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 SCED RTC.





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]
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]





From: Maggio, Dave <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:47 AM
To: [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.  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:


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



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: