Meeting Summary – 09/23/24 CMWG Meeting

1 – Antitrust Admonition – Alex Miller

2 – Agenda Review – Alex Miller

3 – SCR819 – NPRR1111 – NTE Implementation Monitoring and Impacts – Freddie Garcia/Alex Lee

2024_sep_cmwg_nte_performance_public.pdf

• ERCOT’s Alex Lee presented an intermediate performance review of SCR819, tied to NPRR1111.
• SCR819 was reactivated after the 2021 winter storm Uri and implemented in June 2024.
• The goal of SCR819 was to improve control over Generic Transmission Constraints (GTCs) by curtailing all resources behind a GTC to avoid exceeding base points.
• Results showed improved management of GTC flow, reducing spikes and maintaining flow closer to limits.
• Examples from four different GTCs (Panhandle, West Texas, North Edinburgh to Lobo, and Zapata Starr) demonstrated improved flow control post-implementation.
• ERCOT needs further analysis and testing to provide more training and guidelines for control room operators.
• There was discussion about potential future improvements and additional analysis requirements.
• Participants raised questions about hypothetical base points, exact system limits, and individual resource behavior affecting overall performance.

Future Actions:

• ERCOT will continue testing and analysis to fine-tune settings and improve GTC flow management.
• Further training and guidelines will be provided to control room operators based on continued testing and real-time data analysis.

Questions & Comments:

• Clarifications were provided on hypothetical vs. actual base points and system limits.
• Queries addressed resource behaviors exceeding base points and supervisory control systems (SCED) discount factors.
• Participants expressed interest in seeing more quantified data on increased flow through interfaces post-implementation.

4 – CRR LTAS Update / Transaction Limits – Samantha Findley

CRR-CMWG_09232024.pdf

• Presented by Samantha Finley from ERCOT’s CRR market operations.
• Discussion on LTAS data concerning submitted transactions and bidding behaviors.
• Highlighted increasing performance issues and risks in ERCOT CRR LTAS auctions due to rising bid volumes.
• Three resolution paths proposed to address these issues:
  1. Administrative Guardrails: Instituting administrative limits to reduce transaction adjustment periods and long-running solution times, including limiting transactions per time of use and lowering bids per account holder.
  2. Market Incentives: Implementing market incentives to scale back participation, such as increasing the minimum option bid price from one penny and introducing an unawarded bid fee for options.
  3. Market Redesign: Considering market design changes, such as discontinuing multi-month bids in long-term auctions and adjusting network model percentages.
• Discussion on the feasibility and impact of proposed solutions, including feedback from the council on potential market behaviors, relevant data, and suggested modifications.
• Multiple stakeholders expressed support for examining transaction limits and bid adjustments, suggesting that studies should focus on separating the impact of options and obligations and assess multi-month bid removal benefits before implementing fee changes.
• There was significant discussion on the potential unintended consequences of raising the minimum option bid price, advocating for possibly starting with lower incremental increases.
• Consensus on conducting a study on how discontinuing multi-month bids could improve performance, and potentially prioritizing this study to address issues efficiently.
• ERCOT committed to working on the study and filing an NPRR to allow use of administrative time of use limits and lowering of bids per account holder.
• Stakeholders encouraged to sponsor NPRRs to expedite studies and impact analyses.

5 – NPRR1214 Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk – Ryan King/Shams Siddiqi

5.1 – ERCOT comments

• ERCOT filed comments on August 9.
• Summary includes feedback from previous discussions at CMWG and bilateral discussions with sponsors.
• Raised concerns on treatment of energy storage resources related to NPRR.
• Questions on the impact of nodal settlement for controllable load resources from NPRR1188.
• Issues noted with the modeling of DC Tie curtailments requiring further consideration.
• Current NPRR cannot be implemented without additional review and refinement.
• Open to discussions with stakeholders to understand needed changes.
• Implementation of this NPRR can only be considered post RTC implementation.
• Shams presented a follow-up presentation.

5.2 – Sponsor update – Shams Siddiqi

nprr1214-indifference-payment-under-rtc-092324-v2.pdf

• Shams Siddiqi from Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation presented NPRR concepts, but did not have approvals from co-sponsors yet.
• Siddiqi discussed the lack of an indifference payment in the ERCOT design, which causes incentive incompatibility with dispatch instructions.
• Current design settles point prices at resource nodes higher than the SCED dispatch LMP due to RDPA.
• Current RTC sends inefficient price signals, problematic for price-responsive resources and large flexible loads.
• Siddiqi highlighted examples illustrating inefficient price signals and impacts on resources like Turkey Track Wind and Wolf Hollow.
• Discussed indifference payment calculations and potential system and implementation impacts, including effects on RDPA rates and incentive compatibility.
• Acknowledged ERCOT’s previous feedback and addressed issues related to energy storage resources, DC Tie curtailments, and other concerns.
• Mentioned potential risks and resources required for implementing changes before and after RTC+B.
• Highlighted the importance of indifference payments for system reliability and minimizing consumer costs.

6 – RENA Update – Questions Only – ERCOT

• June and May RENA updates were posted.
• No issues or questions were raised by the attendees.

7 – Other Business – Alex Miller

• Discussion on the proactive approach to scheduling meetings for 2025 to avoid issues faced in the previous year.
• Meetings scheduled around the calendared events of major groups and subcommittees.
• WMS meetings will typically fall on a Wednesday, early in the month, with follow-up meetings scheduled for the Thursday of the following week.
• Specific mention of October where WMS meeting on the third of the month led to the follow-up meeting scheduled two weeks later.
• Encouragement for key players to review the calendar for any potential conflicts or adjustments.
• Meetings currently scheduled as WebEx-only, but in-person meetings are an option if there is significant interest.
• Confirmation that major holidays and events, such as spring break, have been avoided in the scheduling.

8 – Adjourn