1. Brenda Ambrosi Interchange Scheduling and Accounting Subcommittee Chair e-Tag Denial Issue Referred to Joint Guidance Committee

2. 2 E-Tag Issue referred to EIWG in Spring of 2011 –e-Tag denied by Sink Balancing Authority because source of firm energy schedule from Source Balancing Authority had wind resource curtailment history. EIWG and ISAS were evenly divided over concerns of overreaching transaction assessment and reliability consequences. Background

3. 3 Issue taken to Joint Guidance Committee (JGC) in June 2011 for discussion. Further discussion held between the Chairs and Vice Chairs of MIC, MIS, OC, and ISAS in July 2011. ISAS Chair presented draft collaborative language from Chairs and Vice Chairs to ISAS membership at August 2011 meeting and asked for additional feedback from membership. –No additional feedback was received. Background

4. 4 Issue discussed, again, at JGC meeting in September 2011. JGC Chair sent formal response to ISAS Chair –It is the opinion of the chairs and vice-chairs of the WECC OC, MIC, ISAS, and the MIS, that reliability entities (Balancing Authorities and Transmission Service Providers) should assess e- Tag requests according to NERC INT-006-3 and consistent with other standards and criterion as applicable. Official Communication

5. 5 R1.1. Each involved Balancing Authority shall evaluate the Arranged Interchange with respect to: o R1.1.1. Energy profile (ability to support the magnitude of the Interchange) o R1.1.2. Ramp (ability of generation maneuverability to accommodate). o R1.1.3. Scheduling path (proper connectivity of Adjacent Balancing Authorities). R1.2. Each involved Transmission Service Provider shall confirm that the transmission service arrangements associated with the Arranged Interchange have adjacent Transmission Service Provider connectivity, are valid and prevailing transmission system limits will not be violated. INT-006-3 States

6. Questions?