Load Settlement Business Advisory Committee Meeting #5

Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
Attendees:
Blair Morton, ATCO Electric
Bob Deyl, Epcor Distribution
Brian Donnelly, IQ2 Power
Brian Neufeld, Enmax
Bruce Ramsay, ATCO Electric
Chad Painchaud, Direct Energy
Christina Davidson, Direct Energy
David Axford, Nexen
Doug Coreman, Enmax Power
Fino Tiberi, AEUB
John Hutchison, Valeo Power
Kathryn Wood, DOE
Kirsty McDougall, Cognera
Lisa Lamers, Epcor Distribution
Nguyen Tran, FortisAlberta
Nick Clark, Utilitynet
Peter Graham, Enmax Power
Ryan McNeil, Epcor
Wynn Trumpour, EnCana
Dan Shields, AESO
Garth Rowan (Facilitator)
Katrina Ferguson, AESO
Michelle Sitler, AESO
Peter Wong, AESO (Chair)
Sean Fontaine, AESO
Shauna Lowry, AESO
Subashnie Tash, Recorder
DRAFT MINUTES – LSBAC MEETING #5
Note that these minutes are supplemental to the presentation slides, and provide discussion
points that are not already covered by the slides.
1. Welcome and Introductions (slides 2-4)
• Garth Rowan opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. and welcomed everyone back. He
reiterated that any rule that he brings forward for reinforcement is really the group’s
rule. He noted that he would be making the time calls to keep us on track.
Additionally he noted that questions would be welcomed throughout the meeting, time
permitting, as well as there would be time available at the end of the meeting for final
questions.
•
The Committee introduced themselves around the table.
•
Garth reviewed today’s goals (Slide 2).
•
Peter Wong indicated that we had received feedback from members over the last
several months, and we’ve made some changes to reflect that feedback. The terms
of the committee are still the same, but how we accomplish the goals is what is in
question. What we want is to share information here in this group, and do the
analysis and work in smaller groups. The issues, or major initiatives, are going to the
Working Groups. All work will come back to this committee for comment, but that
analysis and debate will no longer be the purpose of this group. These changes
should improve the effectiveness of this meeting. We will want to debrief at the end
of the process to ensure that this is happening, but let’s give the process a chance to
complete first.
•
Peter introduced Sean Fontaine who has been hired as part of the response from
Committee members. He will be managing these meetings going forward, as well as
managing the Working Groups.
1 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
•
Peter also introduced Michelle Sitler, LS analyst; Shauna Lowry, stakeholder
relations; Dan Shields, Engineering, here today to provide input on the POD issues;
and Subashnie Tash, administrative assistant.
2. Administrative Matters (slide 5)
•
•
Minutes of the last meeting were adopted.
No changes to the agenda.
3. Consultation Process (slides 6-11)
Slide 6
• Peter commented that the working groups are a great solution, and dovetail into the
project approach, as well as takes the resource constraints of the industry into
account.
• Peter asked that if we had missed any major points on the feedback to please let us
know.
• Brian Donnelly replied that he was in agreement that we should get on with it.
Slide 7
• Peter noted that in the past the written response has generally been missing, and we
will be providing that going forward.
• Peter asked for comments on the changes, and Peter Graham responded that these
were all positive changes, they reflect good though about the issues we’ve
encountered, and he is pleased to see it. He also added that focusing on these top
initiatives is good.
Slide 8
• Peter acknowledged that we weren’t too far into the written process that was
previously defined, and that all of this work will go forward to the Working Groups.
Some issues still need to be validated and this will come out of the Working Groups.
• Peter noted that a good solid Working Group will be able to find the right approach
for each issue. A specific process to fit every issue is likely too restricting.
• Bob Deyl asked if the material from the written process will be available to the
Working Group. Peter Wong responded that all of the information collected to date
will be passed to the Working Group.
• Peter added that Sean will ensure that the LSBAC stays informed on a weekly basis,
and may be asking for written comments through that mechanism. The details on
this will be forthcoming over the next several weeks. Peter stressed that ALL
members have a responsibility to respond in a timely manner. The idea is to prevent
someone from coming back at the end and saying they didn’t know what was going
on. We can’t keep going back to the beginning/previous steps.
Slide 9
• The first two priorities are being addressed immediately. The 3rd is starting up in
about 2 months. The last is delayed till the other three are completed, as it may be
somewhat dependent on the first ones.
• There was agreement that these are the correct priorities.
Slide 10
2 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
•
Sean thanked everyone for making time and providing honest feedback over the
previous few weeks.
• Sean introduced the corporate wide consultation approach, and noted that the key is
getting input from the Market Participants.
Slide 11
• Sean noted that through the identified process, we want to avoid anyone getting
surprised after the fact. The goal is to make the process predictable and transparent
so that we don’t get stuck and have to move backwards. He further reinforced that
the LSBAC’s role is to stay informed and provide feedback to the Working Group
through Sean on a regular basis.
• Bob Deyl asked where the business case/justification fit into the process. Sean
replied that the Working Group will make their recommendation in the form of a
business case. If anything is missed, the LSBAC will have an opportunity to
comment. Peter Wong added that everyone will have an opportunity to comment on
the complete package, and advise whether they agree or disagree, along with the
reasons. He also noted that the decision is still the responsibility of the AESO.
• Lisa Lamers asked if the Working Group would be going out to market the retailers,
i.e. perform a risk assessment. Peter noted that where appropriate this would be part
of the work done in the Working Group.
• Brian Donnelly asked if Sean was leading the working group or facilitating. Sean
noted that this was coming up in the next slides.
4. Settlement Zone Accuracy Working Group (slides 12-15)
Slide 12
• Bruce Ramsay asked if the WG was dealing with all of these points, and Sean replied
that yes, although some of the sub-issues have already had some progress made.
Peter Wong noted that Dan Shields’ group was handling the physical metering side
of things, and the information provision was already being addressed by Chris
Connoly and the DSM change. The objective is not to duplicate this work, it is to
support and augment the work from these other groups. We need to ensure that the
work from this group dovetails into the other work.
Slide 13 (no comments
Slide 14
• Sean noted that for this WG we have already identified the members, and believe the
group is a good representation from industry on this issue.
Slide 15
• Sean noted that the timeline would be vetted through the WG before being finalized.
• Wynn Trumpour asked that the AESO collect and present all of the data already
collected to the WG. Clarification was provided that the data referred to is the POD
issues for the last few years.
5. File Transfer Mechanism Risk Assessment (slides 16-19)
Slide 16
• Kathryn Wood stated that the DoE strongly supports this initiative, and will be working
closely with the AESO. She noted that we don’t know yet if there are any risks but
we see some potential risks that must be evalulated. If there aren’t any fine.
3 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
Regardless, we must know well before July 1 (date for Tariff Billing Code), so we
need this done swiftly and independently. We will have someone independent, not
necessarily industry related, but someone who has expertise and knowledge with
large file transfers. We will be looking to extend this to gas.
• Peter Wong asked if everyone understood the issue/objective. There was
agreement. He noted that we don’t know all the risks, and it needs to be brought to
the level of a technical evaluation, and is therefore not Load Settlement based, but is
IT based. The target is March 31, 2006.
• Christina Davidson asked if the WG would include members from ATCO Gas. Peter
replied that we were still looking for members, and Kathryn added that they and the
AESO were in agreement that it should include someone from gas. Christina noted
that someone from AltaGas should also be considered. Kathryn reiterated that the
members haven’t yet been identified, but that they wanted the affected parties there
at the table.
• Brian Donnelly asked that since this was no longer a Load Settlement issue, will the
Department be leading it? Kathryn replied that the Department is working together
with the AESO on this issue. If the AESO can’t fully fund the initiative then the DoE
will support it that way as well.
Slide 17
• Peter noted that this WG was not doing the actual work, and would be functioning
more as a steering committee to ensure that we are getting the appropriate answers
from the consultant.
Slide 18
• Peter noted that we would also include the gas side of things on the WG. He
reiterated that this is for representation only, that the WG is not making the decision.
Everything comes back here for comment.
• Bob Deyl asked about a business case for this initiative. Peter responded that this is
only a risk assessment. Bob said so this does not include solutions? Peter said no.
Katrina Ferguson reiterated that it is only a risk assessment, therefore if the
recommendation is that there are risks, we’ll have more work to do after that to
determine what the options are.
• Lisa Lamers wanted to ensure that auditability requirement were part of the
assessment. Katrina noted that we would ensure this is part of the requirements
passed on to the consultant.
• Peter asked that anyone interested in sitting on this WG pass their request on to
Sean. If there are multiple interested parties, we will have to narrow it down by
talking to each person to determine the right members.
Slide 19
• Timeline will be reviewed with WG to validate.
• Peter also asked for any input on the appropriate consultant to do this work. These
should be forwarded to Sean.
6. Business Process Review Working Group (slides 20-22)
Slide 20
• No comments.
Slide 21
• Katrina noted that it will be a challenge to limit the number of members on this group,
but that we needed to try to do that and would have to keep it to about 6 people. She
4 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
asked that all members take a look at the time commitment and determine if they
could commit to that. All interested parties should forward their names to Sean.
Katrina asked all members to remember that even if they weren’t on the WG, they
would be fully involved throughout the process.
• Lisa Lamers asked about having a single door for all issues to come through. Katrina
responded that Sean will be putting some discipline around that process for us.
• Kirsty McDougall asked if they would get a response on their comments. Katrina
responded that yes they would, in all cases. Katrina also noted that particularly in
this WG, there may be an opportunity to have non-WG members present issues that
no-one else on the WG is familiar with. These are some of the details that still need
to be worked out.
• Bob Deyl asked whether we would be using any issue tracking software to help
manage the issues on this WG, since these issues are rarely discrete and have a lot
of ongoing and overlapping consequences, and email will not suffice. Katrina
responded that this was a good idea, and there is full intention to do just that. The
AESO is currently using a tool to track the data issues and we can look into opening
that up to the Market Participants. Peter Wong also noted that the AESO is looking
at some decision making software previously recommended by Peter Graham.
• A question was asked about implementation, and Katrina responded that any
implementations that are a result of this WG will be done using a fully documented
project plan approach, with market wide testing and so forth.
Slide 22
• Katrina noted that this timeline will also be validated with the WG.
7. PFAM Working Group (slide 23)
Slide 23
• Katrina Ferguson stated that we will look at this after examining the three other
initiatives, probably into the 4th quarter next year as the earliest. The general belief is
that some of the issues surrounding this initiative will be resolved through the first
three, although the process itself must still be reviewed. Peter Wong added that the
adjustment process we use right now is not working and is unfair to some market
participants and we need to work towards making it fair. We may be able to work
with gas on this as well.
8. Load Settlement Update (slides 24-33)
Slide 24
• Peter noted that this section of the agenda had its genesis in the last LSBAC meeting
where we committed to provide an update on what we’re doing in LS. There is not a
lot of detail, as it is really meant to be a heads up.
• Site ID Assignment – the AESO is working with the parties on an interim solution;
market will see a rule change coming through the ISO Rule Change Process. Bob
Deyl asked if any exemptions had been granted in this area, and the answer was no.
• Profiles – some of the problems with lighting profiles include no differences between
summer and winter, and discrepancies between how site ID’s are assigned to lighting
(individually or in groups).
• Metering – DSM – Katrina noted that February 1, 2006 is the effective date, and the
AESO will be looking to provide some indication of the fact that this is going through
5 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
the rules process over the coming week.
• Enrollment – will go the BPR WG.
Slide 25
• The papers referred to are public.
• MDM/LSA qualification – working on the DoE on this to determine if it belongs in
settlement or somewhere else. If it belongs in LS, it will go to the BPR WG.
• Regulated Default Supply – there is a situation where the RRP is not accepting all of
their role, and we’re working with the DoE on this.
• Losses and UFE – this is a DoE issue, and has been referred to them. While LS
governs the process, we do not govern the policy.
• Bob Deyl asked which of these issues were going to the BPR WG – answer was
enrollment and if decided it was applicable to the AESO, the WO-WO transaction
issue.
• Bob Deyl asked if the rest were out of scope for this group, and Peter responded that
we couldn’t say that definitively, that these are operational issues and if they need to
go there they will. The AESO needs to be able to make the appropriate decisions.
Bob responded that he was trying to get a sense of how we determine the list of
tasks for the BPR. Katrina replied that ultimately we will look to the WG to determine
that. Bob asked if all of these things would go through some kind of stakeholder
consultation, and Peter replied that everything that is a rule change will go through
the ISO Rule Change Process. What we’re talking about at the WG is the level of
consultation prior to the formal rules process.
• Kathryn Wood noted that “RRO Regulation” is the name being used.
• Brian Donnelly, in reference to the Losses/UFE notation, asked if he shouldn’t have
been paying these to the AESO all along, and Kathryn responded that yes he should
have, that the DoE is reviewing a request to change the current rules regarding who
pays these charges. Brian said he would be interested in knowing more about this.
Slide 26
• Peter Wong noted that we have had mostly good cooperation from stakeholders on
these issues. Sometimes these issues take a lot of time to research because there is
a lot of data.
• Brian Donnelly asked if there had been any complaints on timing, and Katrina
responded that we had not received any. This doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, but
we have had no formal complaints. Peter Wong noted that we do require a formal
complaint with appropriate backup to take any action since we don’t have access to
all of the data. This will change somewhat going forward on some of the problems
but not all.
Slide 27
• Kathryn Wood asked if these exemptions would be of prime importance to the BPR,
and Katrina responded yes.
• Peter Wong noted that we would start posting exemptions.
• Lisa Lamers stated that there was a need for a single door for exemptions, and they
can’t be assessed by the Working Group. She also stressed that it is EDI’s position
that an acknowledgement is not the same as an exemption, and that they didn’t
support exemptions being granted. Further she noted that there were some
exemption requests from EDI that have not been addressed. Katrina asked that
Epcor provide a list of these, and we would set up a meeting to address them.
• Bob Deyl asked if there was a comprehensive list of exemptions, and when and
where would it be posted. Peter responded that we would post them on the AESO
website. Katrina committed that we would post this by the end of November.
6 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
Slide 28
• Katrina Ferguson noted that retailers are probably not aware of the data issues we’ve
been working on as we’ve focused on the LSA’s as they have the majority of the
transactions in the market. However there are some retailer issues and we will be
approaching retailers over the coming months.
Slide 31
• Katrina noted that these statistics were based on strict interpretations, and certainly
was not an indication that the data was in a critical state. Looking at the two sets of
numbers, the first being with the strict interpretation, and the second being with some
relaxation of the standards, is a good indication of the workarounds that the market
has had to put in place, and moreover, an indication of the level of changes required
in the SSC.
• Katrina noted that it is also a good indication of the need to revise the SSC to reflect
reality.
9.
Upcoming Settlement Adjustments (ATCO presentation and slides 34-37)
ATCO provided a handout on their POD adjustments. The following comments were
captured:
• ATCO slide 1: it involves more than just the POD – it is everything at the
system/transmission level.
• ATCO slide 2: Ruth Lake error led to broader investigation
• ATCO slide 3: in-situ testing was not previously being done end-to-end, it is now.
Validation is important because there are discrepancies due to the technology of
different meter types. Less than 10% was considered to be acceptable, leaving 2
errors to be reviewed to identify the breadth of the issue. Based on these errors, it
was determined that they needed to do a full review. Full testing of all sites will be
complete by the end of the year, and this includes the addition of 10 DI points.
• ATCO slide 4 – ATCO will be looking at the business case for the frequency of
performing these tests. The target is every 1-3 years.
• Bob Deyl asked how many of the ones identified by ATCO are included in the 3
AESO has mentioned in the slides. Peter indicated that it covered all of them. Bob
asked if they were all in one direction, and the answer was no, that some were
offsetting.
• Dave Axford commented that this was an interesting issue, as it involved
government, regulatory and customer points of view. Corporations are rewarded or
punished based on their ability to provide services. Part of that is risk. Regulated
companies are able to get a regulated rate of return. The assumption is that the
company is acting in a competent manner. The question is, when they are shown to
be incompetent, should they be punished? i.e. Not given the guaranteed rate of
return. If not punished, then where is the incentive to change their process? There is
a big disconnect here – there is no connection between those that create problems
and those that pay for the problems. As a retailer, Nexen has to take the heat. Even
if ATCO is not deemed to be negligent, and even if they get their money, it is the
Retailer’s responsibility to bear either the financial burden or the customer
relationship that results from this. Should companies have to deal with customers on
these issues? We need to indemnify the retailer from having to take the
responsibility for these errors.
• Wynn Trumpour thanked ATCO for opening up about these issues.
7 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kathryn Wood also noted that they took it upon themselves to take on all 391 sites,
although this doesn’t change the concerns expressed by Nexen.
Dave Axford responded by saying that although he doesn’t take away from what
ATCO has done to rectify the situation, which is what any responsible company
would have done, but the error has happened and needs to be addressed.
Lisa Lamers stated that in situ testing should occur more regularly, not every 3 years
as per the current standard, but even every 3 months on rotation. Epcor will be
applying to the regulator for costs to do this, as they think it is important.
Peter Wong noted that this is the area that Dan Shields will be looking at.
Bob Deyl noted that system level metering is significantly different now in the
deregulated market than in the old utility world where there was virtually no impact to
the customer. It has gone from nothing of importance to the most important thing,
which is huge role reversal, and it takes time to get things where they should be.
Dave Axford responded that the difference in perspective is that his background is
not this industry. While you think you’re special, you’re not. You use history for an
excuse as to why things are as they are. The problem is that 5 years into it, we are
still using history as an excuse. SOX is a good example of where you can’t do that.
While he is empathetic with the situation, he doesn’t like the continuous excuse
making.
Blair Morton said he agreed, that ATCO’s motivation was due to their ethical values
and desire to have the deregulated market succeed. They want to avoid these
issues in the future. There are essentially 2 options – more regulations to motivate
change, or a free market process as (Dave Axford) has suggested. Right now there
is no incentive.
Peter Wong noted that the SZA should encompass all of these issues, and Kathryn
Wood is taking part in that to ensure that we do address this issue as well.
Ryan MacNeil asked if additional information on these errors will be forthcoming.
Peter responded that on the settlement side, PFAM process will be followed. We
have the option to request an explanation and will likely do so in this case, and post
for market participants to review.
Bob Deyl asked if there were no errors in Fortis. Peter said there was one = $3.7M in
favour of the retailers (Innisfail error). Nguyen Tran confirmed this and said it was a
zone load aggregation error.
There was some confusion over the numbers and Katrina recommended that we
commit to providing the proper numbers after the meeting.
Slide 37
• Dan noted that we are still awaiting responses from other TFO’s, but will be ensuring
that this isn’t going to occur at other TFO’s.
• Currently, each TFO has their own process. The AESO will want to state a process
that includes key steps for everyone.
• The witnessing would be by the AESO, on a random sampling basis.
• Bob Deyl asked if any consideration was being given to using Provincial
Reconciliation for this, and whether it should be extended to daily settlement or
expand the breadth of it. Peter Wong responded that Provincial Reconciliation is
done at a broad level, but these errors are a the single POD level, and therefore
would be difficult to spot these errors. He said it would be very hard to detect errors
looking at a string of numbers, is more at the end of meter installation, proper
maintenance, etc.
8 of 9
Load Settlement Business
Advisory Committee
Meeting #5
November 10, 2005
AESO Offices
Calgary, AB
10. Close
•
•
Any suggestions, feedback and comments let Sean Fontaine know
The next meeting will be at the end of January 2006.
9 of 9