Profiling Analysis for EUC Bands 01 and 02 - Gas Year 2007/08 Performance Evaluation. DESC 20 th January 2009

Similar documents
Large NDM Load Factors Presentation to DN Charging Methodology Forum

Spring 2014 NDM Analysis - Proposed Approach

Spring 2015 NDM Analysis - Recommended Approach

DRAFT January Modelling Approach: Spring 2019

DESC Technical Work group. Seasonal Normal Review Update: 22 September 2014

Review Group 280. Action 004:

Query relating to the use of historic data to calculate the Balancing Number Calculation

Operational Forum Meeting

Analysis using historic SAP prices

Operational Forum Meeting

LDZ Exit Capacity NTS (ECN) Charges March 2017 Craig Neilson UK GAS DISTRIBUTION

Capacity Reservation Policy

Final Gas Distribution Transportation Charges

THE B E A CH TO WN S O F P ALM B EA CH

Price-based Offers > $1,000/MWh

NEAS ENERGY - Route to Market

UNIFORM NETWORK CODE OFFTAKE ARRANGEMENTS DOCUMENT SECTION H NTS LONG TERM DEMAND FORECASTING 1

Natural Perils Pricing When coming closer together means being further apart Tim Andrews & Stephen Lau

Indicative Gas Transportation Charges

Final Gas Distribution Transportation Charges

Common stock prices 1. New York Stock Exchange indexes (Dec. 31,1965=50)2. Transportation. Utility 3. Finance

Supplier Charges in the Capacity Market

The introduction of new methods for price observations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) New methods for airline tickets and package holidays

System Management Principles Statement. Compliance report Summary of balancing actions and breaches Performance compared to last year

Annual Review of GSP Group Caps and Supplier Charge Values

UK LINK Committee Minutes Thursday 10 May 2007

Indicators of the Kansas Economy

Record'of'Determinations:''Panel'Meeting'19'September'2013''!!''

Chapter Thirteen In class practice

ISG206-SPAR REPORTING ON MAY 2018 SYSTEM PRICE ANALYSIS REPORT 1 SYSTEM PRICES AND LENGTH

GMARG Meeting. Ashling Hotel, Thursday 20 th August 2015

Cash & Liquidity The chart below highlights CTA s cash position at March 2018 compared to March 2017.

Cash & Liquidity The chart below highlights CTA s cash position at July 2016 compared to July 2015.

DECEMBER KPI REPORT. Service Provider SLA Performance Core and Non-Core Settlement Systems Core and Non-Core BSC Systems. Supplier Performance

U.S. Natural Gas Storage Charts

FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, MARCH 21 AT 4 PM

Consumer confidence and economic climate indicators continue to increase

CITY OF ANN ARBOR WATER & SEWER COST OF SERVICE STUDY

Consumer confidence and economic climate indicators increase

Should you have any questions, please contact Petra Kriescher-Trudgeon at (250) or the undersigned at (250)

ISG202-SPAR REPORTING ON JANUARY 2018 SYSTEM PRICE ANALYSIS REPORT 1 SYSTEM PRICES AND LENGTH

Cash & Liquidity The chart below highlights CTA s cash position at March 2017 compared to March 2016.

CLAIMANT UNEMPLOYMENT

Cash & Liquidity The chart below highlights CTA s cash position at September 2017 compared to September 2016.

UK LINK Committee Minutes Thursday 12 April 2007

Transmission Formula Rate 2017 Annual Update. June 23, 2017

D. RSCP SUPPLIER PAYMENTS AND CUSTOMER RATES

ARLA Survey of Residential Investment Landlords

The year to date is less than budget and prior year by 15.4 million and 11.6 million, respectively.

Indicative Interruption Requirements

Cash & Liquidity The chart below highlights CTA s cash position at February 2017 compared to February 2016.

Econ 202 Macroeconomic Analysis 2008 Winter Quarter Prof. Federico Ravenna ANSWER KEY PROBLEM SET 2 CHAPTER 3: PRODUCTIVITY, OUTPUT, AND EMPLOYMENT

Hedging Potential for MGEX Soft Red Winter Wheat Index (SRWI) Futures

Determination (9 /2010) of a Customer Complaint Submitted by a Customer Against Muscat Electricity Distribution Company SAOC

QUESTION 2. QUESTION 3 Which one of the following is most indicative of a flexible short-term financial policy?

Glacial Lakes Sanitary Sewer & Water District Utility Rate Study. Shelly Eldridge Ehlers Jeanne Vogt - Ehlers

Survey of Residential Landlords

Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington, D.C TRANSMISSION OF MATERIAL IN THIS RELEASE IS EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:30 AM EDT, TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007

California ISO Report. Regional Marginal Losses Surplus Allocation Impact Study

ARLA Survey of Residential Investment Landlords

Proposed Regulated Tariff Formula (RTF) for Eligible Customers 1 April March 2004

Strike Price Adjustment Guidance. Version 2 Issued on 19 July 2018

Business & Financial Services December 2017

Executive Summary. July 17, 2015

Department of Market Monitoring White Paper. Potential Impacts of Lower Bid Price Floor and Contracts on Dispatch Flexibility from PIRP Resources

Spheria Australian Smaller Companies Fund

How to monitor progress to guaranteed waiting time targets

DN Charging Methodology Forum (DNCMF) Minutes Tuesday 27 September 2016 Consort House, 6 Homer Road, Solihull, B91 3QQ

Economic Activity Index ( GDB-EAI ) For the month of May 2013 G O V E R N M E N T D E V E L O P M E N T B A N K F O R P U E R T O R I C O

Agenda. Results Presentation 27 February Appendices 1 to

Balance-of-Period TCC Auction

Historical Pricing PJM COMED, Around the Clock. Cal '15 Cal '16 Cal '17 Cal '18 Cal '19 Cal '20 Cal '21 Cal '22

Development of Economy and Financial Markets of Kazakhstan

April 2018 Data Release

Evaluation Report: Home Energy Reports

MANITOBA Order No. 15/01. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ACT February 1, G. D. Forrest, Chair M. Girouard, Member M.

January 2018 Data Release

2019/20 Indicative Statement

October 2018 Data Release

The real change in private inventories added 0.22 percentage points to the second quarter GDP growth, after subtracting 0.65% in the first quarter.

System Flexibility Indicators. Operational Forum, 26 May 2010

Proposed Direction to Bord Gáis Energy Supply regarding the application of the Regulated Tariff Formula

January 2019 Data Release

Electric Avoided Cost Meeting. 1:30-3:30 p.m. May 12, 2017

RBC MANAGED PAYOUT SOLUTIONS. Generating sustainable cash flow

Cash & Liquidity The chart below highlights CTA s cash position at December 2017 compared to December 2016.

Historical Pricing PJM PSEG, Around the Clock. Cal '15 Cal '16 Cal '17 Cal '18 Cal '19 Cal '20 Cal '21 Cal '22

SURVEY OF BUSINESSES INFLATION EXPECTATIONS JULY 2018 RESEARCH SERVICES DEPARTMENT RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC PROGRAMMING DIVISION

June 2018 Data Release

LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Gas Rates 2018 Monthly Billing Adjustments

MIAMI PARKING AUTHORITY

Power Accountants Association Annual Meeting Potential Impacts from Oct 2015 Rate Change

Rivkin Momentum Strategy

STATISTICAL BULLETIN. March

HSBC INVESTMENT FUNDS TRUST HSBC GLOBAL INVESTMENT TRUST AND HSBC COLLECTIVE INVESTMENT TRUST FUND HOLIDAY CALENDAR 2017

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS BANKING AND POLICY STUDIES

STATISTICAL BULLETIN. September

Overview of Health Care Reform and its Impact on Agricultural Employers 1 (as of October 2012)

BMO Exchange Traded Funds

0 IJifitil. j,j SEP. Respecifullysubmitted, ncosure. September 1 8, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND MAIL, \

Transcription:

Profiling Analysis for EUC Bands 01 and 02 - Gas Year 2007/08 Performance Evaluation DESC 20 th January 2009

Profiling Analysis - Background Action DE1045: xoserve to consider carrying out analysis on whether the standard domestic profile is applicable across the whole band Demand Models: The demand models for EUC band 01 (from which the corresponding EUC profiles for band 01 in each LDZ are derived) are based on sample data from domestic supply points only in the sample The demand models for EUC band 02 (from which the corresponding EUC profiles for band 02 in each LDZ are derived) are based on sample data from all available supply points in the sample Source data: The NDM sample for band 01 is based on data recorder data The NDM sample for band 02 is based on a combination of data recorder and datalogger data. All domestic supply points in band 02 are based on data recorder data

Profiling Analysis - Background The market sector flag is not currently available for all meter points in the population (7.6 million meters not flagged at mid-october 2008) However, if domestic and non-domestic supply points can be separately identified in bands 01 and 02 for the whole population, then the possibility arises (for each LDZ) to: apply the EUC profile derived for EUC band 02 to non-domestic supply points in EUC band 01 apply the EUC profile derived for EUC band 01 to domestic supply points in EUC band 01. and apply the EUC profile derived for EUC band 01 to domestic supply points in EUC band 02 apply the EUC profile derived for EUC band 02 to non-domestic supply points in EUC band 02.

Profiling Analysis Approach and Scope Gas Year 2007/08 NDM sample consumption data and 2007/08 EUC profiles are available As Used model applies WCF and SF values used by Gemini and therefore reflects other errors - SND bias and AQ error As Used model unsuitable for assessing performance of the profiles Best Estimate model focuses on performance of the EUC profiles themselves: uses EWCF (to mitigate WCF bias) and SF of one. Best Estimate 07 (gas year 2007/08) model applied here to assess suitability of applying different EUC profiles to segments of the population in bands 01 and 02.

Profiling Analysis Approach and Scope Best Estimate 07 model uses 2007/08 EUC profiles to allocate demand to selected sets of NDM sample supply points and compares allocated -v- actual demand. Profiles derived for gas year 2007/08 were based on smoothed EUC demand models in turn based on data sets from 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07 Actual NDM sample data for gas year 2007/08 did not form any part of the data used to create profiles for GY 2007/08 Approach is a fair and reasonable one.

Profiling Analysis Approach and Scope The constituent supply points in the NDM sample applicable to bands 01 and 02 can be identified as domestic or nondomestic. No sample in WN LDZ for band 01 and a very small number of supply points (all non-domestic) in WN LDZ in band 02 (Note that WN is usually combined with NW LDZ for EUC demand modelling). Analysis deals with only 12 LDZs. Analysis compares actual aggregate consumptions (available for the sample) against the aggregate allocations resulting from application of different profiles to the non-domestics in band 01 and to the domestics in band 02. Differences in winter/summer percentage errors indicate relative performance of the different profiles applied.

Points to Note: AQs for NDM Sample Data In the population of NDM supply points, the AQ of each NDM meter point is determined on the basis of EUC assigned to the supply point which the meter points falls into. Any given supply point will have a different resultant AQ if the EUC it is assigned to changes. In this analysis as well, the AQs of the various NDM sample data sets analysed are determined in relation to the EUC profile being applied. Consistent with the approach that would be taken for the NDM population as a whole - the applicable EUC in part determines the AQ. For example if EUC 01B profiles are applied to the non-domestic supply points in band 01, the resulting AQ of this sample data set will be slightly different to the AQ of the same data set if the EUC 02B profiles are applied.

Points to Note: Sample Numbers available The numbers of supply points in the NDM sample that are in band 01 and are non-domestic are small: 139 in total nationally ranging from 5 to 18 in the 12 LDZs The numbers of supply points in the NDM sample that are in band 02 and are domestic are small: 161 in total nationally ranging from 8 to 24 in the 12 LDZs Results at an individual LDZ level will not be robust. Focus should be on results at an aggregated national level. Allocations computed according to the relevant EUC profile (taking in to account the LDZ), but the assessment of winter summer errors considered at aggregate level.

Numbers of Supply Points in Sample Sub-Sets LDZ NON-DOMESTIC IN BAND 01 DOMESTIC IN BAND 01 DOMESTIC IN BAND 02 ALL SUPPLY POINTS IN BAND 02 SC 11 243 24 76 NO 10 232 13 102 NW 5 229 8 120 NE 9 261 11 91 EM 15 239 10 107 WM 8 247 15 95 WS 18 252 11 76 EA 13 256 8 110 NT 11 227 18 135 SE 13 236 11 109 SO 12 245 14 104 SW 14 248 18 104 TOTAL 139 2915 161 1229

Band 01 Results Winter/Summer % Errors LDZ 01B profile applied to Non-domestic NDM sample in 01B band 02B profile applied to Non-domestic NDM sample in 01B band SC NO NW NE EM WM WS EA NT SE SO SW TOTAL Winter 4.59% -4.53% -3.73% -2.83% 2.10% 4.57% -0.52% 1.03% -5.67% 0.21% -0.09% 2.68% 0.21% Summer -12.75% 10.41% 9.11% 7.31% -5.60% -14.25% 1.92% -2.26% 13.71% 0.06% 0.89% -7.62% 0.08% Winter 5.12% -6.94% -3.22% -7.57% 0.96% 2.57% -2.75% 2.18% -0.79% 2.60% 3.57% 2.73% 0.29% Summer -14.83% 15.08% 7.67% 18.07% -2.71% -8.11% 7.24% -6.26% 1.96% -7.43% -9.61% -8.66% -0.65% % Errors for Winter / Summer: (Actual Allocated) / (Actual)

Non-domestic sample supply points in Band 01 Consumption (MWh) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 October November Non-Domestics in Band 01 December January February March April May June July August September Overall, both profiles fairly close to actual consumption (of 139 non-domestics in band 01). 7 of 12 months better with EUC 01B profile. 4 of 6 months better in winter with EUC 01B profile (Oct., Dec., Feb., Mar.). 3 of 6 months better in summer with EUC 01B profile (April, June, July). Overall both winter and summer better with EUC 01B profile. Month Allocations as 01B Actual Allocations as 02B

Band 01 Results Key Points The EUC 02B profile is marginally worse at representing the non-domestic supply points in band 01 than the EUC01B profile This is so nationally overall and in 8 of 12 LDZs (exceptions are NW, EM, WM and NT) However, sample numbers are insufficient for reliable assessment at an individual LDZ level Overall nationally, the differences are very small indicating that for band 01 the profile applied (whether EUC 01B or EUC 02B) makes little difference to the allocations in aggregate

Band 02 Results Winter/Summer % Errors LDZ SC NO NW NE EM WM WS EA NT SE SO SW TOTAL 02B profile applied to Domestic NDM sample in 02B band Winter Summer -4.57% 9.57% -6.78% 14.79% -4.44% 10.06% -10.00% 22.14% -3.53% 8.94% -6.55% 15.62% -10.47% 21.47% -8.77% 17.90% -3.33% 7.26% -5.56% 12.24% -2.92% 7.19% -6.80% 15.85% -5.86% 13.09% 01B profile applied to Domestic NDM sample in 02B band Winter Summer -5.15% 11.21% -4.39% 10.14% -4.95% 11.47% -5.25% 12.14% -2.34% 6.42% -4.34% 10.81% -8.09% 17.01% -10.04% 20.99% -8.32% 18.35% -8.16% 18.36% -6.83% 16.02% -6.84% 16.65% -6.22% 14.29% % Errors for Winter / Summer: (Actual Allocated) / (Actual)

Domestic sample supply points in Band 02 Consumption (MWh) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Domestics in Band 02 Both profiles peakier than actual consumption (of 161 domestic supply points in sample in band 02). 9 of 12 months better with EUC 02B profile 4 of 6 months better in winter with EUC 01B profile (Oct., Dec., Jan., Mar.). 0 October November December January February March April May June July Month Error as 02B Actual Error as 01B August September 5 of 6 months better in summer with EUC 01B profile (except August). Overall both winter and summer better with EUC 02B profile.

Band 02 Results Key Points The EUC 01B profile is marginally worse at representing the domestic supply points in band 02 than the EUC02B profile This is so nationally overall and in 7 of 12 LDZs (exceptions are NO, NE, EM, WM and WS) However, sample numbers are insufficient for reliable assessment at an individual LDZ level Overall nationally, the differences are small indicating that for band 02 the profile applied (whether EUC 02B or EUC 01B) makes little difference to the allocations in aggregate.

Overall Conclusions Results of Analysis Based on NDM sample data and assessment of the EUC profiles for gas year 2007/08 there is no benefit nationally overall in applying: EUC 02B profile to non-domestic supply points in band 01 EUC 01B profile to domestic supply points in band 02 While sample numbers are insufficient for robust conclusions at individual LDZ level, these conclusions apply to the majority of individual LDZs as well in both instances. This analysis could be repeated for future gas years if considered worthwhile.

Overall Conclusions Impacts Results of analysis had to produce a compelling case for changing to EUC profiles based on market sector flag due to impacts on following : System enhancements EUC allocation process RbD underlying principle of homogeneity undermined SPA processes Flow of MSF updates to EUC and AQ Invoicing potential file format changes due to use of 2 profiles