May 15, 2003 PWG Report by bvy21084

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 16

									   Profiling Working Group


PWG Update Report
        By
  Ernie Podraza
    of Reliant Energy
   ERCOT PWG Chair

      for
  RMS Meeting
  May 15, 2003

          1             May 15, 2003
                        Profiling Working Group

• Next PWG Meetings 5/28, and 6/18.
• Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed but
  request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data? (Vote)
• PUCT Project 25516, Load Profiling and Load Research Rule.
• PRR399 - Requirements for Replacing an IDR with a Non- IDR Meter.
• Annual Profile Type and Weather Zone Validation.
• Opt-in Entity Issues for PWG.
• Oil and gas properties profile change request.
• Direct Load Control (DLC) Project Status.
• PRR 362, Section 18.4.4.2 – Load Profile ID Correction.


                                  2                            May 15, 2003
                      Profiling Working Group

  Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed
but request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
                            (Voting Issue)



SITUATION:
With the approval of meter ownership by a non-TDSP per
the competitive metering rules, a customer/CR could have
an IDR meter installed to perhaps use the data for non-
settlement reasons, and yet be settled on a non-IDR basis.



                              3                              May 15, 2003
                                            Profiling Working Group

         Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed
       but request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
CLARIFICATION/ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Non-ERCOT approved IDR meters for settlement could not be used as the metering device for the non-IDR
   settlement readings. That is one meter used for this purpose would have to be up to revenue meter standards.
2. This situation is for the revenue meters for settlement only.
3. TDSPs are using one meter, called RUG (recorder under glass type IDR) which is used to collect load research
   data and the dial reading is used for non-IDR settlement readings.
4. Could install the IDR meter in parallel with the Scalar meter.
5. Could install the IDR directly behind the scalar meter.
6. ERCOT Protocols or guidelines do not dictate what the customer may install behind the revenue meter.
7. Once the IDR meter interval data is used for settlement then the premise stays an IDR metered premise for
   settlements as stated in Protocols 18.6.1.
8. What is not addressed is if this is limited to only customer owned meters. That is, can a customer request a TDSP
   owned IDR meter but request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
9. If accepted and encourages more IDR data for settlement, then the current static profiles will need to be more
   frequently calibrated from load research sampling or will need changing methodology to lagged dynamic
   sampling.                                           4                                                   May 15, 2003
                                    Profiling Working Group

        Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed
      but request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
PROs:
1.   Gives price options to the customer and CR.
2.   Encourages the use of IDR meters.
3.   Customer has choices.
4.   Customer wants the interval data but does not want to pay the TDSP charges for IDR
     meters.
5.   Protocols 18.6.1 (2) does not explicitly forbid the customer from installing an IDR that is
     not used for settlement.
6.   The TDSP can read the IDR meter for the monthly read only for settlement and yet the
     customer can collect the interval data for other reasons. This means one meter can be
     used for both purposes which is a savings over having two meters, one for settlement
     and one for other reasons.
7.   Encourages the collection of data for use of load research to develop load profiles or
     assist the customer for other reasons.
8.   Encourages the customer to study their load more closely and then make an informed
     decision on IDR metering for settlement.
9.   If the customer does not have to pay the TDSP recurring charges then the IDR meter
     ownership may be cheaper than charges for a pulse.
                                              5                                         May 15, 2003
                                   Profiling Working Group

       Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed
     but request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
CONs:
1. Protocols Section 18.6.1 is clear that if an IDR is installed (without regard to who owns
   the meter) its interval data must be used for settlement, excluding the exceptions listed in
   18.6.1(4). This Protocol requirement is designed to reduce the opportunity of gaming the
   market by switching meters.
2. The IDR meter is more accurate for settlement that the non-IDR meter settlement
   process because the energy measured in the 15-minute periods is used in settlement
   without the use of non-IDR profiles. That is, the more accurate the metered data in the
   settlement interval the less UFE, Unaccounted For Energy, and the more accurate is the
   settlement process.
3. Possible, extra burden on TDSP systems and processes to read additional meters.
4. Possible, extra burden on ERCOT systems if both data streams are sent to ERCOT.
5. Increases the incremental IDR meter reading services by the TDSP, if any, to the
   customer.
6. Where there is IDR data then the actual consumption interval data for settlement should
   be encouraged.
7. Customer can ask for a pulse so as to get interval data for non-settlement purpose, while
   still having a non-IDR settlement meter.
                                            6                                        May 15, 2003
                                        Profiling Working Group

         Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed
       but request that the billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
     Should the question include TDSP owned meters as well?
Yes: 4, No: 5, Needs further discussion: 2, ERCOT opinion is Yes.
Situation is for the revenue meters for settlement limited to only competitively owned meters only.

1.   Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed but request that the
     billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?
Yes: 3, No: 1, Needs further discussion: 7, ERCOT opinion is needs further discussion.


2.   Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed but request that the
     billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data but limited to a market defined time
     period to be determined and then if the IDR is still installed then the IDR data
     would be used for settlement?
Yes: 1, No: 5, Needs further discussion: 5, ERCOT opinion is needs further discussion.

3.   Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR meter installed but request that the
     billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data but limited to a premise where the
     demand is below a market determined threshold (less than 1000 kW/kVA)?
Yes: 2, No: 3, Needs further discussion: 6, ERCOT opinion is needs further discussion.
                                                  7                                        May 15, 2003
                Profiling Working Group



RMS Motion:

  Can a meter owner (non-TDSP) have an IDR
        meter installed but request that the
  billing/settlement be based on non-IDR data?

                  Yes or No?


                     8                    May 15, 2003
                                    Profiling Working Group

PUCT Project 25516, Load Profiling and Load Research Rule.
1.   Approved at open meeting 3/05/03. Effective Date April 16, 2003 (Oct. 16, 2003 - end of 6
     months).
2.   Load Research is done by TDSP per the sample design of ERCOT and TDSP cost
     recovery would be through the TDSP rate making process.
3.   ERCOT has 6 months to establish a procedure to provide a method of recovery of
     research costs associated with obtaining a new profile by a sponsoring Market Participant.
     a)   Ballpark estimate of the research cost for a new profile.
     b)   List two or three methods with pro and con.
     c)   ERCOT may use the template from TXU Energy

     d) ERCOT presented a strawman at the 5/07/03 PWG meeting.
     e) Shall refine the strawman at the 5/28/03 PWG Meeting.



                                              9                                     May 15, 2003
                               Profiling Working Group

PRR399 - Requirements for Replacing an IDR with a Non- IDR
         Meter.
  1.   The Peak Demand is equal to or less than 200 kW (or 200 kVa) for a period of
       twelve (12) consecutive months.
  2.   Previous PWG discussions centered around loads <= 10 kW where a watt hour
       meter would normally be installed.

  3.   Discussed at the 5/7/03 PWG Meeting.
  4.   Shall continue discussions at the 5/28/03 PWG Meeting.




                                        10                                     May 15, 2003
                               Profiling Working Group

Annual Profile Type and Weather Zone Validation.
1.   Feb 1, 2003 to complete algorithms using new usage month in the Profile
     Decision Tree.
     a)   Oncor, AEP North, AEP Central, and TNMP complete.

     b)   CNP pending.
          i.    Residential Complete.

          ii.   Business segment has 36% error rate per ERCOT.
     c)   Preliminary analysis of profile id changes.

2.   LPGRR2003-002 for procedures and timeline approved by TAC
     5/8/03.
3.   Lessons Learned document by ERCOT worked into Profile Decision Tree FAQs.
4.   Profile ID assignments issues, future PRR and LPGRR.

5.   Profile Decision Tree Version 1.08 published to ERCOT Web.

                                        11                                     May 15, 2003
                                       Profiling Working Group

Annual Validation Preliminary analysis of profile id changes.
                     % Profile id assignment changes
                     based on April 2002
                     No change
                                   Business     Residential
                     AEP Central          59.68          74.23
                     AEP North            67.46          73.14
                     Oncor                80.64          71.61
                     TNMP                 83.24          75.77
                     Would Change
                                   Business     Residential
                     AEP Central          40.32          25.77
                     AEP North            32.54          26.86
                     Oncor                19.36          28.39
                     TNMP                 16.76          24.23
 Compares the initial validation profile id assignments, period ending February 2001 with profile ID assignments
 based on 12 months ending April 2002 and using the usage month algorithm in current Profile Decision Tree.
 Percentages are for a residential and a business sample of 20,000 ESIIDs each per TDU and not over the
 whole population.
                                                   12                                                   May 15, 2003
                             Profiling Working Group

Opt-in Entity Issues for PWG.
   1.   Nueces and San Patricio.
   2.   Texas SET Version 1.5 Mid July, 2003.
   3.   Invite the Muni and Coop Segment participation.
   4.   ACTION ITEMS:
        a)   Initial Validation of Profile Id Assignments.
        b)   Updates to the LPG, Load Profiling Guides.
        c)   Updates to Protocols.

        d)   Shall be using the Profile Decision Tree Version 1.08.




                                       13                             May 15, 2003
                                Profiling Working Group

Oil and gas properties profile change request.
   1.   Submitted to ERCOT 3/6/03 by Pioneer Natural Resources, Priority Power
        Management, and Energy Data Source .
   2.   ERCOT to post to WEB.
   3.   Argument is that the aggregate profile is a very high load factor profile, close to flat.
   4.   ERCOT is to evaluate and submit recommendation to PWG.
   5.   May test the new PUCT Rule 25516 for reimbursement.

   6.   ERCOT shall post the methodology request to the Market
        Information System (MIS) and respond to the request within
        sixty (60) days of the posted date of the request. This period
        does not include the time to analyze and render the complete
        assessment of the request.




                                            14                                               May 15, 2003
                             Profiling Working Group

Direct Load Control (DLC) Project Status.
1.   PRR 385 Section 18 (RMS approved 3/25, PRS 3/20, TAC 6/05 and Board
     6/17).
2.   LPGRR2003-001 is attached to PRR385 (TAC 6/05).
3.   ERCOT Schedule is pending, Project Manager assigned.
4.   ERCOT and some Market Participants question priority going forward.
5.   PRR Section 6 (submitted by DSWG 3/17/03, PRR388 BUL Capacity Payments,
     TAC approved 3/6, Board 3/18). Language for DLC still needs to be written
     for a PRR.
6.   Memo, on Project 26359 on Competitive Metering, May 8, 2003, by
     Commissioner Perlman suggests that wires companies need to develop a
     rate structure that provides strong incentives for demand responsiveness
     by charging different rates during high load periods.




                                      15                                   May 15, 2003
                             Profiling Working Group

PRR 362, Section 18.4.4.2 – Load Profile ID Correction
1.   Deferred by PRS 11/26/02.
2.   Annual Load Profile Type and Weather Zone Validation procedures and
     timelines.
3.   RMS Vote of approval.
       a)   Cleaned up language in Protocols 18.4 as comment to PRR362.
       b)   LPGRR2003-002 Sections 11.4 and 11.5.

4.   Approved by PRS.
5.   Approved by TAC on 5/8/03.




                                   16                                      May 15, 2003

								
To top