[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43190-43196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18009]
[[Page 43190]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM12-9-000]
Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01--Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 (Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding Requirements) submitted to the Commission for approval by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Regional
Reliability Standard, PRC-006-SERC-01, is designed to ensure that
automatic underfrequency load shedding protection schemes designed by
planning coordinators and implemented by applicable distribution
providers and transmission owners in the SERC Reliability Corporation
(SERC) Region are coordinated to effectively mitigate the consequences
of an underfrequency event. The Commission also proposes to approve the
related violation risk factors, with one modification, and violation
severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by
NERC.
DATES: Comments are due September 24, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Morris (Technical Information),
Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-6803, [email protected].
Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8408,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
140 FERC ] 61,056
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Issued July 19, 2012)
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 (Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding (UFLS) Requirements) in the SERC Reliability Corporation
(SERC) \1\ Region. The Commission also proposes to approve the related
violation risk factors (VRFs), with one modification, and violation
severity levels (VSLs), implementation plan, and effective date
proposed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 was submitted to the
Commission for approval by NERC and is designed to ensure that
automatic UFLS protection schemes designed by planning coordinators and
implemented by applicable distribution providers and transmission
owners in the SERC Region are coordinated to effectively mitigate the
consequences of an underfrequency event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SERC amended its Articles of Incorporation on May 9, 2006 to
change its name from Southeastern Electric Reliability Council to
SERC Reliability Corporation. Available at http://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional
%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
A. Mandatory Reliability Standards
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and
approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by
NERC, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e) (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to the Commission may
include Reliability Standards that are proposed by a Regional Entity to
be effective in that region.\3\ In Order No. 672, the Commission noted
that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4). A Regional Entity is an entity that
has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards
under delegated authority from the ERO. See 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and
(e)(4).
As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of
regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public
interest, as required under the statute: (1) A regional difference
that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard,
including a regional difference that addresses matters that the
continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a regional
Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the Bulk-Power System.
When NERC reviews a regional Reliability Standard that would be
applicable on an interconnection-wide basis and that has been proposed
by a Regional Entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis, NERC
must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability Standard is just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest.\4\ In turn, the Commission must give ``due weight'' to
the technical expertise of NERC and of a Regional Entity organized on
an interconnection-wide basis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(3).
\5\ Id. Sec. 824o(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements
between NERC and each of the eight Regional Entities.\6\ In the order,
the Commission accepted SERC as a Regional Entity organized on less
than an interconnection-wide basis. As a Regional Entity, SERC oversees
Bulk-Power System reliability within the SERC Region, which covers a
geographic area of approximately 560,000 square miles in a sixteen-
state area in the southeastern and central United States (all of
Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Mississippi, and portions of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Florida). The SERC Region is
currently geographically divided into five subregions that are
identified as Southeastern, Central, VACAR, Delta, and Gateway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,060
(2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
5. On February 1, 2012, NERC submitted a petition to the Commission
seeking approval of regional Reliability
[[Page 43191]]
Standard PRC-006-SERC-01.\7\ NERC requests approval of the regional
Reliability Standard, associated VRFs and VSLs, and the implementation
plan for PRC-006-SERC-01. NERC requests the standard become effective
over a 30-month window following the effective date of a final rule in
this docket, as provided in NERC's implementation plan, to allow
entities to respond to any changes in UFLS settings. NERC states that
this is the first request for Commission approval of this proposed
regional Reliability Standard and that it will only apply to applicable
registered entities within the SERC Region. NERC also states that the
NERC continent-wide Reliability Standards do not presently address the
issues covered in regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., February 1, 2012
Petition for Approval of Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-
01 (NERC Petition). The proposed new Regional Reliability Standard
is not codified in the CFR. However, it is available on the
Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM12-
9-000 and is available on the NERC's Web site, www.nerc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. NERC states that regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
was developed to be consistent with the NERC UFLS Reliability Standard
PRC-006-1.\8\ Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 is designed
to ensure that automatic UFLS protection schemes designed by planning
coordinators and implemented by applicable distribution providers and
transmission owners in the SERC Region are coordinated to effectively
mitigate the consequences of an underfrequency event.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding
Plans Reliability Standards, Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 (May
7, 2012) (approving Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans)).
\9\ NERC Petition at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. NERC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standard
satisfies the factors set forth in Order No. 672 that the Commission
considers when determining whether a proposed Reliability Standard is
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the
public interest.\10\ NERC states that regional Reliability Standard
PRC-006-SERC-01 adds specificity not contained in the NERC UFLS
Reliability Standard for UFLS schemes in the SERC Region.\11\ NERC
states that regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 effectively
mitigates, in conjunction with Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, the
consequences of an underfrequency event while accommodating differences
in system transmission and distribution topology among SERC planning
coordinators resulting from historical design criteria, makeup of load
demands, and generation resources.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, at PP 323-337 (2006), order on reh'g, Order
No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
\11\ NERC Petition at 18.
\12\ Id. at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. According to NERC, regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
is clear and unambiguous regarding what is required and who is required
to comply. The proposed regional Reliability Standard is applicable to
generator owners, planning coordinators, and UFLS entities in the SERC
Region. The term ``UFLS entities'' (as noted in Reliability Standard
PRC-006-1) means all entities that are responsible for the ownership,
operation, or control of automatic UFLS equipment as required by the
UFLS program established by the Planning Coordinators.\13\ NERC states
that such entities may include distribution providers and transmission
owners. NERC also states that each requirement of PRC-006-SERC-01 has
an associated measure of compliance that will assist those enforcing
the standard to enforce it in a consistent and non-preferential
manner.Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 contains
eight requirements, summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ NERC Petition at 7 (citing NERC Reliability Standard PRC-
006-1, available at http://www.nerc.com/files/PRC-006-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator to include its
SERC subregion as an identified island when developing criteria for
selecting portions of the Bulk-Power System that may form islands;
Requirement R2 requires each planning coordinator to select or
develop an automatic UFLS scheme (percent of load to be shed, frequency
set points, and time delays) for implementation by UFLS entities within
its area that meets the specified minimum requirements;
Requirement R3 requires each planning coordinator to conduct
simulations of its UFLS scheme for an imbalance between load and
generation of 13 percent, 22 percent, and 25 percent for all identified
islands;
Requirement R4 requires each UFLS entity that has a total load of
100 MW or greater in a planning coordinator area in the SERC Region to
implement the UFLS scheme developed by their planning coordinator
within specified tolerances;
Requirement R5 requires each UFLS entity that has a total load less
than 100 MW in a planning coordinator area in the SERC Region to
implement the UFLS scheme developed by their planning coordinator
within specified tolerances, but specifies that those entities shall
not be required to have more than one UFLS step;
Requirement R6 requires each UFLS entity in the SERC Region to
implement changes to the UFLS scheme which involve frequency settings,
relay time delays, or changes to the percentage of load in the scheme
within 18 months of notification by the planning coordinator;
Requirement R7 requires each planning coordinator to provide
specified information concerning their UFLS scheme to SERC according to
the schedule specified by SERC; and
Requirement R8 requires each generator owner to provide specified
generator underfrequency and overfrequency protection information
within 30 days of a request by SERC to facilitate post-event analysis
of frequency disturbances.
9. NERC also explains that the proposed regional Reliability
Standard sets minimum automatic UFLS design requirements, which are
equivalent to the design requirements in the SERC UFLS program that has
been in effect since September 3, 1999.\14\ NERC states that the one
change relative to the existing SERC UFLS program is the addition of a
minimum time delay requirement. The addition allows planning
coordinators to use current UFLS schemes if those schemes meet the
performance requirements specified in the NERC UFLS standard.
Therefore, NERC concludes that the distribution providers and
transmission owners subject to the proposed regional Reliability
Standard will have to make minimal changes to implement their portions
of the UFLS schemes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NERC Petition at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. NERC also proposes VRFs and VSLs for the regional Reliability
Standard, an implementation plan, and an effective date. NERC states
that these aspects were developed and reviewed for consistency with
NERC and Commission guidelines.
11. NERC proposes specific implementation plans for each
requirement in the regional Reliability Standard, as identified below,
with the regional Reliability Standard becoming fully effective thirty
months after the first day of the first quarter following regulatory
approval. NERC states that the implementation time is reasonable, as it
balances the need for reliability
[[Page 43192]]
with the practicability of implementation.
12. NERC proposes that Requirement R1 of PRC-006-SERC-01 become
effective twelve months after the first day of the first quarter
following regulatory approval, but no sooner than twelve months
following regulatory approval of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1. NERC
states that this twelve-month period is consistent with the effective
date of Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1. Requirement
R2 of PRC-006-SERC-01 would become effective twelve months after the
first day of the first quarter following regulatory approval. NERC
states that this twelve-month period is needed to allow time for
entities to ensure a minimum time delay of six cycles on existing
automatic UFLS relays as specified in Sub-requirement R2.6. Requirement
R3 would become effective eighteen months after the first day of the
first quarter following regulatory approval. NERC explains that this
additional six-month period is needed to allow time to perform and
coordinate studies necessary to assess the overall effectiveness of the
UFLS schemes in the SERC Region. Requirements R4, R5, and R6 would
become effective thirty months after the first day of the first quarter
following regulatory approval. NERC states that this additional
eighteen months is needed to allow time for any necessary changes to be
made to the existing UFLS schemes in the SERC Region. Requirement R7
would become effective six months following the effective date of
Requirement R8 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, but no sooner than
one year following the first day of the first calendar quarter after
applicable regulatory approval of PRC-006-SERC-01. Finally, Requirement
R8 of PRC-006-SERC-01 would become effective twelve months after the
first day of the first quarter following regulatory approval. NERC
states that this twelve-month period is needed to allow time for
generator owners to collect and make an initial data filing.
II. Discussion
A. PRC-006-SERC-01
13. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we propose to approve
regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. PRC-
006-SERC-01 is designed to work in conjunction with NERC Standard PRC-
006-1 to effectively mitigate the consequences of an underfrequency
event while accommodating differences in system transmission and
distribution topology among SERC Planning Coordinators due to
historical design criteria, makeup of load demands, and generation
resources.\15\ As indicated above, PRC-006-SERC-01 covers topics not
covered by the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
because it adds specificity for UFLS schemes in the SERC Region. For
example, Requirement R1 of the proposed regional Reliability Standard
PRC-006-SERC-01 requires all planning coordinators in the SERC Region
to include their respective ``SERC subregion as an identified island
when developing criteria for selecting portions of the [Bulk-Power
System] that may form islands.'' \16\ This requirement goes beyond the
corresponding requirement in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 that a
planning coordinator study the entire region as an island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NERC Petition at 18.
\16\ NERC Petition, Exhibit C at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. While we propose to approve regional Reliability Standard PRC-
006-SERC-01, we identify a possible inconsistency between Requirement
R6 of the proposed regional Reliability Standard and PRC-006-1, which
the Commission addressed in Order No. 763. Reliability Standard PRC-
SERC-006-01, Requirement R6 states:
R6. Each UFLS entity shall implement changes to the UFLS scheme
which involve frequency settings, relay time delays, or changes to
the percentage of load in the scheme within 18 months of
notification by the Planning Coordinator. [Violation Risk Factor:
Medium][Time Horizon: Long-term Planning]
The rationale for Requirement R6 included in the NERC petition is the
following:
Rationale for R6: The SDT believes it is necessary to put a
requirement on how quickly changes to the scheme should be made.
This requirement specifies that changes must be made within 18
months of notification by the PC. The 18 month interval was chosen
to give a reasonable amount of time for making changes in the field.
All of the SERC region has existing UFLS schemes which, based on
periodic simulations, have provided reliable protection for years.
Events which result in islanding and an activation of the UFLS
schemes are extremely rare. Therefore, the SDT does not believe that
changes to an existing UFLS scheme will be needed in less than 18
months. However, if a PC desires that changes to the UFLS scheme be
made faster than that, then the PC may request the implementation to
be done sooner than 18 months. The UFLS entity may oblige but will
not be required to do so.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NERC Petition, Exhibit A at 14 (emphasis added).
15. The Commission reads the requirement that UFLS entities
implement a change ``within 18-months'' to establish a ``maximum''
timeframe to comply with a planning coordinator's schedule to implement
changes to UFLS schemes, but also to recognize that the planning
coordinator could establish a schedule for the changes to be
implemented in less time.\18\ The inclusion of a maximum timeframe
would be more stringent than Reliability Standard PRC-006-1,
Requirement R9, which does not contain a maximum timeframe to implement
changes to a UFLS scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In the VSL and VRF analysis in Exhibit E of NERC's
Petition, NERC states that Requirement R6 specifies the maximum time
for a UFLS entity to complete implementation of a major change in a
planning coordinator's UFLS scheme. See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at
16 (``[Requirement R6] specifies the maximum time for a UFLS entity
to complete implementation of a major change in a Planning
Coordinator's UFLS scheme.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. We are concerned, however, that the italicized language in the
rationale NERC provides for Requirement R6 may be incompatible with
Order No. 763. As explained above, we interpret Requirement R6 to mean
that planning coordinators can establish schedules for requiring
changes to UFLS schemes by applicable entities within an 18-month time
frame from the time the entities are notified. Yet, the rationale for
Requirement R6 could result in Requirement R6 being read to allow
applicable entities not to adopt the planning coordinator's schedule if
it is less than 18 months. The Commission is concerned that leaving it
up to applicable entities to determine their schedules for changes
under certain circumstances will cause confusion and result in a lack
of consistency in the application of the regional Reliability Standard.
Allowing each UFLS entity to choose its own timing could harm
reliability or at least defeat the purpose of the planning
coordinator's role.
17. Our concern is rooted in the Commission's directive in Order
No. 763 concerning PRC-006-1, which held that planning coordinators
should be responsible for establishing schedules for the completion of
corrective actions in response to UFLS events.\19\ In the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for PRC-006-1, the Commission stated that
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 does not specify how soon after an event
an entity would need to implement corrections in response to any
deficiencies identified in an event assessment.\20\ NERC responded that
the time that a UFLS entity has to
[[Page 43193]]
implement corrections will be established by the planning coordinator,
as specified in Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1.\21\ In Order No. 763, the
Commission accepted NERC's comments that Requirement R9 requires
compliance with a schedule established by the planning coordinator, but
the Commission stated that NERC's reading of Requirement R9 should be
made clear in the Requirement itself and directed NERC to make that
requirement explicit in future versions of the Reliability
Standard.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 at P 48.
\20\ Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding
Plans Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 FR
66,220 (October 26, 2011), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,682 (2011).
\21\ NERC stated:
The amount of time that a UFLS entity has to implement
corrections will be established by the Planning Coordinator, as
specified in Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1. The time allotted for
corrections will depend on the extent of the deficiencies
identified. The schedule specified by the Planning Coordinator will
consider the time necessary for budget planning and implementation,
recognizing that operating and maintenance budgets normally will not
be sufficient to address major revisions and allowances will be
necessary for inclusion of approved changes in budgeting cycles.
Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 at P 48 (citing NERC Comments
at 8).
\22\ Order No. 763, 139 FERC ] 61,098 at P 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. NERC states that PRC-006-SERC-01 is designed to work in
conjunction with Reliability Standard PRC-006-1.\23\ NERC also
maintains that the regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than
PRC-006-1.\24\ Construing Requirement R6 as imposing a maximum time to
comply with a planning coordinator's schedule, but leaving it up to the
applicable entity to decide whether to take more time (up to 18 months)
than the planning coordinator schedule allows, would be inconsistent
with and, in certain cases, be less stringent than PRC-006-1. First, we
are concerned that allowing applicable entities the flexibility to
determine their own implementation schedule (up to 18 months) for
changes rather than follow the schedule established by the planning
coordinator is inconsistent with the policy underlying Order No. 763
that planning coordinators establish schedules for completing changes
to UFLS programs. If a planning coordinator believes that a change made
pursuant to Requirement R6 should be completed in less than 18 months,
the planning coordinator's schedule should be mandatory. Second, in
certain circumstances, such an interpretation would be expressly
prohibited by the Commission's directive in Order No. 763 concerning
Requirement R9, which gives the planning coordinator the responsibility
of setting a schedule for completing corrective actions to UFLS
programs following event assessments pursuant to Requirement R11 and
R12 of PRC-006-1. Although we acknowledge that changes made pursuant to
Requirement R6 of the regional Reliability Standard will not always be
corrective changes made in response to event assessments pursuant to
the Requirements of PRC-006-1, Requirement R6 is broad enough to
encompass corrective changes, thus creating a conflict between the
regional Reliability Standard and PRC-006-1 under the proscribed
interpretation. Thus, the Commission will not read Requirement R6 as
providing a UFLS entity with the discretion not to follow the schedule
set by the planning coordinator when the schedule is less than 18
months.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NERC Petition at 18-19.
\24\ Id. at 18.
\25\ In Order No. 693, the Commission explained that ``while
Measures and Levels of Non-Compliance provide useful guidance to the
industry, compliance will in all cases be measured by determining
whether a party met or failed to meet the Requirement given the
specific facts and circumstances of its use, ownership or operation
of the Bulk-Power System.'' Order No. 693, 118 FERC ] 61,218 at P
253. Similarly, in the immediate proceeding, we consider Requirement
R6 the ``core obligation'' for purposes of determining compliance,
while the related ``rationale statement'' is viewed as providing
useful guidance but not setting compliance obligations. See also id.
P 280 (``the Requirements in each Reliability Standard are core
obligations'' and compliance Measures ``provide useful guidance * *
*'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels
19. NERC states that the VRFs and VSLs for the proposed regional
Reliability Standard were developed and reviewed for consistency with
NERC and Commission guidelines. After reviewing the assigned VRFs and
VSLs for PRC-006-SERC-01 in Exhibit E, the Commission agrees, with one
modification, that the proposed VRF and VSL assignments appear
consistent with Commission guidelines. Therefore, the Commission
proposes to approve, with one modification, the VRFs and VSLs assigned
to the main Requirements in regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-
01.
20. We propose to direct NERC to modify the VRF assigned to
Requirement R6 from ``medium'' to ``high.'' In the petition, NERC
states that Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1 and Requirement R6 address ``a
similar reliability goal.'' \26\ However, NERC states that while
Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1 addresses UFLS scheme implementation and
has a VRF of ``high,'' Requirement R6 only addresses the timing of
implementation and is, therefore, appropriately assigned a ``medium''
VRF.\27\ Guideline 3 of the Commission's VRF Guidelines states that
``[a]bsent justification to the contrary, the Commission expects the
assignment of Violation Risk Factors corresponding to Requirements that
address similar reliability goals in different Reliability Standards
would be treated comparably.'' \28\ As NERC notes, Requirement R6 and
Requirement R9 of proposed PRC-006-1 address ``a similar reliability
goal.'' While NERC explains in its filing that the specific topics
addressed by each Requirement are different, the fact that they address
a similar reliability goal suggests that they should be treated
comparably and each given a ``high'' VRF, consistent with Guideline 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 16.
\27\ Id.
\28\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, at P 25 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. In addition, in Guideline 5 of the VRF Guidelines, the
Commission indicated that, for Requirements with co-mingled reliability
objectives, ``the Violation Risk Factor assignment for such
Requirements is not watered down to reflect the lower risk level
associated with the less important objective of the Reliability
Standard.'' \29\ NERC states in the petition that Requirement R6
combines the lesser risk reliability objective of establishing a
maximum time frame for implementing changes to UFLS schemes with the
higher risk reliability objective of actually implementing changes to
UFLS schemes.\30\ As a result, consistent with Guideline 5, the
Commission believes that proposed Requirement R6 should be assigned a
``high'' VRF. We seek comment on this proposed directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id. P 32.
\30\ See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Implementation Plan and Effective Date
22. NERC states that the implementation time for the proposed
regional Reliability Standard is reasonable, as it balances the need
for reliability with the practicability of implementation. The
Commission proposes to accept the implementation plan and effective
date proposed by NERC.
III. Information Collection Statement
23. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\31\ Upon approval of a collection(s)
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these
[[Page 43194]]
collections of information unless the collections of information
display a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of 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.
25. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to approve regional
Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01. This is the first time NERC has
requested Commission approval of this proposed regional Reliability
Standard. NERC states in its petition that UFLS requirements had been
in place at a continent-wide level and within SERC for many years prior
to implementation of the Commission-approved Reliability Standards in
2007. Because the UFLS requirements have been in place prior to the
development of PRC-006-SERC-01, the proposed regional Reliability
Standard is largely associated with requirements the applicable
entities are already following.\32\ The proposed regional Reliability
Standard, PRC-006-SERC-01, is designed to ensure that automatic UFLS
protection schemes designed by planning coordinators and implemented by
applicable distribution providers and transmission owners in the SERC
Region are coordinated so they may effectively mitigate the
consequences of an underfrequency event. The proposed regional
Reliability Standard is only applicable to generator owners, planning
coordinators, and UFLS entities in the SERC Region. The term ``UFLS
entities'' means all entities that are responsible for the ownership,
operation, or control of automatic UFLS equipment as required by the
UFLS program established by the planning coordinators. Such entities
may include distribution providers and transmission owners. The
reporting requirements in proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-
006-SERC-01 only pertain to entities within the SERC Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) (``The time, effort, and financial
resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that
would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their
activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records)
will be excluded from the `burden' if the agency demonstrates that
the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to
comply are usual and customary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of
May 29, 2012. According to the NERC compliance registry, there are 21
planning coordinators and 104 generator owners within the SERC Region.
The individual burden estimates are based on the time needed for
planning coordinators to incrementally gather data, run studies, and
analyze study results to design or update the UFLS programs that are
required in the regional Reliability Standard in addition to the
requirements of the NERC Reliability Standard PRC-006-1.\33\
Additionally, generator owners must provide a detailed set of data and
documentation to SERC within 30 days of a request to facilitate post
event analysis of frequency disturbances. These burden estimates are
consistent with estimates for similar tasks in other Commission-
approved Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The burden estimates for Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 are
included in Order No. 763 and are not repeated here.
\34\ Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01
applies to planning coordinators, UFLS entities and generator
owners. However, the burden associated with the UFLS entities is not
new because it was accounted for under Commission-approved
Reliability Standards PRC-006-1, PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Total annual
PRC-006-SERC-01 (Automatic underfrequency load Number of Number of burden hours burden hours
shedding requirements) \34\ respondents responses per per response (1) x (2) x
annually (1) respondent (2) (3) (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCs*: Design and document Automatic UFLS Program 21 1 8 168
PCs: Provide Documentation and Data to SERC..... .............. .............. 16 336
GOs*: Provide Documentation and Data to SERC.... 104 1 16 1,664
GOs: Record Retention........................... .............. .............. 4 416
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... .............. .............. .............. 2,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PC=planning coordinator; GO=generator owner.
Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Compliance/Documentation) =
2,584 hours.
Total Reporting Cost for planning coordinators: = 504 hours @ $120/
hour = $60,480.
Total Reporting Cost for generator owners: = 1,664 hours @ $120/
hour = $199,680.
Total Record Retention Cost for generator owners: 416 hours @ $28/
hour = $11,647.
Total Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention) \35\: = $60,480 +
$199,680 +$11,648 = $271,808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The hourly reporting cost is based on the cost of an
engineer to implement the requirements of the rule. The record
retention cost comes from Commission staff research on record
retention requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the SERC Region.
Action: Proposed Collection FERC-725K.
OMB Control No.: To be determined.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
Necessity of the Information: This proposed rule proposes to
approve the regional Reliability Standard pertaining to automatic
underfrequency load shedding. The proposed regional Reliability
Standard helps ensure the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System
by arresting declining frequency and assisting recovery of frequency
following system events leading to frequency degradation.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed regional
Reliability Standard and made a determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements, if
accepted, should conform to the Commission's expectation for UFLS
programs as well as procedures within the SERC Region.
27. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
[[Page 43195]]
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive
Director, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax:
(202) 273-0873].
28. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your
comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons,
comments to OMB should be submitted by email to: [email protected]. Comments submitted to OMB should include Docket
Number RM12-09 and an OMB Control Number to be determined.
IV. Environmental Analysis
29. 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.\36\ 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.\37\ The actions proposed here
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\37\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
30. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \38\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\39\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\39\ 13 CFR 121.101.
\40\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 proposes
to establish consistent and coordinated requirements for the design,
implementation, and analysis of automatic UFLS schemes among all
applicable entities within the SERC Region. It will be applicable to
planning coordinators, generator owners and entities that are
responsible for the ownership, operation, or control of UFLS equipment.
Comparison of the NERC Compliance Registry with data submitted to the
Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that
perhaps as many as 1 small entity is registered as a planning
coordinator and 5 small entities are registered as generator owners in
the SERC Region. The Commission estimates that the small planning
coordinator to whom the proposed regional Reliability Standard will
apply will incur compliance costs of $2,880 ($2,880 per planning
coordinator) associated with the proposed regional Reliability
Standard's requirements. The small generator owners will incur
compliance and record keeping costs of $10,160 ($2,032 per generator
owner). Accordingly, proposed regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-
SERC-01 should not impose a significant operating cost increase or
decrease on the affected small entities.
32. Further, NERC explains that the cost for smaller entities to
implement regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 was considered
during the development process. The Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
requires a planning coordinator to identify which entities will
participate in its UFLS scheme, including the number of steps and
percent load that UFLS entities will shed. The standard drafting team
recognized that UFLS entities with a load of less than 100 MW may have
difficulty in implementing more than one UFLS step and in meeting a
tight tolerance. Therefore, the standard drafting team included
Requirement R5, which states that such small entities shall not be
required to have more than one UFLS step, and sets their implementation
tolerance to a wider level. Requirement R5 limits additional compliance
costs for smaller entities to comply with the regional Reliability
Standard.
33. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that the
regional Reliability Standard will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
VI. Comment Procedures
34. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due September 24, 2012. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM12-9-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
35. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
36. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
37. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
VII. Document Availability
38. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
39. 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.
[[Page 43196]]
40. 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
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18009 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P