[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27574-27586]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM11-20-000; Order No. 763]

Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding and Load Shedding Plans
Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability
Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-
003-2 (Load Shedding Plans), developed and submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC), the Electric Reliability Organization certified by the
Commission. In addition, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the
Commission directs NERC to develop a modification to clarify the intent
of one provision of the Reliability Standard. The approved Reliability
Standards establish design and documentation requirements for automatic
underfrequency load shedding programs that arrest declining frequency
and assist recovery of frequency following system events leading to
frequency degradation. The Commission approves, with modifications, the
related Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels,
implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. The
Commission also approves the regional variance for the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective July 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Schmidt (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-6568<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris.

Final Rule

Issued May 7, 2012.

    1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding) and EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans). In
addition, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission
directs the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to
develop a modification to clarify the intent of one provision of the
Reliability Standard. The approved Reliability Standards were developed
and submitted for approval to the Commission by NERC, the Commission
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for
developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. The approved
Reliability Standards establish design and documentation requirements
for automatic underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) programs, which are
meant to arrest declining frequency and assist recovery of frequency
following underfrequency events and provide last resort system
preservation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission approves, with modifications, the related
Violation Risk Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs),
implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. The
Commission approves the retirement of the currently-effective
Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1, and the
NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0. Further, the Commission
approves the regional variance for the Western Electricity Coordinating
Council (WECC) in PRC-006-1.

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

    3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to
develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are
subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission
oversight, or by the Commission independently.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a
process to select and certify an ERO \3\ and, subsequently, certified
NERC as the ERO.\4\ On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No.
693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC,
including Reliability Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1.\5\
The Commission neither approved nor remanded NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC-006-0 in Order No. 693,\6\ which required regional
reliability organizations to develop, coordinate, document and assess
UFLS program design and effectiveness at least every five years. The
Commission determined neither to approve nor remand this ``fill-in-the-
blank'' Reliability Standard because the regional procedures had not
been submitted, and the Commission held that it would not propose to
approve or remand PRC-006-0 until the ERO submitted the additional
information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ]
61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (2006),
aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    \5\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P 603, order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \6\ Id. P 1479.
    \7\ Id. PP 1477, 1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NERC Petition

    5. On March 31, 2011, NERC filed a petition seeking Commission
approval of Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 (Automatic Underfrequency
Load Shedding) and EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans), and the concurrent
retirement of the currently-effective Reliability Standards PRC-007-0,
PRC-009-0, and EOP-003-1, and the NERC-approved Reliability Standard
PRC-006-0. The petition, as amended on May 17, 2011, states that PRC-
006-1 establishes design and document requirements for UFLS programs
that arrest declining frequency and assist recovery of frequency
following system events leading to frequency degradation.\8\ The
petition states that EOP-003-2 makes minimal changes to EOP-003-1 by
removing references to UFLS, which NERC describes as

redundant in light of PRC-006-1, and instead focuses EOP-003-2 on
undervoltage conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket included a
primer on UFLS programs generally. Automatic Underfrequency Load
Shedding and Load Shedding Plans Reliability Standards, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 66,220 (October 26, 2011), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,682 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The petition states that Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 achieves
a specific reliability goal by establishing design and documentation
requirements for automatic UFLS programs to arrest declining frequency,
assist recovery of frequency following underfrequency events, and
provide last resort system preservation measures. Further, the petition
states that PRC-006-1 contains a technically sound method to achieve
its reliability goal by establishing a framework for developing,
designing, assessing and coordinating UFLS programs, and that PRC-006-1
is clear and unambiguous regarding what is required and who is required
to comply with the Reliability Standard.
    7. In the petition, NERC proposes VRFs and VSLs, an implementation
plan, and an effective date. The petition requests an effective date
for Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 of one year following
the first day of the first calendar quarter after applicable regulatory
approvals with respect to all Requirements of the Reliability Standards
except Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1. With
respect to Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1, NERC
requests an effective date of one year following the receipt of the
generation data that would be required in draft Reliability Standard
PRC-024-1 \9\ but no sooner than one year following the first day of
the first calendar quarter after applicable regulatory approvals of
PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Draft Reliability Standard PRC-024-1 addresses ``Generator
Performance During Frequency and Voltage Excursions'' and is
currently being developed in the NERC standard drafting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    8. On October 20, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve Reliability Standards PRC-006-1
and EOP-003-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. The Commission proposed to
approve PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 because the UFLS program addressed in
the Reliability Standards is important to arresting declining frequency
and assisting recovery of frequency following system events that lead
to system instability, which can result in a blackout. The NOPR stated
that the Reliability Standards are necessary for reliability because
UFLS is used in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between
generation and load after an electrical island has been formed,
dropping enough load to allow frequency to stabilize within the island.
The NOPR concluded that PRC-006-1, in conjunction with the conforming
changes to EOP-003-2, provides last resort Bulk-Power System
preservation measures by establishing the first national Reliability
Standard of common performance characteristics that all UFLS programs
must meet.
    9. The NOPR proposed to approve the related VRFs and VSLs,
implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC. The NOPR also
proposed to approve the regional variance for WECC in Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1.
    10. While proposing to approve Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and
EOP-003-2, the NOPR addressed or sought comments on the following
issues: (A) Impact of resources not connected to the bulk electric
system; (B) validation of power system models used to simulate UFLS
programs; (C) scope of UFLS events assessments; (D) impact of generator
owner trip settings outside of the UFLS program; (E) UFLS program
coordination with other protection systems; (F) identification of
island boundaries in UFLS programs; (G) automatic load shedding in PRC-
006-1 and manual load shedding in EOP-003-2; (H) elimination of
balancing authority responsibilities in EOP-003-2; and (I) the ``Lower
VSL'' for Requirement R8 and the ``Medium'' VRF for Requirement R5 of
PRC-006-1.
    11. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by NERC and 12
interested persons.\10\ The comments generally support the approval of
Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2. The comments also
provide information responsive to the questions raised in the NOPR. In
the discussion below, we address the questions raised in the NOPR in
light of the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A list of the commenters is provided in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    12. The Commission approves Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and
EOP-003-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. The Commission's approval is
consistent with the broad support for the Reliability Standards
expressed in the comments. The UFLS program addressed in Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1 is important to arresting declining frequency and
assisting recovery of frequency following system events that lead to
system instability, which can result in a blackout. Accordingly, the
Reliability Standard is necessary for reliability because UFLS is used
in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between generation and
load after an electrical island has been formed, dropping enough load
to allow frequency to stabilize within the island. PRC-006-1, in
conjunction with the conforming changes to EOP-003-2, provides last
resort Bulk-Power System preservation measures by establishing the
first national Reliability Standard of common performance
characteristics that all UFLS programs must meet. For the same reasons,
we approve the regional variance for WECC in PRC-006-1. We also approve
the VRFs and VSLs designated for the requirements of the Reliability
Standards, with modifications, and the implementation plan and
effective date, as proposed by NERC.
    13. We address below the following issues raised in the NOPR in
light of the comments received: (A) Impact of resources not connected
to the bulk electric system; (B) validation of power system models used
to simulate UFLS programs; (C) scope of UFLS events assessments; (D)
impact of generator owner trip settings outside of the UFLS program;
(E) UFLS program coordination with other protection systems; (F)
identification of island boundaries in UFLS programs; (G) automatic
load shedding in PRC-006-1 and manual load shedding in EOP-003-2; (H)
elimination of balancing authority responsibilities in EOP-003-2; and
(I) the ``Lower VSL'' for Requirement R8 and the ``Medium'' VRF for
Requirement R5 of PRC-006-1. Regarding the last issue, the Commission
directs NERC to modify the ``Lower VSL'' for Requirement R8 of PRC-0061
and the ``Medium'' VRF for Requirement R5 of PRC-006-1 consistent with
the discussion below.

A. Impact of Resources Not Connected to Bulk Electric System Facilities

    14. Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires
planning coordinators to identify islands to serve as a basis for
designing UFLS programs. Requirement R3 addresses performance
characteristics for UFLS programs. Requirement R4 requires each
planning coordinator to conduct and document the assessment of its UFLS
design and determine if the UFLS program meets the performance
characteristics in Requirement R3 for each island identified in
Requirement R2. The simulations outlined in Requirement R4 all concern
individual generating units greater than 20 MVA gross nameplate rating
or generating plants/facilities greater then 75 MVA ``connected to the
bulk electric system.''

    15. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that some generation meeting
the 20 MVA and 75 MVA criteria in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1,
Requirement R4 would not be modeled pursuant to Requirement R4 because
it is not connected to bulk electric system facilities. The Commission
explained that a resource not directly connected to the bulk electric
system may serve load designed to be shed in a UFLS program. The
Commission expressed concern that failure to account for resources not
directly connected to the bulk electric system could result in planning
coordinators being unaware of how those resources respond to
underfrequency conditions. The Commission stated that if a planning
coordinator is unaware of how these resources respond, it may plan to
shed more load than is necessary for an area's frequency to return to
normal, which could cause an unintended overfrequency condition if the
plan is carried out in the operating timeframe. These conditions, in
turn, could cause the UFLS program to violate the performance
characteristics specified in Requirement R3 of PRC-006-1. The
Commission sought comment as to whether and how all resources required
for the reliable operation of the bulk electric system, including
resources not connected to bulk electric system facilities, are
considered in the development of UFLS programs under Requirements R3
and R4 of PRC-006-1.
Comments
    16. NERC agrees with the NOPR that failing to model qualifying
generation not directly connected to the bulk electric system could
affect the simulated frequency response. NERC, however, clarifies that
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 does not ``establish parameters for what
resources are modeled in [] simulations'' and that ``power system
models used in UFLS assessments are generally the same models used in
transmission planning assessments, which include models of all
generation units and plants that meet the threshold size requirements
even those not connected directly to the Bulk Electric System.'' \11\
In addition, NERC states that a standard authorization request is under
development as part of the ``second phase'' of the project to revise
the definition of bulk electric system, and information developed as
part of that project could be used to assess whether any changes are
needed to PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NERC Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. EEI, TAPS, MISO, and FRCC maintain that the vast majority of
qualifying generation is accounted for in Reliability Standard PRC-006-
1. EEI comments that bulk electric system resources account for the
``vast majority of resources within all interconnections'' and supports
the standard drafting team's belief that the Reliability Standard
generally captures about 95 percent of utility-owned installed
capacity.\12\ While EEI acknowledges that there are a small number of
unaccounted for generation resources that meet the qualifying criteria,
EEI comments that what is captured is sufficient for assessing reliable
operation of the bulk electric system. EEI also maintains that planning
coordinators already consider other resources as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EEI Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. TAPS states that the ``great majority'' of generators are not
set to trip before the underfrequency set points, so they will be
available for UFLS programs.\13\ TAPS contends that the only generators
of concern are those that: (1) Do not meet Reliability Standard PRC-
006-1's size and connection criteria; (2) trip prior to underfrequency
set points; and (3) are dispatched during underfrequency events because
they are not required to be modeled under PRC-006-1. TAPS maintains
that the number of generators that meet these criteria is ``very
small'' so that modeling them would have an ``infinitesimal reliability
benefit,'' not improving the overall accuracy of the UFLS program
design and not justifying the additional costs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ TAPS Comments at 4.
    \14\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. MISO states that UFLS simulations should not be required to
include all generation that meets the 20 MVA and 75 MVA criteria in
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, Requirement R4. MISO cites the standard
drafting team's belief that PRC-006-1 captures about 95 percent of
utility-owned installed capacity.\15\ MISO also maintains that the
standard drafting team deserves deference and that simulations will
always contain some degree of uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ MISO Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. FRCC states that generators that fall within the size
requirements of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 but that are not
connected to bulk electric system facilities constitute a ``very small
amount.'' \16\ FRCC maintains that this amount is well below the error
tolerance of a well-designed UFLS program and, thus, is not important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FRCC Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. SWPA states that planning coordinators, in developing UFLS
programs, should consider all resources that are determined to be
required for the reliable operation of the bulk electric system,
regardless of whether those resources are directly connected to the
bulk electric system.
    22. NYISO comments that it analyzes UFLS effectiveness using a
Multiregional Modeling Working Group dynamics model of the Eastern
Interconnection, which includes all resources on the system regardless
of bulk electric system connections.
Commission Determination
    23. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern regarding the
development of UFLS programs that fail to account for qualifying
generation not directly connected to the bulk electric system. We are
satisfied with the explanations provided by commenters. First, we are
persuaded by NERC's explanation that Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
does not limit the resources that can be modeled in the UFLS
assessments and that power system models used in UFLS assessments
generally model all qualifying generation, including resources not
directly connected to the bulk electric system. In summary, although
PRC-006-1 does not require all of the generation that is not directly
connected to the bulk electric system to be included in the modeling,
the subset of these resources that are required to assure that the UFLS
models are sufficient to accurately predict system performance will be
included. Similarly, we accept comments from EEI, TAPS, MISO, and FRCC
that PRC-006-1 requires modeling of the vast majority of qualifying
generation to ensure the reliable operation of the bulk electric
system.
    24. Like SWPA, the Commission believes that requiring all
qualifying assets to be accounted for in UFLS programs, regardless of
whether they are directly or indirectly connected to the bulk electric
system, is useful to ensuring the effectiveness of the programs. Not
requiring applicable entities to model sufficient amounts of qualifying
generation indirectly connected to the bulk electric system could
result in applicable entities not knowing how those resources react
during underfrequency situations, which could cause excessive load
shedding in an emergency and further contribute to system instability.
    25. NERC states in its comments that this issue could be further
evaluated in the ``second phase'' of the project to revise the
definition of bulk electric system, and that information from that
project could be used as a basis for

revising Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 if necessary.\17\ Without
prejudging those efforts, the Commission will not issue a directive
requiring the modeling of qualifying generation not directly connected
to the bulk electric system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NERC Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Validation of Power System Models

    26. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that dynamic simulations
that fail to accurately represent the power system can result in UFLS
programs that are ineffective. The Commission, however, concluded that
the UFLS program design requirements established in Requirement R2 of
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 and the required assessments established
in Requirements R4 and R11 of PRC-006-1 are generally acceptable and
include improvements over the current Reliability Standards.
Comments
    27. FRCC comments that improving the accuracy of power system
models used in simulating system response to forecasted system
conditions is an appropriate goal, but achieving 100 percent accuracy
is not practicable. EEI comments that dynamic simulations for any large
power system will never be 100 percent accurate and asks the Commission
not to impose any new directives which might unnecessarily increase
costs to industry.
    28. NYISO states that a lack of accuracy in modeling can have a
significant impact on analyses of under-generated islands.
Specifically, NYISO states that ``optimistic models of unit governing
response can lead to invalid conclusions regarding minimum frequency
and frequency recovery.'' \18\ NYISO indicates that it is taking steps
to improve the accuracy of modeling frequency recovery by, among other
things, aligning the dynamics model to observed system response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NYISO Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    29. The Commission accepts the comments from EEI and FRCC that
power system models with 100 percent accuracy are not practicable. The
Commission, however, is mindful of the consequences of inaccurate power
system models and their impact on an entity's ability to accurately
simulate system performance. As noted by NYISO, inaccurate models can
lead to invalid conclusions which can be detrimental to the analysis
and operation of the bulk electric system. At a minimum, the models
should accurately predict system performance during UFLS events.
Although entities may take additional steps, such as the step taken by
NYISO to ensure accurate models, as stated in the NOPR, the Commission
believes that the design requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
are acceptable.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs, ] 32,682 at P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. UFLS Event Assessments

1. Assessments in the Absence of Island Formation
    30. Requirement R11 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires
planning coordinators to conduct assessments after a ``BES islanding
event results in system frequency excursion below the initializing set
points of the UFLS program.''
    31. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that the phrase
``BES islanding event'' could be interpreted to mean that a planning
coordinator only has to assess an event if it meets both of the
following requirements: (1) System frequency excursions fall below the
initializing set point for UFLS; and (2) bulk electric system islands
form within the Interconnection. The Commission explained that, if
frequency falls below the initializing UFLS set point but islands do
not form (e.g., because the event was not severe enough to isolate
portions of the Interconnection, or UFLS or other protection systems
failed to operate properly to form islands), an assessment of the
performance of the UFLS program for this event is still useful because
it can determine if the UFLS program operated as expected. The
Commission sought comment on what actions must planning coordinators
take under Requirement R11 of PRC-006-1 if an event results in system
frequency excursions falling below this initializing set point for UFLS
but without the formation of a bulk electric system island.
Comments
    32. In its comments, NERC states that ``[a]lthough PRC-006-1 does
not prescribe an analysis for [the non-islanding scenario identified in
the NOPR], activating UFLS during an Interconnection-wide event would
involve a significant loss of generation and analysis would be
performed under the NERC Event Analysis program or the NERC Rules of
Procedure, depending on the severity of the event.'' \20\ NERC further
states that the ``activation of UFLS, while highly unlikely, would be a
significant event requiring assessment of several aspects of system
frequency, including system Frequency Response, equipment performance,
and coordination of protection and control systems, in addition to the
assessment of UFLS program operation.'' \21\ Ultimately, NERC agrees
that an assessment of the performance of UFLS, even in the absence of
island formation, is useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NERC Comments at 6.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. EEI and MISO agree with NERC that Requirement R11 of
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires both conditions (i.e.,
frequency excursion and islanding) to be met. MISO agrees with the NOPR
that an analysis of excursions without islanding is useful. However,
MISO and EEI comment that such an analysis is outside the scope of the
Reliability Standard. MISO, quoting the NOPR, states that UFLS ``is
designed for use in extreme conditions to stabilize the balance between
generation and load after an electrical island has been formed.'' \22\
Accordingly, MISO argues that a UFLS program ``can only truly be
assessed in light of its performance after an island has formed.'' \23\
In addition, such assessments are costly, time consuming and resource
intensive, according to MISO. EEI maintains that entities ``broadly
perform assessments of lesser events as they deem necessary.'' \24\ EEI
contends that such assessments are not required in PRC-006-1 because
``to do so would go beyond the intent of the program which is the
design of UFLS programs.'' \25\ Instead, EEI notes that applicable
entities normally conduct operational assessments regularly, and if an
entity identifies a problem the entity would report the matter as a
misoperation with an obligation to remediate. EEI also points to the
draft NERC Event Analysis Process \26\ and its application to what EEI
describes as ``underfrequency events of a lesser level'' (i.e., events
resulting in load shedding with a loss of load of 100 MW or more).\27\
EEI contends that the Commission's concerns regarding analysis of
lesser events will be satisfied once the NERC Event Analysis Process is
finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ MISO Comments at 4 (citing NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs. 32,682
at P 35).
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ EEI Comments at 5.
    \25\  Id.
    \26\ We understand the NERC Event Analysis Process to be the
same as the NERC Event Analysis program referenced in NERC's
comments.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. SWPA states that it is reasonable for planning coordinators to
request and analyze event data in the absence of island formation to
assess the performance of UFLS programs. Specifically, SWPA comments
that

``[t]he assessment of a UFLS event during varying system conditions
caused by generator outages, transmission outages, and various
maintenance activities, provides an opportunity to discover the impacts
of these activities on the expected outcomes described in the plan.''
\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ SWPA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    35. NERC clarifies that Requirements R11 and R12 of Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1 are triggered when system frequency excursions fall
below the initializing set points for UFLS programs and bulk electric
system islands form within Interconnections.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NERC Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. The Commission agrees with commenters that it would be useful
to have an analysis of system frequency excursions to assess the
performance of UFLS programs even in the absence of island
formation.\30\ To that end, we agree with NERC that underfrequency
events that result in the initializing of the UFLS set point, even in
the absence of island formation, would be analyzed under provisions
contained in the NERC Rules of Procedure and the NERC Event Analysis
program.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NERC Comments at 5; MISO Comments at 4; SWPA Comments at 3.
    \31\ NERC Comments at 6. Section 807 of the NERC Rules of
Procedure addresses ``Analysis of Major Events'' and Section 808
addresses ``Analysis of Off-Normal Events, Potential System
Vulnerabilities, and System Performance.'' Separately, the NERC
Event Analysis program, which is not incorporated in the NERC Rules
of Procedure, as of this time is still under development. Compliance
with the NERC Rules of Procedure is mandatory pursuant to section
39.2(b) of the Commission's regulations and is enforceable by the
Commission pursuant to section 39.9 of the Commission's regulations.
18 CFR 39.2(b) (``All entities subject to the Commission's
reliability jurisdiction under paragraph (a) of this section shall
comply with applicable Reliability Standards, the Commission's
regulations, and applicable Electric Reliability Organization and
Regional Entity Rules made effective under this part.''); 18 CFR
39.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Coordination of Assessments and Results
    37. Requirements R5 and R13 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
provide flexibility in coordinating UFLS design programs and event
assessments among planning coordinators whose areas fall within the
same island or whose areas are affected by the same event. In the NOPR,
the Commission sought comments on whether differences in assessments
between planning coordinators should be reported to reliability
coordinators for resolution in the event that the process identified in
PRC-006-1 does not resolve the differences.
Comments
    38. NERC, MISO, and EEI comment that reliability coordinators
should not be tasked with resolving differences between planning
coordinator event assessments. NERC states that differences between
planning coordinator event assessments should not be reported to
reliability coordinators because: (1) Reliability coordinator's wide-
area view may not coincide with island boundaries; (2) reliability
coordinators may have conflicts of interest; (3) reliability
coordinators may not have the tools to resolve the differences; and (4)
reliability coordinators work in a real-time operating environment,
which makes them ill-suited to resolve disputes among planning
coordinators.
    39. MISO and EEI comment that event assessment differences should
not be reported to reliability coordinators because planning
coordinators are better positioned to reconcile differences. MISO notes
that in some cases where an applicable entity is both a reliability
coordinator and planning coordinator (as is the case with MISO), there
would be a conflict of interest. Further, MISO maintains that referring
disputes to reliability coordinators imposes additional costs with
little to no benefit. MISO and EEI also contend that event assessment
differences do not pose a risk to the reliability of the bulk electric
system, with EEI noting that such differences are ``a result of
legitimate engineering and regional practices and processes.'' \32\ At
most, EEI suggests that reliability coordinators might be used as
informal facilitators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ EEI Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. SWPA states that a clear resolution process is necessary and
that referring disputes to reliability coordinators is a reasonable
consideration.
Commission Determination
    41. The Commission is persuaded by the comments of NERC, MISO, and
EEI that differences between planning coordinator event assessments
should not be referred to reliability coordinators for resolution. We
share the concern of NERC, MISO, and EEI that referring disputes to
reliability coordinators may create conflicts of interest because a
planning coordinator may also serve as a reliability coordinator. We
agree, however, with SWPA that disputes between planning coordinator
event assessments should be resolved. Therefore, the Commission expects
planning coordinators to work in good faith including, as appropriate,
use of third parties to resolve disputes concerning event assessments.
If the Commission finds that these disputes are not being resolved, the
Commission may consider adoption of an appropriate process to ensure
resolution of the disputes.
3. Assessment Timeline for Completion
    42. Requirement R11 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires
planning coordinators to perform island event assessments within one
year of an event. If the planning coordinator identifies program
deficiencies, Requirement R12 of PRC-006-1 requires planning
coordinators to conduct and document UFLS design assessments, which are
meant to consider the deficiencies, within two years of an event.
    43. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that this time
frame could be too long because island event assessments and
consideration of deficiencies could reasonably be done in a shorter
time frame. Moreover, the Commission noted that under PRC-006-1,
deficiencies could remain within a UFLS program for two years from an
event exposing the Bulk-Power System to instability, uncontrolled
separation and cascading outages should a frequency event occur that
the UFLS program mishandles. The Commission sought comments on the
basis for the two-year time frame and clarification as to how soon
after an event would an entity need to implement corrections in
response to any deficiencies identified in the event assessment under
Requirement R11 of PRC-006-1.
Comments
    44. NERC comments that, while some events can be assessed in less
time, one year is a realistic time-frame to assess performance for
complex events and two years is a realistic time-frame to address
identified deficiencies. NERC states that ``the amount of time that a
UFLS entity has to implement corrections will be established by the
Planning Coordinator, as specified in Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1 * * *
[and] [t]he time allotted for corrections will depend on the extent of
the deficiencies identified.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NERC Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. EEI, MISO, and G&T Cooperatives support the timelines in
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1. MISO maintains that event assessments
are time and resource intensive and must not be rushed. EEI, MISO, and
G&T Cooperatives state that planning coordinators can complete analyses
of less complex events before the two-year deadline, but they need the
maximum

allowable time to finish analyses of complex events. With respect to
the time allowed for correcting problems, EEI comments that any
deadline in a requirement would be difficult to enforce and would not
improve reliability given the variable nature of possible deficiencies.
    46. SWPA states that an applicable entity may need to implement
corrections that require complex procurement or acquisition processes,
and such contracts can be complex, involving many required decisions
and actions. Given these complexities, SWPA maintains that four years
after event actuation is a reasonable deadline to implement
corrections.
Commission Determination
    47. Based on the comments, the Commission is persuaded that two
years to complete design assessments pursuant to Reliability Standard
PRC-006-1 is appropriate. As noted by EEI, MISO, and G&T Cooperatives,
assessments of complex events can be time and resource intensive. Thus,
we agree that two years is a reasonable maximum allowable time for
completion of design assessments. However, we agree with commenters
that efforts should be made to complete assessments of less complex
events before the two-year maximum allowable period.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EEI Comments at 7; MISO Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. In response to the Commission's concern that Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1 does not specify how soon after an event would an
entity need to implement corrections in response to any deficiencies
identified in the event assessment under Requirement R11 of PRC-006-1,
NERC stated in its comments that:

    The amount of time that a UFLS entity has to implement
corrections will be established by the Planning Coordinator, as
specified in Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1. The time allotted for
corrections will depend on the extent of the deficiencies
identified. The schedule specified by the Planning Coordinator will
consider the time necessary for budget planning and implementation,
recognizing that operating and maintenance budgets normally will not
be sufficient to address major revisions and allowances will be
necessary for inclusion of approved changes in budgeting cycles.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ NERC Comments at 8.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Requirement R9 of PRC-006-1 states:

    R9. Each UFLS entity shall provide automatic tripping of Load in
accordance with the UFLS program design and schedule for application
determined by its Planning Coordinator(s) in each Planning
Coordinator area in which it owns assets. [VRF:High][Time Horizon:
Long-term Planning]

    Notwithstanding NERC's comments, the Commission is not persuaded
that Requirement R9 requires corrective action in accordance with a
schedule established by the planning coordinator. Based on its
comments, however, NERC has expressed no opposition to such a
requirement. We accept NERC's comments that Requirement R9 requires a
schedule established by the planning coordinator, but NERC's reading of
Requirement R9 should be made clear in the Requirement itself.
Accordingly, we direct NERC to make that requirement explicit in future
versions of the Reliability Standard. Within 30 days of the effective
date of this Final Rule, NERC is directed to submit a compliance filing
indicating how it plans to comply with this directive and a deadline
for compliance.

D. Generator Owner Trip Settings Outside of the UFLS Program

    49. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that Requirements 4.1
through 4.7 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 are intended to capture
the effects of generators that trip prior to UFLS initiation. While
agreeing that planning coordinators should consider generators that
trip prior to underfrequency set points when developing their UFLS
programs, the Commission sought comments on how generation losses
outside of the UFLS set points (i.e., generators having trip settings
prior to the UFLS underfrequency set points) should be accounted for in
UFLS programs (e.g., generator owners who trip outside of the UFLS set
points could procure load to shed to account for the loss in
generation).
Comments
    50. NERC, EEI, TAPS, Dominion, FRCC and EPSA oppose requiring
generator owners to procure load to shed for generators that trip
outside of the UFLS set points. NERC states that it is appropriate for
planning coordinators to consider generators that trip outside of the
UFLS set points when designing UFLS programs, but it is inappropriate
for planning coordinators to determine whether mitigation is necessary
and who will be responsible for providing mitigation.
    51. EEI states that Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, Requirement R4
requires that all resources included in the UFLS program that operate
outside the specified trip settings be factored in to the dynamic
simulation models used to develop the program. EEI further notes that,
while there is no formal obligation for generator owners to supply trip
setting data to planning coordinators, this information is shared.
Unlike modeling generators that trip outside of the UFLS set points,
EEI maintains that the issue of procuring load to shed to compensate
for such trips is outside the scope of PRC-006-1.
    52. TAPS comments that generators that trip prior to underfrequency
set points are separately modeled under Reliability Standard PRC-006-1
and that this is the correct approach to account for such generators.
TAPS opposes requiring generator owners who trip outside of the UFLS
set points to procure load to shed to account for the loss in
generation. TAPS objects to a ``one-size-fits all market/contractual
solution'' given the absence of a demonstrable reliability problem and
the market power concerns it might create.\36\ TAPS maintains that in
some small islands it may be impossible to procure the necessary load
to shed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ TAPS Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. Dominion states that generator owners whose generators trip
prior to UFLS set points should not be required to procure load to
shed. Dominion contends that such a scheme could be extremely difficult
to design and coordinate, and Dominion is unaware of any distribution
provider or transmission owner tariff that offers such a service.
    54. FRCC maintains that a small minority of generator
underfrequency protection settings are above the minimum UFLS frequency
set points and that in many cases any conflicts can be resolved by
reexamination of the technical basis for the generator's underfrequency
protection. FRCC also states that requiring generator operators to
procure load to shed would be technically impossible, and there is no
market for compensatory, assignable UFLS to make generator contracts
for load shedding feasible.
    55. EPSA states that planning coordinators should consider
generators that trip prior to underfrequency set points when collecting
information and developing their UFLS programs. EPSA maintains,
however, that requiring planning coordinators to account for generators
that trip prior to the UFLS set points presupposes that there is a
material amount of generator losses occurring. EPSA believes that
implementation of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 will allow planning
coordinators to gather information to determine the amount of losses,
which can then be used to decide whether generator losses need to be
accounted for. EPSA states that if generator losses are found to be a
material concern that

needs to be accounted for, the Commission should consider that: (1)
Generator owners do not and cannot play an active role in UFLS program
decisions; (2) generator owners do not determine the set points for
their generation; and (3) the NERC process should not be used to
influence market decisions and competitiveness.
    56. SWPA states that the design assessment in Requirement R4 of
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 addresses the modeling of generators
having trip settings prior to the UFLS set points but that the
Reliability Standard does not address how planning coordinators would
resolve the need for supplemental UFLS. SWPA maintains that PRC-006-1
should include a requirement for planning coordinators to identify the
UFLS entity that needs to provide supplemental UFLS, the basis for the
identification, and coordination of this information with those
entities and affected generator owners.
    57. NYISO states that it conducts an annual survey of all generator
owners within the New York Control Area for their UFLS trip setting and
addresses those that have settings outside the UFLS program range
established by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). NYISO
states that it conducts a UFLS simulation that excludes non-conforming
generation and a separate simulation that incorporates 260 MW of
compensatory load shedding with tripping of non-conforming generation.
Commission Determination
    58. Based on the comments, the Commission is persuaded to take no
action to require compensation for generation losses outside of the
UFLS set points (i.e., generators having trip settings prior to the
UFLS underfrequency set points). Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 is an
improvement because it requires planning coordinators to consider
generators that trip outside of the UFLS set points when modeling and
designing UFLS programs. We are persuaded by NERC's comments that it is
appropriate for planning coordinators to consider generators that trip
outside of the UFLS set points when designing UFLS programs, but it is
inappropriate for planning coordinators to determine whether mitigation
is necessary and who will be responsible for providing mitigation. For
these reasons, we take no action to modify the Reliability Standard.

E. UFLS Program Coordination With Other Protection Systems

    59. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that an integrated approach
to the coordination of all types of protection systems (e.g., UFLS,
undervoltage load shedding \37\), internally and externally to an
entity's area, is required to be responsive to the 2003 Blackout
Report.\38\ The Commission noted that, while Reliability Standard PRC-
006-1 requires coordination of UFLS programs among planning
coordinators in Requirements R5, R7, and R13, it does not appear to
capture the same level of coordination with other protection systems as
in Requirement R1.2.8 of PRC-006-0, which was approved by the NERC
Board of Trustees but left pending in Order No. 693.\39\ The Commission
sought comments on whether and how coordination with other protection
systems is or is not achieved under the new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Undervoltage load shedding (UVLS) is automatic load-
shedding that sheds load to prevent local area voltage collapse. See
U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the
August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and
Recommendations, at 92 (Apr. 2004) (Blackout Report), available at
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/blackout.asp.
    \38\ Blackout Report at 159.
    \39\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 1477,
1479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    60. NERC states that Requirement R1.2.8 of PRC-006-0 includes a
broad mandate and that the intent was to replace it with more specific
requirements that are clear and measurable. NERC contends that
Requirements R3, R4, and R10 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 include
requirements for the coordination of UFLS programs with specific
protections that ``are part of or could impact the UFLS program.'' \40\
EEI and G&T Cooperatives likewise believe that Requirement R1.2.8 is
vague, while PRC-006-1 contains the specificity to ensure that UFLS
programs are adequately designed and coordinated. G&T Cooperatives
maintains that coordination of UFLS and UVLS programs is already
provided for in PRC-010-0, Requirement R1.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NERC Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. FRCC states that there is seldom a need to coordinate UFLS with
UVLS and that the Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 correctly identifies
the protection systems that entities should coordinate with UFLS
programs. FRCC contends that the potential for interaction between UFLS
and UVLS programs is minimal given that UVLS schemes are not deployed
throughout an interconnection and are, instead, deployed in specific
locations that may be exposed to low voltage for a specific
contingency. NYISO likewise states that, due to the distributed nature
of UFLS, there should not be any significant interaction between fault
clearing protections and UFLS and that under-voltage inhibition of
relays is not expected to interfere with UFLS programs.
Commission Determination
    62. With regard to our concern raised in the NOPR regarding the
coordination of UFLS with other protection systems, we are persuaded by
NERC's comments that Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 provides an
adequate level of coordination between the UFLS program and specific
protection systems and controls that NERC identifies as part of, or
could impact, the UFLS program.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ It may be appropriate to address an integrated approach to
the coordination of all protections systems, as recommended by the
Blackout Report, but that issue is outside the scope of this
proceeding addressing Reliability Standard PRC-006-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. We are persuaded by NERC comments that ``Requirements R3, R4,
and R10 of PRC-006-1 address coordination of the UFLS program with
other protection and control systems * * * includ[ing] generator
protections that could respond to frequency and voltage excursions,
automatic Load restoration, and equipment switching that may be
included in the UFLS program to control voltage.'' \42\ Specifically,
planning coordinators are to coordinate expected generation performance
during underfrequency events and generator trip settings under PRC-006-
1, Requirements R3 and R4.\43\ To satisfy PRC-006-1, Requirement R10,
transmission owners must provide the necessary automatic switching of
elements as directed by the planning coordinator in the UFLS program
and schedule.\44\ To maintain the required system restoration
capability required by PRC-006-1, Requirement R10, transmission owners
must coordinate other protection system components with the established
UFLS program components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ NERC Comments at 9.
    \43\  Id. at 9-10.
    \44\  Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. Additionally, the Commission notes that currently-effective
Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 (System Protection Coordination) ensures
system protection coordination for protection systems.\45\ The
Commission believes that this level

of coordination between UFLS programs and other specific protection
systems is adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Reliability Standard PRC-001-1, Requirements R1 and R3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Identification of Island Boundaries

    65. Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 directs
planning coordinators to develop criteria to select areas that may form
islands based on historical events and system studies. Historical
events and system studies provide planning coordinators with the data
necessary to determine where islands will occur based on the physics of
the system. Requirement R2.3 of PRC-006-1 allows planning coordinators
to ``adjust the island boundaries to differ from the Regional Entity
area boundaries by mutual consent where necessary'' to preserve
contiguous island boundaries that better reflect simulations.
    66. In the NOPR, the Commission agreed with the premise behind
Requirement R1, which requires identifying island boundaries based on
where they are likely to occur as opposed to following rigid Regional
Entity area boundaries, because it should result in more effective UFLS
programs. The NOPR also noted that NERC, in its petition, stated that
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 allows planning coordinators to ``select
islands including interconnected portions of the bulk electric system
in adjacent Planning Coordinator areas and Regional Entity areas,
without the need for coordinating this selection with Planning
Coordinators in neighboring regions.'' \46\ The Commission observed,
however, that Requirement R2.3 of PRC-006-1 requires ``mutual consent''
to adjust island boundaries from Regional Entity boundaries. The
Commission sought clarification concerning the required degree of
cooperation and/or ``mutual consent'' between planning coordinators
under the proposed Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NERC Petition at 75-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    67. In its comments, NERC clarifies that ``mutual consent'' is
required by part 2.3 of Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-
1 when planning coordinators select island boundaries that do not
coincide with the Regional Entity area or Interconnection boundary.
NERC explains that, when a planning coordinator selects an island
boundary that does not coincide with the Regional Entity area or
Interconnection boundary, mutual consent must be obtained from
neighboring planning coordinators to ensure that the deviation does not
result in a portion of the bulk electric system being excluded from a
UFLS assessment.
    68. EEI states that the Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 requires
``mutual consent'' between affected planning coordinators and that the
level of consent is voluntary and undefined to allow the parties to
determine the level of cooperation necessary. EEI maintains that this
scheme is necessary to ensure that all parts of the bulk electric
system are covered within a UFLS plan.
    69. MISO states that planning coordinators should be able to study
islands as they see fit and without the consent of neighboring planning
coordinators, which includes studying islands that deviate from
Regional Entity boundaries. MISO maintains that there is no detrimental
effect associated with multiple or non-coordinated island studies.
    70. NYISO comments that it regularly conducts stability evaluations
on a New York Control Area and regional basis and is aware of the
potential breakpoints on the system.
    71. EPSA states that UFLS programs are best developed on an
interconnection-wide basis, not on a regional basis. EPSA notes that
region-specific Reliability Standards could undermine Reliability
Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 if they do not address interregional
coordination among planning coordinators.
    72. PSEG states that it has concerns with the active draft regional
versions of PRC-006-1 pertaining to ReliabilityFirst Corporation and
NPCC. PSEG maintains that these regional versions will hamper needed
interregional coordination for UFLS program design in the Eastern
Interconnection (i.e., the proposed regional standards do not require
interregional coordination among planning coordinators and may require
planning coordinators who span multiple regions to follow different
standards); they violate a key NERC market principle by requiring
existing generator owners to procure offsetting UFLS for the early
tripping of their generating units if these units cannot meet specific
performance requirements; and they may contravene the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 \47\ by placing NERC and the regions in the role of imposing
generation adequacy requirements. PSEG maintains that UFLS is an
interconnection-wide issue and should be addressed on an
interconnection-wide basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    73. The Commission accepts NERC's clarification of the level of
consent required between planning coordinators to adjust island
boundaries under Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, Requirement R2.3. As
stated in the NOPR, we believe that the reliability of the bulk
electric system benefits from entities basing their studies on physical
characteristics, as allowed in PRC-006-1, as opposed to hewing to
artificial boundaries.\48\ To the extent MISO suggests in its comments
that planning coordinators should not have to reach a consensus with
neighboring planning authorities when adjusting island boundaries, we
disagree. As NERC and EEI explain in their comments, it is important to
coordinate adjustments in island boundaries to ensure that no part of
the bulk electric system is inadvertently left unstudied.\49\ However,
nothing in PRC-006-1 precludes entities from conducting additional
assessments based on any island boundaries they wish to analyze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs. ] 32,682 at P 46.
    \49\ NERC Comments at 12; EEI Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. With respect to the comments from EPSA and PSEG, there are no
Regional Reliability Standards currently before us in this matter and,
therefore, the matter is not ripe for us to address.

G. Automatic Load Shedding and Manual Load Shedding

    75. In the NOPR, the Commission observed that there are no
requirements in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 to coordinate automatic
load shedding by UFLS and manual load shedding under Reliability
Standard EOP-003-2. The Commission noted that once load is disconnected
from the system, either automatically or manually, it cannot be used
again to arrest frequency decline. The Commission expressed concern
that in the event that a load resource is double-counted and removed
during automatic UFLS, the manual load shedding cannot be completed if
called upon. Accordingly, the Commission stated that resources
allocated to each type of load shedding (i.e., automatic and manual)
should not overlap. The Commission sought comments on how the
coordination of automatic and manual load shedding is considered in
light of the fact that the Reliability Standards do not explicitly
require coordination.
Comments
    76. NERC acknowledges that the Reliability Standards do not
explicitly require coordination of manual load shedding and UFLS but
states that

Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 addresses the concern that a load
resource could be unintentionally double-counted. Specifically, NERC
maintains that Requirement R6 of EOP-003-2 requires transmission
operators and balancing authorities to include load in the manual load
shedding program that is not included in the UFLS program to achieve
the reliability objective of EOP-003-2.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ NERC Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. Wisconsin Electric and FRCC state that it is difficult for a
UFLS program not to overlap with manual loadshed plans. Wisconsin
Electric comments that it is ``overly conservative to prevent a load
from being used in both a UFLS program and a manual loadshed plan.''
\51\ Wisconsin Electric also observes that a reliability coordinator
may require an entity to manually shed load that is part of a UFLS
program, which the entity cannot ignore. FRCC maintains that a non-
overlap rule is likely to have a negative impact on reliability because
it may reduce the amount of load available to address capacity
emergencies. FRCC further contends that underfrequency events are rare
and it is even less likely for an underfrequency event to coincide with
a capacity emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Wisconsin Electric Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Dominion states that the Commission should not force
coordination of manual load shedding and UFLS load shedding because it
would prevent balancing authorities and transmission operators from
using currently available tools to manage emergency conditions.
Dominion contrasts the precision of manual load shedding with the
widespread automatic response provided by UFLS programs. According to
Dominion, forced coordination could remove manual load shedding from
the emergency response toolkit for local issues, which, according to
Dominion, could allow them to turn into cascading events. EEI states
that the purpose of UFLS programs and manual load shedding are
separate. EEI argues that, while a broad understanding of the operation
of each program is important, coordination to the level implied by the
NOPR serves no purpose since each program addresses different problems.
EEI further notes that coordination in the form of ``information
sharing'' already occurs. NYISO also states that manual load shedding
and UFLS address different issues and should be addressed in separate
Reliability Standards.
    79. SWPA states that there is a need to address what consideration
planning authorities give to other protective schemes and remedial
action plans. SWPA maintains that Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 should
address how a balancing authority and transmission operator address
overlap concerns where most of its balancing authority area entities
are subject to load shedding plans under Reliability Standard EOP-003-2
but these loads are also subject to UFLS plans under PRC-006-1.
Commission Determination
    80. Based on the comments, we find that there is an adequate level
of coordination between UFLS and manual load shedding. We are persuaded
by NERC's comments that the term ``additional load'' in Reliability
Standard EOP-003-2, Requirement R6, includes resources allocated to
manual load shedding that are not included in the UFLS program. UFLS
and manual load shedding programs are developed separately and have, as
EEI stated, separate purposes. As such, to avoid insufficiencies in
available load if manual load shedding is needed after UFLS has been
activated, UFLS and manual load shedding programs cannot be planned to
shed the same load.

H. Elimination of Requirements for Balancing Authorities in EOP-003-2

    81. In the NOPR, the Commission observed that Requirements R2, R4,
and R7 of the currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-003-1 apply
to transmission operators and balancing authorities but that
Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 eliminates balancing authorities from
Requirements R2, R4, and R7. The Commission sought clarification as to
why these balancing authority responsibilities were not incorporated
into Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 or EOP-003-2. The Commission also
sought comments as to why balancing authorities should not be informed
of UFLS program plans that directly impact balancing authority
functions.
Comments
    82. NERC states that Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 removes
requirements on UFLS design, incorporates them in Reliability Standard
PRC-006-1, and assigns those activities to planning coordinators. NERC
further states that EOP-003-2 does not remove any requirements for
UVLS, which are assigned to transmission operators. NERC maintains
that, while balancing authorities contribute to managing
Interconnection frequency by balancing load and generation resources in
real-time, UFLS and UVLS programs are automatic and must be set in
advance. NERC, however, agrees that balancing authorities should be
informed of UFLS program plans that directly impact the balancing
authority function.
    83. EEI, TAPS, MISO, Dominion and NYISO largely support NERC's
comments. EEI states that the changes in Reliability Standard EOP-003-2
are consistent with the roles and responsibilities of balancing
authorities and transmission operators. EEI also maintains that
balancing authorities are already informed of UFLS programs by
transmission operators because balancing authorities and transmission
operators ``are specifically identified as coordinating other load
shedding plans as identified in EOP-003-2'' and to ``effectively
develop those plans [balancing authorities] and [transmission
operators] must have knowledge of the UFLS programs of which
[transmission operators] are intimately aware through PRC-006-1.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ EEI Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. TAPS states that Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2
clarify the requirements in the existing Reliability Standards and
assign them to the functional entities best suited to program design.
TAPS also states that Reliability Standard PRC-001-1, Requirement R1
ensures that balancing authorities are familiar with UFLS programs
because the requirement provides that they ``shall be familiar with the
purpose and limitations of protection system schemes applied in its
area.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ TAPS Comments at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. MISO states that balancing authorities need not be informed of
UFLS programs because planning coordinators are the functional entities
tasked with overseeing those programs. MISO also contends that
requiring planning coordinators to report to balancing authorities on
UFLS programs would impose additional costs with little benefit to
reliability. MISO notes, however, that balancing authorities could
benefit if NERC periodically published prevailing UFLS set points by
planning coordinator area.
    86. Dominion states that planning coordinators should not be
required to inform balancing authorities of UFLS program plans because
balancing authorities have no role in the design and implementation of
UFLS and have no action to take to affect the successful operation of
UFLS.
    87. NYISO comments that balancing authorities have no role in load
shedding and agrees with the removal of

UFLS references from Reliability Standard EOP-003-2.
    88. SWPA states that balancing authorities, by definition, do not
perform the functions referred to in Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 or
EOP-003-2, Requirements R2, R4, and R7. However, SWPA believes that
PRC-006-1 should incorporate language that ensures that balancing
authorities are kept informed of UFLS program plans that directly
impact the balancing authority functions.
Commission Determination
    89. The Commission accepts the elimination of requirements for
balancing authorities in Reliability Standard EOP-003-2. NERC states in
its comments that ``all activities required for UFLS programs in the
existing standards are incorporated into PRC-006-1, and are assigned to
the Planning Coordinator,'' \54\ and that balancing authorities will
still be made aware of UFLS programs in order to ``be familiar with the
purpose and limitations of protection system schemes applied in its
area,'' \55\ as stated in Reliability Standard PRC-001-1, Requirement
R1. To that end, the Commission believes that the comments address the
questions raised in the NOPR regarding the elimination of balancing
authority responsibility for Requirements R2, R4, and R7 of EOP-003-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ NERC Comments at 13.
    \55\ NERC Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Violation Risk Factors and Violation Severity Levels

    90. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve the VRFs and
VSLs in Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2. However, the
Commission sought comments on one VSL and one VRF for PRC-006-1.
    91. The Commission stated that the ``Lower VSL'' assignment for
Requirement R8 in PRC-006-1 applies when a UFLS entity fails to provide
data to its planning coordinator for 5 to 10 calendar days following
the schedule specified by the planning coordinator. The Commission
noted in the NOPR that Requirement R8 of PRC-006-1 does not include a
5-day grace period for providing data to planning coordinators and thus
the subject VSL assignment may be inconsistent with the Commission's
VSL Guideline 3.
    92. The Commission noted that NERC proposed a ``Medium'' VRF for
Reliability Standard PRC-006-1, Requirement R5, which requires planning
coordinators to coordinate their UFLS program design with other
planning coordinators whose area is in part of the same identified
island. The Commission observed the statement in NERC's petition that
Requirement R5 is ``not related to similar reliability goals in other
standards.'' \56\ However, the Commission explained that coordination
of load shedding plans is required in a similar manner in Requirement
R3 of currently-effective Reliability Standard EOP-003-1, which
includes a VRF of ``High.'' \57\ The Commission stated that the lack of
coordination of UFLS programs among planning coordinators within the
same identified island could lead to ineffective UFLS operations and
further cascading outages within the island when UFLS is activated. The
Commission explained that this might be inconsistent with Guideline 3
of the Commission's VRF Guidelines states that ``[a]bsent justification
to the contrary, the Commission expects the assignment of Violation
Risk Factors corresponding to Requirements that address similar
reliability goals in different Reliability Standards would be treated
comparably.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NERC Petition at 46.
    \57\ Reliability Standard EOP-003-2 includes the same VRF
assignment of ``High'' for Requirement R3.
    \58\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ]
61,145, at P 25 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    93. NERC agrees with the NOPR regarding both the ``Lower VSL'' for
Requirement R8 of Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 and the VRF for
Requirement R5 of PRC-006-1. In its comments, NERC proposes to modify
the ``Lower VSL'' to remove the phrase ``more than 5 calendar days
but'' to address the concern stated in the NOPR. NERC also proposes to
modify the VRF for Requirement R5 by raising it from ``Medium'' to
``High.''
    94. EEI, SWPA, and NYISO agree with the need to modify the VSL for
Requirement R8 of PRC-006-1, consistent with NERC's proposal. NYISO
also supports changing the VRF for PRC-006-1, Requirement R5.
Commission Determination
    95. Consistent with the proposal in NERC's comments, the Commission
directs the ERO to modify the language of the Lower VSL for Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1, Requirement R8 and the Medium VRF for PRC-006-1,
Requirement R5. NERC is directed to submit the revised VRF and VSL
within 30 days of the effective date of this final rule.

J. Implementation Plan and Effective Date

    96. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that NERC requests an
effective date for Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 of one
year following the first day of the first calendar quarter after
applicable regulatory approvals with respect to all Requirements of the
proposed Reliability Standards except Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of
Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1. With respect to Parts 4.1 through 4.6 of
Requirement R4 of PRC-006-1, NERC requests an effective date of one
year following the receipt of generation data as required in
Reliability Standard PRC-024-1,\59\ but no sooner than one year
following the first day of the first calendar quarter after applicable
regulatory approvals of PRC-006-1. The Commission sought comments about
any potential reliability gaps that may occur during the development
and implementation of PRC-024-1, such as how the planning coordinators
will adequately determine and apply UFLS simulations and plans in the
absence of generator trip settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Draft Reliability Standard PRC-024-1 addresses ``Generator
Performance During Frequency and Voltage Excursions'' and is
currently being developed in the NERC standard drafting process
under Project 2007-09 (Generator Verification), which is one of
NERC's priority projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    97. NERC maintains that there should not be a reliability gap
because planning coordinators have access to and utilize trip settings
in UFLS assessments. NERC explains its proposal by noting that
generator owners currently cannot be compelled to provide trip settings
to planning coordinators. NERC states that the implementation schedule
defers a compliance obligation for planning coordinators to model the
trip settings until a compliance obligation for generator owners to
provide these settings exists.
    98. EEI believes that a reliability gap will exist until draft
Reliability Standard PRC-024-1 is approved, but it believes that the
gap is minor and manageable. EEI agrees with NERC that information that
will be mandated in PRC-024-1 is already supplied through mutual
cooperation between entities. EEI states that the Commission might
consider directing NERC to reevaluate its priority list to determine if
the PRC-024-1 project is being given sufficient priority.
    99. TAPS comments that planning coordinators have the ability to
run UFLS simulations, even though modeling generator trip settings is
not currently mandatory, because all

significantly sized generators are included in models. TAPS contends
that while some generators that trip outside of the UFLS set points may
not be modeled, this will not have a significant impact on the
reliability of the bulk electric system.
Commission Determination
    100. The Commission approves the implementation plan and effective
dates of Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2. We agree with
EEI that there is a reliability gap given the lack of mandatory
requirements for providing generator trip settings, which will continue
until draft Reliability Standard PRC-024-1 is approved. The Commission,
however, also agrees with EEI that the gap is limited because the
information mandated by PRC-024-1 is already supplied through mutual
cooperation between utilities. To ensure that any gap pending
implementation of PRC-024-1 remains limited, the Commission encourages
the current practice of voluntarily sharing generator trip settings
between entities to continue.

III. Information Collection Statement

    101. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.\60\ Upon approval of a collection(s)
of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will
not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of
information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    102. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d)
of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\61\ The Commission solicited
comments on the need for and the purpose of the information contained
in Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 and the corresponding
burden to implement them. The Commission received comments on specific
requirements in the Reliability Standards, which we address in this
final rule. However, we did not receive any comments on our reporting
burden estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. This final rule approves Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and
EOP-003-2, which would replace currently effective Reliability
Standards PRC-007-0, PRC-009-0, EOP-003-1 and NERC-approved Reliability
Standard PRC-006-0.\62\ As noted previously, Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0 was never approved by the Commission, and therefore has never
been mandatory and enforceable. On the other hand, Reliability
Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0 were approved by the Commission and
are currently mandatory and enforceable. Because Proposed Reliability
Standard PRC-006-1 incorporates the requirements from Reliability
Standards PRC-006-0, PRC-007-0, and PRC-009-0 some of the existing
requirements will become mandatory and enforceable (where previously
they were voluntary), while others continue to be so. To properly
account for the burden on respondents, the Commission will treat the
burden resulting from NERC-approved Reliability Standard PRC-006-0 as
essentially new to the industry, even though it is likely that most
applicable entities have already been complying.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ PRC-006-0 was not approved by the Commission but remained
effective as a NERC-approved standard (but not mandatory or
enforceable). The other three standards were approved by the
Commission. Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, order on reh'g,
Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \63\ This statement is made because currently effective
Reliability Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0 required UFLS entities
to follow the UFLS program implemented by Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0. Therefore, it is likely that entities have already been
following the requirements contained in Reliability Standard PRC-
006-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    104. The reporting requirements in Reliability Standard EOP-003-2
are virtually the same as those in currently effective Reliability
Standard EOP-003-1. The difference is that Reliability Standard EOP-
003-2 eliminates balancing authorities from Requirements R2 and from
Measure M1.\64\ This requirement and measure deal with establishing and
documenting automatic load shedding plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Balancing authorities are also removed from Requirements R4
and R7, but these do not have reporting requirements associated with
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the
number of respondents is based on the NERC compliance registry as of
July 29, 2011. According to the NERC compliance registry, there are 72
planning coordinators and 126 balancing authorities. The individual
burden estimates are based on the time needed to gather data, run
studies, and analyze study results to design or update the UFLS
programs. Additionally, documentation and the review of UFLS program
results by supervisors and management is included in the administrative
estimations. These are consistent with estimates for similar tasks in
other Commission approved standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 applies to both planning
coordinators and to UFLS entities. However, the burden associated
with the UFLS entities is not new because it was accounted for under
Commission approved Reliability Standards PRC-007-0 and PRC-009-0.
    \66\ Transmission operators also have to comply with Reliability
Standard EOP-003-2. Since the applicable reporting requirements (and
associated burden) have not changed from the existing standard,
these entities are not included here.
    *PC = Planning Coordinator; BA = Balancing Authority.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Number of      Number of
PRC-006-1 (automatic underfrequency load  respondents   responses per    Average  burden hours     Total annual
             shedding) \65\                 annually     respondent           per response         burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  (1)             (2)                        (3)     (1) x (2) x
                                                                                (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCs*: Design and document Automatic UFLS           72               1                        120           8,640
 Program................................
PCs: Management Review of Documentation.           72               1                         40           2,880
PCs: Record Retention...................           72               1                         16           1,152
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ...........  ..............  .........................          12,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOP-003-2 (Load Shedding Plans)
 \66\
Removal of BAs* from Reporting               126               1  Reporting............      -10          -1,260
 Requirements in R2 and M1 (Burden           126               1  Record Retention.....       -1            -126
 Reduction).
    Total..........................  ...........  ..............  .....................  .......          -1,386
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Change in Burden (Total Annual   ...........  ..............  .....................  .......          11,286
 Hours for Collection).

    Total Net Annual Cost (Reporting + Record Retention) \67\: =
$1,414,656 - $154,728 = $1,259,928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The hourly reporting cost is based on the cost of an
engineer to implement the requirements of the rule. The record
retention cost comes from Commission staff research on record
retention requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Total Reporting Cost for Planning Coordinators: = 11,520
hours @ $120/hour = $1,382,400.
    [ssquf] Total Record Retention Cost for Planning Coordinators:
1,152 hours @ $28/hour = $32,256.
    [ssquf] Total Reporting and Record Retention Cost Savings for
Balancing Authorities: = (1,260 hours @ $120/hour) + (126 hours @ $28/
hour) = $154,728.
    Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System
    Action: Proposed Collection FERC-725A.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0244.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule approves the
requested modifications to Reliability Standards pertaining to
automatic underfrequency load shedding. The Reliability Standards help
ensure the reliable operation of the bulk electric system by arresting
declining frequency and assisting recovery of frequency following
system events leading to frequency degradation.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the Reliability
Standards and made a determination that its action is necessary to
implement section 215 of the FPA. These requirements, if accepted,
should conform to the Commission's expectation for UFLS programs as
well as procedures within the energy industry.
    106. 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_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    107. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your
comments to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. For security reasons,
comments to OMB should be submitted by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted to OMB should include Docket
Number RM11-20 and OMB Control Number 1902-0244.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    108. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\68\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\69\ The actions proposed here
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \69\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    109. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \70\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\71\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \71\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \72\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. Reliability Standard PRC-006-1 establishes design, assessment,
and documentation requirements for automatic UFLS programs. It will be
applicable to planning coordinators and entities that are responsible
for the ownership, operation, or control of UFLS equipment. Reliability
Standard EOP-003-2 removes balancing authorities from having to comply
with Requirement R2 and Measure M1 of the standard. Comparison of the
NERC compliance registry with data submitted to the Energy Information
Administration on Form EIA-861 indicates that perhaps as many as 8
small entities are registered as planning coordinators and 18 small
entities are registered as balancing authorities. The Commission
estimates that the small planning coordinators to whom the Reliability
Standard will apply will incur compliance and recordkeeping costs of
$157,184 ($19,648 per planning coordinator) associated with the
Standard's requirements. The small balancing authorities will receive a
savings of $154,728 ($8,596 per balancing authority). Accordingly,
Reliability Standards PRC-006-1 and EOP-003-2 should not impose a
significant operating cost increase or decrease on the affected small
entities.
    111. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that
these Reliability Standards will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

VI. Document Availability

    112. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington DC
20426.
    113. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.

    114. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    115. These regulations are effective July 10, 2012. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power; Electric utilities; Reporting and record keeping
requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Appendix

Commenters

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Abbreviation                          Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion.....................  Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
EEI..........................  Edison Electric Institute.
EPSA.........................  Electric Power Supply Association.
FRCC.........................  Florida Reliability Coordinating Council,
                                Inc.
G&T Cooperatives.............  Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.;
                                Basin Electric Power Cooperative; and
                                Tri-State Generation and Transmission
                                Association, Inc.
KCP&L........................  Kansas City Power & Light Company and
                                KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations
                                Company.
MISO.........................  Midwest Independent Transmission System
                                Operator, Inc.
NERC.........................   North American Electric Reliability
                                Corporation.
NYISO........................   New York Independent System Operator,
                                Inc.
PSEG.........................  Public Service Electric and Gas Company;
                                PSEG Power LLC; PSEG Energy Resources &
                                Trade LLC.
SWPA.........................  Southwestern Power Administration.
TAPS.........................  Transmission Access Policy Study Group.
Wisconsin Electric...........  Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-11316 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65237]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26402]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice.

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [77 FR 64836,
October 23, 2012]

STATUS: Closed Meeting.

PLACE: 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.

DATE AND TIME OF PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED MEETING: Tuesday, October 23,
2012 at 3:00 p.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Date and Time Change.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 3:00
p.m., has been changed to Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 23, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26402 Filed 10-23-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P