pwg update report by ernie podraza of reliant energy ercot pwg chair for rms meeting

November 13, 20031

Profiling Working GroupProfiling Working Group

PWG Update Report

By

Ernie Podrazaof Reliant Energy

ERCOT PWG Chair

for

RMS Meeting

November 13, 2003

November 13, 20032


1) PRR/LPGRR draft for new profile being lagged dynamic.

2) PRR Draft on IDR Optional Removal Threshold.

3) Permissible effective dates in profile change requests.

4) Annual Profile Type and Weather Zone Validation.

5) Update Reports:

a) Protocols Section 18.6.5, Future IDRs Impact Analysis.

b) ERCOT Load Research – PR30014 Project Timeline.

c) Default Profiles

i. PRR471 for NIDR to IDR Default Profile.

ii. NIDR default settlement process improvements.

d) PRR469 for Protocols Section 18 to PRS.

e) New TOU Schedule Process.

f) Oil and gas properties profile change request.

g) Gas/Convenience 24 hr Stores profile change request.

h) Direct Load Control (DLC) Project Status.

i) IDR Requirement Report.

j) Retail Point to Point Transaction PWG Example: Profile Ids

k) Next PWG Meetings 11/5, 11/19 and 12/4.

November 13, 20033


PRR for Use of Lagged Dynamic Samples for New Load Profiles

VOTING ITEM

Motion to approve the PRR draft made by the PWG entitled, “Use of Lagged Dynamic Samples for New Load Profiles” as submitted to the RMS exploder on 10/29/03 in file named, “PRR_new profile lagged dynamic_PWG093003.doc”.

LPGRR for Update of LPG Section 12

VOTING ITEM

Motion to approve the LPGRR draft made by the PWG entitled, “Update of LPG Section 12” as submitted to the RMS exploder on 10/30/03 in file named, “LPGRR2003_004_Section_12.doc”.

November 13, 20034


PRR Draft on IDR Optional Removal Threshold1. RMS requested PWG review Sara Ferris’s IDR Removal draft PRR on 9/26/2003.

2. PWG on 10/01 wrote a new draft.

3. PWG reviewed the threshold value amount and discussed the PRR language on 10/22.

4. PWG Chair sent a status report to the RMS exploder on 10/27.

5. PWG met on 11/05 to prepare a recommendation for RMS.

6. PWG shall submit final recommended PRR to RMS on 11/13 with voting motions where the PWG is divided.

November 13, 20035


PRR Draft on IDR Optional Removal Threshold

8 Major Issues:

1. PRR language is not needed because the underlying issue is the tariff charges?

2. How do we define “new customer”?

• Project 27084

• 25.471 definitions

• Move-in: A request for service to a premise where the customer of record changes.

• Texas Register: Oct. 31 issues proposed rules.

3. Is it acceptable for a customer, or a CR upon a customer’s request to have the meter changed?

4. Changing the request period from 90 days to 120 days?

5. Accepting the proposed 10/16 PRR language by the PWG Chair?

6. Should there be two thresholds and if two what is the smaller value?

7. Should move-ins and existing customers be treated in the same PRR?

8. Do we have one PRR or two PRRs?

Note: PWG did reconcile the items in Green.

November 13, 20036



PWG Proposed Language Prior to RMS meeting 11/13

18.6.7 IDR Optional Removal Threshold: A customer, or a CR upon a customer’s request, may in accordance with PUCT rules and regulations, request the replacement of an IDR meter with a Non-IDR meter provided either of the following conditions is met;

a. If the Premise’s 15-minute maximum demand interval for the most recent

twelve (12) month period does not exceed ??? kW (or ??? kVa); or b. Within 120 days of a new customer’s move-in at an existing Premise,

having demonstrated with a minimum of 25 days of current meter readings that the Premise’s 15-minute maximum demand is below the threshold defined in Section 18.6.1 (1) or (a) above. If the Premise’s Non-IDR maximum monthly demand during the next 12 months for the same tenant exceeds the minimum threshold as defined in Section 18.6.1 (1) or (a) above, then the IDR meter shall be reinstalled and the requestor may incur appropriate charges.

ERCOT Staff shall monitor that this protocol is in compliance.

November 13, 20037


PRR Draft on IDR Optional Removal ThresholdTDSP Tariff Charges :

Range of Possible Savings to Customer

-$14.00 to $1,680Estimates based on 100 kW Secondary Service

NCP and 4CP assumptions

by Paul Wattles (Good Company Associates) and Malcolm Smith (Energy Data Source)

Dollar calculations by Barb Penkala (Reliant Energy)

Estimates are not approved by the PWG

Low LF Med LF High LFOncor $178.20 $555.10 $490.46CenterPoint $1,326.93 $1,679.37 $1,618.92TCC (CPL) $323.98 $670.61 $611.15TNC (WTU) $395.29 $755.92 $694.06TNMP -$13.77 $276.71 $226.89

Total Annual Costs

November 13, 20038


Demand Level

Number of IDRS

Profile Var. Total Cost

($)

Absolute Profile Var. Total Cost

($)

Total Profile Var.

(kWh)

Absolute Profile Var. Total (kWh)

Total kWh

% Profile Var. / kWh

$/ IDR

0 - 50 209 -4,499 71,162 1.52E-09 1,349,330 4,024,135 33.5 $340

51 - 100 200 -14,653 212,622 1.21E-10 4,041,694 12,702,282 31.8 $1,063

101 - 150 231 -17,519 351,354 1.26E-08 6,149,262 21,236,087 29.0 $1,521

151 - 200 238 -276 475,425 2.85E-09 8,175,290 30,647,425 26.7 $1,998

201 - 250 237 -23,683 821,146 -2.35E-09 15,371,258 52,486,366 29.3 $3,465

251 - 300 197 -12,976 740,998 1.04E-09 13,930,370 54,399,265 25.6 $3,761

301 - 350 227 -27,078 927,656 1.46E-08 17,346,746 76,991,433 22.5 $4,087

351 - 400 214 -41,989 1,104,854 2.68E-08 20,961,975 87,615,207 23.9 $5,163

401 - 450 228 -24,771 1,152,836 4.49E-08 21,882,397 116,077,925 18.9 $5,056

451 - 500 219 -32,225 1,356,518 4.97E-08 26,168,845 125,878,729 20.8 $6,194

501 - 550 244 8,603 1,874,557 4.38E-08 36,182,259 159,437,254 22.7 $7,683

551 - 600 248 -10,234 1,982,523 6.47E-08 38,377,989 176,182,110 21.8 $7,994

601 - 650 276 45,997 2,585,715 5.98E-08 50,172,882 226,046,769 22.2 $9,369

651 - 700 250 23,254 2,327,204 8.43E-08 45,695,941 211,945,523 21.6 $9,309

701 - 750 199 10,114 1,953,756 3.06E-08 37,569,221 184,484,319 20.4 $9,818

751 - 800 172 50,036 2,064,264 6.16E-08 40,024,180 173,974,437 23.0 $12,002

801 - 850 105 70,270 1,250,541 2.76E-08 24,456,638 104,894,700 23.3 $11,910

851 - 900 63 52,115 775,865 2.17E-08 14,909,812 70,129,762 21.3 $12,315

901 - 950 30 5,243 445,363 4.76E-09 8,526,088 33,381,973 25.5 $14,845

951 - 1,000 30 2,372 315,712 7.23E-11 6,191,994 24,985,736 24.8 $10,524

Total 3,817 $58,099 $22,790,073 0 437,484,169 1,947,521,438 $5,971

IDR Removal Threshold Analysis

All IDRs 0 kW to 1,000 kW

November 13, 20039


Absolute Profile Variance Cost vs Demand Level (All IDRs)

-500,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

0 -

50

51 -

100

101

- 15

0

151

- 20

0

201

- 25

0

251

- 30

0

301

- 35

0

351

- 40

0

401

- 45

0

451

- 50

0

501

- 55

0

551

- 60

0

601

- 65

0

651

- 70

0

701

- 75

0

751

- 80

0

801

- 85

0

851

- 90

0

901

- 95

0

951

- 1,

000

Demand Level (kW)

Cos

t ($)

UFE Absolute UFE

November 13, 200310


Demand Level

Number of IDRs

Profile Var. Total Cost ($)

Absolute Profile Var. Total Cost

($)

Total Profile Var. (kWh)

Absolute Profile Var. Total (kWh)

Total No. of IDRs

Number of Winners as

% of total

Reduced Settlement

$/IDR

Additional Settlement

$/IDR

0 - 50 61 3,015 21,440 -1.02E-09 407,343 209 29.2% $49.43 -$50.77

51 - 100 54 7,758 61,407 4.98E-10 1,141,781 200 27.0% $143.67 -$153.50

101 - 150 86 19,433 130,340 5.13E-09 2,277,922 231 37.2% $225.97 -$254.84

151 - 200 97 42,575 212,110 -4.97E-09 3,579,162 238 40.8% $438.92 -$303.91

201 - 250 95 47,892 354,111 3.17E-09 6,494,089 237 40.1% $504.13 -$504.05

251 - 300 77 47,565 320,382 1.28E-08 5,900,012 197 39.1% $617.72 -$504.50

301 - 350 81 58,593 384,054 5.46E-09 7,127,677 227 35.7% $723.37 -$586.79

351 - 400 76 52,852 449,161 8.37E-09 8,497,516 214 35.5% $695.42 -$687.25

401 - 450 79 71,797 473,118 1.72E-08 8,809,204 228 34.6% $908.82 -$648.11

451 - 500 89 77,953 666,424 1.60E-08 12,935,353 219 40.6% $875.87 -$847.52

501 - 550 123 123,094 1,072,447 2.19E-08 20,716,424 244 50.4% $1,000.77 -$946.21

551 - 600 122 124,194 1,119,856 9.99E-09 21,895,616 248 49.2% $1,017.99 -$1,066.89

601 - 650 146 193,645 1,656,739 1.72E-08 32,296,807 276 52.9% $1,326.34 -$1,135.75

651 - 700 132 156,261 1,368,748 3.79E-08 27,184,881 250 52.8% $1,183.79 -$1,127.18

701 - 750 102 144,691 1,153,042 2.91E-08 22,264,862 199 51.3% $1,418.53 -$1,387.39

751 - 800 89 159,645 1,278,960 1.55E-08 24,768,144 172 51.7% $1,793.76 -$1,320.58

801 - 850 64 111,756 856,143 2.13E-08 16,768,798 105 61.0% $1,746.19 -$1,011.86

851 - 900 42 80,544 554,252 4.34E-09 10,488,945 63 66.7% $1,917.72 -$1,353.79

901 - 950 16 37,557 270,875 -1.70E-09 5,118,428 30 53.3% $2,347.32 -$2,308.17

951 - 1000 15 22,109 190,479 5.04E-09 3,682,369 30 50.0% $1,473.92 -$1,315.76

Total 1,646 1,582,928 12,594,089 0 242,355,333 3817

IDR Removal Threshold Analysis

'Winners' IDRs 0 kW to 1,000 kW

November 13, 200311



The PWG is divided:

So RMS has

4 Issue Motions

Plus one final Motion

to cover the entire PRR with final Protocols Section 18.6.7 language

November 13, 200312



PWG opinion is divided:

Some attendees believe the issue relates to inequitable treatment for IDRs in TDSP tariffs (4CP meter charges), which should not be corrected with a protocol revision.

Others believe this is not a tariff issue and protocol changes are appropriate and required.

Motion 1: No PRR should be issued?

November 13, 200313


PRR Draft on IDR Optional Removal ThresholdPWG opinion is divided:

Some attendees believe that having two PRRs discriminate against the group of customers whose load is existing below the present IDR installation threshold.

Others prefer the one move-in case but can support both cases.

Motion 2: Should there be only one PRR for the move-in case? 18.6.7 IDR Optional Removal Threshold:

A customer, or a CR upon a customer’s request, may in accordance with PUCT rules and regulations, request the replacement of an IDR meter with a Non-IDR meter provided either of the following conditions is met;





November 13, 200314



Some support one threshold as defined in Protocols Section 18.6.1 (1).

Others support two thresholds where Optional Removal Threshold (??? Kw) is different (lower) than the installation threshold established in Protocols Section 18.6.1 (1).

Some think there should be one Optional Removal Threshold threshold (??? KW) as expressed in PWG version on 10/1.

Motion 3: Should paragraph b.refer to Protocols Section 18.6.1(1)?






November 13, 200315



Most attendees at the 11/5 PWG meeting support that ??? kW is 200 kW.

OPUC supports a single 1000 kW threshold.

AEP can support either value.

Motion 4: Should ??? kW equal 200 kW? 18.6.7 IDR Optional Removal Threshold:

A customer, or a CR upon a customer’s request, may in accordance with PUCT rules and regulations, request the replacement of an IDR meter with a Non-IDR meter provided either of the following conditions is met;


twelve (12) month period does not exceed 200??? kW (or 200??? kVa); or b. Within 120 days of a new customer’s move-in at an existing Premise,



November 13, 200316



Possible PRR RMS Approved Language



twelve (12) month period does not exceed 200??? kW (or 200??? kVa); or b. Within 120 days of a new customer’s move-in at an existing Premise,



November 13, 200317



Motion: To accept the PRR draft by the PWG on IDR Optional Removal Threshold as submitted to RMS on Nov. 7, 2003, contained in file name, “PRR_IDR_Removal_20031105E.doc” and amended by RMS per the language changes on the prior slide during the Nov. 13, 2003 RMS meeting.

November 13, 200318


Permissible effective dates in profile change requests1. RMS requested on 9/26/2003 PWG to review and report back to RMS on 11/13.

2. PWG Chair is working with RRI staff to define the issue to present to PWG.

1. When the ZIP Code changes, back charges for taxes may incur.

RMS Vice Chair Comments:

November 13, 200319


Annual Profile Type and Weather Zone Validation.DUE

DATE TASKRESPONSIBLE

PARTYACTUAL

DATE STATUS

6/30/03Preliminary Profile ID changes due to ERCOT

TDSP 8/5/2003Last file received from Centerpoint 8/5all others TDSPs met due date

7/15/03

List available to CRs of record

ERCOT 8/6/2003 Partial list available 7/15Complete list available 8/6ERCOT has received and completed 13 request from different CRs

8/1/03

List of discrepancies to TDSP

ERCOT complete AEP, TNMP sent 7/29 Centerpoint Res 8/6 Bus 8/15 Oncor - Res 8/11 Bus 8/14

8/21/03Reconciliation complete

TDSP/ERCOT AEP, TNMP, ONCOR - COMPLETECNP Res and Bus incomplete

9/1/03 Final list of Profile ID changes available to CR of record

ERCOT partial list available 9/4Centerpoint is not complete

10/1/03814_20s sent by meter read

TDSP

11/10/03EDI transactions complete

TDSP/ERCOT

11/12/03Final Sample Validation

ERCOT

Validation Complete - 99% accuracy achieved

TDSP/ERCOT

November 13, 200320


Annual Profile Type and Weather Zone Validation.

1. CNP expressed to the PWG Chair concern for the manpower needed for annual validation of profile ID assignments and concern for residential migration based on winter ratio of 1.5. Chair shall propose that the PWG reexamine the annual validation and profile id assignment process.

2. RMS to add to week market call meeting per RMS meeting 9/26/03.

3. PWG has discussed feasibility of ERCOT coding the Profile ID instead of TDSPs.

4. CNP Residential algorithm is complete. Business algorithm is being checked with target date of 11/11 completion.

5. Major Causes of Migration of Profile ID Assignments.

a) Use of a new usage month methodology.

b) Significant portion of BusNoDem moving to a BusxxxLF profile.

c) 1.5 winter ratio factor may need a dead band and/or reevaluation.

November 13, 200321


Schedule of expected 814_20s to be sent to ERCOTDate AEP_N AEP_C TNMP ONCOR CNP10/10/2003 1020010/11/2003 11000010/17/2003 1840010/18/2003 18000010/24/2003 1373410/25/200310/29/2003 4000010/30/2003 4000010/31/2003 12500 4000011/1/2003 4000011/2/2003 4000011/3/2003 4000011/6/200311/7/2003 61065 218281 980011/8/2003 5000011/9/2003 50000

11/10/2003 5000011/11/2003 5000011/12/2003 1500011/13/200311/14/2003 5000011/15/2003 5000011/16/2003 5000011/17/200311/18/200311/19/2003 5000011/20/2003 5000011/21/2003 5000011/22/2003 5000011/23/2003 5000011/24/200311/25/200311/26/2003 5000011/27/2003 5000011/28/2003 5000011/29/2003 50000

ttl expected 61065 218281 64634 745000 600000

ttl expected 1,688,980

AEP_N AEP_C TNMP ONCOR CNP

Actual SENT per TDSPAEP_N AEP_C TNMP ONCOR CNP

040547

18411220000

13712

4000012497 40000

240220

AEP_N AEP_C TNMP ONCOR CNP Total 4-Nov-0361,065 218,281 64,634 745,000 600,000 1,688,980 To Send

0 0 44,620 580,767 0 625,387 Sent0.0% 0.0% 69.0% 78.0% 0.0% 37.0% % Sent

November 13, 200322


Update Reportsa) Protocols Section 18.6.5, Future IDRs Impact Analysis.

b) ERCOT Load Research – PR30014 Project Timeline.

c) Default Profiles

i. PRR471 for NIDR to IDR Default Profile.

ii. NIDR default settlement process improvements.

d) PRR469 for Protocols Section 18 to PRS.

e) New TOU Schedule Process.

f) Oil and gas properties profile change request.

g) Gas/Convenience 24 hr Stores profile change request.

h) Direct Load Control (DLC) Project Status.

i) IDR Requirement Report.

j) Retail Point to Point Transaction PWG Example: Profile Ids

k) Next PWG Meetings 11/19, 12/4, and 1/07.

November 13, 200323


Protocols Section 18.6.5, Future IDRs Impact Analysis.1. Per 8/19/03 PWG meeting discussions began on compliance to Section 18.6.5.

2. 18.6.5 Future Requirements for IDRs

ERCOT and the appropriate ERCOT TAC subcommittee shall evaluate the impact of the IDR Requirement as defined in this Section for possible revision prior to the introduction of competitive metering services to the market on January 1, 2004.

3. ERCOT staff is working on comparing current IDR premises below 1000 KW verses if the premise had been on a NIDR profile as the basis of the impact study.

4. At 10/22 and 11/05 PWG meetings, part of the impact report was be presented comparing current IDRs below 1000 kW to if they had been NIDR. Remaining analysis is on schedule.

November 13, 200324


ERCOT Load Research – PR30014 Project Updated TimelineOctober -- November

10/16/03Present timeline to RMS (complete)

10/08/03Administer TDSP survey(complete)

December 2003

January-May 2004

10/23/03Meeting #1 with TDSPs (complete)

11/14/03Administer CR survey

11/06/03Meeting #2 with TDSPs (Complete)

11/17/03TDSP IDR format agreement.

11/20/03Target for Design and select TDSP samples

12/10/03TDSPs starts ordering IDRs

02/1/04—2/15/2004Market test validation for IDR files – TDSP and CR

01/12/04Install Load Research Software

04/01/04Sample IDR data posted for CRs

Target IDR Installation Complete6 months after finalized sample set

12/05/03Meeting with CRs & TDSP- CR survey results

12/1/03TDSP validate samples and send installation schedule

12/1/03-12/12/2003TDSP test/verify IDR transport

01/19/04Install SAS

11/21/03TDSP testing Schedule

02/28/04Start receiving sample IDR data from TDSPs

12/5/03Target for finalized sample selection

12/19/03Finalized TDSP IDR installation schedule

12/4/03PWG meeting

November 13, 200325


ERCOT Load Research – PR30014 Project Updated Timeline

Timeline Notes•Target Design and select TDSP samples date (currently 11/20/2003) might slip due to sample design creation issues.

•Time period from initial TDSP design sample to finalized sample selection will be used to review sample selection data, review viability for IDRs in the field, and iterations between ERCOT and TDSPs on sample selection.

•Each TDSP will provide an installation schedule for IDR meters (12/19/2003), and each TDSP will be tracked individually.

•Target IDR installation complete date might slip due to TDSP installation dependencies and finalized sample design.

November 13, 200326


Default Profiles Three Types

IDR, NIDR and NIDR moving to IDR1. PWG reviewed 7/30/03.

2. Requested ERCOT staff examine PWG suggestions if a new module can be added to the settlement software to allow ways of scaling the default profiles when both the IDR data is missing and/or a NIDR premise changes to IDR.

3. PWG and ERCOT staff to further discuss at the 8/19 PWG meeting.

4. PRR471 gained consensus approved at 9/11/03 PWG meeting on NIDR to IDRNIDR to IDR scaling.

5. PRR352 for IDR IDR proxy day routine change for 8 weeks to 12 month is Completed. Effective on trade day Oct. 6, 2003.

6.6. NIDR NIDR default profile settlement routine was discussed at the 9/30 and 10/22 PWG meetings. ERCOT to review possible options with the current software.

November 13, 200327


PRR471 for NIDR to IDR Default Profile1. RMS approved 9/26/2003.

2. PRS issued to market 10/09/2003 requesting a vote on urgency, comments due 10/22.

3. PRS to review 10/23.

November 13, 200328


PRR469 for Protocols Section 18 to PRS.1. On 9/15/03 the PWG submitted a draft PRR entitled, “Compliance for Competitive Metering and 25516

Rulings to Load Profiling” to update Protocols Section 18 per the PUCT Rulings on Project 25516 Load Research and Load Profiling and Project 26359 on Competitive Metering.

2. RMS Chair approved the PWG going directly to PRS to assist in the timeline for the PRR approval by year end before competitive metering becomes effective on 1/1/04.

3. PRS comments due 10/17.

4. PRS to review 10/23.

5. Additional PRR is drafted by PRS for PWG review to ensure where the use of REP, CR and LSE is appropriate.

6. PRS Remanded the PRR to PWG for review of changes to language. At the 11/05 PWG meeting the PWG approved the PRS suggested changes.

• Reference to the Load Profiling Guides removed.

• Examples of Load Profile Types removed.

• Specific URL and Substantive Rules references removed.

November 13, 200329


New TOU Schedule Process• PWG reviewed a first draft of a document to assist in how a CR would

go about requesting and getting approval of a new TOU Schedule.

November 13, 200330


Oil and gas properties profile change request 1. Submitted to ERCOT 3/6/03 by Pioneer Natural Resources, Priority Power Management, and Energy Data Source .

2. ERCOT to post to WEB.

3. Argument is that the aggregate profile is a very high load factor profile, close to flat.

4. ERCOT is to evaluate and submit recommendation to PWG.

5. May test the new PUCT Rule 25516 for reimbursement.

6. ERCOT shall post the methodology request to the Market Information System (MIS) and respond to the request within sixty (60) days of the posted date of the request. This period does not include the time to analyze and render the complete assessment of the request.

7. “ERCOT withholds a decision on making a recommendation on whether to adopt or to deny adoption of the suggested profile change; instead ERCOT finds the request, as submitted, is incomplete and deficient. The requestors are invited to address the incompleteness and deficiencies listed below and re-submit the request for further review.”

8. Per 6/19 PWG meeting, a straw-man in development for changes to the profile change request process and to allow lagged dynamic samples. PRR drafts to be reviewed at the 9/30 and 10/1 PWG meetings.

9. ERCOT staff has submitted a load research sample design to the requestor for approval .

10. PWG submits to RMS on 11/13, PRR and LPGRR for added validation of profile change requests and lagged dynamic samples (slide 3).

11. Requestor has concerns there are little CR interest in the profile.

November 13, 200331


Gas/Convenience 24 hr Stores Profile Change Request

1. Submitted to ERCOT by Coral Energy.

2. ERCOT staff is discussing a load research sample design with the requestor.

November 13, 200332


Direct Load Control (DLC) Project Status1. PRR 385 Section 18 is complete with Board Approval 5/20/03.

2. LPGRR2003-001 is attached to PRR385, approved by TAC 7/02, reviewed by Board, and the LPG is updated).

3. ERCOT Schedule is pending, Project Manager assigned.

4. ERCOT and some Market Participants question priority going forward.

5. Memo, on Project 26359 on Competitive Metering, May 8, 2003, by Commissioner Perlman suggests that wires companies need to develop a rate structure that provides strong incentives for demand responsiveness by charging different rates during high load periods.

6. PRR388 and PRR400 does not completely cover DLC issues.

7. PRR Section 6 Language for DLC is being written for a PRR.

November 13, 200333


IDR Requirement Report1. 07/03/03, ERCOT issues IDR_threshold_analysis_20030627.xls.

2. July 30, 2003, ERCOT issues a Market Notification for IDR Requirement File on Portal.

3. PWG discussed on 7/30/03. Background:

a) The report was issued in the spring of 2002 and manually sent to MP contacts.

b) The report was again issued in the spring of 2003 and manually sent to MP contacts.

c) The report was automated on monthly basis on 5/2, 6/2, and 7/2/03.

As of 6-27-03

Total Overdue1 Newly Reported Total AEP_Central 4 2 2 4AEP_North 0 0 3 3Centerpoint 9 29 16 45Oncor 116 89 30 119TNMP 6 4 2 6

135 124 53 177

*** Sharyland TDSP numbers are excluded from this to prevent possible identif ication of individual premises.

IDR Requirement Report Summary

1 As defined in Load Profiling Guides Section 17.2 -- Any ESIID listed in the IDR Requirement report w hich has not had an IDR meter installed w ithin 120 days.

As of 9-6-03

November 13, 200334


Retail Point to Point PWG Example1. Direct Market Participant Transactions (DMPT) suggested name from

PRS instead of point to point.

2. Protocols Section 1.1 may need to give permission for Protocols to hold these DMPTs.

3. Protocols Section 9 deals with settlement disputes instead of other disputes.

4. New section of Protocols has been suggested for the DMPTs.

5. The PWG is discussing if FasTrak is the forum to dispute a profile id assignment, or direct filing to TDSPs with or without a standard format.

6. PWG example has been submitted to RMS.

pwg update report by ernie podraza of reliant energy ercot pwg chair for rms meeting

Documents