UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Regulations Implementing FAST Act Section
61003 – Critical Electric Infrastructure
Security and Amending Critical Energy
Infrastructure Information
)
)
)
)
Docket No. RM16-15-000
REPLY COMMENTS OF PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) respectfully submits these Reply Comments to
comments submitted by ISO New England Inc. (“ISO-NE”) and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
(“SPP”) (“ISO-NE/SPP Comments”) on the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(“NOPR”) issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”).1 PJM files
these Reply Comments to point out its concerns with the specific request of ISO-NE and SPP to
“allow”:
“. . . each ISO and RTO, or other entities with FERC-approved tariffs, or other
similar agreements where non-jurisdictional, to freely share CEII information
between the entities relying on their tariff information-handling commitments.”2
Although the goal of ISO-NE and SPP to encourage the sharing of Critical Electric
Infrastructure Information (“CEII”) among regional entities and others is laudable, the specific
proposed remedy is both incomplete and overbroad and, as written, could create more problems
than it solves. As discussed below, PJM believes that a voluntary collaborative approach would
be preferable to the Commission simply injecting into its Final Rule in this docket the
1
Regulations Implementing FAST Act Section 61003 – Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Amending
Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 155 FERC ¶ 61,278 (2016).
2
ISO-NE/SPP Comments at 4.
1
incomplete and unclear language proposed by ISO-NE and SPP. As noted below, tangible
results have been achieved on a voluntary basis among Planning Authorities3 and Transmission
Planners4 in the Eastern Interconnection as a result of a master CEII sharing agreement that has
been negotiated and finalized through the Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative
(“EIPC”).
I.
REPLY COMMENTS
At the outset, it is important to note the limited role of the Commission in this entire area
and some of the complications associated with the ISO-NE and SPP’s proposal to have the
Commission expand this NOPR to now address, in its Final Rule, the “tariffing” of CEII
processes.
In the first place, although the ISO-NE/SPP Comments ask the Commission to “allow”
each ISO/RTO to share information “relying on their tariff information-handling commitments,”5
in fact there has been no prohibition on such sharing and therefore no “permission” is suddenly
required of the Commission. Moreover, PJM and its neighboring Regional Transmission
Organizations (“RTOs”) and Independent System Operators (“ISOs”) (collectively, the
“RTOs/ISOs”) have been sharing planning and operational data for years consistent with existing
3
“Planning Authority” as referenced herein means a North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”)
registered entity responsible for coordinating and integrating transmission facilities and service plans, resource
plans, and protection systems. See Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (Jan. 29, 2016) (“Glossary of Terms”), located at:
http://www.nerc.com/pa/stand/glossary%20of%20terms/glossary_of_terms.pdf. Planning Authority as used herein
includes Planning Coordinators as that term is defined in the Glossary of Terms.
4
“Transmission Planner” as referenced herein means a NERC registered entity that develops a long-term (generally
one year and beyond) plan for the reliability (adequacy) of the interconnected bulk electric transmission systems
within its portion of the Planning Authority area. See Glossary of Terms, located at:
http://www.nerc.com/pa/stand/glossary%20of%20terms/glossary_of_terms.pdf.
5
ISO-NE/SPP Comments at 4.
2
individual CEII procedures. Finally, while not acknowledged in the ISO-NE/SPP Comments,
Planning Authorities and Transmission Planners, through the EIPC process, recently collaborated
on specific procedures to streamline the sharing of CEII data for the purposes of performing
coordinated transmission planning in the fulfillment of the Commission’s Order No. 1000 and/or
NERC’s MOD-326 requirements while still protecting its release through the use of a uniform
CEII Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”).7 Entities that have indicated their intention to sign
this uniform CEII NDA, entitled “Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners Critical
Energy Infrastructure Information Sharing and Non-Disclosure Agreement in Furtherance of
Compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric
Reliability Corporation Requirements, July 1, 2016” (“July 1 NDA”), represent a considerable
majority of the Eastern Interconnection load.8
The successful collaborative approach, made possible through the EIPC, resulted in
agreement on a CEII NDA that will allow sharing of planning data throughout the Eastern
6
Reliability Standard MOD-032-1 (and all subsequent MOD-032 versions) is(are) a consolidation and replacement
of certain existing NERC Reliability Standards, and require(s) data submission by applicable data owners to their
respective Transmission Planners and Planning Coordinators to support the Interconnection-wide case building
process in their Interconnection. See Glossary of Terms, located at:
http://www.nerc.com/pa/stand/glossary%20of%20terms/glossary_of_terms.pdf.
7
This EIPC July 1 NDA collaborative approach was also noted by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc. (“MISO”) in its opening remarks in the Commission’s Competitive Transmission Development Technical
Conference. See Opening Remarks of Jennifer Curran on Behalf of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc., Docket No. AD16-18-000, at 9-10 (June 30, 2016).
8
While the execution phase only began in the beginning of July, it is PJM’s understanding that to date, in addition
to PJM, the following parties have executed the July 1 NDA: Associated Electric Cooperative Inc., The Board of
Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commissioners of the City of Dalton, D/B/A Dalton Utilities, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, Duke Energy Progress, Florida Power & Light Company, Georgia
Transmission Corporation (An Electric Membership Corporation), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Ohio
Valley Electric Corporation, Southern Company, Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Tennessee Valley Authority, South
Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Louisville Gas & Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company. The ISONE ultimately opposed the direction of the collaborative process and, to date, has not executed the July 1 NDA.
3
Interconnection on a level that has not occurred in the past - and all accomplished without having
to invoke Commission authority or “tariffing” of processes. Although ISO-NE and SPP’s interest
in streamlining future processes is commendable, unfortunately ISO-NE and SPP have left out of
their comments the considerable achievements to date that have made the very information
sharing they seek an already accomplished fact today in the Eastern Interconnection.
Ironically, ISO-NE and SPP’s proposal, if suddenly appended to the Final Rule, would
not accomplish the very streamlining for which it argues. For one, the ISO-NE and SPP’s request
is for the “tariffing” of what today are disparate individual procedures.9 Simply calling on each
Planning Authority and Transmission Planner to tariff their existing procedures would make it
harder for parties to depart from those procedures in an effort to reach an interconnection-wide
agreement as was undertaken by the EIPC. Moreover, if each entities’ individual procedures
were suddenly tariffed, negotiations on a master agreement like the July 1 NDA would come to a
halt as each entity would have to apply to the Commission to change its tariff in order to have
authority to enter into a master interconnection-wide agreement that might modify those
individual procedures as part of a negotiated master agreement. As a result, the call for
9
PJM’s CEII process to provide eligible recipients access to CEII consistent with the Commission’s standards for
handling CEII is codified in PJM’s Manual 14B. Generally speaking, another RTO/ISO must follow PJM’s CEII
process found in section A.3.1.1 of Manual 14B. Under this process, each employee or authorized agent of such
RTO must complete a PJM CEII Request Form and must execute the appropriate PJM CEII NDA. PJM’s Manual
14B CEII rules include a streamline procedure applicable to PJM’s Members and other “Authorized Entities” (e.g.
Transmission Owners, Transmission Operators, Interconnection Customers, RTOs/ISOs and Planning
Coordinators). Under Manual 14B, PJM must verify the CEII requester is an employee of one of the Authorized
Entities before accepting the application and signing the appropriate NDA. This section also provides for an
organizational CEII request and NDA for Authorized Entities, with individual employee signatures required on an
acknowledgment. PJM’s CEII rules also address applications for CEII materials from individuals working for
federal agencies (i.e. the Commission, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Energy) and
NERC/NERC Regional Entities. These rules only require a confirmation that the requester is an employee of the
agency/NERC and the CEII materials are subject to the agency’s rules of procedures applicable to CEII in order to
receive CEII. PJM’s CEII rules also address individuals working for state commissions requesting CEII in a similar
fashion.
4
“tariffing” of procedures does nothing to provide the uniformity and streamlining that the ISONE and SPP are otherwise seeking in their Comments, and it hinders rather than helps the very
flexibility that the ISO-NE and SPP seek.
Finally, although reforms of the CEII exchange process may be worth considering, the
ISO-NE and SPP’s proposal would simply substitute language in a tariff for the more specific
tracking and individual employee affirmation of the need to keep the CEII confidential and
secure – as that CEII exists under the present manual provisions followed by PJM and/or under
the other CEII rules of numerous Transmission Planners and/or Planning Authorities. It is hard
to imagine that a simple tariff requirement on a neighboring organization would be a complete
substitute for some more rigorous affirmation and tracking of CEII data by the recipients as is
called for through the July 1 NDA. Thus, although PJM does generally concur that
improvements may be needed in the CEII exchange process (and is hopeful that the work on the
July 1 NDA will have gone a long way to accomplish that end), ISO-NE and SPP’s proposal
simply sweeps away all tracking requirements and individual affirmations that an entity, which is
sending CEII to another Planning Authority or Transmission Planner, might otherwise seek.
Instead, the sending Planning Authority or Transmission Planner is left with the Hobson’s
Choice of either: (1) simply accepting the tariff provisions of the recipient Planning Authority or
Transmission Planner which will now control the handling of the sending Planning Authorities
or Transmission Planners’ CEII data; or (2) refuse to provide the data at all. Neither is a good
choice for the sending Planning Authority or Transmission Planner. The Commission should be
reluctant to simply adopt such a sweeping proposal especially through injection of this issue into
the Final Rule in this proceeding without further vetting.
5
To the extent that the Commission believes that additional reform may be needed in this
area, PJM proposes that the Commission task the EIPC to study this issue further as it applies to
the Eastern Interconnection and report back to the Commission on whether additional
improvements and reforms should be considered by the Commission.
II.
CONCLUSION
PJM respectfully requests the Commission accept and consider the foregoing Reply
Comments in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
Craig Glazer
Vice President–Federal Government Policy
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 423-4743
craig.glazer@pjm.com
Jeanine S. Watson
Senior Counsel
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
2750 Monroe Blvd.
Audubon, Pennsylvania 19403
(610) 666-4438
jeanine.watson@pjm.com
Dated: August 30, 2016
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document on those parties on the
official Service List compiled by the Secretary in these proceedings.
Dated at Audubon, Pennsylvania this 30th day of August, 2016.
Jeanine Watson
Senior Counsel
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
2750 Monroe Blvd.
Audubon, Pennsylvania 19403
(610) 666-4438
jeanine.watson@pjm.com
7