Southwest Power Pool BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING DFW Airport Hyatt, Dallas, Texas December 12, Summary of Action Items -

Transcription

1 Southwest Power Pool BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING DFW Airport Hyatt, Dallas, Texas December 12, Summary of Action Items - 1. Approved the Market and Operations Policy Committee s recommendation regarding Tariff language for PRR Approved that SPP file for certification with FERC for a February 1 market go-live date. 3. Approved Human Resources Committee s recommendation to amend the SPP defined benefit retirement plan that defines earnings as base compensation only. 4. Approved SPP committee and working group rosters. 5. Approved that the Strategic Planning Committee take on the responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the process for developing recommendations from the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting. 6. Approved the Board s recommendation that Mr. Jim Eckelberger continue to serve as Chair and Mr. Harry Skilton as Vice Chair for another two year term to be reviewed at the end of Reappointed SPP officers for 2007: Mr. Nick Brown President and CEO Mr. Carl Monroe Senior Vice President and COO Ms. Stacy Duckett Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Mr. Tom Dunn Vice President and CFO Mr. Les Dillahunty Vice President Regulatory Policy Mr. Michael Desselle Vice President Process Integrity and CAO 8. Approved the Strategic Planning Committee s recommendation to apply for NERC membership in Sector 11, Regional Reliability Organization/Regional Entity, before the December 15 deadline.

2 MINUTES NO. 109 Southwest Power Pool BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING DFW Airport Hyatt, Dallas, Texas December 12, 2006 Agenda Item 1 - Administrative Items SPP Chair Mr. Jim Eckelberger called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. The following Board of Directors/Members Committee members were in attendance or represented by proxy: Mr. Stuart Solomon, for Mr. Nick Akins, American Electric Power Mr. Larry Altenbaumer, director Ms. Phyllis Bernard, director Mr. Nick Brown, director Mr. Harry Dawson, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Mr. Kevin Easley, Grand River Dam Authority Mr. Jim Eckelberger, director Mr. Tom Grennan, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Ms. Trudy Harper, Tenaska Power Services Company Mr. Quentin Jackson, director Mr. Jeff Knottek, City Utilities of Springfield Mr. Joshua Martin, director Mr. Mel Perkins, OG+E Electric Services Mr. Gary Roulet, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Mr. Harry Skilton, director Mr. Richard Spring, Kansas City Power & Light Mr. Tom Stuchlik, Westar Mr. David Brian, for Mr. Rick Tyler, Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative Mr. Gary Voigt, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Mr. Rob Janssen, for Mr. Walt Yeager, Duke Energy Americas Mr. Eckelberger asked for introductions. There were 53 persons in attendance or via phone representing 20 members (Attendance List - Attachment 1). Mr. Brown reported proxies and a quorum was declared (Proxies - Attachment 2). Mr. Brown introduced Jamie Simler, Deputy Director of the FERC Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, and welcomed her to the meeting. Mr. Brown also expressed appreciation to Mr. Eckelberger and his wife for opening their home for a reception the previous evening. Agenda Item 2 EIS Market Implementation Mr. Carl Monroe provided an update on the EIS Market stability issues. There have been periodic lock-ups in the Market Operating System (MOS). Each vendor had people on site to check systems and offer recommendations. System upgrades were performed, data base changes made, and patches applied. The system has been running for 8 days with no problems. The Stability Task Force is winding down and it is felt has accomplished what is needed. Mr. Mark Rossi provided a review of the market readiness metrics (Market Metrics Presentation Attachment 3). Mr. Rossi presented a snapshot status of the 27 go-live metrics being tracked through December 10. He reported that the total number of open issues is showing a downward trend. 2

3 SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee Minutes December 12, 2006 Mr. Michael Desselle reviewed the SPP Market implementation go-live issues list (SPP Market Go-Live Issues List Attachment 4). Mr. Desselle pointed out that yellow certification items include: short-term load forecast, system stability, and revenue neutrality. He provided a report on the December 7 and 11 deployment tests and a list of additional deployment tests scheduled through January SPP has received has received participant concerns from ACES Power Marketing and AEP. Mr. Gary Roulet stated that many of ACES concerns had been taken care of. Ms. Phyllis Bernard felt that even though responses to the ACES letter were being taken care of through the organizational group process, a written letter would provide closure. Mr. Desselle informed the group that the Operations Reliability Working Group (ORWG) met today, December 12 and passed PRR 125 with one negative vote. The MOPC had approved PRR 125 modifications for filing pending ORWG review for any conflicts with NERC standards. The MOPC recommends the Board approve filing and seek a waiver of the 60 day requirement. John Olsen (Westar Energy), Vice Chair of MOPC, confirmed via phone and was available to answer questions. Mr. Brown moved to approve modifications of PRR 125 and to seek a waiver of the 60 day requirement. Mr. Skilton seconded the motion. The Members voted in favor with Mr. Tom Stuchlik in opposition. The motion passed. Mr. Perkins requested a depiction of the Violation Relaxation Limit (VRL) and wanted to know how it would impact system. Mr. Brown moved to file certification with FERC for a February 1 market go live date. Mr. Altenbaumer seconded the motion. The Members were in unanimous favor. The motion passed. Agenda Item 3 Human Resources Committee Report Mr. Quentin Jackson provided the Human Resources Committee Report (HRC Report and Recommendation Attachment 5). In October, the HRC became aware of an unintended consequence in the implementation of the performance compensation plan, which included performance compensation payments in the calculation of pension payments upon retirement. Guidance was requested from the Board at the October meeting. The Board/Members Committee suggested that the pension plan should be amended to clarify that pension payments will be based on base compensation only. The committee was asked to provide a recommendation. Mr. Jackson stated that Mr. Tom Dunn presented the staff s position at the November 29 HRC meeting, which was not in favor of the change as it would further erode the company s Benefit Program which had been recognized as the gold standard in the industry. Mr. Brown defended the staff position stating that the current plan was needed as a competitive hiring tool and offers morale in competing to fill 45 positions. Mr. Jackson moved to approve the recommendation, passed unanimously by the HRC committee: The Human Resources Committee recommends the SPP Board of Directors approve an amendment to the SPP defined benefit retirement plan that defines earnings as base compensation only, excluding performance compensation payments, bonuses, or other forms of compensation in the calculation of retirement benefits. Mr. Skilton seconded the motion. The Members voted in favor with two abstentions. The motion passed. Mr. Eckelberger stated that he hoped alternative health benefits would be explored due to revisions cutting back on retirement health benefits. Agenda Item 4 Organizational Effectiveness Review BOD Evaluation Mr. Nick Brown provided a review of the Board of Directors evaluation (BOD Evaluation Attachment 6). The Corporate Governance Committee is required to conduct Board of Directors evaluation annually. This is SPP s third survey. The survey was sent to Board Members, Members Committee representatives, and the Markets and 3

4 SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee Minutes December 12, 2006 Operations Policy Committee chair. Fifteen completed surveys were received. Mr. Brown encouraged everyone to participate in the future in order to be more effective. Mr. Eckelberger requested that directors be invited to member sites when meetings are in their locale so as to better understand member perspectives. Mr. Altenbaumer requested more input from members in the future. Mr. Brown was asked to provide the 2005 results in order to compare (BOD Evaluation 2005 Attachment 7). Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Results Mr. Michael Desselle reviewed the stakeholder satisfaction survey results (Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Attachment 8). This is the second Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey. The survey results are one metric in the employee performance compensation plan. Mr. Eckelberger suggested building action plans to respond to concerns that are repetitive. These results will go to the Human Resources Committee for their consideration for performance compensation. Organizational Group Rosters Ms. Stacy Duckett provided organizational group rosters for review (SPP Rosters Attachment 9). Every two years rosters are to be reviewed and approved by the Board to assess an equal representation of companies and sectors. Mr. Skilton moved to approve SPP rosters. Mr. Altenbaumer seconded the motion. The Members were in unanimous favor. The motion passed. SAS70 Controls Mr. Tom Dunn provided a report on the SAS70 Audit. SPP has received the results of the SAS70 Type ll Audit conducted in There were two qualifications which are not believed to be substantial, and 5 qualifications for computer control and IT functions that will take more effort. Staff assures that corrections will be made in the next couple of months. A copy of the audit will be distributed to active committee members. Non-active committee members will need to request a copy. Mr. Skilton stated that the Finance Committee will have a recommendation for the Board in January to perform the next SAS70 audit. Organizational Group Annual Assessment Mr. Richard Spring reviewed the Organizational Group Annual Assessment report (Organizational Group Assessment Attachment 10). Group surveys and self-assessments were performed for the period from August 2005 July On November 9 and 10 group chairs and secretaries met for a workshop to review the results both positive and negative, review meeting costs, and brainstormed developing suggestions for improvement and recommendations for the 2007 survey. Mr. Spring recommended the Board approve: Strategic Planning Committee will be given the responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the process for developing recommendations in response to priority issues and categories resulting from the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting. Mr. Brown moved to approve the SPC recommendation as presented. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. The Members were in unanimous favor. The motion passed. Mr. Spring stated that the SPC will develop a framework, assign items to groups, and develop a process for recommendations at its January meeting. A report will be presented to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) for comment on January and then presented to the Board on January 30. Metrics Development Mr. Michael Desselle reviewed the development of organizational metrics (Metrics Development Attachment 11). A Metrics Task Force has been created and a scope will be developed for approval. Mr. Larry Altenbaumer will chair this task force and Mr. Desselle will be the staff secretary. Members of the task force include: Mr. Harry Skilton, Director; Mr. Mel Perkins, OG&E; Ms. Robin Kittel, Xcel Energy; Mr. Gary Voigt, AECC; and Ms. Trudy Harper, Tenaska. The purpose of this task force is to develop organizational develop measurements to assure that SPP is operating effectively and efficiently and to the benefit of its stakeholders. The Metrics Task Force will 4

5 SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee Minutes December 12, 2006 report to the Board of Directors. Mr. Quentin Jackson stated that historically the chair and vice chair of the Board of Directors change every 2 years. With all that is happening in the company, this is not the time for a change of Board leadership. Mr. Jackson moved that Mr. Jim Eckelberger serve as Chair and Mr. Harry Skilton as Vice Chair for a two year term to be reviewed at the end of Mr. Brown seconded the motion. The Members were in unanimous favor. The motion passed. Mr. Eckelberger stated that a precedent had been set to reappoint the SPP officers annually and moved that the following officers be reappointed: Mr. Nick Brown President and CEO Mr. Carl Monroe Senior Vice President and COO Ms. Stacy Duckett Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Mr. Tom Dunn Vice President and CFO Mr. Les Dillahunty Vice President Regulatory Policy Mr. Michael Desselle Vice President Process Integrity and CAO Mr. Skilton seconded the motion. The Members were in unanimous favor. The motion passed. Agenda Item 5 ERO/RE Membership Sector Election Mr. Richard Spring provided information regarding the ERO/RE Membership Sector election (ERO/RE Membership Sector Recommendation Attachment 12). The North American Electric Reliability Council Board of Trustees has approved the transition of the Council to its successor, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). SPP is eligible to join the Membership in one of two sectors: 1) Sector 10, Independent system operator/regional transmission organization; or 2) Sector 11, Regional reliability organization/regional entity. The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) recommends the following elements for SPP to become a member of NERC: 1. That SPP should apply to become a member of NERC; 2. That SPP select Sector 11, Regional Reliability Organization/Regional Entity, as being consistent with its business interest; 3. That Staff complete the online application form consistent with this direction before the December 15th deadline; and, 4. That Staff submit a nomination to become a voting member of the MRC in the Regional reliability organization/regional entity sector. Mr. Brown moved for approval of the recommendation as presented. Mr. Skilton seconded the motion. The Members were in unanimous favor. The motion passed. Workshops are planned to discuss registration and cost recovery for the SPP region on February 28. Agenda Item 6 Situation Response Plan Mr. Michael Desselle provided a review of the SPP Emergency Response Plan (Emergency Response Plan Attachment 13). This plan was created by an inter-departmental team of employees. The SPP plan contains some original content and some gathered from other successful plans. Major areas of focus included: Internal Coordination Crisis Communication Information Systems Incident Response 5

6 SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee Minutes December 12, 2006 Emergency Situations Building Evacuation (all employees) Operations Evacuation to Backup Center Power System Restoration An implementation plan has been developed with plans for training and drills in Adjournment With no further business, Mr. Eckelberger thanked everyone for participating and adjourned at 11:59 p.m. Stacy Duckett, Corporate Secretary 6

7 Southwest Power Pool BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING December 12, 2006 DFW Airport Hyatt, Dallas, Texas AGENDA 8:00 a.m. 3:00 p.m. CST 1. Administrative Items... Mr. Jim Eckelberger 2. EIS Market Implementation... Mr. Carl Monroe/Mr. Michael Desselle 3. Human Resources Committee Report... Mr. Quentin Jackson 4. Organizational Effectiveness Review a. BOD Evaluation... Mr. Nick Brown b. Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Results... Mr. Michael Desselle c. Organizational Group Rosters... Ms. Stacy Duckett d. SAS70 Controls... Mr. Tom Dunn e. Organizational Group Annual Assessment... Mr. Richard Spring f. Metrics Development... Mr. Michael Desselle 5. ERO/RE Membership Sector Election... Mr. Richard Spring 6. Situation Response Plan... Mr. Nick Brown 7. Future 2007 Meetings... Mr. Jim Eckelberger RSC/BOD - January San Antonio RSC/BOD - April Oklahoma City BOD - June Little Rock RSC/BOD - July Kansas City RSC/BOD - October Tulsa BOD - December Dallas 1 of 67

8

9

10

11 From: Sent: Tuesday, December 05, :26 PM To: Stacy Duckett Cc: Stuart Solomon; Ross, Richard C. (AEP); Subject: Re: Proxy to Stuart Solomon for Dec 12 Board/Members Meeting Stacy, please accept this note as the assignment of my proxy to vote in the Board/Members Meeting on December 12, I assign such proxy to Stuart Solomon to vote in my absence.

12 From: Rick Tyler Sent: Monday, December 11, :23 PM To: Stacy Duckett Cc: Carl Monroe; Nick Brown; Brian, David Subject: Proxy Please allow David Brian to have my proxy for the December 12 SPP Members Committee Meeting. Thanks. Rick Tyler Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

13 From: Yeager, Walt Sent: Monday, December 11, :46 PM To: Stacy Duckett; Janssen, Rob Cc: Barrett, Lee E Subject: Duke Energy Americas Proxy for SPP Member's Committee Duke Energy Americas provides its proxy to Rob Janssen, Redbud, for the December 12, 2006 SPP Member's Committee meeting. Thanks, Walt Yeager Managing Director, Market and RTO Services Duke Energy (513)

14 Independent Assessment of SPP Market Readiness Metrics Board of Directors Meeting December 12, 2006 Gestalt, LLC

15 Current Status as of December 10, 2006 Reporting period shortened due to system stability upgrades Partial data available from 11/28-12/8 Full data available since 12/2/06 Deployment tests started on 12/7/06 Chart shows snapshot data for December 8 th and December 10 th There are 27 Go-Live Metrics being tracked Generally, fail status seems to be minor issues that are near misses and slow performances rather than complete failures of applications for extended periods Trend over last four to five days has been consistent and stable in all areas. Most pending metrics are in settlements area. Settlements process lags real time process so data for these metrics will be available beginning 12/10/06 Total number of open issues is trending downward #Metrics /8/ /10/2006 Pass Fail Update Pend

16 Comments on current status Metric # Readiness Metric Current Status 14 Day Trend 30-Day Trend Comments Tier 1 Metrics - Monitored Daily At least 90% of the online market footprint generation remains within 10% of deployment instructions (or 5 MW, whichever is greater) for at least 85% of the time Dispatch instructions that relieve a constraint have been sent out within 15 minutes of reporting the constraint (if applicable) Results from 12/11 deployment test Results from 12/11 deployment test 26.3 At least 97.5% of Hour Ahead Balancing Studies solve within 30 minutes 26.3a Day Ahead SFT process completed and results communicated to relevant participants 26.4 At least 99% of 5-minute Real-time Balancing studies solve in less than 5 five minutes 26.5 No more than 3 Real-time Balancing studies fail in a row or use stale data 26.5a Metrics 26.4 and 26.5 pass for at least 7 days consecutively. N/A Market Operations Portal functionality is available at least 99.5% of the time 26.7 State Estimator has ninety-seven percent (97%) availability of five (5) minute solutions State Estimator should not have more than 3 consecutive 5 minute periods of an Invalid 26.7a Solution State Estimator solves 90% of the time with Mismatch level lower than 50 MW and with high 26.8 accuracy State Estimator solves 90% of the time with Mismatch level lower than 25 MW for Market 26.8a footprint State Estimator solves 90% of the time with high accuracy (SE MW within 5% of the base 26.8b rating or < 50 MW (larger of 2 values is target)) for 90% of the selected substations State Estimator solves 90% of the time with high accuracy (SE MW within 5% of the base 26.8c rating or < 50 MW (larger of 2 values is target)) for 50 largest units 26.9 Short term load forecast solves 97% of time with high accuracy (+/- 1%) Performance consistently between 90%-95% 26.9a Short term load forecast solves 97% of time with high accuracy (+/- 2%) for BA regions 26.9b Short term load forecast solves 97% of time with high accuracy (+/- 2%) for the entire region ICCP availability of 99.5% Real-Time EIS Calculations successful ninety-nine percent (99%) of five (5) minute solutions Market Flow Calculations successful ninety-seven percent (97%) of fifteen (15) minute solutions NOTE: Trend data will be reported in next reported after additional data is available.

17 SPP Presentation SPP Market Implementation Go-Lives Issues List December 12, Go-Live Issues List First Column Issue and Certification Certify Concerns Not Ready Yellow Certification Items Short Term Load Forecast System Stability Status Column Closed nearly closed Open no significant issues Open needs work Revenue Neutrality 3 4 Status Yellow Open Items Manual Control Mode Definition (#2) Flowgate Constraint Relief Management (#3) System Stability (#13) Business Continuity& DR Plans (#20) Transition and Reversion Plans (#22) Status Yellow Open Items Readiness Certification Filing (#23) Other Necessary FERC Filings (#24) NERC & IDCWG Readiness Filing at FERC (#25) Go-No Go Criteria (#26) 5 6 1

18 Status Green Open Items Deployment Tests Short Term Load Forecast (#6) Violation Relaxation Limits (#8) Discrepancies between Effective Limit Calculator and Real-Time Flow (#9) System Outages for Implementing Patches (#12) Revenue Neutrality (#17) Situational Awareness (#19) December 7 11 Total CPS2 violations TLR simulations, and concurrent real events Min/Peak Load 20,572/22,354 MW Settlement LIPS $ $ Successful backup process for calculations of manual limits SPP had power outage during test- backup power kicked in no loss of functionality MPs pleased with test (Minor issues AEP, EPV, SPS, Westar) 7 8 Deployment Tests December Total CPS2 violations (2 BAs, KCPL 12, SPS 8, early AM) TLR simulations, and concurrent real events Min/Peak Load 15,960/19,983 MW Settlement LIPS $ $ Price separation MPs concerned with STLF (early AM) Additional Deployment Tests December 14, 19, 21 and 28* January 3, 6, 9, 11, Contact SPP Market Participant Concerns mdesselle@spp.org ACES Power Marketing AEP General Inquiries:

19 SPP Market Implementation Go Live Issues List 12/19/2006 Issue Number Issue Resolution Required Prior to Go-Live Date Type Source Status Assoc. Metric Response Notes 1 Constant Error Correction None. See notes. Process (i) SPP clarify procedure and/or approach for Market Operators to review with MP warning messages received by participants when units on Manual control mode are in MP A/S Plans and confirm plants are providing reserves per SPP Criteria #6. (ii)spp to clarify treatment of Manual Control Mode Definition. off system transactions in Ancillary Service plan 2 (Consolidated issue) as in (i). Process 3 Flowgate constraint relief management (Consolidated issue) -Effective Limit issue -Manual override of line limits -IDC request for MF Reduction and Subsequent Constraint Manager Calculation (i) SPP procedures for managing flowgate limits is reviewed and clarified with MWG and ORWG. (ii) Review and clarify procedures for logging operations decisions to vary relief requested from NERC IDC value; (iii) provide addt'l training to SPP operators on procedures and documentation req'ts. Process 4 Manual override of line limits Consolidated with item 3. Process 5 Follow-up on deliverability analysis None. See Notes. Process OPSTF Report Closed OPSTF Report Open 26.3 OPSTF Report Open 26.12, OPSTF Report Closed OPSTF Report Closed 26.3a Deliberate over-generation is an area that will be monitored as part of the existing market monitoring process and will be addressed per these procedures. The SPP Reliability Coordinators and Market Operators have the necessary data and visualization tools to monitor these situations as they develop. If a resource is observed to be ignoring dispatch instructions to the extent that its host BA cannot maintain ACE within reliable limits, the SPP RC has the ability and authority to take necessary corrective actions. Additionally, current protocols allow the Market Operator to lock out resources that significantly deviate from their dispatch instructions after 6 consecutive intervals. In the most recent deployment test, SPP did encounter the situation of a MP resource refusing to follow SPP's dispatch instructions. SPP successfully followed its process to resolve this issue. Consolidated issues related to AS plans and participation of Manual units or off system transactions. (ii) pending MP review of resolution to MP service request. (i) Pending review of CM procedures with ORWG. (ii) Code/Test software on DDN (iii) Develop training (Complete in next 2 weeks). Training complete by mid-january. Post Go-Live Issue. Existing process already approved by FERC and MOPC and will be used for Go Live. Reviewed tariff and protocols for consistency. Approved PRR128, Response to Notification of Market Infeasibility. Determined whether automated or manual Go-Live Procedure was required: developed manual Go-Live procedure. 6 Short Term Load Forecast (i) SPP to validate Reference Day selection process to ensure that problems experienced by ERCOT are avoided. (ii) Review and clarify procedures for short term load forecasting. System (possible) and Process OPSTF Report Open 26.9 Investigation into using weather information in STLF deferred to Post Go-Live date. (ii) Complete development of communication piece and then distribute communication (Complete in next 2 weeks). Gestalt, LLC 12/8/2006 version #4 Page 1

20 SPP Market Implementation Go Live Issues List 12/19/2006 Issue Number Issue Resolution Required Prior to Go-Live Date Type Source Status Assoc. Metric Response Notes 7 Uploading of Native Load Schedules 8 Appropriateness of Violation Relaxation Limits and their impact on LIPs Corrections have been implemented and tested internally. See notes. (i) Principles for setting violation relaxation variables are agreed with MWG and ORWG and implemented; (ii) SPP clarifies procedure for managing constraints where insufficient flexible generation is offered; (iii) respond to FERC October 31 Order. System Process OPSTF Report Closed 27.4 OPSTF Report Open All known issues regarding NLS uploading have been resolved. The following recent RTOSS releases have addressed the RTOSS to MOS Interface Issues and have been successfully implemented in the production environment: RTOSS Release RTOSS Release Pending review of PRR125 by ORWG (MOPC contingent approval) and subsequent Board adoption and filing. 9 Discrepancies between Effective Limit Calculator and Real-Time Flow (i) SPP implements modeling fixes found to solve problem on all flowgates; (ii) SPP monitors issue during final deployment tests. See Notes. Data/ Modeling OPSTF Report Open Root cause of this issue was found to be a modeling problem with certain load buses. Fix has been identified and implemented for the two flowgates that experienced problem during Deployment Test and analysis is being done to identify if same problem exists on any other flowgates. (ii) Monitoring, preparing reports and implementing modeling fixes after each deployment tests Issuance of TLR in opposite direction of Flowgate definition None. See notes. System Consolidated with item 9 - differences between projected flows and actual flows. Consolidated Data/Model with item 3 - operator review and approval of ing/ relief required. Process IDC request for MF Reduction and Subsequent Constraint Manager Calculation System Outages for Implementing Patches (Consolidated issue) - Communication of outages to Market Participants 13 System stability (Consolidated issue) (i) Meet specific metrics for availability; (ii) review failover and outage procedures with appropriate committees. Communic ations OPSTF Report Closed (i) Outage investigation; (ii) all critical and high issues linked to this issue are resolved; (iii) system meets the reliability and availability metrics; System Open Only a small number of known flowgates have this issue today. Manual work around process has already been developed. Automated process implemented if time available but is currently considered a Post Go-Live issue. OPSTF Report Closed Consolidated with prior items. OPSTF Report Service Requests Open A dedicated team has been assigned to address all issues related to system stability. Gestalt, LLC 12/8/2006 version #4 Page 2

21 SPP Market Implementation Go Live Issues List 12/19/2006 Issue Number Issue Resolution Required Prior to Go-Live Date Type Source Status Assoc. Metric Response Notes Required revisions to offer caps and related processes (Consolidated issue) Dispatch instructions appear to be outside limits defined in Resource Plan (Consolidated issue) See Notes. Settlement dispute processes and procedures 17 Revenue Neutrality concerns OPTF expressed concern over manual nature of SPP operations OPTF expressed concern over situational awareness of operators. Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery plans have not been formalized. Final Deployment Test Plans and Schedule need to be completed. (i) Changes to Offer Caps required per FERC Order are implemented; (ii) appropriate offer caps used in market systems per tariff requirements. Process System Deployment Test Closed 26.4 Service Request Closed 26.4 Implement known changes to address concerns identified in deployment tests. System System SPP Closed (possible) (i) Root cause identified; (ii) all critical and high and Settlements issues linked to this issue are resolved; Process TF Open See Notes. See Notes. System and Process OPSTF Report Closed System and Process OPSTF Report Open Modeling changes were the root issue causing manual intervention being required. Modeling process has been automated for all except one condition. Name changes for Resource or Pnode will still require manual intervention. SPP is reviewing process to see if this issue can be automated as well. Changes are underway to the Offer cap Application for the new FERC order. The remaining automation of modeling will be included in these changes. Proactive notifications have been created to alert if next day offer caps have not been generated or posted to MOS. (ii) Updating offer cap webpage (complete in next two weeks). Need to determine if these SRs have a common cause or if these should be handled through follow-up with individual MPs. MP Concerns Code/test system changes to defined process. Continued refinement of process, reports and systems as needed. This concern was raised in the Operations Task Force Report and is noted. SPP will continue to look for ways to improve the tools for the reliability coordinators and market operators and will continue to reinforce training on procedures. See response to item 18. SPP consulted with MISO and learned that many of the tools identified there have been implemented for SPP. In addition, it is noted that this issue was evaluated as part of NERC's certification process and SPP has been certified by NERC. SPP continuing to enhance redundancy and high availability, (Prod) and increase support contract with vendor. Finalizing vendor support and advanced developer training pending. Setup QA environment for edna post go-live. (i) identify requirements prior to availability of new facilities (ii) Publish and communicate plans to staff and stakeholders; Process SPP Open Drafted: Awaiting review. Complete in the next two weeks. Schedule published and distributed to stakeholders. Admin SPP Closed Gestalt, LLC 12/8/2006 version #4 Page 3

22 SPP Market Implementation Go Live Issues List 12/19/2006 Issue Number Issue Resolution Required Prior to Go-Live Date Type Source Status 22 Transition & Reversion Plan needs to be updated to reflect current schedule and filed at FERC. Update Transition & Reversion Plan Published & Included in 60 Days Post-Tariff Ruling Response Admin SPP Open Assoc. Metric Response Notes This document contains the complete list of final preparatory items (e.g. cutover steps, data base purges, etc.) that must be done as part of the transition to Go Live. Plan needs to updated with Go-Live date and ORWG changes 23 SPP readiness certification Filed with FERC SPP readiness certification Filed with FERC Regulatory SPP Open 24 All FERC filings necessary for Go-Live are made All FERC filings necessary for Go-Live are made Regulatory SPP Open PRR NERC and IDCWG Readiness Recommendation of SPP Market Filed with FERC NERC and IDCWG Readiness Recommendation of SPP Market Filed with FERC Regulatory SPP Open To be filed with certification filing. (i) Go/No Go Criteria reviewed by MOPC and 26 Go/ No Go Criteria List not completed. BOD. Admin SPP Open Gestalt, LLC 12/8/2006 version #4 Page 4

23 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE Recommendation to the Board of Directors December 12, 2006 Definition of Compensation for the SPP Pension Plan Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Human Resources Committee: Quentin Jackson, Chair Phyllis Bernard Trudy Harper Harry Dawson Mike Palmer Richard Spring Director Director Tenaska Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Empire District Electric Company Kansas City Power & Light The following employees of SPP participated in group discussions: Nick Brown, President Tom Dunn Malinda Stevens Southwest Power Pool Southwest Power Pool Southwest Power Pool Background Southwest Power Pool sponsors a defined benefit pension plan ( the Plan ) for all employees of SPP. The Plan utilizes an employee s earnings in determining benefit levels. The definition of earnings is: Earnings shall mean the amounts paid to an Employee by the Company with respect to services rendered as reported on the Employee s Federal Income Tax Withholding Statement (Form W-2 or its equivalent) as determined without regard to any rules that limit the remuneration included in wages based on the nature or location of the employment or the services performed, plus the amounts, if any, such Employee defers or excludes from wages under a cash or deferred arrangement qualified under Section 401(k) of the Code, under a tax sheltered annuity under Section 401(b) of the Code, or under Section 457 of the Code, Section 125 of the Code, or Section 132(f)(4) of the Code. In addition to the foregoing, solely with respect to Participants in the Initial Group, Earnings shall mean regular monthly earnings received from Entergy or its affiliates prior to the original Effective Date as determined in accordance with the terms of the Prior Plan. A Participant who becomes disabled and is entitled to receive benefits from the Company s long-term disability plan, shall be considered as remaining employed by the Company for the Period of Service provided in Section 3.1, at the rate of Earnings and for the regularly scheduled number of hours last in effect immediately prior to becoming so eligible. 2 of 67

24 For the Plan Years beginning before January 1, 2002, an employee s total Earnings taken into account under the Pan for any Plan Year shall not exceed $150,000 (as adjusted in accordance with Section 401(a)(17) of the Code). For Plan Years beginning after December 31, 2001, an Employee s total Earnings taken into account under the Plan for any Plan Year shall not exceed $200,000(as adjusted in accordance with Section 401(a)(17) of the Code). Earnings means compensation during the Plan Year or such other consecutive 12-month period over which Earnings are otherwise determined under the Plan (the determination period). In determining benefit accruals in plan years beginning after December 31,2001, the annual Earnings limit for determination periods beginning before January 1, 2002, shall be $150,000 for any determination period in 1996 or earlier; $160,000 for any determination period beginning in 1997, 1998, or 1999; and $170,000 for any determination period beginning in 2000 or Effective in fiscal year 2005, SPP instituted a Performance Compensation Plan available to all SPP employees. On average, the Performance Compensation Plan is expected to pay out approximately 15% of salaries when SPP meets the targets identified in the Performance Compensation Plan and funds are approved by the Human Resources Committee and SPP Board of Directors. Analysis SPP continues to offer its traditional pension plan benefit because it complements one of SPP s core values: relationship based. The relationship between SPP and its employees is integral to the success of SPP. The Plan provides an outstanding opportunity to reward this relationship and commitment via an employee s retirement. SPP has realized significant cost increases related to sponsorship of the pension plan. The primary drivers have been the growth in the number of participants in the plan and the corresponding earnings which would be replicated in some form during retirement. For comparison purposes, the table below details the growth of the Plan since 2000: Plan Year Participants Covered Salary ($ million) $5.3 $8.1 $8.3 $9.2 $10.7 $13.4 Pension Expense ($ million) $0.5 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $1.4 SPP has taken several steps in recent years to manage these increasing costs. While effectively reducing the benefits, these actions allow the Plan to remain an economically feasible benefit that SPP can continue to offer to its employees, thereby preserving the commitment SPP made to its employees at the time of hire. The most significant of the steps taken thus far include: November 1, 2005 January 1, 2007 eliminated years of service credit for employees hired from SPP members early retiree benefit reduced by 6% for each year retirement precedes normal retirement When approving the Performance Compensation Plan, the Human Resources Committee did not discuss the impacts the Performance Compensation Plan may have on SPP s retirement plans. SPP s actuary has estimated an average performance comp payout will result in approximately a 10% increase in 3 of 67

25 SPP s annual pension expense reported on its financial statements as well as SPP s required cash funding into the plan. Excluding Performance Compensation Plan payments from earnings will effectively reduce future Plan liabilities and reduce the near-term financial burden of SPP as the Plan sponsor. SPP engaged Towers Perrin to perform an analysis of its entire employee benefit program in The results of the engagement indicated SPP ranked 10 th out of a sample of 16 peers in the value of its benefit programs. The engagement also analyzed the value of SPP s defined benefit ( db ) pension, ranking it 7 th out of the sample of 14 peers who offered a db plan. The two most significant provisions affecting SPP s plan value were the benefit formula (SPP uses a final average pay formula) and early retirement benefits. Since the date of the engagement, SPP has reduced the value of the pension plan by reducing the level of early retirement benefits. SPP management conducted an informal survey of members and industry peers regarding their defined benefit pension plans and specifically, what is included in the definition of compensation. The survey indicates no clear consensus. Approximately half of the plans surveyed included short-term incentive program payments in the definition of earnings for benefit purposes and the other half did not. All of the plans tended to exclude long-term incentive payments from the earnings definition. Based on the analysis provided, the HR Committee seeks to exclude payments from the Performance Compensation Plan from the definition of compensation for purposes of calculating Plan benefits. Recommendation The Human Resources Committee recommends the SPP Board of Directors approve an amendment to the SPP defined benefit retirement plan that defines earnings as base compensation only, excluding performance compensation payments, bonuses, or other forms of compensation in the calculation of retirement benefits. Approved: Human Resources Committee [Date] Action Requested: Approve Recommendation 4 of 67

26 AMENDMENT TO SOUTHWEST POWER POOL, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN AND TRUST The Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Retirement Plan and Trust is hereby amended as follows: Section 2.11 is hereby amended to read as follows, effective for earnings amounts paid to Employees after January 31, 2007: 2.11 EARNINGS shall mean, (1) for amounts paid before February 1, 2007, the amounts paid to an Employee by the Company with respect to services rendered as reported on the Employee s Federal Income Tax Withholding Statement (Form W2 or its equivalent) as determined without regard to any rules that limit the remuneration included in wages based on the nature or location of the employment or the services performed; (2) for amounts paid after January 31, 2007, the amounts paid to an Employee by the Company as base salary, and excluding bonuses, overtime and other extraordinary compensation. In both cases Earnings shall also include elective contributions under a cash or deferred arrangement qualified under Section 401(k) of the Code, under a tax sheltered annuity under Section 403(b) of the Code, or under Section 457(b) of the Code, Section 125 of the Code or Section 132(f)(4) of the Code. Notwithstanding the above, Earnings shall not include any lump sum payment of accrued vacation to an Employee terminating employment from the Company. In addition to the foregoing, solely with respect to Participants in the Initial Group, Earnings shall mean regular monthly earnings received from Entergy or its affiliates prior to the original Effective Date as determined in accordance with the terms of the Prior Plan. A Participant who becomes disabled and is entitled to receive benefits from the Company s long term disability plan, shall be considered as remaining employed by the Company for the Period of Service provided in Section 3.1, at the rate of Earnings and for the regularly scheduled number of hours last in effect immediately prior to becoming so eligible. For Plan Years beginning before January 1, 2002, an employee s total Earnings taken into account under the Plan for any Plan Year shall not exceed the following: 1996 $150, $160, $160, $160, $170, $170,000 5 of 67

27 AMENDMENT TO SOUTHWEST POWER POOL RETIREMENT PLAN AND TRUST For Plan Years beginning after December 31, 2001, an Employee s total Earnings taken into account under the Plan for any Plan Year shall not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) (as adjusted in accordance with Section 401(a)(17) of the Code). Earnings means compensation during the Plan Year or such other consecutive twelve (12) month period over which Earnings are otherwise determined under the Plan (the determination period). Nothing in this amendment shall be considered as reducing the Accrued Benefit of a Participant as of January 31, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has signed this Amendment this day of, SOUTHWEST POWER POOL, INC. By Title Page 2 of 2 6 of 67

28 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE Report to the Board of Directors/Members Committee December 12, 2006 BOARD OF DIRECTORS EVALUATION Organizational Roster The following members represent the Corporate Governance Committee: Nick Brown, Chair Harry Dawson Jim Eckelberger Kevin Easley Robert Janssen Steve Parr Mel Perkins SPP Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Director Grand River Dam Authority Redbud KEPCo OG+E Background Section 6.6(f) of the Bylaws requires that the Corporate Governance Committee coordinate an annual review of the Board of Directors. A survey was provided to the members of the Board of Directors/Members Committee and the chairman of the MOPC on November 14, 2006 for completion by December 1, Analysis As of December 1; 15 surveys were returned. The results are attached. Action Requested Discussion of the results. 7 of 67

29 Overview Third year to conduct survey Sent to Board Members / Members Committee / MOPC Chair Board of Directors Evaluation Nick Brown President and CEO December 12, completed surveys Survey opened Nov. 14 and closed Dec Respondents: Member Board Member 60% 40% Please see materials for answers to questions 2-13 Please list 3-5 points on which the Board of Directors should focus attention in Market Implementation Transmission Planning and Expansion Organizational Effectiveness Focus on Reliability Corporate Metrics Staff Role Please see materials for complete answers Nick Brown President and CEO nbrown@spp.org 1

30 Zoomerang Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006: Results Overview Page 1 of 3 12/4/2006 Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006 Results Overview Date: 12/4/ :06 AM PST Responses: Completes Filter: No filter applied 1. I am a: Member 9 60% Board Member 6 40% Total % 2. Board has full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a board. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 1 7% 3 20% 7 47% Strongly Agree 4 27% Total % 3. Board members understand the organization's mission and its services. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 3 20% 5 33% 4 27% Strongly Agree 3 20% Total % 4. Organization structure is clear (board, officers, committees, executive and staff). Strongly Disagree 0 0% 2 13% 3 20% 8 53% Strongly Agree 2 13% Total % 5. Board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 2 13% 7 47% 5 33% Strongly Agree 1 7% Total % 8 of 67

31 Zoomerang Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006: Results Overview Page 2 of 3 12/4/ Board attends to policy-related decisions that effectively guide operational activities of staff. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 3 20% 5 33% 4 27% Strongly Agree 3 20% Total % 7. Board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance and other important matters. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 0 0% 1 7% 11 73% Strongly Agree 3 20% Total % 8. Board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community. Strongly Disagree 1 7% 2 13% 3 20% 7 47% Strongly Agree 2 13% Total % 9. Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 1 7% 5 33% 7 47% Strongly Agree 2 13% Total % 10. Board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives. Strongly Disagree 1 7% 1 7% 6 43% 5 36% Strongly Agree 1 7% Total % 11. Board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the chief executive officer. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 2 14% 9 of 67

32 Zoomerang Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006: Results Overview Page 3 of 3 12/4/ % 6 43% Strongly Agree 3 21% Total % 12. Each member of the board is involved and interested in the board's work. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 1 7% 1 7% 6 40% Strongly Agree 7 47% Total % 13. The board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner. Strongly Disagree 0 0% 3 20% 0 0% 5 33% Strongly Agree 7 47% Total % Thank you for your input! Copyright MarketTools, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of MarketTools, Inc. Trademark Notice 10 of 67

33 Zoomerang Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006: Open Ended Report: Questi... Page 1 of 2 12/4/2006 Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006 Results Overview Date: 12/4/ :07 AM PST Responses: Completes Filter: No filter applied 14. Please list three to five points on which the Board of Directors should focus attention in Please be as specific as possible in identifying these points. # Response 1 2 The market implementation is a disater. SPP (unclear if staff, or the committee structure is the issue) has not met budget, schedule, and there appears to be a lack of accountability at all levels, particularly the consultants. SPP BOD needs to focus on ensuring market systems are stable. SPP BOD must ensure SPP meets the reliability standards being mandated by FERC. 3 1.Keeping the lights on,i.e., don't lose focus on reliability while worrying about a new market. 2.More timely responses to member trannsmission issues, i.e., can we make progress on improving the current study process for evaluating new transmission? 4 Budget for our new goals and objectives. Development of imbalance market. Focusing on the development of needed transmission projects within the plan Implementation of the EIS Market. Development of appropriate Matrix to measure SPP Success. Continue to work with the Officer Team to ensure that the right skill sets are in place for SPP Success in the future. 1. Total organization effectiveness. 2. Relationship with members, need to gain trust. 3. Balanced process to consider all stakeholders concerns. 1.Market operations 2. System reliability - ensuring SPP and its members have the tools needed to comply with NERC standards 3. Cost allocation - base plan projects being worked with no effective plan to implement 4. Any future markets consideration must have a valid cost benefit analysis for the end use customer Each member of SPP has day to day business operation to perform in addition to SPP development, not just SPP development. Customers ultimately win or lose based on market success. Patience is a virtue, speed kills further refinement and improvement of staff generated performance reporting. Relevant metrics to monitor and measure SPP operations and market evolution...single most pressing need 1. Implementation of control procedures and non-qualified audit of these procedures. 2. Process integrity 3. Customer relations 1. The board should focus more attention on operational results of the existing market structure (in addition to the development of the new market). This will help to heighten the board's awareness of existing operational issues (TLR's, lack of ATC, etc.) and it will help the board to understand the role of SPP in general. 2. The board needs to encourage the staff to take a more aggressive role in coordinating and managing the business of SPP. The board should encourage the staff not just to be "facilitators" but to be business leaders. 1. Strategic direction of SPP -- how does SPP do a better job on its fundamental transmission operations/planning and tariff administration responsibilities, given market launch that has diverted attention and resources from these responsibilities. 2. Understanding fundamental issues/problems as identified by market participants, and requiring solutions from Staff. 3. Keeping control of ever-increasing budgets/headcount. History of other RTOs is constantly increasing costs from market operations with little accountability; Board needs to ensure SPP doesn't go down this same path. 11 of 67

34 Zoomerang Board of Directors Evaluation November 2006: Open Ended Report: Questi... Page 2 of 2 12/4/ Building transmission. 2. Making RE work. 3. Implementing EIS market. 4. Starting focus on demand management. 5. Developing metrics for management. Separating our board policy function from actual operations. Empowering CEO with goals and objectives such that he can implement policy and handle all operations. Regularly revisiting our annual goals and objectives for SPP. Focusing board attention on trends, forecasts, externalities and other policy considerations. 1. Organizational capabilities and development needs associated with a rapidly growing organization 2. Establishment of a CIO position 3. Advancement of a more proactive strategy regarding transmission expansion opportunities. 4. Better detailed strategic planning process with defined objectives, associated timelines, milestones and defined accountabilities 5. Revamping of committee structure to achieve a higher measure of effectiveness given the new requirements associated with market implementation Copyright MarketTools, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of MarketTools, Inc. Trademark Notice 12 of 67

35 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BOARD OF DIRECTORS EVALUATION RESULTS 2006 Considerations 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 2006 Results 2006 Avg 2005 Avg 2004 Avg 1 Board has full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a Board 2 D 2 - M 4 D 3 M 3 M 1 M 4.33 D 3.67 M 3.93 N/A Board members understand the organization's mission and its services 2 D 1 - M 4 D 5 - M 3 - M 4.33 D 2.89 M Organization structure is clear (Board, officers, committees, executive and staff) 2 - M 4 - D 4 - M 2 - D 1 - M 2 - M 3.67 D 3.67 M Board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning 1 - D 2 - D 3 - M 3 - D 4 - M 2 - M 3.67 D 3.11 M Board attends to policy-related decisions which effectively guide operational activities of staff 2 D 1 - M 3 - D 1 - M 1 - D 4 - M 3 - M 4.17 D 3.00 M Board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance and other important matters 3 - D 3 - D 8 - M 1 - M 4.50 D 3.89 M Board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community 1 D 1 - M 4 - D 3 - M 1 - D 2 - M 2 - M 1 - M 4.00 D 3.11 M Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters 1 D 1 - M 4 - D 3- M 1 - D 4 - M 1 - M 4.00 D 3.44 M Board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives 1 - M 3 - D 2 - M 2 - D 4- M 1 - M 1 - M 3.60 D 3.11 M Board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the Chief Executive Each member of the Board is involved and interested in the Board's work All necessary skills, stakeholders and diversity are represented on the Board Board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner 3 D 3 - D 3 - M 3 - M 2 - M 5 - D 2 - M 1 - D 5 - M 1 - M 1 - M 6 D 1 - M 5 - M 3 - M 4.50 D 3.13 M 4.83 D 3.89 M N/A N/A N/A D 3.44 M N/A Notes: 1) Question 1 was mistakenly omitted from the 2005 evaluation. 2) Questions 9 and 10 each had one less response than the other questions. 3) Question 12 was replaced with Question 13 in 2005.

36 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BOARD OF DIRECTORS EVALUATION FORM November 2005 Considerations 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 2005 Results 2005 Average 2004 Average 1 Board has full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a Board N/A N/A Board members understand the organization's mission and its services 3 - D 2 - D 3 M 4 - M 2 - M 4.60 D 3.10 M Organization structure is clear (Board, officers, committees, executive and staff) 3 - D 2 - D 7 - M 1 - M 1 - M 4.60 D 3.67 M Board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning 2 - D 1 - M 3 - D 7 - M 1 - M 3.80 D 3.00 M Board attends to policy-related decisions which effectively guide operational activities of staff 2 - D 2 - D 5 - M 1 - D 2 - M 2 - M 4.20 D 3.33 M Board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance and other important matters 1 - D 3 - D 7 - M 1 D 2 - M 4.00 D 3.78 M Board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community 3 - D 1 - D 4 - M 1 - D 2 - M 3 - M 4.40 D 3.11 M Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters 2 D 1 - D 4- M 2 - D 4 - M 1 - M 4.00 D 3.33 M Board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives 1 - D 3 - D 2 - M 1 - D 6 - M 1 - M 4.00 D 3.11 M Board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the Chief Executive 3 D 1 - M 1 - D 5 - M 1 - D 3 - M 4.40 D 3.78 M Each member of the Board is involved and interested in the Board's work 4 - D 3 - M 1 - D 3 - M 3 - M 4.80 D 4.00 M All necessary skills, stakeholders and diversity are represented on the Board N/A N/A Board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner 5 - D 3 - M 2 - M 4 - M 5.00 D 2.89 M 3.64 N/A

37 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Report to the Board of Directors/Members Committee December 12, 2006 STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION SURVEY Background As part of the Performance Compensation Plan, a Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey is to be conducted on an annual basis. An online survey was ed to 484 members, customers, regulators and vendors on October 31, 2006; reminders were sent on November 13, and 27. Analysis As of November 30, 164 surveys were completed. The results are attached. The results will be considered by the Human Resources Committee, along with the other measurements that comprise the plan, in determining whether to recommend funding and payment of the plan. These results are provided at this time to facilitate discussion relevant to the review of organizational effectiveness. Action Requested Discussion of the results. 13 of 67

38 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Second year to conduct survey Survey results are one metric in employee performance compensation plan (with Reliability and Cost Control) 2006 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Michael Desselle VP Process Integrity December 12, 2006 Sent to 484 stakeholders (members, customers, regulators, vendors, organizational group members, contract services customers) 164 completed surveys 34% return rate 2 Relationship with SPP How Often do you Interact with SPP? Member 62% Daily 27% Customer 20% Weekly 43% Regulatory 3% Monthly 22% Vendor 7% A few times a year 10% Other 8% Rarely 2% How Satisfied are you with Reliability Coordination? How Satisfied are you with Scheduling? Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 2% 11% 15% 24% 4% 44% 3% 7% 12% 29% 6% 43%

39 How Satisfied are you with Tariff Administration? How Satisfied are you with Interconnection Service? Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 3% 13% 24% 21% 6% 34% 1% 8% 24% 13% 3% 51% How Satisfied are you with Transmission Planning and Studies? How Satisfied are you with Settlements? Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 10% 15% 19% 20% 3% 34% 7% 8% 21% 14% 4% 46% How Satisfied are you with Meeting Facilitation/Organization? How Satisfied are you with Market Implementation? Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 3% 9% 17% 33% 13% 25% 20% 18% 17% 9% 1% 35%

40 Do you interact with other regional organizations and/or transmission providers? Yes - 57% Overall, how does SPP compare? Much worse Somewhat worse About the same Somewhat better Much better No - 43% 3% 16% 43% 25% 12% Staff members are responsive to my needs Needs Improvement 1 1% 2 12% 3 22% 4 42% Needs No Improvement 5 18% N/A 5% Staff members provide accurate information upon request Staff members resolve problems to my satisfaction Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 4% 10% 22% 42% 17% 4% 4% 12% 29% 40% 11% 5% Overall, I am satisfied with SPP s service Needs Improvement 1 4% 2 10% 3 31% 4 38% Needs No Improvement 5 12% N/A 6% SPP s services are competitively priced Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 2005 Results 3% 5% 23% 17% 5% 47% Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement 5 N/A 0% 12% 20% 36% 14% 19%

41 Do you participate in SPP committee, working group, or task force meetings? Yes - 65% No - 35% Schedules/ logistics communicated in timely and clear manner Facilities planned appropriately and meet group needs Materials well-prepared and distributed in timely manner Needs Improvement 1 4% 1% 7% 2 9% 6% 17% Needs No Improvement % 19% 27% 4 49% 50% 35% 24% 25% 14% Please list 1-2 characteristics of SPP with which you are satisfied (102 responses) Willingness to Help Timely response Staff members: friendly, polite, courteous, patient Staff are knowledgeable and skilled Regulatory and compliance support Facilitation skills Website / Webcasts Reliability / Operations 20 Please list 1-2 characteristics of SPP with which you are dissatisfied (101 responses) Transmission studies and process Settlements processes and Billing (outdated, lack of detail) Focused on Market at expense of other services Meeting materials not timely Regional operations training Perception that SPP lacks internal communication Should be more active on new transmission construction and reconfiguration Market Implementation Responses not timely 21 Please share any remaining thoughts about your satisfaction with SPP (56 responses) Board of Directors needs to be more knowledgeable and responsive Very impressed with SPP staff Need to increase external communication Aggregate study process needs improvement SPP staff seems stressed and overworked 22 Michael Desselle VP-Process Integrity mdesselle@spp.org 4

42 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Results Overview Page 1 of 3 12/4/ Customer Satisfaction FINAL Results Overview Date: 12/4/ :52 PM PST Responses: Completes Filter: No filter applied 1. Type of relationship your organization has with SPP: Member % Customer 33 20% Regulatory 5 3% Vendor 12 7% Other, Please Specify 13 8% Total % 2. Your role within your organization: Operations 41 25% Engineering 28 17% Technical / IT 11 7% Policy / Regulatory / Legal Accounting / Finance / Settlements Executive (Director or Officer) 28 17% 23 14% 21 13% Other, Please Specify 12 7% Total % 3. How often do you interact with SPP? Daily 43 27% Weekly 70 43% Monthly 35 22% A few times per year 16 10% Rarely 4 2% 4. Overall, how satisfied are you with SPP's provision of the following services? Please use a rating scale where 1 means needs improvement and 5 means needs no improvement. Please choose N/A if your organization does not use the particular service listed. Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of total respondents selecting the option. Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement N/A Reliability Coordination 3 2% 17 11% 24 15% 37 24% 6 4% 68 44% Scheduling 4 3% 11 7% 19 12% 44 29% 9 6% 66 43% 14 of 67

43 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Results Overview Page 2 of 3 12/4/2006 Tariff Administration 4 3% 19 13% 36 24% 32 21% 9 6% 51 34% Interconnection Service 2 1% 12 8% 36 24% 20 13% 5 3% 77 51% Transmission Planning / Studies 15 10% 24 15% 30 19% 31 20% 4 3% 53 34% Settlements 10 7% 12 8% 32 21% 21 14% 6 4% 70 46% Meeting Facilitation/Organization 4 3% 14 9% 27 17% 52 33% 20 13% 39 25% Market Implementation 30 20% 27 18% 26 17% 14 9% 2 1% 53 35% 5. Please mark the SPP staff and/or services with which you have the most interaction: Reliability Coordination 33 22% Scheduling 35 23% Tariff Administration 51 34% Interconnection Service 12 8% Transmission Planning / Studies 56 37% Settlements 34 23% Meeting Facilitation / Organization 40 26% Market Implementation 57 38% 6. Do you interact with other regional organizations and/or transmission providers? Yes 94 57% No 70 43% Total % 7. Overall, how does SPP compare with the regional organization / transmission provider with which you interact most often? Much worse 3 3% Somewhat worse 15 16% About the same 39 43% Somewhat better 23 25% Much better 11 12% 8. Based upon your experience, please rate SPP staff s customer service performance in the following areas: Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of total respondents selecting the option. Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement N/A SPP staff members are responsive to my needs. 2 1% 20 12% 35 22% 67 42% 29 18% 8 5% SPP staff members of 67

44 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Results Overview Page 3 of 3 12/4/2006 provide accurate information upon request. 4% 10% 22% 42% 17% 4% SPP staff members resolve problems to my satisfaction. 6 4% 20 12% 46 29% 64 40% 17 11% 8 5% Overall, I am satisfied with SPP s service. 6 4% 16 10% 50 31% 61 38% 19 12% 9 6% SPP s services are competitively priced. 4 3% 8 5% 36 23% 27 17% 8 5% 73 47% 9. Do you participate in SPP committee, working group, or task force meetings? Yes % No 58 35% Total % 10. Please rate SPP s service and support of committee, working group, and task force meetings: Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of total respondents selecting the option. Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement Meeting schedules and logistics are communicated in a timely and clear manner. 4 4% 9 9% 16 15% 51 49% 25 24% Meeting facilities are planned appropriately and meet the needs of the group. 1 1% 6 6% 20 19% 52 50% 26 25% Meeting materials are well-prepared and distributed in a timely manner. 7 7% 18 17% 28 27% 37 35% 15 14% At Southwest Power Pool, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you and thank you for your feedback. Copyright MarketTools, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of MarketTools, Inc. Trademark Notice 16 of 67

45 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 11 Page 1 of 4 12/4/ Customer Satisfaction FINAL Results Overview Date: 12/4/ :54 PM PST Responses: Completes Filter: No filter applied 11. Please list 1-2 characteristics of SPP with which you are <b>satisfied</b> (willingness to help customers, staffing levels, facilitation skills, planning and transmission studies, etc.) # Response 1 A strong desire to do the right things for the right reasons, and a dedicated staff. Active engagement of members when their engagement is needed. 2 Regulatory support. 3 Professional Expertise of employees. 4 Relationship based Planning 5 - well designed helpful website 6 willingness to help and usually timeliness of response 7 Staff is friendly and helpful. 8 Meeting timelines 9 willingness to help customers/personal interaction 10 Willingness to help customers; friendliness of contacts 11 website, overall communications 12 planning staff are very helpfull Willingness to listen 2-Provide system information in a timely fashion Generally, the past performance of SPP has been positive. The reputation of the RTO to operate efficiently and with stakeholder input created loyalty to the organization that was of significant value to its success. The support of regulators was built upon this foundation. The involvment of State Commission staff in workgroups helps to perpetuate "buy in" to the process and helps build support for the organization itself. 15 Quality of staff and personnel 16 I find that the people I interact with are very friendly, understanding, and all around good people. 17 knowledge of company rep 18 All staff members are great to work with. 19 Staff works well with vendors and partners 20 - Relationship based approach - Honesty / Integrity in Interactions - Personal commitment of people in the organization to their work 21 facilitation skills, staffing levels and willingness to help customers 22 Great staff 23 willingness to help customers, staffing levels, facilitation skills, planning and transmission studies N/A Wiiling to work with members on problems and solutions. Good people. 26 Reliability coordination 27 Patient with questions 17 of 67

46 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 11 Page 2 of 4 12/4/ Staff always seems willing to answer questions no matter how stupid sounding. My customer service rep always finds someone who can help me. 29 work thru issues, hold to deadlines well 30 communicate back in a timely manner, willing to have "ono-on-one" conference calls 31 staff is friendly 32 My customer rep is responsive to any and all questions. Very willing to work with me on any issues I may have 33 willingness to help 34 There seems to be a general willingness to help individuals. 35 Open culture, responsiveness Good responsiveness on interconnection side of house and willing to accept inputs from wind industry on long range planning exercises. (1)SPP lets the stakeholders drive the processes (2) Staff availability to discuss problems, issues, and/or informational needs 38 facilitation skills, new web site 39 Staff's willingness to listen and react staffing levels of IT have surprised me. i recently visited with kevin perry and was shocked at the level of IT SPP has acquired within the last year. Over 60 people? SPP is customer driven, and the culture is good. However, work loads are such that the staff can not always respond timely. 1 - I believe SPP is headed in the right direction. 2 - I believe SPP's interest is the same as that of the company I work for. 43 Willingness to help customers is fantastic among all groups I've encountered Willingness to help customers Polite and courteous Coordination on state RTO approvals very good 1) Willingness to help 2) Coordination of meetings 46 facilitation skills and willingness to work with us. 47 Knowledge of staff, willingness to help 48 quality of staff personnel, member orientation and reliance 49 SPP staff seems to care and willing to try and find a solution to customer issues. Provides forums to suggest changes. 50 Webcasts are great in lieu of face-to-face meetings. SPP is also supportive in transmission siting cases. SPP Regulatory coordinates FERC and state filngs very well. 51 Staff response to questions. 52 The NERC Compliance department has been outstanding in answering my questions in a timely manner. I enjoy working with Ron and Kevin. I also enjoyed working with Robert Rhodes in the reliability coordination area. 53 courteous and helpful 54 I am satisfied with SPP's staff willingness to have an open door when MP's want to visit. 55 willingness to help customers 56 Reliability. 57 Staff knowledge, ability to resolve questions. 58 FACILITATION, HELPFULNESS Willingness to help. (attempts are made) Facilitation skills good. Willingness to answer questions Depth of SPP Staff tariff knowledge 61 Facilitation 18 of 67

47 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 11 Page 3 of 4 12/4/ Open dialogue, Willingness to work with customers. Employees provide consistent service and response. cooperative and competant staff expert facilitators..sensitive to stakeholder varied perspectives 65 Meals and hotels where SPP meetings are held are ususally of good quality. 66 poor service, attitudes 67 Responsive to questions, post pertinent information on OASIS site 68 Staff has been very good to work with. Although everyone is very busy, they typically respond in a timely manner. 69 Willingness to help customers is positive. 70 SPP is very knowledgable and is diligent to try to meet member operational needs in an equitable and fair manner. 71 SPP staff is generally responsive and helpful. 72 The OASIS folks at SPP are very responsive to customer needs and follow ups. 73 SPP staff is responsive to requests and questions. 74 Willingness to help customers, 75 Willingness to help, Quality of staff associated with doing the work. 76 Willingness to help customers 77 Quality People 78 Generally, SPP staff in RC, Scheduling, and Tariff Administration have been very helpful. There have been some challenges in billing for services per our agreement, but I believe the two organizations have resolved how best to proceed Meeting planning and execusion. Knowledgable staff. I think that the SPP staff and its board is incredibly open and balanced. The operations staff, in particular, has always been extremely open to constructive feedback, and they do a great job at communicating the rationale for decisions that they make. For the most part SPP is a solid organization. the people I have had contact with are professionals through and through. Good people. Reasons for tag denial should be commuicated more clearly and that would clear up some confusion when working with some folks. But all in all, its a pretty good relationship. 82 Willingness of staff to help 83 Providing non-discriminatory services to all stakeholders SPP IT resources are dedicated to resolving the market implementation issues and seeing the market implementation become a reality. Willingness to help customers. Pleasant to interract with. 1. Professionalization of the staff 2. Achieving excellence once assignment is firm. 87 Staff always will to help. 88 Staff support and willingness to work with us. 89 The real time security cordinators and operating personnel do a good job. These people continue to be the front line that will determine the successfulness of the SPP when the market launches. The SPP staff continues to be willing tohelp member customers. 90 I appreciate the responsiveness of SPP staff, the planning, and the openess of meetings 91 individual staff displays good expertise and professionalism meetings are well organized and executed effectively 92 website is helpful usually providing the needed documentation 19 of 67

48 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 11 Page 4 of 4 12/4/ willingness to help customers is greatly appreciated 94 SPP market implementation seems to be progressing well. 95 I believe SPP is honestly interested in our needs, but is not always successful in meeting those needs. 96 Staff are always willing to help when I call in, if they don't have the answer they will call back. 97 Good qualified people in the technical areas. 98 Sam Ellis is doing a great job. The market Implementation is very difficult. I see him as both reasonable and very hard working. 99 stamina to hold up under immense pressures; the ability to pursue difficult tasks and remain courteous with others 100 responsive to calls and questions willingness to help customers dedication good technical skillset good organizational depth Copyright MarketTools, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of MarketTools, Inc. Trademark Notice 20 of 67

49 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 12 Page 1 of 5 12/4/ Customer Satisfaction FINAL Results Overview Date: 12/4/ :54 PM PST Responses: Completes Filter: No filter applied 12. Please list 1-2 characteristics of SPP with which you are <b>dissatisfied</b> (willingness to help customers, staffing levels, facilitation skills, planning and transmission studies, etc.) # Response 1 Governance structure - should be a stakeholder Board to have credibility. Transmission study process needs improvement. 2 Transmission presentations at other RTOs. 3 Electronic Accessibility of supporting documents such as notes to Working Group meetings and rosters Meeting coordination leaves a lot to be desired; agendas and expectations need to be set in advance - The effectiveness of training programs needs improvement; goal should be get new hires up to speed in a timely manner knowledge level of those not directly involved. For example Market Operators should understand the rules at least as good as the MPs. The surprises and short notification of changes. Surprises such as not having redunt application servers and short notices on changes that affect MPs Market Systems. 6 IT staff is helpful, but doesn't seem to have the time to do relatively simple things to help our operation. 7 Unknowledgable staff 8 inconsistencies when dealing with short and long term DC Tie requests 9 Incorrect data requests; not keeping members continually informed of status changes and future changes 10 transmission studies aggregate study process is seriously flawed there needs to be some type of widely available screening tool so that aggregate studies are not utilized as a screening tool 1-Correcting issues when they arise 2-Communication internal to the SPP staff - it seems that everyone is not on the same page Recently, the problems associated with market startup have raised concern about the job SPP has done in preparing for the market. Further questions have arisen about the work done by the RTO in building the confidence of stakeholders in the market startup. While I am satisfied with the responses given to Regulators when requests are made of them, I believe the SPP management would benefit from more outreach in communication. 14 None As a contractor, I find it extremely difficult to get a rapid response from IT for requests that are critical for me to do my job. Some of the requests I have made are over 6 weeks old and would take less than 5 minutes to complete. Because of this, my effectiveness is significantly hampered. I would like to see better response time and tracking for help desk requests. Actually, I'd like to see a help desk. The RSS system is troublesome and although many recommendations have been made to fix it, SPP never seems to get around to fixing it. 17 unable to get some long term trans 18 Sometimes it takes a long time to get a question answered, but it could be because all the staff members are so busy One of the most valuable points about small organizations is the ability to be flexible. I would like to see this characteristic in tact, but do believe there needs to be a little more definition around organizational roles / responsibilities. - It would be nice to have some of the administration aspects simplified. - I believe vendor relationships and processes are critical for SPP, and would like to see mechanisms in place to facilitate these interactions (document management, etc...). 20 reliability coordination, planning and transmission studies 21 Lack of Regional provided training 21 of 67

50 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 12 Page 2 of 5 12/4/ Billing procedures for new counterparties. 23 understaffed. Solutions (IT) take to long to implement. Making changes that affect memebrs without notification. 24 N/A 25 Willingness to help customers Market implementation Technical understanding of market issues 26 No dissatisifaction 27 Occasionally some of the newer staff forgets who is the member and who is the staff and can get quite arrogant. 28 Aggregate studies Market Implementation 29 tariff-related topics stealing most of SPP staff man-hours, reliability is back seat 30 sometimes receive conflicting information from multiple sources, meetings always start late 31 getting answers about mechanics of market data submissions that we can use is difficult. 32 SPP invoice / supporting documentation is difficult to discpher and not presented in a useful way as to aid in day to day settlement operations in our company. It is difficult to design processes and controls around SPP settlements, as they seem to have no processes in place. 33 planning and transmission studies n/a Sometimes SPP seems to be overworked and underprepared. The result of this is often chaotic schedules that are inconsistent or not adheared to. Unable to provide concrete rapid answers during early stages of aggregate transmission study process. Cost allocation working group is a failure. SPP will not be competitive with other RTO's if the distinction between reliability (base funded) and economic upgrades perpetuates. (1) At times, some Staff members are tough to catch and it may take a couple days to hear from them. (2) Might investigate a next generation of a multiple speaker system to use at meetings. Phone access to large meetings is difficult, at best. 38 willingness to answercustomers' questions, timely communications from staff 39 The ability to bring critical issues to closure ie cost allocation, formula rates getting some feedback from SPP operators that market implementation is the entire focus of management. this is a concern. other issues such as reliability are vastly more important. In the service agreements NOA/NITS area, we do not get timely turnaround, or good answers to questions. Pat Bourne usually has to get involved before we can get a workable solution. 1 - continue to be appalled at its billing processes. 2 - do not get consistent answerers from different staff personnel on same question. The transmission evaluation does not always reflect what the AFC analyzer reports. When submitting day ahead transmission the partial acceptance doesn't seem to be working. I'm not sure this was communicated to the market and whether or not it's been fixed. 1) Background information distribution to most working groups is on short notice. 2) Transmission Cost Allocation Implementation still pending. 3) Concerned about the type of financial incentives given to the SPP staff - majority, if not all, financial incentives should be based on 1) customer service/satisfaction 2)cost containment/control and 3)regulatory efficiency 4) The BOD should be held to the same standards as above. Annual meeting budgets for the BOD should be transparent and goals established to save dollars. 5) BOD should be compensated for "participation" in stakeholder meetings - not educational/listening. Entry level Board members are the exception,however after a period of time, the understanding of the SPP and how it works should be the responsibility of the BOD memeber. 5) Implementation/action plans need to be developed "prior" to a major initative startup. A focus on implementation is critical for coninued success and expanson of services - as a stakeholder involved organization. 1) Timelyness of transmission study results 2) Explanation of the same outcomes 46 Training for Reliability appears to be underfunded and understaffed 22 of 67

51 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 12 Page 3 of 5 12/4/ seem to be understaffed, existing personnel overworked. 48 understaffing of tariff administration area, FERC counsel representation Sometimes there appears to be a lack of empowerment to front line employess to make a call on issues. Staff gets stretch too thin at times to address issues quickly. Some of the working groups have very late distribution of the papers prior to meetings. Webcasts should be considered for more meetings in lieu of face-to-face meetings. When ask different RC's the same question or questions, you get different answers. If an RC makes a mistake, it is made right. If a customer makes a mistake the answer that you get is tough luck. A few years ago when our company was not a full memember, an issue came up concerning adding a router which I questioned. My reasoning was that we might be switching soon and did it make sense to make this investment. This question ensued with a series of dictatorial s made in a very condescending manner. Shortly thereafter, one of our vice-presidents at the time told us how he was sitting next to a group of SPP personnel who were complaining about how our company was questioning the upgrade. 53 Customer Service- Transmission Planning 54 I am dissatisfied with the amount of patches being applied and to the level at which they are documented 55 I have no issues that I'm dissatisfied with. 56 Billing and settlement statements is antiquated, still using notepad in this day and age. OASIS is also antiquated and needs to be improved. 57 None Staffing levels sad, Operations and reliability taking a back seat to market implementation, lack of experienced personnel in reliability coordination. Lack of resolution on cost allocation Postponing EIS market start-up dates 60 transmission studies/knowledge Timliness of studies, depth and bredth of studies, concentration on short term bandaid fixes at the expense of long term regional transmission expansion. Planning activities take too long and process is review/approved by too many groups to effectively get anything done. Perpetual paralysis by analysis. Let's agrue for another two years about rate treatment, cost recovery, whether a plan is "economic" or "reliability" while the transmission system capacity continues to decrease. Meeting locations for some committees are not moved often enough. No matter where a meeting is held, travel arrangements will be expensive or difficult for some member(s). If meetings are always held in the same location, then a member may seldom participate because of this expense. Dallas is not convenient for everyone all the time! Very slow in the developement and effective articulation of regional transmission planning 63 slow in taking more proactive approach to issue discussions so as to better facilitate and speed up issue resolutions 64 unwilling to help always must be right nonresponsive to our problems 65 Market deployment tests 66 DC Tie coordination with ERCOT, confusing requirements on NERC tags 67 Committee meeting information (agenda/background material) is usually very lengthy. Often there is not enough time to adequately review the data with other company staff prior to the meetings. If the info. could be sent sooner, it woould be helpful. 68 Resolution of issues with OATI. Resolution of issues with RTOSS (SPP). 69 No comments. 70 Member review time for feedback to studies (too short). Also, meeting materials often are not posted with enough review time. 71 SPP could provide more direction/leadership on certain RTO issues. 72 Meeting materials distributions and coordination between departments at SPP is lacking. I have to supply the same data to different departments. 73 Lack of details on bills - at a minimum each item on a bill should show units and rate 23 of 67

52 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 12 Page 4 of 5 12/4/ How complex the models have become with groups and scenarios. This could be construed as being obstructionist in nature. 75 Timelyness in correction of billing errors Planning Studies Reliability Studies / Analysis We are concerned about the willingness to reconfigure the transmission system (i.e., open lines) to address other overloading issues. We feel that this general practice causes more vulnerability. We have experienced other nearby RC's taken action based on their "study results" showing no problem when the action actually caused us significant problems. Therefore, we are quite cautious to accept the reasoning that "our studies don't show any negative impacts for opening a line". We are also concerned that in the training area, SPP needs to provide a schedule or plan for the next year's training schedule by around October 1 of each year. Since all System Operators in the region work rotating shift, the supervisors are trying to plan for how they will meet the new requirements for NERC CEH. 78 Access to staff. Response to questions are slow. I feel that the focus on the market open has overwhelmed the staff, and that there has not been adequate focus on the existing business processes as a result. 79 I am disappointed that the staff doesn't take a more aggressive role in encouraging and facilitating the construction of significant new transmission facilities in the region. I am disappointed that the staff doesn't seem to have been communicating with each other about issues that are going on within committees that they "manage". I indicated above that I appreciate the deference that the staff shows to the membership, but I feel that the staff must begin to assert its authority if it is truly to be an "independent" operator. 80 The whole market implementation...it is not necessarity the fault of those creating the software, but it isn't very user friendly or intuitive. There shouldn't have to be several different screens to input information when it could be consolidated more efficiently. 81 Sometimes very reluctant to "push" a member to do what they should be doing concerning reliability 82 Don't seem to be as interested in understanding the customer's needs as once were. 83 Hard to get in touch with. Settlements 84 Notification and Description when making payment, i.e. Interest on Deposit Proactive facilitization of meetings including advancing strawmen when necessary. 2. Use of metrics to define what is really happening. 86 Staff does not always have the answers to questions on new studies that SPP is requesting data or information. 87 Difficult to track which of the EIS market development efforts are relevant to us (as an independent generator) 88 The SPP staff should be prepared to answer questions relating to any process that the SPP requires a customer to go through. If the SPP is unsure what or how to do something how can they expect a market participant to be prepared? If the SPP expects customers to use customer representatives, then the access to SPP expertise must be timely and at times it is not timely. 89 Efficiency of decision making is lacking 90 a swelling staff with a lack of customer focus a very poor transmision study process 91 Staff fails to return calls and s with information 92 nothing in which I would say I'm dissatisfied 93 Billing errors for transmission purchases. having issues resolved in a timely manner. 94 SPP's billing process is the worst I have ever encountered. Real work needs to be done to fix this problem and now )ATC reports are not accurate 2)Inconsistent response to questions Customer reps are overworked and as a result do not respond very quickly unless it is an emergency. They should have cell phones for better accessibility. 97 Market Implementation has been slow and items seem to drag on. 24 of 67

53 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 12 Page 5 of 5 12/4/ staffing levels have improved; but I remain concerned about too much weight being placed upon staff when consultants should bear the major burden 99 the numerous delays in the market start aggregate transmission study process time allowed to make changes/test new processes for EIS market market implementation development and leadership information technology leadership Copyright MarketTools, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of MarketTools, Inc. Trademark Notice 25 of 67

54 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 13 Page 1 of 3 12/4/ Customer Satisfaction FINAL Results Overview Date: 12/4/ :55 PM PST Responses: Completes Filter: No filter applied 13. Please share any remaining thoughts about your satisfaction with SPP. # Response 1 Too many ex-entergy employees to avoid dillution of SPP culture. 2 No other thoughts to share. 3 RTWG materials sendout timeliness (early enough B4 meeting) has been improving. Thank you. 4 As your independent auditor I am limited in the areas where it is appropriate to provide feedback. However, during my two years of service to SPP I have been extremely impressed with the integrity of management and staff - even (and especially) when difficults issues have been addressed. 5 It seems that SPP is wanting to push the market even though they are not ready to do so EIS Market issues are the main problem with SPP. SPP needs to improve it's communitcation and organization when it comes to market testing. I feel SPP does work to help its members with information but sometimes fails to make sure that the information is what a member is needing. When this happens it seems impossible to get return phone calls when requesting additional assistance. The Aggregate study process needs improvement. There are way to many load growth requests in it, and customers should not be allowed to continually enter the same request into each Aggregate, then have it studied through 2-4 Facility Studies only to withdraw at the last minute. 9 SPP needs to address issues that adversely effect customers in a thorough, open, professional manner This is a critical time for SPP. Communication with all stakeholders should be stepped up significantly while the changes and challenges associated with market startup are ongoing. We are very impressed with SPP and its people. The organization appears to have set very high ethical and professional standards. 12 On a lighter note, I am extremely dissatisfied with the lack of supply of donuts. 13 I am pleased, overall, with SPP. I think some of the customer service people are too busy to respond very quickly to questions. 14 SPP has a great group of staff members. Hats off to Jim Gunnell, John Taylor, Kim Williams and Terry Oxandale 15 Justed started talked to SPP last month for end of month checkout. Don't have alot of experience with SPP 16 Board members have little understanding of the electric industry and issues related to market implementation. Staff does not provide adequate informational/educational resources to the Board. 17 All in all a very good group of people. 18 Good group of people. Positives far out-weigh negatives. 19 the SPP staff appears to be overworked and stressed 20 n/a 21 Look at ERCOT. It works. SPP needs to make difficult policy choices now if they truly want a system that benefits consumers versus trying to please everyone with piece meal, lackluster tariff revisions that are not affecting positive change. 22 Generally, I find the Staff and Board to be highly professional, personable, and attentive to the concerns of the Membership. 23 In general doing satifactory but new systems and processes are not being initiated smoothly. 24 Market implementation is consuming the organization and other critical issues are not being addressed 25 SPP had been rock solid up to the last 18 months. Since the MISO potential merger fell apart, SPP has not performed with the cooperation and clarity of past years. I believe SPP truly desires to meet the needs of its customers but has difficulty in processes that are not conducive to fair 26 of 67

55 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 13 Page 2 of 3 12/4/ treatment and comparability. May need to get someone on board that has experience with non-iou needs so that these issues are properly addressed. We are seeing progress and improved customer service, however it seems as though certain members of the SPP BOD have lost sight of the history and culture of the SPP and just don't listen/trust the members-ious. The stakeholder process does take longer than a command and control organization, however the stakeholder process has been successful and "requires" patience and compromise. SPP is a "non-profit" organization and should be ran as such and driven based on the what the majority of the customers need and want while meeting regulatory requirements. This is a serious concern because as we go into the future - the SPP must not be driven solely by a Board of Directors, regulators and perception that the TOs are against the TDUs and the BOD's responsbility is to determine what they deem to be discriminatory, unjust, and unreasonable. To be successful, the organization must be driven by the BOD, regulators AND customers(load)(while receiving sound policy advise from staff and counsel), where customers should be the majority of the load - not an eloquant minority. I believe that to be more effective going forward- the BOD and MOPC must have the benefit of FERC legal counsel and/or consultants available to them during meetings when issues of great importance are to be discussed. Legal counsel should, at a minimum, be present via dial-in. If FERC counsel is not available, then the SPP staff should probably be given deference by the BOD. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Bary Warren/EDE 28 It is not alway feasible to travel in person to some of the many meetings. It would be nice to have a public address system that tied into the phone line. It is nearly impossible to understand what is being said in such a meeting as the MOPC or BOD meetings if you dial in. 29 Overall, a good organization to work with. 30 SPP staff allows entities to have too much input on certain issues that get addressed when these entities either do not use, understand, or are not impacted by the issues that are being addressed. The ability to correct issues within the tariff are overly difficult to accomplish, at times staff needs to stand up and say this needs fixed to provide better service insytead of waiting till the customer has the problem. 31 TLR procedures need to be looked at. 32 Overall, I am very pleased with SPP's effort. They might be understaffed, though. 33 I am very concerned about the lack of reliability focus at SPP. The addition of the EIS Market, and the decision to perform an expansion to provide ICT services to others has taken away the focus from your long time members. This lack of focus and the resultant staffing changes the pool has made to accomodate the additional services mentioned above will come back to haunt us I fear. 34 The ICT is on a steep learning curve. Ask me these questions next year. We'll have more accurate answers. 35 SPP has done a good job overall in helping members fulfill reliability and market needs while keeping a lid on costs. Because of the number of simultaneous efforts occurring in SPP, it is very difficult for small companies to stay in touch. Any efforts in communicating major SPP efforts to the broad audience are always appreciated. 36 Need to rethink the customer servive needs of the organization and how to measure it as we implement the EIS market.. Develope new more relevant operational performance metirics to encompass new expanded responsibilities in Market 37 none 38 No comments. 39 SPP has done well to provide phone conferencing for those who are unable to attend working group meetings in person. I would hope that in the future, this could be improved upon by providing a couple more (or better) microphones so that more of the discussion can be heard. Or perhaps if the speaker that is making a presentation always had a microphone nearby, that would help. 40 Great to work with and seem extremely customer focused. 41 Overall I think that they are trying to do a good job under tight deadlines beyond their control. 42 none SPP has come a long ways since I first got involved with the organization. In some repects improvements have been made. But others like EIS market start up has been rushed. While I am disappointed with the delay in the start of the market, I think that SPP has been very open with the issues that are causing the delay and I am convinced that the resulting market open will be more successful for the delays. 45 While I initially supported the concept of the aggregate studies process, I'm disappointed in the results to date. It takes a long time to get to an answer, and the results seem, at times, to be quite illogical. There are also issues with keeping all the various system models accurate and coordinated with each other. We have posted changes (or attempted to) only to find out those changes to current topology aren't being propogated to all models in use at SPP. 27 of 67

56 Zoomerang 2006 Customer Satisfaction FINAL: Open Ended Report: Question 13 Page 3 of 3 12/4/ I don't like the fact that when there is a mistake on an invoice that a revised invoice can't be created and that discrepancies can be carried out indefinitely. 47 Overall helpful and pleasant to work with. 48 Hesitance and lack of coordination among the staff elements leads to sequential vs concurrent problem solving and is not a good go-forward methodology. 49 Needs to take a stronger position and make the difficult decisions to move the pool into better reliability. 50 I am pleased to work with SPP 51 The SPP exists to serve the collective needs of the membership and SPP staff needs to focus on establishing close working relationships with the members and developing programs, training and implementation plans that better assist the members in meeting their individual responsibilities to the organization as well as thier individual goals as entities doing business wihtin the SPP. 52 Very friendly staff but they do not follow through. 53 very useful and helpful 54 I feel that SPP is trying hard to complete many tasks, and my problems may be a result of manpower shortfalls. 55 I believe in the direction that SPP is going and their intense effort to minimize their costs and impact on its members. 56 Overall, a very solid organization with outstanding technical skills; generally, good quality collaborative skills; interface with various stakeholders is reasonably good; greater opportunities exist in taking more of a leadership role in areas such as transmission planning and development. Copyright MarketTools, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site may be copied without the express written consent of MarketTools, Inc. Trademark Notice 28 of 67

57 Compliance Committee First Name Last Name Position Company Sector TO/TU Joshua Martin * Chairman SPP Board of Directors Phyllis E. Bernard Director SPP Board of Directors Quentin Jackson Director SPP Board of Directors Stacy Duckett Staff Secretary Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 29 of 67

58 Corporate Governance Committee First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Nick Brown * Southwest Power Pool Harry Dawson Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipals TU Kevin Easley Grand River Dam Authority State Agencies TO Jim Eckelberger SPP Board of Directors Robert Janssen Redbud Energy Independent Power Producer TU Stephen Parr Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Cooperatives TU Mel Perkins Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Investor-Owned TO Stacy Duckett Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 30 of 67

59 Finance Committee First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Larry Altenbaumer SPP Board of Directors Director Trudy Harper Tenaska Power Services Co. Independent Power Producer TU Kelly Harrison Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO David Sartin American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Harry Skilton SPP Board of Directors Director Gary Voigt Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative TU Tom Dunn Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 31 of 67

60 Human Resources Committee First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Phyllis E. Bernard SPP Board of Directors Director Oklahoma Municipal Power Harry Dawson Authority Municipals TU Trudy Harper Tenaska Power Services Co. Independent Power Producer TU Quentin Jackson * SPP Board of Directors Director The Empire District Electric Mike Palmer Company Investor-Owned TO Richard Spring Kansas City Power and Light Investor-Owned TO Tom Dunn Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 32 of 67

61 Markets and Operations Policy Committee First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Bob Adam Board of Public Utilities (Kansas City, KS) Municipals TU Paul F. Barber Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. Marketers TU Jeff Bell Williams Power Company, Inc. Marketers TU William Berg Exelon Generation Investor-Owned TU Cargill Power Markets, Sam Beveridge LLC Marketers TU Jeffrey Brown Coral Power Marketers TU Gregory Coco Cleco Power Investor-Owned TU Steve Corneli NRG Power Marketing, Inc Marketers TU Alan Derichsweiler Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Bill Dowling Midwest Energy, Inc. Cooperatives TO Anthony Due GRDA State Agencies TO Stephen Easley Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owned TO Les Evans Kansas Electric Power Coop Cooperatives TU Ronald Gary Lafayette Utilities System Municipals TU East Texas Electric Edd Hargett Coop., Inc. Cooperatives TU Carl Huslig ITC Great Plains Independent Transmission Companies TU Robert Janssen Redbud Energy Independent Power Producers TU Robin Kittel * Xcel Energy, Inc. Investor-Owned TO City Utilities of Springfield, Jeff Knottek Misssouri Municipals TU Larry Leverett TXU Energy Trading Co. Marketers TU Leroy Lutes Aquila, Inc. Investor-Owned TU Paul Mahlberg City Power & Light (Independence, MO) Municipals TU Calpine Energy Services, Independent Power Mike Mellon L.P. Producers TO Scott Moore American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Oklahoma Municipal Robin Morecroft Power Authority Municipals TU * Chairman ** Vice Chairman 33 of 67

62 Markets and Operations Policy Committee John Olsen ** KGE-Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Errol Ortego LEPA State Agencies TU Mel Perkins Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Investor-Owned TO Dennis Price El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P. Marketers TU Robert Priest Clarksdale Public Utilities Municipals TU Rayburn Country Electric Eddy Reece Cooperative Cooperatives TU Stanley Robinson Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. Cooperatives TU Richard Ross American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Umashankar (Uma) Sandilya Entergy Services, Inc. Investor-Owned TU Tenaska Power Services Independent Power Kevin Smith Co. Producers TU Tom Stuchlik Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Northeast Texas Electric Rick Tyler Cooperative Cooperatives TU Rick Veatch Aquila Power Investor-Owned TU Bary Warren The Empire District Electric Company Investor-Owned TO Larry Warren TexLa Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperatives TU Jimmy Wever Public Service Comm. of Yazoo City, MS Municipals TU Noman Williams Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperatives TU Michael Wise Golden Spread Electric Coop Cooperatives TU Richard Wolfinger Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc Marketers TU Walter Yeager Duke Energy Americas Marketers TU Carl Monroe Southwest Power Pool * Chairman ** Vice Chairman 34 of 67

63 Strategic Planning Committee First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Ricky Bittle Arkansas Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Kevin Easley Grand River Dam Authority State Agency TO Jim Eckelberger SPP Board of Directors Director Thomas Grennan KEPCo Cooperatives TO Independent Power Robert Janssen Redbud Energy Producer TU Joshua Martin SPP Board of Directors Director Mike Palmer The Empire District Electric Company Investor-Owner TO Mel Perkins Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Investor-Owner TO Harry Skilton SPP Board of Directors Director Richard Spring * Kansas City Power and Light Investor-Owner TO Tim Woolley Xcel Energy Investor-Owner TO Michael Desselle Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 35 of 67

64 Business Practices Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Sam Beveridge ** Cargill Power Markets, LLC Marketer TU Robert Janssen Redbud Energy Independent Power Producer TU Southwestern Public Service David Lemmons Company Investor-Owned TO Rick McCord Empire District Electric Company Investor-Owned TO Richard Ross American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Kara Whillock Tenaska Power Services Independent Power Producer TU Grant Wilkerson * Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Jimmy Womack Southwest Power Pool * Chairman ** Co-Chairman 36 of 67

65 Critical Infrastructure Protection Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Mark Amyette Xcel Energy Investor-Owned TO Dewayne Ashford OG&E Investor-Owned TO Darryl Boggess Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO John Breckenridge Aquila, Inc. Investor-Owned TU David Crayne Empire District Electric Co. Investor-Owned TO Lawrence Dolci * Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owned TO Michael Engel Midwest Energy Cooperatives TO Richard Good Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Jason Holcomb City Utilities of Springfield, MO Municipals TU John Hurley American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Don Madsen Independence Power & Light Municipals TU Robert McClanahan Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperatives TU Keith Overland Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperatives TU Paul Pack Board of Public Utilities Municipals TU Michael Veillon Cleco Corporation Investor-Owned TU Kevin Perry Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 37 of 67

66 Generation Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Terri Eaton Xcel Energy (Resigns 1/1/2007) Investor-Owned TO Andrew Lachowsky Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperatives TU Independent Power Von Maynard Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Producer TU Brock Ondayko American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Mike Sheriff OG+E Electric Services Investor-Owned TO Bryan Taggart Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Mitchell Williams * Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Harvey Scribner Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 38 of 67

67 Model Development Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Mike Clifton OG+E Electric Services Investor-Owner TO Joe Fultz Grand River Dam Authority State Agencies TO SPP Contract David Sargent Southwestern Power Administration Participant Scott Schichtl Arkansas Electric Cooperative Co Cooperatives TU Brian Wilson Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owner TO Brent Wilson * American Electric Power Investor-Owner TO Harvey Scribner Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 39 of 67

68 Market Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Gene Anderson OMPA Municipals TU Jason Atwood Calpine Corporation Independent Power Producer TU Douglas Base Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Gary Clear OG&E Investor-Owner TO Terri Eaton Xcel Energy Investor-Owner TO Robert Janssen Redbud Energy Independent Power Producer TU Charles Locke Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owner TO Rick McCord Empire District Electric Company Investor-Owner TO Tambra Offield East Texas Electric Coop., Inc. Cooperatives TU Richard Ross * American Electric Power Investor-Owner TO Max Sherman Aquila, Inc. Investor-Owner TU James Stanton Calpine Independent Power Producer TU John Stephens City Utilities of Springfield Independent Power Producer TU Tom Stuchlik Westar Energy Investor-Owner TO Keith Sugg Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. Cooperatives TU Richard Dillon Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 40 of 67

69 Operating Reliability Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Independent Power Jason Atwood Calpine Corporation Producer TU Michael Crouch Western Farmers Electric Coop. Cooperatives TO William Grant Southwestern Public Service Investor-Owner TO Allen Klassen Westar Energy Investor-Owner TO Pete Kuebeck ** OG+E Electric Services Investor-Owner TO Steve Massey Westar Energy Investor-Owner TO Scott Moore * American Electric Power Investor-Owner TO Keith Sugg Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. Cooperatives TU Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Jim Thompson Inc. Marketers TU Jim Useldinger Kansas City Power & Light Company Investor-Owner TO Noman Williams Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperatives TU Robert Rhodes Southwest Power Pool * Chairman ** Vice Chairman 41 of 67

70 Operation Model Development Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Jimmy Durham AEP Investor-Owned TO Jim Gilmer Xcel Energy Investor-Owned TO Donald Hargrove OG&E Investor-Owned TO Bo Jones * Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO SPP Contract David Sargent Southwestern Power Administration Participant John-Binh Vu Aquila, Inc. Investor-Owned TU Mitchell Williams Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Noman Williams Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperatives TU Harold Wyble Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owned TO Bert Bressers Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 42 of 67

71 Operations Data Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Karl Bodenheimer Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owned TO Matthew Bordelon Cleco Power, LLC Investor-Owned TU Bob Cochran Southwestern Public Service Co Investor-Owned TO David Crayne Empire District Electric Co. Investor-Owned TO SPP Contract Richard Hixson Southwestern Power Administration Participant Jim Jacoby American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Pete Kuebeck OG+E Electric Services Investor-Owned TO Bud Rogers Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Mike Sauber * Aquila, Inc. Investor-Owned TU Jon Wirtz Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Mark Worf Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperatives TU Scott Aclin Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 43 of 67

72 Operations Training Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Sunflower Electric Power Richard Appel Corporation Cooperatives TU Hermes Arevalo Oklahoma Gas & Electric Investor-Owned TO Kansas City Power & Mike Gammon Light Company Investor-Owned TO John Kerr GRDA State Agency TO Allen Klassen * Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Ron Maki ** Aquila, Inc. Investor-Owned TU Empire District Electric Fred Meyer Company Investor-Owned TO Dave Millam Aquila Investor-Owned TU Southwestern Power Michael Wech Administration SPP Contract Participant Jim Gunnell Southwest Power Pool * Chairman ** Vice Chairman 44 of 67

73 Regional Tariff Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Gene Anderson OMPA Municipals TU Independent Power Jason Atwood Calpine Corporation Producer TU Ricky Bittle Arkansas Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TU Robert Bowser Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Cooperatives TU David Brian ** East Texas Cooperatives Cooperatives TU Bill Dowling Midwest Energy, Inc. Cooperatives TO Independent Power Mark Foreman Tenaska Power Services Co. Producer TU Ronald Gary Lafayette Utilities System Municipals TU Independent Power Robert Janssen Redbud Energy Producer TU David Kays Oklahoma Gas & Electric Investor-Owned TO Bernard Liu Xcel Energy Investor-Owned TO Charles Locke Kansas City Power & Light Investor-Owned TO Robert Pennybaker American Electric Power Investor-Owned TO Non-voting State Mike Proctor Missouri Public Service Commission Regulatory Dennis Reed * Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Bary Warren The Empire District Electric Company Investor-Owned TO Mitchell Williams Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Patrick Bourne Southwest Power Pool * Chairman ** Vice Chairman 45 of 67

74 System Protection and Control Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Louis Guidry Cleco Power LLC Investor-Owned TU Tim Hinken Kansas City Power & Light Company Investor-Owned TO Fred Ipock * City Utilities (Springfield, MO) Muncipals TU Doug Jackson AEP Investor-Owned TO Shawn Jacobs Oklahoma Gas & Electric Investor-Owned TO Heidt Melson Xcel Energy Investor-Owned TO Stanley Robinson Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. Cooperatives TU Lynn Schroeder Westar Energy Investor-Owned TO Mak Nagle Southwest Power Pool * Chairman 46 of 67

75 Transmission Working Group First Name Last Name Company Sector TO/TU Frank Chen Aquila Power - Aquila Inc. Marketers TU John Chiles East Texas Cooperative Cooperatives TU Howard Conus City Utilities of Springfield Municipals TU Philip Crissup Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. Investor-Owned TO Ronnie Frizzell * Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. Cooperatives TU John Fulton Xcel Energy Investor-Owned TO Joe Fultz Grand River Dam Authority State Agency TO Tony Gott Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. Liaison Member Tom Littleton Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipals TU Charles Long Entergy Services, Inc. Liaison Member Sam McGarrah Empire District Company Investor-Owned TO Matthew McGee AEP Investor-Owned TO David Sargent Southwestern Power Administration SPP Contract Participant James Simms Cleco Power, LLC Investor-Owned TU Donald D. Taylor Westar Energy, Inc. Investor-Owned TO Jim Useldinger Kansas City Power & Light Company Investor-Owned TO Mitchell Williams Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperatives TO Noman Williams ** Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperatives TU Bruce Walkup Southwest Power Pool * Chairman ** Vice Chairman 47 of 67

76 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Recommendation to the Board of Directors December 12, 2006 Organizational Effectiveness Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Strategic Planning committee: Richard Spring, KCPL Mel Perkins, OGE Kevin Easley, GRDA Jim Eckelberger, Director Mike Palmer, EDE Joshua Martin, Director Ricky Bittle, AECC Tom Grennan, KEPCO Tim Woolly, Xcel Energy Robert Janssen, Redbud Energy Harry Skilton, Director Background SPP Organizational Groups are required to conduct and report a self-assessment annually. The Strategic Planning Committee is charged with reviewing these self assessments and the overall structure of the organizational groups. The self assessment is conducted in four components: 1) administrative; and 2) a survey measuring effectiveness of the group; 3) review with chairpersons of all organizational groups; 4) presentation to the MOPC and Board of Directors/Members Committee (at their respective meetings). Background and Activity Report For the second year, the administrative component of the process was directed to the chairman and staff secretary of each committee and working group and the results of the self-assessments were compiled in September. The survey component of the process (completed for the first time in 2006) was directed to all members of each specific organizational group. As part of the SPP Board s ongoing initiative to improve organizational effectiveness, the chairs and secretaries of SPP s organizational committees and working groups met on November 9 and 10 in Little Rock to review the results of surveys and self assessments of each group. The following persons participated in the Organizational Group Chairs and Secretaries meeting: Jim Eckelberger, Director Phyllis Bernard, Director David Brian, East Texas Cooperatives Allen Klassen, Westar Scott Moore, AEP Ronnie Frizzel, AECC Carl Monroe, SPP Tom Dunn, SPP Les Dillahunty, SPP Harvey Scribner, SPP Emily Davis, SPP Lanny Nickell, SPP Richard Dillon, SPP Bruce Walkup, SPP Bert Bressers, SPP Emily Pennell, SPP Larry Aultenbaumer, Director Nick Brown, SPP Richard Spring, KCPL Fred Ipock, CU Springfield, Mo. Richard Ross, AEP Mitchell Williams, WFEC Michael Desselle, SPP Stacy Duckett, SPP Scott Aclin, SPP Jim Gunnell, SPP Derek Wingfield, SPP Kevin Perry, SPP Mak Nagle, SPP Jimmy Womack, SPP Roy Sundman, SPP Cheryl Robertson, SPP 48 of 67

77 At that meeting, each committee s and working group s charters were reviewed, as well as their respective self assessment results and surveys. A brainstorming session was then conducted to consider ideas/recommendations for improvements. Forty recommendations were developed and consolidated into five specific categories. Those five categories include: Meeting Management/Joint Meetings/Communications/Metrics Governance/Consolidation/Restructuring/Process Flow Nimbleness/Speed External Relations Compliance Upon completion of the brainstorming exercise, the participants formalized a recommendation and plan for the Strategic Planning Committee s consideration. The SPC unanimously endorsed the chairs and secretaries recommendation and voted to approve its recommendation for the Board s consideration at its annual meeting on organizational effectiveness. Specifically, the SPC adopted the following recommendation: The Strategic Planning Committee to be given the responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the process for developing recommendations in response to the priority issues and categories resulting from the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting. Furthermore, At the December Board Meeting, the SPC will present the recommendations from the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting. SPP will create a report outlining the five priority issues identified at the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting. The report will include: summaries of the surveys; and a synopsis of the meeting book. At the January SPC meeting, an action plan with dates would be presented. That action plan will develop a framework for processes that would: coordinate in concert with the committees and working groups; assign action items to groups; and develop recommendations. Finally, Each chair and secretary will present at their next meeting a Staff-prepared PowerPoint presentation summarizing the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting results and will lead discussion on the issues. While not formalized in specific motions, the chairs and secretaries also recommended additional measures to improve SPP s organizational effectiveness. The group endorsed SPP s Corporate Communication Department s proposed new Organizational Group Report. The report will be in the form of a monthly newsletter reporting on the activities of each group. Corporate Communications will work closely with the Staff Secretaries of each group to track key votes, decisions, and the development of initiatives throughout the organization and will then put it all together in an easy to read notification to members. 49 of 67

78 The group made recommendations for improvements in next year s survey instrument. The group noted areas for improvements for certain scope documents. Additional Information Attached with this recommendation are the following items: A copy of the scope document for the Strategic Planning Committee s conduct of the annual Organizational Group Self-Assessment; A SPP Group Organizational Chart; A summary of August 2005 to July 2006 meeting costs; A blank version of the self assessment; A blank version of the survey instrument; and, The executive summary of the Survey analysis. Recommendation The Strategic Planning Committee recommends that the Board authorize the SPC to be the responsible Organizational Group to coordinate and oversee the process for developing recommendations in response to the priority issues and categories resulting from the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting as articulated in the motion of the SPP Organizational Group Chairs and Secretaries. Approved: Organizational Group Chairs and Secretaries November 10, 2006 Passed Unopposed Approved: Strategic Planning Committee November 30, 2006 Passed Unopposed Action Requested: Approve recommendation. 50 of 67

79 Efforts to Improve Organizational Effectiveness Organizational Group Self-Assessments Organizational Group Surveys Organizational Group Effectiveness Chairs and Secretaries Meeting, November 9-10 Richard Spring Chairman, Strategic Planning Committee December 12, Common Themes in Self-Assessments EIS Market Implementation ERO / RE Transition 888 Reform NOPR Impacts Overall Findings Generally, committee/working group members rated items positively Generation Working Group and Market Working Group had the lowest scores for all areas Moderate-to-good relationship between the group s effectiveness rating and its overall rating of its chair Good correlations between effectiveness rating and agenda timely, accurate minutes, and represents diversity. These facets are linked to how group members rate overall effectiveness Group Meeting Costs In-person meetings: 78 Teleconference meetings: 67 Teleconference / webex expenses: $49,306 Director Fees 2006 $186,750 Director Fees 2005 $92,000 Meeting Expenses $261,825 Total cost of meetings $589,881 * Organizational Group Survey Overview Survey was sent to six committees and twelve working groups Organizational group members were asked to rate four groups of attributes from 1-5: Meeting Preparation Membership Meeting Conduct Chair Each attribute group allowed for open-ended comments * Does not include director travel, staff time, staff travel, or costs of associated task forces

80 Major Findings Moderate-to-good relationship between working group/committee effectiveness and: Chair: Seeks input Chair: Supportive and Respectful Major Findings Fair relationship between committee/working group effectiveness rating and: Chair (overall) Meeting Preparation: Agenda timely Meeting Preparation: Accurate minutes Membership (overall) Membership: Represents diversity Meeting Conduct: Dissent heard Major Findings As effectiveness rating increases, attribute rating also increases (and vice versa) For instance, while a respondent may increase their score of a chair s tendency to seek input, they would simultaneously increase their assessment of the group s overall effectiveness May indicate that certain chair behaviors increase the effectiveness of the group or the perception of effectiveness Negative Assessments Generation Working Group and Market Working Group had the greatest number of negative assessments of specific attributes These two groups were least satisfied overall Fair relationship between number of respondents and overall average score. The higher the number of people, the better the assessment of the group Effectiveness Operating Reliability Working Group gave the highest rating to its group effectiveness Next highest is Finance Committee Lowest rating from Operations Data Working Group Suggestions for Improvement Continuing education of members Attendance Members that miss should be replaced More members should attend Investigate voting methods/structure (proxy voting) Broader, more flexible membership participation More members should speak up

81 Suggestions for Improvement Every member should contribute More face-to-face meetings (quarterly) Better access to SPP staff More timely distribution of meeting materials Chairs need to remain open-minded Specific Issues Provision in NITS agreement for an Operating Committee between the TO, TP, and NITS is supposed to be in place Compliance processes wider than Finance Committee purview Better communication among group chairs Better definition of groups responsibilities - relationship to other groups Recommendations for 2007 Survey Brainstorming Session, Chairs and Secretaries, Nov Specific objectives should be developed Respondents should assess importance of rated attributes 40 specific ideas for improvement Ideas grouped into 5 categories: Meeting Management / Joint Meetings / Communications / Metrics Governance / Consolidation / Restructuring / Process Flow Nimbleness / Speed External Relations Compliance Meeting Management / Joint Meetings Communications / Metrics General policy on phone and teleconference quality Have annual strategy planning sessions between committee chairs and working group chair(s) reporting to that committee Development and enforcement of attendance policy to prevent chronic absenteeism Need a way for the working group chairs to structurally coordinate with each other on a timely basis. Should be structural versus informational Continuing education of group chairs and secretaries: How to be a good chair Facilitation Meeting management Robert s Rules of Order 17 Meeting Management / Joint Meetings Communications / Metrics Set up a structure to facilitate better interaction between groups (e.g., meeting at same locations and same times or contiguous times). Work on the timing of the meetings of different working groups More visibility of metrics regarding timely dissemination of materials before and after meetings If action items come in within X of meeting date, the group must make a decision if the item will be discussed Encourage BPWG NITS customers to use the BPWG

82 Meeting Management / Joint Meetings Communications / Metrics In survey process, solicit two or three of the most important issues that SPP should be addressing. Make sure organization is being reflective and responsive to what members are wanting SPP to work on. Meeting locations? Move around - more in Little Rock Joint WG meetings Staff secretary debriefs to discuss outcomes/action items/next steps Central place for scheduling WG meetings. Schedule meetings 12 months in advance Meeting Management / Joint Meetings Communications / Metrics Weeklong meeting with all WGs simultaneously (i.e., pig roast) Need to have periodic review of costs/benefits of meetings and meeting types (net conference, in person, teleconference) Improve documentation and organization of procedures and responsibilities Improve understanding of voting members at MOPC, Member s Committee, and BOD (i.e., education and improved documentation-- executive summary) Enforce registration for meetings HR Employee Benefits Coordination with Finance Committee Governance / Consolidation / Restructuring Process Flow General Rule on Proxies - Can you have more than one vote? - How long can you send a proxy? Single proxy persist? - Can you offer it to another member or someone from your company? Voting Rules of the MOPC - Each segment vote is averaged based on voting numbers, and you have to hit 67%. TO/TU average segment vote. - Should you be able to vote only on certain items? - Voting on MOPC is of particular interest in the RTO filing. - Majority vs. Super Majority? Governance / Consolidation / Restructuring Process Flow Think about the definitions of committee, working groups and task forces Should working groups have term limits? Should there be stated term lengths? Formalize a biannual election or selection process for group chairs NITS Operating committee formalized Consider renaming some working groups to more appropriate names Consolidate WGs where appropriate Governance / Consolidation / Restructuring Process Flow Nimbleness / Speed Separate MOPC into markets and ops Criteria and Tariff ownership assignments and compliance with requirements Annual certification that charter represents what the WG is focused on Consolidate MOPC WGs to five major WGs Review group membership criteria in charter Examine working group committee structure: where we are now, where we will be in new structure. Design a committee structure that will allow streamlined action and decision making SPC should meet with other groups (committees and WGs) and coordinate efforts Timeliness of reaction to NERC standards implementation, including assignments. Monitor NERC process and develop proposed standards Compliance / ERO

83 External Relations Compliance Affirm that RSC and SPP relationship (e.g., cost allocation) is appropriate Think about formal process for interacting with NAESB and NERC; member participation Training within SPP RE on process for Standards development Criteria and Tariff ownership assignments and compliance with requirements Compliance / ERO Timeliness of reaction to NERC standards implementation, including assignments. Monitor NERC process and develop proposed standards Recommendation to Strategic Planning Committee From Chairs and Secretaries Meeting January SPC Meeting Strategic Planning Committee will be given the responsibility for coordinating and overseeing the process for developing recommendations in response to priority issues and categories resulting from the Organizational Effectiveness Meeting. Develop framework for processes Assign items to groups Process for developing recommendations Develop in concert with working groups Upcoming Group Meetings Each chair and secretary will present at their next meeting a PowerPoint summarizing Organizational Effectiveness Meeting results, and will lead discussion on the issues. Richard Spring Chairman, Strategic Planning Committee richard.spring@kcpl.com

84 SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation SPP Organizational Groups are required to conduct and report a self-assessment annually. The Strategic Planning Committee is charged with reviewing these self assessments and the overall structure of the Organizational Groups. At this time, there is no formal process/form for conducting the self assessment. The following is a proposed approach for addressing this matter. The assessment period will be August/July (ex: August 05/July 06). The assessment will be conducted in August/September each year so that results may be reviewed at a meeting of all organizational group chairs, and the October MOPC and SPC meetings, and then reported at the December Board of Directors/Members Committee meeting focused on organizational effectiveness. The self assessment will have four components: 1) administrative; and 2) a survey measuring effectiveness of the group; 3) review with chairpersons of all organizational groups; 4) presentation to the MOPC and Board of Directors/Members Committee (at their respective meetings). Phase 1: Administrative The administrative component of the process will be directed to the Chairman and Staff Secretary of the group. The information requested will include: Review of the current roster posted on the SPP website/updates Review the group s charter/update Report on number of meetings held (live and teleconference) Report on meeting attendance of each member of the group Number of votes taken Average overall attendance at meetings Costs of meetings held Major accomplishments/issues addressed by the group Major pending issues before the group This phase will be conducted for the first time in Staff will develop a common format for obtaining the information, pre-populating some of the data to expedite the process. Phase II: Survey The survey component of the process will be directed to all members of the specific organizational group. This will allow us to review feedback on each working group/committee, but still provide an overall assessment for the organization. The questions will include: The members of this committee/working group represent the diversity of SPP s membership The members of this committee/working group have the necessary expertise/skill to address the issues assigned to it Meeting materials are complete and provided sufficiently in advance of a meeting 51 of 67

85 The members of this committee/working group prepare in advance so that meeting time is spent effectively There is a open atmosphere for discussion at meetings The committee/working group has the appropriate number of meetings Meeting agendas are well planned for time and content In what areas do you think the staff secretary to the group is most effective? [check all that apply: planning/preparation; facilitation; subject matter expert; meeting follow-up, including minutes] In what areas do you think the staff secretary to the group is least effective? [check all that apply: planning/preparation; facilitation; subject matter expert; meeting follow-up, including minutes] A general comments section This phase will be conducted for the first time in Staff will develop a survey for review/consideration by the SPC (October) and the Board of Directors/Members Committee (December). Phase III: Review A meeting/call will be planned with the chairpersons of all SPP organizational groups. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the results of the evaluations, and discuss actions needed to address the results. This phase will be conducted for the first time in Phase IV: Presentation The results of the evaluations and the outcomes of the meeting of the chairpersons will be presented to the MOPC at its October meeting and to the Board of Directors at its December meeting (focused on organizational effectiveness). This phase will be conducted for the first time in of 67

86 SPP Board of Directors Chair - Jim Eckelberger Vice Chair - Harry Skilton Secty - Stacy Duckett Membership Chair - Jim Eckelberger Vice Chair - Harry Skilton Secty - Stacy Duckett Chair - Josh Martin Secty - Stacy Duckett Chair - Robin Kittel Secty - Carl Monroe Corporate Governance Committee Chair - Nick Brown Secty - Stacy Duckett Finance Committee Chair - Harry Skilton Secty - Tom Dunn Human Resources Committee Chair - Quentin Jackson Secty - Tom Dunn Chair - Richard Spring Secty - Michael Desselle Business Practices WG Chair Grant Wilkerson Secty - Jimmy Womack Chair - Larry Dolci Secty - Kevin Perry Generation WG Chair - Mitch Williams Secty - Harvey Scribner Market WG Chair - Richard Ross Secty - Richard Dillon Model Development WG Chair - Brent Wilson Secty - Harvey Scribner Chair - Alan Myers Secty - Bert Bressers Operations Data WG Chair - Mike Sauber Secty - Scott Aclin Operations Training WG Chair - Allen Klassen Secty - Jim Gunnell Regional Tariff WG Chair Dennis Reed Secty - Pat Bourne System Protection & Control WG Chair - Fred Ipock Secty Mak Nagle Operating Reliability WG Chair - Scott Moore Secty - Robert Rhodes Transmission WG Chair - Ronnie Frizzell Secty - Bruce Walkup 53 of 67 Last Updated: 6/14/2006

87 Meeting Costs for Organizational Assessments Period August 05 - July 06 # In-person Mtgs Meeting Expense Teleconf. Mtgs. Tele/Webex Exp. Director Fees 05 Director Fees 06 Total Notes/Assumptions BOD* 7 $47, $37, $89, $174, CC 3 $1, $ $9, $14, $25, hr calls - 5 CGC 0 $ $ $ $1, $2, hr calls - 7 FC 7 $2, $ $24, $22, $49, hr calls - 7 HRC 4 $1, $0.00 $6, $14, $22, SPC* 5 $18, $ $8, $25, $53, hr calls - 15 $0.00 MOPC* 7 $57, $5, $6, $18, $87, teleconfs/webex for 3hrs each for 40 BPWG 2 $2, $ $0.00 $0.00 $2, hr calls in-person mtg. was at SPP CIPWG 4 $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 no cost - hosted by member companies GWG 0 $ $ $0.00 $ hr calls - 10 MWG** 13 $46, $16, $0.00 $0.00 $63, in person mtgs based on 10 ppl using tele & webex for Teleconf mtgs. based on 25 ppl using webex for 2hrs at.40cpm MDWG 0 $ $ $0.00 $0.00 $ tele + webex for 2 hrs - 10 ppl at.40cpm ORWG** 4 $18, $8, $0.00 $0.00 $26, in person mtgs based on 10 ppl using tele & webex for teleconf mtgs. based on 25 ppl using webex for 2hrs at.40cpm; 2 of 4 in person meetings hosted at AEP OMDWG 1 $1, $ $0.00 $0.00 $1, hrs calls - 10 ODWG 0 $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 no meetings found OTWG 3 $ $1, $0.00 $0.00 $1, no cost on in-person mtgs - hosted by member companies; Teleconf cost based on 10ppl for avg of 2 hrs at.09 cpm RTWG* 12 $41, $14, $0.00 $0.00 $56, hour average on teleconf/webex for 25 ppl at.40cpm SPCWG 2 $2, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2, TWG* 4 $19, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $19, $589, of 67

88 SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation/Assessment GROUP NAME: CHARTER/SCOPE UPDATE: Attached Charter/Scope has been reviewed: Y - N MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE: Member Company Sector # Present # Absent AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live Teleconference AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: : NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: MEETING COST(S): MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Item one 2. Item two 3. Item three MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Item one 2. Item two 3. Item three 55 of 67

89 SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation/Assessment (2006) GROUP NAME: Board of Directors/Members Committee CHARTER/SCOPE UPDATE: Attached Charter/Scope has been reviewed: See Bylaws MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE: Member Company Sector # Present # Absent Eckelberger, Jim Director N/A 7 0 Skilton, Harry I. Director N/A 7 0 Altenbaumer, Larry Director N/A 7 0 Bernard, Phyllis E. Director N/A 7 0 Brown, Nick Director N/A 6 1 Jackson, Quentin Director N/A 6 1 Martin, Josh Director N/A 7 0 * Christiano, David City Utilities, Springfield, MO Municipals 2/2 0 Dawson, Harry Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipals 6 0 * Desselle, Michael American Electric Power Investor-Owned 3/3 0 Easley, Kevin Grand River Dam Authority State Agencies 4/4 0 * Grennan, Tom Kansas Electric Power Company Cooperative 4/4 0 Harper, Trudy Tenaska Power Services Independent Power Co Producer 6 0 * Henry, Doug Westar Energy, Inc Investor-Owned 3/3 0 * Knotteck, Jeff City Utilities, Springfield, MO Municipals 3/3 0 * Palmer, Mike The Empire District Electric Company Investor-Owned 2/2 0 * Parr, Steve Kansas Electric Power 1 Cooperative 2/3 Cooperative (1Proxy) Perkins, Mel OG&E Electric Services Investor-Owned 6 0 Roulet, Gary Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Investor-Owned 4 2 Spring, Richard Kansas City Power & Light Company Investor-Owned 4 2 Stanton, James R. Calpine Energy Services, Independent Power 3 3 L.P. Producer (2 Proxies) * Stuchlik, Tom Westar Energy, Inc. Investor-Owner 3/3 0 Tyler, Richard M. Northeast Texas 3 Cooperative 3 Electric Cooperative (2 Proxies) Voigt, Gary Arkansas Electric 6 Cooperative 0 Cooperative Corporation (2 Proxies) Yeager, Walter Cinergy Corporation Marketer 3 3 Duckett, Stacy SPP Staff 7 0 Note: Members Committee had 6 meetings in 2006 due to the June meeting being optional. * Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. 56 of 67

90 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 46 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live 7 Teleconference 0 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 54 MEETING COST(S): $174,148.00_ MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Item one 2. Item two 3. Item three MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Item one 2. Item two 3. Item three * Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. 57 of 67

91 Zoomerang Page 1 of 6 10/9/2006 SPP Satisfaction Survey Type of relationship your organization has with SPP: Member Customer Vendor Regulator Other, Please Specify 2 Your role within your organization: Operations Engineering Technical / IT Policy / Regulatory / Legal Accounting / Finance / Settlements Executive (Director or Officer) Other, Please Specify 3 58 of 67

92 Zoomerang Page 2 of 6 10/9/2006 How often do you interact with SPP? Daily Weekly Monthly A few times per year Rarely 4 Overall, how satisfied are you with SPP's provision of the following services? Please use a rating scale where 1 means needs improvement and 5 means needs no improvement. Please choose N/A if your organization does not use the particular service listed. 1 Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement N/A Reliability Coordination Scheduling Tariff Administration Interconnection Service Transmission Planning / Studies Settlements Meeting Facilitation/Organization 59 of 67

93 Zoomerang Page 3 of 6 10/9/2006 Market Implementation 5 Please mark the SPP services with which you have the most interaction: Reliability Coordination Scheduling Tariff Administration Interconnection Service Transmission Planning / Studies Settlements Meeting Facilitation / Organization Market Implementation 6 Do you interact with other regional organizations and / or transmission providers? 7 If you answered yes to the previous question, please answer this one. Overall, how does SPP compare with the regional organization / transmission provider with whom you interact most often? Much worse Somewhat worse 60 of 67

94 Zoomerang Page 4 of 6 10/9/2006 About the same Somewhat better Much better 8 How satisfied are you with SPP's customer service? 1 Needs Improvement Needs No Improvement N/A SPP staff members are responsive to my needs. SPP staff members provide accurate information upon request. SPP staff members resolve problems to my satisfaction. SPP s services are competitively priced. Overall, I am satisfied with SPP s service. 9 Do you participate in SPP committee, task force, or working group meetings? 10 If you participate in SPP committee, task force, or working group meetings, please rate SPP s service and support of the meetings: 1 Needs Needs No 61 of 67

95 Zoomerang Page 5 of 6 10/9/2006 Improvement Improvement Meeting schedules and logistics are communicated in a timely and clear manner. Meeting facilities are planned appropriately and meet the needs of the group. Meeting materials are well-prepared and distributed before the meeting. 11 Please list 1-2 characteristics of SPP with which you are satisfied (willingness to help customers, staffing levels, facilitation skills, planning and transmission studies, etc.) 12 Please list 1-2 characteristics of SPP with which you are dissatisfied (willingness to help customers, staffing levels, facilitation skills, planning and transmission studies, etc.) 13 Please share any remaining thoughts about your satisfaction with SPP. At Southwest Power Pool, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with you and thank you for your feedback. 62 of 67

96 MARKETSEARCH E XECUTI VE S UM MARY This report reflects the analysis MARKETSEARCH was commissioned to conduct on the Organizational Group Surveys that Southwest Power Pool (SPP) fielded of its committees and working groups. Analysis of the data was performed to highlight how the groups assessed themselves rather than how all respondents rated each attribute of their committee/working group experience. This reflects the information shared with MARKETSEARCH by SPP regarding its purpose for the study. However, there were no formal, written objectives for the survey itself, which made analysis of the data less pointed in a predetermined direction. Also, while committee/group members were asked to rate various attributes in four major areas (with a single overall question of effectiveness, which was rated on a different scale than the other items), members were not asked about the importance of these items relative to each other. This leads to a lack of understanding of how the rating of items impacts satisfaction with and the overall assessment of the committee/group experience. However, we can state that several main points emerged from the data. Generally, committee/working group members seem to rate the items tested positively (there were very few scores in the study below 3, which is a neutral rating on the 1 to 5 scale where 1 indicates a strong disagreement with a positive statement and 5 indicates strong agreement). Of all the committees and working groups, the Generation Working Group and the Market Working Group had the lowest scores for all four of the major areas tested (Meeting Preparation, Membership, Meeting Conduct and Chair), not giving any area higher than a 3.92 average rating. The Compliance Committee and the Model Development Working Group gave the highest average ratings, giving no group of attributes less than a 4.15 rating. Analysis of the correlations between variables indicates that there is a moderate to good relationship between the group s effectiveness rating and its overall rating of its chair. Specifically, the strongest correlations between effectiveness and chair performance attributes exist with the seeks input and is supportive and respectful descriptors of the chair. Fair to Southwest Power Pool Organizational Group Survey Report Page 3 63 of 67

97 MARKETSEARCH good correlations exist between the effectiveness rating and other rated items: agenda timely, accurate minutes, general membership attributes and represents diversity. This means that groups that earned high average scores for these items were more likely to earn high effectiveness ratings. Those that didn t were less likely to earn such ratings. This indicates that these facets are linked to how group members rate the overall effectiveness of their committee/working group. Southwest Power Pool Organizational Group Survey Report Page 4 64 of 67

98 SPP Presentation Organizational Metrics December 12, Metrics Task Force Metrics Task Force Task force created Larry Altenbaumer to chair Task Force will develop strawman process Process to include member input Goal is to develop measurements to assure that SPP is operating effectively and efficiently and to the benefit of its stakeholders. Board and Officers will participate Independent Director Independent Director OGE Xcel AECC Tenaska SPP Company Larry Altenbaumer Harry Skilton Mel Perkins Robin Kittel Gary Voigt Trudy Harper Non-Voting Members Michael Desselle Representative 3 4 Contact SPP mdesselle@spp.org