Meeting Summary – 11/13/24 RTCBTF Meeting

1 – Antitrust Admonition – Matt Mereness

2 – RTCBTF Updates and Issues – Matt Mereness

2_RTCBTF_Update_11132024.pdf

• Reminder of the ongoing program and the scheduled Go Live preparations.
• Update on the schedule for market trials and related policy resolutions before April 2025.
• Discussion on unresolved policy issues from past task force meetings related to price points and resource adequacy.
•  
• Mentions review of AS proxy offer floor discussion and updates to be discussed by Dave Maggio later in the meeting. 
• Details on RTC simulator and its multiple uses for analyzing policy changes.
• Announcement of upcoming handbooks and training seminars for readiness ahead of market trials.
• Sreenivas Badri to give update on digital certificates in the market readiness update.
• Initial training videos on ERCOT webpage will be presented later in the meeting.
• Assurance that technical details and calendar dates for 2025 are prepared for display.
• Request for scheduling suggestions for the upcoming agenda if needed.

3 – Scaling Factors for Ramp Sharing – Abhi Masanna Gari

RTCBTF_ScalingFactors_111324.pdf

• Abhi Masanna Gari discussed the proposal to use a scaling factor of 5 by 7 in the HDL and LDL constraints, similar to the existing ramp sharing methodology.
• The proposal included incorporating language related to scaling factors into ERCOT protocols, specifically identifying section 6.5.7.3, paragraph 12, as a suitable location.
• The proposed language is preliminary and will go through the NPRR process and stakeholder review.
• There was a discussion about how scaling factors interact with SCED to give feasible awards for energy and regulation up/down, ensuring dispatch stays between HDL and LDL.
• The concept allows for rare cases where dispatch can exceed HDL due to the scaling factor assumption that energy and regulation are not fully deployed simultaneously.
• The methodology preserves ramp for regulation, allowing sharing between base points and regulation awards to maximize efficiency.
• Dave clarified that it is more about preserving ramp rate rather than violating HDL, emphasizing the balance between ramp for regulation and the SCED base point.
• Abhi acknowledged and promised to correct an error in a slide regarding the formula for base point minus regulation.
• Future discussions on this issue will continue in subsequent agenda items.

4 – Market Readiness Update – Matt Mereness

• Same presentation as last month’s TWG meeting.
• Feedback received from TWG.

4.1 – Technical Update – Digital Certificate Plan ERCOT Staff

RTCBTF_Market_Submissions_Digital_Certificate_Plan.pdf

• The presentation is in draft mode with finalization expected next week.
• The plan provides direction for QSEs and vendors on market trial systems and digital certificate usage.
• Objective is to separate QSE/vendor sandbox testing and QSE submission testing from production to prevent test errors entering production.
• Timeline includes initial sandbox testing from March to April, transitioning to open loop testing in July.
• Specific certificates and URLs provided for different testing phases and go-live transition.
• RTC MOTE and Market Trial URL links will be provided by February for the submission testing phase, will be disabled when transitioning into open loop testing.
• Development phase requires current MOTE certificates in March and April.
• Open loop testing begins in July with current production certificates.
• Market URLs and listener URL configurations for notifications discussed.
• Feedback requested on the plan, with finalization and communication to follow through TWG and RTCBTF meetings.
• Task force is advised to keep track of URL and certificate transitions.

4.2 – Training Update – Review Initial Video Postings – Matt Mereness

• The initiative is focused on providing ‘just in time readiness’ rather than traditional training.
• Development of a one-page executive summary instead of a five-minute video as preferred by executives.
• Upcoming presentation on RTC+B Basics by Dave, which includes changes in real-time co-optimization.
• Self-serve video recordings available on the task force homepage for market transition readiness.
• Nathan Smith and Maggie created video modules on market submissions and settlement extracts respectively.
• Videos can be accessed on the RTCBTF homepage under ‘Training Videos’ or through this link.
• Eight training modules planned to be released over the next 3-4 months.
• Feedback is welcomed on these training resource modules.
• A new approach compared to previous nodal training, with added voiceover for clarity.
• ERCOT’s training materials will be updated for ERCOT participants once new processes go live.
• Videos serve as an interim measure for market participants transitioning to new business processes.
• Consideration of having a link from the regular training page to these new resources.

5 – Discussion of NPRR for RTC+B Parameters – Matt Mereness

5_NPRR_Parameters_11132024.pdf

• Discussion around NPRR for RTC+B parameters is ongoing and still a work in progress.
• Parameters referred to as TAC approved are being prepared for the go live phase.
• Emphasis on focusing on mechanics and avoiding challenging technical details that can be addressed later.
• ERCOT flagged certain parameters to ensure they can be adjusted without changing underlying code.
• Recent years saw ERCOT moving away from Other Binding documents, such as TAC approved processes, and towards formalized records for parameter adjustment.
• There is a risk of controversy over TAC approved parameters without clear governance for resolution.
• ERCOT aims to maintain formal records with comments and revision requests for better stakeholder transparency.
• Goal to avoid last-minute disruptions and ensure parameters are settled once and for all.
• ERCOT aims to prepare a draft NPRR covering AS proxy offer floors, ramp rate sharing, AS demand curves for RUC, and ancillary service duration requirements by December.
• AS proxy offer floors are under review based on current outcomes to update language in protocol 6.5.7.3.
• Scaling factors and AS demand curves for RUC will be addressed in sections like 5.5.2 of protocols and targeted for release by December or January.
• Ancillary service duration requirements and state of charge are focused on January through March 2025, referencing history from NPRR1096 and NPRR1186.
• Plan to file an NPRR in December or January, proceeding without full solutions to create a framework to incorporate finalized solutions later.
• NPRR process aims to have a structured analysis and stakeholder feedback completed by March for May market trials.
• Timelines have been set for approvals: PRS by March 12, TAC by March 26, board by April 8, and PUC by May 15.

6 – Review of Parameters for AS Proxy Offers – Dave Maggio

RTCBTF_Parameters_Proxy_Ancillary_Offer_Floors_011-13-24_Final.pdf

• Dave Maggio presented an idea for proxy ancillary service offer floors, shared initially at the last task force meeting.
• The idea derives proxies from AS demand curves; discussion on potential changes to AS demand curves in the next agenda item.
• Comparison of previous proposals: zero dollar/megawatt and $2,000/megawatt proxy floors; analyzed pros and cons.
• Concerns raised included resources being awarded ahead of others without offers, affecting incentives for proper submissions by QSEs.
• Proposed new approach: Set proxy floor to the minimum of $2,000/megawatt or where the AS demand curve intersects with planned AS quantity.
• Presentation of analyses: energy and ancillary service prices, showing differences in award scenarios under various approaches.
• Consideration of new parameters in light of potential adjustments to the ancillary service demand curves as presented by IMM.
• Stakeholder feedback: Mixed reactions, highlight potential for proxy offers to undermine competitive offers, proposal of alternative methods like setting proxy offers slightly above certain points in the ASDC.
• Emphasis on obtaining a balanced solution to avoid artificial scarcity while maintaining incentives for market participation.
• Understanding that the discussed concepts will need to be reevaluated with forthcoming changes in AS demand curves.

Stakeholder Feedback

• Concerns about proxy offers potentially undercutting competitive offers.
• Suggestion to incorporate some buffering (e.g., plus a dollar) above certain points on the demand curve.
• Some stakeholders see the merit in incentivizing submissions by renewables.
• Acknowledgment that changes in AS demand curves could affect the planned approach.
• Overall desire for a balanced approach that ensures reserves are met while fostering a competitive market.

Action Items

• Further analysis and consideration of alternative points on the demand curve for setting proxy offers.
• Include stakeholder suggestions and concerns in further exploratory analyses.
• Prepare for discussions in the next meeting with new analyses and potential adjustments.

7 – Discussion of AS Demand Curves

• Andrew Reimers introduced the presentation and then passed the lead to Jonas Kersulis.
• Discussed work done over the summer on AS study and the 1224 analysis.
• Highlighted various issues with the Current Key Principle 1.1(4) ASDC Design.
• Jonas joined the team in August and led most of the work addressing these issues.

7.1 – IMM Discussion – Andrew Reimers

RTCBTF_IMM_Proposed_ASDC_Improvements.pdf

• Introduction to the IMM’s proposed improvements to RTC ancillary service demand curves (ASDCs).
• ASDCs represent system demand for real-time reserves, with each ASDC representing demand for on AS product
• Nesting ASDCs means each product is substitutable in the optimization itself for any lower quality product 
• Concerns with current ERCOT ASDCs include inefficiencies in product trade-offs during scarcity and underpricing of certain services.
• IMM has developed an alternative disaggregation approach called blended ASDCs.
• Presentation includes comparative analysis of three sets of ASDCs: currently approved ERCOT KP 1.1 ASDCs, nested ASDCs, and blended ASDCs.
• Discussion of whether KP 1.1(4) aggregate ORDC can be effectively disaggregated to produce efficient, independent non-nested ASDCs.
• Blended ASDCs aim to achieve comparable market efficiency, allow efficient trading between products, and provide appropriate pricing and incentives.
• IMM proposes that blended ASDCs mitigate issues of current ASDCs underpricing ECRs and non-spin.
• Study results show blended ASDCs align pricing more closely with nested ASDCs, suggesting nested ASDCs might not be necessary for ERCOT.
• Additional studies and simulator tools were used to compare outcomes in scenarios of extreme scarcity.
• Discussion of procurement dynamics highlighted concerns about SCED’s ability to make trade-offs in product procurement during shortages.
• Conclusive insights include that independent ASDCs can be effective and efficient provided proper adjustments are made.
• Compared with KP 1.1(5) ASDCs, blended ASDCs produce more predictable and efficient pricing outcomes under shortage.
• Concerns raised about the assumption that ASDCs should start with an aggregate ORDC, questioning its efficacy and impact on reflecting true reliability value.
• Recommendations include formalizing blended ASDCs, conducting further analyses and consultation, and considering the removal of the ORDC aggregate requirement for improved alignment with system reliability.

8 – RTC Simulator Update – ERCOT Staff

• Reviewed the RTC+B simulator update.
• Dave Maggio led the presentation and provided a verbal update.

8.1 – ERCOT Update based on Feedback from prior RTCBTF Meeting

• Feedback from the previous meeting was addressed regarding the need to simulate telemetry for resources not currently having capability telemetry.
• Focus remains on resources qualified to provide ancillary services while exploring forecasted information for simulating telemetry.
• Internal discussions on validating capability telemetry under RTC, both pre and post-implementation, continue as a work in progress.
• Ongoing consideration of operations managing ancillary services on resources behind constraints, particularly IROLs and some focus on GTCs.
• Additional materials and updates may be shared in future meetings, possibly in December, regarding operations’ handling of constraints.
• Provision of data sets, including AS demand curves, individual resources schedules, system-level data, and transmission constraints, offered for review and feedback.
• Encouragement for feedback on the provided data files to make necessary tweaks.

8.2 – ERCOT Review of Operating Day Evaluations

2024-11-13_rtc_sim_tool_case_studies.pdf

• Discussed use of RTC simulation tool to evaluate different case studies including mild days and days with high volatility.
• Presented findings from simulations showing RTC’s ability to smooth pricing volatility and efficiently allocate reserves.
• Highlighted differences in congestion management between pre-RTC and RTC models, showing RTC’s effectiveness in reducing congestion.
• Explained assumptions and limitations in the analysis, including configurable AS proxy floors, use of DAM AS offers, and qualifications of wind and solar resources.
• Addressed concerns about placing ancillary services behind constraints and the potential risk it poses to reliability.
• Explored the impacts of parameter decisions on future studies and suggestions to save bandwidth for finalized parameter testing.
• Discussed interest in running additional simulations, including more extreme weather and scarce resource days.
• Highlighted request for further breakdown on transmission congestion and ancillary service allocation geography.
• Expressed appreciation and support for ongoing analysis by ERCOT and its value in assessing RTC impacts.
• Confirmed interest in selected dates for future analysis based on significant events or pricing outcomes.
• Acknowledged positive feedback on the practicality and visualization of provided data.
• Discussed potential future topics, such as the effects of allocating ancillaries and the principle of allocating on curtailed wind and solar.
• Acknowledged the need for further simulations to determine impacts on the total cost and objective market function.

9 – Adjourn