Meeting Summary - 01/17/25 IBRWG Meeting

▶️ 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Julia Matevosyan

▶️ 2 - Fluence’s GFM Capabilities on ERCOT’s Advanced Grid Support Requirements for ESR NOGRR272 & PGRR121 - Ben Braun

FluenceTechno-economicImpact-ERCOT-Grid-FormingRequirementReview-BenBraun.pdf

• Fluence has around 2,000 megavolt ampere worth of grid forming projects globally, with a significant focus in Europe and Australia.
• Three major models of GFM implementation were discussed: Compensate, Cost-out, and Compel.
• Ben Braun highlighted the challenges and costs associated with GFM projects, including control costs, need for overbuilding, and testing requirements.
• Discussion on the technical capabilities of GFM and the economic considerations of implementing these capabilities.
• Grid forming technology is still relatively new and presents challenges in commissioning and operation.
• Concerns about the proposed ERCOT test framework for verifying GFM capabilities and the potential need for additional testing scenarios.
• Comments from ERCOT representatives emphasized the need for a minimum set of tests to confirm GFM characteristics while balancing practicality and cost.
• Andrew Isaacs raised the question about what specific outcomes Fluence would like to see from ERCOT regarding GFM requirements.
• Ben Braun suggested that a hybrid approach with both compulsory and market-based incentives might be optimal.

▶️ 3 - Tesla’s GFM Capabilities Perspective on ERCOT’sfor ESR NOGRR272 & PGRR121 - Sai Gopal Vennelaganti and Mohammed Nassar

IBR-WG-ERCOT-GFM_TESLA.pdf

• Sai Gopal Vennelaganti detailed Tesla's experience with GFM  technology and its operational deployments globally, emphasizing the technical challenges associated with the static requirements imposed by ERCOT.
• Mohammed Nassar proposed revised equations for achievable power changes based on impedance parameters, suggesting more flexible, site-specific technical requirements.
  
  
• Discussion Points:
• Technical challenges with phase angle and power change requirements imposed by ERCOT, considering the physics of total impedance.
• Proposed need to rethink quantitative requirements over qualitative interpretations to avoid subjective compliance results.
• Recommendations:
• Add flexibility in requirements for phase angle testing outcomes.
• Use quantitative requirements instead of qualitative interpretations.
• Other Discussions:
• Concerns raised over compensation mechanisms for providing grid reliability services and associated costs for stakeholders like ESRs.
• General consensus on the need for more detailed market-based mechanism discussions regarding these requirements.

▶️ 4 - SMA’s GFM Capabilities Perspective on ERCOT’s Advanced Grid Support Requirements for ESR NOGRR272 & PGRR121 - Frank Berring

• SMA focuses on grid forming capabilities, emphasizing its history and experience with over 17,000 central inverter units installed in North America.
• SMA has pioneered grid forming technology for over 25 years, especially in the storage and transportation sectors.
• Their latest converters feature silicon carbide MOSFETs for enhanced efficiency, mainly in charging and discharging applications.
• Available models include different packages for distribution and transmission projects, each with various control levels.
• Grid forming is tested extensively, exceeding proposed requirements easily but noting that passing tests doesn’t solve all stability issues.
• SMA supports ERCOT's comprehensive approach and believes in compensation mechanisms to maintain stability.
• SMA provides insights into cost implications, indicating firmware costs might be around 10%, without any substantial extra hardware required unless specific features like Black Start capability are necessary.
• Unit testing requirements for ERCOT align with similar global standards, requiring no extraordinary efforts.

5 - PE’s GFM Capabilities Perspective on ERCOT’s Advanced Grid Support Requirements for ESR (NOGRR272 & PGRR121) Borja Perez (Power Electronics)

• Not Discussed

▶️ 6 - BAL-001 TRE-2 PFR Responsibility Exclusion Process and PFR under Deep Curtailment - Abhi Masanna Gari, ERCOT

BAL-001-TRE-2ExclusionProcessUpdate_ERCOT.pdf

IRR_PFR_Under_Curtailment_ERCOT_v3.pdf

• The new process allows for the exclusion of generating units' PFR performance during frequency measurable events if legitimate operating conditions prevent normal performance.
• Market participants must request an exemption within 30 days of the posting of the Initial and Sustained Frequency Response Unit Performance.
• An exclusion request form has been added for market participants to submit requests along with supporting documents.
• Request forms should be sent to client service representatives or via email to compliance@ercot.com.
• Discussion on PFR under deep curtailment highlights challenges faced by wind turbines and solar units when curtailed to low outputs.
• Feedback from OEMs indicates varied limitations on providing PFR, particularly for wind turbines.
• ERCOT is considering adding the inability to provide PFR under certain conditions as an exclusion to the process.
• Discussions emphasized the need for case-by-case evaluations of exemption requests.
• Current interconnection frequency response is stable, but ERCOT plans to gather more data to assess the impact of exclusion requests.
• Stakeholders seek clarity on the impact of wind units' inability to respond to frequency events on system reliability.

▶️ 7 - Results of NERC IBR Alert on Model Quality - David Penny

250117_NERC_Update_to_IBRWG.pdf

• Mark Henry presented on the results of a NERC alert regarding model quality.
• ERCOT has received preliminary data on IBR model deficiencies from a nationwide alert.
• A large number of responses came primarily from areas with Type 3 and 4 wind, solar, and battery resources.
• A significant portion of responses indicated resources were not providing maximum capability.
• There is a need for better OEM involvement for technical complexities.
• Discussions continue on model types—user-defined vs. generic models—with FERC expressing a preference for generic models.
• A concern was raised about models not matching field capabilities, affecting disturbance predictions.
• Mention of ongoing projects with FERC involving performance standards and data collection, with some awaiting feedback.
• Recent technical discussions focused on modeling improvements for IBR-specific standards.
• Emphasis was placed on the importance of EMT models for detailed analysis.
• Notice of possible upcoming changes to facility registration requirements due to smaller facilities.
• Mark Henry discussed the need for reporting generator availability to enhance system performance review.
• NERC alert gaps will be addressed through ongoing standard revisions, with a report expected by April.
• The next meeting agenda is forming around advanced support requirements, with continued updates from NERC.

▶️ 8 - Adjourn