COMMENTS OF THE INTERVENOR NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
HYDRO REGARDING FOLLOW-UP OF DECISIONS D-2011-068 AND
D-2012-091 WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST BY HYDRO-QUÉBEC
CONTRÔLE DU MOUVEMENT DES ÉNERGIES TO ADOPT RELIABILITY
STANDARDS
FILE R-3699-2009 - PHASE 1
Presented to the Régie de l’énergie du Québec
Montréal, Québec
October 31, 2012
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
COMMENTS OF GENERAL CONCERN .......................................................... 3
(a)
Compliance Monitoring.................................................................................. 3
(b)
The addition of Section A.6 to the Appendix of HQ’s standards .................. 9
(c)
Use of the Defined Term Bulk Power System (“BPS”)................................ 10
(d)
Use of the phrase ‘Loads Affected by MTS’ ................................................ 14
(e)
Use of the phrase “Québec Interconnection” ............................................... 14
(f)
Comment on different ‘Scope’ statements ................................................... 17
(g)
Comments on use of the phrases “Registered Entity” and “Responsible
Entity”........................................................................................................... 17
COMMENTS ON THE APPENDICES OF PARTICULAR STANDARDS .... 20
(a)
Standard PRC-001 ........................................................................................ 20
(b)
Standard EOP-004 ........................................................................................ 20
(c)
Standard PRC-018:....................................................................................... 22
(d)
Standard TPL-004: ....................................................................................... 22
(e)
Glossary ......................................................................................................... 23
SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS AND PROCESSES ................................................... 23
(a)
Standards related to the FERC Order 890 and Approved by FERC since
HQ’s initial submission; ............................................................................... 23
(b)
Filing of revised standards ........................................................................... 24
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 24
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Nalcor / Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (“NLH”) as both a purchaser of
Transmission Service from Hydro-Québec (“HQT”) and as the operator of a
synchronously connected electrical system, wishes to pass comment on the thirtyeight reliability standards prepared by the HQ Reliability Coordinator (“HQRC”)
and submitted to the Régie de l’énergie (“Régie”) on Sept 24, 2012.
NLH’s comments are in some cases general with application to numerous
standards, while in others they are directed at individual standards.
1.
COMMENTS OF GENERAL CONCERN
(a)
Compliance Monitoring
Reliability standards developed by NERC and subsequently adopted by the Régie
identify in section A.4 the “Responsible Entities” to which that standard applies.
To ensure that the entities specified comply with the activities required of them
(section B), the standard also contains at D 1.1 a section titled “Compliance
Monitoring Responsibilities” which identifies the entities which will monitor the
performance of the “Responsible Entities” identified in A4.
NLH wishes to comment on the reporting relationships specified in the
appendices to the standards and to contrast this reporting relationship to that
specified in the QROP1 and the QCMEP2.
Of particular interest to NLH is the fact that for many of these standards HQRC,
through section A.4 of its appendix, has removed the requirement that the
standard apply to the Regional Reliability Organization (RRO) and has thus
removed the requirement that the RRO be “the Compliance Monitor” for the
“Responsible Entities” identified in A4. HQRC through section D 1.1, and related
subsections, has as well modified the text of the Compliance Monitoring
Responsibility Section to make that section conform to the removal of the RRO
from the applicability section.
In order to properly asses HQRC filing at the Régie, NLH submit to the Régie the
following excerpts from QCROP.
1
Québec Rules of Procedure (QROP) for Compliance Services by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, July 28, 2009.
2
Québec Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (QCMEP) for Implementation by Northeast
Power Coordinating Council, Inc. July 28, 2009. We also refer to Régie’s letter dated December 16, 2009.
We understand from this letter that these two documents are not actually into force.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 4
2.1.1
Components of the NERC Compliance Enforcement Program:
NERC shall develop and implement a NERC Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Program, working through the NPCC to promote the reliability
of the electric power transmission system by monitoring compliance with
adopted reliability standards in Québec, and making compliance enforcement
recommendations to the Régie. There are four distinct parts of the NERC
Monitoring and Compliance Enforcement Program: (1) NERC’s oversight of
NPCC compliance programs (Section 2.2), (2) the definition of the required
NPCC compliance enforcement program attributes (Section 2.3), (3) NERC’s
monitoring of NPCC compliance with reliability standards (Section 2.4), and
(4) the monitoring of compliance with reliability standards that are applicable
to NERC (Sections 2.5–2.6).
(…)
2.1.4 Role of NPCC in the Compliance Enforcement Program: NPCC shall,
taking into account Québec’s legal and regulatory environment, administer a
regional entity compliance enforcement program to meet the Québec
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program goals and the
requirements in this Section 2.0. [emphases added]
(…)
2.1.7 Penalties, Sanctions, and Remedial Actions: NERC and NPCC
will recommend to the Régie penalties, sanctions, and remedial actions that
bear a reasonable relation to the seriousness of a violation and take into
consideration timely remedial efforts as defined in the Québec Sanction
Guide.
Also QCMEP excerpts are relevant:
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This Québec Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program (“QCMEP”)
is used by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (“NPCC”) to
monitor and assess compliance with Reliability Standards within Québec, and
make recommendations to the Régie de l’énergie du Québec (“Régie”)
regarding the enforcement of the Reliability Standards, taking into account
Québec’s legal and regulatory environment.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 5
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ORGANIZATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR
COMPLYING WITH RELIABILITY STANDARDS
NPCC shall receive from the Régie a listing of Registered Entities in Québec.
Each Registered Entity will inform the Reliability Coordinator, which will
inform the Régie promptly of changes to its Registration information. The
Régie will inform NPCC of such changes. NPCC shall inform each Registered
Entity of the Reliability Standards that are applicable to the Registered Entity,
as determined by the Régie when it adopts the Reliability Standards. NPCC
shall maintain on its Web site a current listing of Reliability Standards that
are applicable to each Registered Entity.
NPCC will designate a contact person(s) and require each Registered Entity
to designate a contact person(s) responsible for sending and receiving all
necessary information and communications concerning compliance matters.
NPCC will designate where and how Registered Entities are to send
information, data, Mitigation Plans, or any other compliance-related
correspondence.
NPCC shall develop, maintain, and provide to NERC the NPCC Compliance
Registry with updates whenever changes occur to the registry. NERC shall
maintain the NERC Compliance Registry on its Web site.
(…)
2.3.8 NPCC’s QCMEP Content: All Québec reliability standards shall be
included in the NPCC’s QCMEP for all Registered Entities. NERC will
identify the minimum set of Québec reliability standards and requirements to
be actively monitored by NPCC in a given year. [emphases added]
(…)
2.3.10.1 NPCC has the responsibility to collect the necessary information to
evaluate compliance and shall develop processes for gathering data from the
Registered Entities they monitor.
2.3.10.2 When requested, NPCC shall report information to the Régie and
NERC promptly and in accordance with NERC procedures.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 6
2.3.10.3 NPCC shall notify the Régie and NERC of all violations of Québec
reliability standards by entities over which NPCC has monitoring
responsibilities, whether self reported, alleged, or confirmed, in accordance
with the Reporting and Disclosure Process in Section 2.8. [emphases added]
(…)
2.3.11 Compliance Audits of Registered Entities: NPCC will maintain a
program of proactive compliance audits. NPCC shall audit each Registered
Entity responsible for complying with reliability standards. A compliance
audit is a process in which a detailed review of the activities of a Registered
Entity is performed to determine if that Registered Entity is complying with
Québec reliability standards. [emphases added]
(…)
3.0 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES
NPCC shall monitor and assess Québec Registered Entities’ compliance with
Reliability Standards and make compliance enforcement recommendations,
including recommended financial penalties, to the Régie.
Collectively the quotes above demonstrate that NPCC will be responsible for monitoring
how Registered Entities comply with Québec standards.
However, contrary to the provisions of these agreements, Appendices to specific
standards recommend removing NPCC functions. The appendix to EOP-004 exemplifies
this. That appendix in section A4.6 specifies that the standard is not applicable to the
Regional Reliability Organization (RRO).
The relationship between the RRO and NPCC is specified in the Glossary of Terms and
Acronyms used in Reliability Standards3. That document in its definition of the Regional
Reliability Organization (RRO) specifies in footnote #4 that NPCC is the RRO for the
Québec system.
As a consequence of the responsibilities outlined in the references noted above NPCC is
expected to be the compliance monitor of the standards for Québec that apply to Regional
entities. NLH requests that this intention be maintained by rejecting HQRC’s Appendixes
which remove the RRO / NPCC as the compliance monitor for the Regional entities.
3
B94-HQCME-6 Glossary following D-2011-068 decision.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 7
NLH’s desire to maintain the role of the NPCC / RRO will also necessitate a change to
the wording in Section D1.1, and applicable sub-sections, of the relevant HQ appendices.
The Québec Appendix to the relevant standards recommends changes to section D1.1 by
stating: “The Régie de l’énergie is responsible, in Québec, for compliance monitoring
with respect to the reliability standard and its appendix that it adopts”.
In the event that the role of NPCC / RRO is maintained NLH suggests that the following
wording, or similar, replace the existing wording in Section D1.1 of the relevant HQRC
appendices:
Compliance Monitor: NPCC for Regional entities - NPCC shall report
compliance and violations to the Régie and/or NERC in accordance with the
QROP and the QCMEP.
This language is an adaptation of Similar Language used in NERC Standard PRC-017,
where in section D 1.1 it said;
Compliance Monitor: Regional Reliability Organization. Each Region shall
report compliance and violations to NERC via the NERC Compliance
Reporting process.
And is consistent with the intentions of section 2.8.1 of QROP where it states;
2.8.1 Reporting Requirements: NPCC shall report all known violations, selfreported, confirmed, and alleged, of all reliability standards to the Régie and
to NERC in accordance with the requirements established in the NERC
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program procedures document.
And is as well consistent with section 8.0 of the QCMEP which states;
8.0 REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE
NPCC shall prepare and submit to the Régie and NERC all required reports
containing current information concerning (1) Registered Entity compliance
with Reliability Standards.[…]
In addition to the recommendations mentioned above the desire to maintain the role of
the RRO / NPCC will also necessitate that an entity be responsible for monitoring the
compliance of the RRO. It appears this requirement was as well envisioned in QROP and
QCMEP.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 8
Section 2.4 of the QROP states:
2.4 NERC Monitoring of Compliance for NPCC
NERC shall monitor NPCC compliance with NERC reliability standards.
Similarly Section 2.4.1 states:
2.4.1 NERC Obligations: NERC compliance enforcement staff shall monitor
the compliance of NPCC with the reliability standards for which NPCC is
responsible.
As a result of the references above, it is also suggested that HQRC modify section D 1.1,
and applicable subsections, of the relevant appendixes to recognise that NERC is the
compliance monitor for NPCC (RRO). Below is suggested test for that revision;
Compliance Monitor: NERC for NPCC - NERC shall report compliance and
violations to the Régie in accordance with the QROP and the QCMEP
NLH believes that maintaining the role of the RRO in the NERC standards as they apply
in Québec ensures that the application of standards is as stringent as it is in the rest of
North America.
In May 2009 the Régie, NERC and NPCC entered into an agreement titled “Agreement
on the development of electric power transmission reliability standards and of procedures
and a program for the monitoring of the application of these standards for Québec”.
Section 4.2 of that agreement states:
NERC and NPCC undertake to ascertain that any electric power
transmission reliability standards specific to Québec, and/or any
variant of such standards specific to Québec, which the reliability
coordinator deems necessary to ensure the reliability of electric power
transmission in Québec, is as stringent as the NERC reliability
standards applicable in the rest of North America. [emphases added]
NLH believes that the standards adopted for use in Québec should contain the roles
intended for NPCC (RRO), NERC and Régie in the agreements specified.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 9
(b)
The addition of Section A.6 to the Appendix of HQ’s standards
In D-2012-091, R-3699-2009 Phase 1, July 25, 2012 decision, the Régie asked the
Coordinator to clarify and codify in their appendices the scope specific to Québec
according to the regulatory content of the Matrix, as accepted by the Régie in the
Decision.
While NLH is thankful for the effort to inject clarity into the documents and agrees with
the Régie’s decision, it finds that the inclusion of a new subsection into the appendix,
subsection A.6, titled “Scope”, may in itself create conflicts between that section and
others presently contained in the Standards.
To illustrate this point by way of example standard FAC-010 will be used. HQRC’s
appendix to this standard contains the new subsection A.6 (Scope), however;
1.
The newly created subsection, A.6, does not have a corresponding section in the
NERC standard which it can say it is clarifying.
2.
This new section, A.6 contains the phrase “Main Transmission System, MTS”,
which leads NLH to conclude that the electrical or geographic footprint for this
standard is the MTS. However, at the same time section A.3 of the NERC
standard, titled “Purpose” makes reference to the BES. This reference to the BES
is not modified in HQ’s appendix to the standard, where in section A.3 of the
appendix it states “No Specific Provisions”. Hence, the appendix, through section
A.3, does not modify the Purpose of the standard and maintains the BES
specification, while in section A.6, the reader is informed that the Scope of the
standard is the MTS. Thus, two different electrical footprints are specified during
the reading of the standard and its appendix.
As a result of the above, NLH would like to ensure that the potential for different
interpretations is eliminated. It asks that either the “Scope” modifications required by
section A.6 be incorporated into the appendices in the section titled “Regional
Differences”, section E, or alternatively, that the change in scope required by the standard
for Québec not be incorporated into a section or subsection of the appendix, but instead
be incorporated into a main section, or heading of the appendix. In any event NLH would
like to confirm that in the case of a discrepancy in interpretation, the geographic or
electrical boundaries identified in the “Scope”, prevail.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 10
(c)
Use of the Defined Term Bulk Power System (“BPS”)
A number of the HQRC appendices which accompany the NERC Reliability standards,
(as an example PRC-018 and TPL-004) use the acronym BPS. While this acronym is not
defined in the NERC Glossary, HQRC have incorporated it into the Glossary applicable
to the reliability standards for the Québec system by sourcing it from the NPCC
Glossary. The NPCC glossary, NPCC Document A-7, and the HQRC Glossary both
define the BPS as:
The interconnected electrical systems within northeastern North America
comprised of system elements on which faults or disturbances can have a
significant adverse impact outside of the local area.
Integral to the BPS definition is an analysis (test) which determines whether or not a fault
on a system element can have a significant impact outside its local area. FERC, in Order
743 refers4 to the use of the BPS definition as an impact based methodology which is
used to identify the elements subject to a standard. This process for identifying elements
or facilities is in contrast to the more prescriptive MTS definition which identifies more
directly the elements and facilities (lines, generators and controls) which perform specific
system functions. The HQRC Glossary defines MTS as:
The transmission system comprised of equipments and lines generally
carrying large quantities of energy and of generating facilities of 50
MVA or more, providing control over reliability parameters:
Generation/load balancing
Frequency control
Level of operating reserves
Voltage control of the system and tie lines
Power flows within operating limits
Coordination and monitoring of interchange transactions
Monitoring of special protection systems
System restoration
The product of this definition is the list of MTS elements contained in
HQCME-06-07, June 8, 2012, annexes B to E, pages 66 to 90.
4
document
Revision to Electric Reliability Organization Definition of Bulk Electric System, Order No. 743, 133
FERC ¶ 61,150, (Issued November 18, 2010) available at : http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/commmeet/2010/111810/E-2.pdf
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 11
Contrary to the definitive list above, the BPS elements referred to in the NPCC Glossary
(but not adopted by NERC nor FERC) are identified through an impact assessment
process contained in, NPCC Document A-10 5. That document provides a methodology
for the identification of those elements to which the Bulk Power System criteria are
applicable; i.e. those which would have a wide area reliability impact on the operation of
the Interconnection and its operation with neighbouring systems.
NLH, in its review of the Reliability Standards Application Matrix6 related to the use of
the term BPS was not able to identify a reference to NPCC A-10 in either of the columns
titled ‘Mandatory Compliance to NPCC Documents’, ‘Optional Compliance to NPCC
Documents’ or ‘Other Support Documents’.
NLH assumes that based on HQRC’s desire to include the BPS definition into certain
standards, HQRC will also be recommending a requirement to undertake an assessment
similar to that identified in NPCC A-10 and as a result will be proposing a reference to
either NPCC A-10, or a similar methodology document, in the Application Matrix.
Without advanced knowledge of the particular impact assessment that could be applied to
identify facilities subject to reliability standards, NLH expects that the application of
such a test will result in the exemption or addition of elements to the MTS list of
facilities already reviewed by the Régie in HQCME-06-07, June 8, 2012, annexes B to E,
pages 66 to 90. Such additions and exemptions would be undertaken without the
oversight of the Régie.
NLH believes that the methodology employed to identify the elements which will be
subject to reliability standards, and any ambiguity within, can have an impact on the
identification of the elements captured by the definition. Any lack of clarity associated
with the BPS analysis methodology may prevent the application of a standard to an MTS
element that would protect the system from instability, uncontrolled separation or
cascading failures and prevent the development of a mitigation plan in the event such an
element is the cause of a contingency.
While NLH acknowledges that the Régie does not have to adopt NERC’s BES definition
for application to the standards, and has the authority to adopt the MTS, BPS or another
definition which identifies system elements, NLH does feel that clarity should be
considered integral criteria in the standards adoption process.
NLH believes that ambiguity in the BPS identification process, as per the methodology of
A-10, or any similar process, could fail to ensure that all the element and facilities
5
6
We added this document as Appendix 1 of our comments.
HQCME-2, Document 6.1
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 12
necessary for the reliable operation of the Québec System are covered by the Reliability
Standards and fails to ensure that elements are not added to, or subtracted from, the list
of facilities and elements already analysed by the Régie.7
Similar concern was expressed by FERC in Order 743 when it commented on the
superiority of its BES definition as a mechanism for identifying facilities necessary for
reliable system operation when compared to the impact assessment approach suggested
by NPCC through the use of A-108. FERC, at the following paragraphs stated:
76 […]The Commission does not support using the material impact
tests offered by commenters as a basis for determining a facility’s
importance. Section 215 states that the Reliability Standards apply to
facilities that are necessary for operating an interconnected electric
energy transmission network (or any portion thereof). The material
impact tests that either are under development or implemented appear
to exclude facilities without regard to whether they are necessary to
operate the system, and instead seek to determine the impact of the
loss of an element.
77. We disagree with commenters who assert that NPCC’s current
material impact assessment, referred to as NPCC Document A-10,
ensures that the proper facilities are included in the bulk electric
system. Although the NPCC Document A-10 provides a test
methodology to identify elements of the bulk electric system, the tests
prescribed are subjective. In the test, a specific bus is subjected to a
three-phase fault and the impacts on other buses are determined.
NPCC Document A-10 states that “a transient stability test may be
done first to identify buses at which faults may cause a significant
adverse impact outside of the ‘local area.’” The term “local area” is
broadly defined and is open to interpretation. Thus, under NPCC
Document A-10, if an entity chooses a large geographical area for its
“local area,” the impact resulting from a fault at a specific bus could
be considered a “significant adverse impact,” but since the impact
falls within the large “local area,” the bus may not be declared part of
the bulk electric system. For example, if one entity defines the “local
area” as the boundary of the balancing authority, while another entity
7
A review of the document titled ‘Reliability Standards Application Matrix, under the heading titled
“Applicable System(s) or Facilities in Quebec” Makes reference to both the MTS and the BPS thus
indicating that the complete list of facilities covered by each definition are not identical
8
In the summary of order 743-A, 134 FERC 61,210, the Commission denied rehearing and otherwise
reaffirmed its determinations in order 743, FERC
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 13
defines the local area as adjacent buses, the outcome of the two tests
could vary significantly. In particular, this likely could result in an
exclusion of a large number of facilities from the purview of the bulk
electric system for the first entity that applies a broader view of “local
area.”
78. NPCC Document A-10 does not assess whether the facilities within
the “local area” are necessary for reliable operation of the
interconnected transmission network and also does not discuss system
performance or any “significant adverse impact” on the facilities
within the “local area.” Therefore, facilities within a local area could
operate in an unstable manner or violate emergency operating limits,
and as long as these adverse effects are contained within the defined
“local area,” NPCC’s Document A-10 assessment would deem those
facilities outside the scope of the bulk electric system. We believe
NPCC’s Document A-10 assessment has resulted in an inconsistent
process that excludes facilities from the bulk electric system.
NLH believes the opinion supplied by FERC in relation to the BES apply equally to the
MTS.
A read of the HQ glossary indicates that RC has not included into its Glossary the
definition of Local Area, as contained in the NPCC Glossary. While the exclusion of this
term does not diminish the potential for subjective or inconsistent application of the BPS
test process, NPCC’s definition is cited below for reference:
Local area — An electrically confined or radial portion of the system.
The geographic size and number of system elements contained will
vary based on system characteristics. A local area may be relatively
large geographically with relatively few buses in a sparse system, or
be relatively small geographically with a relatively large number of
buses in a densely networked system.9
Neither the definition above, nor the lack of one, should misconstrue the fact that the
electrical systems outside of Québec are not considered to be either a “local Area” or an
electrically confined or radial portion of the HQ system which could be presented as
being subject to the BPS testing Methodology.
9
Northeast Power Coordinating Council, Inc, Glossary of Terms, Approved Available at :
https://www.npcc.org/Standards/Directories/Glossary%20of%20Terms.pdf
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 14
As a consequence of the ambiguity inherent in the BPS methodology’s suitability for
identifying facilities that are to be subject to standards, NLH suggests that the Régie
adopt a clear process for exempting or adding facilities to the Registry’s list of facilities
and elements derived from the MTS definition. 10. Such a process would prove useful and
convenient for cataloging facilities such as the generating and load servicing assest which
are switched to be either isolated from, or connected to the HQ and Ontario or New
Brunswick systems.
In the event that the Régie agrees to accept the implementation of an impact assessment
based methodology, the methodology should be approved by the Régie, and referenced in
the Reliability standards Application Matrix, prior to including the BPS term in the
Appendices supplied by HQRC. In the interim MTS should be maintained as the scope.
An approval process for the application of BPS within the ‘Scope’ of a standard would
ensure that the test is not subjective, and would prevent the addition to or deletion from
the list of MTS elements without Régie oversight.
(d)
Use of the phrase ‘Loads Affected by MTS’
The appendix to particular standards submitted by HQRC for approval contain the phrase
“or loads affected by the MTS” in the newly adopted “Scope” Section, A.6. As was the
case with the use of the phrase “BPS”, NLH is concerned with the use of the phrase “or
loads affected by the MTS” in that the phrase utilizes the word “affected”, which implies
a process that will be utilized to identify facilities which could be subject to the
reliability standards. The appendix to standard EOP-004 is an example of such a
document.
At this point of the standards adoption process the loads affected by the MTS
have not been identified and cataloged nor has a method for identifying them been
discussed or approved thus making the scope of the standard indeterminate.
(e)
Use of the phrase “Québec Interconnection”
The Reliability standards Application Matrix and the appendix to standard MOD-018,
and possibly the appendices to other standards listed in the matrix, use subsection A.6 in
the appendix, titled “Scope” to indicate that within Québec the standard applies to the
“Québec Interconnection”. A review of the document titled “Glossary of Terms and
10
In order 743 at paragraph 95 FERC states;……We also note that the Final Rule directs the ERO to
consider adopting an exemption process that would help alleviate the Joint Canadian Parties’ concerns
about a “one-size fits all” approach….
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 15
Acronyms used in Reliability Standards” did not provide a definition of the geographic or
electrical footprint of the Québec Interconnection.
NLH believes that if this ‘Scope’ of application is accepted, the Régie should also request
that HQRC submit a definition of the Québec Interconnection to remove subjectivity,
uncertainty or ambiguity associated with the term.
As a guide for the development of such a definition NLH provides references to NERC,
FERC and other documentation.
NERC on its web site illustrates the Québec Interconnection as follows:
Consistent with this interpretation, FERC in Order 119 FERC 61,060 11 made the
following determinations:
288. The geographic region in which NPCC will perform its duties and
functions under the NPCC Delegation Agreement will include, as
noted above, New York State, the six New England states, and Ontario,
Québec, and the Maritime Provinces in Canada. The region covers
approximately one million square miles. NERC, in support of this
proposed regional boundary, states that the six Regional Entities
within the Eastern Interconnection, including NPCC, have worked
together to develop their respective Exhibit A proposals. This is
11
Order accepting ERO compliance filing, accepting ERO/regional entity delegation agreements, and
accepting regional entity 2007 business plans (issued April 19, 2007)
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 16
especially important for a region that is less than interconnectionwide, where failure of one of the region’s bulk-power system
components may have an adverse impact on the neighboring regions’
bulk-power systems. NERC asserts that these Regional Entities are
satisfied that they have properly identified their boundaries so as to
avoid both gaps and overlaps, and know which owners, operators and
users of the bulk-power system located along the boundaries are in
which regions.
289. We find that the NPCC region, as described in Exhibit A,
represents a sufficient size, scope and configuration. In the pro forma
Exhibit A accepted by the Commission in the ERO Certification Order,
the regional boundary is required to reflect coordination with
neighboring Regional Entities, as appropriate, to ensure that all
relevant areas are either included within the geographic boundary of a
Regional Entity or specifically identified as not being within that
Regional Entity’s geographic boundary. NERC, as noted above,
asserts that it has undertaken this review with NPCC and NPCC’s
neighboring Regional Entities and that each of these entities is
satisfied that NPCC’s boundaries have been properly identified.
The image above illustrates NERC’s definition of both the Québec interconnection, and
in accordance with the colour coding in the image identifies the NPCC regional
boundaries as understood by both NERC and the NPCC, as determined in the ruling.
Finally within the document titled Agreement on the development of electric power
transmission reliability standards and of procedures and a program for the monitoring of
the application of these standards for Québec, the recitals to this document states:
WHEREAS the Québec electric power transmission system is an
asynchronous interconnection and NERC and NPCC have recognized
it as an Interconnection, it may therefore, require reliability standards
or variants of such standards specific to this Interconnection;
The definition recognises that the Québec electric power transmission system alone
constitutes the Québec Interconnection and that the Québec Interconnection is not
constituted from the combination of the Québec system with that of any other.
NLH believes that a definition of the Québec Interconnection, consistent with the
descriptions above, must be incorporated into the Québec Glossary to clarify the scope of
application for the standards.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 17
(f)
Comment on different “Scope” statements
A review of the Appendixes submitted shows that within the section titled “Scope”, A.6,
HQ has suggested at least 4 different scopes. Four of the scopes identified are:
The MTS
The MTS or Loads Affected by the MTS
MTS or any element of a regional system whose protection trips an
element of the MTS
The Québec Interconnection
NLH believes that the Régie should consider the use of only one ‘Scope’, or one
comprehensive list of applicable facilities in Quebec, to identify the geographical or
electrical footprint covered by all standards and that the creation of different, standard
specific, scopes statements creates ambiguity, uncertainty and subjectivity with regard to
the assets collectively covered by the standards. One definition should be sufficient to
‘ring fence’ all the assets to be covered by all standards. Such a ‘ring fence’ would ensure
that all the assets required for the reliable operation of the Québec System are accounted
for and that non are left out. That definition can either be one prescriptive identification
process such as the use of the phrase MTS or it can be the use of one impact based
assessment methodology which should first be approved by the Régie. In either case an
inventory or cataloging of the assets, the asset owners, and the standards which apply to
both, as contained in HQCME-6 should be established for approval, be maintained and
be used as the ‘standard’ list.
(g)
Comments on use of the expressions “Registered Entity” and
“Responsible Entity”
NLH wishes to pass comment on the expressions “Registered Entity” and “Responsible
Entity” and their use when determining who is subject to the content of reliability
standards.
The Registry of Entities and Facilities12 contains a list of “Registered Entities” which are
subject to the standards in Quebec. The categorization of these entities is established as
per the column headings contained in the matrixes for the registry. A copy of the matrix
headings is reproduced below:
12
HQCMÉ-6, Document 7, June 8, 2012
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 18
The matrix heading categories have been used to specify within the Reliability Standards
Application Matrix13, those entities to which the standards apply in Québec. The specifics
of which are contained in 5 last columns of the heading as taken from the Application
Matrix:
An examination of the last column identifies the category of functions according to the
Registry of Entities.
In contrast to the entities identified in HQRC’s list of Registered Entities, NERC utilizes
the expression “Responsible Entity” to identify the entities to which a standard is
applicable. A copy of Section 4 from standard CIP-002 is pasted below for reference.
4. Applicability:
4.1 Within the text of Standard CIP-002, “Responsible Entity” shall mean :
4.1.1 Reliability Coordinator
4.1.2 Balancing Authority
4.1.3 Interchange Authority
4.1.4 Transmission Service Provider
4.1.5 Transmission Owner
4.1.6 Transmission Operator
4.1.7 Generator Owner
4.1.8 Generator Operator
4.1.9 Load Serving Entity
4.1.10 NERC
4.1.11 Regional Reliability Organizations
13
B-55 HQCME-2 document 6 November 10, 2010
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 19
A review of the list above indicates that the standard in question applies to both NERC
and RRO (NPCC) however an examination of CIP-002 at page 83 of HQ’s Application
Matrix suggests that the standard does not apply to either NERC or NPCC.
NLH would like to bring the attention of the Régie on the inconsistency between the
Standard and the Appendix regarding the usage of the expression “Responsible Entity”.
In fact, as we see from the NERC and Régie standard, the phrase “Responsible Entities”
(giving for example section A.4 of the standard CIP-002-1) is used to identify the
applicability of the standard. The RRO is mentioned as a responsible entity in the CIP002 Standard. Therefore, as we can see, the totality of the entities that are mentioned in
A4 vanished in the Appendix. The Appendix of CIP-002 Standard mentions specifically
that the Responsible Entity is the Régie not the RRO.
NLH’s review of the QCMEP, QROP and the Glossary which accompanies the
Reliability standards use the expression “Registered Entity” to identify Entities subject to
the Reliability standards (see QCROP page 2, QROP page 1, and for the Glossary page
25). As mentioned earlier in this submission NPCC, who is also the RRO, is a party to
those agreements
NLH contends that HQRC’s Application Matrix should include the entities specified by
NERC in section A4 of its standards. NLH believes that the column titled ‘Categories of
Functions Applicability according to the registry of Entities’ does not specify all of the
entities to which a standard should apply as it does not include all of the Responsible
Entities identified by NERC in the applicability section of its Standards (ie: NPCC and
NERC are examples of two entities that NERC includes but are not included in HQRC’s
Register of entities.)
As a result NLH requests that either another column be added to HQRC’s Reliability
Standards Application Matrix to identify the entities that NERC has specified as being
subject to specific reliability standards or alternatively that the last column of HQRC’s
existing Application Matrix be modified to include the entities identified by NERC as
being subject to standards. Both NERC and FERC are specifically identified in NERC’s
Violation Risk Factor Matrix.
The Régie should clarify and confirm that the RRO in Québec is the NPCC. If so, the
Appendices should be modified accordingly to give NPCC a role in the applicability
because as it now stands the NPCC (RRO) seems to have no role to play.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 20
2.
COMMENTS ON THE APPENDICES OF PARTICULAR STANDARDS
(a)
Standard PRC-001
The HQRC Appendix to standard PRC-001, in subsection A.6, titled “Scope”, indicates
that the scope of the standard is the Main Transmission System (MTS) or any element of
a regional system whose protection trips an element of the MTS. The Glossary of Terms
accompanying the HQRC standards does not contain a definition for the term “regional
system”.
In an effort to provide clarity with respect to interpretation of the standard and the
identification of to whom the standards apply, NLH believes that the term “regional
system” should be defined, prior to approval of the standard, for inclusion in the Glossary
of Terms used in the standards.
NLH requests that the definition be sufficiently clear for the reader to differentiate a
“regional system” from;
a “local system” or “local area”,
the MTS
the entirety of a “Balancing Area” or
the collective systems of a Regional Entity.
As was the case with the use of the phrase BPS, NLH is concerned with the possible
ambiguity or the subjective use of an undefined term.
(b)
Standard EOP-004
Paragraph 604 of FERC Order No. 69314 which adjudicated the approval of the majority
of the NERC standards states:
EOP-004-1 establishes requirements for reporting system disturbances to the
regional reliability organization and the ERO. It also establishes
requirements for the analysis of these disturbances.
14
118 ferc 61,218 March 16, 2007
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 21
The HQRC Appendix submitted to clarify the application of this standard in Québec
recommend, through modifications to Requirements R1 and Applicability A4.6, that the
RRO not be responsible for establishing and maintaining a reporting procedure for
Disturbances.
General concerns associated with HQ’s suggested removal of the role played by the RRO
were expressed in section 1 (a) earlier.
The HQRC Appendix to this Standard, through the abolishment of the above and
Measure M1, recommends that a procedure not be available to appropriate stakeholders.
Similarly, the abolishment of Requirement R5, recommends that the RRO will not be
required to track the status of any recommendations which may result from these reports,
nor be required to notify various NERC committees on the progress associated with the
implementation of the recommendations.
NLH, as a holder of a Transmission Service Agreement with HQ, is subject to delivery
Curtailment and interruptions during those periods when Disturbances require that load
relief be applied to the Transmission System.
As a consequence NLH believes that a written procedure to guide the analysis and to
establish content requirements, developed in accordance with industry practices, be made
available to HQRC customers so that transmission customers can verify the reason for
the curtailments. As mentioned earlier, NPCC is recognised by the Régie, HQRC and
NERC as the RRO for Québec15.
In May 2009 the Régie, NERC and NPCC entered into an agreement titled “Agreement
on the development of electric power transmission reliability standards and of procedures
and a program for the monitoring of the application of these standards for Québec”.
Section 4.2 of that agreement states:
NERC and NPCC undertake to ascertain that any electric power
transmission reliability standards specific to Québec, and/or any variant of
such standards specific to Québec, which the reliability coordinator deems
necessary to ensure the reliability of electric power transmission in Québec,
is as stringent as the NERC reliability standards applicable in the rest of
North America. [emphases added]
15
Footnote number 4 in the Glossary of Tems and Acronyms used in Reliability Standards says; Note from
direction – Contrôle des mouvements d’énergie : The Regional Reliability Organization for Québec is
the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC).
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 22
NLH believes that the change proposed to the standard should be demonstrated as a
change needed to ensure reliable operation of the electric power system in Québec and
that such changes ensure the standard is as stringent as that applicable in the rest of North
America.
(c)
Standard PRC-018:
The HQRC appendix to Standard PRC-018, contains a new section, section A.6, titled
“Scope”, which states:
As per the Regional Reliability Organization’s installation requirements for the
Disturbance Monitoring Equipments (DMEs) defined in Requirement 2.
Subsequently within the standard, Requirements R2.1 and R2.2 make reference to the
NPCC term Bulk Power System (BPS). Concerning the definition of BPS, please see the
general comment.
(d)
Standard TPL-004:
NLH makes three comments related to the Appendix which has been submitted by
HQRC to accompany the original NERC standard.
Firstly, it should be noted that the standard as written by NERC is titled ‘System
Performance Following Extreme Events Resulting in the Loss of Two or More
Bulk Electric System Elements (Category D). HQRC, has titled the appendix to
this standard as “System Performance Following Extreme Events Resulting in the
Loss of Two or More Bulk Power System Elements (Category D)”. NLH
believes that the title to the appendix should be consistent with the standard to
which it applies and asks the HQRC not modify the title.
Secondly, HQRC in section A.6 of the appendix to the NERC Standard uses the
phrase ‘Bulk Power System (BPS) as defined in HQRC’s Glossary Register of
Entities’. NLH questions whether the reference in HQRC’s Glossary to the
Register of Entities should really be a reference to the Glossary of Terms and
Acronyms used for interpreting the standards in the Québec context.
Thirdly the Standard utilizes the phrase BPS. NLH documented its concerns with
the use of this phrase in Section 1(c) of this submission.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 23
(e)
Glossary
As discussed previously, NLH requests that the Glossary be revised and updated to
incorporate the new terms requested.
3. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS AND PROCESSES
(a)
Standards related to the FERC Order 890 and Approved by FERC
since HQ’s initial submission;
The Régie in D-2012-010, a decision related to Décision relative aux modifications du
texte des Tarifs et conditions en lien avec les ordonnances 890, 890-A, 890-B, 890-C et
890-D de la FERC, wrote in paragraph 148:
“Subject to the other conclusions set forth in this decision, the Régie does not
consider it necessary to delay the application of the methodology and algorithms
proposed in Attachment C-1 for calculating the firm ATC and non-firm ATC, pending
approval of the reliability standards in Québec on this matter. This methodology and
these algorithms are used in calculating the ETC and ATC and refer to industry
practices. They may be adjusted later if necessary, when the reliability standards
have been approved by the Régie”. [Unofficial translation]
In exhibit HQCMÉ-6, Document 8, HQRC recognises the relationship and the fact that
related standards have not yet been submitted16.
NLH considers the modelling, data and analysis (MOD) group of reliability standards to
be an integral component of the analysis for determining ATC and ETC.
FERC in Order 729
below:
17
approved the six, previously unapproved, MOD standards listed
MOD-001 Title: Available Transmission System Capability;
16
HQCMÉ-6, Document 8, Section 2, ‘Glossary’ (last version dated June 11, 2002) states; The Tariffs and
conditions of service of the Hydro-Québec ("OATT"), presented in Appendix C, contains a methodology
for assessing available transfer capacity (ATC) as well as comprehensive descriptions of its components
TTC, ETC TRM and CBM. These descriptions arise from other standards MOD-001, MOD-004, MOD008 and MOD-029 have been approved by FERC, but have not yet been submitted for approval to the
Board by the Coordinator
17
“Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Calculation of Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit
Margins, Transmission Reliability Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and Existing Transmission
Commitments and Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System”, dated November 24th
2009 (129 FERC 61,155), and subsequent Orders 729-A and 729-B.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8
Page 24
MOD-004 title: Capacity Benefit Margin Methodology;
MOD-008 Title: Transmission Reliability Margin Methodology;
MOD-028 Title: Area Interchange Methodology;
MOD-029 Title: Rated System Path Methodology;
MOD-030 Title: Flowgate Methodology;
Given that the Modeling, Data and Analysis (MOD) standards listed above inform the
content of Attachment C-1 of the HQ OATT, as referenced by the Régie in its decision,
NLH, as a customer of transmission service from HQ, requests that these standards be
submitted to the Régie for approval as soon as possible.
(b)
Filing of revised standards
HQRC has proposed to withdraw 27 Standards (now obsolete), to revise them and to
resubmit them to the Régie for approval, in the context of a new file. To justify this
request, HQRC states that these Standards would benefit from the “consultation process
prior to the filing of reliability standards for adoption by the Régie”, as provided by the
Régie in its decision D-2011-139 dated September 14, 2011.
As stated by the Régie in its letter dated October 12, 2012, HQRC needs to justify its
proposal. The Régie, asked HQRC to identify which standards are obsolete and to
identify which of those standards has a version subsequent to the one last filed with the
Régie. Those would be the standards it would be preferable not to consider revising
within the context of the present file.
NLH agrees with the Régie on the fact that it is unnecessary to revise a standard that is no
longer in effect. NLH also agrees that HQRC needs to better justify its proposal to
withdraw certain standards. Until such justification has been provided, NLH will
withhold comments in this regard.
4.
CONCLUSION
NLH submits these comments in the interest of consistency and clarity. NLH attributes
importance to clarifying any existing ambiguity to avoid future difficulties in interpreting
the standards and to avoid case-by-case disputes. NLH also wants to ensure that the time
lag between FERC and Régie decisions is minimized.
DM_MTL/118243.00010/2909088.8