Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008

1. Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008 1. NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines 2. Opening Remarks and Introductions 3. Workshop Objectives 4. Background • Drafting Team Objectives • Update on Standard Drafting Team Activities • Brief Overview of Proposed Standard

2. Agenda -TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PC –June 3, 2008 5. High Level Overview of Comments Received 6. Highlight of Areas where Drafting Team made changes 7. Major areas where the industry has differing views 8. Q & A 9. Proposed Drafting Team Schedule 10. Discussion of PC involvement 11. Wrap-up

3. TPL Standards Workshop Sponsored by NERC PCToronto – June 3, 2008 John Odom Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

4. John Odom, FRCC (Chair) Bob Millard, RFC (Vice chair) Darrin Church, TVA Bill Harm, PJM Doug Hohlbaugh, FirstEnergy Bob Jones, Southern Brian Keel, SRP Tom Mielnik, MidAmerican Bernie Pasternack, AEP Bob Pierce, Duke Paul Rocha, CenterPoint Chifong Thomas, PG&E Yury Tsimberg, Hydro One Jim Useldinger, KCPL Dana Walters, National Grid Bob Williams, FMPA ATFNSDT Roster

5. ATFNSDT Observers • Ray Kershaw, ATC • Doug Powell, Entergy • Hari Singh, ATC • Tom Gentile, Quanta Technology • Daniela Hammons, Centerpoint • NERC Staff Coordinator – Ed Dobrowolski

6. Workshop Objectives • Update PC on Standard Drafting Team (SDT) efforts. • Highlight areas where SDT made changes from 1st posting. • Highlight areas where industry consensus has not been reached. • Q & A to clarify SDT positions and begin to formulate a NERC PC position.

7. Background – Drafting Team Objectives Create a new standard that: • Has clear, enforceable requirements • Is not a Least Common Denominator standard • Addresses the issues raised in the SAR and issues raised by FERC and others

8. Background- Update on Standard Drafting Team Activities • The first draft was posted for comment from Sept. 12, 2007 through Oct. 26, 2007. • Response was very good • More than 80 sets of comments • 233 different people • 80 companies • 9 of the 10 Industry Segments • 5 face-to-face meetings & 6 full team conference calls & many more sub-team conference calls • 2nd posting completed & under review by NERC Staff

9. Background – Brief Overview of Proposed Standards • Upcoming draft remains very similar to 1st draft • R1 – Maintaining models (moved modeling requirements to end) • R2 – Assessment and Corrective Action Plan requirements • R3 – Steady State Analysis • R4 – Short Circuit Analysis (was part of R2)

10. Background – Brief Overview of Proposed Standards • Upcoming draft remains very similar to 1st draft • R5 (old R4) – Stability Analysis • R6 –Define & document how cascading and voltage instability are addressed • R7 (old R5) – Identify work coordination amongst planners

11. Background – Brief Overview of Proposed Standards • Upcoming draft remains very similar to 1st draft • R8 (old R6) – Make assessment available to other planners • Coordinate open and transparent peer review process • R9 – R14 (old R1) – Modeling details, e.g. planned outages, etc.

12. Background – Brief Overview of Proposed Standards • Performance Tables • Table 1 – Steady state • Table 2 - Stability

13. High Level Overview of Comments Received • Draft standard still not clear • Many commenter's agreed with general approach • Most significant disagreements were based on: • Lack of clarity in the draft standard • Disagreed with a specific requirement, often based on cost to implement • Thought that standard caused too much study work

14. High Level Overview of Comments Received • Definitions • Sensitivity Studies • Corrective Action Plans • Performance Requirements • Stability

15. High Level Overview of Comments Received 6. Generation runback and Tripping 7. General Questions Short circuit requirements Proxies for instability, cascading outages and uncontrolled islanding Actions allowed to prepare for next contingencies Applicable ratings Define bus-tie breaker

16. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes Most definitions modified for clarity Consequential Load Loss – concern about what, if any, local load should be treated the same as Consequential Load Year One more detailed – acknowledge moving window 16

17. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes Relationship of modeling requirements in TPL standard to other modeling standards (MOD series) Identify gaps – modeling needed for TPL not in MOD standards Identify how results of modeling standards are to be used in TPL 17

18. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes • Sensitivity studies modified and clarified • Include additional studies as appropriate • Must run at least one basic sensitivity – explain why others not needed • Qualifications for “past” studies more defined

19. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes • Corrective Action Plan • Examples of type of “actions” expanded, include SPS/RAS, etc • Sensitivity studies considered but not sole basis for “actions”

20. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes • Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) or Special Protection Systems (SPS) may be allowed but should not be inadvertently encouraged • Eliminate differences between “committed” and “planned” projects • Generator redispatch and tripping detailed and clarified throughout requirements

21. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes • Clarify the acceptable results immediately after event and also what actions are allowed to prepare for the next event • Firm Non-Consequential load should not be lost for single contingency

22. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes • Treatment of “firm” transfers clarified • Mapped requirements to FERC Orders 693 & 890 • Standard must have a detailed implementation plan

23. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes Performance Requirements (Tables) Changed “Equipment Ratings shall not be exceeded” to “Facility Ratings shall not be exceeded. Planned System adjustments are allowed, unless precluded in the Requirements, to keep Facilities within the Facility Ratings, if such adjustments are executable within the time duration applicable to the Facility Ratings.” Re-formatted tables for clarity. 23

24. Areas Where Drafting Team Made Changes Added P0 – Normal System Conditions Loss of one element, followed by system adjustments, followed by loss of a second element – changed to allow non-consequential load loss Clarified wide area events in extreme events 24

25. Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing Views • Should there be different performance requirements for facilities above 300kV?

26. Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing Views Should the use of generation tripping be limited? 26

27. Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing Views Should there be a requirement to model dynamic loads? 27

28. Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing Views Should there be an exception to allow “local load” loss for single contingencies? 28

29. Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing Views Are the performance requirement changes made in the proposed standard appropriate? 29

30. Major Areas Where The Industry Has Differing Views Are the new study requirements and documentation in the proposed standard appropriate? 30

31. Major Areas Where The IndustryHas Differing Views Is the starting point for required studies in the proposed standard defined adequately? 31

32. Industry Involvement • SDT should issue responses to comments and the 2nd draft this month • More consensus needed before items like VSLs are proposed • Everyone is encouraged to provide specific comments and discuss issues with SDT members

33. Questions & Answers

34. Proposed Drafting Team Schedule Monthly meetings with conference calls every two weeks Post 3rd Draft in December 2008 Post 4th Draft in April or May 2009 Ballot in June or July 2009

35. Discussion of PC Involvement • Next steps - to be discussed at PC meeting

36. Wrap-up Thank you for your participation