1. 1 Update from ERCOT Retail Market Services to RMS July 17, 2003

2. 2 Retail Market Update Topics V1.6 Coordination Team Update Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean up Data Extract Issues FasTrak Day to Day Issue Status Canceling Drop to AREP Market Sync Closure Market Resettlement Update Data Extracts Meeting Request Flight 0703 Progress Update Portal Replacement Project Update

3. 3 V1.6 Coordination Team Update Update to RMS Presented by Dave Odle

4. 4 Background Information TX SET Version1.6 Implementation of functionality to support automated portions of Competitive Meter Ownership Define and set expectations on identified manual processes for Competitive Meter Ownership Clarifications on payment and remittance processes as defined by the 810/820 workshop Internal modification of systems to better support market operations. (Not required by TX SET but are recommended by ERCOT staff)

5. 5 CC 427 – Meter level segments NOT USED for unmetered services CC 458 – REF~1P NOT USED by the CR on the 814_13 CC 462 - One to One suspension and cancellation of delivery services CC 469 - Reject Code “FRB” to be used by all MPs (Not just MCTDSPs) CC 511 - Removal of special characters from PER.04 & PER.06 CC 512 – Meter Ownership credit on the invoice CC 513 – New segment to maintain ESI ID showing meter ownership Manual – Competitive meter manual processes Texas Set V1.6 Functional Requirements Background on Requirements

6. 6 Background - Categories for Version 1.6 CC 427 CC 458 CC 462 CC 469 CC 511 CC 512 CC 513 Group 1 Functional Changes Group 2 Implementation Guide Changes COMET to have these defined by Aug 1 Group 3 Manual Processes identified by the COMET working group Rules clarified in the 810/820 Workshop. This is not new functionality, But may be included in Flight 1003 Group 4 810/820 rules CC 386 CC 442 CC 445 CC 451 CC 452 CC 455 CC 459 CC 461 CC 467 CC 469 CC 470 CC 472 CC 473 CC 474 CC 496 CC 500 CC 501 CC 506 CC 510 CC 511 CC 514 CC 515 CC 476 CC 481 CC 482 CC 486 CC 487 CC 488

7. 7 Implementation Plan ERCOT Implementing Group 1 Further Defining Design for Group 3, (Ongoing by COMET) TTPT to examine group 3 for inclusion in testing Flight Testing to begin 10/13/03 V1.6 Implementation Date is 12/20/03

8. 8 Project Timeline for Texas Set 1.6 6/107/148/159/1210/10 Planning Detail Design Construction System Test Market Test 12/20/04 **Contingency Migration date is 1/3/03

9. 9 Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean Up

10. 10 Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean-up Process In-Review - currently 12 (Original Quantity = 863) –June RMS, count 207 In-Review with Meter Read present –Update In Progress: 12 In Review with Meter Read waiting on TDSPs TDSP 1 – 0 TDSP 2 – 0 TDSP 3 – 6 TDSP 4 – 6 –Action Item: ERCOT request missing transaction from the TDSPs Scheduled – currently 6,153 (Original Quantity =17,676) –June RMS, count 11,038 Scheduled with No Meter Read present –ERCOT provided TDSPs and CRs an updated list of ESI IDs –ERCOT would like to note that since June RMS, ERCOT and the TDSPs have been able to resolve 4,945 Scheduled ESI IDs –Update In Progress: 6,153 waiting on TDSP response TDSP 1 – 2,953 TDSP 2– 1,215 TDSP 3 – 991 TDSP 4 – 994 –Action Item: ERCOT request missing transaction from the TDSPs or confirmation to cancel

11. 11 Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean-up Process Cancelled with Exception - currently 1,349with Meter Reads present Process: –June RMS, count Cancelled with Exception, 1,618 –ERCOT provided TDSPs and CRs an updated list of ESI IDs –Update 7-14-03: (1,349 In Progress waiting response on 269) TDSP 1-ERCOT working to complete 31 TDSP 2-ERCOT working to complete 694 TDSP 3-ERCOT working to complete 624 TDSP 4 no response –Action Requested: TDSP give OK to remain cancelled or coordinate transaction submittal to ERCOT

12. 12 Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean-up Process Issue: These outstanding pending service orders are causing NFIs and out of sync conditions. June 3rd, 2002 thru June 7th, 2002 Total Not First Ins for the week: 3,696 17 NFIs - OLD Service order exists for 2001 473 NFIs - SO exists for current transaction 1,933 NFIs - CR submitted multiple transactions basically at same time/for same data range (same CR) 35 NFIs - SO exists for an order that should be COMPLETE but maybe is only 5 days old, 10 etc. (included some that were a month old) 1,238 NFIs - OLD service order pending from January thru early May of 2002.

13. 13 Pre-TX SET 1.5 Data Clean-up Process Recommend RMS approval to have the TDSPs to respond to ERCOT with the necessary actions requested to resolve the Pre-TX Set 1.5 Data Clean UP initiative by August 29 th, 2003

14. 14 Stats by Issue Count Stats by ESI ID Count (for ERCOT LSE Relationship issues) Comment on Process Potential Issues ESI ID Data Extract Variance Process Update

15. 15 FasTrak 2003 Data Extract Variance Issue Stats (as of 07-15-2003) Of the 248 Service History Issues In Progress with ERCOT, 54 are resolved and awaiting other party resolution check off Of the 248 In Progress Issues a 136 of these Issues were received by ERCOT after the resettlement date..

16. 16 FasTrak 2003 Data Extract Variance ESI ID Stats (as of 07-15-2003) NOTE: Average turn around time is calculated from the time ERCOT sends the spreadsheet to the TDSP, the TDSP responds and when the CR responds if necessary. Response time is not calculated off of “Progress Reports”.

17. 17 Comments for Thought ERCOT can not report statistics or the success of Non-ERCOT issue resolution CR submitting issues after settlement of trade date –Out of the 720 issues received by ERCOT, 261 have been out side of the settlement date. 136 of those are currently in the status of “In Progress” ERCOT would like to propose that a spreadsheet is NOT Rejected, but instead is sent back to the submitting Market Participant to remove the invalid ESI IDs, correct any spreadsheet issues and then re-upload the corrected spreadsheet with a new file name. ERCOT would like to request a monitoring party be added at the time of creation for all ERCOT data extract variance issues ERCOT would like to propose a file naming standard for uploaded spreadsheets: “FT#_MPName_TradeDate_DEVType_MonitoringPartyName”

18. 18 Comments for Thought 1.Multiple CR involvement - Record change request that crosses multiple CR records in ERCOT system Who owns responsibility for notification and reconciliation with TDSP and CR(s)? What happens when one CR or more disagree? Acceptability of all CRs involved knowing who each other is? 2.Completion of some CR requests will create de-energized periods in ERCOT systems where usage data exists Will Market Participants accept that usage will be UFE? What if usage exists and is really large? Is anyone responsible for “finding the correct CR” if completing another CR request results in usage during a de-energized period? Note- Quantity of the fixes has been very small 3.For bulk of LSE relationship issues, ERCOT and TDSP agree on record. CR should modify their database (for 2002 issues)

19. 19 “Check Point” Meeting ERCOT proposes that a “Check Point” meeting take place to discuss the current data extract variance processes, procedures, potential issues and enhancements that have been requested. Date: Tuesday, August 5 th, 2003 Time: 10:00 am – 4:00 pm Central Time Location: ERCOT Met Center A market notice will be sent out with all details.

20. 20 FasTrak Day-to-Day and DEV Issues General Guidelines: Day-2-Day issue would be confirmed to be related to transaction or processing issues. If an MP submits a Day-2-Day just to change a date because they don’t agree with ERCOT (without transactional reasoning) then we will reject and require a Data Extract Variance be submitted.

21. 21 FasTrak Day-to-Day Issue Status

22. 22 FasTrak 2003 “Day to Day” Issue Stats (as of 07-17-2003) Of the 297 In Progress with ERCOT, 193 are resolved and awaiting other party resolution check off 1 remaining issue for 2002 are not included in the numbers to the left –1 is in progress pending a response from the CR –0 are in progress pending a response from the TDSP

23. 23 Canceling Drop to AREP

24. 24 Canceling Drop to AREP As a follow-up to discussions at the June RMS meeting, ERCOT met with the PUCT staff and a customer protection agency to review PUC rules and ERCOT protocols and procedures. ERCOT Protocols Section 15.1.2 Prior to initiating a Drop, the CR shall comply with all PUCT rules and regulations. This process ensures that the Customer will not experience an interruption of service, will allow the Customer to choose another CR or will switch the Customer to the POLR or Affiliate REP (as defined in PURA 31.002(2)) if the Customer does not choose a new CR or does not choose a new CR within sufficient processing time. A Drop by a CR is binding on the CR and cannot be cancelled or rescinded.

25. 25 Canceling Drop to AREP, Cntd. Customer Protection ruling Section 25.474 (k) Customer's switch to POLR. The methods of customer authorization, customer verification, and rights of cancellation are not applicable when the customer's electric service is "dropped" to the POLR by a REP for non- payment pursuant to §25.482 of this title (relating to Termination of Contract). Nothing in this subsection shall be read to imply that the customer is accepting a contract with the POLR for a specific term. Customer Protection ruling Section 25.482 (b) Termination policy. A REP other than a REP that is authorized to disconnect for nonpayment pursuant to the provisions of §25.483(b) of this title may terminate its contract with a customer for nonpayment of electric service charges and, if no other REP extends service to that customer, service shall be offered by the POLR until September 24, 2002, and thereafter by the affiliated REP. If a customer makes payment or satisfactory payment arrangements prior to the termination date, a REP shall continue serving the customer under the existing terms and conditions that were in effect prior to the issuance of a termination notice. If a REP chooses to terminate its contract with a customer, it shall follow the procedures in this section, or modify them in ways that are more generous to the customer in terms of the cause for termination, the timing of the termination notice, and the period between notice and termination. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a REP to terminate its contract with a customer.

26. 26 Canceling Drop to AREP, Cntd. As noted in the market notification on June 17 th, 2003, ERCOT has begun to honor all requests from the originating CR, TDSP and/or the gaining AREP that are logged via FasTrak to cancel Drop to AREP transactions that have not yet completed as denoted in the below scenarios. This decision comes from interpretations of sections 25.474 (k) which only discusses not allowing the customer to cancel the Drop to AREP transaction and 25.482 (b) which states that REPs have an obligation to take back customers who settle their bill prior to the termination date.

27. 27 Cancel DTA Scenarios Scenario 1: Customer settles the bill with the REP and the REP has time to submit a FasTrak issue requesting the cancel prior to the termination date. –REP submits FasTrak asking for DTA be canceled –(No current statistics exist) Scenario 2: REP submits a FasTrak issue indicating they sent the Drop to AREP in error. –REP submits FasTrak asking for DTA be canceled –ERCOT manually cancels the DTA and forwards necessary 814.08s –(4 FasTrak Issues; 316 ESI IDs)

28. 28 Cancel DTA Scenarios, Cntd. Scenario 3: While a drop to AREP is pending at ERCOT, the TDSP receives a safety net move in. TDSP cancels the drop in their system and allows the move in to process thereby avoiding dropping the new customer to the AREP. TDSP then submits a FasTrak issue asking ERCOT to cancel the Drop to AREP. –TDSP submits FasTrak asking for DTA be canceled –ERCOT manually cancels the DTA and forwards necessary 814.08s –This scenario will not be valid once the solution to stacking is implemented. –(15 FasTrak Issues; 20 ESI IDs)

29. 29 Cancel DTA Scenarios, Cntd. Scenario 4: A drop to AREP and switch are both concurrently processing at ERCOT. ERCOT’s system determines that the drop to AREP should win because it is scheduled sooner and cancels the switch. The TDSP completes the switch and cancels the drop. The TDSP requests via FasTrak that ERCOT cancel the drop and complete the switch to match their system. –TDSP submits FasTrak asking for DTA be canceled –ERCOT manually cancels the DTA and forwards necessary 814.08s –This scenario will not be valid once the solution to stacking is implemented. –(1 FasTrak Issue; 46 ESI IDs canceled)

30. 30 Cancel DTA Scenarios, Cntd. Scenario 5: TDSP is unable to complete the DTA and request the DTA be canceled. Example, fire occurs at location, no meter existed. –TDSP submits FasTrak asking for DTA be canceled –ERCOT manually cancels the DTA and forwards necessary 814.08s –(9 FasTrak Issues; 11 ESI IDs) Scenario 6: The gaining AREP is requesting customer information regarding the Drop. The AREP should open a FasTrak and ERCOT will handle the issue the same way as the Inadvertent Switch Process. –AREP submits FasTrak asking for dropped customer information –ERCOT will facilitate the emails between the AREP and the originating CR –ERCOT will change the FasTrak from an ERCOT issue to a NON- ERCOT issue –(1 FasTrak Issue; 1 ESI ID)

31. 31 Canceling Drop to AREP, Cntd. ERCOT will cancel Drop to AREP transactions for the above scenarios. These scenarios may or may not be comprehensive. Any requests that do not fit one of these scenarios will be considered as it applies to the customer protection rules. Provided it does not violate any ruling, ERCOT will honor the request. Because the ERCOT Protocols (Section 15.1.2) seem to be in contradiction with the customer protection rules (Section 25.482 (b)), this procedure has been implemented concurrently with ERCOT submitting a Protocol Revision Request to the Protocol Revision Subcommittee to make modifications to the protocols to allow for the procedure. This PRR will also include changes necessary to make the cancel EDI initiated.

32. 32 Market Sync Closure

33. 33 Closing Out Market Sync Compile List of ESI IDs not completed Removed List from Market Sync DEV List Completed 7-8-2003 Removed List from Market Sync DEV List Completed 7-8-2003 For ESI IDs Not Completed, Re-send Entire File to TDSP or CR. (Items not classified as “1” are valid to submit as DEV issue) Completed 7-7-2003 For ESI IDs Not Completed, Re-send Entire File to TDSP or CR. (Items not classified as “1” are valid to submit as DEV issue) Completed 7-7-2003 Market Sync Response Files File Count 16 TDSPs 29 CRs 4 ERCOT ESI ID Count 2,854 TDSPs 13,300 CRs 2,966 ERCOT 15,931 Distinct ESI IDs

34. 34 Market Resettlement Update

35. 35 Data Extracts Working Group Meeting Request

36. 36 Data Extracts Working Group Meeting Request The Data Extract Working Group will meet at the ERCOT Met Center on 7-29-03 in room 206B from 9:30 - 3:30pm. Agenda to include: 1.Review Betty Day’s presentation on ERCOT’s default profile analysis given at 6-12-03 RMS meeting. 2.New CR extract (Switch extract) 3.ESI ID default profile report 4.Additional data needed which is not supplied within the ESI-ID Service History Extract. Please email additional data to jbrisco@reliant.com 5.Discuss Registration Extract

37. 37 Flight 0703 Progress Update

38. 38 Flight 0703 Progress Update 22 CRs and 8 TDSPs are testing in Flight 0703 Frame 00 Status Flight Kick Off Call held Friday, July 11 - 100% participation by Market Participants 100% Connectivity Completed 86% of Penny Tests completed – remainder to be completed by end of week. MP going forward with banking script to not delay overall flight. 100% of Market Participants were ready to start Monday July 14, 2003

39. 39 Flight 0703 Progress Update Frame 01 status We are ON SCHEDULE Transaction Progress There are 5569 transactions/steps (‘Tasks’) that are a part of E2E Flight V1.5 Retail Testing for New, Existing, MCTDSP, POLR/AREP, CSA, and ERCOT Tracks. This includes all tests for all 61 trading partnerships. Of the 5569 total, 4000 are due through Frame 2, and 2081 are completed. This is 52.0% of the total due to date, and 37.4% of the total test.

40. 40 Retail Client Services New Retail Account Managers Sr. Retail Account Manager Kristi Hobbs – Lead Retail Account Managers David Gonzales Jennifer Johnson Jamie Lavas Jennifer Garcia Sherri Slagowski Mike Davis – Sr. Retail Account Manager

41. 41 ERCOT Portal Replacement Project Update to RMS Presented by Dave Odle

42. 42 Background Information Portal Replacement Current portal short falls –Numerous fixes since launch –ERCOT unable to proactively plan for upgrades –Substandard performance/navigation; lacks intuitive UI –Poor customer image The purpose of this project is to replace the current technology with a more robust, resilient, and scaleable portal

43. 43 Portal Replacement Market Impacts Current Portlet Functionality will NOT change User Interface –UI look & feel consistent with ERCOT standards –Primary & lower-level navigation changes Following the “3 click rule” standard for navigation –Personalization capability “My Page” / ERCOT Desktop Performance / Reliability – Load time will be tested on the criteria of under 10 seconds current is 30 seconds to 1 ½ minutes Hyper-relational data source will be removed SAP proprietary technology – never used by market – Reliability of the product has been proven in other implementations and provides full product support

44. 44 Current Portal Interface Navigation Content / Portlets Header

45. 45 New Portal Interface Navigation Header Content / Portlets Primary Navigation

46. 46 Portal Replacement Phased Approach Installation & configuration Single sign on capability Migration of existing portal functionality only Improved navigation / “look & feel” to include : –Consistency with the ERCOT website standards –Use of a “folder” approach for main menu items –Return of personalization capability (“My Page” functionality ) Minor interface redevelopment, as needed, to fit within the new framework Phase 1 High Priority: Solid Requirements & Scope Data Transparency efforts Improvements in usability Phase 2 Requirements being gathered

47. 47 Project Timeline for Portal Replacement 5/17/178/159/110/3 Planning & Development Testing Begins Market Testing Begins Training Production Migration 6/207/107/239/110/1 Planning Market Contacted Market Participant Visits Begin Analysis of Data Gathered Deliver Requirements 11/1 Phase 1 Timeline Phase 2 Requirements gathering Timeline

48. 48 Thank you