| TXSET001 |
Provide additional status codes for CR use in the 814_24 Move Out |
There are limited options for the CR to communicate to the TDSP when a customer request a MVO and request that the meter and / or service be disconnected. Recommend additional codes be added to the REF02 segment to better identify the requested action. |
06/27/2005 |
TXUED |
No |
814_24 Implementation Guide |
Closed |
TXUED (Submitter) put a fix in that should alleviate the need for this issue. Issue is Closed. |
| TXSET002 |
New code for CR use to communicate to the TDSP that an 810 or 867 file (or both) was not received |
There are not specific reject codes in the 824 for a CR to use to communicate the following: The 867 was received but not the 810 The 810 was received but not the 867 Neither the 867 nor the 810 was received for a particular service period |
07/19/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
824 Implementation Guide |
Closed |
Currently this has not proven to be an issue in the Market. TX SET recommends that the issue is closed and if transaction processing produces this issue, it can be readdressed. |
| TXSET003 |
CR receipt of the 867_03 Final before receipt of 814_06 and vice versa |
There exists an issue where CRs receive an 867_03 Final, without receiving a 814_06 transaction. Also, the reverse scenario also exists where the 814_06 is received without an 867_03 Final. |
07/08/2005 |
CenterPoint Energy on behalf of TX SET |
No |
814_06 and 867_03 |
Closed |
Currently if this issue exists the only way to correct it is through the FasTrak process. There is not a transactional solution to this. TX SET considers this issue closed. |
| TXSET004 |
2MR - Second MVO Request code is not forwarded to the TDSP |
After 2.1 implementation the 2MR (2nd MVO request) code used on a MVO by the CR is not passed on to the TDSP when a active CSA exists. |
07/08/2005 |
TX SET Leadership |
No |
814_24, 814_03 |
Closed |
This situation would result in an estimated initial read for the MVI on the CSA which is not preferred in the overall business process. TX SET considers this issue closed. |
| TXSET005 |
Would like to request that TX SET make clear distinction in the transaction SET on special characters |
All MPs handle special characters differently. |
07/13/2005 |
TXUE |
No |
All Transactions |
Closed |
If proper testing is occurring during market test issues with what companies use as delimiters v. what special characters are used within a free form text field should be caught. rules for using special characters are clearly defined in the ansi x12 standards. TX SET recommends that additional market education on using special characters be added to the market orientation for flight test. |
| TXSET006 |
Add Late Payment functionality to the MOU/EC 810 Invoice |
Muni Coops does not have the ability to send late payment charges to the CR. |
08/17/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
810_03 Invoice |
Closed |
Issue Withdrawn |
| TXSET007 |
Rep of Record validation at ERCOT for Historical Usage Requests |
Rep of Record is not validated at ERCOT on Requests for Historical Usage (814_26) |
07/19/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_26 |
Closed |
The general consensus is that this validation should not take place at ERCOT. |
| TXSET008 |
Smoothing Usage |
Define procedures and processes for TDSPs to follow in regards to smoothing usage. |
08/16/2005 |
TXUE |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Currently being discussed through the revisions to the Terms and Conditions |
| TXSET009 |
Consistent method for adding/removing unmetered devices |
Currently TDSPs communicate the adding and removing of unmetered devices in different ways |
07/13/2005 |
TXUE |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
CRs stated that this had not been an issue that has been identified in their shops; therefore, it may not be of value to the market to pursue this further. At this time TX SET recommends to withdraw this issue and if this is a market issue it will be brought forward under a new issue number along with recommended examples for correcting the problem(s). |
| TXSET010 |
Reasoning for Meter Estimation Code in 867_03 transaction. |
No reason for estimation in the 867 transaction. |
07/08/2005 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Currently being addressed in the Terms and Conditions discussions |
| TXSET011 |
Multiple Meter Exchanges for one ESI ID |
Multiple Meter Exchanges for one ESI ID in one service period is not adequately explained in the Implementation Guide. |
07/08/2005 |
Reliant |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Need to see specific examples of issue. |
| TXSET012 |
Clarification for 650 transaction |
Due to inaccessible meters problems, TDSPs are unable to accurately determine customer’s specific need or request because of limited information, To reduce the number of complete unexecutable, which are associated to cost by both the CR and TDSP and wasted trips by the TDSPs, along with negatively impacting customer satisfaction, Several graybox or data segments of the 650 transaction need to be very clear on the instructions by both the sending and/or receiving of these transactions because both represent a form of communicating a Retail Customer’s request. |
07/08/2005 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_01, 650_02 |
Closed |
Approved for inclusion in TX SET 3.0 Change Control 2006-698 |
| TXSET013 |
Removal of BPO from 814_20 Implementation Guide |
Business Process Overview currently exists in the transaction |
07/11/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
Approved by TX SET - change control written for inclusion in 3.0 |
| TXSET014 |
Invoice Specific 820_02 Payments (810_03) |
820_03 payments sent to the CR in a MOU/EC service territory are not invoice specific, therefore penalty charges incurred cannot be tied back to an original invoice, however the 810_03 TX SET guide requires the Invoice Number (REF~IK segment) when using the Late Payment Charge code (LPC001). |
07/18/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
810_03 |
Closed |
Approved by TX SET for change control for version 3.0 inclusion. |
| TXSET015 |
Add REF~1P into the 814_05 transaction |
The REF~1P is no longer in the 814_05 transaction |
07/08/2005 |
Reliant Energy |
No |
814_05 |
Closed |
approved by tx set - change control written for 7.28.06 discussion and approval for 3.0 inclusion |
| TXSET016 |
Negative Usage in Detail Loop for Un-Metered Service |
Negative usage in the detail loop for an un-metered service |
07/08/2005 |
CenterPoint Energy on behalf of TX SET |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Rejected by TX SET - Discussion: TX SET concluded that this is a one-off scenario and the guide is not in conflict with the identified process or procedure addressed in this issue. Market participants should resolve this issue between each other. |
| TXSET017 |
Inconsistency in the interpretation and use of the 824 reject code 'TRC - Tariff Rate Code Mismatch' |
There is inconsistency in the interpretation and use of the 824 reject code "TRC - Tariff Rate Code Mismatch" |
07/19/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
824 |
Closed |
An acceptable use of the TRC reject reason would be if the dollar amount provided on the SAC is different from what the TDSPs tariff says they can charge. The gray box description in the TRC reject code indicates that it will only be used when the rate code in the SAC04 does not match the TDSP tariff. |
| TXSET018 |
Additional Codes to 814_24 REF~1P (Status Reason) Segment |
Add additional codes to the 814_24 REF~1P to give the CR the ability to request the removal of a meter or service separately |
07/20/2005 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
This issue is a duplicate of 001 |
| TXSET019 |
Transactional Process for Handling CR to CR Mass Transition |
Create transactional process for handling a CR to CR Mass Transition |
08/17/2005 |
Texas SET |
No |
814_10, 814_03, 814_04, 814_14, 814_15 |
Closed |
Approved by TX SET - Change Controls already identified, developed and approved for version 3.0 implementation |
| TXSET020 |
Specify contact phone numbers on enrollments to expedite restoration of service |
TX Set currently provides a PER04 and PER06 fields to include the customer's contact phone number. It would benefit all market participants and customers to specify one of the fields as a home number, one field as a business number, and if an additional PER segment could be added, a cell number would be beneficial. |
08/23/2005 |
TXUED |
No |
814_01, 814_16 |
Closed |
The discussion ended since there was not a majority of support for a third contact number it would not be worth creating a change control or approval of the issue. Issue was withdrawn. |
| TXSET021 |
Requiring Customer Contact Telephone Number in 814_24 |
To address access issues interfering with the completion of the Move-Out request, the Customer Contact telephone number in the PER 03 and PER04 segment of the 814_24 needs to be a required field. This will allow the TDSP the opportunity to attempt contact with the retail customer to gain access to obtain an actual reading on the meter for the final invoice to the CR. |
09/08/2005 |
AEP |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
Withdrawn by submitter to be addressed in some other fashion. |
| TXSET022 |
Review Implementation of the '05' in the BIG08 of the 810_02 for 'Replacement' Scenarios |
Direct Energy would like to request that TX Set review the use of the '05' code and determine if as a market we can come up with a solution to create some consistency with this functionality across all meter types and invoices |
11/21/2005 |
Direct Energy |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
TX SET determined that this request/issue has been resolved with the approved changes for Terms and Conditions on the 810_02 and 867_03 transactions. Per TX SET this request is rejected due to this same requested as been included with the TX SET Change Controls to support Terms and Conditions. |
| TXSET023 |
Add intelligence to the Drop to AREP transactions to accommodate Drop to POLRs |
The market currently relies on a manual workaround that requests POLRs to submit 814_01 transactions on behalf of the Dropping CR. This enhancement would allow the Dropping CR to initiate a Drop to POLR and effectuate accomplish these drops when they would desire to. |
11/30/2005 |
Reliant Energy |
No |
814_10, 814_11, 814_03, 814_04, 814_14, 814_15 |
Closed |
TX SET's discussion of approved POLR Rule Project 31416 -- approved language "As of January 1, 2007, REPs will not be permitted to terminate customers to POLR for any reason except pursuant to a mass transition for the reasons described in subsection (n)(12)" per section (b) Application; Termination of Service for Non-payment. In compliance with the new rule this is no longer an issue as of 1/1/2007. Withdrawn by submitter. |
| TXSET024 |
Add clarification to the 824 RDF reject code used by ERCOT |
Gray box clarification to the RDF reject code to indicate it is used by ERCOT only on 867_04s. |
01/23/2006 |
TNMP |
No |
824 |
Closed |
Investigation found that issue was very small volume and appeared to involve only one TDSP. At this time the recommendation from TX SET is this would be withdrawn by submitter |
| TXSET025 |
YNQ Yes/No Question (Call Ahead) Flag problem |
CenterPoint Energy has communicated with other TDSPs have found that they too have been receiving the YNQ Yes/No Question (Call Ahead) flagged as Y- Yes for all types of Purpose Codes (REF~8X) found in the 650_01 Service Request, for example: Disconnects for Non-Payment, Reconnect following Disconnects for Non-Payment and numerous other types. The reason this is an issue is because in the gray box the YNQ Call Ahead flag shows: "Required if customer requests a call before the work is to be performed. This requires a phone number to be populated in the PER Segment". The problem is why would a customer request a call ahead for a disconnect for non-payment and/or reconnect following disconnect for non-payment. This flag has become a problem for the TDSPs because it is very difficult to determine when to call and when not to call ahead and that is a concern because there may be events where we needed to call ahead and did not because the request was overlooked in thousands of call ahead request. |
05/18/2006 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_01 |
Closed |
This issue supports the change control 2006_698 along with issue I012 that was approved by TX SET 8/2005 - Approved by TX SET per the discussion on 7/27/06 |
| TXSET026 |
Clean-up of examples for multiple metered esiids in 867_04 Implementation Guide |
Clean up of Examples. 867_04 examples (2 of 5) and (3 of 5) are wrong in that they have actual switch dates that conflict for multiple metered ESIIDs. You can not have different dates for meters on a switch. |
05/18/2006 |
TXUE |
No |
867_04 |
Closed |
Approved by TX SET as a clean-up effort for inclusion in version 3.0 |
| TXSET027 |
Clean-up for REF*MG segment on 650_01 in Guide |
REF*MG segment for meter number states optional. Gray box gives criteria for when segment is required or not used and actual Segments state Must Use. Clean-up required. |
05/30/2006 |
Alliance Data |
No |
650_04 |
Closed |
Determined that this issue was not valid. TX SET recommended rejecting this issue. |
| TXSET028 |
ERCOT validation is allowing only 5 or 9 digits in the customer service address zip segment. Guides must be updated |
ERCOT validation is allowing only 5 or 9 digits in the customer service address zip segment. ANSI validation on the segment is 3 to 15 characters. Guides need to be updated so that Market Participants know that only 5 or 9 digits can be submitted in this field. |
05/30/2006 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_01, 814_04, 814_08, 814_10, 814_12, 814_16, 814_18, 814_20, 814_24, 814_25, 814_26, 814_28 |
Closed |
Approved by TX SET - Change control has already been written and ready for approval. Also, ERCOT has implemented the change into their production system. |
| TXSET029 |
PTD*IA loop does not reflect an MEA segment; however, examples 6 and 11 show an MEA segment. Guide must be corrected. |
The PTD*IA loop does not reflect an MEA segment. The examples (6 and 11 ) show an MEA segment and we are getting production data with the MEA segment. Should the MEA actually be sent since this is a summarized loop for each unit of measure and the QTY segment gives us the amount we are looking for? |
05/30/2006 |
Alliance Data |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Examples 6 and 11 will be corrected on the 867_03. Approved by TX SET. |
| TXSET030 |
TX SET changes to be made as a result of the revisions to the Pro-Forma Retail Delivery Tariff under PUCT Project 29637 (Terms and Conditions) |
Capture all of the TX SET changes to be made as a result of the revisions to the Pro-Forma Retail Delivery Tariff under PUCT Project 29637. |
06/12/2006 |
On behalf of Texas SET |
No |
810_02, 867_03, 820_02, 650_01, 650_02, 814_PC |
Closed |
All changes will be included into version 3.0 |
| TXSET031 |
Load Profile Change - no meter data |
A TDSP may create ESI IDs using subdivision plats and at this time no TDSP equipment has been installed. These ESI IDs are created with a profile based on the assumption that each address may be residential with the intention later on being to correct the profile, if necessary, when the metering equipment is installed and energized. The ESI ID’s Load Profile cannot be modified without meter data because currently in the implementation guides whenever Load Profile is changing the meter data (meter number, multiplier, and meter type) is required, however all the information may not be available at the time when the profile is being corrected. |
07/13/2006 |
Centerpoint Energy |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
Approved for consideration for implementation in TX SET 3.0 |
| TXSET032 |
Add two new SAC04 codes to allow for Advanced Metering Cost Recovery per HB2129 and new Underground Facilities Surcharges, or, use existing SAC04 codes and add greybox the descriptions. |
Addition of greyboxs for two codes within the SAC04 for implementation on 7-1-07. |
08/09/2006 |
Texas Utilities Electric Delivery |
Yes |
810_02 |
Closed |
Use new code MSC039 ( Advanced Meter Cost Recovery Factor) and new code MSC040 (Underground Facilities Surcharge) |
| TXSET033 |
If a TDSP does not disconnect a premise in 3 business days and after that 3rd day if the disconnect is scheduled to be performed by the TDSP on a Friday, all CRs may not have staff available to take payments, make payment arrangements with ... |
CRs would be required to have personnel available to support this issue which is not currently their process. This would increase their operating cost and management of the process. |
08/16/2006 |
Terms and Conditions Task Force |
No |
650_01 |
Closed |
Change control was written to include Friday Authorization Flag/Indicator for DNPs that are overdue. |
| TXSET034 |
BGN08 does not allow for the IOU TDSP to supply an action code on the 650_04 to the CR when the TDSP has reconnected the customers meter upon permanent resolution of an access issue. |
TDSP to supply an action code on the 650_04 to the CR when the TDSP has reconnected the customers meter upon permanent resolution of an access issue. |
08/23/2006 |
AEP |
Yes |
650_04 |
Closed |
Based on group review of Implementation Guides for Version 3.0, this was approved for emergency change control to be included in Texas SET 3.0. |
| TXSET035 |
Correct various transactions and segments for clarification in Texas SET 3.0 |
Clean-up of Implementation Guides eliminates conflicts with development of transactions/processes, provides clarification where needed, and provides corrections to change control request that were originally approved by TX SET. |
08/23/2006 |
CenterPoint Energy |
Yes |
814_04, 814_08, 814_09, 814_14, 814_15 |
Closed |
TX SET approved these changes in emergency Change Control 2006-703 for inclusion in Texas SET Version 3.0. |
| TXSET036 |
814_20 Meter Exchanges |
ERCOT needs to begin forwarding 814_20 meter exchanges to the CR that was ROR based on the effective meter exchange date. Currently ERCOT is sending the 814_20 meter exchanges based on the processing of received transactions. |
09/07/2006 |
Direct Energy |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
Jennifer Garcia found 14 examples internally and ERCOT found 38 MarkeTrak issues open under this scenario. At this time due to the low volume Jennifer felt that it would be better to withdraw this issue at this time to bring forward a PRR if volumes increase. |
| TXSET037 |
Processing increased volumes of 814_20 (ESI-ID maintenance) transactions |
Evaluate and provide options to allow ERCOT to accept and process increased volumes of 814_20 (ESI-ID maintenance) transactions. Analysis should include options to support CSV or other non-transactional delivery methods, increased bandwidth and changes to validation and priority / types of transactions |
09/12/2006 |
TXU Electric Delivery |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
ERCOT issued a SIR 10999 implemented February 10, 2007 - too early to tell what improvements have been achieved- may know more next month. Turn-around time on 814_20 hopefully will be faster with the RBP project completed as well. All 814_20 and 814_21 go through this new pipe for processing. |
| TXSET038 |
Invalid reject code 'SCP' on 814_02 |
'SCP' is listed as a valid reject code in the REF~7G on the 814_02. Based on ERCOT MIMO Rejection Rule #3, this is not a valid reject code for a switch. Inaccurately displaying a reject code that is not used. |
09/09/2006 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_02 |
Closed |
Per ERCOT this 'SCP' Scheduling Conflict Priority is not used by ERCOT in any scenario therefore the CRs would never receive this code into their system. Also, ERCOT stated that this concern was identified during testing and if the Switch transaction was accepted by ERCOT it cannot be rejected the Switch can only be cancelled with an 814_08 transaction. TX SET determined that this issue should be closed with no action taken at this time. |
| TXSET039 |
Clarification of the use of priority vs. standard 650_01 reconnect transactions is needed. |
The scenario is as follows: CR sends Standard 650_01 reconnect to TDSP and then they send a Priority 650_01 reconnect to the TDSP. The CR then cancels the Standard 650_01. The TDSP rejects the Priority because one is already pending and cancels the Standard. If TDSP gets the reconnect transaction that day they will work it that day or the next day regardless of whether it is Standard or Priority. |
10/13/2006 |
AEP |
No |
650_01 |
Closed |
Rejected by TX SET to determine outcome of CR processing after 3.0 Implementation. |
| TXSET040 |
Pending customer-requested MVO is canceled by ERCOT per stacking rule if MVI is received for same day or earlier |
Pending customer-requested MVO is canceled by ERCOT per stacking rule if MVI is received for same day or earlier. ERCOT pends MVI for permit, and Cancels the MVO. If Permit is not received in 20 days or customer cancels the MVI, the existing customer remains active even though they requested a MVO because their MVO was cancelled by ERCOT. Customer gets a bill for 20 days or more past the date they requested their service to stop because of the current stacking rule. |
10/19/2006 |
TXU Energy |
No |
814_24, 814_08 Cancel |
Closed |
Withdrawn by submitter and will bring examples if issue is re-opened for discussion |
| TXSET041 |
814_20 rejects for A76 due to processing timing |
When a TDSP submits an 814_20 Add and an 814_20 Maintain for the same ESI ID within a short period of time, it is possible for the 814_20 Maintain to process first at ERCOT, and be rejected for A76 - ESI ID Invalid or Not Found. The 814_20 Add processes later and creates the ESI ID. The TDSP then has to resubmit the 814_20 Maintain to make the necessary change. About 30% of the 814_20s that reject for A76 are for ESI IDs that are eventually created in ERCOT’s system. In addition most of the ESI IDs that are valid are created in ERCOT's system within 48 hours of receiving the 814_20 Maintain. |
11/02/2006 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_20, 814_21 |
Closed |
Protocol Revision Request will be created by TX SET to include 48 hr Re-try Queue for A76 ESI ID Not Found when 814_20 Maintenance Transactions are received. This will also be a SIR potentially scheduled for February 2007 implementation. |
| TXSET042 |
Add SNP as a valid reject code to the 814_11 |
TX SET 3.0 added a new reject code (SNP) to 814_04Reject. This code is only valid on an 814_04 involved in a Mass Transition (BGN07=TS). In order for the defaulting rep to know that the Mass Drop that ERCOT initiating on their behalf has been rejected by the TDSP, the SNP should be added as a valid reject code to the 814_11. This is a gap in the TX SET 3.0 requirements. As a short-term fix, ERCOT will be converting the SNP reject code to an A13 on the outbound 814_11 until a change control can be implemented to add this reject code to the outbound. |
11/02/2006 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_11 |
Closed |
Add the SNP to the 814_11. ERCOT will update system to not convert to the A13 reject code. Approve for Future Implementation- need Change Control written. |
| TXSET043 |
A78 (Item or Service already Established; Requested action has already completed) not a valid reject code on an 814_29 |
Currently A78 - Item or Service already Established (Requested action has already completed.) is not a valid reject code on an 814_29. So when a TDSP submits an 814_28PT or 814_2809 on an order that is already complete or cancelled, ERCOT is sending an A13 reject. Other transactions like an 814_08 or 814_12 that are submitted on a Complete or Cancelled order receive a reject transaction with the reject code A78. It is an inconsistency in the way transactions reject and are logged in ERCOT’s system. This was a gap from Mid Term MIMO. |
11/02/2006 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_29 |
Closed |
Add the a78 reject code to the 814_29 transaction. approved for future release - need change control written. |
| TXSET044 |
Find ESI ID function on the TML failing to retrieve ESI IDs accurately in some cases |
Find ESI ID function on the TML failing to retrieve ESI IDs accurately when Address and Zip Code are used as search criteria. However, if the search criteria are Address and City, the TML seems to retrieve ESI IDs accurately. In the example below, the TML retrieved a TEMP ESI ID but not the permanent one at the premise when Address and Zip Code are used as the search criteria. |
11/09/2006 |
Green Mountain |
No |
n/a |
Closed |
ERCOT found system problem -- 2 fields in Siebel database coded were commented out that TML was using. SIR has been implemented in February that corrects this problem. This should no longer be an issue for TML. This issue is closed with the ERCOT’s internal changes. ERCOT implemented SIR 11043 Feb. 2007 |
| TXSET045 |
814_PC Example Incorrect |
Example 4 of 5 is incorrect. The N1~BT loop (N1, N3, N4) is required for a MOU/EC; this example is for CR to MOU/EC TDSP and it does not contain the N1~BT loop. |
11/09/2006 |
EC-Power |
No |
814_PC |
Closed |
Correct example 4 of 5 in the 814_pc implementation guide. approved for future release - change control needs to be written |
| TXSET046 |
Modification of the original YNQ segment to communicating two uses -- either the meter test results or the service status |
V3.0 adds a duplicate YNQ~~Y~~~~~~9~RES segment to the 65002. This segment currently exists in the 65002, and is used for acknowledging a Meter Test. With V3.0, this segment was added again, and is used to communicate whether service at a premise was left on or off. Rather than add the segment to the 65002 again, the original YNQ segment should be modified for communicating both -- either the meter test results or the service status. |
01/16/2007 |
EC Power |
No |
650_02 |
Closed |
This is considered a guide clean-up on a non-emergency basis. This is combining the 2-YNQ segments into one YNQ segment. Approved as written and needs to be written as a change control. Suzette Sondag will write the change control. |
| TXSET047 |
BIG05 is used to match the invoice to the usage, when applicable |
V3.0 adds language to the BIG05 that suggests the BIG05 is used to match invoice to invoice. The BIG05 is used to match the invoice to the usage, when applicable. Gray box needs to be updated to reflect true validation processes. |
01/16/2007 |
EC Power |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
Changes were discussed and made to the proposed language. TX SET agreed that a change control was needed to be clear on the process and to prevent development issues with validation. Change control will be written by Suzette Sondag. |
| TXSET048 |
Clean up of grey box language added in TX SET 3.0 |
Clean up of grey box language added in TX SET 3.0 to the 814_03 and 814_14 that implies that ERCOT will use customer information in these transactions if it is available to them. Since the market agreed that ERCOT will not use customer information in these transactions during a Mass Transition event, we should remove all grey box language that implies that customer information could be used i.e. "…in the absence of customer information". |
01/16/2007 |
Green Mountain Energy |
No |
814_03, 814_14 |
Closed |
Approved by tx set - clean-up to the guides because of the process was changed via the rulemaking. rob bevill will write a change control to correct the guides with the appropriate process that was approved and implemented with 3.0 for customer billing information. |
| TXSET049 |
Mass Transition 814_03 Critical Date |
Mass Transition Drops will be requesting T + 2 calendar days so it is possible that the requested date may be a holiday or weekend. In order to prevent these Drops from going Cancel Pending before the TDSPs have had a chance to send in scheduling transactions, ERCOT will sent the critical date on Mass Transition Drops to T + 6 business days. |
01/23/2007 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_03 |
Closed |
This is an internal change only to ERCOT to allow for 6 business days for the TDSPs to respond before cancelling a transaction. This issue has no market impact for changes and/or no change control required of TX SET. This issue is closed. |
| TXSET050 |
KWH In and KWH Out readings |
We are in the final stages of approving a customer request to connect a solar system to the AEP Texas grid. This customer has indicated he will be selling his excess output to back to his CR. AEP has installed a single meter with two registers ( kwh in and out). The 867_03 does not support sending both the "kwh in" and, the "kwh out" readings. |
01/25/2007 |
AEP |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Per AEP they have a way to provide this information on the 867_03 as they currently do today for PTB customer and are willing to pull this issue from TX SET. This issue is bigger than TX SET or any of the working groups because of the Settlement, QSE implications as well as usage and consumption. The outcome/resolution could involve several working groups and subcommittees to determine the best solution for the Market. TX SET Chair will take this issue to RMS for the March 2007 meeting to be incorporated into an RMS Issue document for their guidance on next steps. |
| TXSET051 |
Electronic Mail (EM) Communication Number Qualifier needed on 814_03 |
TX SET guide for 814_24 allows a Communication Number Qualifier of EM for Electronic Mail. This allows the submitter of the 814_24 to specify an email address as the contact type. The 814_03 does not allow this contact type. When ERCOT receives an 814_24 with an email address contact type on an ESI ID with a CSA agreement, ERCOT tries to create an 814_03 with the values provided on the 814_24. Since the email contact type is not valid on an 814_03, these 814_03s are failing ERCOT’s outbound validations. |
01/30/2007 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_24, 814_03 |
Closed |
Nueces is the only MP using this information, therefore we would need their comments as to which way is the best solution – Kathy Scott will contact Frank Wilson for their input on this issue and to determine best resolution going forward. |
| TXSET052 |
Use of PER~IC segment in Mass Transition 814_03 |
The 3.0 implementation guide for 814_03 does not address the PER~IC segment. Gray box for segment states, "Required if the transaction is associated with a Switch (814_01), Drop to AREP (814_10), or Move In (814_16). The segment is not used if the transaction is associated with a Move Out with CSA." Possible solutions - 1.) Make the PER~IC not required on Mass Transition (TS) 814_03s. 2.) ERCOT populate the PER~IC on Mass Transition (TS) 814_03s with 'Mass Transition Customer'. This is an urgent issue as ERCOT needs to include the result in 3.0 build. From an ERCOT perspective, either solution is fine. Need to know which is preferable to the TDSPs. |
01/25/2007 |
ERCOT |
Yes |
814_03 |
Closed |
Susan Munson will send out issue to Texas SET listserv to solicit feedback from TDSPs on the proposed solutions. ERCOT to draft Change Control for emergency Change Control call. |
| TXSET053 |
Correct improper use of element separator in some elements of REF~5I segment |
In this example certain elements of the segment are shown to be separated by element separators ("~" in the examples) as opposed to component element separators (typically "^" in the documents). REF~5I~D2~~JH~Y~ESN~1~QO~2 should be changed to REF~5I~D2~~JH^Y^ESN^1^QO^2 |
02/01/2007 |
EP Solutions |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
TX SET agreed that this needed to corrected, however it was not an emergency change control --- it was considered an example that needs to be clean-up because the data elements showed the correct data description. Change control 2007_705 was already written by Susan Munson and waiting approval by TX SET on future Change Control Conference Call. |
| TXSET054 |
Update Examples 6 & 7 in 810_02 Implementation Guide |
810-02 examples 6 and 7 of the Implementation Guides should be updated to properly reflect how the transactions will be coded/populated with regards to replacement invoices |
02/15/2007 |
Constellation NewEnergy |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
TX SET approved change control - will combine into one change control to correct examples and clean-up documents where needed. TX SET approved change control - will combine into one change control to correct examples and clean-up documents where needed… Will be added to change control 2007-705 already written by Susan Munson for the 867_03 transaction (example correction/clean-up). |
| TXSET055 |
Length of Meter Number and meter readings/number of dials |
Can ERCOT & CRs handle a meter number of 6 positions (without decimal) and 7 positions (with the decimal)? Are there any limitations in the TX SET transactions that would prohibit or restrict a 6, 7 or greater position meter readings/number of dials? |
02/15/2007 |
Centerpoint Energy |
No |
867_03, 814_20, 814_04, 814_05 |
Closed |
ERCOT had no problem - Constellation, Direct Energy and TXU Energy stated this was not a problem. This issue is closed. |
| TXSET056 |
Modify the 814_11 to comply with new market rule that prohibits a CR from submitting a Drop to AREP transaction |
TX SET guide for 814_11 needs to allow a reject of a Drop Request transaction 814_10, plus allow ERCOT to respond in Mass Transition events to exiting CR and POLR CR at the end of the POLR term with the 814_11. The 814_10 is no longer a valid transaction in the market, Per PUCT Subst. R. §25.482 Project 33025. |
04/05/2007 |
TXU Energy |
No |
814_10, 814_11 |
Closed |
TX SET agreed this will require a clean-up change control to remove Drop to AREP process from the Implementation Guides. |
| TXSET057 |
Correct 650_02 example 15 |
Correct 650_02 Example 15 in Implementation Guide to include meter number based on graybox requirement in Guide |
04/25/2007 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_02 |
Closed |
TX SET approved issue as a future implementation/clean-up effort for the 650_02 Implementation Guide Example 15--- Change control needs to be written for this issue or one clean-up change control for all example/graybox issues. |
| TXSET058 |
Potential changes to the 814_08 Implementation Guide to prevent confusion regarding the use of the 'TS' indicator for Mass Transition on the BGN segment. |
During flight 0407, ERCOT raised the issue that it was unclear whether the TS code should be included on certain cancel transactions and proposed the options below. The market decided to go with Option 1. This issue is to see if TX SET wants to recommend any changes to the 814_08 I.G. to prevent similar confusion in the future. Option 1: Populate TS on the 814_08 cancel orders associated with canceling a Mass Transition Drop. This would include 814_08 sent out on any order that had an 814_03 or 814_14 containing the TS code. Option 2: Populate TS on the 814_08 cancels orders associated with the Mass Transition Evaluation that is run nightly by ERCOT. The majority of these cancels are not cancels of Mass Transition Drops. These transactions would include a cancel code of MTC (Mass Transition Cancel) or EFR (Evaluation for Resubmission) Option 3: Both. |
05/10/2007 |
Texas SET |
No |
814_08 |
Closed |
Change control will need to be submitted to TX SET to correct the 814_08 gray box to be clear on the conditions in which the TS is populated on the 814_08 cancel orders associated with canceling a Mass Transition Drop. This would include 814_08 sent out on any order that had an 814_03 or 814_14 containing the TS code. Rob Bevill will write the change control. |
| TXSET059 |
Clarify Implementation Guides for the 814_04 and/or 814_14 for use of ‘NONE’ in meter number segment |
Implementation Guides for the 814_04 and 814_14 are out of synch as to whether ‘NONE’ should be allowed for a Drop 814_04 from the TDSP and the corresponding 814_14 to the CR. |
05/16/2007 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_04, 814_14 |
Closed |
Change Control will be written by Kyle Patrick to correct the NM109 for the 814_14 transaction to include "NONE" as the correct value. |
| TXSET060 |
Add codes for penalties, deposits, and interest |
When CR sends in original invoice with penalties the penalty and the customer charge are combined together. When a cancel/rebill is needed only current charges are canceled and not the penalties which makes the MCTDSP and CR out of sync. |
05/31/2007 |
NUECES ELECTRIC COOP |
No |
810_03 |
Closed |
Penalties and interest SAC04 codes needed to specially identify these as a line item in the 810_03 transaction. issue has existed in since day 1 of market opt-in between Nueces and Nueces Retail having this problem. TX SET agrees that there should be a change control written for this issue, however it is not an emergency change due to there is a work-around in progress. Codes to be considered -- late payment LP001 remove the requirement for an invoice number an it could be used. DAB001- deposit and DAB002 -- deposit interest earned and DAB003 deposit interest applied. Change control will be written to include these new codes in the SAC04 of the 810_03 transaction. |
| TXSET061 |
Gray box change on use of REF~5I on 867_03 |
Some TDSPs have stated that they will not send the REF~5I for 867_03 Finals with estimated meter reads based on the following language in the TX SET 3.0 Market Requirements document: Modify the 867_03 Monthly Usage transaction to include a new REF segment (REF~5I) that also provides data elements to communicate: The reason for denial of access, where the reason for estimating only applies to the current month’s usage (867_03) However, ERCOT and some CRs coded that the REF~5I will always be sent on all 867_03s with estimated meter reads based on the following statement in the gray box on the REF~5I segment in the 867_03 Implementation Guide: "Required when usage has been estimated, otherwise not used." |
06/01/2007 |
ERCOT |
Yes |
867_03 |
Closed |
Emergency change control will be discussed on a change control conference call to be held Monday, 6/4/07. ERCOT and CRs to make system changes to not require the REF~5I segment on 867_03 Finals. Code modifications and testing will be completed prior to Texas SET 3.0 Implementation 6/22 -- 6/24. |
| TXSET062 |
Ensure the 650_04 Guide accurately describes the use of 'RC004' and 'RC001' |
IG currently requires Originating Tran ID and Estimated Restoration Date whenever purpose code = "79". It is actually only required when purpose code = 79 AND Suspension/Reactivation code = RC001. |
06/01/2007 |
ESG |
No |
650_04 |
Closed |
TX SET agreed that a change control is needed to clarify graybox as to when the Estimated Restoration Date and Trans ID would be required for BGN08 = 79. |
| TXSET063 |
Gray box language clarification in 814_16 Ref~PH |
Gray Box language in 814_16 Ref~PH is subject to interpretation, would suggest clarifying language to remove ambiguity. Current language says "Not all TDSP tariffs support same-day move-ins" and later states "Required on all Priority MVIs" this is correct, but a bit confusing would suggest clarifying. |
06/06/2007 |
Reliant Energy |
No |
814_16 |
Closed |
Change Control is needed to be clear of all TDSPs’ process for PMVIs. Team suggest removal of the following statement "Not all TDSP tariffs support same-day move-ins’ from the implementation guide to prevent Market confusion. Also correct statement "Required when requesting a same-day move in" because segment is required for both Standard and Priority Move-in for all 814_16s. TX SET approved this issue for a change control and Kyle Patrick will draft a change control to bring back to TX SET for approval at next meeting. |
| TXSET064 |
REF~TN needs to specify that special characters are not allowed |
REF~TN does not specify that special characters are not allowed. But this segment refers back to the BGN06 of the 814_03/814_24. That segment does specify, "Transaction Reference numbers will only contain uppercase letters (A to Z) and digits (0 to 9). Note that punctuation (spaces, dashes, etc.) must be excluded." ERCOT is implementing the same validation on the REF~TN as on the BGN06 since ERCOT's system cannot properly handle transactions with special characters in this field. |
06/15/2007 |
ERCOT |
No |
867_03Final, 867_04 |
Closed |
TX SET agrees that this should not be occurring and suggests that a Change Control be written to provide Market clarification. Catherine Meiners drafted a Change Control to provide the appropriate clarification of what is acceptable in the REF~TN. |
| TXSET065 |
Clarify Implementation Guide to state REF~5I is a required segment for IOU TDSPs |
NOIE 867_03s for estimated reads are failing mapping at ERCOT due to the missing REF~5I segment. |
06/26/2007 |
ERCOT |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Already taken care of in the emergency approved change control 2007-712 "Required for TDSPs Only". Change Control already approved and will be implemented with emergency change control 2007-712. |
| TXSET066 |
Clarify transaction summary in 814_28 Implementation Guide |
Transaction summary on the 814_28 implementation guide needs clarification. |
07/09/2007 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_28 |
Closed |
Approved with additional language modifications for change control |
| TXSET067 |
ERCOT validation change to only apply the REF~5I requirement to the PTD*BO Interval Summary level when the QTY is equal to ‘KA’ (Estimated) |
ERCOT is currently rejecting 867_03 Monthly Usage transactions for IDR ESI IDs that have "QTY=KA" (Estimated) at the Detail Level for an interval reading. TDSPs were not planning to provide a REF~5I based upon the detail QTY= KA. We were only going to provide the REF~5I if the Interval Summary (PTD*BO) was considered to be Estimated based upon a limited number of intervals that were estimated. It is stated in our tariff (4.8.1.4 Estimated Reading) as follows, which allows for some estimation within intervals without showing the entire month’s usage to be estimated for IDR ESI IDs. |
07/10/2007 |
Centerpoint Energy |
Yes |
867_03 |
Closed |
Approved as an emergency change control 2007-712 |
| TXSET068 |
Language in BPT~01 of 867_03 is incorrect relating to restatements. |
Ts and Cs Requirement 3 modified the "Cancel Restatement" process. The Implementation guide in the 867_03 contradicts the process currently. The removal of the text "If usage is canceled and restated, the restatement is sent as an original" will make the guide compliant with the Ts and Cs requirement. |
07/26/2007 |
Reliant Energy |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Approved for Change control on 8/30/07 by TX SET |
| TXSET069 |
Reject reason of 'NFI' on 814_25 should be for ERCOT use only |
TX Set Transaction Guide should specify the reject reason "NFI" (Not First In) for ERCOT use only. |
08/06/2007 |
AEP |
No |
814_25 |
Closed |
Approved for Change control to provide market clarification on 8/30/07 by TX SET |
| TXSET070 |
CRs are receiving replacement invoices without ever having received an original or a cancel |
CRs are receiving replacement invoices without ever having received an original or a cancel even when we have been ROR for the entire period. |
08/28/2007 |
Direct Energy |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
After discussions at TX SET, the group could not identify a reasonable solution to this scenario and the submitter of this issue requested to Withdraw this Issue. |
| TXSET071 |
Proposed shortening of the current evaluation windows of 5 days for a Switch and 2 days for a MVI |
Due to improvements in processing times by ERCOT and Market Participants, the current evaluation windows of 5 days for a Switch and 2 days for a MVI are no longer necessary and should be shortened. |
08/28/2007 |
Direct Energy |
No |
814_01, 814_16, 814_08 |
Closed |
With the feedback received from ERCOT and future changes proposed for MarkeTrak this issue should be minimized. At this time will this issue will be closed. |
| TXSET072 |
Forwarding process for 814_20s to CRs |
What does ERCOT look at to determine which CR(s) get the 814_20 in the event of a MVI or Switch pending and when (requested or scheduled date) is the decision made to forward the 814_20 information? ERCOT did not automatically forward the 814_20 to New CR because New CR was not the requesting CR nor were they the CR anticipated to be the ROR at the time the 814_20 was received. |
09/28/2007 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
Issue should be closed because SIR 11611 was implemented on December 8, 2007, therefore the SIR should have corrected this problem |
| TXSET073 |
Move Out Cancelled for Incoming Move In |
Currently, it seems that ERCOT is canceling 814_24 Move-outs after receiving the 814_03 transaction for ‘MOVE OUT CANCELLED DUE TO AN INCOMING MOVE IN’. ERCOT did not wait to receive the 814_04 transaction before sending the Non-Response driven Cancel. The issue with this is that the 814_03 contains the "Requested Date", where as the 814_04 contains the actual "Scheduled Date". Since the Scheduled date and the requested date could differ, this leaves the losing CR with added days of being the Rep of Record. CenterPoint Energy would like to request that ERCOT should use the 814_04 transaction as the trigger to send the Cancel opposed to the 814_03. This would allow a greater accuracy for when the MVI is scheduled, especially in the event of a change of the requested date for the MVI. |
09/28/2007 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
TX SET agreed to move this issue to "approved" per the creation of the change control that creates the long-term solution. Short term solution is that ERCOT files MarkeTrak issues to CRs when their MVO is cancelled. Long-term solution is captured in Change Control 2008-718. |
| TXSET074 |
814_08 Non-Response Driven Cancellation request for 814_24 Move-Out request in the evaluation period that is a Second Request (2MR) |
TDSPs are not receiving an 814_08 Cancel for a 814_24 Move-Out request in the evaluation period that is a Second Requests (2MR) when a MVI is received requesting same day or next day Move-In, which will result in an Forced Move-Out with the MVI. ERCOT is expecting an 814_28 Complete Unexecutable for these types of scenarios; however, due to Protocol language (Section 15.1.4.4) concerning Second Request Move-Out, a TDSP is not permitted to provide a Complete Unexecutable in these situations. |
09/28/2007 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
Will withdraw by submitter (Kathy Scott) due to no examples available at this time for investigation by ERCOT--- CNP will re-submit once that information becomes available. |
| TXSET075 |
The use of Ignore CSA indicator on MVOs |
Non -- CSA CR sends a MVO with the indicator for ignore the CSA at ERCOT. Resulting in CSA CR never knowing the ESIID is not active. |
11/16/2007 |
TXU Energy |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
ERCOT provided the latest data which showed a dramatic reduction in the volume of this occurring, indicating that the issue has been addressed by the CR that was systematically sending the CSA By-Pass flag on all MVOs. MPs request that ERCOT continue to monitor the volumes for spikes and alert TX SET if any spikes occur. ERCOT agreed to this monitoring. Also, ERCOT is concerned about the continued volume of by-pass flags being used for premises without a CSA agreement but cannot tell how many are B44 vs. 2W, so ERCOT will be creating a SIR so that they can determine the volume of each type of by-pass flag still being used and will report results back to TX SET. This issue is being closed. |
| TXSET076 |
Proposed greybox change on 650_04 for to reflect correct usage of the MTX segment when BGN08 = Cancel |
Error In gray box of he MTX segment, dealing with required grey box should be: Required when BGN08 = C (Cancelled) and YNQ~2Z (Reschedule Code) YNQ02 = Y |
12/20/2007 |
TXU Energy |
No |
650_04 |
Closed |
tx set recommended that a change control was needed to correct graybox language with the correct segment identifier |
| TXSET077 |
Provide additional meter information from the TDSP to identify the presence of a meter used for Master Metering |
Provide additional meter information from the TDSP to identify the presence of a meter used for Master Metering, a meter that is AMR / AMI capable, or is Master Metered with an AMR meter |
05/20/2008 |
Oncor |
No |
814_04, 814_05,814_20, 867’s |
Closed |
This issue will be closed due to determination that the AMI/AMR designation will not be implemented. A new issue can opened if someone wants to address Master Meter separately. |
| TXSET078 |
The REF~JH~I should be designated by TX SET to be used for kWh Generation values only |
In support of PRR756 related to Distributed Renewable Generation, the REF~JH~I should be designated by TX SET to be used for kWh Generation values only. |
05/20/2008 |
Green Mountain Energy Company |
No |
867_02, 867_03 |
Closed |
issue approved - change control 725 was submitted by ercot. |
| TXSET079 |
TDSPs need to receive 814_21 rejects from the CR since they need to know the reason for reject. |
TDSPs need to receive 814_21 rejects from the CR since they need to know the reason for reject. |
06/06/2008 |
Dave Lowder |
No |
814_21 |
Closed |
The manual solution described above is acceptable so this Issue is Rejected by TX SET. |
| TXSET080 |
A new SAC 04 Code will be needed to uniquely identify the EECRF |
New sub rule 25.181 allows an EECRF (Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor) that will require one in rate cases pending or filed after December 31, 2007, therefore a new SAC 04 Code will be needed to uniquely identify the EECRF ( Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor) applied to each invoice from the TDSP to the CR. |
06/23/2008 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
Outstanding action item for update from TNMP will be added to the TX SET Action Items list. |
| TXSET081 |
Remove Critical Care/Critical Load indicator from CR initiated transactions by eliminated the REF SU segment from the 814_01, 814_16 and the 814_PC. |
Remove Critical Care/Critical Load indicator from CR initiated transactions by eliminated the REF SU segment from the 814_01, 814_16 and the 814_PC. |
07/03/2008 |
Direct Energy |
No |
814_01, 814_16, 814_PC |
Closed |
Based on today’s discussion revealing the fact that AEP and possibly other TDSPs use the CC flag to maintain protections on customer accounts; the submitter has requested to withdraw this Issue. Issue is Withdrawn. |
| TXSET082 |
Update How to Use this Implementation Guide page to provide detail on the number of times each loop is used. |
The current How to Use this Implementation Guide page does not provide detail on the number of times each loop used by Texas SET. |
07/15/2008 |
Direct Energy |
No |
All transactions |
Closed |
ERCOT (Kathryn Thurman) investigated what it would take to make this change and if this change would impact other elements in the guide. The investigation found that there is no impact to other elements and it would take ERCOT at a minimum 50 hours to change averaging 1 (one) hour per Implementation Guide. TX SET agree that the value obtain may not be worth the time it would take to change all of the guides to the new format, therefore we would recommend that this item be closed. |
| TXSET083 |
The MIMO Stacking Document and the current Retail Market Guide are inconsistent with the current logic and should be updated. |
The MIMO Stacking Document and the current Retail Market Guide are inconsistent with the current logic and should be updated. Current RMG states Leapfrog (FRG) only occurs on completed orders. MIMO Stacking Document states the logic occurs on completed orders or on orders that are pending with a later date than the date on the backdated transaction. ERCOT’s system actually does a combination of the above. ERCOT will accept a back-dated transaction when there is a scheduled order if the pending (scheduled) order has not reached its evaluation window. |
07/15/2008 |
ERCOT |
No |
RMG and MIMO Stacking Document |
Closed |
Already closed. |
| TXSET084 |
Discripancy in timing for the 814_05 transaction |
A discrepancy has been found between ERCOT Protocols Section 15, the Retail Market Guide Transaction Timing Matrix (Appendix D) for PR60008, and PR33049 Performance Measures on the processing time of a Move-In transaction type 814_05. ERCOT Protocol Section 15.1.4.6 -- Response to a Valid Move-In Request (http://www.ercot.com/content/mktrules/protocols/current/15-071408.doc) indicates that ERCOT will respond to the CR using the 814_05 within one (1) hour after processing the TDSP’s 814_04. The Retail Market Guide Transaction Timing Matrix (Appendix D) for PR60008 (http://www.ercot.com/content/mktrules/guides/retail/2007/10/09/09-100107.doc#_Toc178664515) indicates that the timing/business rule for the 814_05 from ERCOT to CR is One (1) Retail Business Day. Schedule A of PUCT PR33049 Performance Measures (http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/projects/33049/33049_Redlined_form_for_comment.pdf ) indicates that for Moving customers into premises -- Standard (B1-b) and Priority (B1-c), Key Performance Measures for ERCOT to send 814_05 to REP within 1 hour. |
07/15/2008 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_05 |
Closed |
TX SET finished drafting a PRR and a RMGRR today to address this issue. Closing Issue. |
| TXSET085 |
Update the MoveIn Swimlane to remove Customer Notification (Postcard) and update or remove the Customer Dropped by CR to AREP swimlane. |
Update Move In Swimlanes to remove Customer Notification Letter (Postcard). Update or remove the Customer Dropped by CR to AREP swimlane. |
09/10/2008 |
ERCOT |
No |
MoveIn and Drop Swimlanes |
Closed |
TX SET "reviewed" the 3 revised swimlanes and agreed to have ERCOT update the swimlanes on the TX SET website and to close this Issue. |
| TXSET086 |
The 650_04 HL loop is required when BNG08 = S2 (suspended) if the TDSP can estimate the time. Should this be optional instead of mandatory? The TDSP does not know when all disconnects will be turned back on. |
Decisions for programming for new systems |
09/15/2008 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_04 |
Closed |
TX SET recommends closing this issue without a change. The terminology being questioned is not uncommon in the I.G.s and is designed to describe the field as conditional. |
| TXSET087 |
PUCT Substantive Rule §25.493 (e) states that ERCOT "shall develop procedures to facilitate the expeditious transfer of large numbers of customers from one rep to another." |
Currently, there is no process for transitioning a large number of ESIIDs from one REP to another due to an acquisition. Such a process would allow a REP who is in financial difficulty to sell their ESIIDs to another REP and then quickly transition their Customers to the purchasing REP. This ability could reduce the number of Mass Transitions to POLR experienced by the Market. |
09/25/2008 |
RMS |
No |
TBD |
Closed |
Approved per email received by TX SET Chair |
| TXSET088 |
What is the intent and expected outcome by CRs for Purpose Code: RD001 -- Special Out of Cycle Read |
Discussion: What is the intent and expected outcome by CRs for Purpose Code: RD001 -- Special Out of Cycle Read If CRs expected results and intent for RD001 (Special Out of Cycle Read) is the same as RD002 (Reread/Potential Error) then why is there a need to have both RD001 and RD002? |
10/23/2008 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_01, 650_02 |
Closed |
Decision was made to close this issue. As AMS deployment continues this will become less of on issue since the information for an RD001 will be available through other means. CRs understand that these codes are currently handled the same by CenterPoint and AEP and are not experiencing system issues because of it so have no problem with closing. |
| TXSET089 |
Ability for ercot to display ams meter indicator on TML |
ERCOT to display AMS meter indicator on TML. |
10/28/2008 |
ERCOT |
No |
N/A |
Closed |
PRR developed and will be submitted on behalf of Texas SET |
| TXSET090 |
Need additional information to resolve errors on the CBCI file. |
Need additional information to resolve errors on the CBCI file. Request adding the ESIID to the error file produced by ERCOT. CRs need the information to validate the correct Record that is in error and make corrections. |
11/04/2008 |
TXU Energy |
No |
CBCI File |
Closed |
TTPT believes this should be through ad-hoc testing if a CR should wish to test the new format. Testing will be just between the CR and ERCOT. RMGRR will be drafted to add this element. Johnny will write and submit the RMGRR. |
| TXSET091 |
CNP received 814_08 A95 cancels on several 814_26 transactions during Hurricane Ike activities. ERCOT never received the 814_27s and after a month, ERCOT sent CNP an 814_08. |
This hard cancel, 814_08 A95, states in the graybox of the guide that "Review Period expired. MIMO Rules, ERCOT 23, TDSP 3, Not valid for CR cancellations", which indicates this is a MIMO Rule but the rule does not apply to 814_26 Ad-Hoc Historical Usage transactions. CNP was not expecting to receive an 814_08 A95 cancel on this transaction, therefore when we did receive the cancel we were required to force an 814_09out of our system to provide a response to cancel the request and close the Business Process Instance (BPI) for the initial request. Since the MIMO rules do not apply to 814_26 transactions for this timeline requirement there should not be a need to continue this process for an 814_26 transaction. |
11/21/2008 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_26 |
Closed |
SIR was successfully implemented during the June 27th and 28th release. |
| TXSET092 |
TX Set Transaction Guide should specify the reject reason "RNE" (Request Not Eligible) for ERCOT use only. |
TDSPs should not use RNE reject reason and CRs should know this reject reason comes from ERCOT only. |
01/16/2009 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_25 |
Closed |
Change Control 727 was submitted |
| TXSET093 |
Review the language for the CBCI and determine if CSA’s should be included in the monthly CBCI file submission. |
Currently ERCOT is reporting on all active relationships associated with the CR which includes CSAs. |
01/16/2009 |
ERCOT |
No |
CBCI |
Closed |
Reviewed and approved RMGRR language to be submitted on behalf of Texas SET |
| TXSET094 |
Only 1 ignore loop in monthly meter read transactions causing information to be lost when a meter change occurs. |
The market process flow for allowing only 1 ignore loop in a monthly meter read transactions causes information to be lost when a meter change occurs thus causing delays in reporting the monthly meter read transactions. |
02/10/2009 |
Oncor |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
This is a bigger fix than a SIR so will have to be worked as a project. ERCOT believes that we should move forward with fixing the 867_03 to provide the DG in the PTD~SU with a new meter type for DG as we previously discussed in the market in the DGTF. |
| TXSET095 |
Add a Priority Code 5 to identify Disconnect for Non Pay (DNP) and Reconnect for Non-Pay (RNP) service request for pre pay customer for AMS meters |
The Oncor AMS deployment requires prepay services be supported by the AMS meters. In order to identify service orders appropriately, the market agreed solution is to Add a Priority Code 5 to allow 650 DNP and RNP for prepay ESI IDs to: Allow the appropriate discretionary service charge to be applied by the TDSP 2. Allow RNP service order to route within the TDSP to the appropriate work group to ensure reconnection within 1 hour of receipt by the TDSP. |
03/14/2009 |
Oncor |
No |
650_01 |
Closed |
RMGRR was approved by RMS at the june meeting. |
| TXSET096 |
The 867_03 TX Set Guide in the N1~8S segment the N106 is missing the 40 for Receiver for ERCOT Read Load Transactions |
The 867_03 TX Set Guide in the N1~8S segment the N106 is missing the 40 for Receiver for ERCOT Read Load Transactions |
04/02/2009 |
ERCOT |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
This is just a guide clean-up and would have no impact on current processes or transactions. Kathryn will write the change control. |
| TXSET097 |
Transaction Codes Related to Back-billed Tampering Charges |
Gexa has found that in 867_03 replacement transactions sent as back-bills for tampering, the "O4" code designated for this purpose in the TxSET Implementation Guide is not being used. Sometimes it is a different code, or the 867_03 transaction contains the "QD" code to indicate an actual read instead of an estimate. Also, we have found that the SER072 code for invoice transactions is only being used for the single 810_02 used to indicate the meter replacement costs. This is sometimes sent a month after the back-bills, or not at all. |
04/15/2009 |
GEXA Energy |
No |
867_03, 810_02 |
Closed |
Oncor will commit to using the MD solely for tampering. CenterPoint uses the 04 instead of the MD. CenterPoint replaces the meter in every instance and used the 04 code to indicate an estimated read on the tampered meter. AEP uses the 04 to indicate tampering in the meter read. There is an understanding of how each TDSP is approaching this and any concerns for whether usage is indicated as Estimated should be addressed by each CR through the rulemaking process. |
| TXSET098 |
The zip code ERCOT provides in their 727 extract does not match the USPS zip code |
We have a CIS who is experiencing issues reconciling their 727 extract from ERCOT because the zip code ERCOT provides does not match the USPS zip code. |
05/21/2009 |
E:SO |
No |
NA |
Closed |
TDSPs get updates from the USPS and send 814_20s as a result. This file is quarterly so there may be delay in the change. A MarkeTrak can be used to ask the TDSP to look into individual examples. |
| TXSET099 |
814_27 containing REF~1P~HUU does not close the Business Process at ERCOT |
CenterPoint Energy received an 814_26 and since the premise has no historical usage available to provide an 867_02 Historical Usage response CenterPoint responded with an 814_27 REF~1P~HUU with the expectation that this would close the Business Process Instance (BPI) on the 814_26 for the CR and ERCOT. ERCOT did not close the Business Process for the Historical Usage. Manual workaround being required to issue, investigate and complete MarkeTraks by ERCOT and CenterPoint Energy to investigate and resolve MarkeTraks open to manually send 867_02 transactions for these 814_27 HUU sent from CenterPoint to ERCOT to close ERCOT’s BPI. |
06/22/2009 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_27 |
Closed |
Since other exceptions are not outlined in the RMG it was decided that only Stacking Documentation would be updated. Kathryn Thurman (ERCOT) will update and re-post the Stacking Documents. |
| TXSET100 |
It is important that MSC007 be used consistently. CRs typically program their billing systems to either pass through or bundle specific TDSP charges. |
TNMP is planning to use MSC007 (Property Damage) for Hurricane Ike Recovery Costs beginning in September. CNP will have a hurricane recovery cost soon too, but it may fall under a TC charge. It is important that MSC007 be used consistently. CRs typically program their billing systems to either pass through or bundle specific TDSP charges. For instance, most REPs typically pass through discretionary charges, but recurring charges may be bundled or passed through, depending on the REP and plan. If one TDSP is using MSC007 as a one-time discretionary charge while another is using it as a recurring fee, it could cause billing issues for REPs. If MSC007 is going to be used for hurricane recovery costs, TXU proposes that additional gray box language be inserted to mandate that all TDSPs identify and use MSC007 strictly for recurring Hurricane Recovery costs. |
08/19/2009 |
TXU Energy |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
Each TDSP will be using different codes for this type of recovery and do not believe that we should limit the use of MSC007. AEP, CNP and Oncor were asked to review whether they are using the MSC007 for anything. In the next release add a code specific to Storm Recovery. Johnny will write the change control. |
| TXSET101 |
Changing the term on-cycle to reflect Standard Switch and off-cycle to reflect Self Selected Switch in all affected TX SET Guides |
Market Implementation Guides should be updated to reflect changes from Expedited Switch rule |
08/19/2009 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_01, 814_02, 814_03, 814_04, 814_05 |
Closed |
Reviewed changes to the Implementation Guides and Kathryn will make sure the changes are consistent. Kathyn will write Change Control. |
| TXSET102 |
Clarification on the 814_PC transaction. |
1)Texas Drivers License and SSN are optional in the TEXAS SET transactions. We have been reviewing our policies and procedures around this customer information. We would like to know why the TDSPs would need the SSN or TDL? 2) PER segment: The SET seems silent on what is optional and what is mandatory within this segment. |
08/19/2009 |
Reliant Energy |
No |
814_PC |
Closed |
TDSPs stated that the SSN and TDL is used to verify customer information, especially during storms and outages. Provision of this data expedites use of the VRU during outages. Walked through the PER and satisfied questions. No changes needed. |
| TXSET103 |
Remove examples from Implementation Guides |
Remove examples from Implementation Guides and create separate documentation to allow for quicker correction and addition of new examples without a TX SET release |
08/20/2009 |
ERCOT |
No |
All transactions |
Closed |
Kathryn asked for direction on the format of the examples. They are currently in EDI format and do not have the same kinds of descriptions that the current examples do. • If a separate document is created for Examples we need to create a summary of why and when the document was created • a disclosure should be included at the beginning of the document to specifically state that the examples are not to be used for coding • provide reference to the examples at the end of each guide to state that the examples are stored on the Texas SET webpage. Examples will be assigned out to put into the correct formatting. Each transaction set (814_01 for example) will have a separate document and then the documents will be zipped. Kathryn will write Change Control for this issue. |
| TXSET104 |
Add additional SAC04 Codes for Transition Charges, Transition Charge Off Allowance, Credits and Weather events |
CNP request that we add 4-5 new Transition codes (TC), 4-5 new Transition Charge Off Allowances (DSC) since they are related to Transition charges, 4-5 Credit new codes and 2-3 new Storm Recovery Codes into the SAC04 of the 810_02 transaction. |
10/02/2009 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
Approved per email received from TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET105 |
Support processes related to PUCT Project 37291 - Meter Tampering and Disconnection and Reconnection of service for customers with Advanced Meters |
Potentially new processes with the bi-directional point to point transaction for TDSPs and CRs. These changes would be additional functionality for existing 814 transactions for ERCOT and Market participants requiring a TX SET Release to implement. |
04/12/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814 Transactions, 650_01 and 650_02 |
Closed |
Approved per email received from TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET106 |
With the new functionality provided by AMS meters to detect power outages and power restoration and to allow customers to request power outage/restoration notifications via Smart Meter Texas there is need for TDSPs to receive customer conta... |
This would be an additional segment to the existing 814_PC TX SET transaction for CRs and TDSPs, therefore this requires a system change control and a system change release of TX SET. This would allow Retail Customer’s to receive power outage and service restoration notifications when they are not at the premise, allowing them to make other plans as needed. It also uses the functionality of the AMS meter to assist the Retail Customer with outage and/or restoration information via an automated process through their contact preference (cell, home, office, neighbor telephone numbers and/or email address) |
04/15/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_PC |
Closed |
Approved per email received by TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET107 |
PUCT Project 37622 proposes new Critical Care Status designations that would add new identification requirements to all affected TX SET Implementation Guides. |
The current Special Needs Y/N flag would no longer be enough information in the TX SET guides. If the Special Needs Y/N indicator is retained by TX SET, we would also need qualifiers added when the Special Needs Indicator = Y (Yes) in the applicable TX SET transaction. If Y (Yes) then we will need to show a unique indicator for each of the viable designations as they are approved in the final rulemaking. Also, we will need a segment or data element that if there is a Y-Yes for Special Needs Indicator, to include the alternate or back-up contact for emergencies and problems with the customer’s account where Critical Care status is indicated. |
04/15/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
All |
Closed |
Approved per email received by TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET108 |
TX SET Guides should be update to reflect correct information |
Many of the TX SET Guides had incorrect information in them which can cause confusion when using them. |
04/23/2010 |
ERCOT |
No |
All transactions |
Closed |
Approved per email received from TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET109 |
With the changes to the PUCT rules around disconnect timelines for AMS meters we just want to verify what each TDSP will expect in regards to date requested. |
CRs need to have input to make sure systems are correctly coded for DNP submission |
04/23/2010 |
Direct Energy |
No |
650_01 |
Closed |
No changes necessary for the RMG |
| TXSET110 |
Remove the 814_07, 814_15 & 814_23 as valid TX SET Transactions |
Currently the following transactions are to be submitted by the CR to ERCOT 814_07, 814_15 & 814_23. All 3 of these transactions are considered response transactions and do not have any changes on the Move In/Switch/Drop/Move out to CSA. Requesting to make the 814_07, 814_15 & 814_23 Invalid transactions. |
06/02/2010 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_07, 814_15, 814_23 |
Closed |
Approved per email received from TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET111 |
Find a way to better track how quickly Disconnect and Reconnects are worked. |
We need a way to better track how quickly Disconnects and Reconnects are worked. Currently there is not a time stamp to show exactly when the TDSP received the transaction. We would like to explore possible solutions. One might be adding a date/time stamp within the 997 acknowledgment to show when the transaction was received at the recipient’s gateway. |
08/02/2010 |
Direct Energy |
No |
650 (but possibly all) |
Closed |
Withdrawn per email received from TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET112 |
Add a more specific reject code to the TX SET transaction for Weather Moratorium and if needed in the future for Force Majeure events. |
Since CenterPoint is currently using an A13 (Other) Reject code for Disconnect for Non-Payment due a Weather Moratorium, we would like to add a more specific reject code to the TX SET transaction for Weather Moratorium and if needed in the future for Force Majeure events. |
08/17/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_02, 814_04, 814_05, 814_11, 814_23, 814_25, 814_28 |
Closed |
Change control is written and will be submitted to ERCOT. |
| TXSET113 |
Add an element on the 867_03 transaction for DRG to identify and process usage without error. |
Would like to add an element on the 867_03 transaction for DRG. There have been inconsistencies with using the ignore flag as the identifier for DRG 867_03 transactions. |
09/14/2010 |
Reliant Energy, Inc. |
No |
867_03 |
Closed |
Reliant was not able to find any current examples, only historical. Reviewed the grey box language for implementation with 3.0A and the clarification of the Ignore being used only for generation satisfies this request. |
| TXSET114 |
Remove invalid link reference from the Texas SET Guides. |
Several Texas SET Guides have an incorrect link for locating the ISO country codes. In order to have the most accurate Guides, we should remove the link and reference that the country codes can be found in ISO 3166. |
09/22/2010 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_01, 814_10, 814_14, 814_16, 814_24 and 814_PC |
Closed |
Approved per email received from TX SET Chair. |
| TXSET115 |
Add a code to allow REPs to notify TDSPs when a premise has an Electric Vehicle as an end-use device. |
There is currently no code available for the market to identify when a premise has an Electric Vehicle (EV) as an end-use device. |
10/14/2010 |
Oncor |
Yes |
650_01 and 650_02 |
Closed |
Ed wrote a change control and it will be up for approval at today’s change control call. |
| TXSET116 |
In order for the TDSP to send discretionary charges due to tampering a new type code should be added to the 810_02. |
In order for the TDSP to send discretionary charges due to tampering a new type code should be added to the 810_02. |
10/15/2010 |
Gexa Energy |
Yes |
810_02 |
Closed |
Suggestion was made to add a new code (A5) to the Invoice to allow ad-hoc charges associated with Tampering. Johnathan wrote change control 755 for this issue. |
| TXSET117 |
During 3.0A the Implementation guides were updated to change the term off-cycle to reflect Self Selected Switch. There were a few instances where this was missed. |
During 3.0A the Implementation guides were updated to change the term off-cycle to reflect Self Selected Switch. There were a few instances where this was missed. |
10/15/2010 |
ERCOT |
Yes |
814_03, 814_04, 814_05 and 814_11 |
Closed |
Change control 756 was written to implement this clean up with SET 4.0. |
| TXSET118 |
An issue has been identified where an 867_03F is received on a cancelled MVO, which was cancelled due to a same day MVI. The 867_03F should have been sent referencing the MVI instead. |
This issue is a result of the faster timelines for completing AMS MVOs and the MVO has been completed before ERCOT sends the cancellation. When the TDSP runs their batch update that evening the 867_03F goes out but is for the MVO since they actually completed it and then completed a separate MVI. |
10/15/2010 |
Direct Energy |
Yes |
867_03F |
Closed |
Changes were made to the Stacking Logic to allow the TDSP to decide whether to accept a cancel on MVOs depending on whether they have been worked. Change Control 758 was written to allow the TDSP to reject an 814_08 cancel on any MVO that was already worked. |
| TXSET119 |
Add a new code in the ESIID attributes to specify LED bulb types for Unmetered Service type. |
Light emitting diode (LED) technology is beginning to be used as a new street light bulb type. The current guide has no specific code to identify the LED bulb types in the ESIID attributes for Unmetered Service type. |
10/18/2010 |
Oncor |
Yes |
814_04, 814_05, 814_14, 814_20 and 814_22 |
Closed |
Ed has written a change control. |
| TXSET120 |
Add a new REF segment to MVI transactions that will allow a CR to provide key information to the TDSP. |
The CR would have the ability to send up to 80 characters in the MVI. The note would be sent in the 814_16 and passed thru Ercot and onto the TDSP. Here are some examples of information:• Combination to gate• Which gate is unlocked• Time that the property is accessible• Instructions of where the meter is located• Time of day that is best to do the MVI• Location of the key for the gate |
10/19/2010 |
TXU Energy |
Yes |
814_16 |
Closed |
No disagreement with implementing this change. Johnny wrote change control -- recommended to add it to the 814_24 and pass to the tdsp on 814_03 for mvo to csa |
| TXSET121 |
Add to the existing REF02 of the REF~PRT segment the "WF" code to represent Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity). |
Currently Cities in and around Houston are requesting and installing WI-FI unmetered services to allow Cities to provide Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) for city facilities, buildings and improve communications through wireless devices. |
10/22/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
Yes |
814_04, 814_05, 814_14, 814_20, 814_22 and 867_03 |
Closed |
No disagreement with adding this code -- Ed suggested that how these are handled does need to be vetted through other groups such as PWG. Change Control was written by Kathy Scott |
| TXSET122 |
Discontinue use of the 650_05 response transaction that doesn’t provide or require a response by the TDSP once received. |
It is believed the majority of TDSPs don't do anything with this response and when we receive these type of transactions they usually fail due to incorrect CR mapping cross reference numbers. CNP will not resend 650_04 since it was information provided of a temporary or permanent outage/suspension situation, therefore the CR would be expected to respond appropriately with their customer or provide an 814_24 in a permanent removal situation. |
10/27/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
Yes |
650_05 |
Closed |
TX SET agreed to remove the 650_05 transaction during TX SET 4.0 |
| TXSET123 |
The MVI will be suspended in ERCOTs system when the ESIID has a Switch Hold applied for Meter Tampering or Defer Payment agreement with an 814_28 from the TDSP. |
All Market participants must make change for Switch Hold to follow a pending process similar to the process for TDSP pending orders for City Inspections. Comply with market rules. |
10/27/2010 |
TXU Energy |
Yes |
814_28 |
Closed |
Closed. Decision was made to not pend these MVIs |
| TXSET124 |
New code needed for clarification of Complete Unexecutable situations when the TDSP places a Switch Hold on an ESIID preventing completion of a MVI or Switch. |
The Meter Tampering Taskforce held a conference call on November 19, 2010 to discuss and agree to Retail Market Guide Revisions for both Tampering and Deferred/Bill Payment Switch Holds. In that discussion it was agreed that the market needed a new Complete Unexecutable code for situations where a TDSP may have scheduled the MVI or Switch, however after scheduling that request the ESI ID was placed on a Switch Hold preventing the MVI or Switch from being completed. |
11/19/2010 |
CenterPoint Energy |
Yes |
814_28 |
Closed |
Change Control has been written to add the unexecutable code |
| TXSET125 |
TX SET should consider approving a request to modify Protocols, Solution to Stacking and create Change Controls to change ERCOT’s systems to only forward the 814_20 Maintenance transactions to the Current Rep of Record and any or... |
Change ERCOT’s forwarding process for 814_20 Maintenance transactions to only apply to Current REP of Record state and any CRs where enrollment transaction is in a "Scheduled" state when the 814_20 Maintenance transaction is received by ERCOT. |
02/17/2011 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
814_20M will be forwarded to the Current ROR and any CRs that have a Scheduled order at the time the 814_20M is processed at ERCOT. NPRR will be created for this change. |
| TXSET126 |
Add a new REF~8X Purpose Code to the 650_01 and 650_02 transaction to allow CRs to request and TDSPs to know when the CR wants the Premise Type verified. |
CenterPoint Energy would like TX SET to add a new REF~8X Purpose Code to the 650_01 and 650_02 transaction to allow CRs to request and TDSPs to know when the CR wants the Premise Type verified. There is a code to "Verify Meter Data" (MM005), but that code would only ask TDSPs to obtain meter readings and meter attributes since it is a request to verify meter data. A meter reading and its attributes will not allow a TDSP to know what type of premise is being served by that meter. |
02/17/2011 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_01 and 650_02 |
Closed |
Everyone agrees this is a good addition. Will be added to the 650_01/02 Change Control that Kathy is writing. |
| TXSET127 |
Add new reject code of "DUP" for duplication request received by TDSP in the 650_02 in the REF03 of the REF~7G. Also clarifying DC005 "Disconnect due to tampering" is really a "Disconnect for non-payment of charges associated to Tampering". |
Add a reject code of "DUP" for duplication request received by TDSP in the 650_02 to allow the TDSP and CR to use this unique code instead of an A13 (Other) code that requires text field to be populated in the REF03 of the REF~7G. Clarify the DC005 "Disconnect due to tampering" is really a "Disconnect for non-payment of charges associated to Tampering". |
04/18/2011 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
650_01 and 650_02 |
Closed |
Add notes to requirements to clarify |
| TXSET128 |
Add new reject code "TCC" to notify REPs when the TDSP has rejected their request due to completing a competing order scheduled for the same date. Also add the new Complete Unexecutable Code "T024" to the REF~G7 segment of the 650_02 and 81... |
With the implementation of TX SET 4.0 where same day processing of MVOs, Switches, and extended hours for MVIs, Reconnects for Non-Payment there may be times where transactions may be competing for the same scheduled date. Also, with AMS functionality there may be more times where transactions are already completed just as another transaction is received by the TDSP requesting the same date. The TDSP would be unable to reverse any of these already completed transactions, therefore creating a need to provide the appropriate response to those transactions that cannot be processed for the same scheduled date. To create an easier notification process for these types of events it would be good for the sender, receiver and ERCOT to communicate a specific reject code to show that a transaction was rejected due to a competing transaction had already been completed for the same scheduled date. The reject code or complete unexecutable code would prevent delays in providing information back to the sender so that any alternative actions may be initiated such as changing scheduled date or determining if initial request is still valid. |
05/10/2011 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_04, 814_05, 814_11, 814_13, 814_25 and 650_02 |
Closed |
Change Control written |
| TXSET129 |
Add clarity to determine if the REF~IX is required when the REF~MT is COMBO in the 814_04 transaction. |
Trying to determine if the REF~IX is required when the REF~MT is COMBO. The 814_04 Guide states that it is optional for COMBO, yet the subsequent transactions (that REPs code to) do not say. |
05/26/2011 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_04, 814_05, 814_14, 814_22 |
Closed |
TDSPs agreed that the language in the 814_04 should be struck to make it consistent with the 814_05. REF~IX is not optional when COMBO. When REF~MT = COMBO the REF~IX is optional when communicating Demand. |
| TXSET130 |
This Issue is to add clarity to many different segments in various Change Controls: PER~PO segment, REF~1P segment and the REF~RAA segment. |
Change control 2010-739 was approved by RMS added a new PER~PO segment for Power Outage to the 814_PC transaction didn’t include or clarify that the TDSP would be expecting only 1 PER~PO segment that contains customer contact information instead of multiple PER~PO loops that could be either rejected or the additional loops disregarded by the TDSP since they didn’t build to receive multiples. Change control 2010-753 and 2010-754 were approved by RMS will need to be clarified that the REF~1P (Status Reason) segment is required in the 650_02 response for the new REF~8X Purpose Code of FI012 or FI013 request since these will require follow-up actions by the TDSPs as a response to the CRs 650_01. |
09/02/2011 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_04 and 650_02 |
Closed |
Change control was submitted for Texas SET consideration. |
| TXSET131 |
Add a new SAC04 code of "MSC049" for RATE CASE EXPENSE SURCHARGE 2. |
Oncor needs to have an additional line item charge to recovery rate case expenses to begin being recovered January 1, 2012. This is a result from the recent Rate Case approved in Docket 38929. |
09/09/2011 |
ONCOR |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
A change control has been submitted and will be discussed on the October change control call. |
| TXSET132 |
Eliminate the process where a TDSP has to send multiple 814_20's to create the ESI ID and to update it to show unmetered service type. TX SET should allow the TDSP to send both the create and update in one transaction similar to metered ser... |
To eliminate a process where multiple 814_20s are initiated by the TDSP for an unmetered service just to create the ESI ID and again to update the ESI ID to show unmetered service type, TX SET should allow a TDSP to provide that same information in one 814_20 Create transactions similar to the process for metered service. |
09/28/2011 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
A change control has been written and will be discussed on the change control to determine whether this should be implemented with 4.0 or upon the next implementation. |
| TXSET133 |
Claification on the difference of the Expiration Date requirements in the 814_04 and the 814_20. |
Numerous questions on the difference in the Expiration Date requirements in the 814_04 and the 814_20. As highlighted below in the 814_04, 05, 22 and 14 the Expiration Date is required for CCC, CRC, CCCT and CRCT whereas in the 814_20 it is only required when available. |
12/06/2011 |
Direct Energy |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
This issue was discussed and it was clarified that difference in the language was intentional. For the 814_20 if the expiration date was always required it would have to be provided with any update to the Critical Care information even if the expiration date isn’t changing. For example, when the Emergency Contact Information is updated but the expiration date will not be impacted so will not be provided. |
| TXSET134 |
Non - CSA CR sends a MVO with the indicator for bypass CSA at ERCOT. Non CSA CR is not always the owner of the CSA, causing the ESIID to become de-energized without CSA CRs knowledge. |
Non -- CSA CR sends a MVO with the indicator for ignore the CSA at ERCOT. Resulting in CSA CR never knowing the ESIID is not active. CSA premise management company is left with a Unit with no power and may incur charges for permits in the hundreds of Dollars. See original Issue 075 |
08/03/2012 |
ERCOT |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
Close Issue |
| TXSET135 |
814_05s are being received with the meter type blank and missing the meter number. The meter is never sent in subsequent 814_20s. This causes billing to fail since we are missing the meter. |
814_05s are being received with the meter type blank and missing the meter number. The meter is never sent in subsequent 814_20s. This causes billing to fail since we are missing the meter. Appears to only occur when the meter type is AMSR. We are seeing this occur for ESI IDs from multiple TDUs |
09/12/2012 |
TXU Energy |
Pending |
814_05 and 867 |
Withdrawn |
Submitter withdrew this issue. |
| TXSET136 |
Include the 5 business day rule in the gray box under the S2 action code and if the R8 action code could read customer requested MVO of the 650_04 transaction. |
We issue a 650_04 when we pull the meter for a non-pay disconnect. The action code in the BGN line is S2. The CR's are wanting us to put a R8 as the action code so that their system will automatically trigger a MVO. We are not disconnecting because the customer called, but for non-pay, which calls for the suspended action code. They are then to wait 5 business days and send MVO if they have not received a 650_04 reconnect. |
05/15/2013 |
Nueces Electric Coop |
No |
650_04 |
Closed |
Group discussed gray box changes for the R8 and the S2 codes in BGN08 to reflect Uses by both TDSPs and MOU/ECs. A change control will be written by the submitter to capture these changes. |
| TXSET137 |
Solution to Stacking - Rep Rule 1: Reps who have a pending move out and submit a move in (same rep) with an earlier requested date are responsible for canceling the pending move out if that is what the customer requires (rep manages custome... |
CNP feels there is confusion in the market as to how REP of Record should manage their MVOs when they are both Current MVI and Previous MVO Customer’s REP of Record -- Solution to Stacking REP Rule 1. Also REP should understand that once the MVI is completed, the TDSP will automatically force-out (MVO) the prior customer for the same effective date as the Move-In. |
08/13/2013 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
814_24 |
Closed |
The group discussed the issue. It was stated that the TDSPs do not review the customer name when receiving an 814_24 transaction. It was also determined that the retail market guide specifies the responsibilities in this scenario explicitly. No change to the TX SET 814_24 will be needed. |
| TXSET138 |
The required use of Appendix J4 (Continuous Service Agreement Statement) and the required signature of the CSA customer. The CSA customers frequently ask why the form is required given that the CSA REP knows that an active CSA is in place. |
2 options: 1) Removal from Appendix J4 the Premise Authorization section requiring Property Manager Signature. 2) Elimination altogether of Appendix J4 and allow the CSA REP to attest on the MarkeTrak that an active CSA exists with the CSA REP. |
11/04/2013 |
TXU Energy |
No |
RMG Sections: 7.16.4.3.2, 7.16.4.5, 7.17.3.3.2, and 7.17.3.5. |
Closed |
Texas SET recommended changes to Appendix J4 and J5 of the RMG to allow a signature from the current CSA REP of record without requiring a signature from the CSA customer or their representative. Texas SET recommended corresponding changes to the RMG Sections 7.16.4.3.2 and 7.17.3.3.2. |
| TXSET139 |
Discuss how Critical Care (CC) status re-establishes itself for a customer after an IAG has occurred. |
Customers who have already requested Critical Care status have their status reset due to an Inadvertent transaction. Customer could end up being DNP'd. |
08/14/2014 |
Reliant |
Pending |
|
Closed |
Submitted and Received Approval of RMGRR128, Reinstate Critical Care Status After Resolution of an Inadvertent Gain to update the Guides. |
| TXSET140 |
Requesting review of Move Outs and how they interact with CSAs. |
If a MVO is sent and CSA is deleted after the MVO is scheduled. ERCOT still sends the CSA CR a CSA MVI. Requesting ERCOT relationship between when a CSA is deleted and a MVO is scheduled to determine if improvements could be made. |
01/26/2016 |
Reliant |
No |
814_22, 814_25 |
Closed |
ERCOT explained the complex processes that take place when a MVO to CSA occurs. Texas SET discussed the CSA transaction flow and agreed that a transactional solution is unlikely. NRG considers the issued close with no action to be taken. |
| TXSET141 |
Allow for cancel and date change requests to be processed at ERCOT and TDUs within the 1day window time frame without being rejected. |
When a MVI or MVO has been submitted for an established AMSR meter and the customer requests to change the date or cancel within 1 day of the requested date, a MarkeTrak (MT) Cancel w/Approval must be submitted. Unfortunately, the MT may not be worked in time for the cancel or date change to be effectuated thus creating a potential Inadvertent Gain/Loss (IGL) scenario, especially when this scenario lands on a Friday to change or cancel a Saturday or Monday MVI. |
01/26/2016 |
TXU Energy |
No |
814_08 and 814_12 |
Closed |
Created NPRR778 and RMGRR139 which were approved. |
| TXSET142 |
Better understanding how Market (REPS and ERCOT) should handle DEV request by TDSP, what the acceptable time frame is before the actual ESI creation date is and billing of the customer |
DEV Process being used to back-date an ESI creation date and MVI start date for service where ESI was not created until months later but service was worked on MVI safety-net (SN). 867_03s and 810_02s were sent for each billing period. Since ESI did not exist and each MVI was rejected TXUE does not show to be Rep of Record so customer is unable to be billed. |
02/10/2016 |
TXU Energy |
No |
814_16 |
Closed |
• It was determined at TDTMS that the underlying issue was related to the TDSP initiating electric service at a premise prior to the ESI ID creation transaction being sent to ERCOT. • Texas SET reviewed the language in Nodal Protocol Section 15.4.1.4, New Electric Service Identifier Creation and updated that language to require a TDSP to receive an accept transaction from ERCOT for the ESI ID Create transaction prior to initiating electric service at a premise. • An NPRR will be created that will be reviewed and comments provided at the April Texas SET meeting. |
| TXSET143 |
Special Characters are being sent in transactions to the TDSPs and causing manual intervention. |
Special Characters are being sent in transactions to the TDSPs and causing manual intervention. Per Protocol Section 19.5.1 Alphanumeric Fields do not allow special characters listed in subsection (4) of NAESB 3.3.2 Extended Character Set. |
06/20/2016 |
Oncor |
No |
All transactions |
Closed |
closed issue. |
| TXSET144 |
When a guard light is replaced with a different type of light a new ESID has to be established for the new install. This process is confusing for the customer and creates an overall poor customer experience. |
Currently the process requires the customer to perform an additional MVI while they are an existing customer. This causes the customer to be confused and some cases delays in completing the new the MVI. We feel this creates a poor customer experience. |
01/23/2017 |
NRG |
No |
814_20 |
Closed |
TX SET discussed NRG’s issue. NRG will consider issue closed at this time. |
| TXSET145 |
Request for consistency and standardization across all Competitive Retailers that will allow TDSPs to create an automated process that will match the 820_02 Remittance Advice against the 820 Bank Payment. |
Request for consistency and standardization across all Competitive Retailers, which includes 3rd Party Vendors operating on behalf of CRs, that will allow TDSPs to create an automated process that will match the 820_02 Remittance Advice against the 820 Bank Payment. Currently each Competitive Retailer provides different formats in the “Remarks” segment of their 820 Bank Payment, which makes it a challenge for TDSPs to automate the 820 Remittance against the actual 820 Bank Payments received from the CR’s Bank. Today for the majority of the TDSPs payment processing requires manual intervention, but with future system enhancements being considered by some TDSPs include developing plans to move away from this manual workaround. |
02/14/2017 |
CenterPoint Energy |
No |
820_02 |
Closed |
Texas SET reviewed one additional example to include bank 820s that contain the NTE segment with ZZZ*7897897890000002001322377 as an example of the content. Texas SET agreed to consider the issue closed. |
| TXSET146 |
Discuss the timing around 814_PCs where the Customer name is present, but the telephone is not. |
NRG is receiving reject 814_PDs for 814_PCs after a customer’s enrollment or MVI is completed where the Customer name is present, but the telephone is not. This is a valid reject. NRG would like to discuss appropriate timing for these trxs. |
02/20/2017 |
NRG |
No |
814_PC & 814_PDs |
Closed |
NRG questioned if we need the phone at the same time as the Customer Name. If not, do we need to remove the requirement from the PER~IC for a phone. TDSPs stated that they would like to see the two (Name and Phone) remain tied together. NRG agreed to consider the issue closed. |
| TXSET147 |
Original, cancel, and replacement transactions are being handled differently between TDSPs which is causing exceptions for the CR. |
Original, cancel, and replacement transactions are being handled differently between TDSPs which is causing exceptions for the CR. Some TDSPs are not sending replacement the “05” code when the original 810_02 & 867_03 changes to a Final Bill. CR has observed differences in the way TDSPs handle this scenario. 00=> 01=> 05 or 00=> 01=> 00 |
02/20/2017 |
NRG |
No |
867_03 & 810_02 |
Closed |
NRG had no new examples; will consider the issue closed. |
| TXSET148 |
Update the 810_02 cancel invoice examples to contain the same due date as the original invoice examples. |
810_02 Texas SET Implementation Guide, ITD Segment states that the due date for a cancel shall be the same as the due date for the original invoice. The examples, #4 & #5, show different dates. This discrepancy causes some confusion. |
05/11/2017 |
TNMP |
No |
810_02 |
Closed |
Texas SET Agreed to make the changes to the examples. |
| TXSET149 |
Recommend revision to Continuous Service Agreement (CSA) process surrounding Solution to Stacking REP Rules 5 and 6. |
CSA CRs who have deleted CSA relationships are receiving unauthorized CSA enrollments. Customer contracts with CSA CRs are not being honored because of REP rules 5 and 6: |
08/14/2019 |
NRG |
No |
814_22 |
Under Review |
TX SET attendees reviewed the scenarios and possible solutions. An alternative would be to allow the MVO to CSA to process as it is today; then have ERCOT re-evaluate if the CSA CR has changed or been removed. If this is the case, ERCOT would cancel the first MVO to CSA and resend the new one or the original straight MVO. Also it was suggested to add an effective date to the 814_18 to specify when the CSA agreement begins. |
| TXSET150 |
Need to review the use of the A13 Reject Code |
Any time a response transaction with an A13 reject code is received a manual review is required, whereas a more applicable reject code used would allow for automated more efficient processing |
05/18/2020 |
Vistra |
No |
814_05, 814_09, 814_13, 814_17, 814_19, 814_25 and 814_27 |
New |
|