1. Dynamic Scheduling Overview
Joint Initiative
Dynamic Scheduling Overview
Integration Meeting Notes
December 10, 2008

2. December 10th Integration Meeting Participants
In Person:
Jerry Smith, APS
Tim Smith, BPA
Patrick Damiano, ColumbiaGrid
Jon Kaake, ColumbiaGrid
Kristi Wallace, ColumbiaGrid
Joe Taylor, Excel Energy
Jeff Atkinson, Grant County
Colin Persichetti, PacifiCorp
Kathee Downey, PacifiCorp
JJ Jamison, Portland General
Charlie Reinhold, WestConnect
Via Conference Call:
Frank Temple, Grant County
Sharon Helms, NTTG
Ray Brush, Northwestern
Jim Hanson, Seattle City Light
10/23/2008

3. ISSUES and RESPONSES
Issue: Before the hour dynamic scheduling would tie up firm transmission that may or may not be called upon. Net result is increasing the transmission constraint problem and is not a product that merchants would use. If able to access within the hour it creates a very strong product for the region and optimizes the transmission.
Response: The design is for a system that provides dynamic scheduling capability at any level of granularity. Commercial decisions say with the LSE. Transmission will need to be acquired, but only for an hour or less, depending upon the schedule. Today the schedule period is one hour, but if that period is shortened, the design already accommodates it. Static dynamic schedules typically tie up firm transmission on an annual basis. This system should allow maximal utilization of the transmission grid.

4. ISSUES and RESPONSES
Issue: Consider taking steps to ensure there are no regulatory concerns with product/design
Response: The FDS helps with integration of renewable resources and helps break the current monopoly on transmission. FERC should view this as a benefit to the region. An informal visit with FERC staff prior to initiating implementation activities is being considered (similar to the ADI approach).

5. ISSUES and RESPONSES
Issue: Currently NERC requires a firm transmission reservation for dynamic scheduling. It would be helpful to be able to utilize non-firm or conditional firm with this product.
Response: Noted as a potential issue requiring follow up. Jim Hansen will raise the issue with the NERC IS and NERC JISWG groups.

6. UPCOMING MEETINGS Date Workgroup Location and Time December 18th
Infrastructure Technical Workgroup
Web and Phone conference
1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
January 6th and 7th
Products and Services Workgroup Meeting
San Diego, CA
TBD
January 8th
Joint Initiative Think Tank (Public Stakeholder) Meeting
10:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
January 29th
Joint Initiative Integration Meeting
Portland, OR

7. Dynamic Scheduling Overview
Joint Initiative
Dynamic Scheduling Overview
Integration Meeting Presentation Materials
December 10, 2008

8. Scope
Create communication link(s) and associated data protocols to support the sale and next hour delivery of dynamic energy products (e.g., regulation)
The protocol will use existing transmission service products, as available, and existing scheduling processes to the extent practical.
The technical design will accommodate many product types, but product development is out of scope

9. Out of Scope Development of products
Development of a market or bi-lateral trading board
Tariff changes
Creation of intra-hour etags (if developed elsewhere, design will accommodate them with necessary lead time)

10. Dynamic Scheduling Operational
Rough Timeline
Draft Technical specs completed
Mid Dec 08
Feb 09
Business Case Complete and Contract Offered
Initiate Implementation
Apr 09
Dynamic Scheduling Operational
October 09

11. Design Objectives Voluntary participation
Ability to accommodate any product design
Provide scalability
Modular component design
Minimize barriers to participation
Keep it simple
Leverage existing infrastructure and practices, where possible

12. Fluid Dynamic Scheduler (FDS) Overview

13. High Level Design Overview
After the Scheduling Period
FDS
Updates e-Tag with the correct integrated quantity
During the Operating Hour
Uses composite e-Tag data to distribute MW requests to BA’s
Before the Scheduling Hour
PARTICIPANTS
Strike a deal and create dynamic e-Tag

14. Before the Scheduling Period
Populate FDS with physical capacity schedules using approved dynamic e-Tags
Set e-Tag transmission allocation to the maximum quantity that can be requested
Set the energy profile to the expected integrated MWh quantity
Create E-Tags
Manually by an e-Tag agent service, or
Automatically from PSE’s scheduling system, or
Automatically, as a result of a bidding process

15. Before the Scheduling Period
E-tags can be coded (in the misc info field) to reflect any information required to correctly distribute the real-time energy request
The e-Tag will reflect curtailments prior to the scheduling period; FDS will receive and incorporate approved e-Tag adjustment requests
Each participating BA calculates its total combined reserve obligations and resources for future hours from the e-Tag data or their own scheduling system

16. During the Scheduling Period
FDS will manage the composite set of capacity transactions between participants
FDS and participants will exchange real-time data
FDS will provide each BA with a total combined real-time reserve obligations and resources
The e-Tag will be used to implement curtailments during the scheduling period;
FDS
receives approved e-Tag adjustment requests
distributes real-time energy response requests to participants with obligations based on criteria determined by the participants
ensures that all requests meet any constraints described in the e-Tag adjustment

17. During the Scheduling Period
Participants
respond to requests for energy with a signal indicating delivered energy quantity
are obligated to deliver up to their maximum obligation as specified in their contracts.
In the event of failure to respond, the FDS will
allocate the request to the next available BA with remaining obligation to the requestor.
log this decision and also continue monitoring the non-responding BA for a response and switch back accordingly.

18. After the Scheduling Period
Within one minute after the operating hour, FDS will update e-Tags with integrated MWh quantities.
FDS and the updated e-Tag will be the source of data for settlement purposes
Parties may not deny these e-Tags based on differences between their own integrated calculation and the FDS integrated calculation
FDS contains and calculates the definitive MWh quantities.
These quantities will also be reflected in the WIT

19. Next Steps
Determine if aggregating/allocating signals triggers any regulatory issues
Define e-Tag and ICCP data requirements
Define allocation algorithm options and determine if a user interface is desired
Work with TP’s to identify signal requirements associated with distribution of flow data to intermediary TP’s

20. QUESTIONS?