Meeting Summary - 05/21/2025 RTCBTF Meeting

▶️1 - Antitrust Admonition - 9:30 am

▶️2 - RTCBTF Update

▶️2.1 - Status of NPRRs prior to Go-Live

2_RTCBTF_Update_05212025.pdf

• Most tasks are progressing well, with only a few items remaining to address.
• Go-live date is scheduled for six months and two weeks from now.
• NPRR1268, NPRR1269, and NPRR1270 were approved by the PUC.
• Discussion on 'State of Charge' parameter and cleanup revision request needed.
• Market readiness shows significant progress with numerous items marked as complete.
• Operator training is ongoing, with five training modules completed recently.
• Training modules will be recorded and published in June.
• Focus is on the market trials handbook for the closed-loop test and day-ahead market.
• Preparation for go-live transition involves testing with dual model systems.
• Transition plans are being expedited from August to July.
• Plans for ERCOT in June include working on a cutover strategy.
• Overall, progressing towards final readiness assessment with a positive outlook.

• Approved NPRRs discussed: NPRR1282 and NOGRR277 are poised for TAC approval.
• Urgency to avoid delaying approval: If PUC approval is missed, market trials set for June may not occur until October.
• Final clarifying NPRR: Focus on fine-tuning and alignment without significant changes.
• Board meetings before Go-Live: Two scheduled meetings in June and September.
• Readiness progress: Use of color coding for tracking, with new items highlighted in yellow.
• FAQ document: Established with approximately 90 questions, updated weekly, accessible through an Excel spreadsheet.
• Training videos: Targeting to provide videos on operations, resources, and other topics via YouTube.
• Completed engagements: Includes DSWG engagement and operator training seminar.

▶️2.2 - Update on Weekly Market Trials Progress

• Market trials are held every Monday from 10AM to 10:30AM, sometimes extended to 10:45AM.
• Around 150 to 175 participants typically join the calls.
• Initial weeks focused on educational presentations and distribution of handbooks.
• First round of scorecards was released recently.
• The team aims to address queries via rtcb@ERCOT.com with one-day turnaround for simple questions.
• Meetings cover action items, expectations, known issues, and workarounds.
• Scorecards use a red, yellow, green system to indicate progress.
• Handbooks and technical resources are available on the RTCBTF homepage.
• Common queries and FAQs are being posted online.
• The goal is to ensure successful transactions for each resource type during an 8-week period.
• Emphasis on ensuring connectivity and telemetry setup.
• Issues discussed include connectivity, transaction completions, telemetry points, and defect workarounds.
• Scorecards are only presented during meetings and not posted online.
• Feedback collected through meetings to assess progress and address concerns.
• Efforts underway to create a spreadsheet version of scorecards upon request from the market.
• Defects and workarounds were discussed, highlighting integration and operational challenges.
• Encouraged feedback to ensure effective communication and operations.
• Upcoming focus includes clarifying NPRRs and presentations on specific topics like capping system land prices.

▶️3 - Draft of Clarification NPRR needed before Go-Live

3-Draft-of-Language-Corrections-Needed-for-RTC-B-Go-Live-Mitigation-for-Resources-Harmed-by-System-Lambda-Capping-Process.pdf

• Background on NPRR and system Lambda capping process shared. Capping set to prevent system Lambda from exceeding $5000 per megawatt hour due to concerns raised post-2019 Commission discussions.
• Explanation of scenarios where resources dispatched by SCED might be financially harmed due to the capping process.
• Lack of proposal inclusion for controllable load resources due to existing operational practices and minimal impact expectation.
• Illustration of how the capping process impacts generation resources and the financial implications using a high-level example.
• Proposal discussed to utilize existing emergency operation settlements to mitigate potential financial harm from capping.
• Concerns raised over the logic of including ancillary service revenues when calculating harm, drawing parallels to price correction scenarios.
• Clarification sought on whether ERCOT would actively communicate capping occurrences or if it would be left to QSEs to identify.
• Reiteration of misunderstanding around the ancillary service revenue clawback and its necessity questioned.
• Simulation tests indicated limited occurrence of the discussed harm scenarios unless under artificially stressed conditions.
• The presentation concluded with suggestions for a near-term solution using existing protocols, and considerations for long-term solutions like removing the capping process altogether.

▶️3.1 - Impacts of System Lambda Capping and Discussion on Alternatives

Capping-of-System-Lambda-under-RTC.pdf

• Shams Siddiqi from Hunt Energy Network highlighted issues with capping the System Lambda, initially proposed in 2019, stating that there's no explicit price cap in the current market ordered by the PUC.
• Current protocols adjust the ORDC adder to prevent the system Lambda from exceeding $5,000 per MWh, which affects market prices differently than true capping.
• Uplifts caused by capping are paid by the load and should be avoided due to market design concerns, including price distortion and inconsistent congestion pricing.
• Since the RTC protocols have been approved: The actual value of lost load (VOLL) is closer to $35,000 per MWh, far above current HCAP reduced to $5,000 from the original $9,000 per MWh cap.
• Emergency Pricing Program (EPP) implementation reduces HCAP further to ECAP of $2,000, activated if HCAP prices occur in 12 of the last 24 hours.
• Example given: Capping leads to pricing signals like negative $250 per MWh at LMP1 = $200/MWh, which distorts consumer behaviors.
• Proposal suggests removing system lambda capping due to lack of substantive PUC rule requiring it and to align with energy-only market principles.
• Discussion around submitting a no-impact urgent NPRR to eliminate capping language subject to PUC approval, allowing for further discussion if needed.
• Concerns about capping impacting prices and CRR payouts, unhedgeable uplifts, and incorrect price signals during scarcity events.
• Shams proposed a new proposal with a focus on aligning pricing signals during scarcity events without capping, with potential NPRR submission.

3-Draft-NPRR-Gap-Resolutions-and-Clarifications-for-the-Implementation-of-Real-Time-Co-optimization-plus-Batteries.pdf

• Presentation by Dave Maggio and discussion on the new NPRR language proposals, clarifying telemetry requirements, emergency operations settlement language, and inconsistencies in protocol related to real-time co-optimization.
• Multiple discussions on proper adjustments to real-time system-wide offer caps and ancillary service offers.
• Concluded with intent to file NPRR in the following weeks to facilitate further stakeholder discussions and iterations.

▶️4 - State of Charge / AS Duration Discussion

IMM-NPRR-1282-RTCBTF-052125.pdf

• Repeating earlier ideas on how duration constraints for non-spin interact with the SCED optimization engine.
• Example data provided to illustrate the adverse effects on battery state of charge due to duration constraints.
• Discussion on making the case for a lower duration requirement for non-spin.
• Use of Steve Reedy's modified SCED RTC Excel tool to analyze the battery state of charge.
• Setup of model to see reserve awards between thermal generators and batteries.
• High energy offers for batteries still lead to base point awards under high duration requirements.
• AS plan structured around a 10,000 megawatt-hour battery and its limitations under a four-hour duration requirement.
• Effect of duration constraint on pricing and SCED logic.
• Comparison of one-hour versus four-hour duration constraints' effects on SCED's battery energy vs. reserve prioritization.
• Concerns about premature depletion of battery state of charge leading to increased reliance on thermal generators.
• Pricing impact of non-spin duration constraints and subsequent shortage pricing.
• Recommendations discussed to impose a one-hour duration requirement on non-spin to align with ECRS.
• Further discussion on battery state charges in different scenarios and modeling results.
• Debate about the implications of the four-hour duration for non-spin in conditions of scarcity.
• Conversations on adjustments to the system and behavior to better manage energy insufficiency.
• Andrew Reimers and ERCOT members discuss potential issues related to real-time adjustments and offer strategies.
• Discussion on value differences for longer versus shorter duration reserves and potential market mechanisms for these durations.
• Questions from various participants highlight modeling choices and theoretical outcomes.
• Discussion on the effects of thermal generator limits on non-spin capacity and solutions.

▶️4.1 - Discussion of NPRR1282 and NOGRR277 (if needed prior to May 28 TAC)

• A forum was created to discuss NPRR1282 and NOGRR277 if needed before the upcoming TAC meeting.
• NPRR1282 made it out of PRS and NOGRR277 was approved in the ROS email vote, keeping the process on track for the TAC meeting next week.
• Nitika Mago provided no new information; she has shared historical analysis regarding policy durations.
• There was previous confusion about AS deployment factors and state of charge affecting the RUC.

▶️4.2 - Discussion of AS Deployment Factors and NPRR1204

4_RTCB_SOC_Whitepaper_ERCOT_Comments_11012023.pdf

• Overview: Revisit of paper discussed in previous RTC meeting related to NPRR1204, focusing on deployment factors used in RUC (not in real-time).
• RUC and RTC Changes: Discussion on energy storage resource commitment and dispatch in RUC. Challenges noted in economic dispatch for batteries led to the decision of self-scheduling batteries based on their submitted SOC.
• Self-Scheduling: Self-scheduling batteries to their submitted SOC to avoid unrealistic dispatch scenarios caused by scaled-down offer costs.
• Deployment Factors: Deployment factors, crucial for understanding AS usage, were clarified. They are used to calculate how much stored energy may be used during each hour.
• RUC Capacity Short Calculations: These calculations utilize deployment factors posted day-ahead at 6 AM for all hours. Discussion on appropriate use and adjustment of these factors.
• Concerns and Clarifications: Questions were raised regarding how deployment factors are calculated, especially for non-regular AS like ECRS. The historical deployment is not seen as a reliable indicator.
• Future Considerations: Uncertain scenarios and risk analysis will influence deployment factors. This is still under development. Discussion on how this affects AS bidding behavior.
• Committee Response: ERCOT confirmed they are considering the ability to dynamically adjust factors and are working on more robust methodologies.

▶️5 - Market Readiness

• ERCOT is continuing their review of handbooks for market readiness.
• This is the second review, following a plan to have three reviews.
• The content posted for this review is largely the same as the April version.

▶️5.1 - Review Handbook #5 – Closed Loop LFC Test – Round 2 Review

Closed Loop LFC Test

5_RTCB_Market_Trials_Handbook_5_ClosedLoop_LFC_DRAFT_05212025.pdf

• Reviewed the process for transitioning control to RTC controls for two hours.
• The objective is to manage the frequency reliably without major dispatch shifts during the test.
• The test's aim is to prevent financial harm and minimize operational risks.

Execution Plan

• Scheduled to occur between 10 AM and 1 PM to minimize operational risks, likely around September-October.
• The goal is to maintain current energy dispatch patterns during the test.

Ancillary Services Strategy

• QSEs must evaluate their responsibilities and provide corresponding offers to ensure proper resources are maintained during the test.
• Specific instructions for ancillary services offers to avoid unnecessary dispatch.

Operational and Financial Mitigation

• Parallel telemetry required to align current and RTC systems.
• Pre-test runs considered for familiarization with guardrails.
• Financial rules include metered energy settlement and possible exemptions for base point deviation.

Discussion and Feedback

• Clarified the process for segmenting ancillary offers when limited by segments.
• Ensured that high-priced offers for remaining capacity can be applied across all up ancillary services.

Future Steps

• Additional month given for feedback and concerns on the methodology and guardrails.

▶️5.2 - Review Handbook #6 – Day Ahead Market Tests – Round 2 Review

5_RTCB_Market_Trials_Handbook_6_DayAheadMarket_DRAFT_04182025.pdf

• Pre-Day Ahead Market tasks involved ensuring systems can download new reports and manage AS obligations with precision up to five significant digits after the decimal.
• Participants need to test self-arrangement and various offer types, particularly AS only offers and submissions involving ESRs and negative values for charging.
• Emphasized the difference between day ahead market and real time system-wide offer caps.
• Mentions specific AS types that cannot be submitted, like offline reserves, ECRSMD,  and RRSUFR.
• Reminded QSEs of the unchanged nature of resource-specific AS offers and the introduction of an AS only offer.
• After running the day ahead market, the focus is on accurately publishing and pulling final AS obligations and receiving awards accurately.
• Adjustment period after the day ahead market allows for changes to COPs and trades, noting the lack of charges for trades above self-arrangement for load resources.
• Highlighted the day ahead market's voluntary nature while encouraging participation for successful market tests.
• Overall, the purpose of tests is to ensure all mechanics work effectively, not primarily for simulation.

▶️5.3 - Review of Settlement Statements and Extracts

Settlement-Statements-and-Extracts.pdf

• Presentation of settlement statements and extracts, including sample DAM and real-time initial statements.
• MODE/CODE extracts provided in XML and CSV formats, statements in XML and HTML formats.
• Data is test data with a focus on changing settlement calculations, not all tables/files provided.
• Ongoing work on RUC portion, planning to update RTM initial statement in July RTC meeting.
• Energy imbalance data not included as no changes in RTC, might cause apparent imbalances.
• Public reference data extract also provided in XML and CSV, with added generic resources.
• Updated relationship data included in 10 tables, with a 'generic relationship key' file for reference.
• Updated settlement matrix expected to be posted by July or August.
• Issues with files can be reported via email to RTCB@ERCOT.com.
• Acknowledgment of the efforts in preparing the documents, with thanks to Magie Shanks and her team.
• Future steps include work on slides for TAC and clarification filing for NPRR before the next meeting.
• Request to ask Nitika Mago questions in advance of TAC meeting, ongoing work on AS deployment factor.

Next Steps:

• July RTC meeting for RTM initial statement update with MODE/CODE extracts, including RUC charge type.
• Expected posting of updated settlement matrix by July or August.
• Preparing slides for TAC and further discussions at TAC meeting on NPRR1282.
• Deployment factor to be discussed at the next meeting.

6 - Other Business

• Not discussed

▶️7 - Adjourn