OC Agenda
September 12-13, 2007
AGENDA
Operating Committee
September 12, 2007 1 to 5 p.m.
September 13, 2007 8 a.m. to noon
MarriottNashvilleAirport
60 Marriott Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee
615-889-9300
Item / Leader / Action- Administration
- Quorum
- Procedures
- Introduction of Members and Guests
- Agenda
- Consent Agenda
- FYI SAR
a.SAR – Time Error Correction
- Operating Committee Tutorial
- Operating Committee Governance
a.Nominating Committee / Chairman / Approve
b.Executive Committee / Chairman / Approve
- Definition of Adequate Level of Reliability
- Reliability Criteria and Operating Limits Concepts
- Personnel Certification
- Reliability Readiness Program
- How Can the OC Provide Value to the Industry?
- Operating Committee Work Plan
- Next meetings
OC Agenda
September 12-13, 2007
Item 1.Administration
Item 1.aAnnouncement of Quorum
The secretary will announce whether a quorum (two-thirds of the voting members) is in place. NOTE: The committee cannot conduct business without a quorum. Please be prepared to stay for the entire meeting.
Item 1.bProcedures
The NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines, Operating Committee charter, and a summary of Parliamentary Procedures are attached for reference. The secretary will answer questions regarding these procedures.
Attachments
- Antitrust Guidelines
- Operating Committee Charter
- Parliamentary Procedures
Item 1.cIntroduction of Members and Guests
The chairman will ask the committee members and guests to introduce themselves.
Attachment
Operating Committee roster
Item 1.dApproval of Agenda
Action
Approve meeting agenda.
Background
The chairman will review the agenda, ask for amendments, and then approval.
Item 2.Consent Agenda
The consent agenda allows the Operating Committee to approve routine items that would not normally need discussion. Any OC member may ask the chairman to remove an item from the consent agenda for formal discussion and action.
Action
Approve the attached document.
Attachment
- Minutes of June 6–7, 2007 Operating Committee meeting.
Item 3.FYI
These items are for the committee’s information. The committee is free to raise any of these items for discussion.
Item 3.aSAR – Time Error Correction
Attachment
SAR – BAL-004, “Time Error Correction”
Background
At MISO’s suggestion, the Operating Committee submitted an “urgent action” standards authorization request for BAL-004, “Time Error Correction,” to remove certain requirements placed upon the reliability coordinators who offer to monitor time error and issue correction orders. (See excerpt below.) The SAR (attached) explains the reasons for this change.
At this point, the Standards Committee has placed this SAR on hold pending further discussions.
Item 4.Operating Committee Tutorial
Action
Discussion.
Background
The NERC Operating Committee’s roots are planted in several different operating groups in the East, West, and Texasthat formed in the 1920s. These groups combined to form the North American Power System Interconnection Committee (NAPSIC) in 1963, and the NERC Operating Committee in 1980. Over these decades, the Operating Committee members were appointed by the regions, and later by the regions and various industry trade and interest groups.
This meeting marks the first time the Operating Committee has met as a group elected by the NERC membership from candidates who were nominated from the industry. Each member offers his or her expertise in some facet of interconnected operations, and willingness to participate in the committee’s deliberations.
Don Benjamin, the committee’s secretary, will conduct a five-minute tutorial to review the committee’s charter, including its functions and responsibilities, how we deal with governance, and basic parliamentary procedures.
Item 5.Operating Committee Governance
Item 5.aNominating Subcommittee
Action
Confirm Nominating Subcommittee
Background
The nominating subcommittee does two things:
- Recommends a slate of the four at-large members of the Executive Committee, and
- Recommends candidates for the committee’s officers.
At this meeting, the chairman will ask the Operating Committee to confirm the following members of the Nominating Subcommittee:
- Derek Cowbourne – Chairman
- Marty Mennes
- John Powell
- Mark Fidrych
- Kent Saathoff
Parliamentary procedure does not preclude Nominating ubcommittee members from nominating themselves for either the Executive Committee or as future committee officers.
The subcommittee will deliberate Wednesday evening and recommend a slate for the four at-large members of the Executive Committee.
Item 5.bExecutive CommitteeThursday Morning
Action
Confirm the Executive Committee at-large members.
Background
The Operating Committee charter provides for an executive committee:
On Thursday morning (September 13), the Nominating Subcommittee will recommend a slate of the four at-large members for the OC to confirm.
Item 6.Definition of Adequate Level of Reliability
Action
Discuss.
The Operating Committee and Planning Committee will discuss this definition at their joint session on Wednesday morning. The committees will continue that discussion at their respective meetings with the goal of approving the definition. Any changes the Operating Committee wishes to make must be reviewed by the Planning Committee, and vice versa.
Attachments
- “Definition of Adequate Level of Reliability,” Version 2, Draft 3
- Definition Supplement A collection of supporting ideas and concepts that will be provided separately before the meeting. The OC and PC officers and NERC staff are still working on this.
Background
NERC has prepared this definition of “adequate level of reliability” at the request of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its January 18, 2007, Order on Compliance Filing. NERC assigned the development of this definition to the Operating Committee and Planning Committee.
The officers of the Operating Committee and Planning Committee have been working as a task force with the NERC staff to develop this definition of an “adequate level of reliability” definition and supporting materials for review by the OC and PC. In addition, the proposed definition and supporting materials are also being reviewed by the following committees: Compliance and Certification, Critical Infrastructure Protection, and Standards. The OC and PC will need to review and comment on the definition and supporting materials at this meeting prior to posting for industry review.
The joint meeting agenda includes additional background information on this document and timeline for board approval.
The definition is based on five fundamental concepts discussed in the Reliability Concepts Document (next item).
Item 7.Reliability Criteria and Operating Limits Concepts
Action
Discussion.
This is a follow-up to the discussion at the Wednesday morning joint Operating Committee/Planning Committee meeting.
Attachment
Please review the “Compilation of Comments” document and comments from individuals posted on the Reliability Concepts Web page. (The document is too large to attach.)
Background
At its June 2007 meeting, the Operating Committee approved posting the draft “Reliability Criteria and Operating Limits Concepts” document for comment. The NERC staff posted the draft (Version 4, Draft 11) on the Reliability Concepts Web page.
We received comments from 13 readers and compiled all the comments into a single Compilation of Comments document. Two readers sent comments in the form of memos that we also posted. The Operating Limits Definition Task Force chairman (Al Miller) and OC secretary have read all the comments. Most were very insightful, and many provided different perspectives for the task force to consider.
Item 8.Personnel Certification
Action
Discussion.
Attachment
Standards Authorization Request for PER-003-0, “Operating Personnel Credentials”
Background
Last year, the Operating Committee reviewed an interpretation of PER-003 prepared by the NERC staff (not the OC secretary) and Personnel Subcommittee in response to specific questions posed by HydroOne (from September 2006 OC meeting agenda):
At its September 2006 meeting, the committee rendered its opinion that the interpretation should not be approved because it may add new requirements that were not in the original version of the standard(from September 2006 OC meeting minutes).
On July 7, 2007, the chairman of the Personnel Certification Governance Committee, Dave Carlson, submitted a SAR to revise PER-003.
The Detailed Description on page 3 of the SAR explains the issue: Should system operators who are not registered as the reliability coordinator, transmission operator, or balancing authority be NERC-certified. For example, should NERC require RTO members who are not registered as transmission operators become NERC-certified?
Item 9.Reliability Readiness Program
Action
Discussion
Background
NERC’s director of reliability readiness, Richard Schneider, will lead this discussion. The Operating Committee is the “program” committee for NERC’s Reliability Readiness Program. Mr. Schneider will provide a summary of the program’s goals and objectives and ask the committee for its opinions and suggestions for improving the program.
We provided an excerpt from the committee’s charter that describes the OC’s role as the program committee.
Questions to consider
- How has the Reliability Readiness program helped your own system improve its performance?
- Do you review the Examples of Excellence? Are they helpful? What can be done to make them more helpful?
- What features of the program should be expanded. How should this be done?
- What features don’t work, or need to be revised? How should these features be revised?
- Is the three-year review schedule appropriate? If not, what frequency makes sense?
Item 10.How Can the OC Provide Value to the Industry?
Action
Discussion.
Background
Note: These are thoughts from the OC secretary and from his discussions with others. The outcome of this discussion will probably influence the direction the committee wants to take in developing its work plan.
NERC’s application to become the ERO included the roles of its technical committees, including the Operating Committee and Planning Committee. Here’s an excerpt:
“Operating and Planning Committees and Subgroups — These two general technical integration committees and their subgroups provide technical advice and subject matter expert support to each of the NERC program areas; serve as forums for technical discussion and integration of the outputs of each NERC program area; and provide expert technical opinions on reliability matters to the board. As the ERO is implemented, NERC will re-evaluate the structure, role and deliverables of the technical integration committees to ensure that the industry is able to effectively and efficiently provide its expertise in support of NERC’s mission as the ERO.”
Now that the Operating Committee is newly reformed, it seems like the right time to talk about how it provides these things. How does it provide “technical advice,” “serve as forums for technical discussions,” “integrate the outputs of each NERC program,” and “provide expert technical opinions on reliability matters to the board.” In general, how does the OC provide value to NERC and the industry?
Standards
It’s a common notion that the OC should discuss draft standards, and recommend new standards when it finds the need. For example, the OC submitted a SAR on BAL-004 (Item 3.aSAR – Time Error Correction). And the committee has discussed the proposed Balancing Area ACE Limit standard for at least two years. But the committee has not become engaged in the rather large list of standards in the Standards Work Plan. (Available at ftp://
Questions
- Does the OC want to play a more active role in reviewing or submitting standards?
- If so, given that the committee represents a wide range of expertise in many different disciplines of operations, can the OC become engaged in the specifics of the standards?
- Is the committee better suited at discussing philosophies rather than details?
- If the committee wants to discuss a standard, who initiates and leads that discussion?
- Should the OC invite the drafting team representative to the OC meetings?
- Should the drafting teams be required to bring issues to the OC as a part of the standards development process?
1)If so, do they bring details? Or philosophical issues? Or both?
Things that Aren’t Standards
Here’s a list of things that aren’t standards, but are important.
Operating Guidelines. About two years ago, the Operating Committee debated the merits of developing “best practices” or “guidelines.” These would be, in general terms, “good things to do.” The OC asked its subcommittees to develop guidelines, but the subcommittees are quite busy with other matters. Even if the subcommittees did develop guidelines, what is the approval process, and what gives a NERC guideline stature?
Security Guidelines. For several years, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Committee has written security guidelines that the NERC board approves. But at its last meeting, the board deferred approving the latest CIPC guidelines over members’ concerns that the guidelines could become de-facto standards.
Concepts document. In a similar vein, the Operating Limits Definition Task Force is writing a Reliability Concepts document that it hopes the OC and PC will approve. (The document is already getting wide-spread use as a training reference.) If the OC and PC approve the document, does it need to go to the board? Or is committee approval sufficient?
E-tag Specifications. This is an interesting example. The E-tag specification is maintained by the NERC/NAESB Joint Interchange Scheduling Working Group, but not approved by any NERC committee or the board. The JISWG is the E-tag spec “custodian,” and issues new versions when it becomes apparent there are enough features that need to be added or things that need fixing. The last major revision (E-tag 1.7) moved the entire platform to XML.
The E-tag spec has effectively become an “open source” document that the JISWG maintains and updates from time to time. Third-party vendors provide “value added” packages based on the E-tag specification, so, in effect, the E-tag spec is an industry standard.
There are many examples of “open source” standards in the world. One of the most common is the Linux operating system, which is free and used by many Web servers. Vendors sell “upgraded” versions of Linux, but the core operating system is open source. All open source standards require 1) a core team of dedicated people who are interested in contributing their expertise to others, 2) a method to continually collect suggestions and “bug” reports, and 3) a mechanism for providing new versions of the standards.
Questions
- What kinds of documents should the OC develop other than standards?
- How would the committee give these documents stature?
- Does the “open source” model have merit?
- What keeps a regulator from requiring an organization to comply with a document, even though it wasn’t intended as a mandatory standard?
Item 11.Operating Committee Work Plan
Action
Discussion.
The outcome of Item 11 will probably affect the committee’s discussion of its work plan.
Background
The OC had maintained a work plan for several years, and submitted that plan to the NERC board. (See screenshot below.)
But in less than a year since the work plan was last updated, the role of NERC has changed as it transformed into the ERO. The OC’s work plan had been generally based on NERC standards, but maybe the committee should broaden its horizons given its new charter and wide range of experts that comprise its membership.
Item 12.Next Meetings