N ORTH A MERICAN ELECTRIC R ELIABILITY C OUNCIL

Transcription

1 N ORTH A MERICAN ELECTRIC R ELIABILITY C OUNCIL Princeton Forrestal Village, Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Radisson Hotel Québec Centre Québec City, Québec, Canada Tuesday, July 16, :10 a.m. to 5:10 p.m. Wednesday, July 17, :15 to 11:50 a.m. MINUTES Harlow R. Peterson, Past Chairman of the NERC Planning Committee (PC) and Acting Chairman on behalf of PC Chairman David A. Whiteley, presided over the meeting of the PC held Tuesday, July 16, 2002 from 8:10 a.m. to 5:10 p.m. and Wednesday, July 17, 2002 from 9:15 to 11:50 a.m. in Québec City, Québec, Canada. The meeting notice, agenda, and list of attendees are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively. Of the PC s 44 members, 31 were in attendance of which 27 were voting members. With at least 24 voting members present, the quorum requirement was met. Meeting guests totaled 27. Introduction and Chairman s Remarks Acting Chairman Peterson welcomed all members and guests. New PC members, who were attending the meeting for the first time, included: Joseph L. Welch as a Regional Reliability Organization (RRO)-ECAR representative, H. Kenneth Haase as an RRO-NPCC representative, Thomas E. Washburn as an RRO-FRCC representative, Carmine Marcello as an RRO-Canada East representative, Anthony Taylor as a power marketer, and Juan R. Villar as an independent power producer. Those members attending the meeting for absent PC members included: Ken Anderson (SPP) for Richard A. Dixon (RRO-SPP representative) and Barry Lawson (Observer-NRECA) for Ricky Bittle (cooperative representative). Self-introductions of all meeting attendees followed. Mr. Peterson next reviewed the NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines (Exhibit D), which the NERC Board of Trustees adopted at its June 14, 2002 meeting. These guidelines are to be included in the agenda packages of each NERC committee and subgroup meeting. The members were requested to become familiar with and observe these guidelines. Phone Fax URL

2 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 Mr. Peterson also announced that Chairman Whiteley appointed Edward Pfeiffer (Ameren) as a PC liaison representative to the Operating Committee s (OC) Transmission Subcommittee, and Sergio Garza (Lower Colorado River Authority) as the second PC representative to the OC s Disturbance Analysis Working Group. He also mentioned that the following PC positions were open: chairman of the Data Coordination Working Group, chairman of the Interconnection Dynamics Working Group, and a PC liaison representative to the OC s Resources Subcommittee. The members were invited to nominate candidates for the open positions. Approval of Agenda With the addition of an item regarding the posting of the NERC Planning Standards under the Planning Standards Subcommittee s (PSS) agenda item 5, and hearing no objections or other comments, Acting Chairman Peterson declared the agenda accepted as modified. Approval of March 19 and 21, 2002 Minutes On the motion of John D. Martinsen, the minutes of the March 19 and 21, 2002 PC meeting were approved as submitted. Highlights of NERC Stakeholders Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings The PC members had no comments or questions on the highlights of the NERC Stakeholders Committee s June 13, 2002 meeting or the NERC Board of Trustees s June 14, 2002 meeting. PC Executive Committee Activities Acting Chairman Peterson reported that the PC Executive Committee in early May 2002 approved the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee s (RAS) draft 2002 Summer Assessment report for publication. The report was subsequently approved by the NERC Board and posted on the NERC website on May 15, PC Subgroup and Liaison (Written) Reports Hearing no questions or concerns from the PC members, Acting Chairman Peterson declared the subgroup (Interconnection Dynamics Working Group and Planning Reliability Model Task Force) reports and the liaison report on the OC s Transmission Subcommittee as included in the July 16 17, 2002 PC agenda item 2 accepted as submitted. PC Executive Committee Membership On behalf of Glenn B. Ross, Chairman of the PC s Nominating Task Force, Scott M. Helyer, a Task Force member, presented the task force s recommended candidates for the two outstanding positions on the PC Executive Committee. On the task force s recommendation, the PC approved 2

3 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 Stuart Nelson (RRO-ERCOT) and Mike Risan (cooperative) as members of the PC Executive Committee. These memberships are effective immediately. Acting Chairman Peterson reminded the new members that the PC s Executive Committee, in conjunction with the executive committees of the OC and Market Interface Committee (MIC), was currently reviewing the scope and organization of the three NERC standing committees and was also serving as NERC s interim Standards Authorization Committee (SAC) until the new segment model for the SAC could be implemented. Future Role of NERC Standing Committees In light of NERC s recent adoption of a new process for standards development and its refocus on reliability, Gerry W. Cauley, NERC consultant, presented a status report (Exhibit E) on the efforts of the executive committees of the three NERC standing committees to define the future role of the NERC standing committees. The Executive Committees July 2, 2002 draft report, Framework for Assessing the Future Role of the NERC Standing Committees, is included under agenda item 4 of this July 2002 PC meeting agenda. A brief summary of the PC s concerns and comments in reviewing the Framework report included: the alternative 3 favored model does not identify a link between the expert committees and the standards process, the relationship of the dispute resolution activity to the other three blocks is unclear, the segment model for standards can include members that are not members of NERC, expert committees are technical advisory committees and should report to the Board, reliability assessment should be a separate core function, is overly used in the standards process, need open face-to-face discussions by technical committees in the standards process, how will Regional differences in the standards process be proposed, defended, and discussed, the segment model dilutes the committees market segment representation, the standards process is a sterile process and needs more meetings on the why and the content of the standards, and the Framework report s schedule as presented does not include approval by the three existing committees. In light of the committee s concerns, Mr. Cauley suggested that the PC develop an alternative process or structure for consideration by the three executive committees. He also indicated, based on the comments received at this July meeting and further review by the executive committees, that a revised report on the future role of the standing committees would be posted for comment in August. In addition, the revised report will be presented for review and discussion at the NERC Board s planning meeting on August 28, In closing, Mr. Cauley requested the members to provide any additional comments on the future role of the committees, as well as their responses to the 18 questions in the July 2, 2002 Framework report, to him and the PC Executive Committee by July 25,

4 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 On the second day of the PC meeting, the committee passed a three-part resolution pertaining to the future role of the committees, which is included as Exhibit F. The PC Executive Committee was requested to address this resolution in its deliberations on the future role of the standing committees. Planning Standards Subcommittee Armando (Armie) J. Perez, Chairman of the Planning Standards Subcommittee (PSS), presented a status report on the local network definition, the future role of PSS, and PSS s input to the NERC response on the FERC NOPR on the generator interconnection agreements and procedures. Mr. Perez s presentation is included as Exhibit G. Mr. Perez reported that the MIC approved, at its May 2002 meeting, the revised definition (developed by the Market Interface Practices Subcommittee and the PSS (with a minority opinion)) for the term local network as used in the Planning Standards and requested the PC to modify Planning Standard I.A. S2, M2 Transmission Systems (Category B of Table I) using the new proposed Transitional Process for Revising Existing NERC Operating Policies and Planning Standards. The PC in a subsequent mail ballot rejected the revised local network definition. Mr. Perez s motion that the PC chair to go to the NERC Board and request approval of the original PSS-proposed and PC-approved definition for local network failed. A subsequent motion by H. Kenneth Haase not to define local network (with the understanding that the PC withdraws its local network definition) and not change the standard also failed because the only remaining definition for local network would be the MIC s definition. A third motion recommending that the PC-approved definition for local network remain in place for the near term and that the Board be informed at an appropriate time that the PC and MIC did not reach consensus on the definition of local network was approved. Mr. Perez next briefly discussed the current and possible future roles for PSS in light of the new standards process. The PC agreed the role of PSS will need to be defined after the role of the NERC standing committees is determined. In the meantime, the PSS was to continue with its transitional items as described by Mr. Perez. As recommended by Marvin Landauer, the PC requested the PSS in conjunction with the NERC staff to post the current Board-approved version of the NERC Planning Standards in a prominent location on the NERC website. FERC NOPR on Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures Gerry Cauley, NERC consultant, reported that in approving the June 17, 2002 filing of NERC s initial comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission s (FERC) NOPR entitled Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, the NERC Board 4

5 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 agreed to request FERC to grant NERC an opportunity to provide additional reliability-related comments on this NOPR within FERC s timetable but no later than September 1, The PC was also assigned by the Board to take the lead responsibility for preparing NERC s additional comments. In this regard, Mr. Cauley summarized the additional responses, developed by the PSS at its July 9 10, 2002 meeting, to the planning issues that could materially impact reliability. Similar responses are expected from the OC and MIC in their respective assigned areas. NERC s follow-up response on its detailed review of the specific reliability-related items in the NOPR will be posted for a ten-day review prior to its submittal to FERC in August Reliability Assessment Subcommittee George R. Bartlett, Vice Chairman of the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (RAS), reviewed the status of the Reliability Assessment report and presented a brief overview of NERC s 2002 Summer Assessment report. Mr. Bartlett s presentation is included as Exhibit H. Mr. Bartlett indicated that the Regional self-assessments for the ten-year report had been provided to RAS, and that the Reliability Issues chapter was essentially complete. The data was not yet available for the completion of the demand and resources section. The PC, on the motion of Karl E. Kohlrus, approved the general tone and direction of the ten-year report. The PC members also suggested more specifics on new transmission including the reason for the transmission, a more complete picture on the causes for use of the transmission loading relief procedures, and the tracking of congestion. Any additional comments were to be provided to RAS within the next week. The final draft Reliability Assessment report will be available for PC review and approval at the end of August 2002 prior to the submittal of the report for approval at the October 2002 Board meeting. The PC also heard an overview of the 2002 Summer Assessment report, which was approved by the PC Executive Committee and NERC Board for publication on May 15, Load Forecasting Working Group John L. Harris, Chairman of the Load Forecasting Working Group (LFWG), presented the highlights of the working group s annual report on the bandwidths for the peak demand and net energy for load ten-year projections for the United States, Canada, and three NERC Interconnections, and the 2000 and 2001 update to its actual demand divergence from projected demand study for the United States. Mr. Harris s presentations on these two activities are included as Exhibits I and J, respectively. 5

6 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 The PC approved the LFWG s Peak Demand and Energy Projection Bandwidths: Projections report for publication with added clarification on the treatment of the price of Canadian natural gas in the methodology. The LFWG was requested to consider other possible uncertainties and factors that could contribute to the widening of the bandwidths along with a review of the statistical methods used. With some additional clarifications to further differentiate the figures in the report, the PC approved the LFWG s updated U.S. Actual Demand Divergence from Projected Demand Study: An Update report for publication. The study concluded that the divergence between actual and projected demand in the United States over the period was principally due to unusual weather and highly cyclical economic conditions. With the divergence adequately explained by the working group, the PC agreed with the working group s conclusion that no further work is necessary on this issue. In closing, the LFWG extended a special thank you to the Regions for their assistance in providing weather-normalized data for the demand divergence analyses. The PC joined the LFWG in expressing appreciation to the Regions for their assistance in this effort. Summer 2002 Pre-Season Security Assessment Study Larry Kezele of the NERC staff and co-chairman of the Summer 2002 Pre-Season Security Study Team provided an update on recent activities related to the completion, review, and validation of the study on the Summer 2002 Pre-Season Security Assessment. This study addresses simultaneous transfers and their limitations for a number of scenarios for the Eastern Interconnection for summer The operational value and validation of the study are under review by the Reliability Authority Working Group (RAWG) with the assistance of a task force comprised of Security Assessment Study Team members and representatives of the RAWG. This review is expected to be completed in September The funders of the EPRI Reliability Initiative also provided funding for the 2002 Security Assessment study. This study was also to develop and evaluate new methods of visualizing and analyzing multiple constraints and outputs from EPRI s study programs. In this regard, Stephen Lee of EPRI presented an overview of EPRI s Community Activity Room concept and its use in visualizing transmission constraints in a highly dimensional nomogram style. Mr. Lee s presentation is included as Exhibit K. The PC requested an update on the validation study results and any decision to move forward with a 2003 study at its November 2002 meeting. 6

7 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 Disturbance Analysis Working Group Glenn Brown, Chairman of the Disturbance Analysis Working Group, presented the status of the 2001 Annual Disturbance report, a review of the 2002 disturbances currently being investigated by the working group, and a summary of the April 29, 2002 system disturbance event that occurred in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Brown reviewed the criteria used by the working group to select events to be included in the working group s report. Five events were selected for the 2001 disturbance report. This report will also include a Consolidated Edison Company s response to the September 11, 2001 event. The 2001 report will be completed as soon as a decision is made regarding the 911 event and the need for confidentiality. As of July 8, 2002, 21 disturbance events were under review by the working group. Four or five of these will likely be included in the 2002 Annual Disturbance report. A list of the 2002 disturbances is included as Attachment A under item 10 of the July 2002 PC agenda. Mr. Brown next reviewed the JEA April 29, 2002 system disturbance that resulted in the loss of 2,400 MW of load and the collapse of a portion of the JEA system. This event was initiated by the failure of a 138 kv surge arrestor. The working group was requested to provide another update on its activities at the November 2002 PC meeting. Multiregional Modeling Working Group Larry E. Brusseau, Chairman of the Multiregional Modeling Working Group (MMWG), recommended that the PC approve five dynamics simulation models for development during 2002, and 12 power flow and five dynamics simulation cases for development during He also recom-mended enhancements to the dynamics database for development in Mr. Brusseau s pre-sentation, which lists the proposed power flow and dynamics cases for 2002 and 2003, is included as Exhibit L. Mr. Brusseau explained that the five dynamics simulation models for the Eastern Interconnection to be completed during 2002 would be funded from the 2002 budget. The five dynamics cases are based on five of the 11 power flow cases also under development in These power flow and dynamics cases should be completed in November The updated system dynamics database will be available in December The working group in recommending 12 power flow cases and five dynamics simulation models for the Eastern Interconnection for development in 2003 included a 2013 summer power flow case. Mr. Brusseau commented that the case was included at the request of one of the Regions that was receiving requests for ten years of transmission service. 7

8 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 After a brief discussion, the PC approved the working group s request for funding in 2003 for the 12 power flow cases and five dynamics simulation model cases as well as the two proposed enhancements to the dynamics database development. This funding of $245,650 will be included in the NERC 2003 budget. The PC next discussed the issue of dynamics data quality and the extensive time and effort recently required by the FRCC to use one of the working group s dynamics models for some FRCC stability work. FRCC suggested that the working group move in the direction of less complex dynamics models and standardization, and that the extent of detailed models for small generators be decreased. Further, more effort should be used to identify and correct modeling errors through data screening checks. Mr. Brusseau responded that data quality is an issue and the working group, through its proposed enhancements to the dynamics database, will be putting checks into the database which should help with data quality. He also indicated that the detailed data in the database was included so that individual users can choose what is to be removed and what is to be put into an equivalent. It was also suggested that modeling data and corrections be made at the Regional level before data is submitted to the working group. Acting Chairman Peterson requested the working group to focus on improving the quality of data submittals by the Regions and to report back to the PC in November on its progress in improving data quality, data detail, and documentation NERC Budget and Project Management Joseph K. Conner, NERC s Chief Financial Officer, presented an overview of the 2003 NERC budget, the budget process, and the development schedule. Funding for PC-related items in the 2003 budget include: support of the PC-approved MMWG 2003 activities, funding for potential resource adequacy studies under the RAS, and general PC support. Mr. Conner indicated that the 2003 budget was divided into four main categories: general budget, projects and data services, the compliance and enforcement program, and information systems. He also reported that a new funding mechanism is under study. A revised draft budget will be available for comment in August, with the final budget presented to the Board for approval at the October 2002 Board meeting. Robert W. Cummings, NERC Director-Projects, reviewed the status of the current, pending, and proposed projects as included in the 2003 NERC budget process. His presentation is included as Exhibit M. As input to the projects, the NERC standing committees will be asked to prioritize the projects in a survey to be distributed by Mr. Cummings by the end of July The survey was designed such that not voting on a project because of unfamiliarity with the project will not impact the survey. The survey results will be provided to the standing committees for their information and included in the August draft of the NERC 2003 budget. 8

9 MINUTES July 16 17, 2002 Planning Committee Meeting Transitional Process on Existing Policies and Standards Donald M. Benjamin, NERC Director-Operations, presented an overview of the proposed Transitional Process for Revising Existing NERC Operating Policies and Planning Standards. Mr. Benjamin explained that this process was to be used to make only those changes to the existing policies or standards which, if left unchanged, would pose a substantial risk of adverse effects on either reliability or commercial electricity markets. The executive committees of the three standing committees are to serve as the review committee in this process to approve moving forward any proposed revisions before they are posted and balloted by the three standing committees. PC members were concerned that there is no criteria established to use as a threshold to judge whether changes to the existing policies or standards are necessary to avoid a substantial risk of adverse effects on reliability or the markets. The standing committees will be asked to vote on this proposed process by electronic ballot following the July committee meetings. Mr. Benjamin next reviewed a number of operating policies that are being proposed by the OC and its subgroups for modification under the new proposed transitional process. These revisions pertain to Policy 1C, Frequency Response Standard ; Policy 8, Operating Personnel and Training, Section C, Certification ; and Appendix 9C1, TLR Procedure. A meeting of the three executive committees is scheduled for July 15 to discuss these proposed revisions and to decide if they should proceed to ballot. If approved, these proposed revisions will be submitted to the standing committees for ballot following the July committee meetings. During the second day of the PC meeting, a proposed resolution (Exhibit N) regarding the development of NERC standards and the parallel transitional process to maintain existing policies and standards was discussed but not passed by the PC because of the lack of a voting quorum at the very end of the PC meeting. A straw vote of the available voting members (about 17 of the required 24) indicated that a majority was generally supportive of this resolution. The PC Executive Committee members were encouraged to consider this resolution in their activities pertaining to the NERC standards and the proposed revisions to the existing policies and standards. Available Transfer Capability Working Group Thomas E. Washburn, Chairman of the ATC Working Group (ATCWG), reported on the status of the working group s efforts to act as a facilitator in helping ECAR, MAIN, MAPP, and SPP and the Midwest ISO (MISO) in their efforts to develop and agree upon appropriate single methodologies for TTC, ATC, CBM, and TRM. Mr. Washburn s presentation is included as Exhibit O. Mr. Washburn explained that when the NERC Board, at its June 2002 meeting, approved the Phase IIB NERC Planning Standards on transfer capability (TTC and ATC) and transfer capability margins (CBM and TRM), the Board paid particular attention to the comments of the MISO. MISO, 9

10 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 which spans four Regions or portions thereof, expressed concern as a transmission provider in having to deal with and being accountable for multiple Regional methodologies in determining TTC, ATC, CBM, and TRM. To date, MISO has developed a single methodology for the determination of TTC and ATC, which appears to meet the intent of the ECAR, MAIN, MAPP, and SPP Regional requirements for TTC and ATC determination. Significant progress has also been made toward the development of a single methodology for CBM and TRM for use by MISO. The ATCWG has reviewed and offered comments on MISO s proposed CBM and TRM methodology. If the ATCWG s recommendations are incorporated into the proposed MISO methodology, the methodology will meet the intent of the NERC standards. The MISO is currently in the process of reviewing the ATCWG s recommendations and must obtain internal approval for its proposed CBM and TRM methodologies before they can be released to the four Regions for review. The timetable for the completion of this effort lies with the MISO. However, the final resolution of the issues pertaining to TTC, ATC, CBM, and TRM is to be brought to the Board for its information at the October 2002 Board meeting. Mr. Washburn also reported on two other June 2002 Board assignments to the PC that would involve the ATCWG. They include monitoring FERC s standard market design for impacts on ATC determination, and working with NAESB to determine the commercial implications of CBM as it may be altered in the context of FERC action on Open Access Tariff pricing reform. FERC s SMD NOPR is expected to be available at the end of July Standards Transition Update Maureen Long, NERC s consultant and Standards Process Manager, presented a brief followup presentation to the status report (Exhibit P) she provided at the joint MIC/OC/PC meeting. Ms. Long described the ten key items of the standards transition project and the status of each. She reported that the ballot body registration process was operational and that seven industry segments had registered enough members to be valid segments. The interim Standards Authorization Committee (SAC) comprised of the executive committees of the three standing committees is expected to be replaced with the industry segment SAC in August The PC members raised several issues related to the following: the fallback selection process for segment representation on the SAC, the staffing of the SAR and standards drafting teams, the certification of entities and personnel, the identification of Regional differences in a timely manner, the review of the definitions of the segments, and the weighted-segment voting model. The PC members were invited to provide any additional comments on the standards process and related items to Ms. Long following the July PC meeting. 10

11 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 Compliance Review Subcommittee David W. Hilt, NERC Director-Compliance, presented the Compliance Review Subcommittee s (CRS) proposal recommending the formation of a Generation Owners Forum. The forum is being proposed as an effective means to actively engage generators in all stages of the new standards process as well as the compliance activities that directly affect them. Mr. Hilt s presentation is included as Exhibit Q. After a brief discussion on issues related to distributed generators and how the forum will provide input into the standards process, the committee approved the CRS s revised scope for a NERC Generation Owners Forum. This scope (Exhibit R) was approved on a trial basis for one year. Mr. Hilt next reported on the CRS s and the OC s Compliance Subcommittee s efforts to review the enforcement matrices for the NERC operating policies and planning standards and to develop a refined enforcement methodology and sanction matrix. The revised sanction matrix will be presented to the PC at its November 2002 meeting. This matrix will be field tested during the 2003 Compliance Enforcement Program. Mr. Hilt also reported that work was in progress to refine the proposed list of measures to be included in the 2003 Compliance Enforcement Program. The final 2003 list of planning standard measures will be reported to the PC at its November 2002 meeting. Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group As a follow-up to their presentations on the Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group (CIPAG) at the joint MIC/OC/PC meeting, Kevin Perry, Chairman of the CIPAG, and Louis G. Leffler, NERC Project Manager, were available to respond to the PC s questions. At the request of the U.S. Department of Energy, Messrs. Perry and Leffler reported that NERC had agreed to be the electric power sector coordinator on items related to physical and cyber security in all electric industry segments. They also emphasized that the DOE was concerned with damage to critical electric system components or equipment and the availability of spares, especially for long lead-time components or equipment. Future Meeting The next meeting of the PC is scheduled for November 19, 2002 in Dallas, Texas. Agenda materials for the July meeting are due at the NERC office on Friday, October 25,

12 MINUTES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 Adjournment Acting Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m., and thanked the members for their contributions and their support of him as acting chairman. Respectfully submitted, Virginia C. Sulzberger Virginia C. Sulzberger PC Secretary and Staff Coordinator 12

13 North American Electric Reliability Council Princeton Forrestal Village, Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey May 3, 2002 TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE OPERATING COMMITTEE MARKET INTERFACE COMMITTEE Dear Members: Planning Committee, Operating Committee, and Market Interface Committee Meetings July 15 18, 2002 The Planning Committee (PC), Operating Committee (OC), Market Interface Committee (MIC) meetings, and the Joint PC/OC/MIC meeting, scheduled as shown on Attachment A for July 15 18, 2002, are being held at the Radisson Hôtel Québec Centre, 690, boulevard René-Lévesque est, Québec City, Québec, Canada G1R 5A8 ( ) (fax ) and at the Québec City Convention Centre. The Radisson Hôtel Québec Centre is directly linked to the Québec Convention Centre by an underground passageway. The meeting agendas will be posted on the NERC web site on or about June 28, Dress for all meetings is casual. The PC, OC, and MIC meetings are open; however, committee members and interested guests MUST register for the July 2002 meetings by completing the registration form (Attachment B). NERC MUST receive this form by June 20, You can also download the form from the NERC web site ( under the Committees heading. The Radisson Hôtel Québec Centre is reserving a block of sleeping rooms for meeting attendees until June 20, 2002 for $189 single/double, $204 upper floors, and $214 corner room, single/double occupancy (Canadian). After this date, the block of rooms will be released and reservations can only be made on a space-available basis. The room rates are effective three days prior to and three days after the meeting dates, if available. To make your room reservation, call the hotel directly at and refer to the North American Electric Reliability Council to get the preferred rate and to ensure your reservation is credited to the NERC room block. NERC may be charged a penalty if the total rooms blocked for this event are not used. If you use a travel agency for your travel plans, please make sure the agency mentions the North American Electric Reliability Council. Check-in time is 4 p.m. and check-out time is 11 a.m. The PC, OC, and MIC members are encouraged to make their hotel reservations immediately. The Radisson Hôtel Québec Centre is approximately 20 minutes from Jean-Lesage International Airport. There is no shuttle service available from the airport to the Radisson. Taxis are approximately $25 (Canadian). Please check with your travel coordinator for international documentation necessary for entry into Canada. Please contact me if you have any questions. cc: Regional Managers Technic al Steering Committee Sincerely, Linda M. Scott Linda M. Scott Meeting Coordinator

14 Attachment A PC, OC, and MIC Meeting Schedules Radisson Hôtel Québec Centre and Québec City Convention Centre Monday, July 15, 2002 Tuesday, July 16, 2002 Wednesday, July 17, 2002 Thursday, July 18, 2002 MIC Exec 4-6 MIC 8-5, 9-12 TSC 12-2 RM 2-5 PC Exec 4-6 PC 8-5, 9-12 OC Off 5-7 Joint 7-9 PC Exec 12-2 OC 9-5, 8-5 Exec Executive Committee Joint Joint PC/OC/MIC Meeting MIC Market Interface Committee OC Operating Committee Off Officers Meeting PC Planning Committee RM Regional Managers TSC Technical Steering Committee Monday, July 15, 2002 TSC Noon to 2 p.m. (Radisson) RM 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Radisson) PC Exec 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. (Radisson) MIC Exec 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. (Radisson) Tuesday, July 16, 2002 PC 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Convention Centre) MIC 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Convention Centre) Joint PC/MIC Lunch Noon to 1 p.m. (Convention Centre) OC Officers 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. (Convention Centre) Wednesday, July 17, 2002 Joint PC/OC/MIC (breakfast served at 6:30 a.m.) 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. (Radisson) PC 9 a.m. to noon (Convention Centre) MIC 9 a.m. to noon (Convention Centre) OC 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Convention Centre) OC Luncheon Noon to 1 p.m. (Convention Centre) PC Exec (reserved table at OC Luncheon) Noon to 2 p.m. (Convention Centre) Thursday, July 18, 2002 OC 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Convention Centre) OC Luncheon Noon to 1 p.m. (Convention Centre)

15 TO: Linda Scott Attachment B FAX: meetings@nerc.com Please respond by June 20, 2002 North American Electric Reliability Council Princeton Forrestal Village, Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey May 3, 2002 TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE OPERATING COMMITTEE MARKET INTERFACE COMMITTEE Dear Members: Planning Committee, Operating Committee, and Market Interface Committee Meetings July 15 18, 2002 To assist in planning for the committees meetings and luncheons, and to keep meeting costs to a minimum, you MUST complete this form and fax or it to me by June 20, If your plans change, please let me know. In addition, all committee members and guests are required to complete this advanced registration form if they plan to attend the PC, OC, or MIC meetings. Sincerely, Linda M. Scott Linda M. Scott Meeting Coordinator * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PC, OC, and MIC Meeting Registration Please indicate your planned attendance by responding yes or no in all appropriate boxes: Yes No Market Interface Committee meeting on July 16 Planning Committee meeting on July 16 Joint PC/MIC luncheon on July 16 Joint PC/OC/MIC meeting on July 17 Market Interface Committee meeting on July 17 Planning Committee meeting on July 17 Operating Committee meeting on July 17 OC luncheon on July 17 (OC attendees only) Operating Committee meeting on July 18 OC luncheon on July 18 (OC attendees only) Name: Title: Company: Date: Telephone: Please type or print. Phone Fax URL

16 Exhibit B Casual Attire N ORTH A MERICAN ELECTRIC R ELIABILITY C OUNCIL Princeton Forrestal Village, Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Radisson Hotel Québec Center Québec City, Québec, Canada Tuesday, July 16, a.m. to 5 p.m. Wednesday, July 17, to 9 a.m. (joint with OC and MIC) Wednesday, July 17, a.m. to noon (PLEASE BE PREPARED TO STAY FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING.) AGENDA 1. Administrative Matters a) Introduction and Chairman s remarks b) Quorum *c) NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines *d) New PC members and appointments *e) Planning Committee roster update f) Arrangements Virginia C. Sulzberger g) Approval of agenda h) Minutes of the March 19 & 21, 2002 PC meeting *i) Stakeholders Committee June 13, 2002 meeting highlights *j) NERC Board of Trustees June 14, 2002 meeting highlights *k) PC Executive Committee activities *2. PC Subgroup and Liaison (Written) Reports a) Interconnection Dynamics Working Group b) Planning Reliability Model Task Force c) PC liaison report on OC s Transmission Subcommittee *3. PC Executive Committee Membership Action Required APPROVE the Nominating Task Force s recommended two PC voting members to serve on the PC Executive Committee over the July 16, 2002 June 30, 2003 period Scott M. Helyer Phone Fax URL

17 AGENDA PC Meeting (cont) July 16 17, 2002 *4. Role of the NERC Standing Committees Action Required Comment on the work of the Joint Executive Committees in defining the future role of the NERC standing committees Gerry W. Cauley *5. Planning Standards Subcommittee Armando J. Perez will lead the discussion on the following items: Informational a) Status report on the Subcommittee s efforts on how to address the outstanding definition (local network) pertaining to the Planning Standards. b) Status report on the future role of the Subcommittee. c) Status report on the PSS input to NERC s follow-up response to the FERC NOPR on the Generator Interconnection Agreement and Procedures. *6. FERC NOPR on Generator Interconnection Agreement and Procedures Action Required Comment on NERC s proposed follow-up to its initial comments on the FERC NOPR on the Generator Interconnection Agreement and Procedures filed on June 17, 2002 Gerry W. Cauley *7. Reliability Assessment Subcommittee George R. Bartlett will lead the discussion on the following items: Action Required APPROVE the direction of the Reliability Assessment report. Informational Overview of NERC s 2002 Summer Assessment report. *8. Load Forecasting Working Group John L. Harris will lead the discussion on the following items: Actions Required a) APPROVE for publication the Working Group s 2002 draft report, Peak Demand and Energy Projection Bandwidths: Projections. b) APPROVE for publication the Working Group s update to the U.S. Actual Demand Divergence from Projected Demand Study: An Update

18 AGENDA PC Meeting (cont) July 16 17, 2002 *9. Summer 2002 Pre-Season Security Assessment Study Informational a) Status of activities of the OC s Study Team s effort to assess 2002 summer conditions Stephen Lee/Larry J. Kezele b) Concept of Community Activity Room as a Metaphor for Inter-State Transmission Superhighways Stephen Lee *10. Disturbance Analysis Working Group Glenn Brown will lead the discussion on the following items: Informational a) Overview of the 2002 electrical disturbance in Jacksonville, Florida. b) Status of the 2001 Annual Disturbances report. c) List of 2002 disturbances. *11. Standards Transition Process Donald M. Benjamin will lead the discussion on the following items: Informational a) Proposed Transitional Process for Revising Existing NERC Operating Policies and Planning Standards. b) Proposed Operating Policies recommended for revision. *12. Multiregional Modeling Working Group Actions Required a) APPROVE MMWG s recommended five dynamics simulation models for the Eastern Interconnection to be completed during 2002 under the 2002 budget Larry E. Brusseau b) APPROVE MMWG s recommended power flow cases (12) and dynamics simulation models (5) for the Eastern Interconnection to be developed during 2003 Larry E. Brusseau c) APPROVE MMWG s recommended 2003 budget of $245,650 for power flow cases (12), dynamics simulation models (5), and two enhancements to the dynamics database development Larry E. Brusseau d) Discuss the need for policy direction by the Planning Committee to the MMWG J. Ken Wiley -3-

19 AGENDA PC Meeting (cont) July 16 17, 2002 * NERC Budget and Project Management Actions Required a) Comment on the 2003 NERC Budget Joseph K. Conner b) Agree on funding requirements for PC activities in 2003 David A. Whiteley c) Comment on status and priorities of NERC projects Robert W. Cummings *14. Available Transfer Capability Working Group Tom Washburn will lead the discussion on the following items: Informational a) Status report on the Working Group s facilitation and assistance to ECAR, MAIN, MAPP, and SPP in developing single methodologies for the determination of TTC, ATC, CBM, and TRM for use by the Midwest ISO. b) Further assignments related to TTC, ATC, CBM, and TRM. *15. Compliance Review Subcommittee Harlow R. Peterson will lead the discussion on the following items: Action Required APPROVE the Subcommittee s proposed scope for a generation owners forum. Informational a) Status of the Enforcement Matrix Self-Directed Work Team s activities. b) Status of the 2003 NERC Compliance and Enforcement Program development. *16. Standards Transition Update Maureen Long will lead the discussion on the following item. Action Required Comment on the status of the NERC Standards Transition Plan as presented at the Joint MIC/OC/PC meeting PC members (Background material is included in the Joint MIC/OC/PC meeting agenda.) *17. Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group Louis G. Leffler will lead the discussion on the following item. Action Required Comment on the status of the NERC Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group s activities as presented at the Joint MIC/OC/PC meeting PC members (Background material is included in the Joint MIC/OC/PC meeting agenda.) -4-

20 AGENDA PC Meeting (cont) July 16 17, Comments by Public Action Required The public is invited to briefly comment on reliability and related issues of potential interest to the NERC PC Non-member PC meeting attendees 19. Comments by Committee Members 20. Future Meetings Informational a) Next PC meeting is scheduled for November 19 20, 2002 in Dallas, Texas. b) Agenda materials for this November PC meeting are due to the NERC staff on October 25, No Reports at this Meeting Reliability Data, Methods, and Modeling Subcommittee Data Coordination Working Group Resources Task Force PC liaison report on OC s Interconnected Operations Services Subcommittee PC liaison report on OC s Resources Subcommittee *Background material included. -5-

21 Exhibit C ATTENDEES Planning Committee Meeting July 16 17, 2002 Chairman Secretary and Staff Coordinator OFFICERS MEMBERS Harlow R. Peterson (for David W. Whiteley) Virginia C. Sulzberger (non-voting) VOTING MEMBERS Canada & Market Segment Reps (cont) Regional Reliability Organizations ECAR ERCOT FRCC Joseph L. Welch* Jeff Mitchell* (for Joseph L. Welch) Stuart Nelson Thomas E. Washburn Federal (U.S.) IPP IOU Marvin J. Landauer Dennis Chastain (for Gregory M. Vincent) Scott M. Helyer Juan R. Villar Geoffrey P. Gaebe, Sr. Bernard M. Pasternack MAAC Richard A. Wodyka PM Anthony Taylor* MAIN MAPP NPCC SERC Karl E. Kohlrus Ken Kuyper H. Kenneth Haase R. Douglass Powell State/Municipal TDU RTO/ISO Robert C. Williams Samuel T. Stryker John D. Martinsen Jeffrey R. Webb WSCC Michael C. Raezer Armando J. Perez Canada (East) Carmine Marcello Canada & Market Segment Reps Canada Chris Huskilson Ron W. Mazur Cooperative Mike Risan NONVOTING MEMBERS Regulators FERC C. Patrick Rooney* State (Eastern) James B. Atkins Observers Customer Ronald A. Smith APPA Michael J. Hyland* NARUC Richard House* *In attendance part-time.

22 ATTENDEES Planning Committee Meeting (cont) July 16 17, 2002 REGIONAL MANAGERS MACC SERC Bruce Balmat* William F. Reinke NPCC WSCC Edward A. Schwerdt* Dennis E. Eyre* NERC STAFF David W. Hilt* Robert W. Cummings* Gerry Cauley* Maureen Long* Joseph K. Conner* Larry Kezele* Timothy Gallagher* Donald M. Benjamin* Angie Nicastro Louis Leffler* PC SUBGROUP CHAIRMEN George R. Bartlett* Armando J. Perez (see prior page) John L. Harris* Larry E. Brusseau* Harlow R. Peterson (see prior page) Vice Chair, Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Chair, Planning Standards Subcommittee Chair, Load Forecasting Working Group Chair, Multiregional Modeling Working Group Chair, Compliance Review Subcommittee GUESTS Glenn Brown* Patrick Huntley Ray N. Mason Jean-Claude Rodrigue Norbert Mizwicki* Stanley E. Kopman Stephen Lee* Leonard Januzik* Jeff Mitchell (see prior page) Larry Bugh* New Brunswick Power Corporation Southeastern Electric Reliability Council Mid-American Interconnected Network, Inc. Consultant (Canada) Mid-American Interconnected Network, Inc. Northeast Power Coordinating Council Electric Power Research Institute Mid-American Interconnected Network, Inc. East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement *In attendance part-time. 2.

23 N ORTH A MERICAN ELECTRIC R ELIABILITY C OUNCIL Princeton Forrestal Village, Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey NERC ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES I. GENERAL It is NERC s policy and practice to obey the antitrust laws and to avoid all conduct that unreasonably restrains competition. This policy requires the avoidance of any conduct that violates, or which might appear to violate, the antitrust laws. Among other things, the antitrust laws forbid any agreement between or among competitors regarding prices, availability of service, product design, terms of sale, division of markets, allocation of customers or any other activity that unreasonably restrains competition. It is the responsibility of every NERC participant and employee who may in any way affect NERC s compliance with the antitrust laws to carry out this commitment. Antitrust laws are complex and subject to court interpretation that can vary over time and from one court to another. The purpose of these guidelines is to alert NERC participants and employees to potential antitrust problems and to set forth policies to be followed with respect to activities that may involve antitrust considerations. In some instances, the NERC policy contained in these guidelines is stricter than the applicable antitrust laws. Any NERC participant or employee who is uncertain about the legal ramifications of a particular course of conduct or who has doubts or concerns about whether NERC s antitrust compliance policy is implicated in any situation should consult NERC s General Counsel immediately. II. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES Participants in NERC activities (including those of its committees and subgroups) should refrain from the following when acting in their capacity as participants in NERC activities (e.g., at NERC meetings, conference calls and in informal discussions): Discussions involving pricing information, especially margin (profit) and internal cost information and participants expectations as to their future prices or internal costs. Discussions of a participant s marketing strategies. Discussions regarding how customers and geographical areas are to be divided among competitors. Discussions concerning the exclusion of competitors from markets. Discussions concerning boycotting or group refusals to deal with competitors, vendors or suppliers. Approved by NERC Board of Trustees June 14, 2002 Phone Fax URL

24 III. ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PERMITTED From time to time decisions or actions of NERC (including those of its committees and subgroups) may have a negative impact on particular entities and thus in that sense adversely impact competition. Decisions and actions by NERC (including its committees and subgroups) should only be undertaken for the purpose of promoting and maintaining the reliability and adequacy of the bulk power system. If you do not have a legitimate purpose consistent with this objective for discussing a matter, please refrain from discussing the matter during NERC meetings and in other NERC-related communications. You should also ensure that NERC procedures, including those set forth in NERC s Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws are followed in conducting NERC business. Other NERC procedures that may be applicable to a particular NERC activity include the following: Organization Standards Process Manual Transitional Process for Revising Existing NERC Operating Policies and Planning Standards Organization and Procedures Manual for the NERC Standing Committees System Operator Certification Program In addition, all discussions in NERC meetings and other NERC-related communications should be within the scope of mandate for or assignment to the particular NERC committee or subgroup, as well as within the scope of the published agenda for the meeting. No decisions should be made nor any actions taken in NERC activities for the purpose of giving an industry participant or group of participants a competitive advantage over other participants. In particular, decisions with respect to setting, revising, or assessing compliance with NERC reliability standards should not be influenced by anti-competitive motivations. Subject to the foregoing restrictions, participants in NERC activities may discuss: Reliability matters relating to the bulk power system, including operation and planning matters such as establishing or revising reliability standards, special operating procedures, operating transfer capabilities, and plans for new facilities. Matters relating to the impact of reliability standards for the bulk power system on electricity markets, and the impact of electricity market operations on the reliability of the bulk power system. Proposed filings or other communications with state or federal regulatory authorities or other governmental entities. Matters relating to the internal governance, management and operation of NERC, such as nominations for vacant committee positions, budgeting and assessments, and employment matters; and procedural matters such as planning and scheduling meetings. Any other matters that do not clearly fall within these guidelines should be reviewed with NERC s General Counsel before being discussed. Approved by NERC Board of Trustees June 14,

25 Framework for Assessing Future Role of NERC Standing Committees Request for Inputs Operating, Planning, and Market Interface Committees July 9, 2002 North American Electric Reliability Council Board Actions in February 2002 Standards Process Manual Revisions Approved June 2002 Set, monitor, and enforce compliance with reliability standards. Provide a fair, open, balanced, and inclusive process. North American Electric Reliability Council Brokers, Marketers Trans Dep Utilities Trans Owners Lg Cust RTOs Sm Cust LSEs Gov t Elec Generators Adopt the segments and weightedsegment voting model.

26 Standards Process Roles Trans Owners RTOs Standards Authorization Committee Requestors Standards Process Manager Standards Drafting Teams Ballot Pool Brokers, Marketers Trans Dep Utilities Lg Cust Sm Cust LSEs Gov t Elec Generators North American Electric Reliability Council Role of Standing Committees Not specified in WESM Proposal: Committees should initiate discussions Board Old New Board Standards OC PC MIC OC PC MIC Standards Registered Ballot Body North American Electric Reliability Council

27 The Challenge One of the NERC s most valuable assets is the active participation of its volunteer industry experts Challenge going forward is to ensure that NERC committees are set up to effectively apply those volunteer resources in support of NERC s reliability mission North American Electric Reliability Council Executive Committees Initiative Committee Input and Review March 2002 Review Existing Documents Brainstorming July 2002 Assess Committee Organization Options BOT Progress Report Identify NERC and Committee Functions North American Electric Reliability Council

28 Resources Reviewed Certificate of Incorporation Bylaws BOT Resolutions and Principles (2/2002) Draft Reliability Legislation Electric Reliability (Blue Ribbon) Panel Report Industry Collaborative Conference Report NERC Committees Manual Committee/Subcommittee/WG/TF Scopes North American Electric Reliability Council NERC Mission Elements Set reliability standards Assess and encourage adequacy Address reliability matters Promote near-term reliability/long-term adequacy Accommodate evolution of markets Serve public interest in reliability Provide international perspective Be open, fair, balanced and inclusive Achieve excellence in all work North American Electric Reliability Council

29 Policy Questions in Mission Meaning of bulk electric system? Delivery system or integrated resources? Who has obligations to provide a future adequate system? What reliability standards are appropriate? North American Electric Reliability Council 10 NERC Function Areas Brainstorming Results from Clean Slate Standards Development Compliance Enforcement Education and Training Evaluation and Assessment Interface with Other Industry Groups NERC Functions Committee Functions Tools and Systems Certification Critical Infrastructure Protection Real-time operations coordination Appeals and Conflict resolution North American Electric Reliability Council

30 Committee Organization Options Focus on function and effective use of industry volunteer resources. Evolve incrementally as needed? Reorganize based on function? Alternative formats such as open forum? Interface to NAESB? Other options? Analysis of Resource Needs Based on Function Function Organization Drives Structure North American Electric Reliability Council Organization Alternatives Reviewed By NERC function By Functional Model function By Segment Core, Unique Functions Services Volunteer Experts North American Electric Reliability Council

31 Organization Alternative 3 Board of Trustees Dispute Resolution Services Core Functions Expert Committees Training & Education Data Services Tools Services Standards Compliance Enforcement Organization Certification Personnel Certification Policy Advisory Operations Planning (Adequacy) Critical Infrastructure Market Interface? North American Electric Reliability Council Organization Alternative 4 Dispute Resolution Services Board of Trustees Core Functions Expert Committees Segment Forums Training & Education Data Services Tools Services Standards Compliance Enforcemen t Organizatio n Certification Personnel Certification Policy Advisory Operations Planning (Adequacy) Critical Infrastructur e Market Interface? Meeting Format North American Electric Reliability Council

32 Representation and Voting Status quo? Update existing model? Go to segment-based? Other options? North American Electric Reliability Council Next Steps Inputs from standing committees (July 16-18) Executive Committees 4 th meeting (Aug 1-2) Proposal for committee scope, functions, organization, representation model (Aug 15) Board planning meeting (Aug 28) Draft transition plan and schedule (Aug 31) Post documents for comment (Sept 4-18) Post to Board (Sept 23) Board approval (Oct 8) Implementation (by end of 2002?) North American Electric Reliability Council

33 How Can the Committee Help? Provide feedback and inputs Begin thinking about how to best organize committee resources and making transition North American Electric Reliability Council Questions? North American Electric Reliability Council

34 Exhibit F Planning Committee Resolution a Regarding the Effort to Review the Roles of the NERC Standing Committees by the Board of Trustees and Standing Committee Executive Committees (Planning Committee July 17, 2002) 1. The Planning Committee endorses the effort to review the organizational structure and roles of the NERC Standing Committees by the Board and Executive Committees and stands ready to support this effort as required. 2. The Planning Committee believes that the existing Standing Committees should have an opportunity to have an open debate and discussion of any proposals for Standing Committee reorganization before any proposal would be submitted to the Board of Trustees. Note: The Planning Committee stands ready to hold a special meeting if required. 3. The Planning Committee believes that implementing weighted-sector voting within the Standing Committees would not be appropriate and believes that representation and voting similar to the present makeup is more appropriate and provides a check and balance within the organization. A representation and voting model similar to the present model for the Standing Committees should be carried forward into the future. a) Approved by NERC Planning Committee: July 17, 2002

35 Planning Standards Subcommittee Armando J. Perez PSS Chairman NERC Planning Committee Meeting July 16-17, 2002 Planning Standards Subcommittee Status Reports A. Local Network definition B. Future role of PSS C. Input to NERC response on FERC NOPR (Generator Interconnection Agreement and Procedures) 2

36 Local Network I.A. S2, M2 Transmission Systems (Table I, Category B) footnote b System performance following loss of a single bulk system element Generator Transmission circuit Transformer Single pole (dc) line 3 Table I, Footnote b Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers, connected to or supplied by the faulted element or by the affected area, may occur in certain areas without impacting the overall security of the interconnected transmission systems. To prepare for the next contingency, system adjustments are permitted, including curtailments of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power transfers. 4

37 PSS/PC Recommendation Jan 2002 Local Network a non-radial portion of a bulk electric system whose customers may be interrupted for the loss of a single transmission element. This loss of load is only allowed in those rare circumstances when it is impractical (e.g., long transmission distances, extremely high costs with low benefits) to avoid interruption of service to a portion or all of the customers in the network due to the network being directly connected to or supplied by the faulted transmission system element. The resulting customer interruption should be limited in magnitude (generally less than 100 MW). The interruption of such local network customers shall not impact the overall security of the interconnected transmission systems and shall not cause violations of NERC Standards outside of the local network. 5 Revised MIPS/PSS Definition Local Network a portion of the bulk electric system whose customers may be interrupted for the loss of a single transmission element, such that the magnitude of the resulting customer interruption shall not impact the overall security of the interconnected transmission systems. 6

38 Voting PC approves PSS (100 MW) definition (Jan 02) MIC objects to definition (Jan 02) Board asks PC and MIC to reach consensus (Feb 02) MIPS/PSS agree on new definition (with minority report) (Apr 02) 7 Voting (cont) MIC votes down MIPS/PSS definition (May 02) MIC approves MIPS/PSS definition and asks PC to modify Standard to show expected performance (May 02) PC votes down MIPS/PSS definition (May 02) 8

39 PC Options 1. Add PC definition (100 MW) to footnote b using transitional process. Separate definition not required. 2. Let Board decide: a) PC-approved definition and no change to the standard. b) MIC-approved definition and change the standard to show expected performance. 3. Do not define local network and do not change standard. 9 PSS Transitional Role Report on the WECC sectionalizing breaker study Define bulk electric system (with OC and MIC) Participate in PC waiver process as requested Respond to questions on existing Planning Standards 10

40 Possible Future PSS Roles Initiate and request SARs Develop probabilistic standards Forum for discussion of SARs and Standards 11 Role of PSS Issues Role of PC needs to be determined before PSS s role can be defined. Companies not willing to support activities viewed as having no value. New Standards Process does not require or want PSS. Retain PSS until Committee roles are defined. 12

41 Input to FERC NOPR Reviewed some 70 potential reliability issues Input to be combined with OC and MIC comments Further detail under PC agenda item 6 (FERC NOPR on Generator Interconnection Agreement and Procedures) 13

42 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment Subcommittee George R. Bartlett, Vice Chairman July Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Presentation Topics Reliability Assessment Provide Status Report and Overview Request comments and approval on the tone and direction 2002 Summer Assessment Provide Overview Invite Roundtable Discussion of Actual Regional Summer Conditions 2

43 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Status Report - Regional Self-Assessments have been provided RAS has performed an initial review Future editing will likely change content Issues discussions are fully developed RAS requests review and approval on discussion tone and direction Data analysis has not yet been performed 3 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Overview - Assessment of electric generation and transmission reliability through 2011 Discussion of key issues affecting reliability of future electric supply Natural Gas Interdependency Planning Issues Environmental Regulations Regional assessments of electric supply reliability 4

44 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Overview - Demands and Resources Data is not yet available for completion of this section Resource Adequacy Early indications are that new merchant projects are slowing, but projects planned for next couple of years are on track Merchant facilities will comprise a majority of resource growth Generation planning in today s environment focuses on economics, rather than fixed resource adequacy targets Uncertainties will cause periods of advance and decline 5 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Overview - Transmission Adequacy and Security Assessment Increased power transfer is shifting transmission loading patterns New loading patterns are reaching thermal limits on existing transmission lines Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) procedures being implemented with increasing frequency The number of TLRs has steadily increased as power transfers increased and the transmission system has become more fully subscribed. 6

45 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Overview - Transmission Adequacy and Security Assessment Construction of new facilities continues to lag behind load growth and generation development Most additions will address local concerns or generation interconnections North American transmission systems are expected to perform reliably in the near term. 7 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Electricity/Natural Gas Interdependency - Majority of planned new generation is fired by natural gas Adequacy of gas quantity sufficient for near and long term Adequacy of gas infrastructure less certain First contingency not necessarily considered in planning pipelines Single gas failure could interrupt multiple generation facilitie s Shifts in generation dispatch may cause greater dependency on generation facilities in locations where the gas infrastructure limits delivery of fuel Gas pipelines are operated independently Operations are vulnerable to single failures Interconnected participants are under no obligation to provide emergency relief to one another 8

46 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Electricity/Natural Gas Interdependency - Gas pipelines are loaded for delivery to traditional gas customers Electric generation facilities require high pressure delivery Gas pipelines operated at sufficient pressure under normal system conditions Gas pipelines packed to absorb system transients Post-transient pressures, however, may be sufficient for traditional customers but not the generation facilities Pipelines are not centrally planned Reliability not independently reviewed Expansion driven by economics, rather than reliability concerns 9 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Electricity/Natural Gas Interdependency - Impact on electric supply 90 percent of all new electric generation proposed for the next 10 years is fired by natural gas Additional coordination between the planning/operating of electric generation and the gas infrastructure is necessary Electric reliability in some areas of North America more vulnerable to the loss of a gas infrastructure component than the loss of an electric system component Further investigation into the relationship between electric generators and natural gas supplies and delivery is warranted. 10

47 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Planning Challenges - Ensuring Adequacy of Supply Resource planning disaggregated from transmission planning Load serving entities matched to generation providers through market forces Non-utility generation exceeds 35% of U.S capacity Viability of generation development projects uncertain Present data reporting process fails to ensure consistent results One outcome of the new market environment is that it is difficult to draw reliability conclusions from reported or calculated generation capacity or reserve margins. 11 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Planning Challenges - Ensuring Adequacy of Transmission Apparent lack of transmission to meet needs of planned generation Cost prevents siting transmission on a speculative basis Local funding for Regional power wheeling is unattractive to most rate payers Construction lead time for new transmission facilities far exceeds that for planned generation resources The scarcity of new transmission will continue to exist until some adequate cost-sharing mechanism is devised and implemented 12

48 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Planning Challenges - Ensuring Adequacy of Transmission Siting of generation is important to transmission reliability Optimal locations for generation can unload burdened transmission grids by shifting power flow into and around major load centers Sub-optimal generation location can cause thermal constraints to manifest in previously sufficient regions Sparse generation density can create stability problems when insufficient transmission connects the machines Although large amounts of new generation will be installed in the next few years, RAS questions its contribution towards increased NERC wide adequacy in cases where the capacity will be isolated due to the transmission system 13 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Planning Challenges - Alternatives to Transmission Line Construction Better utilization of existing transmission facilities Reconductoring / Double Circuits Capacitor Banks / Static VAr Compensation Flexible AC Transmission (FACTS) Dynamic line rating / real-time state estimation Demand-side management Special Protection Systems and Remedial Action Schemes Building new transmission lines is not the only or the best answer to alleviate transmission constraints and to increase the capacity of the transmission grid 14

49 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Environmental Issues - Regulatory initiatives and legislative activity increase stringency of existing laws Poorly timed regulations may cause untimely plant outages Sulphur Dioxide scrubbers NOx Mercury Carbon Dioxide Replacement of fossil fuel generation will place additional stress on both the natural gas infrastructure and the transmission grid 15 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Environmental Issues - Additional environmental regulatory initiatives include: implementation of significantly more stringent ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulates regional haze program including application of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) rules, including mercury, from fossil-fired electric utilities resolution of litigation over the new source review rules concerning maintenance of existing plants and building new generation (or potential changes to the existing rules) more stringent requirements on the use of water, water intake structures, and discharge of pollutants 16

50 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Environmental Issues - Environmental policy advocates are seeking to develop multi-pollutant legislation Provides power developers with a greater certainty regarding the level of emissions that generating plants will have to meet in the foreseeable future. The current patchwork of environmental regulation is a disincentive to the development of capitalintensive fossil-fired generation. 17 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee Reliability Assessment - Regional Self Assessments - Relatively few concerns raised in individual Regional selfassessments Of particular note: Southwest Connecticut constraints due to inadequate transmission and a lack of local generation MAPP inability to meet reserve capacity obligations after 2003 ERCOT completion of its first year as a single control area ECAR reliability concerns centered around delay of 765 kv line WECC near-term capacity margin inadequacies 18

51 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee 2002 Summer Assessment - Overview - Generating resources adequate in all NERC Regions Peak demand projected to increase 2.7% over 2001 actual demand Flat growth indicative of North American economic slow down Concerns reflected in 10-year report Areas of interest New York City and Long Island: 451 MW of capacity additions California: Reduced demand (3,000 MW) due to rate increases and economy; increase in generation resources (5,000 MW) Ontario: Summer capacity margin of 10% mitigated by sufficient interconnections to support electric import 19 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee 2002 Summer Assessment - Roundtable Discussion - Current Summer Issues? Challenges? Successes? 20

52 Demand & Energy Projection Bandwidths Load Forecasting Working Group to the Planning Committee July 2002 NERC Bandwidth Report Purposes of Bandwidth Report Add information about aggregated NERC projection Quantify uncertainty Provide early warning

53 NERC Bandwidth Report Methodology Overview Projections are aggregations of NERC members Bandwidths provided by LFWG Bandwidths explicitly address uncertainty Load Factor relates peak to energy NERC Bandwidth Report 80% Long-Run Confidence Bands High Band: 10% likelihood that energy & demand will be higher Low Band: 10% likelihood that energy & demand will be lower

54 NERC Bandwidth Report National Summary United States: Annual energy growth rate of 1.9% Annual demand growth rate of 2.0% Canada Annual energy growth rate of 1.3% Annual demand growth rate of 1.2% NERC Bandwidth Report United States Net Energy for Load Projection United States Net Energy for Load Projection mwh (000) 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000, % 1.9% 1.4% 2,500,000 History Forecast 2,000, Year

55 NERC Bandwidth Report United States Peak Demand Projection United States Peak Demand Projection 900, % 2.0% Megawatts 800, , , % 500,000 History Forecast 400, Year NERC Bandwidth Report Canada Net Energy for Load Projection Canada Net Energy for Load Projection mwh (000) 680, , , , , , , , , % 1.3% -0.7% History Forecast Year

56 NERC Bandwidth Report Canada Peak Demand Projection Canada Peak Demand Projection Megawatts 120, , ,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50, % 1.2% -0.8% History Forecast Year NERC Bandwidth Report Interconnection Bandwidths Eastern and Western interconnections have growth rates similar to United States ERCOT continues to have growth rates twice that of the other interconnections

57 NERC Bandwidth Report Conclusions Bandwidths are driven largely by economic growth and weather patterns bandwidth growth rates are slightly lower relative to prior years Actual energy and demand have remained inside bandwidths for U.S. and Canada NERC Bandwidth Report Wrap-Up and Action Q&A Request PC approval for publication

58 NERC Bandwidth Report Interconnection Appendix NERC Bandwidth Report Eastern Interconnection Net Energy for Load Projection Eastern Interconnection Net Energy for Load Projection mwh (000) 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500, % 1.7% 1.1% History Forecast Year

59 NERC Bandwidth Report Eastern Interconnection Peak Demand Projection 800, ,000 Eastern Interconnection Peak Demand Projection 2.5% 1.9% Megawatts 600, , % 400, ,000 History Forecast Year NERC Bandwidth Report Western Interconnection Net Energy for Load Projection Western Interconnection Net Energy for Load Projection mwh (000) 1,050, , , , , % 1.8% 1.2% 550, ,000 History Forecast Year

60 NERC Bandwidth Report Western Interconnection Peak Demand Projection Western Interconnection Peak Demand Projection Megawatts 175, , , ,000 95,000 75, % 2.0% 1.4% History Forecast Year NERC Bandwidth Report ERCOT Net Energy for Load Projection ERCOT Net Energy for Load Projection 400, , % 3.1% mwh (000) 300, , % 200, ,000 History Forecast Year

61 NERC Bandwidth Report ERCOT Peak Demand Projection ERCOT Peak Demand Projection 80, % 3.2% Megawatts 70,000 60,000 50, % 40,000 30,000 History Forecast Year

62 U.S. Actual Demand Divergence from Projected Demand: An Update Load Forecasting Working Group to the Planning Committee July 2002 U.S. Demand Divergence Update Overview of Original Report United States Actual peak demand exceeded projection Joint RAS/LFWG matter

63 U.S. Demand Divergence Update United States Summer Peak Demand Gigawatts Year Actual Forecast U.S. Demand Divergence Update Original Study Results Abnormal summer weather patterns Unusually strong economic growth Weather normalization by region Economic adjustment by LFWG

64 U.S. Demand Divergence Update United States Summer Peak Demand Gigawatts Year Normalized Actual Normalized Forecast U.S. Demand Divergence Update Update for Post-1999 weather-normalized data not available at time of original study PC-directed update for Weather normalization by region Economic adjustment by LFWG

65 U.S. Demand Divergence Update United States Summer Peak Demand Gigawatts Year Actual Forecast U.S. Demand Divergence Update United States Summer Peak Demand Gigawatts Year Normalized Actual Normalized Forecast

66 U.S. Demand Divergence Update Conclusions unusually strong economy recession Reversal of divergence pattern Business cycle and abnormal weather explain +/(-) divergence U.S. Demand Divergence Update Limitations Aggregated national perspective Not applicable to individual regions

67 U.S. Demand Divergence Update THANK YOU!! for all regional assistance in providing weather normalization data for original and update demand divergence reports. U.S. Demand Divergence Update Wrap-Up and Action Q&A Request PC approval for publication

68 Summer 2002 Pre-Season Assessment and Community Activity Room Pilot Presented to the NERC OC/PC/MIC Quebec City, Canada Stephen Lee July 16-17, 2002 NERC Processes for the Study OC Directive to PSAST in Nov 2001: Assess 2002 Summer Season potential reliability constraints on the Eastern Interconnection due to simultaneous interregional transfers. EPRI Reliability Initiative provided funding PSAST draft report to RAWG on May 15, 2002 RAWG reviewed draft report on May 22 conference call PSAST CD provided to RAWG Community Activity Room (CAR) pilot presented to ORS/CMS/TS on June 5 EPRI Reliability Initiative Report on new tools provided to EPRI members and NERC on June 17

69 Study Scope An Eastern Interconnection focus with Regional inputs Selected scenarios of simultaneous transactions, to capture: Simultaneous transfer limits Sufficiently high transfer levels to stress the interconnected system Coincident summer peak loads 2002 Summer MMWG Base Case Four 2002 Summer Transfer Bias Cases derived from EPRI TagNet statistics North to South (6000 MW Bias) West to East (8000 MW Bias) South to North (6000 MW Bias) East to West (2000 MW Bias) For each Bias Case, maximize transfer in three directions (excluding the direction opposite to the bias direction) Regional Comments Benefits Summer 2002 power flow cases with realistic heavy transfer patterns New study and visualization tools were applied or developed, but they should be validated during this summer Suggested Changes for Improvement More contingencies to check More variations on generation participation assumptions

70 Validation of Study Results Volunteers from PSAST Monitor the Eastern Interconnection this summer Collect data on TLRs, TagNet, and CAR Compare the transmission constraints predicted by the study results with the actual loadings and TLRs for a few test days Community Activity Room New Tools for Assessing and Visualizing Simultaneous Transfer Limits Introduction to the Community Activity Room as a metaphor for interstate transmission highways

71 The Power Industry is Evolving New World View for Power Market All parties in the power market live in the same community Transmission is now a separate business We all want a healthy and robust power market Things are not purely Black and White Deterministic criteria draw a dividing line on the sand Reliability is a continuous spectrum Progress in planning and operating criteria has not kept up with the power of computers Transmission Criteria are still deterministic: Withstand loss of any single facility without thermal overloads or instability How Do We Improve Transmission Planning and Operating Criteria? Probabilistic approach is the answer Objective and consistent quantification of risk Will improve market efficiency May introduce new market products for risk management In order for this to happen... We need a fast method for computing risk as a function of market activities

72 With a Competitive Power Market, Operators Face More Uncertainties Generation location, capacity and inservice dates Weather uncertainties over wider areas Market operation, not central economic dispatch Inter-regional wholesale power transaction patterns can change from season to season and hour to hour EPRI has a new technology to help operators and planners Community Activity Room The Community Activity Room is a registered service mark of EPRI.

73 Community Activity Room (CAR) We are all in this together, a Community of Electricity Transmission constraints are like walls enclosing a Community Activity Room within which wholesale power transactions can freely take place. A line or transformer that is continuously overloaded is a hard wall. Traditional single-contingency criterion maps into a distinct set of soft walls around the CAR. The Community Activity Room is a registered service mark of EPRI. The Floating Light-Bulb The status of the current wholesale power market operation is associated with a location inside the CAR (represented by a floating light-bulb). The job of the operator is to monitor the light-bulb and move it back from the wall to prevent the system from crashing and going dark. Floating Light-bulb

74 Another Way of Looking At Transmission Grid -- Highways Transmission lines, like highways, serve two functions: they carry intra-regional power transfers (like local traffic), and inter-regional wholesale power transfers (like interstate traffic) Network loads & generation are local traffic that clogs the interstate transmission highways during rush hours Operators need to see the big picture of interstate traffic as well as local traffic in order to solve the congestion problems Operators have used two-dimensional nomograms to define transfer limits. The CAR is just a more powerful and higher-dimensional nomogram, visualized as walls of the Community Activity Room Traditional Nomograms - An Example Usually for a specific load flow case May show a set of curves that vary with some conditions Import from Ties to the North Simultaneous Transfer Limits Import from Ties to the East

75 A Sample Interconnection Modeled as Four Areas CAR can model many dimensions. For visualization, we can see only in 3-D. A A2 A1=MAPP+MAIN+ECARW Four Areas with Five Interties with assumed MW capacities as shown Transmission Line Reactances (X) assumed as shown Variables to plot are the Net Exports from each of the four areas (G1, etc.) Because the Sum of All Exports = 0, we can plot G1, G2, and G3 and let G4 be determined by G4=-G1-G2-G3 Display Community Activity Room with A3 s Net Export in the Z-axis, A1 s Net Export for the X axis, and A2 s Net Export for the Y axis A3 A1 A A A A4 A2=PJM+ECARE+NPCC A3=SPP+ENTERGY A4=TVA+SOCO+VACAR+FRCC G1 = Net Export of A1 G2 = Net Export of A2 G3 = Net Export of A3 G4 = Net Export of A4 Note: G1+G2+G3+G4=0 Eastern Interconnection in Four Areas W-E NW NE SW SE N-S W-E

76 Community Activity Room G3 >0 G1 is net export out of area A1, when positive. G2 is net export out of area A2, when positive. G3 is net export out of area A3, when positive. G4 = - G1 - G2 - G3, is automatically given, when G1, G2, and G3 are specified. G3=3000 G2 >0 G3=2000 A 4-Area Interconnection G3= 0 G1 >0 A1 A2 G3= A3 A4 G3= The Constraints on Any Combination of Net Exports (G1, G2, G3 and G4) are walls of this 3-D CAR A floor plan is a two-dimensional nomogram. Floor Plan Views of the 3-D CAR Because it is hard to monitor 3-D objects on a computer screen, it is easier to see the Community Activity Room as floor plans at each floor level along the vertical z-axis We will now show the floor plan as we take the elevator to the floor level which represents a value of A3 s net export (G3) equal to MW, in other words, a net import of 3000 MW

77 G3 = MW 4000 A1 A A A G2 > 0 Cross-section of A3 at value below: A2 --> 6000 Traditional Nomogram G1 > A3 = Flow 1-2N Flow 1-3N Flow 2-4N Flow 3-4N Flow 1-4N Flow 1-2 Flow 1-3 Flow 2-4 Flow 3-4 Flow A1 --> Community Activity Room G3 >0 G1 is net export out of area A1, when positive. G2 is net export out of area A2, when positive. G3 is net export out of area A3, when positive. G4 = - G1 - G2 - G3, is automatically given, when G1, G2, and G3 are specified. G3=3000 G2 >0 G3=2000 A 4-Area Interconnection G3= 0 G1 >0 A1 A2 G3= A3 A4 G3= The traditional nomograms, when viewed as edges of a floor plan, can be extended into the 3-dimensional walls of a Community Activity Room. A floor plan is a two-dimensional nomogram.

78 Where is the Floating Light-Bulb? Each E-Tag specifies a MW transfer from a source (blue dot) to a sink (red dot) (each is a control area) for the current hour TagNet aggregates all E-Tags into Net Exports The values of the regional net exports place the position of the Light-Bulb E-Tags are schedules, not physical flows Net Exports 1000 A A2 G1 = = 9000 G2 = = A A4 G3 = = G4 = = Again, G1+G2+G3+G4 = 0 TagNet Display for Eastern Interconnection (Updated Hourly) Blue bubble = exporting Red bubble = importing The four Net Export values (12260, -2806, -3234, -6220) define the position of the Light-bulb for the Eastern Interconnection

79 CAR Painter s Overload Contours for 4-Area Sample System The CAR Painter shows the degree of potential overloads as ten color bands (500 MW steps in this picture) The first set of walls is the boundary between the white and the blue zones Note that these are potential (post-contingency overloads) CAR Painter will tell you where is the closest wall, the contingencyconstraint pair, and how far away it is CAR Painter will tell you how to get back inside the CAR if you are outside now CAR Painter Applied to Eastern Interconnection for Summer 2002 PSAST performed AC and DC cases of transfers Base Case with four transfer scenarios Four Biased Cases with three transfer scenarios each Total of (4 + 4x3) x 2 = 32 AC or DC runs EPRI derived the equations that describe the walls of the CAR for all of these runs and applied CAR Painter to display results EPRI enhanced TagNet to display current hour and next hour s CAR for the Eastern Interconnection, as a pilot project for the Reliability Authorities, so that it can be validated this summer

80 CAR Painter Applied to Eastern Interconnection for Summer 2002 CAR Painter is also available to Reliability Authorities to run with more detailed look on constraints that relate to their control areas, with the ability to download the current hour s operating point from TagNet s bubble diagram It matches the current operating point to the closest bias case performed by PSAST and applied constraints from all transfer scenarios for that case It uses SDX files to estimate the current day s peak loads of certain Control Areas and adjusts the walls of the CAR according to them as well as a typical hourly weekday and weekend load profile Load Adjustments from Summer Peaks Line Flow = a1.g1 +a2.g2 +a3.g3 + network flow Network flow is assumed to vary proportionally to CA load where the line is The PSAST runs used summer peak loads for 2002 Control areas with daily load forecasts in SDX used by CAR Painter are: AEP, FE, MECS, CIN, LGEE, WEC, MEC, NPPD, NSP, AMRN, IP, CE, PJM, EES, KCPL, OKGE, SPS, SOCO, TVA, DUK, VAP. For others, the quadrant area s average is used. Hourly Load Profiles are Applied to Daily Peak Typical Load Profiles Hour Week-Day Weekend Day

81 High South to North Transfer Has Already Occurred this Summer Hourly TagNet Simultaneous Schedules (May 6 to July 12, 2002) Compared with PSAST Studied Scenarios West to East Schedules (MW) Actual Scenarios Studied North to South Schedules (MW) Will Summer 2002 Be Similar to Summer 2001? Simultaneous N-S and W-E Schedules for Summer West to East Schedules (MW) /1/01 to 10/31/01 Scenarios Studied North to South Schedules (MW)

82 TagNet Display Pilot of Community Activity Room for Eastern Interconnection June 27, 2002 CAR Sample June 27, 2002 TagNet Sample July 2, 2002 CAR Sample July 2, 2002 TagNet Sample Probabilistic CAR EPRI s Reliability Initiative developed a practical method for PRA (Probabilistic Reliability Assessment) by combining contingency simulations with probabilities of contingencies to define overload and voltage indices The CAR concept fits with PRA like hands in gloves Will establish a transmission probabilistic reliability criterion equivalent to the accepted deterministic criterion A Risk Index of a transmission grid will soon be computable and displayed visually as a function of market activities

83 Probabilistic CAR (N-1 Contingencies) CAR can be extended to include contingency probabilities Boundary = N-1 Contingency Criteria Probabilistic CAR (N-1 + N-2 Contingencies) Average Reliability Index value along N-1 boundary gives Probabilistic Criterion

84 Conclusions EPRI s Reliability Initiative members had provided the funding of the PSAST study and wished to promote reliability tools for public benefits. Finding the CAR technology highly promising, the members approved the use of CAR for an online probabilistic reliability monitor (TVA will be the host) EPRI is developing the next generation of operating and planning tools based on the CAR EPRI would like to continue receiving the support of the NERC community in the validation and enhancements of these new tools EPRI is a non-profit public benefit research organization for the power industry.

85 Page 1 MMWG Report Larry Brusseau Senior Engineer Mid-Continent Area Power Pool NERC PC Meeting July 16-17, 2002 MMWG 2002 Effort Power Flow Base Cases (11) Action Required: None 2003 Light Load 2004 Summer Peak 2003 Spring Peak 2004 Fall Peak 2003 Summer Peak 2004/05 Winter Peak 2003 Fall Peak 2009 Summer Peak 2003/04 Winter Peak 2009/10 Winter Peak 2004 Spring Peak Dynamics Base Cases (5) Action Required: Approve cases 2003 Light Load 2003 Fall Peak 2004 Summer Peak 2004/05 Winter Peak 2009 Summer Peak

86 Page 2 MMWG 2003 Effort Power Flow Base Cases (12) Action Required: Approve case list 2004 Light Load 2005 Fall Peak 2004 Spring Peak 2005/06 Winter Peak 2004 Fall Peak 2010 Summer Peak 2004 Summer Peak 2005 Summer Peak 2004/05 Winter Peak 2010/11 Winter Peak 2005 Spring Peak 2013 Summer Dynamics Base Cases (5) 2004 Light Load 2005/06 Winter 2004 Fall 2005 Summer 2010 Summer Action Required: Approve case list MMWG 2003 Budget Power Flow (12 base cases): $85,000 Dynamics (5 dynamics cases): $107,850 Database enhancements: $52,800 Action: Approve MMWG 2003 budget of $245,650

87 NERC NERC Project Overview & Prioritization MOP Meetings Québec, Québec July 16-18, 2002 Active Projects Status 42 Active Projects as of July 15 Projects being approved at these meetings: PKI Cyber Security System Data exchange (SDX) Proposed Projects being discussed E-Tag Security Improvements E-Tag New Master Registry Automated Performance Reporting for Appendix 3A3

88 Approved Projects Being Implemented IDC - Automated TLR Logs (maintenance) ISN Conversion to IP System Operator Certification Database (internal) Project terminated today: MMWG Case Documentation Program Prioritization Survey Input of Standing Committees to budget process Survey simpler than last year priorities: Urgent need yesterday High do ASAP Medium do when possible Low do if time / funding allows Don t Do obvious On-Line survey to be available next week

89 Projects Link Screen Survey Priority Screen (early version)