Overview of FIP Issues in the RUC, Verifiable Cost, and other Nodal Market Processes January 28, 2009 WMS Meeting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Appeal to ERCOT Board Regarding Use of Fuel Oil Index Price (FOIP) Larry Gurley TXU Wholesale June 19, 2007.
Advertisements

RCWG Update to WMS April 9, VCMRR-VC for Cancellation of RUC Committed Resources Paragraph (3) of Nodal Protocol Section regarding Cancellation.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Split Generation Resources (SGRs) (Also known as Jointly Owned.
RCWG Update to WMS July 8, VCMRR008 - Alignment with NPRR700, Utilizing Actual Fuel Cost in Startup Offer Caps NPRR700 approved at May 2015 WMS.
John Dumas Director of Wholesale Market Operations ERCOT Operating Reserve Demand Curve.
ERCOT RMR Deployment and Cost Proposals By: Matt Mereness and Ino Gonzalez.
NPRRs NPRR680 Allow QSEs to Self-Arrange AS Quantities Greater Than Their AS Obligation. This Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) proposes to allow.
Real Time Mitigation During Exceptional Fuel Cost Events.
1 How does ERCOT Review, Verify and Approve RMR Costs? (In response to questions that were asked during PRR 632 discussions) Prepared for the
Demand Side Working Group Load Resource Performance Subgroup April 9, 2010 Mary Anne Brelinsky EDF Trading North America.
1 Settlement Changes R5 (SEP 2015) and R5.5 (OCT 2015) Blake Holt ERCOT COPS 9/14/2015.
Settlement of Mothballed RMR Resources for System Capacity November 15, 2011 RDTF Meeting Ino González ERCOT November 14, 2011.
Report to TAC February In Brief Chair and Vice-Chair for 2009 Chair and Vice-Chair for 2009 Working Group Reports Working Group Reports QMWG QMWG.
Guidelines for Verification of Resource Specific Fuel Adders RCWG Paul Vinson.
January 14, New logic and invoices used in January 2015 when closing out December 2014 New Bill Determinants: CRRBAFA- CRR Balancing Account Fund.
Market Mitigation Concept Group Update Jim Galvin April 26, 2004.
Mitigated Offer Cap Presented to: NATF Date: September 29, 2009 By: Mark Patterson, Manager Market Operations Support (ERCOT) 1September 29 NATF Meeting.
Presentation to WMS Regarding PRR 731- Fuel Oil Index Price (FOIP) Larry Gurley July 18, 2007.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Presentation to the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee March 4, 2010.
RCWG Update to WMS July 10, General Update Agenda Items for Today: Fuel Adder NPRR 485-(no vote) Variable O&M for Technology Types (vote) Seasonal.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Verifiable Costs Process TPTF Meeting Nov 28, 2007 Ino Gonzalez.
E x p e r i e n c e C o m m i t m e n t SM ERCOT Nodal – Fuel Cost Analysis Verifiable Cost Working Group October 6, 2008.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Real Time Reliability Must Run Settlements Business Requirements.
Nodal Settlement Delta Calculations and Statements – 7/11/06 Workshop  Objective: Describe design concepts of nodal settlement delta calculations and.
QMWG – Feb. 26, 2014 Discussion topic: NPRR585 Clarification of Administrative Pricing Requirements for Self-Committed Combined Cycle Combustion Turbines.
RCWG Update to WMS May 6, Real-Time Mitigation During Exceptional Fuel Events Option 3 – Increase MOC’s during Cold Weather Events When ERCOT.
Quick Start Resource – Payment for Start-Up at less than LSL Current NPRR language: ( 8) If a QSGR comes On-Line as a result of a Base Point less than.
1 Reliability Deployment Task Force (RDTF Meeting) December 20 th 2011 December 20, 2011.
RCWG Update to WMS July 11, Alternatives to Address Negative Prices At its June meeting, WMS directed RCWG to bring back something to vote on. RCWG.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Texas Nodal Startup Eligibility Day-Ahead and RUC Make-Whole Settlements ERCOT Settlements & Billing.
7 August, 2006 TPTF MMS Issues Review Brandon Whittle Lead, Real-Time Market Operations.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Texas Nodal Day-Ahead CRR Settlements Business Requirements TPTF Presentation ERCOT Settlements.
DAM Overview: Processes & Tools in the DAM Shams Siddiqi, Ph.D. Crescent Power, Inc. (512) April 2, 2008.
Unit-Specific Bid Limits based on Modified Generic Cost.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Nodal Verifiable Costs Process WMS Meeting May 15, 2007 Ino.
NPRRs 663NPRR Ancillary Service Insufficiency Actions. This Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) specifies the actions ERCOT will take to ensure sufficient.
Floyd Trefny, P.E. Director of Wholesale Market Design Nodal Market Tools to Manage Wind Generation January 29, 2009 Presentation to the Renewables Technology.
TPTF Verifiable Cost Sub-group Summary Final Report 3/xx/2008 Jim Galvin- TPTF VC Sub-group Chair.
Nodal Short Pay and Uplift Process CWG Meeting May 28, 2008.
NPRR 617 Overview and Justifications. Overview Current protocols place restrictions on Day-Ahead Three-Part Supply Offers – Part 1 (Startup Offer) – capped.
TPTF Verifiable Cost Sub-group Summary Report to TPTF 1/21/2008 Jim Galvin- TPTF VC Sub-group Chair.
WMS Meeting, October 10, RCWG Continuing Efforts  NPRR 747 Price Correction No consensus on this issue  RCWG needs additional guidance on the.
RUC Startup Discussion. Problem The RUC language in the Nodal Protocols allows little or no ability for a generator to recover risk associated with operating.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 High-Level Overview of draft NPRR implementing PUCT Rule Posting Requirements January 8,
1/07/2014 QMWG – RUC and AS update QMWG – ERCOT Update ERCOT Market Analysis.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Verifiable Costs for Nodal WMS Meeting.
December 2010 Wholesale Market Subcommittee Report to Technical Advisory Committee.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Presentation to the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee September 3, 2009.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Verifiable Costs Process Settlement and Data Aggregation Working.
Demand Side Working Group March 5, 2010 Mary Anne Brelinsky EDF Trading North America.
Utilization of Fuel Costs in Ercot Markets Ino González RCWG Meeting 2/24/2016.
Day-Ahead Market Discussion/Clarification TPTF April 24, 2006.
Texas Nodal © Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC) Settlements Business Requirements.
July 15, 2011 Reliability Deployments Task Force Meeting ERCOT Studies and Proposal on Reliability Energy Pricing John Dumas Director Wholesale Market.
Lead from the front Texas Nodal 1 Texas Nodal Market Management System Update on TPTF Comments on MMS Clarification Notes May 21,
Overview of FIP Issues in the RUC, Verifiable Cost, and other Nodal Market Processes November 12, 2008 VCWG Meeting.
Reliability-Must-Run (RMR) Cost Evaluation and Settlement Basis Ino González ERCOT RMR Workshop May 24, 2016.
Settlement of Ancillary Service Infeasibility ERCOT QMWG April 15, 2016.
Reliability Must Run Resources for Summer Slide 2 RMR for Summer 2011 RMR Contracts for Mothballed Units ERCOT has signed RMR Agreements with two.
Use of ONTEST Resource Status over Telemetry: – ERCOT protocol permits the use of telemetered Resource Status code “ONTEST” during periods of start-up.
ERCOT Market Education Market Role in Emergency Operations OTS 2016.
Unit-Specific Deployment based on Modified Generic Cost Presented at WMS December 15, 2003.
Fuel Cost Components for Resource Mitigation
Fuel Cost Components in the Fuel Adder
Exceptional Fuel Costs in LMP
Fuel Cost Components in the Fuel Adder
General Overview Of Resource Costs
RTDF Overview of Data Analysis & Status of “Consesus Items”
Fuel Cost Components in the Fuel Adder
Vendor Definition of DAM Commitment
Presentation transcript:

Overview of FIP Issues in the RUC, Verifiable Cost, and other Nodal Market Processes January 28, 2009 WMS Meeting

Outline Review the issues with current language in nodal protocols regarding the gas price index (“FIP”) Review the issues with current language in nodal protocols regarding the gas price index (“FIP”) Review, section by section, the use of FIP Review, section by section, the use of FIP Discuss whether FIP is appropriate, or should it be modified. Discuss whether FIP is appropriate, or should it be modified. If FIP should be modified, discuss recommended changes. If FIP should be modified, discuss recommended changes. Discuss next steps. Discuss next steps.

What is the Issue? This presentation was developed after one specific issue regarding FIP came to light. That issue is: This presentation was developed after one specific issue regarding FIP came to light. That issue is: –Current FIP language only recovers a fuel index price. Does not recover other costs of fuel; such as intra-day premiums, transport, swing, imbalance.  This is especially troublesome for RUC committed units since the gas will typically be purchased at Spot Gas Prices after the market closes.  Language in the nodal protocols would result in an under-recovery of costs for RUC deployed units in a vast majority of instances.  Problem is not isolated to RUC units, but more pronounced since the units are forced on for reliability. FIP language also is used prospectively in nodal and that is also an issue.

Where is FIP Used? Section Startup Offer and Minimum-Energy Offer Generic Caps Section Startup Offer and Minimum-Energy Offer Generic Caps Section Energy Offer Curve Caps for Make-Whole Calculation Purposes Section Energy Offer Curve Caps for Make-Whole Calculation Purposes Section Mitigated Offer Cap and Mitigated Offer Floor Section Mitigated Offer Cap and Mitigated Offer Floor Sections System-Wide Offer Caps and Section Scarcity Pricing Mechanism Sections System-Wide Offer Caps and Section Scarcity Pricing Mechanism Section Verifiable Startup Costs* Section Verifiable Startup Costs* Section Verifiable Minimum-Energy Costs* Section Verifiable Minimum-Energy Costs* Section RMR Payment for Energy Section RMR Payment for Energy Section Minimum and Maximum Resource Prices Section Minimum and Maximum Resource Prices

Startup Offer and Minimum-Energy Offer Generic Caps Description: This Section sets the startup and minimum-energy offer caps until resources submit verifiable costs. Description: This Section sets the startup and minimum-energy offer caps until resources submit verifiable costs. Protocol excerpt: Protocol excerpt: –The Resource Category Minimum-Energy Generic Cap is the cost per MWh of energy for a Resource in producing energy up to and including the Resource’s LSL after breaker close, as indicated by a telemetered Resource status of On-Line, according to the following:  (c) Combined cycle greater than 90 MW = 10 MMBtu/MWh * ((Percentage of FIP * FIP) + (Percentage of FOP * FOP))/100, as specified in Minimum-Energy Offer;….. Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Reason: The generic caps were set low to provide incentives for resource owners to submit verifiable costs. Reason: The generic caps were set low to provide incentives for resource owners to submit verifiable costs.

Energy Offer Curve Caps for Make- Whole Calculation Purposes Description: FIP is used in to calculate the make-whole caps when reimbursing a QSE for allowable energy costs not recovered in energy revenue when the Resource is committed by the DAM or by a RUC. Description: FIP is used in to calculate the make-whole caps when reimbursing a QSE for allowable energy costs not recovered in energy revenue when the Resource is committed by the DAM or by a RUC. Protocol excerpt: Protocol excerpt: –(1) The following Energy Offer Curve Caps must be used for the purpose of Make-Whole Settlements:  (c) Combined Cycle greater than 90 MW = 9 MMBtu/MWh * ((Percentage of FIP * FIP) + (Percentage of FOP * FOP))/100, as specified in the Energy Offer Curve;  (d) Combined Cycle less than or equal to 90 MW = 10 MMBtu/MWh * ((Percentage of FIP * FIP) + (Percentage of FOP * FOP))/100, as specified in the Energy Offer Curve Offer; Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when using the generic heat rates. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when using the generic heat rates.

Description: FIP is used in to calculate the offer caps and floors for resources that are subject to real-time mitigation. Description: FIP is used in to calculate the offer caps and floors for resources that are subject to real-time mitigation. Protocol excerpt : Protocol excerpt : –(a) For a Generation Resource that commences commercial operation after January 1, 2004, ERCOT shall construct an incremental mitigated offer cap curve (Section ) such that each point on the Mitigated Offer Cap curve (Cap vs. output level) is the greater of:  (i)14.5 MMBtu/MWh times the minimum of Fuel Index Price (FIP) or Fuel Oil Price (FOP); or  (ii) the Resource’s verifiable incremental heat rate (MMBtu/MWh) for the output level multiplied by ((Percentage of FIP * FIP) + (Percentage of FOP * FOP))/100, as specified in the Energy Offer Curve, plus verifiable variable O&M cost ($/MWh) times a multiplier described in (c); Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when calculating offer caps and floors. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when calculating offer caps and floors Mitigated Offer Cap and Mitigated Offer Floor

Description: FIP is used in and to calculate the low system-wide offer cap (LCAP) and the peaker operating cost (POC) in order to reset the system-wide offer caps if and when the peaker net margin is reached. Description: FIP is used in and to calculate the low system-wide offer cap (LCAP) and the peaker operating cost (POC) in order to reset the system-wide offer caps if and when the peaker net margin is reached. Protocol excerpt : Protocol excerpt : –( a) The LCAP is set on a daily basis at the higher of:  (i) $500 per MWh for energy and $500 per MW per hour for Ancillary Services; or  (ii) Fifty times the FIP of the previous Operating Day, expressed in dollars per MWh for energy and dollars per MW per hour for Ancillary Services….; Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when estimating POC and/or resetting offer caps and floors. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when estimating POC and/or resetting offer caps and floors System-Wide Offer Caps and Scarcity Pricing Mechanism

Description : FIP is used in as the fuel price when submitting verifiable startup costs. These costs serve as startup caps for all offers prospectively. Description : FIP is used in as the fuel price when submitting verifiable startup costs. These costs serve as startup caps for all offers prospectively. Protocol excerpt: Protocol excerpt: –The unit-specific verifiable costs for starting a Resource for each cold, intermediate, and hot start condition, as determined using the data submitted under Section 5.6.1, Verifiable Costs, above and the Resource Parameters for the Resource are :  (a) Actual fuel consumption rate per start (MMBtu/start) multiplied by a resource category generic fuel price (FIP, FOP, or $1.50 per MMBtu, as applicable); and  (b) Unit-specific verifiable operation and maintenance expenses. Recommendation : Modify the language to be FIP * 1.X (recommend 1.10). Recommendation : Modify the language to be FIP * 1.X (recommend 1.10). Reason : FIP does not cover all costs of fuel: Transport, Swing, Imbalance. In addition, fuel Purchased for RUC committed units will be purchased at Spot Gas Prices, normally much higher than day-ahead. Reason : FIP does not cover all costs of fuel: Transport, Swing, Imbalance. In addition, fuel Purchased for RUC committed units will be purchased at Spot Gas Prices, normally much higher than day-ahead Verifiable Startup Costs*

Description : FIP is used in as the fuel price when submitting verifiable minimum-energy costs. These costs serve as minimum energy caps for all offers prospectively. Description : FIP is used in as the fuel price when submitting verifiable minimum-energy costs. These costs serve as minimum energy caps for all offers prospectively. Protocol excerpt: Protocol excerpt: –The unit-specific verifiable minimum-energy costs for a Resource are:  (a) Actual fuel cost to operate the unit at LSL; plus  (b) Variable operation and maintenance expenses; plus  (c) Nodal implementation surcharges to operate the unit at LSL. –…For gas-fired units, the actual fuel costs must be calculated using the actual seasonal heat rate (which must be supplied to ERCOT with seasonal heat-rate test data) multiplied by FIP... Recommendation : Modify the language to be FIP * 1.X (recommend 1.10). Recommendation : Modify the language to be FIP * 1.X (recommend 1.10). Reason : FIP does not cover all costs of fuel: Transport, Swing, Imbalance. In addition: fuel Purchased for RUC committed units will be purchased at Spot Gas Prices, normally much higher than day-ahead. Reason : FIP does not cover all costs of fuel: Transport, Swing, Imbalance. In addition: fuel Purchased for RUC committed units will be purchased at Spot Gas Prices, normally much higher than day-ahead Verifiable Minimum-Energy Costs*

Description : FIP is used in as an approximation of the fuel costs paid for energy produced from RMR units on the initial settlement and settlements prior to True-up. Actual submitted costs are ultimately paid for RMR-produced energy. Description : FIP is used in as an approximation of the fuel costs paid for energy produced from RMR units on the initial settlement and settlements prior to True-up. Actual submitted costs are ultimately paid for RMR-produced energy. Protocol excerpt: Protocol excerpt: –Payment for energy on the Initial Settlement and settlements executed before True-up and before actual cost data is submitted must be calculated using the estimated input/output curve and startup fuel as specified in the RMR Agreement, the actual energy produced and the Fuel Index Price (FIP). The payment for energy for all other settlements must be based on actual fuel costs for the RMR Unit. Recommendation : No change to FIP language. Recommendation : No change to FIP language. Reason : FIP is only used as an initial estimate. RMR payments are ultimately based on actual submitted fuel costs. Reason : FIP is only used as an initial estimate. RMR payments are ultimately based on actual submitted fuel costs RMR Payment for Energy

Description: FIP is used in to determine the hedge value of CRRs that source or sink at resources. Description: FIP is used in to determine the hedge value of CRRs that source or sink at resources. Protocol excerpt : Protocol excerpt : –Minimum Resource Prices for Resources located at source Settlement Points are:  (d) Combined Cycle greater than 90 MW = FIP * 5 MMBtu/MWh;  (e) Combined Cycle less than or equal to 90 MW = FIP * 6 MMBtu/MWh;  (f) Gas -Steam Supercritical Boiler = FIP * 6.5 MMBtu/MWh; Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Recommendation: No change to FIP language. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when estimating the hedge value of CRRS. Reason: 100% fuel price accuracy is not necessary when estimating the hedge value of CRRS Minimum and Maximum Resource Prices

Recommendations herein only suggests modifying FIP in two sections of the nodal protocols: Recommendations herein only suggests modifying FIP in two sections of the nodal protocols: –Section Verifiable Startup Costs* –Section Verifiable Minimum-Energy Costs* FIP + 10% will better align cost recovery to actual gas prices. FIP alone does not cover costs. FIP + 10% will better align cost recovery to actual gas prices. FIP alone does not cover costs. VCWG still reviewing the possibility of utilizing this concept for a simplification of Exceptional Events related to high spot gas during RUC events. To be discussed in next VCWG presentation. VCWG still reviewing the possibility of utilizing this concept for a simplification of Exceptional Events related to high spot gas during RUC events. To be discussed in next VCWG presentation. FIP + 10% was chosen because 1) it is similar to wording in current zonal protocols: Section “ FIP + 10% was chosen because 1) it is similar to wording in current zonal protocols: Section “ (3)(b) - For gas fired Resources, such documentation will not be required if the requested incremental fuel cost is less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Fuel Index Price; and 2) similar to other markets (ex: From PJM operating agreement, section 6.4, Offer Price Caps, for reliability services: “The offer price cap shall be one of the amounts specified below… (ii) The incremental operating cost of the generation resource…plus 10% of such costs… FIP + adder similar to RMR language. RMR is a reliability service (just like RUC but with longer terms), and RMR language provides complete recovery of actual fuel costs. FIP + adder similar to RMR language. RMR is a reliability service (just like RUC but with longer terms), and RMR language provides complete recovery of actual fuel costs. Language in nodal protocol Section is not technically correct. Actual fuel costs are not recovered if only FIP is allowed. Language in nodal protocol Section is not technically correct. Actual fuel costs are not recovered if only FIP is allowed. Summary

Questions???

Appendix: Section 3 of the Nodal Protocols RMR units: Examples of Eligible Costs include the following to the extent they each meet the standard for eligibility: “Reservation and transportation costs associated with firm fuel supplies not recovered under Section , RMR Payment for Energy; Examples of Eligible Costs include the following to the extent they each meet the standard for eligibility: “Reservation and transportation costs associated with firm fuel supplies not recovered under Section , RMR Payment for Energy; Subject to the reductions described in items (2) and (3), the Incentive Factor for RMR Agreements is equal to 10% of the actual Eligible Costs excluding fuel costs incurred by the RMR Unit. Subject to the reductions described in items (2) and (3), the Incentive Factor for RMR Agreements is equal to 10% of the actual Eligible Costs excluding fuel costs incurred by the RMR Unit. The RMR Unit owner shall provide ERCOT with actual fuel costs on a monthly basis for the RMR Unit in a level of detail sufficient for ERCOT to verify that all fuel costs are actual and appropriate. The estimated fuel payments may include a fuel adder to better approximate expected actual fuel costs. ERCOT shall perform a true-up of the estimated fuel costs using the submitted and verified actual fuel costs for the RMR Unit. Actual cost data must be submitted on time by the Generation Entity for the RMR Unit and then verified by ERCOT so the actual cost data can be reflected in the True-Up Settlement Statement. The RMR Unit owner shall provide ERCOT with actual fuel costs on a monthly basis for the RMR Unit in a level of detail sufficient for ERCOT to verify that all fuel costs are actual and appropriate. The estimated fuel payments may include a fuel adder to better approximate expected actual fuel costs. ERCOT shall perform a true-up of the estimated fuel costs using the submitted and verified actual fuel costs for the RMR Unit. Actual cost data must be submitted on time by the Generation Entity for the RMR Unit and then verified by ERCOT so the actual cost data can be reflected in the True-Up Settlement Statement. Actual fuel costs must be appropriate actual costs attributable to ERCOT’s scheduling and/or deployment of the RMR Unit. Actual fuel costs may include cost of fuel (including the cost of exceeding swing gas contract limits, additional gas demand costs set by fuel supply, or transportation contracts); demand fees, imbalance penalties, transportation charges, and cash out premiums. Actual fuel costs must be appropriate actual costs attributable to ERCOT’s scheduling and/or deployment of the RMR Unit. Actual fuel costs may include cost of fuel (including the cost of exceeding swing gas contract limits, additional gas demand costs set by fuel supply, or transportation contracts); demand fees, imbalance penalties, transportation charges, and cash out premiums.