NT Assignment Update: 9/17/13

NT Assignment Update Resources: CompanyResources BPARebecca Berdahl, Milos Bosanac, Ann Shintani, Bob Zerfing ClarkBrenna Moore EWEBMegan Capper, Alex Swerzbin Seattle City LightRobin Cross SPPKen Quimby (NF Assignment)

NT Assignment Update Review Scope Key Issues Comparison of NITS to PTP in Preemption and Competition Review of Motions and Parking Lot

NT Assignment Update Scope Goals in Assignment Document: Review NITS and provide a clear list of how any standards there will impact our current thinking/motions of how NT competes in the ST market. Develop a matrix of motion revisions or new motions with columns for Pros and Cons from an NT perspective and a PTP perspective. – Identify conflicts with motions for NITS and propose new wording for any motions NT would like changed. Proposed Scope: 1. Focus on Tier 1 and Tier 3 bumping of lower priority tiers. OATT section 2.2 is out of scope. 2.Develop a comparison between key P&C requirements for NITS vs PTP 3.Review parking lot & motions and identify any conflicts with respect to administration of Tier 1 & Tier 3 bumping 4.Prepare recommendations for bumping by Tier 1 & Tier 3 5.Provide drafts for new motions to facilitate Tier 1 & Tier 3 bumping Change name to Tiers 1 & 3 Assignment so that it includes Tier 1 LT Firm & Native Load bumping.

Tiers 1 & 3 Assignment Update Key Issues The following issues have been identified for further review. Other issues may be identified. 1.Should Tiers 1 & 3NITS challengers be required to have a flat profile? 2.Should bumping be initiated when only partial service is available to the challenger? 3.Should there be any new or modified rules with respect to a Tier 1 or Tier 3 customer bumping its own lower priority reservation? 4.Should there be any different rules with respect to selecting defenders? a.For example, what rules should apply to timing of bumping (e.g., should NITS be permitted to bump a lower priority reservation that has passed its start date)? 5.Review WEQ language in the first sentence to see if it needs to be revised to allow Tier 1 to processing priority over Tier 2.

Tiers 1 & 3 Assignment Update Comparison of NITS to PTP in Preemption and Competition (example) ISSUENITS (excluding OATT 2.2)PTP ROFRN/AOnly within Tier 2 vs Tier 2 or Tier 4 vs Tier 4. Matches evaluated on Duration, Price, and Queue (submission) time Bumping (Non-ROFR) Tier 1 vs lower priority tiers, Tier 3 vs lower priority tiers Tier 1 vs lower priority tiers, Tier 2 vs Tier 2 requests and/or lower priority tiers, Tier 4 vs Tier 4 requests and/or lower priority tiers DurationOnly used for response timing table & based on interval between start and stop (See Table 105-A). There are no specified SERVICE_INCREMENTS (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly). Not applicable in NITS bumping. Based on SERVICE_INCREMENT and interval between start and stop. SERVICE_INCREMENT defined as hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Only applicable in Tier 2 vs Tier 2 or Tier 4 vs Tier 4. Profiled requests Included in the NITS standards.Permitted at Transmission Provider option.

Tiers 1 & 3 Assignment Update Review of Motions and Parking Lot Motions and Parking Lot items will be reviewed to identify Tier 1 & Tier 3 related concerns: 1.Items which are specific to ROFR do not apply. 2.Items which are identified as Short-Term Firm will be reviewed to see if they should be limited to Tier 2 vs Tier 2 competitions. 3.Open items that are assigned to the NT Assignment will be addressed. 4.New motions may be prepared. 5.New parking lot items may be presented.

Tiers 1 & 3 Assignment Update Timeline 1.October OASIS Subcommittee meeting a.Complete review of assigned Motions and Parking Lot items b.Prepare comparison chart of NITS vs PTP c.May have some motions d.OASIS Subcommittee guidance on outstanding issues 2.Finalize assignment at November OASIS Subcommittee meeting a.Final Tier 1 & Tier 3 Assignment recommendation b.Draft motions c.Review of P&C Recommendation text