Standards Development

MARC ConferenceJune 21, 2006

Tim GallagherPresident, ReliabilityFirst Corporation

2

3

In The Beginning

There were 3 Regions (MAIN, ECAR, MAAC)

There were 3 sets of rules & guides

There were 3 cultures

NOWWe work together to put

ReliabilityFirst

4

Governance

Organization designed with energy legislation in mind

Supports strong, centralized, top-down ERO Hybrid Board with balanced sector

representation Organization open to all who benefit from

bulk electric system All meetings public

5

Hybrid Board

Sector representatives elected by sector Composition

3 Independent Directors 3 Transmission Company Directors (one from

RTOs) 2 Supplier Directors 3 LSE Directors (Small, Medium, Large) 3 At large Directors

6

Standards

Inclusive, fair, balanced process Mirrors the current NERC process but is streamlined

somewhat Using the process to combine three legacy sets of regional

standards into one Definite need for regional standards Must examine and combine three sets of legacy

standards into one GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY

7

Need for Day One Operation

Teams began work months before 1/1/06

6 ReliabilityFirst standards approved 12/12/05

Follow NERC format for reliability standard

Used volunteer drafting teams from 4 Regions

Comments by open process

Expedited timeline

Approved by ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors

8

Need for Day One Operation

Standard Development Process Manual approved 12/12/05 (Based on NERC Standards Process Manual)

Updated 1/19/06 to revise RFC committee references (already dog-eared after 3 months)

Process already used to complete approval of Resource Planning Reserve Requirements Standard

Established & set 5 SDTs in action

Processing 3 more SARs

Used for Interpretation

9

How Are RFC & NERC Similar

Start process with a SAR Use RFC Standards Committee & Standards

Process Manager (comparable to NERC SAC)

Select drafting teams - self nominations (encourage other Regions participation)

Public posting for comments & consensus

Post responses

Ballot by RFC membership

Submit to RFC Board

10

How Do RFC & NERC Differ

Need specific support statement by RFC Reliability and Interim Compliance Committee Possible revision – Committees’ comments submitted

along with others during public posting – similar to NERC

Membership ballot One vote per “regular RFC Member” – not weighted

Negative vote with comment does not cause 2nd ballot

Advisory vote for RFC Board approval

11

How Do RFC & NERC Differ

If 2/3 affirmative membership votes, RFC Board will:

Approve Standard action (as opposed to adopt) Remand to Standards Committee with comments and

instructions, or Disapprove proposed Standard action without recourse.

12

How Do RFC & NERC Differ

If less than 2/3 membership vote, Standards Committee will:

Recommend termination of all work, inform Board

Revise the SAR, remand to SDT for further development

Direct SDT reconsider/modify certain aspects & post for 2nd membership vote

13

How Do RFC & NERC Differ

If less than 2/3 affirmative vote on 2nd ballot, Standards Committee will: Forward to Board with recommendation

Board will then: Approve with or without modifications

Remand to Standards Committee with instructions

Disapprove without recourse

14

What About Interpretations?

Any Standard, regardless of effort put in, may not be perfectly clear

Directly & materially effected person may request interpretation

Drafting team assembled (Makeup based on subject area and expertise)

Interpretation to Reliability & Compliance Committees for review

Forward to Board for concurrence

15

Other Items Related to Process

Continually collect Process Manual improvements based on high level of activity

Joint drafting team participation with other Regions, specifically MRO

RFC Standards staff active with NERC Standards process for input/feedback

Keep all RFC members informed on NERC Standards issues, key RFC Standards due dates (balloting, commenting, etc.)

RFC compliance staff on every drafting team

16

What Do We See In Near Term

Based on current SARs, expect 7 SDTs working by 3rd quarter 2006

Cross referencing (currently underway) of 3 “legacy” documents with current NERC standards and NERC “fill-in the blanks” effort will definitely create need for more drafting teams (prioritization clearly needed)

Based on lessons learned, expect more detailed Process Manual approved mid year 2006

17

Approved Standards

Resource Adequacy Automatic Reserve Sharing Emergency Operations Regional Transmission Loading Relief System Restoration Operating Reserves

18

Standards Under Development

Fill in the blank standards 23 Standards that require regions to_____

CBM Operating Reserves UFLS Sub-regional adequacy Blackstart capability plans Generator testing Disturbance monitoring Special protection systems

19

Want to Learn More?

Subscribe to our newsletter

We can add you to our Standards distribution list

General Seminar July 28 – Columbus, Ohio

www.rfirst.org 330-456-2488