ERCOT Wholesale Market Subcommittee Meeting Notes - 12/6

Agenda

1.     Antitrust Admonition

2.     Agenda Review

3.     Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes (Possible Vote)

a.     November 1, 2023

4.     Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Update

a.     TAC held a long meeting on Monday.

b.     They discussed both NOGRR245, after ERCOT presented information about the RFI responses from OEM’s and FERC Order 901. ERCOT continues to believe there is a real reliability risk on the system.

c.     They also discussed the 2024 Ancillary Service Methodology, and the IMM gave a presentation that focused on financial impacts of ECRS. The motion to endorse the methodology failed, and a second motion to endorse it with a commitment to re-visit the methodology this spring passed. The PUC also had indicated that they want final approval of this methodology in future years, so the timelines for review may change.

d.     The changes to the WMS Procedures Manual were approved.

5.     ERCOT Operations and Market Items

a.     None

6.     New Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS) Referrals (Vote)

a.     NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies

                                               i.     The sponsor, Lancium, spoke to say that the purpose of this revision is to rationalize the interconnection queue to load. It creates higher interconnection fees to cover costs at ERCOT, and a refundable deposit that would be refunded when the load meets a pre-determined benchmark.

                                             ii.     The ERCOT controller spoke to the financial and accounting challenges.

1.     There is an issue with how to creating the deposits that won’t require a change from the ERCOT Board.

2.     A question was raised about whether the contemplated fees would impact ERCOT non-profit status. This issue is whether they can accept a deposit and pass it through. ERCOT will have to dive into the issue and follow-up. They suggested that ERCOT would prefer it be an on-going maintenance fee, instead of a refundable deposit.

3.     The fee schedule also requires PUC approval.

                                            iii.     Tabled and referred to WMWG, on the combo ballot

b.     NPRR1206, Revisions to QSE Operations and Termination Requirements, and Elimination of Providing Certain Market Participant Principal Information

                                               i.     ERCOT views this revision as clean-up. This clarifies which QSE’s are required to have a hotline and 24/7 control or operations center, and addresses Principal information.

1.     Currently QSE’s are listed as level ERS-only are all QSE 1, but as such, those WSE’s are not required to have a 24/7 operations center, but ERCOT believes that they should.

2.     There is also an issue where a QSE can cancel a relationship with an entity on a shorter timeframe than they can approve a new QSE to pick up that resource.

3.     It also covers contact information for MP Principals, and removes the requirement to collect obsolete information.

                                             ii.     A stakeholder expressed concern about the timeline for cancelling the relationship. They stated that they understood that the change in timeline is intended to match with the network model updates. However, typically a QSE is only going to terminate a relationship with a resource if there is a risk they don’t want to bear or a financial loss being incurred. ERCOT responded that what ERCOT is proposing here, is the existing real practice, but ERCOT has to bring the parties to the negotiating table to resolve the timing gap without this change and they foresee situations where QSE’s might refuse to carry the resource until the new QSE can be vetted.

                                            iii.     An edit was proposed that addresses whether the unit is modeled or non-modeled. Those that don’t need the be tied to the network model update, don’t need to be subject to this change. The group made a desktop edit consistent with this.

                                            iv.     Recommended for approval as edited, on the combo ballot

7.     Wholesale Market Working Group (WMWG)

a.     Verbal update provided by WMWG leadership.

b.     At the last meeting the subcommittee with through all of their open action items and also reached full consensus on NPRR1170.

c.     For NPRR1190, they are working on language that would narrow the applicability of the revision to be more consistent with the event that spurred the original change.

8.     Resource Cost Working Group (RCWG)

a.     Verbal update provided by RCWG leadership. They didn’t meet in November. At their last meeting they did work on 1179 and everyone was in agreement on the direction that revision is headed. ERCOT posted comments that capture this discussion at the end of November.

9.     Congestion Management Working Group (CMWG)

a.     Presentation posted and given by CMWG leadership.

b.     ERCOT was asked about SCR807 and whether there was an update to the transaction ability. This revision is to be implemented at the end of this week. A commenter asked whether the change in this revision would result in more transactions or fewer, and ERCOT responded that they anticipate more transactions when settlement points increase, so transactions would also increase. Other commenters asked how the bid fee would be implemented and ERCOT responded that this would be tied to the auction, but the process is not clear yet.

Break

10.  Metering Working Group (MWG)

a.     Presentation posted and given by MWG leadership.

b.     A stakeholder asked about NPRR1194, which will be discussed, below.

11.  Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS (Possible Vote)

a.     NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions

                                               i.     A commenter asked whether there is a relevant PUC project associated with where this revision is. This answer will be brought back to a future meeting.

b.     NPRR1162, Single Agent Designation for a QSE and its Sub-QSEs for Voice Communications over the ERCOT WAN (WMWG)

c.     NPRR1170, Capturing Natural Gas Delivery Information for Natural Gas Generation Resources (WMWG)

                                               i.     A stakeholder asked whether this only applies to scheduled energy, or if it also covers scenarios like RUC, because that may be the first time the QSE is made aware of an issue with the gas supply. ERCOT verified that this is the case, but asked that ERCOT be made aware as soon as there is an idea that there could be a gas supply issue.

                                             ii.     Endorsed on the combo ballots with the Joint Commenters comments from 11/28/23.

d.     NPRR1179, Fuel Purchase Requirements for Resources Submitting RUC Fuel Costs (RCWG)

                                               i.     Discussed with RCWG update, above.

                                             ii.     Endorsed with ERCOT’s 11/28/23 comments, on the combo ballot

e.     NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased NOIE Load Costs (WMWG)

                                               i.     ERCOT reviewed the history of this issue. PUC Project 41790, which was a complaint about HDL override with ERCOT, is the relevant project. They explained that Odessa had a DAM obligation that they couldn’t meet because of the HDL overrides so they had to purchase the power back. NPRR649 was proposed to address this, but it changed many times over the period that it was debated. If we want to go back to the original issue it is very simple – remove the contractual component and just go back to the DAM issue.

                                             ii.     A commenter asked how much cost recovery has occurred due to the HDL override. There haven’t been very many over the years, and ERCOT has the data, likely less than $5 total.

f.      NPRR1194, Wholesale Storage Load Auxiliary Netting

                                               i.     The previous discussion was whether the NPRR should continue or whether STEC should pursue a Protocol Interpretation Request (PIR). STEC and ERCOT discussed this, and agreed the issue didn’t meet the threshold for PIR.

                                             ii.     A motion to endorse was made, but not seconded. It remains tabled.

g.     NPRR1195, Resource Entity Metering Facilities Maintenance (MWG)

                                               i.     Recommended for approval on the combo ballot

h.     NPRR1197, Energy Storage Resource (ESR) Non-Charging Load(s) Optional Exclusion from EPS Netting Arrangement (MWG)

i.      NPRR1198, Congestion Mitigation Using Topology Reconfigurations (CMWG)

j.      NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs (MWG)

12.  WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS (Possible Vote)

a.     SMOGRR027, Move OBD to Settlement Metering Operating Guide – EPS Metering Design Proposal (MWG)

                                               i.     ERCOT comments are pending.

b.     SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors (MWG)

13.  Combo Ballot (Vote)

a.     Ballot passed

14.  Other Business        

a.     Review Open Action Items

                                               i.     WMS continues the review of open action items, WMS will finalize the review at the January meeting, and then pass these to TAC for approval. Most of the TAC assignments are at WMWG.

b.     A question was asked, for clarity about when the emergency pricing program would go into effect and whether they will bring those procedures to a stakeholder forum. ERCOT responded that they will implement the EPP rule manually, but they are working to draft an associated NPRR. The effective date of the EPP will be December 20^th.

c.     No Report

                                               i.     Demand Side Working Group (DSWG)

                                             ii.     Market Settlement Working Group (MSWG)

                                            iii.     Supply Analysis Working Group (SAWG)

15.  Adjourn