1. Branden Sudduth Director, Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis Rocky Mountain Region PA/PC Meeting March 18-19, 2014 Denver, Colorado

2. 2 The NERC Functional Model Overview The Planning Coordinator The Coverage Gap Issue in WECC WECC Staff Observations Planning Coordination Committee Effort o Planning Coordinator Survey Results Overview

3. The NERC Functional Model and the Planning Coordinator

4. 4 NERC Reliability Function Model version 5 o Functional Definitions and Functional Entities o Technical Document Purpose: o Provide a framework for Standards development o Describe reliability functions and relationships between entities that are responsible for performing the tasks within the functions The NERC Reliability Functional Model

5. 5 The model must be complete – no gaps No overlap for operation tasks In certain instances, overlap for planning tasks is unavoidable The model is a guideline – it does not address requirements for registration, delegation, or sharing responsibility Guiding Principles of the Model

6. 6 Develop methodologies for planning analysis and simulation Define information required for planning purposes and facilitate collection process Evaluate, develop, document, and report plans for Planning Coordinator area Coordinate with adjoining Planning Coordinators Develop and maintain models Function – Planning Reliability

7. 7 “The functional entity that coordinates, facilitates, integrates and evaluates (generally one year and beyond) transmission facility and service plans, and resource plans within a Planning Coordinator area and coordinates those plans with adjoining Planning Coordinator areas.” Assesses longer-term reliability Functional Entity – Planning Coordinator

8. 8 Standards applicable to the “Planning Authority” are applicable to the “Planning Coordinator” (pre-version 3 revision) Standards – Planning Coordinator

9. 9 Some Applicable Reliability Standards o TPL-001 through 004 (System Performance) o FAC-002 (Coordination of Plans for New Facilities) o FAC-010 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon) o MOD-016 (Actual and Forecast Demands, Net Energy for Load, Controllable DSM) Standards – Planning Coordinator (cont.)

10. 10 NERC Functional Model is not always prescriptive on “who reports to who” Depending on the specific function, reporting structure for a functional entity may change Structure can vary greatly depending on interpretation by entity Planning Coordinator definition is vague and Registration doesn’t help Organization Structure

11. The Planning Coordinator Gap Issue in WECC

12. 12 June 2007 o Mandatory Standards initially created chaos o “Checklist” registration with no review or coordination Functional Model meant to be a one-size- fits-all solution – in many instances, WECC is “different” o Area Coordinators o Path Operators Contributing Factors to the Problem

13. 13 Planning Coordinator Count by Region RegionPlanning Coordinators Transmission Planners WECC3046 TRE127 FRCC1413 MRO524 NPCC614 RFC313 SERC2032 SPP219

14. 14 Perceived reliability risk because: o Several entities do not know who their Planning Coordinator is or mistakenly assume another entity is performing this function for them o There is a lack of clarity in Functional Model around who should be a Planning Coordinator o There is no clear definition of a Planning Coordinator Area o There may be reliability functions not being performed because of gaps Planning Coordinator Gaps Issue

15. WECC Staff Observations and PCC Efforts

16. 16 In WECC, currently Planning Coordinator gaps create more of a compliance risk than a reliability risk o Many functions duplicative of Transmission Planner functions o Area Coordinators created for data collection o Interconnection-wide coordinated plans (UFLS) The list of registered Planning Coordinators almost the same as list of registered Balancing Authorities WECC Staff Observations

17. 17 Gaps not prevalent in regions where ISO/RTOs exist Reluctance to be a Planning Coordinator is often tied to liability concerns More Reliability Standards applicable to the Planning Coordinator are being developed… WECC Staff Observations (cont.)

18. 18 Passed final ballot in December 2013 NERC Board approval February 2014 Requires data providers to submit power flow, dynamics, and short-circuit data to their Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner MOD-032 Standard Development Update

19. 19 Base Case Data Submittal Process (current and general)

20. 20 Base Case Data Submittal Process (MOD-032)

21. 21 October 2013: PCC asks WECC staff to develop a list mapping Transmission Owners and Generator Owners to Planning Coordinators December 2013: System Review Work Group survey conducted to identify facilities not in a Planning Coordinator Area o PCs asked to respond to survey o Still collecting and compiling responses Planning Coordination Committee (PCC) Effort

22. 22 Planning Coordinator Preliminary Survey Results as of 3-11-14

23. 23 “Arizona” Area Unclaimed Buses

24. 24 “Northwest” Area Unclaimed Buses

25. 25 “Montana/WAPA UM” Area Unclaimed Buses

26. 26 “PSCo/WAPA RM” Area Unclaimed Buses

27. 27 “California” Area Unclaimed Buses

28. Branden Sudduth WECC branden@wecc.biz 801.883.6888 Questions?

29. 29 What is the role of the Transmission Planner (TP) vs. Planning Coordinator (PC)? Who should be a TP? Who should be a PC? Who should they be a PC for? How should TP and PC area boundaries be determined? Defining the Problem

30. 30 What concerns do entities have relative to being a PC? How formalized should PC arrangements be? What are a PC’s responsibilities for Generator Owners (non-TO)? What can WECC do to help facilitate the resolution of PC gaps? Formulating a Proposal

31. 31 Review of Action Items Action ItemStatusCompletion Date