Duke Energy Carolinas Duke Energy Progress

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting

1st Quarter 2018

Thursday, February 8, 2018

2:00 to 3:30 p.m. EST

Agenda

NAESB WEQ Update

NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

Dynamic Transfers

Generator Interconnection Process

Roundtable

Wrap-up

NAESB WEQ New Publication of Standards

A New NAESB Wholesale Electric Quadrant publication

(WEQ Version 003.2) was released December 8, 2017. WEQ Version 003 is the standard that is incorporated into

our tariff. WEQ Version 003.1 was published October 26, 2015.

FERC NOPR (Docket RM05-5-025) was issued July 21, 2016.

Comments ended Sept 27, 2016. FERC took no action due to lack of quorum of FERC

Commissioners. FERC will probably issue a new NOPR to encompass all

changes between Version 003 and 003.2 (implement all changes rather than in 2 steps).

NAESB WEQ 2018 Annual Plan

Subcommittee API Completion Description Status

BPS & OASIS 2.a.i.1. 4Q 2018 Posting of additional information on OASIS regarding firm transmission curtailments

Active

2.a.i.2. 2Q 2018 Allow for posting of third party offers of planning redispatch services Completed 1Q 2017

3.a. 2Q 2018 Enhance TSR results posting to allow showing of available generation dispatch options that would allow acceptance of reservation request

Completed 4Q 2017

3.b. 3Q 2018 Enhance TSR results posting to allow a showing of limiting transmission elements for denied transmission service requests

Completed 4Q 2017

OASIS 3.c. TBD Requirements for OASIS to use data in the Electric Industry Registry Review/ Prioritize

3.d. TBD Evaluate the ability to define specific lists to submitted for the Query/Response in the OASIS Template format and develop new standards/modifications as needed

Review/ Prioritize

3.e. TBD Evaluate adding dynamic notification for the rollover rights renewal deadline and develop new standards/modifications as needed.

Review/ Prioritize

3.f. TBD Review for needed modifications in NITS Business Practice Standards Review/ Prioritize

3.g. TBD new standards to ensure that reservation capacity that is assigned to untagged Pseudo-Ties is preserved for that purpose

Review/ Prioritize

3.h. TBD Evaluate the need for a mechanism to allow documentation for coordination of partial path reservations to demonstrate compete path associated with long-term firm interchange

Review/ Prioritize

NAESB WEQ 2018 Annual Plan

Subcommittee API Completion Description Status

BPS 1.a. 2019/2020 Parallel Flow Visualization (IDC test underway) Full Staffing

1.b. 2019/2020 Revise TLR5 next hour allocation (IDC test underway) Full Staffing

Cybersecurity 4.a. 4Q 2018 Annual review of WEQ-012 and the accreditation requirements for ACA to determine if changes are needed

Performed each year

4.b. 4Q 2018 Evaluate and modify as needed standards to complement NERC CIP Standards and any other NERC or NAESB activities related to cybersecurity

Performed each year

Joint WEQ/WGQ FERC Forms

5.a. 2018 Develop business practices as needed to support electronic filing protocols for submittal of FERC Forms

Underway

NAESB WEQ 2018 Annual Plan

Discussion Items: Dynamic Notification for Rollover Rights

Would it be helpful to have dynamic notification for the rollover rights renewal deadline?

If so, should it be automatic or only on request? Is email notification sufficient or are there other mechanisms that

would be valuable for notifications? Should notification go to the person who made the reservation or

somewhere else? If so, how far in advance of the deadline would be desired by

Stakeholders? NITS on OASIS

What changes would be valuable to Stakeholders? Duke opted not to ask customers to manage Scheduling Rights for

NITS but many other Transmission Providers (e.g., Southern) did implement this. Should Duke change its approach to be more aligned with others?

Email input to Alan Pritchard (alan.pritchard@duke-energy.com)

Develop NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

2018 API 3.g.

Develop NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

WEQ-004-1.8 A Pseudo-Tie may be implemented without an RFI1 if all relevant information about the Pseudo-Tie is included in congestion management procedure(s) via an alternate method.

Unless addressed, the following scenarios are possible when a Pseudo-Tie is not tagged: 1. Pseudo-Tie reservation capacity may be redirected to another path. 2. Pseudo-Tie reservation capacity may be resold to another party. 3. Pseudo-Tie reservation capacity may be consolidated with other

reservations. 4. Firm Pseudo-Tie reservation capacity may be incorrectly offered as non-

firm transmission capacity.

1Note: A Request for Interchange (RFI) is an e-tag and it includes schedule information.

Develop NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

Text of NAESB 2018 Annual Plan Item 3.g.

Develop new OASIS Business Practice Standards to ensure that reservation capacity that is assigned to untagged Pseudo-Ties is preserved for that purpose. – Develop a mechanism to reduce the Uncommitted Capacity of PTP reservations that support

untagged Pseudo-Ties to prevent the capacity used for the Pseudo-Tie to be otherwise encumbered (redirected, resold, tagged, etc.). The subcommittee may wish to adopt a practice that considers the full PTP reservation registered in a Pseudo-Tie to be fully bound (fully encumbered) or may wish to develop a more robust mechanism for encumbering portions of the reserved capacity.

– The standards should prohibit releasing as non-firm ATC the capacity reserved for an untagged Pseudo-Tie.

– Require that all new Pseudo-Tie reservations be Tier 1 or unconditional Tier 2, so that they are not subject to preemption after confirmation.

– Expand SAMTS to permit Coordinated Requests to be reduced or terminated by the Transmission Customer if the Coordinated Group includes a reservation that is denied registration in a Pseudo-Tie in webRegistry.

– The new standard will also minimize the potential for unreserved use penalties due to double-use of a reservation if it should simultaneously a) serve a reservation for the Pseudo-Tie and also b) serve as the basis for deliver energy on an alternate path or alternate tag.

– This issue has been discussed in the WEQ BPS and the WEQ OASIS subcommittees. A Proposal for OASIS Treatment of Pseudo-Ties was presented to the WEQ-BPS subcommittee in the December 4-5, 2013 meeting (link) and the WEQ-OASIS subcommittee discussed Pseudo-Tie Reservations on OASIS in the January 14-16, 2014 meeting (link).

Develop NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

• Duke Recommendation to the OASIS Subcommittee: – Establish a new Request Type named PT (for this presentation) with

the following characteristics: • It will be a form of scheduling rights (e.g., Resale) and cannot be resold or

redirected. • It will have the same characteristics as the Parent reservation (POR, POD,

Source, Sink, firmness, etc.) • It must include the unique identifier from the EIR-Registered Pseudo-Tie. • Multiple PT reservations against a Parent reservation are permitted but each

must have a unique identifier from the EIR-Registered Pseudo-Tie. • It may be applied to PTP or NITS. • Capacity may be adjusted over time. If increased, Uncommitted Capacity will

be taken from the parent reservation. If decreased, Uncommitted Capacity will be restored to the parent reservation.

• The parent reservation must be firm service that cannot be preempted (unconditional with respect to section 13.2 of the OATT)

• The PT reserved capacity will act as an encumbrance on the parent reservation and, therefore, will reduce the portion of the parent reservation’s capacity that can be tagged, resold or redirected .

Develop NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

• Duke Recommendation (continued):

– Since the PT reservation represents the upper limit of capacity that may be seen on a Pseudo-Tie, none of the PT capacity should be released as non-firm ATC.

– Consider establishing a mechanism for capturing near-real time impacts of Pseudo-Ties on transmission element loading in order to ensure reasonably accurate load relief assignments in curtailments.

Develop NAESB Standards for Untagged Pseudo-Ties

Discussion items:

There may be times when an adjustment needs to be made to the PT reservation. Examples: When a generator is down for extended maintenance, the Transmission Customer may wish to use

the reserved capacity for other purposes (e.g., e-tag, resale, redirect).

An agreement for a Pseudo-Tie may be terminated early or extended, requiring an adjustment.

Should the Transmission Provider or the Transmission Customer be responsible for creating and managing the capacity that is set aside for the untagged Pseudo-Tie? PT capacity would be used by Duke as a basis for calculating unreserved use (compare actual vs reserved on an hour by hour basis). It would be easier to set up on OASIS if TP creates and manages.

If TP creates and manages, TC would be dependent on TP to make any adjustments.

If TC creates and manages, who should be in the loop to approve the reservation?

This only addresses Pseudo-Ties that are not tagged. Should it be expanded to cover all registered Pseudo-Ties, including those that are tagged, and

include special e-tag provisions in the NAESB standards to permit correct accounting in ATC calculations for Pseudo-Tie tags? If included we would need to make sure there wasn’t double counting of the capacity (PT capacity + tagged capacity).

Email response to Alan Pritchard (alan.pritchard@duke-energy.com)

Dynamic Transfers DEC and DEP now have a documented process that will

govern the dynamic transfer process which are posted on our OASIS sites and are effective

Communication of the process and implementation date have been a subject of previous Stakeholder meetings

Previous guidance was provided that all new dynamic transfers are subject to the new process and would not apply to current dynamic transfers

Lesson Learned-the process should also apply to existing dynamic changes that will be modified (i.e. increases, decreases, changes in effective dates, etc.)

The dynamic schedule request gives Duke formal notification of changes for work planning purposes

Generator Interconnection Process

July 2017-a joint effort between Transmission and Distributed Energy Technology (DET) was started to consolidate generator interconnections into a single organization

Consolidation will drive consistency of processes and consistency to customers

The Generator Interconnection Process for State and Federal projects in DEC and DEP will begin to transition from Transmission to DET

DEP-February 15, 2018

DEC-March 15, 2018

Angie Tabor joined DET in December and will be the lead contact for FERC generator interconnections in DEP and DEC

Generator Interconnection Process (Cont’d)

Phill Cathcart has been named the State generator interconnection contact for Transmission projects in DEP

Jerry Barton will remain the State generator interconnection contact for Transmission projects in DEC

OASIS will be updated in the Generator Interconnection Information folder to list all contacts

Scott Lewter (DEC) and Jim Eckelkamp (DEP) will still play a significant role in the interconnection process as this transition is expected to take several months

Roundtable

Current Issues

Discuss any topics that customers want to review today

Customer Suggested Topics for Future meetings

Identify any topics of discussion for future meetings

Wrap-up

Next Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting

– Thursday, May 17 – 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET

Questions and Comments