Event Summary
Event Description: SEWG Meeting Notes / Date: 07/20/2009 / Completed by: Craig Dillon
Attendees:
In-Person Attendance / WebEx Attendance
Jim Galvin / Luminant
Phylllis Castillo / Reliant
Jim Lee / Direct
Mandy Bauld / ERCOT
Craig Dillon / ERCOT
Trey Felton / ERCOT
Jamie Lavas / ERCOT
Heather Jo Boisseau / LCRA
/ Annette Morton / AEP
Calvin Opheim / ERCOT
Kelly Robinson / CPS
Robin Chang / Ventyx
Lee Starr / BTU
Debbie McKeever / TXU
Kevin Drachenberg / Calpine
Johnny Robertson / TXU
Heddie Lookadoo / NRG
Jack Brown / Garland
***Items with RED font are actions items and are compiled in the “Action Items” section at end of document***
Agenda
1. / Antitrust Admonition and Agenda Review / J Galvin / 9:30 a.m.
2. / COPS Meeting Review / J. Galvin / 9:40 a.m.
3. / ERCOT Extract Issues Report / T. Felton / 9:45 a.m.
4. / Transaction Date and Data Recorders / J. Lavas / 10:15 a.m.
5. / Nodal COMs / J. Lavas / 10:30a.m.
6. / DRG Summary and Discussion / D. Tucker / 10:50 a.m.
7. / UFE Cost Discussion / J. Galvin / 11:10 p.m.
8. / Other Business / ERCOT Staff / 12:00 p.m.
  1. COPS-JIM
  2. TAC update and WG updates
  3. Hot topics
  4. Item 6 – DAM payment timeline
  5. Market Credit WG addressed. How nodal market funds market failures (bankruptcies) in nodal. How and who should come up with funding any shortfalls in market.
  6. Hoping ERCOT would create fund to cover failures
  7. MPs funding “reserve” to cover failures
  8. Possible hybrid mechanism
  9. DAM payments are required to be paid very quickly.
  10. Lee – will be presented to WMS on Wednesday. Need to take to COPS to analyze impacts. Looking for anything to reduce risk of exposure in DAM. Megawatt daily on 7/6 – CALISO did experience default and used ERCOT language and spread default - generators and financial entities objected (petitioned FERC). In ERCOT, mindset is load-based. Trying to distribute more broadly.
  11. Distributed Renewable Generation from DRG task force
  12. Vote taken
  13. Motion to accept recommendations, but barely passed.
  14. Will be discussed later in this meeting
  15. EXTRACT ISSUES REPORT-TREY
  16. Discussed incident spreadsheet
  17. Discussed exception report
  18. Per SLA, must go to COPS as it affects retail API and report explorer
  19. Jim – comments from COPS – concern regarding review of exceptions. Since onset of SLAs, how many exceptions?
  20. Trey – there’ve been 4 over 2 ½ years.
  21. Jim – must be sensitive to MPs, but also if there is key maintenance required to systems and ERCOT needs time, that more language is added to allow. Possibly limit over the course of a year. 4 is more than reasonable.
  22. Trey – market has asked that we plan outages better so systems area available when needed. Hopefully putting in request 5 weeks ahead of time is adequate.
  23. RMS comments were –
  24. What is value of SLA if you have exceptions?
  25. Trey – only way we can do that is if to have 40 hour windows. Having MT available on sat am is helpful for some. Guarantee of 99.99% is very difficult to meet due to lack of redundancy.
  26. Jim – same comments as COPS.
  27. Johnny – SLA is what it is – if one package is greater than the window, that’s fine – as long as you can justify as to why metric was not met that’s ok.
  28. Jim – same thing mentioned in COPS. ERCOT needs to be able to balance their needs and MP needs. History shows minimal exceptions.
  29. Annette – what did RMS approve?
  30. Trey- start time, but lowered release time to 36 hours.
  31. SLA for 2010 (no slides available)
  32. Possibly combine retail SLA and extracts SLA – all data would be together then
  33. will add clarification to outages and degradations based on impact to market
  34. discuss market notices per COPS communications working guides
  35. Incident log will be cleaned up
  36. include release calendar info for 2010
  37. Feedback for next month SEWG review
  38. Jim – group should follow-up directly to Trey.
  39. Combination of SLAs should be discussed. Extracts and reports, be they retail or wholesale are all addressed in SEWG. Consolidation makes sense as long-term goal for year. Trey, Jim and RMS leadership should work together.
  40. Trey: get draft together and send to SEWG****** (within week). Jim will send to listserv with deadline of 1 week prior to next month’s meeting.
  41. Annette: combine SLA or logs?
  42. Trey – just SLA. Will be posted on same page/section.
  43. Jim – trey – please provide email with documentation of SLA exceptions*****
  44. TRANSACTION DATE AND DATA RECORDERS-Jamie
  45. verified issues was not bill determinate specific
  46. verified inline parser corrected the issue
  47. NODAL COMS-Jamie
  48. Discussed specification updates from slides. (see presentation for detailed changes)
  49. Discussed EMIL edits
  50. Jim – need to continue same messaging – to prepare for nodal, check data and be able to use it. Great job so far!
  51. Jamie – also looking at report/extract training (discussions in-process)
  52. Heather – readiness often says “as soon as ready” will be posted. What are actual timelines with nodal coming? Which group will revise the timeline?
  53. Jamie/Mandy – This information is communicated through the BOD and TAC and issues are coming through Nodal ATF. Still same timeline, if this changes communications would come from the top down. If there are any changes to the timeline which impact SEWG, we will discuss those specifics here.
  54. Expect to see a market notice regarding changes to the file naming convention for SCR 740/Market Data Transparency Web Services output files.
  55. DRG SUMMARY-Don Tucker
  56. Discussed presentation to COPS
  57. Option 1 – treat DRG as generation
  58. for NOIE
  59. Option 2 – treat as NOIE load inflow
  60. Option 3 – TDSP exemption from reporting
  61. NO agreement between 3 options.
  62. COPS did vote, but after Don’s summary, motion made to treat DRG resources as entity that has to register as generation. Passed COPS but barely. Further discussions may take place with other stakeholder venues.
  63. Pros to register as gen:
  64. Consistent with nodal protocols
  65. Result in sources registered
  66. Consistent competitive vs. non-competitive areas
  67. No ERCOT system changes
  68. Cons:
  69. NOIEs treated differently than competitive retailers
  70. Infrastructure setup
  71. NOIEs subject to fees (uninstructed resource charge, nodal surcharge, etc)
  72. Comments from COPS:
  73. Few entities and very small in nature – less than 1 mw
  74. Infrastructure change is significant
  75. Issue is how will be handled and settled. SEWG needs to watch this issue
  76. Jack Brown – vote not for COPS to say that DRG would have to be registered. Vote was that DRG would prefer PRR for vetting.
  77. Calvin Opheim – gen’s 50kw and greater would have to register.
  1. UFE COST DISCUSSION-Jim
  2. Estimates are close
  3. Presentation previously discussed (and discussed today) will be made available to COPS in August
  4. Discussed presentation (posted on 7/20 SEWG meeting calendar)
  5. Biggest impact that if prices were higher in September, would have considerable cost to market. If goes other way, could be significant credit to market.
  6. Need to identify with ERCOT:
  7. Is something that can be done with ad-hoc analysis of shaping profiles
  8. Is there something within estimation process that could have driven this
  9. if so, can changes be made to estimation processes to prevent this in the future.
  10. Calvin – slide with UFE MWH
  11. Imagine ERCOT is one meter – total gen is 2100 kwh – no matter what profile used to spread that energy, will only allocate 2000 kwh regardless of profile. All that can be allocated is the 2000 kwh. ERCOT is doing a comparison – non-adjusted profiles during hurricane period (original state) vs. modified profiles. Total UFE hours should not have changed much at all. What will change is with unadjusted profiles (in blue) – don’t have percentage slide (-30% for that day). ERCOT expects to see the pink line coming close to the blue line and will have huge negative UFE for that time period. When you get to the 18th/19th and forward, instead of being above axis, will creep up slower before hits “0”. Latter-September forward will see more netting out. ERCOT expects even more positive UFE going into October. ERCOT is confident that UFE reduced on a daily basis.
  12. Jim – do you agree for October as well?
  13. Calvin – has to net out somewhere. I would expect October to go up to compensate – somewhat of a 0-sum gain.
  14. Jim – if you have negative bias at one point and positive elsewhere – shouldn’t see swings that much.
  15. Calvin – agreed. But given swing in aggregates in Sept/Oct vs. Oct/Nov to make up for the previous, have to allocate. Challenge is to prevent the $ impacts of this type of scenario.
  16. ***Channel 5 data analysis next month****
  17. OTHER BUSINESS-ALL
  18. NPRR 179 - Polled settlement load
  19. Data is on 727 extract
  20. SEWG agreed to take to COPS – recommended
  21. Calvin – RMS summary – ERCOT will follow the NPRR – assumption that all MPs using 727 extract – a couple are not. Not comfortable impacting those MPs not using it at this time.
  22. ERCOT agreed to pull from consideration. SEWG agrees with request
  23. Mandy – Nodal Settlement Workshops
  24. Presentation will be uploaded later
  25. Discussed presentation
  26. Workshops to start in fall 2009
  27. CRR-September
  28. dam-October
  29. RUC-November
  30. RTM-December
  31. 2nd round in summer 2010
  32. Jim – discussing questions and calculations with Coon’s team. SEWG available to assist if needed.
  33. Mandy – materials are underway. Will be using happy paths, so if deep-dives are needed please let us know.
  34. *****JIM - new standing agenda item for nodal settlement calculations starting next month.
  35. Jack – in March Mandy gave ad-hoc invoice process presentation. (CDR/invoices etc) to be posted to TML. We had incident with WAN invoice this month and we discovered we’re getting WAN invoice through snail mail – should be through email.
  36. WAN invoice is outside the group – owned by Patrick Coon’s WCS team. Sounds like process is being started. Contact Art to check.

Action Items / Next Steps:
  • Jim - Need to take to COPS to analyze impacts. Looking for anything to reduce risk of exposure in DAM. DAM payment timeline. Possible hybrid mechanism
  • ALL – Extracts SLA – review and provide feedback to Trey Felton () for August SEWG review
  • Trey – provide feedback sent from group to SEWG in August
  • Trey: get draft together and send to SEWG ASAP (within week)
  • Trey, Jim and RMS leadership should work together.
  • Jim will send to listserv with deadline of 1 week prior to next month’s meeting.
  • Trey – please provide email with documentation of SLA exceptions to SEWG list
  • Jim – add UFE – Channel 5 data analysis to August Agenda
  • Jim - new standing agenda item for nodal settlement calculations starting next month.