risk-based registration highlights nad... · risk-based registration. val agnew, senior director,...
TRANSCRIPT
Risk-Based Registration
Val Agnew, Senior Director, Reliability AssuranceMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Phase I – Industry Engagement Organized Advisory group to discuss policy issues Task Force created to address technical considerations
• Phase I – ROP changes Remove Purchasing-Selling Entities (PSEs) and Interchange Authorities (IAs) Modify criteria for Distribution Providers (DPs) Include NERC-led panel FERC Order March 19, 2015 Additional information to remove Load Serving Entities (LSEs) requested FERC approved removal of LSEs October 15, 2015
Risk-based Registration
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Phase II – Identify classes Generator Owner (GO), Generator Operator (GOP), and Transmission
Owner (TO), Transmission Operator (TOP) Collaboration with NAGF, ISO/RTO, ORCS, RCFG
• Phase II – Industry Engagement Continued use of advisory group and technical task force Engaged industry more broadly through workshops
• NERC examined: Submissions for registered entities Pre-identified Reliability Standards Detailed analysis of events and enforcement data
Risk-based Registration
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
• GO/GOPs and TO/TOPs that were not involved in an event • No violation or possible violation dating back to 2007• Analyze for potential group or groups• Identified potential candidate organizations for consideration by
the NERC-led panel
Phase II – Data Analysis
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
Phase II – GO/GOP Data Analysis
• 412 out of 8,525 generation units• 112 out of 922 registered GO/GOPs• No similar characteristics identified MW size as a bright-line was inconclusive Entity’s units may be critical during peak and emergency conditions 28 potential candidates identified for review by the NERC-led panel
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Phase II – TO/TOPs Data Analysis
• 38 out of 497 registered TO/TOPs• Not sole indicator of risk• No similar characteristics identified• Identified potential candidates for review by the NERC-led panel
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
Recommendations
• Use the NERC-led review panel as defined in Phase I Review individual entity’s requests Monitor trends Identify similarly situated entities for potential groups or candidates
• Provide periodic updates to FERC, ERO, and industry with determinations and trends
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
Compliance Guidance Policy
Compliance Guidance Team MembersMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Purpose of the policy paper Develop approaches useful in providing guidance for implementing
standards
• May 2015: compliance guidance team (Team) formed Clarify the role, purpose, development, use, and maintenance of
compliance guidance Reduce controversial approaches to provide guidance Provide additional clarity on implementation of standards
Background
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
Compliance Guidance Team
• NERC executives and Board of Trustees (Board) members Ken Peterson Doug Jaeger Janice Case Mark Lauby
• Regional Entity Leadership Dan Skaar
• Leadership Sylvain Clermont Valerie Agnew Kristin Iwanechko
• Team Members Nabil Hitti Tony Montoya Tom Bowe Nelson Peeler Carol Chinn Jason Marshall Brian Murphy Patti Metro Steve Noess Sonia Mendonca
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
1. Guidance cannot change the scope of a Reliability Standard2. Contents of guidance are not the only way to comply with a
standard3. Clear compliance expectations during standards development
should minimize need for guidance after regulatory approval4. Forms of guidance should not conflict5. Guidance should be developed collaboratively and posted for
transparency
Principles
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Should be a finite and limited set of guidance tools• All forms of guidance related to the same standard should be
coordinated and collected in one location• To the extent guidance does not address all issues that arise,
consideration should be given to revising the standard• NERC and the Regional Entities (ERO Enterprise) will exercise
professional judgement and maintain processes to ensure its independence
• There are other methods for addressing risks not subject to a standard (i.e., feedback loops)
Additional Considerations
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
• Implementation Guidance Examples for implementing a standard
• CMEP Practice Guides Provides direction to ERO Enterprise compliance monitoring and
enforcement program (CMEP) staff on approaches to carry out compliance and enforcement activities
Proposed Types of Guidance
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
• Led and developed by industry experts• Does not prescribe the only approach• Endorsed for deference by ERO Enterprise
Implementation Guidance
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
• Endorsement ERO Enterprise CMEP staff will give the examples deference when
conducting compliance monitoring activities
• Deference Registered entities may rely upon the example with reasonable assurance
that guidance meets compliance requirements Compliance determinations depend on facts, circumstances, and system
configurations Following guidance alone is not a guarantee to meet compliance
Endorsement and Deference
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
• Initiation and Vetting Standard drafting team (during standards development) Through a pre-qualified organization (after final ballot)
• Submitted to a NERC email after being vetted• Example is posted to a central location on NERC’s website for
transparency
Implementation Guidance Development
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY10
• ERO Enterprise considers guidance for endorsement NERC facilitates resolution of any open questions Subject to technical soundness and compatibility with the standard
language ERO Enterprise leadership will ensure consensus among Regional Entities
• If endorsed, move to one-stop shop ERO Enterprise leadership ensures deference is given during CMEP
activities If not endorsed, removed from website
Obtaining Endorsement
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY11
• APPA• CEA• EEI• ELCON• EPSA• ISO/RTO Council• LPPC• NARUC• NRECA
Pre-Qualified Organizations
• NAGF• NATF• TAPS• WICF• NERC Planning Committee• NERC Operating Committee• NERC CIPC• Regional Entity Stakeholder
Committees
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY12
• Provides direction to ERO Enterprise CMEP staff on approaches to carry out compliance and enforcement activities
• Developed by the ERO Enterprise• May be initiated through policy discussions with industry• Posted for transparency
CMEP Practice Guides
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY13
One location on NERC website for:• Implementation Guidance• CMEP Practice Guides• Other supporting documents Other documents created during standards development (i.e., RSAWs,
white papers) Other types of guidance (i.e. Events Analysis Lessons Learned) Reports
One-Stop Shop for Guidance
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY14
• Compliance and Certification Committee (CCC) review, with Standards Committee (SC) support, of existing documents to submit for ERO Enterprise endorsement
• Review by the SC of Section 11 of the Standard Processes Manual to determine whether revisions should be considered
• CCC and SC jointly review, with ERO Enterprise CMEP staff, measures and RSAWs
• Develop CMEP Practice Guide on providing deference to endorsed Implementation Guidance
• Create a “one-stop shop” on the NERC website
Recommendations
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY15
• November 4, 2015: Present to MRC and request that MRC recommends the Board accept the policy and endorse the recommendations
• November 5, 2015: Request Board acceptance of the policy and endorsement of the recommendations
Next Steps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY16
Clean Power Plan Final RuleNERC Reliability Assessment Plan (Phase II)
John Moura, Director of Reliability Assessment and System AnalysisMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
CPP Overview
• Issued August 3, 2015• Federal registry on October 23, 2015• Extends compliance to 2022 from 2020• Increase in total reduction from 30% to 32% of 2005 levels• Significant increase in renewables and energy efficiency • State plans must consider reliability Elements of a Reliability Assurance Mechanism Due Sept 2016, extension possible to 2018
• Trading to achieve compliance goals• Reliability Safety Valve
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
Example of Envisioned Glide Slope
Example: ArizonaCEIP early reductions 2020-2021
1st Interim Period 2022-
2024
2nd Interim Period 2025-
2027
3rd Interim Period
2028-2029
1st Compliance Period
2030-2031
Proposed 2030 Goal = 702 lb/MWh
Final 2030 Goal = 1,031 lb/MWh
Source: Salt River Project
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Example of Envisioned Glide Slope
Example: KentuckyCEIP early reductions 2020-2021
1st Interim Period 2022-
2024
2nd Interim Period 2025-
2027
3rd Interim Period
2028-2029
1st Compliance Period
2030-2031
Proposed 2030 Goal = 1,918 lb/MWh
Final 2030 Goal = 1,286 lb/MWh
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Provides limited flexibility if a state encounters an unexpected reliability concern
• Designed as a short-term (90 day) narrowly focused fix Not likely to provide large benefits to states during the compliance period May be able to support an approaching peak period
Reliability Safety Valve
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Remaining Uncertainties
• Requirements of the final Federal Plan • Mass versus rate-based approaches• Aggregate impacts of other environmental regulations (i.e.,
regional haze, cooling water, MATS)• Uncertainty with neighboring state plans and available transfers• Energy efficiency expectations and impacts to demand forecasts • Timing and location of retirements• Robustness of trading and allowances• Legal impediments• Market sensitive information sharing
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
• Formed to advise NERC on assessment scope and goals• Representation All NERC Regions ISO/RTOs and Planning Coordinators Independent Power Producers and Renewable Energy Producers Trade Organizations Power Marketers Consultants Canada
• Sub-group to author the state recommendations document Reliability Considerations for CPP Plan Development
• Work with modelers to develop scenarios and assumptions
Planning Committee Advisory Group
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
Special Reliability Assessment:CPP Phase II
Report Deliverable
Tentatively Scheduled for March
31, 2016
Project Timeline
October 7, 2015
Policy Input Letter
distributed
EPA Special AssessmentCPP Phase II
January 2016
Begin outreach and coordination
engagements with state
agencies and plan developers
Completion of Reliability
Considerations for CPP Plan
Development
October through December
Planning Committee Advisory Group on CPP:
1. Development of Reliability Considerations for CPP Plan Development
2. Design scope of the assessment, define scenarios, vet assumptions
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
RISC Priorities and 2015 Reliability Leadership Summit ResultsPeter Brandien, Vice President of System Operations, ISO New EnglandMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• August 25, 2015 Hosted over 100 industry leaders
• Focused on three topics Changing nature of reliability Changing nature of the grid Cyber and physical security
• Three risk themes emerged Identifiable and measurable through existing processes and procedures Evolving and accelerating due to regulation and economics Large potential impacts from extreme events and intentional acts
• Integrated outcomes into 2015 RISC report
Reliability Leadership Summit
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Reliability Issues Steering Committee (RISC) process Built on 2014 work Adjusted RISC report schedule to support strategic planning cycle Conducted industry pulse point interviews FERC Technical Conference Reliability Leadership Summit
• Report structure Risk analysis of profiles Recommendations
Report Overview
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Risk Mapping
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
Key Risk Themes
Reliability
Human Role
Regulatory and Uncertainty
System AssetsResources
Recovery/Restoration
Resiliency
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
1. Identify and report on interdependent and evolving business models
2. Expand long-term reliability assessment (LTRA) to measure potential reliability impacts from the changing resource mix
3. Build on Essential Reliability Services (ERS) framework 4. Continue maturation of E-ISAC, deployment of Cyber Security
Risk Information Sharing Program (CRISP) technology, and strengthen physical and cyber security
Recommendations
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
5. Ensure planning data and modeling effectively and accurately reflect behavior of all generation and transmission additions
6. Promote sharing mechanisms among entities, including across RTO/ISO markets, bi-lateral regions, and non-market seams
7. Continue to leverage the forums and other industry practice-sharing-groups to enhance resilience and improve reliability
8. Differentiate the meaning and character of resilience as well as effective ways to measure it
Recommendations continued
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
• Request Board acceptance of the report• Consider improvements for 2016 Seek feedback and assess deliverable usefulness Adjust timing of report for earlier in the year Engage NERC leadership earlier in 2016
• Initiate RISC member replacement process
Next Steps
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
Evolution of Essential ReliabilityServices
John Moura, Director of Reliability Assessment and System AnalysisMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
ERSTF Achievements
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
INFORM EDUCATE BUILD AWARENESS
Key Messages for Policy Makers
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Synchronous inertia is declining……
Monitor Trends in Frequency
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4x 10
5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kin
etic
ene
rgy,
MW
s
ERCOT Historic Kinetic Energy Boxplots (2010–2017)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
Frequency Deviation
Decline in inertia Increase in Frequency Deviation
Calculated ERCOT System Frequency after 2750 MW Generation Trip(2010-2017)
Where we’ve been
Where we’re going
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Need to Evaluate Frequency Response
Need to evaluate Point C’ – Governor Withdrawal
Frequency Response Example for Large Disturbance in Eastern Interconnection(with Governor Withdrawal)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
Need More Flexibility for Ramping
-8,000
-6,000
-4,000
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Hourl
y Net
Load
Ramp
s, MW
CAISO Yearly One-Hour Ramp DistributionRed shaded area represents 2 σ from the mean
How do we address the need for flexibility?
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
Need to Establish Reactive Areas
• Difficult to measure and project—report recommends a number of enhanced industry practices
• Need to establish sub-areas to understand reactive trends • Determine static and dynamic reactive capability of the system
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
• Defining Adequate Level of Reliability in terms of ERS• Distributed Energy Resources• Flexibility, Visibility, Control
Additional Work Needed Going Forward
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY10
Incorporate Measures into NERC Reliability Evaluations
• Long-Term Reliability Assessment Supplement Reserve Margin Assess future frequency/inertial response; conduct resource mix sensitivities Project ramping needs
• State of Reliability Report Identify trends in voltage performance Enhancements identified for frequency response trending
• Special Reliability Assessments
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY11
ERO Enterprise Longer-term Strategic Planning Considerations
Mark Lauby, Senior Vice President and Chief Reliability OfficerMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Significant Cross-cutting Emerging Trends Changing resource mix Regulatory and economic impact Essential reliability services (ERS) Operational control and visibility Cyber and physical security New technology
• Areas of Focus Resource and Planning Adequacy Recovery and Restoration Situation Awareness and System Control
Background
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Be a credible and independent information source• Further assessing reliability risks associated with natural gas
infrastructure, including gas storage and pipeline delivery• Add probabilistic analysis into the traditional reserve margin• Incorporate the distribution-centric distributed resources and
demand response into the assessment of reliability risk• Document reliability considerations and requirements for fuel
diversity, distribution, and variable energy resources (VERs)
Resource and Planning Adequacy
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
• Develop a risk-based approach to extreme conditions• Promote an all-hazards approach to grid restoration and
recovery plans• Study interdependent infrastructure more for extreme events Natural gas, telecommunications, and transportation
• Develop understanding of supply chain cyber security issues
Recovery and Restoration
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Assess the impact of changing technologies• Consider the impacts of ERS on reliable operations• Ensure the visibility, awareness, and control of a sufficient amount
of distributed and non-traditional resources as needed• Foster system operator training and situation awareness• Engage equipment vendors• Engage IEEE and the IEC in producing technical standards• Work with regulators to develop interconnection requirements
Situational Awareness and System Control
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
ERO Enterprise Strategic Plan 2016–2019 and 2016 ERO Enterprise and Corporate MetricsMark Lauby, Senior Vice President and Chief Reliability OfficerMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
Annual Strategic & Operational Planning
Reliability Issues Steering Committee
Report
Reliability Leadership Summit
Evaluate of Historical and Emerging Trends
Pulse Interviews with select Industry Leaders
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
Annual Strategic & Operational Planning
Reliability Issues Steering Committee
Report
Reliability Leadership Summit
Evaluate of Historical and Emerging Trends
Pulse Interviews with select Industry Leaders
Board & EMG
Strategic Sessions
FERC Tech. Conference
MRC Policy Input
ERO Enterprise
Survey
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Annual Strategic & Operational Planning
Reliability Issues Steering Committee
Report
Reliability Leadership Summit
Evaluate of Historical and Emerging Trends
Pulse Interviews with select Industry Leaders
ERO Enterprise Staff Input
Board & EMG
Strategic Sessions
FERC Tech. Conference
MRC Policy Input
ERO Enterprise
Survey
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
Annual Strategic & Operational Planning
Reliability Issues Steering Committee
Report
Reliability Leadership Summit
Evaluate of Historical and Emerging Trends
ERO Enterprise Longer-term Strategic Planning
Considerations
ERO Enterprise Strategic Plan 2016-2019
Pulse Interviews with select Industry Leaders
Business Plan & Budget
Technical Committee
Work Plans
Enterprise/Corporate
Metrics
ERO Enterprise Staff Input
Board & EMG
Strategic Sessions
FERC Tech. Conference
MRC Policy Input
ERO Enterprise
Survey
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Goals:1. Clear and technically sound Reliability Standards2. Risk-based Compliance Monitoring, Enforcement, and
Registration3. Identification and mitigation of significant reliability risks4. Assessment of emerging risks and essential reliability services5. Collaboration and coordination
ERO Enterprise Strategic Plan 2016–2019
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
1. Reliability results2. Assurance effectiveness3. Risk mitigation effectiveness4. Program execution effectiveness
2016 ERO Enterprise and Corporate Metrics
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
• ERO Enterprise Strategic Plan and Metrics Continued focus on highest priority risk Redesign in 2016
Summary
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
FERC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Availability of Certain NERC Databases to FERC
Holly A. Hawkins, Associate General CounselMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• NOPR Proposes a New Regulation—18 C.F.R. §39.11(c) “The Electric Reliability Organization shall make available to the
Commission, on a non-public and ongoing basis, access to the Transmission Availability Data System, Generating Availability Data System, and protection system misoperations databases, or any successor databases thereto.”
NOPR Proposal
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• FERC states: FERC access would be viewable and downloadable data Limited to U.S. facilities Data would help FERC:o determine need for new or modified Reliability Standards, and o understand NERC assessments
Intends to take “appropriate steps” in handling confidential information Would not require NERC to collect new information or
compile/reformulate data
NOPR Proposal (cont’d)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
• Implications of the Proposed Rule include: Scope Data vulnerability and confidentiality Duplicative and ambiguous regulation Negative unintended consequences
NERC Review of Database NOPR
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• NERC will submit comments proposing an alternative to the Proposed Rule with the goal of addressing FERC’s objectives articulated in the NOPR
• Comments are due on November 30, 2015
NERC Review of Database NOPR
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
ERO EnterpriseEffectiveness SurveyKristin Iwanechko, Associate Director, Member Relations and MRC SecretaryMember Representatives Committee MeetingNovember 4, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Issued January 2015 to 1,112 individuals 73 survey questions across 10 topic areas 23.9 percent response rate
• Final report presented in August 2015 Positive overall results Seven initial areas identified for improvement
• Industry request for additional favorability analysis Four additional areas identified Over 6% unfavorable and under 60% favorable ratings
2014 Survey
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Ensures efficiencies and minimizes duplication and any activities not affecting reliability outcomes
• Achieves results and methods that are predictable, consistent, and timely
Actions• Included in sub-metric E for 2016
Additional Areas
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
• Avoids undue burden, discrimination, or capriciousness Comments focused on administrative and regulatory burden
Actions• Reduced scope of audit based on risk• Implementation of risk-based registration
Additional Areas
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Penalty process and penalties are transparent, consistently applied, and clearly communicated
No Action• Penalty process governed by NERC Rules of Procedure• Penalties are publicly posted
Additional Areas
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
• To be issued January 2016• Working with ad hoc survey group• Changes and improvements Frequency of future surveys Clarity of questions Analysis of data Distribution list Demographics User-friendliness of survey tool
2015 Survey
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7