Part 2.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Chapter 25.
SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE TO ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS
Subchapter F. METERING
16 TAC §25.131
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) adopts
new §25.131, relating to Load Profiling and Load Research, with changes
to the proposed text as published in the October 25, 2002
Texas Register
(27 TexReg 9914). The rule defines the entity responsible
for load research to support the load profiling activities of the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), provides access to the data gathered
from load profiling research, and provides for establishment of a procedure
to provide a method of recovery of research costs associated with obtaining
a new profile. This new section was adopted under Project Number 25516.
This rule is necessary to facilitate retail competition in the ERCOT area.
Since a large number of customers' wholesale obligations are settled based
on load profiles, it is imperative that the profiles be as accurate as possible.
This rulemaking will allow ERCOT to get data it needs to validate and update
its load profiles. More accurate profiles will enhance the retail market by
providing for more accurate settlement.
A public hearing on the proposed section was held at commission offices
on December 16, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. Representatives from American Electric
Power Companies (AEP), CenterPoint Energy (CenterPoint), City Public Service
of San Antonio (San Antonio), Competitive Retail Market Companies (representing
Automated Utilities, EC Power, Fowler Energy, Retail Energy Aggregators of
Texas, Texas Energy Association Cooperative, Utility Choice Electric, and
Viterra Energy Services) (CRMC), ERCOT, Good Company and Associates (Good
Company), and Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor) attended the hearing
and provided comments. To the extent that these comments differed from the
submitted written comments, such comments are summarized herein.
The commission received comments on the proposed new section from AEP,
CenterPoint, CRMC, Energy Data Source, Entergy Solutions, Ltd. (Entergy Solutions),
ERCOT, Good Company, Green Mountain Energy Company (Green Mountain), Reliant
Resources, Inc. (RRI), San Antonio, and TXU Energy/Oncor (TXU Companies).
The commission posed two questions for comment in addition to taking comment
on proposed rule language.
1. Proposed §25.131(e)(3) calls for ERCOT
to develop a process for assessing a fee to users of a new profile that is
developed by a sponsor other than ERCOT. Rather than this process, when a
person petitions ERCOT to establish a new profile and incurs costs for research
and development of the new profile, should the new profile become the property
of this sponsor?
AEP and Entergy Solutions stated that they believe that the entity that
pays for the profile should own it. AEP commented that the entity that pays
for the profile should be permitted to charge a market-based price for its
use, as innovative market participants should have an opportunity to receive
a return on their investment. AEP proposed that ERCOT develop the procedures
for cost recovery through the Profiling Working Group (PWG). The TXU Companies
agreed with AEP that ERCOT in conjunction with market participants should
develop the procedures for cost recovery.
Entergy Solutions commented that when a market participant bears the costs
of developing and implementing a new profile, that entity should become the
owner of the new profile and should be compensated when other market participants
use it. Entergy Solutions offered the example that if a second market participant
desired to use the new profile, then, at a minimum, that market participant
should pay a pro-rata share of the owner's cost. If other market participants
subsequently desired to use the profile, then at a minimum, they should pay
the pro- rata share and the second market participant should receive a refund
of the amount it paid over its new pro-rata share. Entergy Solutions commented
that, in the alternative, the owner of the profile should have the option
of charging a market-based fee for use of the profile. In reply, TXU Companies
commented that the Entergy Solutions' proposal has the potential to be complex
and difficult to administer. TXU Companies noted that the concepts can be
appropriately considered within the established ERCOT stakeholder process,
as contemplated in the proposed rule.
CRMC did not support setting market-based rates to employ fundamental market
instruments used in the settlement of accounts in the ERCOT market. CRMC argued
that>
as grandfathered and "free" to use, when in fact, they are all merely descriptors
of a market segment used for settlement at ERCOT, works against the principles
of innovation in a competitive marketplace. TXU Companies responded that the
current market rules do not indicate that all new profiles will be costly
to use. In fact, they argue, once the profile is approved by ERCOT, it is
available for all retail electric providers (REPs) to use, and the cost of
implementing and maintaining the new profile is the responsibility of ERCOT.
TXU Companies argued that ERCOT is in the best position to establish and
implement a fair and equitable process for assessing a fee to users of a non-ERCOT-sponsored
profile. Additionally, they stated that ERCOT is the best entity to develop
the procedures for the use of such a profile by other participants in the
market, as the rule presently provides. Finally, TXU Companies commented that
ERCOT, through a cooperative effort with the transmission and distribution
utilities (TDUs) and REPs, can develop a fee process and asserted that, with
modifications, the current rule language can accommodate this cooperative
effort.
ERCOT argued that it does not believe ERCOT is the appropriate entity to
assess or determine the process to collect fees for a new profile. ERCOT stated
that in addition to the difficulty in determining the amount of such fees
and estimating the cost of third-party services, ERCOT would be required to
obtain commission approval for any such fee. ERCOT also stated that it does
not have money in its current budget for these activities. ERCOT suggested
that TDUs or their designated agents are in the best position to perform the
load-sampling services and recover costs.
ERCOT stated that load research in support of a new load profile request
is the responsibility of the requesting entity. ERCOT explained that if the
requesting entity desires cost reimbursement for load research needed to support
the request for a new load profile, the requesting entity should work with
ERCOT for sample design and TDUs to perform the necessary load research sample
metering. ERCOT argued that the requesting entity should initially pay to
the TDUs the costs that the TDUs incur to support the load research sample
metering activities needed to evaluate the proposed profile. At the conclusion
of the evaluation process, ERCOT staff would make a recommendation to the
ERCOT PWG regarding implementation of the new profile group as outlined in
the Load Profiling Guides. If the PWG decides to implement the new profile,
ERCOT proposed that the load research costs incurred in the development of
the profile would be refunded by the TDUs to the sponsoring entity and absorbed
into the TDUs rate base, as is the case for ERCOT-directed load profiles.
The profile would then be made available to any REP, as appropriate, across
the market. Under this assignment of responsibilities, the transition from
evaluation to implementation of a profile would be seamless. In addition,
ERCOT concluded that all market participants would benefit from the implementation
of the new profile as a result of the settlement improvements derived from
improved profile accuracies.
The commission agrees with AEP and the TXU Companies that ERCOT in conjunction
with its working groups should develop the procedure for the reimbursement
of costs. Rather than attempt to impose a solution on the market, the commission
prefers to allow the ERCOT stakeholders an opportunity to develop a process
for compensation or reimbursement to those who have spent money on developing
the initial research for a new profile. The commission believes its original
proposed rule language provides this flexibility. If the parties are unable
to establish a process by the date provided in the rule, the commission may
open a proceeding to develop the process. In determining the process, market
participants are urged to consider fair compensation to the initial requestor
as well as efficient functioning of the market and the availability of the
new profiles to be used by others.
2. In these circumstances, should the sponsor
of a new profile be allowed to charge a market-based fee for its use?
CRMC did not support setting market-based rates for the use of fundamental
market instruments that are employed in the settlement of accounts in the
ERCOT>
to use and others as grandfathered and "free" to use, when in fact they are
all merely descriptors of a market segment used for settlement at ERCOT would
work against the principles of innovation in a competitive marketplace. TXU
Companies responded that the current market rules do not indicate that all
new profiles will be costly to use. In fact, once the profile is approved
by ERCOT it is available for all REPs to use, and the cost of implementing
and maintaining the new profile is the responsibility of ERCOT. TXU Companies
asserted that ERCOT in conjunction with market participants is in the best
position to assess the costs and to equitably manage usage rights associated
with such profiles.
AEP and Entergy Solutions commented that the entity who pays for the new
profile should financially own it. AEP argued that the fee should be market
based and that the process should be worked out through the PWG.
The commission determines that charging a market-based fee for use of the
load profile could negatively affect competition. The commission agrees, however,
that if a market participant has paid for the initial research of a load profile,
others should not be afforded free use. Allowing free use of a profile that
a market participant has paid to develop would deter participants from making
investments in profile development. However, as decided in question one, the
commission believes that market participants are in the best position to design
a process for cost-based reimbursement. Therefore, the commission does not
alter the rule in favor of market-based rates.
Comments on proposed §25.131
Subsection (b), Applicability
RRI suggested language to specify that the rule would not require REPs
to perform load research as a mandatory service for customers that desire
a new load profile. TXU Companies asserted that such language is unnecessary
because there is no express or implied requirement in the proposed rule that
would obligate a REP to perform load research at the request of a customer.
TXU Companies stated that the proposed language would create greater confusion
rather than clarify the existing language.
The commission does not intend to impose a requirement upon REPs to perform
load research. The obligation to perform load research falls on ERCOT and
the TDUs, not the REPs. However, the commission agrees with TXU Companies
that this is evident from the rule, and it is not necessary to add the proposed
language to this section of the rule.
Green Mountain suggested that metering designed to measure the impact of
a specific demand response or energy efficiency program not be considered
load research and should not be affected by this rulemaking in order to provide
market participants greater flexibility to work with ERCOT on metering and
monitoring approaches that make the most sense for specific programs. TXU
Companies agreed that letting the market determine the load profiling details
associated with demand response programs allows for the proper input from
all affected parties. Good Company supported Green Mountain's suggestion but
encouraged the commission to evaluate an alternative approach to reducing
and financing the costs of Direct Load Control (DLC) programs through advanced
metering. Good Company proposed that TDUs be allowed to recover portions of
the costs of managing profiling samples from the market as a whole rather
than recovering all costs through direct billing of the operating entity.
Energy Data Source stated its support for third-party agents providing sampling
for DLC programs, as they believe third- party agents would be more efficient
and could provide better quality results at a lower cost. AEP pointed out
that one of the purposes of this rulemaking is to define the entity responsible
for load research to support the load profiling activities of ERCOT, and in
order to settle customers under a demand response program, ERCOT must have
an applicable load profile so that metered energy use can be properly allocated
across all settlement intervals.
CenterPoint disagreed that demand response or energy efficiency programs
should be exempted from the requirements of a rule that is intended to establish
the standards for the market. CenterPoint stated that ERCOT should be the
party responsible for market settlement, including oversight of sample design
and sample point selection, as well as management oversight of the entity
performing the services for any activities regarding load research for market
settlement.
The commission agrees with AEP and CenterPoint that in order to settle
customers under a direct load control program or energy efficiency program,
the customers in the program must have an applicable load profile like all
other customers so that metered energy use can be properly allocated across
all settlement intervals. However, the commission has not set standards for
obtaining a new profile in this proceeding. The standards have been established
in the Load Profiling Guides (LPGs). This affords Green Mountain and others
hoping to establish a new non-universally applicable profile to work with
ERCOT on metering approaches or other monitoring techniques that make the
most sense for non-universally applicable load profiles. While the commission
is concerned with demand response and energy efficiency programs, as well
as advanced metering, apart from their impact on load profiling and settlement,
those issues are being addressed in other projects and working groups within
ERCOT. Therefore, the commission declines to address these issues as well
as the suggestions made by Good Company and Energy Data Source in this rulemaking.
Subsection (c), Load Research Responsibility
CenterPoint commented that there may be limited opportunities to effectively
use common sample points for both settlement and class delivery groups. ERCOT
proposed language to clarify that ERCOT would be responsible for the load
research sample design and sample point selection for ERCOT-directed load
research samples.
The commission agrees that ERCOT shall be responsible for selecting the
load research sample design and sample points and adds ERCOT's proposed language
to the rule. However, the commission is concerned that sample points be chosen
efficiently and that costs of data collection be minimized. To the extent
possible, the TDUs and ERCOT need to coordinate research samples to minimize
the sample points needed.
RRI proposed that a third party be selected to perform the load research
through a competitive bidding process with costs recovered through the ERCOT
administrative fee. Energy Data Source agreed that involving the TDU in installation
of such metering would significantly increase overall costs. Under RRI's proposal,
the third party chosen may include a TDU's competitive affiliate.
CRMC commented that, as a general principle, ERCOT sponsored load research
for establishing load profiles should not be performed by individual stakeholder
companies and questioned the right of TDUs to collect information. Additionally,
CRMC stated that incumbent utilities have cash-flow ties to affiliate or successor-in-interest
REPs and generators; thus, to have incumbent utilities perform basic research
for the market when such research potentially enables new competitors to take
customers away from the affiliated REPs poses a conflict. TXU Companies commented
that CRMC's comments display a disregard for the commission's code of conduct
and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the operation of the ERCOT market.
The TXU Companies stated that implementing CRMC's recommendations to avoid
groundless assertions of conflicts of interest could result in the potential
loss of significant economies of scale. They also stated that TDUs are performing
load research today in ERCOT, as well as in California and the PJM Interconnection.
The TXU Companies concluded that CRMC has failed to provide evidence of how
ERCOT would compensate third-party providers, how third-party providers would
provide more cost effective load profile research than TDUs, how third-party
providers would produce greater efficiencies, and how using third parties
that are presumably performing the work for some specific market participant
does not create a conflict of interest for which the commission has no regulatory
recourse.
CRMC urged the commission to consider whether a third-party load-research
effort that would fulfill many market needs could be initially undertaken
in conjunction with a pilot project that includes competitive metering. TXU
Companies stated that there is no basis to delay this project and combine
the load profiling and load research rulemaking with the vast issues associated
with competitive metering.
AEP disagreed with parties who recommended that third parties conduct load
research. AEP did not agree that a third party could provide these services
at a lower cost. AEP stated that the proposed rule provides economies of scale
by allowing ERCOT to "piggy back" on existing TDU load research activities.
According to AEP, the marginal cost to support ERCOT profiles is primarily
the cost of the additional meters required by ERCOT, with the TDU providing
meter installation, data retrieval, and data validation, editing, and estimation
using existing resources. AEP argued that a third party may not have those
structures in place, and would have to implement them at a higher cost.
Since a large percentage of customers are settled based on the ERCOT profiles,
the commission is concerned with the accuracy of the current profiles. The
commission staff has stressed the importance of updating and validating the
profiles to ERCOT for well over a year. However, updating the profiles has
not received priority status in the ERCOT prioritization process; therefore,
the commission has conducted this rulemaking. In order to have third parties
conduct load research, an RFP process would have to be put in place and would
require ERCOT funding, which could take a year or longer. In addition, ERCOT
systems would need to be updated to receive data from entities other than
the TDUs. The commission believes that this process would take too long, would
be inefficient, and would be more costly to develop. Furthermore, it is not
clear how third parties could gain access through customer premises, other
than through the use of TDU's easement rights. Therefore, the commission declines
to implement this suggestion. The commission believes that CRMC's concerns
are mitigated by the commission's code of conduct and the fact that all certified
REPs will have access to the data generated by the load research. The commission
agrees with TXU Companies that third parties performing load research could
present a concern to the market, especially if entities who had a financial
interest in the results of the profile sample data (such as REPs) were chosen
as the third-party provider.
CRMC suggested a pilot program for third-party providers combined with
a competitive metering pilot project. The commission is currently working
with interested parties to consider a pilot project for competitive metering.
A pilot project to combine competitive metering and this project would probably
delay the initial load profiling and load research efforts. The commission
agrees with TXU Companies that there is no basis to delay this project or
to combine it with the multitude of difficult issues surrounding competitive
metering. Therefore, the commission declines to make any rule change based
on these suggestions.
CenterPoint expressed concern that parties have lost sight of the potential
for inappropriate gaming that may occur if REPs, aggregators, or other entities
with market interests are allowed to develop samples and select sample points
for market settlement profiles. Therefore, CenterPoint stated that ERCOT should
be the independent provider for these services. The TXU Companies agreed that
CRMC's comments fail to understand the intent of the rule and the operation
of the ERCOT market; furthermore, they stated that a market participant requesting
a new load profile will be responsible for sample design, sample selection,
data validation, data aggregation, data analysis, and any model development
as part of its request for approval of such profile.
The commission agrees with CenterPoint that ERCOT should be the only entity
to choose sample points for market settlement profiles. To allow any other
entity to choose samples provides clear gaming opportunities and should be
disallowed. However, this issue has already been decided and is published
in the Profiling Operating Guides at ERCOT. The current process requires that
ERCOT first determine from the information submitted by the requestor that
a new profile should be developed. ERCOT then chooses the samples from which
these profiles will be monitored and validated on a going-forward basis. The
sample is unknown to any market participant other than the TDU (who is required
to read and install the meters). Therefore, the commission does not believe
that the established process affords inappropriate gaming opportunities. To
the extent the process changes, the commission may open a new rulemaking to
address these concerns.
Subsection (c)(2)
Entergy Solutions proposed that data from recorders with remote interrogation
be collected on a weekly basis at a minimum, so that information can be used
more quickly. AEP stated that ERCOT's system is designed to utilize profiles
derived from models and initial load research efforts will be used to validate
and possibly calibrate the model results; therefore, there are no benefits
gained from providing data more often than monthly.
The commission agrees that the information gathered from this process is
to be used to validate and possibly calibrate the load profiles. The commission
does not see a need to require that information be collected within a specific
timeframe. Rather, the commission determines that ERCOT is in the best position
to determine when it needs information and the rule should allow ERCOT to
determine within reason when the data should be collected. The commission
declines to make changes to the rule based on Entergy Solutions' suggestion.
AEP commented that it is unclear from the proposal what input the TDUs
would have in the development of data collection requirements. AEP stated
that as long as the TDU meets the ERCOT requirements for data transmission
and accuracy, the method of collection should be determined by the TDUs. This
would allow the TDUs to perform data collection activities in the most efficient
manner under their existing operating procedures. TXU Companies agreed and
proposed language to ensure that ERCOT does not make unreasonable requests
of TDUs with respect to the manner of load profile research data collection
and the means and frequency of transmittal of information to ERCOT.
The commission agrees with AEP and TXU that TDUs should not be subject
to unreasonable requests by ERCOT but it concludes that it is not necessary
to adopt an explicit requirement that the data-collection requirements be
reasonable. To the extent that a TDU wishes to challenge ERCOT's directives,
the commission has adopted a new procedural rule, §22.251 of this title,
(relating to Review of Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Conduct)
that prescribes the procedures for an appeal of an ERCOT action.
Subsection (c)(3)
AEP supported the ability of the TDU to recover costs but urged that the
rule should specify the methodology for cost recovery. In addition, AEP stated
that the word "may" could create instances in which the TDU may not be allowed
to recover reasonable and prudent costs from the performance of ERCOT-directed
load profiling.
The commission declines to accept AEP's suggestion to require a utility
to recover its costs. Nevertheless, under the rule a utility may recover costs
that are determined in the course of a rate case to be prudently and reasonably
incurred.
Subsection (d), Availability of load research
data
ERCOT proposed a clarification that ERCOT would make available load profile
research data collected under its direction for accepted load profiles. TXU
Companies commented that, as currently drafted, this section could be read
to apply to the non-ERCOT sponsored load profile research data.
The commission agrees with ERCOT's clarification and makes changes to the
rule accordingly. This should also address TXU's concern.
Subsection (d)(1)
San Antonio stated that many small municipally-owned utilities (MOUs) and
electric cooperatives (coops) may not have the resources necessary to meet
the load research requirements. They proposed considering a multi-tiered approach
similar to the code of conduct for the sharing of load research data since
they believed that smaller MOUs and coops should have access to ERCOT load
research and profiling data. TXU Companies stated that San Antonio's comments
do not include a discussion as to why smaller MOUs and coops should be entitled
to ERCOT load profile research data, if they are providing data to ERCOT that
is not of industry standard quality. TXU Companies concurred with San Antonio
and urged the commission to provide smaller MOUs and coops with access to
all of ERCOT's load profile research data --even if the data does not conform
with the industry standard practices --as long as the commission makes clear
in the rule that a smaller MOU or coop shall not distribute, sell, or share
load profiled research data with any other entity.
The commission has determined that making data available to REPs benefits
the competitive market. In those instances in which MOUs and coops share with
ERCOT data that is of value to the competitive marketplace, the rule provides
that they may also have the benefit of access to the data collected. The parameters
of this rule allow TDUs to recover their costs of load research through TDU
rates, which results in distributing the costs of the research to customers
eligible for competition. These customers should not have to pay all of the
costs for data that is also provided to MOUs and coops for free. MOUs and
coops that have research that is beneficial to the competitive market may
gain access to the data by following the guidelines for submitting that data
to ERCOT in accordance with the proposed rule; therefore, the commission makes
no change to the rule.
Subsection (d)(2)
Entergy Solutions proposed that, in the event ERCOT concludes that there
is a significant risk that release of customer level data for a sample may
lead to the disclosure of the customer's identity, then the requesting party
should have the opportunity to challenge ERCOT's decision. Entergy Solutions
commented that a process should be set out in the rule or in ERCOT's Load
Profiling Guide that provides a requesting party the opportunity to demonstrate
that the release of customer level load data from the sample will not disclose
the identity of a particular sampled customer.
The commission believes that the release of customer level data where the
customer's identity is not disclosed can be helpful to the market. The commission
has provided for this information to be released to certified REPs unless
ERCOT concludes that there is significant risk that the release may lead to
disclosure of the customer's identity. Any party that does not agree with
ERCOT's determination may challenge that determination using the procedures
in §22.251 of this title (relating to Review of Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT) Conduct). Therefore the commission makes no change
to the rule to accommodate the suggestion of Entergy Solutions. The commission
does make changes to (d)(2) to accommodate ERCOT's concern discussed under
subsection (d), and to clarify that there may also be other factors that could
cause a customer's identity to be compromised, which could affect ERCOT's
assessment of whether the release of information poses a significant risk
of identifying a customer.
CRMC questioned why the raw data should not be made available to anyone
wishing to utilize it for their own load research purposes, as long as that
raw data cannot be used to identify individual customers. TXU Companies stated
that REPs are the entities currently paying for load profile research to the
TDUs through the ERCOT administrative fee and wires charges. While CRMC suggests
that other market entities might be willing to partially fund such efforts,
no mechanism is currently in place and CRMC did not propose one. TXU Companies
pointed out that in order to ensure the statistical validity of each load
research data point, it is important that the customer not be aware of their
status as a sample point, as it could affect the customer's usage characteristics,
and bias the sample. Therefore, providing customers (and any other market
participant) with the interval data would potentially affect the customer's
usage characteristics and bias the sample. TXU Companies concluded that this
project and the rule were not intended to address the widespread availability
of data but to provide a mechanism whereby ERCOT may accomplish its load profiling
requirements in a cost effective and statistically accurate manner.
The commission does not believe that data paid for by customers and REPs
should be released indiscriminately to the market. The commission determines
that at this time REPs should be given access to the data in order to develop
competitive offerings and enhance competition; therefore, the commission declines
to make any changes to the rule at CRMC's request. The commission does make
changes to this section to address the concerns of ERCOT discussed in subsection
(d).
Subsection (e), New load profiles and fee for
use of load profiles
AEP stated that throughout subsection (e), intermittent reference is made
to the entity that "sponsored" the profile segment change. For clarity, AEP
recommended that the term "sponsored" be changed to "initially requested."
The commission agrees that this proposed change adds clarity and amends
the rule in accordance with AEP's suggestion.
RRI commented that it does not support the development of load profiles
based on existing characteristics that could further segment any customer
class for which there is a regulatorily administered price or product. TXU
Companies stated that the ERCOT Protocols require ERCOT to give at least 150
days notice to all market participants prior to market implementation of any
change in a load profiling methodology, existing profiles or when any additional
load profiles are developed. TXU Companies suggested that 150 days is adequate
notice for the entity offering a regulatorily based product to plan; thus,
the language proposed by RRI is not necessary.
The commission agrees with the TXU Companies that if new profiles are developed,
the ERCOT Protocols require 150 days notice before the notice goes into effect.
The commission agrees that this should be enough notice for the price-to-beat
REP to prepare.
Subsection (e)(3)
The TXU Companies suggested that subsection (e)(3) be modified to relieve
TDUs of the burden of determining whether a requesting REP or other party
has taken the appropriate steps for assigning a customer to a non-ERCOT sponsored
profile. ERCOT stated that it does not currently have the system functionality
to automatically verify that only appropriate REPs are using a new profile.
ERCOT's comments reinforced the TXU Companies' position that TDUs should not
be responsible for determining whether a customer should be assigned to a
particular non-ERCOT sponsored profile. TXU Companies questioned that if ERCOT
is unable to verify whether a particular REP is authorized to utilize a given
profile, how will TDUs be able to determine whether customer assignment to
a non-ERCOT sponsored profile is appropriate? TXU Companies stated that the
proposed rule should appropriately place the burden on REPs or other persons
for properly requesting assignment of customers to a non-ERCOT sponsored profile.
The commission agrees that REPs should not be improperly requesting profile
assignments. The process for dealing with new profile costs has not been fully
laid out in this rule, so it is uncertain at this time where TDUs will obtain
the information needed for profile assignments. At this time it is the TDU
who is responsible for assigning profile IDs; therefore, the TDU should have
the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the assignment is proper. The stakeholder
process at ERCOT should address and design the process in a way that the TDU
has access to the information necessary to verify the assignment. The commission
makes no changes to the rule at this time.
TXU Companies also requested altering subsection (e)(3) to state that within
six months of the effective date of this section, ERCOT, through the stakeholder
process, shall establish and implement a process to collect a fee from any
REP who seeks to assign customers to a non- ERCOT sponsored profile.
While the commission envisions that ERCOT will solicit input from its working
groups, the commission determines that "through the stakeholder process" is
not a clear or properly defined term. The commission declines to make changes
to the rule accordingly.
All comments, including any not specifically referenced herein, were fully
considered by the commission. In adopting this section, the commission makes
other minor modifications for the purpose of clarifying its intent.
This section is adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory Act,
Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1998, Supplement 2003)
(PURA) which provides the commission with the authority to make and enforce
rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction;
and specifically PURA §39.101(a)(1), which provides that customers are
entitled to safe, reliable, and reasonably priced electricity; PURA §39.101(a)(6),
which provides that customers are entitled to accurate metering and billing;
PURA §39.101(e), which authorizes the commission to adopt and enforce
such rules as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions
of PURA §39.101(a); and PURA §39.151(d), which requires that an
independent organization certified by the commission for a power region establish
and enforce procedures, consistent with the commission's rules, relating to
accounting for the production and delivery of electricity among generators
and all other market participants.
Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§14.002,
39.101, and 39.151.
§25.131.Load Profiling and Load Research.
(a)
Purpose. This section allocates responsibilities for obtaining
load research information necessary to support the load profiling activities
of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), provides for access
to that load profile research data by retail electric providers (REPs), and
provides a method for recovery of costs by a person who successfully requests
a new load profile.
(b)
Applicability. This section applies to ERCOT, each transmission
and distribution utility (TDU) that has a service territory within ERCOT,
and each REP certified by the commission. For the purposes of this section,
the term person may include a municipally owned utility or electric cooperative.
(c)
Load research responsibility. Each TDU shall perform load
research to support ERCOT's load profiling activities, as directed by ERCOT.
(1)
ERCOT shall be responsible for load research sample design
and sample point selection for ERCOT-directed load profiling and load research
samples. ERCOT shall coordinate with each TDU to optimize load research programs
of both ERCOT and the TDU. The same samples shall be used to support both
the TDU's load research activities and ERCOT's load profile research needs
whenever reasonably possible. Each TDU shall coordinate with ERCOT to synchronize
its load research cycles and sample replacement with those of ERCOT.
(2)
ERCOT, in consultation with TDUs, shall specify the manner
of data collection for ERCOT load profile research samples and the means and
frequency of transmission of such information to ERCOT. Each TDU shall adhere
to the specifications for data collection and transmission specified by ERCOT.
(3)
A TDU may recover its reasonable and necessary costs incurred
in performing load profile research as required by this section.
(4)
This section shall not be interpreted to require a TDU
to redeploy any existing samples that were deployed less than five years before
the effective date of this section, although this section shall also not be
interpreted as addressing the appropriateness of continued deployment of existing
TDU samples apart from an ERCOT request to do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the TDU shall deploy additional samples as requested by ERCOT in order to
support ERCOT's load profiling activities.
(d)
Availability of load research data. ERCOT shall make load
profile research data collected under its direction for accepted load profiles
available to all certified REPs.
(1)
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a municipally-owned utility
or electric cooperative that conducts load research activities shall have
access to load research data maintained by ERCOT only if it shares statistically
valid load research data from its own service territory with ERCOT in accordance
with the provisions of subparagraphs (A)-(C) of this paragraph.
(A)
A municipally-owned electric utility or electric cooperative
may submit load research data only if it is obtained in a manner consistent
with the Association of Edison Illuminating Companies (AEIC) load research
standards and provided in the form and manner specified by ERCOT pursuant
to subsection (c)(2) of this section.
(B)
The municipally-owned electric utility or electric cooperative
shall provide to ERCOT information concerning its load research sample design
and any other relevant information required by ERCOT.
(C)
ERCOT shall determine whether the load research data submitted
by a municipally owned utility or electric cooperative is statistically valid
sample data compiled in a manner consistent with the AEIC Load Profiling Guidelines.
(2)
ERCOT shall make available customer level data collected
under its direction for accepted load profiles for all customers as provided
in this subsection, unless ERCOT concludes that, due to the size, usage characteristics,
or location of a sample, or other factors, there is a significant risk that
release of customer level data for a sample would lead to the disclosure of
the identity of the customer being sampled. ERCOT shall make available, as
provided in this subsection, all other load profile research data on an aggregated
basis, unless ERCOT determines that there is significant risk that disclosure
of such aggregated data would lead to the disclosure of the identity of one
or more sampled customers. In no event shall the location, name, account number,
zip code, or electric service identifier (ESI-ID) of an individual customer
in a load profile research sample be made available. The following information
shall be made available for load profile research data provided on either
an individualized or aggregated basis:
(A)
customer class;
(B)
TDU service area;
(C)
weather zone; and
(D)
interval usage, or average interval usage for aggregated
data.
(3)
ERCOT may not assess a charge to access the data specified
in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(e)
New load profiles and fee for use of load profiles. ERCOT
may establish new load profiles at the request of a REP or another person.
(1)
A request for a new or modified load profile must include
the requested information detailed in ERCOT's Load Profiling Guide.
(2)
Any costs associated with developing the supporting data
and documentation that is necessary for ERCOT's evaluation of the proposed
profile change shall be the responsibility of the person initially requesting
the profile change.
(3)
Within six months of the effective date of this section,
ERCOT shall establish and implement a process to collect a fee from any REP
who seeks to assign customers to a non-ERCOT sponsored profile. The process
shall include a method for other REPs who use the profile to compensate the
original requester of the new profile and for ERCOT to notify TDUs which REPs
are authorized to use the new profile. A TDU shall not, without authorization,
assign a customer to a profile for which a REP or another person has paid
the costs of developing the new profile.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on March 27, 2003.
TRD-200302066
Rhonda G. Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Effective date: April 16, 2003
Proposal publication date: October 25, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 936-7223
Chapter 402.
BINGO REGULATION AND TAX
16 TAC §402.540
The Texas Lottery Commission adopts new §402.540, relating
to general licensing provisions without changes to the proposed text as published
in the February 14, 2003, issue of the
Texas Register
(28 TexReg 1320) and will not be republished.
The new section identifies who must submit a license application, what
information is required to be submitted in a license application, what the
impact is if an application is incomplete, what the impact is if a licensee
voluntarily surrenders its license, what the impact is if a licensee places
a license in administrative hold, what the impact is on a licensee for failure
to timely renew its license, sets out the requirement that the licensee notify
the commission timely of changes of information contained in the application,
and identifies who may act as an authorized representative for a licensee.
The new section provides applicants and licensees with a better understanding
of the licensing process and the requirements for obtaining a license.
No comments were received regarding adoption of this section.
The new rule is adopted under Occupations Code, Section 2001.054
which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to enforce and administer the
Bingo Enabling Act, under Government Code, Section 467.102 which authorizes
the Commission to adopt rules for the enforcement and administration of the
laws under the Commission's jurisdiction, and under Occupations Code, Section
2001.051(b) which grants the Commission broad authority to exercise strict
control and close supervision over all bingo conducted in Texas so that bingo
is fairly conducted and the proceeds derived from bingo are used for an authorized
purpose.
The new rule implements Occupations Code, Chapter 2001.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on March 28, 2003.
TRD-200302079
Kimberly L. Kiplin
General Counsel
Texas Lottery Commission
Effective date: April 17, 2003
Proposal publication date: February 14, 2003
For further information, please call: (512) 344-5113
16 TAC §402.545
The Texas Lottery Commission adopts the repeal of §402.545,
relating to license, fees and bonds for conduct of bingo occasions and for
commercial lessor without changes as published in the February 14, 2003, issue
of the
Texas Register
(28 TexReg 1322) and
will not be republished.
The rule set out requirements for licenses and applications relating to
the conduct of bingo and the lease of bingo premises and requirements for
bonds and other security. Contemporaneous with the adoption of the repeal
of this section, the Commission adopts new sections 16 TAC §402.545 relating
to licenses for conduct of bingo and to lease premises and 16 TAC §402.583
relating to bonds or other security because the changes are so substantial
that it is less confusing to the reader of the rules to propose new rules.
No comments were received regarding the adoption of this repeal.
The repeal is adopted under Occupations Code, Section 2001.054
which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules to enforce and administer the
Bingo Enabling Act, under Government Code, Section 467.102 which authorizes
the Commission to adopt rules for the enforcement and administration of the
laws under the Commission's jurisdiction, and under Occupations Code, Section
2001.051(b) which grants the Commission broad authority to exercise strict
control and close supervision over all bingo conducted in Texas so that bingo
is fairly conducted and the proceeds derived from bingo are used for an authorized
purpose.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on March 28, 2003.
TRD-200302078
Kimberly L. Kiplin
General Counsel
Texas Lottery Commission
Effective date: April 17, 2003
Proposal publication date: February 14, 2003
For further information, please call: (512) 344-5113
Part 9.
TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION