[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30804-30810]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket Nos. RM12-1-000 and RM13-9-000]

Transmission Planning Reliability Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: On April 19, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) that proposed to remand proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-001-2, submitted by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC). Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 includes a
provision that would allow a transmission planner to plan for non-
consequential load loss following a single contingency provided that
the plan is documented and vetted in an open and transparent
stakeholder process. The Commission explained in the NOPR that the
proposed Reliability Standard does not meet the statutory criteria for
approval because the provision pertaining to planned non-consequential
load loss is vague and unenforceable.
    On February 28, 2013, NERC submitted proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-001-4, which further modifies the planned non-consequential load
loss provision. The Commission believes that the proposed modifications
satisfy the concerns set forth in the NOPR. Accordingly, the Commission
supplements the NOPR by proposing to approve Reliability Standard TPL-
001-4, which supersedes proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2.

DATES: Comments are due June 24, 2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene Blick (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert T. Stroh (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Issued May 16, 2013)
    1. On April 19, 2012, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) that proposed to remand proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-001-2, submitted by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization.\1\ Proposed Transmission Planning (TPL) Reliability
Standard TPL-001-2 includes a provision that would allow a transmission
planner to plan for non-consequential load loss following a single
contingency provided that the plan is documented and vetted in an open
and transparent stakeholder process. The Commission explained in the
NOPR that the proposed Reliability Standard does not meet the statutory
criteria for approval because the provision pertaining to planned non-
consequential load loss is vague and unenforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 139 FERC ] 61,059 (April 19, 2012) (Docket No.
RM12-1-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On February 28, 2013, NERC submitted proposed Reliability
Standard TPL-001-4, which further modifies the planned load loss
provision.\2\ The Commission believes that the proposed modifications
satisfy the concerns set forth in the NOPR. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission supplements
the NOPR by proposing to approve proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-
4, which supersedes the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NERC states that the Version 4 standard, i.e., TPL-001-4,
modifies the pending consolidated standard, TPL-001-2. NERC also
submitted, alternatively, a group of four TPL standards (TPL-001-3,
TPL-002-2b, TPL-003-2a, and TPL-004-2, collectively, the Version 3
TPL standards) that would modify ``footnote b'' of the currently-
effective TPL standards, ``[i]n the event the Commission does not
approve the Consolidated TPL Standards.'' NERC Petition at 4.
Because we propose to approve TPL-001-4 in this supplemental NOPR,
references throughout this NOPR are to the Version 4 standard.
    \3\ 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Regulatory History

    3. In Order No. 693, the Commission accepted the Version 0 TPL
Reliability Standards.\4\ Further, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5),
the Commission directed NERC to develop modifications to TPL-001-0
through TPL-004-0 through the Reliability Standards development
process. In addition, the Commission neither approved nor remanded two
other planning Reliability Standards, TPL-005-0 and TPL-006-0, as these
two Reliability Standards applied only to regional reliability
organizations. With regard to Reliability Standard TPL-002-0b, Table 1,
footnote `b,' which pertains to loss of non-consequential load, the
Commission directed NERC to clarify footnote `b' regarding the loss of
non-consequential load for a single contingency event.\5\ In a March
18, 2010 order, the Commission directed NERC to submit a modification
to footnote `b' responsive to the Commission's directive in Order No.
693 by June 30, 2010.\6\ In a June 11, 2010 order, the Commission
extended the compliance deadline until March 31, 2011.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at PP 1840, 1845, order
on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007). The currently-
effective versions of the TPL Reliability Standards are as follows:
TPL-001-0.1, TPL-002-0b, TPL-003-0a, and TPL-004-0.
    \5\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1792.
    \6\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,
130 FERC ] 61,200 (2010).
    \7\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,
131 FERC ] 61,231 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remand of Footnote `b'--Version 1 (RM11-18-000)
    4. On March 31, 2011, NERC submitted proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-002-1 (Version 1), which proposed to modify Table 1, footnote `b'
to permit planned non-consequential load loss when documented and
subject to an open stakeholder process.\8\ In Order No. 762, the
Commission remanded to NERC the proposed modification to footnote `b,'
concluding that the proposed revisions did not meet the Commission's
Order No. 693 directives, nor did the revisions achieve an equally

effective and efficient alternative.\9\ The Commission stated that the
proposal did not adequately clarify or define the circumstances in
which an entity can use planned non-consequential load loss as a
mitigation plan to meet Table 1 performance requirements for single
contingency events. The Commission also stated that the procedural and
substantive parameters of NERC's proposal were too undefined to provide
assurances that the process will be effective in determining when it is
appropriate to plan for non-consequential load loss, does not contain
NERC-defined criteria on circumstances to determine when an exception
for planned non-consequential load loss is permissible, and could
result in inconsistent results in implementation. Accordingly, the
Commission remanded the filing to NERC, directing NERC to revise
footnote `b' to address the Commission's concerns described in Order
No. 762. Additionally, in Order No. 762, the Commission directed NERC
to ``identify the specific instances of any planned interruptions of
firm demand under footnote `b' and how frequently the provision has
been used.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1794.
Non-consequential load loss includes the removal, by any means, of
any planned firm load that is not directly served by the elements
that are removed from service as a result of the contingency.
Currently-effective footnote `b' deals with both consequential load
loss and non-consequential load loss. NERC's proposed footnote `b'
characterized both types of load loss as ``firm demand.'' The focus
of this Supplemental NOPR is NERC's proposed treatment of non-
consequential load loss or planned interruption of ``firm demand.''
    \9\ Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, Order No. 762,
139 FERC ] 61,060 (2012).
    \10\ Order No. 762, 139 FERC ] 61,060 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Remand of TPL-001-2--Version 2 (RM12-1-000)
    5. On October 19, 2011, NERC submitted a petition seeking approval
of a revised and consolidated TPL Reliability Standard that combined
the four currently-effective TPL Standards into a single standard, TPL-
001-2 (Version 2).\11\ The Version 2 standard includes language similar
to NERC's Version 1 March 31, 2011, proposal to revise and clarify
footnote `b' of Table 1. In developing Version 2, NERC slightly
modified the proposed footnote `b' in Version 1 and divided footnote
`b' in Version 1 into two footnotes in Version 2, Steady State &
Stability Performance Footnotes 9 and 12.\12\ However, the concerns the
Commission raised with respect to the Version 1 footnote `b' remained
in footnote 12 of Version 2. Footnote 12 in Version 2 was in all
material respects the same as the portion of footnote `b' in Version 1
that was the subject of remand in Order No. 762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NERC's October 2011 petition sought approval of Reliability
Standard TPL-001-2, the associated implementation plan and Violation
Risk Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs), as well as
five new definitions to be added to the NERC Glossary of Terms
(Version 2). NERC also requested approval to retire four currently-
effective TPL Reliability Standards: TPL-001-1, TPL-002-1b, TPL-003-
1a; and TPL-004-1. In addition, NERC requested to withdraw two
pending Reliability Standards: TPL-005-0 and TPL-006-0.1.
    \12\ NERC Petition at 12. NERC's proposal in Docket No. RM11-18-
000, Table 1, footnote `b' referred to planned load shed as planned
``interruption of Firm Demand.'' In footnote 12, NERC has changed
the term from ``interruption of Firm Demand'' to utilization of
``Non-Consequential Load Loss.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On the same day that the Commission issued Order No. 762, it
issued a NOPR in Docket No. RM12-1-000, stating that, notwithstanding
that proposed Version 2 included specific improvements over the
currently-effective Transmission Planning Reliability Standards,
footnote 12 ``allow[s] for transmission planners to plan for non-
consequential load loss following a single contingency without adequate
safeguards [and] undermines the potential benefits the proposed
Reliability Standard may provide.'' \13\ Thus, the Commission stated
that, pursuant to section 215(d)(4), its concerns regarding the
stakeholder process set forth in footnote 12 required a proposal to
remand the entire Reliability Standard. The Commission added, however,
that ``resolution of this one matter will allow the industry, NERC and
the Commission to go forward with the consideration of other
improvements contained in proposed [Version 2].'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NOPR, 139 FERC ] 61,059 at P 55.
    \14\ Id. at P 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. In addition, the NOPR asked for comment on various aspects of
the consolidated Version 2 TPL Standard, including planned maintenance
outages, assessment of backup or redundant protection systems, and
single line to ground faults. Comments on the NOPR were due by July 20,
2012. Nine entities submitted comments.

B. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-4--Version 4 (RM13-9-000)

    8. On February 28, 2013, NERC submitted proposed Reliability
Standard TPL-001-4 (Version 4) in response to the Commission's remand
in Order No. 762 and concerns identified in the Commission's NOPR
issued in Docket No. RM12-1-000.\15\ NERC states that modified footnote
12 provides specific parameters for the permissible use of planned non-
consequential load loss to address bulk electric system performance
issues, including: (1) Firm limitations on the maximum amount of load
that an entity may plan to shed, (2) safeguards to ensure against
inconsistent results and arbitrary determinations that allow for the
planned non-consequential load loss, and (3) a more specifically
defined, open and transparent, verifiable, and enforceable stakeholder
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 is not attached to the
Supplemental NOPR. The complete text of Reliability Standard TPL-
001-4 is available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval
system in Docket No. RM13-9-000 and is posted on the ERO's Web site,
available at: http://www.nerc.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Proposed footnote 12 as modified provides:

    An objective of the planning process is to minimize the
likelihood and magnitude of Non-Consequential Load Loss following
planning events. In limited circumstances, Non-Consequential Load
Loss may be needed throughout the planning horizon to ensure that
BES performance requirements are met. However, when Non-
Consequential Load Loss is utilized under footnote 12 within the
Near-Term Transmission Planning Horizon to address BES performance
requirements, such interruption is limited to circumstances where
the Non-Consequential Load Loss meets the conditions shown in
Attachment 1. In no case can the planned Non-Consequential Load Loss
under footnote 12 exceed 75 MW for US registered entities. The
amount of planned Non-Consequential Load Loss for a non-US
Registered Entity should be implemented in a manner that is
consistent with, or under the direction of, the applicable
governmental authority or its agency in the non-US jurisdiction.

    10. New Attachment 1 to TPL-001-4, referenced in footnote 12, has
three sections: (I) Stakeholder process, (II) information for inclusion
in the stakeholder process, and (III) instances for which regulatory
review of planned non-consequential load loss under footnote 12 is
required. Section I describes five criteria that apply to the open and
transparent stakeholder process that an entity must implement when it
seeks to use footnote 12: (1) Meetings must be open to affected
stakeholders including applicable regulatory authorities, (2) advance
meeting notice requirements, (3) information regarding the intended
purpose and scope of the planned non-consequential load loss must be
made available to participants in accordance with section II of
Attachment 1, (4) procedures for stakeholders to submit written
questions and receive written responses, and (5) a dispute resolution
process. Section I provides that an entity does not have to repeat the
stakeholder process for a specific application of footnote 12 with
respect to subsequent planning assessments unless conditions have
materially changed for that specific application.\16\

NERC explains that this approach builds in flexibility and allows
entities to use operating judgment in determining what constitutes a
``material change'' (e.g., thereby allowing the entity to take into
account regional and operating differences).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NERC explains that this language was intentionally included
to be consistent with Requirement R2.6 of the Version 4 TPL
Reliability Standard, which allows for past studies to be used to
support planning assessments if they meet certain conditions,
including for steady state, short circuit, or stability analysis,
when no material changes occur to the system. NERC Petition at 16.
    \17\ NERC Petition at 17. NERC adds that the proposed
Requirement R8 of the Version 4 TPL Reliability Standard includes an
additional safeguard to monitoring of planning assessments by
requiring that relevant entities share planning assessments with
adjacent planning coordinators, transmission planners, or other
entities that demonstrate a reliability related need. NERC explains
that Requirement R8 of the Version 4 Reliability Standard provides a
system of checks and balances on an entity's planning assessments
from neighboring entities in the overall transmission planning
process of which the proposed footnote is one aspect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Section II of Attachment 1 specifies eight categories of
information that entities must provide to stakeholders, including
estimated amount, frequency and duration of planned non-consequential
load loss under footnote 12. An entity must also provide information on
alternatives considered and future plans to alleviate the need for
planned non-consequential load loss. NERC states that it developed this
information to ensure that an entity adequately demonstrates to
stakeholders why and how the entity selected the planned non-
consequential load loss alternative as the best planning choice, while
allowing stakeholders to see all of the variables the entity used in
selecting the load shed alternative.
    12. Section III of Attachment 1 describes the process for planned
non-consequential load loss greater than 25 MW. Specifically, NERC
states that planned non-consequential load loss between 25 MW and 75
MW, or any planned non-consequential load loss at the 300 kV level or
above would receive greater scrutiny by regulatory authorities and the
ERO.\18\ Where these parameters apply, ``the Transmission Planner or
Planning Coordinator must ensure that applicable regulatory authorities
or governing bodies responsible for retail electric service issues do
not object to the use of Non-Consequential Load Loss under footnote
12.'' \19\ Further, ``[o]nce assurance has been received that the
applicable regulatory authorities . . . responsible for retail electric
service issues do not object . . . the Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner must submit the information [in Section II of
Attachment 1] to the ERO for a determination of whether there are any
Adverse Reliability Impacts'' caused by the responsible entity's
request to use footnote 12.\20\ According to NERC, this provision
provides safeguards against arbitrary or inconsistent determinations,
and also ``preserves, to the extent practicable, the role of Retail
Regulators,'' while allowing ERO review for possible Adverse
Reliability Impacts.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NERC Petition at 17-19 and Exhibit F. NERC states that the
300 kV voltage level is based on the previously submitted Extra High
Voltage (``EHV'') level that had been proposed in Version 2. NERC
also explains that it derived the 75 MW limit from information
received in response to an industry data request to identify the
specific instances of planned non-consequential load loss under
footnote b and how frequently the load loss provision has been used.
The maximum non-consequential load loss was approximately 75 MW, and
the average was approximately 25 MW.
    \19\ NERC Petition, Exhibit A, proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-001-4, Attachment I, section 3.
    \20\ NERC Petition, Exhibit A, proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-001-4, Attachment I, section 3. NERC defines ``Adverse
Reliability Impact'' as ``[t]he impact of an event that results in
frequency-related instability; unplanned tripping of load or
generation; or uncontrolled separation or cascading outages that
affects a widespread area of the Interconnection.'' NERC Glossary at
4.
    \21\ NERC Petition at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. NERC states that the combination of numerical limitations and
other considerations, such as costs and alternatives, guards against a
determination based solely on a quantitative threshold becoming an
acceptable de facto interpretation of planned non-consequential load
loss. According to NERC, the procedures in footnote 12 would enable
acceptable, but limited, circumstances of planned non-consequential
load loss after a thorough stakeholder review and approval and, in some
cases, ERO review.
    14. NERC states that, because footnote 12 differs from footnote `b'
included in the currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards, data do
not yet exist on the frequency of instances of planned non-
consequential load loss under the new footnote 12. Consequently, NERC
states that it will monitor the use of footnote 12 and will report the
results of this monitoring after the first two years of the footnote's
implementation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NERC Petition at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Schedule
    15. NERC requests that requirements R1 and R7 of the Version 4
Reliability Standard as well as the definitions become effective, i.e.,
subject to compliance, on the first day of the first calendar quarter,
twelve months after applicable regulatory approval. In addition, except
as indicated below, NERC requests that Requirements R2 through R6 and
Requirement R8 including Table 1--Steady State & Stability Performance
Planning Events, Table 1--Steady State & Stability Performance Extreme
Events, Table 1--Steady State & Stability Performance Footnotes
(Planning Events & Extreme Events) and Attachment 1 become effective
and subject to compliance on the first day of the first calendar
quarter, 24 months after applicable regulatory approval.
    16. NERC also proposes that, for 84 calendar months beginning the
first day of the first calendar quarter following applicable regulatory
approval, corrective action plans applying to specific categories of
contingencies and events identified in TPL-001-4, Table 1 are allowed
to include non-consequential load loss and curtailment of firm
transmission service (in accordance with Requirement R2, Part 2.7.3)
that would not otherwise be permitted by the requirements of the
Version 4 Reliability Standard. Further, NERC states that Requirement
R2, Part 2.7.3 addresses situations that are beyond the control of the
planner that prevent the implementation of a corrective action plan in
the required timeframe.
    17. NERC also requests approval to retire currently-effective TPL
Reliability Standards, TPL-001-0.1, TPL-002-0b, TPL-003-0a and TPL-004-
0, because their requirements are consolidated into the proposed TPL
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. In addition, NERC requests to withdraw
two pending TPL Reliability Standards, TPL-005-0 and TPL-006-0.1,
because NERC has transferred the requirements to sections 803 and 804
of NERC's Rules of Procedure. NERC proposes to retire TPL Reliability
Standards TPL-001-0.1, TPL-002-0b, TPL-003-0a, and TPL-004-0 on
midnight of the day immediately prior to the effective date of TPL-001-
4. However, during the 24-month implementation period, all aspects of
the currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards, TPL-001-0.1 through
TPL-004-0 will remain in effect for compliance monitoring. NERC states
that the 24 month period is to allow entities to develop, perform and/
or validate new or modified studies necessary to implement and meet
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4. NERC explains that the specified
effective dates allow sufficient time for proper assessment of the
available options necessary to create a viable corrective action plan
that is compliant with the new TPL Reliability Standard.

II. Discussion

    18. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, we propose to approve
NERC's proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
NERC's proposal

differs from the Commission directives on this matter.\23\ Nonetheless,
we believe that NERC's proposal adequately addresses the underlying
reliability concerns raised in Order No. 693, Order No. 762 and the
NOPR in Docket No. RM12-1-000 and, thus, is an equally effective and
efficient alternative to address the Commission's directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1792;
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System, 131 FERC
] 61,231 at P 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. In particular, we believe that proposed footnote 12 would
improve reliability by providing a blend of specific quantitative and
qualitative parameters for the permissible use of planned non-
consequential load loss to address bulk electric system performance
issues. In addition, it appears that the stakeholder process is
adequately defined and includes specific criteria and guidelines that a
responsible entity must follow before it may use planned non-
consequential load loss to meet Reliability Standard TPL-001-4
performance requirements for a single contingency event. Further,
NERC's proposal provides reasonable safeguards, including an ERO review
process, to protect against adverse reliability impacts that could
otherwise result from planned non-consequential load loss.
    20. NERC states that it plans to monitor the use of footnote 12 and
report the results of this monitoring after the first two years of
implementation.\24\ Consistent with NERC's petition, we propose to
direct that NERC submit a report on the use of footnote 12, due at the
end of the first calendar quarter after the first two years of
implementation of footnote 12 (as determined pursuant to NERC's
implementation plan). The report should provide an analysis of the use
of footnote 12, including but not limited to information on the
duration, frequency and magnitude of planned non-consequential load
loss, and typical (and if significant, atypical) scenarios where
entities plan for non-consequential load loss. The report should also
address the effectiveness of the stakeholder process and the use and
effectiveness of the local regulatory review and NERC review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NERC Petition at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Further, we propose to approve NERC's implementation schedule.
Pursuant to NERC's implementation schedule, footnote 12 and the
stakeholder process (Attachment 1) are effective on the first day of
the first quarter 24 months after applicable regulatory approval and
that entities may use Requirement R2, Part 2.7.3 to include non-
consequential load loss in corrective action plans up to 84 months
beginning the first day of the first quarter 84 months after applicable
regulatory approval. In other words, entities that plan to shed non-
consequential load must follow the footnote 12 and Attachment 1
procedures beginning on the first day of the first quarter 24 months
after applicable regulatory approval. In addition, the 84 month period
allows planners to include planned non-consequential load loss in their
corrective action plans, if needed, for certain categories of
contingencies to mitigate a system performance issue, e.g., if a plan
calls for the construction of a transmission line. Within 84 months the
corrective action plan for the transmission line, for example, is
expected to be in service, but in the meantime the planner is permitted
non-consequential load loss during the construction of the line.\25\
Under these circumstances, a planner must develop a valid corrective
action plan that mitigates the system performance issue within the
expected 84 months. We also propose to approve the retirement of the
currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards as proposed by NERC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Requirement R2, Part 2.7.3 addresses situations that are
beyond the control of the planner that prevent the implementation of
a corrective action plan in the required timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. The Commission seeks comment on NERC's footnote 12 proposal.
After receipt of comments, the Commission will issue a final rule that
addresses the consolidated transmission planning standard, TPL-004-1.
This Final Rule would address the modified footnote 12 (and related
Attachment 1) and comments received in response to this Supplemental
NOPR. In addition, the Final Rule would address other aspects of the
consolidated TPL standard, including the matters raised in the April
2012 NOPR in Docket RM12-1-000 (as modified by the Supplemental NOPR)
and comments received in response to the April 2012 NOPR.

III. Information Collection Statement

    23. The following collection of information contained in this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\26\ OMB's regulations require approval of
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.\27\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2006).
    \27\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We solicit comments on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks
that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be
supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are
generated.
    25. The Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard TPL-
001-4 and retire four currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards,
TPL-001 through TPL-004. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC
to develop modifications to TPL-001-0 through TPL-004-0 through NERC's
Reliability Standards development process. Rather than creating
entirely new TPL requirements, the revised Reliability Standard TPL-
001-4 consolidates and improves the overall quality of the currently-
effective TPL Reliability Standards governing transmission system
planning of the bulk electric system. Thus, this proposed rulemaking
does not impose entirely new burdens on the effected entities. For
example, the currently-effective and revised TPL Reliability Standards
both require that transmission planners and planning coordinators
prepare annual planning assessments for near-term and long-term
planning horizons and evaluate system performance for various
categories of contingencies ranging from normal operations through
extreme events.
    26. The proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 includes several
new obligations for transmission planners and planning coordinators.
For example, they must identify joint responsibilities and conduct
system modeling enhancements as required by Reliability Standard TPL-
001-4, Requirements R1 and R7. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-4
also includes the footnote 12 stakeholder process. Based on the results
of NERC's data request (NERC Petition, Exhibit F), there have been
approximately 80 instances of planned non-consequential load loss under
the currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards. The vast majority of
these indicate a plan to

mitigate the planned non-consequential load loss within a 5 year
period, and approximately 75 percent of the approximately 80 instances
have planned non-consequential load loss less than 25 MW. The
Commission does not expect the instances of planned non-consequential
load loss to materially change from the existing number. Therefore, the
Commission estimates 16 annual uses (80 instances divided by a 5 year
period) of Attachment 1 with 12 of those instances (approximately 75
percent of the estimated annual total) using sections I and II of
Attachment 1 and 4 instances using sections I, II and III of Attachment
1 of Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.
    27. Public Reporting Burden: The burden and cost estimates below
are based on the increase in the reporting and recordkeeping burden
imposed by the proposed Reliability Standards. Our estimates are based
on the NERC Compliance Registry as of February 28, 2013, which indicate
that NERC has registered 183 transmission planners and planning
coordinators.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average number of
      Improved requirement \28\                 Year               Number and type of        Number of annual       paperwork hours per    Total burden
                                                                      entity \29\          responses per entity          response              hours
                                                                (1)....................  (2)....................  (3)...................     (1)*(2)*(3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification of Joint               Year 1..................  183 Transmission         1 response.............  9 (5 engineer hours              1,647
 Responsibilities and System                                     Planners and Planning                             and 4 record keeping
 Modeling Enhancements \30\.                                     Coordinators.                                     hours).
                                      Year 2 and Year 3.......  183 Transmission         1 response.............  5 (3 engineer hours                915
                                                                 Planners and Planning                             and 2 record keeping
                                                                 Coordinators.                                     hours).
New Assessments, Simulations,         Year 2..................  183 Transmission         1 response.............  145 (84 engineer                26,535
 Studies, Modeling Enhancements and                              Planners and Planning                             hours, 61 record
 associate Documentation \31\.                                   Coordinators.                                     keeping hours).
                                      Year 3..................  183 Transmission         1 response.............  84 (45 engineer hours,          15,372
                                                                 Planners and Planning                             39 record keeping
                                                                 Coordinators.                                     hours).
Attachment 1 stakeholder process....  Year 3..................  1 Transmission Planner   12 responses to          63 (40 engineer hours,             756
                                                                 and Planning             Attachment 1, sections   17 record keeping
                                                                 Coordinator.             I and II.                hours, 6 legal hours).
                                      Year 3..................  1 Transmission Planner   4 responses to           68 (40 engineer hours,             272
                                                                 and Planning             Attachment 1, Sections   20 record keeping
                                                                 Coordinator.             I, II, and III.          hours, 8 legal hours).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs to Comply with Paperwork Requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Each requirement identifies a reliability improvement by
proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-4.
    \29\ NERC registered transmission planners and planning
coordinators responsible for the improved requirement. Further, if a
single entity is registered as both a transmission planner and
planning coordinator, that entity is counted as one unique entity.
    \30\ The Commission estimates a reduction in burden hours from
year 1 to year 2 because year 1 represents a portion of one-time
tasks not repeated in subsequent years.
    \31\ The Commission estimates a reduction in burden hours from
year 2 to year 3 because year 2 represents a portion of one-time
tasks not repeated in subsequent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Year 1: $77,592.
     Year 2: $1,312,659.
     Year 3 and ongoing: $820,149.
    28. Year 1 costs include the implementation of those improved
requirements that become effective on the first day of the first
calendar quarter, 12 months after applicable regulatory approval, which
include requirements such as coordination between entities and
incremental system modeling enhancements. Year 2 costs include a
portion of year 1 reoccurring costs plus the implementation of the
remaining improved requirements that become effective on the first day
of the first calendar quarter, 24 months after applicable regulatory
approval, which include requirements such as sensitivity studies for
steady state and stability analysis, implementation of a spare
equipment strategy, short circuit studies, an expansion of
contingencies and extreme events, and all associated system modeling
enhancements and documentation. Year 3 costs include a portion of year
2 reoccurring costs plus an estimated cost for Attachment 1 stakeholder
process, if needed.
    29. For the burden categories above, the loaded (salary plus
benefits) costs are: $60/hour for an engineer; $31/hour for
recordkeeping; and $128/hour for legal.\32\ The estimated breakdown of
annual cost is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Labor rates from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). Loaded costs are BLS rates
divided by 0.703 and rounded to the nearest dollar (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Year 1
    [cir] Identification of Joint Responsibilities and System Modeling
Enhancements: 183 entities * [(5 hours/response * $60/hour) + (4 hours/
response * $31/hour)] = $77,592.
 Year 2
    [cir] Identification of Joint Responsibilities and System Modeling
Enhancements: 183 entities * [(3 hours/response * $60/hour) +
    [cir] (2 hours/response * $31/hour)] = $44,286.
    [cir] New Assessments, Simulations, Studies, Modeling Enhancements
and associated Documentation: 183 entities * [(84 hours/response * $60/
hour) + (61 hours/response * $31/hour)] = $1,268,373.
 Year 3
    [cir] Identification of Joint Responsibilities and System Modeling
Enhancements: 183 entities * [(3 hours/response * $60/hour) +
    [cir] (2 hours/response * $31/hour)] = $44,286.
    [cir] New Assessments, Simulations, Studies, Modeling Enhancements
and associated Documentation: 183 entities * [(45 hours/response * $60/
hour) + (39 hours/response *

$31/hour)] = $715,347.
    [cir] Implementation of footnote 12 and the stakeholder process:
{12 responses * [(40 hours/response * $60/hour) + (17 hours/response *
$31/hour) + (6 hours/response * $128/hour)]{time}  + {4 responses *
[(40 hours/response * $60/hr) + (20 hours/response * $31/hour) + (8
hours/response * $128/hour)]{time}  = $60,516.

    The Commission seeks comment on the costs to comply with the
paperwork requirements.
    Title: FERC-725A, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk
Power System
    Action: Proposed Collection of Information
    OMB Control No: 1902-0244
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit
institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: Annually and one-time.
    Necessity of the Information: The proposed Reliability Standard
TPL-001-4, if adopted, would implement the Congressional mandate of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's
Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the proposal would ensure that
planning coordinators and transmission planners establish transmission
system planning performance requirements within the planning horizon to
develop a bulk electric system that will operate reliability and meet
specified performance requirements over a broad spectrum of system
conditions to meet present and future system needs.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the revised
Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 and made a determination that its action
is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission has
assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information requirements.
    30. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    31. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in
this NOPR and the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the
Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the
following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference
OMB Control Number 1902-0244 and the docket numbers of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Docket Nos. RM12-1-000 and RM13-9-000) in your
submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    32. 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.\33\ 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.\34\ The actions proposed
herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \34\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    33. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \35\ generally
requires a description and analysis of Proposed Rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 would apply
to 183 transmission planners and planning coordinators identified in
the NERC Compliance Registry. Comparison of the NERC Compliance
Registry with data submitted to the Energy Information Administration
on Form EIA-861 indicates that, of the 183 registered transmission
planners and planning coordinators registered by NERC, 41 may qualify
as small entities.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
    \36\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act (SBA), which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. 632 (2006). According to the Small Business
Administration, an electric utility is defined as ``small'' if,
including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and
its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not
exceed 4 million megawatt hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Commission estimates that, on average, each of the 41 small
entities affected will have an estimated cost of $1,324 in Year 1,
$16,953 in Year 2 and $11,471 in Year 3 (without Attachment 1). In
addition, based on the results of NERC's data request approximately 10
percent of all registered transmission planners and planning
coordinators used planned non-consequential load loss under the
currently-effective TPL Standards. The Commission estimates that
approximately 4 of the 41 small entities would use the stakeholder
process set forth in Attachment 1. The total estimated cost per
response for each of these 4 small entities in Year 3 is approximately
$19,500 if Attachment 1, sections I and II are used, or $20,000 if
Attachment 1, sections I, II and III are used. These figures are based
on information collection costs plus additional costs for compliance.
    35. The Commission does not consider this to be a significant
economic impact for small entities because it should not represent a
significant percentage of the operating budget. Accordingly, the
Commission certifies that this Proposed Rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission seeks comment on this certification.

VI. Comment Procedures

    36. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due June 24, 2013. Comments must refer to
Docket Nos. RM12-1-000 and RM13-9-000, and must include the commenter's
name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address
in their comments.
    37. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
    38. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington DC, 20426.
    39. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document

Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not
required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    40. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    41. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    42. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (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>
    By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Norris is
concurring with a separate statement attached.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
(Issued May 16, 2013)
Norris, Commissioner, concurring:

    Ensuring the reliability of the electric grid is one of the
essential jobs we have here at the Commission. There also must be a
balance between protecting the reliability and security of the electric
grid and recognizing the real world costs that consumers and local
communities will have to bear with each reliability standard that NERC
proposes and the Commission approves. That balance may be difficult to
achieve, but I view it as part of our statutory responsibility to
ensure that mandatory reliability standards are ``just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.''
\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I agreed with the Commission's April 19, 2012 decision to remand
NERC's proposed Transmission Planning Reliability Standard footnote `b'
(now renamed footnote 12) because it was vague, potentially
unenforceable, and lacked adequate safeguards to determine when
planning to shed firm load would be permitted. However, I wrote
separately because the order failed to recognize that this issue is
both an economic and reliability issue, and therefore must balance
those two concerns.
    NERC has submitted another change to its proposed reliability
standard, which again modifies the planned consequential load loss
provision. I am very encouraged by NERC's latest submittal and the
Commission's proposal to accept it. NERC's proposal goes a long way
towards empowering local communities to consider the economic tradeoffs
between incurring costs to avoid shedding firm load versus planning to
shed firm load, while still ensuring that the decision-making process
is more open and transparent and building in a safeguard for NERC to
review decisions for possible adverse reliability impacts. While
consumers and local communities should be able to make decisions about
an acceptable level of local reliability versus the economic tradeoffs
for achieving that level of reliability, I agree that there must be a
check to ensure that those decisions do not affect their neighbors and
the bulk electric system. I believe this proposal is a step in the
right direction, but will carefully consider any comments that entities
file regarding the proposed modification.
    For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Norris,

Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2013-12139 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P