1. Phase II – Analyze the Identified Issues from Perspectives of Alternative Approaches Determine which of the identified issues remain under alternate approaches Identify new issues that might surface under alternate approaches Determine how/if Path Operations fit into the alternate approaches

2. Determine which of the identified issues remain under alternate approaches Define Authority of Path Operator – [satisfied for SOL] – Note: Coordinated TTC calculation and allocations need to occur for the path Eliminate Path Operator – Note: Coordinated TTC calculation and allocations need to occur for the path Flow-Based Schedule Methodology – N/A TTC-Calculations still needed: Path Catalog Near Term, Scheduling, and Real Time topology changes.

3. Determine which of the identified issues remain under alternate approaches RC as Path Operator – Would need additional service agreements with Peak – Peak only registered as RC-IA, no mitigation tools, no contracts (1) Develop Coordinated Procedures and Agreements for Each Path – Mitigation procedures have been developed for paths (2) – Note: Responsibility and authority issues still exist Split the Path Operator Role – [Still issues under the Path Operator Role] RC has no mitigation tools for schedule mitigation management. (1) Since the SOL is identified in real time and the TOP has the responsibility for mitigation new procedures may need to be developed. (2) Note: Responsibility and authority issues still exist

4. Identify new issues that might surface under alternate approach Impact to Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan – Lack of sophisticated congestion mgmt tool – (schedule based vs. flow based?) Need new agreements for mitigating SOLs on individual facilities or elements currently in paths. TOPs need RTCA to implement alternate paradigm identified in Phase I

5. Path Functional Model Rater: – PCC Path-rating process develops TTC Based on NERC standards – TPL-001 – TPL-004, to be replaced by TPL-001-4 – Seasonal path TTC studies in sub-regional operating groups (operating studies) MOD-028 – MOD-030, to be replaced by MOD-001-2, pending NERC/FERC approval Currently performed by TOPs via subregional study groups – TOPs coordinate outages and Rater determines TTC for near-term subhorizons (outage planning/next-day/same-day/real-time, etc.) MOD-028 – MOD-030, to be replaced by MOD-001-2, pending NERC/FERC approval TOP-003 (Possible gap—need to follow up) Monitor: – TOPs monitor BES system performance (real-time) What do we need to monitor? (TOP-006 R2) – Monitor TTC (needs to remain due to TOP-007-WECC-1 R2) Alternatively: Move TOP-007-WECC-1 R2 to INT (INT-???)

6. Path Functional Model Response Initiator: – TOPs of the impacted element/facility initiate response to SOLs to pre- contingent and post-contingent exceedances TOP-006, WECC SOL Methodology Path Transfer Capability Coordinator? (function) ECC Action-Takers: – Cut schedule, redispatch generation, shed load, reconfigure system, operate phase shifters, call for assistance (TOPs/BAs) Overseer/Director: – Monitor and ensure that action steps are taken (RC)

7. Phase II Deliverable Issues remaining under alternate approach TTC-Calculations still needed: – Path Catalog (recommend reviewing for path operator) planning horizon – Near Term, Scheduling, and Real Time topology changes for TTC allocations. – RC has no mitigation tools for schedule mitigation management (ECC). – Since the pre/post contingency acceptable system performance is identified in real time, the TOP has the responsibility for awareness and mitigation; agreements and procedures may need to be developed or modified. – Responsibility and authority issues still exist Issues that might surface under alternate approach  Impact to Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (replaced by ECC)  Lack of sophisticated congestion mgmt tools (will be the ECC)  TOPs need RTCA to maximize the benefit of the alternate paradigm identified in Phase I

8. Phase III