WISP RFI for Applications response summary 11 respondents ABB Areva Black & Veatch Cooper Power Systems Electric Power Group (EPG) Harris Corporation InStep OSISoft & SISCO SAIC Siemens Space-Time Insight

What and Where Documents: Contacts: Individual responses Application RFI response data Application RFI response summary Contacts: WISP Project Manager for Applications Scott Woodbury, swoodbury@bridgeenergygroup.com WISP Technical Architect Dan Brancaccio, dbrancaccio@bridgeenergygroup.com WECC Lead Applications Architect Kirk Stewart, kstewart@wecc.biz Detailed responses in WISP SharePoint: http://www.wecc.biz/awareness/WISP/Program%20Folders/Program%20Management/Vendor%20Selection/Applications/RFI/

Functional Scope of the Applications RFI Real-time data display for wide area visualization Display options of all PMU and calculated values Frequency and frequency rate of change X/Y 2-dimensional RMS voltage Polar chart of phase angle RMS current (line) X/Y/Z 3-dimensional Phase angle State values of alarms Positive sequence voltage Grid text in rows and columns Positive sequence current Alarm management Calculation and real-time display for wide area visualization Set warning and alarm thresholds or limits Path flow Playback and archive of alarm Reactive capacity/reserves Set alarm prioritization / levels Voltage stability Capture of events based on alarms Oscillation energy Visualization of alarm status in real-time Mode meter Power system performance and post event analysis Percent damping Post event analysis Monitor real-time PMU and calculated data for alarms Power system performance baseline Frequency Power system performance analysis System wide model validation RMS current Generation model validation High voltage DC intertie Load model validation System model verification Export of data in common formats

Overall Response Statistics Respondent Yes Percent of total ABB 90.0 86% Areva 101.5 97% Cooper Power Systems 73.5 70% EPG 102.5 98% InStep 87.0 83% OSIsoft 101.0 96% SAIC Siemens 82.0 78% Space-Time Insight 102.0

Review Objectives Understand the functionality of the synchrophasor applications available on the market Determine the maturity of the synchrophasor application space Understand the level of engineering and testing necessary to meet WISP business requirements Collect info on the functional boundaries of the synchrophasor applications and determine the optimal suite/mix of applications Collect info to establish the optimal architecture for the integration (data, messaging, etc.) of the synchrophasor applications Collect information needed to plan and execute the next steps of the vendor qualification and selection process Identify vendor’s application architecture to support continued planning of WECC IT infrastructure Review vendor approaches to meeting application availability, security, and interoperability requirements

Review Findings The application space for synchrophasor applications is maturing quickly and solutions exist that address the majority of the WISP requirements Strong feasibility of finding a synchrophasor based situational awareness / visualization application that meets the requirements of the WISP program Five (5) of nine (9) responses answered Y to over 95% of the questions Most applications are not fully SOA compliant Refinement of the technical architecture will impact the suite of applications to be selected in the RFP process Refinement of the data architecture will impact the integration requirements Need vendor meetings for further discovery Finalize the technical architecture and integration approach Determine the optimal suite of applications Complete the Statement of Work (SOW) for the Request for Proposal (RFP)

Notes on Questions Question B61: Does the application have functionality to run RMA to locate historical occurrences of patterns? Only two (2) respondents answered yes to this question (OSISoft and InStep) The importance of this functionality should be evaluated for the RFP Question [C4]: Does the application have an API designed to meet the NASPI to Phasor Gateway specification? Four (4) of the respondents had partial responses to this question, but all of them said further information on the design is required by NASPI before it can be included in their commercial offering Siemens appears to be more focused on the NASPI phasor gateway.

Notes on Questions Question [C11]: Is the application designed to handle redundant data streams of IEEE C37.118-2005 streaming data? Of the nine (9) respondents five (5) responded yes to this question Question [C12]: Is the application designed to have availability of 99.999%? The requirements around question C11 and C12 regarding system redundancy and availability should be investigated further for the RFP This response is also dependent on the hardware and operating system used to support the application

Next Steps Schedule vendor demonstrations / meetings Conduct PDC and Apps vendor review meetings together Demo of product capabilities, architecture and integration Interested members of TAC sub-groups may participate Vendors to be invited to these meetings AREVA, EPG, Siemens SEL and Space-Time-Insight Develop the Scope of Work for the RFP Draft the Scope of Work Incorporate input from the Bus. Req. Spec. Review the Scope of Work with the TAC Applications Sub-Group Submit Scope of Work for TAC review Add SOW to the RFP and send to Vendors