150 likes | 272 Views
Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline COPS Workshop August 29, 2013 Mandy Bauld ERCOT Director, Settlement & Retail Operations (512) 248-6455. ERCOT Update. Objectives. Update: NPRR509 (Shortened RTM Settlement Timeline) Analysis of Possible Impacts of further reductions.
E N D
Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline COPS Workshop August 29, 2013 Mandy Bauld ERCOT Director, Settlement & Retail Operations (512) 248-6455 ERCOTUpdate
Objectives • Update: NPRR509 (Shortened RTM Settlement Timeline) • Analysis of Possible Impacts of further reductions
NPRR509 - Assess Impacts to Data Availability and Accuracy • Availability of actual load data on Initial Settlement (ERCOT) • AMS • COMP_IDR • NOIE • NIDR • Known load data corrections not submitted prior to initial settlements (TDSPs) • Known EPS meter data issues not resolved prior to initial settlement (ERCOT) • Known markets/operations data issues not resolved prior to initial settlement (ERCOT) • Required manual settlement processes not completed for initial settlement (ERCOT) • Disputes with root cause traceable to an impact of shortened timeline (ERCOT) • Resettlements with root cause traceable to an impact of shortened timeline (ERCOT) Update: Due to the 1-day acceleration of the data aggregation processes, there has been an increase in use of ERCOT-estimated data. ERCOT has not experienced any related operational issues. Update: ERCOT is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT is not aware of any related issues
NPRR509 - Assess Operational Impacts Update: ERCOT has executed activities timely and is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT is not aware of any issues specifically related to this reduction. However it was brought to attention that with the reduction to OD+9 from NPRR347 there began to be a lag of availability of calculated data for generation site ESI IDs, vs. other shadow settlement data. This is due to timing of the retail extracts (3-d look-back) and the shortening of the window between the data aggregation job and the statement approval (now 1 day.) Without subsequent change, the gap will remain at 3 days. Update: ERCOT has not been impacted by overtime hours and is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT did not require additional staffing and is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT implemented process changes and is not aware of any related issues Update: ERCOT implemented the necessary data configuration changes and is not aware of any related issues • Timeliness of ERCOT posting statements, invoices, and related data • Timeliness of QSE/CRRAH settlement operations • Increase in overtime hours (ERCOT and Market) • Increase in staffing levels (ERCOT and Market) • Required changes to business process and procedures (ERCOT and Market) • Required changes to systems and tools (ERCOT and Market)
Further Reduction – Possible Impacts • OD+6 or OD+5: Less Impact • Under the most ideal scenario – weekday processing and no system issues – there are no notable issues • Anticipated not to require ERCOT system changes, but would need to confirm through the detailed impact analysis process • Would require ERCOT process and system configuration changes • Would require additional ERCOT staffing over combined weekend/holidays and possibly over 3-day weekends (same for TDSP/RE for support) to support MDAS activities • Would require additional ERCOT staffing over combined weekend/holidays, 3-day weekends, and potentially normal weekends in order to support manual settlement processes, OR would require those to be deferred to the next settlement iteration • Potential for implementation by next June2014
Further Reduction – Possible Impacts • Less than OD+5: More Impact and More Questions • To fully understand impact, need direction on considerations. • Generally, this timeline: • Would require additional ERCOT staffing over combined weekend/holidays and possibly over 3-day weekends (same for TDSP/RE for support) to support MDAS • Would require additional ERCOT staffing over combined weekend/holidays and all weekends in order to support manual settlement processes, OR would require those to be deferred to the next settlement iteration • Increases concerns about risk to untimely settlement if we have any issues. Risk and concern increases as the timeline decreases. • Increases concerns about risk to untimely settlement under normal system operations, on a timeline less than OD+3 • May require system changes (if there are additional protocol changes) • TBD if could be done by June 2015
Further Reduction – Possible Impacts • Per previous discussions, simply removing days from the posting timeline is likely only feasible down to OD+5. Even at OD+5 we need to address some questions. • To further expedite the timeline, involve other considerations in order to understand the impact to ERCOT and Market Participants (anticipate that the reduction would be coupled with other changes): • Solve for missing EPS or IDR meter data (utilize telemetry or some default method?) • Pinpoint the specific activity that needs to settle faster (i.e., does all of RTM need to settle faster or just certain activity risks and challenges vary accordingly) • What is the best approach to settle the identified activity faster? Modify timing of RTM Initial, incorporate a new RTM settlement iteration with just the necessary activity, or include the activity on a DAM statement? • If an additional RTM settlement iteration is needed, name it something other than RTM Initial (e.g., “prelim“ or “advisory”) and determine a new timeline for RTM Initial - minimizes impact on items that key off of the RTM Initial • Is the market comfortable with a “prelim” settlement run using more estimated data if a RTM Initial settlement is “just around the corner”? • Modify protocol language pre these decisions to capture new/changed calculations using the solution for the "missing" meter data, • Modify protocol language to incorporate changes in dispute rules regarding settlement using the solution for the "missing" data. • Determine if faster settlement should be based on the "OD + x calendar days, or the next business day" vs. the "OD = x BD" concept
Load Changes • A narrow look at differences between Initial and final • Source data billdeterminant is LSEGUNADJ • Data points are daily total MWH • Analysis was limited to May & June 2013 and competitive IDR meters • Weather category load share percentages are approximately 88% NWS and 12% WS • %Change was calculated from daily total load volumes: (Final – Initial)/Initial • %Change at the ESI ID level could be much different than ERCOT-wide • %Change for a particular entity could be much different than ERCOT-wide • %Estimated was determined by dividing sum of methods IDE,IDP,IDPS (estimations) by sum of methods IDC, IDE,IDP,IDPS (actual & estimations) • Entities have capability of producing the same info with their individual data • Entities could also produce the same data on an interval-by-interval basis