Is the Weight Worth It? PWG April 27, 2006. 2 Introduction The Average Load Factor (AvgLF) used to determine Profile Segment assignment is a weighted.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oil & Gas Final Sample Analysis April 27, Background Information TXU ED provided a list of ESI IDs with SIC codes indicating Oil & Gas (8,583)
Advertisements

Electric Rates and Standby Charges Presented by: Cheryl Eakle – KPPC Jason Volz – Harshaw Trane August 13, 2014.
ERCOT Analysis of 2005 Residential Annual Validation Using the Customer Survey Results ERCOT Load Profiling Presented to PWG - October 26, 2005.
Profiling Working Group March 13, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for COPS Meeting March 13, 2007.
Oil & Gas Preliminary Sample Analysis March 30, 2006.
ERCOT Staff Comments Regarding the Proposed Suspension of Residential 2005 Annual Validation RMS Presentation August 10, 2005.
Presented to the PWG Meeting of May 26, 2010
12. 2 Using Electrical Energy Wisely. (Pages )
Energy Audit- a small introduction A presentation by Pune Power Development Pvt. Ltd.
J.B. Speed School of Engineering University of Louisville KEEPS Energy Management Toolkit Step 2: Assess Performance & Opportunities Toolkit 2A: KEEPS.
Profiling Working Group January 11, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting January 11, 2006.
2007 Annual Validation Preliminary Review of Residential Algorithm & Estimate of Migrations February 27, 2007.
1 Profiling Working Group Update to COPS April 15, 2015 Jim Lee (AEP) – Chair Sheri Wiegand (TXU) – Vice Chair.
LPGRR044 Distributed Generation (DG) Profile Segment Implementation Plan.
RMSUpdate January 6, 2005 Retail Market Subcommittee Update to TAC.
RMSUpdate November 4, 2004 Retail Market Subcommittee Update to TAC.
“Do Green” Two Options: Prescriptive Custom Prescriptive- -Must be running a MODULATING ROTARY SCREW AIR COMPRESSOR -Must be 75 Horsepower or Less Custom-
EvergreenEcon.com ESA 2011 Impact Evaluation Draft Report Public Workshop #2 August 7, 2013 Presented By: Steve Grover, President.
1 Presented to ERCOT Retail Market Subcommittee January 9, 2002 Profiling Working Group Darryl Nelson, Chair Load Profiling Operating Guides (LPOG)
1 ERCOT LRS Detail Sample Design PWG Presentation April 24, 2007.
0 The Basics –There are 4 POLR customer classes: Residential, Small Non-Res. (
Settlement Accuracy Analysis Prepared by ERCOT Load Profiling.
NEEA DEI Study Data Analysis Plan October 28, 2005 RLW Analytics, Inc. Roger L. Wright, Chairman, and Principal Consultant.
Proposed Deemed Savings Rates for Energy Star 3.0 Plus 30% Televisions By Christina Steinhoff June 1,
1 ERCOT Load Profile Transition Option 1 – 4 Analysis August 21, 2006.
Direct Load Control Update Betty Day Manager of Load Profiling and Data Aggregation February 25, 2003 Retail Market Subcommittee.
Analysis of the ERCOT IDR Threshold Requirement Presented by Bill Boswell PWG Meeting May 27, 2009.
DRG Slides for PWG Update to COPS. 2 Highlights from the DGTF Recommendation - 3 Small DRG applies to generation less than 50 kW –Profiling is applicable.
Distributed Renewable Generation Profile Implementation Plan.
Profiling Working Group June 15, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting June 15, 2005.
Profiling Working Group August 14, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting August 14, 2003.
Allocation of Unidentified Gas Statement – Interim Report findings 17 th September 2012.
Direct Load Control Update Betty Day Manager of Load Profiling and Data Aggregation February 25, 2003 Retail Market Subcommittee.
Solar Profiling Interstate Renewable Energy Council presentation to the ERCOT Profiling Working Group Jan. 22, 2008.
1 A Review of Impacts to UFE and Load Ratio Share Based on AV Profile ID Changes Presented by ERCOT Staff to the Profiling Working Group 10/26/2005.
Distributed Renewable Generation Profiling Methodology ERCOT Load Profiling March 4, 2008.
Calculations of Peak Load Contribution (PLC) AND Network Service Peak Load (NSPL) As of 1/1/2016.
Profiling Working Group September 26, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting September 26, 2003.
Commercial Operations Subcommittee (COPS) 4/15/2015 Update to RMS 5/5/2015.
-- Presentation from PWG -- Profile ID Assignment and Annual Review Process November 17, 2005.
Analysis of Load Reductions Associated with 4-CP Transmission Charges in ERCOT Carl L Raish Principal Load Profiling and Modeling Demand Side Working Group.
Bus data study Group 2 Shikun D., Wonyong H., Luit S.
Worcester Regional Transit Authority Key Performance Indicators Electric Bus Deployment Project December 17, 2015.
Advanced Meter School August 18-20,2015 Time of Use and Load Profile Jeremiah Swann.
1 Profiling Working Group Update to COPS May 13, 2015 Jim Lee (AEP) – Chair Sheri Wiegand (TXU) – Vice Chair.
Kaysville City, UT Electric Rate Study Results
Comparing Load Profiles: Art or Science?
Seminar On Energy Audit Submitted To: Submitted By:
DWG Meeting March 7, 2017 (Update to a Meeting held July 26, 2016)
Project Work Order Generator
Actuaries Climate Index™
Profiling Working Group
IT – Staffing and Support
2016 Annual Validation Update PWG
Hit or Miss Classification
House Bill 2610 – 75,600 Minute School year
PLC = Peak Load Contribution (aka “ICAP”)
Section 13-2 Consumer Credit.
Actuaries Climate Index™
New pH Method NEW Providing end of pipe limit, requiring testing only at point of discharge. Allows for a daily maximum, but if not meeting that you may.
May 2018 Proposed Electric Rate Increase - First Public Hearing
Regulators Indices on Power Quality
Behavior Modification Report with Peak Reduction Component
Actions Updates Action 0282/006 – Exclude from AQ process
New pH Method NEW Providing end of pipe limit, requiring testing only at point of discharge. Allows for a daily maximum, but if not meeting that you may.
Xoserve Draft UIG Incentives Modifications 20 May 2019
© 2008 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved
and Forecasting Resources
For JSM July, 2019 | Denver, CO By
Key Activities/ Milestones
Presentation transcript:

Is the Weight Worth It? PWG April 27, 2006

2 Introduction The Average Load Factor (AvgLF) used to determine Profile Segment assignment is a weighted average of the individual monthly load factors, where demand values are used to determine the weights A simple monthly load factor is calculated as: kWh / (days in period x 24) / max kW Would weighting by kWh result in a more representative Profile Type assignment? To illustrate how different weights can greatly affect the calculated Average LF... kW or kWh?

3 The Approach: Look at how the two weighting methods would have affected assignments for AV years 2003 thru 2005 Created a list of all ESI IDs that had a Load Factor-based Profile Type assignment in December 2002 To isolate the differences between the two methodologies, tracked a fixed set of ESI IDs; did not include those that would have shifted to something other than a Load Factor based Profile Segment (e.g., BUSNODEM) A First Step

4 Weighting by kWh Key Aspects of preliminary kWh-weighted BUS LF Segment Determination No ‘calendarizing’ of monthly reads Prorated kWh is utilized for May and April Missing values or values of zero (0) If kW or kWh is missing, then meter read not included in calculations If kW and kWh are zero (0), then treated as missing reads Do not change the existing assignment if less than 274 days (365 x 75%) of kW and kWh values are available kWh values are used to weight the monthly load factors (compared to kW values used in current method)

5 Preliminary Analysis Preliminary analysis highlighted how extreme kWh or kW values or values of zero (0) can greatly affect load factor calculation—regardless of the weighting method—and are problematic in efforts to assign the most representative Load Profile Type Consider the following actual record: extreme value 5

6 Preliminary Analysis Another actual record that highlights a type of problem... extreme value

7 A Shift... It appears at this point that addressing extreme input data is prudent prior to recommending any change in the BUS LF assignment methodology For example, consider: Exclude monthly load factors that are > 100% Minimum ADUse and/or kW values, or combination thereof Utilize two years of history to develop screening criteria for data Allow for less than 12 months of data for AvgLF calculation

8 Questions or Comments