· 2020. 8. 18. · 1 February 22, 2011 To: NPCC Board of Directors From: Harvey J. Reed Re: NERC Meetings of the Member Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees – February

1

February 22, 2011 To: NPCC Board of Directors From: Harvey J. Reed Re: NERC Meetings of the Member Representatives Committee

and Board of Trustees – February 16th & 17th Ladies and Gentlemen: A review of the above referenced meetings is provided below for your information. Member Representatives Committee – February 16th Election of Board of Trustees - Paul Barber, Fred Gorbet, Janice Case & Roy Thilly unanimously approved. Remarks by Gerry Cauley, NERC President and CEO

1. Reliability summit was an important milestone. It showed that the level of communication, dialogue, and awareness between FERC, NERC and the industry of reliability issues is at a high level. The messages that came out of summit were:

a. NERC should focus on addressing most important issues next b. NERC should deliver reliability value to ratepayers c. NERC should have an annual review of the “State of Bulk Power

Reliability”’ d. Reassess the term ALR (adequate level of reliability) e. Bulk Electric System (BES) Definition issues

2. Strategic Planning Process includes a process in which NERC engaged the regional executives to structure what needs to be accomplished and will develop a three year strategic plan that will provide the basis for the business planning of NERC and the regions.

3. NERC needs to develop an expedited process for standards development and to focus on most important standards.

4. He would like to see a “Trial Compliance Period” when standards first appear, in which fines would be advisory and fixes can be made during the learning stage.

5. His biggest concern is making sure that standards are adequate meaning that they are technically sufficient.

6. Cold Snap – asking the question whether all areas of the continent have learned the lessons from previous cold snap incidents and assimilated them, since this is not a new issue.

2

7. Alerts a. Hopes that angst over the facilities ratings alert has been alleviated by

subsequent NERC and industry actions. b. Industry response was adequate to the challenge including some good

responses. c. Hopes industry and NERC are on a progressive path to make Alerts a

normal part of business. 8. Believes international compliance is a concern, but has seen progress. He views

standards as the key, if we are going to have an ERO. BES Definition

1. BES definitions needs to meet three criteria which are: a. Eliminate regional differences b. 100 kV bright line c. Develop exemption process that includes exempt radial facilities

2. Standards development process has two elements which are: a. Standard development – develop standard b. Rules of procedure (ROP) – develop rules of procedure for administering

the exemptions 3. BES ROP Work Group will develop process for administering procedure. 4. Major Issues

a. Scope of new definition including types of facilities and how to address smaller resources.

b. Administration of exception process i. Do they need to be modeled?

ii. Where is exception process housed? c. There will be two coordinated teams needed to develop a standard, which

are the standards development team and the rules of procedure team i. Criteria that will be used to define exceptions will be in the

standard. ii. How the criteria are administered will be in the rules of procedure.

5. Comments from MRC a. Make exception process clear b. Make process transparent and open, since there are real issues that have an

impact on customers. NERC staff should not go off on its own without input from stakeholders.

c. How does definition interact with ALR? That is, what are we protecting system from cascading outages or loss of load?

d. Joe McClelland (FERC) – The Commission has been very explicit in its order. The Commission told the industry what its concern is and provided the industry with an opportunity to develop standard to comply. He is anxiously awaiting industry response.

e. Gerry Cauley i. Had discussions with Commission.

ii. This is a different style of order. They told us what they wanted. So we must be sufficiently responsive to the directives of order.

iii. NERC needs to meet or exceed Commission’s expectations. iv. Need consistent approach across regions. v. Need to answer cascading vs. loss of load issue.

3

vi. Need review at MRC and BOT level. NERC Priorities for Addressing Risks to Reliability 1. Gerry Cauley

a. The distributed list of top 8 reliability priorities is not necessarily an exhaustive list. Thus, the list is a living document and can and will be revised going forward.

b. What’s next: i. Standards for next year

ii. Auditing iii. From a strategic risk management perspective how we balance HILF

with normal prioritization developed from mining the data contained in TADS, GADS and other data bases.

iv. Gas issues are emerging – do we have loss of pipeline adequately considered?

2. Comments from MRC a. Encouraged by real progress and trust that is developing with the

Commission. b. Cost vs. benefits needs to be part of the prioritization process. c. Misoperation and human error is where NERC needs to focus. d. Respond to Joe McClelland (see below).

3. Joe McClelland (FERC) – Gerry has done an exceptional job of gleaning the key issues from the blackout report and commends him for the product. Mentioned spare equipment, smart grid, service life of new equipment (do we know), frequency response re port and don’t worry about ALR.

Lessons Learned from Recent Alerts 1. Alert process is one of the most important NERC processes for communicating

important issues to the industry. 2. NERC wants a process that consistently delivers alerts. 3. Process should include stakeholder input and be timely. 4. NERC will attempt to modify rules of procedure by year end and then implement

process. 5. Comments: NERC should not only review the technical issue with stakeholders, but

how important an alert is as well. 6. Presentation by Carol Dodson (BGE) about how BGE reacted to alert using LIDAR

a. Gerry Cauley commented that the BGE response was good and commended them for the process.

b. Dodson – LIDAR cost $750-850K per circuit mile. c. Issue – BGE took certain line outages in order to fix identified issues. If this

approach was taken simultaneously across a wide area to meet an alert issue, it could lead to a less reliable system and significantly effect economics of the system.

NERC Metrics 1. Detailed presentation at next meeting. 2. Cost will be in business plans 3. May need modifications to delegation agreements

4

ERO Enterprise Strategic Direction 1. Gerry Cauley

a. Feeds into business planning process b. A lot of goals are aspirations. c. Will ask whether this is a good roadmap. d. This is a working document. e. Agreed to cost-effectiveness f. Agreed to work with regulators to get them on board. g. Agreed to ALR issue

2. Comments

a. Plan needs to address relationship with regulators b. ALR is an issue that should be addressed c. Cost-effectiveness or cost benefit analysis should be performed.

3. Janice Case – Should look at in context of risk based methodology contained in white papers.

Board of Trustees Meeting – February 17th 1. Presidents Report -Comments by Gerry Cauley

a. Exceptional report and response by BGE. His enthusiasm for the approach does not reflect an endorsement for taking lines out. He believes that transmission operators should take a cautious approach to taking lines out. That is, a proper response is to posture to a safer place without over reacting to alert.

b. Standards that have been developed are improving NERC’s credibility (e.g. CIP-2). As NERC moves forward it is better positioned based upon a solid platform.

c. Government has a better understanding of the function of NERC and relationship with government labs, DOD, Homeland Security, etc.

d. NERC is able to classify what is good enough to meet security concerns. NERC is working with government to define the worst case scenario. There is a considerable concern about critical sites (DOD locations). However, NERC is working to make sure that security and resilience is maintained.

e. Challenge is to demarcate the role of NERC from the role of government. 2. Update on Canadian regulatory matters 3. Election of Offices – all elected unanimously 4. ERO Enterprise Strategic Direction

a. Paul Barber – goals and objectives are on target b. Dave Goulding – endorsed goals, but is concerned that goals are too generic

so they might be stretched to mean everything, which defeats purpose of setting goals.

c. Tom Berry – goal number 2 reliability excellence has an intersection with the Transmission Forum, which is important as NERC moves forward.

d. John Q. Anderson summarized by soliciting continued input from stakeholders.

5

5. Reliability Standards

a. Project 2007-04 – Certifying System Operators – approved i. Fred Gorbet concerned about minor violations leading to high VSL’s

ii. Dave Goulding concerned about control room staff without certification and who is responsible (supervisor or employee).

b. Project 2009- 17 –Interpretation – approved c. Standards Development Prioritization – approved

i. Paul Barber believes tool is good, but concerned that use could cause resources to be moved from project in mid stream.

ii. Gerry Cauley and Bruce Scherr- tool should be approved by Standards Oversight Committee, but actual priorities developed from tool should be approved by board.

iii. Standards Oversight approved tool and priorities will come to board in March.

d. CIP-001-2 Sabotage Reporting TRE Regional exception – approved e. Supplemental VSL Modification will come back to board in March. f. TPL- Table 1 – approved g. Relay Loadability – ballot was close but unsuccessful. NERC will ask FERC

for extension of time to file, since expectation is that NERC is very close to developing a standard using the normal processes.

h. BES Definition – Board emphasized that policy questions should come back to board when they are encountered. After much discussion of ALR, bright line test (100 kV) and continent wide standards Gerry Cauley suggested that MRC set-up a special task force to monitor and make sure that policy issues including single continent wide standard are addressed promptly.

6. TADS –data collection of events – approved 7. Nebraska Entitles Request to Transfer Compliance Registration - After much

discussion of reliability and economic impact of change, board was evenly split. Chairman Anderson broke the deadlock by voting no, so request was denied.

8. Standing Committee Reports were presented to board. 9. Finance and Audit – approved unaudited statements.

a. Audit of ERO by compliance committee is a concern for Gerry Cauley, since he believes audit is an internal function. He recommends that NERC use an independent auditor for a risk based audit.

From: Guy V. ZitoTo: rscSubject: NERC BOT Items of InterestDate: Thursday, March 10, 2011 5:47:22 PM

RSC Members, The NERC BOT today discussed and approved the following items; 1) The NERC 2011-2013 Workplan with the prioritized standards2) The PRC-023-1 Standard (Relay Loadability) Phase 1 due to FERC by March 16th. 3) The VSLs for the CIP Version 44) A set of VSLs for various other standards5) The NERC filing in response to the FERC performance assessment was reviewed,discussed and approved as an "Informational" filing for FERC. due date for filing is March18th 2011. We can discuss at our meeting next week. Thanks, Guy V. ZitoAssistant Vice President-StandardsNortheast Power Coordinating Council, Inc.1040 Avenue of the Americas, 10 th FloorNew York, NY 10018212-840-1070212-302-2782 fax

mailto:/O=NPCC/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GZITOmailto:[email protected]

116-390 Village Blvd. Princeton, NJ 08540

609.452.8060 | www.nerc.com

Agenda Board of Trustees Conference Call

March 10, 2011 | 2:00–3:00 p.m. ET Dial-In: 800-954-1051 Code: No Code Needed

Introductions and Chair’s Remarks NERC Antitrust Compliance Guidelines

Agenda

1. Reliability Standards* — Approve

a. Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013

b. Supplemental Violation Severity Level Modifications

c. CIP Reliability Standards Versions 2, 3, and 4 Violation Risk Factors and Violations Severity Levels

d. PRC-023 – Relay Loadability Reliability Standard and NERC Rules of Procedure Section 1700 - Challenges to Determinations

2. Response to FERC Order on Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment* — Approve

*Background materials enclosed.

116-390 Village Blvd. Princeton, NJ 08540

609.452.8060 | www.nerc.com

1

Antitrust Compliance Guidelines

I. General It is NERC’s policy and practice to obey the antitrust laws and to avoid all conduct that unreasonably restrains competition. This policy requires the avoidance of any conduct that violates, or that might appear to violate, the antitrust laws. Among other things, the antitrust laws forbid any agreement between or among competitors regarding prices, availability of service, product design, terms of sale, division of markets, allocation of customers or any other activity that unreasonably restrains competition. It is the responsibility of every NERC participant and employee who may in any way affect NERC’s compliance with the antitrust laws to carry out this commitment. Antitrust laws are complex and subject to court interpretation that can vary over time and from one court to another. The purpose of these guidelines is to alert NERC participants and employees to potential antitrust problems and to set forth policies to be followed with respect to activities that may involve antitrust considerations. In some instances, the NERC policy contained in these guidelines is stricter than the applicable antitrust laws. Any NERC participant or employee who is uncertain about the legal ramifications of a particular course of conduct or who has doubts or concerns about whether NERC’s antitrust compliance policy is implicated in any situation should consult NERC’s General Counsel immediately.

II. Prohibited Activities Participants in NERC activities (including those of its committees and subgroups) should refrain from the following when acting in their capacity as participants in NERC activities (e.g., at NERC meetings, conference calls and in informal discussions):

• Discussions involving pricing information, especially margin (profit) and internal cost information and participants’ expectations as to their future prices or internal costs.

• Discussions of a participant’s marketing strategies.

• Discussions regarding how customers and geographical areas are to be divided among competitors.

Antitrust Compliance Guidelines 2

• Discussions concerning the exclusion of competitors from markets. • Discussions concerning boycotting or group refusals to deal with competitors,

vendors or suppliers.

• Any other matters that do not clearly fall within these guidelines should be reviewed with NERC’s General Counsel before being discussed.

III. Activities That Are Permitted From time to time decisions or actions of NERC (including those of its committees and subgroups) may have a negative impact on particular entities and thus in that sense adversely impact competition. Decisions and actions by NERC (including its committees and subgroups) should only be undertaken for the purpose of promoting and maintaining the reliability and adequacy of the bulk power system. If you do not have a legitimate purpose consistent with this objective for discussing a matter, please refrain from discussing the matter during NERC meetings and in other NERC-related communications. You should also ensure that NERC procedures, including those set forth in NERC’s Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Rules of Procedure are followed in conducting NERC business. In addition, all discussions in NERC meetings and other NERC-related communications should be within the scope of the mandate for or assignment to the particular NERC committee or subgroup, as well as within the scope of the published agenda for the meeting. No decisions should be made nor any actions taken in NERC activities for the purpose of giving an industry participant or group of participants a competitive advantage over other participants. In particular, decisions with respect to setting, revising, or assessing compliance with NERC reliability standards should not be influenced by anti-competitive motivations. Subject to the foregoing restrictions, participants in NERC activities may discuss:

• Reliability matters relating to the bulk power system, including operation and planning matters such as establishing or revising reliability standards, special operating procedures, operating transfer capabilities, and plans for new facilities.

• Matters relating to the impact of reliability standards for the bulk power system on electricity markets, and the impact of electricity market operations on the reliability of the bulk power system.

• Proposed filings or other communications with state or federal regulatory authorities or other governmental entities.

• Matters relating to the internal governance, management and operation of NERC, such as nominations for vacant committee positions, budgeting and assessments, and employment matters; and procedural matters such as planning and scheduling meetings.

Agenda Item 1 Board of Trustees Meeting March 10, 2011

1

Reliability Standards

Action Approve reliability standards and plans as follows:

a. Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 — Approve

b. Supplemental Violation Severity Level Modifications — Approve

c. CIP Reliability Standards Versions 2, 3, and 4 Violation Risk Factors and Violations Severity Levels — Approve

d. PRC-023 – Relay Loadability Reliability Standard and NERC Rules of Procedure Section 1700 - Challenges to Determinations — Approve

2

a. Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 Action Request that the Board of Trustees (board) approve the Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 and direct staff to file the updated development plan with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and applicable governmental authorities in Canada for informational purposes. The clean version of the revised Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 is available at the following link: [2011-2013_RS-Development-Plan_Revised_Clean].

The redline version of the revised Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 is available at the following link: [2011-2013 RS-Development-Plan_Revised_Redline]

Background On November 4, 2010 the board approved the Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 and directed NERC staff to work with the Standards Committee and the newly formed Standards Oversight and Technology Committee to review priority issues and develop an alternative, better-prioritized plan to present to the board at the February 2011 meeting. In response to this directive, the Standards Committee coordinated with NERC staff on the development of the Standards Development Project Prioritization Tool (“Prioritization Tool”) which was endorsed by the Standards Oversight and Technology Committee. The Prioritization Tool prioritizes standards development projects based, in part, on risks and policy issues of each project that are then quantified and ranked. This ranking will help to identify higher priority projects in order for NERC staff and the Standards Committee to appropriately utilize NERC staff and industry resources in the development of NERC Reliability Standards. The use of the Prioritization Tool was presented to and endorsed by the board at its February 17, 2011 meeting. Since that time, NERC staff has developed an updated version of the Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013, re-prioritizing the standards development projects using the Prioritization Tool. The Standards Committee is currently voting on the revised Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013. The vote will conclude on March 8, 2011. NERC staff will update the board on the March 10 call with the results of the Standards Committee’s vote. The revised Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 includes several improvements relating to the assignment of weights to the numerous factors used in the process as compared to the previous version presented to the board for its approval on November 4, 2010. It is anticipated that use of the Prioritization Tool will assist the Standards Committee in examining the prioritization of each Reliability Standard or reliability issue requiring attention each year. As more experience is gained in use of the Prioritization Tool, NERC staff and the Standards Committee will work to improve and enhance the tool over time. NERC staff and the Standards Committee expect that in the future, prioritization of standards development projects and use

http://www.nerc.com/files/2011-2013_RS-Development-Plan_Revised_Rev_00_2011-03-2-FINAL%20rev6.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/files/Reliability%20Standards%20Development%20Plan-Redline.pdf�

3

of the Prioritization Tool are going to be more dynamic, thereby allowing continual management of project development based on reliability risks to the bulk power system. 2011-2013 Projects The revised Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 identifies a total of 35 continent-wide standards development projects either active or planned as of March 3, 2011. The list below illustrates the initial working of the Prioritization Tool to prioritize the pending projects. It will be a dynamic list that the Standards Committee adjusts over time. Projects included in the first table are those projects identified as high priority projects based on the results of the Prioritization Tool. Projects included in the second table are projects that are ongoing and are expected to be completed shortly. The third table identifies additional projects that are expected to be initiated in order of priority. These projects will be moved up in the priority list as each of the projects in the first two groups move to the final balloting stage and receive board and regulatory approval, thereby freeing up staff and industry resources to work on these projects.

High Priority Projects 1 Project 2008-06 Cyber Security - Order 706 2 Project 2007-17 Protection System Maintenance & Testing 3 Project 2007-06 System Protection Coordination 4 Project 2010-07 Generator Requirements at the Transmission Interface 5 Project 2007-12 Frequency Response 6 Project 2007-02 Operating Personnel Communications Protocols 7 Project 2006-02 Assess Transmission and Future Needs 8 Project 2010-17 Definition of Bulk Electric System 9 Project 2007-03 Real-time Transmission Operations

10 Project 2007-09 Generator Verification 11 Project 2009-01 Disturbance and Sabotage Reporting 12 Project 2010-05 Protection Systems

Projects Continuing and Expected to Complete Shortly 13 Project 2006-06 Reliability Coordination 15 Project 2007-07 Vegetation Management -* Project 2010-13 Relay Loadability Order Phase 1 -* Project 2010-15 Remote Access Urgent Action

4

Additional Projects to be Initiated in Order of Priority

14 Project 2010-14 Balancing Authority Reliability-based Control 16 Project 2007-11 Disturbance Monitoring 17 Project 2008-01 Voltage and Reactive Planning and Control 18 Project 2010-13 Relay Loadability Order Phase 2

19 Project 2009-02 Real-time Reliability Monitoring and Analysis Capabilities

20 Project 2009-03 Emergency Operations 21 Project 2008-12 Coordinate Interchange Standards 22 Project 2010-01 Support Personnel Training 23 Project 2009-04 Phasor Measurements 24 Project 2008-02 Undervoltage Load Shedding 25 Project 2009-07 Reliability of Protection Systems 26 Project 2010-08 Functional Model Glossary Revisions 27 Project 2010-04 Demand Data 28 Project 2010-03 Modeling Data 29 Project 2009-05 Resource Adequacy Assessments 30 Project 2012-02 Physical Protection 31 Project 2010-02 Connecting New Facilities to the Grid 32 Project 2012-01 Equipment Monitoring and Diagnostic Devices -* Project 2010-16 Definition of System Operator

* Phase 1 of Project 2010-13 was not included in the prioritization process as it is near completion; Phase 2 is included and was ranked as number 18. Project 2010-15 was not included in the prioritization, as it is an "urgent action" project and expected to complete shortly. Project 2010-16 was inadvertently excluded from the prioritization process, and will be considered in the next review of project priorities.

Other minor changes to improve readability and maintenance of the revised Reliability Standards Development Plan: 2011-2013 are also included in the revised plan. A link to the Reliability Standards Development Plan webpage is included here for reference: http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|247|290. If board members have questions or need additional information, they may contact Herb Schrayshuen at [email protected].

http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2|247|290�mailto:[email protected]�

5

b. Supplemental Violation Severity Level Modifications Action Request the board approve modifications to the selected Violation Severity Levels (VSLs) and direct staff to file the updated VSLs with FERC and applicable governmental authorities in Canada. The Clean version of the supplemental VSL changes is available at the following link: [Supplemental_VSL_Filing_Clean]. The Redline version of the supplemental VSL changes is available at the following link: [Supplemental_VSL_Filing_Redline]. Background In a June 2008 Order, FERC directed NERC to review all VSL assignments for compliance with certain guidelines, and to submit a compliance filing either justifying the current VSL assignments or proposing revisions. Proposed VSLs were balloted in 2009 and a revised proposed set of VSLs was filed with FERC on March 5, 2010. The March 5, 2010 filing included VSLs for 83 Reliability Standards. This is known as the VSL I filing. NERC filed the second set of VSLs for the remaining Reliability Standards on December 1, 2010. This is known as the VSL II filing and is not a topic of this approval request. In December 2010, NERC and The Commission staff met to discuss 14 sets of VSLs in need of further modification from the VSL I filing. In some cases, changes were needed for clarity, and in others, to ensure compliance with the Commission’s VSL Guidelines. The December 2010 meeting with Commission staff focused only on the VSLs included in NERC’s March 5, 2010 filing. NERC has not yet received feedback from FERC staff on the VSL filing made on December 1, 2010. In coordination with drafting team members of the Project 2007-23 – Replace Levels of Non-Compliance with Violation Severity Levels, NERC staff proposed changes to this group of 14 VSLs to ensure clarity and compliance with FERC Guidelines. On January 20, 2011, the proposed changes were posted for a 30-day concurrent formal comment and non-binding poll period that ended on February 18, 2011. A non-binding poll took place during the last 10 days of this period, from February 9, 2011 through February 18, 2011, and was extended through February 22, 2011 to ensure that quorum was reached. The poll ultimately reached a quorum of 78 percent and 72 percent of those who provided an opinion indicated support for the VSLs that were proposed. On March 1, 2011, the VSL drafting team held a conference call to review stakeholder comments from the 30-day formal comment and non-binding poll period, develop responses to those comments, and make corresponding changes to the proposed VSL modifications. Further changes were made for five sets of VSLs, all to improve clarity, better reflect the language in the requirement, or more fully abide by FERC’s VSL Guidelines. These additional changes and the full body of 14 revised VSLs have been reviewed by NERC staff, and both a clean and a redline version of these revised VSLs (compared to the current FERC-approved VSLs) are included for board review. The VSL drafting team’s comment report, along with the clean and redline

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/2011_03_01_VSL_Filing_1_Supplemental_Changes_Clean.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/2011_03_01_VSL_Filing_1_Supplemental_Changes_Redline_to_FERC-Approved.pdf�

6

versions of the revised VSLs, have been posted on the NERC website so that stakeholders can view the final submitted modifications. NERC staff plans to file the proposed modifications to the 14 sets of VSLs for consideration by the board in a supplemental filing to be filed in March 2011. A link to the project history and files is included here for reference: http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/VSLs_Project_2007-23.html If board members have questions or need additional information, they may contact Herb Schrayshuen at [email protected].

http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/VSLs_Project_2007-23.html�mailto:[email protected]�

7

c. CIP Reliability Standards Versions 2, 3, and 4 VRFs and VSLs Action Request the board approve the comprehensive list of violation risk factors (VRFs) and violation severity levels (VSLs) for the CIP Reliability Standards Versions 2, 3, and 4 for filing with the FERC and applicable governmental authorities in Canada no later than March 21, 2011. The attachments included with this agenda item include the following:

• A REDLINE of the VRFs and VSLs for the CIP Version 2 Standards that includes the FERC-approved VRFs and VSLs for Version 2 plus the directed modifications from the January 20, 2011 Order.

• A REDLINE of the VRFs and VSLs for the CIP Version 3 Standards that includes the FERC-approved VRFs and VSLs for Version 3 plus the directed modifications from the January 20, 2011 Order.

• A REDLINE of the VRFs and VSLs for the CIP Version 4 Standards that are carried over from the FERC-approved Versions 2 and 3 VRFs and VSLs, plus the directed modifications from the January 20, 2011 Order, plus conforming changes to accommodate revisions made to the CIP Version 4 Reliability Standards filed with FERC for approval on February 10, 2011.

Summary On December 18, 2009, NERC filed a petition requesting FERC approval of proposed VRFs and VSLs for the CIP Version 2 Reliability Standards. On December 29, 2009, NERC filed a petition for approval of the proposed VRFs and VSLs for the CIP Version 3 Reliability Standards. FERC issued an order on January 20, 2011 (January 20 Order) approving the VRFs and VSLs for the CIP Versions 2 and 3 Standards, and directed modifications to be filed by March 21, 2011. On February 10, 2011, NERC filed a petition for approval of the CIP Version 4 Standards that carried over the VRFs and VSLs from Versions 2 and 3 to Version 4. Due to the short amount of time between the issuance of FERC’s January 20 Order and NERC’s February 10 filing, the VRFs and VSLs included in NERC’s CIP Version 4 petition did not take into consideration the changes directed in the Commission’s January 20 Order. NERC staff has prepared for the board’s approval comprehensive lists of VRFs and VSLs for CIP Versions 2, 3, and 4 based on the VRFs and VSLs approved in the January 20 Order. The comprehensive lists also include the directed changes from the January 20 Order as well as minor, conforming changes. Upon board approval, NERC staff will file the complete lists of VRF and VSLs for CIP Versions 2, 3, and 4 with the Commission for approval no later than March 21, 2011. Background FERC’s January 20 Order addressed the CIP Version 2 and 3 VRFs and VSLs filed by NERC based on previously-issued FERC VRF and VSL guidelines. FERC approved NERC’s proposed VRFs and VSLs for CIP Versions 2 and 3, but directed that a modification be made to the VRF for the CIP-003-2 Reliability Standard to change the VRF from “Lower” to “Medium” based on FERC’s VRF

8

guidelines. No modifications were directed to be made to the VRFs for the CIP Version 3 standards. FERC’s January 20 Order also directed modifications to the VSLs for the following CIP Version 2 and Version 3 standards:

• Based on CIP Guideline 1, modify CIP-004-2 Requirement 2.1; CIP-005-2 Requirement R1.5; and CIP-006-2 Requirements R1.2, R1.5, R2, and R8.

• Based on CIP Guideline 2, modify CIP-004-2 Requirements R1 and R2; CIP-005-2 Requirement R2.3; CIP-006-2 Requirements R1.1, R4, R5, and R6; and CIP-007-2 Requirements R2 and R3.

• Based on the VSL Guideline 2(b), modify CIP-003-2 Requirements R2.1 and R3.2; CIP-004-2 Requirements R3; CIP-006-2 Requirements R1.7, R4, R6, and R7; CIP-007-2 Requirement R2, R2.3, R3, R3.2, R7, and R9; CIP-008-2 Requirement R1, and CIP-006-2 Requirement R3.

• Modify CIP-009-2 Requirement R3 to adjust the gradations based on the time an entity is not compliant to assess the VSLs.

• Based on CIP VSL Guideline 1, modify CIP-004-2 Requirements R1 and R2; and CIP-006-2 Requirement R1.1 and R1.2.

• Consistent with Guideline 2(b), modify CIP-007-2 Requirement R9.

• The Commission directed that VSLs be added for CIP-007-2 Requirements R2.3 and R3.2.

• Revise the VSLs for CIP-006-3 Requirement R1.6 to add rows containing “N/A” for the new sub-requirements R1.6.1 and R1.6.2, consistent with how other sub-requirements have been treated.

If board members have questions or need additional information, they may contact Herb Schrayshuen at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]�

9

d. PRC-023 – Relay Loadability and NERC Rules of Procedure Section 1700 – Challenges

to Determinations Action Request the board approve the proposed PRC-023-2 — Transmission Relay Loadability Reliability Standard, associated implementation plan, and a proposed Section 1700—Challenges to Determinations section to be added to the NERC Rules of Procedure, as directed by the FERC in Order No. 733 and Order No. 733-A, and direct staff to file the updated development plan with FERC and applicable governmental authorities in Canada by March 18, 2011. The proposed PRC-023-2 standard (Clean and Redline versions) are available at the following links: [PRC-023-2 – Clean] [PRC-023-2 against PRC-023-1 – Redline to last approval] A link to the proposed Section 1700—Challenges to Determinations to the Rules of Procedure is available at the following link: [ROP_Section_1700_Dispute_Resolution_Procedure]. Background The PRC-023 — Transmission Relay Loadability Reliability Standard was developed in response to relay loadability issues brought to light by the investigation of the August 14, 2003 blackout. Relay loadability issues were determined to be either causal or contributory to many of the major system disturbances dating back to the 1965 blackout. Therefore, the standard under development is intended to prevent circuits from prematurely tripping due to relay loadability when thermally overloaded. Version 1 of NERC Reliability Standard PRC-023 was originally developed based on direction from the NERC System Protection and Control Task Force (now the System Protection and Control Subcommittee), and in particular, Recommendation 8a of NERC’s Final Report on the August 2003 Blackout and Recommendation 21a of the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force’s Final Report on the Blackout. That work was completed in 2008 and approved by the Commission as mandatory and enforceable in March 2010 in FERC Order No. 733. Order No. 733 also directed NERC to make a number of changes to the standard to be filed within one year of the date of the Order (i.e., by March 18, 2011). PRC-023, Version 2 The proposed PRC-023-2 standard incorporates parts of the changes to PRC-023-1 that were directed by the Commission in Order No. 733, which focuses on Transmission Relay Loadability.1

1 Subsequent phases of Project 2010-13 will address Generator Relay Loadability and Protective Relays Operating Unnecessarily Due to Stable Power Swings. In Order No. 733, the Commission directed NERC to develop new Reliability Standards addressing generator relay loadability and the use of protective relay systems that can differentiate between faults and stable power swings. Work on those new Reliability Standards began in January 2011 with the formation of a new drafting team to address Generator Relay Loadability.

The proposed PRC-023-2 standard was posted for a 45-day formal comment period from November 1, 2010 to December 16, 2010, with a concurrent ballot held during the last 10 days of the comment period. The PRC-023-2 standard includes the “applicability test”

http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2010/031810/E-5.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/PRC-023-2_clean_20110224.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/PRC-023-2_redline_to_last_approval_20110224.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/files/ROP_Section_1700_Dispute_Resolution_Procedure.pdf�

10

that was established by a Blue Ribbon Panel of industry experts formed by NERC for use by Planning Coordinators to determine whether a sub-200 kV facility must comply with PRC-023-2. A 20-day successive ballot and non-binding poll was conducted on the PRC-023-2 standard and VRF/VSLs, respectively, from January 24, 2011 to February 14, 2011. The successive ballot achieved a quorum of 83.95 percent and a weighted segment approval of 65.71 percent. For the non-binding poll on the VRF/VSLs, 80.0 percent of those registered provided an opinion, and 65 percent of those who provided an opinion indicated support for the VRFs and VSLs that were proposed. The drafting team revised the text of the standard and the VRF/VSLs to account for industry input and the formal comments received, and formally responded to each of the stakeholder comments. The PRC-023-2 standard was posted for a 10-day Recirculation Ballot from February 24, 2011 to March 7, 2011, and an industry webinar2

was held on March 2, 2011 to provide the industry with an opportunity to ask questions and better understand the issues and concerns being addressed and the reasoning behind the revisions made to the standard.

Proposed Section 1700 to Rules of Procedure Additionally, on January 21, 2011, NERC posted for industry comment proposed changes to the NERC Rules of Procedure Section 1700 – Challenges to Determinations, which provide a mechanism for registered entities with concerns about an “applicability test” determination made by a Planning Coordinator to challenge the determination. The posting period for the proposed Section 1700 will close on March 7, 2011. The proposed Rule of Procedure changes require the registered entity to first work with the Planning Coordinator directly. If the matter cannot be resolved there, the registered entity may ask the appropriate Regional Entity to decide the matter. An entity not satisfied with the Regional Entity decision may appeal to NERC. Review at the NERC level would be handled by a panel appointed by the board for that purpose. The board would have the discretion, but not the obligation, to review the matter further upon request. An entity may seek ERO governmental authority review of the NERC decision. Recent FERC Order Order No. 733 included a requirement that NERC revise PRC-023 to include an applicability test. On February 17, 2011, FERC issued Order 733-A which granted NERC a 24-month extension for filing the “applicability test” and the results of the testing from a representative sample of utilities. However, NERC is still obligated to file the requirements and other portions of PRC-023-2 with FERC by March 18, 2011. Because FERC had not acted on NERC’s request for an extension of time earlier, the drafting team included the applicability test as Attachment B of the PRC-023-2 standard on the assumption that it, too, would need to be filed on March 18, 2011. The drafting team anticipates that the test results will confirm the content of the applicability test. Current Status NERC staff is presenting both the proposed PRC-023-2 standard and the proposed Section 1700 – Challenges to Determinations Rules of Procedure changes to the board for approval on the March 10, 2011 Board of Trustees call. The recirculation ballot for the proposed PRC-023-2 standard and the comment period for the proposed Section 1700 changes will close on March 2 Webinar broadcast audio for March 2, 2011 Project 2010-13 Transmission Relay Loadability – PRC-023-2.

11

7, 2011. NERC staff will update the board during the March 10 conference call on final ballot results from the recirculation ballot and on any changes to proposed Section 1700 to take account of the comments received in response to the proposed Section 1700 Rule of Procedure posting. A link to the project history and files is included here for reference: http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/SAR_Project%202010-13_Order%20733%20Relay%20Modifiations.html. If board members have questions or need additional information, they may contact Herb Schrayshuen at [email protected]. Additionally, NERC recommends reviewers replay the March 2, 2011 webinar where the industry was apprised of the most recent changes in response to industry comments. This can be found at the following [Project 2010-13 Transmission Relay Loadability – PRC—023 – Webinar – March 2, 2011]

http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/SAR_Project%202010-13_Order%20733%20Relay%20Modifiations.html�http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/SAR_Project%202010-13_Order%20733%20Relay%20Modifiations.html�mailto:[email protected]�http://www.nerc.com/filez/webinars/prc_023_2_std_03022011/lib/playback.html�http://www.nerc.com/filez/webinars/prc_023_2_std_03022011/lib/playback.html�

Agenda Item 2 Board of Trustees Conference Call March 10, 2011

Response to FERC Order on Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment

Action Approve draft filing. Background The Commission’s September 16, 2010 order on NERC’s Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment filing of July 2009 included a number of directives and other actions for NERC to respond to in an informational filing due March 16, 2011. The attached Working Draft, dated March 4, 2011, and its several appendices, are provided to the board for approval for filing in essentially the form submitted, with the understanding that further changes will continue to be made to improve the informational filing up to the date it is filed with the Commission.

http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_on_NERC_Three_Year_Assessment.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/files/NERC_3-year_Assessment_report_COMPLETE_FINAL7-20-09.pdf�http://www.nerc.com/files/NERC_3-year_Assessment_report_COMPLETE_FINAL7-20-09.pdf�

1 WORKING DRAFT – March 4, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. RR09-7-000 RELIABILITY CORPORATION ) AD10-14-000

INFORMATIONAL FILING OF THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION

IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION’S SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 ORDER

[WORKING DRAFT – March 4, 2011]


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction A. Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment B. FERC Acceptance of NERC Filing and Request for Informational Filing C. Response to Commission Discussion of Opportunities for Improvement in Each Program

Area 1. Specific Directives, Other Actions, and Additional Guidance 2. Progress in Implementing Specific NERC Actions Identified in the Three-Year ERO

Performance Assessment Related to Each Area of Discussion II. Discussion

A. Response to Commission Discussion of Opportunities for Improvement in Each Program Area 1. Development of Reliability Standards

a. Quality of Proposed Reliability Standards b. Time Required to Develop Reliability Standards c. NERC Staff’s Technical Capability d. Prioritization of Reliability Standards Development and Results-Based Standards

2. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement a. Audit Practices

i. Uniformity ii. Focus Audits on Actual Performance

iii. Participation in Regional Entity Compliance Audits by NERC Staff and Commission Staff

b. Penalty Determinations c. Delegation Agreements d. No-Action Letter Proposal e. Administrative Citation Process

3. Critical Infrastructure Protection 4. Compliance Registry 5. Situational Awareness, Event Analysis, Reliability Assessment and Performance

Metrics a. Situational Awareness b. Event Analysis

i. Improvements to Event Analysis ii. Timing of and Interaction between Event Analysis and Compliance

Violation Investigations c. Reliability Assessment

i. Assessment Reports ii. Assessment Process Improvement

iii. Assessment Data Collection and Validation 6. Business Planning and Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Reporting and

Assessment Processes B. Evaluation of Regional Entities


1. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement a. Issues Concerning all Regional Entities

III. Conclusion Appendix A – Progress in Implementing Specific NERC Actions from the Three-Year ERO

Performance Assessment Appendix B – Event Categories and Levels of Analysis (As documented in the ERO Event

Analysis Process Manual, October 25, 2010) Appendix C – Chapter 9 – Scenario Assessment of the NERC Reliability Assessment Guidebook Appendix D – A Summary of Canadian Provincial Adoption of Reliability Standards Framework


Index to NERC Responses to Directives and Other Actions from September 16, 2010 FERC Order on Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment

P No. Directive Page 62 Directs NERC to submit an informational filing six months from the date of

this order updating the Commission on NERC’s progress in prioritizing and implementing the various action items.

8

76 Directs NERC to consider the following practices for use during the Standards development process as possible means to accomplish these objectives: (1) posting proposed regional Reliability Standards for comment from the continent-wide pool of interested stakeholders for consideration, while allowing the regional open processes to make final determinations to be submitted to NERC; (2) providing for comments from NERC technical staff on proposed regional Reliability Standards; and (3) including regional Reliability Standards in other NERC review processes that it uses for continent-wide Reliability Standards. We further direct NERC to discuss its considerations regarding these suggestions in the informational filing due six months from the date of this order.

13

85 Renews the directive that NERC submit quarterly reports on standards development for additional three years, with additional detail of required analysis.

15

126 Directs NERC to continue its oversight of Regional Entity audits with NERC staff that are technically proficient.

22

127 Directs NERC and Regional Entities to have their staff, and Commission staff where applicable, discuss the appropriate role of observers during their pre-audit meetings or conferences.

23

169 Directs NERC to establish criteria it will use to select a subset of events, which should focus on those with the highest impact to reliability, to provide important “lessons learned” and submit the criteria in the informational report.

36

170 Directs NERC to work with the Regional Entities to ensure that they provide to Commission staff sufficient and timely information on each event. NERC must report on steps it will take to implement this directive in the informational report.

37

171 Directs NERC to develop communication protocols between NERC, the Commission and the Regional Entities for use during events and report on its progress in the informational filing.

37

178 NERC shall report on the steps it has taken to clarify the interface between event analyses and compliance activities, including CVIs, in response to the Commission’s guidance in the informational filing.

39

178 Directs NERC to include, in its informational filing due six months after the issuance of this order, the procedures to be used within its Operations and Engineering function relating to the communication and exchange of event analysis and investigative information, and procedures under which the Operations and Engineering function will communicate event analysis and investigative information to the compliance staff of NERC or a Regional Entity.

39


180 Directs NERC to continue developing scenario analysis in the long-term reliability assessments using the criteria noted above. We require NERC to update its reliability assessment protocols to establish a requirement for an annual scenario analysis and to file this update in the informational filing.

41

183 Directs NERC to develop a plan to address capacity and energy in its reliability assessment methodology and a timeline for executing the plan, and submit the plan and timeline as part of the 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment and file its preliminary plan and timeline in the informational filing.

42

185 Directs NERC to consider establishing permanent data bases that could be automatically populated with: (i) new transmission projects data from the Regional Entities, (ii) generation interconnection queue data, and (iii) other data relevant for reliability assessment. We require NERC to discuss the feasibility of this improvement, and to the extent databases covering this information already exist, discuss how to better utilize or integrate that information into the Reliability Assessments in the informational filing.

43

195 Directs NERC to include a report in the informational filing detailing the feasibility of establishing a NERC-led Strategic Planning initiative utilizing multiple year budgets.

44

217 Directs NERC to report, in the informational filing, on the timeline and plan for development of a non-public central compliance data hub, including details regarding how it will operate, what information it will contain, and whether it will supplant existing processes for providing non-public data to the Commission.

46

220 Direct NERC to explain in the informational filing how it would implement risk-based approaches to compliance activities and at the same time complete its currently-required audit cycles.

48


P No. Other Actions Page 12 The Commission will hold a second Commissioner-led technical conference

to discuss reliability monitoring, enforcement, and compliance issues in November 2010. The Commission will work with NERC and Canadian regulators develop an agenda for this conference.

10

13 The Commission will hold a Commissioner-led conference in either January or February of 2011 and will work with NERC and Canadian regulators on identifying a date and appropriate topics for discussion.

10

57 NERC should continue to seek recognition in Canada and Mexico, as appropriate and keep the Commission informed about the status of those efforts.

11

138 Agrees that NERC should develop performance metrics that help to ensure consistent implementation of the compliance enforcement process across the regions.

27

152 Encourages NERC to intensify its efforts to provide additional oversight and guidelines to assist registered entities in accurately determining that an asset is critical to the Bulk-Power System. (critical cyber asset identification)

33

219 Provides that if NERC still wants to pursue a “warning ticket” mechanism, it must explain how the mechanism would work without running afoul of the concerns raised. NERC is free to provide that explanation in the informational filing or, if it chooses to take additional time to develop the mechanism, in a later filing.

30


I. INTRODUCTION

A. Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted its “Three-Year Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Performance Assessment Report” (“Assessment”) on July 20, 2009, in accordance with the requirements of the Commission’s regulations at 18 C.F.R. §39.3(c). The Assessment consisted of the following documents:

Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment Report Overview Appendix A – List of Specific NERC Actions in Response to Stakeholder and Regional

Entity Comments and Recommendations Attachment 1– (I) Discussion of How NERC Meets the Certification Criteria of 18 C.F.R.

§39.3(b); and (II) NERC Program Areas Statement of Activities and Achievements; with Appendix A – Analysis of Duration of Standards Development Projects, January 2002 – May 2009, and Appendix B – Analysis of Standards Ballot Results, July 2006 – May 2009

Attachment 2 – Stakeholder and Regional Entity Comments and Recommendations, and NERC’s Discussion of the Comments and Recommendations and Specific NERC Actions

Attachment 3 – NERC Evaluation of Regional Entities Attachment 4 – Joint Regional Entity Self-Assessment and Regional Entity Statements of

Activities and Achievements Attachment 5 – Stakeholder Survey Results

The Assessment demonstrated how NERC is meeting the requirements of 18 C.F.R. §39.3(b), and that it is successfully carrying out its statutory and regulatory responsibilities as the ERO to develop and enforce mandatory reliability standards and to promote and maintain the reliable operation of the North American bulk power system. The Assessment also provided NERC’s evaluation of the effectiveness of the Regional Entities, and discussed comments and recommendations received from interested entities concerning the performance of NERC and the Regional Entities. In Appendix A, the Assessment identified actions that NERC and the Regional Entities are taking or plan to take to improve NERC’s and the Regional Entities’ operations to continue to enhance the reliable operation of the bulk power system.

B. FERC Acceptance of NERC Filing and Request for Informational Filing In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 54, the Commission found that NERC continued to satisfy the criteria in Federal Power Act Section 215 and the Commission’s regulations for certification as the ERO and that each of the Regional Entities continues to meet the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria. In addition, the September 16, 2010 Order contained a number of specific directives and other actions that NERC was to address in this informational filing. Finally, in the September 16, 2010 Order, the Commission provided additional guidance in a number of other areas; in this informational filing, NERC is commenting on or providing current information concerning its activities with respect to a number of the areas of additional guidance.


C. Response to Commission Discussion of Opportunities for Improvement in Each

Program Area In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 62, the Commission stated:

“… we direct NERC to submit an informational filing six months from the date of this order updating the Commission on NERC’s progress in prioritizing and implementing the various action items.”

1. Specific Directives, Other Actions, and Additional Guidance

NERC’s response to each Commission specific directive or other action in the September 16, 2010 Order is identified as “NERC Response to Commission’s Directive – P XX” or “NERC Response to Commission’s Other Action – P YY” in the applicable sections of this informational filing. NERC’s comments on certain of the other Commission conclusions and guidance that appear in the September 16, 2010 order are also included as supplemental informational responses.

2. Progress in Implementing Specific NERC Actions Identified in the Assessment Related to Each Area of Discussion

Attachment 2 of the Assessment included summaries of stakeholder and Regional Entity comments and recommendations that were received concerning each NERC program area, NERC’s discussion of and responses to these comments and recommendations, and specific actions NERC is taking or plans to take in light of the comments and recommendations. The Specific NERC Actions covered the following program areas and activities:

A. Reliability Standards Development B. Organization Registration and Certification C. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement D. Event Analysis and Information Exchange E. Reliability Assessment F. Performance Analysis and Metrics G. Critical Infrastructure Protection H. Situation Awareness I. Training, Education, and Personnel Certification J. Finance and Controls K. Stakeholder Communications and Public Relations

Many of the Specific NERC Actions identified in the Assessment correlated well with the results of the Crowe Horwath Process Evaluation Report for NERC’s Compliance Enforcement, Registration, and Certification Program,1 which identified a number of suggested improvements to the Regional Delegation Agreements and the Rules of Procedure with respect to these programs. NERC and the Regional Entities worked aggressively and cooperatively to develop 1 http://www.nerc.com/files/Compliance_Evaluation_Report_121509.pdf


revisions to the Regional Delegation Agreements and associated changes to the Rules of Procedure to address these issues. NERC filed the proposed revised Delegation Agreements and the proposed revisions to the Rules of Procedure with the Commission on June 9, 2010.2 The revised Delegation Agreements and Rules of Procedure were conditionally approved by the Commission in its Order issued October 21, 2010,3 and became effective January 1, 2011 pursuant to that Order, subject to certain compliance items that were filed February 18, 2011.4 Progress in implementing the Specific NERC Actions identified in each of the above areas is described in Appendix A to this filing – “Progress in Implementing Specific NERC Actions Identified in the Three-Year ERO Performance Assessment.”

2 Petition for Approval of Revised Pro Forma Delegation Agreement, Revised Delegation Agreements with the Eight Regional Entities, and Amendments to the NERC Rules of Procedure, filed June 9, 2010 in Docket No. RR10‐11‐000 (“NERC June 9, 2010 Petition”), available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/NERCRDAROPPetition6092010.pdf. 3 Order Conditionally Approving Revised Pro Forma Delegation Agreement, Revised Delegation Agreements with Regional Entities, Amendments to Rules of Procedure and Certain Regional Entity Bylaws, 133 FERC ¶ 61,061 (2010) (“October 21, 2010 Order”), available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_Cond_Appr_Revised_Del_Agree_Bylaws_10212010.pdf. 4 Compliance Filing of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation In Response to October 21, 2010 Commission Order, available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/NERCFeb182011ComplFil.pdf.


II. DISCUSSION

A. Response to Commission Discussion of Opportunities for Improvement in Each Program Area

In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 12, the Commission stated:

“The Commission believes that the July 6 Conference provided a useful, high level discussion of topics that concern NERC, the industry, and regulators in North America and we intend to continue that dialogue. In noticing the July 6 Conference, the Commission stated that it intends to convene a second Commissioner-led technical conference to discuss reliability monitoring, enforcement, and compliance issues.”

Further, in P 13, the Commission stated:

“Going forward, NERC’s proposal to hold periodic technical conferences offers a constructive opportunity for NERC, industry, and regulators to discuss policy issues in an open and inclusive forum. NERC and commenters have identified a number of high-level policy issues relating to Reliability Standards development and modification. The Commission believes that a public dialogue on these high-level policy and priority issues will help clarify expectations for the NERC Reliability Standards development process. Accordingly, the Commission will also hold a Commissioner-led conference in January or February of 2011, and will work with NERC and international regulators on identifying a date and developing a specific agenda. Once an agenda is set, the Commission will issue a notice of this further conference.”

NERC Response to Commission’s Other Actions – PP 12 and 13

NERC participated in the November 2010 and February 2011 high-level technical conferences along with a number of other stakeholders. NERC believes those conferences were extremely beneficial in continuing the high-level dialogue that needs to occur among Commissioners and NERC and stakeholder executives. NERC encourages the Commission to continue with such conferences on at least an annual basis, to evaluate the current state of reliability of the bulk power system and bring needed focus to high-level policy and priority issues. Because the bulk power system spans the international border with Canada, it is important that Canadian stakeholders and policy-makers also be included in those technical conferences. In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 57, the Commission stated:

“the Commission generally is satisfied with other features of NERC’s Rules of Procedure, including rules that provide fair and impartial procedures for enforcing Reliability Standards and rules that provide for broad participation, notice and opportunities for comment in developing Reliability Standards. NERC should continue to seek recognition in Canada and Mexico, as appropriate and keep the Commission informed about the status of those efforts.”


NERC Response to Commission’s Other Action – P 57

In connection with and following the 3-Year Assessment, NERC and the Regional Entities conducted an extensive review of the NERC Rules of Procedure. Revisions to the Rules of Procedure were filed with the Commission for approval on June 9, 20105 and were conditionally approved by the Commission in its Order issued October 21, 2010,6 to be effective January 1, 2011. These revisions included, among other things, revisions to Section 400 concerning Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement and to Appendix 4C, the Uniform Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program. During 2010 NERC also filed and obtained approval for revisions to Appendix 3A to the Rules of Procedure, Standards Processes Manual (formerly Reliability Standards Development Procedure.)7 The Commission approved NERC’s petition and directed a compliance filing in its order dated September 3, 2010.8 Finally, also during 2010, NERC filed and obtained Commission approval for amendments to Section 500, Organization Registration and Certification, and Appendix 5A, Organization Registration and Certification Manual, of the Rules of Procedure.9 Therefore, during 2010 NERC developed, submitted and obtained approval for revisions to the Rules of Procedure pertaining to NERC’s two most significant statutory activities — reliability standards development and monitoring and enforcement of compliance with reliability standards by registered entities. Further, on December 23, 2010, NERC made its compliance filing10 proposing certain further changes to NERC’s standards development procedure, as directed by the Commission’s March 18, 2010 order.11 That filing remains pending. NERC has a policy of periodically reviewing and updating its Rules of Procedure. NERC expects to complete a project on reviewing the Rules of Procedure during 2011. NERC will be soliciting input from stakeholders and will follow the public posting process described in Section 1400 of the Rules of Procedure for making any needed changes. In addition, NERC continues to seek recognition in Canada and Mexico, as appropriate. Attached to this informational filing as Appendix D is a report on the status, as of February 10, 2011, of NERC’s efforts to gain recognition and the implementation of a system of enforceable

5 NERC June 9, 2010 Petition, available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/NERCRDAROPPetition6092010.pdf 6 October 21, 2010 Order, available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_Cond_Appr_Revised_Del_Agree_Bylaws_10212010.pdf 7 Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of the Reliability Standard Processes Manual Incorporating Proposed Revisions to the Reliability Standards Development Process, filed June 10, 2010 in Docket RR10‐_‐000 available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Final_Standards_Process_Manual_Filing.pdf 8 http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_Approving_Directing_ComplianceFiling_932010.pdf 9 Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendments to Rules of Procedure Regarding Compliance and Certification Committee Program and for Approval of Amended Compliance and Certification Committee Charter, filed March 15, 2010, in Docket No. RR10‐8‐000; approved by Letter Order issued June 10, 2010. 10 Compliance Filing in Response to March 18, 2010 Order Directing Revisions to Standards Development Procedure, filed December 23, 2010 in Docket No.RR09‐6‐000, available at http://www.nerc.com/files/FinalFiledCompFiling_on_Stds_Process_20101223.pdf 11 Order Directing NERC to Propose Modification of Electric Reliability Organization Rules of Procedure, available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_Directing_Modification_ERO_ROP_31510.pdf


reliability standards in each Canadian jurisdiction that includes portions of the bulk power system.

1. Development of Reliability Standards

In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 67, the Commission commended NERC on its efforts and progress in moving the industry from a voluntary to a mandatory Reliability Standards environment, and encouraged NERC to continue its efforts to improve its process for developing high quality Reliability Standards. The Commission identified several areas of improvement that it directed NERC to pursue in its efforts to fulfill its statutory responsibility to develop Reliability Standards to improve and protect Bulk-Power System reliability, which are described and discussed in more detail below.

a. Quality of Proposed Reliability Standards In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 74, the Commission stated:

“We remain concerned about the ability of the NERC Reliability Standards Development Process to develop high quality Reliability Standards that not only protect, but improve, the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. The development of such high quality Reliability Standards is absolutely essential to meeting these goals, providing a clear roadmap for industry to comply with reliability requirements and allowing NERC, the Commission and international regulators to monitor this compliance. In order to accomplish this goal, we have urged NERC to take certain measures, including hiring staff with the technical capability to independently advise the NERC Board of Trustees regarding the substantive content of proposed Reliability Standards.”

In P 75, the Commission stated:

“We share EEI’s concerns that ambiguities should be minimized in Reliability Standards to the extent possible. The 95 Commission-approved Reliability Standards contain over 700 requirements and may not clearly account for every variation of compliance scenario. NERC should continue to work to address concerns regarding the clarity of Reliability Standards, and several NERC action items will address this concern. In particular, NERC compliance with the outstanding directives of prior Commission orders, such as Order No. 693, will improve the clarity of Reliability Standards.”

In P 76, the Commission stated:

“We encourage NERC, as the entity ultimately responsible for the quality of regional Reliability Standards, to exercise strong oversight to ensure that all regional Reliability Standards developed are necessary and justified. NERC’s goal and practice in guiding and communicating with the Regional Entities and stakeholders should be uniformity of Reliability Standards, as uniformity encourages best practices and enhances reliability. NERC also should lead the Regional Entities in their development efforts to ensure consistency and quality in regional Reliability Standards. We direct NERC to consider


the following practices for use during the Standards development process as possible means to accomplish these objectives: (1) posting proposed regional Reliability Standards for comment from the continent-wide pool of interested stakeholders for consideration, while allowing the regional open processes to make final determinations to be submitted to NERC; (2) providing for comments from NERC technical staff on proposed regional Reliability Standards; and (3) including regional Reliability Standards in other NERC review processes that it uses for continent-wide Reliability Standards.”

NERC Response to Commission’s Directive – P 76 NERC has modified its standards development processes to improve quality for all standards, both continent-wide and regional standards. The specific portion of the Standards Processes Manual (Appendix 3A to the Rules of Procedure) dealing with standards quality is found on page 15 of the manual.12 This new addition to the process was approved by the Commission in its order of September 3, 2010.13 The specific provisions for conducting quality reviews, as stated in the manual, are:

“The standards staff shall coordinate a quality review of the “final draft” of the standard, implementation plan, VRFs and VSLs to assess whether the documents are within the scope of the associated SAR, whether the standard is clear and enforceable as written, and whether the standard meets the criteria specified in NERC’s Benchmarks for Excellent Standards and criteria for governmental approval of standards, VRFs and VSLs. This review shall be completed within 30 days of receipt of the final version of the documents from the drafting team. The detailed results of this review shall be provided to the drafting team and the Standards Committee with a recommendation on whether the documents are ready for formal posting and balloting.”

The ERO Executive Management Group (ERO/EMG) has established a Regional Standards Group (RSG) to provide process and policy recommendations in the execution of the Regional Delegation Agreements and the NERC Rules of Procedure, specifically as they pertain to the development of regional standards. The overarching objective of the RSG is to coordinate the development of regional and continent-wide standards to support and continually enhance reliability across North America. A primary initiative of the RSG is to create and sustain viable standards development coordination processes to obtain consistency and uniformity, where appropriate, across the ERO enterprise (NERC, the Regional Entities, and stakeholders), while ensuring efficient and effective use of resources in executing the statutory responsibilities of the ERO as the reliability standards development authority. Among the key objectives of the RSG is to provide a forum for disseminating the most recent FERC and ERO information such as training, guidelines, directives and mandates to effectively and efficiently disseminate information regarding regional reliability standards. As such, the

12 Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A, available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Appendix_3A_Standard_Processes_Manual_20100903.pdf 13 Order Approving Petition and Directing Compliance Filing, available at: http://www.nerc.com/files/Order_Approving_Directing_ComplianceFiling_932010.pdf


RSG will consider the practices identified by the Commission in P 76 for use in the Regional Entities’ standards development processes. NERC agrees with the Commission’s suggestion to post proposed regional reliability standards for comment by the continent-wide pool of interested stakeholders, while allowing final determinations to be made through the Regional Entities’ respective standards development processes. The NERC Rules of Procedure allow NERC to publicly notice and post for comment proposed regional reliability standards concurrent with similar steps in the Regional Entity’s reliability standards development process (Sections 312.3, Procedure for Developing an Interconnection-wide Regional Standard and 312.4, Procedure for Developing Non-Interconnection-Wide Regional Reliability Standards.) NERC and the Regions will post the proposed regional reliability standard during the development steps of the standard and then will conduct a subsequent second posting of the proposed regional standard on the NERC website once all the steps specified by the Regional Entity’s standards development process are completed. The second posting on the NERC site will focus on collecting industry feedback to determine if the proposed regional reliability standard has been developed in accordance with all applicable procedural requirements. NERC agrees with the Commission’s suggestion that NERC should provide NERC technical comments on proposed regional reliability standards. NERC may submit technical comments during the development steps of a regional reliability standard, when appropriate. These technical comments will be given consideration as required by the Regional Entities’ reliability standards development processes. NERC added a staff person in February 2011 to support this activity. NERC agrees with the Commission’s suggestion that reviews of the regional reliability standards should be performed in a process similar to reviews of continent-wide standards. The Regional Entities in collaboration with NERC will conduct quality reviews of proposed regional reliability standards during the development steps of the standard. Regional Entities will also perform informal reviews as the standard is proceeding through the development process with the goal of improving quality. This was done on a limited basis in 2010; more will be done in 2011 as a result of the availability of the additional resource noted above.

b. Time Required to Develop Reliability Standards

In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 85, the Commission stated:

“While we are encouraged by NERC’s efforts to revisit its Standards Development Process, we believe that it is important that the Commission continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Reliability Standards Development Process and, therefore, renew the directive that NERC submit quarterly reports for an additional three years from the date of this order. In addition to the contents described in the January 2007 order, the quarterly reports must include separate analyses of: (i) the time required to complete projects (i.e., excluding urgent action projects); (ii) the time required to complete projects initiated in response to NERC’s urgent action process (including whether or not a permanent fix was implemented within the sunset period); and (iii) the time required to complete projects in


response to Commission directives. The analysis should include data on the time required for each stage of the process. For example, the analysis should document the time required to move a proposed Reliability Standard from a Standards Authorization Request to the NERC Board, and then to the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission directs NERC to continue to file quarterly reports as required by the January 18, 2007 Order within 30 days of the end of each quarterly period, beginning with the fourth quarter of 2010, through and including the fourth quarter of 2013.”

NERC Response to Commission’s Directive – P 85

NERC Analysis of NERC Standard Process Results Fourth Quarter 2010 in Docket Nos. RR06-1-000, RR09-7-000,14 as filed with the Commission on January 31, 2011, responds to the Commission’s directive in P 85. The January 31, 2011 filing includes a summary analysis for all of the information identified in P 85, for the time period since NERC was certified as the ERO in 2006. For the purpose of developing meaningful analyses in response to this directive, the January 31, 2011 report groups standards projects into the following categories:

Projects to Develop New Standards or Definitions Projects to Revise Existing Standards or Definitions Expedited Projects Projects to Develop Interpretations of Existing Standards

NERC believes that grouping projects in these categories will provide the Commission a more refined view of the standards process and will allow NERC and its stakeholders to pinpoint additional efficiencies that can be incorporated. Beginning with the report on NERC’s first quarter 2011standards process results, additional information will be provided on NERC’s responsiveness to Commission standards directives. NERC will continue to file these quarterly reports, including the expanded information, through and including the fourth quarter of 2013.

c. NERC Staff’s Technical Capability In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 89, the Commission noted that NERC reported it had dedicated 14.5 full-time employees to the Reliability Standards Development Process in 2009, as well as additional consultant resources. The Commission also noted that NERC reported in its July 2009 Performance Assessment that it had 28 active Reliability Standards development projects and eight interpretations underway as of the time of that filing. The Commission observed that:

14 http://www.nerc.com/files/Final_2010‐Q4_Ballot_Results_Filing_20110131.pdf


“Based on this work load, the Commission will continue to monitor whether the current staffing level is adequate to perform the substantive role intended by NERC in the Performance Assessment or by the Commission in previous budget orders.”

While there is no specific directive in the September 16, 2010 order on this issue, NERC notes that in its Commission-approved 2011 Business Plan and Budget NERC has budgeted 20.08 FTEs for the Reliability Standards Program, which is an increase of 2.58 FTEs from the 2010 Budget, and reflects the addition of three new staff members during 2011.15 At the time of this informational filing, the number of Standards-related employees (including three dedicated employees from the Legal and Regulatory department) stands at 24. NERC is currently conducting a further evaluation of Standards Program area resource requirements in connection with the preparation of its 2012 business plan and budget and at this time anticipates proposing further additions to the Standards Program area staff. These standards specialists are expected to focus on quality assurance, technical writing, information processing, and regulatory interface responsibilities. These resource additions should enable the Reliability Standards program to provide more timely delivery of high priority standards through more targeted development processes; and better overall project management through enhanced training of both stakeholder participants on drafting teams and staff.

d. Prioritization of Reliability Standards Development and Results-Based

Standards

Prioritization of Reliability Standards Development In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 105, the Commission stated:

“We believe that improved prioritization of the Reliability Standards development process will alleviate some of the burdens discussed by NRECA and APPA, while allowing their members to continue to participate in the Reliability Standard development process and without jeopardizing the quality of Reliability Standards. We also agree with NERC that it should develop a list of all outstanding Commission Reliability Standards directives and a process for prioritizing them. This process must balance the Commission’s directives and associated guidance, industry inputs, and feedback on reliability performance from the event analysis, reliability assessment, and compliance programs. We expect that this process will aid in identifying projects of the highest importance to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System and allow NERC to work effectively with industry to strike the proper balance in maintaining optimum industry participation in the Reliability Standards development process.”

While there is no specific directive in the September 16, 2010 order on this issue, NERC has placed significant attention on the prioritization of reliability standards development activities.

15 The indicated increase of 2.58 FTE reflects the fact that the three new staff members will not be added as of January 1, 2011, but rather are projected to be added at various points during the year.


NERC will continue to use its annual Reliability Standards Development Plan to prioritize and guide reliability standards development activities. The prioritization process for the 2011-2013 Plan is expected to result in fewer active standards projects. These projects, however, will be those that provide the most “reliability benefit” for the invested resources. Presentations and discussions at the February 8, 2011 FERC technical conference, which focused on how current reliability issues and standards development initiatives can be ranked and selected to ensure that the key reliability issues are addressed earliest, will also be used as input to this prioritization process. In addition, NERC has developed a list of all outstanding FERC reliability standards directives and a prioritization process for reliability standards development that strikes a balance between regulatory directives, industry input, and feedback on reliability performance from the event analysis, reliability assessment, and compliance programs. Specifically, NERC has identified over 800 specific FERC-directed actions from several orders and included them in an issues database where they will be prioritized and integrated into the respective work plans of various standards development projects. Results-Based Standards In its September 16, 2010 Order, P 106, the Commission stated:

“Now that NERC has obtained some experience with developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards, it is appropriate for it to assess whether the number and quality of the Reliability Standards are causing users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System to achieve national reliability goals effectively and efficiently. While NERC has not asked for approval of this [Results-Based Standards] initiative at this time, the Commission will offer some preliminary guidance as NERC begins to develop Reliability Standards that will serve as a “proof of concept” for this initiative. We stress that ultimately, the determination as to whether a revised Reliability Standard is consistent with FPA section 215 and Order No. 672 will be made based on the merits of the Reliability Standards as they are submitted for approval.”

The Commission provided the following guidance regarding results-based standards:

P 107 – “Revised Reliability Standards should incorporate the Commission’s directives from prior orders, such as Order Nos. 693 and 706 and other orders that address the substantive performance goals of the Bulk-Power System. These directives focus on the areas most critical to the Bulk-Power System and any revisions should ensure that these directives are met.”

P 108 – “We understand that the results-based standards initiative will strive to minimize administrative requirements, such as documentation, within the Reliability Standards and to convert such requirements to guidelines or compliance measures. The Commission will carefully examine any proposals to eliminate requirements to ensure that any such changes neither lessen the degree of reliability ensured by an existing approved Reliability Standard nor undermine enforceability. While it may be appropriate to move


certain administrative requirements from a Reliability Standard to guidelines, others are necessary to measure compliance and should remain as mandatory elements of the Reliability Standard. Thus, NERC must clearly demonstrate that any proposed elimination of a requirement does not diminish the reliability and enforceability of the existing Reliability Standard. Most importantly, NERC and the Regional Entities cannot rely solely on post-event measurements of compliance.”

P 109 – “We understand that the proposed results-based standard format may include expanded background sections, expanded descriptions of a Reliability Standard’s purpose, and/or explanations about the intent of individual Requirements. This information may provide useful context but it should not contradict or seek to supersede or interpret the requirements within a Reliability Standard. The requirements within the Reliability Standard should govern, and the application of the Standard should be clear without reference to the background or purpose sections.”

P 110 – “Commenters suggest that the results-based standards initiative should strive to eliminate duplicative requirements by either retiring or converting them into guidelines with lower level requirements. However, a requirement cannot be retired without its associated reliabili

Documents

· 2020. 8. 18. · 1 February 22, 2011 To: NPCC Board of Directors From: Harvey J. Reed Re: NERC Meetings of the Member Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees – February