Board of Directors Credit Aspects of Mass Transition.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 M1 Calculation Options CWG/MCWG ERCOT Public December 16, 2013.
Advertisements

Credit Updates Vanessa Spells Credit Work Group ERCOT Public
Discuss infrastructure to support bilateral contracting between CSPs and REPs in the Retail Market Loads in SCED Sub-group May 22,
1 TAC Review of PRR 650 August 3, Board Charge to TAC Board remanded PRR 650 to TAC for: “an analysis of how to ensure that consumers pay only.
Loads Acting as a Resource Relationships with QSEs and LSEs
Potential Future Exposure (PFE) Q Presentation Randy Baker Director, Credit Risk 19 January 2010 ERCOT Board of Directors Meeting.
1 February 17, 2009 Review of Key ISO Credit Policies and Proposed Changes Review ERCOT Unsecured Credit Process.
1 Pre-TX Set 1.5 Data Clean Up. 2 Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean-up Process In-Review - currently 12 (Original Quantity = 863) –June RMS, count 207 In-Review.
Role of Account Management at ERCOT PRR 672 Collaborative Analysis Presentation to RMS November 8, 2006 DRAFT ONLY.
RMS Update to TAC January 3, Goals Update ► Complete and improve SCR745, Retail Market Outage Evaluation & Resolution, implementation and reporting.
September 2012 Proposed CRR Auction Credit Changes: Summary of Draft NPRR.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Presentation to the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee May 4, 2006.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Presentation to the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee June 4, 2009.
Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. Late Fees and Short Payments in Bankruptcies / Payment Plans.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION
ERCOT Credit Loss Model Mark Ruane Credit Work Group / Market Credit Work Group ERCOT Public April 22, 2015.
Real Time Settlement Timeline Workshop Debrief To TAC 11/29/2012 Evaluation and consideration of reducing the RT Settlement Timeline Jim Galvin- CSWG Chair.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Introductions, Roles and Responsibilities.
+ OTC Derivative Clearing Summary Making Great Ideas Become Reality”
Texas Test Plan Team Market Testing Update to RMS October 16, 2002.
TAC Update Credit Aspects of Mass Transition March 9, 2006.
TAC Credit Update July TAC July Credit Update To meet the F&A Committee’s request that the Credit WG develop options for dealing with residual credit.
Nodal Credit Monitoring and Management – Business Requirements ERCOT CREDIT Department October 11, 2006.
RMS Update to TAC April 7, RMS Voting Items  RMGRR032- Transaction Timing Matrix Corrections Includes updates to Appendix D to correct examples.
MCWG Update to WMS 08/14/2013. MCWG Update to WMS General Update -July 31 st Joint MCWG/CWG Meeting Review NPRRs All operational except – NPRR 552 – Additional.
1 Processing Large Volumes 814_20s Issues / Discussion / Ideas.
October 20, 2010 WMS Credit Update. 2 Topics Nodal exposure – how much collateral CRR/TCR auctions – December 2010 Preliminary Credit Cutover Timeline.
1 Cutover Market Call November 29, :00 AM.
COPS conference call PRR 638 Implementation COPS January 30 th 2006.
ERCOT UFE Analysis UFE Task Force February 21, 2005.
Credit Updates Vanessa Spells Credit Work Group ERCOT Public February 18, 2015.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Retail Transaction Processing.
LMP-G Policy Issues Matrix LRISv2 Subgroup July 23 rd,
9/17/2012 CSWG CSWG – ERCOT Update ERCOT. 2 Settlements Project & Operational Updates February 27, 2012 NPRR 347: Combined Daily Invoice –Still on track.
1 Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline COPS Workshop August 29, 2013 Mandy Bauld ERCOT Director, Settlement & Retail Operations (512)
1 TAC Report to the ERCOT Board February 16, 2005.
January 7, 2011 Review Nodal Exposure / Collateral as of end of December, 2010 Cheryl Yager.
MCWG Update to WMS 11/13/2013. MCWG Update to WMS General Update - October 30 th Joint MCWG/CWG Meeting Review September 25 Meeting Minutes - Approved.
1 TX SET Update to RMS November 12, RMGRR Activity RMGRR065 – Disconnect and Reconnect for Non-Payment Updates and Corrections – –Normal Timeline.
The credit exposure impact of higher system-wide offer caps was estimated using an internal ERCOT model under four scenarios: 1.(Base Case) “Normal” summer.
Credit Updates Vanessa Spells Credit Work Group ERCOT Public December 16, 2015.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION Retail 101. Introductions, Roles and Responsibilities.
1 Nodal Credit Update at WMS June 16, 2010.
Market Credit Working Group Update to WMS Wed. Nov 18, 2009.
1 TX SET Mass Transition Project RMS Update March 15, 2006.
Protocol Revision Subcommittee Presentation to the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee November 2, 2006.
1 WMS Report TO TAC April In Brief Two Working Group reports Two Working Group reports Two Task Force Reports Two Task Force Reports BENA presentation.
1 TAC Report to the ERCOT Board January 17, 2006.
1 Next Steps to Reduce the RTM Settlement Timeline COPS Workshop August 29, 2013.
1 Nodal Day Ahead Invoice Taskforce March 13, 2007 Presentation to COPS.
PRR 568 – Day 17 to Day 10 Analysis Implementation Recommendation TAC December 2005.
MIMO Stacking Document and the current RMG are inconsistent with current logic and should be updated.
Randy S. Baker Director, Credit Risk Management F&A Committee – Preview for CWG / MCWG October 20, 2009 Potential Credit Risk Model Quarterly Update: Q
RMS Update to TAC September 4, RMS Update to TAC August 13 RMS Meeting Summary: August 13 RMS Meeting Summary:
MMWG Performance Measures Questionnaire. Performance Measure Reporting Requirements The reporting requirements allowed the commission to obtain information.
1 Timeline for Activities in Breach CWG/MCWG ERCOT Public September
Nodal Credit Monitoring and Management – Business Requirements ERCOT CREDIT Department September 28, 2006.
Mass Transition—Timelines & Volume Limitation RMGRR116—Acquisition Transfer Non-standard Metering Future Meetings 1.
1 TAC Report to the ERCOT Board July 18, TAC Summary 4 PRRs for approval (3 unanimous) 4 PRRs for approval (3 unanimous) 5 Nodal PRRs for approval.
Credit Working Group Background Information Credit Aspects of Mass Transition Update – February 3, 2006.
CRR Default and the Nodal Market Wholesale Market Subcommittee February 20, 2008.
1 Market Participant Default Joint Taskforce Update and Report on Recent Customer Transition Activity Report to WMS August 17, 2005.
Credit Updates Vanessa Spells Credit Work Group ERCOT Public May 18, 2016.
Day Ahead Market QSE’s Credit Requirements Concerns and Solutions August 14, 2008.
-- Presentation from PWG -- Profile ID Assignment and Annual Review Process November 17, 2005.
MCWG Update to WMS 3/9/2010. Exposure / Collateral Update Nodal Total Potential Exposure reported by ERCOT as of 1/31/11 remains less than Zonal Estimated.
ERCOT MARKET EDUCATION
Credit Updates Vanessa Spells Credit Work Group ERCOT Public
NPRR829 Incorporate Real-Time Telemetered Net Generation for Non-Modeled Generation into the Real-Time Liability Estimate ERCOT PRS Meeting May 11, 2017.
CEO Report Thomas F. Schrader ERCOT Board of Directors May 17, 2005
Presentation transcript:

Board of Directors Credit Aspects of Mass Transition

2 Credit Exposure (primarily QSEs)  Credit Exposure – 3 primary components  Outstanding Invoices  Uninvoiced items (historical)  Expected Forward Liability  Focus of this discussion - Expected Forward Liability (both QSEs and LSEs)  Provided for “exit” scenarios  There is currently unmitigated credit exposure in the market in this area  Even with current mitigation plans, there is still expected to be unmitigated credit exposure

3 Credit Exposure – How much?  Questions for the market and the BOD:  What is an acceptable level of unmitigated credit exposure?  How does the market get to that level of credit exposure?

4 Credit Exposure – Expected Forward Liability  Credit exposure related to a troubled entity centers around that entity’s use of the Balancing Energy Service (BES)  A troubled entity that has been “cut off” for credit reasons from its bilateral energy providers still serve its end users  By default, energy requirements come from the BES, creating liability for remaining market participants  Credit exposure related to a QSE or LSE exists as long as end users are associated with that entity  Energy continues to flow to end users

5 Credit Exposure – around Mass Transition  Credit exposure can only be eliminated by moving end users to another entity (e.g. the Mass Transition process)  Credit exposure is currently mitigated (although not fully) with  Collateral  Mass Transition process  Collateral covers approximately 2 weeks forward for “exit” process  at historical levels of BES usage

6 Credit Exposure – Mitigation Shortfalls  Based on recent experience (with smaller players), it takes longer than 2 weeks for “exit” process  Including notice periods and Mass Transition  To relieve majority of liability – close to 3 weeks  Market losses have been experienced (and are likely to continue) due to a combination of —How collateral is calculated per Protocols —How long it currently takes the market to transition end users

7 Approx Timeline to Remove a Troubled QSE Identify problem and make collateral callBDay 0 Notice periods (6 BDays)  Collateral dueBDay 2  Notice of default givenBDay 3  3 BDays to cure defaultBDay 6 Mass transition (9-11 BDays)  Conference call to begin Mass TransitionBDay 7  POLRs initiate switches (5 BDays allowed, switches to date have taken, on avg 3 BDays)BDay 9  Time until switch complete by TDSPBDay 15 (Note: 15 business days + 6 weekend days = 21 days of liability)

8 Potential loss in exit scenario Potential loss (simplified example) Collateral held 1,000 MWh/day x $100/MWh x 10% x 14 days = $ 140,000 At default 1,000 MWh/day x $100/MWh x 100% x 21 days = $ 2,100,000 Potential loss to the market $ 1,960,000 For 100 MWh/day $ 196,000 For 10,000 MWh/day $ 19,600,000 Open question: Is 21 days a reasonable estimate if the MP is a larger entity?

9 Potential loss in exit scenario Potential loss range (assume MCPE = $100/MWh) Collateralized based onBES 10% BES 100% At Default BES 100% BES 100% For 100 MWh/day $ 196,000$ 70,000 For 1,000 MWh/day$ 1,960,000$ 700,000 For 10,000 MWh/day $ 19,600,000$ 7,000,000

10 Market Statistics # of LSEs by average daily MWh for August 2005 Potential MWh/day CRNOIE Tot % Loss by cat < % $ 200k ea 200-2, % $ 2,000k ea 2,000-20, % $20,000k ea > 20, % Total %

11 Market Statistics Average daily MWh for August 2005 MWh CRNOIETotal% < 200 1,569 2,291 3, % 200-2,000 16,504 27,828 44,3324.3% 2,000-20, ,528 76, , % > 20, , , , % Total 779, ,984 1,033, %

12 Estimated losses in 2005 to date EntityTypeSizeEst Exposure LSE 1LSE 350 MWh/day $ 400,000 QSE AQSE 50 MWh/day $ 25,000 QSE BQSE 65 MWh/day $ 200,000+

13 Options available to mitigate credit exposure  For QSEs, increase collateral requirement  Market liquidity concerns  Inadvertently incent use of BES  Credit Working Group is evaluating options  For LSEs being dropped by their QSE, increase notice period from QSE  PRR 625 in process will increase notice from 5 BDays to 20 days  Make sure Protocol language is clear about consequences  PRR 624 in process to clarify Payment Default language

14 Options available to mitigate credit exposure  Reduce Exposure Period  Identify risk earlier —Not comprehensive —ERCOT evaluating tools  Reduce number of notice days (6 BDays) —PRR begun to take 2 BDays out of process —Involves changing contracts to reduce cure period from 3 BDays to 2 BDays  Reduce the number of days it takes to do Mass Transition (9 – 11 BDays) —Still in process —Challenges to further streamline process  Combination of above – no “silver bullet”

15 Challenges – Reducing # of days for Mass Transition Risk Type Mitigation Strategy Obstacle POLR ability to rapidly initiate transactions at volume. Develop dedicated TX SET transaction.  No test of POLR ability to act in transition event (at volume).  POLR designations change every two years. TDSP ability to rapidly read large number of dispersed meters. “Estimated read” to effectuate switch.  Cost to implement. Transition time.Transactional/automat ed solution.  PUCT customer protection rules.  POLR ability to procure resource for load.  TDSP ability to obtain meter reads. Uncooperative defaulting CR Customer information repository. (billing vs premise)  CR dedication to populate/maintain.  Cost to maintain.

16 Next  Determine from market the level of acceptable unmitigated credit exposure  Work with market to implement changes to get to desired level of risk

17 Input, Questions, and Wrap-up