09/13/2024 RTCBTF Meeting Summary

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.