Role of Account Management at ERCOT

Role of Account Management at ERCOT

PRR 672 Collaborative Analysis

October 2, 2006

DRAFT ONLY

DRAFT ONLY2

Background of PRR672

• PRR written as a result of changes from Terms and Conditions.

• PRR requested timing changes for ERCOT processing of transactions – Comments filed with PRR 672 - A group needs to review CR and TDSP

transaction timing requirements related to Terms and Conditions project in a separate PRR.

– Group shared that ERCOT timing was first priority. TDSPs and CRs are in progress on reviewing timing changes.

• Comments filed with PRR 672 - Due to the mandatory nature of the rulemaking, TCTF would also ask that ERCOT consider and present other options that may be less expensive to implement in the event that the changes proposed in this PRR would be cost prohibitive or would not allow implementation by the dates required by the rulemaking.

DRAFT ONLY3

Background of PRR672

• PRR puts ERCOT transaction timings into four categories based on their priority in the marketplace:– Level 1 Transactions: Including transaction pairs (inbound and outbound)

relating to 814_16 priority move-ins and 814_20 creates (adds), which should be processed within 1 Retail Business Hour (any hour within a Retail Business Day as defined in Section 2 of Protocols).

– Level 2 Transactions: Including transaction pairs relating to standard move-ins, move-outs, Off cycle Drops to AREP and Off cycle switches, which should be processed within 2 Retail Business Hours.

– Level 3 Transactions: Including transaction pairs relating to historical usage transactions, and 814_20 changes, which should be processed within 4 Retail Business Hours.

– Level 4 Transactions: Including pairs relating to On-cycle Switches, On-cycle Drops, 814_26 Ad Hoc Usage Request, Establishing/Deleting CSA within 1 Retail Business Day.

DRAFT ONLY4

PRS recommendation 7/20/06

• On 07/20/06, PRS voted to recommend approval of PRR672 as submitted by the Retail Market Subcommittee (RMS). Revised language will be grey-boxed until system implementation. ERCOT will be directed to implement priority move-ins within two (2) Retail Business Hours with the TX SET 3.0 implementation. Remaining grey-boxed language will be implemented with future system functionality. ERCOT and Market Participants will have a collaborative analysis of Retail Business Processes (RBP) associated with PRR672 transaction timing changes. Results of the analysis will be presented to RMS no later than the November 2006 RMS meeting.

• Rank and priority: – Two (2) Retail Business Hours processing and sorting of priority move-in

to be included with TX SET 3.0.– All other changes for PRR672 will be included in Project 60008_01

(priority 1.1; rank 10) • The motion passed with one (1) abstention from the Municipal segment.

All Market Segments were present for the vote.

DRAFT ONLY5

TAC recommendation to BOD 8/3/06

• On 08/03/06, TAC voted to recommend approval of PRR672 with

Phase 2 and Phase 3 language to be grey-boxed and assigned a

high priority to Phase 1.

• Priorities for Phase 2 and Phase 3 will be considered after

system and impact analyses have been completed and issues

have been further vetted.

• TAC will present Phase 1 and its associated costs to the ERCOT

Board for approval at this time.

• Phase 2 and Phase 3 costs will be further defined upon

completion of analysis.

• The motion passed with two oppositions from the Consumer

segment. All Market Segments were present for the vote.

DRAFT ONLY6

BOD action 8/15/06

• The Board voted unanimously to approve PRR672 as

recommended by TAC.

DRAFT ONLY7

Approach / Findings from Analysis

• ERCOT brought an approach to the MP attending the meeting at 8/3 – asked for any other suggestions on how to work through this.

– Looked CR sends requests to ERCOT (3) when ERCOT sends requests to TDSPs (4) when TDSP executes request

– Drafted business questions to ask each MP and ERCOT to bring back stats for two, 1-week periods (to keep data manageable).

– Started with Move Ins – the questions were date requested vs. scheduled, date requested vs. actual, volumes of safety net and batch schedules.

– Second round of analysis on additional business processes, the team added questions on receipt/time of day, average time to process and what time of day did transactions go out.

DRAFT ONLY8

Findings from Analysis – Level 1 transactions

• Population we looked at for Move Ins

CountPercent of Total

Total Requesting Same Day 12,240 10.3%Total Requesting Next Day 7,161 6.0%Total Requesting 2+ days out 99,831 83.7%Total Transactions 119,232

* Based upon requested date, not priority code in transaction.

% of the Move In Transactions Requesting Same Day & Next Day

DRAFT ONLY9


• Priority Move-Ins

– CRs not using priority codes consistently– Move-in transactions fairly evenly distributed throughout the day

Number of priority transactions calculated using same or next day as received 19,401

Number with Priority coded in transaction (greater than 01) 4,381

Coded as Standard but should have been Priority 5,281

Number submitted with no or incorrect code code 15,020

Calculated Number of Priority move ins (based upon rquested date) that did not use the priority code

DRAFT ONLY10


Same Day Move In Transactions by Hour Submitted

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Hour Submitted (Military Hour)

Number Move Ins

Next Day Move In by Hour Submitted

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Hour Submitted (Military Time)

Nu

mb

er

of

Tra

ns

ac

tio

ns

NumberMove Ins

DRAFT ONLY11


Not

out

by

5

P.M

.

Hour Submitted Same Day Next Day Two Day Standard Back Dated Grand Total Grand Total Difference

% Did not Get Out

12 a.m. 0 12 6 25 105 2 150 150 - 1 a.m. 1 8 15 107 130 130 - 2 a.m. 2 7 23 129 159 159 - 3 a.m. 3 1 22 79 102 102 - 4 a.m. 4 3 20 77 100 100 - 5 a.m. 5 22 78 100 100 - 6 a.m. 6 486 82 87 134 19 808 808 - 7 a.m. 7 1,921 556 318 2,177 48 5,020 5,020 - 8 a.m. 8 656 1,629 1,026 3,131 52 6,494 6,494 - 9 a.m. 9 502 215 961 3,146 92 4,916 4,916 - 10 a.m. 10 1,562 264 1,193 4,014 239 7,272 7,271 1 0% 11 a.m. 11 483 279 1,102 5,192 83 7,139 7,138 1 0% 12 p.m. 12 643 491 1,938 7,815 113 11,000 10,490 510 5% 1 p.m. 13 938 357 2,486 7,715 137 11,633 9,497 2,136 18% 2 p.m. 14 1,449 692 1,078 5,546 133 8,898 3,659 5,239 59% 3 p.m. 15 989 523 1,093 5,237 334 8,176 566 7,610 93% 4 p.m. 16 1,198 1,076 1,144 6,490 373 10,281 440 9,841 96% 5 p.m. 17 593 673 1,019 6,187 186 8,658 6 p.m. 18 363 153 3,477 8,594 806 13,393 7 p.m. 19 198 65 860 2,729 371 4,223 8 p.m. 20 127 50 318 3,698 8 4,201 9 p.m. 21 60 22 857 4,025 8 4,972 10 p.m. 22 29 15 108 979 7 1,138 11 p.m. 23 12 13 22 222 269

Grand Total 12,240 7,161 19,214 77,606 3,011 119,232 57,040 25,338

Priority Value

All Transactions In Out

by

5 P

.M.

DRAFT ONLY12


• Priority Move-Ins

– Times are ERCOT received times

– TDSP needs to receive by 5pm or the order is considered received the next business day.

– CRs may need to review their batch times

– CRs may need to review their call center scripts to ensure that customer expectations are set appropriately

Not

Out

by

5 P.

M.

Grand Total Difference% Did not Get Out

10 a.m. 7,271 1 0% 11 a.m. 7,138 1 0% 12 p.m. 10,490 510 5% 1 p.m. 9,497 2,136 18% 2 p.m. 3,659 5,239 59% 3 p.m. 566 7,610 93% 4 p.m. 440 9,841 96%

Out

by

5 P.

M.

DRAFT ONLY13

Collaborative Analysis – Level 1 Recap

• Level 1 Transactions: Including transaction pairs (inbound and outbound) relating to 814_16 priority move-ins and 814_20 creates (adds), which should be processed within 1 Retail Business Hour (any hour within a Retail Business Day as defined in Section 2 of Protocols).

• Findings by ERCOT and MPs brought back to 8/31/06 and 10/2/06 working meetings:

– Findings support the PRR changes for timing for the following:• Priority Move-Ins

– Approach - Two (2) Retail Business Hours processing and sorting of priority move-in to be included with TX SET 3.0.

– Approach – additional system changes (going from 2hr to 1hr) to be managed in PR60008 – Market decision to re-rank

– MP raised concerns on transaction timing for 814_20s – want the 4 hr turn for timing as approved by the BOD.

– Findings support alternative to changing transaction timing for the following:• 814_20 Adds

– Approach – changing transaction flow process for 814_20s see subsequent slides

DRAFT ONLY14


• Population we looked at for Standard Move Ins & Off-Cycle Switches

With Special Switch Date

First Available

Switch DateTotal

Switches

June 4 - June 10 1,162 11,577 12,739 July 30 - Aug 6 1,321 20,024 21,345

2,483 31,601 34,084

Switches

Standard Move In Submitted Between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Hour Submitted

Nu

mb

er

of

Mo

ve

In

StandardMove Ins

DRAFT ONLY15


• Population we looked at for Move Outs

Priority Value CountPercent of

Total

Submitted 3 or More Days Ahead 32,911 71%Submitted 2 Days Ahead 6,674 14%Submitted for Next Day 1,407 3%Submitted for Same Day 4,684 10%Backdated 1 Day 440 1%Backdated 2 or More Days 246

Total Move Out Transactions 46,362

DRAFT ONLY16


• Standard Move-Ins

– Times are ERCOT received times

– Standard move ins need to be received 2 business days prior to the requested date. TDSP needs to receive by 5pm or the order is considered received the next business day.

– CRs may need to review their batch times

– CRs may need to review their call center scripts to ensure that customer expectations are set appropriately

Not

Out

by

5 P.

M.

Grand Total Difference% Did not Get Out

10 a.m. 7,271 1 0% 11 a.m. 7,138 1 0% 12 p.m. 10,490 510 5% 1 p.m. 9,497 2,136 18% 2 p.m. 3,659 5,239 59% 3 p.m. 566 7,610 93% 4 p.m. 440 9,841 96%

Out

by

5 P.

M.

DRAFT ONLY17


Switches with a Special Switch Date

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

-48

-37

-32

-29

-26

-22

-19

-16

-13

-10 -7 -4

Days submitted ahead

Nu

mb

er o

f T

ran

sact

ion

s

• With protocol FASD rules and the market behavior of sending off-cycle Switches on average 15 days prior to requested date – ERCOT does not support changing the Transaction Timing for off-cycle switches.•For the sample, ERCOT average turn around time is 1 hour 33 min

DRAFT ONLY18


•Findings on Move-outsnearly 80% are completed on date requested•These are Move Outs, Move Out to CSA – does not include force off

Move Outs need to be received 2 business days prior to the requested date. TDSP needs to receive by 5pm or the order is considered received the next business day.

Days From Wanted Count

Percent of Complete

Transactions-7 23 0.1%-6 6 0.0%-5 18 0.0%-4 18 0.0%-3 20 0.1%-2 43 0.1%-1 275 0.7%0 30,540 78.3%1 5,414 13.9%2 858 2.2%3 1,149 2.9%4 301 0.8%5 129 0.3%6 75 0.2%7 127 0.3%

Complete 38,996

Cancelled 7,202 16%Cancel Pending 1 Scheduled 163 Total Transactions 46,362

Completed Transactions from Date Requested

DRAFT ONLY19


Move Outs need to be received 2 business days prior to the requested date. TDSP needs to receive by 5pm or the order is considered received the next business day.

Move Out Transactions Sumbitted by Hour

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Time of Day

Num

ber o

f Tra

nsac

tions

Week 1

Week 2

DRAFT ONLY20

Collaborative Analysis – Level 2 recap

• Level 2 Transactions: Including transaction pairs relating to standard move-ins, move-outs, Off cycle Drops to AREP and Off cycle switches, which should be processed within 2 Retail Business Hours

• ERCOT continued analysis on the standard move-ins, move-outs, off-cycle drops, off-cycle switches after working meetings on 8/31/06 & 10/2/06.

• Findings brought back to 10/2 working meetings:– Findings support the PRR changes for timing for the following:

• Standard Move-ins• Move outs

– Approach – related to 814_20 approach – see subsequent slides– Approach – additional system changes (going to 2 hr) to be managed in PR60008

– Market decision to re-rank

– ERCOT does not believe that the analysis for Off-cycle Switches or Off-cycle Drop to AREP support the timing changes in PRR672 and will file another PRR to move to Level 4

– Market participants at the meeting did not agree with the need for another PRR

DRAFT ONLY21

Collaborative Analysis

• Level 3 Transactions: Including transaction pairs relating to historical usage transactions and 814_20 changes (i.e. maintains), which should be processed within 4 Retail Business Hours

• ERCOT continued analysis on 814_20 changes after the working meeting on 8/31/06.

• Findings brought back to 10/02 working meetings:– Findings support alternative to changing transaction timing for the following:

• 814_20s– Approach – changing transaction flow process for 814_20s see subsequent slides

– MP raised concerns on transaction timing for 814_20s – want the 4 hr turn for timing as approved by the BOD.

• ERCOT will continue analysis on historical usage transactions after the working meeting on 10/02/06.

DRAFT ONLY22

Collaborative Analysis

• Level 4 Transactions: Including pairs relating to On-cycle

Switches, On-cycle Drops, 814_26 Ad Hoc Usage Request,

Establishing/Deleting CSA within 1 Retail Business Day.

– Does not change current protocol timing. – No analysis requested by Market.– ERCOT will recommend adding additional transactions to this

category based upon the analysis shared with the market.

DRAFT ONLY

Role of Account Management at ERCOT

TX SET 814_20 volumes

Options - Discussion

October 4-5, 2006

DRAFT ONLY

DRAFT ONLY24

TX SET meeting / cross over into alternatives

• At TX SET meetings on 9/12/06– ERCOT and MPs identified known and potential large volumes of 814_20 and

other types transactions.– Recap of Known Types of Large Transaction Volumes

814_20s - Bulk Retires, Meter Changes, Annual Validation, Cycle changes, Address Clean-ups

– Recap of Potential Types of Large Transaction Volumes 814_20s - Profile changes, Rate Changes, Advance Metering Rulemaking, Potential of Nodal, Weather Related

Other Transactions - Opt Ins to the market, TDSP territory changes, Potential Mergers.

– TX SET determined that we needed to look at near-term options and they would continue to investigate long-term options for future TX SET releases (may include elimination of response transactions not needed in market)

– ERCOT and MPs identified options for improvements to 814_20 processing– ERCOT and MPs were to identify High, Medium and Low from an effort

perspective. Costs will not be provided by ERCOT at this time.– ERCOT’s replacement of SeeBeyond with TIBCO (RBP project) may increase

processing capabilities - ** Load/performance testing has not started (est. start early Nov 06)

DRAFT ONLY25

Transaction volumes

Volume vs Capacity - Normal Volumes

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,0006

/4

6/5

6/6

6/7

6/8

6/9

6/1

0

7/3

0

7/3

1

8/1

8/2

8/3

8/4

8/5

Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa

Date

Vo

lum

e All 814s Inbound Only

814s w/o 814_ 20s/814_21s

Capacity

DRAFT ONLY26

Transaction volumes

Clarify this slideInbounds only

Volume vs Capacity - Annual Validation

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,0009

/3

9/4

9/5

9/6

9/7

9/8

9/9

9/1

0

9/1

1

9/1

2

9/1

3

9/1

4

9/1

5

9/1

6

Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa

Date

Vo

lum

e All 814s Inbound Only

814s w/o 814_ 20s/814_21s

Capacity

DRAFT ONLY27

High volume options

Option ERCOT

Effort

TDSP

Effort

Notes / Recommendations

A. Manage

transactions, MPs

bundle or break

apart into the 50K

volumes.

Rank - 5

Low 2-High,

1-Low

Note from 1 TDSP – low is relative to

814_20s only, if other transactions – it

would change to High

*risk to CRs (ERCOT processes adds

separate from maintains/retires – if a

retire was received by ERCOT in front

of maintains – it could cause a delay

CRs receiving maintains later after the

processing of retires)

B. ERCOT create a

parking lot for

large

volumes/throttle.

Rank - 4

Med N/A Med effort from ERCOT to automate

throttling capabilities based upon type

(add, maintain, retire)

•Risk – if backlog could cause lower

priority transactions to be delayed for

extended period of time.

DRAFT ONLY28

High volume options

Option ERCOT

Effort

TDSP

Effort

Notes / Recommendations

C. Add CR DUNS to the

814_20 to allow for

immediate forwarding

(like the 867_03)

Rank - 5

High Low High effort from ERCOT to change

the validation process.

•New 814_20 segments (adding the

CR to receive the information) for a

future TX SET release (long term

solution). Change the flow of

814_21s to go back to TDSP when

received from CR.

•Risk – multiple rejects (from both

CR and ERCOT for any validation

done after the forwarding)

•Risk – out of synch conditions if

CR accepts change and ERCOT

rejects.

DRAFT ONLY29

High volume options

Option ERCOT

Effort

TDSP

Effort

Notes / Recommendation

D. TDSP to automate

systems to break

814_20s outbound

files into 50K

bundles

Rank - 5

Low 2-High,

1-Low

*risk to CRs of putting maintains

after retires, risk to CRs to receive

large volumes – note from 1 TDSP –

low is relative to 814_20s only, if

other transactions – it would change

to High

*risk of still needing coordination

with ERCOT limit of 1 50K file per

day

DRAFT ONLY30

High volume options

Option ERCOT

Effort

TDSP

Effort


E. The prioritization of

814_20s from #2

plus building a

separate pipe for

814_20 flow

Rank - 1

Med N/A •With RBP, effort went from High to

Med to split 814_20s into own pipe

(addition could prioritize based upon

type – add, maintain (can we break out

further by type?) and retire)

•Risk – backlog could cause lower

priority transactions to be delayed for

extended period of time.

•Pipe would need to be large enough

to not cause backlog.

•Could impact CRs with the greater

volumes.

DRAFT ONLY31

High volume options

Option ERCOT

Effort

TDSP

Effort


F. ERCOT to increase

capacity of current

processing

architecture for 814s

Rank - 2

High N/A High effort due to architecture

change.

Could impact CRs with the greater

volumes.

* ERCOT To Do – get clarification

about the 2 pipelines vs. 1

pipeline to distinguish option #6

from option #5

DRAFT ONLY32

High volume options

Option ERCOT

Effort

TDSP

Effort


G. High Volume

Transaction Lane

Rank - 3

High N/A * ERCOT To Do – get Clarification

– if create a 2nd pipe for 814_20s

could it be reused for other

transaction types.

H. Processing of a .csv

file instead of TX SET

transactions

Rank - 5

High Low High effort due to program

systems to receive .csv files

DRAFT ONLY33

What’s next for TX SET?

• TX SET meeting– Need input from MPs on the options and their estimated effort.

Done during meeting – Need input from TX SET on the options/recommendations to get a

priority of which to investigate first. Done during meeting.– ERCOT to get additional information from development teams to

the clarifying questions. Will bring back to 10/25 meeting.– ERCOT to come to next TX SET meeting with more details

around the recommendations selected. Will bring back to 10/25 meeting.

DRAFT ONLY34

What’s next for TX SET?

814_20 processing - Until near-term recommendations are implemented – ERCOT encourages TDSPs to continue to communicate to ERCOT any large volumes of 814_20s to be managed through current market processes (bundles and manual intervention by ERCOT and TDSPs).

• Long Term analysis continues at TX SET– 814_04s – is there a flag for distinguishing priority vs. standard

move-ins? Not currently.

DRAFT ONLY35

Collaborative Analysis Recommendations

Recommendations:

1. TX SET 3.0 – priority Move ins w/in 2 hours – in progress

2. Ask ERCOT to move forward with near-term recommendations for 814_20 processing changes to be implemented prior to PR60008.

Need to indicate which option/recommendation we are moving forward with – will have this after feedback at 10/25 TX SET meeting.

3. Re-rank and initiate project PR60008 (remainder of grey box)– Intent of PR60008 is to implement remainder of grey box changes to

address timing of transactions – Intent of PR60008 also to include changes from a PRR that ERCOT will

draft for prioritization of all transactions (as set by analysis from this group) and recommend moving off-cycle switches and drops to AREP to level 4 transactions (not everyone participating agreed with the moving to level 4)

DRAFT ONLY36

What’s next for PRR672 analysis?

• TX SET meeting– Need input from MPs on the options and their effort (10/4-10/5 TX SET meeting)

• PRR 672– Phase 1 – already underway for TX SET 3.0– Phase 2 & 3 – Collaborative Analysis / Future system release (PR60008 – Terms & Conditions)

• This report back to RMS at Nov 06 Meeting• RMS to report to TAC in Dec 06• TAC to report to BOD in Jan 07• Near term – ERCOT to begin work on near term recommendations if approved by

RMS/TAC/BOD – will report to RMS by Jan/Feb 07 the implementation dates– Near term – list these out from the 814_20 recommendations

• Long term – Market make decision to reprioritize PR60008 for 2007 Project list

• 814_20 processing - Until near-term recommendations are implemented – ERCOT encourages TDSPs to continue to communicate to ERCOT any large volumes of 814_20s to be managed through current market processes (bundles and manual intervention by ERCOT and TDSPs).

• Market may file PRR on CR / TDSP timing changes that are needed• ERCOT may file PRR on adding off-cycle switch/drop to Level 4 transactions• Long Term analysis continues at TX SET

– 814_04s – is there a flag for distinguishing priority vs. standard move-ins? Not currently.– ERCOT to look sorting 814_04 based upon move-ins and switches under PR60008

• This concludes the Collaboration effort for PRR672. Thank you for your support.

Documents

Role of Account Management at ERCOT