Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, July 16, 2015

8 AM – 3 PM

Marriott Country Club Plaza Kansas City, MO • A G E N D A •

1. Call to Order and Administrative Items ................................................................................................... Mike Wise

2. Review of Past Action Items .......................................................................................................... Michael Desselle

3. MOPC Update ................................................................................................................................ Noman Williams

4. New Member Update ........................................................................................................................... Carl Monroe

5. SPCTF New Member Final Report ........................................................................................................... Mike Wise

6. Capacity Margin Task Force Policy Discussion ......................................................................................... Mike Wise

7. Competitive Transmission Process Task Force (CTPTF) Policy Matter ...................................................... Bill Grant

8. Behind the Meter Distributed Generation Tariff Discussion Item ........................................................... Mike Wise

9. Summary of Action Items .............................................................................................................. Michael Desselle

10. Discussion of Future Meetings ...................................................................................................... Michael Desselle

October 15, 2015 SPP Corporate Center

Executive Session

1 of 33

2 of 33

Strategic Planning Committee Meeting No. 87 April 15, 2015

Southwest Power Pool STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Downtown Doubletree Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma

• M I N U T E S •

Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order and Administrative Items

Mike Wise (GSEC) called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM. Members present included: David Kays proxy for Jake Langthorn (OGE); Venita McCellon-Allen by phone (AEP); Jim Eckelberger (Director), Harry Skilton (Director); Phyllis Bernard (Director); Les Evans (KEPCO); Rob Janssen (Dogwood); Dennis Florom (LES); and Bill Grant (Xcel). SPP Staff included Michael Desselle, Carl Monroe, Jay Caspary, Nick Brown (by phone), Bruce Rew, Paul Suskie, Ben Bright, Mike Ross and Lanny Nickell. Other guests participated in person or via phone (Attendance – Attachment 1 and 2).

Agenda Item 2 – Review of Past Action Items

Michael Desselle provided a review of past action items.

Agenda Item 3 – New Member Update

Carl Monroe provided an update regarding new members. He noted that three cooperative members under Basin would like to place their facilities under the SPP tariff. Carl indicated that the Corporate Governance Committee would be discussing that on a call the next day. Carl also informed the Committee that two other entities are now expressing interest in also placing their facilities under the tariff in the January 2016 timeframe. John Bell, KCC, commented that the KCC disagrees that FERC has approved the Membership Agreement associated with the IS joining SPP. In response to a question regarding how much incremental load is associated with the three cooperatives interested now and the two just now expressing an interest, Carl noted that there would be no additional load as it is already reflected in Basin’s load. Carl also responded that there would be no “bright-line” date changes associated with these additions in response to a question from Xcel. Carl also informed the Committee that NWPP has suspended a decision regarding their interest in SPP performing as the EIM operator in order to perform more due diligence. Agenda Item 4 – ITP10 Futures Alan Meyers (ITC-Great Plains and Chairman of the Economic Studies Working Group) presented the 2017 ITP10 Futures (ITP Futures – Attachment 3). He recapped the status of Board direction to request a waiver from FERC of the requirement to perform the ITP20 and to also request from FERC a waiver on the timing requirements related to the performance of the next ITP10 to commence in January of 2015 with completion no later than January 2017. Alan described the resulting process used to derive four futures for consideration by the MOPC and SPC noting that the EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) was the key driver. The Futures include: Future 1 (a Regional CPP solution); Future 2 (a State level CPP solution); Future 3 (no CPP solution and a normal load growth assumption); and, Future 4 (a CPP “extreme” case). Alan articulated the ESWG’s recommendation to the MOPC was that Futures 1-3 are higher priority recommendations. He noted that MOPC approved moving forward as proposed and that ESWG was free to consider sensitivities from Future 4. Alan opened up the discussion and there were concerns expressed that it would be good to develop a portfolio of projects for unusual situations (examples cited included the Keystone pipeline and fracking impacts). The desire for more understanding, capability and strategic option considerations was expressed regarding the Futures. Noman noted that the Transmission Planning process improvement task force effort is the right place to “step back” and look at the overall process to ensure that duplication of effort is not going on, but that everything is being looked at in a cohesive manner. That way more flexibility will be designed into the process. There was general acceptance that the Task Force was the

3 of 33

Strategic Planning Committee Meeting No. 87 April 15, 2015 right forum to further address such improvements with a goal of the process to provide great agility, speed and broader solutions. Dennis Florom moved that the SPC endorse MOPC’s direction to the ESWG and Jim Eckelberger seconded the motion. The motion passed unopposed following further discussion indicating the expectation that the Transmission Planning Process Improvement effort would address the concerns expressed regarding the robustness of the current planning process and the development and establishment of Futures. Agenda Item 5 – Competitive Transmission Process Task Force - Independent Expert Policy Discussion Bill Grant (Chair of the CTPTF) described the policy issue that the Task Force was seeking guidance from the SPC (CTPTF Independent Expert Policy Recommendation – Attachment 4). He described the issue as being one of clarifying in the SPP tariff whether consulting firms could serve in the capacity as an expert on the Industry Expert Pool. Following debate about the current interpretation of the SPP Tariff on the matter, Paul Suskie described what is being sought is a policy determination on 2 matters: 1, Giving the SPP staff flexibility that if needed SPP staff could hire a consultant to assist; and, 2.giving the OC the option to allow a “firm” to be the Panelist. Bill Grant moved to affirm the CTPTF motion that would allow for the amendment of the SPP Tariff allowing for the use of consulting firms to serve as an expert panelist in the Order 1000 process under the guidance of the Oversight Committee. Mike Wise seconded the motion. Following further discussion the motion failed with only Xcel and AEP voting in favor.

Agenda Item 6 – EPA Clean Power Plan Update

Lanny Nickell provided an update on SPP’s staff’s continued compliance scenario analyses. He noted that the regional compliance scenario study had been posted on April 7th and that staff had already begun the next phase of its analysis studying the state-by-state compliance scenario. In response to a question about who might administer a regional plan, Lanny noted that SPP has remained silent on that matter, other than to state that a regional approach would better conform to regional markets as they exist. OG&E responded that it would require every state to pass legislation to approve a regional compliance approach. This prompted questions regarding a plan of action to address state enabling legislation. AEP noted that the industry is still in the proposal stage and that states, as well as state environmental regulators, don’t yet have a plan. Venita noted that such plans will be a state decision and not a RSC decision and that SPP does not need to be in a position of advocating an approach until we have a final rule. Mike Wise agreed. Final advice was that the Regional Compliance report is helpful and informative and there are still a lot of informative opportunities available before SPP begins advocacy. Lanny noted that he expects the state-by-state analysis in early June.

Agenda Item 7 – Future Thoughts for Inclusion in 75th Anniversary Book

Nick Brown provided an update on the planned commemoration of SPP’s 75th anniversary in 2016. He noted that one element of the commemoration is the preparation of a SPP 75th Anniversary Book. A section in that book will be a forward looking gaze into the “crystal ball”. Nick asked the SPC members to think ahead and put together some thoughts of what SPP will look like when it turns 100 years old. He asked that the ideas be sent to him or Michael Desselle.

Agenda Item 8 – Summary of Action Items

Action Items are: • Provide SPC with EPA CPP state-by-state compliance approach results when available.

Agenda Item 15 – Discussion of Future Meetings

Michael Desselle discussed future meetings. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Desselle Secretary

4 of 33

Strategic Planning Committee Meeting No. 87 April 15, 2015

5 of 33

SPP Task Force on New Members

Proposed SPP Stakeholder Communication Process

* * Final Report * *

Introduction

Given communication concerns raised during the Integrated Systems addition to the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in 2013/2014, the SPP Board charged the Strategic Planning Committee to develop improved and enhanced communications and processes for new member additions to SPP. At the July 17, 2014 SPP Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) meeting, the SPC Task Force on New Members (SPCTFNM) was formed and charged with developing recommended prospective communication and work group processes that would be followed during the various stages of engaging prospective transmission-owning and load serving members. The outcome of this Final Report and Communication Process only applies to prospective transmission-owning members who request membership contingent upon modifications beyond minor pro forma changes to typical new members to the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), Governing Documents, or Regional State Committee (RSC) Bylaws.

The SPCTFNM had several meetings over the course of fall of 2014 and reviewed the existing SPP Staff process document for adding prospective transmission-owning members and discussed improvements in the SPP Staff process as well as documenting a recommended Communication Process for future transmission-owning member additions. The SPCTFNM was guided by the overarching need to allow flexibility to deal with unique features of the prospective transmission-owning member throughout the process, while balancing appropriate transparency for member participation while allowing for confidential discussions/negotiations. Noteworthy is that the SPP staff remains solely responsible for the direct negotiations with the prospective member with input from the stakeholders on both policy and specific changes to the governing documents.

When evaluating the overall process of adding new transmission-owning members, the prospective member goes through the following five stages:

1. Initial Discussions 2. Due Diligence and Membership Agreement Discussions 3. SPP OATT and Governing Document Changes 4. FERC Approvals 5. Integration

Each of these stages will be discussed further in this Final Report and the recommended Communication Process improvements are noted for each of the stages. The focus of the SPCTFNM efforts was on Stages 1, 2 and 3 as those are the stages where most

6 of 33

communications and discussions are confidential and proprietary to the SPP region and where the communication concerns were concentrated.

Regarding the effective date for regional cost sharing associated with the integration of the new member, the SPCTFNM brought the issue to the RSC to determine how the issue should be addressed. The SPCTFNM recommends that while the issue is a significant concern when adding a new transmission-owning member to the SPP region, the issue is outside the scope of this task force which was tasked with improving the communication process.

This document is the final product of the SPCTFNM and recommends the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) approve the recommendations for process improvements. SPP Staff has also made a series of changes and clarifications in the Staff work process document, which is included in this report as ATTACHMENT A.

Key Definitions

Stakeholders – Stakeholders include existing transmission-owning members, transmission-using members, and RSC members and their staffs.

Prospective transmission-owning member – A potential SPP member who is seeking to bring its transmission system into the SPP region and with its membership, requires modifications to the SPP OATT (beyond minor pro forma changes for typical new members), Governing Documents, or RSC Bylaws.

Members Forum – A group of interested SPP members, including SPP members who are electrically adjacent to the prospective transmission-owning member, who will give guidance to SPP Staff. A prerequisite to joining the Members Forum is an executed SPP Members Agreement and confidentiality agreement.

State Commission Forum – A group of interested RSC Commissioners or Commission Staff who will give guidance to SPP Staff. A prerequisite to joining the State Commission Forum is an executed confidentiality agreement.

Governing Documents – Includes the SPP Bylaws and SPP Membership Agreement.

First Triggering Event – Typically when the potential new transmission-owning member formally requests SPP to begin negotiations to change the SPP OATT, Governing Documents, or RSC Bylaws to allow for their membership into SPP.

Second Triggering Event – This occurs when SPP Staff and the prospective transmission-owning member determine that the discussions and the potential new member information need to become public to all SPP Stakeholders.

Communication Process

7 of 33

Stage 1: Initial Discussions Periodically, prospective transmission-owning members approach SPP, typically in confidence, indicating they would like to discuss membership. SPP Staff will periodically report to the SPP SPC the general discussions and these discussions may remain “general” for months and years. SPP Staff does not take any formal action until the First Triggering Event occurs, which is typically when the prospective new transmission-owning member formally requests SPP to begin negotiations to change the SPP OATT, Governing Documents, or RSC Bylaws to allow for its membership into SPP. Once this First Triggering Event occurs, SPP Staff formally notifies the SPC. If the potential new member requests confidentiality of the negotiations, or if the new member is also negotiating with another Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), the negotiations are considered proprietary, and updates to the SPC are conducted in Executive Session with proper notification given, by ensuring the meeting agendas note an Executive Session is expected and the topic is New Members. In the Executive Session, the phones may be closed out; however, all SPP Members and RSC Commissioners or Commissioner Staff present at the meeting shall be permitted to remain in the Executive Session.1 Once this First Triggering Event occurs, SPP Staff also shall establish a Members Forum and State Commission Forum to give guidance and assist SPP Staff on due diligence. The Members Forum is typically open to SPP members who are located electrically adjacent to the potential new transmission-owning member(s) and while no existing Member requesting to join the Members Forum is turned down, the Members Forum size needs to be managed so that SPP Staff can be agile and efficient in their work. All SPP members, as well as RSC and commission staff, may attend the SPC Executive Session discussions on New Members. For these Executive Sessions, an executed confidentiality agreement will be required for all participants. Stage 2: Due Diligence and Membership Agreement Discussions During this stage, SPP Staff is solely responsible for the negotiations with the prospective new transmission-owning member. The SPP SPC, State Commission Forum and Members Forum can provide input to SPP Staff as well as receive regular updates on progress or issues of concern. These discussions, and updates from the due diligence work SPP Staff conducts, are typically highly confidential and proprietary. Also during this stage, SPP Staff provides regular updates to the SPC and as the updates require, in Executive Session. The Executive Session will be noticed on the agenda. As appropriate, SPP Staff will provide updates to the appropriate working groups and committees, including the SPP Board, Members Committee, RSC, and Markets and Operations Policy Committee (MOPC). During this stage, a Second Triggering Event occurs that makes the discussions and the potential new member public to all SPP Stakeholders. Once this Second Triggering Event

1 Subject to assurances from Commissioners and Commission staff regarding protection of confidential information that may be subject to Freedom of Information Act and state open meeting laws.

8 of 33

occurs, SPP Staff convenes a special all-member meeting to discuss all the proposed document changes and analyses conducted to date. Each prospective new transmission-owning member generally has unique characteristics associated with their transmission system. In all cases, SPP Staff conducts a cost/benefit analysis to determine the impact of the prospective transmission-owning member system addition to existing SPP members. The potential new transmission-owning member may conduct a cost/benefit study of their own that could include a production cost analysis. The SPC shall make a determination of whether to have a more extensive production cost/benefit analysis conducted, either by SPP Staff or by a third party under SPP direction. When posting the SPC agenda, SPP Staff will ensure the agenda states there is a new member discussion item and that it may be discussed in Executive Session. The decisions to conduct such a cost/benefit study will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Stage 3: SPP OATT and Governing Document Changes During this stage, SPP Staff is solely responsible for the direct negotiations with the prospective new member, and the SPP SPC, State Commission Forum and Members Forum provide input to SPP Staff as well as receive regular updates on progress or issues of concern. During this stage, SPP Staff provides regular updates to the SPC and as the updates require, in Executive Session. As appropriate, SPP Staff will provide updates to the appropriate working groups and committees, including the SPP Board and Members Committee, RSC, and MOPC. At this stage, SPP Staff convenes a special all-Member meeting to discuss the proposed OATT and Governing Document Changes and any analyses conducted to date. Throughout this stage, as appropriate, SPP Staff shall provide updates to the appropriate Working Groups and Committees, including the SPP Board and Members Committee, the RSC, the Cost Allocation Working Group, and MOPC. When SPP Staff convenes the special all-Member meeting SPP Staff shall include the RSC Commissioners and Commission staff. The RSC may request SPP Staff to hold a special meeting of the RSC to review the proposed changes; however, this would not preclude the RSC Commissioners or Commission Staff from attending the all-Member special meeting to review and discuss the potential document changes and new members. Finally, if the SPP OATT and Governing Documents are amended and presented for stakeholder approval, the following groups’ roles are defined.

MOPC: Prior to going to the Members Committee and Board for a vote, any changes to the SPP OATT will be presented to MOPC for all members to discuss and vote on changes.

9 of 33

SPC: Prior to going to the Members Committee and Board for a vote, all negotiating strategies, guidance, and deliberations for prospective new members will be reviewed by the SPC, either in an open meeting or Executive Session for review and approval. Corporate Governance Committee (CGC): Prior to going to the Members Committee and Board for a vote, any changes to the Governing Documents will be reviewed and approved by the CGC. RSC: SPP Staff will provide regular updates to the RSC on new transmission owning member deliberations and negotiations. Any matters for which the RSC has delegated authority will be presented to the RSC for discussion and approvals, in accordance with the RSC and SPP Governing Documents, prior to SPP Board action.

Legal Analysis Depending on the unique characteristics of the potential new member, or the request of the potential new member for OATT and Governing Document changes, a legal analysis may be required. The prospective new member shall be responsible for any legal analysis it needs. SPP will be responsible for any legal analysis SPP determines is needed. Any time the potential new member indicates that it has identified a legal matter for which it is seeking a legal analysis may be requested of SPP’s General Counsel. This request should be made in writing. Additionally, on a case-by-case basis, Stakeholders may request an SPP legal analysis on issues related to the prospective new member. This request should be made of the General Counsel in writing. Nothing in this recommendation precludes any SPP Member, the RSC, or State Commission from pursuing its own legal analysis on any legal matter associated with the prospective new member. The SPP General Counsel has a process for conducting general legal analyses in response to such requests. This process documents how that legal analyses would be pursued and disseminated during the non-public and public stages of the process of adding new members. Such legal analysis would be released subject to the resolution of attorney-client privilege issues and professional responsibility obligations.

10 of 33

ATTACHMENT A

11 of 33

Insert SPP Staff Process Document HERE

12 of 33

SPC Capacity Margin Task Force UpdateMike Wise

13 of 33

Load Responsible Entity Purpose• Current SPP Criteria specifies that a capacity margin

obligation shall be maintained by a Load Serving Member

• Load Serving Member does not cover all load in the SPP Planning Coordinator footprint

• The CMTF is proposing the concept of a Load Responsible Entity in an effort to ensure all load served by the Balancing Authority has sufficient capacity

• The responsible LRE will have a contractual agreement (Appendix 1 to Attachment AS*) with SPP ensuring compliance with the reserve margin requirements

2* Attachment AS is included in the LRE whitepaper14 of 33

Load Responsible Entity Definition• Any entity that is: (i) an Asset Owner with load asset(s)

registered in the Integrated Marketplace, where such load asset(s) is within the metered boundary of the SPP Balancing Authority Area; or (ii) a Transmission Customer or Network Customer with an obligation to serve retail utility load requirements, where such load is interconnected with the Transmission System but not included within the metered boundary of the SPP Balancing Authority Area; or (iii) an entity to which an Asset Owner, Transmission Customer, or Network Customer has delegated obligations under Attachment AS by mutual agreement.

315 of 33

Enforcement Policy Guidelines• Enforcement mechanism that would utilize payments to

provide compensation from LREs who are short on capacity to those in the SPP region who are long on capacity

– This mechanism may only be used to pay LREs and non LRE capacity resources in the SPP region

• LRE’s compliance would be established in advance of the monitored peak season(s) by SPP Staff based data provided by each LRE and Staff’s independent review of such data to ensure accuracy and compliance with SPP’s planning reserve margin calculation requirements

416 of 33

Enforcement Policy Guidelines• Prior to the start of the peak season(s), each LRE that is

short on capacity has the option to take any appropriate action under the terms of the SPP Criteria, including entering into a bilateral contract for capacity or demand response from any Generation Owner or demand response provider, including another LRE, that is long on capacity in SPP

• The arrangements for the bilateral contract will need to meet the terms of the SPP Criteria

– The CMTF is developing a Deliverability study that would replace the current SPP Criteria terms regarding transmission and would allow for a much quicker negotiation of bilateral agreements

517 of 33

Enforcement Policy Guidelines• If an LREs reserve margin is not compliant with the SPP

Criteria prior to the start of the peak season(s)

– LRE will make a planning reserve margin deficiency payment to those in SPP that provide the excess capacity on which the LRE effectively relies to meet its obligations.

618 of 33

Enforcement Policy Payment Guidelines• The amount of the planning reserve margin deficiency

payment will be based on the Cost of New Entry (CONE) for new generation in SPP

– The CONE figures for each year will be developed and published by SPP as part of the compliance enforcement process and will be based on publicly available information

Referencing the most recent EIA report on Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generation Plants based on an appropriate natural gas peaking technology

719 of 33

Enforcement Policy Payment Guidelines• CONE cost will be based on a sliding scale of the estimated

annual capital and fixed operating costs of a new natural gas-fired peaking facility– When the planning reserve margin is equal to the minimum

SPP reserve margin plus 8% (currently 21.6%) or greater, then the CONE would be 125%

– When the planning reserve margin is equal to the minimum SPP reserve margin plus 3% (currently 16.6%) or greater, but less than the regional minimum reserve margin plus 8% (currently 21.6%), then the CONE would 150%

– When the planning reserve margin is less than the minimum SPP reserve margin plus 3% (currently 16.6%), then the CONE would be 200%

820 of 33

Enforcement Policy Payment Guidelines• The assumptions made in the CONE calculation are

consistent with the EIS Market Offer Cap calculation that was FERC approved and are similar to MISO’s methodology

9

Combustion Turbine Plant, 2015 Results

Plant Size, MW 210

Capital Recovery, $/kw-yr 78.32

Fixed O&M Costs, $/kw-yr 7.29

Total Fixed Expenses, $/kw-yr 85.61

Total Fixed Expenses, $/MW-yr 85,605.58

Total Fixed Expenses, $/MW-yr (125%) 107,006.98

Total Fixed Expenses, $/MW-yr (150%) 128,408.37

Total Fixed Expenses, $/MW-yr (200%) 171,211.16

21 of 33

Enforcement Policy Payment Guidelines• The enforcement payment will be made to SPP and SPP will

distribute to all the LREs who have surplus reserves above the SPP planning reserve requirement

• The allocation of the payment to each of these LREs shall be based on the following:

– The LRE’s contribution on a MW share to the total SPP Region’s MW above the planning reserve requirement

– All LREs who are above the SPP Planning Reserve requirement will receive 100% of the enforcement payment

1022 of 33

Enforcement Policy Timeline• Once determining peak season reserve margin compliance

(approximately 15 calendar days prior to the start of the applicable peak season for an LRE), a LRE’s intermittent failure to maintain the availability of its resources, including demand response and purchased capacity, such that it maintains its planning reserve margin at all times will not indicate that it is non-compliant with the reserve margin enforcement process

• The planning reserve margin is intended to provide for reliable operations of the SPP system and the ability to satisfy LREs load under reasonably anticipated circumstances, and it should be expected that at certain times, any LRE may need to use the resources comprising its planning reserve margin for that purpose, resulting in available resources less than 113.6% of the LRE’s peak load

1123 of 33

Enforcement Policy Timeline• The reserve margin planning process is intended to ensure

that each LRE enters the peak season with its planning reserve margin intact and ready to meet peak load conditions

• During the peak season, it is expected that each LRE will at all times maintain the availability of its owned or contracted resources to meet its daily load and operating reserves obligations, per the SPP criteria at a minimum

– Compliance with that requirement will be monitored and assessed by the ORWG separately from this planning reserve margin compliance process

1224 of 33

Enforcement Policy Timeline• Post season analysis would be completed to compare

actual vs. planning forecast

• Enforcement would not be based on the post season analysis, although SPP may refer cases of potential violations of the reserve margin enforcement rules to the Markets and Operations Policy Committee for further investigation

• Post season analysis would be used to evaluate LRE planning forecasts consistency and develop further improvements for the reserve margin enforcement process.

1325 of 33

Current Efforts• SPP staff is performing LOLE studies to determine if the reserve

margin for the region can be lowered

• SPP staff is developing a Deliverability study process that will allow for non-firm transmission service for planning reserve’s

– Firm transmission service must exist for the delivery of capacity to meet each LREs peak load obligation

– Deliverability of capacity resources deemed to be Reserve Margin Capacity Available to Marketplace (RMCAM) will be assured through either the acquisition of appropriate firm transmission service or the performance of a deliverability study as described below

– The deliverability study will analyze all reported generation registered in the Integrated Marketplace in order to determine if the associated capacity is deliverable from generation to all loads within the SPP Balancing Authority

1426 of 33

Study Estimates in ITP Studies for Non-Competitive Projects

MOPC/SPCJuly 2015

127 of 33

CTPTF Meeting 6/23/2015

2

• Proposed an alternative to Solution 2 (2A)– Suggested moving Competitive Project Identification task up in

process flow to precede Portfolio Selection

– Incumbent TOs would provide Study Estimates for all projects determined not eligible for TOSP

– Study Estimates for Competitive Projects developed by SPP and 3rd

party vendor

• Requested of Staff– Updated process flows with timelines

– Further impact assessment

28 of 33

Project Screening

Conceptual Estimates

(-50/+100%)

Solution Submission

Independent Study

Estimates (+/-30%)

Portfolio Selection

BOD Review

NTC/NTC-C/RFP Issuance

NPEs/CPEs/RREs

(+/-20%)

SPP Task

TO Task SPP and/or TO Task

New or Modified Task

WGs Review/Summit

ITO Study Estimates (+/-30%)

Competitive Project

Identification

Upgrade Determination*

(Eligible for TOSP?)

Solution 2A Process Flow

3

YES

NO

*Upgrade Determination defined in RR 56 that is currently under review by pertinent working groups and is expected to be presented to MOPC in October 2015

29 of 33

Conceptual Estimate Development

TWG Review

JAN FEB MAR APR MAYSEP OCT NOV DEC

Solution Development

2015 2016

JAN FEB MAR APR MAYSEP OCT NOV DEC

Project Screening

Draft Portfolio

Study Estimate Development

Stakeholder Review

MOPC Review

BOD Review

NTC(-C)s Issued

NPE/CPE Development

SPP Task

TO Task Stakeholder Group Task SPP and/or TO Task

Project Staging Finalize Report

Rate Impact Assessment

Finalize Portfolio

Current 2016 ITPNT Timeline

4

** All Project Schedules Subject to Change **

30 of 33

Conceptual Estimate Development

TWG Review

JAN FEB MAR APR MAYSEP OCT NOV DEC

Solution Development

2015 2016

JAN FEB MAR APR MAYSEP OCT NOV DEC

Project Screening

Draft Portfolio

Study Estimate Development

Stakeholder Review

MOPC Review

BOD Review

NTC(-C)s Issued

NPE/CPE Development

SPP Task

TO Task Stakeholder Group Task SPP and/or TO Task

Project StagingRate Impact Assessment

Finalize Portfolio

Upgrade Determination

Finalize Report

Additional 3.5 Weeks

2016 ITPNT Timeline with Solution 2A

5

** All Project Schedules Subject to Change **

31 of 33

Solution 2A Impacts

6

• Since Need Dates will not have been finalized prior to portfolio selection, the Short-Term Reliability (STR) criteria would be excluded from the Upgrade Determination

– STR projects to be constructed by incumbent TOs would be selected based on Study Estimates developed by SPP through 3rd party

• Governing documents to be reviewed for implementation– Attachment Y, Section I

– Business Practices

– 2016 ITPNT Scope

– 2017 ITP10 Scope

32 of 33

July 1, 2015

7

• PCWG unanimously approved Solution 2A process flow, with suggested modifications

– Add footnote to further explain phrase Upgrade Determination that references pending Business Practice (RR 56)

– Change Upgrade Determination task to a decision point

• CTPTF unanimously approved 2A process flow (as amended by PCWG) from a policy standpoint

– Deliver recommendation to MOPC and SPC during July meetings

33 of 33