1 / 7

Verifiable Costs Submission QSEs vs Resources

Verifiable Costs Submission QSEs vs Resources. WMS November 19, 2008. Ino Gonzalez. Arguments for QSEs filing Verifiable Costs (VC). QSEs are responsible for all financial arrangements with ERCOT. QSEs receive RUC instructions from ERCOT. QSEs submit 3-part Supply Offers for Resources.

apu
Download Presentation

Verifiable Costs Submission QSEs vs Resources

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Verifiable Costs Submission QSEs vs Resources WMS November 19, 2008 Ino Gonzalez

  2. Arguments for QSEs filing Verifiable Costs (VC) • QSEs are responsible for all financial arrangements with ERCOT. • QSEs receive RUC instructions from ERCOT. • QSEs submit 3-part Supply Offers for Resources. • There are fewer number of QSEs than Resources, reducing the number of entities involved in dealing with ERCOT directly. • Single point of contact for ERCOT staff for all Resources under the QSE for VC discussions. • Some Resources may not have the expertise to file VC. • QSEs will know what costs are filed with ERCOT so that Offer Caps can be calculated. • Data filed by QSEs for multiple Resources may have more consistency in approach to calculating VC.

  3. Arguments for Resources filing VC • Data directly submitted from Resources (No middle agent). • Reduces probability of error in data transference from Resources to QSEs to ERCOT. • One source for more accountability for data accuracy. • Faster response time for inquiries by ERCOT on questions raised on data. • Better match for information filed by Resources in RARF (Consistency). • Reduce time requirements for data flow from Resources to ERCOT, bypassing the time required for QSEs to collect, review and submit data to ERCOT. • Addresses confidentiality issues raised by some Resources. • QSEs are not liable for data accuracy. • VC are associated with Resources

  4. Verifiable Costs Submission Options

  5. Option 1 – Only QSEs may file VC • Only QSEs may submit VC per the current Nodal Protocols. • All disputes must be done via QSEs. • ERCOT will settle all transactions with the QSE. • VC always stay with Resources regardless of QSE. • If QSEs submit VC, both QSEs and Resources must attest to the accuracy of data.

  6. Option 2 – Only Resources may file VC* • Resources can submit data to ERCOT- similar to RARF. • VC always stay with Resources regardless of QSE. • After VC are approved, all disputes must be submitted by QSEs. • Requires no system change at ERCOT. • ERCOT will not share the final approved VC values with QSEs. • QSEs with PPAs may submit these documents to ERCOT directly. * An exception is made for Resources with PPAs (see item f).

  7. Option 3 – Either Resources or QSEs may file VC • Allow either Resources or QSEs submit VC. • If Resources submit VC, QSEs and Resources must notify ERCOT. • If Resources submit VC, ERCOT will not share the final approved values with QSEs. • If QSEs submit VC, both QSEs and Resources must attest to the accuracy of data. • If Resources submit VC, only the Resource attests to accuracy of data. • If Resources submit verifiable costs, VC remain with Resources until updated by either party. • If QSEs submit verifiable costs, VC will NOT remain with Resources when these switch to new QSEs. New QSEs or Resources may update VC. • All disputes (see 9.14 of the Protocols), must be done via QSEs. • Only Resources or QSEs may submit VC, not both.

More Related