Revisions to Reliability Standard for Transmission Vegetation Management, 64920-64935 [2012-26112]
Download as PDF
64920
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
authority described in Subtitle VII, Part,
A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority as it
would establish Class E airspace at
Princeton-Caldwell County Airport,
Princeton, KY.
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective
September 15, 2012, is amended as
follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth.
*
*
*
ASO KY E5
*
*
Princeton, KY [New]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Princeton-Caldwell County Airport
(Lat. 37°6′54″ N., long. 87°51′10′25″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile
radius of the Princeton-Caldwell County
Airport.
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October
11, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern
Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012–26045 Filed 10–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM12–4–000]
Revisions to Reliability Standard for
Transmission Vegetation Management
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Commission
proposes to approve Reliability
Standard FAC–003–2 (Transmission
Vegetation Management), submitted by
the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commissioncertified Electric Reliability
Organization. The proposed Reliability
Standard would expand the
applicability of the standard to include
overhead transmission lines that are
operated below 200 kV, if they are either
an element of an Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limit or an
element of a Major WECC Transfer Path.
In addition, the proposed Reliability
Standard incorporates a new minimum
annual vegetation inspection
requirement, and incorporates new
minimum vegetation clearance
distances into the text of the standard.
The Commission also proposes to
approve the three definitions, the
implementation plan and the Violation
Severity Levels associated with the
proposed Reliability Standard. Finally,
the Commission proposes to direct that
NERC revise the Violation Risk Factor
for Requirement R2, and approve the
remainder of the Violation Risk Factors.
DATES: Comments are due December 24,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by
docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
• Electronic Filing through http://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and
not 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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Tom Bradish (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Division
of Reliability Standards, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 1800
Dual Highway, Suite 201,
Hagerstown, MD 21740, Telephone:
(301) 665–1391.
David O’Connor (Technical
Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Logistics &
Security, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–6695.
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, Telephone: (202) 502–6362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Issued October 18, 2012.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the
Commission proposes to approve
Reliability Standard FAC–003–2
(Transmission Vegetation Management),
submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO).
Proposed Reliability Standard FAC–
003–2 modifies the currently effective
standard, FAC–003–1 (the ‘‘Version 1’’
standard). The proposed modifications,
in part, respond to certain Commission
directives in Order No. 693, in which
the Commission approved currentlyeffective Reliability Standard FAC–003–
1.2
2. Proposed Reliability Standard
FAC–003–2 has a number of features
that make it an improvement over the
Version 1 standard. For example, like
Version 1, the proposed Reliability
Standard would apply to all overhead
transmission lines operated at or above
200 kV, but unlike Version 1, it would
explicitly apply to any lower voltage
overhead transmission line that is either
an element of an Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) or an
element of a Major WECC Transfer
Path.3 This is a new class of
1 16
U.S.C. 824o (2006).
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A,
120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007).
3 NERC defines ‘‘IROL’’ as ‘‘[a] System Operating
Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability,
uncontrolled separation, or Cascading outages that
adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Electric
System.’’ NERC defines ‘‘System Operating Limit’’
as ‘‘[t]he value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes,
Frequency or Volts) that satisfies the most limiting
of the prescribed operating criteria for a specified
2 See
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
transmission lines not previously
required to comply with the Standard.
The proposed Reliability Standard
would also make explicit a transmission
owner’s obligation to prevent an
encroachment into the minimum
vegetation clearance distance (MVCD)
for a line subject to the standard,
regardless of whether that encroachment
results in a sustained outage or fault.4
Also, for the first time, the proposed
Reliability Standard would require
transmission owners to annually inspect
all transmission lines subject to the
standard and to complete 100 percent of
their annual vegetation work plan. The
proposed Reliability Standard also
incorporates the MVCDs into the text of
the standard, and does not rely on
clearance distances from an outside
reference, as is the case with the
currently-effective Version 1 standard.
We believe these beneficial provisions,
and others discussed below, support our
proposal to approve FAC–003–2.
3. A recurring cause in many
blackouts has been vegetation-related
outages. In fact one of the initiating
causes of the 2003 Northeast blackout
was inadequate vegetation management
practices that led to tree contact.5
Further, NERC has identified a focus on
preventing non-random equipment
outages such as those caused by
vegetation as a top priority that will
most likely have a positive impact on
Bulk-Power System reliability.6 We also
note that industry has made important
strides in reducing the instances of
vegetation contact.7 We believe that the
revised FAC–003 standard we propose
to approve in this rulemaking, together
system configuration to ensure operation within
acceptable reliability criteria.’’ See NERC Glossary
of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC
Glossary) at 26, 48. The Western Electric
Coordinating Council maintains a listing of Major
WECC Transfer Paths, available at http://
www.wecc.biz/Standards/Development/WECC0091/Shared Documents/WECC-0091 Table Major
Paths 4–28–08.doc.
4 See Reliability Standard FAC–003–2,
Requirements R1 and R2; see also Petition of the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation for
Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard FAC–
003–2—Transmission Vegetation Management at 4,
6 (NERC Petition). NERC proposes to define MVCD
as ‘‘the calculated minimum distance stated in feet
(meters) to prevent flash-over between conductors
and vegetation, for various altitudes and operating
voltages.’’ Id. at 2.
5 See 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 18, 57–64 (April 2004)
(2003 Blackout Report).
6 See Gerry Cauley written remarks for November
29, 2011 Reliability Technical Conference at 1, 4
and 5 (Docket No. AD12–1–000).
7 See, e.g., NERC’s Second Quarter 2012
Vegetation-Related Transmission Outage Report at
6–7, available at http://www.nerc.com/fileUploads/
File/Compliance/2Q2012_Vegetation%20Report_
FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
with a continued focus by industry on
best practices for vegetation
management, will serve to enhance the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
While we propose to approve NERC’s
use of the Gallet equation to determine
the minimum vegetation clearing
distances, we believe it is important that
NERC develop empirical evidence that
either confirms the MVCD values or
gives reason to revisit the Reliability
Standard. Accordingly, consistent with
the activity that NERC has already
initiated, the Commission proposes to
direct that NERC conduct or
commission testing to obtain empirical
data and submit a report to the
Commission providing the results of the
testing.
4. We also propose to approve the
three new or revised definitions
associated with the proposed Reliability
Standard for inclusion in NERC’s
Glossary. Specifically, we propose to
approve the changes in the definition of
‘‘Right-of-Way (ROW)’’ and ‘‘Vegetation
Inspection,’’ as well as the addition of
the term ‘‘Minimum Vegetation
Clearance Distance (MVCD)’’ as defined
in NERC’s petition. We also propose to
approve NERC’s implementation plan
for FAC–003–2.
5. While we believe that the proposed
Reliability Standard will enhance
reliability by requiring sub-200 kV
transmission lines that are elements of
an IROL or Major WECC Transfer Path
to comply with its requirements, we
seek comment on how NERC will
ensure that IROLs are properly
designated, as discussed in detail below.
In addition, while we agree that a
number of the proposed modifications
clarify and make more explicit the
transmission owner’s obligations, we
seek comment with regard to the
enforceability of certain provisions.
6. We do not believe, however, that
NERC has adequately supported the
assignment of a ‘‘medium’’ Violation
Risk Factor to Requirement R2, which
pertains to preventing vegetation
encroachments into the MVCD of
transmission lines operated at 200 kV
and above, but which are not part of an
IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path.
As discussed later, system events have
originated from non-IROL facilities.
Accordingly, as discussed below, we
propose to direct that NERC submit a
modification, within 60 days of the
effective date of the Final Rule,
assigning a ‘‘high’’ Violation Risk Factor
for violations of Requirement R2.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64921
I. Background
A. Section 215 of the FPA
7. Section 215 of the FPA requires the
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards, 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.8 Pursuant
to the requirements of FPA section 215,
the Commission established a process to
select and certify an ERO 9 and,
subsequently, certified NERC as the
ERO.10
B. Reliability Standard FAC–003–1
8. Currently-effective Reliability
Standard FAC–003–1 is applicable to
transmission owners. The requirements
of the Version 1 standard apply to (1) all
transmission lines operated at 200 kV or
above, and (2) lower-voltage lines
designated as ‘‘critical to the reliability
of the electric system’’ by a Regional
Entity.
9. Currently-effective FAC–003–1
contains four requirements.
Requirement R1 requires each
transmission owner to prepare, and
keep current, a transmission vegetation
management program (TVMP) that
includes, inter alia, a Clearance 1
distance to be achieved at the time of
vegetation management work, and a
Clearance 2 distance to be maintained at
all times. The Clearance 2 distance is set
by each transmission owner at a level
necessary to prevent flashover, but must
be no less than the clearance distances
established in the Institute of Electric
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Standard 516–2003 (Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized
Power Lines). The Clearance 1 distances
are established by each transmission
owner, and the only numerical criterion
under the current standard is that the
‘‘Clearance 1 distances shall be greater
than those defined by Clearance 2.’’ 11
Further, Requirement R1.3 requires that
‘‘[a]ll personnel directly involved in the
design and implementation of the
TVMP shall hold appropriate
8 See
16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
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).
10 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006) (certifying NERC as the ERO
responsible for the development and enforcement of
mandatory Reliability Standards), aff’d sub nom.
Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
11 FAC–003–1, R1.2.1.
9 Rules
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
64922
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
qualifications and training, as defined
by the Transmission Owner, to perform
their duties.’’
10. Requirement R2 of the Version 1
standard requires that each transmission
owner develop and implement an
‘‘annual plan for vegetation
management work,’’ allowing flexibility
to adjust to ‘‘changing conditions.’’
Pursuant to Requirement R3,
transmission owners must report
quarterly to the relevant Regional Entity
‘‘sustained transmission line outages
* * * caused by vegetation.’’
Requirement R4 requires the Regional
Entity to report the outage information
to NERC.
C. Order No. 693 Discussion Regarding
Vegetation Management
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
11. On March 16, 2007, in Order No.
693, the Commission approved 83 of
107 proposed Reliability Standards
pursuant to FPA section 215(d),
including currently-effective FAC–003–
1.12 In addition, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission
directed NERC to develop modifications
to FAC–003–1 to address certain issues
identified by the Commission, discussed
below.
12. In the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) that preceded
Order No. 693, the Commission
proposed two directives requiring
modification of NERC’s proposed
standard pursuant to section 215(d)(5)
of the FPA.13 The first would have
directed NERC to develop a minimum
vegetation inspection cycle, and the
second would have required NERC to
remove the standard’s general limitation
on applicability to transmission lines
operated at 200 kV and above.14 In
Order No. 693, the Commission decided
not to require either modification at that
time, but continued to express its
concern about the standard’s limited
applicability and the lack of a minimum
vegetation inspection requirement.
13. The Commission instead required
NERC to address a modification to the
applicability of the standard through its
Standards development process,
directing NERC to ‘‘modify [FAC–003–
1] to apply to Bulk-Power System
transmission lines that have an impact
on reliability as determined by the
ERO.’’ 15 In doing so, the Commission
12 See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶
31,242 at P 735.
13 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71
FR 64,770 (Nov. 3, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Proposed Regulations 2004–2007 ¶ 32,608, at P 387
(2006).
14 Id.
15 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 706.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
stated that it supported the ‘‘suggestions
by [certain commenters] to limit
applicability to lower voltage lines
associated with IROL’’ and noted that
‘‘these suggestions should be part of the
input to the Reliability Standards
development process.’’ 16 Finally, in
response to concerns raised about the
cost of compliance with the standard,
the Commission explained that the ERO
must ‘‘develop an acceptable definition
that covers facilities that impact
reliability but balances extending the
applicability of this standard against
unreasonably increasing the burden on
transmission owners.’’ 17
14. Similarly, while the Commission
decided not to require NERC to submit
a modification to FAC–003–1 to
incorporate a minimum vegetation
inspection cycle as part of Order No.
693, the Commission noted that it
‘‘continues to be concerned with leaving
complete discretion to the transmission
owners in determining inspection
cycles.18 The Commission also rejected
the notion that incorporating such a
minimum requirement would lead to a
‘‘lowest common denominator’’ and
thereby potentially reduce the frequency
of inspections for transmission owners
with aggressive inspection cycles.19
Although the Commission did not
require a minimum inspection
requirement as part of the standard, it
directed NERC ‘‘to develop compliance
audit procedures to identify appropriate
inspection cycles based on local
factors.’’ 20
15. With respect to minimum
vegetation clearances distances, the
Commission approved FAC–003–1’s
general approach and ‘‘reaffirm[ed] its
interpretation that FAC–003–1 requires
sufficient clearances to prevent outages
due to vegetation management practices
under all applicable conditions.’’ 21
However, the Commission directed
NERC to ‘‘develop a Reliability Standard
that defines the minimum clearance
needed to avoid sustained vegetationrelated outages that would apply to
transmission lines crossing both federal
and non-federal land’’ 22 and
‘‘decline[d] to endorse the use of IEEE
516 as the only minimum clearance.’’ 23
16. Finally, the Commission directed
NERC to address certain commenters’
suggestion that, for purposes of the
FAC–003 Reliability Standard, rights-of16 Id.
17 Id.
P 708.
P 721.
19 Id. P 720.
20 Id. P 735.
21 Id. P 729.
22 Id. P 732.
23 Id. P 731.
way should be defined to encompass the
required clearance area, and not the
entire legal right-of-way, particularly
where the legal right-of-way may greatly
exceed the area needed for effective
vegetation management.24
II. NERC Petition and Proposed
Reliability Standard FAC–003–2
A. NERC Petition
17. In its petition, NERC maintains
that proposed Reliability Standard
FAC–003–2 is just and reasonable, as
the proposal meets or exceeds each of
the criteria the Commission has
identified for evaluating a proposed
Reliability Standard.25 NERC asserts
that the proposed Reliability Standard
‘‘achieves the specific reliability goal of
maintaining a reliable electric
transmission system by using a defensein-depth strategy to manage vegetation
located on transmission ROW and
minimize encroachments from
vegetation located adjacent to the ROW,
thus preventing the risk of those
vegetation-related outages that could
lead to Cascading.’’ 26 Moreover, NERC
maintains that the proposed Reliability
Standard contains a technically sound
method to achieve that goal, as it
requires transmission owners to prevent
vegetation from encroaching into the
flashover distances, requires
consideration of conductor movement
and growth rates (among other things),
requires annual inspections, and
requires completion of annual work
needed to prevent encroachments.
NERC asserts that FAC–003–2 is clear
and unambiguous as to the requirements
and penalties, and contains clear and
objective measures for compliance.27
18. Further, NERC maintains that
proposed Reliability Standard FAC–
003–2 represents an improvement over
the currently-effective standard, as
FAC–003–2 enhances reliability,
facilitates enforceability, and preserves
necessary flexibility for transmission
owners to address local vegetation
conditions.28 NERC asserts that the
proposed Reliability Standard was
developed with the shortcomings of the
currently-effective standard, as
identified in Order No. 693, in mind,
including the directive to develop a
standard that defines the minimum
clearance needed to avoid sustained
vegetation-related outages without
relying on IEEE–516 to set these
18 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
24 Id.
P 734.
NERC Petition at 44.
26 Id. at 45.
27 Id. at 46–48; see also id. at 33–40.
28 Id. at 3, 44–52.
25 See
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
clearances.29 NERC states that the
Standard Drafting Team (SDT)
considered four potential methods for
deriving flashover distances for various
voltages and altitudes, and of those,
selected the ‘‘Gallet equation’’ because
the ‘‘information to support the
development of the standard was
readily available in an industry
recognized reference.’’ 30 NERC asserts
that the ‘‘distances derived using the
Gallet Equation result in the probability
of flashover in the range of 10¥6’’ (one
in a million).31
19. NERC states that proposed FAC–
003–2 continues to give transmission
owners the necessary discretion to
determine how to achieve the required
clearances,32 but is more stringent than
the currently effective standard because
it ‘‘explicitly treat[s] any encroachment
into the MVCD (without contact, with a
flashover, with a momentary outage, or
with a sustained outage) as a violation
of the standard.’’ 33 According to NERC,
the proposed Reliability Standard
incorporates a new requirement to
perform an annual inspection of all
applicable lines and is ‘‘much more
explicit regarding what actions must be
taken to support vegetation management
and reliability.’’ 34
20. NERC states that proposed FAC–
003–2 was designed to address
directives from Order No. 693,
including the directives requiring that
NERC address proposed modifications
to expand the applicability of FAC–003–
29 See id. at 5 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ¶ 31,242 at PP 731–732).
30 Id., see also Ex. I, Appx. 1.
31 NERC Petition at 6. As NERC explained in its
response to Question 1 of the Commission’s Data
Requests:
The probability of a flashover, given a drop in
voltage to 85% of the ‘Critical Flashover Voltage
(CFO),’ is roughly .135% (or approximately 10¥3).
This value represents the probability of a flashover,
assuming the specified CFO is achieved or
exceeded.
However, this is not the only event being
considered when attempting to model the
probability of a vegetation flashover. The
probability of achieving a maximum switching
overvoltage (‘‘Peak Voltage’’) in excess of the CFO
must also be considered. This is shown on page 40
in equation 6 of the Technical Reference Document,
and is specified there as roughly 0.135% (also
approximately 10¥3).
In other words, the conditional probability of
flashover given that the 85% CFO has been
exceeded is approximately 10¥3. However, the
probability of the CFO being exceeded is also 10¥3.
As these can be treated as two independent events,
the probability is statistically ‘‘joint’’ (the
probability of exceeding the CFO and the
probability of a flashover given the exceeding of the
CFO are independent events). Accordingly, the two
probabilities are to be multiplied, yielding a
probability on the order of magnitude of
approximately 10¥6.
32 NERC Petition at 6, 19–22.
33 Id. at 6.
34 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
1, evaluate and consider specific
proposals made by parties commenting
on FAC–003–1, develop compliance
audit procedures to identify appropriate
inspection cycles, define the minimum
clearances needed to avoid sustained
vegetation-related outages applicable to
transmission lines crossing both federal
and non-federal land, and address
suggestions that rights-of-way should be
defined to encompass required
clearance areas only. NERC also
explains that proposed FAC–003–2 is
one of the first Reliability Standards
developed using NERC’s ‘‘results-based’’
approach and, therefore, includes some
restructuring of the standard to focus on
completing objectives and achieving
goals, as well as to ensure that
enforcement is undertaken in a
consistent and non-preferential
manner.35
21. NERC proposes an
implementation plan for FAC–003–2.36
For individual transmission lines that
become subject to the vegetation
management standard for the first time
following designation as an element of
an IROL or Major WECC Transfer Path,
NERC asks that the requirements
become effective the latter of (1) twelve
months after the date of such
designation, or (2) January 1 of the
planning year when the line is forecast
to become an element of an IROL or
Major WECC Transfer Path.37
22. Accordingly, NERC requests that
the Commission approve proposed
FAC–003–2 and the associated Violation
Risk Factors and Violation Severity
Levels. NERC requests as an effective
date for the Reliability Standard, ‘‘the
first day of the first calendar quarter that
is twelve months following the effective
date of a Final Rule in this docket.’’ 38
NERC further requests: (1) retirement of
the Version 1 standard concurrent with
the effective date of FAC–003–2; (2)
approval of three definitions for
inclusion in the NERC Glossary; and (3)
approval of the implementation plan for
proposed FAC–003–2.
B. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC–
003–2 and NERC Explanation of
Provisions
23. The proposed Reliability Standard
includes seven requirements.
24. Requirements R1 and R2:
Pursuant to Requirements R1 and R2,
transmission owners must ‘‘manage
35 Id.
at 7.
at Ex. B.
37 In considering this aspect of the proposed
implementation plan, we assume that NERC asks
that the proposed standard become effective on the
‘‘later’’ of alternative (1) or (2), rather than the
‘‘latter.’’
38 Id. at 68.
36 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64923
vegetation to prevent encroachments
into the MVCD of its applicable line(s),’’
and any encroachment is considered a
violation of these requirements
regardless of whether it results in a
sustained outage.39 NERC characterizes
this as a ‘‘zero tolerance’’ approach to
vegetation management.40 Further,
NERC maintains that these requirements
represent an improvement over the
currently effective Version 1 Standard
because the proposed standard makes
the requirement to prevent
encroachments explicit, and because it
incorporates specific clearance
distances into the standard itself based
on ‘‘an established method for
calculating the flashover distance for
various voltages, altitudes, and
atmospheric conditions.’’ 41
25. NERC has bifurcated the basic
requirement to prevent encroachment
into the MVCDs. Requirement R1
applies to IROL elements and Major
WECC Transfer Path elements and is
assigned a high Violation Risk Factor.
Requirement R2 sets forth the same
substantive requirements but pertains to
non-IROL and non-Major WECC
Transfer Path elements and is assigned
a medium Violation Risk Factor. NERC
explains that it bifurcated the
requirement to ‘‘eliminate commingling
of higher risk reliability objectives and
lesser risk reliability objectives.’’ 42
26. In addition, NERC has included a
footnote describing certain conditions or
scenarios, outside the transmission
owner’s control, where an
encroachment would be exempt from
Requirements R1 and R2, including
natural disasters and certain human or
animal activity.43 As NERC explains, the
footnote ‘‘does not exempt the
Transmission Owner from responsibility
for encroachments caused by activities
performed by their own employees or
contractors, but it does exempt them
from responsibility when other human
activities, animal activities, or other
environmental conditions outside their
control lead to an encroachment that
otherwise would not have occurred.’’ 44
27. Requirement R3: Requirement R3
requires a transmission owner to have
‘‘documented maintenance strategies or
procedures or processes or
39 See Reliability Standard FAC–003–2,
Requirements R1 and R2, subsection 1
(transmission owners must manage vegetation to
prevent, inter alia, ‘‘an encroachment into the
MVCD, as shown in FAC–003-Table 2, observed in
Real-Time, absent a Sustained Outage’’).
40 NERC Petition at 6.
41 Id. at 22.
42 Id. at 22–23.
43 See proposed Reliability Standard FAC–003–2,
n.2.
44 NERC Petition at 23.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
64924
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
specifications it uses to prevent the
encroachment of vegetation into the
MVCD of its applicable lines.’’
Requirement R3 requires that these
strategies take into account movement
of conductors (sag and sway), and the
inter-relationship between vegetation
growth rates, vegetation control
methods, and inspection frequency.
While NERC acknowledges that this
requirement does not include the
currently effective standard’s
requirement to establish a Clearance 1
as part of the required TVMP, NERC
notes that Clearance 1 levels are
currently left largely to the discretion of
the transmission owner and that the
only numerical criterion for Clearance 1
is that it ‘‘must be some undefined
amount larger than the minimum
flashover distance [Clearance 2].’’ 45
NERC maintains that the proposed
standard’s requirement to avoid
encroachments after taking into account
conductor movement, vegetation growth
rates, etc., ‘‘still retains the same
obligations defined by ‘Clearance 1.’’’ 46
28. Requirement R4: Requirement R4
requires a transmission owner that has
observed a vegetation condition likely to
produce a fault to notify, ‘‘without any
intentional time delay,’’ the appropriate
control center with switching authority
for that transmission line. NERC states
that the proposed requirement is an
improvement over the Version 1
standard, in that it makes explicit the
obligation to communicate imminent
threats, rather than merely establish and
document a process for doing so, as is
currently required.47 In addition, NERC
explains that the currently-effective
Reliability Standard’s requirement that
the process allow for ‘‘immediate’’
notification was ‘‘impractical at best,’’
and was therefore replaced with the
phrase ‘‘without any intentional time
delay,’’ which still requires timely
notification.
29. Requirement R5: Requirement R5
requires a transmission owner
constrained from performing vegetation
management work needed to prevent a
vegetation encroachment into the MVCD
prior to implementation of the next
annual work plan to take corrective
action to prevent such encroachments.
NERC contends that this proposed
requirement represents an improvement
over the currently-effective provision,
Requirement R1.4, which merely
requires the transmission owner to
develop mitigation measures to address
such circumstances, but does not
affirmatively require the transmission
owner to take corrective action. The
proposed measures for determining
compliance associated with proposed
Requirement R5 provide examples of
the kinds of corrective actions expected,
including increased monitoring, line deratings, and revised work orders.48
30. Requirement R6: Pursuant to
Requirement R6, each transmission
owner shall inspect 100 percent of its
applicable lines at least once per year
and with no more than 18 months
between inspections on the same Rightof-Way. NERC maintains that the new
requirement is ‘‘an improvement to the
standard that reduces risks,’’ and notes
that the currently effective standard
allows the transmission owner to
develop its own schedule for
inspections (with no standard minimum
time) and contains no explicit
requirement that the transmission
owner meet its established schedule.49
31. Requirement R7: Pursuant to
Requirement R7, the transmission
owner must complete 100 percent of its
annual vegetation work plan, allowing
for documented changes to the work
plan as long as those modifications do
not allow encroachment into the MVCD.
NERC argues that this requirement
represents an improvement over the
currently effective standard because the
current Requirement (R2) ‘‘does not
mandate that entities plan to prevent
encroachments into the MVCD, but
simply that they implement whatever is
included in the plan.’’ 50
32. NERC explains in its petition that
certain requirements in the currentlyeffective Reliability Standard have not
been translated into a requirement in
the proposed standard. In particular,
NERC notes that the Version 1
standard’s reporting requirements, R3
and R4, have been moved into the
compliance section of proposed
standard FAC–003–2.51 NERC maintains
that the reporting requirement remains
enforceable under NERC’s Rules of
Procedure, which gives NERC authority,
inter alia, to require entities to provide
‘‘such information as is necessary to
monitor compliance with the reliability
standards.’’ 52 NERC further notes that it
can take action against any entity that
fails to comply with such a reporting
requirement (which would amount to a
failure to comply with a NERC Rule of
Procedure) pursuant to NERC Rule of
Procedure Section 100, and that it is
48 See
id. at 24–25.
at 17–18.
at 28.
51 Id. at 29–31.
52 Id. at 31 (quoting NERC Rule of Procedure
Section 400.3). This provision actually is located at
Section 401.3.
49 Id.
50 Id.
45 Id.
at 20.
46 Id.
47 See id. at 25–26 (referencing Requirement R1.5
of FAC–003–1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
obligated to notify the applicable
governmental authorities of the entity’s
failure to comply.53
33. In addition, NERC acknowledges
that the proposed standard no longer
contains a requirement that personnel
involved in the design and
implementation of a vegetation
management program have appropriate
qualifications and training (currently set
out in sub-requirement R1.3).54
According to NERC, this provision of
the Version 1 standard is ‘‘effectively
meaningless,’’ since ‘‘appropriate’’
qualifications and training are
undefined and left entirely to the
discretion of the transmission owner.
Thus, NERC maintains that elimination
of this sub-requirement does not impact
reliability.
34. NERC is also seeking to revise the
definitions of Right-of-Way (ROW) and
Vegetation Inspection, and to add a new
definition for MVCD.55 NERC proposes
that Right-of-Way be defined as the
‘‘corridor of land under a transmission
line(s) needed to operate the line(s),’’
which may not exceed the Transmission
Owner’s legal rights but may be smaller.
NERC proposes to modify ‘‘Vegetation
Inspection’’ to allow both maintenance
inspections and vegetation inspections
to be performed concurrently. Finally,
NERC proposes a new definition,
‘‘MVCD,’’ to be ‘‘[t]he calculated
minimum distance stated in feet
(meters) to prevent flash-over between
conductors and vegetation, for various
altitudes and operating voltages.’’
35. NERC explains in its petition how
it will approach enforcement of each
Requirement under FAC–003–2, noting
that each Requirement has an associated
compliance measure that identifies what
is required and how the Requirement
will be enforced. NERC explains, inter
alia, that the measures for Requirements
R1 and R2 require each transmission
owner to have ‘‘evidence that it
managed vegetation to prevent
encroachment into the MVCD,’’ and to
be able to produce records ‘‘indicating
the requirements were not violated.’’ 56
In order to show compliance with
Requirement R3, NERC explains that a
transmission owner will be ‘‘obligated
to show documentation, and that
documentation must be sufficient to
satisfy the auditor that the information
contained in that documentation is
sufficient that the Transmission Owner
can use it to prevent encroachment into
the MVCD.’’ 57 Similarly, NERC explains
53 See
id. at 31–32.
at 23–24.
55 See NERC Petition, Ex. C.
56 NERC Petition at 34.
57 Id. at 35.
54 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
that ‘‘entities will not be able to comply
with [Requirement R7] without having a
documented plan.’’ 58
36. NERC asserts that it has addressed
seven directives in Order No. 693
regarding NERC’s vegetation
management standard.59 First, NERC
asserts that it has addressed the
concerns in applying the vegetation
management standard only to
transmission lines that are 200 kV or
above.60 NERC notes that it has
addressed that concern (and related
directives) by extending the
applicability of the proposed standard
to overhead transmission lines that are
either 200 kV and above, or less than
200 kV if the line is an element of an
IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path. In
addition, NERC explains that it has
developed an appropriate
implementation plan for any new lines
covered by the standard, thereby
satisfying the Commission’s directive to
consider a delayed implementation date
if lower-voltage facilities are included.61
NERC further maintains that it has
addressed the Commission’s concern
about allowing transmission owners full
discretion to set inspection schedules by
requiring inspections at least once per
year, has satisfied the Commission’s
directive to define minimum clearances
for both federal and non-federal lands
by adopting MVCDs that apply to lines
on both federal and non-federal lands,
and has satisfied the Commission’s
directive to consider whether
modifications to the definition of Rightof-Way were necessary through the
proposed revision to that definition.62
reference paper [Exh. A of NERC’s
petition].’’ 64
39. PNNL’s final Report on the
Applicability of the ‘‘Gallet Equation’’ to
the Vegetation Clearances of NERC
Reliability Standard FAC–003–2 (PNNL
Report) was posted as part of the record
in this docket on April 23, 2012, along
with a notice inviting comment on the
PNNL Report within 30 days.
40. While the PNNL Report points out
benefits of the use of the Gallet
equation, it raises questions about
potential inconsistencies in NERC’s
filing.65 The PNNL Report raises
concerns about NERC’s use of an
assumed gap factor of 1.3, asserting that
that figure has not been adequately
supported for use with vegetation and
that there is no evidence that statistics
relating to tower design are usable with
vegetation.66 Instead, the PNNL Report
suggests that a ‘‘rod-plane gap and tree
branch might have about the same gap
factor (i.e., k=1),’’ 67 but does not
provide any other indication of an
appropriate gap factor for use with
vegetation.
41. The PNNL Report further asserts
that without NERC’s assumption ‘‘that
the gap between a power line and
growing vegetation is stronger (by 30%)
than the reference gap used in
developing the Gallet equation,’’ the
minimum distances calculated would be
about 50% larger.68
42. The PNNL Report also asserts that
‘‘[t]hough there is no obvious way to
relate tower clearance to vegetation
clearance,’’ the proposed MVCDs in
FAC–003–2 are small when compared to
transmission tower design clearances:
III. PNNL Report and Comments
The values for tower clearance for a line at
500 kV in the Transmission Line Reference
Book range from 8.3 ft. to over 17 ft. The
NERC filing requires a gap less than 6 ft for
the same voltage, even at high altitude. There
is no reason to suppose that a tree could
safely be allowed so much closer to a line
(less than 6 ft) than a tower.69
A. PNNL Report
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
37. As NERC explains in its petition,
the Standard Drafting Team applied the
‘‘Gallet equation’’ to derive the MVCDs
set forth in FAC–003–2. NERC describes
the Gallet equation as a ‘‘well-known
method of computing the required strike
distance for proper insulation
coordination.’’ 63
38. The Commission’s Office of
Electric Reliability retained the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
to undertake an ‘‘analysis of the
mathematics and documentation of the
technical justification behind the
application of the Gallet equation and
the assumptions used in the technical
58 Id.
at 39.
id. at 40–44.
60 Id. at 40–42.
61 Id. at 42–43.
62 Id. at 43–44.
63 NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference
Document) at 39.
59 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
B. Comments in Response to PNNL
Report
43. Nine sets of comments were filed
in response to the PNNL Report, with
timely submissions made by NERC, the
Canadian Electricity Association,
64 See April 23, 2012 Notice Inviting Comments
on Report.
65 PNNL Report at iv–v (‘‘The equation [the Gallet
equation] is a good and simple-to-use way to solve
a problem made difficult by the nonlinear
interactions of the variables. However, in spite of
the evident usefulness of the equation,
inconsistencies are found in the NERC filing
* * * .’’).
66 See id. at 11–13, 19.
67 PNNL Report at 13.
68 Id. at v.
69 Id. at 19.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64925
American Electric Power (AEP), Duke
Energy Corporation (Duke), Oncor
Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor),
Kansas City Power & Light and KCP&L
Greater Missouri Operations Company
(KCP&L), Arizona Public Service
Company (APS), and Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power
District (Salt River), as well as a joint
submission by the Edison Electric
Institute, the American Public Power
Association, the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association and the Electric
Power Supply Association (collectively,
the Trade Associations).
44. In its comments, NERC asserts that
the PNNL Report ‘‘(a) improperly
juxtaposes data included in the FAC–
003–2 Reliability Standard; (b)
disregards NERC’s justification
regarding the selection of transient
overvoltage calculations; (c) fails to
consider joint probability of
independent events when analyzing
flashover probability; and (d) disagrees
with the choice of gap factor for
vegetation without providing any
empirical evidence, scientific reasoning
or expert consensus on what an
appropriate gap factor should be.’’ 70
45. With regard to the assertion in the
PNNL Report that there is no evidence
that statistics relating to tower design
are usable with vegetation, NERC
explains the rationale for its use of the
Gallet equation in some detail
(discussed further in PP 47–48 below),
and notes that the PNNL Report
‘‘disagrees with [NERC’s] choice of gap
factor for vegetation without providing
any empirical evidence, scientific
reasoning, or expert consensus on what
an appropriate gap factor should be.’’ 71
NERC explains that the Standard
Drafting Team ‘‘relied on the scientific
body of available knowledge and the
opinions of experts (applied
conservatively) currently working in the
industry’’ to support a gap factor of
1.3.72 By contrast, NERC asserts that
‘‘there is no justification for the
suggestion that the gap factors for
vegetation could be less than unity,’’
and considers the PNNL Report’s
suggestion of a gap factor of 1.0 to be
based ‘‘purely on speculation.’’ 73
46. With regard to PNNL’s assertion
that ‘‘inconsistencies are found in
NERC’s filing’’, NERC states that the
‘‘inconsistencies’’ identified by the
PNNL Report in NERC’s Technical
Reference Document result from PNNL
erroneously comparing two separate sets
70 NERC Comments on PNNL Report at 1–2
(NERC Comments).
71 Id. at 2.
72 Id., Att. A at 8.
73 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
64926
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of data developed for different purposes.
According to NERC, one set of data was
developed to demonstrate the
consistency between the clearance
values set out in the IEEE–516 standard
and the values generated using the
Gallet equation when using similar
assumptions as those used in the IEEE–
516 standard. The second set of data
was designed to generate appropriate
clearance values using the Gallet
equation and ‘‘a set of assumptions
determined by the [SDT] to be
consistent with the purposes of the
standard.’’ 74 NERC responds that
PNNL’s comparison of the two sets of
data is therefore ‘‘misleading.’’ 75
47. With respect to the gap factor,
NERC maintains that it relied on a
widely known and regarded source for
determining the appropriate gap factor,
which indicates that an appropriate gap
factor for a conductor-to-lateral
structure configuration is in the range of
1.25 to 1.40.76 Specifically, NERC
explains that the Standard Drafting
Team (SDT) relied on the ‘‘widely
regarded’’ Insulation Coordination for
Power Systems, by Andrew Hileman, to
develop the proposed gap factor of 1.3.77
NERC indicated that there is a range of
gap factors that could be used in the
Gallet equation, each factor designed to
represent the difference in voltage
withstand capability 78 between a given
object, i.e., the transmission wire or
conductor, and a reference case, i.e., the
object for which the distance from the
wire must be established. The gap factor
varies based on the nature of the ‘‘gap
configuration’’ of the reference case. In
its response to the PNNL Report, NERC
provided the following table showing
the range of gap factors (shown as kg in
the table below) based on the gap
configuration:
TYPICAL VALUE OF GAP FACTORS Kg FOR PHASE-GROUND INSULATIONS
Gap configuration
Range of kg
Rod-plane ................................................................................................................................................................
Rod-rod (vertical) .....................................................................................................................................................
Rod-rod (horizontal) .................................................................................................................................................
Conductor-lateral structure ......................................................................................................................................
Conductor-lower rod ................................................................................................................................................
48. NERC then states that use of a gap
factor of 1.3 is conservative:
It is worth noting that the gap factors for
many shapes that could approximate
vegetation are even higher than the 1.3 used
in FAC–003–2, with ranges that include
values as high as 1.6. Hileman notes that in
regards to the substation environment (which
includes many objects, conducting and nonconducting, with varying shapes and
configurations): ‘‘Practically, the lowest gap
factor in the substations is 1.3, which
normally is conservative.’’
*
*
*
*
*
[T]he [SDT] did not rely on any specific
properties inherent in trees, rather, the [SDT]
conservatively assumed that vegetation had
the same properties as metal. The [SDT]
elected to use the ‘‘typical’’ value for
‘‘conductor to lateral structure.’’ Unlike the
other examples given, which specify a
‘‘typical’’ value that is equivalent to the
midpoint of the range, this value (1.3) is
within the conservative third of the range
(1.25–1.4).79
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
49. In response to the assertion in the
PNNL Report that ‘‘[t]here is no reason
to suppose that a tree could safely be
allowed so much closer to a line * * *
than a tower’’ (see P 42, supra), NERC
explains in its comments why NERC’s
proposed MVCDs may not be directly
comparable to distances based on tower
design:
74 Id.,
Att. A at 2.
75 Id.
76 Id.,
Att. A at 6–7.
77 Id. (citing Andrew Hileman, Insulation
Coordination for Power Systems 167 (Marcel
Dekker, New York, NY 1999)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
[C]are must be taken when making an
interpretation of the tabular data, as the
original survey participants may have
answered the questions in a general context
involving multiple structure designs. The
final structure design parameters provided in
the Red Book include the CFO gap plus other
factors (such as insulator geometry,
personnel safety and extreme lightning
events). Accordingly, they should not be
considered the final word with regard to
Vegetation Management, as those distances
were established to address a number of
other issues. FAC–003–2 is not intended to
mandate the parameters for all future line
designs; it is focused solely on the distances
necessary to mitigate the risk of vegetation
related outages.
50. In addition to providing a
response to the technical issues raised
by the PNNL Report, NERC argues that
the Commission is obligated under FPA
section 215(d)(2) to give due weight to
NERC’s technical expertise with respect
to the content of proposed standards.
51. Trade Associations, Duke, Oncor
and other commenters support NERC’s
technical analysis. AEP and Oncor agree
with NERC that the PNNL report
contains inappropriate comparisons of
data NERC presented in its petition and
supporting materials, and that if NERC’s
Gallet-generated numbers are compared
to the distances calculated under IEEE–
516, the ‘‘clearances determined by the
two calculations are in fact closely
78 The PNNL Report defines ‘‘withstand’’ in this
context as ‘‘[t]he capability of an insulation system
to function as an insulator when a high voltage is
applied.’’ PNNL Report at 1.
79 Id. at 7.
80 AEP Comments and Oncor Comments at 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Typical value
of kg
1.00
1.25–1.35
1.25–1.45
1.25–1.40
1.40–1.60
1.00
1.30
1.35
1.30
1.50
aligned.’’ 80 AEP and Oncor further
maintain that the PNNL Report does not
offer a ‘‘better alternative’’ to the use of
the Gallet equation, and that it does not
dispute the Standard Drafting Team’s
rationale for its selection of
transmission overvoltages.81 AEP and
Oncor note that the PNNL Report
acknowledges ‘‘that the Gallet Equation
is ‘a fair representation of the
performance of an air gap of a few
meters, a simple-to-use way to solve a
problem made difficult by the nonlinear
interactions of the variables’ and that
NERC has used the complete method
that includes all the factors that go into
the estimate of peak voltage.’’ 82 AEP
and Oncor also assert that proposed
FAC–003–2, taken as a whole, will serve
to improve the reliability of the system.
AEP notes that the MVCDs included in
Table 2 of the proposed Reliability
Standard are merely the first piece of an
overall strategy the transmission owner
must develop to manage vegetation, and
that the transmission owner must have
documented strategies to prevent
encroachments within all rated
operating conditions, after taking into
account sag, sway, and vegetative
growth.
52. KCP&L comments that the PNNL
Report should have ‘‘included
discussion regarding a correction factor
81 Id.
82 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
at 3 (citing PNNL Report at 19).
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
in the clearance calculation using the
Gallet Equation due to the difference in
the conductive properties of the metal
rod compared to vegetation.’’ 83 KCP&L
supports use of the Gallet equation as an
‘‘improvement over the industry’s
current means of determining clearance
distances.’’ 84
53. APS questions whether either the
Gallet equation or the IEEE standard
incorporated in currently-effective
FAC–003–1 ‘‘provides a demonstrable
indicator of the flash-over distance
between conductors and ground
vegetation * * *, ’’ 85 and accordingly
suggests that the Commission ask the
Department of Energy to experimentally
verify the distances derived from the
IEEE and Gallet methodologies. APS
takes the position that, until such data
are developed, the Gallet methodology
‘‘seems more reasonable’’ than the IEEE
standard as a basis for developing a
clearance requirement.86
54. Salt River supports the PNNL
Report’s analysis, noting that it has
questioned the applicability of the
Gallet equation for vegetation clearances
throughout the development of FAC–
003–2. Salt River further agrees that
there is insufficient evidence to suggest
that a tree could safely be allowed much
closer to a line than a tower. Finally,
Salt River supports the experimental
verification of any proposed guidelines
regarding required vegetation
clearances.
C. NERC Response to Data Request
55. On May 4, 2012, Commission staff
issued data requests to NERC. NERC
submitted a timely response to the data
requests on May 25, 2012, addressing
matters such as the correct
understanding and enforceability of
certain provisions of the proposed
Reliability Standard. Relevant elements
of NERC’s response to the data requests
are discussed further below.
IV. Discussion
56. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the
FPA, we propose to approve Reliability
Standard FAC–003–2, including the
associated new and revised definitions
and implementation plan, as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
or preferential, and in the public
interest. As discussed in Section A
83 KCP&L
Comments at 2–3.
at 3. KCP&L also points out what it
characterizes as a technical error in the PNNL
Report related to the impact of multiple gaps on
flashover probabilities, maintaining that in the
example given by the PNNL Report, the flashover
probability with 20 gaps should be 4% rather than
33%. Id.
85 APS Comments at 2.
86 Id.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
84 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
below, we believe the proposed
Reliability Standard will enhance
reliability and satisfies a number of the
outstanding directives from Order No.
693. In addition, we seek further
comment on certain aspects of the
proposed Reliability Standard.
Accordingly, we discuss the following
matters below: (A) proposal to approve
FAC–003–2; (B) applicability of the
standard to sub-200 kV transmission
lines; (C) clearance distances; (D)
appropriate Violation Risk Factor for
Requirement R2; (E) enforcement issues;
(F) inclusion of reporting obligations as
a compliance measure; and (G)
proposed definitions.
A. The Commission Proposes to
Approve FAC–003–2
57. We believe that proposed standard
FAC–003–2 is an improvement over the
currently-effective Version 1 standard,
will support vegetation management
practices that can effectively protect
against vegetation-related transmission
outages, and satisfies a number of the
outstanding directives from Order No.
693. As discussed earlier, NERC has
explained how many of the
Requirements improve upon the
currently-effective Version 1 standard.
In support of our proposal to approve
FAC–003–2, we highlight several of
these improvements. For example, in
accordance with our directives in Order
No. 693, as discussed further below,
NERC has expanded the applicability of
the Reliability Standard so that it now
applies not only to all transmission
lines above 200 kV, but also to
transmission lines operated below 200
kV if they are an element of an IROL or
an element of a Major WECC Transfer
Path.
58. In addition, NERC has
incorporated minimum clearance
distances into the text of the Reliability
Standard, and no longer includes a
required clearance distance based on
distances set by IEEE–516 which, as
indicated in Order No. 693, served a
different purpose than vegetation
management. Proposed FAC–003–2
requires a transmission owner to
prevent an encroachment into the
MVCD, even if the encroachment does
not result in a flashover or fault. As
NERC explains, ‘‘FAC–003–2 presents a
‘zero-tolerance’ approach to vegetation
management, explicitly treating any
encroachment into the MVCD * * * as
a violation * * *.’’ 87 Finally,
encroachments must be prevented
under all rated operating conditions,
and must take into account sag and
sway of the line, as well as vegetative
87 NERC
PO 00000
Petition at 6.
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64927
growth rates and frequency of
inspection and maintenance.
59. While the Commission did not
require NERC to adopt a minimum
inspection cycle as part of Order No.
693, the Commission did express
concern both prior to and as part of
Order No. 693 that inspection cycles
should not be left entirely to the
discretion of the transmission owner.
Accordingly, in Order No. 693, the
Commission stated that:
The Commission continues to be
concerned with leaving complete discretion
to the transmission owners in determining
inspection cycles, which limits the
effectiveness of the Reliability Standard.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the
ERO to develop compliance audit procedures
* * * which would identify appropriate
inspection cycles based on local factors.
These inspections cycles are to be used in
compliance auditing of FAC–003–1 by the
ERO or Regional Entity to ensure such
inspection cycles and vegetation
management requirements are properly met
by the responsible entities.88
NERC has addressed this concern by
incorporating a minimum inspection
cycle requirement in the proposed
Reliability Standard (at least once per
calendar year and no more than 18
months between inspections).89
60. Thus, based on the overall benefits
of proposed FAC–003–2, we propose to
approve Reliability Standard FAC–003–
2 and propose to direct a change in the
VRF level assigned to Requirement R2,
as discussed further below.
61. In considering whether to approve
Reliability Standard FAC–003–2, we
give due weight to NERC’s technical
expertise. In light of our proposal to
approve the proposed Reliability
Standard, commenters’ suggestions that
we have failed to give due weight to
NERC’s technical expertise are moot.
Below, however, we will discuss our
substantive consideration of the
proposed minimum clearance distances
derived based on application of the
Gallet equation and certain technical
points raised by the PNNL Report and
commenters.
B. Applicability
62. The currently-effective Reliability
Standard, FAC–003–1, is applicable to
any transmission line operated at 200
kV and above, and to any line of lesser
voltage designated by a Regional
Entity 90 as ‘‘critical to the reliability of
88 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 721.
89 See NERC Petition at 43.
90 Reliability Standard FAC–003–1 refers to
Regional Reliability Organizations (RROs), the
precursors to Regional Entities.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
64928
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the electric system in the region.’’ 91 As
discussed above, the Commission
accepted this approach in Order No.
693, but directed NERC to address a
modification to the applicability of the
standard through its Reliability
Standards development process:
We will not direct NERC to submit a
modification to the general limitation on
applicability as proposed in the NOPR.
However we will require the ERO to address
the proposed modification through its
Reliability Standards development process.
As explained in the NOPR, the Commission
is concerned that the bright-line applicability
threshold of 200 kV will exclude a significant
number of transmission lines that could
impact Bulk-Power System reliability * * *.
We support the suggestions by Progress
Energy, SERC and MISO to limit applicability
to lower voltage lines associated with IROL
and these suggestions should be part of the
input to the Reliability Standards
development process.
*
*
*
*
*
[Other commenters] raise concerns about
the cost of implementing this Reliability
Standard if the applicability is expanded to
lower-voltage facilities. We recognize these
concerns * * *and we direct the ERO to
develop an acceptable definition that covers
facilities that impact reliability but balances
extending the applicability of this standard
against unreasonably increasing the burden
on transmission owners.92
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63. We believe that NERC has
satisfied this directive by considering
the various concerns raised by the
commenters as noted in Order No. 693,
and ultimately by revising the
Reliability Standard so that it applies to
not only to lines that are 200 kV and
above, but also to any sub-200 kV
transmission line that is an element of
an IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path.
We believe that NERC has supported its
approach to the expansion in
applicability, noting that proposed
FAC–003–2 provides specific criteria to
determine applicability for sub-200 kV
transmission lines. In addition, NERC
has used an impact-based approach for
determining applicability rather than a
bright-line threshold as a means of
balancing the potential increased
burden on transmission owners under a
standard with expanded applicability.93
64. While we view the modified
applicability as a significant
improvement, there are two aspects on
which we seek comment. First, section
4.2.2 of proposed FAC–003–2 provides
that the standard applies to overhead
transmission lines operated below 200
91 To
date, no Regional Entity has designated any
lower voltage lines as critical to regional reliability
and therefore subject to FAC–003–1.
92 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
PP 706, 708.
93 NERC Petition at 41–42.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
kV identified as an IROL under NERC
Standard FAC–014 by the planning
coordinator. However, FAC–014–2 does
not explicitly require the planning
coordinator to provide information
about IROL status to transmission
owners. Further, IROLs may change
with changing system conditions. Given
these factors, we seek a better
understanding of how FAC–003–2 will
be applied to facilities designated as
IROLs. For example, we seek comment
on how information regarding IROL
status will be transmitted to
transmission owners that must comply
with FAC–003–2 and how transmission
owners can effectively implement
vegetation management per FAC–003–2
given that such programs are generally
implemented annually and a change in
IROL status can take place at any time
given changing system conditions.94
65. Second, in Order No. 693, the
Commission directed that the proposed
Reliability Standard apply to ‘‘BulkPower System transmission lines that
have an impact on reliability as
determined by the ERO.’’ 95 The
Commission noted evidence that some
lines below 200 kV can have significant
impacts on the Bulk-Power System,
including IROLs and System Operating
Limits (SOLs).96 The Commission
directed the ERO, however, to balance
extending the applicability of the
standard against unreasonably
increasing the burden on transmission
owners.97 Thus, we seek comment on
how the applicability of the proposed
Reliability Standard complies with the
directive that the standard cover ‘‘lines
that have an impact on reliability.’’ In
addition, since the issuance of Order
No. 693, we note that Commission staff
and NERC stated in their joint report on
the 2011 Southwest outage that failure
to properly designate IROLs was a major
cause of the outage.98 Therefore, as part
of the broader inquiry into whether the
standard covers ‘‘lines that have an
impact on reliability,’’ we seek comment
on how NERC will assure that IROLs are
properly designated.
94 For example, if a line is designated to be an
IROL element by the planning coordinator, how
will the transmission owner know to thereafter
apply FAC–003–2 to that line? If the designation of
an IROL changes with changes in system
conditions, how will a transmission owner
document management of vegetation over time?
95 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 706.
96 Id. P 710.
97 Id. P 708.
98 See FERC and NERC Staff Report, ArizonaSouthern California Outages on Sept. 8, 2011:
Causes and Recommendations at 6, 97–100 (April
2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Requirements R1 and R2
1. Minimum Clearance Values
66. We find that NERC has relied on
a reasonable method for setting the
MVCD, and has supported the inputs
and assumptions it used to develop
those minimum clearance distances, at
least until such time that empirical data
is developed and is available for use in
setting MVCDs. We note that the
MVCDs are roughly equivalent to, or
slightly larger than, the minimum
Clearance 2 distances in the current
standard.
67. NERC explains that the MVCD is
the result of a conservative gap factor.
Further, the MVCD clearances represent
only one aspect of proposed FAC–003–
2. The MVCD establishes a ‘‘minimum[]
required to prevent Flash-over.’’ 99 The
proposed standard requires
transmission operators to manage
vegetation to ensure that vegetation does
not encroach into that minimum
clearance distance, which requires
transmission owners to manage
vegetation to a distance further than the
MVCD. For example, transmission
owners are required to have
documented compliance strategies,
procedures, processes, or specifications
under Requirement R3 to prevent
encroachments into the MVCDs after
taking into account sag and sway of the
lines, as well as vegetative growth rates,
planned control methods and frequency
of inspections. Similarly, under
Requirement R7, a transmission owner
is required to ‘‘complete 100% of its
annual vegetation work plan of
applicable lines to ensure no vegetation
encroachments occur within the
MVCD.’’ 100 Indeed, as NERC has
explained, the ‘‘Transmission Owner is
obligated to show detailed
documentation that clearly explains
their system with regard to the
geography and how the Transmission
Owner will execute the plan to prevent
encroachment.’’ 101 Further, NERC has
indicated that a transmission owner’s
documentation approach will generally
contain the following elements:
1. The maintenance strategy used (such as
minimum vegetation-to-conductor distance
or maximum vegetation height) to ensure that
MVCD clearances are never violated.
2. The work methods that the Transmission
Owner uses to control vegetation;
3. A stated Vegetation Inspection
frequency;
99 NERC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability
Standard FAC–003–2) at 26 (Table 2—Minimum
Vegetation Clearance Distances (MVCD) For
Alternating Current Voltages), n. 7 (emphasis
added).
100 Proposed Reliability Standard FAC–003–2 R7.
101 See NERC Response to Data Request Q2.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
NERC also has indicated in its filing that
‘‘prudent vegetation maintenance
practices dictate that substantially
greater distances [than the applicable
MVCD] will be achieved at time of
vegetation maintenance.’’103
NERC indicates that conductor
movements must be taken into account
under FAC–003–2, and that the
transmission owner is required to show
that its approach to vegetation
management under Requirement R3 will
prevent encroachments under all
expected line positions.105 Thus, a
transmission owner must manage
vegetation to ensure it does not
encroach into the MVCD under multiple
conditions.
69. Finally, as NERC explains in its
Technical Reference Document,
transmission owners will have to clear
vegetation to levels ‘‘well away from’’
the minimum spark-over zone:
As the conductor moves through various
positions [due to thermal loading and
physical loading], a spark-over zone
surrounding the conductor moves with it.
* * * At the time of making a field
observation, however, it is very difficult to
precisely know where the conductor is in
relation to its wide range of all possible
positions. Therefore, Transmission Owners
must adopt maintenance approaches that
account for this dynamic situation.
*
*
*
*
*
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
In order to maintain adequate separation
between vegetation and transmission line
102 NERC Response to Data Request Q4 (emphasis
added) (citing NERC Petition, Ex. A at 19–20).
103 NERC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability
Standard FAC–003–2) at 26 (Table 2—Minimum
Vegetation Clearance Distances (MVCD) For
Alternating Current Voltages), n. 7.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
68. NERC also explains that a
conductor’s position in space at any
point in time continuously changes in
reaction to a variety of factors, such as
the amount of thermal and physical
loading, air temperature, wind velocity
and direction, and precipitation. The
following diagram is a cross-section
view of a single conductor at a given
point along the span that illustrates six
possible conductor positions due to
movement resulting from thermal and
mechanical loading: 104
conductors, the Transmission Owner must
craft a maintenance strategy that keeps
vegetation well away from the spark-over
zone mentioned above.106
appears to be one reasonable method to
calculate MVCD values. Further, while
questions have been raised regarding
certain inputs into the mathematical
formula, we believe that NERC has
supported use of the MVCD values set
forth in FAC–003–2.
72. Notwithstanding our approval of
the proposed MVCD, we remain
concerned, as indicated in Order No.
693, over the lack of empirical data with
regard to actual flashover distances
observed through testing or analysis of
flashover events.108 NERC states in its
petition that the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) is planning to
undertake ‘‘the first known field tests of
energized high voltage conductor flashover to vegetation’’ at its Lenox facility,
and that EPRI could be ready to
commence such testing by the summer
of 2013.109 We seek comment on the
status of this project and any other
similar testing that is planned or
ongoing of which NERC or other
commenters are aware.
73. NERC further states that ‘‘the
results of those [EPRI] tests may be
useful to the industry for future reviews
of this NERC standard.’’ 110 We agree
70. Thus, while clearances required at
the time of maintenance may vary from
one region or area to another, our
proposed approval of FAC–003–2 is
based on our understanding, which is
drawn directly from NERC’s statements
in its petition, that transmission
operators will manage vegetation to
distances beyond the MVCD to ensure
no encroachment into the MVCD.
71. As discussed above, the PNNL
Report identifies specific potential
concerns regarding NERC’s approach to
calculating minimum clearance values,
such as the appropriate ‘‘gap factor’’ to
apply. In its response to the PNNL
Report, NERC explains the Standard
Drafting Team’s approach to reach a 1.3
gap factor and how it considered the
matters raised in the PNNL Report. For
example, with regard to the gap factor,
NERC indicates that the drafting team
relied on an authoritative source and
chose a conservative gap factor value.107
Based on the record in this proceeding,
the application of the Gallet equation
104 NERC
107 NERC
105 See
Petition, Ex. A at 20–21.
id. and Requirement R3 of FAC–003–2;
see also NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference
Document) at 20–29.
106 NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference
Document) at 21–24.
108 Order
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comments on PNNL Report at 6–7.
No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242
at P 735.
109 NERC Petition at 5, n. 10.
110 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
EP24OC12.000
4. An annual work plan.102
64929
64930
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
with NERC. While we accept NERC’s
approach to determine the MVCDs
between conductors and vegetation
needed to prevent flashovers, we believe
it is important that NERC develop
empirical evidence that either confirms
the MVCD values or gives reason to
revisit the Reliability Standard.
Accordingly, consistent with the
activity that NERC has already initiated,
the Commission proposes to direct that
NERC conduct or commission testing to
obtain empirical data and submit a
report to the Commission providing the
results of the testing. We seek comment
on this proposal, as well as the
appropriate time frame for completion
of the required testing and the
submission of a report.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
2. Designation of Medium VRF for
Requirement R2
74. Requirement R1 of currentlyeffective Reliability Standard FAC–003–
1 requires a transmission owner to
maintain a ‘‘transmission vegetation
management program’’ pursuant to
which a transmission owner must
maintain certain clearance distances
between applicable transmission lines
and vegetation. Requirement R1 of the
Version 1 standard is assigned a ‘‘high’’
Violation Risk Factor.
NERC Petition
75. Under FAC–003–2, NERC
proposes to bifurcate the assigned
Violation Risk Factor levels, depending
on the type of transmission line
involved. NERC proposes to assign a
high Violation Risk Factor to
Requirement R1, which requires
transmission owners to ‘‘manage
vegetation to prevent encroachments
into the MVCD of its applicable line(s)
which are either an element of an IROL,
or an element of a Major WECC Transfer
Path.’’ Requirement R2 of the proposed
Reliability Standard, which is assigned
a medium Violation Risk Factor,
provides that ‘‘[e]ach Transmission
Owner shall manage vegetation to
prevent encroachments into the MVCD
of its applicable line(s) which are not
either an element of an IROL, or an
element of a Major WECC Transfer
Path.’’ [Emphasis in original.] Thus, the
substantive obligation set forth in
Requirements R1 and R2 are identical,
but the Violation Risk Factors differ
based on whether a transmission line is
an element of an IROL or Major WECC
Transfer Path.
76. NERC maintains that the
assignment of a medium Violation Risk
Factor for Requirement R2 is
appropriate pursuant to existing
Violation Risk Factor definitions and
guidelines. NERC maintains that ‘‘[l]ines
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
that are not IROLs and are not Major
WECC Transfer Paths by definition have
less potential for leading to cascading,
separation or instability.’’ 111 Thus,
NERC asserts that the separation into
high risk and medium risk categories
‘‘ensure entities properly understand
the risk to reliability associated with
specific actions.’’ 112
Commission Proposal
77. Based on the information
provided in NERC’s Petition, it is not
clear that NERC has adequately
supported a medium Violation Risk
Factor designation for Requirement R2.
The Commission-approved definition of
a ‘‘medium’’ risk requirement is:
A requirement that, if violated, could
directly affect the electrical state or the
capability of the bulk electric system, or the
ability to effectively monitor and control the
bulk electric system. However, violation of a
medium risk requirement is unlikely to lead
to bulk electric system instability, separation,
or cascading failures * * *.113
The definition of a high Violation
Risk Factor is:
A requirement that, if violated, could
directly cause or contribute to bulk electric
system instability, separation, or a cascading
sequence of failures, or could place the bulk
electric system at an unacceptable risk of
instability, separation, or cascading failures
* * *.114
NERC’s support for the medium
designation is that transmission lines
that are not IROLs and are not Major
WECC Transfer Paths ‘‘have less
potential for leading to cascading,
separation, or instability’’ than lines that
are IROLs or Major WECC Transfer
Paths.115 But NERC does not explain
why outages on these relatively high
voltage lines (200 kV or higher) would
not likely lead to cascading, separation,
or instability, or provide any indication
of the number of transmission lines and
transmission line-miles that would now
be subject to a reduced (i.e., medium)
Violation Risk Factor designation if
FAC–003–2 were in effect.
78. Moreover, transmission lines not
designated as an IROL element (or the
equivalent) have been instrumental in
causing major blackouts, including the
August 2003 Northeast blackout. In that
case, at least three of the four 345 kV
lines (Star-S Canton, HardingChamberlin, and Hanna-Juniper) that
tripped due to tree contact were not
111 NERC
Petition at 53.
at 54.
113 See North American Electric Reliability Corp.,
119 FERC ¶ 61,145 at P 9, order on compliance, 121
FERC ¶ 61,179, at n.2, Appx. A (2007) (emphasis
added).
114 Id. (emphasis added).
115 NERC Petition at 53.
112 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitored as a flowgate, which could be
viewed as the technical equivalent of an
IROL at that time.116 These three lines
were the second, third and fourth lines
to trip.117
79. Likewise, an August 10, 1996
blackout in WECC began with the trip
of a 500 kV line (due to a tree contact)
that was not identified as part of
WECC’s relevant path catalog at the
time, i.e., the line was not identified as
one of the critical paths subject to
WECC monitoring and oversight similar
to that required for a Major WECC
Transfer Path today.118
80. Pursuant to proposed
Requirements R1 and R2, transmission
owners must ‘‘manage vegetation to
prevent encroachments into the MVCD
of its applicable lines,’’ and any
encroachment is considered a violation
of these requirements regardless of
whether it results in a sustained outage.
NERC explains that it bifurcated the
requirement to eliminate commingling
of higher risk reliability objectives and
lesser risk reliability objectives.
However, analysis of the two
aforementioned system disturbances
suggests that lines that are not
designated as an IROL or a Major WECC
Transfer Path at a given point in time
(i.e., proposed Requirement R2 lines),
may still be associated with higher-risk
consequences, including outages that
can lead to Cascading.
81. Accordingly, pursuant to our
Violation Risk Factor guidelines, which
require, among other things, consistency
within a Reliability Standard (guideline
2) and consistency between
requirements that have similar
reliability objectives (guideline 3), we
propose to modify the Violation Risk
Factor assigned to Requirement R2 from
medium to high. However, in its
comments on this NOPR, NERC is free
to provide additional explanation than
provided thus far to demonstrate the
lines identified in Requirement R2 are
properly assigned a medium Violation
Risk Factor.
116 2003 Blackout Report at 55, 57, 60. The NERC
Glossary defines a flowgate as: ‘‘1.) A portion of the
Transmission system through which the
Interchange Distribution Calculator calculates the
power flow from Interchange Transactions. 2.) A
mathematical construct, comprised of one or more
monitored transmission Facilities and optionally
one or more contingency Facilities, used to analyze
the impact of power flows upon the Bulk Electric
System.’’ NERC Glossary at 20.
117 2003 Blackout Report at 46 (Fig. 5.1).
118 The blackout originated with the trip of the
Keeler-Allston 500 kV line, see NERC 1996 System
Disturbances: Review of Selected Electric System
Disturbances in North America (August 2002) at 40,
47, and affected 7.5 million people and 28,000 MW
of load across fourteen states. 2003 Blackout Report
at 106.
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
D. Enforceability
NERC Petition
82. In its petition, NERC describes its
approach to enforcement with respect to
each of the Reliability Standard’s
requirements, noting that each
requirement is associated with a specific
measure for evaluating compliance and
Violation Severity Level guidance. With
respect to Requirements R1 and R2,
NERC explains that the associated
measure sets out the types of evidence
or documentation that will be required
to show that vegetation was managed to
prevent encroachments.
83. NERC acknowledges that
proposed Requirements R1 and R2
include a general footnote (Footnote 1)
describing multiple conditions
exempting a transmission owner from
these requirements so as not to be held
accountable for an encroachment (e.g., a
natural disaster or a ‘‘major storm’’ as
defined either by the transmission
owner or an applicable regulatory body).
However, NERC explains that this
exception would only apply to
situations that are beyond the control of
the transmission owner or its duly
appointed delegate.119 Further, any
determination by the Commission or
any other ‘‘applicable regulatory body’’
as to whether a given event does or does
not qualify as a ‘‘major storm’’ would
override any such determination by the
transmission owner.120
84. With respect to the Requirement
R3 obligation that a transmission owner
document its approach to vegetation
management, NERC explains that the
transmission owner must not only
demonstrate that its program takes into
account ‘‘the movement of the
conductor, as well as growth rate,
control method, and inspection
frequency,’’ it must also provide
‘‘documentation that is sufficient to
satisfy the auditor that the information
contained in that documentation is
sufficient that the Transmission Owner
can use it to prevent encroachment into
the MVCD.’’ 121 NERC further explains
that ‘‘[a]uditors will have to use
judgment to evaluate the
appropriateness of the documentation
provided given the particular
circumstances of the entity being
audited.’’ 122
85. With respect to the obligation in
Requirement R4 to provide notice to the
applicable control center of a confirmed
vegetation condition likely to cause a
fault, NERC again explains that auditors
may have to use judgment based on the
specific circumstances, ‘‘but it is
expected that an entity that does not
make this reporting a top priority would
be in violation of the standard.’’ 123 In
addition, NERC explains that the
obligation to notify without intentional
delay generally ‘‘can be understood to
include an immediate (within 1 hour of
the observation) communication
notwithstanding a safety issue to the
personnel, other immediate priority
maintenance functions to ensure
reliability or system stability, or
communications equipment failure that
precludes immediate
communication.’’ 124
86. With respect to Requirement R5,
NERC explains that in the case where a
transmission owner is prevented from
taking actions needed to prevent an
encroachment into the MVCD, the
transmission owner must de-energize or
de-rate the line to reduce the MVCD as
needed to avoid a violation, and must
show proof that it has taken that action
if needed.125
87. With respect to Requirement R7
covering vegetation work plans, NERC
notes that the requirement does not
explicitly require the creation of such a
plan, but states that ‘‘entities will not be
able to comply with the requirement
without having a documented plan.’’ 126
While NERC acknowledges that R7
allows transmission owners to have a
‘‘dynamic work plan,’’ it points out that
any modifications to the plan must be
executed to avoid encroachment of
vegetation into the MVCD. Moreover,
NERC notes that ‘‘[a]ny such
encroachment would be a violation of
R1 or R2, and any changes to the plan
that resulted in such an encroachment
would be a violation of R7.’’ 127 Finally,
NERC notes that auditors will be able to
request and review initial work plans
for comparison with completed work
plans in order to assess compliance with
these requirements.128
88. In addition, NERC has identified
what it expects a transmission owner’s
vegetation management program to
contain. See P 67, supra.
89. The proposed Reliability
Standard, as filed, includes a
‘‘Guideline and Technical Basis’’
document that further explains NERC’s
expectations on how the requirements
will be enforced and how compliance
can be demonstrated. For example, with
respect to Requirement R3, NERC
123 Id.
124 Id.
119 NERC
Petition at 34.
120 NERC Petition at 34.
121 Id. at 35.
122 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Commission Proposal
90. We support NERC’s overall efforts
to develop explicit, verifiable measures
for each requirement in order to allow
for consistent, non-preferential
enforcement.
91. As noted above, NERC has
provided information we believe is
useful to an overall understanding of the
intent of the standard and how it will
be interpreted and enforced, including
the information that NERC has provided
in its petition, in the Guideline and
Technical Basis document that is
attached as part of Exhibit A to the
petition, and in its May 25, 2012
responses to the Commission staff’s data
requests. We believe these additional
resources, while not setting forth
requirements or themselves determining
whether compliance has occurred,
provide guidance with respect to
uniform compliance with the proposed
Reliability Standard.131 We expect that
NERC will approach its compliance,
auditing and enforcement obligations as
described in each of these submitted
materials. We seek comment as to
whether this material should be
consolidated as reference material to
complement the proposed compliance
measures in order that entities that must
comply can find these materials in one
place and assure implementation of the
proposed standard as NERC has
supported in its filings.
92. In addition, Requirement R4
requires transmission owners to notify
‘‘without intentional time delay’’ the
control center with switching authority
for the applicable line when the
transmission owner has confirmed the
129 Id.,
Ex. A at 19.
at 20.
131 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242
at P 253.
at 39.
130 Id.
127 Id.
128 Id.
explains in greater detail that the
documentation showing the
transmission owner’s approach to
vegetation management must provide
‘‘the basis for evaluating the intent,
allocation of appropriate resources, and
the competency of the Transmission
Owner in managing vegetation.’’ 129
While NERC notes that there are many
acceptable approaches to vegetation
management, the transmission owner
must be able to show how it conducts
work to maintain the required
clearances.130 In addition, as discussed
in paragraphs 67–71 above,
transmission owners cannot show
compliance with the standard without
adopting a vegetation management
program that keeps vegetation away
from the MVCDs under changing
conditions.
at 37.
125 Id.
126 Id.
64931
at 40.
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
64932
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
existence of a vegetation condition that
is likely to cause an imminent fault. We
seek comment on how NERC would or
should treat a delay in communication
caused by the negligence of the
transmission owner or one of its
employees, where the delay may be
significant and ‘‘unintentional.’’
E. Reporting Requirements
93. Reliability Standard FAC–003–1,
Requirements R3 and R4, require
quarterly reporting to the Regional
Entities of sustained transmission
outages caused by vegetation. While the
proposed Reliability Standard moves
these reporting requirements to the
‘‘Additional Compliance Information’’
section as a Periodic Data Submittal,
NERC maintains that the reporting
requirements remain enforceable under
NERC’s Rules of Procedure. Among
other things, NERC states that it and
Regional Entities can require entities to
provide ‘‘such information as is
necessary to monitor compliance with
the reliability standards’’ under Section
401.3 of NERC’s Rules of Procedure.132
In addition, NERC asserts that it ‘‘has
certain courses of action it may
undertake as necessary to ensure the
entity complies with the Rules,’’
pursuant to NERC Rule of Procedure
Section 100, including notifying the
Commission of the entity’s failure to
comply.133
94. We agree that pursuant to section
401.3 of NERC’s Rules of Procedure,
NERC and the Regional Entities can
require transmission owners to make
quarterly reports of sustained
transmission outages because these
reports provide information relating to
compliance with the requirements of
proposed FAC–003–2. This rule states:
‘‘All Bulk Power System owners,
operators and users shall provide to
NERC and the applicable Regional
Entity such information as is necessary
to monitor compliance with the
Reliability Standards.’’ Further, a
periodic data submittal is a requirement
to provide compliance information
pursuant to section 3.6 of NERC’s
Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Program.134 However, we
seek comment on NERC’s statement
regarding the ‘‘courses of action’’ that
132 NERC
Rules of Procedure Section 401.3.
NERC Petition at 31–32. See NERC Rule
of Procedure, Section 100 (‘‘[e]ach Bulk Power
System owner, operator, and user shall comply with
all Rules of Procedure of NERC that are made
applicable to such entities * * *. If NERC
determines that a Rule of Procedure has been
violated, or cannot practically be complied with,
NERC shall notify [the Commission] and take such
other actions as NERC deems appropriate to address
the situation’’).
134 NERC Rules of Procedure, Appx. 4C § 3.6.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
133 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
are available to it in order to ensure
compliance, other than notifying the
Commission of the entity’s failure to
comply.
F. Definitions
95. We propose to accept the new
definition of Minimum Vegetation
Clearance Distance and the revised
definitions of Vegetation Inspection and
Right-of-Way for inclusion in the NERC
Glossary of Terms. However, we seek
further comment regarding the proposed
revision to the definition of Right-ofWay, as discussed below.
Revised Definition of Right-of-Way
96. As noted above, we directed NERC
in Order No. 693 to consider
FirstEnergy’s suggestion that ‘‘rights-ofway be defined to encompass the
required clearance areas instead of the
corresponding legal rights, and that the
standards should not require clearing
the entire right-of-way when the
required clearance for an existing line
does not take up the entire right-ofway.’’ 135 In response to this directive,
NERC now proposes the following new
definition of Right-of-Way (ROW):
The corridor of land under a transmission
line(s) needed to operate the line(s). The
width of the corridor is established by
engineering or construction standards as
documented in either construction
documents, pre-2007 vegetation maintenance
records, or by the blowout standard in effect
when the line was built. The ROW width in
no case exceeds the Transmission Owner’s
legal rights but may be less based on the
aforementioned criteria.
97. Under Requirements R1.1 and
R2.1 of the proposed Reliability
Standard, encroachments into the
MVCD observed in real time would be
violations of R1 or R2 regardless of
whether they cause a sustained outage
and regardless of whether the vegetation
is within the Right-of-Way as defined
under FAC–003–2. However, under
proposed Requirements R1.2, R1.3 and
R1.4 and the corresponding subrequirements of R2, fall-ins, blow-ins
and grow-ins that cause a sustained
outage are violations of the proposed
standard only if they occur from inside
this newly-defined Right-of-Way, which
could give transmission owners the
perverse incentive to ‘‘define’’ a
particular Right-of-Way as narrowly as
possible in order to limit the likelihood
of an R1 or R2 violation.
98. In response to the Commission
staff data requests, NERC has provided
information suggesting that
encroachments from within the legal
135 See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,242 at P 734.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
right-of-way (i.e., the area within the
transmission owner’s control) would, in
most cases, still be violations of FAC–
003–2, even if the Right-of-Way is more
narrowly defined. In response to
Commission staff’s question about a
transmission owner’s obligation to
respond when it identifies a vegetation
condition that might encroach into the
MVCD if the vegetation is located
outside of the Right-of-Way (as
proposed under the new definition), but
within the transmission owner’s legal
right-of-way, NERC provided the
following explanation:
1. A grow-in from a tree or the tree wall
into the ROW. The definition of ROW
provides for ‘‘The corridor of land under a
transmission line(s) needed to operate the
line(s).’’ Therefore, in order to operate the
line consistent with its rating, the ROW
includes space for ‘‘blowout’’ of the lines
within the context of the MVCD. With
respect to the grow in of a tree from outside
the ROW as defined but within the legal
ROW, the TO will use vegetations [sic]
inspections to identify ‘‘those vegetation
conditions under the Transmission Owner’s
control that are likely to pose a hazard to the
line(s) prior to the next planned maintenance
or inspection.’’ In the event, an inspection
shows that a tree has already grown inside
the MVCD, the TO would be in violation of
R1 item 1 or R2 item 1. Another way to
consider this issue is that tree growing into
the MVCD from the side is no different from
a tree growing into the MVCD from below the
line.
2. A fall-in of danger timber (dead,
diseased or dying) from outside of the ROW
but within the TO’s control. The definition
of inspection covers vegetation ‘‘* * *
vegetation conditions on a Right-of-Way and
those vegetation conditions under the
Transmission Owner’s control that are likely
to pose a hazard to the line(s) prior to the
next planned maintenance or inspection.’’
Under this requirement, if the TO is regularly
identifying its danger trees and has a program
for managing the risk of fall-in there would
be no violation. Conversely, if an outage
occurs and it is confirmed that the TO was
not attempting to identify its danger timber
risk, the TO would be in violation of
R6* * *. Also, if the TO identifies the
danger tree but puts no plan into effect to
manage the risk of fall-in, the TO would be
in violation of R7 * * *.136
99. NERC distinguishes these cases
from a case where a fall-in occurs from
a green or healthy tree outside the
corridor-based Right-of-Way, but within
the right-of-way controlled by the
transmission owner. In that case, NERC
acknowledges that there would be no
violation under the proposed standard,
and maintains that the ‘‘fact that the
Transmission Owner owns additional
ROW over and above * * * that needed
136 NERC Data Responses, Responses to Q9 (May
25, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
by the MVCD is insufficient reason to
cut healthy green trees. To require the
cutting of green, healthy trees that pose
no known threat would likely not be
environmentally, socially, or politically
acceptable.’’ 137
100. We agree with NERC that in the
situation in which a fall-in occurs from
a green or healthy tree outside the
corridor based Right-of-Way, but within
the ROW controlled by the transmission
owner, there would be no violation
under the revised Reliability Standard.
Moreover, we note that the proposed
Reliability Standard does not require
clear-cutting along the right-of-way, but
instead gives the transmission owner
the flexibility to adopt an appropriate
vegetation management strategy to
comply with FAC–003–2 based on the
particular circumstances for a given
line. As NERC notes in its Technical
Reference Document, different
vegetation management strategies may
be appropriate for different areas, and
FAC–003–2 gives transmission owners
the option to adopt strategies to comply
with FAC–003–2 that encourage active
vegetation management and Integrated
Vegetation Management rather than
clear-cutting.138 NERC’s Technical
Reference Document describes ANSI A–
300—Best Management Practices for
Tree Care Operations and identifies
Integrated Vegetation Management as a
best management practice, including
incorporation of wire-border zone
management techniques and the
establishment and maintenance of
compatible vegetation.
101. However, we seek further
comment on NERC’s enforcement
approach with respect to a fall-in by
‘‘danger timber’’ (dead, diseased or
dying trees or limbs) from within the
transmission owner’s legally-owned and
controlled right-of-way. Specifically,
NERC indicates in its data responses
(restated in P 98, supra) that ‘‘if the TO
is regularly identifying its danger trees
and has a program for managing the risk
of fall-in there would be no violation.’’
The Commission’s concern is that this
statement could be read to mean that, as
long as the transmission owner
identifies danger trees and has a
program to manage the risk of those
trees, an encroachment into the MVCD
from a location within the transmission
owner’s control would not be a
violation. The Commission would not
agree with such a reading. The mere
existence of a program to identify
danger trees and a program to manage
risk should not shield a transmission
Response to Q9 at P 3.
NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference
Document) at 24–29.
owner from enforcement if,
notwithstanding the existence of the
program, an encroachment into the
MVCD occurred. The Commission seeks
comment on this reading and, based on
the comments, will consider whether
changes are needed.
102. We also note that the proposed
definition of Right-of-Way includes
guidance as to how the transmission
owner may define its Right-of-Way,
requiring that it be based on
construction documents, pre-2007
vegetation maintenance records, or asbuilt blowout standards. We seek
comment on how the identified
guidance in the new definition will be
used: (1) by the transmission owner to
establish criteria to determine an
appropriate Right-of-Way; and (2) by
auditors to establish criteria to
determine compliance with the
proposed standard.
G. Implementation Plan
103. We propose to approve the
Implementation Plan as submitted in
Ex. B of NERC’s petition.
V. Information Collection Statement
104. The following collection of
information contained in the Proposed
Rule is subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).139 OMB’s
regulations require that OMB approve
certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.140
Upon approval of a collection 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.
105. The Commission is proposing to
submit these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for
its review and approval under section
3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are
solicited on the Commission’s need for
this information, whether the
information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of the 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.
106. This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposes to approve
137 Id.,
138 See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
139 44
140 5
PO 00000
U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
CFR § 1320.11 (2012).
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64933
Reliability Standard FAC–003–2, which
includes certain requirements to create
and maintain records related to a
transmission owner’s vegetation
management work plan and its
performance of inspections. Because
transmission owners have vegetation
management plans they follow per the
existing transmission vegetation
management standard (FAC–003–1),
and must compile and maintain similar
records and provide similar reports
under the existing standard, the
proposed revisions are expected to have
a minor impact on the burden of recordkeeping and reporting. In addition, by
allowing greater flexibility compared to
the currently-effective Version 1
standard with regard to the materials
that must be maintained for a vegetation
management plan or strategy, the NERC
proposal may prove to reduce the
reporting burden for some entities.
107. Public Reporting Burden: Our
estimate below regarding the number of
respondents is based on the NERC
compliance registry as of July 24, 2012.
According to the compliance registry,
NERC has registered 330 transmission
owners within the United States.
Transmission owners must report and
retain certain data pursuant to the
currently effective Version 1 Standard.
Thus, the burden estimate below is
based on the potential change in the
reporting burden imposed by proposed
FAC–003–2. As discussed earlier,
Requirement R3 of NERC’s proposal
provides more flexibility for
transmission owners in preparing and
maintaining a vegetation management
program, and the incremental change in
the burden may be negligible or even
decrease for some portion of
transmission owners. The individual
burden estimates are based on each
transmission owner having to perform a
one-time review of the revised
Reliability Standard’s information
collection requirements and to make
any required modifications to its
existing vegetation management plans
and documentation procedures. In
addition, the burden estimate takes into
account an on-going, albeit very minor
increase in the quarterly reporting
burden, based on the increased burden
to confirm whether or not reportable
outages have occurred on lines not
previously subject to FAC–003–1’s
requirements. Further, the burden
estimate takes into account the
increased recordkeeping burden
associated with the proposed standard’s
annual vegetation inspection
requirements, which is estimated to
increase the inspection cycles (and the
associated documentation to
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
64934
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
demonstrate compliance) for about one
third of transmission owners (110
transmission owners).
Number of
transmission
owner
respondents
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total annual
burden hours
(1)
FAC–003–2 (transmission vegetation management)
(2)
(3)
(1)x(2)x(3)
One-time review and modifications to existing documentation, plans and
procedures ...................................................................................................
Quarterly Reporting .........................................................................................
Annual Vegetation Inspections Documentation ...............................................
330
115
110
1
4
1
16
0.5
2
141 330
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
5,830
* 5,280
220
* (One-time).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Total Annual Hours for Collection:
(Compliance/Documentation) = 5,830
hours.
Quarterly Reporting Cost for
Transmission Owners: = 330 hours @
$70/hour142 = $23,100.
Annual Vegetation Inspections
Documentation: = 220 hours @ $28/
hour143 = $6,160.
Total Annual Cost (Reporting +
Record Retention): = $23,100 + $6,160 =
$29,260.
One-Time Review and Modification of
Plans and Documentation: 5,280 hours
@ $52/hour144 = $274,560.
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System.
Action: Proposed revisions to
collection FERC–725A.
OMB Control No.: 1902–0244.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions; not-for-profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: Annual,
quarterly, and one-time.
Necessity of the Information: The
proposed revision of NERC standard
FAC–003–2 Transmission Vegetation
Management is part of the
implementation of the Congressional
mandate of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to develop mandatory and
enforceable Reliability Standards to
better ensure the reliability of the
nation’s Bulk Power System.
Specifically, the proposal would ensure
141 While approval of FAC–003–2 is not expected
to increase the number of reports made or the
number of reportable outages experienced, some
utilities may experience a very slight increase in the
amount of time required to confirm whether or not
any reportable outages occurred due to the
increased applicability of the standard to certain
sub-200 kV transmission lines.
142 This figure is the average of the salary plus
benefits for a manager and an engineer. The figures
are taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm.
143 Wage figure is based on a Commission staff
study of record retention burden.
144 This figure is the average of the salary plus
benefits for an engineer and a forester. The figures
are taken from Bureau of Labor and Statistics at
http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
that transmission owners are protecting
transmission lines from encroachment
of vegetation.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the proposed revision to the
current Reliability Standard and made a
determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of
the FPA. The Commission has assured
itself, by means of its internal review,
that there is specific, objective support
for the burden estimate associated with
the information requirements.
108. 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,
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone:
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
109. For submitting comments
concerning the collection of information
and the associated burden estimate,
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 email to: oira_
submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments
submitted to OMB should include
Docket Number RM12–04 and OMB
Control Number 1902–0244.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
110. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 145 generally requires a
description and analysis of proposed
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’s) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical
definition of a small business.146 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.147
111. Proposed Reliability Standard
FAC–003–2 will be applicable to
overhead transmission lines operated at
200 kV or higher, and, for the first time,
to transmission lines operated at less
than 200 kV if they are elements of an
IROL as defined by FAC–014 or
elements of a Major WECC Transfer
Path. In addition, Proposed Reliability
Standard FAC–003–2 will require
annual vegetation inspections for all
applicable lines, which could result in
an increase in annual inspections
performed for a subset of transmission
owners.
112. Comparison of the NERC
Compliance Registry with data
submitted to the Energy Information
Administration on Form EIA–861
indicates that, of the 330 transmission
owners in the United States registered
by NERC, 127 of these entities qualify as
small businesses. The Commission
estimates that the 127 transmission
owners that qualify as small businesses
will incur increased costs associated
solely with a one-time review of the
proposed standard and modification to
existing plans and procedures. As
described in the information collection
section of this NOPR, the estimated cost
146 13
145 5
PO 00000
U.S.C. 601–612 (2006).
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
147 13
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
CFR 121.101 (2012).
CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
24OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
for the increased data collection and
retention is approximately $1,000 per
entity.
113. Further, some transmission
owners that qualify as small entities will
incur costs associated with an increase
in frequency of inspections. As
indicated above, currently-effective
FAC–003–1 requires periodic vegetation
management inspections of
transmission line rights-of-way at an
interval determined by each
transmission owner. Requirement R6 of
the proposed standard would require
each transmission owners to inspect 100
percent of the transmission lines at least
once per year. Based on a review of
available information, including data
provided in response to a 2004
vegetation management study
performed by Commission staff,148 we
estimate that approximately one third,
i.e., 42, of the transmission owners that
qualify as small entities would incur
costs associated with more frequent
inspection cycles. Assuming that (1)
such small entities own approximately
50–200 miles of transmission lines, (2)
approximately 15–20 miles of
transmission line can be inspected per
day and (3) cost of labor is
approximately $47 per hour,149 the
estimated increase in inspection cost for
these 42 small entities is in the range of
approximately $5,000 to 10,000 per
entity. As discussed above, NERC’s
proposal would modify the applicability
of the Reliability Standard to include
overhead transmission lines that are
operated below 200 kV if they are either
an element of an IROL or an element of
a Major WECC Transfer Path. Based on
a review of the Major WECC Transfer
Paths and a sample of sub-200 kV IROLs
in the Eastern Interconnect, the
Commission believes that most, if not
all, of the transmission lines subject to
the expanded applicability of proposed
FAC–003–2 are owned by large entities.
Thus, the increased cost of the new rule
to small entities appears to be negligible
with respect to the expanded
applicability of the Reliability Standard.
114. Based on the above, the
Commission does not consider the cost
of the NERC proposal to be a significant
economic impact for small entities
because it should not represent a
significant percentage of an affected
small entity’s operating budget.
148 See Utility Vegetation Management and Bulk
Electric Reliability Report from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, p. 8–10 (Sept. 7, 2004).
Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/
electric/indus-act/reliability/veg-mgmt-rpt-final.pdf.
149 The wage figure is taken from the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/
naics3_221000.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:44 Oct 23, 2012
Jkt 229001
115. Based on the above, the
Commission certifies that the new or
revised requirements set forth in
proposed Reliability Standard FAC–
003–2 will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
VII. Environmental Analysis
116. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
environment.150 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. The actions proposed here
fall within the categorical exclusion in
the Commission’s regulations for rules
that are clarifying, corrective or
procedural or that do not substantially
change the effect of the regulations
being amended.151 The actions
proposed herein fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
VIII. Comment Procedures
117. 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 24, 2012.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM12–4–000, and must include the
commenter’s name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their
address in their comments.
118. The Commission encourages
comments to be filed electronically via
the eFiling link on the Commission’s
Web site at http://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.
119. 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.
120. All comments will be placed in
the Commission’s public files and may
150 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Regulations Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
151 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64935
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.
IX. Document Availability
121. 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 (http://www.
ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
122. 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.
123. 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 email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
or the Public Reference Room at (202)
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email
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.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–26112 Filed 10–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM12–22–000]
Reliability Standards for Geomagnetic
Disturbances
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
Under section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64920-64935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26112]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM12-4-000]
Revisions to Reliability Standard for Transmission Vegetation
Management
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the
Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2
(Transmission Vegetation Management), submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization. The proposed Reliability Standard
would expand the applicability of the standard to include overhead
transmission lines that are operated below 200 kV, if they are either
an element of an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit or an
element of a Major WECC Transfer Path. In addition, the proposed
Reliability Standard incorporates a new minimum annual vegetation
inspection requirement, and incorporates new minimum vegetation
clearance distances into the text of the standard.
The Commission also proposes to approve the three definitions, the
implementation plan and the Violation Severity Levels associated with
the proposed Reliability Standard. Finally, the Commission proposes to
direct that NERC revise the Violation Risk Factor for Requirement R2,
and approve the remainder of the Violation Risk Factors.
DATES: Comments are due December 24, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not 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:
Tom Bradish (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 1800 Dual Highway, Suite 201, Hagerstown, MD 21740,
Telephone: (301) 665-1391.
David O'Connor (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Logistics & Security, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-6695.
Julie Greenisen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-6362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Issued October 18, 2012.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2
(Transmission Vegetation Management), submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). Proposed Reliability Standard
FAC-003-2 modifies the currently effective standard, FAC-003-1 (the
``Version 1'' standard). The proposed modifications, in part, respond
to certain Commission directives in Order No. 693, in which the
Commission approved currently-effective Reliability Standard FAC-003-
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
\2\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 has a number of features
that make it an improvement over the Version 1 standard. For example,
like Version 1, the proposed Reliability Standard would apply to all
overhead transmission lines operated at or above 200 kV, but unlike
Version 1, it would explicitly apply to any lower voltage overhead
transmission line that is either an element of an Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) or an element of a Major WECC
Transfer Path.\3\ This is a new class of
[[Page 64921]]
transmission lines not previously required to comply with the Standard.
The proposed Reliability Standard would also make explicit a
transmission owner's obligation to prevent an encroachment into the
minimum vegetation clearance distance (MVCD) for a line subject to the
standard, regardless of whether that encroachment results in a
sustained outage or fault.\4\ Also, for the first time, the proposed
Reliability Standard would require transmission owners to annually
inspect all transmission lines subject to the standard and to complete
100 percent of their annual vegetation work plan. The proposed
Reliability Standard also incorporates the MVCDs into the text of the
standard, and does not rely on clearance distances from an outside
reference, as is the case with the currently-effective Version 1
standard. We believe these beneficial provisions, and others discussed
below, support our proposal to approve FAC-003-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NERC defines ``IROL'' as ``[a] System Operating Limit that,
if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or
Cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk
Electric System.'' NERC defines ``System Operating Limit'' as
``[t]he value (such as MW, MVar, Amperes, Frequency or Volts) that
satisfies the most limiting of the prescribed operating criteria for
a specified system configuration to ensure operation within
acceptable reliability criteria.'' See NERC Glossary of Terms Used
in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary) at 26, 48. The Western
Electric Coordinating Council maintains a listing of Major WECC
Transfer Paths, available at http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/Development/WECC-0091/Shared Documents/WECC-0091 Table Major Paths
4-28-08.doc.
\4\ See Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, Requirements R1 and R2;
see also Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-
2--Transmission Vegetation Management at 4, 6 (NERC Petition). NERC
proposes to define MVCD as ``the calculated minimum distance stated
in feet (meters) to prevent flash-over between conductors and
vegetation, for various altitudes and operating voltages.'' Id. at
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. A recurring cause in many blackouts has been vegetation-related
outages. In fact one of the initiating causes of the 2003 Northeast
blackout was inadequate vegetation management practices that led to
tree contact.\5\ Further, NERC has identified a focus on preventing
non-random equipment outages such as those caused by vegetation as a
top priority that will most likely have a positive impact on Bulk-Power
System reliability.\6\ We also note that industry has made important
strides in reducing the instances of vegetation contact.\7\ We believe
that the revised FAC-003 standard we propose to approve in this
rulemaking, together with a continued focus by industry on best
practices for vegetation management, will serve to enhance the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System. While we propose to approve
NERC's use of the Gallet equation to determine the minimum vegetation
clearing distances, we believe it is important that NERC develop
empirical evidence that either confirms the MVCD values or gives reason
to revisit the Reliability Standard. Accordingly, consistent with the
activity that NERC has already initiated, the Commission proposes to
direct that NERC conduct or commission testing to obtain empirical data
and submit a report to the Commission providing the results of the
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 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 18, 57-64 (April 2004) (2003 Blackout
Report).
\6\ See Gerry Cauley written remarks for November 29, 2011
Reliability Technical Conference at 1, 4 and 5 (Docket No. AD12-1-
000).
\7\ See, e.g., NERC's Second Quarter 2012 Vegetation-Related
Transmission Outage Report at 6-7, available at http://www.nerc.com/fileUploads/File/Compliance/2Q2012_Vegetation%20Report_FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. We also propose to approve the three new or revised definitions
associated with the proposed Reliability Standard for inclusion in
NERC's Glossary. Specifically, we propose to approve the changes in the
definition of ``Right-of-Way (ROW)'' and ``Vegetation Inspection,'' as
well as the addition of the term ``Minimum Vegetation Clearance
Distance (MVCD)'' as defined in NERC's petition. We also propose to
approve NERC's implementation plan for FAC-003-2.
5. While we believe that the proposed Reliability Standard will
enhance reliability by requiring sub-200 kV transmission lines that are
elements of an IROL or Major WECC Transfer Path to comply with its
requirements, we seek comment on how NERC will ensure that IROLs are
properly designated, as discussed in detail below. In addition, while
we agree that a number of the proposed modifications clarify and make
more explicit the transmission owner's obligations, we seek comment
with regard to the enforceability of certain provisions.
6. We do not believe, however, that NERC has adequately supported
the assignment of a ``medium'' Violation Risk Factor to Requirement R2,
which pertains to preventing vegetation encroachments into the MVCD of
transmission lines operated at 200 kV and above, but which are not part
of an IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path. As discussed later, system
events have originated from non-IROL facilities. Accordingly, as
discussed below, we propose to direct that NERC submit a modification,
within 60 days of the effective date of the Final Rule, assigning a
``high'' Violation Risk Factor for violations of Requirement R2.
I. Background
A. Section 215 of the FPA
7. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, 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.\8\ Pursuant to the requirements of
FPA section 215, the Commission established a process to select and
certify an ERO \9\ and, subsequently, certified NERC as the ERO.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
\9\ 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).
\10\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006)
(certifying NERC as the ERO responsible for the development and
enforcement of mandatory Reliability Standards), aff'd sub nom.
Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reliability Standard FAC-003-1
8. Currently-effective Reliability Standard FAC-003-1 is applicable
to transmission owners. The requirements of the Version 1 standard
apply to (1) all transmission lines operated at 200 kV or above, and
(2) lower-voltage lines designated as ``critical to the reliability of
the electric system'' by a Regional Entity.
9. Currently-effective FAC-003-1 contains four requirements.
Requirement R1 requires each transmission owner to prepare, and keep
current, a transmission vegetation management program (TVMP) that
includes, inter alia, a Clearance 1 distance to be achieved at the time
of vegetation management work, and a Clearance 2 distance to be
maintained at all times. The Clearance 2 distance is set by each
transmission owner at a level necessary to prevent flashover, but must
be no less than the clearance distances established in the Institute of
Electric and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 516-2003 (Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized Power Lines). The Clearance 1
distances are established by each transmission owner, and the only
numerical criterion under the current standard is that the ``Clearance
1 distances shall be greater than those defined by Clearance 2.'' \11\
Further, Requirement R1.3 requires that ``[a]ll personnel directly
involved in the design and implementation of the TVMP shall hold
appropriate
[[Page 64922]]
qualifications and training, as defined by the Transmission Owner, to
perform their duties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FAC-003-1, R1.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Requirement R2 of the Version 1 standard requires that each
transmission owner develop and implement an ``annual plan for
vegetation management work,'' allowing flexibility to adjust to
``changing conditions.'' Pursuant to Requirement R3, transmission
owners must report quarterly to the relevant Regional Entity
``sustained transmission line outages * * * caused by vegetation.''
Requirement R4 requires the Regional Entity to report the outage
information to NERC.
C. Order No. 693 Discussion Regarding Vegetation Management
11. On March 16, 2007, in Order No. 693, the Commission approved 83
of 107 proposed Reliability Standards pursuant to FPA section 215(d),
including currently-effective FAC-003-1.\12\ In addition, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to FAC-003-1 to address certain issues identified by the
Commission, discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that preceded Order
No. 693, the Commission proposed two directives requiring modification
of NERC's proposed standard pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the
FPA.\13\ The first would have directed NERC to develop a minimum
vegetation inspection cycle, and the second would have required NERC to
remove the standard's general limitation on applicability to
transmission lines operated at 200 kV and above.\14\ In Order No. 693,
the Commission decided not to require either modification at that time,
but continued to express its concern about the standard's limited
applicability and the lack of a minimum vegetation inspection
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 71 FR 64,770 (Nov. 3, 2006), FERC
Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations 2004-2007 ] 32,608, at P 387
(2006).
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Commission instead required NERC to address a modification
to the applicability of the standard through its Standards development
process, directing NERC to ``modify [FAC-003-1] to apply to Bulk-Power
System transmission lines that have an impact on reliability as
determined by the ERO.'' \15\ In doing so, the Commission stated that
it supported the ``suggestions by [certain commenters] to limit
applicability to lower voltage lines associated with IROL'' and noted
that ``these suggestions should be part of the input to the Reliability
Standards development process.'' \16\ Finally, in response to concerns
raised about the cost of compliance with the standard, the Commission
explained that the ERO must ``develop an acceptable definition that
covers facilities that impact reliability but balances extending the
applicability of this standard against unreasonably increasing the
burden on transmission owners.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 706.
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id. P 708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Similarly, while the Commission decided not to require NERC to
submit a modification to FAC-003-1 to incorporate a minimum vegetation
inspection cycle as part of Order No. 693, the Commission noted that it
``continues to be concerned with leaving complete discretion to the
transmission owners in determining inspection cycles.\18\ The
Commission also rejected the notion that incorporating such a minimum
requirement would lead to a ``lowest common denominator'' and thereby
potentially reduce the frequency of inspections for transmission owners
with aggressive inspection cycles.\19\ Although the Commission did not
require a minimum inspection requirement as part of the standard, it
directed NERC ``to develop compliance audit procedures to identify
appropriate inspection cycles based on local factors.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id. P 721.
\19\ Id. P 720.
\20\ Id. P 735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. With respect to minimum vegetation clearances distances, the
Commission approved FAC-003-1's general approach and ``reaffirm[ed] its
interpretation that FAC-003-1 requires sufficient clearances to prevent
outages due to vegetation management practices under all applicable
conditions.'' \21\ However, the Commission directed NERC to ``develop a
Reliability Standard that defines the minimum clearance needed to avoid
sustained vegetation-related outages that would apply to transmission
lines crossing both federal and non-federal land'' \22\ and
``decline[d] to endorse the use of IEEE 516 as the only minimum
clearance.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. P 729.
\22\ Id. P 732.
\23\ Id. P 731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Finally, the Commission directed NERC to address certain
commenters' suggestion that, for purposes of the FAC-003 Reliability
Standard, rights-of-way should be defined to encompass the required
clearance area, and not the entire legal right-of-way, particularly
where the legal right-of-way may greatly exceed the area needed for
effective vegetation management.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id. P 734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2
A. NERC Petition
17. In its petition, NERC maintains that proposed Reliability
Standard FAC-003-2 is just and reasonable, as the proposal meets or
exceeds each of the criteria the Commission has identified for
evaluating a proposed Reliability Standard.\25\ NERC asserts that the
proposed Reliability Standard ``achieves the specific reliability goal
of maintaining a reliable electric transmission system by using a
defense-in-depth strategy to manage vegetation located on transmission
ROW and minimize encroachments from vegetation located adjacent to the
ROW, thus preventing the risk of those vegetation-related outages that
could lead to Cascading.'' \26\ Moreover, NERC maintains that the
proposed Reliability Standard contains a technically sound method to
achieve that goal, as it requires transmission owners to prevent
vegetation from encroaching into the flashover distances, requires
consideration of conductor movement and growth rates (among other
things), requires annual inspections, and requires completion of annual
work needed to prevent encroachments. NERC asserts that FAC-003-2 is
clear and unambiguous as to the requirements and penalties, and
contains clear and objective measures for compliance.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See NERC Petition at 44.
\26\ Id. at 45.
\27\ Id. at 46-48; see also id. at 33-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Further, NERC maintains that proposed Reliability Standard FAC-
003-2 represents an improvement over the currently-effective standard,
as FAC-003-2 enhances reliability, facilitates enforceability, and
preserves necessary flexibility for transmission owners to address
local vegetation conditions.\28\ NERC asserts that the proposed
Reliability Standard was developed with the shortcomings of the
currently-effective standard, as identified in Order No. 693, in mind,
including the directive to develop a standard that defines the minimum
clearance needed to avoid sustained vegetation-related outages without
relying on IEEE-516 to set these
[[Page 64923]]
clearances.\29\ NERC states that the Standard Drafting Team (SDT)
considered four potential methods for deriving flashover distances for
various voltages and altitudes, and of those, selected the ``Gallet
equation'' because the ``information to support the development of the
standard was readily available in an industry recognized reference.''
\30\ NERC asserts that the ``distances derived using the Gallet
Equation result in the probability of flashover in the range of
10-6'' (one in a million).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id. at 3, 44-52.
\29\ See id. at 5 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242 at PP 731-732).
\30\ Id., see also Ex. I, Appx. 1.
\31\ NERC Petition at 6. As NERC explained in its response to
Question 1 of the Commission's Data Requests:
The probability of a flashover, given a drop in voltage to 85%
of the `Critical Flashover Voltage (CFO),' is roughly .135% (or
approximately 10-3). This value represents the
probability of a flashover, assuming the specified CFO is achieved
or exceeded.
However, this is not the only event being considered when
attempting to model the probability of a vegetation flashover. The
probability of achieving a maximum switching overvoltage (``Peak
Voltage'') in excess of the CFO must also be considered. This is
shown on page 40 in equation 6 of the Technical Reference Document,
and is specified there as roughly 0.135% (also approximately
10-3).
In other words, the conditional probability of flashover given
that the 85% CFO has been exceeded is approximately 10-3.
However, the probability of the CFO being exceeded is also
10-3. As these can be treated as two independent events,
the probability is statistically ``joint'' (the probability of
exceeding the CFO and the probability of a flashover given the
exceeding of the CFO are independent events). Accordingly, the two
probabilities are to be multiplied, yielding a probability on the
order of magnitude of approximately 10-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. NERC states that proposed FAC-003-2 continues to give
transmission owners the necessary discretion to determine how to
achieve the required clearances,\32\ but is more stringent than the
currently effective standard because it ``explicitly treat[s] any
encroachment into the MVCD (without contact, with a flashover, with a
momentary outage, or with a sustained outage) as a violation of the
standard.'' \33\ According to NERC, the proposed Reliability Standard
incorporates a new requirement to perform an annual inspection of all
applicable lines and is ``much more explicit regarding what actions
must be taken to support vegetation management and reliability.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ NERC Petition at 6, 19-22.
\33\ Id. at 6.
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. NERC states that proposed FAC-003-2 was designed to address
directives from Order No. 693, including the directives requiring that
NERC address proposed modifications to expand the applicability of FAC-
003-1, evaluate and consider specific proposals made by parties
commenting on FAC-003-1, develop compliance audit procedures to
identify appropriate inspection cycles, define the minimum clearances
needed to avoid sustained vegetation-related outages applicable to
transmission lines crossing both federal and non-federal land, and
address suggestions that rights-of-way should be defined to encompass
required clearance areas only. NERC also explains that proposed FAC-
003-2 is one of the first Reliability Standards developed using NERC's
``results-based'' approach and, therefore, includes some restructuring
of the standard to focus on completing objectives and achieving goals,
as well as to ensure that enforcement is undertaken in a consistent and
non-preferential manner.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. NERC proposes an implementation plan for FAC-003-2.\36\ For
individual transmission lines that become subject to the vegetation
management standard for the first time following designation as an
element of an IROL or Major WECC Transfer Path, NERC asks that the
requirements become effective the latter of (1) twelve months after the
date of such designation, or (2) January 1 of the planning year when
the line is forecast to become an element of an IROL or Major WECC
Transfer Path.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. at Ex. B.
\37\ In considering this aspect of the proposed implementation
plan, we assume that NERC asks that the proposed standard become
effective on the ``later'' of alternative (1) or (2), rather than
the ``latter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Accordingly, NERC requests that the Commission approve proposed
FAC-003-2 and the associated Violation Risk Factors and Violation
Severity Levels. NERC requests as an effective date for the Reliability
Standard, ``the first day of the first calendar quarter that is twelve
months following the effective date of a Final Rule in this docket.''
\38\ NERC further requests: (1) retirement of the Version 1 standard
concurrent with the effective date of FAC-003-2; (2) approval of three
definitions for inclusion in the NERC Glossary; and (3) approval of the
implementation plan for proposed FAC-003-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id. at 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 and NERC Explanation of
Provisions
23. The proposed Reliability Standard includes seven requirements.
24. Requirements R1 and R2: Pursuant to Requirements R1 and R2,
transmission owners must ``manage vegetation to prevent encroachments
into the MVCD of its applicable line(s),'' and any encroachment is
considered a violation of these requirements regardless of whether it
results in a sustained outage.\39\ NERC characterizes this as a ``zero
tolerance'' approach to vegetation management.\40\ Further, NERC
maintains that these requirements represent an improvement over the
currently effective Version 1 Standard because the proposed standard
makes the requirement to prevent encroachments explicit, and because it
incorporates specific clearance distances into the standard itself
based on ``an established method for calculating the flashover distance
for various voltages, altitudes, and atmospheric conditions.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, Requirements R1 and R2,
subsection 1 (transmission owners must manage vegetation to prevent,
inter alia, ``an encroachment into the MVCD, as shown in FAC-003-
Table 2, observed in Real-Time, absent a Sustained Outage'').
\40\ NERC Petition at 6.
\41\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. NERC has bifurcated the basic requirement to prevent
encroachment into the MVCDs. Requirement R1 applies to IROL elements
and Major WECC Transfer Path elements and is assigned a high Violation
Risk Factor. Requirement R2 sets forth the same substantive
requirements but pertains to non-IROL and non-Major WECC Transfer Path
elements and is assigned a medium Violation Risk Factor. NERC explains
that it bifurcated the requirement to ``eliminate commingling of higher
risk reliability objectives and lesser risk reliability objectives.''
\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id. at 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. In addition, NERC has included a footnote describing certain
conditions or scenarios, outside the transmission owner's control,
where an encroachment would be exempt from Requirements R1 and R2,
including natural disasters and certain human or animal activity.\43\
As NERC explains, the footnote ``does not exempt the Transmission Owner
from responsibility for encroachments caused by activities performed by
their own employees or contractors, but it does exempt them from
responsibility when other human activities, animal activities, or other
environmental conditions outside their control lead to an encroachment
that otherwise would not have occurred.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, n.2.
\44\ NERC Petition at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Requirement R3: Requirement R3 requires a transmission owner to
have ``documented maintenance strategies or procedures or processes or
[[Page 64924]]
specifications it uses to prevent the encroachment of vegetation into
the MVCD of its applicable lines.'' Requirement R3 requires that these
strategies take into account movement of conductors (sag and sway), and
the inter-relationship between vegetation growth rates, vegetation
control methods, and inspection frequency. While NERC acknowledges that
this requirement does not include the currently effective standard's
requirement to establish a Clearance 1 as part of the required TVMP,
NERC notes that Clearance 1 levels are currently left largely to the
discretion of the transmission owner and that the only numerical
criterion for Clearance 1 is that it ``must be some undefined amount
larger than the minimum flashover distance [Clearance 2].'' \45\ NERC
maintains that the proposed standard's requirement to avoid
encroachments after taking into account conductor movement, vegetation
growth rates, etc., ``still retains the same obligations defined by
`Clearance 1.''' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id. at 20.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Requirement R4: Requirement R4 requires a transmission owner
that has observed a vegetation condition likely to produce a fault to
notify, ``without any intentional time delay,'' the appropriate control
center with switching authority for that transmission line. NERC states
that the proposed requirement is an improvement over the Version 1
standard, in that it makes explicit the obligation to communicate
imminent threats, rather than merely establish and document a process
for doing so, as is currently required.\47\ In addition, NERC explains
that the currently-effective Reliability Standard's requirement that
the process allow for ``immediate'' notification was ``impractical at
best,'' and was therefore replaced with the phrase ``without any
intentional time delay,'' which still requires timely notification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See id. at 25-26 (referencing Requirement R1.5 of FAC-003-
1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Requirement R5: Requirement R5 requires a transmission owner
constrained from performing vegetation management work needed to
prevent a vegetation encroachment into the MVCD prior to implementation
of the next annual work plan to take corrective action to prevent such
encroachments. NERC contends that this proposed requirement represents
an improvement over the currently-effective provision, Requirement
R1.4, which merely requires the transmission owner to develop
mitigation measures to address such circumstances, but does not
affirmatively require the transmission owner to take corrective action.
The proposed measures for determining compliance associated with
proposed Requirement R5 provide examples of the kinds of corrective
actions expected, including increased monitoring, line de-ratings, and
revised work orders.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See id. at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Requirement R6: Pursuant to Requirement R6, each transmission
owner shall inspect 100 percent of its applicable lines at least once
per year and with no more than 18 months between inspections on the
same Right-of-Way. NERC maintains that the new requirement is ``an
improvement to the standard that reduces risks,'' and notes that the
currently effective standard allows the transmission owner to develop
its own schedule for inspections (with no standard minimum time) and
contains no explicit requirement that the transmission owner meet its
established schedule.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id. at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Requirement R7: Pursuant to Requirement R7, the transmission
owner must complete 100 percent of its annual vegetation work plan,
allowing for documented changes to the work plan as long as those
modifications do not allow encroachment into the MVCD. NERC argues that
this requirement represents an improvement over the currently effective
standard because the current Requirement (R2) ``does not mandate that
entities plan to prevent encroachments into the MVCD, but simply that
they implement whatever is included in the plan.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. NERC explains in its petition that certain requirements in the
currently-effective Reliability Standard have not been translated into
a requirement in the proposed standard. In particular, NERC notes that
the Version 1 standard's reporting requirements, R3 and R4, have been
moved into the compliance section of proposed standard FAC-003-2.\51\
NERC maintains that the reporting requirement remains enforceable under
NERC's Rules of Procedure, which gives NERC authority, inter alia, to
require entities to provide ``such information as is necessary to
monitor compliance with the reliability standards.'' \52\ NERC further
notes that it can take action against any entity that fails to comply
with such a reporting requirement (which would amount to a failure to
comply with a NERC Rule of Procedure) pursuant to NERC Rule of
Procedure Section 100, and that it is obligated to notify the
applicable governmental authorities of the entity's failure to
comply.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id. at 29-31.
\52\ Id. at 31 (quoting NERC Rule of Procedure Section 400.3).
This provision actually is located at Section 401.3.
\53\ See id. at 31-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. In addition, NERC acknowledges that the proposed standard no
longer contains a requirement that personnel involved in the design and
implementation of a vegetation management program have appropriate
qualifications and training (currently set out in sub-requirement
R1.3).\54\ According to NERC, this provision of the Version 1 standard
is ``effectively meaningless,'' since ``appropriate'' qualifications
and training are undefined and left entirely to the discretion of the
transmission owner. Thus, NERC maintains that elimination of this sub-
requirement does not impact reliability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id. at 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. NERC is also seeking to revise the definitions of Right-of-Way
(ROW) and Vegetation Inspection, and to add a new definition for
MVCD.\55\ NERC proposes that Right-of-Way be defined as the ``corridor
of land under a transmission line(s) needed to operate the line(s),''
which may not exceed the Transmission Owner's legal rights but may be
smaller. NERC proposes to modify ``Vegetation Inspection'' to allow
both maintenance inspections and vegetation inspections to be performed
concurrently. Finally, NERC proposes a new definition, ``MVCD,'' to be
``[t]he calculated minimum distance stated in feet (meters) to prevent
flash-over between conductors and vegetation, for various altitudes and
operating voltages.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See NERC Petition, Ex. C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. NERC explains in its petition how it will approach enforcement
of each Requirement under FAC-003-2, noting that each Requirement has
an associated compliance measure that identifies what is required and
how the Requirement will be enforced. NERC explains, inter alia, that
the measures for Requirements R1 and R2 require each transmission owner
to have ``evidence that it managed vegetation to prevent encroachment
into the MVCD,'' and to be able to produce records ``indicating the
requirements were not violated.'' \56\ In order to show compliance with
Requirement R3, NERC explains that a transmission owner will be
``obligated to show documentation, and that documentation must be
sufficient to satisfy the auditor that the information contained in
that documentation is sufficient that the Transmission Owner can use it
to prevent encroachment into the MVCD.'' \57\ Similarly, NERC explains
[[Page 64925]]
that ``entities will not be able to comply with [Requirement R7]
without having a documented plan.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ NERC Petition at 34.
\57\ Id. at 35.
\58\ Id. at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. NERC asserts that it has addressed seven directives in Order
No. 693 regarding NERC's vegetation management standard.\59\ First,
NERC asserts that it has addressed the concerns in applying the
vegetation management standard only to transmission lines that are 200
kV or above.\60\ NERC notes that it has addressed that concern (and
related directives) by extending the applicability of the proposed
standard to overhead transmission lines that are either 200 kV and
above, or less than 200 kV if the line is an element of an IROL or a
Major WECC Transfer Path. In addition, NERC explains that it has
developed an appropriate implementation plan for any new lines covered
by the standard, thereby satisfying the Commission's directive to
consider a delayed implementation date if lower-voltage facilities are
included.\61\ NERC further maintains that it has addressed the
Commission's concern about allowing transmission owners full discretion
to set inspection schedules by requiring inspections at least once per
year, has satisfied the Commission's directive to define minimum
clearances for both federal and non-federal lands by adopting MVCDs
that apply to lines on both federal and non-federal lands, and has
satisfied the Commission's directive to consider whether modifications
to the definition of Right-of-Way were necessary through the proposed
revision to that definition.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See id. at 40-44.
\60\ Id. at 40-42.
\61\ Id. at 42-43.
\62\ Id. at 43-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. PNNL Report and Comments
A. PNNL Report
37. As NERC explains in its petition, the Standard Drafting Team
applied the ``Gallet equation'' to derive the MVCDs set forth in FAC-
003-2. NERC describes the Gallet equation as a ``well-known method of
computing the required strike distance for proper insulation
coordination.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference Document) at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. The Commission's Office of Electric Reliability retained the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to undertake an ``analysis
of the mathematics and documentation of the technical justification
behind the application of the Gallet equation and the assumptions used
in the technical reference paper [Exh. A of NERC's petition].'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See April 23, 2012 Notice Inviting Comments on Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. PNNL's final Report on the Applicability of the ``Gallet
Equation'' to the Vegetation Clearances of NERC Reliability Standard
FAC-003-2 (PNNL Report) was posted as part of the record in this docket
on April 23, 2012, along with a notice inviting comment on the PNNL
Report within 30 days.
40. While the PNNL Report points out benefits of the use of the
Gallet equation, it raises questions about potential inconsistencies in
NERC's filing.\65\ The PNNL Report raises concerns about NERC's use of
an assumed gap factor of 1.3, asserting that that figure has not been
adequately supported for use with vegetation and that there is no
evidence that statistics relating to tower design are usable with
vegetation.\66\ Instead, the PNNL Report suggests that a ``rod-plane
gap and tree branch might have about the same gap factor (i.e., k=1),''
\67\ but does not provide any other indication of an appropriate gap
factor for use with vegetation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ PNNL Report at iv-v (``The equation [the Gallet equation]
is a good and simple-to-use way to solve a problem made difficult by
the nonlinear interactions of the variables. However, in spite of
the evident usefulness of the equation, inconsistencies are found in
the NERC filing * * * .'').
\66\ See id. at 11-13, 19.
\67\ PNNL Report at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. The PNNL Report further asserts that without NERC's assumption
``that the gap between a power line and growing vegetation is stronger
(by 30%) than the reference gap used in developing the Gallet
equation,'' the minimum distances calculated would be about 50%
larger.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id. at v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. The PNNL Report also asserts that ``[t]hough there is no
obvious way to relate tower clearance to vegetation clearance,'' the
proposed MVCDs in FAC-003-2 are small when compared to transmission
tower design clearances:
The values for tower clearance for a line at 500 kV in the
Transmission Line Reference Book range from 8.3 ft. to over 17 ft.
The NERC filing requires a gap less than 6 ft for the same voltage,
even at high altitude. There is no reason to suppose that a tree
could safely be allowed so much closer to a line (less than 6 ft)
than a tower.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments in Response to PNNL Report
43. Nine sets of comments were filed in response to the PNNL
Report, with timely submissions made by NERC, the Canadian Electricity
Association, American Electric Power (AEP), Duke Energy Corporation
(Duke), Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor), Kansas City Power
& Light and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (KCP&L), Arizona
Public Service Company (APS), and Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District (Salt River), as well as a joint
submission by the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power
Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and
the Electric Power Supply Association (collectively, the Trade
Associations).
44. In its comments, NERC asserts that the PNNL Report ``(a)
improperly juxtaposes data included in the FAC-003-2 Reliability
Standard; (b) disregards NERC's justification regarding the selection
of transient overvoltage calculations; (c) fails to consider joint
probability of independent events when analyzing flashover probability;
and (d) disagrees with the choice of gap factor for vegetation without
providing any empirical evidence, scientific reasoning or expert
consensus on what an appropriate gap factor should be.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ NERC Comments on PNNL Report at 1-2 (NERC Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. With regard to the assertion in the PNNL Report that there is
no evidence that statistics relating to tower design are usable with
vegetation, NERC explains the rationale for its use of the Gallet
equation in some detail (discussed further in PP 47-48 below), and
notes that the PNNL Report ``disagrees with [NERC's] choice of gap
factor for vegetation without providing any empirical evidence,
scientific reasoning, or expert consensus on what an appropriate gap
factor should be.'' \71\ NERC explains that the Standard Drafting Team
``relied on the scientific body of available knowledge and the opinions
of experts (applied conservatively) currently working in the industry''
to support a gap factor of 1.3.\72\ By contrast, NERC asserts that
``there is no justification for the suggestion that the gap factors for
vegetation could be less than unity,'' and considers the PNNL Report's
suggestion of a gap factor of 1.0 to be based ``purely on
speculation.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Id. at 2.
\72\ Id., Att. A at 8.
\73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. With regard to PNNL's assertion that ``inconsistencies are
found in NERC's filing'', NERC states that the ``inconsistencies''
identified by the PNNL Report in NERC's Technical Reference Document
result from PNNL erroneously comparing two separate sets
[[Page 64926]]
of data developed for different purposes. According to NERC, one set of
data was developed to demonstrate the consistency between the clearance
values set out in the IEEE-516 standard and the values generated using
the Gallet equation when using similar assumptions as those used in the
IEEE-516 standard. The second set of data was designed to generate
appropriate clearance values using the Gallet equation and ``a set of
assumptions determined by the [SDT] to be consistent with the purposes
of the standard.'' \74\ NERC responds that PNNL's comparison of the two
sets of data is therefore ``misleading.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Id., Att. A at 2.
\75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. With respect to the gap factor, NERC maintains that it relied
on a widely known and regarded source for determining the appropriate
gap factor, which indicates that an appropriate gap factor for a
conductor-to-lateral structure configuration is in the range of 1.25 to
1.40.\76\ Specifically, NERC explains that the Standard Drafting Team
(SDT) relied on the ``widely regarded'' Insulation Coordination for
Power Systems, by Andrew Hileman, to develop the proposed gap factor of
1.3.\77\ NERC indicated that there is a range of gap factors that could
be used in the Gallet equation, each factor designed to represent the
difference in voltage withstand capability \78\ between a given object,
i.e., the transmission wire or conductor, and a reference case, i.e.,
the object for which the distance from the wire must be established.
The gap factor varies based on the nature of the ``gap configuration''
of the reference case. In its response to the PNNL Report, NERC
provided the following table showing the range of gap factors (shown as
kg in the table below) based on the gap configuration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id., Att. A at 6-7.
\77\ Id. (citing Andrew Hileman, Insulation Coordination for
Power Systems 167 (Marcel Dekker, New York, NY 1999)).
\78\ The PNNL Report defines ``withstand'' in this context as
``[t]he capability of an insulation system to function as an
insulator when a high voltage is applied.'' PNNL Report at 1.
Typical Value of Gap Factors kg for Phase-Ground Insulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical value
Gap configuration Range of kg of kg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod-plane............................... 1.00 1.00
Rod-rod (vertical)...................... 1.25-1.35 1.30
Rod-rod (horizontal).................... 1.25-1.45 1.35
Conductor-lateral structure............. 1.25-1.40 1.30
Conductor-lower rod..................... 1.40-1.60 1.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. NERC then states that use of a gap factor of 1.3 is
conservative:
It is worth noting that the gap factors for many shapes that
could approximate vegetation are even higher than the 1.3 used in
FAC-003-2, with ranges that include values as high as 1.6. Hileman
notes that in regards to the substation environment (which includes
many objects, conducting and non-conducting, with varying shapes and
configurations): ``Practically, the lowest gap factor in the
substations is 1.3, which normally is conservative.''
* * * * *
[T]he [SDT] did not rely on any specific properties inherent in
trees, rather, the [SDT] conservatively assumed that vegetation had
the same properties as metal. The [SDT] elected to use the
``typical'' value for ``conductor to lateral structure.'' Unlike the
other examples given, which specify a ``typical'' value that is
equivalent to the midpoint of the range, this value (1.3) is within
the conservative third of the range (1.25-1.4).\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id. at 7.
49. In response to the assertion in the PNNL Report that ``[t]here
is no reason to suppose that a tree could safely be allowed so much
closer to a line * * * than a tower'' (see P 42, supra), NERC explains
in its comments why NERC's proposed MVCDs may not be directly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comparable to distances based on tower design:
[C]are must be taken when making an interpretation of the
tabular data, as the original survey participants may have answered
the questions in a general context involving multiple structure
designs. The final structure design parameters provided in the Red
Book include the CFO gap plus other factors (such as insulator
geometry, personnel safety and extreme lightning events).
Accordingly, they should not be considered the final word with
regard to Vegetation Management, as those distances were established
to address a number of other issues. FAC-003-2 is not intended to
mandate the parameters for all future line designs; it is focused
solely on the distances necessary to mitigate the risk of vegetation
related outages.
50. In addition to providing a response to the technical issues
raised by the PNNL Report, NERC argues that the Commission is obligated
under FPA section 215(d)(2) to give due weight to NERC's technical
expertise with respect to the content of proposed standards.
51. Trade Associations, Duke, Oncor and other commenters support
NERC's technical analysis. AEP and Oncor agree with NERC that the PNNL
report contains inappropriate comparisons of data NERC presented in its
petition and supporting materials, and that if NERC's Gallet-generated
numbers are compared to the distances calculated under IEEE-516, the
``clearances determined by the two calculations are in fact closely
aligned.'' \80\ AEP and Oncor further maintain that the PNNL Report
does not offer a ``better alternative'' to the use of the Gallet
equation, and that it does not dispute the Standard Drafting Team's
rationale for its selection of transmission overvoltages.\81\ AEP and
Oncor note that the PNNL Report acknowledges ``that the Gallet Equation
is `a fair representation of the performance of an air gap of a few
meters, a simple-to-use way to solve a problem made difficult by the
nonlinear interactions of the variables' and that NERC has used the
complete method that includes all the factors that go into the estimate
of peak voltage.'' \82\ AEP and Oncor also assert that proposed FAC-
003-2, taken as a whole, will serve to improve the reliability of the
system. AEP notes that the MVCDs included in Table 2 of the proposed
Reliability Standard are merely the first piece of an overall strategy
the transmission owner must develop to manage vegetation, and that the
transmission owner must have documented strategies to prevent
encroachments within all rated operating conditions, after taking into
account sag, sway, and vegetative growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ AEP Comments and Oncor Comments at 2.
\81\ Id.
\82\ Id. at 3 (citing PNNL Report at 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. KCP&L comments that the PNNL Report should have ``included
discussion regarding a correction factor
[[Page 64927]]
in the clearance calculation using the Gallet Equation due to the
difference in the conductive properties of the metal rod compared to
vegetation.'' \83\ KCP&L supports use of the Gallet equation as an
``improvement over the industry's current means of determining
clearance distances.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ KCP&L Comments at 2-3.
\84\ Id. at 3. KCP&L also points out what it characterizes as a
technical error in the PNNL Report related to the impact of multiple
gaps on flashover probabilities, maintaining that in the example
given by the PNNL Report, the flashover probability with 20 gaps
should be 4% rather than 33%. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. APS questions whether either the Gallet equation or the IEEE
standard incorporated in currently-effective FAC-003-1 ``provides a
demonstrable indicator of the flash-over distance between conductors
and ground vegetation * * *, '' \85\ and accordingly suggests that the
Commission ask the Department of Energy to experimentally verify the
distances derived from the IEEE and Gallet methodologies. APS takes the
position that, until such data are developed, the Gallet methodology
``seems more reasonable'' than the IEEE standard as a basis for
developing a clearance requirement.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ APS Comments at 2.
\86\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Salt River supports the PNNL Report's analysis, noting that it
has questioned the applicability of the Gallet equation for vegetation
clearances throughout the development of FAC-003-2. Salt River further
agrees that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a tree could
safely be allowed much closer to a line than a tower. Finally, Salt
River supports the experimental verification of any proposed guidelines
regarding required vegetation clearances.
C. NERC Response to Data Request
55. On May 4, 2012, Commission staff issued data requests to NERC.
NERC submitted a timely response to the data requests on May 25, 2012,
addressing matters such as the correct understanding and enforceability
of certain provisions of the proposed Reliability Standard. Relevant
elements of NERC's response to the data requests are discussed further
below.
IV. Discussion
56. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we propose to approve
Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, including the associated new and
revised definitions and implementation plan, as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. As
discussed in Section A below, we believe the proposed Reliability
Standard will enhance reliability and satisfies a number of the
outstanding directives from Order No. 693. In addition, we seek further
comment on certain aspects of the proposed Reliability Standard.
Accordingly, we discuss the following matters below: (A) proposal to
approve FAC-003-2; (B) applicability of the standard to sub-200 kV
transmission lines; (C) clearance distances; (D) appropriate Violation
Risk Factor for Requirement R2; (E) enforcement issues; (F) inclusion
of reporting obligations as a compliance measure; and (G) proposed
definitions.
A. The Commission Proposes to Approve FAC-003-2
57. We believe that proposed standard FAC-003-2 is an improvement
over the currently-effective Version 1 standard, will support
vegetation management practices that can effectively protect against
vegetation-related transmission outages, and satisfies a number of the
outstanding directives from Order No. 693. As discussed earlier, NERC
has explained how many of the Requirements improve upon the currently-
effective Version 1 standard. In support of our proposal to approve
FAC-003-2, we highlight several of these improvements. For example, in
accordance with our directives in Order No. 693, as discussed further
below, NERC has expanded the applicability of the Reliability Standard
so that it now applies not only to all transmission lines above 200 kV,
but also to transmission lines operated below 200 kV if they are an
element of an IROL or an element of a Major WECC Transfer Path.
58. In addition, NERC has incorporated minimum clearance distances
into the text of the Reliability Standard, and no longer includes a
required clearance distance based on distances set by IEEE-516 which,
as indicated in Order No. 693, served a different purpose than
vegetation management. Proposed FAC-003-2 requires a transmission owner
to prevent an encroachment into the MVCD, even if the encroachment does
not result in a flashover or fault. As NERC explains, ``FAC-003-2
presents a `zero-tolerance' approach to vegetation management,
explicitly treating any encroachment into the MVCD * * * as a violation
* * *.'' \87\ Finally, encroachments must be prevented under all rated
operating conditions, and must take into account sag and sway of the
line, as well as vegetative growth rates and frequency of inspection
and maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ NERC Petition at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. While the Commission did not require NERC to adopt a minimum
inspection cycle as part of Order No. 693, the Commission did express
concern both prior to and as part of Order No. 693 that inspection
cycles should not be left entirely to the discretion of the
transmission owner. Accordingly, in Order No. 693, the Commission
stated that:
The Commission continues to be concerned with leaving complete
discretion to the transmission owners in determining inspection
cycles, which limits the effectiveness of the Reliability Standard.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the ERO to develop compliance
audit procedures * * * which would identify appropriate inspection
cycles based on local factors. These inspections cycles are to be
used in compliance auditing of FAC-003-1 by the ERO or Regional
Entity to ensure such inspection cycles and vegetation management
requirements are properly met by the responsible entities.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 721.
NERC has addressed this concern by incorporating a minimum inspection
cycle requirement in the proposed Reliability Standard (at least once
per calendar year and no more than 18 months between inspections).\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See NERC Petition at 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Thus, based on the overall benefits of proposed FAC-003-2, we
propose to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 and propose to direct
a change in the VRF level assigned to Requirement R2, as discussed
further below.
61. In considering whether to approve Reliability Standard FAC-003-
2, we give due weight to NERC's technical expertise. In light of our
proposal to approve the proposed Reliability Standard, commenters'
suggestions that we have failed to give due weight to NERC's technical
expertise are moot. Below, however, we will discuss our substantive
consideration of the proposed minimum clearance distances derived based
on application of the Gallet equation and certain technical points
raised by the PNNL Report and commenters.
B. Applicability
62. The currently-effective Reliability Standard, FAC-003-1, is
applicable to any transmission line operated at 200 kV and above, and
to any line of lesser voltage designated by a Regional Entity \90\ as
``critical to the reliability of
[[Page 64928]]
the electric system in the region.'' \91\ As discussed above, the
Commission accepted this approach in Order No. 693, but directed NERC
to address a modification to the applicability of the standard through
its Reliability Standards development process:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Reliability Standard FAC-003-1 refers to Regional
Reliability Organizations (RROs), the precursors to Regional
Entities.
\91\ To date, no Regional Entity has designated any lower
voltage lines as critical to regional reliability and therefore
subject to FAC-003-1.
We will not direct NERC to submit a modification to the general
limitation on applicability as proposed in the NOPR. However we will
require the ERO to address the proposed modification through its
Reliability Standards development process. As explained in the NOPR,
the Commission is concerned that the bright-line applicability
threshold of 200 kV will exclude a significant number of
transmission lines that could impact Bulk-Power System reliability *
* *. We support the suggestions by Progress Energy, SERC and MISO to
limit applicability to lower voltage lines associated with IROL and
these suggestions should be part of the input to the Reliability
Standards development process.
* * * * *
[Other commenters] raise concerns about the cost of implementing
this Reliability Standard if the applicability is expanded to lower-
voltage facilities. We recognize these concerns * * *and we direct
the ERO to develop an acceptable definition that covers facilities
that impact reliability but balances extending the applicability of
this standard against unreasonably increasing the burden on
transmission owners.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 706, 708.
63. We believe that NERC has satisfied this directive by
considering the various concerns raised by the commenters as noted in
Order No. 693, and ultimately by revising the Reliability Standard so
that it applies to not only to lines that are 200 kV and above, but
also to any sub-200 kV transmission line that is an element of an IROL
or a Major WECC Transfer Path. We believe that NERC has supported its
approach to the expansion in applicability, noting that proposed FAC-
003-2 provides specific criteria to determine applicability for sub-200
kV transmission lines. In addition, NERC has used an impact-based
approach for determining applicability rather than a bright-line
threshold as a means of balancing the potential increased burden on
transmission owners under a standard with expanded applicability.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ NERC Petition at 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. While we view the modified applicability as a significant
improvement, there are two aspects on which we seek comment. First,
section 4.2.2 of proposed FAC-003-2 provides that the standard applies
to overhead transmission lines operated below 200 kV identified as an
IROL under NERC Standard FAC-014 by the planning coordinator. However,
FAC-014-2 does not explicitly require the planning coordinator to
provide information about IROL status to transmission owners. Further,
IROLs may change with changing system conditions. Given these factors,
we seek a better understanding of how FAC-003-2 will be applied to
facilities designated as IROLs. For example, we seek comment on how
information regarding IROL status will be transmitted to transmission
owners that must comply with FAC-003-2 and how transmission owners can
effectively implement vegetation management per FAC-003-2 given that
such programs are generally implemented annually and a change in IROL
status can take place at any time given changing system conditions.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ For example, if a line is designated to be an IROL element
by the planning coordinator, how will the transmission owner know to
thereafter apply FAC-003-2 to that line? If the designation of an
IROL changes with changes in system conditions, how will a
transmission owner document management of vegetation over time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Second, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed that the
proposed Reliability Standard apply to ``Bulk-Power System transmission
lines that have an impact on reliability as determined by the ERO.''
\95\ The Commission noted evidence that some lines below 200 kV can
have significant impacts on the Bulk-Power System, including IROLs and
System Operating Limits (SOLs).\96\ The Commission directed the ERO,
however, to balance extending the applicability of the standard against
unreasonably increasing the burden on transmission owners.\97\ Thus, we
seek comment on how the applicability of the proposed Reliability
Standard complies with the directive that the standard cover ``lines
that have an impact on reliability.'' In addition, since the issuance
of Order No. 693, we note that Commission staff and NERC stated in
their joint report on the 2011 Southwest outage that failure to
properly designate IROLs was a major cause of the outage.\98\
Therefore, as part of the broader inquiry into whether the standard
covers ``lines that have an impact on reliability,'' we seek comment on
how NERC will assure that IROLs are properly designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 706.
\96\ Id. P 710.
\97\ Id. P 708.
\98\ See FERC and NERC Staff Report, Arizona- Southern
California Outages on Sept. 8, 2011: Causes and Recommendations at
6, 97-100 (April 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Requirements R1 and R2
1. Minimum Clearance Values
66. We find that NERC has relied on a reasonable method for setting
the MVCD, and has supported the inputs and assumptions it used to
develop those minimum clearance distances, at least until such time
that empirical data is developed and is available for use in setting
MVCDs. We note that the MVCDs are roughly equivalent to, or slightly
larger than, the minimum Clearance 2 distances in the current standard.
67. NERC explains that the MVCD is the result of a conservative gap
factor. Further, the MVCD clearances represent only one aspect of
proposed FAC-003-2. The MVCD establishes a ``minimum[] required to
prevent Flash-over.'' \99\ The proposed standard requires transmission
operators to manage vegetation to ensure that vegetation does not
encroach into that minimum clearance distance, which requires
transmission owners to manage vegetation to a distance further than the
MVCD. For example, transmission owners are required to have documented
compliance strategies, procedures, processes, or specifications under
Requirement R3 to prevent encroachments into the MVCDs after taking
into account sag and sway of the lines, as well as vegetative growth
rates, planned control methods and frequency of inspections. Similarly,
under Requirement R7, a transmission owner is required to ``complete
100% of its annual vegetation work plan of applicable lines to ensure
no vegetation encroachments occur within the MVCD.'' \100\ Indeed, as
NERC has explained, the ``Transmission Owner is obligated to show
detailed documentation that clearly explains their system with regard
to the geography and how the Transmission Owner will execute the plan
to prevent encroachment.'' \101\ Further, NERC has indicated that a
transmission owner's documentation approach will generally contain the
following elements:
\99\ NERC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-
003-2) at 26 (Table 2--Minimum Vegetation Clearance Distances (MVCD)
For Alternating Current Voltages), n. 7 (emphasis added).
\100\ Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 R7.
\101\ See NERC Response to Data Request Q2.
1. The maintenance strategy used (such as minimum vegetation-to-
conductor distance or maximum vegetation height) to ensure that MVCD
clearances are never violated.
2. The work methods that the Transmission Owner uses to control
vegetation;
3. A stated Vegetation Inspection frequency;
[[Page 64929]]
4. An annual work plan.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ NERC Response to Data Request Q4 (emphasis added) (citing
NERC Petition, Ex. A at 19-20).
NERC also has indicated in its filing that ``prudent vegetation
maintenance practices dictate that substantially greater distances
[than the applicable MVCD] will be achieved at time of vegetation
maintenance.''\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ NERC Petition, Ex. A (Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-
003-2) at 26 (Table 2--Minimum Vegetation Clearance Distances (MVCD)
For Alternating Current Voltages), n. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
68. NERC also explains that a conductor's position in space at any
point in time continuously changes in reaction to a variety of factors,
such as the amount of thermal and physical loading, air temperature,
wind velocity and direction, and precipitation. The following diagram
is a cross-section view of a single conductor at a given point along
the span that illustrates six possible conductor positions due to
movement resulting from thermal and mechanical loading: \104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ NERC Petition, Ex. A at 20-21.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24OC12.000
NERC indicates that conductor movements must be taken into account
under FAC-003-2, and that the transmission owner is required to show
that its approach to vegetation management under Requirement R3 will
prevent encroachments under all expected line positions.\105\ Thus, a
transmission owner must manage vegetation to ensure it does not
encroach into the MVCD under multiple conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See id. and Requirement R3 of FAC-003-2; see also NERC
Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference Document) at 20-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. Finally, as NERC explains in its Technical Reference Document,
transmission owners will have to clear vegetation to levels ``well away
from'' the minimum spark-over zone:
As the conductor moves through various positions [due to thermal
loading and physical loading], a spark-over zone surrounding the
conductor moves with it. * * * At the time of making a field
observation, however, it is very difficult to precisely know where
the conductor is in relation to its wide range of all possible
positions. Therefore, Transmission Owners must adopt maintenance
approaches that account for this dynamic situation.
* * * * *
In order to maintain adequate separation between vegetation and
transmission line conductors, the Transmission Owner must craft a
maintenance strategy that keeps vegetation well away from the spark-
over zone mentioned above.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference Document) at 21-
24.
70. Thus, while clearances required at the time of maintenance may
vary from one region or area to another, our proposed approval of FAC-
003-2 is based on our understanding, which is drawn directly from
NERC's statements in its petition, that transmission operators will
manage vegetation to distances beyond the MVCD to ensure no
encroachment into the MVCD.
71. As discussed above, the PNNL Report identifies specific
potential concerns regarding NERC's approach to calculating minimum
clearance values, such as the appropriate ``gap factor'' to apply. In
its response to the PNNL Report, NERC explains the Standard Drafting
Team's approach to reach a 1.3 gap factor and how it considered the
matters raised in the PNNL Report. For example, with regard to the gap
factor, NERC indicates that the drafting team relied on an
authoritative source and chose a conservative gap factor value.\107\
Based on the record in this proceeding, the application of the Gallet
equation appears to be one reasonable method to calculate MVCD values.
Further, while questions have been raised regarding certain inputs into
the mathematical formula, we believe that NERC has supported use of the
MVCD values set forth in FAC-003-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ NERC Comments on PNNL Report at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Notwithstanding our approval of the proposed MVCD, we remain
concerned, as indicated in Order No. 693, over the lack of empirical
data with regard to actual flashover distances observed through testing
or analysis of flashover events.\108\ NERC states in its petition that
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is planning to undertake
``the first known field tests of energized high voltage conductor
flash-over to vegetation'' at its Lenox facility, and that EPRI could
be ready to commence such testing by the summer of 2013.\109\ We seek
comment on the status of this project and any other similar testing
that is planned or ongoing of which NERC or other commenters are aware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 735.
\109\ NERC Petition at 5, n. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. NERC further states that ``the results of those [EPRI] tests
may be useful to the industry for future reviews of this NERC
standard.'' \110\ We agree
[[Page 64930]]
with NERC. While we accept NERC's approach to determine the MVCDs
between conductors and vegetation needed to prevent flashovers, we
believe it is important that NERC develop empirical evidence that
either confirms the MVCD values or gives reason to revisit the
Reliability Standard. Accordingly, consistent with the activity that
NERC has already initiated, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC
conduct or commission testing to obtain empirical data and submit a
report to the Commission providing the results of the testing. We seek
comment on this proposal, as well as the appropriate time frame for
completion of the required testing and the submission of a report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Designation of Medium VRF for Requirement R2
74. Requirement R1 of currently-effective Reliability Standard FAC-
003-1 requires a transmission owner to maintain a ``transmission
vegetation management program'' pursuant to which a transmission owner
must maintain certain clearance distances between applicable
transmission lines and vegetation. Requirement R1 of the Version 1
standard is assigned a ``high'' Violation Risk Factor.
NERC Petition
75. Under FAC-003-2, NERC proposes to bifurcate the assigned
Violation Risk Factor levels, depending on the type of transmission
line involved. NERC proposes to assign a high Violation Risk Factor to
Requirement R1, which requires transmission owners to ``manage
vegetation to prevent encroachments into the MVCD of its applicable
line(s) which are either an element of an IROL, or an element of a
Major WECC Transfer Path.'' Requirement R2 of the proposed Reliability
Standard, which is assigned a medium Violation Risk Factor, provides
that ``[e]ach Transmission Owner shall manage vegetation to prevent
encroachments into the MVCD of its applicable line(s) which are not
either an element of an IROL, or an element of a Major WECC Transfer
Path.'' [Emphasis in original.] Thus, the substantive obligation set
forth in Requirements R1 and R2 are identical, but the Violation Risk
Factors differ based on whether a transmission line is an element of an
IROL or Major WECC Transfer Path.
76. NERC maintains that the assignment of a medium Violation Risk
Factor for Requirement R2 is appropriate pursuant to existing Violation
Risk Factor definitions and guidelines. NERC maintains that ``[l]ines
that are not IROLs and are not Major WECC Transfer Paths by definition
have less potential for leading to cascading, separation or
instability.'' \111\ Thus, NERC asserts that the separation into high
risk and medium risk categories ``ensure entities properly understand
the risk to reliability associated with specific actions.'' \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ NERC Petition at 53.
\112\ Id. at 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Proposal
77. Based on the information provided in NERC's Petition, it is not
clear that NERC has adequately supported a medium Violation Risk Factor
designation for Requirement R2. The Commission-approved definition of a
``medium'' risk requirement is:
A requirement that, if violated, could directly affect the
electrical state or the capability of the bulk electric system, or
the ability to effectively monitor and control the bulk electric
system. However, violation of a medium risk requirement is unlikely
to lead to bulk electric system instability, separation, or
cascading failures * * *.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145 at P 9, order on compliance, 121 FERC ] 61,179, at n.2, Appx.
A (2007) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of a high Violation Risk Factor is:
A requirement that, if violated, could directly cause or
contribute to bulk electric system instability, separation, or a
cascading sequence of failures, or could place the bulk electric
system at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or
cascading failures * * *.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Id. (emphasis added).
NERC's support for the medium designation is that transmission lines
that are not IROLs and are not Major WECC Transfer Paths ``have less
potential for leading to cascading, separation, or instability'' than
lines that are IROLs or Major WECC Transfer Paths.\115\ But NERC does
not explain why outages on these relatively high voltage lines (200 kV
or higher) would not likely lead to cascading, separation, or
instability, or provide any indication of the number of transmission
lines and transmission line-miles that would now be subject to a
reduced (i.e., medium) Violation Risk Factor designation if FAC-003-2
were in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ NERC Petition at 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. Moreover, transmission lines not designated as an IROL element
(or the equivalent) have been instrumental in causing major blackouts,
including the August 2003 Northeast blackout. In that case, at least
three of the four 345 kV lines (Star-S Canton, Harding-Chamberlin, and
Hanna-Juniper) that tripped due to tree contact were not monitored as a
flowgate, which could be viewed as the technical equivalent of an IROL
at that time.\116\ These three lines were the second, third and fourth
lines to trip.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ 2003 Blackout Report at 55, 57, 60. The NERC Glossary
defines a flowgate as: ``1.) A portion of the Transmission system
through which the Interchange Distribution Calculator calculates the
power flow from Interchange Transactions. 2.) A mathematical
construct, comprised of one or more monitored transmission
Facilities and optionally one or more contingency Facilities, used
to analyze the impact of power flows upon the Bulk Electric
System.'' NERC Glossary at 20.
\117\ 2003 Blackout Report at 46 (Fig. 5.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. Likewise, an August 10, 1996 blackout in WECC began with the
trip of a 500 kV line (due to a tree contact) that was not identified
as part of WECC's relevant path catalog at the time, i.e., the line was
not identified as one of the critical paths subject to WECC monitoring
and oversight similar to that required for a Major WECC Transfer Path
today.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ The blackout originated with the trip of the Keeler-
Allston 500 kV line, see NERC 1996 System Disturbances: Review of
Selected Electric System Disturbances in North America (August 2002)
at 40, 47, and affected 7.5 million people and 28,000 MW of load
across fourteen states. 2003 Blackout Report at 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. Pursuant to proposed Requirements R1 and R2, transmission
owners must ``manage vegetation to prevent encroachments into the MVCD
of its applicable lines,'' and any encroachment is considered a
violation of these requirements regardless of whether it results in a
sustained outage. NERC explains that it bifurcated the requirement to
eliminate commingling of higher risk reliability objectives and lesser
risk reliability objectives. However, analysis of the two
aforementioned system disturbances suggests that lines that are not
designated as an IROL or a Major WECC Transfer Path at a given point in
time (i.e., proposed Requirement R2 lines), may still be associated
with higher-risk consequences, including outages that can lead to
Cascading.
81. Accordingly, pursuant to our Violation Risk Factor guidelines,
which require, among other things, consistency within a Reliability
Standard (guideline 2) and consistency between requirements that have
similar reliability objectives (guideline 3), we propose to modify the
Violation Risk Factor assigned to Requirement R2 from medium to high.
However, in its comments on this NOPR, NERC is free to provide
additional explanation than provided thus far to demonstrate the lines
identified in Requirement R2 are properly assigned a medium Violation
Risk Factor.
[[Page 64931]]
D. Enforceability
NERC Petition
82. In its petition, NERC describes its approach to enforcement
with respect to each of the Reliability Standard's requirements, noting
that each requirement is associated with a specific measure for
evaluating compliance and Violation Severity Level guidance. With
respect to Requirements R1 and R2, NERC explains that the associated
measure sets out the types of evidence or documentation that will be
required to show that vegetation was managed to prevent encroachments.
83. NERC acknowledges that proposed Requirements R1 and R2 include
a general footnote (Footnote 1) describing multiple conditions
exempting a transmission owner from these requirements so as not to be
held accountable for an encroachment (e.g., a natural disaster or a
``major storm'' as defined either by the transmission owner or an
applicable regulatory body). However, NERC explains that this exception
would only apply to situations that are beyond the control of the
transmission owner or its duly appointed delegate.\119\ Further, any
determination by the Commission or any other ``applicable regulatory
body'' as to whether a given event does or does not qualify as a
``major storm'' would override any such determination by the
transmission owner.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ NERC Petition at 34.
\120\ NERC Petition at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. With respect to the Requirement R3 obligation that a
transmission owner document its approach to vegetation management, NERC
explains that the transmission owner must not only demonstrate that its
program takes into account ``the movement of the conductor, as well as
growth rate, control method, and inspection frequency,'' it must also
provide ``documentation that is sufficient to satisfy the auditor that
the information contained in that documentation is sufficient that the
Transmission Owner can use it to prevent encroachment into the MVCD.''
\121\ NERC further explains that ``[a]uditors will have to use judgment
to evaluate the appropriateness of the documentation provided given the
particular circumstances of the entity being audited.'' \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Id. at 35.
\122\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. With respect to the obligation in Requirement R4 to provide
notice to the applicable control center of a confirmed vegetation
condition likely to cause a fault, NERC again explains that auditors
may have to use judgment based on the specific circumstances, ``but it
is expected that an entity that does not make this reporting a top
priority would be in violation of the standard.'' \123\ In addition,
NERC explains that the obligation to notify without intentional delay
generally ``can be understood to include an immediate (within 1 hour of
the observation) communication notwithstanding a safety issue to the
personnel, other immediate priority maintenance functions to ensure
reliability or system stability, or communications equipment failure
that precludes immediate communication.'' \124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Id.
\124\ Id. at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. With respect to Requirement R5, NERC explains that in the case
where a transmission owner is prevented from taking actions needed to
prevent an encroachment into the MVCD, the transmission owner must de-
energize or de-rate the line to reduce the MVCD as needed to avoid a
violation, and must show proof that it has taken that action if
needed.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. With respect to Requirement R7 covering vegetation work plans,
NERC notes that the requirement does not explicitly require the
creation of such a plan, but states that ``entities will not be able to
comply with the requirement without having a documented plan.'' \126\
While NERC acknowledges that R7 allows transmission owners to have a
``dynamic work plan,'' it points out that any modifications to the plan
must be executed to avoid encroachment of vegetation into the MVCD.
Moreover, NERC notes that ``[a]ny such encroachment would be a
violation of R1 or R2, and any changes to the plan that resulted in
such an encroachment would be a violation of R7.'' \127\ Finally, NERC
notes that auditors will be able to request and review initial work
plans for comparison with completed work plans in order to assess
compliance with these requirements.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Id. at 39.
\127\ Id.
\128\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. In addition, NERC has identified what it expects a transmission
owner's vegetation management program to contain. See P 67, supra.
89. The proposed Reliability Standard, as filed, includes a
``Guideline and Technical Basis'' document that further explains NERC's
expectations on how the requirements will be enforced and how
compliance can be demonstrated. For example, with respect to
Requirement R3, NERC explains in greater detail that the documentation
showing the transmission owner's approach to vegetation management must
provide ``the basis for evaluating the intent, allocation of
appropriate resources, and the competency of the Transmission Owner in
managing vegetation.'' \129\ While NERC notes that there are many
acceptable approaches to vegetation management, the transmission owner
must be able to show how it conducts work to maintain the required
clearances.\130\ In addition, as discussed in paragraphs 67-71 above,
transmission owners cannot show compliance with the standard without
adopting a vegetation management program that keeps vegetation away
from the MVCDs under changing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Id., Ex. A at 19.
\130\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Proposal
90. We support NERC's overall efforts to develop explicit,
verifiable measures for each requirement in order to allow for
consistent, non-preferential enforcement.
91. As noted above, NERC has provided information we believe is
useful to an overall understanding of the intent of the standard and
how it will be interpreted and enforced, including the information that
NERC has provided in its petition, in the Guideline and Technical Basis
document that is attached as part of Exhibit A to the petition, and in
its May 25, 2012 responses to the Commission staff's data requests. We
believe these additional resources, while not setting forth
requirements or themselves determining whether compliance has occurred,
provide guidance with respect to uniform compliance with the proposed
Reliability Standard.\131\ We expect that NERC will approach its
compliance, auditing and enforcement obligations as described in each
of these submitted materials. We seek comment as to whether this
material should be consolidated as reference material to complement the
proposed compliance measures in order that entities that must comply
can find these materials in one place and assure implementation of the
proposed standard as NERC has supported in its filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. In addition, Requirement R4 requires transmission owners to
notify ``without intentional time delay'' the control center with
switching authority for the applicable line when the transmission owner
has confirmed the
[[Page 64932]]
existence of a vegetation condition that is likely to cause an imminent
fault. We seek comment on how NERC would or should treat a delay in
communication caused by the negligence of the transmission owner or one
of its employees, where the delay may be significant and
``unintentional.''
E. Reporting Requirements
93. Reliability Standard FAC-003-1, Requirements R3 and R4, require
quarterly reporting to the Regional Entities of sustained transmission
outages caused by vegetation. While the proposed Reliability Standard
moves these reporting requirements to the ``Additional Compliance
Information'' section as a Periodic Data Submittal, NERC maintains that
the reporting requirements remain enforceable under NERC's Rules of
Procedure. Among other things, NERC states that it and Regional
Entities can require entities to provide ``such information as is
necessary to monitor compliance with the reliability standards'' under
Section 401.3 of NERC's Rules of Procedure.\132\ In addition, NERC
asserts that it ``has certain courses of action it may undertake as
necessary to ensure the entity complies with the Rules,'' pursuant to
NERC Rule of Procedure Section 100, including notifying the Commission
of the entity's failure to comply.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ NERC Rules of Procedure Section 401.3.
\133\ See NERC Petition at 31-32. See NERC Rule of Procedure,
Section 100 (``[e]ach Bulk Power System owner, operator, and user
shall comply with all Rules of Procedure of NERC that are made
applicable to such entities * * *. If NERC determines that a Rule of
Procedure has been violated, or cannot practically be complied with,
NERC shall notify [the Commission] and take such other actions as
NERC deems appropriate to address the situation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. We agree that pursuant to section 401.3 of NERC's Rules of
Procedure, NERC and the Regional Entities can require transmission
owners to make quarterly reports of sustained transmission outages
because these reports provide information relating to compliance with
the requirements of proposed FAC-003-2. This rule states: ``All Bulk
Power System owners, operators and users shall provide to NERC and the
applicable Regional Entity such information as is necessary to monitor
compliance with the Reliability Standards.'' Further, a periodic data
submittal is a requirement to provide compliance information pursuant
to section 3.6 of NERC's Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Program.\134\ However, we seek comment on NERC's statement regarding
the ``courses of action'' that are available to it in order to ensure
compliance, other than notifying the Commission of the entity's failure
to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ NERC Rules of Procedure, Appx. 4C Sec. 3.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Definitions
95. We propose to accept the new definition of Minimum Vegetation
Clearance Distance and the revised definitions of Vegetation Inspection
and Right-of-Way for inclusion in the NERC Glossary of Terms. However,
we seek further comment regarding the proposed revision to the
definition of Right-of-Way, as discussed below.
Revised Definition of Right-of-Way
96. As noted above, we directed NERC in Order No. 693 to consider
FirstEnergy's suggestion that ``rights-of-way be defined to encompass
the required clearance areas instead of the corresponding legal rights,
and that the standards should not require clearing the entire right-of-
way when the required clearance for an existing line does not take up
the entire right-of-way.'' \135\ In response to this directive, NERC
now proposes the following new definition of Right-of-Way (ROW):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 734.
The corridor of land under a transmission line(s) needed to
operate the line(s). The width of the corridor is established by
engineering or construction standards as documented in either
construction documents, pre-2007 vegetation maintenance records, or
by the blowout standard in effect when the line was built. The ROW
width in no case exceeds the Transmission Owner's legal rights but
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
may be less based on the aforementioned criteria.
97. Under Requirements R1.1 and R2.1 of the proposed Reliability
Standard, encroachments into the MVCD observed in real time would be
violations of R1 or R2 regardless of whether they cause a sustained
outage and regardless of whether the vegetation is within the Right-of-
Way as defined under FAC-003-2. However, under proposed Requirements
R1.2, R1.3 and R1.4 and the corresponding sub-requirements of R2, fall-
ins, blow-ins and grow-ins that cause a sustained outage are violations
of the proposed standard only if they occur from inside this newly-
defined Right-of-Way, which could give transmission owners the perverse
incentive to ``define'' a particular Right-of-Way as narrowly as
possible in order to limit the likelihood of an R1 or R2 violation.
98. In response to the Commission staff data requests, NERC has
provided information suggesting that encroachments from within the
legal right-of-way (i.e., the area within the transmission owner's
control) would, in most cases, still be violations of FAC-003-2, even
if the Right-of-Way is more narrowly defined. In response to Commission
staff's question about a transmission owner's obligation to respond
when it identifies a vegetation condition that might encroach into the
MVCD if the vegetation is located outside of the Right-of-Way (as
proposed under the new definition), but within the transmission owner's
legal right-of-way, NERC provided the following explanation:
1. A grow-in from a tree or the tree wall into the ROW. The
definition of ROW provides for ``The corridor of land under a
transmission line(s) needed to operate the line(s).'' Therefore, in
order to operate the line consistent with its rating, the ROW
includes space for ``blowout'' of the lines within the context of
the MVCD. With respect to the grow in of a tree from outside the ROW
as defined but within the legal ROW, the TO will use vegetations
[sic] inspections to identify ``those vegetation conditions under
the Transmission Owner's control that are likely to pose a hazard to
the line(s) prior to the next planned maintenance or inspection.''
In the event, an inspection shows that a tree has already grown
inside the MVCD, the TO would be in violation of R1 item 1 or R2
item 1. Another way to consider this issue is that tree growing into
the MVCD from the side is no different from a tree growing into the
MVCD from below the line.
2. A fall-in of danger timber (dead, diseased or dying) from
outside of the ROW but within the TO's control. The definition of
inspection covers vegetation ``* * * vegetation conditions on a
Right-of-Way and those vegetation conditions under the Transmission
Owner's control that are likely to pose a hazard to the line(s)
prior to the next planned maintenance or inspection.'' Under this
requirement, if the TO is regularly identifying its danger trees and
has a program for managing the risk of fall-in there would be no
violation. Conversely, if an outage occurs and it is confirmed that
the TO was not attempting to identify its danger timber risk, the TO
would be in violation of R6* * *. Also, if the TO identifies the
danger tree but puts no plan into effect to manage the risk of fall-
in, the TO would be in violation of R7 * * *.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ NERC Data Responses, Responses to Q9 (May 25, 2012).
99. NERC distinguishes these cases from a case where a fall-in
occurs from a green or healthy tree outside the corridor-based Right-
of-Way, but within the right-of-way controlled by the transmission
owner. In that case, NERC acknowledges that there would be no violation
under the proposed standard, and maintains that the ``fact that the
Transmission Owner owns additional ROW over and above * * * that needed
[[Page 64933]]
by the MVCD is insufficient reason to cut healthy green trees. To
require the cutting of green, healthy trees that pose no known threat
would likely not be environmentally, socially, or politically
acceptable.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Id., Response to Q9 at P 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100. We agree with NERC that in the situation in which a fall-in
occurs from a green or healthy tree outside the corridor based Right-
of-Way, but within the ROW controlled by the transmission owner, there
would be no violation under the revised Reliability Standard. Moreover,
we note that the proposed Reliability Standard does not require clear-
cutting along the right-of-way, but instead gives the transmission
owner the flexibility to adopt an appropriate vegetation management
strategy to comply with FAC-003-2 based on the particular circumstances
for a given line. As NERC notes in its Technical Reference Document,
different vegetation management strategies may be appropriate for
different areas, and FAC-003-2 gives transmission owners the option to
adopt strategies to comply with FAC-003-2 that encourage active
vegetation management and Integrated Vegetation Management rather than
clear-cutting.\138\ NERC's Technical Reference Document describes ANSI
A-300--Best Management Practices for Tree Care Operations and
identifies Integrated Vegetation Management as a best management
practice, including incorporation of wire-border zone management
techniques and the establishment and maintenance of compatible
vegetation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See NERC Petition, Ex. I (Technical Reference Document) at
24-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101. However, we seek further comment on NERC's enforcement
approach with respect to a fall-in by ``danger timber'' (dead, diseased
or dying trees or limbs) from within the transmission owner's legally-
owned and controlled right-of-way. Specifically, NERC indicates in its
data responses (restated in P 98, supra) that ``if the TO is regularly
identifying its danger trees and has a program for managing the risk of
fall-in there would be no violation.'' The Commission's concern is that
this statement could be read to mean that, as long as the transmission
owner identifies danger trees and has a program to manage the risk of
those trees, an encroachment into the MVCD from a location within the
transmission owner's control would not be a violation. The Commission
would not agree with such a reading. The mere existence of a program to
identify danger trees and a program to manage risk should not shield a
transmission owner from enforcement if, notwithstanding the existence
of the program, an encroachment into the MVCD occurred. The Commission
seeks comment on this reading and, based on the comments, will consider
whether changes are needed.
102. We also note that the proposed definition of Right-of-Way
includes guidance as to how the transmission owner may define its
Right-of-Way, requiring that it be based on construction documents,
pre-2007 vegetation maintenance records, or as-built blowout standards.
We seek comment on how the identified guidance in the new definition
will be used: (1) by the transmission owner to establish criteria to
determine an appropriate Right-of-Way; and (2) by auditors to establish
criteria to determine compliance with the proposed standard.
G. Implementation Plan
103. We propose to approve the Implementation Plan as submitted in
Ex. B of NERC's petition.
V. Information Collection Statement
104. The following collection of information contained in the
Proposed Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA).\139\ OMB's regulations require that OMB approve certain
reporting and recordkeeping requirements (collections of information)
imposed by an agency.\140\ Upon approval of a collection 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
\140\ 5 CFR Sec. 1320.11 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
105. The Commission is proposing to submit these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under
section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's
need for this information, whether the information will have practical
utility, the accuracy of the 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.
106. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve
Reliability Standard FAC-003-2, which includes certain requirements to
create and maintain records related to a transmission owner's
vegetation management work plan and its performance of inspections.
Because transmission owners have vegetation management plans they
follow per the existing transmission vegetation management standard
(FAC-003-1), and must compile and maintain similar records and provide
similar reports under the existing standard, the proposed revisions are
expected to have a minor impact on the burden of record-keeping and
reporting. In addition, by allowing greater flexibility compared to the
currently-effective Version 1 standard with regard to the materials
that must be maintained for a vegetation management plan or strategy,
the NERC proposal may prove to reduce the reporting burden for some
entities.
107. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of
July 24, 2012. According to the compliance registry, NERC has
registered 330 transmission owners within the United States.
Transmission owners must report and retain certain data pursuant to the
currently effective Version 1 Standard. Thus, the burden estimate below
is based on the potential change in the reporting burden imposed by
proposed FAC-003-2. As discussed earlier, Requirement R3 of NERC's
proposal provides more flexibility for transmission owners in preparing
and maintaining a vegetation management program, and the incremental
change in the burden may be negligible or even decrease for some
portion of transmission owners. The individual burden estimates are
based on each transmission owner having to perform a one-time review of
the revised Reliability Standard's information collection requirements
and to make any required modifications to its existing vegetation
management plans and documentation procedures. In addition, the burden
estimate takes into account an on-going, albeit very minor increase in
the quarterly reporting burden, based on the increased burden to
confirm whether or not reportable outages have occurred on lines not
previously subject to FAC-003-1's requirements. Further, the burden
estimate takes into account the increased recordkeeping burden
associated with the proposed standard's annual vegetation inspection
requirements, which is estimated to increase the inspection cycles (and
the associated documentation to
[[Page 64934]]
demonstrate compliance) for about one third of transmission owners (110
transmission owners).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
transmission Number of Average Total annual
FAC-003-2 (transmission vegetation management) owner responses per burden hours burden hours
respondents respondent per response
(1) (2) (3) (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time review and modifications to existing 330 1 16 * 5,280
documentation, plans and procedures............
Quarterly Reporting............................. 115 4 0.5 \141\ 330
Annual Vegetation Inspections Documentation..... 110 1 2 220
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 5,830
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (One-time).
Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Compliance/Documentation) =
5,830 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ While approval of FAC-003-2 is not expected to increase
the number of reports made or the number of reportable outages
experienced, some utilities may experience a very slight increase in
the amount of time required to confirm whether or not any reportable
outages occurred due to the increased applicability of the standard
to certain sub-200 kV transmission lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarterly Reporting Cost for Transmission Owners: = 330 hours @
$70/hour\142\ = $23,100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ This figure is the average of the salary plus benefits for
a manager and an engineer. The figures are taken from the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Vegetation Inspections Documentation: = 220 hours @ $28/
hour\143\ = $6,160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Wage figure is based on a Commission staff study of record
retention burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention): = $23,100 +
$6,160 = $29,260.
One-Time Review and Modification of Plans and Documentation: 5,280
hours @ $52/hour\144\ = $274,560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ This figure is the average of the salary plus benefits for
an engineer and a forester. The figures are taken from Bureau of
Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
Action: Proposed revisions to collection FERC-725A.
OMB Control No.: 1902-0244.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: Annual, quarterly, and one-time.
Necessity of the Information: The proposed revision of NERC
standard FAC-003-2 Transmission Vegetation Management is part of the
implementation of the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to
better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk Power System.
Specifically, the proposal would ensure that transmission owners are
protecting transmission lines from encroachment of vegetation.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed revision
to the current Reliability Standard and made a determination that its
action is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission
has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimate associated with the
information requirements.
108. 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, email:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
109. For submitting comments concerning the collection of
information and the associated burden estimate, 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 email to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to OMB should include Docket
Number RM12-04 and OMB Control Number 1902-0244.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
110. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \145\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed 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's) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\146\
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.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2006).
\146\ 13 CFR 121.101 (2012).
\147\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-2 will be applicable to
overhead transmission lines operated at 200 kV or higher, and, for the
first time, to transmission lines operated at less than 200 kV if they
are elements of an IROL as defined by FAC-014 or elements of a Major
WECC Transfer Path. In addition, Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-003-
2 will require annual vegetation inspections for all applicable lines,
which could result in an increase in annual inspections performed for a
subset of transmission owners.
112. Comparison of the NERC Compliance Registry with data submitted
to the Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates
that, of the 330 transmission owners in the United States registered by
NERC, 127 of these entities qualify as small businesses. The Commission
estimates that the 127 transmission owners that qualify as small
businesses will incur increased costs associated solely with a one-time
review of the proposed standard and modification to existing plans and
procedures. As described in the information collection section of this
NOPR, the estimated cost
[[Page 64935]]
for the increased data collection and retention is approximately $1,000
per entity.
113. Further, some transmission owners that qualify as small
entities will incur costs associated with an increase in frequency of
inspections. As indicated above, currently-effective FAC-003-1 requires
periodic vegetation management inspections of transmission line rights-
of-way at an interval determined by each transmission owner.
Requirement R6 of the proposed standard would require each transmission
owners to inspect 100 percent of the transmission lines at least once
per year. Based on a review of available information, including data
provided in response to a 2004 vegetation management study performed by
Commission staff,\148\ we estimate that approximately one third, i.e.,
42, of the transmission owners that qualify as small entities would
incur costs associated with more frequent inspection cycles. Assuming
that (1) such small entities own approximately 50-200 miles of
transmission lines, (2) approximately 15-20 miles of transmission line
can be inspected per day and (3) cost of labor is approximately $47 per
hour,\149\ the estimated increase in inspection cost for these 42 small
entities is in the range of approximately $5,000 to 10,000 per entity.
As discussed above, NERC's proposal would modify the applicability of
the Reliability Standard to include overhead transmission lines that
are operated below 200 kV if they are either an element of an IROL or
an element of a Major WECC Transfer Path. Based on a review of the
Major WECC Transfer Paths and a sample of sub-200 kV IROLs in the
Eastern Interconnect, the Commission believes that most, if not all, of
the transmission lines subject to the expanded applicability of
proposed FAC-003-2 are owned by large entities. Thus, the increased
cost of the new rule to small entities appears to be negligible with
respect to the expanded applicability of the Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ See Utility Vegetation Management and Bulk Electric
Reliability Report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, p.
8-10 (Sept. 7, 2004). Available at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/veg-mgmt-rpt-final.pdf.
\149\ The wage figure is taken from the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
114. Based on the above, the Commission does not consider the cost
of the NERC proposal to be a significant economic impact for small
entities because it should not represent a significant percentage of an
affected small entity's operating budget.
115. Based on the above, the Commission certifies that the new or
revised requirements set forth in proposed Reliability Standard FAC-
003-2 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
VII. Environmental Analysis
116. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\150\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. The actions proposed here fall within the categorical
exclusion in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective or procedural or that do not substantially
change the effect of the regulations being amended.\151\ The actions
proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the
Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\151\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Comment Procedures
117. 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 24, 2012. Comments must
refer to Docket No. RM12-4-000, and must include the commenter's name,
the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in
their comments.
118. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://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.
119. 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.
120. 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.
IX. Document Availability
121. 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 (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
122. 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.
123. 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 email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email 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.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26112 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P