WECC Member Advisory Committee WECC Standards Committee Request for Guidance Governor Droop October 16, 2013

2 o WSC Charter  Determining whether a Standard Authorization Request (SAR): 1)is within WECC’s authority to develop (scope); 2)is appropriate for development by WECC; and 3)provide a drafting team with a description of the document to be drafted and an explanation as to why the document is needed. WSC - Request for Guidance SAR Disposition

3 o WECC-0098 SAR Filed  In response to RCWG/RPIC recommendation  Review the existing Governor Droop “RBP”  Recommend whether it should become a “Standard”  Specifically – address “Droop”  DT convened  Drafted “Version 1” WECC-0098 Governor Droop Background

4 o WECC-0098 Version 1  Looked at BAL-003 and ERCOT’s “Droop” Standard  Opted for a different remedy  Use Frequency Response Obligation as opposed to a specified mechanical setting  WSC ruled the Version 1 approach “Out of Scope” WECC-0098 Governor Droop Version 1 – Out of Scope

5 Is the WECC-0098 Governor Droop SAR overly discriminatory? If yes, should it be retired in favor of a less discriminatory approach?WECC-0098 Governor Droop o Doesn’t address units without governors o Doesn’t address “non-traditional” generators o Doesn’t include “other resources” that may be able to respond in support of frequency WECC-0098 Governor Droop Version 1 Valued Approach

6 If the SAR is not retired, should the SAR be developed at NERC or at WECC? o Is the “Droop” remedy better addressed at NERC or WECC? o NERC is engaged in collection of “frequency-related” data in the East / Invites WECC o NERC’s target  Create a Guideline  See if it works  Consider drafting a Standard WECC-0098 Governor Droop Version 1 Valued Approach

7 If developed at WECC, should the WECC-0098 SAR move forward as drafted or should it be retired in favor of pursuing the Frequency Response Obligation (FRO) approach suggested in Version 1?Version 1 o FRO or a “Droop”? WECC-0098 Governor Droop Version 1 Valued Approach

Questions?