1. MIC Scheduling Group JJ Jamieson MIC Scheduling Group Chair October 13, 2011

2. What the group is doing  Trying to look at both the advantages and challenges of changing scheduling intervals  Focus on where we are at with scheduling and VERs and where we need to be  Try to refrain from taking a position on any particular scheduling model

3. Areas Explored Market to market impacts ○ trading (energy and gas) products, and “pathing” Market to reliability impacts ○ schedule submittal and adjustments/curtailments Reliability to reliability impacts ○ checkouts and curtailment Staffing Automation / Infrastructure requirements

4. The Big Questions  What does changing scheduling intervals mean to us? What is the cost to go to different Preschedule intervals? What would make the cost worth the benefit? What would move us to a different scheduling interval for Preschedule? What has us talking about what preschedule interval is most effective?

5. What If ? Should current scheduling practices be allowed to stay in place? Could shops still 5 day schedule? Could shops schedule at any time up to the scheduling deadline? What trading packages would we need? How would our staffing models change?

6. Scheduling  Would different scheduling intervals provide operational efficiencies? Do the challenges of a different preschedule interval out weigh the benefits? Why are we using the current preschedule intervals?

7. Automation ○ Automation: ○ is highly developed in some shops with others having little to no automation Variety of responses based on which platforms they were using coupled with their level of activity in the market

8. Infrastructure o Adjustments / upgrades to infrastructure : o Would be necessary for most o Most respondents could not provide a cost estimate because they have not established what would be required to move to next day scheduling o Some entities felt that they were fairly well prepared while others indicated they would have to do significant infrastructure changes

9. Transmission Issues  What, if any, transmission issues would next day scheduling create? Some concern that transmission release and scheduling intervals would not align It was noted that closer alignment between forecasts and schedules may result in lower levels of capacity and associated transmission being required

10. Seams Issues  Seams issues associated with next day scheduling (e.g. ISO, RTO, natural gas markets) No specific seams issues were identified between markets 7 day scheduling would not fully align with gas markets but it provides some improvement

11. Forecasting o Improved forecasting and associated scheduling is a goal It was accepted by most respondents that scheduling closer to flow increases the accuracy of forecasts A number of entities have completed analysis and found significant increases in forecasting accuracy

12. Capacity ○ Increased level of access to capacity to assist with VERs integration ○ Would entities be more willing to offer capacity with different preschedule intervals? Not clear how much if any additional capacity would be available Challenges in accessing capacity

13. Staffing ○ Staffing issues would need to be addressed Majority of respondents indicated that they would have to increase their staffing levels Responses varied from little to no increase necessary to a tripling of staff Concerns about how changes would affect staffing

14. Rules  Would tariff/business practice modifications be required? ○ Predominately focused on transmission release times / scheduling cutoffs ○ Preschedule Calendar guideline ○ Potential changes to tariff Ancillary Services requirements  Should restrictions be put on advance trading and scheduling for the Preschedule day? General belief that restrictions were not necessary or would be created via market mechanisms

15. What Next ?  What challenges / benefits have we missed?  Is there enough momentum to change the way we schedule ?  Are there opportunities outside of scheduling that will help us with VERs ?  Take input from this meeting and complete the paper

16. Summary  We have found that there is no consensus on whether or not WECC should move to 7 day scheduling  We need to determine whether or not it is worth moving to a formal proposal to make the move  Co-ordinated effort would be required to reduce the impact on smaller shops

17. JJ Jamieson MIC Scheduling Group Chair Portland General Electric 503 464 7399 john.jamieson@pgn.com Discussion