1 Follow Up Analysis of 2 vs. 3 Decimals ERCOT Load Profiling Department June 26, 2007.

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

1 Distributed Generation Task Force November 5, 2007.
Retail Market Subcommittee Update to TAC February 5, 2004.
Plausible values and Plausibility Range 1. Prevalence of FSWs in some west African Countries 2 0.1% 4.3%
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.
1 ERCOT LRS Precision Analysis PWG Presentation June 28, 2006.
ERCOT Load Research Sampling Round 2 Model Coefficient Updates Additional Evaluations Presented to the PWG on July 28, 2010.
ERCOT Staff Comments Regarding the Proposed Suspension of Residential 2005 Annual Validation RMS Presentation August 10, 2005.
Profiling Working Group 1 PWG Update Report By Brad Boles of Cirro Energy ERCOT PWG Vice-Chair for COPS Meeting November 6, 2007.
Comparison of Average Daily Profiles for Primary vs Secondary Service Business Customers presented by ERCOT Load Profiling for the PWG Meeting of July.
Presented to the PWG Meeting of May 26, 2010
Chapter 7 Probability and Samples: The Distribution of Sample Means
1 Assessment of Imprecise Reliability Using Efficient Probabilistic Reanalysis Farizal Efstratios Nikolaidis SAE 2007 World Congress.
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.
COPS Update to TAC January 6, Voting Items Three voting items: COPMGRR015, Creating Section 8, ERCOT Settlement and Invoice Process 2. 2.
ERCOT 2003 UFE ANALYSIS By William Boswell & Carl Raish AEIC Load Research Conference July 13, 2005.
1 Profiling Working Group Update to COPS April 15, 2015 Jim Lee (AEP) – Chair Sheri Wiegand (TXU) – Vice Chair.
Three Decimals for Profile Resolution. 2 Pro Case for Three Decimals for Profile Resolution  Generation 15 minute pattern rarely has 2 adjacent equal.
Probabilistic Mechanism Analysis. Outline Uncertainty in mechanisms Why consider uncertainty Basics of uncertainty Probabilistic mechanism analysis Examples.
Profiling Working Group January xx, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting January ??, 2006.
RMSUpdate January 6, 2005 Retail Market Subcommittee Update to TAC.
RMSUpdate November 4, 2004 Retail Market Subcommittee Update to TAC.
Compiled by Load Profiling ERCOT Energy Analysis & Aggregation
Profiling Working Group January 11, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting January 11, 2006.
UFE 2003 Analysis June 1, UFE 2003 ANALYSIS Compiled by the Load Profiling Group ERCOT Energy Analysis & Aggregation June 1, 2005.
Profiling Working Group December 11, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting December 11, 2003.
April 15, 2003 UFE 2002 ANALYSIS. April 15, 2003 LOAD AND UFE – ERCOT PEAK 2002 This is a graphic depiction of load and UFE on the ERCOT Peak Day for.
1 ERCOT LRS Precision Analysis PWG Presentation February 27, 2007.
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.
Profiling Working Group March 14, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for COPS Meeting March 14, 2006.
UFE 2005 Analysis 1 UFE 2005 ANALYSIS Compiled by Load Profiling ERCOT Energy Analysis & Aggregation.
May 03, UFE ANALYSIS Old – New Model Comparison Compiled by the Load Profiling Group ERCOT Energy Analysis & Aggregation May 03, 2007.
Demand Response Status Report Calvin Opheim October 9, 2007.
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.
1 Profiling Working Group 2014 Accomplishments & 2015 Goals.
Settlement Accuracy Analysis Prepared by ERCOT Load Profiling.
UFE 2008 Analysis 1 UFE 2008 ANALYSIS Compiled by Load Profiling Energy Analysis & Aggregation.
BA 201 Lecture 13 Sample Size Determination and Ethical Issues.
LRS Progress Report and Action Plan Update to the Profiling Working Group July 24, 2006.
ERCOT UFE Analysis UFE Task Force February 21, 2005.
Comparison of New Load Profile Models 14-Month Models vs 21-Month Models ERCOT Load Profiling Staff.
1 History of UFE (shortened version of presentation provided at UFE Taskforce Workshop on 9/14/2004) UFE Taskforce Meeting February 21, 2006.
1 ERCOT LRS Sample Design Review PWG Presentation March 27, 2007.
1 Arguments for Continuing Residential Validation Improves Settlement Accuracy Improves UFE Profile Assignment is more correct Arguments to Stop Residential.
1 ERCOT Load Profile Transition Option 1 – 4 Analysis August 21, 2006.
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.
Components are existing in ONE of TWO STATES: 1 WORKING STATE with probability R 0 FAILURE STATE with probability F R+F = 1 RELIABLEFAILURE F R Selecting.
Profiling Working Group April 14, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting April 14, 2004.
1 New MO Projects June COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics Jackie Ashbaugh.
1 Impact of Sample Estimate Rounding on Accuracy ERCOT Load Profiling Department May 22, 2007.
Uncertainty2 Types of Uncertainties Random Uncertainties: result from the randomness of measuring instruments. They can be dealt with by making repeated.
ERCOT Staff Analysis of Model Treatment of Holidays.
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.
Profiling Working Group January 14, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting January 14, 2004.
Oil and Gas Profile Implementation Plan. 2 BUSOGFLT Background ERCOT received Oil and Gas Profile Segment request ERCOT completed.
Profiling Working Group 1 PWG Update Report By Brad Boles of Cirro Energy ERCOT PWG Vice-Chair for COPS Meeting March 11, 2008.
Profiling Working Group 1 PWG Update Report By Brad Boles of Cirro Energy ERCOT PWG Vice-Chair for COPS Meeting December 3, 2007.
1 ERCOT COPS Round 2 Sample Design Review April 10, 2007.
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.
Demand Response Options Review Carl Raish November 27, 2007.
Hypothetical Examples of How Residential Photovoltaic (PV) ESI IDs Could be Settled ERCOT Load Profiling.
Profiling Working Group 1 PWG Update Report By Brad Boles of Cirro Energy ERCOT PWG Vice-Chair for COPS Meeting June 11, 2007.
LRS Progress Report to the Profiling Working Group March 27, 2007.
Profiling Working Group September 26, PWG Update Report By Ernie Podraza of Reliant Energy ERCOT PWG Chair for RMS Meeting September 26, 2003.
Profiling Working Group
HLM with Educational Large-Scale Assessment Data: Restrictions on Inferences due to Limited Sample Sizes Sabine Meinck International Association.
Presentation transcript:

1 Follow Up Analysis of 2 vs. 3 Decimals ERCOT Load Profiling Department June 26, 2007

2 Follow Up Analysis of 2 vs. 3 Decimals The impact of using three decimal places varies across Profile Types and Weather Zones ERCOT applied the Monte Carlo simulation findings to the LRS Round 1 Sample results to assess the impacts The simulation indicated that the impact of three decimal places varies depending on the profile load in an interval and the precision of the load estimate Using three decimals in profiles can improve, degrade, or have no impact on an interval estimate If a random three decimal number between – is added to a 2-decimal estimate: 45% of the time the estimate would be improved 45% of the time the estimate would be degraded 10% of the time the estimate would be unchanged (because of adding a zero)

3 Follow Up Analysis of 2 vs. 3 Decimals Upper threshold for interval precision to get a probability ≥ 50% of improvement with three decimals All intervals < kWh are likely to benefit from three decimals No intervals ≥ kWh are likely to benefit from three decimals

4 Follow Up Analysis of 2 vs. 3 Decimals Percent of Intervals with probability of improvement with three decimals ≥ 50% Reshiwr, Reslowr, and Busnodem are candidates for using three decimals

5 Follow Up Analysis of 2 vs. 3 Decimals ERCOT suggests using three decimals only for the Profile Types and Weather Zones where this analysis supports it (Reshiwr, Reslowr, Busnodem) The random noise introduced by using three decimals for all Profile Types and Weather Zones could eliminate the benefit of being selective ERCOT settlement analysis supports this conclusion Applying three–decimal profiles to sampled tradedays resulted in UFE improvement for 49% of the intervals and degradation for 51% Random values were added to the two–decimal profiles to create three-decimal profiles and applied to the same tradedays, virtually identical UFE improvement results were obtained (48% improve 52% degrade) Across the board use of three decimals is equivalent to adding random values ERCOT suggests submitting an LPGRR to modify Reshiwr, Reslowr, Busnodem Profile Model Spreadsheets rather than approving language to apply three decimals across the board Future model specifications could incorporate the appropriate number of decimal places based on load magnitude and precision