DRAFT

Meeting Minutes of theNEPOOL Transmission Committee

Doubletree Hotel Westborough, Massachusetts

October 26, 2016

______

Attendee / Member/
Alternate /

Market Participant

M. Winkler / Chair /

ISO New England Inc.

J. Rotger / Vice Chair
Member /

Emera Energy

J.Dwyer / Secretary /

ISO New England Inc.

C. Bowie / Alternate / Eversource
*R. Borghensani / Member / TEC & TEC-RI
J. Clemente / Member / UI
P. Dumais / Alternate / Avangrid
F. Ettori / Member / VELCO
W. Fowler / Member/ Alternate / Exelon, Granite Ridge, Dynegy, Calpine, Entergy Nuclear, Essential Power
M. Gardner / Member / NextEra
*J. Iafrati / Alternate / Galt Power
P. Krawczyk / Member / Eversource
A. Krich / Member / Boreas Renewables/Gen Group Member
W. Kilgoar / Member / LIPA
T. Martin / Alternate / NGrid
B. McKinnon / Member/ Alternate / CMEEC, MMWEC, South Hadley, NHEC
*P. Peterson / Member/ Alternate / Ct. OCC, NH OCA, Vt. Energy Invest
*F. Plett / Member / Mass AG
R. Stein / Member/ Alternate / PSEG, HQ-US, First Wind Energy Marketing
Guest / Affiliation
D. Burnham / Eversource
D. Capra / NESCOE
A. DiGrande / ISO New England
V.Divatia / Eversource
*C. Frasier / Mass DPU
S. Garwood / New Hampshire Transmission
S. Gibelli / NextEra
E. Jacobi / FERC
M. Giaimo / ISO New England
M. Gonzalez / ISO New England
B. Kay / ISO New England
A. McBride / ISO New England
B. Oberlin / ISO New England
T. Paradise / ISO New England
C. Purinton / CMP
D. Phelan / NHPUC
S. Rourke / ISO New England
E. Runge / Day-Pitney NEPOOL Counsel
S.Segner / Jericho Power LLC/ L&S Power
*A. Sikulski / Avangrid Renewables
F. Von Pinho / NextEra/ New Hampshire Transmission
*J. Vu / New Hampshire Transmission

*Participated by telephone

After determining that a quorum was present, the Transmission Committee (TC or Committee) meeting was called to order.

Agenda Item No. 1:Chair’s Remarks

The Chair noted that a reminder to renew proxies would be sent out soon.

1(A) Approval of Minutes – September 27, 2016 Transmission Committee

It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2016 Transmission Committee Meeting.

Based on a show of hands, the motion to approve the minutes passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #2: Section 206 Proceeding on Regional Network Service Formula Rate (Docket No. EL16-19-000)

NEPOOL Counsel provided a brief update on the settlement process. A large number of proposed revisions to Attachment F are currently being discussed and will likely come to the Committee at a later date. NEPOOL Counsel will send a memo to Transmission Committee members, likelyin November, outliningthe proposed changes. Materials provided on the settlement will be marked as privileged and confidential and are provided to members as participants in the NEPOOL committee process not to their respective companies.

Agenda Item #3: Update on Process for Transmission Committee Vice Chair Election

NEPOOL Counsel provided a brief update on the process. He noted that there are two nominees and that ballots will be distributed soon. Each of the nominees made a brief statement.

Agenda Item #4 NEPOOL Draft Status Report in Order 1000 Technical Conference Proceeding (Docket No. AD16-18-000)

NEPOOL Counsel noted that an earlier draft of this document was reviewed and elicited comments at the September 27th meeting and thereafter under a process set forth in a memo distributed after that meeting for further comments and proposed revisions. Those comments, including a change to footnote 12 that was distributed on October 25th, were reflected in the revised document and were distributed in the materials for the meeting. In response to a question on the change to footnote 12, Mr. McKinnon, on behalf of the proponent, explained that the proposed revision to footnote 12is to address an issue of Order 1000 implementation regarding eligibility for regionalsupport ofcertain transmission upgrades. He added that he believed that the proponent would likely be providing more detailed comments on this point to the FERC but has not yet considered whether to make any formal request or proposal for action.

The ISO clarified the distinction between the eligibility for regionalization criteria (100-300MW) that pre-dates Order 1000, where the ISO would not recognize a need, and the Order 1000 revisionsthat require that a competitive process be followed for local planning expenses to be eligible for regional cost sharing.

NEPOOL Counsel and the Vice Chair explained that this footnote merely notes a concern raised by a single participant and is not a NEPOOL position. This document no longer is a set of comments but has been revised to be a status report providing a broad overview of the stakeholder process on this issue and noting various concerns raised by participants.

After further discussion and review of the wording of several sections of the document some revisions were made at the meeting.

The following motion was then made and seconded:

Resolved that the Transmission Committee recommends Participants Committee support for the draft NEPOOL Status Report in the Order 1000 Technical Conference proceeding in Docket No. AD16-18-000, as distributed to the Transmission Committee for its October 26, 2016 meeting, together with the changes agreed to at the meeting and any non-substantive changes approved after the meeting by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Transmission Committee.

The motion was then voted and passed by a show of hands with no opposition and most[1] of the Transmission Sector abstaining.

Agenda Item #5 NextEra Proposed Tariff Revisions for Order 1000 Implementation

Michelle Gardner and Stephen Gibelli presented NextEra’s proposal, highlighting changes from the last presentation. It was also noted that the next meeting would likely separate the proposed changes to the three-year right of first refusal (ROFR) from the suggested changes to the planning process and request two separate votes (one on the Attachment K language for the three-year ROFR and a second vote on the planningprocess proposals, which mightbemore generic rather than a vote on Tariff language). NextEra will work with NEPOOL Counsel on motions and proposed Tariff revisions to ensure they carry out NextEra’s intent and revise the appropriate Tariff sections.

In response to questions from Committee members during the discussion of the proposal, NextEra:

Clarified that its intent was to have non-incumbents treated in the same manner as incumbents during the period between the needs assessment and putting a solution in place and limit the exception to competitive processes under the ROFR to situations where the ISO cannot manage around the constraint and identifies a specific reliability criterion that would be violated.

Pointed out that in many cases delay will occur with or without competition and that, in either case, a back-stop solution is required to be designed. NextEra is concerned that the current situation leads to the ROFR applying to all projects.

Noted that holding a competitive solicitation does not always take longer and noted that several current projects could have held competitive solicitations by now.

Pointed out, based on its comparison of RTO planning processes, that while everyone has an annual planning process, not all planning is done annually. All of the other RTOs’ processes have good and bad points but none is perfect and none is applicable everywhere.

Highlighted that, where new reliability standards are imposed, it doesn’t necessarily result in an immediate violation.

The ISO noted, in response to a question from the Committee about changes in NERC or NPCC standards that result in near-term violations and whether they would automatically fall into the “imminent and unavoidable” category under this proposal, that it would depend on how the standard wasrolled out and the allowedimplementation schedule. The ISO also said this was an issue that the RTOs are struggling with in balancing the competitive solicitation and corrective action plan requirements.

Committee members and guests made the following comments on the proposal:

  1. Voting on proposed changes to the planning process might be premature and would, in and of itself, require extensive discussion.
  2. Although there is support for competitive solicitation there is also concern about delay. Perhaps there is a need to fix the planning process first and then work on the ROFR. Bringing back already completed studies with a set of solutions to go through a new untested process seems unwise.
  3. The crux of this issue seems to be in the planning process (lack of an annual cycle) and the time lag in getting to solutions. In most cases changes in reliability standards should be less time sensitive and more amenable to competitive solicitation.

The ISO made the following comments on the proposal:

  1. It is not clear to the ISO how much more detail on what criteria would be violated and by how much could be provided.
  2. Using NEMA and the Greater Boston upgrades as an example of operating through constraints, the ISO suggested that,if that required degrading service for long periods of time,that would be troubling.
  3. The ISO does not object to re-evaluating the planning processes in New England and does so all the time in coordination with the PAC. One of the concerns is that, while the current stakeholder and public planning processes are good, there is overhead and delay associated with this kind of full public vetting procedure. That process could be accelerated if stakeholders agree.
  4. In terms of where in the Tariff certain changes are proposed, the ISO is concerned that system operations provisions not be confused with the system planning provisions in Attachment K.
  5. The ISO believes there is some misunderstanding of what is currently being done in New England and offered to come to the next meeting with an overview of its current processes.

During discussions of the current ISO processes, the following points were raised:

Annual studies are done for NERC and NPCC but these are separate from the Attachment K processes in large part due to the lengthy stakeholder process.

There may be a need to take a hard look at what materials are really needed for the public PAC and siting processes.

When there was no change in a study region from the prior analyses performed, with the exception of a change in areliability standard,the ISO suggested that, if there would be no new answers, a full study would not be required while NextEra suggested it was important for transparency to show stakeholders at least that nothing changed in the study region.

There was discussion of the need to automate studies wherever possible, given differing methodologies and the need in some cases for stakeholder agreement to streamline existing processes.

The Vice Chair reminded the Committee that proposals and proposed amendments of NextEra’s materials to be considered at the November 17th meeting would be due no later than three Business Days prior to that meeting (November 10th).

Agenda Item #6 Interconnection Process: Clustering:

After a brief review of the memo from the Committee Chair and Vice Chair on the schedule for moving forward with this item, Alan McBride presented the ISO’s revised proposal and addressed comments provided by RENEW at the last meeting.

In response to questions and concerns raised by Committee members during and after the presentation, the ISO:

Explained the differences in exposure to multiple re-studies in the sequential process as opposed to clustering and acknowledged that some Committee members still have concerns about the triggers for re-study in both the sequential process and clustering.

Addressed concerns raised about the information to be shared with the PAC and whether some information should be withheld as competitively sensitive and noted that the “order of magnitude” estimates would likely use the percentage range in the current planning procedures. In addition, final Interconnection Study reports, which include cost estimates, are already available on the ISO website, subject to CEII.

Clarified that both the estimated MW quantity based on the Minimum Interconnection Standard and the associated capacity quantities would be published and that, as is the case currently, use of the capacity interconnection values in overlapping impact tests for the FCM would be looked at in queue order.

Noted that the Point of Interconnection has to be an existing point on the system (where the network begins) so that a CETU would use the point where it connects to the PTF in its Interconnection Request, which would not necessarily be the point at which a generator physically connects to the system.

Explained that whether or not someone could later use a CETU as a Point of Interconnection would depend upon several Tariff provisions and the integration status of that CETU (i.e. when or if it becomes part of the grid or PTF).

Clarified the proposal’s incentives not to overbuild (no use rights just Incremental Auction Revenue Rights), that the consequences of withdrawal from a cluster would differ based on the timing of the withdrawal, and that project sizing would be determined through the Regional Planning Study process.

Acknowledged the concern of some Committee members about the funding of additions based on Minimum Interconnection Standards with no rights to the associated capacity under FCM rules but noted that this is the rule now without clustering.

On the proposed late-comer provision, the ISO noted the Committee’s comments that 5 years is too short a recovery period and noted its review of other RTOs provisions seemed to range from 5-10 years. It was suggested that those with input on the timeframe proposed (and whether the cost recovery ought to decline over time within the period chosen) or any significant change to the proposed cost allocation should share those thoughts with Mr. McBride soon.

Mr. McBride noted that the ISO expects to present proposed Tariff language for the proposal discussed today at the next Transmission Committee meeting (November 17, 2016).

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Jay Dwyer, Secretary

NEPOOL Transmission Committee

Page 1 of 8

[1] One Transmission Sector member voted in favor of the motion.