System Personnel Training Reliability Standards, 72664-72679 [2010-29717]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72664
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
exemption from registration under
Section 17A is a small entity.
6. In § 240.12h–1(h)T, in the last
sentence, remove the words ‘‘November
30, 2010’’ and add, in their place, the
words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’.
■
VIII. Statutory Authority and Text of
the Rules and Amendments
The amendments described in this
release are being adopted under the
authority set forth in Sections 18, 19
and 28 of the Securities Act; Sections
12(h), 23(a) and 36 of the Exchange Act;
and Section 304(d) of the TIA.
PART 260—GENERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS, TRUST INDENTURE
ACT OF 1939
7. The authority citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn,
77sss, 78ll(d), 80b–3, 80b–4, and 80b–11.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 230,
240 and 260
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.
§ 260.4d–11T
[Amended]
8. In § 260.4d–11T, in the last
sentence, remove the words ‘‘November
30, 2010’’ and add, in their place, the
words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’.
■
Text of the Rules and Amendments
Accordingly, we are temporarily
amending 17 CFR parts 230, 240, and
260 as follows and the expiration date
for the temporary rules published
January 22, 2009 (74 FR 3967), and
extended to November 30, 2010, is
further extended from November 30,
2010, to July 16, 2011.
■
Dated: November 19, 2010.
By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–29702 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
PART 230—GENERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF
1933
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
1. The authority citation for Part 230
continues to read, in part, as follows:
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77c, 77d, 77f,
77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z–3, 77sss, 78c, 78d,
78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d),
78mm, 80a–8, 80a–24, 80a–28, 80a–29, 80a–
30, and 80a–37, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
*
§§ 230.146 and 230.239T
2. In § 230.146(c)T, in the last
sentence, remove the words ‘‘November
30, 2010’’ and add, in their place, the
words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’.
■ 3. In § 230.239T(e), remove the words
‘‘November 30, 2010’’ and add, in their
place, the words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
[Docket No. RM09–25–000; Order No. 742]
System Personnel Training Reliability
Standards
Issued November 18, 2010.
[Amended]
■
18 CFR Part 40
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Commission
approves two Personnel Performance,
Training and Qualifications (PER)
Reliability Standards, PER–004–2
PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND
(Reliability Coordination—Staffing) and
REGULATIONS, SECURITIES
PER–005–1 (System Personnel
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Training), submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American
■ 4. The authority citation for Part 240
Electric Reliability Corporation, the
continues to read, in part, as follows:
Electric Reliability Organization
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j,
certified by the Commission. The
77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn,
approved Reliability Standards require
77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j,
reliability coordinators, balancing
78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o–
authorities, and transmission operators
4, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w, 78x, 78ll,
78mm, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b– to establish a training program for their
3, 80b–4, 80b–11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18
system operators, verify each of their
U.S.C. 1350; and 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3) unless
system operators’ capability to perform
otherwise noted.
tasks, and provide emergency
operations training to every system
*
*
*
*
*
operator. The Commission also
§§ 240.12a–10T and 240.12h–1 [Amended]
approves NERC’s proposal to retire two
existing PER Reliability Standards that
■ 5. In § 240.12a–10T(b), remove the
words ‘‘November 30, 2010’’ and add, in are replaced by the standards approved
in this Final Rule.
their place, the words ‘‘July 16, 2011’’.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Effective Date: This rule will
become effective January 25, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karin L. Larson (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–8236. Kenneth U. Hubona
(Technical Information), Office of
Electric Reliability, Division of
Reliability Standards, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 1800 Dual
Highway, Suite 201, Hagerstown, MD
21740, (301) 665–1608.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before
Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A.
LaFleur.
1. Under section 215 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission
approves two Personnel Performance,
Training and Qualifications (PER)
Reliability Standards, PER–004–2
(Reliability Coordination—Staffing) and
PER–005–1 (System Personnel
Training), submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) certified by the Commission. The
approved Reliability Standards require
reliability coordinators, balancing
authorities, and transmission operators
to establish a training program for their
system operators, verify each of their
system operators’ capability to perform
tasks, and provide emergency
operations training to every system
operator. The Commission also
approves NERC’s proposal to retire two
existing PER Reliability Standards that
are replaced by the standards approved
in this Final Rule.
DATES:
I. Background
2. On March 16, 2007, the
Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability
Standards filed by NERC,2 including the
four PER Reliability Standards: PER–
001–0, PER–002–0, PER–003–0, and
PER–004–1.3 In addition, in Order No.
693, under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA,
the Commission directed NERC to
develop modifications to the PER
Reliability Standards to address certain
issues identified by the Commission. At
issue in the immediate proceeding are
two new PER Reliability Standards that
would replace the currently effective
1 16
U.S.C. 824o.
Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr.
4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on
reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
3 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1330–1417.
2 Mandatory
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Reliability Standards PER–002–0
(Operating Personnel Training) and
PER–004–1 (Reliability Coordination—
Staffing).
Currently Effective Reliability Standard
PER–002–0
3. Currently effective Reliability
Standard PER–002–0 requires each
transmission operator and balancing
authority to be staffed with adequately
trained operating personnel.4
Specifically, PER–002–0: (1) Directs
each transmission operator and
balancing authority to have a training
program for all operating personnel who
occupy positions that either have
primary responsibility, directly or
through communication with others, for
the real-time operation of the BulkPower System or who are directly
responsible for complying with the
NERC Reliability Standards; (2) lists
criteria that must be met by the training
program; and (3) requires that operating
personnel receive at least five days of
training in emergency operations each
year using realistic simulations.5
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission
directed NERC, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop the
following modifications to PER–002–0:
(1) Identify the expectations of the
training for each job function; (2)
develop training programs tailored to
each job function with consideration of
the individual training needs of the
personnel; (3) expand the applicability
of the training requirements to include:
reliability coordinators, local
transmission control center operator
personnel, generator operators centrallylocated at a generation control center
with a direct impact on the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System,
and operations planning and operations
support staff who carry out outage
planning and assessments and those
who develop system operating limits
(SOL), interconnection reliability
operating limits (IROL), or operating
nomograms for real-time operations; (4)
use a systematic approach to training
methodology for developing new
training programs; and (5) include the
use of simulators by reliability
coordinators, transmission operators,
and balancing authorities that have
operational control over a significant
portion of load and generation.6
5. In Order No. 693, the Commission
also directed the ERO to determine
whether it is feasible to develop
meaningful performance metrics
4 Id.
P 1331.
5 Reliability
6 Order
Standard PER–002–0.
No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1393.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
associated with the effectiveness of a
training program required by currently
effective Reliability Standard PER–002–
0 and to consider whether personnel
who support Energy Management
System (EMS) applications should be
included in mandatory training
pursuant to the Reliability Standard.7
Currently Effective Reliability Standard
PER–004–1
6. In Order No. 693, the Commission
also approved Reliability Standard PER–
004–1.8 This Reliability Standard
requires each reliability coordinator to
be staffed with adequately trained,
NERC-certified operators, 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. Further, PER–
004–1 requires reliability coordinator
operating personnel to have a
comprehensive understanding of the
area of the Bulk-Power System for
which they are responsible.
NERC Petition
7. In a September 30, 2009 filing
(NERC Petition),9 NERC requests
Commission approval of proposed
Reliability Standards PER–005–1
(System Personnel Training) and PER–
004–2 (Reliability Coordination—
Staffing), which were developed in
response to the Commission’s directives
in Order No. 693 regarding currently
effective Reliability Standard PER–002–
0.10 NERC seeks to concurrently retire
currently effective Reliability Standards
PER–002–0 and PER–004–1 upon the
effective date of the two new Reliability
Standards.
8. NERC states that the proposed
Reliability Standards ‘‘are a significant
improvement over the existing
Reliability Standards’’ and recommends
Commission approval of the standards
as a ‘‘significant step in strengthening
the quality of operator training programs
as necessary for the reliability of the
[B]ulk-[P]ower [S]ystem.’’ 11
Reliability Standard PER–005–1
9. The stated purpose of Reliability
Standard PER–005–1 is to ensure system
operators performing real-time,
7 Id.
P 1394.
P 1417.
9 North American Electric Reliability Corp., Sept.
30, 2009 Petition for Approval of Proposed
Reliability Standards Regarding System Personnel
Training (NERC Petition). The two PER Reliability
Standards are included as Exhibit A to NERC’s
Petition. In addition, pursuant to section 40.3 of the
Commission’s regulations, all Commissionapproved Reliability Standards are available on
NERC’s Web site at https://www.nerc.com/
page.php?cid=2|20. See 18 CFR. 40.3.
10 NERC’s Petition addresses only the directives
in Order No. 693 related to existing Reliability
Standard PER–002–0, not the directives related to
PER–004–1. See NERC Petition at 27.
11 NERC Petition at 5.
8 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72665
reliability-related tasks on the North
American bulk electric system are
competent to perform those reliabilityrelated tasks.12 Reliability Standard
PER–005–1 applies to reliability
coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators.13 Reliability
Standard PER–005–1 contains three
main requirements:
• Requirement R1 mandates the use of a
systematic approach to training for both new
and existing training programs. The
requirement further requires applicable
entities to create a company-specific,
reliability-related task list relevant to BulkPower System operation and to design and
develop learning objectives and training
materials based on the task list performed by
its System Operators each calendar year.
Finally, the requirement mandates the
training be delivered and the training
program be evaluated on at least an annual
basis to assess its effectiveness.
• Requirement R2 requires the verification
of a System Operator’s ability to perform the
tasks identified in Requirement R1. The
requirement also mandates re-verification of
a System Operator’s ability to perform the
tasks within a specified time period when
program content is modified.
• Requirement R3 identifies the number of
hours of emergency operations training (at
least 32 hours) that a System Operator is
required to obtain every twelve months. The
requirement further identifies those entities
required to use simulation technology such
as a simulator, virtual technology, or other
technology in their emergency operations
training programs.14
Proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 is a new Reliability Standard that
is intended to supersede all of currently
effective Reliability Standard PER–002–
0 as well as Requirements R2, R3, and
R4 of currently effective Reliability
Standard PER–004–1.
Proposed Reliability Standard
PER–004–2
10. Proposed Reliability Standard
PER–004–2 modifies PER–004–1 by
deleting Requirements R2, R3, and R4,
as these three Requirements are
incorporated into proposed PER–005–1.
Proposed Reliability Standard PER–
004–2 simply carries forward,
unchanged, the remaining provisions
from currently effective PER–004–1,
including the associated violation risk
factor and violation severity level
assignments.
12 Reliability Standard PER–005–1, Section A.3
(Purpose).
13 The responsible entities subject to PER–005–1
include: Reliability coordinators, balancing
authorities and transmission operators as those
entities are defined in the Glossary of Terms Used
in NERC Reliability Standards, April 20, 2010,
available at https://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/
rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
14 NERC Petition at 8–9.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72666
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
11. On June 17, 2010, the Commission
issued its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to
approve the two proposed PER
Reliability Standards, PER–004–2 and
PER–005–1 (and to retire the two
superseded standards, PER–002–0 and
PER–004–1).15 With respect to
Reliability Standard PER–005–1, the
NOPR proposed to direct NERC to: (1)
Modify PER–005–1 to explicitly require
training for local transmission control
center personnel, and (2) to evaluate the
feasibility of developing meaningful
performance metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness of PER–005–1. In addition,
in the NOPR, the Commission sought
clarification from NERC and/or industry
comments on several specific aspects of
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1, including: (1) Whether three
specific training requirements are
carried over from PER–004–1 to PER–
005–1 and are enforceable as part of the
systematic approach to training
umbrella; (2) whether PER–005–1, R1.2,
through the systematic approach to
training, adequately requires entities to
develop training programs tailored to
each job function with consideration of
the individual training needs of the
personnel; (3) whether PER–005–1, R3.1
requires the use of simulators specific to
an operator’s own system and if not,
whether it is feasible or practical to
mandate the use of simulators that are
specific to the operator’s system; (4)
whether the proposed two- and threeyear lead time prior to certain
Requirements in PER–005–1 become
effective are necessary and the
feasibility of staggering the retirement of
currently effective Reliability Standards
PER–002–0 and PER–004–1; and (5)
whether it is feasible for NERC to
complete the standards development
project to expand applicability of PER–
005 to include certain generator
operators and operations planning and
operations support staff by fourth
quarter 2011. The Commission also
proposed to approve NERC’s proposed
retirement of currently effective
Reliability Standards, PER–002–0 and
PER–004–1, which will be superseded
by the two new standards.
12. In response to the NOPR,
comments were filed by 28 interested
parties. These comments assisted us in
the evaluation of NERC’s proposal. In
the discussion below, we address the
issues raised by these comments.
Appendix A to this Final Rule lists the
15 System Personnel Training Reliability
Standards, 75 FR 35689 (June 17, 2010), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,661 (2010) (NOPR).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
entities that filed comments on the
NOPR.
II. Discussion
A. Approval of PER–004–2 and PER–
005–1
13. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to approve the two PER
Reliability Standards filed by NERC in
this proceeding as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. The
Commission stated that proposed
Reliability Standards PER–005–1 and
PER–004–2 represent an improvement
in training requirements.
Comments
14. Many commenters support
approving the two proposed Reliability
Standards PER–004–2 and PER–005–
1.16 NERC reiterates in its comments
that implementation of Reliability
Standards PER–005–1 and PER–004–2
will achieve a significant improvement
in the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System and, therefore, it is supportive of
the Commission’s proposal to approve
the two standards. APPA states that the
proposed PER standards strike the right
balance among costs, flexibility and
performance, and that PER–005–1 and
PER–004–2 should be approved without
modification. Dominion notes that the
implementation of the more stringent
requirements of PER–005–1, including
the adoption of a systematic approach to
training for new and existing system
operator training programs, recognizes
the criticality of such training and
contains a logical and reasonable
approach to providing the appropriate
personnel with the necessary training.
15. EEI states that if the Reliability
Standards are approved, compliance
with both PER–004–2 and PER–005–1
will support the reliability of the BulkPower System by measuring
competence against a list of specific task
requirements. EEI also comments that
by implementing training requirements
that test specific competencies, the
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 provides greater clarity, thus
improving its enforceability. No
commenter objects to the approval of
the two training Reliability Standards.
Commission Determination
16. The Commission adopts the NOPR
proposal and approves Reliability
Standard PER–004–2 and PER–005–1 as
just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in
16 See comments of APPA, Dominion, EEI, IESO,
NERC, NRECA, PG&E, Platte River, Wisconsin
Electric, and WECC.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the public interest.17 By assigning a
significant amount of structure to the
training programs for the principal
operators of the Bulk-Power System,
namely reliability coordinators,
balancing authorities and transmission
operators, the two proposed Reliability
Standards will enhance the reliability of
the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the
two proposed Reliability Standards
represent a step forward in
implementing a key recommendation
from the 2003 Blackout Report 18 by
addressing an identified gap where
operations personnel were not
adequately trained to maintain reliable
operation under emergency conditions.
17. The Commission is not directing
any modifications to the substantive
requirements of the two new Reliability
Standards, PER–005–1 or PER–004–2.
Nevertheless, as discussed in greater
detail below, the Commission has
several concerns regarding certain
training issues. To address these
concerns, and as discussed in greater
detail below, the Commission is issuing
directives that the ERO: (1) Consider the
necessity of developing an
implementation plan for entities that
become subject to PER–005–1,
Requirement R3.1 after Requirement
R3.1 is in effect, and (2) develop a
Reliability Standard, through the ERO’s
Reliability Standards development
process, conducted pursuant to its
Standard Processes Manual, establishing
training requirements for local
transmission control center operator
personnel.
B. Implementation Timeline
18. In the NOPR, the Commission
expressed concern about NERC’s
proposed use of staggered effective dates
for the two proposed Reliability
Standards, which Reliability Standards
modify currently effective standards.
The Commission questioned whether
staggered effective dates could create a
gap in compliance and enforceability.
Specifically, NERC proposed to make
the various requirements in PER–005–1
mandatory and enforceable in three
stages over a three-year period. The
Commission also questioned the need
for the proposed two- and three-year
lead times before certain Requirements
in PER–005–1 become mandatory and
enforceable.
17 16
U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
Power System Outage Task Force,
Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the
United States and Canada: Causes and
Recommendations, (April 2004) (Blackout Report),
available at https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/
indus-act/blackout.asp.
18 U.S.-Canada
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Comments
19. NERC’s comments clarify the
proposed effective dates for each of the
new Requirements in PER–005–1 and
PER–004–2 as well as the corresponding
retirement dates of the currently
effective Requirements in PER–002–0
and PER–004–1. NERC included in its
comments a table that specifies the
retirement and effective date for each
Requirement in each of the affected
Reliability Standards, specifically,
currently effective PER–002–0 and PER–
004–1 and proposed Reliability
Standards PER–004–2 and PER–005–1.
This table is reproduced in Appendix B
of this Final Rule. Further, NERC
provides justification for the proposed
two- and three-year lead times for the
effective date for some of the proposed
Requirements in PER–005–1.
Specifically, NERC states that the 24month implementation timeframe of
proposed PER–005–1, Requirements R1
and R2 allows flexibility in developing
and implementing the training programs
that use a systematic approach to
training, and is structured and tailored
to the functions that each entity
performs in operating the Bulk-Power
System. Additionally, NERC explains
that the 36-month implementation
timeframe for Requirement R3.1 in the
proposed standard PER–005–1 allows
entities with simulation technology
sufficient time to integrate the use of
this technology as a core component of
those programs going forward and
allows entities without simulation
technology the needed time to secure
and integrate simulation technology.
Finally, NERC states that it reviewed the
staggered effective/retirement dates and
did not find any overlaps or gaps.
20. The majority of the commenters
generally support NERC’s proposed
effective and retirement dates.19 Many
of these commenters state that if the
Commission rejects the use of staggered
effective and retirement dates, then in
the alternative, the Commission should
impose a uniform effective date that is
the first day of the first calendar quarter,
36 months after FERC approval.20 BGE,
GSOC and GTC, KCP&L, SPP, and
Westar generally support eliminating
the staggered effective dates and instead
setting this uniform effective/retirement
date.
21. EEI raises a concern regarding the
effective date for Reliability Standard
PER–005–1, Requirement 3.1.
19 See comments submitted by BPA, ITC,
Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, NV Energy,
NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, and
WECC.
20 See comments submitted by Minnesota Power,
Montana-Dakota, PG&E, and WECC.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Specifically, EEI states that although
Reliability Standard PER–005–1
addresses lead times for compliance
based on regulator approval of the
standards, it does not address the
situation where Requirement 3.1 is not
applicable to certain entities at the time
of the regulatory effective date of the
standard, but later becomes applicable
to those entities. Specifically, with
respect to PER–005–1, Requirement
R3.1, which requires simulator training
for entities with established
interconnection reliability operating
limits (IROLs),21 EEI states that if an
entity does not have established IROLs
when the Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 becomes effective, but later due
to system changes an IROL is invoked,
the standard does not specify when the
requirements for simulation training
(Requirement R3.1) would be mandatory
and enforceable for such an entity. EEI
states that because entities with
established IROLs would initially have
36 months to comply with the
provisions of Requirement R3.1; i.e., to
develop simulation training, that the
same 36 month compliance lead time
should also be afforded to all entities
with future established IROLs. EEI
requests that the Commission direct
NERC to modify the effective date
specified in Reliability Standard PER–
005–1, section 5.1 to grant a 36-month
lead time for entities with newly
established IROLs or operating guides to
be compliant with Requirement 3.1.
Commission Determination
22. The Commission finds that the
proposed staggered implementation
schedule for PER–005–1 and PER–004–
2 and the corresponding retirement
schedule for PER–002–0 and PER–004–
1 strikes a reasonable balance between
the need for timely reform and the
needs of the entities that will be subject
to PER–005–1 to develop and
implement training programs utilizing a
systematic approach to training and use
of simulators as a training tool. The
effective and retirement date table
provided by NERC in its comments and
incorporated herein as Appendix B
demonstrates that there are no apparent
overlaps or gaps between the retirement
of PER–002–0 and PER–004–1 and the
effectiveness of the requirements in the
new Reliability Standards, PER–005–1
and PER–004–2.
23. The Commission finds that the
commenters that advocate for a uniform
effective date of 36-months have not
adequately justified such a lengthy lead
21 See NERC Glossary of Terms at https://
www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/
Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72667
time for a Reliability Standard that will
not impose entirely new requirements.
Rather, PER–005–1 requires applicable
entities to build upon and improve the
existing training programs that are in
place under currently effective PER–
002–0. Accordingly, as approved, PER–
004–2 in its entirety and PER–005–1,
Requirement R3 shall become effective
on the first day of the first calendar
quarter after regulatory approval.22
PER–005–1, Requirements R1, R1.1,
R1.1.1, R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, R2, and R2.1
shall become effective on the first day
of the first calendar quarter, twenty-four
months after regulatory approval. And,
finally, PER–005–1, Requirements R3.1
shall become effective on the first day
of the first calendar quarter, thirty-six
months after regulatory approval.
24. With respect to EEI’s comment
regarding the effective date for entities
that may become, in the future, subject
to the simulator training requirement in
PER–005–1, R3.1, the Commission
believes that this issue should be
considered by the ERO. We note that,
with respect to the Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP)
Reliability Standards, NERC has
developed a separate implementation
plan that essentially gives responsible
entities some lead time before newly
acquired assets must be in compliance
with the effective CIP Reliability
Standards.23 We direct NERC to
consider the necessity of developing a
similar implementation plan with
respect to PER–005–1, Requirement
R3.1.
C. Systematic Approach to Training
25. A systematic approach to training
is a widely-accepted methodology that
ensures training is efficiently and
effectively conducted and is directly
related to the needs of the position in
question.24 To achieve training results,
the objectives of a systematic approach
to training include: management and
administration of training and
qualification programs; development
and qualification of training staff;
trainee entry-level requirements;
determination of training program
content; design and development of
22 ‘‘Regulatory approval’’ for these two Reliability
Standards refers to approval by the Commission in
a final rule. The date of the Commission’s
regulatory approval is not the date that the final
rule is issued by the Commission, rather, in this
case, it is 60 days after the date the final rule is
published in the Federal Register.
23 See North American Electric Reliability Corp.,
130 FERC ¶ 61,271, at P 15 (2010) (approving the
Implementation Plan for Newly Identified Cyber
Assets).
24 See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 1382.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72668
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
training programs; conduct of training;
trainee examinations and evaluations;
and training program evaluation.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
NOPR
26. In the NOPR, the Commission
agreed with NERC that proposed
Reliability Standard PER–005–1,
Requirement R1 met the Commission’s
directive to ‘‘develop a modification to
PER–002–2 (or a new Reliability
Standard) that uses the systematic
approach to training methodology.’’ 25
However, the Commission noted that
the generic reference to systematic
approach to training contained in
proposed PER–005–1 Requirement R1
raised the question of whether certain
Order No. 693 directives and certain
specific training requirements that are
explicitly set forth in the currently
effective Reliability Standards PER–
002–0 and PER–004–1, which are to be
retired, are fully and adequately
captured under the systematic approach
to training umbrella. The Commission
questioned whether the following three
currently effective training requirements
from PER–002–0 and PER–004–1 are
incorporated in proposed Reliability
Standard PER–005–1: (i) Understanding
of reliability coordinator area, (ii)
continual training, and (iii) training staff
identity and competency. In the NOPR,
the Commission sought comment on its
understanding of the carryover of these
three currently enforceable compliance
obligations.
1. Understanding of Reliability
Coordinator Area
27. Currently effective Reliability
Standard PER–004–1, Requirements R3
and R4 provide that reliability
coordinator operating personnel ‘‘shall
have a comprehensive understanding of
the Reliability Coordinator Area and
interactions with neighboring Reliability
Coordinator areas’’ and ‘‘shall have an
extensive understanding of the
Balancing Authorities, Transmission
Operators, and Generation Operators
within the Reliability Coordinator Area,
including the operating staff, operating
practices and procedures * * * .’’ 26
NERC states that these two requirements
are supplanted by and addressed more
fully in proposed Reliability Standard
PER–005–1, Requirements R1 and R2.
However, proposed Reliability Standard
PER–005–1 does not explicitly require
reliability coordinator operating
personnel to have a comprehensive
understanding of the reliability
25 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs ¶ 32,601 at P 25
(citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242
at P 1380).
26 See Reliability Standard PER–004–1,
Requirements R3 and R4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
coordinator area or an extensive
understanding of the balancing
authorities, transmission operators, and
generation operators within the
reliability coordinator area. In order to
clarify that these requirements are clear
and enforceable under proposed
Reliability Standard PER–005–1, the
Commission sought an explanation from
NERC and comments from the general
public whether these existing
requirements are enforceable under the
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 and whether these requirements
are clear or should be more explicit.
Comments
28. Most commenters agree that
comprehensive understanding of the
reliability coordinator area is fully
addressed by PER–005–1, Requirements
R1 and R2 through the use of a
systematic approach to training.27 For
example, Dominion supports proposed
PER–005–1, Requirements R1 and R2
because the requirements are clear,
measurable, and eliminate the
subjectivity of the phrase
‘‘comprehensive understanding’’ that
currently exists under the current PER–
004–1, Requirement R3. Dominion
believes that proper implementation of
a systematic approach to training will
address the Commission’s concern that
operating personnel may not have a
proper understanding of their system
and interactions with neighboring
systems without resurrecting the vague
language in PER–004–1. However, other
commenters, including ITC,
MidAmerican, and SPP, state that
because the requirement to have a
‘‘comprehensive understanding of the
reliability coordinator’s area’’ is not
explicitly stated in PER–005–1, it will
be difficult to enforce.
29. NERC states that PER–005–1
implements a defense-in-depth
approach to ensure that the reliability
coordinator’s system operators have a
comprehensive understanding of their
reliability coordinator area. NERC
believes this approach ensures that
system operators have the tools to
effectively monitor and direct actions
within the reliability coordinator area in
support of the Bulk-Power System.
NERC provides examples of how
proposed PER–005–1 ensures that the
reliability coordinator’s system
operators will have detailed knowledge
of their reliability coordinator area.
27 See comments of BPA, Dominion, GSOC &
GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, KCP&L, Minnesota
Power, Montana Dakota, NV Energy, NERC, PG&E,
Portland, Westar, and WECC.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commission Determination
30. Based on NERC’s explanation, the
Commission agrees that the existing
requirements contained in PER–004–1,
which require reliability coordinators to
have a comprehensive understanding of
the reliability coordinator area and
interactions with neighboring reliability
coordinator areas and an extensive
understanding of the balancing
authorities, transmission operators, and
generation operators within the
reliability coordinator area, are
adequately captured and enforceable
under proposed Reliability Standard
PER–005–1.
2. Continual Training
31. Currently effective Reliability
Standard PER–002–0, Requirement R3.2
explicitly mandates that ‘‘the training
program must include a plan for the
initial and continuing training of
Transmission Operators and Balancing
Authorities operating personnel.’’ In the
NOPR, the Commission sought an
explanation from NERC, and comment
from the general public, whether
continuing training is an enforceable
requirement under proposed Reliability
Standard PER–005–1 and whether this
requirement is clear or should be more
explicit.
Comments
32. NERC comments that continual
training is an enforceable requirement
under PER–005–1, Requirement R1 as a
fundamental aspect of a systematic
approach to training. Most commenters
agree with NERC that continual training
is an inherent aspect of the systematic
approach to training.28 For example, the
ISO/RTO Council states that PER–005–
1 is superior to the previous continual
training requirement and will be easily
measured and enforced and thus does
not need to be more explicit.
33. KCP&L believes continuing
training is not necessary for routine
tasks, only non-routine. MidAmerican
and NV Energy both argue that explicit
language addressing continual training
is necessary to be an enforceable
requirement.
Commission Determination
34. Based on NERC’s and the majority
of the commenters’ affirmation that
continual training is a fundamental part
of a systematic approach to training and
an enforceable requirement under PER–
005–1, we find that any systematic
approach to training, including the
28 See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, IESO,
ISO/RTO Council, ITC, Minnesota Power, MontanaDakota, NV Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte
River, Portland, Westar, and WECC.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
systematic approach to training
mandated by Reliability Standard PER–
005–1, would entail continual training
to refresh system operators’ knowledge
and to cover any new tasks relevant to
the operation of the Bulk-Power System.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3. Training Staff Identity and
Competency
35. In the NOPR, the Commission
noted that currently effective Reliability
Standard PER–002–0, Requirement R3.4
requires a training program in which
‘‘[t]raining staff must be identified, and
the staff must be competent in both
knowledge of system operations and
instructional capabilities.’’ The
Commission further noted that this
requirement is not explicitly provided
in PER–005–1. As such, the NOPR
sought clarification as to (i) how and
whether a systematic approach to
training requires training staff to be
identified, and (ii) if not, the mechanism
by which training staff will be identified
and its competency ensured. The
Commission also invited comment on
whether this clarification should be
made explicit so that entities clearly
understand their compliance
obligations.
Comments
36. NERC agrees with the Commission
that PER–002–0, Requirement R3.4,
which requires a training program in
which training staff must be identified
and competent in system operations and
instructional capabilities, is an
important requirement and proposes to
reassess whether this requirement
should be made more explicit in a later
version of PER–005–1 so that entities
can understand their compliance
obligations.
37. The majority of commenters agree
that training staff identification and
competency are inherent in a systematic
approach to training, and that, as such,
no modification of proposed PER–005–
1 is necessary.29 However, some
commenters disagree and argue that
PER–005–1 should have an explicit
requirement similar to Requirement
R3.4 in PER–002–0 mandating training
staff to be identified and be competent
in system operations and instructional
capabilities.30 Other commenters state
that the systematic approach to training
does not require training staff to be
identified or their competency ensured,
but argue that such a requirement is not
necessary and potentially detrimental.31
29 See comments of GSOC & GTC, Minnesota
Power, Montana Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, PG&E,
Platte River, Portland, SPP, and Westar.
30 See comments of BGE, BPA, and MidAmerican.
31 See comments of IESO, ISO/RTO Council, ITC,
KCP&L, NorthWestern, and Wisconsin Electric.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
For example, ITC believes competency
of training staff should be determined
by entities internally during the hiring
process and companies should not be
limited by a prescriptive requirement
that does not allow for company
discretion during the hiring process.
Commission Determination
38. Based on the comments received,
the Commission concludes that the
current requirement for each training
program (that training staff must be
identified and that such staff must be
competent in both knowledge of system
operations and instructional
capabilities) is inherent in any
systematic approach to training that a
registered entity would use to meet this
requirement, and thus is an enforceable
component of Requirement R1 under
the proposed standard. However, given
the number of commenters that argue
that it is necessary for the current
training program requirement to be
explicitly stated in the proposed
training standard, we agree that NERC
should follow through on its proposal in
its comments to reassess whether this
requirement should be made more
explicit in a later version of PER–
005–1.
D. Training Expectations for Each Job
Function/Tailored Training NOPR
Proposal
39. Proposed Reliability Standard
PER–005–1, Requirement R1.2 mandates
applicable entities to ‘‘design and
develop learning objectives and training
materials based on the task list created
in R1.1.’’ 32 In the NOPR, the
Commission noted that it believes that
NERC has complied with the directive
to require entities to identify the
expectations of the training for each job
function and develop training programs
tailored to each job function with
consideration of the individual training
needs of their personnel. The
Commission took the view in the NOPR
that the systematic approach to training
used to satisfy PER–005–1, Requirement
R1 would assess factors such as
educational, technical experience, and
medical requirements that candidates
must possess before entering a given
training program. With the above
understanding, the Commission
concluded that the systematic approach
to training methodology required in
Reliability Standard PER–005–1,
Requirement R1 satisfies the
Commission’s directive for Order No.
693 to develop a modification that
32 NERC
Petition at 27 (quoting proposed
Reliability Standard PER–005–1, Requirement
R1.2).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72669
identifies the expectations of the
training for each job function and
develops training programs tailored to
each job function with consideration of
the individual training needs of the
personnel. In the NOPR, the
Commission sought comment on its
understanding that PER–005–1,
Requirement R1.2 requires that the
learning objectives and training
materials be developed with
consideration of the individual needs of
each operator.
Comments
40. NERC agrees with the Commission
that learning objectives and training
materials are to be developed for each
job function. NERC believes that using
a systematic approach to training allows
each entity to tailor its training program
to best meet the training needs of the
function performed by System
Operators.
41. A number of commenters 33 agree
with NERC and affirm the Commission’s
understanding that a systematic
approach to training requires
development of tailored training.
NorthWestern concurs that PER–005–1
requires the training materials to be
tailored to the individual needs of each
operator. For example, IESO believes
that the systematic approach to training
process will ensure that the necessary
knowledge, skills and abilities are
provided in the development of learning
objectives and associated training
materials. The ISO/RTO Council
contends that PER–005 addresses
function/task-specific training and not
person-specific training or personal
development. With respect to
Requirement R1.2, the ISO/RTO Council
interprets the Commission’s statement
that ‘‘* * * requires that the learning
objectives and training materials be
developed with consideration of the
individual needs of each operator.
* * *’’ as requiring an entity to address
the knowledge and skill gaps of
individual system operators with
respect to the reliability tasks they are
expected to perform.34 The ISO/RTO
Council supports the term ‘‘systematic
approach to training (in lower case)’’ as
used in the Reliability Standard because
the lower case term provides registered
entities flexibility in complying with the
standard.35
42. SPP and Westar did not take a
position on the issue; rather, they
request that the Commission clarify
what is meant by ‘‘consideration of the
33 See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, NV
Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E, and Platte River.
34 See IRC Comments at 7.
35 Id.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72670
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
individual needs of each operator.’’
BG&E recommends that the Commission
make more explicit the requirement to
implement the Department of Energy
Handbook on the systematic approach
to training 36 as the mandatory
standardized methodology industrywide, and expresses the view that the
DOE Handbook is the most stringent set
of standards available, has the longest
track record of proven successful
results, and is familiar to the industry.
BG&E identifies the following
expectations that training should
include: (1) Customized, task-based
training; (2) annual assessment of
operator needs; and (3) individualized
training on any task for which the
trainee failed to achieve satisfactory
standards during the annual training.
43. One commenter, Wisconsin
Electric, disagrees with the
Commission’s ‘‘understanding’’ on this
issue. Wisconsin Electric expresses
several concerns with the following
statement in the NOPR:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Based on our review of the Systematic
Approach to Training methodology used by
the Department of Energy, we understand
that a Systematic Approach to Training
would assess factors such as educational,
technical, experience, and medical
requirements that candidates must possess
before entering a given training program.
With the above understanding, we believe
that the Systematic Approach to Training
methodology, as proposed in Reliability
Standard PER–005–1, satisfies the
Commission directive to develop a
modification that identifies the expectations
of the training for each job function and
develops training programs tailored to each
job function with consideration of the
individual training needs of the personnel.37
Specifically, Wisconsin Electric is
concerned that this would add a number
of elements to PER–005 and would
create confusion over the scope of the
compliance obligation. Wisconsin
Electric states that this language appears
to impose the Department of Energy’s
Systematic Approach to Training as the
only acceptable methodology, which, in
effect, precludes entities from adopting
another approach. Wisconsin Electric is
also concerned that the factors that a
candidate must possess before entering
a training program create a de facto
compliance checklist that would exist
apart from the language of the
Reliability Standard. Wisconsin Electric
objects to the expansion of NERC
requirements to include assessment of
36 See U.S. Department of Energy’s Handbook,
DOE–HDBK–1078–94, Training Program Handbook:
A Systematic Approach to Training (August 1994),
available at https://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclear
safety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1078/hdbk1078.
pdf (DOE Handbook).
37 NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 32,661 at P 32.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
medical condition of its personnel.
Wisconsin Electric believes that the
Commission should approve PER–005–
1 as written without conditioning its
approval on additional, unstated
requirements.
Commission Determination
44. Based on NERC’s and other
commenters’ affirmation of the
Commission’s understanding as stated
in the NOPR, the Commission confirms
that Requirement R1.2 of proposed
Reliability Standard PER–005–1
requires that the learning objectives and
training materials be developed with
consideration of the individual needs of
each operator. In response to Wisconsin
Electric, BG&E and the ISO/RTO
Council, the Commission clarifies that it
is not mandating the use of the specific
Systematic Approach to Training
methodology used by the Department of
Energy. However, we believe that the
Department of Energy’s Systematic
Approach to Training methodology as
set forth in the DOE Handbook is a
particularly good and relevant model to
use.
45. DOE’s Handbook is relevant for
two reasons. First, it was designed to
assist facilities, specifically nuclear
facilities, that are within the same
general industry as electric power
facilities.38 Second, the DOE Handbook
was written on the assumption that the
user, a facility, is currently not using the
DOE Systematic Approach to Training
model for their training programs,
which is very likely the case with
respect to entities subject to PER–005–
1.39 Thus, the DOE Handbook is
particularly relevant to entities that
transition to a systematic approach to
training. We note that the DOE
Handbook was compiled from a number
of sources including the Institute of
Nuclear Power Operations’ Principles of
Training System Development as well as
in collaboration with personnel
representing DOE contractors and
private industry.40 Moreover, the DOE
38 DOE has noted that although its training
handbooks related to the Systematic Approach to
Training were prepared primarily for DOE nuclear
facilities, the information can be effectively used by
any other type of facility. See DOE Handbook,
DOE–HDBK–1074–95 at Foreword (January 1995)
(Alternative Systematic Approach to Training
Handbook), available at https://www.hss.energy.gov/
nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1074/
hdb1074a.html.
39 See DOE Handbook at 1.2. The DOE Handbook
acknowledges that many nuclear facilities already
had effective training programs in place that
contain many performance-based characteristics.
Accordingly, DOE Handbook states that facilities
with existing training programs should not discard
such programs; rather, they should validate and
supplement the existing training content where
necessary using systematic methods. Id.
40 See DOE Handbook at 1.1.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Handbook provides reasonable
flexibility when implementing a
systematic approach to training in
various settings.41
46. Finally, SPP and Westar request
that the Commission clarify what is
meant by ‘‘consideration of the
individual needs of each operator.’’ The
Commission provides the following
clarification. A training plan is designed
to prepare individuals to perform their
jobs. More specifically, a training plan
should address gaps between the skills
necessary to accomplish a particular job
task and an operator’s competency to
carry out that task. Because of the
emphasis on the individual, to be
effective, a training plan must take into
consideration the individual needs of
the trainee, which includes the trainee’s
education level, technical experience,
and relevant medical requirements.
E. Simulation Training
47. In Order No. 693, the Commission
directed NERC to develop a requirement
mandating simulator training for
reliability coordinators, transmission
operators and balancing authorities that
have operational control over a
significant portion of load and
generation. Recognizing that cost of
simulator training is an issue, the
Commission allowed for the use of
simulators to be dependent on an
entity’s role and size.42
NOPR Proposal
48. In the NOPR, the Commission
found that proposed Reliability
Standard PER–005–1, Requirement R3.1
meets this Order No. 693 directive
regarding training using simulators.
However, the Commission sought
comment on the terminology in
Requirement R3.1 which provides that
the emergency operations training
should use ‘‘simulation technology such
as a simulator, virtual technology, or
other technology that replicates the
operational behavior of the BES during
normal and emergency conditions.’’
Specifically, the NOPR asked NERC to
clarify: (i) Whether the language in R3.1,
‘‘replicates the operational behavior of
41 See id. at 1.2. In developing the DOE
Handbook, DOE noted that the handbook describes
the more classical concept and approach to
systematically establishing training programs.
However, in some cases this classical approach has
proven to be time- and labor-intensive, and
therefore encourages users of the handbook to
consider the variety of training options that are
available for establishing and maintaining
personnel training and qualification programs. DOE
further found that blending classical and alternative
systematic approaches to training methods often
yields the most effective product. See DOE
Handbook at iii (the Foreword).
42 See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 1390.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the BES,’’ requires the use of simulators
specific to an operator’s own system; (ii)
if not, whether operators trained on
simulators that replicate systems other
than their own will be adequately
trained to respond to emergency
conditions on their own system; and
(iii) whether it is feasible or practicable
(including cost considerations) to
require use of simulators that
realistically replicate the entity’s own
topology and operating conditions; i.e.,
to require ‘‘custom’’ simulators.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Comments
49. NERC and all others who
commented on the simulator training
issue agree that PER–005–1,
Requirement R3.1, does not require the
use of custom simulators.43 NERC, and
other commenters,44 state that
Requirement R3.1 requires a simulator
to replicate the operational behavioral
characteristics of the bulk electric
system through the use of simulation
technology. Commenters argue that the
purpose of simulators is to train the
operator in principles that can be
applied to any system. Specifically,
NRECA explains that the intent of PER–
005–1, Requirement R3.1 is not to
require simulators that replicate every
aspect of an entity’s own topology and
operating conditions. Rather, the intent
is to replicate the operational behavioral
characteristics of the bulk electric
system through the use of more
generalized simulation technology.
50. All commenters, except for BPA,
agree that the simulator training
requirement should not require custom
simulators. Some commenters argue that
custom simulators are not necessary.45
These commenters argue that it is the
understanding of situational conditions
and the response to them that is the
hallmark of successful operator training,
and such training does not require the
use of simulators specific to an
operator’s own system.
51. For example, NRECA states that it
is an understanding of the situational
conditions and the response to them
that is the key to successful operator
training, and those do not require the
use of simulators specific to an
operator’s own system. NRECA further
described that simulation of operational
scenarios such as: frequency response of
43 See comments of APPA, BPA, EEI, GSOC &
GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L,
MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
NRECA, NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern, PG&E,
Platte River, Portland, SPP, and Westar.
44 See comments of APPA, EEI, IESO, ISO/RTO
Council, NRECA, Northwestern, PG&E, Platte River,
Portland, SPP, and Westar.
45 See comments of EEI, IESO, KCP&L, Minnesota
Power, Montana-Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, and
PG&E.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
generators, VAR flow from high voltage
to low voltage, and restoration load
pick-up and the potential for underfrequency tripping, are concepts
common to all systems, noting that a
simulator can address and train on these
issues irrespective of individual system
characteristics. Minnesota Power and
Montana Dakota explain that, in general,
elements of the bulk electric system
exhibit behaviors based upon the
characteristics of each element, not
upon their specific location in a
particular system. They posit that it is
the understanding of the situational
conditions and the response to them
that is the key to successful operator
training and that understanding does
not require the use of simulators
specific to an operator’s own system.
EEI notes that the issue of custom versus
generic simulators was discussed
extensively by the PER–005–1 drafting
team and argues that custom simulators
are not necessary to properly train
personnel. EEI urges the Commission to
approve PER–005–1, R3.1 without
change and to allow NERC to monitor
the effectiveness of the simulator
training requirement for possible gaps.
52. Other commenters argue against
mandating custom simulators because
the cost of custom simulators would far
exceed the benefit.46 APPA states that
the additional cost of developing and
maintaining a realistic full-scale,
system-specific simulator for a small
balancing authority or transmission
operator would likely exceed the
benefits. No commenter provided
specific estimates of the incremental
increase in cost of custom simulators.
EEI, acknowledging that it does not have
specific cost information, noted that
accurate Bulk-Power System modeling
and maintenance would be a significant
cost driver. ITC states that although it
believes that the use of system
simulators specific to an operator’s own
system would better prepare a system
operator for emergency conditions, the
cost of custom simulators could likely
outweigh the reliability benefits to small
operators. Portland General Electric
estimates that purchase, implementation
and maintenance of a system-specific
simulator could cost several hundred
thousand dollars in up-front costs and
would necessitate the addition of
engineering personnel for programming
and ongoing maintenance.
53. BPA, the sole commenter that
endorses modifying PER–005–1 to
mandate the use of custom simulators,
46 See comments of APPA, EEI, ISO/RTO Council,
ITC, KCP&L, MidAmerican, Minnesota Power,
Montana-Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy,
NorthWestern, Platte River, Portland, and SPP.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72671
notes that it uses custom simulators.
BPA acknowledges that the cost of
implementing and maintaining a high
fidelity simulator is significant, but
suggests an alternative approach of
developing a centralized, high fidelity
simulator that realistically replicates the
entire interconnection that could be
remotely accessed by entities for
training exercises.
54. NERC notes in its comments that
custom simulators could be important
in ensuring the reliability of the BES.
NERC further states that while a high
fidelity simulator may not be necessary
to ensure bulk electric system
reliability, NERC agrees that simulators
used for training that provide a useful
representation of the system that the
operators work with may warrant
further consideration in a subsequent
version of the proposed standard.47 EEI
appears to agree with NERC, as EEI
urges the Commission to allow NERC to
implement the new PER–005–1
requirements, gather experience on their
effectiveness, and monitor results for
possible gaps or challenges that arise
with experience.
Commission Determination
55. We affirm NERC’s and the
industry’s understanding that PER–005–
1, Requirement R3.1 does not require
the use of simulators specific to an
operator’s own system. While the
Commission continues to feel there is
value in using custom simulators, we
acknowledge that NERC and industry
have determined that it is not necessary
at this time. However, NERC and other
commenters state that there may be
potential reliability benefits of some
form of custom simulators. NERC has
also proposed to consider custom
simulators in a subsequent modification
of PER–005–1. We appreciate NERC’s
commitment to continually look at how
reliability can be improved and
encourage NERC and industry to
evaluate the gained reliability in
requiring the use of custom simulators.
F. Local Transmission Control Center
Operator Personnel Training
56. In Order No. 693, the Commission
directed NERC to expand the
applicability of currently effective
Reliability Standard PER–002–0 to
include local transmission control
center operator personnel. Order No.
693 provided that the training should be
tailored to the functions that local
transmission control center operators
perform that impact the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System for
both normal and emergency
47 NERC
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
Comments at 14.
26NOR1
72672
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
operations.48 Proposed Reliability
Standard PER–005–1, which is intended
to supersede existing Reliability
Standard PER–002–0, does not include
local transmission control center
operator personnel in the applicability
section. Rather, proposed Reliability
Standard PER–005–1, as drafted, is
applicable only to the following three
functional entities: reliability
coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators. NERC explained
that its functional model lists the
functions that a transmission operator
performs, which includes the functions
performed by local transmission control
center personnel. NERC therefore
concluded that, the Order No. 693
directive to include formal training for
local transmission control center
personnel is addressed in proposed
Reliability Standards PER–005–1
because the transmission operator has
the ultimate responsibility to ensure
that its functional responsibilities are
met, even if through other entities.49
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
NOPR Proposal
57. In the NOPR, the Commission
rejected NERC’s explanation regarding
the failure to include local transmission
control center operating personnel in
the proposed training standard. The
Commission stated in the NOPR that,
contrary to NERC’s suggestion, under
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1, a transmission operator could
not require a local transmission control
center operator to receive training if that
operator is employed by an entity other
than a reliability coordinator, balancing
authority, or transmission operator. The
Commission noted that with respect to
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1, the standard requires
transmission operators, reliability
coordinators, and balancing authorities
to establish a training program for the
company-specific tasks performed by its
System Operators.50 Thus the proposed
standard only requires implementation
of a training program for operators
employed by the applicable entity’s own
company. Accordingly, the NOPR
proposed to direct NERC to modify
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 to include a provision that
explicitly addresses training for local
transmission control centers, consistent
with the Commission’s directive in
Order No. 693.
48 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1348.
49 NERC Petition at 30.
50 Reliability Standard PER–005–1, Requirement
R1.1 (emphasis added).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Comments
58. NERC, and all other commenters
that address this issue, object to the
Commission’s proposal to direct NERC
to expand the applicability of PER–005–
1 to explicitly include local
transmission control center personnel.
Some commenters agree with NERC’s
position, stated in its Petition, that the
local transmission control center
operators will receive the necessary
training without explicitly including
them as a class subject to PER–005–1.51
These commenters are concerned that
the Commission’s directive will require
the creation of a new class of registered
entities.
59. The majority of commenters 52
state that the term ‘‘local transmission
control center’’ is unclear and undefined
and, without definition, is subject to
broad interpretation. These commenters
raise the concern that ‘‘if local
transmission control center’’ is not
clearly defined, it could result in
training requirements applying to nonNERC jurisdictional persons or entities.
Commenters appear generally to support
a definition that would define local
transmission control centers as those
which have authority to make decisions
concerning the real-time operation of
the bulk electric system. Associated
Electric proposes a definition of ‘‘local
transmission control center.’’
60. NERC and two other
commenters 53 suggest that training
requirements for local transmission
control center personnel should be
developed in a separate project, not as
a modification to PER–005–1. NERC
advocates developing training standards
for local transmission control center
personnel in a separate standard
because proposed PER–005–1 is focused
on improving training requirements for
system operators who work for the
reliability coordinator, transmission
operator, and balancing authority.
Further, NERC explains that developing
training requirements for these operator
personnel in a separate standard will
allow that future standard to be
modeled after PER–005–1. Accordingly,
NERC proposes in its comments to
address training requirements for local
transmission control center operator
personnel through its standards
development process as a separate
standards development project, after the
51 See comments of IESO, NRECA, and NV
Energy.
52 See comments of Associated Electric,
Dominion, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council,
Minnesota Power, Montana Dakota, PG&E, Portland,
and SPP.
53 See comments of APPA and EEI.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commission issues a final order on
PER–005–1.
Commission Determination
61. Some commenters question the
original directive in Order No. 693
requiring the development of training
requirements for local transmission
control center personnel by contending,
as IESO does, that if individuals at a
local control center are simply
implementing directives from a
transmission operator or a reliability
coordinator, then such personnel should
not be required to undergo the same
rigorous training meant only for those
entities who make independent
decisions. Specifically, in Order No.
693, the Commission stated:
The Commission disagrees with those
commenters who contend that, because
operators at local control centers take
direction from NERC-certified operators at
the ISO or RTO, they do not need to be
addressed by the training requirements of
PER–002–0. Rather, as discussed above, these
operators maintain authority to act
independently to carry out tasks that require
real-time operation of the Bulk-Power System
including protecting assets, protecting
personnel safety, adhering to regulatory
requirements and establishing stable islands
during system restoration.54
Thus, such comments are a collateral
attack on Order No. 693 and will not be
re-addressed. Issues regarding the rigor
or type of training required for operators
at local control centers should be vetted
through NERC’s standards development
process as part of the standards drafting
and balloting, and ultimately may be
raised in comments in any future
Commission proceeding in which the
proposed standard(s) or modified
standard(s) are before the Commission.
62. The Commission understands that
local transmission control center
personnel exercise control over a
significant portion of the Bulk-Power
System under the supervision of the
personnel of the registered transmission
operator. This supervision may take the
form of directing specific step-by-step
instructions and at other times may take
the form of the implementation of
predefined operating procedures. For
example, ISO New England, Inc., PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., and New York
Independent System Operator, Inc., are
registered transmission operators who
issue operating instructions that are
carried out by local transmission control
centers such as PSE&G, PPL Electric
Utilities Corp., PECO Energy Company,
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.,
Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc.,
National Grid USA, and Long Island
54 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1347.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Power Authority, which are not
registered transmission operators. The
combined peak load of these three RTOs
is in excess of 200 gigawatts. In all
cases, the local transmission control
center personnel must understand what
they are required to do in the
performance of their duties to perform
them effectively on a timely basis. Thus,
omitting such local transmission control
center personnel from the PER–005–1
training requirements creates a
reliability gap. The Commission
believes that identifying these entities
would be a valuable step in delineating
the magnitude of that gap.
63. NERC proposes in its comments to
address the training of local
transmission control center operating
personnel in a different standard than
PER–005–1.55 The Commission’s
concern in the NOPR was that local
control center operating personnel be
trained. We leave it to NERC’s
discretion whether to revise Reliability
Standard PER–005–1 to accomplish this
goal or to require local control center
operating personnel to be trained in a
separate Reliability Standard. The
Commission notes that proposed
Reliability Standard PER–005–1
generally requires the applicable entity
to establish and implement a training
program, verify operators’ capabilities,
and provide emergency training. The
specific training, based on the
Systematic Approach to Training
methodology, is determined by the
entity based on company-specific
reliability-related tasks performed by its
operators. As discussed above, the
Systematic Approach to Training
methodology is not job specific and,
rather, provides flexibility to meet the
needs of varying organizations and job
skills. In its comments, NERC has said
that it intends to generally model local
control center operating personnel
training on PER–005–1. Thus, we expect
that the Reliability Standard that is
developed will require training for local
transmission control center that does
not significantly diverge from the
training requirements set forth in PER–
005–1. If the ERO proposes a Reliability
Standard that differs significantly from
the approved PER–005–1 requirements,
NERC must provide in its petition
seeking approval of such future
standard, adequate technical analysis
supporting the different approach.
64. Accordingly, we adopt our NOPR
proposal and direct the ERO to develop
through a separate Reliability Standards
development project formal training
requirements for local transmission
control center operator personnel.
55 NERC
Comments at 15–16.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Finally, given the numerous comments
stating that term ‘‘local transmission
control center’’ should be defined, we
direct NERC to develop a definition of
‘‘local transmission control center’’ in
the standards development project for
developing the training requirements for
local transmission control center
operator personnel. We will not
evaluate Associated Electric’s proposed
definition but, rather, leave it to the
ERO to develop an appropriate
definition that reflects the scope of local
transmission control centers. The
Commission will not opine on the
appropriate definition of local
transmission control center, as this
definition can be addressed first using
NERC’s Reliability Standards
Development Procedures.
G. Performance Metrics
65. In Order No. 693, the Commission
directed NERC to (1) determine
‘‘whether it is feasible to develop
meaningful performance metrics
associated with the effectiveness of a
training program * * *, and if so,
develop such performance metrics,’’ 56
and (2) determine if quantifiable
performance metrics can be developed
to gauge the effectiveness of the
Reliability Standard itself.57 In its
Petition, NERC stated that the
systematic approach to training
methodology, as set forth in proposed
Reliability Standard PER–005–1, subrequirement R1.4, requires each
reliability coordinator, balancing
authority and transmission operator to
conduct an annual evaluation of the
training program and assess whether
system operators are receiving effective
training. NERC concluded that this
annual evaluation ‘‘provides a
meaningful assessment of the training
program’’ while ‘‘[a]n evaluation of how
System Operators perform during
infrequent, actual events on the system
would not provide useful metrics on an
ongoing basis.’’ 58 NERC also stated that
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 is a training standard, and is not
intended to address individual system
operator performance apart from the
requirements associated with the
company-specific reliability-related
tasks identified in Requirement R1.
NOPR
66. In the NOPR the Commission
sought comment from NERC on whether
it considered metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Reliability Standard
56 Order
No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1394.
57 Id. P 1379.
58 NERC Petition at 33–34.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72673
itself, not just metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness of the applicable entity’s
training program under PER–005–1. In
addition, the Commission sought
comment on possible performance
metrics that could be used to assess
whether proposed Reliability Standard
PER–005–1 achieves its stated purpose.
As a result, the Commission proposed to
direct NERC to evaluate the feasibility of
developing meaningful performance
metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Reliability Standard related to
operator training.
Comments
67. NERC notes that it is working to
develop performance measures that will
address Reliability Standards in general.
NERC emphasizes that performance
measures should not be embodied in the
Reliability Standard requirements so
there is room for flexibility in the
development, implementation and
modification of such measures.
Commenters APPA, Minnesota Power,
and Montana-Dakota agree with NERC
that the development of metrics to
evaluate the effectiveness of a NERC
Reliability Standard should uniformly
apply to all standards, not to individual
standards.
68. Two commenters, BG&E and
NorthWestern, generally support the
Commission’s proposal and request that
any action taken to explore the
feasibility of developing metrics provide
for a transparent stakeholder process.
NorthWestern identifies three methods
for measuring performance: (1) Use
currently monitored operating
parameters and incident reports; (2)
capitalize on the capabilities of certain
entities to monitor and evaluate the
response of subordinate entities; and (3)
use simulation to evaluate operator
performance against a standard set of
operating challenges. NorthWestern
suggests that metrics to evaluate system
operators performing real-time tasks
should focus on reliability-related tasks
that have the greatest commonality
across entities and on characteristics of
operation that provide insight into the
organizational and operational approach
to reliability.
69. Most commenters, however, state
that performance metrics for this
Reliability Standard are either not
feasible 59 or not necessary because of
the systematic approach to training
methodology.60 For example, Platte
River believes that the feasibility of
developing meaningful global
59 See comments of APPA, IESO, ITC, KCP&L, NV
Energy, and Platte River.
60 See comments of ISO/RTO Council,
MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
PG&E, Portland, and Westar.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72674
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
performance metrics is low. Platte River
also believes it is too difficult to
establish specific parameters and to
monitor trends across entities because
systems are topologically unique and
operational situations differ.
Commenters note that the systematic
approach to training addresses the
performance metric because its checks
and balances verify that a person can
perform the task after training.
Commission Determination
Commission Determination
74. The Commission noted in the
NOPR that NERC, in developing
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1, did not comply with the
directive in Order No. 693 to expand the
applicability of the personnel training
Reliability Standard, PER–002–0, to
include (i) generator operators centrallylocated at a generation control center
with a direct impact on the reliable
operation of the Bulk-Power System,
and (ii) operations planning and
operations support staff who carry out
outage planning and assessments and
those who develop System Operating
Limits (SOL), Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limits (IROL) or
operating nomograms for real-time
operations.62 The Commission also
directed, in Order No. 693, NERC to
consider whether personnel that
support Energy Management System
(EMS) applications should be included
in mandatory operator personnel
training requirements.63 Noting NERC’s
proposal to address the expansion of the
applicability of the training standard
(PER–005–1) and to consider including
EMS support personnel in the training
standard in a subsequent standards
development project, Project 2010–01—
Support Personnel Training, the
Commission sought comment on
whether NERC should target completing
Project 2010–01 by the fourth quarter of
2011.
70. The Commission believes that
performance metrics should be
developed to gauge the effectiveness of
a Reliability Standard if it is feasible to
do so. We are pleased that NERC is
working to develop performance
measures that will address reliability
standards in general. Based on the
comments, it appears that it may be
infeasible or, at a minimum,
impracticable to develop performance
metrics for some individual Reliability
Standards; e.g., PER–005–1. However,
we find that, based on this project,
NERC is already in the process of
evaluating the feasibility of developing
meaningful performance metrics to
evaluate the effectiveness of PER–005–
1. The Commission encourages NERC to
complete its generic performance
measures project.
H. Violation Risk Factors/Violation
Severity Levels
NOPR Proposal
71. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed deferring action on the
proposed violation risk factors (VRF)
and violation severity levels (VSL) for
both of the proposed Reliability
Standards until the Commission acts on
NERC’s pending petition in Docket No.
RR08–4–005, in which NERC proposes
a ‘‘roll-up’’ approach for VRFs and VSL
assignments by which NERC would
only assign VRFs and VSLs to the main
Requirements and not to the subRequirements.61
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Comments
72. The ISO/RTO Council, the sole
commenter on this issue, supports the
Commission’s proposal to defer action
on the proposed violation risk factors
and violation severity levels
assignments. No commenter objected to
the proposal to defer action.
61 Docket No. RR08–4–005 comprises NERC’s
March 5, 2010 Violation Severity Level Compliance
Filing submitted in response to Order No. 722 and
an August 10, 2009 informational filing in which
NERC proposes assigning VRFs and VSLs only to
the main Requirements in each Reliability Standard
and not to the sub-requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
73. The Commission will defer
discussion on the proposed violation
risk factors and violation severity levels
assigned to PER–005–1 and PER–004–2
until after the Commission issues a final
order acting on NERC’s petition in
Docket No. RR08–4–005.
I. Unaddressed Directives
NOPR Proposal
Comments
75. Twenty-five entities commented
on this issue.64 BPA is the only
commenter that believes Project 2010–
01 can be completed by fourth quarter
2011. The other commenters, including
NERC, state that a fourth quarter 2011
deadline is not reasonable. A number of
commenters believe that a 24-month
deadline would be an appropriate
62 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1393.
63 Id. P 1394.
64 The twenty-five commenters include: APPA,
Associated Electric, BGE, BPA, Constellation,
Dominion, EEI, E.ON, EPSA, GSOC & GTC, ISO/
RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L, Minnesota Power,
Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern,
PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP, Westar, WECC,
and Wisconsin Electric.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
timeframe for NERC to comply with the
Order No. 693 directives.
76. NERC states that, with respect to
incorporating generator operators into
the applicability section of PER–005–1,
it must interact with the Commission to
obtain more direction before proceeding
with the standards development
process. NERC commits in its comments
to meeting the directive to consider
whether personnel who support EMS
applications should be included the
mandatory training Reliability Standard
within 24 months after August 23,
2010.65
77. Other commenters such as APPA
and Dominion encourage the
Commission to allow Project 2010–01 to
follow the natural course of the
Reliability Standards development
procedures without imposing a specific
deadline. APPA notes that, in NERC’s
draft 2011–2013 Reliability Standards
Development Plan, Project 2010–01 is
fourteenth of seventeen projects which
will be initiated in numerical order.
Further, APPA states that NERC’s
Reliability Standards development
‘‘pipeline’’ is already full to capacity.
APPA is concerned that a ‘‘hard’’
deadline for Project 2010–01 might
delay ongoing projects. APPA
encourages the Commission to
collaborate with NERC on the priority
for Reliability Standards projects in
conjunction with the Reliability
Standards Development Plan rather than
setting deadlines in individual
proceedings.
78. With respect to the Order No. 693
directive to expand training to include
operations planning and operations
support staff who carry out outage
planning and assessments and persons
who develop SOLs, IROLs or operating
nomograms for real-time operations,
several commenters raise issues
regarding the substance of the original
directive. These issues are beyond the
scope of the timing issue the
Commission raises in the NOPR. For
example, Associated Electric urges the
Commission to direct NERC to adopt a
definition of operations planning and
operations support staff that more
narrowly identifies those personnel who
will be subject to the training standard.
GSOC and GTC do not support
expanding the applicability of the PER–
005–1 training requirements to any
other personnel. GSOC and GTC further
argue that time spent expanding training
requirements to other personnel will
take away from their job of supporting
their operating personnel, a use of time
and resources that could actually
decrease reliability.
65 NERC
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
Comments at 21.
26NOR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
79. With respect to the Order No. 693
directive to expand training to include
generator operators centrally-located at
a generation control center with a direct
impact on the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System, several commenters
raise issues regarding the substance of
the original directive. These issues also
are beyond the scope of the timing issue
the Commission raises in the NOPR. For
example, Constellation notes that in
developing training requirements for
generator operators the Reliability
Standard should not create onerous
training obligations or impose training
requirements that conflict with or make
existing programs less effective. E.ON
comments that there is no sound basis
for imposing the same or similar
training requirements mandated for
transmission operations on generator
personnel. E.ON urges the Commission
to weigh the complexity of mandating
individual plant-specific training
programs against the incremental
benefit to Bulk-Power System reliability.
EPSA seeks clarification regarding
several aspects of the scope and intent
of the Commission’s directive to expand
the applicability of PER–005–1 to
include generator operators.
Specifically, EPSA asks the Commission
to reaffirm its finding in Order No. 693
that the training will apply only to
employees at generator operators’
centrally-located dispatch centers or
when a single generator and dispatch
center are at the same site. EPSA seeks
as well Commission guidance regarding
the sufficiency and consistency of
existing Regional Transmission
Organization/Independent System
Operator (RTO/ISO) training programs
applicable to generator operators with
respect to the reliability training needs
identified in the NOPR. EPSA also
objects to the suggestion in the NOPR
that, in the event that communication is
lost with the grid operator, a generator
operator would take unilateral action for
which its personnel would require
training.
80. With respect to the Order No. 693
directive that NERC consider whether
EMS personnel should be incorporated
into the system operator training
Reliability Standard, BGE comments
that no separate training is needed for
EMS personnel, as EMS personnel
already are regularly trained. EEI states
that, because the skills and functions of
EMS personnel are unique, the
development of training requirements
for EMS support personnel should take
place as a separate, stand-alone
development project.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Commission Determination
81. GSOC and GTC, E.ON, and
Constellation raise issues regarding the
substance and scope of the original
Order No. 693 directives. Such
comments are a collateral attack on
Order No. 693 and will not be readdressed. Such issues should be vetted
through NERC’s standards development
process as part of the standards drafting
and balloting, and ultimately may be
raised in comments in a future
Commission proceeding in which the
proposed standard(s) or modified
standard(s) are before the Commission.
82. Associated Electric expressed
concern that the NOPR definition of the
‘‘operations planning and operations
support staff’’ who should receive
training pursuant to the Order No. 693
directive is ‘‘broad and will encompass
operations planning and operation
support staff who engage in tasks that
do not directly affect the reliable
operation of the bulk electric system.’’ 66
The Commission clarifies that the scope
of the Reliability Standard or
modification to a Reliability Standard to
address training for ‘‘operations
planning and operations support staff’’
is limited by the qualifications stated in
Order No. 693. Specifically, in Order
No. 693, the Commission directed the
ERO to develop a modification to PER–
002–0 that extends applicability of the
training requirements to the operations
planning and operations support staff of
transmission operators and balancing
authorities.67 The Commission further
clarified that such directive applies only
to operations planning and operations
support personnel who: ‘‘Carry out
outage coordination and assessments in
accordance with Reliability Standards
IRO–004–1 and TOP–002–2, and those
who determine SOLs and IROLs or
operating nomograms in accordance
with Reliability Standards IRO–005–1
and TOP–004–0.’’ 68 The NOPR did not
expand or alter the scope of this
directive as set forth in Order No. 693.
83. EPSA requests clarification of
several statements in the NOPR
regarding the Order No. 693 directive
related to expanding the applicability of
the system operator training Reliability
Standard to include certain generator
operators. First, EPSA expresses
concern that the NOPR discussion
66 Associated Electric’s Comments at 6.
Associated Electric states that, in the NOPR, the
Commission ‘‘defines’’ operations planning and
operations support staff as persons ‘‘who carry out
outage planning and assessments and those who
develop SOLs and IROLs, or operating nomograms
for real-time operations.’’
67 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1393.
68 Id. P 1372.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72675
broadly addresses generator operator
personnel in a way that could be
construed as subjecting all generator
operator personnel, regardless of the
disposition of the generating unit and
how it fits into the grid and the topology
of the grid, to the system operator
training requirements. Therefore EPSA
seeks clarification that the Commission
did not intend for the NOPR to expand
the Order No. 693 directive. We confirm
that we have not modified the scope of
applicability of the Order No. 693
directive regarding generator operator
training.69 As described in Order No.
693, the directive applies to generator
operator personnel at a centrally-located
dispatch center who receive direction
and then develop specific dispatch
instructions for plant operators under
their control. Those generator operator
personnel must receive formal training
of the nature provided to system
operators under PER–005–1.70 As
clarified in Order No. 693, this group of
personnel would include a generator
operator’s dispatch personnel where a
single generator and dispatch center are
located at the same site.71
84. EPSA also seeks clarification
regarding the statement in the NOPR
that: ‘‘[I]n the event communication is
lost, the generator operator personnel
must have had sufficient training to take
appropriate action to ensure reliability
of the Bulk-Power System.’’ 72 EPSA
expresses concern that this statement
suggests that if communication is lost
with the grid operator, the generator
operator must take unilateral action for
which it requires training. EPSA notes
that generator operators do not take
such unilateral action nor do they have
access to information to make such
decisions. Therefore, EPSA asks the
Commission to make clear that while
communication should be addressed in
training requirements for centrally
located generator operator dispatch
employees, the Commission is not
extending related responsibilities or
training requirements to generator
operator employees. We grant the
requested clarification, and affirm that
we are not modifying the Order No. 693
directive regarding training for certain
generator operator dispatch personnel,
nor are we expanding a generator
operator’s responsibilities.73
85. EPSA also raises the issue of
potentially overlapping or duplicative
training programs. EPSA notes that
69 See
id. P 1359–61.
id. P 1360.
71 Id. P 1361.
72 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,661 at P 58.
73 See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 1359–65.
70 See
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72676
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
training requirements already exist in
organized markets and compliance with
them is a condition for market
participation, citing PJM and CAISO as
examples, and asserts that new training
requirements should either mesh with
or build upon those already in place.
EPSA further notes that regional
transmission organizations and
independent system operators have
training programs for generator
operators that ensure that grid
participants are well trained on grid
operations and the needs of grid
operators. EPSA believes that any
modified or new Reliability Standard
related to generator operator training
should not conflict with or supplant the
organized markets’ existing training
requirements. Accordingly, EPSA states
that the Commission’s
‘‘acknowledgment of these existing
programs and how they might fit with
the expansion of PER–005–1 would
provide useful guidance for Project
2010–01.’’ 74 The Commission believes
that, in the above-discussion regarding
the systematic approach to training, the
systematic approach to training
methodology is flexible enough to build
on existing training programs by
validating and supplementing the
existing training content, where
necessary, using systematic methods.75
It is important that the relevant
generator operator personnel receive the
necessary training. Our determination is
not intended to limit the source of that
training, provided that it meets the
requirements of the Reliability
Standard.
86. With respect to the time frame
within which NERC should complete
the unaddressed training directives, the
Commission recently issued on order on
NERC’s three year assessment.76 That
order requires NERC to identify and
address all Reliability Standards
prioritization matters when submitting
its annual Reliability Standard
Development plan, beginning with the
plan for 2012.77 The Commission
recognizes the importance of a
collaborative approach to setting
priorities for Reliability Standard
projects and NERC’s need for flexibility
in setting project priorities in order to
efficiently utilize the technical expertise
available to NERC’s standards drafting
teams. We anticipate that NERC will
include this project in its assessment of
its Reliability Standards priorities. With
respect to the Order No. 693 directive to
consider whether personnel that
support EMS applications should be
included in the training Reliability
Standard, we accept NERC’s
commitment to satisfy this directive by
August 23, 2012.
III. Information Collection Statement
87. The following collections of
information contained in this proposed
rule have been submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.78
OMB’s regulations require OMB to
approve certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency rule.79
88. The Commission solicited
comments on the need for and the
purpose of the information contained in
these two Personal Performance,
Training and Qualification Reliability
Standards and the corresponding
burden to implement them. The
Commission received comments on
specific requirements in the Reliability
Standards, which we address in this
Final Rule. The Commission has not
directed any modifications to the
Requirements in the two Reliability
Standards being approved. Thus, the
Final Rule does not materially or
Number
of new
respondents
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Data collection
PER–005–1, R1.1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must create a list of bulk electric
system reliability-related tasks performed by system operators. .................
PER–005–1, R1.2: RCs, TOs, and BAs shall design and develop learning
objectives and training materials based on its task list. ..............................
PER–005–1, R2: RCs, TOs, and BAs shall verify system operators’ ability
to perform each assigned task from applicable task list. ............................
PER–005–1, M1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection
evidence of using a systematic approach to training to establish and implement a training program. .........................................................................
PER–005–1, M1.1: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection its company-specific, reliability-related task list. ...................................
PER–005–1, M1.2: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection its learning objectives and training materials. .......................................
74 EPSA
75 See
Comments at 8.
supra at P 45 & n.40.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Recordkeeping 80
hours per
respondent
Number of
responses
Total annual
recordkeeping
hours
81 7
7
40
280
7
7
60
420
7
7
80
560
7
7
50
350
7
7
10
70
7
76 North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, 132 FERC ¶ 61,217 (2010).
77 Id. P 102.
Jkt 223001
adversely affect the burden estimates
provided in the NOPR.
89. However, the Commission
received comments on our reporting
burden estimates. Of the twenty-eight
entities that filed comments on the
NOPR, two entities, the ISO/RTO
Council and Westar, comment on the
record keeping burden. Both the ISO/
RTO Council and Westar note that
proposed Reliability Standard PER–
005–1 includes a new requirement that
applicable entities use a systematic
approach to training which includes
record-keeping requirements (including
a job-task-analysis) that are significantly
greater than the Commission’s estimates
provided in the NOPR. In addition, the
ISO/RTO Council asserts that Reliability
Standard PER–005–1, as submitted,
more than adequately covers
appropriate record keeping
requirements. With respect to the
estimate of the record-keeping
requirements, in the NOPR, the
Commission considered the inclusion of
a systematic approach to training
requirement when developing the
record-keeping estimates. Moreover,
neither commenter provides an estimate
of the record-keeping burden. The
Commission finds that the two
commenters did not provide sufficient
information to support increasing the
record keeping burden estimates. With
respect to the ISO/RTO Council’s
assertion that PER–005–1, as submitted,
more than adequately covers
appropriate record keeping
requirements, this issue is moot as this
final rule does not require NERC to
make any modifications to PER–005–1.
90. Burden Estimate: The public
reporting and records retention burdens
for the proposed reporting requirements
and the records retention requirement
are as follows:
7
10
70
78 44
79 5
U.S.C. 3507(d).
CFR 1320.11.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Number
of new
respondents
Data collection
PER–005–1, M1.3: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection
system operator training records. ................................................................
PER–005–1, M1.4: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection evidence that it performed an annual training program evaluation. .....
PER–005–1, M2: Each RC, TO, and BA must have available for inspection
evidence that it verified that its system operators can perform each assigned task from the training task list. .........................................................
PER–005–1, M3: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection
their annual training records evidencing that each system operator received 32 hours of emergency operations training. .....................................
PER–005–1, M3.1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have available for inspection
training records evidencing that each system operator received emergency training using simulation technology. ................................................
Total ..........................................................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
• Total Annual hours for Collection:
Recordkeeping = Total Hours.
Information Collection Costs:
Recordkeeping = 2415 hours @ $120/
hour 82 = $289,800.
• Total costs = $289,800.
• Title: Mandatory Reliability
Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
• Action: Proposed Collection of
Information.
• OMB Control No: 1902–0244.
• Respondents: Business or other for
profit, and/or not for profit institutions.
• Frequency of Responses: On
occasion.
• Necessity of the Information: This
final rule would approve revised
Reliability Standards that modify the
existing requirement for entities to
develop training programs and train
certain personnel. The Reliability
Standards require entities to maintain
their training materials and training
records subject to review by the
Commission and NERC to ensure
compliance with the Reliability
Standards.
• Internal review: The Commission
has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to the Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System and
determined that the 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
80 The proposed Reliability Standards do not
impose any reporting requirements.
81 Only seven of the 16 registered reliability
coordinators are not currently subject to training
requirements as balancing authorities.
82 This hourly rate reflects the hourly rate for
engineers based on information provided to the
Commission in Docket No. RM08–13. See
Transmission Relay Loadability Reliability
Standard, 130 FERC ¶ 61,221, at P 327 (2010) (Final
Rule).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
7
10
70
7
7
25
175
7
7
20
140
7
7
20
140
7
7
20
140
........................
........................
........................
2,415
IV. Environmental Analysis
92. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
environment.83 The actions taken in this
Final Rule fall within the categorical
exclusion in the Commission’s
regulations for rules that are clarifying,
corrective or procedural, for information
gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.84 Accordingly, neither
83 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897
(Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles
1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
84 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Total annual
recordkeeping
hours
7
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.
91. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director,
Phone: (202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–
0873, e-mail: DataClearance@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]. For security
reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please
reference FERC–725A and the docket
number of this final rule in your
submission.
PO 00000
Recordkeeping 80
hours per
respondent
Number of
responses
72677
Sfmt 4700
an environmental impact statement nor
environmental assessment is required.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
93. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 85 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Most of the entities, i.e.,
reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, and balancing authorities, to
which the requirements of this rule
would apply do not fall within the
definition of small entities.86 Moreover,
the proposed Reliability Standards
reflect a continuation of existing
training requirements for transmission
operators and balancing authorities and
are ‘‘new’’ only with respect to reliability
coordinators.
94. As indicated above, based on
available information regarding NERC’s
compliance registry, approximately
seven entities will be responsible for
compliance with proposed Reliability
Standards PER–004–2 and PER–005–1
that were not already subject to the
existing Reliability Standards
comprising the same base training
requirements as contained in the new
Reliability Standards. The Commission
does not consider this a substantial
number. Further, few if any of the seven
reliability coordinators are small
entities. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission certifies that this Final
Rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
85 5
U.S.C. 601–612.
RFA definition of ‘‘small entity’’ refers to
the definition provided in the Small Business Act
(SBA), 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. 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.
86 The
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72678
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
docket number excluding the last three
digits of this document in the docket
number field.
VI. Document Availability
97. User assistance is available for
95. In addition to publishing the full
eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during
text of this document in the Federal
normal business hours from FERC
Register, the Commission provides all
Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll
interested persons an opportunity to
free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at
view and/or print the contents of this
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
document via the Internet through
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) 8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the
and in FERC’s Public Reference Room
Public Reference Room at
during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First
VII. Effective Date and Congressional
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
Notification
20426.
98. These regulations are effective
96. From FERC’s Home Page on the
Internet, this information is available on January 25, 2011. The Commission
notes that although the determinations
eLibrary. The full text of this document
made in this Final Rule are effective
is available on eLibrary in PDF and
January 25, 2011, Reliability Standard
Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access PER–004–2 approved in this final rule
will not become effective until the first
this document in eLibrary, type the
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
day of the first calendar quarter after
regulatory approval and that Reliability
Standard PER–005–1 approved in this
final rule will become effective on a
staggered basis, as identified in
Appendix B, with the earliest effective
date being first day of the first calendar
quarter after regulatory approval for
PER–005–1, Requirement R3. The
Commission has determined, with the
concurrence of the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB, that this Rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined in section 351 of
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
Appendix A: Commenting Party
Acronyms
Abbreviation
Commenter
APPA ........................................................
Associated Electric ...................................
BGE ..........................................................
BPA ..........................................................
Constellation ............................................
American Public Power Association.
Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.
Bonneville Power Administration.
Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc., Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., and Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC.
Dominion Resources Services, Inc. on behalf of its affiliates.
Edison Electric Institute.
E.ON U.S. LLC.
Electric Power Supply Association.
Georgia System Operations Corp. and Georgia Transmission Corp.
Ontario Independent Electricity System.
ISO/RTO Council.
International Transmission Company d/b/a ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest LLC, and ITC Great Plains, LLC.
Kansas City Power & Light Company and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company.
Minnesota Power.
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc.
Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Co.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
NorthWestern Corp d/b/a/ NorthWestern Energy.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Platte River Power Authority.
Portland General Electric Co.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Dominion ..................................................
EEI ...........................................................
E.ON ........................................................
EPSA ........................................................
GSOC & GTC ..........................................
IESO .........................................................
ISO/RTO Council .....................................
ITC ...........................................................
KCP&L .....................................................
MidAmerican ............................................
Minnesota Power .....................................
Montana-Dakota .......................................
NRECA .....................................................
NV Energy ................................................
NERC .......................................................
NorthWestern ...........................................
PG&E .......................................................
Platte River ..............................................
Portland ....................................................
SPP ..........................................................
Westar ......................................................
WECC ......................................................
Wisconsin Electric ....................................
Appendix B
COORDINATION OF RETIREMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATES TABLE
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Existing approved
standard
PER–002–0 ....................
Requirement to be
retired or replaced
R1
Proposed
standard
PER–005–1
R2
R3
R3.1
R3.2
R3.3
R3.4
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:10 Nov 24, 2010
New requirement
to be implemented
Date for concurrent retirement and implementation
R1
1st calendar quarter 24 months after regulatory approval.
R1.1
R1.1.1
R1.2
R1.3
R1.4
R2
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
72679
COORDINATION OF RETIREMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATES TABLE—Continued
Existing approved
standard
Requirement to be
retired or replaced
Proposed
standard
New requirement
to be implemented
Date for concurrent retirement and implementation
R2.1
PER–004–1 ....................
PER–002–0 ....................
R3
R4
R4
PER–005–1
R3
1st day of 1st calendar quarter after regulatory approval.
PER–004–1 ....................
PER–004–1 ....................
R2
R1
PER–004–2
R1
1st day of 1st calendar quarter after regulatory approval.
N/A ..................................
R5
N/A
PER–005–1
R2
R3.1
1st day of 1st calendar quarter 36 months after
regulatory approval.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510
Administrative practice and
procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
■ Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to
the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21
CFR part 510 is amended as follows:
[FR Doc. 2010–29717 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 510
[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0002]
■
AGENCY:
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 510 continues to read as follows:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement
Final rule.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect a
change of sponsor’s name from Belcher
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to Belcher
Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The sponsor’s
mailing address will also be changed.
DATES: This rule is effective November
26, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven D. Vaughn, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–100), Food and Drug
Administration, 7520 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855; 240–276–8300, email: steven.vaughn@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Belcher
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 12393 Belcher
Rd., suite 420, Largo, FL 33773 has
informed FDA that it has changed its
name and address to Belcher
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 6911 Bryan Dairy
Rd., Largo, FL 33777. Accordingly, the
Agency is amending the regulations in
21 CFR 510.600 to reflect this change.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
30 CFR Part 285
[Docket ID: BOEM–2010–0045]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e.
RIN 1010–AD71
2. In § 510.600, in the table in
paragraph (c)(1), revise the entry for
‘‘Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’’; and in
the table in paragraph (c)(2), revise the
entry for ‘‘062250’’ to read as follows:
Renewable Energy Alternate Uses of
Existing Facilities on the Outer
Continental Shelf—Acquire a Lease
Noncompetitively
■
SUMMARY:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
[FR Doc. 2010–29693 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
New Animal Drugs; Change of
Sponsor’s Name and Address
Dated: November 19, 2010.
Elizabeth Rettie,
Deputy Director, Office of New Animal Drug
Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and
Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior.
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
AGENCY:
§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug
labeler codes of sponsors of approved
applications.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
*
*
Drug labeler code
Firm name and address
*
*
*
*
*
Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
062250
6911 Bryan Dairy Rd., Largo,
FL 33777.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
Drug labeler code
Firm name and address
*
*
*
*
*
062250 .... Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
6911 Bryan Dairy Rd., Largo,
FL 33777.
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00027
BOEMRE is revising
regulations that pertain to
noncompetitive acquisition of an Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) renewable
energy lease. We are taking this action
because the current regulations covering
noncompetitive leasing of an OCS
renewable energy lease and an
unsolicited request for an OCS
renewable energy lease are inconsistent.
This rulemaking will make the two
processes consistent with each other by
eliminating an extra step in the
noncompetitive leasing process.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes
effective on January 25, 2011 unless
BOEMRE publishes a notice
withdrawing this rule before that date.
Comment Due Date: Submit
comments on the direct final rule by
December 27, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Redding at (703) 787–1219.
SUMMARY:
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72664-72679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29717]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM09-25-000; Order No. 742]
System Personnel Training Reliability Standards
Issued November 18,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission
approves two Personnel Performance, Training and Qualifications (PER)
Reliability Standards, PER-004-2 (Reliability Coordination--Staffing)
and PER-005-1 (System Personnel Training), submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
the Electric Reliability Organization certified by the Commission. The
approved Reliability Standards require reliability coordinators,
balancing authorities, and transmission operators to establish a
training program for their system operators, verify each of their
system operators' capability to perform tasks, and provide emergency
operations training to every system operator. The Commission also
approves NERC's proposal to retire two existing PER Reliability
Standards that are replaced by the standards approved in this Final
Rule.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective January 25,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karin L. Larson (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DChttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20426, (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|202) 502-8236. Kenneth U.
Hubona (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 1800 Dual Highway, Suitehttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 201, Hagerstown, MD 21740, (301)
665-1608.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl
A. LaFleur.
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves two Personnel Performance, Training and
Qualifications (PER) Reliability Standards, PER-004-2 (Reliability
Coordination--Staffing) and PER-005-1 (System Personnel Training),
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) certified by the Commission. The approved Reliability Standards
require reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators to establish a training program for their system
operators, verify each of their system operators' capability to perform
tasks, and provide emergency operations training to every system
operator. The Commission also approves NERC's proposal to retire two
existing PER Reliability Standards that are replaced by the standards
approved in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
2. On March 16,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC,\2\
including the four PER Reliability Standards: PER-001-0, PER-002-0,
PER-003-0, and PER-004-1.\3\ In addition, in Order No. 693, under
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to the PER Reliability Standards to address certain
issues identified by the Commission. At issue in the immediate
proceeding are two new PER Reliability Standards that would replace the
currently effective
[[Page 72665]]
Reliability Standards PER-002-0 (Operating Personnel Training) and PER-
004-1 (Reliability Coordination--Staffing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 1https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 FERC ] 61,053 (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2007).
\3\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1330-1417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0
3. Currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 requires each
transmission operator and balancing authority to be staffed with
adequately trained operating personnel.\4\ Specifically, PER-002-0: (1)
Directs each transmission operator and balancing authority to have a
training program for all operating personnel who occupy positions that
either have primary responsibility, directly or through communication
with others, for the real-time operation of the Bulk-Power System or
who are directly responsible for complying with the NERC Reliability
Standards; (2) lists criteria that must be met by the training program;
and (3) requires that operating personnel receive at least five days of
training in emergency operations each year using realistic
simulations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. P 1331.
\5\ Reliability Standard PER-002-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop the following modifications to
PER-002-0: (1) Identify the expectations of the training for each job
function; (2) develop training programs tailored to each job function
with consideration of the individual training needs of the personnel;
(3) expand the applicability of the training requirements to include:
reliability coordinators, local transmission control center operator
personnel, generator operators centrally-located at a generation
control center with a direct impact on the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System, and operations planning and operations support staff
who carry out outage planning and assessments and those who develop
system operating limits (SOL), interconnection reliability operating
limits (IROL), or operating nomograms for real-time operations; (4) use
a systematic approach to training methodology for developing new
training programs; and (5) include the use of simulators by reliability
coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities that
have operational control over a significant portion of load and
generation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In Order No. 693, the Commission also directed the ERO to
determine whether it is feasible to develop meaningful performance
metrics associated with the effectiveness of a training program
required by currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 and to
consider whether personnel who support Energy Management System (EMS)
applications should be included in mandatory training pursuant to the
Reliability Standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. P 1394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Effective Reliability Standard PER-004-1
6. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved Reliability
Standard PER-004-1.\8\ This Reliability Standard requires each
reliability coordinator to be staffed with adequately trained, NERC-
certified operators, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Further, PER-
004-1 requires reliability coordinator operating personnel to have a
comprehensive understanding of the area of the Bulk-Power System for
which they are responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. P 1417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERC Petition
7. In a September 30,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009 filing (NERC Petition),\9\ NERC requests
Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standards PER-005-1 (System
Personnel Training) and PER-004-2 (Reliability Coordination--Staffing),
which were developed in response to the Commission's directives in
Order No. 693 regarding currently effective Reliability Standard PER-
002-0.\10\ NERC seeks to concurrently retire currently effective
Reliability Standards PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 upon the effective date
of the two new Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Sept. 30,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2009
Petition for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards Regarding
System Personnel Training (NERC Petition). The two PER Reliability
Standards are included as Exhibit A to NERC's Petition. In addition,
pursuant to section 40.3 of the Commission's regulations, all
Commission-approved Reliability Standards are available on NERC's
Web site at https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20[bond]https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20. See 18 CFR.
40.3.
\10\ NERC's Petition addresses only the directives in Order No.
693 related to existing Reliability Standard PER-002-0, not the
directives related to PER-004-1. See NERC Petition at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards ``are a
significant improvement over the existing Reliability Standards'' and
recommends Commission approval of the standards as a ``significant step
in strengthening the quality of operator training programs as necessary
for the reliability of the [B]ulk-[P]ower [S]ystem.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NERC Petition at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability Standard PER-005-1
9. The stated purpose of Reliability Standard PER-005-1 is to
ensure system operators performing real-time, reliability-related tasks
on the North American bulk electric system are competent to perform
those reliability-related tasks.\12\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1
applies to reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators.\13\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1 contains
three main requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Section A.3 (Purpose).
\13\ The responsible entities subject to PER-005-1 include:
Reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission
operators as those entities are defined in the Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards, Aprilhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010, available at
https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010Aprilhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.pdf">https://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010Aprilhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.pdf.
Requirement R1 mandates the use of a systematic
approach to training for both new and existing training programs.
The requirement further requires applicable entities to create a
company-specific, reliability-related task list relevant to Bulk-
Power System operation and to design and develop learning objectives
and training materials based on the task list performed by its
System Operators each calendar year. Finally, the requirement
mandates the training be delivered and the training program be
evaluated on at least an annual basis to assess its effectiveness.
Requirement R2 requires the verification of a System
Operator's ability to perform the tasks identified in Requirement
R1. The requirement also mandates re-verification of a System
Operator's ability to perform the tasks within a specified time
period when program content is modified.
Requirement R3 identifies the number of hours of
emergency operations training (at least 32 hours) that a System
Operator is required to obtain every twelve months. The requirement
further identifies those entities required to use simulation
technology such as a simulator, virtual technology, or other
technology in their emergency operations training programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NERC Petition at 8-9.
Proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 is a new Reliability Standard
that is intended to supersede all of currently effective Reliability
Standard PER-002-0 as well as Requirements R2, R3, and R4 of currently
effective Reliability Standard PER-004-1.
Proposed Reliability Standard PER-004-2
10. Proposed Reliability Standard PER-004-2 modifies PER-004-1 by
deleting Requirements R2, R3, and R4, as these three Requirements are
incorporated into proposed PER-005-1. Proposed Reliability Standard
PER-004-2 simply carries forward, unchanged, the remaining provisions
from currently effective PER-004-1, including the associated violation
risk factor and violation severity level assignments.
[[Page 72666]]
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
11. On June 17,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010, the Commission issued its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the two proposed PER Reliability
Standards, PER-004-2 and PER-005-1 (and to retire the two superseded
standards, PER-002-0 and PER-004-1).\15\ With respect to Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, the NOPR proposed to direct NERC to: (1) Modify
PER-005-1 to explicitly require training for local transmission control
center personnel, and (2) to evaluate the feasibility of developing
meaningful performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of PER-
005-1. In addition, in the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification
from NERC and/or industry comments on several specific aspects of
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, including: (1) Whether three
specific training requirements are carried over from PER-004-1 to PER-
005-1 and are enforceable as part of the systematic approach to
training umbrella; (2) whether PER-005-1, R1.2, through the systematic
approach to training, adequately requires entities to develop training
programs tailored to each job function with consideration of the
individual training needs of the personnel; (3) whether PER-005-1, R3.1
requires the use of simulators specific to an operator's own system and
if not, whether it is feasible or practical to mandate the use of
simulators that are specific to the operator's system; (4) whether the
proposed two- and three-year lead time prior to certain Requirements in
PER-005-1 become effective are necessary and the feasibility of
staggering the retirement of currently effective Reliability Standards
PER-002-0 and PER-004-1; and (5) whether it is feasible for NERC to
complete the standards development project to expand applicability of
PER-005 to include certain generator operators and operations planning
and operations support staff by fourth quarterhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2011. The Commission
also proposed to approve NERC's proposed retirement of currently
effective Reliability Standards, PER-002-0 and PER-004-1, which will be
superseded by the two new standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ System Personnel Training Reliability Standards, 75 FR
35689 (June 17,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,661 (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by 28 interested
parties. These comments assisted us in the evaluation of NERC's
proposal. In the discussion below, we address the issues raised by
these comments. Appendix A to this Final Rule lists the entities that
filed comments on the NOPR.
II. Discussion
A. Approval of PER-004-2 and PER-005-1
13. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve the two PER
Reliability Standards filed by NERC in this proceeding as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The Commission stated that proposed Reliability
Standards PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 represent an improvement in training
requirements.
Comments
14. Many commenters support approving the two proposed Reliability
Standards PER-004-2 and PER-005-1.\16\ NERC reiterates in its comments
that implementation of Reliability Standards PER-005-1 and PER-004-2
will achieve a significant improvement in the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System and, therefore, it is supportive of the Commission's
proposal to approve the two standards. APPA states that the proposed
PER standards strike the right balance among costs, flexibility and
performance, and that PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 should be approved
without modification. Dominion notes that the implementation of the
more stringent requirements of PER-005-1, including the adoption of a
systematic approach to training for new and existing system operator
training programs, recognizes the criticality of such training and
contains a logical and reasonable approach to providing the appropriate
personnel with the necessary training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See comments of APPA, Dominion, EEI, IESO, NERC, NRECA,
PG&E, Platte River, Wisconsin Electric, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. EEI states that if the Reliability Standards are approved,
compliance with both PER-004-2 and PER-005-1 will support the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System by measuring competence against a
list of specific task requirements. EEI also comments that by
implementing training requirements that test specific competencies, the
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 provides greater clarity, thus
improving its enforceability. No commenter objects to the approval of
the two training Reliability Standards.
Commission Determination
16. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal and approves
Reliability Standard PER-004-2 and PER-005-1 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\17\
By assigning a significant amount of structure to the training programs
for the principal operators of the Bulk-Power System, namely
reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission
operators, the two proposed Reliability Standards will enhance the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the two proposed
Reliability Standards represent a step forward in implementing a key
recommendation from thehttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2003 Blackout Report \18\ by addressing an
identified gap where operations personnel were not adequately trained
to maintain reliable operation under emergency conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
\18\ U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on
the August 14,https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes
and Recommendations, (Aprilhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 2004) (Blackout Report), available at
https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/blackout.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Commission is not directing any modifications to the
substantive requirements of the two new Reliability Standards, PER-005-
1 or PER-004-2. Nevertheless, as discussed in greater detail below, the
Commission has several concerns regarding certain training issues. To
address these concerns, and as discussed in greater detail below, the
Commission is issuing directives that the ERO: (1) Consider the
necessity of developing an implementation plan for entities that become
subject to PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1 after Requirement R3.1 is in
effect, and (2) develop a Reliability Standard, through the ERO's
Reliability Standards development process, conducted pursuant to its
Standard Processes Manual, establishing training requirements for local
transmission control center operator personnel.
B. Implementation Timeline
18. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern about NERC's
proposed use of staggered effective dates for the two proposed
Reliability Standards, which Reliability Standards modify currently
effective standards. The Commission questioned whether staggered
effective dates could create a gap in compliance and enforceability.
Specifically, NERC proposed to make the various requirements in PER-
005-1 mandatory and enforceable in three stages over a three-year
period. The Commission also questioned the need for the proposed two-
and three-year lead times before certain Requirements in PER-005-1
become mandatory and enforceable.
[[Page 72667]]
Comments
19. NERC's comments clarify the proposed effective dates for each
of the new Requirements in PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 as well as the
corresponding retirement dates of the currently effective Requirements
in PER-002-0 and PER-004-1. NERC included in its comments a table that
specifies the retirement and effective date for each Requirement in
each of the affected Reliability Standards, specifically, currently
effective PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 and proposed Reliability Standards
PER-004-2 and PER-005-1. This table is reproduced in Appendix B of this
Final Rule. Further, NERC provides justification for the proposed two-
and three-year lead times for the effective date for some of the
proposed Requirements in PER-005-1. Specifically, NERC states that the
24-month implementation timeframe of proposed PER-005-1, Requirements
R1 and R2 allows flexibility in developing and implementing the
training programs that use a systematic approach to training, and is
structured and tailored to the functions that each entity performs in
operating the Bulk-Power System. Additionally, NERC explains that the
36-month implementation timeframe for Requirement R3.1 in the proposed
standard PER-005-1 allows entities with simulation technology
sufficient time to integrate the use of this technology as a core
component of those programs going forward and allows entities without
simulation technology the needed time to secure and integrate
simulation technology. Finally, NERC states that it reviewed the
staggered effective/retirement dates and did not find any overlaps or
gaps.https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20 20. The majority of the commenters generally support NERC's
proposed effective and retirement dates.\19\ Many of these commenters
state that if the Commission rejects the use of staggered effective and
retirement dates, then in the alternative, the Commission should impose
a uniform effective date that is the first day of the first calendar
quarter, 36 months after FERC approval.\https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20\ BGE, GSOC and GTC, KCP&L,
SPP, and Westar generally support eliminating the staggered effective
dates and instead setting this uniform effective/retirement date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See comments submitted by BPA, ITC, Minnesota Power,
Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River,
Portland, and WECC.
\https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20\ See comments submitted by Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
PG&E, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. EEI raises a concern regarding the effective date for
Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement 3.1. Specifically, EEI
states that although Reliability Standard PER-005-1 addresses lead
times for compliance based on regulator approval of the standards, it
does not address the situation where Requirement 3.1 is not applicable
to certain entities at the time of the regulatory effective date of the
standard, but later becomes applicable to those entities. Specifically,
with respect to PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1, which requires simulator
training for entities with established interconnection reliability
operating limits (IROLs),\21\ EEI states that if an entity does not
have established IROLs when the Reliability Standard PER-005-1 becomes
effective, but later due to system changes an IROL is invoked, the
standard does not specify when the requirements for simulation training
(Requirement R3.1) would be mandatory and enforceable for such an
entity. EEI states that because entities with established IROLs would
initially have 36 months to comply with the provisions of Requirement
R3.1; i.e., to develop simulation training, that the same 36 month
compliance lead time should also be afforded to all entities with
future established IROLs. EEI requests that the Commission direct NERC
to modify the effective date specified in Reliability Standard PER-005-
1, section 5.1 to grant a 36-month lead time for entities with newly
established IROLs or operating guides to be compliant with Requirement
3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See NERC Glossary of Terms at https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010Aprilhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.pdf">https://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010Aprilhttps://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
22. The Commission finds that the proposed staggered implementation
schedule for PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 and the corresponding retirement
schedule for PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 strikes a reasonable balance
between the need for timely reform and the needs of the entities that
will be subject to PER-005-1 to develop and implement training programs
utilizing a systematic approach to training and use of simulators as a
training tool. The effective and retirement date table provided by NERC
in its comments and incorporated herein as Appendix B demonstrates that
there are no apparent overlaps or gaps between the retirement of PER-
002-0 and PER-004-1 and the effectiveness of the requirements in the
new Reliability Standards, PER-005-1 and PER-004-2.
23. The Commission finds that the commenters that advocate for a
uniform effective date of 36-months have not adequately justified such
a lengthy lead time for a Reliability Standard that will not impose
entirely new requirements. Rather, PER-005-1 requires applicable
entities to build upon and improve the existing training programs that
are in place under currently effective PER-002-0. Accordingly, as
approved, PER-004-2 in its entirety and PER-005-1, Requirement R3 shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter after
regulatory approval.\22\ PER-005-1, Requirements R1, R1.1, R1.1.1,
R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, R2, and R2.1 shall become effective on the first day
of the first calendar quarter, twenty-four months after regulatory
approval. And, finally, PER-005-1, Requirements R3.1 shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter, thirty-six
months after regulatory approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Regulatory approval'' for these two Reliability Standards
refers to approval by the Commission in a final rule. The date of
the Commission's regulatory approval is not the date that the final
rule is issued by the Commission, rather, in this case, it is 60
days after the date the final rule is published in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. With respect to EEI's comment regarding the effective date for
entities that may become, in the future, subject to the simulator
training requirement in PER-005-1, R3.1, the Commission believes that
this issue should be considered by the ERO. We note that, with respect
to the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards,
NERC has developed a separate implementation plan that essentially
gives responsible entities some lead time before newly acquired assets
must be in compliance with the effective CIP Reliability Standards.\23\
We direct NERC to consider the necessity of developing a similar
implementation plan with respect to PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 130 FERC ]
61,271, at P 15 (https://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|2010) (approving the Implementation Plan for Newly
Identified Cyber Assets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Systematic Approach to Training
25. A systematic approach to training is a widely-accepted
methodology that ensures training is efficiently and effectively
conducted and is directly related to the needs of the position in
question.\24\ To achieve training results, the objectives of a
systematic approach to training include: management and administration
of training and qualification programs; development and qualification
of training staff; trainee entry-level requirements; determination of
training program content; design and development of
[[Page 72668]]
training programs; conduct of training; trainee examinations and
evaluations; and training program evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR
26. In the NOPR, the Commission agreed with NERC that proposed
Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R1 met the Commission's
directive to ``develop a modification to PER-002-2 (or a new
Reliability Standard) that uses the systematic approach to training
methodology.'' \25\ However, the Commission noted that the generic
reference to systematic approach to training contained in proposed PER-
005-1 Requirement R1 raised the question of whether certain Order No.
693 directives and certain specific training requirements that are
explicitly set forth in the currently effective Reliability Standards
PER-002-0 and PER-004-1, which are to be retired, are fully and
adequately captured under the systematic approach to training umbrella.
The Commission questioned whether the following three currently
effective training requirements from PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 are
incorporated in proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1: (i)
Understanding of reliability coordinator area, (ii) continual training,
and (iii) training staff identity and competency. In the NOPR, the
Commission sought comment on its understanding of the carryover of
these three currently enforceable compliance obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs ] 32,601 at P 25 (citing Order No.
693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1380).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Understanding of Reliability Coordinator Area
27. Currently effective Reliability Standard PER-004-1,
Requirements R3 and R4 provide that reliability coordinator operating
personnel ``shall have a comprehensive understanding of the Reliability
Coordinator Area and interactions with neighboring Reliability
Coordinator areas'' and ``shall have an extensive understanding of the
Balancing Authorities, Transmission Operators, and Generation Operators
within the Reliability Coordinator Area, including the operating staff,
operating practices and procedures * * * .'' \26\ NERC states that
these two requirements are supplanted by and addressed more fully in
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirements R1 and R2.
However, proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 does not explicitly
require reliability coordinator operating personnel to have a
comprehensive understanding of the reliability coordinator area or an
extensive understanding of the balancing authorities, transmission
operators, and generation operators within the reliability coordinator
area. In order to clarify that these requirements are clear and
enforceable under proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, the
Commission sought an explanation from NERC and comments from the
general public whether these existing requirements are enforceable
under the proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 and whether these
requirements are clear or should be more explicit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Reliability Standard PER-004-1, Requirements R3 and R4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
28. Most commenters agree that comprehensive understanding of the
reliability coordinator area is fully addressed by PER-005-1,
Requirements R1 and R2 through the use of a systematic approach to
training.\27\ For example, Dominion supports proposed PER-005-1,
Requirements R1 and R2 because the requirements are clear, measurable,
and eliminate the subjectivity of the phrase ``comprehensive
understanding'' that currently exists under the current PER-004-1,
Requirement R3. Dominion believes that proper implementation of a
systematic approach to training will address the Commission's concern
that operating personnel may not have a proper understanding of their
system and interactions with neighboring systems without resurrecting
the vague language in PER-004-1. However, other commenters, including
ITC, MidAmerican, and SPP, state that because the requirement to have a
``comprehensive understanding of the reliability coordinator's area''
is not explicitly stated in PER-005-1, it will be difficult to enforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See comments of BPA, Dominion, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO
Council, KCP&L, Minnesota Power, Montana Dakota, NV Energy, NERC,
PG&E, Portland, Westar, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. NERC states that PER-005-1 implements a defense-in-depth
approach to ensure that the reliability coordinator's system operators
have a comprehensive understanding of their reliability coordinator
area. NERC believes this approach ensures that system operators have
the tools to effectively monitor and direct actions within the
reliability coordinator area in support of the Bulk-Power System. NERC
provides examples of how proposed PER-005-1 ensures that the
reliability coordinator's system operators will have detailed knowledge
of their reliability coordinator area.
Commission Determination
30. Based on NERC's explanation, the Commission agrees that the
existing requirements contained in PER-004-1, which require reliability
coordinators to have a comprehensive understanding of the reliability
coordinator area and interactions with neighboring reliability
coordinator areas and an extensive understanding of the balancing
authorities, transmission operators, and generation operators within
the reliability coordinator area, are adequately captured and
enforceable under proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1.
2. Continual Training
31. Currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0, Requirement
R3.2 explicitly mandates that ``the training program must include a
plan for the initial and continuing training of Transmission Operators
and Balancing Authorities operating personnel.'' In the NOPR, the
Commission sought an explanation from NERC, and comment from the
general public, whether continuing training is an enforceable
requirement under proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 and whether
this requirement is clear or should be more explicit.
Comments
32. NERC comments that continual training is an enforceable
requirement under PER-005-1, Requirement R1 as a fundamental aspect of
a systematic approach to training. Most commenters agree with NERC that
continual training is an inherent aspect of the systematic approach to
training.\28\ For example, the ISO/RTO Council states that PER-005-1 is
superior to the previous continual training requirement and will be
easily measured and enforced and thus does not need to be more
explicit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council,
ITC, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E,
Platte River, Portland, Westar, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. KCP&L believes continuing training is not necessary for routine
tasks, only non-routine. MidAmerican and NV Energy both argue that
explicit language addressing continual training is necessary to be an
enforceable requirement.
Commission Determination
34. Based on NERC's and the majority of the commenters' affirmation
that continual training is a fundamental part of a systematic approach
to training and an enforceable requirement under PER-005-1, we find
that any systematic approach to training, including the
[[Page 72669]]
systematic approach to training mandated by Reliability Standard PER-
005-1, would entail continual training to refresh system operators'
knowledge and to cover any new tasks relevant to the operation of the
Bulk-Power System.
3. Training Staff Identity and Competency
35. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that currently effective
Reliability Standard PER-002-0, Requirement R3.4 requires a training
program in which ``[t]raining staff must be identified, and the staff
must be competent in both knowledge of system operations and
instructional capabilities.'' The Commission further noted that this
requirement is not explicitly provided in PER-005-1. As such, the NOPR
sought clarification as to (i) how and whether a systematic approach to
training requires training staff to be identified, and (ii) if not, the
mechanism by which training staff will be identified and its competency
ensured. The Commission also invited comment on whether this
clarification should be made explicit so that entities clearly
understand their compliance obligations.
Comments
36. NERC agrees with the Commission that PER-002-0, Requirement
R3.4, which requires a training program in which training staff must be
identified and competent in system operations and instructional
capabilities, is an important requirement and proposes to reassess
whether this requirement should be made more explicit in a later
version of PER-005-1 so that entities can understand their compliance
obligations.
37. The majority of commenters agree that training staff
identification and competency are inherent in a systematic approach to
training, and that, as such, no modification of proposed PER-005-1 is
necessary.\29\ However, some commenters disagree and argue that PER-
005-1 should have an explicit requirement similar to Requirement R3.4
in PER-002-0 mandating training staff to be identified and be competent
in system operations and instructional capabilities.\30\ Other
commenters state that the systematic approach to training does not
require training staff to be identified or their competency ensured,
but argue that such a requirement is not necessary and potentially
detrimental.\31\ For example, ITC believes competency of training staff
should be determined by entities internally during the hiring process
and companies should not be limited by a prescriptive requirement that
does not allow for company discretion during the hiring process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See comments of GSOC & GTC, Minnesota Power, Montana
Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP, and
Westar.
\30\ See comments of BGE, BPA, and MidAmerican.
\31\ See comments of IESO, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L,
NorthWestern, and Wisconsin Electric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
38. Based on the comments received, the Commission concludes that
the current requirement for each training program (that training staff
must be identified and that such staff must be competent in both
knowledge of system operations and instructional capabilities) is
inherent in any systematic approach to training that a registered
entity would use to meet this requirement, and thus is an enforceable
component of Requirement R1 under the proposed standard. However, given
the number of commenters that argue that it is necessary for the
current training program requirement to be explicitly stated in the
proposed training standard, we agree that NERC should follow through on
its proposal in its comments to reassess whether this requirement
should be made more explicit in a later version of PER- 005-1.
D. Training Expectations for Each Job Function/Tailored Training NOPR
Proposal
39. Proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R1.2
mandates applicable entities to ``design and develop learning
objectives and training materials based on the task list created in
R1.1.'' \32\ In the NOPR, the Commission noted that it believes that
NERC has complied with the directive to require entities to identify
the expectations of the training for each job function and develop
training programs tailored to each job function with consideration of
the individual training needs of their personnel. The Commission took
the view in the NOPR that the systematic approach to training used to
satisfy PER-005-1, Requirement R1 would assess factors such as
educational, technical experience, and medical requirements that
candidates must possess before entering a given training program. With
the above understanding, the Commission concluded that the systematic
approach to training methodology required in Reliability Standard PER-
005-1, Requirement R1 satisfies the Commission's directive for Order
No. 693 to develop a modification that identifies the expectations of
the training for each job function and develops training programs
tailored to each job function with consideration of the individual
training needs of the personnel. In the NOPR, the Commission sought
comment on its understanding that PER-005-1, Requirement R1.2 requires
that the learning objectives and training materials be developed with
consideration of the individual needs of each operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ NERC Petition at 27 (quoting proposed Reliability Standard
PER-005-1, Requirement R1.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
40. NERC agrees with the Commission that learning objectives and
training materials are to be developed for each job function. NERC
believes that using a systematic approach to training allows each
entity to tailor its training program to best meet the training needs
of the function performed by System Operators.
41. A number of commenters \33\ agree with NERC and affirm the
Commission's understanding that a systematic approach to training
requires development of tailored training. NorthWestern concurs that
PER-005-1 requires the training materials to be tailored to the
individual needs of each operator. For example, IESO believes that the
systematic approach to training process will ensure that the necessary
knowledge, skills and abilities are provided in the development of
learning objectives and associated training materials. The ISO/RTO
Council contends that PER-005 addresses function/task-specific training
and not person-specific training or personal development. With respect
to Requirement R1.2, the ISO/RTO Council interprets the Commission's
statement that ``* * * requires that the learning objectives and
training materials be developed with consideration of the individual
needs of each operator. * * *'' as requiring an entity to address the
knowledge and skill gaps of individual system operators with respect to
the reliability tasks they are expected to perform.\34\ The ISO/RTO
Council supports the term ``systematic approach to training (in lower
case)'' as used in the Reliability Standard because the lower case term
provides registered entities flexibility in complying with the
standard.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, NV Energy, NorthWestern,
PG&E, and Platte River.
\34\ See IRC Comments at 7.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. SPP and Westar did not take a position on the issue; rather,
they request that the Commission clarify what is meant by
``consideration of the
[[Page 72670]]
individual needs of each operator.'' BG&E recommends that the
Commission make more explicit the requirement to implement the
Department of Energy Handbook on the systematic approach to training
\36\ as the mandatory standardized methodology industry-wide, and
expresses the view that the DOE Handbook is the most stringent set of
standards available, has the longest track record of proven successful
results, and is familiar to the industry. BG&E identifies the following
expectations that training should include: (1) Customized, task-based
training; (2) annual assessment of operator needs; and (3)
individualized training on any task for which the trainee failed to
achieve satisfactory standards during the annual training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See U.S. Department of Energy's Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1078-94,
Training Program Handbook: A Systematic Approach to Training (August
1994), available at https://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1078/hdbk1078.pdf (DOE Handbook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. One commenter, Wisconsin Electric, disagrees with the
Commission's ``understanding'' on this issue. Wisconsin Electric
expresses several concerns with the following statement in the NOPR:
Based on our review of the Systematic Approach to Training
methodology used by the Department of Energy, we understand that a
Systematic Approach to Training would assess factors such as
educational, technical, experience, and medical requirements that
candidates must possess before entering a given training program.
With the above understanding, we believe that the Systematic
Approach to Training methodology, as proposed in Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, satisfies the Commission directive to develop a
modification that identifies the expectations of the training for
each job function and develops training programs tailored to each
job function with consideration of the individual training needs of
the personnel.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs. ] 32,661 at P 32.
Specifically, Wisconsin Electric is concerned that this would add a
number of elements to PER-005 and would create confusion over the scope
of the compliance obligation. Wisconsin Electric states that this
language appears to impose the Department of Energy's Systematic
Approach to Training as the only acceptable methodology, which, in
effect, precludes entities from adopting another approach. Wisconsin
Electric is also concerned that the factors that a candidate must
possess before entering a training program create a de facto compliance
checklist that would exist apart from the language of the Reliability
Standard. Wisconsin Electric objects to the expansion of NERC
requirements to include assessment of medical condition of its
personnel. Wisconsin Electric believes that the Commission should
approve PER-005-1 as written without conditioning its approval on
additional, unstated requirements.
Commission Determination
44. Based on NERC's and other commenters' affirmation of the
Commission's understanding as stated in the NOPR, the Commission
confirms that Requirement R1.2 of proposed Reliability Standard PER-
005-1 requires that the learning objectives and training materials be
developed with consideration of the individual needs of each operator.
In response to Wisconsin Electric, BG&E and the ISO/RTO Council, the
Commission clarifies that it is not mandating the use of the specific
Systematic Approach to Training methodology used by the Department of
Energy. However, we believe that the Department of Energy's Systematic
Approach to Training methodology as set forth in the DOE Handbook is a
particularly good and relevant model to use.
45. DOE's Handbook is relevant for two reasons. First, it was
designed to assist facilities, specifically nuclear facilities, that
are within the same general industry as electric power facilities.\38\
Second, the DOE Handbook was written on the assumption that the user, a
facility, is currently not using the DOE Systematic Approach to
Training model for their training programs, which is very likely the
case with respect to entities subject to PER-005-1.\39\ Thus, the DOE
Handbook is particularly relevant to entities that transition to a
systematic approach to training. We note that the DOE Handbook was
compiled from a number of sources including the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations' Principles of Training System Development as well as
in collaboration with personnel representing DOE contractors and
private industry.\40\ Moreover, the DOE Handbook provides reasonable
flexibility when implementing a systematic approach to training in
various settings.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DOE has noted that although its training handbooks related
to the Systematic Approach to Training were prepared primarily for
DOE nuclear facilities, the information can be effectively used by
any other type of facility. See DOE Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1074-95 at
Foreword (January 1995) (Alternative Systematic Approach to Training
Handbook), available at https://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1074/hdb1074a.html.
\39\ See DOE Handbook at 1.2. The DOE Handbook acknowledges that
many nuclear facilities already had effective training programs in
place that contain many performance-based characteristics.
Accordingly, DOE Handbook states that facilities with existing
training programs should not discard such programs; rather, they
should validate and supplement the existing training content where
necessary using systematic methods. Id.
\40\ See DOE Handbook at 1.1.
\41\ See id. at 1.2. In developing the DOE Handbook, DOE noted
that the handbook describes the more classical concept and approach
to systematically establishing training programs. However, in some
cases this classical approach has proven to be time- and labor-
intensive, and therefore encourages users of the handbook to
consider the variety of training options that are available for
establishing and maintaining personnel training and qualification
programs. DOE further found that blending classical and alternative
systematic approaches to training methods often yields the most
effective product. See DOE Handbook at iii (the Foreword).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Finally, SPP and Westar request that the Commission clarify
what is meant by ``consideration of the individual needs of each
operator.'' The Commission provides the following clarification. A
training plan is designed to prepare individuals to perform their jobs.
More specifically, a training plan should address gaps between the
skills necessary to accomplish a particular job task and an operator's
competency to carry out that task. Because of the emphasis on the
individual, to be effective, a training plan must take into
consideration the individual needs of the trainee, which includes the
trainee's education level, technical experience, and relevant medical
requirements.
E. Simulation Training
47. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to develop a
requirement mandating simulator training for reliability coordinators,
transmission operators and balancing authorities that have operational
control over a significant portion of load and generation. Recognizing
that cost of simulator training is an issue, the Commission allowed for
the use of simulators to be dependent on an entity's role and size.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR Proposal
48. In the NOPR, the Commission found that proposed Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1 meets this Order No. 693 directive
regarding training using simulators. However, the Commission sought
comment on the terminology in Requirement R3.1 which provides that the
emergency operations training should use ``simulation technology such
as a simulator, virtual technology, or other technology that replicates
the operational behavior of the BES during normal and emergency
conditions.'' Specifically, the NOPR asked NERC to clarify: (i) Whether
the language in R3.1, ``replicates the operational behavior of
[[Page 72671]]
the BES,'' requires the use of simulators specific to an operator's own
system; (ii) if not, whether operators trained on simulators that
replicate systems other than their own will be adequately trained to
respond to emergency conditions on their own system; and (iii) whether
it is feasible or practicable (including cost considerations) to
require use of simulators that realistically replicate the entity's own
topology and operating conditions; i.e., to require ``custom''
simulators.
Comments
49. NERC and all others who commented on the simulator training
issue agree that PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1, does not require the use
of custom simulators.\43\ NERC, and other commenters,\44\ state that
Requirement R3.1 requires a simulator to replicate the operational
behavioral characteristics of the bulk electric system through the use
of simulation technology. Commenters argue that the purpose of
simulators is to train the operator in principles that can be applied
to any system. Specifically, NRECA explains that the intent of PER-005-
1, Requirement R3.1 is not to require simulators that replicate every
aspect of an entity's own topology and operating conditions. Rather,
the intent is to replicate the operational behavioral characteristics
of the bulk electric system through the use of more generalized
simulation technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See comments of APPA, BPA, EEI, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO
Council, ITC, KCP&L, MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
NRECA, NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland,
SPP, and Westar.
\44\ See comments of APPA, EEI, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, NRECA,
Northwestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP, and Westar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. All commenters, except for BPA, agree that the simulator
training requirement should not require custom simulators. Some
commenters argue that custom simulators are not necessary.\45\ These
commenters argue that it is the understanding of situational conditions
and the response to them that is the hallmark of successful operator
training, and such training does not require the use of simulators
specific to an operator's own system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See comments of EEI, IESO, KCP&L, Minnesota Power, Montana-
Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, and PG&E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. For example, NRECA states that it is an understanding of the
situational conditions and the response to them that is the key to
successful operator training, and those do not require the use of
simulators specific to an operator's own system. NRECA further
described that simulation of operational scenarios such as: frequency
response of generators, VAR flow from high voltage to low voltage, and
restoration load pick-up and the potential for under-frequency
tripping, are concepts common to all systems, noting that a simulator
can address and train on these issues irrespective of individual system
characteristics. Minnesota Power and Montana Dakota explain that, in
general, elements of the bulk electric system exhibit behaviors based
upon the characteristics of each element, not upon their specific
location in a particular system. They posit that it is the
understanding of the situational conditions and the response to them
that is the key to successful operator training and that understanding
does not require the use of simulators specific to an operator's own
system. EEI notes that the issue of custom versus generic simulators
was discussed extensively by the PER-005-1 drafting team and argues
that custom simulators are not necessary to properly train personnel.
EEI urges the Commission to approve PER-005-1, R3.1 without change and
to allow NERC to monitor the effectiveness of the simulator training
requirement for possible gaps.
52. Other commenters argue against mandating custom simulators
because the cost of custom simulators would far exceed the benefit.\46\
APPA states that the additional cost of developing and maintaining a
realistic full-scale, system-specific simulator for a small balancing
authority or transmission operator would likely exceed the benefits. No
commenter provided specific estimates of the incremental increase in
cost of custom simulators. EEI, acknowledging that it does not have
specific cost information, noted that accurate Bulk-Power System
modeling and maintenance would be a significant cost driver. ITC states
that although it believes that the use of system simulators specific to
an operator's own system would better prepare a system operator for
emergency conditions, the cost of custom simulators could likely
outweigh the reliability benefits to small operators. Portland General
Electric estimates that purchase, implementation and maintenance of a
system-specific simulator could cost several hundred thousand dollars
in up-front costs and would necessitate the addition of engineering
personnel for programming and ongoing maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See comments of APPA, EEI, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L,
MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy,
NorthWestern, Platte River, Portland, and SPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. BPA, the sole commenter that endorses modifying PER-005-1 to
mandate the use of custom simulators, notes that it uses custom
simulators. BPA acknowledges that the cost of implementing and
maintaining a high fidelity simulator is significant, but suggests an
alternative approach of developing a centralized, high fidelity
simulator that realistically replicates the entire interconnection that
could be remotely accessed by entities for training exercises.
54. NERC notes in its comments that custom simulators could be
important in ensuring the reliability of the BES. NERC further states
that while a high fidelity simulator may not be necessary to ensure
bulk electric system reliability, NERC agrees that simulators used for
training that provide a useful representation of the system that the
operators work with may warrant further consideration in a subsequent
version of the proposed standard.\47\ EEI appears to agree with NERC,
as EEI urges the Commission to allow NERC to implement the new PER-005-
1 requirements, gather experience on their effectiveness, and monitor
results for possible gaps or challenges that arise with experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ NERC Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
55. We affirm NERC's and the industry's understanding that PER-005-
1, Requirement R3.1 does not require the use of simulators specific to
an operator's own system. While the Commission continues to feel there
is value in using custom simulators, we acknowledge that NERC and
industry have determined that it is not necessary at this time.
However, NERC and other commenters state that there may be potential
reliability benefits of some form of custom simulators. NERC has also
proposed to consider custom simulators in a subsequent modification of
PER-005-1. We appreciate NERC's commitment to continually look at how
reliability can be improved and encourage NERC and industry to evaluate
the gained reliability in requiring the use of custom simulators.
F. Local Transmission Control Center Operator Personnel Training
56. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to expand the
applicability of currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 to
include local transmission control center operator personnel. Order No.
693 provided that the training should be tailored to the functions that
local transmission control center operators perform that impact the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System for both normal and
emergency
[[Page 72672]]
operations.\48\ Proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, which is
intended to supersede existing Reliability Standard PER-002-0, does not
include local transmission control center operator personnel in the
applicability section. Rather, proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1,
as drafted, is applicable only to the following three function
