File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
INFORMATION REQUEST #1 SUBMITTED TO THE RELIABILITY
COORDINATOR BY NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HYDRO
Question #1
Reference:
“Normes de Fiabilité de la NERC deposées pour adoption”, revised
version, B-1, HQCME-2, document 1
Preamble:
Whereas the OATT provides commercial provisions applied by HQT, the reliability
standards filed by the Reliability Coordinator in the Régie’s file R-3699-2009 (the
“Reliability Standards”) offer a set of rules applied by many Responsible Entities,
amongst which we find the Reliability Coordinator. These two sets of provisions and
standards shall apply to such entities as, amongst others, HQT and NLH.
Questions:
1.
Can you please confirm that the Reliability Standards are a different set of rules
from the OATT. Please explain your answer.
2.
Can you please confirm where specifically these Reliability Standards will be
posted?

On HQT’s OASIS website?

On the Régie website?

Elsewhere? (please specify)

All of the above?
3.
Could the Reliability Standards apply in any manner to a request for Point-toPoint transmission service? Please explain your answer.
4.
If so, what, if any, would be the input of the Reliability Coordinator in the
application of these Reliability Standards to such a request? Could the Reliability
Coordinator take part in the System Impact Study? Please explain your
answer.
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
2
5.
Could this input consist in the Reliability Coordinator interacting or
communicating directly with the entity requesting transmission service or would
the Reliability Coordinator only interact with HQT? Please explain your answer.
6.
Could you please describe in detail the steps that will be taken by the Reliability
Coordinator or HQT or both, as the case may be, to assert whether or not an
otherwise acceptable transmission request can be completed on the basis of
Reliability Standards?
7.
Where a transmission request was denied on the basis that it could cause a breach
in the Reliability Standards, could the transmission customer file a complaint?
Please explain your answer.
8.
If so, should the transmission customer then file a complaint with HQT or with
the Reliability Coordinator?
Question #2
Reference: “Le coordonnateur de la fiabilité dépose les normes de fiabilité de la
NERC afin d’en obtenir l’adoption par la Régie et souligne qu’il ne dépose aucune
variante ou autre norme spécifique au Québec”, HQCMÉ-1, Document 1, page 22 of 41.
Questions:
1.
We understand from this comment that the only reliability standards that were
filed and that will be applicable in the Quebec Interconnection under the
Reliability Coordinator’s jurisdiction are those developed by NERC. Please
confirm.
2.
Could HQT apply other reliability standards than those filed by the Reliability
Coordinator and adopted by the Régie? Please explain your answer.
Question #3
References: HQCME-2, Document 13, page 31
Preamble: This document indicates that the Reliability Coordinator does not envision
Reliability Standards specific to Quebec at this time.
Questions:
1.
With respect to transmission planning by the Transmission Planner and the
Planning Authority, does this mean that only NERC transmission planning
standards TPL-001 through TPL-006 and NPCC Document A2 - “Basic Criteria
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
3
for Design and Operation of Interconnected Power Systems” - will be used in
planning the bulk transmission system within the Quebec Interconnection?
2.
Are there any transmission planning standards that are specific to Québec, i.e. that
are not part of the transmission planning standards used in other jurisdictions?
Question #4
Reference: HQCME-2, Document 1 (en liasse), Norme NERC CIP-006-1, page 7
(p. 110 of the original “.pdf” file and, for the revised version, p. 9 of the
“.pdf” file)
Preamble:
At section D of this standard (page 7), we find three provisions under section 1.3 “Data
Retention” whereas the NERC standards only have two; we also note that in the HQCME
version, provisions 1.3.2 and 1.3.3. are the same in the English version, but are different
in the French version.
Question:
1.
How can you explain the existence of provision 1.3.3 in the HQCME English
version if it is not in the NERC version?
2.
How can you explain the fact that provisions 1.3.2 and 1.3.3. are drafted in the
exact same way in the English version but not in the French version?
Question #5
Reference: HQCMÉ-1, Document 1, page 28 of 41.
Preamble: “Les differences régionales sont des exigences spécifiques obligatoires qui
sont appliqués seulement dans une region particulière.”
Question:
1.
We understand that there are no “differences régionales” for the Québec
interconnection that are being filed within the current application to the Régie.
Please confirm.
2.
What are the criteria used to determine these “differences régionales”?
Question #6
References: Chapter 9, “Sanction”, HQCMÉ-1, Document 1, pages 39 and 40 of 41.
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
4
HQMCE-2, Document 9 (En liasse)
Questions:
1.
Could you describe in detail how the proceeds from these penalties will be used?
2.
Could HQT, as a Transmission Provider, be targeted under this sanction or
penalty regime? Please identify any other Hydro-Québec division that could,
individually, also be targeted under this sanction or penalty regime.
3.
Considering the “Basic Principles” found at Section 3 of the Sanction Guide and
considering section 3.11 of the Sanction guide - “Economic Choice to Violate” is it safe to assume that where such penalties could be imposed upon HQT, these
would not be included in the tariff paid by the transmission customer but would
be taken directly from HQT’s profits? In other words, can you please tell us who
would end up paying for these penalties: HQT’s stakeholders, through reduced
benefits, or HQT’s customers, through increased tariffs?
Question #7
Reference: HQCMÉ-2, Document 10, revised version, “Glossaire”
Preamble: There are many differences between this glossary of terms and NERC’s.
Specifically, we note the following:

Page 2: “Ajustement de fiabilité d’une demande d’échange” (Reliability
Adjustment RFI) – this is a CME definition for which there seems to be no
NERC equivalent;

Page 7: “Charge” – the NERC definition has been modified to add that it
can also refer to the quantity of power consumed;

Page 7: “Charge Locale” - This is different from NERC’s definition for
native load - “An end-use device or customer that receives power from the
electric system” - since you refer to the quantity of power consumed and
you refer to an “obligation to deliver” which falls upon the “entity
responsible for supplying” it;

Page 16: “Entité” - this is a CME definition for which there is no NERC
equivalent;
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
5

Page 22: “Interconnexion” - the NERC definition has been modified to
add “l’Interconnexion du Quebec”;

Page 26: “Norme de performance du réglage-1” (CPS-1) - this is a CME
definition for which there seems to be no NERC equivalent;

Page 27: “Norme de performance du réglage-2” (CPS-2) - this is a CME
definition for which there seems to be no NERC equivalent;

Page 35: “Réseau de transport principal” – There are two definitions in
French (their acronyms are “RTP” and “BES”); the definition for RTP
refers to “Main Transmission System” for which we have not found a
NERC equivalent;

Page 38: “Salle de commande” – this is a CME definition for which there
seems to be no NERC equivalent.
Question:
1.
How do you explain these differences between CME’s glossary and FERC’s?
Question # 8
Reference:
“Demande d’Hydro-Québec par sa direction Contrôle des mouvements
d’énergie dans ses fonctions de coordonnateurs de la fiabilité au
Québec visant l’adoption des normes de fiabilité et l’approbation des
registres identifiant les entités et les installations visées par les normes
et le guide de sanctions”, B-1, HQCME-1, Demande, p. 4 in fine.
Preamble:
The Reliability Coordinator’s request, in this file, was filed by “Affaires juridiques
Hydro-Québec”, with a reference to one of its attorneys, “(Me Carolina Rinfret)”. In the
Régie files R-3706-2009 and R-3707-2009, Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie (“HQT”) also
had its requests filed by “Affaires juridiques Hydro-Québec”, with the same reference to
Ms. Carolina Rinfret. It therefore seems that Ms. Carolina Rinfret is simultaneously
acting as counsel for each of HQT and the Reliability Coordinator.
When the Régie designated the “direction Contrôle des mouvements d’énergie”
(“HQCME”) as the Reliability Coordinator for Québec, in its decision D-2007-095, it
specifically requested that a special Code of Conduct be filed by the newly designated
Reliability Coordinator for approval by the Régie; this approval was given in decision D2007-142 (French version) and D-2008-004 (English version).
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
6
In the English version of this Code of Conduct, we find, at sections 4.6 and 4.7, the
following provisions:
“4.6 Staff shall in no circumstances allow an employee of an Affiliate of the
Transmission Provider or an employee of another unit of the Transmission
Provider involved in activities that relate to the marketing of transmission
service or an employee of another System User:
a. to participate directly in the operations of the Reliability Coordinator
or assume transmission system reliability duties; or
b. to have access to the System Control Centre or a backup centre used
for transmission operations or for transmission system reliability
functions that differs in any way from the access given to other System
Users.
4.7 Staff shall not disclose to an employee of a System User, to an employee of
another unit of the Transmission Provider or to an employee of an Affiliate of the
Transmission Provider any information conferring Preferential Treatment.”
The Code includes the following definitions:
“Preferential Treatment”: Treatment that gives an advantage to one System
User over another System User in violation of this Code of Conduct;
“Staff”: Personnel who are under the authority of the Reliability Coordinator or
under the authority of another unit of the Transmission Provider who perform
functions related to the Reliability Coordinator’s role. The definition includes
personnel fulfilling the functions of the Balancing Authority, Transmission
Operator and Interchange Authority. The definition includes both management
and employees, as well as personnel hired on contract by the Reliability
Coordinator or another unit of the Transmission Provider to perform functions
related to the Reliability Coordinator’s role;
“System User”: Any user of the electric power transmission system for which
the Reliability Coordinator is responsible, and more specifically, any generator
owner or operator, any transmission provider, any distributor, any marketer, or
any customer connected directly to such electric power transmission system;
Questions:
1.
How did HQCMÉ go about selecting legal counsel?
2.
Can you confirm that Ms. Carolina Rinfret is currently acting as counsel for
HQCMÉ?
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
7
3.
Do sections 4.6 and 4.7 of the Code of Conduct apply to HQMCÉ’s counsel or to
counsel for any other unit of HQT or any other division of Hydro-Québec?
4.
Can you confirm that the present HQCMÉ counsel is in no way involved in
activities that relate to the marketing of transmission service?
5.
Is the current HQCMÉ counsel also currently acting as counsel for one or more
units of HQT other than HQCMÉ?
6.
Who is responsible for applying the aforementioned Code of Conduct within
HQCME?
7.
In the event where HQCMÉ’s counsel may be called to be involved in activities
that relate to the marketing activities of HQT, how do you reconcile this support
to commercial activities with the explicit prohibition of section 4.6 of the Code of
Conduct?
8.
In a situation where HQT’s and HQCMÉ’s interests were to diverge significantly,
how would you reconcile the obligation of loyalty owed by HQCMÉ’s counsel to
HQT and HQCMÉ under s. 3.00.01 of the Code of ethics of advocates, R.R.Q.,
ch. B-1, r.1, and under s. 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec?
9.
In this case, would HQCMÉ’s counsel’s obligation of loyalty towards HQT
relieve her from the application of this Code of Conduct?
10.
How can HQCMÉ’s counsel, an employee of another unit of HQT, fulfill her
duties as counsel of HQCME – where such duties require the analysis of sensitive
market information – when there is a prohibition, at section 4.7, against the
disclosure of information conferring Preferential Treatment to an employee of
another unit of HQT? In other words, if other employees of HQCME are not
permitted to disclose such information to HQCME’s counsel on the basis that she
is also counsel for HQT, how can she (or any other HQT counsel) fulfill her
duties?
Question #9
Reference: HQCME-2, document 5, s. 2.9.3
Preamble: You state that a minimum of ten “event recorders” have to be installed: “Un
minimum de 10 enregistreurs dynamiques de perturbation par 30 000 MW de charge de
pointe doivent être installés pour les installations ou appareils”
Question:
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1
File number : R-3699-2009
Information Request – NLH
October 19, 2009
8
1.
Please confirm the exact number of such event recorders which are to be installed.
2.
Please identify the exact location of each of these event recorders.
Question #10
Reference: (No reference)
Preamble: There is currently a consultation process before the Régie on the adoption of
the Québec Rules of Procedure (QROP) for Compliance Services by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation and the Québec Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Program (QCMEP) for Implementation by Northeast Power Coordinating
Council, Inc.
Question:
1.
Why are these rules of procedure and this monitoring and enforcement program
not examined by the Régie in its file R-3699-2009?
DM_MTL/118243-00005/2119762.1