1 / 16

Summary of the November 11, 2002 Market Synchronization “How-to-Fix” Decisions

This document provides a summary of the November 11, 2002 market synchronization decisions for correction of out-of-sync market conditions. It includes principles, decision mapping, and priority actions.

thornell
Télécharger la présentation

Summary of the November 11, 2002 Market Synchronization “How-to-Fix” Decisions

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. Summary of the November 11, 2002 • Market Synchronization • “How-to-Fix” Decisions • For presentation to RMS • November 14, 2002

  2. 10-16-2002 RMS Resolution For those scenarios that the market sync project identified as out-of-sync, if the Market Sync Task Force unanimously agrees on the steps necessary to correct the out-of-sync market condition, then the market participants shall correct the out-of-sync market condition accordingly. The Market Sync Task Force shall report to RMS any decisions reached to correct out-of-sync market conditions. If there is any disagreement regarding the steps necessary to correct the out-of-sync scenario, the issue shall be passed to RMS for resolution.

  3. Principles Applicable to all “How-to-Fix” Decisions • Fixes will take place per analysis and not to the “every record” level • Fixes will be made to a day in the past • +/- 1 day rule applies to all fixes and analysis • Prior to applying corrections, MPs will analyze each ESI ID and take into consideration any activity that has taken place since the original capture date of the data (8/1/2002) • Any ESI ID with a status issue is to be handled individually by the MPs (for example: TDSP identifies as retired but CR and ERCOT has active record) • If CR or TDSP requires transaction or additional data, they retain the ability to use alternate resolution processes • Decisions made for those scenarios identified will be applied to those scenarios requiring additional analysis • RMS Chair/Vice Chair responsible to develop reporting and monitoring process

  4. Priority to Decision Mapping • ♦ Decisions to Reach: • Who adds records? • What date to use? • How to handle >4/1? • How to handle pre 4/1? • Necessary to match usage? • Adding terminated records? • What to do when no dates match? • ♣ Decisions to Reach: • Who changes dates? • What date to use? • How to handle >4/1? • How to handle pre 4/1? • Necessary to match usage? • Adding terminated records? • What to do when no dates match?

  5. Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 1 Entity submitted records • Category 1: MP is only one with ESI ID (i.e. Missing Relationship) • Category 2: MP is only one reporting ESI ID active (other MPs may have inactive relationships) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESI IDs in scenario: • 12,961 (ERCOT) • 20,234 (TDSP) • 16,477 (CR) TDSP says 3K are invalid ESI IDs • Action: • MPs to review and respond to ESI IDs where they did not submit a record • ERCOT to compile and cross reference response from “out-of-sync” MPs • Final corrective actions will align with other “how to fix” decisions but have • potential for more ESI ID level decision making

  6. ♦ Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 2 Entities submitted records - CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 594 (ERCOT + CR) excludes 39,982 that the TDSP responded with “1” • 12,728 (ERCOT + TDSP) excludes 110,332 that the CR responded with “1” • 83,764 (TDSP + CR) excludes 25,653 that ERCOT has added relationship & 1,187 that ERCOT responded with “1”

  7. ♦ Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 2 Entities submitted records - CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID

  8. ♦ Priority 1 - Missing Relationship 2 Entities submitted records - CR is same on both records • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report any relationships for that ESI ID

  9. ♦Priority 2 - Active Row Only (C) 2 Entities submitted records – CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report an active record • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report an active record • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 3,640 (ERCOT + CR) excludes 3,482 that the TDSP responded with “1” • 21,608 (ERCOT + TDSP) excludes 22,446 that the CR responded with “1” • 3,515 (TDSP + CR)

  10. ♦Priority 2 - Active Row Only (C) 2 Entities submitted records – CR is same on both records • Category 1: Two MPs report relationship with same dates, third MP does not report an active record

  11. ♦Priority 2 - Active Row Only (C) 2 Entities submitted records – CR is same on both records • Category 2: Two MPs report relationship with different dates, third MP does not report an active record

  12. Priority 3 - Multiple Active CRs submitted records • Multiple Subcategories (most complex situations) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 1,420 where ERCOT, TDSP, and CR1 all Agree • 18 where ERCOT, CR1& CR2 agree but TDSP does not • 27 where TDSP, CR1 & CR2 agree but ERCOT does not • 15,206 where TDSP, ERCOT and one CR agree but another CR claims ESI ID • 2,232 where ERCOT and one CR Agree but TDSP and another CR agree • 16 where ERCOT and TDSP agree but multiple CRs do not • 1,248 ESI IDs where >2 relationships are claimed • Action: • MPs to review ESI IDs and work through the QRE process make corrections • For those situations when a CR must stop a relationship, the same logic defined for other “how to fix” should apply here

  13. ♣Priority 4 - 1 Row only submitted by each MP Type CR is same on all MP records • Category 1: CR has stop dates but ERCOT and TDSP are active • Category 2: CR and TDSP has stop date but ERCOT remains active • Category 3: MPs have different start and stop dates

  14. Priority 4 - 1 Row only submitted by each MP Type CR is different on one MP records • Multiple Subcategories (most complex situations) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 20,212 (ERCOT and CR have same CR but TDSP has different CR) • 391 (ERCOT and TDSP have same CR but a different CR claims the ESI ID) • 2,158 (TDSP and CR have same CR but ERCOT has a different CR) • Action: • MPs to review ESI IDs and work through the QRE process make corrections • For those situations when a CR must stop a relationship, the same logic defined for other “how to fix” should apply here

  15. Priority 5 - Active Row Only (B) 1 Entity submitted records • Category 1: • MP is only one reporting ESIID active (other MPs may have inactive relationships) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 6,218 (ERCOT) • 760 (TDSP) • 6,591 (CR) • Action: • MPs to review and respond to ESI IDs where they did not submit a record • ERCOT to compile and cross reference response from “out-of-sync” MPs • Final corrective actions will align with other “how to fix” decisions but have • potential for more ESI ID level decision making

  16. Priority 6 - Active Row Only (A) Reported by 3 Entities – CR is different on one MP records • Multiple Subcategories (most complex situations) • Breakdown – maximum number of ESIIDs in scenario: • 3,135 (ERCOT and CR have same CR but TDSP has different CR) • 3,231 (ERCOT and TDSP have same CR but a different CR claims the ESI ID) • 3,876 (TDSP and CR have same CR but ERCOT has a different CR) • Action: • MPs to review ESI IDs and work through the QRE process make corrections • For those situations when a CR must stop a relationship, the same logic defined for other “how to fix” should apply here

More Related