PCFTF Organization Structure



Planning Coordinator Function Task ForceOrganizational Structure PaperIntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to establish a statement of intent for the Planning Coordinator Function Task Force (PCFTF) members so that they may move forward and complete their assignment in the most efficient time frame possible. Specifically, the PCFTF has been established by the WECC Planning Coordination Committee (PCC) to look into and address the recent issues that have arisen regarding Planning Coordinator coverage across the Western Interconnection and to report back to the PCC with appropriate recommendations on which the PCC can opine and address. It is expected that once this paper has been fully vetted and agreed to by PCFTF members, it will assume a foundational framework for the task force’s final report to PCC. Once the final report has been accepted by PCC and provided no additional requirements of the task force remain, the PCFTF will be dissolved.Why This PCFTF is NecessaryAs a Planning Coordinator is required to abide by the functions set forth in the Reliability Standards to NERC registered Transmission Planners, Resource Planners, and Distribution Providers that are connected to the transmission network under purview. Based on assessments performed by WECC, gaps have been identified where the functional cohesion implicated by the functional model is lacking. In theory, this translates to possible reliability gaps which by NERC standards must be addressed. As such, certain issues, among others, present themselves:The Functional Model does not clearly define the role of the Planning Coordinator and interpretation is left up to the regions to refine the reporting relationships of the Planning Coordinator with other functions;Some standards are ambiguous as to the roles of the planners (e.g. there are standards that tell both the TP and PC to do something and there are standards that tell the TP or the PC to do something);There are almost certainly gaps where there is no hierarchical relationship between facilities, Resource and Transmission Planners, and Planning Coordinators;There are 30 Planning Coordinators within the Western Interconnection. Moving former WECC standards responsibilities to the Planning Coordinator without thought to process adds significant complexity, particularly when the end product is assembling models or information at the Interconnection level;There may be limited value in arbitrarily creating standards when Regional Administrative procedures supplemented by a Rules of Procedure obligation to provide data may suffice;Some end state planning outcomes occur at the Interconnection level, yet there is no straightforward way to do this if a standard requires 30 different entities to coordinate a single answer.ObjectiveThe objectives of the PCFTF shall be:Identify, review and assess the recent Planning Coordinator issues in WECC and develop a proposed approach and methodology to address these issues that is in the best interest of all WECC stakeholders and reasonably consistent with the NERC Reliability Functional Model. Prepare a PCC briefing on the results of the PCFTF assessment and the proposed approach and methodology to address the identified issues. Obtain input from PCC members on proposed approach and methodology;Based on the results of the assessment and in consideration of the proposed approach and methodology, develop, assess, and document processes and procedures that can be adopted by WECC, as appropriate, that are commensurate with the requirements of the Planning Coordinator function and the needs of WECC members;Develop an implementation plan for the proposed processes and procedures and prepare a draft PCFTF proposal for PCC. Prepare a PCC briefing on the PCFTF proposal and obtain input from PCC members. Based on input from PCC, finalize the PCFTF proposal for PCC approval.Work with WECC compliance to develop a framework for offering WECC members an implementation plan for compliance with the Planning Coordinator requirements;After final PCC approval of the PCFTF proposal, the task force will be dissolved. However, the chairman and vice-chairman will remain engaged with PCC to support further stakeholder efforts that may be deemed necessary by the PCC chairman. DeliverablesThe following will be delivered by the PCFTF to PCC:Identify and report on Planning Coordinator coverage gaps within the Western Interconnection. First part is identifying PC areas by bus (accomplished by original survey and will be validated by follow-up survey) and registered entity (additional work will be needed to tie bus owners to registered functions), the other part is the entities that require a PC which will be determined based on the following information:List of entities that don’t have an identified PC (from the follow-up survey)List of buses that don’t fall within an identified PC area of purview (from the follow-up survey)Identify which registered (and non-registered) functions require a PC;Prepare an assessment of the NERC Planning Coordinator function requirements and how those requirements impact WECC members. Based on that assessment, prepare a proposed approach and methodology to address those issues identified by the PCFTFIdentify PC responsibilities in the Functional Model and accompanying technical document. Will review existing PC responsibilities and document. (associated with c and e)Identify Standards requirements applicable to PCs and requirements applicable to other entities requiring them to do something with a PC (need to keep in context of roles of the PC). Using Donna’s spreadsheet, categorize requirements in high-level buckets (e.g. coordination, reporting, testing). Identify specific roles of PC vs. TP and use to help identify who should be a PC and/or TP and hierarchical relationship between these entities (associated with a and e)Whose responsibility is it to notify an entity who their PC is? (part deliverable 5)What are PC responsibilities and what equipment do they apply to? (associated with a and c)Raise awareness to non-PC entities of what their reporting responsibility is, as defined by the standards requirements (part of deliverable 5 communication plan)What is the PC to functional entity (or function) relationship and what standard requirements drive that relationship? What reporting relationships are there between entities? (associated with b)Is the electrical configuration the important factor in understanding the relationship (determine relationships at the electrical level)? (parking lot issue)One potential solution for tracking is to add additional information fields to the base cases for PC, TP, etc. This may become a recommendation associated with deliverable 5.Is the bus-level appropriate for the survey or do we need to dig electrically deeper? At this time, it doesn’t appear that going to a more granular level is needed. If needed, it will become apparent as the methodology is developed.What reliability risks do non-PC covered areas pose? Spreadsheet should address reliability risks of not having function performed. Should be grouped into different types of “impacts” (e.g. long-term planning). What responsibilities does a PC have that aren’t also associated with a TP? New standards, such as MOD-032, should also be included in the spreadsheet. (associated with b) Look at families of standards vs each individual standard and applicability of the standards (associated with b)How do the standards help us (or not) define coordination? The standards and Functional Model do not define coordination. Without a WECC-wide consensus on what coordination is, it would be difficult to implement a WECC-wide PC methodology.Methodology should contain criteria for determining PC area boundaries; (associated with deliverable 5)Develop an implementation compliance plan to allow WECC membership to address identified issues commensurate with the planning coordination functionWhat do you do if an entity doesn’t provide the needed data to a PC?;Prepare a draft final report that documents all of the results, conclusions, and recommendation of the PCFTF. Present the draft final report to PCC for review and approval on or around July 1, 2015. Finalize the PCFTF report and dissolve the PCFTF;Should the report contain criteria for determining PC area?Should the report define roles of PC and reporting entities?What is the sphere of influence of the recommendations?Does the methodology need to come at this from a technical perspective (not compliance, registration, BES definition, etc.)?What weight and authority should the report carry? Should it be a regional criteria? Standard? Guideline? Definition? We need to consider what FERC will do if it doesn’t carry enough weight.Need to have a discussion with PCC at some point as to what they will do with the work product.What other outreach should occur? What other groups will be impacted by this TF’s work? CUG will be updated. TF should be willing to participate in other forums, as appropriate, to update on progress and seek input. The PCFTF should ask PCC at its October meeting what input from industry the task force should solicit on the draft methodology.Prepare and present to PCC briefing material during the progress of the PCFTF activities. Seek PCC input at appropriate points in the development of the final proposal. The PCFTF chairman and vice-chairman will be responsible for briefing the PCC at each PCC meeting. As a minimum, status reports will be provided; otherwise PCC members will be asked to provide their input into the PCFTF effort as it progresses through its objectives.Time FrameThe PCFTF has been asked to complete its assessment and provide a final report to PCC within one year of its formation. As such, the completion date for PCFTF work is July 1, 2015.BackgroundThe purpose of the Planning Coordinator function, as its name suggests, is to coordinate and integrate transmission and resource plans in a given area. Further, Planning Coordinators are to work with other Planning Coordinators in neighboring areas to ensure an integrated plan for the Bulk Electric System (BES). As stated in the NERC Reliability Functional Model Technical Document – Version 5, the Planning Coordinator “helps to facilitate the process whereby adequate resources and transmission facilities are placed into service in a timely manner through the Resource Planners, Transmission Planners, and possibly others through the coordinated planning process.” In Version 3 of the NERC Reliability Functional Model and Technical Document, the Planning Authority was renamed the Planning Coordinator. This change was a result of a hierarchy issue with the Planning Authority, the ability of one entity to force another entity to build additional infrastructure. Many entities had self-registered as the Planning Authority, now Planning Coordinator, function rather than designating an entity who did not have statutory authority over them. Further, since the Regional Entities did not take on the Planning Coordinator role, individual entities registered. However, transmission coordination is still performed at the Regional Entity level through established planning processed.When Version 5 of the NERC Reliability Functional Model was developed, a subgroup reviewed the Planning Reliability, Transmission Planning, and Resource Planning functions and the respective responsible entities, the Planning Coordinator, Transmission Planner, and Resource Planner. The subgroup found four constructs of registration: (1) a Planning Coordinator covering a very large area (e.g., an ISO/RTO), (2) a Planning Coordinator covering a small area with only one Transmission Planner and Resource Planner, (3) a group of Transmission Planners forming a regional analysis group to fulfill the Planning Reliability function, and (4) a Regional Entity forming a regional analysis group to fulfill the Planning reliability function. Currently, there are 80 entities registered as a Planning Coordinator, ranging from municipals to ISOs/RTOs. A concern is that a gap in reliability could exist because there are reliability requirements that apply solely to the Planning Coordinator and there is no clear understanding as to which entities should be registered as this function. Further, it is almost certain that there are gaps where no Planning Coordinator exists.The Planning Coordinator function is intended to be wide-area in nature and/or cross multiple planning areas. Each Planning Coordinator is responsible for “assessing the longer-term reliability of its Planning Coordinator area.” (NERC Reliability Functional Model – Version 5). The question becomes, how are Planning Coordinator areas determined? There is the possibility that the facilities of a single Transmission Operator may fall into different Planning Coordinator areas. Therefore, the Planning Coordinator Area is not confined to a reliability coordination area. The NERC Reliability Functional Model Technical Document – Version 5 states, “[T]he Planning Coordinator area must cover at least one Transmission Planner Area and one Resource Planner area, or part thereof if either both of these planner areas is larger than the Planning Coordinator area. On the other hand, there is the possibility that a Planning Coordinator area could be nested inside and even larger Planning Coordinator area provided the smaller Planning Coordinator does in fact perform the appropriate system assessments.” The Technical Document goes on to explain the roles of the Planning Coordinator, Transmission Planner, and Resource Planner in these special cases. However, the definition of a Planning Coordinator’s area is not clearly and sufficiently defined to prevent reliability issues.The relationships of the functional entities identified and defined by NERC are hierarchical in nature. For example: All facilities should be under the purview of a Transmission Planner and a Resource Planner.All Resource Planners and Transmission Planners should be affiliated with one or more Planning Coordinator(s).Since some planning requirements only apply to the Planning Coordinator, and since there are likely areas where no Planning Coordinator exists, there would be gaps in the coverage of the standards. While there may be geographic proximity, there are cases where no business relationship exists between a facility owner and a Planning Coordinator. Further, the current registration process does not require entities to identify their hierarchal relationship with other entities. This could lead to a gap in registration and a potential gap in reliability.The Planning Coordinator issue is taking on an additional dimension as there is movement to convert standards that formerly applied to the Regional Reliability Organization (RRO) and make them applicable to the Planning Coordinator. The reality is that the processes defined in the RRO “fill in the blank” standards have functioned generally effectively without enforcement since 2007 and now we are asking for process changes that will require 80 entities to coordinate with each other when formerly 8 Regions rolled their information up to NERC. If we were designing a process from a blank slate, this would not be the approach taken. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download