PWG Meeting Notes – February 21, 2018

WebEx 9:30 am

Attendees:

Lindsay Butterfield – ERCOT
Bill Boswell – ERCOT

Nikki McKenna – ERCOT

Calvin Openheim - ERCOT

Sam Pak – Oncor
Sheri Wiegand – TXU

Diana Rehfeldt – TNMP

Carolyn Reed – CNP

Kathy Scott - CNP

Randy Roberts – ERCOT

Jim Lee – AEP

Hong Xiao - ?

Jason - ?

  • Meeting minutes from January 22nd were reviewed and approved as proposed.
  • Weather Sensitivity Report

Randy Roberts presented report run as of 2/1/18. All outstanding issues have been resolved. PWG considers this item closed.

WEATHER SENSITIVITY CHANGES REQUIRED FOR SUMMER YEAR 2017
TDSPNAME / TOTAL_COUNT / HOLD / RESOLVED / OVERDUE
AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY (TDSP) / 88 / 0 / 88 / 0
AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY (TDSP) / 22 / 22 / 0
CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC LLC (TDSP) / 545 / 545 / 0
NUECES ELECTRIC COOP INC (TDSP) / 1 / 1 / 0
ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC (TDSP) / 898 / 0 / 898 / 0
SHARYLAND UTILITIES LP (TDSP) / 3 / 3 / 0
TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER CO (TDSP) / 24 / 24 / 0
First ERCOT report date was 11/2/2017 so if not complete by 1/1/2018, these will be overdue.
11.4.3.1 - Weather Responsiveness Determination
(9)TSPs and/or DSPs shall successfully complete weather sensitivity code modifications (Load Profile ID changes) no later than 60 days after the ESI ID appears on the ERCOT report. Load Profile ID changes shall be effective as of the most current meter read date.
  • Annual Validation Discussion

The WG continued the discussion initiated at the COPS meeting on 2/7/18 regarding proposed revisions to the current Annual Validation process of submitting 814_20 transactions to change load profiles.

  • Kathy Scott had presented the current 814_20 process is a large effortfor TDSPs with coordinating the transactions
  • Consideration needs to be given to align with meter cycles, limits on volume of transactions submitted, and any other projects or changes to an ESIs attributes
  • With the deployment of AMS meters, it was expected the volume of profile changes would have significantly reduced, which it has, however, the overall effort is still large
  • Kathy noted during TX SET 4.0, to set the additional attribute of the AMS flag, flat files were sent by the TDSPs to ERCOT to make the changes. Kathy had proposed leveraging this process to change profiles on ESIs as well.
  • The proposed process…
  • ERCOT provides the TDSP with a list of their respective ESIs for which a load profile change is warranted based on their documented analysis.
  • The TDSPs then validate those changes through their own process.
  • Appropriately formatted ‘flat files’ would be submitted to ERCOT (by the TDSPvia a MarkeTrak issue) by a specified date.
  • ERCOT would then load the profile changes under their processing timelines during a market agreed upon known timeline.
  • Questions for consideration by the market
  • Is this feasible for ERCOT to perform?
  • NOTE: Calvin indicated this his team would not perform the action requested and would need to be referred to Operations – Dave Michelson and Kathryn Thurman
  • Will this impact ERCOT settlements?
  • Kelly Brink will need to be included in the feasibility discussions
  • Will all TDSPs be required to utilize this process?
  • What would be the optimal “known timeframe” for ERCOT loading of profile changes?
  • Randy then posed the question if limiting the volume of transactions was the issue and if that barrier could be removed, would the problem be solved? This will be discussed at the next meeting.
  • Sam proposed utilizing the proposed ‘flat file’ process for the Weather Sensitivity obligations as well. Randy noted this was a different timeline (November), however, if ERCOT determines the proposed process is feasible, then it could apply to Weather Sensitivity as well.
  • PWG leadership will request time on the RMS agenda for the 3/6 RMS meeting to introduce the concept for RMS consideration. PWG leadership along with Kathy Scott will also propose to meet with impacted ERCOT staff noted above (Dave M, Kelly B, and Kathryn T) after the RMS meeting to discuss ERCOT feasibility.
  • PWG will present the idea at the COPS meeting on 3/7.
  • Interested parties are then encouraged to join the next PWG meeting on 3/19 @ 10 AM WebEx only to continue the discussion.
  • If the proposal moves forward, likely an SCR, NPRR, and LPGRR will be required.
  • Creation of a BUSIDRDG profile type
  • Calvin presented ERCOT’s proposal for the creation of a new profile type – BUSIDRDG. Today, in the ERCOT footprint, premises with a BUSIDRRQ profile lose the visibility if they have distributed generation. All other profile types, RES and BUS have the appropriate suffix of either PV (photo voltaic), WD (wind), or DG (all other).
  • With the proliferation of DG, ERCOT is looking to gain the visibility for operational reasons offering insight to localized level forecasting. ESIs may be mapped in the ERCOT system. This would identify DG outside of the non-modeled generator and include premises that may never inject to the grid (self-service).
  • ERCOT is looking to “stay ahead of the problem” where possibly new sites can be profiled accordingly going forward. And a process would need to be developed to identify the existing sites.
  • At this time, Calvin’s goal is to plant awareness of the issue and solicit ideas:
  • This proposal could include the addition of 24 new profiles – PV, WD, DG for all 8 weather zones. -OR-
  • The addition of an attribute on an ESI ID
  • Plans include gathering/presenting data to support the need.
  • Calvin will to pitch to RMS at the April 3rd meeting and later to WMS and ROS.
  • PWG will continue discussion of ideas and review Calvin’s data at the next PWG meeting.
  • NEXT MEETING: Monday, March 19th 10:00 AM WebEx only
  • PROPOSED AGENDA for 3/19/18

1. Annual Validation Discussion – Flat File vs 814_20 process

  • Is this feasible for ERCOT to perform?
  • Will this impact ERCOT settlements?
  • Will all TDSPs be required to utilize this process?
  • What would be the optimal “known timeframe” for ERCOT loading of profile changes?
  • Other issues

2. Creation of BUSIDRDG

  • Supporting data