Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS ... · Mr. Tom Dunn discussed the...

Antitrust: SPP strictly prohibits use of participation in SPP activities as a forum for engaging in practices or communications that violate the antitrust laws. Please avoid discussion of topics or behavior that would result in anti-competitive behavior, including but not limited to, agreements between or among competitors regarding prices, bid and offer practices, availability of service, product design, terms of sale, division of markets, allocation of customers or any other activity that might unreasonably restrain competition.

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING

December 9, 2019

Net Conference

• A G E N D A •

1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order and Administrative Items…………………………………………………Mr. Larry Altenbaumer

2. Consent Agenda…………………………………………………………………………………….Mr. Larry Altenbaumer

a. Approve October 29, 2019 Minutes

b. Corporate Governance Committee

i. Recommendation – Scope Approvals1. Business Practices Working Group2. Change Working Group3. Economic Studies Working Group4. Model Development Working Group5. Operating Reliability Working Group6. Project Cost Working Group7. Regional Tariff Working Group8. Reliability Compliance Working Group9. Seams Steering Committee10. Security Working Group11. Supply Adequacy Working Group12. System Protection and Control Working Group13. Transmission Working Group

ii. Recommendation – Chair Nominations as listed and Organizational GroupRosters

1. Business Practices Working Group2. Operating Reliability Working Group3. Reliability Compliance Working Group4. Regional Tariff Working Group5. Supply Adequacy Working Group6. Security Working Group7. Seams Steering Committee8. Transmission Working Group

1 of 230

Antitrust: SPP strictly prohibits use of participation in SPP activities as a forum for engaging in practices or communications that violate the antitrust laws. Please avoid discussion of topics or behavior that would result in anti-competitive behavior, including but not limited to, agreements between or among competitors regarding prices, bid and offer practices, availability of service, product design, terms of sale, division of markets, allocation of customers or any other activity that might unreasonably restrain competition.

3. Organizational Effectiveness Review

a. Board of Directors Evaluation………………………………………………………….Mr. Nick Brown

b. Organizational Group Report and Annual Assessments…………………Mr. Nick Brown

c. Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Results ............................................ Mr. Michael Desselle

d. SSAE16 Audit…………………………………………………………………………..Mr. Michael Desselle

4. Future Meetings ............................................................................................................ Mr. Larry Altenbaumer

2020 RSC/BOD – January 27-28…………………………………………Santa Fe, NM RSC/BOD – April 27-28………………………………………….....Little Rock, AR RSC/BOD – July 27-28………………………………………………Rapid City, SD RSC/BOD – October 26-27……………………………………….Little Rock, AR BOD – December 7…………………….………………………….Conference Call

2 of 230

1

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING Southwest Power Pool Corporate Center – Little Rock, AR

October 29, 2019

- Summary of Action Items -

1. Approved Consent Agenda Items

a. 7/30/19 and 9/20/19 Minutes

b. Corporate Governance Committee

i. Recommendation – Human Resources Committee Nomination ii. Recommendation – Finance Committee Nomination iii. Recommendation – Strategic Planning Committee Nominations

c. MOPC

i. PCWG Recommendation – Multi-Viola 345-138 kV ii. PCWG Recommendation – Sumner-Viola 138 kV iii. MOPC Recommendation – 2019 VRL Analysis iv. SUS-013 Neosho Ridge Wind Sponsored Upgrade Recommendation v. TWG RR363 Recommendation vi. TWG RR364 Recommendation

2. Approved DB Plan Termed Vested Participants Proposal Recommendation

3. Approved the Value and Affordability Task Force Recommendation

4. Approved the Finance Committee Recommendations

a. 2020 Budget Recommendation

b. 2020 Schedule 1A Administrative Fee Recommendation

5. Approved the Markets and Operations Policy Committee Recommendations

a. 2019 ITP Report and Recommendation

b. RR375

6. Approved the RR375 Recommendation on behalf of the Oversight Committee

3 of 230

SPP Board of Directors/Members Committee Minutes October 29, 2019

2

Minutes No. 186


BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS COMMITTEE MEETING Southwest Power Pool Corporate Center – Little Rock, AR

October 29, 2019

MINUTES

Agenda Item 1 – Administrative Items SPP Board of Directors Chair Mr. Larry Altenbaumer called the regular meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. The following Board of Directors/Members Committee members were in attendance or represented by proxy: Mr. Larry Altenbaumer, director Mr. Brett Baker, Liberty Utilities Ms. Phyllis Bernard, director Mr. Joel Bladow, Tri-State G&T Mr. Julian Brix, director Mr. Nick Brown, director Ms. Holly Carias, NextEra Energy Resources Ms. Susan Certoma, director Mr. Tom Christensen, Basin Electric Power Cooperative Mr. Mark Crisson, director Mr. Jim Eckelberger, director Mr. Graham Edwards, director Mr. David Hudson, Xcel Energy Mr. Rob Janssen, Dogwood Energy LLC Mr. Thomas Kent, Nebraska Public Power District Mr. Chris Jones for Jeff Knottek, City Utilities of Springfield, MO Mr. Bleau LaFave, NorthWestern Energy Mr. Joe Lang, Omaha Public Power District Mr. Brett Leopold, ITC Great Plains Mr. Stuart Lowry, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Mr. Josh Martin, director Mr. Greg McAuley, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Ms. Denise Buffington for Kevin Noblet, Evergy Companies Ms. Darcy Ortiz, director Mr. Dave Osburn, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Mr. Zac Perkins, Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc. Mr. Jeff Riles, Google Energy, LLC Mr. Bruce Scherr, director Ms. Peggy Simmons, American Electric Power Mr. Harry Skilton, director Mr. Kevin Smith, Tenaska Power Services Company Mr. Jody Sundsted, Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains Region Mr. Mike Wise, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

There were 146 people in attendance either in person or via the phone representing 45 Members (Attendance List – Attachment 1). Mr. Brown reported the proxies (Proxies – Attachment 2). Agenda Item 2 – Consent Agenda Mr. Larry Altenbaumer asked if there were any items that needed to be removed from the consent agenda (Consent Agenda – Attachment 3). There were none. Mr. Julian Brix moved to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Graham Edwards seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in unanimous approval. The Board voted; the motion passed.

4 of 230


3

Agenda Item 3 – Reports to the Board Regional State Committee Report

Commissioner Kim O’Guinn provided the report on the Regional State Committee (RSC). Commissioner O’Guinn recapped the educational session and the regular meeting topics that were presented. She expressed her appreciation to the presenters at the RSC education session on Monday. During the business meeting the RSC voted to approve motions regarding the elimination of Z2 credits, RCAR II, the 2020 RSC budget, and the 2020 slate of officers. The officers for 2020 are Commissioner Dennis Grennan, president, Commissioner Kristie Fiegen, vice president, and Commissioner Randy Christmann, secretary. Commissioner O’Guinn expressed her appreciation to the SPP board of directors for their continued support of the RSC. Oversight Committee Report

Mr. Josh Martin provided the report for the Oversight Committee (OC) (Oversight Committee Presentation – Attachment 4). During the RTO session the quarterly activity reports were reviewed. The focus of the meeting was compliance, Market Monitoring Unit (MMU) update, and security. The committee was updated on the transition to MRO. Staff has already engaged and is attending working group activities and compliance related workshops and training. The committee discussed the compliance metric recommendation to the HRC. The HRC asked the OC to develop a metric that could be used to assess staff compliance. The OC developed a qualitative holistic view of SPP overall staff compliance in a calendar year to include NERC standards, audits, and financial information. The committee discussed the table top exercise scheduled for November. This is designed to test physical and cyber security nationwide. Mr. Keith Collins, SPP MMU Executive Director, provided the MMU staff’s comments on RR375 – FERC Order on Fast-Start Pricing (MMU Presentation on RR375 – Attachment 5). Throughout the stakeholder process, the MMU has noted concerns and provided comments on RR375. The Market Working Group (MWG) approved the revision request and did not incorporate the MMU recommended changes. The MMU continues to have significant concerns that are not addressed in the stakeholder process. MMU will file comments with FERC noting its objections, concerns, and observations. Strategic Planning Committee Report

Mr. Larry Altenbaumer provided the update on the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). The SPC met jointly with the Value and Affordability Task Force (VATF) in October. The purpose of the joint meeting was to receive the report and recommendations of the VATF. The report was unanimously accepted. The SPC will serve as the entity with oversight of the full implementation of the VATF recommendations. There were presentations on the upcoming 2021 integrated transmission planning (ITP) studies and implementation process of the Holistic Integrated Tariff Team (HITT) recommendations. The SPC will meet in November and discuss metrics. Agenda Item 4 – Human Resources Committee Mr. Julian Brix provided the Human Resources Committee (HRC) report and presentation (Human Resources Committee Presentation – Attachment 6). Mr. Brix reviewed the committee members. Comments to the HRC can be provided to any of the committee members regarding the evaluation Mr. Brown discussed earlier in the meeting. The HRC has an obligation throughout the year to provide information on several area. The Administrative Committee is responsible for providing information regarding the combined contribution and benefit plans. The HRC is also responsible for providing the fraud prevention report which included the payroll systems, the medical plan, benefit settlements, 5500 benefit plan reporting, training, the administrative committee, and the compliance and fraud alert hotline. The metrics are also reviewed annually. There is an annual review of the HRC scope document and a self-assessment. The HRC approved an updated compliance metric proposed by the OC and endorsed the staffing and benefits section of the VATF report. The report included additional comments on structure and productivity. Mr. Tom Dunn discussed the recommendation (DB Plan Termed Vested Participants Proposal Recommendation – Attachment 7) that was before the Board and Members Committee for consideration. The recommendation was a proposal from Mercer, who suggested that SPP offer a lump-sum payout option to terminated vested participants. If all terminated vested employees selected this option it would lower the annual premium by $103,000.

5 of 230


4

Participants cannot be forced to accept a lump-sum payout. Offering this option is beneficial in that it will lower the risk for the individual of not receiving the benefit at normal retirement age. Ms. Susan Certoma moved to approve the DB Plan Termed Vested Participants Proposal Recommendation and execute a lump-sum benefit payment option to terminated vested participants in SPP’s defined benefit pension plan. Mr. Mark Crisson seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in unanimous approval. The Board voted; the motion passed. Agenda Item 5 – Value and Affordability Task Force Mr. Larry Altenbaumer reminded everyone that the VATF report was previewed with the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) and accepted by the SPC. Ms. Barbara Sugg (SPP staff) provided a detailed report (VATF Report – Attachments 8) at the joint briefing on Monday. Mr. Altenbaumer asked for any additional comments. Mr. Graham Edwards moved to approve the Value and Affordability Task Force Recommendation (VATF Recommendation – Attachment 9). Mr. Bruce Scherr seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in unanimous approval. The Board voted; the motion passed. Agenda Item 6 – Finance Committee Mr. Bruce Scherr began his report by thanking Mr. Tom Dunn and his staff for their hard work on the 2020 Budget Document (2020 Budget Document – Attachment 10). He also thanked the Finance Committee (FC). There has been a lot more outside participation that has contributed to more robust discussion. Mr. Scherr reviewed the budget timeline (2020 Budget Presentation – Attachment 11). He reviewed the net revenue requirement and administrative fee, rate drivers, capital projects and foundation expenditures. Mr. Bruce Scherr moved to approve the 2020 SPP operating and capital budgets (2020 Budget Recommendation – Attachment 12). Ms. Susan Certoma seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in favor with one no vote (SPS/Xcel Energy) and two abstentions (Oklahoma Gas & Electric and Liberty Utilities). The Board voted; the motion passed. Mr. Bruce Scherr moved to establish an assessment rate and tariff administrative fee (schedule 1-A) of 43.0¢/MWh beginning on January 1, 2020 (2020 Administrative Fee Recommendation – Attachment 13). Mr. Mark Crisson seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in favor with two abstentions (Oklahoma Gas & Electric and Liberty Utilities). The Board voted; the motion passed. Agenda Item 7 – Markets and Operations Policy Committee Ms. Holly Carias (NextEra Energy Resources, LLC) provided an update on the MOPC (MOPC Presentation – Attachment 14). Ms. Carias began by discussing an overview of the 2019 ITP. She thanked staff members Antoine Lucas and his team for their hard work, for the great job explaining the information, and for putting it together. This was a very collaborative stakeholder process. There are 44 projects worth $336M. The benefit-to-cost ratio is very high. (2019 ITP Report – Attachment 15). Mr. Nick Brown moved to approve the 2019 ITP assessment report and associated issuance of NTC’s (2019 ITP Recommendation – Attachment 16). Mr. Mark Crisson seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in favor with one no vote (Sunflower Electric Power Corporation) and four abstentions (Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Oklahoma Gas & Electric, and Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority). The Board voted; the motion passed. Ms. Carias reported on the FERC order on fast-start pricing. SPP received FERC’s preliminary findings showing SPP’s fast-start pricing practices were unjust and unreasonable because they do not reflect the marginal cost of serving load. SPP received an order from FERC directing SPP to make changes resulting in rates that are just and reasonable and submit the filing. The revision request makes all the necessary changes to align the Tariff with the FERC order. The revision request ensures SPP is compliant with FERC’s order on fast-start pricing.

6 of 230


5

The MMU provided a memo with comments (MMU Comments on RR375 – Attachment 17). The MMU is not in agreement with RR375 and has identified two major market design flaws. Mr. Josh Martin and the OC asked the board to acknowledge the recommendation from the MMU and support the filing of comments to FERC by the MMU. Mr. Nick Brown moved to approve RR375 as recommended by the MOPC. Mr. Graham Edwards seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in favor with one no vote (Golden Spread Electric Cooperative). The Board voted; the motion passed. Mr. Josh Martin moved to accept the MMU’s report and encourage the MMU to file their respective comments to FERC relative to quick start resources when SPP submits its compliance filing. Mr. Graham Edwards seconded the motion. The Members Committee voted in favor with one abstention (Nebraska Public Power District). The Board voted; the motion passed. Agenda Item 8 – Future Meetings Mr. Larry Altenbaumer reported that the conference call scheduled for December 2 will have to change due to a conflict. Everyone will be notified as soon as a date can be established (Future meetings – Attachment 18).

2019 BOD December 2 Conference Call 2020 RSC/BOD January 27-28 Santa Fe, NM RSC/BOD April 27-28 Little Rock, AR RSC/BOD July 27-28 Rapid City, SD RSC/BOD October 26-27 Little Rock, AR BOD December 7 Conference Call

Adjournment With no further business, Mr. Altenbaumer adjourned the meeting at 11:09 a.m. The Board and Members Committee went into executive session at 11:20 a.m. The executive session adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Suskie, Corporate Secretary

7 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE Recommendation to the Board of Directors

December 9, 2019 Approval of SPP Organizational Group Scopes

Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Corporate Governance Committee: Nick Brown, Chair SPP Brett Leopold ITC Larry Altenbaumer Director John McClure NPPD Denise Buffington Evergy Companies Holly Rachel Smith Walmart Jason Fortik LES Jody Sundsted WAPA-UGPR Robert Janssen Dogwood Energy Mike Wise GSEC

Background Per Bylaws Section 6.6, the Corporate Governance Committee is charged with the responsibility for SPP’s “overall governance structure” in accordance with its Board of Directors-approved scope. This scope requires, among other things, that the Corporate Governance Committee conduct, together with Organizational Group Chairs, an annual review of each Organizational Group scope, with changes to be recommended to the Board of Directors, as appropriate. The Board of Directors is expressly charged with approving the scopes of Organizational Groups that report to the Board of Directors (Bylaws Sections 6.1 – 6.6), and, pursuant to Bylaws Section 4.1(a) and (g), is otherwise responsible for directing activities of all SPP Organizational Groups and reviewing, approving, disapproving, or recommending revision to the actions of any Organization Group. Prior to being approved by the Corporate Governance Committee, each of the requested charter changes was approved by the respective working group and the group to which it reports, as applicable. Analysis

Group Requested Change Comments Business Practices Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Delete duration

Recommend Approval

Change Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Various formatting changes Updates to the purpose for the group Updated the representation Deleted duration

Recommend Approval

Economic Studies Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Various formatting changes Added an activity to the Scope of Activities Deleted duration

Recommend Approval

8 of 230

Model Development Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Deleted duration

Recommend Approval

Operating Reliability Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Update to the Scope of Activities Deleted duration, reporting, and meeting schedule

Recommend Approval

Project Cost Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Update to the Scope of Activities Deleted duration

Recommend Approval

Reliability Compliance Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Update to the Scope of Activities

Recommend Approval

Regional Tariff Working Group Change from Charter to Scope Recommend

Approval

Seams Steering Committee Update to the Scope Activities Recommend

Approval

Security Working Group Change from Charter to Scope Deleted duration

Recommend Approval

Supply Adequacy Working Group Update to the Scope Activities and representation Recommend

Approval

System Protection and Control Working Group Change from Charter to Scope Recommend

Approval

Transmission Working Group

Change from Charter to Scope Update to the Scope of Activities

Recommend Approval

Recommendation Approval of the respective SPP Organizational Groups charters. Approved: Corporate Governance Committee November 14, 2019 Action Requested: Approve the respective scopes Attachments: Business Practices Working Group (Clean and Redline) Change Working Group (Clean and Redline) Economic Studies Working Group (Clean and Redline) Model Development Working Group (Clean and Redline) Operating Reliability Working Group (Clean and Redline) Project Cost Working Group (Clean and Redline) Regional Tariff Working Group (Clean and Redline) Reliability Compliance Working Group (Clean and Redline) Seams Steering Committee (Clean and Redline)

Security Working Group (Clean and Redline) Supply Adequacy Working Group (Clean and Redline) System Protection and Control Working Group (Clean and Redline)

Transmission Working Group (Clean and Redline)

9 of 230

Southwest Power Pool Business Practices Working Group

Scope October 15-16, 2019

Purpose The Business Practices Working Group (BPWG) is responsible for discussing issues surrounding the development and implementation of SPP’s OATT Business Practices. The BPWG will propose new practices and changes to existing practices that will facilitate effective and efficient administration of the SPP OATT. The BPWG will recommend tariff changes or modifications that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the SPP OATT. The BPWG will develop practices that supplement, clarify, and enhance the understanding of OATT provisions and principles without violating those provisions and principles as well as coordinate with other working groups and committees as appropriate in the development of business practices. Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the BPWG will: 1. Meet periodically to review existing business practices, discuss needed improvements, and propose new practices, 2. Evaluate existing or proposed business practices to determine their consistency with SPP OATT provisions, FERC Orders and other established FERC precedent, 3. Work closely with the Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) and SPP Staff to assess tariff revenue impacts and/or the need for tariff changes associated with new or modified business practices being proposed, 4. Work closely with the Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) and SPP Staff to assess reliability impacts associated with new or modified business practices being proposed, 5. Work closely with the Market Working Group (MWG) and SPP Staff to assess protocol impacts associated with new or modified business practices being proposed, 6. Submit new or modified business practices being proposed along with supporting rationale, implementation costs, reliability impacts, and any tariff changes or tariff revenue impacts to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee for approval. 7. Develop solutions and recommendations to commercial issues raised at other SPP forums.

10 of 230

8. Respond to special assignments from the Board of Directors, and Markets and Operations Policy Committee. 9. Work with SPP Staff and other SPP organizational groups to prioritize activities. Representation BPWG membership will consist of a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and at least 6 but no more than 12 voting members. Representatives will consist of transmission customers under SPP’s tariff, half of which will be merchant group affiliates of transmission owners with facilities under the SPP OATT. Reporting The BPWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee. As necessary the BPWG may appoint a member of the BPWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

11 of 230

Southwest Power Pool Business Practices Working Group

Scope [Insert Effective Date]

Purpose The Business Practices Working Group (BPWG) is responsible for discussing issues surrounding the development and implementation of SPP’s OATT Business Practices. The BPWG will propose new practices and changes to existing practices that will facilitate effective and efficient administration of the SPP OATT. The BPWG will recommend tariff changes or modifications that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the SPP OATT. The BPWG will develop practices that supplement, clarify, and enhance the understanding of OATT provisions and principles without violating those provisions and principles as well as coordinate with other working groups and committees as appropriate in the development of business practices. Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the BPWG will: 1. Meet periodically to review existing business practices, discuss needed improvements, and propose new practices, 2. Evaluate existing or proposed business practices to determine their consistency with SPP OATT provisions, FERC Orders and other established FERC precedent, 3. Work closely with the Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) and SPP Staff to assess tariff revenue impacts and/or the need for tariff changes associated with new or modified business practices being proposed, 4. Work closely with the Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) and SPP Staff to assess reliability impacts associated with new or modified business practices being proposed, 5. Work closely with the Market Working Group (MWG) and SPP Staff to assess protocol impacts associated with new or modified business practices being proposed, 6. Submit new or modified business practices being proposed along with supporting rationale, implementation costs, reliability impacts, and any tariff changes or tariff revenue impacts to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee for approval. 7. Develop solutions and recommendations to commercial issues raised at other SPP forums.

Deleted: Charter

Deleted: October 27, 2015

Deleted: ¶

12 of 230

8. Respond to special assignments from the Board of Directors, and Markets and Operations Policy Committee. 9. Work with SPP Staff and other SPP organizational groups to prioritize activities. Representation BPWG membership will consist of a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and at least 6 but no more than 12 voting members. Representatives will consist of transmission customers under SPP’s tariff, half of which will be merchant group affiliates of transmission owners with facilities under the SPP OATT. Reporting The BPWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee. As necessary the BPWG may appoint a member of the BPWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

Deleted: Duration¶¶Permanent.¶

13 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. CHANGE WORKING GROUP

Organizational Group Scope Statement January 26, 2016

Purpose The Change Working Group (CWG) serves an implementation role needed by SPP, the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) and the other working groups for market participant/member-facing and market participant/member-impacting efforts. The CWG is responsible for planning, coordinating, and monitoring these changes to SPP systems and processes.

A project is considered market participant/member-facing if: • The changes will be perceptible but will not require any modifications to market

participant/member systems or processes. A project is considered market participant/member-impacting if:

• Market participants/members will be required to make modifications to their systems or processes; and/or

• Market participants/members will be required to perform testing of changes. Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the CWG will:

1. Define and develop processes and procedures to support the scope of CWG activities.

2. Review and propose additions and modifications to SPP systems and processes impacting SPP and SPP market participants and members.

3. Monitor and coordinate market participant/member-facing and -impacting projects related to items within the CWG scope of activities.

4. Facilitate collaboration between SPP and SPP market participants and members to ensure readiness related to items within the scope of CWG activities.

5. Coordinate with staff and other SPP organizational groups to plan and prioritize activities.

14 of 230

6. Coordinate with other SPP organizational groups in the development of SPP Protocols and provide feedback on revision request system impact assessments where market participant/member-facing and/or -impacting changes are involved.

7. Provide input to project prioritization plans and review and provide comments to recommendations of proposed system changes.

Representation Each SPP member may appoint a representative to the CWG. The CWG will consist of at least ten members, with no more than one CWG representative for each SPP member, including the chair and vice chair. The CWG expects to maintain a membership with diverse representation including Information Technology, Project Management, Operations, and business personnel. Reporting The CWG reports to the MOPC for all activities. As necessary, the CWG may appoint one of its members as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

15 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. CHANGE WORKING GROUP

Organizational Group Scope Statement January 26, 2016

Purpose The Change Working Group (CWG) serves an implementation role needed by SPP, the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) and the other working groups for market participant/member-facing and market participant/member-impacting efforts. The CWG is responsible for planning, coordinating, and monitoring these changes to SPP systems and processes.

A project is considered market participant/member-facing if: • The changes will be perceptible but will not require any modifications to market

participant/member systems or processes. A project is considered market participant/member-impacting if:

• Market participants/members will be required to make modifications to their systems or processes; and/or

• Market participants/members will be required to perform testing of changes. Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the CWG will:

1. Define and develop processes and procedures to support the scope of CWG activities.

2. Review and propose additions and modifications to SPP systems and processes impacting SPP and SPP market participants and members.

3. Monitor and coordinate market participant/member-facing and -impacting projects related to items within the CWG scope of activities.

4. Facilitate collaboration between SPP and SPP market participants and members to ensure readiness related to items within the scope of CWG activities.

5. Coordinate with staff and other SPP organizational groups to plan and prioritize activities.

Style Definition ...Deleted: ¶ ...Formatted ...Formatted ...

Formatted ...Formatted ...

Deleted:

Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Deleted: Charter

Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Deleted: ¶

Formatted ...Deleted: ¶


Deleted: • There are no


Deleted: entities need to make to allow for SPP’s ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...

Deleted: • The change in the project will require ...Formatted ...

Deleted: , without which

Formatted ...Deleted: current

Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...

Deleted: no longer work with this particular process

Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Formatted ...Deleted: ¶

Formatted ...Formatted ...Deleted: ¶


Formatted ...

Formatted ...16 of 230

Formatted: Footer

6. Coordinate with other SPP organizational groups in the development of SPP Protocols and provide feedback on revision request system impact assessments where market participant/member-facing and/or -impacting changes are involved.

7. Provide input to project prioritization plans and review and provide comments to recommendations of proposed system changes.

Representation Each SPP member may appoint a representative to the CWG. The CWG will consist of at least ten members, with no more than one CWG representative for each SPP member, including the chair and vice chair. The CWG expects to maintain a membership with diverse representation including Information Technology, Project Management, Operations, and business personnel. Reporting The CWG reports to the MOPC for all activities. As necessary, the CWG may appoint one of its members as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

Deleted: ¶

Formatted: Heading 1, Right: 0", Widow/Orphancontrol, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,Adjust space between Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Not Expanded by / Condensed by



Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Heading 1, Space Before: 0 pt, Linespacing: single, Widow/Orphan control, Adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text, Adjust space betweenAsian text and numbers

Deleted: Duration Permanent.



17 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Economic Studies Working Group

Organizational Group Scope Statement "[Click here and type date of BOD approval]"

Purpose The Economic Studies Working Group (ESWG) advises and assists Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Staff in the determination of the appropriate data, planning methods and processes to be used in the development and evaluation of economic transmission expansion options for the SPP region. The ESWG will be responsible for data, sources, models, economic planning methodology, timing and implementation, application, economic parameters and metrics to be used in the development and evaluation of economic expansion options in the SPP region. The ESWG will also review the economic planning processes used by SPP Staff and offer proposals for improvement of these processes. The ESWG will be responsible for all economic modeling parameters and data for the SPP region, and will conduct as needed updates to all data for the stakeholders on a regular basis as appropriate for regional planning needs. Additionally, the ESWG will have oversight on appropriate access of data to third party consultants.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the ESWG will: 1. Provide oversight, data inputs and review, as appropriate, of economic planning

studies performed by the SPP, including but not limited to: • Integrated Transmission Planning (ITP) – provide input into the economic

portions of the ITP process • Balanced Portfolio – Provide guidance to the CAWG on input assumptions and

modeling techniques used in the Balanced Portfolio analysis • High Priority – support other high priority economic studies, as applicable • Coordinated System Planning – provide input into economic studies performed in

coordination with neighboring regions or entities • Regional Cost Allocation Review (RCAR) – provide input into the RCAR analysis

and provide guidance to the Regional Allocation Review Task Force (RARTF), as needed

• 20 year assessment – identify and maintain the economic data, data sources, models, economic planning methodology and processes, and adjusted production cost (APC) to be used in the evaluation of economic expansion needs in the SPP region

18 of 230

2. Provide oversight of the economic study process performed by the SPP, including but not limited to, economic transmission plan development, project interaction and the overall economic planning process

3. Provide input to the SPP in evaluation of the impact of market mechanisms on planning studies

4. Establish study standard assumptions for economic analysis; determine, update and vet the necessary data and inputs required to model, study, and evaluate economic alternatives

5. Define and update any terms used in the economic transmission planning process, including data, metrics and assumptions that provide clear understanding to conduct economic studies for SPP

6. Identify, review and modify the metrics for overall quantification and break-out of economic impacts beyond adjusted production cost savings

7. Review the solution techniques and provide recommendations for improvements and/or alternatives

8. Update and maintain the economic planning process documentation to provide controls for economic planning in SPP

Provide updates to the MOPC on the status and progress of economic studies and planning in the SPP

Representation The ESWG membership will consist of up to seventeen voting members (including the Chairman). The ESWG will have one non-voting Regulatory Liaison member. Members of the ESWG shall have experience and knowledge in one or more of the following areas:

• Economic Analysis • Economic Modeling • Energy markets • Transmission Planning • Planning and Forecasting • Generation

Reporting The ESWG reports to the Market and Operations Policy Committee.

19 of 230

Formatted: Footer

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Economic Studies Working Group


Purpose The Economic Studies Working Group (ESWG) advises and assists Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Staff in the determination of the appropriate data, planning methods and processes to be used in the development and evaluation of economic transmission expansion options for the SPP region. The ESWG will be responsible for data, sources, models, economic planning methodology, timing and implementation, application, economic parameters and metrics to be used in the development and evaluation of economic expansion options in the SPP region. The ESWG will also review the economic planning processes used by SPP Staff and offer proposals for improvement of these processes. The ESWG will be responsible for all economic modeling parameters and data for the SPP region, and will conduct as needed updates to all data for the stakeholders on a regular basis as appropriate for regional planning needs. Additionally, the ESWG will have oversight on appropriate access of data to third party consultants.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the ESWG will: 1. Provide oversight, data inputs and review, as appropriate, of economic planning

studies performed by the SPP, including but not limited to: • Integrated Transmission Planning (ITP) – provide input into the economic

portions of the ITP process • Balanced Portfolio – Provide guidance to the CAWG on input assumptions and

modeling techniques used in the Balanced Portfolio analysis • High Priority – support other high priority economic studies, as applicable • Coordinated System Planning – provide input into economic studies performed in

coordination with neighboring regions or entities • Regional Cost Allocation Review (RCAR) – provide input into the RCAR analysis

and provide guidance to the Regional Allocation Review Task Force (RARTF), as needed

• 20 year assessment – identify and maintain the economic data, data sources, models, economic planning methodology and processes, and adjusted production cost (APC) to be used in the evaluation of economic expansion needs in the SPP region

Deleted: Charter¶April 25th, 2017¶¶PURPOSE¶

Deleted: ¶SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES¶

20 of 230

Formatted: Footer

2. Provide oversight of the economic study process performed by the SPP, including but not limited to, economic transmission plan development, project interaction and the overall economic planning process

3. Provide input to the SPP in evaluation of the impact of market mechanisms on planning studies

4. Establish study standard assumptions for economic analysis; determine, update and vet the necessary data and inputs required to model, study, and evaluate economic alternatives

5. Define and update any terms used in the economic transmission planning process, including data, metrics and assumptions that provide clear understanding to conduct economic studies for SPP

6. Identify, review and modify the metrics for overall quantification and break-out of economic impacts beyond adjusted production cost savings

7. Review the solution techniques and provide recommendations for improvements and/or alternatives

8. Update and maintain the economic planning process documentation to provide controls for economic planning in SPP

9. Provide updates to the MOPC on the status and progress of economic studies and

planning in the SPP Representation The ESWG membership will consist of up to seventeen voting members (including the Chairman). The ESWG will have one non-voting Regulatory Liaison member. Members of the ESWG shall have experience and knowledge in one or more of the following areas:

• Economic Analysis • Economic Modeling • Energy markets • Transmission Planning • Planning and Forecasting • Generation

Reporting The ESWG reports to the Market and Operations Policy Committee.

Deleted: ¶¶REPRESENTATION¶

Deleted: DURATION¶Permanent.¶¶REPORTING¶

Deleted: ¶¶Other Notes:¶In light of FERC Orders 888 and 889 and the group composure of transmission and generation parties, the ESWG will have to observe the Standards of Conduct outlined in FERC Order 889. As such, there may be topics discussed by the ESWG that are privileged and confidential. Under such an event, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that no Standards of Conduct are violated, including but not limited to, closed meetings, closed sessions, etc. Members and participants will be required to adhere to¶SPP’s Nondisclosure Agreement.

21 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. MODEL DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP


Purpose The Model Development Working Group (MDWG) is responsible for the coord inat ion, deve lopment, and maintenance of transmission system planning models in accordance with Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Planning Criteria, Regional Standards, and procedures. The MDWG is also responsible for supporting development of interconnection wide models by providing SPP transmission system planning models and related information to the Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) Multiregional Modeling Working Group (MMWG).

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the MDWG will:

1. Provide oversight and coordination of the activities of MDWG-initiated task

forces. 2. Develop and maintain the MDWG Model Development Procedure Manual.

3. Develop, maintain, and coordinate steady state, short circuit, dynamic, and

geomagnetic disturbance models in accordance to the SPP Planning Criteria, SPP Regional Standards, and procedures.

4. Work with SPP Staff and the Transmission Working Group (TWG) to determine

the models that should be used in SPP, basis for the models, and how they are modified to ensure that the transmission system planning models support the needs of SPP and SPP Organizational Groups.

5. Review and monitor existing and proposed NERC Reliability Standards for

impacts to the development, maintenance, and coordination of SPP transmission system planning models. Coordinate responses to new and proposed standards with SPP and other SPP Organizational Groups.

6. Support the SPP submission of modeling data to the ERAG MMWG for the

SPP transmission system. Coordinate the incorporation of ERAG MMWG modeling information for facilities external to the SPP transmission system into the SPP models.

22 of 230

7. Respond to assignments from the TWG, Markets and Operations Policy

Committee (MOPC), or the Board of Directors. Representation The MDWG membership consists of a minimum of 8 and up to 24 representatives from the SPP membership, including the chair and vice-chair.

Reporting The MDWG reports to the TWG. As necessary the MDWG may appoint a member of the MDWG as a liaison to other working groups.

23 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. MODEL DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP


Purpose The Model Development Working Group (MDWG) is responsible for the coordinat ion, development, and maintenance of transmission system planning models in accordance with Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Planning Criteria, Regional Standards, and procedures. The MDWG is also responsible for supporting development of interconnection wide models by providing SPP transmission system planning models and related information to the Eastern Interconnection Reliability Assessment Group (ERAG) Multiregional Modeling Working Group (MMWG).

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the MDWG will:

1. Provide oversight and coordination of the activities of MDWG-initiated task

forces. 2. Develop and maintain the MDWG Model Development Procedure Manual.

3. Develop, maintain, and coordinate steady state, short circuit, dynamic, and

geomagnetic disturbance models in accordance to the SPP Planning Criteria, SPP Regional Standards, and procedures.

4. Work with SPP Staff and the Transmission Working Group (TWG) to determine

the models that should be used in SPP, basis for the models, and how they are modified to ensure that the transmission system planning models support the needs of SPP and SPP Organizational Groups.

5. Review and monitor existing and proposed NERC Reliability Standards for

impacts to the development, maintenance, and coordination of SPP transmission system planning models. Coordinate responses to new and proposed standards with SPP and other SPP Organizational Groups.

6. Support the SPP submission of modeling data to the ERAG MMWG for the

SPP transmission system. Coordinate the incorporation of ERAG MMWG modeling information for facilities external to the SPP transmission system into the SPP models.

Deleted: Charter

24 of 230

7. Respond to assignments from the TWG, Markets and Operations Policy

Committee (MOPC), or the Board of Directors. Representation The MDWG membership consists of a minimum of 8 and up to 24 representatives from the SPP membership, including the chair and vice-chair.

Reporting The MDWG reports to the TWG. As necessary the MDWG may appoint a member of the MDWG as a liaison to other working groups.

Deleted: Duration¶DisplayText cannot span more than one

25 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. OPERATING RELIABILITY WORKING GROUP

Organizational Group Scope Statement JULY 23, 2019

Purpose The Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) develops, maintains, and coordinates the implementation of policies related to the reliable and secure operation of the Bulk Electric System within the SPP Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, and SPP Reserve Sharing Group (RSG) footprints. The ORWG ensures these operating policies are consistent with NERC and Regional Reliability Standards. The ORWG provides oversight and direction for the Reliability Coordinator and Balancing Authority functions of the SPP and assigned SPP working groups. The ORWG provides policy input to the MOPC and BOD and its committees, if requested.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the ORWG will:

1. Review, modify and develop any necessary SPP policies related to:

• The reliable and secure operation of the bulk electric system within the SPP.

• The development, maintenance, and compliance with NERC Standards of the SPP state-estimator model and ensure that the model adequately supports the needs of the SPP Reliability Coordinator, SPP Balancing Authority, regional Tariff Administration, and any Integrated Marketplace functions.

• The real-time exchange of reliability related power system data, submission of one-line displays, and other system information.

• The data exchange needs of SPP and between SPP and its members as it relates to the Reliability Coordination, Balancing Authority, and Reserve Sharing Group functions of SPP.

2. Review, modify and develop any Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority and

Transmission Tariff procedures related to the operational implementation of the SPP OATT in cooperation with the Regional Tariff Working Group.

3. Direct and coordinate the activities of the SPP Reliability Coordinator as they relate to NERC and Regional Reliability standards, SPP policies, and the SPP OATT.

26 of 230

4. Direct and coordinate the activities of the SPP Balancing Authority and may fulfill

the role of the Operating Committee as defined in and in accordance with the SPP OATT Attachment AN.

5. Direct and coordinate the activities and policies of the SPP Reserve Sharing Group (RSG).

6. Coordinate with applicable Reliability Entitles (RE) as needed for reliability issues. The ORWG will coordinate with other working groups on any issues that affect the groups.

7. Work with Staff and other SPP organizational groups to prioritize activities.

8. Create, direct, and coordinate the activities of any Event Analysis Review Team

formed as needed to review major BES events impacting the SPP footprint as deemed necessary by the ORWG or after consideration of a request from any of the following working groups: Security Working Group (SECWG), Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG), Supply Adequacy Working Group (SAWG), System Protection and Control Working Group (SPCWG), or the Transmission Working Group (TWG). The Review Team will be comprised of members or appointees from the appropriate working groups based on the nature of the BES event. Assigned tasks of the Review Team may include technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

Representation The ORWG is comprised of at least 12 and up to 19 members, including the chairman and vice-chair. Meetings are open, however by sufficient notice; the ORWG may limit attendance during specific portions of a meeting by an affirmative vote of the ORWG for reasons that are consistent with the SPP Bylaws. Representatives should be experienced in operations related matters including but not limited to Balancing Authority functions, Transmission Operations, and system reliability.

Reporting The ORWG reports to the SPP Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) for all activities. As necessary, the ORWG may appoint a member of the ORWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

27 of 230


Organizational Group Scope Statement JULY 23, 2019

Purpose The Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) develops, maintains, and coordinates the implementation of policies related to the reliable and secure operation of the Bulk Electric System within the SPP Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, and SPP Reserve Sharing Group (RSG) footprints. The ORWG ensures these operating policies are consistent with NERC and Regional Reliability Standards. The ORWG provides oversight and direction for the Reliability Coordinator and Balancing Authority functions of the SPP and assigned SPP working groups. The ORWG provides policy input to the MOPC and BOD and its committees, if requested.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the ORWG will:

1. Review, modify and develop any necessary SPP policies related to:

• The reliable and secure operation of the bulk electric system within the SPP.

• The development, maintenance, and compliance with NERC Standards of the SPP state-estimator model and ensure that the model adequately supports the needs of the SPP Reliability Coordinator, SPP Balancing Authority, regional Tariff Administration, and any Integrated Marketplace functions.

• The real-time exchange of reliability related power system data, submission of one-line displays, and other system information.

• The data exchange needs of SPP and between SPP and its members as it relates to the Reliability Coordination, Balancing Authority, and Reserve Sharing Group functions of SPP.

2. Review, modify and develop any Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority and

Transmission Tariff procedures related to the operational implementation of the SPP OATT in cooperation with the Regional Tariff Working Group.

3. Direct and coordinate the activities of the SPP Reliability Coordinator as they relate to NERC and Regional Reliability standards, SPP policies, and the SPP OATT.

Deleted: DECEMBER 4, 2018

28 of 230

4. Direct and coordinate the activities of the SPP Balancing Authority and may fulfill

the role of the Operating Committee as defined in and in accordance with the SPP OATT Attachment AN.

5. Direct and coordinate the activities and policies of the SPP Reserve Sharing Group (RSG).

6. Coordinate with applicable Reliability Entitles (RE) as needed for reliability issues. The ORWG will coordinate with other working groups on any issues that affect the groups.


8. Create, direct, and coordinate the activities of any Event Analysis Review Team

formed as needed to review major BES events impacting the SPP footprint as deemed necessary by the ORWG or after consideration of a request from any of the following working groups: Security Working Group (SECWG), Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG), Supply Adequacy Working Group (SAWG), System Protection and Control Working Group (SPCWG), or the Transmission Working Group (TWG). The Review Team will be comprised of members or appointees from the appropriate working groups based on the nature of the BES event. Assigned tasks of the Review Team may include technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

Representation The ORWG is comprised of at least 12 and up to 19 members, including the chairman and vice-chair. Meetings are open, however by sufficient notice; the ORWG may limit attendance during specific portions of a meeting by an affirmative vote of the ORWG for reasons that are consistent with the SPP Bylaws. Representatives should be experienced in operations related matters including but not limited to Balancing Authority functions, Transmission Operations, and system reliability.

Reporting The ORWG reports to the SPP Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) for all activities. As necessary, the ORWG may appoint a member of the ORWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

Deleted: through the administrative oversight of the SPP Balancing Authority Operating Committee (BAOC).

Deleted: Duration¶Permanent.¶

Deleted: The BAOC reports to the ORWG for all activities. As necessary, the ORWG may assign or receive action items from the BAOC.

Deleted: Meeting Schedule¶Generally, meetings will be scheduled such that there will be an official meeting every month. Annually, there will be at least two face-to-face meetings with the other monthly meetings being conducted via a Webex/Teleconference.

29 of 230

SOUTHWEST POWER POOL, INC. PROJECT COST WORKING GROUP

Organizational Group Scope Statement December 4, 2018

PURPOSE

To maintain the integrity of the SPP transmission project estimate process, a rigorous and transparent evaluation of cost estimate variances is required. The SPP project tracking process sets cost variance bandwidths and mandates justification and review for project cost estimates that have changed outside these bandwidths, including Competitive Upgrades.

The purpose of establishing the Project Cost Working Group (PCWG) is to create a group with stakeholder input, oversight, and accountability that can provide a transparent review of transmission cost variances. To ensure cost estimate variances are addressed in a timely manner, the PCWG will evaluate projects exceeding allowable variance levels. On a quarterly basis, the PCWG will provide a report of their findings and comments to stakeholders.

SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

In carrying out its purposes, the PCWG will: 1. Provide review of regionally funded projects that have been identified by the SPP project

tracking process as having estimated costs that have exceeded allowable variance levels. 2. Provide recommendations for projects that exceed the allowable variance levels. 3. Provide a quarterly report to stakeholders. 4. Maintain the SPP Study Estimate Design Guide (SEDG). 5. Maintain the SPP Minimum Design Standards.

REPRESENTATION

The PCWG membership should consist of members who can collectively represent the interests of the SPP stakeholders. To ensure they have the expertise to make the recommendations required, these members should have experience in one or more of the following areas; transmission construction costs/estimating, project management, and/or ratemaking.

30 of 230

20 Voting members- • 10 Transmission Owning • 10 Transmission Using

Non-Voting member- • 1 CAWG Liaison

REPORTING

The PCWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee.

OTHER NOTES

In light of FERC Orders 888 and 889 and the group composure of transmission and generation parties, the PCWG will have to observe the Standards of Conduct outlined in FERC Order 889. Additionally, there may be topics discussed by the PCWG that are privileged and confidential. Under such an event, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that no Standards of Conduct are violated, including but not limited to Executive Sessions. Any party participating in an Executive Session will be required to execute a Nondisclosure Agreement in advance. Any materials provided during Executive Sessions containing information identified as confidential and protected and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement will not be made publicly available.

31 of 230

SOUTHWEST POWER POOL, INC. PROJECT COST WORKING GROUP


PURPOSE

To maintain the integrity of the SPP transmission project estimate process, a rigorous and transparent evaluation of cost estimate variances is required. The SPP project tracking process sets cost variance bandwidths and mandates justification and review for project cost estimates that have changed outside these bandwidths, including Competitive Upgrades.

The purpose of establishing the Project Cost Working Group (PCWG) is to create a group with stakeholder input, oversight, and accountability that can provide a transparent review of transmission cost variances. To ensure cost estimate variances are addressed in a timely manner, the PCWG will evaluate projects exceeding allowable variance levels. On a quarterly basis, the PCWG will provide a report of their findings and comments to stakeholders.

SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

In carrying out its purposes, the PCWG will: 1. Provide review of regionally funded projects that have been identified by the SPP project

tracking process as having estimated costs that have exceeded allowable variance levels. 2. Provide recommendations for projects that exceed the allowable variance levels. 3. Provide a quarterly report to stakeholders. 4. Maintain the SPP Study Estimate Design Guide (SEDG). 5. Maintain the SPP Minimum Design Standards.

REPRESENTATION

The PCWG membership should consist of members who can collectively represent the interests of the SPP stakeholders. To ensure they have the expertise to make the recommendations required, these members should have experience in one or more of the following areas; transmission construction costs/estimating, project management, and/or ratemaking.

20 Voting members- • 10 Transmission Owning

Deleted: ¶The PCWG will also maintain the SPP Study Estimate Design Guide (SEDG). The PCWG will notify MOPC if a trend is developing in cost variances resulting from deviations from the SEDG. The MOPC is responsible for determining if a review of the SEDG is required. However, this does not preclude PCWG from suggesting to the MOPC any other changes to the SEDG.¶¶The PCWG will also maintain the SPP minimum design standards.¶

32 of 230

• 10 Transmission Using Non-Voting member-

• 1 CAWG Liaison

REPORTING

The PCWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee.

OTHER NOTES

In light of FERC Orders 888 and 889 and the group composure of transmission and generation parties, the PCWG will have to observe the Standards of Conduct outlined in FERC Order 889. Additionally, there may be topics discussed by the PCWG that are privileged and confidential. Under such an event, appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that no Standards of Conduct are violated, including but not limited to Executive Sessions. Any party participating in an Executive Session will be required to execute a Nondisclosure Agreement in advance. Any materials provided during Executive Sessions containing information identified as confidential and protected and subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement will not be made publicly available.

Deleted: DURATION¶Permanent¶

33 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) RELIABILITY COMPLIANCE WORKING GROUP (RCWG)

Organizational Group Scope Statement September 22, 2019

Purpose

The SPP Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG) will:

• Provide guidance to SPP Inc. on policy issues re lated to reliability compliance activities at the federal and/or regional level.

• Provide expertise to other SPP Working Groups on SPP Membership issues related

to reliability compliance matters specific to execution, interpretation or implementation of federal requirements, NERC Reliability Standards, or SPP governing documents.

• Provide a stakeholder forum to encourage SPP Membership discussion of reliability

compliance issues and provide a means to communicate collective SPP Membership input to appropriate regulatory bodies, i.e., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)1, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and all applicable Regional Entity (RE) staff.

• Provide a Membership forum to interface with SPP Regional Transmission

Organization (RTO) Compliance staff on matters of NERC Reliability Standards’ compliance (Operations, Planning and Critical Infrastructure Protection) related to processes and procedures that also impact SPP Members.

Scope of Activities

In carrying out its’ purpose, the RCWG will:

• Represent the SPP Membership on reliability compliance issues arising via FERC1,

NERC, SPP RTO initiatives, and all Regional Entities as applicable. These activities could include drafting “white papers”, advising SPP Board of Directors (BOD), Staff, Markets Operation & Policy Committee (MOPC), and MOPC Working Groups to communicate back to regulators or SPP Membership entities as appropriate or as directed by SPP stakeholders.

• Monitor reliability compliance matters from t h e NERC Board of Trustees (BOT) and

Committees; SPP BOD and Committees; and SPP Working Groups to identify emerging issues and appropriately communicate these issues to the SPP stakeholders as needed. Provide guidance to SPP staff in review and submission of formal comments, responses, and balloting on any substantial federal and regional proposals.

34 of 230

• Serve as SPP Membership liaison with all applicable REs on issues affecting the SPP RTO or Members, to include audit processes, interpretations, Standards, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (CMEP) activities, new and/or changes to the NERC Rules of Procedure (RoP), and general reliability compliance guidance.

• Coordinate with the SPP RTO and all applicable RE staff on stakeholder workshops

to address existing and forthcoming reliability compliance issues and experience/lessons learned.

• Provide timely input to working groups on existing and proposed changes to SPP

governing documents as they relate or influence the Membership’s compliance to NERC Reliability Standards or reliability compliance policy developments.

• Meet with Electric Reliability Organization personnel (NERC and Regional Entities) as

needed to discuss reliability compliance concerns. Topics will include the expectations and interpretations of NERC Standards that will strengthen compliance processes for SPP Members.

• Refrain from addressing compliance issues or providing compliance advice to

individual Member companies. • Request initiation of or participate in the activities of any Event Analysis Review Team

formed as needed to review major BES events impacting the SPP footprint as deemed necessary by the Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) or after ORWG consideration of a request from any of the following working groups: Security Working Group (SECWG), Supply Adequacy Working Group (SAWG), System Protection and Control Working Group (SPCWG), Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG), or the Transmission Working Group (TWG). Assigned tasks of the Review Team may include technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

35 of 230

Representation

The RCWG is comprised of at least seventeen Member Company representatives and up to one voting member for each SPP Member Company, including the Chair and Vice-chair. RCWG encourages representation with personnel directly responsible for or actively involved in Member Company’s reliability compliance activities and programs.

Reporting

The RCWG reports to the SPP MOPC for reliability compliance matters related to FERC1, NERC, Regional Reliability Rules and SPP governing documents. The RCWG collaborates with other SPP Committees or Working Groups for those activities assigned to the RCWG by the MOPC, SPP BOD, and other Board committees.

1FERC, for definition purposes in this document, will be considered as actions and issues resultant from the Office of Electric Reliability, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security and Office of Enforcement specific to Electric Reliability rules.

Revision History:

Original Creation: September 1, 2012 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: February 27, 2014 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: April 23, 2015 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: July 14, 2015 Annual Review and CGC Approval: October 27, 2015 Annual Review and BOD Approval: January 26, 2016 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: November 9, 2016 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: January 17, 2017 Annual Review and CGC Approval: February 16, 2017 Annual Review and BOD Approval: April 25, 2017 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: October 26, 2017 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: July 14, 2018 Annual Review and CGC Approval: July 2, 2018 Annual Review and BOD Approval: July 31, 2018 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: August 29, 2018 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: 36 of 230

October 16, 2018 Annual Review and CGC Approval: November 20, 2018 Annual Review and BOD Approval: December 4, 2018 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: August 26, 2019

37 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) RELIABILITY COMPLIANCE WORKING GROUP (RCWG)

Organizational Group Scope Statement September 22, 2019

Purpose

The SPP Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG) will:

• Provide guidance to SPP Inc.on policy issues re lated to reliability compliance activities at the federal and/or regional level.

• Provide expertise to other SPP Working Groups on SPP Membership issues related

to reliability compliance matters specific to execution, interpretation or implementation of federal requirements, NERC Reliability Standards, or SPP governing documents.

• Provide a stakeholder forum to encourage SPP Membership discussion of reliability

compliance issues and provide a means to communicate collective SPP Membership input to appropriate regulatory bodies, i.e., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)1, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and all applicable Regional Entity (RE) staff.

• Provide a Membership forum to interface with SPP Regional Transmission

Organization (RTO) Compliance staff on matters of NERC Reliability Standards’ compliance (Operations, Planning and Critical Infrastructure Protection) related to processes and procedures that also impact SPP Members.

Scope of Activities

In carrying out its’ purpose, the RCWG will:

• Represent the SPP Membership on reliability compliance issues arising via FERC1,

NERC, SPP RTO initiatives, and all Regional Entities as applicable. These activities could include drafting “white papers”, advising SPP Board of Directors (BOD), Staff, Markets Operation & Policy Committee (MOPC), and MOPC Working Groups to communicate back to regulators or SPP Membership entities as appropriate or as directed by SPP stakeholders.

• Monitor reliability compliance matters from t h e NERC Board of Trustees (BOT) and

Committees; SPP BOD and Committees; and SPP Working Groups to identify emerging issues and appropriately communicate these issues to the SPP stakeholders as needed. Provide guidance to SPP staff in review and submission of formal comments, responses, and balloting on any substantial federal and regional proposals.

38 of 230

• Serve as SPP Membership liaison with all applicable REs on issues affecting the SPP RTO or Members, to include audit processes, interpretations, Standards, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (CMEP) activities, new and/or changes to the NERC Rules of Procedure (RoP), and general reliability compliance guidance.

• Coordinate with the SPP RTO and all applicable RE staff on stakeholder workshops

to address existing and forthcoming reliability compliance issues and experience/lessons learned.

• Provide timely input to working groups on existing and proposed changes to SPP

governing documents as they relate or influence the Membership’s compliance to NERC Reliability Standards or reliability compliance policy developments.

• Meet with Electric Reliability Organization personnel (NERC and Regional Entities) as

needed to discuss reliability compliance concerns. Topics will include the expectations and interpretations of NERC Standards that will strengthen compliance processes for SPP Members.

• Refrain from addressing compliance issues or providing compliance advice to

individual Member companies. • If an event occurs and is determined by the RCWG that additional analysis is warranted the

RCWG will provide a participant and request that the ORWG create a (group/task force/committee) to review the event and provide any recommendations (as necessary) to the RCWG and the footprint.

• Request initiation of or participate in the activities of any Event Analysis Review Team formed as needed to review major BES events impacting the SPP footprint as deemed necessary by the Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) or after ORWG consideration of a request from any of the following working groups: Security Working Group (SECWG), Supply Adequacy Working Group (SAWG), System Protection and Control Working Group (SPCWG), Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG), or the Transmission Working Group (TWG). Assigned tasks of the Review Team may include technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

39 of 230

Representation

The RCWG is comprised of at least seventeen Member Company representatives and up to one voting member for each SPP Member Company, including the Chair and Vice-chair. RCWG encourages representation with personnel directly responsible for or actively involved in Member Company’s reliability compliance activities and programs.

Reporting

The RCWG reports to the SPP MOPC for reliability compliance matters related to FERC1, NERC, Regional Reliability Rules and SPP governing documents. The RCWG collaborates with other SPP Committees or Working Groups for those activities assigned to the RCWG by the MOPC, SPP BOD, and other Board committees.

1FERC, for definition purposes in this document, will be considered as actions and issues resultant from the Office of Electric Reliability, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security and Office of Enforcement specific to Electric Reliability rules.

Revision History:

Original Creation: September 1, 2012 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: February 27, 2014 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: April 23, 2015 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: July 14, 2015 Annual Review and CGC Approval: October 27, 2015 Annual Review and BOD Approval: January 26, 2016 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: November 9, 2016 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: January 17, 2017 Annual Review and CGC Approval: February 16, 2017 Annual Review and BOD Approval: April 25, 2017 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: October 26, 2017 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: July 14, 2018 Annual Review and CGC Approval: July 2, 2018 Annual Review and BOD Approval: July 31, 2018 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: August 29, 2018 Annual Review and MOPC Approval: 40 of 230

October 16, 2018 Annual Review and CGC Approval: November 20, 2018 Annual Review and BOD Approval: December 4, 2018 Annual Review and RCWG Approval: August 26, 2019

41 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. REGIONAL TARIFF WORKING GROUP Organizational Group Scope Statement

December 4, 2018

Purpose The Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) is responsible for development, recommendation, overall implementation and oversight of SPP’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff). The RTWG will further advise the SPP Staff on regulatory or implementation issues not specifically covered by the Tariff or issues where there may be conflict or differing interpretations of the Tariff. The RTWG provides policy input to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) and Board of Directors (BOD) and its committees, if requested.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the RTWG will: 1. Review and recommend language changes as necessary related to Tariff

issues, service, cost recovery, cost allocation, seams agreements, review customers complaints, regulatory filings and interventions.

2. Advise and direct SPP Staff on Tariff related issues and facilitate decisions on matters which need immediate attention.

3. Identify Tariff enhancing modifications and recommend any such modifications for regulatory filings and coordinate with other Working Groups, RSC Cost Allocation Working Group (CAWG) and special task forces whose areas of responsibility will be affected by the development of tariff language and responses to regulatory requirements.

4. Identify areas where specific business practices need to be developed to guide Staff’s implementation and work with the Business Practice Working Group in the development of those practices.

5. Advise SPP Staff on regulatory issues not specifically covered by the Tariff or issues where there may be conflict or differing interpretations of the Tariff.

6. Respond to special assignments from the MOPC or the SPP BOD.

7. Recommend resources necessary to administer the Tariff for inclusion in SPP’s administrative budget.

42 of 230

8. Work with SPP Staff and other SPP organizational groups to prioritize activities.

9. Review and ensure consistency of language proposed by other Working Groups with the Tariff and FERC policy.

Representation RTWG membership will consist of representatives from Transmission Owning Members with an up to equal number of representatives of Transmission Using Members as defined under the SPP Bylaws. Transmission Owning Members shall be included on the RTWG membership and not subject to the working group solicitation process.

Reporting The RTWG reports to the MOPC. As necessary, the RTWG may appoint a member of the RTWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

43 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SEAMS STEERING COMMITTEE

Organizational Group Scope Statement October 29, 2019

Purpose The Seams Steering Committee (SSC) is responsible for providing direction to SPP staff regarding staff’s negotiation, development, implementation, and maintenance of SPP’s seams agreements, joint operating agreements, or similar agreements with SPP customers or transmission providers.

Scope of Activities In consultation with SPP staff the SSC will:

1. Identify seams coordination between SPP and adjacent transmission providers caused by different processes, procedures, tariffs, or business practices in the areas of planning, tariff administration, market development/operations, and real-time operations.

2. Propose improvements to seams agreements, business practices, processes, or tariffs, along with supporting rationale, implementation costs and any tariff changes or tariff revenue impacts to mitigate seams coordination issues.

3. Review and provide guidance on SPP staff proposed improvements to new or existing seams agreements that have been developed or are under development between SPP staff and parties to those agreements.

4. Provide guidance for the implementation of the planning and operational components of new or existing seams agreements.

5. The SSC will provide regular updates to the MOPC on its activities and when necessary, request feedback from MOPC on issues where the SSC is unable to reach a decision.

6. Advise SPP staff in matters related to interregional coordination through representation on SPP’s various Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committees (IPSAC), along with other stakeholder representatives as prescribed in SPP’s Joint Operating Agreements.

7. Seek opportunities to coordinate with neighboring non-SPP stakeholders to address issues of common interest, such as market-to-market issues.

44 of 230

Representation The SSC shall be comprised of not more than 13 members including the chair and vice-chair. These members should be selected based on their experience in areas impacted by seams issues such as transmission planning, regulatory, and system operations.

Reporting The SSC reports to the Market & Operations Policy Committee.

45 of 230



Purpose The Seams Steering Committee (SSC) is responsible for providing direction to SPP staff regarding staff’s negotiation, development, implementation, and maintenance of SPP’s seams agreements, joint operating agreements, or similar agreements with SPP customers or transmission providers.

Scope of Activities In consultation with SPP staff the SSC will:

1. Identify seams coordination between SPP and adjacent transmission providers caused by different processes, procedures, tariffs, or business practices in the areas of planning, tariff administration, market development/operations, and real-time operations.

2. Propose improvements to seams agreements, business practices, processes, or tariffs, along with supporting rationale, implementation costs and any tariff changes or tariff revenue impacts to mitigate seams coordination issues.

3. Review and provide guidance on SPP staff proposed improvements to new or existing seams agreements that have been developed or are under development between SPP staff and parties to those agreements.

4. Provide guidance for the implementation of the planning and operational components of new or existing seams agreements.

5. The SSC will provide regular updates to the MOPC on its activities and when necessary, request feedback from MOPC on issues where the SSC is unable to reach a decision.

6. Advise SPP staff in matters related to interregional coordination through representation on SPP’s various Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committees (IPSAC), along with other stakeholder representatives as prescribed in SPP’s Joint Operating Agreements.

7. Identify opportunities to coordinate with neighboring non-SPP stakeholders to address issues of common interest, such as market-to-market issues.

Deleted: Seek

46 of 230

Representation The SSC shall be comprised of not more than 13 members including the chair and vice-chair. These members should be selected based on their experience in areas impacted by seams issues such as transmission planning, regulatory, and system operations.

Reporting The SSC reports to the Market & Operations Policy Committee.

47 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Security Working Group


Purpose The purpose of the Security Working Group (SECWG) is to advance the physical and cyber security of the electricity infrastructure within the SPP footprint. This group will serve as a forum for discussing security issues, for establishing security policies and procedures, sharing best practices for SPP Member-common resources, and will serve as an interface between the NERC Critical Infrastructure Protection Committee (CIPC) and the SPP membership.

Scope of Activities The SECWG:

a. Serves as an expert advisory panel to the SPP Board of Directors, committees, working groups and Members regarding cyber and physical security, to include best practices, emerging risks, and acceptable security compliance processes.

b. Provides a forum for discussion of physical and cyber security issues impacting the electric sector including, but not limited to, the controls supporting the identification of, protection from, detection of, response to, and recovery from such issues.

c. Serves as the primary interface between security-related electric sector agencies and the SPP membership, including:

1. Serving as a conduit between the SPP Membership and various security-related committees in other organizations, such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the North American Transmission Forum (NATF), the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the American Public Power Association (APPA), the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) and other industry forums.

2. Facilitating discussions and ad hoc calls, advisory notices, and security preparedness information between the FBI, DHS, Fusion Centers, DOE and the SPP membership.

d. Develops best-practice recommendations for SPP-managed resources, including: 1. Security of SPP Network (SPPNET) member connections. 2. Security and acceptable use of confidential SPP RTO and Member data, focusing

on data submission, distribution, and storage. 3. Incident reporting and dissemination, focused primarily on region-impacting security

events possibly warranting NERC Event Analysis and/or DOE reporting. e. Works on behalf of SPP membership to solicit, gather, and present comments, feedback,

and information requests to NERC, FERC, the Regional Entities in the SPP RTO footprint and other regulatory and enforcement bodies for security-related standards development, interpretation requests, and security application discussions.

f. Provides physical and cyber security and/or CIP compliance subject-matter experts (SMEs) to other SPP organizational groups, as requested.

48 of 230

Representation The Security Working Group (SECWG) is composed of at least thirteen voting members, including the chair and vice chair. SECWG shall maintain a representation with Member’s personnel directly responsible for cyber and physical security operations and programs, including compliance responsibilities. SECWG meetings will be open in accordance with SPP practices and may allow for an executive session as called by the chair. Regular executive sessions may be deemed necessary by the chair due to the confidential nature of security discussions. The chairman is appointed by the Chairman of the SPP Board of Directors and will serve a term of two years coincident with the two- year term of the Chair of the SPP Board of Directors. SPP Bylaws do not prevent renewal of the current Chair’s term.

Reporting The SECWG reports to the MOPC.

49 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Security Working Group


Purpose The purpose of the Security Working Group (SECWG) is to advance the physical and cyber security of the electricity infrastructure within the SPP footprint. This group will serve as a forum for discussing security issues, for establishing security policies and procedures, sharing best practices for SPP Member-common resources, and will serve as an interface between the NERC Critical Infrastructure Protection Committee (CIPC) and the SPP membership.

Scope of Activities The SECWG:

a. Serves as an expert advisory panel to the SPP Board of Directors, committees, working groups and Members regarding cyber and physical security, to include best practices, emerging risks, and acceptable security compliance processes.

b. Provides a forum for discussion of physical and cyber security issues impacting the electric sector including, but not limited to, the controls supporting the identification of, protection from, detection of, response to, and recovery from such issues.

c. Serves as the primary interface between security-related electric sector agencies and the SPP membership, including:

1. Serving as a conduit between the SPP Membership and various security-related committees in other organizations, such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the North American Transmission Forum (NATF), the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the American Public Power Association (APPA), the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) and other industry forums.

2. Facilitating discussions and ad hoc calls, advisory notices, and security preparedness information between the FBI, DHS, Fusion Centers, DOE and the SPP membership.

d. Develops best-practice recommendations for SPP-managed resources, including: 1. Security of SPP Network (SPPNET) member connections. 2. Security and acceptable use of confidential SPP RTO and Member data, focusing

on data submission, distribution, and storage. 3. Incident reporting and dissemination, focused primarily on region-impacting security

events possibly warranting NERC Event Analysis and/or DOE reporting. e. Works on behalf of SPP membership to solicit, gather, and present comments, feedback,

and information requests to NERC, FERC, the Regional Entities in the SPP RTO footprint and other regulatory and enforcement bodies for security-related standards development, interpretation requests, and security application discussions.

f. Provides physical and cyber security and/or CIP compliance subject-matter experts (SMEs) to other SPP organizational groups, as requested.

Deleted: Chapter

Deleted: 5Deleted: 2017

50 of 230

Representation The Security Working Group (SECWG) is composed of at least thirteen voting members, including the chair and vice chair. SECWG shall maintain a representation with Member’s personnel directly responsible for cyber and physical security operations and programs, including compliance responsibilities. SECWG meetings will be open in accordance with SPP practices and may allow for an executive session as called by the chair. Regular executive sessions may be deemed necessary by the chair due to the confidential nature of security discussions. The chairman is appointed by the Chairman of the SPP Board of Directors and will serve a term of two years coincident with the two- year term of the Chair of the SPP Board of Directors. SPP Bylaws do not prevent renewal of the current Chair’s term.

Reporting The SECWG reports to the MOPC.

Deleted: Duration¶The SECWG is permanent with a periodic review of responsibilities by the MOPC.¶

51 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SUPPLY ADEQUACY WORKING GROUP Organizational Group Scope Statement

"[Click here and type date of BOD approval]"

Purpose The Supply Adequacy Working Group (SAWG) is responsible for development and implementation of policies and processes to ensure the reliable supply of capacity necessary to meet demand and supply adequacy requirements/methodologies in SPP. In addition, the SAWG is responsible for ensuring that these processes and policies meet the compliance obligations of NERC Reliability Standards. Scope of Activities Specific activities are to include but not be limited to the following:

• Provide technical oversight for the determination of the appropriate methodologies needed to assess regional supply adequacy requirements.

• Review on a routine basis the processes and requirements and recommend improvements as needed to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) to maintain supply adequacy in SPP, including, but not limited to the following:

o Resource accreditation methodology including availability, fuel supply, or any other areas specific to resources

o Application of coincident vs. non-coincident demand o Load forecasting methodology o Evaluation of Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) studies and the planning

reserve margin requirements o Maintaining the Planning Reserve Assurance Policy o Maintaining the Deliverability Study o Demand Side Management o Distributed Generation

• Work with other working groups to promote a high standard of operating

practices for generating units and other resources within SPP, consistent with NAESB and NERC standards, through recommendation of appropriate improvements in reliable operating practices.

• Monitor and review the reliability standards impact on generation and other resources and recommend appropriate changes in the SPP Criteria.

52 of 230

• Ensure that SPP’s supply adequacy requirement is assigned to the appropriate SPP entities and review the processes and information necessary to show the entity is meeting its requirement.

• Work with staff and other SPP organizational groups to prioritize activities.

• If an Event Analysis Review Team is formed by the ORWG, or at the suggestion of the SAWG, the SAWG will assign a working group representative to the Review Team. A Review Team can be formed to review major BES events that affect the SPP footprint, and will provide technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

Representation The SAWG will consist of at least fourteen and no more than twenty members (including the Chairman). The SAWG will have two Cost Allocation Working Group (CAWG) assigned representatives who are non-voting liaisons. Reporting The SAWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee. As necessary, the SAWG may appoint a member of the SAWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

53 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SUPPLY ADEQUACY WORKING GROUP Organizational Group Scope Statement


Purpose The Supply Adequacy Group (SAWG) is responsible for development and implementation of policies and processes to ensure reliable supply of capacity necessary to meet demand and supply adequacy requirements/methodologies in SPP. In addition, the SAWG is responsible for ensuring that these processes and policies meet the compliance obligations of NERC Reliability Standards. Scope of Activities Specific activities are to include but not be limited to the following:

• Provide technical oversight for the determination of the appropriate methodologies needed to assess regional supply adequacy requirements.

• Review on a routine basis the processes and requirements and recommend improvements as needed to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) to maintain supply adequacy in SPP, including, but not limited to the following:

o Resource accreditation methodology including availability, fuel supply, or any other areas specific to resources

o Application of coincident vs. non-coincident demand o Load forecasting methodology o Evaluation of Loss of Load Expectation (LOLE) studies and the planning

reserve margin requirements o Maintaining the Planning Reserve Assurance Policy o Maintaining the Deliverability Study o Demand Side Management o Distributed Generation

• Work with other working groups to promote a high standard of operating

practices for generating units and other resources within SPP, consistent with NAESB and NERC standards, through recommendation of appropriate improvements in reliable operating practices.

• Monitor and review the reliability standards impact on generation and other resources and recommend appropriate changes in the SPP Criteria.

54 of 230

• Ensure that SPP’s supply adequacy requirement is assigned to the appropriate SPP entities and review the processes and information necessary to show the entity is meeting its requirement.

• Work with staff and other SPP organizational groups to prioritize activities.

• If an Event Analysis Review Team is formed by the ORWG, or at the suggestion of the SAWG, the SAWG will assign a working group representative to the Review Team. A Review Team can be formed to review major BES events that affect the SPP footprint, and will provide technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

Representation The SAWG will consist of at least fourteen and no more than twenty members (including the Chairman). The SAWG will have two Cost Allocation Working Group (CAWG) assigned representatives who are non-voting liaisons. Reporting The SAWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee. As necessary, the SAWG may appoint a member of the SAWG as a liaison to other working groups for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

Deleted: <#>¶

Deleted: is comprised

Deleted: Duration¶Permanent¶

55 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SYSTEM PROTECTION AND CONTROL WORKING GROUP

Organizational Group Scope Statement July 24, 2019

Purpose The System Protection and Control Working Group (SPCWG) maintains, coordinates, and implements criteria related to system protection and control in the Southwest Power Pool. In addition, the SPCWG is responsible for providing technical guidance to SPP members with respect to protection and control systems.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the System Protection and Control Working Group will:

1. Review and develop any necessary SPP documentation related to system protection and control within SPP.

2. Review and monitor the impacts of NERC Standards on protection and control systems within the SPP footprint, and develop any recommended changes in the SPP criteria.

3. Work with SPP members, as well as the various working groups within the SPP, on requirements related to system protection and development of overall operating and planning procedures.

Representation The SPCWG is comprised of at least six members, including a Chairman. Members shall have a minimum of 5 years’ experience in system protection and control schemes and their application. The SPCWG membership should represent geographic diversity within the region. Each member has one vote and approval of business requires a simple majority of members present and voting.

Reporting The SPCWG reports to the SPP MOPC. The SPCWG Chair will periodically report to the MOPC and the Board of Directors, as required, on the SPCWG’s activities, assignments, and recommendations requiring MOPC approval.

56 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SYSTEM PROTECTION AND CONTROL WORKING GROUP

Organizational Group Scope Statement July 24, 2019

Purpose The System Protection and Control Working Group (SPCWG) maintains, coordinates, and implements criteria related to system protection and control in the Southwest Power Pool. In addition, the SPCWG is responsible for providing technical guidance to SPP members with respect to protection and control systems.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purpose, the System Protection and Control Working Group will:

1. Review and develop any necessary SPP documentation related to system protection and control within SPP.

2. Review and monitor the impacts of NERC Standards on protection and control systems within the SPP footprint, and develop any recommended changes in the SPP criteria.

3. Work with SPP members, as well as the various working groups within the SPP, on requirements related to system protection and development of overall operating and planning procedures.

Representation The SPCWG is comprised of at least six members, including a Chairman. Members shall have a minimum of 5 years’ experience in system protection and control schemes and their application. The SPCWG membership should represent geographic diversity within the region. Each member has one vote and approval of business requires a simple majority of members present and voting.

Reporting The SPCWG reports to the SPP MOPC. The SPCWG Chair will periodically report to the MOPC and the Board of Directors, as required, on the SPCWG’s activities, assignments, and recommendations requiring MOPC approval.

Deleted: December 4Deleted: 2018

57 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. TRANSMISSION WORKING GROUP


Purpose The Transmission Working Group (TWG) is responsible for policy recommendations and implementation of regional planning efforts, review of transmission interconnections, and coordination with interregional transmission planning activities. In addition the TWG coordinates its activities with the RTO for the development of the SPP Transmission Expansion Plan.

Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the TWG will:

1. Provide oversight and coordination of the activities of the MDWG and TWG initiated task forces.

2. Review and develop regional transmission planning criteria.

3. In coordination with the Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) review and develop criteria related to regional Available Transfer Capability (ATC) calculations.

4. Review and provide input to the Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) on implementation of ATC-related calculations pursuant to SPP Tariff Attachment C.

5. Approve additions, modifications, and deletions to the SPP portion of the NERC Book of Flowgates.

6. Review and develop rating criteria used for regional transmission facilities, including the Minimum Design Standards.

7. Coordinate the planning process efforts pursuant to the SPP Tariff. Review and suggest modifications to the planning processes, the regional expansion planning process and the regional expansion plan.

8. Review and provide input to NERC during the development of applicable reliability standards that impact transmission modeling, planning, and assessment, including input to SPP on recommended regional reliability standards.

58 of 230

9. Ensure SPP RTO compliance with NERC Reliability Standards applicable under TWG scope of activities.

10. Ensure SPP RTO compliance with SPP governing documents applicable under TWG scope of activities.

11. Respond to special assignments from the MOPC or the SPP Board of Directors.

12. Review and propose general policy changes to the MOPC to enhance the coordinated planning efforts, regional expansion planning, the provision of transmission service including the aggregate study process, generation interconnection process, seams agreements, OATT, and coordinating these with the appropriate MOPC working groups.


14. Review and approve adequate study information for interconnections.

15. Review technical and reliability planning aspects of all policies, business practices, study scopes, SPP Criteria changes, and Tariff changes.

16. If an Event Analysis Review Team is formed by the ORWG, or at the suggestion of the TWG, the TWG will assign a working group representative to the Review Team. A Review Team can be formed to review major BES events that affect the SPP footprint, and will provide technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

Representation TWG membership consists of one representative for each Transmission Owning member and an equal number of Transmission Using members from the SPP membership. Meetings are open, however by sufficient notice; the TWG may limit attendance during specific portions of a meeting by an affirmative vote of the TWG for reasons that are consistent with the SPP Bylaws.

Reporting The TWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee. As necessary the TWG may appoint a member of the TWG as a liaison to other working groups or task forces for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

59 of 230

TWG Scope Page 1 of 2

Deleted: Charter


TRANSMISSION WORKING GROUP Scope Organizational Group Scope Statement


Purpose The Transmission Working Group (TWG) is responsible for policy recommendations and implementation of regional planning efforts, review of transmission interconnections, and coordination with interregional transmission planning activities. In addition the TWG coordinates its activities with the RTO for the development of the SPP Transmission Expansion Plan. Scope of Activities In carrying out its purposes, the TWG will:

1. Provide oversight and coordination of the activities of the MDWG and TWG initiated task forces.

2. Review and develop regional transmission planning criteria.

3. In coordination with the Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG) review and develop criteria related to regional Available Transfer Capability (ATC) calculations.

4. Review and provide input to the Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) on implementation of ATC-related calculations pursuant to SPP Tariff Attachment C.

5. Approve additions, modifications, and deletions to the SPP portion of the NERC Book of Flowgates.

6. Review and develop rating criteria used for regional transmission facilities, including the Minimum Design Standards.

7. Coordinate the planning process efforts pursuant to the SPP Tariff. Review and suggest modifications to the planning processes, the regional expansion planning process and the regional expansion plan.

8. Review and provide input to NERC during the development of applicable reliability standards that impact transmission modeling, planning, and assessment, including input to SPP on recommended regional reliability standards.

9. Ensure SPP RTO compliance with NERC Reliability Standards applicable under

Deleted: Charter

Deleted: ¶December 5, 2018¶

60 of 230

TWG Scope Page 2 of 2

Deleted: Charter

TWG scope of activities.

10. Ensure SPP RTO compliance with SPP governing documents applicable under TWG scope of activities.

11. Respond to special assignments from the MOPC or the SPP Board of Directors.

12. Review and propose general policy changes to the MOPC to enhance the coordinated planning efforts, regional expansion planning, the provision of transmission service including the aggregate study process, generation interconnection process, seams agreements, OATT, and coordinating these with the appropriate MOPC working groups.


14. Review and approve adequate study information for interconnections.

15. Review technical and reliability planning aspects of all policies, business practices, study scopes, SPP Criteria changes, and Tariff changes.

16. If an Event Analysis Review Team is formed by the ORWG, or at the suggestion of the TWG, the TWG will assign a working group representative to the Review Team. A Review Team can be formed to review major BES events that affect the SPP footprint, and will provide technical support, data collection, and/or preparation of an event report including recommendations and lessons learned to be shared among SPP members.

Representation TWG membership consists of one representative for each Transmission Owning member and an equal number of Transmission Using members from the SPP membership. Meetings are open, however by sufficient notice; the TWG may limit attendance during specific portions of a meeting by an affirmative vote of the TWG for reasons that are consistent with the SPP Bylaws. Reporting The TWG reports to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee. As necessary the TWG may appoint a member of the TWG as a liaison to other working groups or task forces for specific issues or action items being coordinated.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt

Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.5", Right: 0", SpaceAfter: 8 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.08 li, No bullets ornumbering, Widow/Orphan control, Adjust spacebetween Latin and Asian text, Adjust space betweenAsian text and numbers

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering

Deleted: Duration ¶¶Permanent. ¶

61 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE Recommendation to the Board of Directors

December 9, 2019 Approval of SPP Organizational Group Chairs and Rosters

Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Corporate Governance Committee:

Nick Brown, Chair SPP Brett Leopold ITC Larry Altenbaumer Director John McClure NPPD Denise Buffington Evergy Companies Holly Rachel Smith Walmart Jason Fortik LES Jody Sundsted WAPA-UGPR Robert Janssen Dogwood Energy Mike Wise GSEC

Background Organizational Group Chairs are appointed by the Board of Directors to serve two-year terms.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for nominating candidates for Board of Directors consideration and appointment. Nominations were solicited from the respective Organizational Group Members and a recommendation received from each group as to its nominee.

The following Chairs are nominated, with the unanimous support of their respective Organizational Group, for two-year terms to commence January 1, 2020.

Grant Wilkerson , Evergy Companies Alan Klassen, Evergy Companies Robert Pick, Nebraska Public Power District John Allen, City Utilities of Springfield Jim Jacoby, AEP Phil Clark, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. Brad Hans, Municipal Energy Agency of NE

Business Practices Working Group Operating Reliability Working Group Regional Tariff Working Group Reliability Compliance Working Group Seams Steering Committee Security Working Group Supply Adequacy Working Group Transmission Working Group Nathan McNeil, Midwest Energy, Inc.

Recommendation Approve chair recommendations and the organizational group rosters

Approved: Corporate Governance Committee November 14, 2019

Action Requested: Conduct the appointments

62 of 230

Even Year Odd Year

Balancing Authority Operating Committee


Credit Practices Working Group


Market Working Group

Operations Training Working Group


System Protection and Control Working Group

Business Practices Working Group


Regional Tariff Working Group


Seams Steering Committee

Security Working Group

Supply Adequacy Working Group



Year the Chairman Starts Serving Their Term

Organizational Group Chair Election Schedule

63 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BUSINESS PRATICES WORKING GROUP

Recommendation to the Corporate Governance Committee November 11, 2019

CHAIR NOMINATION TO FILL EXPIRING TERM AND VACANCY

Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Business Practices Working Group:

Grant Wilkerson (Chair) Evergy Companies WAPA (Basin) (OGE) (SECI) (NPPD) (GRDA) (Tenaska) (EDP Renewables) (AEP)

KassPortra (Vice Chair) Andrew Brown Christy Marske Tom Hestermann James Hotovy Rob Jones Anthony Lemaire David Mindham C. Richard Ross Joe Taylor (Xcel)

Background A representative nominated from Business Practices Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Business Practices Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Grant Wilkerson from Evergy Kansas Central Inc. , has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Recommendation Recommend Grant Wilkerson (Evergy Companies) to chair the Business Practices Working Group.

Approved: Business Practices Working Group Dale Approved 10/23/2019 Mr. Hestermann (SECI) made motion to nominate Grant Wilkerson for 2020-2021 Chair term. Ms. Portra (WAPA) seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.

Action Requested: Approve the recommendation.

64 of 230




Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Operating Reliability Working Group:

Name Mr. David Pham Mr. Kyle McMenamin Mr. Allen Klassen Mr. Gary Plummer Mr. Ron Gunderson Mr. Doug Peterchuck Mr. Jim Useldinger Ms. Laurie Gregg Mr. Allan George Mr. Mark Eastwood Mr. Bryn Wilson Mr. Chris Shaffer Mr. Abu Elteriefi Mr. Jeff Wells Mr. Chance Myers Mr. Craig Speidel Mr. Keith Carmen

Member Company Empire District Electric Company Southwestern Public Service Evergy CompaniesIndependence Power & Light Nebraska Public Power District Omaha Public Power District South Central MCN Lincoln Electric System Sunflower Electric Cooperative City Utilities of Springfield Oklahoma Gas & Electric American Electric Power ITC Great Plains Grand River Dam Authority Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Western Area Power Administration Tri-State G&T

Background A representative nominated from the Operating Reliability Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Operating Reliability Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Nominée Allen Klassen, (Evergy Companies.) has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Working Group Recommendation Recommend Allen Klassen, (Evergy Companies) to chair the Operating Reliability Working Group for the 2020- 2021 Chair term.

65 of 230

Approved: Operating Reliability Working Group Date Approved 10/3/2019 Mr. Ron Gunderson (Nebraska Public Power District) moved to recommend the Corporate Governance Committee nominate Mr. Allen Klassen (Evergy Companies) for the 2020-2021 Chair term, and Mr. Kyle McMenamin seconded the motion. The motion carried without opposition or abstentions.


66 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. REGIONAL TARIFF WORKING GROUP



Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Regional Tariff Working Group:

Name Member Company

David Kays Robert Pick Mo Awad Michael Billinger James Bixby Alfred Busbee Jack Clark Alex Dobson Terri Gallup Greg Garst Tim Hall Tom Hestermann Rob Janssen Bernie Liu J.P. Maddock Ash Mayfield Brandon McCracken Jessica Meyer Neil Rowland Steve Sanders Robert Shields Heather Starnes John Stephens Robert Stillwell Todd Tarter John Varnell

Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Nebraska Public Power District Evergy Companies Midwest Energy Inc. ITC Great Plains, LLC GDS Associates/East Texas Electric Cooperatives NextEra Energy Resources Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority American Electric Power Omaha Public Power District Southern Power Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Dogwood Energy, LLC Xcel Energy Basin Electric Power Cooperative Grand River Dam Authority Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Lincoln Electric System Kansas Municipal Energy Agency Western Area Power Administration – UGPR Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Healy Law Offices/Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission City Utilities of Springfield City of Independence Empire District Electric Company Tenaska Power Services Company

Background A representative nominated from the Regional Tariff Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Regional Tariff Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Robert Pick from Nebraska Public Power District, has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

67 of 230

Recommendation Recommend Robert Pick to chair the Regional Tariff Working Group.

Approved: Regional Tariff Working Group September 26, 2019 Mr. Ray Bergmeier made a motion to nominate Mr. Robert Pick for 2020-2021 Chair term. Mr. Mo Awad seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.


68 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. RELIABILITY COMPLIANCE WORKING GROUP



Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Reliability Compliance Working Group:

Alex D'Ambrosio Central Power Electric Cooperative Alice Wright Sr. Arkansas Electric Cooperatives Corporation

Allie Gavin ITC Ashley Stringer Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Carla Holly BP wind energy / Flat Ridge 2 wind LLC Dave Ruldolph Basin Electric Power Cooperative Ellen Watkins Sunflower Electric Eric Ruskamp Lincoln Electric System

Heather Morgan EDP Renewables Jennifer Flandermeyer

(Chair) Evergy Companies John Allen (Vice Chair) City Utilities Of Springfield, MO, SPRM

Kent Feliks AEP Mahmood Safi Omaha Public Power District Mark Buchholz Western Area Power Administration

Matt Caves Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Mike Murray Independence Power & Light Stace Kegley Grand River Dam Authority

Terri Pyle Oklahoma Gas & Electric Thomas Maldonado Sr. Xcel Energy

Tony Eddleman Nebraska Public Power District

Background A representative nominated from Reliability Compliance Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Reliability Compliance Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. John Allen from City Utilities of Springfield, has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Recommendation Recommend John Allen to chair the Reliability Compliance Working Group.

69 of 230

Approved: Reliability Compliance Working Group September Mr. Caves made motion to nominate Mr. Allen for 2020-2021 Chair term. Mr. Safi seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.


70 of 230




Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Seams Steering Committee:

Jim Jacoby (Chair), American Electric Power

Bary Warren (Vice-Chair), South Central MCN/GridLiance

Ray Bergmeier, Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative

Dustin Betz, Nebraska Public Power District

Kevin Bornhoft, Corn Belt Power Cooperative

Oliver Burke, Entergy Services, Inc.

Richard Dahl, Missouri River Energy Services

Tina Gaines, Liberty Utilities

Jeff Knottek, City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Katy Onnen; Evergy Companies

Steve Sanders, Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains

Jordan Schmick, Xcel Energy

Robert Tallman, Oklahoma Gas and Electric

Background A representative nominated from the Seams Steering Committee will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Seams Steering Committee for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Jim Jacoby from American Electric Power has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Recommendation Recommend Jim Jacoby to chair the Seams Steering Committee.

Approved: Seams Steering Committee Date Approved: 9/11/2019 Mr. Robert Tallman made motion to nominate Mr. Jacoby for 2020-2021 Chair term. Mr. Jeff Knottek seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.


71 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SECURITY WORKING GROUP



Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Security Working Group:

Mike Fitzpatrick, Omaha Public Power District Nita Dickerson, representing NE Texas Electric Paul Sprague, Board of Public Utilities of KC Phil Clark (VC), Arkansas Electric Coop. Corp. Ron Bender, Nebraska Public Power District Shawn Eck, Empire District Electric Steve Arnold, Independence Power & Light Ted Bowen, AEP/PSO

Amanda Gray, Grand River Dam Authority Chad Wasinger, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. Daniel Moore, Western Farmers Electric Coop. David Trojan, ITC Eric Ervin (chair), Evergy CompaniesIan Anderson, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Jodi Jensen, Western Area Power Admin. Michael Goad (secretary), Southwest Power Pool Mike Buyce, City Utilities of Springfield

Background A representative nominated from Security Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Security Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Phil Clark, AECC, has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Recommendation Recommend Phil Clark to chair the Security Working Group.

Approved: Security Working Group September 19, 2019 Mr. Eric Ervin made a motion to nominate Mr. Phil Clark for 2020-2021 Chair term. Mr. Ron Bender seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.

Action Requested: Approve the recommendation of Phil Clark

72 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. SUPPLY ADEQUACY WORKING GROUP



Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Supply Adequacy Working Group:

Brad Hans (Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska) Robert Janssen (Dogwood Energy, LLC) Natasha Henderson (Golden Spread Electric Cooperative) Jim Jacoby (AEP-Public Service Co of OK) Eric Alexander (Grand River Dam Authority) Douglas Jasa (Evergy Companies) Traci Bender (Nebraska Public Power District) Jodi Knutson (WAPA) Brian Berkstresser (Liberty Utilities) Ernesto Perez (GDS Associates, Inc.) Aaron Castleberry (Oklahoma Gas & Electric) Aaron Ramsdell (Basin Electric Power Coop) Adam Graff (Heartland Consumers Power District) Thomas Saitta (Kansas Municipal Energy Agency) Kenneth Hale (City Utilities of Springfield, MO) Phillip Schaeffer (Western Farmers) Tom Hestermann (Sunflower Electric Power Corporation) John Varnell (Tenaska Power Services Co) Jon Iverson (Omaha Public Power District) Bennie Weeks (Xcel Energy Services)

Background A representative nominated from Supply Adequacy Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Supply Adequacy Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Brad Hans (Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska), has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Recommendation Recommend Brad Hans to chair the Supply Adequacy Working Group.

Approved: Supply Adequacy Working Group September 25th, 2019 Mr. Rob Janssen made motion to nominate Mr. Brad Hans for 2020-2021 Chair term. Mrs. Natasha Henderson seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.


73 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. TRANSMISSION WORKING GROUP



Organizational Roster The following persons are members of the Transmission Working Group:

Travis Hyde (Chair) Nathan McNeil (Vice Chair) Daniel Benedict Scott Benson John Boshears Derek Brown Jarred Cooley Clifford Franklin Joe Fultz James Ging Kalum Kelley John Knofczynski Randy Lindstrom Jim McAvoy Matthew McGee Shane McMinn Nate Morris Michael Mueller Gayle Nansel John Payne Chris Pink David Sargent Jason Shook Joshua Verzal Michael Wegner Phil Westby Noman Williams

OG&E Midwest Energy, Inc. Independence Power & Light Lincoln Electric System City Utilities of Springfield, MO Evergy Companies Xcel Energy Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Grand River Dam Authority Kansas Power Pool Western Farmers Electric Cooperative East River Electric Power Cooperative Nebraska Public Power District Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority AEP Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Empire District Electric Company Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Western Area Power Administration Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Southwestern Power Administration GDS Associates, Inc. Omaha Public Power District ITC Holdings Basin Electric Power Cooperative GridLiance High Plains, LLC

Background A representative nominated from Transmission Working Group will be approved by the Corporate Governance Committee to serve as Chair of the working group for a two-year term.

Please consider the following biography submitted by Mr. Nathan McNeil for consideration of the TWG Chair position.

Mr. Nathan McNeil has more than twelve years of Transmission Planning experience, and ten of those years have come with SPP member Transmission Owners. This experience includes power flow, stability, and short circuit modeling and analysis including NERC compliance studies related to Transmission Planning. He currently oversee system planning and engineering functions for Midwest Energy. He has extensive experience with SPP Integrated Transmission Planning study processes including development and submission of Detailed Project Proposals, and he has also been involved in SPP study processes including but not limited to generation interconnection, transmission service, and delivery point additions.

74 of 230

Mr. McNeil began participating in TWG meetings in 2009 and was elected as a voting member on behalf of Midwest Energy in the fall of that year. In addition to participation in TWG for the last ten years, he has also held positions on the Model Development Working Group, AQ Improvement Task Force, Transmission Planning (TPL) Task Force, and Exit Study Task Force.

Analysis The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for approving a chairman for the Transmission Working Group for consideration and election at the December SPP Board of Directors meeting. Nathan McNeil from Midwest Energy, Inc., has been nominated for a two-year term to commence January 1, 2020.

Recommendation Recommend Nathan McNeil to chair the Transmission Working Group.

Approved: Transmission Working Group Date Approved: October 7, 2019 Mr. Nate Morris made motion to nominate Mr. Nathan McNeil for 2020-2021 Chair term. Mr. James Ging seconded. There were no abstentions or opposition.


75 of 230

First Name Last Name Position Sector TO/TU Company

Larry Altenbaumer Chairman N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Graham Edwards Vice-Chair N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Julian Brix Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Nick Brown Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Susan Certoma Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Mark Crisson Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Josh Martin Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Darcy Ortiz Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Bruce Scherr Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Brent Baker Member Investor-Owned Utilities TO Liberty Utilities

Joel Bladow Member Cooperative TU Tri-State Generation & Transmission

Holly Carias Member Independent Power Producer TU NextEra Energy Resources

Tom Christensen Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

David Hudson Member Investor-Owned Utility TO SPS/XcelEnergy

Rob Janssen Member Independent Power Producer TU Dogwood Energy

Tom Kent Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Chris Jones Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Bleau LaFave Member Investor-Owned Utility TU NorthWestern Energy

Joe Lang Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Brett Leopold Member Independent Transmission Company TU ITC Great Plains

Stuart Lowry Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Greg McAuley Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & Electric Transmission

Kevin Noblet Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

David Osburn Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municpal Power Authority

Zac Perkins Member Cooperative TU Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Jeff Riles Member Large Retail Customer TU Google Energy LLC

Peggy Simmons Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Public Services Company of Oklahoma

Kevin Smith Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services Company

Jody Sundsted Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Board of Directors/Members Committee

Vacant

77 of 230

Mike Wise Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

78 of 230


Grant Wilkerson Chairman Investor-Ownded Utility TO Evergy Companies

Kass Portra Vice Chair Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Andrew Brown Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Tom Hestermann Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

James Hotovy Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Rob Jones Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Anthony Lemaire Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services

Christy Marske Member Investor-Ownded Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & Electric

David Mindham Member Indepnedent Transmission Company TU ITC Great Plains

Richard Ross Member Investor-Ownded Utility TO AEP - SWEPCo

Joe Taylor Member Investor-Ownded Utility TU Xcel Energy Services Inc.

Ken Quimbly Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Business Practices Working Group

79 of 230


Carrie Dixon Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO Xcel Energy

Jodi Hall Vice Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Ronald Allen Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Paulo Araujo Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Adam Bigknife Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.

Jake Burger Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Kevin Carter Member Marketer TU Duke Energy Americas

Ronald Chartier Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corp.Nico Ciccone Member Independent Power Producer TU NextEra Energy Resources, LLC

Shawn Geil Member Cooperative TU Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Jonathan Hathhorn Member Municipal TU Independence Power & Light (City of Independence)

Shane Jenson Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Ryan Kirk Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Brad Lafler Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Neil Lidgren Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Bradley Parker Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electric

Jerin Purtee Member Municipal TU Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kansas

Danny Ragsdale Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Andrea Reordan Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska

John Seck Member Municipal TU Kansas Municipal Energy Agency

Byron Singletary Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Greg Thurnher Member Marketer TU Shell Energy North America

Ryan Tuter Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Tara Vesey Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Joe Dan Wilson Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Terry Rhodes Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool


80 of 230

First Name Last Name Position Sector TU/TO Company

Nick Brown Chairman N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Larry Altenbaumer Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Denise Buffington Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Jason Fortik Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Robert Janssen Member Inpendent Power Producer TU Dogwood Energy, LLC

Brett Leopold Member Independent Transmission Co TU ITC Great Plains, LLC

John McClure Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Holly Smith Member Large Retail Customer TU Walmart, Inc.

Jody Sundsted Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Mike Wise Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Paul Suskie Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Corporate Governance Committee

81 of 230


Mark Holler Chairman Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services Co.

Terri Wendlandt Vice-Chair Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Malcolm Booker Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Mark Breese Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

Caleb Head Member Cooperative TU Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative


Mary Meier Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Jeffrey Parkison Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Matthew Simon Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Jared Barker Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Credit Practices Working Group

82 of 230


Alan Myers Chairman Independent Transmission Company TU ITC Great Plains, LLC

Tim Owens Vice-Chair State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Randy Collier Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Calvin Daniels Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Zac Hager Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & Electric

Jody Holland Member Independent Transmission Company TU South Central MCN, LLC

Jon Iverson Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Gayle Nansel Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

John Olsen Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Jeremy Severson Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Anita Sharma Member Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric PowerKurt Stradley Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Al Tamimi Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Michael Watt Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Bennie Weeks Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

Warren Whitson Member Independent Power Producer TU Southern Power Company

Amber Greb Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool


83 of 230


Bruce Scherr Chairman N/A N/A SPP Board of DirectorsSusan Certoma Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Sandra Bennett Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power - SWEPCo

Laura Kapustka Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Sarah Stafford Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & Electric CompanyMichael Wise Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tom Dunn Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Finance Committee

84 of 230


Julian Brix Chairman N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Mark Crisson Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Duane Highley Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp

Thomas Kent Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Stuart Lowry Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Noman Williams Member Independent Transmission Company TU SouthCentral MCN

Malinda See Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Human Resources Committee

85 of 230


Richard Ross Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Jim Flucke Vice Chair Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Eric Alexander Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Lee Anderson Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Betsy Beck Member Independent Power Producer TU Enel Green Power North America

Jack Clark Member Independent Power Producer TU NextEra Energy Resources

Neal Daney Member Municipal TU Kansas Municipal Energy Agency

Carrie Dixon Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Xcel Energy

Kevin Galke Member Municipal TU Energy Authority for City Utilities of Springfield

Shawn Geil Member Cooperative TU Kansas Electric Power Cooperative

Jack Madden Member Cooperative TU GDS Associates*

Michael Massery Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation

Shawn McBroom Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Matt Moore Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Aaron Rome Member Cooperative TO Midwest Energy, Inc.

Yohan Sutjandra Member Municipal TU The Energy Authority

Ronald Thompson Jr. Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

John Varnell Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services Co.

Valerie Weigel Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Rick Yanovich Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Erin Cathey Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Market Working Group

* Represents EAST Texas Electric Coop - NE Texas Electric Coop - Tex-La Electric Coop

* Represents City Utilities of Springfield, MO

86 of 230


Holly Carias Chair Independent Power Producers TU NextEra Energy Resources

Denise Buffington Vice Chair Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Metro, Inc.

Mo Awad Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Kansas Central, Inc

Betsy Beck Member Independent Power Producer TU Enel Green Power North America, Inc.

Bill Bojorquez Member Independent Transmission Company TU Hunt Transmission Services, LLC

Kevin Bornhoft Member Cooperative TU Corn Belt Power Cooperative

Cheryl Bredenbeck Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

Tim Brown Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Robert Burner Member Marketer TU Duke Energy Americas

Matt Caves Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Gregory Coco Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Cleco Power

Burton Crawford Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Missouri West, Inc.

Jason Doerr Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Aaron Doll Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electrice Company

Bill Dowling Member Cooperative TO Midwest Energy, Inc.

Steven Drew Member Independent Power Producers TU NextEra Energy

Les Evans Member Cooperative TU Kansas Electric Power Coop

Bobby Ferris Member Cooperative TU Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Dennis Florom Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Chris Giles Member Cooperative TU Tri-County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Tracy Golden Member State Agency TU Northeast Nebraska Public Power District

Adam Graff Member State Agency TU Hearland Consumers Power District

Bill Grant Member Investor-Owned TO SPS / Xcel Energy

John Grotzinger Member State Agency TU Missouri Joint Municipal EUC

Tim Hall Member Independent Power Producers TU Southern Power Company

Luke Haner Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Bradley Hans Member Municipal TU Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska

Dale Haugen Member Cooperative TU Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative

Chad Heitmeyer Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Markets and Operations Policy Committee

87 of 230

Robert Helton Member Independent Power Producer TU ENGIE North America

Natasha Henderson Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative

Thomas Hestermann Member Cooperative TO Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC

Eric Hixson Member State Agency TU The Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District

Mark Hoffman Member Cooperative TO East River Electric Power Cooperative

Larry Holloway Member Municipal TU Kansas Power Pool (KPP)

Carla Holly Member Independent Power Producer TU Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy, LLC

Jim Jacoby Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Rob Janssen Member Independent Power Producer TU Dogwood Energy, LLC

Brian Johnson Member Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric Power

Lucy Johnston Member Marketer TU Luminant Energy Company, LLC

Robert Kelly Member Cooperative TU Innovative Energy Alliance Cooperative *

Jeff Knottek Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Mick Kossan Member Cooperative TU Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Brett Kruse Member Independent Power Producer TU Calpine Energy Services, L.P.

Bleau LaFave Member Investor-Owned Utility TU NorthwWestern Energy

Paul Lampe Member Municipal TU City of Independence, MO

David Lazos Member Marketer TU El Paso Energy Marketing Company

Lloyd Linke Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Greg McAuley Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Mark McCulla Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Entergy Services, Inc.

Courtney Mehan Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services Co.

Ken Meringolo Member Independent Power Producer TU CPV Renewable Energy Company, LLC

David Mindham Member Independent Power Producer TU EDB Renewables North America

Jerry Ohmes Member Municipal TU Kansas City Board of Public Utilitites

John Olsen Member Investor-Owned TO Evergy Kansas South, Inc.

Gregory Pakela Member Marketer TU DTE Energy Trading, Inc.

Harshi Panchal Member Marketer TU XO Energy SW, LP

Philip Pauls Member Marketer TU Cargill Power Markets LLC

Rboert Pick Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Robert Priest Member Municipal TU Clarksdale Public Utilities

88 of 230

Brenda Prokop Member Independent Transmission Company TU ITC Holdings Corporation

Aaron Pupa Member Independent Power Producer TU Midwest Gen

Eddy Reece Member Cooperative TU Rayburn Country Electric Coop

Jeff Riles Member Large Retail Customer TU Google Energy LLC

Andrew Rosenlieb Member Independent Power Producer TU Entergy Asset Management

Richard Ross Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Tom Saitta Member Municipal TU Kansas Municipal Energy Agency

Mike Shook Member Municipal TU City of Coffeyville

Holly Smith Member Large Retail Customer TU Walmart Inc.

Resmi Surendran Member Marketer TU Shell Energy North America

RJ Tallman Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Al Tamimi Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Ryan Thomas Member Cooperative TU East Texas Electric Coop., Inc.

Rebecca Turner Member Independent Transmission Company TU Plains and Eastern Clean Line LLC

Richard Tyler Member Cooperative TU Northeast Texas Electric CooperativeSteven Ver Mulm Member Cooperative TU Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative

Melie Vincent Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Jennifer Vosburg Member Marketer TU NRG Louisiana Generating, LLC

Bruce Walkup Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Co

Kenneth Weber Member Municipal TU Harlan Municipal Utilities

Jimmy Wever Member Municipal TU Public Service Comm. of Yazoo City, MS

Noman Williams Member Independent Transmission Company TU South Central MCN, LLC

Terry Wolf Member Municipal TU Missouri River Energy Services

Mary Ann Zehr Member Cooperative TU Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Lanny Nickell Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

*Represents - Mor-Gran-Sou Electric Cooperative, Inc.


Director N/A N/A SPP Board of DirectorsVacant

Vacant

89 of 230


Nate Morris Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electric Company

Jerad Ethridge Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & Electric

Charles Aleman Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative

Andrew Berg Member Municipal TU Missouri River Energy Services

Preston Blinsky Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

John Boshears Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Joe Fultz Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Jeremy Harris Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Jason Hofer Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Steve Hohman Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Holli Krizek Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Jordan Lamb Member Cooperative TU East River Electric Power Cooperative

Reenè Miranda Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy Services, Inc.

Alex Mucha Member Municpal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Scott Rainbolt Member Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric Power

Scott Schichtl Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp

Jason Shook Member Cooperative TU GDS Associates *

Liam Stringham Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Sunny Raheem Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool



90 of 230


Allen Klassen Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Ron Gunderson Vice Chair State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Keith Carman Member Cooperative TU Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assoc.

Mark Eastwood Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Abubaker Elteriefi Member Independent Transmission Company TU ITC Holdings

Allan George Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Laurie Gregg Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Kyle McMenamin Member Investor-Owned Utility TO SPS/Xcel Energy

Chance Myers Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Doug Peterchunk Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

David Pham Member Investor-Owened Utility TO Empire District Electric Company

Gary Plummer Member Municipal TU Independent Power & Light

Chris Shaffer Member Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric Power

Craig Speidel Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Jim Useldinger Member Independent Transmission Company TU GridLiance High Plains, LLC

Jeff Wells Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Bryn Wilson Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.

Jason Tanner Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool


91 of 230


Russell Moore Chairman Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Michael Gaunder Vice Chair Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Tina Adams Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Kevin Ballany Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation

Natasha Brown Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Mark Ellis Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric PowerDenney Fales Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Janelle Marriott Gill Member Cooperative TU Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assoc.

Robert Hirchak Member Investor-Owned Utility TU CLECO Corporation

Sheldon Hunter Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Danny Johnson Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

Gary Reed Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Joel Robels Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Derek Stafford Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Steve Tegtmeier Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Michael Daly Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Operations Training Working Group

92 of 230


Josh Martin Chairman N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Graham Edwards Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Darcy Ortiz Director N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors


Michael Dessell Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Oversight Committee

Vacant

93 of 230


Tom Hestermann Chairman Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

Brian Johnson Vice Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric Power

Scott Brunnert Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & ElectricRandy Diede Member Federal Agency TO Wester Area Power Administration

James Ging Member Municipal TU Kansas Power Pool

Jamie Hajek Member Investor-Owned Utility TU NorthWestern Energy

Travis Hill Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

David Insinger Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Brenda Jessop Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Jonah Martin Member Cooperative TU Tri-State Generation and Transmission

Kenny Munsell Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Xcel Energy

David Sonntag Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Boyd Trester Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

John O'Dell Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool


94 of 230


Robert Pick Chairman State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Mo Awad Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Michael Billinger Member Cooperative TO Midwest Energy, Inc.

James Bixby Member Independent Transmission Company TU ITC Holdings

Alfred Busbee Member Cooperative TU East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Jack Clark Member Independent Power Producer TU NextEra Energy Resources

Alex Dobson Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Terri Gallup Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Greg Garst Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Tim Hall Member Independent Power Producer TU Southern Power

Tom Hestermann Member Cooperative TO Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC


Bernard Liu Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Xcel Energy

JP Moddock Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power CooperativeAsh Mayfield Member State Agency TU Grand River Dam AuthorityBrandon McCracken Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Jessica Meyer Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Neil Rowland Member Municipal TU Kansas Municipal Energy Agency

Steve Sanders Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power AdministrationRobert Shields Member Cooperative TO Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation

Heather Starnes Member State Agency TU Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Comm

John Stephens Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield

Robert Stillwell Member Municipal TU City of Independence, Missouri

Todd Tarter Member Investor-Owned Utility TO The Empire District Electric Company

John Varnell Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services Co

Marisa Choate Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Regional Tariff Working Group

95 of 230


Jennifer FlandermeyerChairman

Investor-Owned UtilityTU

Evergy Companies

John Allen

Vice-Chair

Municipal

TOCity Utilities of Springfield

Mark Buchholz Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Matt Caves Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Alex D'Ambrosio Member Cooperative TU Central Power Electric Cooperative

Tony Eddleman Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Kent Feliks Member Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric Power

Allie Gavin Member Independent Transmission Co TU ITC HoldingsCarla Holly Member Independent Power Producer TU Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy

Stace Kegley Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Thomas Maldonado Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Xcel Energy

Heather Morgan Member Independent Power Producer TU EDP Renewables North American LLC

Mike Murray Member Municipal TU City of Independence, MO

Terri Pyle Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

David Rudolph Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Eric Ruskamp Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Mahmood Safi Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power DistrictAshley Stringer Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Ellen Watkins Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power CorporationAlice Wright Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative CorporationJonathan Hayes Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool


96 of 230


Jim Jacoby Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power

Bary Warren Vice-Chair Independent Transmission Co TU GridLiance High Plains

Ray Bergmeier Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Dustin Betz Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Kevin Bornhoft Member Cooperative TU Corn Belt Power Cooperative

Oliver Burke Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Entergy Services, Inc.

Richard Dahl Member Municipal TU Missouri River Energy Services

Tina Gaines Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District ElectricJeff Knottek Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Katy Onnen Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Steve Sanders Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Jordan Schmick Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

RJ Tallman Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Clint Savoy Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Seams Steering Committee

97 of 230


Eric Ervin Chairman Investor-Owned Utiltiy TO Evergy Companies

Phil Clark Vice-Chair Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation

Ian Anderson Member Investor-Owned Utiltiy TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Steve Arnold Member Municipal TU Independence Power & Light

Ronald Bender Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Ted Bowen Member Investor-Owned Utility TO AEP/PSO

Mike Buyce Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Nita Dickerson Member Cooperative TU Goff & Herrington PC *

Shawn Eck Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electric

Michael Fitzpatrick Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Amanda Gray Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Jodi Jensen Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Daniel Moore Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Paul Sprague Member Municipal TU Board of Public Utilities of Kansas City, Kansas

David Trojan Member Independent Transmission Company TU ITC

Chad Wasinger Member Cooperative TU Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Michael Goad Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Security Working Group

* Represents Northeast Texas Electic Cooperative

98 of 230


Larry Altenbaumer Chairman N/A N/A SPP Board of Directors

Michael Wise Vice Chair Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Traci Bender Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Tom Christenson Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Les Evans Member Cooperative TU Kansas Electric Power Coop

Dennis Florom Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

Bill Grant Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Xcel Energy


John Olsen Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Richard Ross Member Investor-Owned Utility TO AEP - Southwestern Electric Power

Ray Wahle Member Municipal TU Missouri River Energy ServicesBarbara Sugg Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool



Strategic Planning Committee

Vacant

Vacant

99 of 230


Bradley Hans Chairman Municipal TU Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska

Natasha Henderson Vice-Chair Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative

Eric Alexander Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Traci Bender Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Brian Berkstresser Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electric Company

Aaron Castleberry Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas & Electric

Adam Graff Member State Agency TU Heartland Consumers Power District

Kenneth Hale Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield, MO


Jon Iverson Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Jim Jacoby Member Investor-Owned Utility TO American Electric Power


Douglas Jasa Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Jodi Knutson Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

Ernesto Perez Member Cooperative TU GDS Associates, Inc.*

Aaron Ramsdell Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Thomas Saitta Member Municipal TU Kansas Municipal Energy Agency

Phillip Schaeffer Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

John Varnell Member Independent Power Producer TU Tenaska Power Services Company

Bennie Weeks Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy Services

Chris Haley Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

Supply Adequacy Working Group


100 of 230


Stephen Wadas Chair State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

John Anderson Vice-Chair Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Christopher Angland Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Jeff Beasley Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

Forrest Brock Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Nathan Ryan Godwin Member Investor-Owned Utility TU American Electric Power

Shawn Jacobs Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

David Oswald Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electric Company

Lynn Schroeder Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Bob Soper Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

David Wheeler Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

Ken Zellefrow Member Municipal TU City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Doug Bowman Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool

System Protection and Control Working Group

101 of 230


Travis Hyde Chairman Investor-Owned Utility TO Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company

Nathan McNeil Vice-Chair Cooperative TO Midwest Energy, Inc.

Daniel Benedict Member Municipal TU Independence Power & Light

Scott Benson Member Municipal TU Lincoln Electric System

John Boshears Member Cooperative TU City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Derek Brown Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Evergy Companies

Jarred Cooley Member Investor-Owned Utility TU Xcel Energy

Clifford Franklin Member Cooperative TO Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Joe Fultz Member State Agency TO Grand River Dam Authority

James Ging Member Municipal TU Kansas Power Pool

Kalun Kelley Member Cooperative TO Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

John Knofczynski Member Cooperative TU East River Electric Power Cooperative

Randy Lindstrom Member State Agency TO Nebraska Public Power District

Jim McAvoy Member Municipal TU Oklahoma Municpal Power Authority

Matthew McGee Member Investor-Owned Utility TO AEP

Shane McMinn Member Cooperative TU Golden Spread Electric Cooperative

Nate Morris Member Investor-Owned Utility TO Empire District Electric Company

Michael Mueller Member Cooperative TU Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation

Gayle Nansel Member Federal Agency TO Western Area Power Administration

John Payne Member Cooperative TU Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

Chris Pink Member Cooperative TU Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc

Jason Shook Member Cooperative TU GDS Associates *

Joshua Verzal Member State Agency TO Omaha Public Power District

Michael Wegner Member Independent Transmission Company TU ITC Great Plains, LLC

Phil Westby Member Cooperative TO Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Noman Williams Member Independent Transmission Company TU GridLiance High Plains

David Sargent Liaison Member N/A N/A Southwestern Power Administration

Dee Edmonson Staff Secretary N/A N/A Southwest Power Pool



102 of 230

2019 Board of Directors Evaluation Results 1

2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS EVALUATION RESULTS

Published on November 25, 2019

By the SPP communications department

103 of 230



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The SPP communications department launched the 2019 Board of Directors Evaluation on Oct. 29, 2019, distributing survey invitations to 33 members of the Board of Directors and Members Committee and 55 non-member attendees. The member response rate for this year’s survey was 82 percent – a nine percent decrease from 2018. The non-member attendee response rate was 31 percent. Twenty-seven committee members submitted responses, while only 13 non-member attendees submitted responses.

The average score from members decreased in 2019 in response to six of the questions asked and increased in response to six questions. A comparison of the last two years’ data is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Two-year comparison of respondent ratings

QUESTION 2018 2019 MEMBERS

2019 NON-

MEMBERS

CHANGE

The board has a full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a board.

4.38 4.48 4.15 0.1

Board members understand the organization's mission and services.

4.69 4.37 4.0 -0.32

The organization structure is clear (board, officers, committees, executive, and staff).

4.45 4.30 4.15 -0.15

The board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning.

3.39 3.74 3.77 0.35

The board attends to policy-related decisions that effectively guide operational activities of staff.

4.21 4.22 3.69 0.01

The board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance, and other important matters.

4.62 4.70 4.46 0.08

The board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community.

4.52 4.11 3.54 -0.41

104 of 230



Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters.

4.28 4.33 3.62 0.05

The board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives.

4.07 4.15 3.77 0.08

The board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the chief executive officer.

4.17 4.0 3.62 -0.17

Each member of the board is involved and interested in the board's work.

4.54 3.96 3.77 -0.58

The board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner.

4.46 4.37 2.92 -0.09

Scores given by Members and Directors were roughly the same, only differing by more than half a point in four instances. Table 2 shows the two respondent groups’ average response to each question.

Table 2: Average scores by respondent group

QUESTION MEMBERS DIRECTORS DIFFERENCE

The board has a full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a board.

4.40 4.64 0.24

Board members understand the organization's mission and services.

4.07 4.82 0.75

The organization structure is clear (board, officers, committees, executive, and staff).

4.20 4.46 0.26

The board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning.

3.40 4.09 0.31

The board attends to policy-related decisions that effectively guide operational activities of staff.

3.93 4.55 0.62

105 of 230



The board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance, and other important matters.

4.53 4.91 0.38

The board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community.

3.80 4.46 0.05

Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters.

4.13 4.55 0.42

The board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives.

4.07 4.18 0.11

The board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the chief executive officer.

3.60 4.46 0.86

Each member of the board is involved and interested in the board's work.

3.40 4.73 0.33

The board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner.

4.0 4.91 0.91

OVERALL AVERAGE 3.96 4.56 0.44

106 of 230



Table 3 shows a detailed breakdown of member average response to each question and a historical comparison of the average responses to every question.

# QUESTION 1 STRONGLY DISAGREE

2 3 4 5 STRONGLY

AGREE

2019 RESULTS

‘19 ‘18 ‘17 ‘16 ‘15 ‘14 ‘13 ‘12

1 The board has a full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a board.

D – 0 M – 0

D –0 M – 1

D – 0 M – 1

D – 4 M – 7

D – 7 M – 7

D – 4.6 M – 4.4

4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3

2 Board members understand the organization's mission and services.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 2

D – 2 M – 10

D – 9 M – 3

D – 4.8 M – 4.1

4.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.5

3 The organization structure is clear (board, officers, committees, executive, and staff).

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 3

D – 6 M – 6

D – 5 M – 6

D – 4.5 M – 4.2

4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.4

4 The board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 1 M – 2

D – 3 M – 6

D – 7 M – 6

D – 3 M – 1

D – 4.1 M – 3.4

3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5

5 The board attends to policy-related decisions that effectively guide operational activities of staff.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 1

D – 0 M – 1

D –5 M – 11

D – 6 M – 2

D – 4.6 M – 3.9

4.3 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1

6 The board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance, and other important matters.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 1 M – 7

D – 10 M – 8

D – 4.9 M – 4.5

4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6

107 of 230



7 The board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 4

D – 6 M – 10

D – 5 M – 1

D – 4.6 M – 3.8

4.2 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.1 4.2

8 Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 1

D – 5 M – 11

D – 6 M – 3

D – 4.6 M – 4.1

4.4 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.0

9 The board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 2 M – 4

D – 9 M – 6

D – 2 M – 5

D – 4.2 M – 4.1

4.2 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.0

10 The board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the chief executive officer.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 0

D – 1 M – 8

D – 6 M – 5

D – 5 M – 2

D – 4.5 M – 3.6

4.1 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.1

11 Each member of the board is involved and interested in the board's work.

D – 0 M – 1

D – 0 M – 2

D – 0 M – 3

D – 3 M – 8

D – 8 M – 1

D – 4.7 M – 3.4

4.1 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.5

12 The board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner.

D – 0 M – 0

D – 0 M – 1

D – 0 M – 4

D – 1 M – 4

D – 10 M – 6

D – 4.9 M – 4.0

4.5 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4

108 of 230



Table 4 shows a detailed breakdown of non-member average response to each question.

# QUESTION 1 STRONGLY DISAGREE

2 3 4 5 STRONGLY AGREE

2019 RESULTS

1 The board has a full and common understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a board.

0 1 0 8 4 4.2

2 Board members understand the organization's mission and services.

0 0 4 5 4 4.0

3 The organization structure is clear (board, officers, committees, executive, and staff).

0 1 1 6 5 4.2

4 The board has clear goals and actions resulting from relevant and realistic strategic planning.

0 1 3 7 8 3.8

5 The board attends to policy-related decisions that effectively guide operational activities of staff.

0 1 4 6 2 3.7

6 The board receives regular reports on finances/budgets, performance, and other important matters.

0 0 2 3 8 4.5

7 The board effectively represents the organization to the stakeholder community.

1 2 2 5 3 3.5

8 Board meetings facilitate focus and progress on important organizational matters.

1 1 3 5 3 3.6

109 of 230



9 The board regularly monitors and evaluates progress toward strategic goals and objectives.

0 0 5 6 2 3.8

10 The board regularly evaluates and provides development plans for the chief executive officer.

0 0 7 4 2 3.6

11 Each member of the board is involved and interested in the board's work.

0 2 3 4 4 3.8

12 The board considers the diverse positions of the membership in a non-discriminatory manner.

4 0 4 1 3 2.9

110 of 230



COMMENTS The following are respondents’ unedited comments in response to an open-ended question included in the survey. Responses such as “N/A,” “None,” etc. have been excluded.

PLEASE LIST THREE TO FIVE POINTS ON WHICH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHOULD FOCUS ATTENTION IN 2020. PLEASE BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE IN IDENTIFYING THESE POINTS.

Member comments

1. Ensuring equity in decision making. The desire to seek consensus leaves some smaller members behind.

2. SPP staff performance has been slipping. Examples are the very delayed implementation of the Z2 process that has now created an uproar. The Senior Executives and Board should have been on top of this years ago. Then there is the Generation Interconnection study process that is overwhelmed and years behind causing developer and consumer additional costs. The overall systems from the highest levels are not being supervised closely enough and elevated to the Board.

3. Expansion to the West, Progress on seams issues, CEO Succession, Continued transmission planning, Governance

4. The board and members committee should hold a strategic planning session to ensure these skilled representatives are leveraged to help drive the success of the organization.

5. Continue focus on wind development and integration. Effectively implement HITT recommendations. Effectively implement VATF recommendations. Select the right CEO to replace Nick.

6. Western Energy Imbalance Service Implementation, Western RC Implementation Success, Changing resource mix impact on reliability, economics, and resilience of the footprint. Improvement in compliance culture and compliance margin with regulators (e.g. FERC, NERC, MRO)

7. CEO Succession, Interregional relations w/ MISO, Western expansion

8. Ensure that SPP functions with transparency. This includes operations, negotiations, and governance.

111 of 230



9. 1. Board Members used to participate actively in meetings such as MOPC. This past year, it appears several Board Members are not as engaged and miss out on the important stakeholder discussions. 2. Future Transmission projects should be subject to extreme scrutiny as the SPP load is not increasing and the cost/benefit is not well defined. 3. The relationship of Board and Regulators must improve. 4. The Board and Members Committee should focus on the over abundance of renewable energy in the footprint and convene a special session to develop a strategic framework on how to move forward with the issue.

10. HITT implementation, VATF implementation, docking a new CEO

11. Continue the efforts to revamp strategic planning 2. Ensure substantive progress on the implementation of HITT 3. Meaningfully find a way forward to address the Seams issue (and MISO relationship) on a comprehensive basis 4. Advance with our members a common understanding and appreciation for the Value provided by SPP to its stakeholders 5. Improve the relationship with and effective engagement of the RSC 6. Lead the transition to and development of the new CEO 7. Establish a defined program of more effective outreach to our members

12. Develop the cost allocation and planning principles that membership can support to allow robust transmission backbone for the integration of renewables that is coming. More customer and state public policy goals will require this.

13. 1. Future strategic direction of SPP 2. CEO selection and integration 3. Evaluation of staff down to the director level so as to identify backups (there will be significant turmoil in the staff ranks as the result of new mgt], $ undertake a critical review and survey of the organization's skill sets and functional disciplines

14. CEO Selection Process, Growth Opportunitie,s RSC Relationships, Establish Energy Imbalance Market

15. Integration of new CEO, Define SPP's proposed role in the West and implement policies and tools to accomplish. Get a handle on potential capacity and operational issues caused by wind and solar penetration and implement remedies ASAP, Implement higher level strategic planning to supplement and override where necessary existing operational oriented planning. Clarify and streamline existing processes to accommodate rapidly increasing member issues and industry changes.

16. 1. The SPP Board of Directors should consider the impact of its decisions on end-use customers who are the sole source of all but the smallest amount of funding for SPP's activities. Up to now, the SPP has made a significant contribution in keeping end-use customer costs low. However, if we continue to attempt to accommodate all renewable generation that is simply trying to sell into the market on an as-available basis by building transmission for it as if it were firm, our customer rates will continue to go up, and to unacceptable levels. 2. Related to point #1, the SPP Board should focus heavily on

112 of 230



ensuring that SPP manages to its budget. If the Board accepts the Finance Committee's recommendation, we will be at the tariff cap for Schedule 1A fees in 2020, and, according to Staff, we should actually be above that based upon projections. This cannot continue. SPP needs to manage its costs more effectively. 3. Seams issues. Not sure why SPP and MISO have been unable to work together. There appear to be real opportunities to save on transmission development expenses that can be realized simply by working to ensure that both markets work together to send appropriate price signals that can help prevent, or at least delay conservative ops or EEA events. Our seams are artificial constructs. We should be able to work through the issues more effectively than we have.

17. Focus on providing core products and services consistently and effectively 2) focus on finding efficiencies and reducing head count 3) focus on strategic vision for the footprint and potential adjustments to models/futures/outlooks etc. 4) focus on demonstrating value of the products and services offered by the RTO 5) focus on relationship with RSC - understanding the value of SPP and the strategic vision for the region

18. Western Expansion Executive Team and Succession Planning Member and Board relationship / interaction / responsibilities & accountabilities

19. Controlling the cost of the organization. 2. Challenge the current model for transmission planning. It is based on how things used to be, not what the future needs of the systems will be. Distributed generation and demand response have the potential to reduce the demand on the transmission system. 3. Maintain the culture of SPP both at the organizational level by hiring the right CEO, and at the Board level. Don't shift to a governance model with less transparency.

20. SPP Board and SPP Staff should continue to develop materials and messaging that communicates SPP Value to the membership, state regulators, and general public. Such materials and messaging should be tailored, at times, to individuals audiences. This is part of VATF recommendations and it is an EXTREMELY good one.

21. -Newer BOD members should make an effort to get to know the members; especially those on Members Committee. -Some BOD members are not, or do not appear, to be engaged. -SPP staff (who are new or do not regularly attend BOD meetings; ie. new faces) should be encouraged to introduce themselves to members. -BOD needs to focus on implementation of HITT items and cost impacts to TOs. -Repairs to Generator Interconnection process need to be expedited.

22. Do not allow the desire to maintain SPP's corporate culture become a reason to ossify. Be open to new ideas and perspectives that may be uncomfortable. Don't shoot the messenger, regardless of how much you might disagree with the message.

113 of 230



Non-member comments

23. Better listening skills - not just listening to the largest stakeholders, but listening to the smaller stakeholders as well. 2. Listen better (intent to understand, not just allow to speak) to transmission owners and LREs, particularly when it comes to differences in policy between transmission owners and LREs vs renewable resource developers.

24. 1. Strong, long-term transmission planning; 2. Transmission planning that takes incumbent interests under consideration, but not to the level it stagnates customer benefit projects; 3. Succession planning with an eye on long-term, diverse leadership; 4. A stronger emphasis on the benefits that SPP brings to customers across the region - don't just rely on incumbent utilities to carry that message; and 5. PLEASE take more power back into the Board / SPP Staff. Emphasis here is on addressing those within the SPP groups whose roles are solely there to gum up the works - slowing down investment that has a strong return for customers. The diverse nature of SPP members now means that there will not be consensus on planning, metrics, investment, and rights to own / invest. The current SPP model of decision-making is based on consensus and can be manipulated by those who have been within the system for years. I would like to see the Board hit the reset button and let long-term planning, metrics, and strategic decision-making address SPP's future.

25. Comments are more for 2020, now that 2019 is almost over. 1. CEO Transition 2. Organizational effectiveness (internal process focused) 3. HITT / SPC initiatives

26. Committee Chairs must not be parochial and unfairly advocate positions 2) Future SPP leadership 3) Keeping Staff independent

27. Transmission cost allocation, Transmission planning under uncertainty in the GI and aggregate study processes

28. The transmission cost allocation methodology that directs most costs to load needs to be reviewed. Cost causation assignments should be considered. 2.) Membership, the value of Membership and voting, and the responsibilities that should come with membership. 3.) The operational manageability of a system with increasingly large quantities of non-dispatchable generation. 4.) Consider the size (both geographically and nodes/devices) that a single RTO can effectively manage.

29. Transmission Cost, Transmission Planning, Transmission Bidding

30. Budget and Costs should be a priority. The BOD will approve an increase in administrative fees, yet not direct that SPP have a flat budget or reduce costs elsewhere, claiming SPP is not-for-profit and wholesale rates are low. Additional the proposed budget for the WEIS lacked any and all specificity and would not have been approved in a normal board setting. There is a focus on expansion, yet a lot of current issues within SPP, Stakeholders, OATT and Market that need to be corrected, prior to a focus on

114 of 230



additional efforts elsewhere. We are all spending to much money at FERC to address issues the BOD should be addressing. At the last BOD meeting, there was discussion that SPP would like to potential expand the BOD to add a seat(s) for more renewables. However, long-term members with renewable portfolios are often overlooked because it's not a sexy name like Google or NextEra.

115 of 230

Summary 1

2019 Members 2019 Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2019 Members 2019 Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011Balancing Authority Operating Committee 50% 13% 56% 37% 50% 36% N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.8 3.5 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.2 N/A N/A N/A N/ABusiness Practices Working Group 73% 43% 57% 80% 57% 73% 55% 71% 60% 64% 4.5 3.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.3Change Working Group 36% 15% 56% 52% 61% 50% 52% 63% 61% 44% 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.3Corporate Governance Committee 80% N/A 64% 89% 80% 80% 88% 100% 88% 88% 4.6 N/A 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.4Cost Allocation Working Group 64% 14% 75% 82% 82% 88% 25% 67% 67% 50% 4.6 3.5 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.9 5.0 4.7 4.3 3.8Credit Practices Working Group 55% 44% 60% 64% 44% 67% 78% 75% 80% 67% 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.0Economic Studies Working Group 68% 50% 56% 63% 84% 73% 56% 63% 81% 67% 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.5Finance Committee 88% 17% 86% 71% 86% 86% 57% 86% 86% 86% 4.7 4.0 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5Human Resources Committee 86% N/A 71% 86% 86% 100% 86% 86% 71% 100% 4.8 N/A 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5 3.8 3.6 3.7Market Working Group 63% 16% 84% 63% 72% 68% 47% 74% 41% 63% 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.0 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.3Markets and Operations Policy Committee 31% 38% 41% 51% 42% 39% 30% 37% 46% 48% 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.8 3.7Model Development Working Group 53% 23% 61% 87% 87% 69% 92% 100% 77% 100% 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9Operating Reliabilty Working Group 56% 20% 58% 75% 84% 67% 80% 67% 94% 87% 4.0 4.1 4.9 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.5 3.7 4.2 4.2Operations Training Working Group 94% 25% 75% 87% 88% 83% 58% 70% 92% 83% 4.7 5.0 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6Oversight Committee 83% N/A 86% 71% 80% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 4.8 N/A 4.2 4.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8Project Cost Working Group 80% 29% 86% 100% 87% 86% 65% 65% 63% N/A 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.5 N/ARegional Compliance Working Group 62% 31% 77% 48% 77% 75% 65% N/A N/A N/A 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.7 N/A N/A N/ARegional Tariff Working Group 44% 100% 42% 59% 67% 61% 77% 67% 52% 71% 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.7 3.7 4.2Seams Steering Committee 79% 45% 64% 86% 79% 67% 64% 70% 40% N/A 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.3 N/ASecurity Working Group 59% 31% 35% 38% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.3 5.0 4.5 3.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AStrategic Planning Committee 71% N/A 73% 87% 93% 83% 67% 83% 92% 100% 4.1 N/A 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.5 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.3Supply Adequacy Working Group 61% 26% 73% 68% 76% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASystems Protection and Control Working Group 46% N/A 54% 54% 67% 62% 58% 62% 69% 77% 4.5 N/A 3.8 4.3 4.8 3.5 3.7 4.5 3.9 4.5Transmission Working Group 52% 26% 54% 61% 64% 54% 67% 54% 82% 79% 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.7Western Reliability Working Group 40% 33% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 3.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Average 63% 32% 69% 74% 71% 64% 73% 72% 76% 76% 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.1

2019 Organizational Group Survey Analysis

Group

OverviewRespondents were asked to select a score from 1 - 5 with 1 being a strong disagreement to the statement and 5 being a strong agreement with statement.

Response rates were down this year. The overall response rate fell from 69 percent in 2018 to 63 percent in 2019. Fifteen groups' response rates decreased from 2018 to 2019.

Non-member attendees provided the highest overall effectiveness rating (5.0) for two groups: the Operations Training Working Group and the Security Working Group. Working group members rated two groups as most effective (4.8): The Human Resources Committee and the Oversight Committee. The Economic Studies Working Group had the lowest overall effectiveness score: 3.0.The Oversight Committee saw the biggest increase in overall effectiveness ratings (0.6) from 4.2 in 2018 to 4.8 in 2019. The Operating Reliability Working Group saw the biggest decrease in overall effectiveness ratings (0.9) from 4.9 in 2018 to 4.0 in 2019.

Overall average effectiveness is 4.2, down 0.1 points from 2018. Non-member attendees rated overall effectiveness lower (0.2) than members. Overall effectiveness scores reflect the average response to the question, "Please rate the overall effectiveness of this group," not the average responses to all questions for a given group.

Response rate Overall effectiveness

116 of 230

BAOC 2

Balancing Authority Operating Committee 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016Number of members 18 32 18 19 18

Number of responses 9 4 10 7 9Response rate 50% 13% 56% 37% 50%

Overall effectiveness score 3.8 3.5 4.2 4.0 3.9Lowest score 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.71 4Highest score 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.57 4.5

Question2018 2017 2016

The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.2Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.2The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.2Meeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4

Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.5Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.4 4.5Members come prepared to meetings. 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.3Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.1 4.5 4.1 4.6 4.4Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.4

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.3Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.4Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.0 4.1Dissenting voices are heard. 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.1I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.3 4.0

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.1The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.1The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.125

Additional comments:This committee has worked well together but for efficiency purposes the responsibilities of the BAOC should be rolled up into the ORWG.

Average Score

Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.

Other commentsI strongly support the limited duties of this committee being transitioned to the ORWG

Membership meets the requirements of Attachment AN of the tariff.

I agree with the move to incorporate the CBA into the ORWG.

Additional comments:

Additional Comments:

Additional Comments:

the committee is in the process of being dissolved so have nothing to add1. consolidate working groups if possible 2. nothing really else comes to mind.Material should be focused on the BA functions. Compliance discussion should focus on BA functions. Determine if BA functions can be managed by ORWG.

117 of 230

BPWG 3

Business Practices Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 11 7 14 13 14 11 11 7 10 11 11

Number of responses 8 3 8 10 8 8 6 5 6 7 9Response rate 73% 43% 57% 80% 57% 73% 55% 71% 60% 64% 82%

Overall effectiveness score 4.5 3.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.6Lowest score 4.1 3.3 4 3.6Highest score 4.8 4 4.7 4.4

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.4 4.0 4.6 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.2Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.1 4.0 4.3 3.6 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.1The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.4 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.2The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.2 n/a n/aMeeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.5 3.7 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.2


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.38 3.33 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.1Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.3 3.7 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.1Members come prepared to meetings. 4.1 3.3 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.2 3.4 3.8Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.6 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.0 4.3 3.9 4.3

Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.5 3.7 4.5 3.9 4.3 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.3

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.38 4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.2Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.6 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.1Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.8 3.7 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.0 4.1 3.9Dissenting voices are heard. 4.8 3.3 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.9I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.4 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.2

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.8 3.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.8 4.4 4.3The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.8 4.0 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.2The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.6 3.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.1The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.5 3.7 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.2


Other comments

BPWG appropriately responds to the items brought before the group. I feel the representation is reflective of the membership at large. When a member does not engage, that position is replaced, per the by laws.

in a role as the "customer" within their companies.

Additional comments:Grant's extensive knowledge of the SPP day to day operations allows him to readily facilitate the discussions of the group and educate folks that are less familiar with these subjects.

Additional comments: Although not everyone is as prepared as they could be prior to the meeting, there are a couple of key members that are able to engage in the meeting, quickly understand the issue and weigh in with what is best for SPP's customers. Those that are less prepared listen and adopt the guidance of others in the group so that progress does not come to a halt.

both groups are , what I would say is more customer perspective members I think that would be a reasonable change. I would want to see BPWG combined with any other working group due to the loss of that perspective. While we must consider both sides and do what is best for SPP Membership overall, the perspectives are different. Very few members of other working groups serve

This group is very effective in part due to the expertise of the chair, vice-chair and a few key members of the group (and staff). I have heard grumblings combining the BPWG with MWG. Give

Many Business Practice revisions rely on technical groups that better understand the details in the Business Practice revisions. Those groups should be the primary groups to review Business Practices. Hence, the ongoing need for the BPWG is questionable.

Question

sometimes documents on items key for review and approval are late.

The BPWG, unlike most other groups, provides a good perspective of the Transmission Customer view of issues. Additional comments:

Average score

118 of 230

CWG 5

Change Working Group 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.5Lowest score 3.5 3.25 3.9 3.4Highest score 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.5

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.3 4..75 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.5Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.2The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.4 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.1 4.3 4.5 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 n/a n/aMeeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.9 4.4



Members are engaged during the meeting. 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.6 4.2Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 4.5Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.4Dissenting voices are heard. 4.0 3.3 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.2 3.7 4.1 3.8 4.3I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 3.5 3.25 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.5 3.7 3.4 4.3

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.5

The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.6The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.5The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.6

Average score


1) Need more members 2) Need more substantive items to review - a lot of meetings are repetitious 3) Would like meeting locations to be elsewhere - Dallas not easiest place to get to for me.

Question

Additional comments:At times the materials not available for a good review for the meeting

Sometimes there is a delay or an issue with bringing up some of the materials for review. May be just a computer issue, but does call for a delay.

1) Need more members 2) Need more substantive items to review - a lot of meetings are repetitious 3) Would like meeting locations to be elsewhere - Dallas not easiest place to get to for me.Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure


Believe there should be more participation by Entities concerning the CWG. With every entity being a voting member it is ingesting at times worry about having enough voters

The CWG's primary role is to share information so the standard set of questions for a working group don't fit exactly.



I don't have any recommendations at this time other than to suggest that a look at SPP's project testing process (e.g., SSRP) be taken to possibly improve its efficiency.

119 of 230

CGC 6

Corporate Governance Committee 2019 Members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 10 11 9 10 10 8 8 8 8 8

Number of responses 8 7 8 8 8 7 8 7 7 6Response rate 80% 64% 89% 80% 80% 88% 100% 88% 88% 75%

Overall effectiveness score 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.4 #REF!Lowest score 4.5 4.4 4Highest score 4.9 4.9 4.6

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.9 4.7 4.3 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.7 4.4 4.5Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.3The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.5The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 n/a n/aMeeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.5

Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.63 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.5Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.5 4.4 4.0 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.3Members come prepared to meetings. 4.5 4.6 4.4 5.0 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.2Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.6 4.9 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.3Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.5

Members are engaged during meetings. 4.75 4.7 4.6 5.0 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.0Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.3Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5Dissenting voices are heard. 4.6 4.7 4.5 5.0 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.6 4.6 4.4 5.0 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.2

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6The chair keeps the group on task. 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.6The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.4

regarding practices to ensure more rotation of participation on key committees 3. What is the 'best practice' regarding who chairs this committee: CEO or a Board member 4. Given the changing nature of and growth in SPP's membership, should the composition of various committees be reviewed to make sure they are appropriately reflecting the diverse nature of the SPP membership.

Nick clearly has opinions on the topics and a direction he'd like to see the group proceed. That is expected as long as its done in a balanced fashion with regard to feedback from the members.


Question

I think we have a good group of people on the CGC that want the organization to succeed. Additional comments:


Additional comments:It will continue to be important for the more experienced participants to provide background and historical context to help with the decisions we'll need to make.

Average score

I think the group has productive, collaborative discussions.Given our last meeting and the discussion regarding the number and type of Board members, we should reach informed consent on our goals for adding Board members and the skills and characteristics we seek.

Nick clearly has opinions on the topics and a direction he'd like to see the group proceed. That is expected as long as its done in a balanced fashion with regard to feedback from the members. The CGC should discuss whether its own membership should consist of members of the Members Committee.

1.) We should discuss the criteria for choosing Members Committee members. 2.) We should discuss the criteria for CGC members. 3.) SPP and the Members should reach informed consent on the strategy for footprint expansion and contract services. 4.) Reliability and the impacts of non-dispatchable resources should be discussed.

Please share any additional comments about the organizational group's effectiveness:


120 of 230

CAWG 8

Cost Allocation Working Group 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 4.6 3.5 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.9 5.0 4.7 4.3 3.8 #REF!Lowest score 4 3 4.3 3.8Highest score 4.9 4.3 4.9 4.8



Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.43 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.3 4.2 3.0Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.0 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.0 4.0 3.3Members come prepared to meetings. 4.3 3.5 4.6 4.1 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.3 3.6 3.0Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.7 3.8 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.4 4.0 3.5Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.7 3.8 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.0 5.0 4.7 4.4 3.3


The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.71 4 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 3.8 3.3The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.9 4.3 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.6 3.8 3.0The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.9 3.8 4.7 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.7 3.8 3.0The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.9 3.8 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.6 3.6 3.3

Question

Difficult at times to take votes when some members have not had chance to talk to Commissioners prior to voting. Not sure how to resolve this going forward..



Of all the group I attend, this group is the worse at posting meeting materials 7 days prior to the meeting. At its most recent meeting material was still being posted the day before the meeting and there was material presented that did not get posted until after the meeting.


Reduce discussion about process. Improve remote participation technology. Limit non-member participation.

Reduce discussion about process. Improve remote participation technology. Limit non-member participation.

Average score


Other comments

All but one member is supportive and respectful. There have been occasions where he has been disrespectful to other members of CAWG as well as other participants.

121 of 230

CPWG 10

Credit Practices Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 11 9 10 11 9 9 9 8 10 6 N/a

Number of responses 6 4 6 7 4 6 7 6 8 4 N/aResponse rate 55% 44% 60% 64% 44% 67% 78% 75% 80% 67% N/a

Overall effectiveness score 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.0 N/aLowest score 3.5 3.5 3.3 4 N/aHighest score 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.7 N/a

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 N/aMeeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.3 4.9 4.2 4.4 3.8 N/aThe information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.3 4.4 4.3 N/aThe information presented in meetings is clear. 3.8 4.0 3.7 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.3 n/a n/aMeeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.4 4.3 N/a

Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.17 3.5 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.3 3.5 3.9 4.0 N/aMembership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.6 3.7 4.0 3.5 N/aMembers come prepared to meetings. 3.7 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.3 3.9 3.5 N/aMembers are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.3 3.7 4.0 3.5 N/aMembers are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.3 4.1 4.0 N/a

Members are engaged during the meeting 3.67 3.75 3.3 4.0 3.5 3.8 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.8 N/aDecisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.3 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.4 3.8 4.3 4.0 N/aFacilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.7 4.0 4.3 4.0 N/aDissenting voices are heard. 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.4 3.7 4.0 4.0 N/aI depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 3.5 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.5 4.2 4.3 3.7 4.3 4.0 N/a

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4 4.25 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.0 N/aThe chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.0 N/aThe chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.6 3.8 N/aThe chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.3 N/a

Additional comments:I believe all of the facilitators are respective of everyone's time, while making sure the appropriate input for each agenda item is achieved.

Additional comments:I have none at this time.


As chair, I will abstain from answering these questions.


Question



Average score

122 of 230

ESWG 12

Economic Studies Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 19 6 19 19 19 15 16 16 16 15 17Number of responses 13 3 11 12 16 11 9 10 13 10 12

Response rate 68% 50% 56% 63% 84% 73% 56% 63% 81% 67% 71%Overall effectiveness score 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.5 #REF!

Lowest score 4.1 4 4.1 3.9Highest score 4.9 5 5 4.8



Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.25 5 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.3Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.2 5.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.3Members come prepared to meetings. 4.1 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.7Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.0Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.9

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.0Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0Dissenting voices are heard. 4.54 5 5.0 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4 3.9 4.3I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.31 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.8

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.1The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.6 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.7The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.69 5 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.2 3.5 3.8

Seems like the ESWG get more effective each yearAlthough currently very effective, there is concerns that the expertise of newer members do not completely understand the impacts to the model results that the inputs make.

Voting Members of ESWG are primarily made up of companies that have the incentives to build more transmission. The risk of stranded cost transmission investment should therefore be considered in the economic planning process. The group is notoriously behind technology change including wind, solar, battery, EV. Additional research materials (NREL, etc.) should be leverage to calibrate ESWG future assumption. Load forecasts across transmission planning and resource planning should be related across the various SPP models, with consideration of DG and demand response. For example, net load curves for ESWG are provided by a 3rd party vendor and completely disconnected from the market entities that complete the load forecast.

It get what needs to be completed done.Please share any additional comments

Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.1. ITP Schedule - you guys have a really good slide deck on the schedule but it seems like everyone checks out during the presentation. I think showing the timeline and acknowledging where we are may be enough for the meeting and then if members want more info then they can go to that slide on their own time. 2. ITP Schedule milestone/votes - at this point we may have a better feel for when these votes are going to occur so I wonder if a calendar of what votes we will have in each meeting of the ITP cycle would help.

The group should continue to strive for accurate and sound modeling of the system in the ITP models. The group should consider doing more thorough benchmarking of the ITP models with further follow-through on wider discrepancies. SPP should allow members to see their company's information in the generation review and resource plan stages of the ITP study process.

Question

One critique is that with some presentations at the ESWG meetings, the presenting staff could provide a little more spoken detail on the particular slides they are presenting.

I feel there is usually room to better prepare for the meetings.

Additional comments:Sometimes we debate things too long and don't feel like we accomplish much.

Average score


The group, with a lot of help from Staff, has done a good job of juggling as many as 3 ITP assessments (2019, 2020, 2021) at the same time. In the past year, the group has been more successful in getting through the agenda items in a timely manner. Sometimes it feels that we have too many members or other interested parties.

More successful in getting through agenda items in timely manner.

There's been a large improvement in getting meeting information out earlier.Routinely have supplemental information added to the background materials, as part of the entire package making incremental download difficult.

Meeting materials have generally been posted in a timely manner. Staff marking of presentations to indicate which ITP study they are applicable to has been helpful. We do occasionally get last minute updates to the presentations which can be problematic in terms of member preparation.


Continue to look for opportunities for joint meetings, or portions of meetings with the TWG, especially when discussing common topics (e.g., ITP assumptions & results). Continue to make progress on addressing action items. Be intentional about making time for identifying lessons learned after major milestones in each ITP assessment.

Our chair is wonderful! He's task oriented, but listens. I also don't feel that he personally steers the conversation, ie he's impartial. Alan continues to do a great job as chair in facilitating our meetings.Continue to look for opportunities for joint meetings, or portions of meetings with the TWG, especially when discussing common topics (e.g., ITP assumptions & results). Continue to make progress on addressing action items. Be intentional about making time for identifying lessons learned after major milestones in each ITP assessment.Alan does an excellent job facilitating the meetings and helps the group move towards making progress.Our chair is wonderful! He's task oriented, but listens. I also don't feel that he personally steers the conversation, ie he's impartial. It could get a bit smaller.

123 of 230

FC 13

Finance Committee 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 4.7 4.0 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5 #REF!Lowest score 4.4 4 4.4 4.2Highest score 5 5 5 5






The chair does a good job keeping the meetings on task.Please share any additional comments

Average scoreQuestion

5



Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.1. provide background on topics that members may not be familiar with if they aren't on other committees. 2. allow more time in the agenda to fully discuss topics 3. encourage opinions to be spoken/provided by all members. some members can hijack a conversation.

The content and conduct of the committee are excellent. Members are engaged. My only recommendation is to review the timing and location of the committee meetings given that they involve travel and time within the same month as the Board meeting and the location requires at least one connection which lengthens the time of travel.Sometimes the meetings seemed rushed. For example I think the budget should be taken over 2 meetings, with the first to be discussion and the second to be followup and approval.

occasionally there is not enough time on the agenda to fully discuss topics.

124 of 230

HRC 19

Human Resources Committee 2019 Members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7


Overall effectiveness score 4.8 5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5 3.8 3.6 3.7 #REF!Lowest score 4.5 4.4 4.5Highest score 5 5 5




Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.83 4.8 5.0 4.7 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.2Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.0Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.5 3.5 3.8 4.3 4.2

Dissenting voices are heard. 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.5 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.7I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.5 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.0 3.6 4.3 3.8

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.8The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 3.5 3.4 4.7 4.8The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 3.2 3.2 3.9 4.0The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.5

Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure

I think this group works exceptionally well together. The members are knowledgeable and dedicated to improving SPP. I always learn something new at every meeting.

-

My experience on the HR committee has been very positive personally as well as positively impacting the SPP organization.

-

Question

-




Additional comments:-

Average score

The HR Committee functions very well. The input from staff and the committee membership is always vaulue added. The chair does an excellent job ensuring all opinions are heard while keeping the team on track. - Use the recommendations of the VATF and others to look for opportunities to simplify and streamline the committee and governance structure. This will become even more important as the organization continues grow and the issues / governance becomes more complex.

Look for ways to be more efficient with time and materials within the revised, more rigid times allotted for meetings. Determine if additional, non face to face meetings could provide additional time during regularly scheduled meetings.

125 of 230

MWG 20

Market Working Group2019 Members

2019 Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

Number of members 19 37 19 19 18 19 19 19 17 16 16Number of responses 12 6 16 12 13 13 9 14 7 10 13


Lowest score 3.8 4 3.8 3.8Highest score 4.7 4.8 4.8 5



Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.5 4.2Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 3.9Members come prepared to meetings. 3.8 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.1 3.5Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 3.83 4.67 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.4 3.9Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.17 4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.2



Richard Ross is able to keep the meeting upbeat and on task when grinding through day and a half meetings. Also a tribute to Erin or whoever has been helping her out when she was gone.

Richard Ross is chair. He has missed a few meetings but is very effective when in attendance. Vice Chair is also very good. Things like "phrase of the month" help break up long meetings.

Among the best groups in the organization. A group I actually enjoy attending.

Although the chair can appear harsh at times, most realize he is joking and/or trying to keep things lively & interesting. Even when the chair disagrees with the position / idea others are expressing, he tries to understand and make sure others understand point of view.

Timing is an issue with the MWG. Meetings are scheduled over two days but many times the group finishes at the end of the first day. Because they have a large amount of time for meetings presentations often go on too long without accomplishing anything.

1. Communications continue to be a concern. The in-house microphones only work intermittingly and listening from the phone is impossible. 2. SPP should look at having the meetings at a centralized location so that members have the option of driving to the meeting.

All presenting staff should be at the meetings. If technology of telecom issues present the meeting should continue within 15 minutes of the event. face-to-face presence is important for successful meetings.

I'm consistently impressed with SPP's staff and their dedication to improving an already great organization

I feel that we could have a slightly smaller group of members than the current roster. There is overlap in the responsibilities of the MWG and BPWG and the two could be combined.1. have a group outing some evening 2. have a meeting in Kansas City 3. bring back the holiday cookbook

Question Average score




despite the difficulty in preparing materials, the SPP market development staff do an excellent job of getting materials posted in advance of the meeting. A model for all working groups to follow. Those that complain about materials being late

I often detect annoyance from SPP Members and/or SPP staff when SPP Members or Market Participants are in dissent of the opinion held by the majority of the group.MWG has allot on its plate. Chair and Vice Chair does a good job keeping everyone involved

Some members get on a hobby horse and make snide comments about other members who may not be ready to go along. Not often, but it happens.

As with all groups there are a number of folks that say very little during the course of the meeting.

Meeting materials are updated often, sometimes even after the meeting but normally pretty close to the meeting. This makes it difficult to prepare and/or get input from others in the organization.

Sometimes folks revert to their company position on a particular issue making it difficult to make progress.

Richard Ross is an excellent chair. Thoughtful and considerate of varying opinions. Effective facilitator.

126 of 230

MWG 21

For the most part every single issue coming out of the HITT effort was already being done


Please share any additional comments

1. The in-room microphones are more a detriment than a help. They cut in and out. Better of folks just speak up. 2. SPP Staff presenting on a topic need to make the trip. Often there are several SPP folks in the room who do not speak but speakers are calling in from Little Rock. At minimum, SPP should invest in a better system for folks to use calling in. 3.

Please share any additional comments about the organizational group's effectiveness:The Staff Secretary and Interim Staff Secretary do a great job facilitating the discussion and explaining how things really work in the MCE/STRUC/RUC, etc.

127 of 230

MOPC 22

Market and Operations Committee 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.8 3.7 #REF!Lowest score 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4Highest score 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3






Most members show up with their voting directions and do not engage in the discussions nor have ability to make the decision based on the facts presented.

Not all members are active participants so it is difficult to know exactly how many truly engaged.

Members represent the diversity of the organization; but often members are not aware of the operation of the organization beyond their individual area. Folks are not prepared to get beyond the canned materials/proposal being delivered to the




Many times supplemental information is sent out late. Also presentations are written from the technical experts perspective for that working group. Would be more beneficial if the presentations were geared for the non-working group participant.

End-use customers appear to have been forgotten by many members. We must put the brakes on endless, costly transmission expansion that serves only the financial interests of developers and does nothing to benefit customers.MOPC could greatly benefit from a mentor or on-boarding program. It is overwhelming and somewhat intimidating to come into the group without an existing network or SPP history. Having access to MOPC members with more experience in the market would allow new members to become more knowledgeable and valuable sooner. Over time, it could also go a long way in improving communications between members.

Materials are not always used in the meeting. I do wonder if some of the staff reports would be missed if you just quit producing them. We're getting better at providing meeting materials prior to the meetings. Very helpful! Thank you!

I think the members do support and respect individual needs and differences. However I believe last years Chairman (not the current Chair) and this years vice Chair have shown they use their position to expound on their opinions to the disadvantage

I would like to see more emphasis on ALL meeting materials being posted one week prior to the meeting. Often only the materials related to action items are timely included, and in the past some presenters haven’t even included their materials and they had to be posted after the meeting. This makes preparation and development if discussion items/questions very difficult. I also wish working groups would slow down and stop trying to get items approved for MOPC meeting two or three days prior to MOPC. This makes stakeholders feel pushed and rushed to make decisions and is often due to SPP’s self-imposed deadlines rather than any true justifiable urgent need. It is very frustrating being constantly pushed to expedite or vote on items without sufficient time for review and discussion, just because SPP wants the item to go to MOPC at a certain time. If we would slow down and be more deliberate in our decision-making, we would spend less time fighting at FERC and less time having to go back and fix issues we missed in our haste to move things through the process.

There's always a struggle between those members that prepare vs those that don't. This often means that those within the larger organizations can push in the direction that they want vs the smaller organizations. However, that being said, it is up to the smaller organizations to rectify this.

Several of the most outspoken members seem to be carrying their company line, rather than what is best for SPP.

The diversity of MOPC is what it is. If you are not a member it is by your choice or your organization. Given that each SPP Member entity has a seat it is difficult to have a single company member with the expertise in all fields to cover the wide range of issues, but it seems to work. Along these lines the parochial interests of many members makes it impossible to achieve "the greater good" results.

I enjoy both listening to and participating in the discussions at MOPC. Meetings are well facilitated and there is ample opportunity to raise concerns and for expression of diverse opinions. Many times this is the only opportunity for policy issues to be debated among the diverse stakeholder community, and I strongly appreciate the value and education I receive from participation in these discussions.

dissenting votes are heard sometimes too much Some people state their self serving position repeatedly and endlessly... until the shoe is on the other foot and they decide to take the opposite position.

128 of 230

MOPC 23


I would like to see the MOPC membership vote on the chair position. I would also like to see Chairs and Vice Chairs not abuse their positions to limit discussion and to pontificate on their positions (current chair does not do this).I believe the current vice-chair will be incapable of meeting criteria 20 through 23 if she becomes chair. She is completely immersed in the Machiavellian pursuit of abuse of power.

The push for expansion is diluting the effectiveness of MOPC. As some point there are to many voting members to effectively address real issues.

As travel plans are usually made a month in advance, please do not make any near last-minute changes to the meeting location. The same may be true for some drastic meeting start or stop time changes.

1. Implement electronic voting. 2. Increase focus on policy level discussions. 3. Implement a strategic initiative road-map process for the markets, operations, and planning functional areas.

When MOPC votes are requested, the suggested motion should be included in the slide. For example, if there is a presentation over an action item that is asking for endorsement, it needs to be clear if the vote is for endorsement is for content including the recommendations, or simply that the action item was completed.

The member engagement at MOPC varies, some member are very engaged, others rarely provide any input at all.


It's difficult to speak out for recommendations given that the scope of this committee (and rightfully so) is a large one. Make it so the dial in instructions on meetings are smart phone friendly. So that when you click the number it dials everything for you so you don't have to flip back between the calendar and phone. The voting construct needs to change such that end-use customers have more of a voice in costs that impact them.

SPP continues down a path to protect the large incumbent utilities and provide less and less protection for the little entities and consumer. What is troubling is the large entities believe that they have superior rights and thus can rewrite the rules.

129 of 230

MOPC 24

SPP's organizational group structure should be left alone. These groups membership is made up of the individuals with the expertise to accomplish the mission of said group and should not be diluted in order to merge two or more groups. John Olsen said it best at the July MOPC.


The MOPC is no less effective than most groups of its kind, and more effective than many - but less effective than some. It is in the spirit of making the MOPC among the best of its kind that the preceding comments are offered.As travel plans are usually made a month in advance, please do not make any near last-minute changes to the meeting location. The same may be true for some drastic meeting start or stop time changes. The new leadership of the MOPC is quite different in approach to prior chair, vice-chair and Staff Secretary's approach. Time will tell whether or not the change is for the good or merely something different, but no real progress.

Effective except that the votes taken of the group often do not reflect the desire of the membership. Entities that pay for nothing carry the same weight as parties that have load and generation actually paying for the operation of SPP. Members votes should be weighted somehow to reflect the costs they pay and risks they take to operate within the SPP.

More openness. HITT was conceived as a pretty closed group (only members allowed in the meeting, call-in was the worst - on purpose?).Better focus on discussion points. Keep the discussion on point, don't let it scatter. Better diversity in the various Task Forces. I see the same three or four persons in every group.just one recommendation that the number of Working Groups and Task Forces be reduced.

(1) Work with stakeholder groups to slow down the process for moving items from other stakeholder groups to MOPC. There are too many items being pushed through the process due to self-imposed deadlines (from SPP) that prohibit necessary discussion, debate, and often development of improvements to the proposal or alternative proposals. I am specifically referring to HITT recommendations, but this happens with other items as well. We need to spend more time discussing and developing proposals to reach better consensus and less time pushing stakeholders to just vote items out of working groups promising that the needed debate, discussion, and further development can take place at MOPC. (2) I am likely in the minority, but I would like to see more educational sessions on different topics, even information on big FERC orders (Like Fast-Start, ESRs, etc), rulemakings, and apparent policy shifts that provide information on the bigger picture policy developments and trends rather than deep dive compliance requirements. While I understand the SPC looks at these types of policy developments, all members, and especially MOPC members, need to be thinking big picture to better understand how to address the deep dive compliance issues. We get lost in the weeds and forget about how the overall forest is impacted, and we need to adjust this thinking a bit to succeed as a group. You might even consider having guest speakers on some of these big issues

I appreciate the leadership attempts to bring the discussion up to a higher policy level. The education sessions are helpful in bringing the entire MOPC up to a certain level of understanding on complicated issues.

I would like to see the MOPC membership vote on the chair position. I would also like to see Chairs and Vice Chairs not abuse their positions to limit discussion and to pontificate on their positions (current chair does not do this).The voting construct needs to change such that end-use customers have more of a voice in costs that impact them.

1. Implement electronic voting. 2. Increase focus on policy level discussions. 3. Implement a strategic initiative road-map process for the markets, operations, and planning functional areas.

130 of 230

MDWG 25

Model Development Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 19 13 18 15 15 13 13 13 13 13 13


Overall effectiveness score 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.11 3.92 4.0 4.0 3.9 #REF!Lowest score 3.9 3.67 3.9 3.6Highest score 4.6 5 4.5 4.6




Members are engaged during the meeting. 3.9 4 4.3 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.7 4.3 4.1Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.44 3.67 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.8Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.6 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.0Dissenting voices are heard. 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.8 4.2 4.1I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4 3.67 4.2 3.6 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.8



Meeting minutes do not reflect the discussion that takes place, so it is difficult to back track any discussion and how a decision was reached. This needs much improvement. Additionally, SPP can't seem to make decisions without checking with lega

Speak up, SPP is member driven!!

SPP needs to be more engaged with trying to get models up to date. Particularly GO data for Power Flow and Dynamics. If GOs are not providing the data, the PC should take the initiative and report them to NERC. One needs to be made an example and the rest will follow.

Some SPP presenters aren't as knowledgeable and professional as they should be.

As with all SPP working groups, members who are not affected by a particular issue shouldn't be alloed to vote and should abstain

Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structureAddress the ridiculous # of cases you build every year. It's been "we'll address this next year' for the last 3 years. The quality of cases is suffering due to having to field so many. Have more rigid and realistic meaning for both load P and Q. MOD-33 is a mess due to load being all over the place.

I think the meetings and calls have been extremely effective. Those contributing their time in the chair and vice chair roles are greatly appreciated. Same goes for the staff involved.

Feel good about 3 subgroups.

See earlier comment from before.

Nate has been a very good chairman.The focus groups have helped bridge the knowledge gap between the veterans and rookies, and helped to foster in-depth discussions for improving overall modeling and planning within the SPP footprint. In doing so, the focus groups have helped to keep a lot of the technical discussions out of the general MDWG meetings, to where there is a greater efficiency and understanding in the general MDWG meetings.

The Secretary is doing a great job. Sunny has continued to be a tremendous resource in that position and always ensures the notes are accurate & prompt.

The current chair is the best MDWG chair ever.





131 of 230

ORWG 26

Operating Reliability Working Group 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 4.0 4.1 4.9 4.2 4.3 4 4.5 3.7 4.2 4.2 #REF!Lowest score 4 4.1 4.2 4Highest score 4.7 4.77 4.8 4.8








The relationships within the group are very strong. The ORWG members look forward to the meetings and improving reliability policy by working together and through positive debate.

We are fortunate to have a Chair that has been a part of the ORWG for many years and is dedicated to Reliability not economics.

Exceptional participation and discussion at our meetings.


The meetings are structured to allow the membership the ability to provide input and consensus.

Some members are more active than others. I believe participation is the key for success.Some members are very active in the meetings, but there are some that do not actively participate. I believe there are some who use it as a information gathering only.




Excellent group of participants

I see ORWG as well balanced. I have nothing more to add at this point.

Allan does a great job leading the group, he is very easy to work with and is always engaged.

We accomplish set goals and tasks as a group. We strongly support other working groups that ask our insight and approvals. ORWG strives to ensure Reliability and incorporate all intermittent resources along with new and emerging technologies while maintaining reliability with a strong emphasis on commitment to limit risks that have the potential to degradate the BES. Thanks, Allan


Continue to focus on having members that actively participate in the meetings and bring value to the entire group.

132 of 230

OTWG 27

Operating Training Working Group 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 4.7 5.0 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 #REF!Lowest score 4.3 5 4.2 4.2Highest score 4.93 5 4.8 4.9

2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.7Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.6The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.6The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.7 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 n/a n/aMeeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.7


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.5 5.0 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.5 3.8Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.5 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.5Members come prepared to meetings. 4.3 5.0 4.6 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.2Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.33 5 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.73 5 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.2 4.2

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.53 5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.7 3.9 4.5 4.2 4.5Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.8Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.7 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.5Dissenting voices are heard. 4.6 5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.5I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.67 5 4.8 4.6 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.3 4.3

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans.

4.87 5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.7 4.1 4.1

The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.93 5 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.7 4 4.4 4 4.2

The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.93 5 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.2The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.93 5 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.2

Group participation is increasing; members want to contribute. With visibility to metrics and SPP Training needs, the SPP Membership should experience improved transparency in OTWG effectiveness!

This group completes tasks and moves through the agenda with efficiency. Great group of people to work with!Russell does a great job as our chair.


OTWG is fortunate to have Russell as our Chair! He works hard to lead and represent the OTWG's excellence to the SPP Membership!


Our meetings have steadily been more productive over the last year.

Group participation is increasing; sometimes we need a bit more time to adequately cover agenda items.

Not all members attend on a regular basis which sometimes hurts discussions and planning.

Sometimes members get on a tangent and drag topics out. Trying to make a point and saying the same thing the previous person just talked about for another 20 minutes is sometimes unnecessary.

Meeting materials are always sent out in plenty of time to review. Russell does a great job of providing an agenda and following it closely during meetings.

For the most part members come prepared and participate. We do have some members that are hesitant to participate as much as I feel they should.

It is hard to provide a clear answer on Question 8. As a member of the working group, I would like to see demographics of our learners for of all the primary conferences and activities. (Utility, Position). This would ensure that we are engaging the correct audiences.



133 of 230

OTWG 28

1. Better demographic understanding to ensure training deliveries meet the target audiences needs. 2. Split marketplace and system operator training into separate working groups 3. Provide Topics and learning objectives for the SPP SOC prior to opening enrollment. (This will ensure those who are looking for the specific training can enroll, currently you have to enroll or you won't get a seat, then you don't know what you enrolled in for many months.)

This group is very effective. They accomplish their goals in a timely and professional manner. The members are respectful and work together. It is one of the best working groups.


I am proud to be a member of this hard working group and look forward to the steps we are taking to measure and grow our effectiveness.

1. Retain Russell Moore as Chair. 2. Establish action and monetary metrics, make visible/share and review regularly as a permanent agenda item at FTF meetings. 2. Develop a process to support SOC course development. 3. Review SOC Proctor List Regularly to know where OTWG members can attend and fill gaps. 4. Publish the work of the small group that is focusing on common practices. Keep this topic as a permanent agenda item at FTF meetings. 5. We need a way to collaborate electronically as a group to post Metrics, post SOC Proctor schedules, post the work of the small sub-group on common practices, work on training material or presentations. Can this be done in the workgroup area of SPP? A project page or simple website type of area. 6. Add an OTWG update at the annual Marketplace Conference to present metrics and seek marketplace training ideas/needs. Have OTWG representatives attend.

I don't have any negatives about our groups. Since joining the team, they have helped me so much and I wish I had joined sooner. They have been beneficial in my training and compliance needs. I appreciate all the efforts of the SPP staff and the Operations Training Working Group. I know the time that it takes to make training valuable and instrumental, and you make it worthwhile!

Members need to be more prepared to allow for more robust discussion during meetings. Members need to be assigned more of the action items, instead of the majority of the action being completed by SPP staff. Members need to continue to improve with respect to Marketplace Training input.

The importance of this group can't be overstated. This group works to ensure all members understand any new training requirements that heading our way as well as making sure the current training offered is relevant to all member companies.

1. Completing development of the strategic plan. 2. Implement new planning/development process of System Operations Conference (SOC) content. 3. Continuing to think about and show how our group brings value to the SPP footprint.

With only 5-6 meetings per year, voting members need to make every meeting.

I feel the group is instrumental in guiding the efforts of SPP's Market and Reliability training efforts. Our System Operators have benefitted greatly through their efforts. The SOC's, VILTs, and online modules are all well attended/utilized.

1. Become more involved in planning for System Operation Conference's. Help take load off SPP Training Staff. 2. I believe Face to Face meetings need to be 2 days in most instances to allow time for agenda objectives to be completed. 3. Members become more involved in System Operator Conference facilitation. We are the SME's and should be more engaged in this area.Making sure we continue to meet training needs Play a more supportive role for SPP staff

1. Longer face to face meetings Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.

134 of 230

OC 29

Oversight Committee 2019 Members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 6 7 7 5 4 4 4.0 5 4 4


Overall effectiveness score 4.8 4.2 4.0 4.8 4.8 5 4.8 4.8 4.8 #REF!Lowest score 4.2 3.3 3.8Highest score 4.8 5 5



Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4 3.3 3.8 3.3 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.5Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5Members come prepared to meetings. 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.0Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.6 4.7 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.8 4,8 5.0 5.0Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.2 4.8 4.5

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.25 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.0Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5

Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.5Dissenting voices are heard. 4.75 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.5I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.3

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.5The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.8The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.8 4.5


The OC although not representing the diversity of the membership fills a vital role at SPP in terms of overseeing internal audit, compliance, the MMU and security, including physical and cyber-security. These are functions that are not addressed elsewhere in the organization.


Continue on same path. Allow more time for MMU Hear more from SPP staff on market operations/improvement opportunities


Would be helpful to receive all of the materials ahead of the meeting in a single packet.




135 of 230

PCWG 30

Project Cost Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012Number of members 15 7 14 14 15 14 17 17 16

Number of responses 12 2 12 14 13 12 10 11 10Response rate 80% 29% 86% 100% 87% 86% 59% 65% 63%

Overall effectiveness Score 4.25 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.67 4.4 4.5Lowest score 3.9 4 3.9 4.1Highest score 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.8Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.5The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5Meeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.25 4.5 4.0 4.1 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.5 4.6Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7Members come prepared to meetings. 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.0Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.8Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.7

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.08 4 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.4 4.5Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.25 4 4.3 4.1 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.8Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.08 4 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6

Dissenting voices are heard. 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.6I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.17 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.33 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.7The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.18 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.5The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.17 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.6


1. Consolidate some of the working groups. 2. SPP should provide more direction to stakeholders rather than letting stakeholders develop rules that are self-serving and not in the best interest of all the members. 3. Need to look into why many project estimates are typically more than 20% more than actual costs.

Meeting materials are often updated at the last minute with limited time for review if any prior to the meeting.




Great Staff Report


Need to encourage little to and LSE involvement in the PCWG. At this time it is very heavy on Large TO.

This is a well organized, Staffed and supported group. The group works well together. However the issues addressed by the working group are a little mundane. The people on this group are capable of carrying a bigger load.

I believe the members of the PCWG have a track record of developing effective solutions when opportunities for improvement are identified. Any time a recommendation is made throughout the year, we are proactive in working towards improvement.

It is good to have this group verify and question construction cost and Policy

136 of 230

RCWG 31

Regional Compliance Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014Number of members 21 13 22 25 22 16 17

Number of responses 13 4 17 12 17 12 11Response rate 62% 31% 77% 48% 77% 75% 65%

Overall effectiveness score 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.7Lowest score 3.92 3.25 4 4Highest score 4.6 5 4.6 4.6

Average Average 2016 2015 2014

The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.7Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.5 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.4The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.5 5.0 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.6The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.3 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.4Meeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.6 3.8 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.5


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.4 3.8 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.6Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.7Members come prepared to meetings. 4.1 3.5 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.4Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.23 4 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.5Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.31 3.75 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.6

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.08 3.25 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.5 4.3Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.3 3.8 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5Dissenting voices are heard. 4.46 3.5 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.5I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 3.92 3.5 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.3

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.31 3.25 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.6

The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.46 3.25 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.54 3.75 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.6The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.46 4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.5

Get back to the original intent of focusing on Reliability and Compliance, let the other working groups handle their own responsibilities


1. The RCWG has significant expertise and knowledge and should be consulted more by SPP staff for help with BA and RC compliance issues. 2. SPP should present on SPP compliance issues at each meeting.

Better tracking on Action Items and updates from Staff.

As a result of various reliability compliance issues that SPP has been faced with in recent years, SPP should elevate the focus of the RCWG.Focus more on Reliability & Security of the RTO since most entities are already engaged in NERC Compliance with the Regions.

The current structure from my involvement and prospective works well. I do not have any recommendations.

I think it would be good if this group identified some efficiencies in performing compliance.

Question



I feel these meetings are very beneficial; they provide important content and involve great interaction between SPP representatives and outside entities to ensure an understanding of viewpoints to progress forward.

too often it appears that the Chair has already made decisions off-line without the participation of the majority of the members, or is working based on higher level input that the other members are not privy to.



Materials ahead of the meetings and organization for agenda packages needs improvement.This was a very worthwhile group when it first started. Now it appears to primarily be a watchdog of all the other working groups without adding additional value.

I do not believe it is good for me to rate myself and accept the feedback. I also find it difficult to provide my answers as the Chair when singled out at the beginning of the survey. We may as well have the conversation in a meeting outright.

137 of 230

RTWG 32

Regional Tariff Working Group 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 27 2 26 27 27 23 22 21 21 21 21Number of responses 12 2 11 16 18 14 17 14 11 15 14


Lowest score 4.18 4.5 4 3.9Highest score 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.8








Mr. Kay’s does an excellent job keeping the group focused on the tasked at hand and pulling the discussion back on track when it diverges from the matter before the working group. Please see previous comments on Chairman Kays. 1. SPP staff reviews RRs for completeness before they are issued for review 2. The RR Process identifies who is the responsible party to review based on where the information is located, like a Business Practice or the OATT. However, it does not appear to allow the SME groups to review proposed language before coming to the group listed as a primary group

Additional comments:In my opinion, this group is one of the more collaborative stakeholder groups where all views are heard and considered.

RTWG is sometime assigned as Primary Working Group. I feel RTWG should be the last group to review due to tariff changes. Sectary has been a great improvement SPP has provided staff to RTWG and been improvement

The working group chair and staff secretary work diligently to make sure the meeting materials are timely, accurate, and relevant.


Additional comments:The RTWG members come from diverse backgrounds, but work well together to achieve the goals and responsibility of the working group. The chair works to facilitate discussions from opposing views of the issue while mindful of the task at hand.

RTWG's Staff Secretaries do an excellent job of providing necessary meeting materials in a timely manner enabling a beneficial meeting.

My comment on Item 3 relates to staff & legal updates which are provided verbally in the meeting and not provided in the background materials. My comment on Item 5 is related to RR requests that sometimes have come to RTWG and are not completely filled out on what groups need to see and what groups have seen the RR and their voting positions and comments. Sometimes we get RRs that are very thorough and others with much less information.

It is difficult to engage members on issues that have no impact on their business operations particularly if the issue is very technical and complex. On Items 10 & 11 is a bit of an assumption because many members do not speak up at meetings. A few members lead the discussions, our Chairman is great in his participation and helping with discussions, one former member who is a consultant now and sometimes represents a Member speaks up a lot. Not that everyone needs to speak up but those that do have good comments for the topic under review.

Chairman Kays is an excellent facilitator of meetings and he allows dissenting voices to be heard. Some non-members (RTWG & SPP) who have been dissenting voices have thanked Chairman Kays for allowing them to voice their concerns and ask questions. When he is speaking for OGE he makes that clear that he is not speaking as our Chairman. Our Secretary also does a great job. RTWG has many knowledgeable members in various areas of the utility business.

138 of 230

SAWG 33

Supply Adequacy Working Group 2019 Members 2019 Non-members 2018 2017 2016Number of members 23 23 22 22 21

Number of responses 14 6 16 15 16Response rate 61% 26% 73% 68% 76%

Overall effectiveness score 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9Lowest score 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.1Highest score 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5

2016The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.1 3.7Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.6The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.6The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6Meeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 3.6


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.3 3.9Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0Members come prepared to meetings. 4.07 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.1 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.7

Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.8

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.36 4.2 4.1 4.2 3.9Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.6Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.1 3.6 3.9 4.1 3.7Dissenting voices are heard. 4.15 4.2 4.3 4.3 3.9I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.3 3.7The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.29 4.6 4.3 4.5 3.8The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.3 3.6 3.8 4.1 3.8The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4 3.8

Entirely way too much discussion and dealing with one-off situations that do not pertain to the overall footprint.

Meeting materials need to be provided more timely.

As always, some Member are (somewhat covertly) very partisan in their comments and voting.


As mentioned before, the group tends to rehash previous decisions and can get bogged down in details.

1. Potentially the group should be an advisory committee to SPP and SPP ultimately determines the rules that are established. Significant conflicts of interest in the meetings due to member's bias towards their own generation portfolio needs vs. the needs of SPP reliability.

1. clear direction from RSC on whether we are supposed to stop possible reliability concerns before they even get started. 2. Understanding from RSC and BOD of what FERC instructions mean when they say "level playing field" for variable resources when they are not resources that can operate like traditional thermal resources. 3. Better generation/transmission outage coordination.

Brad has done extremely well keeping this year's agenda moving along.1. Better project work load / analysis requirements to provide meeting materials earlier if possible. 2. Minimize number of net conference meetings, more can be done in-person. 3. With work load expected to pick up in 2020, SPP needs to allocate the appropriate resources towards completing SAWG studies/projects.Glad to see a strategic plan and push for completion of projects to meet stated deadlines. Hope to see this continue going forward. One improvement would be increased communication on the specifics holding up the DER whitepaper

Question

There are often last minute updates made to the meeting materials which are not distributed until right before the meeting, making them difficult to review.



Meeting materials provided usually only a day or so in advance of meeting - More time, when possible would be appreciated. Agenda has been provided earlier recently, which is an improvement.

Some meeting participants have a tendency to go off on tangents which can keep the discussion from being as efficient as it could be. The group has a tendency to rehash decisions made during previous meetings and at times gets bogged down in details prematurely, which can keep the group from being as effective as it could be.

I very much appreciate that the SAWG staff are addressing and communicating important emerging issues in a proactive manner before they would manifest into major issues in the future.

139 of 230

SAWG 34


Need to stay on agenda timelines don't allow discussion to stray too far from the subject matter SPP should focus more on the end use customer cost.I do like that SPP has utilized Astrape to help in our LOLE and ELCC analysis. Would be good for SAWG to stay involved in resource adequacy issues with respect to operational timeframe, things like reliability of unit start-up, valid requirements for daily load (or net load of wind) pattern following requirements for dispatchable generators and even evaluation of SPP IM RUC processes. The priorities for the group keep changing!

This group has a lot on its plate as it seems to be the initial gatekeeper for all of the new technology.Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure

In my opinion, too much brainstorming and talking about the same things at multiple meetings. Items get put on a path and then are allowed to be discussed again and re-hashing of ideas over and over. The group gets off task and brought back to task by the chair but after too much time has gone by.

To Whom It May Concern: Alex Crawford and Chris Hayle have been a tremendous asset to NorthWestern's transition to SPP. They both always go above and beyond to assist me and the rest of the NorthWestern's Staff with any questions. We are very fortunate to work with both of them. Alex and Chris are not only very knowledge about their areas of expertise, but always deliver excellence through their partnerships with us. Sincerely, Ella CaillouetteProvide meeting material in a more timely manner. State the recommended purpose of each item on the agenda (information only, background, discussion, etc.) Identify recommended actions supported by staff evaluation prior to the meetings.

Perhaps seek a way to draw out input from the quiet Members.

Chair could be more intentional at times in keeping the group discussion on track.Consider time blocking agenda items to keep the discussion on track. Avoid rehashing decisions that have already been made. Be intentional about providing more lead time in distributing meeting materials prior to the meeting and minimize last minute changes.

140 of 230

SECWG 35

Security Working Group 2019 Members 2019 Non-members 2018 2017Number of members 17 13 17 16

Number of responses 10 4 6 6Response rate 59% 31% 35% 38%

Overall effectiveness score 4.3 5.0 4.5 3.8Lowest score 4.4 4.75 4.2 4.2Highest score 4.9 5 5 4.8

The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.7 5.0 4.5 4.7Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 4.7 5.0 4.8 4.3The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.7The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.8Meeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.3


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.5 4.75 4.5 4.2Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.7 5 4.8 4.5Members come prepared to meetings. 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.2Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.5Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.6 5.0 5.0 4.2

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.5 5 4.3 4.2Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.6 4.75 4.2 4.3Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.8 4.75 4.8 4.5

Dissenting voices are heard. 4.67 4.75 4.5 4.4I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.7 5.0 4.7 4.5

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.67 4.75 4.8 4.7The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.8 4.75 4.8 4.7The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.8 4.75 4.8 4.8The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.7 4.75 4.8 4.5

Typically attend via telecon, always find the presenters, moderators and audience to be very respectful. Those on the telecon are able to hear and receive much benefit from the presentations.


Question

The Security Working Group shares useful cyber and physical information.




Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.I appreciate the variety in the size, complexity and cyber security maturity levels within the group.

This group shares best practices and security awareness information.

I do not have any recommendations for improvement. I am new to the group and have found the meetings and information very helpful. Perhaps with more experience I will be able to offer something.

No recommendations

While I acknowledge that there is always room for improvement, in this instance the phrase "if it's not broke, don't fix it" is perfectly appropriate. My participation has always been as an observer (our company's delegate does not regularly participate) and I have been welcomed and even was an impromptu speaker at a meeting regarding a recent MRO audit experience. Michael and Eric are great to work with. I resigned from my membership on the RCWG due to a lack of confidence that what we were doing had any value. Dissenting opinions were not particularly welcome there as the chair "ruled" the meeting. A smaller organization like ours was easily dismissed at the RCWG meeting, but the SECWG has always embraced the participation and comments of all attendees regardless of company size or type. #KeepOnTruckin

Possibly look to increase Membership. Bring in more Industry expertise (outside of group) to present.

Good group. Topics are timely and members helpful.

141 of 230

SPC 36

Strategic Planning Committee 2019 Members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 14 15 15 14 12 12 12 12 12 12Number of responses 10 11 13 13 10 8 10 11 12 11

Response rate 71% 73% 87% 93% 83% 67% 83% 92% 100% 92%Overall effectiveness score 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.5 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.3 #REF!

Lowest score 3.7 3.8 3.9Highest score 4.5 4.7 4.5




Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.9 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.5Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.6

Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.3Dissenting voices are heard. 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.4


"disagree" is in the past" I am going to be interested to see if larry's change in direction for the group will increase / improve the feelings about this group.


Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.I look forward to improving this in the future.


Participants can be more concerned with their current issue instead of how best to move the organization forward and position the SPP for success. Additional comments:


I am a new member on the SPC - therefore my experience with SPC is limited. Having said that, my experience to date has been very positive.I look forward to seeing how the Board Chairs change in direction develops.

Larry has done a great job of bringing the level of the conversation and discussion up several levels. See if it can become a place where the strategic direction of the organization can be guided. I understand the Board / MC will take over much of the strategic direction of the organization & the revised role for the SPC needs to become clear in 2020 or the group should, perhaps, be eliminated. 1. The SPC will be conducting a comprehensive review and revamp of the strategic planning process during 2020. This will be key to further progress of this Committee in its role to help provide strategic direction for SPP 2. The SPC will be undertaking the overall responsibility for managing key groupings of strategic activities- including pre-existing strategic plan initiatives, HITT recommendations and certain VATF recommendations. This will need to be a major focus for the SPC in 2020. 3. The SPC will also have direct responsibility for addressing specifically assigned HITT and VATF recommendations. It will be critically important that the structure of the SPC meetings help facilitate getting this done.

1. Please review and analyze the outcomes of the HITT recommendations as they come from the working groups. Some are concerned that groups could bring forth changes that are not consistent with the direction established in the HITT report.


1. Please review and analyze the outcomes of the HITT recommendations as they come from the working groups. Some are concerned that groups could bring forth changes that are not consistent with the direction established in the HITT report.

Overall number of working groups, task forces, etc. should be reduced.

1. Set the meeting dates at the beginning of the year and don'd change them. Changing meeting dates/times with short notice reduces members' ability to attend the meeting.

142 of 230

SPCWG 37

System Protection and Control Working Group 2019 Members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010Number of members 13 13 13 12 13 12 13 13 13 13


Overall effectivness score 4.5 3.8 4.3 4.8 3.5 3.71 4.5 3.9 4.5 #REF!Lowest score 3.7 4.4 4Highest score 4.5 5 4.7




Members are engaged during the meeting. 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.1Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.3Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.0Dissenting voices are heard. 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.1I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.9


It is a good forum to discuss common issues amongst system protection representation from across the SPP foot print.

Question

It would be helpful for SPP to encourage members of working groups to travel to the meeting. This maximizes the benefits of being a member for both the individual as well as the company being represented. Multiple companies don't support members travelling, due to O&M constraints.



Average score


Please provide three or more recommendations for improvement of this particular group and/or SPP's overall organizational group structure.Members are comfortable discussing issues with each other. I think this speaks positively of the working group leadership and participation.

143 of 230

SSC 38

Seams Steering Committee 2019 Members2019

Non-members 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012Number of members 14 11 14 14 14 9 11 10 10

Number of responses 11 5 9 12 11 6 7 7 4Response rate 79% 45% 64% 86% 79% 67% 64% 70% 40%

Overall effectiveness score 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.3Lowest score 3.5 3.2 3.6 3.6Highest score 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012The agenda reflects the actions to be taken during the meeting. 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5Meeting materials are provided in a timely manner. 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.6 4.0 4.7 4.3 4.1 4.5The information provided prior to the meeting is utilized during the meeting. 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.5The information presented in meetings is clear. 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.3 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.5Meeting minutes are an accurate reflection of the meeting. 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.3


Membership represents the diversity of the SPP organization. 4.4 3.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.7 3.6 3.7 4.0Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 4.2 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.3Members come prepared to meetings. 4.1 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.5Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.3Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.8

Members are engaged during the meeting. 4 3.6 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.5Decisions are identified and action is recommended. 4.2 4.2 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.5Facilitation is sufficient to guide discussion. 4.3 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.3Dissenting voices are heard. 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5I depart with a feeling that we have accomplished something. 3.5 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.3

The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.2 4.5The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.5The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.8The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.5


Over the past several years, the committee has spent numerous hours on issues that accomplish nothing. The inter regional SEAMS project process has yet to identify an approved project. We spent more than a year crafting two new RR's for the inadvertent TX costs along the SEAM, only to find out there could be no changes as it went against the FERC order.


Clint does a great job as staff secretary. Issues within this group are complicated and sometimes the presentations are difficult to understand.

I believe the "TMEP" process we are developing to identify projects that may have fallen below our prior criteria will be fruitful. It seems without a way to choose projects with a combination of Reliability and Market considerations, we will never have a SEAMS project get through the process. Some way to identify meaningful projects that balance out the RCAR of the members would be good.




144 of 230

TWG 39

Transmission Working Group 2019 Members2019



Overall effectiveness score 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.7 #REF!Lowest score 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.3Highest score 4.13 4.4 4.5 4.3



Members represent the diversity of the SPP organization. 4 4.2 ? 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.3Membership has the necessary expertise and/or skills to accomplish its goals. 3.75 4 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.2Members come prepared to meetings. 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.3 3.3Members are committed to participate and accomplish the group's goals. 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6Members are supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.1


The chair seeks input, and organizational group members are able to influence key decisions and plans. 4.25 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.2The chair is supportive and respectful of the individual needs and differences of group members. 4.13 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.4The chair keeps the group on task to achieve appropriate outcomes. 4.13 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3The chair ensures follow-through on questions and commitments. 4 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.3 3.9 4.1

The TWG group's goals is somewhat unclear.

The meeting minutes do not clearly reflect the TWG attendees discussion on agenda items. The minutes unfortunately only reflect what SPP wishes to capture in the minutes, hoping others accept them.

It is not clear as to what the TWG's objectives are. Generally in a meeting with an agenda, there is sometimes a "goal" stated.

14) With the exception of a hand full of TOs, most members are not engaged during the meetings.

Please hold most face to face meetings at Little Rock. Phone conference calls work well and the technology has improved over the last year.

*members are more engaged at the in-person meetings *dissenting voices are heard only if they choose to share it - that is not SPP's fault however

Overall, I think the meetings are done in a thoughtful and respectful manner.


Additional comments:I am neutral on 8 and 12. Simply because the views and input from little t.o. or LSE are very easily dismissed.



3) Meeting materials are routinely sent out after the 7 day cutoff. 4) Does not seem like all members look at meeting materials before the meetings. 6) Meeting minutes do not contain any detail regarding opposing comments if there is not a vote taken.There are times where meeting materials for action items are posted the day before the meeting. but this is an exception to normal practice. In addition, there are times where SPP staff doesn't provide enough background information to the meeting to support an informed decision, but again, this is typically an exception to normal practice.Meeting materials posting needs to be improved.*depends on which agenda - sometimes the initial agenda does not identify action items or expedited items *agenda gets updated or changed the closer we get to the meeting *some materials are not in the initial zip file *minutes do not give a fully accurate of the discussion - especially long debated items *some material is clear - some is missing info that is only communicated verballyMaterials may not always be provide timely, but we deal with this in our organization as well. Information during the meetings may be clearer to some than others.

9) Some members do not seem to understand NERC compliance and associated standards. 10) With the exception of a hand full of TOs, there does not seem to be very many other members who prepare for the meetings.There are around 10 of the 28 Members who actively participate in discussions. This is a technical working group, not MOPC. A full representation of Transmission Owners and Users is not necessary nor does it allow for the level of discussion and debate needed to decide on the technical topics presented to the group.

145 of 230

TWG 40

With the rise of economic planning, reliability has taken a back seat, and TWG influence has reduced.I applaud SPP with all the tasks that they have to cover. The environment has the tendency to be stressful an SPP powers through.

With the rise of economic planning, reliability has taken a back seat, and TWG influence has reduced.I applaud SPP with all the tasks that they have to cover. The environment has the tendency to be stressful an SPP powers through.

Travis Hyde was a good chair

All face to face meetings should be held in Little Rock

This is a tough group to handle. At time, it has been a challenge to stay on task pushing toward a solution or an outcome.I am very respectful of the members of this group and the chair. I have learned a lot and continue to learn. I find it irritating to see the party line voting on all decisions.

Sometimes the conversation strays away from the topic at hand, and where possible, course correction is probably a benefit to the group.

Task is in progress to send a summary of actions to the working group within a day of the meeting. Restructure the minutes to cover the action taken and not what was said. Incorporate more joint meetings with ESWG for similar items.Need seats for TU to be filled. The TO way outnumber the TU

Try to maintain stability in the SPP support/secretary positions. I understand the need to rotate positions periodically and some of the staffing difficulties SPP is having. Do more to encourage participation in the work groups. My management does not feel we need to be involved in more groups, but I feel as members we need to participate in more groups. This may partically be an internal issue, but SPP management could also encourage broader participation form the membership. Use of the abstention for voting. Some members abstain when the feel the issue is not related to them. I would like to see less use to get better resolution in some cases. Perhaps SPP could explain when they feel use of abstentions is appropriate, how abstentions are treated for voting or quorum purposes, etc. Make sure members are aware of what they are voting on. For instance, if voting on whether SPP fulfilled their obligation under the tariff (TP assessment)

Travis has done an excellent job leading TWG

The amount of information coming to this group needs to be better managed. With monthly meetings there are many items that seem to pop-up for resolution which have not had enough time for stakeholders to review. Staff also appears at times to have their own agenda items and forum shop to find support. 1. Set goals in the meeting. 2. Technical improvements may be made with members. 3. Need to maintain a meeting location within SPP's service territory. For example, Oklahoma, Kansas, Western Missouri, Nebraska. Should have the meetings centrally located so members can more easily attend these meetings.

Our chairs allows for all viewpoints to be heard, while keeping the group on task and on schedule.

The chair has steered the vote on some key issues for TU ao favor large TO

146 of 230

SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation/Assessment (August 2018 – July 2019)

GROUP NAME: Balancing Authority Operating Committee (BAOC)

THE CHARTER/SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes

MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE: Member Company Sector # Present # Absent

Bridges, Chris Evergy Companies Investor Owned Utility (TO) 4 0 Carlson, John Evergy Companies Investor Owned Utility (TO) 1 3 Eastwood, Mark City Utilities of Springfield,

MO Municipal (TU) 4 0

Gregg, Laurie Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 4 0 Gunderson, Ron Nebraska Public Power

District State Agency (TO) 2 2

(2 proxies) McMenamin, Kyle SPS/Xcel Energy Investor Owned Utility (TU) 3 1 McVey, Jerry Sunflower Electric Power

Company Cooperative (TO) 4 0

Myers, Chance Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Cooperative (TO) 2 2 (1 proxy)

Perez, Josef Kansas City Board of Public Utilities

Municipal (TU) 0 4

Pham, David Empire District Electric Company

Investor Owned Utility (TO) 2 2 (1 proxy)

Plummer, Gary Independence Power & Light Municipal (TU) 4 0 Ridley, Andrew Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 4 0 Robles, Joel Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 3 1 Shaffer, Chris American Electric Power Investor Owned Utility (TU) 4 0 Speidel, Craig Western Area Power

Administration Federal Agency (TO) 4 0

Taggart, Bryan (C) (2018)

Evergy Companies Investor Owned Utility (TO) 4 0

Wilson, W. Bryn (VC) Oklahoma Gas and Electric Investor Owned Utility (TO) 4 0 Gorter, Kim Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 4 0 *On the Committee for part of the assessment period.

Members are represented in the following areas: Transmission

Owners Transmission Users Directors

11 6 0

Sectors Investor Owned Utility

Cooperative Municipal State Federal Independent

Power Producer/ Marketer

Independent Transmission

Company

Alt Power/ Public Interest

Large Retail

Small Retail

7 2 4 3 1

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 31 147 of 230

MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 2 Teleconference: 2

AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 3:00 HOURS

NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 8

MEETING COST(S): $1,568.68 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance.

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP:

1. Successfully hosted two seasonal readiness workshops: Summer and Winter EOP Workshops2. Ongoing support and maintenance of the Emergency Operating Plan (EOP).3. Ongoing support and maintenance of the SPP BA Operating Protocol data gathering requirements

MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP:

1. Due to Value and Affordability Initiative, possible dissolution of BAOC in discussion. Tasks to befully absorbed by the ORWG.

148 of 230

SPP Organizational Group Self-Assessment (August 2018 – July 2019)

GROUP NAME: Board of Directors/Members Committee

SCOPE UPDATE: N/A

MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE: Member Company Sector # Present # Absent /

(Proxy) Altenbaumer, Larry Chairman (2018) N/A 5 0 Bernard, Phyllis Director N/A 5 0 Brix, Julian Director N/A 5 0 Brown, Nick Director N/A 5 0 *Certoma, Susan Director N/A 3 0 Crisson, Mark Director N/A 5 0 Eckelberger, Jim Director N/A 5 0 Edwards, Graham Vice Chairman N/A 5 0 Martin, Josh Director N/A 5 0 *Ortiz, Darcy Director N/A 3 0 Scherr, Bruce Director N/A 5 0 Skilton, Harry Director N/A 5 0

*Atwood, Jason Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 1 0

*Baker, Brent Empire District Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 2 1 1 Proxy

Carias, Holly NextEra Energy Resources Independent Power Producer (TU) 5 0

*Christensen, Tom Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 2 1

1 Proxy

*Hendrix, Chris Walmart Inc. Large Retail (TU) 3 1 1 Proxy

Highley, Duane Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation and Tri-State Generation & Transmission

Cooperative (TU) 2 3 3 Proxies

Hudson, David Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 3 2 2 Proxies

Janssen, Rob Dogwood Independent Power Producer (TU) 5 0

Kent, Tom Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 5 0

Knottek, Jeff City Utilities Springfield, MO Municipal (TU) 5 0 Lang, Joe Omaha Public Power District Municipal (TO) 5 0 LaFave, Bleau NorthWestern Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 5 0

Leopold, Brett ITC Great Plains Independent Transmission Co (TU) 5 0

Lowry, Stuart Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 5 0

McAuley, Greg Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 5 0

*Mertens, Blake Liberty Utilities Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 1 0

Noblet, Kevin Evergy, Metro, Inc. Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 3 2 2 Proxies

149 of 230

Osburn, Dave Oklahoma Municipal Power

Authority Municipal (TU) 4 1 1 Proxy

*Perkins, Zac Tri-County Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 3 0

*Risan, Mike Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 2 0

*Simmons, Peggy Public Service Company of Oklahoma Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 3 0

Smith, Kevin Tenaska Independent Power Producer (TU) 2 3

3 Proxies

*Solomon, Stuart Public Service Company of Oklahoma Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 1 1

1 Proxy

Sundsted, Jody Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 5 0

Wise, Mike Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 5 0

Suskie, Paul Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 5 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. List the number of members represented in the following areas: Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Director(s)

13 12 12


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

8 7 3 1 1 3 1 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 125 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 5 Teleconference: 0 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 2 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 14 MEETING COST(S): $425,493.73

- Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance.

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Established the Value and Affordability Task Force to study the resource commitment in exchange for the

value of the services received and the benefits and cost of membership in SPP. 2. The Holistic Integrated Tariff Team completed its work and the board approved the recommendations

provided. 3. Restructured meetings for efficiency. MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Expansion of business opportunities in the west with expansion to the Western Interconnection to offer

reliability-coordination services beginning at the end of the year in 2019.

150 of 230


GROUP NAME: Business Practices Working Group

CHARTER/SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes


Brown, Andrew Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative (TO) 3 4

4 proxy Cunningham, Ronald Western Farmers Electric

Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 0 7 1 proxy

Hestermann, Tom Sunflower Electric Power Corp Cooperative (TO) 5 2 1 proxy

Hotovy, James Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 5 2

Jones, Rob Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 3 4 1 proxy

Lemaire, Anthony Tenaska Power Services Independent Power Producer (TU) 7 0

Marske, Christy Oklahoma Gas & Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 6 1

1 proxy

Mindham, David* ITC Great Plains Independent Transmission Companies (TU) 6 0

Portra, Kass (VC) Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 7 0

Ross, Richard American Electric Power – Southwestern Electric Power CO

Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 4 3

Taylor, Joe Xcel Energy Services Inc. Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 4 3

2 proxies Wilkerson, Grant (C) June 2012 Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 7 0

Quimby, Ken Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 7 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.

List the number of members represented in the following areas: Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Director(s)

8 4 0


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

4 3 2 1 1 1

151 of 230

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): _37_ MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: _1_ Teleconference: _6_ AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 3:00 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: _16_ MEETING COST(S): $171.24


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. SPP OATT Attachment P modifications 2. MIS transmission service 3. Generator Interconnection methodology clean-up MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Generator Retirement 2. Dispatch assumptions for Generator interconnection

152 of 230


GROUP NAME: Corporate Governance Committee (CGC) THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent

Altenbaumer, Larry Director - 6 1 1 Proxy

*Atwood, Jason Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 1 0

Brown, Nick (C) Director Southwest Power Pool 7 0

Buffington, Denise Kansas City Power & Light Company

Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 6 1

1 Proxy Fortik, Jason Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 7 0

*Hendrix, Chris Walmart Inc. Large Retail Customer (TU) 5 0

Janssen, Rob Dogwood Independent Power Producer (TU) 7 0

Leopold, Brett ITC Great Plains Independent Transmission Company (TU) 6 1

1 Proxy

McClure, John Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 7 0

Sundsted, Jodi Western Area Power Administration - UGPR Federal Agency (TO) 7 0

*Wise, Mike Golden Spread Cooperative (TU) 6 0 Suskie, Paul Staff Secretary Southwest Power Pool 7 0

*Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.


3 6 2


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

153 of 230

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 23 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 3 Teleconference: 4 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 5:00 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 24 MEETING COST(S): $21,999.00


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. The CGC adopted a policy to implement staggered four-year terms for all board committees. 2. The CGC completed fourteen committee level nominations and elections. MAJOR ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Working on a clean-up of the SPP Bylaws. 2. Exit fee complaint. FERC order to remove the exit fee for all Members except Transmission Owners. 3. Annual membership fee changes.

154 of 230

SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation/Assessment (August 2018 - July 2019)

GROUP NAME: Credit Practices Working Group THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent / Proxy

Brooker, Malcom Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipal (TU) 5 6

Breese, Mark* Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 1 0

Head, Caleb* Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative (TU) 4 5

Hestermann, Tom* Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 9 1

1Proxy Holler, Mark (C) (2014) Tenaska Power Services Independent Power

Producer (TU) 11 0

Malone, Mike Heartland Consumers Power District State Agency (TU) 3 8

Meier, Mary Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 7 4

Parkison, Jeffrey* City Utilities of Springfield Municipals (TU) 1 0

Schleissinger, Robert* Xcel Energy Services, Inc. Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 1 0

Simon, Matthew Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 5 6

1 Proxy

Strange, Cassandra* Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 8 3

Wendlandt, Terri (VC) Westar Energy, Inc Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 10 1

Barker, Jared* Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 8 1 1 Proxy

McCraw, Phil* Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 2 0


155 of 230


6 6 0


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

4 3 2 2 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 20 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 0 Teleconference: 10 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 2 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 10 MEETING COST(S): $0.00



1. Acceptance of Surety Bonds as a form of security to satisfy the requirements of Att. Z1, Section III.C/(10). RR354 has been approved through the stakeholder process and was initiated at the request of a CPWG member.

2. Update of the CPWG Scope Statement. The CPWG voted in July 2019 to update its Scope Statement to change the number of required members from “10 individuals” to “at least 6 and no more than 12 individuals” to allow for more flexibility.


1. Updating TCR market sections of the SPP Credit Policy (Att. X) to address holes that were made evident by the recent GreenHat default in the PJM TCR (FTR) market. Currently the CWPG is reviewing both quantitative and qualitative areas around the TCR market to determine changes needed to calculation based logic as well as credit requirements for entry into the TCR market. The CPWG is using two subgroups to address these areas. Both groups are meeting every other week with one group focusing on the quantitative and one with a focus on the qualitative.

156 of 230


GROUP NAME: Change Working Group

SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes


Alexander, Eric* Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TU) 0 8 4 proxies

Allen, Ronald American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 2 10

Araujo, Paulo Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 11 1

Bigknife, Adam OGE Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 11 1

Burger, Jake NPPD State Agency (TO) 11 1 1 proxy

Carter, Kevin Duke Energy Americas Marketer (TU) 0 12

Chartier, Ronald Sunflower Electric Power Corp Cooperative (TO) 7 5

1 proxy

Ciccone, Nico* NextEra Energy Resources Independent Power Producer (TU) 1 0

Clark, Jack* NextEra Energy Resources Independent Power Producer (TU) 8 3

Dixon, Carrie (C) (2018) Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 12 0

Geil, Shawn Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 8 4

Hall, Jodi (VC) Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 11 1

1proxy

Hathhorn, Jonathan* City of Independence Power & Light Municipal (TU) 2 2

Jenson, Shane OPPD State Agency (TO) 11 1 1 proxy

Kirk, Ryan American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 12 0

Lafler, Brad Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 9 3 1 proxy

Lindgren, Neil* WAPA Federal Agency (TO) 1 2

Mason, John* City of Independence, Missouri Municipal (TO) 6 2

Parker, Bradley Empire District Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 7 5

3 proxies Purtee, Jerin KC Board of Public Utilities Municipal (TU) 0 12 Ragsdale, Danny* GRDA State Agency (TO) 6 1

Reordan, Andrea Tenaska Independent Power Producer (TU) 12 0

Seck, John Kansas Municipal Energy Agency Municipal (TU) 9 3

Singletary, Byron City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 10 2 1 proxy

157 of 230

Thurnher, Gregory Shell Energy North America Marketer (TU) 1 11

Tuter, Ryan Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipal (TU) 10 2

Vesey, Tara* Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 7 2

Wilson, Joe Dan Golden Spread Electric Coop Cooperative (TU) 8 4

1 proxy

Wirkus, Sandy* WAPA Federal Agency (TO) 8 1 1 proxy

Rhoades, Terry SPP Staff Secretary 12 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.

List the number of members represented in the following areas:

Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Director(s) 13 16 0

Sectors

Investor Owned Utility

Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

6 5 7 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 86 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 2 Teleconference: 10 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 3:30 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 15 MEETING COST(S): $923.34


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Functional Releases – The group has continued to work together to implement multiple releases

for Markets, Settlements, Transmission Congestion Rights, Market Monitoring Portal, Engineering Data Submission Tool, Credit Management System, etc.

2. Project Monitoring – The group monitored progress and/or completion of numerous projects to ensure a clear understanding of the projects and to assist with risk avoidance and implementation success. The following projects were monitored by the CWG:

a. UAA/Portal 1.0 b. Settlements System Replacement c. Energy Management System (EMS) PSS/E Upgrade d. Identical TSR Request Update e. Remote Access Upgrade f. Control Room Operations Window (CROW) 5.25 Upgrade g. Reliability Communications Tool h. Model On Demand (MOD) Update i. Dynamic Line Rating Update j. Ratings Submission Tool 1.3 k. Generation Interconnection (GI) Engineering Studies Online Submission l. Citrix Upgrade

158 of 230

m. Old Operations Portal Decommission n. Real Time Contingency Analysis (RTCA) Upgrade

3. The CWG continues to provide a collaborative environment for participants and SPP to

implement member-impacting/member-facing projects and to discuss impacts, concerns and risks. Defined CWG, SPP and stakeholder processes were followed throughout the assessment period.

4. The group has maintained a high level of engagement which continues to allow for efficient meetings and productive discussions resulting in effective working group processes and successful project implementations.

MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Settlements Replacement Project - The CWG will continue to follow CWG processes to

coordinate system and process changes and stakeholder testing in preparation for the implementation of the new Settlements system. This system will replace both the current Market and Transmission Settlements systems. Production for the new system is planned for February 2020.

2. Holistic Integrated Tariff Team (HITT) – The CWG will follow CWG processes to coordinate system and process changes, as well as, stakeholder testing for projects that will drive HITT recommendations.

3. Functional Releases – The group will continue to work together, following CWG processes, to deliver releases for Marketplace functional areas including Markets, Settlements, Transmission Congestion Rights, Outage Management, Marketplace Public Data, etc.

4. Project Monitoring – The group will continue to monitor progress and/or completion of numerous projects to ensure a clear understanding of the projects and to assist with risk avoidance and implementation success.

159 of 230


GROUP NAME: Economic Studies Working Group SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes

MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:


Collier, Randy City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 14 3 3 Proxies

*Daniels, Calvin Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 8 1

*Hagar, Zac Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


Henderson, Natasha Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 13 5

5 Proxies

Holland, Jody GridLiance High Plains LLC

Independent Transmission Company (TU) 12 6

4 Proxies

*Howell, Leon Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


3 Proxy

Iverson, Jon Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 16 2

1 Proxy Myers, Alan (C) (2011) ITC Holdings Independent Transmission

Company (TU) 16 2 2 Proxies

Nansel, Gayle Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 16 2

2 Proxies

Olsen, John Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 14 4

3 Proxies

Owens, Tim (VC) Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 18 0

*Schwarz, Brad Hunt Transmission Services Independent Transmission Company (TU) 9 4

Severson, Jeremy Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 13 5

5 Proxies

Sharma, Anita American Electric Power Investor- Owned Utility (TU) 16 2

2 Proxies

Stradley, Kurt Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 17 1 1 Proxy

Tamimi, Al Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 10 8

1 Proxy

Watt, Michael Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipal (TU) 14 4

Weeks, Bennie Xcel Energy Services Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 16 2

2 Proxies

*Whitson, Warren Southern Power Company Independent Power Producers (TU) 2 0

Greb, Amber Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 18 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.

160 of 230

Members are represented in the following areas: Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Director(s)

9 10

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 76 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 13 Teleconference: 5 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 8:30 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 66 MEETING COST(S): $23,121.74


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Successful completion of the 2020 ITP Scope 2. Approved the ITP Resource Siting Manual 3. Successful completion of the input milestones for the 2020 ITP Assessment; Load and Generation Review, Renewable Policy Review, Resource Planning, and Siting MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Completing the 2021 ITP Scope 2. Completing the 2019 ITP Assessment 3. Selecting a production cost modeling software for future ITP assessments


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

5 4 3 2 1 1 3

161 of 230


GROUP NAME: Finance Committee THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:


*Altenbaumer, Larry Director N/A 2 0

Bennett, Sandra American Electric Power


*Certoma, Susan Director N/A 3 0

Kapustka, Laura Lincoln Electric, Inc. Municipal (TU) 5 0

*Peace, Jerry Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


Scherr, Bruce (C) (2018) Director N/A 5 0

*Stafford, Sarah Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


Wise, Mike Golden Spread Electric Cooperative (TU) 5 0

Dunn, Tom Staff Secretary Southwest Power Pool 5 0

*Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. List the number of members represented in the following areas:

Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Director(s) 3 2 3

Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

3 1 1

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 28 MEETINGS HELD DURING ASSESSMENT PERIOD: Live: 5 Teleconference: AVERAGE LENTH OF MEETINGS: 4:30 Hours NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 13 MEETING COST(S): $47,701.68


162 of 230

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Approved changes to cost recovery structure to better align with services and benefits 2. Approved budget required to implement RC services for western utilities MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Credit reforms to mitigate weaknesses identified in PJM that may exist in SPP markets 2. Ensure balance between benefits of SPP’s services and the costs to provide those services 3. Pricing of services provided under stand-alone contracts

163 of 230


GROUP NAME: Human Resources Committee THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:


Brix, Julian (C) Director N/A 6 0

Crisson, Mark Director N/A 6 0

Highley, Duane Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative (TU) 4 2

Kent, Tom Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 6 0

*Lowry, Stuart Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 2 0

*Rhea, John Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Investor-owned Utility (TO) 4 0

Williams, Noman GridLiance High Plains LLC


See, Malinda Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 6 0


Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Directors 3 2 2

Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

1 2 1 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 10 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 6 Teleconference: 0 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 5:30 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 11 MEETING COST(S): $45,245.83


164 of 230

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Oversight of engagement with Mercer Consultants for 2019 SPP Employee salary and

benefits survey. Reviewed survey results and made appropriate recommendations for changes to maintain compensation competitive to the market.

2. Reviewed SPP Retirement programs for affordability and relevancy.

3. Tasked Oversight Committee to develop a method of reporting an annual staff compliance

rating to the Human Resources Committee as an input to the annual Employee Performance Compensation Plan funding analysis. This method will be utilized for the 2019 plan year.

4. Approved Process Documents for determining funding for Employee Performance

Compensation Plan and for CEO Performance Evaluation and Compensation Determination.

5. Reviewed and approved HR Report to the Value and Affordability Task Force (VATF). MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Provide guidance to the Board and SPP staff through the transition period to a new SPP

CEO. 2. Oversight of SPP benefit plans to find cost savings and efficiencies while maintaining plans

competitive to the market.

3. Focus on organizational structure and productivity enhancements.

165 of 230

SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation/Assessment (August 2018– July 2019)

GROUP NAME: Model Development Working Group (MDWG)

CHARTER/SCOPE UPDATE: Yes


Aleman, Charles * Golden Spread Electric Corp. Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

0 0

Berg, Andrew * Missouri River Energy Services

Municipal (TU) 6 2 2 Proxies

Betz, Dustin * Nebraska Public Power District

State Agency (TO) 13 0

Blinsky, Preston * Basin Electric Power Coop Cooperative (TO) 0 0 Boshears, John City Utilities of Springfield,

MO Municipal (TU) 13 1

1 Proxy Brown, Derek * Nebraska Public Power


6 Proxies Ethridge, Jerad Oklahoma Gas & Electric Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 14 0

Fultz, Joe Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 11 3 3 Proxies

Haidle, Wayne * Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Cooperative (TO)

1 1 1 Proxy

Harris, Jeremy * Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO)

0 0

Hohman, Steve * Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 0 0 Hofer, Jason * Nebraska Public Power


Krizek, Holli Western Area Power Administration

Federal Agency (TO) 10 3 1 Proxy

Lamb, Jordan * East River Electric Power Cooperative

Cooperative (TU) 0 0

Morris, Nate (C) (2014)

Empire District Electric Company

Investor-Owned Utility (TO)

12 2 2 Proxies

Miranda, Reene Xcel Energy, Inc. Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

13 1 Proxy

Mucha, Alex Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Municipal (TU) 12 2

Olapurayil, Gimod * ITC Great Plains LLC Independent Transmission Company (TU)

2 0

Rainbolt, Scott * AEP Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

6 2 2 Proxies

Schichtl, Scott Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation

Cooperative (TU) 11 1 2 Proxies

Shook, Jason GDS Associates (East Texas Electric Cooperative)


Stringham, Liam Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Cooperative (TO) 12 2 2 Proxies

166 of 230

Raheem, Sunny Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 13 1 1 Proxy


Transmission Owners Transmission Users Liaisons Directors 12 10


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer


Company

Large Retail

Marketer

Alternate Power/ Public Interest

6 6 3 5 1 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 56


AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 3 HOURS

NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN 63

MEETING COST(S): $ 919.37 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. Chair and Staff Secretary Comments about participants’ proxy/absence:

• Derek Brown (6) o Member participants actively in meetings. Participants’ company merged with

another entity requiring participate to attend multiple SPP working group meetings. Additionally, three proxies are a result of the participant’s short-term personal leave from their organization. Participant resigned from his position in the group because of job function changes.

• Fultz, Joe (3) o Member participants actively in meetings and provided proxies in a timely manner

when not able to attend. Member is part of multiple SPP working groups that could result in meeting absences or proxies.

• Krizek, Holli (3) o Member participants actively in meetings and provided proxies in a timely manner

when not able to attend. Participant missed some meetings for personal reasons. • Scott Schichtl (3)

o Member participants actively in meetings and provided proxies in a timely manner when not able to attend. Member is part of multiple SPP working groups that could result in meeting absences or proxies.

• Shook, Jason (3) o Member participants actively in meetings and provided proxies in a timely manner

when not able to attend. Member is part of multiple SPP working groups that could result in meeting absences or proxies.

167 of 230

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: The group’s major accomplishments include the timely approval of the 2019 MDWG power flow, short circuit, and dynamic models. The group made several process improvements including:

• Reducing the number of dynamic models built • MOD-032 milestone requirements to Generator Interconnection Agreements • Addition of MOD-032 letter of data submission notice • Recognizing and requiring the NERC acceptable dynamic model list • Completely updating the MDWG manual for current day practices • Reviewed and updated the MDWG Scope as part of the annual review. • MDWG identified the need to expand its voting membership. The group welcomed the

following new members. o Preston Blinsky, Basin Electric Power Cooperative o Charles Aleman, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative o Jordan Lamb, East River Electric Power Cooperative o Jeremy Harris, KCP&L and Westar, Evergy Companies o Jason Hofer, Nebraska Public Power District o Steve Hohman, Omaha Public Power District

• Successful implementation of three focus groups: Power Flow, Dynamics, and Short Circuit Focus Groups for increased staff and data submitter communication and modeling practices

• Conducted the first annual MDWG data submitter workshop • Testing and Implementation of 2019 Engineering Data Submission Tool Dashboard and

Bulk Update Enhancements. MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: Currently not aware of any

168 of 230


GROUP NAME: Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC) THE CHARTER/SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: YES MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent *Atwood, Jason

Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative

Cooperative (TU) 1 / 1 0

Awad, Mo Evergy Kansas Central, Inc.


*Beck, Betsy Enel Green Power North America

Independent Power Producer (TU) 1 / 1 0

Bojorquez, Bill

Hunt Transmission Service, LLC


3 proxies Bornhoft, Kevin Corn Belt Power Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 4 0

Bredenbeck, Cheryl

Xcel Energy Southwest Transmission Company, LLC


1 proxy *Brodbeck, John EDP Renewables North

America Independent Power Producer (TU) 1 / 3 2

1 proxy Brown, Tim Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 4 0 Buffington, Denise (Vice Chair) 2019

Evergy Metro, Inc. Transource Energy, LLC & Transource Missouri, LLC Prairie Wind Transmission LLC

Investor-Owned Utility (TO) Independent Transmission Company (TU) Independent Transmission Company (TU)

4 0

Burner, Bob

Duke-American Transmission Co. Duke Energy Transmission Holding Company, LLC

Independent Transmission Company (TU) Independent Transmission Company (TU)

3 1

Carias, Holly (Chair) 2019

NextEra Energy Resources Independent Power Producers (TU) 4 0

*Caves, Matt Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

Cooperative (TO) 3 / 3 0

*Chriss, Stephen Joined 7/18/19

Walmart, Inc. Large Retail (TU) 0 0

Coco, Gregory Cleco Power Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 0 4

Crawford, Burton

Evergy Missouri West, Inc. Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 4 0

Doerr, Jason Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Cooperative (TO) 4 0

Doll, Aaron The Empire District Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 3 1

Dowling, Bill Midwest Energy Cooperative (TO) 4 0

169 of 230

Drew, Steve NextEra Energy Transmission, LLC NextEra Energy Transmission Southwest, LLC

Independent Power Producer (TU) Independent Power Producer (TU)

0

4

4 proxies

*Edwards, Jim

East River Electric Power Cooperative


1 proxy Evans, Les Kansas Electric Power

Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 4 0

Ferris, Bobby Lea County Electric Cooperative

Cooperative (TU) 0 4 3 proxies

Florom, Dennis Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 4 0 Giles, Chris Tri-County Electric


Golden, Tracy Northeast Nebraska Public Power District

State Agency (TU) 0 4

Graff, Adam

Heartland Consumers Power District


Grant, Bill

Xcel Energy-Southwestern PSC


Grotzinger, John

Missouri Joint Municipal EUC State Agency (TU) 0 4

3 proxies Hall, Tim Southern Power Company Independent Power

Producer (TU) 2 2 2 proxies

Haner, Luke Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 4 0

Hans, Bradley Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska

Municipal (TU) 4 0

Haugen, Dale

Mountrail-Williams Electric Cooperative


1 proxy *Heitmeyer, Chad AEP SW Transmission Co. Investor-Owned Utility

(TU) 2 0

*Helton, Robert ENGIE North America

Independent Power Producer (TU) 1 0

Henderson, Natasha Golden Spread Electric Cooperative


Hendrix, Chris Walmart, Inc. Large Retail (TU) 1 3

1 proxy Hestermann, Tom

Mid-Kansas Electric Company Cooperative (TO) 4 0

Hixson, Eric

The Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District


*Hoffman, Mark East River Electric Power Cooperative


Holloway, Larry Kansas Power Pool Municipal (TU) 4 0

Holly, Carla Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy

Independent Power Produce (TU) 3 1

1 proxy Jacoby, Jim Southwestern Electric Power

Company Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 4 0

Janssen, Robert

Dogwood Energy


170 of 230

Johnson, Brian American Electric Power – OK Transmission Company


Johnston, Lucy Luminant Energy Company Marketer (TU) 0 4 *Kelly, Robert Mor-Gran-Sou Electric

Cooperative, Inc. Cooperative (TU) 3 0

Knottek, Jeff City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 3 1

1 proxy Kruse, Brett

Calpine Energy Services


3 proxies *Kuehn, Daniel Cielo Wind Services Independent Power

Producer (TU) 0 1

*LaFave, Bleu NorthWestern Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 4 0

Lampe, Paul City of Independence, MO Municipal (TU) 4 0 *Lang, Joe Ended 10/8/18

Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 0 0

Lazos, David El Paso Energy Marketing Co. Marketer (TU) 0 4 Linke, Lloyd

Western Area Power Administration

Federal Agency (TO) 4 0

*Malone, Paul

Nebraska Public Power District

State Agency (TO) 2 0

McAuley, Greg OGE Transmission, LLC Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 2 2

2 proxies McCulla, Mark Entergy Services, Inc. Investor-Owned Utility

(TU) 0 4

Mehan, Courtney

Tenaska Power Services


1 proxy Meland, Tom Central Power Electric

Cooperative Inc Cooperative (TU) 0 4

4 proxies Meringolo, Ken

CPV Renewables


Mindham, David EDP Renewables North America

Independent Power Producers (TU)

4 0

Ohmes, Jerry

Board of Public Utilities-KC, KS

Municipal (TU) 4 0

Olsen, John

Evergy Kansas South, Inc.


1 proxy Pakela, Gregory DTE Energy Trading Inc. Marketer (TU) 0 4 Panchal, Harshi XO Energy SW, LP Marketer (TU) 0 4 Pauls, Philip Cargill Power Markets Marketer (TU) 0 4 *Pick, Robert Nebraska Public Power


Porter, Randy Crocker Wind Farm, LLC


Priest, Robert Clarksdale Public Utilities Municipal (TU) 0 4 *Prokop, Brenda ITC Great Plains Independent Transmission

Company (TU) 1 0

Pupa, Aaron

Midwest Gen, LLC


*Raatz, Dave Ended 10/11/18

Basin Electric Power Cooperative


171 of 230

*Reddick, Carroll Western Farmers Electric Cooperative


Reece, Eddy Rayburn County Electric Cooperative


*Riles, Jeff Google Energy Large Retailer Customer (TU) 1 0

Rosenlieb, Andrew

Entergy Asset Management


Ross, Richard Public Service Company of Oklahoma


2 proxies Saitta, Tom

Kansas Municipal Energy Agency

Municipal (TU) 4 0

Shook, Michael City of Coffeyville Municipal (TU) 0 4 *Shults, Mark Ended 9/7/18

Northeast Nebraska Public Power District


Surendran, Resmi Shell Energy North America Marketer (TU) 0 4 *Szot, Lisa Enel Green Power North

America Independent Power Producer (TU) 2 1

1 proxy Tallman, Robert Oklahoma Gas & Electric


Tamimi, Al

Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative


1 proxy Thomas, Ryan

East Texas Electric Cooperative


4 proxies Turner, Becky Plains & Eastern Clean Line,

LLC & Grain Belt Express Clean Line, LLC

Independent Transmission Company (TU) Independent Transmission Company (TU)

0 4

*Tyler, Rick Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative

Cooperative (TU) 0 3 3 proxies

Vencent, Melie Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority

Municipal (TU) 3 1

1 proxy Ver Mulm, Steven Northwest Iowa Power


1 proxy Vosburg, Jennifer NRG Power Marketing Marketer (TU) 0 4 *Walker, Robert Ended 8/23/18

Cargill Power Markets Marketer (TU) 0 0

Walkup, Bruce

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation


Weber, Kenneth Harlan Municipal Utilities Municipal (TU) 0 4 Wever, Jimmy

Public Service Commission of Yazoo City, MS

Municipal (TU) 0 4

*Wilcox, Evan AEP SW Transmission Co. Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 1 1

1 proxy Williams, Noman GridLiance High Plains, LLC


2 proxies Wolf, Terry

Missouri River Energy Services

Municipal (TU) 3 1

Zehr, Mary Ann

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association


2 proxies Acciona Wind Energy Independent Power

Producer (TU)

172 of 230

Boston Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC

Marketer (TU)

Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. Marketer (TU) Exelon Generation Company Independent Power

Producer (TU)

Lafayette Utilities System Municipal (TU) Louisiana Energy and Power

Authority State Agency (TU)

Mercuria Energy Marketing, Inc.

Marketer (TU)

WPX Energy Marketing, LLC Marketer (TU) Bernard, Phyllis Southwest Power Pool Director 1 3 Brix, Julian Southwest Power Pool Director 2 2 Martin, Josh Southwest Power Pool Director 2 2 Lanny Nickell Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 3 0

*On the Committee for part of the assessment period. The date indicates the year the individual was elected to the position of Chairman/Vice Chairman.

Members are represented in the following areas: Transmission Owners Transmission Users Directors

22 89 3


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

17 24 14 11 1 32 9 3 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 188 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 4 Teleconference: 0 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 11 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 29 MEETING COST(S): $ 91,932.07

- Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of teleconference expenses, and Director Fees for attendance.


• Approved changes proposed to improve SPP’s generator interconnection study approach • Approved tariff revisions needed to implement a new three-stage study process to improve generator

interconnection queue processing • Approved tariff language revisions needed to comply with FERC’s Order 841 and 845 requirements • Approved proposed enhancements to the SPP-MISO coordinated system planning process • Approved tariff language revisions needed to improve the mechanism used to recover costs from those

who use and benefit from SPP services • Approved tariff revisions needed to require PMU installation on new generators in a way that addresses

previous direction from FERC • Approved resource adequacy policies for DERs

173 of 230


• Improve transparency of project prioritization and budget implications • Implement assigned HITT recommendations • Review and coordinate interregional planning studies • Develop revision requests to incorporate approved resource adequacy policies for DERs • Develop policies to determine capacity accreditation of renewable resources based on Effective Load

Carrying Capability (ELCC) analyses • Approve tariff provisions for a ramp product in the Integrated Marketplace • Review the 2019 ITP conclusions and approve a project portfolio • Improve regional/local planning coordination • Propose organizational changes to improve effectiveness and efficiency of MOPC working groups • Review conservative operations events • Develop tariff provisions to address generator retirements, repowering and replacements

174 of 230


GROUP NAME: Market Working Group (MWG)

SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes


Alexander, Eric Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 13 2 2 Proxies

Anderson, Lee Lincoln Electric Systems Municipal (TU) 12 3 3 Proxies

Clark, Jack NextEra Energy Resources Independent Power Producer (TU) 14 1

1 Proxy

Daney, Neal Kansas Municipal Energy Agency Municipal (TU) 14 1

1 Proxy

Dixon, Carrie Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 14 1

1 Proxy

Flucke, Jim (VC) Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 15 0

Galke, Kevin City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Municipal (TU) 13 2 2 Proxies

Geil, Shawn Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 14 1

1 Proxy

Madden, Jack GDS Associates, Inc. for ETEC/NTEC Cooperative (TU) 13 2

1 Proxy

Massery, Michael Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative (TU) 15 0

McBroom, Shawn Oklahoma Gas and Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 15 0

Moore, Matt Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 11 4

4 Proxies

Rome, Aaron Kansas Municipal Energy Agency Municipal (TU) 14 1

1 Proxy Ross, Richard (C) (2004) American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 11 4 4 Proxies

Thompson, Ron Jr Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 15 0

Varnell, John Tenaska Power Services Co Independent Power Producer (TU) 15 0

Weigel, Valerie Basin Electric Power Cooperative (TO) 8 7 7 Proxies

Yanovich, Rick Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 14 1

1 Proxy

Cathey, Erin Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 13 2 2 Proxies


175 of 230


Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Director(s) 7 11

Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

4 5 4 3 2 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 98___ MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 10 Teleconference: 5 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 8 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 59 MEETING COST(S): $17,960.54 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Ramp Capability Product Design 2. Multi-Day Economic Commitment Development Design 3. ARR/TSR Alignment direction 4. Improving the RR Impact Assessment Process 5. Order 841 6. Gas Electric Harmonization MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. HITT initiatives 2. FERC Order on Fast Start 3. Implementing the Strategic Initiatives Roadmap process for Markets.

176 of 230


GROUP NAME: Oversight Committee THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company # Present # Absent

Bernard, Phyllis Director 5 0

Edwards, Graham Director 5 0

Martin, Josh (C) Director 5 0

*Ortiz, Darcy Director 3 0

*Scherr, Bruce Director 2 0

*Skilton, Harry Director 2 0

Michael Desselle Staff Secretary 5 0

*Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 14 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 5 Teleconference: 0 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 5 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 10 MEETING COST(S): $65,998.40 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Recommended to the Human Resources Committee adoption of a compliance metric to be

utilized in the annual Performance Compensation plan 2. Modified OC scope document to align committee responsibilities to SPP bylaws 3. Oversaw investigation of the implications for SPP’s credit practices resulting from the PJM

credit default 4. Coordinated with the Finance Committee and SPP legal staff the evolving implications

associated with cyber-incident insurance coverage 5. Oversaw staff’s centralized corporate compliance monitoring program and received periodic

reports on all NERC-related compliance matters 6. Oversaw staff’s internal audit functions and received quarterly reports 7. Oversaw staff’s physical and cyber-security program efforts and received quarterly reports

177 of 230

8. Oversaw the operations of the Independent Market Monitor, received quarterly reports, attended education sessions on specific MMU-related aspects associated with SPP markets

9. Oversaw the SOC1 audit progress and final report MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Oversee review and update of SPP’s current corporate risk assessment 2. Continued oversight and surveillance of SPP Cyber- and physical security matters 3. Continued oversight of SPP’s Process Integrity functionality (Internal Audit and Compliance) 4. Continued oversight of SPP’s SOC1 audits 5. Continued oversight of the Independent Marker Monitor

178 of 230


GROUP NAME: Operating Reliability Working Group (ORWG)

SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes


Carman, Keith Tri-State Generation andTransmission Association, Inc. Cooperative (TU) 8 4

Eastwood, Mark City Utilities of Springfield Mo Municipal (TU) 8 4 4 proxies

Elteriefi, Abubaker ITC – Great Plains Independent Transmission Company (TU) 10 2

George, Allan Sunflower Electric Power Corp Cooperative (TO) 12 0

Gosnell, Todd* Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 0 1 1 Proxy

Gregg, Laurie Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 11 1 1 Proxy

Gunderson, Ron (VC) Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 12 0

Klassen, Allen (C) (2015) Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 12 0

McMenamin, Kyle SPS /Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 10 2

1 Proxy

Myers, Chance Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 11 1

1 Proxy

Peterchuck, Doug* Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 9 2 1 Proxy

Plummer, Gary Independence Power & Light Municipal (TU) 11 1 1 Proxy

Pham, David Liberty Utilities Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 11 1

Shaffer, Chris American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 12 0

Speidel, Craig Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 11 1

Stoltz, Matthew Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 10 2

Useldinger, Jim GridLiance High Plains Independent Transmission Company (TU) 8 4

1 Proxy Wells, Jeff Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 12 0

Wilson, W. Bryn Oklahoma Gas and Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 10 2

2 Proxies Tanner, Jason Staff Secretary SPP 12 0


179 of 230


12 7 0


Cooperative Municipal State Federal Independent

Power Producer/ Marketer


Company Large Retail


Small Retail

5 4 3 4 1 0 2 0 0 0

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 84


AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 7:00

NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 36

MEETING COST(S): $8,385.97 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of



1. RR349 - Required Use of R-Comm Tool for SPP BA Load shed Instructions.2. Inverter Based Generation Integration Study3. RR338 SPP RSG MSSC Clarification


1. BAOC Consolidation2. HITT Recommendations3. Resource Adequacy and Operations Comparisons

180 of 230


GROUP NAME: Operations Training Working Group THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:


*Adams,Tina Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 3 0

Ballany, Kevin Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative (TU) 7 1

1 Proxy

*Ellis, Mark American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 4 1

Fales, Denney Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 7 1

1 Proxy Gaunder, Michael (VC)

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company


Marriott-Gill, Janelle

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association Cooperative (TU) 7 1

1 Proxy

Hirchak, Robert CLECO Corporation Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 8 0

*Horn, Jaroddo American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 1 7

Hunter, Sheldon Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 4 4

3 Proxies

Johnson, Danny Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 6 2

2 Proxies Moore, Russell (C) (2016) City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 8 0

*Reddick, Carroll Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 2 2

1 Proxy

*Reed, Gary Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 4 2

1 Proxy

Robles, Joel Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 5 3

Stafford, Derek Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 6 2

2 Proxies Tegtmeier, Steve Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 8 0

Waag, David Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 3 4

*Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. 181 of 230

Members represented in the following areas:


Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

6 5 2 3 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 23 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 4 Teleconference: 4 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 2:30 HOURS

NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 21 MEETING COST(S): $2,371.48 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Saved members over $2,641,000.00 in training design and development costs:

a. Reliability Training saved over $2,193,000.00 b. Marketplace Training saved over $448,000.00

Note: Calculations are based on research from the Chapman Alliance.

2. Developed and delivered training related to implementation of the Reliability Communications Tool.

MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Strategic Plan Development 2. 2020 System Operations Conference (SOC) design and topic development 3. Scope Statement revision work

182 of 230


GROUP NAME: Project Cost Working Group (PCWG) SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes



Brunnert, Scott Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


Diede, Randy Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 5 1

*Ging, James Kansas Power Pool Municipal (TU) 1 0

*Hajek, Jamie Northwestern Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 3 1

Hesterman, Tom (C) (2015)

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 6 0

*Hill, Travis Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 4 0

*Holloway, Larry Kansas Power Pool Municipal (TU) 4 1 1 Proxy

Insinger, David Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 5 1

1 Proxy

Jessop, Brenda KCP&L and Westar, Evergy Companies


1 Proxy Johnson, Brian (VC) American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility

(TU) 6 0

Martin, Jonah Tri- State Generation and Transmission Cooperative (TU) 6 0

Munsell, Kenny Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 5 1

*Shue, Charles ITC Great Plains Independent Transmission Company (TU) 2 0

Sonntag, David Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 4 2

2 Proxies

Trester, Boyd Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 6 0

*Wiese, Art Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 2 0

O’Dell, John Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 6 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.

183 of 230



Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

5 4 2 3 1 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 18 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 4 Teleconference: 2 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 4 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 14 *MEETING COST(S): $2,115.89 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Increased time allowed in 2019 ITP Assessment for TOs 2. Submitted RR 369 for revision to business practice 7060 3. Investigated one out-of-bandwidth project MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. There are none at this time. 2. 3.

184 of 230


GROUP NAME: Reliability Compliance Working Group (RCWG) THE CHARTER/SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent Allen, John (Vice Chairman) City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 8 0

*Bailey, Michael American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 1 7

1 proxy

Buchholz, Mark Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 7 1

Caves, Matt Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 7 1

1 proxy

*D’Ambrosio, Alex Central Power Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 2 0

Eddleman, Tony Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 7 1

1 proxy

*Feliks, Kent American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 3 1

Flandermeyer, Jennifer (Chairman) (2012) Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 8 0

Gavin, Allie ITC Holdings Independent Transmission Company (TU) 8 0

*Gray, Robert Board of Public Utilities Municipal (TU) 1 2 1 proxy

*Guidry, Louis Cleco Power LLC Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 1 7

2 proxies

Holly, Carla Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy Independent Power Producer (TU) 6 2

2 proxies

Kegley, Stace Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 7 1

1 proxy

*Long, Kalem Empire District Electric Company


Maldonado, Thomas Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 6 2

2 proxies

Morgan, Heather EDP Renewables North America


3 proxies

Murray, Mike City of Independence, MO Municipal (TU) 7 1

Pyle, Terri Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


1 proxy

*Rudolph, David Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 3 1

Ruskamp, Eric Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 6 2

185 of 230

Safi, Mahmood Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 6 2

1 proxy

Stringer, Ashley Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipal (TU) 5 3

Watkins, Ellen Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 7 1

Wright, Alice Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative (TU) 8 0

Hayes, Jonathan SPP Staff Secretary 8 0 *On the Committee for part of the assessment period. The date indicates the year the individual was elected to the position of Chairman. Members are represented in the following areas:

Transmission Owners Transmission Users Directors 10 14 0

Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

7 5 5 3 1 2 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 35 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 3 Teleconference: 5 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: HOURS 3.5 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 21 MEETING COST(S): $ 2,677.30 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director Fees for attendance. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP:

• Coordinated with other SPP organizational groups to develop and submit revision requests to update sections of the SPP Planning Criteria that have reliability compliance impacts to the SPP Membership.

o RR237 – with TWG o RR350 – with SPCWG o RR364 – with TWG

• Provided feedback on the following RTO projects that have reliability compliance impacts to the SPP Membership:

o Implementation of PMU applications. o Implementation of the RCOMM tool. o Changes to the SPP map CEII designation and associated request process.

• Provided recommendations to MOPC on Regional Entity representation at their meetings. • Kept members informed of NERC CMEP initiatives.

186 of 230

• Worked through RCWG members involved with MRO Councils and Board to provide feedback on behalf of SPP membership.

• Provided feedback to MOPC on RCWG and SECWG reporting structure and overall SPP model effectiveness.

• Worked to involve SPP member companies more broadly in NERC initiatives supporting appointment, membership or assignments where possible.

• Collaboration with MCCF to encourage participation in new forum structure. • Worked with SPP Compliance staff to evaluate SPP Compliance Forum needs and requirements

going forward. • Worked with EAWG in collaboration to propose more effective and efficient solution for event

management or lessons learned. • Partnership with all sectors represented on matters related to reliability and security.


• Monitor FERC and NERC initiatives and their impact on reliability compliance for the SPP Membership.

• Continue efforts to coordinate with other SPP organizational groups to develop and submit revision requests to update sections of the SPP Planning Criteria that have reliability compliance impacts to the SPP Membership.

• Continue to monitor SPP’s implementation of PMU applications. • Continue to inform members of NERC CMEP initiatives. • Continue to look for opportunities to expand SPP member’s participation in the federal arena

related to reliability compliance and security. • Continue efforts to coordinate positions on SPP member and organizational group’s protection of

sensitive and critical information.

187 of 230


GROUP NAME: Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) THE CHARTER/SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent Kays, David (Chairman) (2016)

Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


Pick, Robert (Vice Chairman)

Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 24 0

Awad, Mo Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 21 3

3 Proxies Billinger, Michael Midwest Energy, Inc. Cooperative (TO) 22 2

Bixby, Jim ITC Holdings Independent Transmission Company (TU) 19 5

1 Proxy

Busbee, Alfred East Texas Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 19 5

*Christensen, Tom Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 7 6

6 Proxies

Clark, Jack NextEra Energy Resources Independent Power Producers (TU) 21 3

3 Proxies

Dobson, Alex Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipal (TU) 18 6

6 Proxies

Gallup, Terri American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 19 5

7 Proxies

Garst, Greg Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 21 3

2 Proxies

*Hall, Tim Southern Power Independent Power Producer (TU) 4 1

*Hendrickson, Joel Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association Cooperative (TU) 15 1

1 Proxies

Hestermann, Tom Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative (TO) 19 5 5 Proxies

Janssen, Rob Dogwood Energy, LLC Independent Power Producers (TU) 14 10

8 Proxies

Liu, Bernie Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 24 0

*Maddock, JP Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 7 4

5 Proxies *Mayfield, Ash Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 4 1

McCracken, Brandon Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 19 5

4 Proxies

Meyer, Jessica Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 22 2 2 Proxies

Rowland, Neil Kansas Municipal Energy Agency Municipal (TU) 16 8

1 Proxy

Sanders, Steve Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 16 4

1 Proxy

188 of 230

Shields, Robert Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative (TU) 16 8

1 Proxy

Starnes, Heather Missouri Joint Municipal EUC State Agency (TU) 23 1

1 Proxy

Stephens, John City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 14 10 3 Proxies

Stillwell, Robert City of Independence, Missouri Municipal (TU) 13 11

2 Proxies

Tarter, Todd The Empire District Investor Owned Utility (TO) 20 4 2 Proxies

Varnell, John Tenaska Power Services Independent Power Producers (TU) 15 9

2 Proxies

Choate, Marisa Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 21 3 5 Proxies

*Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. The date indicates when the individual was elected to the position of Chairman. Members are represented in the following areas:

Transmission Owners Transmission Users Directors 14 14

Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

5 8 5 4 1 4 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 55 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 8 Teleconference: 16 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: Live: 6 Teleconference: 3 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 53 *MEETING COST(S): $ 5,463.13

- Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of teleconference expenses, and Director Fees for attendance.


• Compliance with FERC Order 841 • Compliance with FERC Order 845 • Implementation of GIITF 3 stage process • Implementation of Schedule 1A Task Force whitepaper


• HITT recommendations • Z2 remand order • Compliance with FERC Fast-Start Order (EL8-35) • Generator repower and replacement • Generator retirement • Implementation of Distributed Energy Resource Policy whitepaper

189 of 230

SPP Organizational Group Self-Evaluation/Assessment (August 2018– July 2019)

GROUP NAME: Supply Adequacy Working Group (SAWG) CHARTER/SCOPE UPDATE: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent Alexander, Eric

Grand River Dam Authority

State Agency (TO)

10

2 2 Proxies

Bender, Traci


State Agency (TO)

10

2 2 Proxies

Berkstresser, Brian

Empire District Electric


9

2 1 Proxy

Castleberry, Aaron

Oklahoma Gas & Electric


12

Graff, Adam

Heartland Consumers Power District

State Agency (TU)

6

5 1 Proxy

Hale, Kenneth

City Utilities of Springfield MO

Municipal (TU)

12

Hans, Bradley (Chairman) 2016

Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska

Municipal (TU)

11

1

Henderson, Natasha (Vice Chairman)

Golden Spread Electric Cooperation

Cooperative (TU)

11

1 1 Proxy

Hestermann, Tom

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Cooperative (TO)

10

2 2 Proxies

Iverson, Jon

Omaha Public Power District

State Agency (TO)

12

Jacoby, Jim

American Electric Power

Investor Owned Utility (TU)

11

1 1 Proxy

Janssen, Robert

Dogwood Energy, LLC


12

Jasa, Douglas

Evergy Companies


12

Knutson, Jodi

Western Area Power Administration

Federal Agency (TO)

10

1 1 Proxy

Perez, Ernesto

GDS Associates, Inc.

Cooperative (TU)

11

1 1 Proxy

Ramsdell, Aaron

Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Cooperative (TO)

10

1 1 Proxy

Saitta, Thomas

Kansas Municipal Energy

Municipal (TU)

10

1 1 Proxy

Schaefer, Phillip *

Western Farmers Elec. Coop.

Cooperative (TO)

5

Varnell, John

Tenaska Power Services Company


11

1

Weeks, Bennie

Xcel Energy Services

Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

10

2 2 Proxies

Bents, Scott Iowa Utilities Board Liaison 2 10 Cecil, Walt

Missouri Public Service Commission

Liaison

9

3

190 of 230

Claiborn-Pinto, Shawnee

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Liaison

1

11

Haley, Chris Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 12 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period. Please list the number of members represented in the following areas:

Transmission Owners Transmission Users Directors Liaisons 11 9 3

Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

6 4 3 4 1 2 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 75 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live 8 Teleconference: 4 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 7 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN 30 MEETING COST(S): $18,565.86


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: Implementation of Attachment AA Effective Load Carrying Capability accreditation approval for wind and solar MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: Effective Load Carrying Capability accreditation implementation for battery storage Addressing all generation testing requirements in section 7.1 of the Planning Criteria Looking at implementation firm fuel supply requirements

191 of 230


GROUP NAME: Security Working Group (SECWG) THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:

Member Company Sector # Present # Absent *Allen, Ronald AEP – Public Service

Company of OK Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 0 3

*Anderson, Ian Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company


Arnold, Steve Independence Power & Light Municipal (TU) 4 0 *Bailey, Michael American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility

(TO) 0 1

Bender, Ronald Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 4 0 *Bowen, Ted AEP/PSO Investor-Owned Utility

(TU) 2 0

Buyce, Mike City Utilities of Springfield Municipal (TU) 4 0 Clark, Phil (Vice-Chair)

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation


*Dickerson, Nita Goff & Herrington PC representing NE Texas Electric Coop.


*Eck, Shawn Empire District Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 2 0

Ervin, Eric (Chairman) (2018)

Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 4 0

Fitzpatrick, Mike Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 3 1 *Franson, Paul Oklahoma Gas & Electric


1 proxy *Gray, Amanda Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 3 0

*Huff, Philip Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation


*Jenson, Jodi Western Area Power Admin. Federal Agency (TO) 1 0 *Lytal, Mark Southwestern Public Service –

Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 1 1

Moore, Daniel Western Farmers Electric Cooperative


Sprague, Paul Board of Public Utilities of KS Municipal (TU) 1 3 2 proxies

*Trojan, David ITC Independent Transmission Co. (TU) 2 0

*Veillon, Michael Cleco Power Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 0 1

Wasinger, Chad Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative

Cooperative (TO) 3 1 1 proxy

Goad, Michael Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 4 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.

192 of 230

Members are represented in the following areas: Transmission Owners Transmission Users Directors

13 9 0


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

9 5 3 3 1 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 61 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 3 Teleconference: 1 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 6:00 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 8 *MEETING COST(S): $600.00; Members host 2 of 3 live meetings. - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate

of teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP:

1. Shifted focus from Compliance to cyber and physical security and getting the appropriate attendees to the meetings for relevant agenda items, not just the single voting Member.

2. Reviewed meeting structure to complement MRO working groups as SPP Members

transitioned from SPP RE to MRO RE. MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP:

1. Preparations for GridExV, NERC’s Grid Security Exercise, to be held November 2019.

2. Facilitate upcoming NERC cyber and physical security requirements, such as CIP-008-6 Incident Reporting and Response Planning and CIP-013-1 Supply Chain Risk Management.

3. Facilitate discussion around security approaches to the changing threat landscape of critical

infrastructure.

193 of 230


GROUP NAME: Strategic Planning Committee

THE SCOPE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE PAST YEAR: Yes


Altenbaumer, Larry (C) Director - 3 0 Bender, Traci Nebraska Public Power

District State Agency (TO)

3 0

*Crisson, Mark Director - 1 0 Eckelberger, Jim Director - 3 0 *Edwards, Graham Director - 1 0 Evans, Les Kansas Electric Power

Cooperative Cooperative (TU)

3 0

Florom, Dennis Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 3 0 Grant, Bill Xcel Energy Investor Owned (TO) 3 0 Janssen, Rob Dogwood Independent Power

Producer (TU)

3 0

Olsen, John KCP&L and Westar, Evergy Company

Investor Owned (TO) 3

0

*Risan, Mike Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Cooperative (TO) 2

0

Ross, Richard AEP Southwestern Electric Power Company

Investor Owned (TO) 2

1 1 Proxy

*Skilton, Harry Director - 2 0 Wahle, Ray Missouri River Energy

Services Municipal (TU)

2 1

Wise, Michael (VC)

Golden Spread Electric Cooperative

Cooperative (TU) 3

0

*Desselle, Michael SPP Staff Secretary 1 0 *Sugg, Barbara SPP Staff Secretary 2 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.

Members represented in the following areas: Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Directors

5 5 4


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company


Large Retail

Small Retail

3 3 2 1 1

194 of 230

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 55 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 3 Teleconference: 0 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 4:00 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 5 MEETING COST(S): $46,872.09



1. Endorsed the Economic Studies Working Group (ESWG) “2 futures” recommendation for use in the 2020 ITP

2. Provided guidance to staff for commenting on the EPA 111b rule-making

3. Managed the transition to enhanced Board and Members Committee engagement in strategic planning

4. Endorsed the 2020 SPP Proposed Operating Plan as consistent with the objectives of the current

strategic plan and known strategic issues

5. Reviewed HITT recommendations to enable oversight of future implementation


1. Finalize the process and timeline for developing new SPP Strategic Plan 2. Gather information, signposts, and strategic issues as well as conduct analysis in advance of

developing new strategic plan

3. Oversee implementation of strategic initiatives from current strategic plan, HITT recommendations, VATF recommendation, where appropriate

195 of 230


GROUP NAME: System Protection and Control Working Group CHARTER/SCOPE UPDATE: Yes MEMBER ROSTER/ATTENDANCE:


Anderson, John Westar Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TO)

4

Angland, Chris


State Agencies (TO)

4

1

Beasley, Jeff

Grand River Dam Authority

State Agency (TO)

4

Brock, Forrest Western Farmers Cooperative (TO) 2 2 Godwin, Ryan

American Electric Power


3

1

Guidry, Louis (Chairman) (2015)

Cleco Power LLC


2

2

Gurley, Rick

American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

2

2

Halling, Allen

Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO)

3

1

Jacobs, Shawn

Oklahoma Gas & Electric


2

2

Miller, Tom

ITC Holdings


3 1 Proxy

Oswald, David Liberty Utilities Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

4

Schroeder, Lynn

Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

Cooperative (TO)

2

2

Soper, Bob Western Area Power Administration

Federal (TO)

2 2

Thykkuttathil, Mathew

Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

Cooperative (TO)

3

1

Wadas, Stephen (Vice Chairman)


State Agency (TO)

4

Wheeler, David Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU)

4

Zellefrow, Ken

City Utilities of Springfield, MO

Municipal (TU)

4

Doug Bowman

Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary

4


196 of 230


10 7 0 Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

9 3 1 3 1 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 25 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 4 Teleconference: 0 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: HOURS 8 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 17 MEETING COST(S): $1,357.89 - Meeting costs include hotel expenses (room rental, A/V, food and beverage), estimate of

teleconference expenses, and Director fees for attendance. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP:

1. Tracked ongoing activities of the NERC System Protection & Control Subcommittee (SPC).

2. Reviewed various NERC standards in varying stages of development.

3. Approved the new SPCWG Scope.

4. The group lost five (5) members due to retirements or new positions with their respective companies. Five (5) new members were subsequently added for a current total of twelve (12).

5. A new vice chair was elected

6. Updated Master RAS list to confirm language for exist RAS schemes.

7. Approved UFLS study scope.

8. RR for SPCWG criteria revisions submitted and approved MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP:

1. SCWG’s three-terminal line paper is currently being developed and will be completed next

reporting period.

2. The UFLS study to be completed next reporting period.

3. The group is working to test the EPRI PSET tool. Results and conclusion to be completed next reporting period.

197 of 230


GROUP NAME: Seams Steering Committee

SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes


Atwood, Jason* Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 2 1

Bergmeier, Ray Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative (TO) 6 6 4 Proxies

Betz, Dustin Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 12 0

Bornhoft, Kevin* Corn Belt Power Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 7 0

Burke, Oliver Entergy Services Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 9 3 2 Proxies

Gaines, Tina Empire District Electric Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 11 1 Jacoby, Jim (C) Jan 2017 American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 10 2

1 Proxy Knottek, Jeff City Utilities of Springfield,

MO Municipal (TU) 11 1 1 Proxy

Mindham, David* ITC Great Plains Independent Power Producer (TU) 6 1

Onnen, Katy Evergy Companies Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 11 1 1 Proxy

Sanders, Steve Western Area Power Administration Federal (TO) 11 1

Schmick, Jordan Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 12 0 Tallman, R J Oklahoma Gas & Electric-

Electric Services Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 12 0

Wagner, Marguerite* ITC Great Plains Independent Power Producer (TU) 0 3

3 Proxies Warren, Bary (VC) GridLiance High Plains Independent Power Producer

(TU) 11 1

Savoy, Clint Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 12 0 *Only on Committee for part of the assessment period.



Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

6 3 1 1 1 3

198 of 230

AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): 45_ MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: _5_ Teleconference: _7_ AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 4:15 NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: _15_ MEETING COST(S): $3,920.80


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. Oversight of the MISO-SPP Coordinated System Plan enhancements 2. Oversight of the 2019 MISO-SPP Coordinated System Plan study 3. Directed SPP staff to perform analysis related to the cost to the SPP Market when MISO exceeds its 1000 MW contract path capacity between its MISO north and MISO south sub-regions MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. 2020 AECI-SPP Joint and Coordinated System Plan/2020 MISO-SPP Coordinated System Plan studies 2. The identification of administrative processes that lead to inefficiencies between the SPP and MISO markets 3. Continue to pursue coordinated projects to address historical market-to-market congestion between SPP and MISO

199 of 230


GROUP NAME: Transmission Working Group (TWG) SCOPE REVIEWED: Yes


Member Company Sector # Present # Absent Benedict, Daniel Independence Power & Light Municipal (TU) 5 9

Benson, Scott Lincoln Electric System Municipal (TU) 10 4 4 Proxies

Boshears, John City Utilities of Springfield Missouri Municipal (TU) 13 1

1 Proxy

Brown, Derek Kansas City Power & Light & Westar Evergy Companies


4 Proxies

*Cooley, Jared Xcel Energy Investor-Owned Utility (TU) 5 3

2 Proxies

*Franklin, Clifford Sunflower Electric Power Corporation Cooperative (TO) 10 4

2 Proxies

Fultz, Joe Grand River Dam Authority State Agency (TO) 13 1 1 Proxy

Ging, James Kansas Power Pool Municipal (TU) 13 1 1 Proxy

Hyde, Travis (C) (2016)

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company


1 Proxy

Kelley, Kalun Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 14 0

Knofczynski, John East River Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 13 1

1 Proxy

*Lenihan, Dan Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 7 7 4 Proxies

Lindstrom, Randy Nebraska Public Power District State Agency (TO) 13 1

1 Proxy

McAvoy, Jim Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Municipal (TU) 12 2

McGee, Matthew American Electric Power Investor-Owned Utility (TO) 13 1

1 Proxy

*McMinn Shane Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 6 0

McNeil, Nathan (VC) Midwest Energy, Inc. Cooperative (TO) 13 1

1 Proxy

Morris, Nate Empire District Electric Company


2 Proxies

Mueller, Michael Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation Cooperative (TU) 12 2

*Myers, Alan ITC Holdings, Inc Independent Transmission Company (TU) 5 3

2 Proxies

Nansel, Gayle Western Area Power Administration Federal Agency (TO) 11 3

3 Proxies

Payne, John Kansas Electric Power Coop Cooperative (TU) 10 4 1 Proxy

200 of 230

Pink, Chris Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Cooperative (TU) 11 3

2 Proxies

Shook, Jason GDS Associates, Inc. (East Texas Electric Cooperative Cooperative (TU) 11 3

Stoltz, Matthew Basin Electric Power Cooperative Cooperative (TO) 13 1

1 Proxy *Verzal, Joshua Omaha Public Power District State Agency (TO) 2 0

*Wegner, Michael ITC Holdings, Inc Independent Transmission Company (TU) 4 2

Williams, Noman GridLiance High Plains LLC Independent Transmission Company (TU) 10 4

4 Proxies

Sargent, David Southwestern Power Administration Liaison 7 7

*Edmondson, Dee Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 2 0 *Hall, Kirk Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 7 0 *Stewart, Aaron Southwest Power Pool Staff Secretary 5 0


List the number of members represented in the following areas: Transmission/Owners Transmission/Users Liaisons Director(s)

13 15 1 Sectors


Cooperative

Municipal

State

Federal

Independent Power

Producer/ Marketer


Company

Large Retail


Small Retail

5 10 5 4 1 3 AVERAGE OVERALL ATTENDANCE (INCLUDING NON-GROUP MEMBERS): _90__ MEETINGS HELD TO DATE: Live: 5 Teleconference: 9 AVERAGE LENGTH OF MEETINGS: 6 HOURS NUMBER OF VOTES TAKEN: 65 MEETING COST(S): $10,405.50


MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE GROUP: 1. TWG Membership/Scope 2. Completion of 2018/2019 Milestones for 2019 ITP Assessment 3. Completion of RR237: Planning Criteria Section 5 Cleanup MAJOR PENDING ISSUES BEFORE THE GROUP: 1. Maintain all compliance requirements for PC, TP, TO 2. Develop an approach to embrace LPC/LPP process

• Material Modification RR • FAC-002-2 coordination process • LPC clarification RR • Sponsored Upgrade RR 261 • Single LPC per Zone

201 of 230

3. ITP

• 2019 ITP approvals needed for finalization • 2020 ITP approvals needed for successful completion of 2019 milestones • Finalize scope of 2021 ITP • Pursue efficiency and accuracy items • Develop process for handling Transmission Operating Guides • Develop an approach to evaluating risk and value-based transmission planning • Working with MDWG:

• Develop an approach for Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) • Develop an approach for Energy Storage Resources (ESRs) • Model reduction effort

• Year one redefinition • Multiple model pass scorecard development and approval clarification

• Support development of Generation Retirement process • Support Coordinated System Planning incorporation into ITP

202 of 230

2019 STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS

Published November 25, 2019 by the SPP Communications Department

203 of 230


2019 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey Results 1

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 2

SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

What type of relationship does your organization have with SPP? * .......................................................... 4

What is your role within your organization? ** ................................................................................................... 4

How often do you interact with the following SPP services? ......................................................................... 5

Please mark the SPP staff and/or service with which you have the most interaction. ......................... 6

Overall, how important are the following SPP services to you? .................................................................... 7

Overall, how well does SPP’s provision of the following services meet your expectations? .............. 9

Based on your experience, please rate SPP staff's performance against your expectations in the following areas? ............................................................................................................................................................ 12

Do you participate in SPP committee, working group or task force meetings? .................................. 13

Please rate SPP's service and support of committee, working group and task force meetings as they relate to your expectations. ............................................................................................................................ 13

Do you interact with other Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and/or transmission providers? ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14

Overall, how does SPP compare with the RTO/transmission provider with which you interact most often? .................................................................................................................................................................... 15

COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Please list any characteristics of SPP with which you are SATISFIED. ....................................................... 16

Please list any characteristics of SPP with which you are DISSATISFIED. ................................................ 19

Please share any remaining thoughts about your satisfaction with SPP. ............................................... 23

APPENDIX 1: “OTHER” STAKEHOLDER TYPES ................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX 2: “OTHER” RESPONDENT ROLES .................................................................................................... 27

204 of 230



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The SPP communications department launched the 2019 Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey on Sept. 30, 2019. Staff distributed 1,020 survey invitations to organizational group members, market participants and other individuals who interacted with SPP during the previous 12 months, either through meetings, training, customer relations interactions or other exchanges.

The survey response rate stayed consistent with the previous year, remaining at 19 percent in 2019. The number of individual responses decreased slightly: 190 in 2019 compared to 286 in 2018. We sent 478 fewer surveys in 2019, which accounted for the lower number of individual responses. A vast majority of respondents (155 out of 199) are member representatives. More than half of all respondents identify themselves as having roles related to either operations (26%), executive leadership (20%) or engineering (13%).

On average, respondents indicated slightly higher overall satisfaction with SPP’s service in 2019. Scores rose to 3.62 in 2019 from 3.59 in 2018 (see Table 1 below). Similarly, average scores rating SPP staff’s performance in three specific areas rose or stayed the same across the board. Ratings of staff’s responsiveness stayed at 3.74; the accuracy of staff’s responses rose to 3.62 from 3.60; and ratings of the resolution of problems rose to 3.53 from 3.51 (see Table 2 below).

Average satisfaction scores for specific services increased in 2019 in all but one case: generation interconnection/aggregate studies, whose score fell 0.01 points to 2.82/5.0 in 2019 from 2.83 in 2018 (see Table 3 below).

Comparison charts for the last three years’ data follow:

Table 1: Satisfaction with overall staff performance

QUESTION 2017 2018 2019 CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR

Overall, I am satisfied with SPP's service. 3.52 3.59 3.62 0.03

205 of 230



QUESTION: BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE RATE SPP STAFF'S PERFORMANCE AGAINST YOUR EXPECTATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:

Table 2: Satisfaction with staff performance in key areas

SERVICE 2017 2018 2019 CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR

SPP staff members are responsive to my needs. 3.68 3.74 3.74 0

SPP staff members provide accurate information upon request. 3.54 3.60 3.62 0.02

SPP staff members resolve problems to my satisfaction. 3.43 3.51 3.53 0.02

QUESTION: OVERALL, HOW WELL DOES SPP’S PROVISION OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?

Table 3: Satisfaction with specific services

SERVICE 2017 2018 2019 CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR

Reliability coordination 3.50 3.48 3.50 0.02

Scheduling 3.39 3.32 3.39 0.07

Tariff administration 3.20 3.08 3.15 0.07

Generation interconnection/aggregate studies 3.04 2.83 2.82 -0.01

Transmission expansion planning 3.18 2.95 2.95 0

Settlements/invoicing 3.26 3.30 3.34 0.04

Meeting planning/organization 3.44 3.35 3.42 0.07

RTO member compliance assistance 3.27 3.18 3.23 0.05

Training 3.54 3.42 3.51 0.09

Integrated Marketplace 3.38 3.45 3.50 0.05

206 of 230



SURVEY RESULTS WHAT TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE WITH SPP? *

Figure 1: Respondent/stakeholder types

* “Other” stakeholder types are defined in Appendix 1.

WHAT IS YOUR ROLE WITHIN YOUR ORGANIZATION? **

Figure 2: Respondent/stakeholder roles

155

15

8

12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

M E M B E R

C U S T O M E R

R E G U L A T O R Y

O T H E R

50

25

3

21

38

21

9

8

15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

O P E R A T I O N S

E N G I N E E R I N G

T E C H N I C A L / I T

P O L I C Y / R E G U L A T O R Y / L E G A L

E X E C U T I V E ( D I R E C T O R O R O F F I C E R )

A C C O U N T I N G / F I N A N C E / S E T T L E M E N T S

C O M P L I A N C E

T R A I N I N G

O T H E R

207 of 230



** “Other” stakeholder types are defined in Appendix 2.

HOW OFTEN DO YOU INTERACT WITH THE FOLLOWING SPP SERVICES?

Figure 3: Frequency of stakeholder interactions

67

94

68

58

61

87

54

82

30

44

43

38

30

35

30

35

32

42

44

34

24

12

39

42

33

20

36

26

28

28

8

2

12

16

24

3

28

6

16

16

10

9

6

6

8

11

11

4

18

18

20

13

3

3

4

8

2

2

24

24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Reliability Coordination

Scheduling

Tariff Administration

Generation Interconnection/Aggregate Studies

Transmission Expansion Planning

Settlements/Invoicing

Meeting Planning/Organization

RTO Member Compliance Assistance

Training

Integrated Marketplace

Never Rarely A few times per year Monthly Weekly Daily

208 of 230



PLEASE MARK THE SPP STAFF AND/OR SERVICE WITH WHICH YOU HAVE THE MOST INTERACTION.

Figure 4: Frequency of stakeholder interactions by service

28

6

11

11

25

13

15

7

15

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

R E L I A B I L I T Y C O O R D I N A T I O N

S C H E D U L I N G

T A R I F F A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

G E N E R A T I O N I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N / A G G R E G A T E …

T R A N S M I S S I O N E X P A N S I O N P L A N N I N G

S E T T L E M E N T S / I N V O I C I N G

M E E T I N G P L A N N I N G / O R G A N I Z A T I O N

R T O M E M B E R C O M P L I A N C E A S S I S T A N C E

T R A I N I N G

I N T E G R A T E D M A R K E T P L A C E

209 of 230



OVERALL, HOW IMPORTANT ARE THE FOLLOWING SPP SERVICES TO YOU?

Figure 5 shows the number of respondents who indicated that each service was either not important, moderately important, important, very important or critical. Figure 6, on the following page, shows the average importance score (out of 5.0) given to each service.

Figure 5: Services rated by importance (individual responses/ratings)

6

10

13

9

9

6

12

11

1

3

4

9

9

6

7

14

21

29

12

12

24

32

28

30

25

29

43

45

16

16

30

35

41

43

49

29

34

46

33

33

65

30

26

29

28

35

8

18

58

58

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180


Scheduling







Training


Not Important Moderately Important Important Very Important Critical

210 of 230



Figure 6: Services rated by importance (average ratings)

4.12

3.57

3.5

3.66

3.68

3.65

3.04

3.02

3.37

4.07

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Scheduling







Training


Reliability Coordination Scheduling

Tariff Administration Generation Interconnection/Aggregate Studies

Transmission Expansion Planning Settlements/Invoicing

Meeting Planning/Organization RTO Member Compliance Assistance

Training Integrated Marketplace

211 of 230



OVERALL, HOW WELL DOES SPP’S PROVISION OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?

Figure 7 shows the number of respondents who indicated that each service either fails to meet, almost meets, meets, exceeds or greatly exceeds their expectations. Figure 8, on the following page, shows the average satisfaction score given to each service.

Figure 7: Satisfaction by service (individual responses/ratings)

1

0

4

11

9

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

6

19

23

3

3

4

3

3

74

67

68

53

90

65

68

64

68

60

34

30

22

17

26

27

35

14

37

36

15

5

4

3

4

5

8

5

15

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Scheduling







Training


Fails to Meet Almost Meets Meets Exceeds Greatly Exceeds

212 of 230



Figure 8: Satisfaction by service (average rating)

3.49

3.38

3.15

2.83

2.95

3.34

3.42

3.23

3.5

3.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


Scheduling







Training


Reliability Coordination Scheduling

Tariff Administration Generation Interconnection/Aggregate Studies

Transmission Expansion Planning Settlements/Invoicing

Meeting Planning/Organization RTO Member Compliance Assistance

Training Integrated Marketplace

213 of 230



Figure 9 shows each service plotted as a function of both satisfaction and importance. Services farther to the right of the X axis are more important than those to the left, and those higher up the Y axis received higher satisfaction scores than services farther down.

Figure 9: Importance and satisfaction by service


Scheduling




Settlements/InvoicingMeeting Planning/Organization


Training


2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

214 of 230



BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, PLEASE RATE SPP STAFF'S PERFORMANCE AGAINST YOUR EXPECTATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS?

Figure 10 shows the number of respondents who indicated that SPP staff either generally fails to meet, almost meets, meets, exceeds or greatly exceeds their expectations with regard to several dimension of stakeholder satisfaction. Figure 11 shows the average rating given in response to the same four questions.

Figure 10: Satisfaction with staff performance (individual responses)

Figure 11: Satisfaction with staff performance (average rating)

2

3

8

2

8

12

19

10

54

58

93

60

55

51

75

58

36

32

40

26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

SPP staff members are responsive to my needs.

SPP staff members provide accurate information uponrequest.

SPP staff members resolve problems to my satisfaction.

Based on your experience, please rate SPP staff's overallperformance against your expectations.


3.74

3.62

3.53

3.62

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

SPP staff members are responsive to my needs.

SPP staff members provide accurate information uponrequest.

SPP staff members resolve problems to my satisfaction.

Based on your experience, please rate SPP staff's overallperformance against your expectations.

215 of 230



DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN SPP COMMITTEE, WORKING GROUP OR TASK FORCE MEETINGS?

Sixty-four percent of respondents (122 individuals) indicated they participated in SPP organizational group meetings.

Figure 12: Org Group Participation

PLEASE RATE SPP'S SERVICE AND SUPPORT OF COMMITTEE, WORKING GROUP AND TASK FORCE MEETINGS AS THEY RELATE TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS.

Figures 13 and 14 show respondents’ satisfaction with SPP’s service and support of organizational groups. Only those who indicated in the question above that they participated in stakeholder meetings were presented this follow-up question.

Figure 13: Org group service and support (by individual response)

Yes122

No34

0

1

1

6

2

17

44

45

43

50

54

40

22

20

19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Meeting schedules and logistics are communicated in a timelyand clear manner.

Meeting facilities are planned appropriately and meet theneeds of the group.

Meeting materials are well-prepared and distributed in atimely manner.


216 of 230



Figure 14: Org group service and support (by average rating)

DO YOU INTERACT WITH OTHER REGIONAL TRANSMISSION ORGANIZATIONS (RTO) AND/OR TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS?

Thirty-six percent of respondents (68 individuals) indicated they interacted with other regional transmission organizations and/or transmission providers.

Figure 15: Interaction with other RTOs/transmission providers.

3.72

3.74

3.49

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Meeting schedules and logistics are communicated in a timelyand clear manner.

Meeting facilities are planned appropriately and meet theneeds of the group.

Meeting materials are well-prepared and distributed in atimely manner.

Yes68No

88

217 of 230



OVERALL, HOW DOES SPP COMPARE WITH THE RTO/TRANSMISSION PROVIDER WITH WHICH YOU INTERACT MOST OFTEN?

Figure 16 shows respondents’ satisfaction with SPP in comparison to other RTOs and/or transmission providers. The average comparative satisfaction score of all responses is 3.67.

Figure 16: SPP compared to other RTOs and transmission providers

0

6

22

27

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SPP Is:

Much Worse Somewhat worse About the same Somewhat better Much better

218 of 230



COMMENTS The following are respondents’ unedited comments in response to several open-ended questions included in the survey. Responses such as “N/A,” “None,” etc. have been excluded.

PLEASE LIST ANY CHARACTERISTICS OF SPP WITH WHICH YOU ARE SATISFIED.

1. Customer Training, very responsive and professional

2. Determinant Reports

3. Two areas of excellence at SPP are the professionalism / responsiveness of staff and SPP's open and transparent procedures. I am a big fan of SPP - especially compared to other RTO/ISOs.

4. The RMS system is a great way to ask a question, especially if you don't have a contact at SPP to ask.

5. Transmission planning Strategic planning Integrated Market Monitoring and Oversight Governance

6. Friendly, SPP seems willing to work with their members. However, this year, there have been way too many problems with modeling and other SPP processes. My experience has been I have been debugging various models and other processes, which should have been caught before they reached me.

7. I'm a new (3 month) trainer with El Paso Electric. SPP's training program and staff are excellent. They are thorough, timely and professional. It seems the onboarding process is geared toward providing a high level of satisfaction.

8. Difficult to answer your question because I have been on medical leave. I am curious how we will meet our training requirements since I have missed the deadlines due to my situation?

9. Member Focused

10. Staff is always responsive and well prepared.

11. Transparency, Documentation, Willingness to help, discuss, etc.

12. Stakeholder engagement and processing of change.

13. Hmmm...I trying to think of one...

219 of 230



14. staff efforts and overall client support

15. When SPP says they are member/stakeholder driven, they truly mean it.

16. Great training staff. It gets better each year.

17. Executive responsiveness.

18. SPP RC staff are responsive. The real-time studies group and outage coordination staff do a good job working with members to resolve outage schedule conflicts.

19. Training department and all that help make it succeed.

20. Working group leaders and SMEs were very informative

21. Great customer service, timely responses, and always willing to assist.

22. Staff tries to be helpful.

23. Staff is very reasonable, fair, understanding, knowledgeable.

24. Respond to questions

25. Reliability planning

26. Generally employees are conscientious, committed and have helpful expertise in their functions.

27. SPP is always willing to work with their customers on issues that arise. I very much appreciate that.

28. Response time through RMS and Settlements teams.

29. Professionalism of staff Readiness to deal with complexity

30. SPP staff are always responsive and happy to help when we need something. They also follow up to ensure our needs have been met.

31. Engagement opportunities with members, regulators and other stakeholders is outstanding. This engagement framework helps facilitate collaboration and consensus building.

32. Cost effective staffing Ethical business practices Willingness to embrace change

33. Culture, Stakeholder Process, Forward Thinking Board of Directors

34. SPP staff are friendly and knowledgeable.

35. I have always found the staff to be responsive and generally pleasant to work with.

220 of 230



36. Exceptional staff. Excellent training.

37. Staff is professional and service-oriented.

38. all good

39. Responsive and helpful.

40. RC service is good, real time engineering support is very helpful

41. SPP does an excellent job of running the market, providing RC services, administering the Tariff, and planning Board meeting, Committee meetings, and working group meetings.

42. Exceptional culture, strong customer focus, member driven, and results oriented

43. Staff willingness to listen to the issue and work for a solution with all parties involved.

44. Training, nice RT people to work with.

45. The quality of SPP staff. The folks I interact with are always willing to help, are very friendly, and usually are very prompt to respond to my needs.

46. Response time on the part of SPP Staff. Staff has always been willing to assist me with any issues.

47. SPP staff is very good at responding to requests regarding on-boarding issues, data requests, tools, training etc.

48. Generally, staff is responsive to my requests.

49. SPP's focus on their customers/members is outstanding. SPP is always willing to listen and discuss member concerns / issues.

50. For many issues, SPP is responsive to our questions and requests. The staff that we deal with is pleasant and tries to be helpful.

51. Staff does a really great job trying to understand my needs and questions and works hard to get through those issues.

52. good support from control center staff

53. I appreciate the persona ownership with which most SPP employees approach their work. They seem to truly care about the success of the region, its members and the SPP itself.

54. Staff are knowledgeable and professional. Very strategic in West Market promotion.

55. SPP Staff is very professional in their communications with me.

56. Stakeholders have input.

221 of 230



57. Staff.

58. Integrated market seems to function well.

59. modern User interfaces open to automation of processes

60. Lot of this we cannot fairly answer because we really haven't started much interaction. January would be a good month to run this survey.

61. The people that I associate with are knowledgeable, helpful, and willing to do what is necessary to resolve any issue that comes up. Sometimes our calls are informational, and these are always friendly and well worth my time.

62. inclusive discussions - engagement of stakeholders in meetings

63. Overall access to staff and information.

64. Staff is very competent and generally performs operationally in an exemplary manner

65. Working with the operational and planning staff to understand and resolve issues is often better than the interaction we get from other RTOs. The creativity and desire for good reasonable/rational solutions does not always happen in other parts of the SPP organization.

66. SPP Standards Committee is excellent and very communicative for Standards Under Development projects.

PLEASE LIST ANY CHARACTERISTICS OF SPP WITH WHICH YOU ARE DISSATISFIED.

1. SSRP testing notification

2. Openness is great, but some members like to gum up the works in order to slow down decisions. I would like to see staff and the Board continue to balance this out.

3. Amount of time it takes to get certain compliance issues resolved.

4. As I previously mentioned, I have spent way too much time debugging software and other SPP "processes".

5. Documentation is sometimes limited or difficult to find. Policies can sometimes seem to be based on SPP staff interpretation rather than clearly spelled out in documentation.

6. Vague answers to RMS inquiries. Increasing market complexity.

222 of 230



7. Rather than remaining an impartial 3rd party, the staff takes sides with certain members against other members in FERC Protests.

8. West RC meetings don't provide much benefit besides providing project status updates. Seems like a reluctance to discuss economic impact of seams between CAISO and SPP footprints. Though this may be due to the lack of participation by folks on the commercial side. SPP does not seem to be reaching out to those folks.

9. Transmission / Generation Interconnection resulting in resources that cannot be transmitted economically over contracted Firm Transmission. Congestion management system is broken.

10. They do not answer phone calls or return calls if a message is left. I'm losing hope in SPP staff wanting to help members. They do however want members to answer their calls. They only think of SPP and forget why the organization exists.

11. AEP's stakeholder meeting room - the air conditioner unit is so loud and the mic system so poor it is difficult to hear meetings there over the phone - it’s also difficult to hear meetings while in that room.

12. Posting of last minute materials was a very big issue, but has been getting better. Overlapping of meetings gets challenging, but is completely understood.

13. Timelines of studies (GIQ),

14. Responses to RMS inquiries generally take longer than desirable. Generator Interconnection studies do not adequately identify operational issues when approved. Interconnections that detract from reliability are approved and resources are allowed to interconnect prior to the required facilities being in place to support them. SPP needs to learn to say no to interconnections before the requirements are met.

15. Placing documents in appropriate folder for Working Group

16. Interconnection queue

17. Interconnection process is always behind schedule. New process may help some issues but will still likely always be behind. Congestion that shows up in the market is often predictable and is allowed to remain for too long. Planning should do better at working to quickly address actual experienced congestion and to figure out why certain issues are not addressed through the current planning processes.

18. Generation interconnection queue and Load AQ study processes.

19. Detail behind resettlements - Not sure if we should go to Settlements or Regulatory. I wish there was a comment line in the monthly summary files to state why items were being resettled. Forecasting the transmission expansion plan uses dated information - Is there a way to get updated information from the TO's?

223 of 230



20. Dissatisfied is too strong of a word for the good work our joint staffs have done. I think SPP could improve transition by providing guidance further in advance and updating as necessary.

21. Collaboration

22. No dissatisfaction, just a caveat that corporate culture should not become a barrier to change

23. Very unsure that we have a robust evaluation of new transmission projects. It seems TOs are generally for new transmission and customers are not interested in new transmission unless it is clear that the cost benefit is substantially higher than 1.0. Lately, some stakeholders are trying (with little success) to establish higher thresholds for new transmission to ensure we do not overbuild the system. This is growing as a major issue within the SPP. The Board must get control of this process.

24. SPP should share compliance issues with the RCWG. The RCWG has knowledge and experience and could be a great resource for SPP compliance.

25. I think the region has reached a tipping point in terms of opinions/culture/makeup, etc. where it is incumbent on SPP to provide a stronger independent voice in decision making. A consensus approach is no longer effective in getting to good decisions in a timely manner.

26. Sometimes SPP executives come across as dismissive as though your input is being sought merely to check off a box that you’ve been consulted.

27. SPP System Operator conference training has become very general, lacks operational detailed training and awareness exposure and lessons learned. Voltage control and unit commitment and the impact to voltage control seems to be a unspoken and avoided topic which should be the priority of the RC role.

28. GI studies and Aggregate studies can take a long time to complete. The Z2 process is creating quite a bit of uncertainty and cost.

29. Understanding workload but there are times response is not as timely as expected. Accessibility for a face-to-face meeting is sometimes delayed, sure that is due to travel and workload.

30. SPP interpretation of FERC orders should match stakeholder interpretation.

31. The constant push to change the congestion hedging process. I realize this is a member driven push, for the most part.

32. I'm currently investigating an issue which I believe SPP mishandled. However, I need to confirm before expressing my concern.

33. While we understand the view that new members of SPP need to become engaged, it shouldn't be at the expense of long-time member companies. New members need to

224 of 230



understand more about an RTO and its operations before they are put into positions to run it. I also believe that SPP Staff has lost its way with respect to "keeping the lights on" and is now more focused on "doing whatever is needed to ensure that renewable resources are integrated into the system, no matter the cost to other members". We all know that to date renewable resources have helped drive down the cost of energy in certain locations, but at the cost of immense investments in transmission infrastructure - none of which they support financially beyond the point of interconnection. If the renewable developers were willing to support transmission upgrades we wouldn't be have the interconnection queue so far behind as one entity at a time drops out of the queue, while others hope they can survive another round and avoid any financial responsibility for their impact on the grid.

34. Some of the processes seem to take longer than I would think is necessary.

35. There seems to be some inconsistency with the availability of meals for meeting attendees that register with dietary restrictions, particularly at MOPC. It would be helpful to communicate beforehand if those meals will not be available so that those who are impacted can plan accordingly (if known in advance).

36. I believe face-to-face meetings should be held in Little Rock.

37. Staff could do better in planning RSC agendas, and getting information out early to RSC members. Too much information provided just before meetings, particularly on voting items.

38. Over the past year, the time to respond to some issues has dramatically increased. In general, the more complex the issue, the greater the time to respond, but in some cases even seemingly straight forward requests have taken weeks or months for a response. We understand some of the issues we raise are unique but SPP must be able to provide more timely responses. In a couple instances, we have been told to handle a particular issue in a certain way. Then later, SPP's position changes and decisions we have made based on SPP's earlier position are resulting in adverse financial impacts to our organization.

39. Developers have too much influence in SPP processes and groups.

40. The AQ process needs to be completed as quick as possible. Many times new loads are ready to begin construction by the time they commit to service with our company.

41. Over the last several years, I have become more and more disappointed with the lack of support from SPP leadership in protecting load from unnecessary costs. Load pays for almost everything and much more effort should be put into protecting end-use customers from the over-expansion of wind generation and the push to develop unnecessary transmission infrastructure to accommodate wind that isn't needed to serve the needs of those end-use customers.

42. Some requests do not get addressed

225 of 230



43. SPP Staff develops pre-conceived positions and will not alter those even when presented with new evidence.

44. too many meetings driving up the costs

45. lack of transmission along seams; regional exports for excess generation remains unsolved; generation not paying its share of transmission buildout

46. Need several more microphones at working group meetings.

47. Staff ability to meet stated deadlines especially on generator interconnections.

48. Provide less public or private data then some other ISOs

49. The focus to expand when there are A LOT of issues and areas that SPP is not adequately handling currently (i.e. members’ dissatisfaction, large volume of matters currently at FERC, Z2 and tariff enforcement).

50. SPP should focus more on end-use customer costs by eliminating non-critical expenses, keeping the Integrated Marketplace efficient and cost-effective, and keeping transmission costs low. Staff has too much say in populating committees & working groups. Board secret ballots make accountability difficult.

51. Creativity in other non-operations areas is a bit weak. While the Tariff rules, there are often vague areas of the tariff where certain parts of the organization make a decision that is then applied generically across the organization. These areas then become entrenched in that position in the name of comparability.

PLEASE SHARE ANY REMAINING THOUGHTS ABOUT YOUR SATISFACTION WITH SPP.

1. I like SPP

2. Excellent work - I appreciate how SPP is run!

3. Overall, I am satisfied with the performance of SPP to date.

4. Keep up that level of quality.

5. I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied I have had no personal interaction with any of your organizational personnel.

6. SPP has a tendency to over-promise early and then Band-Aid solutions in order to make go-live with promises to make improvements later. West RC information is not well organized on the website (still under "Newsroom" and scattered in various WG folders?).

226 of 230



7. Why, nothing will get done with this survey.

8. 2019 was a great year!

9. Overall, a tough job to do for SPP but still too much struggle getting the benefits improved for all members.

10. Gladding waiting to work with them

11. SPP staff is easy to work with, but it can be difficult to get to the right person

12. All employees of SPP are very friendly and helpful. I wish there was more TO/TC participation in various stakeholder meetings.

13. You are a good professional organization moving fast with many complex changes. Seek lessons learned at a more granular level and incorporate the feedback into the change mechanisms on the horizon. Thank you

14. As the organization grows larger and more diverse- and as the issues become faster-changing and more complex, SPP and its members will need to give new thought to the underlying processes of governance and decision-making.

15. I interact with a number of RTO's across the country and find that SPP is at the very top in terms of groups that I look forward to working with. While opportunities for improvement certainly exist, I think SPP as a stakeholder community has plenty to be proud of.

16. Great work with the SOC's

17. Always there to help and Training Department is great

18. Always responsive in a timely manner when assistance is requested.

19. We need the RC, Tariff, planning, and balancing functions SPP provides. Please continue to focus on providing these services in a prudent and consistent manner. Please be thoughtful about the way you spend Administrative Fee dollars. Please also make sure any proposals for transmission expansion are adequately studied and justified.

20. Overall, Staff is willing to assist with inquires.

21. Staff is very responsive and desires to be helpful.

22. Looking forward to a long standing and efficient partnership with SPP

23. SPP staff genuinely appears to be trying to live up to SPP's Mission. It is encouraging to see SPP trying to expand its services and footprint to the West.

24. SPP seems more focused on expansion than fixing the broken processes we have today

227 of 230



25. We continue to work with SPP to protect end-use customers from unnecessary costs. We hope that SPP and its members will continue to see the value in keeping not only energy rates low, but also transmission rates. We do not want to see a huge expansion of transmission, and the associated transmission rates, just to accommodate additional generation (mostly renewable) that isn't necessary. Our customers are enjoying some of the lowest rates in the country. We'd like to keep it that way.

26. I think SPP is getting too big and our costs are increasing too much

27. We dealt with a great registration team, our assigned client rep does not exactly meet the standard that was set by the onboarding team but they did set the bar very high.

28. As we have hires new operators to work on the desk in Market Operations, I make sure I tell them that they should not hesitate to call SPP if they are having an issue or even if they just need assistance with an outage or a part of the market system, because your employees are always willing to help.

29. Regarding this survey, I have high expectations of SPP (process and staff). Therefore, I have difficulty determining how to answer some questions. That is, because of my high expectations, SPP staff may not "exceed" expectations, but they are still doing a very good job.

30. It is clear that with the amount of wind and soon to be solar renewable generation, SPP must work to move this generation to the east and take advantage of geographic diversity with eastern neighbors as it concerns their renewable generation. Focus on activities in the Western Interconnect do not further these objectives.

31. SPP, at times, seems more interested in growth in the western interconnection than it is in improving its existing operational efficiency. I'm not simply talking about finances or the administrative fee.

228 of 230



APPENDIX 1: “OTHER” STAKEHOLDER TYPES Respondents who replied “Other” to the question, “What type of relationship does your organization have with SPP?” were asked to specify the nature of their relationship. The following are their unedited responses:

1. Director

2. Vendor Members- PCI

3. Consultant to Member

4. Director

5. Board of Directors

6. Board Director

7. Contract Member

8. Marketing

9. Retired from Member

229 of 230



APPENDIX 2: “OTHER” RESPONDENT ROLES Respondents who replied “Other” to the question, “What is your role within your organization?” were asked to specify their role. The following are their unedited responses:

1. I am a Member of the Board of Directors at SPP

2. Transmission operator / provider, reliability, generator operator, and distribution operator / provider

3. Product Manager

4. Consultant to members, covering policy, engineering and operations issues.

5. TOP

6. Business Analyst working with both IT and Power Marketing.

7. Lead Project Manager for Transition of WAPA to SPP

8. Generation Resource Planning

9. Independent Director of SPP

10. Independent Director on the Board of SPP

11. Board Director

12. This includes Policy /Regulatory

13. Marketer

14. Resource Planning

15. Retired

16. Operations, compliance, training

230 of 230

Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS ... · Mr. Tom Dunn discussed the...

Documents

Transcript of Southwest Power Pool, Inc. BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MEMBERS ... · Mr. Tom Dunn discussed the...