WECC VGS PWG P-3 Transmission Capacity and Adequacy Matt Muldoon Mar 31,

 Personal Opinion  Cannot Prejudge any Issue  Cannot Restrict any Commission 2

 What are we learning re:  Limitations of Existing Transmission Infrastructure  General study findings may not apply to specific circumstances ▪ Many directly related issues require automation which may not be present (e.g., dynamic transfer, intra-hour scheduling) ▪ Local capabilities or technology may place limits on available benefits 3

 Automation – RAS “Remedial Action Schemes”  Automatic Generation Control  Other System Automation 4

 Age of T System & Supporting IT  Amount of Long Lead Resources  Ex: Hydro Flows between Dams  Ability to Translate Upgrades into Programs that Deliver Expected Benefits 5

 What Investment in Automation Enables what Increased Capabilities with Existing Grid Facilities?  Dynamic Transfer  Intra-Hour Scheduling  Better Use of Non-Contiguous Resources  Other System Flexibilities 6

 Better Interim Grid Utilization – NOT Eliminated Transmission Build  More Workable Seams Issues – NOT Elimination of Seams Issues  Ability to Integrate More VER More Reliably – Not Necessarily Sooner Incremental Rather than Transformational Change 7

Usual IT and Automation Risks  Regulatory risk of recovering costs  Difficult to Isolate Just IT Needed  Difficult to Integrate New Software  Fear of Cascading Upgrades A For a larger BA, roughly $50 Million is needed to Better Utilize T Lines with a Replacement Cost of $1B+ Ea.. 8

Characterize Linkages between:  Automation and System Capabilities  BA Characteristics and Benefit Limiters  Type of Automation and Overlap of Enabled or Hindered (Sub) Regional Initiatives 9