1 / 17

ERCOT: A Work In Progress

ERCOT: A Work In Progress. Board of Directors Austin, TX July 16, 2002. Introduction. Two Part Process: Perspective on ERCOT’s role (Noel) Retail activities update (Jones). Background. ERCOT began as a stakeholder organization

ggagliano
Télécharger la présentation

ERCOT: A Work In Progress

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ERCOT: A Work In Progress Board of Directors Austin, TX July 16, 2002

  2. Introduction • Two Part Process: • Perspective on ERCOT’s role (Noel) • Retail activities update (Jones)

  3. Background • ERCOT began as a stakeholder organization • It hired professional staff to qualify as an “Independent Organization” under PURA • The transition of leadership responsibility from stakeholders to ISO staff is evolving (as it did with PJM and others) • Size and composition of the ERCOT Board will also change over time

  4. Requirements of SB 7 • Ensure open access to transmission and distribution systems on a nondiscriminatory basis • Ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network • Ensure timely conveyance of information relating to customer choice in the retail market • Ensure accurate accounting for production and delivery services in the wholesale market

  5. Some Successes • Reliability of the grid has been maintained • Inter-zonal congestion issue was resolved and TCR auctions have functioned well • More than 20% of retail market has switched, moved-in, or moved-out • NewPower customers have been switched to new providers

  6. And, Some Failures • Too many customers are not being billed accurately or on a timely basis • Transactional processes remain problematic • ERCOT’s response to identified problems has not met expectations • As a result, confidence in the retail market is lower than expected

  7. Retail Issues • Billing • Move-in/Move-out process • Meter data • Inter-participant settlement (Synchronization) • Reliability of transactional systems • Hardening of systems • Transparency

  8. Wholesale Issues • Intra-zonal Congestion • Short-term fixes in place • Mid- to long-term changes in market design are being considered • Balanced schedules • Relaxed rules are being evaluated • Control measures needed to ensure reliability

  9. Retail Focus • Correct deficiencies • Accelerate change • Measure performance

  10. Correct Deficiencies • Document problems using Quick Response Team • Enlist assistance of market participants via TAC committees • Focus activities and prioritize requests • Develop and implement a well-defined work plan

  11. Accelerate Change • Communicate effectively to all participants • Improve interaction with TAC committees • Strengthen ERCOT staff with expertise and partnering skills needed to succeed • Supplement critical skills by outsourcing • Integrate ERCOT’s internal processes more effectively (planning, budget, protocols, etc.)

  12. Measure Performance • Establish clear goals • Customer expectations drive metrics • Verify resource allocations • Provide scheduled updates to Board, PUC, Legislative Oversight Committee, and media • Track progress

  13. Actions Taken • Feld Group has been hired to supplement transactional skills within ERCOT • ERCOT staff is assuming direct responsibility (and accountability) for TAC outcomes • Relationships with PUC staff have been formalized • Lists of “key contacts” are being developed

  14. ERCOT’s Dual Roles • Provide technical and administrative support to the stakeholder committee process (TAC and its subcommittees) • Provide independent recommendations to the ERCOT Board of Directors on behalf of electricity customers in Texas

  15. Potential Issues • Several “models” have been suggested for ERCOT: • “Order givers, not order takers” • “Independent, self-governing organization like TMTA or NYSE” • “ERCOT staff is there to implement stakeholder wishes” • “Need to focus on ratepayers, not stakeholder interests” • “Consensus” decision making is democratic, but the process can be inefficient

  16. Examples • Inter-zonal congestion (Resolved) • Intra-zonal congestion (Pending at PUC) • “Single REP” move-ins (Pending at TAC) • Relaxed scheduling (Pending at TAC)

  17. Conclusions • Board structure will evolve as part of ERCOT’s maturation as an organization • Stakeholders are ERCOT’s “technical backbone” • Consensus processes can be “messy” • Additional specialized skills are needed to manage transactions “as a business”

More Related