Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline
Download
1 / 15

Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline COPS Workshop August 29, 2013 Mandy Bauld ERCOT - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline COPS Workshop August 29, 2013 Mandy Bauld ERCOT' - zocha


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

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







ad