Download
1 / 13
130 likes | 151 Views
This update from the Profiling Working Group includes achievements in 2017, goals for 2018, and an overview of the investigative process and annual validation study. The report addresses the effectiveness of the current residential process in defining consumption patterns and responses to cold temperatures. Discussions on flip-flops of ESIs, changes in load profiles, and the impacts of additional data points are highlighted. The study details the use of historical data for validation and proposed adjustments based on R-square values. The conclusion emphasizes the need for sufficient data points and notes the manageable volume of profile changes with the current AMS meters. Further meetings and resources are provided for ongoing collaboration within the group.
E N D
Profiling Working Group Update to COPS February 7, 2018 Sheri Wiegand (TXU) – Chair Sam Pak (Oncor) – Vice-Chair
Annual Validation – Investigative Process Annual Validation Study – Process Review - SUMMARY • Is the current residential process effective to: • accurately define the consumption pattern of the ESI • determination if the premise responds to cold temperatures likely indicating electric heating • Addressed the questions • Are the process algorithms working? YES • Are there flip-flops of ESIs from RESHI to RESLO and vice versa? NO • What drives the changes in load profiles? Severity of Weather • Next Question: • What would the impacts be if additional data points were considered – review of four or five years historical consumption?
Annual Validation - Study Details • The 2017 residential AMS validation used the previous three years of “winter” data as specified in the Profile Decision Tree • Winter is defined as January and February so the 2017 study used 6 months of data from 2015-2017 • After discussing the large numbers of changes, the PWG requested ERCOT that study extending the historical period to 4 and 5 years • CenterPoint and ONCOR data were used because these TDSP’s have sufficient AMS residential meters to support the 4 and 5 year study December 2017 PWG Meeting
RESHI to RESLO If the existing assignment is HIWR (or a DG variation such as HIPV) then if the required data were not available to calculate R-square values for any of the 6-10 months then do not change assignment; else if NYears = 3 AND all 6 R-square values are <= 0.4 then assign LOWR; else if NYears = 4 AND all 8 R-square values are <= 0.4 then assign LOWR; else if NYears = 5 AND all 10 R-square values are <= 0.4 then assign LOWR; else do not change assignment. December 2017 PWG Meeting
RESLO to RESHI If the existing assignment is LOWR (or a DG variation such as LOPV) then if the required data were not available to calculate R-square values for any of the 6-10 months then do not change assignment; else if NYears = 3 AND any 3 of the 6 R-square value is >= 0.6 then assign HIWR; else if NYears = 4 AND any 5 of the 8 R-square values is >= 0.6 then assign HIWR; else if NYears = 5 AND any 7 of the 10 R-square values is >= 0.6 then assign HIWR; else do not change assignment. December 2017 PWG Meeting
RES Change Counts Using 3-5 Historical Years December 2017 PWG Meeting
Annual Validation – Conclusion • AV on a new ESI does not occur until the number of data points is achieved – increasing to 4 or 5 years prolongs any analysis • Prior to AMS meters, the number of profile changes was significantly higher – current volumes are manageable • the current distribution of HI to LO by TDSP territory appears reasonable Note: These percentages are based on the Profile Counts of March 2017
Next PWG meeting date: April 25th, 2017WebEx only 9:30 am AGENDA • Annual Validation Update http://www.ercot.com/committees/board/tac/cops/pwg/
