1

Update from ERCOT Retail

Market Services

to RMS

April 23, 2003

2

Retail Market Update

Topics

– GISB 1.4

– Market Participant Testing

– Texas Set 1.5 Update

– Move-In/Move-Out Task Force

– ERCOT Data Transparency

– Fastrak Submittals

– Market Synchronization

– Inadvertent Switches

3

Market Participant Testing Flight Test V1.5 Overview

RMS 04/23/03

4

Congratulations!

Flight Test V1.5 Overview

5

• Fourteen (14) new Competitive Retailers tested their systems to enter the retail market

• A total of 43 Competitive Retailer systems were tested

• Seven (7) TDSP supported flight testing and tested their systems

• Approximately 23,000 transactions were passed between trading partners during the execution of the scripts required for testing V1.5

• Approximately 177 trading partner relations were tested during the execution of the scripts required for testing V1.5

Flight V1.5 – Interesting Facts

6

• Testing started on schedule on 2/24/03 and the scheduled

timeline of testing was a total of 7 frames (weeks)

• The majority of the market concluded their testing work

during Frame 6 with the new trading relationships ending

in Frame 7 on schedule.

• The first two (2) Muni/Coop TDSP territories tested their

systems in preparation for opening their territories for

retail competition

Flight V1.5 – Interesting Facts

7

“This process, although challenging at times, was another example of all market participants coming together to help promote retail competition in Texas."

Flight V1.5 – News Release Clip

8

Flight 3801 – TX SET Version 1.3Transactions = 6940Expected end date - 9/5/01Actual end date - 9/21/01 

Flight 1001 – TX SET Version1.4Transactions = 12350Expected end date - 11/23/01Actual end date - 12/03/01 

Flight V1.5 – TX SET Version 1.5Transactions ~ 23000Expected end date - 4/7/03Actual end date - 4/7/03Migration date - 4/11/03

Flight V1.5 Comparison to Past Flights

9

Flight V1.5 – Lessons Learned

• TTPT will be discussing in detail at meeting on 4/24 and will host a market workshop.

• Categories– Checklist Setups– Communication / Expectations– Education of market rules– Portal– Scripts– System Date– Test Bed Setup– Transactions for Future Frames– Testing Signoff Worksheet / Technical Connectivity

Worksheet

10

Flight V1.5 - Questions?

11

Texas Set V.1.5

Presented by David Odle

12

The Texas Retail Market is now running in TX SET V1.5 !!!

• Market Migrated to production ON TIME the weekend of 4/11. • First week has not presented any significant issues.

What could we do better next time (at a glance)

• Everything. • The highest impact area that should be improved upon is requirements understanding.

13

Next Steps

• The V1.5 Coordination Team will meet on May 27th for a Lessons Learned session. That meeting will conclude all meetings for V1.5 and will officially end the V1.5 Coordination Team.

Mission: Accomplished

14

Move-In/Move-Out Task Force

15

MIMO Solution to Stacking

Schedule• 3/26/03 High-level Requirements Specifications Finalized

• 3/28/03 Requirements distributed to market for comment

• 4/17/03 End of comment period

• 4/22/03 Joint meeting between MIMO and Tx SET

• 4/24-25/03 MIMO team comment review

• 5/7/03 Market Educational Seminar

• 5/15/03 RMS vote on High Level Requirements

• 5/20-21/03 MIMO team begin work on PRR

16

ERCOT Data Transparency

17

ERCOT Data Transparency

• ETS / TX Set 1.5 (PR# 2006040)(PR# 2006040)– Successfully implemented on April 12, 2003 in conjunction with

the TX Set 1.5 project

• Performance Measures (PR# 20124)(PR# 20124)– Design Documentation completed April 8, 2003– Code migration to production scheduled May 6, 2003– All transactions will be re-summarized from January 1, 2003– Official report generated May 9, 2003 for internal review– Filing package preparation and delivery to PUC by May 15, 2003

18

ERCOT Data Transparency

• ERCOT Data Transparency (PR# 30054)(PR# 30054)

– An evaluation process is currently in place and is tasked with determining the current status of ERCOT Market Deliverables which include the following:

• SCR727, Siebel Extract, 997 Report, Market Participant Report, Load Report, Performance Measures Report (Market Metrics)

– Based on information and reports currently being provided, we need to determine if there are any additional requirements that must be addressed

19

ERCOT Data Transparency and Transaction Integrity Initiatives

•Texas Set v.1.5 - completed

•MI/MO Solutions (non stacking) - Q2

•MI/MO Stacking – vote May RMS

•SCR 727 Extracts - completed

•Siebel Service Order Extracts – completed

•ERCOT Portal “Find Transactions” Functionality – completed

•PUCT Market Metrics Reporting (ETS) – Q2

20

FasTracStats

21

FasTrak “Day-To-Day” Stats as of 04-23-2003

STATUSIssueCount

ESI IDCount

ESI IDs% of Total

IssueCount

ESI IDCount

ISSUES% of Total

New 22 2,932 4.03% 49 NA 7.26%

In Progress 658 2,097 2.89% 121 NA 17.93%

Resolved/Rejected 9,241 67,647 93.08% 505 NA 74.81%

Total 9,921 72,676 675 NA

ERCOT Non-ERCOT (CR to TDSP)

• Reporting encompasses issues from 03-01-2002 and ESI ID counts from 12-17-2002 (when day-to-day spreadsheet process began)

• Issues rejected by ERCOT are not included in the ESI ID count

• Issues closed by the MP before ERCOT performs analysis are not included in the ESI ID count

• FasTrak modifications underway to enhance reporting

22

FasTrak “ESI ID Extract Variance” Stats as of 04-23-2003

STATUSService History Usage

TotalIssues

Issues% of Total

Service History Usage

TotalIssues

Issues% of Total

New 0 0 0 0.00% 8 13 21 8.43%

In Progress 41 0 41 35.04% 42 97 139 55.82%

Resolved/Rejected 59 17 76 64.96% 16 73 89 35.74%

Total 100 17 117 66 183 249

ERCOT Non-ERCOT (CR to TDSP)

• Reporting encompasses 04-01-2003 to report date (no issues prior)

• Issues closed by the MP before ERCOT performs analysis are not included in the ESI ID count

• Trade Dates effected are not reportable due to inconsistencies of MPs completing FasTrak – Change to group by effected Trade Month

• FasTrak modifications underway to enhance reporting

23

ESI ID Extract Users Guide“Parking Lot” Items from 03-04-2003

• If future changes are made to the DDL adding columns/data, etc., how does this impact the historical data that MPs already have in their databases?Answer: Any migration of new elements or database structure will be accomplished via a release mechanism similar to changes to other extracts ERCOT provides the Market.

• Multiple parties could submit multiple issues for the same ESI ID to different parties. How would the market identify and reconcile? Answer: ERCOT will upload all ERCOT related issues and determine overlaps during analysis. TDSPs will need to develop a similar mechanism

• Prioritization needs to be addressed if a large volume of variances are received. Is there a reason that we would need this information (ESI ID premise type) for reporting?Answer: Decision was reached at 03-04-03 RMS to use only the effected Trade Day for prioritization. (Discuss change to Trade Month)

24

ESI ID Extract Users Guide“Parking Lot” Items from 03-04-2003

• Can we capture specific reason for closure in FasTrak, e.g., not all required data provided in spreadsheet? Answer: Issues “Rejected” by ERCOT will include comments to identify the rejection reason(s).

• How can we identify that an issue has been reviewed (issue changes from “new” to “In progress”) or if additional information has been remanded back to the submitter for additional information? Answer: Progress report updates or addition of comments now causes the Issue ID to change color to RED for the other party.

• Appropriate target for issue resolution – timing, etc.? Potential for this being integrated into the PUCT Performance Measures or Protocols? Answer: Analysis responses are expected within 7 days of submittal. Measurement of timing response and turn-around will require additional functionality and perhaps a project.

25

ESI ID Extract Users Guide“Parking Lot” Items from 03-04-2003

• After the “catch-up” period, Market Participants must submit Data Extract Variance issues at least 150 days prior to the scheduled settlement of a trade day. RMS will revisit this bullet point thirty days prior to the end of the “Catch-up” period. (Pending RMS review)

• Reporting components and responsibilities need to be better defined:− What are CR and TDSP reporting responsibilities?− Advanced reporting by ERCOT will require RMS project approval and

potential implementation of a new FasTrak like mechanism

• The Following reporting components are not available from ERCOT:– Number/% not resolved by resettlement of trade day and report by reason,

e.g., waiting on response from TDSP/CR. (ERCOT to investigate if this is available)

– Number/% of issues closed by ERCOT prior to resettlement of the trade day, but not closed by submitting party. (ERCOT to investigate if this is available)

26

SyncActivities

27

Market Sync Activity Status as of 04-23-2003

Owner OriginalQuantity

% Complete

Comments

ERCOT

CRs

AEP_Central

AEP_North

Centerpoint

Oncor

Sharyland

TNMP

*183,596

*239,713

*11,001

*2,921

*38,328

*62,086

*268

*8,649

98.38%

92.63%

67.59%

76.79%

98.15%

99.17%

4.10%

83.00%

•Total Distinct ESI IDs 435, 811

• Market cannot attain 100% completion due to some changes to ESI IDs after 08-11-02

• Priority 5 closed by RMS resolution on 02-25-2003

* Priorities 1,2 & 4 (Part 1)

28

ERCOT Internal Systems Synchronization as of 04-17-2003

Analyze, define and undertake corrective action from Siebel -

Lodestar synchronization report.

OriginalCounts

Current Counts

% Complete

Initial cut at Systematic Correction

ESI ID Existence in Siebel Only 7,157 6 99.9%Create ESI ID in Lodestar

ESI ID Existence in Lodestar Only 493 0 100.0%Create ESI ID In Siebel

Active in Siebel while De-energized in Lodestar

4,665 1 100.0%Change Lodestar to Siebel CR

Active in Lodestar while De-energized in Siebel

15,075 1 100.0%De-energize Lodestar Row

Different CR in Both 131 1 99.2%Change Lodestar to Siebel CR

Different end dates 8,737 189 97.8%Extend Lodestar Record

Lodestar missing De-energized period 51,994 17,948 65.5%Split Lodestar and create de-energized period

Start Date of relationship different between Siebel and Lodestar

80,416 17 100.0%Change Lodestar to Match Siebel

Service Instance not found in Lodestar

16,936 60 99.6% Create Lodestar Row

185,604 18,223 90.2%

29

UnauthorizedSwitch/Move-In

Clean-up

30

"Unauthorized" Move-ins and Switches (EXISTING PROCESS) Version 0.1 04-15-2003

Error CRAgrees theyare in error?

Yes

No

Error CRNotifies ERCOT

Via FasTrak

ERCOT CallsError CR

Losing CRNotifies ERCOT

via FasTrak

ERCOTarranges

conference callbetween CRs

Error CRAgrees theyare in error?

Yes

No ERCOT directsCRs to contactPUC/Customer

End

Is there timeto cancel?

Yes

No

CR SubmitsCancel

End

Has anotherinstance been

received after theeffective date of

the error?

ERCOTarranges

conference callbetween LosingCR and TDSP

Losing CR submitsMVI with effective

date of error + 1 day

TDSP usessame read fromerror - sends

final to error CR

Yes

No

ERROR CRlogs issue with

ERCOT

End

Was the ESI IDde-energized prior

to the error?

Yes

No

CR CoordinatesMVO with TDSP

?

End

Problem

Problem

Problem

No process defined

Once you have a conference call, everyone knows

Conference call logistics

a) Conference call logistics

b) CR knows TDSP

Problem

Process not agreed to by

all MPs

Slide provided for discussion purposes only regarding ERCOT facilitation role.

There is currently no “Market Approved”

Mechanism for handling Unauthorized or Inadvertent

switches/Move-ins.

31

"Unauthorized" Move-ins and Switches (NEW PROCESS) Version 0.1 04-15-2003

Error CRAgrees theyare in error?

Yes

No

Error CRNotifies ERCOT

Via FasTrak

ERCOT Notifies Error CRand Losing CR of Issue andprovides contact info to both(Reassign FasTrak as Non-

ERCOT)

Losing CRNotifies ERCOT

Via FasTrak

CRs to contactPUC/Customer

End

Is there timeto cancel?

Yes

No

CR SubmitsCancel

End

Has anotherinstance been

received after theeffective date of

the error?

ERCOT Notifies ErrorCR and

Losing CR of Issue andprovides contact info to

both(Reassign FasTrak as

Non-ERCOT)

Losing CR submitsMVI with effective

date of error + 1 day

TDSP uses same readfrom error - sends final

to error CR

Yes

No

ERROR CR and LosingCR work out "behind thescene" arrangement for

error period

End

Was the ESI IDde-energized prior

to the error?

Yes

No

CR CoordinatesMVO with TDSP

End

End

Losing CR submitsMVI for agreed

upon effective date

ERROR CR and LosingCR work out "behind thescene" arrangement for

error period

OR

Slide provided for discussion purposes only regarding ERCOT facilitation role.

There is currently no “Market Approved”

Mechanism for handling Unauthorized or Inadvertent

switches/Move-ins.