Agenda Project Management and Oversight Subcommittee (PMOS) Conference Call April 12, 2016 | Noon to 1:30 p.m. Eastern Dial-in: 1.303.248.0285 | Access Code: 1326651 | Security/Passcode: 041216 Click here for: Webinar Access Introduction and Chair’s Remarks NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Public Announcement Agenda Items

1. Review of Agenda

2. Consent Agenda – (Approve)

a. March 8, 2016 Project Management and Oversight Subcommittee Meeting Notes*

3. Project Updates

a. 2015-08 – Emergency Operations (Request for Interpretation – Consumers Energy)*

4. Project Tracking Spreadsheet (PTS)

a. Updates to current projects

b. Project Tracking Spreadsheet

c. 2016 Projects Annual Calendar

5. Project Assignments

a. 2016-EPR-01

b. 2016-EPR-02

6. Other Business

7. Adjourn

*Background materials included.

Antitrust Compliance Guidelines I. General It is NERC’s policy and practice to obey the antitrust laws and to avoid all conduct that unreasonably restrains competition. This policy requires the avoidance of any conduct that violates, or that might appear to violate, the antitrust laws. Among other things, the antitrust laws forbid any agreement between or among competitors regarding prices, availability of service, product design, terms of sale, division of markets, allocation of customers or any other activity that unreasonably restrains competition. It is the responsibility of every NERC participant and employee who may in any way affect NERC’s compliance with the antitrust laws to carry out this commitment. Antitrust laws are complex and subject to court interpretation that can vary over time and from one court to another. The purpose of these guidelines is to alert NERC participants and employees to potential antitrust problems and to set forth policies to be followed with respect to activities that may involve antitrust considerations. In some instances, the NERC policy contained in these guidelines is stricter than the applicable antitrust laws. Any NERC participant or employee who is uncertain about the legal ramifications of a particular course of conduct or who has doubts or concerns about whether NERC’s antitrust compliance policy is implicated in any situation should consult NERC’s General Counsel immediately. II. Prohibited Activities Participants in NERC activities (including those of its committees and subgroups) should refrain from the following when acting in their capacity as participants in NERC activities (e.g., at NERC meetings, conference calls and in informal discussions):

• Discussions involving pricing information, especially margin (profit) and internal cost information and participants’ expectations as to their future prices or internal costs.

• Discussions of a participant’s marketing strategies.

• Discussions regarding how customers and geographical areas are to be divided among competitors.

• Discussions concerning the exclusion of competitors from markets.

• Discussions concerning boycotting or group refusals to deal with competitors, vendors or suppliers.

NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines 2

• Any other matters that do not clearly fall within these guidelines should be reviewed with NERC’s General Counsel before being discussed.

III. Activities That Are Permitted From time to time decisions or actions of NERC (including those of its committees and subgroups) may have a negative impact on particular entities and thus in that sense adversely impact competition. Decisions and actions by NERC (including its committees and subgroups) should only be undertaken for the purpose of promoting and maintaining the reliability and adequacy of the bulk power system. If you do not have a legitimate purpose consistent with this objective for discussing a matter, please refrain from discussing the matter during NERC meetings and in other NERC-related communications. You should also ensure that NERC procedures, including those set forth in NERC’s Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Rules of Procedure are followed in conducting NERC business. In addition, all discussions in NERC meetings and other NERC-related communications should be within the scope of the mandate for or assignment to the particular NERC committee or subgroup, as well as within the scope of the published agenda for the meeting. No decisions should be made nor any actions taken in NERC activities for the purpose of giving an industry participant or group of participants a competitive advantage over other participants. In particular, decisions with respect to setting, revising, or assessing compliance with NERC reliability standards should not be influenced by anti-competitive motivations. Subject to the foregoing restrictions, participants in NERC activities may discuss:

• Reliability matters relating to the bulk power system, including operation and planning matters such as establishing or revising reliability standards, special operating procedures, operating transfer capabilities, and plans for new facilities.

• Matters relating to the impact of reliability standards for the bulk power system on electricity markets, and the impact of electricity market operations on the reliability of the bulk power system.

• Proposed filings or other communications with state or federal regulatory authorities or other governmental entities.

Matters relating to the internal governance, management and operation of NERC, such as nominations for vacant committee positions, budgeting and assessments, and employment matters; and procedural matters such as planning and scheduling meetings.

Public Announcements

Conference call: Participants are reminded that this conference call is public. The access number was posted on the NERC website and widely distributed. Speakers on the call should keep in mind that the listening audience may include members of the press and representatives of various governmental authorities, in addition to the expected participation by industry stakeholders.

Meeting Notes Project Management and Oversight Subcommittee (PMOS) March 8, 2016 | 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Eastern

NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Public Announcement NERC staff read the NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines and Public Announcement.

Introduction and Chair’s Remarks Chair Brenda Hampton welcomed everyone. Individuals attending in-person included Scott Barfield-McGinnis, Mike Brytowski, Michelle D’Antuono, Ken Goldsmith, Chris Gowder, Brenda Hampton, Rod Kinard, Jordan Mallory, Brian Murphy, Scott Miller, Lauren Perotti, Ryan Stewart, and Charles Yeung (vice chair). Remote attendees included Sean Bodkin, Amy Casuscelli, Rachel Coyne, Andrew Gallo, Mark Pratt, Jennifer Sterling, Chris Wilson, and Kim Zimmerman.

Agenda Items

1. Review of AgendaThe agenda was reviewed by the PMOS members. A motion was made and seconded to accept aspresented. The motion passed.

2. Project Tracking Spreadsheet (PTS)

a. Project Overviews

i. Ken Goldberg discussed how the Project 2015-08 Emergency Operations project is being splitinto two paths, as EOP-004 will be separated out as there is coordination with the Departmentof Energy.

ii. K. Goldberg mentioned the current Project 2010-14.2.2 Phase 2 of Balancing AuthorityReliability-based Controls outreach of the proposed retirement of BAL-004. The plan is for thatproject to go to the May 2016 NERC Board of Trustees meeting for adoption.

iii. Rod Kinard gave an update on the Project 2010-05.3 Phase 3 of Protection Systems: RemedialAction Schemes (RAS) and noted that the PTS needed to be updated.

iv. Brian Murphy noted that the Project 2016-01 Modifications to TOP and IRO Standards andProject 2016-02 Modifications to CIP Standards are on the March 9, 2016 StandardsCommittee (SC) agenda for action. For Project 2016-01, the recommended slate of draftingteam members is being presented for appointment. For Project 2016-02, the StandardAuthorization Request and the supplemental nominations for additional members are beingpresented for authorization to post.

b. Areas for Improvement

Agenda Item 2aProject Management and

Oversite SubcommitteeApril 12, 2016

i. From a process perspective, B. Murphy mentioned that anything more than a month of the project tracking spreadsheet being updated diminishes the value of it.

ii. The spreadsheet does not need to be presented to the SC with each change, as incremental changes can be done through PMOS.

iii. Potential improvements to the PTS:

(1) A general comment was made and supported to move the introductory colors down, so as to highlight the projects and ease of filtering and navigating the PTS.

(2) Freeze panes for Project Number/Project Name.

(3) Fix filtering / data sort problem.

(4) Comments will cover the latest status. For projects behind schedule, the comments on the other tab will get into more detail on why it was delayed.

(5) All projects with yellow or red will have an entry on the Delayed Project Details tab.

(6) Deliverables for the same project will be shown on one line unless they have a separate and distinct schedule.

(7) Deadline will only include those that are critical (e.g. FERC directive), not NERC-imposed deadlines that have no real-world consequences if missed.

(8) Make red/yellow/blue/green filter/sortable.

(9) Fluid info on first page – static info on the right side.

(10) Keep most important info on first page. Detail in the PTS tabs.

(11) Determine canned reports

(12) Eliminate some of the columns –

(13) Move legend to the end or to another tab.

(14) Move to Microsoft Project?

(15) Feed from project to PTS?

(16) Feed up to summary sheet. Detail on separate tabs.

(17) Consider having the comparison between planned and actual on a different sheet. Only

actual on one.

(18) Synch up info from project pages.

(19) Want to keep color coding and status. Approved schedule vs actual. More information on

yellow or red coded. RSDP – priorities in the formula – high gets the priority

(20) Metric – plan vs actual and reasons for delays.

iv. Proposed update to the PTS to be presented to PMOS in June 2016. S. Barfield, S. Miller and M. Brytowski team up and work on revisions to the PTS.

Meeting Notes – Project Management and Oversite Subcommittee Meeting – March 8, 2016 13

3. Expectations for PMOS Members and PMOS Liaisons

B. Hampton presented a slide deck on the expectations for PMOS members and liaisons. C. Yeung asked if the Enhanced Periodic Reviews (EPRs) will have PMOS liaisons and what the difference is to a drafting team PMOS liaison. B. Murphy noted that the liaison will serve a similar role as drafting team liaisons.

Action item: Put together the similarities and differences between being a PMOS liaison for a drafting team or EPR team.

Action item: Review the slide deck from a NERC perspective and follow back up on future PMOS call.

PMOS members went through the slide deck and recommended some language changes.

4. PMOS Nominations B. Hampton noted that the PMOS received three nominations, and only one of the nominees was in-person or on the phone. Nominee Scott Miller gave an overview of why he would like to join the subcommittee and how he would be a good fit based on his experience. K. Goldberg made a motion to accept S. Miller as a member of the PMOS, and R. Kinard seconded. S. Miller was welcomed to the PMOS.

5. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. Eastern.

Meeting Notes – Project Management and Oversite Subcommittee Meeting – March 8, 2016 14

Agenda Item 3 Project Management and

Oversite Subcommittee April 12, 2016

Request for Interpretation of EOP-004-2, Requirement R1

Submitted by Consumers Energy

Action NERC staff recommends that the Project Management and Oversight Subcommittee refer the Request for Interpretation (RFI) of EOP-004-2, submitted by Consumers Energy, to the Project 2015-08 – Emergency Operations standard drafting team (SDT) to address the issue raised in the RFI into its periodic review of EOP-004-2.

Background The RFI, submitted by Consumers Energy, requests clarification of EOP-002-4, Requirement R1. The requirement states that “Each Responsible Entity shall have an event reporting Operating Plan in accordance with EOP-004-2 Attachment 1 that includes the protocol(s) for reporting to the Electric Reliability Organization and other organizations (e.g., the Regional Entity, company personnel, the Responsible Entity’s Reliability Coordinator, law enforcement, or governmental authority).” [Emphasis added.] Consumers Energy seeks clarity regarding what is meant by “other organizations” and whether additional events are required to be reported if they are reportable under DOE-417 but are not listed in the standard. Currently, Project 2015-08 is actively developing revisions to EOP-004-2. Therefore, NERC staff recommends that this issue be addressed by the active SDT.

Note: an Interpretation cannot be used to change a standard.

Interpretation 2015-02: Request for an Interpretation of EOP-004-2, Requirement R1, for Consumers Energy Company

Date submitted: March 2, 2016

Contact information for person requesting the interpretation:

Name: Charles Rogers

Organization: Consumers Energy

Telephone: 517-788-0027

Email: Charles.Rogers@cmsenergy.com

Identify the standard that needs clarification:

Standard Number (include version number): EOP-004-2

(example: PRC-001-1)

Standard Title: Event Reporting

Identify specifically what requirement needs clarification:

Requirement Number and Text of Requirement: Requirement R1 – “Each Responsible Entity shall have an event reporting Operating Plan in accordance with EOP-004-2 Attachment 1 that includes the protocol(s) for reporting to the Electric Reliability Organization and other organizations (e.g., the Regional Entity, company personnel, the Responsible Entity’s Reliability Coordinator, law enforcement, or governmental authority).”

Clarification needed: Are events that are reportable under the reporting requirements of other organizations (such as DOE OE-417) but that are NOT listed in EOP-004-2 Attachment 2 subject to this Standard?

Identify the material impact associated with this interpretation:

Identify the material impact to your organization or others caused by the lack of clarity or an incorrect interpretation of this standard.

The text of Requirement R1 is unclear in that it references “other organizations” and is vague regarding EOP-004-2 obligations under the reporting obligations of those other organizations. Thus, we are uncertain whether OE-417 reports (reflecting events other than those listed on EOP-004-2 Attachment 2) must be reported to the ERO, and whether they are subject to ERO compliance oversight.

When completed, email this form to: sarcomm@nerc.com

Agenda Item 3a

Version History Version Date Owner Change Tracking

1 April 22, 2011

1 May 27, 2014 Standards Information Staff Updated template and email address for submittal.

2