[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66038-66046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27132]
[[Page 66038]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM10-10-000]
Planning Resource Adequacy Assessment Reliability Standard
Issued October 21, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to approve a regional
Reliability Standard, BAL-502-RFC-02, Planning Resource Adequacy
Analysis, Assessment and Documentation, developed by ReliabilityFirst
Corporation (RFC) and submitted to the Commission by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The proposed regional
Reliability Standard requires planning coordinators within the RFC
geographical footprint to analyze, assess and document resource
adequacy for load in the RFC footprint annually, to utilize a ``one day
in ten year'' loss of load criterion, and to document and post load and
resource capability in each area or transmission-constrained sub-area
identified.
DATES: Comments are due December 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and in
accordance with the requirements posted on the Commission's Web site,
http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Submission: Documents created electronically
using word processing software should be filed in native applications
or print-to-PDF format, and not in a scanned format, at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original copy of their
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. These
requirements can be found on the Commission's Web site, see, e.g., the
``Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions,'' available at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or via phone from FERC Online
Support at 202-502-6652 or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karin L. Larson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8236.
Scott Sells (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Policy Analysis and Rulemaking, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
6664.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Under section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to approve a regional
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 (Planning Resource Adequacy
Analysis, Assessment and Documentation), developed by ReliabilityFirst
Corporation (RFC) and submitted to the Commission by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The proposed regional
Reliability Standard requires planning coordinators within the RFC
geographical footprint to analyze, assess and document resource
adequacy for load in the RFC footprint annually, to utilize a ``one day
in ten year'' loss of load criterion, and to document and post load and
resource capability in each area or transmission-constrained sub-area
identified.
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
the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission
independently.\1\ In July 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the
ERO.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
\2\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062
(ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ]
61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission
may include Reliability Standards that are developed by a Regional
Entity.\3\ A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the
Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority
from the ERO.\4\ In Order No. 672, the Commission urged uniformity of
Reliability Standards, but recognized a potential need for regional
differences.\5\ Accordingly, the Commission stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4).
\4\ Id. at 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4).
\5\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, at P 290; order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 at P 291.
4. Consistent with section 215 of the FPA, the Commission will
approve proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 if the
Commission finds it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest.
B. ReliabilityFirst
5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission approved delegation agreements
between NERC and eight Regional Entities.\7\ Pursuant to such
agreements, the ERO delegated responsibility to the Regional Entities
to enforce the mandatory, Commission-approved Reliability Standards. In
addition, the Commission approved, as part of each delegation
agreement, a Regional Entity process for developing regional
Reliability Standards. In the Delegation Agreement Order, the
Commission accepted RFC as a Regional Entity and accepted RFC's
Standards Development Manual which sets forth the process for RFC's
development of regional Reliability Standards.\8\ The RFC region is a
less than interconnection-wide region that covers all or portions of 14
states and the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,060, at P 316-350 (Delegation Agreement Order), order on reh'g,
120 FERC ] 61,260 (2007).
\8\ Id. P 339 (clarifying that the RFC Standards Development
Manual embodies ``rules'' which are subject to NERC approval and, if
approved by NERC, Commission approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. RFC Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
6. On December 14, 2009, NERC submitted for Commission approval, in
accordance with section 215(d)(1) of the
[[Page 66039]]
FPA,\9\ regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 and four
associated new definitions.\10\ The stated purpose of regional
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 is to establish common criteria,
based on ``one day in ten year'' loss of load expectation principles,
for the analysis, assessment and documentation of resource adequacy in
the RFC region.\11\ NERC states that the proposed regional Reliability
Standard establishes requirements for planning coordinators in the RFC
region regarding resource adequacy assessment, which subject matter is
not currently addressed in NERC's continent-wide Reliability
Standards.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
\10\ NERC Petition for Approval of Proposed RFC Regional
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, Docket No. RM10-10-000 (Dec.
14, 2009) (Petition).
\11\ NERC Petition at 7.
\12\ Id. at 7. NERC notes that it has a pending continent-wide
project, Project 2009-05, Resource Adequacy Assessments, that is
intended to address resource adequacy assessments. This NERC project
has a targeted completion date of third quarter 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 contains
two Requirements, which are applicable to each planning coordinator
within the RFC footprint.\13\ Requirement R1 requires each planning
coordinator to perform and document an annual resource adequacy
analysis.\14\ The seven Sub-requirements define the criteria to be used
for the resource adequacy analysis. Sub-requirement R1.1 sets forth the
``one day in ten year'' criteria to be used to calculate the planning
reserve margin. Sub-requirement R1.2 specifies the planning years to be
studied. Sub-requirement R1.3 defines system characteristics to be
included in the analysis. Sub-requirements R1.4 and R1.5 require the
consideration of resource availability and transmission outage plans.
Sub-requirements R1.6 and R1.7 require documentation that capacity
resources and load were properly accounted for in the analysis.
Requirement R2 requires each planning coordinator to annually document
the projected load and resource capability for each area and
transmission constrained sub-area identified in the analysis. Sub-
requirements R2.1 through R2.3 set forth the specific documentation
requirements. Each of the main Requirements (R1 and R2) are assigned a
violation risk factor (VRF) and violation severity level (VSL).
However, RFC did not assign VRFs or VSLs to the Sub-requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ According to the RFC April 16, 2010 organization
registration (available at http://rfirst.org/Compliance/Registration.aspx), there are four registered planning coordinators
in the RFC region, each of which is a RFC member. See RFC's January
11, 2010 list of member companies by sector, available at http://rfirst.org/MiscForms/AboutUs/Membership.aspx. The four registered
planning coordinators are American Transmission Co., LLC;
International Transmission Company (ITC Transmission); Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO); and
PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM).
\14\ NERC notes that the proposed Reliability Standard does not
require the building or acquisition of new generating capacity. See
NERC Petition at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NERC also proposes to add the following four new definitions,
which would be applicable in the RFC region only:
Resource Adequacy: The ability of supply-side and demand-side
resources to meet the aggregate electrical demand (including
losses).
Net Internal Demand: Total of all end-use customer demand and
electric system losses within specified metered boundaries, less
Direct Control Load Management and Interruptible Demand.
Peak Period: A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar
months but less than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the
period during which the responsible entity's annual peak demand is
expected to occur.
Year One: The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual
Peak Period.
NERC states that these four terms do not presently appear in the
NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (Glossary) and
they do not conflict with existing terms.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The NERC Glossary (updated Apr. 20, 2010) is available at
http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. NERC states that on February 24, 2009, RFC submitted the
proposed Reliability Standard to NERC for evaluation and approval. On
April 17, 2009, NERC provided RFC its evaluation of BAL-502-RFC-02
which highlighted several concerns regarding the proposed standard.
NERC's concerns included: (1) Missing time horizons, (2) effective date
not meeting NERC's template language, (3) complex sub-requirements, (4)
the addition of new defined terms, (5) the assignment of VRFs and VSLs
only to the Reliability Standard's two main Requirements and not the
sub-requirements, and (6) technical clarity. On June 8, 2009, RFC
submitted a response to NERC addressing NERC's concerns.
10. NERC concludes that the proposed RFC regional Reliability
Standard addresses matters not currently covered in a continent-wide
NERC Reliability Standard and thus meets the Commission's criteria for
consideration of a regional Reliability Standard. NERC asserts that the
proposed regional Reliability Standard satisfies all of the criteria
set forth in Order No. 672 that the Commission applies to determine
whether a proposed Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly
discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest.\16\ As such,
NERC requests approval of proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-
502-RFC-02 and the related definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 at P 323-337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
11. As discussed below, the Commission proposes to approve BAL-502-
RFC-02. The proposed regional Reliability Standard will improve the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System by ensuring use in the RFC
region of a common criterion, the ``one day in ten year'' principle, to
assess resource adequacy during the planning horizon. The Commission
also proposes to accept the four related definitions for inclusion in
NERC's Glossary for use with RFC's regional Reliability Standards.\17\
The Commission further proposes to defer discussion on the proposed
VRFs and VSLs for the regional Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NERC's Glossary lists each term that has been defined for
use in one or more of NERC's continent-wide or regional Reliability
Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 is ``more
stringent'' in that NERC's continent-wide standards currently do not
address assessment of Resource Adequacy in the planning horizon. The
Commission notes the current continent-wide Reliability Standard TOP-
002-2a, Requirement R7 requires Balancing Authorities to plan to meet
capacity and energy reserve requirements, including the deliverability/
capability for any single contingency.\18\ Reliability Standard TOP-
002-2 ensures that resources and operational plans are in place to
enable system operators to maintain the Bulk-Power System in a reliable
state.\19\ Thus Reliability Standard TOP-002-2 is a continent-wide
Reliability Standard that addresses requirements for reserves during
the operations timeframe whereas proposed regional Reliability Standard
BAL-502-RFC-02 addresses the assessment of resource adequacy (or
planning reserves) during the planning timeframe. If NERC develops a
continent-wide Reliability Standard that addresses assessment of
resource adequacy in the planning horizon and such Reliability Standard
is approved by the Commission, RFC should
[[Page 66040]]
reevaluate the continuing need for regional Reliability Standard BAL-
502-RFC-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Reliability Standard TOP-002-2a, Requirement R7.
\19\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P 1590, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007). See also the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM06-16-000, FERC Stats. &
Regs., Proposed Regulations 2004-2007, ] 32,608 (2006) (Order No.
693 NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Order No. 672 Criteria
13. Order No. 672 provides that a Reliability Standard must be
designed to achieve a specified reliability goal and must contain a
technically sound means to achieve this goal.\20\ Likewise, the
Reliability Standard should be based on actual data and lessons learned
from actual operations.\21\ According to NERC and RFC, proposed
regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 is clear and unambiguous
regarding what is required and who is required to comply (planning
coordinator). NERC and RFC also state that BAL-502-RFC-02 has clear and
objective measures for compliance and achieves a reliability goal
(namely, providing a common framework for resource adequacy analysis,
assessment, and documentation) effectively and efficiently. Based on
the Commission's understanding of the proposed regional Reliability
Standard, explained below, the Commission believes that BAL-502-RFC-02
satisfies the Order No. 672 criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 at P 324.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. RFC's Proposed Resource Adequacy Reliability Standard Requirements
14. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 requires
planning coordinators to perform an annual Resource Adequacy analysis
and calculate a planning reserve margin that meets the ``one day in ten
year'' criterion. The analysis must be ``performed or verified
separately'' for (i) Year One, (ii) for one year falling in the second
through fifth years, and (iii) at least one year in the sixth through
tenth years.\22\ The regional Reliability Standard further requires the
planning coordinators to calculate the planning reserve margin by
assessing each of the integrated peak hours for each day within the
year being analyzed to determine the probability that generation and
demand-side resources cannot meet the demand during that hour for that
day (which would result in a loss of load).\23\ The calculated planning
reserve margin is to be expressed as a percentage of the median
forecast peak demand (not including direct control load management and
interruptible demand). Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
states that this median forecast is expected to have a 50 percent
probability that the projected load is too high and 50 percent
probability that the projected load is too low.\24\ In order to
determine the appropriate load forecast, the planning coordinators must
consider multiple factors including: (i) Variability in the load
forecast such as weather and regional economic forecasts, (ii) load
diversity, (iii) seasonal load variations, (iv) firm load and (v)
interruptible load including contractual arrangements concerning
curtailable and/or interruptible demand.\25\ In addition, the planning
coordinator must document that all load in its area is accounted for in
the analysis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02,
Requirement R1.2.
\23\ See id. at Requirement R1.1.
\24\ See id. at Requirement R1.1.2 n.2.
\25\ See id. at Requirement R1.3.1.
\26\ See id. at Requirements R1.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Further, the planning coordinator must determine the
probability of resources that will be online and available, determine
the distribution of the peak load for each day, and include impacts of
known transmission limitations.\27\ To determine the probability of
available resources the planning coordinator must consider multiple
factors. Such factors include: (i) The historic resource performance,
(ii) seasonal resource ratings, (iii) firm capacity purchases from and
sales to entities outside of the planning coordinator area, (iv)
resource planned outage schedules, (v) deratings and retirements, (vi)
assumptions of intermittent and energy limited resources (such as wind
and cogeneration), (vii) criteria for including planned resource
additions, (viii) availability and delivery of fuel, (ix) common mode
outages that affect resource availability, (x) environmental and
regulatory restrictions of resources, (xi) available demand response
programs, (xii) sensitivity to resource outage rates, (xiii) extreme
weather/drought condition impacts on resource availability, (xiv)
assumptions for emergency operation procedures in order to make
reserves available, and (xv) uncommitted resources within the planning
coordinator area.\28\ Also, the planning coordinator must document that
all capacity resources in the planning coordinator area are
appropriately accounted for in the analysis.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See id. at Requirements R1.3.1, R1.3.2, and R1.3.3.
\28\ See id. at Requirements R1.3.2 and R1.4.
\29\ See id. at Requirement R1.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The planning coordinator is also required to consider the
impacts of transmission limitations that could prevent the delivery of
generation to the load including criteria for including planned
transmission facilities in the study as well as transmission
maintenance outage schedules.\30\ Proposed regional Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, Requirement R1.3.4 requires planning
coordinators to include in their assessment of transmission limits
assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area
assessment considering transmission limitations into the study area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See id. at Requirements R1.3.3, R1.3.3.1, R1.3.3.2 and
R1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Overall, the Commission believes that factors to be considered
in the resource adequacy analysis as set forth in Requirement R1 and,
as discussed above, are a technically sound means to set up the
analysis for the probability of not having enough resources in order to
meet demand and avoid loss of load. However, the Commission questions
or seeks clarity on three details of the resource adequacy analysis:
(i) The loss of load calculation, (ii) use of capacity benefit margin;
and (iii) meaning of common mode outages.
18. Requirement R1.1 states that the assessment shall calculate a
planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of probabilities
for loss of load for each planning year equal to 0.1, or comparable to
``one day in ten years'' when available capacity will not meet the
load. With respect to the loss of load calculation, proposed regional
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 specifically identifies two
circumstances that will not count in the loss of load calculation: (1)
Utilization of direct control load management \31\ and (2) curtailment
of interruptible load.\32\ Notwithstanding these two exceptions to the
loss of load calculation, the Commission seeks comment on how other
actions that could be taken by a system operator, such as voltage
reduction or other, non-voluntary, types of load reduction plans, would
be modeled and documented in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ NERC defines direct control load management (DCLM) as
``Demand-Side Management that is under the direct control of the
system operator. DCLM may control the electric supply to individual
appliances or equipment on customer premises. DCLM as defined here
does not include Interruptible Demand.''
\32\ NERC defines Interruptible Load as ``Demand that the end-
use customer makes available to its Load-Serving Entity via contract
or agreements for curtailment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. With respect to the capacity benefit margin, the Commission
notes that the requirements do not explicitly state whether planning
coordinators may rely upon capacity benefit
[[Page 66041]]
margin \33\ to satisfy BAL-502-RFC-02's Requirements. During the
standard development posting period, RFC received comments regarding
potential conflicts or lack of coordination between BAL-502-RFC-02 and
MOD-004-1--Capacity Benefit Margin.\34\ The Commission does not believe
the proposed regional Reliability Standard is in conflict with the
continent-wide Reliability Standard, but does note there could be some
confusion regarding whether capacity benefit margin could or could not
be used in order to meet the Requirements of BAL-502-RFC-02.\35\
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether capacity benefit margin may be
used to satisfy BAL-502-RFC-02's Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The NERC Glossary defines capacity benefit margin (CBM) as
``the amount of firm transmission transfer capability preserved by
the transmission provider for Load-Serving Entities (LSE), whose
loads are located on that Transmission Service Provider's system, to
enable access by the LSEs to generation from interconnected systems
to meet generation reliability requirements. Preservation of CBM for
an LSE allows that entity to reduce its installed generating
capacity below that which may otherwise have been necessary without
interconnections to meet its generation reliability requirements.
The transmission transfer capability preserved as CBM is intended to
be used by the LSE only in times of emergency generation
deficiencies.''
\34\ See NERC Petition, Exhibit C, comments from ITC
Transmission.
\35\ Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 addresses capacity benefit
margin, or a capacity preserved for firm transmission transfer
capability. Conversely, the Requirements in proposed Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 address an analysis regarding the capability
of generation to serve the projected load. While capacity benefit
margin could be a method of meeting the requirements of BAL-502-RFC-
02, the two standards do not contradict each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. With respect to Requirement R1.4, which requires the resource
adequacy analysis to consider resource availability characteristics
including ``common mode outages that affect resource availability,''
the Commission seeks comment on whether planning coordinators, when
evaluating ``common mode outages that affect resource availability''
will consider only outages within the generation facility, or if the
analysis will also include outages of transmission facilities that
would have an impact on resource or generator availability.
C. Missing Time Horizons
21. NERC's Petition notes its concern that the proposed regional
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 does not identify time horizons for
each Requirement. Time horizons are used as a factor in determining the
size of a sanction. If an entity violates a Requirement and there is no
time to mitigate the violation because the Requirement takes place in
real-time, then the sanction associated with the violation is higher
than it would be for violation of a Requirement that could be mitigated
over a longer period of time.\36\ According to NERC's template for
Reliability Standards, each main Requirement in a Reliability Standard
should be assigned one of the following time horizons: (1) Long-Term
Planning (a planning horizon of one year or longer), (2) Operations
Planning (operating and resource plans from day-ahead up to and
including seasonal), (3) Same-day Operations (routine actions required
within the timeframe of a day, but not real-time), (4) Real-time
Operations (actions required within one hour or less to preserve the
reliability of the bulk electric system), and (5) Operations Assessment
(follow-up evaluations and reporting of real time operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See NERC's ``Time Horizons'' document, available on NERC's
Web site at http://www.nerc.com/files/Time_Horizons.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. According to NERC, time horizons are used for compliance
assessments as described in NERC's Sanctions Guidelines.\37\ Time
horizons are used when determining the severity of a violation risk
factor and for determining the penalty for a violation. RFC states that
it did not include time horizons because its Reliability Standards
Development Procedure (RSDP) does not include time horizons in its
template for Reliability Standards. The RFC RSDP sets forth the
required elements of a Standard and includes a Reliability Standard
template. RFC's RSDP does not include ``time horizons'' as a required
element.\38\ Thus, RFC states that including time horizons in BAL-502-
RFC-02 would have been a deviation from its Commission-approved
Standards template. RFC also notes that ``the standard focuses on
`planning oriented' subject matter for one year and beyond,'' and, as
such, the ``appropriate time horizons are relatively straight
forward.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ NERC Petition at 22.
\38\ RFC Reliability Standards Development Procedure, at 3 (May
22, 2008) available at http://www.rfirst.org/Documents/Standards/Reliability%20Standards%20Developmental%20Procedure.pdf.
\39\ NERC Petition at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The Commission agrees with NERC that it is important to
identify the time horizons for each Reliability Standard. However, time
horizons are not critical to our determination of whether to approve
this proposed Reliability Standard. As the Commission has previously
stated, the ``most critical element of a Reliability Standard is the
Requirements.'' \40\ Moreover, the Commission notes that with respect
to proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, the time
horizon ``Long-Term Planning'' can be gleaned from the context of the
standard for the purpose of determining the severity of a violation
risk factor, or for determining the penalty for a violation. However,
the Commission notes that RFC currently is in the process of modifying
its RSDP such that it will be required to use the most current version
of the approved NERC Reliability Standard template when developing a
RFC regional Reliability Standard.\41\ NERC's ``Template Guide for New
Standards,'' ``Template Quality Review of Standards,'' and ``Time
Horizons'' documents all call for the inclusion of time horizons in new
Reliability Standards.\42\ Thus RFC's proposed change to its RSDP would
require RFC to tag each new Reliability Standard Requirement with a
time horizon. We believe that the identification of the appropriate
time horizon for each Requirement is useful and improves clarity and
consistency in compliance assessments. Because RFC appears to be moving
toward requiring the assignment of time horizons as part of its
standard drafting process, as well as the benefits of assigning time
horizons, the Commission proposes to direct RFC to add time horizons to
the two main Requirements when RFC reviews regional Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 in its scheduled five-year review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Order No. 693 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed
Regulations 2004-2007, ] 32,608 at p. 105.
\41\ RFC project SDP-501-RFC-03 was posted for 15-day category
ballot the ``Draft 2 Standards Development Procedure'' on Sept. 1,
2010 and can be found on RFC's Web site at http://rsvp.rfirst.org/SDP501RFC03/default.aspx.
\42\ The ``Template Guide for New Standards,'' ``Template
Quality Review of Standards,'' and ``Time Horizons'' documents can
all be found on the NERC Web site at http://www.nerc.com/commondocs.php?cd=2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Proposed Effective Date
24. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02's stated
effective date is ``upon RFC Board approval,'' which occurred on
December 4, 2008. NERC raises the concern that ``[t]he effective date
should follow the latest language found in the [NERC] standards
template to meet the needs of the compliance program.'' \43\ NERC's
``standards template'' provides that the effective date should be ``the
first day of the first quarter after regulatory approval.'' \44\ RFC
responded that the proposed RFC Board approval effective date set forth
in BAL-502-RFC-02 is appropriate because of the regional nature of the
Standard and because the
[[Page 66042]]
Requirements under BAL-502-RFC-02 are already being implemented.
Specifically, RFC noted that upon RFC Board approval, BAL-502-RFC-02
became effective and enforceable with respect to RFC members under
their ``Terms of Membership'' contained in RFC's bylaws.\45\ Because
BAL-502-RFC-02 only applies to planning coordinators within RFC's
region, all of which are RFC members, BAL-502-RFC-02's Requirements are
currently effective. As such, no additional implementation time is
required.\46\ RFC acknowledges that upon Commission approval, the
Reliability Standard will be mandatory and enforceable, and that non-
compliance will be subject to financial penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ NERC Petition at 22.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Pursuant to RFC's bylaws, RFC members are subject to a
regional Reliability Standard once the Standard is approved by the
RFC Board. Although a Board-approved Standard is enforceable under
the RFC bylaws as a term of membership, a member would not be
subject to potential financial penalties. See NERC Petition at 25.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. We propose to find that with respect to proposed Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, no additional implementation time is required
as the four registered planning coordinators in the RFC region, as RFC
members, are already operating under the Standard.\47\ There are no
other planning coordinators to whom the requirements will apply after
Commission approval. While we note that reliability standards are
generally implemented prospectively, in this case the real impact of
Commission approval is to make BAL-502-RFC-02 prospectively enforceable
through civil penalties. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 will become mandatory and
enforceable on the effective date of the Commission's final rule
approving the Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The Commission notes that under the current NERC compliance
registry entities register as ``planning authorities,'' not
``planning coordinators.'' NERC defines ``planning coordinator'' in
its Glossary by simply referencing ``See Planning Authority.'' The
Commission understands that for reliability purposes planning
authorities and planning coordinators are interchangeable. Thus any
entity registered with NERC as a planning authority is subject to
any Reliability Standard that applies to planning coordinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Provision of Data
26. Proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 requires planning
coordinators to perform a resource adequacy analysis and assessment.
Gathering data is a necessary component of doing so. The Commission is
concerned that proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 does not
require other entities (load-serving entities, balancing authorities,
transmission operators, resource planners, or transmission planners) to
provide the planning coordinators subject to BAL-502-RFC-02 the
necessary data for the resource adequacy analysis. In short, the
Commission is concerned that planning coordinators will be subject to a
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standard without the necessary
tools to fulfill the Standard's Requirements. The Commission recognizes
that this concern is somewhat alleviated by the fact that, within the
RFC, many of the planning coordinators are also the entities that would
have the needed data,\48\ or may obtain some of the needed data as a
result of some continent-wide Reliability Standards' Requirements.\49\
The Commission invites comment on whether the planning coordinators
have encountered problems with collecting necessary data in order to
complete the resource adequacy assessment that is the subject of BAL-
502-RFC-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The four planning coordinators currently registered in RFC
are also registered as other functional entities. American
Transmission Co., LLC and ITC Transmission are both registered as
transmission owners, transmission operators and transmission
planners. Midwest ISO is registered as a balancing authority,
interchange authority, reliability coordinator and transmission
service provider. PJM is registered as balancing authority,
interchange authority, reliability coordinator, resource planner,
transmission operator, transmission planner, and transmission
service provider.
\49\ For example, it appears that the following continent-wide
Reliability Standards allow planning coordinators to obtain data
needed to conduct the resource adequacy analysis and assessment: (i)
MOD-001, Requirement R9 (requires transmission service providers to
provide data regarding available transfer capability or available
flowgate capability calculations to the planning coordinator upon
request); (ii) MOD-004, Requirement R9 (requires transmission
service providers and transmission planners to provide data used for
determining or allocating CBM to the planning coordinator upon
request); (iii) MOD-008, Requirement R3 (requires transmission
operators to provide the TRM implementation document to the planning
coordinator upon request); (iv) PRC-023, Requirements R2 and R3
(gives planning coordinators access to facility ratings and the
identification of facilities critical to reliability); and (v) TPL-
001, TPL-002, TPL-003 and TPL-004 (gives planning coordinators
access to data related to the determination of whether the
transmission system is planned to meet firm demand under certain
conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Regional Definitions
27. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 includes
four new definitions that apply only to the RFC region: Resource
Adequacy, Net Internal Demand, Peak Period, and Year One. NERC plans to
publish the definitions in a distinct section of the NERC Glossary
noting their limited applicability to entities within RFC.
28. The Commission proposes to accept the four new defined terms to
be applicable only in the RFC region. However, the Commission cautions
NERC and the Regional Entities to be aware of ``a potential re-
proliferation of regional terminology, and consequently, the need to
prevent possible inconsistent use of terminology among regions.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Western Electricity Coordinating Council Regional
Reliability Standard Regarding Automatic Time Error Correction,
Order No. 723, 127 FERC ] 61,176, at P 39 (2009) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. For example, the Commission notes that RFC's proposed term
``Resource Adequacy'' is used in NERC's continent-wide Reliability
Standard MOD-004-1 \51\ as well as in NERC's definitions of
``Generation Capability Import Requirement'' \52\ and ``Resource
Planner'' \53\ as set forth in NERC's Glossary. While RFC's definition
of ``Resource Adequacy'' does not appear to conflict with the use of
this term within the continent-wide Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 or
in NERC's Glossary, the addition of ``Resource Adequacy'' as a defined
regional term highlights the need for NERC to remain vigilant regarding
re-proliferation of regional terminology. This is particularly relevant
with respect to terms like ``Resource Adequacy'' where other Regional
Entities may have differing definitions of resource adequacy and
differing understandings of how those definitions apply to the
continent-wide Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 and NERC's defined terms
``generation capability import requirement'' and ``resource planner.''
Accordingly, the Commission urges NERC and the Regional Entities to be
vigilant to assure that any proposed regional definition is consistent
with both NERC definitions and the approved terms used in other
regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Reliability Standard MOD-004-1--Capacity Benefit Margin,
Requirements R4.1, R5.1 and R6.1 each include a bullet stating:
``Reserve margin or resource adequacy requirements established by
other entities, such as municipalities, state commissions, regional
transmission organizations, independent system operators, Regional
Reliability Organizations, or regional entities.'' (Emphasis added).
\52\ ``Generation Capability Import Requirement'' is defined in
the Glossary as: ``The amount of generation capability from external
sources identified by a Load-Serving Entity (LSE) or Resource
Planner (RP) to meet its generation reliability or resource adequacy
requirements as an alternative to internal resources.''
\53\ ``Resource Planner'' is defined as: ``The entity that
develops a long-term (generally one year and beyond) plan for the
resource adequacy of specific loads (customer demand and energy
requirements) within a Planning Authority Area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66043]]
G. Technical Recommendation (Resources Beyond RFC Footprint)
30. With respect to proposed BAL-502-RFC-02, NERC raises the
concern of ``how entities within RFC that have load and resources
outside the RFC footprint account for these resources in their
[resource adequacy] analysis.'' \54\ Specifically, NERC asked RFC to
clarify if planning coordinators within the RFC footprint are expected
to only include RFC load and resources in the analysis. RFC responded
to NERC's technical recommendation stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ NERC Petition at 24.
The intent is to cover all load within the RFC footprint.
Planning Coordinators may include load outside the RFC footprint as
deemed appropriate. Even if a Planning Coordinator has load outside
of the ReliabilityFirst footprint, as long as it operates as a
single area, the adequacy of that Planning Coordinator area will
indicate adequacy of the part of the area within the
ReliabilityFirst footprint. From a converse perspective, if the
Planning Coordinator operates as a single area, that area must be
assessed as a whole or the assessment will be inadequate for the
area within the RFC footprint. (If transmission constraints exist,
the Planning Coordinator's constrained areas would have to be
addressed separately in any event.) \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ NERC Petition at Exhibit C, NERC's April 17, 2009 Quality
Assurance Review Summary at 4.
The Commission generally agrees with the response provided by RFC.
However, as discussed in detail below, the Commission expects that a
planning coordinator may benefit from a common process for including
resources and loads outside of the RFC footprint in its resource
adequacy analysis.
31. As RFC noted in its response to NERC on this issue that in
order to perform a valid assessment, it may be necessary to represent a
portion of areas outside of the RFC footprint in order to determine the
impact those areas may have on the footprint being analyzed. RFC has
incorporated into the proposed regional Reliability Standard a high
level of detail necessary to perform a valid assessment. Similarly, the
Commission notes how NERC's continent-wide transmission planning
Reliability Standards \56\ require a valid assessment, and explicitly
state in the Standard what is expected to be completed in order to have
a valid assessment. One important aspect of a valid assessment is that
it should include an appropriate model of areas outside of the area
being analyzed in order for the analysis to accurately represent what
could be expected during actual operation.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Transmission Planning Reliability Standards TPL-001
Requirement R1, TPL-002 Requirement R1, TPL-003 Requirement R1, and
TPL-004 Requirement R1 all require a valid assessment stating: ``The
Planning Authority and Transmission Planner shall each demonstrate
through a valid assessment. * * *'' Further, the sub-requirements
under Requirement R1 of each of the above-identified transmission
planning Reliability Standards detail what is expected in order to
have a valid assessment.
\57\ Requirement R1.3.5 of Reliability Standards TPL-001 through
TPL-003 and Requirement 1.3.4 of Reliability Standard TPL-004 state
that in order to have a valid assessment, the simulation shall
``have all projected firm transfers modeled.'' This is one example
of how areas outside of the area being analyzed must be
appropriately modeled in order to simulate the impact on the area
being analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise, the resource adequacy analysis could be skewed by
showing adequacy within the RFC footprint while leaving out an
inadequate area outside of the RFC footprint. To avoid this potential
issue, the Commission expects that a RFC planning coordinator would
have a common process or procedure that addresses the planning reserves
assessments, which could include either (i) a methodology to determine
whether or how the planning coordinator would include resources and
loads outside of the RFC footprint in its resource adequacy analysis or
(ii) models which the resource adequacy assessment should utilize that
would already include the appropriate modeling of external areas. The
Commission seeks comments on any concerns or suggestions to address
load and resources outside of the RFC footprint during a planning
assessment and also seeks comments on how entities currently perform
this task or other similar planning tasks where load and resources
occur outside of boundaries required by the assessment.
H. Planning Gap Identification
32. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 includes
two main Requirements: (1) To annually perform and document resource
adequacy analysis (R1); and (2) to annually document the projected load
and resource capability for each area identified in the resource
adequacy analysis (R2). BAL-502-RFC-02 does not include a Requirement
to document any gap between the planning reserve margin calculated in
R1.1 (the amount of planning reserve needed to ensure a ``one day in
ten year'' criterion) and the actual planning reserve determined in the
resource adequacy analysis.
33. The Commission believes that it would be useful for planning
coordinators to identify and document a deficiency in planning
reserves. Identification of a planning gap could help ensure that
entities are aware of potential risks regarding the capability to
balance resources and demand in a planning timeframe. Acknowledging
potential risk to the Bulk-Power System during the planning timeframe
would allow affected entities time to develop a solution before the
identified deficiency in planning reserves leads to adverse reliability
impacts. For example, NERC's continent-wide transmission planning
Reliability Standards \58\ include Requirements for entities to develop
a corrective action plan when system simulations indicate an inability
of the systems to respond as prescribed in the Standards. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes to direct RFC, when reviewing BAL-502-RFC-02
during its scheduled five-year review, to consider modifying BAL-502-
RFC-02 to include a Requirement to identify any gap between the needed
amount of planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the
planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis. This
would be a documentation Requirement only and would not require
entities to install additional generation or transmission capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Reliability Standards TPL-001-0, Requirements R2 and
R3; TPL-002-0, Requirements R2 and R3; TPL-003-0, Requirements R2
and R3; and TPL-004-0, Requirements R2 and R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Violation Risk Factors/Violation Security Levels
34. To determine a base penalty amount for a violation of a
Requirement within a Reliability Standard, NERC, or in this case RFC as
the developer of proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, must
first determine an initial range for the base penalty amount. To do so,
RFC is to assign a VRF to each Requirement and sub-Requirement of a
Reliability Standard that relates to the expected or potential impact
of a violation of the Requirement on the reliability of the Bulk-Power
System. The Commission has established guidelines for evaluating the
validity of each VRF assignment.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, order on reh'g, 120 FERC ] 61,145, at P 8-13 (2007)
(Violation Risk Factor Rehearing Order). The guidelines are: (1)
Consistency with the conclusions of the Blackout Report; (2)
consistency within a Reliability Standard; (3) consistency among
Reliability Standards; (4) consistency with NERC's definition of the
violation risk factor level; and (5) treatment of requirements that
co-mingle more than one obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. The Reliability Standard developer also is to assign each
Requirement and sub-Requirement one of four VSLs--low, moderate, high,
and severe--as measurements for the degree to which the Requirement was
violated in a specific circumstance. On June 19, 2008, the Commission
issued an order
[[Page 66044]]
establishing four guidelines for the development of VSLs.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ]
61,284, at P 20-35 (Violation Severity Level Order), order on reh'g
and compliance, 125 FERC ] 61,212 (2008). The guidelines provide
that VSL assignments should: (1) Not lower the current level of
compliance; (2) ensure uniformity and consistency in the
determination of penalties; (3) be consistent with the corresponding
requirement; and (4) be based on a single violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. With respect to proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02,
RFC assigned VRFs only to the two main Requirements and did not propose
VRFs for any of the sub-Requirements.\61\ Requirement R1 of BAL-502-
RFC-02 is assigned a ``medium'' VRF and Requirement R2 is assigned a
``lower'' VRF. Similarly, RFC assigned VSLs only to the main
Requirements, R1 and R2, of proposed BAL-502-RFC-02, and not to any of
the sub-Requirements. NERC notes that RFC's assignment of both VRFs and
VSLs only to the main Requirements is consistent with NERC's August 10,
2009 Informational Filing Regarding the Assignment of VRFs and
VSLs.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ We note that in Version Two Facilities Design, Connections
and Maintenance Reliability Standards, Order No. 722, 126 FERC ]
61,255, at P 45 (2009), the ERO proposed to develop VRFs and VSLs
for Requirements but not sub-requirements. The Commission denied the
proposal as ``premature'' and, instead, encouraged the ERO to
``develop a new and comprehensive approach that would better
facilitate the assignment of violation severity levels and violation
risk factors.'' As directed, on March 5, 2010, NERC submitted a
comprehensive approach that is currently pending with the Commission
in Docket No. RR08-4-005.
\62\ NERC Petition at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. On May 5, 2010, NERC incorporated by reference into Docket No.
RR08-4-005,\63\ its August 10, 2009 information filing in which NERC
proposes assigning VRFs and VSLs only to the main Requirements in each
Reliability Standard, and not to the sub-Requirements. Because the VRFs
and VSLs for both Requirements R1 and R2 of proposed Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 are affected by the NERC's pending petition, we
propose to defer discussion on the proposed VRFs and VSLs assigned to
BAL-502-RFC-02 until after we act on NERC's petition in Docket No.
RR08-4-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Docket No. RR08-4-005 comprises NERC's March 5, 2010
Violation Severity Level Compliance Filing submitted in response to
Order No. 722. See Order No. 722, 126 FERC ] 61,255 at P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Summary
38. In summary, proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-
02 appears to be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission
proposes to approve regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 as
mandatory and enforceable and to accept the four related defined terms
as terms applicable to the RFC region only. In addition, the Commission
proposes to defer discussion on the proposed VRFs and VSLs, as
described above. The Commission invites comments on these proposals.
IV. Information Collection Statement
39. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rules.\64\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information
unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control
number. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \65\ requires each federal
agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection
of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule
of general applicability.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 5 CFR 1320.8.
\65\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
\66\ OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) require that
``Any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained
in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more
persons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. 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 estimates, 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.
41. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposes to approve
one new regional Reliability Standard, BAL-502-RFC-02, that was
developed by RFC, a Regional Entity, and submitted by NERC as the ERO.
The proposed regional Reliability Standard requires planning
coordinators within the RFC geographical footprint to analyze, assess
and document resource adequacy, annually, and to document and post
projected load and resource capability in each area and transmission-
constrained sub-area identified in the resource adequacy assessment.
The proposed regional Reliability Standard, which applies to
approximately four planning coordinators located in the eastern portion
of the U.S., does not require planning coordinators to file information
with the Commission. It does require planning coordinators to develop,
document, publicly post, and retain certain information, subject to
compliance monitoring by RFC. However, the Commission does not believe
that approval of the RFC regional Reliability Standard will result in a
substantive increase in reporting burdens because it implements the
current practices in RFC. As RFC has represented, the affected RFC-
member planning coordinators have been subject to these requirements
since August 2009 and would continue to be subject to them even if the
Commission did not approve BAL-502-RFC-02 as a regional Reliability
Standard. Thus, the Commission finds that the requirement to develop,
document, and maintain information in the regional Reliability Standard
is a current and ongoing requirement for RFC members and, therefore,
the Commission's proposed action in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
would not impose any additional burden on RFC-member planning
coordinators. The Commission therefore concludes that this proposed
rule will not substantively increase the reporting burden nor impose
any additional information collection requirements. The proposed
regional Reliability Standard is a new standard and was not included in
the original standards submitted for review and approval by OMB. In
addition, Commission approval of proposed regional Reliability Standard
BAL-502-RFC-02 makes the standard mandatory and enforceable. Therefore,
the Commission will submit this proposed rule to OMB for review and
approval of the reporting requirements and propose a de minimis burden
to reflect the prior implementation by RFC as part of its region's
standard practices.
42. The Commission does not foresee any impact on the reporting
burden for small businesses.
43. Based on currently available information and the fact that the
burden is an existing part of the business process for registered
planning coordinators in the RFC region, the Commission estimates that
the increased Public Reporting Burden is de minimis as follows:
[[Page 66045]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Hours per Total annual
Proposed data collection FERC-725-H respondents responses respondent hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered planning coordinators \67\ 4 1 10 40
in the RFC region....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ................ ................ ................ 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ At this time, there are only four registered planning
coordinators in the RFC region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annual costs = $2,651.41 ((40 hours/2080 hours/year)
x $137,874/year).
Title: (proposed) FERC-725-H, Regional Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 (Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis,
Assessment and Documentation).
Action: Proposed Collection of Information.
OMB Control No: To Be Determined.
Respondents: Registered planning coordinators in the RFC
region.
Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
Necessity of the Information: The proposed Regional
Reliability Standard requires planning coordinators to document and
maintain, for two years, their resource adequacy analyses and the
projected load and resource capability subject to review by the
Commission, NERC, and RFC to ensure compliance with the Reliability
Standard.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed
regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 and believes it to be
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The Commission has assured itself, by means of
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the
burden estimates associated with the information requirements.
44. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, Phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873,
e-mail: [email protected]]. Comments on the requirements of this
order may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at
[email protected]. Please reference FERC-725H and the docket
number of this proposed rulemaking in your submission.
V. Environmental Analysis
45. 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.\68\ 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.\69\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\69\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \70\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The entities to which the requirements of this Rule would apply; i.e.,
planning coordinators within the RFC region, do not fall within the
definition of small entities.\71\ Moreover, the proposed regional
Reliability Standards reflect a continuation of existing resource
planning assessment requirements for these planning coordinators and
are ``new'' only with respect to the fact that once approved by the
Commission, they would be subject to enforcement by either NERC or the
Commission. Based on the foregoing, the Commission certifies that this
Rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\71\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632. According to the SBA, a small electric utility is
defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four
million MWh in the preceding year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Comment Procedures
47. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this NOPR to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due December 27, 2010. Comments must refer to
Docket No. RM10-10-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments.
48. 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.
49. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original copy of their comments to: \72\ Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The number of copies to be filed is set forth in the
Commission's ``Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions'' (as
updated), available at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. 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.
VIII. Document Availability
51. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
[[Page 66046]]
52. From FERC'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.
53. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
By direction of the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27132 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P