NIT Draft Minutes - Electric Reliability Council of Web view · 2014-06-23Consider Approval of the Meeting Minutes. Kelly Landry noted that no comments to the December ... the NOM

ERCOT Public

MINUTES OF THE ERCOTNODAL ADVISORY TASK FORCE (NATF) MEETING

ERCOT AUSTIN OFFICE7620 METRO CENTER DRIVE

AUSTIN, TX 78744JANUARY 5, 2010

MEETING ATTENDANCE : 1

Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers – ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy San Antonio MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM)

(Via Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Via Teleconference)Molnar, Trina AEPSC IOU (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Corp. Consumers- Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Briscoe, Judy BPBurkhalter, Ryan Citigroup Energy Via TeleconferenceClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceEmesih, Valentine CenterPoint EnergyFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceHansen, Eric The Structure GroupJackson, Tom Austin EnergyKlesa, Damon GS Via TeleconferenceKronman, J Fulcrum Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMolnar, Trina AEP Via TeleconferenceOlson, Sara Sungard Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRA Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Softsmiths Via Teleconference

1 Some attendees may not have been present for the entire meeting.

NATF 2010 - Page 1 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Trout, Seth Customized Energy SolutionsWagner, Marguerite PSEG TX

ERCOT Staff:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Market Segments were present for a vote.

Kelly Landry called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.

ANTITRUST ADMONITION Mr. Landry read the Antitrust Admonition, which was displayed. He asked those who had not yet reviewed the Antitrust Guidelines to do so. Copies of the Antitrust Guidelines were available.

ELECTION OF NATF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Mr. Landry reviewed the procedures for the election of NATF Chair and Vice Chair and opened the floor for nominations for Chair.

Jim Reynolds nominated Don Blackburn as NATF Chair. Mr. Blackburn accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations for Chair. Mr. Blackburn was elected unanimously. Russell Lovelace nominated James Jackson as Vice Chair. Mr. Jackson accepted. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair. Mr. Jackson was elected unanimously.

REVIEW AGENDA Mr. Blackburn reviewed the January 5, 2010 NATF agenda. Naomi Richard requested NATF consider discussion of potential changes in requirements for Combined-Cycle Configuration units in the Day-Ahead Market (DAM), Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC), and Hourly RUC (HRUC) at the next NATF meeting. She requested that NATF explore issues related to the Nodal Protocol requirement that Market Participants be able to “roll back” to their respective Zonal configurations up to 30 days after the Texas Nodal Market Implementation Date (TNMID). Matt Mereness stated that he would assist in this discussion and provide additional details of Nodal Protocol requirements for the next NATF meeting.


NAME Adams, JohnCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceDecuir, Kim Via TeleconferenceGates, Vikki Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMcElfresh, BrandonMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottReedy, SteveSurendran, ResmiTucker, Carrie

ERCOT Public

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES Kelly Landry noted that no comments to the December 8, 2009 NATF meeting minutes had been received.

Mr. Blackburn remarked that the review of these minutes occurred during the recent holiday and moved by general consent to table approval of the December 8, 2009 minutes and for the minutes to be circulated for a second round of review prior to the next NATF meeting. The motion carried without objection.

STATUS FOR TRANSMISSION BREAKERS AND SWITCHES FOR HRUC Resmi Surendran directed Market Participants to subsection (3) of Nodal Protocol Section 5.5.1, Security Sequence. She stated that current HRUC process uses telemetered breaker status for the first hour of HRUC. She noted that this means that if a Resource is offline with its breakers open at 10:00 a.m. when HRUC is executed, then HRUC will indicate those breakers as open for the hour following (11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.). Ms. Surendran stated that, despite the Resource’s status in the Current Operating Plan (COP), the status of the Resource’s breakers as being open will make the unit unavailable for selection in the 11:00 a.m. HRUC.

As a solution, Ms. Surendran stated that ERCOT intends to close all the breakers between the Resource connectivity node and the Resource node for the first HRUC, and to put a business process in place to change the HRUC input to indicate that any Resource that is subject to a Forced Outage is unavailable in the first HRUC. The general consensus among NATF members was that this was a good solution to the problem. Ms. Surendran stated that implementation of this solution would require a software update, but could be completed by ERCOT personnel. Some Market Participants requested that this decision be documented for posterity. Mr. Blackburn agreed that this is a concern.

ERCOT UPDATE ON NETWORK MODEL LOAD FREQUENCY John Adams noted that a major assignment for ERCOT has been to develop the business process for loading the Network Operations Model. He noted that a goal during early development of the Network Model Management System (NMMS) was a daily load of the model. Mr. Adams stated that a daily load of the model may not be the best plan and noted that there is not consensus regarding the frequency for loading of the model. Mr. Adams noted that ten times per year represents one load per month except during the summer. He observed that in the Nodal market, errors in the model will affect both reliability and financial aspects; therefore, efforts should focus on removing as many errors as possible.

Market Participants discussed potential negative impacts of posting the NOM less frequently than daily and expressed concern regarding what party would be responsible for entering pseudo switches. Market Participants expressed desire for continued discussion of this issue. Mr. Adams noted that the intent of his presentation was to broach the topic and that he would return to NATF at a later date to give Market Participants time to consider this issue. Market Participants requested that Mr. Adams provide more detail regarding ERCOT’s technical limitations regarding the frequency of loading the model. IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXT REASON FOR DEVIATION FROM DEFINED HIGH SUSTAINED LIMIT (HSL) / LOW SUSTAINED LIMIT (LSL) Mr. Adams observed that ERCOT is responsible for ensuring that Resource Entities observe their respective HSL and reviewed past problems with Resource Entities being unable to provide reserves as


ERCOT Public

represented by their HSL when called upon by ERCOT. He noted that as a result of these past problems zonal code was implemented which would not accept a High Sustained Limit level less than or equal to the maximum level of performance of a unit during its last net-dependable capability test. Mr. Adams reviewed discussions by the Transition Plan Task Force (TPTF) acknowledging inefficiencies with utilization of the net-dependable capability test to limit HSL. He stated that TPTF decided to allow Resource Entities to telemeter their HSL to ERCOT without being limited by previous demonstrated capability, but included a requirement for QSE’s to state the reason for this higher capability in text to allow compliance monitoring by ERCOT and TPTF. He remarked that the requirement to text to ERCOT the reason for deviation from the defined HSL was intended to be the enforcement mechanism.

Market Participants discussed Nodal Protocol language supporting the requirement for submission of a text reason, and commented that Nodal Protocols are not clear in this regard. Russell Lovelace agreed to work with Mr. Adams in the drafting of a Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) to revise Nodal Protocol language and clarify this requirement.

ANCILLARY SERVICES ATTESTATION FORM Mr. Mereness noted that the purpose of the Ancillary Services Attestation form is to assist Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) in identifying specific Resources that will be providing specific Ancillary Services during market trials. He stated that ERCOT will provide Market Participants with previously submitted attestations so that they can be updated as necessary. Mr. Mereness remarked that one goal is to enter market trials with the most up-to-date information regarding Resources.

Judy Briscoe inquired into whether a QSE that previously participated in the Zonal Non-Spinning Reserve Service (NSRS) Market, but had been excluded as a result of Protocol Revision Request (PRR) 776, Automatic MCPE Adjustment During Intervals of Non-Spinning Reserve Service Deployment, would be counted as having participated in the Zonal market such that they could still self certify and not need to repeat full qualification. Patrick Coon advised that operations planning may need to review this issue, but that QSEs should be able to notate on the attestation form that NSRS was previously being provided by a particular Resource, but is not currently being provided due to PRR776. Mr. Coon noted that this information would be included in a market notice.

CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHT (CRR) AUCTION UPDATE ON 7 X 24 BIDS Steve Reedy remarked that through interaction with Market Participants it had become clear that further information and market education regarding 24 hour bids was necessary. He reviewed the behavior of 24 hour bids in the CRR monthly and annual auctions. Mr. Reedy provided examples of CRR bids in both the monthly and annual CRR auctions and reviewed the methodology for calculating the awards for such bids. Mr. Reedy noted that awards from bids made in the monthly CRR auction are calculated differently from those in the annual CRR auction.

24 Hour Bids in the CRR Monthly AuctionMr. Reedy explained that the CRR monthly auction engine treats a 24 hour bid as a single bid across the three time-of-use models (peak weekday, peak weekend, off-peak). He stated that if the bid price is higher than the weighted average of the three times-of-use clearing prices, then the CRR bid will be awarded fully. He explained that if the bid price is lower than the weighted average of the three times-of-use clearing prices, then the CRR bid will not be awarded. Mr. Reedy further explained that if the bid price is equal to the weighted average of the three times-of-use clearing prices, then the CRR bid will be awarded at some level between 0 and 100%, but the same in each time-of-use.


ERCOT Public

24 Hour Bids in the CRR Annual AuctionMr. Reedy stated that in the annual auction the auction engine treats a 24 hour bid as a short cut for entering three separate bids in the three time-of-use network models. He noted that if the bid price is higher than the clearing price in a given time-of-use, then the CRR bid will be awarded fully in that time of use. He explained that if the bid price is lower than the clearing price in a given time of use, then the CRR bid will be not be awarded in that time of use. He noted that if the bid price is equal to the clearing price in a given time-of-use, then the CRR bid will be awarded at some level between 0 and 100% in that time-of-use.

Mr. Reedy provided NATF members with various options for resolving the difference between the annual and monthly auctions. Shams Siddiqi suggested that 7 X 24 bids are not supported by Nodal Protocols and may need to be removed entirely as an option. Mr. Blackburn directed that this issue be subjected to further review by Market Participants.

MARKET READINESS UPDATE Market Participant MetricsBrandon McElfresh provided an update on ERCOT and Market Readiness metrics. Mr. McElfresh noted that with regard to MP6, Telemetry Compliance with 3.10.7.5, 28 out of the 46 QSEs with Resources have submitted all of the required State Estimator (SE) telemetry. He stated that Transmission Service Providers (TSPs) be tested under this metric beginning in January 2010, and that Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) telemetry will be included in this metric in January 2010.

Ms. Richard expressed the concern that continued Market Participant telemetry issues will delay the accurate calculation of Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs). Scott Middleton opined that ERCOT expects to have some telemetry issues early in February, but that ERCOT expects to have these issues resolved by March 1, 2010.

Mr. McElfresh reviewed MP11, Resource Registration. He noted that, as of December 29, 2009, 97.69% of Market Participants have completed Nodal required Resource registration activities. With regard to MP14-B, he noted that as of August 14, 2009 100% of TSPs had submitted test Network Operations Model Change Requests as part of the Single Entry Model (SEM) go-live procedure. Mr. McElfresh stated that ERCOT proposes that this metric be marked as complete. Mr. McElfresh noted that, regarding N4, Network Modeling Single Entry, since NOMCR processes are operating without significant error and the NOM is being consumed by test systems such as the Energy Management System (EMS) and the Market Management System (MMS), ERCOT also recommends that metric N4 be closed.

Russell Lovelace posited that metric N4 includes a milestone validating that QSEs are able to consume the NOM. He noted that this verification need not be part of the N4 metric, but that being able to successfully download the NOM was an important aspect of the Nodal market and that it needs to be tracked under at least one metric. Mr. Mereness stated that ERCOT would close metric N4, and would identify a new metric under which to track this particular milestone. He noted that he would return with an update regarding this effort at the next NATF meeting.

Mr. McElfresh noted that ERCOT will begin tracking metric MP3, Market Submissions Connectivity Qualification, and MP15-B, CRR Connectivity Qualification, on January 13, 2010. He remarked that ERCOT will begin tracking MP20, Outage Schedule Connectivity Qualification, and MP15-A, Real-Time Market Daily Participation, on February 20, 2010. He stated that MP14-C, TSP Network Model Validation, is still being developed and will be reviewed at the January Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG) meeting.


ERCOT Public

ERCOT MetricsMr. McElfresh noted that ERCOT will begin tracking metric E1, ERCOT Staff Completes Training, and E9, Develop TN Procedures, on January 13, 2010. He stated that ERCOT will begin tracking metric MO4, Verify SCED Execution Quality, on February 10, 2010. Mr. McElfresh remarked that metrics may be observed at the ERCOT Readiness Center at http://nodal.ercot.com/readiness/scorecard/index.html.

MARKET TRIALS UPDATE Mr. Middleton noted that, beginning January 2010, the previously bi-weekly QSE Qualification conference call will begin occurring weekly at 9:00 a.m. every Friday, and that the CRR Account Holder conference call will begin occurring weekly at 10:30 a.m. every Friday. He noted that market trials phase three handbooks have been published by ERCOT and that they are available at the ERCOT Nodal Readiness Center at http://nodal.ercot.com/readiness/markettrials/index.html. Mr. Middleton noted that the following URLs are available for access to the Nodal production systems:

- Market Information System (MIS): https://mis.ercot.com/pps/tibco/mis/ - Market Manager: https://mis.ercot.com/pps/tibco/mis/- CRR: https://mis.ercot.com/pps/tibco/mis/- External Web Services (EWS): https://misapi.ercot.com/2007-08/Nodal/eEDS/EWS

Mr. Middleton noted that the Market Trials Phase 3 Kick-Off and Market Readiness Seminar (2) will be held January 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the ERCOT Austin Metro Center. He noted that details of these events can be found at www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/01/20100128-EDS/. He remarked that the Nodal Production Environment will be available Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that only functionality that pertains to the CRR and QSE qualification activities will be supported. Mr. Middleton noted that with regard to March 2010 market activities, ERCOT has added individual QSE Load Frequency Control (LFC) testing to the Nodal Market Trials Roadmap. Mr. Middleton noted that ERCOT will begin focusing on the quality of telemetry. He requested that Market Participants take the initiative to review their telemetry and not wait for ERCOT to contact them.

FUTURE MEETINGS OF NATF Mr. Blackburn noted that NATF’s next meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Blackburn adjourned the meeting at 3:42 p.m.


http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/01/20100128-EDS/

https://misapi.ercot.com/2007-08/Nodal/eEDS/EWS

https://mis.ercot.com/pps/tibco/mis/



http://nodal.ercot.com/readiness/markettrials/index.html

http://nodal.ercot.com/readiness/scorecard/index.html

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744FEBRUARY 2, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers – ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy San Antonio MunicipalLovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMolnar, Trina AEPSC IOU Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent GeneratorSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Corp. Consumers- Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Allen, Thresa IberdrolaBeckman, Dwight BEPCBogen, David ONCORBriscoe, Judy BPBurkhalter, Ryan Citigroup EnergyCochran, Seth Sempra Emesih, Valentine CenterPoint EnergyFogt, Kim OATI Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHansen, Eric The Structure GroupJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJacobs, Jim AEPJennings, Ken Duke EnergyJohn, Ebby CenterPoint Energy



ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Jones, Dan Potomac EconomicsJones, Randy Calpine Via TeleconferenceKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantKolodziej, Eddie Customized Energy SolutionsMarchelli, Mario The Structure Group Via TeleconferenceMishra, Shailesh Power CostsMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceMoran, Mike Reliant Energy Via TeleconferenceO’Leary, Paul Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePeter, Son E.ON Via TeleconferencePotts, Dave Ascenergy Consulting LLCSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRA Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Softsmiths Via TeleconferenceTrenary, Michelle Tenaska Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:



NAME Adams, JohnBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceCarmen, Travis Via TeleconferenceCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceGeer, EdGonzalez, InoHansen, Chuck Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyLevine, Jon Via TeleconferenceMcElfresh, BrandonMereness, MattMurray, DougReedy, Steve Via TeleconferenceShaw, PamelaSpangler, Bob Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTucker, Carrie

ERCOT Public

Don Blackburn called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m.

ANTITRUST ADMONITION Mr. Blackburn read the Antitrust Admonition, which was displayed. He asked those who had not yet reviewed the Antitrust Guidelines to do so. Copies of the Antitrust Guidelines were available.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES Naomi Richard requested that one sentence be struck from the January 5, 2010 meeting minutes regarding the ERCOT update on the Network Operations Model load frequency. Ms. Richard requested the minutes reflect a desire for continued discussion of pseudo switches regarding the same discussion topic.

James Jackson moved to approve the December 8, 2009 meeting minutes as presented to NATF, and the January 5, 2010 meeting minutes as amended by NATF. Naomi Richard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

START-UP COSTS FOR RELIABILITY MUST-RUN (RMR) UNITS Ino Gonzalez explained that currently Three-Part Supply Offers created by ERCOT for RMR units are based on RMR contracts, and that Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs are not included in those contracts. As a result, Mr. Gonzalez explained, Three-Part Supply Offers for RMR units do not reflect the true cost of a Resource. Mr. Gonzalez stated that he wanted to ensure that Market Participants were aware of the methodology for creating these particular Three-Part Supply Offers so that changes could be affected if desired.

Mr. Blackburn noted that rules regarding RMR units should not be adjusted to allow RMR units to compete with other units on the basis of economics. He stated that RMR units should be utilized only for reliability purposes. Other Market Participants suggested that the fuel adder be modified to accommodate for the absence of O&M costs and that this issue should be brought to the Verifiable Costs Working Group (VCWG). Mr. Gonzalez stated that he would not be submitting a Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) regarding this issue, but that he would bring this issue to VCWG. Mr. Blackburn noted that any Market Participant interested in correcting this issue should participate in discussions of this issue with VCWG and submit an NPRR on their own behalf.

UTILIZATION OF PROXY ENERGY CURVE IN RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENT (RUC) SETTLEMENT Pamela Shaw explained that the Average Incremental Energy Cost (AIEC) in the RUC formula is designed to allow a Resource to retain the cost incurred to generate above its Low Sustained Limit (LSL). She noted, however, that currently the proxy energy Offer Curve used to calculate the Real Time AIEC will result in a negative average cost for energy and that this negative cost could potentially subject the Qualified Scheduling Entity (QSE) to a clawback charge. Ms. Shaw stated that a correction would require both a Nodal Protocol and ERCOT system change. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the desire was to make Market Participants aware of this issue, but that he would not be submitting an NPRR. Mr. Blackburn noted that any Market Participant interested in correcting this issue should submit an NPRR.

UNDERSTANDING REAL TIME MARKET (RTM) RESULTS Resmi Surendran stated that her goal was to increase awareness of the effects of certain Market Participant actions on Real Time Market (RTM) results, and to encourage Market Participants to manage


ERCOT Public

these actions so as to ensure meaningful RTM results during market trials. Ms. Surendran reviewed a list of actions by Market Participants and their effects on Real Time Market results. She noted that ERCOT would be focusing attention on the most egregious erroneous telemetry submissions.

Ms. Surendran noted that prices could be greater than the System Wide Offer Cap or lower than the System Wide Offer Floor based on the current default penalty values for power balance and transmission constraints. She stated that ERCOT will be monitoring Real-Time Market results during market trials to determine if the default penalty values are reasonable, or whether adjustments to values are necessary.

Market Participants discussed the potential of adding hard caps to market prices and recommended that Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) be reviewed during the first month they are produced to determine if default penalty values are being modeled properly and are reasonable. Mr. Blackburn stated that he would consider extending the April 6, 2010 meeting to the following day to accommodate discussion of LMPs. Ms. Surendran reviewed several possible market design issues. She noted that part of available physical capacity is made un-available to Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) since the Ramp Rate needed for providing Regulation Resource Responsibility (RRS) is reserved when the SCED Up Ramp Rate is calculated. Ms. Surendran stated that RRS energy from Resources on Output Schedules can only be deployed at the System Wide Offer Cap since their Output Schedules are not adjusted for RRS deployment. She explained that the artificial drop in price when Emergency Interruptible Load Service (EILS) is deployed after an Energy Emergency Alert (EEA) prevents scarcity prices from being communicated consistently to Market Participants.

CONSIDERATION OF NON-SPINNING RESERVE SERVICE (NSRS) IN HOURLY RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENT (HRUC) Dan Jones observed that the quantity of NSRS has increased with the increased use of Wind Generation Resources (WGRs) and the need for ERCOT to ensure reliability. He opined that as the use of WGRs increases, ERCOT’s use of NSRS will increase proportionally. He noted that the more distant the market is from Real Time, the greater the uncertainty in the Load forecast. Mr. D. Jones stated that as the Market approaches Real Time, and the decreasing uncertainty reduces the need for NSRS, it would be cost effective to begin utilizing some portion of the NSRS that has been procured. Mr. D. Jones recommended that Market Participants develop a methodology for deployment of NSRS under this regime. Ms. Surendran noted that NSRS deployment procedures were approved by TAC and can be found at http://nodal.ercot.com/mktrules/np/index.html.

OPERATING LEVEL AGREEMENT (OLA) / SERVICES LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA) UPDATE Betty Day presented an update on the capabilities of ERCOT systems to accommodate high volumes of Day-Ahead Market (DAM) Energy Bids, DAM Energy-Only Offers, and Point to Point (PTP) obligations. She noted that ERCOT can currently support 5,000 Energy-Only Bids and Offers, and 5,000 PTP Obligation Bids in the DAM. Ms. Day stated that these thresholds are comparable to other markets, but that ERCOT has observed concern among Market Participants. She stated that ERCOT has arranged for system software patches that will improve the performance of related ERCOT systems, and that ERCOT has a goal of increasing the thresholds for Bids and Offers to 10,000, and PTP Obligations to 10,000.

Regarding the Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Market, Ms. Day noted that the number of Bids plus the number of previously awarded CRRs may not exceed 200,000. Russell Lovelace inquired as to whether ERCOT plans to institute a limit on the number of Bids on a per Market Participant basis. Steve Reedy

NATF 2010 - Page 10 of 136

http://nodal.ercot.com/mktrules/np/index.html

ERCOT Public

explained that the current CRR Auction Engine has a limited capability to restrict the number of Bids that could be submitted by individual Market Participants. He remarked that current ERCOT systems could be configured to limit the number of Bids on a per Market Participant basis, but that the limit would have to be the same for all Market Participants, and that the number would vary from auction to auction. Mr. Reedy explained that the limit for each auction would be calculated by dividing the total number of CRRs available, by the number of registered participants in the auction, and that each Market Participant would be restricted to this number of Bids.

Market Participants inquired what factors were driving the limitations on the volumes of transactions in the Annual CRR auction. Mr. Reedy explained that the multi-periodicity of the auction is the major factor. He stated that during each of the six separate optimizations conducted for the Annual Auction, ERCOT systems examine 12 different models. He noted that this multi-periodicity is the reason for the large volume of calculations required of ERCOT systems. Shams Siddiqi requested that ERCOT examine thresholds in the PJM market. Ms. Day agreed to examine the thresholds of other markets and report her findings to NATF.

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXT REASON FOR DEVIATION FROM DEFINED HIGH SUSTAINED LIMIT (HSL) / LOW SUSTAINED LIMIT (LSL) John Adams reviewed the history of the Nodal Protocol requirement obligating operators of Generation units to submit a text reason for deviation by a unit from its defined HSL. Mr. Adams related to Market Participants his belief that this Nodal Protocol requirement has become moot due to the approval of NPRR194, Synchronization of Zonal Unannounced Generation Capacity Testing Process. He stated that, due to NPRR194, deviation by a Generation unit from its season HSL would be a Protocol violation. Mr. Lovelace noted that the Protocol language created by NPRR194 may need minor modification, but that in essence the requirement for submission of a text reason no longer appears necessary.

Randy Jones noted that a problem could arise with establishing a unit’s HSL within the first 15 days of summer. He noted that the HSL established at that time, may not represent a unit’s true potential in mid-summer. Mr. Adams stated that it may be possible for operators of Generation units to conduct a self-test to set their HSL. Mr. R. Jones stated that if this is the case, he would be satisfied with this resolution. Mr. Lovelace agreed to draft an NPRR to amend Protocol language to provide clarification and to present it at the March 2, 2010 NATF meeting.

ERCOT UPDATE ON NETWORK MODEL LOAD FREQUENCY Mr. Adams noted that current Nodal Protocols call for loading of the Network Operations Model at least 10 times per year, but allow for more loads. He observed that discussions at the Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG) have centered on the concept of a daily posting of the Model. He stated that ERCOT cannot support daily Network Model Database loads, and proposed that a process be developed that requires something less frequent than daily. Mr. Adams opined that the NDSWG should be allowed to work out concerns among Transmission Service Providers (TSPs), and that regular updates should be provided to NATF so that NATF can address potential market related concerns. Mr. Adams remarked that he had produced a white paper expressing ERCOT’s point of view on this issue and that he had received comments to the document. He observed that Market Participants may not have had enough time to review the white paper prior to the NATF meeting, but that NDSWG could take up this issue at its next meeting and NATF members could attend and express their opinions there.

Valentine Emesih stated that he had serious disagreement with the contents of the white paper stating that it underestimates the impact to TSPs. He remarked that the white paper was not a product of NDSWG, but rather that of ERCOT. Market Participants perceived that posting the Network Model less frequently than daily could have negative affects on the DAM. Market Participants also discussed potential

NATF 2010 - Page 11 of 136

ERCOT Public

requirements under Nodal Protocols for ERCOT and TSPs related to maintenance of the Network Operations Model, but did not reach consensus on these issues.

Ebby John stated that the activities planned for the February 16, 2010 NDSWG meeting would be rescheduled, and that the time would be allocated for a special meeting to review this issue. Mr. John stated that NATF members would be welcome to attend and provide comment.

READINESS SCORECARD UPDATE Brandon McElfresh reviewed the active metric inventory and reported on the status of Market Submissions Connectivity Qualification, QSE and TSP compliance with Telemetry Criteria, Resource Registration, and CRR Connectivity Qualification. Mr. McElfresh reported no major issues regarding these metrics.

Mr. McElfresh provided Market Participants with a “roadmap” of metrics. He noted that with regard to those metrics colored blue, the criteria had been established, and with regard to those metrics colored orange, the criteria had yet been established. He observed that the road map was posted to the ERCOT Nodal Readiness Center website at http://nodal.ercot.com/readiness/scorecard/kd/Metrics_Roadmap.ppt.Mr. McElfresh reviewed the following new metrics and their respective criteria:

- MP15-A- Real-Time Market Participation- MP14-C- TSP Model Validation- MP20 – Outage Scheduler Connectivity Qualification- MO4 – Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) Execution Quality

Mr. McElfresh noted difficulty with reporting and tracking the metrics associated with sub-QSEs. He gained agreement from Market Participants for ERCOT to begin reporting sub-QSE performance through a “parent-child” relationship between the QSE and Sub-QSE. He explained that sub-QSE statistics would be reported on one QSE scorecard, and observed that this method of reporting sub-QSE activity provides consistency for all QSEs and sub-QSEs.

Matt Mereness presented significant edits to MP14-C and reviewed them with Market Participants. He noted that, upon completion of the model validation process, the Accountable Executive at each TSP is to formally notify ERCOT that their individual model validation process is complete. Mr. Mereness reviewed with Market Participants the criteria for MP14-C, as well as the “red, amber, green” reporting rules.

EXECUTIVE BRIEF Mr. Mereness observed that a presentation had been made by Trip Doggett and Mike Cleary at the January 28, 2010 Market Readiness Seminar. He noted that the presentation included a high level brief on the Texas Nodal Market and a quarterly synopsis of milestones of which Market Participants should be aware. He stated that this presentation should be made available at the February 2, 2010 NATF webpage; http://www.ercot.com/content/meetings/natf/keydocs/2010/0202/13_executive_briefing_final_100202.ppt#258,1,The Texas Nodal Market.

NODAL WEB-SERVICES UPDATE Mr. Mereness noted that SCED has been running and is performing well. He noted that ERCOT has begun allocations for the first CRR auction. Mr. Mereness reminded Market Participants that regularly on

NATF 2010 - Page 12 of 136

http://www.ercot.com/content/meetings/natf/keydocs/2010/0202/13_executive_briefing_final_100202.ppt%23258,1,The%20Texas%20Nodal%20Market

http://www.ercot.com/content/meetings/natf/keydocs/2010/0202/13_executive_briefing_final_100202.ppt%23258,1,The%20Texas%20Nodal%20Market

http://nodal.ercot.com/readiness/scorecard/kd/Metrics_Roadmap.ppt

ERCOT Public

Mondays ERCOT conducts the Market Trials Engagement conference call, on Thursdays ERCOT conducts the Outage Scheduler Market conference call, and on Fridays ERCOT conducts the Real-Time Market and CRR Market conference calls.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Jackson adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.

NATF 2010 - Page 13 of 136

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744MARCH 2, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Brewster, Chris City of Eastland Consumers- CommercialKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric CooperativeLovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)Molnar, Trina AEPSC IOU Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Seymour, Cesar Suez Independent GeneratorSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumers- ResidentialWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Corp. Consumers- Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Allen, Thresa IberdrolaBarnes, Bill JAron Via TeleconfereceBogen, David ONCORBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBrown, Jeff Shell EnergyCannon, Meribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke EnergyChange, Robin VentyxCochran, Seth Sempra Detelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceFox, Kip AEP Via TeleconferenceFulcrum, Cherie Fulcrum Power Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac EconomicsGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 14 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Hansen, Eric Ventyx Via TeleconferenceHarding, Jennifer Barclays Capital Via TeleconferenceHellinghousen, Bill EDF TradingJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJacobs, Jim AEPJernigan, Jerry New Braunfels Utilities Via TeleconferenceJohn, Ebby CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceJou, Ching AEP Via TeleconferenceJones, Randy Calpine Via TeleconferenceKee, David CPS Energy Via TeleconfernceKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantNguyen, Vu Ventyx Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos electric Via TeleconferenceOlson, Sara Sungard Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasQuin, Scott PCISandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRA Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Softsmiths Via TeleconferenceThompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceTrenary, Michelle Tenaska Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy SolutionsZehani, Madjid Austin Energy Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:

NATF 2010 - Page 15 of 136

ERCOT Public




RECAP SPECIAL NATF MEETINGS Special Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG) MeetingMr. Blackburn observed that the NDSWG conducted a special meeting on February 16, 2010 to address the frequency for loading the Network Operations Model database and that some members of NATF were in attendance. He noted that John Adams presented a white paper to NDSWG addressing ERCOT’s efforts to increase the frequency of model database loads, and reiterated that ERCOT is confident that it can upload the model database at least once every two weeks and is attempting to increase that to once every week. Matt Mereness stated that ERCOT would continue to bring visibility into these efforts over the next 60 days.

Web-services Market ReviewScott Middleton observed that NATF conducted a special meeting on February 19, 2010 for a web-services market review. Mr. Middleton noted that the meeting provided a recap on changes to the External Interface Specifications (EIS) and a target timeline for implementation. He remarked that the full presentation and associated documents could be found at the February 19, 2010 NATF meeting page at http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/02/20100219-NATF.

NATF 2010 - Page 16 of 136

NAME Adams, John Via TeleconferenceAllen, Sean Via TeleconferenceBlevins, Bill Via TeleconferenceCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceGates, VikkiGonzalez, InoHailu, Ted Via TeleconferenceHansen, Chuck Via TeleconferenceHobbs, Kristi Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyLevine, Jon Via TeleconferenceMcElfresh, BrandonMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottReedy, Steve Via TeleconferenceSpangler, Bob Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTucker, Carrie

http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/02/20100219-NATF

ERCOT Public

NODAL PROTOCOL REVISION REQUEST (NPRR) 169, CLARIFY THE CALCULATION AND POSTING OF LMPS FOR THE LOAD ZONE AND LMPS FOR EACH Mr. Mereness reviewed the procedural history of NPRR169 and ERCOT comments. He remarked that the purpose of NPRR169 was to require that after every run of Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED), ERCOT was to recalculate Load Zone Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) and Hub LMPs. Mr. Mereness noted that NPRR169 recommended that an external vendor be contracted to perform the system changes necessary to accommodate this new functionality, but that since NPRR169 was originally introduced ERCOT staff has acquired the technical abilities to perform the necessary changes internally. Mr. Mereness noted that in the course of development of ERCOT’s Market Management System (MMS), ERCOT introduced functionality which created the ability for ERCOT to create LMPs as described in NPRR169.

Mr. Mereness related ERCOT’s concern with delivery of the described pricing information via Inter-Control Center Communications Protocol (ICCP). He stated that ERCOT proposes deletion of the telemetry requirement and that the data be made available instead via reports on the Market Information System (MIS) Public Area. Mark Smith opined on the importance that Market Participants be provided LMPs as close to Real Time as possible, and expressed the concern that ERCOT’s proposal could cause substantial latency in price signals. He suggested ERCOT consider transmitting price signals to Market Participants via ICCP. Mr. Mereness commented that transmission of pricing information did not appear to be the type of data intended in the Nodal Protocols to be transmitted via ICCP and that some Market Participants may not be equipped to receive the information in this manner.

Scott Wardle moved to endorse the concept brought forth by ERCOT in NPRR169, as revised by NATF, and to direct ERCOT to continue to examine potential reductions in latency in the reporting of pricing signals to Market Participants. Russell Lovelace seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MARKET TRIALS UPDATE Market TrialsScott Middleton presented an update on Market Trials activities. He remarked that ERCOT will be changing the format for the weekly Market Trials Market Call. He noted that there will be a single call beginning at 9:00 a.m. and that each functional area will have a time slot allocated for its update. He stated that the order and schedule of the weekly updates will be shared with Market Participants via a Market Notice. Mr. Middleton noted that the Energy Management System (EMS), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and SCED is now available through the Nodal Production Environment 24 hours a day and seven days a week, and that all other systems will be available Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Middleton presented an update on connectivity and qualification testing, Nodal telemetry outreach, and Load Resource and Transmission Service Provider (TSP) telemetry. He observed that 61 of 76 Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Account Holders, 43 of 86 Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) with Resources, and 5 of 25 TSPs, have been qualified. Mr. Middleton noted that the March, 2010 CRR Auction completed successfully, and that the April 2010 Auction opens March 8, 2010.

SCEDMr. Middleton presented graphs indicating SCED activity during February 2010. He noted that prices continue to reflect market conditions, but that telemetry data quality, inconsistent offer curves, and output

NATF 2010 - Page 17 of 136

ERCOT Public

schedules remain as input issues. He stated that some electrical system constraints existing in the Zonal system are currently being entered into SCED. Market Participants inquired as to how ERCOT determines which of these constraints to enter into SCED. Mr. Middleton stated that he would provide more information on this issue at the next Real-Time Market (RTM)/Load Frequency Control (LFC) Market Call.

Carrie Tucker noted that ERCOT is currently planning phase five of Market Trials and that commitment of Resources for Ancillary Service is planned. Market Participants inquired as to whether ERCOT is planning one LFC closed loop test, or more. Mr. Middleton stated that additional opportunities would be available for ERCOT and Market Participants to discuss the potential for additional tests and that ERCOT is looking forward to instituting such recommendations when possible. Shams Siddiqi inquired as to whether ERCOT would provide a basic “five bus” Network Operations Model for Market Participant systems to consume. Mr. Mereness expressed concern that such an effort could become a separate environment that would need to be supported by ERCOT staff, but that he would take an action item to examine the potential for such a test.

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXT REASON FOR DEVIATION FROM DEFINED HIGH SUSTAINED LIMIT (HSL) / LOW SUSTAINED LIMIT (LSL) Russell Lovelace remarked that ambiguity exists regarding Nodal Protocol Section 6.4.5, Resource Status, regarding the requirement that a text message be transmitted to ERCOT when a Generation Resource deviates from its HSL/LSL. He noted that he had been working with John Adams to draft clarifying language. Mr. Lovelace observed that NPRR194, Synchronization of Zonal Unannounced Generation Capacity Testing Process, obviates the need for additional clarifying language by authorizing Generation Resources to set their Net Dependable Capability through a seasonal self test. Mr. Lovelace stated that he has now turned his attention to drafting a protocol revision request that would remove the criteria for submitting a text reason to ERCOT when a Resource’s HSL or LSL deviates from its normal high or low limit.

CURRENT OPERATING PLAN STATUS FOR GENERATION UNITS THAT MAY BE ON-LINE Beth Garza explained that an issue exists in regard to the status that must be entered into the Current Operating Plan (COP) for Generation Resources that a QSE “plans to have” online, and how firm that expectation needs to be to justify a status of on-line and available. Mr. Lovelace noted that the closer one gets to Real Time, the more certain a Resource Entity can be about the status of its units. Market Participants discussed various causes for a change in the status of a generation unit. Ms. Garza noted that additional discussion is necessary on this issue.

OPERATING LEVEL AGREEMENT (OLA) FOR CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHT (CRR) SIZING UPDATE ANCILLARY SERVICES SELF ARRANGED QUANTITIES- ALLOWING 0 MW James Bohart reviewed the current threshold limits for the CRR market. He stated that in each CRR Auction, the total number of submissions, plus previously awarded CRRs, cannot exceed 200,000. He stated that ERCOT Staff has reviewed threshold limits in other markets in the United States such as PJM, California Independent System Operator (ISO), and Midwest ISO. He related that the limits currently established by ERCOT are sufficient in comparison to these other markets. Market Participants discussed the similarities and differences between ERCOT and the other ISOs and noted that any changes to the limits currently established by ERCOT would require a change to ERCOT systems. Steve Reedy noted that the next step for ERCOT is to seek approval of the current threshold limits from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

NATF 2010 - Page 18 of 136

ERCOT Public

ANCILLARY SERVICES SELF ARRANGED QUANTITIES- ALLOWING 0 MW Mr. Mereness observed that Nodal Protocols dictate that the Self-Arranged Ancillary Service Quantity shall be submitted to ERCOT in intervals of one tenth of a megawatt (MW) and at a minimum amount of one MW. Tom Jackson observed that the minimum submission requirement of one MW does not account for the situation whereby a Market Participant would like ERCOT to arrange for its Ancillary Service requirement and thereby self arrange zero MWs. Madjid Zehani observed that Market Participants should be able to submit zero MWs for its Self-Arranged Ancillary Service Quantity, but that negative numbers should not be allowed as this is greater than the Market Participants Ancillary Service obligation. Mr. Mereness acknowledged that ERCOT could accommodate the submission of zero as the number of MWs, but that it would require a configuration change and that ERCOT would need Market Participants to indicate consensus on the issue. Market Participants acknowledged the need for this change and requested ERCOT proceed.

NODAL METRICS UPDATE Brandon McElfresh reviewed the status of current Market Participant metrics and observed that MP 11 Resource Registration, and MP6, QSER and TSP Compliance with the Nodal Protocols Section 3.10.7.5 Telemetry Criteria, are green. He stated that MP3, Market Submission Connectivity Qualification, is green when weighted by generation ration share, and amber when weighted evenly. Mr. McElfresh observed that MP15-B, CRR Connectivity Qualification, is red with 61 of 76 CRR account holders having qualified. Mr. McElfresh reviewed adjustments to the following upcoming metrics:

MO4, Verify Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) Execution Quality MO5, Generate Six Months of Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) EM01, Network Security Analysis and Transmission Constraint Management EM09, Validate Zonal and Nodal Security Analysis Results CRR3, Operation and Monthly CRR Auction and Allocation MP16, Day-Ahead Market (DAM) Participation MP12, Market Participant Completes Nodal Market Related Training MP13, Market Participant Completes Nodal Operations Related Training

In response to Market Participant inquiries regarding training leading up to the 168 hour test and Texas Nodal Market Go-Live, Mr. McElfresh stated that ERCOT has carefully reviewed training metrics. Mr. McElfresh stated that, with regard to MP12 and MP13, ERCOT recommends that it regularly report to NATF on attendance to ERCOT training activities, but not score this activity as a metric. Market Participants agreed that this recommendation was the prudent method for tracking this participation.

VERIFIABLE COSTS SUBMISSIONS UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF DEADLINES Mr. Mereness noted that revisions continue to the Verifiable Cost Manual and that new versions of the document are generated as revisions are added. Mr. Mereness inquired as to which version Market Participants would prefer ERCOT to refer to when instituting go-live procedures. Mr. Mereness advised that ERCOT does not currently have an opinion on whether verifiable costs should be submitted in full prior to the 168-hour test, but posited the option to establish deadlines for such submissions. Market Participants related discussions at recent Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS) meetings regarding the potential creation of generic values for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs and opined that some Market Participants are awaiting resolution of this issue before making the decision to submit their verifiable costs. Some Market Participants expressed the concern that an “avalanche of submissions” could be coming and requested that ERCOT keep NATF informed monthly on the progress of verifiable cost submissions. Ino Gonzalez agreed to keep NATF so apprised.

NATF 2010 - Page 19 of 136

ERCOT Public


NATF 2010 - Page 20 of 136

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744APRIL 6, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Brewster, Chris City of Eastland Consumers- Commercial

(Via Teleconference)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Cooperative (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM)

(Via Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Via Teleconference)Molnar, Trina AEPSC IOU Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent GeneratorSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent Generator

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Anklam, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBogen, David ONCORBriscoe, Judy BP EnergyCannon, Meribeth Edison MissionCarter, Kevin Duke EnergyCochran, Seth Sempra Via TeleconferenceDetelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceFox, Kip AEP Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric ReliantGrimes, Mike Horizon Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison MissionJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJacobi, Jim AEP


NATF 2010 - Page 21 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Janicki, Diane Edison MissionJones, Randy Calpine Via TeleconferenceKettler, Kolby Citigroup Via TeleconferenceKolodziej, Eddie Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry Luminant Via TeleconferenceMcDonald, Mike Edison MissionMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceMilberg, Sadao DC Energy Via TeleconferenceNguyen, Vu Ventyx Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG Texas Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceShailesh, Mishra PCISiddiqi, Shams LCRAStappers, Hugo Softsmiths Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantTaskaya, Catherine Edison MissionTrenary, Michelle Tenaska Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Allen, Sean Via TeleconferenceBauld, Mandy Via TeleconferenceBoren, Ann Via TeleconferenceCarmen, Travis Via TeleconferenceGates, Vikki Via TeleconferenceHobbs, Kristi Via TeleconferenceHoover, Lisa Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceMcElfresh, BrandonMereness, MattMiddleton, Scott Via TeleconferenceMortensen, Tim Via TeleconferenceReedy, Steve Via TeleconferenceSpangler, Bob Via TeleconferenceTucker, Carrie Via TeleconferenceWhite, Steve Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 22 of 136

ERCOT Public




REVIEW AGENDA Mr. Blackburn reviewed the agenda and noted adjustments. Ms. Naomi Richard inquired into the role that NATF should play in the documentation and prioritization of Market Participant issues.

PROTOCOL ALIGNMENT/TRACEABILITY PROCESS DISCUSSION Mr. Blackburn noted that as ERCOT identifies discrepancies between the ERCOT Protocols and Nodal systems ERCOT has been addressing these Protocol alignment issues through the Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS). He remarked that NATF members have specialized knowledge of the Nodal Protocols and the Nodal Market and can meet on short notice. Mr. Blackburn observed that NATF may be able to provide assistance to ERCOT and PRS by reviewing these Protocol alignment issues prior to submission to PRS and by providing recommendations regarding the technical aspects. Matt Mereness opined that, instead of reviewing all of the alignment issues, NATF could meet on an ad hoc basis as the issues that need additional vetting were directed to NATF by PRS.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: James Jackson moved to approve the 2/2/2010 and 3/2/2010 NATF meeting minutes as presented to NATF. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE NODAL MARKET Kip Fox reviewed AEP comments to the Draft Guiding Principles of the Nodal Market. Mr. Fox stated that the Guiding Principles should include a statement indicating that if an entity is assigned a responsibility and authority to take an action in the Nodal Protocols that the entity should have the appropriate information and authority to perform the action so required. Mr. Fox expressed the concern that Nodal Protocols may require a Market Participant to engage in an activity that is in conflict with North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) or Texas Reliability Entity (TRE) rules. Randy Jones posited that the Guiding Principles should be considered as a list of aspirations and not legally binding, and that ERCOT should not include the text of the Guiding Principles in the body of any other legally binding documents. Mr. Blackburn noted that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), NATF and other subcommittees will continue to accept comments to this document and that concerned Market Participants should submit comments for consideration.

NOGRR034, RESCIND TELEMETRY PERFORMANCE CALCULATION EXCLUSIONS Jim Jacoby noted that NOGRR034 proposes the removal of language which allows Market Participants to, at their discretion, have any of their Telemetry Performance data excluded from the periodic calculations in the Telemetry Performance Monitoring Program. Mr. Jacoby noted two concerns by ERCOT expressed during Network Data Submission Working Group (NDSWG) meetings. He observed

NATF 2010 - Page 23 of 136

ERCOT Public

that the first concern was that ERCOT does not currently have the means to track such changes made by Market Participants. He observed that the second concern was that the wording was too broad and allowed Market Participants to remove telemetry as a measurable metric. Tim Mortensen stated that ERCOT would be amenable to reducing the required percentage of uptime for telemetry to account for planned telemetry outages. David Bogen remarked that the telemetry performance metrics for a small Transmission Service Provider (TSP) could be dramatically affected by the unplanned outage of a single Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) and that reducing the required percentages to account for planned outages would not correct the greater issue. Mr. Jacoby noted that NDSWG desires that telemetry be measured in a meaningful manner and that communications between TSPs, Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs), and ERCOT regarding telemetry outages be considered a mitigating factor in metric calculations.

Naomi Richard moved to recommend not striking the language deleted by NOGRR034, leaving in place the requirement that ERCOT remove points from the TAC approved Telemetry Standard performance metrics calculations when the QSE and TSP notifies ERCOT that such telemetry will not be available or is unreliable for operational purposes, and for ERCOT to provide an impact analysis regarding this requirement. Trina Molnar seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NODAL PROGRAM UPDATE Mr. Mereness reviewed several Market Participant inquiries that were not addressed on the weekly Market Trials Market Calls. He noted that with regard to NPRR202, Clarification of Network Operations Model and State Estimator Postings, a Network Operations Model has been generated for consumption by the entire market, but that additional work is necessary before it is posted the Market Information System (MIS). Mr. Mereness remarked that the model should be ready no later than June 2010.

Regarding NPR169, Clarify the Calculation and Posting of Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) for the Load Zone and LMPs for each Hub, Mr. Mereness observed that ERCOT has developed this functionality and beginning in June 2010, Market Participants will be able to receive, in addition to the Resource Node LMP, the Hub and Load Zone LMPs for each Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) run.

Mr. Mereness observed that, with regard to Nodal Market go-live procedures, ERCOT is using the previously approved 168-Hour Test and go-live procedure as a starting point, and that more details will be forthcoming no later than June 2010. He noted that ERCOT is re-visiting key assumptions leading up to go-live, such as whether the 168-hour test should include a Load Frequency Control (LFC) test. Mr. Mereness stated that ERCOT continues to develop timelines for the “fall back” plan for Nodal Market go-live. He stated that ERCOT will soon provide the timelines within which ERCOT and Market Participant systems will be expected to return to zonal configurations in the event of a major failure of Market Participant or ERCOT Nodal Market systems.

NODAL READINESS AND METRICS UPDATE Nodal ReadinessMr. Mereness reviewed statistics on the Nodal Outreach Program indicating the category of Market Participant visited, and the various locations. He observed that all of the Market Participants visited as part of the program requested an update on the Nodal Program and on Day-Ahead Market (DAM) implementation, and that the remaining topics varied by Market Participant. Mr. Mereness noted that a survey was distributed at the end of each site visit, and provided aggregated statistical results of the surveys. Vikki Gates observed that a workshop will be held 4/26/2010, and 5/3/2010 on Credit in the Nodal Market and that a Market Notice will be distributed as soon as the details are confirmed.

NATF 2010 - Page 24 of 136

ERCOT Public

MetricsBrandon McElfresh highlighted each of the recently added Market Participant metrics. He noted that the window for registration has been extended three days due to the unavailability of the User Interface regarding MP20, Outage Scheduler qualification. He noted that ERCOT will begin scoring MP16, DAM Participation, on 4/7/2010. Mr. McElfresh noted that MP15-B, Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Connectivity Qualification, remains red as 64 of 70 CRR account holders have been qualified.

Mr. McElfresh reviewed ERCOT metrics currently being measured. He observed that E9, Develop Nodal Procedures, and MO4, Verify Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) Execution Quality, are currently red but that ERCOT will be compliant with E9 on 4/7/10. Mr. McElfresh reviewed adjustments to the following upcoming metrics:

MP16, DAM Participation CRR3, Operation of CRR Auctions and Allocations EM06, QSE Individual Load Frequency Control (LFC) Testing N2, Telemetry/Inter-control Center Communications Protocol (ICCP) System Failover CO8, Verify CRR Auction Invoices

Market Participants expressed concern that there may be an insufficient number of participants in certain Market Trials testing to properly exercise ERCOT systems. Mr. Mereness stated that Market Participants could pick the top five operational scenarios and ERCOT could coordinate a time for maximum participation. Mr. Mereness recommended that NATF further discuss this option at the next NATF meeting.

CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CRR AUCTION BID LIMIT DETERMINATION Jim Bohart noted that the market wide threshold limit for the total number of submissions and previously awarded CRRs into each CRR auction is 200,000. Mr. Bohart observed that, with the current number of active participants at 80 and the number of Pre-existing CRRs (PCRRs) at 500, he expects that each auction participant should be allowed approximately 2,500 bids for each auction. Mr. Bohart stated that ERCOT believes that these limits are commensurate with other markets and are sufficient for the upcoming Nodal Market. Mr. Blackburn suggested that if Market Participants would like adjustments made to these limits they may draft a Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) with such adjustments and that NATF would review it for possible endorsement.

MARKET TRIALS UPDATE Scott Middleton reviewed recent participation in the DAM. He noted that some Market Participants did not provide their Ancillary Service obligations and that this issue is being reviewed. Mr. Middleton reviewed subjects of Market Trials needing further consideration, but noted that there are no areas of serious concern. Mr. Middleton stated that ERCOT is examining ways current zonal energy constraints can be translated into Nodal Market Trials and that this functionality will soon be available.

DAY-AHEAD MARKET (DAM) ENERGY-ONLY OFFERS/BIDS Update on multi-hour blocks not supported for energy curvesCarrie Tucker stated that ERCOT systems will not support multi-hour blocks for energy curves. She observed that when a Market Participant submits an Energy-Only Offer or an Energy Bid, the choice of submitting a fixed, variable, or curve quantity type is available. She stated that the curve type allowed for

NATF 2010 - Page 25 of 136

ERCOT Public

the entry of up to 10 price/quantity pairs and that a Market Participant could create a multi-hour block that would ensure that the bid or offer was awarded the same quantity for all hours in the time block. Ms. Tucker explained that it has been determined that ERCOT systems cannot process multi-hour blocks for curve submissions. She stated that this functionality has been disabled such that if a QSE submits a multi-hour block with a curve indicator, ERCOT systems will remove the multi-hour block prior to clearing the DAM and that QSEs will receive awards of differing quantities for each hour. Ms. Tucker stated that explanatory documentation regarding market submissions will be updated to clarify the clearing behavior when a bid or offer is submitted as a curve and multi-hour blocked. Offers/Bids Submission EfficienciesMs. Tucker stated that ERCOT has identified certain changes in submission of Bids and Offers that will create system efficiency. She noted the ERCOT’s preference is for QSEs to submit the same Bid or Offer identification number for each hour of their submission. Ms. Tucker noted that utilization of the same Bid or Offer identification number would improve system performance.

SIG WHITEPAPER UPDATE TO ALLOW 0MW SELF-ARRANGEMENT Mr. Mereness related that the System Implementation Guide (SIG) Whitepaper has been updated to allow 0 megawatts (MWs) as a figure representing how much a QSE intends to self-arrange for its Ancillary Service Obligation. Mr. Mereness explained that submission of 0 MWs would indicate that the QSE intends for ERCOT to arrange all of its Ancillary Service obligations. Market Participants observed that under this paradigm a QSE could not submit a negative number as a QSE cannot self-arrange greater than its Ancillary Service Obligation. Market Participants provided instructive language to the whitepaper clarifying submission requirements.


NATF 2010 - Page 26 of 136

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744MAY 4, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers- ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Cooperative (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Via Teleconference)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent GeneratorWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Corp. Consumers- Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Anklam, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill J Aron Via TeleconferenceBogen, David ONCOR Via TeleconferenceBoyle, Sean Exelon Corp. Via TeleconferenceBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth Sempra Via TeleconferenceFox, Kip AEP Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Via TeleconferenceHansen, Eric VentyxHarding, Jennifer Barclays Via TeleconferenceHarryman, Mike Fulcrum Power Via TeleconferenceHebert, Jason PCIJackson, Tom Austin Energy


NATF 2010 - Page 27 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Jones, Randy CalpineLange, Nathan DC Energy Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasRahimi, Farrokh OATISatkowski, Ned PSEG Via TeleconferenceSchultz, Steven LCRA Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRAStephenson, Randa LuminantTrout, Seth Customized Energy SolutionsVon Minden, Brad LCRA Via TeleconferenceWatson, Mark Platts Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Allen, Sean Via TeleconferenceBauld, Mandy Via TeleconferenceBlevins, Bill Via TeleconferenceBohart, Jim Via TeleconferenceBowles, JimBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceChu, Zhengguo Via TeleconferenceCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceDeller, Art Via TeleconferenceGates, VikkiGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceHailu, Ted Via TeleconferenceHansen, Chuck Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyLi, Dapeng Via TeleconferenceMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceMaggio, DavidMcElfresh, BrandonMereness, MattMiddleton, Scott Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenReedy, Steve Via TeleconferenceRoark, Dottie Via TeleconferenceSurendran, Resmi

NATF 2010 - Page 28 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Teng, Shuye Via TeleconferenceTucker, Carrie Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via Teleconference




REVIEW AGENDA Mr. Blackburn reviewed the agenda. Ken Ragsdale related problems with credit submissions during Market Trials for the morning of 5/4/10. He observed that a number of transactions were improperly canceled due to a system error, but that ERCOT was able to reverse most of the cancelations and allow them to proceed. Mr. Blackburn stated that discussions should take place regarding the impact to Market Participant systems of ERCOT efforts to resolve such problems and the appropriate Market Participant responses to ERCOT actions during such events.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Naomi Richard recommended changes to the 4/6/10 NATF meeting minutes regarding NATF’s role in documentation and prioritization of Market Participant issues. There were no objections to the recommended changes.

Ms. Richard moved to approve the 4/6/10 NATF meeting minutes as revised by NATF. Jim Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

UNIT PARAMETERS NEEDED FOR FREQUENCY CONTROL Mr. Blackburn noted that in order for ERCOT to process calculations for Generation Resource Energy Deployment Performance (GREDP), ERCOT must identify certain Generation Resource parameters. David Maggio explained that ERCOT will be looking to identify each unit’s offline limit percentage, online dead-band percentage, frequency deviation dead-band, and frequency bias. Mr. Maggio noted that these parameters will be used to calculate the estimated governor response. Mr. Maggio observed that one method for collecting these parameters would be through an addendum to the Resource Asset Registration Form (RARF). He noted that the collection of these figures would take approximately two to three months and that the data would be stored separately from the RARF.

Market Participants discussed the use of a unit’s High Reasonability Limit (HRL) and expressed concern regarding the accuracy of ERCOT’s calculations. Market Participants expressed concern that these parameters could affect GREDP metrics, and could require changes to Market Participant systems. Mr. Blackburn directed that a special NATF meeting be scheduled for 5/11/10, and requested ERCOT provide additional information regarding these concerns.

REDACTED MODEL STATUS AND MARKET VOLUNTEER FOR REVIEW

NATF 2010 - Page 29 of 136

ERCOT Public

Matt Mereness noted that ERCOT has developed its initial version of the Network Operations Model with the Private Use Network (PUN) information redacted. Mr. Mereness observed that ERCOT is requesting volunteers to review the model to ensure that all confidential information has been removed. He observed that volunteers would be limited to only portions of the model related to their representative entities. Mr. Blackburn, Adrian Pieniazek and Randy Jones volunteered to view their respective portions of the model.

CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS (CRR) RECOMMENDATION TO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Mr. Mereness noted that Nodal Protocols require that EROCT report to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) about whether a limit on bid volume or a nominal transaction charge for each bid submitted would benefit the CRR auction process. Mr. Mereness reviewed ERCOT’s recommendation for bid limitations for the annual and monthly CRR auctions for the Nodal Market. He observed that the recommendation for the first monthly and annual auctions includes a limit of 200,000 bids, minus Non-Opt In Entity (NOIE) allocations, and that the recommendation for subsequent auctions includes a limit of 200,000 bids, minus NOIE allocations and previously awarded CRRs. He observed that ERCOT estimates NOIE allocations will be approximately 300. Market Participants discussed bid limitations in other markets, and the potential application of a bid fee in the event that bid limitations are exceeded.

CURRENT OPERATING PLAN (COP) STATUS FOR GENERATION UNITS THAT MAY BE ON-LINE Beth Garza observed that Nodal Protocols state that the COP should show as online, Generation Resources that a Qualified Scheduling Entity (QSE) plans to have online and that it should reflect the expected operating conditions for each Resource for each operating hour. She stated that the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) has received questions from Market Participants regarding how to interpret this requirement. Ms. Garza noted that the COP is the vehicle whereby QSEs communicate to ERCOT the expected status of their respective Generation Resources, and is most important to the DAM Reliability Unit Commitment (DRUC) and Hourly Reliability Unit Commitment (HRUC).

Ms. Garza reviewed various scenarios for a sample Generation Resource and Market Participants discussed their entries into the COP, stability limits, and the weekly Reliability Unit Commitment (WRUC). Mr. Ragsdale noted that ERCOT requests that Market Participants enter into the COP the best information available to them at the time for the following seven day interval. Mr. Blackburn noted that a crucial question is whether ERCOT expects Market Participants to enter into the COP that a particular unit is available, or whether the Market Participant expects the unit to be online. Mr. Ragsdale observed that inputs to WRUC are key elements in determining stability limits and stated that he would discuss inputs to WRUC internally with other EROCT personnel and would review this issue again with NATF at a later date.

EXTERNAL WEB SERVICES LOCATIONAL MARGINAL PRICE (LMP) REPORT Carrie Tucker observed that Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 169, Clarify the Calculation and Posting of LMPs for the Load Zone and LMPs for each HUB, was approved by the ERCOT Board and allows for the posting of Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) for each Load Zone and trading Hub. She noted that the target date for implementation of these requirements is June 2010. Ms Tucker stated that the MarketInfo web service is a direct service that currently allows Market Participants to retrieve LMPs for every electrical bus, but that ERCOT plans to adjust the MarketInfo web service to retrieve LMPs by Resource Node, Load Zone, and trading Hub. She noted that LMPs for each electrical bus would still be available through the Market Information System (MIS) via the GetReports function, but not as a direct web service.

NATF 2010 - Page 30 of 136

ERCOT Public

Ms. Tucker related the outstanding question regarding whether ERCOT should continue showing the prices contained within the electrical bus tag along with a description of what data is being provided, or whether ERCOT should change the specification to reflect a different tag with the knowledge that such a change may require adjustments to Market Participant systems. Ms. Tucker requested that Market Participants provide feedback on this issue to ERCOT within the following two weeks.

NODAL MARKET READINESS UPDATE NOIE/Settlements 301 and Other Training DatesVikki Gates reviewed the Nodal training curriculum and schedule and noted that the NOIE QSE Operations course will begin 5/24/10 and will be held at Austin Energy’s facilities in Austin, Texas. She noted that Settlements 301 course will begin 6/9/10 at Suez Energy’s facilities in Houston, Texas, and that both courses are classroom based.

New Training Workshops and EventsMs. Gates noted that a verifiable cost workshop will be held 6/3/10, Market Management System (MMS) User Interface training will be held 6/30/10, Outage Scheduler Interface training will be held 5/14/2010, and MIS User Interface training will be held 7/30/10. She noted the agenda for the 5/25/10 Market Readiness Series (MRS) will cover cutover and transition activities and that the August MRS will cover the 168-Hour Test. Ms. Gates reviewed a schedule for all training courses for the next 60 days.

Procedure Publication Ms. Gates noted that certain ERCOT desktop procedures will be published for Market Participants to review and noted that the functional areas include DAM, WRUC, DRUC, HRUC, CRR, and Real-Time Desk procedures. She noted that any procedures that are posted remain in draft status and are subject to change. She observed that procedures for DAM have already been published and that procedures for WRUC, DRUC, and HRUC are being reviewed for possible confidential items and will be published as soon as the review is complete.

READINESS SCORECARD UPDATE Brandon McElfresh reviewed the current scores for active Market Participant metrics and noted that, with the exception of DAM participation, all metrics are currently green. He observed that several ERCOT metrics remain inactive, but that these metrics will become active in Market Trials Phase Five.

Network Model MetricsMr. McElfresh stated that ERCOT Metric EMO9, Validate Zonal and Nodal Security Analysis Results, has been subdivided into four different areas in an effort to make the metric more valuable to Market Participants. Bill Blevins reviewed each of the parts of EMO9 individually and explained their function. Mr. McElfresh reviewed EMO10, Anomalous / Auto-disabled Telemetered Points.

CRR Metrics Mr. McElfresh noted that several metrics from Market Trials Phase Three and Four remain active and that he would review them with NATF as they approach closure. He observed that with regard to CRR3, Operations and CRR Auctions and Allocations, 60 of 64 CRR Account Holders have participated in CRR auctions and that this metric is now green. With regard to ERCOT’s portion of the same metric, he noted that the metric is currently amber. Mr. McElfresh related that ERCOT expects CO8, Verify CRR Auction Invoices, to be green on 5/5/10.

Real-Time Metrics

NATF 2010 - Page 31 of 136

ERCOT Public

With regard to EMO6, Individual Load Frequency Control (LFC) Testing, there has been 91% participation and the metric is green. He observed that ERCOT parallel metrics, MO4, Verify Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) Quality, and MO5, Generate Six Months of LMPs, mirror Market Participant scores and both are green.

DAM MetricsRegarding MP16, DAM Participation, Mr. McElfresh stated that ERCOT recommends adjusting this metric by using a two week rolling average. He observed that this more accurately reflects participation and would change the percentage of participation by all QSEs from 63% to 82%.

Outage Scheduler MetricsMr. McElfresh noted that EMO3, Verify Outage Evaluation System Functionality, is a Market Trials Phase Three metric and will be reviewed for possible closure at the 6/1/10 NATF meeting.

MARKET TRIALS UPDATE General Reminders and UpdatesAs a reminder, Scott Middleton noted that the agenda for the weekly Friday market call will be changing 5/7/10. He remarked that the Nodal production environment will be available Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. for all systems except the Energy Management System (EMS), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and SCED. Mr. Middleton noted that ERCOT requests Market Participant suggestions for additional operational scenarios, and that suggestions should be sent to [email protected]. He remarked that the deadline for submission is 5/17/10.

Phase Four in ReviewMr. Middleton reviewed participation in the DAM and noted that nine DAMs, DRUCs, SASMs and HRUCs, have been cleared. He stated that ERCOT continues to reach out to Transmission Service Providers (TSPs) and QSEs regarding telemetry issues.

90 Day OutlookMr. Middleton provided an overview of Market Trials for the upcoming 90 days. He noted that targeted areas for May 2010 include a ramp-up of DAM and DRUC to five times weekly and a two hour LFC closed loop test. He stated that the targeted activities for June 2010 include the execution of Market Participant suggested operational scenarios and an eight hour LFC closed loop test. Mr. Middleton observed that the targeted activities for July 2010 include an exercise of “normal state” processes and procedures, a 48 hour LFC closed loop test, and DAM and DRUC executions seven times weekly for two weeks.

SECURITY CONSTRAINED ECONOMIC DISPATCH (SCED) PENALTY FACTOR DISCUSSION Resmi Surendran observed that ERCOT worked on several Network Operations Model issues associated with implementation of the Single Entry Model (SEM) and the activation of transmission line constraints in Nodal systems. Ms. Surendran stated that there has been improvement and that ERCOT operators can activate constraints manually if necessary to properly reflect actual conditions. Ms. Surendran reviewed the current values for maximum shadow price for transmission constraints and power balance penalty curve. Ms. Garza noted that the IMM is working internally with ERCOT to develop new values and observed that the figures presented by Ms. Surendran may not be final. Mr. Blackburn opined that the Public Utility Commission of Texas will be interested in knowing what the range of prices for energy could be in the Nodal Market. He stated that he would relay this issue at the next TAC meeting.


NATF 2010 - Page 32 of 136

mailto:[email protected]

ERCOT Public

NATF 2010 - Page 33 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT AUSTIN / 7620 METRO CENTER DRIVE / AUSTIN, TX 78744JUNE 23, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Detelich, David CPS Energy Municipal – Alt. Rep. for J. Jackson(Alt.) Kroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative – Via TeleconferenceLovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM) Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP) Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumer – Residential Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Corp. Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Akumar, Aarthi Energy Online Via TeleconferenceAlbers, David Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceAllen, Theresa Iberdola USA Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill J Aron Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBogen, David OncorBonner, Robert Conoco Phillips Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell Via TeleconferenceBuckelew, Lee CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBurkhalter, Ryan Citigroup Via TeleconferenceCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarmen, Travis E.ON Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceChudgar, Raj SungardChui, Ken Austin EnergyClemenhagen, Barbara TopazClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceEmerish, Valentine CenterPoint EnergyFrance, Carter Calpine Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via Teleconference6 Some attendees may not have been present for the entire meeting.

NATF 2010 - Page 34 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Garza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric Reliant Via TeleconferenceGogarty, Audrey E.ON Via TeleconferenceGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHall, Michael CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHavemann, Steven Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF TradingHelton, Bob IPHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceInnamorato, Paul APX Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJones, Brad LuminantJones, Liz OncorJones, Randy CalpineKannala, Jayasree CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKimmish, Steven PSEG Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMaisonneuve, Nicolas Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Energy Via TeleconferenceMoore, Jay Calpine Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPotts, David ASC Energy Consulting Via TeleconferencePriestly, Vanus AES Via TeleconferenceQuinn, Scott Power Costs Via TeleconferenceRoach, Temujin PUCT Via TeleconferenceRodriguez, Linda AEP Via TeleconferenceRowe, Evan PUCTSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Via TeleconferenceSchinnerer, Chris J Aron Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams Crescent PowerStarr, Lee BTU Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantSurles, Nancy Reliant Via TeleconferenceSutherland, Dave LCRA TSC

NATF 2010 - Page 35 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Trenary, Michelle Tenaska Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVo, Trieu CPS EnergyWagner, Marguerite PSEG TXWalker, DeAnn CenterPoint EnergyWallin, Shane Luminant Via TeleconferenceWertz, Bruce PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceWhittle, Brandon DB Energy Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob DME

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnAlbracht, BrittneyBauld, Mandy Via TeleconferenceBoren, AnnBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceCaufield, Dennis Via TeleconferenceCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceD’Annunzio, Claudine Via TeleconferenceDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceDecuir, Kim Via TeleconferenceDipastena, Philip Via TeleconferenceDumas, John Via TeleconferenceFrosch, ColleenGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzales, InoHanson, KevinHobbs, KristiHoover, Lisa Via TeleconferenceIacobucci, Jason Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandin, Yvette Via TeleconferenceLetkeman, Sheila Via TeleconferenceLevine, Jonathan Via TeleconferenceMatlock, Robert Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 36 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Middleton, ScottNatoli, Anthony Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KennethRasberry, JustinReed, Bob Via TeleconferenceRickerson, Woody Via TeleconferenceRoark, Dotty Via TeleconferenceSeely, Chad Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pamela Via TeleconferenceSmallwood, Aaron Via TeleconferenceSurendran, Resmi Via TeleconferenceTozer, Matt Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via TeleconferenceYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference


NATF Chair Don Blackburn called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.

ANTITRUST ADMONITION Mr. Blackburn directed attention to the Antitrust Admonition, which was displayed. A copy of the Antitrust Guidelines was available for review.

REVIEW AGENDA Mr. Blackburn reviewed the agenda and noted that ERCOT Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) will be in full support of NATF meetings, but will have substantially less availability to attend other stakeholder forums. Mr. Blackburn reminded Market Participants that NATF will likely have two meetings each month, but might move to three meetings each month.

Naomi Richard requested discussion of the implementation status of Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 169, Clarify the Calculation and Posting of LMPs for the Load Zone and LMPs for each Hub. Shams Siddiqi noted that he distributed a draft NPRR regarding the Market Information System (MIS); Mr. Blackburn added that Entities that are not Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) are requesting access to non-public, but not secure, areas of the MIS.

JUNE 1, 2010 NATF MEETING MINUTES (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) 7

Brad Schwarz moved to approve the June 1, 2010 NATF meeting minutes as posted. Ms. Richard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NETWORK MODEL TRANSITION PLAN (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Nodal Go Live Update

7 Key Documents referenced in these minutes may be accessed on the ERCOT website at:http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/06/20100623-NATF

NATF 2010 - Page 37 of 136


ERCOT Public

Kenneth Ragsdale provided a review of Network Operations Model go-live criteria. Ms. Richard asked for expectations for late entrants to the Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) market; Brandon McElfresh noted that Account Holders need to start registration by August 13, 2010, rather than completing registration and qualification by August 13, 2010. Regarding the data update issues in the Network Model Management System (NMMS), Woody Rickerson noted that the Siemens is looking into the problematic restarts; that tracking software has been installed; and that resolution of the issue is top priority.

DeAnn Walker noted continuing issues with the model and asked where ERCOT and Transmission Service Provider (TSPs) would work to collaboratively resolve the issues, noting that stakeholders had been notified that all issues would be addressed at NATF. Mr. Rickerson recalled that it was clarified on a recent call that interim update issues would be addressed at the Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG). Liz Jones expressed concern that a mixed message is being sent regarding where issues would be addressed. Mr. Rickerson reiterated that the interim update is model-specific and agreed with Ms. Walker that it should be addressed at NDSWG.

David Bogen opined that interim updates should also be addressed at NATF, noting that the process of implementing an interim update is an NDSWG issues, but the definition of what qualifies as an update needs to be discussed at a broader level. Market Participants expressed concern for system integrity and reliability, issue resolution by Siemens, and mitigation should a timely resolution not be available. Mr. Blackburn requested that Market Participant perspective be solicited by NDSWG as needed, if a topic is not going to be brought to NATF.

Review of TSP Model Go Live Mr. Bogen commented that the model transition plan is much improved and that in addition to TSPs, QSEs and Resources are impacted by the timeline. Mr. Ragsdale noted that Resource Asset Registration Form (RARF) updates that pass initial audit with Wholesale Client Services will be in the model in two weeks, as the model is being loaded every two weeks. Mr. Bogen noted that comment had been provided to the white paper regarding the handling of operational changes that occur seasonally.

It was discussed that performance issues has been escalated to Siemens management and that clarification of strategy is expected in the next two weeks; TAC might meet to give conditional approval of the model immediately before the July 20, 2010 ERCOT Board meeting, as it did to grant go-live approval for the Single Entry Model (SEM) in 2009, in order to make the decision on latest-available information; and that the model is currently in production, and that the approving vote from TAC would activate the relevant sections of the Nodal Protocols. Market Participants expressed concern that the performance issue is an impediment to Entities submitting Network Operations Model Change Requests (NOMCRs) along the timelines that they would be held to in the Nodal Protocols. Asked if ERCOT would continue to accept all interim updates indefinitely until a plan is finalized, Mr. Rickerson noted that before September 1, 2010 when Entities will be subject to interim update rules, a document will be developed to indicate what is acceptable and what is not, and reminded Market Participants that interim updates allow written justifications.

Market Participants discussed their discomfort in voting that day to approve the model in light of outstanding issues; that a list of process issues that need to be corrected before approval is granted should be developed; and that not all items on the list need be critical, but should be captured anyway.

Review Outage Scheduler Go LiveMarket Participants discussed a desire to tie Load Frequency Control (LFC) testing with Day Ahead Market (DAM) testing. Bill Blevins noted Market Participant desire to do more testing and reported that the outage scheduler is currently pulling data from the Network Operations Model; that Market

NATF 2010 - Page 38 of 136

ERCOT Public

Participants should maintain timeframes; and that ERCOT will ask Market Participants to certify for go-live after the data has been imported. Mr. Ragsdale added that good outage information is needed for September and December, and the importance of October and November data is subject to more discussion.

Mr. Bogen noted that since the 168 Hour Test can occur for the entire month of September, all September Outages would need to be duel entered; Mr. Blevins added that the same information will need to be in both systems for September and December; and that ERCOT is working to develop a report regarding Outages that are used to energize new equipment. Asked how long duel entries would be necessary, Mr. Blevins hoped that after the first week, ERCOT would be able to send notice that Market Participants could stand down on maintenance of the zonal system, but could not offer a guarantee.

Some Market Participants expressed a preference for Approach B to the transition timeline; others requested that Approach A remain an option for Entities that chose it, as some companies do not want the pump run on their behalf. Mr. Ragsdale suggested that Approach A be removed and a list of non-pump Entities be added to Approach B.

NPRRS REFERRED BY THE PROTOCOL REVISIONS SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS) NPRR234, Resolution of Alignment Item A32, A147, A155, A159, and A187 - Clarify General Capacity Testing and Net Dependable Capability John Adams reported that ERCOT has agreed to withdraw NPRR234 after discussions with Luminant; Ms. Richard noted LCRA’s strong interest in the item and requested that Mr. Adams recount the discussion. Mr. Adams noted that ERCOT will submit another NPRR to address the test for High Sustained Limit (HSL), as NPRR234 was supposed to be an alignment item but has become a policy discussion. Ms. Richard accepted Mr. Adam’s abbreviated explanation.

CURRENT OPERATING PLAN (COP) EXPECTATIONS WHITE PAPER (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Mr. Ragsdale presented expectations for COP entries and requested that Market Participants provide comments to the white paper by June 30, 2010. Market Participants discussed that the timing of COP is an important principle, but that there might be a valid situation here ERCOT does not want to honor the constraints; that consideration should be given to the interactions of the COP requirements and Reliability Must-Run (RMR) units; and that ERCOT is continuing its investigation of whether, for compliance, Entities will have to enter another hour of COP every hour to maintain the 168 hours of COP entries.

It was also discussed that ERCOT’s expectation is that Entities can best tell ERCOT what a unit can do; and that Entities should provide ERCOT a best estimate for net MW wind output for days three through seven, rather than assume net zero. Randy Jones expressed appreciation that ERCOT needs a best estimate, but cautioned that efforts to develop one-size-fits-all metric will be polarizing and will not be meaningful for renewable resources; and that economics should drive how Entities operate their assets.

8-HOUR LFC TEST RECAP (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Scott Middleton presented preliminary results of the 8-Hour LFC test. Market Participants discussed concerns regarding Generation not following Base Points during the test; whether confusion caused some units to follow prices and not their Base Points; and impacts of constraints on how prices are settled. John Dumas noted that initially the constraint is activated for the needed flow in zonal, and once cut over to Nodal, the Nodal tool is the only available tool to operate the system.

Market Participants discussed that a shorter list of Competitive Constraints would be entered for the 48-Hour LFC Test, and the ongoing need for interface constraints. In discussion of ERCOT issues during the test, ERCOT Staff noted that the issue of missing shift factors for constraints in Security Constrained

NATF 2010 - Page 39 of 136

ERCOT Public

Economic Dispatch (SCED) was due to timing in the data transfer and constraints were not respected for approximately 30 minutes; that missing shift factors for electrical bus affecting Settlement Price Point (SPP) calculation was an issue present for the full day, had significant implications as the published SPPs were meaningless; and that analysis of the issues is approximately 30 percent complete. Mr. Blackburn stated that shared perspective is needed; opined that ERCOT should list and share what is being seen during the test; and that another 8-Hour LFC Test is needed.

Regarding Market Participant issues during the test, it was discussed that units that were not following their Base Points began to respond correctly when they were contacted; whether incorrect Base Points were sent by ERCOT; that there is not currently a tool to remove a unit, rather than adjusting the flow limit constraints, for not following the Nodal Base Points; and that the Settlement Statement will indicate, through the deviation charge, the extent to which a unit was not following Base Points.

Market Participants further discussed concerns regarding the West-to-North constraint; that it is not understood on what bases ERCOT was changing interval to interval, since there was no feedback loop; and that one unit experienced SCED ramping beyond the unit’s RARF limits. Mr. Blevins requested that Market Participants inform ERCOT if the system violates information provided for the unit, or calls for what a Resource cannot provide.

Randa Stephenson stated that, from a market perspective, the 8-Hour LFC Test was not successful and should be rerun, particularly since price information was invalid. Mr. Blevins offered that all parties see value in more testing; that there are metrics around certain parts of the test, so some measure of success can be known; and that more needs to be understood regarding the impact of the shift factors. Market Participants supported more 8- and 12-Hour testing, and delaying the 48-Hour Test.

EXPLANATION OF HUB VERSUS LOAD ZONE PRICING This item was not taken up.

INITIAL REVIEW OF TAC APPROVED GO-LIVE ITEMS This item was not taken up.

OTHER BUSINESS FROM STAKEHOLDER GROUPS (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS) Meeting – June 16, 2010David Detelich moved to waive notice in order to consider the following:

NPR207, Unit Deselection (formerly “Hour Start Unit Deselection and Half Hour Start Unit RUC Clawback”) – Review of Draft Deselection Procedure

NPRR220, Nodal Requirement of Declaring an EEA for Reserves More than 500 MW

NPRR231, Remove RMR Units from the Day-Ahead Market NPRR240, Proxy Energy Offer Curve

Russell Lovelace seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NPR207Barbara Clemenhagen noted that new comments had been filed to NPRR207. Jim Reynolds asked why NATF is reviewing NPRRs and if NATF is now making policy decisions. Mr. Mereness offered that the necessary SMEs can be available at NATF meetings. Market Participants discussed whether the NATF charter should be revised to include approval of NPRRs.

Mr. Schwarz moved to endorse the Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC) desk procedure relating to NPRR207 as revised by language provided by Luminant, Reliant Energy, and Topaz Power. Ms.

NATF 2010 - Page 40 of 136

ERCOT Public

Richard seconded the motion. Market Participants noted that NPRR207 was tabled due to the unavailability of the desk procedure. The motion carried with two abstentions from the IPM and IREP Market Segments.

NPRR220Mr. Blevins presented proposed language. Mr. R. Jones noted the ROS request that ERCOT provide a typical sequence of events, adding that that there is a distinct difference in the way capacity is released to SCED in Nodal; and opining that to deploy RRS in Nodal without any kind of signal to the market lacks transparency and will not result in the kind of agility ERCOT desires. Mr. Blevins reviewed deployment scenarios.

Mr. R. Jones opined that it is a mistake to convert operating reserves into energy without proper price signals; and that the uncertainty of when an EEA event would be declared would put the market in a lag position in responding should frequency continue to decay. Mr. Blevins noted that ERCOT is under North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) direction to do what is necessary to recover frequency within 15 minutes. Dan Jones noted that there are problems with the way prices are formed during shortage, but that those issues are not addressed by this NPRR. Market Participants discussed that WMS would have the opportunity to explore market impacts of the proposed language before the item was taken up at the July 22, 2010 PRS meeting, and that the necessary SMEs need only be available by phone. Ms. Clemenhagen added that thought the day’s discussion was helpful, most of WMS was not able to attend the meeting, but that it would be more inefficient to hold joint meetings.

Mr. Blackburn offered that after the robust NATF discussion, WMS would address the item, and NATF need not take action. There was no objection.

NPRR231Mr. Blackburn noted that NPRR231 would be taken up at the July 8, 2010 NATF meeting.

NPRR240Ms. Clemenhagen reviewed comments to NPRR240. Market Participants recalled that, during the June 21, 2010 conference call discussion of NPRR240, it was discussed that the intent of the NPRR is to establish where responsibility lies for proxy offers; whether proxy energy offer curves should be allowed to set the Market Cleary Price for Energy (MCPE); and that ERCOT will report the final energy offer curve that is submitted to SCED.

Market Participants expressed concern that Entities would suffer publicity problems for offers that were extended on their behalf. Mr. R. Jones states that if Entities had an automated way of ensuring that their HSL is kept up with the extended offer curve, then Entities could protect themselves against a huge price bid that their internal controls would not allow. Ms. Stephenson added that it would be helpful to know if an asterisk or flag could be added to report proxy energy offer curves.

Market Participants further discussed that issues exist beyond reporting; that the “responsible party” needs further clarification, and that the decision making entity might be the responsible party; and that the IMM will be submitting comments to NPRR240. Mr. Schwarz suggested that NPRR240 be tabled in consideration of pending comments from the IMM. Ms. Boren noted that NPRR240 is tabled at PRS. No motion was offered.

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Blackburn noted potential agenda items for the July 8, 2010 NATF meeting included a review of the 168-Hour Test, penalty factors, Competitive Constraint Test values, and PCAPs.

NATF 2010 - Page 41 of 136

ERCOT Public

OTHER BUSINESS Protocol Transition PlanningKristi Hobbs requested that organizations review the provided draft Nodal Protocol Transition Plan and highlighted Nodal Protocol section examples, noting that ERCOT Staff has made a preliminary estimate of which elements of the Nodal Protocols will go live on September 1, 2010; that no sections have been identified for retirement on September 1, 2010; and that ERCOT must provide 30 day and ten day notice of newly effective Nodal Protocols and retiring Zonal Protocols. Ms. Hobbs added that the highlighted examples are for Market Participant convenience, but that a spreadsheet will likely be used as the official communication tool; and that Market Participant input is requested and that elements to be added or removed from the transition plan will be discussed at NATF.

MIS AccessMr. Siddiqi noted that his recent submittal of a draft NPRR regarding non-QSE access to the non-public section of the MIS, and that organizations such as consultants, universities, and consumer groups require access to non-secure data. ERCOT Staff reported that changes would be required for system designs; Section 16, Registration and Qualification of MPs; and definitions. ERCOT Staff noted that consultants working for a Market Participant can be issued a digital certificate by the Market Participant, which is also responsible to conduct necessary background checks.

ERCOT Staff noted that public reports will be posted in the MIS public area after Nodal market trials, but cannot be posted there during the market trials. Market Participants discussed that non-consultant entities not tied to a Market Participant need access to what is public data; that smaller organizations require access during the market trials in order to be prepared for TNMID, and that Mr. Siddiqi is asking ERCOT if it would prefer to alter the Protocols or allow access to the non-public section of the MIS. Mr. Siddiqi confirmed that the movement of the planning site data is motivating the discussion.

Market Participants discussed that perhaps some portion of the planning data should be in the public area of the MIS, and that perhaps some of the data should never have been available publicly; that the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) requirements were beginning to form as the Nodal Protocols were approved, and that a list of publicly available data should be well-vetted in order to protect Entities from cyber threats; and that Market Participants currently have personnel with incorrect MIS access because it is the only way to access data during market trials. Mr. Blackburn noted that the draft NPRR will be taken up at the July 8, 2010 NATF meeting.

ADJOURNMENT The June 23, 2010 NATF meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.

NATF 2010 - Page 42 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT AUSTIN / 7620 METRO CENTER DRIVE / AUSTIN, TX 78744JUNE 23, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Detelich, David CPS Energy Municipal – Alt. Rep. for J. Jackson(Alt.) Kroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative – Via TeleconferenceLovelace, Russell Shell Energy North America Independent Power Marketer (IPM) Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP) Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumer – Residential Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Corp. Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Akumar, Aarthi Energy Online Via TeleconferenceAlbers, David Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceAllen, Theresa Iberdola USA Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill J Aron Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBogen, David OncorBonner, Robert Conoco Phillips Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell Via TeleconferenceBuckelew, Lee CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBurkhalter, Ryan Citigroup Via TeleconferenceCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarmen, Travis E.ON Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceChudgar, Raj SungardChui, Ken Austin EnergyClemenhagen, Barbara TopazClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceEmerish, Valentine CenterPoint EnergyFrance, Carter Calpine Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via Teleconference8 Some attendees may not have been present for the entire meeting.

NATF 2010 - Page 43 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Garza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric Reliant Via TeleconferenceGogarty, Audrey E.ON Via TeleconferenceGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHall, Michael CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHavemann, Steven Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF TradingHelton, Bob IPHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceInnamorato, Paul APX Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJones, Brad LuminantJones, Liz OncorJones, Randy CalpineKannala, Jayasree CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKimmish, Steven PSEG Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMaisonneuve, Nicolas Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Energy Via TeleconferenceMoore, Jay Calpine Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPotts, David ASC Energy Consulting Via TeleconferencePriestly, Vanus AES Via TeleconferenceQuinn, Scott Power Costs Via TeleconferenceRoach, Temujin PUCT Via TeleconferenceRodriguez, Linda AEP Via TeleconferenceRowe, Evan PUCTSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Via TeleconferenceSchinnerer, Chris J Aron Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams Crescent PowerStarr, Lee BTU Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantSurles, Nancy Reliant Via TeleconferenceSutherland, Dave LCRA TSC

NATF 2010 - Page 44 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Trenary, Michelle Tenaska Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVo, Trieu CPS EnergyWagner, Marguerite PSEG TXWalker, DeAnn CenterPoint EnergyWallin, Shane Luminant Via TeleconferenceWertz, Bruce PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceWhittle, Brandon DB Energy Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob DME

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnAlbracht, BrittneyBauld, Mandy Via TeleconferenceBoren, AnnBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceCaufield, Dennis Via TeleconferenceCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceD’Annunzio, Claudine Via TeleconferenceDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceDecuir, Kim Via TeleconferenceDipastena, Philip Via TeleconferenceDumas, John Via TeleconferenceFrosch, ColleenGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzales, InoHanson, KevinHobbs, KristiHoover, Lisa Via TeleconferenceIacobucci, Jason Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandin, Yvette Via TeleconferenceLetkeman, Sheila Via TeleconferenceLevine, Jonathan Via TeleconferenceMatlock, Robert Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 45 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Middleton, ScottNatoli, Anthony Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KennethRasberry, JustinReed, Bob Via TeleconferenceRickerson, Woody Via TeleconferenceRoark, Dotty Via TeleconferenceSeely, Chad Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pamela Via TeleconferenceSmallwood, Aaron Via TeleconferenceSurendran, Resmi Via TeleconferenceTozer, Matt Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via TeleconferenceYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference


NATF Chair Don Blackburn called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.

ANTITRUST ADMONITION Mr. Blackburn directed attention to the Antitrust Admonition, which was displayed. A copy of the Antitrust Guidelines was available for review.

REVIEW AGENDA Mr. Blackburn reviewed the agenda and noted that ERCOT Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) will be in full support of NATF meetings, but will have substantially less availability to attend other stakeholder forums. Mr. Blackburn reminded Market Participants that NATF will likely have two meetings each month, but might move to three meetings each month.

Naomi Richard requested discussion of the implementation status of Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 169, Clarify the Calculation and Posting of LMPs for the Load Zone and LMPs for each Hub. Shams Siddiqi noted that he distributed a draft NPRR regarding the Market Information System (MIS); Mr. Blackburn added that Entities that are not Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) are requesting access to non-public, but not secure, areas of the MIS.

JUNE 1, 2010 NATF MEETING MINUTES (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) 9

Brad Schwarz moved to approve the June 1, 2010 NATF meeting minutes as posted. Ms. Richard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NETWORK MODEL TRANSITION PLAN (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Nodal Go Live Update

9 Key Documents referenced in these minutes may be accessed on the ERCOT website at:http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/06/20100623-NATF

NATF 2010 - Page 46 of 136


ERCOT Public

Kenneth Ragsdale provided a review of Network Operations Model go-live criteria. Ms. Richard asked for expectations for late entrants to the Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) market; Brandon McElfresh noted that Account Holders need to start registration by August 13, 2010, rather than completing registration and qualification by August 13, 2010. Regarding the data update issues in the Network Model Management System (NMMS), Woody Rickerson noted that the Siemens is looking into the problematic restarts; that tracking software has been installed; and that resolution of the issue is top priority.

DeAnn Walker noted continuing issues with the model and asked where ERCOT and Transmission Service Provider (TSPs) would work to collaboratively resolve the issues, noting that stakeholders had been notified that all issues would be addressed at NATF. Mr. Rickerson recalled that it was clarified on a recent call that interim update issues would be addressed at the Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG). Liz Jones expressed concern that a mixed message is being sent regarding where issues would be addressed. Mr. Rickerson reiterated that the interim update is model-specific and agreed with Ms. Walker that it should be addressed at NDSWG.

David Bogen opined that interim updates should also be addressed at NATF, noting that the process of implementing an interim update is an NDSWG issues, but the definition of what qualifies as an update needs to be discussed at a broader level. Market Participants expressed concern for system integrity and reliability, issue resolution by Siemens, and mitigation should a timely resolution not be available. Mr. Blackburn requested that Market Participant perspective be solicited by NDSWG as needed, if a topic is not going to be brought to NATF.

Review of TSP Model Go Live Mr. Bogen commented that the model transition plan is much improved and that in addition to TSPs, QSEs and Resources are impacted by the timeline. Mr. Ragsdale noted that Resource Asset Registration Form (RARF) updates that pass initial audit with Wholesale Client Services will be in the model in two weeks, as the model is being loaded every two weeks. Mr. Bogen noted that comment had been provided to the white paper regarding the handling of operational changes that occur seasonally.

It was discussed that performance issues has been escalated to Siemens management and that clarification of strategy is expected in the next two weeks; TAC might meet to give conditional approval of the model immediately before the July 20, 2010 ERCOT Board meeting, as it did to grant go-live approval for the Single Entry Model (SEM) in 2009, in order to make the decision on latest-available information; and that the model is currently in production, and that the approving vote from TAC would activate the relevant sections of the Nodal Protocols. Market Participants expressed concern that the performance issue is an impediment to Entities submitting Network Operations Model Change Requests (NOMCRs) along the timelines that they would be held to in the Nodal Protocols. Asked if ERCOT would continue to accept all interim updates indefinitely until a plan is finalized, Mr. Rickerson noted that before September 1, 2010 when Entities will be subject to interim update rules, a document will be developed to indicate what is acceptable and what is not, and reminded Market Participants that interim updates allow written justifications.

Market Participants discussed their discomfort in voting that day to approve the model in light of outstanding issues; that a list of process issues that need to be corrected before approval is granted should be developed; and that not all items on the list need be critical, but should be captured anyway.

Review Outage Scheduler Go LiveMarket Participants discussed a desire to tie Load Frequency Control (LFC) testing with Day Ahead Market (DAM) testing. Bill Blevins noted Market Participant desire to do more testing and reported that the outage scheduler is currently pulling data from the Network Operations Model; that Market

NATF 2010 - Page 47 of 136

ERCOT Public

Participants should maintain timeframes; and that ERCOT will ask Market Participants to certify for go-live after the data has been imported. Mr. Ragsdale added that good outage information is needed for September and December, and the importance of October and November data is subject to more discussion.

Mr. Bogen noted that since the 168 Hour Test can occur for the entire month of September, all September Outages would need to be duel entered; Mr. Blevins added that the same information will need to be in both systems for September and December; and that ERCOT is working to develop a report regarding Outages that are used to energize new equipment. Asked how long duel entries would be necessary, Mr. Blevins hoped that after the first week, ERCOT would be able to send notice that Market Participants could stand down on maintenance of the zonal system, but could not offer a guarantee.

Some Market Participants expressed a preference for Approach B to the transition timeline; others requested that Approach A remain an option for Entities that chose it, as some companies do not want the pump run on their behalf. Mr. Ragsdale suggested that Approach A be removed and a list of non-pump Entities be added to Approach B.

NPRRS REFERRED BY THE PROTOCOL REVISIONS SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS) NPRR234, Resolution of Alignment Item A32, A147, A155, A159, and A187 - Clarify General Capacity Testing and Net Dependable Capability John Adams reported that ERCOT has agreed to withdraw NPRR234 after discussions with Luminant; Ms. Richard noted LCRA’s strong interest in the item and requested that Mr. Adams recount the discussion. Mr. Adams noted that ERCOT will submit another NPRR to address the test for High Sustained Limit (HSL), as NPRR234 was supposed to be an alignment item but has become a policy discussion. Ms. Richard accepted Mr. Adam’s abbreviated explanation.

CURRENT OPERATING PLAN (COP) EXPECTATIONS WHITE PAPER (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Mr. Ragsdale presented expectations for COP entries and requested that Market Participants provide comments to the white paper by June 30, 2010. Market Participants discussed that the timing of COP is an important principle, but that there might be a valid situation here ERCOT does not want to honor the constraints; that consideration should be given to the interactions of the COP requirements and Reliability Must-Run (RMR) units; and that ERCOT is continuing its investigation of whether, for compliance, Entities will have to enter another hour of COP every hour to maintain the 168 hours of COP entries.

It was also discussed that ERCOT’s expectation is that Entities can best tell ERCOT what a unit can do; and that Entities should provide ERCOT a best estimate for net MW wind output for days three through seven, rather than assume net zero. Randy Jones expressed appreciation that ERCOT needs a best estimate, but cautioned that efforts to develop one-size-fits-all metric will be polarizing and will not be meaningful for renewable resources; and that economics should drive how Entities operate their assets.

8-HOUR LFC TEST RECAP (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Scott Middleton presented preliminary results of the 8-Hour LFC test. Market Participants discussed concerns regarding Generation not following Base Points during the test; whether confusion caused some units to follow prices and not their Base Points; and impacts of constraints on how prices are settled. John Dumas noted that initially the constraint is activated for the needed flow in zonal, and once cut over to Nodal, the Nodal tool is the only available tool to operate the system.

Market Participants discussed that a shorter list of Competitive Constraints would be entered for the 48-Hour LFC Test, and the ongoing need for interface constraints. In discussion of ERCOT issues during the test, ERCOT Staff noted that the issue of missing shift factors for constraints in Security Constrained

NATF 2010 - Page 48 of 136

ERCOT Public

Economic Dispatch (SCED) was due to timing in the data transfer and constraints were not respected for approximately 30 minutes; that missing shift factors for electrical bus affecting Settlement Price Point (SPP) calculation was an issue present for the full day, had significant implications as the published SPPs were meaningless; and that analysis of the issues is approximately 30 percent complete. Mr. Blackburn stated that shared perspective is needed; opined that ERCOT should list and share what is being seen during the test; and that another 8-Hour LFC Test is needed.

Regarding Market Participant issues during the test, it was discussed that units that were not following their Base Points began to respond correctly when they were contacted; whether incorrect Base Points were sent by ERCOT; that there is not currently a tool to remove a unit, rather than adjusting the flow limit constraints, for not following the Nodal Base Points; and that the Settlement Statement will indicate, through the deviation charge, the extent to which a unit was not following Base Points.

Market Participants further discussed concerns regarding the West-to-North constraint; that it is not understood on what bases ERCOT was changing interval to interval, since there was no feedback loop; and that one unit experienced SCED ramping beyond the unit’s RARF limits. Mr. Blevins requested that Market Participants inform ERCOT if the system violates information provided for the unit, or calls for what a Resource cannot provide.

Randa Stephenson stated that, from a market perspective, the 8-Hour LFC Test was not successful and should be rerun, particularly since price information was invalid. Mr. Blevins offered that all parties see value in more testing; that there are metrics around certain parts of the test, so some measure of success can be known; and that more needs to be understood regarding the impact of the shift factors. Market Participants supported more 8- and 12-Hour testing, and delaying the 48-Hour Test.

EXPLANATION OF HUB VERSUS LOAD ZONE PRICING This item was not taken up.

INITIAL REVIEW OF TAC APPROVED GO-LIVE ITEMS This item was not taken up.

OTHER BUSINESS FROM STAKEHOLDER GROUPS (SEE KEY DOCUMENTS) Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS) Meeting – June 16, 2010David Detelich moved to waive notice in order to consider the following:

NPR207, Unit Deselection (formerly “Hour Start Unit Deselection and Half Hour Start Unit RUC Clawback”) – Review of Draft Deselection Procedure

NPRR220, Nodal Requirement of Declaring an EEA for Reserves More than 500 MW

NPRR231, Remove RMR Units from the Day-Ahead Market NPRR240, Proxy Energy Offer Curve

Russell Lovelace seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NPR207Barbara Clemenhagen noted that new comments had been filed to NPRR207. Jim Reynolds asked why NATF is reviewing NPRRs and if NATF is now making policy decisions. Mr. Mereness offered that the necessary SMEs can be available at NATF meetings. Market Participants discussed whether the NATF charter should be revised to include approval of NPRRs.

Mr. Schwarz moved to endorse the Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC) desk procedure relating to NPRR207 as revised by language provided by Luminant, Reliant Energy, and Topaz Power. Ms.

NATF 2010 - Page 49 of 136

ERCOT Public

Richard seconded the motion. Market Participants noted that NPRR207 was tabled due to the unavailability of the desk procedure. The motion carried with two abstentions from the IPM and IREP Market Segments.

NPRR220Mr. Blevins presented proposed language. Mr. R. Jones noted the ROS request that ERCOT provide a typical sequence of events, adding that that there is a distinct difference in the way capacity is released to SCED in Nodal; and opining that to deploy RRS in Nodal without any kind of signal to the market lacks transparency and will not result in the kind of agility ERCOT desires. Mr. Blevins reviewed deployment scenarios.

Mr. R. Jones opined that it is a mistake to convert operating reserves into energy without proper price signals; and that the uncertainty of when an EEA event would be declared would put the market in a lag position in responding should frequency continue to decay. Mr. Blevins noted that ERCOT is under North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) direction to do what is necessary to recover frequency within 15 minutes. Dan Jones noted that there are problems with the way prices are formed during shortage, but that those issues are not addressed by this NPRR. Market Participants discussed that WMS would have the opportunity to explore market impacts of the proposed language before the item was taken up at the July 22, 2010 PRS meeting, and that the necessary SMEs need only be available by phone. Ms. Clemenhagen added that thought the day’s discussion was helpful, most of WMS was not able to attend the meeting, but that it would be more inefficient to hold joint meetings.

Mr. Blackburn offered that after the robust NATF discussion, WMS would address the item, and NATF need not take action. There was no objection.

NPRR231Mr. Blackburn noted that NPRR231 would be taken up at the July 8, 2010 NATF meeting.

NPRR240Ms. Clemenhagen reviewed comments to NPRR240. Market Participants recalled that, during the June 21, 2010 conference call discussion of NPRR240, it was discussed that the intent of the NPRR is to establish where responsibility lies for proxy offers; whether proxy energy offer curves should be allowed to set the Market Cleary Price for Energy (MCPE); and that ERCOT will report the final energy offer curve that is submitted to SCED.

Market Participants expressed concern that Entities would suffer publicity problems for offers that were extended on their behalf. Mr. R. Jones states that if Entities had an automated way of ensuring that their HSL is kept up with the extended offer curve, then Entities could protect themselves against a huge price bid that their internal controls would not allow. Ms. Stephenson added that it would be helpful to know if an asterisk or flag could be added to report proxy energy offer curves.

Market Participants further discussed that issues exist beyond reporting; that the “responsible party” needs further clarification, and that the decision making entity might be the responsible party; and that the IMM will be submitting comments to NPRR240. Mr. Schwarz suggested that NPRR240 be tabled in consideration of pending comments from the IMM. Ms. Boren noted that NPRR240 is tabled at PRS. No motion was offered.

POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Blackburn noted potential agenda items for the July 8, 2010 NATF meeting included a review of the 168-Hour Test, penalty factors, Competitive Constraint Test values, and PCAPs.

NATF 2010 - Page 50 of 136

ERCOT Public

OTHER BUSINESS Protocol Transition PlanningKristi Hobbs requested that organizations review the provided draft Nodal Protocol Transition Plan and highlighted Nodal Protocol section examples, noting that ERCOT Staff has made a preliminary estimate of which elements of the Nodal Protocols will go live on September 1, 2010; that no sections have been identified for retirement on September 1, 2010; and that ERCOT must provide 30 day and ten day notice of newly effective Nodal Protocols and retiring Zonal Protocols. Ms. Hobbs added that the highlighted examples are for Market Participant convenience, but that a spreadsheet will likely be used as the official communication tool; and that Market Participant input is requested and that elements to be added or removed from the transition plan will be discussed at NATF.

MIS AccessMr. Siddiqi noted that his recent submittal of a draft NPRR regarding non-QSE access to the non-public section of the MIS, and that organizations such as consultants, universities, and consumer groups require access to non-secure data. ERCOT Staff reported that changes would be required for system designs; Section 16, Registration and Qualification of MPs; and definitions. ERCOT Staff noted that consultants working for a Market Participant can be issued a digital certificate by the Market Participant, which is also responsible to conduct necessary background checks.

ERCOT Staff noted that public reports will be posted in the MIS public area after Nodal market trials, but cannot be posted there during the market trials. Market Participants discussed that non-consultant entities not tied to a Market Participant need access to what is public data; that smaller organizations require access during the market trials in order to be prepared for TNMID, and that Mr. Siddiqi is asking ERCOT if it would prefer to alter the Protocols or allow access to the non-public section of the MIS. Mr. Siddiqi confirmed that the movement of the planning site data is motivating the discussion.

Market Participants discussed that perhaps some portion of the planning data should be in the public area of the MIS, and that perhaps some of the data should never have been available publicly; that the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) requirements were beginning to form as the Nodal Protocols were approved, and that a list of publicly available data should be well-vetted in order to protect Entities from cyber threats; and that Market Participants currently have personnel with incorrect MIS access because it is the only way to access data during market trials. Mr. Blackburn noted that the draft NPRR will be taken up at the July 8, 2010 NATF meeting.

ADJOURNMENT The June 23, 2010 NATF meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.

NATF 2010 - Page 51 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT AUSTIN / 7620 METRO CENTER DRIVE, AUSTIN, TX 78744JULY 8, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers- ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Brewster, Chris City of Eastland Consumer- CommercialFox, Kip AEP Service Corporation IOU (Alt.)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Cooperative (Alt.)McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Via Teleconference) (Alt.)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Akumar, Aarthi Energy Online Via TeleconferenceAlbers, David Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceAllen, Theresa Iberdola USA Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Robert Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill GS Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBevill, Rob Green Mountain Via TeleconferenceBlack, Julie PUCT Via TeleconferenceBogen, David ONCORBonner, Robert Conoco PhillipsBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBreckmann, Dwight Brazos ElectricBruns, Scott Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceBurke, Tom ACESCannon, Meribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCaraway, Shannon Luminant Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth Sempra


NATF 2010 - Page 52 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Crozier, Richard BrownsvilleDetelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceEbby, John Centerpoint Energy Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceFallon, Bill Oncor Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac EconomicsGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF TradingHelton, Bob IPAHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceInnamorato, Paul APX Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJanicki, Diane Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceJones, Brad LuminantJones, Liz OncorJones, Randy CalpineKee, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMansion, Heidi TNMP Via TeleconferenceMclamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceNguyen, Vu Ventyx Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceOlson, Sara Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPotts, David ASC Energy Consulting Via TeleconferenceQuin, Scott PCIRoach, Temunin PUCT Via TeleconferenceRowe, Evan PUCT Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceShumate, Walt Shumate & AssociatesSchwarz, Bradley E.ON Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams Crescent Power Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantSutherland, Dave LCRAThompson, Bobby Luminant Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 53 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Trenary, Michelle TenaskaTrout, Seth Customized Energy SolutionsVo, Trieu CPS EnergyWatson, Mark Platts Via TeleconferenceWagner, Marguerite PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, John Via TeleconferenceBohart, JimBoren, AnnBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceCleary, MikeCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceDecuir, Kim Via TeleconferenceDiPastena, Phil Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, InoHuang, Fred Via TeleconferenceIacobucci, Jason Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMatlock, Robert Via TeleconferenceMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottNatoli, Anthony Via TeleconferenceNowikcki, Len Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenRasberry, JustinShaw, Pamela Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTiexeira, Jay Via TeleconferenceTomlin, Dale Via TeleconferenceWhite, Steve Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via Teleconference



NATF 2010 - Page 54 of 136

ERCOT Public


REVIEW AGENDA Mr. Blackburn reviewed the agenda and noted schedule changes to the order of some agenda items due to the unavailability of some presenters. There were no objections.

PROTOCOL TRANSITION PLAN DISCUSSION Ann Boren noted that certain sections of the Nodal Protocols will go into effect 09/01/2010 and that ERCOT must provide Notice 30 days and ten days prior to effective date. She noted that a Market Notice will be distributed 7/30/2010 advising which Nodal Protocol sections will be activated. Ms. Boren requested that NATF members review the Protocol Transition Matrix, located at http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/07/20100708-NATF, and provide input regarding any additional sections that should be included in the Market Notice.

NETWORK MODEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NMMS) UPDATE Transmission Services Provider (TSP) Issues PresentationKip Fox reviewed TSP areas of concern regarding NMMS. He noted that his presentation represented the views of Austin Energy, AEP Service Corporation, CenterPoint Energy, CPS Energy, LCRA, Oncor, Brazos Electric, and Garland Power and Light. Mr. Fox stated that 47 issues were identified and categorized in order of importance from one to four. He observed that no class-one, “show stoppers,” were identified. Mike Cleary stated that the focus should be for ERCOT and Market Participants to work together to prioritize the identified issues and deal with them swiftly. Mr. Cleary noted that these issues represent potentially significant risk if not properly prioritized, but that such issues are typical at this point in the development of a market system. Mr. Blackburn stated that a workshop would be scheduled for interested parties to provide input into the prioritization of TSP issues, and that a Notice would be distributed when the workshop was scheduled.

ERCOT Update Ken Ragsdale noted that ERCOT is working towards obtaining approval from the appropriate Market Participant forums and that all readiness criteria have been satisfied. He observed that ERCOT has organized Network Operations Model readiness criteria into system, process, and people classifications, and observed that all functions are either complete or ongoing.

Naomi Richard moved to waive notice for a vote regarding the Network Operations Model readiness criteria. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Independent Power Marketer Market Segment was not present for this vote.

Naomi Richard moved to recommend to TAC that the Network Operations Model readiness criteria have been met. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried with two abstentions from the Consumer Market Segment. The Independent Power Marketer Market Segment was not present for this vote.

NATF 2010 - Page 55 of 136


ERCOT Public

Woody Rickerson presented the ERCOT guidelines for interim updates to the Network Operations Model and noted that he would also present this information to the Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG). He observed that the Network Operations Model validation timeline has been divided into four periods, and described the treatment of Network Operations Model Change Requests (NOMCRs) received during each respective period. Mr. Rickerson stated that NOMCRs will be divided into four classes based on their affect. He stated that the class one NOMCRs consist of those with no impact to the market or reliability after implementation, and that class two NOMCRs are those with impacts, but can be mitigated in Real-Time with changes to data in downstream systems. He noted that class three NOMCRs consist of those with impacts that cannot be mitigated in Real-Time, and class four NOMCRs are those with severe impacts to the market or reliability. Mr. Rickerson reviewed a process flow diagram for incorporation of NOMCRs into the Network Operations Model. David Bogen noted that discussions of the validation timeline will continue at NDSWG and that the focus of such discussions should be on the installation and relocation of equipment, maintenance of the current high level of safety and reliability, and continued compliance with North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards.

OUTAGE SCHEDULER CUTOVER PLAN Mr. Ragsdale advised that, regarding the transition by ERCOT of outages into the Outage Scheduler, Resource Outages will not be transferred and that Market Participants will need to input this information. He stated that all Outages will need to be accurately entered into the Outage Scheduler for those occurring 12/01/2010 and beyond. Mr. Ragsdale stated that Market Participants may begin entering the Outages via the Outage Scheduler 07/16/2010 and observed that TSPs and QSEs are responsible for ensuring that their respective Outages have been accurately entered. Mr. Ragsdale noted that ERCOT has organized the Outage Scheduler readiness criteria also into system, process, and people classifications and observed that all functions are either complete or ongoing.

Naomi Richard moved to waive notice for a vote regarding the Outage Scheduler readiness criteria. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Independent Power Marketer Market Segment was not present for this vote.

Naomi Richard moved to recommend to TAC that the Outage Scheduler readiness criteria have been met. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried with two abstentions from the Consumer Market Segment. The Independent Power Marketer Market Segment was not present for this vote.

Mr. Fox requested further discussion of the Outage Scheduler cutover plan at the next NATF meeting. Mr. Blackburn agreed. Market Participants stated that the Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Allocation and Auction readiness criteria needed further review and recommended that ERCOT return to NATF 7/29/2010 for further discussion.

CURRENT OPERATING PLAN (COP) EXPECTATIONS Mr. Ragsdale noted that ERCOT received comments to the COP Expectations White Paper from Luminant, Calpine, EDF Trading, and PSEG Texas. Regarding entries into the COP, he observed that ERCOT expects Market Participants to provide reasonable expectations for the status of their respective Generation Resources. Market Participants expressed the concern that they could not accurately predict the status of their units and requested ERCOT provide more guidance on this issue. Resmi Surendran noted that entries into the COP are an input into the Weekly Reliability Unit Commitment (WRUC) and that WRUC is an input into voltage stability systems, and therefore the inputs into the COP must be as accurate as possible. Mr. Ragsdale stated that ERCOT will consider the comments submitted and will return to NATF 07/29/2010 with a revised COP Expectations White Paper.

NATF 2010 - Page 56 of 136

ERCOT Public

MARKET TRIALS AND LFC UPDATE Scott Middleton reviewed issues discovered during the 06/17/2010 Eight-Hour Load Frequency Control (LFC) test. He noted issues with missing shift factors and an incorrect flag setting in the Energy Management System (EMS). Mr. Middleton noted that Market Participant testing of scenarios included issues with telemetry, output schedules, Resources failing to follow Base Points and regulation signals, and inconsistencies between zonal and Nodal Resource plans.

Mr. Middleton noted that the issues encountered during the Eight-Hour LFC test demonstrated the need to shift the focus of Market Trials activities. He stated that ERCOT will reduce the number of DAM tests to create more resource availability to support additional LFC tests and gradually step into a multi-day scenario. Mr. Middleton stated that future DAM testing will focus on the quality of the data submitted and added flexibility to address issues as needed. Mr. Middleton noted that a Five-Hour LFC test has been added for 07/19/2010 and that a 24-Hour LFC test has been added for 08/02/2010.

Penalty/Shift FactorsMs. Surendran requested Market Participant input regarding the appropriate value for the maximum shadow price for the power balance penalty curve. She noted that ERCOT intends to conduct several studies and requested that Market Participants provide recommendations regarding the type of studies to be conducted. Ms. Surendran provided a graph indicating the effects of different power balance penalty curves on scarcity pricing and reliability due to dependence on regulation.

Ms. Surendran reviewed the shift-factor cutoff and noted that the value was 0.03 during LFC testing, but that its value will be 0.0001 for Nodal Market implementation. She noted that Market Participant comment is invited for this value. Mr. Blackburn noted Market Participant concern that this value will affect pricing in the Nodal Market and urged Market Participants to provide ERCOT with feedback. Ms. Surendran stated that she would review this issue, and potential Market Participant comment, at the 07/29/2010 NATF meeting.

168-HOUR TEST UPDATE Mr. Middleton provided a high level review of the Market Trials 168-Hour Test Handbook. He described the entry and exit criteria for the test, and noted that the entry criteria will be updated to include the additional LFC testing that is planned. Mr. Schwartz noted the reference to the absence of “major system issues” in the handbook’s exit criteria, and requested a more precise meaning. Mr. Middleton stated that major system issues would include severity-one issues. Beth Garza stated that, while a severity-one issue would mean that some of ERCOT’s systems ceased functioning and that the DAM would fail, and that no severity-one issues were encountered during the 6/17/2010 LFC test, most Market Participants view performance during 6/17/2010 LFC test as unsatisfactory for Nodal Market implementation. Ms. Garza noted that clarity regarding the 168-Hour test exit criteria was necessary. Randy Jones agreed that Market Participants should brainstorm what should be considered a successful test and recommended that compliance with applicable NERC standards should be identified as part of the exit criteria. Mr. Cleary stated that ERCOT desires meaningful exit criteria for the 168-Houst LFC test that will indicate that ERCOT and Market Participants are ready for Nodal Market implementation. Mr. Middleton noted that ERCOT will take comments to the Market Trials 168-Hour Test Handbook for one week and that further discussion will occur at the 7/29/2010 NATF meeting.

Mr. Blackburn inquired as to whether the 168-Hour LFC test, as an open-loop test, will provide ERCOT and Market Participants with the confidence in Nodal Market systems that is desired, and recommended converting the test to a closed-loop test. Consensus among Market Participants was that converting the

NATF 2010 - Page 57 of 136

ERCOT Public

168-Hour LFC test to a closed-loop test would be a beneficial change. Mr. R Jones noted that when this test was first discussed at Texas Nodal Team (TNT) meetings, the original intent was for the test to merely reflect the ability of systems to run continuously for 168 hours, and recommended the consideration of a 24 or 48 hour closed-loop test. Mr. Cleary stated that, having completed much of Market Trials, there appears to be little value added by a 168-Hour LFC open-loop test, and that closed-loop testing represents a more realistic simulation of the Nodal Market. Ms. Garza stated that if a change to the Nodal Transition Plan to accommodate changes to the 168-Hour LFC test is necessary to make the testing more meaningful then such changes should be made. Mr. Blackburn stated that NATF should be used as a forum for facilitating these changes, and Mr. Cleary stated that ERCOT would return to the 7/29/2010 NATF with a recommendation.


NATF 2010 - Page 58 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT TAYLOR OFFICE800 AIRPORT DRIVE / TAYLOR, TX 76574

AUGUST 3, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Fox, Kip AEP Service Corporation IOU (Alt.)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Independent Power Marketer (IPM)

(Via Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.)

(Via Teleconference)McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Morris, Sandy LCRA Cooperative (Alt.)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP (Via Teleconference) Richard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative (Via Teleconference)Schwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.)

(Via Teleconference)Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer - Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Albers, David Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Robert Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBelk, Brad LCRA Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBogen, David Oncor Via TeleconferenceBombick, Sarah LCRA Via TeleconferenceBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBriscoe, Judy BP Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 59 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Bruns, Scott Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarmen, Travis E.ON Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceChen, Hanjie LCRA Via TeleconferenceChudgar, Raj Sungard Via TeleconferenceClevenger, Josh Via TeleconferenceCrawford, Jay Calpine Via TeleconferenceDetelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceDuncan, Michelle Exelon Corp Via TeleconferenceEagles, Suzanne Constellation Via TeleconferenceEmesih, Valentine CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceEscamilla, Gerardo CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGarrett, Mark Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric Reliant Via TeleconferenceGresham, Kevin E.ON Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Via TeleconferenceHall, Michael CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHansen, Eric VentyxHarding, Jennifer Barclays Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF Trading Via TeleconferenceHelton, Bob IPHuges, Darren Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Randy Calpine Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLiu, Ming Shell Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMarchelli, Mario The Structure Group Via TeleconferenceMartin, Loretto LCRA Via TeleconferenceMclamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMcNamara, Grace LDH Energy Via TeleconferenceMoast, Pat Texas Reliability Entity Via TeleconferenceOleary, Paul EDF Trading Via TeleconferenceOlson, Sara Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG Energy Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 60 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Priestley, Vanus Macquarie Energy Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Edmund PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceSears, Chuck City of Denton Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams Crescent Power Via TeleconferenceSon, Peter E.ON Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Brian Texas Utilties Via TeleconferenceSutherland, Dave LCRA Via TeleconferenceThomas, Roland Exelon Corp Via TeleconferenceThomas, Wayne Brian Texas Utilties Via TeleconferenceTomlinson, Brian Via TeleconferenceTrenary, Michelle Tenaska Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceWagner, Marguerite PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceWalker, Deann CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceWatson, Mark Platts Via TeleconferenceWheeler, Ron Optim EnergyWhittle, Brandon DB Energy Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob LongHorn Power Via TeleconferenceWoodard, Stacey LCRA Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnBohart, JimCleary, MikeDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceDumas, JohnHailu, Ted Via TeleconferenceHansen, Chuck Via TeleconferenceHobbs, Kristi Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyLevine, Jon Via TeleconferenceMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceManz, Laura Via TeleconferenceMao, Lan Via TeleconferenceMoorty, SaiRagsdale, KenRasberry, JustinRoark, Dotty Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 61 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Tozer, Mathew Via Teleconference




CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHT (CRR) AUCTION READINESS CRITERIA Ken Ragsdale reviewed the status of the five defects with the CRR Auction system noted at the previous NATF meeting. He noted that regarding the Topology Processor not being able to consume Outage information, Siemens is expected to provide ERCOT with a software patch on 08/03/2010 and that ERCOT would begin testing immediately. Mr. Ragsdale noted that ERCOT had created a proven manual workaround in the event the patch does not correct the issue. Regarding the issue of Hub Node mismatch between the Topology Processor and the Data Set Version (DSV) Model Database, Mr. Ragsdale noted that the defect had been resolved and is being retested. Mr. Ragsdale noted that with regard to the Topology Processor sending incorrect Load Zone designations and not sending Resource Nodes, and islanding of the PSSE network model, ERCOT believes the source of these defects to be data related and that ERCOT continues to investigate with Siemens. Mr. Ragsdale noted that the defects will either be repaired or manual workarounds would be instituted before the CRR Auctions scheduled for September and that the defects are not severe enough to prevent Nodal Market implementation.

Ron Wheeler noted that some manual workarounds in the zonal market are still in use today, and expressed concern that a manual workaround for nodal systems might become a permanent solution. Mr. Ragsdale stated that ERCOT is capable of carrying out this workaround on a long term basis if necessary. Market Participants inquired as to whether a list of workarounds currently being used by ERCOT could be posted. Jim Bohart stated that such a list could be provided and would be posted at the earliest opportunity. Mike Cleary noted that little of ERCOT’s personnel resources are occupied by the maintenance of manual workarounds. Market Participants inquired as to why the ERCOT Executive Team had not yet provided a recommendation on whether the CRR Auction Readiness Criteria had been met. Mr. Ragsdale noted that some executives wanted to examine NATF’s comments before rendering their opinion.

Brad Schwarz moved to recommend to TAC that, based on a review of ERCOT testing and presented mitigation plans for known issues, stability of workarounds, and pending ERCOT Management signoff, TAC certify that the CRR Market Readiness Criteria have been met. Mr. Blackburn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDER (TSP) ISSUES WITH THE NETWORK MODEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Kip Fox reviewed remaining unresolved issues that Transmission Service Providers (TSPs) are experiencing with the Network Model Management System (NMMS). He noted that TSPs have experienced sluggishness with their interaction with the NMMS, and that some Market Participants have

NATF 2010 - Page 62 of 136

ERCOT Public

identified software short-cuts to avoid system slowness. Mr. Fox noted the issue of duplicative information being submitted into NMMS causing inaccurate models and stated that he would provide Woody Rickerson with additional information so that the specific issue could be properly identified. Market Participants discussed the accuracy of line ratings and Mr. Rickerson requested Market Participants advise ERCOT when line ratings appear inaccurate in the Network Operations Model.

REVIEW AND DISCUSS 168-HOUR FULL SYSTEM RELIABILITY TEST Scott Middleton noted that the revised 168-Hour Test will be a dress rehearsal of the Day-Ahead Market (DAM), Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC), Real-Time Market (RTM), and Load Frequency Control (LFC), but that ERCOT will continue to use zonal Replacement Reserve Service (RPRS) to manage unit commitments during the test. Mr. Middleton stated that the DAM portion of the 168-Hour Test will test the functions of DAM, Day-Ahead Security Analysis, and Day-Ahead RUC. He stated that the Real-Time functions will include Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Network Security Analysis, Transmission Constraint Management, Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED), Hour-Ahead Reliability Unit Commitment (HRUC), and LFC. Mr. Middleton stated that the nodal support systems to be tested will include NMMS, Outage Scheduler, and Outage evaluation tools. He noted that other items tested include Credit Monitoring Management (CMM), Settlements and billing, and the posting of applicable reports and extracts.

Mr. Middleton reviewed the sequence of events for the 168-Hour Test and provided a summary of the activities of the first day of the test. He noted that ERCOT requests that Market Participants be in production mode for the test and that all appropriate personnel be at the ready. Brad Schwarz inquired as to whether Resources would be dispatched by nodal systems during the test. Mr. Middleton noted that the functionality of dispatch by nodal systems has been proven, but that Settlement through nodal systems would require a zonal Protocol change. Mike Cleary observed that settlement with nodal systems before Nodal Market implementation would require the creation of a hybrid market design and would need to include aspects of both the current zonal and nodal market systems. He stated that reliability with such a market design would be difficult in the limited time available. Mr. Blackburn suggested leveraging the use of Out of Merit Capacity (OOMC) by manually converting zonal OOMC instructions into nodal RUC instructions. Mr. Ragsdale stated that ERCOT would look into the possibility.

168-Hour Test Criteria Mr. Middleton noted that ERCOT had developed the 168-Hour Test criteria from previous NATF discussions and from Market Participant comments. He noted that Market Participant comments had been received from EDF Trading, Calpine Energy, E.ON, and Shell Energy. Mr. Middleton reviewed each set of Market Participant comments and provided the following for the 168-Hour Test exit criteria:

The rolling CPS1 one minute average score must equal or exceed 100% during the test period o Note that CPS1 metric will not apply to periods during the transition periods to and from

nodal controlo During the 168-Hour test, No tuning activities will take place

Zonal Commercially Significant Constraints (CSCs) and Closely Related Elements (CREs) must be managed below thermal limits

Local Congestion must be managed below thermal limits Stability limits must be managed below transfer limits No NERC Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) failure, if applicable No LFC-SCED system issues that result in termination of the test Procedural and software fixes have been verified to address lessons learned from previous rounds

of testing

NATF 2010 - Page 63 of 136

ERCOT Public

168 hours of continuous nodal systems testing has been completed without encountering any major system issues that would prevent the Nodal Market from going live

Outputs from DAM and RUC can be reasonably explained based on the input

John Dumas noted that while 168 hours of testing does provide good endurance testing, more value may be obtained through a series of shorter tests. He noted that a series of tests would allow Market Participants to deploy different crews for different tests thereby allowing fuller training of staff. Kenan Ögelman stated that a series of tests that add up to 168 hours could be more valuable, and noted the need to explain the additional value to the market. Market Participants further discussed various options for the appropriate length of the test. Mr. Middleton noted that the goal for this NATF meeting was to identify the measure for the exit criteria, and not necessarily the length of the test.

NODAL PROTOCOL REVISION REQUESTS (NPRRS) REFERRED BY THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS): Bob Spangler described NPRR255, Resolution of Alignment Item A81 - DRUC Timing and Execution when DAM is Delayed or Aborted. He noted that PRS referred NPRR255 to NATF to review the timelines related a Supplementary Ancillary Services Market (SASM) in the event the DAM is delayed or aborted. Market Participants reviewed the timelines contained in NPRR255. Mr. Schwarz moved to endorse NPRR255 as submitted. James Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Independent Power Marketer Market Segment was not present.


NATF 2010 - Page 64 of 136

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744AUGUST 9, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Fox, Kip AEP Service Corporation IOU (Alt.)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalLovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) (Via

Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.) (Via

Teleconference)Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial (Via Teleconference)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Aguirre, T. CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceAllen, Thresa Iberdola USA Via TeleconferenceAnkalm, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBailey, Dan Garland Power and LightBarrow, Les CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBogen, David OncorBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell EnergyCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceChen, Hanjie LCRA Via TeleconferenceCheng, Xu LDH Energy Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 65 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Chudgar, Raj Sungard Via TeleconferenceClemenhagen, Barbara Topaz Power Group Via TeleconferenceClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth RBS Sempra Via TeleconferenceDavison, Brian PUCT Via TeleconferenceDe La Rosa, Lewis PUCTEmery, K. Tenaska Via TeleconferenceEmesih, Valentine CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceEscamilla, Jose CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceFuller, Bill ONCORGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGalvin, Jim Luminant Via TeleconferenceGilbert-Smith, Doug JP Morgan Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric ReliantGreen, David Calpine Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Via TeleconferenceGurrala, Sharmila CPS EMS Via TeleconferenceHall, Michael CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHansen, Eric VentyxHarrell, Patty DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHughes, Darren Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJacoby, Jim AEP Texas Via TeleconferenceJanicki, Diane Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceJones, Brad LuminantJones, Randy CalpineKajganich, Steve Energy Services Group Via TeleconferenceKee, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLewis, W. Cirro Energy Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantLuis, Francisco OXY Via TeleconferenceMarten, Loullo LCRAMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMcNamara, Grace LDH Energy Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 66 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Moast, Pat Texas Regional EntityOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferencePalani, Anath Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePriestley, Vanus Macquarie Via TeleconferenceRahimi, Farrokh Oati Via TeleconferenceRainey-Lewis, Jackie Via TeleconferenceSack, Brandon Westar Energy Via TeleconferenceSamsel, Matt Int’l Power AmericaSanchez, Maria Austin EnergySandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceSchultz, Steven LCRA Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRAStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantStewart, Roger LCRA Via TeleconferenceTrenary, Michelle Tenaska Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TNSK Via TeleconferenceWagner, Marguerite PSEG TXWalker, DeAnn CenterPoint EnergyWatson, Mark Platts Oilgram Via TeleconferenceWhittle, Brandon DB Energy Via TeleconferenceWilliams, Lori Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob ConsumerWoodard, Stacy LCRA Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, John Via TeleconferenceCaufield, Dennis Via TeleconferenceCoon, Patrick Via TeleconferenceDecuir, Kim Via TeleconferenceEvans, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGarza, Samantha Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceHanson, Chuck Via TeleconferenceHuang, Fred Via TeleconferenceIacobucci, Jason Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 67 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Landin, Yvette Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceMethaprayoon, Kittipong Via TeleconferenceNatoli, Anthony Via TeleconferenceNowikcki, Len Via TeleconferenceRasberry, Justin Via TeleconferenceRoark, Dottie Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pamela Via TeleconferenceSills, Alex Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTozer, Matthew Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via Teleconference




NODAL PROTOCOL REVISION REQUESTS (NPRRS) REFERRED TO NATF FROM THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS) NPRR256, Synchronize Nodal Protocols with PRR787, Add Non-Compliance Language to QSE Performance StandardsRanda Stephenson noted that NPRR256 was referred to NATF by PRS to address concerns regarding calculation of Generation Resource Energy Deployment Performance (GREDP), and Base Point deviation. Jim Galvin noted that a goal of NPRR256 is to clarify the Generation Resource qualification and testing process, and to eliminate GREDP measurement during Resource testing, forced line deratings, and startup failures. Market Participants discussed the percentage of Low Sustained Limit (LSL) of a Resource at which time Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) begins to recognize the Resource Unit and begins measuring its performance. John Dumas stated that he would review this issue and provide information to NATF. Lewis De La Rosa noted that Generation Resources should be relieved from GREDP and Base Point calculations if ERCOT is immediately notified of start-up failures, forced line deratings and similar uncontrollable circumstances. Mr. Galvin noted that NPRR256 will be reviewed by the Qualified Scheduling Entity Managers Working Group (QMWG) at its next meeting. Mr. Blackburn encouraged Market Participants to provide comments.

NETWORK MODEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NMMS) UPDATE Modeling Expectations (ME) White Paper & Comments

NATF 2010 - Page 68 of 136

ERCOT Public

Woody Rickerson reviewed the procedural history of the ME White Paper and opined that ERCOT and Market Participants were close to final agreement. He noted that most of the changes requested by Market Participants have been incorporated and that those that were not required ERCOT system changes. Market Participants and Mr. Rickerson discussed the appropriate date and forum for possible endorsement of the final version of the ME White Paper. Mr. Blackburn and Jim Jacoby agreed to conduct a joint NATF and Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG) meeting on 08/17/2010 and to review the ME White Paper.

ANCILLARY SERVICES CAPACITY MONITOR Bill Hellinghausen stated that his concern centered on physical versus financial trades. He noted that trades reported to ERCOT are physical trades, whereas financial trades are never submitted to ERCOT. He noted that the major concern is with the status of existing trades on the Texas Nodal Market Implementation Date (TNMID). Mr. Hellinghausen noted that there is a lack of standardization regarding terminology for trades, but that the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is taking steps to correct this. He noted that standardization of terminology will bring greater confidence and investment in such trades. Market Participants discussed the circumstance where one party to a trade had submitted a transaction to ERCOT, but the other party did not, and the importance of both sides reporting the trade. Mr. Blackburn noted this issue as important and requested that Mr. Hellinghausen keep NATF apprised.

MARKET TRIALS UPDATE Review of Prior Testing Scott Middleton reviewed the 08/19/2010 Full System Market and Reliability Test. He noted that 19 constraints were activated, seven of which were at the same time. He noted that there were two instances where Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) were released from their Regulation Obligation to make resources available to SCED to resolve congestion. Mr. Middleton noted that the Control Performance Standard (CPS) 1 score was negative 34 and observed that this was due primarily to Resources being off of their expected generation value. He noted that issues regarding testing included some quick-start generation units going offline and online without prior contact with ERCOT operations, telemetry inconsistencies, and some Resources transitioning to Nodal systems prior to being instructed to do so.

Finalize 168-Hour Test ApproachMr. Middleton noted that a goal of the discussion was to reach agreement on the format of the Full System Market and Reliability Test scheduled for the 168-Hour Full System Market and Reliability Test. Mike Cleary noted that the focus should be on the quality of testing, rather than on the number of hours contained in the test. Market Participants discussed whether seven days would be an appropriate length of the test, and which days of the week would provide the best opportunities for testing the different aspects of the Nodal Market. Market Participants expressed concern that a lack of financial incentives distorts participation during testing and will not reflect actual Market Participant behavior after Nodal Market implementation. Mr. Blackburn directed that Market Participants provide comments to ERCOT, and that a Special NATF meeting be scheduled for 08/12/2010. He stated that a recommendation regarding the 168-Hour Test would be developed and provided to TAC.

POWER BALANCE PENALTY CURVE Resmi Surendran presented ERCOT’s recommendation for calculation of the SCED power balance penalty curve. She explained how the power balance penalty curve is calculated and its associated values, and recommended that it be implemented and initial results be observed. Market Participants expressed concern that there was insufficient information regarding the impact of the recommendation to endorse its

NATF 2010 - Page 69 of 136

ERCOT Public

implementation before Nodal Market implementation and requested that this issue be addressed by the Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS).


NATF 2010 - Page 70 of 136

ERCOT Public


(WEBEX ONLY)AUGUST 12, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Brewster, Chris City of Eastland ConsumerJackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalLovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.)McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)Richard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSchwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer - Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Anklam, Rob CargillBasaran, Harika Austin EnergyBevill, Jennifer AEPBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBriscoe, Judy BP EnergyBrown, Jack Garland Power and LightBruns, Scott Direct EnergyCannon, Maribeth Edison MissionCarter, Kevin Duke EnergyClemenhagen, Barbara Topaz Crawford, Jay CalpineDeMars, RandyDetelich, David CPS EnergyDietz, Karen SUEZDioun, Mina LCRAEscamilla, Joes CPS EnergyGreen, David CalpineHelton, Bob International Power America


NATF 2010 - Page 71 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Jones, Brad LuminantJones, Randy CalpineKee, David CPS EnergyLange, Clif STECLucas, Ross SungardMatt Fahey ANP/IPA ANP/IPAMclamb, Darryl ConstellationMcNamara, Grace LDH EnergyMoast, Pat TREPalani, Ananth Optim EnergyPieniazek, Adriane NRG TexasPriestley, Vanus MacQuireRodriguez, Robert The Structure GroupSatkowski, Edmund PSEG TexasShah, Harini DTE EnergySiddiqi, Shams Crescent PowerStarr, Lee Bryan Texas UtilitiesStewart, Roger LCRAStewart, Wendy EDF TradingThompson, Bobby LuminantTrenary, Michelle TenaskaTrout, Seth CESWatson, Mark Platts

ERCOT Staff:NAME Bohart, JimLandry, KellyMiddleton, ScottRagsdale, KenVillarreal, Rachel




NATF 2010 - Page 72 of 136

ERCOT Public

168-HOUR FULL SYSTEM MARKET AND RELIABILITY TEST HANDBOOK Ken Ragsdale reviewed completed and future Full System Market and Reliability testing and noted that the goal of the meeting was to determine the content and length of the 168-Hour test. Scott Middleton noted that comments to the 168-Hour Handbook were received from Luminant Energy, Calpine Corporation, CPS Energy, SUEZ Energy North America, Retail Electric Providers Nodal Group, LCRA, NRG Energy Texas, and Horizon Wind Energy. Market Participants reviewed each set of comments and provided recommendations, and Mr. Middleton revised the 168-Hour Test Handbook as comments were accepted. A new section was added to the handbook for evaluation criteria that contemplated a holistic approach to measurement of test performance.

Consensus among Market Participants was to recommend two options to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) regarding the 168-Hour test. The first option provided for a total of 159 noncontiguous hours of testing, and included 36 contiguous hours of testing beginning 09/12/2010 at 6:00 p.m. Market Participants noted that the significance of this portion of the testing was that it would include a Monday morning ramp period. The second option provided for a total of 195 noncontiguous hours of testing, and included 72 hours of contiguous testing beginning 09/10/2010 at 2:00 p.m. Market Participants noted that the significance of this portion of the testing was that it would include a Friday evening and Monday morning ramp period.

Mr. Blackburn noted that information regarding Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs) and Pre-assigned Congestion Revenue Rights (PCRRs) flowing into Real Time was not being posted by ERCOT, and opined that this information is valuable. Mr. Blackburn requested that ERCOT look into the potential for posting such information with any confidential data redacted. Mr. Ragsdale stated that he would return to NATF with further information on the potential inclusion of this information in an ERCOT posted report.


NATF 2010 - Page 73 of 136

ERCOT Public



AUGUST 17, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Fox, Kip AEP Service Corporation IOU (Alt.)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalMcEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation Independent Power Marketer (IPM) (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Via Teleconference) Richard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumer – Residential

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Beckmann, Dwight Brazos ElectricBogen, David OncorDonohoo, Ken OncorEscamilla, Gerardo CPS EnergyEvans, Doug STECFallen, Bill OncorFuller, William LuminantHall, Mike CenterPoint EnergyJacoby, Jim AEPJohn, Ebby CenterPoint EnergyJones, Liz OncorLau, Alex CenterPoint EnergyLooney, Sherry LuminantRainey-Lewis, Jackie American Electric PowerSaboor, Ahmad TMPAStephenson, Randa LuminantVarnell, John Tenaska


NATF 2010 - Page 74 of 136

ERCOT Public

ERCOT Staff:NAME Bohart, JimLandry, KellyRagsdale, KenRasberry, JustinRickerson, Woody




REVIEW MODELING EXPECTATIONS WHITE PAPER AND COMMENTS Woody Rickerson reviewed the Modeling Expectations White Paper version 4.11 and comments received by ERCOT. Mr. Rickerson noted that version 4.11 is identical to version 4.0 with the exception that version 4.11 includes language describing the approval to energize process for Generation Resources. He noted that most all comments by Market Participants were accepted and incorporated and that future training would adhere to the procedures described in the white paper.

Mr. Rickerson opined that he believed there was consensus on the content for the white paper at the 07/20/2010 Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG) meeting. Market Participants disagreed and observed some items they believed should have been included as part of Texas Nodal Market implementation. Mr. Rickerson reviewed the items that would be included as part of Texas Nodal Market implementation and worked with Market Participants to create a resolution list describing the items that would be considered for post Texas Nodal Market implementation, including possible System Changes Requests (SCRs), Nodal Protocol Revision Requests (NPRRs), process changes, Modeling Expectations White Paper changes, and action items. Market Participants requested that this list be posted to the 08/17/2010 NATF meeting page, (http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/08/20100817-NATFNDSWG). Mr. Rickerson stated that he would develop Modeling Expectations White Paper version 5.0 incorporating the changes agreed upon, and that he would present it at the next NATF meeting for possible endorsement.

REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS Discussion of the remaining agenda items was postponed until the next NATF meeting due to time constraints.


NATF 2010 - Page 75 of 136

http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/08/20100817-NATFNDSWG

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744AUGUST 31, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers - ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.) McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Seymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.) Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Aguirre, T. CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceAlford, Anthony CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceAllen, Thresa Iberdrola Renewables Via TeleconferenceAnkalm, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceAshley, Kristy ExelonBailey, Dan Garland Power and LightBarrow, Les CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBogen, David OncorBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBriscoe, Judy BP Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell EnergyCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 76 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Carter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceClemenhagen, Barbara TopazClevenger, J. Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth RBS Sempra Via TeleconferenceCoffing, Timothy Luminant Via TeleconferenceCrozier, Richard BrownsvilleDe La Rosa, Lewis PUCTDetelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceDoll, Laura ERCOT BoardEbby, John CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceFogarty, Audrey EON Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGalvin, Jim Luminant Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGeinzer, Jay AES Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric ReliantGrimes, Mike Horizon Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHassouni, Daniel DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHebert, Jason PCI Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDFHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHughes, Darren Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJacoby, Jim AEPJanssen, John Sunguard Via TeleconferenceJeev, Kumar DC Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Dan Potomac EconomicsJones, Liz Oncor Via TeleconferenceJones, Randy CalpineKolodziej, Eddie Customized Energy SolutionsLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLewis, W. Cirro Energy Via TeleconferenceLi, Y. Potomac EconomicsLooney, Sherry LuminantMartin, Javier PCIMathews, Michael Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 77 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION McNamara, Grace LDH Energy Via TeleconferenceMorris, Sandy LCRA Via TeleconferenceMunoz, Manny CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceNikazm, Tamila Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceO’Leary, Paul EDF Trading Via TeleconferencePalani, Anath Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRGPriestley, Vanus MacquarieSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRASoutter, Mark InvenergyStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantThomas, Wayne Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceThompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceTomlinson, Brian Rayburn Electric CooperativeTroell, Mike STEC Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TENASKAVo, Trieu CPS EnergyWagner, Marguerite PSEG TXWan, Josephine Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceWatson, Mark Platts Oilgram Via TeleconferenceWheeler, Ron Optim EnergyWittmeyer, Bob DMEWoodard, Stacy LCRA Via TeleconferenceZang, H. Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceZarnikau, Jay Frontier Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Allen, Sean Via TeleconferenceBauld, Mandy Via TeleconferenceBoren, Ann Via TeleconferenceDiPastena, Phil Via TeleconferenceDumas, JohnGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, Ino Via TeleconferenceHanson, Chuck Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 78 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Landin, Yvette Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceMaggio, DavidManz, LauraMatlock, Robert Via TeleconferenceMcElfresh, BrandonMiddleton, Scott Via TeleconferenceNatoli, Anthony Via TeleconferenceOpheim, Calvin Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenRajagopal, Raj Via TeleconferenceReedy, SteveRoark, Dottie Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pamela Via TeleconferenceSills, Alex Via TeleconferenceSpangler, Bob Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTrefny, Floyd Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via TeleconferenceYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference




CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

Naomi Richard moved to approve the 06/23/2010 and 07/08/2010 NATF meeting minutes as presented. Cesar Seymour seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MARKET REFORM REPORT Laura Manz reviewed the Market Reform report previously presented to the ERCOT Board. She noted that the report provided a high-level risk analysis of the ERCOT Nodal Protocols and observed one serious issue needing resolution before Texas Nodal Market implementation. Steve Reedy stated that the issue is with system performance, not design. He explained that when there are an excessive number of unique source/sink pairs of Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Offers in combination with contingencies, a performance issue arises in the power flow and Contingency Analysis Module (NSM) due to the sheer

NATF 2010 - Page 79 of 136

ERCOT Public

volume of computations necessary. He noted that the amount of time needed to complete the calculations may exceed the three and one half hours allotted to provide the results of the Day-Ahead Market (DAM), and that currently approximately 150 Point to Point Options can be calculated in a timely manner. Mr. Reedy stated that potential action plans for immediate implementation would include potential software and hardware improvements and the use of new math libraries. He noted that a long term solution would include enhancements to parallel computation capabilities of the NSM. Mike Cleary stated ERCOT Staff would be meeting with Non-Opt-In Entities (NOIEs) to discuss the issue and would provide NATF with an update as soon as possible.

DAM AVAILABLE CREDIT LIMIT (ACL) Eric Goff noted that during recent market trials testing, DAM was run over non-business days for the first time with credit constraints and that a significant amount of credit was consumed such that some Market Participants were constrained from full participation in the DAM on the following Business Day due to their ACL. Mr. Goff stated that the Credit Working Group (CWG) and Market Credit Working Group (MCWG) convened a meeting to examine this issue and provided several recommendations. Mr. Blackburn directed that a Special NATF meeting be scheduled for 09/02/2010 to further review and provide a recommendation on this issue.

REVIEW MODELING EXPECTATIONS WHITE PAPER AND COMMENTS Woody Rickerson reviewed Modeling Expectations White Paper version 5.0, and the comments that had been incorporated and rejected. Randa Stephenson noted that the approval to energize process included in the White Paper was intended to be the official process and that future revisions of the White Paper would be reviewed and documented by the Network Data Support Working Group (NDSWG) and the Reliability and Operations Subcommittee (ROS).

Cesar Seymour moved to endorse the Modeling Expectations White Paper version 5.0 as revised by NATF 08/31/2010. James Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

ANCILLARY SERVICES CAPACITY MONITOR Bill Hellinghausen observed that ERCOT Protocols require ERCOT to provide Market Participants with Real-Time summaries of available capacity that can be used to increase or decrease Base Points in the Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED), and noted confusion regarding the meaning of this requirement. He stated that ERCOT intends to publish the difference between the Base Point and the High Dispatch Limit or Low Dispatch Limit respectively. Mr. Hellinghausen stated that his interpretation was that ERCOT should publish the difference between the Base Point and the High Ancillary Services Limit (HASL) or Low Ancillary Services Limit (LASL) representing the SCED up and SCED down reserve.

QUALIFIED SCHEDULING ENTITY (QSE) LIST OF NODAL ISSUES/CRITICAL ITEMS Naomi Richard noted that a list of severity one issues affecting Texas Nodal Market implementation has been collected and that ERCOT had provided comments to each of the items. She reviewed the criteria for classification of the issues and ERCOT comments, and Market Participants discussed each issue individually to ensure proper categorization and that ERCOT had identified a plan for resolution. Mr. Blackburn stated that NATF would continue to review and update the list as necessary.

NODAL PROTOCOL REVISION REQUESTS (NPRRS) REFERRED BY THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS) NPRR256, Synchronize Nodal Protocols with PRR787, Add Non-Compliance Language to QSE Performance Standards

NATF 2010 - Page 80 of 136

ERCOT Public

Ms. Stephenson recommended that discussion of this item be postponed until the next NATF to allow time for additional comments to be submitted. Market Participants agreed.

NPRR257, Synchronization with Nodal Operating Guide Section 9, Monitoring ProgramsYvette Landin noted that NPRR257 gray-boxes multiple sections of the Nodal Protocols to align them with Nodal Operating Guide Section 9, Monitoring Programs. Sherry Looney opined that NPRR257 removes the requirement for ERCOT to post some reports that are critical to Market Participant’s ability to monitor their performance. Alex Sills observed that the operational reports needed by Market Participants will be delivered in spite of NPRR257 as part of the Telemetry Performance Report. Ms. Looney stated that she would withdraw Luminant’s comments to NPRR257.

Danny Bivens moved to recommend approval of NPRR257 as submitted by ERCOT. Ms. Richard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NPRR119, RESOURCE LIMIT CALCULATOR Modifications as a Result of the Latest Full System Market and Reliability TestDavid Maggio reviewed a graph indicating the dates between 08/15/2010 and 08/29/2010 when a high number of Resource Limit Calculator (RLC) alerts were dispatched and noted the importance of Market Participant’s attention to them. He observed that there were some legitimate reasons for the alerts, but that market trials may have identified potential inaccuracies with regard to some Generation Resources telemetered High sustained Limits (HSLs).

PREVIEW MARKET READINESS CRITERIA FOR REMAINING PARTS OF THE NODAL PROGRAM Brandon McElfresh reviewed readiness criteria and metric totals, and noted that 26 metrics are planned, 23 metrics remain active, and 26 metrics are complete. Mr. McElfresh noted that of the 26 completed metrics, 7 were previously acknowledged by NATF as complete. Market Participants acknowledged the remaining 19 metrics as complete and agreed that it was no longer necessary for ERCOT to track associated performance.

Russell Lovelace expressed concern with issues with Nodal Implementation that are not tracked by metrics, and observed the Point to Point Options issue as an example. He opined that the Point to Point Options issue is a system performance problem and not a defect, and is therefore not being tracked through metrics. Ken Ragsdale noted that the QSE Issues list is tracking this and similar issues and stated that he would consider alternatives for better tracking.

COMPETITIVE CONSTRAINTS LIST FOR NODAL MARKET IMPLEMENTATION Decision-Making Entities (DMEs) and Common ControlBeth Garza stated that DMEs should not be affiliated with one another and that the current list should be updated as necessary to indicate that no such affiliations exist. She noted that the Independent Market Monitor would not be constructing a new list. Ms. Stephenson recommended that a Market Notice be distributed advising Market Participants of the need for review of their respective DME and to submit updates as necessary.

DRAFT BUSINESS PRACTICES FOR ERCOT AND QSE OPERATIONS DURING THE OPERATING HOUR Review Business Practice – ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating HourMr. Maggio noted that discussion of this item should be postponed until the next NATF meeting to allow more time for Market Participant comments. Randy Jones stated that he would be submitting comments supporting an “on-ramp” status similar to the “on-test” status proposed by ERCOT. He noted that the

NATF 2010 - Page 81 of 136

ERCOT Public

recommendation would be for post Texas Nodal Market implementation. Mr. Blackburn encouraged interested Market Participants to submit comments and directed that this item be added the agenda for the next NATF meeting.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Blackburn noted that the next NATF meeting would be 09/07/2010 and that the 09/14/2010 meeting was rescheduled to 09/16/2010. He adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m.

NATF 2010 - Page 82 of 136

ERCOT Public


(WEBEX ONLY)SEPTEMBER 2, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumer - ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA CooperativeSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.)Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer - Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Brown, Jack Garland Power and LightCarter, Kevin Duke EnergyCoffing, Timothy LuminantFahey, Matt ANP/IPAFarrell, James ConstellationHassouni, Daniel DC EnergyHess, Stephen Edison MissionSiddiqi, Shams Crescent PowerSidlak, Sonia ConstellationSimpson, Lori ConstellationStarr, Lee Bryan Texas UtilitiesVarnell, John TenaskaWatson, Markham Platts

ERCOT Staff:NAME Bohart, JimDumas, JohnLandry, KellyMiddleton, ScottRagsdale, Ken


NATF 2010 - Page 83 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Roark, DottieYager, Cheryl



ANTITRUST ADMONITION Mr. Blackburn reviewed the Antitrust Admonition, which was displayed. He asked those who had not yet reviewed the Antitrust Guidelines to do so. Copies of the Antitrust Guidelines were available.

NODAL CREDIT Eric Goff noted that during recent market trials testing, the Day Ahead Market (DAM) was conducted over non-business days for the first time with credit constraints and that a significant amount of credit was consumed such that some Market Participants were constrained from full participation in the DAM on the following Business Day due to their Available Credit Limit (ACL). Mr. Goff stated that the Credit Working Group (CWG) and Market Credit Working Group (MCWG) convened a meeting to examine this issue and provided several recommendations.

Mr. Goff reviewed the affect on the determination of the ACL for non-business days by Three-Part Offers, Energy Bids, Energy Only Offers, Point to Point Obligation Bids, and procured Ancillary Services. He reviewed two recommendations for alternative treatment of ACL during non-business days and Market Participants discussed the pros and cons of the proposals. Market Participants provided clarifying language and the noted the need for testing of the proposed changes before Texas Nodal Market implementation.

Naomi Richard moved that, conditioned on Market Participants being able to test a DAM weekend prior to go-live with these changes, ERCOT reduce ACL for the DAM on non-business days as it does today, except:

1) ERCOT should reduce exposure from Three-Part Offers by the product of DAM clearing price times cleared quantity for each cleared transaction;

2) No longer increase exposure for ThreePart Offers based on the difference between historic DAM and Real-Time Market (RTM) prices; and

3) Reduce exposure from each cleared energy only offer by the product of DAM clearing price, cleared quantity, and e2. e2 is set by ERCOT for each Counter-Party, and only Counter-Parties with favorable pre-DAM treatment qualify for this reduction.

James Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Independent Power Marketer Market Segment was not present for the vote.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Blackburn adjourned the meeting at 9:28 a.m.

NATF 2010 - Page 84 of 136

ERCOT Public



AUSTIN, TX 78744SEPTEMBER 7, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Fox, Kip AEP Service Corporation IOU (Alt.)Jackson, James CPS Energy Municipal (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(IREP) (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Brad E.ON Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumers – Residential (Alt.)Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial (Via

Teleconference)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Brandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceCarpenter, Jeremy Tenaska Power ServicesCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceCoffing, Timothy Luminant Via TeleconferenceDe La Rosa, Lewis PUCTDetelich, David CPS EnergyFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceFarrell, Jim Constellation Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike HorizonHampton, Brenda LuminantHancock, Tom GPLHassouni, Daniel DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin Energy


NATF 2010 - Page 85 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Jones, Dan Potomac EconomicsJones, Randy CalpineLooney, Sherry LuminantMoast, Pat Texas Reliability EntityPieniazek, Adrian NRGSamsel, Matt Int’l Power AmericaSiddiqi, Shams Crescent Power Via TeleconferenceSidlak, Sonia Constellation Via TeleconferenceSimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantVarnell, John TENASKA Via TeleconferenceWatson, Markham Platts Oilgram Via TeleconferenceWheeler, Ron Optim EnergyWittmeyer, Bob Consumer

ERCOT Staff:NAME Dumas, John Via TeleconferenceLandin, YvetteLandry, KellyMaggio, DaveMiddleton, ScottRagsdale, KenRickerson, WoodyRoark, Dottie Via TeleconferenceSpangler, BobSurendran, ResmiYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference


Don Blackburn called the meeting to order 9:34 a.m.

ANTITRUST ADMONITION Mr. Blackburn reviewed the Antitrust Admonition, which was displayed. He asked those who had not yet reviewed the Antitrust Guidelines to do so. Copies of the Antitrust Guidelines were available.

NATF DISTRIBUTION LIST AND EMAIL

NATF 2010 - Page 86 of 136

ERCOT Public

Kelly Landry reviewed procedures for sending and receiving mail through the NATF distribution list and observed that it is necessary to be a member of the distribution list in order to be able to send messages to it. He noted that Market Participants can sign up for the distribution list at http://lists.ercot.com.

NPRR256, SYNCHRONIZE NODAL PROTOCOLS WITH PRR787, ADD NON-COMPLIANCE LANGUAGE TO QSE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NATF did not consider NPRR256, but noted it for possible discussion at the next NATF meeting.

NPRR267, ALLOW ERCOT TO MANAGE OPERATIONS MODEL PSEUDO DEVICES Kip Fox reviewed NPRR267 and explained that it provides that ERCOT would be the designated entity to enter “pseudo switches” to the Network Operations Model when such devices were necessary. Mr. Fox opined that having ERCOT enter the switches would provide the most consistency with regard to their application because Transmission Service Providers (TSPs) model their respective equipment differently than one another, and that ERCOT should continue to model these switches as it does currently. Woody Rickerson stated that the terms “pseudo switch” and “incremental switch” are synonymous, and opined that NPRR267 is inconsistent with the intent of the Nodal Market with respect to Network Modeling. He stated that, while ERCOT currently enters incremental switches, under zonal Protocols, ERCOT enters all changes to the Network Model. He observed that after Nodal Market Implementation TSPs will enter changes to the Network Model through the Network Operations Model Change Request (NOMCR) process. Mr. Rickerson remarked that the responsibility for entering incremental switches should transition to TSPs along with the responsibility for entering NOMCRs at Nodal Market implementation.

DRAFT NPRR, CLARIFY PUBLISHING SOURCE AND SINK PAIRS OF POINT TO POINT OPTIONS CARRIED IN REAL-TIME Mr. Blackburn reviewed Nodal Protocols describing publications to be made by ERCOT regarding the Day-Ahead Market (DAM) and opined that Nodal Protocol Section 4.5.3, Communicating DAM Results, suggests that Point to Point (PTP) Options data should be included in the DAM energy Bought and Sold Report. Mr. Blackburn suggested that ERCOT commence publishing this information beginning with the 168-Hour Full System Market and Reliability test. Market Participants discussed the appropriateness of including the PTP Options information in the report before full implementation of the Nodal Protocols. Chad Seely commented that Nodal Protocols are not clear on this issue, and that NATF could provide comments to assist in understanding the Protocol language.

Mr. Blackburn moved to endorse the concept to include PTP Obligations and PTP Options data with the DAM energy Bought and Sold Report beginning with the 168-Hour test, and for NATF to work towards an NPRR to clarify this report and the timing of this report for post Go-Live treatment. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried with one opposing vote from the Cooperative Market Segment, and four abstentions from the Consumer (3) and Municipal Market Segments.

UPDATE ON ANCILLARY SERVICES CAPACITY MONITOR ERCOT Nodal Change Request (NCR)Bob Spangler provided a follow up to the issue of what information will be published by ERCOT regarding Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) reserve capacity and the Ancillary Service Capacity Monitor. Mr. Spangler reviewed ERCOT internal and external discussions of this issue and stated that ERCOT has determined that both the High Ancillary Services Limit (HASL) Net Generation, known as SCED Up Reserve, and the Low Ancillary Services Limit (LASL) Net Generation, known as

NATF 2010 - Page 87 of 136

http://lists.ercot.com/

ERCOT Public

SCED Down Reserve, will be published. Mr. Spangler noted that as a result of this determination the previously discussed NCR is no longer necessary.

UPDATE ON QUALIFIED SCHEDULING ENTITY (QSE) LIST OF NODAL ISSUES/CRITICAL ITEMS NATF did not consider the QSE List of Nodal Issues, but noted it for possible discussion at the next NATF meeting.

ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICE- MARKET PARTICIPANT COMMENTS Setting the Shadow Price Caps and Power Balance Penalties in Security Constrained Economic DispatchNATF did not consider the ERCOT Business Practice, Setting the Shadow Price Caps and Power Balance Penalties in Security Constrained Economic Dispatch, but noted it for possible discussion at the next NATF meeting.

ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating Hour David Maggio reviewed the ERCOT Business Practice, ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating Hour, and stated that this document should be followed during the 168-Hour test. Market Participants discussed various procedures within the document and expressed concerns regarding the settings for Low Sustained Limit (LSL) and High Sustained Limit (HSL) during ramp periods. Mr. Maggio stated that ERCOT will continue to evaluate this Business Practice for possible revisions.


NATF 2010 - Page 88 of 136

ERCOT Public



SEPTEMBER 17, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers - ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Fox, KipKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.) McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.) Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Bradley E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.) Wittmeyer, Bob City of Eastland Consumer – Commercial (Alt.)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Allen, Thresa Iberdrola Renewables Via TeleconferenceAnderson, K LCRA Via TeleconferenceAnkalm, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill J Aron Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBell, Wendell TPPA Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Via TeleconferenceBogen, David Oncor Via TeleconferenceBombick, Sarah CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBombick, Sarah LCRA Via TeleconferenceBriscoe, Judy BPBruns, Scott Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCaraway, Shannon TXUCarpenter, Jeremy, Tenaska Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 89 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Charnoubi, Aditi The Structure Group Via TeleconferenceChudgar, Raj SungardClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceCollins, Dan Direct EnergyCote, Daryl NRG Energy Via TeleconferenceCrawford, Jay Calpine Via TeleconferenceDe La Rosa, Lewis PUCTDetelich, David CPS EnergyDietz, Karen SUEZ Via TeleconferenceDioun, Mina LCRA Via TeleconferenceDoll, Laura ERCOT Board Via TeleconferenceDouglas, Robert MP2 Energy Via TeleconferenceDowney, Marty Tri Eagle Energy Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock LuminantEnglish, Susan SUEZ Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceFirestone, Joel Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceFoster, Jill Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGalvin, Jim Luminant Via TeleconferenceGreen, Bob Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceGreen, David Calpine Via TeleconferenceHaerle, Geoff Via TeleconferenceHansen, Eric VentyxHarding, Jennifer Barclays Via TeleconferenceHarrell, Patty DC EnergyHellinghausen, Bill EDF Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHolloway, Harry SUEZ Via TeleconferenceHughes, Darren Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceJohnson, Stephen First Choice Power Via TeleconferenceJones, Dan Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJones, Mike Infinite Energy Via TeleconferenceJoshi, Rahul Power Costs Via TeleconferenceKajganich, Steve Energy Services Group Via TeleconferenceKee, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 90 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Li, Y. Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLongshore, Jeffrey Luminant Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantLucas, Ross Sungard Via TeleconferenceMarsh, Tony QSE Services Via TeleconferenceMartin, Loretto LCRA Via TeleconferenceMcKeever, Debbie Oncor Via TeleconferenceMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMeek, Donald Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceMelgoza, Moises APX Via TeleconferenceMiller, Patrick Via TeleconferenceMorris, Sandy LCRA Via TeleconferenceNguyen, Winnie Sungard Via TeleconferenceNiemeyer, Sydney NRG Energy Via TeleconferenceNikazm, Tamila Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceOlson, Sara Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceOrbe, John Barclays Via TeleconferencePalani, Anath Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePriestley, Vanus Macquarie Via TeleconferenceQuinn, Scott Power CostsRahimi, Farrokh OATI Via TeleconferenceReid, Walter Wind CoalitionRoach, Temujin PUCT Via TeleconferenceRodriguez, Robert The Structure Group Via TeleconferenceRosenberg, Michael Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceSchultz, Steven LCRA Via TeleconferenceSchwant, William The Structure Group Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRASimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Soft Smiths Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantStricklett, Rebecca LCRA Via TeleconferenceThomas, Wayne Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceThompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceThompson, David Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceToussaint, Margaret BP Energy Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 91 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Trayers, Barry Citigroup Via TeleconferenceTrenary, Michelle Tenaska Via TeleconferenceTroell, Mike STEC Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth CES Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TENASKAWagner, Marguerite PSEG TX Via TeleconferenceWallace, Micah Sungard Via TeleconferenceWan, Josephine Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceWatson, Jay LCRA Via TeleconferenceWeber, BJ Tenaska Via TeleconferenceWilliams, Lori Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob DME Via TeleconferenceWoodard, Stacy LCRA Via TeleconferenceZehani, Madjid Austin Energy Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnBohart, JimDiPastena, Phil Via TeleconferenceDumas, JohnGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, Ino Via TeleconferenceLandin, Yvette Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceMaggio, DavidMatlock, Robert Via TeleconferenceMcElfresh, BrandonMiddleton, Scott Via TeleconferenceNowicki, Len Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenReedy, SteveRienfeld, Rodney Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pamela Via TeleconferenceSpangler, BobSpells, Vanessa Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiVillarreal, Rachel Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 92 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Wise, Joan Via TeleconferenceYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference




CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (POSSIBLE VOTE) Naomi Richard moved to approve the 07/29/2010, 08/03/2010, 08/09/2010, 08/12/2010, and 08/17/2010 NATF meeting minutes as presented. Brad Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

UPDATE ON LOAD RESOURCE TESTING Brandon McElfresh noted that a Load Resources deployment test had been successfully conducted and that another test was scheduled for 09/21/2010 and 09/22/2010. Mr. McElfresh reviewed the types of submissions to be tested and noted that more detail would be provided on 09/20/2010. John Dumas noted that during the previous test, there were an insufficient number of Market Participant updates to the Current Operating Plan (COP) and stressed the need to keep this information accurate.

UPDATE ON DAY-AHEAD MARKET (DAM) POINT TO POINT OPTION PERFORMANCE Discussion of this agenda item was postponed until the 09/22/2010 NATF meeting.

REVIEW 168-HOUR FULL SYSTEM MARKET AND RELIABILITY TEST Scott Middleton reviewed the Market Trials 168-Hour Test Report and Summary. He reviewed the full system market testing of Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs), Outage Scheduling, Day-Ahead Market (DAM), Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC), and Real-Time Market Load Frequency Control (LFC). Market Participants requested ERCOT provide additional information regarding the total number of bi-lateral trades and Mr. Middleton agreed. Mr. Middleton noted the average participation by Market Participants during the test averaged over 95 percent. Market Participants discussed the need for accurate telemetry and observed related Locational Marginal Price (LMP) spikes.

Mr. Middleton reviewed issues encountered during the test regarding the Market Management System (MMS) server and explained workarounds utilized by ERCOT to resolve the issues. He reviewed the 168-Hour Test Evaluation Criteria and noted ERCOT’s disposition for each portion of the test. He stated ERCOT’s requests that Market Participants review their own performance and provide an attestation indicating their ability to manage Nodal Systems. Market Participants discussed continued Full System Market testing and the potential for an additional CRR Auction.

NATF 2010 - Page 93 of 136

ERCOT Public

NODAL PROTOCOL REVISION REQUESTS (NPRRS) REFERRED BY THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS) NPRR256, Synchronize Nodal Protocols with PRR787, Add Non-Compliance Language to QSE Performance StandardsRanda Stephenson noted that NPRR256 authorizes the use of “ONTEST” status for Generation Resources during start-up and shut-down. She reviewed Luminant comments and noted that they provide clarification to Nodal Protocol Section 6.6.5, Generation Resource Base Point Deviation Charge, to make clear that the indication of a unit start-up or shut down is based on a telemetered Resource status for “ONTEST”, and that this would align this NPRR with the changes agreed to by NATF in NPRR256, Synchronize Nodal Protocols with PRR787, Add Non-Compliance Language to QSE Performance Standards. Market Participants discussed further revisions to add additional clarifying language.

Mr. Blackburn moved to endorse NPRR256, as revised by Luminant and STEC comments, and as revised by NATF. Russell Lovelace seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Municipal Market Segment was not present.

UPDATE ON QUALIFIED SCHEDULING ENTITY (QSE) LIST OF NODAL ISSUES/CRITICAL ITEMS Market Participants reviewed items on the QSE List of Nodal Issues/Critical Items and reclassified the severity level of some items. Mr. Ragsdale reviewed ERCOT resolution of certain items and identified those items on the list as “closed.”

UPDATE ON DAY-AHEAD MARKET (DAM) POINT TO POINT OPTION PERFORMANCE Discussion of this agenda item was postponed until the 09/22/2010 NATF meeting.

ADJOURNMEN. Mr. Blackburn adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.

NATF 2010 - Page 94 of 136

ERCOT Public



SEPTEMBER 22, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers - ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.) McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider (IREP)

(Alt.) Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Bradley E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer - IndustrialWittmeyer, Bob City of Eastland Consumer – Commercial (Alt.)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Bogen, David OncorBurke, Tom APMElliott, Chris MLCIHansen, Eric VentyxHellinghausen, Bill EDFJacoby, Jim AEPJones, Liz OncorVarnell, John TENASKAWheeler, Ron Optim EnergyWoitt, Wes CenterPoint Energy

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnBohart, JimDumas, John


NATF 2010 - Page 95 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Landry, KellyMaggio, DavidMcElfresh, BrandonMiddleton, Scott Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenRickerson, WoodySpangler, BobSurendran, Resmi




ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICE- REVISED PAPER ERCOT Business Practice: ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating HourDavid Maggio presented the ERCOT Business Practice, ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating Hour version 0.95 and reviewed section three. He observed new procedures for Generation Resources to show “ONTEST” during unit start-up and shut-down. Market Participants discussed the unit settings for Low Sustained Limit (LSL) and the threshold percentage of LSL at which Generation Resources would be deployed. Mr. Blackburn stated that Market Participants would be allowed to further comment on the Business Practice until close of business 09/27/2010 and that ERCOT would then present it to TAC 10/07/2010.

UPDATE ON QUALIFIED SCHEDULING ENTITY (QSE) LIST OF NODAL ISSUES/CRITICAL ITEMS Market Participants reviewed items on the QSE List of Nodal Issues/Critical Items categorized as severity level one and two. Mr. Ragsdale reviewed ERCOT resolution of certain items and identified items on the list as either “open” or “closed.”

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS (LDF) METHODOLOGY John Adams stated that ERCOT has concluded from the results of the market trials that it is advisable to open the Texas Nodal Day-Ahead Market (DAM) using a stable set of Bus and Load distribution factors instead of the State Estimator hourly distribution from seven days prior to the Operating Day. He stated that use of filtered LDFs from the previous seven days allows telemetry errors to propagate into the DAM model, and that ERCOT will capture State Estimator results from a “proxy” day and test the LDF’s with sample DAM executions in the lab with typical bid information. Market Participants discussed the weather conditions of the proxy day and whether multiple days should be averaged to represent the proxy day.

GENERATION RESOURCE ENERGY DEPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE (GREDP) VARIABLES PROCESS

NATF 2010 - Page 96 of 136

ERCOT Public

Mr. Maggio noted that “X”, “Y”, and “Z” are parameters which are used to determine how Generation Resources performed in a given five minute interval and observed that this information is reported as part of GREDP. He stated that during full system market and reliability testing, a value of five was used for “X”, a value of five was used for “Y”, and a value of ten was used for “Z”. Mr. Maggio noted that utilizing these values most Resources performed well and that a very slight few failed the test, but that the value of Z may need to be further adjusted. Mr. Maggio stated that ERCOT would conduct more analysis and post this information for Market Participant review.

TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDER (TSP) ISSUES LIST Woody Rickerson reviewed the TSP Issues List and noted that it contains 52 items total. He stated that the next phase of review is to categorize the items so they can be associated with related projects. Market Participants discussed the categorization of some items and Mr. Rickerson related possible impacts to Nodal systems.

ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICE- REVISED PAPER ERCOT Business Practice: Setting the Shadow Price Caps and Power Balance Penalties in Security Constrained Economic Dispatch Mr. Blackburn observed the Wholesale Market Subcommittee recommended to NATF that the Power Balance Penalty curve begin at $500 and to go 40MW, and Market Participants agreed this issue should be identified as “closed” on the QSE List of Nodal Issues/Critical Items. Mr. Blackburn stated that the next discussion of this issue would be at the 10/07/2010 TAC meeting.

DAY TWO: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 Mr. Blackburn observed that NATF had reviewed all of the agenda items and canceled the second day of this meeting as it was no longer necessary.


NATF 2010 - Page 97 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT AUSTIN OFFICE7620 METRO CENTER DRIVE, AUSTIN, TX 78744

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant IOUJackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Bradley E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumer - ResidentialWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial (Via Teleconference)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Allwen, Thresa Iberdrola Renewables Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Robert Cargill Via TeleconferenceBailey, Dan Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill J. Aron Via TeleconferenceBarrow, Les CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEP Service Corp. Via TeleconferenceBogen, David Oncor Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell Via TeleconferenceBruns, Scott Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceBurke, Tom APMCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth SempraGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGalvin, Jim Luminant Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric ReliantGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda Luminant


NATF 2010 - Page 98 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Hancock, Tom Garland Power and LightHansen, Eric Ventyx Via TeleconferenceHarrell, Patty DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHassouni, Dan DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDFHelton, Bob International PowerHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHughes, Darren Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJohn, Ebby CenterPoint Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Dan Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceKimmish, Steven PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLi, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMclamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMcNamara, Grace LDH Energy Via TeleconferenceMiller, Patrick Via TeleconferenceNikazm, Tamila Austin Energy Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPodraza, Ernie Direct Energy Via TeleconferencePriestley, Vanus AES New Energy Via TeleconferenceRahimi, Farrokh OATI Via TeleconferenceReid, Walter Wind Coalition Via TeleconferenceRhodes, Anthony Champion Energy Serivces Via TeleconferenceSack, Brandon Westar Energy Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRASimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Soft Smiths Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantThomas, Wayne Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy SolutionsWheeler, Ron Optim EnergyWittmeyer, Bob Longhorn Power Via TeleconferenceWorley, Eli Tenaska Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 99 of 136

ERCOT Public

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnLandry, KellyMaggio, DavidMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottRagsdale, KenSpangler, BobSurendran, ResmiTrefny, Floyd (Via Teleconference)Tucker, DonYager, Cheryl




UPDATE ON QUALIFIED SCHEDULING ENTITY (QSE) LIST OF NODAL ISSUES/CRITICAL ITEMS Market Participants reviewed the remaining items on the QSE List of Nodal Issues/Critical Items. Mr. Ragsdale reviewed ERCOT resolution of certain items and identified items on the list as either “open” or “closed.”

FRIDAY MARKET CALL KNOWN ISSUES LIST Scott Middleton reviewed the results of latest Load Frequency Control (LFC) test. He observed Market Participant facing issues regarding Congestion Revenue Right (CRR), Settlement, Real-Time Market, and Day-Ahead Market systems. He noted that these issues will also be presented to TAC for review. Mr. Middleton stated that no issues were observed regarding the Credit Monitoring Management (CMM) system.

GENERATION RESOURCE ENERGY DEPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE (GREDP) VARIABLES PROCESS Discussion of this item was postponed until the 10/05/2010 NATF meeting.

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS (LDF) METHODOLOGY Ken Ragsdale noted that the LDF methodology had been revised to address concerns expressed at the 09/22/2010 NATF meeting regarding non-conforming Load. John Adams advised that ERCOT will capture State Estimator results from a “proxy” day and test the LDF’s with sample Day-Ahead Market

NATF 2010 - Page 100 of 136

ERCOT Public

(DAM) executions. He stated that ERCOT would prefer to utilize the LDFs for the entirety of each corresponding month, but that it may be necessary to revise the LDFs for certain transitional months. Market Participants requested that revised LDFs be posted for Market Participants as soon as possible after revision.

ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICE- FINAL REVIEW Bob Spangler presented ERCOT Business Practice, ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating Hour version 1.01, and noted that comments to the document had been received from EDF Trading and Luminant since its last revision. Market Participants discussed procedures for the movement of Ancillary Services from one Generation Unit to another and the need for clarifying language. Mr. Blackburn observed that the NPRR275, Clarify QSE’s Ability to Make Changes to Ancillary Service Resource Responsibility in Real-Time, was sponsored by ERCOT to address this issue, but was rejected. Mr. Blackburn directed that this issue be set for further discussion at the next NATF meeting.

Resmi Surendran presented ERCOT Business Practice, Setting the Shadow Price Caps and Power Balance Penalties in SCED version 0.15, and noted that this version incorporated changes recommended at the 09/22/2010 Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS) meeting. Ms. Surendran noted that additional grammatical revisions had been made since its review by WMS.

James Jackson moved to endorse ERCOT Business Practice, Setting the Shadow Price Caps and Power Balance Penalties in SCED version 0.15, as presented to NATF. Gary Torrent seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Surendran reviewed ERCOT Business Practice, Non-Spin Reserve Services Deployment/Recall Procedures, and noted that it contains revisions since its approval by TAC. Market Participants noted that the revisions were substantive and could be affected by Nodal Protocol Revision Requests (NPRRs) in progress. Mr. Blackburn directed that this document be set for further discussion at the next NATF meeting.

RETAIL TESTING Don Tucker provided an update to prior decisions that were documented in the Market Trials Handbook version 3.1 regarding what data would be utilized during the data aggregation process. He noted that the data aggregation process will use ERCOT Polled Settlement (EPS) meter data from the zonal production environment for use in the market trials generation & Load data aggregation processes, and that for non-EPS meter data, ERCOT will use the data that existed in ERCOT systems 10/16/2009, the point in time that the test environment was created from the zonal production environment.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGARDING ERCOT AND MARKET PARTICIPANT OVERALL READINESS FOR A DECEMBER 1, 2010 TEXAS NODAL MARKET IMPLEMENTATION Mr. Ragsdale reviewed a draft of the ERCOT Management Readiness Certification and noted that ERCOT Management would begin reviewing the document for possible approval 10/01/2010. Mr. Ragsdale reviewed the readiness methodology and noted that it included system, process and people readiness, and the core components of each category. He reviewed the status and completion dates for readiness of the Market Management System (MMS), Energy Management System (EMS), Market Information System (MIS), Commercial Systems (COMS), and Credit Monitoring Management (CMM). Market Participants discussed the appropriate language for a recommendation to TAC regarding

NATF 2010 - Page 101 of 136

ERCOT Public

ERCOT and Market Participant readiness. Mr. Blackburn noted the need for additional time to consider the subject and directed that this item be set for discussion at the 10/05/2010 NATF meeting and that Market Participants bring forth suggestions.


NATF 2010 - Page 102 of 136

ERCOT Public



OCTOBER 5, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumer – ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Brewster, Chris City of Eastland Consumer - CommercialJackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Bradley E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent GeneratorWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Aguirre, T CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceAllen, Thresa Iberdrola Renewables Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Robert Cargill Via TeleconferenceBailey, Dan Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBently, Jennifer AEP Service Corp.Bevill, Jennifer AEP Service Corp.Bevill, Rob GMECBlack, Julie PUC Texas Via TeleconferenceBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceDetelich, David CPS Energy Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 103 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Fahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceGalvin, Jim Luminant Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHarding, Jennifer Barclays Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF Trading Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHughes, Darren Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJones, Brad Luminant Via TeleconferenceJones, Dan Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJones, Mike Infinite Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Liz OncorKimmish, Steven PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLange, Nathan DC Energy Via TeleconferenceLi, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMclamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceNguyen, Winnie Sungard Via TeleconferenceNikazm, Tamila Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceNoah, Heather VITOL Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPodraza, Ernie Direct Energy Via TeleconferencePriestly, Vanus AES Via TeleconferenceReid, Walter Wind Coalition Via TeleconferenceRoach, Temujin PUC Texas Via TeleconferenceSack, Brandon Westar Energy Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRA Via TeleconferenceSimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantThuynh, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TenaskaWagner, Marguerite PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceWan, Josephine Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceWatson, Mark Platts Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 104 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Whittle, Brandon DB Energy Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, Bob Longhorn Power Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, John Via TeleconferenceBauld, Mandy Via TeleconferenceBohart, JimDecuir, Kim Via TeleconferenceDumas, JohnGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMadden, Terry Via TeleconferenceMaggio, DavidNatoli, Anthony Via TeleconferenceNowicki, Len Via TeleconferencePabbisetty, Suresh Via TeleconferencePrasanna, Ashwin Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenShaw, Pam Via TeleconferenceSpangler, BobSurendran, ResmiTucker, Carrie Via TeleconferenceVillarreal, Rachel Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via TeleconferenceYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference





NATF 2010 - Page 105 of 136

ERCOT Public

James Jackson moved to approve the 8/31/2010 NATF Meeting Minutes as presented. Bradley Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGARDING ERCOT AND MARKET PARTICIPANT OVERALL READINESS FOR A DECEMBER 1, 2010 TEXAS NODAL MARKET IMPLEMENTATION Mr. Ragsdale noted that ERCOT management certified readiness for Texas Nodal Market Implementation. Mr. Ragsdale reviewed the readiness methodology and noted that it included system, process and people readiness, and the core components of each category. He highlighted the status and completion dates for readiness of the Market Management System (MMS), Energy Management System (EMS), Market Information System (MIS), Commercial Systems (COMS), and Credit Monitoring Management (CMM). Mr. Ragsdale noted that the methodology for determining Load Distribution Factors (LDFs) is pending. Market Participants discussed the possibility of ERCOT providing a post Nodal Market implementation comparison of LDFs to Real-Time data to determine if LDFs are accurate. Market Participants discussed the appropriate language for a recommendation to TAC regarding ERCOT and Market Participant readiness.

Mr. Jackson moved that, based on the observations and experience of the NATF members and the certification by ERCOT management, NATF is unaware of any outstanding issue, or collection of issues, that would prohibit TAC from voting affirmatively for the ERCOT Nodal Market Go-Live; therefore, NATF recommends approval by TAC for a December 1, 2010 go-live.

The NATF recommendation is based on our direct discussions with ERCOT and Market Trials observations. NATF acknowledges there is much that cannot be directly observed by individual Market Participants. Where not directly observed, NATF has relied on those that have direct knowledge.

NATF has reviewed with ERCOT the issues that have been reported as of October 5, 2010, as identified in the QSE and TDSP issue lists and in the ERCOT Management Readiness Certification. ERCOT currently has a plan to address each of the “Defects to be Resolved by Go-live” which includes a delivery date for the fix, a workaround or has a workaround plan in progress. NATF accepts ERCOT’s status regarding deferred issues. The NATF expects ERCOT to continue updating NATF, TAC and the Board regarding the progress of the fixes and workarounds.

Naomi Richard seconded the motion. The motion carried by roll call vote with one abstention from the Consumer Market Segment.

BASE POINT DEVIATION CHARGES IN THE NODAL MARKET Randa Stephenson observed that NPRR285, Generation Resource Base Point Deviation Charge Corrections, was submitted to correct problems associated with Base Point deviation charges and to avoid a large volume of Settlement disputes. Mandy Bauld noted that ERCOT may file comments to NPRR285 to address shortened Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) intervals.

ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICE- FINAL REVIEW Resmi Surendran reviewed ERCOT Business Practice, Non-Spin Reserve Services Deployment/Recall Procedures, and noted that it contains revisions due to several approved Nodal Protocol Revision

NATF 2010 - Page 106 of 136

ERCOT Public

Requests (NPRRs) addressing this subject matter. Ms. Surendran reviewed each of the changes individually.

Mr. Blackburn moved to recommend TAC approve the ERCOT Business Practice, Non-Spin Reserve Services Deployment and Recall Procedures, as presented by ERCOT. Scott Wardle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

GENERATION RESOURCE ENERGY DEPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE (GREDP) VARIABLES PROCESS David Maggio presented the GREDP variables process, reviewed additional data analysis, and presented the full tables used to generate graphs in his presentation as requested at the 09/30/2010 NATF meeting. He presented graphical representations of the “X” variable adjusted to 15 percent and the “Y” variable adjusted to 15 Megawatts (MWs) and illustrated the information by time of day. Market Participants discussed the details of the graphs and the effects of adjustments.

Mr. Blackburn moved that regarding GREDP, NATF recommends to TAC that X=8%, Y=8MW, and Z=10%, and asks that during the review required after go live that such review ensure that the measurement appropriately aligns with the services it is attempting to enforce in a non-discriminatory manner. Bradley Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

UPDATE ON PROCEDURES FOR CREDIT ADJUSTMENT Cheryl Yager reviewed ERCOT plans for monitoring and addressing credit risk in the initial months after Nodal Market implementation. She observed that ERCOT’s efforts will be primarily focused on core credit calculation, a reasonability test, and adjustments when there is unusual activity. Market Participants discussed benchmark assumptions for low and high total potential exposure, historical estimates, and criteria for unusual activity.

FOLLOW-UP ON ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICE- ERCOT AND QSE OPERATIONS PRACTICES DURING THE OPERATING HOUR Bob Spangler observed the discussion of the Business Practice, ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating Hour, at the previous NATF meeting and noted that NATF recommendations had been incorporated. He noted that the revisions made do not address the movement of Ancillary Services during the operating hour and the requirement to contact ERCOT in such an event. Mr. Blackburn noted that NATF looks forward to direction from TAC regarding this document.


NATF 2010 - Page 107 of 136

ERCOT Public



OCTOBER 26, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumer – ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(IREP) (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Bradley E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Aguirre, T CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceAhuja, Manan Barclays Via TeleconferenceBarrow, Les CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBerkmann, Dwight BHPCBevill, Jennifer AEPBlack, Julie PUC Texas Via TeleconferenceBogen, David Oncor Via TeleconferenceBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell Via TeleconferenceBurke, Tom APMCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceDetelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceDonohoo, Ken Oncor


NATF 2010 - Page 108 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Dupay, Lucas Barclays Via TeleconferenceDupre, David Green Mountain Energy Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceEvans, Doug STECFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceFarrell, James Constellation Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric Reliant Via TeleconferenceGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHarrell, B DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHeatley, Patricia Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF TradingHelton, Bob International Power America Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJacoby, Jim AEP Via TeleconferenceJanssen, John Sungard Via TeleconferenceJohn, Ebby CenterPoint Energy Services Via TeleconferenceJones, Brad Luminant Via TeleconferenceJuricek, Mike Oncor Via TeleconferenceKemper, Wayne CenterPoint Energy Services Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKhayat, Maribel CenterPoint Energy Services Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLane, Robert Luminant Via TeleconferenceLi, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMarx, Owen Luminant Via TeleconferenceMclamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMiller, Patrick Via TeleconferenceMishra, Shailesh PCINikazm, Tamila Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim EnergyPodraza, Ernie Direct Energy Via TeleconferencePriestly, Vanus AES Via TeleconferenceRiblett, Greg Long Horn Energy Via TeleconferenceRoach, Temujin PUC Texas Via TeleconferenceSaker, Charles Oncor Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 109 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Sandidge, Clint Sempra Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkoeski, Ned PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceSchneider, Christian Exelon Corp. Via TeleconferenceShahh, Harini DTE Energy Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRASimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStandfield, Leonard CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Softsmits Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantSwann, Mark KEP Via TeleconferenceThomas, Wayne Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceThompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceThuynh, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceToussaint, Margaret BP Energy Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy SolutionsTronche, John Platts Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TenaskaVillarreal, D CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceVo, Trieu CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceWagner, Marguerite PSEG TexasWalker, DeAnn CenterPoint Energy ServicesWittmeyer, Bob DMEWoitt, Wes CenterPoint Energy ServicesZhang, Bryan Potomac Economics Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, John Via TeleconferenceBlevins, BillDipastena, Philip Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, InoLandry, KellyMatlock, Robert Via TeleconferenceMereness, MattRagsdale, KenReedy, SteveSurendran, ResmiShaw, Pam Via TeleconferenceSpangler, Bob Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 110 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Teixeira, Jay Via TeleconferenceThompson, Chad Via TeleconferenceTucker, CarrieYager, Cheryl Via Teleconference





Danny Bivens moved to approve the 09/02/2010 and 09/07/2010 NATF Meeting Minutes as presented. Bradley Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

REVIEW DAY-AHEAD MARKET (DAM) RESULTS Matt Mereness reviewed participation in the DAM during full system market and reliability testing and noted that, on average, there were 71 Qualified Scheduling Entities (QSEs) participating. Market Participants discussed the appropriateness of the amount of time necessary for ERCOT systems to process Bids and Offers into the DAM. Mr. Mereness stated that ERCOT did not observe any latency issues associated with Market Participant submissions and that ERCOT should be alerted if any latency is experienced. Mr. Mereness stated that it was recognized during testing that clearing of the DAM could take as much as four hours, and that ERCOT management is considering steps to improve this timing through the use of advanced computer processors. Mr. Mereness noted that a fall-back position in the event the advanced processors do not provide a solution is to utilize fewer contingencies.

DAM ASSUMPTIONS FOR GO-LIVE Mr. Mereness stated that based on findings and tuning of the DAM solution during the 168-hour Full System Market and Reliability test and the recent stress test, ERCOT will implement several processes and tools for Nodal Market implementation. He stated that the contingency list contains approximately 2500 contingencies, but that three of those have been temporarily disabled due to issues associated with radial load pockets. He observed that ERCOT has developed and deployed static Load Distribution Factors (LDFs) for Network Operations Model Loads, and that this has dramatically improved solution quality. Mr. Mereness stated that phase shifting transformers (PSTs) will be set to “monitor only”, and not “secured” as that this will avoid creating some artificial congestion in the DAM. Mr. Mereness observed changes to management of DAM contingencies, the addition of Special Protection, and Load Rollover schemes, and a daily operational alignment of certain systems based on a two-day system operations look-ahead.

Mr. Mereness observed that ERCOT continues its study of Congestion Revenue Rights (CRR) options performance issues and DAM Failure scenarios, but will conclude its studies prior to 11/01/2010. Mr.

NATF 2010 - Page 111 of 136

ERCOT Public

Mereness stated that ERCOT considers phase shifting transformer enhancement, DAM-only Remedial Action Plans (RAPs), and DAM penalty factors, as out of scope for Nodal Market implementation and will not be studying these options. Mr. Blackburn stated that more discussion is necessary regarding prohibitions against the posting of certain items contained in the Network Operations Model and noted that discussion of this issue should be set for a future NATF meeting.

SUMMARY OF DAY-AHEAD MARKET CREDIT CALCULATIONS Carrie Tucker noted that ERCOT monitored the Market Management System (MMS) during QSE submissions of transactions in order to observe the impact of changes resulting from Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 206, Nodal Market Day-Ahead Market Credit Requirements. Ms. Tucker explained how to utilize a spreadsheet containing a Point to Point (PTP) Obligation test and noted that it checks all of the applicable credit calculations conducted by ERCOT. She observed that the spreadsheet is available at http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/10/20101026-NATF.

DRAFT NPRR, REQUIREMENT TO POST QUANTITIES FROM POINT TO POINT (PTP) OPTIONS NOT CLEARED AND PTP OBLIGATIONS CLEARED FROM DAM Mr. Blackburn stated that this draft NPRR does not require the posting of PTP Options as source-sink pairs, but rather all of the sources and all of the sinks, and opined that approval of this NPPR is necessary for Market Participants to receive reports that identify all of the injections and withdrawals of energy into the ERCOT system. There was no consensus among Market Participants for NATF to comment on this draft NPRR. Mr. Blackburn stated that the NPRR would be formally submitted at a later time and that Market Participants would have additional opportunities to provide comment.

NATF/QSE ISSUES LIST Market Participants reviewed items on the QSE List of Nodal Issues/Critical Items categorized as severity level one and two. Mr. Ragsdale reviewed ERCOT resolution of certain items and identified items on the list as either, open, closed, or deferred. Naomi Richard admonished Market Participants to identify any potential “show stoppers.” Mr. Ragsdale observed that all severity one items had been addressed, and that severity two items would be addressed at the next NATF meeting.

TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDER (TSP) ISSUES DISCUSSION Ken Donohoo stated concerns that he noted should be addressed before Texas Nodal Market implementation. He observed difficulties with transferring Network Operations Modeling from an operations function to a planning function, and performance issues with the modeling software. Wes Woitt reviewed differences in zonal and Nodal systems regarding how data is originated to create the Network Operations Model. He observed that with implementation of the Texas Nodal Market much of the responsibility for maintenance of the model is transferred from ERCOT to Transmission Service Providers. Mr. Woitt identified issues with the topology processor and opined that such problems should be addressed before this responsibility is transferred to TSPs, and summarized a draft System Change Request (SCR) that addressed the issues he identified. Mr. Woitt stated that the bulk of the changes identified in the draft SCR would be to the topology processor.

Woody Rickerson observed that there would be substantial impact to ERCOT systems resulting from the proposed SCR, and opined that it was intended with implementation of the Nodal Market that the responsibility of maintenance of the Network Operations Model be transitioned to TSPs, and that the configuration of the topology processor reflects this intent. Mr. Blackburn noted that the next step for this

NATF 2010 - Page 112 of 136


ERCOT Public

issue would be for it to be discussed at the next TAC meeting and encouraged interested Market Participants to contribute to the discussion.

NPRRS REFERRED BY THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE NPRR287, Real-Time Market Price Delivery ConsistencyMr. Blackburn noted that NPRR287 would remove Locational Marginal Prices (LMPs) from Inter-Control Center Communications Protocol (ICCP) messages due to concerns regarding inconsistent timeframes for price delivery to the market in Real-Time. He observed that ERCOT is reviewing the option of providing an ICCP link to ERCOT to Market Participants that do not own a Generation Resource in addition to those that do, thereby allowing all Market Participants to receive the LMP information equally.

Mr. Schwarz moved to endorse ERCOT’s proposal to withdraw NPRR287 and to allow any Market Participant, subject to Protocol requirements, to receive available Real-Time prices via ICCP. Ms. Richard seconded the motion. The motion carried with one abstention from the IREP Market Segment.

VERIFIABLE COST OPTIONS FOR NODAL GO-LIVE Ino Gonzalez stated that because some Verifiable Cost calculations will rely on historical data and that no historical data exists for the Texas Nodal Market, he observed that some substitutions must be made for the start of the Texas Nodal Market. Mr. Gonzalez presented three options for the calculation of proxy heat rate, the value of “x,” and emissions, to be used for Nodal Market implementation. Mr. Gonzalez reviewed the dates on which calculations are made, the frequency, and the purpose for each calculation. Market Participants discussed the options and considered the potential for using zonal market historical data to initiate the Nodal Market. Mr. Ragsdale stated that ERCOT would examine this possibility and return to NATF 11/02/2010 with a conclusion on whether the zonal price option is possible.

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING GENERIC CONSTRAINTS Bill Blevins observed two methods for determining stability limits. He noted that one method is to utilize information in the Current Operating Plan (COP), in the Outage Scheduler, or to craft a tool that utilizes both sources. Mr. Blevins noted that a second, preferred, method would be to generate an internal resource plan. Mr. Blevins stated that ERCOT continues work on this process and that once finalized the process for determining generic transmission constraints would be made available to Market Participants.

Mr. Blevins noted, in response to a question from the previous NATF meeting regarding the retirement of certain informational postings, that ERCOT will continue to provide Real-Time telemetry with Load by weather zone and that the continuance of this data will not require a change to ERCOT systems.

COMPETITIVE CONSTRAINT TEST (CCT) AND DECISION MAKING ENTITY (DME) LIST STATUS Discussion of this agenda item was postponed to the next NATF meeting.

CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS (CRR) ASSUMPTIONS FOR GO-LIVE Steve Reedy noted that certain assumptions will be made by ERCOT during implementation of the Texas Nodal Market. Mr. Reedy reviewed ERCOT assumptions regarding the following:

The distribution of allocation eligibilities to Load zones

NATF 2010 - Page 113 of 136

ERCOT Public

Improved LDFs The CRR Model The value of “A” and “M” in calculation of credit Treatment of phase shifting transformers Contingencies Special Protections Systems (SPS) Remedial Action Plans (RAP) Generic constraints Outages Delay of posting results

Mr. Reedy stated that if ERCOT institutes any changes to the CRR Model after it is posted, ERCOT will post a message to the CRR system notifying Market Participants of the change. He noted that Outages will be evaluated for the entire month and studied to determine the proper constraints, and that ERCOT will continue to use a “worst day” approach with regard the selection of Outages. Market Participants expressed concern that a different process had been developed for the selection of Outages and inquired as to why that process was not be utilized. Mr. Reedy stated that he would present more information regarding the use of this approach at the 11/02/2010 NATF meeting.

FUTURE AND PURPOSE OF NATF Market Participants noted value in allowing NATF to continue as a forum for discussion of issues related to the stability period following Texas Nodal Market implementation, but noted that NATF’s scope should remain focused on technical issues and that issues of policy should be directed to the appropriate TAC subcommittee. Mr. Blackburn noted that NATF may discuss this subject again after Nodal Market implementation.


NATF 2010 - Page 114 of 136

ERCOT Public



NOVEMBER 2, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer (IPM)

(Via Teleconference) McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(IREP) (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Bradley E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent GeneratorTorrent, Gary OPUC Consumer - ResidentialWardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Aguirre, T CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceAllen, Thresa Iberdrola Via TeleconferenceAnderson, Clinton Sungard Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBarnes, Bill JAron Via TeleconferenceBarrow, Les CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBelk, Brad LCRA Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEPBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBruns, Scott Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceBryant, Chad NRG Energy Via TeleconferenceCannon, Maribeth Edisson Mission Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 115 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Caraway, Shannon Luminant Via TeleconferenceCarrizales, Javier E.ON Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceClevenger, Josh Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth Sempra Via TeleconferenceDetelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceEllison, Brian Optim Energy Via TeleconferenceEngelken, Ben Westar Energy Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt ANP/IPA Via TeleconferenceGalliques, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGoff, Eric ReliantGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda LuminantHansen, Eric Ventyx Via TeleconferenceHassouni, Daniel DC Energy Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF TradingHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin EnergyJanssen, John Sungard Via TeleconferenceJanssen, John Sungard Via TeleconferenceJeev, Kumar DC Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Liz Oncor Via TeleconferenceKee, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Nathan DC Energy Via TeleconferenceMclamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMeimeyer, Sydney NRG Energy Via TeleconferenceMelgoza, Moises APX Via TeleconferenceMoast, Pat Texas Regional Entity Via TeleconferenceNoah, Heather Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPriestley, Vanus AES New Energy Via TeleconferenceRice, David Luminant Via TeleconferenceRomero, Darice PNM Resources Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Noble Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Texas Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 116 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Siddiqi, Shams LCRASimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStansfield, Hugo CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Bryant Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantThompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceToussiant, Margaret BP Energy Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TenaskaWagner, Marguerite PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceWatson, Markham Platts Via TeleconferenceWilliams, Lori Bryant Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceWittmeyer, BobZhang, Bryan Potomac Economics Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnAnderson, TroyBrandaw, Brian Via TeleconferenceBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceDipastena, Philip Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, InoHobbs, Kristi Via TeleconferenceHui, Hailong Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyLevine, Jon Via TeleconferenceMaggio, Dave Via TeleconferenceMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottRagsdale, KenReedy, SteveRoark, Dotty Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pam Via TeleconferenceSills, Alex Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTeixeira, Jay Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 117 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Tucker, CarrieVillarreal, Rachel Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via Teleconference




NATF/QSE ISSUES LIST Ken Ragsdale summarized the NATF/QSE Issues list and noted that 50 items had been closed, and that of the ten items that were still open, five of them had been deferred due to the need for the submission of a Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR). Market Participants reviewed each of the open items on the list and the associated status of each item.

VERIFIABLE COST OPTIONS FOR NODAL GO-LIVE Ino Gonzalez stated that because some Verifiable Cost calculations will rely on historical data and that no historical data exists for the Texas Nodal Market, he observed that some substitutions must be made for the start of the Texas Nodal Market. Mr. Gonzalez reminded Market Participants that he previously presented to NATF three options for the calculation of proxy heat rate, the value of “x,” and emissions, to be used for Nodal Market implementation, but that these suggestions were rejected in lieu of the option of using zonal market historical data to initiate the Nodal Market. Mr. Gonzalez reviewed each of the calculations using zonal market data and observed that this information would also be presented to the Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS).

Naomi Richard moved to recommend approval of option four to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); ERCOT calculate the Proxy Heat Rate (PHR), the value x, and emissions costs, for the 12/01/2010 Operating Day using normal production procedures and timelines, and using zonal Real-Time Hub prices as necessary. Jim Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried by roll call vote with one abstention from the Consumer Market Segment.

DISCUSS PROPOSED NPRR ON SECTION 6.5.7.2 RESOURCE LIMIT CALCULATOR Resmi Surendran noted that the main issue for discussion regarding NPRR277, Removal of NPRR119 Language for LDL Calculation and Modification to the SCED Ramp Rate Calculation, is related to the concern with having too much Ancillary Service capacity reserved in a single Generation Resource. Ms. Surendran reviewed ERCOT’s proposed comments and noted that, if approved, they would change the Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) Up and Down ramp rate calculation to reduce the amount of ramp rate that is reserved for Regulation Service, and that this will ensure that at least some ramp capability is available from each Resource for SCED to economically resolve transmission constraints.

NATF 2010 - Page 118 of 136

ERCOT Public

Mr. Reynolds moved to waive notice for vote regarding ERCOT’s comments to NPRR277. Scott Wardle seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Reynolds moved to endorse ERCOT’s proposed comments to NPRR 277 to be considered by TAC with the initial value of the Percentage of Regulation (REGP) no less than 0.75 in conjunction with considering periods when any Resource is asked to move beyond its ramp rate as periods of abnormal operation related to Generation Resource Energy Deployment Performance (GREDP) and Base Point deviation and proper notification to the Market of changes to the value of REGP. Mr. Wardle seconded the motion. The motion carried with one abstention from the Independent Generator Market Segment.

Ancillary Services DeliverabilityMs. Surendran stated that Nodal Protocols require that a Qualified Scheduling Entity (QSE) providing Ancillary Services in Real-Time ensure that the Resource carrying the Ancillary Service capacity has enough ramp rate to provide the reserved Regulation Service (RGS) in five minutes, Responsive Reserve Service (RRS) in ten minutes, and Non-Spinning Reserve (Non-Spin) service in 30 minutes when the services are deployed. She observed that as a result of this requirement, QSEs are responsible for offering only the amount of Ancillary Services that can be delivered in Real-Time, and for scheduling in Real-Time only the amount of Ancillary Services that can be deployed simultaneously. Market Participants discussed examples for the deployment of Ancillary Services and observed compliance issues with ERCOT’s interpretation. Randa Stephenson requested Mr. Blackburn address this issue with TAC at its next meeting and request guidance regarding potential further discussion.

REVIEW DAY-AHEAD MARKET (DAM) RESULTS AND REAL-TIME TESTING Scott Middleton reminded Market Participants of the Market Readiness Seminar to be held 11/20/2010. He reviewed the integrated Nodal timeline and program status and noted that ERCOT has updated the start date for the soft launch of the Texas Nodal Market to 11/15/2010, and that the soft launch will include a ramp into Nodal Market go-live. Mr. Middleton reviewed go-live sequencing, key zonal considerations, and cut-over activities for October, November, and December 2010.

Mr. Middleton highlighted the activities of the 24-Hour Full System Market and Reliability Test initiated 10/27/2010. He noted that the maximum hourly Control Performance Standard One (CPS1) score was 166 percent, the minimum was 88 percent, and that the average was 137 percent. He noted that the minimum passing score must be equal to or greater than 100 percent. He observed that zonal Commercially Significant Constraints (CSCs) and Closely Related Elements (CREs), local congestion, and stability limits were all managed below limits. He noted that no North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Disturbance Control Standard (DCS) failures occurred, and that no Load Frequency Control (LFC) - Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) system issues occurred that would have terminated the test.

Market Participants discussed issues with the posting of binding transmission constraints. Ms. Surendran stated that she would look into the issue and provide additional information. Market Participants discussed circumstances where SCED stopped briefly. Marguerite Wagner observed that Nodal Protocols require the declaration of an emergency condition and the distribution of appropriate Market Notices when SCED has stopped. She posed the question of whether the declaration and Market Notices are necessary when SCED has stopped only briefly. John Dumas stated that an emergency condition should not be declared when one does not exist in reality and agreed to further review this issue.

COMPETITIVE CONSTRAINT TEST (CCT) AND DECISION MAKING ENTITY (DME) LIST STATUS

NATF 2010 - Page 119 of 136

ERCOT Public

CCTSteve Reedy noted that all transmission constraints will be deemed as noncompetitive during the first 45 days of the Texas Nodal Market. He noted that after this initial 45 day period competitive constraints will be the contingency/limiting Transmission Element pairs that represent the Commercially Significant Constraints (CSCs) and Closely Related Elements (CREs), as those terms were defined in the ERCOT Protocols. Mr. Reedy observed that Nodal Protocols authorize the appropriate subcommittee approved by TAC to develop an alternative list.

DME ListMr. Reedy acknowledged Market Participant concern regarding the accuracy of the Decision Making Entity (DME) list and noted that the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) is developing an NPRR to clarify the definition of DME.

CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS (CRR) ASSUMPTIONS FOR GO-LIVE Mr. Reedy noted that there was some Market Participant discontent with the assumptions presented at the previous NATF meeting regarding the selection of Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Network Model Outages of Transmission Elements. He noted that Nodal Operating Guide Section 5.5, System Modeling Information, provides a description of the Outages that ERCOT may select and stated that ERCOT must follow this list.

PRICING DATA USED FOR DAY-AHEAD MARKET (DAM) CREDIT EXPOSURE CALCULATION FOR GO- LIVE Carrie Tucker reviewed the proxy prices to be used for calculating DAM credit exposure. She noted that as Real-Time and Day-Ahead Settlement Point Prices become available, the pre-Nodal market data will be replaced. Ms. Tucker observed that all nodal settlement points have been mapped to 2010 Congestion Management zones.

NPRR275, CLARIFY QSE’S ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO ANCILLARY SERVICE RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITY IN REAL TIME Mr. Blackburn directed that discussion of this issue be postponed until the next NATF meeting.

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS (LDFS) John Adams stated that ERCOT is manually reviewing LDFs on a daily basis. He reviewed ERCOT’s methodology for identifying the proxy days and noted that ERCOT is developing internal security rules. Mr. Adams stated that ERCOT is extracting a sample for each weekday and weekend, calculating the LDF, and comparing it to the State Estimator results for the next day. He noted that analysis and testing is providing expected results.

POST GO-LIVE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION Troy Anderson presented a preliminary draft prioritization of items placed on the Nodal Parking Deck and noted that it contains a prioritization list of items merged from various sources and contains Nodal stabilization items, corrections to system defects, and enhancements. He stated that he will review the prioritization list with TAC subcommittees and that if TAC subcommittees approve the prioritization he will seek TAC and ERCOT Board approval.

NATF 2010 - Page 120 of 136

ERCOT Public

FUTURE AND PURPOSE OF NATF Mr. Blackburn observed that many of NATF’s responsibilities could be handled by other working groups and task forces such as the QSE Managers Working Group and Market Participants discussed the appropriateness of NATF’s continued existence. Mr. Dumas stated that it is desirable to have a quick response group such as NATF in the post Nodal Market Implementation environment. Kenan Ögelman stated that NATF should continue through the first quarter of 2011 and that its continued existence should be reevaluated sometime thereafter. Mr. Blackburn stated that he would request direction from TAC at its next meeting.


NATF 2010 - Page 121 of 136

ERCOT Public



NOVEMBER 9, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumers - ResidentialBlackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation Independent Power Marketer (IPM)

(Via Teleconference)McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(IREP) (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREPRichard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Barnes, Bill J.Aron Via TeleconferenceBelk, Brad LCRA Via TeleconferenceBerg, David Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEPBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBriley, Robert NRGBryant, Chad NRG Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth SempraGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceGedrich, Brian NextEraGreer, Clayton Morgan Stanley Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHampton, Brenda Luminant Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF Trading


NATF 2010 - Page 122 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Helton, Bob International Power America Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceJaussaud, Danielle PUCTJones, Brad LuminantJones, Randy Calpine Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLi, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMartinez, Jose NRG Via TeleconferenceMason, Diane MX Energy Via TeleconferenceMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMoast, Pat Texas Reliability Entity Via TeleconferenceMunoz, Manuel CenterPoint Energy Services Via TeleconferenceNiemeyer, Sydney NRG Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferencePalani, Ananth Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRGPriestley, Vanus AES New Energy Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams LCRASimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStandsfield, Hugo CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceSteward, Wendy EDF Trading Via TeleconferenceStewart, Roger LCRA Via TeleconferenceThompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceTroell, Mike STEC Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVarnell, John TenaskaWatson, Mark Platts Via TeleconferenceWilliams, Lori Bryant Texas Utilities Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnAnderson, TroyBrandaw, Brian Via TeleconferenceBridges, Stacy Via TeleconferenceDay, Betty Via TeleconferenceDipastena, Philip Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 123 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Gilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, InoHobbs, Kristi Via TeleconferenceHui, Hailong Via TeleconferenceKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyLevine, Jon Via TeleconferenceMaggio, Dave Via TeleconferenceMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottRagsdale, KenReedy, SteveRoark, Dotty Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pam Via TeleconferenceSills, Alex Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTeixeira, Jay Via TeleconferenceTucker, CarrieVillarreal, Rachel Via TeleconferenceWise, Joan Via Teleconference




CRR AUCTION UPDATE Steve Reedy provided a brief update on the ongoing Congestion Revenue Right (CRR) Auction and noted that some problems with the Network Model were identified and were corrected. He stated that Bids were currently being received and that unless Bid submission limits were exceeded, the window for submission would close at 5 p.m. 11/11/2010 and remain closed until the next CRR Auction.

VERIFIABLE COST OPTIONS FOR NODAL GO-LIVE Ino Gonzalez reviewed the differences between standard, generic, and Verifiable Costs. He reviewed standard costs identified in the Verifiable Cost Manual, and noted that the table includes Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs.

ANCILLARY SERVICES CAPACITY AND RAMP RATE RESERVE

NATF 2010 - Page 124 of 136

ERCOT Public

Resmi Surendran noted that her presentation would be a continuation of the discussion of ERCOT’s comments to NPRR277, Removal of NPRR119 Language for LDL Calculation and Modification to the SCED Ramp Rate Calculation, from the previous NATF meeting and would include a review of ERCOT’s assumptions and reasoning.

Ms. Surendran noted that ERCOT’s recommendation regarding the Percentage of Regulation (REGP) was that the value should be set between zero and one and suggested a value of 0.75. She presented three options for the delivery of Regulation Service (RGS) and Responsive Reserve Service (RRS) including options for simultaneous and asynchronous delivery. Market Participants discussed the pros and cons of the options and various scenarios for the deployment of services by a Generation Resource and the impacts to Generation Resource Energy Deployment Performance (GREDP). Mr. Blackburn directed that this issue be added to the agenda for the 11/15/2010 NATF meeting.

NPRR275, CLARIFY QSE’S ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO ANCILLARY SERVICE RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITY IN REAL TIME Mr. Blackburn noted that ERCOT appealed the rejection of NPRR275 by the Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS), and that TAC remanded it with the request that NATF provide a recommendation. John Adams stated that NPRR275 provides clarification as to the deliverability of Ancillary Services, and to the movement of Ancillary Services between deployments by Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED). Market Participants discussed the possible endorsement of additional ERCOT comments by NATF. Mr. Adams agreed to distribute additional comments to NPRR275 prior to the 11/15/2010 NATF meeting.

NATF/QSE ISSUES LIST Ken Ragsdale summarized the NATF/QSE Issues list and noted that 50 items had been closed, and that of the ten items that were still open, five of them had been deferred due to the need for the submission of a Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR). Market Participants discussed errors in the CRR Auction Model and associated Market Notices. John Dumas stated that ERCOT intends to correct such errors and communicate the information through operator messaging. He noted that ERCOT will correct the errors and rerun the Auction engine, but will not take new Bids.


NATF 2010 - Page 125 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT TAYLOR OFFICE800 AIRPORT DRIVE / TAYLO3R, TX 76574

NOVEMBER 15, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Bivens, Danny OPUC Consumer – Residential

(Via Teleconference)Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Fox, Kip AEP Service Corporation IOUKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Lovelace, Russell Shell Energy Independent Power Marketer, (IMP)

(Via Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPMMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(IREP) (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy MunicipalReynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP (Via Teleconference)Richard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Torrent, Gary OPUC Consumer – Residential (alt.)Wardle, Scott Occidental Chemical Consumer – Industrial

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION

Aguirre, T CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceAnklam, Rob Cargill Via TeleconferenceBailey, Dan Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBailey, Robert NRG Texas Via TeleconferenceBelk, Brad LCRA Via TeleconferenceBlack, Julie PUCT Via TeleconferenceBruns, Scott Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceCarter, Kevin Duke Energy Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth Sempra Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt IPR Via TeleconferenceFu, Weihui CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceGalliguez, Percy Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceGarza, Beth Potomac Economics Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 126 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Goff, Eric ReliantHampton, Brenda LuminantHansen, Eric Ventyx Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF Trading Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Dan Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJones, Randy Calpine Via TeleconferenceLange, Clif STEC Via TeleconferenceLewis, William Cirro Energy Via TeleconferenceLi, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMcLamb, Darryl Constellation Via TeleconferenceMoast, Pat Texas Reliability Entity Via TeleconferenceNeimeyer, Sydney NRG Texas Via TeleconferenceNguyen, Winnie Sungard Via TeleconferencePriestley, Vanus AES New Energy Via TeleconferenceReid, Walter Wind Coalition Via TeleconferenceRoach, Temujin PUCT Via TeleconferenceRodriquez, Robert The Structure Group Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Noble Solutions Via TeleconferenceSiddiqi, Shams Crescent Power Via TeleconferenceSimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStansfield, Hugo CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceStarr, Lee Bryan Texas Utilities Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa Luminant Via TeleconferenceStewart, Wendy EDF Trading Via TeleconferenceSwann, Mark KEP Via TeleconferenceSwendsen, B Via TeleconferenceTrayers, Barry Citi Group Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceWagner, Marguerite PSEG TexasWatson, Mark Platts Via TeleconferenceWestar, John Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceWheeler, Ron Optim Energy

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnDumas, John

NATF 2010 - Page 127 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME Geer, Ed Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMaggio, Dave Via TeleconferenceMiddleton, ScottPrasanna, Ashwin Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, KenSurendran, ResmiWise, Joan Via Teleconference




ANCILLARY SERVICES CAPACITY AND RAMP RATE RESERVE Mr. Blackburn reviewed Luminant’s recommendation regarding ramp rate constraints on the maximum amount of Ancillary Services that may be offered or carried by a Generation Resource. Market Participants discussed Regulation Up Service (Reg-Up), Regulation Down Service (Reg-Down), Responsive Reserve Service (RRS), Non-Spinning Reserve Service (Non-Spin), Normal Ramp Rate (NRR), and Emergency Ramp Rate (ERR). Market Participants discussed the pros and cons of the recommendation and the potential for the development of an associated compliance metric.

Kenan Ögelman moved that: NATF concurs with ERCOT that the ramp rate constraints on the maximum amount of

Ancillary Services that may be offered or carried by a Generation Resource is represented by the following calculation:- Reg-Up offer <= NRR*5- RRS Offer <= Min(0.2 *HSL, ERR*10 – REGUP offer )- Non-Spin Offer <= Min(NRR*20 + ERR*10 – REGUP – RRS, NRR*30)- Reg-Down Offer <= NRR*5- Ramp Rate >= Max[REGUP/5, (RRS+ REGUP)/10, (NSRS)/30,

(NSRS+RRS+REGUP- ERR*10)/20] NATF also recommends that a compliance metric be developed and incorporated into an

Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR), and that if an Ancillary Service cannot be fully provided by the QSE, then per protocols, the QSE must notify ERCOT. In the absence of a specific requirement regarding the value of the normal ramp rate to be used, the QSE should choose a normal ramp rate based on its best judgment of the expected operating level of the resource.

Mark McMurray seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The Independent Generator Market Segment was not present.

NATF 2010 - Page 128 of 136

ERCOT Public

NPRR275, CLARIFY QSE’S ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO ANCILLARY SERVICE RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITY IN REAL TIME John Adams noted that ERCOT had reviewed the 11/18/2010 comments to NPRR275 received from Luminant, Tenaska, and EDF Trading. He stated that these comments propose the allowance of changing assignments of Ancillary Services from Generation Resource to Generation Resource via telemetry during the Operating Period. Mr. Adams stated that switching Ancillary Service assignments between Generation Resources in the proposed manner raises reliability concerns and that 11/12/2010 ERCOT comments propose an alternative solution that resolves these concerns and facilitates potential market benefits.

Market Participants discussed the pros and cons of the various proposals and provided edits to NPRR275 regarding the temporal window for Market Participant notice to ERCOT that an Ancillary Service assignment has been moved. Market Participants discussed the need for clarity regarding the definition of deliverability of Ancillary Services, and Mr. Adams stated that ERCOT would initiate an NPRR after implementation of the Texas Nodal Market proposing a definition.

Mr. Ögelman moved that NATF recommend that the Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS) approve NPRR275 as amended by the 11/12/2010 ERCOT comments and as revised by NATF on 11/15/2010. The motion carried unanimously. The Independent Generator Market Segment was not present.

NATF/QSE ISSUES LIST Ken Ragsdale summarized the NATF/QSE Issues list and noted that 50 items had been closed, and that of the ten items that were still open, five of them had been deferred due to the need for the submission of an NPRR. Mr. Ragsdale noted that the list does not contain any issues that require attention before implementation of the Nodal Market.

FUTURE OF NATF Mr. Blackburn stated that TAC has directed that NATF should continue to exist through the second quarter 2011 and that meeting dates will be scheduled and posted. Market Participants agreed that future meetings should be conducted at the ERCOT Taylor facility to accommodate ERCOT Nodal Staff. Mr. Blackburn directed that the 11/30/2010 NATF meeting be canceled.


NATF 2010 - Page 129 of 136

ERCOT Public


ERCOT TAYLOR OFFICE800 AIRPORT DRIVE / TAYLO3R, TX 76574

DECEMBER 9, 2010


Segment Representatives in Attendance:NAME AFFILIATION MARKET SEGMENT Blackburn, Don Luminant Investor Owned Utility (IOU)Jackson, James CPS Energy MunicipalKroskey, Tony Brazos Cooperative (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)McEvoy, Kevin Exelon Generation IPM (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)McMurray, Mark Direct Energy Independent Retail Electric Provider

(IREP) (Alt.) (Via Teleconference)Ögelman, Kenan CPS Energy Municipal (Alt.)Reynolds, Jim StarTex Power IREP Richard, Naomi LCRA Cooperative Schwarz, Brad E.ON Climate and Renewables Independent GeneratorSeymour, Cesar Suez Independent Generator (Alt.)Torrent, Gary OPUC Consumer – Residential (alt.)

(Via Teleconference)

Non-voting Attendees:NAME AFFILIATION Allen, Thresa Iberdrola Via TeleconferenceAnderson, Clinton Sungard Via TeleconferenceBailey, Dan Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBarrow, Les CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceBasaran, Harika Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceBevill, Jennifer AEPBlack, Julie PUCT Via TeleconferenceBrandt, Adrianne Austin EnergyBriscoe, Judy BP Energy Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jack Garland Power and Light Via TeleconferenceBrown, Jeff Shell Via TeleconferenceCannon, Maribeth Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceCarpenter, Jeremy Tenaska Via TeleconferenceCochran, Seth Sempra Via TeleconferenceDavison, Brian PUCT Via Teleconference


NATF 2010 - Page 130 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Detelich, David CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceEnglish, Rock Luminant Via TeleconferenceFahey, Matt IPR Via TeleconferenceGrasso, Tony PUCT Via TeleconferenceGrimes, Mike Horizon Wind Via TeleconferenceHess, Stephen Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceHellinghausen, Bill EDF TradingHuynh, Thuy Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJackson, Tom Austin Energy Via TeleconferenceJones, Dan Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceJones, Randy Calpine Energy Via TeleconferenceKajganich, Steve Energy Services Group Via TeleconferenceKennedy, Tim Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceKrishnaswamy, Vikram Constellation Via TeleconferenceKroskey, Tony Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceLi, Young Potomac Economics Via TeleconferenceLooney, Sherry LuminantMartin, Loretto LCRA Via TeleconferenceMcDonald, Mike Edison Mission Via TeleconferenceMcEvory, Kevin Exelon Energy Via TeleconferenceMcMurray, Mark Direct Energy Via TeleconferenceMcNamara, Grace LDH Energy Via TeleconferenceMiller, Patrick Via TeleconferenceMoast, Pat Texas Reliability Entity Via TeleconferenceMunoz, Manuel CenterPoint Energy Services Via TeleconferenceNiemeyer, Sydney NRG Texas Via TeleconferenceOliver, Todd Brazos Electric Via TeleconferenceOptim Energy Optim Energy Via TeleconferencePieniazek, Adrian NRG TexasPriestley, Vanus AES New Energy Via TeleconferenceReid, Walter Wind CoalitionRichard, Naomi LCRA Via TeleconferenceRoach, Temujin PUCT Via TeleconferenceSandidge, Clint Noble Solutions Via TeleconferenceSatkowski, Ned PSEG Texas Via TeleconferenceSimpson, Lori Constellation Via TeleconferenceStandsfield, Hugo CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceStappers, Hugo Softsmiths Via TeleconferenceStephenson, Randa LuminantSteward, Wendy EDF Trading Via Teleconference

NATF 2010 - Page 131 of 136

ERCOT Public

NAME AFFILIATION Thompson, Bobby Luminant Via TeleconferenceTrefny, FloydTroell, Mike STEC Via TeleconferenceTrout, Seth Customized Energy Solutions Via TeleconferenceVarness, John Tenaska Via TeleconferenceWalbers, K CPS Energy Via TeleconferenceZhang, Bryan Potomac Economics Via Teleconference

ERCOT Staff:NAME Adams, JohnAshbaugh, JackieBauld, AmandaDumas, JohnEvan, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGeer, Ed Via TeleconferenceGilbertson, Jeff Via TeleconferenceGonzalez, InoKasparian, Ken Via TeleconferenceLandry, KellyMaggio, DaveMereness, MattMiddleton, ScottPrasanna, Ashwin Via TeleconferenceRagsdale, Ken Via TeleconferenceShaw, Pam Via TeleconferenceSurendran, ResmiTozer, Matthew Via TeleconferenceTucker, CarrieWise, Joan Via Teleconference




NATF 2010 - Page 132 of 136

ERCOT Public

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES

James Jackson moved to approve the 09/17/2010, 09/22/2010, and 09/30/2010 NATF meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Blackburn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

COMMUNICATION OF ALERTS Mr. Blackburn observed that Nodal Systems are producing an unexpectedly large number of duplicative alerts. Market Participants noted that they receive an alert for each Resource they own, but that a single alert would be sufficient. Market Participants stated that the details of some alerts are insufficient for Market Participants to decipher the reason for the alert. Bill Hellinghausen recommended that a method for separating the alerts into categories be developed so that Market Participants can evaluate and compare the importance of each alert. Scott Middleton stated that a subscriptions service for alerts would provide this functionality, but that it is not currently available. Ken Ragsdale noted this item on the Qualified Schedule Entity (QSE) Issues List for further discussion by NATF.

REPORTS AND EXTRACTS- FREQUENCY OF INQUIRIES Mr. Middleton observed that some Market Participants are downloading ERCOT generated reports in excessive amounts. He observed an example where one Market Participant had downloaded a daily generated report 150 times in a single day. Mr. Blackburn stated that some reports are generated more than once per day and therefore may need to be downloaded more than once per day. Mr. Ragsdale stated that ERCOT is expecting a reasonable number of inquiries and that if ERCOT observes a Market Participant downloading reports in excess then the Market Participant will be contacted to resolve the issue. Mr. Ragsdale noted this item on the QSE Issues List as being referred to the Market Information System (MIS) Users Group for review.

WIND DEPLOYMENT EXPECTATIONS AND CURTAILMENT FLAG Market Participants discussed the concern that some QSEs for Wing-powered Generation Resources (WGRs) are unaware in some cases of precisely when their Generation Resources are being curtailed. Walter Reid noted that Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) 285, Generation Resource Base Point Deviation Charge Corrections, requires that a flag be sent by ERCOT to the QSE for each Resource when Security Constrained Economic Dispatch (SCED) has dispatched a Generation Resource below its High Dispatch Limit (HDL) and that this flag would be used by the Settlement system to determine when Generation Resource Base Point deviation charges will apply. Mr. Ragsdale stated that NPRR285 was approved by the ERCOT Board with a status of critical. Mr. Reid noted that while NPRR285 has been approved, he is not aware of when it would be implemented by ERCOT and suggested that NATF address its importance.

James Jackson moved to waive notice for all votes conducted at the 12/09/2010 NATF. Bradley Schwarz seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Schwarz moved that NATF recommend to the Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS) to keep critical priority status for NPRR285, Generation Resource Base Point Deviation Charge Corrections, as it relates to the curtailment flag for WGRs and the operational issues already observed from the lack thereof. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Ragsdale noted on the QSE Issues List that the issue of a curtailment flag for WGRs was referred to the Wholesale Market Subcommittee (WMS) for review.

NATF 2010 - Page 133 of 136

ERCOT Public

TRADE NOTIFICATION FILTER Regarding the submission of Energy Trades to ERCOT, Carrie Tucker stated if a QSE structures the Extensible Markup Language (XML) in such a way as to submit each interval separately, an unconfirmed trade notification will be sent for each interval of the trade to the Counter-Party. She noted that when the trade is confirmed a trade confirmation notification will also be sent for each interval of the trade to the Counter-Party. She noted that on 12/10/2010 ERCOT will begin filtering duplicate Energy Trade notifications distributed at the same time. Mrs. Tucker stated that this action will only be taken with regard to Energy Trades and not Capacity Trades because a larger volume of the duplicative notifications are Energy Trades. She stated that ERCOT will reduce the submission window for Trades from 14 days to eight to further improve the DAM processing, and that ERCOT will distribute a Market Notice announcing when the new time line will be introduced.

REPORT REQUIREMENT WITH “NO DATA IS AVAILABLE” Mr. Blackburn observed that a report is generated by ERCOT that identifies Generation Resources that were committed during the Reliability Unit Commitment (RUC) process. He stated that when RUC does not commit any Resources no report is generated and that in such an event Market Participants lack a signal that the report has been completed. Market Participants discussed the need for a report indicating that no Resources were committed. Mr. Ragsdale noted this item on the QSE Issues List as being referred to the MIS Users Group for review.

CAPACITY RESERVES WHEN ENERGY IS NEEDED Market Participants observed that they would like to better understand ERCOT’s process for obtaining energy from Off-Line Non-Spinning Reserve Service (Non-spin) Resources and to discuss settlement implications. Mr. Ragsdale noted this item on the QSE Issues List as being referred to WMS for review.

ANCILLARY SERVICES DELIVERABILITY Resmi Surendran reviewed ERCOT’s interpretation of the definition Ancillary Service deliverability. Market Participants discussed the procedure ERCOT will follow for replacing undeliverable Ancillary Services, the circumstances for when a Supplementary Ancillary Services Market (SASM) will be opened, and to whom charges will be applied for the cost of the SASM. Mr. Ragsdale noted this item on the QSE Issues List as being referred to WMS for review.

SLOW RESPONDER SERVER QUEUE Mr. Ragsdale noted this item on the QSE Issues List for further discussion by NATF.

UPDATES TO ERCOT BUSINESS PRACTICES Bob Spangler noted that the following Business Practice Documents have been updated:

Business Practice, Current Operating Plan Practices by Qualifies Scheduling Entity (QSE) Business Practice, ERCOT and QSE Operations Practices During the Operating Hour Business Practice, Ancillary Service Market Transactions In the Day-Ahead Market (DAM) and

Real-Time Adjustment Period

NATF 2010 - Page 134 of 136

ERCOT Public

Mr. Spangler noted that these documents are available for review at http://www.ercot.com/mktrules/bpm/, and requested that Market Participant comments to these documents be circulated to the NATF distribution list at [email protected].

HOURLY RUC (HRUC)/DAILY RUC (DRUC) ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY Ms. Bauld noted that the focus of discussion was on the application of Capacity credits and how they impact costs. Clayton Greer expressed concerns regarding improper market incentives regarding DRUC. Ms. Bauld reviewed an example HRUC commitment where the QSE was Capacity short and reviewed the associated charges. Mr. Ragsdale noted this item as closed on the QSE Issues List.

ANCILLARY SERVICES INSUFFICIENCY REPORT AT 14:30 Mr. Jackson stated that ERCOT recently delayed DRUC past the regular scheduled time of 2:30 p.m., but published the Ancillary Services Capacity Insufficiency Report at the regular time. Mr. Jackson observed that the report indicated all Market Participants on the report as Capacity short and indicated their respective Ancillary Service assignments. He noted that the production of this report improperly made public information that was should not have been made public and inquired as to ERCOT’s corrective measures. Ms. Surendran noted that the production of the report was an error and was due to deviation from proper procedure. She stated that the procedure has been reviewed with ERCOT operators and that the error has been resolved. Mr. Ragsdale noted this item as closed on the QSE Issues List.


NATF 2010 - Page 135 of 136

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ercot.com/mktrules/bpm/

ERCOT Public

NATF 2010 - Page 136 of 136