Entergy AFC Stakeholder Meeting March 9, 2005 Houston, TX

1. Entergy AFC Stakeholder Meeting March 9, 2005 Houston, TX

2. Agenda • Introductions and Administrative Items • Review and Agree on Today’s Agenda • Follow-up Action Items From Last Meeting • Issue No. 11: Identify peak hour used in peak hour models and review options for posting more non-peak hourly power flows (i.e., most recent set) • Status/update on the ability to identify the “peak hour” in the models currently posted on OASIS • Impact on EMS from writing out additional hourly models • Possibility of adding a second processor to provide hourly models • Verification that the current hourly model being posted is actually the next chronological hour. • Define the meaning of “limiting” as used in the phrase “limiting flowgate” • Status of evaluating the possibility of providing the current version of software used by Entergy in the AFC programs • Discuss input received from stakeholders on which 4 hours of the day would be most useful if posted in a daily model from the end of the operating horizon. • Issue No. 14: Discuss the possibility of identifyingto the generation owner (1) the reservation holderand (2)reservations inaffect out of a sourceincluding control areas • Status on evaluating the possibility of providing a generator with a “check box” on an OASIS screen that would allow the transmission provider to know that the transmission service request was based on a valid contract between the generator and the transmission customer that submitted the transmission service request. • Discuss capability of OASIS to provide the check box • Status of evaluating the possibility of “unmasking” withdrawn transmission service requests. • Evaluation ofFERC requirements • Issue No. 15: Review and discuss what, if any, additional information is available or necessary to evaluate service request denials • Verify how the 3% threshold cutoff is actually used in the calculation of AFC. Is it rounded or is the actual number used in the equation?

3. Agenda (Cont’d) • Status of what additional information can be provided regarding base flow and counter flow on a flowgate. • Present an example of counter flow (discuss next meeting when Uma is available) • Status of developing a business practice or other documentation showing how participation factors are developed and explaining what is meant by the phrase “all units reach Pmin at the same time”. • Issue No. 13: Describe and discuss .CON, .MON and .TRN including their relevance to the AFC analysis and use by stakeholders • Status of evaluating the possibility of posting the reservation file used by RFCalc including all transactions that are modeled in the base case. • Discuss proposal to clarify network resources listed on OASIS. • Issue No. 12: Discuss and clarify the use of CBM in the AFC analysis • No action items • Any further discussion required? • Issue No. 10: Identification of information provided in the “Big File” and discuss the possibility of adding sink identification and participation factor file for all models. • Status of evaluating the provision of a single directory with hyperlinks to all posted data and information. • Discuss possibility of providing a query tool • Discuss input from stakeholders of example queries that would be helpful to stakeholders • Discuss status of providing better documentation of what data/information is included in the “Big File”. • Open discussion of other issues related to the “Big File” • Status Report on Second Scenario Analyzer • Discuss Flowgate Selection and Modification Issues • Discuss and solicit stakeholder input on criteria used to identify flowgates • Discuss information that may be provided to support flowgate selection (including TDF) • Discuss detailed procedure for adding/deleting flowgates • Next Steps – Meeting Location

4. Issue #11 • Identify peak hour used in peak hour models and review options for posting more non-peak hourly power flow models

5. Options for Posting More Non-Peak Hourly Power Flow Models • Impact on writing additional models • If full set of models cannot be provided, which models would be most useful? • All of Operating Horizon • All Hourly Models (Hour 0 - Hour 168) • Daily peak and off-peak models • 4 Hourly models for each day • Most limiting hourly models • Providing software to stakeholders • License issues • Hardware requirements

6. Issue #14 • Discuss possibility of identifying to generation owner (1) reservation holder and (2) reservations in effect out of a source including control area

7. Identifying Reservation Holders on Confirmed Reservations • FERC S&CP : The Standards and Communications Protocols for OASIS. • FERC requires the source and sink on a reservation to be masked until confirmation. • For non-confirmed reservations, source/sink names must remain masked per FERC S&CP.

8. Issue #15 • Review and discuss what, if any, additional information is available or necessary to evaluate service request denials

9. TDF Cutoff / Calculation Precision • The 3% Cutoff is used when determining which flowgates appear in the “top 15” list. • A flowgate with less than 3% RF on a particular path will not be included in the “top 15” flowgates. • RFCalc maintains a precision of 7 decimal places for response factor calculation.

10. Participation Factor Calculation • Preserve based participation factors • PF = Pgen – Pmin (subject to reliability considerations) • For a group of units, each unit participates as a percentage of the total participation factor. Example: If Generator A has a PF of 100, and the total participation of the sink is 1000, then Generator A takes 10% of the transfer. • If all units’ PF are calculated based on Preserve then each unit will back down to accommodate the transfer such that all units will reach Pmin at the same time.

11. Participation Factor Example Pmax 400 MW 600MW Pmax 450MW Pmax 400 MW Example: Participation of Gen A = (300-100) = 200 Pgen 450 MW Pgen 300 MW Pmax 250MW Pgen 200 MW Pmin Pgen Pmin 100 MW Pmin 200 MW 150 MW Pmin 100 MW 50 MW Generator A Generator B Generator C Generator D Total Participation=(300-100)+(100-50)+(450-200)+(200-150)=550

12. Issue #13 • Discuss the usefulness of posting reservation file with POR/POD only, while masking source/sink

13. Reservation File Posting • Outside of posting source/sink for reservations on the OASIS, what reservation data would be useful? • POR/POD without source/sink identified? • Other information?

14. Network Resource Reservations on OASIS • Entergy’s System Planning and Operations (SP&O) organization submitted reservations on OASIS for grandfathered network transactions to serve network load on the Entergy system • Network service providers now have the ability in AFC to redirect transmission service out of a grandfathered network resource • HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE AFC PROCESS? • Network resources serving network load are not changed in the power flow model unless redirected • Network resources that are redirected are limited to: • Network Resource Designation – Redirect Amount

15. Issue #10 • Review and discuss the information provided in the “big file” and discuss possibility of adding sink identification and participation factor file for all models

16. AFC Data Postings • Develop a single web page with hyperlinks to all posted data. • Discussion of a possible query tool for the “big file” • What information would you like to be able to query?

17. The ‘BIG’ AFC File • What is in the ‘BIG’ File? • Response factors for the top 15 flowgates for about ~3,000 transfer paths • Base flow and ratings for all flowgates • What timeframe is the data provided for? • Data is provided for the Operating and Planning Horizons: hourly values for day 1 to 7 and daily values for days 8 to 31; Study Horizon data is stored in a separate file • How often is the file updated? • The file is refreshed every hour for the current day. After 12:00 p.m., the file is refreshed every hour for the next day. The remaining data is refreshed every six hours.

18. Time Frame Sample of the ‘BIG’ File Daily Hourly Transfer Path Sensitivity of Top 15 Flowgates Flowgate Name Flowgate Information Flow at Time Point & Flowgate Rating

19. The “Big File” • Document what data is in the “Big File” • Other issues related to the “Big File”

20. Issue #1 and #2 • Discuss Flowgate Selection and Modification Issues

21. Flowgate Selection • To create flowgate list, existing transfer capability studies were reviewed. • Data from GOL and TTC studies was examined, and the flowgates that were limiting to the transfers were noted. • The flowgates were sorted in order of number of occurrences. Those flowgates with the highest number of occurrences were added to the flowgate list • In addition, flowgates on the IDC were included.

22. Flowgate Criteria/Stakeholder Process • Entergy committed to develop a stakeholder process to: • Review the initial Master List of Flowgates • Identify criteria and processes to add and remove flowgates • Establish an annual review process for future changes • Do we want to handle this process in a break-out meeting?

23. Issue #16 • Discuss the features associated with the second Scenario Analyzer

24. Status Report on AFC Phase II Enhancements • Steps complete so far. • OASIS upgrade March 3, 2005 • Flowgate names visible again on the query offerings page of OASIS. • Two analyze buttons now visible on the submit request page of OASIS • The confirmed only analyzer currently shows the same values as the operating analyzer • Next step. • Install latest version of OASIS Automation • Installs the necessary software to run the second scenario analyzer. • Estimated completion is March 14.

25. Next Steps?