Planning Coordinator Function Task Force
Organizational Structure Paper
Introduction
The 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 Necessary
As 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;
PCFTF
6/12/2014
1

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.
Objective
The 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.
Deliverables
The following will be delivered by the PCFTF to PCC:
1. 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:
a) List of entities that don’t have an identified PC (from the follow-up survey)
b) List of buses that don’t fall within an identified PC area of purview (from the followup survey)
c) Identify which registered (and non-registered) functions require a PC;
2. 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 PCFTF
PCFTF
6/12/2014
2
a) Identify PC responsibilities in the Functional Model and accompanying technical
document. Will review existing PC responsibilities and document. (associated with c
and e)
b) 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).
a. Using Donna’s spreadsheet, categorize requirements in high-level buckets
(e.g. coordination, reporting, testing).
c) 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)
d) Whose responsibility is it to notify an entity who their PC is? (part deliverable 5)
e) What are PC responsibilities and what equipment do they apply to? (associated with
a and c)
f) Raise awareness to non-PC entities of what their reporting responsibility is, as
defined by the standards requirements (part of deliverable 5 communication plan)
g) 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)
h) Is the electrical configuration the important factor in understanding the relationship
(determine relationships at the electrical level)? (parking lot issue)
i) 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.
j) 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.
k) 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)
l)
Look at families of standards vs each individual standard and applicability of the
standards (associated with b)
m) 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.
n) Methodology should contain criteria for determining PC area boundaries;
(associated with deliverable 5)
PCFTF
6/12/2014
3
3. Develop an implementation compliance plan to allow WECC membership to address
identified issues commensurate with the planning coordination function
a) What do you do if an entity doesn’t provide the needed data to a PC?
b)
4. 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;
a) Should the report contain criteria for determining PC area?
b) Should the report define roles of PC and reporting entities?
c) What is the sphere of influence of the recommendations?
d) Does the methodology need to come at this from a technical perspective (not
compliance, registration, BES definition, etc.)?
e) 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.
f) Need to have a discussion with PCC at some point as to what they will do with the
work product.
g) 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.
5. 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 Frame
The 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.
Background
The 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
PCFTF
6/12/2014
4
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 longerterm 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:
PCFTF
6/12/2014
5

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.

PCFTF
6/12/2014
6