer floor discussions, with initial considerations including whether the floor should be $0 or $2,000.
An alternative approach proposed by Dave is intertwined with the IMM proposal, involving the use of AS demand curves.
The proxy offer floors might be derived from the ancillary service demand curves, potentially using some percentile of the minimum price on those curves.
Current focus shifted to the ancillary service demand curves, with plans to revisit the AS proxy offer floor discussion once there is further resolution.
Vistra's comments and proposal related to the proxy offer floors were mentioned.
No new material introduced during this meeting on the topic.
▶️ 7.1 - Reminder of new ASDC approach from prior Meeting Dependent on potential ASDC changes
ERCOT's proposal to use ASDC derived as proxy offers was generally supported as a better direction than previous methods.
Concerns remain about ensuring competitive offers drive pricing outcomes, especially regarding the IMM's ancillary service demand curve structure.
Discussions on pricing at a high point for essential services under NERC requirements to allow competitive offers to meet the clearing price.
It was acknowledged that proxy offers setting the price is rare and would unlikely impact ERCOT's ability to procure the full ancillary service plan unless all resources rely on proxy offers.
Current ASDC structure may require adjustments to ensure competitive market solutions prevail over administrative actions.
Suggestions include setting proxy offers at the last offer plus a penny to minimize market disruption.
Concerns were raised about proxy offers potentially allowing strategic behavior that could affect market prices.
There's a need to strike a balance between allowing proxy offers enough headroom while not overriding competitive bids.
The existing process for energy offers may offer a model, but it needs careful adaptation for ancillary services.
Some stakeholders suggest a static approach using historical data or a system change to accommodate dynamic market conditions.
There is consensus that the chosen approach should not allow resources to hide from active participation in the market.
The meeting ended without a final decision, suggesting two main options: using AS demand curves or extending the last market-wide submission, with detailed proposals needed for January.
Discussion on the IMM blended ASDC proposal highlighted positive aspects like greater valuation for long duration resources but noted concerns about a deeper dip into RRS reserves. Participants discussed ways to tune this issue.
Consideration of a minimum ECRS price symmetrical to maximum prices for respective services
Emphasis on the need for coordinating long duration reserve qualifications and ensuring policy consistency.
Recommendations touched on setting a minimum level of RRS as equal to the largest single contingency.
Various proposals around adjustments to AORDC parameters, including the suggestion for a direct reflection of ORDC in AORDC calculations.
Concerns were raised about offering structures and the importance of prioritizing critical AS during scarcity situations to maintain reliability.
A proposal to adjust ASDC caps to ensure REG up and RRS are prioritized for procurement, suggesting higher price caps for these services.
Discussion around different methodologies for ASDC allocation and the benefit of comparing outcomes using different parameterizations: KP1.15 curves, IMM proposals, adjustments by Vistra, and modifications suggested by Shams.
Sensitivities on ASDC parameter variations were proposed for evaluation across different days to better understand implications on procurement and pricing outcomes.
Feedback suggested prioritizing flexibility in resources to conduct sensitivity analyses and avoiding unnecessary complexity in model simulations.
