Message-ID: <17030786.1075848307082.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:41:00 -0800 (PST) From: dljones@cps-satx.com To: isonp@ercot.com, piwg@ercot.com, operations@ercot.com, manuel-munoz@reliantenergy.com, cgreer@tnpe.com Subject: RE: Suggested Solution to the PUC's Concerns Regarding Local Cong estion Cc: kevin-gresham@reliantenergy.com, brenda_b_harris@reliantenergy.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: kevin-gresham@reliantenergy.com, brenda_b_harris@reliantenergy.com X-From: "Jones, Daniel L." X-To: isonp@ercot.com, piwg@ercot.com, operations@ercot.com, manuel-munoz@reliantenergy.com, "'Greer, Clayton'" X-cc: kevin-gresham@reliantenergy.com, Brenda_B_Harris@reliantenergy.com X-bcc: X-Folder: \Doug_Gilbert_Smith_Nov2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: GILBERTSMITH-D X-FileName: dsmith.nsf Is Clayton reading it correctly? I must admit that I am having trouble interpreting the proposed solution as well. Also, I would respectfully disagree that the problem (i.e., potential for gaming) exists only when the zonal MCPE is negative. > ---------- > From: Greer, Clayton[SMTP:cgreer@tnpe.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:42 AM > To: isonp@ercot.com; piwg@ercot.com; operations@ercot.com; > manuel-munoz@reliantenergy.com > Cc: kevin-gresham@reliantenergy.com; Brenda_B_Harris@reliantenergy.com > Subject: RE: Suggested Solution to the PUC's Concerns Regarding Local > Cong estion > > If I am reading this correctly, it appears that rather than provide an > adjustment for decremental units relieving local congestion, they will be > required to either pay the market clearing price of energy for the zone or > redispatch another unit in the same zone to counter act the decremental > instruction. > > I believe we can support this change as long as few questions are properly > handled: > > If there are multiple units that can clear the local congestion problem, > who > gets selected? (best shift factor, submitted dec bids, ERCOT flips a > coin?) > > If a generator fails to follow this instruction will it properly show up > as > an uninstructed deviation, or will ERCOT follow performance to these > direct > instructions some other way? > > Can this similar methodology be used on the incremental side to curb abuse > by those who manipulate their resource plans to create congestion they > will > be the only resource to correct? > > Have a great day! > > > ---------- > > From: > > manuel-munoz@reliantenergy.com[SMTP:manuel-munoz@reliantenergy.com] > > Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 7:45 PM > > To: isonp@ercot.com; piwg@ercot.com; operations@ercot.com > > Cc: kevin-gresham@reliantenergy.com; > Brenda_B_Harris@reliantenergy.com > > Subject: Suggested Solution to the PUC's Concerns Regarding Local > > Congestion > > > > <><>< > stoft-intra-zonal.pdf>> > > In a memo from Parvis Adib dated Oct. 31 (copy attached), the PUC > > describes > > a serious concern on the part of the Commission regarding market abuse > > through relieving Local Congestion under the current Protocols. John > Meyer > > has asked me to draft a suggested solution to this concern. I am > > recommending the following solution and believe it should be very easy > to > > implement. > > > > THE PROBLEM: Gaming whereby an entity deliberately and chronically > places > > itself in a situation to create local congestion in order to profit from > > instructions to decrement its energy deliveries. > > > > The current language states that when a resource is instructed to > > decrement its energy deliveries and a Market Solution does not exist the > > resource's QSE will pay the minimum of the MCPE for that zone or 0. The > > trouble with this approach is that if the MCPE is negative the QSE is > > rewarded for having a resource causing local congestion. If the > situation > > persisted over time this could encourage inefficient generation to be > > built > > on the same area so that it can profit by having its output reduced or > > even > > turned off. > > > > Note that this would only happen in a situation where the local > congestion > > is located within a zone that is also susceptible to CSC congestion as > > well > > and the QSEs in such a zone are decremented most of the time which leads > > to > > high incidence of negative MCPE for the zone. This does not appear > likely > > but could occur if a zone is relatively small; i.e., dominated by QSEs > > that > > are few in number and that consistently overschedule across a CSC zone > > with > > the anticipation that they will always be instructed to decrement energy > > in > > real time. > > > > RECOMMENDED SOLUTION : > > > > Do not compensate or charge a resource that is instructed to decrement > its > > energy deliveries by ERCOT when a Market Solution does not exist in > > relieving local congestion. However, the resource must obey the > > instruction in order to maintain system reliability. > > > > Please give me your comments on this solution concept before Dec. 1. I > > am > > recommending that we add this as an item to vote on at the RUG meeting > > scheduled for Dec. 6. I will also draft the recommended language changes > > (very minor) to sections 6 and 7 and distribute it prior to the meeting. > > > > Manny > > > > > > (See attached file: Adib103100) > > > > (See attached file: stoft-game.pdf) > > > > (See attached file: stoft-intra-zonal.pdf) > > > > >