80 FR 29990 - Reliability Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 100 (May 26, 2015)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 100 (May 26, 2015)
| Page Range | 29990-30001 | |
| FR Document | 2015-12466 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 29990-30001] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![29990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) If any crack or corrosion is found April 22, 2015, for related information. You NERC develop modifications to the
during any inspection required by paragraph may examine the MCAI on the Internet at benchmark GMD event definition set
(f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, contact http://www.regulations.gov by searching for forth in Attachment 1 of the proposed
BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd for FAA- and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–1744. Reliability Standard so that the
approved repair instructions approved For service information related to this AD,
specifically for this AD and accomplish those contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited,
definition is not based solely on
instructions. You can find contact Customer Information Department, Prestwick spatially-averaged data. The
information for BAE Systems (Operations) International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Commission also proposes to direct
Ltd in paragraph (h) of this AD. Use the Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 NERC to submit a work plan, and
Operator Report Form and follow the 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email: subsequently one or more informational
instructions in British Aerospace Jetstream RApublications@baesystems.com; Internet: filings, that address specific GMD-
Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57– http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/ related research areas.
JA140140, Original Issue, dated: June 26, RegionalAircraft/. You may review this DATES: Comments are due July 27, 2015.
2014. referenced service information at the FAA,
(3) Repair of an airplane as required in Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD does not terminate Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information docket number, may be filed in the
the repetitive inspections required in on the availability of this material at the following ways:
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD for that airplane, FAA, call (816) 329–4148. • Electronic Filing through http://
unless the approved repair instructions state www.ferc.gov. Documents created
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May
otherwise.
18, 2015. electronically using word processing
(g) Other FAA AD Provisions software should be filed in native
Earl Lawrence,
applications or print-to-PDF format and
The following provisions also apply to this Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
not in a scanned format.
AD: Certification Service.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance [FR Doc. 2015–12450 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, to file electronically may mail or hand-
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P deliver comments to: Federal Energy
for this AD, if requested using the procedures Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Washington, DC 20426.
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Instructions: For detailed instructions
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Federal Energy Regulatory
on submitting comments and additional
telephone: (816) 329–4138; fax: (816) 329– Commission
information on the rulemaking process,
4090; email: taylor.martin@faa.gov. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane see the Comment Procedures Section of
18 CFR Part 40
to which the AMOC applies, notify your this document.
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the [Docket No. RM15–11–000] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), Regis Binder (Technical Information),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Reliability Standard for Transmission
Office of Electric Reliability, Federal
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement System Planned Performance for
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from Geomagnetic Disturbance Events
a manufacturer or other source, use these
First Street NE., Washington, DC
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 20426, Telephone: (301) 665–1601,
actions are considered FAA-approved if they Commission, Energy. Regis.Binder@ferc.gov.
are approved by the State of Design Authority ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information),
(or their delegated agent). You are required Office of the General Counsel, Federal
to assure the product is airworthy before it SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
is returned to service. Regulatory Commission (Commission) First Street NE., Washington, DC
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any proposes to approve Reliability 20426, Telephone: (202) 502–8408,
reporting requirement in this AD, a federal Standard TPL–007–1 (Transmission Matthew.Vlissides@ferc.gov.
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a System Planned Performance for
person is not required to respond to, nor SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
shall a person be subject to a penalty for
Geomagnetic Disturbance Events). 1. Pursuant to section 215 of the
failure to comply with a collection of Proposed Reliability Standard TPL– Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the
information subject to the requirements of 007–1 establishes requirements for Commission proposes to approve
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that certain entities to assess the Reliability Standard TPL–007–1
collection of information displays a current vulnerability of their transmission (Transmission System Planned
valid OMB Control Number. The OMB systems to geomagnetic disturbance Performance for Geomagnetic
Control Number for this information events (GMDs), which occur when the Disturbance Events). Proposed
collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for sun ejects charged particles that interact Reliability Standard TPL–007–1
this collection of information is estimated to and cause changes in the earth’s establishes requirements for certain
be approximately 5 minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions,
magnetic fields. Entities that do not entities to assess the vulnerability of
completing and reviewing the collection of meet certain performance requirements, their transmission systems to
information. All responses to this collection based on the results of their geomagnetic disturbance events (GMDs),
of information are mandatory. Comments vulnerability assessments, must develop which occur when the sun ejects
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
concerning the accuracy of this burden and a plan to achieve the requirements. The charged particles that interact and cause
suggestions for reducing the burden should North American Electric Reliability changes in the earth’s magnetic fields.
be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Corporation (NERC), the Commission- Entities that do not meet certain
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: certified Electric Reliability performance requirements, based on the
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Organization, submitted the proposed results of their vulnerability
AES–200.
Reliability Standard for Commission assessments, must develop a plan to
(h) Related Information approval in response to a Commission achieve the requirements. The North
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety directive in Order No. 779. In addition,
Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015–0063, dated the Commission proposes to direct that 1 16 U.S.C. 824o.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/1.svg)
![29992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the geoelectric fields that are formed development of this plan could not be implementation plan, and effective
during a GMD event by, all else being limited to considering operational dates.22 NERC also submitted a
equal, a lower earth conductivity procedures or enhanced training alone, proposed definition for the term
resulting in higher geoelectric fields.14 but should, subject to the potential ‘‘Geomagnetic Disturbance Vulnerability
impacts of the benchmark GMD events Assessment or GMD Vulnerability
C. Order No. 779
identified in the assessments, contain Assessment’’ for inclusion in the NERC
8. In Order No. 779, the Commission strategies for protecting against the Glossary. NERC maintains that the
directed NERC, pursuant to FPA section potential impact of GMDs based on proposed Reliability Standard is just,
215(d)(5), to develop and submit for factors such as the age, condition, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory
approval proposed Reliability Standards technical specifications, system or preferential, and in the public
that address the impact of geomagnetic configuration, or location of specific interest. NERC further contends that the
disturbances on the reliable operation of equipment.18 Order No. 779 observed proposed Reliability Standard satisfies
the Bulk-Power System. The that these strategies could, for example, the directive in Order No. 779
Commission based its directive on the include automatically blocking GICs corresponding to the Second Stage GMD
potentially severe, wide-spread impact from entering the Bulk-Power System, Reliability Standards.23
on the reliable operation of the Bulk- instituting specification requirements 13. NERC states that proposed
Power System that can be caused by for new equipment, inventory Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 applies
GMD events and the absence of existing management, isolating certain to planning coordinators, transmission
Reliability Standards to address GMD equipment that is not cost effective to planners, transmission owners and
events.15 retrofit, or a combination thereof. generation owners who own or whose
9. Order No. 779 directed NERC to planning coordinator area or
implement the directive in two stages. D. Order No. 797 transmission planning area includes a
In the first stage, the Commission 11. In Order No. 797, the Commission power transformer with a high side,
directed NERC to submit, within six approved Reliability Standard EOP– wye-grounded winding connected at
months of the effective date of Order 010–1 (Geomagnetic Disturbance 200 kV or higher. NERC explains that
No. 779, one or more Reliability Operations).19 NERC submitted the applicability criteria for qualifying
Standards (First Stage GMD Reliability Reliability Standard EOP–010–1 for transformers in the proposed Reliability
Standards) that require owners and Commission approval in compliance Standard is the same as that for the First
operators of the Bulk-Power System to with the Commission’s directive in Stage GMD Reliability Standard in EOP–
develop and implement operational Order No. 779 corresponding to the First 010–1, which the Commission approved
procedures to mitigate the effects of Stage GMD Reliability Standards. In in Order No. 797.
GMDs consistent with the reliable Order No. 797–A, the Commission 14. The proposed Reliability Standard
operation of the Bulk-Power System.16 denied the Foundation for Resilient contains seven requirements.
10. In the second stage, the Societies’ (Resilient Societies) request 15. Requirement R1 requires planning
Commission directed NERC to submit, for rehearing of Order No. 797. The coordinators and transmission planners
within 18 months of the effective date to determine the individual and joint
Commission stated that the rehearing
of Order No. 779, one or more responsibilities in the planning
request ‘‘addressed a later stage of
Reliability Standards (Second Stage coordinator’s planning area for
efforts on geomagnetic disturbances
GMD Reliability Standards) that require maintaining models and performing
(i.e., NERC’s future filing of Second
owners and operators of the Bulk-Power studies needed to complete the GMD
Stage GMD Reliability Standards) and
System to conduct initial and on-going Vulnerability Assessment required in
[that Resilient Societies] may seek to
assessments of the potential impact of Requirement R4.24
present those arguments at an
benchmark GMD events on Bulk-Power appropriate time in response to that 22 Proposed Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 is
System equipment and the Bulk-Power filing.’’ 20 In particular, the Commission not attached to this notice of proposed rulemaking
System as a whole. The Commission stated that GIC monitoring requirements (NOPR). The proposed Reliability Standard is
directed that the Second Stage GMD should be addressed in the Second available on the Commission’s eLibrary document
Reliability Standards must identify Stage GMD Reliability Standards.21 retrieval system in Docket No. RM15–11–000 and
benchmark GMD events that specify on the NERC Web site, www.nerc.com. NERC
E. NERC Petition and Proposed submitted an errata on February 2, 2015 containing
what severity GMD events a responsible a corrected version of Exhibit A (Proposed
entity must assess for potential impacts Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 Reliability Standard TPL–007–1).
on the Bulk-Power System.17 Order No. 12. On January 21, 2015, NERC
23 We note that Resilient Societies has submitted
779 explained that, if the assessments to NERC, pursuant to Section 8.0 of the NERC
petitioned the Commission to approve Standards Process Manual, an appeal alleging
identify potential impacts from proposed Reliability Standard TPL– certain procedural errors in the development of
benchmark GMD events, the Reliability 007–1 and its associated violation risk proposed Reliability Standard TPL–007–1. See
Standards should require owners and factors and violation severity levels, NERC Rules of Procedure, Attachment 3A
operators to develop and implement a (Standards Process Manual), Section 8.0 (Process
for Appealing an Action or Inaction). The appeal is
plan to protect against instability, 18 Id.
currently pending NERC action. On May 12, 2015,
uncontrolled separation, or cascading 19 Reliability Standard for Geomagnetic
Resilient Societies submitted a request for stay of
failures of the Bulk-Power System, Disturbance Operations, Order No. 797, 79 FR the proceedings in Docket No. RM15–11–000,
35,911 (June 25, 2014), 147 FERC ¶ 61,209, reh’g asking that the Commission refrain from issuing a
caused by damage to critical or
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
denied, Order No. 797–A, 149 FERC ¶ 61,027 notice of proposed rulemaking until NERC acts on
vulnerable Bulk-Power System (2014). Resilient Societies’ appeal. We deny Resilient
equipment, or otherwise, as a result of 20 Order No. 797–A, 149 FERC ¶ 61,027 at P 2. Societies’ request. We see no irreparable harm in
a benchmark GMD event. The 21 Id. P 27 (stating that the Commission continues issuing a proposal for public comment as we do
Commission directed that the ‘‘to encourage NERC to address the collection, today. Rather, we will consider any necessary
dissemination, and use of geomagnetic induced issues pertaining to the appeal before or in a final
current data, by NERC, industry or others, in the rule issued in this proceeding.
14 Id.
Second Stage GMD Reliability Standards because 24 Proposed Reliability Standard TPL–007–1,
15 Order No. 779, 143 FERC ¶ 61,147 at P 3. such efforts could be useful in the development of Requirements R2, R3, R4, R5, and R7 refer to
16 Id. P 2. GMD mitigation methods or to validate GMD planning coordinators and transmission planners as
17 Id. models’’). ‘‘responsible entities.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/3.svg)
![29994 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
described in NERC’s petition, the NERC develop modifications to the Force in which 1-in-100 year geoelectric
standard drafting team ‘‘spatially benchmark GMD event definition set field amplitudes were calculated from a
averaged’’ four different station groups forth in Attachment 1 of the proposed well-known source of dense high-
of IMAGE data, each spanning a square Reliability Standard so that the resolution geomagnetic data commonly
area of approximately 500 km (roughly definition is not based solely on used in space weather research [i.e.,
310 miles) in width.36 The standard spatially-averaged data. The IMAGE data].’’ 42 However, the
drafting team justified the use of spatial Commission also seeks comment from application of spatial averaging
averaging by stating that the proposed NERC and other interested entities significantly reduces the reference peak
Reliability Standard is designed to regarding the scaling factor used to geoelectric field amplitude using the
‘‘address wide-area effects caused by a account for geomagnetic latitude in the IMAGE data compared with a prior
severe GMD event, such as increased var benchmark GMD event definition. The analysis of nearly the same data set. As
absorption and voltage depressions. Commission also proposes to direct noted in the NERC petition, the GMD
Without characterizing GMD on regional NERC to submit a work plan, and Interim Report described a study that
scales, statistical estimates could be subsequently one or more informational used the same IMAGE magnetometers
weighted by local effects and suggest filings, that address the specific issues and data as the standard drafting team
unduly pessimistic conditions when discussed below. for the period 1993–2006.43 That study
considering cascading failure and 32. The benchmark GMD event calculated a 1-in-100 year peak
voltage collapse.’’ 37 definition proposed by NERC complies geoelectric amplitude of 20 V/km for
29. NERC states that the benchmark with the directive in Order No. 779 Québec.44 The study calculated a
GMD event includes scaling factors to requiring that the Second Stage GMD
significantly higher figure (20 V/km
enable applicable entities to tailor the Reliability Standards identify
versus 8 V/km) using similar data as the
reference peak geoelectric field to their benchmark GMD events that specify
standard drafting team because, instead
specific location for conducting GMD what severity GMD events a responsible
of averaging geoelectric field values
Vulnerability Assessments. NERC states entity must assess for potential impacts
occurring simultaneously over a large
that the scaling factors in the benchmark on the Bulk-Power System. Order No.
779 did not specify the severity of the geographic area, the study cited by the
GMD event definition are applied to the GMD Interim Report used the
reference peak geoelectric field storm or define the characteristics of the
benchmark GMD event. Instead, the magnitude of the geoelectric amplitude
amplitude to adjust the 8 V/km value for in individual geomagnetic observatories.
different geomagnetic latitudes and Commission directed NERC, through the
earth conductivities.38 standards development process, to 34. Based on our review of NERC’s
30. The standard drafting team also define the benchmark GMD events. petition, it does not appear that spatial
identified a reference geomagnetic field Consistent with the guidance provided averaging of geomagnetic fields is
time series from an Ottawa magnetic in Order No. 779, the benchmark GMD discussed in the studies cited by the
observatory during a 1989 GMD event event definition proposed by NERC standard drafting team except in the
that affected Québec.39 The standard addresses the potential widespread standard drafting team’s GMD
drafting team used this time series to impact of a severe GMD event, while Benchmark Event White Paper. In
estimate a geoelectric field, represented taking into consideration the variables addition, it is unclear how the standard
as a time series (i.e., 10-second values of geomagnetic latitude and local earth drafting team determined that spatial
over a period of days), that is expected conductivity.41 Accordingly, we averaging should be performed using a
to occur at 60 degree geomagnetic propose to approve the definition square area 500 km in width. The GMD
latitude during a 1-in-100 year GMD submitted by NERC. Nonetheless, while Benchmark Event White Paper explains
event. NERC explains that this time acceptable as consistent with FPA that the IMAGE magnetometers were
series is used to facilitate time-domain section 215 and the Order No. 779 organized into four groups comprised of
analysis of GMD impacts on directives, we believe that the squares 500 km wide, and the readings
equipment.40 benchmark GMD event definition within a group were averaged. The GMD
should be improved through the Benchmark Event White Paper also
Discussion proposed revision and research states, citing to the statistical analysis in
31. The Commission proposes to discussed below. its Appendix I, that ‘‘geomagnetic
approve proposed Reliability Standard 33. First, the proposed Reliability disturbance impacts within areas of
TPL–007–1, including the proposed Standard’s exclusive use of spatial influence of approximately 100–200 km
benchmark GMD event definition averaging to calculate the reference peak do not have a widespread impact on the
submitted by NERC. However, pursuant geoelectric field amplitude could interconnected transmission system.’’ 45
to FPA section 215(d)(5), the underestimate the impact of a 1-in-100 While Appendix I of the GMD
Commission proposes to direct that year GMD event, which was the design Benchmark Event White Paper discusses
basis arrived upon by the standard why local geomagnetic disturbances do
magnetometer stations in northern Europe drafting team. NERC states that the not have a significant impact on all
maintained by 10 institutes from Estonia, Finland, benchmark GMD event ‘‘expands upon transformers operating within a square
Germany, Norway, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. work conducted by the NERC GMD Task 500 km in width, it does not explain
See IMAGE Web site, available at http://
space.fmi.fi/image/beta/?page=home#. why the standard drafting team chose a
41 See Order No. 779, 143 FERC ¶ 61,147 at P 71
square area 500 km in width as opposed
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36 As applied by the standard drafting team,
(‘‘the benchmark GMD events should be based on
spatial averaging refers to the averaging of
factors that may include, but are not limited to,
to a square with a smaller or larger total
geoelectric field amplitude readings within a given area. These questions largely inform our
varying severity of the GMD . . . duration,
area. NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD
Benchmark Event Description) at 9.
geographic footprint of the GMD, how the GMD’s concerns regarding the proposed
37 NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD
intensity varies with latitude, system configuration,
and the orientation of the magnetic fields produced
Benchmark Event Description) at 9. by the GMD); see also id. P 70 (‘‘[GMD]
42 NERC Petition at 17.
38 NERC Petition at 18–19. 43 GMD Interim Report at 22.
vulnerability assessments would be based on
39 NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD 44 Id.
uniform criteria (e.g., geographic location and
Benchmark Event Description) at 15–16. geology) but the values for such criteria would be 45 NERC Petition, Ex. D (White Paper on GMD
40 Id. at 5–6. entity-specific’’). Benchmark Event Description) at 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29995
Reliability Standard’s heavy reliance on engineering judgment within this range, 39. In particular, we propose to direct
spatial averaging. considering all relevant information. that NERC submit informational filings
35. The geoelectric field values used This proposed revision is consistent that address the issues discussed below.
to conduct GMD Vulnerability with the directive in Order No. 779 that In the first informational filing, NERC
Assessments and thermal impact owners and operators develop and should submit a work plan indicating
assessments should reflect the real- implement a plan to protect against how NERC plans to: (1) Further analyze
world impact of a GMD event on the instability, uncontrolled separation, or the area over which spatial averaging
Bulk-Power System and its components. cascading failures of the Bulk-Power should be calculated for stability
A GMD event will have a peak value in System.47 Alternatively, NERC could studies, including performing
one or more location(s), and the propose an equally efficient and sensitivity analyses on squares less than
amplitude will decline over distance effective modification that does not rely 500 km per side (e.g., 100 km, 200 km);
from the peak. Only applying a exclusively on the spatially-averaged (2) further analyze earth conductivity
spatially-averaged geoelectric field reference peak geoelectric field value.48 models by, for example, using metered
value across an entire planning area 37. The Commission also seeks GIC and magnetometer readings to
would distort this complexity and could comment from NERC and other calculate earth conductivity and using
underestimate the contributions caused interested entities regarding the scaling 3–D readings; (3) determine whether
by damage to or misoperation of Bulk- factor used in the benchmark GMD new analyses and observations support
Power System components to the event definition to account for modifying the use of single station
system-wide impact of a GMD event differences in geomagnetic latitude. readings around the earth to adjust the
within a planning area. However, Specifically, the Commission seeks spatially averaged benchmark for
imputing the highest peak geoelectric comment on whether, in light of studies latitude; and (4) assess how to make
field value in a planning area to the indicating that GMD events could have GMD data (e.g., GIC monitoring and
entire planning area may incorrectly pronounced effect on lower geomagnetic magnetometer data) available to
overestimate GMD impacts. Neither latitudes, a modification is warranted to researchers for study.51 We propose that
approach, in our view, produces an reduce the impact of the scaling NERC submit the work plan within six
optimal solution that captures physical factors.49 months of the effective date of a final
reality. 38. Next, the record submitted by rule in this proceeding. The work plan
36. To address this issue, the NERC and other available information submitted by NERC should include a
Commission proposes to direct NERC to manifests a need for more data and schedule to submit one or more
develop modifications to the Reliability certainty in the knowledge and informational filings that apprise the
Standard so that the reference peak understanding of GMD events and their Commission of the results of the four
geoelectric field amplitude element of potential effect on the Bulk-Power additional study areas as well as any
the benchmark GMD event definition is other relevant developments in GMD
System. For example, NERC’s proposal
not based solely on spatially-averaged research. Further, in the submissions,
is based on data from magnetometers in
data. For example, NERC could satisfy NERC should assess whether the
northern Europe, from a relatively
this proposal by revising the Reliability proposed Reliability Standard remains
narrow timeframe with relatively low
Standard to require applicable entities valid in light of new information or
solar activity, and with little or no data
to conduct GMD Vulnerability whether revisions are appropriate.
on concurrent GIC flows. Similarly, the
Assessments and thermal impact
adjustments for latitude and ground B. Thermal Impact Assessments
assessments using two different
conductivity are based on the limited
benchmark GMD events: The first NERC Petition
information currently available, but
benchmark GMD event using the
additional data-gathering is needed. To 40. Proposed Reliability Standard
spatially-averaged reference peak
address this limitation on relevant TPL–007–1, Requirement R6 requires
geoelectric field value (8 V/km) and the
information, we propose to direct that owners of transformers that are subject
second using the non-spatially averaged
NERC conduct or oversee additional to the proposed Reliability Standard to
peak geoelectric field value found in the
analysis on these issues.50 conduct thermal analyses to determine
GMD Interim Report (20 V/km).46 The
revised Reliability Standard could then if the transformers would be able to
47 Order No. 779, 143 FERC ¶ 61,147 at P 2.
require applicable entities to take withstand the thermal effects associated
48 For example, responsible entities could
corrective actions, using engineering calculate GIC flows and resulting Bulk-Power
with a benchmark GMD event. NERC
judgment, based on the results of both System impacts using models that utilize both states that transformers are exempt from
assessments. That is, the applicable spatially averaged and non-spatially averaged peak the thermal impact assessment
geoelectric field values to simulate GMD requirement if the maximum effective
entity would not always be required to conditions.
mitigate to the level of risk identified by 49 See, e.g., Ngwira, C.M., Pulkkinen, A.,
GIC in the transformer is less than 75 A/
the non-spatially averaged analysis; Kuznetsova, M.M., Glocer, A., ‘‘Modeling extreme phase during the benchmark GMD event
instead, the selection of mitigation ‘Carrington-type’ space weather events using three- as determined by an analysis of the
would reflect the range of risks bounded dimensional global MHD simulations,’’ 119 Journal system. NERC explains that ‘‘based on
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 4472 (2014) available power transformer
by the two analyses, and be based on (finding that in Carrington-type events ‘‘the region
of large induced ground electric fields is displaced measurement data, transformers with an
46 Conducting a GMD Vulnerability Assessment further equatorward . . . [and] thereby may affect
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
using essentially two measures of the same power grids . . . such as [those in] southern states Reliability Standard but directing that NERC
benchmark GMD events is consistent with Order of [the] continental U.S.’’); Gaunt, C.T., Coetzee, G., perform a study to develop empirical evidence on
No. 779 because, in that order, the Commission ‘‘Transformer Failures in Regions Incorrectly one input to the ‘‘Gallet equation’’ used to calculate
contemplated that an applicable entity could be Considered to have Low GIC-Risk,’’ 2007 IEEE minimum clearances for vegetation).
required to assess GMD vulnerabilities using Lausanne 807 (July 2007) (stating that twelve 51 The Commission seeks comment on the
multiple benchmark GMD events. Order No. 779, transformers were damaged and taken out of service barriers, if any, to public dissemination of GIC and
143 FERC ¶ 61,147 at P 2 (‘‘The Second Stage GMD in South Africa (at ¥40 degrees latitude) during a magnetometer readings, including if the
Reliability Standards must identify ‘benchmark 2003 GMD event). dissemination of such data poses a security risk and
GMD events’ that specify what severity GMD events 50 See, e.g., Revisions to Reliability Standard for if any such data should be treated as Critical Energy
a responsible entity must assess for potential Transmission Vegetation Management, Order No. Infrastructure Information or otherwise restricted to
impacts on the Bulk-Power System.’’). 777, 142 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2013) (approving authorized users.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29997
The Commission seeks comment on Requirement R7 does not establish a case-by-case basis, requests for
whether it should adopt a policy deadlines for developing or extensions of required deadlines.
specifically allowing recovery of these implementing corrective action plans.
E. Minimization of Load Loss and
costs. Requirement R7 only requires
Curtailment
responsible entities to distribute
D. Corrective Action Plan Deadlines
corrective action plans within 90 days NERC Petition
NERC Petition of completion to certain registered
entities. By contrast, other NERC 55. Proposed Reliability Standard
50. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL–007–1, Requirement R4 states that
TPL–007–1, Requirement R7 provides Reliability Standards include deadlines
for developing corrective action plans, each responsible entity ‘‘shall complete
that:
such as Reliability Standard PRC–006– a GMD Vulnerability Assessment of the
Each responsible entity, as determined in 2 (Automatic Underfrequency Load Near-Term Transmission Planning
Requirement R1, that concludes, through the Horizon once every 60 calendar
GMD Vulnerability Assessment conducted in Shedding) and Reliability Standard
TPL–001–4 (Transmission System months.’’ Requirement R4.2 further
Requirement R4, that their System does not
meet the performance requirements of Table Planning Performance Requirements). In states that the ‘‘study or studies shall be
1 shall develop a Corrective Action Plan addition, by definition, a corrective conducted based on the benchmark
addressing how the performance action plan includes ‘‘an associated GMD event described in Attachment 1
requirements will be met . . . . timetable for implementation’’ of a to determine whether the System meets
NERC explains that the NERC Glossary remedy.63 Consistent with the definition the performance requirements in Table
defines corrective action plan to mean, of corrective action plan and the other 1.’’
‘‘A list of actions and an associated NERC Reliability Standards, the 56. NERC maintains that Table 1 sets
timetable for implementation to remedy Commission proposes to direct that forth requirements for system steady
a specific problem.’’ 61 Requirement NERC modify Reliability Standard TPL– state performance. NERC explains that
R7.3 states that the corrective action 007–1 to require corrective action plans Requirement R4 and Table 1 ‘‘address
plan shall be provided within ‘‘90 to be developed within one year of the assessments of the effects of GICs on
calendar days of completion to the completion of the GMD Vulnerability other Bulk-Power System equipment,
responsible entity’s Reliability Assessment. system operations, and system stability,
Coordinator, adjacent Planning 53. A corrective action plan is defined including the loss of devices due to GIC
Coordinator(s), adjacent Transmission in the NERC Glossary as ‘‘[a] list of impacts.’’ 64 Table 1 provides, in
Planner(s), functional entities actions and an associated timetable for relevant part, that load loss and/or
referenced in the Corrective Action implementation to remedy a specific curtailment are permissible elements of
Plan, and any functional entity that problem.’’ Because of the complexities the steady state:
submits a written request and has a surrounding GMDs and the
uncertainties about mitigation Load loss as a result of manual or
reliability-related need.’’ automatic Load shedding (e.g. UVLS) and/or
techniques, the time needed to
Discussion curtailment of Firm Transmission Service
implement a corrective action plan may may be used to meet BES performance
51. The Commission proposes to be difficult to determine. At the same requirements during studied GMD
direct that NERC revise Reliability time, the absence of reasonable conditions. The likelihood and magnitude of
Standard TPL–007–1 to include deadlines for completion of corrective Load loss or curtailment of Firm
deadlines concerning the development actions may risk significant delay before Transmission Service should be minimized.
and implementation of corrective action identified corrective actions are started
or finished. The Commission, therefore, Discussion
plans under Requirement R7.
52. In accordance with Order No. 779 proposes to direct NERC to modify the 57. The Commission seeks comment
directives, Requirement R7 requires Reliability Standard to require a from NERC regarding the provision in
applicable entities to develop and deadline for non-equipment mitigation Table 1 that ‘‘Load loss or curtailment
implement measures when measures that is two years following of Firm Transmission Service should be
vulnerabilities from a benchmark GMD development of the corrective action minimized.’’ Because the term
event are identified.62 However, plan and a deadline for mitigation ‘‘minimized’’ does not represent an
measures involving equipment objective value, the provision is
seeking cost recovery if needed’’); see Extraordinary installation that is four years following potentially subject to interpretation and
Expenditures Necessary to Safeguard National development of the corrective action assertions that the term is vague and
Energy Supplies, 96 FERC ¶ 61,299, at 61,129 (2001) plan. The Commission recognizes that
(stating that the Commission ‘‘will approve may not be enforceable. Similarly, use
applications to recover prudently incurred costs
there is little experience with installing of the modifier ‘‘should’’ might indicate
necessary to further safeguard the reliability and equipment for GMD mitigation and thus that minimization of load loss or
security of our energy supply infrastructure in we are open to proposals that may differ curtailment is only an expectation or a
response to the heightened state of alert. Companies from our proposal, particularly from any
may propose a separate rate recovery mechanism, guideline rather than a requirement.
such as a surcharge to currently existing rates or
entities with experience in this area.
54. We seek comments from NERC 58. The Commission seeks comment
some other cost recovery method’’); see also Policy
Statement on Matters Related to Bulk Power System and interested entities on these from NERC that explains how the
Reliability, 107 FERC ¶ 61,052, at P 28 (2004) proposals. Further, we seek comment on provision in Table 1 regarding load loss
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(affirming and clarifying that ‘‘the policy extends to appropriate alternative deadlines and and curtailment will be enforced,
the recovery of prudent reliability expenditures, including: (1) whether, by using the
including those for vegetation management, whether there should be a mechanism
improved grid management and monitoring that would allow NERC to consider, on term ‘‘should,’’ Table 1 requires
equipment, operator training and compliance with minimization of load loss or
NERC standards’’). implement a plan to protect against instability, curtailment, or both; and (2) what
61 NERC Petition at 31.
uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the constitutes ‘‘minimization’’ and how it
62 Order No. 779, 143 FERC ¶ 61,147 at P 2 (‘‘If Bulk-Power System, caused by damage to critical or
vulnerable Bulk-Power System equipment, or
will be assessed.
the assessments identify potential impacts from
benchmark GMD events, the Reliability Standards otherwise, as a result of a benchmark GMD event.’’).
should require owners and operators to develop and 63 NERC Glossary at 26. 64 NERC Petition at 39.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/8.svg)
![29998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
F. Violation Risk Factors and Violation quarter that is 60 months after requires planning coordinators, in
Severity Levels Commission approval. conjunction with transmission planner,
63. The Commission proposes to to identify the responsibilities of the
59. Each requirement of proposed approve the implementation plan and planning coordinator and transmission
Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 effective dates submitted by NERC. planner in the planning coordinator’s
includes one violation risk factor and However, given the serial nature of the planning area for maintaining models
has an associated set of at least one requirements in the proposed Reliability
violation severity level. NERC states that and performing the study or studies
Standard, we are concerned about the needed to complete GMD Vulnerability
the ranges of penalties for violations duration of the timeline associated with
will be based on the sanctions table and Assessments. Proposed Requirements
any mitigation stemming from a R2, R3, R4, R5, and R7 refer to the
supporting penalty determination corrective action plan. As a result, the
process described in the Commission- ‘‘responsible entity, as determined by
Commission seeks comment from NERC Requirement R1,’’ when identifying
approved NERC Sanction Guidelines. and other interested entities as to which applicable planning coordinators
60. The Commission proposes to whether the length of the
or transmission planners are responsible
approve the violation risk factors and implementation plan, particularly with
violation severity levels submitted by for maintaining models and performing
respect to Requirements R4, R5, R6, and
NERC, for the requirements in the necessary study or studies. Proposed
R7, could be reasonably shortened.
Reliability Standard TPL–007–1, Requirement R2 requires that the
III. Information Collection Statement responsible entities maintain models for
consistent with the Commission’s
established guidelines.65 64. The collection of information performing the studies needed to
contained in this notice of proposed complete GMD Vulnerability
G. Implementation Plan and Effective rulemaking is subject to review by the Assessments, as required in proposed
Dates Office of Management and Budget Requirement R4. Proposed Requirement
61. NERC proposes a phased, five-year (OMB) regulations under section R3 requires responsible entities to have
implementation period.66 NERC 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act criteria for acceptable system steady
maintains that the proposed of 1995 (PRA).68 OMB’s regulations state voltage performance during a
implementation period is necessary: (1) require approval of certain benchmark GMD event. Proposed
to allow time for entities to develop the informational collection requirements Requirement R4 requires responsible
required models; (2) for proper imposed by agency rules.69 entities to complete a GMD
sequencing of assessments because 65. Upon approval of a collection(s) of Vulnerability Assessment of the near-
thermal impact assessments are information, OMB will assign an OMB term transmission planning horizon
dependent on GIC flow calculations that control number and an expiration date. once every 60 calendar months.
are determined by the responsible Respondents subject to the filing Proposed Requirement R5 requires
planning entity; and (3) to give time for requirements of a rule will not be responsible entities to provide GIC flow
development of viable corrective action penalized for failing to respond to these information to transmission owners and
plans, which may require applicable collections of information unless the generator owners that own an applicable
entities to ‘‘develop, perform, and/or collections of information display a bulk electric system power transformer
valid OMB control number. in the planning area. This information is
validate new or modified studies,
66. We solicit comments on the need necessary for applicable transmission
assessments, procedures . . . [and
for this information, whether the owners and generator owners to conduct
because] [s]ome mitigation measures information will have practical utility,
may have significant budget, siting, or the thermal impact assessments
the accuracy of the burden estimates,
construction planning requirements.’’ 67 required by proposed Requirement R6.
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
62. The proposed implementation Proposed Requirement R6 requires
clarity of the information to be collected
plan states that Requirement R1 shall applicable transmission owners and
or retained, and any suggested methods
become effective on the first day of the for minimizing respondents’ burden, generator owners to conduct thermal
first calendar quarter that is six months including the use of automated impact assessments where the
after Commission approval. For information techniques. Specifically, maximum effective GIC value provided
Requirement R2, NERC proposes that the Commission asks that any revised in proposed Requirement R5, Part 5.1 is
the requirement shall become effective burden or cost estimates submitted by 75 A/phase or greater. Proposed
on the first day of the first calendar commenters be supported by sufficient Requirement R7 requires responsible
quarter that is 18 months after detail to understand how the estimates entities to develop a corrective action
Commission approval. NERC proposes are generated. plan when its GMD Vulnerability
that Requirement R5 shall become Public Reporting Burden: The Assessment indicates that its system
effective on the first day of the first Commission proposes to approve does not meet the performance
calendar quarter that is 24 months after Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 and the requirements of Table 1—Steady State
Commission approval. NERC proposes associated implementation plan, Planning Events. The corrective action
that Requirement R6 shall become violation severity levels, and violation plan must address how the performance
effective on the first day of the first risk factors, as discussed above. requirements will be met, must list the
calendar quarter that is 48 months after Proposed Reliability Standard TPL– specific deficiencies and associated
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Commission approval. And for 007–1 will impose new requirements for actions that are necessary to achieve
Requirement R3, Requirement R4, and transmission planners, planning performance, and must set forth a
Requirement R7, NERC proposes that coordinators, transmission owners, and timetable for completion. The
the requirements shall become effective generator owners. Proposed Reliability Commission estimates the annual
on the first day of the first calendar Standard TPL–007–1, Requirement R1 reporting burden and cost as follows:
65 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 135 66 NERC Petition, Ex. B (Implementation Plan for 68 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
FERC ¶ 61,166 (2011). TPL–007–1). 69 5 CFR 1320.11 (2014).
67 Id. at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/9.svg)
![30000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Title: FERC–725N, Mandatory 725N and OMB Control No. 1902–0264 entities.80 Applying this threshold, the
Reliability Standards: TPL Reliability in your submission. Commission estimates that there are 440
Standards. small entities that function as planning
IV. Environmental Analysis
Action: Proposed Additional coordinators, transmission planners,
Requirements. 69. The Commission is required to transmission owners, and/or generator
OMB Control No: 1902–0264. prepare an Environmental Assessment owners. However, the Commission
Respondents: Business or other for- or an Environmental Impact Statement estimates that only a subset of such
profit and not-for-profit institutions. for any action that may have a small entities will be subject to the
Frequency of Responses: One time significant adverse effect on the human proposed Reliability Standard given the
and on-going. environment.73 The Commission has additional applicability criteria in the
Necessity of the Information: The categorically excluded certain actions proposed Reliability Standard (i.e., to be
Commission has reviewed the from this requirement as not having a subject to the requirements of the
requirements pertaining to proposed significant effect on the human proposed Reliability Standard, the
Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 and has environment. Included in the exclusion applicable entity must own or must
made a determination that the proposed are rules that are clarifying, corrective, have a planning area that contains a
requirements of this Reliability or procedural or that do not large power transformer with a high
Standard are necessary to implement substantially change the effect of the side, wye grounded winding with
section 215 of the FPA. Specifically, regulations being amended.74 The terminal voltage greater than 200 kV).
these requirements address the threat actions proposed here fall within this 72. Proposed Reliability Standard
posed by GMD events to the Bulk-Power categorical exclusion in the TPL–007–1 enhances reliability by
System and conform to the Commission’s regulations. establishing requirements that require
Commission’s directives regarding applicable entities to perform GMD
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
development of the Second Stage GMD Vulnerability Assessments and to
Reliability Standards, as set forth in 70. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of mitigate any identified vulnerabilities.
Order No. 779. 1980 (RFA) 75 generally requires a The Commission estimates that each of
Internal review: The Commission has description and analysis of proposed the small entities to whom the proposed
assured itself, by means of its internal rules that will have significant Reliability Standard TPL–007–1 applies
review, that there is specific, objective economic impact on a substantial will incur one-time compliance costs of
support for the burden estimates number of small entities. The Small $5,193.34 and annual ongoing costs of
associated with the information Business Administration’s (SBA) Office $5,233.50.
requirements. of Size Standards develops the 73. The Commission does not
67. Interested persons may obtain numerical definition of a small consider the estimated cost per small
information on the reporting business.76 The SBA revised its size entity to impose a significant economic
requirements by contacting the Federal standard for electric utilities (effective impact on a substantial number of small
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office January 22, 2014) to a standard based on entities. Accordingly, the Commission
of the Executive Director, 888 First the number of employees, including certifies that the proposed Reliability
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 affiliates (from a standard based on Standard will not have a significant
[Attention: Ellen Brown, email: megawatt hours).77 Under SBA’s new economic impact on a substantial
DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) size standards, planning coordinators, number of small entities.
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873]. transmission planners, transmission
owners, and generator owners are likely VI. Comment Procedures
68. Comments concerning the
information collections proposed in this included in one of the following 74. The Commission invites interested
notice of proposed rulemaking and the categories (with the associated size persons to submit comments on the
associated burden estimates, should be thresholds noted for each): 78 matters and issues proposed in this
sent to the Commission in this docket • Hydroelectric power generation, at notice to be adopted, including any
and may also be sent to the Office of 500 employees related matters or alternative proposals
Management and Budget, Office of • Fossil fuel electric power that commenters may wish to discuss.
Information and Regulatory Affairs generation, at 750 employees Comments are due July 27, 2015.
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal • Nuclear electric power generation, Comments must refer to Docket No.
Energy Regulatory Commission]. For at 750 employees RM15–11–000, and must include the
security reasons, comments should be • Other electric power generation commenter’s name, the organization
sent by email to OMB at the following (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, they represent, if applicable, and their
email address: oira_submission@ and other), at 250 employees address in their comments.
omb.eop.gov. Please reference FERC– • Electric bulk power transmission 75. The Commission encourages
and control,79 at 500 employees comments to be filed electronically via
70 Eng.=engineer; RK =recordkeeping (record 71. Based on these categories, the the eFiling link on the Commission’s
clerk); PC=planning coordinator; TP=transmission Commission will use a conservative Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The
planner; TO=transmission owner; and threshold of 750 employees for all Commission accepts most standard
GO=generator owner. word processing formats. Documents
71 The estimates for cost per response are derived
73 Regulations Implementing the National
created electronically using word
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
using the following formula: Burden Hours per Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, FERC
Response * $/hour = Cost per Response. The processing software should be filed in
Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).
$66.35/hour figure for an engineer and the $37.45/ 74 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
native applications or print-to-PDF
hour figure for a record clerk are based on data on 75 5 U.S.C. 601–12. format and not in a scanned format.
the average salary plus benefits from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics obtainable at http://www.bls.gov/
76 13 CFR 121.101. Commenters filing electronically do not
oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and http:// 77 SBA Final Rule on ‘‘Small Business Size need to make a paper filing.
www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Standards: Utilities,’’ 78 FR 77,343 (Dec. 23, 2013).
72 Of the 57,640 total burden hours, 42,137 hours 78 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities. 80 By using the highest number threshold for all
are one time burden hours, and 15,503 hours are 79 This category covers transmission planners and types of entities, our estimate conservatively treats
on-going annual burden hours. planning coordinators. more entities as ‘‘small entities.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30001
76. Commenters that are not able to DEPARTMENT OF STATE www.regulations.gov are immediately
file comments electronically must send available for public inspection.
an original of their comments to: 22 CFR Parts 120, 122, 124, 125, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 126 C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Defense Trade Controls Policy,
[Public Notice 9136]
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Department of State, telephone (202)
77. All comments will be placed in RIN 1400–AD79 663–1282; email DDTCResponseTeam@
the Commission’s public files and may state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change,
Amendment to the International Traffic U.S. Persons Employed by Foreign
be viewed, printed, or downloaded
in Arms Regulations: Registration and Persons.
remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters Licensing of U.S. Persons Employed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
by Foreign Persons, and Other
on this proposal are not required to Changes in This Rule Related to
Changes
serve copies of their comments on other Registration and Licensing of U.S.
commenters. AGENCY: Department of State. Persons Employed by Foreign Persons
VII. Document Availability ACTION: Proposed rule. DDTC seeks to clarify the registration
SUMMARY: The Department of State and licensing requirements for U.S.
78. In addition to publishing the full persons located in the United States or
text of this document in the Federal proposes to amend the International
Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to abroad who are engaged in the business
Register, the Commission provides all of furnishing defense services to their
interested persons an opportunity to clarify requirements for the licensing
and registration of U.S. persons foreign person employers. Similarly,
view and/or print the contents of this DDTC seeks to clarify when these same
providing defense services while in the
document via the Internet through the persons may be covered under existing
employ of foreign persons. This
Commission’s Home Page (http:// DDTC authorizations previously issued
amendment is pursuant to the
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s President’s Export Control Reform to their employers and affiliates, and
Public Reference Room during normal effort, as part of the Department of when they are instead obligated to apply
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. State’s retrospective plan under for their own license or agreement prior
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Executive Order 13563 completed on to engaging in the provisions of defense
Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. August 17, 2011. The Department of services.
The Department proposes to modify
79. From the Commission’s Home State’s full plan can be accessed at
22 CFR 120.40 Affiliate, add a definition
Page on the Internet, this information is http://www.state.gov/documents/
for ‘‘natural persons’’ in 22 CFR 120.43,
available on eLibrary. The full text of organization/181028.pdf.
effect changes to 22 CFR 122.1
this document is available on eLibrary DATES: The Department of State will Registration Requirements and 22 CFR
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for accept comments on this proposed rule 122.4 Notification of Changes in
viewing, printing, and/or downloading. until July 27, 2015. Information Furnished by Registrants,
To access this document in eLibrary, ADDRESSES: Interested parties may and add an exemption for natural U.S.
type the docket number excluding the submit comments within 60 days of the persons employed by foreign persons in
last three digits of this document in the date of publication by one of the 22 CFR 124.17, to better account for
docket number field. following methods: these persons and their services to their
80. User assistance is available for • Email: DDTCPublicComments@ foreign person employers.
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Scenarios impacted by these changes
during normal business hours from the Amendment—U.S. Persons Employed include but are not limited to the
by Foreign Persons.’’ following:
Commission’s Online Support at 202–
• Internet: At www.regulations.gov, (1) U.S. persons employed as regular
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
search for this proposed rule by using employees of a U.S. company but
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, its RIN (1400–AD79). working at a foreign branch of that
or the Public Reference Room at (202) Comments received after that date company; (2) U.S. persons employed as
502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email will be considered if feasible, but regular employees of a U.S. company’s
the Public Reference Room at consideration cannot be assured. Those foreign subsidiary or affiliate where the
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. submitting comments should not U.S. company is actively participating
By direction of the Commission. include any personally identifying in the provision of services to the
Issued: May 14, 2015. information they do not desire to be foreign subsidiary or affiliate; (3) U.S.
Kimberly D. Bose,
made public or any information for persons employed as regular employees
which a claim of confidentiality is of a U.S. company’s foreign subsidiary
Secretary. asserted. All comments and transmittal or affiliate where the U.S. company is
[FR Doc. 2015–12466 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] emails will be made available for public not actively participating in the
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P inspection and copying after the close of provision of services to the foreign
the comment period via the Directorate subsidiary or affiliate; (4) U.S. persons
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) Web employed outside the United States as
site at www.pmddtc.state.gov. Parties independent contractors who do not
who wish to comment anonymously meet the definition of a regular
may do so by submitting their employee; and (5) U.S. persons
comments via www.regulations.gov, employed as regular employees of a
leaving the fields that would identify foreign company with no U.S.
the commenter blank and including no affiliation.
identifying information in the comment The following are the proposed
itself. Comments submitted via changes:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM 26MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30090/page/12.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 10:31:33
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 10:31:33
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments are due July 27, 2015. | |
| 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] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 29990 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR