· 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE . FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION . U.S. Department...

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

U.S. Department of Energy, Docket No. RC08-5-___ Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office

COMPLIANCE FILING OF THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) hereby submits a filing

in compliance with the order issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or

“Commission”) on April 19, 2012 in this proceeding (the “April 19 Order”).1 In the April 19

Order, among other things, FERC directed NERC to either register the Ohio Valley Electric

Corporation (“OVEC”) as a load-serving entity (“LSE”) or, within 90 days of the date of this

order, submit a filing explaining why OVEC should not be registered for the load-serving entity

function.2

In the instant filing, NERC explains that it has not registered OVEC for the LSE function,

at this time, because: (a) as discussed in NERC’s request for rehearing and clarification of the

April 19 Order, another entity, DOE PPPO meets the criteria for registration as the LSE and (b)

no significant gap in reliability will result from a delay in registering an entity as the LSE in this

case while NERC’s request for rehearing and clarification is pending before the Commission.

NERC also requests that it be allowed to continue to defer registration of OVEC as an LSE in

this case until thirty days after a Commission order on NERC’s request for rehearing and

clarification of the April 19 Order, as appropriate.

1 U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 139 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2012). NERC has deactivated the LSE function registration for the U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (“DOE PPPO”), in accordance with the April 19 Order. 2 April 19 Order at P 1.

2

I. BACKGROUND

The April 19 Order granted an appeal filed by DOE PPPO of a decision by the

Compliance Committee of the NERC Board of Trustees to confirm the registration of DOE

PPPO as an LSE. FERC found that DOE PPPO should not be registered as an LSE under the

NERC Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria (“Registry Criteria”).3 In the April 19 Order

the Commission also stated that it believes that OVEC, which sells energy to DOE PPPO

pursuant to a retail sales tariff, is the appropriate entity to register as the LSE.4

On May 21, 2012, NERC requested rehearing and clarification of the April 19 Order.

NERC argued that the Commission erred in applying the Registry Criteria, and in particular

section III.a.4, to the facts of this case and finding that DOE PPPO was not properly registered as

an LSE. Specifically, NERC argued that the Commission erred in failing to find that DOE

PPPO, as the Distribution Provider (“DP”), was the LSE given that DOE PPPO had not

transferred such responsibilities to a third party, such as OVEC. NERC also argued that the

Commission erred in failing to explain how the ownership and operation of distribution facilities

by DOE PPPO affected the Commission’s determination in light of the Commission’s prior

precedent indicating that a DP will be registered as the LSE for all load directly connected to its

distribution facilities absent a written agreement transferring this responsibility to a third party

that has been registered for the LSE function.

5

3 The Registry Criteria is Appendix 5B to the NERC Rules of Procedure. 4 April 19 Order at P 1. 5 See Direct Energy Services, LLC, et. al., 125 FERC ¶ 61,057 (2008). NERC also has requested clarification and, in the alternative, rehearing, in the instant docket, including the broader issue of compensation of LSEs, which is not relevant to this Compliance Filing.

3

II. COMPLIANCE FILING

The Registry Criteria provides that an LSE is an entity that “[s]ecures energy and

Transmission Service (and related Interconnected Operations Services) to serve the electrical

demand and energy requirements of its end-use customers.”6

• The LSE’s peak load is greater than 25 MW and is directly connected to the bulk power system (“BPS”) (section III.a.1);

Section III(a) of the Registry

Criteria provides that an entity identified as an LSE pursuant to this definition should be

excluded from the Compliance Registry if it does not meet additional criteria, including as

follows:

• Distribution Providers registered under the criteria in section III.b.1 or III.b.2

will be registered as an LSE for all load directly connected to their distribution facilities, unless responsibility for compliance with the relevant standards has been transferred by written agreement to another entity that has registered for the appropriate function (section III.a.4).

As explained in NERC’s request for rehearing and clarification, there is no dispute that

the DOE PPPO load is greater than 25 MW and is directly connected to the 345 kV network.7 In

addition, DOE PPPO is a registered DP and its DP registration was upheld by the Commission.8

6 See section II of the Registry Criteria.

The record does not indicate, and DOE PPPO has not asserted, that DOE PPPO transferred any

responsibilities for compliance with any Reliability Standards by written agreement as

contemplated in the Compliance Registry. In addition, the Commission has previously found

appropriate that a DP be registered as the LSE for all load directly connected to its distribution

7 DOE PPPO May 13, 2008 Appeal at 2-3 (“DOE PPPO Appeal”). 8 U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 124 FERC ¶ 61,072 (2008) at P 39.

4

facilities.9

In the request for rehearing and clarification, NERC also explained that OVEC’s role as a

seller of power to DOE PPPO under a month-to-month retail contract is comparable to that of a

power marketer rather than to an LSE. The request for rehearing and clarification explains that

OVEC provides power to DOE PPPO via month-to-month contracts under which OVEC

purchases a block of power in the wholesale market sufficient to meet DOE PPPO’s peak

demand with required reserves.

As the DP associated with the relevant load, DOE PPPO should be registered also as

the LSE. Therefore, DOE PPPO meets the relevant criteria for registration as an LSE.

10 DOE PPPO is the entity responsible for the determination of

its own load profile, and the pricing at which it purchases services.11

Therefore, NERC does not believe that it is appropriate to register OVEC as the LSE in

this case until the Commission has had an opportunity to consider NERC’s request for rehearing

and clarification. NERC requests that it be allowed to continue to defer registration of OVEC as

an LSE in this case until thirty days after an order of the Commission on the NERC request for

rehearing and clarification of the April 19 Order, as appropriate. In support of this request,

NERC submits that it carefully considered the scope of Reliability Standards that would apply to

the LSE function in this case and determined that the majority of those Reliability Standards

already apply to DOE PPPO as a result of DOE PPPO’s registration as a Transmission Owner,

Transmission Operator and DP, which were upheld by the Commission. The majority of the

remaining ten standards, applicable to the LSE function that are not also applicable to DOE

9 Direct Energy Services, LLC, et al., 125 FERC ¶ 61,057 (2008) at P 24 (approving revisions to the Compliance Registry to “have registered distribution providers also register as the LSE for all load directly connected to their distribution facilities”). 10 DOE PPPO Appeal at 3. See also DOE PPPO’s September 5, 2008 Response to NERC’s request for information, submitted as Attachment C to NERC’s October 6, 2008 Compliance Filing. 11 June 12, 2008 Motion to Intervene and Comments of ReliabilityFirst Corporation at 8 and Attachment A (ReliabilityFirst Assessment of DOE Registration Appeal).

5

PPPO’s registration,12

III. CONCLUSION

relate primarily to the provision of information, which NERC can obtain

under its Rules of Procedure or the Commission’s regulations and communications that are

currently being made through OVEC as the Balancing Authority in which the load resides.

Moreover, it would be inappropriate, in these circumstances, to subject OVEC to the

administrative burden of compliance with a number of additional standards pending a final

resolution of this matter.

In view of the foregoing, NERC requests that the Commission accepts this Compliance

Filing and allow NERC to continue to defer registration of OVEC as an LSE in this case until

thirty days after the Commission rules on NERC’s request for rehearing and clarification of the

April 19 Order, as appropriate.

12 These Reliability Standards are: BAL-005-0.1b R1.3; EOP-002-3 R9/9.1; MOD-004-1 R3/3.1/3.2/10; MOD-017-0.1 R1/1.1/1.2/1.3/1.4; MOD-018-0 R1/1.1/1.2/1.3/2; MOD-019-0.1 R1; MOD-020-0 R1; MOD-021-1 R1/2/3; TOP-002-2b R3; VAR-001-2 R5.

6

Respectfully submitted,

Gerald W. Cauley /s/ Rebecca J. Michael

President and Chief Executive Officer North American Electric Reliability Corporation 3353 Peachtree Road NE Suite 600, North Tower Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 446-2560 Charles A. Berardesco Senior Vice President and General Counsel North American Electric Reliability Corporation 1325 G Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 400-3000 (202) 644-8099 – facsimile [email protected]

Rebecca J. Michael Associate General Counsel for Corporate and Regulatory Matters Sonia Mendonça Attorney North American Electric Reliability Corporation 1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 400-3000 (202) 644-8099 – facsimile [email protected] [email protected]

Dated: July 18, 2012

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document upon all parties listed on

the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Dated at Washington, D.C. this 18th day of July, 2012.

Rebecca J. Michael /s/ Rebecca J. Michael

Associate General Counsel for Corporate and Regulatory Matters North American Electric Reliability Corporation 1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 400-3000 (202) 644-8099 – facsimile [email protected]

44610 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR12–31–000]

Dated: July 23, 2012. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–18501 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to these or other pending

Enbridge Pipelines (North Texas) L.P.;

projects. For assistance, contact Commission Online Support.

Notice of Compliance Filing

Take notice that on July 13, 2012, Enbridge Pipelines (North Texas) L.P. filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions to comply with a Commission order issued in Docket No. PR09–26–000 on June 13, 2012, (139 FERC ¶ 61,216) as more fully detailed in the filing.

Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 30, 2012.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2662–012–CT; Project No. 12968–001–CT] Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment FirstLight Hydro Generating Company,

Project No. 2662–012–CT. City of Norwich Dept. of Public Utilities,

Project No. 12968–001–CT.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed competing applications for a new license for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project (Commission Project Nos. 2662–012 and 12968–001). The Scotland Hydroelectric Project is located on the Shetucket River, in Windham County, Connecticut. The existing licensee for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project No. 2662 is FirstLight Hydro Generating Company (FirstLight). The competitor applicant for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project No. 12968 is the City of Norwich Department of Public Utilities (Norwich Public Utilities).

Staff prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project with either FirstLight’s or Norwich Public Utilities’ proposals, and concludes that licensing the project with either proposal, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission’s Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number for either project, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact Commission Online Support at [email protected]; toll-free at 1–866–208–3676; or for TTY, 202–502–8659.

Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission’s Web site http:// www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact Commission Online Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix Scotland Hydroelectric Project, P–2662–012 and P–12968–001 to all comments.

For further information, contact Janet Hutzel at (202) 502–8675 or by email at [email protected].

Dated: July 20, 2012. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–18438 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RC08–5–003] Notice of Filing; North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Take notice that on July 18, 2012, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a filing to comply with the Commission’s directive in its April 19, 2012 Order to show cause why the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) should not be registered as a load-serving entity, if NERC did not register OVEC through its compliance registration process. U.S. Department of Energy, Portsmouth/

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/mailto:[email protected]://www.ferc.gov/mailto:[email protected]://www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/efiling.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/efiling.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/efiling.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/efiling.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asphttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.aspmailto:[email protected]

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2012 / Notices 44611 Paducah Project Office, 139 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2012).

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2012.

Dated: July 20, 2012. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–18437 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P



[Docket No. ER12–2261–000]

Russell City Energy Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

This is a supplemental notice in the

above-referenced proceeding, of Russell City Energy Company, LLC’s application

for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant’s request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is August 13, 2012.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http:// www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission’s eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected]. or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.

Dated: July 23, 2012. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–18505 Filed 7–27–12; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of International Meeting

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that the agency will host an international meeting of the Asia Pacific Energy Regulatory (APER) Forum on August 1–2, 2001 at its headquarters, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners and staff will take part in this event. Commissioner Philip Moeller and Commissioner John R. Norris are co-chairs of the event.

The meetings are expected to begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on both days. An agenda of the conference is attached to this notice.

Those wishing to attend this event are encouraged to register using the on-line form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/ aper-forum/aper-8-1-12-form.asp.

The APER Forum was established as a recommendation at the 3rd Energy Regulatory and Market Development Forum, which operated under the Asia- Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). The APP was an international partnership between the United States, South Korea, Japan, India, Canada, China and Australia aimed at addressing the challenges of climate change, energy security and air pollution in a way that encouraged economic development and reduced poverty. The APER Forum builds upon the work begun under the APP.

The APER Forum is designed to bring together policymakers, regulators, energy industry participants, academics, regulatory research organizations, and grid and market operators from Asian and Pacific countries to engage in meaningful information exchanges on matters relating both to electricity and to natural gas. The APER Forum is voluntary in nature and intends to provide an ongoing experience for information exchange on the development and application of best practices in regulatory and market arrangements. The first meeting was sponsored by Australia and held in 2010.

This year marks the second biennial meeting of the APER Forum. The event will include delegations from the United States, Canada, Australia, China, India, New Zealand, Thailand and Singapore. Other attendees include regulators from Pakistan, Ghana and the Czech Republic. It will focus on three major issues:

http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/mailto:[email protected]://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/mailto:[email protected]://www.ferc.gov/aper-forum/aper-8-1-12-form.asphttps://www.ferc.gov/aper-forum/aper-8-1-12-form.asphttps://www.ferc.gov/aper-forum/aper-8-1-12-form.asp

43190 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules



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.

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.

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

3. Reliability Standards that NERC proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are

effective in that region.3 In Order No. 672, the Commission noted that:

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. 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. 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

Instructions: For detailed instructions proposed by a Regional Entity to be 3 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4). A Regional Entity is an 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

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.

2 See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e) (2006).

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).

4 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(3). 5 Id. § 824o(d)(2). 6 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119

FERC ¶ 61,060 (2007).

http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdfhttp://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdfhttp://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdfhttp://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdfhttp://serc1.org/Documents/Regional%20Entity%20Documents1/Regional%20Entity%20Documents%20(All)/Name%20Change%205-17-06%20SFX4C5F.pdf


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.

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

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

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.

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. 10 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric

Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of

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

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:

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.

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

Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC the implementation time is reasonable, Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, at PP 323–337 (2006), order on reh’g, Order No. 672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶

12 Id. at 18–19. 13 NERC Petition at 7 (citing NERC Reliability as it balances the need for reliability

31,212 (2006). 11 NERC Petition at 18.

Standard PRC–006–1, available at http:// www.nerc.com/files/PRC-006-1.pdf). 14 NERC Petition at 12.

http://www.nerc.com/http://www.nerc.com/files/PRC-006-1.pdfhttp://www.nerc.com/files/PRC-006-1.pdf


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.

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

15. The Commission reads the requirement that UFLS entities

15 NERC Petition at 18. 16 NERC Petition, Exhibit C at 6. 17 NERC Petition, Exhibit A at 14 (emphasis

added).

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.

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

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.’’).

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).


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

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

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 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.

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. 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 following event assessments pursuant to

25 In Order No. 693, the Commission explained 23. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) regulations require that 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. 23 NERC Petition at 18–19. 24 Id. at 18.

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 * * *’’).

26 See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 16. 27 Id.

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

28 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,145, at P 25 (2007).

29 Id. P 32. 30 See NERC Petition, Exhibit E at 17. 31 5 CFR 1320.11.


collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.

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.

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.

PRC–006–SERC–01 (Automatic underfrequency load shedding

requirements) 34

Number of respondents

annually (1)

Number of responses per

respondent (2)

Average burden hours per response

(3)

Total annual burden hours (1) × (2) × (3)

PCs*: Design and document Automatic UFLS Program ................................. PCs: Provide Documentation and Data to SERC ........................................... GOs*: Provide Documentation and Data to SERC ......................................... GOs: Record Retention ................................................................................... Total .................................................................................................................

21 ........................

104 ........................

1 ........................

1 ........................

8 16 16 4

168 336

1,664 416

........................ ........................ ........................ 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.

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.,

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.’’).

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.

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.


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. 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

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). 38 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

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

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

39 13 CFR 121.101. 40 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1. docket number field.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/http://www.ferc.gov/


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

The MICS were last amended in 2009 in the first phase of what was intended to be a multi-phase process of revising the MICS and separating Class II and III controls. This proposed rule furthers that multi-phase process and includes amendments to update the MICS to reflect widespread technological advances in the industry.

Dated: July 16, 2012. Tracie L. Stevens, Chairwoman. Daniel J. Little, Commissioner. [FR Doc. 2012–17649 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am]

NAAQS with the exception of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J). With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD requirements, 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD requirements, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve these requirements. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2010–1015, by one of the following methods:

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting


NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING

comments. 2. Email: [email protected]. 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.

COMMISSION

25 CFR Parts 543 and 547

Minimum Internal Control Standards and Technical Standards

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1015; FRL– 9703–6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Annual and

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 1015,’’ Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) published in the Federal Register two notices of proposed rulemaking for public comment. The deadline for submission of public comments was July 31, 2012. In response to public requests to extend the comment period, the NIGC has determined that an extension of the end of the public comment period from July 31, 2012 until August 15, 2012, is appropriate. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposed rules and prepare their comments. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rules published June 1, 2012, at 77 FR 32444 and 77 FR 32465, is extended. Comments on the proposed rules must be received on or before August 15, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Walters, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100 Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202–632–7003; email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 543 addresses minimum internal control standards (MICS) for Class II gaming operations. The regulations require tribes to establish controls and implement procedures at least as stringent as those described in this Part to maintain the integrity of the gaming operation and minimize the risk of theft.

Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), as demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. DAQ certified that the North Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in North Carolina (hereafter referred to as ‘‘infrastructure submissions’’). EPA is proposing to determine that North Carolina’s infrastructure submissions, provided to EPA on April 1, 2008, and on September 21, 2009, addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 1015. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.regulations.gov/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/

140 FERC ¶ 61,056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 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

(Issued July 19, 2012) AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

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 [INSERT DATE 60 days after publication in the

FEDERAL REGISTER]

Docket No. RM12-9-000 ii ADDRESSES

• Electronic Filing through

: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following

ways:

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

:

http://www.ferc.gov/�mailto:[email protected]�mailto:[email protected]�

140 FERC ¶ 61,056 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01 —Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding Requirements

Docket No. RM12-9-000

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

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.

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.

Docket No. RM12-9-000 - 2 -

I.

A.

Background

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.

Mandatory Reliability Standards

2

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

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.

In Order

No. 672, the Commission noted that:

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

2 See 16 U.S.C. § 824o(e) (2006).

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).

4 16 U.S.C. § 824o(d)(3).

Docket No. RM12-9-000 - 3 -

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. On April 19, 2007, the Commission accepted delegation agreements between NERC and

each of the eight Regional Entities.

6

B.

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.

5. On February 1, 2012, NERC submitted a petition to the Commission seeking approval of

regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01.

Proposed Regional Reliability Standard PRC-006-SERC-01

7

5 Id. § 824o(d)(2).

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

6 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,060 (2007). 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 website, www.nerc.com.

Docket No. RM12-9-000 - 4 -

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.

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 au

· 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE . FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION . U.S. Department...

Documents

Transcript of · 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE . FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION . U.S. Department...