Meeting Summary – 09/13/24 RTCBTF Meeting

2 – RTCBTF Update and Issues – Matt Mereness

• Focus on publishing the go-live date by end of the month.
• Market notice and press release will be issued for announcement.
• No changes in the sequence of market trials.
• Review cycle discussed, no urgent issues currently.
• Addressing 20 ongoing issues by categorizing: key policy issues for proxy offers, framework for RTC analysis, verifiable costs, and operational procedures.
• Summary of updates on various issues: parameters for proxy offers, RTC state of charge discussion, and market readiness procedures.
• Acknowledgement of historical operation days for simulator analysis.
• Mentions opportunity to analyze max shadow price transmission constraint. 
• Predicting to have another clarifying NPRR by January
• Market readiness includes technical workshops, ICCP changes, and market submission changes.
• Release of market trials plan and the importance of readiness for go-live.
• Emphasis on training and readiness outline.
• Discussion on NPRR1214 focusing on lack of indifference payment for RTC deficiency.
• Confirmation on how market participants prepare for go-live with current protocols.
• Next steps involve diving into AS proxy offer curves and setting parameters for them.

3 – Issue 1- Parameters for AS Proxy Offer Curves – ERCOT Staff

• Review of AS offer structure and proxy AS offer creation process under RTC.
• Comparison with 2019 RTC Task Force meetings and approved NPRRs from 2020.
• Changes in market rules over the past few years.
• Utilization of current AS offer structure and full implementation of NPRR863.
• Proxy AS offers will not be created for day ahead market resources, but for SCED and RUC processes.
• Current setup allows for segments in online upward AS offers, regular down AS offers, offline ECRS, and non-spin AS offers.
• Proxy AS offer process will determine megawatt quantities and prices for all qualified AS types.
• Specific highlights on pages summarizing the proxy AS offer creation process.
• Determination of prices using portal rules, including the use of proxy AS floors and highest submitted AS offer prices.
• Differing price rules for RUC and non-RUC  committed resources.
• Presented examples of creating different proxy AS offers.
• Importance of reflecting resource capabilities in proxy pricing to avoid over-commitment.
• Questions and clarifications from meeting participants regarding how these proxy offer prices are determined and managed.
• Concerns about how proxy offers could potentially impact market behavior and optimization.

Key Decisions:

• Proxy AS offers will be created using the full capacity of the units but will be managed based on physical constraints and telemetry data.
• Market participants will not be notified in real time when a proxy AS offer is created.
• Exploration of different rules and considerations for RUC committed versus non-RUC committed resources.

Action Items:

• Further internal testing and validation of proxy AS offers by ERCOT.
• Documentation and potential disclosure of these proxy offers for better market transparency and reliability.

3.1 – Proxy AS Offer Price Floor – Analysis and Recommendations

• Study 1: Quantified proxy energy offers and their percentage in the real-time market.
• Study 2: Historical analysis of AS offers, identifying offering patterns and behaviors.
• Two types of proxy: fully proxied EOC and partially proxied EOC.
• Historical data showed 60%-80% of online resources were fully proxied.
• Resource types and their tendency to submit three-part offers were analyzed, with storage and batteries often not submitting.
• From January 2024 to June 2024 on average: approximately 2301 MW of energy is proxied making up ~3.5% of real-time total HSL per SCED run.
• Discussion on energy storage and dual models; inclusion of test-status resources in analysis.
• AS offers for non-summer months tend to be low or near zero.
• ERCOT suggests a $0/MW per hour offer floor for proxy AS offers based on analysis.
• Concerns about $0 floor and suggestions to set it higher for economic signaling.
• Discussions on changes and impacts on real-time market operations.
• Stakeholder suggestions for price setting and further examination requested, emphasis on ensuring real-time notice and effective market operations.

4 – Review RTC and ESR Clarifying Revision Requests if market questions – ERCOT Staff

• Two main differences discussed:
  • Using HSl − LSL instead of just HSL for ESR.
  • Consider proxy for FFR compared to generation, as ESR can provide FFR. 
• Example provided highlighting the megawatt calculation for ESR with different proxy prices and hierarchy structures.
• Discussion on Controllable Load Resources (CLR), which are similar to generation in terms of AS types but use MPC.
• Non-controllable Load Resource (NCLR) differences from CLR highlighted, particularly in their qualification for RRSFFR or RRSUFR/ECRs, which are mutually exclusive.
• Explanation on how proxies for FFR and UFR ECRs are created for NCLR and how awards are determined based on telemetry.
• Discussion on whether resources need to arm/disarm their UFRs based on awards, with specific reference to the real-time self-providing feature.
• Clarification on the inclusion of non-spin in the presentation, noting a typo that was corrected.

4.1 – RTC- NPRR1245

• NPRR1245 in good shape.
• PRS approved NPRR1245 with minor continued findings.
• Additional follow-ups likely needed.
• Majority of necessary issues identified and addressed.

4.2 – ESR- NPRR1246, NOGRR268, PGRR118, OBDRR052

• Planned comments on NPRR1246 and PGRR118 to be filed next week.
• Identified internal issues in NPRR1246 related to voltage support service and sections three and eight.
• Identified issues in PGRR118 regarding the phrase ‘energy storage resource’.
• Request for preparation for the October RTC+B task force meeting to review these items.
• Suggestion for task force members to review their favorite parts of the protocols.
• Discussion on how the ESR affects various systems and stakeholders.
• Possible request to file task force comments indicating no issues found with these items.
• Aim to have these items reviewed and up at TAC by the end of the year.
• Clarified that three items were tabled at ROS without referral, and the NPRR was tabled at PRS but not referred.
• Need for effective language when transitioning to the RTC+B model.

5 – Issue 3- RTC Simulator update – Raymund Lee

• Raymond and the team have made significant improvements to the RTC simulator tool, targeting to analyze three operating days at the next meeting.
• Three different days from the Vistra list will be used to bring forward applicable reports.
• First deep dive into data expected at next meeting with system-wide information.
• The simulator can solve individual RTC schedule runs, but each run is independent.
• The tool uses existing protocol data and historical days to show price formation.
• Next steps include enhancing simulation depth, considering wind and solar impacts on prices.
• A discussion on ECRS qualification for wind and solar was initiated.

6 – Review of Market Trials Plan

• Discussion about the need for a midnight cutover and synchronization challenges between day ahead market and real-time market.
• Explanation that going live on the market trials hardware will be like transitioning from one system to another without overlap.
• Question about IT integration and control systems involvement.
• Importance of getting feedback from TWG after technical workshops.
• Suggestion to record sessions for better retention of discussed material.
• Positive feedback for ICCP tutorial and its standalone usefulness.
• Prioritizing easy tasks and quick hits while more complex content is being prepared.
• Requirement for a separate document detailing the transition to go live.
• Emphasis on the need for a disciplined approach and having a single, cohesive document rather than scattered slides.
• Mention of an issues calendar to better manage timelines and handbooks for market trials activities.

7 – Discuss approach to Training/Readiness – Matt Mereness

• Commitment to early and frequent communication regarding training readiness.
• Exploring option to pre-record key presentations for training purposes.
• Plan to create a 45-minute video of Maggie’s deep dive on settlement determinants as a training tool.
• Identifying training gaps and evaluating the effectiveness of proposed training methods.
• Outlines for various training modules including:
  • RTC+B Executive Review
  • RTC+B Basics
  • Real-time Market Details
  • Day Ahead Market Details
  • WMS Operations
  • Settlements and Extracts
• Emphasis on creating consumable training materials with visuals and voiceovers.
• Executive overview includes assessment of cost benefits like improved price scarcity, RUC & SCED operations, and integration of batteries.
• Need for a standalone primer to explain RTC concepts to executives and public stakeholders.
• Acknowledgement that detailed training modules (e.g. Real-time market details, RTC solver spreadsheet tutorial) will require more time to develop.
• Feedback from meeting participants on the importance of prioritizing comprehensive executive overviews and basics for internal project teams.
• Suggestion to include a walkthrough of the transition and cutover process as part of the training materials.

8 – Issue 18- Placeholder for MPs Discussion of AS Demand Curves

• The ORDC was created to address low price signals during shortages, evolving from the real-time market in 2010.
• In 2019, ERCOT developed key principles for AS Demand Curves, later approved by the PUC and put into protocols.
• Current discussions highlight two main issues: the shape of the existing ORDC and the shape of AS Demand Curves under the ORDC.
• ERCOT is preparing an ORDC biennial study, which may suggest changes needed by November 1.
• There are concerns that the AS Demand Curves may not align with current operational preferences and market outcomes.
• A simulator is expected to be available in October to study historical data and analyze potential changes to the AS Demand Curves.
• Improvements to the AS Demand Curves are possible before the go-live date, without needing vendor integration changes.
• Decisions to change AS Demand Curves are pending, with recognition that policymakers may see the need for adjustments.
• The need for further discussion and examples regarding issues raised, like the impacts of conservative operations and subtracting system lambda, was acknowledged.
• Discussions about whether the current market equilibrium reserve margin (MERM) is appropriate under new reliability standards.
• Different viewpoints and concerns were shared, emphasizing the need for continuous dialogue and updates.