Issues

NPRR287

Summary
Action
Voting Record
Background
Key Documents

Summary

Title	Real-Time Market Price Delivery Consistency
Next Group
Next Step
Status	Rejected on 12/16/2010

Action

Date	Gov Body	Action Taken	Next Steps
12/16/2010	PRS	Rejected
11/18/2010	PRS	Deferred/Tabled	PRS language consideration
10/21/2010	PRS	Deferred/Tabled	PRS language consideration

Date

Gov Body

Action Taken

Next Steps

12/16/2010

PRS

Rejected

11/18/2010

PRS

Deferred/Tabled

PRS language consideration

10/21/2010

PRS

Deferred/Tabled

PRS language consideration

Voting Record

Date	Gov Body	Motion	Result
12/16/2010	PRS	To reject NPRR287.	Passed
11/18/2010	PRS	To table NPRR287 for one month.	Passed
10/21/2010	PRS	To table NPRR287 and to request that the Nodal Advisory Task Force (NATF) work with ERCOT Staff toward a better solution.	Passed

Date

Gov Body

Motion

Result

12/16/2010

PRS

To reject NPRR287.

Passed

11/18/2010

PRS

To table NPRR287 for one month.

Passed

10/21/2010

PRS

To table NPRR287 and to request that the Nodal Advisory Task Force (NATF) work with ERCOT Staff toward a better solution.

Passed

Background

Status:	Rejected
Date Posted:	Oct 18, 2010
Sponsor:	ERCOT
Urgent:	No
Sections:	6.3.2
Description:	This Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) proposes to remove Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) from Inter-Control Center Communications Protocol (ICCP) communications, based on emerging concerns regarding the inconsistent timeframes for price delivery in Real-Time.
Reason:	Based on ERCOT’s analysis, there is not a methodology by which the delivery of Real-Time prices can be "synchronously" delivered at the same time across the two different existing technologies (ICCP and webservices). In addition, ERCOT cannot guarantee any technology solution that is faster than ICCP prior to Nodal go-live for delivery of pricing data. Although there have been historical discussions about whether ICCP should be expanded to pump prices faster to the broader ERCOT market (beyond Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) with Resources), issues that have prevented further consideration in the past are: (1) The risk to performance of the Real-Time command and control instructions; and (2) The cost of additional telemetry bandwidth and support. For further consideration, it is worth noting that a recent samplings of delivery across the two technologies was: - ICCP: a range of 4-8 seconds; and - Webservices report: a range of 4-13 seconds, with an average of 6 seconds (MP would still need to retrieve report). ERCOT is pursuing technical options to possibly increase the webservices delivery speed and create an end-user table display that may bring the timeline even closer to ICCP delivery, but it would not be synchronous and cannot be guaranteed to be faster. If, based on this analysis of the different timing of price delivery, this is a significant market issue, ERCOT would propose that ICCP be limited to exclude all prices, which results in changes to the table summary in Section 6.3.2 but does not change the elements supported in Section 6.5.7.4, Base Points. In this manner the delivery of prices to all ERCOT Market Participants are on the same timeline, where the Market Participant can leverage existing web services or displays to monitor and act on changes in prices that are posted upon completion of every Security-Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) run to the Market Information System (MIS) Public Area. It is also noted that upon approval of this NPRR it would require removal of price fields from the ICCP Handbook (Table 20). This systematic removal is a quick change for ERCOT systems (configuration change), but may be a significant change to QSEs that have built pricing logic into their telemetry and downstream business processes.