project prioritization history

32
1 Yearly Project Prioritization Process Overview and New MO Projects Troy Anderson et. al. June 2007

Upload: jonco

Post on 17-Jan-2016

57 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Yearly Project Prioritization Process Overview and New MO Projects Troy Anderson et. al. June 2007. Project Prioritization History. Pre-2006 1 PPL (Project Priority List) for the entire organization Created the concept of “capability” - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Project Prioritization History

1

Yearly Project Prioritization Process Overview

and

New MO Projects

Troy Anderson et. al.

June 2007

Page 2: Project Prioritization History

2

Project Prioritization History

• Pre-2006• 1 PPL (Project Priority List) for the entire organization• Created the concept of “capability”

• Allowed delivery teams to go below the cutline to maximize resource utilization

• 2006 - Creation of CARTs (Continuous Analysis & Requirements Teams)

• 5 PPLs (one per CART) created to support the reality that resource limitations are a critical factor in project planning and delivery

• Resource constraints within a CART are the most common delivery limitation

• Established funding allocation rules to help ensure that available funds are allocated to the most critical projects

• Established relationships between CARTs and market subcommittees to ensure market representation in the process

Page 3: Project Prioritization History

3

Yearly Project Prioritization Process – Step 1

• Each CART uses the current PPL as a starting point for planning the next year’s project list– Determine which projects will complete prior to year end

• These projects are not relevant for next year’s planning

– Determine which projects will not complete by the end of 2007• Budget estimate completed for current year vs. next year spending• Given a “0 – Previously Approved” priority on the new PPL• Ranked in same order as current year PPL unless otherwise determined• Use decimal rank (0.1, 0.2, etc.)

– Work with the market to determine the following:• Add new efforts that are likely to be undertaken in the next year

– Based on market input, ERCOT will estimate the cost of new projects• If any projects on the list should be deleted

Page 4: Project Prioritization History

4

Yearly Project Prioritization Process – Step 2

• Prioritizing and ranking the next year’s PPL– Determine proper priority for all projects

• See “Guiding Principles of Project Prioritization” for guidance

– Rank projects within each priority• Sort the rows within each priority in order of importance• Highest “1 – Critical” item should be ranked “1”• Number the rest of the list “2”, “3”, “4”, etc. until you reach the last item in the “4 –

Medium” priority• “Parking Lot” items are not ranked• Decimal rankings (such as 3.5 and 4.5) are reserved for new projects or project re-

rankings which occur over the course of the year

– Agreement between market subcommittees and ERCOT CART members on project prioritization and rank is important because the same delivery resources are used to deliver similar projects

Page 5: Project Prioritization History

5

Yearly Project Prioritization Process – Step 3

• Determination of delivery capability by CART– Each CART analyzes estimated resource demands of the projects on the list

to determine how many projects on the list can be addressed in the upcoming year

– A “Resource Capability Line” is added to the PPL to indicate the projects that can be expected to be worked in the next year

– Projects will move in relation to this line over the course of the year as new projects are added, budget estimates are revised, and projects are re-ranked

Page 6: Project Prioritization History

6

Yearly Project Prioritization Process – Step 4

• Stakeholder approval of next year’s project list – priority, rank and resource capability line– Market

• Seek market subcommittee approval of draft PPLs at June meetings

• Seek PRS approval at June meeting

• Seek TAC approval at July meeting

– ERCOT• Seek SRT (Strategic Review Team [ERCOT directors]) approval in

June

• Seek EC (Executive Committee) approval in June

– Board of Directors• Seek Finance & Audit Committee and Board of Directors approval in

August/September timeframe

Page 7: Project Prioritization History

7

Yearly Project Prioritization Process – Step 5

• Upon Board of Directors approval, the new PPL will become the current PPL to reflect the revised priorities and new additions to the CART plans

• As the end of the current year approaches, if it appears that project funding is running less than budget, CARTs may be encouraged to initiate projects scheduled to start in the next year

Page 8: Project Prioritization History

8

Yearly Project Prioritization Process – Project Status Values

• Following are the project status values used on the PPL (in alphabetical order):

– Below Line Project is below the cutline (not funded)

– Cancelled Project has been cancelled (budget will be zero)

– Closing Project has implemented deliverables but final accountingactivities are still taking place

– Complete Project is complete and final cost is known

– Execution Project is in the process of creating and installing the deliverables as assigned (follows Planning phase)

– Initiation Project is just starting (PM assigned, initial documents are completed, etc.)

– New Project is newly added to the list

– Not Yet Started Project is above the line but has not yet been started

– On Hold Project is temporarily on hold

– Planning Project is planning out the design of the deliverable(s) and resources required to implement

Page 9: Project Prioritization History

9

COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics

Jackie Ashbaugh

Page 10: Project Prioritization History

10

Background• This project provides research capabilities for Commercial Operations extract,

report and web services data for internal business users, which include monitoring functionality and usage analysis capabilities.

• It consolidates and automates multiple manual efforts that occur today to monitor extract creations through market postings. Current methods provide limited reporting capability. For example:

– RMC provides limited ability to report on download stats on TML.

– Inquiries regarding points in the life cycle from creation to delivery for extracts and reports, the information must be pieced together from multiple systems and groups.

– Usage and download statistics are not consistently available across extracts/reports/web services.

COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics

Page 11: Project Prioritization History

11

COMS Extract, Report & Web Services Monitoring & Usage Statistics

Scope• Consistent monitoring processes and usage statistics for Report, Extract, and

Web Services for all systems.

• Develop business procedures for supporting COMS extracts, reports and web services

• ERCOT market SLA reporting

• Operational and Usage statistics

• ERCOT internal dashboard

Budget$250k-$500k

Page 12: Project Prioritization History

12

PRR-478Use of Lagged Dynamic Samples for New Profiles

Calvin Opheim

June 11, 2007

PRR-478Use of Lagged Dynamic Samples for New Profiles

Calvin Opheim

Page 13: Project Prioritization History

Background

• This is a change to the method for creating Load Profiles allowing for the use of lagged dynamic samples for new profiles adopted subsequent to market open

• This project is necessary in order to enable wholesale settlement of Demand Response programs

Page 14: Project Prioritization History

14

Market Benefits

• Allowing the use of lagged dynamic samples for new profiles will provide three important benefits to the market:– The time lag between approving a new profile and being able to settle

ESI IDs using the new profile will be significantly reduced

– New profiles are expected to be subject to significant population change as new ESI IDs are identified for inclusion in the profile; lagged-dynamic samples will accommodate these changes more quickly, accurately and efficiently than is possible with adjusted static models

– Use of lagged dynamic samples will allow the market to audit ESI IDs being assigned to new profiles and will create an incentive for CRs using the profile to limit the inclusion of ESI IDs to those appropriate to the profile

Page 15: Project Prioritization History

15

Impact Analysis / Cost Estimate

• Lodestar will require system enhancements to introduce lagged dynamic samples, including creation of dynamic samples, as well as processes/coding for the automation of scripts and statistics.

• ERCOT Profiling staff will test and maintain the new profiles as they are developed.

• The estimated cost is < $100k

Page 16: Project Prioritization History

16

Questions?

ON

OFF

Page 17: Project Prioritization History

17

PRR-385Changes for Implementation of Direct

Load Control (DLC)

Calvin Opheim

Page 18: Project Prioritization History

Background

• Modify language in Protocols to better represent how Direct Load Control (DLC) will be implemented in ERCOT

• Procedural changes to implement DLC programs. The requested changes include:– Removing detailed DLC implementation information from the Protocols and

moving them into the Load Profiling Guides

– Modifying language to be consistent with the revisions made with respect to profiling ESI IDs in DLC programs

– Coinciding with revisions in Load Profiling Guides Revision Request (LPGRR 2003-001)

– LRPRR has language which outlines the process for bidding DLC demand reductions into the BUL market

– Minor wording changes

Page 19: Project Prioritization History

19

BUL Background

• Balancing Up Loads are loads registered to bid into BES market– Enabled by PRR 302, 419, 448 & PIP 112 (2003)

• Individual BULs must be IDR-metered (telemetry not required)

• When a BUL is dispatched and load is shed, QSEs representing BULs receive:– Energy-imbalance payment in normal Settlement

– Additional payment = MCPC in the non-spin market for that interval

Page 20: Project Prioritization History

20

BUL Background (continued)

• Individual BUL compliance is evaluated on a baseline developed from the load’s performance over prior 10 “like” days (enabled)

• BUL program for individual loads is available but currently unsubscribed

• BUL will go away entirely upon launch of Texas Nodal

Page 21: Project Prioritization History

21

BUL Background -- DLC

• Direct Load Control programs were viewed as the vehicle for smaller customers to participate in the ERCOT Balancing Energy market

• While developing Protocols for DLC Settlement (2002-03), PWG also developed Protocols to enable DLC to provide BUL service

• Project to enable DLC Settlement, including BUL participation, did not make the PPL cut-line due to lack of a sponsoring REP– Language has been gray-boxed since 2003

Page 22: Project Prioritization History

22

BUL Background -- DLC

• PRR-385 defines an algorithm for determining DLC baseline – DLC baseline is based on proxy day (if available) or profile

• DLC Settlement can be enabled without the BUL provisions– Including BUL in the project would increase scope and require

significant additional coding

Page 23: Project Prioritization History

23

CCET Demand Response Pilot

• A group of Market Participants and ERCOT are participating in a demand response pilot which begins during the summer of 2007

• Two goals of this effort are to:– Enable wholesale settlement of demand response programs in ERCOT

– Evaluate and recommend an algorithm for quantifying the amount of demand reduction (which includes the determination of a baseline methodology).

• The recommendations from the pilot concerning baseline methodology may be different than language included in PRR-385

Page 24: Project Prioritization History

24

ERCOT Recommendation

• ERCOT Staff recommends excluding BUL-specific elements from DLC Settlement project

Page 25: Project Prioritization History

25

Market Benefits

• The requested changes will allow demand response programs to be appropriately profiled and ERCOT systems to properly process demand response programs

Page 26: Project Prioritization History

26

Impact Analysis / Cost Estimate

• Possible impact to retail systems depending on how Demand Response program participants are identified in the Profile ID.– For example, can the existing TOU/NOTOU segment of the Profile ID

be expanded to include the identification of demand response programs (i.e., like DR001, DR002).

• Lodestar system changes

• The estimated cost is < $500k

Page 27: Project Prioritization History

27

Questions?

ON

OFF

Page 28: Project Prioritization History

28

MOCART ProjectERCOT System throughput for IDR

Jackie Ashbaugh

Page 29: Project Prioritization History

29

ERCOT System throughput for IDR

Background• PUCT and Market discussions indicate increased utilization of interval data in

wholesale settlements.

• Influx of interval data would substantially increase the demand on the ERCOT retail market transaction processing systems and the wholesale settlement systems with respect to both processing (bandwidth) and storage.

• Based on extrapolations of current system processing times, ERCOT estimates that 200,000 IDR meters is the maximum number of IDR meters ERCOT’s system can support.

• ERCOT anticipates degradation in service once ERCOT must process fifteen minute interval meter data from approximately 50,000 or more ESI IDs.

Page 30: Project Prioritization History

30

ERCOT System throughput for IDR

Scope• Incremental increases in IDR processing capability for ERCOT systems by:

– Reviewing IDR data loading /reporting / storage process

– Reviewing the Information Life Cycle Management Strategy for Paper Free & L*

– Reviewing the impact to Market Participants for extracts.

– Gaining insights on system enhancements necessary for future increases in IDR processing capability.

Budget$100k-$250k

Page 31: Project Prioritization History

31

Calvin Opheim

June 11, 2007

Distributed Generation/Small Renewables

Raj Rajagopal

Page 32: Project Prioritization History

32

Distributed Generation/Small Renewables

Background• TX SET changes related to small renewables.

• Project currently on the RO and MO PPL.

• RO developing the requirements and scope of this project.

Scope• There will be a impact to the MO PPL only if settlement changes are necessary

as a result of this effort.

Budget• RO pipe line will manage the budget and the project. COPS and will be

updated on progress.

• RO Budget: $250k-$500k.

• No Budget on the MO PPL.