RTCTF Archives

Real-Time Co-Optimization Task Force


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Shams Siddiqi <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 08:36:48 -0500
text/plain (8 kB) , text/html (21 kB) , image001.png (11 kB)
Hi Clayton,


RUC simultaneously solves for all constraints. The energy balance and
transmission constraints have extremely high penalty functions (we haven't
discussed these but I'm assuming these don't change). Under ERCOT's RTC
proposal, AS amounts equal to AS Plan for all AS would also have extremely
high penalty functions. So, RUC would try to solve for NSRS with the same
"priority" as it solves for other AS, energy balance and transmission
constraint. Under my proposal, RUC would solve for energy balance and
transmission constraints with the highest priority, then RRS and RUS
(assuming AS Plan amounts for both are at ASDC max values), and then ECRS,
and finally NSRS - more in line with your thinking below. If there is ample
capacity to provide all these services at below their truncated ASDC, then
both proposals result in the same outcome (which is everything is awarded).
However, if the market is tight and NSRS requirement needs to be met by
RUCing resources, then ERCOT would RUC any available resource even if the
resulting cost exceeds even $9,000/MW/hr (penalties are currently higher
than this price) - this distorts market prices resulting in uplift and
suppressed SCED prices due to LSL price-taking injection and totally
inconsistent with SCED RTC outcome. Under my proposal, especially if we
apply a floor EOC of $1,500/MWh for any RUCed resource, since the ASDC for
most of NSRS should be less than $1,500/MWh, RUC would not commit resources
to meet the NSRS AS Plan amount - consistent with SCED RTC.


For Participation Factors, RTC will clear exactly the same under either
proposal taking into account AS and congestion. PFs will only allocate
energy deployments by LFC between the QSE's portfolio of awarded RUS/RDS
capacities. So, PFs have absolutely NO impact on the results and awards of





From: Greer, Clayton <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 12:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Key Principle Templates


On the ASDC for NSRS, can you come up with an example where the RUC would be
for NSRS and not local congestion or general market insufficiency?  For
instance, I envision the RUC engine reviewing all resources and first
determines if there are sufficient scheduled on line resources for Reg Up,
Reg Down, and RRS.  It then determines if there are remaining resources on
line or offline that can be started within 30 minutes to supply NSRS.  After
these passes, it moves to transmission security and overall market
sufficiency.  If there are over 5000MWs of qualified A/S Resources on line
at any given time, I'm having difficulty seeing how the engine ever stops to
award RUC for A/S before moving on to the transmission security and market
sufficiency stages which also represent the current RUC process.


And yes, I get that this is done in a single process, but my simple mind
likes to think of it this way.  If the engine is to functionally run
differently, somebody please let me know.


On the storage facility issue, I will have a problem with anything that
allows resources connected to multiple points on the grid to reallocate
their A/S due to the fact that the engine is clearing A/S and congestion
simultaneously.  If they are connected to the same node, I have no problem
with allowing an aggregation.


From: Shams Siddiqi [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 1:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
Subject: Re: Key Principle Templates


Hi Everyone,


I'm not sure if we're supposed to provide comments on these documents prior
to Friday's meeting - so, I'm providing comments just in case.


For KP3, based on feedback at the last meeting, I've introduced language to
truncate the ASDCs at the corresponding AS Plan amount - so, RUC will not
procure AS greater than minimum AS Plan amounts. E.g. if Non-Spin ASDC goes
from say $1800/MW to $200/MW for AS Plan amount of 1000MW - then RUC will
use this truncated ASDC. I also require that RUC apply a floor to Startup
Cost (TBD), Min Energy Cost (TBD) and EOC. EOC Floor would be the current
$1,500/MWh. This would imply that if there is scarcity, RUC would at most
procure the first 100-200MW of Non-Spin (if any) since the ASDC does not
justify the cost once offer floors are applied.


For KP1.5, I've clarified that Regulation Service deployments will always be
Resource Specific under both alternatives - the only difference is whether
the Resource Specific amounts are based on optional normalized Participation
Factors (PFs). There is no obligation to use Participation Factors and the
default would be as specified in Alternative 1. The concern raised at the
last meeting that normalized PFs may take time to compute within the
4-second LFC cycle is addressed by having normalized PFs being provided to
LFC for each SCED interval. Again, maintaining PFs does not alter the
economic efficiency of RTC and can increase efficiency by QSEs providing
deployed energy in an economic manner taking into account storage levels in
its portfolio of storage and controllable load assets.


There was also a good suggestion that we introduce Energy Storage Group
(similar to IRR Group) that can be utilized by a group of Energy Storage
assets for GREDP and Base Point Deviation purposes. I've added a paragraph
to incorporate this suggestion.



Shams Siddiqi, PhD

President, Crescent Power, Inc.

11412 Bee Caves Rd, Suite 202

Austin, Texas 78738

Tel. +1.512.619.3532

Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

www.crescentpower.net <http://www.crescentpower.net>  




From: Maggio, Dave <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > 
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
Subject: Key Principle Templates


***** EXTERNAL email. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on
links, open attachments, or provide credentials. ***** 

Good morning everyone,


I wanted to quickly let folks know that the key principle documents in the
updated template format have been posted on the 6/21/19 RTCTF meeting page
<http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2019/6/21/180300-RTCTF> .  We plan to have
the full agenda posted tomorrow and these documents will be discussed as
part of that agenda.  Additional material for the meeting will likely be
posted next week.


We look forward to seeing you all on the 21st.  





Dave Maggio

Sr. Manager, Market Analysis & Validation

2705 West Lake Drive | Taylor, TX 76574

O: 512-248-6998 | M: 773-458-3215 


Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email message and
any attached documents may be privileged and confidential and is intended
for the addressee only.  If you received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately.




To unsubscribe from the RTCTF list, click the following link:
<http://lists.ercot.com/scripts/wa-ERCOT.exe?SUBED1=RTCTF&A=1> &A=1 



To unsubscribe from the RTCTF list, click the following link:
<http://lists.ercot.com/scripts/wa-ERCOT.exe?SUBED1=RTCTF&A=1> &A=1 




This is sales and trading commentary prepared for institutional investors;
it is NOT a research report; tax, legal, financial, or accounting advice; or
an official confirm. The views of the author may differ from others at MS
(including MS Research). MS may engage in conflicting activities --
including principal trading before or after sending these views -- market
making, lending, and the provision of investment banking or other services
related to instruments/issuers mentioned. No investment decision should be
made in reliance on this material, which is condensed and incomplete; does
not include all risk factors or other matters that may be material; does not
take into account your investment objectives, financial conditions, or
needs; and is not a personal recommendation or investment advice or a basis
to consider MS to be a fiduciary or municipal or other type of advisor. It
constitutes an invitation to consider entering into derivatives transactions
under CFTC Rules 1.71 and 23.605 (where applicable) but is not a binding
offer to buy or sell any financial instrument or enter into any transaction.
It is based upon sources believed to be reliable (but no representation of
accuracy or completeness is made) and is likely to change without notice.
Any price levels are indicative only and not intended for use by third
parties. Subject to additional terms at
http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers/productspecific.html.  By
communicating with MS, you acknowledge understanding of, and consent to, the
foregoing and to the voice recording of telephone conversations with
personnel of Morgan Stanley.


To unsubscribe from the RTCTF list, click the following link: