PRR702

Title:	Emergency Interruptible Load Service
Next Group:
Next Step:
Status:	Rejected on 02/22/2007

Date	Gov Body	Next Steps
02/22/2007	PRS	Rejected
01/22/2007	PRS		WMS, ROS and ERCOT Staff responses to request by PRS
01/22/2007	PRS

Date	Gov Body	Motion	Result	Against	Abstentions
02/22/2007	PRS	To reject PRR702	Passed	2 Consumers	2 IOU and IRP
01/22/2007	PRS	That PRS concurs with ERCOT that curtailing voluntary firm Load in emergency conditions is preferable to shedding firm Load on an involuntary basis. However, PRS is not yet convinced that such a program is appropriate for two reasons: 1. The market has changed since April 17, 2006; 2. Whether it can be implemented for a cost commensurate with the value of lost load (VOLL) associated with rotating outages during emergency conditions. Therefore, at this time, PRS declines to recommend approval or rejection of any PRRs related to EILS until questions related to the need and efficacy of such a service are more firmly established. PRS therefore tables PRR702, PRR703, PRR704, and PRR705 until the February 22, 2007 PRS meeting. PRS requests that the Reliability Operations Subcommittee (ROS) address the following questions and report back to PRS on February 22, 2007: 1. What is the statistical likelihood, given ERCOT Operator flexibility in the EECP process, that EILS will be utilized as envisioned prior to firm Load shedding? 2. Rate the impact of each of the EILS PRRs on ERCOT’s loss of Load probability (LOLP). 3. Evaluate the EILS PRRs procurement methodology. What is the appropriate amount of EILS to procure, if any? 4. Evaluate the EILS PRRs deployment methodology. Address any concerns that arise from deployment and recall: i.e., should EILS be deployed as a single block; is geographic concentration of EILS providers an issue during EECP; what are the effects of transmission system limitations; etc.? 5. What other alternatives to EILS, such as procuring additional existing Ancillary Services, could be utilized to achieve similar results? PRS requests that ERCOT Staff address the following questions and report to PRS on February 22, 2007: 1. What is the statistical likelihood, given ERCOT Operator flexibility in the EECP process, that EILS will be utilized as envisioned prior to firm Load shedding? 2. Rate the impact of each of the EILS PRRs on ERCOT’s LOLP. 3. What alternatives to EILS were examined by ERCOT, if any, and why was EILS pursued instead of those other options? Has the VOLL been determined for the April 17, 2006 Load shedding event? If so, please share the methodology and results of that study. If not, why not? PRS requests that WMS define the following and report to PRS on February 22, 2007: 1) The benefit. 2) The cost based on the EILS PRRs. 3) Changes in Market since April 17, 2007.	Passed	2 Consumers	0

Vote tallies here reflect individual votes, not the weight of the votes by market segment. Affirmative votes are not recorded in these vote tallies. For additional details on the voting record, please consult the Recommendation or Action Report, or the official vote tally if available, as posted in the key documents.

Status:	Rejected
Date Posted:	12/19/2006
Sponsor:	Eagle Energy Partners, Enernoc, and Occidental Chemical Corporation
Urgent:	Yes
Sections:	Section 2, Definitions and Acronyms; Section 4, Scheduling; Section 5, Dispatch; Section 6, Ancillary Services; Section 9, Settlements; Section 12, Market Information System; and Section 16, Registration
Description:	Modify the Zonal Protocols to allow for the use of an Emergency Interruptible Load Service (EILS) when an Emergency Electric Curtailment Plan (EECP) is declared and all available Generation and Loads acting as Resources (LaaR) have been deployed.
Reason:	On September 15, 2006 ERCOT presented the need for another tool in the EECP toolbox to avoid firm load shed as done on April 17, 2006. This PRR provides ERCOT the requested tool in a manner that is consistent with current market design.