Meeting Summary - 03/03/2025 WMWG Meeting

Grid Monitor AI | Posted 03/03/2025

Related controls:

NPRR1092

NPRR1229

NPRR1264

Related meeting(s):

03/03/25 - ERCOT - WMWG Meeting - Webex Only

Keyword Tags:

Review of the RUC instructed resource-hours showed one hour of opt-out, indicating a 0.3% opt-out rate.
Discussion on NPRR1092, which changed the RUC opt-out timeline, influencing when resources can opt-out and self-commit.
Concerns raised that the NPRR1092 may be locking out resources within the critical two-hour period before unit startup.
Feedback requested on aligning RUC commitment timing with self-commitment decisions.
Ryan King highlighted that NPRR1092 intentionally tightened requirements for opting out, affecting self-commitment decisions.
Noted that the goal of NPRR1092 was to encourage self-commitment by resource owners.
Andy Nguyen suggested that the changes might have swung too far and proposed reevaluating when self-commitment decisions should be made.
Eric Goff suggested a report to clarify the last deadline for self-commit related to RUC timelines.
Discussion about the potential trade-offs of making certain generator information public, which could affect confidentiality.
Consensus on reviewing the process for potential tweaks and open to further discussions and suggestions.
Plan to put the topic on the next month's agenda and engage relevant stakeholders in discussions for potential adjustments.

Lucas Turner discussed NPRR1229, comparing it with similar HDLO payments.
Recent edits were made to include a reporting threshold similar to those in NPRR1190, particularly concerning financial losses exceeding 3.5 million.
ERCOT will report to TAC and provide suggestions when losses exceed this threshold.
Eric Goff expressed concern about a potential slippery slope similar to issues raised with NPRR1190.
Lucas Turner's continuous efforts in refining and making NPRR1229 more plausible were appreciated.
The group has been discussing NPRR1229 for several months with contributions from ERCOT and STEC.
There has been no consensus within the group on the NPRR, with varied opinions on its merits.
The discussion may be concluded in WMWG and may be forwarded to WMS for further action.

Eric Goff provided an overview of NPRR1264 on behalf of the Texas Energy Buyers Alliance.
Past discussion at WMS brought up questions regarding storage certification, potential double counting, and implementation.
Discussion was focused on energy attributes, monthly versus quarterly issuance, and hourly tracking options.
Third-party certification and its role in avoiding double counting were highlighted with a specific focus on storage certificates.
Clarifications were sought on generator bus inclusion in load zone calculation and the nature of energy sources.
The importance of flexibility in energy types and third-party influence on certification was noted.
The need for a preliminary vote from WMS and PRS to trigger the impact analysis (IA) with ERCOT was emphasized.
Austin Rosel discussed potential routes for implementing the program, either as an ERCOT-managed system or third-party managed with ERCOT providing data.
There is a potential for multiple implementation options in the IA, including detailed system design whether in-house or through a vendor.
Participants were encouraged to provide feedback on major changes or design components to ensure accurate IA.
Next steps involve requesting a vote at WMS to advance to the IA phase.

Analysis covered a period of seven years due to data availability constraints.
ERCOT has decided to pause the proposed changes to the CARD/CRRBA system. They will not pursue a protocol change as previously considered.
The decision is based on cost-benefit analysis, market sensitivity, and lack of urgent need for protocol system change.
In cases of perceived abuse, ERCOT can report to the IMM and PUC.
Further issues with settlements and uneconomic behavior were discussed, and it was noted that the original perspective on the problem has not changed.
The possibility of revisiting the protocol changes was mentioned if the situation becomes more significant.
Alternative proposals have been presented by stakeholders, but the IMM did not oppose shelving the current proposal.

ERCOT analysis is available for review and posted.
Opportunity for questions was provided instead of a walk-through of the analysis.
Analysis includes slide deck and two detailed spreadsheets with important details.
ERCOT decided not to pursue changes this time.
Questions can also be addressed in the next month's meeting.

Shams questioned the methodology used for congestion cost analysis and proposed using the congestion component of the LMP multiplied by megawatts as an alternative.
Uncertainty among participants about why the current methodology was chosen and if all potential options were considered.
Discussion about the capability to allocate TCOS to different zones and the presence of relevant data in a spreadsheet.
The city of Georgetown had a final proposal that aligned closely with the 4CP proposal but capped allocations to the TCOS of the specific zone.
There was consensus among participants not to move forward with any new proposals and to maintain the status quo.
ERCOT will report to WMS that the issue was addressed and there were no recommendations to proceed with any new options.