08/30/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 0:47:34
Duration 1:53:01
Loaded: 42.27%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:05:27
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:26
    Good morning, WMWG. This is Blake Holt with LCRA.
  • 00:00:29
    Can I get a quick audio check?
  • 00:00:36
    Good deal. Welcome to August meeting.
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt
    00:00:39
    Before we get rolling, I'd like for Brittany to pull up the
  • 00:00:42
    antitrust admonition and
  • 00:00:48
    give you all a few seconds to review.
  • 00:00:57
    All right, thanks for your attention to that. Brittany. If you wouldn't mind
  • 00:01:01
    navigating back to the agenda, we're going to shuffle some items
  • 00:01:05
    around today due to some scheduling conflicts, so we'll move
  • 00:01:09
    Luis's presentations to the end of the agenda and
  • Item 4 - Pricing Impacts of LDL Override Decisions made during 4/8 Eclipse - Cory Carswel
    00:01:13
    start with number four. There was a request at
  • 00:01:17
    WMS for ERCOT to give some detail around price impacts
  • 00:01:21
    for the low dispatch limit override instructions that were giving
  • 00:01:25
    during the eclipse in April. Received word
  • 00:01:29
    back from the ERCOT team that they're still working on this analysis and had some
  • 00:01:33
    other priorities pop up. So we'll plan on keeping
  • 00:01:36
    this on the agenda for a September discussion instead
  • 00:01:40
    of today.
  • 00:01:44
    Onto number five, NPRR1230.
  • Item 5 - NPRR1230 Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED - Monitoring - Blake Holt
    00:01:49
    The ERCOT board approved this NPRR at their August
  • 00:01:53
    meeting, and I believe it's most likely going
  • 00:01:56
    to be approved by the PUC in late September,
  • 00:01:59
    which would set an effective date of October 1
  • 00:02:02
    for the new methodology for the dynamics shadow price calculations
  • 00:02:07
    at TAC. There was a recommendation for some regular
  • 00:02:11
    monitoring of the effectiveness of the new methodology,
  • 00:02:15
    and I believe this is something that ERCOT stated they could support.
  • 00:02:20
    But the question for the group is, where should this discussion
  • 00:02:24
    take place, WMWG or CMWG?
  • 00:02:28
    The previous analysis that ERCOT presented consisted of
  • 00:02:32
    a violation relief in megawatt hours, as well as an
  • 00:02:36
    increase to the market solution in terms of dollars.
  • 00:02:40
    I think this analysis will detail the effects
  • 00:02:44
    of congestion management, and it might
  • 00:02:47
    fit better at CMWG. But I wanted
  • 00:02:50
    to open the floor up to the group and see if anyone else feels
  • 00:02:54
    differently,
  • 00:03:09
    not see anyone in the queue or the chat.
  • 00:03:14
    So I'll bring that suggestion to WMS that
  • 00:03:19
    CMWG should, should probably take this on. I don't know if anyone
  • 00:03:23
    on the call from ERCOT has an opinion there of the type of
  • 00:03:27
    analysis they may bring. Has anyone
  • 00:03:30
    considered that yet?
  • 00:03:35
    Brian, go ahead. Yeah, thanks, Blake.
  • 00:03:39
    I think that makes sense as well. We've had
  • 00:03:43
    a few things in front of us at the moment, so we don't have anything
  • 00:03:47
    to share today. But I think the recommendation to
  • 00:03:50
    bring this to CMWG makes sense to us
  • 00:03:53
    as well. So we'll plan to look to.
  • 00:03:57
    I'm not sure offhand when that next meeting is, but we'll look
  • 00:04:00
    to have more information or at least an update on when we'll have
  • 00:04:04
    more information on the impacts of
  • 00:04:09
    this new NPRR, or I guess,
  • 00:04:12
    the potential impacts of this NPRR.
  • 00:04:16
    Thanks, Ryan. I appreciate it.
  • 00:04:21
    All right, moving right along, number six on the agenda
  • 00:04:25
    is NPRR1235, which is the DRRS NPRR.
  • 00:04:30
    Since we've met last, ERCOT's filed
  • 00:04:34
    some new comments for this NPRR and want to turn the floor
  • 00:04:38
    over to Ryan again to discuss them.
  • Item 6 - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service - Next Steps - Ryan King
    00:04:43
    Thanks very much, Blake. So the purpose of this,
  • 00:04:48
    these comments was more to just codify
  • 00:04:52
    what we have been saying in various
  • 00:04:55
    stakeholder workshops and discussions for the last little while.
  • 00:04:59
    And that's the idea that we think it
  • 00:05:03
    makes sense to look at DRRS
  • 00:05:07
    in terms of a phase one NPRR,
  • 00:05:10
    which kind of locks down the things that we feel
  • 00:05:13
    fairly confident around to allow that to move forward.
  • 00:05:17
    But we also understand the concerns that have been noted
  • 00:05:21
    in comments from stakeholders that they
  • 00:05:24
    want to see a firm commitment from ERCOT to
  • 00:05:29
    have a phase two discussion sooner rather than later.
  • 00:05:32
    So the substance of these comments is to just commit
  • 00:05:37
    from ERCOT to have an
  • 00:05:40
    NPRR out for discussion later this year, and that will focus
  • 00:05:44
    specifically on the issues around, I think,
  • 00:05:48
    mostly around the participation of energy storage resources in DRRS.
  • 00:05:52
    So that's the substance of the commitment and the substance
  • 00:05:56
    of the comments. I did want to make one clarification, if I
  • 00:06:00
    might. This was discussed earlier this week,
  • 00:06:03
    I believe, on Monday at the SAWG.
  • 00:06:07
    I wanted to clarify that probably could have been clearer
  • 00:06:11
    in that discussion in terms of the commitment from
  • 00:06:15
    ERCOT as reflected in these comments. We're really
  • 00:06:19
    committing to start that phase two discussion this year
  • 00:06:22
    in the form of presentations in an NPRR.
  • 00:06:26
    Practically speaking, we can't actually make firm guarantees
  • 00:06:30
    one way or the other at this time around the implementation,
  • 00:06:33
    because implementation is not just a function of,
  • 00:06:37
    you know, what we're discussing now, but we actually have to understand what the completed
  • 00:06:41
    NPRR design that we work with stakeholders to put
  • 00:06:45
    together and the IA assessment are going to weigh in
  • 00:06:48
    on when that can be implemented.
  • 00:06:52
    That's not to say we wouldn't. We certainly would try
  • 00:06:56
    as best we can to have,
  • 00:06:59
    you know, multiple projects that work together implemented at the same time.
  • 00:07:03
    I just wanted to make clear that we can't make that kind of finding
  • 00:07:07
    commitment at this point because we simply don't have that work done.
  • 00:07:10
    So my apologies if I created any unnecessary
  • 00:07:14
    confusion on that part. I think the commitment at this point is
  • 00:07:18
    really around having the NPRR out, getting the stakeholder input,
  • 00:07:22
    and getting a design that we can include it for future implementation.
  • 00:07:26
    So I do see some questions. I actually do want to
  • 00:07:30
    go over the actual mprrtainous to highlight what's in it.
  • 00:07:34
    But maybe I'll pause there just to see if there are questions and comments on
  • 00:07:37
    the comments that are filed.
  • 00:07:41
    Go ahead, Bill. Yeah, Ryan.
  • 00:07:45
    I guess my question is really related to phase two.
  • 00:07:49
    One is I get the approach.
  • 00:07:54
    We support the approach and how
  • 00:07:58
    you have the DRRS product structured because it.
  • 00:08:01
    It's clearly designed to meet the statutory requirement
  • 00:08:05
    to reduce RUC, which is critical for this product
  • 00:08:08
    to do. And I also appreciate that
  • 00:08:12
    we'll be talking about phase two sooner rather than later,
  • 00:08:15
    which I think is important. That's definitely a role here for ESRS.
  • 00:08:20
    I think that the challenge there that we will be looking for
  • 00:08:23
    ERCOT to do is to bring
  • 00:08:29
    forward a design where it's clear that
  • 00:08:32
    ESR capacity or unused state of charge will be considered
  • 00:08:36
    in the RUC engine so that it can also meet the goal of
  • 00:08:40
    reducing future RUC dispatch.
  • 00:08:43
    When in phase two, ESRs are considered in the DRRS product,
  • 00:08:46
    that is critical for this product. That is why it was created.
  • 00:08:50
    So to make sure that it's on equal footing with thermal resources,
  • 00:08:54
    ESRs would need to be considered in the RUC engine as well, in any available
  • 00:08:57
    dispatchable capacity that they could provide, given the four hour
  • 00:09:01
    requirement, should be included and eligible for RUC.
  • 00:09:05
    That way, ESRs can sell DRRS and be treated the
  • 00:09:08
    same as thermal resources and would reduce future RUC instructions.
  • 00:09:12
    I think we meet those objectives, then,
  • 00:09:15
    you know, phase two should proceed as quickly as possible.
  • 00:09:18
    So thank you.
  • 00:09:23
    Yes, thank you, Bill.
  • 00:09:26
    I don't want to say how this
  • 00:09:29
    would be done, but I will take the point that it will
  • 00:09:33
    need to be one consideration among many as we talk
  • 00:09:36
    about phase two. So thank you for that.
  • 00:09:41
    Next in the queue is Michael. Yeah. Thank you.
  • 00:09:45
    Michael Jewell, on behalf of the joint commenters that filed additional
  • 00:09:49
    set of comments with regard to this two phase approach.
  • 00:09:53
    And, you know, first off, Ryan, I really appreciated the
  • 00:09:56
    commitment that was expressed on Monday and
  • 00:10:01
    again today with regard to filing an NPRR before the end of
  • 00:10:05
    2024.
  • 00:10:08
    Very disappointed to hear the backing off of
  • 00:10:12
    starting DRRS without ESRs being eligible to participate.
  • 00:10:17
    You know, pardon me, Michael. I didn't actually say
  • 00:10:21
    that we wouldn't. I just said that we can't make a guarantee one
  • 00:10:25
    way or the other. No, I appreciate that clarification. I want to
  • 00:10:28
    make sure that's clear. Thank you. Yeah. And I think that the
  • 00:10:32
    frustration and the concern is, as we, you know, as we've demonstrated in
  • 00:10:35
    the comments, is that the legislative intent is clear that esrs
  • 00:10:39
    were intended to be able to participate. And so that's part
  • 00:10:43
    of implementing the legislation. Is that as well?
  • 00:10:46
    So that's what we are concerned about.
  • 00:10:49
    The. You know, I think with, with Bill's comment,
  • 00:10:53
    my understanding is that the capacity
  • 00:10:57
    available from an ESR is
  • 00:11:01
    considered by the rec engine now in determining whether
  • 00:11:05
    to dispatch a RUC unit. Is that
  • 00:11:08
    correct?
  • 00:11:13
    I thought that was part of the implementation of
  • 00:11:16
    NPRR1186.
  • 00:11:21
    Yes, that's my understanding that it is.
  • 00:11:24
    I think this. I think Bill's question was more
  • 00:11:28
    around the. If an ESR is providing
  • 00:11:31
    DRRS, how that would be considered.
  • 00:11:36
    Yeah. And I. Obviously, if it's. If a DSR is consider.
  • 00:11:40
    Is providing DRRS, it would need to be considered
  • 00:11:44
    cop type of thing. And those, those type of.
  • 00:11:50
    I'm sorry. No, I was just going to say, I don't
  • 00:11:53
    want to speak for belt. So he might have a comment after. Yeah, no,
  • 00:11:57
    you guys got it. That was. That was my point.
  • 00:12:00
    ESR is providing DRRS should. Their available capacity should
  • 00:12:04
    be included in the RUC engine, probably based on
  • 00:12:08
    the projected state of charge submitted in the cop, so that it meets the
  • 00:12:11
    same objective of reducing future RUC. So I think
  • 00:12:15
    we're all talking about the same thing. I would like to see how ERCOT plans
  • 00:12:18
    to do that. Yeah, Bill and I agree. I think we are talking about
  • 00:12:22
    the same thing. So that makes sense. And I think
  • 00:12:25
    that there was a discussion, I guess, a week ago today with
  • 00:12:29
    regard to the implementation of OBDRR040,
  • 00:12:33
    where ERCOT has developed a process for online
  • 00:12:38
    CLRs being eligible to, being able to provide
  • 00:12:42
    offline, nonspan and having worked through that process.
  • 00:12:45
    And that was one of the things that we thought that what ERCOT
  • 00:12:49
    has done there probably is very analogous to what would
  • 00:12:52
    need to be thought about with regard to this. But we continue to.
  • 00:12:57
    Our goal is to see about getting ESRs implemented
  • 00:13:01
    in DRRS consistent with the legislative intent of the
  • 00:13:06
    statute. And so that was the purpose of the comments
  • 00:13:09
    that we filed, was to move forward on that. Given the fact that
  • 00:13:13
    DIRS is not going to be implemented, it's not intended to
  • 00:13:17
    be implemented until after the implementation of real time co optimization,
  • 00:13:21
    it just feels like there should be enough time to be able to wrap
  • 00:13:24
    this all up at one time. And that's what we were trying to do.
  • 00:13:31
    Thank you very much for that, Michael. And I just want to be.
  • 00:13:35
    Maybe, I want to be just clear that
  • 00:13:39
    I don't see any. This is something that we would look at as
  • 00:13:43
    part of when we would do the implementation.
  • 00:13:46
    My point of clarification was just saying that
  • 00:13:50
    at this point, I couldn't be definitive because I would be making
  • 00:13:54
    a, you know, taking a position on something that's not known
  • 00:13:58
    yet. So I do. I do take the point, and that's
  • 00:14:01
    why I kind of wanted to say one way or the other is where we
  • 00:14:05
    are at this point. But certainly the, the questions around what
  • 00:14:10
    is required are very important. So I just wanted to kind of note
  • 00:14:16
    your comment. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I think
  • 00:14:19
    the other thing I'd like to emphasize, we've got four hour batteries coming into the
  • 00:14:22
    market today and very soon.
  • 00:14:27
    And so the market signals matter. And so
  • 00:14:30
    market signals in support of longer duration batteries
  • 00:14:34
    coming to the market is a good thing because especially
  • 00:14:38
    with the legislative intent, I think it's been having the effect that
  • 00:14:42
    that was desired.
  • 00:14:51
    Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I'm seeing an empty queue.
  • 00:14:57
    I guess just from the LCRA's perspective,
  • 00:15:01
    we're supportive of what can be included in
  • 00:15:04
    phase one. If there is a possibility of battery
  • 00:15:08
    inclusion, we're supportive of that, but also appreciate the,
  • 00:15:11
    the complexity that that would require. So I
  • 00:15:15
    guess before we talk about next steps from
  • 00:15:19
    your perspective, Ryan, I see that Andrew Reimers has a question in
  • 00:15:22
    the queue. Andrew, go ahead. Hey, guys,
  • 00:15:25
    I was just curious. I got in a little late, so forgive me if I'm
  • 00:15:28
    asking you to repeat yourself, what the kind of next step this is as far
  • 00:15:33
    as it making its way through the
  • 00:15:36
    stakeholder process? Is this going to be at PRS in a couple weeks?
  • 00:15:44
    So NPRR1235,
  • 00:15:48
    I believe, is tabled at PRS.
  • 00:15:54
    PRS, pardon me?
  • 00:15:57
    So it's conceivable that it could come up. But right now,
  • 00:16:00
    I think we're trying to work it through the stakeholder
  • 00:16:04
    process, which is. But I do want to kind of highlight some,
  • 00:16:07
    some points around 1235 as it is.
  • 00:16:11
    But I can wait until the kind
  • 00:16:14
    of queue is clear.
  • 00:16:18
    Yeah, I was just going to follow up on that question real fast.
  • 00:16:22
    Luminant requested that 1235 remain tabled
  • 00:16:25
    at SAWG.
  • 00:16:30
    Okay, thank you for that clarification.
  • 00:16:40
    So I guess we're to the point of what does WMS
  • 00:16:44
    want to recommend? Would we like to still keep this on the table to
  • 00:16:48
    discuss, you know, anything else that comes up out
  • 00:16:52
    of the, the SAWG discussions or what
  • 00:16:56
    do folks in the group feel like our next steps?
  • 00:17:00
    Blake, if I may, there are a
  • 00:17:03
    couple of things in 1235 as proposed
  • 00:17:07
    that I actually just wanted to do a quick check
  • 00:17:11
    with stakeholders because understandably,
  • 00:17:15
    a lot of the discussion on this NPRR has been
  • 00:17:19
    about what's not in this NPRR. But I.
  • 00:17:22
    There are a. Just two or three things that I
  • 00:17:26
    wanted to maybe draw the working group's attention to
  • 00:17:30
    just to make sure maybe they haven't been missed or understood
  • 00:17:36
    before we get into the kind of next steps,
  • 00:17:40
    if that's okay. Absolutely. Please go ahead. Rent.
  • 00:17:43
    Okay, so is this the.
  • 00:17:46
    Okay, I think this is the. The NPRR1235
  • 00:17:50
    is drafted.
  • 00:17:54
    If you can go to.
  • 00:17:57
    I think it's in the gray box. Section four,
  • 00:18:01
    4.1.12.
  • 00:18:29
    Sorry, I know it's a bit of a long NPRR.
  • 00:18:35
    There we are. Oh, yeah. Okay. So this
  • 00:18:39
    section really covers the ancillary
  • 00:18:42
    service demand curve that would be applied for DRRS in
  • 00:18:46
    the day ahead market. So it's only applicable to the
  • 00:18:49
    day ahead market. But if you scroll down just a little bit further.
  • 00:19:01
    There we are, number eight. Just note
  • 00:19:05
    that we had proposed a value of basically a
  • 00:19:09
    constant value equal to $150 per
  • 00:19:12
    megawatt hour. I think at the time, this seemed to
  • 00:19:16
    put it below what would be expected to be the lowest starting
  • 00:19:20
    point for Non-Spin.
  • 00:19:23
    But I just wanted to make sure that people saw that
  • 00:19:27
    and if they had any questions around the
  • 00:19:31
    ASDC as proposed.
  • 00:19:36
    Bill, you want to ask your question? Yeah, thanks.
  • 00:19:39
    Um, I don't have a problem with the value, Ryan. I'm just.
  • 00:19:44
    This is replacing the price floor. Didn't we. We talked about having a
  • 00:19:47
    price floor for this at some point. Right. And this would pretty much act in
  • 00:19:53
    a similar way. I don't think there's a price floor in here.
  • 00:19:56
    Right. And 1235, there is no price floor. So this is only
  • 00:20:00
    talking about the day head market. Okay.
  • 00:20:03
    So there's not a real time and there is. And that was the other
  • 00:20:07
    thing, actually, that I. Second of three things I wanted to note
  • 00:20:11
    is that when these resources are deployed
  • 00:20:14
    to provide DRRS, there is no price floor associated with this
  • 00:20:18
    capacity. It is subject to
  • 00:20:22
    the reliability deployment price adder.
  • 00:20:24
    It's in some ways akin to the deployment of
  • 00:20:28
    offline Non-Spin today. Okay, thanks.
  • 00:20:37
    Steve Reedy, do you have a question?
  • 00:20:42
    Yeah, yeah, thanks. When it.
  • 00:20:47
    I should look it up myself when it's in the
  • 00:20:50
    RDPA. How is that deployed capacity
  • 00:20:54
    factored into the RDPA, Ryan?
  • 00:21:00
    I think if we go to 6.57.3,
  • 00:21:02
    .1 that
  • 00:21:09
    could be the right. If that's the right section,
  • 00:21:30
    I'm just going to look on my own here while looking that
  • 00:21:52
    section open now.
  • 00:21:57
    Oh, I know this is an unwieldy one, but I think that's the section and
  • 00:22:00
    then if it. If you go to that 6.573.1,
  • 00:22:07
    that should note it. And then there's a section
  • 00:22:11
    about how.
  • 00:22:25
    Blake, can I hop for just one? Make one quick
  • 00:22:28
    suggestion? Yes, sir. Yeah,
  • 00:22:31
    Ryan? My recollection is it goes into the RDPA just like any
  • 00:22:35
    other resource that's dispatched as a RUC unit.
  • 00:22:38
    Yes. I don't recall the citation,
  • 00:22:42
    though. Oh,
  • 00:22:45
    so it acts just like RUC.
  • 00:22:52
    Perfect. Yeah. And if you just scroll down a little bit, you should
  • 00:22:56
    see that we've added a section ERCOT directed deployment.
  • 00:23:00
    And then in subsection.
  • 00:23:04
    Yeah. Section two, we've talked about.
  • 00:23:07
    I think that that accords with what Michael just said.
  • 00:23:12
    Oh, okay. So you set the LSL to
  • 00:23:16
    zero or the LDL to zero, and the.
  • 00:23:21
    But unlike RUC, there's not going to be the offer
  • 00:23:25
    floor. So what'll happen is the.
  • 00:23:31
    The LDL energy won't be shoved in as price
  • 00:23:35
    taking. It'll just be put in as whatever the
  • 00:23:39
    EOC is for those levels. Is that correct?
  • 00:23:44
    Okay, thanks.
  • 00:23:49
    Thank you. And then the final
  • 00:23:52
    section. And apologies, Brittany.
  • 00:23:56
    I'm moving around 5.5.2.
  • 00:24:05
    Yep. Oh, you're right there.
  • 00:24:13
    It's 5.5.2,
  • 00:24:15
    subsections 17 and 18.
  • 00:24:25
    Perfect. Yes. So I also just wanted to
  • 00:24:28
    draw attention to that value, if you
  • 00:24:32
    scroll up just a little bit. Perfect. Thank you.
  • 00:24:35
    That we had to make DRRS
  • 00:24:39
    appear cheaper in
  • 00:24:42
    the RUC engine, which, as Bill mentioned,
  • 00:24:45
    was an important piece of the statutory
  • 00:24:50
    requirement. We had proposed a scaling
  • 00:24:54
    factor of 20%, I believe,
  • 00:24:58
    in some historical analysis, that seemed to be a sweet spot in
  • 00:25:02
    terms of not making it appear too cheap, but getting
  • 00:25:07
    kind of a reasonable outcome. So, again,
  • 00:25:10
    this was a value that we have included for some time, but because
  • 00:25:14
    it hasn't been discussed for a while, I just wanted to draw people's
  • 00:25:17
    attention to that as well.
  • 00:25:23
    Thanks, Ryan. Michael, did you get your question answered earlier,
  • 00:25:27
    or were you just jumping in for the comment? Yeah, I was
  • 00:25:30
    just trying to help on the inclusion in the RDPA.
  • 00:25:33
    So that was it. Thank you. Got you. Thank you, sir.
  • 00:25:36
    Shane Thomas, do you have a question? I did. Thanks,
  • 00:25:40
    Blake. My question is on
  • 00:25:44
    self deployment for DRRS. Has that been discussed yet? Was that set
  • 00:25:48
    in this NPRR self
  • 00:25:55
    deployment, or, like, were they able to go self commit
  • 00:25:58
    themselves and jump in the market, or they have to set aside on DRRS
  • 00:26:03
    until deployed. It's an offline only,
  • 00:26:07
    so they can't really self. Well, yeah, like, online,
  • 00:26:11
    offline, Non-Spin can commit. That's what it has. The offer floor for.
  • 00:26:14
    Right.
  • 00:26:17
    Yeah. There's no offer floor associated,
  • 00:26:20
    but there's no, like, standing offer.
  • 00:26:23
    Okay. So whatever capacity
  • 00:26:27
    is committed to this product will sit on the sideline until it's deployed.
  • 00:26:32
    That's correct.
  • 00:26:35
    Thanks for that clarification.
  • 00:26:43
    All right, Ryan, we have an empty queue.
  • 00:26:46
    Okay. Well, I appreciate everyone's time on
  • 00:26:49
    this and the discussion on this, but that's. That's all for me.
  • 00:26:56
    Thank you, sir. I guess. Are there any strong feelings from
  • 00:27:00
    the group of endorsement or
  • 00:27:04
    wanting to keep this on the table for further discussion?
  • 00:27:15
    Mister Barnes, is the. Is the preference from
  • 00:27:19
    ERCOT to have phase two in a new NPRR?
  • 00:27:23
    I think that's. Is that the case?
  • 00:27:26
    Yes. Bell, that that's what we had proposed to do, is that we were
  • 00:27:30
    hoping, on the basis of saying yes, we will have another
  • 00:27:33
    NPRR. On the basis of that commitment, we could allow
  • 00:27:37
    1235 to move forward.
  • 00:27:41
    Okay. I mean, we support that direction.
  • 00:27:45
    I understand Michael's clients might want to
  • 00:27:49
    see the language incorporated in 1235, though. But I think getting the
  • 00:27:53
    kind of bones in place for this product through this NPRR
  • 00:27:56
    makes sense. And following on with a separate NPRR
  • 00:28:00
    for phase two, because I think there's some. There's going to be some
  • 00:28:04
    different details we have to work out there that might take some time,
  • 00:28:07
    particularly given how RTC is going to look. But I'm
  • 00:28:13
    not sure if we can get consensus with
  • 00:28:17
    Michael's folks on this, but NRG is comfortable moving
  • 00:28:21
    this forward.
  • 00:28:25
    Thanks, Bill. From LCRA's perspective, we're in
  • 00:28:28
    the same boat. Appreciate the complexity and
  • 00:28:32
    realize it might benefit from some additional discussion.
  • 00:28:36
    So we're in the same spot. I do see Michael's jumped in
  • 00:28:40
    the queue. Michael. Yeah. Blake, thank you.
  • 00:28:43
    And like Bill said, obviously our perspective is
  • 00:28:47
    we'd love to see ESR is rolled in in
  • 00:28:51
    the context of this as we're moving forward.
  • 00:28:55
    So just fulfill us right in that regard. Thank you.
  • 00:29:02
    Thanks for that, Michael. I'll make
  • 00:29:05
    sure to communicate the discussion that we heard today and then
  • 00:29:09
    also the points of view that we heard from y'all as well. Back to
  • 00:29:12
    WMS. Any last thoughts before we
  • 00:29:16
    move on?
  • 00:29:21
    All right, thank you for that discussion.
  • 00:29:28
    So, Brittany, you want to go ahead and ask your question?
  • 00:29:40
    Brittany, if you're speaking, we can't hear you.
  • 00:29:49
    All right, I'll read the chat. Brittany's asking if we're recommending that WMS endorse
  • 00:29:54
    1235 as submitted or as amended with the comments or
  • 00:29:57
    recommending it stay tabled. My current read of the room
  • 00:30:01
    is there's some support for
  • 00:30:05
    moving forward with ERCOT's
  • 00:30:09
    version, original version, and with the commitment
  • 00:30:13
    for the phase two and their recent comments, or as much
  • 00:30:17
    of a commitment as that is. And then there's also, you know,
  • 00:30:23
    a portion of folks would, would like to see
  • 00:30:26
    esrs included in the first phase. I don't think that we have
  • 00:30:30
    consensus from the group. So my thoughts
  • 00:30:34
    were to just communicate that to WMS,
  • 00:30:41
    communicate the split. Am I reading the room correctly?
  • 00:30:47
    All right. Think I satisfied Brittany?
  • 00:30:51
    It sounds. Sounds reasonable, Blake. Okay, thanks, Bill.
  • 00:30:59
    All right, so next item up for business is
  • 00:31:02
    NPRR1229, the real time
  • 00:31:06
    CMP energy payment. NPRR from STEC.
  • 00:31:11
    Just to remind the group, last month, Ino and
  • 00:31:15
    the ERCOT team submitted a list of policy
  • 00:31:18
    questions that they needed market feedback on before
  • 00:31:21
    making any updates to the submitted NPRR.
  • 00:31:26
    Brittany, I'm curious if you have the ability to pull those up.
  • 00:31:31
    They may have been posted on the last WMWG
  • 00:31:34
    meeting page.
  • 00:31:39
    And then while we're getting those pulled up,
  • 00:31:43
    I'd like to turn the floor over to Ino if he's available to talk
  • 00:31:47
    about what he's heard or if he's gotten any feedback from the group.
  • 00:31:51
    Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, sir, loud and clear. Great.
  • 00:31:55
    Thank you.
  • Item 7 - NPRR1229 RTM CMP Energy Payment - Policy Questions - Ino Gonzalez
    00:31:59
    We have only received comments from staff
  • 00:32:04
    and the questions that we posted. I want to say upfront
  • 00:32:08
    that ERCOT is ready to help to
  • 00:32:11
    support staff and market participants in developing
  • 00:32:17
    an NPRR, the needs of the market.
  • 00:32:20
    That is for sure. Unfortunately, the NPRR itself has written,
  • 00:32:25
    we cannot implement. And there's also some
  • 00:32:29
    significant policy decisions that need to be made. And that was the purpose
  • 00:32:32
    of the, of the questions.
  • 00:32:35
    Since that time, I received comments
  • 00:32:39
    from stack, and in fact, I just
  • 00:32:43
    a couple minutes ago, I noticed that Lucas
  • 00:32:47
    sent me a draft of NPRR with
  • 00:32:51
    some changes. And I just noticed that a couple minutes ago, he sent out.
  • 00:32:54
    He sent them out yesterday. Having said that,
  • 00:32:59
    one of the policy questions that we had was, do we
  • 00:33:02
    pay for repair costs or as well as capital expenditures?
  • 00:33:06
    Meaning are we going to pay for a new turbine? For example,
  • 00:33:11
    Stack made it clear that the intent was to pay for repairs.
  • 00:33:14
    So we gave some language to stag to clarify
  • 00:33:18
    that in the NPRR. Another thing
  • 00:33:22
    that we have, policy question is on the last opportunity,
  • 00:33:26
    do we pay lost opportunity all
  • 00:33:29
    the time during the outage period, which could be
  • 00:33:33
    days, weeks, or months for that matter.
  • 00:33:37
    And there's also the NPRR was nothing clear.
  • 00:33:41
    Do we pay lost opportunity at the same time we pay for bilateral
  • 00:33:45
    contracts. Stack made it clear that if
  • 00:33:49
    they pay for any bilateral contracts, such as HDL override,
  • 00:33:53
    then we don't pay for loss opportunity and vice versa. That point
  • 00:33:57
    was not made clear to us in the NPRR,
  • 00:34:00
    so stack is trying to provide clarification to that end.
  • 00:34:04
    However, they still question the policy on whether
  • 00:34:08
    we paid for lost opportunity, and we're hoping that
  • 00:34:11
    stakeholders will address those policy questions.
  • 00:34:15
    So, even if we help staff clarify the NPRR,
  • 00:34:18
    it doesn't necessarily mean that the policy questions have been
  • 00:34:22
    addressed or that ERCOT agrees you those policy questions.
  • 00:34:27
    As an example,
  • 00:34:29
    if a generator cannot
  • 00:34:33
    go offline because it's
  • 00:34:37
    going to cost a unit to trip offline,
  • 00:34:41
    and can the generator say to ERCOT,
  • 00:34:45
    no, don't trip me offline because it's going to cost
  • 00:34:48
    money to repair. So, again, this is several questions
  • 00:34:52
    that need to be addressed, and I think it has to be addressed by
  • 00:34:56
    the whole body, not just by ERCOT or stack discussing
  • 00:35:01
    this internally.
  • 00:35:06
    Thanks, Eno. Just some thoughts from us.
  • 00:35:11
    We cracked open the document and took a look, but just had some more general
  • 00:35:14
    questions for ERCOT and for stack before
  • 00:35:19
    we could get any more detail on these questions.
  • 00:35:23
    So I believe when this was introduced, maybe at PRS,
  • 00:35:27
    it sounded like this CMP situation
  • 00:35:31
    that STEC was in was perhaps optional.
  • 00:35:35
    Did they have a. And so we were curious, did they have a chance to
  • 00:35:38
    agree to or to oppose the CMP? And then
  • 00:35:42
    additionally, we were wondering if ERCOT and Stack
  • 00:35:46
    could improve communication around
  • 00:35:49
    this issue to perhaps provide enough advance notice that
  • 00:35:53
    this was going to come up to provide a. Maybe a hedging opportunity
  • 00:35:58
    in some way. So, those are just some general questions
  • 00:36:01
    that we have. And, you know, I see. I see
  • 00:36:05
    Steve and Bill are in the queue, but I'd like to go ahead and jump
  • 00:36:08
    ahead to Lucas and maybe Freddie if. If their
  • 00:36:12
    responses are directly related to the questions
  • 00:36:16
    I asked. Lucas, go ahead.
  • 00:36:21
    Hey, Blake. Yeah. So,
  • 00:36:25
    I guess, kind of in order the
  • 00:36:28
    ability to speak to ERCOT ahead
  • 00:36:32
    of time and come to some form of agreement on the CMP.
  • 00:36:38
    It was discussed after last
  • 00:36:42
    year's experience on implementing
  • 00:36:47
    a CMP, but given the situation,
  • 00:36:52
    there hasn't been any agreement on the.
  • 00:36:55
    On a procedure or practice,
  • 00:36:59
    and then there has been multiple
  • 00:37:04
    looks, methods reviewed
  • 00:37:08
    for, as an
  • 00:37:11
    option, besides the particular procedure
  • 00:37:17
    that ERCOT has chosen.
  • 00:37:21
    But I don't believe any of those provide the same,
  • 00:37:25
    you know, level reliability or what ERCOT's seeking
  • 00:37:30
    there. So I know Freddie has way more insight
  • 00:37:36
    on that, on that part. So he. He can probably talk to what.
  • 00:37:41
    What was reviewed.
  • 00:37:45
    All right, thanks, Lucas? Yeah. Blake. Yeah, and just to respond to
  • 00:37:49
    your question, so, normally, when. When we create these
  • 00:37:52
    cmps. Therefore, some projected
  • 00:37:56
    reliability issue that we're expecting to see in
  • 00:38:00
    some cases where we're in real time and
  • 00:38:04
    there is some reliability, you know, concern the
  • 00:38:08
    operators will make, give an operating instruction for
  • 00:38:13
    some sort of switching if that's, if that's the case.
  • 00:38:17
    And so in this case, the operator did do that,
  • 00:38:20
    there was a operational risk. They gave an operating
  • 00:38:24
    instruction, and that helped reduce the
  • 00:38:30
    reliability risk. We did after the fact.
  • 00:38:34
    In those cases, after the fact, we go in and try to
  • 00:38:38
    document it. We share the CMP documentation
  • 00:38:41
    with the affected entities and then go from there.
  • 00:38:46
    In this case, as Lucas mentioned, there was some concerns
  • 00:38:50
    on his end, but the
  • 00:38:54
    control room does still have the ability to
  • 00:38:58
    give an operating instruction. In this case,
  • 00:39:02
    it is a fairly significant operational risk.
  • 00:39:05
    And if needed, they would give that operating instruction.
  • 00:39:13
    And then that operating instruction, Freddie, is not,
  • 00:39:16
    is not an optional thing.
  • 00:39:19
    It's, y'all are expected stack
  • 00:39:22
    to comply with that in that situation and when it comes up in real
  • 00:39:26
    time, correct? Yeah.
  • 00:39:29
    And I will say in most cases,
  • 00:39:33
    you know, that's something we try to work through or look for a
  • 00:39:38
    different option if there is some sort of disagreement
  • 00:39:42
    there. But in this case, there are not very many options
  • 00:39:46
    and the reliability risk is fairly
  • 00:39:50
    significant.
  • 00:39:55
    Thank you. You know, I'm a little sympathetic if
  • 00:40:00
    the instruction is not optional. However,
  • 00:40:04
    you know, I do, we do have some concerns about guardrails
  • 00:40:08
    in this situation. And, you know, Ino mentioned some of the,
  • 00:40:12
    you know, length of, length of outage and
  • 00:40:15
    some of the line items that are included in the original NPRR that I
  • 00:40:19
    think would need to be worked through. I don't think we're in a position to
  • 00:40:23
    give suggestions right now, but y'all
  • 00:40:27
    laying out the situation for me has been helpful. I'd like
  • 00:40:31
    to move forward in the queue to Steve, please go ahead.
  • 00:40:35
    Yeah, just hearing
  • 00:40:39
    Ino list off the policy issues
  • 00:40:42
    and with the discussion that is being held at the
  • 00:40:46
    commission at. And I see,
  • 00:40:49
    and I'm not, don't worry, I'm not asking for anyone from the PUC
  • 00:40:53
    to weigh in now, but I think that this might be an interesting
  • 00:40:57
    test case to discuss at the next TAC
  • 00:41:00
    meeting as to whether this
  • 00:41:04
    level of policy decision rises to PUC
  • 00:41:09
    consideration or not. Thanks,
  • 00:41:14
    Steve. I think that's a great suggestion. And there's some
  • 00:41:18
    detail that we can include in our communication up to WMS
  • 00:41:22
    to also get them to weigh in. So thank you for that,
  • 00:41:27
    Austin. So I
  • 00:41:31
    wanted to try to add some,
  • 00:41:35
    my thoughts to your question earlier, Blake, and I hope I get this right.
  • 00:41:39
    Um, so your question about,
  • 00:41:42
    you know, is this is the situation. How much. How much control
  • 00:41:46
    over the situation does the affected QSE have?
  • 00:41:50
    And I could, I think you kind of see it somewhat there under two a
  • 00:41:53
    and other concerns. It's my understanding that maybe
  • 00:41:57
    in some cases, the, the QSE doesn't have
  • 00:42:00
    much of a choice for the situation, but in others, the way the CMP gets
  • 00:42:03
    set up could even be requested or influenced by the
  • 00:42:08
    affected resource and
  • 00:42:11
    that there could even be some financial benefit to that arrangement
  • 00:42:16
    until, you know, some sort of. Some sort of kind of aggregating benefit
  • 00:42:20
    until the triggering, you know, until the situation this NPRR
  • 00:42:24
    setup took to address
  • 00:42:28
    gets triggered. So there
  • 00:42:32
    may be a finer split. You know, there may have to be some sort of
  • 00:42:35
    language in this NPRR to address that. You know, like if, if you're a victim,
  • 00:42:40
    maybe you can get compensation. If you're, you know, maybe if
  • 00:42:43
    you had a hand in this and maybe you benefited from it, maybe that's a
  • 00:42:47
    different route. And I don't really have the answers there. And this, there has been
  • 00:42:50
    some work on this NPRR since that was initially,
  • 00:42:53
    I initially understood that point. So maybe, maybe we've
  • 00:42:57
    taken some of that benefit away. But I just wanted to point that out,
  • 00:43:00
    that that was a really difficult thing to wrestle with.
  • 00:43:04
    For me, anyways, is trying to balance the benefit
  • 00:43:08
    against the cost because I don't think
  • 00:43:12
    we can recalculate the benefit on
  • 00:43:15
    our end.
  • 00:43:20
    Thanks, Austin. Eno, please go ahead.
  • 00:43:25
    Yes, I just want to agree with Steve's proposal.
  • 00:43:29
    I think regardless whether
  • 00:43:33
    or not we help stack clarify
  • 00:43:37
    the points on the NPRR, this is definitely a
  • 00:43:41
    significant policy impact to the market.
  • 00:43:45
    Could be a significant impact to the market that needs to be
  • 00:43:49
    rise to the level of TAC and maybe
  • 00:43:52
    PUCT. I agree with that.
  • 00:43:55
    I mean, even though even we're just focusing on repair
  • 00:43:59
    costs. So let me give you an example.
  • 00:44:02
    If a unit trips offline and
  • 00:44:07
    damages the generator shaft and
  • 00:44:12
    then requires repair, welding or whatever, you're talking millions,
  • 00:44:16
    you're not talking thousands. And so it may be
  • 00:44:20
    a repair cost, but those costs
  • 00:44:23
    could be significant. And I'm not suggesting that
  • 00:44:27
    stack or others should not recover those costs, but I believe
  • 00:44:32
    the impact to the market to be significant and
  • 00:44:36
    therefore needs to have a level of visibility
  • 00:44:41
    at the highest possible place.
  • 00:44:46
    And what I don't want is for market
  • 00:44:50
    participants to believe that just because we helped stack
  • 00:44:55
    clarify the NPRR that we are, the archive is
  • 00:44:58
    in support or in agreement with the concepts within the NPRR.
  • 00:45:04
    Thanks.
  • 00:45:08
    Thanks. You know, in my opinion, y'all, y'all have been clear throughout this
  • 00:45:12
    process, but I appreciate your comments.
  • 00:45:16
    I don't see anyone else in the queue. And actually,
  • 00:45:19
    Lucas, please go ahead.
  • 00:45:25
    Yeah, I was just going to echo what Ino said earlier.
  • 00:45:29
    I've been working with folks at ERCOT and trying to
  • 00:45:34
    input some of the guardrails that I know market
  • 00:45:38
    participants have mentioned in other places.
  • 00:45:41
    Open endedness and. And such.
  • 00:45:44
    We're just, you know, we're focused on fixing
  • 00:45:48
    the harm that could. That could come from something
  • 00:45:53
    that. That we don't have an option on and
  • 00:45:57
    understand that it can touch many
  • 00:46:03
    things that, you know, has. Has brought
  • 00:46:06
    up. Just looking for a solution here and
  • 00:46:13
    we'll continue to work on it so we can get something that's.
  • 00:46:17
    That's workable. Thank you all.
  • 00:46:21
    Thank you, Lucas. Appreciate you bringing this to light, and we'll
  • 00:46:25
    make sure to communicate what we've heard up the chain.
  • 00:46:29
    And thanks for everyone's suggestions today.
  • 00:46:36
    All right, the next item on the agenda is
  • 00:46:40
    NPRR1238, the voluntary registration
  • 00:46:44
    of loads with curtailable load capabilities.
  • 00:46:48
    And as a reminder, this NPRR
  • 00:46:52
    creates a load type that requires a specific registration where
  • 00:46:57
    the load would agree to curtail in response to an ERCOT instruction.
  • 00:47:01
    And these instructions would occur prior to EEA.
  • 00:47:06
    It should be noted that these loads are not considered load resources
  • 00:47:11
    as it's currently drafted. No, as capacity would
  • 00:47:15
    be carried on them and their deployment will be accounted for
  • 00:47:19
    in the reliability deployment price adder process.
  • 00:47:23
    So, Katie Rich brought up a concern that
  • 00:47:26
    she'd like to address with the group around ORDC implications.
  • 00:47:30
    So, Katie, are you available? Yeah, Blake,
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 8 - NPRR1238 Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - ORDC Implications - Katie Rich
    00:47:34
    thanks for laying that out. I do know that Jodan's on the
  • 00:47:38
    line as well. So, Jodian, was there anything else that you wanted the
  • 00:47:42
    group to know about this before I go into the reason for
  • 00:47:45
    the referral? I appreciate
  • 00:47:48
    that, Katie. Yeah, this is Jodan from golden spread. And,
  • 00:47:51
    you know, currently, I think. I think Blake did a great job to get us
  • 00:47:54
    started for the conversation. I'll be well, welcome to take any questions, if anybody
  • 00:47:58
    has any questions beyond the kind of brief summary
  • 00:48:01
    he gave. But, yeah, let's go ahead and roll, unless anyone else
  • 00:48:05
    has questions on it. Okay, thanks,
  • 00:48:08
    shodia. So thanks for letting this
  • 00:48:12
    item be discussed here.
  • 00:48:15
    We brought this issue to OWG to talk about the deployment
  • 00:48:19
    trigger, but that also ties into the likely market prices
  • 00:48:23
    at the time these loads are called upon. And the
  • 00:48:27
    NPRR partially addresses the price formation issue
  • 00:48:31
    by the gray box language. And Brittany, if you want to scroll down to
  • 00:48:35
    six, five.
  • 00:48:38
    7.31. Right there. And then if
  • 00:48:41
    you scroll on down, I believe one of the last paragraphs has these
  • 00:48:46
    becls added. Yeah, right.
  • 00:48:49
    Okay. That's good. So that language
  • 00:48:54
    includes the ECL deployments and the termination of the RDPA.
  • 00:48:58
    And then later on, it goes on to state how it's going
  • 00:49:01
    to be calculated, which is great.
  • 00:49:05
    But since we're talking about the deployment of eecls being
  • 00:49:09
    tied to a minimum contingency level, it kind of implicates
  • 00:49:12
    the ORDC as well. So the
  • 00:49:16
    question becomes, how do we determine the impact to this adder,
  • 00:49:19
    and is it something that can be incorporated into this NPRR?
  • 00:49:24
    So that's what I wanted to set up for the group to talk about today.
  • 00:49:35
    Bob, please go ahead. Yeah, Katie, I mean,
  • 00:49:39
    the idea behind this is when ERCOT pulls
  • 00:49:42
    the trigger, there should be no response.
  • 00:49:47
    There should be no response because these guys should have
  • 00:49:51
    already shed before then.
  • 00:49:54
    So have you considered the fact that we're likely to
  • 00:49:57
    have no response from this
  • 00:50:02
    early curtailment,
  • 00:50:09
    Bob? I mean, as someone that was behind kind of
  • 00:50:13
    putting an original idea together,
  • 00:50:16
    I understood that, you know, we're going to probably have some price
  • 00:50:19
    responsive loads that may not be there, but in the event that they
  • 00:50:23
    are there, I think that's why they did take it into account in the
  • 00:50:27
    RDPA. But I'm just saying, are there other adders like the ORDC that
  • 00:50:30
    also should take this into account in
  • 00:50:34
    the event that there are a, you know, some amount of megawatts
  • 00:50:37
    that we still shed? I think that's why they laid out
  • 00:50:41
    all of the blocks and all of those things. So it is a, you know,
  • 00:50:45
    possibility there won't be that many megawatts that are shed,
  • 00:50:48
    but in the, in the case that there are. Just want to make
  • 00:50:52
    sure that we know how to account for them.
  • 00:50:55
    Yeah, you know, I don't think
  • 00:50:59
    I care what the adder is here because I don't think there's going
  • 00:51:02
    to be any response because they
  • 00:51:05
    should have long before that. So I think if we're going to help
  • 00:51:10
    this response somehow, we need to do
  • 00:51:14
    it on a megawatt hour, on a megawatt
  • 00:51:17
    basis or something, because I'm
  • 00:51:20
    not sure at an additional adder
  • 00:51:23
    for something that's not going to result in any megawatts
  • 00:51:27
    moving. Makes a lot of sense, but I'm fully
  • 00:51:31
    supportive of prices being near the cap when this
  • 00:51:34
    stuff is deployed.
  • 00:51:38
    All right, I'll stop.
  • 00:51:42
    Hey, this is Blake with LCRA.
  • 00:51:46
    So, Katie, I'm trying to understand what
  • 00:51:50
    you're proposing. Are you proposing
  • 00:51:53
    that this be accounted for in the ORDC
  • 00:51:58
    capacity calculations as well.
  • 00:52:02
    Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm thinking is that it's going to have,
  • 00:52:05
    if it has an impact on the RDPA, it's going to have an impact on
  • 00:52:08
    the ORDC as well. And so
  • 00:52:12
    I understand why the RDPA was kind of obvious. I mean,
  • 00:52:16
    you know, we already have NPRR1006. It's been sitting out there for some time.
  • 00:52:20
    That takes into account things like ers and
  • 00:52:24
    load management programs. So this was, you know, a natural
  • 00:52:27
    extension to the RDPA. But I just want to make sure that we're not missing
  • 00:52:31
    any other unintended consequences like what happens
  • 00:52:34
    with the ORDC.
  • 00:52:37
    Gotcha. So I may need to call on an ERCOT
  • 00:52:41
    friend for some theory here,
  • 00:52:44
    but my understanding is the capacity,
  • 00:52:48
    the load capacity that is considered in
  • 00:52:53
    the ORDC online capacity is loads
  • 00:52:58
    that typically carry as and
  • 00:53:02
    have some response to, some level of response
  • 00:53:05
    to as instructions,
  • 00:53:08
    and that typically non as carrying
  • 00:53:13
    loads are not in the online capacity.
  • 00:53:17
    Am I thinking about that correctly here?
  • 00:53:29
    Go ahead. Yeah, Baker,
  • 00:53:32
    you are right. So if my understanding correctly,
  • 00:53:37
    what we're talking about here is adding
  • 00:53:40
    these volunteers to the offline ORDC
  • 00:53:45
    offline capacity. So, yes, so currently
  • 00:53:49
    the ones included in offline, normally the
  • 00:53:54
    resource can be bring up in half hour
  • 00:53:58
    and also the resources carrying
  • 00:54:03
    Non-Spin.
  • 00:54:11
    I think that this, I mean, this fits if you guys
  • 00:54:15
    scrolled on down to the language it talks about,
  • 00:54:18
    you know, being ramped over a 30 minutes ramp period. So it fits that first
  • 00:54:22
    criteria. And, you know, I'm assuming some
  • 00:54:26
    of the prices that it's going to respond at, you know,
  • 00:54:29
    may be equivalent to or, you know,
  • 00:54:32
    higher than I. What we would see for offline nonspin.
  • 00:54:36
    Yeah, that language.
  • 00:54:44
    I think this, the 30 minutes there is just addressing how,
  • 00:54:48
    how the calculation will work in the reliability
  • 00:54:52
    deployment price adder.
  • 00:54:55
    I don't know if it's necessarily how quick it
  • 00:54:59
    will respond. I guess I'm just a little confused. And maybe language
  • 00:55:03
    would help me wrap my mind around how
  • 00:55:07
    it would be inserted into the ORDC
  • 00:55:11
    methodology document as well as the settlement
  • 00:55:14
    calculations.
  • 00:55:24
    I do want to point out that for kernel RDC calculations,
  • 00:55:29
    we do rely on the telemetries to tell us how much
  • 00:55:33
    the how much, what are
  • 00:55:36
    the status of the resource and also how
  • 00:55:40
    much, for example, if we talk about ancillary service, how much reserves
  • 00:55:44
    they are carrying. So for
  • 00:55:48
    these so called curtailed load resource, I'm not
  • 00:55:52
    sure if there's a telemetry to support of calculation.
  • 00:55:56
    Another thing I want to point out is the ORTC
  • 00:56:00
    is supposed to be gone after the
  • 00:56:03
    RTC, so that's another thing
  • 00:56:07
    I would like to bring it up.
  • 00:56:14
    So, Jien, in response to your
  • 00:56:18
    comment, I thought that there was some way
  • 00:56:22
    of, you know, getting some telemetry on these so that
  • 00:56:26
    ERCOT could track exactly how many megawatts they got. I know
  • 00:56:29
    Bill Blevins has expressed that before,
  • 00:56:33
    and then. Yes, I understand, like, but the ORDC is
  • 00:56:38
    going to now become the aggregate ASDC, so I think it's still
  • 00:56:42
    a relevant question.
  • 00:56:48
    Let's see. Steve's in the queue with a question.
  • 00:56:51
    Yeah, I'm not sure, but it sounds like maybe there's a little
  • 00:56:55
    bit of confusion or cross purposes here.
  • 00:56:59
    I think it sounds to me like Katie is
  • 00:57:04
    suggesting something along the lines of calculating
  • 00:57:08
    the deployed megawatts of Vecla,
  • 00:57:14
    subtracting that amount from the RTOL
  • 00:57:18
    cap calculation, and thus, you know,
  • 00:57:21
    there's less reserves in the calculation and the ORDC
  • 00:57:25
    adder price would be higher. And it sounds
  • 00:57:28
    like maybe John is actually talking
  • 00:57:32
    about adding these resources into the RTOL
  • 00:57:37
    or RT auth cap number and. And lowering the.
  • 00:57:41
    I'm not sure. I'm not sure I've understood either position 100%,
  • 00:57:45
    frankly, but I
  • 00:57:51
    guess it sounds like there's. I'm confused, at least. I don't know
  • 00:57:54
    if anyone else is. So. Thanks, Eva.
  • 00:57:58
    I think your suggestion was on point.
  • 00:58:02
    Thank you for explaining that more
  • 00:58:05
    detail, but I think that was the idea. So, yeah,
  • 00:58:09
    I did hear GN talk about offline Non-Spin, so thank
  • 00:58:12
    you for clarifying that.
  • 00:58:17
    Okay, yeah, sorry. I guess maybe I
  • 00:58:22
    was misunderstanding the idea. So I
  • 00:58:26
    was talking. Sorry, I thought
  • 00:58:29
    I was adding that
  • 00:58:33
    part of the capacity into the ORDC
  • 00:58:37
    offline capacity. That was my understanding.
  • 00:58:41
    Maybe I was misunderstood.
  • 00:58:55
    Yeah, I mean, I was just going to ask if, you know,
  • 00:58:58
    Steve's suggestion, if sort of modifying that language is
  • 00:59:01
    what you were looking for, Blake, and if that would help folks to see some
  • 00:59:05
    language on that. I think the clarity
  • 00:59:08
    that exchange brought me helps me
  • 00:59:12
    understand where. Where y'all are wanting to go with this, and we
  • 00:59:16
    can do some thinking on it internally. But, yeah,
  • 00:59:20
    language. Language always helps to help firm.
  • 00:59:23
    Firm up everybody's points of view.
  • 00:59:28
    So if that's something you wanted to bring back and discuss next
  • 00:59:31
    month, maybe in a draft form, that, that might be helpful.
  • 00:59:35
    I don't think we're. LCRA is ready to give an opinion at
  • 00:59:38
    this point until we look at this further.
  • 00:59:42
    Yeah, happy to do that. Happy to have this on the agenda again next month,
  • 00:59:46
    to have a more detailed conversation. I am curious,
  • 00:59:49
    though, just to get ERCOT's point of view
  • 00:59:53
    if this, and maybe I won't get an answer here,
  • 00:59:57
    but this would
  • 01:00:00
    affect the price formation calculations
  • 01:00:04
    as well as would have settlement changes.
  • 01:00:08
    Are you all able to give a
  • 01:00:12
    non committal timeline of what
  • 01:00:16
    that usually would take on y'all's end to implement,
  • 01:00:24
    or is that too premature right now?
  • 01:00:27
    Yeah, I think if we can have some kind of language,
  • 01:00:31
    then we should be able to do some
  • 01:00:34
    kind of impact analysis. So I'm
  • 01:00:39
    not sure if anyone from settlement here, but at least
  • 01:00:42
    we can do some analysis from EMS point of view.
  • 01:00:51
    All right. That would be helpful for. For context.
  • 01:00:54
    Yeah, sorry. This is Austin from settlements, and for some reason, I don't have a
  • 01:00:59
    settlement impact logged into my brain for 1238.
  • 01:01:02
    So I wasn't really focusing on discussion. So I
  • 01:01:06
    can either look at it late, look at it, or if somebody wants to give
  • 01:01:08
    me a quick high level, I'll listen this time,
  • 01:01:12
    I promise. I'm happy to take
  • 01:01:15
    it back and look at it. I just. For some reason, I didn't have 1238
  • 01:01:18
    with the settlement impact on my list.
  • 01:01:24
    Yeah, I think it would just be an impact to the RTOL cap
  • 01:01:27
    calculation. Just adding a new
  • 01:01:33
    operation there. Is there language that talks about
  • 01:01:36
    that? Not yet. Not yet. Oh, that's why.
  • 01:01:39
    Okay. That's. We may see that next month. So this
  • 01:01:44
    is not something we need right now, Austin. We're going to discuss this
  • 01:01:47
    as a group again next month and you'll have some more
  • 01:01:50
    clarity then. Okay, thanks. Yes. That's why I hadn't seen any languages that impact.
  • 01:01:54
    Appreciate that. So RTOL cap.
  • 01:01:59
    Okay. Which means this would be
  • 01:02:03
    a throwaway with RTC+B, right? That's correct.
  • 01:02:06
    Okay. Thank you. Settlement wise. All right,
  • 01:02:09
    thanks for the discussion, everyone. Katie, thanks for bringing that up and
  • 01:02:12
    walking me through that. Walking us through that.
  • 01:02:16
    We can move on to the next item in our agenda,
  • 01:02:19
    which is NPRR1241.
  • 01:02:23
    This is firm fuel supply, service availability,
  • 01:02:26
    and hourly standby fee. Also submitted
  • 01:02:31
    by Katie. This one isn't officially with
  • 01:02:34
    us yet. It still needs to be discussed at
  • 01:02:39
    WMS, but wanted to bring it forward to
  • 01:02:43
    the group to get some preliminary discussions so we can
  • 01:02:47
    have a more informative discussion at WMS. So, Katie,
  • 01:02:50
    do you want to give an overview of this to the group?
  • 01:02:54
    Yeah, Blake, thanks for letting me finagling this
  • Item 9 - NPRR1241 FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee – Initial Discussion - Katie Rich
    01:02:58
    might onto the agenda. So I know that
  • 01:03:02
    we're still waiting a formal WMS referral,
  • 01:03:06
    but I thought this could help us, you know, have some feedback prior
  • 01:03:09
    to that WMS discussion. And then I
  • 01:03:13
    just. I'll lay it out quickly for those that weren't on PRS.
  • 01:03:17
    So, based on the last couple of firm fuel
  • 01:03:20
    deployments, luminant has noticed the need
  • 01:03:24
    for further refinement of the clawback and or the withholding
  • 01:03:27
    amount. So we're introducing this sort
  • 01:03:31
    of, you know, stair step approach.
  • 01:03:35
    So, under this new criteria,
  • 01:03:39
    FSRS could see a
  • 01:03:43
    minimum, maximum clawback of operating days for
  • 01:03:46
    unavailability for greater than 75% of the hours.
  • 01:03:50
    This is an increase over what ERCOT has right now, which is
  • 01:03:54
    90 day. And then the reduction decreases to 10%
  • 01:03:58
    if it's unavailable for less than or equal to 10%
  • 01:04:02
    of the hours. So you guys can kind of see the range.
  • 01:04:07
    And then I kind of wanted to respond to a comment that I
  • 01:04:10
    heard at PRS. You know,
  • 01:04:13
    there was some question about whether or not
  • 01:04:17
    this would improve the quality of the service.
  • 01:04:20
    So, you know, I thought that
  • 01:04:23
    the clawbacks that were highlighted in the July
  • 01:04:27
    30 settlement report that Maggie gave were,
  • 01:04:31
    you know, included some prime examples. So, you know, there's significant
  • 01:04:34
    clawbacks for being unavailable versus
  • 01:04:38
    startup failure for actual deployment. So I guess the question
  • 01:04:42
    is, which one has a bigger impact on
  • 01:04:45
    what the service is trying to provide?
  • 01:04:48
    And we felt like this NPRR is aligning performance
  • 01:04:52
    incentives with respective risk.
  • 01:04:59
    So wanted to respond to that. The other two comments,
  • 01:05:02
    I think, that we discussed during PRS. So, Blake,
  • 01:05:05
    I'll go ahead. Yeah, I think that
  • 01:05:09
    was me that had that comment. You know,
  • 01:05:13
    it just, you know, on the. On the face, looking at this,
  • 01:05:17
    it does seem to be more
  • 01:05:21
    lenient than the current process in total.
  • 01:05:24
    Although if, you know, the. The highest clawback
  • 01:05:28
    range that's in this is a little bit higher than what's
  • 01:05:32
    currently in place. So,
  • 01:05:35
    you know, when our point of view is when these resources are called
  • 01:05:39
    on during a watch, it's imperative
  • 01:05:42
    that they be available. And we think issuing
  • 01:05:46
    leniency in that situation maybe isn't
  • 01:05:50
    the best thing for the market. But I am curious
  • 01:05:54
    of ERCOT's opinion on this,
  • 01:05:57
    and from my understanding and the group's understanding,
  • 01:06:00
    what are some non fuel related issues that ERCOT's
  • 01:06:06
    maybe seen in the past that have. That have triggered this availability
  • 01:06:10
    clawback? Is that something that can be discussed? I'm just
  • 01:06:14
    curious.
  • 01:06:19
    Hey, Blake, is Ino. Personally, I'm not ready
  • 01:06:23
    to talk about what happened in the past, but I can tell you from
  • 01:06:26
    ERCOT perspective, we like the idea of
  • 01:06:30
    some sort of proportionality, and we're still trying
  • 01:06:33
    to develop our own opinion on the threshold values
  • 01:06:38
    and the number of days of clawbacks. So from that perspective,
  • 01:06:42
    we're not ready to commit to anything at this point.
  • 01:06:46
    But the idea of proportionality seems
  • 01:06:50
    like a good starting point. It's just the values themselves
  • 01:06:55
    are subject to question at this point.
  • 01:07:02
    Understood. Thank you, Eno. I see Faye's in the chat.
  • 01:07:06
    Faye, please go ahead.
  • 01:07:13
    Hi, can you hear me? Yes.
  • 01:07:16
    Thank you. So, Faye with Austin Energy,
  • 01:07:20
    I think we had similar questions when this was first
  • 01:07:23
    brought up at the WMS earlier this
  • 01:07:27
    month. We appreciate the idea that proposing
  • 01:07:32
    a new approach and trying to improve the callback
  • 01:07:36
    mechanism, I'm just not quite
  • 01:07:40
    sure about the relationship between
  • 01:07:43
    the proposed change with,
  • 01:07:46
    in the same section, paragraph 1011, 1213,
  • 01:07:50
    and all the way down to, I believe, paragraph 14,
  • 01:07:57
    because the following paragraph also talks
  • 01:08:00
    about when a resource come online,
  • 01:08:03
    or not able to come online or fail to stay
  • 01:08:07
    online due to fuel or non fuel
  • 01:08:10
    related issue, it will be subject to certain days
  • 01:08:14
    of clawback.
  • 01:08:18
    I'm not quite sure how paragraph nine, the proposed
  • 01:08:22
    change, applied to or related to the
  • 01:08:26
    following paragraph. Yeah, I can take
  • 01:08:29
    that face. So if you guys scroll back up to the language that we changed.
  • 01:08:39
    So you see what it says. It says for which ERCOT has issued a
  • 01:08:43
    watch and the rest of it is dealing with an actual
  • 01:08:47
    deployment. So we're changing
  • 01:08:51
    the language dealing with the watch, which seemed to
  • 01:08:55
    have the most severe penalty to it,
  • 01:08:58
    versus the actual times when there
  • 01:09:01
    were issues starting up with the deployment. I mean, we didn't change the fuel.
  • 01:09:05
    I mean, fuel is definitely an important piece of
  • 01:09:09
    this to have. And I know that you just proposed
  • 01:09:13
    NPRR dealing with things like lint fuel,
  • 01:09:17
    so hopefully that helps explain it to you,
  • 01:09:19
    Faye. Thank you. Then which
  • 01:09:23
    paragraph would apply if ERCOT issued a watch and
  • 01:09:27
    then a resource being deployed and fail
  • 01:09:32
    to stay online or feel related issue?
  • 01:09:36
    Oh, so sorry for non fear related issue.
  • 01:09:42
    So you have nine for the watch.
  • 01:09:45
    Right. So, and then if you scroll on down,
  • 01:09:49
    then those other paragraphs apply in your
  • 01:09:53
    other scenario. So ten applies for fuel related and
  • 01:09:59
    then the others go ahead, Daniel. That's correct. The ten
  • 01:10:03
    relates to the fuel related issue. The nine
  • 01:10:08
    is doing a watch, which is really critical
  • 01:10:11
    when the resource is not available, even if it's not available for
  • 01:10:15
    1 hour, we're going to claw back or withhold payments
  • 01:10:18
    for 90 days. And so if
  • 01:10:22
    the watch, for example,
  • 01:10:25
    lasts three days and it's not available in the first hour,
  • 01:10:28
    well, there's no incentive for the resource to
  • 01:10:32
    make themselves available for the remaining of the watch because they know we're going
  • 01:10:35
    to call back 90 days or withhold payment for 90 days. So this
  • 01:10:38
    is why I personally stated that we
  • 01:10:42
    kind of like the idea for personality. It's just the numbers themselves.
  • 01:10:45
    The percentages are questionable at
  • 01:10:49
    this point.
  • 01:10:53
    Okay, thank you for the clarification. Then. My understanding
  • 01:10:57
    is paragraph nine would apply to when ERCOT issue
  • 01:11:00
    a watch but no deployment. And then the following
  • 01:11:04
    paragraph would deal with deployment.
  • 01:11:07
    Correct. But Faye, please reach out
  • 01:11:11
    to us and we can walk you through the sections
  • 01:11:15
    one by one to make sure you are clear on
  • 01:11:19
    which sections apply to what your concern is.
  • 01:11:25
    I think that already answered my question. Thank you. That clarifies which
  • 01:11:28
    paragraph applies to which situation. Thank you.
  • 01:11:31
    Thank you.
  • 01:11:38
    All right, I'm not seeing anyone else in the queue, but from,
  • 01:11:42
    from LCRA's perspective, you know, we agree with what
  • 01:11:45
    David just put in the chat. Prices would be the incentive as well as,
  • 01:11:49
    if not, maybe even more so that the number of eyes
  • 01:11:52
    that are on performance here in
  • 01:11:56
    terms of this program. So that would be the incentive in my mind.
  • 01:12:01
    To answer your question. You know,
  • 01:12:04
    I'm not seeing anyone else in the queue. Katie,
  • 01:12:10
    happy to summarize this conversation back to WMS to
  • 01:12:16
    inform the discussion there. And,
  • 01:12:19
    you know, willing to have this back on the table again for
  • 01:12:22
    more discussion next month if. If that's what we're doing.
  • 01:12:31
    I think that would be helpful. Eno, you know, happy to
  • 01:12:34
    work with you on what you think,
  • 01:12:37
    you know, other percentages could be. So feel
  • 01:12:41
    free to reach out to us anytime on that. Right. Thanks a lot,
  • 01:12:45
    Katie. Hopefully within a couple of weeks we
  • 01:12:49
    should have a better direction on this NPRR.
  • 01:13:00
    Alrighty. Thanks for the discussion, everyone. I think Luis
  • 01:13:04
    is now available so we can roll back to
  • 01:13:08
    item two in the agenda, which is updates to the 2025
  • 01:13:12
    AS methodology. Luis, are you available?
  • 01:13:17
    Hey, thanks, Mike. Yes, I'm here.
  • 01:13:25
    Can I get a presenter role,
  • 01:13:28
    please?
  • 01:13:48
    Okay, can I, can you confirm you can see my screen?
  • 01:13:53
    Yes, sir. Perfect. Thank you.
  • 01:13:56
    All right, thanks, Blake, for moving things around for me.
  • Item 2 - 2025 AS Methodology - Luis Hinojosa
    01:14:01
    Appreciate it. Okay, I have the chat up. I'm going to go
  • 01:14:04
    through the 2025 AS methodology changes. If there are
  • 01:14:08
    any questions, please put them in the chat and I will try to pause
  • 01:14:11
    if I see them. Okay,
  • 01:14:15
    moving on. All right, so I know we brought a
  • 01:14:19
    preliminary discussion last month to kind of get the ball rolling, get people
  • 01:14:23
    interested in the discussion, making sure we got comments from others.
  • 01:14:27
    So we did come in July just to get that started. We have then since
  • 01:14:31
    talked to PDCWG as well, and we have started sharing
  • 01:14:34
    this proposed methodology here in August. I have links here to all those
  • 01:14:38
    previous discussions covering WMWG
  • 01:14:43
    today and then going into ROS, WMS, TAC in September.
  • 01:14:46
    Kind of a reminder for everybody is we started a little bit earlier this
  • 01:14:50
    year, so we can make sure that we cover the ability to make sure we
  • 01:14:54
    get this to the PUC here by the end of the year.
  • 01:14:59
    Okay, so the overview for today is what's changed
  • 01:15:02
    from the last time we talked. So pretty much what stays the same is
  • 01:15:07
    we're not considering any changes to RF.
  • 01:15:10
    The quantity changes you're going to see is either likely
  • 01:15:14
    due to the inertia changes or the IFRO change. So the IFRO
  • 01:15:18
    for 2025 has changed to 1365.
  • 01:15:22
    So we did update some data there.
  • 01:15:25
    Now, last time we shared and had this discussion going,
  • 01:15:29
    we didn't have any changes for Non-Spin or ecrs coming.
  • 01:15:33
    But in this proposed methodology you're going to see today,
  • 01:15:36
    we have, we are considering changes. I will get into more details of what those
  • 01:15:40
    changes are as we get into those sections.
  • 01:15:45
    And then as what you're going to see here is in most cases, you're going
  • 01:15:47
    to see what we, what our calculations were from last year,
  • 01:15:51
    or quantities, what they would have been for this year had we used the same
  • 01:15:55
    methodology. And then what the calculations will be
  • 01:15:58
    cut quantities will be with the proposed changes we are suggesting.
  • 01:16:04
    And I try to bold anything that was, you know, changed from
  • 01:16:07
    the last presentation that we went through this group.
  • 01:16:11
    So I'll start with responsive reserve. So again, we're nothing proposing
  • 01:16:15
    any changes to the methodology, but we did go back
  • 01:16:18
    and update the inertia for 2023 and 2024, which means we
  • 01:16:22
    updated our RRS table as well to account for the
  • 01:16:26
    IFRO change, which is now 1365. It was 1185
  • 01:16:30
    previously.
  • 01:16:33
    But as we go through this. So this is the updated RRF
  • 01:16:37
    table. This is going to show you at different inertia levels,
  • 01:16:40
    the PFR requirement for and all, as well as the load to
  • 01:16:44
    PFR ratios. As we look through the
  • 01:16:47
    bottom two rows of this table, the first asterisk,
  • 01:16:51
    red asterisk, is what the I, what the calculations were with the current
  • 01:16:55
    IFRO and what, how that adjustment looks with the updated
  • 01:16:58
    IFRO in the last row here.
  • 01:17:03
    Now getting into the quantities, again, no major changes
  • 01:17:06
    to the methodology at all. So quantities are going to be very similar
  • 01:17:10
    with just a slight adjustment. So here to kind
  • 01:17:14
    of prepare you for the next few slides, gray is 2024
  • 01:17:18
    quantities and ERCOT blue is what the quantities would look like
  • 01:17:22
    this year on average. You're going to see a 13 megawatt increase for
  • 01:17:26
    the year so far. So far we've only
  • 01:17:29
    calculated full month of January through July.
  • 01:17:33
    And then as we move forward, I believe I have three months posted
  • 01:17:38
    for each month. But additionally we have
  • 01:17:42
    the as sheets that have been posted with this that have
  • 01:17:45
    the additional data for the additional months if you would like to go look at
  • 01:17:48
    those.
  • 01:17:52
    So here I have February, again,
  • 01:17:55
    very similar. If you see any changes likely due, it's due to the
  • 01:17:58
    IFR change or inertia change, but overall very similar quantities.
  • 01:18:06
    I have April here,
  • 01:18:10
    minimal changes,
  • 01:18:13
    and then one more for July. Again, not a lot of, not a
  • 01:18:17
    lot of movement. So I think this one was pretty straightforward. I didn't want to
  • 01:18:20
    spend too much time here, but if there are questions, please let me know.
  • 01:18:24
    Otherwise I will move on to the regulation of these.
  • 01:18:31
    Okay, we'll continue.
  • 01:18:35
    Okay, getting into regulation. So there is one regulation
  • 01:18:39
    change that we are proposing, and I
  • 01:18:42
    did discuss this in our last discussion. We've had this one on our
  • 01:18:46
    radar. We even shared this idea last year and what we were going through last
  • 01:18:49
    year methodology. But the change that we're looking for here
  • 01:18:52
    is switching from net load forecast ramping and
  • 01:18:56
    accounting for historical regulation deployment to moving
  • 01:19:00
    to a net load forecast error accounting in
  • 01:19:04
    the calculations. I have a few details here as we go through to kind of
  • 01:19:07
    share how we came to this determination,
  • 01:19:11
    but by adjusting the two net load
  • 01:19:14
    forecast there, the wind and solar adjustments also
  • 01:19:18
    were moved from a ramping calculation or values,
  • 01:19:20
    to a net load forecast error values.
  • 01:19:26
    So to kind of share here a little bit more kind of straightforward on what
  • 01:19:30
    this means is if you look at 2024 to 2025, what we had
  • 01:19:34
    historically was looking at net load ramps and historical deployments
  • 01:19:38
    for regulation. Now what you're going to see is we're using the same time
  • 01:19:41
    period of two years, but we're using the net load forecast error, or NLFE,
  • 01:19:45
    is what you're going to see through the rest of this presentation,
  • 01:19:48
    and then making adjustments to the GE tables to account for net
  • 01:19:52
    load forecast error rather than net load ramp.
  • 01:19:55
    No changes to the FRS components, no changes to the ACE integral
  • 01:19:58
    components. One thing that I did note at the bottom, and I believe we
  • 01:20:02
    shared this in the past as well, was we are looking at LFL or large
  • 01:20:06
    load potential adjustments for regulation.
  • 01:20:09
    But what we're seeing as of now, the amount of LFL we have today,
  • 01:20:14
    no impacts to the methodology for this year, that may change
  • 01:20:17
    in the future. We plan to share LFL
  • 01:20:21
    analysis with PDCWG regularly
  • 01:20:25
    to see if there's any impact changes as we move forward, as the capacity
  • 01:20:29
    grows in the LLC.
  • 01:20:33
    This is just a recap kind of getting into why we feel we're comfortable
  • 01:20:37
    with going to net load forecast error. Again. I know we had this discussion
  • 01:20:40
    last time, but essentially what this means is what we're showing
  • 01:20:44
    here is our generation two b dispatch, which is an additional
  • 01:20:48
    input to SCED, is accounting for load forecast,
  • 01:20:51
    wind forecast, solar forecast, dc tie ramping.
  • 01:20:55
    So there are very many inputs to GTPD,
  • 01:20:58
    which then helps get dispatched
  • 01:21:03
    to help account for wind or solar ramping. So this is one of the reasons
  • 01:21:06
    why we wanted to move to the net load forecast. There is. We believe that
  • 01:21:10
    get has enough input to what will be happening here shortly in
  • 01:21:14
    the next five minutes intervals to help dispatch. And then
  • 01:21:17
    just some acronyms that I know I threw out there, predicted wind ramp rate,
  • 01:21:20
    predicted solar ramp rate for WPWR and PSRR.
  • 01:21:26
    And then one more thing I wanted to focus on, on PSRR. Again,
  • 01:21:29
    as a recap. In 2023, we made
  • 01:21:32
    our PSRR cap dynamic.
  • 01:21:35
    So this would allow for us to be a
  • 01:21:39
    little bit more aggressive in our ramping periods, sunrise and sunset,
  • 01:21:43
    to just because essentially, we know we're guaranteed
  • 01:21:47
    to have a ramp during this period, so we could dispatch appropriately
  • 01:21:50
    during those periods. And,
  • 01:21:54
    and since we've implemented, what we've seen is the impact here is
  • 01:21:59
    we've seen reduced regulation exhaustion and reduced manual
  • 01:22:03
    operator actions in real time during the sunset hours. So, as mentioned,
  • 01:22:07
    the changes to GTPD are working as expected. So this is what
  • 01:22:11
    helped us feel comfortable to move into the net load forecaster to account for
  • 01:22:15
    regulation.
  • 01:22:19
    And then one note here, this was the analysis that we've shared
  • 01:22:22
    with PDCWG. There is a link here for more detailed analysis and
  • 01:22:26
    other aspects that we've looked at. But essentially,
  • 01:22:30
    what we saw as the key takeaway as of now is if
  • 01:22:34
    I look at the simple red circle here, is if I
  • 01:22:37
    see positive ramping for this NSFL that we're
  • 01:22:40
    calling in this analysis, not a defined term, but non SCED dispatchable,
  • 01:22:44
    flexible load. So any load that's not following a SCED instruction.
  • 01:22:48
    So, just so we're looking at those ramps and seeing how
  • 01:22:52
    they impact regulation exhaustion. And you can see there are very
  • 01:22:55
    many cases, even if we go all the way to the far right, we do
  • 01:22:57
    see positive ramps that are impacting regulation exhaustion
  • 01:23:01
    to this day. So we'll continue to look at this as we go forward.
  • 01:23:04
    But this was the reason for no large load impact to
  • 01:23:08
    the AS methodology.
  • 01:23:13
    Okay, so all of that now, getting into the calculations. So this
  • 01:23:17
    shows you 2024. And purple is what our quantities
  • 01:23:20
    were last year. Gray is what the quantities would
  • 01:23:23
    have been if we continued with net load forecast ramp and regulation
  • 01:23:28
    deployment, historical regulation deployment. And then the ERCOT
  • 01:23:32
    blue is now switching to the net load forecast error.
  • 01:23:36
    What you're going to see here for regulation up and down is
  • 01:23:40
    it's about the same to what our 2024 quantity
  • 01:23:44
    was, or a slight increase, but overall a decrease from what
  • 01:23:47
    the quantity would have looked like if we maintained the same methodology.
  • 01:23:53
    Some of the months as we go through during our ramping period, you're going to
  • 01:23:56
    see some towering bars. And that was, you know, one of the reasons why
  • 01:24:00
    we wanted to really look at the methodology and see what we actually, what we
  • 01:24:03
    felt we needed to, if we needed to make any changes. So let me show
  • 01:24:06
    a few months here to kind of give that perspective.
  • 01:24:10
    So again, now I'm showing the 24 hours view for a month.
  • 01:24:15
    And again, as you see some of the morning periods,
  • 01:24:19
    or take the regulation up
  • 01:24:22
    for the evening ramp, you would have seen a really high towering bar.
  • 01:24:27
    But with the new methodology, it's slightly under what we figured we
  • 01:24:31
    had last year for quantities. But again, with the adjustments to GTBD,
  • 01:24:36
    we feel comfortable with where we are with the regulation quantities.
  • 01:24:40
    You'll see the very similar trend for regulation down
  • 01:24:43
    in the morning ramping periods. And again,
  • 01:24:47
    we continue to do analysis on GTPD and tune
  • 01:24:50
    the parameters there. We feel comfortable with where
  • 01:24:54
    the quantities are landing.
  • 01:24:58
    And you're going to see very similar flavor of what we saw in January.
  • 01:25:01
    This is March and
  • 01:25:06
    this is June.
  • 01:25:10
    Okay, any questions on regulation?
  • 01:25:15
    Okay. I am not seeing any. So I will move forward
  • 01:25:19
    to ERCOTs. Okay,
  • 01:25:22
    so in ERCOTs, there are three changes here that we
  • 01:25:27
    want to cover. Again, this is different from what
  • 01:25:31
    we shared last month. So a couple things in bold here,
  • 01:25:35
    but as a reminder, ECRS is computed as a capacity
  • 01:25:38
    needed to recover frequency following a large unit trip,
  • 01:25:42
    and additionally the support, any capacity
  • 01:25:45
    needed to support net load forecast errors during a net load ramp period.
  • 01:25:49
    So previously, this used to be a combination of
  • 01:25:52
    the two capacities. What we're recommending for this year is to take
  • 01:25:56
    the maximum of either capacity. And the reason for that
  • 01:25:59
    is we went back and looked at our data and realized
  • 01:26:03
    that the likelihood or probability of having both a net
  • 01:26:07
    load ramp error with an additional unit trip was.
  • 01:26:11
    The probability is very low. So we wanted to take the maximum.
  • 01:26:15
    And again, I have another slide here that will kind of share this visually rather
  • 01:26:18
    than with words, but we'll get there. The next thing is
  • 01:26:22
    we also, with the adjustment of looking at just the maximum
  • 01:26:26
    of either capacity, we bumped the frequency recovery to 70th percentile.
  • 01:26:29
    It was 60th percentile. This aligns the 70th
  • 01:26:33
    percentile to use the same percentile that we use for RRF today.
  • 01:26:38
    And then we remove the risk of ensuring there was at
  • 01:26:42
    least a 90th percentile in the calculation for net load forecaster.
  • 01:26:45
    With moving to this new methodology, we felt we didn't need to have the floor
  • 01:26:49
    there for that. So again,
  • 01:26:54
    in words, kind of, everything mostly stays the same. They're still
  • 01:26:57
    using the 30 minutes net load forecast error to do the base
  • 01:27:00
    calculations this. But as you get to the bottom, you'll see the frequency
  • 01:27:04
    recovery has bumped to 70th percentile. And the calculation
  • 01:27:07
    itself, this is where the adjustments made, where you still make the net load
  • 01:27:11
    forecast, plus the solar adjustment that we're looking for,
  • 01:27:14
    and then looking at frequency recovery, the 70th percentile,
  • 01:27:18
    coverage of the frequency recovery.
  • 01:27:22
    So now looking at quantities. Okay,
  • 01:27:26
    so I see a question from, like, before I move forward. Hey,
  • 01:27:30
    Luis. Yeah. I wanted to talk about the new 2025 calculation.
  • 01:27:34
    So I understand your point that,
  • 01:27:37
    you know, historically, unit trips don't occur during the
  • 01:27:41
    high net load hour in the past, but, you know,
  • 01:27:44
    there is a possibility for it to align in the
  • 01:27:48
    future. And, you know, I'm thinking through
  • 01:27:51
    the graphs that you all presented at the as work that showed forecast
  • 01:27:55
    error and net load ramps increasing at a steady
  • 01:27:59
    rate over time. And just thinking about situations like if we get
  • 01:28:03
    into, you know, ten hundred degree days in a row with
  • 01:28:07
    high net load ramps and an aging gas fleet that is being
  • 01:28:10
    overworked during that time period, it seems like
  • 01:28:14
    we might be ripe for more unit trips and more frequency
  • 01:28:18
    events, and maybe the probability for alignment
  • 01:28:21
    between those two variables might actually be increasing as well.
  • 01:28:26
    Am I thinking about that correctly, or is that scenario that I described accounted
  • 01:28:30
    for in the methodology somewhere else?
  • 01:28:36
    So, well, we'll take into account
  • 01:28:39
    outages when we get into nonsense is one
  • 01:28:42
    thing, but I think for this, that is something that we monitor.
  • 01:28:46
    And again, when we get into nonsense or some of the other, these are
  • 01:28:50
    things that we monitor in real time. And we have the ability to procure additional,
  • 01:28:53
    as in scenarios where, you know, if those temperature days
  • 01:28:57
    are coming up there, we see high variability in our forecast.
  • 01:29:00
    Those are discussions that we have internally with the control room, with our
  • 01:29:04
    vendors, with our internal teams, as a scenario that may be needed.
  • 01:29:07
    But additionally, just from looking at the data that we have
  • 01:29:11
    today and again bumping the inertia to
  • 01:29:15
    that 70th percentile, but you're right.
  • 01:29:18
    One thing I will say as we go through the next few slides is the
  • 01:29:21
    big drivers that we're seeing for the quantities today are the net
  • 01:29:25
    load forecast errors and the solar adjustment, because the
  • 01:29:28
    capacity in solar is largely increasing over the next
  • 01:29:32
    year. And so that is something that is in the back of our mind.
  • 01:29:35
    But as I mentioned, it's something that we monitor.
  • 01:29:40
    Thank you. Yeah, I just, you know, kind of echo some comments I made at
  • 01:29:44
    the workshop as well. We appreciate a forward look and
  • 01:29:48
    some consideration of what's coming down the road in terms of risk in
  • 01:29:52
    developing these quantities. And then one more question that I
  • 01:29:56
    know you've probably handled somewhere else, and I forgot on the
  • 01:30:00
    next slide, there are values
  • 01:30:04
    for 2025 presented.
  • 01:30:08
    I'm curious why we don't have August through December yet.
  • 01:30:12
    Is that something that's coming down the road or is,
  • 01:30:16
    or what's the reason for that? So these are,
  • 01:30:21
    so the purple is the last year's quantity,
  • 01:30:24
    and the gray and blue,
  • 01:30:28
    what are the quantities that we would procure this year
  • 01:30:33
    if we had the data? So we only have data up to July. I mean,
  • 01:30:36
    August is wrapping up now. So we'll start calculating August,
  • 01:30:39
    but we can only calculate the month once the month closes out.
  • 01:30:43
    So we have this year's data to implement. But we'll see the
  • 01:30:47
    2025 proposals as the months close in
  • 01:30:51
    subsequent presentation. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Luis.
  • 01:30:55
    Good thing.
  • 01:30:59
    Okay, so I will move along.
  • 01:31:03
    So, again, kind of, as I explained here, you're seeing 2024
  • 01:31:07
    quantities, the 30 minutes ahead net load forecast error 2025,
  • 01:31:11
    what that would have looked like if we kept the exact same methodology with 30
  • 01:31:14
    minutes ahead forecast. And then this proposed,
  • 01:31:17
    which is making the adjustment to the calculations as mentioned.
  • 01:31:21
    So overall, what you're going to see is a reduced quantity through
  • 01:31:25
    the day or through the month.
  • 01:31:29
    But I will get into the hours now.
  • 01:31:34
    And again, the one thing that I wanted to share is, when we're
  • 01:31:37
    looking at the quantities, what's really driving quantities is
  • 01:31:41
    net load forecaster and solar capacity growth. So what you're going
  • 01:31:44
    to see is, as we get through these months,
  • 01:31:48
    sort of in the middle of the day, you start seeing higher quantities because
  • 01:31:52
    of the additional net load forecast error that we're accounting for.
  • 01:31:56
    And sort of, and you kind of see that kind
  • 01:31:59
    of lower off in the evening, in nighttime hours.
  • 01:32:03
    So, but again, same thing you'll see for most of the overall
  • 01:32:08
    reduction in quantities in ERCOT.
  • 01:32:12
    So this is March here, again, seeing a little
  • 01:32:16
    bit more bump going through the daytime
  • 01:32:21
    hours. What you're going to see is as that gray bar grows in
  • 01:32:25
    our previous calculation, you kind of see that similar growth in the
  • 01:32:28
    proposed as well. Again, just because we're
  • 01:32:32
    taking the maximum of either calculation here.
  • 01:32:37
    And then this is July. So as we get into July,
  • 01:32:41
    this is really where you start seeing that capacity growth show.
  • 01:32:45
    So as we get to the next few months, we'll see how that data shows
  • 01:32:49
    for the capacity growth here. But you're starting to see very
  • 01:32:52
    towering bars through, through these daytime hours.
  • 01:32:56
    But again, with knowing that through this daytime likely
  • 01:33:00
    we're, well, from the analysis we've done is we're Aknet net load forecast
  • 01:33:04
    error portion of the calculation for the quantities through
  • 01:33:08
    the days here. And then frequency recovery is what
  • 01:33:11
    kind of drives the nighttime hours.
  • 01:33:18
    Okay, I think this is the last slide ahead for ERCOT. Any other questions for
  • 01:33:21
    ERCOT?
  • 01:33:26
    Okay, moving on to nonsense.
  • 01:33:33
    So only one change here for Non-Spin.
  • 01:33:36
    So Non-Spin. We're using a six hour ahead forecast for our analysis.
  • 01:33:41
    With some percentile coverage across the day.
  • 01:33:45
    We kind of pulled back on our nighttime hours, or we originally,
  • 01:33:48
    in our original calculations, our nighttime hours have a lower percentile
  • 01:33:52
    coverage. But additionally this year we felt comfortable
  • 01:33:56
    with moving in those nighttime hours additionally to a four
  • 01:34:00
    hour ahead. Net load error, forecast error.
  • 01:34:04
    And I'll kind of share some data here as to why we felt comfortable with
  • 01:34:08
    making this adjustment. So what you're seeing here is
  • 01:34:12
    the nighttime hours that we're considering for making the adjustment
  • 01:34:16
    and what sort of offline capacity do we typically have.
  • 01:34:20
    So in the four boxes, you see the summary 2020 to 2024
  • 01:34:24
    and the blue boxes, anything that could start up within 1
  • 01:34:28
    hour to 3 hours. The gray box is anything from 1 hour to 4 hours,
  • 01:34:31
    and the purple box is anything from 1 hour to 5 hours. So what you're
  • 01:34:35
    seeing is there's quite a bit of offline capacity that's typically available
  • 01:34:38
    at night, essentially more low risk hours here that
  • 01:34:43
    could be utilized as needed. And the other thing that we're not showing here is
  • 01:34:47
    anything that's less than 1 hour. There's additional capacity on the more
  • 01:34:51
    quick start resources that are out there. And then the one additional
  • 01:34:54
    thing that I wanted to show you here in red is the typical
  • 01:34:58
    CCM or the committed capacity margin that is available
  • 01:35:02
    during these hours. And the committed capacity of margin is anything
  • 01:35:06
    that has an online HSL. We include offline,
  • 01:35:09
    Non-Spin ERCOT from controllable load resources and
  • 01:35:13
    then whatever the forecast is showing for this period. So again,
  • 01:35:17
    really just to say that we felt comfortable saying that we typically will have
  • 01:35:21
    enough capacity through the night. And if there was ever a risk,
  • 01:35:24
    there is resources available that we could ask
  • 01:35:28
    to come online if we needed to.
  • 01:35:34
    So from a quantity perspective, you're going
  • 01:35:38
    to see a slight adjustment. Again, we're only making the adjustment through the nighttime hours.
  • 01:35:42
    So overall, you're going to see an increase. But from
  • 01:35:45
    what the. So again, in purple, 2024, from last year,
  • 01:35:48
    2025, with that same methodology in gray,
  • 01:35:52
    and then the ERCOT blue and the proposed with using a six hour
  • 01:35:56
    and a four hour adjustment. And the four hour adjustment again, is only
  • 01:35:59
    for the nighttime hours. So as we get
  • 01:36:02
    into the hours, you see here, kind of the growth grows
  • 01:36:06
    through the day as, as would be the six hour head because that's the
  • 01:36:12
    part of the methodology that's using. But you see the small adjustment in the,
  • 01:36:15
    in the nighttime hours where we pull back. So in this month, we're very similar
  • 01:36:19
    to what we would have, what we did pull as quantities in
  • 01:36:22
    2024.
  • 01:36:27
    Next slide. This is March. Again, daytime hours,
  • 01:36:31
    you're seeing quantities match the six hour head.
  • 01:36:34
    And even by looking at the four hour head in evening hours,
  • 01:36:38
    or, I'm sorry, nighttime hours, you kind of still get the same
  • 01:36:42
    quantity that you would have in the six hour head. So even with trying to
  • 01:36:45
    look at the more closer term, shorter forecast
  • 01:36:49
    ahead, you still get a similar quantity.
  • 01:36:53
    And then the last one I have is July. So overall
  • 01:36:57
    similar come some adjustment you see here in the hours
  • 01:37:01
    two through five, or it's actually three through six here,
  • 01:37:06
    based on the adjustment in the methodology. So just a slight, slight adjustments
  • 01:37:10
    here through nighttime hours.
  • 01:37:13
    And that is all I have.
  • 01:37:16
    As mentioned, this was the second go around with WMS.
  • 01:37:20
    We do plan to take this discussion to ROS, WMS and TAC next.
  • 01:37:23
    So if you have
  • 01:37:27
    any other feedback, please ask now or any questions,
  • 01:37:30
    but otherwise, feel free to send me an email and let me
  • 01:37:34
    know if there are any questions or suggestions that you have. But that's
  • 01:37:38
    all I have.
  • 01:37:44
    Thank you, Luis. I see a clear cue.
  • 01:37:48
    Appreciate your time today.
  • 01:37:51
    And I think you got a double header. The next topic. Do you need a
  • 01:37:55
    break or a glass of water before we start?
  • 01:37:58
    No, I'm good. I'll roll through. Let me see if I can
  • 01:38:01
    find the deck for this 1 second.
  • 01:38:08
    And this one I wasn't really going to share fully
  • 01:38:13
    in depth. I won't go through all the analysis. This is more just a follow
  • 01:38:16
    up from our last discussion. So hopefully
  • 01:38:20
    you can see my screen again. Yes,
  • Item 3 - State of Charge Monitoring - Luis Hinojosa
    01:38:24
    sir. It's up. Okay, so really,
  • 01:38:28
    this was a follow up from what we brought last month.
  • 01:38:32
    Last month we talked about sharing what we shared a template of
  • 01:38:36
    what the report would be for.
  • 01:38:39
    You know, looking at our ancillary services that
  • 01:38:43
    ESRs are carrying and looking at the state of charge related
  • 01:38:47
    to how much as they have. And all this report
  • 01:38:52
    now is the same template that we had last time, but now
  • 01:38:55
    using production data from July, we said we
  • 01:38:59
    would bring production data. We will continue to bring production data
  • 01:39:03
    in these charts so we can see if there's any system adjustments or
  • 01:39:06
    any changes over the months as we go through this.
  • 01:39:11
    But I just wanted to mention that this is now available. It is on
  • 01:39:15
    the WMS page, and we do plan to post
  • 01:39:19
    this on the WMS page monthly. I don't think we need a standing
  • 01:39:23
    topic on this unless there's. Blake,
  • 01:39:26
    maybe I'll need your help on if we have
  • 01:39:30
    this as a standing topic or just have it there. And if we have questions,
  • 01:39:33
    we can answer them. But this is here now.
  • 01:39:36
    And again, just for those that maybe haven't seen this,
  • 01:39:40
    this chart here is what we would call a failure to provide based
  • 01:39:45
    on state of charge. And if
  • 01:39:49
    you. These calculations are all done by our EMS.
  • 01:39:53
    And then the next few slides are failure to kind of a failure to
  • 01:39:56
    perform analysis, taking an FME event, non FME event.
  • 01:40:00
    The discussions that we have with PDCFG and looking at
  • 01:40:04
    how many ESRs were evaluated and potentially how many of those
  • 01:40:07
    were impacted by low state of charge in that performance.
  • 01:40:10
    And then we do one more for the monthly report that we
  • 01:40:14
    already have with compliance, the GREDP and CLREDP.
  • 01:40:17
    Just looking at anything that did fail for the month and how many of
  • 01:40:21
    those intervals may have been due to low SSE.
  • 01:40:25
    Again, I know I've covered all this. I just wanted to give a high level
  • 01:40:27
    overview. Just let everybody know that this is now available with production
  • 01:40:31
    data. And that's all I had,
  • 01:40:35
    Blake. I just wanted to make sure people were aware that this is out there.
  • 01:40:39
    I do see a queue, sir. Mister Reedy, please go ahead.
  • 01:40:50
    Sorry. The first time I've ever been double muted. Can you
  • 01:40:54
    hear me now? Yes, sir.
  • 01:40:58
    Can you go back to slide three, please?
  • 01:41:01
    Sure.
  • 01:41:05
    What? Forward one. Oh,
  • 01:41:08
    sorry about that. Yes, no worries.
  • 01:41:12
    The other three? I guess. So on
  • 01:41:16
    the RRS PFR,
  • 01:41:19
    the low SOC ESRs.
  • 01:41:24
    Can you just refresh
  • 01:41:29
    my memory on what the trigger
  • 01:41:33
    is for evaluated? So, for example, on June 4,
  • 01:41:37
    it says there were four batteries that were evaluated.
  • 01:41:42
    Does that mean that during that event there were
  • 01:41:46
    only four batteries that had
  • 01:41:50
    a low SOC? Or does that mean that of the
  • 01:41:53
    batteries that had a low SOC, you only looked at four of them?
  • 01:41:58
    No. So the first start from the beginning,
  • 01:42:01
    the evaluated ESRs is anybody who had headroom during
  • 01:42:05
    the event as an ESR was evaluated.
  • 01:42:09
    So for that event, 46 ESRs
  • 01:42:12
    were evaluated. Of the 46,
  • 01:42:16
    four of them were telemetering an SOC below 20%.
  • 01:42:21
    And I'll make an adjustment there. The SSE takes into account where your MNO
  • 01:42:25
    is. So your minimum SATA charge capability.
  • 01:42:29
    So if that is less than 20%, we look at
  • 01:42:34
    how many of those were in that range, which would be four.
  • 01:42:37
    And of those four, one did fail.
  • 01:42:42
    Now we will. Our team typically goes and
  • 01:42:45
    looks at this and has the discussions with PDCWG to see if potentially
  • 01:42:49
    this was due to state of charge or if this was a failure for something
  • 01:42:52
    else. But this is our way to go and kind of take a
  • 01:42:55
    deeper dive and look at where performance is lacking for whatever reason,
  • 01:42:59
    and we'll reach out to rfis and things like that. Okay,
  • 01:43:02
    great. Thanks for humoring me and going through that again. Sure,
  • 01:43:06
    no problem.
  • 01:43:09
    While we're on that same slide, those two that failed,
  • 01:43:14
    were they. Were they contacted?
  • 01:43:18
    I will have to go check. I.
  • 01:43:24
    We have a history of who we reach out to. Yeah, it just
  • 01:43:28
    seems like if you've got somebody failing, they need to be the first. First ones
  • 01:43:31
    to know so they can take corrective action. Thanks.
  • 01:43:35
    Right. And I'll tell. Just a general process for us
  • 01:43:38
    is we look at these as we go through our monthly reports with PDCWG.
  • 01:43:43
    And if we had not reached out to them prior to the meeting,
  • 01:43:46
    we likely will after the meeting, so we can make sure we get the group
  • 01:43:49
    updated on what's going on. It is easier if
  • 01:43:53
    we have these batteries participate in the discussions, as in PDCWG,
  • 01:43:58
    so we can get a direct response there.
  • 01:44:01
    Just depends on participation.
  • 01:44:08
    Michael has a question. Yes, please.
  • 01:44:12
    Lewis, can you define what is failure in the context of
  • 01:44:16
    this chart? Sure.
  • 01:44:19
    So these calculations are based on the bowel zero zero
  • 01:44:23
    one trdezenhe standard, which is the measure for
  • 01:44:26
    primary frequency response. So in
  • 01:44:30
    the standard, there's a
  • 01:44:34
    scoring metric from zero to two. So you have to score at least
  • 01:44:37
    0.75 of the expected response for an event.
  • 01:44:42
    So a failed response means you didn't meet
  • 01:44:46
    0.75% of the expected response from for the event.
  • 01:44:50
    And it's all based on. We're looking for
  • 01:44:53
    proportional frequency response to the event.
  • 01:44:57
    These resources just flat out. Did they fail to
  • 01:45:01
    meet their obligations? Is that correct?
  • 01:45:04
    Failed to provide primary frequency response. Okay,
  • 01:45:08
    thank you. Can I ask one other quick question?
  • 01:45:12
    Sure. ERCOT, under the
  • 01:45:16
    implementation of NPRR1186 and under the business Practices manual,
  • 01:45:19
    ERCOT has now taken the approach where they will not give
  • 01:45:23
    a SCED dispatch for energy if that will undermine
  • 01:45:28
    the state of charge for the resource to provide ancillary services.
  • 01:45:32
    In these instances, are you seeing that there was a SCED dispatch,
  • 01:45:36
    that order that was given, that led to the low
  • 01:45:40
    state of charge, or is there any
  • 01:45:43
    indication as to a relationship there? So,
  • 01:45:47
    primary frequency response is not a sched dispatch, it's an
  • 01:45:50
    automatic governor response. So anytime we are
  • 01:45:54
    outside of the dead band, we still expect a response.
  • 01:46:01
    So, again, just to be clear, it's not an instruction that you're
  • 01:46:04
    given, it's your systems should be reading frequency and providing
  • 01:46:09
    PFR when we're outside of the dead band,
  • 01:46:12
    automatic. Okay. No, I appreciate that. And I guess the question is, is if
  • 01:46:16
    the state of charge was low, was that due to a prior
  • 01:46:19
    sched dispatch?
  • 01:46:25
    Maybe. Maybe. Sure.
  • 01:46:28
    Yeah. Okay, cool. Thanks.
  • 01:46:37
    So, Luis, I see a clear cue just
  • 01:46:42
    to respond. Back to your points earlier, I was of the same mind for this
  • 01:46:45
    report. I think there was some interest at
  • 01:46:48
    TAC and having this regularly available,
  • 01:46:52
    and I think WMS seems like a good place
  • 01:46:55
    for that. I also think it falling in line with some of the standing
  • 01:46:59
    reports that are already out there. The RUC report and the market update.
  • 01:47:03
    Just. And this is probably something I'm failing
  • 01:47:07
    at. I need to create an agenda item for opening
  • 01:47:11
    up the question to the group of, are there any questions on these reports?
  • 01:47:14
    But that can be the approach that we take going forward.
  • 01:47:18
    If others agree with me as well.
  • 01:47:22
    And I see Ian jumped in the queue. Ian, you want to go ahead?
  • 01:47:26
    Thanks. Can you hear me, Blake? Yes,
  • 01:47:28
    sir. Thank you. So, two things.
  • 01:47:32
    First, I agree with you completely on having this on
  • 01:47:35
    the agenda for a questions only point.
  • 01:47:40
    The second thing is,
  • 01:47:44
    Michael, as you work with your clients and ERCOT on
  • 01:47:47
    this, it may be important to understand, and if
  • 01:47:50
    the. If below a certain point
  • 01:47:54
    of charge, we should not, if batteries are not
  • 01:47:58
    able to provide PFR, I don't think that's something
  • 01:48:02
    that we contemplated at all, and I think that would be something very
  • 01:48:05
    important for this grid to understand. So just would really appreciate,
  • 01:48:09
    in your conversations with your clients and ERCOT,
  • 01:48:13
    if that could be discussed. Thank you.
  • 01:48:23
    Go ahead, Michael. No, thank you. I just wanted to be recognized.
  • 01:48:26
    Sorry, Ian, thank you so much. I'll follow up on that.
  • 01:48:29
    That's a good, good line of inquiry.
  • 01:48:34
    Thanks. And just for clarity on why
  • 01:48:37
    I'm thinking this could be important. As we increase
  • 01:48:41
    battery penetration, we may need to take into account
  • 01:48:45
    the aggregate state of charge of batteries in our ancillary service
  • 01:48:50
    procurement concepts, because if,
  • 01:48:54
    you know, if under a certain amount, they cannot provide
  • 01:48:58
    PFR, that's something we need to understand and probably compensate for.
  • 01:49:02
    Nas, Blake, thank you
  • 01:49:06
    very much for indulging me.
  • 01:49:09
    Can I provide one insight here or.
  • 01:49:14
    Absolutely, yeah.
  • 01:49:16
    So, Ian, you kind of jogged my mind here, and kind of the topics
  • 01:49:20
    was here with Michael. So there is a standard
  • 01:49:26
    revision that's out there for the Val tre specifically
  • 01:49:30
    to better understand the
  • 01:49:33
    calculations needed for batteries. And if there is this, you know,
  • 01:49:37
    as you mentioned, something related to state of charge that is
  • 01:49:41
    different than the way we evaluate, you know, the way the standards written
  • 01:49:44
    today. So one thing I would suggest is there,
  • 01:49:47
    it's out there. The comment period, I believe, is closed now, but there
  • 01:49:52
    is a SAR out there, and we're likely going to be looking for some experts
  • 01:49:56
    in battery response to help drive
  • 01:50:00
    a lot of how that discussion ends up. So one
  • 01:50:04
    thing I just want to mention there, the SAR is out there, and we're looking for
  • 01:50:07
    specific changes to how the batteries are evaluated.
  • 01:50:11
    Awesome. Thank you. Sure.
  • 01:50:19
    That's good insight. I see a clear queue.
  • 01:50:23
    And Luis, I believe you've went through your whole deck, correct?
  • 01:50:26
    Yes. All right. I think we're good to wrap
  • 01:50:30
    this agenda item up. And that brings us to
  • Item 10 - Other Business - Blake Holt
    01:50:35
    the end of our agenda. Other business. You all
  • 01:50:39
    may remember that we had an extensive card discussion at
  • 01:50:43
    the last WMS that was referred to this month's meeting.
  • 01:50:47
    We're going to push that discussion to next month.
  • 01:50:51
    The IMM is running some analysis that will better inform
  • 01:50:55
    that discussion, so we're going to give time for that. However,
  • 01:50:59
    I do think there is time to make additional suggestions
  • 01:51:03
    if there are some out there, but I'd like to
  • 01:51:07
    request in order for the group to be prepared for the discussion in
  • 01:51:11
    September, that you post your material early or reach out
  • 01:51:15
    to Ryan King at ERCOT with any additional suggestions.
  • 01:51:19
    Also, feel free to reach out to myself or Amanda,
  • 01:51:22
    and we'll include those in the agenda next time.
  • 01:51:26
    And I wanted to pause here and see if anyone had any
  • 01:51:30
    high level thoughts on that process for next month.
  • Item 11 - Adjourn - Blake Holt
    01:51:41
    All right. Hearing nothing, I think we are good to adjourn
  • 01:51:45
    today and hope
  • 01:51:49
    you all have a wonderful long weekend, and we'll see you all again
  • 01:51:52
    next month.
  • 01:51:56
    Thank you, Blake. Appreciate it, Bill.
  • 01:51:58
    Appreciate it, Amanda. And thanks, thanks to Brittany as well, for jumping
  • 01:52:03
    around. Appreciate your help. Have a good one.
  • 01:52:07
    You too.
July-2024-wmwg-gredp-summary
Aug 12, 2024 - pptx - 116.9 KB
Monthly Review of RUC Market Impacts - July 2024
Aug 20, 2024 - pptx - 576.7 KB
Market Update July 2024 WMWG
Aug 20, 2024 - pptx - 83.5 KB
AS Provision and Performance SOC Report July
Aug 28, 2024 - pptx - 868.4 KB
2025 AS Methodology Aug WMWG
Aug 28, 2024 - zip - 3.2 MB
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:00:39
4 - Pricing Impacts of LDL Override Decisions made during 4/8 Eclipse - Cory Carswel
Starts at 00:01:13
5 - NPRR1230 Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED - Monitoring - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:01:49
6 - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service - Next Steps - Ryan King
Starts at 00:04:43
7 - NPRR1229 RTM CMP Energy Payment - Policy Questions - Ino Gonzalez
Starts at 00:31:59
8 - NPRR1238 Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - ORDC Implications - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:47:34
9 - NPRR1241 FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee – Initial Discussion - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:02:58
2 - 2025 AS Methodology - Luis Hinojosa
Starts at 01:14:01
3 - State of Charge Monitoring - Luis Hinojosa
Starts at 01:38:24
10 - Other Business - Blake Holt
Starts at 01:50:35
11 - Adjourn - Blake Holt
Starts at 01:51:41