Highlight from the February meeting was the discussion on residential and business annual validation.
Amar Khalifeh suggested using heating and cooling degree days for more accurate residential validation instead of current R2 correlation.
Kathy Scott inquired about running a proof of concept on the coefficient method.
Amar confirmed developmental timeline for coefficient method is feasible; evaluation of AV processing impact needed.
Rob Bevill asked about frequency of coefficient process; Amar and Sam Morris said it could be run annually with some manual attention required for fallout.
Load shapes to use data from September 2020 to February 2025, excluding anomalous weather periods.
PWG supported exploration of coefficient method; Amar mentioned possible data run by year-end depending on workload.
Discussion on business annual validation focused on moving percentage thresholds below 25% for low and above 75% for high.
Suggested reps lead revisions due to rate influence on profiles; Sheri Wiegand to gather ideas from REPs.
Meeting notes were generally agreed upon as satisfactory with no additional concerns raised.
▶️4 - Update BUS IDRRQ & LRG Profile Market Counts
Discussion on the update of the business IDRRQ and LRG profile market using data available on March 8, included on the first page of the 02/13 meeting notes.
Little movement in data observed, especially for CenterPoint, due to EPS and other factors.
Steve Pliler inquired Rob Bevill about progress on updates; Rob confirmed progress and anticipated completion by June.
Sheri Wiegand asked if updates would occur with June meter cycles; Rob mentioned they haven’t decided yet but will ensure a smooth transition.
The presentation was reviewed, and it was confirmed that there were no changes on the latest version compared to the previously posted one, except for the circular charts slide.
Initial spreadsheets and validation files have been sent through MarkeTrak.
Waiting for additional exceptions and feedback from TNMP and Oncor.
Discussion on the preferred method for receiving exceptions - via MarkeTrak or email, with a preference for email due to quicker notifications.
Deadlines for exception submissions and necessary adjustments to the timeline were deliberated, ensuring compliance with protocol deadlines for the next year.
There is a suggestion of potential issues in the program with lag in status changes due to retiring ESI IDs.
Jordan Troublefield and the group reviewed the status of the validations completed so far.
The process of identifying ESI IDs for business and residential profiles using ESI IDs as of December 31 was discussed.
A need to make a scattergram of load profiles was proposed to potentially see the natural breakpoints for 2024.
Issues with repeated changes in ESI IDs leading to back-and-forth adjustments were identified and strategies to address them were proposed.
The importance of adhering to protocol deadlines was emphasized for future validations.
A review of the changes in ESI IDs by TDSP, especially focusing on the largest TDSPs like Oncor and CenterPoint was conducted.
Discussion on default profiles and their apparent shortcomings, with suggestions on setting defaults based on property types (e.g., apartments defaulting to high).
A potential protocol change for 2026 was discussed, and necessary timelines were evaluated.
The possibility of leveraging current datasets to identify natural breakpoints in the percentage thresholds was discussed, aiming to reduce unnecessary ESI ID changes.
Next Steps
Amar Khalifeh will work on generating a scattergram or alternative illustration showing load factor distributions.
Sam Pak is to provide feedback and any matrix changes to Amar.
The finalized timeline and adjustments to be adhered to strictly in the following year, based on protocol requirements.
Begin discussions and evaluation of protocol changes and the practicality of implementing a 25-75% or similar threshold for the next validation cycle.
Amar to further explore the ESI ID datasets to analyze load factor percentage changes over time.
Bill Snyder suggested modifications to Slide 6 of the AV business change history back profile, specifically regarding DG and PV profiles.
There was a discussion about hiding certain lines on the slide to open up space; however, some profiles were deemed necessary for evaluation.
Agreement to remove certain 'no demand' profiles that are no longer relevant, yet retain important ones including PVs and DGs to track migration trends.
Additional suggestion to group PVs and DGs together at the bottom for better clarity.
Discussion on creating a combined profile for certain DG and Wind due to their limited impact and distribution.
The updated meeting file will be posted on the meeting page after all corrections and revisions are completed.
Amar Khalifeh's most recent file to be reviewed and updated before final posting, with contributions from Sam and another colleague for changes.
Steve Pliler mentioned sending out an initial version of the file for reference, with the final version pending.
▶️7 - Review Draft LPGRR Conversion of the Profile Decision Tree from Excel to Word format
The item leads into agenda eight, which involves other business, particularly scheduling.
There is a scheduling conflict with the next meeting on May 13, which overlaps with the RMS meeting. Suggestions were made to either move it to the afternoon after RMS or to another date.
A possibility of an in-person meeting in May was discussed, potentially using the opportunity for an editing discussion of the profile tree.
Options considered for rescheduling included holding it after RMS on the 13th, or synchronizing with the Texas SET meeting on May 21st in Austin.
TDTMS could have their meeting after RMS on the 12th.
Participants were asked about the availability of data analysis regarding the frequency distribution on 500,000 ESIs for load factor, aiming for a preliminary review by May 21.
Suggestions were made for ensuring ample time for data analysis discussions on the 21st.
There was discussion about minor revisions to the RMS strategic objectives for 2025 that needed the group's agreement.
The objectives include fostering retail process improvements, supporting data transparency and availability, and ensuring proper training and documentation.
The group signaled agreement with the objectives and planned to finalize them.
An email will follow to document the schedule changes discussed.
