Wholesale Market Working Group Review of NPRR991

wholesale market working group review of nprr991 n.w
1 / 6
Embed
Share

Explore the impacts of NPRR991 on the Day-Ahead Market administrative price floor, as discussed by ERCOT and Luminant in their comments. Learn about proposed changes and their implications for energy offers, bids, and settlement points in the wholesale market.

  • Wholesale Market
  • NPRR991
  • ERCOT Comments
  • Luminant Comments
  • Energy Market

Uploaded on | 1 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Wholesale Market Working Group Review of NPRR991 David Detelich Julia Harvey May 18, 2020

  2. Day-Ahead Market (DAM) administrative price floor in Section 4.6, DAM Settlement This was set at -$251/MWH in NPRR385 Submitted June 2o11 for Real Time price floors Day Ahead price floors added October 2012

  3. ERCOT Comments 8/2011 The impact on Day-Ahead Market (DAM) energy offers/bids and DAM Point-to-Point (PTP) Obligation Bids. The proposed change does not impose the Settlement Point Price floor on Day-Ahead Settlement Point Prices (DASPPs). Consequently, the DAM purchase price for a DAM PTP Obligation and the Real-Time Settlement of the DAM PTP Obligation instrument are not based on the same Settlement Point Price determination. While more indirect, there may also be a need to consider the impact of the proposed change on PTP Obligations purchased in the monthly and annual Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Auctions and settled in the DAM. The impact on possible market uplifts resulting from the difference in Settlement Point Prices in the DAM and Real-Time Market (RTM) created by the application of the negative Settlement Point Price floor only to Real-Time Settlement Point Prices.

  4. Luminant Comments 10/2012 First, they impose the same -$250/MWh price floor in the Day-Ahead Market (DAM) and Real-Time Market (RTM). This revision results in consistent application of the price floor across all Resource Node, Load Zone and Hub Settlement Point Price calculations across all DAM and Real-Time intervals and accommodates consistent valuation of DAM and Real-Time energy as well as Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) products. The price floor also avoids revenue neutrality charges due to payments to CRR account holders resulting from large negative pricing as a result of transmission configuration anomalies which occur due to step changes in transmission capacity when Forced or Maintenance Outages occur in Real-Time.

  5. ERCOT Comments 11/2012 ERCOT proposes language to clarify the proposed Day-Ahead Market (DAM) administrative price floor in Section 4.6, DAM Settlement. As currently approved by PRS, the floor is to be set on DAM Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) and only on Resource Nodes. Price floors on DAM LMPs implies administering negative Electrical Bus prices and then recalculating associated Hub and Load Zone Settlement Point Prices. With ERCOT s proposed changes, the price floors would simply be an administrative price floor after the solution is run, and applied to all Settlement Point Prices less than - $251.

  6. NPRR 991 Day-Ahead Market (DAM) Point-to-Point (PTP) Obligation Bid Clearing Price Clarification WMWG in agreement that A Point-to-Point (PTP) Obligation bid is a maximum price that the bidder is willing to pay and PTP Obligation bids awarded should not be charged more than its not-to-exceed price Two possible solutions: disallow PTP Obligation awards where the charge amount exceeds the bid price Remove the administrative price floor of -$251 in the DAM What is the impact?

Related


More Related Content