Market Metrics Working Group

Thursday – November 10, 2005

10:00 AM – 3:00 PM

ERCOT MET Center – Austin, TX

Room 161

Agenda

Conference Call Phone #

Dial-In512.225.7280

Password2444

RSVP:

  1. Introduction:

Name / Company / Email Address
Dale Goodman / ERCOT /
Bill Reily / TXU Electric Delivery /
Monique Patille / TXU Energy /
Scott Coughran / TNMP /
Pam Wheat / TXU Electric Delivery /
Chuck Moore / Direct Energy /
Kyle Patrick / Reliant Energy /
Robert Manning / PUCT Staff /
Christine Wright / PUCT Staff /
Blake Gross / AEP /
Jennifer Fredericks / ERCOT /
Johnny Robertson / TXU Energy /
Kathy Scott / CenterPoint Energy /
  1. Anti-Trust Admonition

ERCOT strictly prohibits market participants and their employees who are participating in ERCOT activities from using their participation in ERCOT activities as a forum for engaging in practices or communications that violate the antitrust laws. The ERCOT Board has approved guidelines for members of ERCOT Committees, subcommittees and working Groups to be reviewed and followed by each market participant attending ERCOT meetings. If you have not received a copy of these Guidelines, please send an email to Brittney Albracht to receive a copy.

  1. Review and Approve notes of last meeting – approved as written
  1. PUCT Staff Discussion
  2. Any potential changes to current Market Metric Reporting
  3. T&C impacts and potential timing related to Market Metrics

As far as changes, PUCT Staff (Robert Manning) has no idea when PUCT will open any Rulemaking. It is currently on the list of potential projects, however may not be considered high priority by Commissioners. When the new T&Cs are finalized and approved Staff wanted to have a project that would track field operations, currently the reporting is transaction timing flows. A different type of reporting will be more on the CRs and TDSPs, example are Reconnects being completed within 48 hours? PUCT has an expectation of 4th Quarter 2006 or 1st Quarter 2007 that the Project would be open to the Market for comments. The plan is to still report processes as 98% just similar to the current computer calculations, more than likely there will be a new project number no addendum to the existing project.

PUCT Staff Robert Manning plans to work with the MMWG closely to determine what is required from T&Cs, as well as, working to refine the current information being reported in the Market based upon the current market needs.

Question:

Could some of the reporting be staggered to overlap different months, example December, January, and February instead of October, November, and December? PUCT unable to answer at this time

Question:

Could some of the reporting changes be similar to what the TDSPs are currently doing to report for a full year, which revealed the 98% compliance or higher so the reporting changed to only required when the TDSP performed below that required compliance percentage?

PUCT Staff unable to answer at this time

Going forward and in future meetings, the MMWG will need to start brain storming to recommend future changes wherereporting canprovide more detailed information, which the outcome should provide the Market and PUCT with more beneficial reports. Current reporting needs to more streamlined to highlight the more important information that reflects more customer satisfaction. Lesser ERCOT, but more TDSP and CR based reporting.

Question:

Is there a governmental requirement that all reports must be provided on paper (hard copy)? Could the reports be provided in soft copy (electronic) communications and/or CD? Action Item to PUCT Staff (Robert Manning). Per Robert Manning will need to get with Legal department to determine if there is any State or Legal restrictions that would prevent reporting in soft copy.

  1. ERCOT Updates
  2. Increase in rejects on Switches/Move-Ins
  3. Mike McCarty provided the 3rd Quarter Error Report –
  4. Switches –
  5. September 2005 showed 807 for ZIP Code Errors the finding and resolution was the (1) CR was causing this Error and ERCOT contacted this market participant to notify them of the problem. After ERCOT’s notification data suggest the market participant took care of the error.
  6. There was discussion around (B30, UNS, ZIP, EAS, SBD Error description on the 814_02 and 814_17 transactions.
  • Market Metric reporting updates
  • Switch Protocol Comparison –
  • Mike McCarty reported the third quarter 2005 in protocol compliance is the best reporting period to date. All percentages in protocol were 99%.
  • Move In Protocol Comparison -
  • The highest compliance of in protocol transactions to date with at least 97.97% in all reported transactions.
  • Drop to AREP Protocol Comparison -
  • 815_15 Q3-2005 – Low 65.57% because one (1) Market Participant was not responding to the 814_14 transaction within the required Protocol timeframe. Other market participants were in the 99% range, but because of the weighted average the market percentage was low.
  • Other Questions and Comments-
  • Per Johnny Roberts thought that the 814_04 creating an 814_05 would be a pass through ERCOT’s system. Dale Goodman stated that this would be 5 hour window not a (1) Business day turnaround for this transaction.
  • Also explained that ERCOT considers after hours in calculations but after business does not have to be looked at when evaluating protocol.
  • Pam Wheat reminded everyone that if they have issues with their performance measures because of Hurricane Rita activity they can file a Force Majeure exception letter with the PUC.
  • Robert Manning stated that if they can state exactly how they were affected it would be helpful but not necessary.
  1. Kathy Scott – RMS Issue
  • The intent in asking MMWG to look at this is to make sure that we are looking at this information in a way that is valuable to the Market. Is the information being reported still relevant? Some of these issues are things that were relevant at market open and with previous version changes. Are they still relevant?
  • RMS asked that MMWG look into these and possible incorporating these into MMWG.
  • Missing 867 Report – It was asked that the frequency be changed to quarterly
  • TXU ED asked if something could be looked into as to why some of the numbers seem to be high.
  • 867 RCSO – No change in frequency requested
  • FasTrak D2D Reporting – change to a full month report rather than just up to the week before RMS.
  • DEV Report – RMS requested that ERCOT continue to provide reporting and will look at making changes to the report with the new FasTrak tool to see if it can provide better reporting for DEV numbers.
  • The question was asked if the PUC directive would need to be changed because of these recommendations.
  • No. These are not pertaining to Performance Measures but with reports currently done through ERCOT.

Karen Farley can be available at the next MMWG meeting for further discussion.

  1. Discuss MMWG Key 2005 Accomplishments & 2006 Objectives
  2. MMWG made the following changes to last year’s RMS Report and included our 2006 Goals.
  1. Action Items Updates included below:
  1. Next Meeting Date

Nominations for 2006 MMWG Officers will be emailed out with meeting notes.

January 10, 2006 will be the next tentative meeting date for MMWG. Time and location of meeting to be determined.

1