Thursday, September 16, 2010. Company sample rotation schedule ResidentialSchedule 6Schedule 23Irrigation 2011 2012X 2013X 2014X 2015X 2016 2017 2018XX.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multiple Regression Analysis
Advertisements

Master Plan. Citizens’ Health Care Working Group Master Plan November 2005.
1 In-Process Metrics for Software Testing Kan Ch 10 Steve Chenoweth, RHIT Left – In materials testing, the goal always is to break it! That’s how you know.
Business Statistics for Managerial Decision
California Energy Commission Resource Adequacy Demand Forecast Coincidence Adjustments R Resource Adequacy Workshop January.
1 Statistical Inference H Plan: –Discuss statistical methods in simulations –Define concepts and terminology –Traditional approaches: u Hypothesis testing.
ERCOT Staff Comments Regarding the Proposed Suspension of Residential 2005 Annual Validation RMS Presentation August 10, 2005.
Measures of Variability or Dispersion
Chapter 9 Audit Sampling: An Application to Substantive Tests of Account Balances McGraw-Hill/Irwin ©2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved.
7-1 Chapter Seven SAMPLING DESIGN. 7-2 Sampling What is it? –Drawing a conclusion about the entire population from selection of limited elements in a.
Chapter 8 Introduction to Hypothesis Testing
Error and Sample Sizes PHC 6716 June 1, 2011 Chris McCarty.
BA 427 – Assurance and Attestation Services
Measures of Central Tendency
1 THE RATE CASE PROCESS A Blend of Science and Superstition Presentation to the Mongolian Energy Regulatory Board By Burl Haar Executive Secretary Minnesota.
Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Testing - II
Statistical inference: confidence intervals and hypothesis testing.
Coincident Peak Load Forecasting Methodology Prepared for June 3, 2010 Meeting with Division of Public Utilities.
©2006 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Auditing 11/e, Arens/Beasley/Elder Audit Sampling for Tests of Details of Balances Chapter 17.
©2010 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Auditing 13/e, Arens//Elder/Beasley Audit Sampling for Tests of Details of Balances Chapter 17.
©2012 Pearson Education, Auditing 14/e, Arens/Elder/Beasley Audit Sampling for Tests of Details of Balances Chapter 17.
ERCOT 2003 UFE ANALYSIS By William Boswell & Carl Raish AEIC Load Research Conference July 13, 2005.
by B. Zadrozny and C. Elkan
Statistics: Concepts and Controversies What Is a Confidence Interval?
Technical Conference on Net Metering Load Research Study November 5, 2014.
Learning Objectives Copyright © 2002 South-Western/Thomson Learning Sample Size Determination CHAPTER thirteen.
Project Nexus Workgroup AQ Backstop Date Options 7 th October 2014.
Leveraging the Skills of Load Research to Add to the Bottom Line AEIC Load Research Conference Myrtle Beach, SC July 10-13, 2005.
EvergreenEcon.com ESA 2011 Impact Evaluation Draft Report Public Workshop #2 August 7, 2013 Presented By: Steve Grover, President.
Acceptance Sampling McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
CLOSING THE BOOKS WITH PARTIAL INFORMATION By Joseph Marker, FCAS, MAAA CLRS, Chicago, IL, September 2003.
Washington’s Water Use Efficiency Rule May Require Increased Coordination for Many Utilities Dan Sander, P.E. Senior Engineer.
Project Nexus Workgroup Read Validation following Transfer of Ownership 13 th October
Sullivan – Fundamentals of Statistics – 2 nd Edition – Chapter 3 Section 2 – Slide 1 of 27 Chapter 3 Section 2 Measures of Dispersion.
Sampling Methods and Sampling Distributions
Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel, 4e © 2004 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chap 8-1 Chapter 8 Fundamentals of Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Tests Statistics.
Load Research Status Presentation to the Load Research/Forecasting Working Group June 3rd, 2010.
Date processing and conversion Please use speaker notes for additional information!
May 03, UFE ANALYSIS Old – New Model Comparison Compiled by the Load Profiling Group ERCOT Energy Analysis & Aggregation May 03, 2007.
Meter Read Validation 11 th August Background The meter read validation principles were developed under ‘The Settlement’ BRD and formed part of.
Settlement Accuracy Analysis Prepared by ERCOT Load Profiling.
Rocky Mountain Power - Utah Workgroups I and II Load Research and Peak-Hour Forecasting Presented by UTAH INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS Salt Lake City, Utah.
1 UFE Workshop Sponsored by COPS October 19, 2004.
Chapter 9: Hypothesis Tests Based on a Single Sample 1.
NASUCA Annual Meeting Austin, Texas November 10, 2015 Scott J. Rubin, Attorney + Consultant 333 Oak Lane + Bloomsburg, PA Office: (570)
Customer Charge On behalf of all DNs 25 October 2010.
Analysis of the Xoserve Read Validation Proposal Author: Alex Cullin 27/08/2014.
LOAD RESEARCH Irrigation Load Study Utah Cost of Service Task Force August 25, 2005.
FIRM TRANSPORTATION GAS SUPPLIER PRESENTATIONS GAS LOAD FORECAST.
Sampling Design and Analysis MTH 494 Lecture-21 Ossam Chohan Assistant Professor CIIT Abbottabad.
Solar Profiling Interstate Renewable Energy Council presentation to the ERCOT Profiling Working Group Jan. 22, 2008.
REPORT WRITING. A business report should be... ACCURATE CONCISE CLEAR OBJECTIVE.
Profiling Working Group 1 PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Direct Energy ERCOT PWG Chair Ed Echols Of Oncor ERCOT PWG Vice Chair for COPS Meeting.
STAT03 - Descriptive statistics (cont.) - variability 1 Descriptive statistics (cont.) - variability Lecturer: Smilen Dimitrov Applied statistics for testing.
Market Evolution Program. 2 Topics Overview of the Market Evolution Program Consultation Plan for Phase 1 Overview of the Market Evolution Program Consultation.
Statistical Inference for the Mean Objectives: (Chapter 8&9, DeCoursey) -To understand the terms variance and standard error of a sample mean, Null Hypothesis,
Project Funding Review February 7, Background ERCOT has a $15M project budget in 2013 (same as 2012) –To allow for new additions to the.
This represents the most probable value of the measured variable. The more readings you take, the more accurate result you will get.
Copyright (c) 2004 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Chapter 7 Inferences Concerning Means.
Calculations of Peak Load Contribution (PLC) AND Network Service Peak Load (NSPL) As of 1/1/2016.
©2012 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Auditing 14/e, Arens/Elder/Beasley Audit Sampling for Tests of Details of Balances Chapter 17.
Audit Sampling for Tests of Details of Balances
PLC = Peak Load Contribution (aka “ICAP”)
©2005 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Sample Surveys Chapter 11.
Background - Tolerance Rules
Analyzing the Business Case
Resource Adequacy Demand Forecast Coincidence Adjustments
Problem DC 10-1, Page 547 (Original Problem)
Scheme for Growth Pilot
Presentation transcript:

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Company sample rotation schedule ResidentialSchedule 6Schedule 23Irrigation X 2013X 2014X 2015X XX 2019X 2020X

Division-proposed sample rotation schedule ResidentialSchedule 6Schedule 23Irrigation 2011XX 2012XX XX 2017X 2018X

Division proposal for Schedule 1 sample size.  Recommend to the PSC that the Company increase its 170 sample size over 40 percent to about 250 meters.  Recommend to the PSC that this be accelerated and accomplished in  Rotation should increase sample size and be accelerated.

Division proposal for Schedules 6 and 23 sample size.  Recommend to the PSC that the Company increase its Schedule 6 sample size of 107 about 40 percent to 150 meters and its Schedule 23 sample size of 75 about 40 percent to over 100 meters.  Recommend to the PSC that this be accomplished  in 2011 for Schedule 23.  in 2012 for Schedule 6.  Rotations should increase sample size and be accelerated.

Division recommendation for known weird months  Good example was October, with a 38 percent deviation and an unusual peak day occurrence.  Months like October should be subjected to further investigation in order to determine the cause of the variance.  After investigation, it may be appropriate to exclude a month like October from a determination of the appropriate cost of service or recalibration.  We don’t want to size the overall sample due to a bad October.  They’re not worth discussing or analyzing if the rest of the year results in reliable estimates (e.g. the difference between jurisdictional and class load estimates is under 2 percent).

Summary of Increasing Difference Between Jurisdictional Totals and Sum of Class Loads Docket Test Year Ending Jurisdictional Total Sum of Class LoadsDifference Percent Difference Percent Difference Negative Months Largest Percent Difference Month Sep ,43130, %57% Mar ,17534, %49% Mar ,78439, %639% Sep ,76438, %712% Dec ,66339,604-2, %10-16% Dec ,91938,235-3, %9-20% Jun ,96837,378-3, %10-21%

Division compromise proposal for class loads/jurisdictional recalibration – 2%, 5%, 10%  Recalibration should have a reasonable annual tolerance – 2 percent.  No months recalibrated if within 5 percent.  Months over 5 percent but less than 10 percent are automatically recalibrated to 5 percent.  Months over 10 percent will require further investigation before decision to recalibrate to 2 percent.

First Recalibration Example with Division Adjustment janfebmaraprmayjunjulaugsepoctnovdecannual Jur ,968 Class ,377 Diff(218)(71)(207)145(638)(404)(496)(593)(795)265(458)(121)(3590) As %-7.1%-2.3%-7.2%5.2%-17.8% -10.2% -11.9%-14.4% -20.9% 9.9%-13.5%-3.5%-8.8% Step Step Step ,291 Diff As %-5.0%-2.3%-5.0%5.0%-2.0% 5.0%-2.0%-3.5%-1.7%

First Recalibration Example with Division Adjustment

Report Content The Division has identified five broad issues:  1) Whether the Company's load research program meets the PURPA standard (DPU);  2) The variability in the irrigation class (OCS);  3) Whether the load research sample design is out of date (UIEC);  4) Weather adjustment of load data (UIEC); and  5) Class vs. jurisdictional peaks and calibration issues (UIEC and UAE).

Issue 1  Whether the Company's load research programs meets the PURPA standard (DPU).  The PURPA standard is open to interpretation.  The stratified random sample design is not challenged.  Was the sample designed to estimate class monthly loads?  An increased sample size should allow the Company to estimate MONTHLY load within plus or minus 10 percent of actual, 90 percent of the time.  Recommendation: Division proposes accelerated sample rotations with increased sample sizes.

Issue 2  The variability in the irrigation class (OCS).  Irrigation customer sample data were drawn from customers who actively irrigated in the previous 2 years.  These estimates are expanded to the entire irrigation class, which is then compared to actual billed energy.  Do sample data provide load estimates consistent with actual usage?  Could omitting the “inactive” customers from the sample bias the resulting class load estimates?  Given the highly variable irrigation loads, is it possible to develop reliable load research data for this class?  Recommendation: Division proposes... That the workgroup discuss Issue 2.

Issue 3  Whether the load research sample design is out of date (UIEC).  The sample designs were in fact out of date.  The Company has proposed a sample rotation schedule.  Division proposes accelerated sample rotations with increased sample size.

Issue 4  Weather adjustment of load data (UIEC).  Is the proper weather adjustment used to reflect peak usage?  Should load data be adjusted to reflect typical “peak-making weather”?  UIEC Data Request  Recommendation: Division proposes …. That the workgroup discuss Issue 4.

Issue 5  Class vs. jurisdictional peaks and calibration issues (UIEC and UAE).  The sum of the class loads began to deviate from the jurisdictional totals in the past few years.  As Slide 8 showed (from Brubaker October 2009 direct): 1) the percent difference increased; 2) the class loads were lower in more months of each year; and 3) the percent difference for problem months was becoming larger.  Overhauling the sample in 2008 partially fixed this problem.  Acceptability of the November rebuttal method/COS study going forward.  Adjustments to the November rebuttal method that might improve it.  Recommendation: Division proposes reasonable tolerances of 2 %, 5%, and 10% for recalibration (a solution until the new sample data become available).

Conclusion and Discussion  Areas of Consensus  Areas of No Consensus