Conference on the Status of OASIS II

1
Conference on the Status of OASIS II
MARCH 29TH, 2005 FERC Offices Washington, DC

John Simonelli ISO New England Inc Manager,
Tariffs, Schedules OASIS Group
2
OASIS II Preamble

• 1997 birth of the The original OASIS
• Industry officially moved into the electronic age
  with procurement of transmission services
• 1999 birth of electronic E-tagging
• version 1.4 implemented industry-wide
• March toward electronic services in full swing

3
OASIS II Preamble

• Where were we in 1999 ?
• Industry still fine-tuning OASIS
• Significant post 888/889 regulatory activities
• E-tagging still very immature, plenty of open
  issues
• Industry struggling with concept of
  standardization
• Added challenge of being lost in the electronic
  wilderness
• Many in the industry complained it isnt working

4
OASIS II Genesis

• 2000 FERC rolled out the OASIS II ANOPR
• FERC effort to merge/streamline Transmission
  Procurement, E-tagging and Scheduling
• Viewed as the way to fix what was broken
• Spawned the often referred to phrase
  one-stop-shop
• NERC facilitated industry wide forum via the
  Electronic Scheduling and OASIS Standard
  Collaborative to address the issues

5
OASIS II Genesis

• 2002 FERC rolled out the SMD NOPR
• Anticipated everyone would move to SMD platform
• This represented a bump in the OASIS II
  development road
• Although initial conflicting views on how SMD
  would be accommodated, SMD functionality was
  eventually added to OASIS II laundry list

6
OASIS II Genesis

• Result OASIS II grew exponentially in scope and
  complexity in an attempt to address diverse
  industry needs
• OASIS II became Everything for Everyone
• Effort handed off to the NAESB Electronic
  Scheduling and Information Technology
  Subcommittees

7
OASIS II Genesis

• Industry has not uniformly adopted the SMD
  platform, i.e, Physical Markets may remain
  physical for foreseeable future
• The OASIS II scope never revisited to address the
  change in industry position on SMD

8
Where are we Today ?

• Necessity Is The Mother Of All Invention
• OASIS II has been in the works for years
• Financial Systems and Physical Systems have
  been progressing to meet their specific needs
  without OASIS II

9
Where are we Today ?

• Demand for the original everything to everyone
  scope of OASIS II has withered away
• Physical Systems requiring reservations and
  E-tags to schedule energy have progressed by
  leaps and bounds over last five years
• Dramatic reduction in complaints

10
Where are we Today ?

• Financial Markets could not wait for the
  industry to move forward
• Each have established Stakeholder processes to
  examine market development needs
• Resulted in development of extensive Market
  Information Systems (MIS) to allow
  implementation of their respective version of SMD

11
Where are we Today ?

• Market Information Systems (MIS) required
• thousands of hours in research and development
• stakeholder involvement
• millions of dollars in capital investment
• MIS functionality for each market covers aspects
  currently in the OASIS II scope
• Stakeholders are satisfied with overall MIS
  performance

12
Where are we Today ?

• ISO New England Stakeholder Process
• Stakeholders have a vision of the direction for
  the markets
• Processes are in place for them to identify
  issues within the market and seams issues with
  neighboring markets
• Stakeholders actively involved in prioritizing
  issues (internal or seams) that need to be
  addressed
• OASIS II development may conflict with ongoing
  efforts to satisfy stakeholder demands

13
Where are we Today ?

• There is also active coordination between today's
  markets
• Existing markets are not operating in a vacuum

14
Where are we Today ?

• Entities operating markets working
  collaboratively with EPRI and Vendors
• First area addressed was security-constrained
  dispatch
• Object to explore similarities and where possible
  standardize messaging amongst operational tools
  of the trade
• Effort expanded to include market user to market
  operator interfaces

15
Where are we Today ?

• Other examples of market coordination
• Transaction Checkout in Northeast
• NPCC and neighboring control areas coordinated to
  establish standard protocol for communication of
  Real-Time transaction checkout data
• Minimal cost to implement with significant
  benefits to Control Room personnel
• Expandable to other aspects of operational data

16
Where are we Today ?

• On going effort by PJM and MISO to address the
  seams between their two respective markets
• In these examples and others not mentioned here
  problems were identified, solutions developed
  and, those solutions are currently in various
  stages of deployment within the respective regions

17
Conclusion

• Industry must take advantage of the substantial
  progress made in both the Physical and
  Financial markets to eliminate unnecessary
  and/or redundant effort
• Technology is continuing to evolve processes
  need to be dynamic to build on the benefits that
  technology can provide

18
Conclusion

• Current practice shows the needs of Physical
  and Financial markets are different
• Each should continue to address their respective
  needs but also be conscious of the potential
  impact on the other side
• Where synergies exist between the two they
  should be explored and developed
• Communication must be continued to enable each to
  build off the successes of the other

19
Conclusion

• Physical systems should continue to look for ways
  to streamline and improve processes where
  scheduling systems are dependent on reservations
  and e-tags
• In a sense, this returns OASIS II to its roots

20
Conclusion

• Financial systems in conjunction with the current
  expanded EPRI effort, should continue to actively
  promote common efficiencies and standardization
  on market systems wherever possible

21
Conclusion

• NERC Functional Model, Version 1
• All of these efforts need to be carefully aligned
  with the new reliability standards
• The Interchange Authority/Coordination
  functionality will have a direct impact on the
  current practices for energy transactions and
  scheduling

22

• Thank You