Profiling Working Group Update to COPS April 15, 2015

1. Profiling Working Group Update to COPS April 15, 2015 Jim Lee (AEP) – ChairSheri Wiegand (TXU) – Vice Chair

2. April 1st Discussion: LPGRR055 LPGRR055, Extend Load Profile Model Calendar Inputs to 2030 LPGRR055 is an administrative change that extends the Load Profile Model calendar-related inputs in Appendix E: Profile Model Spreadsheets, from 2020 to 2030. The calendar inputs to be updated include: • calendar variables • daylight savings variables • sunrise/sunset times • holiday variables PWG reviewed LPGRR language and recommended approval of LPGRR055 as submitted. Next Step: PWG to review the Impact Analysis at the April 29th meeting.

3. April 1st Discussion: Value/Importance of Load Profiling Guide Background: At a recent TAC meeting, the value and importance of the Load Profiling Guide was brought into question by a Market Participant. Their basis for asking the question was rooted in the fact that AMS deployment is nearly complete and whether the LPG serves the same purpose and function as it did before AMS metering. Although Michelle Trenary provided TAC with a very good response, the PWG felt it was necessary to re-evaluate the purpose of the LPG to provide more context to this topic.

4. Value/Importance of Load Profiling Guide: “Why do we still need it?” • Non-AMS ESI IDs – Need to have documentation of the rules which govern them • AMS Data Gaps - Communication failures result in TDSPs relying on load profiles to estimate interval consumption • Load Forecasting – By ERCOT and REPs • Procurement – Allows for hedging strategies; Grouping of “classes” of customers • Pricing – REP’s pricing systems may not yet be capable of utilizing AMS interval data during the price quotation process, so they utilize load profiles to accurately quote a customer a commodity price • Settlement – During the time an AMS meter is provisioned, prior to the AMS Settlement flag being activated (up to 30 days), an ESI ID is settled in the market based on their load profile • Marketing Efforts – Load profiles allow for segmenting / targeting groups of customers • Classification of New ESI IDs – as new ESI IDs enter the market, a load profile is assigned utilizing the decision tree

5. Value/Importance of Load Profiling Guide: “Do Load Shapes Need Updating?” • In 2010, ERCOT performed extensive analysis on load shapes and their accuracy by analyzing the Load Research Sampling vs current load profile models • Results varied based on the profile type and weather zone as the Mean Absolute Percent Errors (MAPE) ranged from 8.5% to 14.1% in the analysis • Three options were presented to the market to address the issue: • Change Model structure • Refresh Current Model Coefficients • Leave Current Models (as is) Result: Market Participants were in favor of Option 3 based on the following reasons: • Overall improvement of new coefficients appeared to be marginal • Advanced metering was to replace NIDR Load Profile settlement • Technical & Business Resource constraints – competing resources needed for NODAL go-live & no desire to allocate additional resources for transition plan • COPS/PWG discussion: “Does the need exist to review load shapes today?”

6. Next PWG meeting date: April 29th – 1:30pm start time (WebEx only) Agenda items: LPGRR055 – IA review Draft LPGRR – Initial Profile Code Assignment for Temporary Services 2015 Annual Validation Kick-Off Protocol Section 18 Review http://www.ercot.com/committees/board/tac/cops/pwg/