North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Order Approving Regional Reliability Standards for the Western Interconnection and Directing Modifications, 33462-33476 [E7-11685]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33462
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please e-mail
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–11653 Filed 6–15–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RR07–11–000]
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation; Order Approving
Regional Reliability Standards for the
Western Interconnection and Directing
Modifications
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Issued June 8, 2007.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T.
Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly,
Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon
Wellinghoff.
1. On March 26, 2007, the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) submitted for
approval eight proposed regional
Reliability Standards for the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC). The proposed regional
Reliability Standards would apply in
the Western Interconnection in addition
to the 83 mandatory Reliability
Standards developed by NERC that will
take effect on a nationwide basis
beginning in June 2007.1 The proposed
regional Reliability Standards would
allow the continuation of certain
reliability practices that are currently in
effect in the Western Interconnection.
As discussed below, pursuant to section
215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), the Commission approves the
proposed regional Reliability Standards.
1 See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, 118 FERC
¶ 61,218 (March 16, 2007), 72 FR 16,416 (April 4,
2007), reh’g pending.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
As a separate action, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission
directs WECC to develop several
specific modifications to the regional
Reliability Standards when WECC
develops, through its Reliability
Standards development process,
permanent, replacement Reliability
Standards.
I. Background
A. EPAct 2005 and Mandatory
Reliability Standards
2. In August 2005, the Electricity
Modernization Act of 2005, which is
Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was
enacted into law.2 EPAct 2005 adds a
new section 215 to the FPA, which
requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to
develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards.3 Before a
Reliability Standard may take effect, the
ERO must submit the standard to the
Commission and obtain the
Commission’s approval.4 Once
approved, the Reliability Standard can
be enforced by the ERO subject to
Commission oversight, or the
Commission can independently enforce
the Reliability Standard.5
3. On February 3, 2006, the
Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA.6
Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization,
NERC, as the ERO.7 Reliability
Standards that the ERO proposes to the
Commission may include Reliability
Standards that are proposed to the ERO
by a Regional Entity.8 A Regional Entity
is an entity that has been approved by
the Commission to enforce Reliability
Standards under delegated authority
from the ERO.9 When the ERO reviews
a regional Reliability Standard that
would be applicable on an
Interconnnection-wide basis and that
has been proposed by a Regional Entity
organized on an Interconnection-wide
basis, the ERO must rebuttably presume
2 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109–58,
Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), to
be codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o.
3 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)–(e).
4 16 U.S.C. 824o(d).
5 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
6 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric
Reliability Organization; Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 (2006), order on reh’g, Order
No. 672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
7 See North American Electric Reliability Corp.,
116 FERC ¶ 61,062 (ERO Certification Order), order
on reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126
(2006).
8 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4).
9 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that the regional Reliability Standard is
just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.10
4. When the ERO submits a proposed
Reliability Standard to the Commission,
the ERO must: (1) Describe the basis and
purpose of the Reliability Standard; (2)
summarize the development and review
proceedings that led to the Reliability
Standard; and (3) demonstrate that the
Reliability Standard is just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.11
5. In reviewing the ERO’s submission,
the Commission will give due weight to
the ERO’s technical expertise, except
concerning the effect of a proposed
Reliability Standard on competition.12
The Commission will also give due
weight to the technical expertise of a
Regional Entity organized on an
Interconnection-wide basis with respect
to a proposed Reliability Standard to be
applicable within that
Interconnection.13 Moreover, the
Commission may give ‘‘due deference’’
to the advice of a Regional Advisory
Body that is organized on an
Interconnection-wide basis.14
6. The Commission may approve a
proposed Reliability Standard if the
Commission finds it is just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.15
In addition, the Commission explained
in Order No. 672 that ‘‘uniformity of
Reliability Standards should be the goal
and the practice, the rule rather than the
exception.’’ 16 Yet, the Commission
recognized that ‘‘the goal of greater
uniformity does not, however, mean
that regional differences cannot exist.17
The Commission then provided the
following guidance:
As a general matter, we will accept the
following two types of regional differences,
provided they are otherwise just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest, as required by the
statute: (1) A regional difference that is more
stringent than the continent-wide Reliability
Standard, including a regional difference that
addresses matters that the continent-wide
Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a
10 16
U.S.C. 824o(d)(3); 18 CFR 39.5(b).
CFR 39.5(a).
12 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
13 Id.
14 16 U.S.C. 824o(j). A Regional Advisory Body is
an entity established upon petition to the
Commission that is organized to advise the ERO, a
Regional Entity or the Commission regarding
certain matters including whether a Reliability
Standard proposed to apply within the region is
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. 18 CFR
39.13(c) (2006).
15 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
16 Order No. 672 at P 290.
17 Id. at 291.
11 18
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
regional Reliability Standard that is
necessitated by a physical difference in the
Bulk-Power System.18
B. WECC
7. WECC is responsible for overseeing
transmission system reliability in the
Western Interconnection since 2002,
when WECC was formed from
predecessor reliability organizations.
The WECC region encompasses nearly
1.8 million square miles, including 14
western U.S. states, the Canadian
provinces of Alberta and British
Columbia, and the northern portion of
Baja California in Mexico. WECC
developed a Reliability Management
System (RMS) pursuant to which
transmission operators in the Western
Interconnection agreed by contract to be
bound by the WECC reliability criteria
and sanctions for non-compliance.
According to WECC, the criteria are
recognized by all WECC members but
are contractually binding only on
members that signed an RMS
Agreement.19
8. In an April 19, 2007 order, the
Commission accepted delegation
agreements between NERC and each of
eight Regional Entities.20 In the April 19
Order, the Commission accepted WECC
as a Regional Entity organized on an
Interconnection-wide basis. In addition,
the Commission accepted WECC’s
Standards Development Manual which
sets forth WECC’s Reliability Standards
development process.21 The
Commission also directed WECC to
make certain clarifications to its
Standards Development Manual in a
filing to be submitted within 180 days
of the order.
C. The Eight Proposed Regional
Reliability Standards
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9. NERC has submitted for the
Commission’s approval the following
eight regional Reliability Standards that
were proposed to NERC by WECC to
apply in the Western Interconnection:
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 (Operating
Reserves)
WECC–IRO–STD–006–0 (Qualified Path
Unscheduled Flow Relief)
WECC–PRC–STD–001–1 (Certification
of Protective Relay Applications and
Settings)
WECC–PRC–STD–003–1 (Protective
Relay and Remedial Action Scheme
Misoperation)
WECC–PRC–STD–005–1 (Transmission
Maintenance)
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 (Operating
Transfer Capability)
WECC–VAR–STD–002a–1 (Automatic
Voltage Regulators)
WECC–VAR–STD–002b–1 (Power
System Stabilizers)
10. In its March 26, 2007 filing (NERC
Filing), NERC states that the proposed
regional Reliability Standards are
translations of existing reliability
criteria under WECC’s RMS program.
According to NERC, WECC developed
most of the criteria in the late 1990s in
response to a series of black-outs in the
Western Interconnection.22 The
proposed regional Reliability Standards
would make eight of those RMS criteria
binding on the applicable subset of
users, owners and operators of the BulkPower System in the United States
portion of the Western Interconnection,
as identified in each proposed standard.
The regional Reliability Standards
would supplement rather than replace
the Commission-approved Reliability
Standards developed by the ERO that
will take effect in June 2007.
11. In translating WECC’s existing
practices to proposed regional
Reliability Standards, WECC proceeded
as follows.23 In 2006, a WECC task force
identified criteria in the RMS
Agreement that, in the task force’s view,
should be binding on all users, owners
and operators of the regional BulkPower System. The task force chose
eight of the identified criteria that have
the highest priority and that can be
implemented in the near term. WECC
then used expedited procedures to
develop the eight regional Reliability
Standards. WECC’s rules provide that,
when WECC develops a Reliability
Standard under expedited procedures,
WECC must later develop a permanent,
replacement standard using more
extensive procedures.
12. On October 5, 2006, using its
expedited procedures, WECC solicited
comment on whether the eight regional
Reliability Standards accurately reflect
practices under the RMS Agreement.
Commenters raised concerns that
sanctions under the eight regional
Reliability Standards are inconsistent
with NERC Reliability Standards, do not
provide clear guidance for measuring
compliance, and might be applied in an
anti-competitive manner.24 The task
force responded that the regional
Reliability Standards would remain in
effect for at most one year and that
WECC would consider the commenters’
concerns when developing permanent,
18 Id.
19 See
WECC April 17, 2007 Comments at 16.
American Electric Reliability Corp., 119
FERC ¶ 61,060 at P 432 (2007) (April 19 Order).
21 Id. at PP 469–470.
20 North
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
22 NERC
Filing at 5–6.
id., Ex. C (Record of Development,
Comments and Correspondence).
24 Id., Ex. C, Attachment 1.
23 See
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33463
replacement standards.25 WECC’s Board
of Directors approved the eight regional
Reliability Standards on January 5,
2007.
13. On December 22, 2006, in
anticipation of approval by its board,
WECC submitted the proposed regional
Reliability Standards to NERC. On
January 9, 2007, NERC responded with
detailed comments. According to NERC,
its primary concern was that the
sanctions in the proposed regional
Reliability Standards were inconsistent
with NERC Sanction Guidelines.26
NERC’s January 9 report also identified
NERC’s preferred nomenclature for
Reliability Standards, identified NERC’s
preferred format for submission, and
identified language in the proposed
regional Reliability Standards that
NERC found ambiguous or incorrect.27
By letter dated February 28, 2007,
WECC responded by committing to
address the shortcomings that NERC
had identified when WECC develops
permanent, replacement standards.28
14. Also in response to WECC’s
submission, NERC initiated a 45-day
comment period. NERC received six sets
of comments. NERC found that WECC
had addressed the commenters’
concerns by committing to correct
shortcomings in the proposed regional
Reliability Standards within one year of
Commission approval. NERC generally
applied a rebuttable presumption that
the proposed regional Reliability
Standards meet applicable
requirements. However, because each of
the proposed regional Reliability
Standards contains a sanction table that
is inconsistent with the NERC Sanction
Guidelines, the NERC board concluded
that the rebuttable presumption was
overcome with respect to this one
component of the proposed standards.29
Finally, NERC found that the proposed
one-year term was inconsistent with the
Commission’s prior invalidation of
automatic expiration dates for
Reliability Standards.30
15. On February 8, 2007, the Western
Interconnection Regional Advisory
Body (WIRAB) advised NERC that it
should approve the proposed regional
Reliability Standards as necessary for
Reliable Operation of the Western
Interconnection and as meeting the legal
25 Id.,
26 Id.
Ex. A at 1 and Ex. C, Attachment 2 at 8.
at 3–4. See also ERO Certification Order at
P 299.
27 Id., Ex. C, Attachment 3.
28 Id., Ex. C, Attachment 4.
29 NERC Filing at 9.
30 Id. at 2–4, 8–9 (citing North American Electric
Reliability Corp., 118 FERC 61,030 at P 30 (2007)).
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
33464
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
standard for approval set forth in
section 215 of the FPA.31
16. On March 2007, NERC approved
the proposed regional Reliability
Standards on the conditions that WECC:
(1) Remove the one-year term limitation;
(2) address the shortcomings 32 in the
standards within one year of approval
by the Commission, including removing
the sanctions table that conflicts with
the NERC Sanction Guidelines; (3) until
the WECC sanction table is removed,
follow the NERC Sanction Guidelines to
the maximum extent possible within the
limits of the WECC sanction table; and
(4) monitor and enforce the standards
under a delegation agreement between
NERC and WECC, once that agreement
is approved.33
17. NERC submitted its present
request for the Commission’s approval
on March 26, 2007. In April 2007, the
Commission approved 83 ERO
Reliability Standards that apply nationwide, except for Alaska and Hawaii.
NERC and WECC request that the
proposed regional Reliability Standards
take effect as soon as practical and, if
possible, on the same day as the nationwide Reliability Standards.
D. Notice of Filing and Responsive
Pleadings
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
18. Notice of the NERC Filing was
published in the Federal Register, 72
Fed. Reg. 17,544 (April 9, 2007), with
interventions, comments and protests
due on or before April 17, 2007.
Motions to intervene were filed by
Modesto Irrigation District, New York
Transmission Owners, Southern
California Edison Company, and
Transmission Agency of Northern
California. Motions to intervene and
comment or protest were filed by
PacifiCorp, WECC, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc. (Xcel), PPL EnergyPlus,
LLC and PPL Montana, LLC (PPL), and
Cogeneration Association of California
and Energy Producers and Users
Coalition (California Cogeneration).
WIRAB submitted timely advice to the
Commission regarding the NERC Filing.
An untimely motion to intervene was
filed by Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E).
31 Id. at 8–9. In Governors of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington and Wyoming, 116 FERC
¶ 61,061 at P 27 (2006), the Commission established
WIRAB as a Regional Reliability body pursuant to
section 215(j) of the FPA.
32 The shortcomings in the regional Reliability
Standards were identified by NERC in a January 9,
2007 letter to WECC. See NERC Filing, Ex. C at 128–
139.
33 Id. at 8–9.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
1. Comments in Support
19. WECC states that the proposed
regional Reliability Standards, which
are exact translations of existing
regional criteria, either address matters
not addressed in the Commissionapproved ERO Reliability Standards or
contain more stringent requirements
than the ERO standards.34 WECC states
that, with the exception of WECC–IRO–
STD–006–0, the WECC regional
Reliability Standard that implements
the West’s unique approach to
mitigation of unscheduled flow, which
the Commission approved as superior to
the ERO Reliability Standard,35 none of
the regional Reliability Standards in any
way displace the ERO requirements
approved by the Commission. Rather,
users, owners and operators in the
Western Interconnection will still be
required to comply with all of the
requirements of the approved ERO
Reliability Standards.
20. WECC contends that the eight
regional Reliability Standards satisfy the
relevant statutory and regulatory criteria
for approval. It states that only a few
commenters raised substantive concerns
in the WECC standard development
process regarding several potentially
ambiguous terms such as ‘‘load
responsibility,’’ ‘‘firm transactions,’’ and
‘‘Receiver;’’ and that WECC has
committed to address these issues in
developing permanent regional
Reliability Standards.
21. WECC acknowledges that the
sanctions tables in the proposed
regional Reliability Standards differ
from the NERC Sanction Guidelines.
WECC states that it plans to propose
replacement standards that incorporate
the NERC Sanction Guidelines and
address other concerns of NERC and
stakeholders. WECC also explains that
the regional sanctions would apply only
when an offense was not covered by a
sanction under the ERO Reliability
Standards and that the regional
Reliability Standards preclude the
possibility of being sanctioned under
both the WECC and ERO Reliability
Standards for the same non-compliance
occurrence.
22. WIRAB advises that the proposed
regional Reliability Standards are
necessary for the Reliable Operation of
the Western Interconnection and should
take effect on the effective date of the 83
ERO Reliability Standards. WIRAB also
advises reinstatement of the one-year
34 Our discussion below of each regional
Reliability Standard includes WECC’s explanation
of how it is more stringent than the relevant ERO
Reliability Standard.
35 WECC Comments at 14 (citing Order No. 693
at P 964).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
term limitation, noting that WECC
approved the regional Reliability
Standards only as interim standards.
WIRAB suggests that it is unclear that
NERC has authority to eliminate the
one-year term limitation. Finally,
WIRAB expresses concern that NERC
effectively disregarded the statutory
rebuttable presumption without
sufficient legal analysis.36
23. PacifiCorp states that, given the
unique nature of the Western
transmission system, it supports the
eight regional Reliability Standards as
necessary for addressing reliability
concerns of the Western
Interconnection.
2. Protests
24. Xcel, PPL and California
Cogeneration filed protests or comments
in opposition to one or more of the
proposed regional Reliability Standards.
California Cogeneration objects to
proposed regional Reliability Standard
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 (Operating
Reserves), which, in relevant part,
requires balancing authorities to
maintain operating reserves equal to a
stated percentage of ‘‘load
responsibility.’’ According to California
Cogeneration, ‘‘load responsibility’’
should not include behind-the-meter
load that a cogenerator serves at its
industrial or commercial host. It asserts
that a balancing authority is not
obligated to serve that load in the case
of an outage on the Bulk-Power System
and therefore should not be required to
maintain associated reserves.37
25. PPL, which owns and operates
electrical facilities and markets
electricity in the Western
Interconnection, objects to WECC–IRO–
STD–006–0, addressing the mitigation
of unscheduled flows. According to
PPL, WECC has not justified the need
for this regional Reliability Standard,
which imposes requirements on
‘‘receivers’’ that are not identified as an
applicable entity, and improperly
imposes mitigation obligations on loadserving entities (LSEs) and marketers
that lack authority or ability to comply
with those obligations.
26. Xcel, which owns generation and
transmission facilities and serves
electricity customers in the Western
Interconnection, argues that the
Commission lacks authority to review
the proposed regional Reliability
Standards because WECC was not a
Regional Entity at the time it submitted
the proposed regional Reliability
36 WIRAB at 8–9 (citing NERC Request, Appendix
B at 4–5).
37 California Cogeneration Comments at 6 (citing
California Independent System Operator Corp., 96
FERC ¶ 63,015 (2001)).
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
Standards to NERC. Xcel asserts that the
WECC Reliability Standards
development process used to develop
these eight regional Reliability
Standards would be invalid to the
extent that the Commission directs
changes to that process. Xcel contends
that NERC, in eliminating the one-year
interim status of the regional Reliability
Standards, has effectively approved the
regional Reliability Standards on a
permanent instead of interim basis.
Further, Xcel raises substantive
objections that are discussed below in
the context of the relevant regional
Reliability Standard.
II. Discussion
A. Procedural Matters
27. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2006), the
timely, unopposed motions to intervene
serve to make the entities that filed
them parties to this proceeding. We will
grant PG&E’s late motion to intervene,
given the early stage of this proceeding
and the absence of undue delay,
prejudice or burden to the parties.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
B. General and Procedural Objections to
the Regional Reliability Standards
1. WECC Reliability Standards
Development Process
28. As discussed above, Xcel argues
that the Commission only has the
authority to consider Reliability
Standards proposed by the ERO or a
Regional Entity. On April 19, 2007,
subsequent to Xcel’s protest, the
Commission accepted the proposed
Regional Delegation Agreements, and
accepted WECC as a Regional Entity
organized on an Interconnection-wide
basis.38 Thus, we consider this objection
by Xcel to be moot.
29. Xcel also contends that ‘‘to the
extent the Commission directs changes
to WECC’s standards development
process that differ from the process used
to develop these WECC Standards, those
standards will have been developed
pursuant to processes that were
inconsistent with WECC’s own rules.’’ 39
The Commission, in the April 19 Order,
accepted WECC’s Standards
Development Manual,40 and WECC’s
eight proposed regional Reliability
Standards were developed using the
process set forth in this manual. The
Commission also directed WECC to
develop several changes to the
manual.41 However, the record of
38 April
19 Order at P 432.
Comments at 8.
40 April 19 Order at P 469.
41 Id. at P 470.
39 Xcel
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
WECC’s development of the proposed
regional Reliability Standards indicates
that Xcel had full opportunity to
participate and raise its concerns in the
(what is now a Commission-approved)
stakeholders process, as well in the
NERC posting of the WECC regional
Reliability Standards for comment.42
Accordingly, we deny Xcel’s protest on
this issue.
2. Term Limitation
30. As discussed above, WECC had
proposed that the regional Reliability
Standards would be interim standards
that would remain in effect for a
maximum of one year after Commission
approval. Specifically, each regional
Reliability Standard includes a
statement that it will remain in effect
‘‘for one year from the date of
Commission approval or until a North
American Standard or a revised [WECC]
Regional Reliability Standard goes into
place, whichever occurs first.’’ During
the interim, WECC would develop
permanent standards that, upon
Commission approval, would replace
the interim standards.
31. NERC, however, accepted the
regional Reliability Standards on the
condition that ‘‘the standards shall
remain mandatory and enforceable until
they are revised, replaced or withdrawn
in a subsequent standards action,
including approval of the revision,
replacement, or withdrawal by the
Commission.’’ 43 NERC explained that it
imposed this condition to be consistent
with a Commission order which
provided that, with regard to a similar
provision in NERC’s standards
development procedure, once a
Reliability Standard is made effective
under section 215 of the FPA, it can
only be revised, replaced or withdrawn
by a further action that requires
Commission approval.
32. WECC, WIRAB and Xcel object to
NERC’s elimination of the one-year
expiration date. WECC and WIRAB state
that the entities that voted in favor of
the regional Reliability Standards did so
with the understanding that they were
voting for temporary standards, not
standards that would continue
indefinitely until replaced.44 WIRAB
states that, while it agrees with the
policy that urgent action standards
should not have sunset dates, it is
concerned that imposing the rule with
respect to the eight WECC regional
Reliability Standards will abridge the
42 See, e.g., Ex. C at Attachment 2 at 5,
Attachment 4 at 23–27.
43 NERC Filing at 10–11. See also id. at Ex. B at
6–7 (March 12, 2007, NERC Board of Trustees
Decision on WECC Reliability Standards).
44 See WECC Comments at 7.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33465
due process of WECC members that
approved them. Likewise, Xcel remarks
that WECC postponed substantive
responses to stakeholders’ comments
based on the rationale that it was
proposing the standards on an interim
basis.
33. We affirm NERC’s decision to
eliminate the one-year term limitation.
NERC’s decision is consistent with our
precedent. In the ERO Certification
Order, the Commission directed NERC
to establish a process for adopting an
interim Reliability Standard on an
expedited basis, where the standard
might be adopted later on a permanent
basis, without any possibility that the
interim standard would expire in the
interim.45 NERC subsequently revised
its ‘‘urgent action’’ procedures to
remove the automatic one year
expiration provision. In accepting this
revision, the Commission explained that
‘‘It is sufficient * * * to allow the
interim Reliability Standard to remain
in effect until it is made permanent or
replaced by a permanent Reliability
Standard, or possibly even its
withdrawal as a Reliability Standard so
long as it is understood that these
actions are all subject to Commission
approval.’’ 46 WECC developed the eight
regional Reliability Standards pursuant
to its Expedited Process for Urgent
Action Interim Standards (Expedited
Process).47 Thus, our concerns regarding
NERC’s urgent action procedures apply
equally to WECC’s Expedited Process.
34. The commenters, however, are
mistaken that the elimination of the
one-year expiration date necessarily
converts these from interim to
permanent regional Reliability
Standards. WECC is still committed
pursuant to its Expedited Process to
completing the development of
permanent replacement standards.48
Moreover, as another condition of
approval, NERC required WECC to
‘‘meet its commitment to address the
shortcomings identified in the standards
* * * over the course of the next
year.’’ 49 Thus, we disagree with the
commenters that NERC, in eliminating
the one-year expiration date, has made
the regional Reliability Standards
permanent or thwarted due process.
NERC’s decision will assure that, if
WECC is unable to develop permanent,
replacement regional Reliability
45 ERO Certification Order, 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 at
P 253.
46 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 118
FERC ¶ 61,030 at P 30 (2007).
47 WECC Comments at 5.
48 Id. WECC represents that it expects to complete
permanent, replacement standards within one year
for most of the interim standards. See id. at 7.
49 NERC Filing, Ex. B at 7.
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
33466
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Standards within one year, the interim
standards that WECC represents are
crucial for reliability within the Western
Interconnection will not automatically
expire.
3. NERC’s Application of the Rebuttable
Presumption
35. Section 215(d)(3) of the FPA
provides that, when a Reliability
Standard is submitted to the ERO by an
Interconnection-wide Regional Entity,
the ERO must rebuttably presume that
the standard meets statutory criteria for
approval.50 In Order No. 672, the
Commission explained that the
rebuttable presumption refers to the
burden of proof before the ERO.51 Thus,
a party that objects to a proposed
Reliability Standard before the ERO
must demonstrate that it does not meet
criteria for approval. If the ERO finds
that the presumption is not adequately
rebutted, it must accept the proposed
Reliability Standard from a Regional
Entity organized on an Interconnectionwide basis.52
36. Here, NERC correctly applied the
rebuttable presumption to WECC as a
Regional Entity organized on an
Interconnection-wide basis. However,
the NERC Board found that ‘‘[b]ecause
each of the proposed standards contains
a sanctions table that is inconsistent
with the NERC Sanctions Guidelines,
the proposed standards have lost the
rebuttable presumption that such
standards would otherwise have.’’ 53
NERC then approved the proposed
regional Reliability Standards with the
condition that WECC conform the
sanctions table to NERC’s Sanction
Guidelines and that, in the interim,
WECC follow the NERC guidelines to
the maximum extent possible.
37. WIRAB disagrees with the manner
in which NERC dismissed the statutory
presumption. It asserts that NERC failed
to provide an adequate analysis
regarding the reasonableness, potential
discriminatory impacts, or the broader
public interest at stake to support a
finding that rebuts the presumption.
38. In the first instance, WIRAB’s
concern is only hypothetical since
NERC, after determining that the
rebuttable presumption should not
apply, determined that the regional
Reliability Standards met the statutory
criteria for approval. Moreover, it
appears that WIRAB interprets NERC as
having completely disregarded the
rebuttable presumption. The
Commission believes that the better
understanding, supported by NERC’s
filing, is that NERC determined that the
rebuttable presumption was overcome
‘‘with respect to this component of the
proposed standards,’’ i.e., the sanctions
table.54 NERC supported this
determination by explaining that NERC
staff and industry stakeholders
identified a number of shortcomings,
the most significant of which is the
sanction table that is inconsistent with
the NERC Sanction Guidelines.55
Although NERC’s explanation is
succinct, the Commission concludes
that NERC has articulated a sufficient
rationale for finding that the rebuttable
presumption with regard to this one
component was overcome. In general,
however, NERC should provide a robust
discussion of its reasoning for finding
that the rebuttable presumption has
been overcome.
4. Potential for Dual Penalties
39. Xcel protests that the proposed
WECC regional Reliability Standards
impose an unfair burden because,
according to Xcel, the proposed
standards are duplicative of
Commission-approved NERC Reliability
Standards. Thus, Xcel contends that the
regional Reliability Standards present
the risk of dual penalties for the same
offense.
40. We reject Xcel’s protest on this
issue. Each of the proposed regional
Reliability Standards provides that ‘‘[a]t
no time shall this regional Standard be
enforced in addition to a similar North
American Standard.’’ 56 WECC, in its
comments, makes clear that the intent of
this language is to ensure that there
would not be dual sanctions for the
same offense.57 Thus, we conclude that
the regional Reliability Standards will
not result in duplicative penalties
resulting from the same non-compliance
event.
5. Need for the Proposed Standards
41. In reviewing a proposed
Reliability Standard, we consider, in
relevant part, whether it would address
a reliability goal.58 Here, WECC, WIRAB
and NERC each represent that the
proposed regional Reliability Standards
would enhance regional reliability by
making binding, throughout the United
States portion of the Western
Interconnection, reliability practices
that are currently implemented in the
Western Interconnection on a voluntary
basis. As noted above, those practices
54 Id.
50 16
U.S.C. 842o(d)(3); 18 CFR 39.5(b).
51 Order No. 672 at P 301.
52 Id.
53 NERC Filing, Ex. B at 4–5.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
at 9.
at 10.
56 See, e.g., WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 § A5.
57 See WECC Comments at 2, n.1.
58 Order No. 672 at P 324.
55 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are currently legally binding only on
signatories to the RMS Agreement.
WECC and NERC explain that
Commission approval would extend the
compliance obligations of the regional
Reliability Standards beyond the RMS
signatories to all applicable users,
owners and operators in the Western
Interconnection. According to NERC,
having the regional Reliability
Standards approved as mandatory under
section 215 of the FPA provides
significant additional authority for
compliance and enforcement.
42. Xcel, on the other hand, asserts
that the proposed standards are
unnecessary, reasoning that the RMS
Agreement will remain in effect and is
sufficient to protect reliability.
43. We agree with WECC, WIRAB and
NERC that approval of the proposed
regional Reliability Standards under
section 215 would enhance reliability in
the Western Interconnection by making
WECC’s current practices binding on all
relevant entities in the region and by
strengthening WECC’s compliance and
enforcement authority. WECC’s current
practices were developed in response to
concrete and significant reliability
problems in the Western
Interconnection in the mid-1990s.
According to WECC, reliability in the
region has improved since the practices
have been in effect. When we first
approved the practices in 1999, we
lacked full jurisdiction over reliability
and therefore could not impose the
practices on a mandatory basis. While
we laud WECC members for their
voluntary compliance by contract, we
believe that statutorily-based and
mandatory Reliability Standards will
better ensure the reliability of the BulkPower System.
C. Discussion of WECC’s Regional
Reliability Standards
1. WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 (Operating
Reserves)
44. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 requires that
adequate generating capacity be
available at all times to maintain
scheduled frequency and avoid loss of
firm load following transmission or
generation contingencies. The regional
Reliability Standard applies to
balancing authorities and reserve
sharing groups (RSGs) with provision
for agents to provide administrative
duties. A balancing authority or reserve
sharing group must maintain minimum
operating reserves, defined as the sum
of: (1) Regulating reserves; (2)
contingency reserves; (3) additional
reserve for interruptible imports; and (4)
additional reserve for on-demand
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
obligations. WECC requires balancing
authorities to maintain an amount of
contingency reserves:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Sufficient to meet the NERC Disturbance
Control Standard BAL–002–0, equal to the
greater of: (a) The loss of generating capacity
due to forced outages of generation or
transmission equipment that would result
from the most severe single contingency; or
(b) The sum of five percent of the load
responsibility served by hydro generation
and seven percent of the load responsibility
served by thermal generation.
Further, the contingency reserve must
be composed of at least 50 percent
spinning reserves, which must be
capable of ramping and being fully
deployed within ten minutes.
45. WECC’s regional Reliability
Standard corresponds to NERC’s
Reliability Standard BAL–002–0
(Disturbance Control Performance),
which requires a balancing authority
(either directly or by participating in a
reserve sharing group) to use its
contingency reserves to balance
resources and demand and return
Interconnection frequency to within
defined limits following a reportable
disturbance. Requirement 3 of NERC’s
BAL–002–0 requires each balancing
authority or reserve sharing group to
‘‘carry at least enough Contingency
Reserve to cover the most severe
contingency.’’
46. As with all eight regional
Reliability Standards, NERC approved
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 with the
condition that WECC meet its
commitment to address the
shortcomings identified by NERC in a
January 9, 2007 letter to WECC.59 With
regard to WECC–BAL–STD–002–0,
NERC identified various formatting
concerns including the need to specify
individual Requirements and
corresponding Measures, consistent
with the format of the NERC Reliability
Standards. NERC also stated that
WECC’s regional Reliability Standard
defines the terms ‘‘automatic generation
control,’’ ‘‘disturbance,’’ ‘‘frequency
bias,’’ and ‘‘non-spinning reserve’’
differently from NERC’s Glossary of
Terms Used in Reliability Standards
(NERC glossary).60 NERC also identifies
a number of shortcomings that apply
generally to all of the WECC regional
Reliability Standards including the
sanction tables that conflict with the
NERC Sanction Guidelines, failure to
include Violation Severity Levels (levels
of non-compliance) and Violation Risk
Factors, an ‘‘excuse of performance’’
59 See
NERC Filing, Ex. C, Attachment 3 at 5–7.
Order No. 693 at P 1893–98, the Commission
approved NERC’s glossary and directed certain
modifications.
60 In
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
provision 61 that is not included in
NERC’s Reliability Standards template,
and additional substantive and
formatting concerns.
Comments
47. WECC explains that NERC
Reliability Standard BAL–002–0
requires an applicable entity to have the
ability to supply reserves equal to the
most severe single contingency.
According to WECC, while applicable
users, owners and operators in the
Western Interconnection must comply
with BAL–002–0, the corresponding
regional Reliability Standard goes
further and requires each balancing
authority in the West to provide a
minimum reserve of five percent of the
loads served by hydro generation and
seven percent of the loads served by
thermal generation. WECC states that
this regional minimum reserve
requirement was developed to assure
that there would be sufficient generation
to sustain acceptable power system
performance for various contingencies.
Further, WECC explains that WECC–
BAL–STD–002–0 is more stringent
because NERC’s BAL–002–0 requires
contingency reserves to be restored
within 90 minutes following a
disturbance while WECC requires
restoration within 60 minutes.
48. As noted above, WECC requires
balancing authorities to maintain
contingency reserves equal to the greater
of the loss of generating capacity
resulting from the most severe single
contingency or the sum of five percent
of load responsibility served by hydro
generation and seven percent of the load
responsibility served by thermal
generation. Both Xcel and California
Cogeneration protest that the term ‘‘load
responsibility’’ as used by the WECC is
ambiguous and could lead to
inconsistent interpretations of the
regional Reliability Standard. California
Cogeneration states that Commission
Opinion No. 464 determined that a
qualifying facility’s (QF) net load is the
only relevant load for the purposes of
calculating the operating reserve
responsibility of the QF.62 It expresses
concern that the term load
61 Each proposed regional Reliability Standard
includes an ‘‘excuse of performance’’ provision
stating that ‘‘non-compliance with any of the
reliability criteria contained in this Standard shall
be excused and no sanction applied if such noncompliance results directly from one or more of the
[specified] actions or events,’’ including
governmental order, order of reliability coordinator,
protection of facilities and extraordinary
contingency (such as act of war, insurrection, flood
or earthquake).
62 Citing California Independent System Operator
Corp., Opinion No. 464, 104 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 40
(2003).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33467
responsibility could be interpreted to
include gross load in conflict with
Opinion No. 464 and, thus, asks the
Commission to remand the regional
Reliability Standard so that it can be
modified to include a definition of load
responsibility consistent with Opinion
No. 464.
49. Xcel also argues that the term load
responsibility is overly vague. It quotes
a WECC document that defines load
responsibility as ‘‘[a] control area’s firm
load demand plus those firm sales
minus those firm purchases for which
reserve capacity is provided by the
supplier.’’ 63 According to Xcel, WECC
has not adequately defined the term
‘‘firm’’ embedded in its definition of
load responsibility and, likewise, has
not adequately defined the related term
‘‘interruptible.’’
50. Xcel notes that WECC–BAL–STD–
002–0 requires the purchaser of
interruptible power to carry additional
reserves to replace interruptible
imports. Xcel posits that, while the
definition of ‘‘interruptible’’ is unclear,
application of a narrow interpretation of
the term could have adverse impacts on
competition and reliability. Specifically,
it claims that to avoid application of the
‘‘adder’’ some entities avoid purchasing
‘‘economy power,’’ or interruptible
power, thereby impeding competition.
Xcel also claims that this practice may
result in entities utilizing local units
that are subject to failure or curtailment,
resulting in less reliable operations.
Xcel further argues that certain entities
may try to claim that most ‘‘firm’’
transactions, as interpreted by the
Commission in Order No. 890, are
potentially curtailable and thus
‘‘interruptible’’ under a ‘‘very narrow
interpretation.’’ Xcel adds that there is
no evidence to show that ‘‘economy
transactions’’ are less reliable thus
warranting the need for extra reserves.
51. Xcel also opposes the 60-minute
restoration period that would be
required under BAL–STD–002–0. Xcel
asserts that BAL–STD–002–0 would
require restoration of contingency
reserves within 60 minutes rather than
the 90 minutes permissible under the
corresponding NERC standard.
According to Xcel, in adopting 60
minutes of restoration time, WECC and
NERC disregarded Requirement R6.2 of
BAL–002–0 that established a default
contingency reserve restoration period
of 90 minutes and allows adjustment of
63 Xcel Comments at 12, citing NERC/WECC
Planning Standards and Minimum Operating
Reliability Criteria, Definitions, Revised August 9,
2002. The California Independent System Operator
Corporation tariff also uses this definition of load
responsibility. See Opinion No. 464, 96 FERC
¶ 63,015 at 13.
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
33468
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
this period ‘‘to better suit the reliability
targets of the Interconnection based on
analysis approved by the NERC
Operating Committee.’’ Xcel contends
that WECC failed to obtain approval of
the NERC Operating Committee. Xcel
also claims that WECC’s proposed 60minute restoration period will have a
dampening effect on competition
because the shortened restoration period
will provide little time for market
participants to procure alternative
resources outside of the host balancing
authority.
52. Further, Xcel argues that WECC
has not justified the requirements of the
regional Reliability Standard and thus
the technical expertise of WECC should
not be given any weight in the
Commission’s evaluation of the regional
Reliability Standard.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Commission Determination
53. The Commission approves
regional Reliability Standard WECC–
BAL–STD–002–0 as mandatory and
enforceable in the Western
Interconnection. The Commission finds
that the proposed regional Reliability
Standard is more stringent than the
corresponding NERC Reliability
Standard, BAL–002–0, because WECC
requires a more stringent minimum
reserve requirement than the nationwide requirement.64 Further, WECC’s
requirement to restore contingency
reserves within 60 minutes is more
stringent than the 90 minute restoration
period set forth in NERC’s BAL–002–0.
While we agree with Xcel that NERC’s
filing did not adequately explain the
need for WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 or
why it was more stringent than the
corresponding NERC Reliability
Standards, WECC provides an adequate
explanation in its comments for the
Commission to make a reasoned
determination.65
54. The Commission agrees with the
shortcomings identified by NERC
regarding WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 and
64 While approving the WECC regional Reliability
Standard, the Commission reiterates its directive in
Order No. 693 that the ERO develop a continentwide reserve policy that is ‘‘based on the reliability
risk of not meeting load associated with a particular
balancing authority’s generation mix and topology.’’
See Order No. 693 at P 340. Our approval of WECC–
BAL–STD–002–0 does not affect this directive to
the ERO.
65 Section 39.5(a) of the Commission’s
regulations, 18 CFR 39.5(a) (2006), provides that the
ERO’s submission of a new or modified Reliability
Standard must include (1) A concise statement of
the basis and purpose of the proposed Reliability
Standard, (2) a summary of the Reliability Standard
development proceedings, and (3) a demonstration
that the proposal is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public
interest. Future Reliability Standard filings may be
subject to a deficiency letter if they fail to satisfy
the filing requirements set forth in our regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
expects WECC in developing a
permanent, replacement standard to
address these shortcomings as it has
committed to do. For example, for each
of the proposed regional Reliability
Standards, (1) Regional definitions
should conform to the definitions set
forth in the NERC glossary, unless a
specific deviation has been justified;
and (2) documents that are referenced in
the Reliability Standard should be
attached to the Reliability Standard.
Likewise, with respect to this and each
of the proposed regional Reliability
Standards, we agree with NERC that
WECC must remove the sanctions table
that is inconsistent with NERC’s
Sanction Guidelines and develop
Violation Risk Factors (levels of noncompliance) and Violation Severity
Levels that conform to corresponding
NERC standards. In approving NERC’s
Sanction Guidelines, the Commission
emphasized the need to achieve
consistency in the assessment of
penalties across the regions. Elimination
of the WECC sanctions table will further
this goal.66
55. Further, it is important that
regional Reliability Standards and NERC
Reliability Standards achieve a
reasonable level of consistency in the
structure of a Reliability Standard so
that there is a common understanding of
the elements. In particular, we agree
with NERC that WECC should eliminate
the ‘‘excuse of performance’’ provision
of the regional Reliability Standards,
which is inconsistent with NERC’s
format. While the factors identified in
the excuse of performance provision
may be legitimate mitigating factors for
WECC to consider when assessing a
penalty on a case-by-case basis, the
Commission disagrees that a Reliability
Standard should contain a blanket
waiver or excuse for non-compliance.67
We expect WECC, in developing a
permanent, replacement standard, to
address these concerns of both NERC
and the Commission. In general, with
respect to both the eight proposed
Reliability Standards as well as other
standards that are being developed by
WECC, it is essential that WECC employ
a higher level of precision and
consistency.
56. In Order No. 672, the Commission,
in discussing the factors it would
consider in determining whether a
proposed Reliability Standard met the
statutory standard for approval,
explained that a proposed Reliability
Standard should be clear and
unambiguous regarding what is required
66 ERO
Certification Order at P 254, 350.
19 Order at P 133.
67 April
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and who is required to comply.68 Xcel
and California Cogeneration contend
that the Commission should remand
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 because of
ambiguities in the terms ‘‘load
responsibility’’ and ‘‘firm transaction.’’
As discussed above, the Commission
believes that the regional Reliability
Standard is sound, as it provides greater
stringency than NERC’s reserve
requirements and meets a need of the
Western Interconnection. While
commenters identify potential
ambiguities, we do not believe that
these potential uncertainties
demonstrate a degree of ambiguity
within the regional Reliability Standard
that requires us to remand it.69 Rather,
as WECC indicated in its response to
stakeholders in the regional Reliability
Standards development process, WECC
will provide an opportunity to address
these concerns when developing a
permanent, replacement standard. The
Commission agrees that this is a
reasonable approach and will expect
WECC’s submission of a replacement
standard to adequately address these
stakeholder concerns.
57. California Cogeneration raised
concerns that the term load
responsibility must be defined
consistent with the Commission’s
Opinion No. 464, which issued in a
proceeding under section 205 of the
FPA that addressed treatment of QFs
under the CAISO open access
transmission tariff. The Commission
agrees that a QF’s load responsibility
should be interpreted consistent with
Opinion No. 464, which provided in
relevant part that:
We affirm the judge’s finding that the longstanding practice in the CAISO control area
of scheduling, metering and procuring
reserves on a net load basis should be
permitted to continue, so long as a QF has
contracted for standby service with a UDC
[Utility Distribution Company], i.e., a
contract that provides for the immediate
replacement of energy in case of the QF’s
forced outage. The record indicates * * *
that by contract with a QF, a UDC will
provide standby service and operating
reserves if there is a forced QF outage.70
58. Thus, from an economic
perspective under section 205, the UDC
must pay for the reserves associated
with the backup power provided by the
UDC by contract. While operating
reserves may be required for behind the
68 Order
No. 672 at P 325.
Commission notes that WECC has defined
the term load responsibility, although not in its
regional Reliability Standard. The definition can be
found at WECC’s Web site at: https://wecc.biz/
documents/library/procedures/
WECC_Reliability_Criteria_definitions_8-02.pdf.
70 Opinion No. 464, 104 FERC ¶ 61,196 at P 40.
69 The
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
meter load in a Regional Reliability
Standard for reliability reasons, a QF is
not required to buy operating reserve for
the load that has standby service. It
remains the responsibility of the host
utility that provides the QF’s normal
stand-by or back-up power to supply
those reserves. We believe this
explanation addresses California
Cogeneration’s concern.
59. In regard to Xcel’s concern about
the definition of interruptible imports,
while it is possible that the term may
require refinement by WECC to address
specific contexts, the meaning of the
term ‘‘interruptible’’ is generally well
understood in the industry, i.e.,
transmission or generation subject to
interruption at the provider’s discretion.
Xcel’s claims that the provision, under
a narrow interpretation, could have
adverse impacts on competition and
reliability are highly speculative.
60. The Commission rejects Xcel’s
protest regarding the 60-minute
contingency reserve restoration period.
This is useful stringency that benefits
reliability in the Western
Interconnection by shortening the time
after a disturbance that the balancing
authority might not have sufficient
reserves to meet its reliable obligations
in the Interconnection. Xcel’s concern
that this provision harms competition is
speculative. Moreover, the Commission
notes that NERC Reliability Standard
EOP–001, Requirement R1 requires
entities to have pre-existing
arrangements. Balancing authorities
should not use the reserve restoration
period to shop for better prices but to be
concerned about restoring the reserves
so the Bulk-Power System remains
reliable.
61. Finally, while Xcel may be
technically correct that the current
NERC BAL–002–2 requires approval of
the NERC Operating Committee to
change the restoration period, we do not
believe this is a sufficient reason to
remand WECC’s proposal. First, in
Order No. 693, the Commission directed
NERC to modify this Requirement to
replace ‘‘NERC Operating Committee’’
with ‘‘ERO.’’ 71 NERC board approval of
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 suffices.
Second, WECC did not increase but,
rather, decreased the restoration period,
making the WECC standard include a
more stringent requirement than NERC’s
comparable requirement.
2. WECC–IRO–STD–006–0 (Qualified
Path Unscheduled Flow Relief)
62. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–IRO–STD–006–0 applies to
transmission operators, balancing
71 Order
No. 693 at P 356.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
authorities, and load serving entities
within the Western Interconnection.
Under WECC’s plan for congestion
management, responsible entities must
comply with requests from operators of
qualified transmission paths to reduce
unscheduled flow on the path. The
regional Reliability Standard identifies
when an operator shall request
curtailments, states that responsible
entities shall comply in a timely manner
with a request for curtailments, and
establishes procedures for reducing
flows. In particular, it requires that:
Upon receipt of a curtailment request,
Contributing Schedules which are subject to
curtailments will be reduced (or equivalent
alternative schedule adjustments will be
effected) in accordance with the following
procedures:
(i) Receivers of Contributing Schedules
will initiate the requested schedule
reductions * * *. [72]
63. NERC’s Reliability Standard IRO–
006–3 (Transmission Loading Relief),
which the Commission approved in
Order No. 693 subject to certain
modifications,73 requires a reliability
coordinator experiencing potential or
actual System Operating Limit (SOL) or
Interconnection Reliability Operating
Limit (IROL) violations to take
appropriate actions pursuant to
established procedures to relieve
transmission loading. For the Eastern
Interconnection, balancing authorities
must follow the established
transmission loading relief (TLR)
procedures to take appropriate actions
pursuant to established procedures to
relieve transmission loading.
Requirement R2.2 of IRO–006–3
identifies ‘‘the equivalent
Interconnection-wide transmission
loading relief procedure for use in the
Western Interconnection is the ‘WSCC
Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.’ ’’
64. NERC approved WECC–IRO–STD–
006–0 on the condition that WECC meet
its commitment to address specified
shortcomings concerning formatting,
use of standard terms, and the need for
greater specificity in the actions that a
responsible entity must take. In
addition, NERC noted that the
requirements should be part of the
regional Reliability Standard rather than
being embedded in a filing.
Comments
65. According to WECC, WECC-IROSTD–006–0 is essential because it is the
only source of a mandatory process for
mitigating overloads due to
unscheduled line flows in the Western
72 WECC–IRO–STD–006–0, Requirement WR1,
Plan Attachment 1, Section 9.h.
73 Order No. 693 at P 960–64.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33469
Interconnection. WECC notes that, in
developing the regional Reliability
Standard, stakeholders commented that
the term ‘‘receiver’’ as defined in the
standard should more closely match the
NERC Functional Model and should not
include market entities. WECC states
that it intends to address these issues in
developing a permanent, replacement
standard.74
66. PPL protests the applicability of
WECC–IRO–STD–006–0, noting that
NERC Reliability Standard IRO–006–3
applies to reliability coordinators,
transmission operators and balancing
authorities. PPL contends that WECC
has, without explanation, significantly
broadened the scope of the regional
Reliability Standard by requiring
compliance by LSEs. According to PPL,
market entities such as LSEs may be
unable to meet the requirements of
WECC–IRO–STD–006–0. Second, PPL
protests that certain requirements apply
to ‘‘receivers,’’ which are not identified
in the applicability section of the
regional Reliability Standard. PPL
contends that receivers (1) May lack the
authority or ability to comply with a
directive to reduce flows and (2) may
include functional entities beyond LSEs
such as ‘‘purchasing selling entities’’
that are not identified in the
applicability section of the regional
Reliability Standard.
67. PPL recommends that the
Commission limit applicability to those
entities identified in NERC Reliability
Standard IRO–006–3 and clarify that the
assessment of penalties is limited to the
entities to which the regional Reliability
Standard is applicable. PPL asks that, if
the Commission decides that it is
appropriate to include load-serving
entities, the applicability should be
limited to LSEs as defined by NERC 75
and to LSEs that meet NERC’s
compliance registry criteria.
68. Xcel protests that no justification
has been provided for the WECC
regional Reliability Standard. Xcel
recognizes that one benefit of the WECC
unscheduled flow mitigation procedures
is the coordinated use of phase shifters
to provide some relief on an
overburdened transmission path
without the economic impact of
schedule curtailments. Xcel suggests
that, as an alternative, the WECC
procedures could be modeled after the
74 See
WECC Comments at 10.
at 10. See August 2, 2006, NERC Glossary
of Terms Used in Reliability Standards at 10, which
defines load-serving entity as an entity that
‘‘secures energy and transmission service (and
related Interconnected Operations Services) to serve
the electric demand and energy requirements of its
end-use customers.’’
75 PPL
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
33470
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
TLR procedures, while retaining this
initial step.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Commission Determination
69. We approve WECC–IRO–STD–
006–0 as mandatory and enforceable for
the Western Interconnection. The
regional Reliability Standard provides
that practices under WECC’s
Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan—
including directions thereunder to
reduce flows—are enforceable against
all Transmission Operators, Balancing
Authorities and Load-Serving Entities in
the Western Interconnection. In Order
No. 693, we found that the WECC’s
Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan
(which relies on phase angle regulators,
series capacitors and back-to-back DC
lines to mitigate contingencies without
curtailing transactions) is superior to the
national Reliability Standard.76
Accordingly, the Commission finds that
WECC–IRO–STD–006–0 is adequately
justified. In developing a permanent,
replacement regional Reliability
Standard, WECC may consider Xcel’s
suggestion to model the WECC
procedures after the TLR procedures,
however, we will not mandate such an
approach.
70. The Commission shares PPL’s
concern that, while the applicability of
the regional Reliability Standard
identifies LSEs, the requirements refer
to receivers. As indicated by PPL, the
term ‘‘receiver’’ may refer to LSEs as
well as other market participants. While
WECC states that WECC–IRO–STD–006
is an exact translation of existing WECC
RMS criteria, an entity cannot be subject
to a compliance action if it has not been
clearly identified in the applicability
section of the Reliability Standard.77
Thus, in approving the regional
Reliability Standard, we expect a
continuation of the existing practices for
transmission line relief in the Western
Interconnection. However, an entity that
is not clearly identified in the
applicability provision of a regional
Reliability Standard may not be subject
to penalties for non-compliance.
Moreover, pursuant to section 215(d)(5)
of the FPA and section 39.5(f) of the
Commission’s regulations,78 we direct
that WECC in developing a permanent,
replacement Reliability Standard, clarify
the term ‘‘receiver’’ and the
applicability of the standard.
71. We also share PPL’s concerns
regarding the identification of LSEs as
applicable entities. While the expansion
76 See
Order No. 693 at P 964.
Order No. 693 at P 39 (each Reliability
Standard must clearly identify the subset of users,
owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to
which the Reliability Standard applies).
78 18 CFR 39.5(f) (2006).
77 See
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
of the WECC regional Reliability
Standard beyond the applicability of the
corresponding NERC Reliability
Standard is not in itself problematic, we
are concerned regarding PPL’s
contention that LSEs may not be able to
meet the Requirements of the regional
Reliability Standard. While we are
approving WECC–IRO–STD–006 as
mandatory and enforceable, we direct
WECC to address PPL’s concerns in
developing a permanent, replacement
regional Reliability Standard.
72. We also expect that WECC, in
developing a permanent, replacement
regional Reliability Standard, will
address the shortcomings identified by
NERC.
3. WECC–PRC–STD–001–1 (Certification
of Protective Relay Applications and
Settings)
73. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–PRC–STD–001–1 applies to
transmission operators or transmission
owners of 40 specified transmission
paths.79 The regional Reliability
Standard requires these entities to
certify to WECC that all (1) Protective
relay applications and (2) protective
relay settings and logic are appropriate
for the specified transmission paths. It
also requires these entities to certify that
‘‘relay operations since the last
certification or during the last three-year
period have been analyzed for
correctness and appropriate corrective
action taken. * * *’’
74. NERC Reliability Standard PRC–
001–1 (System Protection Coordination),
which addresses protection systems,
requires transmission operators and
generator operators to notify appropriate
entities of relay or equipment failures
and to coordinate when installing new
or modified protection systems.80
75. NERC approved WECC–PRC–
STD–001–1 with the condition that
WECC meet its commitment to address
the shortcomings identified by NERC in
a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC,
including several formatting concerns.
Comments
76. WECC states that applicable users,
owners and operators in the Western
Interconnection must comply with the
Requirements of the corresponding
NERC Reliability Standard. The WECC
79 Some of the specified transmission paths are
located completely or partially outside the United
States. The Commission addresses the regional
Reliability Standard only as it applies to those paths
or portions of paths that are within the United
States.
80 In Order No. 693, at P 1433–49, the
Commission approved NERC Reliability Standard
PRC–001–1 and, as a separate action, directed
NERC to develop certain modifications to the
standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
regional Reliability Standard requires,
in addition, that transmission owners
and transmission operators analyze and
certify all relay settings and operations
on specified paths to determine whether
operations were correct, and that
current information on relays is
provided to the transmission operators.
WECC explains that these requirements
were developed to address root causes
of a July 1996 system disturbance in
which undesirable relay operations due
to incorrect settings and undetected
relay problems resulted in cascading
outages in the Western Interconnection.
77. Xcel argues that no justification
for WECC’s certification requirement
has been provided. According to Xcel,
regional differences are intended to
provide reliability protection in
situations where physical differences in
the Bulk-Power System justify
additional stringency. It claims that
WECC–PRC–STD–001–1 appears to be
driven by a desire for an attestation, not
an actual physical difference in the
Western Interconnection and that, to the
extent the attestation is needed, it is
appropriate for the NERC Reliability
Standards rather than a regional
difference. Xcel further argues that the
proposed regional Reliability Standard
does not create any additional reliability
benefit but, rather, needlessly
compounds the requirements of the
NERC Reliability Standards.
Commission Determination
78. The Commission approves WECC–
PRC–STD–001–1 as mandatory and
enforceable in the Western
Interconnection. The Commission
expects WECC, in developing
replacement standards, to address the
shortcomings identified by NERC.
79. The Commission disagrees with
Xcel’s contentions that the need for the
regional Reliability Standard has not
been justified and that it does not create
any additional reliability benefits. While
the NERC filing did not elaborate on the
reliability benefit of WECC–PRC–STD–
001–1, WECC explains that it goes
beyond the related NERC Reliability
Standard by requiring certification that
all relay settings and operations on
specified transmission paths are
appropriate for the Bulk-Power System.
The certification requirement provides
an additional level of assurance that
protection systems will operate as they
should to provide for Bulk-Power
System reliability. It is appropriate to
give due weight to WECC’s technical
expertise in its representation that the
requirements of this regional Reliability
Standard will address the problems
identified as a root cause of prior
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
cascading outages in the Western
Interconnection.81
80. Further, Xcel incorrectly
characterizes the Commission’s
previous statements regarding when a
regional difference may be justified. The
Commission has identified two types of
regional differences that it will accept,
provided they otherwise satisfy the
statutory requirements for approval: (1)
A regional difference that is more
stringent than the continent-wide
Reliability Standard, including a
regional difference that addresses
matters that the continent-wide
Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a
regional Reliability Standard that is
necessitated by a physical difference in
the Bulk-Power System.82 Xcel
incorrectly combines the two
appropriate types of regional differences
as a single standard category where a
regional difference sets forth a
stringency needed to address a physical
difference in the Bulk-Power System.
Thus, we reject Xcel’s argument that
WECC–PRC–STD–001–1 should not be
approved because it is not based on an
actual physical difference in the
Western Interconnection.
4. WECC–PRC–STD–003–1 (Protective
Relay and Remedial Action Scheme
Misoperation)
81. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–PRC–STD–003–1 has the
purpose of ensuring that protection
system misoperations are analyzed and
mitigated.83 This regional Reliability
Standard applies to the owners and
operators of 40 specific transmission
paths that are identified in Attachment
A of the standard. The regional
Reliability Standard requires the
removal and repair of protection
systems after a misoperation within
specified time frames.
82. The WECC regional Reliability
Standard corresponds to NERC’s
Reliability Standard PRC–003–1, which
also relates to protective system
misoperations.84 Requirement 1 of
NERC’s PRC–003–1 provides that each
regional reliability organization, i.e.,
81 18
CFR 39.5(c)(2).
No. 672 at P 291. See also ERO
Certification Order, 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 at P 274.
83 Protection systems are designed to detect and
isolate faulty elements on a system, thereby limiting
the severity and spread of system disturbances, and
preventing possible damage to protected elements.
See Order No. 693 at P 1418. Protection systems
include protective relays, remedial action schemes
(RAS), and special protection schemes.
84 In Order No. 693 at P 1460, the Commission
explained that, because NERC’s PRC–003–1
requires the regions to establish procedures
regarding misoperations, and those regional
procedures had not been submitted, the
Commission neither approved nor remanded the
Reliability Standard.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
82 Order
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
Regional Entity, must establish
procedures for review, analysis,
reporting and mitigation of protection
system misoperations. WECC–PRC–
STD–003–1 states that it meets
Requirement 1 of NERC Reliability
Standard PRC–003–1.
83. As with all eight regional
Reliability Standards, NERC approved
WECC–PRC–STD–003–1 with the
condition that WECC meet its
commitment to address the
shortcomings identified by NERC in a
January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. With
regard to WECC–PRC–STD–003–1,
NERC noted, inter alia, that the WECC
definition of ‘‘disturbance’’ is not
identical to the NERC glossary
definition. It also identified a WECC
Measure that refers to the filing of a
form for reporting misoperations,
without a corresponding requirement.
Comments
84. In its comments, WECC explains
that the corresponding NERC Reliability
Standard PRC–003–1 requires the
analysis of misoperations within 90
days and the submission of corrective
action plans. WECC states that the
applicable users, owners and operators
of the Bulk–Power System in the West
must comply with the requirement of
NERC’s PRC–003–1. In addition, the
WECC regional Reliability Standard
goes further and requires the applicable
entities in the West: (1) To remove
equipment that has misoperated within
22 hours; and (2) to repair or replace
equipment that has misoperated within
20 business days for the specific
transmission paths identified in the
WECC regional Reliability Standard.
WECC explains that these requirements
were developed as a result of a 345 kV
line relay misoperation in July 1996
when virtually the same outage
occurred the next day because the faulty
equipment had not been isolated.
85. Xcel points out that, in Order No.
693, the Commission stated that it
would neither approve nor remand
NERC Reliability Standard PRC–003–1
until NERC submits additional
information regarding regional
procedures on misoperations.85 The
Commission also directed NERC to
consider whether greater consistency
can be achieved as NERC modifies PRC–
003–1 to provide the missing
information. Xcel asserts that
Commission approval of WECC–PRC–
STD–003–1 would allow WECC to sidestep the process directed by the
Commission to achieve greater
uniformity with regard to NERC’s PRC–
003–1.86 Xcel also contends that WECC
has not explained the physical
differences in the Western
Interconnection necessitating the
regional difference and, thus, WECC’s
technical expertise should be given no
weight in evaluating the WECC regional
Reliability Standard.
Commission Determination
86. The Commission approves WECC–
PRC–STD–003–1 as mandatory and
enforceable in the Western
Interconnection. The Commission
agrees with WECC that the proposed
regional Reliability Standard goes
beyond the corresponding NERC
standards because no current NERC
Reliability Standard includes the
equipment removal and repair
requirements set forth in this regional
Reliability Standard. Moreover, while
we agree with Xcel that NERC’s filing
did not adequately explain the need for
WECC–PRC–STD–003–1 or why it is
more stringent than the corresponding
NERC Reliability Standards, WECC has
provided an adequate explanation in its
comments, as discussed above.
87. We note that upon failure of
protective relays, NERC Reliability
Standard PRC–001–1 requires
transmission operators and generator
operators to take corrective actions as
soon as possible (within thirty minutes
as directed by Order No. 693).87 Order
No. 693 clarifies that ‘‘corrective
actions’’ do not refer to the repair of
protective relays, but instead to actions
that ensure the reliability of the system,
such as lowering IROLs and SOLs. The
proposed regional Reliability Standard
does not relieve compliance with this
requirement but, rather, adds more
stringency by defining a maximum
timeframe for removal and repair of
protective equipment.
88. The Commission disagrees with
Xcel’s assertion that approval of WECC–
PRC–STD–003–1 would sidestep the
Commission’s directive that NERC
consider whether greater consistency
can be achieved as NERC modifies PRC–
003–1. Approval of the WECC regional
Reliability Standard does not preclude
the development of an appropriate level
of uniformity on a nationwide basis.
The Commission expects that all of the
regions, including WECC, will work
together to develop greater uniformity
with regard to reporting procedures for
misoperation of relays and remedial
action schemes.
89. The Commission agrees with the
shortcomings identified by NERC
regarding WECC–PRC–STD–003–1 and
86 Id.
85 Id.
PO 00000
at P 1460–61.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
87 See
Sfmt 4703
33471
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
Order No. 693 at P 1443–49.
18JNN1
33472
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
expects WECC in developing a
permanent, replacement standard to
address these shortcomings as it has
committed to do. In particular, we
believe that regional definitions should
conform to the definitions set forth in
the NERC glossary unless a specific
deviation has been justified. Likewise,
each Requirement should have a
corresponding Measure and, in this
case, vice versa.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
5. WECC–PRC–STD–005–1
(Transmission Maintenance)
90. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–PRC–STD–005–1 requires each
transmission owner and transmission
operator of specified transmission paths
to perform maintenance and inspection
on those paths as described by its
Transmission Maintenance and
Inspection Plan (TMIP). The regional
Reliability Standard identifies specific
contents that each applicable
transmission owner and transmission
operator must include in its TMIP. For
example, a TMIP must include the
scheduled interval for time-based
maintenance, describe maintenance and
inspection methods, provide relevant
checklists or forms and provide criteria
for assessing the condition of a facility.
Each applicable entity must retain all
pertinent maintenance and inspection
records for at least five years. Further,
each applicable entity must annually
certify to WECC staff that it has
developed, documented and
implemented a TMIP.
91. WECC’s regional Reliability
Standard corresponds to NERC
Reliability Standard PRC–005–1
(Transmission and Generation
Protection System Maintenance and
Testing), which requires transmission
owners, generator owners and
distribution providers that own
transmission protection systems to have
a protection system maintenance and
testing program for protection systems
that affect the reliability of the bulk
electric system.
92. NERC approved WECC–PRC–
STD–005–1 with the condition that
WECC meet its commitment to address
identified shortcomings. With regard to
WECC–PRC–STD–005–1, NERC
identified various formatting concerns
including the need to specify individual
requirements instead of one formal
requirement with multiple subparts
(including statements and comments
that do not read as requirements).
Comments
93. WECC states that the
corresponding NERC Reliability
Standard, PRC–005–1, requires a
maintenance and inspection plan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
limited to relays, monitoring equipment,
and special protection systems. WECC
explains that relevant users, owners and
operators must comply with the
requirements of the NERC Reliability
Standard. According to WECC, the
proposed regional Reliability Standard
goes further by requiring, for specified
transmission paths, a highly detailed
TMIP for all transmission and
substation equipment components,
including circuit breakers, relays,
transformers, reactive devices, and
transmission lines. It also requires
applicable entities to maintain five years
of maintenance records to verify
compliance.
94. Xcel argues that WECC has failed
to justify the need for this regional
Reliability Standard based on physical
differences in the bulk power system.
Commission Determination
95. The Commission approves
regional Reliability Standard WECC–
PRC–STD–005–1 as mandatory and
enforceable in the Western
Interconnection. As explained by
WECC, the applicable users, owner and
operators in the Western
Interconnection must comply with
NERC’s PRC–003–1 and, in addition, the
regional Reliability Standard.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that
the regional Reliability Standard
satisfies the statutory standard for
approval because it is more stringent
than the corresponding NERC
Reliability Standard by requiring, for
specified transmission paths, a highly
detailed maintenance and inspection
plan for all transmission and substation
equipment components. WECC–PRC–
STD–005–1 imposes requirements well
beyond the NERC Reliability Standards
and improves reliability because
disciplined maintenance on equipment
such as transmission lines, circuit
breakers, power transformers and
regulators will help prevent failures
during operation.
96. Moreover, WECC in its comments
provided a persuasive need for the
regional Reliability Standard as well as
a demonstration that the regional
Reliability Standard is more stringent
than the corresponding NERC standard.
Thus, we reject Xcel’s protest on this
issue.
97. Requirement WR1.b(i)(a)(2) of the
regional Reliability Standard requires
the TMIP to describe the maintenance
practices for station equipment
including remedial action scheme (RAS)
systems, which are also referred to as
‘‘special protection systems.’’ 88 This
88 See NERC glossary at 16 (defining both terms
as ‘‘an automatic protection system to detect
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
regional Requirement corresponds more
closely to NERC Reliability Standard
PRC–017–0 (Special Protection System
Maintenance and Testing). It appears
that the NERC Reliability Standard
includes slightly more specificity in that
it requires a special protection system
maintenance program to include, among
other things, batteries and instrument
transformers, which are not specified in
WECC–PRC–STD–005–1. Because
WECC’s regional Reliability Standards
are in addition to the NERC Reliability
Standards, we would expect the
maintenance plans of applicable entities
in the West to include these details
identified in NERC Reliability Standard
PRC–017–0.
98. The Commission agrees with
NERC’s concerns regarding the format
and content of WECC–PRC–STD–005–1
and expects WECC, in developing a
permanent, replacement standard, to
address these concerns, including but
not limited to inclusion of all relevant
documents.
6. WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 (Operating
Transfer Capability)
99. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 applies to
transmission operators of 40 specified
transmission paths. The goal of this
regional Reliability Standard is to
ensure that the operating transfer
capability limits requirements of the
Western Interconnection are not
exceeded.89 It includes a Measure that
provides ‘‘actual power flow on all
transmission paths shall at no time
exceed the [operating transfer
capability] for more than 20 minutes for
paths that are stability limited, or for
more than 30 minutes for paths that are
thermally limited.’’
100. The corresponding NERC
Reliability Standard, TOP–007–0,
requires that violations of SOL and
IROL be promptly reported to the
reliability coordinator so that it can
direct corrective action and inform other
affected systems. It also requires a
transmission operator to mitigate an
IROL violation as soon as possible but
no longer than 30 minutes. In Order No.
693, the Commission approved TOP–
007–0 as mandatory and enforceable.90
101. NERC approved WECC–TOP–
STD–007–0 with the condition that
abnormal or predetermined system conditions, and
take corrective actions * * *’’).
89 Requirement WR1 of WECC–TOP–STD–007–0
defines ‘‘capability limits requirements’’ as the
maximum amount of actual power that can be
transferred over direct or parallel transmission
elements comprising: An interconnection from one
transmission operator area to another, or a
transmission path within a transmission operator
area.
90 Order No. 693 at P 1674.
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
WECC meet its commitment to address
identified shortcomings, including
formatting concerns and inconsistency
between the NERC and WECC definition
of the term ‘‘disturbance.’’
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Comments
102. WECC comments that NERC
Reliability Standard TOP–007–0
requires transmission operators to
return the system to within IROL limits
for each incident in which an IROL is
exceeded. While transmission operators
in the Western Interconnection must
comply with the NERC requirement,
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 ‘‘goes further
in limiting the time period of an
Operational Transfer Capability (which
is more conservative than an IROL)
exceedance to no more than 20 minutes
when the limit is based on potential
voltage or transient stability.’’ 91 WECC
explains that the 20-minute limit was
developed after two major disturbances
in 1996 that caused the system to break
up rapidly. WECC also states that the
regional Reliability Standard applies to
40 clearly defined transmission paths,
many of which would not be defined by
NERC as having IROL requirements.
103. Xcel protests that no technical
justification has been provided for
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0.
Commission Determination
104. The Commission approves
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 as mandatory
and enforceable in the Western
Interconnection. WECC has provided an
adequate explanation of the need for
this regional Reliability Standard and
also adequately explained how the
Requirements are more stringent than
the Requirements of the corresponding
NERC Reliability Standard. In
particular, the imposition of a 20minute limit is more restrictive than
NERC’s TOP–007–0 and is a prudent
means of limiting the risk of blackouts,
consistent with sound engineering
principles. Thus, we disagree with Xcel
that WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 has not
been adequately justified.
105. The Commission is concerned
regarding a possible inconsistency
within WECC–TOP–STD–007–0. As
background, NERC Reliability Standard
IRO–005–1 (Reliability Coordination—
Current Day Operations) provides, inter
alia, that ‘‘if a potential or actual IROL
violation cannot be avoided through
proactive intervention, the Reliability
Coordinator shall initiate control actions
or emergency procedures to relieve the
violation without delay, and no longer
than 30 minutes.’’ In Order No. 693, the
Commission expressed concern that
91 WECC
Comments at 12.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
IRO–005–1 could be interpreted as
allowing a system operator to respect
IROLs in one of two ways: (1) Allowing
IROL to be exceeded during normal
operations, i.e., prior to a contingency,
provided that corrective actions are
taken within 30 minutes; or (2) allowing
IROL to be exceeded only after a
contingency and subsequently returning
the system to a secure condition as soon
as possible, but no longer than 30
minutes.92 The Commission explained
that the system could be one
contingency away from potential
cascading failure if operated under the
first interpretation and two
contingencies away from cascading
failure under the second interpretation.
The Commission directed NERC to
conduct a survey on IROL practices and
actual operating experiences of
managing within IROL. The survey
results will provide guidance on the
frequency, duration and magnitude of
IROL violations and whether these IROL
violations occur during normal or
contingency conditions.
106. With regard to WECC–TOP–
STD–007–0, Requirement WR1.b.
provides that ‘‘[t]he interconnected
power system shall remain stable upon
loss of any one single element without
system cascading that could result in
the successive loss of additional
elements.’’ This Requirement suggests
that WECC expects that IROLs will be
addressed in such a manner that the
system is two contingencies away from
a cascading failure, which is consistent
with the more conservative
interpretation of the NERC Reliability
Standard IRO–005–1.93
107. However, Measure WM1 of
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 may not be
consistent with Requirement WR1.b
since it states ‘‘[a]ctual power flow on
all transmission paths shall at no time
exceed the OTC for more than 20
minutes for paths that are stability
limited, or more than 30 minutes for
paths that are thermally limited.’’ This
Measure is more consistent with the
first interpretation of NERC Reliability
Standard IRO–005–1. Simply put, it
could be interpreted that WECC
Requirement WR1.b results in the power
system being operated two
contingencies away from a cascading
outage while WECC Measure WM1
92 See
Order No. 693 at P 945–51 and n.303.
addition to requiring the system to be
operated to withstand the loss of a single element,
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 requires operators to take
into consideration single events that might cause
the loss of multiple elements. See NERC Filing,
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 § B(b). In Order No. 693,
we addressed element- versus event-based
contingencies. See Order No. 693 at P 1604, 1715–
1719.
93 In
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33473
results in the power system being
operated one contingency away from a
cascading outage.
108. Thus, it is possible to understand
the WECC Measure as less stringent
than NERC’s IRO–005–1, if the latter is
interpreted conservatively. While the
Commission has stated that a
Requirement of a Reliability Standard
sets forth the obligations of the
applicable users, owners and
operators,94 the Commission is
concerned regarding the circumstances
under which WECC–TOP–STD–007–0
would be implemented and the amount
of time an entity is allowed to be in
violation of an IROL without the
possibility of being found in noncompliance. Accordingly, the
Commission directs NERC to submit a
filing within 30 days of the date of this
order explaining whether Requirement
WR1.b is consistent with the second
interpretation of IRO–005–1 (two
contingencies away from cascading
failure).95
109. Moreover, Measure WM1 of
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0, which sets
forth the 20 and 30 minutes time limits
for exceeding operating transfer
capability, states responsibilities of
applicable entities and, thus, is more
appropriately a requirement than a
Measure. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA and section
39.5(f) of the Commission’s regulations,
we direct that WECC in developing a
permanent, replacement regional
Reliability Standard: (1) Clarify any
inconsistency between the Requirement
WR1.b and corresponding Measure
WM1; and (2) ensure that the
requirements currently set forth in
Measures WM1 are set forth in the
Requirements and that corresponding
Measures simply quantify the
frequency, duration and magnitude of
the violations as determined by the
Requirements.
110. In addition, we expect that
WECC will address the shortcomings
identified by NERC in developing a
permanent, replacement regional
Reliability Standard.
7. WECC–VAR–STD–002a–1 (Automatic
Voltage Regulators)
111. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC-VAR-STD–002a–1 applies to
generator operators of synchronous
generating units equipped with
Automatic Voltage Regulators in the
94 Id.
at P 1929.
WECC construes Requirement WR1.b as
consistent with the first interpretation of IRO–005–
1, we will consider whether modifications are
necessary to protect the reliability of the Bulk
Power System upon consideration of the survey
results noted above.
95 If
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
33474
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
Western Interconnection.96 The stated
purpose of the regional Reliability
Standard is to ensure that automatic
voltage control equipment on
synchronous generators shall be kept in
service at all times, except in specified
circumstances, and that outages of such
equipment must be coordinated. It
requires that generator operators must
normally operate automatic voltage
control equipment in voltage control
mode and set to respond effectively to
voltage deviations.
112. Related NERC Reliability
Standard VAR–002–1 (Generator
Operation for Maintaining Network
Voltage Schedules) requires generator
operators to operate each generator
connected to the interconnected
transmission grid in the automatic
voltage control mode unless the
generator operator has notified the
transmission operator.97 Unless
exempted by the transmission operator,
the generator operator must maintain
voltage or reactive power output as
directed by the transmission operator.
113. NERC approved WECC–VAR–
STD–002a–1 with the condition that
WECC meet its commitment to address
identified format-related shortcomings.
Comments
114. WECC comments that, in
addition to compliance with the related
NERC Reliability Standard, the WECC
regional Reliability Standard requires
automatic voltage regulators to be in
service and in voltage control mode
with very limited exceptions. WECC
explains that it instituted this
requirement after a 1996 disturbance,
which was caused by insufficient
supply of reactive power from
generators, including automatic voltage
regulators that were not operating in
voltage control mode. As a result of this
experience, WECC determined that
there should be only very limited
circumstances where a generator should
remove its unit from AVR operation.
115. Xcel asserts that WECC has not
provided any technical justification for
the regional Reliability Standard.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Commission Determination
116. The Commission approves
Reliability Standard WECC–VAR–STD–
96 An ‘‘automatic voltage regulator’’ is a device
that continuously monitors the generator terminal
voltage and changes the reactive power output as
required to maintain (or regulate) the voltage within
a pre-determined voltage range. For example, if a
load increase causes a decline in system voltages
and thereby the terminal voltage of a generator, the
automatic voltage regulator will increase the
generator’s reactive output to raise the terminal
voltage.
97 In Order No. 693 at P 1884, the Commission
approved VAR–002–1.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
002a–1 as mandatory and enforceable in
the Western Interconnection. The
Commission agrees with WECC that this
regional Reliability Standard is more
stringent than the related NERC
Reliability Standard. WECC–VAR–STD–
002a–1 requires all synchronous
generators to have their voltage
regulator in service at all times with
only exceptions for specified
circumstances. The related NERC
Reliability Standard, VAR–002–1,
permits a generator to remove its
automatic voltage regulator from service
for additional reasons. The regional
standard is appropriate to avoid the root
causes of prior disturbances in the
Western Interconnection. We reject
Xcel’s protest as WECC has adequately
justified the need for this regional
Reliability Standard.
117. As with the other regional
Reliability Standards, we expect that
WECC, in developing a permanent,
replacement standard, will address the
shortcomings identified by NERC
regarding WECC–VAR–STD–002a–1.
8. WECC–VAR–STD–002b–1 (Power
System Stabilizers)
118. Regional Reliability Standard
WECC–VAR–STD–002b–1 applies to
generator operators with generators
equipped with power system stabilizers.
A power system stabilizer is part of the
excitation control system of a generator
used to increase power transfer levels by
improving power system dynamic
performance. It requires that power
system stabilizers on generators must be
kept in service at all times, except in
specified circumstances, and that the
power system stabilizers must be
‘‘properly tuned’’ in accordance with
WECC requirements. This standard does
not have a corresponding NERC
Reliability Standard.
119. NERC approved WECC–VAR–
STD–002b–1 and identified several
format-related shortcomings for WECC
to address.
Comments
120. WECC states that WECC–VAR–
STD–002b-1 requires generator
operators to always have power system
stabilizers in service with very limited
exceptions. It explains that this
requirement was developed after the
August 1996 disturbance in the Western
Interconnection in which oscillations
that could possibly have been
attenuated by power system stabilizers
were a factor.
121. Xcel states the proposed standard
is deficient because it does not define
‘‘power system stabilizers’’ and because
WECC has not provided a technical
justification for the standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission Determination
122. The Commission approves
WECC–VAR–STD–002b–1 as mandatory
and enforceable in the Western
Interconnection. The regional Reliability
Standard is justified as it addresses
matters that are not addressed by a
NERC Reliability Standard. Moreover,
WECC explains that the regional
Reliability Standard is justified as a
means to avoid oscillations that
contributed to previous disturbances in
the Western Interconnection.
123. We reject Xcel’s protest since the
term ‘‘power system stabilizer’’ is
generally understood as described
above, and Xcel has not provided any
explanation why the regional Reliability
Standard is deficient without a formal
definition. Finally, as with the other
regional standards, we expect WECC to
address the shortcomings identified by
NERC when developing a permanent,
replacement standard.
D. Effective Date
124. As requested by NERC and
WECC, the proposed regional Reliability
Standards shall take effect on June 18,
2007 to coincide with the effective date
of the Reliability Standards that were
approved in Order No. 693.
E. Information Collection Statement
125. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information
collection requirements imposed by
agency rules.98 Upon approval of a
collection(s) of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and an
expiration date. Respondents subject to
the filing requirements of an agency rule
will not be penalized for failing to
respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB
control number. The Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) 99 requires each
federal agency to seek and obtain OMB
approval before undertaking a collection
of information directed to ten or more
persons, or continuing a collection for
which OMB approval and validity of the
control number are about to expire.100
126. This order approves eight
regional Reliability Standards that were
submitted by NERC as the ERO. Section
215 of the FPA authorizes the ERO to
submit Reliability Standards to provide
for the Reliable Operation of the BulkPower System. Pursuant to the statute,
the ERO must submit each Reliability
Standard that it proposes to be made
98 5
CFR 1320.8 (2005).
U.S.C. 3501–3520.
100 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i), 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3).
99 44
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
33475
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
effective to the Commission for
approval.101
127. The eight proposed Reliability
Standards do not require responsible
entities to file information with the
Commission. However, the standards do
require responsible entities to file
periodic reports with WECC and to
develop and maintain certain
information for a specified period of
time, subject to inspection by WECC.
WECC–BAL–STD–002–0 requires
balancing authorities and reserve
sharing groups to submit to WECC
quarterly reports on operating reserves
as well as reports after any instance of
non-compliance. WECC–IRO–STD–006–
0 requires transmission operators,
balancing authorities and load-serving
entities to document and report to
WECC actions taken in response to
direction to mitigate unscheduled flow.
The standard also requires transmission
operators to document required actions
that are and are not taken by responsible
entities. WECC–PRC–STD–001 requires
certain transmission operators to submit
to WECC annual certifications of
protective equipment. WECC–PRC–
STD–003–1 requires certain
transmission operators to report to
WECC any misoperation of relays and
remedial action schemes. WECC–PRC–
STD–005–1 requires certain
transmission operators to maintain, in
stated form, maintenance and
inspection records pertaining to their
transmission facilities. The standard
also requires operators to certify to
WECC that the operator is maintaining
the required records. WECC–TOP–STD–
007–0 requires certain transmission
operators to submit to WECC quarterly
reports on transfer capability data and
compliance as well as reports after an
instance of non-compliance. WECC–
VAR–STD–002a–1 and WECC–VAR–
STD–002b–1 require certain generators
to submit quarterly reports to WECC on
automatic voltage control and power
system stabilizers. All of the foregoing
regional Reliability Standards require
the reporting entity to retain relevant
data in electronic form for one year or
for a longer period if the data is relevant
to a dispute or potential penalty, except
that WECC–PRC–STD–005–1 requires
retention of maintenance and inspection
records for five years and retention of
other data for four years.
128. We do not believe our approval
of the WECC Regional Reliability
Standards will result in a significant
increase in reporting burdens as
compared to current practices in WECC.
As NERC and WECC explain, the eight
Regional Reliability Standards are
translations of existing WECC criteria
pursuant to its RMS program. The eight
proposed standards: (1) Reflect practices
that are currently in place on a
contractual or voluntary basis; (2)
represent discrete differences from
nation-wide, mandatory Reliability
Standards that will take effect on June
18, 2007; and (3) will be replaced by
permanent standards developed by
WECC. Moreover, with only limited
exceptions, the reporting requirements
in the regional Reliability Standards
apply to large entities that have been
complying with those standards for
several years. The only possible
exception is WECC–IRO–STD–006–0,
which requires applicable entities to
comply with transmission operators’
directions to reduce unscheduled flows.
Our approval of this regional Reliability
Standard might result in reporting
requirements for load-serving entities
that did not previously comply with
WECC practices in this regard. We do
not believe that the associated reporting
requirement is significant. Under
WECC–IRO–STD–006–0, applicable
entities must document and report to
WECC actions that those entities take in
response to direction to reduce
unscheduled flow. We do not expect
that the number of occurrences or
nature of the documentation will result
in significant reporting burdens.
129. The Commission is submitting
these reporting requirements to OMB for
its review and approval under section
3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Comments are solicited on the
Commission’s need for this information,
whether the information will have
practical utility, the accuracy of
provided burden estimates, ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected, and
any suggested methods for minimizing
the respondent’s burden, including the
Number of
respondents
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Data collection
FERC–XXX:
Balancing Authorities ................................................................................
Generator Operators ................................................................................
Load-Serving Entities ...............................................................................
Transmission Operators/Owners ..............................................................
101 See
30
146
50
14
use of automated information
techniques.
130. Our Estimates below are based
on the total reporting burdens that arise
under the approved standards,
including reporting burdens that were
already in place under WECC practices.
Thus, the Estimates exceed the
incremental burdens that result from
our approval of the standards. The
Estimates are based on the NERC
compliance registry as of April 2007.
For the Western Interconnection that is
overseen by WECC, NERC and WECC
have identified approximately 30
balancing authorities, 146 generator
operators, 104 load-serving entities, 41
transmission operators, and 66
transmission owners * * * While NERC
has registered 104 load-serving entities
in the U.S. portion of WECC, we believe
that only 50 load-serving entities will be
affected by the reporting requirements
that apply to load-serving entities
(under WECC–IRO–STD–006–0)
because those requirements apply only
in relation to ‘‘qualified transfer paths’’
and because the number of such paths
are limited. Similarly, although NERC
has registered 41 transmission operators
and 66 transmission owners in the U.S.
portion of WECC, we believe only the 14
transmission operators and owners that
operate 40 designated paths will be
affected by reporting requirements
under this order. We note that some
transmission operators operate up to
seven paths. This has been taken into
account in our estimate in the line
‘‘Transmission Operators/Owners’’ in
the table below.
131. NERC’s compliance registry
indicates that there is a significant
amount of overlap among the entities
that perform these functions. In some
instances, a single entity may be
registered under all four of these
functions. Thus, the Commission
estimates that the total number of
entities required to comply with the
information ‘‘reporting’’ or development
requirements of the proposed Reliability
Standards is approximately 180–200
entities.
Burden Estimate: The Public
Reporting burden for the requirements
in the present order is as follows:
Number of
responses
1
1
1
1–7 each (total
of 40)
16 U.S.C. 824(d).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Hours per
response
Total annual
hours
20
10
10
40
600
1460
500
1600
33476
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 116 / Monday, June 18, 2007 / Notices
Number of
respondents
Number of
responses
Recordkeeping:
Balancing Authorities ................................................................................
Generator Operators ................................................................................
Load-Serving Entities ...............................................................................
Transmission Operators/Owners ..............................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
60
146
50
160
60
146
50
160
Totals .................................................................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Data collection
........................
........................
........................
416
(FTE = Full Time Equivalent or 2,080
hours)
Total Annual Hours for Collection:
4,160 reporting + 416 recordkeeping =
4,576 hours.
Information Collection Costs: The
Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these
requirements. It has projected the
average annualized cost to be $515,840
as shown below:
Reporting = 4,160 hours @ $120/hour
= $499,200.
Recordkeeping = 416 hours @ $40/
hour = $16,640.
Total Costs = Reporting ($499,200) +
Recordkeeping ($16,640) = $515,840.
Title: FERC–725E Regional Reliability
Standards (WECC).
Action: Proposed Collection of
Information.
OMB Control No.: To be determined.
Respondents: Business or other for
profit, and/or not for profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: Periodic and
intermittent.
Necessity of the Information: The
eight Reliability Standards would
implement the Congressional mandate
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards to better ensure
the reliability of the nation’s BulkPower System.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the requirements pertaining to
mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System and determined the
proposed requirements are necessary to
meet the statutory provisions of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. These
requirements conform to the
Commission’s plan for efficient
information collection, communication
and management within the energy
industry. The Commission has assured
itself, by means of internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for
the burden estimates associated with the
information requirements.
132. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426
[Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the
Executive Director, Phone: (202) 502–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:19 Jun 15, 2007
Jkt 211001
8415, fax: (202) 273–0873, e-mail:
michael.miller@ferc.gov]. Comments on
the requirements of this order may also
be sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission], e-mail:
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
133. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 102 generally requires a
description and analysis of rules that
will have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. As indicated above, based on
available information regarding NERC’s
compliance registry, approximately
180–200 entities will be responsible for
compliance with the eight regional
Reliability Standards. Most of those
entities, i.e., balancing authorities,
generator operators, transmission
owners and operators, do not fall within
the definition of small entities.103 About
one-fifth of the approximately 50 loadserving entities that are subject to the
approved standards might qualify as
small entities.
134. Based on this understanding, the
Commission certifies that the approved
standards will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
The Commission orders:
(A) The proposed regional Reliability
Standards are hereby approved, as
discussed in the body of this order.
(B) NERC is directed to submit a
compliance filing within 30 days of this
order, as discussed in the body of this
order.
102 5
U.S.C. 601–612.
RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to
the definition provided in the Small Business Act,
which defines a ‘‘small business concern’’ as a
business that is independently owned and operated
and that is not dominant in its field of operation.
See 15 U.S.C. 632 (2000). According to the SBA, a
small electric utility is defined as one that has a
total electric output of less than four million MWh
in the preceding year.
103 The
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Hours per
response
Total annual
hours
(C) WECC is directed to develop, for
each of its regional Reliability
Standards, sanctions that follow NERC
guidelines as discussed in the body of
this order.
(D) WECC is directed to develop
modifications to regional Reliability
Standards WECC–IRO–STD–006–0 and
WECC–TOP–STD–007–0 through its
Reliability Standards development
process when developing permanent,
replacement standards.
By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–11685 Filed 6–15–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. CP06–89–002]
Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice
of Compliance Filing
June 11, 2007.
Take notice that on June 1, 2007,
Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing in its
FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume
No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be
effective August 1, 2007:
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 1
13 Revised Sheet No. 2 75
Revised Sheet No. 53
Original Sheet No. 165
Original Sheet No. 166
Original Sheet No. 167
Sheet No. 168
First Revised Fifth Revised Sheet No. 403
First Revised Fifth Revised Sheet No. 403A
Second Revised Sheet No. 461
First Revised Sheet No. 462
Northern states that the above sheets
are being filed to comply with
Commission requirements issued in its
April 10, 2007 order in Docket Nos.
CP06–89 et al. related to the
abandonment by sale of the West
Hugoton facilities.
Any person desiring to protest this
filing must file in accordance with Rule
211 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 116 (Monday, June 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33462-33476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11685]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RR07-11-000]
North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Order Approving
Regional Reliability Standards for the Western Interconnection and
Directing Modifications
Issued June 8, 2007.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.
1. On March 26, 2007, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) submitted for approval eight proposed regional
Reliability Standards for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC). The proposed regional Reliability Standards would apply in the
Western Interconnection in addition to the 83 mandatory Reliability
Standards developed by NERC that will take effect on a nationwide basis
beginning in June 2007.\1\ The proposed regional Reliability Standards
would allow the continuation of certain reliability practices that are
currently in effect in the Western Interconnection. As discussed below,
pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the
Commission approves the proposed regional Reliability Standards. As a
separate action, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the
Commission directs WECC to develop several specific modifications to
the regional Reliability Standards when WECC develops, through its
Reliability Standards development process, permanent, replacement
Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System, Order No. 693, 118 FERC ] 61,218 (March 16, 2007), 72 FR
16,416 (April 4, 2007), reh'g pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. EPAct 2005 and Mandatory Reliability Standards
2. In August 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which
is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005), was enacted into law.\2\ EPAct 2005 adds a new section 215 to
the FPA, which requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards.\3\ Before a Reliability Standard may take effect, the ERO
must submit the standard to the Commission and obtain the Commission's
approval.\4\ Once approved, the Reliability Standard can be enforced by
the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission can
independently enforce the Reliability Standard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), to be codified at 16 U.S.C.
824o.
\3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)-(e).
\4\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d).
\5\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA.\6\ Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization, NERC, as the ERO.\7\ Reliability
Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include
Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a Regional
Entity.\8\ A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the
Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority
from the ERO.\9\ When the ERO reviews a regional Reliability Standard
that would be applicable on an Interconnnection-wide basis and that has
been proposed by a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide
basis, the ERO must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
\7\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062 (ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117
FERC ] 61,126 (2006).
\8\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4).
\9\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4).
\10\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(3); 18 CFR 39.5(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. When the ERO submits a proposed Reliability Standard to the
Commission, the ERO must: (1) Describe the basis and purpose of the
Reliability Standard; (2) summarize the development and review
proceedings that led to the Reliability Standard; and (3) demonstrate
that the Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 18 CFR 39.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In reviewing the ERO's submission, the Commission will give due
weight to the ERO's technical expertise, except concerning the effect
of a proposed Reliability Standard on competition.\12\ The Commission
will also give due weight to the technical expertise of a Regional
Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis with respect to a
proposed Reliability Standard to be applicable within that
Interconnection.\13\ Moreover, the Commission may give ``due
deference'' to the advice of a Regional Advisory Body that is organized
on an Interconnection-wide basis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
\13\ Id.
\14\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(j). A Regional Advisory Body is an entity
established upon petition to the Commission that is organized to
advise the ERO, a Regional Entity or the Commission regarding
certain matters including whether a Reliability Standard proposed to
apply within the region is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 18 CFR
39.13(c) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Commission may approve a proposed Reliability Standard if
the Commission finds it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public interest.\15\ In addition, the
Commission explained in Order No. 672 that ``uniformity of Reliability
Standards should be the goal and the practice, the rule rather than the
exception.'' \16\ Yet, the Commission recognized that ``the goal of
greater uniformity does not, however, mean that regional differences
cannot exist.\17\ The Commission then provided the following guidance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
\16\ Order No. 672 at P 290.
\17\ Id. at 291.
As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of
regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public
interest, as required by the statute: (1) A regional difference that
is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard,
including a regional difference that addresses matters that the
continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a
[[Page 33463]]
regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical
difference in the Bulk-Power System.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. WECC
7. WECC is responsible for overseeing transmission system
reliability in the Western Interconnection since 2002, when WECC was
formed from predecessor reliability organizations. The WECC region
encompasses nearly 1.8 million square miles, including 14 western U.S.
states, the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and the
northern portion of Baja California in Mexico. WECC developed a
Reliability Management System (RMS) pursuant to which transmission
operators in the Western Interconnection agreed by contract to be bound
by the WECC reliability criteria and sanctions for non-compliance.
According to WECC, the criteria are recognized by all WECC members but
are contractually binding only on members that signed an RMS
Agreement.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See WECC April 17, 2007 Comments at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In an April 19, 2007 order, the Commission accepted delegation
agreements between NERC and each of eight Regional Entities.\20\ In the
April 19 Order, the Commission accepted WECC as a Regional Entity
organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. In addition, the Commission
accepted WECC's Standards Development Manual which sets forth WECC's
Reliability Standards development process.\21\ The Commission also
directed WECC to make certain clarifications to its Standards
Development Manual in a filing to be submitted within 180 days of the
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,060 at P 432 (2007) (April 19 Order).
\21\ Id. at PP 469-470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Eight Proposed Regional Reliability Standards
9. NERC has submitted for the Commission's approval the following
eight regional Reliability Standards that were proposed to NERC by WECC
to apply in the Western Interconnection:
WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves)
WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 (Qualified Path Unscheduled Flow Relief)
WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 (Certification of Protective Relay Applications and
Settings)
WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 (Protective Relay and Remedial Action Scheme
Misoperation)
WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 (Transmission Maintenance)
WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 (Operating Transfer Capability)
WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 (Automatic Voltage Regulators)
WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 (Power System Stabilizers)
10. In its March 26, 2007 filing (NERC Filing), NERC states that
the proposed regional Reliability Standards are translations of
existing reliability criteria under WECC's RMS program. According to
NERC, WECC developed most of the criteria in the late 1990s in response
to a series of black-outs in the Western Interconnection.\22\ The
proposed regional Reliability Standards would make eight of those RMS
criteria binding on the applicable subset of users, owners and
operators of the Bulk-Power System in the United States portion of the
Western Interconnection, as identified in each proposed standard. The
regional Reliability Standards would supplement rather than replace the
Commission-approved Reliability Standards developed by the ERO that
will take effect in June 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NERC Filing at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. In translating WECC's existing practices to proposed regional
Reliability Standards, WECC proceeded as follows.\23\ In 2006, a WECC
task force identified criteria in the RMS Agreement that, in the task
force's view, should be binding on all users, owners and operators of
the regional Bulk-Power System. The task force chose eight of the
identified criteria that have the highest priority and that can be
implemented in the near term. WECC then used expedited procedures to
develop the eight regional Reliability Standards. WECC's rules provide
that, when WECC develops a Reliability Standard under expedited
procedures, WECC must later develop a permanent, replacement standard
using more extensive procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See id., Ex. C (Record of Development, Comments and
Correspondence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. On October 5, 2006, using its expedited procedures, WECC
solicited comment on whether the eight regional Reliability Standards
accurately reflect practices under the RMS Agreement. Commenters raised
concerns that sanctions under the eight regional Reliability Standards
are inconsistent with NERC Reliability Standards, do not provide clear
guidance for measuring compliance, and might be applied in an anti-
competitive manner.\24\ The task force responded that the regional
Reliability Standards would remain in effect for at most one year and
that WECC would consider the commenters' concerns when developing
permanent, replacement standards.\25\ WECC's Board of Directors
approved the eight regional Reliability Standards on January 5, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id., Ex. C, Attachment 1.
\25\ Id., Ex. A at 1 and Ex. C, Attachment 2 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. On December 22, 2006, in anticipation of approval by its board,
WECC submitted the proposed regional Reliability Standards to NERC. On
January 9, 2007, NERC responded with detailed comments. According to
NERC, its primary concern was that the sanctions in the proposed
regional Reliability Standards were inconsistent with NERC Sanction
Guidelines.\26\ NERC's January 9 report also identified NERC's
preferred nomenclature for Reliability Standards, identified NERC's
preferred format for submission, and identified language in the
proposed regional Reliability Standards that NERC found ambiguous or
incorrect.\27\ By letter dated February 28, 2007, WECC responded by
committing to address the shortcomings that NERC had identified when
WECC develops permanent, replacement standards.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. at 3-4. See also ERO Certification Order at P 299.
\27\ Id., Ex. C, Attachment 3.
\28\ Id., Ex. C, Attachment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Also in response to WECC's submission, NERC initiated a 45-day
comment period. NERC received six sets of comments. NERC found that
WECC had addressed the commenters' concerns by committing to correct
shortcomings in the proposed regional Reliability Standards within one
year of Commission approval. NERC generally applied a rebuttable
presumption that the proposed regional Reliability Standards meet
applicable requirements. However, because each of the proposed regional
Reliability Standards contains a sanction table that is inconsistent
with the NERC Sanction Guidelines, the NERC board concluded that the
rebuttable presumption was overcome with respect to this one component
of the proposed standards.\29\ Finally, NERC found that the proposed
one-year term was inconsistent with the Commission's prior invalidation
of automatic expiration dates for Reliability Standards.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ NERC Filing at 9.
\30\ Id. at 2-4, 8-9 (citing North American Electric Reliability
Corp., 118 FERC 61,030 at P 30 (2007)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. On February 8, 2007, the Western Interconnection Regional
Advisory Body (WIRAB) advised NERC that it should approve the proposed
regional Reliability Standards as necessary for Reliable Operation of
the Western Interconnection and as meeting the legal
[[Page 33464]]
standard for approval set forth in section 215 of the FPA.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id. at 8-9. In Governors of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming,
116 FERC ] 61,061 at P 27 (2006), the Commission established WIRAB
as a Regional Reliability body pursuant to section 215(j) of the
FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. On March 2007, NERC approved the proposed regional Reliability
Standards on the conditions that WECC: (1) Remove the one-year term
limitation; (2) address the shortcomings \32\ in the standards within
one year of approval by the Commission, including removing the
sanctions table that conflicts with the NERC Sanction Guidelines; (3)
until the WECC sanction table is removed, follow the NERC Sanction
Guidelines to the maximum extent possible within the limits of the WECC
sanction table; and (4) monitor and enforce the standards under a
delegation agreement between NERC and WECC, once that agreement is
approved.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The shortcomings in the regional Reliability Standards were
identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. See NERC
Filing, Ex. C at 128-139.
\33\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. NERC submitted its present request for the Commission's
approval on March 26, 2007. In April 2007, the Commission approved 83
ERO Reliability Standards that apply nation-wide, except for Alaska and
Hawaii. NERC and WECC request that the proposed regional Reliability
Standards take effect as soon as practical and, if possible, on the
same day as the nation-wide Reliability Standards.
D. Notice of Filing and Responsive Pleadings
18. Notice of the NERC Filing was published in the Federal
Register, 72 Fed. Reg. 17,544 (April 9, 2007), with interventions,
comments and protests due on or before April 17, 2007. Motions to
intervene were filed by Modesto Irrigation District, New York
Transmission Owners, Southern California Edison Company, and
Transmission Agency of Northern California. Motions to intervene and
comment or protest were filed by PacifiCorp, WECC, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc. (Xcel), PPL EnergyPlus, LLC and PPL Montana, LLC (PPL),
and Cogeneration Association of California and Energy Producers and
Users Coalition (California Cogeneration). WIRAB submitted timely
advice to the Commission regarding the NERC Filing. An untimely motion
to intervene was filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
1. Comments in Support
19. WECC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standards,
which are exact translations of existing regional criteria, either
address matters not addressed in the Commission-approved ERO
Reliability Standards or contain more stringent requirements than the
ERO standards.\34\ WECC states that, with the exception of WECC-IRO-
STD-006-0, the WECC regional Reliability Standard that implements the
West's unique approach to mitigation of unscheduled flow, which the
Commission approved as superior to the ERO Reliability Standard,\35\
none of the regional Reliability Standards in any way displace the ERO
requirements approved by the Commission. Rather, users, owners and
operators in the Western Interconnection will still be required to
comply with all of the requirements of the approved ERO Reliability
Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Our discussion below of each regional Reliability Standard
includes WECC's explanation of how it is more stringent than the
relevant ERO Reliability Standard.
\35\ WECC Comments at 14 (citing Order No. 693 at P 964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. WECC contends that the eight regional Reliability Standards
satisfy the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria for approval. It
states that only a few commenters raised substantive concerns in the
WECC standard development process regarding several potentially
ambiguous terms such as ``load responsibility,'' ``firm transactions,''
and ``Receiver;'' and that WECC has committed to address these issues
in developing permanent regional Reliability Standards.
21. WECC acknowledges that the sanctions tables in the proposed
regional Reliability Standards differ from the NERC Sanction
Guidelines. WECC states that it plans to propose replacement standards
that incorporate the NERC Sanction Guidelines and address other
concerns of NERC and stakeholders. WECC also explains that the regional
sanctions would apply only when an offense was not covered by a
sanction under the ERO Reliability Standards and that the regional
Reliability Standards preclude the possibility of being sanctioned
under both the WECC and ERO Reliability Standards for the same non-
compliance occurrence.
22. WIRAB advises that the proposed regional Reliability Standards
are necessary for the Reliable Operation of the Western Interconnection
and should take effect on the effective date of the 83 ERO Reliability
Standards. WIRAB also advises reinstatement of the one-year term
limitation, noting that WECC approved the regional Reliability
Standards only as interim standards. WIRAB suggests that it is unclear
that NERC has authority to eliminate the one-year term limitation.
Finally, WIRAB expresses concern that NERC effectively disregarded the
statutory rebuttable presumption without sufficient legal analysis.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ WIRAB at 8-9 (citing NERC Request, Appendix B at 4-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. PacifiCorp states that, given the unique nature of the Western
transmission system, it supports the eight regional Reliability
Standards as necessary for addressing reliability concerns of the
Western Interconnection.
2. Protests
24. Xcel, PPL and California Cogeneration filed protests or
comments in opposition to one or more of the proposed regional
Reliability Standards. California Cogeneration objects to proposed
regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves),
which, in relevant part, requires balancing authorities to maintain
operating reserves equal to a stated percentage of ``load
responsibility.'' According to California Cogeneration, ``load
responsibility'' should not include behind-the-meter load that a
cogenerator serves at its industrial or commercial host. It asserts
that a balancing authority is not obligated to serve that load in the
case of an outage on the Bulk-Power System and therefore should not be
required to maintain associated reserves.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ California Cogeneration Comments at 6 (citing California
Independent System Operator Corp., 96 FERC ] 63,015 (2001)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. PPL, which owns and operates electrical facilities and markets
electricity in the Western Interconnection, objects to WECC-IRO-STD-
006-0, addressing the mitigation of unscheduled flows. According to
PPL, WECC has not justified the need for this regional Reliability
Standard, which imposes requirements on ``receivers'' that are not
identified as an applicable entity, and improperly imposes mitigation
obligations on load-serving entities (LSEs) and marketers that lack
authority or ability to comply with those obligations.
26. Xcel, which owns generation and transmission facilities and
serves electricity customers in the Western Interconnection, argues
that the Commission lacks authority to review the proposed regional
Reliability Standards because WECC was not a Regional Entity at the
time it submitted the proposed regional Reliability
[[Page 33465]]
Standards to NERC. Xcel asserts that the WECC Reliability Standards
development process used to develop these eight regional Reliability
Standards would be invalid to the extent that the Commission directs
changes to that process. Xcel contends that NERC, in eliminating the
one-year interim status of the regional Reliability Standards, has
effectively approved the regional Reliability Standards on a permanent
instead of interim basis. Further, Xcel raises substantive objections
that are discussed below in the context of the relevant regional
Reliability Standard.
II. Discussion
A. Procedural Matters
27. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2006), the timely, unopposed motions to
intervene serve to make the entities that filed them parties to this
proceeding. We will grant PG&E's late motion to intervene, given the
early stage of this proceeding and the absence of undue delay,
prejudice or burden to the parties.
B. General and Procedural Objections to the Regional Reliability
Standards
1. WECC Reliability Standards Development Process
28. As discussed above, Xcel argues that the Commission only has
the authority to consider Reliability Standards proposed by the ERO or
a Regional Entity. On April 19, 2007, subsequent to Xcel's protest, the
Commission accepted the proposed Regional Delegation Agreements, and
accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide
basis.\38\ Thus, we consider this objection by Xcel to be moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ April 19 Order at P 432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Xcel also contends that ``to the extent the Commission directs
changes to WECC's standards development process that differ from the
process used to develop these WECC Standards, those standards will have
been developed pursuant to processes that were inconsistent with WECC's
own rules.'' \39\ The Commission, in the April 19 Order, accepted
WECC's Standards Development Manual,\40\ and WECC's eight proposed
regional Reliability Standards were developed using the process set
forth in this manual. The Commission also directed WECC to develop
several changes to the manual.\41\ However, the record of WECC's
development of the proposed regional Reliability Standards indicates
that Xcel had full opportunity to participate and raise its concerns in
the (what is now a Commission-approved) stakeholders process, as well
in the NERC posting of the WECC regional Reliability Standards for
comment.\42\ Accordingly, we deny Xcel's protest on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Xcel Comments at 8.
\40\ April 19 Order at P 469.
\41\ Id. at P 470.
\42\ See, e.g., Ex. C at Attachment 2 at 5, Attachment 4 at 23-
27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Term Limitation
30. As discussed above, WECC had proposed that the regional
Reliability Standards would be interim standards that would remain in
effect for a maximum of one year after Commission approval.
Specifically, each regional Reliability Standard includes a statement
that it will remain in effect ``for one year from the date of
Commission approval or until a North American Standard or a revised
[WECC] Regional Reliability Standard goes into place, whichever occurs
first.'' During the interim, WECC would develop permanent standards
that, upon Commission approval, would replace the interim standards.
31. NERC, however, accepted the regional Reliability Standards on
the condition that ``the standards shall remain mandatory and
enforceable until they are revised, replaced or withdrawn in a
subsequent standards action, including approval of the revision,
replacement, or withdrawal by the Commission.'' \43\ NERC explained
that it imposed this condition to be consistent with a Commission order
which provided that, with regard to a similar provision in NERC's
standards development procedure, once a Reliability Standard is made
effective under section 215 of the FPA, it can only be revised,
replaced or withdrawn by a further action that requires Commission
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NERC Filing at 10-11. See also id. at Ex. B at 6-7 (March
12, 2007, NERC Board of Trustees Decision on WECC Reliability
Standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. WECC, WIRAB and Xcel object to NERC's elimination of the one-
year expiration date. WECC and WIRAB state that the entities that voted
in favor of the regional Reliability Standards did so with the
understanding that they were voting for temporary standards, not
standards that would continue indefinitely until replaced.\44\ WIRAB
states that, while it agrees with the policy that urgent action
standards should not have sunset dates, it is concerned that imposing
the rule with respect to the eight WECC regional Reliability Standards
will abridge the due process of WECC members that approved them.
Likewise, Xcel remarks that WECC postponed substantive responses to
stakeholders' comments based on the rationale that it was proposing the
standards on an interim basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See WECC Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. We affirm NERC's decision to eliminate the one-year term
limitation. NERC's decision is consistent with our precedent. In the
ERO Certification Order, the Commission directed NERC to establish a
process for adopting an interim Reliability Standard on an expedited
basis, where the standard might be adopted later on a permanent basis,
without any possibility that the interim standard would expire in the
interim.\45\ NERC subsequently revised its ``urgent action'' procedures
to remove the automatic one year expiration provision. In accepting
this revision, the Commission explained that ``It is sufficient * * *
to allow the interim Reliability Standard to remain in effect until it
is made permanent or replaced by a permanent Reliability Standard, or
possibly even its withdrawal as a Reliability Standard so long as it is
understood that these actions are all subject to Commission approval.''
\46\ WECC developed the eight regional Reliability Standards pursuant
to its Expedited Process for Urgent Action Interim Standards (Expedited
Process).\47\ Thus, our concerns regarding NERC's urgent action
procedures apply equally to WECC's Expedited Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ ERO Certification Order, 116 FERC ] 61,062 at P 253.
\46\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 118 FERC ]
61,030 at P 30 (2007).
\47\ WECC Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. The commenters, however, are mistaken that the elimination of
the one-year expiration date necessarily converts these from interim to
permanent regional Reliability Standards. WECC is still committed
pursuant to its Expedited Process to completing the development of
permanent replacement standards.\48\ Moreover, as another condition of
approval, NERC required WECC to ``meet its commitment to address the
shortcomings identified in the standards * * * over the course of the
next year.'' \49\ Thus, we disagree with the commenters that NERC, in
eliminating the one-year expiration date, has made the regional
Reliability Standards permanent or thwarted due process. NERC's
decision will assure that, if WECC is unable to develop permanent,
replacement regional Reliability
[[Page 33466]]
Standards within one year, the interim standards that WECC represents
are crucial for reliability within the Western Interconnection will not
automatically expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id. WECC represents that it expects to complete permanent,
replacement standards within one year for most of the interim
standards. See id. at 7.
\49\ NERC Filing, Ex. B at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. NERC's Application of the Rebuttable Presumption
35. Section 215(d)(3) of the FPA provides that, when a Reliability
Standard is submitted to the ERO by an Interconnection-wide Regional
Entity, the ERO must rebuttably presume that the standard meets
statutory criteria for approval.\50\ In Order No. 672, the Commission
explained that the rebuttable presumption refers to the burden of proof
before the ERO.\51\ Thus, a party that objects to a proposed
Reliability Standard before the ERO must demonstrate that it does not
meet criteria for approval. If the ERO finds that the presumption is
not adequately rebutted, it must accept the proposed Reliability
Standard from a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide
basis.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 16 U.S.C. 842o(d)(3); 18 CFR 39.5(b).
\51\ Order No. 672 at P 301.
\52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Here, NERC correctly applied the rebuttable presumption to WECC
as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis.
However, the NERC Board found that ``[b]ecause each of the proposed
standards contains a sanctions table that is inconsistent with the NERC
Sanctions Guidelines, the proposed standards have lost the rebuttable
presumption that such standards would otherwise have.'' \53\ NERC then
approved the proposed regional Reliability Standards with the condition
that WECC conform the sanctions table to NERC's Sanction Guidelines and
that, in the interim, WECC follow the NERC guidelines to the maximum
extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ NERC Filing, Ex. B at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. WIRAB disagrees with the manner in which NERC dismissed the
statutory presumption. It asserts that NERC failed to provide an
adequate analysis regarding the reasonableness, potential
discriminatory impacts, or the broader public interest at stake to
support a finding that rebuts the presumption.
38. In the first instance, WIRAB's concern is only hypothetical
since NERC, after determining that the rebuttable presumption should
not apply, determined that the regional Reliability Standards met the
statutory criteria for approval. Moreover, it appears that WIRAB
interprets NERC as having completely disregarded the rebuttable
presumption. The Commission believes that the better understanding,
supported by NERC's filing, is that NERC determined that the rebuttable
presumption was overcome ``with respect to this component of the
proposed standards,'' i.e., the sanctions table.\54\ NERC supported
this determination by explaining that NERC staff and industry
stakeholders identified a number of shortcomings, the most significant
of which is the sanction table that is inconsistent with the NERC
Sanction Guidelines.\55\ Although NERC's explanation is succinct, the
Commission concludes that NERC has articulated a sufficient rationale
for finding that the rebuttable presumption with regard to this one
component was overcome. In general, however, NERC should provide a
robust discussion of its reasoning for finding that the rebuttable
presumption has been overcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id. at 9.
\55\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Potential for Dual Penalties
39. Xcel protests that the proposed WECC regional Reliability
Standards impose an unfair burden because, according to Xcel, the
proposed standards are duplicative of Commission-approved NERC
Reliability Standards. Thus, Xcel contends that the regional
Reliability Standards present the risk of dual penalties for the same
offense.
40. We reject Xcel's protest on this issue. Each of the proposed
regional Reliability Standards provides that ``[a]t no time shall this
regional Standard be enforced in addition to a similar North American
Standard.'' \56\ WECC, in its comments, makes clear that the intent of
this language is to ensure that there would not be dual sanctions for
the same offense.\57\ Thus, we conclude that the regional Reliability
Standards will not result in duplicative penalties resulting from the
same non-compliance event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See, e.g., WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 Sec. A5.
\57\ See WECC Comments at 2, n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Need for the Proposed Standards
41. In reviewing a proposed Reliability Standard, we consider, in
relevant part, whether it would address a reliability goal.\58\ Here,
WECC, WIRAB and NERC each represent that the proposed regional
Reliability Standards would enhance regional reliability by making
binding, throughout the United States portion of the Western
Interconnection, reliability practices that are currently implemented
in the Western Interconnection on a voluntary basis. As noted above,
those practices are currently legally binding only on signatories to
the RMS Agreement. WECC and NERC explain that Commission approval would
extend the compliance obligations of the regional Reliability Standards
beyond the RMS signatories to all applicable users, owners and
operators in the Western Interconnection. According to NERC, having the
regional Reliability Standards approved as mandatory under section 215
of the FPA provides significant additional authority for compliance and
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Order No. 672 at P 324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Xcel, on the other hand, asserts that the proposed standards
are unnecessary, reasoning that the RMS Agreement will remain in effect
and is sufficient to protect reliability.
43. We agree with WECC, WIRAB and NERC that approval of the
proposed regional Reliability Standards under section 215 would enhance
reliability in the Western Interconnection by making WECC's current
practices binding on all relevant entities in the region and by
strengthening WECC's compliance and enforcement authority. WECC's
current practices were developed in response to concrete and
significant reliability problems in the Western Interconnection in the
mid-1990s. According to WECC, reliability in the region has improved
since the practices have been in effect. When we first approved the
practices in 1999, we lacked full jurisdiction over reliability and
therefore could not impose the practices on a mandatory basis. While we
laud WECC members for their voluntary compliance by contract, we
believe that statutorily-based and mandatory Reliability Standards will
better ensure the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
C. Discussion of WECC's Regional Reliability Standards
1. WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves)
44. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires that
adequate generating capacity be available at all times to maintain
scheduled frequency and avoid loss of firm load following transmission
or generation contingencies. The regional Reliability Standard applies
to balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups (RSGs) with
provision for agents to provide administrative duties. A balancing
authority or reserve sharing group must maintain minimum operating
reserves, defined as the sum of: (1) Regulating reserves; (2)
contingency reserves; (3) additional reserve for interruptible imports;
and (4) additional reserve for on-demand
[[Page 33467]]
obligations. WECC requires balancing authorities to maintain an amount
of contingency reserves:
Sufficient to meet the NERC Disturbance Control Standard BAL-002-0,
equal to the greater of: (a) The loss of generating capacity due to
forced outages of generation or transmission equipment that would
result from the most severe single contingency; or (b) The sum of
five percent of the load responsibility served by hydro generation
and seven percent of the load responsibility served by thermal
generation.
Further, the contingency reserve must be composed of at least 50
percent spinning reserves, which must be capable of ramping and being
fully deployed within ten minutes.
45. WECC's regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC's
Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 (Disturbance Control Performance), which
requires a balancing authority (either directly or by participating in
a reserve sharing group) to use its contingency reserves to balance
resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency to within
defined limits following a reportable disturbance. Requirement 3 of
NERC's BAL-002-0 requires each balancing authority or reserve sharing
group to ``carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to cover the most
severe contingency.''
46. As with all eight regional Reliability Standards, NERC approved
WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to
address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter
to WECC.\59\ With regard to WECC-BAL-STD-002-0, NERC identified various
formatting concerns including the need to specify individual
Requirements and corresponding Measures, consistent with the format of
the NERC Reliability Standards. NERC also stated that WECC's regional
Reliability Standard defines the terms ``automatic generation
control,'' ``disturbance,'' ``frequency bias,'' and ``non-spinning
reserve'' differently from NERC's Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability
Standards (NERC glossary).\60\ NERC also identifies a number of
shortcomings that apply generally to all of the WECC regional
Reliability Standards including the sanction tables that conflict with
the NERC Sanction Guidelines, failure to include Violation Severity
Levels (levels of non-compliance) and Violation Risk Factors, an
``excuse of performance'' provision \61\ that is not included in NERC's
Reliability Standards template, and additional substantive and
formatting concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See NERC Filing, Ex. C, Attachment 3 at 5-7.
\60\ In Order No. 693 at P 1893-98, the Commission approved
NERC's glossary and directed certain modifications.
\61\ Each proposed regional Reliability Standard includes an
``excuse of performance'' provision stating that ``non-compliance
with any of the reliability criteria contained in this Standard
shall be excused and no sanction applied if such non-compliance
results directly from one or more of the [specified] actions or
events,'' including governmental order, order of reliability
coordinator, protection of facilities and extraordinary contingency
(such as act of war, insurrection, flood or earthquake).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
47. WECC explains that NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 requires
an applicable entity to have the ability to supply reserves equal to
the most severe single contingency. According to WECC, while applicable
users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply
with BAL-002-0, the corresponding regional Reliability Standard goes
further and requires each balancing authority in the West to provide a
minimum reserve of five percent of the loads served by hydro generation
and seven percent of the loads served by thermal generation. WECC
states that this regional minimum reserve requirement was developed to
assure that there would be sufficient generation to sustain acceptable
power system performance for various contingencies. Further, WECC
explains that WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 is more stringent because NERC's BAL-
002-0 requires contingency reserves to be restored within 90 minutes
following a disturbance while WECC requires restoration within 60
minutes.
48. As noted above, WECC requires balancing authorities to maintain
contingency reserves equal to the greater of the loss of generating
capacity resulting from the most severe single contingency or the sum
of five percent of load responsibility served by hydro generation and
seven percent of the load responsibility served by thermal generation.
Both Xcel and California Cogeneration protest that the term ``load
responsibility'' as used by the WECC is ambiguous and could lead to
inconsistent interpretations of the regional Reliability Standard.
California Cogeneration states that Commission Opinion No. 464
determined that a qualifying facility's (QF) net load is the only
relevant load for the purposes of calculating the operating reserve
responsibility of the QF.\62\ It expresses concern that the term load
responsibility could be interpreted to include gross load in conflict
with Opinion No. 464 and, thus, asks the Commission to remand the
regional Reliability Standard so that it can be modified to include a
definition of load responsibility consistent with Opinion No. 464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Citing California Independent System Operator Corp.,
Opinion No. 464, 104 FERC ] 61,196 at P 40 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. Xcel also argues that the term load responsibility is overly
vague. It quotes a WECC document that defines load responsibility as
``[a] control area's firm load demand plus those firm sales minus those
firm purchases for which reserve capacity is provided by the
supplier.'' \63\ According to Xcel, WECC has not adequately defined the
term ``firm'' embedded in its definition of load responsibility and,
likewise, has not adequately defined the related term
``interruptible.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Xcel Comments at 12, citing NERC/WECC Planning Standards
and Minimum Operating Reliability Criteria, Definitions, Revised
August 9, 2002. The California Independent System Operator
Corporation tariff also uses this definition of load responsibility.
See Opinion No. 464, 96 FERC ] 63,015 at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Xcel notes that WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires the purchaser of
interruptible power to carry additional reserves to replace
interruptible imports. Xcel posits that, while the definition of
``interruptible'' is unclear, application of a narrow interpretation of
the term could have adverse impacts on competition and reliability.
Specifically, it claims that to avoid application of the ``adder'' some
entities avoid purchasing ``economy power,'' or interruptible power,
thereby impeding competition. Xcel also claims that this practice may
result in entities utilizing local units that are subject to failure or
curtailment, resulting in less reliable operations. Xcel further argues
that certain entities may try to claim that most ``firm'' transactions,
as interpreted by the Commission in Order No. 890, are potentially
curtailable and thus ``interruptible'' under a ``very narrow
interpretation.'' Xcel adds that there is no evidence to show that
``economy transactions'' are less reliable thus warranting the need for
extra reserves.
51. Xcel also opposes the 60-minute restoration period that would
be required under BAL-STD-002-0. Xcel asserts that BAL-STD-002-0 would
require restoration of contingency reserves within 60 minutes rather
than the 90 minutes permissible under the corresponding NERC standard.
According to Xcel, in adopting 60 minutes of restoration time, WECC and
NERC disregarded Requirement R6.2 of BAL-002-0 that established a
default contingency reserve restoration period of 90 minutes and allows
adjustment of
[[Page 33468]]
this period ``to better suit the reliability targets of the
Interconnection based on analysis approved by the NERC Operating
Committee.'' Xcel contends that WECC failed to obtain approval of the
NERC Operating Committee. Xcel also claims that WECC's proposed 60-
minute restoration period will have a dampening effect on competition
because the shortened restoration period will provide little time for
market participants to procure alternative resources outside of the
host balancing authority.
52. Further, Xcel argues that WECC has not justified the
requirements of the regional Reliability Standard and thus the
technical expertise of WECC should not be given any weight in the
Commission's evaluation of the regional Reliability Standard.
Commission Determination
53. The Commission approves regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-
STD-002-0 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection.
The Commission finds that the proposed regional Reliability Standard is
more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, BAL-
002-0, because WECC requires a more stringent minimum reserve
requirement than the nation-wide requirement.\64\ Further, WECC's
requirement to restore contingency reserves within 60 minutes is more
stringent than the 90 minute restoration period set forth in NERC's
BAL-002-0. While we agree with Xcel that NERC's filing did not
adequately explain the need for WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 or why it was more
stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standards, WECC
provides an adequate explanation in its comments for the Commission to
make a reasoned determination.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ While approving the WECC regional Reliability Standard, the
Commission reiterates its directive in Order No. 693 that the ERO
develop a continent-wide reserve policy that is ``based on the
reliability risk of not meeting load associated with a particular
balancing authority's generation mix and topology.'' See Order No.
693 at P 340. Our approval of WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 does not affect
this directive to the ERO.
\65\ Section 39.5(a) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
39.5(a) (2006), provides that the ERO's submission of a new or
modified Reliability Standard must include (1) A concise statement
of the basis and purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard, (2) a
summary of the Reliability Standard development proceedings, and (3)
a demonstration that the proposal is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Future
Reliability Standard filings may be subject to a deficiency letter
if they fail to satisfy the filing requirements set forth in our
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. The Commission agrees with the shortcomings identified by NERC
regarding WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 and expects WECC in developing a
permanent, replacement standard to address these shortcomings as it has
committed to do. For example, for each of the proposed regional
Reliability Standards, (1) Regional definitions should conform to the
definitions set forth in the NERC glossary, unless a specific deviation
has been justified; and (2) documents that are referenced in the
Reliability Standard should be attached to the Reliability Standard.
Likewise, with respect to this and each of the proposed regional
Reliability Standards, we agree with NERC that WECC must remove the
sanctions table that is inconsistent with NERC's Sanction Guidelines
and develop Violation Risk Factors (levels of non-compliance) and
Violation Severity Levels that conform to corresponding NERC standards.
In approving NERC's Sanction Guidelines, the Commission emphasized the
need to achieve consistency in the assessment of penalties across the
regions. Elimination of the WECC sanctions table will further this
goal.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ ERO Certification Order at P 254, 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
55. Further, it is important that regional Reliability Standards
and NERC Reliability Standards achieve a reasonable level of
consistency in the structure of a Reliability Standard so that there is
a common understanding of the elements. In particular, we agree with
NERC that WECC should eliminate the ``excuse of performance'' provision
of the regional Reliability Standards, which is inconsistent with
NERC's format. While the factors identified in the excuse of
performance provision may be legitimate mitigating factors for WECC to
consider when assessing a penalty on a case-by-case basis, the
Commission disagrees that a Reliability Standard should contain a
blanket waiver or excuse for non-compliance.\67\ We expect WECC, in
developing a permanent, replacement standard, to address these concerns
of both NERC and the Commission. In general, with respect to both the
eight proposed Reliability Standards as well as other standards that
are being developed by WECC, it is essential that WECC employ a higher
level of precision and consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ April 19 Order at P 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. In Order No. 672, the Commission, in discussing the factors it
would consider in determining whether a proposed Reliability Standard
met the statutory standard for approval, explained that a proposed
Reliability Standard should be clear and unambiguous regarding what is
required and who is required to comply.\68\ Xcel and California
Cogeneration contend that the Commission should remand WECC-BAL-STD-
002-0 because of ambiguities in the terms ``load responsibility'' and
``firm transaction.'' As discussed above, the Commission believes that
the regional Reliability Standard is sound, as it provides greater
stringency than NERC's reserve requirements and meets a need of the
Western Interconnection. While commenters identify potential
ambiguities, we do not believe that these potential uncertainties
demonstrate a degree of ambiguity within the regional Reliability
Standard that requires us to remand it.\69\ Rather, as WECC indicated
in its response to stakeholders in the regional Reliability Standards
development process, WECC will provide an opportunity to address these
concerns when developing a permanent, replacement standard. The
Commission agrees that this is a reasonable approach and will expect
WECC's submission of a replacement standard to adequately address these
stakeholder concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Order No. 672 at P 325.
\69\ The Commission notes that WECC has defined the term load
responsibility, although not in its regional Reliability Standard.
The definition can be found at WECC's Web site at: https://wecc.biz/
documents/library/procedures/WECC_Reliability_Criteria_
definitions_8-02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. California Cogeneration raised concerns that the term load
responsibility must be defined consistent with the Commission's Opinion
No. 464, which issued in a proceeding under section 205 of the FPA that
addressed treatment of QFs under the CAISO open access transmission
tariff. The Commission agrees that a QF's load responsibility should be
interpreted consistent with Opinion No. 464, which provided in relevant
part that:
We affirm the judge's finding that the long-standing practice in
the CAISO control area of scheduling, metering and procuring
reserves on a net load basis should be permitted to continue, so
long as a QF has contracted for standby service with a UDC [Utility
Distribution Company], i.e., a contract that provides for the
immediate replacement of energy in case of the QF's forced outage.
The record indicates * * * that by contract with a QF, a UDC will
provide standby service and operating reserves if there is a forced
QF outage.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Opinion No. 464, 104 FERC ] 61,196 at P 40.
58. Thus, from an economic perspective under section 205, the UDC
must pay for the reserves associated with the backup power provided by
the UDC by contract. While operating reserves may be required for
behind the
[[Page 33469]]
meter load in a Regional Reliability Standard for reliability reasons,
a QF is not required to buy operating reserve for the load that has
standby service. It remains the responsibility of the host utility that
provides the QF's normal stand-by or back-up power to supply those
reserves. We believe this explanation addresses California
Cogeneration's concern.
59. In regard to Xcel's concern about the definition of
interruptible imports, while it is possible that the term may require
refinement by WECC to address specific contexts, the meaning of the
term ``interruptible'' is generally well understood in the industry,
i.e., transmission or generation subject to interruption at the
provider's discretion. Xcel's claims that the provision, under a narrow
interpretation, could have adverse impacts on competition and
reliability are highly speculative.
60. The Commission rejects Xcel's protest regarding the 60-minute
contingency reserve restoration period. This is useful stringency that
benefits reliability in the Western Interconnection by shortening the
time after a disturbance that the balancing authority might not have
sufficient reserves to meet its reliable obligations in the
Interconnection. Xcel's concern that this provision harms competition
is speculative. Moreover, the Commission notes that NERC Reliability
Standard EOP-001, Requirement R1 requires entities to have pre-existing
arrangements. Balancing authorities should not use the reserve
restoration period to shop for better prices but to be concerned about
restoring the reserves so the Bulk-Power System remains reliable.
61. Finally, while Xcel may be technically correct that the current
NERC BAL-002-2 requires approval of the NERC Operating Committee to
change the restoration period, we do not believe this is a sufficient
reason to remand WECC's proposal. First, in Order No. 693, the
Commission directed NERC to modify this Requirement to replace ``NERC
Operating Committee'' with ``ERO.'' \71\ NERC board approval of WECC-
BAL-STD-002-0 suffices. Second, WECC did not increase but, rather,
decreased the restoration period, making the WECC standard include a
more stringent requirement than NERC's comparable requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Order No. 693 at P 356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 (Qualified Path Unscheduled Flow Relief)
62. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 applies to
transmission operators, balancing authorities, and load serving
entities within the Western Interconnection. Under WECC's plan for
congestion management, responsible entities must comply with requests
from operators of qualified transmission paths to reduce unscheduled
flow on the path. The regional Reliability Standard identifies when an
operator shall request curtailments, states that responsible entities
shall comply in a timely manner with a request for curtailments, and
establishes procedures for reducing flows. In particular, it requires
that:
Upon receipt of a curtailment request, Contributing Schedules which
are subject to curtailments will be reduced (or equivalent
alternative schedule adjustments will be effected) in accordance
with the following procedures:
(i) Receivers of Contributing Schedules will initiate the
requested schedule reductions * * *. \[72]\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, Requirement WR1, Plan Attachment 1,
Section 9.h.
63. NERC's Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 (Transmission Loading
Relief), which the Commission approved in Order No. 693 subject to
certain modifications,\73\ requires a reliability coordinator
experiencing potential or actual System Operating Limit (SOL) or
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) violations to take
appropriate actions pursuant to established procedures to relieve
transmission loading. For the Eastern Interconnection, balancing
authorities must follow the established transmission loading relief
(TLR) procedures to take appropriate actions pursuant to established
procedures to relieve transmission loading. Requirement R2.2 of IRO-
006-3 identifies ``the equivalent Interconnection-wide transmission
loading relief procedure for use in the Western Interconnection is the
`WSCC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Order No. 693 at P 960-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. NERC approved WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 on the condition that WECC
meet its commitment to address specified shortcomings concerning
formatting, use of standard terms, and the need for greater specificity
in the actions that a responsible entity must take. In addition, NERC
noted that the requirements should be part of the regional Reliability
Standard rather than being embedded in a filing.
Comments
65. According to WECC, WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 is essential because it
is the only source of a mandatory process for mitigating overloads due
to unscheduled line flows in the Western Interconnection. WECC notes
that, in developing the regional Reliability Standard, stakeholders
commented that the term ``receiver'' as defined in the standard should
more closely match the NERC Functional Model and should not include
market entities. WECC states that it intends to address these issues in
developing a permanent, replacement standard.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See WECC Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. PPL protests the applicability of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, noting
that NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 applies to reliability
coordinators, transmission operators and balancing authorities. PPL
contends that WECC has, without explanation, significantly broadened
the scope of the regional Reliability Standard by requiring compliance
by LSEs. According to PPL, market entities such as LSEs may be unable
to meet the requirements of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0. Second, PPL protests
that certain requirements apply to ``receivers,'' which are not
identified in the applicability section of the regional Reliability
Standard. PPL contends that receivers (1) May lack the authority or
ability to comply with a directive to reduce flows and (2) may include
functional entities beyond LSEs such as ``purchasing selling entities''
that are not identified in the applicability section of the regional
Reliability Standard.
67. PPL recommends that the Commission limit applicability to those
entities identified in NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 and clarify
that the assessment of penalties is limited to the entities to which
the regional Reliability Standard is applicable. PPL asks that, if the
Commission decides that it is appropriate to include load-serving
entities, the applicability should be limited to LSEs as defined by
NERC \75\ and to LSEs that meet NERC's compliance registry criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ PPL at 10. See August 2, 2006, NERC Glossary of Terms Used
in Reliability Standards at 10, which defines load-serving entity as
an entity that ``secures energy and transmission service (and
related Interconnected Operations Services) to serve the electric
demand and energy requirements of its end-use customers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. Xcel protests that no justification has been provided for the
WECC regional Reliability Standard. Xcel recognizes that one benefit of
the WECC unscheduled flow mitigation procedures is the coordinated use
of phase shifters to provide some relief on
