Issue:
How can information be provided that will allow for
accurate settlements? The solution cannot shift cost between classes,
or within a class, and must enable as many customers as possible
a viable Direct Access alternative.
Alternatives:
I. Load Profiling
1) Use existing schedule-specific load profiles
2) Use existing (or develop) commercial classification load profiles
3) Develop company specific load profiles
II. Require Interval Meters Upstream of all Aggregation
Customers
1) One DA supplier downstream of meter
2) More than one DA provider downstream of meter
III. Require interval meters upstream of all aggregation
customers, but allow for limited load profile pilots for residential
customers. pilots could be expanded if load profiling performs
satisfactorily; install meters in 10% of sample group to verify
accuracy of load profiles.
IV. Require universal installation of real time meters
during transition period.
PRO:
Alternative I:
- Allows all customers direct access eligibility.
Alternative II:
- Minimizes Cost shifting
- Small customers could still participate through master metered accounts and subdivision programs. (i.e.; interval meters could be required for all new construction.)
- Allows customers to benefit from reductions in
commodity price from competition.
Alternative III:
- Minimizes cost shifting and allows further examination of load shaping and allows all customers an opportunity for Direct Access.
- Depending on size of pilot, proposal may allow all customer desiring DA, but without alternatives, to participate.
- Allows all customers to benefit from reductions in market price.
- Allows for more information about load profiling
Alternative IV:
- Eliminates cost shifting.
- Provides exact price signal to all who wish it.
- Empowers all customers to make own decisions about choice.
- Minimizes litigation and administrative burdens.
CON:
Alternative 1:
- Litigious, controversial and time consuming.
- Only "experts" understand the calculations.
- Cost shifting is an issue.
- Accurate forecasts for selected customers may not be accurate.
- Gaming opportunities for those with high cost profiles.
- Once on a load profile a customer may change behavior.
- Determining how a profile applies to individual customer is problematic: utilities do not know which appliances are at specific
locations.
- Selection of which variables to use in load profile is difficult.
- Load profiling error cannot be measured.
- Determination of sampling sites is problematic.
- Enforcement of assignment to load profile is problematic.
Alternative II:
- Does not allow all customers a DA alternative.
- Settlement difficulties if more than one supplier behind meter.
- Hard to sell politically as an alternative.
- Infrastructure may not be available now.
Alternative III:
- Same problems as I and II, but to lesser extent. Could possibly be
tailored to allow for vast majority to receive DA,
while still limiting cost shifting. Multiple profiles may apply
here.
Alternative IV:
- May not be cost effective.
- Determination of deployment schedule could be difficult.
- Technical deployment issues arise; what are real technical limitations? (Team C question.)
dawglp1.doc/mmccay/6-4-96