Generator Verification Reliability Standards, 17011-17023 [2014-06725]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
main wheel well pressure floor, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane, and decompression of the cabin.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Definition of Detailed Inspection
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed
inspection is an intensive examination of a
specific item, installation, or assembly to
detect damage, failure, or irregularity.
Available lighting is normally supplemented
with a direct source of good lighting at an
intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection
aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc.,
may be necessary. Surface cleaning and
elaborate procedures may be required.
(h) Inspection and Repair/Modification
At the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do a
one-time detailed, high frequency eddy
current (HFEC), or dye penetrant inspection
for cracks in the main wheel well pressure
floor at body stations 930, 940, and 950,
between left and right buttock line 50 and the
side of the airplane body, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 727–53–0149, Revision 4,
dated June 27, 1991.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 60,000
total flight cycles; or
(2) Within 2,500 flight cycles or 2 years
after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: If a
detailed inspection is performed, stripping
the paint will help ensure accurate
inspection results.
(i) Preventive Modification
If no cracks are found during the
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD: Before further flight, do the preventive
modification, in accordance with Part IV of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 727–53–0149, Revision 4,
dated June 27, 1991. Doing the preventive
modification terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (d) of AD
92–19–11, Amendment 39–8369 (57 FR
53247, November 9, 1992).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
(j) Permanent Repair
If any crack is found during the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before
further flight, do the permanent repair, in
accordance with Part III of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 727–53–0149, Revision 4,
dated June 27, 1991. Doing the permanent
repair terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (d) of AD 92–19–11,
Amendment 39–8369 (57 FR 53247,
November 9, 1992).
(k) Credit for Previous Actions
This paragraph provides credit for actions
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin
727–53–0149, Revision 3, dated November 2,
1989, which was incorporated by reference in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
AD 92–19–11, Amendment 39–8369 (57 FR
53247, November 9, 1992).
(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in
paragraph (m) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has
been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(m) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Suite 100,
Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627–
5329; fax: 562–627–5210; email:
chandraduth.ramdoss@faa.gov.
(2) Service information identified in this
AD that is not incorporated by reference in
this AD may be obtained at the addresses
specified in paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5) of
this AD.
(n) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was
approved for IBR on December 14, 1992 (57
FR 53247, November 9, 1992).
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 727–53–0149,
Revision 4, dated June 27, 1991.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–
544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
(5) You may view this service information
at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
425–227–1221.
(6) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17011
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
18, 2014.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–06775 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM13–16–000; Order No. 796]
Generator Verification Reliability
Standards
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
approves the following Reliability
Standards that were submitted to the
Commission for approval by the North
American Electric Reliability
Corporation, the Commission-certified
Electric Reliability Organization: MOD–
025–2 (Verification and Data Reporting
of Generator Real and Reactive Power
Capability and Synchronous Condenser
Reactive Power Capability), MOD–026–
1 (Verification of Models and Data for
Generator Excitation Control System or
Plant Volt/Var Control Functions),
MOD–027–1(Verification of Models and
Data for Turbine/Governor and Load
Control or Active Power/Frequency
Control Functions), PRC–019–1
(Coordination of Generating Unit or
Plant Capabilities, Voltage Regulating
Controls, and Protection), and PRC–
024–1 (Generator Frequency and
Voltage Protective Relay Settings). The
generator verification Reliability
Standards help ensure that verified data
is available for power system planning
and operational studies by requiring the
verification of generator equipment and
capability needed to support BulkPower System reliability and promoting
the coordination of important protection
system settings.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will
become effective May 27, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17012
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–8718, syed.ahmad@
ferc.gov.
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office
of General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–8524, mark.bennett@
ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Cheryl A.
LaFleur, Acting Chairman; Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, and Tony
Clark.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
(Issued March 20, 2014)
1. Under section 215 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission
approves five Reliability Standards that
were submitted to the Commission for
approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the
Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO): MOD–
025–2 (Verification and Data Reporting
of Generator Real and Reactive Power
Capability and Synchronous Condenser
Reactive Power Capability), MOD–026–
1 (Verification of Models and Data for
Generator Excitation Control System or
Plant Volt/Var Control Functions),
MOD–027–1 (Verification of Models and
Data for Turbine/Governor and Load
Control or Active Power/Frequency
Control Functions), PRC–019–1
(Coordination of Generating Unit or
Plant Capabilities, Voltage Regulating
Controls, and Protection), and PRC–
024–1 (Generator Frequency and
Voltage Protective Relay Settings).
2. The Commission approves the
associated implementation plan,
violation risk factors and, with one
modification, the violation severity
levels. The Commission also approves
the retirement of Reliability Standards
MOD–024–1 and MOD–025–1
immediately prior to the effective date
of MOD–025–2.
3. The generator verification
Reliability Standards will help ensure
that generators remain in operation
during specified voltage and frequency
excursions; properly coordinate
protective relays and generator voltage
regulator controls; and enhance the
ability of generator models to accurately
reflect the generator’s capabilities and
equipment performance. Reliability
Standards MOD–026–1, MOD–027–1,
PRC–019–1 and PRC–024–1 are new,
whereas Reliability Standard MOD–
025–2 consolidates two existing
Reliability Standards, MOD–024–1
(Verification of Generator Gross and Net
Real Power Capability) and MOD–025–
1 16
U.S.C. 824o.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
1 (Verification of Generator Gross and
Net Reactive Power Capability), into one
new Reliability Standard. Portions of
Reliability Standards MOD–025–2 and
PRC–024–1 respond to directives
contained in Order No. 693.2
4. The generator verification
Reliability Standards improve the
accuracy of model verifications needed
to support reliability and enhance the
coordination of generator protection
systems and voltage regulating system
controls. Such improvements should
help reduce the risk of generator trips
and provide more accurate models for
transmission planners and planning
coordinators to develop system models
and simulations. We also determine that
the generator verification Reliability
Standards adequately address the
Commission’s directives regarding
Reliability Standard MOD–025–2 and
PRC–024–1. Therefore, pursuant to
section 215(d) of the FPA, we approve
Reliability Standards MOD–025–2,
MOD–026–1, MOD–027–1, PRC–019–1
and PRC–024–1.
I. Background
5. Section 215 of the FPA requires a
Commission-certified ERO to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards, subject to Commission
review and approval. Specifically, the
Commission may approve, by rule or
order, a proposed Reliability Standard
or modification to a Reliability Standard
if it determines that the Reliability
Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential, and in
the public interest.3 Once approved,
Reliability Standards may be enforced
by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission
independently.4
6. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA,
the Commission established a process to
select and certify an ERO,5 and
subsequently certified NERC.6 On
March 16, 2007, the Commission issued
Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107
Reliability Standards filed by NERC.
Because MOD–024–1 and MOD–025–1,
which NERC had included in its filing,
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).
3 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
4 Id. 824o(e)(3).
5 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).
6 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116
FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g and compliance, 117
FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc.
v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
involved regional procedures that had
not been submitted, the Commission
postponed either approving or
remanding these standards until NERC
submitted additional information.
However, the Commission issued three
directives in Order No. 693 with respect
to MOD–024–1 and MOD–025–1.
7. Reliability Standards MOD–024–1
and MOD–025–1 are ‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’
Reliability Standards that would require
regional reliability organizations to
develop procedures to verify generator
real and reactive power capability,
respectively. Regarding MOD–024–1,
the Commission directed NERC to
clearly define the test conditions and
methodologies contained in the
Reliability Standard, and also to clarify
the time period within which regional
reliability organizations must provide
generator real power capability
verification.7 For MOD–025–1, the
Commission directed NERC to clarify
that MVAR capability verifications
should be made at multiple points over
a generator unit’s operating range and
also directed NERC to clarify the time
period within which reactive power
capability verifications are to be
provided.8 These directives are
addressed in Reliability Standard MOD–
025–2.
8. Order No. 693 contained two
directives pertaining to Reliability
Standard PRC–024–1. First, the
Commission stated that NERC should
use the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s (NRC) voltage ride
through requirements when
implementing Reliability Standards to
‘‘assure that there is consistency
between the Reliability Standards and
the NRC requirement that the system is
accurately modeled.’’ 9 Second, the
Commission directed NERC to explicitly
require generators to be ‘‘capable of
riding through the same set of Category
B and C contingencies, as required by
wind generators in Order No. 661, or
that those generators that cannot ride
through be simulated as tripping.’’ 10
These directives are addressed in
Reliability Standard PRC–024–1.
II. NERC Petition and Proposed
Reliability Standards
A. NERC Petition
9. On May 30, 2013, NERC filed its
petition seeking approval of Reliability
Standards MOD–025–2, MOD–026–1,
MOD–027–1, PRC–019–1 and PRC–024–
1. NERC states that four of the five
7 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
PP 1310–1311.
8 Id. PP 1321–1323.
9 Id. P 1787.
10 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Reliability Standards are new, while
existing Reliability Standards MOD–
024–1 and MOD–025–1 were merged
into proposed Reliability Standard
MOD–025–2. NERC also seeks approval
of the associated implementation plans,
violation risk factors and violation
severity levels, and retirement of current
Reliability Standards MOD–024–1 and
MOD–025–1 at midnight of the day
immediately prior to the effective date
of MOD–025–2. NERC proposes to
phase in effective dates in stages over
periods ranging from five years (for
MOD–025–2, PRC–019–1 and PRC–024–
1) to ten years (for MOD–026–1 and
MOD–027–1).11 NERC states that ‘‘these
five proposed Reliability Standards
address generator verifications needed
to support Bulk-Power System
reliability and will ensure that accurate
data is verified and made available for
planning simulations.’’ 12
10. NERC explains that Bulk-Power
System reliability benefits from ‘‘good
quality simulation models of power
system equipment’’ and that ‘‘model
validation ensures the proper
performance of the control systems and
validates the computer models used for
stability analysis.’’ 13 NERC further
states that the proposed Reliability
Standards will enhance reliability
because the tests performed to obtain
model data may reveal latent defects
that could cause ‘‘inappropriate unit
response during system
disturbances.’’ 14 NERC also states that
simulating the response of synchronous
machines and related control systems in
sufficient detail is essential for effective
power system planning and operational
studies.15 For accurate simulations
reflecting actual equipment performance
covering a range of disturbances, NERC
states that models must not only contain
adequate information, they must also
correspond to actual field values.16
Finally, NERC asserts that Reliability
Standards MOD–025–2 and PRC–024–1
address the directives in Order No. 693
mentioned above.
B. Reliability Standards and NERC
Explanation of Provisions
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Reliability Standard MOD–025–2
11. Reliability Standard MOD–025–2
merges two existing Reliability
Standards, MOD–024–1 and MOD–25–
1, and has the stated purpose of
ensuring the accuracy of generator
11 NERC Petition, Exhibit B (Implementation Plan
for Reliability Standards Submitted for Approval).
12 NERC Petition at 2.
13 Id.
14 Id. 2–3.
15 Id. 3.
16 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
information related to gross and net real
and reactive power capability and
synchronous condenser reactive power
capability that is available for planning
models and bulk electric system
reliability assessments.17 The Reliability
Standard applies to generator owners
and transmission owners that own
synchronous condensers and has three
requirements and two Attachments.
Attachment 1, incorporated into
Requirements R1.1, R2.1 and R3.1,
specifies the periodicity for performing
real and reactive power capability
verification and the verification
specifications for applicable facilities.
Attachment 2, which generator owners
and transmission owners will use to
report to their transmission planners the
information described in Attachment 1,
is incorporated into Requirements R1.2,
R2.2 and R3.2.
12. NERC states that Reliability
Standard MOD–025–2 addresses the
directives in Order No. 693.
Specifically, NERC states: (1)
Requirement R1, Part 1.2 specifies that
a generator owner must submit
Attachment 2 or another form
containing the same information to its
transmission planner within 90 calendar
days of either the date the data are
recorded for a staged test or the date the
data are selected for verification using
historical operational data; (2)
Requirement R1, Part 1.1 requires a
generator owner to verify the real power
capability of its generating units as set
forth in Attachment 1, including the
consideration of ambient conditions
during the verification period; and (3)
Attachment 1, Sections 2.1 through 2.4,
requires reactive power capability
verification at multiple points across a
unit’s operating range.18
2. Reliability Standard MOD–026–1
13. Reliability Standard MOD–026–1,
applicable to generator owners and
transmission planners, is a new
Reliability Standard and has six
requirements and an Attachment
describing the periodicity for excitation
control system or plant volt/var function
model verification. NERC explains that
the purpose of MOD–026–1 is to ensure
that detailed modeling of generator
excitation systems, essential for valid
simulations in power system stability
studies, will be conducted and that
those models accurately represent
generator excitation control system or
plant volt/var control function behavior
for bulk electric system reliability
17 Reliability Standard MOD–025–2, Section A.3
(Purpose).
18 NERC Petition at 10–12.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17013
assessments.19 Requirement R1 requires
transmission planners to provide
generator owners with specified
information within 90 days of a written
request, including instructions on how
to obtain models, block diagrams and/or
data sheets and model data for any of
the generator owner’s existing
applicable unit specific excitation
control system or plant volt/var control
function contained in the transmission
planner’s dynamic database from the
current (in-use) models. NERC explains
that Requirement R1 ensures that the
transmission planner provides
necessary information to the generator
owners so that they can provide a
useable model in an acceptable format.
This procedure further supports
generator owner compliance with
Requirement R2 by providing relevant
information to transmission planners.20
14. Requirement R2 requires each
generator owner to provide its
transmission planner with a verified
generator excitation control system or
plant volt/var control function model
that includes the data and
documentation specified in
Requirement R2, Part 2.1. The
periodicity for this requirement is set
forth in Attachment 1. The purpose of
Requirement R2 is to verify that the
generator excitation control system or
plant volt/var control function model
and the model parameters used in
dynamic simulations performed by the
transmission planner accurately
represent the generator excitation
control system or plant volt/var control
function behavior when assessing bulk
electric system reliability.21
Requirement R3 requires generator
owners to provide written responses to
transmission planner requests within 90
days regarding unusable models,
technical concerns and transmission
planner determinations that simulated
excitation control system or plant volt/
var control function model responses do
not match a recorded response to a
transmission system event. NERC
explains that Requirement R3 of
Reliability Standard MOD–026–1
‘‘provides response requirements for a
Generator Owner when it receives
certain requests from the Transmission
Planner. This communication ensures
that Generator Owners have an
obligation to respond in a timely fashion
when there are demonstrated problems
with a model that was provided by the
Generator Owner in accordance with
19 Id.
14–16.
15.
21 Id. 16.
20 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17014
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Requirement R2.’’ 22 Under Requirement
R4, generator owners are required to
determine whether changes to
applicable units affect models provided
pursuant to Requirement R2 and, when
consistent with this determination, to
provide the transmission planner with
revised model data or plans to perform
model verification.
15. Requirement R5 requires a
generator owner to respond within 90
days to a ‘‘technically justified unit
request’’ from its transmission planner
to perform a model review of a unit or
plant, including details for model
verification or corrected model data. A
footnote to Requirement R5 states that
‘‘Technical justification is achieved by
the Transmission Planner demonstrating
that the simulated unit or plant
response does not match the measured
unit or plant response.’’ Also,
Applicability section 4.2.4 in MOD–
026–1 states that facilities to which the
standard applies include ‘‘For all
Interconnections: A technically justified
unit that meets NERC registry criteria
but is not otherwise included in the
above Applicability sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
or 4.2.3 and is requested by the
Transmission Planner.’’
16. NERC explains that Requirement
R5 allows transmission planners to
request that generator owners who
otherwise are not covered by the
Applicability section (i.e., whose MVA
ratings are lower than the applicability
thresholds specified in Section 4 of
Reliability Standard MOD–026–1 but
meet or exceed the Registry Criteria)
provide model verifications or correct
model data.23 Requirement R6 requires
transmission planners to provide
written responses to generator owners
within 90 days of receiving a verified
excitation control system or plant volt/
var control function model information
whether the model is usable or not in
accordance with Requirement R2. If it
determines the model to be unusable,
the transmission planner must explain
the technical basis for that decision.
3. Reliability Standard MOD–027–1
17. Reliability Standard MOD–027–1
is a new Reliability Standard and
contains five requirements and an
Attachment (Turbine/Governor and
Load Control or Active Power
Frequency Control Model Periodicity).
Its purpose is to verify that the turbine/
governor and load control or active
power/frequency control model and the
model parameters, used in dynamic
simulations that assess bulk electric
system reliability, accurately represent
22 Id.
23 Id.
17.
18.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
generator unit real power response to
system frequency variations.24
Requirement R1 requires transmission
planners to provide generator owners
with guidance that will enable generator
owners to provide the information
required in Requirements R2 and R4
within 90 days of a written request.
Requirement R2 requires generator
owners to provide transmission
planners with a verified turbine/
governor and load control or active
power/frequency control model for each
applicable unit, including
documentation and data in accordance
with the periodicity specified in MOD–
027–1, Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also
contains a table listing verification
conditions and related actions required
of generator owners.25
18. Requirement R3 establishes
communication requirements to ensure
that generator owners respond to
transmission planner determinations
that a generator owner’s model is not
‘‘usable,’’ or where there is a difference
between the model and three or more
actual transmission system events.26
Requirement R3 requires generator
owners to provide a written response
within 90 days.27 Requirement R4
requires generator owners to provide
transmission planners with updates
when changes occur to the turbine/
governor and load control or active
power/frequency control system that
alter equipment response
characteristics.28 Requirement R5
requires transmission planners to
inform generator owners within 90 days
of receiving model information (in
accordance with Requirement R2)
whether the model is usable or not. If a
model is unusable, the transmission
planner shall provide the generator
owner with an explanation of the
technical basis for that decision. Also,
Requirement R3 requires generator
owners to provide a written response to
this explanation within 90 days.
4. Reliability Standard PRC–019–1
19. Reliability Standard PRC–019–1 is
a new Reliability Standard and contains
two requirements intended to ensure
that both generator owners and
transmission owners verify coordination
of generating unit facility or
synchronous condenser voltage
regulating controls, limit functions,
equipment capabilities and protection
24 Reliability Standard MOD–027–1, Section A.3
(Purpose).
25 NERC Petition at 20.
26 Id. 21.
27 Id.
28 Id. 22.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
system settings.29 Requirement R1
requires generator owners and
transmission owners to coordinate the
voltage regulating system controls with
the equipment capabilities and settings
of the applicable protection system
devices and functions.30 Requirement
R2 requires generator owners and
transmission owners to perform the
coordination described in Requirement
R1 to address equipment or setting
changes.31 The coordination required in
Reliability Standard PRC–019–1 must be
performed at least every five years.
5. Reliability Standard PRC–024–1
20. Reliability Standard PRC–024–1 is
a new Reliability Standard and consists
of four requirements and two
Attachments. The stated purpose of
PRC–024–1 is to ensure that generator
owners set their generator protective
relays such that generating units remain
connected during defined frequency and
voltage excursions.32 Requirement R1
requires generator owners having
generator frequency protective relaying
activated to trip their generating units to
set their protective relaying to prevent
their generating units from tripping
within the ‘‘no trip zone’’ of PRC–024–
1 Attachment 1 (unless one of three
specified exceptions applies). NERC
explains that Attachment 1 contains
tables with curve data points for each
Interconnection indicating the amount
of time a generator needs to remain
connected at specific defined frequency
excursions.33 Requirement R2 addresses
voltage excursions and requires, subject
to four exceptions, generator owners to
ensure that their voltage protective
relaying settings prevent their
generating units from tripping within
the ‘‘no trip zone’’ described in PRC–
024–1, Attachment 2.
21. NERC states that the standard
drafting team believes the voltage
profile contained in Attachment 2
includes excursions that would be
expected under Category B and C
contingencies.34 Therefore, NERC
asserts that by ensuring that generator
units remain connected to the grid
during voltage excursions, Requirement
R2 and Attachment 2 satisfy the
directive in Order No. 693 to ‘‘explicitly
29 Reliability Standard PRC–019–1, Section A.3
(Purpose).
30 NERC Petition at 23.
31 Id. 24.
32 Reliability Standard PRC–024–1, Section A.3
(Purpose).
33 NERC Petition at 25.
34 See Reliability Standard TPL–002–0b, System
Performance Following Loss of a Single Bulk
Electric System Element (Category B) and
Reliability Standard TPL–003–0b, System
Performance Following Loss of Two or More Bulk
Electric System Elements (Category C).
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
require either that all generators are
capable of riding through the same set
of Category B and C contingencies, as
required by wind generators in Order
No. 661, or that those generators that
cannot ride through be simulated as
tripping.’’ 35
22. Requirement R3 of Reliability
Standard PRC–024–1 requires generator
owners to document regulatory or
equipment limitations that would
prevent them from satisfying the relay
setting criteria in Requirements R1 and
R2. Generator owners must inform their
planning coordinator and transmission
planner of any such limitation within 30
calendar days after identifying it. NERC
explains that the standard drafting team
believes that ‘‘regulatory limitations’’
include NRC requirements and,
therefore, Requirement R3 satisfies the
Commission’s guidance that ‘‘NRC
requirements should be used when
implementing the Reliability
Standards.’’ 36
23. Requirement R4 requires generator
owners to provide their planning
coordinator or transmission planner
with generator protection trip settings
associated with Requirements R1 and
R2 within 60 days of either a written
request or a change to previously
requested trip settings.37
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
24. On September 19, 2013, the
Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)
proposing to approve Reliability
Standards MOD–025–2, MOD–026–1,
MOD–027–1, PRC–019–1 and PRC–024–
1.38 The Commission also proposed to
approve the associated implementation
plans, violation risk factors and
violation severity levels, with one
modification, and the retirement of
existing Reliability Standards MOD–
024–1 and MOD–025–1 prior to the
effective date of MOD–025–2.
25. While the Commission proposed
to approve all five generator verification
Reliability Standards, the Commission
raised issues regarding certain
provisions of Reliability Standards
MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1. In the
NOPR, the Commission sought
comments on the following issues: (1)
Whether the higher applicability
thresholds for MOD–026–1 and MOD–
027–1 could limit their effectiveness,
35 Id. 29 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1787).
36 Id. 27–28 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1787).
37 Id. 31.
38 Generator Verification Reliability Standards,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 58,492
(September 24, 2013), 144 FERC ¶ 61,205 (2013)
(NOPR).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
especially in areas with a high
concentration of generators falling
below the thresholds, or impede
transmission planners’ ability to address
reliability risk; and (2) whether the
provision in Reliability Standard MOD–
026–1 allowing transmission planners to
compel a generator owner below the
applicability threshold with a
‘‘technically justified’’ unit to comply
with the Reliability Standard’s
requirements is ‘‘sufficiently clear and
workable.’’ The Commission also sought
comment on whether this provision
should be included in Reliability
Standard MOD–027–1.
26. In response to the NOPR, the
Commission received comments from:
NERC, Idaho Power Company (Idaho
Power), Electricity Consumers Resource
Council (ELCON), ISO New England
(ISO–NE), Arizona Public Service
Company (APS), International
Transmission Company (ITC), Edison
Electric Institute (EEI), and G&T
Cooperatives.39
IV. Discussion
27. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the
FPA, the Commission approves
Reliability Standards MOD–025–2,
MOD–026–1, MOD–027–1, PRC–019–1
and PRC–024–1 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and in the public interest. The
Commission determines that these
Reliability Standards will help ensure
that verified data is available for power
system planning and operational studies
by requiring the verification of generator
equipment needed to support BulkPower System reliability and enhancing
the coordination of important protection
system settings. Also, Reliability
Standards MOD–025–2 and PRC–024–1
satisfy relevant outstanding directives
set forth in Order No. 693.40 Further, we
approve the retirement of Reliability
Standards MOD–024–1 and MOD–025–
1 prior to the effective date of MOD–
025–2. We also approve the associated
implementation plan and, with one
exception, the proposed violation risk
factors and violations severity levels.
28. We discuss below the following
issues: (A) The Megavolt Amperes
(MVA) applicability thresholds for
Reliability Standards MOD–026–1 and
MOD–027–1; (B) the process for
determining when it is ‘‘technically
justified’’ for a transmission planner to
require a generator owner to provide
model reviews under MOD–026–1; (C)
39 G&T Cooperatives consists of Associated
Electric Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power
Cooperative, and Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc.
40 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at
P 1787.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17015
why the ‘‘technically justified’’
provision is not also included in MOD–
027–1; (D) whether MOD–025–2 should
include more flexibility to verify unit
reactive power capability; and (E)
assignment of violation severity levels.
A. Higher MVA Applicability Threshold
in MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1 NERC
Petition
29. The applicability thresholds in
Reliability Standards MOD–026–1 and
MOD–027–1 are higher than for
Reliability Standards MOD–025–2,
PRC–019–1 and PRC–024–1, and could
exclude approximately 20 percent of
bulk electric system installed MVA from
compliance.41 In contrast to the greater
than 20 MVA applicability thresholds
set forth in the other three Reliability
Standards in NERC’s petition,42 MOD–
026–1 and MOD–027–1 would exclude
units rated below 100 MVA (Eastern and
Quebec Interconnections), 75 MVA
(Western Interconnection) and 50 MVA
(ERCOT Interconnection).43
30. During the standard development
process, several industry stakeholders
commented that the standard drafting
team should ensure that the
applicability thresholds of MOD–026–1
and MOD–027–1 be aligned with the
other three proposed Reliability
Standards. In response, the standard
drafting team stated that ‘‘verification of
excitation system is expensive both
from a monetary and human resource
viewpoint. Therefore, the [standard
drafting team] believes that these
applicability thresholds will result in
substantial accuracy improvements to
the excitation models and associated
Reliability Standards, while not unduly
mandating costly and time-consuming
verification efforts.’’ 44
NOPR
31. In the NOPR, the Commission
sought comment on whether the higher
applicability thresholds of MOD–026–1
41 See NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Summary of the
Reliability Standard Development Proceeding and
Complete Record of Development of Proposed
Reliability Standard) section entitled
‘‘Consideration of Comments on Draft Standard’’ at
91 (indicating that the threshold in the proposed
standard would limit applicability of the standard
to 80 percent of installed MVA on an
Interconnection basis).
42 Reliability Standard MOD–025–2, Section 4.2
(Facilities); Reliability Standard PRC–019–1,
Section 4.2 (Facilities); and Reliability Standard
PRC–024–1, Section 4 (Applicability).
43 Reliability Standard MOD–026–1, Section 4.2
(Facilities); Reliability Standard MOD–027–1,
Section 4.2 (Facilities).
44 NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Summary of the
Reliability Standard Development Proceeding and
Complete Record of Development of Proposed
Reliability Standard) section entitled
‘‘Consideration of Comments on Draft Standard’’ at
91.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17016
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and MOD–027–1, especially in areas
with a high concentration of generators
falling below the thresholds, would: (a)
limit the effectiveness of proposed
Reliability Standards MOD–026–1 and
MOD–027–1; or (b) adversely impact
transmission planners’ ability to reduce
risk to Bulk-Power System reliability.45
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Comments
32. NERC maintains that the standard
drafting team determined that the
applicability thresholds for Reliability
Standards MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–
1 are appropriate. NERC states that the
standard drafting team determined,
based on its expertise, that there is little,
if any, reliability benefit to requiring
every generator to comply with MOD–
026–1 and MOD–027–1. NERC explains
that ‘‘the standard drafting team
believes that these applicability
thresholds will result in substantial
accuracy improvements to the excitation
models and associated reliability-based
limits determined by dynamic
simulations, while balancing concerns
regarding the resources it [sic] requires
to implement verification efforts.’’ 46
NERC notes that the resources required
to implement verification efforts can be
extensive: ‘‘many entities will require
the use of consultants to perform the
needed tests and model validations due
to the expertise required. For example,
it was observed in the SERC field trial
that using consultants for MOD–026–1
cost roughly $20,000 to $30,000 for one
unit.’’ 47 NERC further states that
Section 4.2.4 of MOD–026–1, allowing
transmission planners to request
information from all generators when
‘‘technically justified,’’ confirms that the
higher applicability threshold ‘‘will not
limit the effectiveness of’’ Reliability
Standards MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–
1.48
33. ELCON, EEI, and APS state that
excluding approximately 20 percent of
MVA from the applicability of MOD–
026–1 and MOD–027–1 will not limit
the effectiveness of these Reliability
Standards. ELCON states that the higher
thresholds would not undermine the
effectiveness of MOD–026–1 and MOD–
027–1 or hamper ‘‘transmission
planners’ ability to reduce risk to the
Bulk-Power System.’’ 49 EEI states that it
‘‘does not view the higher thresholds
utilized in the two proposed standards
as inappropriate nor do we believe it
45 NOPR,
144 FERC ¶ 61,205 at P 27–28.
Comments at 4–5.
47 Id. 5, n.7 (citing SERC Engineering Committee
Generation Standards Field Test Report at 3 (June
15, 2007) (included in Exhibit E to the NERC
Petition)).
48 Id. 5.
49 ELCON Comments at 2.
46 NERC
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
will diminish reliability or adversely
impact transmission planners’ ability to
reduce risk to the [Bulk- Power
System].’’ 50 Rather, EEI asserts that the
thresholds ‘‘would be expected to
enhance reliability by focusing the
limited expertise available for model
verification at the units which make the
most impact to the dynamic
performance of the power system.’’ 51
APS supports the higher thresholds for
Reliability Standards MOD–026–1 and
MOD–027–1 because there is limited
benefit to reliability to require every
generator, regardless of size, to comply,
and ‘‘the owners of the smaller units are
still expected to provide correct
estimated model data for use in
simulation.’’ 52 APS asserts that the cost
of performing the required model
verification for a generation unit is
significant and does not vary
considerably based on the size of the
unit. ‘‘Currently, there are a limited
number of individuals with the
expertise necessary to perform this
model verification, and the costs to hire
an expert range between $10,000 and
$20,000 for each generator unit
tested.’’ 53
34. Idaho Power and ISO–NE state
that excluding approximately 20 percent
of MVA from the applicability of MOD–
026–1 and MOD–027–1 would limit the
effectiveness of the Reliability
Standards. Idaho Power maintains that
many registered generator owners will
not be required to comply with the data
verification standards, which will
ultimately reduce the overall
effectiveness of Reliability Standards
MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1.54 Idaho
Power bases its comments largely upon
its experience with the WECC Modeling
and Validation Workgroup (WECC
Workgroup), which concluded that the
higher thresholds would undermine
modeling and simulation accuracy for
the WECC region because ‘‘[e]xcluding
approximately 20 percent of generators
based upon different thresholds can
lead to very different interpretations of
system reliability.’’ 55 Idaho Power notes
that the current WECC policy requiring
validation at an aggregate unit threshold
of 20 MVA has ‘‘greatly improved the
accuracy of system models for dynamic
simulation [and] a safer and more
reliable operation of the WECC
Interconnection.’’ 56 Further, Idaho
Power states that generation resources
50 EEI
Comments at 5.
51 Id.
52 APS
Comments at 4.
3–4.
54 Idaho Power Comments at 2.
55 Id. 3.
56 Id.
53 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
subject to Reliability Standards MOD–
026–1 and MOD–027–1 are not spread
evenly throughout the interconnectionwide model of the Western
Interconnection, which will result in
some areas being represented with a
lower percentage of validated generation
models.57 Idaho Power asserts that the
higher thresholds limit the overall
effectiveness of the Reliability
Standards and believes the Commission
should adopt a 10 MVA single unit and
20 MVA aggregate thresholds for the
Western Interconnection.58
35. ISO–NE states that ‘‘[t]he 100
MVA threshold is too high [and] would
limit the effectiveness of these standards
and would adversely impact ISO–NE’s
ability to reduce risk to Bulk Power
System reliability by excluding too
many generating units in New
England.’’ 59 ISO–NE believes the use of
the 20 MVA threshold is supported by
NERC’s registration requirements and
the Commission’s determination that
‘‘generating units with a capacity as low
as 20 MVA can have a significant
enough impact that they must comply
with the Reliability Standards.’’ 60 ISO–
NE asserts that inaccurate information
for a single generating unit below 100
MVA could impact area studies, and
units below 100 MVA may collectively
impact system operating limits. Finally,
ISO–NE raises a concern that exempting
generating units under 100 MVA is
inconsistent with the high importance
placed by NERC and the Commission on
Reliability Standard TPL–001–4
Requirement R1.61 ISO–NE also
maintains that the application of the
‘‘capacity factor exemption’’ in MOD–
026–1, Attachment 1 is unclear. ISO–NE
states that, ‘‘If large units with low
capacity factors are also exempted from
verification, then overall system
reliability will be further reduced.’’ 62
36. Like Idaho Power and ISO–NE.,
ITC states that it is concerned about the
aggregate effect that excluding
generators will have on the accuracy of
transmission system stability studies,
particularly for areas of the transmission
system where excluded generating units
are more highly concentrated.63
However, ITC maintains that its concern
57 Id.
58 Id.
4.
59 ISO–NE
Comments at 2–3.
3.
61 Id. 3–4 (citing Transmission Planning
Reliability Standards, Order No. 786, 145 FERC ¶
61,051, at P 3 (2013) (directing NERC to change the
VRF for Requirement R1 from medium to high)).
TPL–001–4, Requirement R1 requires transmission
planners and planning coordinators to maintain
system models that represent projected system
conditions.
62 Id. 5.
63 ITC Comments at 5–6.
60 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
is ameliorated by the provision in
MOD–026–1 allowing transmission
planners to compel generators deemed
to have ‘‘technically justified’’ units
below the specified threshold to provide
such information in order to more
accurately assess system stability.
Commission Determination
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
37. The Commission is persuaded by
the comments submitted by NERC and
others that the higher applicability
thresholds of Reliability Standards
MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1 are
appropriate for a continent-wide
standard. Moreover, as NERC and ITC
point out, Section 4.2.4 of Reliability
Standard MOD–026–1 allows
transmission planners to request a
model review and related verification
information in accordance with
Requirement R5 from generators below
the applicability threshold when
‘‘technically justified’’ (where the
simulated unit or plant response does
not match the measured unit or plant
response). In addition, as APS observed,
the higher applicability threshold does
not excuse generator owners with small
units from the expectation that
estimated model data they provide to
transmission planners for use in
simulations will be accurate. In
response to commenters that expressed
concerns, in areas where there is a large
concentration of small generators, the
Commission notes that Regional Entities
could develop more stringent
requirements, such as a regional
standard or regional criteria or process,
to assure greater modeling accuracy.64
38. We reject ISO–NE’s argument that
the applicability threshold is somehow
inconsistent with the directive to NERC
in Order No. 786 to raise the violation
severity level from ‘‘medium’’ to ‘‘high’’
for Reliability Standard TPL–001–4,
Requirement R1, which requires
transmission planners and planning
coordinators to maintain system
models.65 We are not persuaded that the
violation severity level for Reliability
Standard TPL–001–4, Requirement R1 is
relevant to the applicability threshold
for Reliability Standards MOD–026–1
and MOD–027–1 or how it substantiates
ISO–NE’s claim that the applicability
threshold reduces overall reliability.66
64 For example, the WECC Modeling and
Validation Workgroup concluded that WECC
should develop a regional Reliability Standard
based upon WECC’s existing policy that establishes
thresholds of 10 MVA and 20 MVA for single unit
and aggregate unit validation respectively.
65 Transmission Planning Reliability Standards,
Order No. 786, 145 FERC ¶ 61,051, at P 3 (2013).
66 We likewise reject ISO–NE’s comments
regarding application of the capacity factor
exemption in Attachment 1 because ISO–NE fails to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
B. Process for Identifying ‘‘Technically
Justified’’ Generating Units in MOD–
026–1
NERC Petition
39. Reliability Standard MOD–026–1
applies to generating units that are
connected to the bulk electric system
when ‘‘technically justified.’’
Specifically, Applicability Section 4.2.4
allows a transmission planner to compel
a generator owner to provide model
reviews and related information in
accordance with Requirement R5 if the
transmission planner demonstrates
‘‘that the simulated unit or plant
response does not match the measured
unit or plant response.’’ 67 Under such
circumstances, generator owners with
one or more ‘‘technically justified’’ units
must comply with Reliability Standard
MOD–026–1, even though each such
unit’s MVA rating is below the stated
MVA threshold for applicability.
NOPR
40. In the NOPR, the Commission
stated that while it agrees with the
intent of this section, the way
transmission planners would become
aware of discrepancies between
simulated units and measured units
(i.e., the basis for ‘‘technically justified’’
determinations) is unclear. The NOPR
stated that the technical justification, or
discrepancies between simulated units
and measured units, suggests that there
should be some benchmark available in
the process by which transmission
planners identify generator owners for
compliance with MOD–026–1. The
NOPR observed that the Final Blackout
Report on the August 2003 blackout
stated that ‘‘the regional councils are to
establish and begin implementing
criteria and procedures for validating
data used in power flow models and
dynamic simulations by benchmarking
model data with actual system
performance.’’ 68 The Commission
sought comment as to whether the
means or process for transmission
planners to determine whether a
generator owner’s unit is ‘‘technically
justified’’ is sufficiently clear and
workable. The Commission also
requested comment as to whether
additional details regarding how the
process will be implemented should be
substantiate the alleged risk of applying the
capacity factor exemption to large units.
67 Reliability Standard MOD–026–1, Applicability
section 4.2.4, n.2 defining ‘‘technical justification.’’
68 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force
(Task Force), Final Report on the August 14, 2003
Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes
and Recommendations (April 2004) (Final Blackout
Report), Recommendation 24, available at https://
www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/
blackout.asp.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17017
included in an attachment to Reliability
Standard MOD–026–1.69
Comments
41. NERC maintains that the process
for transmission planners to determine
whether a generator owner’s unit is
‘‘technically justified’’ is clear and
workable. NERC states that the
‘‘technically justified’’ provision in
Reliability Standard MOD–026–1
expands the applicability of the
standard, when necessary, i.e., where
the simulated unit or plant response
does not match the measured unit or
plant response. NERC further states that
the ‘‘standard drafting team determined
that it is readily apparent when
measured data does not match
simulations and that such situations
will be sufficiently clear and
workable.’’ 70
42. ELCON, APS, and EEI believe that
the process for transmission planners to
determine whether a generator owner’s
unit is ‘‘technically justified’’ is clear
and workable. ELCON maintains that
MOD–026–1 is ‘‘written with sufficient
clarity regarding whether a generator
owner’s unit is ‘technically
justified.’ ’’ 71 APS supports the
‘‘technical justification’’ provision as
written, and believes that the provision
‘‘allows transmission planners and
planning coordinators the opportunity
to address discrepancies between unit
simulations and measured unit data,’’
which APS asserts will be ‘‘evident and
clear.’’ 72 EEI believes that the standard
as written is ‘‘sufficiently clear and
enforceable,’’ because ‘‘[a]lthough
specific unit performance levels can
deviate from a model’s predicted
response, we do not find this to be
problematic; rather, planners need
latitude to make judgments based on
their knowledge of their regions and
what’s necessary to assess bulk electric
system reliability in their area.’’ 73 EEI
states that the standard drafting team
‘‘struck a reasonable balance between
providing necessary tools for planners
without making [an] unnecessary
prescriptive determination as to how to
ensure those tools would be applied.’’ 74
EEI cautions against adding details that
‘‘might unintentionally limit or
otherwise undermine the regional
knowledge and judgment of
transmission planners.’’ 75 Rather, EEI
requests that any changes to MOD–026–
69 NOPR,
144 FERC ¶ 61,205 at PP 29–30.
Comments at 5.
71 ELCON Comments at 2.
72 APS Comments at 5.
73 EEI Comments at 5.
74 Id. 6.
75 Id.
70 NERC
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17018
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
1 be postponed until industry
experience confirms they are needed.
43. Idaho Power and ISO–NE state
that the process for transmission
planners to determine whether a
generator owner’s unit is ‘‘technically
justified’’ is unclear, and both assert that
the best fix involves lowering the
applicability threshold. Idaho Power
states that MOD–026–1 does not clearly
define what a ‘‘match’’ is or how to
evaluate whether a match exists to
satisfy the technically justified
definition. Idaho Power believes that the
Commission should add a provision in
MOD–026–1 to include ‘‘technically
justified’’ units that meet the NERC
registry requirements. Idaho Power
seeks additional guidance on when a
match between simulated and measured
unit or plant responses occurs and the
process a transmission planner should
undertake to demonstrate such a
match.76 ISO–NE states that it is
concerned that the test described in
MOD–026–1, Applicability Section 4.2.4
would require a disturbance to occur
before a transmission planner could
determine that a generating unit under
100 MVA is ‘‘technically justified.’’
ISO–NE asserts that ‘‘[i]n order for the
Transmission Planner to be able to
demonstrate that a plant response does
not match measured unit or plant
response, an event must first occur.’’ 77
ISO–NE believes that reducing the
threshold from 100 MVA to 20 MVA
would ‘‘eliminate the need for this test,
or at least reduce its significance.’’ 78
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commission Determination
44. The Commission is persuaded that
the basis and associated process for a
transmission planner to demonstrate
that it is ‘‘technically justified’’ for a
generator owner below the applicability
threshold to comply with Requirement
R5 of Reliability Standard MOD–026–1
under Section 4.2.4 is sufficiently clear
and workable. We agree with EEI that a
more prescriptive, ‘‘one size fits all’’
approach could ‘‘unintentionally limit
or otherwise undermine the regional
knowledge and judgment of
transmission planners.’’ 79 Further, in
the standard drafting team’s technical
judgment, discrepancies between
simulations and measured data will be
‘‘readily apparent.’’ 80 APS concurs,
stating that such discrepancies will be
‘‘evident and clear.’’ 81
76 Idaho
Power Comments at 4.
Comments at 5.
77 ISO–NE
78 Id.
5.
Comments at 6.
80 NERC Comments at 5.
81 APS Comments at 5.
79 EEI
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
45. Further, the Commission is not
persuaded that a change to the
applicability thresholds for the Eastern
Interconnection, or to the technical
justification provision for sub-100 MVA
generators, is justified based on ISO–
NE’s concern that a disturbance would
have to occur before a transmission
planner could determine that a
generating unit is technically justified
under Section 4.2.4 of MOD–026–1.
ISO–NE is correct that the
‘‘demonstration’’ required by the
technical justification provision for sub100 MVA generators anticipates a
system event that would indicate a
discrepancy between actual and
measured unit response. However, local
events that occur in the normal course
of operations could provide adequate
information for a transmission planner
to demonstrate the need to invoke the
technically justified provision of
Reliability Standard MOD–026–1. While
the Commission is satisfied that NERC
has proposed a Reliability Standard that
improves the reliability of the BulkPower System on a continent-wide
basis, ISO–NE may seek to develop a
more stringent regional approach to
address its particular concerns, either
through the Northeast Power
Coordinating Council’s regional
Reliability Standards process, an ISO–
NE policy, or other means. Considering
the strong technical support for Section
4.2.4 as written, we believe the soundest
approach is to give the industry time to
evaluate the effectiveness of the
technically justified provision.
C. Should Proposed Reliability Standard
MOD–027–1 Include the ‘‘Technically
Justified’’ Provision
NERC Petition
46. Reliability Standard MOD–027–1
does not contain a provision analogous
to Applicability Section 4.2.4 of MOD–
026–1, which allows a transmission
planner to determine whether technical
justification exists to subject a generator
owner with units falling below the
stated applicability threshold to that
Reliability Standard. MOD–027–1 and
MOD–026–1 have the same applicability
thresholds (100 MVA for the Eastern
and Quebec Interconnections, 75 MVA
for the Western Interconnection, and 50
and 75 MVA for individual and
aggregate nameplate ratings,
respectively, in ERCOT). However, these
Reliability Standards verify models and
data of different functions: MOD–026–1
applies to generator excitation control
systems and plant volt/var control
functions; MOD–027–1 applies to
turbine/governor and load control or
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
active power/frequency control
functions.
NOPR
47. In the NOPR, the Commission
sought comment as to whether the
technical justification provision should
also be included in Reliability Standard
MOD–027–1 to provide an opportunity
for transmission planners to address
discrepancies between unit simulations
and generator owners’ measured unit
data.
Comments
48. NERC states that this issue was
considered and rejected by the standard
drafting team. NERC states that the
standard drafting team determined that,
in contrast to MOD–026–1, the data
required by Reliability Standard MOD–
027–1 are more subjective and difficult
to verify because the verification of
governor response models is not
consistent from one event to another.
NERC further states that Reliability
Standard MOD–026–1 ‘‘addresses the
verification of excitation control system
dynamic models—whose modeled
behavior in the simulation of system
events is a large factor in the
determination of local stability limits. In
contrast, proposed Reliability Standard
MOD–027–1 addresses the verification
of turbine/governor and load control
models—and this equipment rarely, if
ever, contributes to a local stability
limit.’’ 82
49. EEI, APS and ELCON believe that
it is not necessary to include the
technical justification provision in
MOD–027–1. EEI states that it is
unlikely that turbine/governor controls
‘‘will materially contribute to a stability
limit, while unit governor response has
been shown to be inconsistent from one
frequency event to the next thereby
making such a provision unworkable
and of little value.’’ 83 APS agrees,
stating that turbine/governor data
verified under MOD–027–1 is not
consistent across events, and is more
difficult to verify than excitation control
system data verified under MOD–026–1.
Further, APS states that a discrepancy
between a modeled response and a
measured response ‘‘does not
necessarily mean that the model is
incorrect. The subjective nature of this
determination makes it unsuitable as a
standard requirement.’’ 84
50. Idaho Power and ITC believe that
the technical justification provision in
MOD–026–1 should be included in
Reliability Standard MOD–027–1. Idaho
82 NERC
Comments at 6.
Comments at 6–7.
84 APS Comments at 5.
83 EEI
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Power asserts that the ‘‘[e]xclusion of
the technical justification provision in
this standard could lead to unverified
modeling data. For Idaho Power, this
would include entire regions of
generation connected to the Bulk
Electric System that would have
unverified modeling data.’’ 85 Idaho
Power notes that transmission planners
perform dynamic simulation studies
that require accurate turbine/governor
models, including blackstart and underfrequency load shedding simulations.
Idaho Power states that blackstart
generators may fall below the threshold
for compliance with Reliability
Standard MOD–027–1 but meet NERC
registry requirements.86 ITC states that
the turbine/governor, load control, and
active power/frequency control data
required by MOD–027–1 is just as
necessary for accurate system modeling
as the excitation control system and
plant volt/var function data required by
MOD–026–1. ITC asserts that to deprive
a transmission planner of MOD–027–1
models and data from technically
justified units ‘‘is just as deleterious to
the transmission planner’s ability to
accurately assess system stability as it
would be if the (sic) such problems
occurred with respect to MOD–026–1
data.’’ 87 ITC further asserts that failing
to equip transmission planners with the
technically justified provision,
particularly for transmission systems
that have high concentrations of
generator owners below the
applicability threshold, ‘‘will
significantly degrade the accuracy of
system models, and by extension, the
overall reliability of the Bulk Electric
System.’’ 88
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commission Determination
51. The Commission is persuaded that
the technical justification provision is
not workable in MOD–027–1 because
there is more subjectivity involved in
verifying the data pertaining to turbine/
governors, the equipment subject to the
modeling verification requirements of
MOD–027–1. As NERC explains, the
modeling data for excitation control
systems under MOD–026–1 is objective
and consistent, while turbine/governor
response model verification under
MOD–027–1 is not consistent from one
event to another. The Commission
agrees with APS that determining
whether the difference between a model
response and a measured response
85 Idaho
Power Comments at 5.
(noting that Reliability Standard EOP–005–
2 Requirement R6 requires transmission operators
to verify the dynamic performance of blackstart
generators).
87 ITC Comments at 6.
88 Id.
86 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
reflects a model defect is subjective and,
therefore, the technical justification
provision is inappropriate for MOD–
027–1. While commenters supporting
the inclusion of the technical
justification provision in MOD–027–1
assert that verified data for both
excitation control systems and turbine/
governor response are necessary for
accurate system modeling, they do not
adequately address the implementation
issues resulting from the subjective and
inconsistent nature of turbine/governor
response data. Therefore, we agree with
commenters that the difference in the
equipment being verified makes
including the technical justification
provision in Reliability Standard MOD–
027–1 inappropriate.
D. Whether Generators Need More
Flexibility in Verifying Unit Reactive
Capability Under MOD–025–2
NERC Petition
52. Reliability Standard MOD–025–2
consists of three requirements and two
Attachments that are incorporated into
each of the requirements. Attachment 1
contains time tables for conducting
verifications and specifications for
applicable facilities. Attachment 2
contains forms intended to be used to
report the information identified in
Attachment 1. Requirements R1 and R2
require generator owners to verify Real
Power capability and Reactive Power
capability, respectively, and
Requirement R3 requires transmission
owners to verify Reactive Power
capability in accordance with
Attachment 1. For each Requirement,
Attachment 2 establishes a 90 calendar
day period within which generator
owners and transmission owners must
submit information of ‘‘either: (i) The
date the data is recorded for a staged
test; or (ii) the date the data is selected
for verification using historical
operational data.’’
Comments
53. While not addressed in the NOPR,
G&T Cooperatives, EEI and ELCON
express concern about what they believe
is a lack of flexibility in the reactive
power verification requirements in
Reliability Standard MOD–025–2. G&T
cooperatives assert that ‘‘MOD–025–2
would establish a needlessly
prescriptive approach to verifying unit
reactive capability.’’ Therefore, while
they support the Commission’s approval
of MOD–025–2, G&T Cooperatives
request that the Commission ‘‘direct
NERC to develop a revised version of
MOD–025–2 that permits Generator
Owners the flexibility to verify unit
reactive capability using the method
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17019
that best meets the individual needs of
that Generator Owner provided it can
demonstrate that the method is
effective.’’ 89
54. ELCON views MOD–025–2 as
‘‘needlessly prescriptive’’ and asserts
that ‘‘at many of the industrial facilities
of ELCON members with ‘behind the
meter’ generation, its implementation
would raise significant economic and
safety concerns and be technically and
economically infeasible.’’ 90 While
believing that Reliability Standard
MOD–025–2 ‘‘may inhibit companies
from making use of modeling tools,’’ EEI
states that ‘‘rather than remand the
MOD–025–2 standard proposed for
approval, EEI envisions that the
standard can serve as an initial basis for
now.’’ 91
Commission Determination
55. The Commission is not persuaded
that Reliability Standard MOD–025–2
provides insufficient flexibility for
generator owners and transmission
owners to verify reactive power
capability, or that it is overly
prescriptive. Therefore, the Commission
will not direct modification of the
Reliability Standard. The process for
verifying reactive capability under
MOD–025–2, Requirement 2.2, requires
an entity to submit information to its
transmission planner (either through
Attachment 2 to MOD–025–2 or a form
containing the same information) within
90 calendar days of either: (i) The date
the data are recorded for a staged test;
or (ii) the date the data are selected for
verification using historical operational
data. This requirement affords a
generator owner or transmission owner
with the flexibility to perform
verification using either staged test or
historical operating data. Further, the
standard drafting team rejected the G&T
Cooperatives’ view that new analytical
software tools and engineering studies
alone can adequately model unit
reactive capability.92
56. Rather, the Commission agrees
with EEI’s suggestion that during the
implementation of Reliability Standard
MOD–025–2, NERC, in consultation
with EEI and other industry
representatives, should consider
potential modifications to MOD–025–2
‘‘that would better reflect rapidly
evolving modeling technology, as well
89 G&T
Cooperatives Comments at 2.
Comments at 2.
91 EEI Comments at 2.
92 See, e.g., NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Summary
of the Reliability Standard Development Proceeding
and Complete Record of Development of Proposed
Reliability Standard) section entitled
‘‘Consideration of Comments on Draft Standard’’ at
75.
90 ELCON
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17020
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
as successful methods and processes
already in use by some companies.’’ 93
E. Assignment of Violation Severity
Levels
1. Violation Severity Level for MOD–
026–1, Requirement R6 and MOD–027–
1, Requirement R5
NOPR
57. In the NOPR, the Commission
expressed concern regarding the
proposed violation severity level for
Requirement R6 of MOD–026–1 and
Requirement R5 of MOD–027–1. For
those requirements, NERC proposed a
‘‘severe’’ violation severity level when a
transmission planner’s written response
that a generation owner’s verified model
is useable ‘‘omitted confirmation for all
specified model criteria’’ in the
requirement. NERC did not propose any
violation severity level for a violation of
the last sentence of these requirements:
‘‘If the model is not useable, the
[transmission planner] shall provide a
technical description of why the model
is not useable.’’ The Commission noted
that compliance with this obligation is
no less important than compliance with
the other obligations of these
requirements. The Commission further
stated that the lack of a violation
severity level for this type of violation
is inconsistent with the Commission’s
Violation Severity Level Guideline 3,
because the proposed violation severity
level does not address all of the
obligations in these requirements.
Therefore, the Commission proposed to
direct NERC to submit a violation
severity level that addresses a violation
of the last sentence of Requirement R6
of MOD–026–1 and Requirement R5 of
MOD–027–1.
Commission Determination
58. No entity submitted comments on
this matter. Accordingly, as proposed in
the NOPR, we direct NERC to submit a
violation severity level that addresses a
transmission planner’s obligation to
provide a technical description of why
a model submitted by a generation
owner is not usable for Requirement R6
of MOD–026–1 and Requirement R5 of
MOD–027–1.
2. Violation Severity Level for PRC–
024–1, Requirements R1 and R2
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
NOPR
59. In the NOPR, the Commission
addressed NERC’s proposal to assign a
‘‘severe’’ violation severity level for a
93 EEI
Comments at 3.
Comments at 7.
95 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Commission Determination
60. In its comments, NERC responded
to the Commission’s request by stating
that ‘‘[c]onsistent with the NOPR, NERC
confirms this statement.’’ 94
Accordingly, with that clarification, the
Commission approves the violation
severity level for Requirements R1 and
R2 of PRC–024–1.
V. Information Collection Statement
61. The following collections of
information contained in the Final Rule
are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).95 OMB’s
regulations require that OMB approve
certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.96
Upon approval of a collection of
information, OMB will assign an OMB
96 5
CFR 1320.11 (2013).
Compliance Registry (July 30, 2013),
available at https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/
94 NERC
VerDate Mar<15>2010
violation of Requirements R1 and R2 of
PRC–024–1 when a generator owner
fails to set its generator frequency or
voltage protective relays so that they do
not trip within the criteria listed within
Requirements R1 and R2 unless there is
a documented and communicated
regulatory or equipment limitation
under Requirement R3. We observed
that Requirements R1 and R2 of PRC–
024–1 include three and four bulleted
exceptions, respectively, to the
requirement that the generator
frequency or voltage protective relays
not trip applicable generating unit(s)
within the ‘‘no-trip zone’’ of Attachment
1or 2 to that standard. For Requirements
R1 and R2, only the third and fourth
exception, respectively, relate to a
regulatory or equipment limitation in
accordance with Requirement R3.
Therefore, the Commission noted that
the wording of the violation severity
level for Requirements R1 and R2 could
be read to mean that a generator owner
that set generator frequency or voltage
protective relaying to trip within the
‘‘no-trip zone’’ based on either the first
or second exception in Requirement R1
and either the first, second or third
exception in R2, violated that
Requirement with a severe violation
severity level. To avoid such an
interpretation, the Commission asked
NERC to confirm in its comments that
a generator owner will not violate
Requirement R1 or R2 if it sets generator
frequency or voltage protective relaying
to trip within the ‘‘no-trip zone’’ based
upon the exceptions for Requirements
R1 and R2.
97 NERC
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
control number and expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing or
recordkeeping requirements of this rule
will not be penalized for failing to
respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB
control number.
62. The Commission will submit these
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and
approval under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. The Commission received
comments on specific requirements in
the Reliability Standards approved in
this Final Rule. However, the
Commission received no comments 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 respondents’ burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques.
63. This Final Rule approves five
Reliability Standards: MOD–025–2,
MOD–026–1, MOD–027–1, PRC–019–1
and PRC–024–1. Reliability Standard
MOD–025–2 would replace Reliability
Standards MOD–024–1 and MOD–025–
1. In Order No. 693, the Commission did
not approve or remand MOD–024–1 and
MOD–025–1, as they were identified as
‘‘fill-in-the-blank’’ Reliability Standards
for which NERC had not submitted
regional procedures.
64. Public Reporting Burden: The
burden and cost estimates below are
based on the increase in the reporting
and recordkeeping burden imposed by
the approved Reliability Standards. Our
estimate of the number of respondents
affected is based on the NERC
Compliance Registry as of July 30,
2013.97 According to the Compliance
Registry, NERC has registered 901
generator owners and 187 transmission
planners within the United States.
Currently, synchronous condensers are
not included in the NERC Compliance
Registry, and the standard drafting team
stated that the number of transmission
owners who own synchronous
condensers is extremely low.
65. The burden estimates reflect the
standards and the number of affected
entities (e.g., the generator owner’s onetime burden to develop testing
procedures, verification process, and
process for collection of data).
Registration%20and%20Certification%20DL/
NERC_Compliance_Registry_Matrix_
Summary20130730.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17021
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Number of
respondents 98
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total annual
burden hours
(1)
FERC–725G
(2)
(3)
(1) × (2) × (3)
Total annual
cost 99
PRC–019–1 (Coordination of Generating Unit or Plant Capabilities, Voltage Regulating Controls, and Protection)
Develop coordination and relay settings procedures ..........
738
GO
1
8
5,904
one-time
$307,008
one-time
($52/hr)
$413,280
($70/hr)
$20,664
($28/hr)
Relay Settings ......................................................................
1
8
5,904
Evidence Retention ..............................................................
738
GO
738
GO
1
1
738
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
12,546
$740,952
$307,008
one-time
($52/hr)
$413,280
($70/hr)
$20,664
($28/hr)
PRC–024–1 (Generator Frequency and Voltage Protective Relay Settings)
Develop coordination and relay settings procedures ..........
738
GO
1
8
5,904
one-time
Relay Settings ......................................................................
1
8
5,904
Evidence Retention ..............................................................
738
GO
738
GO
1
1
738
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
12,546
Number of
respondents 98
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total annual
burden hours
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) × (2) × (3)
FERC–725L
$740,952
Total annual
cost 99
MOD–025–2 (Verification and Data Reporting of Generator Real and Reactive Power Capability and Synchronous Condenser Reactive
Power Capability)
Develop testing procedures, verification process, and
process for collection of data ...........................................
738
GO
1
8
5,904
one-time
1
6
4,428
Evidence Retention ..............................................................
738
GO
738
GO
1
1
738
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
11,070
Attachment 2 ........................................................................
$307,008
one-time
($52/hr)
$309,960
($70/hr)
$20,664
($28/hr)
$637,632
MOD–026–1 (Verification of Models and Data for Generator Excitation Control System or Plant Volt/Var Control Functions)
Develop testing procedures, verification process, and
process for collection of data ...........................................
356
GO
1
8
2,848 one-time
$148,096
one-time
($52/hr)
187
TP
1
8
1,496
one-time
1
8
2,848
Evidence Retention ..............................................................
356
GO
543
GO and TP
1
1
543
$104,720
one-time
($70/hr)
$199,360
($70/hr)
$15,204
($28/hr)
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
7,735
Instructions for obtaining excitation control system or plant
voltage/variance control function model ...........................
Documentation on generator verification .............................
$467,380
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
MOD–027–1 (Verification of Models and Data for Turbine/Governor and Load Control or Active Power/Frequency Control Functions)
Develop testing procedures, verification process, and
process for collection of data ...........................................
356
GO
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
8
2,848
one-time
$148,096
one-time
($52/hr)
187
TP
Instructions for obtaining turbine/governor and load control
or active power/frequency control model .........................
1
1
8
1,496
one-time
$104,720
one-time
($70/hr)
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
17022
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Number of
respondents 98
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total annual
burden hours
(1)
FERC–725L
(2)
(3)
(1) × (2) × (3)
Documentation on generator verification .............................
Total annual
cost 99
1
8
2,848
Evidence Retention ..............................................................
356
GO
543
GO and TP
1
1
543
$199,360
($70/hr)
$15,204
($28/hr)
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
7,735
$467,380
Total for RM13–16 .................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$3,054,296
($1,627,640
without
one-time
costs)
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System.
Action: Revisions to FERC–725G and
FERC–725L.
OMB Control Nos: 1902–0252 and
1902–0261.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions; not-for-profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One-time,
every five years, and every ten years.
Necessity of the Information: The
proposed approval of the five Reliability
Standards noted above implements 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.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the proposed approval to the
Reliability Standards 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.
98 GO = Generator Owner, TP = Transmission
Planner.
Assuming 10 generators per generator owner,
using EIA–860 2012 generator data (https://
www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/) total number
of units > 20 MW are 7,379, which results in 738
generator owners. Note that the number of generator
owner respondents used to calculate the public
reporting burden for MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1
is 356, due to the higher applicability threshold for
those Reliability Standards.
99 The estimates for cost per hour are derived as
follows:
$52/hour, the average of the salary plus benefits
for an engineer, from Bureau of Labor and Statistics
at https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm
andhttps://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm
$70/hour, the average of the salary plus benefits
for a manager and an engineer, from Bureau of
Labor and Statistics at https://bls.gov/oes/current/
naics3_221000.htm and https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
$28/hour, based on a Commission staff study of
record retention burden cost.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
66. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director,
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone:
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
67. For submitting comments
concerning the collection of information
and the associated burden estimates,
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 RM13–16–000 and
OMB Control Number 1902–0252 and
1902–0261.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
68. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 100 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.101 Since
the issuance of the Proposed Rule, the
SBA has revised its size standard for
electric utilities from an output based
standard (megawatt hours) to number of
employees (including affiliates). Under
SBA’s new size standards, Generator
Owners and Transmission Planners
likely come under one of four categories
and associated size thresholds: 102
• Hydroelectric power generation at
500 employees.
• Fossil fuel electric power
generation at 750 employees.
• Other electric power generation
(e.g. solar, wind, geothermal, and
others) at 250 employees.
• Electric bulk power transmission
and control at 500 employees
69. According to US economic census
data,103 over half of the firms in the
categories above are small. However,
currently FERC does not have
information on how the economic
census data compares with entities
registered with NERC and is unable to
estimate the number of small generator
owners and transmission planners based
on the new SBA definition. Regardless,
FERC recognizes that the rule will
impact small GOs and TPs and
estimates the economic impact on each
type of entity below.
70. Proposed Reliability Standards
MOD–025–2, MOD–026–1, MOD–027–
1, PRC–019–1 and PRC–024–1, MOD–
025–2 help ensure that generators
remain in operation during specified
voltage and frequency excursions,
properly coordinate protective relays
and generator voltage regulator controls,
and ensure that generator models
accurately reflect the generator’s
capabilities and equipment
performance. The Commission estimates
that the small entities to which
Reliability Standards PRC–019–1, PRC–
024–1 and MOD–025–1 applies will
102 13
100 5
U.S.C. 601–612 (2006).
101 13 CFR 121.101 (2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities.
and further information is available from
SBA at https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/849/12162.
103 Data
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
incur compliance 104 and paperwork/
record keeping costs 105 totaling
$655,228 ($13,372 per generator owner).
For Reliability Standards MOD–026–1
and MOD–027–1, the Commission
estimates that a subset of the small
generator owner entities will incur
compliance and paperwork/record
keeping costs of $198,176 ($9,008 per
generator owner).106 This will result in
a per entity compliance and paperwork/
record-keeping cost for the subset of
generator owners complying with
MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1 of
$22,380 107 and the remaining small
generator owners who only have to
comply with PRC–019–1, PRC–024–1
and MOD–025–1 incurring a $13,372
cost per entity, as previously described.
Additionally, small transmission
planner entities will incur compliance
and paperwork/record keeping costs 108
totaling $49,392 ($1,176 per
transmission planner) 109 to comply
with MOD–026–1 and MOD–027–1.
71. The Commission does not
consider the estimated costs per small
entity to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, the Commission
certifies that this Final Rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VII. Environmental Analysis
72. 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.110 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from this requirement as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion
are rules that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural or that do not
substantially change the effect of the
104 Assuming 50 hours per generator owner per
reliability standard for relay settings/testing and
other non-paperwork based on $70/hour. These are
non-paperwork related costs, not associated with
the burden described in the information collection
section above.
105 This cost came from the above PRC–019–1,
PRC–024–1, and MOD–025–2 tables in the
information collection section.
106 These two figures were not calculated
correctly in the NOPR and have been corrected
here.
107 This figure was not calculated correctly in the
NOPR and has been corrected here.
108 This cost came from the above MOD–026–1
and MOD–027–1 tables in the information
collection section.
109 These two figures were not calculated
correctly in the NOPR and have been corrected
here.
110 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486,
FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986–
1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Mar 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
regulations being amended.111 The
actions proposed here fall within this
categorical exclusion in the
Commission’s regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VIII. Document Availability
17023
18 CFR Part 381
73. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
74. 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.
75. 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.
IX. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
76. These regulations are effective
May 27, 2014. The Commission has
determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–06725 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
111 18
PO 00000
CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RM14–6–000]
Annual Update of Filing Fees
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule; annual update of
Commission filing fees.
AGENCY:
In accordance with 18 CFR
381.104, the Commission issues this
update of its filing fees. This notice
provides the yearly update using data in
the Commission’s Management,
Administrative, and Payroll System to
calculate the new fees. The purpose of
updating is to adjust the fees on the
basis of the Commission’s costs for
Fiscal Year 2013.
DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond D. Johnson Jr., Office of the
Executive Director, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Room 42–66, Washington, DC
20426, 202–502–8402.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Document Availability
In addition to publishing the full text
of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through
FERC’s Home Page (https://
www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s Public
Reference Room during normal business
hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
From FERC’s Web site on the Internet,
this information is available in the
eLibrary (formerly FERRIS). 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
and follow other directions on the
search page.
User assistance is available for
eLibrary and other aspects of FERC’s
Web site during normal business hours.
For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at FERCOnlineSupport@
ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or
for TTY, contact (202) 502–8659.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR1.SGM
27MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17011-17023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06725]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM13-16-000; Order No. 796]
Generator Verification Reliability Standards
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves the following
Reliability Standards that were submitted to the Commission for
approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization: MOD-025-2
(Verification and Data Reporting of Generator Real and Reactive Power
Capability and Synchronous Condenser Reactive Power Capability), MOD-
026-1 (Verification of Models and Data for Generator Excitation Control
System or Plant Volt/Var Control Functions), MOD-027-1(Verification of
Models and Data for Turbine/Governor and Load Control or Active Power/
Frequency Control Functions), PRC-019-1 (Coordination of Generating
Unit or Plant Capabilities, Voltage Regulating Controls, and
Protection), and PRC-024-1 (Generator Frequency and Voltage Protective
Relay Settings). The generator verification Reliability Standards help
ensure that verified data is available for power system planning and
operational studies by requiring the verification of generator
equipment and capability needed to support Bulk-Power System
reliability and promoting the coordination of important protection
system settings.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 27, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Syed Ahmad (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal
[[Page 17012]]
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502-8718, syed.ahmad@ferc.gov.
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502-8524, mark.bennett@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Acting Chairman; Philip D.
Moeller, John R. Norris, and Tony Clark.
(Issued March 20, 2014)
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves five Reliability Standards that were submitted to
the Commission for approval by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO): MOD-025-2 (Verification and Data Reporting of
Generator Real and Reactive Power Capability and Synchronous Condenser
Reactive Power Capability), MOD-026-1 (Verification of Models and Data
for Generator Excitation Control System or Plant Volt/Var Control
Functions), MOD-027-1 (Verification of Models and Data for Turbine/
Governor and Load Control or Active Power/Frequency Control Functions),
PRC-019-1 (Coordination of Generating Unit or Plant Capabilities,
Voltage Regulating Controls, and Protection), and PRC-024-1 (Generator
Frequency and Voltage Protective Relay Settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Commission approves the associated implementation plan,
violation risk factors and, with one modification, the violation
severity levels. The Commission also approves the retirement of
Reliability Standards MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1 immediately prior to the
effective date of MOD-025-2.
3. The generator verification Reliability Standards will help
ensure that generators remain in operation during specified voltage and
frequency excursions; properly coordinate protective relays and
generator voltage regulator controls; and enhance the ability of
generator models to accurately reflect the generator's capabilities and
equipment performance. Reliability Standards MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1, PRC-
019-1 and PRC-024-1 are new, whereas Reliability Standard MOD-025-2
consolidates two existing Reliability Standards, MOD-024-1
(Verification of Generator Gross and Net Real Power Capability) and
MOD-025-1 (Verification of Generator Gross and Net Reactive Power
Capability), into one new Reliability Standard. Portions of Reliability
Standards MOD-025-2 and PRC-024-1 respond to directives contained in
Order No. 693.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The generator verification Reliability Standards improve the
accuracy of model verifications needed to support reliability and
enhance the coordination of generator protection systems and voltage
regulating system controls. Such improvements should help reduce the
risk of generator trips and provide more accurate models for
transmission planners and planning coordinators to develop system
models and simulations. We also determine that the generator
verification Reliability Standards adequately address the Commission's
directives regarding Reliability Standard MOD-025-2 and PRC-024-1.
Therefore, pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we approve
Reliability Standards MOD-025-2, MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1, PRC-019-1 and
PRC-024-1.
I. Background
5. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Specifically, the Commission may
approve, by rule or order, a proposed Reliability Standard or
modification to a Reliability Standard if it determines that the
Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.\3\ Once approved, Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight,
or by the Commission independently.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
\4\ Id. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a
process to select and certify an ERO,\5\ and subsequently certified
NERC.\6\ On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC. Because
MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1, which NERC had included in its filing,
involved regional procedures that had not been submitted, the
Commission postponed either approving or remanding these standards
until NERC submitted additional information. However, the Commission
issued three directives in Order No. 693 with respect to MOD-024-1 and
MOD-025-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Reliability Standards MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1 are ``fill-in-the-
blank'' Reliability Standards that would require regional reliability
organizations to develop procedures to verify generator real and
reactive power capability, respectively. Regarding MOD-024-1, the
Commission directed NERC to clearly define the test conditions and
methodologies contained in the Reliability Standard, and also to
clarify the time period within which regional reliability organizations
must provide generator real power capability verification.\7\ For MOD-
025-1, the Commission directed NERC to clarify that MVAR capability
verifications should be made at multiple points over a generator unit's
operating range and also directed NERC to clarify the time period
within which reactive power capability verifications are to be
provided.\8\ These directives are addressed in Reliability Standard
MOD-025-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 1310-1311.
\8\ Id. PP 1321-1323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Order No. 693 contained two directives pertaining to Reliability
Standard PRC-024-1. First, the Commission stated that NERC should use
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) voltage ride through
requirements when implementing Reliability Standards to ``assure that
there is consistency between the Reliability Standards and the NRC
requirement that the system is accurately modeled.'' \9\ Second, the
Commission directed NERC to explicitly require generators to be
``capable of riding through the same set of Category B and C
contingencies, as required by wind generators in Order No. 661, or that
those generators that cannot ride through be simulated as tripping.''
\10\ These directives are addressed in Reliability Standard PRC-024-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. P 1787.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standards
A. NERC Petition
9. On May 30, 2013, NERC filed its petition seeking approval of
Reliability Standards MOD-025-2, MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1, PRC-019-1 and
PRC-024-1. NERC states that four of the five
[[Page 17013]]
Reliability Standards are new, while existing Reliability Standards
MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1 were merged into proposed Reliability Standard
MOD-025-2. NERC also seeks approval of the associated implementation
plans, violation risk factors and violation severity levels, and
retirement of current Reliability Standards MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1 at
midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of MOD-025-
2. NERC proposes to phase in effective dates in stages over periods
ranging from five years (for MOD-025-2, PRC-019-1 and PRC-024-1) to ten
years (for MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1).\11\ NERC states that ``these five
proposed Reliability Standards address generator verifications needed
to support Bulk-Power System reliability and will ensure that accurate
data is verified and made available for planning simulations.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NERC Petition, Exhibit B (Implementation Plan for
Reliability Standards Submitted for Approval).
\12\ NERC Petition at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. NERC explains that Bulk-Power System reliability benefits from
``good quality simulation models of power system equipment'' and that
``model validation ensures the proper performance of the control
systems and validates the computer models used for stability
analysis.'' \13\ NERC further states that the proposed Reliability
Standards will enhance reliability because the tests performed to
obtain model data may reveal latent defects that could cause
``inappropriate unit response during system disturbances.'' \14\ NERC
also states that simulating the response of synchronous machines and
related control systems in sufficient detail is essential for effective
power system planning and operational studies.\15\ For accurate
simulations reflecting actual equipment performance covering a range of
disturbances, NERC states that models must not only contain adequate
information, they must also correspond to actual field values.\16\
Finally, NERC asserts that Reliability Standards MOD-025-2 and PRC-024-
1 address the directives in Order No. 693 mentioned above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id. 2-3.
\15\ Id. 3.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reliability Standards and NERC Explanation of Provisions
1. Reliability Standard MOD-025-2
11. Reliability Standard MOD-025-2 merges two existing Reliability
Standards, MOD-024-1 and MOD-25-1, and has the stated purpose of
ensuring the accuracy of generator information related to gross and net
real and reactive power capability and synchronous condenser reactive
power capability that is available for planning models and bulk
electric system reliability assessments.\17\ The Reliability Standard
applies to generator owners and transmission owners that own
synchronous condensers and has three requirements and two Attachments.
Attachment 1, incorporated into Requirements R1.1, R2.1 and R3.1,
specifies the periodicity for performing real and reactive power
capability verification and the verification specifications for
applicable facilities. Attachment 2, which generator owners and
transmission owners will use to report to their transmission planners
the information described in Attachment 1, is incorporated into
Requirements R1.2, R2.2 and R3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Reliability Standard MOD-025-2, Section A.3 (Purpose).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. NERC states that Reliability Standard MOD-025-2 addresses the
directives in Order No. 693. Specifically, NERC states: (1) Requirement
R1, Part 1.2 specifies that a generator owner must submit Attachment 2
or another form containing the same information to its transmission
planner within 90 calendar days of either the date the data are
recorded for a staged test or the date the data are selected for
verification using historical operational data; (2) Requirement R1,
Part 1.1 requires a generator owner to verify the real power capability
of its generating units as set forth in Attachment 1, including the
consideration of ambient conditions during the verification period; and
(3) Attachment 1, Sections 2.1 through 2.4, requires reactive power
capability verification at multiple points across a unit's operating
range.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NERC Petition at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Reliability Standard MOD-026-1
13. Reliability Standard MOD-026-1, applicable to generator owners
and transmission planners, is a new Reliability Standard and has six
requirements and an Attachment describing the periodicity for
excitation control system or plant volt/var function model
verification. NERC explains that the purpose of MOD-026-1 is to ensure
that detailed modeling of generator excitation systems, essential for
valid simulations in power system stability studies, will be conducted
and that those models accurately represent generator excitation control
system or plant volt/var control function behavior for bulk electric
system reliability assessments.\19\ Requirement R1 requires
transmission planners to provide generator owners with specified
information within 90 days of a written request, including instructions
on how to obtain models, block diagrams and/or data sheets and model
data for any of the generator owner's existing applicable unit specific
excitation control system or plant volt/var control function contained
in the transmission planner's dynamic database from the current (in-
use) models. NERC explains that Requirement R1 ensures that the
transmission planner provides necessary information to the generator
owners so that they can provide a useable model in an acceptable
format. This procedure further supports generator owner compliance with
Requirement R2 by providing relevant information to transmission
planners.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. 14-16.
\20\ Id. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Requirement R2 requires each generator owner to provide its
transmission planner with a verified generator excitation control
system or plant volt/var control function model that includes the data
and documentation specified in Requirement R2, Part 2.1. The
periodicity for this requirement is set forth in Attachment 1. The
purpose of Requirement R2 is to verify that the generator excitation
control system or plant volt/var control function model and the model
parameters used in dynamic simulations performed by the transmission
planner accurately represent the generator excitation control system or
plant volt/var control function behavior when assessing bulk electric
system reliability.\21\ Requirement R3 requires generator owners to
provide written responses to transmission planner requests within 90
days regarding unusable models, technical concerns and transmission
planner determinations that simulated excitation control system or
plant volt/var control function model responses do not match a recorded
response to a transmission system event. NERC explains that Requirement
R3 of Reliability Standard MOD-026-1 ``provides response requirements
for a Generator Owner when it receives certain requests from the
Transmission Planner. This communication ensures that Generator Owners
have an obligation to respond in a timely fashion when there are
demonstrated problems with a model that was provided by the Generator
Owner in accordance with
[[Page 17014]]
Requirement R2.'' \22\ Under Requirement R4, generator owners are
required to determine whether changes to applicable units affect models
provided pursuant to Requirement R2 and, when consistent with this
determination, to provide the transmission planner with revised model
data or plans to perform model verification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. 16.
\22\ Id. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Requirement R5 requires a generator owner to respond within 90
days to a ``technically justified unit request'' from its transmission
planner to perform a model review of a unit or plant, including details
for model verification or corrected model data. A footnote to
Requirement R5 states that ``Technical justification is achieved by the
Transmission Planner demonstrating that the simulated unit or plant
response does not match the measured unit or plant response.'' Also,
Applicability section 4.2.4 in MOD-026-1 states that facilities to
which the standard applies include ``For all Interconnections: A
technically justified unit that meets NERC registry criteria but is not
otherwise included in the above Applicability sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, or
4.2.3 and is requested by the Transmission Planner.''
16. NERC explains that Requirement R5 allows transmission planners
to request that generator owners who otherwise are not covered by the
Applicability section (i.e., whose MVA ratings are lower than the
applicability thresholds specified in Section 4 of Reliability Standard
MOD-026-1 but meet or exceed the Registry Criteria) provide model
verifications or correct model data.\23\ Requirement R6 requires
transmission planners to provide written responses to generator owners
within 90 days of receiving a verified excitation control system or
plant volt/var control function model information whether the model is
usable or not in accordance with Requirement R2. If it determines the
model to be unusable, the transmission planner must explain the
technical basis for that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reliability Standard MOD-027-1
17. Reliability Standard MOD-027-1 is a new Reliability Standard
and contains five requirements and an Attachment (Turbine/Governor and
Load Control or Active Power Frequency Control Model Periodicity). Its
purpose is to verify that the turbine/governor and load control or
active power/frequency control model and the model parameters, used in
dynamic simulations that assess bulk electric system reliability,
accurately represent generator unit real power response to system
frequency variations.\24\ Requirement R1 requires transmission planners
to provide generator owners with guidance that will enable generator
owners to provide the information required in Requirements R2 and R4
within 90 days of a written request. Requirement R2 requires generator
owners to provide transmission planners with a verified turbine/
governor and load control or active power/frequency control model for
each applicable unit, including documentation and data in accordance
with the periodicity specified in MOD-027-1, Attachment 1. Attachment 1
also contains a table listing verification conditions and related
actions required of generator owners.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Reliability Standard MOD-027-1, Section A.3 (Purpose).
\25\ NERC Petition at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Requirement R3 establishes communication requirements to ensure
that generator owners respond to transmission planner determinations
that a generator owner's model is not ``usable,'' or where there is a
difference between the model and three or more actual transmission
system events.\26\ Requirement R3 requires generator owners to provide
a written response within 90 days.\27\ Requirement R4 requires
generator owners to provide transmission planners with updates when
changes occur to the turbine/governor and load control or active power/
frequency control system that alter equipment response
characteristics.\28\ Requirement R5 requires transmission planners to
inform generator owners within 90 days of receiving model information
(in accordance with Requirement R2) whether the model is usable or not.
If a model is unusable, the transmission planner shall provide the
generator owner with an explanation of the technical basis for that
decision. Also, Requirement R3 requires generator owners to provide a
written response to this explanation within 90 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. 21.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id. 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Reliability Standard PRC-019-1
19. Reliability Standard PRC-019-1 is a new Reliability Standard
and contains two requirements intended to ensure that both generator
owners and transmission owners verify coordination of generating unit
facility or synchronous condenser voltage regulating controls, limit
functions, equipment capabilities and protection system settings.\29\
Requirement R1 requires generator owners and transmission owners to
coordinate the voltage regulating system controls with the equipment
capabilities and settings of the applicable protection system devices
and functions.\30\ Requirement R2 requires generator owners and
transmission owners to perform the coordination described in
Requirement R1 to address equipment or setting changes.\31\ The
coordination required in Reliability Standard PRC-019-1 must be
performed at least every five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Reliability Standard PRC-019-1, Section A.3 (Purpose).
\30\ NERC Petition at 23.
\31\ Id. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Reliability Standard PRC-024-1
20. Reliability Standard PRC-024-1 is a new Reliability Standard
and consists of four requirements and two Attachments. The stated
purpose of PRC-024-1 is to ensure that generator owners set their
generator protective relays such that generating units remain connected
during defined frequency and voltage excursions.\32\ Requirement R1
requires generator owners having generator frequency protective
relaying activated to trip their generating units to set their
protective relaying to prevent their generating units from tripping
within the ``no trip zone'' of PRC-024-1 Attachment 1 (unless one of
three specified exceptions applies). NERC explains that Attachment 1
contains tables with curve data points for each Interconnection
indicating the amount of time a generator needs to remain connected at
specific defined frequency excursions.\33\ Requirement R2 addresses
voltage excursions and requires, subject to four exceptions, generator
owners to ensure that their voltage protective relaying settings
prevent their generating units from tripping within the ``no trip
zone'' described in PRC-024-1, Attachment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Reliability Standard PRC-024-1, Section A.3 (Purpose).
\33\ NERC Petition at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. NERC states that the standard drafting team believes the
voltage profile contained in Attachment 2 includes excursions that
would be expected under Category B and C contingencies.\34\ Therefore,
NERC asserts that by ensuring that generator units remain connected to
the grid during voltage excursions, Requirement R2 and Attachment 2
satisfy the directive in Order No. 693 to ``explicitly
[[Page 17015]]
require either that all generators are capable of riding through the
same set of Category B and C contingencies, as required by wind
generators in Order No. 661, or that those generators that cannot ride
through be simulated as tripping.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Reliability Standard TPL-002-0b, System Performance
Following Loss of a Single Bulk Electric System Element (Category B)
and Reliability Standard TPL-003-0b, System Performance Following
Loss of Two or More Bulk Electric System Elements (Category C).
\35\ Id. 29 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242
at P 1787).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Requirement R3 of Reliability Standard PRC-024-1 requires
generator owners to document regulatory or equipment limitations that
would prevent them from satisfying the relay setting criteria in
Requirements R1 and R2. Generator owners must inform their planning
coordinator and transmission planner of any such limitation within 30
calendar days after identifying it. NERC explains that the standard
drafting team believes that ``regulatory limitations'' include NRC
requirements and, therefore, Requirement R3 satisfies the Commission's
guidance that ``NRC requirements should be used when implementing the
Reliability Standards.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. 27-28 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242 at P 1787).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Requirement R4 requires generator owners to provide their
planning coordinator or transmission planner with generator protection
trip settings associated with Requirements R1 and R2 within 60 days of
either a written request or a change to previously requested trip
settings.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
24. On September 19, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standards
MOD-025-2, MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1, PRC-019-1 and PRC-024-1.\38\ The
Commission also proposed to approve the associated implementation
plans, violation risk factors and violation severity levels, with one
modification, and the retirement of existing Reliability Standards MOD-
024-1 and MOD-025-1 prior to the effective date of MOD-025-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Generator Verification Reliability Standards, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 58,492 (September 24, 2013), 144 FERC ]
61,205 (2013) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. While the Commission proposed to approve all five generator
verification Reliability Standards, the Commission raised issues
regarding certain provisions of Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and
MOD-027-1. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comments on the following
issues: (1) Whether the higher applicability thresholds for MOD-026-1
and MOD-027-1 could limit their effectiveness, especially in areas with
a high concentration of generators falling below the thresholds, or
impede transmission planners' ability to address reliability risk; and
(2) whether the provision in Reliability Standard MOD-026-1 allowing
transmission planners to compel a generator owner below the
applicability threshold with a ``technically justified'' unit to comply
with the Reliability Standard's requirements is ``sufficiently clear
and workable.'' The Commission also sought comment on whether this
provision should be included in Reliability Standard MOD-027-1.
26. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from:
NERC, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), Electricity Consumers Resource
Council (ELCON), ISO New England (ISO-NE), Arizona Public Service
Company (APS), International Transmission Company (ITC), Edison
Electric Institute (EEI), and G&T Cooperatives.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ G&T Cooperatives consists of Associated Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, and Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion
27. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, the Commission approves
Reliability Standards MOD-025-2, MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1, PRC-019-1 and
PRC-024-1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. The Commission determines
that these Reliability Standards will help ensure that verified data is
available for power system planning and operational studies by
requiring the verification of generator equipment needed to support
Bulk-Power System reliability and enhancing the coordination of
important protection system settings. Also, Reliability Standards MOD-
025-2 and PRC-024-1 satisfy relevant outstanding directives set forth
in Order No. 693.\40\ Further, we approve the retirement of Reliability
Standards MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1 prior to the effective date of MOD-
025-2. We also approve the associated implementation plan and, with one
exception, the proposed violation risk factors and violations severity
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. We discuss below the following issues: (A) The Megavolt Amperes
(MVA) applicability thresholds for Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and
MOD-027-1; (B) the process for determining when it is ``technically
justified'' for a transmission planner to require a generator owner to
provide model reviews under MOD-026-1; (C) why the ``technically
justified'' provision is not also included in MOD-027-1; (D) whether
MOD-025-2 should include more flexibility to verify unit reactive power
capability; and (E) assignment of violation severity levels.
A. Higher MVA Applicability Threshold in MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 NERC
Petition
29. The applicability thresholds in Reliability Standards MOD-026-1
and MOD-027-1 are higher than for Reliability Standards MOD-025-2, PRC-
019-1 and PRC-024-1, and could exclude approximately 20 percent of bulk
electric system installed MVA from compliance.\41\ In contrast to the
greater than 20 MVA applicability thresholds set forth in the other
three Reliability Standards in NERC's petition,\42\ MOD-026-1 and MOD-
027-1 would exclude units rated below 100 MVA (Eastern and Quebec
Interconnections), 75 MVA (Western Interconnection) and 50 MVA (ERCOT
Interconnection).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Summary of the Reliability
Standard Development Proceeding and Complete Record of Development
of Proposed Reliability Standard) section entitled ``Consideration
of Comments on Draft Standard'' at 91 (indicating that the threshold
in the proposed standard would limit applicability of the standard
to 80 percent of installed MVA on an Interconnection basis).
\42\ Reliability Standard MOD-025-2, Section 4.2 (Facilities);
Reliability Standard PRC-019-1, Section 4.2 (Facilities); and
Reliability Standard PRC-024-1, Section 4 (Applicability).
\43\ Reliability Standard MOD-026-1, Section 4.2 (Facilities);
Reliability Standard MOD-027-1, Section 4.2 (Facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. During the standard development process, several industry
stakeholders commented that the standard drafting team should ensure
that the applicability thresholds of MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 be aligned
with the other three proposed Reliability Standards. In response, the
standard drafting team stated that ``verification of excitation system
is expensive both from a monetary and human resource viewpoint.
Therefore, the [standard drafting team] believes that these
applicability thresholds will result in substantial accuracy
improvements to the excitation models and associated Reliability
Standards, while not unduly mandating costly and time-consuming
verification efforts.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Summary of the Reliability
Standard Development Proceeding and Complete Record of Development
of Proposed Reliability Standard) section entitled ``Consideration
of Comments on Draft Standard'' at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR
31. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on whether the
higher applicability thresholds of MOD-026-1
[[Page 17016]]
and MOD-027-1, especially in areas with a high concentration of
generators falling below the thresholds, would: (a) limit the
effectiveness of proposed Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-
1; or (b) adversely impact transmission planners' ability to reduce
risk to Bulk-Power System reliability.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ NOPR, 144 FERC ] 61,205 at P 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
32. NERC maintains that the standard drafting team determined that
the applicability thresholds for Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and
MOD-027-1 are appropriate. NERC states that the standard drafting team
determined, based on its expertise, that there is little, if any,
reliability benefit to requiring every generator to comply with MOD-
026-1 and MOD-027-1. NERC explains that ``the standard drafting team
believes that these applicability thresholds will result in substantial
accuracy improvements to the excitation models and associated
reliability-based limits determined by dynamic simulations, while
balancing concerns regarding the resources it [sic] requires to
implement verification efforts.'' \46\ NERC notes that the resources
required to implement verification efforts can be extensive: ``many
entities will require the use of consultants to perform the needed
tests and model validations due to the expertise required. For example,
it was observed in the SERC field trial that using consultants for MOD-
026-1 cost roughly $20,000 to $30,000 for one unit.'' \47\ NERC further
states that Section 4.2.4 of MOD-026-1, allowing transmission planners
to request information from all generators when ``technically
justified,'' confirms that the higher applicability threshold ``will
not limit the effectiveness of'' Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and
MOD-027-1.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ NERC Comments at 4-5.
\47\ Id. 5, n.7 (citing SERC Engineering Committee Generation
Standards Field Test Report at 3 (June 15, 2007) (included in
Exhibit E to the NERC Petition)).
\48\ Id. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. ELCON, EEI, and APS state that excluding approximately 20
percent of MVA from the applicability of MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 will
not limit the effectiveness of these Reliability Standards. ELCON
states that the higher thresholds would not undermine the effectiveness
of MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 or hamper ``transmission planners' ability
to reduce risk to the Bulk-Power System.'' \49\ EEI states that it
``does not view the higher thresholds utilized in the two proposed
standards as inappropriate nor do we believe it will diminish
reliability or adversely impact transmission planners' ability to
reduce risk to the [Bulk- Power System].'' \50\ Rather, EEI asserts
that the thresholds ``would be expected to enhance reliability by
focusing the limited expertise available for model verification at the
units which make the most impact to the dynamic performance of the
power system.'' \51\ APS supports the higher thresholds for Reliability
Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 because there is limited benefit to
reliability to require every generator, regardless of size, to comply,
and ``the owners of the smaller units are still expected to provide
correct estimated model data for use in simulation.'' \52\ APS asserts
that the cost of performing the required model verification for a
generation unit is significant and does not vary considerably based on
the size of the unit. ``Currently, there are a limited number of
individuals with the expertise necessary to perform this model
verification, and the costs to hire an expert range between $10,000 and
$20,000 for each generator unit tested.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ELCON Comments at 2.
\50\ EEI Comments at 5.
\51\ Id.
\52\ APS Comments at 4.
\53\ Id. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Idaho Power and ISO-NE state that excluding approximately 20
percent of MVA from the applicability of MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 would
limit the effectiveness of the Reliability Standards. Idaho Power
maintains that many registered generator owners will not be required to
comply with the data verification standards, which will ultimately
reduce the overall effectiveness of Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and
MOD-027-1.\54\ Idaho Power bases its comments largely upon its
experience with the WECC Modeling and Validation Workgroup (WECC
Workgroup), which concluded that the higher thresholds would undermine
modeling and simulation accuracy for the WECC region because
``[e]xcluding approximately 20 percent of generators based upon
different thresholds can lead to very different interpretations of
system reliability.'' \55\ Idaho Power notes that the current WECC
policy requiring validation at an aggregate unit threshold of 20 MVA
has ``greatly improved the accuracy of system models for dynamic
simulation [and] a safer and more reliable operation of the WECC
Interconnection.'' \56\ Further, Idaho Power states that generation
resources subject to Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 are
not spread evenly throughout the interconnection-wide model of the
Western Interconnection, which will result in some areas being
represented with a lower percentage of validated generation models.\57\
Idaho Power asserts that the higher thresholds limit the overall
effectiveness of the Reliability Standards and believes the Commission
should adopt a 10 MVA single unit and 20 MVA aggregate thresholds for
the Western Interconnection.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Idaho Power Comments at 2.
\55\ Id. 3.
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
\58\ Id. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. ISO-NE states that ``[t]he 100 MVA threshold is too high [and]
would limit the effectiveness of these standards and would adversely
impact ISO-NE's ability to reduce risk to Bulk Power System reliability
by excluding too many generating units in New England.'' \59\ ISO-NE
believes the use of the 20 MVA threshold is supported by NERC's
registration requirements and the Commission's determination that
``generating units with a capacity as low as 20 MVA can have a
significant enough impact that they must comply with the Reliability
Standards.'' \60\ ISO-NE asserts that inaccurate information for a
single generating unit below 100 MVA could impact area studies, and
units below 100 MVA may collectively impact system operating limits.
Finally, ISO-NE raises a concern that exempting generating units under
100 MVA is inconsistent with the high importance placed by NERC and the
Commission on Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 Requirement R1.\61\ ISO-NE
also maintains that the application of the ``capacity factor
exemption'' in MOD-026-1, Attachment 1 is unclear. ISO-NE states that,
``If large units with low capacity factors are also exempted from
verification, then overall system reliability will be further
reduced.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ISO-NE Comments at 2-3.
\60\ Id. 3.
\61\ Id. 3-4 (citing Transmission Planning Reliability
Standards, Order No. 786, 145 FERC ] 61,051, at P 3 (2013)
(directing NERC to change the VRF for Requirement R1 from medium to
high)). TPL-001-4, Requirement R1 requires transmission planners and
planning coordinators to maintain system models that represent
projected system conditions.
\62\ Id. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Like Idaho Power and ISO-NE., ITC states that it is concerned
about the aggregate effect that excluding generators will have on the
accuracy of transmission system stability studies, particularly for
areas of the transmission system where excluded generating units are
more highly concentrated.\63\ However, ITC maintains that its concern
[[Page 17017]]
is ameliorated by the provision in MOD-026-1 allowing transmission
planners to compel generators deemed to have ``technically justified''
units below the specified threshold to provide such information in
order to more accurately assess system stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ ITC Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
37. The Commission is persuaded by the comments submitted by NERC
and others that the higher applicability thresholds of Reliability
Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 are appropriate for a continent-wide
standard. Moreover, as NERC and ITC point out, Section 4.2.4 of
Reliability Standard MOD-026-1 allows transmission planners to request
a model review and related verification information in accordance with
Requirement R5 from generators below the applicability threshold when
``technically justified'' (where the simulated unit or plant response
does not match the measured unit or plant response). In addition, as
APS observed, the higher applicability threshold does not excuse
generator owners with small units from the expectation that estimated
model data they provide to transmission planners for use in simulations
will be accurate. In response to commenters that expressed concerns, in
areas where there is a large concentration of small generators, the
Commission notes that Regional Entities could develop more stringent
requirements, such as a regional standard or regional criteria or
process, to assure greater modeling accuracy.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ For example, the WECC Modeling and Validation Workgroup
concluded that WECC should develop a regional Reliability Standard
based upon WECC's existing policy that establishes thresholds of 10
MVA and 20 MVA for single unit and aggregate unit validation
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. We reject ISO-NE's argument that the applicability threshold is
somehow inconsistent with the directive to NERC in Order No. 786 to
raise the violation severity level from ``medium'' to ``high'' for
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement R1, which requires
transmission planners and planning coordinators to maintain system
models.\65\ We are not persuaded that the violation severity level for
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement R1 is relevant to the
applicability threshold for Reliability Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-
027-1 or how it substantiates ISO-NE's claim that the applicability
threshold reduces overall reliability.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Order No. 786,
145 FERC ] 61,051, at P 3 (2013).
\66\ We likewise reject ISO-NE's comments regarding application
of the capacity factor exemption in Attachment 1 because ISO-NE
fails to substantiate the alleged risk of applying the capacity
factor exemption to large units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Process for Identifying ``Technically Justified'' Generating Units
in MOD-026-1
NERC Petition
39. Reliability Standard MOD-026-1 applies to generating units that
are connected to the bulk electric system when ``technically
justified.'' Specifically, Applicability Section 4.2.4 allows a
transmission planner to compel a generator owner to provide model
reviews and related information in accordance with Requirement R5 if
the transmission planner demonstrates ``that the simulated unit or
plant response does not match the measured unit or plant response.''
\67\ Under such circumstances, generator owners with one or more
``technically justified'' units must comply with Reliability Standard
MOD-026-1, even though each such unit's MVA rating is below the stated
MVA threshold for applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Reliability Standard MOD-026-1, Applicability section
4.2.4, n.2 defining ``technical justification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR
40. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that while it agrees with
the intent of this section, the way transmission planners would become
aware of discrepancies between simulated units and measured units
(i.e., the basis for ``technically justified'' determinations) is
unclear. The NOPR stated that the technical justification, or
discrepancies between simulated units and measured units, suggests that
there should be some benchmark available in the process by which
transmission planners identify generator owners for compliance with
MOD-026-1. The NOPR observed that the Final Blackout Report on the
August 2003 blackout stated that ``the regional councils are to
establish and begin implementing criteria and procedures for validating
data used in power flow models and dynamic simulations by benchmarking
model data with actual system performance.'' \68\ The Commission sought
comment as to whether the means or process for transmission planners to
determine whether a generator owner's unit is ``technically justified''
is sufficiently clear and workable. The Commission also requested
comment as to whether additional details regarding how the process will
be implemented should be included in an attachment to Reliability
Standard MOD-026-1.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (Task Force),
Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States
and Canada: Causes and Recommendations (April 2004) (Final Blackout
Report), Recommendation 24, available at https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/blackout.asp.
\69\ NOPR, 144 FERC ] 61,205 at PP 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
41. NERC maintains that the process for transmission planners to
determine whether a generator owner's unit is ``technically justified''
is clear and workable. NERC states that the ``technically justified''
provision in Reliability Standard MOD-026-1 expands the applicability
of the standard, when necessary, i.e., where the simulated unit or
plant response does not match the measured unit or plant response. NERC
further states that the ``standard drafting team determined that it is
readily apparent when measured data does not match simulations and that
such situations will be sufficiently clear and workable.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ NERC Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. ELCON, APS, and EEI believe that the process for transmission
planners to determine whether a generator owner's unit is ``technically
justified'' is clear and workable. ELCON maintains that MOD-026-1 is
``written with sufficient clarity regarding whether a generator owner's
unit is `technically justified.' '' \71\ APS supports the ``technical
justification'' provision as written, and believes that the provision
``allows transmission planners and planning coordinators the
opportunity to address discrepancies between unit simulations and
measured unit data,'' which APS asserts will be ``evident and clear.''
\72\ EEI believes that the standard as written is ``sufficiently clear
and enforceable,'' because ``[a]lthough specific unit performance
levels can deviate from a model's predicted response, we do not find
this to be problematic; rather, planners need latitude to make
judgments based on their knowledge of their regions and what's
necessary to assess bulk electric system reliability in their area.''
\73\ EEI states that the standard drafting team ``struck a reasonable
balance between providing necessary tools for planners without making
[an] unnecessary prescriptive determination as to how to ensure those
tools would be applied.'' \74\ EEI cautions against adding details that
``might unintentionally limit or otherwise undermine the regional
knowledge and judgment of transmission planners.'' \75\ Rather, EEI
requests that any changes to MOD-026-
[[Page 17018]]
1 be postponed until industry experience confirms they are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ELCON Comments at 2.
\72\ APS Comments at 5.
\73\ EEI Comments at 5.
\74\ Id. 6.
\75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Idaho Power and ISO-NE state that the process for transmission
planners to determine whether a generator owner's unit is ``technically
justified'' is unclear, and both assert that the best fix involves
lowering the applicability threshold. Idaho Power states that MOD-026-1
does not clearly define what a ``match'' is or how to evaluate whether
a match exists to satisfy the technically justified definition. Idaho
Power believes that the Commission should add a provision in MOD-026-1
to include ``technically justified'' units that meet the NERC registry
requirements. Idaho Power seeks additional guidance on when a match
between simulated and measured unit or plant responses occurs and the
process a transmission planner should undertake to demonstrate such a
match.\76\ ISO-NE states that it is concerned that the test described
in MOD-026-1, Applicability Section 4.2.4 would require a disturbance
to occur before a transmission planner could determine that a
generating unit under 100 MVA is ``technically justified.'' ISO-NE
asserts that ``[i]n order for the Transmission Planner to be able to
demonstrate that a plant response does not match measured unit or plant
response, an event must first occur.'' \77\ ISO-NE believes that
reducing the threshold from 100 MVA to 20 MVA would ``eliminate the
need for this test, or at least reduce its significance.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Idaho Power Comments at 4.
\77\ ISO-NE Comments at 5.
\78\ Id. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
44. The Commission is persuaded that the basis and associated
process for a transmission planner to demonstrate that it is
``technically justified'' for a generator owner below the applicability
threshold to comply with Requirement R5 of Reliability Standard MOD-
026-1 under Section 4.2.4 is sufficiently clear and workable. We agree
with EEI that a more prescriptive, ``one size fits all'' approach could
``unintentionally limit or otherwise undermine the regional knowledge
and judgment of transmission planners.'' \79\ Further, in the standard
drafting team's technical judgment, discrepancies between simulations
and measured data will be ``readily apparent.'' \80\ APS concurs,
stating that such discrepancies will be ``evident and clear.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ EEI Comments at 6.
\80\ NERC Comments at 5.
\81\ APS Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Further, the Commission is not persuaded that a change to the
applicability thresholds for the Eastern Interconnection, or to the
technical justification provision for sub-100 MVA generators, is
justified based on ISO-NE's concern that a disturbance would have to
occur before a transmission planner could determine that a generating
unit is technically justified under Section 4.2.4 of MOD-026-1. ISO-NE
is correct that the ``demonstration'' required by the technical
justification provision for sub-100 MVA generators anticipates a system
event that would indicate a discrepancy between actual and measured
unit response. However, local events that occur in the normal course of
operations could provide adequate information for a transmission
planner to demonstrate the need to invoke the technically justified
provision of Reliability Standard MOD-026-1. While the Commission is
satisfied that NERC has proposed a Reliability Standard that improves
the reliability of the Bulk-Power System on a continent-wide basis,
ISO-NE may seek to develop a more stringent regional approach to
address its particular concerns, either through the Northeast Power
Coordinating Council's regional Reliability Standards process, an ISO-
NE policy, or other means. Considering the strong technical support for
Section 4.2.4 as written, we believe the soundest approach is to give
the industry time to evaluate the effectiveness of the technically
justified provision.
C. Should Proposed Reliability Standard MOD-027-1 Include the
``Technically Justified'' Provision
NERC Petition
46. Reliability Standard MOD-027-1 does not contain a provision
analogous to Applicability Section 4.2.4 of MOD-026-1, which allows a
transmission planner to determine whether technical justification
exists to subject a generator owner with units falling below the stated
applicability threshold to that Reliability Standard. MOD-027-1 and
MOD-026-1 have the same applicability thresholds (100 MVA for the
Eastern and Quebec Interconnections, 75 MVA for the Western
Interconnection, and 50 and 75 MVA for individual and aggregate
nameplate ratings, respectively, in ERCOT). However, these Reliability
Standards verify models and data of different functions: MOD-026-1
applies to generator excitation control systems and plant volt/var
control functions; MOD-027-1 applies to turbine/governor and load
control or active power/frequency control functions.
NOPR
47. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment as to whether the
technical justification provision should also be included in
Reliability Standard MOD-027-1 to provide an opportunity for
transmission planners to address discrepancies between unit simulations
and generator owners' measured unit data.
Comments
48. NERC states that this issue was considered and rejected by the
standard drafting team. NERC states that the standard drafting team
determined that, in contrast to MOD-026-1, the data required by
Reliability Standard MOD-027-1 are more subjective and difficult to
verify because the verification of governor response models is not
consistent from one event to another. NERC further states that
Reliability Standard MOD-026-1 ``addresses the verification of
excitation control system dynamic models--whose modeled behavior in the
simulation of system events is a large factor in the determination of
local stability limits. In contrast, proposed Reliability Standard MOD-
027-1 addresses the verification of turbine/governor and load control
models--and this equipment rarely, if ever, contributes to a local
stability limit.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ NERC Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. EEI, APS and ELCON believe that it is not necessary to include
the technical justification provision in MOD-027-1. EEI states that it
is unlikely that turbine/governor controls ``will materially contribute
to a stability limit, while unit governor response has been shown to be
inconsistent from one frequency event to the next thereby making such a
provision unworkable and of little value.'' \83\ APS agrees, stating
that turbine/governor data verified under MOD-027-1 is not consistent
across events, and is more difficult to verify than excitation control
system data verified under MOD-026-1. Further, APS states that a
discrepancy between a modeled response and a measured response ``does
not necessarily mean that the model is incorrect. The subjective nature
of this determination makes it unsuitable as a standard requirement.''
\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ EEI Comments at 6-7.
\84\ APS Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Idaho Power and ITC believe that the technical justification
provision in MOD-026-1 should be included in Reliability Standard MOD-
027-1. Idaho
[[Page 17019]]
Power asserts that the ``[e]xclusion of the technical justification
provision in this standard could lead to unverified modeling data. For
Idaho Power, this would include entire regions of generation connected
to the Bulk Electric System that would have unverified modeling data.''
\85\ Idaho Power notes that transmission planners perform dynamic
simulation studies that require accurate turbine/governor models,
including blackstart and under-frequency load shedding simulations.
Idaho Power states that blackstart generators may fall below the
threshold for compliance with Reliability Standard MOD-027-1 but meet
NERC registry requirements.\86\ ITC states that the turbine/governor,
load control, and active power/frequency control data required by MOD-
027-1 is just as necessary for accurate system modeling as the
excitation control system and plant volt/var function data required by
MOD-026-1. ITC asserts that to deprive a transmission planner of MOD-
027-1 models and data from technically justified units ``is just as
deleterious to the transmission planner's ability to accurately assess
system stability as it would be if the (sic) such problems occurred
with respect to MOD-026-1 data.'' \87\ ITC further asserts that failing
to equip transmission planners with the technically justified
provision, particularly for transmission systems that have high
concentrations of generator owners below the applicability threshold,
``will significantly degrade the accuracy of system models, and by
extension, the overall reliability of the Bulk Electric System.'' \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Idaho Power Comments at 5.
\86\ Id. (noting that Reliability Standard EOP-005-2 Requirement
R6 requires transmission operators to verify the dynamic performance
of blackstart generators).
\87\ ITC Comments at 6.
\88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
51. The Commission is persuaded that the technical justification
provision is not workable in MOD-027-1 because there is more
subjectivity involved in verifying the data pertaining to turbine/
governors, the equipment subject to the modeling verification
requirements of MOD-027-1. As NERC explains, the modeling data for
excitation control systems under MOD-026-1 is objective and consistent,
while turbine/governor response model verification under MOD-027-1 is
not consistent from one event to another. The Commission agrees with
APS that determining whether the difference between a model response
and a measured response reflects a model defect is subjective and,
therefore, the technical justification provision is inappropriate for
MOD-027-1. While commenters supporting the inclusion of the technical
justification provision in MOD-027-1 assert that verified data for both
excitation control systems and turbine/governor response are necessary
for accurate system modeling, they do not adequately address the
implementation issues resulting from the subjective and inconsistent
nature of turbine/governor response data. Therefore, we agree with
commenters that the difference in the equipment being verified makes
including the technical justification provision in Reliability Standard
MOD-027-1 inappropriate.
D. Whether Generators Need More Flexibility in Verifying Unit Reactive
Capability Under MOD-025-2
NERC Petition
52. Reliability Standard MOD-025-2 consists of three requirements
and two Attachments that are incorporated into each of the
requirements. Attachment 1 contains time tables for conducting
verifications and specifications for applicable facilities. Attachment
2 contains forms intended to be used to report the information
identified in Attachment 1. Requirements R1 and R2 require generator
owners to verify Real Power capability and Reactive Power capability,
respectively, and Requirement R3 requires transmission owners to verify
Reactive Power capability in accordance with Attachment 1. For each
Requirement, Attachment 2 establishes a 90 calendar day period within
which generator owners and transmission owners must submit information
of ``either: (i) The date the data is recorded for a staged test; or
(ii) the date the data is selected for verification using historical
operational data.''
Comments
53. While not addressed in the NOPR, G&T Cooperatives, EEI and
ELCON express concern about what they believe is a lack of flexibility
in the reactive power verification requirements in Reliability Standard
MOD-025-2. G&T cooperatives assert that ``MOD-025-2 would establish a
needlessly prescriptive approach to verifying unit reactive
capability.'' Therefore, while they support the Commission's approval
of MOD-025-2, G&T Cooperatives request that the Commission ``direct
NERC to develop a revised version of MOD-025-2 that permits Generator
Owners the flexibility to verify unit reactive capability using the
method that best meets the individual needs of that Generator Owner
provided it can demonstrate that the method is effective.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ G&T Cooperatives Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. ELCON views MOD-025-2 as ``needlessly prescriptive'' and
asserts that ``at many of the industrial facilities of ELCON members
with `behind the meter' generation, its implementation would raise
significant economic and safety concerns and be technically and
economically infeasible.'' \90\ While believing that Reliability
Standard MOD-025-2 ``may inhibit companies from making use of modeling
tools,'' EEI states that ``rather than remand the MOD-025-2 standard
proposed for approval, EEI envisions that the standard can serve as an
initial basis for now.'' \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ ELCON Comments at 2.
\91\ EEI Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
55. The Commission is not persuaded that Reliability Standard MOD-
025-2 provides insufficient flexibility for generator owners and
transmission owners to verify reactive power capability, or that it is
overly prescriptive. Therefore, the Commission will not direct
modification of the Reliability Standard. The process for verifying
reactive capability under MOD-025-2, Requirement 2.2, requires an
entity to submit information to its transmission planner (either
through Attachment 2 to MOD-025-2 or a form containing the same
information) within 90 calendar days of either: (i) The date the data
are recorded for a staged test; or (ii) the date the data are selected
for verification using historical operational data. This requirement
affords a generator owner or transmission owner with the flexibility to
perform verification using either staged test or historical operating
data. Further, the standard drafting team rejected the G&T
Cooperatives' view that new analytical software tools and engineering
studies alone can adequately model unit reactive capability.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See, e.g., NERC Petition, Exhibit E (Summary of the
Reliability Standard Development Proceeding and Complete Record of
Development of Proposed Reliability Standard) section entitled
``Consideration of Comments on Draft Standard'' at 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Rather, the Commission agrees with EEI's suggestion that during
the implementation of Reliability Standard MOD-025-2, NERC, in
consultation with EEI and other industry representatives, should
consider potential modifications to MOD-025-2 ``that would better
reflect rapidly evolving modeling technology, as well
[[Page 17020]]
as successful methods and processes already in use by some companies.''
\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ EEI Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Assignment of Violation Severity Levels
1. Violation Severity Level for MOD-026-1, Requirement R6 and MOD-027-
1, Requirement R5
NOPR
57. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern regarding the
proposed violation severity level for Requirement R6 of MOD-026-1 and
Requirement R5 of MOD-027-1. For those requirements, NERC proposed a
``severe'' violation severity level when a transmission planner's
written response that a generation owner's verified model is useable
``omitted confirmation for all specified model criteria'' in the
requirement. NERC did not propose any violation severity level for a
violation of the last sentence of these requirements: ``If the model is
not useable, the [transmission planner] shall provide a technical
description of why the model is not useable.'' The Commission noted
that compliance with this obligation is no less important than
compliance with the other obligations of these requirements. The
Commission further stated that the lack of a violation severity level
for this type of violation is inconsistent with the Commission's
Violation Severity Level Guideline 3, because the proposed violation
severity level does not address all of the obligations in these
requirements. Therefore, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to
submit a violation severity level that addresses a violation of the
last sentence of Requirement R6 of MOD-026-1 and Requirement R5 of MOD-
027-1.
Commission Determination
58. No entity submitted comments on this matter. Accordingly, as
proposed in the NOPR, we direct NERC to submit a violation severity
level that addresses a transmission planner's obligation to provide a
technical description of why a model submitted by a generation owner is
not usable for Requirement R6 of MOD-026-1 and Requirement R5 of MOD-
027-1.
2. Violation Severity Level for PRC-024-1, Requirements R1 and R2
NOPR
59. In the NOPR, the Commission addressed NERC's proposal to assign
a ``severe'' violation severity level for a violation of Requirements
R1 and R2 of PRC-024-1 when a generator owner fails to set its
generator frequency or voltage protective relays so that they do not
trip within the criteria listed within Requirements R1 and R2 unless
there is a documented and communicated regulatory or equipment
limitation under Requirement R3. We observed that Requirements R1 and
R2 of PRC-024-1 include three and four bulleted exceptions,
respectively, to the requirement that the generator frequency or
voltage protective relays not trip applicable generating unit(s) within
the ``no-trip zone'' of Attachment 1or 2 to that standard. For
Requirements R1 and R2, only the third and fourth exception,
respectively, relate to a regulatory or equipment limitation in
accordance with Requirement R3. Therefore, the Commission noted that
the wording of the violation severity level for Requirements R1 and R2
could be read to mean that a generator owner that set generator
frequency or voltage protective relaying to trip within the ``no-trip
zone'' based on either the first or second exception in Requirement R1
and either the first, second or third exception in R2, violated that
Requirement with a severe violation severity level. To avoid such an
interpretation, the Commission asked NERC to confirm in its comments
that a generator owner will not violate Requirement R1 or R2 if it sets
generator frequency or voltage protective relaying to trip within the
``no-trip zone'' based upon the exceptions for Requirements R1 and R2.
Commission Determination
60. In its comments, NERC responded to the Commission's request by
stating that ``[c]onsistent with the NOPR, NERC confirms this
statement.'' \94\ Accordingly, with that clarification, the Commission
approves the violation severity level for Requirements R1 and R2 of
PRC-024-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ NERC Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Information Collection Statement
61. The following collections of information contained in the Final
Rule are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\95\
OMB's regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and
recordkeeping requirements (collections of information) imposed by an
agency.\96\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject
to the filing or recordkeeping 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
\96\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. The Commission will submit these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. The Commission received comments on specific requirements
in the Reliability Standards approved in this Final Rule. However, the
Commission received no comments 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 respondents' burden, including the
use of automated information techniques.
63. This Final Rule approves five Reliability Standards: MOD-025-2,
MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1, PRC-019-1 and PRC-024-1. Reliability Standard
MOD-025-2 would replace Reliability Standards MOD-024-1 and MOD-025-1.
In Order No. 693, the Commission did not approve or remand MOD-024-1
and MOD-025-1, as they were identified as ``fill-in-the-blank''
Reliability Standards for which NERC had not submitted regional
procedures.
64. Public Reporting Burden: The burden and cost estimates below
are based on the increase in the reporting and recordkeeping burden
imposed by the approved Reliability Standards. Our estimate of the
number of respondents affected is based on the NERC Compliance Registry
as of July 30, 2013.\97\ According to the Compliance Registry, NERC has
registered 901 generator owners and 187 transmission planners within
the United States. Currently, synchronous condensers are not included
in the NERC Compliance Registry, and the standard drafting team stated
that the number of transmission owners who own synchronous condensers
is extremely low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ NERC Compliance Registry (July 30, 2013), available at
https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/Registration%20and%20Certification%20DL/NERC_Compliance_Registry_Matrix_Summary20130730.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. The burden estimates reflect the standards and the number of
affected entities (e.g., the generator owner's one-time burden to
develop testing procedures, verification process, and process for
collection of data).
[[Page 17021]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Average
FERC-725G respondents responses per burden hours Total annual Total annual
\98\ respondent per response burden hours cost \99\
(1) (2) (3) (1) x (2) x ..............
(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-019-1 (Coordination of Generating Unit or Plant Capabilities, Voltage Regulating Controls, and Protection)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop coordination and relay 738 1 8 5,904 $307,008
settings procedures............ GO one-time one-time
($52/hr)
Relay Settings.................. 738 1 8 5,904 $413,280
GO ($70/hr)
Evidence Retention.............. 738 1 1 738 $20,664
GO ($28/hr)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 12,546 $740,952
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-024-1 (Generator Frequency and Voltage Protective Relay Settings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop coordination and relay 738 1 8 5,904 $307,008
settings procedures............ GO one-time one-time
($52/hr)
Relay Settings.................. 738 1 8 5,904 $413,280
GO ($70/hr)
Evidence Retention.............. 738 1 1 738 $20,664
GO ($28/hr)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 12,546 $740,952
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Average
FERC-725L respondents responses per burden hours Total annual Total annual
\98\ respondent per response burden hours cost \99\
(1) (2) (3) (1) x (2) x ..............
(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOD-025-2 (Verification and Data Reporting of Generator Real and Reactive Power Capability and Synchronous
Condenser Reactive Power Capability)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop testing procedures, 738 1 8 5,904 $307,008
verification process, and GO one-time one-time
process for collection of data. ($52/hr)
Attachment 2.................... 738 1 6 4,428 $309,960
GO ($70/hr)
Evidence Retention.............. 738 1 1 738 $20,664
GO ($28/hr)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 11,070 $637,632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOD-026-1 (Verification of Models and Data for Generator Excitation Control System or Plant Volt/Var Control
Functions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop testing procedures, 356 1 8 2,848 one-time $148,096
verification process, and GO one-time
process for collection of data. ($52/hr)
Instructions for obtaining 187 1 8 1,496 $104,720
excitation control system or TP one-time one-time
plant voltage/variance control ($70/hr)
function model.................
Documentation on generator 356 1 8 2,848 $199,360
verification................... GO ($70/hr)
Evidence Retention.............. 543 1 1 543 $15,204
GO and TP ($28/hr)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 7,735 $467,380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOD-027-1 (Verification of Models and Data for Turbine/Governor and Load Control or Active Power/Frequency
Control Functions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop testing procedures, 356 1 8 2,848 $148,096
verification process, and GO one-time one-time
process for collection of data. ($52/hr)
Instructions for obtaining 187 1 8 1,496 $104,720
turbine/governor and load TP one-time one-time
control or active power/ ($70/hr)
frequency control model........
[[Page 17022]]
Documentation on generator 356 1 8 2,848 $199,360
verification................... GO ($70/hr)
Evidence Retention.............. 543 1 1 543 $15,204
GO and TP ($28/hr)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 7,735 $467,380
===============================================================
Total for RM13-16....... .............. .............. .............. .............. $3,054,296
($1,627,640
without
one-time
costs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ GO = Generator Owner, TP = Transmission Planner.
Assuming 10 generators per generator owner, using EIA-860 2012
generator data (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/) total
number of units > 20 MW are 7,379, which results in 738 generator
owners. Note that the number of generator owner respondents used to
calculate the public reporting burden for MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 is
356, due to the higher applicability threshold for those Reliability
Standards.
\99\ The estimates for cost per hour are derived as follows:
$52/hour, the average of the salary plus benefits for an
engineer, from Bureau of Labor and Statistics at https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm andhttps://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm
$70/hour, the average of the salary plus benefits for a manager
and an engineer, from Bureau of Labor and Statistics at https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
$28/hour, based on a Commission staff study of record retention
burden cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System.
Action: Revisions to FERC-725G and FERC-725L.
OMB Control Nos: 1902-0252 and 1902-0261.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One-time, every five years, and every ten
years.
Necessity of the Information: The proposed approval of the five
Reliability Standards noted above implements 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.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed approval
to the Reliability Standards 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.
66. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
67. For submitting comments concerning the collection of
information and the associated burden estimates, 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 RM13-16-000 and OMB Control Number 1902-0252 and 1902-0261.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
68. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \100\ 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.\101\
Since the issuance of the Proposed Rule, the SBA has revised its size
standard for electric utilities from an output based standard (megawatt
hours) to number of employees (including affiliates). Under SBA's new
size standards, Generator Owners and Transmission Planners likely come
under one of four categories and associated size thresholds: \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2006).
\101\ 13 CFR 121.101 (2013).
\102\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydroelectric power generation at 500 employees.
Fossil fuel electric power generation at 750 employees.
Other electric power generation (e.g. solar, wind,
geothermal, and others) at 250 employees.
Electric bulk power transmission and control at 500
employees
69. According to US economic census data,\103\ over half of the
firms in the categories above are small. However, currently FERC does
not have information on how the economic census data compares with
entities registered with NERC and is unable to estimate the number of
small generator owners and transmission planners based on the new SBA
definition. Regardless, FERC recognizes that the rule will impact small
GOs and TPs and estimates the economic impact on each type of entity
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Data and further information is available from SBA at
https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/849/12162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. Proposed Reliability Standards MOD-025-2, MOD-026-1, MOD-027-1,
PRC-019-1 and PRC-024-1, MOD-025-2 help ensure that generators remain
in operation during specified voltage and frequency excursions,
properly coordinate protective relays and generator voltage regulator
controls, and ensure that generator models accurately reflect the
generator's capabilities and equipment performance. The Commission
estimates that the small entities to which Reliability Standards PRC-
019-1, PRC-024-1 and MOD-025-1 applies will
[[Page 17023]]
incur compliance \104\ and paperwork/record keeping costs \105\
totaling $655,228 ($13,372 per generator owner). For Reliability
Standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1, the Commission estimates that a
subset of the small generator owner entities will incur compliance and
paperwork/record keeping costs of $198,176 ($9,008 per generator
owner).\106\ This will result in a per entity compliance and paperwork/
record-keeping cost for the subset of generator owners complying with
MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 of $22,380 \107\ and the remaining small
generator owners who only have to comply with PRC-019-1, PRC-024-1 and
MOD-025-1 incurring a $13,372 cost per entity, as previously described.
Additionally, small transmission planner entities will incur compliance
and paperwork/record keeping costs \108\ totaling $49,392 ($1,176 per
transmission planner) \109\ to comply with MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Assuming 50 hours per generator owner per reliability
standard for relay settings/testing and other non-paperwork based on
$70/hour. These are non-paperwork related costs, not associated with
the burden described in the information collection section above.
\105\ This cost came from the above PRC-019-1, PRC-024-1, and
MOD-025-2 tables in the information collection section.
\106\ These two figures were not calculated correctly in the
NOPR and have been corrected here.
\107\ This figure was not calculated correctly in the NOPR and
has been corrected here.
\108\ This cost came from the above MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1
tables in the information collection section.
\109\ These two figures were not calculated correctly in the
NOPR and have been corrected here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. The Commission does not consider the estimated costs per small
entity to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Final
Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
VII. Environmental Analysis
72. 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.\110\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\111\ The actions proposed here
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\111\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Document Availability
73. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
74. 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.
75. 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.
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification
76. These regulations are effective May 27, 2014. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06725 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
