DECISION
(Unofficial translation)
RÉGIE DE L’ÉNERGIE
QUÉBEC
D-2011-068
R-3699-2009
May 13, 2011
PRESENT:
Marc Turgeon
Michel Hardy
Louise Rozon
Commissioners
Hydro-Québec
Applicant
and
The interveners listed on the following page
Partial decision on adoption of electricity transmission
reliability standards and approval of related documents
Application by Hydro-Québec’s Direction Contrôle et
Exploitation du Réseau, acting as Québec’s Reliability
Coordinator, for adoption of reliability standards and
approval of registers of entities and facilities subject to the
standards and to the Sanction Guide
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
3
Interveners:
-
1
Énergie La Lièvre s.e.c. and Énergie Brookfield Marketing s.e.c.1 (ÉLL/EBM)
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH)
Ontario Power Generation (OPG)
Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. (RTA)
In a letter dated February 14, 2011 (Exhibit C-3-17), Énergie Brookfield Marketing Inc. (EBMI) informed the
Régie that its name had been changed to Énergie Brookfield Marketing s.e.c. (EBM). Therefore, all references
to the intervener EBMI will use its new name, EBM
4
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.
HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 9
2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 10
3.
COORDINATOR’S OBJECTION TO THE FIRST PART OF NLH’S SUPPLEMENTARY
EVIDENCE .................................................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 COORDINATOR’S ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 NLH’S RESPONSE ........................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION ..................................................................................................................................... 14
4.
RELIABILITY STANDARDS.................................................................................................................... 17
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 SCOPE OF RELIABILITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................................. 18
4.3 RELEVANCE AND IMPACTS OF RELIABILITY STANDARDS ................................................................................ 24
4.4 CONTENT OF FILED RELIABILITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................. 27
4.5 COMING-INTO-FORCE DATES OF RELIABILITY STANDARDS ........................................................................ 32
5.
REGISTERS................................................................................................................................................. 34
5.1 REGISTER OF ENTITIES SUBJECT TO THE RELIABILITY STANDARDS ................................................................. 34
5.2 REGISTER OF FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE RELIABILITY STANDARDS .............................................................. 35
5.3 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION ..................................................................................................................................... 37
6.
GLOSSARY OF RELIABILITY STANDARD TERMS AND ACRONYMS ....................................... 41
6.1 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION ..................................................................................................................................... 41
7.
APPLICATION MATRICES ..................................................................................................................... 43
7.1 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION ..................................................................................................................................... 43
8.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................... 44
8.1 REFERENCE TO NPCC CRITERIA OR TO TRANSMISSION PROVIDER’S REQUIREMENTS..................................... 44
8.2 REGISTRATION OF ONTARIO POWER GENERATION AS A GENERATOR OPERATOR IN QUÉBEC ......................... 47
9.
INTERIM COSTS ....................................................................................................................................... 50
OPERATIVE PART .................................................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 55
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
5
ABBREVIATIONS
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
Agency that regulates, among other things, interstate electricity
transmission in the U.S.
IESO
Independent Electricity System Operator:
Independent entity that serves as, among other things, Reliability
Coordinator for Ontario
NERC
North American Electric Reliability Corporation:
International reliability organization for North America
NPCC
Northeast Power Coordinating Council:
Regional reliability organization for New York State and New
England in the U.S., and the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Ontario and Québec in Canada
RELIABILITY STANDARDS:
BAL STANDARD
Resource and Demand Balancing
CIP STANDARD
Critical Infrastructure Protection
COM STANDARD
Communications
EOP STANDARD
Emergency Preparedness and Operations
FAC STANDARD
Facilities Design, Connections, and Maintenance
INT STANDARD
Interchange Scheduling and Coordination
6
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
IRO STANDARD
Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination
MOD STANDARD
Modeling, Data, and Analysis
NUC STANDARD
Nuclear
PER STANDARD
Personnel Performance, Training, and Qualifications
PRC STANDARD
Protection and Control
TOP STANDARD
Transmission Operations
TPL STANDARD
Transmission Planning
VAR STANDARD
Voltage and Reactive
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
1.
7
INTRODUCTION
[1]
On June 2, 2009, the applicant, Hydro-Québec, through its Direction Contrôle des
mouvements d’énergie (“HQCMÉ”), acting in its capacity as Québec’s Reliability
Coordinator2 (“the Coordinator”), asked the Régie de l’énergie (“the Régie”) to:
 adopt the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) reliability
standards that it filed as Exhibit HQCMÉ-2, document 1, which contained both the
French and English versions;
 approve the register of entities subject to the reliability standards (“Register of
Entities”) that it filed under the title Registre des entités visées par les normes de
fiabilité as Exhibit HQCMÉ-2, document 4;
 approve the register of facilities subject to the reliability standards (“Register of
Facilities”) that it filed under the title Registre des installations visées par les
normes de fiabilité as Exhibit HQCMÉ-2, document 5;
 approve the sanction guide for enforceable reliability standards (“Sanction Guide”)
that it filed as Exhibit HQCMÉ-2, document 9, which contained both the French
and English versions;
 take note of the filing of the reliability standards application matrices (“Application
Matrices”) that it filed as Exhibits HQCMÉ-2, documents 6 and 7 (in French) and
Exhibits HQCMÉ-2, documents 6.1 and 7.1 (in English).
[2]
At the end of the hearing, the Coordinator amended the list of rulings it was
seeking by adding:
 approve the glossary of terms and acronyms that it filed as Exhibit HQCMÉ-2,
document 10 under the title Glossaire des termes et des acronymes relatifs aux
normes de fiabilité (“the glossary”).
[3]
The Coordinator also filed, for information purposes and to support application of
the reliability standards, an operating diagram of the Main Transmission System and
regional systems under the title Schéma d’exploitation - Réseau de transport principal et
réseaux régionaux (“operating diagram”).
2
In Decision D-2010-106 of July 29, 2010, following an organizational change at Hydro-Québec, the Régie
changed the previous Reliability Coordinator designation, dated August 14, 2007, and designated the new
Direction Contrôle et Exploitation du réseau, a division of Hydro-Québec when carrying on electric power
transmission activities (CER), as the Coordinator. The division will therefore be referred to by its new name,
CER.
8
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[4]
As well, the Coordinator filed other documents, including a document concerning
assessment of the relevance and impact of the reliability standards and the list of entities
that may be subject to the reliability standards.3
[5]
On September 22, 2009, in its Decision D-2009-121, the Régie granted ÉLL/EBM,
NLH and RTA intervener status, reserved its decision on a possible oral hearing, and set
the schedule for the case.
[6]
On June 23, 2010, OPG filed an application to intervene, which was allowed in
Decision D-2010-094 of July 16, 2010.
[7]
A number of amendments to the evidence and new requests from interveners were
also filed in the course of the proceeding.
[8]
Following receipt of the interveners’ arguments and their comments on an oral
hearing, the Régie decided to hold an oral hearing, preceded by a technical meeting, a prehearing conference and a number of meetings between participants.
[9]
At the hearing held on October 7 and 14, 2010, the Coordinator’s proposed model
for the reliability standards and their scope was accepted by the interveners. However, the
Coordinator undertook to file again the Reliability Standards Application Matrix (“CER
matrix”) and add to it, among other things, clarifications on the mandatory nature of the
Northeast Power Coordinating Council (“NPCC”) criteria cross-referred by the reliability
standards that had been filed for adoption.
[10] The CER matrix was filed on October 21, 2010. ÉLL/EBM commented on it on
November 5, 2010. It was revised on November 10, 2010 and the case was then taken
under advisement by the panel.
[11] There remained only certain questions on the applicability of the reliability
standards to the generation and transmission facilities of Churchill Falls (Labrador)
Corporation Limited (CF(L)Co) in Labrador and the Chats Falls generating station,
located in part on Québec territory and jointly owned by Hydro-Québec when carrying on
electric power generation activities (“HQP”), and by OPG.
3
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 2, and Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 3.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
9
[12] In the present Decision, the Régie is ruling on the Coordinator’s application with
respect to the reliability standards, the glossary, the coming-into-force date of the
reliability standards, the registers of entities and facilities subject to the reliability
standards and the Application Matrices.4 It is also ruling on the Coordinator’s other
requests with respect to transmission system reliability and on the interveners’ requests.
[13] The Régie is postponing its review of the application for approval of the Sanction
Guide to phase 2.
2. HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
[14] The blackout of November 9, 1965, which affected some 30 million people in
Ontario and the eastern seaboard of the U.S., led to the creation of NERC and regional
reliability councils, including NPCC in the northeastern U.S.
[15] On August 14, 2003, a power failure affected 50 million people in Ontario and
eight U.S. states. After the blackout, the U.S. and Canadian governments concluded that a
mandatory North American reliability system with sanctions for non-compliance was
needed.
[16] In 2005, Canada’s Council of Energy Ministers subscribe to a motion calling for
mandatory reliability standards subject to sanctions for non-compliance in all
interconnected jurisdictions in North America.
[17] On May 4, 2006, the Government of Québec released its 2006-2015 energy
strategy, Using Energy to Build the Québec of Tomorrow, which calls for, among other
things, modernization of Québec’s legislative and regulatory framework, notably through
harmonization of Québec’s electricity transmission reliability standards system with those
of Québec’s North American partners. To that end, the government intended to empower
4
Reliability Standards Application Matrix and Simplified Reliability Application Matrix.
10
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
the Régie to enforce electricity transmission reliability standards within a framework that
respects Québec’s jurisdiction and interests.
[18] In 2007–2008, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”)
approved a total of 95 reliability standards.
[19] The Coordinator has submitted those 95 reliability standards to the Régie for
adoption.
2.2 LEGAL BACKGROUND
[20] On December 13, 2006, Québec’s legislature passed the Bill respecting the
implementation of the Québec Energy Strategy and amending various legislative
provisions,5 which granted the Régie new powers, notably with respect to the reliability of
transmission systems in Québec, including the power to adopt the reliability standards and
to ensure that electricity transmission in Québec is carried out according to the adopted
reliability standards.
[21] Thus amended, the Act respecting the Régie de l’énergie6 (“the Act”) stipulates,
among other things, in subsections 85.3 and 85.4:
85.3. This division applies to:
(1) an owner or operator of a facility with a capacity of 44 kV or more connected to an
electric power transmission system;
(2) an owner or operator of an electric power transmission system;
(3) an owner or operator of a production facility with a capacity of 50 megavolt amperes
(MVA) or more connected to an electric power transmission system;
(4) a distributor with a peak capacity of over 25 megawatts (MW), whose facilities are
connected to an electric power transmission system; and
(5) a person who uses an electric power transmission system under an electric power
transmission service agreement with the electric power carrier or with any other carrier
in Québec.
85.4 With the authorization of the Government, the Régie may enter into an agreement
with a body that proves it has the expertise to establish or monitor the application of
electric power transmission reliability standards, in order to
(1) develop electric power transmission reliability standards for Québec;
5
6
2006, c. 46, a. 48.
R.S.Q., c. R-6.01, as amended on May 21, 2010 (Bill 84 [2010, Chapter 8]).
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
11
(2) carry out inspections or investigations under Division II of Chapter III as part of
plans to monitor compliance with the reliability standards; or
(3) provide the Régie with opinions or recommendations.
The agreement must set out the method of establishing remuneration and the terms of
payment for achieving its objects.
[22] On May 8, 2009, the Régie, NERC and NPCC signed an agreement, which the
government had authorized by Order-in-Council.7
[23] Subsection 85.5 of the Act also provides that “The Régie shall designate, on the
conditions it determines, a reliability coordinator for Québec.”
[24] In its Decision D-2007-95,8 the Régie designated the Direction Contrôle des
mouvements d’énergie (“HQCMÉ”) of Hydro-Québec when carrying on electric power
transmission activities (“HQT” or “the Transmission Provider”) as the Coordinator.
[25] Pursuant to subsection 85.6 of the Act, the Coordinator must file the following
documents with the Régie:
(1) the reliability standards proposed by a body that has entered into an agreement under
section 85.4, as well as any variant or other standard the reliability coordinator
considers necessary;
(2) an evaluation of the relevance and impact of the standards filed; and
(3) particulars identifying every entity described in section 85.3.
[26]
Subsection 85.13 of the Act further provides that the Coordinator:
(1) must submit to the Régie, for approval, a register identifying the entities that are
subject to the reliability standards adopted by the Régie;
(2) shall fulfil the duties devolved to the reliability coordinator under a reliability
standard adopted by the Régie; and
(3) may, under a standard adopted by the Régie, provide operating directives.
[27]
And subsection 85.8 of the Act provides:
The reliability coordinator shall submit to the Régie a guide describing criteria to be
taken into account in determining the sanction for non-compliance with a reliability
standard.
7
8
Order-in-Council 443-2009, April 8, 2009.
Case R-3625-2007.
12
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[28] Regarding the scope of the Régie’s authority with respect to reliability standards,
subsection 85.7 of the Act provides:
The Régie may request the reliability coordinator to modify a standard filed or submit a
new one, on the conditions it sets. It shall adopt reliability standards and set the date of
their coming into force.
The reliability standards may
(1) subject to section 85.10, provide for a schedule of sanctions, including financial
penalties, that apply if standards are not complied with; and
(2) refer to reliability standards set by a standardization agency that has entered into an
agreement.
[29] Furthermore, subsections 85.9, 85.10, 85.11, 85.12 and 85.12.1 of the Act describe
the Régie’s powers in the event of non-compliance with a reliability standard.
3. COORDINATOR’S OBJECTION TO THE FIRST PART OF NLH’S
SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE
[30] The Régie must first rule on the Coordinator’s objection9 to the first part of NLH’s
supplementary evidence, filed on October 1, 2010,10 which the Régie took under
advisement at the hearing.
[31] The first part of the said supplementary evidence relates to the concept of
“supervision étendue” (wide-area supervision) which had appeared in a footnote in
Exhibit HQCMÉ-2, document 4.11 The Coordinator deleted this footnote on September
30, 2010. The first part of the supplementary evidence also relates to the concept of
“wide-area view” described in the IRO-003-2 standard. NLH argued that deleting the
footnote in question does not provide the necessary clarity on the issue of “supervision
étendue,” given that the Churchill Falls generating station still appears on the list of bulk
elements connected to HQT’s network.12
9
10
11
12
Exhibit A-39-1, page 9.
Exhibit C-4-24.
Exhibit B-47, HQCMÉ-2, document 4, page 16.
Exhibit C-4-24, page 3.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
13
3.1 COORDINATOR’S ARGUMENTS
[32] The Coordinator first repeated the arguments advanced in its letters of
September 29 and 30, 2010, namely lateness, relevance and the fact that NLH is pleading
the case of a third party, CF(L)Co. Those comments were made prior to the filing of
NLH’s supplementary evidence dated October 1, 2010.13
[33] The Coordinator further argued that NLH was attempting to reopen a debate that
had previously been conducted before the Régie and on which the Régie had ruled in
Decision D-2010-053.14 Moreover, as NLH had applied for a review of that Decision,
there was a risk of contradictory decisions, particularly since a member of the current
panel had signed Decision D-2010-053, and another member of the panel would be
hearing the application for review. The Coordinator therefore pleaded lis alibi pendens
and res judicata.15
[34] Finally, the Coordinator argued that no reliability standards apply to CF(L)Co and
the only reliability standards that apply to NLH are those that relate to its trader status.
The Coordinator noted that at no point in its evidence did NLH challenge any of the
95 filed reliability standards.16
[35] The Coordinator recalled, with respect to the IRO-003-2 standard more
specifically, that NLH had accepted that standard provided it involved only monitoring
and not “supervision étendue” of facilities located in Labrador.17
3.2 NLH’S RESPONSE
[36] In response to the Coordinator’s argument in support of its objection to the first
part of NLH’s supplementary evidence, NLH contended, among other things, that the
definition of “réseau de transport principal (RTP)” in the glossary still includes the
concept of supervision.
13
14
15
16
17
Exhibit A-39-1, page 9.
Cases P-110-1565, 1597 and 1678.
Exhibit A-39-1, pages 10-14.
Exhibit A-39-1, pages 36 and 57.
Exhibit C-4-24, page 9, and Exhibit A-39-1, page 29.
14
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[37] NLH noted that the reliability standards have been established for the future, and as
it plans to proceed with the Lower Churchill project, its supplementary evidence is
relevant.
[38] Consequently, NLH argued that the reliability standards do not apply to CF(L)Co
and to CF(L)Co’s assets in Labrador, and disputed the contention that those assets are part
of the Main Transmission System (“MTS”), as defined by the Coordinator, which would
result in supervision and control of the assets by the Coordinator.18
[39] With respect to the legal principle of res judicata, NLH argued that the three
conditions, identity of the thing at suit, identity of the cause of action and identity of the
parties, were not met. In fact, according to NLH, the Transmission Provider is not a
participant in the case at hand. The subject of this case is the adoption of the reliability
standards and not the interpretation of a provision of the Open Access Transmission Tariff
in connection with a complaint. Finally, NLH contended that there is no identity of cause
of action.
3.3 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[40]
The Régie dismisses the Coordinator’s objection for the following reasons.
3.3.1 LATENESS OF FILING OF SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE
[41] The Régie cannot accept this argument for three reasons. First, NLH always
mentioned that it reserved the right to file supplementary evidence, which right the Régie
confirmed at the preparatory meeting of August 19, 2010.19
[42] Furthermore, the Coordinator itself amended its evidence several times, up to the
morning of the hearing.
18
19
Exhibit C-4-24, pages 3, 5 and 6.
Exhibit A-35, pages 67-68.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
15
[43] Finally, if the supplementary evidence were filed late, it would have been logical
for the Coordinator to ask that it be dismissed in its entirety, which the Coordinator did
not do.
3.3.2 RELEVANCE OF SECTION 1 OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE
[44] As it noted in Decision D-2010-134,20 the Régie is an economic regulation agency
with a variety of functions, i.e. it performs legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial
functions.
[45] When the Régie adopts reliability standards with possible sanctions for noncompliance, as in the case at hand, it carries out a legislative function. This function is
performed through an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial system. In an inquisitorial
system, responsibility for finding and presenting the facts is shared by the tribunal and the
participants in the case. The Régie’s view is that, when it is performing a function of this
type, the rules of evidence must be applied with more flexibility. It is in this light that the
Régie will consider the relevance of the supplementary evidence filed by NLH.
[46] The Régie understands that one of NLH’s goals in this proceeding is to dispel any
confusion between the concept of supervision contained in the definition of MTS in the
glossary and the concept of “wide-area view” described in the IRO-003-2 standard.
[47] The Régie also understands that NLH is asking that CF(L)Co’s facilities be
excluded from the MTS and from the operating diagram, because in NLH’s view, the
Coordinator does not control those facilities and is not responsible for load balancing in
that region.
[48] At the time of the hearing, the concept of supervision still appeared in the
definition of MTS in the glossary. Furthermore, the CF(L)Co facilities appear in the MTS
operating diagram, as filed by the Coordinator.21
[49] In the Régie’s view, therefore, the subjects addressed by NLH are relevant to the
decisions that the Régie is called upon to make in the case at hand. Section 1 of NLH’s
20
21
Case R-3709-2009, page 15, paragraph 56.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 8.
16
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
supplementary evidence relating to the concept of supervision and the supporting
testimony are thus relevant to the examination of this case.
3.3.3 THE FACT THAT NLH IS PLEADING FOR A THIRD PARTY, NAMELY CF(L)CO
[50] In the Régie’s view, NLH is not pleading for a third party. The intervener was
entitled to determine which witnesses could best help it argue its positions. As these are
factual witnesses, the Régie must weigh the content of their testimony in relation to the
issues on which it is called upon to rule.
3.3.4 REOPENING OF A DEBATE ARISING FROM THE COMPLAINTS AT ISSUE IN
DECISION D-2010-053: OBJECTIONS BASED ON LIS ALIBI PENDENS AND RES
JUDICATA
[51] The Régie does not consider any of the three conditions for lis alibi pendens and
res judicata – respecting the thing at suit, the cause of action and the parties – to be met.
Neither HQT nor CF(L)Co is a party to this case, which involves the adoption of
electricity transmission reliability standards for Québec and not a complaint concerning
the application of the Hydro-Québec Open Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”).22
[52] The Régie considers it useful to clarify the difference between a quasi-judicial and
legislative function. Decision D-2010-053 dealt with a complaint confined to specific
facts and limited in time and to the text of the OATT in effect at that time. In that case,
the Régie was performing a quasi-judicial function. The current case relates to an entirely
different matter and in this case the Régie is performing a different function, namely a
legislative function. There may be some concepts that are common to the two cases, but
the issues are not the same and neither are the rulings sought.
[53]
22
For these reasons, therefore, the Régie dismisses the Coordinator’s objection.
Adopted by Decision D-2007-34, March 30, 2007.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
4.
17
RELIABILITY STANDARDS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
[54] The Coordinator noted that the blackout of August 2003, which affected 50 million
consumers in the U.S. and Canada, prompted American lawmakers to make compliance
with the reliability standards mandatory by passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
[55] It stated that the purpose of introducing the mandatory reliability system was to
ensure the reliability of interconnected networks in North America.23
[56] The Régie notes that a reliability system of this type is already in place in the U.S.
and other Canadian provinces.
[57] Pursuant to subsections 85.4 and 85.6 of the Act and the 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, signed on
May 8, 2009 by the Régie, NERC and NPCC, the Coordinator filed 95 reliability
standards for adoption. The standards were filed with French and English versions in the
same document. The original English version was approved by NERC and FERC, while
the French version is a translation by the Coordinator.
[58] The Coordinator provided clarifications and details, and introduced particulars
specific to the Québec context, in the Register of Entities and the Register of Facilities,
which were filed with the Régie for approval.
[59] The Coordinator also filed the glossary and agreed, at the hearing, to ask the Régie
to approve it.
[60] The Coordinator filed the French and English versions of the Application Matrices
and asked the Régie to take note of them. The purpose of the matrices is to facilitate
application of the reliability standards.24
23
24
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 2, page 8.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1, page 35.
18
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[61] The Coordinator argued that the reliability standards that it had filed with the Régie
for adoption were all relevant and necessary. It added that adoption of the 95 reliability
standards in Québec would have a positive impact on maintaining the reliability of the
Québec Interconnection25 and help maintain a balance between power supply and demand
in Québec. It would also promote harmonization with neighbouring provinces and the
U.S., which have made the reliability standards mandatory.
[62] ÉLL/EBM produced and filed a Matrice d’application des normes de fiabilité –
ELL et EBMI (the “ÉLL/EBM matrix”) specific to its facilities26 and asked the Régie to
take note of it.27
[63] The interveners generally did not object to the content of the reliability standards
submitted by the Coordinator or to their adoption.
4.2 SCOPE OF RELIABILITY STANDARDS
[64] To establish the scope of the 95 proposed reliability standards and therefore the
entities subject to those standards, the Coordinator designated the portion of the MTS
under its supervision as the electric power transmission system described in paragraphs
85.3(1) and 85.3(2) of the Act. This has the effect of excluding industrial customers and
the owners and operators of generating stations with a capacity of less than 50 MVA,
generally connected at 49 kV, 69 kV or 120 kV, which have no impact on MTS
reliability.28 It filed the operating diagram on a confidential basis for information and to
support the application of the reliability standards.
[65] For most of the reliability standards it filed, the Coordinator proposed the
following scope by virtue of its definition of the MTS:
25
26
27
28
“Québec Interconnection” refers to one of the four major electric power systems in North America, which are
the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, the ERCOT Interconnection and the Québec
Interconnection.
Exhibit C-3-15.
Exhibit A-39-2, page 51.
Exhibit B-43, HQCMÉ-2, document 4, page 3.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
19
[Translation]
Main Transmission System - Acronym MTS
Transmission system consisting of equipment and lines generally carrying high energy
volumes and generating facilities of 50 MVA or more, providing control over reliability
factors:
• Maintaining balance between supply and demand
• Frequency regulation
• Maintaining operating reserves
• System and interconnection voltage regulation
• Maintaining power flows within operating limits
• Interchange coordination and supervision
• Supervision of special protection systems
• System restoration.
The Main Transmission System is under the supervision of the Québec Reliability
Coordinator (Direction Contrôle et exploitation du réseau (CMÉ), Hydro-Québec
TransÉnergie).
[English in original]
(Main Transmission System).29
[66] NERC specifies that the Bulk Electric System (“BES”) constitutes the system to
which the reliability standards apply. The Coordinator provided the following definition
of the NERC term “BES”:30
[Translation]
As defined by the Regional Reliability Organization (RRO), the electrical generation
resources, transmission lines, interconnections with neighboring systems, and associated
equipment, generally operated at voltages of 100 kV or higher. Radial transmission
facilities serving only load with one transmission source are generally not included in
this definition.
[English in original]
(Bulk Electric System)
[Translation]
Source: Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC)
[67] Based on NPCC’s definition, the Coordinator defined the “réseau bulk” as
follows:31
[translation]
The interconnected electrical systems within northeastern North America comprised of
generating and transmission facilities on which faults or disturbances can have a
29
30
31
Exhibit B-43, HQCMÉ-2, document 10, page 35.
Ibid.
Exhibit B-43, HQCMÉ-2, document 10, page 34.
20
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
significant adverse impact outside of the local area. In the current context, local areas
are determined by the Council members (NPCC).
[English in original]
(Bulk Power System)
Source: Document A-07 (NPCC Glossary of Terms)
[translation]
Note from CER: The Bulk Power System is a subset of the Main Transmission System.
[68] Questioned as to why it was proposing the MTS rather than NPCC’s Bulk Power
System (“BPS”) for the purpose of defining the scope of the reliability standards, the
Coordinator responded that if the BPS were used to identify the entities subject to the
reliability standards, it would not be possible to apply all the reliability standards and
therefore this approach would not cover the operating and maintenance requirements for
reliability in Québec and could have the effect of excluding all the registered entities
except HQT, HQP and CER.32
[69] It also specified that no generating station is classified as bulk by NPCC and only
43% of output included in the MTS is connected to the BPS.33
4.2.1 INTERVENERS’ POSITIONS
[70] ÉLL/EBM and RTA initially objected to the Coordinator’s proposal to subject nonbulk facilities to the mandatory reliability system provided for by the Act. The main
reason cited was that their facilities have only local, not provincial, impact on maintaining
reliability.34
[71] ÉLL/EBM further argued that no consultation process had been held on the
expansion of the scope of the NERC reliability standards.35
[72] OPG, the operator of the Chats Falls generating station, which spans the Ottawa
River, objected to being designated a “generator operator” subject to reliability standards
applicable in Québec. The Coordinator subsequently stated that it is prepared to exclude
32
33
34
35
Exhibit B-10, HQCMÉ-3, document 1.1, page 6, R1.4.
Exhibit B-33, HQCMÉ-2, document 16, page 9.
Exhibit C-3-7, page 9; Exhibit C-5-12, page 13.
Exhibit C-3-7, page 8.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
21
OPG from the Register of Entities as a generator operator, with the Régie’s consent. OPG
then said it was satisfied.
[73] Following discussions with the Coordinator, ÉLL/EBM and RTA ultimately agreed
with the scope of the reliability standards as proposed by the Coordinator.
[74] NLH asked that certain corrections be made to the definition of MTS and the
translation of the definition.36
[75]
NLH’s representations dealt with the following points:
 two different definitions of a single term, “Main Transmission System,” one
established by NERC, according to the Coordinator, and the other by the
Coordinator;
 two different translations of the single term “réseau de transport principal”: “Bulk
Electric System” in NERC’s definition and “Main Transmission System” in the
Coordinator’s definition;
 the last paragraph of the definition, which specifies that the MTS is under the
Coordinator’s supervision.37
[76] To avoid any possible confusion, NLH recommended that different terms be used
to refer to the two concepts, MTS and BES.38
[77] NLH further contended that the last paragraph of the definition of MTS is not
appropriate, as it contains a substantive rule that grants the Coordinator power of
supervision over the MTS. Moreover, that power of supervision is not geographically
delimited.39 NLH therefore asked that Labrador be excluded from the MTS.
[78] Finally, NLH asked that the glossary be at least amended to remove the reference
to the Coordinator’s control and supervision from the definition of MTS.40
36
37
38
39
40
Exhibit C-4-27, page 24.
Ibid., page 3.
Ibid., page 5.
Exhibit C-4-27, page 5.
Exhibit A-39-2, page 133.
22
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
4.2.2 COORDINATOR’S RESPONSE
[79] With respect to the concept of supervision, the Coordinator submitted at the
hearing41 that the criteria set out in the first paragraph of the definition of MTS have the
greatest bearing on application of the reliability standards. It added that the last paragraph
of the definition could be deleted without affecting the clarity of the definition.
[80] With respect to the translation of the term “réseau de transport principal,” the
Coordinator proposed that, if the definition is adopted, the term “réseau de transport
principal” be translated as “BES.”42
4.2.3 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[81] The Régie notes that only 43% of the output included in the MTS is connected to
the BPS, as defined by NPCC.
[82] It also notes that it is not possible to apply the reliability standards in their entirety
if the BPS is used, and therefore the BPS does not cover all the operational and
maintenance requirements for ensuring the reliability of electric power transmission in
Québec.43
[83] The Régie notes that the interveners did not challenge the scope of the reliability
standards, as proposed by the Coordinator.
[84] At the same time, the statement, “The Main Transmission System is under the
supervision of the Québec Reliability Coordinator (Direction Contrôle et exploitation du
réseau (CMÉ), Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie)” does not set out a criterion for identifying
MTS facilities and therefore its inclusion in the definition is not necessary. The Régie
therefore requests that the Coordinator delete the above paragraph from the
definition.
41
42
43
Ibid., pages 168-169.
Exhibit A-39-1, page 90.
Exhibit B-10, HQCMÉ-3, document 1.1, page 6.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
23
[85] The Régie understands, from the title of the operating diagram filed by the
Coordinator,44 that the diagram is for operational purposes and is not intended to serve
exclusively to identify the facilities subject to the reliability standards. It concludes that
the term “Main Transmission System” may be used by the Coordinator for other purposes
than strictly for identifying the facilities subject to the reliability standards.
[86] The Régie notes that this case does not relate to management of CER’s everyday
operating activities but to establishment of a mandatory reliability system. Therefore, it
does not consider the operating diagram to be useful for the purpose of application of the
reliability standards.
[87] The Régie has reviewed participants’ comments concerning the translations of
“Bulk Electric System (BES)” and “Réseau de transport principal (RTP).” It notes that, in
French, there are two distinct definitions of the term “Réseau de transport principal,”
which are associated with the specific English terms to which each definition applies,
namely “Bulk Electric System” and “Main Transmission System.”
[88] The Régie notes that in the French versions of the reliability standards, the English
term BES is generally translated as “Réseau de transport principal (RTP)” (e.g. the
CIP-002-1, EOP-004-1, FAC-008-1 and IRO-004-1 standards) but is occasionally
translated as “Réseau bulk” (e.g. the PRC-005-1 and TPL-002-0 standards).
[89] The Régie also notes that the filed reliability standards do not relate exclusively to
transmission facilities but also to some generating facilities. In this connection, the Régie
recalls that the Main Transmission System consists of transmission facilities and
generating facilities.
[90] The Régie understands that NERC uses BES as a generic term to refer to electric
power generation and transmission systems as a whole in North America.45 Further, MTS
is a specific term used by the Coordinator to define the scope of most of the reliability
standards.
[91] For these reasons, the Régie requests that the Coordinator translate the term
“Bulk Electric System (BES)” as “système de production-transport d’électricité” in
44
45
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 8.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1, pages 16 and 18; Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 2, page 8.
24
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
the generic context of the NERC reliability standards, and to translate the term
“Réseau de transport principal (RTP)” as “Main Transmission System (MTS)” in
the specific context of the scope of most of the reliability standards applicable to
Québec. The Régie therefore requests that the Coordinator amend the French
versions of the reliability standards in question and the glossary.
4.3 RELEVANCE AND IMPACTS OF RELIABILITY STANDARDS
[92] The Coordinator represented that adoption of the reliability standards in Québec
would have a positive impact on maintaining the reliability of power transmission and
maintaining a balance between supply and demand in Québec. It will also promote
harmonization of practices between Québec, neighbouring provinces and the U.S., which
have also made these reliability standards mandatory.46
[93] The Coordinator concluded that the reliability standards it filed with the Régie for
adoption were all relevant and necessary, and would help maintain the reliability of the
Québec Interconnection and thereby of interconnected systems.
[94] The Coordinator submitted that the NERC reliability standards have thus far been
applied on a voluntary basis by several entities but that adoption of those standards by the
Régie could have a financial impact on certain entities that would now be subject to the
mandatory reliability system. However, the Coordinator quantified the financial impact
only for Hydro-Québec.
[95] It added that, in a general manner, the main impact on the registered entities would
mostly be of an administrative nature, as they would have to put in place, in a structured
and systematic manner, monitoring and traceability processes in order to document
application of the reliability standards, in order to be able to demonstrate compliance with
the standards.
[96] In view of the scope of the standards, the Coordinator noted that many of the
reliability standards apply only to some of Hydro-Québec’s functions.
46
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 2, page 26.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
25
[97] With respect to the expenditures required to meet the requirements of the proposed
reliability standards, the Coordinator stated that the reliability standards relating to critical
infrastructure protection (the CIP standards) apply only to HQP and HQT, and meeting
their requirements calls for the following expenditures:
 $27 million for physical security at the System Control Centre (SCC) and the
Telecontrol Centres (TCs);
 $8 million for cyber security for the SCC and the TCs;
 $2 million for cyber security of transmission stations;
 $1 million for cyber security of generating stations.
[98] The Coordinator stated that only HQT and La Société en commandite
Hydroélectrique Manicouagan had special protection systems and the requirements in
some PRC standards could therefore affect their maintenance costs.
[99] It added however that adoption of the PRC-018-1 standard with respect to the
installation of disturbance monitoring equipment could require investments by registered
entities other than HQP and HQT.
[100] With respect to the VAR standards, the Coordinator believes that the only impact
on generator owners and operators will be of an administrative nature, as they will have to
implement reporting procedures for changes in generator reactive capability and the status
of voltage regulators and stabilizers.
[101] Further, according to the Coordinator, to meet certain requirements in the TOP
standards, supervisory control and data acquisition systems will have to be put in place in
order to provide real-time information on two Hydro-Saguenay generating stations and
six RTA generating stations which are not supervised by the SCC at this time. As well,
the TOP-002-2 standard requires generator operators to perform generating real and
reactive capability verification.
4.3.1 INTERVENERS’ POSITIONS
[102] ÉLL/EBM believes that there will be numerous administrative impacts associated
with compliance with the filed reliability standards (staff training, process establishment
26
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
and implementation, maintenance and inspection, system studies and engineering
support). Its preliminary estimate of the cost of meeting the reliability standards is in the
order of $1.4 million.47
[103] ÉLL/EBM represented that the cost of compliance monitoring could not be
established until the details of the compliance verification process were known.
[104] According to RTA’s preliminary estimate, the cost of meeting the reliability
standards could total $480,000 in human resources and $2.35 million in capital
expenditures in the first year, including $1.2 million for the PRC-018-1 standard and
$1.1 million for the VAR-002-1a standard.48
[105] Finally, RTA estimates that compliance monitoring will cost it $157,000 per year
in human resources.
4.3.2 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[106] Subsection 85.6 of the Act provides that the Coordinator must file with the Régie
an assessment of the relevance and impact of the filed reliability standards.
[107] The Régie notes that the interveners are not disputing the relevance of the filed
reliability standards.
[108] The Régie also notes that the Coordinator did not provide an estimate of the
financial impact of the entirety of the filed reliability standards, notably with respect to
the administrative requirements in certain standards. The Régie further notes that the
interveners did provide an estimate of compliance costs for some of those standards.
[109] The Régie understands that at this stage it may be difficult to determine the
foreseeable costs with precision. However, the Coordinator must provide an evaluation,
even if only a summary one, in order to satisfy the requirements of subsection 85.6 of the
Act.
47
48
Exhibit C-3-9, R1.1.
Exhibit C-5-16, R1.1.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
27
[110] The Régie recognizes the relevance of the filed reliability standards and the
fact that they will have an impact on the entities that are subject to them. However,
it requests that the Coordinator submit a more comprehensive assessment of the
monetary impact of the filed reliability standards in subsequent filings, after prior
consultation with the entities that are subject to the standards. If the Coordinator is
unable to assess the monetary impact of a reliability standard at the time it is filed
with the Régie for adoption, it will have to explain why.
4.4 CONTENT OF FILED RELIABILITY STANDARDS
[111] As noted above, the Coordinator filed 95 reliability standards for adoption and the
interveners did not object to the said standards.
[112] The Régie understands from the Coordinator’s evidence that the reliability
standards that it filed were developed by a reliability agency with which it made an
agreement, that they were approved by FERC, that they are mandatory in the U.S., and
that the majority of them have already been approved in a number of Canadian provinces.
[113] The Régie notes that the amendments to the evidence submitted by the Coordinator
consist in the addition of details and clarifications concerning the reliability standards and
their application in Québec. It also notes that those details and clarifications are not
codified in the reliability standards but rather in other documents filed into evidence,
including the Register of Facilities, the Register of Entities and the Application Matrices.
[114] The Régie notes that the filed reliability standards follow a standard template that
includes prescriptive aspects of a technical nature related to, among other things, electric
power system operation, use and planning, and prescriptive aspects of an administrative
nature related to compliance monitoring.
[115] With respect to the prescriptive aspects of a technical nature, the Régie notes the
following themes:49
49
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 1, BAL standard-001-0a.
28
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
 in Section A, Introduction: among other themes, “applicability,” namely the
identification of the functions, based on the NERC functional model, that are
subject to the standard, and therefore the entities subject to the standard;
 in Section B, Requirements: the requirements that must be met, according to the
standard;
 in Section C, Measures: identification of, among other things, required performance
measurement units and mechanisms related to the requirements in the standard;
 in Section E, Regional Differences: variants applicable in some regions;
 in Section F, Associated Documents: appendices to the standard that clarify certain
aspects, where applicable.
[116] With respect to the prescriptive aspects of an administrative nature, the Régie notes
the following themes:
 in Section A, Introduction: the coming-into-force date of the standard;
 in Section B, Requirements: the risk factors associated with violation of each
requirement in the standard (“violation risk factors”);50
 in Section D, Compliance: responsibilities, regulations, processes and noncompliance levels related to compliance monitoring and enforcement of the
standard requirements;
 version history: the history of previous versions of the standard and, in most cases,
of their approval by NERC or FERC;
 footer: date of adoption of the standard by the Régie and, where applicable, date of
revision by the Coordinator.
[117] The Régie considers that the requirements stipulated in a reliability standard must
be clearly defined, that the expected level of compliance must be measurable, and that the
prescriptive aspects of the requirements must be appropriately codified and collected in a
single, easily accessible, standalone document.
[118] As stated above, the Régie notes from the Coordinator’s evidence that the content
and application in Québec of a number of prescriptive aspects of a technical and
50
Risk factors are included in the text of some standards (e.g. IRO-006 and NUC-001). However, the risk factors
relevant to the requirements stipulated in the standards are detailed in Exhibit B-6, HQCMÉ-2, document 1.1,
“Facteurs de risque des normes de fiabilité,” in French only.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
29
administrative nature have been clarified and that those elements are described in, among
other things, the registers that have been filed for approval and the Application Matrices.
[119] For example, requirement R3.1 in the NERC EOP-004-1 standard provides that a
report must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). However, the CER
matrix specifies: [translation] “no report to the DOE is required in Québec.”51
[120] Similarly, requirement R4 in the NERC IRO-004-1 standard stipulates that
generator owners and operators must provide, among other things, output forecasts for
their facilities, while the Register of Facilities specifies that some may provide net power
at their system’s connection point instead of the generation data.52
[121] The Régie recalls that the structure of the NERC reliability standards contains
provisions allowing for the incorporation of regional differences into the standards, when
necessary. It also provides for the addition, if appropriate, of appendices containing
interpretations deemed useful for understanding or application of the standards.
[122] Details, interpretations, particulars, exceptions, variants and other nuances in
relation to a reliability standard by the Coordinator that are liable to have an impact on
compliance monitoring must be codified in a specific appendix for the given reliability
standard, so that the text of each reliability standard is complete in itself with respect to
identification of the entities to which they apply and the requirements that must be met.
[123] As well, with respect to the prescriptive aspects of an administrative nature relating
to compliance monitoring and enforcement of the reliability standards, the Régie notes
that certain provisions stipulated by NERC and codified in its reliability standards are not
suited to Québec’s legislative framework.
[124] For example, the reliability standards filed for adoption provide that the
compliance monitoring authority may be the “Regional Reliability Organizations for
Responsible Entities…NERC for Regional Reliability Organization…Third-party monitor
without vested interest in the outcome for NERC.”53 They also specify a coming-intoforce date different from that set by the Régie.
51
52
53
Exhibit B-55, HQCMÉ-2, document 6, page 32.
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 5, page 20.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 1, CIP-003 standard.
30
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[125] The Act provides that the Régie is responsible for compliance monitoring of the
reliability standards in Québec, adopting the standards and setting the date on which the
standards come into effect:
Subsection 85.2:
The Régie shall ensure that electric power transmission in Québec is carried out
according to the reliability standards it adopts.
Subsection 85.10:
[…] the Régie shall determine if it has failed to comply with a reliability standard,
impose, if appropriate, a sanction […].
Subsection 85.7:
It shall adopt reliability standards and set the date of their coming into force.
[126] The Régie accepts the content of the NERC reliability standards and the
violation risk factors, as filed, as well as the Québec prescriptive aspects contained
in the Register of Entities, the Register of Facilities and the Application Matrices.
[127] However, in view of the reasons set out above, the Régie requests that the
Coordinator:
 incorporate the prescriptive aspects of a technical nature contained in the
Register of Entities, Register of Facilities and Application Matrices into each
standard as an appendix;
 include in the same appendix the prescriptive aspects of an administrative
nature involving the coming-into-force dates and the responsibilities and
activities associated with compliance monitoring of the reliability standards, in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Régie’s decisions;
 produce French and English versions of those new appendices;
 produce an English version of the risk factors document.
[128] In Appendix 1, the Régie provides a non-exhaustive list of the prescriptive aspects
it has identified in the evidence filed by the Coordinator, which the Régie requests that the
Coordinator incorporate into each reliability standard as an appendix.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
31
[129] The Régie requests that the Coordinator follow the following guidelines in
preparing the reliability standards.
[130] The appendix to each reliability standard should specify:
 the NERC standard to which the appendix is attached;
 the date on which the said NERC standard was adopted by the Régie;
 the date on which the appendix was adopted by the Régie;
 the coming-into-force date of the NERC standard and its appendix, according
to the Régie’s decisions;
 that the Régie is responsible, in Québec, for compliance monitoring with
respect to the reliability standards and their appendices, which are adopted by
the Régie;
 if applicable, the history of the original versions and subsequent revisions of
the appendix, with the date of adoption by the Régie.
[131] However, to this effect, a requirement that applies to a regional reliability
organization that is not an entity subject to the Act is not a variant for application in
Québec, and the codification of an exclusion from the standard is not required.
[132] Similarly, a requirement applicable to a mechanism that does not exist in Québec
or a practice that is not used in Québec is not a variant for application in Québec and the
addition of an exemption to the standard is not required.
[133] The appendix to each reliability standard must contain, for each requirement,
the codification of:
 the distinctions added by the Coordinator;
 the compliance measures associated with those distinctions;
 the levels of non-compliance associated with those distinctions;
 the violation risk factors associated with those distinctions.
[134] The Régie finds the degree of agreement between the French and English versions
of the reliability standards unsatisfactory. The Régie therefore plans to hold meetings
on this matter between members of its staff and the Coordinator’s staff.
32
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[135] The Régie will establish a timetable for the filing for final adoption of French
and English versions of the revised reliability standards, in accordance with the
requests listed in this Decision.
4.5 COMING-INTO-FORCE DATES OF RELIABILITY STANDARDS
[136] The Coordinator proposed that the reliability standards come into force 60 days
after their adoption by the Régie, except for the PRC-018-1 standard, for which it
requested a six-year waiting period in order to allow the registered entities time to put in
place the necessary facilities.
[137] Once the coming-into-force date is set, the text of the reliability standards would be
amended to reflect it.
[138] The Coordinator also proposed a 120-day transition period after the reliability
standards come into force for the imposition of monetary sanctions for non-compliance.54
However, it specified that the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance with
requirement R3.1 in the VAR-002-1a standard would begin two years after the standard is
adopted by the Régie.55
4.5.1 INTERVENERS’ POSITIONS
[139] ÉLL/EBM asked that the coming-into-force date of the reliability standards be set
at six months after the Régie’s decision adopting the standards, in view of, among other
things, the need for linkage with the Sanction Guide.
[140] NLH contended that the Régie cannot give the reliability standards it adopts
retroactive effect and suggested a waiting period of at least 60 days after adoption of the
standards.
54
55
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1, page 40.
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 5, page 19.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
33
[141] RTA agreed that, regardless of the coming-into-force date of the reliability
standards, the Sanction Guide should not have retroactive effect when it is adopted.56
4.5.2 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[142] As the reliability standards will not be enforceable through sanctions until the
Sanction Guide comes into effect, the Régie accepts the Coordinator’s proposal that all
the reliability standards come into effect 60 days after they are adopted by the Régie, with
the exception of the PRC-018-1 standard.
[143] The Régie sets the date for implementation of the PRC-018-1 standard at six years
after its adoption.
[144] The Régie recalls that the Sanction Guide will be dealt with in Phase 2 of this case.
56
Exhibit A-39-2, page 140.
34
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
5. REGISTERS
[145] This section deals with the Coordinator’s application for approval of the Register
of Entities and the Register of Facilities.
5.1 REGISTER OF ENTITIES SUBJECT TO THE RELIABILITY STANDARDS
[146] Pursuant to subsection 85.13 of the Act, the Coordinator filed the Register of
Entities for the Régie’s approval.
[147] The Register of Entities was amended several times. The last version was filed on
October 21, 2010.57
[148] No intervener raised any objection to approval of the Register of Entities.
[149] The purpose of the Register of Entities is to identify the entities subject to the
reliability standards according to the functions in the NERC reliability model (“NERC
functions”) and thereby establish to which reliability standards each is subject.58
[150] The NERC functions are:59
 Reliability Coordinator (RC)
 Transmission Service Provider (TSP)
 Planning Authority (PC)
 Interchange Authority (IA)
 Balancing Authority (BA)
 Transmission Owner (TO)
 Generator Operator (GOP)
 Transmission Operator (TOP)
 Transmission Planner (TP)
57
58
59
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 4.
Ibid., page 3.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1, pages 20-22.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
35
 Resource Planner (RP)
 Generator Owner (GO)
 Load-Serving Entity (LSE)
 Purchasing-Selling Entity (PSE)
 Distribution Provider (DP)
 Load-Serving Entity (LSE).
[151] The Coordinator listed fifty-three entities in the register, including three divisions
of Hydro-Québec (Hydro-Québec when carrying on electric power distribution activities
[HQD], HQT and HQP) and the HQT division’s Direction Contrôle et exploitation du
réseau. Twenty-four of those entities are listed exclusively as purchasing-selling entities.
[152] To clearly define the scope of the reliability standards and apply only those that are
relevant to each Registered Entity, the Coordinator introduced into the Register of Entities
function categories related to the NERC functions (“function categories”). Therefore, for
some NERC functions, the Register of Entities lists up to five function categories and
specifies the [translation] “specific scope of the standards based on the characteristics of
the facilities, of the function category or the activities” for each.60 It also provided a
summary description of facilities or roles for the registered entities.
[153] As well, the Register of Entities serves to identify, among other things, the entities
to which each of the reliability standards specifically applies. It also presents the inclusion
factors used for the purpose of identifying registered entities and classifying them by
function category.
5.2 REGISTER OF FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE RELIABILITY
STANDARDS
[154] The Coordinator filed for the Régie’s approval the Register of Facilities, which
lists the facilities to which the reliability standards apply in Québec. It added that
approval of the register would also facilitate monitoring and follow-up on application of
the reliability standards.61
60
61
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 4, pages 4-9.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1, page 37.
36
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[155] The Coordinator stated that the Register of Facilities serves two purposes:62
 first, to identify the systems, equipment and facilities to which certain reliability
standards specifically apply in order to specify the subject facilities, lines, systems
and equipment and facilitate application;
 secondly, to provide details concerning the application of some reliability standards
in order to clarify their scope.
[156] The Register of Facilities was amended several times before the case was taken
under advisement. The last version of the document was filed on October 21, 2010.63
[157] No intervener raised any objection to approval of the Register of Facilities.
[158] The Register of Facilities introduces, among other things, specific definitions of
the scope of specific reliability standards and of prescriptive aspects of a technical nature
filed by the Coordinator, where applicable.
[159] The Register of Facilities includes exhaustive lists of facilities organized by
category and identifies their owners. The lists are the following:
 list of facilities subject to the reliability standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection (CIP-002-1 to CIP-009-1) – Confidential document;
 list of facilities subject to the reliability standards for system restoration
(EOP-005-1, EOP-006-1 and EOP-009-0) – Confidential document;
 list of facilities subject to the reliability standard for nuclear plant interface
coordination (NUC-001-1);
 list of BPS facilities subject, in whole or in part, to the reliability standards related
to protection systems (PRC-004-1 and PRC-005-1), disturbance monitoring systems
(PRC-018-1) and transmission system planning and design (TPL-001-0 to
TPL-004-0);
 list of special protection systems to which the reliability standard for special
protection system (SPS) maintenance and testing applies (PRC-017-0).
62
63
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 5, page 3.
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 5.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
37
[160] The Register of Facilities also introduces, at a generic level, the following facility
categories, without providing an exhaustive list:
 new transmission, generation or load-serving facilities, regardless of whether they
are classified as MTS or as part of a regional transmission system, to which the
FAC-002-0 standard expressly applies;
 lines operated at 200 kV or higher, regardless of the system category to which they
belong, to which the FAC-003-1 standard expressly applies;
 generating facilities for industrial purposes to which Québec-specific particulars
related to the IRO-002-1, IRO-003-2, IRO-004-1, IRO-005-1, TOP-001-1,
TOP-002-2, TOP-003-0, TOP-005-1 and TOP-006-1 standards expressly apply.
[161] Finally, the Register of Facilities sets out details, clarifications and variants
applicable to certain requirements of the CIP-001-1, EOP-004-1, IRO-002-1, IRO-003-2,
IRO-004-1, IRO-005-1, PRC-001-1, PRC-004-1, PRC-005-1, PRC-018-1, TOP-001-1,
TOP-002-2, TOP-003-0, TOP-006-1 and VAR-002-1a standards. Some of the
clarifications introduce, among other things, obligations by reference to NPCC documents
or other documents. This point is dealt with in section 8.1 below.
5.3 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[162] The Régie finds that the Register of Entities helps identify the entities subject to
the reliability standards and is a useful information tool for the entities.
[163] However, the Régie considers that some points of information, such as the
indication of the applicability of the reliability standards by function categories, are not
essential for the purpose of identifying the entities to which the standards apply.
Furthermore, these points of information are dependent upon analysis and interpretation
of the reliability standards, and therefore contain redundant prescriptive aspects that could
supplant or even contradict the reliability standards.
[164] The Régie therefore considers that, in the context of the application for approval of
the Register of Entities, the inclusion of function categories and the codification of the
applicability of the reliability standards on the basis of those function categories are not
appropriate.
38
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[165] In this connection, the Régie recalls that Section A of the reliability standard
template includes the point “Applicability,” which defines the scope of the standard. For
example, when a reliability standard applies to the operator of a nuclear power plant, that
characteristic is already codified in the standard itself.
[166] In the Régie’s view, the listing in the Register of Entities of the entity, its NERC
function(s) and its facilities is necessary and sufficient for the purpose of connecting the
registered entities to the reliability standards that apply to them.
[167] The Régie also notes that the Register of Entities, as submitted by the Coordinator,
identifies entities in a variety of ways. Hence, corporate identification is generally used
but in some cases a division, group or facility location of the entity is used.
[168] The Régie considers that the Register of Entities should indicate, at a minimum,
the following information:
 corporate identification of the entity
 the entity’s corporate address
 the NERC function(s) that the entity performs, based on the NERC functional
model.
[169] The Régie also considers that identification of the subject facilities and the subject
entities is connected and both depend on the content of the reliability standards applicable
in Québec. It is therefore the Régie’s view that the two registers that have been
submitted for approval constitute an indivisible whole and consequently should be a
single register.
[170] The Régie notes that the reliability standards filed by the Coordinator generally
apply to MTS transmission and generation facilities. However, some of those standards
apply more specifically to facilities of a particular type or use.
[171] In this connection, the Régie notes that the filed reliability standards apply to,
among other things, the following facilities:
 MTS facilities
 assets classified as “critical assets” for the purpose of the CIP standards
 BPS facilities, specifying the applicable voltage
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
39
 lines operated at 200 kV or higher
 a nuclear power plant
 facilities or equipment required for system restoration
 special protection systems classified as type I or II by NPCC.
[172] The Régie notes that a number of the facilities in question have been entered in the
Register of Facilities. However, with respect to identification of MTS facilities, the
Coordinator’s evidence was limited to filing the operating diagram for information
purposes. The same applies to the list of lines operated at 200 kV or higher, which is not
included in the Register of Facilities.
[173] In this regard, the Régie’s view is that the list of MTS elements and the list of lines
operated at 200 kV or higher are as important as the other lists of facilities included in the
Register of Facilities.
[174] For the above-mentioned reasons, the Régie:
 accepts:
o the prescriptive aspects of a technical nature listed in the registers, and
requests, as set out in paragraph 127 above, that they be incorporated
into the reliability standards in question in the form of appendices;
o the list of entities in the Register of Entities;
o the list of facilities in the Register of Facilities.
 but rejects the Registre des entités visées par les normes de fiabilité and the
Registre des installations visées par les normes de fiabilité in their current form.
[175] The Régie requests that the Coordinator submit a Register of Entities for
approval with the revised reliability standards, by a deadline to be determined at a
later date. For each of the registered entities, the Register of Entities should contain
the following information:
 corporate identification of the entity;
 the entity’s corporate address;
 the NERC function(s) that the entity performs, based on the NERC functional
model;
40
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
 identification of the entity’s substations, lines and generating stations classified
as part of MTS, specifying the applicable voltage for the substations and the
installed power capacity for the generating stations;
 identification of the entity’s substations, lines and generating stations classified
as part of BPS, specifying the applicable voltage for the substations;
 identification of the entity’s “critical assets” for the purpose of the CIP
standards;
 identification of the entity’s transmission lines operated at 200 kV or higher;
 identification of the entity’s nuclear power plants;
 identification of the entity’s facilities and equipment required for system
restoration;
 identification of the entity’s special protection systems classified as type I or II
by NPCC.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
41
6. GLOSSARY OF RELIABILITY STANDARD TERMS AND
ACRONYMS
[176] The Coordinator filed the glossary and, in view of the progress of the case, asked
the Régie to approve it.
[177] The glossary presents the definitions of the terms and meaning of the acronyms
used in the reliability standards and is essentially a translation of the terms used in the
NERC reliability standards.64
6.1 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[178] The Régie notes that the majority of the interveners did not object to approval by
the Régie of a glossary of terms and acronyms related to the reliability standards. On the
contrary, NLH formally asked the Régie to do so and RTA supported NLH’s application.
[179] However, the Régie notes the reservations expressed by the intervener ÉLL/EBM
to the effect that the filed glossary should be considered only for the purpose of
presentation of the evidence and should not be used as a reference tool for the
Transmission Provider’s and Coordinator’s current and future cases.
[180] The Régie shares the views expressed by the Coordinator, NLH and RTA to the
effect that the glossary helps clarify the content of the reliability standards that have been
filed for adoption and considers that the interveners had opportunity, in the course of the
present case, to comment on the Coordinator’s proposed definitions.
[181] The Régie notes that only a French version of the glossary was filed and that NLH
asked that an English version be filed for the Régie’s approval as well.
[182] The Régie also notes that the term “sabotage,” within the meaning of the
CIP-001-1 standard, is defined only in the Register of Facilities, and that the term
“chemins d’interconnexion” [interconnection paths] is not defined, although it is used in
64
NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards, April 20, 2009; Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1,
pages 19-20.
42
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
the Application Matrices to refer to facilities subject to certain reliability standards, such
as the MOD-006-0 standard.
[183] The Régie therefore requests that the definitions of “sabotage” and “chemins
d’interconnexion” be included in the glossary.
[184] The Régie requests that the Coordinator file for approval, with the text of the
revised reliability standards, by a deadline to be determined at a later date, French
and English versions of a glossary of terms and acronyms related to the reliability
standards applicable in Québec, taking into account all the points set out in this
Decision.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
43
7. APPLICATION MATRICES
[185] The Coordinator filed the CER matrix and requested that the Régie take note of
it.65 The matrix was revised several times. The last version is dated November 10, 2010.66
[186] The Coordinator stated that the purpose of the CER matrix is to facilitate
application of the reliability standards by identifying the risk factors associated with noncompliance with the requirements of each standard, the facilities subject to the reliability
standards, and the functions and function categories, based on the NERC model, to which
the reliability standards apply. The matrix also refers to the documents produced by
NPCC, which set out procedures for meeting NERC requirements.67
[187] On September 29, 2010, ÉLL/EBM filed the ÉLL/EBM matrix68 and asked the
Régie to take note of it as well,69 to which the Coordinator did not object.
[188] According to ÉLL/EBM, the ÉLL/EBM matrix serves to identify the reliability
standards and requirements that apply specifically to ÉLL/EBM, based on its
obligations.70
7.1 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[189] The Régie notes that the matrices filed by the Coordinator and ÉLL/EBM include
prescriptive aspects, requirements, particulars, variants and exceptions, which will be
incorporated into the reliability standards.
[190] The Régie regards the CER matrix as an information tool for the registered entities
and considers the ÉLL/EBM matrix to be a reflection of the mutual understanding
reached by the Coordinator and ÉLL/EBM.
65
66
67
68
69
70
Exhibit B-1, application, page 4.
Exhibit B-55, HQCMÉ-2, document 6.
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-1, document 1, page 36.
Exhibit C-3-15.
Exhibit A-39-2, page 54.
Exhibit A-39-2, pages 51-55.
44
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
[191] The Régie does not consider it appropriate to give effect to the Coordinator’s
and ÉLL/EBM’s requests to take note of the matrices.
8. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 REFERENCE TO NPCC CRITERIA OR TO TRANSMISSION
PROVIDER’S REQUIREMENTS
[192] On September 22, 2010, the Coordinator filed revised versions of some of the
exhibits on file and new exhibits, including the Guide d’application des documents NPCC
relatifs à la fiabilité (“NPCC guide”).
[193] The NPCC guide was amended several times. The final version is dated
October 21, 2010.71
[194] As stated in the NPCC guide, its purpose is to specify the context in which NPCCapproved documents are applied in Québec. NPCC reliability documents are classified
under four categories:
 “A” for Criteria
 “B” for Guides
 “C” for Procedures
 “D” for Reliability Directories.
[195] The Coordinator indicated, among other things, that:
[translation]
Compliance with type “A” (Criteria) and “D” (Directories) documents that specify a
regional context, where required under a NERC standard adopted by the Régie de
l’énergie du Québec, is mandatory and non-compliance with the said documents is
sanctionable pursuant to the Act respecting the Régie de l’énergie.
[…]
Entities that are Full Members of NPCC must, under their membership agreement and
the other undertakings made to NPCC, comply with all the type “A,” “B,” “C” and “D”
documents put into force by NPCC.72
71
72
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 5.3.
Ibid., page 3.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
45
[196] On the other hand, the Coordinator specified that compliance with the requirements
set out in the four types of documents, in cases where application is not required by a
NERC standard adopted by the Régie, is optional under the Act. In the CER matrix, the
Coordinator identified, for each requirement, documents which it classified under the
following headings:
 NPCC documents (mandatory compliance)
 NPCC documents (optional compliance)
 Other reference documents.
[197] Under the category “other reference documents,” the Coordinator mentions, among
other things, NPCC documents73 and generic documents of the Transmission Provider and
the Coordinator (technical connection requirements, common instructions, connection
agreements, contracts).74
[198] The CER matrix serves to identify reliability standards that include requirements
making compliance with NPCC documents mandatory by reference. Those standards are
EOP-005-1, EOP-009-0, PRC-007-0, PRC-008-0, PRC-009-0, PRC-015-0, PRC-018-1
and TOP-002-2.
[199] In the CER matrix, the Coordinator also specifies the function categories used to
identify the entities, if any, that are required, under the Act, to comply with applicable
NPCC documents.
8.1.1 INTERVENERS’ POSITIONS
[200] The intervener ÉLL/EBM concluded from its matrix and the CER matrix that none
of the reliability standards for which the Coordinator indicated an NPCC document with
which compliance is mandatory applies to ÉLL/EBM.
[201] The other interveners in the case made no additional comment on the matrix.
73
74
Exhibit B-55, HQCMÉ-2, document 6, page 34, EOP-005-1 standard.
Ibid., page 41, FAC-002-0 standard.
46
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
8.1.2 COORDINATOR’S RESPONSE
[202] In its response, the Coordinator stated:
[translation]
As it is expected that the NPCC criteria will be amended in the not-so-distant future, and
apparently they will also be recast in the form of standards, the Reliability Coordinator
believes that caution is called for in this fast-changing environment. It should be borne in
mind that this application is a first filing of standards with the Régie and there will be
other filings of new standards, since the standards are being developed, particularly by
NERC, in an ongoing process. Furthermore, if the NPCC criteria are transformed into
standards, the Reliability Coordinator will then be able to file them with the Régie
pursuant to paragraph 85.7(2), which provides that the standards may “refer to
reliability standards set by a standardization agency that has entered into an
agreement.”75
[203] In its final comments, the Coordinator repeated that the purpose of the CER matrix
is, among other things, to add necessary details to the reliability standards that include a
reference of that type in order to clarify the framework for application of those standards
in Québec.
8.1.3 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[204] The Régie observes from the CER matrix that a number of NPCC documents and
other documents are provided only for reference. However, according to the Coordinator,
some NPCC documents are mandatory within the meaning of the Act.
[205] Subsection 85.7 of the Act provides that the reliability standards adopted by the
Régie may “refer to reliability standards set by a standardization agency that has entered
into an agreement.”
[206] The Régie notes that, while the NPCC documents designated as mandatory within
the meaning of the Act by the Coordinator were set by an agency with which it has
entered into an agreement, that agency does not describe the documents in question as
reliability standards.
75
Exhibit A-39-2, pages 13-14.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
47
[207] The Régie understands from the CER matrix and the Register of Entities that with
the exception of certain requirements of the PRC-018-1 standard, which make NPCC
criterion A-15 mandatory by reference, only HQT, HQP and La Société en commandite
hydroélectrique Manicouagan are subject to those references.
[208] The Régie ensures that electric power transmission in Québec is carried out in
accordance with the reliability standards it adopts. Therefore, any criterion or normative
element must be submitted to the Régie in the form of a standard in order to make
compliance mandatory.
[209] Under subsection 85.7 of the Act, the Régie may make compliance with reliability
standards mandatory, but not compliance with criteria.
[210] The Régie therefore dismisses the Coordinator’s proposal to make compliance
with NPCC criteria mandatory by mere reference to the reliability standards
adopted by the Régie.
8.2 REGISTRATION OF ONTARIO POWER GENERATION AS A
GENERATOR OPERATOR IN QUÉBEC
[211] At the time the application was filed in June 2009, OPG was considered a
purchasing-selling entity by the Coordinator. OPG found in June 2010 that it was also
considered a generator operator, with respect to the Chats Falls generating station, and
was deemed to be subject to Québec’s jurisdiction, which OPG disputes.
[212] In its application to intervene, OPG noted the following points:
 OPG’s generating facilities at Chats Falls are electrically located within the
province of Ontario;
 the generating station is owned jointly by HQP and OPG;
 the generating station is operated under a generating licence issued by the Ontario
Energy Board (OEB);
 all of its output flows into the Ontario system, including the energy that ultimately
goes to Québec;
48
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
 the reliability of the generating station’s operations is under the jurisdiction of the
Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which is the Reliability
Coordinator in Ontario;
 all players in the Ontario electricity market are required to meet the NERC
reliability standards, compliance with which is monitored by IESO.
[213] In support of is argument, OPG referred to a letter from IESO to the Coordinator,
dated August 20, 2010,76 which made the following observations:
 while OPG operates units 6-9 of the Chats Falls generating station on behalf of
HQP and the facilities straddle the Ottawa River between Québec and Ontario, all
the output flows into the Ontario system, including the energy that ultimately goes
to Québec;
 OPG receives no reliability or scheduling-related operating instructions for the
generating station from HQT;
 as the Reliability Coordinator and Balancing Authority for Ontario, IESO is the
only entity that issues instructions for all units of the generating station;
 in accordance with applicable market rules in Ontario, all players in the Ontario
electricity market must comply with the NERC reliability standards;
 the NERC registration process does not provide for an entity to be subject to more
than one Reliability Coordinator or Balancing Authority. Section 500 of the NERC
rules stipulates: “For all geographical or electrical areas of a bulk power system, the
registration process shall […] ensure that all loads and generators are under the
responsibility and control of one and only one Balancing Authority”;
 according to IESO, it follows that HQT should not enter OPG in the Register of
Entities as a generator operator on its territory.
8.2.1 COORDINATOR’S POSITION
[214] In its response to IESO, the Coordinator stated that it shares OPG’s concerns about
the part of the generating facilities located in Québec. The Coordinator referred to
paragraph 85.3(3) of the Act, which deals with “an owner or operator of a production
facility with a capacity of 50 megavolt amperes (MVA) or more connected to an electric
76
Exhibit B-43, HQCMÉ-2, document 4.1.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
49
power transmission system […],” and noted that the Act does not include the concept of
Balancing Authority.
[215] The Coordinator indicated that it intended to remove OPG from the Register of
Entities as a generator operator but that the Régie should rule on the issue.
8.2.2 THE RÉGIE’S OPINION
[216] The Régie finds that, as operator and co-owner of the Chats Falls generating
station, OPG follows the instructions of IESO, which is the Balancing Authority and
Reliability Coordinator for Ontario, and that OPG is required to comply with the
reliability standards adopted by NERC.
[217] The Régie further notes that the entire output of the Chats Falls generating station
flows into the Ontario transmission system, including the energy that ultimately goes to
Québec.
[218] The Régie also notes that the Coordinator accepts OPG’s request, despite the fact
that the generating station is located partly in Québec.
[219] For these reasons, the Régie recognizes the merit of OPG’s position and
authorizes the Coordinator to exclude OPG from the list of generator operators in
the Register of Entities.
50
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
9. INTERIM COSTS
[220] The Coordinator’s application dates from June 2, 2009. That application was
subsequently amended and numerous amendments were made to the evidence.
Furthermore, the Régie decided to deal with this case in two phases.
[221] The hearing on Phase 1 was held on October 7 and 14, 2010.
[222] The hearing on Phase 2 will be held on June 8, 9 and, if necessary, 10, 2011.
[223] The Régie requests that the interveners file any claim for interim costs related
to Phase 1 of the case within 30 days after this Decision.
[224] For these reasons,
The Régie de l’énergie:
DISMISSES the Coordinator’s objection to the first part of NLH’s supplementary
evidence, filed on October 1, 2010;
REQUESTS that the Coordinator delete the second paragraph of the definition of MTS:
[translation] “The Main Transmission System is under the supervision of the Québec
Reliability Coordinator (Direction Contrôle des mouvements d’énergie (CMÉ), HydroQuébec TransÉnergie).”
REQUESTS that the Coordinator translate the term “Bulk Electric System (BES)” as
“système de production-transport d’électricité” in the generic context of the NERC
reliability standards, translate the term “Réseau de transport principal (RTP)” as “Main
Transmission System (MTS)” in the specific context of designating the applicability of
most of the reliability standards applicable to Québec, and amend the French version of
the reliability standards in question and of the glossary;
RECOGNIZES the relevance of the filed reliability standards and the fact that they will
have an impact on the entities that are subject to them;
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
51
ACCEPTS the content of the NERC reliability standards and the violation risk factors, as
filed, as well as the prescriptive aspects for Québec contained in the Register of Entities,
the Register of Facilities and the Application Matrices;
REQUESTS that the Coordinator:
 incorporate the prescriptive aspects of a technical nature contained in the Register
of Entities, Register of Facilities and Application Matrices into each standard as an
appendix;
 include in the same appendix the prescriptive aspects of and administrative nature
relating to coming-into-force dates and to the responsibilities and activities
associated with compliance monitoring of the reliability standards, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and the Régie’s decisions;
 produce French and English versions of those new appendices;
 produce an English version of the risk factors document;
REQUESTS that the Coordinator follow the guidelines set out in paragraphs 130-133
above in preparing the reliability standards;
WILL ESTABLISH a timetable for the filing of French and English versions of the
revised reliability standards, in accordance with the requests listed in this Decision, for
final adoption;
ACCEPTS the list of entities in the Register of Entities and the list of facilities in the
Register of Facilities;
REJECTS the Registre des entités visées par les normes de fiabilité and Registre des
installations visées par les normes de fiabilité in their current form;
REQUESTS that the Coordinator submit a register of entities for approval with the
revised text of the reliability standards, by a deadline to be determined at a later date;
REQUESTS that the Coordinator file for approval, with the revised text of the reliability
standards, by a deadline to be determined at a later date, French and English versions of a
52
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
glossary of terms and acronyms related to the reliability standards applicable in Québec,
taking into account all the points set out in this Decision;
DISMISSES the Coordinator’s proposal to make compliance with NPCC criteria
mandatory by mere reference to the reliability standards adopted by the Régie;
RECOGNIZES the merit of OPG’s position and accepts that the Coordinator exclude
OPG from the list of generator operators in the Register of Entities;
ALLOWS interveners to file any claim for interim costs related to Phase 1 of the case
within 30 days after this Decision;
ORDERS the Coordinator to comply with all other points set out in this Decision.
Marc Turgeon
Commissioner
Michel Hardy
Commissioner
Louise Rozon
Commissioner
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
(Unofficial translation)
53
Representatives:
-
Énergie La Lièvre s.e.c. and Énergie Brookfield Marketing s.e.c. (ÉLL/EBM)
represented by Pierre Legault and Paule Hamelin;
Hydro-Québec represented by Carolina Rinfret;
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (NLH) represented by André Turmel;
Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) represented by Louise Cadieux;
Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. (RTA) represented by Pierre Grenier.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
APPENDIX 1
Appendix 1 (7 pages)
M.T.
_________
M.H.
_________
L.R.
_________
55
56
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
Introduction
This Appendix provides a non-exhaustive list of prescriptive aspects the Régie has
identified in the Coordinator’s evidence that should be incorporated into the reliability
standards, more specifically as appendices.
This list is based on the exhibits filed into evidence, notably the following documents:
 Registre des installations visées par les normes de fiabilité;
 Registre des entités visées par les normes de fiabilité;
 Reliability Standards Application Matrix.
Below, each family of reliability standards (BAL, CIP, etc.) to which the Coordinator
added distinctions for the purpose of application in Québec is covered and the
distinctions are described.
BAL standards - Resource and Demand Balancing
The BAL standards apply to the Balancing Authority, the Coordinator, the
Transmission Operator, the Generator Operators and the Load Serving Entities.
The purpose of the BAL standards is, among other things, to maintain a balance
between supply and demand and to ensure frequency control.
In the CER matrix, the Coordinator specifies, for the BAL-003-0a standard, that the
Québec system is asynchronous and Area Control Error (ACE) is calculated with only
a frequency component.
CIP standards - Critical Infrastructure Protection
The purpose of the CIP standards is, among other things, to identify and protect critical
system infrastructure.
The CIP-001-1 standard applies to a number of entities and deals with sabotage
reporting. The Coordinator specifies, in the CER matrix, that in Québec the reports
mentioned in requirement R.4 are made not to the RCMP but to the Sûreté du Québec.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
57
The Coordinator specifies, in the Register of Facilities, that the CIP-002-1 to
CIP-009-1 standards apply to assets defined in accordance with the guide
TTI-N-SEC-003 Méthodologie d’identification des actifs critiques d’Hydro-Québec
pour rencontrer les exigences des CIP de la NERC, produced by the Coordinator. It
adds that this method applies throughout Québec.1
In the French version of the CIP-004-01 standard, the Coordinator provided an
explanatory note on personnel risk assessment, which in practice consists in employee
background checks.
COM standard - Communications
The COM standards apply to communications between operators and
telecommunications systems required for the performance of the Reliability
Coordinator, Balancing Authority, Interchange Authority, Transmission Operator and
Generator Operator functions.2
For the COM-001-1 standard, the Coordinator specifies, in the CER matrix, that it is
agreed that communications between entities located in Québec will be in French.
EOP standard - Emergency Preparedness and Operations
The EOP standards set minimum requirements in order to ensure that operators are
adequately prepared to deal with emergency situations such as a system outage, power
shortfall or unavailability of systems or of the System Control Centre.
With respect to the EOP-004-1 standard on reporting disturbances that affect the MTS,
the Coordinator specifies, in the Register of Facilities, that:
 the parameters set out in the standard for the Eastern Interconnection are also
applicable to the Québec Interconnection;
1
2
Exhibit B-10, HQCMÉ-3, document 1.1, R5.2.
COM-002-2 standard.
58
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
 Load Serving Entities in the LSE-2 category (distributors other than HQD3) are
exempted from application of this standard;
 the term “sustained voltage excursions” is used in Attachment 1 to the standard,
rather than “momentary” or “transitory,” thereby excluding surges due to
lightning or work on the system;
 there is no requirement to report disturbances that occur in Québec to the DOE.
FAC standard - Facilities Design, Connections, and Maintenance
The purpose of the FAC standards is to set out requirements for:
 facility connection
 establishing and communicating facility ratings
 establishing system operating limits
 establishing transfer capability
 maintaining equipment and rights of way
 vegetation management.
The Coordinator specifies, in the Register of Facilities, that the FAC-002-0 standard
applies to all new facility connections and to some changes and repairs to
transmission, generation or load-serving facilities, regardless of whether they are part
of the MTS.
The Coordinator specifies, in the Register of Facilities, that the FAC-003-1 standard,
which deals with vegetation management, applies specifically to power lines operated
at 200 kV or higher, regardless of whether they are part of the MTS.
IRO standard - Interconnection Reliability Operations and Coordination
The purpose of the IRO standards is, among other things, to establish authorities,
requirements and responsibilities related to the Coordinator’s roles.
The IRO-006-4 standard mentions transmission load relief (TLR) procedures
applicable to the entire Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection and the
3
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 4, page 13. The Coordinator also defines, in the register of entities, the
exclusions for LSE-2s by specifying the only standards that do apply to them.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
59
Ercot Interconnection. The Coordinator specifies that it is the only entity to which this
standard applies, and that it uses a local procedure, on its own initiative and at its own
discretion, to deal with any actual or potential System Operating Limit (SOL) or
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) violation.4
Further, with respect to the IRO-001-1, IRO-004-1 and IRO-005-1 standards, the
Coordinator specifies, in the CER matrix, that some requirements applicable to LSEs
apply only to HQD (LSE-2s are excluded).
MOD standard - Modeling, Data, and Analysis
The MOD standards cover, among other things, system modeling for planning,
forecasting, analysis and reliability assessment purposes.
The Coordinator specifies, in the CER matrix, that the MOD-017 to MOD-021
standards, applicable to LSEs, apply only to HQD5 (LSE-2s are excluded).
PER standard - Personnel Performance, Training, and Qualifications
The purpose of the PER standards is to ensure that interconnected transmission
systems are operated by qualified, competent personnel with the necessary authority to
carry out or order the required operations.
The PER standards apply to the BA, RC and TOP functions, as applicable. In the
Register of Entities, the Coordinator identifies CER as the only entity responsible for
those functions in Québec. The PER standards apply only to the operators of CER’s
Main Transmission System.
PRC standard - Protection and Control
The purpose of the PRC standards is to set requirements for coordination, installation,
maintenance and testing of protection systems for transmission and generation
4
5
Exhibit B-10, HQCMÉ-3, document 1.1, R7.1.
Exhibit B-55, HQCMÉ-2, document 6, pages 66-68.
60
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
facilities, special protection systems (SPS) and under-frequency / under-voltage loadshedding systems.
With respect to the PRC-001-1 standard, the Coordinator provided, in the Register of
Facilities, details concerning protection coordination for facilities located on the
border between the MTS and regional transmission systems.
For the PRC-004-1 standard, the Coordinator specifies, in the register of facilities, that
analysis of protection system misoperations applies to elements of the BPS but may
also be extended to other MTS facilities at the Coordinator’s discretion.
In the French version of the PRC-005-1 standard, the Coordinator specifies that the
standard applies to programs for maintenance and testing of protection systems that
affect BPS reliability. In the register of facilities, the Coordinator specifies that the
standard must be applied to the elements of the BPS.
The Coordinator specifies, in the register of facilities, that the PRC-017-0 standard
does not apply to type III special protection systems.
With respect to the requirements for disturbance monitoring equipment installation set
out in the PRC-018-1 standard, the Coordinator specifies, in the register of facilities,
the facilities or equipment that must be equipped with a sequence of event recorder,
fault recorder or dynamic disturbance recorder.
Further, in the register of facilities, the Coordinator proposes a 6-year plan for
installing the monitoring equipment required under the PRC-018-1 standard, starting
from the date the plan is adopted by the Régie.
TOP standard - Transmission Operations
The TOP standards establish basic system operating practices that ensure system
reliability and are relevant to and essential for the reliability of the Québec
Interconnection and coordination of operations with the Eastern Interconnection.
With respect to the generation and transmission data that must be provided under
certain requirements in the TOP-002-2 and TOP-006-1 standards, the Coordinator
defines, in the register of facilities, the information that must be provided, the time
frame and reporting frequency.
D-2011-068, R-3699-2009, 2011 05 13
61
The Coordinator also specifies, in the register of facilities, particulars applicable to
operators of industrial-use generators and the implications for certain requirements
applicable to other entities, such as BA, TOP and RC.
TPL standard - Transmission Planning
The purpose of the TPL standards is to set minimum requirements for transmission
system design and planning in order to ensure adequate system performance.
The Coordinator recommends that the TPL standards be applied only to the BPS.6 The
Coordinator also specifies in the register of facilities that the TPL-001-0 to TPL-004-0
standards apply only to the BPS as defined by NPCC Criterion A-10.7 This point is
also repeated in the French versions of the TPL-002-0 to TPL-004-0 standards.
VAR standard - Voltage and Reactive
The VAR standards set requirements for voltage and reactive control in order to
maintain system voltage within applicable ratings.
With respect to the VAR-002-1a standard, the Coordinator provided, in the register of
facilities, details concerning voltage management at the power plant or at their
connection points with third-party systems.
6
7
Exhibit B-1, HQCMÉ-2, document 2, page 24.
Exhibit B-54, HQCMÉ-2, document 5, page 18.