1 / 11

PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Direct Energy ERCOT PWG Chair Ed Echols Of Oncor

PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Direct Energy ERCOT PWG Chair Ed Echols Of Oncor ERCOT PWG Vice Chair for COPS Meeting May 11, 2010. Round 2 Sample (Goal 8). TDSPs completed data collection through December 2009 April 2011 target new Load Profile Model implementation

norina
Download Presentation

PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Direct Energy ERCOT PWG Chair Ed Echols Of Oncor

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. PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Direct Energy ERCOT PWG Chair Ed Echols Of Oncor ERCOT PWG Vice Chair for COPS Meeting May 11, 2010

  2. Round 2 Sample (Goal 8) • TDSPs completed data collection through December 2009 • April 2011 target new Load Profile Model implementation • Preliminary slides of sample vs. current profiles shown at the 3/24 PWG Mtg. http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/03/20100324-PWG • Data collection period for the LRS Round 2 sample is over, and that TDSPs can cease submitting LRS data to ERCOT. • May (April delayed) Report to PWG delta of current profiles vs. Round 2 samples

  3. New Load Profile Model implementation • PWG needs feedback from REPs on incremental cost of updating round 2 models vs. benefits; • No model updates at all are needed, or • Re-estimate existing load profiling model coefficients, or • Build models with new structures to address weather transitions per UFE presentation “profile discontinuity”, or • New round 3 samples in TDSP areas that are not installing AMS or have later timelines, and • Profile model transition likely to be needed due to difference in round 2 sample population mean to current profile models just like the last model implementation? • Is ERCOT forecast of load profiles needed after AMS implementation? • No feedback was provided by MPs prior to the 3/24 PWG • The PWG wants to see the performance of current profiles vs. round 2 sample before recommending new profile models or just keeping current models in lieu of the AMS implementation.

  4. LPGRR and PRR Status • Draft for Annual Validation suspension for AMS has been discussed and is a work in progress. Consensus that AMS premises should not be subject to the same annual validation of Profile Type as NIDR premises. (Goal 3)PWG shall review suggested revised language at next PWG mtg. • Goal 6 – Draft LPGRR language per NPRR208, Registration and Settlement of Distributed Generation (DG) Less Than One MW. NPRR pending the TAC discussions. • LPGRR036 Delete Document Control Section on a normal timeline. Approved 4/8/2010. • Draft LPGRR that takes the LRS TDSP CSV Operations Guide and makes it Appendix A of the Load Profiling Guide (LPG). PPT draft to be reviewed at the next PWG meeting. • LPGRR038 Revisions for Texas Nodal Market Implementation and Synchronization with PRR821, Update of Section 21, Process for Protocol Revision. To be reviewed at the next PWG mtg. per the PWG suggested changes during the 4/28 meeting. • LPGRR039 Revisions for Texas Nodal Market Implementation Part Two. PWG shall review language at next PWG mtg.

  5. UFE Allocation Factors A draft PRR was presented by Direct Energy proposing that both IDR and NIDR distribution metered premises have an equal allocation factor of 0.5 a. No consensus b. AMIT stakeholders discussed and decided no action c. Discussions on the relative allocation of transmission vs. distribution have taken place at SEWG and PWG for several months. d. Pro and Con Option 1 was discussed in April at PWG. e. PWG discussions continue with Option 2 and 3. f. Main argument for change is the burden of UFE load percent to metered load increases up for the NIDR premises changed during the later part of the AMS implementation. g. Main argument for no change is to not disturb the allocation of transmission IDR premises since the widely held interval level UFE is assumed to come from NIDR metered premises. http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/04/20100428-PWGkey document agenda item 8b.

  6. Annual Update Approval Language - LPG 9.1.1 Profile Decision Tree Revision and Approval Process (1) ERCOT Staff is responsible for updating the Profile Decision Tree annually; these annual updates are limited to the contents of the “Segment Assignment Tab” and shall be submitted by the ERCOT Staff to the Profiling Working Group (PWG) for review, to the Commercial Operations Subcommittee (COPS) for a recommendation, and to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for approval. No later than five Business Days after the TAC approval ERCOT shall: (a) Issue a market notice alerting Market Participants (MPs) of the change with the effective date ten days following the issuance of the market notice; and (b) Electronically distribute the updated Profile Decision Tree to MPs.

  7. Schedule for Annual Update Approvals • Annual Update to Decision Tree • Available at the following link • http://www.ercot.com/calendar/2010/04/20100428-PWG • Changes only related to usage window • 2009 Annual update approval schedule • PWG approval April • COPS approval May • TAC approval June • List to TDSP June 30 as required in LPG

  8. Annual Updates – Decision Tree “Segment Assignment Tab”

  9. Annual Update Approval Language - LPG Vote PWG requests that the COPS recommend to the TAC to approve the Annual Validation update to the Profile Decision Tree Revision

  10. PWG 2010 meeting dates - 4th Wednesday of the month

More Related