Download:
pdf |
pdfUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
)
)
Docket No. _______
JOINT PETITION OF THE
NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION AND
RELIABILITYFIRST CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REGIONAL
RELIABILITY STANDARD BAL-502-RF-03
Jason Blake
General Counsel
Megan Gambrel
Senior Counsel
ReliabilityFirst Corporation
3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 600
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 503-0600
jason.blake@rfirst.org
megan.gambrel@rfirst.org
Shamai Elstein
Senior Counsel
Marisa Hecht
Counsel
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 400-3000
shamai.elstein@nerc.net
marisa.hecht@nerc.net
Counsel for the ReliabilityFirst Corporation
Counsel for the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation
September 7, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2
II.
NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................ 4
III. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 4
A.
Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................... 4
B.
ReliabilityFirst Regional Reliability Standards Development Procedure ........................ 6
C.
FERC Directives Addressed by BAL-502-RF-03 ............................................................ 6
D.
Development of Proposed Regional Reliability Standard................................................ 8
IV. JUSTIFICATION FOR APPROVAL..................................................................................... 9
V.
A.
Justification for the Need for the Proposed Regional Reliability Standard ................... 10
B.
Description and Technical Basis of Proposed Revisions ............................................... 11
C.
Enforceability of Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 ................ 13
EFFECTIVE DATE .............................................................................................................. 14
VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 14
Exhibit A
Proposed Regional Reliability Standard, BAL-502-RF-03 – Planning Resource
Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
Exhibit B
Implementation Plan for Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Exhibit C
Order No. 672 Criteria for Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF03
Exhibit D
Summary of Development History and Complete Record of Development
Exhibit E
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation Standard
Drafting Team Roster
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
)
)
Docket No. _______
JOINT PETITION OF THE
NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY CORPORATION AND
RELIABILITYFIRST CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED REGIONAL
RELIABILITY STANDARD BAL-502-RF-03
Pursuant to Section 215(d)(1) of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) 1 and Section 39.5 2 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) regulations, the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) 3 and the ReliabilityFirst Corporation
(“ReliabilityFirst”) hereby submit proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 –
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation for Commission
approval. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 establishes common criteria,
based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment,
and documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load in the ReliabilityFirst region. 4
NERC requests that the Commission approve proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL502-RF-03 (Exhibit A) and find that the proposed regional Reliability Standard is just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. NERC also requests approval
of: (i) the Implementation Plan (Exhibit B) for the proposed regional Reliability Standard; (ii) the
associated Violation Risk Factors (“VRFs”) and Violation Severity Levels (“VSLs”) (Exhibit A);
1
16 U.S.C. § 824o (2012).
18 C.F.R. § 39.5 (2017).
3
The Commission certified NERC as the electric reliability organization (“ERO”) in accordance with
Section 215 of the FPA on July 20, 2006. N. Am. Elec. Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2006).
4
Unless otherwise designated, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Glossary of Terms
Used in NERC Reliability Standards, http://www.nerc.com/files/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf.
2
1
and (iii) the retirement of regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02. The NERC Board of
Trustees adopted proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 on August 10, 2017.
As required by Section 39.5(a) 5 of the Commission’s regulations, this petition presents the
technical basis and purpose of proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03; a
demonstration that the proposed regional Reliability Standard meets the criteria identified by the
Commission in Order No. 672 6 (Exhibit C); and a summary of the development history (Exhibit
D).
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 addresses directives from FERC
to (1) add time horizons applicable to the requirements and (2) consider including a requirement
that the Planning Coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves
and the documented projected planning reserves determined from the Resource Adequacy
analysis. The proposed revisions resulted from a periodic review of BAL-502-RFC-02.
The purpose of proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 is to establish
common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load expectation principles, for the
analysis, assessment, and documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load in the ReliabilityFirst
region. The requirements address the following: (1) annually performing and documenting a
Resource Adequacy analysis; (2) annually documenting and posting projected Load and resource
capability to demonstrate the sufficiency of planning reserves over a ten-year period for certain
areas identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis; and (3) identifying any gaps between the
5
18 C.F.R. § 39.5(a).
The Commission specified in Order No. 672 certain general factors it would consider when assessing
whether a particular Reliability Standard is just and reasonable. See Order No. 672, Rules Concerning Certification
of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of
Electric Reliability Standards, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, at PP 262, 321-37, order on reh’g, Order No. 672-A,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006) (“Order No. 672”).
6
2
needed planning reserves and the projected planning reserves documented in the Resource
Adequacy analysis.
For the reasons discussed below, NERC and ReliabilityFirst respectfully request the
Commission approve proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03, the associated
VRFs and VSLs, the associated Implementation Plan, and the retirement of the existing regional
Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. The following petition presents the justification for approval
and supporting documentation.
3
II.
NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS
Notices and communications with respect to this filing may be addressed to the
following: 7
Jason Blake*
General Counsel
Megan Gambrel*
Senior Counsel
ReliabilityFirst Corporation
3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 600
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 503-0600
jason.blake@rfirst.org
megan.gambrel@rfirst.org
Shamai Elstein*
Senior Counsel
Marisa Hecht*
Counsel
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 400-3000
shamai.elstein@nerc.net
marisa.hecht@nerc.net
Counsel for the ReliabilityFirst Corporation
Counsel for the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation
III.
BACKGROUND
The following background information is provided below: (a) an explanation of the
regulatory framework for NERC and regional Reliability Standards; (b) an explanation of the
ReliabilityFirst regional Reliability Standards development process; (c) the FERC directives
addressed by the revisions; and (d) the development of proposed regional Reliability Standard
BAL-502-RF-03.
A.
Regulatory Framework
By enacting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 8 Congress entrusted the Commission with the
duties of approving and enforcing rules to ensure the reliability of the Nation’s Bulk-Power
7
Persons to be included on the Commission’s service list are identified by an asterisk. NERC respectfully
requests a waiver of Rule 203 of the Commission’s regulations, 18 C.F.R. § 385.203, to allow the inclusion of more
than two persons on the service list in this proceeding.
8
16 U.S.C. § 824o (2012).
4
System, and with the duties of certifying an ERO that would be charged with developing and
enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards, subject to Commission approval. Section 215(b)(1) 9
of the FPA states that all users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System in the United
States will be subject to Commission-approved Reliability Standards. Section 215(d)(5) 10 of the
FPA authorizes the Commission to order the ERO to submit a new or modified Reliability
Standard. Section 39.5(a) 11 of the Commission’s regulations requires the ERO to file with the
Commission for its approval each Reliability Standard that the ERO proposes should become
mandatory and enforceable in the United States, and each modification to a Reliability Standard
that the ERO proposes should be made effective.
The Commission has the regulatory responsibility to approve Reliability Standards that
protect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System and to ensure that such Reliability Standards are
just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Pursuant to
Section 215(d)(2) of the FPA 12 and Section 39.5(c) 13 of the Commission’s regulations, the
Commission will give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO with respect to the content
of a Reliability Standard.
Similarly, the Commission approves regional Reliability Standards proposed by Regional
Entities if the regional Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or
preferential, and in the public interest. 14 In addition, Order No. 672 sets forth additional criteria
for regional Reliability Standards. A regional difference from a continent-wide Reliability
9
10
11
12
13
14
Id. § 824o(b)(1).
Id. § 824o(d)(5).
18 C.F.R. § 39.5(a).
16 U.S.C. § 824o(d)(2).
18 C.F.R. § 39.5(c)(1).
Section 215(d)(2) of the FPA and 18 C.F.R. § 39.5(a).
5
Standard must either be: (1) more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, or (2)
necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. 15
B.
ReliabilityFirst Regional Reliability Standards Development Procedure
The proposed regional Reliability Standard was developed in an open and fair manner and
in accordance with the Commission-approved ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development
Procedure. 16 In accepting NERC’s delegation agreements with the Regional Entities, the
Commission found that NERC’s proposed common attributes for regional Reliability Standard
development and ReliabilityFirst’s Reliability Standards development process provide for
reasonable notice and opportunity for public comment, due process, openness, and a balance of
interests in developing Reliability Standards. 17 ReliabilityFirst considers the comments of all
stakeholders, and a vote of stakeholders and adoption by the ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors is
required to approve a regional Reliability Standard. Once the regional Reliability Standard is
approved by the ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors, NERC posts the approved regional Reliability
Standard for an additional comment period. Then the NERC Board of Trustees must adopt the
regional Reliability Standard before it is submitted to the Commission for approval.
C.
FERC Directives Addressed by BAL-502-RF-03
In addition to approving regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 in Order No. 747,
the Commission also directed ReliabilityFirst to: (1) add time horizons to the two main
requirements, and (2) consider including a requirement that the Planning Coordinators identify any
15
Order No. 672 at P 291.
Amendments to Delegation Agreement with ReliabilityFirst Corp., Letter Order, Docket No. RR12-12-000
(Oct. 24, 2012) (approving revised ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development Procedure). The
ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development Procedure is available at
https://rfirst.org/standards/Documents/Reliability%20Standards%20Developmental%20Procedure.pdf (effective
Oct. 24, 2012).
17
Order Accepting ERO Compliance Filing, Accepting ERO/Regional Entity Delegation Agreements, and
Accepting Regional Entity 2007 Business Plans, 119 FERC ¶ 61,060, at P 17 (2007).
16
6
gap between the needed amount of planning reserves determined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and
the planning reserves documented in Requirement R2 as determined from the Resource Adequacy
analysis. 18 The Commission directed ReliabilityFirst to address these directives during its
scheduled five-year review of BAL-502-RFC-02.
When BAL-502-RFC-02 was submitted to FERC, it did not include time horizons, which
NERC noted in its petition to approve the regional Reliability Standard and the Commission
mentioned in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 19 NERC and the Regional Entities use time
horizons as a factor in determining the size of a sanction. As noted in the Sanction Guidelines in
Appendix 4B of the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Reliability Standards involving longer and
broader time horizons, such as long-term planning activities, may have a lesser immediate impact
and pose less immediate risk to the reliability of the Bulk Power System than Reliability Standards
involving shorter and narrower timeframes, such as Registered Entities’ conduct in real time.
Similarly, Reliability Standards involving longer and broader time horizons typically will provide
a longer time period over which to discover and remedy a violation when compared to Reliability
Standards involving more immediate activities such as next-day planning, same-day operations or
real-time operations.” 20
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission stated that time horizons are
important for NERC penalty determination but also acknowledged that time horizons were not
18
Order No. 747, Planning Resource Adequacy Assessment Reliability Standard, 134 FERC ¶ 61,212, at PP
53, 65 (2011) (“Order No. 747”).
19
NERC Petition for Approval of Proposed RFC Regional Reliability Standard
BAL-502-RFC-02, Docket No. RM10-10-000 (Dec. 14, 2009) (“Petition”); Planning Resource Adequacy
Assessment Reliability Standard, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 133 FERC ¶ 61,066, at P 21 (2010).
20
NERC, Rules of Procedure, Sanction Guidelines of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
Appendix 4B, Section 2.7 (effective July 1, 2014),
http://www.nerc.com/FilingsOrders/us/RuleOfProcedureDL/Appendix_4B_SanctionGuidelines_20140701.pdf.
7
critical in its determination to approve BAL-502-RFC-02. 21 ReliabilityFirst informed NERC that
its standards development process did not include development of time horizons, but it was moving
towards requiring the assignment of time horizons for its regional Reliability Standards. 22
Moreover, ReliabilityFirst noted that the requirements of the regional Reliability Standard are
planning-oriented for one year and beyond. 23
Additionally, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission noted that BAL-502RFC-02 did not include a requirement to document any gap between the planning reserve margin
calculated pursuant to Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the actual planning reserve documented in
Requirement R2 as determined by the Resource Adequacy analysis. 24 The Commission further
noted that it would be useful for Planning Coordinators to identify and document any deficiencies
in planning reserves to help ensure that entities are aware of potential risks regarding the capability
to balance resources and demand in a planning timeframe. 25 In its comments to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, ReliabilityFirst agreed this would be appropriate to consider during the
five-year review. 26 As such, the Commission accepted this commitment in Order No. 747, noting
that the requirement is for documentation and would not require entities to install additional
generation or transmission capacity. 27
D.
Development of Proposed Regional Reliability Standard
As further described in Exhibit D hereto, proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502RF-03 was developed by the Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
21
NOPR, 133 FERC ¶ 61,066, at P 23.
Petition, Appendix C-8.
23
Id.
24
NOPR, 133 FERC ¶ 61,066, at P 32.
25
Id. at P 33.
26
Comments of ReliabilityFirst Corporation to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Issued Oct. 21, 2010,
Planning Resource Adequacy Assessment Reliability Standard, Docket No. RM10-10-000 at pg. 6.
27
Order No. 747 at PP 63, 65.
22
8
Documentation Standard Drafting Team in accordance with the ReliabilityFirst Reliability
Standards Development Procedure. On February 1, 2017, BAL-502-RF-03 received the requisite
approval from the registered ballot body in its initial ballot, with an affirmative majority of votes
greater than two-thirds determined for each category. However, because ReliabilityFirst received
at least one negative vote with comment during the initial ballot, ReliabilityFirst posted BAL-502RF-03 for a 10-Day recirculation ballot beginning February 6, 2017. On February 15, 2017, BAL502-RF-03 received the requisite number of affirmative votes to pass on recirculation ballot. The
ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors approved BAL-502-RF-03 on June 1, 2017 and subsequently
approved the regional Reliability Standard to be submitted to the NERC Board of Trustees for
adoption. NERC posted the regional Reliability Standard for a 45-day comment period concluding
on June 12, 2017. There were no additional changes after this comment period. The NERC Board
of Trustees adopted BAL-502-RF-03 on August 10, 2017.
IV.
JUSTIFICATION FOR APPROVAL
As discussed in detail in Exhibit C, proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-
03 is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. As
described more fully herein and in Exhibit C, the proposed regional Reliability Standard provides
reliability benefits for the Bulk-Power System in the ReliabilityFirst region.
The purpose of proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 is to establish
common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load expectation principles, for the
analysis, assessment, and documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load in the ReliabilityFirst
region. The provisions of the proposed regional Reliability Standard provide requirements for
Planning Coordinators in the ReliabilityFirst region regarding resource adequacy assessment,
which is not currently addressed in NERC’s continent-wide Reliability Standards. In approving
BAL-502-RFC-02, the Commission stated that, “like other planning standards, BAL-502-RFC-02
9
provides for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System as it will help identify areas of
concern that, if left unresolved, could result in future instability, uncontrolled separation, or
cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System.” 28 Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 provides this same
benefit with additional proposed enhancements. Therefore, the proposed regional Reliability
Standard meets a reliability need for the ReliabilityFirst region, and as discussed below, the
proposed modifications provide additional support for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power
System.
The proposed regional Reliability Standard includes requirements for annually performing
and documenting a Resource Adequacy analysis (Requirement R1), annually documenting the
projected Load and resource capability for certain areas identified in the Resource Adequacy
analysis (Requirement R2), and identifying any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves determined pursuant to Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves
documented pursuant to Requirement R2 (Requirement R3).
This section of the petition addresses: (i) the justification of the need for the proposed
regional Reliability Standard; (ii) the description and technical basis of the proposed revisions; and
(iii) the enforceability of the proposed regional Reliability Standard.
A.
Justification for the Need for the Proposed Regional Reliability Standard
Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 meets the criteria to justify the
need for a regional Reliability Standard as it is more stringent than the related continent-wide
NERC Reliability Standards, which do not presently address assessment of resource adequacy in
the planning horizon covered in the proposed regional Reliability Standard. As noted above, the
Commission previously recognized that the analysis required by this proposed regional Reliability
28
Order No. 747 at P 25.
10
Standard may help identify issues that could cause future instability, uncontrolled separation, or
cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System. 29 Therefore, the proposed regional Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RF-03 is justified because it meets the criteria in Order No. 672 to be more
stringent than continent-wide Reliability Standards. Entities that perform the functions to which
the continent-wide standards and the proposed regional Reliability Standard apply need to comply
with all applicable standards, so the proposed regional Reliability Standard provides a level of
support to the ReliabilityFirst region in addition to the continent-wide standards.
B.
Description and Technical Basis of Proposed Revisions
The proposed revisions add in time horizons to Requirements R1 and R2; add
Requirement R3 to identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in
Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves document in Requirement R2; and
add other corresponding changes to the measures. In addition, the proposed revisions include
minor clarifications and updates to conform to the current Reliability Standards template.
To address the time horizons directive, the standard drafting team selected “long-term
planning” for the time horizons for Requirements R1, R2, and R3 of proposed BAL-502-RF-03.
As noted above in Section III.C, ReliabilityFirst stated that the requirements address a planning
horizon of one year or more. In the context of determining violations, NERC defines “long-term
planning” as a planning horizon of one year or longer. Therefore, the “long-term planning” time
horizon is most appropriate for the BAL-502-RF-03 requirements. 30
29
Id.
NERC Reliability Standards requirements fall into one of five time horizon categories: (1) long-term
planning – a planning horizon of one year or longer; (2) operations planning – operating and resource plans from
day-ahead up to and including seasonal; (3) same-day operations – routine actions required within the timeframe of
a day, but not real‐time; (4) Real-time operations – actions required within one hour or less to preserve the reliability
of the Bulk Electric System; and (5) operations assessment – follow‐up evaluations and reporting of Real‐time
operations.
30
11
BAL-502-RF-03, Requirement R1 requires a Planning Coordinator to perform a
Resource Adequacy analysis annually for the planning year. Requirement R2 requires a Planning
Coordinator to annually document the projected Load and resource capability for certain areas
identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis for each year through year ten. Finally, proposed
Requirement R3 requires a Planning Coordinator to identify gaps in planning reserves identified
in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and documented in Requirement R2. As each of these requirements
address a planning horizon of at least a year, the “long-term planning” time horizon is justified
for the requirements in BAL-502-RF-03.
As noted in Section III.C above, ReliabilityFirst committed to considering a requirement
to identify and document any gaps between the planning reserves identified under Requirement
R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented under Requirement R2 during its
five-year review of BAL-502-RFC-02. The standard drafting team reviewed the 2015 Long-term
Reliability Assessment 31 and the 2014 Probabilistic Assessment 32 reports to determine if this gap
analysis was addressed by non-standards activities. Although the reports both included
identification of gaps, the standard drafting team noted that the reports were not required to
include this analysis. Therefore, the standard drafting team concluded that a requirement to
document these gaps should be developed for the ReliabilityFirst region. As a result, the standard
drafting team added proposed Requirement R3 to BAL-502-RF-03 in response to the FERC
directive. This change is justified because it codifies the documentation of this gap for the
ReliabilityFirst region.
31
NERC, 2015 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (Dec. 2015)
http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2015LTRA%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
32
NERC, 2014 Probabilistic Assessment (Apr. 2015)
http://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/2014ProbA%20April%20Report%20Final_F
inal.pdf.
12
The standard drafting team also proposed several non-substantive changes to BAL-502RF-03 to align the regional Reliability Standard with the updated format of other NERC
Reliability Standards. The non-substantive changes include the following:
(1)
Changed name from BAL-502-RFC-02 to BAL-502-RF-03;
(2)
Updated the formatting of Section A (Introduction);
(3)
Updated Effective Date Section;
(4)
Added the term “and Measures” to Section B heading;
(5)
Placed Measures immediately following the associated Requirements;
(6)
Removed the “R” from all sub-requirements making them sub-parts;
(7)
Updated section C (Compliance) to be consistent with NERC Reliability
Standard template language;
(8)
Renamed “Violation Severity Levels” Section to “Table of Compliance
Elements”;
(9)
Updated “Table of Compliance Elements” to include “Time Horizons” and
“VRFs”;
(10)
Added Sections D (Regional Variances), E (Interpretations), and F
(Associated Documents) to the end of regional Reliability Standard;
(11)
Changed bulleted items in R1.3.1, R1.3.2 and R1.4 to sub-parts to conform to
standard practice; and
(12)
Updated Version History to include ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors, NERC
Board of Trustees, and FERC approval dates.
C.
Enforceability of Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The proposed regional Reliability Standard includes VRFs and VSLs. The VSLs provide
guidance on the way that NERC will enforce the requirements of the proposed regional Reliability
Standard. The VRFs are one of several elements used to determine an appropriate sanction when
the associated requirement is violated. The VRFs assess the impact to reliability of violating a
specific requirement. The VRFs and VSLs for the proposed regional Reliability Standard comport
with NERC and Commission guidelines related to their assignment.
13
The proposed regional Reliability Standard also includes measures that support each
requirement by clearly identifying what is required and how the requirement will be enforced.
These measures help ensure that the requirements will be enforced in a clear, consistent, and nonpreferential manner and without prejudice to any party. 33
V.
EFFECTIVE DATE
NERC respectfully requests that the Commission approve the proposed regional Reliability
Standard BAL-502-RF-03 and the retirement of BAL-502-RFC-02 to become effective as set forth
in the proposed Implementation Plan, provided in Exhibit B hereto. The proposed effective date
of the proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 is the first day of the first calendar
quarter that is after the date that this regional Reliability Standard is approved by applicable
regulatory authorities or as otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an
applicable governmental authority is required for a Reliability Standard to go into effect.
VI.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, NERC respectfully requests that the Commission
approve:
•
the proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 in Exhibit A;
•
the other associated elements in the regional Reliability Standard in Exhibit A, including
the VRFs and VSLs (Exhibits A and C);
•
the retirement of existing regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02; and
33
Order No. 672 at P 327 (“There should be a clear criterion or measure of whether an entity is in compliance
with a proposed Reliability Standard. It should contain or be accompanied by an objective measure of compliance so
that it can be enforced and so that enforcement can be applied in a consistent and non-preferential manner.”).
14
•
the Implementation Plan, included in Exhibit B.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marisa Hecht
Jason Blake
General Counsel
Megan Gambrel
Senior Counsel
ReliabilityFirst Corporation
3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 600
Cleveland, OH 44131
(216) 503-0600
jason.blake@rfirst.org
megan.gambrel@rfirst.org
Shamai Elstein
Senior Counsel
Marisa Hecht
Counsel
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 400-3000
shamai.elstein@nerc.net
marisa.hecht@nerc.net
Counsel for the ReliabilityFirst Corporation Counsel for the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation
Date: September 7, 2017
Exhibit A
Proposed Regional Reliability Standard,
BAL-502-RF-03 – Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
Exhibit A
Proposed Regional Reliability Standard,
BAL-502-RF-03 – Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
Clean
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
None
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator
failed
to
OR
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
The Planning
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
to consider Transmission Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
maintenance outage
being equal to 0.1 per
schedules and document subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
how and why they were Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
included in the analysis
documentation of its use
or why they were not
included per
The Planning
OR
Requirement R1, Part
Coordinator
Resource
OR
1.5
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Page 6 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Page 7 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
Page 9 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
None
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Page 10 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
BAL-502-RFC-03
06/01/17
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RF-03
08/10/17
NERC BOT Approved
Change Tracking
Page 11 of 11
Exhibit A
Proposed Regional Reliability Standard,
BAL-502-RF-03 – Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
Redline
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
Upon RFC Board approval
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
R11.1 Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
R11.1.1 The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
Page 1 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
R11.1.2 The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
R11.2 Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
R11.2.1 Perform an analysis for Year One.
R11.2.2 Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
R11.2.2.1
If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
R11.3 Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
R11.3.1 Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
R11.3.2 Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Page 2 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
R11.3.3 Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
R11.3.3.1
Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
R11.3.4 Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
R11.4 Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
R11.5 Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
R11.6 Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
R11.7 Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
Page 3 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
R22.1 This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
R22.2 This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
R22.3 The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
C. Measures
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
D.C.
Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Monitoring ResponsibilityEnforcement Authority
Compliance Monitor - ReliabilityFirst Corporation
1.2. Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Timeframe
One calendar year
Page 4 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
DataAs defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority”
means NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.3.1.2.
Evidence Retention
The Planning Coordinator shall retain information from the most current and prior two
years.
The Compliance Monitor shall retain any audit data for five years.
2. Violation Severity Levels
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
None
Page 5 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
Req.
Number
R#
R1
Time Horizon
VRF
LOWER
MODERATE
Long-term Planning
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
HIGHLower VSL
SEVEREModerate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per R1Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
OR
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
The Planning
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
to consider Transmission Load forecast
for each planning period
Characteristics
maintenance outage
R1, Part 1.2.2
being equal to 0.1 per
schedules and document subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
how and why they were R1Requirement R1,
OR
included in the analysis
Part 1.3.1 and
Part 1.1
or why they were not
documentation of its use
included per
The Planning
OR
R1Requirement R1, Part
Coordinator Resource
OR
1.5
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Page 6 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.7
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Page 7 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
per R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.4 and
documentation of how
and why they were
included in the analysis
Page 8 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
or why they were not
included
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per R2Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
R2Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
R2Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
OR
OR
Page 9 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
R2Requirement R2,
Part 2.2.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Definitions:
Resource Adequacy - the ability of supply-side and demand-side resources to meet the aggregate electrical demand (including losses).
Net Internal Demand - Total of all end-use customer demand and electric system losses within specified metered boundaries, less Direct Control
Load Management and Interruptible Demand.
Peak Period - A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months but less than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the period during
which the responsible entity's annual peak demand is expected to occur
Page 10 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
Year One - The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual Peak Period.
The following definitions were extracted from the February 12th, 2008 NERC Glossary of Terms:
Direct Control Load Management – Demand-Side Management that is under the direct control of the system operator. DCLM may control the
electric supply to individual appliances or equipment on customer premises. DCLM as defined here does not include Interruptible Demand.
Facility - A set of electrical equipment that operates as a single Bulk Electric System Element (e.g., a line, a generator, a shunt compensator,
transformer, etc.)
Interruptible Demand - Demand that the end-use customer makes available to its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreement for curtailment.
Load - An end-use device or customer that receives power from the electric system.
Transmission - An interconnected group of lines and associated equipment for the movement or transfer of electric energy between points of supply
and points at which it is transformed for delivery to customers or is delivered to other electric systems.
Page 11 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
Change Tracking
st
BAL-502-RFC-02
1st Draft
06/24/08
Through
07/23/08
Posted for 1 Comment Period
BAL-502-RFC-02
2nd Draft
08/18/08
Through
09/16/08
Posted for 2nd Comment Period
BAL-502-RFC-02
3rd Draft
10/16/08
Through
10/30/08
Posted for 15-Day Category Ballot
BAL-502-RFC-02
3rd Draft
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
06/08/09
“Planning Reserve” changed to “planning
reserve” in R2.2.
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved by NERC Board of
Trustees
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
Order issued by FERC approving BAL-502-RFC02 (approval effective 5/23/11)FERC Approved
BAL-502-RFC-03
06/01/17
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RF-03
08/10/17
NERC BOT Approved
Errata
Page 12 of 12
Exhibit B
Implementation Plan for Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
Exhibit C
Order No. 672 Criteria for Proposed Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 –
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
EXHIBIT C
Order No. 672 Criteria for Proposed BAL-502-RF-03
In Order No. 672, 1 the Commission identified a number of criteria it will use to
analyze Reliability Standards proposed for approval to ensure they are just, reasonable,
not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The discussion below
identifies these factors and explains how the proposed regional Reliability Standard has
met or exceeded the criteria:
1. Proposed Reliability Standards must be designed to achieve a specified
reliability goal and must contain a technically sound means to achieve
that goal. 2
The purpose of BAL-502-RF-03 is to establish common criteria, based on “one
day in ten year” loss of Load expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment, and
documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load in the ReliabilityFirst region. The
proposed BAL-502-RF-03 regional Reliability Standard is technically sound as it
continues to meet the same performance of regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-
1
Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the
Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).
2
Order No. 672 at P 321. The proposed Reliability Standard must address a reliability concern that
falls within the requirements of section 215 of the FPA. That is, it must provide for the reliable operation of
Bulk-Power System facilities. It may not extend beyond reliable operation of such facilities or apply to
other facilities. Such facilities include all those necessary for operating an interconnected electric energy
transmission network, or any portion of that network, including control systems. The proposed Reliability
Standard may apply to any design of planned additions or modifications of such facilities that is necessary
to provide for reliable operation. It may also apply to Cybersecurity protection.
Order No. 672 at P 324. The proposed Reliability Standard must be designed to achieve a
specified reliability goal and must contain a technically sound means to achieve this goal. Although any
person may propose a topic for a Reliability Standard to the ERO, in the ERO’s process, the specific
proposed Reliability Standard should be developed initially by persons within the electric power industry
and community with a high level of technical expertise and be based on sound technical and engineering
criteria. It should be based on actual data and lessons learned from past operating incidents, where
appropriate. The process for ERO approval of a proposed Reliability Standard should be fair and open to all
interested persons.
1
02. 3 Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 is more stringent than continent-wide Reliability
Standards because the NERC Reliability Standards do not presently address assessment
of resource adequacy in the planning horizon.
2. Proposed Reliability Standards must be applicable only to users, owners
and operators of the bulk power system, and must be clear and
unambiguous as to what is required and who is required to comply. 4
Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 is only applicable to Planning Coordinators within the
ReliabilityFirst region. As explained in greater detail in the petition, the proposed
regional Reliability Standard includes three requirements that specify what the Planning
Coordinators need to do in order to comply.
3. A proposed Reliability Standard must include clear and understandable
consequences and a range of penalties (monetary and/or non-monetary)
for a violation. 5
Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 does not have any substantive changes to the VRFs
and VSLs approved in BAL-502-RFC-02, with the exception of the addition of the VRF
and VSL for Requirement R3. The proposed regional Reliability Standard continues to
comport with NERC and Commission guidelines. The assignment of the severity level
for each VSL is consistent with the corresponding Requirement and the VSLs should
ensure uniformity and consistency in the determination of penalties. The VSLs do not use
any ambiguous terminology, thereby supporting uniformity and consistency in the
determination of similar penalties for similar violations. For these reasons, the proposed
3
BAL-502-RFC-02 was approved by the Commission on March 17, 2011. See Planning Resource
Adequacy Assessment Reliability Standard, Order No. 747, 134 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2011).
4
Order No. 672 at P 322. The proposed Reliability Standard may impose a requirement on any user,
owner, or operator of such facilities, but not on others.
Order No. 672 at P 325. The proposed Reliability Standard should be clear and unambiguous
regarding what is required and who is required to comply. Users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power
System must know what they are required to do to maintain reliability.
5
Order No. 672 at P 326. The possible consequences, including range of possible penalties, for
violating a proposed Reliability Standard should be clear and understandable by those who must comply.
2
regional Reliability Standard includes clear and understandable consequences in
accordance with Order No. 672. Upon approval by the Commission, the ranges of
penalties for violations will continue to be based on the applicable VRF and VSL in
accordance with the sanctions table and the supporting penalty determination process
described in the Commission-approved NERC Sanction Guidelines, Appendix 4B to the
NERC Rules of Procedure.
4. A proposed Reliability Standard must identify clear and objective
criterion or measure for compliance, so that it can be enforced in a
consistent and non-preferential manner. 6
Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 identifies clear and objective criterion or Measures for
compliance so that it can be enforced in a consistent and non-preferential manner. The
regional Reliability Standard contains individual Measures that support the regional
difference’s Requirements by plainly identifying how the Requirements will be assessed
and enforced. These Measures continue to ensure that the Requirements will be assessed
and enforced in a clear, consistent, and non-preferential manner, without prejudice to any
party.
5. Proposed Reliability Standards should achieve a reliability goal
effectively and efficiently — but do not necessarily have to reflect “best
practices” without regard to implementation cost or historical regional
infrastructure design. 7
Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 achieves its reliability goals effectively and efficiently.
The proposed standard adds a requirement to document any identified gaps between
6
Order No. 672 at P 327. There should be a clear criterion or measure of whether an entity is in
compliance with a proposed Reliability Standard. It should contain or be accompanied by an objective
measure of compliance so that it can be enforced and so that enforcement can be applied in a consistent and
non-preferential manner.
7
Order No. 672 at P 328. The proposed Reliability Standard does not necessarily have to reflect the
optimal method, or “best practice,” for achieving its reliability goal without regard to implementation cost
or historical regional infrastructure design. It should however achieve its reliability goal effectively and
efficiently.
3
needed planning reserves and projected planning but does not require a registered entity
to install additional generation or transmission capacity.
6. Proposed Reliability Standards cannot be “lowest common
denominator,” i.e., cannot reflect a compromise that does not adequately
protect Bulk-Power System reliability. Proposed Reliability Standards
can consider costs to implement for smaller entities, but not at
consequences of less than excellence in operating system reliability. 8
Proposed BAL-502-RF-03 does not reflect a compromise that does not adequately
protect Bulk-Power System reliability.
7. Proposed Reliability Standards must be designed to apply throughout
North America to the maximum extent achievable with a single
Reliability Standard while not favoring one geographic area or regional
model. It should take into account regional variations in the organization
and corporate structures of transmission owners and operators,
variations in generation fuel type and ownership patterns, and regional
variations in market design if these affect the proposed Reliability
Standard.9
8
Order No. 672 at P 329. The proposed Reliability Standard must not simply reflect a compromise
in the ERO’s Reliability Standard development process based on the least effective North American
practice — the so-called “lowest common denominator” — if such practice does not adequately protect
Bulk-Power System reliability. Although FERC will give due weight to the technical expertise of the ERO,
we will not hesitate to remand a proposed Reliability Standard if we are convinced it is not adequate to
protect reliability.
Order No. 672 at P 330. A proposed Reliability Standard may take into account the size of the
entity that must comply with the Reliability Standard and the cost to those entities of implementing the
proposed Reliability Standard. However, the ERO should not propose a “lowest common denominator”
Reliability Standard that would achieve less than excellence in operating system reliability solely to protect
against reasonable expenses for supporting this vital national infrastructure. For example, a small owner or
operator of the Bulk-Power System must bear the cost of complying with each Reliability Standard that
applies to it.
9
Order No. 672 at P 331. A proposed Reliability Standard should be designed to apply throughout
the interconnected North American Bulk-Power System, to the maximum extent this is achievable with a
single Reliability Standard. The proposed Reliability Standard should not be based on a single geographic
or regional model but should take into account geographic variations in grid characteristics, terrain,
weather, and other such factors; it should also take into account regional variations in the organizational
and corporate structures of transmission owners and operators, variations in generation fuel type and
ownership patterns, and regional variations in market design if these affect the proposed Reliability
Standard.
4
As a regional Reliability Standard, proposed BAL-502-RF-03 meets the
requirements for regional Reliability Standards as discussed in the petition and will be
enforceable for registered entities within the ReliabilityFirst region.
8. Proposed Reliability Standards should cause no undue negative effect on
competition or restriction of the grid beyond any restriction necessary for
reliability. 10
The proposed regional Reliability Standard does not make any substantive
changes to the existing Commission-approved regional Reliability Standard other than
the addition of a Requirement.
9. The implementation time for the proposed Reliability Standard is
reasonable. 11
The implementation time for the proposed regional Reliability Standard is
reasonable. Historically, the two Planning Coordinators within the ReliabilityFirst region
have already been identifying this gap via a number of public reports. As a result, an
effective date of the first day of the first calendar quarter that is after the date that this
standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise provided for in a
jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required for a
standard to go into effect is appropriate.
10. The Reliability Standard was developed in an open and fair manner and
in accordance with the Commission-approved Reliability Standard
10
Order No. 672 at P 332. As directed by section 215 of the FPA, FERC itself will give special
attention to the effect of a proposed Reliability Standard on competition. The ERO should attempt to
develop a proposed Reliability Standard that has no undue negative effect on competition. Among other
possible considerations, a proposed Reliability Standard should not unreasonably restrict available
transmission capability on the Bulk-Power System beyond any restriction necessary for reliability and
should not limit use of the Bulk-Power System in an unduly preferential manner. It should not create an
undue advantage for one competitor over another.
11
Order No. 672 at P 333. In considering whether a proposed Reliability Standard is just and
reasonable, FERC will consider also the timetable for implementation of the new requirements, including
how the proposal balances any urgency in the need to implement it against the reasonableness of the time
allowed for those who must comply to develop the necessary procedures, software, facilities, staffing or
other relevant capability.
5
development process. 12
The proposed regional Reliability Standard was developed in accordance with
NERC’s and ReliabilityFirst’s Commission-approved processes for developing and
approving Reliability Standards. ReliabilityFirst develops regional Reliability Standards
in accordance with the ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development Procedure. For
more detail, please see the complete development history included as Exhibit D.
11. NERC must explain any balancing of vital public interests in the
development of proposed Reliability Standards.13
NERC and ReliabilityFirst have not identified competing vital public interests
with respect to the request for approval of the regional Reliability Standard, and no
comments were received during the development of the regional Reliability Standard
indicating conflicts with other vital public interests.
12. Proposed Reliability Standards must consider any other appropriate
factors. 14
No other factors relevant to whether the proposed regional Reliability Standard is
just and reasonable were identified.
12
Order No. 672 at P 334. Further, in considering whether a proposed Reliability Standard meets the
legal standard of review, we will entertain comments about whether the ERO implemented its Commissionapproved Reliability Standard development process for the development of the particular proposed
Reliability Standard in a proper manner, especially whether the process was open and fair. However, we
caution that we will not be sympathetic to arguments by interested parties that choose, for whatever reason,
not to participate in the ERO’s Reliability Standard development process if it is conducted in good faith in
accordance with the procedures approved by FERC.
13
Order No. 672 at P 335. Finally, we understand that at times development of a proposed
Reliability Standard may require that a particular reliability goal must be balanced against other vital public
interests, such as environmental, social and other goals. We expect the ERO to explain any such balancing
in its application for approval of a proposed Reliability Standard.
14
Order No. 672 at P 323. In considering whether a proposed Reliability Standard is just and
reasonable, we will consider the following general factors, as well as other factors that are appropriate for
the particular Reliability Standard proposed.
6
Exhibit D
Summary of Development History and Complete Record of Development
Exhibit D
Summary of Development
Summary of Development History
The development record for proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 is
summarized below. 1
I. Overview of the Standard Drafting Team
When evaluating a proposed Reliability Standard, the Commission is expected to give “due
weight” to the technical expertise of the ERO. 2 The technical expertise of the ERO is derived from
the standard drafting team approved by the ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee to lead each
project in accordance with Step 2 of the ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development
Procedure. 3 For this project, the standard drafting team consisted of industry experts, all with a
diverse set of experiences. A roster of the Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment,
and Documentation standard drafting team members is included in Exhibit E.
II. Standard Development History
A. Five-year Periodic Review
ReliabilityFirst conducted a five-year review comment posting period from February 29,
2016 through March 9, 2016, to which six individuals responded. All six individual provided
responses suggesting that the regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 be reaffirmed. The
reaffirmation includes addressing two FERC directives from FERC Order No. 747.
B. Standard Authorization Request Development
Revisions to BAL-502-RFC-02 were initiated on March 31, 2016 with the receipt of a draft
Standard Authorization Request (“SAR”). The ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee authorized
1
The development web page for BAL-502-RF-03 is available at
https://rfirst.org/standards/BAL502RFC03/Pages/BAL-502-RFC-03.aspx'.
2
Section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act; 16 U.S.C. §824(d) (2) (2012).
3
The ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development Procedure is available at
https://rfirst.org/standards/Documents/Reliability%20Standards%20Developmental%20Procedure.pdf.
1
BAL-502-RF-03 for development on April 12, 2016. The draft SAR was posted for a 30-day
comment period from April 11, 2016 through May 10, 2016. The final SAR was posted on May
12, 2016.
C. First Posting – Comment Period
On August 29, 2016, the ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee approved posting proposed
regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 for a 30-day public comment period. Proposed
regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 was posted for a 30-day public comment period
from September 12, 2016 through October 11, 2016. ReliabilityFirst received comments from two
individuals. Based on the comments received, the standard drafting team determined to make nonsubstantive changes to the proposed standard. 4
D. Pre-Ballot Posting and Category Ballot
Proposed regional Reliability Standard was posted for 15 days from January 3, 2017
through January 17, 2017 prior to category ballot. Thirty-one individuals joined the ballot pool,
which was formed from September 12, 2016 through January 9, 2017. A 15-day Category Ballot
was conducted from January 18, 2017 through February 1, 2017. Twenty-eight individuals cast
votes, reaching quorum at 93 percent. The standard received requisite approval of two-thirds or
greater affirmative majority of votes for each category. Because at least one negative vote with
comment during the initial ballot was cast, draft BAL-502-RF-03 standard was posted for a 10day Recirculation Ballot. 5
4
The Consideration of Comments for Posting 1 is available at
https://www.rfirst.org/standards/BAL502RFC03/SupportingDocuments/BAL-502-RF03_First_Comment_and_Responses_102016_v2.pdf.
5
The Initial Category Ballot Results are available at
https://rfirst.org/standards/BAL502RFC03/SupportingDocuments/BAL-502-RF03_Category_Ballot_Results_020117.pdf.
2
E. Recirculation Ballot
ReliabilityFirst conducted a 10-day Recirculation Ballot from February 6, 2017 through
February 15, 2017. Twenty-eight individuals cast votes, reaching quorum at 93 percent. The
standard received requisite approval of two-thirds or greater affirmative majority of votes for each
category. 6
F. ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors Approval
ReliabilityFirst posted the standard for 30 days from February 22, 2017 through March 23,
2017 prior to approval by the ReliabilityFirst Board of Directors. The ReliabilityFirst Board of
Directors approved the standard on June 1, 2017.
G. NERC Comment Period and Board of Trustees Approval
NERC posted proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 for a 45-day public
comment period from April 28, 2017 to June 12, 2017. 7 The NERC Board of Trustees adopted
proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RF-03 on August 10, 2017. 8
6
The Recirculation Ballot results are available at
https://rfirst.org/standards/BAL502RFC03/SupportingDocuments/BAL-502-RF03_Recirculation_Ballot_Results_021517.pdf.
7
The NERC web page for regional Reliability Standards Under Development is available at
http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/RegionalReliabilityStandardsUnderDevelopment.aspx.
8
NERC, Board of Trustees Agenda Package, Agenda Item 9c (BAL-502-RF-03 Planning Resource
Adequacy Analysis, Assessment, and Documentation), available at
http://www.nerc.com/gov/bot/Agenda%20highlights%20and%20Mintues%202013/Board_Open_Meeting_August_
10_2017_Agenda_Package_v2%20(002).pdf.
3
Exhibit D
Complete Record of Development
Reliability First (RF)
BAL-502-RF-03
Clean (39)
| Redline (40)
BAL-502-RF-03
Planning Resource
Adequacy Analysis,
Assessment and
Documentation
Info (41)
Standard Under
Development
04/28/17 06/12/17
Submit
Comments
Unofficial
Comment Form
(Word) (42)
Comments
Received (43)
Detailed Information
Posted
Document
BAL-502-RF-03
(37)
Supporting Documents
•
Implementation Plan (38)
•
Implementation Plan (36)
•
Draft Implementation Plan (33)
Industry Comments
Comments
NERC BoT Approved: 08/10/17.
08/10/2017
BAL-502-RF-03
(35)
RF Board Approved: 06/01/17.
06/01/2017
Draft BAL-Draft
BAL-502-RF-03
(32)
•
Posted for 30-Days Prior to Board
Action. 02/22/17 thru 03/23/17.
BAL-502-RF-03 Recirculation
Ballot Results and Comments (34)
02/22/2017
Draft BAL-502RF-03 (28)
•
•
02/06/2017
Draft BAL-502RF-03 (24)
01/18/2017
Draft Implementation Plan (29)
02/06/17 thru
02/15/17
Posted for 10-Day Recirculation Ballot.
02/06/17 thru 02/15/17.
BAL-502-RF-03 Initial Ballot
Results and Comments (30)
Recirculation Ballot
Announcement (31)
•
Draft Implementation Plan (25)
01/18/2017 thru
02/01/2017
Posted for 15-Days Category Ballot.
01/18/17 thru 02/01/17.
Category Ballot
Announcement (26)
BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot
Pool (27)
•
Draft BAL-502RF-03 (18)
•
Draft BAL-502-RF-03 (Redline)
(19)
BAL-502-RFC-02 Compared to
Draft BAL-502-RFC-03 (Redline)
(20)
01/03/2017
•
01/03/2017 thru
01/17/2017
Join BAL-502-RF-03
Ballot Pool (22)
Posted for 15-Days prior to Category
Ballot. 01/03/17 thru 01/17/17. (Ballot
Pool closes on 01/09/17.)
Draft Implementation Plan (21)
15-Day Pre-Ballot
Announcement (23)
•
Draft BAL-502RF-03 (9)
•
•
•
09/12/2016
•
•
09/12/2016 thru
10/11/2016
Draft BAL-502-RF-03 (Redline)
(10)
Draft Implementation Plan (11)
Perceived Reliability Impact (12)
Review Comments
Impact on Neighboring Regions
and Responses (16)
(13)
Changes Between Draft BAL-502RFC-03 and BAL-502-RFC-02
Standards (14)
Join BAL-502-RF-03
1st Posting Questions (15)
Posted for 1st 30-Day Comment
Period. 09/12/2016 thru 10/11/2016.
Ballot Pool (17)
Roster (8)
06/15/2016
Final SAR (6)
05/12/2016
Drafting Team Formed
•
•
Draft SAR (1)
04/11/2016
•
•
Drafting Team Nomination Form
(7)
Request for Standard Drafting Team
Nominations: 05/16/2016 thru
06/06/2016.
Announcement (2)
Stakeholder Comment Question
(3)
BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard (4)
04/11/16 thru
05/10/16
Consideration of
Comments (5)
The BAL-502-RFC-03 SAR is currently
posted for a 30-day comment period.
04/11/16 thru 05/10/16.
*The numbers in red correspond to the documents included in this exhibit.
Standard Authorization Request
The SC shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining this form as needed to
support the information requirements of the standards development process in this
Procedure. Changes to this form are considered minor, and therefore subject to only the
approval of the SC.
ReliabilityFirst Standard Authorization Request Form
ReliabilityFirst
will complete
ID - BAL-503-RFC-03
Title of Proposed Standard:
Planning Resource Adequacy
Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation
Authorized for
Posting - 03/31/16
Authorized for
Development - TBD
Request Date: 03/31/16
SAR Originator Information
Name: Anthony Jablonski
SAR Type (Check box for one of these
selections.)
Company: ReliabilityFirst
New Standard
Telephone: 216-503-0693
Revision to Existing Standard
Fax:
Withdrawal of Existing Standard
E-mail: Anthony.Jablonski@rfist.org
Urgent Action
Purpose (Provide one or two sentences.)
The purpose of this SAR is to initiate actions to revise the existing ReliabilityFirst Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard to
address two FERC Directives as noted in FERC Order No 747 (FERC Order initially approving
the Standard). Miscellaneous non-substantive format changes such as, but not limited to,
reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts” will be considered as well.
Industry Need (Provide one or two sentences.)
The ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard was approved as a Regional Reliability Standard by the
Commission in Order No 747 on March 17, 2011 and became enforceable on May 23, 2011. The
BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard establishes requirements for Planning Authorities/Coordinators in the
Page 1 of 8
ReliabilityFirst region regarding resource adequacy assessment, which subject matter is not
currently addressed in NERC’s continent-wide Reliability Standards. The Commission also
approves four regional reliability definitions related to the approved regional Reliability Standard
and the violation risk factors and violation severity levels assigned to the BAL-502-RFC-02
Requirements.
The BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard contains the following two main requirements. Requirement R1
requires each Planning Coordinator in the ReliabilityFirst footprint to perform and document an
annual resource adequacy analysis. The sub-requirements of Requirement R1 set forth the criteria
to be used for the resource adequacy analysis. Requirement R2 requires each Planning
Coordinator to annually document the projected load and resource capability for each area and
transmission constrained sub-area identified in the analysis. The sub-requirements of
Requirement R2 set forth the specific documentation requirements.
At the time of approval, the Commission directed ReliabilityFirst, at the time it conducts its
scheduled five year review, to (1) add time horizons to the two main requirements, and (2)
consider modifying the regional Reliability Standard to include a requirement that the planning
coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in
Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis.
ReliabilityFirst conducted a five year review comment posting period (February 29, 2016 through
March 9, 2016) in which six individuals responded. All six individual provided responses
indicating that they believe the BAL-502-RFC-02 should be reaffirmed (which includes a process
to respond to the FERC directives).
Brief Description (A few sentences or a paragraph.)
The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) will review the two main requirements and shall add Time
Horizons to each of the Requirements.
The SDT will consider modifying the BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard to include a requirement that
the Planning Coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves
defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy
analysis.
The SDT will also consider miscellaneous non-substantive formatting changes such as, but not
limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts”.
Reliability Functions
The Standard will Apply to the Following Functions (Check box for each one that applies.)
Reliability Authority
Ensures the reliability of the bulk transmission system
within its Reliability Authority area. This is the highest
reliability authority.
Page 2 of 8
Balancing Authority
Integrates resource plans ahead of time, and maintains
load-interchange-resource balance within its metered
boundary and supports system frequency in real time
Generator Owner
Owns and maintains generating units
Interchange Authority
Authorizes valid and balanced Interchange Schedules
Planning Authority/Planning
Coordinator
Plans the BPS
Resource Planner
Develops a long-term (generally one year and beyond)
plan for the resource adequacy of specific loads
(customer demand and energy requirements) within a
Planning Authority Area
Develops a long-term (generally one year and beyond)
plan for the reliability (adequacy) of the interconnected
bulk electric transmission systems within its portion of
the Planning Authority Area
Provides transmission services to qualified market
participants under applicable transmission service
agreements
Transmission Planner
Transmission Service
Provider
Transmission Owner
Owns transmission facilities
Transmission Operator
Operates and maintains the transmission facilities, and
executes switching orders
Distribution Provider
Provides and operates the “wires” between the
transmission system and the customer
Generator Operator
Operates generating unit(s) and performs the functions
of supplying energy and Interconnected Operations
Services
Purchasing-Selling Entity
The function of purchasing or selling energy, capacity
and all necessary Interconnected Operations Services
as required
Load-Serving Entity
Secures energy and transmission (and related
generation services) to serve the end user
Market Operator
Integrates energy, capacity, balancing, and
transmission resources to achieve an economic,
reliability-constrained dispatch of resources. The
dispatch may be either cost-based or bid-based
An entity that ensures that a defined area of the BPS is
reliable, adequate and secure. A member of the North
American Electric Reliability Council. The Regional
Regional Reliability
Organizations
Page 3 of 8
Reliability Organization can serve as the Compliance
Monitor
NOTE: The SDT may find it necessary to modify the initial reliability function
responsibility assignment as a result of the standards development and comments
received.
Reliability Principles
Applicable Reliability Principles (Check box for all that apply.)
1. Interconnected BPS shall be planned and operated in a coordinated manner to
perform reliably under normal and abnormal conditions as defined in the NERC
Standards.
2. The frequency and voltage of interconnected BPS shall be controlled within defined
limits through the balancing of real and reactive power supply and demand.
3. Information necessary for the planning and operation of interconnected BPS shall
be made available to those entities responsible for planning and operating the
systems reliably.
4. Plans for emergency operation and system restoration of interconnected BPS shall
be developed, coordinated, maintained, and implemented.
5. Facilities for communication, monitoring, and control shall be provided, used, and
maintained for the reliability of interconnected BPS.
6. Personnel responsible for planning and operating interconnected BPS shall be
trained, qualified, and have the responsibility and authority to implement actions.
7. The security of the interconnected BPS shall be assessed, monitored, and
maintained on a wide-area basis.
Market Interface Principles
Does the proposed Standard comply with all of the following Market Interface
Principles?
Recognizing that reliability is an essential requirement of a robust North American
economy:
yes
or
no
yes
or
no
1. A reliability standard shall not give any market participant an unfair competitive
advantage.
2. A reliability standard shall neither mandate nor prohibit any specific market
structure.
Page 4 of 8
yes
or
no
yes
or
no
3. A reliability standard shall not preclude market solutions to achieving compliance
with that standard.
4. A reliability standard shall not require the public disclosure of commercially
sensitive information. All market participants shall have equal opportunity to access
commercially non-sensitive information that is required for compliance with reliability
standards.
Page 5 of 8
Detailed Description (Provide enough detail so that an independent entity familiar with the
industry could draft a Standard based on this description.)
The SDT will review the two main requirements and shall add Time Horizons to each of the
Requirements. The SDT shall review the five Time Horizons listed below and determine which
Time Horizon is appropriate for each Requirement:
1. Long‐term Planning – a planning horizon of one year or longer.
2. Operations Planning – operating and resource plans from day‐ahead up to and including
seasonal.
3. Same‐day Operations – routine actions required within the timeframe of a day, but not
real‐time.
4. Real‐time Operations – actions required within one hour or less to preserve the reliability
of the bulk electric system.
5. Operations Assessment – follow‐up evaluations and reporting of real‐time operations.
The STD will consider modifying the BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard to include a requirement that
the planning coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves
defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy
analysis. This new requirement will be a documentation requirement only and will not require
entities to install additional generation or transmission capacity.
•
•
If the SDT decides to not include a new requirement after their consideration, the SDT
shall develop a technical justification as to why a new requirement was not included.
If the SDT decides to include a new requirement after their consideration, the Standards
Drafting Team shall also develop associated Measures, Violation Risk Factors, Violation
Severity Levels and Time Horizons.
The SDT will also review the Standard and consider miscellaneous non-substantive formatting
changes such as, but not limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts”.
Page 6 of 8
Related Standards (NERC and Regional)
Standard No.
BAL-502RFC-02
Explanation
This Standard was approved by the FERC on March 23, 2011
Related SARs
SAR ID
Explanation
Page 7 of 8
Implementation Plan
Description (Provide plans for the implementation of the proposed standard, including any
known systems or training requirements. Include the reliability risk(s) associated with the
violation that the standard will mitigate, and the costs associated with implementation.)
Proposed Implementation
days after Board adoption or
on (date):
Assignments
Assignment
Team Members
ReliabilityFirst Staff
Page 8 of 8
Announcement: Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation SAR Posted
for 30-Day Comment Period Beginning April 11, 2016
On March 31, 2016, the ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee (SC) unanimously agreed to post the
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation Standards Authorization Request
(SAR) for the required 30-Day comment period. Per the Standards Development Procedure, the SAR is
publically noticed and posted for the required 30-Day comment period beginning April 11, 2016 through
May 10, 2016. Following the 30-Day comment period, the ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee will
review all comments and take action to move the SAR into the developmental stage.
The purpose of this SAR is to initiate actions to revise the existing ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource
Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard to address two FERC
Directives as noted in FERC Order No 747 (FERC Order initially approving the Standard). The two FERC
directives include (1) add time horizons to the two main requirements, and (2) consider modifying the
regional Reliability Standard to include a requirement that the planning coordinators identify any gap
between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning
reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis. Miscellaneous non-substantive format
changes such as, but not limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts” will be considered as
well.
The three main actions noted within the SAR include the following:
1. The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) will review the two main requirements and shall add Time
Horizons to each of the Requirements
2. The STD will consider modifying the BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard to include a requirement that the
planning coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves
defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy
analysis.
3. The SDT will also review the Standard and consider miscellaneous non-substantive formatting
changes such as, but not limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts”.
To view the SAR and provide comments, please navigate to the Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis,
Assessment and Documentation webpage and select the Submit Comments link.
Once again, we would like to thank you for your participation in the ReliabilityFirst Regional Standards
process. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Jablonski anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org at
216-503-0693. Thank you and have a great day.
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation 30-Day
SAR Comment Posting Question
1. Do you agree with the scope of the Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation SAR? If not, please provide specific suggestions/comments.
NOTE: This is posted for informational purposes only. Please supply all comments via comment form on
the ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation website.
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation 30-Day SAR Comment Posting Question
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RFC-02
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load expectation principles,
for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load in the
ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
Upon RFC Board approval
B. Requirements
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium]:
R1.1
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
R1.1.1 The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
R1.1.2 The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
R1.2
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Page 1 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
R1.2.1 Perform an analysis for Year One.
R1.2.2 Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
R1.2.2.1
R1.3
If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
R1.3.1 Load forecast characteristics:
•
Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
•
Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load forecast
due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
•
Load diversity.
•
Seasonal Load variations.
•
Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
•
Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
R1.3.2 Resource characteristics:
•
Historic resource performance and any projected changes
•
Seasonal resource ratings
•
Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales to
entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
•
Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
•
Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited resource
such as wind and cogeneration.
•
Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
R1.3.3 Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
R1.3.3.1
Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Page 2 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
R1.3.4 Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
R1.4
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
•
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
•
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
•
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
•
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
•
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
•
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit availability.
•
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
•
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted resources)
within the Planning Coordinator area.
R1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
R1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
R1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower].
R2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
R2.2
This documentation shall include the planning reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
R2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
Page 3 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
C. Measures
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
D. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Monitoring Responsibility
Compliance Monitor - ReliabilityFirst Corporation
1.2. Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Timeframe
One calendar year
1.3. Data Retention
The Planning Coordinator shall retain information from the most current and prior two
years.
The Compliance Monitor shall retain any audit data for five years.
2. Violation Severity Levels
Req.
Number
R1
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
LOWER
MODERATE
HIGH
SEVERE
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 1 or 2
of the Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
R1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from R1.1 as
a percentage of the net
Median forecast peak
Load per R1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per R1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Page 4 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
were not included
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider
Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per R1.5
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
The Planning
perform an analysis or
Coordinator Resource
verification for one year
Adequacy analysis
in the 2 through 5 year
failed to include 1 of the
period or one year in the
Load forecast
6 though 10 year period
Characteristics
or both per R1.2.2
subcomponents under
R1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
Planning reserve margin
that will result in the
sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the
integrated peak hour for
all days of each
planning year analyzed
for each planning period
being equal to 0.1 per
R1.1
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
The Planning
failed to include 2 or
Coordinator Resource
more of the Load
Adequacy analysis
forecast Characteristics
failed to include 1 of the
subcomponents under
Resource
R1.3.1 and
Characteristics
documentation of their
subcomponents under
use
R1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per R1.2.1
OR
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per R1.7
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
R1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Page 5 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
per R1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per R1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
R1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
R1.6
R2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
Page 6 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
per requirement R2.1
and R2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per R2.3
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per R2.1.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
R2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per R2.2.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per R2.1.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per R2.
Definitions:
Resource Adequacy - the ability of supply-side and demand-side resources to meet the aggregate
electrical demand (including losses).
Net Internal Demand - Total of all end-use customer demand and electric system losses within
specified metered boundaries, less Direct Control Load Management and Interruptible Demand.
Peak Period - A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months but less than seven (7)
calendar months, which includes the period during which the responsible entity's annual peak demand
is expected to occur
Year One - The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual Peak Period.
The following definitions were extracted from the February 12th, 2008 NERC Glossary of
Terms:
Page 7 of 8
S ta n d a rd BAL-502-RFC-02
Direct Control Load Management – Demand-Side Management that is under the direct control of
the system operator. DCLM may control the electric supply to individual appliances or equipment on
customer premises. DCLM as defined here does not include Interruptible Demand.
Facility - A set of electrical equipment that operates as a single Bulk Electric System Element (e.g., a
line, a generator, a shunt compensator, transformer, etc.)
Interruptible Demand - Demand that the end-use customer makes available to its Load-Serving
Entity via contract or agreement for curtailment.
Load - An end-use device or customer that receives power from the electric system.
Transmission - An interconnected group of lines and associated equipment for the movement or
transfer of electric energy between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for delivery
to customers or is delivered to other electric systems.
Version History
Version
Date
Action
Change Tracking
st
BAL-502-RFC-02
1st Draft
06/24/08
Through
07/23/08
Posted for 1 Comment Period
BAL-502-RFC-02
2nd Draft
08/18/08
Through
09/16/08
Posted for 2nd Comment Period
BAL-502-RFC-02
3rd Draft
10/16/08
Through
10/30/08
Posted for 15-Day Category Ballot
BAL-502-RFC-02
3rd Draft
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
06/08/09
“Planning Reserve” changed to “planning
reserve” in R2.2.
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
Approved by NERC Board of Trustees
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
Order issued by FERC approving BAL-502RFC-02 (approval effective 5/23/11)
Errata
Page 8 of 8
ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-03) –
Standards Authorization Request Comment Period - 04/01/16 – 05/10/16
Question
Do you agree with the scope of the Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment, and
Documentation Standard SAR? If not, please provide specific suggestions or comments.
Consideration
of Comments
All commenters agreed with the scope of the BAL-502-RFC-03 Standards Authorization Request.
Answers
Yes
No
Frequency
3
0
Commenter
Jeffery Beattie
Greg Milosek
Company
Consumers Energy
ITC Holdings Corp.
Chris Scanlon
Exelon
Answer
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comment
ITC, on behalf of ITC Transmission, METC and
Michigan Electric Coordinated Systems, is not
registered as a Planning Coordinator which applies
to BAL-502-RFC, but would like to state that BAL502-RFC should be reaffirmed and will defer the final
decision to MISO who is ITC’s Planning Coordinator.
Exelon believes that the Standard is appropriate as
is, with the limited exception of addressing the two
directives that FERC noted in its Order 747 for initial
approval
Standard Authorization Request
The SC shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining this form as needed to
support the information requirements of the standards development process in this
Procedure. Changes to this form are considered minor, and therefore subject to only the
approval of the SC.
ReliabilityFirst Standard Authorization Request Form
ReliabilityFirst
will complete
ID - BAL-503-RFC-03
Title of Proposed Standard:
Planning Resource Adequacy
Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation
Authorized for
Posting - 03/31/16
Authorized for
Development – 04/12/16
Request Date: 03/31/16
SAR Originator Information
Name: Anthony Jablonski
SAR Type (Check box for one of these
selections.)
Company: ReliabilityFirst
New Standard
Telephone: 216-503-0693
Revision to Existing Standard
Fax:
Withdrawal of Existing Standard
E-mail: Anthony.Jablonski@rfist.org
Urgent Action
Purpose (Provide one or two sentences.)
The purpose of this SAR is to initiate actions to revise the existing ReliabilityFirst Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard to
address two FERC Directives as noted in FERC Order No 747 (FERC Order initially approving
the Standard). Miscellaneous non-substantive format changes such as, but not limited to,
reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts” will be considered as well.
Industry Need (Provide one or two sentences.)
The ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard was approved as a Regional Reliability Standard by the
Commission in Order No 747 on March 17, 2011 and became enforceable on May 23, 2011. The
BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard establishes requirements for Planning Authorities/Coordinators in the
Page 1 of 8
ReliabilityFirst region regarding resource adequacy assessment, which subject matter is not
currently addressed in NERC’s continent-wide Reliability Standards. The Commission also
approves four regional reliability definitions related to the approved regional Reliability Standard
and the violation risk factors and violation severity levels assigned to the BAL-502-RFC-02
Requirements.
The BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard contains the following two main requirements. Requirement R1
requires each Planning Coordinator in the ReliabilityFirst footprint to perform and document an
annual resource adequacy analysis. The sub-requirements of Requirement R1 set forth the criteria
to be used for the resource adequacy analysis. Requirement R2 requires each Planning
Coordinator to annually document the projected load and resource capability for each area and
transmission constrained sub-area identified in the analysis. The sub-requirements of
Requirement R2 set forth the specific documentation requirements.
At the time of approval, the Commission directed ReliabilityFirst, at the time it conducts its
scheduled five year review, to (1) add time horizons to the two main requirements, and (2)
consider modifying the regional Reliability Standard to include a requirement that the planning
coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in
Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis.
ReliabilityFirst conducted a five year review comment posting period (February 29, 2016 through
March 9, 2016) in which six individuals responded. All six individual provided responses
indicating that they believe the BAL-502-RFC-02 should be reaffirmed (which includes a process
to respond to the FERC directives).
Brief Description (A few sentences or a paragraph.)
The Standard Drafting Team (SDT) will review the two main requirements and shall add Time
Horizons to each of the Requirements.
The SDT will consider modifying the BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard to include a requirement that
the Planning Coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves
defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy
analysis.
The SDT will also consider miscellaneous non-substantive formatting changes such as, but not
limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts”.
Reliability Functions
The Standard will Apply to the Following Functions (Check box for each one that applies.)
Reliability Authority
Ensures the reliability of the bulk transmission system
within its Reliability Authority area. This is the highest
reliability authority.
Page 2 of 8
Balancing Authority
Integrates resource plans ahead of time, and maintains
load-interchange-resource balance within its metered
boundary and supports system frequency in real time
Generator Owner
Owns and maintains generating units
Interchange Authority
Authorizes valid and balanced Interchange Schedules
Planning Authority/Planning
Coordinator
Plans the BPS
Resource Planner
Develops a long-term (generally one year and beyond)
plan for the resource adequacy of specific loads
(customer demand and energy requirements) within a
Planning Authority Area
Develops a long-term (generally one year and beyond)
plan for the reliability (adequacy) of the interconnected
bulk electric transmission systems within its portion of
the Planning Authority Area
Provides transmission services to qualified market
participants under applicable transmission service
agreements
Transmission Planner
Transmission Service
Provider
Transmission Owner
Owns transmission facilities
Transmission Operator
Operates and maintains the transmission facilities, and
executes switching orders
Distribution Provider
Provides and operates the “wires” between the
transmission system and the customer
Generator Operator
Operates generating unit(s) and performs the functions
of supplying energy and Interconnected Operations
Services
Purchasing-Selling Entity
The function of purchasing or selling energy, capacity
and all necessary Interconnected Operations Services
as required
Load-Serving Entity
Secures energy and transmission (and related
generation services) to serve the end user
Market Operator
Integrates energy, capacity, balancing, and
transmission resources to achieve an economic,
reliability-constrained dispatch of resources. The
dispatch may be either cost-based or bid-based
An entity that ensures that a defined area of the BPS is
reliable, adequate and secure. A member of the North
American Electric Reliability Council. The Regional
Regional Reliability
Organizations
Page 3 of 8
Reliability Organization can serve as the Compliance
Monitor
NOTE: The SDT may find it necessary to modify the initial reliability function
responsibility assignment as a result of the standards development and comments
received.
Reliability Principles
Applicable Reliability Principles (Check box for all that apply.)
1. Interconnected BPS shall be planned and operated in a coordinated manner to
perform reliably under normal and abnormal conditions as defined in the NERC
Standards.
2. The frequency and voltage of interconnected BPS shall be controlled within defined
limits through the balancing of real and reactive power supply and demand.
3. Information necessary for the planning and operation of interconnected BPS shall
be made available to those entities responsible for planning and operating the
systems reliably.
4. Plans for emergency operation and system restoration of interconnected BPS shall
be developed, coordinated, maintained, and implemented.
5. Facilities for communication, monitoring, and control shall be provided, used, and
maintained for the reliability of interconnected BPS.
6. Personnel responsible for planning and operating interconnected BPS shall be
trained, qualified, and have the responsibility and authority to implement actions.
7. The security of the interconnected BPS shall be assessed, monitored, and
maintained on a wide-area basis.
Market Interface Principles
Does the proposed Standard comply with all of the following Market Interface
Principles?
Recognizing that reliability is an essential requirement of a robust North American
economy:
yes
or
no
yes
or
no
1. A reliability standard shall not give any market participant an unfair competitive
advantage.
2. A reliability standard shall neither mandate nor prohibit any specific market
structure.
Page 4 of 8
yes
or
no
yes
or
no
3. A reliability standard shall not preclude market solutions to achieving compliance
with that standard.
4. A reliability standard shall not require the public disclosure of commercially
sensitive information. All market participants shall have equal opportunity to access
commercially non-sensitive information that is required for compliance with reliability
standards.
Page 5 of 8
Detailed Description (Provide enough detail so that an independent entity familiar with the
industry could draft a Standard based on this description.)
The SDT will review the two main requirements and shall add Time Horizons to each of the
Requirements. The SDT shall review the five Time Horizons listed below and determine which
Time Horizon is appropriate for each Requirement:
1. Long‐term Planning – a planning horizon of one year or longer.
2. Operations Planning – operating and resource plans from day‐ahead up to and including
seasonal.
3. Same‐day Operations – routine actions required within the timeframe of a day, but not
real‐time.
4. Real‐time Operations – actions required within one hour or less to preserve the reliability
of the bulk electric system.
5. Operations Assessment – follow‐up evaluations and reporting of real‐time operations.
The STD will consider modifying the BAL-502-RFC-02 Standard to include a requirement that
the planning coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves
defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy
analysis. This new requirement will be a documentation requirement only and will not require
entities to install additional generation or transmission capacity.
•
•
If the SDT decides to not include a new requirement after their consideration, the SDT
shall develop a technical justification as to why a new requirement was not included.
If the SDT decides to include a new requirement after their consideration, the Standards
Drafting Team shall also develop associated Measures, Violation Risk Factors, Violation
Severity Levels and Time Horizons.
The SDT will also review the Standard and consider miscellaneous non-substantive formatting
changes such as, but not limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts”.
Page 6 of 8
Related Standards (NERC and Regional)
Standard No.
BAL-502RFC-02
Explanation
This Standard was approved by the FERC on March 23, 2011
Related SARs
SAR ID
Explanation
Page 7 of 8
Implementation Plan
Description (Provide plans for the implementation of the proposed standard, including any
known systems or training requirements. Include the reliability risk(s) associated with the
violation that the standard will mitigate, and the costs associated with implementation.)
Proposed Implementation
days after Board adoption or
on (date):
Assignments
Assignment
Team Members
ReliabilityFirst Staff
Page 8 of 8
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
Standard Drafting Team Nomination Form
Please return this form to anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org by June 6, 2016. For questions, please contact
Anthony Jablonski at 216-503-0693.
Please note this drafting team will probably meet initially in the June, 2016 timeframe to review the
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation SAR posted on the
ReliabilityFirst website. The detailed meeting schedule has not been determined as of yet. It is
anticipated the team will conduct a number of conference calls as part of this effort. The purpose of this
effort is to revise the existing ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard to address two FERC Directives as noted in FERC Order
No 747 (FERC Order initially approving the Standard). Miscellaneous non-substantive format changes
such as, but not limited to, reclassifying “sub-requirements” to “parts” will be considered as well. All
candidates should be prepared to participate actively at these meetings.
Proposed Regional Reliability Standard:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation
Name:
Organization:
Address:
Office Telephone:
Mobile Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Please briefly describe your experience and qualifications to serve on the Standard Drafting Team.
Previous experience working on or applying standards/criteria and/or SARs is very beneficial, but not a
requirement.
NERC Reliability
Region(s) your
My company can be categorized by one or more of the following. (check
Page 1 of 2
company resides in
(check all that apply):
all that apply):
ERCOT
1 - Transmission Owners
FRCC
2 - RTOs, ISOs, Regional Reliability Councils
3 - Small Load-serving Entities (Region of 10,000 GWh or less)
RF
MRO
NPCC
SERC
SPP
4 - Medium Load-serving Entities (Region between 10,000 GWh and
50,000 GWh)
5 - Large Load-serving Entities (Region of 50,000 GWh or greater)
6 - Transmission-dependent Utilities
WECC
7 - Electric Generators
Not Applicable
8 - Electricity Brokers, Aggregators, and Marketers
9 - Large Electricity End Users
10 - Small Electricity End Users
11 - Federal, State, and Provincial Regulatory or other Government
Entities
Which of the following Function(s) do you have expertise or responsibilities:
Reliability Coordinator
Transmission Service Provider
Balancing Authority
Transmission Owner
Interchange Authority
Load Serving Entity
Planning Coordinator
Distribution Provider
Transmission Operator
Purchasing-selling Entity
Generator Operator
Generator Owner
Transmission Planner
Resource Planner
Market Operator
Page 2 of 2
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (PRAA)
Standard Drafting Team Roster (06/15/16)
Contact
Company
Email
Phone
Joe O’Brien
NIPSCO
jnobrien@nisource.com
219-853-5470
Jeffery W. Beattie
Consumers Energy
jwbeattie@cmsenergy.com
517-788-7220
Tom Falin
PJM
thomas.falin@pjm.com
610-666-4683
Jordan Cole
MISO
jcole@misoenergy.org
651-632-8573
Anthony Jablonski
ReliabilityFirst Staff
anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org
216-503-0693
PRAA Standard Drafting Team Roster
06/15/16
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 10
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 10
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 10
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
5. Compliance Monitoring Process
5.1. Compliance Monitoring Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
5.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
5.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
5.4. Additional Compliance Information
None
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 10
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 10
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 10
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 10
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 10
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Lower
None
Page 9 of 10
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Change Tracking
Page 10 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: C
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Deleted: C
Planning Coordinator
Deleted: ¶
5. Effective Date:
Deleted: Planning Coordinator
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.2
Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, …
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1" + Tab after: 1.5" +
Indent at: 1.5"
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Upon RFC Board approval ¶
B. Requirements and Measures
1.1
Deleted: 2
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.15", Outline numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0" + Tab after: 0.4" + Indent at: 0.4", Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Formatted: Font: Italic, Font color: Auto
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
Deleted: R
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
Deleted: R
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Deleted: R
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
Deleted: R
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 10
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
1.3
Deleted: 12/04/08
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
Deleted: R
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
Deleted: R
1.3.1
Deleted: R
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5"
Deleted: R
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5"
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.3
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5"
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", First line: 0.5"
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
Deleted: R
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5"
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
Deleted: R
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
Deleted: R
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
Deleted: R
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
Deleted:
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
Deleted: R
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
5. Compliance Monitoring Process
5.1. Compliance Monitoring Authority
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Deleted: ¶
Measures¶
¶
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid
Resource Adequacy analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1¶
¶
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected
Load and resource capability, for each area or Transmission constrained subarea identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in
accordance with R2.¶
¶
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
5.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
Deleted: Responsibility
Deleted: Compliance Monitor - ReliabilityFirst Corporation
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: <#>Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Timeframe¶
One calendar year¶
¶
Deleted: <#>Data
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Deleted:
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.88"
Deleted: Planning Coordinator
Deleted: retain information
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85", No bullets or numbering
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted:
Deleted: The Compliance Monitor shall retain any audit data for five years.
Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, …
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Tab after: 0.85" +
Indent at: 0.85"
5.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85"
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, …
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Tab after: 0.85" +
Indent at: 0.85"
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
5.4. Additional Compliance Information
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85"
None
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Deleted: Violation Severity Levels¶
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 10
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Severe
VSL Width:
Formatted:
14.29", Height: 8.5"
Formatted Table
The Planning
Coordinator
failed
Deleted:
Req.toNumber
performDeleted:
and document
LOWER a
Resource Adequacy
Deleted: MODERATE
analysis annually per
Deleted: HIGH
R1.
Deleted: SEVERE
Deleted: ¶
OR
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
The Planning
OR
Deleted:
R
Coordinator
Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for eachDeleted:
planningR period
Characteristics
R1, Part 1.2.2
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.3.1 and
1.1
Deleted: R
documentation of its use
Deleted: R
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
Deleted: 12/04/08
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement
R1,R Part
Deleted:
1.2.1 Deleted: R
Deleted: R
OR
OR
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
Deleted: R
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
Deleted: R
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained
sub-area
Deleted:
R
identified
in the R
Deleted:
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Deleted:
Requirement
R2,R Part 2.
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 10
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
None
None
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
D. Regional Variances
Deleted: None
None
Deleted: Interpretations
E. Interpretations
Deleted: None
None
Deleted: Associated Documents
F. Associated Documents
Deleted: None
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Change Tracking
Deleted: Definitions:¶
Resource Adequacy - the ability of supply-side and demand-side resources to
meet the aggregate electrical demand (including losses).¶
¶
Net Internal Demand - Total of all end-use customer demand and electric system
losses within specified metered boundaries, less Direct Control Load Management
and Interruptible Demand.¶
¶
Peak Period - A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months but less
than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the period during which the
responsible entity's annual peak demand is expected to occur¶
¶
Year One - The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual Peak Period.¶
¶
The following definitions were extracted from the February 12th, 2008 NERC
Glossary of Terms:¶
¶
¶
Direct Control Load Management – Demand-Side Management that is under
the direct control of the system operator. DCLM may control the electric supply
to individual appliances or equipment on customer premises. DCLM as defined
here does not include Interruptible Demand.¶
¶
Facility - A set of electrical equipment that operates as a single Bulk Electric
System Element (e.g., a line, a generator, a shunt compensator, transformer, etc.)¶
¶
Interruptible Demand - Demand that the end-use customer makes available to
its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreement for curtailment.¶
¶
Load - An end-use device or customer that receives power from the electric
system.¶
...
Deleted: 1st Draft
Deleted: 06/24/08 Through 07/23/08
Deleted: Posted for 1st Comment Period
Deleted: 2nd Draft
Deleted: 08/18/08 Through 09/16/08
Deleted: Posted for 2nd Comment Period
Deleted: 3rd Draft
Deleted: 10/16/08 Through 10/30/08
Deleted: Posted for 15-Day Category Ballot
Deleted: BAL-502-RFC-02 3rd Draft
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 10 of 10
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
BAL-502-RF-03 Draft Implementation Plan
08/08/2016
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Perceived Reliability Impact
The Planning Resource Adequacy and Assessment (PRAA) Standard Drafting Team (SDT) believes
the additions of Time Horizons and non-substantive changes will have no reliability impact as these
are more administrative in nature.
The Planning Resource Adequacy and Assessment (PRAA) Standard Drafting Team (SDT) believes
the new Requirement R3 will have a perceived reliability impact of ensuring the Planning
Coordinators within the ReliabilityFirst footprint identify any gaps between the needed amount of
planning reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves
determined from the resource adequacy analysis. By identifying these gaps, the Planning
Coordinator will document any deficiencies in planning reserves to help ensure that entities within
their footprint are aware of potential risks regarding the capability to balance resources and
demand in a planning timeframe.
Perceived Reliability Impact
08/08/2016
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Assessment of Impact on Neighboring Regions
The Planning Resource Adequacy and Assessment (PRAA) Standard Drafting Team (SDT) believes
there is no impact on neighboring regions as a result of the recommended non-substantive
changes, addition of “Time Horizons” and addition of a new Requirement R3. Requirement R3,
requires the Planning Coordinator to identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2. Historically, the two Planning Coordinators within the ReliabilityFirst region have
already been identifying this gap via a number of public reports, thus this change will result in no
change for neighboring Regions which also include these two Planning coordinators.
Since there is no impact on neighboring regions, there was no need for the PRAA SDT to solicit
appropriate input from the neighboring regions.
Assessment of Impact on Neighboring Regions
08/08/2016
Substantive Changes within Draft BAL-502-RF-03 standard
1. Included a new Requirement R3 to address the Directive in FERC Order No 747 to include a
requirement that the Planning Coordinators identify any gap between the needed amount of
planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the
resource adequacy analysis.
2. Included a new Measure M3 as a result of the newly added Requirement R3.
3. Included new Violation Severity Levels as a result of the newly added Requirement R3.
4. Included time horizons to the Requirement R1, R2 and the newly included R3 to address the
Directive in FERC Order No 747 to add time horizons to the two main requirements.
Non-Substantive Changes within Draft BAL-502-RF-03 standard
1. Changed name from BAL-502-RFC-02 to BAL-502-RF-03
2. Updated the formatting of Section A (Introduction)
3. Updated Effective date section for the Standards to become effective on the first day of the first
calendar quarter that is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory
authorities.
4. Added the term “and Measures” to section B heading
5. Placed Measures immediately following the associate Requirement
6. Removed the “R” from all sub-requirements making them sub-parts
7. Updated section C (Compliance) to be consistent with NERC Standard Boilerplate language
8. Renamed “Violation Severity Levels” section to “Table of Compliance Elements”
9. Updated “Table of Compliance Elements” to include “Time Horizons” and “VRFs”
10. Added sections D (Regional Variances), E (Interpretations) and F (Associated Documents) to end
of Standard.
11. Changed bulleted items in R1.3.1, R1.3.2 and R1.4 to sub-parts. Bullets in Standards are meant
to be “OR” statements. The intent of these bulleted items was not to be “OR” statements,
rather be “AND” statements.
12. Updated Version History to include RF Board, NERC BoT and FERC approval dates.
BAL-502-RF-03 Changes 08/22/16
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) 1st 30-Day Comment Posting Questions
1. [OPTION 1) - Do you agree that the modifications made to the BAL-502-RF-03 draft standard
are consistent with the scope of the BAL-502-RF-03 Standard Authorization Request (SAR)?
If not, please provide specific comments why you do not agree that the BAL-502-RF-03 draft
standard is consistent with the scope of the BAL-502-RF-03 SAR.
2. [OPTION 2a] Do you agree with the newly added Time Horizons for each Requirement? If
not, please provide specific comments why you do not agree the newly designated Time
Horizons.
3. [OPTION 2b] Do you agree with the non-substantive changes made throughout the
standard? If not, please provide specific comments why you do not agree with the nonsubstantive changes made throughout the standard.
4. [OPTION 2c] Do you agree that the newly added Requirement R3 is responsive to the
Directive noted in FERC Order No 747, to include a requirement requiring the Planning
Coordinator to identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in
Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis?
If not, please provide specific comments why you do not agree the newly added
Requirement R3 is responsive to the FERC Directive
5. Do you agree with the newly included Measure M3? If not, please provide specific
comments why you do not agree with the newly included Measure M3.
6. Do you agree with the newly included Violation Severity Levels (VSLs) for Requirement R3?
If not, please provide specific comments why you do not agree with the newly included VSLs
for Requirement R3.
7. Do you agree with the BAL-502-RF-03 Implementation Plan? If not, please provide specific
comments why you do not agree with the Implementation Plan.
NOTE: This is posted for informational purposes only. Please supply all comments via the
ReliabilityFirst site located at: 123
BAL-502-RF-03 1st 30-Day Comment Posting Questions
ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03) 30Day Comment Period - 09/12/2016 - 10/11/2016
Question 1
Do you agree with the newly added Time Horizons for each Requirement? If not, please provide specific comments on
why you do not agree with the newly designated Time Horizons.
Consideration
of Comments
One commenter agreed with the newly designated Time Horizons. One commenter indicated that the BAL-502-RF-03
Standard should be retired. The SDT disagreed as it is outside the scope of the SAR to determine if the BAL-502-RF-03
Standards should be retired. No changes made.
Answers
Yes
No
Abstain
Frequency
1
1
0
Commenter
Scott Cunningham (OVEC)
Answer
No
Comment
The standard should be retired as it
does not address a reliability need.
There are adequate market
incentives to fill the planning reserve
requirement.
Response
It is outside of the Standards
Authorization Request (SAR) to
determine whether the standards should
be retired. During the SAR comment
period (conducted 04/01/16 – 05/10/16),
all individuals whom provided
comments agreed with the scope of the
SAR. Furthermore during the “five year
review” comment period (conducted
02/29/16 – 03/09/16), all individuals who
provided comments indicated the
Standard should be re-affirmed.
Also, the BAL-502-RF-03 standards
does not require the Planning
Coordinator to “fill the planning reserve
requirement”, rather it establishes
common criteria, based on “one day in
ten year” loss of Load expectation
principles, for the analysis, assessment
Sean Bodkin (Dominion)
and documentation of Resource
Adequacy for Load in the ReliabilityFirst
Corporation region.
Thank you.
Yes
Question 2
Do you agree with the non-substantive changes made throughout the Standard? If not, please provide specific
comments on why you do not agree with the non-substantive changes made throughout the Standard.
Consideration
of Comments
Both commenters agreed with the non-substantive changes. It was noted, outside of the comment period, that there was
two non-substantive formatting in Section C (Compliance). The first issue was the numbering started with a five and it
should have started with a one. The second issue was the heading for 1.1 was incorrectly labeled as “Compliance
Monitoring Authority” when it should have been labeled as “Compliance Enforcement Authority”. Both non-substantive
issues have been addressed and reflected in the posted redline version.
Answers
Yes
No
Abstain
Frequency
2
0
0
Commenter
Scott Cunningham (OVEC)
Sean Bodkin (Dominion)
Answer
Yes
Yes
Comment
Response
Thank you.
Thank you.
Question 3
Do you agree that the newly added Requirement R3 is responsive to the Directive noted in FERC Order No 747, to
include a requirement requiring the Planning Coordinator to identify any gap between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis? If
not, please provide specific comments on why you do not agree that the newly added Requirement R3 is responsive to
the FERC Directive.
Consideration
of Comments
One commenter agreed with the newly added Requirement R3. One commenter indicated that there is no requirement
in any standard to address the gap. The SDT agreed as NERC’s ability to require the building or acquisition of new
generating capacity, is prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the FPA. No changes made.
Answers
Yes
No
Abstain
Frequency
1
1
0
Commenter
Scott Cunningham (OVEC)
Sean Bodkin (Dominion)
Answer
No
Comment
Even if the PC identifies a gap, there
is no requirement in any standard to
address the gap. There are market
incentives for resource owners to
address the planning reserve
requirement.
Response
You are correct, if the PC identifies a
gap, there is no requirement in any
standard to address the gap. NERC’s
ability to require the building or
acquisition of new generating capacity,
is prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the
FPA and thus no corresponding
requirement is proposed.
Furthermore, the addition of the new
requirement R3 was a result of a
Directive noted in FERC Order No 747.
Thank you.
Yes
Question 4
Do you agree with the newly included Measure M3? If not, please provide specific comments on why you do not agree
with the newly included Measure M3.
Consideration
of Comments
One commenter agreed with the newly added Measure M3. One commenter indicated that there is no requirement in
any standard to address the gap. The SDT agreed as NERC’s ability to require the building or acquisition of new
generating capacity, is prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the FPA. No changes made.
Answers
Yes
No
Abstain
Frequency
1
1
0
Commenter
Scott Cunningham (OVEC)
Answer
No
Comment
Similar to the above question, the
PC may document load and
Response
You are correct, if the PC identifies a
gap, there is no requirement in any
resources, but there is no
requirement in the standards to
address any gaps.
Sean Bodkin (Dominion)
standard to address the gap. NERC’s
ability to require the building or
acquisition of new generating capacity,
is prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the
FPA and thus no corresponding
requirement is proposed.
Furthermore, the addition of the new
requirement R3 was a result of a
Directive noted in FERC Order No 747.
Thank you.
Yes
Question 5
Do you agree with the newly included Violation Severity Levels (VSLs) for Requirement R3? If not, please provide
specific comments on why you do not agree with the newly included VSLs for Requirement R3.
Consideration
of Comments
One commenter agreed with the newly added VSLs. One commenter indicated these standards must function in a
market environment, market incentives should address the requirements. The SDT noted that the BAL-502-RF-03
standards does not require the Planning Coordinator to “fill the planning reserve requirement”, rather it establishes
common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and
documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation region. The SDT also noted NERC’s
ability to require the building or acquisition of new generating capacity, is prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the FPA. No
changes made.
Answers
Yes
No
Abstain
Frequency
1
1
0
Commenter
Scott Cunningham (OVEC)
Answer
No
Comment
Given that these standards must
function in a market environment,
market incentives should address
the requirements. If they do not, we
should not be fostering a marketdriven system.
Response
Thank you for your comment.
The BAL-502-RF-03 standards does not
require the Planning Coordinator to “fill
the planning reserve requirement”,
rather it establishes common criteria,
based on “one day in ten year” loss of
Load expectation principles, for the
analysis, assessment and
documentation of Resource Adequacy
for Load in the ReliabilityFirst
Corporation region.
NERC’s ability to require the building or
acquisition of new generating capacity,
is prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the
FPA and thus no corresponding
requirement is proposed.
Sean Bodkin (Dominion)
Yes
Thank you.
Question 6
Do you agree with the BAL-502-RF-03 Implementation Plan? If not, please provide specific comments on why you do not
agree with the BAL-502-RF-03 Implementation Plan.
Consideration
of Comments
One commenter agreed with the Implementation Plan. One commenter reiterated comments submitted for question 1
and 5. No changes made.
Answers
Yes
No
Abstain
Frequency
1
1
0
Commenter
Scott Cunningham (OVEC)
Sean Bodkin (Dominion)
Answer
No
Yes
Comment
See responses to questions 1 and 5.
Response
See responses to questions 1 and 5.
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Ballot Pool Registration Form
Individuals registered in the ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body are allowed to join the Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation Ballot Pool beginning September
12, 2016 through the close of business of the seventh day of the 15-Day pre-ballot posting
period.
Individuals whom are not currently registered in the ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body must first
submit a Ballot Body registration form, and be approved as a Ballot Body member prior to
joining the associated Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation Ballot Pool.
Please complete this Ballot Pool registration form and send it to the Standards Process Manager.
Upon review of your registration, you will receive a confirmation email. Confirmation may take
up to 24 hours. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Jablonski
anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org at 216-503-0693.
Name:
Company:
Email:
Phone:
ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body Registration Form
09/02/2016
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Lower
None
Page 10 of 11
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Change Tracking
Page 11 of 11
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: C
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Deleted: C
Planning Coordinator
Deleted: ¶
5. Effective Date:
Deleted: Planning Coordinator
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.2
Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, …
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1" + Tab after: 1.5" +
Indent at: 1.5"
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Upon RFC Board approval ¶
B. Requirements and Measures
1.1
Deleted: 2
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.15", Outline numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0" + Tab after: 0.4" + Indent at: 0.4", Tab stops: Not at 0.5"
Formatted: Font: Italic, Font color: Auto
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
Deleted: R
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
Deleted: R
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Deleted: R
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
Deleted: R
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 10
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
1.3
Deleted: 12/04/08
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
Deleted: R
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
Deleted: R
1.3.1
Deleted: R
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5"
Deleted: R
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5"
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.3
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5"
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", First line: 0.5"
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
Deleted: R
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5"
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
Deleted: R
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
Deleted: R
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
Deleted: R
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
Deleted:
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
Deleted: R
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
5. Compliance Monitoring Process
5.1. Compliance Monitoring Authority
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Deleted: ¶
Measures¶
¶
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid
Resource Adequacy analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1¶
¶
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected
Load and resource capability, for each area or Transmission constrained subarea identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in
accordance with R2.¶
¶
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
5.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
Deleted: Responsibility
Deleted: Compliance Monitor - ReliabilityFirst Corporation
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: <#>Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Timeframe¶
One calendar year¶
¶
Deleted: <#>Data
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Deleted:
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.88"
Deleted: Planning Coordinator
Deleted: retain information
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85", No bullets or numbering
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted:
Deleted: The Compliance Monitor shall retain any audit data for five years.
Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, …
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Tab after: 0.85" +
Indent at: 0.85"
5.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85", No bullets or numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85"
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, …
+ Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Tab after: 0.85" +
Indent at: 0.85"
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
5.4. Additional Compliance Information
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.85"
None
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Deleted: Violation Severity Levels¶
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 10
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Severe
VSL Width:
Formatted:
14.29", Height: 8.5"
Formatted Table
The Planning
Coordinator
failed
Deleted:
Req.toNumber
performDeleted:
and document
LOWER a
Resource Adequacy
Deleted: MODERATE
analysis annually per
Deleted: HIGH
R1.
Deleted: SEVERE
Deleted: ¶
OR
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
The Planning
OR
Deleted:
R
Coordinator
Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for eachDeleted:
planningR period
Characteristics
R1, Part 1.2.2
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.3.1 and
1.1
Deleted: R
documentation of its use
Deleted: R
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
Deleted: 12/04/08
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement
R1,R Part
Deleted:
1.2.1 Deleted: R
Deleted: R
OR
OR
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
Deleted: R
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Deleted: R
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
Deleted: R
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained
sub-area
Deleted:
R
identified
in the R
Deleted:
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Deleted:
Requirement
R2,R Part 2.
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 10
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
None
None
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: R
Deleted: R
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 10
Deleted: C
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 12/04/08
D. Regional Variances
Deleted: None
None
Deleted: Interpretations
E. Interpretations
Deleted: None
None
Deleted: Associated Documents
F. Associated Documents
Deleted: None
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Change Tracking
Deleted: Definitions:¶
Resource Adequacy - the ability of supply-side and demand-side resources to
meet the aggregate electrical demand (including losses).¶
¶
Net Internal Demand - Total of all end-use customer demand and electric system
losses within specified metered boundaries, less Direct Control Load Management
and Interruptible Demand.¶
¶
Peak Period - A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months but less
than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the period during which the
responsible entity's annual peak demand is expected to occur¶
¶
Year One - The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual Peak Period.¶
¶
The following definitions were extracted from the February 12th, 2008 NERC
Glossary of Terms:¶
¶
¶
Direct Control Load Management – Demand-Side Management that is under
the direct control of the system operator. DCLM may control the electric supply
to individual appliances or equipment on customer premises. DCLM as defined
here does not include Interruptible Demand.¶
¶
Facility - A set of electrical equipment that operates as a single Bulk Electric
System Element (e.g., a line, a generator, a shunt compensator, transformer, etc.)¶
¶
Interruptible Demand - Demand that the end-use customer makes available to
its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreement for curtailment.¶
¶
Load - An end-use device or customer that receives power from the electric
system.¶
...
Deleted: 1st Draft
Deleted: 06/24/08 Through 07/23/08
Deleted: Posted for 1st Comment Period
Deleted: 2nd Draft
Deleted: 08/18/08 Through 09/16/08
Deleted: Posted for 2nd Comment Period
Deleted: 3rd Draft
Deleted: 10/16/08 Through 10/30/08
Deleted: Posted for 15-Day Category Ballot
Deleted: BAL-502-RFC-02 3rd Draft
Deleted: 12/04/08
Deleted: ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: December 4th
Deleted: 08
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 10 of 10
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Deleted: RFC-02
A. Introduction
Style Definition: Section
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
Style Definition: List Number: Outline numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0" + Tab after: 0.4" + Indent at: 0.4"
Style Definition: Measure
Style Definition: Style1
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.15", Outline numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:
0" + Tab after: 0.4" + Indent at: 0.4", Tab stops: 1.25", Left
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Style Definition: Requirement
Deleted: RFC-02
4. Applicability
4.1
12/04/08
Planning Coordinator
Deleted: ¶
5. Effective Date:
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
Deleted: RFC
Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Tab stops: 0.38", Left + Not at 0.5"
Formatted
Deleted:
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
Formatted: Font: Bold
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Tab stops: 0.44", Left + Not at 0.5"
Deleted: 5.1 Upon RFC Board approval ¶
¶
Formatted: Font: Italic, Font color: Auto
Deleted: R1
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
Deleted: R1
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Deleted: R1
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
Deleted: R1
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 11
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
Deleted: R1
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
Deleted: R1
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
Deleted: R1
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
Deleted: R1
1.3.1
12/04/08
Deleted: R1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Deleted: R1
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", No bullets or numbering
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering,
Tab stops: Not at 2"
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
Deleted: R1
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Deleted: R1
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
12/04/08
Deleted: R1
Deleted: R1
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", No bullets or numbering
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Hanging: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
Deleted: R1
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
Deleted: R1
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
Deleted: R1
Deleted: ¶
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.5", Space Before: 6 pt,
Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space
between Asian text and numbers
Moved (insertion) [1]
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.5", Space Before: 6 pt,
Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space
between Asian text and numbers
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
Deleted: R2
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Deleted: R2
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
12/04/08
Deleted: R2
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25"
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
Deleted: <#>Measures¶
Moved up [1]: <#>¶
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid
Resource Adequacy analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1¶
¶
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Requirement, Indent: Left: 0.25", Hanging: 0.25", Tab
stops: 0.63", Left
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.09"
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
Deleted: Monitoring Responsibility
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
Deleted: Compliance Monitor - ReliabilityFirst Corporation ¶
¶
Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Timeframe¶
One calendar year¶
¶
Data
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.56", Hanging: 0.31"
Deleted: The Planning Coordinator shall retain information from the most
current and prior two years.¶
¶
The Compliance Monitor shall retain any audit data for five years.¶
¶
Violation Severity Levels¶
¶
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Page 4 of 11
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 11
12/04/08
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
Moderate VSL
High VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Inserted Cells
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Page 6 of 11
Inserted
Cells
Severe
VSL
Deleted: Req. Number
The Planning
Formatted Table
Coordinator
failed to
Deleted:
LOWER a
perform and document
ResourceMerged
Adequacy
Cells
analysisDeleted:
annuallyMODERATE
per
R1.
Merged Cells
Deleted: HIGH
OR
Deleted: SEVERE
Inserted Cells
Inserted Cells
The Planning
Inserted Cells
Coordinator Resource
Inserted
Cells
Adequacy
analysis
R1a
failed toDeleted:
calculate
The Planning
OR
PlanningDeleted:
reserveR1margin
Coordinator failed to
that willDeleted:
result inR1the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
Characteristics
R1, Part 1.2.2
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Deleted:
Requirement
R1,R1Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.3.1 and
1.1
Deleted: R1
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Deleted: R1
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
12/04/08
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One
per R1
Deleted:
Requirement
R1,R1Part
Deleted:
1.2.1
Deleted: R1
OR
Deleted: R1
Deleted: R1
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 11
12/04/08
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
Deleted: R1
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
Deleted: R1
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Deleted: R1
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 11
12/04/08
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
Deleted: R2
or Transmission
constrained
sub-area
Formatted:
Font color: Black
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Deleted:
Requirement
R2,R2Part 2.
Formatted: Font color: Black
Deleted: R2
Deleted: R2
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
12/04/08
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
None
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
Deleted: R2
Formatted: Font color: Black
Deleted: ¶
¶
¶
Definitions:¶
Resource Adequacy - the ability of supply-side and demand-side
resources to meet the aggregate electrical demand (including losses).¶
¶
The Planning Net Internal Demand - Total of all end-use customer demand and
Coordinator failed
electrictosystem losses within specified metered boundaries, less Direct
Control Load Management and Interruptible Demand.¶
identify any gaps
¶
between the needed
Peak Period - A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months
but less than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the period during
amount of planning
which the responsible entity's annual peak demand is expected to occur¶
reserves and the
¶
projected planning
Year One - The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual
Peak Period.¶
reserves, per R3
¶
The following definitions were extracted from the February 12th,
2008 NERC Glossary of Terms:¶
¶
¶
Direct Control Load Management – Demand-Side Management that is
under the direct control of the system operator. DCLM may control the
electric supply to individual appliances or equipment on customer
premises. DCLM as defined here does not include Interruptible Demand.¶
¶
Facility - A set of electrical equipment that operates as a single Bulk
Electric System Element (e.g., a line, a generator, a shunt compensator,
transformer, etc.)¶
¶
Interruptible Demand - Demand that the end-use customer makes
available to its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreement for
curtailment.¶
¶
Load - An end-use device or customer that receives power from the
electric system.¶
Transmission - An interconnected group of lines and associated
equipment for the movement or transfer of electric energy between points
of supply and points at which it is transformed for delivery to customers
or is delivered to other electric systems. ¶
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 10 of 11
12/04/08
Deleted: RFC-02
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Formatted: Right: 4.29", Width: 11.79"
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Change Tracking
Formatted Table
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
Deleted: 1st Draft
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
Deleted: 06/24/08 Through 07/23
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Moved (insertion) [2]
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: Posted for 1st Comment Period
Deleted: 2nd Draft
Deleted: 18/08 Through
Deleted: /16/08
Deleted: Posted for 2nd Comment Period
Deleted: 3rd Draft
Deleted: 10/16/08 Through 10/30/08
Deleted: Posted for 15-Day Category Ballot
Deleted: BAL-502-RFC-02 3rd Draft
Deleted: 12/04/08
Moved up [2]: ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Deleted: December 4th, 2008
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 11 of 11
12/04/08
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
BAL-502-RF-03 Draft Implementation Plan
08/08/2016
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Ballot Pool Registration Form
Individuals registered in the ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body are allowed to join the Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation Ballot Pool beginning September
12, 2016 through the close of business of the seventh day of the 15-Day pre-ballot posting
period.
Individuals whom are not currently registered in the ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body must first
submit a Ballot Body registration form, and be approved as a Ballot Body member prior to
joining the associated Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation Ballot Pool.
Please complete this Ballot Pool registration form and send it to the Standards Process Manager.
Upon review of your registration, you will receive a confirmation email. Confirmation may take
up to 24 hours. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Jablonski
anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org at 216-503-0693.
Name:
Company:
Email:
Phone:
ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body Registration Form
09/02/2016
Announcement: Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RF03) Posted for 15-Days Prior to Category Ballot (January 3, 2017 thru January 17, 2017)
The ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee announces that the draft Planning Resource Adequacy
Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03) standards and the supporting documents
are currently posted for the required 15-days prior to Category Ballot beginning January 3, 2017. The
main purpose of the drafting effort was revise the existing FERC approved ReliabilityFirst Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard to address
two FERC Directives as noted in FERC Order No 747 (FERC Order initially approving the Standard). The
two FERC directives include (1) add time horizons to the two main requirements, and (2) consider
modifying the regional Reliability Standard to include a requirement that the planning coordinators
identify any gap between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the
planning reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis. The Standard Drafting Team also
made miscellaneous non-substantive formatting changes to better align with the format of NERC
Reliability Standards.
The draft ReliabilityFirst BAL-502-RF-03 standard, draft Implementation Plan, responses to comments,
redline of changes compared original Standards and associated supporting documents can be found on
the BAL-502-RF-03 website. Once the 15-day pre-ballot posting is completed, the 15-day Category Ballot
for the ReliabilityFirst BAL-502-RF-03 drafting effort is expected to begin on January 18, 2017.
Also, per the ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Development Procedure, entities may join the Ballot
Pool for BAL-502-RF-03 effort through the close of business of the seventh day of the 15-Day preballot posting period (Ballot Pool closes at 11:59 PM Central Time (CT) on January 9, 2017). Please
note that individuals must be registered in the ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body first in order to join the BAL502-RF-03 Ballot Pool. If you need to register in the ReliabilityFirst Ballot Body, please navigate to
the Registered Ballot Body webpage and submit the Ballot Body registration form.
Once again we would like to thank you for your participation in the ReliabilityFirst Regional Standards
drafting process. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony
Jablonski anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org at 216-503-0693. Thank you and have a great day.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Lower
None
Page 10 of 11
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Change Tracking
Page 11 of 11
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
BAL-502-RF-03 Draft Implementation Plan
08/08/2016
Announcement: ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03) Posted for 15-Day Category Ballot
(January 18, 2017 thru February 1, 2017)
The ReliabilityFirst Standards Committee announces that the draft ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource
Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03) standard and the supporting
documents are currently posted for the 15-Day Category Ballot beginning January 18, 2017.
Only individuals whom had previously joined the BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot Pool will be eligible to cast a
ballot at this time. BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot Pool members will receive a separate email with instructions
on how to cast their ballot. If you have joined the BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot Pool and have not received an
individual email with voting instructions or have any questions, please contact Anthony Jablonski
anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org at 216-503-0693. Thank you and have a great day.
ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03) Ballot Pool
01/09/17
Name
Organization Name
Voter Status
Category
James Anderson
Consumers Energy
Company
Primary Voter
Category 1
Scott Cunningham
Ohio Valley Electric
Corporation
Primary Voter
Category 1
Chris Scanlon
Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company
Primary Voter
Category 1
FirstEnergy Utilities Primary Voter
Category 1
William J Smith
Greg Milosek
Brenda Lyn Truhe
ITC Transmission
Secondary
Voter
PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation
Primary Voter
Category 1
Category 1
Joseph A. Smith
Public Service
Electric & Gas
Company
Primary Voter
Category 1
Jeff DePriest
DTE Electric
Primary Voter
Category 2
David Greyerbiehl
Consumers Energy
Company
Primary Voter
Category 2
Ruth Miller
Exelon Generation
Company, LLC
Primary Voter
Category 2
Mark Koziel
FirstEnergy Utilities Primary Voter
Category 2
Scott Hoggatt
WEC Energy Group
Primary Voter
Category 2
Sean Bodikin
Dominion Energy
Primary Voter
Category 2
Page | 1
John Bee
Commonwealth
Edison Company
Primary Voter
Category 3
Jeff Beattie
Consumers Energy
Company
Primary Voter
Category 3
FirstEnergy Utilities Primary Voter
Category 3
Theresa Ciancio
Bob Thomas
Illinois Municipal
Electric Agency
Primary Voter
Category 3
Joe O'Brien
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Company
Primary Voter
Category 3
Old Dominion
Electric Cooperative Primary Voter
Category 3
Karla Jara
PSEG Energy
Resources & Trade
LLC
Primary Voter
Category 3
Linda Horn
WEC Energy Group
Primary Voter
Category 3
Terry Bilke
MISO
Secondary
Voter
Category 4
Mark Holman
PJM Interconnection
Primary Voter
Category 4
Karl Blaszowski
Consumers Energy
Company
Primary Voter
Category 4
Tony Jankowski
WEC Energy Group
Primary Voter
Category 4
Karie L. Barczak
DTE Electric
Primary Voter
Category 5
Douglas G Hohlbaugh FirstEnergy Utilities Primary Voter
Category 5
William Watson
Jeffrey C. Mueller
Public Service
Electric & Gas
Company
Primary Voter
Category 5
Page | 2
Margaret Powell
PECO Energy
Company
Primary Voter
Category 5
Tom Breene
WEC Energy Group
Primary Voter
Category 5
Julie Hegedus
Consumers Energy
Company
Primary Voter
Category 5
Page | 3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Lower
None
Page 10 of 11
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Change Tracking
Page 11 of 11
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
BAL-502-RF-03 Draft Implementation Plan
08/08/2016
ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Voting Process Initial Category Ballot Results
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03)
01/18/17 through 02/01/17
Total Affirmative: 27
Total Negative: 1
Total Abstentions: 0
Total Votes Cast: 28
Total Pool Members: 30
Quorum: 93%
Vote Result: Pass
Category Affirmative Negative Abstentions
Pool
Members
Votes
Cast
Votes
Counted
Approval Result
Category
1
6
1
0
7
7
7
85.71 %
Pass
Category
2
5
0
0
6
5
5
100.00 %
Pass
Category
3
7
0
0
7
7
7
100.00 %
Pass
Category
4
3
0
0
4
3
3
100.00 %
Pass
Category
5
6
0
0
6
6
6
100.00 %
Pass
Category
Vote
Member
Category 1 Affirmative James Anderson
Negative
Entity
Consumers Energy Company
Scott Cunningham Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Affirmative Chris Scanlon
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
Affirmative William J Smith
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Greg Milosek
ITC Transmission
Affirmative Brenda Lyn Truhe PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Affirmative Joseph A. Smith
Category 2 Affirmative Jeff DePriest
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
DTE Electric
Affirmative David Greyerbiehl Consumers Energy Company
Affirmative Ruth Miller
Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Affirmative Mark Koziel
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Scott Hoggatt
WEC Energy Group
No Vote
Sean Bodikin
Category 3 Affirmative John Bee
Dominion Energy
Commonwealth Edison Company
Affirmative Jeff Beattie
Consumers Energy Company
Affirmative Theresa Ciancio
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Bob Thomas
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency
BAL-502-RF-03 Category Ballot Results
Page 1
Affirmative Joe O'Brien
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Affirmative William Watson
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
Affirmative Karla Jara
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC
Category 4 Affirmative Terry Bilke
MISO
Affirmative Mark Holman
No Vote
Karl Blaszowski
Affirmative Tony Jankowski
Category 5 Affirmative Karie L. Barczak
Affirmative Douglas G
Hohlbaugh
PJM Interconnection
Consumers Energy Company
WEC Energy Group
DTE Electric
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Jeffrey C. Mueller Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Affirmative Margaret Powell
PECO Energy Company
Affirmative Tom Breene
WEC Energy Group
Affirmative Julie Hegedus
Consumers Energy Company
Voter Comments
Voted
Name
Entity
Negative
Scott Cunningham
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Comment
See comments from initial posting. (The comments
from the initial posting included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
Comment 1 - “The standard should be retired
as it does not address a reliability need. There
are adequate market incentives to fill the
planning reserve requirement.)
Comment 2 – “Even if the PC identifies a gap,
there is no requirement in any standard to
address the gap. There are market incentives
for resource owners to address the planning
reserve requirement.”
Comment 3 - Similar to the above question,
the PC may document load and resources, but
there is no requirement in the standards to
address any gaps.
Comment 4 - Given that these standards must
function in a market environment, market
incentives should address the requirements. If
they do not, we should not be fostering a
market-driven system.
BAL-502-RF-03 Category Ballot Results
Response
Response 1 - It is outside of the Standards
Authorization Request (SAR) to determine
whether the standards should be retired.
During the SAR comment period (conducted
04/01/16 – 05/10/16), all individuals whom
provided comments agreed with the scope of
the SAR. Furthermore during the “five year
review” comment period (conducted 02/29/16
– 03/09/16), all individuals who provided
comments indicated the Standard should be reaffirmed.
Also, the BAL-502-RF-03 standards does not
require the Planning Coordinator to “fill the
planning reserve requirement”, rather it
establishes common criteria, based on “one
day in ten year” loss of Load expectation
principles, for the analysis, assessment and
documentation of Resource Adequacy for Load
in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation region.
2.
Response 2 - You are correct, if the PC
identifies a gap, there is no requirement in any
standard to address the gap. NERC’s ability to
require the building or acquisition of new
generating capacity, is prohibited by section
215(a)(3) of the FPA and thus no
corresponding requirement is proposed.
Furthermore, the addition of the new
Page 2
requirement R3 was a result of a Directive
noted in FERC Order No 747.
3.
Response 3 - You are correct, if the PC
identifies a gap, there is no requirement in any
standard to address the gap. NERC’s ability to
require the building or acquisition of new
generating capacity, is prohibited by section
215(a)(3) of the FPA and thus no
corresponding requirement is proposed.
Furthermore, the addition of the new
requirement R3 was a result of a Directive
noted in FERC Order No 747.
4.
Response 4 - Thank you for your comment.
The BAL-502-RF-03 standards does not require
the Planning Coordinator to “fill the planning
reserve requirement”, rather it establishes
common criteria, based on “one day in ten
year” loss of Load expectation principles, for
the analysis, assessment and documentation of
Resource Adequacy for Load in the
ReliabilityFirst Corporation region.
NERC’s ability to require the building or
acquisition of new generating capacity, is
prohibited by section 215(a)(3) of the FPA and
thus no corresponding requirement is
proposed.
Voted
Name
Entity
Affirmative
Greg Milosek
ITC
Comment
ITC, on behalf of ITC Transmission, METC and Michigan
Electric Coordinated Systems, is not registered as a
Planning Coordinator which applies to BAL-502-RF-3,
but would like to state the final recommendation should
be deferred to MISO who is ITC’s Planning Coordinator
in the RF region.
BAL-502-RF-03 Category Ballot Results
Response
Thank you for your comment.
Page 3
Announcement: ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03) Category Ballot Results and 10-Day Recirculation Ballot
(February 6, 2017 thru February 15, 2017)
The draft ReliabilityFirst Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL502-RF-03) standard has overwhelmingly PASSED the 15-Day Category Vote (conducted January 18,
2017 through February 1, 2017) with two-thirds or greater affirmative majority of votes determined for
each category along with establishing a quorum of 93%.
The Category Ballot results are listed below with the detailed results located on the ReliabilityFirst BAL502-RF-03 website.
Category Affirmative Negative Abstentions
Pool
Members
Votes
Cast
Votes
Counted
Approval Result
Category
1
6
1
0
7
7
7
85.71 %
Pass
Category
2
5
0
0
6
5
5
100.00 %
Pass
Category
3
7
0
0
7
7
7
100.00 %
Pass
Category
4
3
0
0
4
3
3
100.00 %
Pass
Category
5
6
0
0
6
6
6
100.00 %
Pass
Since at least one (1) Negative vote with comment during the initial ballot was cast, draft BAL-502-RF-03
standard and the supporting documents will be posted for the 10-Day Recirculation Ballot beginning
February 6, 2017.
Only individuals whom had previously joined the BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot Pool will be eligible to provide
a vote. In the Recirculation ballot, Ballot Pool members may indicate a revision to their original vote
otherwise their vote shall remain the same as in their prior ballot (e.g. voting is done by exception, if a
Ballot Pool Member is comfortable with their initial Ballot, there is no need to provide a Recirculation
Ballot). BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot Pool members will receive a separate email with instructions on how to
cast their Recirculation Ballot. If you have joined the BAL-502-RF-03 Ballot Pool and have not received
an individual email with voting instructions or have any questions, please contact Anthony
Jablonski anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org at 216-503-0693.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Lower
None
Page 10 of 11
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Change Tracking
Page 11 of 11
Draft Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
(BAL-502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
BAL-502-RF-03 Draft Implementation Plan
08/08/2016
ReliabilityFirst Reliability Standards Voting Process Recirculation Ballot Results
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RF-03)
02/06/17 through 02/15/17
Total Affirmative: 27
Total Negative: 1
Total Abstentions: 0
Total Votes Cast: 28
Total Pool Members: 30
Quorum: 93%
Vote Result: Pass
Category Affirmative Negative Abstentions
Pool
Members
Votes
Cast
Votes
Approval Result
Counted
Category
1
6
1
0
7
7
7
85.71 %
Pass
Category
2
5
0
0
6
5
5
100.00 %
Pass
Category
3
7
0
0
7
7
7
100.00 %
Pass
Category
4
3
0
0
4
3
3
100.00 %
Pass
Category
5
6
0
0
6
6
6
100.00 %
Pass
Category
Vote
Member
Category Affirmative James Anderson
1
Negative
Scott
Cunningham
Entity
Consumers Energy Company
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
Affirmative Chris Scanlon
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
Affirmative William J Smith
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Greg Milosek
ITC Transmission
Affirmative Brenda Lyn Truhe PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Affirmative Joseph A. Smith
Category Affirmative Jeff DePriest
2
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
DTE Electric
Affirmative David Greyerbiehl Consumers Energy Company
Affirmative Ruth Miller
Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Affirmative Mark Koziel
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Scott Hoggatt
WEC Energy Group
No Vote
Sean Bodikin
Category Affirmative John Bee
3
BAL-502-RF-03 Recirculation Ballot Results
Dominion Energy
Commonwealth Edison Company
Page 1
Affirmative Jeff Beattie
Consumers Energy Company
Affirmative Theresa Ciancio
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Bob Thomas
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency
Affirmative Joe O'Brien
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Affirmative William Watson
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
Affirmative Karla Jara
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC
Category Affirmative Terry Bilke
4
Affirmative Mark Holman
No Vote
Karl Blaszowski
Affirmative Tony Jankowski
Category Affirmative Karie L. Barczak
5
Affirmative Douglas G
Hohlbaugh
MISO
PJM Interconnection
Consumers Energy Company
WEC Energy Group
DTE Electric
FirstEnergy Utilities
Affirmative Jeffrey C. Mueller Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Affirmative Margaret Powell
PECO Energy Company
Affirmative Tom Breene
WEC Energy Group
Affirmative Julie Hegedus
Consumers Energy Company
BAL-502-RF-03 Recirculation Ballot Results
Page 2
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
None
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
Page 10 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
BAL-502-RFC-03
06/01/17
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
11
Change Tracking
Page 11 of
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved June 1, 2017
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Lower
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
None
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
Page 10 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
BAL-502-RFC-03
06/01/17
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved: June 1, 2017
11
Change Tracking
Page 11 of
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL502-RF-03) Implementation Plan
Requested Approvals
• None
Requested Retirements
• BAL-502-RFC-02
Prerequisite Approval
• None
Revisions to Defined Terms in the NERC Glossary
• None
Effective Date
• BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that is
after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as
otherwise provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental
authority is required for a standard to go into effect.
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved June 1, 2017
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RF-03
3. Purpose:
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.1.1
Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
1.1
1.2
Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
1.1.1
The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1.1.2
The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 1 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.2.1
Perform an analysis for Year One.
1.2.2
Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
1.2.2.1 If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
1.3
Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
1.3.1
Load forecast characteristics:
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm, interruptible).
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning curtailable/Interruptible
Demand.
1.3.2
Resource characteristics:
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected changes
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from and sales
to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and retirements.
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the analysis
1.3.3
Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
1.3.3.1 Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
1.3.4
1.4
Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
1.4.4
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in R1.3.1.
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
1.4.6
Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
1.4.7
Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used to make
reserves available.
1.4.8
Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
1.5
Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
1.6
Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
1.7
Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
2.1
This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
2.2
This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 3 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
2.3
The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
C. Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority” means
NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
None
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 5 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
R#
R1
Time Horizon
Long-term Planning
VRF
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
Lower VSL
Moderate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
Requirement R1, Part
1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 6 of 11
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to calculate a
The
Planning
OR
Planning reserve margin
Coordinator failed to
that will result in the
perform an analysis or
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
for loss of Load for the
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
for each planning period
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
being equal to 0.1 per
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
Requirement R1, Part
OR
1.1
1.3.1 and
documentation of its use
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
OR
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the
Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of its use
more of the Load
forecast Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.1 and
documentation of their
use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.7
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
Requirement R1, Part
1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
per Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per Requirement
R1, Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
Requirement R2, Part
2.1.
OR
OR
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 11
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
R3
Long-term Planning
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Lower
None
Page 10 of 11
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
Requirement R2, Part
2.2.
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
08/05/09
NERC BoT Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
03/17/11
FERC Approved
Approved: xx xx, 2016
Change Tracking
Page 11 of 11
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
A. Introduction
1. Title:
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation
2. Number:
BAL-502-RFC-02RF-03
3. Purpose:
3.
To establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of Load
expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of Resource Adequacy for
Load in the ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFCRF) region
4. Applicability
4.1
Functional Entities
4.14.1.1Planning Coordinator
5. Effective Date:
5.1
Upon RFC Board approval
5.1
BAL-502-RF-03 shall become effective on the first day of the first calendar quarter that
is after the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities or as otherwise
provided for in a jurisdiction where approval by an applicable governmental authority is required
for a standard to go into effect.
B. Requirements and Measures
R1 The Planning Coordinator shall perform and document a Resource Adequacy analysis
annually. The Resource Adequacy analysis shall [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long-term Planning]:
R11.1 Calculate a planning reserve margin that will result in the sum of the probabilities
for loss of Load for the integrated peak hour for all days of each planning year 1
analyzed (per R1.2) being equal to 0.1. (This is comparable to a “one day in 10
year” criterion).
R11.1.1 The utilization of Direct Control Load Management or curtailment of
Interruptible Demand shall not contribute to the loss of Load
probability.
1
The annual period over which the LOLE is measured, and the resulting resource requirements are established (June
1st through the following May 31st).
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
of 12
Page 1
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
R11.1.2 The planning reserve margin developed from R1.1 shall be expressed as
a percentage of the median 2 forecast peak Net Internal Demand
(planning reserve margin).
R11.2 Be performed or verified separately for each of the following planning years:
R11.2.1 Perform an analysis for Year One.
R11.2.2 Perform an analysis or verification at a minimum for one year in the 2
through 5 year period and at a minimum one year in the 6 though 10 year
period.
R11.2.2.1
If the analysis is verified, the verification must be
supported by current or past studies for the same
planning year.
R11.3 Include the following subject matter and documentation of its use:
R11.3.1 Load forecast characteristics:
•
1.3.1.1 Median (50:50) forecast peak Load.
•
1.3.1.2 Load forecast uncertainty (reflects variability in the Load
forecast due to weather and regional economic forecasts).
•
1.3.1.3 Load diversity.
•
1.3.1.4 Seasonal Load variations.
•
1.3.1.5 Daily demand modeling assumptions (firm,
interruptible).
•
1.3.1.6 Contractual arrangements concerning
curtailable/Interruptible Demand.
R11.3.2 Resource characteristics:
•
1.3.2.1 Historic resource performance and any projected
changes
•
1.3.2.2 Seasonal resource ratings
2
The median forecast is expected to have a 50% probability of being too high and 50% probability of being too low
(50:50).
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
of 12
Page 2
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
•
1.3.2.3 Modeling assumptions of firm capacity purchases from
and sales to entities outside the Planning Coordinator area.
•
1.3.2.4 Resource planned outage schedules, deratings, and
retirements.
•
1.3.2.5 Modeling assumptions of intermittent and energy limited
resource such as wind and cogeneration.
•
1.3.2.6 Criteria for including planned resource additions in the
analysis
R11.3.3 Transmission limitations that prevent the delivery of generation reserves
R11.3.3.1
Criteria for including planned Transmission Facility
additions in the analysis
R11.3.4 Assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area assessment
considering Transmission limitations into the study area.
R11.4 Consider the following resource availability characteristics and document how
and why they were included in the analysis or why they were not included:
•
1.4.1
Availability and deliverability of fuel.
•
1.4.2
Common mode outages that affect resource availability
•
1.4.3
Environmental or regulatory restrictions of resource availability.
•
1.4.4
R1.3.1.
Any other demand (Load) response programs not included in
•
1.4.5
Sensitivity to resource outage rates.
•
1.4.6 Impacts of extreme weather/drought conditions that affect unit
availability.
•
1.4.7 Modeling assumptions for emergency operation procedures used
to make reserves available.
•
1.4.8 Market resources not committed to serving Load (uncommitted
resources) within the Planning Coordinator area.
R11.5 Consider Transmission maintenance outage schedules and document how and
why they were included in the Resource Adequacy analysis or why they were not
included
R11.6 Document that capacity resources are appropriately accounted for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
of 12
Page 3
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
R11.7 Document that all Load in the Planning Coordinator area is accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy analysis
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
R2 The Planning Coordinator shall annually document the projected Load and resource capability,
for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource Adequacy analysis
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
R22.1 This documentation shall cover each of the years in Year One through ten.
R22.2 This documentation shall include the Planning Reserve margin calculated per
requirement R1.1 for each of the three years in the analysis.
R22.3 The documentation as specified per requirement R2.1 and R2.2 shall be publicly posted
no later than 30 calendar days prior to the beginning of Year One.
C. Measures
M1 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation that a valid Resource Adequacy
analysis was performed or verified in accordance with R1
M2 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation of its projected Load and resource
capability, for each area or Transmission constrained sub-area identified in the Resource
Adequacy analysis on an annual basis in accordance with R2.
R3 The Planning Coordinator shall identify any gaps between the needed amount of planning
reserves defined in Requirement R1, Part 1.1 and the projected planning reserves documented in
Requirement R2 [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Long-term Planning].
M3 Each Planning Coordinator shall possess the documentation identifying any gaps between the
needed amounts of planning reserves and projected planning reserves in accordance with R3.
D.C.
Compliance
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
of 12
Page 4
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
1.1. Compliance Monitoring ResponsibilityEnforcement Authority
Compliance Monitor - ReliabilityFirst Corporation
1.2. Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Timeframe
One calendar year
DataAs defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority”
means NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.3.1.2.
Evidence Retention
The Planning Coordinator shall retain information from the most current and prior two
years.
The Compliance Monitor shall retain any audit data for five years.
2. Violation Severity Levels
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is required to
retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances where the evidence
retention period specified below is shorter than the time since the last audit, the Compliance
Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to provide other evidence to show that it was
compliant for the full time period since the last audit.
The Applicable Entity shall keep data or evidence to show compliance with Requirements
R1 through R3, and Measures M1 through M3 from the most current and prior two years.
If an Applicable Entity is found non-compliant, it shall keep information related to the noncompliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time specified above,
whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all requested
and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes
Compliance Audit
Self-Certification
Spot Checking
Compliance Investigation
Self-Reporting
Complaint
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
None
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
of 12
Page 5
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
Table of Compliance Elements
Req.
Number
R#
R1
Time Horizon
VRF
LOWER
MODERATE
Long-term Planning
Medium
VIOLATION SEVERITY LEVEL
HIGHLower VSL
SEVEREModerate VSL
High VSL
Severe VSL
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider 1 or 2 of the
Resource availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1, Part
1.4 and documentation
of how and why they
were included in the
analysis or why they
were not included
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to express the
planning reserve margin
developed from
Requirement R1, Part
1.1 as a percentage of
the net Median forecast
peak Load per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.1.2
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to be performed
or verified separately
for individual years of
Year One through Year
Ten per R1Requirement
R1, Part 1.2
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform and document a
Resource Adequacy
analysis annually per
R1.
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis failed
to consider Transmission
maintenance outage
schedules and document
how and why they were
included in the analysis
or why they were not
included per
R1Requirement R1, Part
1.5
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
The Planning
failed to calculate a
OR
Coordinator failed to
Planning reserve margin
perform an analysis or
that will result in the
verification for one year sum of the probabilities
The Planning
in the 2 through 5 year
Coordinator Resource
for loss of Load for the
period or one year in the integrated peak hour for
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 1 of the 6 though 10 year period all days of each
or both per Requirement planning year analyzed
Load forecast
R1, Part 1.2.2
Characteristics
for each planning period
subcomponents under
being equal to 0.1 per
R1Requirement R1,
R1Requirement R1,
OR
Part 1.3.1 and
Part 1.1
documentation of its use
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
OR
Page 6 of 12
OR
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
failed to include 2 or
more of the Load
The Planning
forecast Characteristics
Coordinator Resource
subcomponents under
Adequacy analysis
R1Requirement R1,
failed to include 1 of the
Part 1.3.1 and
Resource
documentation of their
Characteristics
use
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.2 and
OR
documentation of its use
Or
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
all Load in the Planning
Coordinator area is
accounted for in its
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.7
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include 2 or
more of the Resource
Characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.2 and
documentation of their
use
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
Transmission
limitations and
documentation of its use
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
Page 7 of 12
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
perform an analysis for
Year One per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.2.1
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
per R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.3
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to include
assistance from other
interconnected systems
and documentation of
its use per
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.3.4
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to consider 3 or
more Resource
availability
characteristics
subcomponents under
R1Requirement R1,
Part 1.4 and
documentation of how
and why they were
included in the analysis
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
Page 8 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
or why they were not
included
OR
The Planning
Coordinator Resource
Adequacy analysis
failed to document that
capacity resources are
appropriately accounted
for in its Resource
Adequacy analysis per
Requirement R1, Part
1.6
R2
Long-term Planning
Lower
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
publicly post the
documents as specified
per requirement
R2Requirement R2, Part
2.1 and Requirement R2,
Part 2.2 later than 30
calendar days prior to
the beginning of Year
One per R2Requirement
R2, Part 2.3
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for one of the
years in the 2 through
10 year period per
R2Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for year 1 of
the 10 year period per
R2Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
OR
OR
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
Page 9 of 12
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis per
Requirement R2, Part 2.
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
R3
Long-term Planning
12/04/08RF-03
Lower
None
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the Planning
Reserve margin
calculated per
requirement R1.1 for
each of the three years
in the analysis per
R2Requirement R2,
Part 2.2.
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
document the projected
Load and resource
capability, for each area
or Transmission
constrained sub-area
identified in the
Resource Adequacy
analysis for two or more
of the years in the 2
through 10 year period
per Requirement R2,
Part 2.1.
None
None
Definitions:
Resource Adequacy - the ability of supply-side and demand-side resources to meet the aggregate electrical demand (including losses).
Net Internal Demand - Total of all end-use customer demand and electric system losses within specified metered boundaries, less Direct
Control Load Management and Interruptible Demand.
Peak Period - A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months but less than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the period
during which the responsible entity's annual peak demand is expected to occur
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
Page 10 of 12
The Planning
Coordinator failed to
identify any gaps
between the needed
amount of planning
reserves and the
projected planning
reserves, per R3
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
Year One - The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual Peak Period.
The following definitions were extracted from the February 12th, 2008 NERC Glossary of Terms:
Direct Control Load Management – Demand-Side Management that is under the direct control of the system operator. DCLM may control
the electric supply to individual appliances or equipment on customer premises. DCLM as defined here does not include Interruptible
Demand.
Facility - A set of electrical equipment that operates as a single Bulk Electric System Element (e.g., a line, a generator, a shunt compensator,
transformer, etc.)
Interruptible Demand - Demand that the end-use customer makes available to its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreement for
curtailment.
Load - An end-use device or customer that receives power from the electric system.
Transmission - An interconnected group of lines and associated equipment for the movement or transfer of electric energy between points of
supply and points at which it is transformed for delivery to customers or is delivered to other electric systems.
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
Page 11 of 12
Standard BAL-502-RFC-02
12/04/08RF-03
D. Regional Variances
None
E. Interpretations
None
F. Associated Documents
None
Version History
Version
Date
Action
BAL-502-RFC-02
1st Draft
06/24/08
Through
07/2312/04/0
8
ReliabilityFirst Board ApprovedPosted for 1st
Comment Period
BAL-502-RFC-02
2nd Draft
08/18/08
Through
05/09/16/08
Posted for 2nd Comment PeriodNERC BoT
Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
3rd Draft
10/16/08
Through
10/30/0803/1
7/11
Posted for 15-Day Category BallotFERC
Approved
BAL-502-RFC-02
3rd Draft
12/04/08
ReliabilityFirst Board Approved
Approved: December 4th, 2008xx xx, 2016
of 12
Change Tracking
Page 12
Standards Announcement
ReliabilityFirst Corporation
BAL-502-RF-03
Comment period open through June 12, 2017
Now Available
The ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RF) has requested NERC to post Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502RF-03 – Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation for industry review and
comment as permitted by the NERC Rules of Procedure.
Commenting
Use the electronic form to submit comments. If you experience any difficulties in using the electronic
form, contact Mat Bunch. The form must be submitted by 8 p.m. Eastern, Monday, June 12, 2017. An
unofficial Word version of the comment form is posted on the Regional Reliability Standards Under
Development page.
Regional Reliability Standards Development Process
Section 300 of NERC’s Rules of Procedures of the Electric Reliability Organization governs the regional
reliability standards development process.
Background
The main purpose of the drafting effort was to revise the existing FERC approved ReliabilityFirst Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL-502-RFC-02) Standard to address two
FERC Directives as noted in FERC Order No 747 (FERC Order initially approving the Standard). The two
FERC directives include (1) add time horizons to the two main requirements, and (2) consider modifying
the regional Reliability Standard to include a requirement that the planning coordinators identify any gap
between the needed amount of planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning
reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis. The Standard Drafting Team also made
miscellaneous non-substantive formatting changes to better align with the format of NERC Reliability
Standards.
Although the technical aspects of this Regional Reliability Standard have been vetted through RF’s
Regional Standards development process, the final approval process for a Regional Reliability Standard
requires NERC publicly to notice and request comment on the criteria outlined in the comment form.
Documents and information about this project are available on the ReliabilityFirst’s Standards Under
Development page.
For more information or assistance, contact Standards Developer, Mat Bunch (via email) or at (404) 4469785.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
3353 Peachtree Rd, NE
Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
404-446-2560 | www.nerc.com
Standards Announcement
BAL-502-RF-03 | April 28, 2017
2
Unofficial Comment Form
Regional Reliability Standard
BAL-502-RF-03
DO NOT use this form for submitting comments. Use the electronic form to submit comments on the
proposed modifications to the Regional Reliability Standard BAL‐502‐RF‐03 Planning Resource Adequacy
Analysis, Assessment and Documentation. The electronic form must be submitted by 8 p.m. Eastern,
Monday, June 12, 2017.
Documents and information about this project are available on the Reliability First’s Standards Under
Development page. If you have questions, contact Standards Developer, Mat Bunch (via email) or at (404)
446‐9785.
Background Information
The main purpose of the drafting effort was to revise the existing FERC approved ReliabilityFirst Planning
Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (BAL‐502‐RFC‐02) Standard to address two
FERC Directives as noted in (FERC Order initially approving the Standard). The two FERC directives include
(1) add time horizons to the two main requirements, and (2) consider modifying the regional Reliability
Standard to include a requirement that the planning coordinators identify any gap between the needed
amount of planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning reserves determined from the
resource adequacy analysis. The Standard Drafting Team also made miscellaneous non‐substantive
formatting changes to better align with the format of NERC Reliability Standards.
NERC Criteria for Developing or Modifying a Regional Reliability Standard
Regional Reliability Standard shall be: (1) a regional reliability standard that is more stringent than the
continent‐wide reliability standard, including a regional standard that addresses matters that the
continent‐wide reliability standard does not; or (2) a regional reliability standard that is necessitated by a
physical difference in the bulk power system. Regional reliability standards shall provide for as much
uniformity as possible with reliability standards across the interconnected bulk power system of the North
American continent. Regional reliability standards, when approved by FERC and applicable authorities in
Mexico and Canada, shall be made part of the body of NERC reliability standards and shall be enforced
upon all applicable bulk power system owners, operators, and users within the applicable area, regardless
of membership in the region.
The approval process for a regional reliability standard requires NERC to publicly notice and request
comment on the proposed standard. Comments shall be permitted only on the following criteria
(technical aspects of the standard are vetted through the regional standards development process):
Open — Regional reliability standards shall provide that any person or entity that is directly and
materially affected by the reliability of the bulk power system within the regional entity shall be
able to participate in the development and approval of reliability standards. There shall be no
undue financial barriers to participation. Participation shall not be conditional upon membership
in the regional entity, a regional entity or any organization, and shall not be unreasonably
restricted on the basis of technical qualifications or other such requirements.
Inclusive — Regional reliability standards shall provide that any person with a direct and material
interest has a right to participate by expressing an opinion and its basis, having that position
considered, and appealing through an established appeals process, if adversely affected.
Balanced — Regional reliability standards shall have a balance of interests and shall not be
dominated by any two‐interest categories and no single‐interest category shall be able to defeat a
matter.
Due Process — Regional reliability standards shall provide for reasonable notice and opportunity
for public comment. At a minimum, the standard shall include public notice of the intent to
develop a standard, a public comment period on the proposed standard, due consideration of
those public comments, and a ballot of interested stakeholders.
Transparent — All actions material to the development of regional reliability standards shall be
transparent. All standards development meetings shall be open and publicly noticed on the
regional entity’s Web site.
Review the revised BAL‐502‐RF‐03 regional standard and answer the following questions.
1. Do you agree the development of BAL‐502‐RF‐03 met the “Open” criteria as outlined above? If
“No”, please explain in the comment area below.
Yes
No
Comments:
2. Do you agree the development of BAL‐502‐RF‐03 met the “Inclusive” criteria as outlined above? If
“No”, please explain in the comment area below.
Yes
No
Comments:
3. Do you agree the development of BAL‐502‐RF‐03 met the “Balanced” criteria as outlined above? If
“No”, please explain in the comment area below.
Yes
No
Comments:
Unofficial Comment Form
BAL‐502‐RF‐03 | April 2017
2
4. Do you agree the development of BAL‐502‐RF‐03 met the “Due Process” criteria as outlined
above? If “No”, please explain in the comment area below.
Yes
No
Comments:
5. Do you agree the development of BAL‐502‐RF‐03 met the “Transparent” criteria as outlined
above? If “No”, please explain in the comment area below.
Yes
No
Comments:
Unofficial Comment Form
BAL‐502‐RF‐03 | April 2017
3
Comment Report
Project Name:
Regional Reliability Standard (Reliability First) | BAL-502-RF-03
Comment Period Start Date:
4/28/2017
Comment Period End Date:
6/12/2017
Associated Ballots:
There were 2 sets of responses, including comments from approximately 2 different people from approximately 2 companies
representing 5 of the Industry Segments as shown in the table on the following pages.
Questions
1. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Open” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment area
below.
2. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Inclusive” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
3. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Balanced” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
4. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Due Process” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
5. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Transparent” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
Organization
Name
Name
Segment(s)
Region
Group Name
Group Member
Name
Group
Member
Organization
Group
Member
Segment(s)
Group Member
Region
1. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Open” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment area
below.
Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1,3,5,6
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
0
Response
Candace Morakinyo - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - MRO,RF
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
Response
0
2. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Inclusive” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
Candace Morakinyo - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - MRO,RF
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
0
Response
Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1,3,5,6
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
Response
0
3. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Balanced” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1,3,5,6
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
0
Response
Candace Morakinyo - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - MRO,RF
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
Response
0
4. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Due Process” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
Candace Morakinyo - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - MRO,RF
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
0
Response
Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1,3,5,6
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
Response
0
5. Do you agree the development of BAL-502-RF-03 met the “Transparent” criteria as outlined above? If “No”, please explain in the comment
area below.
Chris Scanlon - Exelon - 1,3,5,6
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
0
Response
Candace Morakinyo - WEC Energy Group, Inc. - 3,4,5,6 - MRO,RF
Answer
Yes
Document Name
Comment
Likes
0
Dislikes
Response
0
Exhibit E
Planning Resource Adequacy, Analysis, Assessment and
Documentation Standard Drafting Team Roster
Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation (PRAA)
Standard Drafting Team Roster (06/15/16)
Contact
Company
Email
Phone
Joe O’Brien
NIPSCO
jnobrien@nisource.com
219-853-5470
Jeffery W. Beattie
Consumers Energy
jwbeattie@cmsenergy.com
517-788-7220
Tom Falin
PJM
thomas.falin@pjm.com
610-666-4683
Jordan Cole
MISO
jcole@misoenergy.org
651-632-8573
Anthony Jablonski
ReliabilityFirst Staff
anthony.jablonski@rfirst.org
216-503-0693
PRAA Standard Drafting Team Roster
06/15/16
| File Type | application/pdf |
| Author | NERC Legal (ST) |
| File Modified | 2017-09-07 |
| File Created | 2017-09-07 |