From: owner-profilingwg@lists.ercot.com on behalf of Podraza, Ernest [EPodraza@reliant.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:24 AM
To: Bj. Flowers (E-mail)
Cc: Judy. Briscoe (E-mail); Tweathersbee (E-mail); LAN CAO-CONN (E-mail); Profiling (E-mail)
Subject: COPS request to PWG on Impact of Profile Code Changes on Settlement Runs

 BJ,
 
In the COPS minutes of 2/22/05, it states; “Impact of Profile Code Changes on Settlement Runs”, COPS suggests PWG review.
 
The following is from the PWG draft minutes on 4/27/05;
 
COPS asked PWG to look at this issue.  There were some questions on how profile ID changes impacted Settlement.  A comment was made that a back date would overlay what was there before.  A comment was made that any time there is a Settlement re-run there are winners and losers.  We need to make profile IDs more accurate for Settlement.  A backdated profile Id assignment change will alter the next settlement run on that trade day that crosses that period of change.  

BJ,
 
Could you be more specific as to what is requested of the PWG on this issue? Or have we done all that is needed? The PWG is certainly willing to expand work knowing what it is we are to accomplish.
 
Chair of PWG Opinion:
 
I am not sure the PWG is the correct forum for this settlement policy. The current language in Protocols and Load Profiling Guides allow for an error in profile id assignment to be back dated. This indeed could be the intended correction for settlement that a market participant is wanting. Annual Validation changes to profile id assignment are not back dated but are posted to the most recent meter read beginning October of the validation year. It would seem that in the ADR discussions that I have read, some market participants want resettlement to be with the profile id assignment at the time of the trade date. However, if the energy data is incorrect, the data extract and variance process is designed to correct data errors on the trade date. It could be argued that the profile id assignment is no different than such a data error and should be back dated. From the PWG minutes above, ERCOT would have to maintain a different sort of time stamp on the data which they do not have currently to run a resettlement with the same profile id that were present at the time of the trade date settlement cut. In fact, if the market participant intends a back dated change, the ERCOT systems would have to distinguish profile id assignments that are to be back dated and those that are not per ESIID. Any back dating alters the original settlement mix, it seems some market participants would be pleased and other not. Bottomline the issue seems to linked to the policies of ADR and  resettlement methodology. These issues are rather broad and seem to have a wide variety of opinion. I am not suggesting the PWG members jump on my opinion and distribute comments per this email to the exploder list. I have placed my opinion here as food for thought for COPS leadeship to determine if the forum for this discussion is PWG, COPS or otherwise. The PWG is happy to tackle this issue but our attendance is limited however robust.
 

References to existing language;
 
Section 9 of the Load Profiling Guides, and
Section 18.4 of Protocols.
 
Thanks,
 
Ernie Podraza
Reliant Energy 
Analyst Energy Supply
Chair of the ERCOT Profiling Working Group (PWG)
epodraza@reliant.com
713-497-5295