Discuss infrastructure to support bilateral contracting between CSPs and REPs in the Retail Market Loads in SCED Sub-group May 22, 2014 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
T&D Losses Reflecting Losses in DR within ERCOT August 22, 2012.
Advertisements

Achieving Price-Responsive Demand in New England Henry Yoshimura Director, Demand Resource Strategy ISO New England National Town Meeting on Demand Response.
EMIG Electricity Market Investment Group Presentation to the Ontario Energy Board February 17, 2004.
Market True-Up Discussion RMS Meeting 03/13/02 Draft Only for Discussion Purposes.
Distributed Generation (DG)
Emerging Technologies Working Group Discussion: AXRs September 24, Contents I.Ready or Not, Here They Come II.ALRs, the Camel’s Nose III.The Whys.
The information in this presentation has been collated by ELEXON and while all due care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this information, ELEXON.
Loads in SCED v2 Subgroup
Unresolved Issues in NPRR 555 Texas Steel Companies July 9, 2013.
SPP.org 1. Status Update: Retail Open Access for ETI within SPP Stakeholder Meeting September 16 th, 2008 Austin, TX.
Loads in SCED v2 Subgroup The LMP-G Journey 1. TAC Endorsement of LMP-G TAC voted to endorse “LMP-G” rather than “Full LMP” as the mechanism to enable.
Loads in SCED v2 Subgroup Update to DSWG 3/9/
Loads Acting as a Resource Relationships with QSEs and LSEs
Solutions to California’s Energy Crisis: Real-Time Pricing by Frank Wolak Chairman, Market Surveillance Committee March 17, 2001.
Loads in SCED Version 2 Proxy G Proposal. This is a proposal from Carl Raish as an individual … it has not been vetted internally at ERCOT and should.
Economic Demand Response Sheldon Fulton Executive Director, IPCAA November 4, 2008.
LMP-G Policy Issues Discussion Demand Side Working Group July 9 th,
Energy Efficiency Implementation Project # Load Management Subcommittee Report to: ERCOT Demand Side Working Group August 8, 2008.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION
Price Responsive Load / Retail DR Update to RMS Karen Farley June 3, 2014.
ERCOT Demand Side Working Group Mary Anne Brelinsky Eagle Energy Partners.
1 Welcome to Load Participation Orientation Elev MenWomen Phones Info Presentation and other Load Participation information will be posted at:
Distributed Energy Resources Concept Document Discussion ERCOT Staff DREAM Task Force Aug. 25,
Colombia’s Forward Energy Market Peter Cramton University of Maryland 5 November 2007.
“Demand Response: Completing the Link Between Wholesale and Retail Pricing” Paul Crumrine Director, Regulatory Strategies & Services Institute for Regulatory.
Demand Response Workshop September 15, Definitions are important Demand response –“Changes in electricity usage by end-use customers from their.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION
Board of Directors Credit Aspects of Mass Transition.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Introductions, Roles and Responsibilities.
Distributed Generation Task Force November 29, 2007 TAC Report.
Grabbing Balancing Up Load (BUL) by the Horns December 2006.
PJM©2013www.pjm.com Economic DR participation in energy market ERCOT April 14, 2014 Pete Langbein.
GENERATION PROTOCOL AND SETTLEMENT TODAY COMET WG / RMS Workshop Electric Reliability Council of Texas May 2, 2007.
Load Participation in Real-Time Market: LMP Minus G.
1 Energy Storage Settlements Consistent with PUCT Project & NPRR461 ERCOT Commercial Market Operations May 8, 2012 – COPS Meeting May 9, 2012 – WMS.
October 14, 2015 LRIS v2 / Self-scheduled Third party DR Provider Data Submission Proposal Carl L Raish.
SPP Presentation Stakeholder Meeting April 16, 2008 Austin, Texas UPDATE: Retail Open Access for ETI within SPP.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Retail Transaction Processing.
LMP-G Policy Issues Matrix LRISv2 Subgroup July 23 rd,
This slide deck contains animations. Please open this deck in slide show mode (“View” menu, then click on “Slide Show”). To move through the animations,
Hierarchy of Texas Laws and Rules The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 in 1999, which amended the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) and restructured.
LMP-G Policy Issues Matrix LRISv2 Subgroup July 23 rd,
Texas Competitive Market & Governance October 4, 2015.
Nodal Protocol Revision Request (NPRR) TITLE: Performance Measurement & Verification and Telemetry Requirements for Load Resources providing Non-Spin March.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Introductions, Roles and Responsibilities.
Demand Response Task Force. 2 2 Outline  Overview of ERCOT’s role in the CCET Pilot  Overview of Stakeholder Process – What’s been done to date?  Questions.
SPP.org 1. Status Update: Retail Open Access for ETI within SPP Stakeholder Meeting June 20 th, 2008 Austin, TX.
Business Case NPRR 351 Floyd Trefny Amtec Consulting Brenda Crockett Champion Energy Services.
Programs/Products that ERCOT Does Not Presently Offer ERCOT Demand Side Working Group New DR Product Options Subgroup Jay Zarnikau Frontier Associates.
DSWG Update to WMS 2/9/2011. EILS Procurement Results from 1/31 Business Hours 1 HE 0900 through 1300, Monday thru Friday except ERCOT Holidays; 425 hours.
LMP-G Update to DSWG LRISv2 Subgroup Aug. 20,
Building Blocks for Premise Level Load Reduction Estimates ERCOT Loads in SCED v2 Subgroup July 21, 2014.
Third Party DR Self-Deployment Loads in SCEDv2 Subgroup Sept. 18, 2015.
DSWG Update to WMS 8/10/2011. DSWG Goals #DSWG GoalDeliverable Target Date Primary Owner Team MembersStatus 1SCED Load Participation Complete analysis.
Proxy $G and other Loads in SCED 2 Litmus Tests Loads in SCEDv2 Subgroup Dec. 2, 2014.
1 Customer Objections in Complete Status (CCO Clean-up Phase 3) Background Next Steps.
Mass Transition—Timelines & Volume Limitation RMGRR116—Acquisition Transfer Non-standard Metering Future Meetings 1.
Module 1 From Bundled Utilities to Current Market Design.
1 Market Participant Default Joint Taskforce Update and Report on Recent Customer Transition Activity Report to WMS August 17, 2005.
Texas Nodal Program ERCOT Readiness & Transition (ERT) Supplemental Information TPTF January 12, 2009 Kevin Frankeny.
1 TX SET Update to RMS March 14, Drop to AREP Changes PUCT Project oOne of TX SET 2007 goal is to evaluate approved Rulemakings and determine.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION
Alternative Approach for Loads in SCED v.2
Load Participation in Real-Time Market: Loads in SCED version 2
Paul Wattles, Sai Moorty ERCOT Market Design & Development
Reflecting Losses in DR within ERCOT August 22, 2012
The New Texas Wholesale/Retail Market
CEO Report Thomas F. Schrader ERCOT Board of Directors May 17, 2005
Demand Response – ERCOT discussion items
The Future of Demand Response in New England
Presentation transcript:

Discuss infrastructure to support bilateral contracting between CSPs and REPs in the Retail Market Loads in SCED Sub-group May 22,

Key Terms CSP = Curtailment Service Provider (i.e. 3 rd Party DR Provider) For simplicity, ‘REP’ is used in these slides as entity involved in transaction flow – REP settlement remains thru REP’s QSE, a separate entity 2

Objectives Design a transaction-based infrastructure to facilitate bilateral contracts between CSPs providers and REPs. Promote more robust competition in the DR space. Address the impact of customer switching on CSPs. Eliminate LMP-volumetric G issues. Provide notification and transparency for all parties involved and impacted by a DR transaction. Utilize retail electric service customer protection rules well-established by the PUCT for the solicitation of DR products and services. Eliminate complex changes to MMS/EMS for LRISv2. 3

Features of Bilateral Approach ALRs represented by REPs continue to participate in SCED on a ‘bid to buy’ basis – REP’s QSE is the only entity involved in ERCOT settlement Allows CSP to solicit customers directly CSPs gain ability to maintain DR relationships when customers switch REPs Creates incentive for CSPs and DR-friendly REPs to contract bilaterally to promote DR products and services CSP new role in market: Qualification to submit and receive ERCOT transactions Maximum flexibility for DR market 4

Customer ERCOT REPCSP 1) CSP and REP negotiate contract terms for DR products and services, settlement 2) REP markets bundled DR products/services with electric service 3) Interaction as currently designed Benefits: -Simplifies implementation and operations by ERCOT (no change) -Easiest to understand for customers? Status Quo: REP initiates DR product/service 5

Transaction-Based Bilateral Approach 6

Customer ERCOT REPCSP Existing relationship w/customer for electric service 1) CSP initiates DR service w/customer 2) CSP notifies ERCOT of DR relationship w/customer; identifies and provides ERCOT information about customer type, aggregation, response type, etc. Return transaction reveals REP of record to CSP. 3) ERCOT notifies REP of DR relationship between CSP and customer Benefits: -Provides CSP and REP with customer level DR information to facilitate bilateral contracts and partnerships -Improves ERCOT’s ability to centrally track and manage ALRs Manage CSP/ALR-REP relationships Service initiation by CSP Requires bilateral contract between CSP & REP New transactions Existing Contract or Negotiate New New transactions 7

Customer ERCOT REPCSP 1) REP submits bids to ERCOT for ALRs (negotiated in bilateral contracts with CSP) 3) M&V, ALR telemetry validation DR customer deployment 2) SCED dispatches ALR when LZ SPP is >= bid price Customer deployment flexibility, contractual terms dictate 8

Customer ERCOT REPCSP Settlement of DR customer deployment 1)ERCOT settles REP for load curtailment as reduced adjusted metered load (Base Point Deviations and CLREDP scores apply) 3) REP charges customer for actual metered consumption and may provide additional incentives for load reduction (DR service terms) 2) REP pays CSP for curtailment (G) based on bilateral contract terms including performance true ups Benefits: -No double payment by ISO -Eliminates the volumetric G problem -REP acts as single billing agent for customer 9

Customer ERCOT Old REPCSP 2) Switch transaction at ERCOT triggers 2 nd transaction notifying CSP of new REP 1) Customer with CSP relationship switches REPs via normal switching process (TDSP interaction not shown for simplicity) Manage ALR-REP relationships Customer switches REPs New REP Normal switching process (TDSP interaction not shown for simplicity) 3) CSP has option to continue serving customer; informs customer of service continuity or change 4) ERCOT notifies new REP of DR relationship 10 New transactions New transactions

Issues/concerns with this approach Forces CSPs to contract with REPs to deliver products and services to customers (is this a bad thing?) CSP incurs REP risk as well as customer risk (is this a bad thing?) – Operational – Credit REP may incur commercial risk as a result of CSP deployment REP incurs deployment compliance risk for the CSP (same as today) REP acts as settlement agent for CSP (same as today) Implement via TX SET/NAESB additions? 11

Customer ERCOT REPCSP Is there another way? LMP- Proxy $G? 2) SCED Base Points sent to CSP 5) REP charges customer for actual metered consumption Issues: -Complex implementation -Must implement Loads in SCED as a resource for this -Disruptive to REPs -Is critical mass realistic? -Define acceptable Proxy $G (target for litigation/dispute?) 6) CSP passes on DR payment at contract terms 4) ERCOT charges REP for adjusted metered load 1) CSP notifies REP of DR relationship with customer 3) ERCOT pays CSP for load curtailment (X) at LMP-Proxy $G Drawback: Customers on indexed price are ‘double-paid’? 12

3 Ways to Implement LMP - G 1)Avoid it! (Status quo or bilateral approach) or L = Actual Load (MWh) C = Curtailment (MWh) G = Retail Rate 2) Volumetric LMP-G (Proving unworkable) Customer settlement = -(L+C)*G + LMP*C = -L*G + (LMP-G)*C 3) LMP – Proxy $G (Complex and disruptive to retail) Customer settlement = -L*G + (LMP-G)*C 13