Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding Plans Reliability Standards, 66220-66229 [2011-27625]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
66220
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
notice to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due December 27, 2011.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM11–17–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address.
66. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word
processing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
67. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically must send
an original copy of their comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
68. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
VII. Document Availability
69. 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 the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’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.
70. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
both 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.
71. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35
Electric power rates, Electric utilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Commissioner Spitzer is not participating.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Commission proposes to revise Chapter
I, Title 18 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to read as follows:
PART 35—FILING OF RATE
SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS
1. The authority for part 35 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601–
2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.
2. In § 35.28, paragraphs (g)(4)
through (g)(6) are redesignated as
paragraphs (g)(5) through (g)(7) and a
new paragraph (g)(4) is added to read as
follows:
§ 35.28. Non-discriminatory open access
transmission tariff.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Tariffs and operations of
Commission-approved independent
system operators and regional
transmission organizations.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Electronic delivery of data. Each
Commission-approved regional
transmission organization and
independent system operator must
electronically deliver to the
Commission, on an ongoing basis and in
a form and manner acceptable to the
Commission, data related to the markets
that the regional transmission
organization or independent system
operator administers.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–27626 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM11–20–000]
Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding and Load Shedding Plans
Reliability Standards
October 20, 2011.
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Under section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
proposes to approve Reliability
Standards PRC–006–1 (Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding) and
EOP–003–2 (Load Shedding Plans),
developed and submitted to the
Commission for approval by the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Electric
Reliability Organization certified by the
Commission. The proposed Reliability
Standards establish design and
documentation requirements for
automatic underfrequency load
shedding programs that arrest declining
frequency and assist recovery of
frequency following system events
leading to frequency degradation. The
Commission also proposes to approve
the related Violation Risk Factors and
Violation Severity Levels,
implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by NERC.
DATES: Comments are due December 27,
2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by
docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
• Electronic Filing through https://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and
not in a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable
to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
Instructions: For detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the Comment Procedures Section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Schmidt (Technical
Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Reliability
Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6568,
Stephanie.Schmidt@ferc.gov.
Matthew Vlissides (Legal
Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8408,
Matthew.Vlissides@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Under section 215 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission
proposes to approve proposed
Reliability Standards PRC–006–1
SUMMARY:
1 16
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
U.S.C. 824o (2006).
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding) and EOP–003–2 (Load
Shedding Plans). The proposed
Reliability Standards were developed
and submitted for approval to the
Commission by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
which the Commission certified as the
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO)
responsible for developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability
Standards.2 The proposed Reliability
Standards establish design and
documentation requirements for
automatic underfrequency load
shedding (UFLS) programs, which are
meant to arrest declining frequency and
assist recovery of frequency following
underfrequency events and provide last
resort system preservation measures.
2. The Commission proposes to
approve the related Violation Risk
Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity
Levels (VSLs), implementation plan,
and effective date proposed by NERC.
The Commission also proposes to
approve the retirement of the currently
effective Reliability Standards PRC–
007–0, PRC–009–0, and EOP–003–1,
and the NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC–006–0.
3. The Commission seeks comments
from NERC and other interested persons
on specific issues concerning the
proposed Reliability Standards.
I. Background
A. Underfrequency Load Shedding
4. An interconnected electric power
system must balance load and
generation in order to maintain
frequency within a reliable range.3 The
balance between generation and load
within an interconnected electric power
system is shown in the frequency of the
system.4 Underfrequency protection
schemes are drastic measures employed
if the system frequency falls below a
specified value.5 The Blackout Report
provides the following explanation:
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[A]utomatic under-frequency loadshedding (UFLS) is designed for use in
extreme conditions to stabilize the balance
between generation and load after an
electrical island has been formed, dropping
enough load to allow frequency to stabilize
within the island. All synchronous
generators in North America are designed to
operate at 60 cycles per second (Hertz) and
2 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc.
v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
3 Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Power
Systems Dynamics Tutorial, Chapter 4 at page 4–78
(2009), available at https://www.epri.com (EPRI
Tutorial).
4 Id.
5 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
frequency reflects how well load and
generation are balanced—if there is more
load than generation at any moment,
frequency drops below 60 Hz, and it rises
above that level if there is more generation
than load. By dropping load to match
available generation within the island, UFLS
is a safety net that helps to prevent the
complete blackout of the island, which
allows faster system restoration afterward.
UFLS is not effective if there is electrical
instability or voltage collapse within the
island.6
5. UFLS programs are designed for
each defined area or system, and they
are commonly implemented with
devices installed on the distribution
side of the power system.7 Factors
considered in developing a UFLS
program include: (1) Underfrequency set
point, (2) minimum amount of load to
shed, and (3) what load and at what
locations to shed.
1. Underfrequency Set Point
6. The underfrequency set point is the
frequency at which a specified load will
disconnect from the system in a UFLS
program.8 Separately, generators have
their own underfrequency set points,
which will disconnect them from the
system if the frequency drops to a
certain value, thus protecting them from
damage.9 Underfrequency set points for
load shedding are set above the
frequencies at which generators
disconnect.10 This is done to prevent
losing additional resources that would
exacerbate the imbalance between
resources and demand, resulting in
further frequency declines. UFLS
programs initiate at a specified point to
shed the first load block, and if
necessary additional load blocks at
other lower set points, to arrest system
frequency decline prior to the loss of
additional resources.11
6 U.S.-Canada
Power System Outage Task Force,
Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the
United States and Canada: Causes and
Recommendations at 92–93 (2004) (Blackout
Report).
7 UFLS programs are designed to maintain a
balance between resources and demand in a defined
area (e.g., Interconnection, Regional Entity area, or
planning coordinator area).
8 In Order No. 693–A, the Commission directed
NERC to collect the frequency and magnitude of
load in UFLS systems. 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, at P 145
(2007). NERC submitted a response to this request
on February 1, 2008 that included the
underfrequency set points and magnitude of load
shed in each Regional Entity. NERC, Response to
FERC Supplemental Request for Information on the
Status of Underfrequency Load Shedding, Docket
No. RM06–16–000 (filed Feb. 1, 2008).
9 EPRI Tutorial at page 4–81.
10 Id.
11 Id. at P 4–78, 4–79.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66221
7. Once a frequency threshold 12 is
identified, the balance of resources and
demand to be maintained to prevent the
system from reaching that frequency
threshold is determined. UFLS
programs use validated models of the
power system, which consist of
mathematical representations of static
(e.g., transformers and transmission
lines) and dynamic (e.g., generators and
motor loads) components of the power
system aggregated to simulate how the
system performs during system
operations.13 Models are validated,
typically, by comparing actual system
operations against simulated system
operations to ensure the simulated
system operations are within a defined
and acceptable margin of tolerance
relative to actual system operations.
Inaccurate power system models may
result in a UFLS program that does not
perform as desired, thus undermining
the reliability objective of UFLS.
8. A UFLS program is designed to
shed sufficient load to arrest system
frequency decline without shedding too
much load such that frequency
increases above 60 Hz. If a UFLS
program is not effective, either because
of invalid power system models or
miscoordination of the UFLS program
with entities inside and outside of the
intended island, it may not achieve the
reliability objective of preventing
cascading outages. This, in turn, could
further undermine reliability and
recovery of the Bulk-Power System
during a system emergency.14
2. Minimum Amount of Load to Shed
9. The amount of load to disconnect
is the amount of load shed at each
underfrequency set point, typically
expressed in megawatts or percent of
system peak load or both.15
3. What Load to Shed
10. In addition to determining the
amount of load to disconnect based on
validated power system models, a UFLS
program identifies what loads to shed
12 A frequency threshold is a pre-determined
frequency that UFLS programs are designed to
avoid reaching, as the system may become unstable
at this frequency.
13 See, e.g., PowerTech Labs Inc., 2010 Evaluation
and Assessment of Southwest Power Pool (SPP)
Under-Frequency Load Shedding Scheme, available
at https://www.spp.org/publications/SPP-2010UFLS-Final.pdf.
14 For example, if not enough load is shed to
arrest frequency decline, additional resources may
disconnect from the Interconnection to prevent
damage to generators, and thus system frequency
will continue to collapse. Conversely, if too much
load is shed, the system frequency could exceed 60
Hz also causing resources to disconnect from the
Interconnection to prevent damage to generators.
EPRI Tutorial at page 4–78.
15 EPRI Tutorial at page 4–78.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
66222
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
remand PRC–006–0 until the ERO
submitted the additional information.21
and their locations. Therefore, in
deciding what specific loads to shed,
consideration is given to whether the
load is critical (e.g., hospitals, police
stations, or fire stations). These loads
would typically not be included in a
UFLS program.
D. Currently Effective Reliability
Standards
B. Mandatory Reliability Standards
11. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards, which are subject to
Commission review and approval. Once
approved, the Reliability Standards may
be enforced by the ERO, subject to
Commission oversight, or by the
Commission independently.16
12. Pursuant to section 215 of the
FPA, the Commission established a
process to select and certify an ERO 17
and, subsequently, certified NERC as the
ERO.18 On March 16, 2007, the
Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability
Standards filed by NERC, including
Reliability Standards PRC–007–0, PRC–
009–0, and EOP–003–1.19 The
Commission neither approved nor
remanded NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC–006–0 in Order No.
693.20
C. NERC–Approved Reliability Standard
1. PRC–006–0
13. NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC–006–0 addresses the
development of a regional UFLS
program that is used as a last resort to
preserve islanding operation following a
major system event on the Bulk-Power
System that could otherwise cause the
island system frequency to collapse.
PRC–006–0 requires regional reliability
organizations to develop, coordinate,
document and assess UFLS program
design and effectiveness at least every
five years. In Order No. 693, the
Commission determined neither to
approve nor remand this ‘‘fill-in-theblank’’ Reliability Standard because the
regional procedures had not been
submitted, and the Commission held
that it would not propose to approve or
16 See
16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
Concerning Certification of the Electric
Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No.
672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
18 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom., Alcoa, Inc.
v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
19 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 603.
20 Id. P 1479.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
17 Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
1. PRC–007–0
14. Reliability Standard PRC–007–0
requires transmission owners,
transmission operators, load serving
entities (LSEs) and distribution
providers to provide, and annually
update, their underfrequency data to
facilitate the regional reliability
organization’s maintenance of the UFLS
program database.
2. PRC–009–0
15. Reliability Standard PRC–009–0
requires that the performance of a UFLS
system be analyzed and documented
following an underfrequency event by
requiring the transmission owner,
transmission operator, LSE and
distribution provider to document the
deployment of their UFLS systems in
accordance with the regional reliability
organization’s program.
3. EOP–003–1
16. Reliability Standard EOP–003–1
addresses load shedding plans and
requires that balancing authorities and
transmission operators operating with
insufficient transmission and/or
generation capacity have the capability
and authority to shed load rather than
risk a failure of the system. It includes
requirements to establish plans for
automatic load shedding for
underfrequency or undervoltage,
manual load shedding to respond to
real-time emergencies, and
communication with other balancing
authorities and transmission operators.
II. Proposed Reliability Standards
17. On March 31, 2011, NERC filed a
petition seeking Commission approval
of proposed Reliability Standards PRC–
006–1 and EOP–003–2 and requesting
the concurrent retirement of the
currently effective Reliability Standards
PRC–007–0, PRC–009–0, and EOP–003–
1 and NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC–006–0.22 NERC requests
an effective date for PRC–006–1 and
EOP–003–2 of one year following the
first day of the first calendar quarter
after applicable regulatory approvals
with respect to all Requirements of the
21 Id.
P 1477, 1479.
Petition at 1. The proposed new
Reliability Standards are not attached to the NOPR.
They are, however, available on the Commission’s
eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No.
RM11–20–000 and are available on the ERO’s Web
site, https://www.nerc.com. Reliability Standards
approved by the Commission are not codified in the
CFR.
22 NERC
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed Reliability Standards except
Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4
of PRC–006–1. With respect to Parts 4.1
through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC–
006–1, NERC requests an effective date
of one year following the receipt of
generation data as would be required in
draft Reliability Standard PRC–024–1 23
but no sooner than one year following
the first day of the first calendar quarter
after applicable regulatory approvals of
PRC–006–1.
A. PRC–006–1
18. Proposed Reliability Standard
PRC–006–1 would apply to planning
coordinators, ‘‘UFLS entities,’’ 24 and
transmission owners that ‘‘own
Elements identified in the UFLS
program established by the Planning
Coordinators.’’ NERC states that the
primary purpose of the proposed
Reliability Standard is the establishment
of design and document requirements
for UFLS programs that arrest declining
frequency and assist recovery of
frequency following system events
leading to frequency degradation.
19. NERC states that PRC–006–1
satisfies the Commission’s criteria, set
forth in Order No. 672, for determining
whether a proposed Reliability Standard
is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential and in the
public interest.25
20. According to NERC, PRC–006–1 is
designed to achieve a specific reliability
goal by establishing design and
documentation requirements for
automatic UFLS programs to arrest
declining frequency, assist recovery of
frequency following underfrequency
events and provide last resort system
preservation measures. NERC contends
that PRC–006–1 contains a technically
sound method to achieve its reliability
goal by establishing a framework for
developing, designing, assessing and
coordinating UFLS programs, and that
PRC–006–1 is clear and unambiguous
regarding what is required and who is
required to comply with the Reliability
Standard.
21. NERC states that PRC–006–1 does
not reflect ‘‘best practices’’ without
regard to implementation cost.26 NERC
contends that it achieves a specific
reliability goal of establishing design
23 PRC–024–1 addresses ‘‘Generator Performance
During Frequency and Voltage Excursions’’ and is
currently being developed in the NERC standard
drafting process.
24 PRC–006–1 defines ‘‘UFLS entities’’ as: ‘‘All
entities that are responsible for the ownership,
operation, or control of UFLS equipment as
required by the UFLS program established by the
Planning Coordinators.’’
25 Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 at
P 323–37.
26 NERC Petition at 24.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and documentation requirements for
automatic UFLS programs to arrest
declining frequency and assist recovery
following underfrequency events, and
that UFLS programs provide last resort
system preservation measures by
shedding load during system
disturbances that result in substantial
imbalance between load and generation.
NERC also maintains that PRC–006–1
does not aim at a ‘‘lowest common
denominator’’ but instead establishes
common performance characteristics
that all UFLS programs must meet to
effectively protect Bulk-Power System
reliability.27
22. NERC states that PRC–006–1 does
not include any differentiation in
requirements based on entity size,
though it provides the opportunity for
planning coordinators to consider input
from smaller entities when developing
the UFLS program. NERC further
explains that PRC–006–1 would apply
throughout North America, with
variances for entities within the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC) and the Quebec
Interconnections.
23. As proposed by NERC, PRC–006–
1 has 14 requirements and 19 subrequirements, summarized as follows:
Requirement R1: Requires each
planning coordinator to develop and
document criteria to identify portions of
the bulk electric system that may form
islands.
Requirement R2: Requires each
planning coordinator to identify the
islands to serve as a basis for designing
its UFLS program. Sub-Requirements
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 serve as a checklist of
items that the entity must consider
when identifying islands.
Requirement R3: Requires each
planning coordinator to develop a UFLS
program, including notification of and a
schedule for implementation by the
UFLS entities within its area, that meets
the specific performance characteristics
set forth in sub-Requirements 3.1
through 3.3 in simulations of
underfrequency conditions resulting
from an imbalance of up to 25 percent
within the identified island.
Requirement R4: Requires each
planning coordinator to conduct and
document a UFLS design assessment at
least once every five years that
determines through dynamic simulation
whether the UFLS program design
meets the performance characteristics in
Requirement R3 for each island
identified in Requirement R2, with subRequirements 4.1 through 4.7 specifying
items that the simulation must model.
27 Id.
at 26.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
Requirement R5: Requires each
planning coordinator to coordinate its
UFLS design with all other planning
coordinators whose areas or portions of
whose areas are also part of the same
identified island through specific
actions identified in Requirement R5.
Requirement R6: Requires each
planning coordinator to maintain a
UFLS database containing data
necessary to model its UFLS program
for use in event analyses and
assessments of the UFLS program at
least once each calendar year, with no
more than 15 months between
maintenance activities.
Requirement R7: Requires each
planning coordinator to provide its
UFLS database to other planning
coordinators within its Interconnection
within 30 calendar days of request.
Requirement R8: Requires each UFLS
entity to provide data to its planning
coordinator(s) according to the format
and schedule specified by the planning
coordinator(s) to support maintenance
of the UFLS database.
Requirement R9: Requires each UFLS
entity to provide automatic tripping of
load in accordance with the UFLS
program design and schedule for
application determined by its planning
coordinator(s) in each planning
coordinator area in which it owns
assets.
Requirement R10: Requires each
transmission owner to provide
automatic switching of its existing
capacitor banks, transmission lines, and
reactors to control overvoltage as a
result of underfrequency load shedding
if required by the UFLS program and
schedule for application determined by
the planning coordinator(s) in each
planning coordinator area in which the
transmission owner owns transmission.
Requirement R11: Requires each
planning coordinator, in whose area a
bulk electric system islanding event
results in system frequency excursions
below the initializing set points of the
UFLS program, to conduct and
document an assessment of the event
within one year of event actuation that
evaluates the performance of the UFLS
equipment (sub-Requirement 11.1), and
the effectiveness of the UFLS program
(sub-Requirement 11.2).
Requirement R12: Requires each
planning coordinator, in whose
islanding event assessment
(Requirement R11) UFLS program
deficiencies are identified, to conduct
and document a UFLS design
assessment to consider the identified
deficiencies within two years of event
actuation.
Requirement R13: Requires each
planning coordinator, in whose area a
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66223
bulk electric system islanding event
occurred that also included the area(s)
or portions of area(s) of other planning
coordinator(s) in the same islanding
event and that resulted in system
frequency excursions below the
initializing set points of the UFLS
program, to coordinate its event
assessment (in accordance with
Requirement R11) with all other
planning coordinators whose areas or
portions of whose areas were also
included in the same islanding event by
either: (i) Conducting a joint event
assessment per Requirement R11 among
the planning coordinators whose areas
or portions of whose areas were
included in the same islanding event; or
(ii) conducting an independent event
assessment per Requirement R11 that
reaches conclusions and
recommendations consistent with those
of the event assessments of the other
planning coordinators whose areas or
portions of whose areas were included
in the same islanding event; or (iii)
conducting an independent event
assessment per Requirement R11 and
where the assessment fails to reach
conclusions and recommendations
consistent with those of the event
assessments of the other planning
coordinators whose areas or portions of
whose areas were included in the same
islanding event, identifying differences
in the assessments that likely resulted in
the differences in the conclusions and
recommendations and report these
differences to the other planning
coordinators whose areas or portions of
whose areas were included in the same
islanding event and to the ERO.
Requirement R14: Requires the
planning coordinator to respond to
written comments submitted by UFLS
entities and transmission owners within
its planning coordinator area following
a comment period and before finalizing
its UFLS program, indicating in the
written response to comments whether
changes will be made or reasons why
changes will not be made to the UFLS
program, including a schedule for
implementation (sub-Requirement 14.1)
and the UFLS design assessment (subRequirement 14.2).
B. EOP–003–2
24. Proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–003–2 would apply to balancing
authorities and transmission operators.
NERC states that EOP–003–2 makes
minimal changes to EOP–003–1 by
removing references to UFLS, which
NERC describes as redundant in light of
proposed Reliability Standard PRC–
006–1, and instead focuses proposed
Reliability Standard EOP–003–2 on
undervoltage conditions.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
66224
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Discussion
25. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of
the FPA, the Commission proposes to
approve Reliability Standard PRC–006–
1 and EOP–003–1 as just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
The Commission believes that the UFLS
program addressed in the proposed
Reliability Standards is important to
arresting declining frequency and
assisting recovery of frequency
following system events that lead to
system instability, which can result in a
blackout. The Commission finds that the
proposed Reliability Standards are
necessary for reliability because UFLS is
used in extreme conditions to stabilize
the balance between generation and
load after an electrical island has been
formed, dropping enough load to allow
frequency to stabilize within the island.
Reliability Standard PRC–006–1, in
conjunction with the conforming
changes to EOP–003–2, provides last
resort Bulk-Power System preservation
measures by establishing the first
national Reliability Standard of
common performance characteristics
that all UFLS programs must meet. In
addition, the Commission proposes to
approve the related VRFs and VSLs,
implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by NERC. Finally, the
Commission proposes to approve the
retirement of the currently effective
Reliability Standards PRC–007–0, PRC–
009–0, and EOP–003–1, and the NERCapproved Reliability Standard PRC–
006–0.
26. The Commission addresses or
seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons on aspects of the
proposed Reliability Standards.
Specifically, we address or seek
comments on the following issues: (A)
Impact of resources not connected to the
bulk electric system; (B) validation of
power system models used to simulate
ULFS programs; (C) scope of UFLS
events assessments; (D) impact of
generator owner trip settings outside of
the UFLS program; (E) UFLS program
coordination with other protection
systems; (F) identification of island
boundaries in UFLS programs; (G)
automatic load shedding in PRC–006–1
and manual load shedding in EOP–003–
2; (H) elimination of balancing authority
responsibilities in EOP–003–2; and (I)
the ‘‘Lower VSL’’ for Requirement R8
and the ‘‘Medium’’ VRF for
Requirement R5 of PRC–006–1. These
issues also apply to the corresponding
Requirements in the requested regional
variance for WECC in PRC–006–1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
A. Impact of Resources Not Connected
to Bulk Electric System Facilities
27. As described above, UFLS
programs are designed to maintain
balance between resources and load in
a defined area (e.g., an Interconnection,
Regional Entity area, or planning
coordinator area). When a resource is
lost, load exceeds supply causing
frequency to decrease below its
scheduled value (e.g., 60 Hz in the
United States). Conversely, a loss of
load or excess supply can result in
higher frequencies than scheduled,
resulting in an overfrequency condition.
As a last resort, UFLS programs are
initiated during extreme
underfrequency conditions to
reestablish balance by shedding load at
predetermined frequencies and times to
prevent system-wide blackouts.
28. Requirement R2 of PRC–006–1
requires planning coordinators to
identify islands to serve as a basis for
designing UFLS programs. Requirement
R3 addresses performance
characteristics for UFLS programs.
Requirement R4 requires each planning
coordinator to conduct and document
the assessment of its UFLS design and
determine if the UFLS program meets
the performance characteristics in
Requirement R3 for each island
identified in Requirement R2.
29. The simulations outlined in
Requirement R4 all concern individual
generating units greater than 20 MVA
gross nameplate rating or generating
plants/facilities greater then 75 MVA
‘‘connected to the bulk electric system.’’
However, some generation that meets
the 20 MVA and 75 MVA criteria is not
connected to bulk electric system
facilities. Accordingly, those resources
not connected to bulk electric system
facilities would not be modeled
pursuant to Requirement R4. However,
a resource not connected to the bulk
electric system may serve load designed
to be shed in a UFLS program. The
Commission is concerned that failure to
account for resources not connected to
the bulk electric system in a planning
coordinator’s UFLS program could
result in the planning coordinator being
unaware of how such resources respond
to underfrequency conditions. If the
planning coordinator is unaware of how
these facilities have responded, it may
plan to shed more load than is required
for an area’s frequency to return to
normal. This could lead to an
unintended overfrequency condition if
the plan is carried out in the operating
timeframe. These conditions, in turn,
could lead the plan to violate the
performance characteristics specified in
Requirement R3.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30. The performance characteristics
identified in Requirement R3 provide
acceptable parameters for developing
UFLS programs that are designed to
restore balance between resources and
load. However, the Commission is
concerned that generation resources or
facilities that are not connected to the
bulk electric system may not be
considered during the development of
UFLS programs.
31. The Commission seeks comments
from the ERO and other interested
persons as to whether and how all
resources required for the reliable
operation of the bulk electric system,
including resources not connected to
bulk electric system facilities, are
considered in the development of UFLS
programs under Requirements R3 and
R4.
B. Validation of Power System Models
32. Power systems consist of static
components (e.g., transformers and
transmission lines) and dynamic
components (e.g., generators and motor
loads). Mathematical representations of
these components are aggregated to
create an area’s power system model.
Power system planners 28 and system
operators base decisions on simulations,
both static and dynamic, using area
power system models to meet
requirements in both Commissionapproved planning and operational
Reliability Standards.29
33. Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC–
006–1 require applicable entities to use
dynamic simulations to design and
assess the effectiveness of UFLS
programs. As previously discussed,
UFLS programs are designed to provide
last resort system preservation measures
by: (1) Arresting declining frequency;
and (2) assisting recovery of frequency
following underfrequency events.
Dynamic simulations that do not
accurately represent the power system
can result in an UFLS program that is
ineffective.
34. The Commission believes that the
UFLS program design requirements
established in Requirement R2 and the
required assessments established in
Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC–006–
1 are generally acceptable and include
improvements above the current
Reliability Standards. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the language
in the proposed Requirements is
appropriate.
28 Power system planners may include functional
entities such as transmission planners and planning
coordinators.
29 See, e.g., Reliability Standards MOD–010–0,
MOD–012–0 and TOP–002–2a, Requirement R19.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
C. UFLS Event Assessments
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Assessments in the Absence of Island
Formation
35. Requirement R11 of PRC–006–1
requires planning coordinators to
conduct assessments after a ‘‘BES
islanding event results in system
frequency excursion below the
initializing set points of the UFLS
program.’’ The Commission is
concerned whether the phrase ‘‘BES
islanding event’’ could be interpreted to
mean that a planning coordinator only
has to assess an event if it meets both
of the following requirements: (1)
System frequency excursions fall below
the initializing set point for UFLS; and
(2) bulk electric system islands form
within the Interconnection. If the
frequency falls below the initializing
UFLS set point but islands do not form
(e.g., because the event was not severe
enough to isolate portions of the
Interconnection, or UFLS or other
protection systems failed to operate
properly to form islands), an assessment
of the performance of the UFLS program
for this event is still useful because it
can determine if the UFLS program
operated as expected.
36. The Commission seeks
clarification from the ERO regarding
what actions must planning
coordinators take under Requirement
R11 if an event results in system
frequency excursions falling below this
initializing set point for UFLS but
without the formation of a bulk electric
system island.
2. Coordination of Assessments and
Results
37. Requirements R5 and R13 of PRC–
006–1 require planning coordinators
that share identified islands to
coordinate UFLS program design and
event assessment. The options for
coordinating designs of UFLS programs
in Requirement R5 include: (1)
Developing a common program; (2)
conducting a joint UFLS design
assessment among the planning
coordinators whose area or portions of
whose areas are part of the same
identified island; or (3) conducting an
independent design assessment and, in
the event the UFLS design assessment
fails to meet Requirement R3, identify
modifications to the UFLS program(s) to
meet Requirement R3 and report these
modifications as recommendations to
the other planning coordinators.
38. The options for coordinating event
assessments in Requirement R13
include: (1) Conducting a joint event
assessment per Requirement R11 among
planning coordinators whose areas were
affected; (2) conducting an independent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
event assessment per Requirement R11
that reaches conclusions and
recommendations consistent with other
planning coordinators whose areas were
affected; or (3) conducting an
independent event assessment per
Requirement R11 and where the
assessment fails to reach conclusions
and recommendations consistent with
those of the other planning coordinators
whose areas were affected by the same
islanding event, identify differences in
the assessments and report these
differences to the other affected
planning coordinators. The Commission
seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons as to whether the
differences should be subsequently
reported to the reliability coordinator
for resolution in the event that the
process does not resolve differences in
the assessments.
39. The Commission believes that
Requirements R5 and R13 provide
flexibility in coordinating UFLS design
programs and event assessments among
planning coordinators whose areas fall
within the same island or whose areas
are affected by the same event.
Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the language in the proposed
Requirements is appropriate.
3. Assessment Timeline for Completion
40. Requirement R11 of Reliability
Standard PRC–006–1 requires a
planning coordinator to perform an
island event assessment within one year
of an event. If the planning coordinator
identifies program deficiencies,
Requirement R12 requires the planning
coordinator to conduct and document
UFLS design assessments, which are
meant to consider the deficiencies,
within two years of an event. The
Commission is concerned that this time
frame may be too long since it appears
that island event assessments and
consideration of deficiencies could
reasonably be conducted in a much
shorter time frame. Under NERC’s
proposal, deficiencies could remain
within a UFLS program for two years
from an event exposing the Bulk-Power
System to instability, uncontrolled
separation and cascading outages
should a frequency event occur that the
UFLS program mishandles. NERC
provided no explanation of its basis for
the proposed two-year time frame.
41. The Commission asks the ERO
and other interested persons what the
basis is for proposing a two-year time
frame. In addition, the Commission
seeks clarification from the ERO as to
how soon after event actuation would
an entity need to implement corrections
in response to any deficiencies
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66225
identified in the event assessment under
Requirement R11.
D. Generator Owner Trip Settings
Outside of the UFLS Program
42. Requirements 4.1 through 4.7 of
Reliability Standard PRC–006–1 are
intended to capture the effects of
generators that trip prior to UFLS
initiation. As previously discussed, a
generator trip normally creates an
imbalance between resources and load
causing system frequency to decline.
Some generators may need to
disconnect from the system prior to
reaching underfrequency set points to
protect their components from
permanent damage. If this loss occurs
during a system event, the generator can
no longer provide a response to assist in
arresting frequency decline. This
resource loss also counteracts the
response provided by other resources to
arrest frequency decline, increasing the
likelihood of instability, uncontrolled
separation, and cascading outages.
43. We agree that planning
coordinators should consider generators
that trip prior to underfrequency set
points when developing their UFLS
programs. The Commission seeks
comments from the ERO and other
interested persons on how generation
losses outside of the UFLS set points
(i.e., generators having trip settings prior
to the UFLS underfrequency set points)
should be accounted for in UFLS
programs (e.g., generator owners who
trip outside of the UFLS set points
could procure load to shed to account
for the loss in generation).
E. UFLS Program Coordination With
Other Protection Systems
44. Recommendation 21C of the
Blackout Report addresses the
coordination of protection systems.30
The recommendation states that NERC
shall ‘‘determine the goals and
principles needed to establish an
integrated approach to relay protection
for generators and transmission lines
and the use of underfrequency and
undervoltage load shedding (UFLS and
UVLS) programs. An integrated
approach is needed to ensure that at the
local and regional levels, these
interactive components provide an
appropriate balance of risks and benefits
in terms of protecting specific assets and
facilitating overall grid survival.’’ 31
Accordingly, an integrated approach
requires coordination of all types of
protection systems (e.g., UFLS, UVLS),
internally and externally to an entity’s
30 Blackout
Report at 159.
31 Id.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
66226
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
area, to be responsive to the Blackout
Report.
45. While PRC–006–1 requires
coordination of UFLS programs among
planning coordinators in Requirements
R5, R7, and R13, it does not appear to
capture the same level of coordination
with other protection systems as in
Requirement R1.2.8 of PRC–006–0.32
The Commission seeks comments from
NERC and other interested persons on
whether and how coordination with
other protection systems is or is not
achieved under the new requirements.
F. Identification of Island Boundaries
46. Requirement R1 of PRC–006–1
directs planning coordinators to develop
criteria to select areas that may form
islands based on historical events and
system studies. Historical events and
system studies provide planning
coordinators with the data necessary to
determine where islands will occur
based on the physics of the system.
Requirement R2.3 clarifies that islands
identified in Requirement R1, which
span two or more Regional Entity areas,
should be broken up such that each
Regional Entity area forms an island.
Requirement R2.3 allows planning
coordinators to ‘‘adjust the island
boundaries to differ from the Regional
Entity area boundaries by mutual
consent where necessary’’ to preserve
contiguous island boundaries that better
reflect simulations. The Commission
agrees that identifying island
boundaries based on where they are
likely to occur due to system
characteristics, as opposed to
maintaining rigid Regional Entity area
boundaries, should result in more
effective UFLS programs. Accordingly,
the Commission encourages cooperation
among entities to create UFLS programs
that set island boundaries based on
where separations are expected to occur
during an underfrequency event.
47. In its petition, NERC states that
the Requirements allow planning
coordinators to ‘‘select islands including
interconnected portions of the bulk
electric system in adjacent Planning
Coordinator areas and Regional Entity
areas, without the need for coordinating
this selection with Planning
Coordinators in neighboring regions.’’ 33
Requirement R2.3 of PRC–006–1,
however, requires ‘‘mutual consent’’ to
adjust island boundaries from Regional
Entity boundaries. The Commission
seeks clarification from the ERO
concerning the required degree of
32 Requirement 1.2.8 of PRC–006–0 encompasses
‘‘[a]ny other schemes that are part of or impact the
UFLS program.’’
33 NERC Petition at 75–76.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
cooperation and/or ‘‘mutual consent’’
between planning coordinators under
the proposed Reliability Standard in
order for island boundaries to be set so
that, while deviating from Regional
Entity boundaries, they better
approximate actual island separation
boundaries.
G. Automatic Load Shedding and
Manual Load Shedding
48. Proposed Reliability Standard
PRC–006–1 requires automatically
shedding predetermined amounts of
load if frequency declines to the UFLS
set point in order to rebalance resources
and demand and prevent frequency
decline that might cause instability,
uncontrolled separation, or cascading
outages. Proposed Reliability Standard
EOP–003–2 requires manual load
shedding plans, which may be
employed in addition to the automatic
load shedding in the UFLS program, or
to mitigate other reliability issues. If
load allocated to be shed automatically
is also planned for manual load
shedding, then that load resource would
be double-counted. Once load is
disconnected from the system, either
automatically or manually, it cannot be
used again to arrest frequency decline.
In the event that a load resource is
double-counted and removed during
automatic UFLS, the manual load
shedding cannot be completed if called
upon. Even if additional load is located
and shed to compensate for this missing
load, the system would be put into an
un-studied state and could have
unpredicted, negative responses.
Accordingly, resources allocated to each
type of load shedding (i.e., automatic
and manual) should not overlap.
49. There are no requirements in
PRC–006–1 to coordinate automatic
load shedding by UFLS and manual
load shedding under EOP–003–2. The
Commission seeks comments from the
ERO and other interested persons on
how the coordination of automatic and
manual load shedding is considered in
light of the fact that the proposed
Reliability Standards do not explicitly
require coordination.
H. Elimination of Requirements for
Balancing Authorities in EOP–003–2
50. Requirements R2, R4, and R7 of
the currently-effective Reliability
Standard EOP–003–1 apply to
transmission operators and balancing
authorities. Proposed Reliability
Standard EOP–003–2 proposes to
eliminate balancing authorities from
Requirements R2, R4, and R7.
51. Under the proposed modification,
balancing authorities would no longer:
(i) Establish plans for automatic load
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
shedding for underfrequency or
undervoltage conditions (Requirement
R2); (ii) consider factors (including
frequency, rate of frequency decay,
voltage level, rate of voltage decay, or
power flow levels) in designing an
automatic undervoltage load shedding
scheme (Requirement R4); and (iii)
coordinate automatic load shedding
throughout its area with underfrequency
isolation of generating units, tripping of
shunt capacitors, and other automatic
actions that will occur under abnormal
frequency, voltage, or power flow
conditions (Requirement R7). In its
petition, NERC explains that balancing
authorities were deleted from
Requirements R2 and R4 ‘‘because the
frequency related aspects of these
requirements were removed, leaving
only consideration of automatic
undervoltage load shedding in these two
requirements.’’ 34 NERC’s petition,
however, does not explain why
balancing authorities were removed
from Requirement R7. Moreover, given
that balancing authorities would no
longer be subject to Requirements R2,
R4, and R7 of EOP–003–2 and are not
listed as applicable entities in PRC–
006–1, the proposed Reliability
Standards do not preserve these existing
balancing authority responsibilities.
52. The Commission seeks
clarification from the ERO as to why
these existing balancing authority
responsibilities were not incorporated
into Reliability Standards PRC–006–1 or
EOP–003–2. The Commission also seeks
comments from the ERO and other
interested persons as to why balancing
authorities should not be informed of
UFLS program plans that directly
impact balancing authority functions.
I. Violation Risk Factors and Violation
Severity Levels
53. NERC states that each primary
requirement in PRC–006–1 and EOP–
003–2 is assigned a Violation Risk
Factor (VRF) and Violation Severity
Level (VSL) and that these elements
support the determination of an initial
value range for the Base Penalty
Amount regarding violations of
requirements in Commission-approved
Reliability Standards, as defined in the
ERO Sanction Guidelines.
54. The Commission proposes to
approve the VRFs and VSLs in PRC–
006–1 and EOP–003–2. However, the
Commission seeks comments from the
ERO and other interested persons
regarding one proposed VSL and one
proposed VRF for PRC–006–1.
55. The ‘‘Lower VSL’’ assignment for
Requirement R8 in PRC–006–1 applies
34 NERC
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
Petition at 42.
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
when a UFLS entity fails to provide data
to its planning coordinator for 5 to 10
calendar days following the schedule
specified by the planning coordinator.
Requirement R8 of PRC–006–1 does not
include a 5-day grace period for
providing data to planning coordinators.
Accordingly, the subject VSL
assignment may be inconsistent with
the Commission’s VSL Guideline 3. The
guideline states that a VSL ‘‘should not
appear to redefine or undermine the
requirement.’’ 35 The five-day grace
period implicit in the proposed VSL
appears to be inconsistent with this
guideline. In addition, the proposed
VSL creates a compliance issue.
Specifically, it is unclear where a UFLS
entity falls in the VRF and VSL matrices
if it fails to provide data to its planning
coordinator within 1 to 5 days of its
scheduled date.
56. The VRF for Requirement R5,
which requires planning coordinators to
coordinate their UFLS program design
with other planning coordinators whose
area is in part of the same identified
island, is proposed as ‘‘Medium.’’ NERC
states that Requirement R5 is ‘‘not
related to similar reliability goals in
other standards.’’ 36 However,
coordination of load shedding plans is
required in a similar manner in
Requirement R3 of currently effective
Reliability Standard EOP–003–1,37
which includes a VRF of ‘‘High.’’ The
lack of coordination of UFLS programs
among planning coordinators within the
same identified island could lead to
ineffective UFLS operations and further
cascading outages within the island
when UFLS is activated.
57. Guideline 3 of the Commission’s
VRF Guidelines states that ‘‘[a]bsent
justification to the contrary, the
Commission expects the assignment of
Violation Risk Factors corresponding to
Requirements that address similar
reliability goals in different Reliability
Standards would be treated
comparably.’’ 38 The Commission seeks
clarification from the ERO why
coordination of load shedding plans is
a ‘‘High’’ VRF for transmission operators
and balancing authorities in EOP–003–
2 but NERC proposes a ‘‘Medium’’
VRF for planning coordinators in, PRC–
006–1.
35 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123
FERC ¶ 61,284, at P 32 (2008).
36 NERC Petition at 46.
37 Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–003–2
includes the same VRF assignment of ‘‘High’’ for
Requirement R3.
38 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119
FERC ¶ 61,145, at P 25 (2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
J. Implementation Plan and Effective
Date
58. NERC requests an effective date
for PRC–006–1 and EOP–003–2 of one
year following the first day of the first
calendar quarter after applicable
regulatory approvals with respect to all
Requirements of the proposed
Reliability Standards except Parts 4.1
through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC–
006–1. With respect to Parts 4.1 through
4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC–006–1,
NERC requests an effective date of one
year following the receipt of generation
data as required in Reliability Standard
PRC–024–1,39 but no sooner than one
year following the first day of the first
calendar quarter after applicable
regulatory approvals of PRC–006–1.
59. NERC contends that the proposed
implementation plan is not excessively
long and allows sufficient time for
entities to transition and install the
necessary processes to become
compliant. NERC maintains that the one
year phase-in for compliance provides
planning coordinators sufficient time:
(1) To develop, modify, or validate (to
determine that an existing program
meets required performance
characteristics) existing UFLS programs;
and (2) to establish a schedule for
implementation, or validate a schedule
for completion of program revisions
already in progress. Moreover, NERC
states that transmission owners and
distribution providers will comply with
the schedule determined by planning
coordinators but no sooner than the
effective date of the standard.
60. The Commission proposes to
accept the implementation plan and
effective date proposed by the ERO for
PRC–006–1 and EOP–003–2. However,
the Commission seeks comments from
the ERO and other interested persons
about any potential reliability gaps that
may occur during the development and
implementation of PRC–024–1, such as
how the planning coordinators will
adequately determine and apply UFLS
simulations and plans in the absence of
generator trip settings.
IV. Information Collection Statement
61. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) regulations require that
OMB approve certain reporting and
recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.40
Upon approval of a collection(s) of
information, OMB will assign an OMB
39 PRC–024–1 addresses ‘‘Generator Performance
During Frequency and Voltage Excursions’’ and is
currently being developed in the NERC standard
drafting process under Project 2007–09 (Generator
Verification), which is one of NERC’s priority
projects.
40 5 CFR 1320.11.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66227
control number and expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of this rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these
collections of information unless the
collections of information display a
valid OMB control number.
62. The Commission is submitting
these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and
approval under section 3507(d) of PRA.
Comments are solicited on the
Commission’s need for this information,
whether the information will have
practical utility, the accuracy of
provided burden estimate, ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected, and
any suggested methods for minimizing
the respondent’s burden, including the
use of automated information
techniques.
63. This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposes to approve
Reliability Standards PRC–006–1 and
EOP–003–2, which would replace
currently effective Reliability Standards
PRC–007–0, PRC–009–0, EOP–003–1
and NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC–006–0.41 As noted
previously, Reliability Standard PRC–
006–0 was never approved by the
Commission, and therefore has never
been mandatory and enforceable. On the
other hand, Reliability Standards PRC–
007–0 and PRC–009–0 were approved
by the Commission and are currently
mandatory and enforceable. Because
Proposed Reliability Standard PRC–
006–1 incorporates the requirements
from Reliability Standards PRC–006–0,
PRC–007–0, and PRC–009–0 some of the
existing requirements will become
mandatory and enforceable (where
previously they were voluntary), while
others continue to be so. To properly
account for the burden on respondents,
the Commission will treat the burden
resulting from NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC–006–0 as
essentially new to the industry, even
though it is likely that most applicable
entities have already been complying.42
64. The reporting requirements in
proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
41 PRC–006–0 was not approved by the
Commission but remained effective as a NERCapproved standard (but not mandatory or
enforceable). The other three standards were
approved by the Commission. 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).
42 This statement is made because currently
effective Reliability Standards PRC–007–0 and
PRC–009–0 required UFLS entities to follow the
UFLS program implemented by Reliability Standard
PRC–006–0. Therefore, it is likely that entities have
already been following the requirements contained
in Reliability Standard PRC–006–0.
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
66228
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
003–2 are virtually the same as those in
currently effective Reliability Standard
EOP–003–1. The difference is that
proposed Reliability Standard EOP–
003–2 proposes to eliminate balancing
authorities from Requirements R2 and
from Measure M1.43 This requirement
and measure deal with establishing and
documenting automatic load shedding
plans.
65. Public Reporting Burden: Our
estimate below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC
compliance registry as of 7/29/11.
According to the NERC compliance
registry, there are 72 planning
coordinators and 126 balancing
authorities. The individual burden
estimates are based on the time needed
to gather data, run studies, and analyze
study results to design or update the
UFLS programs. Additionally,
documentation and the review of UFLS
program results by supervisors and
management is included in the
administrative estimations. These are
consistent with estimates for similar
tasks in other Commission approved
standards.
Number of
respondents
annually
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average burden
hours per
response
Total annual
burden hours
(1)
PRC–006–1 (Automatic underfrequency load shedding) 44
(2)
(3)
(1)x(2)x(3)
PCs *: Design and document Automatic UFLS Program ............................
120
2,880
1,152
............................
12,672
Reporting
¥10
¥1260
Record
Retention
72
40
16
PCs: Management Review of Documentation .............................................
8,640
¥1
¥126
1
PCs: Record Retention ................................................................................
Total ......................................................................................................
EOP–003–2 (Load Shedding
........................
........................
126
1
Plans) 45
Removal of BAs * from Reporting Requirements in R2 and M1 (Burden
Reduction) ................................................................................................
Total ......................................................................................................
........................
........................
................
........
¥1,386
Net Change in Burden .................................................................................
........................
........................
................
........
11,286
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* PC = Planning Coordinator; BA = Balancing Authority.
Total Annual Hours for Collection:
(Compliance/Documentation) = 11,286
hours.
Total Reporting Cost for Planning
Coordinators: = 11,520 hours @ $120/
hour = $1,382,400.
Total Record Retention Cost for
Planning Coordinators: 1,152 hours @
$28/hour = $32,256.
Total Reporting and Record Retention
Cost Savings for Balancing Authorities:
= (1,260 hours @ $120/hour) + (126
hours @ $28/hour) = $154,728.
Total Annual Cost (Reporting +
Record Retention) 46: =
$1,414,656¥$154,728 = $1,259,928.
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System.
Action: Proposed Collection FERC–
725A.
OMB Control No.: 1902–0244.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions; not-for-profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
Necessity of the Information: This
proposed rule proposes to approve the
requested modifications to Reliability
Standards pertaining to automatic
underfrequency load shedding. The
proposed Reliability Standards help
ensure the reliable operation of the bulk
electric system by arresting declining
frequency and assisting recovery of
frequency following system events
leading to frequency degradation.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the proposed Reliability
Standards and made a determination
that its action is necessary to implement
section 215 of the FPA. These
requirements, if accepted, should
conform to the Commission’s
expectation for UFLS programs as well
as procedures within the energy
industry.
66. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director,
e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone:
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
67. For submitting comments
concerning the collection(s) of
information and the associated burden
estimate(s), please send your comments
to the Commission and to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, phone: (202)
395–4638, fax: (202) 395–7285]. For
security reasons, comments to OMB
should be submitted by e-mail to:
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Comments submitted to OMB should
include Docket Number RM11–20 and
OMB Control Number 1902–0244.
43 Balancing authorities are also removed from
Requirements R4 and R7, but these do not have
reporting requirements associated with them.
44 Proposed Reliability Standard PRC–006–1
applies to both planning coordinators and to UFLS
entities. However, the burden associated with the
UFLS entities is not new because it was accounted
for under Commission approved Reliability
Standards PRC–007–0 and PRC–009–0.
45 Transmission operators also have to comply
with Reliability Standard EOP–003–2 but since the
applicable reporting requirements (and associated
burden) have not changed from the existing
standard to the proposed standard these entities are
not included here.
46 The hourly reporting cost is based on the cost
of an engineer to implement the requirements of the
rule. The record retention cost comes from
Commission staff research on record retention
requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. Environmental Analysis
68. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
environment.47 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
regulations being amended.48 The
actions proposed here fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
69. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 49 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.50 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.51
70. Proposed Reliability Standard
PRC–006–1 proposes to establish
design, assessment, and documentation
requirements for automatic UFLS
program. It will be applicable to
planning coordinators and entities that
are responsible for the ownership,
operation, or control of UFLS
equipment. Proposed Standard EOP–
003–2 proposes to remove balancing
authorities from having to comply with
R2 and M1 of the standard. Comparison
of the NERC compliance registry with
data submitted to the Energy
Information Administration on Form
EIA–861 indicates that perhaps as many
as 8 small entities are registered as
planning coordinators and 18 small
entities are registered as balancing
authorities. The Commission estimates
that the small planning coordinators to
47 Order
No. 486, Regulations Implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC
Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986–1990
¶ 30,783 (1987).
48 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
49 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
50 13 CFR 121.101.
51 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Oct 25, 2011
Jkt 226001
whom the proposed Reliability Standard
will apply will incur compliance and
recordkeeping costs of $157,184
($19,648 per planning coordinator)
associated with the Standard’s
requirements. The small balancing
authorities will receive a savings of
$154,728 ($8,596 per balancing
authority). Accordingly, proposed
Reliability Standards PRC–006–1 and
EOP–003–2 should not impose a
significant operating cost increase or
decrease on the affected small entities.
71. Based on this understanding, the
Commission certifies that these
Reliability Standards will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
VII. Comment Procedures
72. The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this
notice to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals
that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due December 27, 2011.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM11–20–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments.
73. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
Web site at https://www.ferc.gov. The
Commission accepts most standard
word processing formats. Documents
created electronically using word
processing software should be filed in
native applications or print-to-PDF
format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
74. Commenters that are not able to
file comments electronically must send
an original of their comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
75. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters
on this proposal are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other
commenters.
VIII. Document Availability
76. 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 the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66229
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’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.
77. From the Commission’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.
78. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
during normal business hours from the
Commission’s 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.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40
Electric power; Electric utilities;
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Commissioner Spitzer is not participating.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–27625 Filed 10–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM11–18–000]
Transmission Planning Reliability
Standards
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Transmission Planning (TPL)
Reliability Standards are intended to
ensure that the transmission system is
planned and designed to meet an
appropriate and specific set of reliability
criteria. Reliability Standard TPL–002–
0a references a table which identifies
different categories of contingencies and
allowable system impacts in the
planning process. The table includes a
footnote regarding planned or controlled
interruption of electric supply where a
single contingency occurs on a
transmission system. North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Commission-certified Electric
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26OCP1.SGM
26OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66220-66229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27625]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM11-20-000]
Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding Plans
Reliability Standards
October 20, 2011.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve Reliability
Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-
003-2 (Load Shedding Plans), developed and submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), the Electric Reliability Organization certified by the
Commission. The proposed Reliability Standards establish design and
documentation requirements for automatic underfrequency load shedding
programs that arrest declining frequency and assist recovery of
frequency following system events leading to frequency degradation. The
Commission also proposes to approve the related Violation Risk Factors
and Violation Severity Levels, implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by NERC.
DATES: Comments are due December 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
Electronic Filing through https://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Schmidt (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-6568, Stephanie.Schmidt@ferc.gov.
Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8408, Matthew.Vlissides@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standards PRC-006-1
[[Page 66221]]
(Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding
Plans). The proposed Reliability Standards were developed and submitted
for approval to the Commission by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission certified as the
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards.\2\ The proposed Reliability
Standards establish design and documentation requirements for automatic
underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) programs, which are meant to arrest
declining frequency and assist recovery of frequency following
underfrequency events and provide last resort system preservation
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
\2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Commission proposes to approve the related Violation Risk
Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs), implementation
plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. The Commission also proposes
to approve the retirement of the currently effective Reliability
Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1, and the NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.
3. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and other interested
persons on specific issues concerning the proposed Reliability
Standards.
I. Background
A. Underfrequency Load Shedding
4. An interconnected electric power system must balance load and
generation in order to maintain frequency within a reliable range.\3\
The balance between generation and load within an interconnected
electric power system is shown in the frequency of the system.\4\
Underfrequency protection schemes are drastic measures employed if the
system frequency falls below a specified value.\5\ The Blackout Report
provides the following explanation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Power Systems
Dynamics Tutorial, Chapter 4 at page 4-78 (2009), available at
https://www.epri.com (EPRI Tutorial).
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
[A]utomatic under-frequency load-shedding (UFLS) is designed for
use in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between
generation and load after an electrical island has been formed,
dropping enough load to allow frequency to stabilize within the
island. All synchronous generators in North America are designed to
operate at 60 cycles per second (Hertz) and frequency reflects how
well load and generation are balanced--if there is more load than
generation at any moment, frequency drops below 60 Hz, and it rises
above that level if there is more generation than load. By dropping
load to match available generation within the island, UFLS is a
safety net that helps to prevent the complete blackout of the
island, which allows faster system restoration afterward. UFLS is
not effective if there is electrical instability or voltage collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
within the island.\6\
\6\ U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on
the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes
and Recommendations at 92-93 (2004) (Blackout Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. UFLS programs are designed for each defined area or system, and
they are commonly implemented with devices installed on the
distribution side of the power system.\7\ Factors considered in
developing a UFLS program include: (1) Underfrequency set point, (2)
minimum amount of load to shed, and (3) what load and at what locations
to shed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ UFLS programs are designed to maintain a balance between
resources and demand in a defined area (e.g., Interconnection,
Regional Entity area, or planning coordinator area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Underfrequency Set Point
6. The underfrequency set point is the frequency at which a
specified load will disconnect from the system in a UFLS program.\8\
Separately, generators have their own underfrequency set points, which
will disconnect them from the system if the frequency drops to a
certain value, thus protecting them from damage.\9\ Underfrequency set
points for load shedding are set above the frequencies at which
generators disconnect.\10\ This is done to prevent losing additional
resources that would exacerbate the imbalance between resources and
demand, resulting in further frequency declines. UFLS programs initiate
at a specified point to shed the first load block, and if necessary
additional load blocks at other lower set points, to arrest system
frequency decline prior to the loss of additional resources.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In Order No. 693-A, the Commission directed NERC to collect
the frequency and magnitude of load in UFLS systems. 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, at P 145 (2007). NERC submitted a response to this request
on February 1, 2008 that included the underfrequency set points and
magnitude of load shed in each Regional Entity. NERC, Response to
FERC Supplemental Request for Information on the Status of
Underfrequency Load Shedding, Docket No. RM06-16-000 (filed Feb. 1,
2008).
\9\ EPRI Tutorial at page 4-81.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Id. at P 4-78, 4-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Once a frequency threshold \12\ is identified, the balance of
resources and demand to be maintained to prevent the system from
reaching that frequency threshold is determined. UFLS programs use
validated models of the power system, which consist of mathematical
representations of static (e.g., transformers and transmission lines)
and dynamic (e.g., generators and motor loads) components of the power
system aggregated to simulate how the system performs during system
operations.\13\ Models are validated, typically, by comparing actual
system operations against simulated system operations to ensure the
simulated system operations are within a defined and acceptable margin
of tolerance relative to actual system operations. Inaccurate power
system models may result in a UFLS program that does not perform as
desired, thus undermining the reliability objective of UFLS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A frequency threshold is a pre-determined frequency that
UFLS programs are designed to avoid reaching, as the system may
become unstable at this frequency.
\13\ See, e.g., PowerTech Labs Inc., 2010 Evaluation and
Assessment of Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Under-Frequency Load
Shedding Scheme, available at https://www.spp.org/publications/SPP-2010-UFLS-Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A UFLS program is designed to shed sufficient load to arrest
system frequency decline without shedding too much load such that
frequency increases above 60 Hz. If a UFLS program is not effective,
either because of invalid power system models or miscoordination of the
UFLS program with entities inside and outside of the intended island,
it may not achieve the reliability objective of preventing cascading
outages. This, in turn, could further undermine reliability and
recovery of the Bulk-Power System during a system emergency.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For example, if not enough load is shed to arrest frequency
decline, additional resources may disconnect from the
Interconnection to prevent damage to generators, and thus system
frequency will continue to collapse. Conversely, if too much load is
shed, the system frequency could exceed 60 Hz also causing resources
to disconnect from the Interconnection to prevent damage to
generators. EPRI Tutorial at page 4-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Minimum Amount of Load to Shed
9. The amount of load to disconnect is the amount of load shed at
each underfrequency set point, typically expressed in megawatts or
percent of system peak load or both.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPRI Tutorial at page 4-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What Load to Shed
10. In addition to determining the amount of load to disconnect
based on validated power system models, a UFLS program identifies what
loads to shed
[[Page 66222]]
and their locations. Therefore, in deciding what specific loads to
shed, consideration is given to whether the load is critical (e.g.,
hospitals, police stations, or fire stations). These loads would
typically not be included in a UFLS program.
B. Mandatory Reliability Standards
11. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are
subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established
a process to select and certify an ERO \17\ and, subsequently,
certified NERC as the ERO.\18\ On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued
Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by
NERC, including Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-
003-1.\19\ The Commission neither approved nor remanded NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 in Order No. 693.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
\18\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom., Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
\19\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 603.
\20\ Id. P 1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. NERC-Approved Reliability Standard
1. PRC-006-0
13. NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 addresses the
development of a regional UFLS program that is used as a last resort to
preserve islanding operation following a major system event on the
Bulk-Power System that could otherwise cause the island system
frequency to collapse. PRC-006-0 requires regional reliability
organizations to develop, coordinate, document and assess UFLS program
design and effectiveness at least every five years. In Order No. 693,
the Commission determined neither to approve nor remand this ``fill-in-
the-blank'' Reliability Standard because the regional procedures had
not been submitted, and the Commission held that it would not propose
to approve or remand PRC-006-0 until the ERO submitted the additional
information.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. P 1477, 1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Currently Effective Reliability Standards
1. PRC-007-0
14. Reliability Standard PRC-007-0 requires transmission owners,
transmission operators, load serving entities (LSEs) and distribution
providers to provide, and annually update, their underfrequency data to
facilitate the regional reliability organization's maintenance of the
UFLS program database.
2. PRC-009-0
15. Reliability Standard PRC-009-0 requires that the performance of
a UFLS system be analyzed and documented following an underfrequency
event by requiring the transmission owner, transmission operator, LSE
and distribution provider to document the deployment of their UFLS
systems in accordance with the regional reliability organization's
program.
3. EOP-003-1
16. Reliability Standard EOP-003-1 addresses load shedding plans
and requires that balancing authorities and transmission operators
operating with insufficient transmission and/or generation capacity
have the capability and authority to shed load rather than risk a
failure of the system. It includes requirements to establish plans for
automatic load shedding for underfrequency or undervoltage, manual load
shedding to respond to real-time emergencies, and communication with
other balancing authorities and transmission operators.
II. Proposed Reliability Standards
17. On March 31, 2011, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission
approval of proposed Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 and
requesting the concurrent retirement of the currently effective
Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1 and NERC-
approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.\22\ NERC requests an effective
date for PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 of one year following the first day of
the first calendar quarter after applicable regulatory approvals with
respect to all Requirements of the proposed Reliability Standards
except Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1. With
respect to Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1, NERC
requests an effective date of one year following the receipt of
generation data as would be required in draft Reliability Standard PRC-
024-1 \23\ but no sooner than one year following the first day of the
first calendar quarter after applicable regulatory approvals of PRC-
006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NERC Petition at 1. The proposed new Reliability Standards
are not attached to the NOPR. They are, however, available on the
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM11-
20-000 and are available on the ERO's Web site, https://www.nerc.com.
Reliability Standards approved by the Commission are not codified in
the CFR.
\23\ PRC-024-1 addresses ``Generator Performance During
Frequency and Voltage Excursions'' and is currently being developed
in the NERC standard drafting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. PRC-006-1
18. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 would apply to planning
coordinators, ``UFLS entities,'' \24\ and transmission owners that
``own Elements identified in the UFLS program established by the
Planning Coordinators.'' NERC states that the primary purpose of the
proposed Reliability Standard is the establishment of design and
document requirements for UFLS programs that arrest declining frequency
and assist recovery of frequency following system events leading to
frequency degradation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ PRC-006-1 defines ``UFLS entities'' as: ``All entities that
are responsible for the ownership, operation, or control of UFLS
equipment as required by the UFLS program established by the
Planning Coordinators.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. NERC states that PRC-006-1 satisfies the Commission's criteria,
set forth in Order No. 672, for determining whether a proposed
Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential and in the public interest.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 at P 323-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. According to NERC, PRC-006-1 is designed to achieve a specific
reliability goal by establishing design and documentation requirements
for automatic UFLS programs to arrest declining frequency, assist
recovery of frequency following underfrequency events and provide last
resort system preservation measures. NERC contends that PRC-006-1
contains a technically sound method to achieve its reliability goal by
establishing a framework for developing, designing, assessing and
coordinating UFLS programs, and that PRC-006-1 is clear and unambiguous
regarding what is required and who is required to comply with the
Reliability Standard.
21. NERC states that PRC-006-1 does not reflect ``best practices''
without regard to implementation cost.\26\ NERC contends that it
achieves a specific reliability goal of establishing design
[[Page 66223]]
and documentation requirements for automatic UFLS programs to arrest
declining frequency and assist recovery following underfrequency
events, and that UFLS programs provide last resort system preservation
measures by shedding load during system disturbances that result in
substantial imbalance between load and generation. NERC also maintains
that PRC-006-1 does not aim at a ``lowest common denominator'' but
instead establishes common performance characteristics that all UFLS
programs must meet to effectively protect Bulk-Power System
reliability.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NERC Petition at 24.
\27\ Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. NERC states that PRC-006-1 does not include any differentiation
in requirements based on entity size, though it provides the
opportunity for planning coordinators to consider input from smaller
entities when developing the UFLS program. NERC further explains that
PRC-006-1 would apply throughout North America, with variances for
entities within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and
the Quebec Interconnections.
23. As proposed by NERC, PRC-006-1 has 14 requirements and 19 sub-
requirements, summarized as follows:
Requirement R1: Requires each planning coordinator to develop and
document criteria to identify portions of the bulk electric system that
may form islands.
Requirement R2: Requires each planning coordinator to identify the
islands to serve as a basis for designing its UFLS program. Sub-
Requirements 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 serve as a checklist of items that the
entity must consider when identifying islands.
Requirement R3: Requires each planning coordinator to develop a
UFLS program, including notification of and a schedule for
implementation by the UFLS entities within its area, that meets the
specific performance characteristics set forth in sub-Requirements 3.1
through 3.3 in simulations of underfrequency conditions resulting from
an imbalance of up to 25 percent within the identified island.
Requirement R4: Requires each planning coordinator to conduct and
document a UFLS design assessment at least once every five years that
determines through dynamic simulation whether the UFLS program design
meets the performance characteristics in Requirement R3 for each island
identified in Requirement R2, with sub-Requirements 4.1 through 4.7
specifying items that the simulation must model.
Requirement R5: Requires each planning coordinator to coordinate
its UFLS design with all other planning coordinators whose areas or
portions of whose areas are also part of the same identified island
through specific actions identified in Requirement R5.
Requirement R6: Requires each planning coordinator to maintain a
UFLS database containing data necessary to model its UFLS program for
use in event analyses and assessments of the UFLS program at least once
each calendar year, with no more than 15 months between maintenance
activities.
Requirement R7: Requires each planning coordinator to provide its
UFLS database to other planning coordinators within its Interconnection
within 30 calendar days of request.
Requirement R8: Requires each UFLS entity to provide data to its
planning coordinator(s) according to the format and schedule specified
by the planning coordinator(s) to support maintenance of the UFLS
database.
Requirement R9: Requires each UFLS entity to provide automatic
tripping of load in accordance with the UFLS program design and
schedule for application determined by its planning coordinator(s) in
each planning coordinator area in which it owns assets.
Requirement R10: Requires each transmission owner to provide
automatic switching of its existing capacitor banks, transmission
lines, and reactors to control overvoltage as a result of
underfrequency load shedding if required by the UFLS program and
schedule for application determined by the planning coordinator(s) in
each planning coordinator area in which the transmission owner owns
transmission.
Requirement R11: Requires each planning coordinator, in whose area
a bulk electric system islanding event results in system frequency
excursions below the initializing set points of the UFLS program, to
conduct and document an assessment of the event within one year of
event actuation that evaluates the performance of the UFLS equipment
(sub-Requirement 11.1), and the effectiveness of the UFLS program (sub-
Requirement 11.2).
Requirement R12: Requires each planning coordinator, in whose
islanding event assessment (Requirement R11) UFLS program deficiencies
are identified, to conduct and document a UFLS design assessment to
consider the identified deficiencies within two years of event
actuation.
Requirement R13: Requires each planning coordinator, in whose area
a bulk electric system islanding event occurred that also included the
area(s) or portions of area(s) of other planning coordinator(s) in the
same islanding event and that resulted in system frequency excursions
below the initializing set points of the UFLS program, to coordinate
its event assessment (in accordance with Requirement R11) with all
other planning coordinators whose areas or portions of whose areas were
also included in the same islanding event by either: (i) Conducting a
joint event assessment per Requirement R11 among the planning
coordinators whose areas or portions of whose areas were included in
the same islanding event; or (ii) conducting an independent event
assessment per Requirement R11 that reaches conclusions and
recommendations consistent with those of the event assessments of the
other planning coordinators whose areas or portions of whose areas were
included in the same islanding event; or (iii) conducting an
independent event assessment per Requirement R11 and where the
assessment fails to reach conclusions and recommendations consistent
with those of the event assessments of the other planning coordinators
whose areas or portions of whose areas were included in the same
islanding event, identifying differences in the assessments that likely
resulted in the differences in the conclusions and recommendations and
report these differences to the other planning coordinators whose areas
or portions of whose areas were included in the same islanding event
and to the ERO.
Requirement R14: Requires the planning coordinator to respond to
written comments submitted by UFLS entities and transmission owners
within its planning coordinator area following a comment period and
before finalizing its UFLS program, indicating in the written response
to comments whether changes will be made or reasons why changes will
not be made to the UFLS program, including a schedule for
implementation (sub-Requirement 14.1) and the UFLS design assessment
(sub-Requirement 14.2).
B. EOP-003-2
24. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 would apply to
balancing authorities and transmission operators. NERC states that EOP-
003-2 makes minimal changes to EOP-003-1 by removing references to
UFLS, which NERC describes as redundant in light of proposed
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, and instead focuses proposed
Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 on undervoltage conditions.
[[Page 66224]]
III. Discussion
25. Pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA, the Commission
proposes to approve Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-1 as
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The Commission believes that the UFLS program
addressed in the proposed Reliability Standards is important to
arresting declining frequency and assisting recovery of frequency
following system events that lead to system instability, which can
result in a blackout. The Commission finds that the proposed
Reliability Standards are necessary for reliability because UFLS is
used in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between generation
and load after an electrical island has been formed, dropping enough
load to allow frequency to stabilize within the island. Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1, in conjunction with the conforming changes to EOP-
003-2, provides last resort Bulk-Power System preservation measures by
establishing the first national Reliability Standard of common
performance characteristics that all UFLS programs must meet. In
addition, the Commission proposes to approve the related VRFs and VSLs,
implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. Finally, the
Commission proposes to approve the retirement of the currently
effective Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1,
and the NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.
26. The Commission addresses or seeks comments from the ERO and
other interested persons on aspects of the proposed Reliability
Standards. Specifically, we address or seek comments on the following
issues: (A) Impact of resources not connected to the bulk electric
system; (B) validation of power system models used to simulate ULFS
programs; (C) scope of UFLS events assessments; (D) impact of generator
owner trip settings outside of the UFLS program; (E) UFLS program
coordination with other protection systems; (F) identification of
island boundaries in UFLS programs; (G) automatic load shedding in PRC-
006-1 and manual load shedding in EOP-003-2; (H) elimination of
balancing authority responsibilities in EOP-003-2; and (I) the ``Lower
VSL'' for Requirement R8 and the ``Medium'' VRF for Requirement R5 of
PRC-006-1. These issues also apply to the corresponding Requirements in
the requested regional variance for WECC in PRC-006-1.
A. Impact of Resources Not Connected to Bulk Electric System Facilities
27. As described above, UFLS programs are designed to maintain
balance between resources and load in a defined area (e.g., an
Interconnection, Regional Entity area, or planning coordinator area).
When a resource is lost, load exceeds supply causing frequency to
decrease below its scheduled value (e.g., 60 Hz in the United States).
Conversely, a loss of load or excess supply can result in higher
frequencies than scheduled, resulting in an overfrequency condition. As
a last resort, UFLS programs are initiated during extreme
underfrequency conditions to reestablish balance by shedding load at
predetermined frequencies and times to prevent system-wide blackouts.
28. Requirement R2 of PRC-006-1 requires planning coordinators to
identify islands to serve as a basis for designing UFLS programs.
Requirement R3 addresses performance characteristics for UFLS programs.
Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator to conduct and
document the assessment of its UFLS design and determine if the UFLS
program meets the performance characteristics in Requirement R3 for
each island identified in Requirement R2.
29. The simulations outlined in Requirement R4 all concern
individual generating units greater than 20 MVA gross nameplate rating
or generating plants/facilities greater then 75 MVA ``connected to the
bulk electric system.'' However, some generation that meets the 20 MVA
and 75 MVA criteria is not connected to bulk electric system
facilities. Accordingly, those resources not connected to bulk electric
system facilities would not be modeled pursuant to Requirement R4.
However, a resource not connected to the bulk electric system may serve
load designed to be shed in a UFLS program. The Commission is concerned
that failure to account for resources not connected to the bulk
electric system in a planning coordinator's UFLS program could result
in the planning coordinator being unaware of how such resources respond
to underfrequency conditions. If the planning coordinator is unaware of
how these facilities have responded, it may plan to shed more load than
is required for an area's frequency to return to normal. This could
lead to an unintended overfrequency condition if the plan is carried
out in the operating timeframe. These conditions, in turn, could lead
the plan to violate the performance characteristics specified in
Requirement R3.
30. The performance characteristics identified in Requirement R3
provide acceptable parameters for developing UFLS programs that are
designed to restore balance between resources and load. However, the
Commission is concerned that generation resources or facilities that
are not connected to the bulk electric system may not be considered
during the development of UFLS programs.
31. The Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other interested
persons as to whether and how all resources required for the reliable
operation of the bulk electric system, including resources not
connected to bulk electric system facilities, are considered in the
development of UFLS programs under Requirements R3 and R4.
B. Validation of Power System Models
32. Power systems consist of static components (e.g., transformers
and transmission lines) and dynamic components (e.g., generators and
motor loads). Mathematical representations of these components are
aggregated to create an area's power system model. Power system
planners \28\ and system operators base decisions on simulations, both
static and dynamic, using area power system models to meet requirements
in both Commission-approved planning and operational Reliability
Standards.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Power system planners may include functional entities such
as transmission planners and planning coordinators.
\29\ See, e.g., Reliability Standards MOD-010-0, MOD-012-0 and
TOP-002-2a, Requirement R19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC-006-1 require applicable
entities to use dynamic simulations to design and assess the
effectiveness of UFLS programs. As previously discussed, UFLS programs
are designed to provide last resort system preservation measures by:
(1) Arresting declining frequency; and (2) assisting recovery of
frequency following underfrequency events. Dynamic simulations that do
not accurately represent the power system can result in an UFLS program
that is ineffective.
34. The Commission believes that the UFLS program design
requirements established in Requirement R2 and the required assessments
established in Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC-006-1 are generally
acceptable and include improvements above the current Reliability
Standards. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the language in
the proposed Requirements is appropriate.
[[Page 66225]]
C. UFLS Event Assessments
1. Assessments in the Absence of Island Formation
35. Requirement R11 of PRC-006-1 requires planning coordinators to
conduct assessments after a ``BES islanding event results in system
frequency excursion below the initializing set points of the UFLS
program.'' The Commission is concerned whether the phrase ``BES
islanding event'' could be interpreted to mean that a planning
coordinator only has to assess an event if it meets both of the
following requirements: (1) System frequency excursions fall below the
initializing set point for UFLS; and (2) bulk electric system islands
form within the Interconnection. If the frequency falls below the
initializing UFLS set point but islands do not form (e.g., because the
event was not severe enough to isolate portions of the Interconnection,
or UFLS or other protection systems failed to operate properly to form
islands), an assessment of the performance of the UFLS program for this
event is still useful because it can determine if the UFLS program
operated as expected.
36. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO regarding what
actions must planning coordinators take under Requirement R11 if an
event results in system frequency excursions falling below this
initializing set point for UFLS but without the formation of a bulk
electric system island.
2. Coordination of Assessments and Results
37. Requirements R5 and R13 of PRC-006-1 require planning
coordinators that share identified islands to coordinate UFLS program
design and event assessment. The options for coordinating designs of
UFLS programs in Requirement R5 include: (1) Developing a common
program; (2) conducting a joint UFLS design assessment among the
planning coordinators whose area or portions of whose areas are part of
the same identified island; or (3) conducting an independent design
assessment and, in the event the UFLS design assessment fails to meet
Requirement R3, identify modifications to the UFLS program(s) to meet
Requirement R3 and report these modifications as recommendations to the
other planning coordinators.
38. The options for coordinating event assessments in Requirement
R13 include: (1) Conducting a joint event assessment per Requirement
R11 among planning coordinators whose areas were affected; (2)
conducting an independent event assessment per Requirement R11 that
reaches conclusions and recommendations consistent with other planning
coordinators whose areas were affected; or (3) conducting an
independent event assessment per Requirement R11 and where the
assessment fails to reach conclusions and recommendations consistent
with those of the other planning coordinators whose areas were affected
by the same islanding event, identify differences in the assessments
and report these differences to the other affected planning
coordinators. The Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons as to whether the differences should be subsequently
reported to the reliability coordinator for resolution in the event
that the process does not resolve differences in the assessments.
39. The Commission believes that Requirements R5 and R13 provide
flexibility in coordinating UFLS design programs and event assessments
among planning coordinators whose areas fall within the same island or
whose areas are affected by the same event. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that the language in the proposed Requirements is appropriate.
3. Assessment Timeline for Completion
40. Requirement R11 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires a
planning coordinator to perform an island event assessment within one
year of an event. If the planning coordinator identifies program
deficiencies, Requirement R12 requires the planning coordinator to
conduct and document UFLS design assessments, which are meant to
consider the deficiencies, within two years of an event. The Commission
is concerned that this time frame may be too long since it appears that
island event assessments and consideration of deficiencies could
reasonably be conducted in a much shorter time frame. Under NERC's
proposal, deficiencies could remain within a UFLS program for two years
from an event exposing the Bulk-Power System to instability,
uncontrolled separation and cascading outages should a frequency event
occur that the UFLS program mishandles. NERC provided no explanation of
its basis for the proposed two-year time frame.
41. The Commission asks the ERO and other interested persons what
the basis is for proposing a two-year time frame. In addition, the
Commission seeks clarification from the ERO as to how soon after event
actuation would an entity need to implement corrections in response to
any deficiencies identified in the event assessment under Requirement
R11.
D. Generator Owner Trip Settings Outside of the UFLS Program
42. Requirements 4.1 through 4.7 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
are intended to capture the effects of generators that trip prior to
UFLS initiation. As previously discussed, a generator trip normally
creates an imbalance between resources and load causing system
frequency to decline. Some generators may need to disconnect from the
system prior to reaching underfrequency set points to protect their
components from permanent damage. If this loss occurs during a system
event, the generator can no longer provide a response to assist in
arresting frequency decline. This resource loss also counteracts the
response provided by other resources to arrest frequency decline,
increasing the likelihood of instability, uncontrolled separation, and
cascading outages.
43. We agree that planning coordinators should consider generators
that trip prior to underfrequency set points when developing their UFLS
programs. The Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons on how generation losses outside of the UFLS set
points (i.e., generators having trip settings prior to the UFLS
underfrequency set points) should be accounted for in UFLS programs
(e.g., generator owners who trip outside of the UFLS set points could
procure load to shed to account for the loss in generation).
E. UFLS Program Coordination With Other Protection Systems
44. Recommendation 21C of the Blackout Report addresses the
coordination of protection systems.\30\ The recommendation states that
NERC shall ``determine the goals and principles needed to establish an
integrated approach to relay protection for generators and transmission
lines and the use of underfrequency and undervoltage load shedding
(UFLS and UVLS) programs. An integrated approach is needed to ensure
that at the local and regional levels, these interactive components
provide an appropriate balance of risks and benefits in terms of
protecting specific assets and facilitating overall grid survival.''
\31\ Accordingly, an integrated approach requires coordination of all
types of protection systems (e.g., UFLS, UVLS), internally and
externally to an entity's
[[Page 66226]]
area, to be responsive to the Blackout Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Blackout Report at 159.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. While PRC-006-1 requires coordination of UFLS programs among
planning coordinators in Requirements R5, R7, and R13, it does not
appear to capture the same level of coordination with other protection
systems as in Requirement R1.2.8 of PRC-006-0.\32\ The Commission seeks
comments from NERC and other interested persons on whether and how
coordination with other protection systems is or is not achieved under
the new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Requirement 1.2.8 of PRC-006-0 encompasses ``[a]ny other
schemes that are part of or impact the UFLS program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Identification of Island Boundaries
46. Requirement R1 of PRC-006-1 directs planning coordinators to
develop criteria to select areas that may form islands based on
historical events and system studies. Historical events and system
studies provide planning coordinators with the data necessary to
determine where islands will occur based on the physics of the system.
Requirement R2.3 clarifies that islands identified in Requirement R1,
which span two or more Regional Entity areas, should be broken up such
that each Regional Entity area forms an island. Requirement R2.3 allows
planning coordinators to ``adjust the island boundaries to differ from
the Regional Entity area boundaries by mutual consent where necessary''
to preserve contiguous island boundaries that better reflect
simulations. The Commission agrees that identifying island boundaries
based on where they are likely to occur due to system characteristics,
as opposed to maintaining rigid Regional Entity area boundaries, should
result in more effective UFLS programs. Accordingly, the Commission
encourages cooperation among entities to create UFLS programs that set
island boundaries based on where separations are expected to occur
during an underfrequency event.
47. In its petition, NERC states that the Requirements allow
planning coordinators to ``select islands including interconnected
portions of the bulk electric system in adjacent Planning Coordinator
areas and Regional Entity areas, without the need for coordinating this
selection with Planning Coordinators in neighboring regions.'' \33\
Requirement R2.3 of PRC-006-1, however, requires ``mutual consent'' to
adjust island boundaries from Regional Entity boundaries. The
Commission seeks clarification from the ERO concerning the required
degree of cooperation and/or ``mutual consent'' between planning
coordinators under the proposed Reliability Standard in order for
island boundaries to be set so that, while deviating from Regional
Entity boundaries, they better approximate actual island separation
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ NERC Petition at 75-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Automatic Load Shedding and Manual Load Shedding
48. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires automatically
shedding predetermined amounts of load if frequency declines to the
UFLS set point in order to rebalance resources and demand and prevent
frequency decline that might cause instability, uncontrolled
separation, or cascading outages. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-
003-2 requires manual load shedding plans, which may be employed in
addition to the automatic load shedding in the UFLS program, or to
mitigate other reliability issues. If load allocated to be shed
automatically is also planned for manual load shedding, then that load
resource would be double-counted. Once load is disconnected from the
system, either automatically or manually, it cannot be used again to
arrest frequency decline. In the event that a load resource is double-
counted and removed during automatic UFLS, the manual load shedding
cannot be completed if called upon. Even if additional load is located
and shed to compensate for this missing load, the system would be put
into an un-studied state and could have unpredicted, negative
responses. Accordingly, resources allocated to each type of load
shedding (i.e., automatic and manual) should not overlap.
49. There are no requirements in PRC-006-1 to coordinate automatic
load shedding by UFLS and manual load shedding under EOP-003-2. The
Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other interested persons on
how the coordination of automatic and manual load shedding is
considered in light of the fact that the proposed Reliability Standards
do not explicitly require coordination.
H. Elimination of Requirements for Balancing Authorities in EOP-003-2
50. Requirements R2, R4, and R7 of the currently-effective
Reliability Standard EOP-003-1 apply to transmission operators and
balancing authorities. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 proposes
to eliminate balancing authorities from Requirements R2, R4, and R7.
51. Under the proposed modification, balancing authorities would no
longer: (i) Establish plans for automatic load shedding for
underfrequency or undervoltage conditions (Requirement R2); (ii)
consider factors (including frequency, rate of frequency decay, voltage
level, rate of voltage decay, or power flow levels) in designing an
automatic undervoltage load shedding scheme (Requirement R4); and (iii)
coordinate automatic load shedding throughout its area with
underfrequency isolation of generating units, tripping of shunt
capacitors, and other automatic actions that will occur under abnormal
frequency, voltage, or power flow conditions (Requirement R7). In its
petition, NERC explains that balancing authorities were deleted from
Requirements R2 and R4 ``because the frequency related aspects of these
requirements were removed, leaving only consideration of automatic
undervoltage load shedding in these two requirements.'' \34\ NERC's
petition, however, does not explain why balancing authorities were
removed from Requirement R7. Moreover, given that balancing authorities
would no longer be subject to Requirements R2, R4, and R7 of EOP-003-2
and are not listed as applicable entities in PRC-006-1, the proposed
Reliability Standards do not preserve these existing balancing
authority responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ NERC Petition at 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO as to why these
existing balancing authority responsibilities were not incorporated
into Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 or EOP-003-2. The Commission also
seeks comments from the ERO and other interested persons as to why
balancing authorities should not be informed of UFLS program plans that
directly impact balancing authority functions.
I. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels
53. NERC states that each primary requirement in PRC-006-1 and EOP-
003-2 is assigned a Violation Risk Factor (VRF) and Violation Severity
Level (VSL) and that these elements support the determination of an
initial value range for the Base Penalty Amount regarding violations of
requirements in Commission-approved Reliability Standards, as defined
in the ERO Sanction Guidelines.
54. The Commission proposes to approve the VRFs and VSLs in PRC-
006-1 and EOP-003-2. However, the Commission seeks comments from the
ERO and other interested persons regarding one proposed VSL and one
proposed VRF for PRC-006-1.
55. The ``Lower VSL'' assignment for Requirement R8 in PRC-006-1
applies
[[Page 66227]]
when a UFLS entity fails to provide data to its planning coordinator
for 5 to 10 calendar days following the schedule specified by the
planning coordinator. Requirement R8 of PRC-006-1 does not include a 5-
day grace period for providing data to planning coordinators.
Accordingly, the subject VSL assignment may be inconsistent with the
Commission's VSL Guideline 3. The guideline states that a VSL ``should
not appear to redefine or undermine the requirement.'' \35\ The five-
day grace period implicit in the proposed VSL appears to be
inconsistent with this guideline. In addition, the proposed VSL creates
a compliance issue. Specifically, it is unclear where a UFLS entity
falls in the VRF and VSL matrices if it fails to provide data to its
planning coordinator within 1 to 5 days of its scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ]
61,284, at P 32 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. The VRF for Requirement R5, which requires planning
coordinators to coordinate their UFLS program design with other
planning coordinators whose area is in part of the same identified
island, is proposed as ``Medium.'' NERC states that Requirement R5 is
``not related to similar reliability goals in other standards.'' \36\
However, coordination of load shedding plans is required in a similar
manner in Requirement R3 of currently effective Reliability Standard
EOP-003-1,\37\ which includes a VRF of ``High.'' The lack of
coordination of UFLS programs among planning coordinators within the
same identified island could lead to ineffective UFLS operations and
further cascading outages within the island when UFLS is activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ NERC Petition at 46.
\37\ Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 includes the same
VRF assignment of ``High'' for Requirement R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Guideline 3 of the Commission's VRF Guidelines states that
``[a]bsent justification to the contrary, the Commission expects the
assignment of Violation Risk Factors corresponding to Requirements that
address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.'' \38\ The Commission seeks clarification
from the ERO why coordination of load shedding plans is a ``High'' VRF
for transmission operators and balancing authorities in EOP-003-2 but
NERC proposes a ``Medium'' VRF for planning coordinators in, PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, at P 25 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Implementation Plan and Effective Date
58. NERC requests an effective date for PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 of
one year following the first day of the first calendar quarter after
applicable regulatory approvals with respect to all Requirements of the
proposed Reliability Standards except Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of
Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1. With respect to Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of
Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1, NERC requests an effective date of one
year following the receipt of generation data as required in
Reliability Standard PRC-024-1,\39\ but no sooner than one year
following the first day of the first calendar quarter after applicable
regulatory approvals of PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ PRC-024-1 addresses ``Generator Performance During
Frequency and Voltage Excursions'' and is currently being developed
in the NERC standard drafting process under Project 2007-09
(Generator Verification), which is one of NERC's priority projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. NERC contends that the proposed implementation plan is not
excessively long and allows sufficient time for entities to transition
and install the necessary processes to become compliant. NERC maintains
that the one year phase-in for compliance provides planning
coordinators sufficient time: (1) To develop, modify, or validate (to
determine that an existing program meets required performance
characteristics) existing UFLS programs; and (2) to establish a
schedule for implementation, or validate a schedule for completion of
program revisions already in progress. Moreover, NERC states that
transmission owners and distribution providers will comply with the
schedule determined by planning coordinators but no sooner than the
effective date of the standard.
60. The Commission proposes to accept the implementation plan and
effective date proposed by the ERO for PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2.
However, the Commission seeks comments from the ERO and other
interested persons about any potential reliability gaps that may occur
during the development and implementation of PRC-024-1, such as how the
planning coordinators will adequately determine and apply UFLS
simulations and plans in the absence of generator trip settings.
IV. Information Collection Statement
61. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\40\ Upon approval of a collection(s)
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the
use of automated information techniques.
63. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve
Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2, which would replace
currently effective Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, EOP-
003-1 and NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0.\41\ As noted
previously, Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 was never approved by the
Commission, and therefore has never been mandatory and enforceable. On
the other hand, Reliability Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0 were
approved by the Commission and are currently mandatory and enforceable.
Because Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 incorporates the
requirements from Reliability Standards PRC-006-0, PRC-007-0, and PRC-
009-0 some of the existing requirements will become mandatory and
enforceable (where previously they were voluntary), while others
continue to be so. To properly account for the burden on respondents,
the Commission will treat the burden resulting from NERC-approved
Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 as essentially new to the industry, even
though it is likely that most applicable entities have already been
complying.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ PRC-006-0 was not approved by the Commission but remained
effective as a NERC-approved standard (but not mandatory or
enforceable). The other three standards were approved by the
Commission. 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).
\42\ This statement is made because currently effective
Reliability Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0 required UFLS entities
to follow the UFLS program implemented by Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0. Therefore, it is likely that entities have already been
following the requirements contained in Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. The reporting requirements in proposed Reliability Standard
EOP-
[[Page 66228]]
003-2 are virtually the same as those in currently effective
Reliability Standard EOP-003-1. The difference is that proposed
Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 proposes to eliminate balancing
authorities from Requirements R2 and from Measure M1.\43\ This
requirement and measure deal with establishing and documenting
automatic load shedding plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Balancing authorities are also removed from Requirements R4
and R7, but these do not have reporting requirements associated with
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of 7/
29/11. According to the NERC compliance registry, there are 72 planning
coordinators and 126 balancing authorities. The individual burden
estimates are based on the time needed to gather data, run studies, and
analyze study results to design or update the UFLS programs.
Additionally, documentation and the review of UFLS program results by
supervisors and management is included in the administrative
estimations. These are consistent with estimates for similar tasks in
other Commission approved standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Average burden
PRC-006-1 (Automatic underfrequency load respondents responses per hours per Total annual
shedding) \44\ annually respondent response burden hours
(1) (2) (3) (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCs *: Design and document Automatic UFLS 120 8,640
Program......................................
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
PCs: Management Review of Documentation....... 72 1 40 2,880
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
PCs: Record Retention......................... 16 1,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... .............. .............. ................ 12,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans) \45\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of BAs * from Reporting Requirements 126 1 Reporting -10 -1260
in R2 and M1 (Burden Reduction)..............
---------------------------------
.............. .............. Record -1 -126
Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... .............. .............. ......... ..... -1,386
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Change in Burden.......................... .............. .............. ......... ..... 11,286
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PC = Planning Coordinator; BA = Balancing Authority.
Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Compliance/Documentation) =
11,286 hours.
Total Reporting Cost for Planning Coordinators: = 11,520 hours @
$120/hour = $1,382,400.
Total Record Retention Cost for Planning Coordinators: 1,152 hours
@ $28/hour = $32,256.
Total Reporting and Record Retention Cost Savings for Balancing
Authorities: = (1,260 hours @ $120/hour) + (126 hours @ $28/hour) =
$154,728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 applies to both
planning coordinators and to UFLS entities. However, the burden
associated with the UFLS entities is not new because it was
accounted for under Commission approved Reliability Standards PRC-
007-0 and PRC-009-0.
\45\ Transmission operators also have to comply with Reliability
Standard EOP-003-2 but since the applicable reporting requirements
(and associated burden) have not changed from the existing standard
to the proposed standard these entities are not included here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention) \46\: =
$1,414,656-$154,728 = $1,259,928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The hourly reporting cost is based on the cost of an
engineer to implement the requirements of the rule. The record
retention cost comes from Commission staff research on record
retention requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
Action: Proposed Collection FERC-725A.
OMB Control No.: 1902-0244.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule proposes to
approve the requested modifications to Reliability Standards pertaining
to automatic underfrequency load shedding. The proposed Reliability
Standard
