WEQ Executive Committee Contract Path Task Force Additional Issues Related To Contract Path Management ( WEQ and WEQ )

Documents filed with the Task Force Comments Submitted for the meeting on September 18:  Comments Submitted by K. Anderson, Idaho Power Comments Submitted by K. Anderson, Idaho Power  Comments Submitted by R. Kelley, Bonneville Power Administration Comments Submitted by R. Kelley, Bonneville Power Administration  Comments Submitted by JT Wood, Southern Company Comments Submitted by JT Wood, Southern Company  Comments Submitted by R. Brown, PJM Comments Submitted by R. Brown, PJM  Comments Submitted by J. Manning, NCEMC Comments Submitted by J. Manning, NCEMC  Comments Submitted by E. Skiba on behalf of ERCOT, IESO, MISO and PJM Comments Submitted by E. Skiba on behalf of ERCOT, IESO, MISO and PJM  Comments Submitted by J. Phillips, SPP Comments Submitted by J. Phillips, SPP Comments Submitted for the meeting on September 30:  NCEMC Work Paper NCEMC Work Paper Comments Submitted for the meeting on October 8:  BPA Issue 6 Work Paper BPA Issue 6 Work Paper  NCEMC Issues 6 and 7 Work Paper NCEMC Issues 6 and 7 Work Paper  PJM Work Paper PJM Work Paper  SPP Issue #4 Work Paper SPP Issue #4 Work Paper

An evaluation is needed to determine if there is a more appropriate placement for standards 1.4 and within the NAESB WEQ Business Practices Standards  Concern that Reservations and Scheduling are covered in other NAESB Standards.  BPA proposes that WEQ be moved to WEQ and WEQ be moved to WEQ – 004.  BPA recommends the NAESB Coordinate Interchange Standards and OASIS subcommittees review and confirm location within their standards).  Task Force Member Support Level:

The sum of Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities referenced in these requirements should take into account the expected use of reservations and schedules to help ensure efficient use of the transmission system. (PJM, MISO, ERCOT, IESO)  Entities are currently granting Reservations and approving Schedules (Etags) that exceed “sum of the Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities”, however this is only during the period of time before ramp and actual flow on the grid occurs. This is because of existing market evaluation processes to determine what is economic to flow.  PJM recommends NAESB BPS review WEQ and WEQ to allow for a TP defined timeframe prior to actual flow (pre-schedule time) where facility limits of Reservations and Schedules ( Etags ) could exceed the “sum of the Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities”.  Task Force Member Support Level:

Issues 1.Placement of the new standards 2.Accounting for the expected transmission system utilization 3.Clarification about what a right to use and its establishment 4.System changes impacts and the lack of flexibility 5.Necessity for using ATC Path Limits in AFC systems 6.Auditing and the lack of timing requirements 7.Transparency in the calculations

Additional clarity regarding scenarios where system changes occur and create a violation of 1.4 and such that in a situation that a transmission provider has granted service of a facility and is now no longer able to honor the service that was granted. (SPP)  The current language suggests that the limit cannot (ever) be exceeded. SPP believes that the “ever” is physically impossible  SPP agrees with BPA, Idaho Power and NCEMC that adherence to WEQ and WEQ by NAESB BPS could lead to the undesired result of allowing a Non Firm ETag to flow ahead of Firm ETag  SPP agrees with BPA, Idaho Power and NCEMC that if a timing allowance is addressed in WEQ and WEQ by NAESB BP it could alleviate the concern  Task Force Member Support Level:

There is not a start time or stop time for the transmission service provider in WEQ and WEQ (BPA, Idaho Power, NCEMC)  BPA and NCEMC both presented examples and reasons for including a timing allowance during the “preschedule” timeframe to allow the “sum of the Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities” to be exceeded for Reservations and Schedules.  Understanding that by the time that the reservations and schedules become active and begin to flow on the grid that net flow would not exceed “sum of the Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities”  This is very similar if not the same concern as PJM, MISO, ERCOT, IESO and SPP.  Task Force Member Support Level:

For the sake of transparency how would Transmission Service Providers apply these general requirements for each of the ATC methodologies? This should be documented in the greatest detail possible. (NCEMC)  There is a lack of transparency in the calculation regarding the posted ATC/AFC values across common seams and NCEMC recommends that the standards should address how a TP will describe to customers how they will apply WEQ and WEQ  Task Force Member Support Level:

Issues in order of support  High  Medium  Low

Questions /Discussion