Page 1

Information Technology Update

Page 2

ERCOT Technology Architecture TodayERCOT Technology Architecture TodayThe current architecture is typical of an environment that started off as a “best-of-breed” solution but to meet rapidly changing user requirements became highly customized and disjointed due to the batch integration processes. Impacts of this type of evolution are:

– Multiple systems of record for critical operational data

• Reduced ability to audit data and ensure data integrity

• Delayed availability of data needed for operational processing

• Need for substantial data-stores to “piece back together” history

– High cost of ownership

• Significant upgrade costs (no longer an “out-of-the-box” solution)

• Need for specialist to maintain and support silos of technology

– Risk of increased error rate

• Multiple touch points into applications

• “Broken” (not contiguous) process flows cause increase cost and potential errors

– No integrated architectural foundation to spring-board functionality

• Focus on upgrade, support and performance takes priority over new features

• Shared services require tighter integration and consistent data

Page 3

Next Step for Architecture EvolutionNext Step for Architecture EvolutionLeverage “Best-of-breed” technologies and existing upgrade / tuning budget to deliver a stronger foundation:

– Drive vendors to “Productize” ERCOT requirements

• Leverage vendor packages into their strength

• Drive change from the vendor first

• Architect a more efficient cross-vendor integration solution

– Implement enterprise data architecture

• Single data model for each Portfolio of applications

• Keep data at system of record

• Make data available at transaction level

– Implement enterprise data workflow

• Granular transaction tracking

• End-to-end transaction handshake

– Minimize “dead-money”

• Retire underutilized or over customized products

Page 4

PUC / Data Warehouse Effort• PUCT

• Marketing Monitoring and Investigation

• Development of Computer Models and Quantitative Tools

• Ad-Hoc / Scheduled Reporting & Trending

• Data Requests

• Historic Market Modeling

• Market Design Analysis

• ERCOT

• Monitoring Systems – improve data infrastructure to support this function

• Planning – support the requirements for improved market modeling

• Data Warehouse – improve the overall data infrastructure, retrieval, dashboards, scorecards, information access and data retention

• ERCOT and PUCT efforts have multiple touch points and information overlap

• Multiple dependencies associated with these efforts which require careful and complete prioritization, communication, and coordination

• Leveraged resources and infrastructure reduces costs and risk to both parties

Page 5

Steering Committee Chairman Klein (PUCT)Ken Shoquist (ERCOT)Ray Giuliani (ERCOT)Sam Jones (ERCOT)

Core Team Pratish Kanani, Project Manager (ERCOT)Julie Gauldin, Business Requirements (PUCT)Tony Grasso, Engineer Economist (PUCT)Dr. David Hurlbut, Business Requirements (PUCT)Chris Uranga, Data Warehouse (ERCOT)Sreeni Yedavalli, Developer (ERCOT)Chandra Ramireddy, Developer (ERCOT)Dr. Jeyant Tamby, EMMS (ERCOT)Dr. Srini Sundhararajan, Developer (ERCOT)Troy Anderson, Bus Analyst (ERCOT)Marguerite Wagner, Market Operations (ERCOT)Dan Woodfin, Transmission Planning (ERCOT)

Data Warehouse Project

Advisory Committee Parviz Adib (PUCT)Steve Wallace (ERCOT)Kevin Judice (ERCOT)

Page 6

Project Management Team – Rob ConnellProject Management Team – Rob Connell

• Staffing complete 3/03

• Average Utility Experience 9 Years

• Average Project Management Experience 13 years

• Average IT Experience 15 years

• An experienced team of 5

• High degree of technical experience

• PMI certification (2)

• Advanced Degrees (2)

• Began formal weekly project reviews

• Strengthening project reporting tools

Page 7

SummarySummary– Project Management is taking shape

• Project managers hired and in place

• Shaping of vendor relationships in line with plans has begun

• Reaction from internal team has been positive

• Project management disciplines have a major influence on the pace and culture of organization

– Architecture plan is evolving

• EMMS product plan “straw man” is a great first step

• Commercial product plan being formed in conjunction with the business

• Continuous processes, touch points, transparency, cost, and access are key drivers

– Top priorities

• Production Processes, Monitoring, Procedures

• Security

• Key Project Completions

• Refining/establishing product roadmaps

• Continue shaping IT Culture – customer interaction, project management, development methodologies, ERCOT IT ownership/accountability of projects, Setting the Bar