[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29990-30001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM15-11-000]


Reliability Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance 
for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes 
to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 (Transmission System Planned 
Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events). Proposed Reliability 
Standard TPL-007-1 establishes requirements for certain entities to 
assess the vulnerability of their transmission systems to geomagnetic 
disturbance events (GMDs), which occur when the sun ejects charged 
particles that interact and cause changes in the earth's magnetic 
fields. Entities that do not meet certain performance requirements, 
based on the results of their vulnerability assessments, must develop a 
plan to achieve the requirements. The North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric 
Reliability Organization, submitted the proposed Reliability Standard 
for Commission approval in response to a Commission directive in Order 
No. 779. In addition, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC 
develop modifications to the benchmark GMD event definition set forth 
in Attachment 1 of the proposed Reliability Standard so that the 
definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data. The 
Commission also proposes to direct NERC to submit a work plan, and 
subsequently one or more informational filings, that address specific 
GMD-related research areas.

DATES: Comments are due July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the 
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents 
created electronically using word processing software should be filed 
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned 
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically 
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.

Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment 
Procedures Section of this document.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regis Binder (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, Telephone: (301) 665-1601, [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: 
    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the 
Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 
(Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance 
Events). Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 establishes 
requirements for certain entities to assess the vulnerability of their 
transmission systems to geomagnetic disturbance events (GMDs), which 
occur when the sun ejects charged particles that interact and cause 
changes in the earth's magnetic fields. Entities that do not meet 
certain performance requirements, based on the results of their 
vulnerability assessments, must develop a plan to achieve the 
requirements. The North

[[Page 29991]]

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted the 
proposed Reliability Standard for Commission approval in response to a 
Commission directive in Order No. 779.\2\ The Commission also proposes 
to approve one definition for inclusion in the NERC Glossary of Terms 
submitted by NERC as well as the proposed Reliability Standard's 
associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, 
implementation plan, and effective dates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \2\ Reliability Standards for Geomagnetic Disturbances, Order 
No. 779, 78 FR 30,747 (May 23, 2013), 143 FERC ] 61,147, reh'g 
denied, 144 FERC ] 61,113 (2013).
    \3\ NERC, Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards 
(April 2015) (NERC Glossary), available at http://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In addition, as discussed below, the Commission proposes to 
direct NERC to develop modifications to Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 
and submit informational filings to address certain issues described 
herein.
    3. Geomagnetic disturbances are considered to be ``high impact, low 
frequency'' events.\4\ In other words, while the probability of 
occurrence of a severe geomagnetic disturbance may be low, a 
geomagnetic disturbance of sufficient magnitude could have potentially 
severe consequences to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power 
System.\5\ Such events could cause widespread blackouts and cause 
damage to equipment that could result in sustained system outages.\6\ 
On that basis, it is important that NERC, planning coordinators, 
transmission planners, transmission owners and generator owners take 
appropriate actions to prepare to withstand potentially harmful 
geomagnetic disturbances. For that reason, Order No. 779 required NERC 
to identify what severity GMD events (i.e., benchmark GMD events) 
responsible entities will have to assess, and that NERC should 
technically support its choice. In the proposed reliability standard, 
NERC set the benchmark GMD event as a ``1-in-100 year'' event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NERC Petition at 3; see also NERC Petition, Ex. D (White 
Paper on GMD Benchmark Event Description) at 5.
    \5\ Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 15 (quoting NERC 
comment that ``as a high-impact, low frequency event, GMDs pose a 
unique threat to Bulk-Power System reliability, and NERC is 
committed to working with stakeholders and the Commission to address 
these challenges consistent with its responsibilities as the ERO'').
    \6\ Id. PP 3, 16 (citing NERC, 2012 Special Reliability 
Assessment Interim Report: Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on 
the Bulk Power System at 69 (February 2012) (GMD Interim Report); 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Electromagnetic Pulse: Effects on the 
U.S. Power Grid: Meta-R-319 at page 1-14, Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 
(discussing at-risk transformers) (January 2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. We believe, based on information available at this time, that 
the provisions of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 are just and 
reasonable and address the specific parameters for the Second Stage GMD 
Reliability Standards on geomagnetic disturbance events, as set forth 
in Order No. 779. For example, the proposed Reliability Standard 
requires responsible entities to maintain system models needed to 
complete ``GMD Vulnerability Assessments'' (Requirements R1 and R2),\7\ 
have criteria for acceptable system steady state voltage performance 
during a benchmark GMD event (Requirement R3), and complete a GMD 
Vulnerability Assessment once every 60 calendar months, based on the 
benchmark GMD event definition described in Attachment 1 of the 
proposed Reliability Standard (Requirement R4). Further, if an 
applicable entity concludes, based on the GMD Vulnerability Assessment, 
that its system does not meet specified performance requirements, it 
must develop a corrective action plan that addresses how the 
performance requirements will be met (Requirement R7). We propose to 
determine that the framework of the proposed Reliability Standard, as 
outlined above, is just and reasonable and provides a basis for 
approval. We believe that, when tested against an appropriate benchmark 
GMD event, compliance with the proposed Reliability Standard should 
provide adequate protection for an applicable entity's system to 
withstand a geomagnetic disturbance based on a 1-in-100 year GMD event 
design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NERC proposes to define the term GMD Vulnerability 
Assessment to mean a ``documented evaluation of potential 
susceptibility to voltage collapse, Cascading, or localized damage 
of equipment due to geomagnetic disturbances.'' See NERC Petition, 
Ex. B (Implementation Plan for TPL-007-1) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Our primary concerns with the proposed Reliability Standard 
pertain to the benchmark GMD event described in Attachment 1 of the 
proposed Reliability Standard. While there is limited historical 
geomagnetic data and the scientific understanding of geomagnetic 
disturbance events is still evolving, we have concerns regarding the 
proposed Reliability Standard's heavy reliance on spatial averaging. 
Thus, while proposing to approve proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-
1, we also propose to direct NERC to make several modifications to 
better ensure that, going forward, the study and benchmarking of 
geomagnetic disturbance events are based on a more complete set of data 
and a reasonable scientific and engineering approach. Further, we 
propose specific revisions to Requirement R7 of the proposed 
Reliability Standard to ensure that, when an applicable entity 
identifies the need for a corrective action plan, the entity acts in a 
timely manner.

I. Background

A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    6. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission to certify an ERO 
to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to 
Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability 
Standards may be enforced in the United States by the ERO, subject to 
Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. GMD Primer

    7. GMD events occur when the sun ejects charged particles that 
interact and cause changes in the earth's magnetic fields.\9\ Once a 
solar particle is ejected, it can take between 17 to 96 hours 
(depending on its energy level) to reach earth.\10\ A geoelectric field 
is the electric potential (measured in volts per kilometer (V/km)) on 
the earth's surface and is directly related to the rate of change of 
the magnetic fields.\11\ The geoelectric field has an amplitude and 
direction and acts as a voltage source that can cause geomagnetically-
induced currents (GICs) to flow on long conductors, such as 
transmission lines.\12\ The magnitude of the geoelectric field 
amplitude is impacted by local factors such as geomagnetic latitude and 
local earth conductivity.\13\ Geomagnetic latitude is the proximity to 
earth's magnetic north and south poles, as opposed to earth's 
geographic poles. Local earth conductivity is the ability of the 
earth's crust to conduct electricity at a certain location to depths of 
hundreds of kilometers down to the earth's mantle. Local earth 
conductivity impacts the magnitude (i.e., severity) of

[[Page 29992]]

the geoelectric fields that are formed during a GMD event by, all else 
being equal, a lower earth conductivity resulting in higher geoelectric 
fields.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ GMD Interim Report at i-ii. On April 30, 2015, the Space 
Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation Task Force, under the 
auspices of the National Science and Technology Council, sought 
comment on a draft 2015 National Space Weather Strategy, which is 
designed to ``articulate high-level strategic goals for enhancing 
National preparedness to space weather events.'' National Science 
and Technology Council; National Space Weather Strategy, 80 FR 
24,296 (Apr. 30, 2015).
    \10\ GMD Interim Report at ii.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 4.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Order No. 779

    8. In Order No. 779, the Commission directed NERC, pursuant to FPA 
section 215(d)(5), to develop and submit for approval proposed 
Reliability Standards that address the impact of geomagnetic 
disturbances on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The 
Commission based its directive on the potentially severe, wide-spread 
impact on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System that can be 
caused by GMD events and the absence of existing Reliability Standards 
to address GMD events.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Order No. 779 directed NERC to implement the directive in two 
stages. In the first stage, the Commission directed NERC to submit, 
within six months of the effective date of Order No. 779, one or more 
Reliability Standards (First Stage GMD Reliability Standards) that 
require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to develop and 
implement operational procedures to mitigate the effects of GMDs 
consistent with the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In the second stage, the Commission directed NERC to submit, 
within 18 months of the effective date of Order No. 779, one or more 
Reliability Standards (Second Stage GMD Reliability Standards) that 
require owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to conduct 
initial and on-going assessments of the potential impact of benchmark 
GMD events on Bulk-Power System equipment and the Bulk-Power System as 
a whole. The Commission directed that the Second Stage GMD Reliability 
Standards must identify benchmark GMD events that specify what severity 
GMD events a responsible entity must assess for potential impacts on 
the Bulk-Power System.\17\ Order No. 779 explained that, if the 
assessments identify potential impacts from benchmark GMD events, the 
Reliability Standards should require owners and operators to develop 
and implement a plan to protect against instability, uncontrolled 
separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System, caused by 
damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System equipment, or 
otherwise, as a result of a benchmark GMD event. The Commission 
directed that the development of this plan could not be limited to 
considering operational procedures or enhanced training alone, but 
should, subject to the potential impacts of the benchmark GMD events 
identified in the assessments, contain strategies for protecting 
against the potential impact of GMDs based on factors such as the age, 
condition, technical specifications, system configuration, or location 
of specific equipment.\18\ Order No. 779 observed that these strategies 
could, for example, include automatically blocking GICs from entering 
the Bulk-Power System, instituting specification requirements for new 
equipment, inventory management, isolating certain equipment that is 
not cost effective to retrofit, or a combination thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

D. Order No. 797

    11. In Order No. 797, the Commission approved Reliability Standard 
EOP-010-1 (Geomagnetic Disturbance Operations).\19\ NERC submitted 
Reliability Standard EOP-010-1 for Commission approval in compliance 
with the Commission's directive in Order No. 779 corresponding to the 
First Stage GMD Reliability Standards. In Order No. 797-A, the 
Commission denied the Foundation for Resilient Societies' (Resilient 
Societies) request for rehearing of Order No. 797. The Commission 
stated that the rehearing request ``addressed a later stage of efforts 
on geomagnetic disturbances (i.e., NERC's future filing of Second Stage 
GMD Reliability Standards) and [that Resilient Societies] may seek to 
present those arguments at an appropriate time in response to that 
filing.'' \20\ In particular, the Commission stated that GIC monitoring 
requirements should be addressed in the Second Stage GMD Reliability 
Standards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Reliability Standard for Geomagnetic Disturbance 
Operations, Order No. 797, 79 FR 35,911 (June 25, 2014), 147 FERC ] 
61,209, reh'g denied, Order No. 797-A, 149 FERC ] 61,027 (2014).
    \20\ Order No. 797-A, 149 FERC ] 61,027 at P 2.
    \21\ Id. P 27 (stating that the Commission continues ``to 
encourage NERC to address the collection, dissemination, and use of 
geomagnetic induced current data, by NERC, industry or others, in 
the Second Stage GMD Reliability Standards because such efforts 
could be useful in the development of GMD mitigation methods or to 
validate GMD models'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1

    12. On January 21, 2015, NERC petitioned the Commission to approve 
proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 and its associated violation 
risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and 
effective dates.\22\ NERC also submitted a proposed definition for the 
term ``Geomagnetic Disturbance Vulnerability Assessment or GMD 
Vulnerability Assessment'' for inclusion in the NERC Glossary. NERC 
maintains that the proposed Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, 
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 
NERC further contends that the proposed Reliability Standard satisfies 
the directive in Order No. 779 corresponding to the Second Stage GMD 
Reliability Standards.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 is not attached to 
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). The proposed Reliability 
Standard is available on the Commission's eLibrary document 
retrieval system in Docket No. RM15-11-000 and on the NERC Web site, 
www.nerc.com. NERC submitted an errata on February 2, 2015 
containing a corrected version of Exhibit A (Proposed Reliability 
Standard TPL-007-1).
    \23\ We note that Resilient Societies has submitted to NERC, 
pursuant to Section 8.0 of the NERC Standards Process Manual, an 
appeal alleging certain procedural errors in the development of 
proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. See NERC Rules of 
Procedure, Attachment 3A (Standards Process Manual), Section 8.0 
(Process for Appealing an Action or Inaction). The appeal is 
currently pending NERC action. On May 12, 2015, Resilient Societies 
submitted a request for stay of the proceedings in Docket No. RM15-
11-000, asking that the Commission refrain from issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking until NERC acts on Resilient Societies' appeal. 
We deny Resilient Societies' request. We see no irreparable harm in 
issuing a proposal for public comment as we do today. Rather, we 
will consider any necessary issues pertaining to the appeal before 
or in a final rule issued in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 
applies to planning coordinators, transmission planners, transmission 
owners and generation owners who own or whose planning coordinator area 
or transmission planning area includes a power transformer with a high 
side, wye-grounded winding connected at 200 kV or higher. NERC explains 
that the applicability criteria for qualifying transformers in the 
proposed Reliability Standard is the same as that for the First Stage 
GMD Reliability Standard in EOP-010-1, which the Commission approved in 
Order No. 797.
    14. The proposed Reliability Standard contains seven requirements.
    15. Requirement R1 requires planning coordinators and transmission 
planners to determine the individual and joint responsibilities in the 
planning coordinator's planning area for maintaining models and 
performing studies needed to complete the GMD Vulnerability Assessment 
required in Requirement R4.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirements R2, 
R3, R4, R5, and R7 refer to planning coordinators and transmission 
planners as ``responsible entities.''

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

[[Page 29993]]

    16. Requirement R2 requires planning coordinators and transmission 
planners to maintain system models and GIC system models needed to 
complete the GMD Vulnerability Assessment required in Requirement R4.
    17. Requirement R3 requires planning coordinators and transmission 
planners to have criteria for acceptable system steady state voltage 
limits for their systems during the benchmark GMD event described in 
Attachment 1 (Calculating Geoelectric Fields for the Benchmark GMD 
Event).
    18. Requirement R4 requires planning coordinators and transmission 
planners to conduct a GMD Vulnerability Assessment every 60 months 
using the benchmark GMD event described in Attachment 1 to the proposed 
Reliability Standard. The benchmark GMD event is based on a 1-in-100 
year frequency of occurrence and is composed of four elements: (1) A 
reference peak geoelectric field amplitude of 8 V/km derived from 
statistical analysis of historical magnetometer data; (2) a scaling 
factor to account for local geomagnetic latitude; (3) a scaling factor 
to account for local earth conductivity; and (4) a reference 
geomagnetic field time series or wave shape to facilitate time-domain 
analysis of GMD impact on equipment.\25\ The product of the first three 
elements is referred to as the regional geoelectric field peak 
amplitude.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Att. 1; see 
also NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 5.
    \26\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Requirement R5 requires planning coordinators and transmission 
planners to provide GIC flow information, to be used in the transformer 
thermal impact assessment required in Requirement R6, to each 
transmission owner and generator owner that owns an applicable 
transformer within the applicable planning area.
    20. Requirement R6 requires transmission owners and generator 
owners to conduct thermal impact assessments on solely and jointly 
owned applicable transformers where the maximum effective GIC value 
provided in Requirement R5 is 75 amperes per phase (A/phase) or 
greater.
    21. Requirement R7 requires planning coordinators and transmission 
planners to develop corrective action plans if the GMD Vulnerability 
Assessment concludes that the system does not meet the performance 
requirements in Table 1 (Steady State Planning Events).

II. Discussion

    22. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, the Commission proposes 
to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 as just, reasonable, not 
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The 
proposed Reliability Standard addresses the directives in Order No. 779 
corresponding to the development of the Second Stage GMD Reliability 
Standards. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 does this by 
requiring applicable Bulk-Power System owners and operators to conduct 
initial and on-going vulnerability assessments regarding the potential 
impact of a benchmark GMD event on the Bulk-Power System as a whole and 
on Bulk-Power System components.\27\ In addition, the proposed 
Reliability Standard requires applicable entities to develop and 
implement corrective action plans to mitigate any identified 
vulnerabilities.\28\ Potential mitigation strategies identified in the 
proposed Reliability Standard include, but are not limited to, among 
other things, the installation, modification, or removal of 
transmission and generation facilities and associated equipment.\29\ 
Accordingly, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 constitutes an 
important step in addressing the risks posed by GMD events to the Bulk-
Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at PP 67, 71.
    \28\ Id. P 79.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. While proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 addresses the 
Order No. 779 directives, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), the 
Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop modifications to the 
Reliability Standard concerning: (1) The calculation of the reference 
peak geoelectric field amplitude component of the benchmark GMD event 
definition; (2) the collection of GIC monitoring and magnetometer data; 
and (3) deadlines for completing corrective action plans and the 
mitigation measures called for in corrective action plans. In addition, 
to improve the understanding of GMD events generally and address the 
specific research areas discussed below, the Commission proposes to 
direct that NERC submit informational filings. These proposals are 
discussed in greater detail below.
    24. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and interested entities 
on these proposals.

A. Benchmark GMD Event Definition

NERC Petition
    25. NERC states that the purpose of the benchmark GMD event is to 
``provide a defined event for assessing system performance during a low 
probability, high magnitude GMD event.'' \30\ NERC explains that the 
benchmark GMD event represents ``the most severe GMD event expected in 
a 100-year period as determined by a statistical analysis of recorded 
geomagnetic data.'' \31\ The benchmark GMD event definition is used in 
the GMD Vulnerability Assessments and thermal impact assessment 
requirements of the proposed Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NERC Petition at 15.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. As noted above, NERC states that the benchmark GMD event 
definition has four elements: (1) A reference peak geoelectric field 
amplitude of 8 V/km derived from statistical analysis of historical 
magnetometer data; (2) a scaling factor to account for local 
geomagnetic latitude; (3) a scaling factor to account for local Earth 
conductivity; and (4) a reference geomagnetic field time series or wave 
shape to facilitate time-domain analysis of GMD impact on 
equipment.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The standard drafting team determined that a 1-in-100 year GMD 
event would cause an 8 V/km reference peak geoelectric field amplitude 
at 60 degree geomagnetic latitude using Qu[eacute]bec's earth 
conductivity.\33\ The standard drafting team stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.

the reference geoelectric field amplitude was determined through 
statistical analysis using . . . field measurements from geomagnetic 
observatories in northern Europe and the reference (Quebec) earth 
model. . . . The Quebec earth model is generally resistive and the 
geological structure is relatively well understood. The statistical 
analysis resulted in a conservative peak geoelectric field amplitude 
of approximately 8 V/km. . . . The frequency of occurrence of this 
benchmark GMD event is estimated to be approximately 1 in 100 
years.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. (footnotes omitted).

    28. The standard drafting team explained that it used field 
measurements taken from the IMAGE magnetometer chain, which covers 
Northern Europe, for the period 1993-2013 to calculate the reference 
peak geoelectric field amplitude used in the benchmark GMD event 
definition.\35\ As

[[Page 29994]]

described in NERC's petition, the standard drafting team ``spatially 
averaged'' four different station groups of IMAGE data, each spanning a 
square area of approximately 500 km (roughly 310 miles) in width.\36\ 
The standard drafting team justified the use of spatial averaging by 
stating that the proposed Reliability Standard is designed to ``address 
wide-area effects caused by a severe GMD event, such as increased var 
absorption and voltage depressions. Without characterizing GMD on 
regional scales, statistical estimates could be weighted by local 
effects and suggest unduly pessimistic conditions when considering 
cascading failure and voltage collapse.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id. at 8. The International Monitor for Auroral Geomagnetic 
Effects (IMAGE) consists of 31 magnetometer stations in northern 
Europe maintained by 10 institutes from Estonia, Finland, Germany, 
Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. See IMAGE Web site, available at 
http://space.fmi.fi/image/beta/?page=home#.
    \36\ As applied by the standard drafting team, spatial averaging 
refers to the averaging of geoelectric field amplitude readings 
within a given area. NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD 
Benchmark Event Description) at 9.
    \37\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. NERC states that the benchmark GMD event includes scaling 
factors to enable applicable entities to tailor the reference peak 
geoelectric field to their specific location for conducting GMD 
Vulnerability Assessments. NERC states that the scaling factors in the 
benchmark GMD event definition are applied to the reference peak 
geoelectric field amplitude to adjust the 8 V/km value for different 
geomagnetic latitudes and earth conductivities.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ NERC Petition at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. The standard drafting team also identified a reference 
geomagnetic field time series from an Ottawa magnetic observatory 
during a 1989 GMD event that affected Qu[eacute]bec.\39\ The standard 
drafting team used this time series to estimate a geoelectric field, 
represented as a time series (i.e., 10-second values over a period of 
days), that is expected to occur at 60 degree geomagnetic latitude 
during a 1-in-100 year GMD event. NERC explains that this time series 
is used to facilitate time-domain analysis of GMD impacts on 
equipment.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 15-16.
    \40\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    31. The Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability 
Standard TPL-007-1, including the proposed benchmark GMD event 
definition submitted by NERC. However, pursuant to FPA section 
215(d)(5), the Commission proposes to direct that NERC develop 
modifications to the benchmark GMD event definition set forth in 
Attachment 1 of the proposed Reliability Standard so that the 
definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data. The 
Commission also seeks comment from NERC and other interested entities 
regarding the scaling factor used to account for geomagnetic latitude 
in the benchmark GMD event definition. The Commission also proposes to 
direct NERC to submit a work plan, and subsequently one or more 
informational filings, that address the specific issues discussed 
below.
    32. The benchmark GMD event definition proposed by NERC complies 
with the directive in Order No. 779 requiring that the Second Stage GMD 
Reliability Standards identify benchmark GMD events that specify what 
severity GMD events a responsible entity must assess for potential 
impacts on the Bulk-Power System. Order No. 779 did not specify the 
severity of the storm or define the characteristics of the benchmark 
GMD event. Instead, the Commission directed NERC, through the standards 
development process, to define the benchmark GMD events. Consistent 
with the guidance provided in Order No. 779, the benchmark GMD event 
definition proposed by NERC addresses the potential widespread impact 
of a severe GMD event, while taking into consideration the variables of 
geomagnetic latitude and local earth conductivity.\41\ Accordingly, we 
propose to approve the definition submitted by NERC. Nonetheless, while 
acceptable as consistent with FPA section 215 and the Order No. 779 
directives, we believe that the benchmark GMD event definition should 
be improved through the proposed revision and research discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 71 (``the 
benchmark GMD events should be based on factors that may include, 
but are not limited to, varying severity of the GMD . . . duration, 
geographic footprint of the GMD, how the GMD's intensity varies with 
latitude, system configuration, and the orientation of the magnetic 
fields produced by the GMD); see also id. P 70 (``[GMD] 
vulnerability assessments would be based on uniform criteria (e.g., 
geographic location and geology) but the values for such criteria 
would be entity-specific'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. First, the proposed Reliability Standard's exclusive use of 
spatial averaging to calculate the reference peak geoelectric field 
amplitude could underestimate the impact of a 1-in-100 year GMD event, 
which was the design basis arrived upon by the standard drafting team. 
NERC states that the benchmark GMD event ``expands upon work conducted 
by the NERC GMD Task Force in which 1-in-100 year geoelectric field 
amplitudes were calculated from a well-known source of dense high-
resolution geomagnetic data commonly used in space weather research 
[i.e., IMAGE data].'' \42\ However, the application of spatial 
averaging significantly reduces the reference peak geoelectric field 
amplitude using the IMAGE data compared with a prior analysis of nearly 
the same data set. As noted in the NERC petition, the GMD Interim 
Report described a study that used the same IMAGE magnetometers and 
data as the standard drafting team for the period 1993-2006.\43\ That 
study calculated a 1-in-100 year peak geoelectric amplitude of 20 V/km 
for Qu[eacute]bec.\44\ The study calculated a significantly higher 
figure (20 V/km versus 8 V/km) using similar data as the standard 
drafting team because, instead of averaging geoelectric field values 
occurring simultaneously over a large geographic area, the study cited 
by the GMD Interim Report used the magnitude of the geoelectric 
amplitude in individual geomagnetic observatories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NERC Petition at 17.
    \43\ GMD Interim Report at 22.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Based on our review of NERC's petition, it does not appear that 
spatial averaging of geomagnetic fields is discussed in the studies 
cited by the standard drafting team except in the standard drafting 
team's GMD Benchmark Event White Paper. In addition, it is unclear how 
the standard drafting team determined that spatial averaging should be 
performed using a square area 500 km in width. The GMD Benchmark Event 
White Paper explains that the IMAGE magnetometers were organized into 
four groups comprised of squares 500 km wide, and the readings within a 
group were averaged. The GMD Benchmark Event White Paper also states, 
citing to the statistical analysis in its Appendix I, that 
``geomagnetic disturbance impacts within areas of influence of 
approximately 100-200 km do not have a widespread impact on the 
interconnected transmission system.'' \45\ While Appendix I of the GMD 
Benchmark Event White Paper discusses why local geomagnetic 
disturbances do not have a significant impact on all transformers 
operating within a square 500 km in width, it does not explain why the 
standard drafting team chose a square area 500 km in width as opposed 
to a square with a smaller or larger total area. These questions 
largely inform our concerns regarding the proposed

[[Page 29995]]

Reliability Standard's heavy reliance on spatial averaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD Benchmark Event 
Description) at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. The geoelectric field values used to conduct GMD Vulnerability 
Assessments and thermal impact assessments should reflect the real-
world impact of a GMD event on the Bulk-Power System and its 
components. A GMD event will have a peak value in one or more 
location(s), and the amplitude will decline over distance from the 
peak. Only applying a spatially-averaged geoelectric field value across 
an entire planning area would distort this complexity and could 
underestimate the contributions caused by damage to or misoperation of 
Bulk-Power System components to the system-wide impact of a GMD event 
within a planning area. However, imputing the highest peak geoelectric 
field value in a planning area to the entire planning area may 
incorrectly overestimate GMD impacts. Neither approach, in our view, 
produces an optimal solution that captures physical reality.
    36. To address this issue, the Commission proposes to direct NERC 
to develop modifications to the Reliability Standard so that the 
reference peak geoelectric field amplitude element of the benchmark GMD 
event definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data. For 
example, NERC could satisfy this proposal by revising the Reliability 
Standard to require applicable entities to conduct GMD Vulnerability 
Assessments and thermal impact assessments using two different 
benchmark GMD events: The first benchmark GMD event using the 
spatially-averaged reference peak geoelectric field value (8 V/km) and 
the second using the non-spatially averaged peak geoelectric field 
value found in the GMD Interim Report (20 V/km).\46\ The revised 
Reliability Standard could then require applicable entities to take 
corrective actions, using engineering judgment, based on the results of 
both assessments. That is, the applicable entity would not always be 
required to mitigate to the level of risk identified by the non-
spatially averaged analysis; instead, the selection of mitigation would 
reflect the range of risks bounded by the two analyses, and be based on 
engineering judgment within this range, considering all relevant 
information. This proposed revision is consistent with the directive in 
Order No. 779 that owners and operators develop and implement a plan to 
protect against instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading 
failures of the Bulk-Power System.\47\ Alternatively, NERC could 
propose an equally efficient and effective modification that does not 
rely exclusively on the spatially-averaged reference peak geoelectric 
field value.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Conducting a GMD Vulnerability Assessment using essentially 
two measures of the same benchmark GMD events is consistent with 
Order No. 779 because, in that order, the Commission contemplated 
that an applicable entity could be required to assess GMD 
vulnerabilities using multiple benchmark GMD events. Order No. 779, 
143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 2 (``The Second Stage GMD Reliability 
Standards must identify `benchmark GMD events' that specify what 
severity GMD events a responsible entity must assess for potential 
impacts on the Bulk-Power System.'').
    \47\ Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 2.
    \48\ For example, responsible entities could calculate GIC flows 
and resulting Bulk-Power System impacts using models that utilize 
both spatially averaged and non-spatially averaged peak geoelectric 
field values to simulate GMD conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. The Commission also seeks comment from NERC and other 
interested entities regarding the scaling factor used in the benchmark 
GMD event definition to account for differences in geomagnetic 
latitude. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether, in 
light of studies indicating that GMD events could have pronounced 
effect on lower geomagnetic latitudes, a modification is warranted to 
reduce the impact of the scaling factors.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See, e.g., Ngwira, C.M., Pulkkinen, A., Kuznetsova, M.M., 
Glocer, A., ``Modeling extreme `Carrington-type' space weather 
events using three-dimensional global MHD simulations,'' 119 Journal 
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 4472 (2014) (finding that in 
Carrington-type events ``the region of large induced ground electric 
fields is displaced further equatorward . . . [and] thereby may 
affect power grids . . . such as [those in] southern states of [the] 
continental U.S.''); Gaunt, C.T., Coetzee, G., ``Transformer 
Failures in Regions Incorrectly Considered to have Low GIC-Risk,'' 
2007 IEEE Lausanne 807 (July 2007) (stating that twelve transformers 
were damaged and taken out of service in South Africa (at -40 
degrees latitude) during a 2003 GMD event).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Next, the record submitted by NERC and other available 
information manifests a need for more data and certainty in the 
knowledge and understanding of GMD events and their potential effect on 
the Bulk-Power System. For example, NERC's proposal is based on data 
from magnetometers in northern Europe, from a relatively narrow 
timeframe with relatively low solar activity, and with little or no 
data on concurrent GIC flows. Similarly, the adjustments for latitude 
and ground conductivity are based on the limited information currently 
available, but additional data-gathering is needed. To address this 
limitation on relevant information, we propose to direct that NERC 
conduct or oversee additional analysis on these issues.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See, e.g., Revisions to Reliability Standard for 
Transmission Vegetation Management, Order No. 777, 142 FERC ] 61,208 
(2013) (approving Reliability Standard but directing that NERC 
perform a study to develop empirical evidence on one input to the 
``Gallet equation'' used to calculate minimum clearances for 
vegetation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. In particular, we propose to direct that NERC submit 
informational filings that address the issues discussed below. In the 
first informational filing, NERC should submit a work plan indicating 
how NERC plans to: (1) Further analyze the area over which spatial 
averaging should be calculated for stability studies, including 
performing sensitivity analyses on squares less than 500 km per side 
(e.g., 100 km, 200 km); (2) further analyze earth conductivity models 
by, for example, using metered GIC and magnetometer readings to 
calculate earth conductivity and using 3-D readings; (3) determine 
whether new analyses and observations support modifying the use of 
single station readings around the earth to adjust the spatially 
averaged benchmark for latitude; and (4) assess how to make GMD data 
(e.g., GIC monitoring and magnetometer data) available to researchers 
for study.\51\ We propose that NERC submit the work plan within six 
months of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding. The 
work plan submitted by NERC should include a schedule to submit one or 
more informational filings that apprise the Commission of the results 
of the four additional study areas as well as any other relevant 
developments in GMD research. Further, in the submissions, NERC should 
assess whether the proposed Reliability Standard remains valid in light 
of new information or whether revisions are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The Commission seeks comment on the barriers, if any, to 
public dissemination of GIC and magnetometer readings, including if 
the dissemination of such data poses a security risk and if any such 
data should be treated as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information 
or otherwise restricted to authorized users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Thermal Impact Assessments

NERC Petition
    40. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R6 
requires owners of transformers that are subject to the proposed 
Reliability Standard to conduct thermal analyses to determine if the 
transformers would be able to withstand the thermal effects associated 
with a benchmark GMD event. NERC states that transformers are exempt 
from the thermal impact assessment requirement if the maximum effective 
GIC in the transformer is less than 75 A/phase during the benchmark GMD 
event as determined by an analysis of the system. NERC explains that 
``based on available power transformer measurement data, transformers 
with an

[[Page 29996]]

effective GIC of less than 75 A per phase during the Benchmark GMD 
Event are unlikely to exceed known temperature limits established by 
technical organizations.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ NERC Petition at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. As provided in Requirements R5 and R6, ``the maximum GIC value 
for the worst case geoelectric field orientation for the benchmark GMD 
event described in Attachment 1'' determines whether a transformer 
satisfies the 75 A/phase threshold. If the 75 A/phase threshold is 
satisfied, Requirement R6 states, in relevant part, that a thermal 
impact assessment should be conducted on the qualifying transformer 
based on the effective GIC flow information provided in Requirement R5.
Discussion
    42. The Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability 
Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R6. However, the Commission has two 
concerns regarding the proposed thermal impact assessment in 
Requirement R6. These concerns reflect in part the difficulty of 
replacing large transformers quickly, as reflected in studies, such as 
an April 2014 report by the Department of Energy that highlighted the 
reliance in the United States on foreign suppliers for large 
transformers.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.S. Department of Energy, Large Power Transformers and the 
U.S. Electric Grid (April 2014), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/LPTStudyUpdate-040914.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. First, as discussed in the previous section, the Commission 
proposes to direct NERC to develop modifications to the Reliability 
Standard such that the benchmark GMD event definition's reference peak 
geoelectric field amplitude element does not rely on spatially-averaged 
data alone. The proposed modification is relevant to thermal impact 
assessments, as it is relevant to GMD Vulnerability Assessments, 
because both are ultimately predicated on the benchmark GMD event 
definition. Indeed, the concern is even greater in this context because 
a thermal impact assessment assesses the localized impact of a GMD 
event on an individual transformer. Thus, we propose to direct NERC to 
modify the Reliability Standard to require responsible entities to 
apply spatially averaged and non-spatially averaged peak geoelectric 
field values, or some equally efficient and effective alternative, when 
conducting thermal impact assessments.
    44. Second, Requirements R5.1 and R6 provide that the geoelectric 
field orientation causing the maximum effective GIC value in each 
transformer should be used to determine if the assessed transformer 
satisfies the 75 A/phase qualifying threshold in Requirement R6. 
However, Requirement R6 does not use the maximum GIC-producing 
orientation to conduct the thermal assessment for qualifying 
transformers (i.e., transformers with an maximum effective GIC value 
greater than 75A/phase). Instead, Requirement R6 uses the effective GIC 
time series described in Requirement R5.2 to conduct the thermal 
assessment on qualifying transformers.\54\ The Commission seeks comment 
from NERC as to why qualifying transformers are not assessed for 
thermal impacts using the maximum GIC-producing orientation. NERC 
should address whether, by not using the maximum GIC-producing 
orientation, the required thermal impact assessments could 
underestimate the impact of a benchmark GMD event on a qualifying 
transformer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See also NERC Petition, Ex. E (White Paper on Transformer 
Thermal Impact Assessment) at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Devices

NERC Petition
    45. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R2 
requires responsible entities to ``maintain System models and GIC 
System models of the responsible entity's planning area for performing 
the study or studies needed to complete GMD Vulnerability 
Assessment(s).'' NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-
007-1 contains ``requirements to develop the models, studies, and 
assessments necessary to build a picture of overall GMD vulnerability 
and identify where mitigation measures may be necessary.'' \55\ NERC 
explains that mitigating strategies ``may include installation of 
hardware (e.g., GIC blocking or monitoring devices), equipment 
upgrades, training, or enhanced Operating Procedures.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NERC Petition at 13.
    \56\ Id. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    46. The Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop revisions to 
Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 requiring installation of monitoring 
equipment (i.e., GIC monitors and magnetometers) to the extent there 
are any gaps in existing GIC monitoring and magnetometer networks, 
which will ensure a more complete set of data for planning and 
operational needs. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether NERC 
itself should be responsible for installation of any additional, 
necessary magnetometers while affected entities would be responsible 
for installation of additional, necessary GIC monitors. As part of 
NERC's work plan, we propose to direct that NERC identify the number 
and location of current GIC monitors and magnetometers in the United 
States to assess whether there are any gaps.
    47. NERC maintains that the installation of monitoring devices 
could be part of a mitigation strategy. We agree with NERC regarding 
the importance of GIC and magnetometer data. As the Commission stated 
in Order No. 779, the tools for assessing GMD vulnerabilities are not 
fully mature.\57\ Data from monitors are needed to validate the 
analyses underlying NERC's proposed Reliability Standard and the 
analyses to be performed by affected entities.\58\ GIC monitors also 
can facilitate real-time adjustments to grid operations during GMD 
events, to maintain reliability and prevent significant equipment 
damage, by enhancing situational awareness for grid operators. For 
example, PJM's operating procedures for GMDs are triggered when GICs 
are above 10 A for 10 minutes at either of two specified locations, and 
confirmed by other sources of information.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 68.
    \58\ See, e.g., Disturbance Monitoring and Reporting 
Requirements Reliability Standard, 80 FR 22,441 (Apr. 16, 2015), 151 
FERC ] 61,042 (2015) (notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to 
approve Reliability Standard PRC-002-2 requiring the collection of 
disturbance monitoring data).
    \59\ See PJM Manual 13 (Emergency Operations), Revision 57, at 
55 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. Accordingly, rather than wait to install necessary monitoring 
devices as part of a corrective action plan, GIC and magnetometer data 
should be collected by applicable entities at the outset to validate 
and improve system models and GIC system models, as well as improve 
situational awareness. To be clear, we are not proposing that every 
transformer would need its own GIC monitor or that every entity would 
need its own magnetometer. Instead, we are proposing the installation 
and collection of data from GIC monitors and magnetometers in enough 
locations to provide adequate analytical validation and situational 
awareness. We propose that NERC's work plan use this criterion in 
assessing the need and locations for GIC monitors and magnetometers.
    49. Cost recovery is potentially available for costs associated 
with or incurred to comply with proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-
1, including for the purchase and installation of monitoring 
devices.\60\

[[Page 29997]]

The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a policy 
specifically allowing recovery of these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 14 n.20 (stating that 
``nothing precludes entities from seeking cost recovery if 
needed''); see Extraordinary Expenditures Necessary to Safeguard 
National Energy Supplies, 96 FERC ] 61,299, at 61,129 (2001) 
(stating that the Commission ``will approve applications to recover 
prudently incurred costs necessary to further safeguard the 
reliability and security of our energy supply infrastructure in 
response to the heightened state of alert. Companies may propose a 
separate rate recovery mechanism, such as a surcharge to currently 
existing rates or some other cost recovery method''); see also 
Policy Statement on Matters Related to Bulk Power System 
Reliability, 107 FERC ] 61,052, at P 28 (2004) (affirming and 
clarifying that ``the policy extends to the recovery of prudent 
reliability expenditures, including those for vegetation management, 
improved grid management and monitoring equipment, operator training 
and compliance with NERC standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Corrective Action Plan Deadlines

NERC Petition
    50. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R7 
provides that:

    Each responsible entity, as determined in Requirement R1, that 
concludes, through the GMD Vulnerability Assessment conducted in 
Requirement R4, that their System does not meet the performance 
requirements of Table 1 shall develop a Corrective Action Plan 
addressing how the performance requirements will be met . . . .

NERC explains that the NERC Glossary defines corrective action plan to 
mean, ``A list of actions and an associated timetable for 
implementation to remedy a specific problem.'' \61\ Requirement R7.3 
states that the corrective action plan shall be provided within ``90 
calendar days of completion to the responsible entity's Reliability 
Coordinator, adjacent Planning Coordinator(s), adjacent Transmission 
Planner(s), functional entities referenced in the Corrective Action 
Plan, and any functional entity that submits a written request and has 
a reliability-related need.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ NERC Petition at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion
    51. The Commission proposes to direct that NERC revise Reliability 
Standard TPL-007-1 to include deadlines concerning the development and 
implementation of corrective action plans under Requirement R7.
    52. In accordance with Order No. 779 directives, Requirement R7 
requires applicable entities to develop and implement measures when 
vulnerabilities from a benchmark GMD event are identified.\62\ However, 
Requirement R7 does not establish deadlines for developing or 
implementing corrective action plans. Requirement R7 only requires 
responsible entities to distribute corrective action plans within 90 
days of completion to certain registered entities. By contrast, other 
NERC Reliability Standards include deadlines for developing corrective 
action plans, such as Reliability Standard PRC-006-2 (Automatic 
Underfrequency Load Shedding) and Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 
(Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements). In addition, 
by definition, a corrective action plan includes ``an associated 
timetable for implementation'' of a remedy.\63\ Consistent with the 
definition of corrective action plan and the other NERC Reliability 
Standards, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC modify 
Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 to require corrective action plans to be 
developed within one year of the completion of the GMD Vulnerability 
Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Order No. 779, 143 FERC ] 61,147 at P 2 (``If the 
assessments identify potential impacts from benchmark GMD events, 
the Reliability Standards should require owners and operators to 
develop and implement a plan to protect against instability, 
uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power 
System, caused by damage to critical or vulnerable Bulk-Power System 
equipment, or otherwise, as a result of a benchmark GMD event.'').
    \63\ NERC Glossary at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. A corrective action plan is defined in the NERC Glossary as 
``[a] list of actions and an associated timetable for implementation to 
remedy a specific problem.'' Because of the complexities surrounding 
GMDs and the uncertainties about mitigation techniques, the time needed 
to implement a corrective action plan may be difficult to determine. At 
the same time, the absence of reasonable deadlines for completion of 
corrective actions may risk significant delay before identified 
corrective actions are started or finished. The Commission, therefore, 
proposes to direct NERC to modify the Reliability Standard to require a 
deadline for non-equipment mitigation measures that is two years 
following development of the corrective action plan and a deadline for 
mitigation measures involving equipment installation that is four years 
following development of the corrective action plan. The Commission 
recognizes that there is little experience with installing equipment 
for GMD mitigation and thus we are open to proposals that may differ 
from our proposal, particularly from any entities with experience in 
this area.
    54. We seek comments from NERC and interested entities on these 
proposals. Further, we seek comment on appropriate alternative 
deadlines and whether there should be a mechanism that would allow NERC 
to consider, on a case-by-case basis, requests for extensions of 
required deadlines.

E. Minimization of Load Loss and Curtailment

NERC Petition
    55. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R4 states 
that each responsible entity ``shall complete a GMD Vulnerability 
Assessment of the Near-Term Transmission Planning Horizon once every 60 
calendar months.'' Requirement R4.2 further states that the ``study or 
studies shall be conducted based on the benchmark GMD event described 
in Attachment 1 to determine whether the System meets the performance 
requirements in Table 1.''
    56. NERC maintains that Table 1 sets forth requirements for system 
steady state performance. NERC explains that Requirement R4 and Table 1 
``address assessments of the effects of GICs on other Bulk[hyphen]Power 
System equipment, system operations, and system stability, including 
the loss of devices due to GIC impacts.'' \64\ Table 1 provides, in 
relevant part, that load loss and/or curtailment are permissible 
elements of the steady state:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ NERC Petition at 39.

    Load loss as a result of manual or automatic Load shedding (e.g. 
UVLS) and/or curtailment of Firm Transmission Service may be used to 
meet BES performance requirements during studied GMD conditions. The 
likelihood and magnitude of Load loss or curtailment of Firm 
Transmission Service should be minimized.
Discussion
    57. The Commission seeks comment from NERC regarding the provision 
in Table 1 that ``Load loss or curtailment of Firm Transmission Service 
should be minimized.'' Because the term ``minimized'' does not 
represent an objective value, the provision is potentially subject to 
interpretation and assertions that the term is vague and may not be 
enforceable. Similarly, use of the modifier ``should'' might indicate 
that minimization of load loss or curtailment is only an expectation or 
a guideline rather than a requirement.
    58. The Commission seeks comment from NERC that explains how the 
provision in Table 1 regarding load loss and curtailment will be 
enforced, including: (1) whether, by using the term ``should,'' Table 1 
requires minimization of load loss or curtailment, or both; and (2) 
what constitutes ``minimization'' and how it will be assessed.

[[Page 29998]]

F. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

    59. Each requirement of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 
includes one violation risk factor and has an associated set of at 
least one violation severity level. NERC states that the ranges of 
penalties for violations will be based on the sanctions table and 
supporting penalty determination process described in the Commission-
approved NERC Sanction Guidelines.
    60. The Commission proposes to approve the violation risk factors 
and violation severity levels submitted by NERC, for the requirements 
in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, consistent with the Commission's 
established guidelines.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 135 FERC ] 
61,166 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Implementation Plan and Effective Dates

    61. NERC proposes a phased, five-year implementation period.\66\ 
NERC maintains that the proposed implementation period is necessary: 
(1) to allow time for entities to develop the required models; (2) for 
proper sequencing of assessments because thermal impact assessments are 
dependent on GIC flow calculations that are determined by the 
responsible planning entity; and (3) to give time for development of 
viable corrective action plans, which may require applicable entities 
to ``develop, perform, and/or validate new or modified studies, 
assessments, procedures . . . [and because] [s]ome mitigation measures 
may have significant budget, siting, or construction planning 
requirements.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ NERC Petition, Ex. B (Implementation Plan for TPL-007-1).
    \67\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. The proposed implementation plan states that Requirement R1 
shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter 
that is six months after Commission approval. For Requirement R2, NERC 
proposes that the requirement shall become effective on the first day 
of the first calendar quarter that is 18 months after Commission 
approval. NERC proposes that Requirement R5 shall become effective on 
the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 24 months after 
Commission approval. NERC proposes that Requirement R6 shall become 
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 48 
months after Commission approval. And for Requirement R3, Requirement 
R4, and Requirement R7, NERC proposes that the requirements shall 
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is 
60 months after Commission approval.
    63. The Commission proposes to approve the implementation plan and 
effective dates submitted by NERC. However, given the serial nature of 
the requirements in the proposed Reliability Standard, we are concerned 
about the duration of the timeline associated with any mitigation 
stemming from a corrective action plan. As a result, the Commission 
seeks comment from NERC and other interested entities as to whether the 
length of the implementation plan, particularly with respect to 
Requirements R4, R5, R6, and R7, could be reasonably shortened.

III. Information Collection Statement

    64. The collection of information contained in this notice of 
proposed rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) regulations under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\68\ OMB's regulations require approval of 
certain informational collection requirements imposed by agency 
rules.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \69\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will 
assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents 
subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for 
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the 
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
    66. We solicit comments on the need for this information, whether 
the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden 
estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated 
information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any 
revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported 
by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.
    Public Reporting Burden: The Commission proposes to approve 
Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 and the associated implementation plan, 
violation severity levels, and violation risk factors, as discussed 
above. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 will impose new 
requirements for transmission planners, planning coordinators, 
transmission owners, and generator owners. Proposed Reliability 
Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R1 requires planning coordinators, in 
conjunction with transmission planner, to identify the responsibilities 
of the planning coordinator and transmission planner in the planning 
coordinator's planning area for maintaining models and performing the 
study or studies needed to complete GMD Vulnerability Assessments. 
Proposed Requirements R2, R3, R4, R5, and R7 refer to the ``responsible 
entity, as determined by Requirement R1,'' when identifying which 
applicable planning coordinators or transmission planners are 
responsible for maintaining models and performing the necessary study 
or studies. Proposed Requirement R2 requires that the responsible 
entities maintain models for performing the studies needed to complete 
GMD Vulnerability Assessments, as required in proposed Requirement R4. 
Proposed Requirement R3 requires responsible entities to have criteria 
for acceptable system steady state voltage performance during a 
benchmark GMD event. Proposed Requirement R4 requires responsible 
entities to complete a GMD Vulnerability Assessment of the near-term 
transmission planning horizon once every 60 calendar months. Proposed 
Requirement R5 requires responsible entities to provide GIC flow 
information to transmission owners and generator owners that own an 
applicable bulk electric system power transformer in the planning area. 
This information is necessary for applicable transmission owners and 
generator owners to conduct the thermal impact assessments required by 
proposed Requirement R6. Proposed Requirement R6 requires applicable 
transmission owners and generator owners to conduct thermal impact 
assessments where the maximum effective GIC value provided in proposed 
Requirement R5, Part 5.1 is 75 A/phase or greater. Proposed Requirement 
R7 requires responsible entities to develop a corrective action plan 
when its GMD Vulnerability Assessment indicates that its system does 
not meet the performance requirements of Table 1--Steady State Planning 
Events. The corrective action plan must address how the performance 
requirements will be met, must list the specific deficiencies and 
associated actions that are necessary to achieve performance, and must 
set forth a timetable for completion. The Commission estimates the 
annual reporting burden and cost as follows:

[[Page 29999]]



FERC-725N, as Modified by the NOPR in Docket No. RM15-11-000 (TPL-007-1 Reliability Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic
                                                                Disturbance Events) \70\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annual
                                                                  number of      Total                                Total annual burden      Cost per
                                         Number of respondents    responses    number of    Average burden hours &    hours & total annual    respondent
                                                                     per       responses    cost per response \71\            cost               ($)
                                                                  respondent
                                       (1).....................          (2)  (1)*(2)=(3)  (4)....................  (3)*(4)=(5)............      (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(One-time) Requirement 1.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 5 hrs. ($331.75);   1,089 hrs. (605 Eng.,        $481.55
                                                                                            RK 4 hrs. ($149.80).     484 RK); $58,267.55
                                                                                                                     ($40,141.75 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $18,125.80 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 1.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 3 hrs. ($199.05);   605 hrs. (363 Eng., 242       273.95
                                                                                            RK 2 hrs. ($74.90).      RK); $33,147.95
                                                                                                                     ($24,085.05 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $9,062.90 RK).
(One-time) Requirement 2.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 22 hrs.             4840 hrs. (2,662 Eng.,      2,133.80
                                                                                            ($1,459.70); RK 18       2,178 RK); $258,189.80
                                                                                            hrs. ($674.10).          ($176,623.70 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $81,566.10 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 2.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 5 hrs. ($331.75);   968 hrs. (605 Eng., 363       444.10
                                                                                            RK 3 hrs. ($112.35).     RK); $53,736.10
                                                                                                                     ($40,141.75 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $13,594.35 RK).
(One-time) Requirement 3.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 5 hrs. ($331.75);   968 hrs. (605 Eng., 363       444.10
                                                                                            RK 3 hrs. ($112.35).     RK); $53,736.10
                                                                                                                     ($40,141.75 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $13,594.35 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 3.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 1 hrs. ($66.35);    242 hrs. (121 Eng., 121       103.80
                                                                                            RK 1 hrs. ($37.45).      RK); $12,559.80
                                                                                                                     ($8,028.35 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $4,531.45 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 4.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 27 hrs.             5,808 hrs. (3,267 Eng.,     2,277.85
                                                                                            ($1,791.45); RK 21       2,541 RK); $311,919.85
                                                                                            hrs. ($786.45).          ($216,765.45 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $95,154.40 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 5.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 9 hrs. ($597.15);   1936 hrs. (1,089 Eng.,        859.30
                                                                                            RK 7 hrs. ($262.15).     847 RK); $103,975.30
                                                                                                                     ($72,255.15 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $31,720.15 RK).
(One-time) Requirement 6.............  881 (TO & GO)...........            1          881  Eng. 22 hrs.             35,240 hrs. (19,382         2,133.89
                                                                                            ($1,459.70); RK 18       Eng., 15,858 RK);
                                                                                            hrs. ($674.19).          $1,879,957.09
                                                                                                                     ($1,285,995.70 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $593,961.39 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 6.............  881 (TO & GO)...........            1          881  Eng. 2 hrs. ($132.70);   3,524 hrs. (1,762 Eng.,       207.60
                                                                                            RK 2 hrs. ($74.90).      1762 RK); $182,895.60
                                                                                                                     ($116,908.70 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $65,986.90 RK).
(On-going) Requirement 7.............  121 (PC & TP)...........            1          121  Eng. 11 hrs. ($729.85);  2,420 hrs. (1,331 Eng.,     1,066.90
                                                                                            RK 9 hrs. ($337.05).     1,089 RK); $129,094.90
                                                                                                                     ($88,311.85 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $40,783.05 RK).
    TOTAL............................                                                2851                           57,640 \72\ hrs.         ...........
                                                                                                                     (31,792 Eng., 25,848
                                                                                                                     RK); $3,077,480.04
                                                                                                                     ($2,109,399.20 Eng.,
                                                                                                                     $968,080.84 RK).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30000]]

    Title: FERC-725N, Mandatory Reliability Standards: TPL Reliability 
Standards.
    Action: Proposed Additional Requirements.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0264.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: One time and on-going.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Eng.=engineer; RK =recordkeeping (record clerk); 
PC=planning coordinator; TP=transmission planner; TO=transmission 
owner; and GO=generator owner.
    \71\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 
following formula: Burden Hours per Response * $/hour = Cost per 
Response. The $66.35/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.45/hour 
figure for a record clerk are based on data on the average salary 
plus benefits from the Bureau of Labor Statistics obtainable at 
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
    \72\ Of the 57,640 total burden hours, 42,137 hours are one time 
burden hours, and 15,503 hours are on-going annual burden hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Necessity of the Information: The Commission has reviewed the 
requirements pertaining to proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 and 
has made a determination that the proposed requirements of this 
Reliability Standard are necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. 
Specifically, these requirements address the threat posed by GMD events 
to the Bulk-Power System and conform to the Commission's directives 
regarding development of the Second Stage GMD Reliability Standards, as 
set forth in Order No. 779.
    Internal review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of its 
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the 
burden estimates associated with the information requirements.
    67. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: 
(202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
    68. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking and the associated burden estimates, 
should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to 
the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent 
by email to OMB at the following email address: 
[email protected]. Please reference FERC-725N and OMB Control 
No. 1902-0264 in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    69. 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.\73\ 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.\74\ The actions proposed here 
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 
(1987).
    \74\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    70. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \75\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have 
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.\76\ The SBA 
revised its size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 
2014) to a standard based on the number of employees, including 
affiliates (from a standard based on megawatt hours).\77\ Under SBA's 
new size standards, planning coordinators, transmission planners, 
transmission owners, and generator owners are likely included in one of 
the following categories (with the associated size thresholds noted for 
each): \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \76\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \77\ SBA Final Rule on ``Small Business Size Standards: 
Utilities,'' 78 FR 77,343 (Dec. 23, 2013).
    \78\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Hydroelectric power generation, at 500 employees
     Fossil fuel electric power generation, at 750 employees
     Nuclear electric power generation, at 750 employees
     Other electric power generation (e.g., solar, wind, 
geothermal, biomass, and other), at 250 employees
     Electric bulk power transmission and control,\79\ at 500 
employees
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ This category covers transmission planners and planning 
coordinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. Based on these categories, the Commission will use a 
conservative threshold of 750 employees for all entities.\80\ Applying 
this threshold, the Commission estimates that there are 440 small 
entities that function as planning coordinators, transmission planners, 
transmission owners, and/or generator owners. However, the Commission 
estimates that only a subset of such small entities will be subject to 
the proposed Reliability Standard given the additional applicability 
criteria in the proposed Reliability Standard (i.e., to be subject to 
the requirements of the proposed Reliability Standard, the applicable 
entity must own or must have a planning area that contains a large 
power transformer with a high side, wye grounded winding with terminal 
voltage greater than 200 kV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ By using the highest number threshold for all types of 
entities, our estimate conservatively treats more entities as 
``small entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 enhances reliability by 
establishing requirements that require applicable entities to perform 
GMD Vulnerability Assessments and to mitigate any identified 
vulnerabilities. The Commission estimates that each of the small 
entities to whom the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 applies 
will incur one-time compliance costs of $5,193.34 and annual ongoing 
costs of $5,233.50.
    73. The Commission does not consider the estimated cost per small 
entity to impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the 
proposed Reliability Standard will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Comment Procedures

    74. 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 July 27, 2015. Comments must refer to 
Docket No. RM15-11-000, and must include the commenter's name, the 
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their 
comments.
    75. 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.

[[Page 30001]]

    76. 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.
    77. 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

    78. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (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.
    79. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    80. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online 
Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
[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.

    Issued: May 14, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12466 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P