Meeting Summary - 12/11/2024 - RTCBTF Meeting

▶️ 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Matt Mereness

▶️ 2 - RTCBTF Updates and Issues - Matt Mereness

2_RTCBTF_Update_12112024.pdf

▶️ 3 - Training Update - Dave Maggio

▶️ 3.1 - RTC+B Basics Training Slides

3_RTCB_Training_RTCB_Basics_Dec24.pdf

• 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.
• Concerns raised regarding operational benefits versus potential liabilities post-Winter Storm Uri.
• Emphasized need for different presentation of benefits due to potential physical risks and dual-sided nature.
• Mentioned that this is a version 1.0, with potential updates in the coming months.
• Explained the educational aspect of the project, focusing on situational awareness and changes for QSEs and their responsibilities.

▶️ 4 - Discussion of NPRR for RTC+B Parameters - ERCOT Staff

4_NPRR_Parameters_12112024.pdf

• The plan is to sponsor a single NPRR in January addressing four parameter issues.

▶️ 4.1 - AS Proxy Offer Floors

• Current protocols require proxy offer price floors to be approved by TAC and posted.
• The proxy offer floors will be integrated into protocols, either as a specific value or a methodology.
• There is an interdependency with the IMM ASDC discussion.
• Further discussion on this matter is scheduled for agenda items six or seven.

▶️ 4.2 - Ramp Rate Sharing

• Scaling factors were previously presented in September, October, and November.
• Agreed on new language for protocols, cleaning up the term 'reg up'.
• Redline language for protocols was completed and is ready to be added.
• ASDCs for RUC discussed, targeting completion by February and March.
• Two ASDCs for RUC are being discussed with a likely update to protocol section 5.5.2.

▶️ 4.3 - ASDCs for Reliability Unit Commitment

RUC_ASDCs_RTCBTF_121124.pdf

• Introduction of ASDCs for use in RUC studies.
• 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

▶️ 5.1 - AS Deliverability

RTCB_AS_Deliverability.pdf

• 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.

▶️ 5.2 - IRR AS Qualifications

5_AS_Qualification_Under_RTC_v0.pdf

• 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

▶️ 6.1 - QSE Market Submissions

• 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.

▶️ 6.2 - QSE Telemetry Check-out

• 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.

▶️ 8 - Discussion of AS Demand Curves - IMM Staff

▶️ 8.1 - IMM ASDC Proposal

8_IMM_Proposed_ASDC_Improvements.pdf

• The IMM presented a proposal regarding the ORDC curve, noting that changes may be required and should be agreed upon by January.
• There is recognition of a need to reassess ASDC curves, with a focus on stakeholder consensus.
• The task force is considering all options on the table for ASDC adjustments.
• Consensus on ASDC policy is challenging due to time constraints and data inadequacy.
• There is an interest in the IMM proposal, but more data is needed for informed decision-making.
• Stakeholders are seeking more simulation data to understand potential impacts of ASDC changes.
• There is acknowledgment that full consensus might not be possible within the constraints.
• A suggestion emerged to implement an initial NPRR to initiate broader discussion and fine-tune parameters before Go Live.
• The debate includes whether the AS plan should target full procurement or allow for flexible adjustments.
• Concerns about the balance between AS plans and RUC backstops, indicating a potential value discrepancy.
• There is a need for comprehensive backcasts and scenarios to guide decisions.
• Agreement on schedule constraints necessitating focusing first on AS demand curve parameterization.
• The possibility of reevaluating the ORDC shape before Go Live to better align with system needs was discussed.

▶️ 8.2 - Any other Market Participant Proposals

Vistra Comments - ASDCs, AS Proxy Offers, AS Qualifications 20241211

8_Siddiqi_ASDC_Improvements_121124.pdf

8_Shell_Energy_RTC_Issues-12102024.pdf

• 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.

9 - RTC Simulation Cases

•  Not Discussed

▶️ 10 - Adjourn

• The meeting was adjourned.