Technical Advisory Committee

1. Technical Advisory Committee Presentation to the ERCOT Board of Directors May 20, 2009

2. 2 PRRs for Board approval 4 NPRRs for Board approval 1 SCR for Board approval Recommendation: NPRR Parking Deck Update: ERCOT planning charter Preview: June Board meeting TAC Report Summary

3. PRR 797 Removal of Reference to ERCOT Business Processes PRR 800 QSE Day Ahead Metric – URGENT Protocol Revision Requests

4. PRR 797 – Removal of Reference to ERCOT Business Process

5. PRR 797 – Removal of Reference to ERCOT Business Process No Impact Impact Description Item Reviewed Budget Staffing Computer Systems Business Functions Grid Operations Credit Monitoring/ Liability

6. PRR 800 – QSE Day-Ahead Metric -- URGENT

7. PRR 800 – QSE Day-Ahead Metric -- URGENT No Impact Impact Description Item Reviewed Budget Less than $50K (project required) Staffing Computer Systems Business Functions Grid Operations Credit Monitoring/ Liability

8. PRR 800 – QSE Day-Ahead Metric -- URGENT • TAC discussion regarding funding mechanisms for TRE system projects • TRE / ERCOT Service Level Agreement • TRE Fee vs. ERCOT Administrative Fee • NOGRR 025 budget assumptions

9. NPRR 157 Extending Black Start Service Bid Timeline NPRR 163 Removal of Late Fee Language NPRR 166 Timing for Required Black Start Unit Load Carrying Test NPRR 167 Options for Filing Verifiable Costs – QSEs or Resources Nodal Protocol Revision Requests

10. NPRR 157– Extending Black Start Service Bid Timeline

11. NPRR 157– Extending Black Start Service Bid Timeline No Impact Impact Description Item Reviewed Budget Staffing Computer Systems Business Functions Grid Operations Credit Monitoring/ Liability

12. NPRR 163– Removal of Late Fee Language

13. NPRR 163– Removal of Late Fee Language No Impact Impact Description Item Reviewed Budget Staffing Computer Systems Business Functions Grid Operations Credit Monitoring/ Liability

14. NPRR 166– Timing for Required Black Start Unit Load Carrying Test

15. NPRR 166– Timing for Required Black Start Unit Load Carrying Test No Impact Impact Description Item Reviewed Budget Staffing Computer Systems Business Functions Grid Operations Credit Monitoring/ Liability

16. NPRR 167– Options for Filing Verifiable Costs – QSEs or Resources

17. NPRR 167– Options for Filing Verifiable Costs – QSEs or Resources No Impact Impact Description Item Reviewed Budget Staffing Computer Systems Business Functions Grid Operations Credit Monitoring/ Liability

18. SCR 753 Transmission Outage Notice Detail Enhancements Enhances transparency of grid operations by publishing additional information regarding outages. This information is already available in ERCOT systems, just needs to be extracted and published Will make outages easier to track for all market participants Minor cost impact to be absorbed by affected departments O&M budgets Requires approximately one month to complete after Board approval Unanimously recommended by TAC System Change Request

19. Recommendation: NPRR Parking Deck • Post-“Go-Live” NPRRs • Parking Deck white paper and supporting materials included in Board packet • After PRS approves NPRR, they will suggest a rank on the Nodal tab of the Project Prioritization List (PPL) – Parking Deck • Only Approved Items will be on Parking Deck • PRS sends approved NPRRs to TAC with rank • TAC sends approved NPRRs to Board • If Board approves NPRR, language added to Nodal Protocols as a grey-box • Approved rank will be tracked in PPL and projects in the PPL will be grouped into post-Go-Live releases • Before NPRRs on the PPL can be implemented, ERCOT will provide impact analyses, cost-benefit analyses, and the post-Go-Live releases will be included in the annual Admin Fee budgeting process

20. Update: ERCOT Planning Charter • In January, ERCOT Staff presented recommended changes to the ERCOT Planning Charter. TAC endorsed the proposed changes. • The Board approved the revisions except the proposal to exempt transmission projects relating to generation interconnection from ERCOT and RPG review. Treatment of such facilities was remanded to TAC for further discussion and recommendation. • The current Planning Charter language requires generation interconnection projects costing more than $15 million or requiring CCNs be reviewed by the RPG (including ERCOT independent review and Board approval as appropriate).

21. Current Review Process

22. Summary of stakeholder discussion • Consensus on 2 procedural changes for TSPs to raise visibility of large generation interconnection projects • Require in Generation Interconnection (GI) Procedure that the Lead TSP for the Full Interconnection Study (FIS) communicates to other TSPs when the FIS indicates that the direct interconnection facilities will cost >$50 million so that the other TSPs will know to particularly focus on the FIS • The Lead TSP for GI FIS will communicate direct generation interconnection projects >$50 million out to full RPG (no review by RPG) once generation Interconnection Agreement is signed

23. Summary of stakeholder discussion • Support for ERCOT/RPG Review of interconnection facilities • Commission Staff testimony in Kelson CCN docket expressed need for ERCOT review of these types of CCNs • Increase transparency / awareness of significant projects • Concerns with ERCOT/RPG Review of interconnection facilities • Reliability impacts are already considered in generation interconnection study process • ERCOT and RPG review of these projects results in stakeholder judgment on the economic merits of the proposed generation • Potential for RPG review to delay generation interconnection • Additional considerations • Open access regime should be preserved in whatever process is adopted • Appropriateness of ERCOT role / recognition of ERCOT work load

24. Planning Charter options considered • Regional Planning Group: no consensus • Reliability and Operations Subcommittee: recommended Planning Charter language proposed to the Board in January with the 2 procedural changes • Wholesale Market Subcommittee: Agreed with 2 procedural changes and agreed to revert to January Planning Charter proposal but evenly split whether to add language requiring ERCOT and/or RPG review for informational purposes when proposed direct interconnection facilities >$25 million or >$50 million

25. Status of TAC deliberations • In addition to other identified issues, TAC discussed whether this is a policy determination best made by the PUCT rather than stakeholders and whether TAC and the Board might receive policy guidance from the PUCT soon through a final order in the Kelson CCN docket • Motion to recommend the January Planning Charter proposal with a requirement ERCOT perform economic analysis for facilities >$50 million failed: 17 Yes, 11 No, 2 Abstain • Motion to recommend the January Planning Charter proposal with requirement ERCOT perform economic analysis for facilities >$25 million when requested by PUCT Staff failed: 5 Yes, 21 No, 3 Abstain • Motion to Table passed on voice vote with 3 abstentions

26. Preview: June Board meeting • PRR 796 Resource Plan Performance Metrics Revision • PRR 802 TCR Transition to CRR Refund Revision • Quarterly CREZ Report to PUCT • Draft Texas Renewables Integration Plan • Restructured TAC engagement in nodal project