ADS Process GuideDRAFT

ADS Task Force

Version 2.05 – August 8, 2019

Version 2.05

Revision History

Version Date Author

1.00 5/14/2019 A. Tanghetti1.01 5/31/2019 G. DeShazo/J. Leland1.02 6/4/2019 G. DeShazo1.03 6/4/2019 J. Leland Updated AESO information in Section 3.4

1.04 6/14/2019H. Pacini reorganized Sections 3.4 and 3.5 under a new major subject heading (new Section 4) and revised text in Section 7 (now Section 8)

1.05 6/20/2019

R. Soorya Added sections 3.1 (Overview), 3.2 (power Flow), 7 (RACI matrix)J. Young edits (inserted by G. DeShazo) on section 3.2 ADS Power Flow Work FlowG. DeShazo minor edits, fixed figure and footnote numbers, added cover page

1.06 6/20/2019 Accepted all changes to ver1.05; fixed formatting and table references. Added some explanatory text.

2.00 6/20/2019 Accepted all changes to ver1.06. Document posted for ADSTF review.

2.01 6/25/2019 Jamie Austin: added comments and made edits

2.02 6/28/2019 Shelli Nyland: incorporated comments from June 26/27 ADSTF meeting

2.03 7/17/2019J. Strack/G. DeShazo/J. Leland/Radha Soorya: Completed “ToDo” items; added additional comments, and accepted all general edits and comments.

2.04 7/22/2019 G. DeShazo: Accepted all general edits and comments; added new text in sections 3.2 and 5.

2.05 8/12/2019 G. DeShazo: Addressed comments; provided general edits throughout the document.

Version 2.05

Table of Contents

1 Overview...................................................................................................................1

2 Purpose of ADS The Process Guide........................................................................1

3 Overview of the ADS Process Work Flow.................................................................4

3.1 ADS Process Work Flow...............................................................................43.2 ADS Power Flow Workflow.............................................................................73.3 ADS Production Cost Model Workflow...........................................................9

4 Regional Planning Groups and the ADS.................................................................13

4.1 Overview of the Regional Planning Processes.............................................134.2 Coordination between Data Owners (e.g., BA, TPs, and PCs), Regional Planning

Groups, and WECC......................................................................................155 Round-trip modeling considerations.......................................................................16

5.1 What does the Round-Trip Provide?............................................................165.2 What are the Benefits of the Round-Trip?....................................................175.3 What are some Round-Trip Modeling Considerations?................................17

6 Protocols for Updating the ADS Process Guide.....................................................18

7 ADS RACI Matrix....................................................................................................19

8 Stakeholder Review or Vetting of Data...................................................................20

9 Appendix.................................................................................................................21

9.1 Joint PCC-TEPPC Review Task Force (JPTRTF) Report and Recommendations......................................................................................................................21

9.2 Glossary of Terms used in power flow and production cost modeling processes (Enoch and Shelli) Include survey definitions of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Resource Portfolios (Angela)........................................................................................21

Version 2.05

1 Overview

In late 2016, the WECC Board of Directors approved the Anchor Data Set (ADS) Proposal (ADS Proposal). In that proposal the The ADS is defined as a single, coordinated data source to be developed from planning data and information used by the planning regions, or Regional Planning Groups (RPGs) , in their regional transmission plans and that would serve as the foundation, or reference case, from which WECC and their stakeholders could develop other cases to use in reliability assessments. Additionally, the The ADS Proposal further defined the ADS is intended to provide an avenue for the RPGs, through their respective data owners, to increase the consistency of data used for different assessment models (power flow, or “PF” and production cost model, or “PCM”) across the RPGs’ annual or biennial study cycles.

Two key principals frame the purpose of the ADS:

1. The ADS PF and PCM cases are to be consistent with the RPGs’ regional transmission plans; and

2. The ADS PF and PCM cases will have the same transmission and resource topology.

WECC assigns a high priority to maintaining and further developing the ADS to be an interconnection-wide data set available to entities who desire to use it to support their planning needs. The ADS represents a year-10 planning horizon which crosses a two 2-year ADS development cycle. Where reasonably possible, this development cycle aligns with the RPGs’ two-year coordination cycle and SDWG’s base case development cycle.

The responsibility for implementation and oversight of the ADS process was assigned to the Reliability Assessment Committee (RAC). The responsibility for managing, implementing, and updating the ADS Process Guide and its processes is assigned to the Data Subcommittee (DS). The responsibility for managing, implementing, and updating the Data Preparation Manual and ADS Data Documentation and Validation Manual is assigned to the System Data Work Group (SDWG) and Production Cost Data Work Group (PDWG), respectively.

2 Purpose of ADS The Process Guide

The purpose of this ADS Process Guide (Guide) is to document the ADS process and generally describe its foundational requirements. The Guide presents the ADS Proposal as amended to address certain components of the ADS Proposal that either did not apply or were not applicable to an ongoing cyclical process as was anticipated by the proposal itself. As such, this Guide provides WECC policy and guidelines, as directed by the WECC Board, for the collection, modification, and maintenance of the ADS including all data associated with the base case and PCM compilation processes.

The ADS Process Guide is primarily comprised of the following key documents:

Overall Process Workflow;

Power Flow (PF) Process Workflow;

Production Cost Model (PCM) Workflow;

1

Version 2.05

Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, (RACI) Matrix;

WECC Data Preparation Handbook; and

ADS Data Documentation and Preparation Manual.

These supporting documents include information that address the following key questions:

1. What are the sources and timelines for Loads and Resources, Power Flow and Production Cost Model data submittals and development?

2. How is the data validated with not only Data Owners but with all WECC stakeholders?

3. Who is responsible for each step in the ADS process?

4. How could actions recommended by the Loads and Resource Task Force alter the Workflows?

Overall, the The ADS is a compilation of load, resource, transmission topology, and other information typically found in local and regional transmission plans of entities throughout the Western Interconnection that produce regional transmission plans (i.e. WPRs and IRPs). The ADS is intended for use by the WECC, Data Owners (i.e., Balancing Authorities (BAs’), Transmission Planners (TPs’) and/or Planning Coordinators (PCs’)), RPGs and other stakeholders in their various planning analyses. The data contained within the ADS will be consistent with WECC’s data standards and the planning regions’ “preferred” software for PCM and PF models1, including dynamic data and associated assumptions.

The power flow and stability data contained in the ADS is developed by NERC Registered Entities in the U.S. and international entities in the Western Interconnection (i.e., Balancing Authorities (BAs’), Transmission Planners (TPs’) and/or Planning Coordinators (PCs’)) and is intended to be consistent with state and federal public policy requirements. The development of the PCM dataset begins with a seed PF through which current topology and resource information is provided. Other data” necessary for an hourly economic grid simulation of the Western Interconnection is developed and input into the PCM, using publicly available data. PDWG members, with the help of stakeholders and subject matter experts, develop “proxies” for data that is unattainable, sensitive or confidential.2 Such data, includes heat rate curves, plant ramp rates (up and down), minimum up- and down-times, start-up times, startup costs, Forced Outage Rates (FOR) and planned maintenance periods. In addition, PDWG develops forecast fuel prices; hourly shapes for energy efficiency (EE) programs, additional achievable energy efficiency (AAEE), non-dispatchable distributed generation (DG), wind resources, solar resources, run-of-river hydro resources, and other non-dispatchable resources. The RAC, with support from its subcommittees and working groups, oversees the relevant ADS processes that involve stakeholder input and creation of the ADS-related year-10 PF and PCM datasets.

The ADS is intended to reflect applicable state and federal statutory public policy requirements such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), Regional Haze Programs, and Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) and any greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission constraints. The

1 Data generally includes forecast loads, existing and planned transmission, existing and planned generation and retirements, and other planning data necessary to perform production cost analyses, power flow studies, dynamic system performance studies, and short circuit studies.2 Entities that have some of this data may consider the data to be commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential.

2

Version 2.05

responsibility for providing data associated with these public policy requirements rests with those entities who “own” or have responsibility for data that is submitted to WECC as the Regional Entity. As such, WECC relies on these entities to ensure that the data they submit to WECC is consistent with the jurisdiction of their local, state, and federal authorities.

The ADS also creates a common representation of the loads, resources, and transmission topology across the Western Interconnection 10 years in the future. The ADS is comprised of the following types of data:

1. Existing, planned, and retired transmission topology in the year 10 planning horizon;

2. Existing, planned, and retired resources (generators) in the year 10 planning horizon (Glossary of terms includes a discussion of varying data owner philosophies on this topic);

3. Load forecasts in the year 10 planning horizon; and

4. “Other data,” as described above, necessary for the PCM’s hourly economic grid simulation.

Data encompassed within the ADS is collected through the processes described in the WECC DPM for the PF Base Case development process and WECC DDVM (hyperlink to be added later) for the Production Cost dataset. Both of these documents are an integral part of the ADS process workflows. These manuals provide, in unambiguous detail, an outline of the data requirements and submission procedures that are necessary to meet all data requirements of the ADS. They are maintained by the Reliability Assessment Committee (RAC) and its subcommittees and are revised as needed through established RAC processes.

Data developed for inclusion in the ADS may be transmitted to WECC via BAs, TPs, and/or PCs pursuant to (but not limited to) these organizations’ responsibilities to satisfy the applicable NERC MOD-031 and MOD-032 reliability planning standards.

3 Overview of the ADS Process Work Flow

The ADS PCM is developed through a combination of tasks collaboratively performed by the SDWG, PDWG, and WECC staff. These tasks fulfill the ADS process requirements following an established process which is discussed in detail in in this section of this Guide. However, in general the ADS process can be defined by the simple process flow shown in Figure 3-1. The implementation of the ADS process utilizes the round-trip methodology that is described in section 5 of this Guide. The ADS process is initiated by importing updated ADS power flow data into the existing ADS PCM to create a current cycle ADS PCM. A new current cycle power flow is then exported from the ADS PCM to create the current cycle ADS power flow. As shown, this process is cyclic and is repeated every two years. Considering the process relies on planning information and data from the previous cycle to

3

Figure 3-1: General ADS Process Flow

Version 2.05

create the current cycle ADS PF and ADS PCM, a collaborative relationship between SDWG, PDWG, and WECC staff to develop this planning data and information ensures that the intent of the two key principles established by the WECC Board are met. by importing resource and transmission topology from a “seed” power flow case into a “seed” PCM case, and then updating the seed PCM case with “other data” necessary to simulate hourly economic dispatch of the entire WECC electric system. The ADS PF is developed by exporting an hour from the ADS PCM simulation into an AC power flow model and solving the PF case. The “seed” PF cases are expected to be developed through the WECC base case building process and are expected to align with the PF DPM and PCM DDVM requirements.

As part of the ADS development process, WECC will communicate with the registered entities when submitted data appears to be inconsistent with the requirements identified in the- PF DPM and PCM DDVM. In such cases, it is recommended that the BA’s/TP’s/PC’s entities (WECC Data Owners) coordinate with their respective RPGs such that the submitted changes correspond with the RPG’s transmission topology and resources (if applicable) for the year 10 planning horizon.

[3.1] ADS Process Work FlowOverviewAs mentioned earlier, the ADS PCM is developed through a combination of tasks collaboratively performed by the SDWG, PDWG, and WECC staff. These tasks encompass a broad range of responsibilities that are associated with SDWG and PDWG where:

SDWG is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring guidelines and policies for the development of interconnection-wide power flow/dynamics stability cases that support RAC’s reliability assessments of the interconnected transmission system. As such, SDWG develops and verifies power flow/dynamic stability data to be used to support reliability assessments, the ADS, and other power flow/dynamic stability models as needed by WECC members; and

PDWG is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring guidelines and policies for the development of production cost datasets that support RAC’s reliability and economic assessments of the interconnected transmission system. As such, PDWG develops and verifies PCM data to be used to support reliability assessments, the Anchor Data Set (ADS) and other production cost models as needed by WECC stakeholders.

The processes for which the SDWG and PDWG are responsible are cyclical and repetitive and involve specific tasks that are governed by protocols and procedures that are defined in the DPM and DDVM documents, respectively. The ADS process is also cyclical and repetitive and involves specific tasks through which the collaborative SDWG/PDWG processes develop the necessary power flow and PCM cases that are required to develop the ADS PF and ADS PCM. These tasks are illustrated in the ADS Process Work Flow that is comprised of an The process map for ADS includes three maps which include the overview Overview ADS process and two

4

Version 2.05

sub processes; one that develops the year-ten power flow which is used to initiate the ADS process and the second that develops the PCM dataset. , Power Flow and Production Cost Model. Each of these processes are explained in the detailed in the Sections 3.1 through 3.3 below. These overview process maps shown in Figure 2-2x provides the high-level activities conducted by WECC and its members in various forums to gather data sets and develop ADS. The overall process can be tracked using the “Capital Letters” included in each of the tasks, the sub processes include the number of the sub process and “Lower Case Letters” for tracking the tasks. The swim lanes represent

WECC Staff who coordinate and build the models

Reliability Assessment Committee where most of the activities relevant to models take place

Planning Coordinators, Transmission Planners and Balancing Authorities to provide requested data

Other data sources which provide additional information needed to build PCM

WPR to provide guidance to BA’s/TP’s and PC’s on data provided to WECC

The vertical divisions in the overview map includes the time line across the two year span of the ADS cycle. An ADS cycle begins in January of every even year and ends in December of every odd year where Yr(y) represents the current year “y”. The tasks in the process flow are aligned along the timeline to indicate the amount of time required to complete each step of the process. There are two phases in the development of ADS which are:

Phase 1 topology and resource data in the PCM comes from the power flow model developed through Base Case Compilation Process for WECC’s year-10 Heavy Summer (HS) PF case. The HS PF case is the “seed” PF case used to populate the “seed” PCM with resource and transmission topology data. The resulting PCM case is shown as the Initial draft Yr(x) PCM in Figure 3-1.

Phase 2 includes additional resources from Load & Resources data submitted to WECC. In Phase 2, a second “seed” PF case will be developed to update the Initial Yr(x) PCM

5

Figure 2-2: ADS Process Work Flow

Version 2.05

with resources and transmission in the Load & Resources data submitted to WECC. The resulting PCM case is shown as the Updated ADS Yr(x) PCM in Figure 3-1.

The underlying topology of the transmission system is the same in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 resources which are committed, planned and conceptual are included in the models, but as these are under development the Network upgrades (transmission) needed to interconnect these resources are not included in the Phase 2 models and as such, are not normally included in the development of the ADS. Conceptual resources which are part of the IRP should be included and modeled at a higher voltage level (230kV or 500kV) for study purposes as the Point of Interconnection is unknown. The step by step process for the ADS model build is explained below,

1. Base Case Compilation Process – This is the process for building the year-10 HS power flow model which follows the “Base Case Compilation Schedule”. The major activities of this process are carried by WECC and System Data Working Group (SDWG) under Data Subcommittee to gather information, compile the case based on DPM manual and posted for final review as indicated by step “B”. This dataset is a deliverable developed by WECC staff and part of RAC deliverables. The Base Case process for developing the year-10 HS case is carried out annually and fed into the ADS biennially. The output of this process (“B”) are inputs to the Production Cost Model creation process.

2. Production Cost Model Compilation Process – This process starts with updating the previous year PCM with the power flow model developed in step 1. The power flow developed in step “B” is the input to PCM indicated by arrows “2b and 2h”. PCM requires additional data to simulate the economic dispatch of the Western Interconnection for each hour of year-10. This data is developed under the auspices of the PCM Data Working Group (PDWG) using data that is public. As indicated in step “D” the output of the first phase of updates to the previous year’s PCM model (the “seed” PCM case) is consistent with the resources and transmission topology in the PF developed through Base Case Compilation process.

[3.] Second phase of the ADS process - This is mainly driven by the addition of data necessary to conform the PCM with resource and transmission information included in L&R data submittals. The As described in Section 2.3 below, the second phase of the ADS process contemplates the creation of a second “seed” PF case to populate the Phase 1 Yr(x) PCM with resources and transmission included in the L&R data submittals. The ADSTF recommends that the Base Case Compilation process includes the development of the this year-10 “seed” PF case on a schedule that corresponds with WECC Data Owners’ submittal of L&R data to WECC.

[4.] Exported Power flow - The updated PCM model is will be validated through the “Round Trip process” which is represented are indicated by steps “H, I, J and K” in Figure 3-4. In step “I” of Figure 3-4 the ADS power flow is exported from the updated Phase 2 PCM model (step “H”) and validated for consistency in step “J”. If the validation indicates further updates are required, then the updates are conducted to PCM until consistency is reached between PF and PCM. Once the validation of PCM reaches the required consistency, the “Final ADS of PCM” and Final ADS PF (step “K”) are posted.

6

Figure 2-2: ADS Process Work Flow

Version 2.05

3.1[3.2] ADS Power Flow WorkflowThe subprocess power flow sub process shown in Figure 3-3 shows summarizes the steps taken to develop the year-10 HS Base Case used to develop the ADS. The development of the year-10 HS PF starts with WECC requesting power flow year-10 data with recommendation to update the previous year base case as shown in step “1a”. This request is sent to all PC’s and TP’s to prepare data for the current year Heavy Summer power flow Base Case following the requirements in their respective MOD-032-1 compliance processes and adhering to Base Case compilation process timeline (step “1b”). Any additional data needed by the PCs and TPs may be provided to the PCs and TPs by the WPRs and other stakeholders as needed (step 1c) to ensure the year-10 data is consistent with their regional plans and other data. WECC starts the year-10 HS Base Case compilation after receiving the data from PCs and TPs (step “1d”) and during this process any data issues identified will require the PC’s and TPs to provide updated information or changes in developing the 10-year heavy summer power flow case (HS1). Once the compilation of the HS1 is completed (step B) this is posted to the data bank for the use of WECC stakeholders.

The development of the year-10 HS Base Case occurs annually following the Base Case Compilation process and is comprised of two main steps to synchronize the development of several cases. This schedule development is managed by SDWG and any updates are reviewed in the SDWG and later approved by the Data Subcommittee. The main steps of this process are:

Send out the Base Case request survey for the upcoming year to all WECC stakeholders to suggest adjustments to required case builds and request specialized case builds (steps 1f, 1l).

Based on the survey results, develop the compilation schedule for each case synchronizing the modeling and timeline for developing different models (steps 1e, 1f, 1m).

7

Version 2.05

The Base Case compilation schedule is the input to the WECC data request (step 1h) and the follow up steps from above repeats to develop the following year’s year-10 HS case (steps 1i,

1j, 1k).

Not shown on Figure 3-2, are the processes by which an hour from the solved “Initial draft Yr(x) PCM” (Box E on Figure 3-3) is identified and exported to create a power flow case which corresponds with the Phase 1 PCM. Solving this exported power flow case requires certain manual adjustments, including adjusting reactive device settings which are initially fixed at the levels of the year-10 HS PF (the year-10 HS PF is the “seed” PF case used to populate the Phase 1 PCM with resource and transmission topology data).3 Once solved, the exported power flow case is made available to stakeholders who are interested in a power flow case which corresponds to the Phase 1 PCM.

Not shown on Figure 3-2 is the development of a second “seed” PF case that is synchronized with the submittal of L&R data. This second “seed” PF case would incorporate (i) transmission additions and resources identified in the L&R data submittals to WECC, and (ii) transmission topology corrections reflected in the year-10 HS PF case. This second “seed” PF case is shown on Figure 3-3 as the “Updated Import ADS Yr(x) PF” (Box F). The ADSTF recommends that the SDWG have responsibility for the development of this second “seed” PF case.

3 Because load levels, resource dispatch patterns and power flows in the power flow “seed” case will differ from those in the exported power flow case, reactive device settings from the power flow “seed” case will not provide the reactive capability necessary to reach a power flow solution in the exported power flow case; i.e., manual adjustments to those reactive device settings are necessary.

8

Figure 3-3: Power Flow Process Workflow

ADS Process Workflow Yr(x) Ver 3.0 – ADSTF (02/ 15/ 2019) 1 - PF

WEC

C St

affSD

WG

PCs

, TPs

, BA

sW

PROth

er

Stak

ehol

ders

Jul-Aug Yr (y)Jan-Jun Yr (y)Nov-Dec Yr (y-1)Sep-Oct Yr (y-1)Jul-Aug Yr (y-1) Sep-Oct Yr(y) Nov-Dec Yr(y) Jan-Jun Yr(y+1)

Yr(x+1) HS PF Base Case Compilation Process following the DPM Manual

Prepare data for the Yr(x+1) HS PF Base Case

Compilation Process following the DPM Manual

WECC Yr(x+1) PF Data Request with recommendation

to start from Yr (x) base case

Final Yr(x)

HS1 PF

2h3d

Post to Databank

Yr(x) HS PF Base Case Compilation Process following the DPM

Prepare data for the Yr(x) HS PF Base Case Compilation Process

following the DPM Manual

3j

Post to Databank

Final Yr(x+1) HS1 PF

2b

C

B

WPR PCM PCMWPR

1b

1d

1h

1i

1j

1l

WECC Yr(x) PF Data Request with

recommendation to start from Yr (x-1) base case

1a

Send out Yr (x+1) Base Case Request

Survey

Develop Yr (x) Base Case Compilation Schedule Develop Yr (x+1) Base Case Compilation Schedule Send out Yr (x+1)

Base Case Request Survey

Develop Yr (x+2) Base Case

Compilation Schedule1e 1f 1g

1k

1m 1n

Provide additional

Data

Recommended to start from exported PF from previous cycle

1c

Next Cycle

Version 2.05

Not shown on Figure 3-2, are the processes by which an hour from the either the “Updated ADS Yr(x) PCM” (Box G on Figure 3-3) or the “Final ADS Yr(x) PCM” (Box L on Figure 3-3) is identified and exported to create a power flow case which corresponds with the Phase 2 PCM. Solving this exported power flow case requires certain manual adjustments, including adjusting reactive device settings which will initially be fixed at the levels of the second “seed” PF case. This solved case is shown as the “Exported ADS PF” (Box J) on Figure 3-3. The ADSTF believes that the “Exported ADS PF” case should be used as the starting point for assessing the reliability of WECC system assuming the resources and transmission additions reflected in L&R submittals are implemented as planned.

3.2[3.3] ADS Production Cost Model WorkflowThe current conceptualization of the ADS development process includes two basic phases which are shown in Figure 3-4. The first phase brings a seed Power Flow (PF) case4 and a seed Production Cost Model (PCM) case5 together to create an “Initial draft Yr(y) PCM.” (See box E in the WECC_ADS_Workflow_version_3.1.pdf.) In a general sense, Phase I takes place from November (y-1) through April (y).

The second phase of the ADS development process modifies the “Initial draft Yr(y) PCM” to incorporate changes dictated by (i) the PF “Base Case Error Corrections” process, and (ii) loads and resources included in the most recent submittals to WECC of Loads & Resources (L&R) data for NERC compliance purposes. This modification process involves creating an “Updated Import ADS Yr(y) PF” which is then imported into the “Initial draft Yr(y) PCM,” along with other conforming PCM data, to create an “Updated ADS Yr(y) PCM.” (See box G in the WECC_ADS_Workflow_version_3.1.pdf.)

4 Currently, the seed PF case is envisioned to be the “Final Yr(x) HS1 PF.” (See Box C in the WECC_ADS_Workflow_version_3.1.pdf.)5 Currently the seed PCM case is envisioned to be the final “Yr(x-2) ADS PCM.” (See Box 2a in the WECC_ADS_Workflow_version_3.1.pdf.)

9

Figure 3-4: Production Cost Model Workflow

ADS Process Workflow Yr(x) Ver 3.0 – ADSTF (02/ 15/ 2019) 2 - PCM

WEC

C St

affPD

WG

PCs,

TPs

, BA

sL&

RSt

akeh

olde

rs

Jul-Dec Yr (y)May-Jun Yr (y)Mar-Apr Yr (y)Jan-Feb Yr (y)Nov-Dec Yr (y-1)Jul-Oct Yr (y-1) Jan-Jun Yr (y+1)

Update PCM with Changes

Update PCM with Changes

Compile Yr(x) PCM

Request Yr (x) PF and ȃotherȄȱPCM data following the DPM and DDVM

D

From Yr (x-2) ADS PCM

C

C

Final ADS Yr(x) PCM

2h

2d

Exported ADS PF

Yes

RAC Oversight and ADS Process

ReviewM

Post to ADS site

L

Main

Main

Main

2a

2r

No

HInitial draft Yr(x) PCME No

Updated Import ADS

Yr(x) PF

Updated ADS Yr(x) PCM

Main

FBase Case Error

Corrections

Validation

Changes needed to

PCM?

Validate and assumptions

Changes needed to

PCM?

Validate for consistency

K

Power flow mapping of resources to match

PCM

J

Coordinated review of ADS PCM

2b

2i

2j

2o

2p

2s

G

2e

2f

2g

Resource Adequacy

2l

Determine Yr (x) PF and ȃotherȄȱPCM data requirements

the DPM and DDVM2c

Yes Yes

2k 2q

Work with regions to confirm the topology of

regional plans are reflected in PF

Coincident energies Yr Average Conditions

Yr(x) Forecast

Inflation Rate

Fuel cost dataDevelop hourly

load forecast (EE and BTM

PV)

Load development

(Yr (y) L&R data submission)

Resources data

development

Hydro data, Pumps, Battery

storage data

Wind & Solar Data

Thermal Plant Data development

(Commitment, Pmin, Pmax, E4, Ramp Rates)

We need a tool to help with the mapping

Update Resources consistent with L&R data submission

Noi

ii

iii

iv

i ii iii iv

i ii

Work with SDWG to define location of L&R Resources

Changes needed to Base

Case?

Receive Recommendations

Next Cycle

Yes

2n

2m

2t

Version 2.05

The “Updated ADS Yr(y) PCM” is solved for all 8760 hours of the year and one hour selected for export into an “Exported ADS PF” case. The “Exported ADS PF” case is compared to the “Updated ADS Yr(y) PCM” case to determine whether changes are needed to either or both cases to provide consistency between the two cases. Upon implementation of any such changes, the “Final ADS Yr(y) PCM” and the Final ADS Yr(y) PF are posted to the ADS website.

Note that the WECC RAC, DS, and the Modeling Subcommittee (MS) engage in ongoing work to develop and update data elements for the PCM (e.g., thermal unit fuel conversion efficiencies, combined cycle modeling conventions). For this reason, the timelines for Phases I and II are fluid; as such, definitive start and end dates do not exist.

The ADS development process currently assumes the creation of a ten-year-out PCM case and a companion ten-year-out PF case. Consistent with the ADSTF’s belief that the reliability of WECC entities’ long-term resource plans needs to be assessed, the ADS development process is designed to incorporate all resources included in WECC entities’ ten-year-out resource plans. The primary vehicle by which these resources are identified is the L&R data submitted to WECC for purposes of NERC compliance6.

PF Base Case Error Corrections Process

In the January Yr(y) through February Yr(y) time period, Planning Coordinators (PCs), Transmission Planners (TPs) and Balancing Authorities (BAs) review the seed PF case to identify any errors. These entities forward recommended corrections to the WECC RAC DS System Data Work Group (SDWG)7.

L&R Submittals for NERC Compliance Purposes

In the March Yr(y) through April Yr(y) period, PCs, TPs and BAs submit L&R data to WECC as required by WECC’s Information Reporting Policy8. The resources included in these submittals may differ from the resources included in the seed PF case. To the extent there are differences, Phase II of the ADS development process contemplates that the PCs, TPs and BAs will work the SDWG to identify recommended changes to the seed PF case that, along with any corrections identified through the PF Base Case Error Corrections Process, will result in an “Updated Import ADS Yr(y) PF” that includes all resources contained in the L&R submittals for NERC compliance purposes. The SDWG will work with the WECC staff to create the “Updated Import ADS Yr(y) PF.”

Since the L&R submittals for NERC compliance purposes may include planned resources for which definitive location information is not yet known, the relevant PCs, TPs and BAs will need to work with the SDWG to (i) identify specific locations on the electric transmission system where it makes sense to model these planned resources, and (ii) the technical connection

6 Creation of nearer-term ADS cases is not currently contemplated, but may be considered in the future.7 Participation at SDWG meetings is open to all stakeholders.8 https://www.wecc.org/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/Corporate/Information%20Reporting%20Policy.pdf&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1

10

Version 2.05

details (e.g., the high- and low-side voltages of step-up transformers and associated impedances and thermal ratings).

The “Updated Import ADS Yr(x) PF” will be used by WECC staff to import generator and transmission topology changes into the “Initial draft Yr(y) PCM” to create the “Updated Yr(y) PCM.” Creation of the “Updated Yr(y) PCM also requires operational data (e.g., ramp rates, fuel conversion efficiency curves, variable O&M costs, hourly output profiles) for the added generators. Populating the “Updated Yr(y) PCM” with this operational data follows the same general process as described for Phase I, and is not repeated here.

The L&R submittals include forecasts of expected monthly peak load and expected monthly energy loads for a ten year period. These load forecasts will be used to develop, for each planning area defined in the PCM, an expected hourly load forecast for the applicable study year (e.g., year 2030). Depending on the PCM modeling conventions adopted by the WECC Reliability Assessment Committee (RAC) Modeling Subcommittee (MS)9, certain adjustments to the submitted forecast loads may be needed.

PF Studies

The ADSTF recognizes that some WECC entities believe their MOD-32 compliance obligations preclude the inclusion of planned resources in the PF cases used for compliance studies.10 Indeed, it may be appropriate to conduct compliance studies with different resource mixes – certainly the resource mix in ten years will not look exactly as today’s resource plans envision. Nevertheless, the ADSTF recommends that MOD-32 compliance studies include at least one case that tests grid reliability assuming entities’ resource plans are implemented as projected.

The ADS has always been considered a common “starting point” for developing alternative cases that explore different aspects of the WECC electric grid. WECC entities who believe their MOD-32 compliance obligations (or other PF study requirements11), preclude the inclusion of planned resources in the PF cases used for compliance studies, are free to create alternative PF cases that remove planned resources from the final ADS PF case. Alternatively, these WECC entities may choose to use the seed PF case from Phase I of the ADS development process. In its current form, the seed PF case is the “Final Yr(y) HS1 PF.” This particular PF case includes some, but not all, planned resources incorporated in the Yr(y-1) L&R submittals.12

Short-Term Vision for the ADS Process

Phase II of the ADS development process culminates in the posting of the “Final ADS Yr(y) PCM” and the Final ADS Yr(y) PF to WECC’s ADS website. The long-term vision for the ADS

9 Participation at MS meetings is open to all stakeholders.10 There is no language in MOD-32 that specifically precludes planned resources from being included in the PF cases used for compliance studies. Nor is there language in MOD-32 that specifically requires planned resources to be included in the PF cases used for compliance studies. 11 For example, it has been suggested that a utility’s generator interconnection study requirements in the ten-year-out time frame, may specifically prohibit the inclusion of other entities’ planned resources in the PF case used to perform the studies.

12 Using ten-year-out PF cases that do not include all planned resources to perform compliance studies can produce results which are not useful. When planned resources are removed from a PF case, the generation dispatch pattern of the remaining resources must be adjusted upward in order that aggregate generation output matches aggregate load. If a large amount of planned generation is removed from the PF case, the required increases in output from the remaining generators may result in a generator dispatch pattern that is so improbable that the study results would not be useful.

11

Version 2.05

process is that the Final ADS Yr(y) PF will be used by WECC Data Owners as the starting point for developing the data submittals that will be used by WECC to create the seed PF case for Phase I of the next ADS cycle. If this process is followed, much of the time-intensive “mapping” performed in Phase 1 could be avoided since there would be a high level of correspondence between the resources in the seed PF case and the resources in the seed PCM case (the seed PCM case would be the prior cycle’s “Final ADS Yr(y) PCM”).

If timing and other challenges can be overcome, it may be possible to collapse Phase I and Phase II into a single ADS development phase. For example, if (i) all WECC Data Owners used the prior cycle’s posted Final ADS Yr(y) PF as the starting point for developing data for the seed PF case, (ii) the data developed for the seed PF case was consistent with the submitted L&R data, and (iii) the data developed for the seed PF case and the L&R data were submitted to WECC at approximately the same time, then Phase I could be eliminated since the resource “mapping” currently performed in Phase I would be largely unnecessary.

Long-Term Vision for the ADS Process

In developing the ADS process, it has become clear that different data submitters assemble data for WECC power flow cases in different ways. These differences create significant “mapping” challenges when populating the ADS production cost model with resources. Specifically, there needs to be a direct and unique correspondence between resources in the seed power flow case and resources in the seed production cost model. If this correspondence is broken, for example, by changing generator bus numbers or names, or by excluding or including resources in one model but not the other, time-consuming manual effort is required to identify and resolve the disconnects. This extra effort is inconsistent with the WECC Board’s concept of the ADS process.

A single master data base that includes all resources and transmission topology information necessary for the ten-year-out PCM would serve the needs of both power flow and production cost modelers performing long-term reliability assessments. The data base would need to identify resources and transmission facilities in various categories depending on the level of commitment, e.g., existing and under-construction resources, existing resources with publicly announced retirement dates, planned resources supported with Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), planned resources without PPAs, planned transmission holding major regulatory and environmental permits, planned transmission with all rights-of-way secured, planned transmission having all necessary cost recovery approvals, planned transmission in the regulatory approval process, planned transmission that has yet to enter the regulatory and environmental permitting process, etc.

A tool would be required to allow users to efficiently populate the data base with resources and transmission facility data and categorize that data. The tool would allow power flow users to (i) easily identify resources and transmission facilities by category, and (ii) quickly exclude or include in their power flow case development, resources and transmission facilities on a category basis. Because the data would be drawn from a single master data base, “mapping” issues between the power flow and production cost models would be largely resolved.

12

Version 2.05

4 Regional Planning Groups and the ADS

4.1 Overview of the Regional Planning Processes The regional transmission plans of the RPGs provide planning and infrastructure guidance during their planning cycle until the plans are updated during the following planning cycle. Data used in regional transmission plans may include information such as peak load projections, existing resources, planned resource additions and retirements, and transmission topology assumptions including approved regional transmission additions, among other things. The ADS is a compilation of load, resource, transmission topology, and other information sourced by members and participants of the RPGs. As such, the planning information is expected to be largely consistent across the ADS and the RPGs regional transmission plans. Differences in information may be a result of differences in the timing of data collection or the specific scope of study for the ADS as compared to the RPGs’ study plans for a given planning cycle. Stakeholders who are interested in learning more about the specific details of the RPGs planning processes and how their planning data and information is developed and used, should review the individual RPG planning documents that are relevant to their planning data and information at:

California Independent System Operator (CAISO)

o Business Practice Manual for the Transmission Planning Process: https://bpmcm.caiso.com/Pages/BPMDetails.aspx?BPM=Transmission%20Planning%20Process.

ColumbiaGrid

o ColumbiaGrid planning process at: http://www.columbiagrid.org/planning-expansion-overview.cfm

Northern Tier Transmission Group (NTTG)

o Approved Planning Process in Full Funders’ Attachment K: https://www.nttg.biz/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=350&Itemid=139

West Connect

o The WestConnect Planning Process is in conformance with Order No. 1000 as supplemented by numerous Compliance Filings and resulting FERC Orders. Readers can access the text of the compliance documentation on the WestConnect website , and are encouraged to consult the compliance documentation and the WestConnect Business Practice Manual (BPM) for additional process information. Also, for TOs that are jurisdictional to the FERC, their FERC-approved tariff may preside over documents pertaining to the WestConnect Planning Process.

Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO):

13

Version 2.05

o The AESO is required by legislation to prepare a long-term transmission plan at least every two years. The AESO’s transmission planning process is based on detailed engineering evaluations of the transmission system over a 20-year planning horizon. It is a continuous process, involving frequent evaluation of assumptions and proposed transmission solutions.

o For more information on AESO’s Long-term Transmission Plan, please refer to:

https://www.aeso.ca/grid/long-term-transmission-plan/

British Columbia Regional Planning Group (BCRPG)

Within the province of British Columbia, the BCCPG enables coordination and, where appropriate, integration of the transmission planning functions of transmission owner members. Outside of British Columbia, the BCCPG represents the interests of its transmission owner members to the Western Interconnection through participation in the WECC RAC committee. There are two main Transmission Planners within the BCCPG:

o BC Hydro with planning process at: https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/transmission.html?WT.ac=404_transmission

o Fortis BC with planning process at: https://www.fortisbc.com/Electricity/CustomerService/TransmissionServices/Pages/default.aspx

4.2 Coordination between Data Owners (e.g., BA, TPs, and PCs), Regional Planning Groups, and WECCThe ADS compilation process is based on WECC receiving PF and PCM data from Data Owners who are registered with NERC as a TP, BA and/or PC. Data Owners have obligations to WECC and NERC with respect to the quality and accuracy of the data they provide to WECC and as such, they must conform to the rules and practices of the data submittal processes of these entities. At the same time, many, but not all, of WECC’s Data Owners are members of an RPG. Distinct obligations, rules, and practices govern the manner in which these same Data Owners participate in and provide data to an RPG.

WECC and its members have always exercised a high standard towards delivering well managed and coordinated planning data and information for its members. This management and coordination occurs through the PF data submitted during the development of the initial PF base case that provides the topology for the ADS, and during the development of the ADS PCM. It also occurs as part of subsequent data submittals made during or following the development of planning models by an RPG. The RPGs depend on WECC’s data collection processes to aggregate relevant planning data and assumptions because the WECC models are used to develop the Planning Regions’ regional transmission plans. In the development of a Planning Regions’ regional transmission plan, Data Owners may provide updated or supplemental data to an RPG, as needed, and according to the requirements of the study plan of an RPG.

14

Version 2.05

It is important to note that the ADS process and the regional processes followed by the WPRs while cyclic in nature, follow different timelines as to when Data Owners obtain and provide planning data and information to the WPRs and WECC. On balance, the planning data and information which Data Owners provide to their WPR is the same planning data and information they provide to WECC, but not necessarily within the same timeline. For example, WECC generally develops the year-10 HS PF between July and December of each year. Data Owners provide WECC their most recent planning data and information consistent with WECC’s base case compilation schedule. As the ADS process is initiated from the year-10 HS PF, the overall ADS process covers a two-year cycle and upon its completion, representation of the Data Owner’s information included in the ADS is consistent with the planning data and information they provided to WECC at the time it was collected. However, the RPGs continually collect planning data and information from their members who are data owners and as such, their regional plans may include planning data and information that is more current than what is represented in the ADS. It is incumbent on WECC to continue collaborating with the RPGs to refine data collection timelines or to take advantage of opportunities to update ADS planning data and information as it becomes available from the Data Owners through their RPG. Data Owners, at their discretion, may or may not submit to WECC the same updated or supplemental information they have provided for use by an RPG. As such, differences may be observed in the data of a WECC Data Submitter as represented in the ADS as compared to the planning models of an RPG. Reasons for this difference may include differences in model descriptions (e.g. model year, season, loading conditions, public policy assumptions, and other study assumptions) or differences in the timing of model development efforts.

Ultimately, Data Owners retain their individual responsibility and authority to be the data submitter of their own data to WECC or to an RPG to adhere to compliance or tariff obligations.

5 Round-trip modeling considerations

The “Round-Trip” is a shorthand nickname for a process that facilitates an expedited transfer of power system data and information between the PF and PCM models. The ADS Proposal recognized that the benefits of the ADS process would be aptly served through the use of the Round-Trip process and as such, it was included in the proposal as part of the overall ADS process as well as a key deliverable which WECC is obligated to provide. The key benefit of the round-trip approach is that provides a well-defined platform to quickly coordinate data exchange between the PF and PCM models. Because the round-trip process exchanges common data information between the PF and PCM models, data consistency across these two model datasets is enforced. This round-trip process is simply illustrated in Figure 4-5.

15

Version 2.05

Figure 4-5: Round-Trip Process

5.1 What does the Round-Trip Provide?The Round-Trip provides consistency between the data produced by a PCM study case and the data needed to solve a PF by using the strengths of both data sets. For example, a single hour can be selected and exported from the results of the economic dispatch into a PF which then can be solved to a single-point-in-time solution of the power system. Traditional PF assessments can be performed with that solved case or the PF data can be used to perform more involved stability studies based on the single hour dispatch information exported from the PCM results. Clearly, the process allows for specific economic dispatch solutions to be vetted through traditional PF and stability analysis to identify potential reliability risks for that single hour economic dispatch solution.

Of course, the round-trip process provides the ability to consider PF and/or stability solutions to be considered in the economic realm of the production cost environment where the economic value of these solutions can be to be identified and considered in the overall assessment and determination of the most cost-effective solution for the planned system. This facilitates analyses of economic, dynamic and stability characteristics of the BES with PCM and PF modeling tools using load, resource and transmission topology data.

5.2 What are the Benefits of the Round-Trip?The Round-Trip functionality is composed of a process, data sets, and a software solution. Its benefits include:

The ability to perform stability and dynamic analyses of an hour from the economic dispatch to evaluate flows on the system during adverse conditions (such as a contingency analysis to evaluate how the system might respond to a loss of generation, load, or transmission components).

Consistent load, resource and transmission topology to allow easy exchange of data and results.

16

Version 2.05

5.3 What are some Round-Trip Modeling Considerations?Round-trip modeling considerations are clearly defined by those data requirements associated with the PF and PCM dataset models. In general, PF data sets that are used in the ADS process are created by WECC through the collection and combining of data submitted by all data owners throughout the western interconnection who are members of WECC. As such, as the NERC designated Regional Entity, all WECC members are required to submit their PF data to WECC. Each data owner develops its own data based on predefined requirements that have been determined through established processes. Development of these PF data sets is time- intensive because they are detailed representations of the power system and are used to thoroughly examine and identify possible reliability risks throughout the interconnection.

A PCM data set represents a period, in this case a year-10 data set that has the resolution to look at each of the 8,760 hours in the study year. The value of the round-trip process as envisioned by the ADS Proposal is that once the PCM dataset is developed, it is feasible to vary data assumptions and perform analyses to identify potential reliability risks. The following present some examples of different types of reliability risk assessments.

Need for Targeted PF Analyses

Only a single hour of the collective 8,760 hours in a PCM case can be used for analysis with a PF model at a time. The load, resource and transmission system data needed to solve a PF are specific to each hour of the year. Thus, any PF, stability or dynamic analyses facilitated by round-trip capability only apply to the exported hour. To fully understand the dynamic and stability implications of the PCM case, it would be necessary to solve 8,760 PF cases. However, identifying potential reliability risks related to a smaller number of hours can produce meaningful insights for a manageable number of PF cases.

Unique Reactive and Voltage Profiles

PF analyses use “reactive profiles” and “voltage profiles” that describe the reactive power and voltage characteristics needed for the PF analysis that are unique to each hour of the year. Any of the 8,760 hours of the PCM simulation selected for exporting into a PF model requires creating or modifying a unique reactive and voltage profile for that hour. This case-by- case undertaking requires significant computational and resource commitments.

Generation Mapping

There must be a one-to-one map of the generators in the PCM data set to the generators in the PF. If there are differences, the PF will not solve and any PCM solutions may not be representative of what is actually happening on the grid. This mapping is also the only way data such as transient stability data can be used for analysis.

Time Requirements for PF and PCM Solutions

The PCM and PF use differing methods of creating the required load and generation balance. Transitioning from a PCM-based solution into a PF solution requires some manual data adjustments. For example, to solve a PCM model and a PF model, it is necessary to describe the location of all generators. However, not all generation used in the PCM model, such as future renewable resources, are mapped for use in the PF model. Likewise, not all generation

17

Version 2.05

used in the PF model, is mapped for use in the PCM model. Creating a stable system solution can be time- consuming.

Other reliability risk assessments are certainly possible, for which the value of the ADS process becomes apparent. Through the collaboration of PF and PCM datasets, greater accuracy in data and representation through a larger, coordinated dataset provides broader analysis options and more streamlined with user needs.

[6] Protocols for Updating the ADS Process GuideFuture Update to the ADS Process Workflow As stated in Section 1 the responsibility for implementation and oversight of the ADS process is assigned to the RAC. The responsibility for managing, implementing, and updating the ADS Process Guide and its processes is assigned to the DS. The responsibility for managing, implementing, and updating the Data Preparation Manual and ADS Data Documentation and Validation Manual is assigned to the SDWG and PDWG, respectively.

The ADS process is expected to change from time to time as new information, tools, methodologies and assumptions are developed through existing WECC processes. To remain current, the Guide and its attachments will need to be regularly reviewed and updated to remain current with all WECC processes and guidelines as they may be updated by the entities to which they are assigned. The following protocols are followed to update the Guide and its attachments.

ADS Process Guide

Responsibility for the review and update of the ADS Process Guide is assigned to the DS as they are responsible for providing overall guidance for gathering, refining and applying data to WECC’s models and stand-alone data sets. As such, the DS shall follow the following review and maintenance requirements:

1. In general and commensurate with the established biennial ADS process, review and update the ADS Process Guide at the beginning of every even year of the ADS process cycle unless otherwise required;

2. The DS may update the ADS Process Guide at any time if the determine it appropriate to do so;

3. The process through which the DS reviews and approves updates to the ADS Process Guide will be consistent with the established charter for the DS;

4. The DS will inform the RAC that the ADS Process Guide has been revised, however a formal approval from the RAC is not required;

5. If approval of a revision(s) to the ADS Process Guide cannot be reached by the DS, RAC is required to consider the revision(s) and provide a final approval.

Data Preparation Manual

Responsibility for the review and update of the DPM is assigned to the SDWG as they are responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring guidelines and policies for the

18

Version 2.05

development of interconnection-wide power flow/dynamics stability cases that support RAC’s reliability assessments of the interconnected transmission system. As such, the SDWG shall follow the following review and maintenance requirements:

1. Review and update the DPM commensurate with established SDWG protocols;

2. Consider the impact, if any, an update to the DPM may have on the ADS Process Guide and if required, propose redline modifications and present to the DS for their review and approval.

Data Development and Validation Manual

Responsibility for the review and update of the DDVM is assigned to the PDWG as they are responsible for the development and verification of PCM data to be used to support reliability assessments, the ADS and other production cost models as needed by WECC stakeholders. As such, the PDWG shall follow the following review and maintenance requirements:

1. Review and update the DDVM commensurate with established PDWG protocols;

2. Consider the impact, if any, an update to the DDVM may have on the ADS Process Guide and if required, propose redline modifications and present to the DS for their review and approval.

Load Resources Task Force

Each year WECC Members are required to provide loads and resource (LAR) information as outlined in the WECC Information Reporting Policy, pursuant to WECC Bylaws Section 4.6.11. Section 4.6.11 states, in part, that WECC Members have the obligation to “provide system data that the Board has determined is necessary for WECC functions” as long as it does not impose an undue burden on the Members. Commensurate with this requirement WECC prepares a LAR data collection manual to provide guidance to those data owners from which the annual data is to be collected.

The data collection manual provided guidance for those Balancing and Non-Balancing Authorities who are required to collect and provide the requested data to WECC. WECC coordinates the data collection and prepares what it has received for transmittal to NERC. The information is “used for a variety of analyses, including the State of the Interconnection Report and Power Supply Assessment (PSA). It is also used by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) in its reliability assessments. Portions are reported by NERC to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) in satisfaction of its Form EIA-411 filing requirements”.

The annual LAR data request covers a broad array of information which includes data such as existing and planned generation, path transfer capabilities between modeling areas, actual year actual hourly demand, projected transmission line and transformer additions and changes, and actual and forecasted resource outages on peak hour. While all of the information collected through the LAR process is utilized by WECC and NERC, it is the requirement to collect information about all existing and planned generating units 1 MW or greater located within the reporting entity’s balancing authority area that is most important to the ADS process.

19

Version 2.05

The premise of the ADS is that it reflects the most recent version of the WPRs’, and other planning regions’, most recent regional plans, and that this information is accurately captured in the ten-year PF base case that is developed through processes managed by the System Data Work Group (SDWG). In essence, the ADS process is grounded on developing the ADS PCM dataset from a selected ten-year heavy summer PF base. However, it is important to note that the PF and PCM analysis tools serve fundamentally different purposes. Economic grid simulation studies use security constrained production cost models (PCM). Reliability studies use alternating current (AC) power flow/dynamic stability models. Fundamentally, these two studies have proceeded along separate paths however, modeling advances have provided an opportunity to combine the data sets used to perform this modeling. Specifically, the PCM model can use PF resource, load, and topology from a PF model and the PF model can use the output of a PCM model; hence the ADS Proposal.

However, the PCM model requires MOD 31-2 monthly peak and energy to develop the “hourly forecast” covering 8760 hours while, traditionally, power flow “future” resources collected by “Data Owners” consistent with MOD 32-1 do not necessarily line up with resources submitted to “LAR”(MOD 31-2). While the LAR data submittals include “non-committed" resources to meet applicable planning reserve margin requirements and to implement applicable public policy requirements, these “non-committed” resources are often not represented in the ten-year HS PF case, leading to structural deficiencies in the PCM dataset.

Consistent with the ADS Proposal requirement of developing a power flow (PF) case and production cost model (PCM) case which includes common and consistent data, a Loads and Resources Task Force (LRTF) was formed to reconcile differences between data definitions and applications in power flow, PCM, and other databases. Specifically, the LRTF has been tasked with developing and recommending processes that identify and reconcile inconsistencies between (i) load and resource (L&R) data submitted to WECC by WECC data owners in response to the NERC’s LAR process, and (ii) L&R data included in the PF data submitted to WECC by WECC Data Owners in response to WECC power flow data requests.

The LRTF is responsible for the following activities:

[1.] Reviewing terminology, definitions, and interpretations of L&R data (e.g., planned resources) used in LAR, PF base cases, PCM and ADS processes.

[2.] Identifying inconsistencies in the L&R terminology and definitions used to create the Long-Term Reliability Assessments (LTRA), PF base cases and PCM.

[3.] Recommending and documenting common terminology and definitions for L&R data.

[4.] Identifying similarities and differences in the L&R data used for the NERC LAR process, PF base cases, and PCM data development and validation processes.

[5.] Recommending changes to the LAR Data Collection Manual, Data Preparation Manual (DPM), and Data Development and Validation Manual (DDVM) to reconcile inconsistencies in L&R data definitions.

[6.] Recommending to the DS additional data collection and verification processes needed to supplement L&R requests, resolve data inconsistencies between the NERC LAR submittals and data submitted by other parties, and facilitate ADS development.

20

Version 2.05

[7.] Recommending processes to promote L&R data consistency into the DS structure.

[8.] Recommending adjustments to the Base Case and ADS development schedules

6[7] ADS RACI Matrix

The RACI matrix developed by ADSTF is to identify the Responsible (R), Accountable (A), Consulted (C), and Informed (I) for activities conducted in the development of ADS.

Figure 6-6 – RACI Matrix

All the swim lanes included in the process flow are the vertical columns in the RACI matrix representing WECC and its members in various forums. Each row in the matrix is each step of the process flow including the subprocesses. Figure 6-6 shows the RACI matrix developed for the current ADS process flow identifying the parties responsible for each activity. Any updates to the process flow should be reflected into RACI matrix and should map to the steps sequentially to indicate the inputs and outputs for each activity.

21

Version 2.05

7[8] Stakeholder Review or Vetting of Data

The power flow and stability data contained in the ADS is developed by NERC Registered Entities in the U.S. and international entities in the Western Interconnection (i.e., BAs, TPs, PCs’) and is intended to be consistent with state and federal public policy requirements. These entities, referred to as Data Owners, have obligations to WECC and NERC with respect to the quality and accuracy of the data they provide to WECC. In the event data used in the ADS as provided by a Data Submitter is believed to be inconsistent with the requirements identified in the PF DPM and PCM DDVM, WECC will communicate directly with the registered entities to resolve any identified issues.

WECC Production Cost data is collected in partnership between WECC and participating stakeholders (representatives of WECC member classes) and reviewed through the planning processes of RAC. The RAC, with support from its subcommittees and working groups, will oversee the relevant ADS processes that involve stakeholder input and effort in creating the ADS related PF and PCM datasets.

8[9] Appendix

8.1[9.1] Joint PCC-TEPPC Review Task Force (JPTRTF) Report and Recommendations

8.2[9.2] Glossary of Terms used in power flow and production cost modeling processes (Enoch and Shelli) Include survey definitions of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Resource Portfolios (Angela)

22