1 / 25

New MO Projects June 2007

New MO Projects June 2007. COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics. Jackie Ashbaugh. COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics. Background

cobbd
Download Presentation

New MO Projects June 2007

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. New MO ProjectsJune 2007 1

  2. COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics Jackie Ashbaugh 2

  3. COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics Background • This project provides research capabilities for Commercial Operations extract, report and web services data for internal business users, which include monitoring functionality and usage analysis capabilities. • It consolidates and automates multiple manual efforts that occur today to monitor extract creations through market postings. Current methods provide limited reporting capability. For example: • RMC provides limited ability to report on download stats on TML. • Inquiries regarding points in the life cycle from creation to delivery for extracts and reports, the information must be pieced together from multiple systems and groups. • Usage and download statistics are not consistently available across extracts/reports/web services. 3

  4. COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics Scope • Consistent monitoring processes and usage statistics for Report, Extract, and Web Services for all systems. • Develop business procedures for supporting COMS extracts, reports and web services • ERCOT market SLA reporting • Operational and Usage statistics • ERCOT internal dashboard Budget $250k-$500k 4

  5. PRR-478Use of Lagged Dynamic Samples for New Profiles PRR-478Use of Lagged Dynamic Samples for New Profiles Calvin Opheim Calvin Opheim June 11, 2007 5

  6. Background • This is a change to the method for creating Load Profiles allowing for the use of lagged dynamic samples for new profiles adopted subsequent to market open • This project is necessary in order to enable wholesale settlement of Demand Response programs

  7. Market Benefits • Allowing the use of lagged dynamic samples for new profiles will provide three important benefits to the market: • The time lag between approving a new profile and being able to settle ESI IDs using the new profile will be significantly reduced • New profiles are expected to be subject to significant population change as new ESI IDs are identified for inclusion in the profile; lagged-dynamic samples will accommodate these changes more quickly, accurately and efficiently than is possible with adjusted static models • Use of lagged dynamic samples will allow the market to audit ESI IDs being assigned to new profiles and will create an incentive for CRs using the profile to limit the inclusion of ESI IDs to those appropriate to the profile 7

  8. Impact Analysis / Cost Estimate • Lodestar will require system enhancements to introduce lagged dynamic samples, including creation of dynamic samples, as well as processes/coding for the automation of scripts and statistics. • ERCOT Profiling staff will test and maintain the new profiles as they are developed. • The estimated cost is < $100k 8

  9. ON OFF Questions? 9

  10. PRR-385Changes for Implementation of Direct Load Control (DLC) CalvinOpheim 10

  11. Background • Modify language in Protocols to better represent how Direct Load Control (DLC) will be implemented in ERCOT • Procedural changes to implement DLC programs. The requested changes include: • Removing detailed DLC implementation information from the Protocols and moving them into the Load Profiling Guides • Modifying language to be consistent with the revisions made with respect to profiling ESI IDs in DLC programs • Coinciding with revisions in Load Profiling Guides Revision Request (LPGRR 2003-001) • LRPRR has language which outlines the process for bidding DLC demand reductions into the BUL market • Minor wording changes

  12. BUL Background • Balancing Up Loads are loads registered to bid into BES market • Enabled by PRR 302, 419, 448 & PIP 112 (2003) • Individual BULs must be IDR-metered (telemetry not required) • When a BUL is dispatched and load is shed, QSEs representing BULs receive: • Energy-imbalance payment in normal Settlement • Additional payment = MCPC in the non-spin market for that interval 12

  13. BUL Background (continued) • Individual BUL compliance is evaluated on a baseline developed from the load’s performance over prior 10 “like” days (enabled) • BUL program for individual loads is available but currently unsubscribed • BUL will go away entirely upon launch of Texas Nodal 13

  14. BUL Background -- DLC • Direct Load Control programs were viewed as the vehicle for smaller customers to participate in the ERCOT Balancing Energy market • While developing Protocols for DLC Settlement (2002-03), PWG also developed Protocols to enable DLC to provide BUL service • Project to enable DLC Settlement, including BUL participation, did not make the PPL cut-line due to lack of a sponsoring REP • Language has been gray-boxed since 2003 14

  15. BUL Background -- DLC • PRR-385 defines an algorithm for determining DLC baseline • DLC baseline is based on proxy day (if available) or profile • DLC Settlement can be enabled without the BUL provisions • Including BUL in the project would increase scope and require significant additional coding 15

  16. CCET Demand Response Pilot • A group of Market Participants and ERCOT are participating in a demand response pilot which begins during the summer of 2007 • Two goals of this effort are to: • Enable wholesale settlement of demand response programs in ERCOT • Evaluate and recommend an algorithm for quantifying the amount of demand reduction (which includes the determination of a baseline methodology). • The recommendations from the pilot concerning baseline methodology may be different than language included in PRR-385 16

  17. ERCOT Recommendation • ERCOT Staff recommends excluding BUL-specific elements from DLC Settlement project 17

  18. Market Benefits • The requested changes will allow demand response programs to be appropriately profiled and ERCOT systems to properly process demand response programs 18

  19. Impact Analysis / Cost Estimate • Possible impact to retail systems depending on how Demand Response program participants are identified in the Profile ID. • For example, can the existing TOU/NOTOU segment of the Profile ID be expanded to include the identification of demand response programs (i.e., like DR001, DR002). • Lodestar system changes • The estimated cost is < $500k 19

  20. ON OFF Questions? 20

  21. MOCART Project ERCOT System throughput for IDR Jackie Ashbaugh 21

  22. ERCOT System throughput for IDR Background • PUCT and Market discussions indicate increased utilization of interval data in wholesale settlements. • Influx of interval data would substantially increase the demand on the ERCOT retail market transaction processing systems and the wholesale settlement systems with respect to both processing (bandwidth) and storage. • Based on extrapolations of current system processing times, ERCOT estimates that 200,000 IDR meters is the maximum number of IDR meters ERCOT’s system can support. • ERCOT anticipates degradation in service once ERCOT must process fifteen minute interval meter data from approximately 50,000 or more ESI IDs. 22

  23. ERCOT System throughput for IDR Scope • Incremental increases in IDR processing capability for ERCOT systems by: • Reviewing IDR data loading /reporting / storage process • Reviewing the Information Life Cycle Management Strategy for Paper Free & L* • Reviewing the impact to Market Participants for extracts. • Gaining insights on system enhancements necessary for future increases in IDR processing capability. Budget $100k-$250k 23

  24. Distributed Generation/Small Renewables Raj Rajagopal Calvin Opheim June 11, 2007 24

  25. Distributed Generation/Small Renewables Background • TX SET changes related to small renewables. • Project currently on the RO and MO PPL. • RO developing the requirements and scope of this project. Scope • There will be a impact to the MO PPL only if settlement changes are necessary as a result of this effort. Budget • RO pipe line will manage the budget and the project. COPS and will be updated on progress. • RO Budget: $250k-$500k. • No Budget on the MO PPL. 25

More Related