PROFILING WORKING GROUP
Conference Call Meeting Minutes 06-04-2003
Meeting Attendees
Via Conference Call:
Terry Bates – Oncor
Steven Bordelon –TNMP
Ed Echols – TXU
Ron Hernandez – ERCOT
Adrian Marquez – ERCOT
Diana Ott – ERCOT
Jovana Pantovic – ERCOT (scribe)
Ernie Podraza – Reliant (facilitator)
Carl Raish – ERCOT
Cathy Scott – CenterPoint
Denise Stokes - FPL/Competitive Assets
John Taylor – Entergy
Lindsey Turns – ERCOT
Lloyd Young - AEP
Represents action items for PWG members
Purpose
To discuss PRR 399 - Requirements for Replacing an IDR with a Non-IDR
1) Meter and build a recommendation for RMS
2)
3)
4).
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Ernie started out the meeting by outlining our two options on this issue. He stated that we could do one of the following:
1)Submit a PRR request form and change the language to what we can agree on. This would include a list of issues that we cannot agree on.
2)Submit a form without a PRR that includes the issues, lack of consensus and comments about what we can and cannot agree on.
The group began by discussing the issues at hand. Terry said that there were two issues here -- the ‘tariff docket’ issue, and the ‘peak demand’ issue (somewhere between 10 kW - 200 kW).
We examined the current PRR with highlighted changes. Lloyd disagreed with the ‘BUSNODEM profile only’ in 7a). Carl stated that ERCOT agreed with the way it was written and the customer had to be a BUSNODEM in order to pull the IDR. John agreed and said that if we use the BUSNODEM wording then we don’t even have to set a threshold at all. Lloyd wanted to clarify that we didn’t have people who did not meet the threshold but were BUSNODEM. Ed said that we would be confusing the issue by implementing a rule where at a certain threshold we pull the meter and force a BUSNODEM.
Terry tried for a compromise by proposing that we have two scenarios: If you have a BUSNODEM then you can pull the meter, if the customer is not a BUSNODEM then enforce a threshold somewhere between 10 and 200 kW.
ERCOT and Entergy agreed that there should not be a threshold. John stated that even though they really do not want to see any threshold, they would go along with a threshold that did not exceed 50 kW. He stated that 200 kW would be unacceptable to Entergy. Centerpoint thought the threshold should be at about 100 kW while ERCOT reiterated that there shouldn’t be a threshold, just a BUSNODEM requirement.
Ernie threw out a scenario for the group to discuss. He asked us what should happen if a large grocery store with an IDR shuts down and the store is divided up into several smaller stores. The much smaller customer inherits and IDR meter yet, his load is only 15 kW. Will he be re-evaluated and given a choice about his meter to ensure he gets one that is representative of his usage?
Even though, the group could not reach consensus on 7a) in the PRR they did agree on the changes for 7b) and 7c).
Ed asked if we could find out how many ESIIDs that have IDRs fall into the 10, 50, 100, 150 and 200 demand groups.
ERCOT will research the number of ESIIDs that have IDRs that fall into the 10, 50, 100, 150 and 200 demand and report back to the group at the next meeting.
The group compiled a list of recommendations that some agreed with and Ernie will send to RMS. The recommendations in a nutshell were as follows:
1)No consensus was reached on the threshold for the kW limit. There was a range of support from 10 kW to 200 kW.
2)Some felt that a threshold was unnecessary and we could just go by the BUSNODEM profile.
3)The PRR should be tabled until the tariff issues are addressed at the PUCT. The real issue here is that the IDR charges are too high and changes to this could make a huge differences in this PRR.
4)An IDR can be installed but settled on a non-IDR profile.
5)We should not remove any IDR. The goal should be to preserve the accuracy of settlement; which supports the current protocols.
6)If a premise changes ownership then the new owner should be able to choose (based on his load) if he wants an IDR meter if his load is very different from the previous owner’s.
It is important to note that the group has not reached a consensus on any of these issues. We are simply presenting some of the viewpoints of the group all of whom have counter viewpoints from other members of the group.
The next PWG meeting is scheduled forJune 18th and 19th, 2003.
DON’T FORGET TO RSVP IF YOU WILL BE ATTENDING THE NEXT PWG MEETING (TWO DAYS IN ADVANCE PLEASE).