Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards, 73647-73658 [2015-29971]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 In the rule that is the subject of this correction, the Agency revised 7 CFR 1956.101 as intended, but the Agency inadvertently did not make the correct conforming change in 7 CFR 1956.147. To correct this oversight, the Agency is ‘‘reserving’’ 7 CFR 1956.147 in its entirety. This correction has no substantive effect on how debts are settled under this part. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Grapes, Marketing agreements, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as follows: PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED FROM GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA Need for Correction 2. Section 989.347 is revised to read as follows: As published, the text that remains in 7 CFR 1956.147 after the March 13, 2015, rule may be misleading and cause confusion as a result of the changes made to 7 CFR 1956.101 in the March 13, 2015, rule. § 989.347 Assessment rate. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1956 On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $17.00 per ton is established for assessable raisins produced from grapes grown in California. Loan programs—agriculture, Loan programs—housing and community development. Accordingly, 7 CFR 1956.147 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 989 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. ■ Dated: November 20, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. PART 1956—DEBT SETTLEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 1956 continues to read as follows: ■ [FR Doc. 2015–30013 Filed 11–24–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; and 7 U.S.C. 1989. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE § 1956.147 Rural Housing Service ■ [Removed and Reserved] 2. Remove and reserve § 1956.147. Dated: November 12, 2015. Lisa Mensah, Under Secretary, Rural Development. Dated: November 17, 2015. Michael Scuse, Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Utilities Service Farm Service Agency 7 CFR Part 1956 [FR Doc. 2015–29781 Filed 11–24–15; 8:45 am] RIN 0570–AA88 BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P Rural Development Loan Servicing; Correction DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency USDA. ACTION: Direct final rule; correction. AGENCY: jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Effective November 25, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melvin Padgett, Rural Development, Business Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 3226, Washington, DC 20250–3225; telephone (202) 720–1495; email melvin.padgett@wdc.usda./gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 Order No. 818 18 CFR Part 40 This document contains corrections to the published rule in the Federal Register of March 13, 2015, entitled ‘‘Rural Development Loan Servicing.’’ DATES: The Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization. The Commission approves Reliability Standards EOP–011–1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC–010–1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). The proposed Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards. The Commission also approves NERC’s revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Further, the Commission approves the implementation plans, and the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards. DATES: This rule will become effective January 25, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juan Villar (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (772) 678–6496, Juan.Villar@ferc.gov. Nick Henery (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8636, Nick.Henery@ferc.gov. Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8524, Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission SUMMARY: 73647 Final Rule [Docket Nos. RM15–7–000, RM15–12–000, and RM15–13–000 Order No. 818] Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of ‘‘Remedial Action Scheme’’ and Related Reliability Standards Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (Issued November 19, 2015) 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commissionapproved Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). In particular, the Commission approves Reliability Standards EOP–011–1 (Emergency 1 16 U.S.C. 824o. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 73648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Operations) and PRC–010–1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). The Commission finds that the Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline, and clarify the existing requirements of several currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control (PRC) standards, and address certain Commission directives set forth in Order No. 693.2 2. Further, the Commission approves NERC’s revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), and modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised definition. Also, the Commission approves the associated implementation plans and assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels for Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 and Reliability Standard PRC–010–1, as well as the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability Standards. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES I. Background 3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.3 4. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including initial versions of EOP–001, EOP–002, and EOP–003.4 In addition, the Commission directed NERC to develop certain modifications to the EOP standards. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved several Undervoltage Load Shedding (UVLS)related Reliability Standards, including PRC–010–0, PRC–021–1 and PRC–022– 1.5 Further, the Commission directed NERC to modify Reliability Standard PRC–010–0 to develop an ‘‘integrated and coordinated’’ approach to all 2 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 3 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 4 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,242. 5 Id. PP 1509, 1560, and 1565. The Commission neither approved nor rejected proposed Reliability Standard PRC–020–1, explaining that the standard only applied to Regional Reliability Organizations. Id. P 1555. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 protection systems.6 In Order No. 693, the Commission approved the NERC Glossary, including NERC’s currentlyeffective Special Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme definitions. II. NERC Petitions 5. NERC submitted three related petitions that we address together in this Final Rule.7 A. NERC EOP Petition—Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 (Docket No. RM15–7–000) 6. On December 29, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission approval of Reliability Standard EOP–011–1, a revised definition of ‘‘Energy Emergency’’ and the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 is ‘‘to address the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating Plans to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator area.’’ 8 NERC explained that Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 consolidates the requirements of three existing standards: EOP–001–2.1b, EOP–002–3.1 and EOP–003–2 ‘‘into a single Reliability Standard that clarifies the critical requirements for Emergency Operations while ensuring strong communication and coordination across the functional entities.’’ 9 NERC also asserted that Reliability Standard EOP– 011–1 satisfies seven Commission directives set forth in Order No. 693.10 7. NERC noted that Reliability Standard EOP–011–1, Requirements R2 and R6 incorporate Attachment 1, which describes three Energy Emergency levels used by the reliability coordinator and the process for communicating the condition of a balancing authority experiencing an Energy Emergency.11 6 Id. P 1509. 7 Reliability Standards EOP–011–1 and PRC–010– 1 are not attached to this Final Rule, nor are the additional Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to modify to incorporate the term Remedial Action Scheme. The Reliability Standards are available on the Commission’s eLibrary document retrieval system in the identified dockets and on the NERC Web site, www.nerc.com. 8 NERC EOP Petition at 2. 9 Id. at 3. 10 Id. at 12–18. 11 Attachment 1 describes three alert levels: Energy Emergency Alert Level 1 (all available generation resources in use, concern about sustaining required contingency reserves); Energy Emergency Alert Level 2 (load management procedures in effect, energy deficient balancing authority implements its emergency Operating Plan PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 8. Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 includes six requirements, and is applicable to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators. Requirement R1 requires transmission operators to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans to mitigate operating emergencies in its ‘‘transmission operating area.’’ 12 Requirement R1 provides that, ‘‘as applicable,’’ operating plans must: (1) Describe the roles and responsibilities for activating the operating plan; and (2) include processes to prepare for and mitigate emergencies, such as Reliability Coordinator notification, transmission system reconfiguration, and redispatch of generation. NERC explained that Requirement R1 uses the phrase ‘‘as applicable’’ to provide ‘‘flexibility to account for regional differences and preexisting methods for mitigating emergencies.’’ 13 NERC added that an entity’s decision to omit an element as not ‘‘applicable’’ must include an explanation in its plan. NERC further explained that the requirement for transmission operators to maintain operating plans includes the expectation that the plans are current and up-todate.14 9. Requirement R2 requires balancing authorities to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinatorreviewed operating plans to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies in its ‘‘balancing authority area.’’ Similar to the operating plans developed by transmission operators pursuant to the first requirement, the elements of the operating plans developed by balancing authorities allow for flexibility, provided an explanation is provided for omitted elements.15 10. Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators to review the operating plans submitted by transmission operators and balancing authorities and is designed to ensure that there is appropriate coordination of reliability risks identified in the operating plans. In reviewing operating plans, reliability coordinators shall consider compatibility, coordination but maintains minimum contingency reserve requirements); and Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (firm load interruption is imminent or in process, energy deficient balancing authority unable to maintain minimum contingency reserve requirements). 12 Operating Plan is defined in the NERC Glossary as a ‘‘document that identifies a group of activities that may be used to achieve some goal. An Operating Plan may contain Operating Procedures and Operating Processes . . .’’ 13 NERC EOP Petition at 9. 14 Id. at 8–9. 15 Id. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations and inter-dependency with other entity operating plans and notify transmission providers and balancing authorities if revisions to their operating plans are necessary.16 11. Requirement R4 requires transmission operators and balancing authorities to resolve any issues identified by the reliability coordinator and resubmit their revised operating plans within a time period specified by the reliability coordinator. Requirement R5 requires reliability coordinators to notify balancing authorities and transmission operators in its area, and neighboring reliability coordinators, within 30 minutes of receiving an emergency notification. Requirement R6 requires a reliability coordinator with a balancing authority experiencing a potential or actual Energy Emergency to declare an Energy Emergency alert in accordance with Attachment 1. 12. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 also includes the following revised definition of Energy Emergency: Energy Emergency—A condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations. NERC explained that the revised definition is intended to clarify that an Energy Emergency is not limited to a load-serving entity and, based on a review of the impact on the body of NERC Reliability Standards, ‘‘does not change the reliability intent of other requirements of Definitions.’’ 17 13. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date of Commission approval, and a retirement date for currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP–001–2.1b, EOP–002–3.1 and EOP–003–2 of midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of Reliability Standard EOP–011–1. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES B. NERC PRC Petition—Proposed Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 (Docket No. RM15–12–000) 14. On February 6, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding), a revised definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program) for inclusion in the NERC Glossary, and the associated violation risk factors, violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC also proposed the retirement of four PRC 16 Id. at 10–11. 17 Id. at 18. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 Reliability Standards.18 NERC stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 is to ‘‘establish an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation, and reliable operation of Undervoltage Load Shedding Programs’’ as directed by the Commission in Order No. 693.19 15. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 is a single, comprehensive standard that addresses the same reliability principles outlined in the four currently-effective UVLSrelated Reliability Standards.20 Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 replaces the applicability to and involvement of ‘‘Regional Reliability Organization’’ in Reliability Standards PRC–020–1 and PRC–021–1 and improves upon and consolidates the four currently-effective UVLS-Related Standards into one comprehensive standard. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 ‘‘reflects consideration of the 2003 Blackout Report recommendations,’’ 21 particularly, Recommendation 21 for NERC to ‘‘make more effective and wider use of system protection measures’’ 22 and Recommendation 21C for NERC to ‘‘determine the goals and principles needed to establish an integrated approach to relay protection for generators and transmission lines, as well as of UFLS and UVLS programs.’’ 23 16. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 incorporates a new definition of UVLS Program, which reads: Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program): An automatic load shedding program, consisting of distributed relays and controls, used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the Bulk Electric System (BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading. Centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding is not included. NERC explained that ‘‘to ensure that the applicability of the proposed Reliability Standard covers undervoltage-based load shedding systems whose performance has an impact on system reliability, a UVLS Program must mitigate risk of one or more of the 18 Reliability Standards PRC–010–0 (Assessment of the Design and Effectiveness of UVLS Program); PRC–020–1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Database); PRC–021–1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program Data); and PRC–022–1 (UnderVoltage Load Shedding Program Performance). 19 NERC PRC Petition at 14 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs ¶ 31,242 at P 1509). 20 Id. 21 Id. at 2 (citing the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, April, 2004 (2003 Blackout Report)). 22 Id. at 4 (citing 2003 Blackout Report at 3, 158). 23 Id. at 6. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 73649 following: Voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading impacting the Bulk Electric System. By focusing on the enumerated risks, the definition is meant to exclude locally-applied relays that are not designed to mitigate wide-area voltage collapse.’’ 24 NERC stated that the UVLS Program definition ‘‘clearly identifies and separates centrally controlled undervoltage-based load shedding, which is now addressed by the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme.’’ 25 17. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 applies to planning coordinators and transmission planners because ‘‘either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program . . . [and] also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner or Planning Coordinator.’’ 26 NERC explained that the planning coordinator or transmission planner that establishes a UVLS Program is responsible for identifying the UVLS equipment and the necessary distribution provider and transmission owner (referred to as ‘‘UVLS entities’’ in the Applicability section) that performs the required actions. 18. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 ‘‘applies only after an entity has determined the need for a UVLS Program as a result of its own planning studies.’’ 27 NERC explained that the eight requirements in Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 meet four primary objectives: (1) The Reliability Standard requires applicable entities to evaluate a UVLS Program’s effectiveness prior to implementation, including coordination with other protection systems and generator voltage ride-through capabilities; (2) applicable entities must comply with UVLS program specifications and implementation schedule; (3) applicable entities must perform periodic assessment and performance analysis; and (4) applicable entities must maintain and share UVLS Program data.28 19. Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of its UVLS program before implementation to confirm its effectiveness in resolving the undervoltage conditions for which it 24 Id. at 16. at 15. NERC’s petition for approval of the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme (Docket No. RM15–13–000) is discussed below. 26 Id. 27 Id. at 14. 28 Id. at 17. 25 Id. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 73650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations was designed, and that it is integrated through coordination with generator ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems. Also, the planning coordinator or transmission planner must provide the UVLS Program specifications and implementation schedule to the applicable UVLS entities. Requirement R2 requires UVLS entities to meet the UVLS Program’s specifications and implementation schedule provided by the planning coordinator or transmission planner or address any necessary corrective actions in accordance with Requirement R5. 20. Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to perform periodic comprehensive assessments at least every 60 calendar months to ensure continued effectiveness of the UVLS program, including whether the program resolves identified undervoltage issues and that it is integrated and coordinated with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other specified protection and control systems. Requirement R4 requires each planning coordinator or transmission planner to commence a timely assessment of a voltage excursion subject to the UVLS Program, within 12 calendar months of the event, to evaluate whether the UVLS Program resolved the undervoltage issues associated with the event. Requirement R5 requires a corrective action plan for any program deficiencies identified during an assessment performed under either Requirement R3 or R4, and provide an implementation schedule to UVLS entities within three calendar months of its completion. 21. Pursuant to Requirement R6, a planning coordinator must update the data necessary to model its UVLS Program for use in event analyses and program assessments at least each calendar year. Requirement R7 requires each UVLS entity to provide data to its planning coordinator, according to the planning coordinator’s format and schedule, to support maintenance of the UVLS Program database. Requirement R8 requires a planning coordinator to provide its UVLS Program database to other planning coordinators and transmission planners within its Interconnection, and other functional entities with a reliability need, within 30 calendar days of a written request. 22. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 and the definition of UVLS Program of the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date that the standard and definition are approved by the Commission. NERC proposed to VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 retire PRC–010–0, PRC–020–1, PRC– 021–1, and PRC–022–1 at midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of PRC–010–1.29 Further, NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 addresses reliability obligations that are set forth in Requirements R2, R4 and R7 of currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP–003–2.30 Since NERC has proposed to retire EOP–003–2 in the petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 (Docket No. RM15–7–00, discussed above), concurrent Commission action on the two petitions will prevent a possible reliability gap. C. NERC RAS Petition—Revisions to the Definition of ‘‘Remedial Action Scheme’’ (Docket No. RM15–13–000) 23. On February 3, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme in the NERC Glossary, as well as modified Reliability Standards that incorporate the new Remedial Action Scheme definition and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System, and the associated implementation plan.31 NERC stated that the defined terms Special Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme are currently used interchangeably throughout the NERC Regions and in various Reliability Standards. NERC explained that ‘‘[a]lthough these defined terms share a common definition in the NERC Glossary of Terms today, their use and application have been inconsistent as a result of a lack of granularity in the definition and varied regional uses of the terms. The proposed revisions add clarity and granularity that will allow for proper identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability Standards.’’ 32 24. NERC explained that the revised Remedial Action Scheme definition consists of a ‘‘core’’ definition, including a list of objectives and a separate list of exclusions for certain schemes or systems not intended to be 29 Id. Ex. B (Implementation Plan). at 23. 31 NERC RAS Petition at 1–2. NERC requested approval of the following Reliability Standards to incorporate the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System: EOP–004–3, PRC–005– 3(ii), PRC–023–4, FAC–010–3, TPL–001–0.1(i), FAC–011–3, TPL–002–0(i)b, MOD–030–3, TPL– 003–0(i)b, MOD–029–2a, PRC–015–1, TPL–004– 0(i)a, PRC–004–WECC–2, PRC–016–1, PRC–001– 1.1(i), PRC–005–2(ii), PRC–017–1. NERC did not propose any changes to the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for the modified standards. 32 Id. at 4–5. 30 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 covered by the revised definition.33 NERC stated that a broad definition is needed because of ‘‘all the possible scenarios an entity may develop’’ for its Remedial Action Scheme and a ‘‘very specific, narrow definition may unintentionally exclude schemes that should be covered.’’ 34 Accordingly, NERC proposed the following revised ‘‘core’’ definition of Remedial Action Scheme: A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping load, or reconfiguring a System(s). (sic) RAS accomplish objectives such as: • Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards; • Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability; • Maintain acceptable BES voltages; • Maintain acceptable BES power flows; • Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events. The definition then lists fourteen exclusions, describing specific schemes and systems that do not constitute a Remedial Action Scheme, because each is either a protection function, a control function, a combination of both, or used for system configuration.35 25. In the implementation plan, NERC proposed an effective date for the revised Reliability Standards and the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12 months after Commission approval.36 NERC also proposed that, for entities with existing schemes that become newly classified as ‘‘Remedial Action Schemes’’ resulting from the application of the revised definition, the entities will have additional time of up to 24 months from the effective date to be fully compliant with all applicable Reliability Standards.37 Further, NERC asked the Commission to take final action concurrently with the NERC petition on proposed Reliability Standard PRC– 010–1 (Docket No. RM15–12–000) because ‘‘[t]he proposed definitions of UVLS Program and Remedial Action Scheme in each project have been coordinated to cover centrally controlled UVLS as a Remedial Action Scheme. Final action by the Commission is needed 33 Id. at 16. NERC noted that ‘‘for each exclusion, the scheme or system could still classify as a Remedial Action Scheme if employed in a broader scheme that meets the definition of Remedial Action Scheme.’’ 34 Id. at 17. 35 Id. at 18. 36 NERC RAS Petition, Ex. C (Implementation Plan) at 4. 37 Id. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations contemporaneously on both petitions to facilitate implementation and avoid a gap in coverage of centrally controlled UVLS.’’ 38 III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 26. On June 18, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the Reliability Standards and NERC Glossary definitions set forth in NERC’s three petitions pertaining to EOP–011– 1, PRC–010–1 and a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. 39 The Commission also proposed to approve the related violation risk factors, violation severity levels and implementation plans. 27. The Commission proposed to approve the retirement of Reliability Standards EOP–001–2.1b, EOP–002–3.1, EOP–003–2, PRC–010–0, PRC–020–1 and PRC–021–1. However, the Commission expressed concerns about whether it was appropriate to retire PRC–022–1 before a replacement Reliability Standard is approved and implemented to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to deny NERC’s request to retire Reliability Standard PRC–022–1 concurrent with the effective date of PRC–010–1. 28. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that Reliability Standards EOP– 011–1 and PRC–010–1 provide greater clarity and that the consolidation of currently-effective EOP and PRC standards provides additional efficiencies for responsible entities. The Commission also agreed with NERC that the new definition of Remedial Action Scheme will improve reliability by eliminating ambiguity and encouraging the consistent identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability Standards. 29. While the Commission proposed to approve Reliability Standard PRC– 010–1, the Commission raised questions and sought clarification regarding an example of a ‘‘BES subsystem’’ that NERC provided in the ‘‘Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition.’’ The Commission indicated that, depending on the response from NERC and others, 38 NERC RAS Petition at 3–4. to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of ‘‘Remedial Action Scheme’’ and Related Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 36,293 (June 24, 2015), 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 (2015) (NOPR). 39 Revisions VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 a directive for further modification may be appropriate.40 30. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from: NERC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Peak Reliability, Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), International Transmission Company (ITC), Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (LG&E/KU) and Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power). IV. Discussion 31. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve Reliability Standards EOP– 011–1 and PRC–010–1, the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme and NERC Glossary definitions, and associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels and implementation plans as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. The Commission believes that the modified Reliability Standards provide greater clarity, and the consolidated EOP and PRC standards will provide additional efficiencies for responsible entities. We also determine that Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 adequately addresses seven Order No. 693 directives, and that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 establishes an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation and reliable operation of UVLS Programs, and therefore satisfies the Commission directive issued in Order No. 693.41 Further, we approve the retirement of certain Reliability Standards as identified by NERC.42 32. We discuss below the following issues raised in the NOPR and comments: (1) The deregistration of load-serving entities and Reliability Standard EOP–011–1; (2) the scheduling and scope of reliability coordinator reviews of Operating Plans under Reliability Standard EOP–011–1; (3) the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC– 022–1; (4) the term ‘‘BES subsystem’’ and related diagram in NERC’s PRC Petition; and (5) other issues raised by commenters. 40 NOPR, 41 Order 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 at P 27. No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1509. 42 As noted above, the Commission in Order No. 693 did not approve or remand proposed Reliability Standard PRC–020–1 but, rather, took no action on the Reliability Standard pending the receipt of additional information. Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1555. Our approval of NERC’s request renders PRC–020–1 ‘‘retired,’’ i.e., withdrawn, and no longer pending before the Commission. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 73651 A. Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 1. The Deregistration of Load-Serving Entities NOPR 33. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard EOP–011– 1 and a new Energy Emergency definition, the Commission stated that the removal of load-serving entities from the Reliability Standard raises questions about who would perform the roles traditionally performed by load-serving entities.43 The NOPR explained that the Commission’s decision concerning NERC’s compliance filing in Docket No. RR15–4–000 related to NERC’s RiskBased Registration initiative would guide the Commission’s action on this question in this proceeding. Comments 34. NERC, EEI, TAPS, ITC and Idaho Power support the Commission’s proposed approval of Reliability Standard EOP–011–1. Further, NERC, EEI and TAPS state that excluding loadserving entities from the Reliability Standard will not create a reliability gap. NERC states that currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP–002–3.1 Requirement R9 is the only requirement in the three Reliability Standards being replaced by Reliability Standard EOP– 011–1 that applies to load-serving entities. NERC explains that the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) has modified the process for Etag specifications, removing the loadserving entities’ role in making changes to the priority of transmission service requests. Therefore, the ‘‘Standard Drafting Team did not incorporate Requirement R9 into Reliability Standard EOP–011–1, because Requirement R9 has become obsolete due to technological changes.’’ 44 35. Additionally, NERC explains that, due to the Real-time nature of energy emergencies, balancing authorities and distribution providers will handle responsibilities related to Reliability Standard EOP–002–3.1 that have been performed by load-serving entities. Referring to the Mapping Document and Application Guidelines for Reliability Standard EOP–011–1, NERC states that ‘‘LSEs have no Real-time reliability 43 NOPR, 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 at P 24, n.36. Currently effective EOP–002–3.1 applies, inter alia, to load-serving entities. Reliability Standard EOP– 011–1 replaces EOP–002–3.1, and applies to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission operators, but not load-serving entities. 44 NERC Comments at 4. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 73652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations functionality with respect to EEAs [Energy Emergency Alerts].’’ 45 36. TAPS and EEI agree with NERC’s analysis of the roles and responsibilities of load-serving entities and that excluding them will not create any reliability gaps. TAPS states that ‘‘there is no reliability benefit to retaining EOP–002–3.1’s Requirement R9, and thus no reliability risk from eliminating the LSE obligation to comply with it.’’ 46 EEI asserts that ‘‘NERC is correct that ‘tasks currently assigned to the LSE function under NERC Reliability Standards would continue to be performed by other functions subject to currently applicable LSE Reliability Standard Requirements or by market participants (including LSEs) pursuant to existing tariffs, market rules, market protocols and other market agreements.’ ’’ 47 Regarding Operating Plans that transmission operators and balancing authorities are to develop under Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 Requirements R1 and R2, EEI states that ‘‘it is clear that the responsible entities required to perform the activities attributed to the LSE function necessary to aid in arresting an Energy Emergency must be identified to ensure necessary mitigation can be accomplished in order to ensure reliable operation of the BES.’’ 48 37. LG&E/KU seeks clarification on two questions pertaining to the exclusion of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 ‘‘to ensure that even if NERC’s EOP proposal is accepted, [balancing authorities] will have a meaningful way of addressing any operational gaps with Energy Emergencies and LSEs.’’ 49 First, LG&E/KU seeks clarification that an Energy Emergency can be isolated to a load-serving entity’s inability to meet its own load obligations, as indicated in NERC’s revised definition of Energy Emergency. Second, LG&E/KU seeks clarification that Operating Plans developed by balancing authorities may describe the role for load-serving entities in responding to an Energy Emergency, and may include such Operating Plans in applicable tariffs. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Commission Determination 38. Consistent with our determination in the ‘‘risk-based registration’’ proceeding, we find that the elimination of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 will not prevent 45 Id. at 5–6. Comments at 4. 47 EEI Comments at 5–6, quoting NERC’s compliance filing in RR15–4–000 at 1. 48 Id. at 6. 49 LG&E/KU Comments at 2. 46 TAPS VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 the Reliability Standard from achieving its stated purposes or otherwise create reliability gaps.50 We find that Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 enhances reliability by requiring that actions necessary to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies are focused in single operating plans, and ensures communication and coordination among relevant entities during emergency operations. We are persuaded by NERC’s explanation that excluding load-serving entities will not adversely impact reliability due to technological changes concerning NAESB tagging specifications, and that load-serving entities ‘‘have no Real-time reliability functionality with respect to EEAs [Energy Emergency Alerts].’’ 51 Further, as both NERC and EEI have stated, ‘‘tasks currently assigned to the LSE function under NERC Reliability Standards would continue to be performed by other functions subject to currently applicable LSE Reliability Standard Requirements or by market participants (including LSEs) pursuant to tariffs, market rules, market protocols and other market agreements.’’ 52 39. We disagree with LG&E/KU’s suggestion that the reference to loadserving entities in NERC’s revised definition of Energy Emergency indicates the possibility of an ‘‘operational gap.’’ NERC revises the definition of ‘‘Energy Emergency,’’ approved in this Final Rule, as ‘‘[a] condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its expected Load obligations.’’ 53 Based on a plain reading of this definition, we agree with LG&E/ KU that a load-serving entity’s inability to meet its own load obligations could result in an Energy Emergency. Moreover, consistent with our findings in the RBR Compliance Order, we agree with LG&E/KU that operating plans developed by balancing authorities— including operating plans contained in applicable tariffs—may describe the role for load-serving entities in responding to an Energy Emergency.54 EEI’s observation regarding Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 Requirements R1 and R2 for transmission operators and balancing authorities to develop 50 See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 153 FERC ¶ 61,024, at P 20 (2015) (RBR Compliance Order) (approving the proposed elimination of the load-serving entity function). 51 NERC Comments at 5, quoting the EOP–011–1 Mapping Document and Application Guidelines. 52 EEI Comments at 5–6. 53 NERC EOP Petition, Ex. B (Implementation Plan) at 1. 54 RBR Compliance Order, 153 FERC ¶ 61,024 at 21. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Operating Plans to mitigate Energy Emergencies reinforces this determination: ‘‘[a]lthough these requirements do not specifically identify the ‘who’ or ‘what’ actions to be taken, it is clear that the responsible entities required to perform the activities attributed to the LSE function necessary to aid in arresting an energy emergency must be identified to ensure necessary mitigation can be accomplished in order to ensure reliable operation of the BES.’’ 55 Accordingly, we conclude that elimination of the load-serving entity function from Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 does not result in an operational gap and, rather, provides a reasonable means of addressing Energy Emergencies. 2. The Scheduling and Scope of Reliability Coordinator Reviews of Operating Plans 40. Reliability Standard EOP–011–1, Requirement R3 obligates a reliability coordinator to review the Operating Plan(s) to mitigate operating emergencies submitted by a transmission operator or a balancing authority. Pursuant to Requirement R3.1, a reliability coordinator must, within 30 days of receipt, (i) review each Operating Plan for compatibility and inter-dependency with other transmission operator or balancing authority Operating Plans, (ii) review each Operating Plan for coordination to avoid risk to ‘‘Wide Area’’ reliability, and (iii) notify each transmission operator and balancing authority of the results of the review. Comments 41. Peak Reliability asserts that the ‘‘inflexible’’ 30 day period for reliability coordinator reviews of operating plans in Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 Requirement R3.1 is not reasonable. According to Peak Reliability, because transmission operators have an ‘‘open ended’’ opportunity to submit operating plans under the provision, reliability coordinators cannot schedule in advance the needed resources to perform a proper review in the 30-day window. Peak Reliability notes that, in its experience, many entities update their plans at the end of the year, creating a large spike in review work at that time. Peak Reliability, therefore, recommends revising Requirement R3.1 to include language requiring ‘‘a mutually agreed predetermined schedule’’ to ensure that the reliability coordinator can efficiently allocate its 55 EEI E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM Comments at 6. 25NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES resources and provide a thorough review of submitted operating plans.56 42. Peak Reliability also seeks clarification regarding the scope of reliability coordinator review of operating plans, and whether a reliability coordinator must review each required element of an operating plan specified in Requirement R2 for ‘‘compatibility and interdependency’’ with other balancing authority and transmission operator operating plans, or ‘‘evaluate these elements on a higher level.’’ 57 Peak Reliability asserts that the ‘‘appropriate level of review’’ by reliability coordinators is ‘‘for coordination to avoid risk to Wide Area reliability.’’ Based on this assertion, Peak Reliability recommends that Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 require balancing authorities and transmission operators to identify and coordinate possible operating plan discrepancies before submission for reliability coordinator review, as currently required under Reliability Standard EOP–001–2.1b Requirement R6.58 under Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 Requirement 3.1.1 is misplaced. Based on the record before us, particularly the Standard Drafting Team’s decision to require reliability coordinators to review rather than approve operating plans, and the ongoing nature of emergency planning, we conclude that Requirement R3.1.1 contemplates high level assessments focused on the coordination of operating plans between and among transmission operators and balancing authorities.61 Moreover, while Peak Reliability may request that NERC (e.g., through a standard authorization request or ‘‘SAR’’) include a provision in EOP–011–1 to require coordination among transmission operators and balancing authorities prior to submitting an operating plan for reliability coordinator review, we are not persuaded to direct NERC to develop such a provision. Commission Determination 43. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability’s comments that the 30 day review period in Requirement R3.1 is unduly onerous. No reliability coordinator other than Peak Reliability expressed concern about the 30 day review period for operating plans in Requirement R3.1. NERC explains that transmission operators and balancing authorities must update their operating plans on an ‘‘ongoing and as-needed basis.’’ 59 The need for registered entities to update operating plans to address evolving bulk electric system conditions should prevent reliability coordinators from being overwhelmed or unduly burdened by operating plan submissions. However, if Peak Reliability experiences an ‘‘end of the year spike in workload,’’ 60 as a reliability coordinator, Peak Reliability can adjust its resource allocation to accommodate such known ‘‘spikes’’ in activity. Accordingly, we conclude the 30 day review period in Requirement R3.1 is reasonable and reject Peak Reliability’s recommendation for language requiring a ‘‘mutually agreed predetermined schedule.’’ 44. Additionally, we believe that Peak Reliability’s concern regarding the extent of reliability coordinator Operating Plan review for ‘‘compatibility and interdependency’’ NOPR 45. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard PRC–010– 1 and the retirement of PRC–010–0, PRC–020–1 and PRC–021–1, the Commission was not persuaded that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1, Requirement R4 is an adequate replacement for currently-effective PRC–022–1, which contains requirements specifically addressing misoperations. Rather, the Commission proposed that Reliability Standard PRC– 022–1 would remain in effect until an acceptable replacement Reliability Standard is in place to address the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment. 56 Peak Reliability Comments at 6–7. at 7. 58 Id. at 7–8. 59 See NERC EOP Petition at 9. 60 See Peak Reliability Comments at 5–6. 57 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 B. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 1. Retirement of Reliability Standard PRC–022–1 Comments 46. NERC states that, on June 9, 2015, it filed proposed Reliability Standards PRC–010–2 and PRC–004–5 as part of its UVLS Phase II Petition (Project 2008–02.2), which includes requirements and applicability criteria related to UVLS misoperations.62 NERC explains that its filing requests that the Commission approve Reliability Standards PRC–004–5 and PRC–010–2 61 See NERC EOP Petition, Exhibit G (Summary of Development History and Complete Record of Development) at 1166 (the Standard Drafting Team indicates that the provision is intended to require the reliability coordinator review of deficiencies, inconsistencies or conflicts between operating plans that would cause further system degradation during emergency conditions). 62 Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards PRC–004–5 and PRC–010–2, (Docket No. RD15–5–000). PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 73653 concurrently with the Commission’s action on Reliability Standard PRC– 010–1 ‘‘to ensure an integrated and coordinated approach to UVLS Programs and fill the gap in Reliability Standard coverage that might be perceived through retirement of PRC– 022–1.’’ 63 EEI agrees, stating that NERC’s filing of proposed Reliability Standards PRC–004–5 and PRC–010–2 address the Commission’s concerns expressed in the NOPR.64 Commission Determination 47. We agree with NERC and EEI that the Delegated Letter Order approval of Reliability Standards PRC–004–5 and PRC–010–2 in Docket No. RD15–5–000 concurrent with this Final Rule precludes the need to retain currentlyeffective Reliability Standard PRC–022– 1.65 Accordingly, we find that Reliability Standard PRC–022–1 can be retired without creating a gap in coverage with regard to UVLS protective relay misoperations and equipment performance evaluations. 2. The Term ‘‘BES Subsystem’’ and Related Diagram NOPR 48. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification of the meaning of NERC’s use of the term ‘‘BES subsystem’’ in a diagram illustrating a UVLS system that would not be included in the definition of UVLS Program if the consequences of the contingency do not impact the bulk electric system, and whether it would be considered a Remedial Action Scheme.66 Comments 49. NERC comments that the term ‘‘BES subsystem’’ and accompanying diagram are ‘‘intended to demonstrate that whether PRC–010–1 applies to a UVLS system depends on whether the UVLS system is used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting areas of the BES, leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse or Cascading.’’ 67 NERC also states that ‘‘the term ‘BES subsystem’ is a shorthand reference to an area of the BES that a Registered Entity is responsible for, consistent with its obligations under mandatory Reliability Standards. This reference does not revise the Commission63 NERC Comments at 8. Comments at 7. 65 See Delegated Letter Order issued November 19, 2915. 66 See NOPR, 151 FERC ¶ 61,230 at P 27 (including diagram). 67 NERC Comments at 6–7. 64 EEI E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 73654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations approved definition of ‘Bulk Electric System’ or create a new term.’’ 68 50. NERC explains that the diagram ‘‘is not intended to necessarily illustrate a centrally controlled UVLS (considered a [Remedial Action Scheme]), but to illustrate how Registered Entities should evaluate whether the term UVLS Program and proposed Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 applies to a UVLS system.’’ 69 NERC points out that, if a UVLS system in the ‘‘BES subsystem’’ is used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the BES (leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading), the system would fall under the new definition of UVLS Program (or RAS if centrally controlled) and thus in the scope of Reliability Standard PRC–010–1.70 51. EEI states that the example of ‘‘BES subsystem’’ in the ‘‘Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition’’ does not represent a centrally controlled UVLS and therefore would not be considered a Remedial Action Scheme. EEI explains that the term UVLS Program ‘‘is for a scheme that consists of distributed relays and controls, not for a scheme that is centrally controlled. The key point is that for a UVLS system to fall under the definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program, it must be used to protect the BES against voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.’’ 71 EEI also notes that the term ‘‘BES subsystem’’ is not intended to be a new NERC term, but rather ‘‘was used in the example to illustrate a possible localized undervoltage contingency on a very small portion of the BES but not a contingency that impacts a larger area of the BES that could result in voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.’’ 72 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Commission Determination 52. Based on the explanations provided above, we determine that a directive for further modification of the example of ‘‘BES subsystem’’ and related diagram in NERC’s ‘‘Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition’’ to ensure consistency with the Commissionapproved definition of ‘‘bulk electric system’’ proposed in the NOPR is not necessary. Rather, we are persuaded that EEI’s concern with the diagram is addressed by NERC’s explanation that, depending on the role of a particular UVLS system, the diagram could illustrate an example of a UVLS Program or a centrally-controlled Remedial Action Scheme.73 C. Other Issues Raised By Commenters 1. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1— Applicability 53. Peak Reliability asserts that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 ‘‘does not adequately address the operation of UVLS Programs, as it does not apply to the NERC functional entities that operate the Bulk Electric System,’’ particularly, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities.74 Peak Reliability contends that UVLS Programs should be included in operational planning and real-time assessments, and that all entities responsible for operating the bulk electric system must be given access to UVLS Program databases.75 Further, Peak Reliability requests that the Commission direct NERC to explain why Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 and Reliability Standard IRO–009–1 apply to different functional entities (since the purpose of both is to prevent instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading outages), and recommends that the treatment of UVLS in operations planning and real-time assessments be addressed.76 54. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability’s assertion that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 should apply to reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities. Rather, as NERC explains ‘‘[t]he applicability includes both the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner because either may be responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program. Reliability Standard PRC–010– 1 also applies to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner and Planning Coordinator.’’ 77 As NERC’s rationale above indicates, the applicability section of the Reliability Standard identities the functional entities responsible for the design, operation and control of UVLS Programs and related equipment. 55. While Peak Reliability seeks to expand applicability to functional entities so that UVLS Program databases would be shared with reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities, we believe 73 Id. 68 Id. at 7. 74 Peak Reliability Comments at 9. at 9–10. 76 Id. at 11–12. 77 NERC EOP Petition at 15, and id. Ex. D (Order No. 672 Criteria) at 2–3. 69 Id. 75 Id. 70 Id. 71 EEI Comments at 8. 72 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 that this need to expand applicability is unfounded. Reliability Standard PRC– 010–1, Requirement R8, provides that other functional entities with a reliability need can request UVLS data, and that such requests must be answered in 30 days. 56. Nor are we persuaded by Peak Reliability’s argument that UVLS programs should be considered in operations planning and real-time operations. We understand that Peak Reliability refers to the consideration of UVLS programs in the derivation of Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROLs) for Category B contingencies as defined in the currently-effective transmission planning standard TPL–002–0b (commonly known as N–1 contingencies under normal system operation).78 With this understanding, we disagree with Peak Reliability on the relevance of using UVLS in the derivation of IROLs for N–1 contingencies. The 2003 Canada-United States Blackout Report stated that ‘‘[s]afety nets should not be relied upon to establish transfer limits.’’ 79 This statement is consistent with the performance criteria established in TPL–002–0b and TPL– 001–4, which generally prohibit the loss of non-consequential load for certain N– 1 contingencies.80 We conclude that UVLS programs under PRC–010–1 are examples of such ‘‘safety nets’’ and should not be tools used by bulk electric system operators to calculate operating limits for N–1 contingencies. Likewise, with this understanding, there is no imperative to make PRC–010–1 applicable to reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities. 57. Peak Reliability comments that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 ‘‘creates some confusion of the applicability of UVLS Programs due to the similarities, and apparent overlap, in the definitions of UVLS Programs and IROLs.’’ 81 We disagree. Peak Reliability’s comparison of UVLS Programs with establishing and operating within IROLs is misplaced because UVLS Programs and IROLs represent separate and distinct approaches to system security. UVLS Programs act as safety nets for contingencies more severe than N–1 contingencies, such as the simultaneous 78 The Commission-approved Version 4 standard, TPL–001–4, will replace TPL–002–0b on January 1, 2016. See Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Order No. 786, 145 FERC ¶ 61,051 (2013). 79 2003 Blackout Report at 109. 80 See TPL–002–0b, Table 1, footnote b and TPL– 001–4, Table 1, Footnote 12. 81 Peak Reliability Comments at 11. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations loss of two single circuits or a doublecircuit line which are both Category C contingencies permitting loss of nonconsequential firm load.82 In contrast, the NERC Glossary defines IROLs as ‘‘[a] System Operating Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Electric System.’’ This corresponds with the TPL–004–1 provisions requiring that the system must remain stable when experiencing an N–1 contingency (such as Category B or P1 contingencies).83 In sum, we disagree with Peak Reliability’s premise regarding similarities, and overlaps, in the definition of UVLS programs and IROLs. 2. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 —Appropriate Level of Detail in UVLS Program Assessment jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 58. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5 obligate planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform an assessment of their UVLS program in various circumstances. Idaho Power contends that Reliability Standard PRC–010–1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5, do not ‘‘specifically state what must be included in the assessment, as was included in PRC–022–1 R1.1–4’’ and, therefore, do not sufficiently explain what applicable entities must include in UVLS Program assessments.84 59. We disagree with Idaho Power. Reliability Standard PRC–022–1 requires applicable entities to ‘‘analyze and document all UVLS operations and misoperations,’’ and specifically mentions set points and tripping times and a summary of the findings. In contrast, Reliability Standard PRC–010– 1 Requirement R3, requires planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform comprehensive assessments of their UVLS Programs at least once every 5 years. Each assessment ‘‘shall include, but is not limited to, studies and analyses that evaluate whether . . . the UVLS Program resolves the identified undervoltage issues for which the UVLS Program is designed [and] the UVLS Program is integrated through coordination with generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems.’’ 82 The TPL Standards require that the system remain stable and that cascading and uncontrolled islanding shall not occur for any Category B or C contingency (i.e., currently-effective TPL Standards, N–1 and N–2 contingencies) or for any Category P1 through P7 contingency (i.e., TPL–001–4, N–1 and N–2 contingencies.) See Table 1 of any of the TPL Standards. 83 See TPL Standards, Table 1. 84 Idaho Power Comments at 2. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 Requirement R4 requires applicable entities to assess whether UVLS programs resolve undervoltage issues associated with voltage excursions triggering UVLS programs. Pursuant to Requirement R5, planning coordinators and transmission planners must develop a corrective action plan to address UVLS program deficiencies identified during assessments performed under Requirements R3 and R4. We conclude that the comprehensive nature of the assessments required under Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 is sufficient, and precludes the need to include the specific items listed in PRC–022–1, Requirement R1. 3. Definition of Special Protection System 60. ITC supports the approval of the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme. ITC points out that NERC proposes to move to a single definition, Remedial Action Scheme, to eliminate the use of two terms, i.e., Special Protection System.85 Thus, ITC requests that the Commission direct NERC to remove the definition of Special Protection System from the NERC Glossary to eliminate any potential for confusion. 61. We deny ITC’s request that the Commission direct NERC to remove the definition of ‘‘Special Protection System’’ from the NERC Glossary. In its RAS Petition, NERC states that it ‘‘will continue to modify the NERC Reliability Standards until all of them reference only the defined term Remedial Action Scheme. At that time, the definition of Special Protection System will be retired.’’ 86 We are satisfied with NERC’s approach of retiring the term ‘‘Special Protection System’’ once the Reliability Standards are fully updated to reference the revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme. V. Information Collection Statement 62. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).87 OMB’s regulations require approval of certain informational collection requirements imposed by agency rules.88 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be 85 ITC Comment at 3. RAS Petition at 5. 87 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 88 5 CFR 1320.11. 86 NERC PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 73655 penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. 63. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The NOPR solicited 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 respondent’s burden, including the use of automated information techniques. No comments were received. A. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP– 011–1 64. Public Reporting Burden: As of March 2015, there are 105 balancing authorities, 11 reliability coordinators and 329 transmission operators registered with NERC. These registered entities will have to comply with 6–8 new requirements in the new proposed Reliability Standard EOP–011–1. As proposed, each registered balancing authority will have to comply with Requirements R2, R4, and, under certain circumstances, R5. Each reliability coordinator will have to comply with Requirements R1 and its subparts, R2 and its subparts, R3 and its subparts, R5 and R6. Each transmission operator will have to comply with Requirements R1 and its subparts and R4. 65. Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 replaces a combined total of 40 requirements or subparts that are found in Reliability Standards EOP–001–2.1b, EOP–003.1 and EOP–003–2. These three Reliability Standards are to be retired, concurrent with the effective date of Reliability Standard EOP–011–1. Accordingly, the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 do not create any new burdens for applicable balancing authorities or transmission operators because the requirements in Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 are already burdens or tasks imposed on this set of registered entities by Reliability Standards EOP–001–2.1b, EOP–003.1 and EOP–003–2 under FERC–725A (1902–0244). 66. Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 requires reliability coordinators to perform the additional tasks of reviewing, correcting, and coordinating their balancing authorities’ and transmission operators’ operating procedures for emergency conditions. The Commission estimates that this will add approximately 1,500 man-hours per E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 73656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations year for each reliability coordinator as described in detail in the following table: RM15–7–000 (MANDATORY RELIABILITY STANDARDS: RELIABILITY STANDARD EOP–011–1) Number of applicable registered entities Annual number of responses per respondent Total number of responses Average burden (hours) and cost per response Total annual burden hours and total annual cost Cost per respondent ($) (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 11 1 21 RC tasks necessary for EOP–011–1 compliance ........................................... 1,500 89 $92,387 B. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC– 010–1 the distribution provider registration. We estimate that five percent of all distribution providers (23) and transmission providers (3) have under voltage load shedding programs that fall under the Reliability Standard. The Reliability Standard is applicable to planning coordinators and transmission Public Reporting Burden: As of April 2015, there are 467 registered distribution providers and 50 transmission providers that are not overlapping in their registration with 16,500 $1,016,257 $92,387 planners, distribution providers, and transmission owners. However, only distribution providers and transmission owners would be responsible for the incremental compliance burden under Reliability Standard PRC–010–1, Requirement R2, as described in detail in the following table: RM15–12–000 (MANDATORY RELIABILITY STANDARDS: RELIABILITY STANDARD PRC–010–1) 90 Number of applicable registered entities Annual number of responses per respondent Total number of responses Average burden (hours) and cost per response Total annual burden hours and total annual cost Cost per respondent ($) (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) DP—Requirement 2 ................................. 23 1 23 TP—Requirement 2 ................................. 3 1 3 DP—R2 Data Retention ........................... 23 1 23 TP—R2 Data Retention ........................... 3 1 3 Total .................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ C. Remedial Action Scheme Revisions jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES 67. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission approved the definition of Special Protection System (Remedial Action Scheme) in Order No. 693. We approve a revision to the previously approved definition. The revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and related Reliability Standards are not expected to result in changes to the scope of systems covered by the Reliability Standards and other Reliability Standards that include the term Remedial Action Scheme. Therefore, the Commission does not 89 The 1,500 hour figure is broken into 1300 hours at the engineer wage rate and 200 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates assume that the engineer’s wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk’s wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https:// www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 91 36 $1,960.32 92 36 $1,960.32 12 93 $367.92 12 $367.92 828 $45,087.36 108 $5,880.96 276 $8,462.16 36 $1,103.76 1,960 ........................ $60,534.24 ........................ 1,960 368 368 expect the revisions to affect applicable entities’ current reporting burden. FERC–725G4, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC– 010–1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). FERC–725S, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP– 011–1 (Emergency Operations). Action: Proposed Collection of Information. OMB Control No: OMB Control No. 1902–0270 (FERC–725S); OMB Control No. 1902–XXXX (FERC–725G4). Respondents: Business or other forprofit and not-for-profit institutions. Frequency of Responses: One time and on-going. Necessity of the Information: The revision to NERC’s definition of the term bulk electric system 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. Specifically, the Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations and Occupation Code: 17–2071 (engineer) and 43–4071 (clerk). 90 DP = distribution provider and TP = transmission provider. 91 The 36 hour figure is broken into 24 hours at the engineer wage rate and 12 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates assume that the engineer’s wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk’s wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https:// www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17–2071 (engineer) and 43–4071 (clerk). 92 Id. 93 Clerk’s wage rate is used for managing data retention. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Protection and Control Reliability Standards. 68. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to Reliability Standards PRC– 010–1 and EOP–011–1 and made a determination that the requirements of these Reliability Standards are necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements conform to the Commission’s plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements. 69. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. 70. Comments concerning the information collections in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference the docket number of this Final Rule (Docket Nos. RM15–13– 000, RM15–12–000, and RM15–7–000) in your submission. jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 71. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 94 generally requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 72. Reliability Standard EOP–011–1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 11 entities (reliability coordinators). The remaining 434 entities (balancing authorities and transmission operators and a combination thereof) will maintain the existing levels of burden. Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC’s small business data indicates that approximately 7 of the 11 entities are small entities, or 63.63 percent of the 94 5 U.S.C. 601–12. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 respondents affected by this Reliability Standard.95 73. On average, each small entity affected may have a one-time cost of $92,387 representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 1,500 man-hours at $66.35/ hour (for engineer wages) and $30.66/ hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement. 74. Reliability Standard PRC–010–1 is expected to impose an additional burden on 26 entities (distribution providers and transmission providers or a combination thereof). Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC’s small business data indicates that approximately 8 of the 26 entities are small entities, or 30.77 percent of the respondents affected by this Reliability Standard. 75. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $1,960, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity, consisting of 36 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer wages) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information collection statement. Regarding the revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and the related Reliability Standards including the revised definition, as discussed above, the Commission estimates that proposals will have no cost impact on applicable entities, including any small entities. 76. The Commission estimates that Reliability Standards EOP–011–1 and PRC–010–1 in this Final Rule impose an additional burden on a total of 37 entities. FERC’s small business data indicates that 15 of the 37 respondents are small entities, or 40.54 percent of the respondents affected by these proposed Reliability Standards. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of $92,387 and $1,960 (EOP– 011–1 and PRC–010–1 respectively), representing a one-time review of the program for each entity. We do not consider these costs to be a significant economic impact on small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standards EOP–011–1 and PRC–010–1 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 95 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with a size threshold based on the company’s number of employees, including affiliates, the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR, we are using a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 73657 VII. Environmental Analysis 77. 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.96 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.97 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission’s regulations. VIII. Document Availability 78. 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. 79. 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. 80. 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 81. This Final Rule is effective January 25, 2016. 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 96 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 97 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1 73658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 227 / Wednesday, November 25, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Fairness Act of 1996.98 The Commission will submit the final rule to both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office. By the Commission. Issued: November 19, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–29971 Filed 11–24–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB–2015–0006; T.D. TTB–131; Ref: Notice No. 150] RIN 1513–AC18 Establishment of the Eagle Foothills Viticultural Area Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. AGENCY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 49,815-acre ‘‘Eagle Foothills’’ viticultural area in Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The viticultural area lies entirely within the established Snake River Valley viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: This final rule is effective December 28, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dominique Christianson, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202–453–1039, ext. 278. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity 98 See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:12 Nov 24, 2015 Jkt 238001 and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120–01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine’s geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following: • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition; • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA; PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary; • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings. Eagle Foothills Petition TTB received a petition from Martha Cunningham, owner of the 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, on behalf of the local grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the ‘‘Eagle Foothills’’ AVA in Gem and Ada Counties, Idaho. The proposed AVA is immediately north of the city of Eagle and is approximately 10 miles northwest of the city of Boise. The Eagle Foothills AVA is located entirely within the established Snake River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.208) and does not overlap with any other existing or proposed AVA. The original proposed name for the AVA was ‘‘Willow Creek Idaho.’’ However, TTB determined that the petition did not sufficiently demonstrate that the region is known by that name. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a request to change the proposed AVA name to ‘‘Eagle Foothills.’’ The proposed Eagle Foothills AVA contains approximately 49,815 acres, with 9 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 67 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. The petition states that an additional 4 acres will soon be added to an existing vineyard and that an additional 7 commercial vineyards covering approximately 472 acres are planned within the next few years. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Foothills AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The proposed AVA is located within the Unwooded Alkaline Foothills ecoregion of Idaho. This ecoregion is defined as an arid, sparsely populated region of rolling foothills, benches, and alluvial fans underlain by alkaline lake bed deposits. A network of seasonal creeks flowing southwesterly through the proposed AVA have created deep gulches and a rugged terrain that has a variety of slope aspects favorable to the vineyard owners. The elevation within the proposed AVA ranges from 2,490 feet to approximately 3,400 feet, with an average elevation of 2,900 feet. E:\FR\FM\25NOR1.SGM 25NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 227 (Wednesday, November 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73647-73658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket Nos. RM15-7-000, RM15-12-000, and RM15-13-000 Order No. 818]

Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards;
Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards;
Revisions to the Definition of ``Remedial Action Scheme'' and Related
Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions
of terms submitted in three related petitions by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved
Electric Reliability Organization. The Commission approves Reliability
Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage
Load Shedding). The proposed Reliability Standards consolidate,
streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-
effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection
and Control (PRC) standards. The Commission also approves NERC's
revised definition of the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in
the NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, and
modifications of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the
revised definition. Further, the Commission approves the implementation
plans, and the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability
Standards.

DATES: This rule will become effective January 25, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Juan Villar (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (772) 678-6496, Juan.Villar@ferc.gov.
Nick Henery (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8636, Nick.Henery@ferc.gov.
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 818

Final Rule

(Issued November 19, 2015)

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves Reliability Standards and definitions of terms
submitted in three related petitions by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-approved Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). In particular, the Commission approves
Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 (Emergency

[[Page 73648]]

Operations) and PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding). The Commission
finds that the Reliability Standards consolidate, streamline, and
clarify the existing requirements of several currently-effective
Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) and Protection and Control
(PRC) standards, and address certain Commission directives set forth in
Order No. 693.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
\2\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g, Order
No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Further, the Commission approves NERC's revised definition of
the term Remedial Action Scheme as set forth in the NERC Glossary of
Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC Glossary), and modifications
of specified Reliability Standards to incorporate the revised
definition. Also, the Commission approves the associated implementation
plans and assigned violation risk factors and violation severity levels
for Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 and Reliability Standard PRC-010-1,
as well as the retirement of certain currently-effective Reliability
Standards.

I. Background

3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to
Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight or
by the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC
as the ERO pursuant to FPA section 215.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006), aff'd
sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including
initial versions of EOP-001, EOP-002, and EOP-003.\4\ In addition, the
Commission directed NERC to develop certain modifications to the EOP
standards. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved several
Undervoltage Load Shedding (UVLS)-related Reliability Standards,
including PRC-010-0, PRC-021-1 and PRC-022-1.\5\ Further, the
Commission directed NERC to modify Reliability Standard PRC-010-0 to
develop an ``integrated and coordinated'' approach to all protection
systems.\6\ In Order No. 693, the Commission approved the NERC
Glossary, including NERC's currently-effective Special Protection
System and Remedial Action Scheme definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 31,242.
\5\ Id. PP 1509, 1560, and 1565. The Commission neither approved
nor rejected proposed Reliability Standard PRC-020-1, explaining
that the standard only applied to Regional Reliability
Organizations. Id. P 1555.
\6\ Id. P 1509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. NERC Petitions

5. NERC submitted three related petitions that we address together
in this Final Rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 are not
attached to this Final Rule, nor are the additional Reliability
Standards that NERC proposes to modify to incorporate the term
Remedial Action Scheme. The Reliability Standards are available on
the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in the
identified dockets and on the NERC Web site, www.nerc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. NERC EOP Petition--Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Docket No. RM15-
7-000)

6. On December 29, 2014, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission
approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, a revised definition of
``Energy Emergency'' and the associated violation risk factors and
violation severity levels, effective date and implementation plan. NERC
stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is ``to
address the effects of operating Emergencies by ensuring each
Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority has developed Operating
Plans to mitigate operating Emergencies, and that those plans are
coordinated within a Reliability Coordinator area.'' \8\ NERC explained
that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 consolidates the requirements of
three existing standards: EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and EOP-003-2
``into a single Reliability Standard that clarifies the critical
requirements for Emergency Operations while ensuring strong
communication and coordination across the functional entities.'' \9\
NERC also asserted that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 satisfies seven
Commission directives set forth in Order No. 693.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ NERC EOP Petition at 2.
\9\ Id. at 3.
\10\ Id. at 12-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. NERC noted that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, Requirements R2
and R6 incorporate Attachment 1, which describes three Energy Emergency
levels used by the reliability coordinator and the process for
communicating the condition of a balancing authority experiencing an
Energy Emergency.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Attachment 1 describes three alert levels: Energy Emergency
Alert Level 1 (all available generation resources in use, concern
about sustaining required contingency reserves); Energy Emergency
Alert Level 2 (load management procedures in effect, energy
deficient balancing authority implements its emergency Operating
Plan but maintains minimum contingency reserve requirements); and
Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (firm load interruption is imminent
or in process, energy deficient balancing authority unable to
maintain minimum contingency reserve requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 includes six requirements, and is
applicable to balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and
transmission operators. Requirement R1 requires transmission operators
to develop, maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed
operating plans to mitigate operating emergencies in its ``transmission
operating area.'' \12\ Requirement R1 provides that, ``as applicable,''
operating plans must: (1) Describe the roles and responsibilities for
activating the operating plan; and (2) include processes to prepare for
and mitigate emergencies, such as Reliability Coordinator notification,
transmission system reconfiguration, and redispatch of generation. NERC
explained that Requirement R1 uses the phrase ``as applicable'' to
provide ``flexibility to account for regional differences and pre-
existing methods for mitigating emergencies.'' \13\ NERC added that an
entity's decision to omit an element as not ``applicable'' must include
an explanation in its plan. NERC further explained that the requirement
for transmission operators to maintain operating plans includes the
expectation that the plans are current and up-to-date.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Operating Plan is defined in the NERC Glossary as a
``document that identifies a group of activities that may be used to
achieve some goal. An Operating Plan may contain Operating
Procedures and Operating Processes . . .''
\13\ NERC EOP Petition at 9.
\14\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Requirement R2 requires balancing authorities to develop,
maintain and implement reliability coordinator-reviewed operating plans
to mitigate capacity and energy emergencies in its ``balancing
authority area.'' Similar to the operating plans developed by
transmission operators pursuant to the first requirement, the elements
of the operating plans developed by balancing authorities allow for
flexibility, provided an explanation is provided for omitted
elements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Requirement R3 requires reliability coordinators to review the
operating plans submitted by transmission operators and balancing
authorities and is designed to ensure that there is appropriate
coordination of reliability risks identified in the operating plans. In
reviewing operating plans, reliability coordinators shall consider
compatibility, coordination

[[Page 73649]]

and inter-dependency with other entity operating plans and notify
transmission providers and balancing authorities if revisions to their
operating plans are necessary.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Requirement R4 requires transmission operators and balancing
authorities to resolve any issues identified by the reliability
coordinator and resubmit their revised operating plans within a time
period specified by the reliability coordinator. Requirement R5
requires reliability coordinators to notify balancing authorities and
transmission operators in its area, and neighboring reliability
coordinators, within 30 minutes of receiving an emergency notification.
Requirement R6 requires a reliability coordinator with a balancing
authority experiencing a potential or actual Energy Emergency to
declare an Energy Emergency alert in accordance with Attachment 1.
12. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 also includes the
following revised definition of Energy Emergency:

Energy Emergency--A condition when a Load-Serving Entity or
Balancing Authority has exhausted all other resource options and can
no longer meet its expected Load obligations.

NERC explained that the revised definition is intended to clarify that
an Energy Emergency is not limited to a load-serving entity and, based
on a review of the impact on the body of NERC Reliability Standards,
``does not change the reliability intent of other requirements of
Definitions.'' \17\

\17\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard EOP-
011-1 that is the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 12
months after the date of Commission approval, and a retirement date for
currently-effective Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1 and
EOP-003-2 of midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective
date of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1.

B. NERC PRC Petition--Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Docket
No. RM15-12-000)

14. On February 6, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of
Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding), a revised
definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program) for
inclusion in the NERC Glossary, and the associated violation risk
factors, violation severity levels, effective date and implementation
plan. NERC also proposed the retirement of four PRC Reliability
Standards.\18\ NERC stated that the purpose of Reliability Standard
PRC-010-1 is to ``establish an integrated and coordinated approach to
the design, evaluation, and reliable operation of Undervoltage Load
Shedding Programs'' as directed by the Commission in Order No. 693.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Reliability Standards PRC-010-0 (Assessment of the Design
and Effectiveness of UVLS Program); PRC-020-1 (Under-Voltage Load
Shedding Program Database); PRC-021-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding
Program Data); and PRC-022-1 (Under-Voltage Load Shedding Program
Performance).
\19\ NERC PRC Petition at 14 (citing Order No. 693, FERC Stats &
Regs ] 31,242 at P 1509).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. NERC explained that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is a single,
comprehensive standard that addresses the same reliability principles
outlined in the four currently-effective UVLS-related Reliability
Standards.\20\ Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 replaces the
applicability to and involvement of ``Regional Reliability
Organization'' in Reliability Standards PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1 and
improves upon and consolidates the four currently-effective UVLS-
Related Standards into one comprehensive standard. NERC explained that
Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 ``reflects consideration of the 2003
Blackout Report recommendations,'' \21\ particularly, Recommendation 21
for NERC to ``make more effective and wider use of system protection
measures'' \22\ and Recommendation 21C for NERC to ``determine the
goals and principles needed to establish an integrated approach to
relay protection for generators and transmission lines, as well as of
UFLS and UVLS programs.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Id.
\21\ Id. at 2 (citing the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task
Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, April, 2004 (2003
Blackout Report)).
\22\ Id. at 4 (citing 2003 Blackout Report at 3, 158).
\23\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 incorporates a new definition of
UVLS Program, which reads:

Undervoltage Load Shedding Program (UVLS Program): An automatic
load shedding program, consisting of distributed relays and
controls, used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the
Bulk Electric System (BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage
collapse, or Cascading. Centrally controlled undervoltage-based load
shedding is not included.

NERC explained that ``to ensure that the applicability of the proposed
Reliability Standard covers undervoltage[hyphen]based load shedding
systems whose performance has an impact on system reliability, a UVLS
Program must mitigate risk of one or more of the following: Voltage
instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading impacting the Bulk Electric
System. By focusing on the enumerated risks, the definition is meant to
exclude locally[hyphen]applied relays that are not designed to mitigate
wide[hyphen]area voltage collapse.'' \24\ NERC stated that the UVLS
Program definition ``clearly identifies and separates centrally
controlled undervoltage-based load shedding, which is now addressed by
the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme.'' \25\

\24\ Id. at 16.
\25\ Id. at 15. NERC's petition for approval of the proposed
definition of Remedial Action Scheme (Docket No. RM15-13-000) is
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 applies to planning coordinators
and transmission planners because ``either may be responsible for
designing and coordinating the UVLS Program . . . [and] also applies to
Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for the
ownership, operation and control of UVLS equipment as required by the
UVLS Program established by the Transmission Planner or Planning
Coordinator.'' \26\ NERC explained that the planning coordinator or
transmission planner that establishes a UVLS Program is responsible for
identifying the UVLS equipment and the necessary distribution provider
and transmission owner (referred to as ``UVLS entities'' in the
Applicability section) that performs the required actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. NERC stated that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 ``applies only
after an entity has determined the need for a UVLS Program as a result
of its own planning studies.'' \27\ NERC explained that the eight
requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 meet four primary
objectives: (1) The Reliability Standard requires applicable entities
to evaluate a UVLS Program's effectiveness prior to implementation,
including coordination with other protection systems and generator
voltage ride-through capabilities; (2) applicable entities must comply
with UVLS program specifications and implementation schedule; (3)
applicable entities must perform periodic assessment and performance
analysis; and (4) applicable entities must maintain and share UVLS
Program data.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Id. at 14.
\28\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator or
transmission planner to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of its
UVLS program before implementation to confirm its effectiveness in
resolving the undervoltage conditions for which it

[[Page 73650]]

was designed, and that it is integrated through coordination with
generator ride-through capabilities and other protection and control
systems. Also, the planning coordinator or transmission planner must
provide the UVLS Program specifications and implementation schedule to
the applicable UVLS entities. Requirement R2 requires UVLS entities to
meet the UVLS Program's specifications and implementation schedule
provided by the planning coordinator or transmission planner or address
any necessary corrective actions in accordance with Requirement R5.
20. Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator or
transmission planner to perform periodic comprehensive assessments at
least every 60 calendar months to ensure continued effectiveness of the
UVLS program, including whether the program resolves identified
undervoltage issues and that it is integrated and coordinated with
generator voltage ride-through capabilities and other specified
protection and control systems. Requirement R4 requires each planning
coordinator or transmission planner to commence a timely assessment of
a voltage excursion subject to the UVLS Program, within 12 calendar
months of the event, to evaluate whether the UVLS Program resolved the
undervoltage issues associated with the event. Requirement R5 requires
a corrective action plan for any program deficiencies identified during
an assessment performed under either Requirement R3 or R4, and provide
an implementation schedule to UVLS entities within three calendar
months of its completion.
21. Pursuant to Requirement R6, a planning coordinator must update
the data necessary to model its UVLS Program for use in event analyses
and program assessments at least each calendar year. Requirement R7
requires each UVLS entity to provide data to its planning coordinator,
according to the planning coordinator's format and schedule, to support
maintenance of the UVLS Program database. Requirement R8 requires a
planning coordinator to provide its UVLS Program database to other
planning coordinators and transmission planners within its
Interconnection, and other functional entities with a reliability need,
within 30 calendar days of a written request.
22. NERC proposed an effective date for Reliability Standard PRC-
010-1 and the definition of UVLS Program of the first day of the first
calendar quarter that is 12 months after the date that the standard and
definition are approved by the Commission. NERC proposed to retire PRC-
010-0, PRC-020-1, PRC-021-1, and PRC-022-1 at midnight of the day
immediately prior to the effective date of PRC-010-1.\29\ Further, NERC
explained that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 addresses reliability
obligations that are set forth in Requirements R2, R4 and R7 of
currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-003-2.\30\ Since NERC has
proposed to retire EOP-003-2 in the petition seeking approval of
Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 (Docket No. RM15-7-00, discussed above),
concurrent Commission action on the two petitions will prevent a
possible reliability gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Id. Ex. B (Implementation Plan).
\30\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. NERC RAS Petition--Revisions to the Definition of ``Remedial Action
Scheme'' (Docket No. RM15-13-000)

23. On February 3, 2015, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of
a revised definition of Remedial Action Scheme in the NERC Glossary, as
well as modified Reliability Standards that incorporate the new
Remedial Action Scheme definition and eliminate use of the term Special
Protection System, and the associated implementation plan.\31\ NERC
stated that the defined terms Special Protection System and Remedial
Action Scheme are currently used interchangeably throughout the NERC
Regions and in various Reliability Standards. NERC explained that
``[a]lthough these defined terms share a common definition in the NERC
Glossary of Terms today, their use and application have been
inconsistent as a result of a lack of granularity in the definition and
varied regional uses of the terms. The proposed revisions add clarity
and granularity that will allow for proper identification of Remedial
Action Schemes and a more consistent application of related Reliability
Standards.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ NERC RAS Petition at 1-2. NERC requested approval of the
following Reliability Standards to incorporate the proposed
definition of Remedial Action Scheme and eliminate use of the term
Special Protection System: EOP-004-3, PRC-005-3(ii), PRC-023-4, FAC-
010-3, TPL-001-0.1(i), FAC-011-3, TPL-002-0(i)b, MOD-030-3, TPL-003-
0(i)b, MOD-029-2a, PRC-015-1, TPL-004-0(i)a, PRC-004-WECC-2, PRC-
016-1, PRC-001-1.1(i), PRC-005-2(ii), PRC-017-1. NERC did not
propose any changes to the Violation Risk Factors or Violation
Severity Levels for the modified standards.
\32\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. NERC explained that the revised Remedial Action Scheme
definition consists of a ``core'' definition, including a list of
objectives and a separate list of exclusions for certain schemes or
systems not intended to be covered by the revised definition.\33\ NERC
stated that a broad definition is needed because of ``all the possible
scenarios an entity may develop'' for its Remedial Action Scheme and a
``very specific, narrow definition may unintentionally exclude schemes
that should be covered.'' \34\ Accordingly, NERC proposed the following
revised ``core'' definition of Remedial Action Scheme:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Id. at 16. NERC noted that ``for each exclusion, the scheme
or system could still classify as a Remedial Action Scheme if
employed in a broader scheme that meets the definition of Remedial
Action Scheme.''
\34\ Id. at 17.

A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and
automatically take corrective actions that may include, but are not
limited to, adjusting or tripping generation (MW and Mvar), tripping
load, or reconfiguring a System(s). (sic) RAS accomplish objectives
such as:
Meet requirements identified in the NERC Reliability
Standards;
Maintain Bulk Electric System (BES) stability;
Maintain acceptable BES voltages;
Maintain acceptable BES power flows;
Limit the impact of Cascading or extreme events.

The definition then lists fourteen exclusions, describing specific
schemes and systems that do not constitute a Remedial Action Scheme,
because each is either a protection function, a control function, a
combination of both, or used for system configuration.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. In the implementation plan, NERC proposed an effective date for
the revised Reliability Standards and the revised definition of
Remedial Action Scheme on the first day of the first calendar quarter
that is 12 months after Commission approval.\36\ NERC also proposed
that, for entities with existing schemes that become newly classified
as ``Remedial Action Schemes'' resulting from the application of the
revised definition, the entities will have additional time of up to 24
months from the effective date to be fully compliant with all
applicable Reliability Standards.\37\ Further, NERC asked the
Commission to take final action concurrently with the NERC petition on
proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 (Docket No. RM15-12-000)
because ``[t]he proposed definitions of UVLS Program and Remedial
Action Scheme in each project have been coordinated to cover centrally
controlled UVLS as a Remedial Action Scheme. Final action by the
Commission is needed

[[Page 73651]]

contemporaneously on both petitions to facilitate implementation and
avoid a gap in coverage of centrally controlled UVLS.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ NERC RAS Petition, Ex. C (Implementation Plan) at 4.
\37\ Id.
\38\ NERC RAS Petition at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

26. On June 18, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the Reliability Standards and
NERC Glossary definitions set forth in NERC's three petitions
pertaining to EOP-011-1, PRC-010-1 and a revised definition of Remedial
Action Scheme as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential and in the public interest. \39\ The Commission also
proposed to approve the related violation risk factors, violation
severity levels and implementation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards;
Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards;
Revisions to the Definition of ``Remedial Action Scheme'' and
Related Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR
36,293 (June 24, 2015), 151 FERC ] 61,230 (2015) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. The Commission proposed to approve the retirement of
Reliability Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-002-3.1, EOP-003-2, PRC-010-0,
PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1. However, the Commission expressed concerns
about whether it was appropriate to retire PRC-022-1 before a
replacement Reliability Standard is approved and implemented to address
the potential misoperation of UVLS equipment. Accordingly, the
Commission proposed to deny NERC's request to retire Reliability
Standard PRC-022-1 concurrent with the effective date of PRC-010-1.
28. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that Reliability Standards
EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1 provide greater clarity and that the
consolidation of currently-effective EOP and PRC standards provides
additional efficiencies for responsible entities. The Commission also
agreed with NERC that the new definition of Remedial Action Scheme will
improve reliability by eliminating ambiguity and encouraging the
consistent identification of Remedial Action Schemes and a more
consistent application of related Reliability Standards.
29. While the Commission proposed to approve Reliability Standard
PRC-010-1, the Commission raised questions and sought clarification
regarding an example of a ``BES subsystem'' that NERC provided in the
``Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition.'' The Commission indicated
that, depending on the response from NERC and others, a directive for
further modification may be appropriate.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ NOPR, 151 FERC ] 61,230 at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received comments from:
NERC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Peak Reliability, Transmission
Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), International Transmission Company
(ITC), Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities
Company (LG&E/KU) and Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power).

IV. Discussion

31. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve Reliability
Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1, the revised definition of Remedial
Action Scheme and NERC Glossary definitions, and associated violation
risk factors and violation severity levels and implementation plans as
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the
public interest. The Commission believes that the modified Reliability
Standards provide greater clarity, and the consolidated EOP and PRC
standards will provide additional efficiencies for responsible
entities. We also determine that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1
adequately addresses seven Order No. 693 directives, and that
Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 establishes an integrated and
coordinated approach to the design, evaluation and reliable operation
of UVLS Programs, and therefore satisfies the Commission directive
issued in Order No. 693.\41\ Further, we approve the retirement of
certain Reliability Standards as identified by NERC.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1509.
\42\ As noted above, the Commission in Order No. 693 did not
approve or remand proposed Reliability Standard PRC-020-1 but,
rather, took no action on the Reliability Standard pending the
receipt of additional information. Order No. 693, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1555. Our approval of NERC's request renders
PRC-020-1 ``retired,'' i.e., withdrawn, and no longer pending before
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. We discuss below the following issues raised in the NOPR and
comments: (1) The deregistration of load-serving entities and
Reliability Standard EOP-011-1; (2) the scheduling and scope of
reliability coordinator reviews of Operating Plans under Reliability
Standard EOP-011-1; (3) the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-022-
1; (4) the term ``BES subsystem'' and related diagram in NERC's PRC
Petition; and (5) other issues raised by commenters.

A. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1

1. The Deregistration of Load-Serving Entities
NOPR
33. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard
EOP-011-1 and a new Energy Emergency definition, the Commission stated
that the removal of load-serving entities from the Reliability Standard
raises questions about who would perform the roles traditionally
performed by load-serving entities.\43\ The NOPR explained that the
Commission's decision concerning NERC's compliance filing in Docket No.
RR15-4-000 related to NERC's Risk-Based Registration initiative would
guide the Commission's action on this question in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ NOPR, 151 FERC ] 61,230 at P 24, n.36. Currently effective
EOP-002-3.1 applies, inter alia, to load-serving entities.
Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 replaces EOP-002-3.1, and applies to
balancing authorities, reliability coordinators and transmission
operators, but not load-serving entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
34. NERC, EEI, TAPS, ITC and Idaho Power support the Commission's
proposed approval of Reliability Standard EOP-011-1. Further, NERC, EEI
and TAPS state that excluding load-serving entities from the
Reliability Standard will not create a reliability gap. NERC states
that currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-002-3.1 Requirement
R9 is the only requirement in the three Reliability Standards being
replaced by Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 that applies to load-serving
entities. NERC explains that the North American Energy Standards Board
(NAESB) has modified the process for E-tag specifications, removing the
load-serving entities' role in making changes to the priority of
transmission service requests. Therefore, the ``Standard Drafting Team
did not incorporate Requirement R9 into Reliability Standard EOP-011-1,
because Requirement R9 has become obsolete due to technological
changes.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ NERC Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

35. Additionally, NERC explains that, due to the Real-time nature
of energy emergencies, balancing authorities and distribution providers
will handle responsibilities related to Reliability Standard EOP-002-
3.1 that have been performed by load-serving entities. Referring to the
Mapping Document and Application Guidelines for Reliability Standard
EOP-011-1, NERC states that ``LSEs have no Real-time reliability

[[Page 73652]]

functionality with respect to EEAs [Energy Emergency Alerts].'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. TAPS and EEI agree with NERC's analysis of the roles and
responsibilities of load-serving entities and that excluding them will
not create any reliability gaps. TAPS states that ``there is no
reliability benefit to retaining EOP-002-3.1's Requirement R9, and thus
no reliability risk from eliminating the LSE obligation to comply with
it.'' \46\ EEI asserts that ``NERC is correct that `tasks currently
assigned to the LSE function under NERC Reliability Standards would
continue to be performed by other functions subject to currently
applicable LSE Reliability Standard Requirements or by market
participants (including LSEs) pursuant to existing tariffs, market
rules, market protocols and other market agreements.' '' \47\ Regarding
Operating Plans that transmission operators and balancing authorities
are to develop under Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirements R1 and
R2, EEI states that ``it is clear that the responsible entities
required to perform the activities attributed to the LSE function
necessary to aid in arresting an Energy Emergency must be identified to
ensure necessary mitigation can be accomplished in order to ensure
reliable operation of the BES.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ TAPS Comments at 4.
\47\ EEI Comments at 5-6, quoting NERC's compliance filing in
RR15-4-000 at 1.
\48\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

37. LG&E/KU seeks clarification on two questions pertaining to the
exclusion of load-serving entities from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1
``to ensure that even if NERC's EOP proposal is accepted, [balancing
authorities] will have a meaningful way of addressing any operational
gaps with Energy Emergencies and LSEs.'' \49\ First, LG&E/KU seeks
clarification that an Energy Emergency can be isolated to a load-
serving entity's inability to meet its own load obligations, as
indicated in NERC's revised definition of Energy Emergency. Second,
LG&E/KU seeks clarification that Operating Plans developed by balancing
authorities may describe the role for load-serving entities in
responding to an Energy Emergency, and may include such Operating Plans
in applicable tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ LG&E/KU Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
38. Consistent with our determination in the ``risk-based
registration'' proceeding, we find that the elimination of load-serving
entities from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 will not prevent the
Reliability Standard from achieving its stated purposes or otherwise
create reliability gaps.\50\ We find that Reliability Standard EOP-011-
1 enhances reliability by requiring that actions necessary to mitigate
capacity and energy emergencies are focused in single operating plans,
and ensures communication and coordination among relevant entities
during emergency operations. We are persuaded by NERC's explanation
that excluding load-serving entities will not adversely impact
reliability due to technological changes concerning NAESB tagging
specifications, and that load-serving entities ``have no Real-time
reliability functionality with respect to EEAs [Energy Emergency
Alerts].'' \51\ Further, as both NERC and EEI have stated, ``tasks
currently assigned to the LSE function under NERC Reliability Standards
would continue to be performed by other functions subject to currently
applicable LSE Reliability Standard Requirements or by market
participants (including LSEs) pursuant to tariffs, market rules, market
protocols and other market agreements.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 153 FERC ]
61,024, at P 20 (2015) (RBR Compliance Order) (approving the
proposed elimination of the load-serving entity function).
\51\ NERC Comments at 5, quoting the EOP-011-1 Mapping Document
and Application Guidelines.
\52\ EEI Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. We disagree with LG&E/KU's suggestion that the reference to
load-serving entities in NERC's revised definition of Energy Emergency
indicates the possibility of an ``operational gap.'' NERC revises the
definition of ``Energy Emergency,'' approved in this Final Rule, as
``[a] condition when a Load-Serving Entity or Balancing Authority has
exhausted all other resource options and can no longer meet its
expected Load obligations.'' \53\ Based on a plain reading of this
definition, we agree with LG&E/KU that a load-serving entity's
inability to meet its own load obligations could result in an Energy
Emergency. Moreover, consistent with our findings in the RBR Compliance
Order, we agree with LG&E/KU that operating plans developed by
balancing authorities--including operating plans contained in
applicable tariffs--may describe the role for load-serving entities in
responding to an Energy Emergency.\54\ EEI's observation regarding
Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 Requirements R1 and R2 for transmission
operators and balancing authorities to develop Operating Plans to
mitigate Energy Emergencies reinforces this determination: ``[a]lthough
these requirements do not specifically identify the `who' or `what'
actions to be taken, it is clear that the responsible entities required
to perform the activities attributed to the LSE function necessary to
aid in arresting an energy emergency must be identified to ensure
necessary mitigation can be accomplished in order to ensure reliable
operation of the BES.'' \55\ Accordingly, we conclude that elimination
of the load-serving entity function from Reliability Standard EOP-011-1
does not result in an operational gap and, rather, provides a
reasonable means of addressing Energy Emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ NERC EOP Petition, Ex. B (Implementation Plan) at 1.
\54\ RBR Compliance Order, 153 FERC ] 61,024 at 21.
\55\ EEI Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Scheduling and Scope of Reliability Coordinator Reviews of
Operating Plans
40. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1, Requirement R3 obligates a
reliability coordinator to review the Operating Plan(s) to mitigate
operating emergencies submitted by a transmission operator or a
balancing authority. Pursuant to Requirement R3.1, a reliability
coordinator must, within 30 days of receipt, (i) review each Operating
Plan for compatibility and inter-dependency with other transmission
operator or balancing authority Operating Plans, (ii) review each
Operating Plan for coordination to avoid risk to ``Wide Area''
reliability, and (iii) notify each transmission operator and balancing
authority of the results of the review.
Comments
41. Peak Reliability asserts that the ``inflexible'' 30 day period
for reliability coordinator reviews of operating plans in Reliability
Standard EOP-011-1 Requirement R3.1 is not reasonable. According to
Peak Reliability, because transmission operators have an ``open ended''
opportunity to submit operating plans under the provision, reliability
coordinators cannot schedule in advance the needed resources to perform
a proper review in the 30-day window. Peak Reliability notes that, in
its experience, many entities update their plans at the end of the
year, creating a large spike in review work at that time. Peak
Reliability, therefore, recommends revising Requirement R3.1 to include
language requiring ``a mutually agreed predetermined schedule'' to
ensure that the reliability coordinator can efficiently allocate its

[[Page 73653]]

resources and provide a thorough review of submitted operating
plans.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ Peak Reliability Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. Peak Reliability also seeks clarification regarding the scope
of reliability coordinator review of operating plans, and whether a
reliability coordinator must review each required element of an
operating plan specified in Requirement R2 for ``compatibility and
interdependency'' with other balancing authority and transmission
operator operating plans, or ``evaluate these elements on a higher
level.'' \57\ Peak Reliability asserts that the ``appropriate level of
review'' by reliability coordinators is ``for coordination to avoid
risk to Wide Area reliability.'' Based on this assertion, Peak
Reliability recommends that Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 require
balancing authorities and transmission operators to identify and
coordinate possible operating plan discrepancies before submission for
reliability coordinator review, as currently required under Reliability
Standard EOP-001-2.1b Requirement R6.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ Id. at 7.
\58\ Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
43. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability's comments that the 30
day review period in Requirement R3.1 is unduly onerous. No reliability
coordinator other than Peak Reliability expressed concern about the 30
day review period for operating plans in Requirement R3.1. NERC
explains that transmission operators and balancing authorities must
update their operating plans on an ``ongoing and as-needed basis.''
\59\ The need for registered entities to update operating plans to
address evolving bulk electric system conditions should prevent
reliability coordinators from being overwhelmed or unduly burdened by
operating plan submissions. However, if Peak Reliability experiences an
``end of the year spike in workload,'' \60\ as a reliability
coordinator, Peak Reliability can adjust its resource allocation to
accommodate such known ``spikes'' in activity. Accordingly, we conclude
the 30 day review period in Requirement R3.1 is reasonable and reject
Peak Reliability's recommendation for language requiring a ``mutually
agreed predetermined schedule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ See NERC EOP Petition at 9.
\60\ See Peak Reliability Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

44. Additionally, we believe that Peak Reliability's concern
regarding the extent of reliability coordinator Operating Plan review
for ``compatibility and interdependency'' under Reliability Standard
EOP-011-1 Requirement 3.1.1 is misplaced. Based on the record before
us, particularly the Standard Drafting Team's decision to require
reliability coordinators to review rather than approve operating plans,
and the ongoing nature of emergency planning, we conclude that
Requirement R3.1.1 contemplates high level assessments focused on the
coordination of operating plans between and among transmission
operators and balancing authorities.\61\ Moreover, while Peak
Reliability may request that NERC (e.g., through a standard
authorization request or ``SAR'') include a provision in EOP-011-1 to
require coordination among transmission operators and balancing
authorities prior to submitting an operating plan for reliability
coordinator review, we are not persuaded to direct NERC to develop such
a provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ See NERC EOP Petition, Exhibit G (Summary of Development
History and Complete Record of Development) at 1166 (the Standard
Drafting Team indicates that the provision is intended to require
the reliability coordinator review of deficiencies, inconsistencies
or conflicts between operating plans that would cause further system
degradation during emergency conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1

1. Retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-022-1
NOPR
45. In the NOPR, while proposing to approve Reliability Standard
PRC-010-1 and the retirement of PRC-010-0, PRC-020-1 and PRC-021-1, the
Commission was not persuaded that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1,
Requirement R4 is an adequate replacement for currently-effective PRC-
022-1, which contains requirements specifically addressing
misoperations. Rather, the Commission proposed that Reliability
Standard PRC-022-1 would remain in effect until an acceptable
replacement Reliability Standard is in place to address the potential
misoperation of UVLS equipment.
Comments
46. NERC states that, on June 9, 2015, it filed proposed
Reliability Standards PRC-010-2 and PRC-004-5 as part of its UVLS Phase
II Petition (Project 2008-02.2), which includes requirements and
applicability criteria related to UVLS misoperations.\62\ NERC explains
that its filing requests that the Commission approve Reliability
Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 concurrently with the Commission's
action on Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 ``to ensure an integrated and
coordinated approach to UVLS Programs and fill the gap in Reliability
Standard coverage that might be perceived through retirement of PRC-
022-1.'' \63\ EEI agrees, stating that NERC's filing of proposed
Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 address the Commission's
concerns expressed in the NOPR.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards PRC-004-5
and PRC-010-2, (Docket No. RD15-5-000).
\63\ NERC Comments at 8.
\64\ EEI Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
47. We agree with NERC and EEI that the Delegated Letter Order
approval of Reliability Standards PRC-004-5 and PRC-010-2 in Docket No.
RD15-5-000 concurrent with this Final Rule precludes the need to retain
currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-022-1.\65\ Accordingly, we
find that Reliability Standard PRC-022-1 can be retired without
creating a gap in coverage with regard to UVLS protective relay
misoperations and equipment performance evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ See Delegated Letter Order issued November 19, 2915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Term ``BES Subsystem'' and Related Diagram
NOPR
48. In the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification of the meaning
of NERC's use of the term ``BES subsystem'' in a diagram illustrating a
UVLS system that would not be included in the definition of UVLS
Program if the consequences of the contingency do not impact the bulk
electric system, and whether it would be considered a Remedial Action
Scheme.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ See NOPR, 151 FERC ] 61,230 at P 27 (including diagram).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
49. NERC comments that the term ``BES subsystem'' and accompanying
diagram are ``intended to demonstrate that whether PRC-010-1 applies to
a UVLS system depends on whether the UVLS system is used to mitigate
undervoltage conditions impacting areas of the BES, leading to voltage
instability, voltage collapse or Cascading.'' \67\ NERC also states
that ``the term `BES subsystem' is a shorthand reference to an area of
the BES that a Registered Entity is responsible for, consistent with
its obligations under mandatory Reliability Standards. This reference
does not revise the Commission-

[[Page 73654]]

approved definition of `Bulk Electric System' or create a new term.''
\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ NERC Comments at 6-7.
\68\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

50. NERC explains that the diagram ``is not intended to necessarily
illustrate a centrally controlled UVLS (considered a [Remedial Action
Scheme]), but to illustrate how Registered Entities should evaluate
whether the term UVLS Program and proposed Reliability Standard PRC-
010-1 applies to a UVLS system.'' \69\ NERC points out that, if a UVLS
system in the ``BES subsystem'' is used to mitigate undervoltage
conditions impacting the BES (leading to voltage instability, voltage
collapse, or Cascading), the system would fall under the new definition
of UVLS Program (or RAS if centrally controlled) and thus in the scope
of Reliability Standard PRC-010-1.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ Id.
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

51. EEI states that the example of ``BES subsystem'' in the
``Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition'' does not represent a
centrally controlled UVLS and therefore would not be considered a
Remedial Action Scheme. EEI explains that the term UVLS Program ``is
for a scheme that consists of distributed relays and controls, not for
a scheme that is centrally controlled. The key point is that for a UVLS
system to fall under the definition of Undervoltage Load Shedding
Program, it must be used to protect the BES against voltage
instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.'' \71\ EEI also notes that
the term ``BES subsystem'' is not intended to be a new NERC term, but
rather ``was used in the example to illustrate a possible localized
undervoltage contingency on a very small portion of the BES but not a
contingency that impacts a larger area of the BES that could result in
voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ EEI Comments at 8.
\72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
52. Based on the explanations provided above, we determine that a
directive for further modification of the example of ``BES subsystem''
and related diagram in NERC's ``Guidelines for UVLS Program
Definition'' to ensure consistency with the Commission-approved
definition of ``bulk electric system'' proposed in the NOPR is not
necessary. Rather, we are persuaded that EEI's concern with the diagram
is addressed by NERC's explanation that, depending on the role of a
particular UVLS system, the diagram could illustrate an example of a
UVLS Program or a centrally-controlled Remedial Action Scheme.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Other Issues Raised By Commenters

1. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1--Applicability
53. Peak Reliability asserts that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1
``does not adequately address the operation of UVLS Programs, as it
does not apply to the NERC functional entities that operate the Bulk
Electric System,'' particularly, reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, and balancing authorities.\74\ Peak Reliability contends
that UVLS Programs should be included in operational planning and real-
time assessments, and that all entities responsible for operating the
bulk electric system must be given access to UVLS Program
databases.\75\ Further, Peak Reliability requests that the Commission
direct NERC to explain why Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 and
Reliability Standard IRO-009-1 apply to different functional entities
(since the purpose of both is to prevent instability, uncontrolled
separation or cascading outages), and recommends that the treatment of
UVLS in operations planning and real-time assessments be addressed.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ Peak Reliability Comments at 9.
\75\ Id. at 9-10.
\76\ Id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

54. We are not persuaded by Peak Reliability's assertion that
Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 should apply to reliability
coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities.
Rather, as NERC explains ``[t]he applicability includes both the
Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner because either may be
responsible for designing and coordinating the UVLS Program.
Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 also applies to Distribution Providers
and Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation and
control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established
by the Transmission Planner and Planning Coordinator.'' \77\ As NERC's
rationale above indicates, the applicability section of the Reliability
Standard identities the functional entities responsible for the design,
operation and control of UVLS Programs and related equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ NERC EOP Petition at 15, and id. Ex. D (Order No. 672
Criteria) at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

55. While Peak Reliability seeks to expand applicability to
functional entities so that UVLS Program databases would be shared with
reliability coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing
authorities, we believe that this need to expand applicability is
unfounded. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R8, provides
that other functional entities with a reliability need can request UVLS
data, and that such requests must be answered in 30 days.
56. Nor are we persuaded by Peak Reliability's argument that UVLS
programs should be considered in operations planning and real-time
operations. We understand that Peak Reliability refers to the
consideration of UVLS programs in the derivation of Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limits (IROLs) for Category B contingencies as
defined in the currently-effective transmission planning standard TPL-
002-0b (commonly known as N-1 contingencies under normal system
operation).\78\ With this understanding, we disagree with Peak
Reliability on the relevance of using UVLS in the derivation of IROLs
for N-1 contingencies. The 2003 Canada-United States Blackout Report
stated that ``[s]afety nets should not be relied upon to establish
transfer limits.'' \79\ This statement is consistent with the
performance criteria established in TPL-002-0b and TPL-001-4, which
generally prohibit the loss of non-consequential load for certain N-1
contingencies.\80\ We conclude that UVLS programs under PRC-010-1 are
examples of such ``safety nets'' and should not be tools used by bulk
electric system operators to calculate operating limits for N-1
contingencies. Likewise, with this understanding, there is no
imperative to make PRC-010-1 applicable to reliability coordinators,
transmission operators, and balancing authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ The Commission-approved Version 4 standard, TPL-001-4, will
replace TPL-002-0b on January 1, 2016. See Transmission Planning
Reliability Standards, Order No. 786, 145 FERC ] 61,051 (2013).
\79\ 2003 Blackout Report at 109.
\80\ See TPL-002-0b, Table 1, footnote b and TPL-001-4, Table 1,
Footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

57. Peak Reliability comments that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1
``creates some confusion of the applicability of UVLS Programs due to
the similarities, and apparent overlap, in the definitions of UVLS
Programs and IROLs.'' \81\ We disagree. Peak Reliability's comparison
of UVLS Programs with establishing and operating within IROLs is
misplaced because UVLS Programs and IROLs represent separate and
distinct approaches to system security. UVLS Programs act as safety
nets for contingencies more severe than N-1 contingencies, such as the
simultaneous

[[Page 73655]]

loss of two single circuits or a double-circuit line which are both
Category C contingencies permitting loss of non-consequential firm
load.\82\ In contrast, the NERC Glossary defines IROLs as ``[a] System
Operating Limit that, if violated, could lead to instability,
uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages that adversely impact the
reliability of the Bulk Electric System.'' This corresponds with the
TPL-004-1 provisions requiring that the system must remain stable when
experiencing an N-1 contingency (such as Category B or P1
contingencies).\83\ In sum, we disagree with Peak Reliability's premise
regarding similarities, and overlaps, in the definition of UVLS
programs and IROLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Peak Reliability Comments at 11.
\82\ The TPL Standards require that the system remain stable and
that cascading and uncontrolled islanding shall not occur for any
Category B or C contingency (i.e., currently-effective TPL
Standards, N-1 and N-2 contingencies) or for any Category P1 through
P7 contingency (i.e., TPL-001-4, N-1 and N-2 contingencies.) See
Table 1 of any of the TPL Standards.
\83\ See TPL Standards, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 --Appropriate Level of Detail in UVLS
Program Assessment
58. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirements R3, R4, and R5
obligate planning coordinators and transmission planners to perform an
assessment of their UVLS program in various circumstances. Idaho Power
contends that Reliability Standard PRC-010-1, Requirements R3, R4, and
R5, do not ``specifically state what must be included in the
assessment, as was included in PRC-022-1 R1.1-4'' and, therefore, do
not sufficiently explain what applicable entities must include in UVLS
Program assessments.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Idaho Power Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

59. We disagree with Idaho Power. Reliability Standard PRC-022-1
requires applicable entities to ``analyze and document all UVLS
operations and misoperations,'' and specifically mentions set points
and tripping times and a summary of the findings. In contrast,
Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 Requirement R3, requires planning
coordinators and transmission planners to perform comprehensive
assessments of their UVLS Programs at least once every 5 years. Each
assessment ``shall include, but is not limited to, studies and analyses
that evaluate whether . . . the UVLS Program resolves the identified
undervoltage issues for which the UVLS Program is designed [and] the
UVLS Program is integrated through coordination with generator voltage
ride-through capabilities and other protection and control systems.''
Requirement R4 requires applicable entities to assess whether UVLS
programs resolve undervoltage issues associated with voltage excursions
triggering UVLS programs. Pursuant to Requirement R5, planning
coordinators and transmission planners must develop a corrective action
plan to address UVLS program deficiencies identified during assessments
performed under Requirements R3 and R4. We conclude that the
comprehensive nature of the assessments required under Reliability
Standard PRC-010-1 is sufficient, and precludes the need to include the
specific items listed in PRC-022-1, Requirement R1.
3. Definition of Special Protection System
60. ITC supports the approval of the revised definition of Remedial
Action Scheme. ITC points out that NERC proposes to move to a single
definition, Remedial Action Scheme, to eliminate the use of two terms,
i.e., Special Protection System.\85\ Thus, ITC requests that the
Commission direct NERC to remove the definition of Special Protection
System from the NERC Glossary to eliminate any potential for confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ ITC Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

61. We deny ITC's request that the Commission direct NERC to remove
the definition of ``Special Protection System'' from the NERC Glossary.
In its RAS Petition, NERC states that it ``will continue to modify the
NERC Reliability Standards until all of them reference only the defined
term Remedial Action Scheme. At that time, the definition of Special
Protection System will be retired.'' \86\ We are satisfied with NERC's
approach of retiring the term ``Special Protection System'' once the
Reliability Standards are fully updated to reference the revised
definition of Remedial Action Scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ NERC RAS Petition at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

62. The collection of information contained in this Final Rule is
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA).\87\ OMB's regulations require approval of certain
informational collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\88\ Upon
approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB
control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the
filing requirements of a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
\88\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

63. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. The NOPR solicited 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 respondent's burden, including
the use of automated information techniques. No comments were received.

A. Proposed Reliability Standard EOP-011-1

64. Public Reporting Burden: As of March 2015, there are 105
balancing authorities, 11 reliability coordinators and 329 transmission
operators registered with NERC. These registered entities will have to
comply with 6-8 new requirements in the new proposed Reliability
Standard EOP-011-1. As proposed, each registered balancing authority
will have to comply with Requirements R2, R4, and, under certain
circumstances, R5. Each reliability coordinator will have to comply
with Requirements R1 and its subparts, R2 and its subparts, R3 and its
subparts, R5 and R6. Each transmission operator will have to comply
with Requirements R1 and its subparts and R4.
65. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 replaces a combined total of 40
requirements or subparts that are found in Reliability Standards EOP-
001-2.1b, EOP-003.1 and EOP-003-2. These three Reliability Standards
are to be retired, concurrent with the effective date of Reliability
Standard EOP-011-1. Accordingly, the requirements in Reliability
Standard EOP-011-1 do not create any new burdens for applicable
balancing authorities or transmission operators because the
requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 are already burdens or
tasks imposed on this set of registered entities by Reliability
Standards EOP-001-2.1b, EOP-003.1 and EOP-003-2 under FERC-725A (1902-
0244).
66. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 requires reliability
coordinators to perform the additional tasks of reviewing, correcting,
and coordinating their balancing authorities' and transmission
operators' operating procedures for emergency conditions. The
Commission estimates that this will add approximately 1,500 man-hours
per

[[Page 73656]]

year for each reliability coordinator as described in detail in the
following table:

RM15-7-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard EOP-011-1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of Annual number burden Total annual
applicable of responses Total number of (hours) and burden hours Cost per
registered per respondent responses cost per and total respondent ($)
entities response annual cost
(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) / (1)
(5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RC tasks necessary for EOP-011-1 compliance......... 11 1 21 1,500 16,500 $92,387
\89\ $92,387 $1,016,257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Reliability Standard PRC-010-1

Public Reporting Burden: As of April 2015, there are 467 registered
distribution providers and 50 transmission providers that are not
overlapping in their registration with the distribution provider
registration. We estimate that five percent of all distribution
providers (23) and transmission providers (3) have under voltage load
shedding programs that fall under the Reliability Standard. The
Reliability Standard is applicable to planning coordinators and
transmission planners, distribution providers, and transmission owners.
However, only distribution providers and transmission owners would be
responsible for the incremental compliance burden under Reliability
Standard PRC-010-1, Requirement R2, as described in detail in the
following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\89\ The 1,500 hour figure is broken into 1300 hours at the
engineer wage rate and 200 hours at the clerk wage rate. These
estimates assume that the engineer's wage rate will be $66.35 and
the clerk's wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm; Occupation Code: 17-2071 (engineer) and 43-4071
(clerk).

RM15-12-000 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-010-1) \90\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Number of Annual number burden Total annual Cost per
applicable of responses Total number (hours) and burden hours respondent
registered per of responses cost per and total ($)
entities respondent response annual cost
(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4) (3) * (4) = (5) / (1)
(3) (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DP--Requirement 2....................................... 23 1 23 \91\ 36 828 1,960
$1,960.32 $45,087.36
TP--Requirement 2....................................... 3 1 3 \92\ 36 108 1,960
$1,960.32 $5,880.96
DP--R2 Data Retention................................... 23 1 23 12 276 368
\93\ $367.92 $8,462.16
TP--R2 Data Retention................................... 3 1 3 12 36 368
$367.92 $1,103.76
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. $60,534.24 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Remedial Action Scheme Revisions

67. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission approved the definition
of Special Protection System (Remedial Action Scheme) in Order No. 693.
We approve a revision to the previously approved definition. The
revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and related
Reliability Standards are not expected to result in changes to the
scope of systems covered by the Reliability Standards and other
Reliability Standards that include the term Remedial Action Scheme.
Therefore, the Commission does not expect the revisions to affect
applicable entities' current reporting burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\90\ DP = distribution provider and TP = transmission provider.
\91\ The 36 hour figure is broken into 24 hours at the engineer
wage rate and 12 hours at the clerk wage rate. These estimates
assume that the engineer's wage rate will be $66.35 and the clerk's
wage rate will be $30.66. These figures are taken from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm;
Occupation Code: 17-2071 (engineer) and 43-4071 (clerk).
\92\ Id.
\93\ Clerk's wage rate is used for managing data retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-725G4, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard
PRC-010-1 (Undervoltage Load Shedding).
FERC-725S, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard
EOP-011-1 (Emergency Operations).
Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
OMB Control No: OMB Control No. 1902-0270 (FERC-725S); OMB Control
No. 1902-XXXX (FERC-725G4).
Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit
institutions.
Frequency of Responses: One time and on-going.
Necessity of the Information: The revision to NERC's definition of
the term bulk electric system 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. Specifically, the Reliability Standards consolidate,
streamline and clarify the existing requirements of certain currently-
effective Emergency Preparedness and Operations and

[[Page 73657]]

Protection and Control Reliability Standards.
68. Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to Reliability Standards PRC-010-1 and EOP-011-1 and made a
determination that the requirements of these Reliability Standards are
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements
conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission
has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information requirements.
69. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
70. Comments concerning the information collections in this Final
Rule and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the
Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the
following email address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference
the docket number of this Final Rule (Docket Nos. RM15-13-000, RM15-12-
000, and RM15-7-000) in your submission.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

71. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \94\ generally
requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

72. Reliability Standard EOP-011-1 is expected to impose an
additional burden on 11 entities (reliability coordinators). The
remaining 434 entities (balancing authorities and transmission
operators and a combination thereof) will maintain the existing levels
of burden. Comparison of the applicable entities with FERC's small
business data indicates that approximately 7 of the 11 entities are
small entities, or 63.63 percent of the respondents affected by this
Reliability Standard.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for
what constitutes a small business. Public utilities may fall under
one of several different categories, each with a size threshold
based on the company's number of employees, including affiliates,
the parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this NOPR,
we are using a 500 employee threshold for each affected entity. Each
entity is classified as Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control
(NAICS code 221121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

73. On average, each small entity affected may have a one-time cost
of $92,387 representing a one-time review of the program for each
entity, consisting of 1,500 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer
wages) and $30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the
information collection statement.
74. Reliability Standard PRC-010-1 is expected to impose an
additional burden on 26 entities (distribution providers and
transmission providers or a combination thereof). Comparison of the
applicable entities with FERC's small business data indicates that
approximately 8 of the 26 entities are small entities, or 30.77 percent
of the respondents affected by this Reliability Standard.
75. On average, each small entity affected may have a cost of
$1,960, representing a one-time review of the program for each entity,
consisting of 36 man-hours at $66.35/hour (for engineer wages) and
$30.66/hour (for record clerks), as explained above in the information
collection statement. Regarding the revisions to the Remedial Action
Scheme definition and the related Reliability Standards including the
revised definition, as discussed above, the Commission estimates that
proposals will have no cost impact on applicable entities, including
any small entities.
76. The Commission estimates that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1
and PRC-010-1 in this Final Rule impose an additional burden on a total
of 37 entities. FERC's small business data indicates that 15 of the 37
respondents are small entities, or 40.54 percent of the respondents
affected by these proposed Reliability Standards. On average, each
small entity affected may have a cost of $92,387 and $1,960 (EOP-011-1
and PRC-010-1 respectively), representing a one-time review of the
program for each entity. We do not consider these costs to be a
significant economic impact on small entities. Accordingly, the
Commission certifies that Reliability Standards EOP-011-1 and PRC-010-1
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

VII. Environmental Analysis

77. 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.\96\ 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.\97\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\96\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
\97\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Document Availability

78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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

81. This Final Rule is effective January 25, 2016. 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

[[Page 73658]]

Fairness Act of 1996.\98\ The Commission will submit the final rule to
both houses of Congress and to the General Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Commission.

Issued: November 19, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29971 Filed 11-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.