Western Electric Coordinating Council Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief Regional Reliability Standard, 16691-16696 [2011-7040]

Download as PDF erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Kamuela, HI, Waimea-Kohala, VOR/DME RWY 4, Amdt 1 Boone, IA, Boone Muni, Copter NDB OR GPS 225, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED Boone, IA, Boone Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 19B, CANCELLED Boone, IA, Boone Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 6B, CANCELLED Carroll, IA, Arthur N Neu, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 7, CANCELLED Council Bluffs, IA, Council Bluffs Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Decorah, IA Decorah Muni, NDB RWY 29, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Decorah, IA Decorah Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Guthrie Center, IA, Guthrie County Rgnl, NDB RWY 18, Orig-A, CANCELLED Perry, IA, Perry Muni, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED Perry, IA, Perry Muni, NDB RWY 32, Amdt 5B, CANCELLED Sibley, IA, Sibley Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Chicago, IL, Chicago-O’Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 8A Kingman, KS, Kingman Airport-Clyde Cessna Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Homer, LA, Homer Muni, NDB RWY 12, Amdt 2, CANCELLED Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Homer, LA, Homer Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Homer, LA, Homer Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig, CANCELLED Lake Charles, LA, Lake Charles Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Lake Providence, LA, Byerley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig, CANCELLED Lake Providence, LA, Byerley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig, CANCELLED Nantucket, MA, Nantucket Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-A Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, GPS RWY 5, Orig-A, CANCELLED Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, GPS RWY 23, Orig-A, CANCELLED Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig Marlette, MI, Marlette, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR–A, Orig Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 3, Amdt 7A, CANCELLED Niles, MI, Jerry Tyler Memorial, VOR OR GPS RWY 21, Amdt 3A, CANCELLED Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/ Twin Valley, GPS RWY 33, Orig-A, CANCELLED Ada/Twin Valley, MN, Norman County Ada/ Twin Valley, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig Fergus Falls, MN, Fergus Falls Muni-Einar Mickelson Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:52 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 223001 Grand Marais, MN, Grand Marais/Cook County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 Little Falls, MN, Littles Falls/Morrison County-Lindberg Fld, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Wadena, MN, Wadena Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Ahoskie, NC, Tri-County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig New Bern, NC, Coastal Carolina Rgnl, RADAR–1, Amdt 2B, CANCELLED Fargo, ND, Hector Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 1 Kenmare, ND, Kenmare Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-B Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig-B Concord, NH, Concord Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-B Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, GLS RWY 22L, Orig-B Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, Amdt 2A Newark, NJ, Newark Liberty Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, ILS RWY 22L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 22L (SA CAT II), Amdt 12A Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, GPS RWY 2, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, GPS RWY 25, Amdt 1, CANCELLED Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 5, CANCELLED Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig Raton, NM, Raton Muni/Crews Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, CAPITAN ONE Graphic DP Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, GPS RWY 24, Orig-A, CANCELLED Ruidoso, NM, Sierra Blanca Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, GPS RWY 17, Orig-A, CANCELLED Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, GPS RWY 35, Orig-A, CANCELLED Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Downtown Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Kingsville, TX, Kleberg County, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 6 Muleshoe, TX, Muleshoe Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Uvalde, TX, Garner Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, GPS RWY 17L, OrigB, CANCELLED Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, GPS RWY 35R, OrigA, CANCELLED Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, NDB RWY 35R, Amdt 11 Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17L, Orig Waco, TX, TSTC Waco, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Orig Fort Atkinson, WI, Atkinson Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 Docket No. RM09–19–000; Order No. 746] Western Electric Coordinating Council Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief Regional Reliability Standard Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission approves regional Reliability Standard of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) IRO–006–WECC–1 (Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) and six associated new definitions submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. This Reliability Standard is intended to mitigate transmission overloads due to unscheduled flow on a transfer path designated by WECC as being qualified for unscheduled flow mitigation. SUMMARY: Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 24, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terence Burke (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6498. Danny Johnson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8892. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur. DATES: Final Rule 1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission approves regional Reliability Standard of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) IRO–006–WECC–1 (Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) and six associated new definitions 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 [FR Doc. 2011–6117 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] 1 16 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 16691 E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM U.S.C. 824o. 25MRR1 16692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Reliability Standard is intended to mitigate transmission overloads due to unscheduled flow on Qualified Transfer Paths.2 accepted an erratum to that Reliability Standard that corrected the reference in Requirement R1.2 to the Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan).5 I. Background B. WECC Delegation Agreement and WECC Regional Reliability Standard IRO–STD–006–0 5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission approved delegation agreements between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities, including WECC.6 In that approval, the Commission accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis and accepted WECC’s Standards Development Manual, which sets forth the process for development of WECC’s Reliability Standards.7 6. On June 8, 2007, the Commission approved eight WECC regional Reliability Standards that apply in the Western Interconnection, including IRO–STD–006–0.8 The regional Reliability Standard applies to transmission operators, load-serving entities and balancing authorities within the Western Interconnection. It addresses the mitigation of transmission overloads due to unscheduled line flow on specified paths. Specifically, Requirement R1 of IRO–STD–006–0 states that: A. NERC Reliability Standard IRO–006 2. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693 approving 83 Reliability Standards proposed by NERC, including Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination (IRO) Reliability Standard IRO–006–3, titled ‘‘Reliability Coordination—Transmission Loading Relief.’’ 3 In addition, under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed the ERO to develop modifications to IRO–006–3 and other approved Reliability Standards to address specific issues identified by the Commission. 3. NERC Reliability Standard IRO– 006–3 establishes a Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) process for use in the Eastern Interconnection to alleviate loadings on the system by curtailing or changing transactions based on their priorities and according to different levels of TLR procedures. Requirement R2.2 provides that ‘‘the equivalent Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure for use in the Western Interconnection is the WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.’’ This document provides detailed instructions for addressing unscheduled flows, i.e., parallel path flows, based on the topography and configuration of the Bulk-Power System in the Western Interconnection. The Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan identifies nine ‘‘steps’’ to address unscheduled flows. In the first three steps, the Mitigation Plan relies on phase angle regulators, series capacitors, and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate contingencies without curtailing transactions. Steps four through nine involve curtailment of transactions. 4. On March 19, 2009, the Commission approved IRO–006–4, which modified the prior version of the Reliability Standard and addressed the Commission’s directives from Order No. 693.4 The Commission subsequently erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 2 The term ‘‘Qualified Transfer Path’’ is defined as ‘‘[a] transfer path designated by the WECC Operating Committee as being qualified for WECC unscheduled flow mitigation.’’ When the Standard becomes effective, this definition will be added to the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards. 3 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 4 Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability Standards, Order VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:52 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 223001 WECC’s Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (Plan) * * * specifies that members shall comply with requests from (Qualified) Transfer Path Operators to take actions that will reduce unscheduled flow on the Qualified Path in accordance with the table entitled ‘‘WECC Unscheduled Flow Procedure Summary of Curtailment Actions,’’ which is located in Attachment 1 of the Plan.9 The regional Reliability Standard then provides excerpts from the plan that describe actions entities must take to address unscheduled flow. 7. The June 8, 2007 Order directed WECC to develop certain modifications to the eight WECC Reliability Standards to address issues identified by the Commission. With respect to IRO–STD– 006–0, the Commission directed WECC No. 713–A, 126 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2009), reh’g denied, Order No. 713–B, 130 FERC ¶ 61,032 (2010). 5 North American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD09–9–000 (Dec. 10, 2009) (unpublished letter order). Note that Reliability Standard IRO–006–4.1, Requirement R1.2 refers to the ‘‘WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure,’’ which is Attachment 1 to the Mitigation Plan, the term we use herein. 6 See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,060, order on reh’g, 120 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007). 7 Id. P 469–470. 8 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007) (June 8, 2007 Order). 9 Regional Reliability Standard IRO–STD–006–0, available at https://www.wecc.biz/Standards/ Approved%20Standards/IRO–STD–006–0.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 to clarify the term ‘‘receiver’’ used in the Reliability Standard. The Commission also directed WECC to address concerns raised by a commenter regarding WECC’s inclusion of load-serving entities, which may be unable to meet the Reliability Standard’s requirements, in the applicability section of the Reliability Standard.10 The Commission directed WECC to remove a Sanctions Table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanctions Guidelines. The Commission also directed WECC to address NERC’s concerns regarding formatting, use of standard terms, and the need for greater specificity in the actions that a responsible entity must take. C. Proposed Regional Reliability Standard 8. In a June 17, 2009 filing (NERC Petition), NERC requested Commission approval of proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1, which was developed in response to the Commission’s directives in the June 8, 2007 Order, to replace the currently effective regional Standard. NERC stated that the purpose of IRO–006–WECC–1 is to mitigate transmission overloads due to unscheduled flow on Qualified Transfer Paths. Under the Reliability Standard, reliability coordinators are responsible for initiating schedule curtailments, and balancing authorities are responsible for implementing the curtailments. Specifically, proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO–006– WECC–1 contains the following two Requirements: R.1. Upon receiving a request of Step 4 or greater (see Attachment 1–IRO–006–WECC– 1) from the Transmission Operator of a Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability Coordinator shall approve (actively or passively) or deny that request within five minutes. R.2. The Balancing Authorities shall approve curtailment requests to the schedules as submitted, implement alternative actions, or a combination there of that collectively meets the Relief Requirement. An attachment to IRO–006–WECC–1 summarizes the nine steps and related actions to address unscheduled flows. D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 9. On October 29, 2010, the Commission issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve the regional IRO Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1.11 In 10 June 8, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 70–71. 11 Western Electric Coordinating Council Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief Regional Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 66702 (Oct. 29, 2010), FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 32,663 (2010) (NOPR). E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM 25MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations addition, the Commission raised concerns with respect to: (1) How entities will know whether to follow the national or regional Standard in a given situation; (2) WECC’s and NERC’s reliance on TOP–007–WECC–1 to ensure that entities manage power flows using steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan prior to requesting curtailments; (3) how the webSAS 12 tool will work with respect to the national and regional Standard; and (4) the potential reliability impact of reliability coordinators’ inability to request curtailments. 10. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by NERC, WECC, and Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company, both d/b/a NV Energy (NV Energy). In the discussion below, we address these comments. II. Discussion erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES A. Approval of IRO–006–WECC–1 11. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve regional Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 stating that it adequately addresses a number of the directives identified in the June 8, 2007 Order and represents an improvement to the current Standard. As stated in the NOPR, the Standard addresses our concern regarding the use of the term ‘‘receiver’’ by removing the term, thus removing potential confusion arising from the use of the undefined term. The Reliability Standard also provides additional clarity by removing loadserving entities from its applicability section since load-serving entities may not be able to meet the Standard’s requirements regarding curtailment procedures. Further, the Standard includes reliability coordinators as an applicable entity and addresses their role in curtailment procedures. The Standard goes beyond the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard by requiring a reliability coordinator to approve or deny a transmission operator’s curtailment request within five minutes. Finally, the WECC Reliability Standard addresses formatting concerns, conformance with NERC’s Violation Severity Level and Violation Risk Factor matrix, and the elimination of a WECC sanction table. NERC, WECC, and NV Energy all support approval. Accordingly the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal 12 The webSAS (Security Analysis System) is a proprietary internet based application that is used by WECC to analyze, initiate, communicate, and provide compliance reports for implementation of the Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure. It is available by subscription through the vendor to provide notification of Unscheduled Flow Events, calculate and display required relief, and provide a rapid method of transaction curtailments. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:52 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 223001 and approves regional Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 12. We raised in the NOPR several concerns regarding how the regional Reliability Standard would work in practice to ensure Reliable Operation in the Western Interconnect. As a result of the comments submitted, our concerns have been adequately addressed, and we do not direct any modifications to the regional Reliability Standard. B. Issues Raised in NOPR 1. Consistency Between NERC and WECC 13. Requirement R1.2 in NERC Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 refers to the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure with regard to transmission loading relief in the Western Interconnection. In the NOPR, the Commission requested comment on the interaction between the differing requirements contained in the regional versus the national Reliability Standards, on which of the two Standards’ requirements take precedence, and on how NERC intends to ensure compliance and consistent enforcement with regard to the Standards. Comments 14. WECC and NV Energy comment that the Standards differ in their applicability. They state that NERC’s IRO–006–4 addresses the obligations of the reliability coordinator and the balancing authority if an Interconnection-wide procedure is selected for the mitigation of overloads on transmission facilities. According to WECC and NV Energy, Regional Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 sets out reliability obligations for the reliability coordinator and balancing authority regarding transmission loading relief on the narrow subset of Western Interconnect transmission facilities designated as Qualified Transfer Paths. The two commenters assert there is no conflict between the NERC Reliability Standard and the regional Standard, as they work together. 15. NERC states that it recognized some potential for confusion in this matter and will soon file for approval a proposed Reliability Standard IRO–006– 5 13 that, among other things, eliminates 13 Subsequent to filing its comments in this Docket, NERC filed its Petition for Approval of Proposed New Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, Glossary Term and Implementation Plan on January 13, 2011 in Docket No. RD11–2–000. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 16693 reference to the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure as a procedure that may be selected by the reliability coordinator to achieve loading relief and, instead, mentions the procedure as an example for which coordination must occur. Commission Determination 16. The Commission finds that NERC’s plan to eliminate the opportunity for confusion with respect to this Reliability Standard adequately addresses the concerns raised in the NOPR. 2. TOP–007–WECC–1 and the Mitigation Plan 17. In the June 8, 2007 Order, the Commission determined that the regional Reliability Standard IRO–STD– 006–0 is superior to the NERC Standard based in part on the specified precurtailment steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan.14 As stated above, the Mitigation Plan is no longer referenced in IRO–006–WECC–1. The NERC Petition stated that proposed WECC regional Reliability Standard TOP–007–WECC–1, would work in conjunction with IRO–006–WECC–1 to ensure that pre-curtailment steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan are performed.15 In the NOPR, the Commission requested comment as to whether WECC’s reliance on proposed regional Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 or currently effective Reliability Standard TOP–STD–007–0 (whichever is in effect) is an adequate replacement for the currently required pre-curtailment actions set forth in steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan. Comments 18. Each of the commenters note that Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 and the proposed regional Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 were intended to meet the performance objective of enhanced reliability but not to prescribe a specific method for achieving that objective. WECC and NV Energy assert that the pre-curtailment steps were not mandatory, but, as before, they remain tools available to transmission operators for the mitigation of transmission facility overloading. WECC states that reliability would suffer if transmission operators were limited in their action by a mandatory adherence to the Mitigation Plan. 14 June 18, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ¶ 61,260 at P 69. 15 NERC’s petition for approval of regional Reliability Standard TOP–007–WECC–1 is currently pending before the Commission in Docket No. RM09–14–000. E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM 25MRR1 16694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Commission Determination Commission Determination Comments 19. The Commission acknowledges the comments offered and is satisfied that IRO–006–WECC–1 does not present a reduction in reliability. The Commission also highlights the comment made by WECC that the Standard is applicable to reliability coordinators and balancing authorities, not to transmission operators. Under the Standard, the reliability coordinator must approve or deny the implementation of a step four or higher action, and the balancing authority must grant relief so the transmission operator does not violate a system operating limit (SOL) or an interconnection reliability operating limit (IROL) operating limit. But transmission operator’s obligations remain unchanged by IRO–006–WECC– 1. They continue to be required to take immediate steps to relieve an SOL or IROL operating limit violation. 22. The Commission is satisfied with the commenters’ explanation of the operation of webSAS, as well as its proposed use within the mitigation process set out in Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1. 27. WECC asserts that regional Reliability Standard IRO–006–4 does not mandate following the Mitigation Plan but only suggests that the Mitigation Plan is a procedure available to a reliability coordinator. Therefore, incorporating the WECC rules and procedures into the Mitigation Plan would not eliminate the need for an enforceable regional Reliability Standard. WECC also comments that the differing purposes of the Mitigation Plan, IRO–006–WECC–1, and TOP–007– WECC–1 would thwart efforts to combine them. NERC notes that it has already undertaken eliminating the regional differences from the continentwide standard in its proposed IRO–006– 5. 3. Operation of webSAS 20. According to the NERC Petition, the webSAS tool calculates curtailment and, unless the reliability coordinator actively denies the request, approves the curtailment within five minutes. The Commission requested in the NOPR additional information regarding how the webSAS program works in relation to WECC’s proposed IRO–006–WECC–1 as well as the currently effective IRO– 006–4, and whether conflicts could arise between the webSAS programming and the Mitigation Plan. erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES Comments 21. NV Energy and WECC comments describe of the webSAS program, explaining that it utilizes impedance modeling of the transmission network in the Western Interconnection and is able to determine transmission distribution factors that correspond to discrete transactions. It is configured to prescribe curtailments in accordance with the curtailment table in the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure, and is only one of the methods a balancing authority might use in devising curtailments. WECC notes that webSAS merely suggests strategies; the responsible balancing authority must implement those strategies. WECC further comments that WebSAS operates similarly whether utilized under the regional or the national Reliability Standard. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:52 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 223001 4. Reliability Coordinators’ Role in Curtailment 23. In the NOPR the Commission stated that, because reliability coordinators are the only entities with the wide-area view, the Commission believes it is appropriate that they, as the entities with the highest level of authority to ensure reliability, have the ability to initiate relief procedures.16 In the NOPR, the Commission requested comment regarding its concerns that the proposed regional Reliability Standard does not mention the reliability coordinators’ ability to request curtailments, and that automatic approval of curtailments may occur through the webSAS tool without reliability coordinator review. Commission Determination 28. The clarification provided by WECC adequately addresses the Commission’s concerns. Accordingly, the Commission finds that IRO–006– WECC–1 represents an improvement to reliability. Comments III. Information Collection Statement 24. WECC and NV Energy comment that the reliability coordinator always has the ability to issue directives or take other actions to ensure Reliable Operations under the authority granted in Reliability Standard IRO–001–1.1. NV Energy states that the automatic approval of requested curtailments after five minutes is an appropriate balance between allowing for the reliability coordinators’ participation and adequately ensuring that transmission loading relief is obtained for the next hour. 29. The following collections of information contained in this Reliability Standard have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1955.17 OMB’s regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.18 30. The Commission solicited comments on the burden to implement IRO–006–WECC–1 which, rather than creating entirely new requirements, instead modifies the existing regional Reliability Standard governing qualified transfer path unscheduled flow relief and thus imposes a minimal additional burden on the affected entities. The Commission received no comments as to the issue of reporting burden estimates. The Commission has not directed any modifications to the Requirements of the Reliability Standard being approved. Thus this Final Ruled does not materially or adversely affect the burden estimates provided in the NOPR. 31. Burden Estimate: The burden for the requirements in this final rule follow: Commission Determination 25. The Commission agrees with the commenters that NERC Reliability Standard IRO–001–1.1 provides the reliability coordinator authority to take actions to ensure Reliable Operations, and no further clarification is required. 5. Alternative Revisions 26. Because of the concerns expressed in the NOPR, the Commission questioned whether it might be more efficient and appropriate if all the WECC rules and procedures with respect to unscheduled flow mitigation were incorporated in a single document. 17 44 16 NOPR, PO 00000 FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,663 at P 30. Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18 5 U.S.C. 3507(d). CFR 1320.11. E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM 25MRR1 16695 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations Number of respondents Data collection FERC–725E Number of responses Hours per response Total annual hours 36 1 1 36 36 1 1 36 Total ................................................................................................... erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES 35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability Coordinator—Reporting Requirement ............................................................................................................. 35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability Coordinator—Recordkeeping Requirement ..................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 72 Total Annual hours for Collection: 36 reporting +36 recordkeeping = 72 hours. Reporting = 36 hours @ $120/hour = $4320. Recordkeeping = 36 hours @ $40/hour = $1440. Total Costs = Reporting ($4320) + Recordkeeping ($1440) = $5760. Title: FERC 725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council. Action: Proposed collection of information. OMB Control No: 1902–0246. Respondents: Balancing Authorities and Reliability Coordinator in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council. Frequency of Responses: On Occasion. Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule would approve a revised Reliability Standard modifying the existing requirement for entities to respond to requests for curtailment. The proposed Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain documentation evidencing their response to such requests. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO–006–WECC–1 and believes it to be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. These requirements conform to the Commission’s plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 32. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [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 Final Rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:52 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 223001 DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at: oira submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference OMB Control Number 1902–0246 and the docket number of this final rulemaking in your submission. IV. Environmental Analysis 33. 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.19 The action taken in the 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.20 Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 21 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.22 The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the 19 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 20 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 21 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 22 13 CFR 121.101. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 preceding twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.23 35. Most of the entities (i.e., reliability coordinators and balancing authorities) to which the requirements of this Rule would apply do not fall within the definition of small entities. The Commission estimates that only 2–4 of the 35 balancing authorities are small and that the economic impact on each of these is $160 per year. The Commission does not consider this to be a significant economic impact. Based on the foregoing, the Commission certifies that this Rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. VI. Document Availability 36. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC’s Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 37. From FERC’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 38. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or e-mail at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502– 8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification 39. These regulations are effective May 24, 2011. The Commission notes 23 13 E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1. 25MRR1 16696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations that although the determinations made in this Final Rule are effective May 24, 2011, regional Reliability Standard IRO– 006–WECC–1 approved in this Final Rule will not become effective until the first day of the first quarter after applicable regulatory approval. 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. EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on November 5, 2010 and concern oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of sulfur (SO2) and particulate matter emissions from boilers, steam generators and process heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/ hour. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 25, 2011. By the Commission. AGENCY: EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ´ Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3284, perez.idalia@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794; FRL–9279–2] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–7040 Filed 3–24–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ADDRESSES: I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action On November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68294), EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP. Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted SJVUAPCD ................................. 4320 Advance Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/hr. 10/16/08 03/17/09 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from Paul Cort, Earthjustice; letter dated December 6, 2010 and received December 6, 2010. The comments and our responses are summarized below. Comment #1: Earthjustice supported EPA’s proposed approval of Rule 4320 and EPA’s assertion that the fee provisions in the rule fail to comply with EPA policy on economic incentive programs. Response #1: No response needed. Comment #2: Earthjustice asked EPA to clarify that no emission reduction credit is appropriate for Rule 4320 until SJVAPCD submits additional documentation, subject to public review VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:52 Mar 24, 2011 Jkt 223001 and comment, including documentation demonstrating permanent, enforceable, surplus and quantifiable CO and NOX reductions associated with fees paid in lieu of direct control of these and documentation demonstrating the PM reductions associated with SO2 controls. Response #2: The discussion of SIP credits in our TSD and proposal was included for information only and does not affect our action on Rule 4320. Our proposed approval of Rule 4320 relied largely on a finding that the rule improved the SIP, and not on if or how many emission reductions the rule provides. Comments on whether SJVAPCD ensures adequate emission reductions are more appropriate to action on plans. When EPA approves a plan, we are effectively approving the emission reduction assumptions for specific rules that it is based on. Proposed rulemaking on a plan is subject to notice and comment and would be the appropriate forum to raise issues on whether reductions from PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 specific rules should be credited to the SIP. III. EPA Action No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM 25MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16691-16696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

Docket No. RM09-19-000; Order No. 746]


Western Electric Coordinating Council Qualified Transfer Path 
Unscheduled Flow Relief Regional Reliability Standard

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission 
approves regional Reliability Standard of the Western Electricity 
Coordinating Council (WECC) IRO-006-WECC-1 (Qualified Transfer Path 
Unscheduled Flow Relief) and six associated new definitions submitted 
to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation. This Reliability Standard is intended to 
mitigate transmission overloads due to unscheduled flow on a transfer 
path designated by WECC as being qualified for unscheduled flow 
mitigation.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terence Burke (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6498.
Danny Johnson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip 
D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

Final Rule

    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the 
Commission approves regional Reliability Standard of the Western 
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) IRO-006-WECC-1 (Qualified 
Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow Relief) and six associated new 
definitions 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

[[Page 16692]]

Reliability Standard is intended to mitigate transmission overloads due 
to unscheduled flow on Qualified Transfer Paths.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \2\ The term ``Qualified Transfer Path'' is defined as ``[a] 
transfer path designated by the WECC Operating Committee as being 
qualified for WECC unscheduled flow mitigation.'' When the Standard 
becomes effective, this definition will be added to the NERC 
Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006

    2. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693 approving 
83 Reliability Standards proposed by NERC, including Interconnection 
Reliability Operations and Coordination (IRO) Reliability Standard IRO-
006-3, titled ``Reliability Coordination--Transmission Loading 
Relief.'' \3\ In addition, under section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the 
Commission directed the ERO to develop modifications to IRO-006-3 and 
other approved Reliability Standards to address specific issues 
identified by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order 
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 establishes a Transmission 
Loading Relief (TLR) process for use in the Eastern Interconnection to 
alleviate loadings on the system by curtailing or changing transactions 
based on their priorities and according to different levels of TLR 
procedures. Requirement R2.2 provides that ``the equivalent 
Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure for use in 
the Western Interconnection is the WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation 
Plan.'' This document provides detailed instructions for addressing 
unscheduled flows, i.e., parallel path flows, based on the topography 
and configuration of the Bulk-Power System in the Western 
Interconnection. The Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan identifies nine 
``steps'' to address unscheduled flows. In the first three steps, the 
Mitigation Plan relies on phase angle regulators, series capacitors, 
and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate contingencies without curtailing 
transactions. Steps four through nine involve curtailment of 
transactions.
    4. On March 19, 2009, the Commission approved IRO-006-4, which 
modified the prior version of the Reliability Standard and addressed 
the Commission's directives from Order No. 693.\4\ The Commission 
subsequently accepted an erratum to that Reliability Standard that 
corrected the reference in Requirement R1.2 to the Unscheduled Flow 
Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading Relief 
Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability Organization 
Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four Reliability 
Standards, Order No. 713-A, 126 FERC ] 61,252 (2009), reh'g denied, 
Order No. 713-B, 130 FERC ] 61,032 (2010).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Docket No. RD09-
9-000 (Dec. 10, 2009) (unpublished letter order). Note that 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-4.1, Requirement R1.2 refers to the 
``WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure,'' which is Attachment 1 
to the Mitigation Plan, the term we use herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. WECC Delegation Agreement and WECC Regional Reliability Standard 
IRO-STD-006-0

    5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission approved delegation agreements 
between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities, including 
WECC.\6\ In that approval, the Commission accepted WECC as a Regional 
Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis and accepted WECC's 
Standards Development Manual, which sets forth the process for 
development of WECC's Reliability Standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 
61,060, order on reh'g, 120 FERC ] 61,260 (2007).
    \7\ Id. P 469-470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On June 8, 2007, the Commission approved eight WECC regional 
Reliability Standards that apply in the Western Interconnection, 
including IRO-STD-006-0.\8\ The regional Reliability Standard applies 
to transmission operators, load-serving entities and balancing 
authorities within the Western Interconnection. It addresses the 
mitigation of transmission overloads due to unscheduled line flow on 
specified paths. Specifically, Requirement R1 of IRO-STD-006-0 states 
that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,260 
(2007) (June 8, 2007 Order).

    WECC's Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (Plan) * * * specifies 
that members shall comply with requests from (Qualified) Transfer 
Path Operators to take actions that will reduce unscheduled flow on 
the Qualified Path in accordance with the table entitled ``WECC 
Unscheduled Flow Procedure Summary of Curtailment Actions,'' which 
is located in Attachment 1 of the Plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Regional Reliability Standard IRO-STD-006-0, available at 
https://www.wecc.biz/Standards/Approved%20Standards/IRO-STD-006-0.pdf.

The regional Reliability Standard then provides excerpts from the plan 
that describe actions entities must take to address unscheduled flow.
    7. The June 8, 2007 Order directed WECC to develop certain 
modifications to the eight WECC Reliability Standards to address issues 
identified by the Commission. With respect to IRO-STD-006-0, the 
Commission directed WECC to clarify the term ``receiver'' used in the 
Reliability Standard. The Commission also directed WECC to address 
concerns raised by a commenter regarding WECC's inclusion of load-
serving entities, which may be unable to meet the Reliability 
Standard's requirements, in the applicability section of the 
Reliability Standard.\10\ The Commission directed WECC to remove a 
Sanctions Table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanctions 
Guidelines. The Commission also directed WECC to address NERC's 
concerns regarding formatting, use of standard terms, and the need for 
greater specificity in the actions that a responsible entity must take.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ June 8, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ] 61,260 at P 70-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Regional Reliability Standard

    8. In a June 17, 2009 filing (NERC Petition), NERC requested 
Commission approval of proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-
WECC-1, which was developed in response to the Commission's directives 
in the June 8, 2007 Order, to replace the currently effective regional 
Standard. NERC stated that the purpose of IRO-006-WECC-1 is to mitigate 
transmission overloads due to unscheduled flow on Qualified Transfer 
Paths. Under the Reliability Standard, reliability coordinators are 
responsible for initiating schedule curtailments, and balancing 
authorities are responsible for implementing the curtailments. 
Specifically, proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 
contains the following two Requirements:

    R.1. Upon receiving a request of Step 4 or greater (see 
Attachment 1-IRO-006-WECC-1) from the Transmission Operator of a 
Qualified Transfer Path, the Reliability Coordinator shall approve 
(actively or passively) or deny that request within five minutes.
    R.2. The Balancing Authorities shall approve curtailment 
requests to the schedules as submitted, implement alternative 
actions, or a combination there of that collectively meets the 
Relief Requirement.

An attachment to IRO-006-WECC-1 summarizes the nine steps and related 
actions to address unscheduled flows.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    9. On October 29, 2010, the Commission issued its Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve the regional IRO Reliability 
Standard IRO-006-WECC-1.\11\ In

[[Page 16693]]

addition, the Commission raised concerns with respect to: (1) How 
entities will know whether to follow the national or regional Standard 
in a given situation; (2) WECC's and NERC's reliance on TOP-007-WECC-1 
to ensure that entities manage power flows using steps one through 
three of the Mitigation Plan prior to requesting curtailments; (3) how 
the webSAS \12\ tool will work with respect to the national and 
regional Standard; and (4) the potential reliability impact of 
reliability coordinators' inability to request curtailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Western Electric Coordinating Council Qualified Transfer 
Path Unscheduled Flow Relief Regional Reliability Standard, Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 66702 (Oct. 29, 2010), FERC Stats & 
Regs. ] 32,663 (2010) (NOPR).
    \12\ The webSAS (Security Analysis System) is a proprietary 
internet based application that is used by WECC to analyze, 
initiate, communicate, and provide compliance reports for 
implementation of the Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure. It is 
available by subscription through the vendor to provide notification 
of Unscheduled Flow Events, calculate and display required relief, 
and provide a rapid method of transaction curtailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by NERC, WECC, and 
Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company, both d/b/a NV 
Energy (NV Energy). In the discussion below, we address these comments.

II. Discussion

A. Approval of IRO-006-WECC-1

    11. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve regional 
Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 stating that it adequately 
addresses a number of the directives identified in the June 8, 2007 
Order and represents an improvement to the current Standard. As stated 
in the NOPR, the Standard addresses our concern regarding the use of 
the term ``receiver'' by removing the term, thus removing potential 
confusion arising from the use of the undefined term. The Reliability 
Standard also provides additional clarity by removing load-serving 
entities from its applicability section since load-serving entities may 
not be able to meet the Standard's requirements regarding curtailment 
procedures. Further, the Standard includes reliability coordinators as 
an applicable entity and addresses their role in curtailment 
procedures. The Standard goes beyond the corresponding NERC Reliability 
Standard by requiring a reliability coordinator to approve or deny a 
transmission operator's curtailment request within five minutes. 
Finally, the WECC Reliability Standard addresses formatting concerns, 
conformance with NERC's Violation Severity Level and Violation Risk 
Factor matrix, and the elimination of a WECC sanction table. NERC, 
WECC, and NV Energy all support approval. Accordingly the Commission 
adopts the NOPR proposal and approves regional Reliability Standard 
IRO-006-WECC-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential, and in the public interest.
    12. We raised in the NOPR several concerns regarding how the 
regional Reliability Standard would work in practice to ensure Reliable 
Operation in the Western Interconnect. As a result of the comments 
submitted, our concerns have been adequately addressed, and we do not 
direct any modifications to the regional Reliability Standard.

B. Issues Raised in NOPR

1. Consistency Between NERC and WECC
    13. Requirement R1.2 in NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 refers 
to the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure with regard to 
transmission loading relief in the Western Interconnection. In the 
NOPR, the Commission requested comment on the interaction between the 
differing requirements contained in the regional versus the national 
Reliability Standards, on which of the two Standards' requirements take 
precedence, and on how NERC intends to ensure compliance and consistent 
enforcement with regard to the Standards.
Comments
    14. WECC and NV Energy comment that the Standards differ in their 
applicability. They state that NERC's IRO-006-4 addresses the 
obligations of the reliability coordinator and the balancing authority 
if an Interconnection-wide procedure is selected for the mitigation of 
overloads on transmission facilities. According to WECC and NV Energy, 
Regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 sets out reliability 
obligations for the reliability coordinator and balancing authority 
regarding transmission loading relief on the narrow subset of Western 
Interconnect transmission facilities designated as Qualified Transfer 
Paths. The two commenters assert there is no conflict between the NERC 
Reliability Standard and the regional Standard, as they work together.
    15. NERC states that it recognized some potential for confusion in 
this matter and will soon file for approval a proposed Reliability 
Standard IRO-006-5 \13\ that, among other things, eliminates reference 
to the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction Procedure as a procedure that 
may be selected by the reliability coordinator to achieve loading 
relief and, instead, mentions the procedure as an example for which 
coordination must occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Subsequent to filing its comments in this Docket, NERC 
filed its Petition for Approval of Proposed New Interconnection 
Reliability Operations and Coordination Reliability Standards, 
Glossary Term and Implementation Plan on January 13, 2011 in Docket 
No. RD11-2-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    16. The Commission finds that NERC's plan to eliminate the 
opportunity for confusion with respect to this Reliability Standard 
adequately addresses the concerns raised in the NOPR.
2. TOP-007-WECC-1 and the Mitigation Plan
    17. In the June 8, 2007 Order, the Commission determined that the 
regional Reliability Standard IRO-STD-006-0 is superior to the NERC 
Standard based in part on the specified pre-curtailment steps one 
through three of the Mitigation Plan.\14\ As stated above, the 
Mitigation Plan is no longer referenced in IRO-006-WECC-1. The NERC 
Petition stated that proposed WECC regional Reliability Standard TOP-
007-WECC-1, would work in conjunction with IRO-006-WECC-1 to ensure 
that pre-curtailment steps one through three of the Mitigation Plan are 
performed.\15\ In the NOPR, the Commission requested comment as to 
whether WECC's reliance on proposed regional Standard TOP-007-WECC-1 or 
currently effective Reliability Standard TOP-STD-007-0 (whichever is in 
effect) is an adequate replacement for the currently required pre-
curtailment actions set forth in steps one through three of the 
Mitigation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ June 18, 2007 Order, 119 FERC ] 61,260 at P 69.
    \15\ NERC's petition for approval of regional Reliability 
Standard TOP-007-WECC-1 is currently pending before the Commission 
in Docket No. RM09-14-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    18. Each of the commenters note that Reliability Standard IRO-006-
WECC-1 and the proposed regional Standard TOP-007-WECC-1 were intended 
to meet the performance objective of enhanced reliability but not to 
prescribe a specific method for achieving that objective. WECC and NV 
Energy assert that the pre-curtailment steps were not mandatory, but, 
as before, they remain tools available to transmission operators for 
the mitigation of transmission facility overloading. WECC states that 
reliability would suffer if transmission operators were limited in 
their action by a mandatory adherence to the Mitigation Plan.

[[Page 16694]]

Commission Determination
    19. The Commission acknowledges the comments offered and is 
satisfied that IRO-006-WECC-1 does not present a reduction in 
reliability. The Commission also highlights the comment made by WECC 
that the Standard is applicable to reliability coordinators and 
balancing authorities, not to transmission operators. Under the 
Standard, the reliability coordinator must approve or deny the 
implementation of a step four or higher action, and the balancing 
authority must grant relief so the transmission operator does not 
violate a system operating limit (SOL) or an interconnection 
reliability operating limit (IROL) operating limit. But transmission 
operator's obligations remain unchanged by IRO-006-WECC-1. They 
continue to be required to take immediate steps to relieve an SOL or 
IROL operating limit violation.
3. Operation of webSAS
    20. According to the NERC Petition, the webSAS tool calculates 
curtailment and, unless the reliability coordinator actively denies the 
request, approves the curtailment within five minutes. The Commission 
requested in the NOPR additional information regarding how the webSAS 
program works in relation to WECC's proposed IRO-006-WECC-1 as well as 
the currently effective IRO-006-4, and whether conflicts could arise 
between the webSAS programming and the Mitigation Plan.
Comments
    21. NV Energy and WECC comments describe of the webSAS program, 
explaining that it utilizes impedance modeling of the transmission 
network in the Western Interconnection and is able to determine 
transmission distribution factors that correspond to discrete 
transactions. It is configured to prescribe curtailments in accordance 
with the curtailment table in the WECC Unscheduled Flow Reduction 
Procedure, and is only one of the methods a balancing authority might 
use in devising curtailments. WECC notes that webSAS merely suggests 
strategies; the responsible balancing authority must implement those 
strategies. WECC further comments that WebSAS operates similarly 
whether utilized under the regional or the national Reliability 
Standard.
Commission Determination
    22. The Commission is satisfied with the commenters' explanation of 
the operation of webSAS, as well as its proposed use within the 
mitigation process set out in Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1.
4. Reliability Coordinators' Role in Curtailment
    23. In the NOPR the Commission stated that, because reliability 
coordinators are the only entities with the wide-area view, the 
Commission believes it is appropriate that they, as the entities with 
the highest level of authority to ensure reliability, have the ability 
to initiate relief procedures.\16\ In the NOPR, the Commission 
requested comment regarding its concerns that the proposed regional 
Reliability Standard does not mention the reliability coordinators' 
ability to request curtailments, and that automatic approval of 
curtailments may occur through the webSAS tool without reliability 
coordinator review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,663 at P 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    24. WECC and NV Energy comment that the reliability coordinator 
always has the ability to issue directives or take other actions to 
ensure Reliable Operations under the authority granted in Reliability 
Standard IRO-001-1.1. NV Energy states that the automatic approval of 
requested curtailments after five minutes is an appropriate balance 
between allowing for the reliability coordinators' participation and 
adequately ensuring that transmission loading relief is obtained for 
the next hour.
Commission Determination
    25. The Commission agrees with the commenters that NERC Reliability 
Standard IRO-001-1.1 provides the reliability coordinator authority to 
take actions to ensure Reliable Operations, and no further 
clarification is required.
5. Alternative Revisions
    26. Because of the concerns expressed in the NOPR, the Commission 
questioned whether it might be more efficient and appropriate if all 
the WECC rules and procedures with respect to unscheduled flow 
mitigation were incorporated in a single document.
Comments
    27. WECC asserts that regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-4 does 
not mandate following the Mitigation Plan but only suggests that the 
Mitigation Plan is a procedure available to a reliability coordinator. 
Therefore, incorporating the WECC rules and procedures into the 
Mitigation Plan would not eliminate the need for an enforceable 
regional Reliability Standard. WECC also comments that the differing 
purposes of the Mitigation Plan, IRO-006-WECC-1, and TOP-007-WECC-1 
would thwart efforts to combine them. NERC notes that it has already 
undertaken eliminating the regional differences from the continent-wide 
standard in its proposed IRO-006-5.
Commission Determination
    28. The clarification provided by WECC adequately addresses the 
Commission's concerns. Accordingly, the Commission finds that IRO-006-
WECC-1 represents an improvement to reliability.

III. Information Collection Statement

    29. The following collections of information contained in this 
Reliability Standard have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1955.\17\ OMB's regulations require OMB to approve 
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \18\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. The Commission solicited comments on the burden to implement 
IRO-006-WECC-1 which, rather than creating entirely new requirements, 
instead modifies the existing regional Reliability Standard governing 
qualified transfer path unscheduled flow relief and thus imposes a 
minimal additional burden on the affected entities. The Commission 
received no comments as to the issue of reporting burden estimates. The 
Commission has not directed any modifications to the Requirements of 
the Reliability Standard being approved. Thus this Final Ruled does not 
materially or adversely affect the burden estimates provided in the 
NOPR.
    31. Burden Estimate: The burden for the requirements in this final 
rule follow:

[[Page 16695]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of       Hours per     Total annual
            Data collection FERC-725E               respondents      responses       response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability                    36               1               1              36
 Coordinator--Reporting Requirement.............
35 Balancing Authorities and 1 Reliability                    36               1               1              36
 Coordinator--Recordkeeping Requirement.........
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............              72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual hours for Collection: 36 reporting +36 recordkeeping = 
72 hours.
    Reporting = 36 hours @ $120/hour = $4320.
    Recordkeeping = 36 hours @ $40/hour = $1440.
    Total Costs = Reporting ($4320) + Recordkeeping ($1440) = $5760.
    Title: FERC 725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western 
Electric Coordinating Council.
    Action: Proposed collection of information.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0246.
    Respondents: Balancing Authorities and Reliability Coordinator in 
the Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule would approve a 
revised Reliability Standard modifying the existing requirement for 
entities to respond to requests for curtailment. The proposed 
Reliability Standard requires entities to maintain documentation 
evidencing their response to such requests.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements 
pertaining to proposed regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 and 
believes it to be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential, and in the public interest. These requirements conform to 
the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, 
communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission 
has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is 
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with 
the information requirements.
    32. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [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 
Final Rule 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 e-mail to OMB at: oira 
submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference OMB Control Number 1902-0246 
and the docket number of this final rulemaking in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    33. 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.\19\ The 
action taken in the 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.\20\ Accordingly, neither an environmental impact 
statement nor an environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \20\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \21\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize 
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size 
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\22\ 
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating 
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily 
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric 
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve 
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \22\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \23\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Most of the entities (i.e., reliability coordinators and 
balancing authorities) to which the requirements of this Rule would 
apply do not fall within the definition of small entities. The 
Commission estimates that only 2-4 of the 35 balancing authorities are 
small and that the economic impact on each of these is $160 per year. 
The Commission does not consider this to be a significant economic 
impact. Based on the foregoing, the Commission certifies that this Rule 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

VI. Document Availability

    36. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's 
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    37. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is 
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket 
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket 
number field.
    38. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at 
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    39. These regulations are effective May 24, 2011. The Commission 
notes

[[Page 16696]]

that although the determinations made in this Final Rule are effective 
May 24, 2011, regional Reliability Standard IRO-006-WECC-1 approved in 
this Final Rule will not become effective until the first day of the 
first quarter after applicable regulatory approval. 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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7040 Filed 3-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.