Operating Committee Meeting
January 13-14, 2004
North American Electric Reliability Council
Princeton Forrestal Village, 116-390 Village Boulevard, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5731
Special Operating Committee Meeting
January 13, 2004 ¾ Following Joint Meeting -5 p.m.[1]
January 14, 2004 ¾ 8 a.m.-noon
Caribe Royale Resort & Convention Center
8101 World Center Drive
Orlando, Florida 32821
Phone: 407-238-8000 ¾ Fax: 407-238-8050
Agenda
1. Administration
a. Arrangements – Secretary
b. Announcement of Quorum – Secretary
c. Procedures
i) Antitrust Guidelines - Chairman
ii) Parliamentary Procedures - Secretary
iii) Waiver of Ten-day Advance Requirement for Motions – Chairman
d. New members – Secretary
e. Introduction of Members and Guests - Chairman
2. Approval of Agenda - Chairman
3. August 14, 2003 Blackout
a. Comment on Investigation Results and Draft NERC Recommendations:
i) Provide feedback on the blackout investigation analysis and results to date.
ii) Provide comments and offer revisions on the proposed NERC recommendations.
iii) Provide inputs on technical issues to be addressed in the report to the Board of Trustees.
b. Develop Committee Work Plans and Assignments
i) Identify issues from the blackout lessons learned within the scope of the committee
ii) Propose committee work needed to address those issues
iii) Develop a work plan and assign resources.
c. Implications for Current Operating Policies
i) Reliability Coordination - Policies, 5, 6, 9, and related Appendixes - Kim Warren
ii) Interchange Scheduling - Policy 3 - Gordon Scott
iii) AIE Survey and Tag Audit Field Test for August 14, 2003 – Dave Hilt
4. Reliability Standards
a. Standard 400 – Coordinate Interchange - Mike Oatts
i) NAESB Coordinate Interchange Business Practices Task Force – Roman Carter
b. Coordinate Operations – Steve McCoy
c. Standard 200 - Operate Within Limits - Ed Riley
d. Standard 600 - Determine Ratings and Limits – Paul Johnson
e. Standard 300 - Balance Resources and Demand - Tom Vandervort
f. Inadvertent Interchange - NERC standard and NAESB Payback Business Practice
g. Standard 1200 - CYBER Security – Larry Bugh
5. Calculating IROLs - Don Benjamin
6. Reliability Plans - Chair
7. Adjourn
- 2 -
Item 1. Administration
Arrangements
Don Benjamin will review the meeting arrangements. The meeting begins on Tuesday, January 13 after the joint OC-PC-MC meeting, and will adjourn on Wednesday, January 14 at noon. A luncheon will be served at noon on Tuesday.
Announcement of Quorum
Mr. Benjamin will announce whether a quorum (two-thirds of the voting members) is in place. NOTE: the committee cannot conduct business without a quorum. Please be prepared to stay for the entire meeting.
Procedures
The NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines, Organization and Procedures Manual, and a summary of Parliamentary Procedures are attached for reference. The secretary will answer questions regarding these procedures.
Attachments
1. Antitrust Guidelines
2. Parliamentary Procedures
3. Organization and Procedures Manual for the NERC Standing Committees
Action – Waiver of “Ten-Day” rule
“Ten-day” rule. The chair will waive the rule requiring a ten-day posting before an item can be brought to the committee for consideration (see text at right). The committee members are free to make any motions they desire.
New Members
Action
Approve
Chairman Fidrych will ask the OC to approve the following two members on an interim basis until the Board can consider their nominations in February.
1. IPP representative — Alan R. Johnson, Manager, Business & Reliability Standards, Regulatory Affairs, Mirant Corporation (Mr. Johnson replaces Mike Gildea.)
2. Power Marketer representative — Jack Crowley, Director, Wholesale Market Development, Government & environmental Affairs, Exelon Corporation (Mr. Crowley replaces Ken Clark.)
Introduction of Members and Guests
The chairman will ask the committee members and guests to introduce themselves
Attachment
Operating Committee roster
Item 2. Approval of Agenda
Action
Approve meeting agenda.
Background
The chair will review the agenda, ask for amendments, and then approval.
Item 3. August 14, 2003 Blackout
Action
Action is required for the first two items, which were introduced at the joint meeting. These items are also included in the Planning Committee and Market Committee agendas.
a. Comment on Investigation Results and Draft NERC Recommendations
a. Provide feedback on the blackout investigation analysis and results to date.
b. Provide comments and offer revisions on the proposed NERC recommendations.
c. Provide inputs on technical issues to be addressed in the report to the Board of Trustees.
b. Develop Committee Work Plans and Assignments
a. Identify issues from the blackout lessons learned within the scope of the committee. (Note: the OC will hear reports on possible changes to existing NERC Policies in Section C below)
b. Propose committee work needed to address those issues.
c. Develop a work plan and assign resources.
Attachment
See Joint MC, PC, OC, and CIPAG meeting agenda attachments 2 and 3, “NERC Recommendations to Prevent and Mitigate the Impacts of Future Cascading Blackouts” – Pre-decisional Draft for Discussion
Background
The NERC Steering Group was assigned by the Board of Trustees to lead the NERC investigation into the August 14, 2003 blackout. The steering group will report to the board on February 10, 2004 with its findings and recommendations from the investigation. The NERC standing committees and CIPAG are requested to provide expert comments on the investigation results to date and a proposed set of recommendations to the NERC board. The committees are also requested to develop work plans for recommended actions within the each committee’s respective scope. The committees will address the following during their meetings in the afternoon of January 13 and morning of January 14.
References
Committee members and observers are requested to prepare for the January 13-14, 2004 meeting by reviewing the November 19 Interim Report on the blackout at ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/blackout/814BlackoutReport.pdf and materials from the December 16, 2003 technical conference on the blackout at ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/blackout/Presentations_121603_Tech_Conference.zip
c. Implications for Current Operating Policies
The Operating Reliability Subcommittee, Reliability Coordinator Working Group, and Interchange Subcommittee have already begun reviewing the existing NERC Operating Policies. They are preparing suggested policy revisions or reference documents that address certain issues raised in the November 19 Interim Report on the blackout.
i.) Reliability Coordination - Policies, 5, 6, 9, and related Appendixes - Kim Warren
At its December 3, 2003 meeting, the Operating Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) discussed the interim blackout report. During the course of its discussion, the ORS noted a need to clarify or provide interpretation of existing NERC and regional operating policies and guides. At the conclusion of that meeting, Chairman Roger Harszy convened a small group of ORS and Reliability Coordinator Working Group (RCWG) members to further discuss critical issues regarding Reliability Coordinator responsibilities, tools, processes, and policies.
Chairman Harszy assigned each member of the ORS and RCWG to one of two subgroups and requested that each subgroup address the following:
· Each of the questions identified for discussion at the December 16, 2003 Technical Conference to Seek Recommendations Concerning the August 14, 2003 Blackout and Preventing Further Blackouts, with specific focus on the questions in the topical areas of Reliability Coordination, Emergency Response, Operating Tools, and Planning, Design and Maintenance Issues.
· Review of Operating Policies 5, 6, 9, and related appendices
A representative of the ORS and RCWG will provide the committee a status report of this activity. The status report will include discussion of:
· Why the ORS/RCWG undertook the review
· Where it stands
· Expectations for completion
· Results to date
· Where we have consensus, and
· Where there is differing opinion.
ii.) Interchange Scheduling - Policy 3 - Gordon Scott
Gordon Scott will lead the discussion on the implications for Policy 3 and tagging on each of the items below.
The Interchange Subcommittee discussed the U.S.-Canadian Interim Blackout Investigation Report, and possible Operating Committee recommendations that may flow out of the report, at the subcommittee’s December 3-5, 2003 meeting. The subcommittee found areas in the report that had implications for Policy 3. Items related to Policy 3 were also identified at the various outage technical conferences.
Dynamic Schedules
Policy 3.A.2.1 addresses the tagging of dynamic schedules:
Application to Transactions. All Interchange Transactions and certain Interchange Schedules shall be tagged. In addition, intra-Control Area transfers using Point-to-Point Transmission Service shall be tagged. This includes:
· Dynamic Interchange Schedules (tagged at the expected average MW profile for each hour). (Note: a change in the hourly energy profile of 25% or more requires a revised tag.)
The subcommittee plans to work with the ORS, IDCWG, and NERC’s compliance group, to tighten the requirement for tagging dynamic schedules. The subcommittee is considering a number of options including:
· Addition of a MW limit—perhaps 20 MW—for variances to a tagged dynamic schedule. E.g., the dynamic schedule must be retagged if it increases by the lesser of 25% or 20 MW.
· Addition of a tiered MW level change e.g. for schedules under 100 MW a change of 10 MW must be retagged, and for a schedule between 100 and 200 MW a change of 40 MW or more must be retagged.
· Lowering the 25% requirement to 10% or 15%.
Dynamic Transfer White Paper
The Interchange Subcommittee is concerned that all dynamic schedules are not being tagged and therefore are not entered into the IDC. The subcommittee formed a Dynamic Transfer Task Group to draft a white paper that provides, “guidance to the industry on the responsibilities, requirements, and expectations placed upon parties involved in establishing a Dynamic Transfer.” This white paper will be submitted to the Operating Committee in March for approval as a reference document.
E-Tag Survey
The subcommittee posted proposed enhancements to the E-Tag system for public comment. One question on the survey dealt with untagged schedules, “Do you have any untagged interchange? If so, what schedules are untagged?” Industry responses to this question concerned the subcommittee, as it seems that there is some confusion on tagging requirements. Gordon Scott will provide some examples to the Operating Committee during this discussion. The subcommittee plans to issue a letter stating the Policy 3 requirements for tagging.
iii.) AIE Survey and Tag Audit Field Test for August 14, 2003 – Dave Hilt
As part of the August blackout investigation, Dave Hilt, NERC’s Director of Compliance, requested an audit that compares tags obtained directly from the IDC to the scheduled interchange reported by the Control Areas for several hours on August 14, 2003. The survey “…asked each control area in the Eastern Interconnection to report schedule differences between its EMS system and the IDC. We need the data, as part of the blackout investigation, to fully understand the potential frequency deviations.”
Preliminary audit results showed large discrepancies between the tagged interchange and scheduled interchange. Control Areas have been requested to explain these discrepancies on an individual transaction basis. The results point to untagged dynamic schedules and untagged losses. Dave Hilt will lead the discussion on this audit.
Item 4. Reliability Standards
Action
Discuss and provide comments to drafting teams.
Background
This meeting provides the Operating Committee with an opportunity to discuss several SARs and draft Reliability Standards that have been posted for industry comment or ballot. We will provide the Committee’s comments to the drafting teams for their consideration. It’s important to consider these documents in light of the August 14 blackout.
The secretary has listed comments and questions below for the Committee to consider during its discussion.
Attachments
Each of these SARs and draft standards as well as their associated reference documents is attached for your reference.
a. Standard 400 – Coordinate Interchange - Mike Oatts
Mike Oatts, who chairs the Standard 400 drafting team, will lead the discussion on this proposed reliability standard.
Comments and Questions
1. The “Coordinate Interchange Reference Document” explains a number of concepts, including the “life cycle” of interchange from “arrangement” to “confirmed” to “implemented.”
2. The draft standard does not include interchange data protocols such as those in the current E-Tag procedure. NAESB is working on business practices and associated data protocols for the “market side” of interchange. Does NERC need to consider the same for the physical implementation of implantation on the “operations side?” NOTE: The Interchange Subcommittee plans to submit a SAR to standardize the communications for Implemented and Confirmed Interchange.
3. The IA must ensure that the ramp rates are equal and opposite; however, unlike Policy 3C, “Interchange Schedule Standards,” the draft reliability standard does not specify a default ramp rate. Is that OK?
Coordinate Interchange Business Practices Task Force
Roman Carter chairs the NAESB Coordinate Interchange Business Practices Task Force (CIBPTF) that was formed to review the proposed NERC Standard 400 and recommend whether there is a need for complementary business practices. Roman will provide an update on the coordination between NERC and NAESB on the Coordinate Interchange Standard.
b. Coordinate Operations – Steve McCoy
Comments and Questions
1. A draft standard is expected to be posted in January. If it is available before the OC meeting, we’ll send out a copy.
2. The SAR includes considerable coordination and information sharing. Should the standard also:
a. Require formal joint operating agreements between adjacent Reliability Authorities for handling seams problems?
b. Require more than analysis of maintenance outages? For example, should it also require the RA to contact the Transmission Operator to adjust maintenance schedules if the analysis shows that doing otherwise would harm grid reliability?
c. Require more than coordination of reliability analysis? For example, should it also require the RA’s to agree on procedures to mitigate operating problems such as IROL violations that affect multiple systems?
c. Standard 200 - Operate Within Limits - Ed Riley
Comments and Questions
1. This standard is now being balloted until January 6.
2. The Operating Reliability Subcommittee wrote the Operating Committee in December with two concerns: 1.) The lack of a maximum value for Tv, and 2.) that the standard did not specifically require that an IROL be mitigated “as soon as possible.”