81 FR 85176 - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System-Primary Frequency Response

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 227 (November 25, 2016)

Page Range		85176-85190
FR Document		2016-28321
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to revise its regulations to require all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection. To implement these requirements, the Commission proposes to revise the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA). The proposed changes are designed to address the increasing impact of the evolving generation resource mix and to ensure that the relevant provisions of the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA are just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. The Commission also seeks comment on whether its proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are sufficient at this time to ensure adequate levels of primary frequency response, or whether additional reforms are needed.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85176-85190]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM16-6-000]


Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power 
System--Primary Frequency Response

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes 
to revise its regulations to require all newly interconnecting large 
and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, 
to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a 
condition of interconnection. To implement these requirements, the 
Commission proposes to revise the pro forma Large Generator 
Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma Small Generator 
Interconnection Agreement (SGIA). The proposed changes are designed to 
address the increasing impact of the evolving generation resource mix 
and to ensure that the relevant provisions of the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA are just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or 
preferential. The Commission also seeks comment on whether its 
proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are sufficient at this 
time to ensure adequate levels of primary frequency response, or 
whether additional reforms are needed.

DATES: Comments are due January 24, 2017.

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: 

Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric 
Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6281, [email protected].
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to modify the pro forma 
Large Generator Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and the pro forma 
Small Generator Interconnection Agreement (SGIA), pursuant to its 
authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure 
that rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional service remain just 
and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.\1\ The 
proposed modifications would require all new large and small generating 
facilities, including both synchronous and non-synchronous, 
interconnecting with a LGIA or SGIA to install, maintain and operate 
equipment capable of providing primary frequency response as a 
condition of interconnection. The Commission also proposes to establish 
certain operating requirements, including maximum droop and deadband 
parameters in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. The Commission 
does not propose to apply these requirements to generating facilities 
regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, the 
Commission does not propose in these reforms to impose a headroom 
requirement for new generating facilities. The Commission also does not 
propose to mandate that new generating facilities receive any 
compensation for complying with the proposed requirements in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The proposed revisions address the Commission's concerns that 
the existing pro forma LGIA contains limited primary frequency response 
requirements that apply only to synchronous generating facilities and 
do not account for recent technological advancements that have enabled 
new non-synchronous generating facilities to now have primary frequency 
response capabilities. Further, the Commission believes that it may be 
unduly discriminatory or preferential to impose primary frequency 
response requirements only on new large generating facilities but not 
on new small generating facilities, and the reforms proposed here would 
impose

[[Page 85177]]

comparable primary frequency response requirements on both new large 
and small generating facilities.
    3. In addition, and as discussed below in paragraph 57, the 
Commission also seeks comment on whether its proposals in this NOPR are 
sufficient at this time to ensure adequate levels of primary frequency 
response, or whether additional reforms are needed.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed reforms and 
requests for comment sixty (60) days after publication of this NOPR in 
the Federal Register.

I. Background

A. Frequency Response

    5. Reliable operation of an Interconnection \2\ depends on 
maintaining frequency within predetermined boundaries above and below a 
scheduled value, which is 60 Hertz (Hz) in North America. Changes in 
frequency are caused by changes in the balance between load and 
generation, such as the sudden loss of a large generator or a large 
amount of load. If frequency deviates too far above or below its 
scheduled value, it could potentially result in under frequency load 
shedding (UFLS), generation tripping, or cascading outages.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An Interconnection is a geographic area in which the 
operation of the electric system is synchronized. In the continental 
United States, there are three Interconnections, namely the Eastern, 
Texas, and Western Interconnections.
    \3\ UFLS is designed for use in extreme conditions to stabilize 
the balance between generation and load. Under frequency protection 
schemes are drastic measures employed if system frequency falls 
below a specified value. See Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding 
and Load Shedding Plans Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,682, at PP 4-10 (2011) (Order 
No. 763 NOPR) at PP 4-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Mitigation of frequency deviations after the sudden loss of 
generation or load is driven by three primary factors: inertial 
response, primary frequency response, and secondary frequency 
response.\4\ Primary frequency response actions begin within seconds 
after system frequency changes and are mostly provided by the automatic 
and autonomous actions (i.e., outside of system operator control) of 
turbine-governors, while some response is provided by frequency 
responsive loads.\5\ Primary frequency response actions are intended to 
arrest abnormal frequency deviations and ensure that system frequency 
remains within acceptable bounds. An important goal for system planners 
and operators is for the frequency nadir,\6\ during large disturbances, 
to remain above the first stage of UFLS set points within an 
Interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Notice of Inquiry issued in Docket No. RM16-6-000 on 
Feb. 8, 2016, the Commission provided detailed discussion of how 
inertia, primary frequency response, and secondary frequency 
response interact to mitigate frequency deviations. Essential 
Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System--Primary 
Frequency Response, 154 FERC ] 61,117, at PP 3-7 (2016) (NOI). See 
also Use of Frequency Response Metrics to Assess the Planning and 
Operating Requirements for Reliable Integration of Variable 
Renewable Generation, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, at 13-
14 (Dec. 2010), http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/certs/pdf/lbnl-4142e.pdf 
(LBNL 2010 Report).
    \5\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at P 6. The Commission also noted 
that regulation service is different than primary frequency response 
because generating facilities that provide regulation respond to 
automatic generation control signals and regulation service is 
centrally coordinated by the system operator, whereas primary 
frequency response service, in contrast, is autonomous and is not 
centrally coordinated. Schedule 3 of the pro forma Open Access 
Transmission Tariff (OATT) bundles these different services 
together, despite their differences. See Id. n.66.
    \6\ The point at which the frequency decline is arrested 
(following the sudden loss of generation) is called the frequency 
nadir, and represents the point at which the net primary frequency 
response (real power) output from all generating units and the 
decrease in power consumed by the load within an Interconnection 
matches the net initial loss of generation (in megawatts (MW)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Frequency response is a measure of an Interconnection's ability 
to arrest and stabilize frequency deviations following the sudden loss 
of generation or load, and is affected by the collective responses of 
generation and load throughout the Interconnection. When considered in 
aggregate, the primary frequency response provided by generators within 
an Interconnection has a significant impact on the overall frequency 
response. NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1 defines the amount of 
frequency response needed from balancing authorities \7\ to maintain 
Interconnection frequency within predefined bounds and includes 
requirements for the measurement and provision of frequency 
response.\8\ While NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1 establishes 
requirements for balancing authorities, it does not include any 
requirements for individual generator owners or operators.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NERC's Glossary of Terms defines a balancing authority as 
``(t)he responsible entity that integrates resource plans ahead of 
time, maintains load-interchange-generation balance within a 
balancing authority area, and supports Interconnection frequency in 
real time.''
    \8\ Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting Reliability 
Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ] 61,024 (2014).
    \9\ The Commission has also accepted Regional Reliability 
Standard BAL-001-TRE-01 (Primary Frequency Response in the ERCOT 
Region) as mandatory and enforceable, which does establish 
requirements for generator owners and operators with respect to 
governor control settings and the provision of primary frequency 
response within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) 
region. North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 146 FERC ] 
61,025 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Unless otherwise required by tariffs or interconnection 
agreements, generator owners and operators can independently decide 
whether units are configured to provide primary frequency response.\10\ 
The magnitude and duration of a generator's response to frequency 
deviations is generally determined by the settings of the unit's 
governor \11\ (or equivalent controls) and other plant level (e.g., 
``outer-loop'') control systems. In particular, the governor's droop 
and deadband settings have a significant impact on the unit's provision 
of primary frequency response. In addition, plant-level or ``outer-
loop'' controls, unless properly configured, can override or nullify a 
generator's governor response and return the unit to operate at a 
scheduled pre-disturbance megawatt set-point.\12\ In 2010, NERC 
conducted a survey of generator owners and operators and found that 
only approximately 30 percent of generators in the Eastern 
Interconnection provided primary frequency response, and that only 
approximately 10 percent of generators provided sustained primary 
frequency response.\13\ This suggests that many generators within the 
Interconnection disable or otherwise set their governors or outer-loop 
controls such that they provide little to no primary frequency 
response.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at PP 18-19.
    \11\ A governor is an electronic or mechanical device that 
implements primary frequency response on a generator via a droop 
parameter. Droop refers to the variation in real power (MW) output 
due to variations in system frequency and is typically expressed as 
a percentage (e.g., 5 percent droop). Droop reflects the amount of 
frequency change from nominal (e.g., 5 percent of 60 Hz is 3 Hz) 
that is necessary to cause the main prime mover control mechanism of 
a generating facility to move from fully closed to fully open. A 
governor also has a deadband parameter which establishes a minimum 
frequency deviation (e.g., 0.036 Hz) from nominal that 
must be exceeded in order for the governor to act.
    \12\ For more discussion on ``premature withdrawal'' of primary 
frequency response, see NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at PP 49-50.
    \13\ See NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report: The 
Reliability Role of Frequency Response (Oct. 2012), http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/FRI_Report_10-30-12_Master_w-appendices.pdf 
(NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report) at 95.
    \14\ However, as noted below, some commenters note that nuclear 
generating units are restricted by their U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission operating licenses regarding the provision of primary 
frequency response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Declining frequency response performance has been an industry 
concern for many years. NERC, in conjunction with EPRI, initiated its 
first examination of declining frequency response and governor response 
in 1991.\15\ More recently, as noted in the

[[Page 85178]]

NOI, while the three U.S. Interconnections currently exhibit adequate 
frequency response performance above their Interconnection Frequency 
Response Obligations,\16\ there has been a significant decline in the 
frequency response performance of the Western and Eastern 
Interconnections.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report at 22.
    \16\ The Interconnection Frequency Response Obligations are 
established by NERC and are designed to require sufficient frequency 
response for each Interconnection (i.e., the Eastern, ERCOT, Quebec 
and Western Interconnections) to arrest frequency declines even for 
severe, but possible, contingencies.
    \17\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Prior Commission Actions

    10. In Order Nos. 2003 \18\ and 2006,\19\ the Commission adopted 
standard procedures for the interconnection of large and small 
generating facilities, including the development of standardized pro 
forma generator interconnection agreements and procedures. The 
Commission required public utility transmission providers \20\ to file 
revised OATTs containing these standardized provisions, and use the 
LGIA and SGIA to provide non-discriminatory interconnection service to 
Large Generators (i.e., generating facilities having a capacity of more 
than 20 MW) and Small Generators (i.e., generators having a capacity of 
no more than 20 MW). The pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA have since 
been revised through various subsequent proceedings.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and 
Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 (2003), 
order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,160, 
order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,171 
(2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. 
Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 
U.S. 1230 (2008).
    \19\ Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection 
Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,180, order on reh'g, Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,196 (2005), order granting clarification, Order No. 2006-B, FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,221 (2006).
    \20\ A public utility is a utility that owns, controls, or 
operates facilities used for transmitting electric energy in 
interstate commerce, as defined by the FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) 
(2012). A non-public utility that seeks voluntary compliance with 
the reciprocity condition of an OATT may satisfy that condition by 
filing an OATT, which includes a LGIA and SGIA. See Order No. 2003, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146, at PP 840-845.
    \21\ E.g., Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and 
Procedures, Order No. 792, 145 FERC ] 61,159 (2013), clarifying, 
Order No. 792-A, 146 FERC ] 61,214 (2014); Reactive Power 
Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation, Order No. 827, 81 FR 
40,793 (Jun. 23, 2016), 155 FERC ] 61,277 (2016); Requirements for 
Frequency and Voltage Ride Through Capability of Small Generating 
Facilities, Order No. 828, 81 FR 50,290 (Aug. 1, 2016), 156 FERC ] 
61,062 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. As relevant here, the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA are 
largely silent on any requirements with respect to primary frequency 
response. In particular, the only requirement in the pro forma LGIA or 
pro forma SGIA related to primary frequency response is contained 
within current Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA (Governors and 
Regulators), which provides that if speed governors are installed, they 
should be operated in automatic mode.\22\ A speed governor implements 
the primary frequency response provided by a synchronous generating 
facility; however, Article 9.6.2.1 does not address governor settings 
or plant-level controls, which also affect the ability of a generating 
facility to provide primary frequency response. In addition, Article 
9.6.2.1 does not require the installation of the necessary equipment 
for frequency response capability (i.e., governors or equivalent 
controls). Finally, the pro forma SGIA does not contain any provisions 
related to primary frequency response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Efforts To Evaluate the Impacts of the Changing Resource Mix

    12. The Commission's pro forma generator interconnection agreements 
and procedures were developed at a time when traditional synchronous 
generating facilities with standard governor controls and large 
rotational inertia were the predominant sources of electricity 
generation. However, the nation's resource mix has undergone 
significant change since the issuance of Order Nos. 2003 and 2006. This 
transformation has been characterized by the retirement of baseload, 
synchronous generating facilities and the integration of more 
distributed generation, demand response, and natural gas generating 
facilities, and the rapid expansion of non-synchronous variable energy 
resources (VERs) such as wind and solar.\23\ For example, the U.S. 
Energy Information Administration (EIA) has observed that the U.S. 
added approximately 13 gigawatts (GW) of wind, 6.2 GW of utility scale 
solar photovoltaic (PV), and 3.6 GW of distributed solar PV generating 
facilities in 2014 and 2015.\24\ Conversely, NERC has reported \25\ 
that almost 42 GW of synchronous generating facilities (e.g., coal, 
nuclear, and natural gas) have retired between 2011 and 2014, and the 
EIA recently reported that nearly 14 GW of coal and 3 GW of natural gas 
generating facilities retired in 2015.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The term VER is defined as a device for the production of 
electricity that is characterized by an energy source that: (1) Is 
renewable; (2) cannot be stored by the facility owner or operator; 
and (3) has variability that is beyond the control of the facility 
owner or operator. See, e.g., Integration of Variable Energy 
Resources, Order No. 764, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,331, at P 210 
(2012).
    \24\ See, U.S. electric generation capacity additions, 2015 vs. 
2014, EIA (March 2016), https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25492.
    \25\ See NERC 2015 LTRA (Dec. 2015), http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2015LTRA%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
    \26\ See Electricity generating capacity retired in 2015 by fuel 
and technology, EIA (May 2016), http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. While technological advancements have enabled wind and solar 
generating facilities to now have the ability to provide primary 
frequency response, this functionality has not historically been a 
standard feature that was included and enabled on non-synchronous 
generating facilities. Moreover, wind and solar generating facilities 
typically operate at their maximum operating output, leaving no 
capacity (or ``headroom'') \27\ to provide primary frequency response 
during under-frequency conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Headroom refers to the difference between the current 
operating point of a generator and its maximum operating capability, 
and represents the potential amount of additional energy that can be 
provided by the generating facility in real-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Given the changes in the resource mix and concerns about the 
significant decline in frequency response for the Eastern and Western 
Interconnections,\28\ NERC has undertaken several initiatives to 
evaluate the impacts of the changing resource mix, particularly with 
respect to primary frequency response. For example, in 2014, NERC 
initiated the Essential Reliability Services Task Force (Task Force) to 
analyze and better understand the impacts of the changing resource mix 
and develop technical assessments of essential reliability 
services.\29\ The Task Force focused on three essential reliability 
services: Frequency support, ramping capability, and voltage 
support.\30\ The Task Force considered the seven ancillary

[[Page 85179]]

services \31\ adopted by the Commission in Order Nos. 888 \32\ and 890 
\33\ as a subset of the essential reliability services that may need to 
be augmented by additional services as the Bulk-Power System \34\ 
characteristics change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NERC Frequency Response Initiative Industry Advisory--
Generator Governor Frequency Response, at slide 10 (Apr. 2015), 
http://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/Webinars%20DL/Generator_Governor_Frequency_Response_Webinar_April_2015.pdf. (NERC 
2015 Frequency Response Webinar). See also LBNL 2010 Report at pp 
xiv-xv.
    \29\ Essential reliability services are referred to as elemental 
reliability building blocks from resources (generation and load) 
that are necessary to maintain the reliability of the Bulk-Power 
System. See Essential Reliability Services Task Force Scope 
Document, at 1 (Apr. 2014), http://www.nerc.com/comm/Other/essntlrlbltysrvcstskfrcDL/Scope_ERSTF_Final.pdf.
    \30\ Essential Reliability Services Task Force Measures Report, 
at 22 (Dec. 2015), http://www.nerc.com/comm/Other/essntlrlbltysrvcstskfrcDL/ERSTF%20Framework%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf.
    \31\ The seven pro forma ancillary services set forth in Order 
Nos. 888 and 890 are: (1) Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch 
Service; (2) Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation 
Sources Service; (3) Regulation and Frequency Response Service; (4) 
Energy Imbalance Service; (5) Operating Reserve--Spinning Reserve 
Service; (6) Operating Reserve--Supplemental Reserve Service; and 
(7) Generator Imbalance Service.
    \32\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery 
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, 
Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048, order on reh'g, Order 
No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 
82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. 
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. 
Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
    \33\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in 
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241, 
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,261 
(2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), 
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228, order on 
clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
    \34\ Section 215(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 
824o(a)(1) (2012) defines ``Bulk-Power System'' as those 
``facilities and control systems necessary for operating an 
interconnected electric energy transmission network (or any portion 
thereof) [and] electric energy from generating facilities needed to 
maintain transmission system reliability.'' The term does not 
include facilities used in the local distribution of electric 
energy. See also Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power 
System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 76, order 
on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The Task Force did not recommend new reliability standards or 
specific actions to alter the existing suite of ancillary services; 
however, it did make certain conclusions with regard to primary 
frequency response. Specifically, the Task Force concluded that it is 
prudent and necessary to ensure that primary frequency response 
capabilities are present in the future generation resource mix, and 
recommended that all new generators support the capability to manage 
frequency.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Essential Reliability Services Task Force Measures Report 
at vi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In addition, as part of its ongoing analysis of primary 
frequency response concerns, NERC observed in a 2012 report that a 
number of generators implemented deadband settings that were so wide as 
to effectively defeat the ability to provide primary frequency 
response.\36\ The report also notes that many generators provide 
frequency response in the wrong direction during a disturbance.\37\ 
Additionally, in February 2015, NERC issued an Industry Advisory that 
determined that a significant portion of generators within the Eastern 
Interconnection use deadbands or governor control settings that either 
inhibit or prevent the provision of primary frequency response.\38\ 
Moreover, as noted in the NOI, NERC observed in 2015 that in many 
conventional steam plants, deadband settings exceed 0.036 
Hz, resulting in primary frequency response that is not sustained, and 
that the vast majority of the gas turbine fleet is not frequency 
responsive.\39\ In response to these issues and other concerns, NERC's 
Operating Committee approved a voluntary Primary Frequency Control 
Guideline that contains recommended settings for generator governors 
and other plant control systems, and encourages generators within the 
three U.S. Interconnections to provide sustained and effective primary 
frequency response.\40\ NERC's Guideline recommends maximum 5 percent 
droop and 0.036 Hz deadband settings for most generating 
facilities.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report at 92.
    \37\ NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report at 96-97.
    \38\ NERC Generator Governor Frequency Response Industry 
Advisory (Feb. 2015), http://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/bpsa/Alerts%20DL/2015%20Alerts/NERC%20Alert%20A-2015-02-05-01%20Generator%20Governor%20Frequency%20Response.pdf.
    \39\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at P 50 (citing to NERC 2015 
Frequency Response Webinar at 1).
    \40\ See NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline Final Draft 
(Dec. 2015), http://www.nerc.com/comm/OC/Reliability%20Guideline%20DL/Primary_Frequency_Control_final.pdf 
(NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline). See also NERC Operating 
Committee Meeting Minutes (Jan. 2016), http://www.nerc.com/comm/OC/AgendasHighlightsMinutes/Operating%20Committee%20Minutes%20-%20Dec%2015-16%202015-Final.pdf.
    \41\ See NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Initiatives by Individual Transmission Providers

    17. While the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA do not provide 
specific requirements related to frequency response, some public 
utility transmission providers have included provisions related to 
primary frequency response in their LGIA, SGIA, OATTs, and/or business 
practice manuals.
    18. For example, ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) and New York 
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) have adopted provisions to 
their LGIAs that establish more specific requirements for governor 
operation.\42\ In particular, ISO-NE requires each generator within its 
region with a capability of 10 MW or more, including VERs, to operate 
with a functioning governor with specified droop and deadband settings, 
i.e., maximum 5 percent droop and 0.036 Hz deadband, and to 
also ensure that the provision of primary frequency response is not 
inhibited by the effects of outer-loop controls.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See ISO-NE, Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff, 
Schedule 22 Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (9.0.0), 
Appendix 6, 9.6.2.2; NYISO, NYISO Tariffs, NYISO OATT, 30.14 OATT 
Att. X Appendices (8.0.0), Appendix 6, 9.5.4.
    \43\ See ISO-NE's Operating Procedure No. 14 I (Governor 
Control), http://www.iso-ne.com/rules_proceds/operating/isone/op14/op14_rto_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) has implemented governor 
droop and deadband requirements, i.e., maximum 5 percent droop and 
0.036 Hz deadband, for all generating facilities excluding 
nuclear facilities with a gross plant/facility aggregate nameplate 
rating greater than 75 MVA.\44\ PJM also recently added new 
interconnection requirements requiring new non-synchronous generators 
to interconnect with ``enhanced inverters'' that have various 
capabilities including, among other things, the ability to provide 
primary frequency response.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ PJM's pro forma interconnection agreements obligate 
interconnection customers within its region to abide by all PJM 
rules and procedures, including rules set forth in PJM's Manuals 
(See PJM Tariff, Attachment O 8.0). See also PJM Manual 14D 7.1.1 
(Generator Real-Power Control), http://www.pjm.com/~/media/
documents/manuals/m14d.ashx.
    \45\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,097, at n.58 
(2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) requires 
governor operation as a condition for providing regulating reserve but 
does not require specific settings.\46\ Also, the Commission recently 
accepted tariff provisions proposed by the California Independent 
System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to require governor operation, 
specified droop and deadband settings, i.e., maximum 5 percent droop 
and 0.036 Hz deadband, and provisions for sustained primary 
frequency response for its participating generators that have 
traditional governor controls.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See MISO, FERC Electric Tariff, Module C, Energy and 
Operating Reserve Markets 39.2.1B (34.0.0) (``All Regulation 
Qualified Resources in the Day-Ahead Energy and Operating Reserve 
Market must be capable of automatically responding to and 
alleviating frequency deviations through a speed governor or similar 
device in accordance with the Applicable Reliability Standards.'').
    \47\ CAISO, 156 FERC ] 61,182, at PP 10-12 and 17 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Notice of Inquiry

1. Summary
    21. On February 18, 2016, the Commission issued the NOI to explore 
issues regarding essential reliability

[[Page 85180]]

services and the evolving Bulk-Power System.\48\ In particular, the 
Commission asked a broad range of questions on the need for reform of 
its rules and regulations regarding the provision of and compensation 
for primary frequency response. The Commission explained that there is 
a significant risk that, as conventional synchronous generating 
facilities retire or are displaced by increased numbers of VERs that do 
not typically contribute to system inertia or have primary frequency 
response capabilities, the net amount of frequency responsive 
generation online will be reduced.\49\ The Commission also explained 
that these developments and their potential impacts could challenge 
system operators in maintaining reliability.\50\ Further, the 
Commission explained that NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1 and the 
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA do not specifically address a 
generator's ability to provide frequency response.\51\ The Commission 
noted, however, that while in previous years many non-synchronous 
generating facilities were not designed with primary frequency response 
capabilities, the technology now exists for new non-synchronous 
generating facilities to install primary frequency response 
capability.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117.
    \49\ Id. P 12.
    \50\ Id. P 14.
    \51\ Id. P 41.
    \52\ Id. P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Accordingly, the Commission requested comments on three main 
sets of issues. First, the Commission sought comment on whether 
amendments to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA are warranted to 
require all new generating facilities, both synchronous and non-
synchronous, to have primary frequency response capabilities as a 
precondition of interconnection.\53\ Second, the Commission sought 
comment on the performance of existing generating facilities and 
whether primary frequency response requirements for these facilities 
are warranted.\54\ Finally, the Commission sought comment on 
compensation for primary frequency response.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id. PP 2 and 44-45.
    \54\ Id. PP 2, 46, and 52.
    \55\ Id. PP 2, 53-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments on Modifying the Pro Forma LGIA and Pro Forma SGIA
    23. The Commission received a robust response from industry, with 
47 entities collectively submitting nearly 700 pages of comments that 
provided responses to some or all of the questions posed by the 
NOI.\56\ Relevant to the proposed revisions considered in this NOPR, 
the Commission received numerous comments on whether the pro forma LGIA 
and pro forma SGIA should be revised to include requirements for all 
newly interconnecting generating facilities, whether synchronous or 
non-synchronous, to install primary frequency response capability.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Appendix lists the entities that submitted comments and 
the shortened names that are used throughout this NOPR.
    \57\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Comments in Support of Modifying the pro forma LGIA and pro forma 
SGIA
    24. Most commenters support, or are not opposed to, revising the 
pro forma LGIA and SGIA to impose primary frequency response capability 
requirements on all new generating facilities as suggested in the 
NOI.\58\ Several commenters indicate that the nation's changing 
resource mix could create reliability concerns related to the provision 
of primary frequency response. For example, PJM Utilities Coalition 
states that while newer generating facilities are not installing 
frequency response capability, the existing generating facilities that 
do provide this essential reliability service have more limited 
capability, due to the cost of operation and planned retirements, 
placing the grid at further risk.\59\ Peak Reliability, the reliability 
coordinator for the Western Interconnection, states that as baseload 
generation retires, the number of generators providing primary 
frequency response is reduced and may present reliability challenges 
for system operators, as fewer options are available to reduce 
frequency deviations following an unexpected loss of generation or 
load.\60\ CAISO asserts that due to the increased proportion of 
renewable generating facilities operating in CAISO's balancing 
authority area, there may not be sufficient frequency responsive 
capacity online when the system has high renewable output and low load 
levels.\61\ Bonneville states that the trend of declining frequency 
response capability will continue with a changing resource mix, unless 
provisions are put in place to assure that adequate inertial and 
primary frequency response capability are available in the future.\62\ 
NERC states that the rapidly changing resource mix may reduce the level 
of available frequency capability.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ APPA, et al. Comments at 6; Bonneville Comments at 6; CAISO 
Comments at 2; California Cities Comments at 2; ELCON Comments at 5; 
EEI Comments at 12; EPSA, et al. Comments at 8; Howard F. Illian 
Comments at 43; Idaho Power Comments at 1; IEEE-PES Comments at 1; 
Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 3; ITC, et al. Comments at 1; MISO 
Comments at 4; MISO TOs Comments at 6; NARUC Comments at 3; NERC 
Comments at 17; North American Generator Forum Comments at 2; Peak 
Reliability Comments at 4; PG&E Comments at 2; SoCal Edison Comments 
at 4; Southern Company Comments at 2; Tri-State Generation Comments 
at 3; WIRAB Comments at 3.
    \59\ PJM Utilities Coalition Comments at 3.
    \60\ Peak Reliability Comments at 4.
    \61\ CAISO Comments at 2.
    \62\ Bonneville Comments at 2.
    \63\ NERC Comments at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Numerous commenters assert that they recognize the benefits of 
revising the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to require primary 
frequency response capabilities for new generators. NERC, for example, 
asserts that new primary frequency response requirements for generators 
will improve operator flexibility for system restoration and island 
capability and help balancing authorities meet their frequency response 
obligations.\64\ NERC also asserts that revisions to the pro forma LGIA 
and pro forma SGIA would result in measurable, clear requirements 
applicable to all new generating facilities in a fair and equitable 
manner.\65\ NERC points out, however, that primary frequency response 
capability, by itself, would not require a resource to respond if 
called upon to help a balancing authority meet its frequency response 
obligation, and that, as a result, it is important to have mechanisms 
to ensure that sufficient frequency response capability is not only 
available but ready to respond at all times.\66\ CASIO, Indicated ISOs/
RTOs, MISO, and a number of trade associations also support 
modifications to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA for new 
generating facilities to install primary frequency response 
capability.\67\ PJM Utilities Coalition states that, with all new 
generating facilities (both synchronous and non-synchronous) being 
fully capable of providing primary frequency response, requiring this 
capability will ensure that system operators have the ability to 
reliably operate the grid of the future.\68\ Peak Reliability states 
that it supports modifications to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA 
and that requiring generating facilities to install or provide 
frequency response in the initial stages of the interconnection process 
will ensure that the grid is able to maintain

[[Page 85181]]

this essential service even as the resource mix changes.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Id.
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id. at 18.
    \67\ APPA, et al. Comments at 2; CAISO Comments at 2; EEI 
Comments at 3; EPSA, et al. Comments at 8; Indicated ISOs/RTOs 
Comments at 3; MISO Comments at 4; North American Generator Forum 
Comments at 2.
    \68\ PJM Utilities Coalition Comments at 4-5.
    \69\ Peak Reliability Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Other commenters also express support for revising the pro 
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. Bonneville points out that selling 
primary frequency response capability would not provide sufficient 
incentive for new generating facilities to invest in such capability, 
and argues that the only way to ensure that there is enough primary 
frequency response capability is to require new generators to install 
it.\70\ WIRAB advises that while current studies do not indicate that 
there is a shortage of primary frequency response in the Western 
Interconnection and that all generators do not need to provide primary 
frequency response all of the time, the Commission should, however, 
require that all new generator owners install primary frequency 
response capability because of the changing resource mix in the Western 
Interconnection and the associated uncertainty regarding the future 
provision of primary frequency response.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Bonneville Comments at 21.
    \71\ WIRAB Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Several commenters that generally support revising the pro 
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA also express certain concerns. For 
example, Southern Company expresses support for revising the pro forma 
LGIA and pro forma SGIA, but caveats its support by arguing that new 
regulations for primary frequency response should include an ``opt-
out'' provision that would allow balancing authorities that do not 
anticipate frequency response shortfalls to delay the implementation of 
the new pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA requirements until these 
needs are actually anticipated in their regions in order to avoid 
higher costs.\72\ EPSA, et al. state that while they do not fully 
oppose amending the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA, they recommend 
that the Commission explore more effective and cost efficient ways to 
address the range of issues posed in the NOI and consider a measured 
approach before mandating governors for all prospective interconnecting 
generation.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Southern Company Comments at 2-3.
    \73\ EPSA, et al. Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Some commenters that support modifying the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA also assert that the costs of implementing primary 
frequency response capability for new generating facilities are 
low.\74\ For example, APPA, et al. state that the capability for 
providing primary frequency response is almost always installed in 
synchronous generation, and that the inclusion of this additional 
control for new non-synchronous generating facilities would likely add 
only nominal costs.\75\ EEI asserts that all new generating facilities 
coming online can be fully capable of providing primary frequency 
response and that the associated cost of installing such capability 
during initial manufacturing or construction of a new VER is small when 
considering the overall cost of the new generating facility.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ APPA, et al. Comments at 6; Bonneville Comments at 8; 
California Cities Comments at 2; EEI Comments at 13; Indicated ISOs/
RTOs Comments at 5; MISO Comments at 4; SoCal Edison Comments at 2.
    \75\ APPA, et al. Comments at 6.
    \76\ EEI Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. In contrast to new generating facilities, some entities, 
however, explain that the costs of retrofitting existing generating 
facilities with primary frequency response capability could be 
significant in some cases.\77\ For example, WIRAB states that the high 
cost of retrofitting existing generators to install the necessary 
control equipment supports limiting the requirement to new generators 
and taking early action now.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ APPA, et al. Comments at 6; Bonneville Comments at 8; 
California Cities Comments at 8; EEI Comments at 14; Idaho Power 
Comments at 4; WIRAB Comments at 6.
    \78\ WIRAB Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. In regards to nuclear generating facilities, some commenters 
indicate that nuclear plants have separate licensing requirements under 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and should not be required to provide 
primary frequency response. For example, the Nuclear Energy Institute 
asserts that while nearly all new generating facilities should be able 
to provide primary frequency response, nuclear plants are not well-
suited to provide primary frequency response due to restrictions by 
their operating licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.\79\ The Nuclear Energy Institute also asserts that turbine 
controls on most nuclear units are designed to maintain the internal 
steam pressure and are not intended to react to changes in the 
grid.\80\ Similarly, the MISO TOs assert that requiring nuclear units 
to have primary frequency response capability would be contrary to 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing requirements, and could have a 
detrimental effect on the safety of the nuclear fleet.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Nuclear Energy Institute Comments at 1 and 4.
    \80\ Nuclear Energy Institute Comments at 4.
    \81\ MISO TOs Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. In the NOI, the Commission also sought comment on whether it 
would be appropriate to include recommended governor settings contained 
within NERC's Primary Frequency Control Guideline in the pro forma LGIA 
and pro forma SGIA.\82\ Numerous commenters express support for 
including NERC's recommended governor control settings in the pro forma 
LGIA and pro forma SGIA.\83\ Some commenters note that NERC's Guideline 
is consistent with existing regulations or practices in certain 
regions.\84\ Indicated ISOs/RTOs point out that common primary 
frequency response settings for generators in an Interconnection will 
enhance reliability by reducing maneuvering by individual 
generators.\85\ MISO asserts that NERC's Guideline provides a sound 
baseline.\86\ NERC notes that its Guideline was developed by technical 
committees with expertise and judgment of the electric industry, and 
accordingly, the Guideline is the ``most advanced set of nation-wide 
best practices and information currently available to support frequency 
response capability.'' \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at P 45.
    \83\ See e.g., Bonneville Comments at 7; IEEE-PES Comments at 1; 
Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 4; California Cities Comments at 2; 
WIRAB Comments at 7.
    \84\ Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 4; SoCal Edison Comments at 
4; Peak Reliability Comments at 7; Manitoba Comments at 8.
    \85\ Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 5.
    \86\ MISO Comments at 4.
    \87\ NERC Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. However, not all entities that support modifying the pro forma 
LGIA and pro forma SGIA endorse the inclusion of NERC's recommended 
governor settings. For example, EEI states that it does not support 
including prescriptive performance requirements for governor control 
settings or other performance indicators in the pro forma LGIA or pro 
forma SGIA due to the physical, technical, or operational limitations 
of new generating facilities to provide primary frequency response.\88\ 
Similarly, APPA, et al. state that they do not support revising the pro 
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to include the recommended settings 
contained within NERC's Guideline at this time.\89\ MISO TOs state that 
some transmission owners in MISO believe that NERC's recommended 
governor settings are appropriate for traditional synchronous 
generating facilities, but recommend additional consideration for other 
generation technologies.\90\ On the other hand, MISO TOs state that 
other transmission owners in MISO request

[[Page 85182]]

flexibility and assert that specified governor settings should not be 
``hard-wired'' or dictated in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma 
SGIA.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ EEI Comments at 15-17.
    \89\ APPA, et al. Comments at 8.
    \90\ MISO TOs Comments at 8.
    \91\ MISO TOs Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments Opposed To Modifying the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA
    33. Other commenters contend that the pro forma LGIA and pro forma 
SGIA should not be modified to require primary frequency response 
capability from new generating facilities.\92\ Some commenters argue 
that requiring all new generating facilities to have primary frequency 
response capability will result in extra costs above those necessary to 
ensure reliability.\93\ For example, APS argues that a global mandate 
to provide primary frequency response or to require generating 
facilities to be primary frequency response capable would result in 
significantly increased costs while providing a disproportionately 
minor impact on improving reliability.\94\ Powerex asserts that 
modifying the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to include minimum 
primary frequency response requirements will increase the cost of entry 
for new generators, particularly VERs, which typically are not designed 
with such capability.\95\ Several commenters note that there would be a 
significant opportunity cost for certain generating facilities to 
reserve headroom for the provision of primary frequency response.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ AES Companies Comments at 6; Apex Comments at 6; APS 
Comments at 6; AWEA Comments at 12; Chelan County Comments at 2; ESA 
Comments at 2; Grid Storage Consulting Comments at 2; Microgrids 
Resources Coalition Comments at 3; NRECA Comments at 9; Powerex 
Comments at 5; SDG&E Comments at 3; SolarCity Comments at 1; TVA 
Comments at 2.
    \93\ Apex Comments at 5-6; APS Comments at 6; AWEA Comments at 
12; Chelan County Comments at 2; Powerex Comments at 5; Solar City 
Comments at 1.
    \94\ APS Comments at 6. It is unclear whether the increased 
costs referenced by APS refer only to the costs for the necessary 
equipment to provide primary frequency response or the costs 
associated with maintaining the headroom necessary to provide 
primary frequency response.
    \95\ Powerex Comments at 5.
    \96\ Apex Comments at 7; Solar City Comments at 1; AWEA Comments 
at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Some of the commenters that are opposed to modifying the pro 
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA assert that they prefer a market-based 
approach instead of a requirement for new generating facilities to 
install primary frequency response capability.\97\ For example, AWEA 
asserts that, initially, the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA should 
not be revised to require new generating facilities to have primary 
frequency response capability, and only if market-based steps do not 
satisfactorily address the need for primary frequency response, then 
the Commission could consider an additional requirement for new 
generating facilities to have such capability as a final step.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Apex Comments at 6; AWEA Comments at 12; Chelan County 
Comments at 2; ESA Comments at 2; SDG&E Comments at 3.
    \98\ AWEA Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. Other commenters oppose mandatory requirements and prefer a 
voluntary approach to improving primary frequency response 
performance.\99\ For example, TVA asserts that if current voluntary 
actions fail to show improvement in primary frequency response, then 
the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA could be revised to contain a 
general primary frequency response requirement, similar to reactive 
power, but that NERC should be directed to establish governor settings 
and performance requirements through the NERC Standards Development 
Process instead of the Commission including such requirements in the 
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA.\100\ Some commenters assert that 
governor control details are better left to individual balancing 
authorities.\101\ For example, APS argues that the Commission should 
allow balancing authorities to determine the type and magnitude of 
generating facilities within its balancing authority area that are 
frequency-response enabled.\102\ APS also points out that any need to 
install frequency response capability or otherwise support frequency 
response performance can and should be evaluated and agreed upon 
between a generating facility and the transmission provider during the 
interconnection study process.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ APS Comments at 8; NRECA Comments at 6; TVA Comments at 2.
    \100\ TVA Comments at 2-3 and 5.
    \101\ APS Comments at 8; AES Companies Comments at 8.
    \102\ APS Comments at 8.
    \103\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Primary Frequency Response Requirements

1. The Need for Reform
    36. Pursuant to FPA section 206, the Commission preliminarily finds 
that conditions have changed since the issuance of Order Nos. 2003 and 
2006 and certain aspects of the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA may 
now be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or 
preferential.\104\ Specifically, as discussed above, the record 
indicates that while the frequency response performance of the Eastern 
and Western Interconnections is currently adequate, the frequency 
response performance of both Interconnections has significantly 
declined from historic values.\105\ Furthermore, the record shows that 
there is an ongoing evolution of the nation's generation resource mix, 
including significant retirements of baseload generation and an 
increasing proportion of VERs interconnecting to the electric 
grid.\106\ Several commenters point out that there is significant risk 
that the rapidly changing resource mix may reduce the level of 
available frequency response capability online.\107\ This is in part 
because, as noted in the NOI, VERs have not been consistently designed 
with primary frequency response capabilities.\108\ The record suggests, 
however, that VER manufacturers have made significant technological 
advancements in recent years to develop primary frequency response 
capability for VERs.\109\ In addition, NERC, in conjunction with 
various industry stakeholders, has developed more robust technical 
guidance for the operation of governors or equivalent controls.\110\ As 
a result of the evolving resource mix and the potential for adverse 
impacts on primary frequency response, the Commission is concerned that 
there may be potential reliability impacts if it does not undertake the 
reforms proposed in this NOPR. Moreover, the Commission is concerned 
that certain aspects of the existing pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA 
may no longer be just and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ The Commission routinely evaluates the effectiveness of 
its regulations and policies in light of changing industry 
conditions to determine if changes are necessary. See, e.g., Order 
No. 764, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,331.
    \105\ See NERC 2015 Frequency Response Webinar at 10, NERC 
Frequency Response Initiative Report at 22, and LBNL 2010 Report at 
pp xiv-xv.
    \106\ See, e.g., P 12, supra (describing recent and ongoing 
changes in the nation's generation mix).
    \107\ See, e.g., Bonneville Comments at 2; CAISO Comments at 2; 
NERC Comments at 17; Peak Reliability Comments at 4; PJM Utilities 
Coalition Comments at 3.
    \108\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at PP 42-43.
    \109\ See, e.g., PJM Utilities Comments at 4-5; EEI Comments at 
13. See also PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket No. ER15-1193-000 
(March 6, 2015) Transmittal Letter at 11. See also NERC 2014 LTRA, 
at 27 (Nov. 2014), http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2014LTRA_ERATTA.pdf.
    \110\ See P 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. First, the current requirements for governor controls in the 
pro forma LGIA do not reflect advances in technology or the latest 
recommended operating practices. Specifically, current Article 9.6.2.1 
states that ``speed governors,'' if installed, must be operated in 
automatic

[[Page 85183]]

mode. However, many of the new generating facilities interconnecting to 
the grid, such as wind and solar, do not utilize traditional speed 
governors; instead they utilize enhanced inverters and other plant 
supervisory control technology that can be designed to include primary 
frequency response capability.\111\ Therefore, due to advancements in 
technology, the Commission preliminarily finds that the existing 
references to ``speed governors'' in Article 9.6.2.1 that apply only to 
synchronous resources are outdated, and therefore may no longer be just 
and reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Electric Power Research Institute, Recommended 
Settings for Voltage and Frequency Ride Through of Distributed 
Energy Resources (May 2015) at 27, http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002006203. See also 
National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL), Advanced Grid-Friendly 
Controls Demonstration Project for Utility-Scale PV Power Plants, at 
1-2 (Jan. 2016), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65368.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Second, since the issuance of Order No. 2003 and the 
establishment of the pro forma LGIA, NERC, in conjunction with industry 
stakeholders, has amassed a significant body of knowledge in regards to 
the operation of generator governors and plant control systems. For 
example, as noted above, NERC observed in 2012 that a number of 
generators implemented deadband settings that were so wide as to 
effectively defeat the ability to provide primary frequency response, 
and that many generators provide frequency response in the wrong 
direction during a disturbance.\112\ Additionally, as noted above, NERC 
observed in 2015 that in many conventional steam plants, deadband 
settings exceed a 0.036 Hz dead band, resulting in primary 
frequency response that is not sustained, and that the vast majority of 
the gas turbine fleet is not frequency responsive.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See P 16, supra.
    \113\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. The record here suggests that the actual governor and plant 
control system settings that are being implemented by some generator 
owners and/or operators may be defeating the intent of Article 9.6.2.1 
of the pro forma LGIA. In response to these issues, NERC, through the 
work of its various task forces, subcommittees, and initiatives, has 
developed a voluntary Guideline that includes recommended droop and 
deadband settings based on significant investigation.\114\ However, the 
pro forma LGIA does not currently reflect these updated recommended 
practices for governor and plant control system settings of generating 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Third, given the nation's evolving resource mix and the 
potential adverse impacts on primary frequency response as noted in the 
NOI and pointed out by several commenters, the Commission believes that 
changes to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA may be necessary to 
provide for the continued reliable operation of the power system. As 
noted above, the Task Force concluded that all new generating 
facilities should be required to be capable of providing primary 
frequency response.\115\ However, the pro forma LGIA does not currently 
require large generating facilities to install such capability; rather, 
it only requires governor operation in ``automatic mode'' if a ``speed 
governor'' is installed.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See P 15, supra.
    \116\ Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. In addition, the Commission is concerned that the current pro 
forma SGIA may be unduly discriminatory or preferential because it does 
not establish any specific requirements with respect to the 
installation or operation of governors or equivalent frequency control 
equipment. In particular, the pro forma SGIA does not have a similar 
provision to Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA. The Commission has 
previously acted under FPA section 206 to remove inconsistencies 
between the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA when there is no economic 
or technical basis for treating large and small generating facilities 
differently.\117\ Similarly, in this instance, the record developed 
from the NOI appears to suggest that small generating facilities are 
capable of installing and enabling governors at low cost in a manner 
comparable to large generating facilities.\118\ As discussed above, the 
record indicates that there have been significant advances in 
technology, as well as the development of more robust technical 
guidance for the operation of governors or equivalent controls for both 
large and small generating facilities.\119\ In particular, the IEEE-
P1547 Working Group noted that its new IEEE-1547 standard for 
interconnecting distributed generation will likely include certain 
requirements for providing primary frequency response.\120\ Given these 
low-cost technological advances, the Commission does not anticipate 
that these additional requirements added in the pro forma SGIA will 
present a barrier to entry for small generating facilities. And, given 
the need for additional primary frequency response capability and an 
increasingly large market penetration of small generating facilities, 
the Commission believes that there is a need to add these requirements 
to the pro forma SGIA to help ensure adequate primary frequency 
response capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See Requirements for Frequency and Voltage Ride Through 
Capability of Small Generating Facilities, Order No. 828, 81 FR 
50,290 (Aug. 1, 2016), 156 FERC ] 61,062 (2016), (The Final Rule 
revised the pro forma SGIA such that small generating facilities 
have frequency and voltage ride through requirements comparable to 
large generating facilities).
    \118\ IEEE-P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7. 
Moreover, the Commission notes that other commenters stated costs of 
installing primary frequency response capability are generally low, 
but did not differentiate between small and large generating 
facilities. See, e.g., APPA, et al. Comments at 6; California Cities 
Comments at 2; EEI Comments at 13; Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 
3-5; SoCal Edison Comments at 2.
    \119\ See PP 13, 36, supra.
    \120\ IEEE-P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Moreover, as noted above, a number of commenters assert that 
costs for new generating facilities to install the capability of 
providing primary frequency response are low, suggesting that there is 
not a financial barrier to small generating facilities installing the 
capability to provide frequency response.\121\ PJM's recent changes to 
require both small and large non-synchronous generating facilities to 
use enhanced inverters, which include primary frequency response 
capability, among other functions, further support this notion.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See, e.g., APPA, et al. Comments at 2; EEI Comments at 13; 
Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 5; SoCal Edison Comments at 2.
    \122\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,097 at P 28 
(the Commission stated that it ``find[s] that PJM's proposal will 
not present a barrier to non-synchronous resources.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Proposal
    43. To remedy the potentially unjust, unreasonable, and unduly 
discriminatory or preferential practices described above, the 
Commission preliminarily finds that revisions to the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA are appropriate. The Commission believes that revising 
the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to require all new generating 
facilities to install, maintain, and operate a functioning governor or 
equivalent controls, consistent with the proposed requirements 
described below, will help to ensure adequate primary frequency 
response capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, ensure 
fair and consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, 
help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations 
pursuant to NERC Reliability Standard BAL-003-1.1, and help improve 
reliability during

[[Page 85184]]

system restoration and islanding situations.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See NERC Comments at 17. See also NERC Essential 
Reliability Services Task Force Measures Framework Report at iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. In particular, the Commission proposes to revise the pro forma 
LGIA and pro forma SGIA to include the following: (1) Requirements for 
new large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-
synchronous, to install, maintain, and operate equipment capable of 
providing primary frequency response as a condition of interconnection; 
(2) requirements for governor or equivalent controls to be operated, at 
a minimum, with maximum 5 percent droop and 0.036 Hz 
deadband settings; (3) requirements to ensure the timely and sustained 
response to frequency deviations, including provisions to prevent 
plant-level (i.e., outer-loop) control equipment from inhibiting 
primary frequency response and resulting in premature withdrawal; and 
(4) a requirement for droop parameters to be based on nameplate 
capability with a linear operating range of 59 to 61 Hz. Additionally, 
as informed by NOI commenters, the Commission believes that it is not 
necessary to impose a generic headroom requirement or subject newly 
interconnecting nuclear generating facilities to the new requirements. 
The Commission does not propose to mandate any separate compensation 
related to the proposed requirements. The Commission seeks comment on 
the proposed reforms, as discussed more fully below.
    45. Specifically, the Commission proposes to revise existing 
sections 9.6 and 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA and to include proposed 
new sections 9.6.4, 9.6.4.1, 9.6.4.2, and 9.6.4.3. Similarly, the 
Commission proposes to revise existing section 1.8 of the pro forma 
SGIA and add proposed new sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, 1.8.4.1.1, 
1.8.4.1.2, and 1.8.4.1.3.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The specific proposed modifications and additions to the 
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA are set forth at PP 52-53, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. The Commission's proposed revisions to the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA would apply to new generating facilities that execute or 
request the unexecuted filing of interconnection agreements on or after 
the effective date of any Final Rule issued in Docket No. RM16-6-000. 
The Commission also proposes to apply the requirements to any large or 
small generating facility that has an executed or has requested the 
filing of an unexecuted LGIA or SGIA as of the effective date of any 
Final Rule in Docket No. RM16-6-000, but that takes any action that 
requires the submission of a new interconnection request that results 
in the filing of an executed or unexecuted interconnection agreement on 
or after the effective date of any Final Rule in Docket No. RM16-6-000.
    47. In particular, the proposed revisions to the pro forma LGIA and 
pro forma SGIA would require new large and small generating facilities 
to install, maintain, and operate a functioning governor or equivalent 
controls, which the Commission proposes to define as the required 
hardware and/or software that provides frequency responsive real power 
control with the ability to sense changes in system frequency and 
autonomously adjust the generating facility's real power output in 
accordance with the proposed maximum droop and deadband parameters and 
in the direction needed to correct frequency deviations. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal.
    48. The Commission also proposes to require new large and small 
generating facilities to install, maintain and operate governor or 
equivalent controls with the ability to operate with a maximum 5 
percent droop and 0.036 Hz deadband parameter, consistent 
with NERC's recommended guidance. As noted above, the Commission sought 
comment in the NOI on whether NERC's recommended guidance for governor 
settings related to droop and deadband should be included in the pro 
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA, and numerous commenters agreed stating 
that NERC's Guideline provides a sound baseline.\125\ Therefore, the 
Commission preliminarily finds that a maximum droop setting of 5 
percent and deadband setting of 0.036 Hz are appropriate to 
include in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA as interconnection 
requirements for new generating facilities. The Commission notes that 
these proposed requirements are minimum requirements; therefore, if a 
new generating facility elects, in coordination with its transmission 
provider, to operate in a more responsive mode by using lower droop or 
tighter deadband settings, nothing in these requirements would prohibit 
it from doing so.\126\ The Commission seeks comment on these proposed 
requirements for droop and deadband settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See e.g., Bonneville Comments at 7; California Cities 
Comments at 2; IEEE-PES Comments at 2; Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments 
at 4; MISO Comments at 4; WIRAB Comments at 7.
    \126\ Moreover, the Commission proposes that nothing in these 
requirements would prohibit the implementation of asymmetrical droop 
settings (i.e., different droop settings for under-frequency and 
over-frequency conditions), provided that each segment has a droop 
value of no more than 5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. The Commission also proposes to prohibit all new large and 
small generating facilities from taking any action that would inhibit 
the provision of primary frequency response, except under certain 
conditions as discussed below. The lack of coordination between 
governor and plant-level control systems can result in premature 
withdrawal of primary frequency response by allowing additional plant 
control systems to reverse the action of the governor to return the 
unit to operating at a pre-selected target set-point.\127\ NERC's 
Guideline explains that ``in order to provide sustained primary 
frequency response, it is essential that the prime mover governor, 
plant controls and remote plant controls are coordinated.'' \128\ 
Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require new generating 
facilities that respond to frequency deviations to not inhibit primary 
frequency response, such as by coordinating plant-level, outer-loop 
control equipment with the governor or equivalent controls, except 
under certain operational constraints including, but not limited to, 
ambient temperature limitations, outages of mechanical equipment, or 
regulatory requirements. The Commission also proposes to require new 
generating facilities to respond to frequency deviations without undue 
delay and to sustain the response until at least system frequency 
returns to a stable value within the governor's deadband setting. The 
Commission believes this proposed requirement for sustained response is 
consistent with the current requirements of PJM and ISO-NE as well as 
similar OATT revisions recently implemented by CAISO.\129\ The 
Commission seeks comment on the proposed requirements for sustained 
response. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether these 
provisions will be sufficient to prevent plant-level (i.e., outer-loop) 
controls from inhibiting primary frequency response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report at 31. See also 
NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at P 49 (stating that primary frequency 
response withdrawal ``has the potential to degrade the overall 
response of the Interconnection and result in a frequency that 
declines below the original nadir'').
    \128\ NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline at 4.
    \129\ See, e.g., ISO-NE Operating Procedure OP-14 and PJM Manual 
14D. See also CAISO, 156 FERC ] 61,182 at PP 10-12 and 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Regarding droop settings, in its comments to the NOI, MISO 
proposed that a linear droop should be available between 59 to 61 
Hz.\130\ The

[[Page 85185]]

Commission believes that this is reasonable because it would allow for 
new generating facilities that remain connected during frequency 
deviations to provide a proportional response within this range of 
frequencies. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require the droop 
parameter to be based on the nameplate capability of the unit and 
linear in operating range between 59 to 61 Hz. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposed requirements for droop settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ MISO Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. Several NOI commenters expressed concern about possible generic 
headroom requirements \131\ that could result in significant 
opportunity costs.\132\ The Commission clarifies that nothing in these 
proposed reforms will impose a generic headroom requirement for new 
generating facilities or affect the unit commitment and dispatch 
decisions of balancing authorities. Therefore, if a generating facility 
that is subject to these proposed requirements has been dispatched by 
its balancing authority to a set-point at which there is no available 
operating range to increase or decrease its output in response to 
frequency deviations, it would not be in violation of the proposed 
requirements in regards to providing sustained response. The Commission 
believes that the reliability benefits from the proposed modifications 
to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA do not require imposing 
additional costs that would result from a generic headroom requirement. 
The Commission also agrees with NOI commenters regarding the unique 
operating characteristics and regulatory requirements of nuclear 
generating facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
and therefore proposes to exempt such generating facilities from the 
proposed reforms.\133\ The Commission seeks comment on the proposal to 
not impose a generic headroom requirement and to not apply the new 
requirements to nuclear generating facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ A generic headroom requirement would require generating 
facilities to operate below maximum output at all times to ensure 
sufficient ability to increase their real power output in response 
to under-frequency conditions.
    \132\ See, e.g., Apex Comments at 7; Solar City Comments at 1; 
AWEA Comments at 6.
    \133\ See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute Comments at 1, 4; MISO 
TOs Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. In light of the above discussion, the Commission proposes to 
modify sections 9.6 and 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA and add new 
sections 9.6.4, 9.6.4.1, 9.6.4.2, and 9.6.4.3 as follows:

9.6 Reactive Power and Primary Frequency Response

    9.6.2.1 Voltage Regulators. Whenever the Large Generating 
Facility is operated in parallel with the Transmission System and 
voltage regulators are capable of operation, Interconnection 
Customer shall operate the Large Generating Facility with its 
voltage regulators in automatic operation. If the Large Generating 
Facility's voltage regulators are not capable of such automatic 
operation, Interconnection Customer shall immediately notify 
Transmission Provider's system operator, or its designated 
representative, and ensure that such Large Generating Facility's 
reactive power production or absorption (measured in MVARs) are 
within the design capability of the Large Generating Facility's 
generating unit(s) and steady state stability limits. 
Interconnection Customer shall not cause its Large Generating 
Facility to disconnect automatically or instantaneously from the 
Transmission System or trip any generating unit comprising the Large 
Generating Facility for an under or over frequency condition unless 
the abnormal frequency condition persists for a time period beyond 
the limits set forth in ANSI/IEEE Standard C37.106, or such other 
standard as applied to other generators in the Control Area on a 
comparable basis.
    9.6.4 Primary Frequency Response. Interconnection Customer shall 
ensure the primary frequency response capability of its Large 
Generating Facility by installing, maintaining, and operating a 
functioning governor or equivalent controls. The term ``functioning 
governor or equivalent controls'' as used herein shall mean the 
required hardware and/or software that provides frequency responsive 
real power control with the ability to sense changes in system 
frequency and autonomously adjust the Large Generating Facility's 
real power output in accordance with the droop and deadband 
parameters and in the direction needed to correct frequency 
deviations. Interconnection Customer is required to install a 
governor or equivalent controls with the capability of operating 
with a maximum 5 percent droop and 0.036 Hz 
deadband. The droop characteristic shall be based on the nameplate 
capacity of the Large Generating Facility, and shall be linear in 
the range of 59 to 61 Hz. The deadband parameter shall be the range 
of frequencies above and below nominal (60 Hz) in which the governor 
or equivalent controls is not expected to adjust the Large 
Generating Facility's real power output in response to frequency 
deviations. Interconnection Customer shall notify Transmission 
Provider that the primary frequency response capability of the Large 
Generating Facility has been tested and confirmed during 
commissioning. Once Interconnection Customer has synchronized the 
Large Generating Facility with the Transmission System, 
Interconnection Customer shall operate the Large Generating Facility 
consistent with provisions specified in Sections 9.6.4.1 and 9.6.4.2 
of this Agreement. The primary frequency response requirements 
contained herein shall apply to both synchronous and non-synchronous 
Large Generating Facilities. Nothing in Sections 9.6.4, 9.6.4.1 and 
9.6.4.2 shall require the Large Generating Facility to operate above 
its minimum operating limit or below its maximum operating limit, or 
otherwise alter its dispatch to have headroom to provide primary 
frequency response.
    9.6.4.1 Governor or Equivalent Controls. Whenever the Large 
Generating Facility is operated in parallel with the Transmission 
System, Interconnection Customer shall operate the Large Generating 
Facility with its governor or equivalent controls in service and 
responsive to frequency. Interconnection Customer shall, in 
coordination with Transmission Provider, set the deadband parameter 
to a maximum of 0.036 Hz and set the droop 
parameter to a maximum of 5 percent. Interconnection Customer shall 
be required to provide the status and settings of the governor or 
equivalent controls to Transmission Provider upon request. If 
Interconnection Customer needs to operate the Large Generating 
Facility with its governor or equivalent controls not in service, 
Interconnection Customer shall immediately notify Transmission 
Provider's system operator, or its designated representative. 
Interconnection Customer shall make Reasonable Efforts to return its 
governor or equivalent controls into service as soon as practicable.
    9.6.4.2 Sustained Response. Interconnection Customer shall 
ensure that the Large Generating Facility's real power response to 
sustained frequency deviations outside of the deadband setting is 
provided without undue delay, and ensure that the response is not 
inhibited, except under certain operational constraints including, 
but not limited to, ambient temperature limitations, outages of 
mechanical equipment, or regulatory requirements. The Large 
Generating Facility shall sustain the real power response at least 
until system frequency returns to a stable value within the deadband 
setting of the governor or equivalent controls.
    9.6.4.3 Exemptions. Large Generating Facilities that are 
regulated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 
be exempt from Sections 9.6.4, 9.6.4.1, and 9.6.4.2 of this 
Agreement.

    53. Similarly, the Commission proposes to modify section 1.8 of the 
pro forma SGIA and add new sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, 1.8.4.2 and 1.8.4.3 
as follows:

1.8 Reactive Power and Primary Frequency Response

    1.8.4 Primary Frequency Response. Interconnection Customer shall 
ensure the primary frequency response capability of its Small 
Generating Facility by installing, maintaining, and operating a 
functioning governor or equivalent controls. The term ``functioning 
governor or equivalent controls'' as used herein shall mean the 
required hardware and/or software that provides frequency responsive 
real power control with the ability to sense changes in system 
frequency and autonomously adjust the Small Generating Facility's 
real power output in accordance with the droop and deadband 
parameters and in the direction needed to correct frequency 
deviations. Interconnection Customer is required to install a 
governor or

[[Page 85186]]

equivalent controls with the capability of operating with a maximum 
5 percent droop and 0.036 Hz deadband. The droop 
characteristic shall be based on the nameplate capacity of the Small 
Generating Facility, and shall be linear in the range of 59 to 61 
Hz. The deadband parameter shall be the range of frequencies above 
and below nominal (60 Hz) in which the governor or equivalent 
controls is not expected to adjust the Small Generating Facility's 
real power output in response to frequency deviations. 
Interconnection Customer shall notify Transmission Provider that the 
primary frequency response capability of the Small Generating 
Facility has been tested and confirmed during commissioning. Once 
Interconnection Customer has synchronized the Small Generating 
Facility with the Transmission System, Interconnection Customer 
shall operate the Small Generating Facility consistent with the 
provisions specified in Sections 1.8.4.1 and 1.8.4.2 of this 
Agreement. The primary frequency response requirements contained 
herein shall apply to both synchronous and non-synchronous Small 
Generating Facilities. Nothing in Sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1 and 
1.8.4.2 shall require the Small Generating Facility to operate above 
its minimum operating limit, below its maximum operating limit, or 
otherwise alter its dispatch to have headroom to provide primary 
frequency response.
    1.8.4.1 Governor or Equivalent Controls. Whenever the Small 
Generating Facility is operated in parallel with the Transmission 
System, Interconnection Customer shall operate the Small Generating 
Facility with its governor or equivalent controls in service and 
responsive to frequency. Interconnection Customer shall, in 
coordination with Transmission Provider, set the deadband parameter 
to a maximum of 0.036 Hz and set the droop 
parameter to a maximum of 5 percent. Interconnection Customer shall 
be required to provide the status and settings of the governor or 
equivalent controls to Transmission Provider upon request. If 
Interconnection Customer needs to operate the Small Generating 
facility with its governor or equivalent controls not in service, 
Interconnection Customer shall immediately notify Transmission 
Provider's system operator, or its designated representative. 
Interconnection Customer shall make Reasonable Efforts to return its 
governor or equivalent controls into service as soon as practicable.
    1.8.4.2 Sustained Response. Interconnection Customer shall 
ensure that the Small Generating Facility's real power response to 
sustained frequency deviations outside of the deadband setting is 
provided without undue delay, and ensure that the response is not 
inhibited, except under certain operational constraints including, 
but not limited to, ambient temperature limitations, outages of 
mechanical equipment, or regulatory requirements. The Small 
Generating Facility shall sustain the real power response at least 
until system frequency returns to a stable value within the deadband 
setting of the governor or equivalent controls.
    1.8.4.3 Exemptions. Small Generating Facilities that are 
regulated by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall 
be exempt from Sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, 1.8.4.2 of this Agreement.

    54. The Commission proposes to apply the primary frequency response 
requirements to any new large or small generating facility that 
executes or requests the unexecuted filing of a LGIA or SGIA on or 
after the effective date of any Final Rule issued in this proceeding. 
In addition, the Commission proposes to apply the requirements to any 
large or small generating facility that has an executed or has 
requested the filing of an unexecuted LGIA or SGIA as of the effective 
date of any Final Rule in Docket No. RM16-6-000, but that takes any 
action that requires the submission of a new interconnection request 
that results in the filing of an executed or unexecuted interconnection 
agreement on or after the effective date of any Final Rule in Docket 
No. RM16-6-000. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed effective 
date including whether applying these requirements to existing 
generating facilities that take any action that requires the submission 
of a new interconnection request that results in the filing of an 
executed or unexecuted interconnection agreement on or after the 
effective date of any Final Rule in Docket No. RM16-6-000 would be 
unduly burdensome.
    55. The Commission does not propose in this NOPR to require that 
the interconnection customer receive any compensation for these 
proposed requirements. The Commission has previously accepted changes 
to transmission provider tariffs that similarly required 
interconnection customers to install primary frequency response 
capability or that established specified governor settings, without 
requiring any accompanying compensation.\134\ While the Commission has 
not required compensation for similar requirements in the past, it 
clarifies that nothing in this NOPR is meant to prohibit a public 
utility from filing a proposal for primary frequency response 
compensation under FPA section 205, if it so chooses.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ] 61,097, at n.58 
(2015); CAISO, 156 FERC ] 61,182, at PP 10-12 and 17 (2016); New 
England Power Pool, 109 FERC ] 61,155 (2004), order on reh'g, 110 
FERC ] 61,335 (2005).
    \135\ 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Request for Comment

    56. The Commission seeks comment on the proposed: (1) Requirements 
for new large and small generating facilities to install, maintain, and 
operate a governor or equivalent controls; (2) requirements for droop 
and deadband settings of 5 percent and 0.036 Hz, 
respectively; (3) requirements for timely and sustained response; (4) 
requirement for droop parameters to be based on nameplate capability 
with a linear operating range of 59 to 61 Hz; (5) exemptions for new 
nuclear units; and (6) effective dates as discussed above. The 
Commission also seeks comment on its proposal to not impose a generic 
headroom requirement or mandate compensation related to the proposed 
reforms.
    57. In the NOI, the Commission also sought comment on the 
performance of existing resources and whether primary frequency 
response requirements for these resources are warranted.\136\ At this 
time, the Commission proposes only to adopt the reforms included in 
this NOPR regarding newly interconnecting large and small generating 
facilities. However, the Commission seeks comment regarding whether the 
reforms proposed in this NOPR are sufficient to ensure adequate levels 
of primary frequency response, or whether additional reforms are 
needed. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
additional primary frequency response performance or capability 
requirements for existing resources are needed, and if so, whether the 
Commission should impose those requirements by: (1) Directing the 
development or modification of a reliability standard pursuant to 
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA; or (2) acting pursuant to section 206 of 
the FPA to require changes to the pro forma OATT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ NOI, 154 FERC ] 61,117 at PP 2, 46-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Compliance Procedures

    58. The Commission proposes to require all public utility 
transmission providers to adopt the requirements of any Final Rule in 
Docket No. RM16-6-000 as revisions to the LGIA and SGIA in their OATTs 
within 60 days after the publication of the Final Rule in the Federal 
Register.
    59. Some public utility transmission providers may have provisions 
in their existing LGIAs and SGIAs that the Commission has found to be 
consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA. 
Where these provisions would be modified by the Final Rule, public 
utility transmission providers must either comply with the Final Rule 
or demonstrate that these previously-approved variations continue to be 
consistent with or superior to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA as 
modified by the Final Rule. The Commission also proposes to permit 
appropriate entities to seek

[[Page 85187]]

``independent entity variations'' from the proposed revisions to the 
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See, e.g., Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,146 at 
P 827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. The Commission would assess whether each compliance filing 
satisfies the proposed requirements stated above and issue additional 
orders as necessary to ensure that each public utility transmission 
provider meets the requirements of the subsequent Final Rule.
    61. The Commission also proposes that transmission providers that 
are not public utilities would have to adopt the requirements of this 
proposal and subsequent Final Rule as a condition of maintaining the 
status of their safe harbor tariff or otherwise satisfying the 
reciprocity requirement of Order No. 888.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 at 31,760-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    62. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \139\ requires each federal 
agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten 
or more persons, or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB's 
regulations require the approval of certain information collection 
requirements imposed by agency rules.\140\ Upon approval of a 
collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an 
expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this 
proposal will not be penalized for failing to respond to this 
collection of information unless the collection of information displays 
a valid OMB control number. Transmission providers are subject to the 
proposed revisions to the pro forma LGIA and SGIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (2012).
    \140\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. In this NOPR, the Commission proposes to amend its pro forma 
LGIA and pro forma SGIA in accordance with section 35.28(f)(1) of its 
regulations.\141\ The proposed revisions to the pro forma LGIA and pro 
forma SGIA would require new large and small generating facilities to 
install, maintain, and operate a functioning governor or equivalent 
controls which the Commission proposes to define as the required 
hardware and/or software that provides frequency responsive real power 
control with the ability to sense changes in system frequency and 
autonomously adjust the generating facility's real power output in 
accordance with the proposed maximum droop and dead band parameters and 
in the direction needed to correct frequency deviations. The NOPR 
proposes to require each public utility transmission provider to amend 
its pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to require that all newly 
interconnecting large and small generating facilities, as well as all 
existing large and small generating facilities that take any action 
that requires the submission of a new interconnection request that 
results in the filing of an executed or unexecuted interconnection 
agreement, to adhere to the proposed requirements, on or after the 
effective date of any Final Rule issued in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ 18 CFR 35.28(f)(1) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. The reforms in this NOPR would require filings of pro forma 
LGIAs and pro forma SGIAs with the Commission. The Commission 
anticipates the proposed reforms, once implemented, would not 
significantly change currently existing burdens on an ongoing basis. 
With regard to those public utility transmission providers that believe 
that they already comply with the proposed reforms in this NOPR, they 
could demonstrate their compliance in the filing required 60 days after 
publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Commission 
will submit the proposed reporting requirements to OMB for its review 
and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.\142\ 
The Commission will use FERC-516B as a temporary ``placeholder'' 
information collection number.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).
    \143\ The reporting requirements in this NOPR would normally be 
included under FERC-516 (OMB Control No. 1902-0096). However, FERC-
516 is pending review at OMB in an unrelated action. Because only 
one item per OMB Control No. can be pending OMB review at a time, 
the Commission is temporarily using the information collection 
number FERC-516B (OMB Control No. 1902-0286) to ensure timely 
submittal of this NOPR to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden Estimate: \144\ The Commission believes that the burden 
estimates below are representative of the average burden on 
respondents. The estimated burden and cost for the requirements 
contained in this NOPR follow.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Burden means the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency, 
including: The time, effort, and financial resources necessary to 
comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by 
persons in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling 
and maintaining business records) will be excluded from the 
``burden'' if the agency demonstrates that the reporting, 
recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual 
and customary.
    \145\ For this information collection, the Commission staff 
estimates that industry is similarly situated in terms of hourly 
cost (wages plus benefits). Based on the Commission's average cost 
(wages plus benefits) for 2016, the Commission is using $74.50/hour.

                                                              FERC 516B, in NOPR in RM16-6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Number of    Annual  number
                                       respondents    of  responses   Total number   Average burden (hours) & cost    Total annual burden hours & total
                                          \146\      per respondent   of responses          ($) per response                   annual cost ($)
                                                (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)..........................  (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LGIA & SGIA changes/revisions......              74               1              74  10 hours; $745.00............  740 hours; $55,130.00.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................  ..............  ..............              74  .............................  740 hours; $55,130.00.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no maintenance cost, installation cost or any additional 
cost or requirements after year 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ The NERC Compliance Registry lists 80 entities that 
administer a transmission tariff and provide transmission service. 
The Commission identifies only 74 as being subject to the proposed 
requirements because 6 are Canadian entities and are not under the 
Commission's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-516B, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings.
    Action: Revision of currently approved collection of information.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0286.
    Respondents for this Rulemaking: Businesses or other for profit 
and/or not-for-profit institutions.
    Frequency of Information: One-time during year 1.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission proposes to revise its 
regulations to require all newly interconnecting large and small

[[Page 85188]]

generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to 
install, maintain, and operate equipment capable of providing primary 
frequency response as a condition of interconnection. To implement 
these requirements, the Commission proposes to revise the pro forma 
LGIA and the pro forma SGIA.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes 
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements 
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, 
communication, and management within the energy industry. The 
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there 
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with 
the information collection requirements.
    65. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: 
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email: 
[email protected], Phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873.
    66. Comments on the collection of information and the associated 
burden estimate in the proposed rule should be sent to the Commission 
in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission], at the following email address: 
[email protected]. Please refer to OMB Control No. 1902-0286 
in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    67. 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.\147\ The 
Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment or an 
Environmental Impact Statement is required for proposed revisions under 
section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission's regulations, which provides a 
categorical exemption for approval of actions under sections 205 and 
206 of the FPA relating to the filing of schedules containing all rates 
and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to 
the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices, 
contracts and regulations that affect rates, charges, classifications, 
and services.\148\ The revisions proposed in this NOPR update and 
clarify the application of the Commission's standard interconnection 
requirements to synchronous and non-synchronous generators. Therefore, 
this NOPR falls within the categorical exemptions provided in the 
Commission's regulations, and therefore neither an Environmental 
Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \148\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    68. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \149\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The RFA does not mandate any particular outcome in a rulemaking. It 
only requires consideration of alternatives that are less burdensome to 
small entities and an agency explanation of why alternatives were 
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size 
standards (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a 
standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of 
employees, including affiliates. Under SBA's standards, some 
transmission owners will fall under the following category and 
associated size threshold: Electric bulk power transmission and 
control, at 500 employees.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS code 221121 
(Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. The Commission estimates that the total number of transmission 
providers, both public and non-public, affected by this NOPR is 
74.\151\ Of these, the Commission estimates that approximately 27.5 
percent are small entities. The Commission estimates the average total 
cost to each of these entities will be minimal, requiring on average 10 
hours, or $745.00. According to SBA guidance, the determination of 
significance of impact ``should be seen as relative to the size of the 
business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the 
regulation has on larger competitors.'' \152\ The Commission does not 
consider the estimated burden to be a significant economic impact. As a 
result, the Commission believes this NOPR would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ The NERC Compliance Registry lists 80 entities that 
administer a transmission tariff and provide transmission service. 
The Commission identifies only 74 as being subject to the proposed 
requirements because 6 are Canadian entities and are not under the 
Commission's jurisdiction.
    \152\ U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government 
Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18 
(May 2012), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. The Commission estimates that the total annual number of new 
non-synchronous interconnections per year for the first few years of 
potential implementation under this NOPR would be approximately 200, 
representing approximately 5,000 MW of installed capacity. Of these, 
the Commission estimates that the majority are small entities. The 
Commission estimates the average total cost to each of these entities 
will be minimal, requiring on average approximately $3,300 per MW of 
installed capacity. According to SBA guidance, the determination of 
significance of impact ``should be seen as relative to the size of the 
business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the 
regulation has on larger competitors.'' The Commission does not 
consider the estimated burden to be a significant economic impact on 
these entities because the cost is relatively minimal compared to the 
average capital cost per MW for wind and solar PV generation.\153\ 
Additionally, the Commission does not believe that there will be 
substantial additional costs for new synchronous generators because 
synchronous generators already come equipped with governors that 
provide the capability to provide primary frequency response. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes that this NOPR would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ LBNL estimates that capital cost per MW of installed wind 
capacity is $1,690,000. See LBNL 2015 Wind Market Report (Aug. 
2016), https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/2015-windtechreport.final_.pdf). NREL estimates that the capital cost per 
MW of installed solar PV capacity is $1,770,000. See NREL U.S. 
Photovoltaic Prices and Cost Breakdowns (Sep. 2015), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Procedures

    72. 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 January 24, 2017. Comments must refer to 
Docket No. RM16-6-000, and must include the commenter's name, the 
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their 
comments.

[[Page 85189]]

    73. 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.
    74. 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.
    75. 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

    76. 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.
    77. 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.
    78. 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: November 17, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Appendix



               List of Commenters (Docket No. RM16-6-000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AES Companies................  AES Corporation/AES Energy Storage/Dayton
                                Power and Light Company/Indianapolis
                                Power and Light Company.
APPA, et al..................  American Public Power Association/Large
                                Public Power Council/Transmission Access
                                Policy Study Group.
AWEA.........................  American Wind Energy Association.
Apex.........................  Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage.
APS..........................  Arizona Public Service Company.
Bonneville...................  Bonneville Power Administration.
CAISO........................  California Independent System Operator.
Chelan County................  Chelan County Public Utility District.
California Cities............  City of Anaheim/City of Azusa/City of
                                Banning/City of Colton/City of Pasadena/
                                City of Riverside.
EEI..........................  Edison Electric Institute.
EDP..........................  EDP Renewables North America.
EPRI.........................  Electric Power Research Institute.
EPSA, et al..................  Electric Power Supply Association/
                                Independent Power Producers of New York/
                                New England Power Generators Association/
                                Western Power Trading Forum.
ELCON........................  Electricity Consumers Resource Council.
ESA..........................  Energy Storage Association.
Grid Storage Consulting......  Grid Storage Consulting.
Howard F. Illian.............  Howard F. Illian
Idaho Power..................  Idaho Power Company.
Indicated ISOs/RTOs..........  Independent Electricity System Operator/
                                ISO New England/New York Independent
                                System Operator/PJM Interconnection/
                                Southwest Power Pool.
IEEE-P1547 Working Group.....  Institute of Electrical and Electronics
                                Engineers (IEEE) P1547 Standards Working
                                Group.
IEEE-PES.....................  IEEE Power and Energy Society Technical
                                Council.
ITC, et al...................  International Transmission Company/
                                Michigan Electric Transmission Company/
                                ITC Great Plains/ITC Midwest.
Manitoba.....................  Manitoba Hydro.
Microgrids Resources           Microgrids Resources Coalition.
 Coalition.
MISO.........................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator.
MISO TOs.....................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator
                                Transmission Owners.
NARUC........................  National Association of Regulatory
                                Utility Commissioners.
NRECA........................  National Rural Electric Cooperative
                                Association.
NERC.........................  North American Electric Reliability
                                Corporation.
North American Generator       North American Generator Forum.
 Forum.
Nuclear Energy Institute.....  Nuclear Energy Institute.
PG&E.........................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Peak Reliability.............  Peak Reliability.
PJM Utilities Coalition......  PJM Utilities Coalition.
Powerex......................  Powerex Corp.
Public Interest Organizations  Public Interest Organizations.
Ralph D. Masiello............  Ralph D. Masiello.
SDG&E........................  San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
Solar City...................  Solar City Corporation.
SoCal Edison.................  Southern California Edison Company.
Southern Company.............  Southern Company.
Steel Producers..............  Steel Producers.

[[Page 85190]]

 
Tacoma Power.................  Tacoma Power.
TVA..........................  Tennessee Valley Authority.
Tri-State Generation.........  Tri-State Generation and Transmission
                                Association.
Union of Concerned Scientists  Union of Concerned Scientists.
WIRAB........................  Western Interconnection Regional Advisory
                                Body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-28321 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
85176 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

format and not in a scanned format. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commenters filing electronically do not Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
need to make a paper filing. Federal Energy Regulatory Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
Commission 6281, Jomo.Richardson@ferc.gov.
27. Commenters that are not able to
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office
file comments electronically must send of the General Counsel, Federal
18 CFR Part 35
an original of their comments to: Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [Docket No. RM16–6–000]
First Street NE., Washington, DC
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 20426, (202) 502–8524,
Essential Reliability Services and the
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Mark.Bennett@ferc.gov.
Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary
28. All comments will be placed in Frequency Response SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the Commission’s public files and may 1. In this Notice of Proposed
be viewed, printed, or downloaded AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy
remotely as described in the Document Commission, Department of Energy. Regulatory Commission (Commission)
Availability section below. Commenters ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. proposes to modify the pro forma Large
are not required to serve copies of their Generator Interconnection Agreement
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy (LGIA) and the pro forma Small
comments on other commenters. Regulatory Commission (Commission) Generator Interconnection Agreement
IV. Document Availability proposes to revise its regulations to (SGIA), pursuant to its authority under
require all newly interconnecting large section 206 of the Federal Power Act
29. In addition to publishing the full and small generating facilities, both (FPA) to ensure that rates, terms and
text of this document in the Federal synchronous and non-synchronous, to conditions of jurisdictional service
Register, the Commission provides all install and enable primary frequency remain just and reasonable and not
interested persons an opportunity to response capability as a condition of unduly discriminatory or preferential.1
view and print the contents of this interconnection. To implement these The proposed modifications would
document via the Internet through the requirements, the Commission proposes require all new large and small
Commission’s Home Page (http:// to revise the pro forma Large Generator generating facilities, including both
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) and synchronous and non-synchronous,
Public Reference Room during normal the pro forma Small Generator interconnecting with a LGIA or SGIA to
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Interconnection Agreement (SGIA). The install, maintain and operate equipment
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., proposed changes are designed to capable of providing primary frequency
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. address the increasing impact of the response as a condition of
evolving generation resource mix and to interconnection. The Commission also
30. From the Commission’s Home ensure that the relevant provisions of proposes to establish certain operating
Page on the Internet, this information is the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA requirements, including maximum
available on eLibrary. The full text of are just, reasonable, and not unduly droop and deadband parameters in the
this document is available on eLibrary discriminatory or preferential. The pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA.
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for Commission also seeks comment on The Commission does not propose to
viewing, printing, and/or downloading. whether its proposals in this Notice of apply these requirements to generating
To access this document in eLibrary, Proposed Rulemaking are sufficient at facilities regulated by the Nuclear
type the docket number (excluding the this time to ensure adequate levels of Regulatory Commission. In addition, the
last three digits) in the docket number primary frequency response, or whether Commission does not propose in these
field. additional reforms are needed. reforms to impose a headroom
31. User assistance is available for DATES: Comments are due January 24, requirement for new generating
eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 2017. facilities. The Commission also does not
during normal business hours from the propose to mandate that new generating
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by
facilities receive any compensation for
Commission’s Online Support at 202– docket number, may be filed in the
complying with the proposed
502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) following ways:
requirements in this NOPR.
or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, • Electronic Filing through http://
2. The proposed revisions address the
or the Public Reference Room at (202) www.ferc.gov. Documents created Commission’s concerns that the existing
502–8371, TTY (202)502–8659. Email electronically using word processing pro forma LGIA contains limited
the Public Reference Room at software should be filed in native primary frequency response
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. applications or print-to-PDF format and requirements that apply only to
not in a scanned format. synchronous generating facilities and do
By direction of the Commission. • Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable not account for recent technological
Issued: November 17, 2016. to file electronically may mail or hand- advancements that have enabled new
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., deliver comments to: Federal Energy non-synchronous generating facilities to
Deputy Secretary. Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the now have primary frequency response
[FR Doc. 2016–28193 Filed 11–23–16; 8:45 am]
Commission, 888 First Street NE., capabilities. Further, the Commission
Washington, DC 20426. believes that it may be unduly
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Instructions: For detailed instructions
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

discriminatory or preferential to impose
on submitting comments and additional primary frequency response
information on the rulemaking process, requirements only on new large
see the Comment Procedures Section of generating facilities but not on new
this document. small generating facilities, and the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: reforms proposed here would impose
Jomo Richardson (Technical
Information), Office of Electric 1 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85177

comparable primary frequency response governors, while some response is 8. Unless otherwise required by tariffs
requirements on both new large and provided by frequency responsive or interconnection agreements,
small generating facilities. loads.5 Primary frequency response generator owners and operators can
3. In addition, and as discussed below actions are intended to arrest abnormal independently decide whether units are
in paragraph 57, the Commission also frequency deviations and ensure that configured to provide primary
seeks comment on whether its proposals system frequency remains within frequency response.10 The magnitude
in this NOPR are sufficient at this time acceptable bounds. An important goal and duration of a generator’s response to
to ensure adequate levels of primary for system planners and operators is for frequency deviations is generally
frequency response, or whether the frequency nadir,6 during large determined by the settings of the unit’s
additional reforms are needed. disturbances, to remain above the first governor 11 (or equivalent controls) and
4. The Commission seeks comment on stage of UFLS set points within an other plant level (e.g., ‘‘outer-loop’’)
the proposed reforms and requests for Interconnection. control systems. In particular, the
comment sixty (60) days after 7. Frequency response is a measure of governor’s droop and deadband settings
publication of this NOPR in the Federal an Interconnection’s ability to arrest and have a significant impact on the unit’s
Register. stabilize frequency deviations following provision of primary frequency
I. Background the sudden loss of generation or load, response. In addition, plant-level or
and is affected by the collective ‘‘outer-loop’’ controls, unless properly
A. Frequency Response responses of generation and load configured, can override or nullify a
5. Reliable operation of an throughout the Interconnection. When generator’s governor response and
Interconnection 2 depends on considered in aggregate, the primary return the unit to operate at a scheduled
maintaining frequency within frequency response provided by pre-disturbance megawatt set-point.12 In
predetermined boundaries above and generators within an Interconnection 2010, NERC conducted a survey of
below a scheduled value, which is 60 has a significant impact on the overall generator owners and operators and
Hertz (Hz) in North America. Changes in frequency response. NERC Reliability found that only approximately 30
frequency are caused by changes in the Standard BAL–003–1.1 defines the percent of generators in the Eastern
balance between load and generation, amount of frequency response needed Interconnection provided primary
such as the sudden loss of a large from balancing authorities 7 to maintain frequency response, and that only
generator or a large amount of load. If Interconnection frequency within approximately 10 percent of generators
frequency deviates too far above or predefined bounds and includes provided sustained primary frequency
below its scheduled value, it could requirements for the measurement and response.13 This suggests that many
potentially result in under frequency provision of frequency response.8 While generators within the Interconnection
load shedding (UFLS), generation NERC Reliability Standard BAL–003– disable or otherwise set their governors
tripping, or cascading outages.3 1.1 establishes requirements for or outer-loop controls such that they
6. Mitigation of frequency deviations balancing authorities, it does not provide little to no primary frequency
after the sudden loss of generation or include any requirements for individual response.14
load is driven by three primary factors: generator owners or operators.9 9. Declining frequency response
inertial response, primary frequency performance has been an industry
5 NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at P 6. The Commission
response, and secondary frequency concern for many years. NERC, in
also noted that regulation service is different than
response.4 Primary frequency response primary frequency response because generating
conjunction with EPRI, initiated its first
actions begin within seconds after facilities that provide regulation respond to examination of declining frequency
system frequency changes and are automatic generation control signals and regulation response and governor response in
mostly provided by the automatic and service is centrally coordinated by the system 1991.15 More recently, as noted in the
operator, whereas primary frequency response
autonomous actions (i.e., outside of service, in contrast, is autonomous and is not
system operator control) of turbine- centrally coordinated. Schedule 3 of the pro forma 10 See NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at PP 18–19.
Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) bundles 11 A governor is an electronic or mechanical
2 An Interconnection is a geographic area in these different services together, despite their device that implements primary frequency response
which the operation of the electric system is differences. See Id. n.66. on a generator via a droop parameter. Droop refers
synchronized. In the continental United States, 6 The point at which the frequency decline is to the variation in real power (MW) output due to
there are three Interconnections, namely the arrested (following the sudden loss of generation) variations in system frequency and is typically
Eastern, Texas, and Western Interconnections. is called the frequency nadir, and represents the expressed as a percentage (e.g., 5 percent droop).
3 UFLS is designed for use in extreme conditions point at which the net primary frequency response Droop reflects the amount of frequency change from
to stabilize the balance between generation and (real power) output from all generating units and nominal (e.g., 5 percent of 60 Hz is 3 Hz) that is
load. Under frequency protection schemes are the decrease in power consumed by the load within necessary to cause the main prime mover control
drastic measures employed if system frequency falls an Interconnection matches the net initial loss of mechanism of a generating facility to move from
below a specified value. See Automatic generation (in megawatts (MW)). fully closed to fully open. A governor also has a
Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding 7 NERC’s Glossary of Terms defines a balancing deadband parameter which establishes a minimum
Plans Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed authority as ‘‘(t)he responsible entity that integrates frequency deviation (e.g., ±0.036 Hz) from nominal
Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,682, at PP 4– resource plans ahead of time, maintains load- that must be exceeded in order for the governor to
10 (2011) (Order No. 763 NOPR) at PP 4–10. interchange-generation balance within a balancing act.
12 For more discussion on ‘‘premature
4 In the Notice of Inquiry issued in Docket No. authority area, and supports Interconnection
RM16–6–000 on Feb. 8, 2016, the Commission frequency in real time.’’ withdrawal’’ of primary frequency response, see
provided detailed discussion of how inertia, 8 Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at PP 49–50.
13 See NERC Frequency Response Initiative
primary frequency response, and secondary Reliability Standard, Order No. 794, 146 FERC ¶
frequency response interact to mitigate frequency 61,024 (2014). Report: The Reliability Role of Frequency Response
deviations. Essential Reliability Services and the 9 The Commission has also accepted Regional (Oct. 2012), http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/FRI_
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Evolving Bulk-Power System—Primary Frequency Reliability Standard BAL–001–TRE–01 (Primary Report_10-30-12_Master_w-appendices.pdf (NERC
Response, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117, at PP 3–7 (2016) Frequency Response in the ERCOT Region) as Frequency Response Initiative Report) at 95.
14 However, as noted below, some commenters
(NOI). See also Use of Frequency Response Metrics mandatory and enforceable, which does establish
to Assess the Planning and Operating Requirements requirements for generator owners and operators note that nuclear generating units are restricted by
for Reliable Integration of Variable Renewable with respect to governor control settings and the their U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Generation, Lawrence Berkeley National provision of primary frequency response within the operating licenses regarding the provision of
Laboratory, at 13–14 (Dec. 2010), http:// Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) primary frequency response.
energy.lbl.gov/ea/certs/pdf/lbnl-4142e.pdf (LBNL region. North American Electric Reliability 15 NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report at

2010 Report). Corporation, 146 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2014). 22.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85178 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

NOI, while the three U.S. 11. As relevant here, the pro forma has reported 25 that almost 42 GW of
Interconnections currently exhibit LGIA and pro forma SGIA are largely synchronous generating facilities (e.g.,
adequate frequency response silent on any requirements with respect coal, nuclear, and natural gas) have
performance above their to primary frequency response. In retired between 2011 and 2014, and the
Interconnection Frequency Response particular, the only requirement in the EIA recently reported that nearly 14 GW
Obligations,16 there has been a pro forma LGIA or pro forma SGIA of coal and 3 GW of natural gas
significant decline in the frequency related to primary frequency response is generating facilities retired in 2015.26
response performance of the Western contained within current Article 9.6.2.1 13. While technological
and Eastern Interconnections.17 of the pro forma LGIA (Governors and advancements have enabled wind and
Regulators), which provides that if solar generating facilities to now have
B. Prior Commission Actions
speed governors are installed, they the ability to provide primary frequency
10. In Order Nos. 2003 18 and 2006,19 should be operated in automatic response, this functionality has not
the Commission adopted standard mode.22 A speed governor implements historically been a standard feature that
procedures for the interconnection of the primary frequency response was included and enabled on non-
large and small generating facilities, provided by a synchronous generating synchronous generating facilities.
including the development of facility; however, Article 9.6.2.1 does Moreover, wind and solar generating
standardized pro forma generator not address governor settings or plant- facilities typically operate at their
interconnection agreements and level controls, which also affect the maximum operating output, leaving no
procedures. The Commission required ability of a generating facility to provide capacity (or ‘‘headroom’’) 27 to provide
public utility transmission providers 20 primary frequency response. In primary frequency response during
to file revised OATTs containing these addition, Article 9.6.2.1 does not require under-frequency conditions.
standardized provisions, and use the the installation of the necessary 14. Given the changes in the resource
LGIA and SGIA to provide non- equipment for frequency response mix and concerns about the significant
discriminatory interconnection service capability (i.e., governors or equivalent decline in frequency response for the
to Large Generators (i.e., generating controls). Finally, the pro forma SGIA Eastern and Western Interconnections,28
facilities having a capacity of more than does not contain any provisions related NERC has undertaken several initiatives
20 MW) and Small Generators (i.e., to primary frequency response. to evaluate the impacts of the changing
generators having a capacity of no more resource mix, particularly with respect
C. Efforts To Evaluate the Impacts of the
than 20 MW). The pro forma LGIA and to primary frequency response. For
Changing Resource Mix
pro forma SGIA have since been revised example, in 2014, NERC initiated the
through various subsequent 12. The Commission’s pro forma Essential Reliability Services Task Force
proceedings.21 generator interconnection agreements (Task Force) to analyze and better
and procedures were developed at a understand the impacts of the changing
16 The Interconnection Frequency Response time when traditional synchronous resource mix and develop technical
Obligations are established by NERC and are generating facilities with standard assessments of essential reliability
designed to require sufficient frequency response services.29 The Task Force focused on
for each Interconnection (i.e., the Eastern, ERCOT,
governor controls and large rotational
Quebec and Western Interconnections) to arrest inertia were the predominant sources of three essential reliability services:
frequency declines even for severe, but possible, electricity generation. However, the Frequency support, ramping capability,
contingencies. nation’s resource mix has undergone and voltage support.30 The Task Force
17 NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at P 20.
significant change since the issuance of considered the seven ancillary
18 Standardization of Generator Interconnection

Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC
Order Nos. 2003 and 2006. This
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,146 (2003), order on reh’g, Order transformation has been characterized 25 See NERC 2015 LTRA (Dec. 2015), http://

No. 2003–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,160, order on by the retirement of baseload, www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/
reh’g, Order No. 2003–B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2015LTRA%20-
synchronous generating facilities and %20Final%20Report.pdf.
31,171 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No. 2003–C,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,190 (2005), aff’d sub nom.
the integration of more distributed 26 See Electricity generating capacity retired in

Nat’l Ass’n of Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, generation, demand response, and 2015 by fuel and technology, EIA (May 2016),
475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 natural gas generating facilities, and the http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/
U.S. 1230 (2008). rapid expansion of non-synchronous detail.php?id=25272.
19 Standardization of Small Generator 27 Headroom refers to the difference between the
variable energy resources (VERs) such as current operating point of a generator and its
Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order
No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,180, order on wind and solar.23 For example, the U.S. maximum operating capability, and represents the
reh’g, Order No. 2006–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ Energy Information Administration potential amount of additional energy that can be
31,196 (2005), order granting clarification, Order (EIA) has observed that the U.S. added provided by the generating facility in real-time.
No. 2006–B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,221 (2006). approximately 13 gigawatts (GW) of
28 See NERC Frequency Response Initiative
20 A public utility is a utility that owns, controls, Industry Advisory—Generator Governor Frequency
or operates facilities used for transmitting electric
wind, 6.2 GW of utility scale solar Response, at slide 10 (Apr. 2015), http://
energy in interstate commerce, as defined by the photovoltaic (PV), and 3.6 GW of www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/Webinars%20DL/Generator_
FPA. See 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (2012). A non-public distributed solar PV generating facilities Governor_Frequency_Response_Webinar_April_
utility that seeks voluntary compliance with the in 2014 and 2015.24 Conversely, NERC 2015.pdf. (NERC 2015 Frequency Response
reciprocity condition of an OATT may satisfy that Webinar). See also LBNL 2010 Report at pp xiv–xv.
condition by filing an OATT, which includes a 29 Essential reliability services are referred to as
22 Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA.
LGIA and SGIA. See Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. elemental reliability building blocks from resources
& Regs. ¶ 31,146, at PP 840–845. 23 The term VER is defined as a device for the (generation and load) that are necessary to maintain
21 E.g., Small Generator Interconnection production of electricity that is characterized by an the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. See
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 792, 145 energy source that: (1) Is renewable; (2) cannot be Essential Reliability Services Task Force Scope
FERC ¶ 61,159 (2013), clarifying, Order No. 792–A, stored by the facility owner or operator; and (3) has Document, at 1 (Apr. 2014), http://www.nerc.com/
146 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2014); Reactive Power variability that is beyond the control of the facility comm/Other/essntlrlbltysrvcstskfrcDL/Scope_
Requirements for Non-Synchronous Generation, owner or operator. See, e.g., Integration of Variable ERSTF_Final.pdf.
Order No. 827, 81 FR 40,793 (Jun. 23, 2016), 155 Energy Resources, Order No. 764, FERC Stats. & 30 Essential Reliability Services Task Force

FERC ¶ 61,277 (2016); Requirements for Frequency Regs. ¶ 31,331, at P 210 (2012). Measures Report, at 22 (Dec. 2015), http://
and Voltage Ride Through Capability of Small 24 See, U.S. electric generation capacity additions, www.nerc.com/comm/Other/essntlrlblty
Generating Facilities, Order No. 828, 81 FR 50,290 2015 vs. 2014, EIA (March 2016), https:// srvcstskfrcDL/ERSTF%20Framework%20Report
(Aug. 1, 2016), 156 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2016). www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25492. %20-%20Final.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85180 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

services and the evolving Bulk-Power the NOI.56 Relevant to the proposed the trend of declining frequency
System.48 In particular, the Commission revisions considered in this NOPR, the response capability will continue with a
asked a broad range of questions on the Commission received numerous changing resource mix, unless
need for reform of its rules and comments on whether the pro forma provisions are put in place to assure that
regulations regarding the provision of LGIA and pro forma SGIA should be adequate inertial and primary frequency
and compensation for primary revised to include requirements for all response capability are available in the
frequency response. The Commission newly interconnecting generating future.62 NERC states that the rapidly
explained that there is a significant risk facilities, whether synchronous or non- changing resource mix may reduce the
that, as conventional synchronous synchronous, to install primary level of available frequency capability.63
generating facilities retire or are frequency response capability.57
25. Numerous commenters assert that
displaced by increased numbers of VERs a. Comments in Support of Modifying they recognize the benefits of revising
that do not typically contribute to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA
system inertia or have primary to require primary frequency response
frequency response capabilities, the net 24. Most commenters support, or are
not opposed to, revising the pro forma capabilities for new generators. NERC,
amount of frequency responsive
LGIA and SGIA to impose primary for example, asserts that new primary
generation online will be reduced.49 The
frequency response capability frequency response requirements for
Commission also explained that these
requirements on all new generating generators will improve operator
developments and their potential
facilities as suggested in the NOI.58 flexibility for system restoration and
impacts could challenge system
Several commenters indicate that the island capability and help balancing
operators in maintaining reliability.50
nation’s changing resource mix could authorities meet their frequency
Further, the Commission explained that
create reliability concerns related to the response obligations.64 NERC also
NERC Reliability Standard BAL–003–
provision of primary frequency asserts that revisions to the pro forma
1.1 and the pro forma LGIA and pro
response. For example, PJM Utilities LGIA and pro forma SGIA would result
forma SGIA do not specifically address
Coalition states that while newer in measurable, clear requirements
a generator’s ability to provide
generating facilities are not installing applicable to all new generating
frequency response.51 The Commission
frequency response capability, the facilities in a fair and equitable
noted, however, that while in previous
existing generating facilities that do manner.65 NERC points out, however,
years many non-synchronous generating
provide this essential reliability service that primary frequency response
facilities were not designed with
have more limited capability, due to the capability, by itself, would not require
primary frequency response capabilities,
cost of operation and planned a resource to respond if called upon to
the technology now exists for new non-
retirements, placing the grid at further help a balancing authority meet its
synchronous generating facilities to
risk.59 Peak Reliability, the reliability frequency response obligation, and that,
install primary frequency response
coordinator for the Western as a result, it is important to have
capability.52
Interconnection, states that as baseload mechanisms to ensure that sufficient
22. Accordingly, the Commission
generation retires, the number of frequency response capability is not
requested comments on three main sets
generators providing primary frequency only available but ready to respond at
of issues. First, the Commission sought
response is reduced and may present all times.66 CASIO, Indicated ISOs/
comment on whether amendments to
reliability challenges for system RTOs, MISO, and a number of trade
the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA
operators, as fewer options are available associations also support modifications
are warranted to require all new
to reduce frequency deviations to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma
generating facilities, both synchronous
following an unexpected loss of SGIA for new generating facilities to
and non-synchronous, to have primary
generation or load.60 CAISO asserts that install primary frequency response
frequency response capabilities as a
due to the increased proportion of capability.67 PJM Utilities Coalition
precondition of interconnection.53
renewable generating facilities operating states that, with all new generating
Second, the Commission sought
in CAISO’s balancing authority area, facilities (both synchronous and non-
comment on the performance of existing
there may not be sufficient frequency synchronous) being fully capable of
generating facilities and whether
responsive capacity online when the providing primary frequency response,
primary frequency response
system has high renewable output and requiring this capability will ensure that
requirements for these facilities are
low load levels.61 Bonneville states that system operators have the ability to
warranted.54 Finally, the Commission
reliably operate the grid of the future.68
sought comment on compensation for
56 The Appendix lists the entities that submitted Peak Reliability states that it supports
primary frequency response.55
comments and the shortened names that are used modifications to the pro forma LGIA
2. Comments on Modifying the Pro throughout this NOPR. and pro forma SGIA and that requiring
57 NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at P 45.
Forma LGIA and Pro Forma SGIA 58 APPA, et al. Comments at 6; Bonneville
generating facilities to install or provide
23. The Commission received a robust Comments at 6; CAISO Comments at 2; California
frequency response in the initial stages
response from industry, with 47 entities Cities Comments at 2; ELCON Comments at 5; EEI of the interconnection process will
collectively submitting nearly 700 pages Comments at 12; EPSA, et al. Comments at 8; ensure that the grid is able to maintain
Howard F. Illian Comments at 43; Idaho Power
of comments that provided responses to Comments at 1; IEEE–PES Comments at 1; Indicated 62 BonnevilleComments at 2.
some or all of the questions posed by ISOs/RTOs Comments at 3; ITC, et al. Comments at
63 NERC
1; MISO Comments at 4; MISO TOs Comments at Comments at 17.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

64 Id.
48 NOI, 6; NARUC Comments at 3; NERC Comments at 17;
154 FERC ¶ 61,117.
49 Id.
North American Generator Forum Comments at 2; 65 Id.
P 12. Peak Reliability Comments at 4; PG&E Comments at 66 Id.
50 Id. P 14.
at 18.
2; SoCal Edison Comments at 4; Southern Company 67 APPA, et al. Comments at 2; CAISO Comments
51 Id. P 41.
Comments at 2; Tri-State Generation Comments at at 2; EEI Comments at 3; EPSA, et al. Comments at
52 Id. P 43. 3; WIRAB Comments at 3. 8; Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 3; MISO
53 Id. PP 2 and 44–45. 59 PJM Utilities Coalition Comments at 3.
Comments at 4; North American Generator Forum
54 Id. PP 2, 46, and 52. 60 Peak Reliability Comments at 4. Comments at 2.
55 Id. PP 2, 53–54. 61 CAISO Comments at 2. 68 PJM Utilities Coalition Comments at 4–5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85181

this essential service even as the et al. state that the capability for 31. In the NOI, the Commission also
resource mix changes.69 providing primary frequency response is sought comment on whether it would be
26. Other commenters also express almost always installed in synchronous appropriate to include recommended
support for revising the pro forma LGIA generation, and that the inclusion of this governor settings contained within
and pro forma SGIA. Bonneville points additional control for new non- NERC’s Primary Frequency Control
out that selling primary frequency synchronous generating facilities would Guideline in the pro forma LGIA and
response capability would not provide likely add only nominal costs.75 EEI pro forma SGIA.82 Numerous
sufficient incentive for new generating asserts that all new generating facilities commenters express support for
facilities to invest in such capability, coming online can be fully capable of including NERC’s recommended
and argues that the only way to ensure providing primary frequency response governor control settings in the pro
that there is enough primary frequency and that the associated cost of installing forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA.83
response capability is to require new such capability during initial Some commenters note that NERC’s
generators to install it.70 WIRAB advises manufacturing or construction of a new Guideline is consistent with existing
that while current studies do not VER is small when considering the regulations or practices in certain
indicate that there is a shortage of overall cost of the new generating regions.84 Indicated ISOs/RTOs point
primary frequency response in the facility.76 out that common primary frequency
Western Interconnection and that all 29. In contrast to new generating response settings for generators in an
generators do not need to provide facilities, some entities, however, Interconnection will enhance reliability
primary frequency response all of the explain that the costs of retrofitting by reducing maneuvering by individual
time, the Commission should, however, existing generating facilities with generators.85 MISO asserts that NERC’s
require that all new generator owners primary frequency response capability Guideline provides a sound baseline.86
install primary frequency response could be significant in some cases.77 For NERC notes that its Guideline was
capability because of the changing example, WIRAB states that the high developed by technical committees with
resource mix in the Western cost of retrofitting existing generators to expertise and judgment of the electric
Interconnection and the associated install the necessary control equipment industry, and accordingly, the Guideline
uncertainty regarding the future supports limiting the requirement to is the ‘‘most advanced set of nation-
provision of primary frequency new generators and taking early action wide best practices and information
response.71 now.78 currently available to support frequency
27. Several commenters that generally 30. In regards to nuclear generating response capability.’’ 87
support revising the pro forma LGIA facilities, some commenters indicate 32. However, not all entities that
and pro forma SGIA also express certain that nuclear plants have separate support modifying the pro forma LGIA
concerns. For example, Southern licensing requirements under the and pro forma SGIA endorse the
Company expresses support for revising Nuclear Regulatory Commission and inclusion of NERC’s recommended
the pro forma LGIA and pro forma should not be required to provide governor settings. For example, EEI
SGIA, but caveats its support by arguing primary frequency response. For states that it does not support including
that new regulations for primary example, the Nuclear Energy Institute prescriptive performance requirements
frequency response should include an asserts that while nearly all new for governor control settings or other
‘‘opt-out’’ provision that would allow generating facilities should be able to performance indicators in the pro forma
balancing authorities that do not provide primary frequency response, LGIA or pro forma SGIA due to the
physical, technical, or operational
anticipate frequency response shortfalls nuclear plants are not well-suited to
limitations of new generating facilities
to delay the implementation of the new provide primary frequency response due
to provide primary frequency
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to restrictions by their operating
response.88 Similarly, APPA, et al. state
requirements until these needs are licenses issued by the Nuclear
that they do not support revising the pro
actually anticipated in their regions in Regulatory Commission.79 The Nuclear
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to
order to avoid higher costs.72 EPSA, et Energy Institute also asserts that turbine
include the recommended settings
al. state that while they do not fully controls on most nuclear units are
contained within NERC’s Guideline at
oppose amending the pro forma LGIA designed to maintain the internal steam
this time.89 MISO TOs state that some
and pro forma SGIA, they recommend pressure and are not intended to react
transmission owners in MISO believe
that the Commission explore more to changes in the grid.80 Similarly, the that NERC’s recommended governor
effective and cost efficient ways to MISO TOs assert that requiring nuclear settings are appropriate for traditional
address the range of issues posed in the units to have primary frequency synchronous generating facilities, but
NOI and consider a measured approach response capability would be contrary recommend additional consideration for
before mandating governors for all to Nuclear Regulatory Commission other generation technologies.90 On the
prospective interconnecting licensing requirements, and could have other hand, MISO TOs state that other
generation.73 a detrimental effect on the safety of the transmission owners in MISO request
28. Some commenters that support nuclear fleet.81
modifying the pro forma LGIA and pro 82 NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at P 45.
forma SGIA also assert that the costs of EEI Comments at 13; Indicated ISOs/RTOs 83 See e.g., Bonneville Comments at 7; IEEE–PES
implementing primary frequency Comments at 5; MISO Comments at 4; SoCal Edison Comments at 1; Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at
Comments at 2. 4; California Cities Comments at 2; WIRAB
response capability for new generating 75 APPA, et al. Comments at 6.
Comments at 7.
facilities are low.74 For example, APPA,
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76 EEI Comments at 13. 84 Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 4; SoCal
77 APPA, et al. Comments at 6; Bonneville Edison Comments at 4; Peak Reliability Comments
69 Peak Reliability Comments at 4–5. at 7; Manitoba Comments at 8.
Comments at 8; California Cities Comments at 8;
70 Bonneville Comments at 21. EEI Comments at 14; Idaho Power Comments at 4; 85 Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 5.
71 WIRAB Comments at 5–6. WIRAB Comments at 6. 86 MISO Comments at 4.

72 Southern Company Comments at 2–3. 78 WIRAB Comments at 6. 87 NERC Comments at 12.

73 EPSA, et al. Comments at 8–9. 79 Nuclear Energy Institute Comments at 1 and 4. 88 EEI Comments at 15–17.

74 APPA, et al. Comments at 6; Bonneville 80 Nuclear Energy Institute Comments at 4. 89 APPA, et al. Comments at 8.

Comments at 8; California Cities Comments at 2; 81 MISO TOs Comments at 7. 90 MISO TOs Comments at 8.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85182 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

flexibility and assert that specified generating facilities to have primary Specifically, as discussed above, the
governor settings should not be ‘‘hard- frequency response capability, and only record indicates that while the
wired’’ or dictated in the pro forma if market-based steps do not frequency response performance of the
LGIA and pro forma SGIA.91 satisfactorily address the need for Eastern and Western Interconnections is
primary frequency response, then the currently adequate, the frequency
b. Comments Opposed To Modifying the
Commission could consider an response performance of both
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA
additional requirement for new Interconnections has significantly
33. Other commenters contend that generating facilities to have such declined from historic values.105
the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA capability as a final step.98 Furthermore, the record shows that
should not be modified to require 35. Other commenters oppose there is an ongoing evolution of the
primary frequency response capability mandatory requirements and prefer a nation’s generation resource mix,
from new generating facilities.92 Some voluntary approach to improving including significant retirements of
commenters argue that requiring all new primary frequency response baseload generation and an increasing
generating facilities to have primary performance.99 For example, TVA proportion of VERs interconnecting to
frequency response capability will asserts that if current voluntary actions the electric grid.106 Several commenters
result in extra costs above those fail to show improvement in primary point out that there is significant risk
necessary to ensure reliability.93 For frequency response, then the pro forma that the rapidly changing resource mix
example, APS argues that a global LGIA and pro forma SGIA could be may reduce the level of available
mandate to provide primary frequency revised to contain a general primary frequency response capability online.107
response or to require generating frequency response requirement, similar This is in part because, as noted in the
facilities to be primary frequency to reactive power, but that NERC should NOI, VERs have not been consistently
response capable would result in be directed to establish governor designed with primary frequency
significantly increased costs while settings and performance requirements response capabilities.108 The record
providing a disproportionately minor through the NERC Standards suggests, however, that VER
impact on improving reliability.94 Development Process instead of the manufacturers have made significant
Powerex asserts that modifying the pro Commission including such technological advancements in recent
forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA to requirements in the pro forma LGIA and years to develop primary frequency
include minimum primary frequency pro forma SGIA.100 Some commenters response capability for VERs.109 In
response requirements will increase the assert that governor control details are addition, NERC, in conjunction with
cost of entry for new generators, better left to individual balancing various industry stakeholders, has
particularly VERs, which typically are authorities.101 For example, APS argues developed more robust technical
not designed with such capability.95 that the Commission should allow guidance for the operation of governors
Several commenters note that there balancing authorities to determine the or equivalent controls.110 As a result of
would be a significant opportunity cost type and magnitude of generating the evolving resource mix and the
for certain generating facilities to facilities within its balancing authority potential for adverse impacts on
reserve headroom for the provision of area that are frequency-response primary frequency response, the
primary frequency response.96 enabled.102 APS also points out that any Commission is concerned that there
34. Some of the commenters that are may be potential reliability impacts if it
need to install frequency response
opposed to modifying the pro forma does not undertake the reforms
capability or otherwise support
LGIA and pro forma SGIA assert that proposed in this NOPR. Moreover, the
frequency response performance can
they prefer a market-based approach Commission is concerned that certain
and should be evaluated and agreed
instead of a requirement for new aspects of the existing pro forma LGIA
upon between a generating facility and
generating facilities to install primary and pro forma SGIA may no longer be
the transmission provider during the
frequency response capability.97 For just and reasonable.
interconnection study process.103
example, AWEA asserts that, initially, 37. First, the current requirements for
the pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA II. Discussion governor controls in the pro forma LGIA
should not be revised to require new A. Primary Frequency Response do not reflect advances in technology or
Requirements the latest recommended operating
91 MISO TOs Comments at 8. practices. Specifically, current Article
92 AES Companies Comments at 6; Apex 1. The Need for Reform 9.6.2.1 states that ‘‘speed governors,’’ if
Comments at 6; APS Comments at 6; AWEA
Comments at 12; Chelan County Comments at 2; 36. Pursuant to FPA section 206, the installed, must be operated in automatic
ESA Comments at 2; Grid Storage Consulting Commission preliminarily finds that
Comments at 2; Microgrids Resources Coalition conditions have changed since the changes are necessary. See, e.g., Order No. 764,
Comments at 3; NRECA Comments at 9; Powerex FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,331.
Comments at 5; SDG&E Comments at 3; SolarCity
issuance of Order Nos. 2003 and 2006 105 See NERC 2015 Frequency Response Webinar

Comments at 1; TVA Comments at 2. and certain aspects of the pro forma at 10, NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report
93 Apex Comments at 5–6; APS Comments at 6; LGIA and pro forma SGIA may now be at 22, and LBNL 2010 Report at pp xiv–xv.
AWEA Comments at 12; Chelan County Comments unjust, unreasonable, unduly 106 See, e.g., P 12, supra (describing recent and

at 2; Powerex Comments at 5; Solar City Comments discriminatory, or preferential.104 ongoing changes in the nation’s generation mix).
at 1. 107 See, e.g., Bonneville Comments at 2; CAISO
94 APS Comments at 6. It is unclear whether the Comments at 2; NERC Comments at 17; Peak
98 AWEA Comments at 12.
increased costs referenced by APS refer only to the Reliability Comments at 4; PJM Utilities Coalition
99 APS Comments at 8; NRECA Comments at 6;
costs for the necessary equipment to provide Comments at 3.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

primary frequency response or the costs associated TVA Comments at 2. 108 NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at PP 42–43.
100 TVA Comments at 2–3 and 5.
with maintaining the headroom necessary to 109 See, e.g., PJM Utilities Comments at 4–5; EEI
provide primary frequency response. 101 APS Comments at 8; AES Companies
Comments at 13. See also PJM Interconnection,
95 Powerex Comments at 5. Comments at 8. L.L.C., Docket No. ER15–1193–000 (March 6, 2015)
96 Apex Comments at 7; Solar City Comments at 102 APS Comments at 8.
Transmittal Letter at 11. See also NERC 2014 LTRA,
1; AWEA Comments at 6. 103 Id. at 15. at 27 (Nov. 2014), http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/
97 Apex Comments at 6; AWEA Comments at 12; 104 The Commission routinely evaluates the ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2014LTRA_
Chelan County Comments at 2; ESA Comments at effectiveness of its regulations and policies in light ERATTA.pdf.
2; SDG&E Comments at 3. of changing industry conditions to determine if 110 See P 16, supra.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85183

mode. However, many of the new practices for governor and plant control facilities.119 In particular, the IEEE–
generating facilities interconnecting to system settings of generating facilities. P1547 Working Group noted that its
the grid, such as wind and solar, do not 40. Third, given the nation’s evolving new IEEE–1547 standard for
utilize traditional speed governors; resource mix and the potential adverse interconnecting distributed generation
instead they utilize enhanced inverters impacts on primary frequency response will likely include certain requirements
and other plant supervisory control as noted in the NOI and pointed out by for providing primary frequency
technology that can be designed to several commenters, the Commission response.120 Given these low-cost
include primary frequency response believes that changes to the pro forma technological advances, the Commission
capability.111 Therefore, due to LGIA and pro forma SGIA may be does not anticipate that these additional
advancements in technology, the necessary to provide for the continued requirements added in the pro forma
Commission preliminarily finds that the reliable operation of the power system. SGIA will present a barrier to entry for
existing references to ‘‘speed governors’’ As noted above, the Task Force small generating facilities. And, given
in Article 9.6.2.1 that apply only to concluded that all new generating the need for additional primary
synchronous resources are outdated, facilities should be required to be frequency response capability and an
and therefore may no longer be just and capable of providing primary frequency increasingly large market penetration of
reasonable. response.115 However, the pro forma small generating facilities, the
38. Second, since the issuance of LGIA does not currently require large Commission believes that there is a
Order No. 2003 and the establishment of generating facilities to install such need to add these requirements to the
the pro forma LGIA, NERC, in capability; rather, it only requires pro forma SGIA to help ensure adequate
governor operation in ‘‘automatic primary frequency response capability.
conjunction with industry stakeholders,
mode’’ if a ‘‘speed governor’’ is 42. Moreover, as noted above, a
has amassed a significant body of
installed.116 number of commenters assert that costs
knowledge in regards to the operation of 41. In addition, the Commission is
generator governors and plant control for new generating facilities to install
concerned that the current pro forma the capability of providing primary
systems. For example, as noted above, SGIA may be unduly discriminatory or
NERC observed in 2012 that a number frequency response are low, suggesting
preferential because it does not establish that there is not a financial barrier to
of generators implemented deadband any specific requirements with respect
settings that were so wide as to small generating facilities installing the
to the installation or operation of capability to provide frequency
effectively defeat the ability to provide governors or equivalent frequency
primary frequency response, and that response.121 PJM’s recent changes to
control equipment. In particular, the pro require both small and large non-
many generators provide frequency forma SGIA does not have a similar
response in the wrong direction during synchronous generating facilities to use
provision to Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro enhanced inverters, which include
a disturbance.112 Additionally, as noted forma LGIA. The Commission has
above, NERC observed in 2015 that in primary frequency response capability,
previously acted under FPA section 206 among other functions, further support
many conventional steam plants, to remove inconsistencies between the
deadband settings exceed a ±0.036 Hz this notion.122
pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA
dead band, resulting in primary when there is no economic or technical 2. Commission Proposal
frequency response that is not basis for treating large and small
sustained, and that the vast majority of 43. To remedy the potentially unjust,
generating facilities differently.117 unreasonable, and unduly
the gas turbine fleet is not frequency Similarly, in this instance, the record
responsive.113 discriminatory or preferential practices
developed from the NOI appears to described above, the Commission
39. The record here suggests that the suggest that small generating facilities preliminarily finds that revisions to the
actual governor and plant control are capable of installing and enabling pro forma LGIA and pro forma SGIA are
system settings that are being governors at low cost in a manner appropriate. The Commission believes
implemented by some generator owners comparable to large generating that revising the pro forma LGIA and
and/or operators may be defeating the facilities.118 As discussed above, the pro forma SGIA to require all new
intent of Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma record indicates that there have been generating facilities to install, maintain,
LGIA. In response to these issues, significant advances in technology, as and operate a functioning governor or
NERC, through the work of its various well as the development of more robust equivalent controls, consistent with the
task forces, subcommittees, and technical guidance for the operation of proposed requirements described below,
initiatives, has developed a voluntary governors or equivalent controls for will help to ensure adequate primary
Guideline that includes recommended both large and small generating frequency response capability as the
droop and deadband settings based on resource mix continues to evolve,
significant investigation.114 However, 115 See P 15, supra. ensure fair and consistent treatment for
the pro forma LGIA does not currently 116 Article 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA.
all types of generating facilities, help
reflect these updated recommended 117 See Requirements for Frequency and Voltage
balancing authorities meet their
Ride Through Capability of Small Generating
Facilities, Order No. 828, 81 FR 50,290 (Aug. 1, frequency response obligations pursuant
111 See Electric Power Research Institute,
2016), 156 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2016), (The Final Rule to NERC Reliability Standard BAL–003–
Recommended Settings for Voltage and Frequency revised the pro forma SGIA such that small
Ride Through of Distributed Energy Resources (May 1.1, and help improve reliability during
generating facilities have frequency and voltage ride
2015) at 27, http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ through requirements comparable to large
ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId= generating facilities).
119 See PP 13, 36, supra.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

000000003002006203. See also National Renewable 118 IEEE–P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5, 120 IEEE–P1547 Working Group Comments at 1, 5,
Energy Labs (NREL), Advanced Grid-Friendly and 7. Moreover, the Commission notes that other and 7.
Controls Demonstration Project for Utility-Scale PV commenters stated costs of installing primary 121 See, e.g., APPA, et al. Comments at 2; EEI
Power Plants, at 1–2 (Jan. 2016), http:// frequency response capability are generally low, but Comments at 13; Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65368.pdf. did not differentiate between small and large 5; SoCal Edison Comments at 2.
112 See P 16, supra.
generating facilities. See, e.g., APPA, et al. 122 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶
113 Id.
Comments at 6; California Cities Comments at 2; 61,097 at P 28 (the Commission stated that it
114 See NERC Primary Frequency Control EEI Comments at 13; Indicated ISOs/RTOs ‘‘find[s] that PJM’s proposal will not present a
Guideline. Comments at 3–5; SoCal Edison Comments at 2. barrier to non-synchronous resources.’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85184 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

system restoration and islanding any action that requires the submission requirements for droop and deadband
situations.123 of a new interconnection request that settings.
44. In particular, the Commission results in the filing of an executed or 49. The Commission also proposes to
proposes to revise the pro forma LGIA unexecuted interconnection agreement prohibit all new large and small
and pro forma SGIA to include the on or after the effective date of any Final generating facilities from taking any
following: (1) Requirements for new Rule in Docket No. RM16–6–000. action that would inhibit the provision
large and small generating facilities, 47. In particular, the proposed of primary frequency response, except
both synchronous and non- revisions to the pro forma LGIA and pro under certain conditions as discussed
synchronous, to install, maintain, and forma SGIA would require new large below. The lack of coordination
operate equipment capable of providing and small generating facilities to install, between governor and plant-level
primary frequency response as a maintain, and operate a functioning control systems can result in premature
condition of interconnection; (2) governor or equivalent controls, which withdrawal of primary frequency
requirements for governor or equivalent the Commission proposes to define as response by allowing additional plant
controls to be operated, at a minimum, the required hardware and/or software control systems to reverse the action of
with maximum 5 percent droop and that provides frequency responsive real the governor to return the unit to
±0.036 Hz deadband settings; (3) power control with the ability to sense operating at a pre-selected target set-
requirements to ensure the timely and changes in system frequency and point.127 NERC’s Guideline explains
sustained response to frequency autonomously adjust the generating that ‘‘in order to provide sustained
deviations, including provisions to facility’s real power output in primary frequency response, it is
prevent plant-level (i.e., outer-loop) accordance with the proposed essential that the prime mover governor,
control equipment from inhibiting maximum droop and deadband plant controls and remote plant controls
primary frequency response and parameters and in the direction needed are coordinated.’’ 128 Accordingly, the
resulting in premature withdrawal; and to correct frequency deviations. The Commission proposes to require new
(4) a requirement for droop parameters Commission seeks comment on this generating facilities that respond to
to be based on nameplate capability proposal. frequency deviations to not inhibit
with a linear operating range of 59 to 61 48. The Commission also proposes to primary frequency response, such as by
Hz. Additionally, as informed by NOI require new large and small generating coordinating plant-level, outer-loop
commenters, the Commission believes facilities to install, maintain and operate control equipment with the governor or
that it is not necessary to impose a governor or equivalent controls with the equivalent controls, except under
generic headroom requirement or ability to operate with a maximum 5 certain operational constraints
subject newly interconnecting nuclear percent droop and ±0.036 Hz deadband including, but not limited to, ambient
generating facilities to the new parameter, consistent with NERC’s temperature limitations, outages of
requirements. The Commission does not recommended guidance. As noted mechanical equipment, or regulatory
propose to mandate any separate above, the Commission sought comment requirements. The Commission also
compensation related to the proposed in the NOI on whether NERC’s proposes to require new generating
requirements. The Commission seeks recommended guidance for governor facilities to respond to frequency
comment on the proposed reforms, as settings related to droop and deadband deviations without undue delay and to
discussed more fully below. should be included in the pro forma sustain the response until at least
45. Specifically, the Commission LGIA and pro forma SGIA, and system frequency returns to a stable
proposes to revise existing sections 9.6 numerous commenters agreed stating value within the governor’s deadband
and 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma LGIA and that NERC’s Guideline provides a sound setting. The Commission believes this
to include proposed new sections 9.6.4, baseline.125 Therefore, the Commission proposed requirement for sustained
9.6.4.1, 9.6.4.2, and 9.6.4.3. Similarly, preliminarily finds that a maximum response is consistent with the current
the Commission proposes to revise droop setting of 5 percent and deadband requirements of PJM and ISO–NE as
existing section 1.8 of the pro forma setting of ±0.036 Hz are appropriate to well as similar OATT revisions recently
SGIA and add proposed new sections include in the pro forma LGIA and pro implemented by CAISO.129 The
1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, 1.8.4.1.1, 1.8.4.1.2, and forma SGIA as interconnection Commission seeks comment on the
1.8.4.1.3.124 requirements for new generating proposed requirements for sustained
46. The Commission’s proposed facilities. The Commission notes that response. In particular, the Commission
revisions to the pro forma LGIA and pro these proposed requirements are seeks comment on whether these
forma SGIA would apply to new minimum requirements; therefore, if a provisions will be sufficient to prevent
generating facilities that execute or new generating facility elects, in plant-level (i.e., outer-loop) controls
request the unexecuted filing of coordination with its transmission from inhibiting primary frequency
interconnection agreements on or after provider, to operate in a more response.
the effective date of any Final Rule responsive mode by using lower droop 50. Regarding droop settings, in its
issued in Docket No. RM16–6–000. The or tighter deadband settings, nothing in comments to the NOI, MISO proposed
Commission also proposes to apply the these requirements would prohibit it that a linear droop should be available
requirements to any large or small from doing so.126 The Commission seeks between 59 to 61 Hz.130 The
generating facility that has an executed comment on these proposed
or has requested the filing of an 127 NERC Frequency Response Initiative Report at

unexecuted LGIA or SGIA as of the 125 See e.g., Bonneville Comments at 7; California 31. See also NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at P 49 (stating
Cities Comments at 2; IEEE–PES Comments at 2; that primary frequency response withdrawal ‘‘has
effective date of any Final Rule in
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Indicated ISOs/RTOs Comments at 4; MISO the potential to degrade the overall response of the
Docket No. RM16–6–000, but that takes Comments at 4; WIRAB Comments at 7. Interconnection and result in a frequency that
126 Moreover, the Commission proposes that declines below the original nadir’’).
123 See NERC Comments at 17. See also NERC 128 NERC Primary Frequency Control Guideline at
nothing in these requirements would prohibit the
Essential Reliability Services Task Force Measures implementation of asymmetrical droop settings (i.e., 4.
Framework Report at iv. different droop settings for under-frequency and 129 See, e.g., ISO–NE Operating Procedure OP–14
124 The specific proposed modifications and over-frequency conditions), provided that each and PJM Manual 14D. See also CAISO, 156 FERC
additions to the pro forma LGIA and pro forma segment has a droop value of no more than 5 ¶ 61,182 at PP 10–12 and 17.
SGIA are set forth at PP 52–53, below. percent. 130 MISO Comments at 4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85185

Commission believes that this is 9.6 Reactive Power and Primary Frequency require the Large Generating Facility to
reasonable because it would allow for Response operate above its minimum operating limit or
9.6.2.1 Voltage Regulators. Whenever the below its maximum operating limit, or
new generating facilities that remain otherwise alter its dispatch to have headroom
connected during frequency deviations Large Generating Facility is operated in
parallel with the Transmission System and to provide primary frequency response.
to provide a proportional response 9.6.4.1 Governor or Equivalent Controls.
voltage regulators are capable of operation,
within this range of frequencies. Interconnection Customer shall operate the Whenever the Large Generating Facility is
Accordingly, the Commission proposes Large Generating Facility with its voltage operated in parallel with the Transmission
to require the droop parameter to be regulators in automatic operation. If the Large System, Interconnection Customer shall
Generating Facility’s voltage regulators are operate the Large Generating Facility with its
based on the nameplate capability of the governor or equivalent controls in service and
unit and linear in operating range not capable of such automatic operation,
Interconnection Customer shall immediately responsive to frequency. Interconnection
between 59 to 61 Hz. The Commission Customer shall, in coordination with
notify Transmission Provider’s system
seeks comment on these proposed operator, or its designated representative, and Transmission Provider, set the deadband
requirements for droop settings. ensure that such Large Generating Facility’s parameter to a maximum of ±0.036 Hz and
reactive power production or absorption set the droop parameter to a maximum of 5
51. Several NOI commenters percent. Interconnection Customer shall be
(measured in MVARs) are within the design
expressed concern about possible required to provide the status and settings of
capability of the Large Generating Facility’s
generic headroom requirements 131 that generating unit(s) and steady state stability the governor or equivalent controls to
could result in significant opportunity limits. Interconnection Customer shall not Transmission Provider upon request. If
costs.132 The Commission clarifies that cause its Large Generating Facility to Interconnection Customer needs to operate
disconnect automatically or instantaneously the Large Generating Facility with its
nothing in these proposed reforms will governor or equivalent controls not in
impose a generic headroom requirement from the Transmission System or trip any
generating unit comprising the Large service, Interconnection Customer shall
for new generating facilities or affect the immediately notify Transmission Provider’s
Generating Facility for an under or over
unit commitment and dispatch frequency condition unless the abnormal system operator, or its designated
decisions of balancing authorities. frequency condition persists for a time period representative. Interconnection Customer
Therefore, if a generating facility that is beyond the limits set forth in ANSI/IEEE shall make Reasonable Efforts to return its
Standard C37.106, or such other standard as governor or equivalent controls into service
subject to these proposed requirements as soon as practicable.
has been dispatched by its balancing applied to other generators in the Control
Area on a comparable basis. 9.6.4.2 Sustained Response.
authority to a set-point at which there Interconnection Customer shall ensure that
9.6.4 Primary Frequency Response.
is no available operating range to Interconnection Customer shall ensure the the Large Generating Facility’s real power
increase or decrease its output in primary frequency response capability of its response to sustained frequency deviations
response to frequency deviations, it Large Generating Facility by installing, outside of the deadband setting is provided
maintaining, and operating a functioning without undue delay, and ensure that the
would not be in violation of the response is not inhibited, except under
proposed requirements in regards to governor or equivalent controls. The term
‘‘functioning governor or equivalent controls’’ certain operational constraints including, but
providing sustained response. The not limited to, ambient temperature
as used herein shall mean the required
Commission believes that the reliability hardware and/or software that provides limitations, outages of mechanical
benefits from the proposed frequency responsive real power control with equipment, or regulatory requirements. The
modifications to the pro forma LGIA the ability to sense changes in system Large Generating Facility shall sustain the
real power response at least until system
and pro forma SGIA do not require frequency and autonomously adjust the Large
Generating Facility’s real power output in frequency returns to a stable value within the
imposing additional costs that would deadband setting of the governor or
result from a generic headroom accordance with the droop and deadband
parameters and in the direction needed to equivalent controls.
requirement. The Commission also correct frequency deviations. Interconnection 9.6.4.3 Exemptions. Large Generating
agrees with NOI commenters regarding Customer is required to install a governor or Facilities that are regulated by the United
the unique operating characteristics and equivalent controls with the capability of States Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall
regulatory requirements of nuclear operating with a maximum 5 percent droop be exempt from Sections 9.6.4, 9.6.4.1, and
and ±0.036 Hz deadband. The droop 9.6.4.2 of this Agreement.
generating facilities regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and characteristic shall be based on the 53. Similarly, the Commission
therefore proposes to exempt such nameplate capacity of the Large Generating proposes to modify section 1.8 of the
Facility, and shall be linear in the range of pro forma SGIA and add new sections
generating facilities from the proposed 59 to 61 Hz. The deadband parameter shall
reforms.133 The Commission seeks 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, 1.8.4.2 and 1.8.4.3 as
be the range of frequencies above and below
comment on the proposal to not impose nominal (60 Hz) in which the governor or
follows:
a generic headroom requirement and to equivalent controls is not expected to adjust 1.8 Reactive Power and Primary Frequency
not apply the new requirements to the Large Generating Facility’s real power Response
nuclear generating facilities. output in response to frequency deviations. 1.8.4 Primary Frequency Response.
Interconnection Customer shall notify Interconnection Customer shall ensure the
52. In light of the above discussion, Transmission Provider that the primary primary frequency response capability of its
the Commission proposes to modify frequency response capability of the Large Small Generating Facility by installing,
sections 9.6 and 9.6.2.1 of the pro forma Generating Facility has been tested and maintaining, and operating a functioning
LGIA and add new sections 9.6.4, confirmed during commissioning. Once governor or equivalent controls. The term
9.6.4.1, 9.6.4.2, and 9.6.4.3 as follows: Interconnection Customer has synchronized ‘‘functioning governor or equivalent controls’’
the Large Generating Facility with the as used herein shall mean the required
Transmission System, Interconnection hardware and/or software that provides
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

131 A generic headroom requirement would
Customer shall operate the Large Generating frequency responsive real power control with
require generating facilities to operate below
Facility consistent with provisions specified the ability to sense changes in system
maximum output at all times to ensure sufficient
ability to increase their real power output in in Sections 9.6.4.1 and 9.6.4.2 of this frequency and autonomously adjust the
response to under-frequency conditions. Agreement. The primary frequency response Small Generating Facility’s real power output
132 See, e.g., Apex Comments at 7; Solar City requirements contained herein shall apply to in accordance with the droop and deadband
Comments at 1; AWEA Comments at 6. both synchronous and non-synchronous parameters and in the direction needed to
133 See, e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute Comments Large Generating Facilities. Nothing in correct frequency deviations. Interconnection
at 1, 4; MISO TOs Comments at 7. Sections 9.6.4, 9.6.4.1 and 9.6.4.2 shall Customer is required to install a governor or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85186 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

equivalent controls with the capability of States Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall settings of 5 percent and ±0.036 Hz,
operating with a maximum 5 percent droop be exempt from Sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1, respectively; (3) requirements for timely
and ±0.036 Hz deadband. The droop 1.8.4.2 of this Agreement. and sustained response; (4) requirement
characteristic shall be based on the
54. The Commission proposes to for droop parameters to be based on
nameplate capacity of the Small Generating
Facility, and shall be linear in the range of apply the primary frequency response nameplate capability with a linear
59 to 61 Hz. The deadband parameter shall requirements to any new large or small operating range of 59 to 61 Hz; (5)
be the range of frequencies above and below generating facility that executes or exemptions for new nuclear units; and
nominal (60 Hz) in which the governor or requests the unexecuted filing of a LGIA (6) effective dates as discussed above.
equivalent controls is not expected to adjust or SGIA on or after the effective date of The Commission also seeks comment on
the Small Generating Facility’s real power any Final Rule issued in this its proposal to not impose a generic
output in response to frequency deviations. proceeding. In addition, the headroom requirement or mandate
Interconnection Customer shall notify Commission proposes to apply the compensation related to the proposed
Transmission Provider that the primary
requirements to any large or small reforms.
frequency response capability of the Small
Generating Facility has been tested and generating facility that has an executed 57. In the NOI, the Commission also
confirmed during commissioning. Once or has requested the filing of an sought comment on the performance of
Interconnection Customer has synchronized unexecuted LGIA or SGIA as of the existing resources and whether primary
the Small Generating Facility with the effective date of any Final Rule in frequency response requirements for
Transmission System, Interconnection Docket No. RM16–6–000, but that takes these resources are warranted.136 At this
Customer shall operate the Small Generating any action that requires the submission time, the Commission proposes only to
Facility consistent with the provisions of a new interconnection request that adopt the reforms included in this
specified in Sections 1.8.4.1 and 1.8.4.2 of results in the filing of an executed or NOPR regarding newly interconnecting
this Agreement. The primary frequency large and small generating facilities.
unexecuted interconnection agreement
response requirements contained herein shall
on or after the effective date of any Final However, the Commission seeks
apply to both synchronous and non-
synchronous Small Generating Facilities. Rule in Docket No. RM16–6–000. The comment regarding whether the reforms
Nothing in Sections 1.8.4, 1.8.4.1 and 1.8.4.2 Commission seeks comment on the proposed in this NOPR are sufficient to
shall require the Small Generating Facility to proposed effective date including ensure adequate levels of primary
operate above its minimum operating limit, whether applying these requirements to frequency response, or whether
below its maximum operating limit, or existing generating facilities that take additional reforms are needed. In
otherwise alter its dispatch to have headroom any action that requires the submission particular, the Commission seeks
to provide primary frequency response. of a new interconnection request that comment on whether additional
1.8.4.1 Governor or Equivalent Controls. results in the filing of an executed or primary frequency response
Whenever the Small Generating Facility is performance or capability requirements
unexecuted interconnection agreement
operated in parallel with the Transmission
on or after the effective date of any Final for existing resources are needed, and if
System, Interconnection Customer shall
operate the Small Generating Facility with its Rule in Docket No. RM16–6–000 would so, whether the Commission should
governor or equivalent controls in service and be unduly burdensome. impose those requirements by: (1)
responsive to frequency. Interconnection 55. The Commission does not propose Directing the development or
Customer shall, in coordination with in this NOPR to require that the modification of a reliability standard
Transmission Provider, set the deadband interconnection customer receive any pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the
parameter to a maximum of ±0.036 Hz and compensation for these proposed FPA; or (2) acting pursuant to section
set the droop parameter to a maximum of 5 requirements. The Commission has 206 of the FPA to require changes to the
percent. Interconnection Customer shall be previously accepted changes to pro forma OATT.
required to provide the status and settings of transmission provider tariffs that
the governor or equivalent controls to C. Proposed Compliance Procedures
similarly required interconnection
Transmission Provider upon request. If 58. The Commission proposes to
Interconnection Customer needs to operate customers to install primary frequency
response capability or that established require all public utility transmission
the Small Generating facility with its
governor or equivalent controls not in specified governor settings, without providers to adopt the requirements of
service, Interconnection Customer shall requiring any accompanying any Final Rule in Docket No. RM16–6–
immediately notify Transmission Provider’s compensation.134 While the 000 as revisions to the LGIA and SGIA
system operator, or its designated Commission has not required in their OATTs within 60 days after the
representative. Interconnection Customer compensation for similar requirements publication of the Final Rule in the
shall make Reasonable Efforts to return its in the past, it clarifies that nothing in Federal Register.
governor or equivalent controls into service this NOPR is meant to prohibit a public 59. Some public utility transmission
as soon as practicable. providers may have provisions in their
utility from filing a proposal for primary
1.8.4.2 Sustained Response. existing LGIAs and SGIAs that the
Interconnection Customer shall ensure that frequency response compensation under
the Small Generating Facility’s real power FPA section 205, if it so chooses.135 Commission has found to be consistent
response to sustained frequency deviations with or superior to the pro forma LGIA
B. Request for Comment and pro forma SGIA. Where these
outside of the deadband setting is provided
without undue delay, and ensure that the 56. The Commission seeks comment provisions would be modified by the
response is not inhibited, except under on the proposed: (1) Requirements for Final Rule, public utility transmission
certain operational constraints including, but new large and small generating facilities providers must either comply with the
not limited to, ambient temperature to install, maintain, and operate a Final Rule or demonstrate that these
limitations, outages of mechanical governor or equivalent controls; (2)
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

previously-approved variations
equipment, or regulatory requirements. The requirements for droop and deadband continue to be consistent with or
Small Generating Facility shall sustain the
real power response at least until system
superior to the pro forma LGIA and pro
134 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶
frequency returns to a stable value within the forma SGIA as modified by the Final
61,097, at n.58 (2015); CAISO, 156 FERC ¶ 61,182,
deadband setting of the governor or at PP 10–12 and 17 (2016); New England Power
Rule. The Commission also proposes to
equivalent controls. Pool, 109 FERC ¶ 61,155 (2004), order on reh’g, 110 permit appropriate entities to seek
1.8.4.3 Exemptions. Small Generating FERC ¶ 61,335 (2005).
Facilities that are regulated by the United 135 16 U.S.C. 824d (2012). 136 NOI, 154 FERC ¶ 61,117 at PP 2, 46–52.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85188 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

generating facilities, both synchronous Commission’s jurisdiction, plus the does not consider the estimated burden
and non-synchronous, to install, classification, practices, contracts and to be a significant economic impact. As
maintain, and operate equipment regulations that affect rates, charges, a result, the Commission believes this
capable of providing primary frequency classifications, and services.148 The NOPR would not have a significant
response as a condition of revisions proposed in this NOPR update economic impact on a substantial
interconnection. To implement these and clarify the application of the number of small entities.
requirements, the Commission proposes Commission’s standard interconnection 71. The Commission estimates that
to revise the pro forma LGIA and the requirements to synchronous and non- the total annual number of new non-
pro forma SGIA. synchronous generators. Therefore, this synchronous interconnections per year
Internal Review: The Commission has NOPR falls within the categorical for the first few years of potential
reviewed the proposed changes and has exemptions provided in the implementation under this NOPR would
determined that the changes are Commission’s regulations, and therefore be approximately 200, representing
necessary. These requirements conform neither an Environmental Assessment approximately 5,000 MW of installed
to the Commission’s need for efficient nor an Environmental Impact Statement capacity. Of these, the Commission
information collection, communication, is required. estimates that the majority are small
and management within the energy V. Regulatory Flexibility Act entities. The Commission estimates the
industry. The Commission has assured average total cost to each of these
itself, by means of internal review, that 68. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
entities will be minimal, requiring on
there is specific, objective support for 1980 (RFA) 149 generally requires a
average approximately $3,300 per MW
the burden estimates associated with the description and analysis of proposed
of installed capacity. According to SBA
information collection requirements. rules that will have significant
guidance, the determination of
65. Interested persons may obtain economic impact on a substantial
significance of impact ‘‘should be seen
information on the reporting number of small entities. The RFA does
as relative to the size of the business,
requirements by contacting the not mandate any particular outcome in
a rulemaking. It only requires the size of the competitor’s business,
following: Federal Energy Regulatory and the impact the regulation has on
Commission, 888 First Street NE., consideration of alternatives that are
less burdensome to small entities and an larger competitors.’’ The Commission
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen does not consider the estimated burden
Brown, Office of the Executive Director], agency explanation of why alternatives
were rejected. to be a significant economic impact on
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: these entities because the cost is
69. The Small Business
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873. relatively minimal compared to the
Administration (SBA) revised its size
66. Comments on the collection of average capital cost per MW for wind
standards (effective January 22, 2014)
information and the associated burden for electric utilities from a standard and solar PV generation.153
estimate in the proposed rule should be based on megawatt hours to a standard Additionally, the Commission does not
sent to the Commission in this docket based on the number of employees, believe that there will be substantial
and may also be sent to the Office of including affiliates. Under SBA’s additional costs for new synchronous
Information and Regulatory Affairs, standards, some transmission owners generators because synchronous
Office of Management and Budget, 725 will fall under the following category generators already come equipped with
17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 and associated size threshold: Electric governors that provide the capability to
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal bulk power transmission and control, at provide primary frequency response.
Energy Regulatory Commission], at the 500 employees.150 Accordingly, the Commission believes
following email address: oira_ 70. The Commission estimates that that this NOPR would not have a
submission@omb.eop.gov. Please refer the total number of transmission significant economic impact on a
to OMB Control No. 1902–0286 in your providers, both public and non-public, substantial number of small entities.
submission. affected by this NOPR is 74.151 Of these, VI. Comment Procedures
IV. Environmental Analysis the Commission estimates that
approximately 27.5 percent are small 72. The Commission invites interested
67. The Commission is required to entities. The Commission estimates the persons to submit comments on the
prepare an Environmental Assessment average total cost to each of these matters and issues proposed in this
or an Environmental Impact Statement entities will be minimal, requiring on notice to be adopted, including any
for any action that may have a average 10 hours, or $745.00. According related matters or alternative proposals
significant adverse effect on the human to SBA guidance, the determination of that commenters may wish to discuss.
environment.147 The Commission significance of impact ‘‘should be seen Comments are due January 24, 2017.
concludes that neither an as relative to the size of the business, Comments must refer to Docket No.
Environmental Assessment or an the size of the competitor’s business, RM16–6–000, and must include the
Environmental Impact Statement is and the impact the regulation has on commenter’s name, the organization
required for proposed revisions under larger competitors.’’ 152 The Commission they represent, if applicable, and their
section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission’s address in their comments.
regulations, which provides a 148 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2015).
categorical exemption for approval of 149 5 U.S.C. 601–612 (2012). Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 18 (May 2012), https://
actions under sections 205 and 206 of 150 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22 (Utilities), NAICS
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_
the FPA relating to the filing of code 221121 (Electric Bulk Power Transmission and 0512_0.pdf.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

schedules containing all rates and Control). 153 LBNL estimates that capital cost per MW of
151 The NERC Compliance Registry lists 80
charges for the transmission or sale of installed wind capacity is $1,690,000. See LBNL
entities that administer a transmission tariff and 2015 Wind Market Report (Aug. 2016), https://
electric energy subject to the provide transmission service. The Commission emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/2015-
identifies only 74 as being subject to the proposed windtechreport.final_.pdf). NREL estimates that the
147 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the requirements because 6 are Canadian entities and capital cost per MW of installed solar PV capacity
National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 are not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. is $1,770,000. See NREL U.S. Photovoltaic Prices
(Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 152 U.S. Small Business Administration, A Guide and Cost Breakdowns (Sep. 2015), http://
1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85189

73. The Commission encourages Availability section below. Commenters viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
comments to be filed electronically via on this proposal are not required to To access this document in eLibrary,
the eFiling link on the Commission’s serve copies of their comments on other type the docket number excluding the
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The commenters. last three digits of this document in the
Commission accepts most standard docket number field.
VII. Document Availability
word processing formats. Documents 78. User assistance is available for
created electronically using word 76. In addition to publishing the full eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site
processing software should be filed in text of this document in the Federal during normal business hours from the
native applications or print-to-PDF Register, the Commission provides all Commission’s Online Support at (202)
format and not in a scanned format. interested persons an opportunity to 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676)
Commenters filing electronically do not view and/or print the contents of this or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov,
need to make a paper filing. document via the Internet through the or the Public Reference Room at (202)
Commission’s Home Page (http:// 502–8371, TTY (202)502–8659. Email
74. Commenters that are not able to www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
file comments electronically must send the Public Reference Room at
Public Reference Room during normal public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
an original of their comments to: business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., By direction of the Commission.
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. Issued: November 17, 2016.
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 77. From the Commission’s Home Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
75. All comments will be placed in Page on the Internet, this information is Deputy Secretary.
the Commission’s public files and may available on eLibrary. The full text of
be viewed, printed, or downloaded this document is available on eLibrary Appendix
remotely as described in the Document in PDF and Microsoft Word format for

LIST OF COMMENTERS (DOCKET NO. RM16–6–000)
AES Companies ................................................. AES Corporation/AES Energy Storage/Dayton Power and Light Company/Indianapolis Power
and Light Company.
APPA, et al ......................................................... American Public Power Association/Large Public Power Council/Transmission Access Policy
Study Group.
AWEA ................................................................. American Wind Energy Association.
Apex .................................................................... Apex Compressed Air Energy Storage.
APS ..................................................................... Arizona Public Service Company.
Bonneville ........................................................... Bonneville Power Administration.
CAISO ................................................................. California Independent System Operator.
Chelan County .................................................... Chelan County Public Utility District.
California Cities ................................................... City of Anaheim/City of Azusa/City of Banning/City of Colton/City of Pasadena/City of River-
side.
EEI ...................................................................... Edison Electric Institute.
EDP ..................................................................... EDP Renewables North America.
EPRI .................................................................... Electric Power Research Institute.
EPSA, et al ......................................................... Electric Power Supply Association/Independent Power Producers of New York/New England
Power Generators Association/Western Power Trading Forum.
ELCON ................................................................ Electricity Consumers Resource Council.
ESA ..................................................................... Energy Storage Association.
Grid Storage Consulting ..................................... Grid Storage Consulting.
Howard F. Illian ................................................... Howard F. Illian
Idaho Power ........................................................ Idaho Power Company.
Indicated ISOs/RTOs .......................................... Independent Electricity System Operator/ISO New England/New York Independent System
Operator/PJM Interconnection/Southwest Power Pool.
IEEE–P1547 Working Group .............................. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) P1547 Standards Working Group.
IEEE–PES ........................................................... IEEE Power and Energy Society Technical Council.
ITC, et al ............................................................. International Transmission Company/Michigan Electric Transmission Company/ITC Great
Plains/ITC Midwest.
Manitoba ............................................................. Manitoba Hydro.
Microgrids Resources Coalition .......................... Microgrids Resources Coalition.
MISO ................................................................... Midcontinent Independent System Operator.
MISO TOs ........................................................... Midcontinent Independent System Operator Transmission Owners.
NARUC ............................................................... National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
NRECA ............................................................... National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
NERC .................................................................. North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
North American Generator Forum ...................... North American Generator Forum.
Nuclear Energy Institute ..................................... Nuclear Energy Institute.
PG&E .................................................................. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Peak Reliability ................................................... Peak Reliability.
PJM Utilities Coalition ......................................... PJM Utilities Coalition.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Powerex .............................................................. Powerex Corp.
Public Interest Organizations .............................. Public Interest Organizations.
Ralph D. Masiello ............................................... Ralph D. Masiello.
SDG&E ............................................................... San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
Solar City ............................................................ Solar City Corporation.
SoCal Edison ...................................................... Southern California Edison Company.
Southern Company ............................................. Southern Company.
Steel Producers .................................................. Steel Producers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
85190 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules

LIST OF COMMENTERS (DOCKET NO. RM16–6–000)—Continued
Tacoma Power .................................................... Tacoma Power.
TVA ..................................................................... Tennessee Valley Authority.
Tri-State Generation ........................................... Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association.
Union of Concerned Scientists ........................... Union of Concerned Scientists.
WIRAB ................................................................ Western Interconnection Regional Advisory Body.

[FR Doc. 2016–28321 Filed 11–23–16; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: qualified preretirement survivor annuity
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Concerning the regulations, Neil S. exceeds the amount that can be
Sandhu or Linda S.F. Marshall at (202) distributed without the participant’s
317–6700; concerning submissions of consent under section 411(a)(11), then a
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY comments, the hearing, and/or being plan may immediately distribute the
placed on the building access list to present value of a qualified joint and
Internal Revenue Service attend the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo survivor annuity or the qualified
(Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317–6901 (not preretirement survivor annuity only if
26 CFR Part 1 toll-free numbers). the participant and the spouse of the
[REG–107424–12] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: participant (or where the participant has
died, the surviving spouse) consent in
RIN 1545–BK95 Background
writing to the distribution.
Section 401(a)(11) of the Internal Section 417(e)(3)(A) provides that the
Update to Minimum Present Value Revenue Code (Code) provides that, in present value shall not be less than the
Requirements for Defined Benefit Plan order for a defined benefit plan to present value calculated by using the
Distributions qualify under section 401(a), except as applicable mortality table and the
provided under section 417, in the case applicable interest rate.1
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
of a vested participant who does not die Section 417(e)(3)(B) of the Code, as
Treasury.
before the annuity starting date, the amended by section 302 of the Pension
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking accrued benefit payable to such Protection Act of 2006 (PPA ’06), Public
and notice of public hearing. participant must be provided in the Law 109–280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006),
SUMMARY: This document contains form of a qualified joint and survivor provides that the term ‘‘applicable
proposed regulations providing annuity. In the case of a vested mortality table’’ means a mortality table,
guidance relating to the minimum participant who dies before the annuity modified as appropriate by the
present value requirements applicable starting date and who has a surviving Secretary, based on the mortality table
to certain defined benefit pension plans. spouse, a defined benefit plan must specified for the plan year under section
These proposed regulations would provide a qualified preretirement 430(h)(3)(A) (without regard to section
provide guidance on changes made by survivor annuity to the surviving spouse 430(h)(3)(C) or (3)(D)).
the Pension Protection Act of 2006 and of such participant, except as provided Section 417(e)(3)(C) of the Code, as
would provide other modifications to under section 417. amended by section 302 of PPA ‘06,
Section 411(d)(6)(B) provides that a provides that the term ‘‘applicable
these rules as well. These regulations
plan amendment that has the effect of interest rate’’ means the adjusted first,
would affect participants, beneficiaries,
eliminating or reducing an early second, and third segment rates applied
sponsors, and administrators of defined
retirement benefit or a retirement-type under rules similar to the rules of
benefit pension plans. This document
subsidy, or eliminating an optional form section 430(h)(2)(C) of the Code for the
also provides a notice of a public
of benefit, with respect to benefits month before the date of the distribution
hearing on these proposed regulations.
attributable to service before the or such other time as the Secretary may
DATES: Written or electronic comments amendment is treated as impermissibly prescribe by regulations. However, for
must be received by February 23, 2017. reducing accrued benefits. However, the purposes of section 417(e)(3), these rates
Outlines of topics to be discussed at the last sentence of section 411(d)(6)(B) are to be determined without regard to
public hearing scheduled for March 7, provides that the Secretary may by the segment rate stabilization rules of
2017, must be received by February 23, regulations provide that section section 430(h)(2)(C)(iv). In addition,
2017. 411(d)(6)(B) does not apply to a plan under section 417(e)(3)(D), these rates
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: amendment that eliminates an optional are to be determined using the average
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–107424–12), Room form of benefit (other than a plan yields for a month, rather than the 24-
5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. amendment that has the effect of month average used under section
Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, eliminating or reducing an early 430(h)(2)(D).
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions retirement benefit or a retirement-type Section 411(a)(13) of the Code, as
may be hand-delivered Monday through subsidy). added by section 701(b) of PPA ‘06,
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and Section 417(e)(1) provides that a plan provides that an ‘‘applicable defined
4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–107424– may provide that the present value of a benefit plan,’’ as defined by section
12), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue qualified joint and survivor annuity or 411(a)(13)(C), is not treated as failing to
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., a qualified preretirement survivor
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

meet the requirements of section 417(e)
Washington, DC, or sent electronically, annuity will be immediately distributed
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at if that present value does not exceed the 1 Under section 411(a)(11)(B), the same applicable

http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG– amount that can be distributed without mortality table and applicable interest rate are used
107424–12). The public hearing will be the participant’s consent under section for purposes of determining whether the present
value of a participant’s nonforfeitable accrued
held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal 411(a)(11). Section 417(e)(2) provides benefit exceeds the maximum amount that can be
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution that, if the present value of the qualified immediately distributed without the participant’s
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. joint and survivor annuity or the consent.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:01 Nov 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP1.SGM 25NOP1
Document Created: 2016-11-23 23:17:45
Document Modified: 2016-11-23 23:17:45
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 January 24, 2017.
Contact		Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6281, [email protected] Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8524, [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 85176
81 FR 85176 - Essential Reliability Services and the Evolving Bulk-Power System-Primary Frequency Response

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 227 (November 25, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
