slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Summary of the November 11, 2002 Market Synchronization “How-to-Fix” Decisions PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Summary of the November 11, 2002 Market Synchronization “How-to-Fix” Decisions

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 16
Download Presentation

Summary of the November 11, 2002 Market Synchronization “How-to-Fix” Decisions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

wade-fulton
180 Views
Download Presentation

Summary of the November 11, 2002 Market Synchronization “How-to-Fix” Decisions

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

  1. Summary of the November 11, 2002 • Market Synchronization • “How-to-Fix” Decisions • For presentation to RMS • November 14, 2002

  2. 10-16-2002 RMS Resolution For those scenarios that the market sync project identified as out-of-sync, if the Market Sync Task Force unanimously agrees on the steps necessary to correct the out-of-sync market condition, then the market participants shall correct the out-of-sync market condition accordingly. The Market Sync Task Force shall report to RMS any decisions reached to correct out-of-sync market conditions. If there is any disagreement regarding the steps necessary to correct the out-of-sync scenario, the issue shall be passed to RMS for resolution.

  3. Principles Applicable to all “How-to-Fix” Decisions • Fixes will take place per analysis and not to the “every record” level • Fixes will be made to a day in the past • +/- 1 day rule applies to all fixes and analysis • Prior to applying corrections, MPs will analyze each ESI ID and take into consideration any activity that has taken place since the original capture date of the data (8/1/2002) • Any ESI ID with a status issue is to be handled individually by the MPs (for example: TDSP identifies as retired but CR and ERCOT has active record) • If CR or TDSP requires transaction or additional data, they retain the ability to use alternate resolution processes • Decisions made for those scenarios identified will be applied to those scenarios requiring additional analysis • RMS Chair/Vice Chair responsible to develop reporting and monitoring process

  4. Priority to Decision Mapping • ♦ Decisions to Reach: • Who adds records? • What date to use? • How to handle >4/1? • How to handle pre 4/1? • Necessary to match usage? • Adding terminated records? • What to do when no dates match? • ♣ Decisions to Reach: • Who changes dates? • What date to use? • How to handle >4/1? • How to handle pre 4/1? • Necessary to match usage? • Adding terminated records? • What to do when no dates match?

  5. Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 1 Entity submitted records • Category 1: MP is only one with ESI ID (i.e. Missing Relationship) • Category 2: MP is only one reporting ESI ID active (other MPs may have inactive relationships) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESI IDs in scenario: • 12,961 (ERCOT) • 20,234 (TDSP) • 16,477 (CR) TDSP says 3K are invalid ESI IDs • Action: • MPs to review and respond to ESI IDs where they did not submit a record • ERCOT to compile and cross reference response from “out-of-sync” MPs • Final corrective actions will align with other “how to fix” decisions but have • potential for more ESI ID level decision making

  6. ♦ Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 2 Entities submitted records - CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 594 (ERCOT + CR) excludes 39,982 that the TDSP responded with “1” • 12,728 (ERCOT + TDSP) excludes 110,332 that the CR responded with “1” • 83,764 (TDSP + CR) excludes 25,653 that ERCOT has added relationship & 1,187 that ERCOT responded with “1”

  7. ♦ Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 2 Entities submitted records - CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID

  8. ♦ Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 2 Entities submitted records - CR is same on both records • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID

  9. ♦Priority 2 - Active Row Only (C) 2 Entities submitted records – CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report an active record • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report an active record • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 3,640 (ERCOT + CR) excludes 3,482 that the TDSP responded with “1” • 21,608 (ERCOT + TDSP) excludes 22,446 that the CR responded with “1” • 3,515 (TDSP + CR)

  10. ♦Priority 2 - Active Row Only (C) 2 Entities submitted records – CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report an active record

  11. ♦Priority 2 - Active Row Only (C) 2 Entities submitted records – CR is same on both records • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report an active record

  12. Priority 3 - Multiple Active CRs submitted records • Multiple Subcategories (most complex situations) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 1,420 where ERCOT, TDSP, and CR1 all Agree • 18 where ERCOT, CR1& CR2 agree but TDSP does not • 27 where TDSP, CR1 & CR2 agree but ERCOT does not • 15,206 where TDSP, ERCOT and one CR agree but another CR claims ESI ID • 2,232 where ERCOT and one CR Agree but TDSP and another CR agree • 16 where ERCOT and TDSP agree but multiple CRs do not • 1,248 ESI IDs where >2 relationships are claimed • Action: • MPs to review ESI IDs and work through the QRE process make corrections • For those situations when a CR must stop a relationship, the same logic defined for other “how to fix” should apply here

  13. ♣Priority 4 - 1 Row only submitted by each MP Type CR is same on all MP records • Category 1: CR has stop dates but ERCOT and TDSP are active • Category 2: CR and TDSP has stop date but ERCOT remains active • Category 3: MPs have different start and stop dates

  14. Priority 4 - 1 Row only submitted by each MP Type CR is different on one MP records • Multiple Subcategories (most complex situations) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 20,212 (ERCOT and CR have same CR but TDSP has different CR) • 391 (ERCOT and TDSP have same CR but a different CR claims the ESI ID) • 2,158 (TDSP and CR have same CR but ERCOT has a different CR) • Action: • MPs to review ESI IDs and work through the QRE process make corrections • For those situations when a CR must stop a relationship, the same logic defined for other “how to fix” should apply here

  15. Priority 5 - Active Row Only (B) 1 Entity submitted records • Category 1: • MP is only one reporting ESIID active (other MPs may have inactive relationships) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 6,218 (ERCOT) • 760 (TDSP) • 6,591 (CR) • Action: • MPs to review and respond to ESI IDs where they did not submit a record • ERCOT to compile and cross reference response from “out-of-sync” MPs • Final corrective actions will align with other “how to fix” decisions but have • potential for more ESI ID level decision making

  16. Priority 6 - Active Row Only (A) Reported by 3 Entities – CR is different on one MP records • Multiple Subcategories (most complex situations) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 3,135 (ERCOT and CR have same CR but TDSP has different CR) • 3,231 (ERCOT and TDSP have same CR but a different CR claims the ESI ID) • 3,876 (TDSP and CR have same CR but ERCOT has a different CR) • Action: • MPs to review ESI IDs and work through the QRE process make corrections • For those situations when a CR must stop a relationship, the same logic defined for other “how to fix” should apply here