صورتحساب و حل و فصل : رویارویی با چالش های بازار عمده فروشی برق

The new wholesale model requires unbundling of services including energy, capacity, scheduling, coordination, ancillary services, and transmission reservations. Each of these unbundled services adds complexity and also requires much more robust meter reading and billing capabilities. The more market players involved, the more complex the challenge.

As states, countries and regions that have already opened their markets to wholesale competition will attest, the sweeping changes now facing the U.S. electricity market through pending legislation raise numerous issues in the already challenging realm of billing and settlement. Experience has shown that one key component of converting to a competitive wholesale energy market centers around developing a sound approach to settlement processes, with all of its risks and responsibilities. The way in which market participants manage settlements can dramatically impact the profitability and success of their respective businesses. Similarly, in a competitive wholesale market, the need to quickly produce accurate bills dictates that market players revamp their strategic thinking relative to what has become a critical business process. In a competitive market, effective billing is at the heart of both independent system operator (ISO) and market participant activities, not only in generating revenue, but also in serving customers effectively and in the ability to help prevent and counter billing disputes. A. Form and type of contracting are changing The sheer volume and complexity of transactions flowing between the many players in a competitive market pose tremendous challenges in billing and settlement, as does ensuring the timeliness and accuracy of information. In a wholesale market, what used to be one-on-one relationships between customers and their suppliers are replaced by transaction-intensive business processes involving numerous participants. Wholesale contracts in a regulated environment tended to be geared towards meeting the needs of the customer and supplier, and hence were usually complex arrangements. These larger, multi-year contracts included escalation clauses, specific metering requirements, and complex billing clauses that normally were tracked and settled manually, outside of traditional billing systems. While these complex agreements remain in place, a bewildering array of financially settled or power pool arrangements are beginning to take their place. With the unbundling of services, utilities also face an additional challenge to align settlement and billing with the unbundled services. New settlement processes are required. B. Sources for billing determinants differ In an open market, settlement information must be gathered and analyzed from multiple sources. While in the past there was one source for metering data, now data may come from many sources, all owned and managed by different market players. These sources include generation meters, customer meters, transmission/distribution interface meters, and settlement agent records. The data must be gathered, analyzed, and transmitted to billing systems, and since meter reading typically includes inaccuracies that must be reconciled after the fact, the difficulties in assuring accurate data are further compounded. The flow of funds is now broken down into multiple parts and numerous billing and accounting systems, which must work together to ensure that the correct billing amounts are invoiced and that the distribution company, retailer, transmission entity, and generator all get paid. The issue of who sold what to whom and managing the disputes that inevitably occur has become incredibly complex, but the ability to deal with these complexities is the key to effectively managing cash flow and improving customer care. In fact, it’s at the very heart of business solvency and the credit worthiness of individual market players. II. New Demands of a Wholesale Market In a true wholesale electricity market, there are different agents, market rules, and agreements with which to contend. Competition has brought the following new or re-defined roles: • Load-serving entities (LSEs) that include traditional utilities whose revenue requirements are reviewed by utility commissions. • Retail aggregators who compete with LSEs to provide energy at a cheaper cost than their regulated competitor. • Direct service industries that are capable of taking or providing power directly from the wholesale grid. • Merchant generating companies who provide unbundled supply services to participants. • Transmission service providers that make transportation and ancillary services available. • Public power groups that provide energy services in isolated load pockets. • Financial traders that provide liquidity to market transactions. In this newly defined market, customers purchase or sell power on a competitive basis, requiring accurate settlement and billing. Retailers, aggregators, brokers, and marketers require a high level of attention on managing billings and settlements since they tend to be thinly capitalized. Regulated load-serving entities and transmission service providers must watch revenue and billing requirements for customer billing and as information in rates and tariff hearings. This is the model that’s in place in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Alberta, Ontario, and some U.S. states. The economic theory behind this model is the principal behind the Standard Market Design (SMD) proposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Supply and demand is paid spot price (locational marginal price, or LMP). The wholesale market encourages many competing LSEs to pressure more suppliers into lower prices, which, in turn, results in price transparency for financing new plants. This helps counter problems with longer-run supply shortages. An effective wholesale market model is also characterized by demand response mechanisms that can positively impact the effects of supply shortages. This wholesale model requires unbundling of services including energy, capacity, scheduling, coordination, ancillary services, transmission reservations, and related congestion costs. Each of these unbundled services adds complexity and also requires much more robust meter reading and billing capabilities. The more market players involved, the more complex the challenge. Consider the case of reconciling hourly and monthly bills that face most ISOs who have a real-time balancing market and a day-ahead scheduling market. Another example is found when adopting LMP. Delivered price and cost concepts become more complicated when compared with traditional procurement of transmission. Different definitions of “firmness” are being replaced by market-based calculations of congestion and losses. With rules against different agents providing different services, the billing and settlements picture has been complicated. In the United States, reaching agreement on the details for metering, billing, information transfer, and settlement has been very time-consuming and has been done on a regional basis, resulting in a different set of rules for each region—a problem that SMD will strive to resolve. Many programs have floundered or failed because the necessary metering, billing, information transfer, and settlement processes and infrastructure were not in place. California is a prime example. Texas also had problems with centralized settlement, as did England and Wales. There are many issues that the industry must work through to create the sound and flexible approaches to billing and settlement that are required in an open market. The following section address three of the more pressing concerns in more detail.

With the exception of legislative and regulatory fixes that need to be made, most of the other solutions to the market’s ailments boil down to funding—who pays for the people and the technology needed to develop a balanced, liquid, financially sound wholesale market? The answer to this question is that we need a fair and balanced mechanism for funding the tools and processes necessary for deregulation to work. And until we have the processes, regulatory guidelines, and technology tools in place for the market to operate reliably, effectively, and efficiently, we will continue to be faced with a chilling effect on further market development and a debilitating effect on the vital, liquid markets we had hoped would result through deregulation. Market participants will find that the cost of transactions increase to cover the necessary funding requirements. Some may see ISO fees increase. Early leaders in billing and settlement changes will be regulated entities who will find a slightly easier path to the regulator to get charges “above the line” in revenue requirements. Those early to adopt billings and settlement changes will also be able to better effect the changes in the marketplace.