Western Area Power Administration

1
Western Area Power Administration

• Rocky Mountain Region
• Customer Meeting - October 30, 2002
• Standard Market Design and Regional Transmission
  Organizations Updates
• Jane Meyer, Ron Moulton, Mark Fidrych, Bob
  Easton,
• Jeff Ackerman, Ed Hulls, Bob Kennedy

2
Agenda

• Overview of Standard Market Design
• Overview of WestConnect Ruling
• Overview of RTO West Ruling
• How will the scheduling process change?
• Will transmission rights change?
• What could happen to existing contracts?

3
Agenda (Cont.)

• Will the cost of transmission change?
• How could the planning process change?
• How is Westerns merchant preparing for possible
  changes?
• How is Westerns control area preparing for
  possible changes?
• Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) Overview

4
Standard Market Design Overview

• Jane Meyer
• Restructuring Project Manager
• RMR CRSP

5
FERC believes Standard Market Design is Needed

• FERCs goal is to promote economic efficiency in
  electricity for the benefit of all Americans
• Order 888 in 1996
• Required all public utilities to
• file open access non-discriminatory transmission
  tariffs
• Functionally unbundle wholesale power services
  from transmission services
• Imposed a reciprocity condition for non-public
  utilities

6
FERC believes Standard Market Design is Needed

• Order 2000
• Encouraged all transmission owners to voluntarily
  place their transmission facilities in the hands
  of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO)
• Industry has been working toward that goal
• Independent System Operators (ISO) formed in
  California, New York, New England, PJM, and ERCOT
• RTOs formed in Midwest (MISO), Southeast
  (SETrans), Southwest (WestConnect), and Northwest
  (RTO West)

7
FERC believes Standard Market Design is Needed

• FERC issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)
  - July 31, 2002
• Long name Remedying Undue Discrimination
  through Open Access Transmission Service and
  Standard Electricity Market Design
• FERC Docket No. RM01-12-000
• http//www.ferc.gov/Electric/RTO/Mrkt-Strct-commen
  ts/smd.htm

8
FERC believes Standard Market Design is Needed

• FERCs Vision
• Same set of rules for all users of the grid
  administered by a fair and independent entity
• Eliminate Residual Discrimination
• Lower Costs to Customers
• Customer protection through market power
  mitigation measures and oversight
• Clear transmission pricing and planning policies
  to incent investment in infrastructure
• Provide a framework for effective State Federal
  regulation

9
Standard Market Design - Major Elements

• Independent Transmission Provider (ITP)
• New transmission tariff
• Transmission pricing reform
• Organized Day-Ahead (DA) and Real-Time (RT) spot
  markets
• Mitigation of market power and market monitoring
• Resource adequacy
• Regional planning process

10
Independent Transmission Provider

• Jurisdictional utilities mandated to turn over
  control of their transmission facilities to an
  independent entity - Independent Transmission
  Provider
• Regional Transmission Organization (RTO)
• Independent System Operator (ISO)
• Independent Transmission Company (ITC)

11
Independent Transmission Provider

• Jurisdictional utilities had three options
• Become an Independent Transmission Provider
• Cannot have financial interest, either through an
  affiliate or any market participant
• Contract with Independent Transmission Provider
  for operational control of transmission
  facilities
• Join a Regional Transmission Organization

12
Options for Non-jurisdictional Utilities

• SMD NOPR proposes that existing reciprocity
  tariffs filed under 888 OATT will be
  grandfathered
• FERC requested comment on this provision

13
Independent Transmission Provider

• Operates transmission facilities
• Administers Standard Market Design transmission
  tariff
• Transmission pricing
• Congestion management
• Administers organized spot market
• Long-term planning and expansions
• System impact and facilities studies

14
Independent Transmission Provider

• Transmission transfer capability calculations
• Market monitoring and market power mitigation,
  including establishing bid caps and must-offer
  requirements
• Establish long-term resource adequacy requirements

15
New SMD Transmission Tariff

• Today - Two types of transmission service
• Network Integration Service
• Point-to-Point Service
• SMD - Network Access Service
• Characteristics of Network Integration Service -
  access to all generators on the grid
• Characteristics of Point-to-Point Service -
  rights are tradable
• Bundled retail load of jurisdictional utilities
  must take transmission service under Tariff

16
Transmission Pricing

• Today - Network and Point-to-Point transmission
  customers pays transmission charge for embedded
  costs
• SMD
• Load pays embedded costs through access charge
• Load pays only one access charge for Network
  Access Service
• Pancaking (payment of more than one transmission
  rate for delivery from source to sink) is
  eliminated

17
Organized Spot Markets

• Independent Transmission Provider must operate
  day-ahead and real-time markets for energy and
  ancillary services, in conjunction with the
  transmission market
• Voluntary, bid-based, security-constrained
  day-ahead spot energy market

18
Organized Spot Market

• NOPR includes the use of Locational Marginal
  Pricing (LMP) of energy and congestion in both
  day-ahead and real-time markets
• NOPR includes the use of financial transmission
  rights to assure that transmission is used by
  those entities that value the transmission the
  most
• Congestion Revenue Rights

19
Market Monitoring

• NOPR lays out framework
• Independent market monitoring unit
• Evaluates state of market
• Identifies need for changes in market rules
• Identifies load pockets areas where
  infrastructure is needed for competition
• Reports to FERC, Regional State Advisory
  Committee, and Board of Directors

20
Resource Adequacy Requirements

• Long-term Resource Planning will be policed by
  independent Transmission Provider
• Mandate load serving entities to provide their
  share of resources through own resources and
  contract purchases
• Guard against over reliance on spot markets
• Assure that there are adequate transmission,
  generation, and demand-side resources

21
Reaction by Industry

• Western Governors
• FERC should specifically set aside the Western
  Interconnection from its SMD rule and concentrate
  on working with the states to develop RTOs that
  address the specific problems in the Western
  Interconnection. This process should begin with
  a well-defined and factually-supported statement
  of the problems in the Western Interconnection.
  (September 17, 2002)

22
Reaction by Industry

• Northwest Congressional Delegation
• In short, we believe this is an unnecessary,
  poorly conceived and dangerous academic
  experiment that would inject volatility and
  uncertainty into the comparatively stable and
  affordable energy system in the Northwest. We
  would urge the Commission to abandon the
  proposal. (September 27, 2002)

23
Reaction by Industry

• Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
  hearing September 17, 2002
• Senators were uniformly critical.
• Only two of the nine witnesses supported the
  proposed SMD rule.
• Kentucky Governor Patton slammed the proposed
  rule, saying it fails the test of adopting
  policies that are in the best interests of the
  entire nation.

24
SMD Comments Due

• The Commission extended comment period to
  November 15, 2002, except for comments which
  address the following
• (1) market design for the Western
  Interconnection (2) transmission planning and
  pricing, including participant funding (3)
  Regional State Advisory Committees and state
  participation (4) resource adequacy and (5)
  CRRs and transition issues
• Comments dealing with the issues are due January
  10, 2003

25
Western Review of SMD NOPR

• Organized Western-wide review teams to develop
  responses/positions to questions in SMD NOPR
• Coordinating with BPA and DOE
• Customer comments input welcome
• Bulk of Westerns comments will be submitted in
  January

26
SMD Delayed

• Final rule delayed until next summer
• In the meantime, RTOs have been approved and
  market designs are being developed by the
  stakeholders

27
RTOs in the West
28
Overview of WestConnect Ruling

• Jurisdictional Participants (Applicants)
• Arizona Public Service Company
• El Paso Electric Company
• Public Service Company of New Mexico
• Tucson Electric Power Company
• Non-Jurisdictional Participants (Involved to
  varying degrees)
• Salt River Project
• Western Area Power Administration
• Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (AEPCO)
• Tri-State GT Association, Inc.
• Website http//wwwwestconnectrto.com

29
Overview of WestConnect Ruling

• Requested Declaratory Order - October 16, 2001
• FERC Ruled - October 10, 2002
• Approved scope
• Approved governance structure
• Approved license plate rate for an interim period
• Approved voluntary conversion of existing
  contracts
• Requested more details about self-tracking

30
Overview of WestConnect Ruling

• FERC Ruling (Continued)
• Approved congestion management proposal as a Day
  One mechanism and directed Applicants to engage
  in further discussions to develop a congestion
  management program that reflects market-driven
  solutions to clear congestion operations and that
  does not create seams among the Western RTOs.

31
Overview of WestConnect Ruling

• FERC clarified that it is not their intent to
  overturn, in the final SMD rule, decisions that
  are made in the WestConnect Ruling
• Unclear what FERC has decided and therefore will
  not be overturned
• FERC was silent on many issues
• Critical items, such as congestion management,
  were approved with modifications
• Western needs clarification and details

32
Overview of WestConnect Ruling

• Ron Moulton
• Restructuring Project Manager
• DSW

33
RTOs in the West
34
Overview of RTO West Ruling

• RTO West Participants
• Avista Corporation
• Bonneville Power Administration
• Idaho Power Company
• NorthWestern Energy L.L.C. (formerly Montana
  Power Co.)
• PacifiCorp
• Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
• TransConnect ITC
• Nevada Power Co., Sierra Pacific Power, Co.,
  Portland General Electric
• British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

35
Overview of RTO West Ruling

• Stage 2 Filing - March 29, 2002
• Request For Declaratory Order
• Attachments
• Pricing, Congestion Management, Transmission
  Planning, Market Monitoring . . .
• Agreements
• Transmission Owners Agreement, Scheduling
  Coordinator Agreement, Paying Agent Agreement
• Implementation Plan (June 28, 2002)
• Operational 2006

36
Overview of RTO West Ruling

• FERC Ruled - September 18, 2002
• Approved Scope Governance
• Approved License Plate Pricing Transition
  Period (8 Yrs)
• Conditionally Approved Congestion Management
• Approved Voluntary Contract Conversion
• Approved Planning Expansion
• Approved Framework for Interregional Coordination

37
Overview of RTO West Ruling

• FERC Ruling (Continued)
• Rejected TOA Trumps Tariff
• Defers Addressing TOA Until Tariff Complete
• Directs Applicants to File Tariff (120 days)
• Directs Development of Standards of
  Interconnection
• Conditionally Approves Market Monitoring Proposal
• Will Not Overturn with SMD Final Rule

38
Overview of RTO West Ruling

• Stage 3 Activities (Oct 02 - Jan 03)
• Market Design Workgroup
• Market Operations
• Ancillary Services
• Cataloguing/Options
• Losses
• Metering, Control Communications
• Tariff Development Workgroup
• Visit http//www.rtowest.com/ for more information

39
Seams Steering Group - Western Interconnection
(SSG-WI)
40
Seams Steering Group - Western Interconnection
(SSG-WI)

• Steering Group (Closed)
• SSG-WI serves as the discussion forum for
  facilitating the creation of a Seamless Western
  Market and for proposing resolutions for issues
  associated with differences in RTO practices and
  procedures.
• Workgroups (Open)
• Planning
• Congestion Management
• Pricing Reciprocity
• Market Monitoring
• Commons Systems Interface Coordination

41
Seams Steering Group - Western Interconnection

• FERC Directed CAISO, RTO West WestConnect
  (within 90 days of Order)
• Codify the MOU between parties to define their
  commitments and the forum by which issues will be
  resolved.
• Provide a list of pending issues before the
  Steering Group and timeline for resolution of
  those issues.
• Visit http//www.ssg-wi.com/ for more information

42
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• Mark Fidrych
• Utility Restructuring Advisor
• RMR CRSP

43
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• Today (Day(s) Ahead)
• Independently or via Scheduling Agent
• Customers have various Op Agreements with Service
  Providers
• Forecast Needs (Determine Loads)
• Decide on Supplier(s)
• Arrange/Verify Transmission
• Submit Pre-Schedule to Control Area for System
  Reliability Analysis

44
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• Today (Next Hour)
• Independently or via Scheduling Agent
• Evaluate Forecast (Incorporate Load Changes)
• Verify Supplier(s)
• Verify Transmission
• Modify Pre-Schedule

45
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• Today (Real-Time)
• Independently or via Scheduling Agent
• Respond to Contingencies/Curtailments
• Adjust Schedules
• Acquire Emergency Resources
• Interrupt Load
• Verify Delivery

46
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• SMD (Day Ahead)
• Independently or Load Serving Entity
• Network Operating Agreement with ITP
• Forecast Needs (Determine Loads)
• Determine if want price/delivery certainty
• Decide on Supplier(s)
• Bilateral Transactions
• Venture into the Day-Ahead Real-time Spot
  Markets

47
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• SMD (Day Ahead)
• Designate Receipt Delivery Points
• Transmission Service Scheduled in the Day Ahead
  Market
• Synchronizes Energy and Transmission Schedules
• Analysis of Physically Feasible Dispatch
• Source/Sink required for Simultaneous Feasibility
  Evaluation
• Must hold Congestion Revenue Rights (CRR) or
  Agree to Congestion Costs

48
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• SMD (Real-Time)
• Independently or Load Serving Entity
• Evaluate Forecast (Incorporate Load Changes)
• Revise Receipt and/or Delivery Points

49
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• SMD (Real-Time)
• Independently or Load Serving Entity
• Respond to Contingencies
• Interrupt Load
• Take other Emergency Actions which may be
  required
• Respond to Curtailments
• Should only be associated with trapped loads
• Verify Delivery

50
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• SMD Versus Today
• No Longer Required
• Load/Resource Balanced Schedule
• Transmission Reservations
• 100 of Forecasted Load Met by Resource
• Designation of Network Resources
• New Features
• Voluntary, Bid-Based Energy Markets
• Ancillary Service Bid-Based Markets
• Transmission Energy Delivery are Coupled

51
How Could Scheduling Process Change?

• Differences Between SMD and RTOs In the West
• Both WestConnect and RTO West require Balanced
  Schedules
• Both Require a Scheduling Coordinator Function

52
How Could Transmission Rights Change?

• Ron Moulton
• Restructuring Project Manager
• DSW

53
How Could Transmission Rights Change?

• Today
• Physical Transmission Rights
• Network Integration
• Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point
• Short-term Non-Firm Point-to-Point
• Acquired
• OASIS
• Pre-888 Transmission Service Agreements

54
How Could Transmission Rights Change?

• SMD (Financial Rights Model)
• Network Access Transmission Service
• Congestion Revenue Rights (CRR)
• Hedge Congestion Costs
• Tradable
• Obligation or Option
• Acquired
• Directly Assigned from the ITP
• Auction
• Secondary Markets

55
How Could Transmission Rights Change?

• WestConnect (Physical Rights Model)
• Non-Converted Rights (NCRs)
• Firm Transmission Rights (FTRs)
• Recallable Transmission Rights (RTRs)
• Non-firm Transmission Rights (NTRs)
• Acquired
• Directly Assigned from WestConnect
• Auction
• Secondary Market

56
How Could Transmission Rights Change?

• RTO West (Financial Rights Model)
• Catalogued Transmission Rights (CTRs)
• Financial Transmission Options (FTOs)
• Acquired
• Directly Assigned from RTO West
• Auction
• Secondary Market

57
How could Transmission Rights Change? (Summary
Table)
58
What Could Happen to Existing Contracts?

• Today
• Firm Electric Service Agreements
• Bundled (Power Transmission)
• Transmission Service Agreements
• Network Integration
• Long-term Firm Point-to-Point
• Short-term Non-Firm Point-to-Point
• Pre-888 Transmission Service Agreements

59
What Could Happen to Existing Contracts?

• SMD
• All OATT Agreements Converted to Network Access
  Service (NAS)
• Receive CRRs (Subject to Simultaneous
  Feasibility)
• Pre-Order 888 Agreements Given Opportunity to
  Convert to NAS
• Converted
• Receive CRRs
• Non-Converted
• Transmission Owner Receives CRRs
• Transmission Owner Takes Network Access Service
  to Honor Pre-Order 888 Agreements
• Transmission Owner Picks Up Cost Differences

60
What Could Happen to Existing Contracts?

• WestConnect
• Converted
• Receive Firm Transmission Rights
• Non-Converted
• Receives Non-Converted Rights
• WestConnect Picks Up Cost Differences in Grid
  Management Charge

61
What Could Happen to Existing Contracts?

• RTO West
• Converted
• Receive Financial Transmission Options
• Non-Converted
• Receives Catalogued Transmission Rights
• Transmission Owner Picks Up Cost Differences

62
How will Costs Change?

• Jane Meyer
• Restructuring Project Manager
• RMR CRSP

63
How will Costs Change?

• Today
• Standard Market Design
• WestConnect
• RTO West

64
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY
• Transmission Service
• Network Integration Service
• Long-term Point-to-Point
• Short-term and non-firm Point-to-Point
• Pre-OATT arrangements
• Pay pancaked rates if use more than one system
  from generator to load

• SMD
• Transmission Service
• Network Access Service (ITP)
• Pre-OATT arrangements

65
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY
• Bilateral generation agreements
• Long-term
• Short-term
• Bundled
• Unbundled

• SMD
• Bilateral generation agreements
• Long-term
• Short-term
• Bundled
• Unbundled
• Cost of congestion under Locational Marginal
  Pricing - (ITP)

66
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY
• Spot market generation purchases

• SMD
• Day Ahead Settlement
• Real Time Settlement
• - Locational
• Marginal Price
• (LMP)
• - LMP reflects the
• cost of energy and
• congestion
• - (ITP)

67
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY

• SMD
• Purchase and Sale of Congestion Revenue Rights
  (financial hedge for cost of congestion during
  Day Ahead)

68
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY
• Ancillary Services
• - Scheduling and Dispatch
• - VAR Support
• Regulation
• Energy Imbalance
• Reserves
• Self provide or purchase from Transmission Owner
  or Control Area

• SMD
• Ancillary Services - ITP
• - Scheduling and Dispatch
• VAR Support
• Regulation
• Reserves
• Self provide or purchase from ITP

69
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY
• Energy Imbalance

• SMD
• Real Time Settlement
• Generators will be paid or will pay the variance
  between Day Ahead Schedules and actual generation
• Load will pay or be paid for the variance between
  Day Ahead Schedule and actual load.

70
Costs - Today and SMD

• TODAY
• Other costs

• SMD
• Other costs
• Grid Management Charge
• Annual operating cost of ITP/RTO
• PJM - 0.40/ MWh
• CAISO - 0.84/ MWh - (Source RTO West Cost
  Benefit Study dtd March 11, 2002)

71
A
G2
G3
C
B
G1
Embedded Cost Transmission Rate 2.00 Rate
3.00 Rate 4.00

• Today Load A pays
• 2.00 transmission rate for delivery of G1
  generation
• 2.00 3.00 5.00 for delivery of G2
  generation
• Load A pays pancaked transmission rates for
  delivery of generation from G2

72
A
G2
G3
B
C
G1
Transmission Rate 2.00 Rate
3.00 Rate 4.00
License Plate Rate 2.25 Rate
3.60 Rate 4.15

• Under SMD and License Plate Rate
• Revenue currently collected from pancaked rates
  is paid by load physically located on
  transmission system.
• Revenue currently paid by non-firm and
  short-term transactions is collect from load
  physically located on transmission system
• Load pays License Plate Rate for access to
  generators on grid, plus congestion costs
• Load A pays 2.25 for delivery of G1 or G2 or
  G3 generation
• Load C pays 4.15 for delivery of G1 or G2 or
  G3 generation
• The cost shifts which occur depend on each
  customers situation

73
A
G2
G3
B
C
G1
Transmission Rate 2.00 Rate
3.00 Rate 4.00
License Plate Rate 2.25 Rate
3.60 Rate 4.50
Postage Stamp Rate 3.14 (Blue, Yellow, Purple
Transmission Revenue
Requirement/ABC load)

• Under Postage Stamp Rate
• All load pays the same rate for access to all
  generators on grid, plus payment of congestion
  costs.
• Load A, B or C pay
• 3.14 for delivery of G1 or G2 or G3 generation
  

74
Estimate of Embedded Cost Rate (/kW-Mo) -
Today and SMD

• 
  LAP CRSP
• Today 2.88 2.06
• License Plate 1/ 3.28 4.45
• Postage Stamp 2/ 2.38 2.38
• 1/ LAP and CRSP transmission owners would no
  longer receives revenue from non-firm,
  short-term, and long-term transactions to loads
  physically located on other systems.
• 2/ All loads pay the average transmission rate.
  

75
Embedded Costs under WestConnect

• License Plate Rate - Access Area Rate
• Model approved by FERC, but rate formulas will
  not be approved until later
• WestConnect model includes several mitigation
  proposals to reduce costs shifts among
  transmission customers
• Transmission Adjustment Component (TAC)
• Revenue currently collected by Western from
  non-firm, short-term or converted long-term
  contracts would be offset by congestion
  management revenues or export fees and the
  balance collected through the TAC

76
Embedded Costs under WestConnect

• Mitigation measures (continued)
• TAC concept approved by FERC, but rate formulas
  will not be approved until later
• Transfer Payments between participating
  transmission owners for converted contracts
• With these mitigation measures in place,
  Westerns transmission rate should not increase
  above todays rate

77
Embedded Costs under WestConnect

• Transition to end-state by Jan 1, 2009
• End-State embedded cost model includes a postage
  stamp rate for higher voltage (highway) and a
  license plate rate for lower voltage transmission
  facilities (zone)
• Impact unknown until details are developed

78
WestConnect Highway-Zonal Model

• Highway Rate
• (A B C high voltage)

Zone A (A low voltage)
Zone B (B low voltage)
Zone C (C low voltage)
79
Embedded Costs under RTO West

• License Plate Rate - Company Rate
• Company Rate in effect for eight years
• Filing includes several mitigation proposals
  including
• Transfer Payments for converted contracts between
  participating transmission owners
• Backstop Recovery triggered if revenues from
  short-term, non-firm and long-term contracts are
  not offset by net surplus from congestion
  management and or export fees

80
Costs - Summary

• Bilateral transactions continue
• Two-step settlement process for spot market under
  LMP
• Congestion revenue rights would be purchased and
  sold to hedge against congestion costs
• Pancaked rates would be eliminated
• WestConnect and RTO West include mitigation
  measures for cost shifting

81
How Could the Planning Process Change?

• Bob Easton
• Operations, Engineering, Planning
• Manager
• RMR

82
How Could the Planning Process Change?

• Todays process
• Possible Seams Steering Group - Western
  Interconnection (SSG-WI) planning process

83
Existing Planning Process
84
(No Transcript)
85
RTO Price Signals
LSE Resource Planning
SSG-WI analysis of inter-RTO system needs
Post system needs and corresponding transmission
solutions for market to screen for alternatives
RTO Expansion Plans
WECC Joint Regional Planning (Unsponsored
projects, potential needs)
Market proposes non-tx alternatives to relieve
inter-RTO needs
Implement non-tx project
Voluntary Sponsorship of specific projects
TLRP input
SSG-WI Expansion Plan
Environmental, Siting Process
Build transmission project
WECC rating process and regional planning
participation interest)
SSG-WI Planning Process
86
Proposed Planning Process for SSG-WI
SSG-WI
PWG
WECC
CREPC
Planning Process
RTO Planning Processes
Public Workshops
Individual Stakeholders
Fundamentals Invite WECC representation on
PWG PGW open to all Stakeholders - CCPG,
generator owners, marketers, TOs, etc. Reports
made to SSG_WI will be in the form of Majority
and Minority Reports Extensive use of Internet
to make information public subject to security
concerns
Solicit Input Present Results
CCPG, NWPP, ETC.
87
Merchant Preparations forSMD / RTO Implementation

• Jeff Ackerman
• Montrose Energy Management and
• Market Office
• Manager

88
Merchant Preparations forSMD / RTO Implementation

• Montrose merchant is preparing to act as
  Scheduling Coordinator for Federal Generation
  Resources.
• Potential for scheduling Federal generation into
  four separate RTOs.
• - RTO West
• - WestConnect
• - CAISO
• - MISO

89
Merchant - RTO Scheduling and Settlement Process
Concerns

• Multiple RTO participation will increase
  scheduling and settlement complexity.
• Increase workload in real-time, pre-schedule, and
  settlement functional areas. Seams coordination
  and common tools among RTOs will help.
• Increase in IS software development and
  programming support will be required. Automation
  will be a key requirement!

90
Items of Concern for the Merchant Office

• Extent of RTO participation?
• Electronic scheduling requirements.
• Transmission reservation rights CRRs for
  Federal Generation and Firm Electric Service
  obligations.
• IT programming support and overall staffing
  requirements.

91
How is Westerns Control Area preparing for
possible changes?

• Ed Hulls
• Operations Manager
• RMR

92
How is Westerns Control Area preparing for
possible changes?

• Tools
• Staffing

93
Operational Impacts
94
Operational Impacts
95
Flexible Staffing
96
Questions

• Jane Meyer
• meyer_at_wapa.gov or 970-461-7245
• Mark Fidrych
• fidrych_at_wapa.gov or 970-461-7240
• Ron Moulton
• moulton_at_wapa.gov or 602-351-2446
• Bob Easton
• aeaston_at_wapa.gov or 970-461-7272

97
Questions

• Jeff Ackerman
• ackerman_at_wapa.gov or 970-240-6209
• Ed Hulls
• hulls_at_wapa.gov or 970-461-7566
• Bob Kennedy
• rkennedy_at_wapa.gov or 970-461-7259