Business Practices Subcommittee

1. Business Practices Subcommittee NAESB BPS UPDATE TO Executive Committee February 19, 2013 BY NARINDER K SAINI Ed Skiba Bps-Co-chairs

2. OVERVIEW • Business Practices Subcommittee (BPS) Status • Parallel Flow Visualization (PFV) Status • Background • Objectives • NAESB Responsibility • IDC Input • Proposed Solution • Concerns/Dependencies • Next Steps

3. BPS Status • Meetings since last report • Subcommittee – 3 two-day meetings • Recommendation Sub-team – 5 three-hour conference calls • IDC/SDX Users Manuals Sub-team • (8) 1-hour conference calls • (2) review sessions with IDC Workings Group • Results: • Draft standards/recommendation • Redlined IDC Users Manual and SDX Users Manual • NERC Support Document

4. BPS Status • Draft Standards include • Changes to the Transmission Loading Relief Process (WEQ-008) • Postings on OASIS • ATC Information Link (WEQ-001) • ScheduleDetail Template (WEQ-002, WEQ-003, WEQ-013) • Glossary Updates (WEQ-000 and conforming changes)

5. BPS Status • Draft Standards Address Annual Plan Items: • 1.a Parallel Flow Visualization/Mitigation for Reliability Coordinators in the Eastern Interconnection – Permanent Solution • 1.b Perform consistency review of WEQ-008 Transmission Loading Relief Business Practice Standards and develop recommendation • 1.d Revise TLR level 5 to be treated similarly to TLR Level 3 in terms of treating the next hour allocation separately from that of current hour. (R11020)

6. PFV Background: IRO-006 IRO-006 Transmission Loading Relief Each Reliability Coordinator and Balancing Authority that receives a request pursuant to an Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure (such as Eastern Interconnection TLR, WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation, or congestion management procedures from the ERCOT Protocols) from any Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or Transmission Operator in another Interconnection to curtail an Interchange Transaction that crosses an Interconnection boundary shall comply with the request, unless it provides a reliability reason to the requestor why it cannot comply with the request.

7. PFV Background: Interconnections IRO-006-EAST Transmission Loading Relief Procedures for the Eastern Interconnection WEQ-008 Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) – Eastern Interconnection Tools – (IDC)Interchange Distribution Calculator (SDX )System Data eXchange IRO-006-WECC Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief (WECC) IRO-006-TRE IROL & SOL Mitigation in the ERCOT Region

8. PFV Background: Primary Players IDC SDX

9. PFV Objectives • Generation to load (GTL) impacts reported to the IDC on a real-time basis • More accurate assignment of relief obligations to entities causing congestion • Near real-time data using generator output provided by RC • Include impacts of intra-BA generation-to-load and point-to-point transactions • Differentiate between intra-BA firm and non-firm transmission service • IDC has better data to perform calculations for TLR Levels 3 and 5

10. PFV: NAESB RESPONSIBILITY NAESB will establish methodology for assigning the generation to load flows into the appropriate buckets.

11. PFV: IDC Input Inter-BA Network Interchange Current IDC Inter-BA Point-to-Point Interchange Current IDC Intra-BA Network NAESBParallel Flow Visualization Intra-BA Point-to-Point NERCS‐ Ref 10132* * http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/All_Directives_Report_2012-04-05.pdf

12. PFV Proposed Solution • Coordination Arrangements • Two-Tier Firm Curtailment • Two Methods* • Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service, or • Generator Prioritization • Additional Key Concepts *Assumes that all point-to-point transactions are tagged under NERC standards

13. PFV Coordination Arrangements • Coordination Arrangements Types • Coordination Agreements • An agreement between two or more Transmission Service Providers for coordination of: a) granting Transmission Service by honoring a set of Flowgate limits and b) managing real-time congestion through congestion management process. • Unilateral Declarations allowed if Transmission Service Providers cannot agree • Reciprocity • A commitment by two Transmission Service Providers to provide Last-to-Curtail treatment of parallel flows on one another’s system without having a direct Coordination Agreement. • Two-Tier Firm Curtailments – encourages Coordination Arrangements

14. PFV: Two-Tier Firm Curtailment • Two-Tier Firm Curtailment • First-to-Curtail • The Firm Transmission Service curtailment priority assigned by the IDC to parallel flows due to a lack of Coordination Agreement, Reciprocity, or unilateral declaration. • Last-to-Curtail • The Firm Transmission Service curtailment priority assigned by the IDC to: a) on-path flows and b) parallel flows when a Coordination Agreement, Reciprocity, or unilateral declaration exists between the Transmission Service Provider experiencing congestion and (at least one of) the Transmission Service Provider(s) on the path of the transaction whose Transmission Service is contributing to the congestion.

15. PFV: First-to Curtail/Last-to-Curtail TSP with Coordination Arrangements

16. PFV: Methods for Intra-BA Transactions • Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service Method • A method used to submit to the IDC Transmission Service curtailment priority of the Secondary Network Transmission Service using e-Tags. • Generator Prioritization Method • A method used to submit to the IDC Transmission Service curtailment priority of the generator output. • Difference between what is reported and the real-time generator output is firm

17. PFV Additional Key Concepts • Balancing Authority to choose either one but not both Methods • Balancing Authority can switch • Six month notice • LSE (or entity acting on their behalf) enters • Tags for Tag Secondary Network Transmission Service Method • Generator Priority Schedules for Generator Prioritization Method • Transactions or generation-to-load impacting 5% or greater considered for assigning relief obligations

18. PFV Additional Key Concepts • Credit for Redispatch • IDC Processing • Sub-priorities for TLR Level 5a • Reloads of Curtailed Transactions • Reallocations for TLR Level 5b • Pseudo-Ties (generator physically in one BA but electrically located in another) • OASIS ScheduleDetail template modified to identify firm tagged curtailments as First-to-Curtail or Last-to-Curtail.

19. PFV Concerns/Dependencies • NERC • INT standards modified to require tagging on allintra-BA Point-to-Point transactions (Project 2008-12) • IRO-006-EAST modified to allow a Reliability Coordinator to request curtailments on intra-BAA Point-to-Point tags (Project 2012-09) • IDC Association • NAESB/Association coordination • Visibility into changes in the IDC • Access to data during parallel test/full staffing (NAESB formal request) • Parallel Flow Visualization priority

20. Next Steps • Informal Comment Period (February 15 – March 15) • Recommendation (WEQ-000, 001, 002, 003, 008, 013) • IDC User’s Manual • SDX User’s Manual • NERC supporting document • Industry overview of Parallel Flow Visualization (February 27) • Address informal comments (March – June) • Post for formal comments by end of second quarter

21. Next Steps Meetings March 20-21 – Little Rock, AR (hosted by SPP) April 24-25 – Carmel, IN (hosted by MISO) May 22-23 – Valley Forge, PA (hosted by PJM) June 19-20 – Minneapolis, MN (hosted by OATI)

22. QUESTIONS ?