1. Mgr. Interconnection Reliability Initiatives
ECC Update
Peak RC Users Group
May 3, 2018
Jeremy West
Mgr. Interconnection Reliability Initiatives

2. Peak’s Initiatives Improved Reliability
ECC implementation along with SOL changes collectively provided improvements and value
Peak led SOL Methodology changes
Change in SOL definition
Retirement of TOP-007-WECC-1
Provided Path Operators more flexibility in calling for Qualified Path relief
Pre-contingency
Post-contingency
When relief needed, ECC’s real-time data provides accurate relief obligations
Main point – we can’t claim that ECC by itself has created all of the value. The ECC is a tool that provides solutions when an SOL exceedance occurs, and the rules (ie standards) associated with SOLs have evolved (with Peak’s leadership)

3. USF Step 3 and 4 Events April compares SOL methodology
July compares tool change
Marie recommended explaining the big spike in June 2017 (weather driven, system conditions, etc)
As we discussed, we’ve analyzed the spike in the number of USF events in June 2017.
There were 66 Step 3 events and 128 Step 4 events in that month for a total of 194 events, compared to around 50 total events for nearby months in 2017.
There were 7 Step 3 events and 68 Step 4 events between June 15th and 18th.
For outages, there were ongoing Path 66 outages on the Malin-Round Mountain #2 500 kV and the Round Mountain-Table Mountain #2 500 kV lines which started in April and had an ETR of 6/22/17, and the Grizzly-Malin #2 500 kV line was OOS from 6/5 to 6/18.
There were also multiple days with very high temperatures and loading as well as significant phase shifter movements in mid-June according to the RC notes.

4. Unscheduled Flow (USF) Step 4 Events
Number of USF Days per Path
Path 30
Path 31
Path 36
Path 66
ECC 14 5 10 13
webSAS 22 8 40 27
Average Step 4 Duration (Hrs) per Path
Path 30
Path 31
Path 36
Path 66
ECC
3.0
2.0
3.7
2.2
webSAS
2.5
4.9
4.3
Illustrative period between July to April (2016/17 webSAS, 2017/18 ECC)
*Does not include statistics for competing path events

5. WIUFMP in webSAS vs ECC
Focus on Path 30 and Path 66

6. WIUFMP in webSAS vs ECC
Primary benefits from ECC driving WIUFMP events:
Factors more accurate for current system conditions
Reflect actual relief obtained from Step 4 curtailments rather than proxy value from planning case

7. ECC Value Proposition Moving Forward
To date ECC has provided:
Situational awareness on exceedances
More accurate support for WIUFMP
As paradigm changes in West, ECC will provide value to mitigate exceedances in a coordinated fashion
Markets
Multiple RCs
Currently discussing how to shape the final state of the tool to serve as that primary mechanism for SOL exceedance management between markets and RCs

8. What does it mean for ECC to be Shared?
RC Transitional Plan discusses ECC future
Shared tool – cost and support divided
Envisions cost allocation to both RCs and BAs
Discussions with potential RCs occurring
ECC Final State will serve as seams management between RCs
Example: IDC in East
Discussion amongst potential RCs has indicated support for ECC to serve this role

9. ECC Final State Phase
Peak has been actively working with ECC Task Force on final state since fall 2017
Posted final state white papers Nov. 23 with 30 day comment period
Posted white paper revision and response to comments Feb. 22

10. ECC Final State Phase Serves as guiding “roadmap” for design
Business rules straddle policy and design
Does NOT serve as detailed design requirements
Peak will work with OATI and ECCTF to translate and cover technical design needs

11. ECC Final State Phase
ECC Element experiences SOL exceedance PTDF = pre-contingent
OTDF = post-contingent
ECC assigns relief obligation to entities with Impact Layer flow above Impact Threshold
BAs / TOPs have choice on how to provide assigned Relief Obligation
ECC tracks that relief is provided
ECC reassesses whether relief will be needed going forward

12. ECC Final State Phase
Identify Impact Layer Components >= Impact Threshold
10% Factor as default
E-Tags, Dynamic Transfers, ACE, GTL
Use 15-bucket methodology to order components
ACE = Zero Off-Element
7 Firm collapsed for all e-Tags and GTL
Assign Relief Obligation to BAs
Go as deep in buckets to obtain relief

13. ECC Final State Phase
BAs and TOPs would have choice on how to provide relief
Relief Obligation assigned based on 2-NH e-Tag
BA prefers to preserve e-Tag flow and move native generator
To keep relief response timely, ECC will need a deadline for choice

14. ECC Final State Phase ECC would track response by entities
Improvement over just verifying curtailments
Verifies that ECC Element flow is decreasing
RCs and/or initiating TOPs could increase, decrease, or terminate Element relief request

15. ECC Final State Phase Key Project Activities
Post Final White Paper version week of May 7
Work with ECCTF and OATI on outstanding technical needs
Complete Requirements document beginning of Q4 so OATI begins design effort

16. Upcoming ECCTF Meetings
June 11th – 12th ColumbiaGrid Office Portland, OR
July 30th – 31st Xcel Office Denver, CO

17. Thank you! https://www.integrity.oati.com ECC@peakrc.com Jeremy West
(970)