[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72664-72679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29717]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 40
[Docket No. RM09-25-000; Order No. 742]
System Personnel Training Reliability Standards
Issued November 18, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission
approves two Personnel Performance, Training and Qualifications (PER)
Reliability Standards, PER-004-2 (Reliability Coordination--Staffing)
and PER-005-1 (System Personnel Training), submitted to the Commission
for approval by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
the Electric Reliability Organization certified by the Commission. The
approved Reliability Standards require reliability coordinators,
balancing authorities, and transmission operators to establish a
training program for their system operators, verify each of their
system operators' capability to perform tasks, and provide emergency
operations training to every system operator. The Commission also
approves NERC's proposal to retire two existing PER Reliability
Standards that are replaced by the standards approved in this Final
Rule.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective January 25,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karin L. Larson (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8236. Kenneth U.
Hubona (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 1800 Dual Highway, Suite 201, Hagerstown, MD 21740, (301)
665-1608.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, and Cheryl
A. LaFleur.
1. Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\1\ the
Commission approves two Personnel Performance, Training and
Qualifications (PER) Reliability Standards, PER-004-2 (Reliability
Coordination--Staffing) and PER-005-1 (System Personnel Training),
submitted to the Commission for approval by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) certified by the Commission. The approved Reliability Standards
require reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators to establish a training program for their system
operators, verify each of their system operators' capability to perform
tasks, and provide emergency operations training to every system
operator. The Commission also approves NERC's proposal to retire two
existing PER Reliability Standards that are replaced by the standards
approved in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
2. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC,\2\
including the four PER Reliability Standards: PER-001-0, PER-002-0,
PER-003-0, and PER-004-1.\3\ In addition, in Order No. 693, under
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directed NERC to develop
modifications to the PER Reliability Standards to address certain
issues identified by the Commission. At issue in the immediate
proceeding are two new PER Reliability Standards that would replace the
currently effective
[[Page 72665]]
Reliability Standards PER-002-0 (Operating Personnel Training) and PER-
004-1 (Reliability Coordination--Staffing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, 72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,242, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
\3\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1330-1417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0
3. Currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 requires each
transmission operator and balancing authority to be staffed with
adequately trained operating personnel.\4\ Specifically, PER-002-0: (1)
Directs each transmission operator and balancing authority to have a
training program for all operating personnel who occupy positions that
either have primary responsibility, directly or through communication
with others, for the real-time operation of the Bulk-Power System or
who are directly responsible for complying with the NERC Reliability
Standards; (2) lists criteria that must be met by the training program;
and (3) requires that operating personnel receive at least five days of
training in emergency operations each year using realistic
simulations.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. P 1331.
\5\ Reliability Standard PER-002-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC, pursuant to
section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop the following modifications to
PER-002-0: (1) Identify the expectations of the training for each job
function; (2) develop training programs tailored to each job function
with consideration of the individual training needs of the personnel;
(3) expand the applicability of the training requirements to include:
reliability coordinators, local transmission control center operator
personnel, generator operators centrally-located at a generation
control center with a direct impact on the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System, and operations planning and operations support staff
who carry out outage planning and assessments and those who develop
system operating limits (SOL), interconnection reliability operating
limits (IROL), or operating nomograms for real-time operations; (4) use
a systematic approach to training methodology for developing new
training programs; and (5) include the use of simulators by reliability
coordinators, transmission operators, and balancing authorities that
have operational control over a significant portion of load and
generation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In Order No. 693, the Commission also directed the ERO to
determine whether it is feasible to develop meaningful performance
metrics associated with the effectiveness of a training program
required by currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 and to
consider whether personnel who support Energy Management System (EMS)
applications should be included in mandatory training pursuant to the
Reliability Standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. P 1394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Effective Reliability Standard PER-004-1
6. In Order No. 693, the Commission also approved Reliability
Standard PER-004-1.\8\ This Reliability Standard requires each
reliability coordinator to be staffed with adequately trained, NERC-
certified operators, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Further, PER-
004-1 requires reliability coordinator operating personnel to have a
comprehensive understanding of the area of the Bulk-Power System for
which they are responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. P 1417.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERC Petition
7. In a September 30, 2009 filing (NERC Petition),\9\ NERC requests
Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standards PER-005-1 (System
Personnel Training) and PER-004-2 (Reliability Coordination--Staffing),
which were developed in response to the Commission's directives in
Order No. 693 regarding currently effective Reliability Standard PER-
002-0.\10\ NERC seeks to concurrently retire currently effective
Reliability Standards PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 upon the effective date
of the two new Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., Sept. 30, 2009
Petition for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards Regarding
System Personnel Training (NERC Petition). The two PER Reliability
Standards are included as Exhibit A to NERC's Petition. In addition,
pursuant to section 40.3 of the Commission's regulations, all
Commission-approved Reliability Standards are available on NERC's
Web site at http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2[bond]20. See 18 CFR.
40.3.
\10\ NERC's Petition addresses only the directives in Order No.
693 related to existing Reliability Standard PER-002-0, not the
directives related to PER-004-1. See NERC Petition at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NERC states that the proposed Reliability Standards ``are a
significant improvement over the existing Reliability Standards'' and
recommends Commission approval of the standards as a ``significant step
in strengthening the quality of operator training programs as necessary
for the reliability of the [B]ulk-[P]ower [S]ystem.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NERC Petition at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability Standard PER-005-1
9. The stated purpose of Reliability Standard PER-005-1 is to
ensure system operators performing real-time, reliability-related tasks
on the North American bulk electric system are competent to perform
those reliability-related tasks.\12\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1
applies to reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators.\13\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1 contains
three main requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Section A.3 (Purpose).
\13\ The responsible entities subject to PER-005-1 include:
Reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission
operators as those entities are defined in the Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards, April 20, 2010, available at
http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
Requirement R1 mandates the use of a systematic
approach to training for both new and existing training programs.
The requirement further requires applicable entities to create a
company-specific, reliability-related task list relevant to Bulk-
Power System operation and to design and develop learning objectives
and training materials based on the task list performed by its
System Operators each calendar year. Finally, the requirement
mandates the training be delivered and the training program be
evaluated on at least an annual basis to assess its effectiveness.
Requirement R2 requires the verification of a System
Operator's ability to perform the tasks identified in Requirement
R1. The requirement also mandates re-verification of a System
Operator's ability to perform the tasks within a specified time
period when program content is modified.
Requirement R3 identifies the number of hours of
emergency operations training (at least 32 hours) that a System
Operator is required to obtain every twelve months. The requirement
further identifies those entities required to use simulation
technology such as a simulator, virtual technology, or other
technology in their emergency operations training programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ NERC Petition at 8-9.
Proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 is a new Reliability Standard
that is intended to supersede all of currently effective Reliability
Standard PER-002-0 as well as Requirements R2, R3, and R4 of currently
effective Reliability Standard PER-004-1.
Proposed Reliability Standard PER-004-2
10. Proposed Reliability Standard PER-004-2 modifies PER-004-1 by
deleting Requirements R2, R3, and R4, as these three Requirements are
incorporated into proposed PER-005-1. Proposed Reliability Standard
PER-004-2 simply carries forward, unchanged, the remaining provisions
from currently effective PER-004-1, including the associated violation
risk factor and violation severity level assignments.
[[Page 72666]]
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
11. On June 17, 2010, the Commission issued its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to approve the two proposed PER Reliability
Standards, PER-004-2 and PER-005-1 (and to retire the two superseded
standards, PER-002-0 and PER-004-1).\15\ With respect to Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, the NOPR proposed to direct NERC to: (1) Modify
PER-005-1 to explicitly require training for local transmission control
center personnel, and (2) to evaluate the feasibility of developing
meaningful performance metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of PER-
005-1. In addition, in the NOPR, the Commission sought clarification
from NERC and/or industry comments on several specific aspects of
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, including: (1) Whether three
specific training requirements are carried over from PER-004-1 to PER-
005-1 and are enforceable as part of the systematic approach to
training umbrella; (2) whether PER-005-1, R1.2, through the systematic
approach to training, adequately requires entities to develop training
programs tailored to each job function with consideration of the
individual training needs of the personnel; (3) whether PER-005-1, R3.1
requires the use of simulators specific to an operator's own system and
if not, whether it is feasible or practical to mandate the use of
simulators that are specific to the operator's system; (4) whether the
proposed two- and three-year lead time prior to certain Requirements in
PER-005-1 become effective are necessary and the feasibility of
staggering the retirement of currently effective Reliability Standards
PER-002-0 and PER-004-1; and (5) whether it is feasible for NERC to
complete the standards development project to expand applicability of
PER-005 to include certain generator operators and operations planning
and operations support staff by fourth quarter 2011. The Commission
also proposed to approve NERC's proposed retirement of currently
effective Reliability Standards, PER-002-0 and PER-004-1, which will be
superseded by the two new standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ System Personnel Training Reliability Standards, 75 FR
35689 (June 17, 2010), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,661 (2010) (NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by 28 interested
parties. These comments assisted us in the evaluation of NERC's
proposal. In the discussion below, we address the issues raised by
these comments. Appendix A to this Final Rule lists the entities that
filed comments on the NOPR.
II. Discussion
A. Approval of PER-004-2 and PER-005-1
13. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve the two PER
Reliability Standards filed by NERC in this proceeding as just,
reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the
public interest. The Commission stated that proposed Reliability
Standards PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 represent an improvement in training
requirements.
Comments
14. Many commenters support approving the two proposed Reliability
Standards PER-004-2 and PER-005-1.\16\ NERC reiterates in its comments
that implementation of Reliability Standards PER-005-1 and PER-004-2
will achieve a significant improvement in the reliability of the Bulk-
Power System and, therefore, it is supportive of the Commission's
proposal to approve the two standards. APPA states that the proposed
PER standards strike the right balance among costs, flexibility and
performance, and that PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 should be approved
without modification. Dominion notes that the implementation of the
more stringent requirements of PER-005-1, including the adoption of a
systematic approach to training for new and existing system operator
training programs, recognizes the criticality of such training and
contains a logical and reasonable approach to providing the appropriate
personnel with the necessary training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See comments of APPA, Dominion, EEI, IESO, NERC, NRECA,
PG&E, Platte River, Wisconsin Electric, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. EEI states that if the Reliability Standards are approved,
compliance with both PER-004-2 and PER-005-1 will support the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System by measuring competence against a
list of specific task requirements. EEI also comments that by
implementing training requirements that test specific competencies, the
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 provides greater clarity, thus
improving its enforceability. No commenter objects to the approval of
the two training Reliability Standards.
Commission Determination
16. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal and approves
Reliability Standard PER-004-2 and PER-005-1 as just, reasonable, not
unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.\17\
By assigning a significant amount of structure to the training programs
for the principal operators of the Bulk-Power System, namely
reliability coordinators, balancing authorities and transmission
operators, the two proposed Reliability Standards will enhance the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Moreover, the two proposed
Reliability Standards represent a step forward in implementing a key
recommendation from the 2003 Blackout Report \18\ by addressing an
identified gap where operations personnel were not adequately trained
to maintain reliable operation under emergency conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(2).
\18\ 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, (April 2004) (Blackout Report), available at
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/blackout.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Commission is not directing any modifications to the
substantive requirements of the two new Reliability Standards, PER-005-
1 or PER-004-2. Nevertheless, as discussed in greater detail below, the
Commission has several concerns regarding certain training issues. To
address these concerns, and as discussed in greater detail below, the
Commission is issuing directives that the ERO: (1) Consider the
necessity of developing an implementation plan for entities that become
subject to PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1 after Requirement R3.1 is in
effect, and (2) develop a Reliability Standard, through the ERO's
Reliability Standards development process, conducted pursuant to its
Standard Processes Manual, establishing training requirements for local
transmission control center operator personnel.
B. Implementation Timeline
18. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern about NERC's
proposed use of staggered effective dates for the two proposed
Reliability Standards, which Reliability Standards modify currently
effective standards. The Commission questioned whether staggered
effective dates could create a gap in compliance and enforceability.
Specifically, NERC proposed to make the various requirements in PER-
005-1 mandatory and enforceable in three stages over a three-year
period. The Commission also questioned the need for the proposed two-
and three-year lead times before certain Requirements in PER-005-1
become mandatory and enforceable.
[[Page 72667]]
Comments
19. NERC's comments clarify the proposed effective dates for each
of the new Requirements in PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 as well as the
corresponding retirement dates of the currently effective Requirements
in PER-002-0 and PER-004-1. NERC included in its comments a table that
specifies the retirement and effective date for each Requirement in
each of the affected Reliability Standards, specifically, currently
effective PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 and proposed Reliability Standards
PER-004-2 and PER-005-1. This table is reproduced in Appendix B of this
Final Rule. Further, NERC provides justification for the proposed two-
and three-year lead times for the effective date for some of the
proposed Requirements in PER-005-1. Specifically, NERC states that the
24-month implementation timeframe of proposed PER-005-1, Requirements
R1 and R2 allows flexibility in developing and implementing the
training programs that use a systematic approach to training, and is
structured and tailored to the functions that each entity performs in
operating the Bulk-Power System. Additionally, NERC explains that the
36-month implementation timeframe for Requirement R3.1 in the proposed
standard PER-005-1 allows entities with simulation technology
sufficient time to integrate the use of this technology as a core
component of those programs going forward and allows entities without
simulation technology the needed time to secure and integrate
simulation technology. Finally, NERC states that it reviewed the
staggered effective/retirement dates and did not find any overlaps or
gaps.
20. The majority of the commenters generally support NERC's
proposed effective and retirement dates.\19\ Many of these commenters
state that if the Commission rejects the use of staggered effective and
retirement dates, then in the alternative, the Commission should impose
a uniform effective date that is the first day of the first calendar
quarter, 36 months after FERC approval.\20\ BGE, GSOC and GTC, KCP&L,
SPP, and Westar generally support eliminating the staggered effective
dates and instead setting this uniform effective/retirement date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See comments submitted by BPA, ITC, Minnesota Power,
Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River,
Portland, and WECC.
\20\ See comments submitted by Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
PG&E, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. EEI raises a concern regarding the effective date for
Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement 3.1. Specifically, EEI
states that although Reliability Standard PER-005-1 addresses lead
times for compliance based on regulator approval of the standards, it
does not address the situation where Requirement 3.1 is not applicable
to certain entities at the time of the regulatory effective date of the
standard, but later becomes applicable to those entities. Specifically,
with respect to PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1, which requires simulator
training for entities with established interconnection reliability
operating limits (IROLs),\21\ EEI states that if an entity does not
have established IROLs when the Reliability Standard PER-005-1 becomes
effective, but later due to system changes an IROL is invoked, the
standard does not specify when the requirements for simulation training
(Requirement R3.1) would be mandatory and enforceable for such an
entity. EEI states that because entities with established IROLs would
initially have 36 months to comply with the provisions of Requirement
R3.1; i.e., to develop simulation training, that the same 36 month
compliance lead time should also be afforded to all entities with
future established IROLs. EEI requests that the Commission direct NERC
to modify the effective date specified in Reliability Standard PER-005-
1, section 5.1 to grant a 36-month lead time for entities with newly
established IROLs or operating guides to be compliant with Requirement
3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See NERC Glossary of Terms at http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
22. The Commission finds that the proposed staggered implementation
schedule for PER-005-1 and PER-004-2 and the corresponding retirement
schedule for PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 strikes a reasonable balance
between the need for timely reform and the needs of the entities that
will be subject to PER-005-1 to develop and implement training programs
utilizing a systematic approach to training and use of simulators as a
training tool. The effective and retirement date table provided by NERC
in its comments and incorporated herein as Appendix B demonstrates that
there are no apparent overlaps or gaps between the retirement of PER-
002-0 and PER-004-1 and the effectiveness of the requirements in the
new Reliability Standards, PER-005-1 and PER-004-2.
23. The Commission finds that the commenters that advocate for a
uniform effective date of 36-months have not adequately justified such
a lengthy lead time for a Reliability Standard that will not impose
entirely new requirements. Rather, PER-005-1 requires applicable
entities to build upon and improve the existing training programs that
are in place under currently effective PER-002-0. Accordingly, as
approved, PER-004-2 in its entirety and PER-005-1, Requirement R3 shall
become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter after
regulatory approval.\22\ PER-005-1, Requirements R1, R1.1, R1.1.1,
R1.2, R1.3, R1.4, R2, and R2.1 shall become effective on the first day
of the first calendar quarter, twenty-four months after regulatory
approval. And, finally, PER-005-1, Requirements R3.1 shall become
effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter, thirty-six
months after regulatory approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Regulatory approval'' for these two Reliability Standards
refers to approval by the Commission in a final rule. The date of
the Commission's regulatory approval is not the date that the final
rule is issued by the Commission, rather, in this case, it is 60
days after the date the final rule is published in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. With respect to EEI's comment regarding the effective date for
entities that may become, in the future, subject to the simulator
training requirement in PER-005-1, R3.1, the Commission believes that
this issue should be considered by the ERO. We note that, with respect
to the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards,
NERC has developed a separate implementation plan that essentially
gives responsible entities some lead time before newly acquired assets
must be in compliance with the effective CIP Reliability Standards.\23\
We direct NERC to consider the necessity of developing a similar
implementation plan with respect to PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 130 FERC ]
61,271, at P 15 (2010) (approving the Implementation Plan for Newly
Identified Cyber Assets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Systematic Approach to Training
25. A systematic approach to training is a widely-accepted
methodology that ensures training is efficiently and effectively
conducted and is directly related to the needs of the position in
question.\24\ To achieve training results, the objectives of a
systematic approach to training include: management and administration
of training and qualification programs; development and qualification
of training staff; trainee entry-level requirements; determination of
training program content; design and development of
[[Page 72668]]
training programs; conduct of training; trainee examinations and
evaluations; and training program evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR
26. In the NOPR, the Commission agreed with NERC that proposed
Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R1 met the Commission's
directive to ``develop a modification to PER-002-2 (or a new
Reliability Standard) that uses the systematic approach to training
methodology.'' \25\ However, the Commission noted that the generic
reference to systematic approach to training contained in proposed PER-
005-1 Requirement R1 raised the question of whether certain Order No.
693 directives and certain specific training requirements that are
explicitly set forth in the currently effective Reliability Standards
PER-002-0 and PER-004-1, which are to be retired, are fully and
adequately captured under the systematic approach to training umbrella.
The Commission questioned whether the following three currently
effective training requirements from PER-002-0 and PER-004-1 are
incorporated in proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1: (i)
Understanding of reliability coordinator area, (ii) continual training,
and (iii) training staff identity and competency. In the NOPR, the
Commission sought comment on its understanding of the carryover of
these three currently enforceable compliance obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs ] 32,601 at P 25 (citing Order No.
693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1380).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Understanding of Reliability Coordinator Area
27. Currently effective Reliability Standard PER-004-1,
Requirements R3 and R4 provide that reliability coordinator operating
personnel ``shall have a comprehensive understanding of the Reliability
Coordinator Area and interactions with neighboring Reliability
Coordinator areas'' and ``shall have an extensive understanding of the
Balancing Authorities, Transmission Operators, and Generation Operators
within the Reliability Coordinator Area, including the operating staff,
operating practices and procedures * * * .'' \26\ NERC states that
these two requirements are supplanted by and addressed more fully in
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirements R1 and R2.
However, proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 does not explicitly
require reliability coordinator operating personnel to have a
comprehensive understanding of the reliability coordinator area or an
extensive understanding of the balancing authorities, transmission
operators, and generation operators within the reliability coordinator
area. In order to clarify that these requirements are clear and
enforceable under proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, the
Commission sought an explanation from NERC and comments from the
general public whether these existing requirements are enforceable
under the proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 and whether these
requirements are clear or should be more explicit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Reliability Standard PER-004-1, Requirements R3 and R4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
28. Most commenters agree that comprehensive understanding of the
reliability coordinator area is fully addressed by PER-005-1,
Requirements R1 and R2 through the use of a systematic approach to
training.\27\ For example, Dominion supports proposed PER-005-1,
Requirements R1 and R2 because the requirements are clear, measurable,
and eliminate the subjectivity of the phrase ``comprehensive
understanding'' that currently exists under the current PER-004-1,
Requirement R3. Dominion believes that proper implementation of a
systematic approach to training will address the Commission's concern
that operating personnel may not have a proper understanding of their
system and interactions with neighboring systems without resurrecting
the vague language in PER-004-1. However, other commenters, including
ITC, MidAmerican, and SPP, state that because the requirement to have a
``comprehensive understanding of the reliability coordinator's area''
is not explicitly stated in PER-005-1, it will be difficult to enforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See comments of BPA, Dominion, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO
Council, KCP&L, Minnesota Power, Montana Dakota, NV Energy, NERC,
PG&E, Portland, Westar, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. NERC states that PER-005-1 implements a defense-in-depth
approach to ensure that the reliability coordinator's system operators
have a comprehensive understanding of their reliability coordinator
area. NERC believes this approach ensures that system operators have
the tools to effectively monitor and direct actions within the
reliability coordinator area in support of the Bulk-Power System. NERC
provides examples of how proposed PER-005-1 ensures that the
reliability coordinator's system operators will have detailed knowledge
of their reliability coordinator area.
Commission Determination
30. Based on NERC's explanation, the Commission agrees that the
existing requirements contained in PER-004-1, which require reliability
coordinators to have a comprehensive understanding of the reliability
coordinator area and interactions with neighboring reliability
coordinator areas and an extensive understanding of the balancing
authorities, transmission operators, and generation operators within
the reliability coordinator area, are adequately captured and
enforceable under proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1.
2. Continual Training
31. Currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0, Requirement
R3.2 explicitly mandates that ``the training program must include a
plan for the initial and continuing training of Transmission Operators
and Balancing Authorities operating personnel.'' In the NOPR, the
Commission sought an explanation from NERC, and comment from the
general public, whether continuing training is an enforceable
requirement under proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 and whether
this requirement is clear or should be more explicit.
Comments
32. NERC comments that continual training is an enforceable
requirement under PER-005-1, Requirement R1 as a fundamental aspect of
a systematic approach to training. Most commenters agree with NERC that
continual training is an inherent aspect of the systematic approach to
training.\28\ For example, the ISO/RTO Council states that PER-005-1 is
superior to the previous continual training requirement and will be
easily measured and enforced and thus does not need to be more
explicit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO Council,
ITC, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, NV Energy, NorthWestern, PG&E,
Platte River, Portland, Westar, and WECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. KCP&L believes continuing training is not necessary for routine
tasks, only non-routine. MidAmerican and NV Energy both argue that
explicit language addressing continual training is necessary to be an
enforceable requirement.
Commission Determination
34. Based on NERC's and the majority of the commenters' affirmation
that continual training is a fundamental part of a systematic approach
to training and an enforceable requirement under PER-005-1, we find
that any systematic approach to training, including the
[[Page 72669]]
systematic approach to training mandated by Reliability Standard PER-
005-1, would entail continual training to refresh system operators'
knowledge and to cover any new tasks relevant to the operation of the
Bulk-Power System.
3. Training Staff Identity and Competency
35. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that currently effective
Reliability Standard PER-002-0, Requirement R3.4 requires a training
program in which ``[t]raining staff must be identified, and the staff
must be competent in both knowledge of system operations and
instructional capabilities.'' The Commission further noted that this
requirement is not explicitly provided in PER-005-1. As such, the NOPR
sought clarification as to (i) how and whether a systematic approach to
training requires training staff to be identified, and (ii) if not, the
mechanism by which training staff will be identified and its competency
ensured. The Commission also invited comment on whether this
clarification should be made explicit so that entities clearly
understand their compliance obligations.
Comments
36. NERC agrees with the Commission that PER-002-0, Requirement
R3.4, which requires a training program in which training staff must be
identified and competent in system operations and instructional
capabilities, is an important requirement and proposes to reassess
whether this requirement should be made more explicit in a later
version of PER-005-1 so that entities can understand their compliance
obligations.
37. The majority of commenters agree that training staff
identification and competency are inherent in a systematic approach to
training, and that, as such, no modification of proposed PER-005-1 is
necessary.\29\ However, some commenters disagree and argue that PER-
005-1 should have an explicit requirement similar to Requirement R3.4
in PER-002-0 mandating training staff to be identified and be competent
in system operations and instructional capabilities.\30\ Other
commenters state that the systematic approach to training does not
require training staff to be identified or their competency ensured,
but argue that such a requirement is not necessary and potentially
detrimental.\31\ For example, ITC believes competency of training staff
should be determined by entities internally during the hiring process
and companies should not be limited by a prescriptive requirement that
does not allow for company discretion during the hiring process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See comments of GSOC & GTC, Minnesota Power, Montana
Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP, and
Westar.
\30\ See comments of BGE, BPA, and MidAmerican.
\31\ See comments of IESO, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L,
NorthWestern, and Wisconsin Electric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
38. Based on the comments received, the Commission concludes that
the current requirement for each training program (that training staff
must be identified and that such staff must be competent in both
knowledge of system operations and instructional capabilities) is
inherent in any systematic approach to training that a registered
entity would use to meet this requirement, and thus is an enforceable
component of Requirement R1 under the proposed standard. However, given
the number of commenters that argue that it is necessary for the
current training program requirement to be explicitly stated in the
proposed training standard, we agree that NERC should follow through on
its proposal in its comments to reassess whether this requirement
should be made more explicit in a later version of PER- 005-1.
D. Training Expectations for Each Job Function/Tailored Training NOPR
Proposal
39. Proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R1.2
mandates applicable entities to ``design and develop learning
objectives and training materials based on the task list created in
R1.1.'' \32\ In the NOPR, the Commission noted that it believes that
NERC has complied with the directive to require entities to identify
the expectations of the training for each job function and develop
training programs tailored to each job function with consideration of
the individual training needs of their personnel. The Commission took
the view in the NOPR that the systematic approach to training used to
satisfy PER-005-1, Requirement R1 would assess factors such as
educational, technical experience, and medical requirements that
candidates must possess before entering a given training program. With
the above understanding, the Commission concluded that the systematic
approach to training methodology required in Reliability Standard PER-
005-1, Requirement R1 satisfies the Commission's directive for Order
No. 693 to develop a modification that identifies the expectations of
the training for each job function and develops training programs
tailored to each job function with consideration of the individual
training needs of the personnel. In the NOPR, the Commission sought
comment on its understanding that PER-005-1, Requirement R1.2 requires
that the learning objectives and training materials be developed with
consideration of the individual needs of each operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ NERC Petition at 27 (quoting proposed Reliability Standard
PER-005-1, Requirement R1.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
40. NERC agrees with the Commission that learning objectives and
training materials are to be developed for each job function. NERC
believes that using a systematic approach to training allows each
entity to tailor its training program to best meet the training needs
of the function performed by System Operators.
41. A number of commenters \33\ agree with NERC and affirm the
Commission's understanding that a systematic approach to training
requires development of tailored training. NorthWestern concurs that
PER-005-1 requires the training materials to be tailored to the
individual needs of each operator. For example, IESO believes that the
systematic approach to training process will ensure that the necessary
knowledge, skills and abilities are provided in the development of
learning objectives and associated training materials. The ISO/RTO
Council contends that PER-005 addresses function/task-specific training
and not person-specific training or personal development. With respect
to Requirement R1.2, the ISO/RTO Council interprets the Commission's
statement that ``* * * requires that the learning objectives and
training materials be developed with consideration of the individual
needs of each operator. * * *'' as requiring an entity to address the
knowledge and skill gaps of individual system operators with respect to
the reliability tasks they are expected to perform.\34\ The ISO/RTO
Council supports the term ``systematic approach to training (in lower
case)'' as used in the Reliability Standard because the lower case term
provides registered entities flexibility in complying with the
standard.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See comments of BPA, GSOC & GTC, NV Energy, NorthWestern,
PG&E, and Platte River.
\34\ See IRC Comments at 7.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. SPP and Westar did not take a position on the issue; rather,
they request that the Commission clarify what is meant by
``consideration of the
[[Page 72670]]
individual needs of each operator.'' BG&E recommends that the
Commission make more explicit the requirement to implement the
Department of Energy Handbook on the systematic approach to training
\36\ as the mandatory standardized methodology industry-wide, and
expresses the view that the DOE Handbook is the most stringent set of
standards available, has the longest track record of proven successful
results, and is familiar to the industry. BG&E identifies the following
expectations that training should include: (1) Customized, task-based
training; (2) annual assessment of operator needs; and (3)
individualized training on any task for which the trainee failed to
achieve satisfactory standards during the annual training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See U.S. Department of Energy's Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1078-94,
Training Program Handbook: A Systematic Approach to Training (August
1994), available at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1078/hdbk1078.pdf (DOE Handbook).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. One commenter, Wisconsin Electric, disagrees with the
Commission's ``understanding'' on this issue. Wisconsin Electric
expresses several concerns with the following statement in the NOPR:
Based on our review of the Systematic Approach to Training
methodology used by the Department of Energy, we understand that a
Systematic Approach to Training would assess factors such as
educational, technical, experience, and medical requirements that
candidates must possess before entering a given training program.
With the above understanding, we believe that the Systematic
Approach to Training methodology, as proposed in Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, satisfies the Commission directive to develop a
modification that identifies the expectations of the training for
each job function and develops training programs tailored to each
job function with consideration of the individual training needs of
the personnel.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ NOPR, FERC Stats & Regs. ] 32,661 at P 32.
Specifically, Wisconsin Electric is concerned that this would add a
number of elements to PER-005 and would create confusion over the scope
of the compliance obligation. Wisconsin Electric states that this
language appears to impose the Department of Energy's Systematic
Approach to Training as the only acceptable methodology, which, in
effect, precludes entities from adopting another approach. Wisconsin
Electric is also concerned that the factors that a candidate must
possess before entering a training program create a de facto compliance
checklist that would exist apart from the language of the Reliability
Standard. Wisconsin Electric objects to the expansion of NERC
requirements to include assessment of medical condition of its
personnel. Wisconsin Electric believes that the Commission should
approve PER-005-1 as written without conditioning its approval on
additional, unstated requirements.
Commission Determination
44. Based on NERC's and other commenters' affirmation of the
Commission's understanding as stated in the NOPR, the Commission
confirms that Requirement R1.2 of proposed Reliability Standard PER-
005-1 requires that the learning objectives and training materials be
developed with consideration of the individual needs of each operator.
In response to Wisconsin Electric, BG&E and the ISO/RTO Council, the
Commission clarifies that it is not mandating the use of the specific
Systematic Approach to Training methodology used by the Department of
Energy. However, we believe that the Department of Energy's Systematic
Approach to Training methodology as set forth in the DOE Handbook is a
particularly good and relevant model to use.
45. DOE's Handbook is relevant for two reasons. First, it was
designed to assist facilities, specifically nuclear facilities, that
are within the same general industry as electric power facilities.\38\
Second, the DOE Handbook was written on the assumption that the user, a
facility, is currently not using the DOE Systematic Approach to
Training model for their training programs, which is very likely the
case with respect to entities subject to PER-005-1.\39\ Thus, the DOE
Handbook is particularly relevant to entities that transition to a
systematic approach to training. We note that the DOE Handbook was
compiled from a number of sources including the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations' Principles of Training System Development as well as
in collaboration with personnel representing DOE contractors and
private industry.\40\ Moreover, the DOE Handbook provides reasonable
flexibility when implementing a systematic approach to training in
various settings.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DOE has noted that although its training handbooks related
to the Systematic Approach to Training were prepared primarily for
DOE nuclear facilities, the information can be effectively used by
any other type of facility. See DOE Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1074-95 at
Foreword (January 1995) (Alternative Systematic Approach to Training
Handbook), available at http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1074/hdb1074a.html.
\39\ See DOE Handbook at 1.2. The DOE Handbook acknowledges that
many nuclear facilities already had effective training programs in
place that contain many performance-based characteristics.
Accordingly, DOE Handbook states that facilities with existing
training programs should not discard such programs; rather, they
should validate and supplement the existing training content where
necessary using systematic methods. Id.
\40\ See DOE Handbook at 1.1.
\41\ See id. at 1.2. In developing the DOE Handbook, DOE noted
that the handbook describes the more classical concept and approach
to systematically establishing training programs. However, in some
cases this classical approach has proven to be time- and labor-
intensive, and therefore encourages users of the handbook to
consider the variety of training options that are available for
establishing and maintaining personnel training and qualification
programs. DOE further found that blending classical and alternative
systematic approaches to training methods often yields the most
effective product. See DOE Handbook at iii (the Foreword).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Finally, SPP and Westar request that the Commission clarify
what is meant by ``consideration of the individual needs of each
operator.'' The Commission provides the following clarification. A
training plan is designed to prepare individuals to perform their jobs.
More specifically, a training plan should address gaps between the
skills necessary to accomplish a particular job task and an operator's
competency to carry out that task. Because of the emphasis on the
individual, to be effective, a training plan must take into
consideration the individual needs of the trainee, which includes the
trainee's education level, technical experience, and relevant medical
requirements.
E. Simulation Training
47. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to develop a
requirement mandating simulator training for reliability coordinators,
transmission operators and balancing authorities that have operational
control over a significant portion of load and generation. Recognizing
that cost of simulator training is an issue, the Commission allowed for
the use of simulators to be dependent on an entity's role and size.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1390.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR Proposal
48. In the NOPR, the Commission found that proposed Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1 meets this Order No. 693 directive
regarding training using simulators. However, the Commission sought
comment on the terminology in Requirement R3.1 which provides that the
emergency operations training should use ``simulation technology such
as a simulator, virtual technology, or other technology that replicates
the operational behavior of the BES during normal and emergency
conditions.'' Specifically, the NOPR asked NERC to clarify: (i) Whether
the language in R3.1, ``replicates the operational behavior of
[[Page 72671]]
the BES,'' requires the use of simulators specific to an operator's own
system; (ii) if not, whether operators trained on simulators that
replicate systems other than their own will be adequately trained to
respond to emergency conditions on their own system; and (iii) whether
it is feasible or practicable (including cost considerations) to
require use of simulators that realistically replicate the entity's own
topology and operating conditions; i.e., to require ``custom''
simulators.
Comments
49. NERC and all others who commented on the simulator training
issue agree that PER-005-1, Requirement R3.1, does not require the use
of custom simulators.\43\ NERC, and other commenters,\44\ state that
Requirement R3.1 requires a simulator to replicate the operational
behavioral characteristics of the bulk electric system through the use
of simulation technology. Commenters argue that the purpose of
simulators is to train the operator in principles that can be applied
to any system. Specifically, NRECA explains that the intent of PER-005-
1, Requirement R3.1 is not to require simulators that replicate every
aspect of an entity's own topology and operating conditions. Rather,
the intent is to replicate the operational behavioral characteristics
of the bulk electric system through the use of more generalized
simulation technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See comments of APPA, BPA, EEI, GSOC & GTC, IESO, ISO/RTO
Council, ITC, KCP&L, MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
NRECA, NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland,
SPP, and Westar.
\44\ See comments of APPA, EEI, IESO, ISO/RTO Council, NRECA,
Northwestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP, and Westar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. All commenters, except for BPA, agree that the simulator
training requirement should not require custom simulators. Some
commenters argue that custom simulators are not necessary.\45\ These
commenters argue that it is the understanding of situational conditions
and the response to them that is the hallmark of successful operator
training, and such training does not require the use of simulators
specific to an operator's own system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See comments of EEI, IESO, KCP&L, Minnesota Power, Montana-
Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy, and PG&E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. For example, NRECA states that it is an understanding of the
situational conditions and the response to them that is the key to
successful operator training, and those do not require the use of
simulators specific to an operator's own system. NRECA further
described that simulation of operational scenarios such as: frequency
response of generators, VAR flow from high voltage to low voltage, and
restoration load pick-up and the potential for under-frequency
tripping, are concepts common to all systems, noting that a simulator
can address and train on these issues irrespective of individual system
characteristics. Minnesota Power and Montana Dakota explain that, in
general, elements of the bulk electric system exhibit behaviors based
upon the characteristics of each element, not upon their specific
location in a particular system. They posit that it is the
understanding of the situational conditions and the response to them
that is the key to successful operator training and that understanding
does not require the use of simulators specific to an operator's own
system. EEI notes that the issue of custom versus generic simulators
was discussed extensively by the PER-005-1 drafting team and argues
that custom simulators are not necessary to properly train personnel.
EEI urges the Commission to approve PER-005-1, R3.1 without change and
to allow NERC to monitor the effectiveness of the simulator training
requirement for possible gaps.
52. Other commenters argue against mandating custom simulators
because the cost of custom simulators would far exceed the benefit.\46\
APPA states that the additional cost of developing and maintaining a
realistic full-scale, system-specific simulator for a small balancing
authority or transmission operator would likely exceed the benefits. No
commenter provided specific estimates of the incremental increase in
cost of custom simulators. EEI, acknowledging that it does not have
specific cost information, noted that accurate Bulk-Power System
modeling and maintenance would be a significant cost driver. ITC states
that although it believes that the use of system simulators specific to
an operator's own system would better prepare a system operator for
emergency conditions, the cost of custom simulators could likely
outweigh the reliability benefits to small operators. Portland General
Electric estimates that purchase, implementation and maintenance of a
system-specific simulator could cost several hundred thousand dollars
in up-front costs and would necessitate the addition of engineering
personnel for programming and ongoing maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See comments of APPA, EEI, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L,
MidAmerican, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota, NRECA, NV Energy,
NorthWestern, Platte River, Portland, and SPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. BPA, the sole commenter that endorses modifying PER-005-1 to
mandate the use of custom simulators, notes that it uses custom
simulators. BPA acknowledges that the cost of implementing and
maintaining a high fidelity simulator is significant, but suggests an
alternative approach of developing a centralized, high fidelity
simulator that realistically replicates the entire interconnection that
could be remotely accessed by entities for training exercises.
54. NERC notes in its comments that custom simulators could be
important in ensuring the reliability of the BES. NERC further states
that while a high fidelity simulator may not be necessary to ensure
bulk electric system reliability, NERC agrees that simulators used for
training that provide a useful representation of the system that the
operators work with may warrant further consideration in a subsequent
version of the proposed standard.\47\ EEI appears to agree with NERC,
as EEI urges the Commission to allow NERC to implement the new PER-005-
1 requirements, gather experience on their effectiveness, and monitor
results for possible gaps or challenges that arise with experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ NERC Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
55. We affirm NERC's and the industry's understanding that PER-005-
1, Requirement R3.1 does not require the use of simulators specific to
an operator's own system. While the Commission continues to feel there
is value in using custom simulators, we acknowledge that NERC and
industry have determined that it is not necessary at this time.
However, NERC and other commenters state that there may be potential
reliability benefits of some form of custom simulators. NERC has also
proposed to consider custom simulators in a subsequent modification of
PER-005-1. We appreciate NERC's commitment to continually look at how
reliability can be improved and encourage NERC and industry to evaluate
the gained reliability in requiring the use of custom simulators.
F. Local Transmission Control Center Operator Personnel Training
56. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to expand the
applicability of currently effective Reliability Standard PER-002-0 to
include local transmission control center operator personnel. Order No.
693 provided that the training should be tailored to the functions that
local transmission control center operators perform that impact the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System for both normal and
emergency
[[Page 72672]]
operations.\48\ Proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, which is
intended to supersede existing Reliability Standard PER-002-0, does not
include local transmission control center operator personnel in the
applicability section. Rather, proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1,
as drafted, is applicable only to the following three functional
entities: reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, and
transmission operators. NERC explained that its functional model lists
the functions that a transmission operator performs, which includes the
functions performed by local transmission control center personnel.
NERC therefore concluded that, the Order No. 693 directive to include
formal training for local transmission control center personnel is
addressed in proposed Reliability Standards PER-005-1 because the
transmission operator has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that
its functional responsibilities are met, even if through other
entities.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1348.
\49\ NERC Petition at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR Proposal
57. In the NOPR, the Commission rejected NERC's explanation
regarding the failure to include local transmission control center
operating personnel in the proposed training standard. The Commission
stated in the NOPR that, contrary to NERC's suggestion, under proposed
Reliability Standard PER-005-1, a transmission operator could not
require a local transmission control center operator to receive
training if that operator is employed by an entity other than a
reliability coordinator, balancing authority, or transmission operator.
The Commission noted that with respect to proposed Reliability Standard
PER-005-1, the standard requires transmission operators, reliability
coordinators, and balancing authorities to establish a training program
for the company-specific tasks performed by its System Operators.\50\
Thus the proposed standard only requires implementation of a training
program for operators employed by the applicable entity's own company.
Accordingly, the NOPR proposed to direct NERC to modify proposed
Reliability Standard PER-005-1 to include a provision that explicitly
addresses training for local transmission control centers, consistent
with the Commission's directive in Order No. 693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Reliability Standard PER-005-1, Requirement R1.1 (emphasis
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
58. NERC, and all other commenters that address this issue, object
to the Commission's proposal to direct NERC to expand the applicability
of PER-005-1 to explicitly include local transmission control center
personnel. Some commenters agree with NERC's position, stated in its
Petition, that the local transmission control center operators will
receive the necessary training without explicitly including them as a
class subject to PER-005-1.\51\ These commenters are concerned that the
Commission's directive will require the creation of a new class of
registered entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See comments of IESO, NRECA, and NV Energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. The majority of commenters \52\ state that the term ``local
transmission control center'' is unclear and undefined and, without
definition, is subject to broad interpretation. These commenters raise
the concern that ``if local transmission control center'' is not
clearly defined, it could result in training requirements applying to
non-NERC jurisdictional persons or entities. Commenters appear
generally to support a definition that would define local transmission
control centers as those which have authority to make decisions
concerning the real-time operation of the bulk electric system.
Associated Electric proposes a definition of ``local transmission
control center.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See comments of Associated Electric, Dominion, GSOC & GTC,
IESO, ISO/RTO Council, Minnesota Power, Montana Dakota, PG&E,
Portland, and SPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. NERC and two other commenters \53\ suggest that training
requirements for local transmission control center personnel should be
developed in a separate project, not as a modification to PER-005-1.
NERC advocates developing training standards for local transmission
control center personnel in a separate standard because proposed PER-
005-1 is focused on improving training requirements for system
operators who work for the reliability coordinator, transmission
operator, and balancing authority. Further, NERC explains that
developing training requirements for these operator personnel in a
separate standard will allow that future standard to be modeled after
PER-005-1. Accordingly, NERC proposes in its comments to address
training requirements for local transmission control center operator
personnel through its standards development process as a separate
standards development project, after the Commission issues a final
order on PER-005-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See comments of APPA and EEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
61. Some commenters question the original directive in Order No.
693 requiring the development of training requirements for local
transmission control center personnel by contending, as IESO does, that
if individuals at a local control center are simply implementing
directives from a transmission operator or a reliability coordinator,
then such personnel should not be required to undergo the same rigorous
training meant only for those entities who make independent decisions.
Specifically, in Order No. 693, the Commission stated:
The Commission disagrees with those commenters who contend that,
because operators at local control centers take direction from NERC-
certified operators at the ISO or RTO, they do not need to be
addressed by the training requirements of PER-002-0. Rather, as
discussed above, these operators maintain authority to act
independently to carry out tasks that require real-time operation of
the Bulk-Power System including protecting assets, protecting
personnel safety, adhering to regulatory requirements and
establishing stable islands during system restoration.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1347.
Thus, such comments are a collateral attack on Order No. 693 and will
not be re-addressed. Issues regarding the rigor or type of training
required for operators at local control centers should be vetted
through NERC's standards development process as part of the standards
drafting and balloting, and ultimately may be raised in comments in any
future Commission proceeding in which the proposed standard(s) or
modified standard(s) are before the Commission.
62. The Commission understands that local transmission control
center personnel exercise control over a significant portion of the
Bulk-Power System under the supervision of the personnel of the
registered transmission operator. This supervision may take the form of
directing specific step-by-step instructions and at other times may
take the form of the implementation of predefined operating procedures.
For example, ISO New England, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and
New York Independent System Operator, Inc., are registered transmission
operators who issue operating instructions that are carried out by
local transmission control centers such as PSE&G, PPL Electric
Utilities Corp., PECO Energy Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.,
Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., National Grid USA, and Long
Island
[[Page 72673]]
Power Authority, which are not registered transmission operators. The
combined peak load of these three RTOs is in excess of 200 gigawatts.
In all cases, the local transmission control center personnel must
understand what they are required to do in the performance of their
duties to perform them effectively on a timely basis. Thus, omitting
such local transmission control center personnel from the PER-005-1
training requirements creates a reliability gap. The Commission
believes that identifying these entities would be a valuable step in
delineating the magnitude of that gap.
63. NERC proposes in its comments to address the training of local
transmission control center operating personnel in a different standard
than PER-005-1.\55\ The Commission's concern in the NOPR was that local
control center operating personnel be trained. We leave it to NERC's
discretion whether to revise Reliability Standard PER-005-1 to
accomplish this goal or to require local control center operating
personnel to be trained in a separate Reliability Standard. The
Commission notes that proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 generally
requires the applicable entity to establish and implement a training
program, verify operators' capabilities, and provide emergency
training. The specific training, based on the Systematic Approach to
Training methodology, is determined by the entity based on company-
specific reliability-related tasks performed by its operators. As
discussed above, the Systematic Approach to Training methodology is not
job specific and, rather, provides flexibility to meet the needs of
varying organizations and job skills. In its comments, NERC has said
that it intends to generally model local control center operating
personnel training on PER-005-1. Thus, we expect that the Reliability
Standard that is developed will require training for local transmission
control center that does not significantly diverge from the training
requirements set forth in PER-005-1. If the ERO proposes a Reliability
Standard that differs significantly from the approved PER-005-1
requirements, NERC must provide in its petition seeking approval of
such future standard, adequate technical analysis supporting the
different approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ NERC Comments at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. Accordingly, we adopt our NOPR proposal and direct the ERO to
develop through a separate Reliability Standards development project
formal training requirements for local transmission control center
operator personnel. Finally, given the numerous comments stating that
term ``local transmission control center'' should be defined, we direct
NERC to develop a definition of ``local transmission control center''
in the standards development project for developing the training
requirements for local transmission control center operator personnel.
We will not evaluate Associated Electric's proposed definition but,
rather, leave it to the ERO to develop an appropriate definition that
reflects the scope of local transmission control centers. The
Commission will not opine on the appropriate definition of local
transmission control center, as this definition can be addressed first
using NERC's Reliability Standards Development Procedures.
G. Performance Metrics
65. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to (1) determine
``whether it is feasible to develop meaningful performance metrics
associated with the effectiveness of a training program * * *, and if
so, develop such performance metrics,'' \56\ and (2) determine if
quantifiable performance metrics can be developed to gauge the
effectiveness of the Reliability Standard itself.\57\ In its Petition,
NERC stated that the systematic approach to training methodology, as
set forth in proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, sub-requirement
R1.4, requires each reliability coordinator, balancing authority and
transmission operator to conduct an annual evaluation of the training
program and assess whether system operators are receiving effective
training. NERC concluded that this annual evaluation ``provides a
meaningful assessment of the training program'' while ``[a]n evaluation
of how System Operators perform during infrequent, actual events on the
system would not provide useful metrics on an ongoing basis.'' \58\
NERC also stated that proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 is a
training standard, and is not intended to address individual system
operator performance apart from the requirements associated with the
company-specific reliability-related tasks identified in Requirement
R1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1394.
\57\ Id. P 1379.
\58\ NERC Petition at 33-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOPR
66. In the NOPR the Commission sought comment from NERC on whether
it considered metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reliability
Standard itself, not just metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the
applicable entity's training program under PER-005-1. In addition, the
Commission sought comment on possible performance metrics that could be
used to assess whether proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 achieves
its stated purpose. As a result, the Commission proposed to direct NERC
to evaluate the feasibility of developing meaningful performance
metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reliability Standard
related to operator training.
Comments
67. NERC notes that it is working to develop performance measures
that will address Reliability Standards in general. NERC emphasizes
that performance measures should not be embodied in the Reliability
Standard requirements so there is room for flexibility in the
development, implementation and modification of such measures.
Commenters APPA, Minnesota Power, and Montana-Dakota agree with NERC
that the development of metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of a NERC
Reliability Standard should uniformly apply to all standards, not to
individual standards.
68. Two commenters, BG&E and NorthWestern, generally support the
Commission's proposal and request that any action taken to explore the
feasibility of developing metrics provide for a transparent stakeholder
process. NorthWestern identifies three methods for measuring
performance: (1) Use currently monitored operating parameters and
incident reports; (2) capitalize on the capabilities of certain
entities to monitor and evaluate the response of subordinate entities;
and (3) use simulation to evaluate operator performance against a
standard set of operating challenges. NorthWestern suggests that
metrics to evaluate system operators performing real-time tasks should
focus on reliability-related tasks that have the greatest commonality
across entities and on characteristics of operation that provide
insight into the organizational and operational approach to
reliability.
69. Most commenters, however, state that performance metrics for
this Reliability Standard are either not feasible \59\ or not necessary
because of the systematic approach to training methodology.\60\ For
example, Platte River believes that the feasibility of developing
meaningful global
[[Page 72674]]
performance metrics is low. Platte River also believes it is too
difficult to establish specific parameters and to monitor trends across
entities because systems are topologically unique and operational
situations differ. Commenters note that the systematic approach to
training addresses the performance metric because its checks and
balances verify that a person can perform the task after training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See comments of APPA, IESO, ITC, KCP&L, NV Energy, and
Platte River.
\60\ See comments of ISO/RTO Council, MidAmerican, Minnesota
Power, Montana-Dakota, PG&E, Portland, and Westar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Determination
70. The Commission believes that performance metrics should be
developed to gauge the effectiveness of a Reliability Standard if it is
feasible to do so. We are pleased that NERC is working to develop
performance measures that will address reliability standards in
general. Based on the comments, it appears that it may be infeasible
or, at a minimum, impracticable to develop performance metrics for some
individual Reliability Standards; e.g., PER-005-1. However, we find
that, based on this project, NERC is already in the process of
evaluating the feasibility of developing meaningful performance metrics
to evaluate the effectiveness of PER-005-1. The Commission encourages
NERC to complete its generic performance measures project.
H. Violation Risk Factors/Violation Severity Levels
NOPR Proposal
71. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed deferring action on the
proposed violation risk factors (VRF) and violation severity levels
(VSL) for both of the proposed Reliability Standards until the
Commission acts on NERC's pending petition in Docket No. RR08-4-005, in
which NERC proposes a ``roll-up'' approach for VRFs and VSL assignments
by which NERC would only assign VRFs and VSLs to the main Requirements
and not to the sub-Requirements.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Docket No. RR08-4-005 comprises NERC's March 5, 2010
Violation Severity Level Compliance Filing submitted in response to
Order No. 722 and an August 10, 2009 informational filing in which
NERC proposes assigning VRFs and VSLs only to the main Requirements
in each Reliability Standard and not to the sub-requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
72. The ISO/RTO Council, the sole commenter on this issue, supports
the Commission's proposal to defer action on the proposed violation
risk factors and violation severity levels assignments. No commenter
objected to the proposal to defer action.
Commission Determination
73. The Commission will defer discussion on the proposed violation
risk factors and violation severity levels assigned to PER-005-1 and
PER-004-2 until after the Commission issues a final order acting on
NERC's petition in Docket No. RR08-4-005.
I. Unaddressed Directives
NOPR Proposal
74. The Commission noted in the NOPR that NERC, in developing
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1, did not comply with the
directive in Order No. 693 to expand the applicability of the personnel
training Reliability Standard, PER-002-0, to include (i) generator
operators centrally-located at a generation control center with a
direct impact on the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, and
(ii) operations planning and operations support staff who carry out
outage planning and assessments and those who develop System Operating
Limits (SOL), Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROL) or
operating nomograms for real-time operations.\62\ The Commission also
directed, in Order No. 693, NERC to consider whether personnel that
support Energy Management System (EMS) applications should be included
in mandatory operator personnel training requirements.\63\ Noting
NERC's proposal to address the expansion of the applicability of the
training standard (PER-005-1) and to consider including EMS support
personnel in the training standard in a subsequent standards
development project, Project 2010-01--Support Personnel Training, the
Commission sought comment on whether NERC should target completing
Project 2010-01 by the fourth quarter of 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1393.
\63\ Id. P 1394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
75. Twenty-five entities commented on this issue.\64\ BPA is the
only commenter that believes Project 2010-01 can be completed by fourth
quarter 2011. The other commenters, including NERC, state that a fourth
quarter 2011 deadline is not reasonable. A number of commenters believe
that a 24-month deadline would be an appropriate timeframe for NERC to
comply with the Order No. 693 directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ The twenty-five commenters include: APPA, Associated
Electric, BGE, BPA, Constellation, Dominion, EEI, E.ON, EPSA, GSOC &
GTC, ISO/RTO Council, ITC, KCP&L, Minnesota Power, Montana-Dakota,
NV Energy, NERC, NorthWestern, PG&E, Platte River, Portland, SPP,
Westar, WECC, and Wisconsin Electric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. NERC states that, with respect to incorporating generator
operators into the applicability section of PER-005-1, it must interact
with the Commission to obtain more direction before proceeding with the
standards development process. NERC commits in its comments to meeting
the directive to consider whether personnel who support EMS
applications should be included the mandatory training Reliability
Standard within 24 months after August 23, 2010.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ NERC Comments at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. Other commenters such as APPA and Dominion encourage the
Commission to allow Project 2010-01 to follow the natural course of the
Reliability Standards development procedures without imposing a
specific deadline. APPA notes that, in NERC's draft 2011-2013
Reliability Standards Development Plan, Project 2010-01 is fourteenth
of seventeen projects which will be initiated in numerical order.
Further, APPA states that NERC's Reliability Standards development
``pipeline'' is already full to capacity. APPA is concerned that a
``hard'' deadline for Project 2010-01 might delay ongoing projects.
APPA encourages the Commission to collaborate with NERC on the priority
for Reliability Standards projects in conjunction with the Reliability
Standards Development Plan rather than setting deadlines in individual
proceedings.
78. With respect to the Order No. 693 directive to expand training
to include operations planning and operations support staff who carry
out outage planning and assessments and persons who develop SOLs, IROLs
or operating nomograms for real-time operations, several commenters
raise issues regarding the substance of the original directive. These
issues are beyond the scope of the timing issue the Commission raises
in the NOPR. For example, Associated Electric urges the Commission to
direct NERC to adopt a definition of operations planning and operations
support staff that more narrowly identifies those personnel who will be
subject to the training standard. GSOC and GTC do not support expanding
the applicability of the PER-005-1 training requirements to any other
personnel. GSOC and GTC further argue that time spent expanding
training requirements to other personnel will take away from their job
of supporting their operating personnel, a use of time and resources
that could actually decrease reliability.
[[Page 72675]]
79. With respect to the Order No. 693 directive to expand training
to include generator operators centrally-located at a generation
control center with a direct impact on the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System, several commenters raise issues regarding the
substance of the original directive. These issues also are beyond the
scope of the timing issue the Commission raises in the NOPR. For
example, Constellation notes that in developing training requirements
for generator operators the Reliability Standard should not create
onerous training obligations or impose training requirements that
conflict with or make existing programs less effective. E.ON comments
that there is no sound basis for imposing the same or similar training
requirements mandated for transmission operations on generator
personnel. E.ON urges the Commission to weigh the complexity of
mandating individual plant-specific training programs against the
incremental benefit to Bulk-Power System reliability. EPSA seeks
clarification regarding several aspects of the scope and intent of the
Commission's directive to expand the applicability of PER-005-1 to
include generator operators. Specifically, EPSA asks the Commission to
reaffirm its finding in Order No. 693 that the training will apply only
to employees at generator operators' centrally-located dispatch centers
or when a single generator and dispatch center are at the same site.
EPSA seeks as well Commission guidance regarding the sufficiency and
consistency of existing Regional Transmission Organization/Independent
System Operator (RTO/ISO) training programs applicable to generator
operators with respect to the reliability training needs identified in
the NOPR. EPSA also objects to the suggestion in the NOPR that, in the
event that communication is lost with the grid operator, a generator
operator would take unilateral action for which its personnel would
require training.
80. With respect to the Order No. 693 directive that NERC consider
whether EMS personnel should be incorporated into the system operator
training Reliability Standard, BGE comments that no separate training
is needed for EMS personnel, as EMS personnel already are regularly
trained. EEI states that, because the skills and functions of EMS
personnel are unique, the development of training requirements for EMS
support personnel should take place as a separate, stand-alone
development project.
Commission Determination
81. GSOC and GTC, E.ON, and Constellation raise issues regarding
the substance and scope of the original Order No. 693 directives. Such
comments are a collateral attack on Order No. 693 and will not be re-
addressed. Such issues should be vetted through NERC's standards
development process as part of the standards drafting and balloting,
and ultimately may be raised in comments in a future Commission
proceeding in which the proposed standard(s) or modified standard(s)
are before the Commission.
82. Associated Electric expressed concern that the NOPR definition
of the ``operations planning and operations support staff'' who should
receive training pursuant to the Order No. 693 directive is ``broad and
will encompass operations planning and operation support staff who
engage in tasks that do not directly affect the reliable operation of
the bulk electric system.'' \66\ The Commission clarifies that the
scope of the Reliability Standard or modification to a Reliability
Standard to address training for ``operations planning and operations
support staff'' is limited by the qualifications stated in Order No.
693. Specifically, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed the ERO to
develop a modification to PER-002-0 that extends applicability of the
training requirements to the operations planning and operations support
staff of transmission operators and balancing authorities.\67\ The
Commission further clarified that such directive applies only to
operations planning and operations support personnel who: ``Carry out
outage coordination and assessments in accordance with Reliability
Standards IRO-004-1 and TOP-002-2, and those who determine SOLs and
IROLs or operating nomograms in accordance with Reliability Standards
IRO-005-1 and TOP-004-0.'' \68\ The NOPR did not expand or alter the
scope of this directive as set forth in Order No. 693.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Associated Electric's Comments at 6. Associated Electric
states that, in the NOPR, the Commission ``defines'' operations
planning and operations support staff as persons ``who carry out
outage planning and assessments and those who develop SOLs and
IROLs, or operating nomograms for real-time operations.''
\67\ Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1393.
\68\ Id. P 1372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. EPSA requests clarification of several statements in the NOPR
regarding the Order No. 693 directive related to expanding the
applicability of the system operator training Reliability Standard to
include certain generator operators. First, EPSA expresses concern that
the NOPR discussion broadly addresses generator operator personnel in a
way that could be construed as subjecting all generator operator
personnel, regardless of the disposition of the generating unit and how
it fits into the grid and the topology of the grid, to the system
operator training requirements. Therefore EPSA seeks clarification that
the Commission did not intend for the NOPR to expand the Order No. 693
directive. We confirm that we have not modified the scope of
applicability of the Order No. 693 directive regarding generator
operator training.\69\ As described in Order No. 693, the directive
applies to generator operator personnel at a centrally-located dispatch
center who receive direction and then develop specific dispatch
instructions for plant operators under their control. Those generator
operator personnel must receive formal training of the nature provided
to system operators under PER-005-1.\70\ As clarified in Order No. 693,
this group of personnel would include a generator operator's dispatch
personnel where a single generator and dispatch center are located at
the same site.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See id. P 1359-61.
\70\ See id. P 1360.
\71\ Id. P 1361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. EPSA also seeks clarification regarding the statement in the
NOPR that: ``[I]n the event communication is lost, the generator
operator personnel must have had sufficient training to take
appropriate action to ensure reliability of the Bulk-Power System.''
\72\ EPSA expresses concern that this statement suggests that if
communication is lost with the grid operator, the generator operator
must take unilateral action for which it requires training. EPSA notes
that generator operators do not take such unilateral action nor do they
have access to information to make such decisions. Therefore, EPSA asks
the Commission to make clear that while communication should be
addressed in training requirements for centrally located generator
operator dispatch employees, the Commission is not extending related
responsibilities or training requirements to generator operator
employees. We grant the requested clarification, and affirm that we are
not modifying the Order No. 693 directive regarding training for
certain generator operator dispatch personnel, nor are we expanding a
generator operator's responsibilities.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,661 at P 58.
\73\ See Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242 at P 1359-
65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. EPSA also raises the issue of potentially overlapping or
duplicative training programs. EPSA notes that
[[Page 72676]]
training requirements already exist in organized markets and compliance
with them is a condition for market participation, citing PJM and CAISO
as examples, and asserts that new training requirements should either
mesh with or build upon those already in place. EPSA further notes that
regional transmission organizations and independent system operators
have training programs for generator operators that ensure that grid
participants are well trained on grid operations and the needs of grid
operators. EPSA believes that any modified or new Reliability Standard
related to generator operator training should not conflict with or
supplant the organized markets' existing training requirements.
Accordingly, EPSA states that the Commission's ``acknowledgment of
these existing programs and how they might fit with the expansion of
PER-005-1 would provide useful guidance for Project 2010-01.'' \74\ The
Commission believes that, in the above-discussion regarding the
systematic approach to training, the systematic approach to training
methodology is flexible enough to build on existing training programs
by validating and supplementing the existing training content, where
necessary, using systematic methods.\75\ It is important that the
relevant generator operator personnel receive the necessary training.
Our determination is not intended to limit the source of that training,
provided that it meets the requirements of the Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ EPSA Comments at 8.
\75\ See supra at P 45 & n.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. With respect to the time frame within which NERC should
complete the unaddressed training directives, the Commission recently
issued on order on NERC's three year assessment.\76\ That order
requires NERC to identify and address all Reliability Standards
prioritization matters when submitting its annual Reliability Standard
Development plan, beginning with the plan for 2012.\77\ The Commission
recognizes the importance of a collaborative approach to setting
priorities for Reliability Standard projects and NERC's need for
flexibility in setting project priorities in order to efficiently
utilize the technical expertise available to NERC's standards drafting
teams. We anticipate that NERC will include this project in its
assessment of its Reliability Standards priorities. With respect to the
Order No. 693 directive to consider whether personnel that support EMS
applications should be included in the training Reliability Standard,
we accept NERC's commitment to satisfy this directive by August 23,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 132 FERC ]
61,217 (2010).
\77\ Id. P 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Information Collection Statement
87. The following collections of information contained in this
proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\78\ OMB's regulations require OMB to approve
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
\79\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
88. The Commission solicited comments on the need for and the
purpose of the information contained in these two Personal Performance,
Training and Qualification Reliability Standards 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. The Commission has not directed any modifications to the
Requirements in the two Reliability Standards being approved. Thus, the
Final Rule does not materially or adversely affect the burden estimates
provided in the NOPR.
89. However, the Commission received comments on our reporting
burden estimates. Of the twenty-eight entities that filed comments on
the NOPR, two entities, the ISO/RTO Council and Westar, comment on the
record keeping burden. Both the ISO/RTO Council and Westar note that
proposed Reliability Standard PER-005-1 includes a new requirement that
applicable entities use a systematic approach to training which
includes record-keeping requirements (including a job-task-analysis)
that are significantly greater than the Commission's estimates provided
in the NOPR. In addition, the ISO/RTO Council asserts that Reliability
Standard PER-005-1, as submitted, more than adequately covers
appropriate record keeping requirements. With respect to the estimate
of the record-keeping requirements, in the NOPR, the Commission
considered the inclusion of a systematic approach to training
requirement when developing the record-keeping estimates. Moreover,
neither commenter provides an estimate of the record-keeping burden.
The Commission finds that the two commenters did not provide sufficient
information to support increasing the record keeping burden estimates.
With respect to the ISO/RTO Council's assertion that PER-005-1, as
submitted, more than adequately covers appropriate record keeping
requirements, this issue is moot as this final rule does not require
NERC to make any modifications to PER-005-1.
90. Burden Estimate: The public reporting and records retention
burdens for the proposed reporting requirements and the records
retention requirement are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping Total annual
Data collection Number of new Number of \80\ hours per recordkeeping
respondents responses respondent hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER-005-1, R1.1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must create a \81\ 7 7 40 280
list of bulk electric system reliability-
related tasks performed by system operators....
PER-005-1, R1.2: RCs, TOs, and BAs shall design 7 7 60 420
and develop learning objectives and training
materials based on its task list...............
PER-005-1, R2: RCs, TOs, and BAs shall verify 7 7 80 560
system operators' ability to perform each
assigned task from applicable task list........
PER-005-1, M1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have 7 7 50 350
available for inspection evidence of using a
systematic approach to training to establish
and implement a training program...............
PER-005-1, M1.1: Each RC, TO, and BA must have 7 7 10 70
available for inspection its company-specific,
reliability-related task list..................
PER-005-1, M1.2: Each RC, TO, and BA must have 7 7 10 70
available for inspection its learning
objectives and training materials..............
[[Page 72677]]
PER-005-1, M1.3: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have 7 7 10 70
available for inspection system operator
training records...............................
PER-005-1, M1.4: Each RC, TO, and BA must have 7 7 25 175
available for inspection evidence that it
performed an annual training program
evaluation.....................................
PER-005-1, M2: Each RC, TO, and BA must have 7 7 20 140
available for inspection evidence that it
verified that its system operators can perform
each assigned task from the training task list.
PER-005-1, M3: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have 7 7 20 140
available for inspection their annual training
records evidencing that each system operator
received 32 hours of emergency operations
training.......................................
PER-005-1, M3.1: RCs, TOs, and BAs must have 7 7 20 140
available for inspection training records
evidencing that each system operator received
emergency training using simulation technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 2,415
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual hours for Collection: Recordkeeping = Total
Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The proposed Reliability Standards do not impose any
reporting requirements.
\81\ Only seven of the 16 registered reliability coordinators
are not currently subject to training requirements as balancing
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Collection Costs: Recordkeeping = 2415 hours @ $120/
hour \82\ = $289,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ This hourly rate reflects the hourly rate for engineers
based on information provided to the Commission in Docket No. RM08-
13. See Transmission Relay Loadability Reliability Standard, 130
FERC ] 61,221, at P 327 (2010) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs = $289,800.
Title: 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/or not for
profit institutions.
Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
Necessity of the Information: This final rule would
approve revised Reliability Standards that modify the existing
requirement for entities to develop training programs and train certain
personnel. The Reliability Standards require entities to maintain their
training materials and training records subject to review by the
Commission and NERC to ensure compliance with the Reliability
Standards.
Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the
requirements pertaining to the Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power
System and determined that the Requirements are necessary to meet the
statutory provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These
requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information
collection, communication and management within the energy industry.
The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information requirements.
91. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, Phone: (202) 502-8663, fax:
(202) 273-0873, e-mail: [email protected]]. Comments on the
requirements of this order may also be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent
by e-mail to OMB at [email protected]. Please reference
FERC-725A and the docket number of this final rule in your submission.
IV. Environmental Analysis
92. 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.\83\ The
actions taken in this Final Rule fall within the categorical exclusion
in the Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying,
corrective or procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\84\ Accordingly, neither an environmental impact
statement nor environmental assessment is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
\84\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
93. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \85\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Most of the entities, i.e., reliability coordinators, transmission
operators, and balancing authorities, to which the requirements of this
rule would apply do not fall within the definition of small
entities.\86\ Moreover, the proposed Reliability Standards reflect a
continuation of existing training requirements for transmission
operators and balancing authorities and are ``new'' only with respect
to reliability coordinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\86\ 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. According to the SBA, a small electric utility is
defined as one that has a total electric output of less than four
million MWh in the preceding year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
94. As indicated above, based on available information regarding
NERC's compliance registry, approximately seven entities will be
responsible for compliance with proposed Reliability Standards PER-004-
2 and PER-005-1 that were not already subject to the existing
Reliability Standards comprising the same base training requirements as
contained in the new Reliability Standards. The Commission does not
consider this a substantial number. Further, few if any of the seven
reliability coordinators are small entities. Based on the foregoing,
the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small
[[Page 72678]]
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
VI. Document Availability
95. 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 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
96. 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.
97. 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 e-mail at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification
98. These regulations are effective January 25, 2011. The
Commission notes that although the determinations made in this Final
Rule are effective January 25, 2011, Reliability Standard PER-004-2
approved in this final rule will not become effective until the first
day of the first calendar quarter after regulatory approval and that
Reliability Standard PER-005-1 approved in this final rule will become
effective on a staggered basis, as identified in Appendix B, with the
earliest effective date being first day of the first calendar quarter
after regulatory approval for PER-005-1, Requirement R3. 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.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
Appendix A: Commenting Party Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviation Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPA......................... American Public Power Association.
Associated Electric.......... Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
BGE.......................... Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.
BPA.......................... Bonneville Power Administration.
Constellation................ Constellation Power Source Generation,
Inc., Constellation Energy Commodities
Group, Inc., Constellation NewEnergy,
Inc., and Constellation Energy Nuclear
Group, LLC.
Dominion..................... Dominion Resources Services, Inc. on
behalf of its affiliates.
EEI.......................... Edison Electric Institute.
E.ON......................... E.ON U.S. LLC.
EPSA......................... Electric Power Supply Association.
GSOC & GTC................... Georgia System Operations Corp. and
Georgia Transmission Corp.
IESO......................... Ontario Independent Electricity System.
ISO/RTO Council.............. ISO/RTO Council.
ITC.......................... International Transmission Company d/b/a
ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC, ITC Midwest
LLC, and ITC Great Plains, LLC.
KCP&L........................ Kansas City Power & Light Company and
KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations
Company.
MidAmerican.................. MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company.
Minnesota Power.............. Minnesota Power.
Montana-Dakota............... Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
NRECA........................ National Rural Electric Cooperative
Assoc.
NV Energy.................... Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific
Power Co.
NERC......................... North American Electric Reliability
Corporation.
NorthWestern................. NorthWestern Corp d/b/a/ NorthWestern
Energy.
PG&E......................... Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Platte River................. Platte River Power Authority.
Portland..................... Portland General Electric Co.
SPP.......................... Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Westar....................... Westar Energy, Inc. and Kansas Gas and
Electric Co.
WECC......................... Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
Wisconsin Electric........... Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B
Coordination of Retirement and Effective Dates Table
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date for concurrent
Existing approved standard Requirement to be retired or Proposed standard New requirement to be retirement and
replaced implemented implementation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER-002-0.......................... R1 PER-005-1 R1 1st calendar quarter
24 months after
regulatory approval.
R2 ............................. R1.1
R3 ............................. R1.1.1
R3.1 ............................. R1.2
R3.2 ............................. R1.3
R3.3 ............................. R1.4
R3.4 ............................. R2
[[Page 72679]]
............................. ............................. R2.1
PER-004-1.......................... R3
R4
PER-002-0.......................... R4 PER-005-1 R3 1st day of 1st
calendar quarter
after regulatory
approval.
PER-004-1.......................... R2 ............................. .............................
PER-004-1.......................... R1 PER-004-2 R1 1st day of 1st
calendar quarter
after regulatory
approval.
R5 ............................. R2
N/A................................ N/A PER-005-1 R3.1 1st day of 1st
calendar quarter 36
months after
regulatory approval.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-29717 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P