July 2003 Resource Plan Performance Report

For QSE Project ManagersERCOT Compliance

August 11, 2003

Scores Calculated Using Common Measures Developed With ERCOT Market Operations and QSE Project Managers. Contact ERCOT Client Reps for

further information, data behind any of the scores, and/or comments.

2

• Compares hourly Resource Plan status to telemetry. 12 telemetry values are used, an average over 5 minutes, for each Resource in the Resource Plan.

• An occurrence is counted when either of the following conditions are met:– Status = “Offline” AND 1 telemetry value > 0.5 MW

– Resource MW > 0 MW AND all telemetry values < 0.5 MW

• Each QSE’s Resource with telemetry is evaluated each hour of the month. The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Status

Count Total

Occurences of #1

3

Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Status

Resource Status Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DK DA AM BG CT CI CQ CW BX CD CF AD CU BE BF CJ AP AR BC DE AY CV AO DF

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

4

• As an alternative to the Resource Status Measure, Combined Cycle Trains approved by ERCOT are treated as if they were single units.

• Not all combined cycle unit trains are approved and included in settlement now – nor in these calculations. We will add them as they are approved.

• Occurrences and the overall are calculated the same as before.

Resource Plan Performance Report: CC Resource Status

5

Resource Plan Performance Report: CC Resource Status

Resource Status Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DK DA AM BG CT CI CQ CW BX CD CF AD CU BE BF CJ AP AR BC DE AY CV AO DF

ID

Sco

re

June 2003 Score

June 2003 Score Where CCs Treated As Single Unit

July 2003 Score

July 2003 Score Where CCs Treated As Single Unit

6

• Reviews minimum and maximum capability for each Resource listed as “online” in the Resource Plan each hour.

• An occurrence is counted when:– Minimum RP Limit = Maximum RP Limit– Maximum RP Limit > 0 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Max Min Limit Equality

Count Total

Occurences of #1

7

Resource Plan Performance Report: Resource Max Min Limit Equality

Resource Max Min Limit Equality Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DK CW CQ CJ CD DF BX BG AY DE CT CU AM AD AO AP AR BC BE BF CF CI CV DA

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

8

• Reviews minimum and maximum capability for each Resource listed as “online” in the Resource Plan each hour, as an alternative to the Resource Max Min Limit Equality Measure.

• An occurrence is counted when:– Minimum RP Limit > 70% * Maximum RP Limit– Maximum RP Limit > 0 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

• This needs to account for limitations of different unit types. Work in progress to extract a min-max capacity spread for each unit from Asset Registration data and compare to RP min-max spread.

Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT Resource Min As % of Max

Count Total

Occurences of #1

9

Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT Resource Min As % of Max

Resource Min As A % of Max Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AP CV CW DK BF CU CD CJ AY CQ CT DA BX AM DF BG DE AR AO CF CI AD BC BE

ID

Sco

re

June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

10

• As a second alternative to the Resource Max Min Limit Equality Measure, Combined Cycle Trains approved by ERCOT are treated as if they were single units.

• Again, we are only using those that are approved, some CC’s aren’t aggregated here.

• Occurrences and the overall are calculated the same as before.

Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT CC Resource Min As % of Max

11

Resource Plan Performance Report: DRAFT CC Resource Min As % of Max

Resource Min As A % of Max Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

AP CV CW DK BF CU CD CJ AY CQ CT DA BX AM DF BG DE AR AO CF CI AD BC BE

ID

Sco

re

July 2003 Score July 2003 Score Where CCs Treated As Single Unit

12

• Compares hourly Resource Plan MW to the Schedule by Zone. Existing measure uses Day Ahead data.

• An occurrence is counted when:– (RP Zonal MW – Zonal Schedule) > 2% * Zonal Schedule– (RP Zonal MW – Zonal Schedule) > 1 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

Resource Plan Performance Report: DA Zonal Energy Schedule (2.0%)

Count Total

Occurences of #1

13

Resource Plan Performance Report: DA Zonal Energy Schedule (2.0%)

Day Ahead Zonal Energy Schedule Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

CQ DK CT DA AP AY CW CJ AR BX AD CD BE AM CV CF BG BF CI AO BC CU DE DF

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

14

• An additional measure comparing Resource Plan to Zonal Schedules at the end of the Adjustment Period has been proposed.

• ERCOT is still looking for reliable data to use for this measure.

Resource Plan Performance Report: AP Zonal Energy Schedule (2.0%)

15

• Compares Resource Plan Aggregated Minimum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Down Regulation, and Down Balancing Bid. Measured by QSE for each hour, based on RP at time of bids.

• An occurrence is counted when:– (Down Balancing Bid – Minimum Capability) > 10 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

`

Count Total

Occurences of #1

16

Resource Plan Performance Report: Down Bid

Down Bid Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DE AO CV CU BF CD CJ DF CT AY DA BC AD BX AM CF CI CW AP AR BE BG CQ DK

ID

Sco

re

June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

17

• Compares Resource Plan Aggregated Minimum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Down Regulation, and Down Balancing Deployed. Schedule and AS awards for lowered MW output is the “obligation”.

• An occurrence is counted when:– (Obligation – Minimum Capability) > 1 MW– Down Regulation > 0 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

Resource Plan Performance Report: Down Deployment

Count Total

Occurences of #1

18

Resource Plan Performance Report: Down Deployment

Down Deployment Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

BF BC CJ AO BX CT AY AM AR BG CQ CU CW DA DF DK DE

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

19

• Compares QSE Resource Plan Aggregated Maximum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Up Regulation, Responsive Reserve, and Up Balancing Deployed. Schedule and AS awards for increased MW output is the “obligation”.

• An occurrence is counted when:– (Obligation – Maximum Capability) > 1 MW– Up Regulation + Responsive Reserve > 0 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

Resource Plan Performance Report: Up Deployment

Count Total

Occurences of #1

20

Resource Plan Performance Report: Up Deployment

Up Deployment Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

BX CD DA CV CT AO CF AR AM BG CW AY BC BF CJ CQ CU DF DK DE

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

21

• Compares Resource Plan Aggregated Maximum Capability for each interval to the Sum of the Schedule, Up Regulation, Responsive Reserve, Non Spinning Reserve, and Up Balancing Deployed. Non Spinning Capacity will have an “offline” status.

• An occurrence is counted when both of the following conditions are met:– (Obligation – Maximum Capability) > 1 MW

– NSRS > 0 MW

• The overall QSE score is calculated as follows:

Resource Plan Performance Report: Non Spinning Reserve

Count Total

Occurences of #1

22

Resource Plan Performance Report: Non Spinning Reserve

Non Spinning Reserve Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

CD BF CF AO CQ DA AM AR AY BC BG BX CJ CT CU CW DF DK

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

23

• This measure is the unweighted average of the current measures:– Resource Status– Resource Max Min Limit Equality– Day Ahead Zonal Schedule– Down Deployment– Up Deployment– Non Spinning Reserve

• The PUCT MOD has expressed an interest in looking at these measures individually.

Resource Plan Performance Report: Overall Score

24

Resource Plan Performance Report: Overall Score

Overall Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DK CQ BF CD CT DA AP BX CJ CW AD AM BE AY CV CI BG CF AR BC AO CU DE DF

ID

Sco

re

April 2003 Score May 2003 Score June 2003 Score July 2003 Score

25

• Developing the “min-max capability spread” using asset registration data as the basis for comparison instead of fixed % of RP max capability.

• Add new aggregated CC’s as they approved• Find good data for AP Zonal Schedule measure• Review QSE inquiries about data and calculations• Develop a trial measure that checks to see that a

QSE Resource Plan allows the required mandatory down balancing bids without exceeding minimum capability

Resource Plan Performance Report: Action Items