125 FERC ¶ 61,040 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM08-11-000] 

Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards 

(Issued October 16, 2008) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Commission is 

proposing to approve three revised Reliability Standards developed by the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified 

as the Electric Reliability Organization responsible for developing and enforcing 

mandatory Reliability Standards. The three revised Reliability Standards, designated by 

NERC as FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2, set requirements for the development 

and communication of system operating limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the 

planning and operation horizons. 

DATES: Comments are due [30 days after publication in the FEDERAL 

REGISTER]

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments may be filed electronically via the 

eFiling link on the Commission's web site at www.ferc.gov. Documents created 

electronically using word processing software should be filed in the native application or 

print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. This will enhance document retrieval 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 2 - 

for both the Commission and the public. The Commission accepts most standard word 

processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting 

information in certain other file formats. Attachments that exist only in paper form may 

be scanned. Commenters filing electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of 

rulemaking comments is not required. Commenters that are not able to file electronically 

must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 

20426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cory Lankford (Legal Information) 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

(202) 502-6711 

Eddy Lim (Technical Information) 

Office of Electric Reliability 

Division of Reliability Standards 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

(202) 502-6713 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
125 FERC ¶ 61,040 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and 

Maintenance Reliability Standards 

Docket No. RM08-11-000 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

(Issued October 16, 2008) 

1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act,1

 the Commission is proposing 

to approve three revised Reliability Standards concerning Facilities Design, Connection

and Maintenance (FAC) that were developed by the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability 

Organization (ERO) responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability 

Standards. The three revised Reliability Standards, designated by NERC as FAC-010-2, 

FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2, set requirements for the development and communication of 

system operating limits of the Bulk-Power System for use in the planning and operation 

horizons.

s 

 

2

1

 16 U.S.C. 824o (2006). 

2

 The Commission is not proposing any new or modified text to its regulations. 

Rather, as set forth in 18 CFR Part 40, a proposed Reliability Standard will not become 

effective until approved by the Commission, and the ERO must post on its website each 

effective Reliability Standard. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 2 - 

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop 

mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission 

review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the 

ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.3

 

B. NERC’s Proposed Version Two FAC Reliability Standards

3. On November 15, 2006, NERC filed 20 revised Reliability Standards and three 

version one FAC Reliability Standards for Commission approval. The Commission 

addressed the 20 revised Reliability Standards in Order No. 6934

 and established a 

separate rulemaking proceeding to address the three version one FAC Reliability 

Standards, which require planning authorities and reliability coordinators to establish 

methodologies to determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the Bulk-Power System 

in the planning and operation horizons. The Commission approved the version one FAC 

Reliability Standards in Order No. 705 and directed the ERO to address certain issues.5

 

 

 3

 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3). 

4 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, 

72 FR 16416, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, reh’g denied, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC 

¶ 61,053 (2007). 

5 Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards, Order 

No. 705, 73 FR 1770 (Jan. 9, 2008), 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 (2007). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 3 - 

4. On June 30, 2008, in response to the Commission’s directives in Order No. 705, 

NERC submitted for Commission approval three revised FAC Reliability Standards:6

 

FAC-010-2 – System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon, FAC011-2 – System Operating Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon, and FAC014-2 – Establish and Communicate System Operating Limits. NERC requests that 

FAC-010-2 be made effective on July 1, 2008, FAC-011-2 on October 1, 2008, and FAC014-2 on January 1, 2009, consistent with the implementation dates of version one of 

these Reliability Standards. 

II. Discussion

5. As discussed below, NERC’s proposed revisions to the FAC Reliability Standards 

preliminarily appear to be just and reasonable and consistent with our direction in Order 

No. 705. The Commission therefore proposes to accept FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2, and 

FAC-014-2 effective the latter of the effective date of the final rule in this docket or 

NERC’s proposed effective dates.7

 

A. Load Greater Than Studied

6. Requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-1 provided that the system’s response to a single 

contingency may include, inter alia, “[i]nterruption of other network customers, only if 

 6

 NERC designates the version number of a Reliability Standard as the last digit of 

the Reliability Standard number. Therefore, version one Reliability Standards end with 

“-1” and version two Reliability Standards end with “-2.” 

7

 Reliability Standards cannot become effective before the effective date of a 

Commission order approving them. See, e.g., Mandatory Reliability Standards for 

Critical Infrastructure Protection, Order No. 706, 73 FR 7368 at n.190 (Feb. 7, 2008), 

122 FERC ¶ 61,010 (2008). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 4 - 

the system has already been adjusted, or is being adjusted, following at least one prior 

outage, or, if the real-time operating conditions are more adverse than anticipated in the 

corresponding studies, e.g., load greater than studied.” NERC asserted that a significant 

gap between actual and studied conditions (such as a large error in load forecast) could be 

treated as though it were a contingency under the version 1 of FAC-011-1 Reliability 

Standard. 

7. In Order No. 705, the Commission disagreed with NERC’s reading of FAC-011-1, 

sub-Requirement R2.3.2 and interpretation of the phrase “load greater than studied.”8

 

However, the Commission found that the meaning of Requirement R2.3 and subRequirement R2.3.2 was not otherwise unclear. The Commission therefore approved 

FAC-011-1, but directed the ERO to revise the Reliability Standard through the 

Reliability Standards development process. The Commission suggested that NERC 

could address the Commission’s concern by deleting the phrase, “e.g., load greater than 

studied.” 

NERC Proposal

8. NERC proposes to address the Commission’s concern with the phrase “load 

greater than studied” by revising FAC-011-1 to remove the phrase from Requirement 

R2.3.2. NERC states that because the phrase served as an example, its removal does not 

materially change the requirement or the Reliability Standard. NERC’s proposed FAC011-2 therefore omits the relevant phrase. 

 8

 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 70. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 5 - 

Commission Proposal

9. The Commission proposes to approve NERC’s proposed removal of the phrase 

“e.g. load greater than studied” from Requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-2. NERC’s 

revision in FAC-011-2 appears reasonable and does not appear to change or conflict with 

the stated requirements set forth in the version one Reliability Standards approved in 

Order No. 705. NERC’s revision therefore appears just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 

10. While NERC describes the phrase “load greater than studied” as an example and 

states that its removal does not materially change the requirement, the Commission notes 

that Order No. 705 found that the operating conditions referred to in sub-Requirement 

R2.3.2 are exacerbating circumstances that are distinct from the actual contingency to be 

addressed that is referred to in Requirement R2.3. We stated that this did not support 

treating “load greater than studied” as a contingency.9

 As we stated in Order No. 705, 

correcting for load forecast error is not accomplished by treating the error as a 

contingency, but is addressed under other Reliability Standards.10 

 9 Id. P 69. 

10 Id. P 68. For instance, we stated that “transmission operators are required to 

modify their plans whenever they receive information or forecasts that are different from 

what they used in their present plans. Furthermore, variations in weather forecasts that 

result in load forecast errors are more properly addressed through operating reserve 

requirements.” Id.
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 6 - 

B. Cascading Outages

11. With the version one FAC Reliability Standards, NERC proposed to add the term 

“Cascading Outages” to its glossary. In Order No. 705, the Commission noted that, 

although the glossary did not include a definition of Cascading Outages, it included an 

approved definition of Cascading, which seemed to describe the same concept. The 

Commission remanded NERC’s proposed definition of Cascading Outages because 

NERC did not describe either the need for two definitions that seem to address the same 

matter or the variations between the two. The Commission also raised specific concerns 

with NERC’s proposed definition of Cascading Outages. However, the Commission 

allowed NERC to file a revised definition that addresses the Commission’s concerns. 

NERC Proposal

12. NERC states that it is not proposing a revised definition of Cascading Outage. 

Instead, NERC proposes to address the Commission’s concern by removing the term 

from the proposed FAC Reliability Standards. NERC states that its Board of Trustees 

withdrew its approval of the term at its February 12, 2008 meeting. NERC further states 

that the drafting team reviewed the term Cascading Outage relative to the term 

Cascading, a term in the approved NERC Glossary of Terms and indicated there were no 

intended material differences in the terms. NERC therefore removed the term Cascading 

Outage from the proposed FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 Reliability Standards and replaced 

with it with the term Cascading. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 7 - 

Commission Proposal

13. The Commission proposes to approve NERC’s proposed removal of the term 

Cascading Outage from its FAC Reliability Standards. NERC’s proposed revisions to 

FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 appear reasonable and do not appear to change or conflict 

with the stated requirements set forth in the version one Reliability Standards approved in 

Order No. 705. NERC’s revisions therefore appear just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 

C. Loss of Consequential Load

14. Requirement R2.3 of FAC-010-1 provided that the system’s response to a single 

contingency may include, inter alia, “planned or controlled interruption of electric supply 

to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the 

Faulted Facility or by the affected area.”11 In response to a question raised by the 

Commission, NERC clarified that the provision in FAC-010-1, Requirement R2.3 is 

limited to loss of load that is directly connected to the facilities removed from service as a 

direct result of the contingency, i.e., consequential load loss. 

15. In Order No. 705, the Commission reiterated its holding that addressed similar 

language on loss of load in Order No. 693, regarding Reliability Standard TPL-002-0. In 

Order No. 693, the Commission noted that “allowing for the 30 minute system 

adjustment period, the system must be capable of withstanding an N-1 contingency, with 

load shedding available to system operators as a measure of last resort to prevent 

 11 Identical language appears in FAC-011-1, Requirement R2.3 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 8 - 

cascading failures.”12 Order No. 693 directed the ERO to clarify the planning Reliability 

Standard TPL-002-0 accordingly. The Commission reached the same conclusion in 

Order No. 705. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved Reliability Standard FAC010-1, Requirement R2.3 and directed the ERO to ensure that the clarification developed 

in response to Order No. 693 is made to the FAC Reliability Standards as well.13

NERC’s Proposal

16. NERC suggests that the revisions to the term “loss of consequential load” are best 

addressed in the modifications being made to the transmission planning (TPL) family of 

Reliability Standards in its Project 2006-02 Assess Transmission Future Needs and 

Develop Transmission Plans. NERC reiterates its position that the TPL Reliability 

Standards define acceptable system performance response and serve as the foundation for 

the FAC family of Reliability Standards. NERC states that the term “loss of 

consequential load” is intrinsic to the scope of Project 2006-02. According to NERC, the 

drafting team has already proposed a definition for the term to be presented for approval 

for inclusion in NERC’s Glossary of Terms.14 NERC states that this approach will 

provide the clarity needed. 

 12 Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1788. 

13 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 53. 

14 On August 14, 2007, the Reliability Standards drafting team posted for 

comment a draft of Reliability Standard TPL-001-1. NERC, Draft 2 TPL-001-1, 

Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements Posted for 45-day Comment 

Period, Project 2006-02, at 2 (2008), available at: 

http://www.nerc.com/filez/standards/Assess-Transmission-Future-Needs.html. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 9 - 

Commission Proposal

17. The Commission proposes to allow the ERO to address revisions to the term “loss 

of consequential load” in the modification being made to the TPL Reliability Standards. 

Such revisions should be consistent with the Commission’s prior determinations in Order 

Nos. 693 and 705.15 The Commission finds that FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 are clearly 

understood as written and clarified in Order No. 705, including its holding with respect to 

“loss of consequential load,”16 and that NERC’s proposal to deal with “loss of 

consequential load” in a more-related project is appropriate. 

D. Violation Severity Levels

18. In the event of a violation of a Reliability Standard, NERC will establish the initial 

value range for the corresponding base penalty amount. To do so, NERC will assign a 

violation risk factor for each requirement of a Reliability Standard that relates to the 

expected or potential impact of a violation of the requirement on the reliability of the 

Bulk-Power System. In addition, NERC will define up to four violation severity levels - 

Lower, Moderate, High and Severe - as measurements for the degree to which the 

requirement was violated in a specific circumstance. 

19. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved 63 of NERC’s 72 proposed violation 

risk factors and directed NERC to file violation severity level assignments before the 

 15 See Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 53; Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1788 & n.461. 

16 See id. P 53. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 10 - 

 

version one FAC Reliability Standards become effective.17 Subsequently, NERC 

developed violation severity levels for each requirement of Reliability Standard, as 

measurements for the degree to which the requirement was violated in a specific 

circumstance. 

20. On June 19, 2008, the Commission issued an order approving the violation 

severity level assignments filed by NERC for the 83 Reliability Standards approved in 

Order No. 693.18 In that order, the Commission offered four guidelines for evaluating the 

validity of the violation severity levels, and ordered a number of reports and further 

compliance filing to bring the remainder of NERC’s violation severity levels into 

compliance with the Commission’s guidelines. The four guidelines are: (1) violation 

severity level assignments should not have the unintended consequence of lowering the 

current level of compliance; (2) violation severity level assignments should ensure 

uniformity and consistency among all approved Reliability Standards in the 

determination of penalties; (3) violation severity level assignments should be consistent 

with the corresponding requirement; and (4) violation severity level assignments should 

be based on a single violation, not a cumulative number of violations.19 The Commission 

found that these guidelines will provide a consistent and objective means for assessing, 

17 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 137. 

18 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ¶ 61,284 (2008) 

(Violation Severity Level Order). NERC had not, at that time, submitted violation 

severity levels for the FAC Reliability Standards at issue in this proceeding. 

19 Id. P 17. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 11 - 

inter alia, the consistency, fairness and potential consequences of violation severity level 

assignments. The Commission noted that these guidelines were not intended to replace 

NERC’s own guidance classifications, but rather, provide an additional level of analysis 

to determine the validity of violation severity level assignments. 

NERC Proposal

21. NERC states that it developed a full suite of violation severity levels for FAC-010-

2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2. NERC notes that it developed these violation severity 

levels prior to the issuance of the Violation Severity Level Order.20 NERC requests that 

the Commission accept its violation severity levels for the version two FAC Reliability 

Standards even though it has not yet assessed their validity using the four new guidelines 

established in the Violation Severity Level Order. NERC states that it is committed to 

assessing the violation severity levels for the revised FAC Reliability Standards in the 

six-month compliance filing required by the Violation Severity Level Order.21 NERC 

did not submit violation risk factors for these version two FAC Reliability Standards. 

Commission Proposal

22. The Commission proposes to approve, with modification, NERC’s proposed 

violation severity levels for FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2 and FAC-014-2. While we 

appreciate that NERC assigned its proposed violation severity levels before the 

 20 NERC June 30, 2008 Filing, Docket No. RM07-3-000 at 5. 

21 Id. (citing Violation Severity Level Order, 123 FERC ¶ 61,284 at P 42 

(requiring NERC, within six months from the issuance of the Violation Severity Level 

Order, to conduct a review of the approved violation severity levels pursuant to the 

Commission guidelines, and submit a compliance filing)). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 12 - 

Commission established the four guidelines for evaluating the validity of the violation 

severity levels, we find that NERC’s proposed violation severity levels would not meet 

our guidelines. We therefore propose the following modifications to the violation 

severity levels to form a complete set of violation severity levels in this NOPR. We note 

that NERC has committed to assessing the violation severity levels in the compliance 

filing required by the Violation Severity Level Order. Our proposals here do not 

preclude NERC from including an assessment of its FAC violation severity levels in its 

six-month evaluation, and we encourage NERC to do so. If, however, NERC does not 

include an assessment of its FAC violation severity levels in its six-month evaluation, the 

Commission proposes to direct the ERO to submit an assessment of the FAC violation 

severity levels within six months of the effective date of the Final Rule in this docket. 

23. As drafted, some of NERC’s proposed violation severity levels do not meet the 

Commission’s guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order. Of the 

violation severity levels submitted by NERC, FAC-010-2 Requirements R1, R3, R4 and 

R5; FAC-011-2 Requirement R4; and FAC-014-2 Requirement R5 are consistent with 

the Commission violation severity level guidelines and only minor edits are proposed for 

clarity. The Commission therefore proposes to approve modified violation severity levels 

that are consistent with our guidelines. 

24. The Commission is concerned with several of the proposed violation severity 

levels and proposes modifications. For example, as proposed by NERC, it is difficult to 

discern which conditions trigger which violation severity level assigned to FAC-010-2 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 13 - 

Requirement R4. The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO to make 

modifications to clarify those conditions without changing the substance of the violation 

severity levels. The Commission also proposes to direct the ERO to modify the violation 

severity levels assigned to FAC-011-2 Requirement R1 to make them consistent with the 

violation severity levels proposed for FAC-010-2 Requirement R1. This uniformity will 

assist in the compliance and enforcement of these standards because it is logical that 

nearly identical requirements have nearly identical violation severity level structures. 

25. NERC submitted violation severity levels for Requirement R2 of FAC-010-2 and 

Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2. In Order No. 705, the Commission found that 

Requirement R2 of FAC-010-1 and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-1, without their subrequirements, include no required performance or outcome.22 As such, no violation 

severity levels need to be assigned to these requirements. The Commission therefore 

proposes to delete the proposed violation severity levels for Requirement R2. 

26. As proposed by NERC, Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 is assigned a “Severe” 

violation severity level if the reliability coordinator’s methodology for determining SOLs 

is missing a description of three or more of the sub-requirements ranging from R3.1 to 

R3.7. At the same time, NERC assigns a “High” violation severity level if the reliability 

coordinator’s methodology for determining SOLs includes a description for all but three

sub-requirements within the same range. Therefore, if a reliability coordinator’s 

methodology for determining SOLs is missing a description of three sub-requirements, it 

 22 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 159. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 14 - 

could be assigned both a “High” and a “Severe” violation severity level. To eliminate 

this overlap, the Commission proposes to direct the ERO to assign a “Severe” violation 

severity level to Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 where the reliability coordinator is 

missing a description of four or more sub-requirements R3.1 to R3.7 from its 

methodology for determining SOLs. 

27. Requirements R1 through R4 of FAC-014-2 address the development of SOLs and 

IROLs consistent with the methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2. NERC 

proposes to assign violation severity levels to these requirements based on a quartile 

division of the total number of inconsistencies between the assigned SOLs and the SOLs 

that would be produced using the methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2. 

For example, NERC proposes to assign a “Lower” violation severity level where 1 to 25 

percent of SOLs are inconsistent with the applicable entity’s SOL methodology. The 

Commission believes that each time a SOL is inconsistent with the applicable entity’s 

SOL methodology, it is a violation of the Reliability Standards. By contrast, NERC’s 

proposed violation severity levels are based on multiple inconsistent SOLs. The 

Commission’s fourth guideline for evaluating violation severity levels makes clear that 

violation severity level assignments should be based on a single violation, not on a 

cumulative number of violations. To remedy this deficiency, the Commission proposes 

to direct the ERO to modify its violation severity levels for FAC-014-02 Requirements 

R1 through R4 based on the percentage of deviation from the SOL methodology for each 

violation. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 15 - 

 

28. Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 requires the planning authority to identify the 

subset of multiple contingencies (if any), from Reliability Standard TPL-003 that result in 

stability limits. However, the proposed violation severity levels for Requirement R6 of 

FAC-014-2 do not identify a situation where the planning authority fails to provide a 

complete subset of contingencies to the reliability coordinator. This omission could 

result in the reliability coordinator not having the information it needs for its situational 

awareness of exceeding SOLs and IROLs that impact the reliable operation of the BulkPower System. The Commission therefore proposes to direct the ERO to add the 

following “Lower” violation severity level: “The Planning Authority failed to provide a 

complete subset of contingencies to the reliability coordinator in accordance with R6.” 

The Commission also proposes to direct the ERO to reassign NERC’s current “Lower” 

violation severity level as the new “Moderate” violation severity level to emphasize the 

need to notify the reliability coordinator.23 The revisions proposed here would make the 

violation severity level assignments for Requirement R6 consistent with NERC’s own 

guidelines for the development of violation severity levels related to communication or 

coordination requirements.24 

23 NERC did not propose a “Moderate” violation severity level for requirement 

R6. 

24 NERC, Violation Severity Level Guidelines Criteria, Project 2007-23 at 19 

(2008), available at: 

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/VSLDT_Guidelines_Final_Draft_08Jan08.pdf. 

The NERC Guidelines indicate that a Moderate violation severity level should be selected 

when the responsible entity’s coordination/communication is non-compliant with respect 

to at least one significant element within the requirement. In this case, the significant 

element is the failure to notify the Reliability Coordinator. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 16 - 

29. The Commission has directed NERC to develop violation severity levels for each 

requirement and sub-requirement of each Reliability Standard.25 NERC did not propose 

any violation severity level assignments for sub-requirements. The Commission 

therefore proposes to direct the ERO to assign binary violation severity levels for all of 

the proposed sub-requirements.26 In Order No. 705, the Commission found that the 

binary approach is appropriate for certain violation severity level assignments.27 In this 

instance, the binary approach is appropriate because the violation severity level of the 

base requirement is established by whether a sub-requirement is violated or not, not to 

what extent a sub-requirement is violated. Thus, the proposed binary requirements 

satisfy guideline three, which calls for consistency between the violation severity level 

assignments and their corresponding requirements. For example, FAC-010-2 

Requirement R1.1 states that the planning authority’s SOL methodology shall “[b]e 

applicable for developing SOLs used in the planning horizon.”28 NERC did not propose 

any violation severity levels for this sub-requirement, therefore the Commission proposes 

a binary severe violation severity level that would be triggered when the planning 

authority SOL methodology is not applicable for developing SOLs in the planning 

 25 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,248, order on 

clarification, 120 FERC ¶ 61,239 (2007). 

26 Binary requirements of Reliability Standards define compliance in terms of 

“pass” or “fail.” 

27 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 24. 

28 NERC June 30, 2008 Filing, Docket No. RM07-3-000 ex. A. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 17 - 

horizon. This binary approach for sub-requirements provides clear criteria to determine a 

violation of the sub-requirement. The Commission took a similar approach to the subrequirements applicable to the WECC regional differences. 

30. The complete set of the Commission’s proposals are included in Attachment A to 

this order. The Commission proposes to direct the ERO to file the revised violation 

severity levels within 30 days of the Final Rule in this proceeding. 

31. Finally, the Commission notes that NERC did not submit violation risk factors for 

the version two FAC Reliability Standards. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved 

the majority of NERC’s proposed violation risk factors for the version one FAC 

Reliability Standards.29 On April 1, 2008, NERC filed revised violation risk factors for 

the version one FAC Reliability Standards. These were accepted by delegated authority 

on May 29, 2008. The Commission proposes to direct the ERO to apply those same 

violation risk factors to the version two FAC Reliability Standards approved in the Final 

Rule in this proceeding. 

E. Western Interconnection Regional Differences

32. Although NERC submitted requirements for FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 that 

address the Western Interconnection regional difference, NERC did not submit violation 

severity levels or violation risk factors for these requirements. In Order No. 705, the 

Commission approved version one of the FAC Reliability Standards and directed WECC 

to develop and submit violation risk factors and violation severity levels that are 

 29 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 137. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 18 - 

s 

applicable to the Western Interconnection regional difference.30 The Commission 

directed WECC to file its violation risk factors and violation severity levels no later than 

the effective date of the applicable Reliability Standard. FAC-010-1 became effective on 

July 1, 2008 and FAC-011-1 will become effective on October 1, 2008. To remedy this 

deficiency, the Commission offers proposed modifications to the violation severity level 

assignments assigned to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 that address the Western 

Interconnection regional differences. The Commission’s proposed modifications are 

included in Attachment A to this order. Consistent with our decision in Order No. 705, 

the Commission proposes to direct WECC to apply the NERC violation risk factors to the 

Western Interconnection regional difference until after WECC develops its own and they 

are approved by the ERO and the Commission.31 We note that WECC is still obligated 

to comply with the Commission’s directives in Order No. 705 to file violation risk factor

and violation severity levels addressing the Western Interconnection regional difference. 

III. Information Collection Statement

33. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB 

approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an 

agency.32 The information contained here is also subject to review under section 3507(d) 

 30 Id. P 146. 

31 Id.

32 5 CFR 1320.11. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 19 - 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.33 As stated above, the Commission previously 

approved, in Order No. 705, each of the Reliability Standards that are the subject of the 

current rulemaking. The modifications to the Reliability Standards are minor; therefore, 

they do not add to or increase entities’ reporting burden. Thus, the modified Reliability 

Standards do not materially affect the burden estimates relating to the earlier version of 

the Reliability Standards presented in Order No. 705. 

Title: Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability 

Standards. 

Action: Proposed Collection. 

OMB Control No. : 

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency of Responses: On Occasion. 

Necessity of the Information: This NOPR proposes to approve three modified Reliability 

Standards that pertain to facilities design, connections and maintenance. The Reliability 

Standards will require planning authorities and reliability coordinators to establish 

methodologies to determine system operating limits (SOLs) for the Bulk-Power System 

in the planning and operation horizons. This NOPR proposes to find the Reliability 

Standards and interpretations just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, 

and in the public interest. 

 33 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 20 - 

34. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the 

Executive Director, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426, Tel: (202) 502-

8415, Fax: (202) 273-0873, Email: michael.miller@ferc.gov, or by contacting: Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Re: OMB Control No. 1902-0244), Washington, D.C. 20503, 

Tel: (202) 395-4650, Fax: (202) 395-7285, Email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

IV. Environmental Analysis

35. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment.34 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human 

environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or 

procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being 

amended.35 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

36. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)36 generally requires a description 

 34 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

35 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

36 5 U.S.C. 601-12. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 21 - 

that 

ant 

all 

and analysis of final rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives 

accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any signific

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business 

Administration’s Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a sm

business. (See 13 CFR 121.201). For electric utilities, a firm is small if, including 

affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of 

electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did 

not exceed four million megawatt hours. The RFA is not implicated by this Final Rul

because the minor modifications and interpretations discussed herein wi

e 

ll not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

VI. Comment Processing

37. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters an

issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative 

proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due [insert date 30 days 

from publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments must refer to Docket No. 

RM08-11-000, and must include the commenters’ n

d 

ame, the organization they represent, 

ts most 

rocessing software should be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and 

if applicable, and their address in their comments. 

38. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling 

link on the Commission’s web site at http:/www.ferc.gov. The Commission accep

standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word 

p
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 22 - 

 should not make a paper 

ission, 

wed, 

 this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments 

not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically

filing. Service of rulemaking comments is not required. 

39. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an 

original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Comm

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC, 20426. 

40. All Comments will be placed in the Commission’s public files and may be vie

printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section 

below. Commenters on

on other commenters. 

VII. Document Availability

41. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the Internet through FERC’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s Public Reference Room during normal bus

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m

iness 

. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, 

ft 

ket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the 

ocket number field. 

Washington, D.C. 20426. 

42. From FERC’s Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The Full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microso

Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in 

eLibrary, type the doc

d
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 23 - 

.gov

43. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission’s website during 

normal business hours. For assistance, please contact the Commission’s Online Support 

at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or (202) 502-6652 (e-mail at ferconlinesupport@ferc ), 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659 (e-mail at 

public.reference@ferc.gov). 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 1 of 37

FAC-010-2 R1. The Planning Authority shall have a documented SOL Methodology for use in developing SOLs within its Planning Authority Area. This SOL Methodology shall: 

Not applicable. The Planning 

Authority has a documented SOL Methodology for use in developing SOLs within its Planning Authority Area, but it does not address R1.2 or R1.3 

The Planning Authority has a documented SOL Methodology for use in developing SOLs within its Planning Authority Area, but it does not address R1.2 and R1.3. 

One of the two following situation1) The Planning Authority has a 

documented SOL Methodology fodeveloping SOLs within its PlannAuthority Area, but it does not addR1.1. OR

2) The Planning Authority has no 

documented SOL Methodology fodeveloping SOLs within its PlannAuthority Area. 

FAC-010-2 R1.1. Be applicable for developing SOLs used in the planning horizon. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Planning Authority SOL methodo

applicable for developing SOL in planning horizon.

FAC-010-2 R1.2. State that SOLs shall not exceed associated Facility Ratings. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Planning Authority SOL Methodo

not state that SOLs shall not exceassociated Facility Ratings

FAC-010-2 R1.3. Include a description of how to identify the subset of SOLs that qualify as IROLs. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Planning Authority SOL Methodo

not include a description of how to the subset of SOLs that qualify as 
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 2 of 37

FAC-010-2 R2. The Planning Authority’s SOL Methodology shall include a requirement that SOLs provide BES performance consistent with the following:

The Planning 

Authority’s SOL Methodology requires that SOLs are set to meet BES performance following single and multiple contingencies, but does not address the precontingency state (R2.1)

The Planning 

Authority’s SOL Methodology requires that SOLs are set to meet BES performance in the precontingency state and following single contingencies, but does not address multiple contingencies. (R2.5-R2.6)

The Planning 

Authority’s SOL Methodology requires that SOLs are set to meet BES performance in the precontingency state and following multiple contingencies, but does not meet the performance for response to single contingencies. (R2.2 –R2.4)

The Planning Authority’s SOL Me

requires that SOLs are set to meeperformance in the precontingencbut does not require that SOLs be meet the BES performance speciresponse to single contingencies R2.4) and does not require that Sset to meet the BES performance for response to multiple contingen(R2.5-R2.6)

FAC-010-2 R2.2. Following the single Contingencies1

identified in Requirement 2.2.1 through Requirement 2.2.3, the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be operating within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits; and Cascading or uncontrolled separation shall not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not state t

following the single Contingencies in Requirement 2.2.1 through Req2.2.3, the system shall demonstratransient, dynamic and voltage stFacilities shall be operating within Facility Ratings and within their thvoltage and stability limits; and Caor uncontrolled separation shall n
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 3 of 37

FAC-010-2 R2.2.1. Single line to ground or threephase Fault (whichever is more severe), with Normal Clearing, on any Faulted generator, line, transformer, or shunt device. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not addre

single line to ground or 3-phase F(whichever is more severe), with Clearing, on any Faulted generatotransformer, or shunt device.

FAC-010-2 R2.2.2. Loss of any generator, line, transformer, or shunt device without a Fault. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not addre

of any generator, line, transformedevice without a Fault.

FAC-010-2 R2.2.3. Single pole block, with Normal Clearing, in a monopolar or bipolar high voltage direct current system. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not addre

pole block, with Normal Clearing, monopolar or bipolar high voltage current system.

FAC-010-2 R2.3. Starting with all Facilities in service, the system’s response to a single Contingency, may include any of the following: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

more of the following: 2.3.1. throu

FAC-010-2 R2.3.1. Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted Facility or by the affected area. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL Methodology does not p

that starting with all Facilities in sesystem’s response to a single Comay include planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to racustomers or some local network customers connected to or suppliFaulted Facility or by the affected 
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 4 of 37

FAC-010-2 R2.3.2. System reconfiguration through manual or automatic control or protection actions. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL Methodology does not p

that starting with all Facilities in sesystem’s response to a single Comay include System reconfiguratithrough manual or automatic conprotection actions.

FAC-010-2 R2.4. To prepare for the next Contingency, system adjustments may be made, including changes to generation, uses of the transmission system, and the transmission system topology. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL Methodology does not p

that in order to prepare for the neContingency, system adjustments made, including changes to geneuses of the transmission system, transmission system topology.

FAC-010-2 R2.5. Starting with all Facilities in service and following any of the multiple Contingencies identified in Reliability Standard TPL-003 the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be operating within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits; and Cascading or uncontrolled separation shall not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL Methodology does not p

that when starting with all Facilitieservice and following any of the mContingencies identified in ReliabStandard TPL-003 the system shdemonstrate transient, dynamic astability; all Facilities shall be opewithin their Facility Ratings and wthermal, voltage and stability limitCascading or uncontrolled separanot occur
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 5 of 37

FAC-010-2 R2.6. In determining the system’s response to any of the multiple Contingencies, identified in Reliability Standard TPL-003, in addition to the actions identified in R2.3.1 and R2.3.2, the following shall be acceptable: FAC-010-2 R2.6.1. Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted Firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power Transfers. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL Methodology does not p

that in determining the system’s rto any of the multiple Contingencidentified in Reliability Standard Taddition to the actions identified in and R2.3.2, Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to c(load shedding), the planned remservice of certain generators, and

curtailment of contracted Firm (no

recallable reserved) electric poweTransfers shall be acceptable.

FAC-010-2 R3. The Planning Authority’s methodology for determining SOLs, shall include, as a minimum, a description of the following, along with any reliability margins applied for each: 

The Planning Authority has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but one of the following: R3.1 

The Planning Authority has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but two of the following: R3.1 through R3.6. 

The Planning Authority has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but three of the following: R3.1 through R3.6. 

The Planning Authority has a metfor determining SOLs that is missdescription of four or more of the R3.1 through R3.6. 
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 6 of 37

through R3.6. 

FAC-010-2 R3.1. Study model (must include at least the entire Planning Authority Area as well as the critical modeling details from other Planning Authority Areas that would impact the Facility or Facilities under study). 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not include a s

model that includes the entire PlaAuthority area, and the critical deother Planning Authority area thaimpact the facility or facilities und

FAC-010-2 R3.2. Selection of applicable Contingencies. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not include the 

of applicable Contingencies.

FAC-010-2 R3.3. Level of detail of system models used to determine SOLs. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not describe th

detail of system models used to dSOLs.

FAC-010-2 R3.4. Allowed uses of Special Protection Systems or Remedial Action Plans.

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not descr

allowed uses of Special Protectioor Remedial Action Plans. 

FAC-010-2 R3.5. Anticipated transmission system configuration, generation dispatch and Load level. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

description of anticipated transmisystem configuration, generation and Load level.
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 7 of 37

FAC-010-2 R3.6. Criteria for determining when violating a SOL qualifies as an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) and criteria for developing any associated IROL Tv. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

description of the criteria for detewhen violating a SOL qualifies as Interconnection Reliability Operat(IROL) and criteria for developing associated IROL.

FAC-010-2 R4. The Planning Authority shall issue its SOL Methodology, and any change to that methodology, to all of the following prior to the effectiveness of the change: 

One or both of the following situation applies: 

1) The Planning 

Authority issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities. 2) For a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided up to 30 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. 

One of the two

following situations 

applies: 

1) The Planning 

Authority issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided 30 calendar days or more, but less than 60 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR

2) The Planning 

One of the three

following situations 

applies: 

1) The Planning 

Authority issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided 60 calendar days or more, but less than 90 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR 

2) The Planning 

Authority issued its SOL Methodology 

One of the four following situation

1) The Planning Authority failed to 

SOL Methodology and changes to methodology to more than three orequired entities. 2) The Planning Authority issued 

Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prcalendar days or more after the effectiveness of the change. OR

3) The Planning Authority issued 

Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but two of the entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prcalendar days or more, but less thcalendar days after the effectivenchange. OR

4) The Planning Authority issued 

Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but three of the 
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 8 of 37

Authority issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but two of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided up to 30 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. 

and changes to that methodology to all but two of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided 30 calendar days or more, but less than 60 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR

3) The Planning 

Authority issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but three of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided up to 30 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. 

entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prcalendar days or more, but less thcalendar days after the effectivenchange. The Planning Authority isSOL Methodology and changes to methodology to all but four of the entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prto 30 calendar days after the effeof the change. 
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 9 of 37

FAC-010-2 R4.1. Each adjacent Planning Authority and each Planning Authority that indicated it has a reliability-related need for the methodology. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority did not iss

SOL Methodology and any changmethodology, prior to the effectivethe change, to each adjacent PlaAuthority and each Planning Authindicated it has a reliability-related the methodology.

FAC-010-2 R4.2. Each Reliability Coordinator and Transmission Operator that operates any portion of the Planning Authority’s Planning Authority Area. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority did not iss

SOL Methodology and any changmethodology, prior to the effectivethe change, to each Reliability Coand Transmission Operator that oany portion of the Planning AuthoPlanning Authority Area.

FAC-010-2 R4.3. Each Transmission Planner that works in the Planning Authority’s Planning Authority Area. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority did not iss

SOL Methodology and any changmethodology, prior to the effectivethe change, to each Transmission that works in the Planning AuthorPlanning Authority Area prior to theffectiveness of the change.
VSL Matrix for FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 10 of 37

FAC-010-2 R5. If a recipient of the SOL Methodology provides documented technical comments on the methodology, the Planning Authority shall provide a documented response to that recipient within 45 calendar days of receipt of those comments. The response shall indicate whether a change will be made to the SOL Methodology and, if no change will be made to that SOL Methodology, the reason why. 

The Planning Authority received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period that was longer than 45 calendar days but less than 60 calendar days. 

The Planning Authority received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period that was 60 calendar days or longer but less than 75 calendar days. 

One of the following situation applies: 1) The Planning 

Authority received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period that was 75 calendar days or longer but less than 90 calendar days. OR

2) The Planning 

Authority’s response to documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology indicated that a change will not be made, but did not include an explanation of why the change will not be made. 

One of the following situation app1) The Planning Authority receive

documented technical comments SOL Methodology and provided a response in a time period that wacalendar days or longer. OR

2) The Planning Authority’s respo

documented technical comments SOL Methodology did not indicate a change will be made to the SOL Methodology. 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 11 of 37

WECC FAC-010-2 R1. The following Interconnectionwide Regional Difference shall be applicable in the Western Interconnection: WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1. As governed by the requirements of R2.4 and R2.5, starting with all Facilities in-service, shall require the evaluation of the following multiple Facility Contingencies when establishing SOLs: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology fails to address any 

evaluations listed in 1.1.1 through 

WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.1 Simultaneous permanent phase to ground Faults on different phases of each of two adjacent transmission circuits on a multiple circuit tower, with Normal Clearing. If multiple circuit towers are used only for station entrance and exit purposes, and if they do not exceed five towers at each station, then this condition is an acceptable risk and therefore can be excluded. 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 12 of 37

WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.2 A permanent phase to ground Fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer, or bus section with Delayed Fault Clearing except for bus sectionalizing breakers or bus-tie breakers addressed in E1.1.7 WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.3 Simultaneous permanent loss of both poles of a direct current bipolar Facility without an alternating current Fault. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.4 The failure of a circuit breaker associated with a Special Protection System to operate when required following: the loss of any element without a Fault; or a permanent phase to ground Fault, with Normal Clearing, on any transmission circuit, transformer or bus section. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.5 A non-three phase Fault with Normal Clearing on common mode Contingency of two 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 13 of 37

adjacent circuits on separate towers unless the event frequency is determined to be less than one in thirty years. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.6 A common mode outage of two generating units connected to the same switchyard, not otherwise addressed by FAC-010. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.1.7 The loss of multiple bus sections as a result of failure or delayed clearing of a bus tie or bus sectionalizing breaker to clear a permanent Phase to Ground Fault. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2. SOLs shall be established such that for multiple Facility Contingencies in E1.1.1 through E1.1.5 operation within the SOL shall provide system performance consistent with the following: WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.1 All Facilities are operating within their applicable PostContingency thermal, 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 14 of 37

frequency and voltage limits. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.2 Cascading does not occur. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.3 Uncontrolled separation of the system does not occur. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.4 The system demonstrates transient, dynamic and voltage stability. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.5 Depending on system design and expected system impacts, the controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power transfers may be necessary to maintain the overall security of the interconnected transmission systems. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.6 Interruption of firm transfer, Load or system reconfiguration is permitted 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 15 of 37

through manual or automatic control or protection actions. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.2.7 To prepare for the next Contingency, system adjustments are permitted, including changes to generation, Load and the transmission system topology when determining limits. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.3. SOLs shall be established such that for multiple Facility Contingencies in E1.1.6 through E1.1.7 operation within the SOL shall provide system performance consistent with the following with respect to impacts on other systems: WECC FAC-010-2 R1.3.1 Cascading does not occur. WECC FAC-010-2 R1.4. The Western Interconnection may make changes (performance category adjustments) to the Contingencies required to be studied and/or the required responses to 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-010-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 16 of 37

Contingencies for specific facilities based on actual system performance and robust design. Such changes will apply in determining SOLs. 
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 17 of 37

FAC-011-2 R1. The Reliability Coordinator shall have a documented methodology for use in developing SOLs (SOL Methodology) within its Reliability Coordinator Area. This SOL Methodology shall: 

Not applicable. The Reliability 

Coordinator has a documented SOL Methodology for use in developing SOLs within its Reliability Coordinator Area, but it does not address R1.2 or 

R1.3

The Reliability Coordinator has a documented SOL Methodology for use in developing SOLs within its Reliability Coordinator Area, but it does not address R1.2 and R1.3. 

One of the two following situation1) The Reliability Coordinator has documented SOL Methodology fodeveloping SOLs within its ReliabCoordinator Area, but it does not R1.1. OR 2) The Reliability Coordinator has documented SOL Methodology fodeveloping SOLs within its ReliabCoordinator Area. 

FAC-011-2 R1.1. Be applicable for developing SOLs used in the operations horizon. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Reliability Coordinator SOL metho

not applicable for developing SOL operations horizon.

FAC-011-2 R1.2. State that SOLs shall not exceed associated Facility Ratings. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Reliability Coordinator SOL Metho

did not state that SOLs shall not eassociated Facility Ratings
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 18 of 37

FAC-011-2 R1.3. Include a description of how to identify the subset of SOLs that qualify as IROLs 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Reliability Coordinator SOL Metho

did not include a description of hoidentify the subset of SOLs that qIROLs.
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 19 of 37

FAC-011-2 R2. The Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology shall include a requirement that SOLs provide BES performance consistent with the following: 

The Reliability 

Coordinator‘s SOL Methodology requires that SOLs are set to meet BES performance following single contingencies, but does not require that SOLs are set to meet BES performance in the precontingency state. (R2.1) 

Not applicable. The Reliability 

Coordinator's SOL Methodology requires that SOLs are set to meet BES performance in the precontingency state and following multiple contingencies, but does not meet the performance for response to single contingencies. (R2.2 –R2.4)

The Reliability Coordinator’s SOL 

Methodology does not require thaare set to meet BES performance the pre-contingency state and doerequire that SOLs are set to meet performance following single cont(R2.1 through R2.4) 

FAC-011-2 R2.1. In the pre-contingency state, the BES shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits. In the determination of SOLs, the BES condition used shall reflect current or expected system conditions and shall reflect changes to system topology such as Facility outages. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

requirement that states that SOL's pre-contingency state, the BES shdemonstrate transient, dynamic astability; all Facilities shall be withFacility Ratings and within their thvoltage and stability limits; and thdetermination of SOLs, the BES cused shall reflect current or expecsystem conditions and shall reflecto system topology such as Facilitoutages. 
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 20 of 37

FAC-011-2 R2.2. Following the single Contingencies1 identified in Requirement 2.2.1 through Requirement 2.2.3, the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be operating within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits; and Cascading or uncontrolled separation shall not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

requirement that states for SOL's following the single Contingenciesidentified in Requirement 2.2.1 thRequirement 2.2.3, the system shdemonstrate transient, dynamic astability; all Facilities shall be opewithin their Facility Ratings and wthermal, voltage and stability limitCascading or uncontrolled separa

not occur.

FAC-011-2 R2.2.1. Single line to ground or 3-phase Fault (whichever is more severe), with Normal Clearing, on any Faulted generator, line, transformer, or shunt device. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not requir

SOLs provide BES performance cwith: single line to ground or 3-ph(whichever is more severe), with NClearing, on any Faulted generatotransformer, or shunt device.

FAC-011-2 R2.2.2. Loss of any generator, line, transformer, or shunt device without a Fault. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not addre

of any generator, line, transformedevice without a Fault.

FAC-011-2 R2.2.3. Single pole block, with Normal Clearing, in a monopolar or bipolar high voltage direct current system. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not addre

pole block, with Normal Clearing, monopolar or bipolar high voltage current system.
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 21 of 37

FAC-011-2 R2.3. In determining the system’s response to a single Contingency, the following shall be acceptable: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

more of the following 2.3.1. throug

FAC-011-2 R2.3.1. Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted Facility or by the affected area. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Methodology does not addre

determining the systems responssingle contingency, Planned or cointerruption of electric supply to racustomers or some local network customers connected to or suppliFaulted Facility or by the affected acceptable.

FAC-011-2 R2.3.2. Interruption of other network customers, (a) only if the system has already been adjusted, or is being adjusted, following at least one prior outage, or (b) if the real-time operating conditions are more adverse than anticipated in the corresponding studies, e.g., load greater than studied. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Methodology does not addre

determining the systems responssingle contingency, Interruption of network customers is acceptable, the system has already been adjubeing adjusted, following at least outage, or (b) if the real-time operconditions are more adverse than anticipated in the corresponding s

FAC-011-2 R2.3.3. System reconfiguration through manual or automatic control or protection actions. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Methodology does not addre

determining the systems responssingle contingency, system reconthrough manual or automatic contprotection actions is acceptable.
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 22 of 37

FAC-011-2 R2.4. To prepare for the next Contingency, system adjustments may be made, including changes to generation, uses of the transmission system, and the transmission system topology. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not provid

prepare for the next Contingency, adjustments may be made, includchanges to generation, uses of thtransmission system, and the transystem topology.

FAC-011-2 R3. The Reliability Coordinator’s methodology for determining SOLs, shall include, as a minimum, a description of the following, along with any reliability margins applied for each: 

The Reliability Coordinator has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but one of the following: R3.1 through R3.7. 

The Reliability Coordinator has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but two of the following: R3.1 through R3.7. 

The Reliability Coordinator has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but three of the following: R3.1 through R3.7. 

The Reliability Coordinator has a methodology for determining SOLmissing a description of three fou

of the following: R3.1 through R3.

FAC-011-2 R3.1. Study model (must include at least the entire Reliability Coordinator Area as well as the critical modeling details from other Reliability Coordinator Areas that would impact the Facility or Facilities under study.) 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not include a d

of the study model to be used whinclude the entire Reliability Coordarea, and the critical details of othReliability Coordinator areas that impact the facility or facilities unde

FAC-011-2 R3.2. Selection of applicable Contingencies 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not include the 

of applicable Contingencies.
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 23 of 37

FAC-011-2 R3.3. A process 

for determining which of the stability limits associated with the list of multiple contingencies (provided by the Planning Authority in accordance with FAC-014 Requirement 6) are applicable for use in the operating horizon given the actual or expected system conditions. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not includ

description of a process for determwhich of the stability limits associathe list of multiple contingencies (by the Planning Authority in accorwith FAC-014 Requirement 6) are applicable for use in the operating given the actual or expected systeconditions. 

FAC-011-2 R3.3.1. This process shall address the need to modify these limits, to modify the list of limits, and to modify the list of associated multiple contingencies. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology for determining 

does not address the need to modlimits described in R3.3, the list of the list of associated multiple cont

FAC-011-2 R3.4. Level of detail of system models used to determine SOLs. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not describe th

detail of system models used to dSOLs.

FAC-011-2 R3.5. Allowed uses of Special Protection Systems or Remedial Action Plans. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not descri

allowed uses of Special Protectioor Remedial Action Plans.

FAC-011-2 R3.6. Anticipated transmission system configuration, generation dispatch and Load level 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not descri

anticipated transmission system configuration, generation dispatch level
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 24 of 37

FAC-011-2 R3.7. Criteria for determining when violating a SOL qualifies as an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) and criteria for developing any associated IROL Tv.

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does not descri

Criteria for determining when violaSOL qualifies as an InterconnectiReliability Operating Limit (IROL) criteria for developing any associaTv. 

FAC-011-2 R4. The Reliability Coordinator shall issue its SOL Methodology and any changes to that methodology, prior to the effectiveness of the Methodology or of a change to the Methodology, to all of the following: 

One or both of the following situations 

applies:

1)The Reliability 

Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities. 2) For a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided up to 30 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. 

One of the following: One of the two following situations applies: 1) The Reliability Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided 30 calendar days or more, but less than 60 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR 2) The Reliability 

One of the following: One of the three following situations applies: 1) The Reliability Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided 60 calendar days or more, but less than 90 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR 2) The Reliability Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology 

One of the following: One of the fofollowing situations applies: 1) The Reliability Coordinator faileits SOL Methodology and changemethodology to more than three orequired entities. 2) The Planning Authority issued Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prcalendar days or more after the effectiveness of the change. OR 3) The Reliability Coordinator issuSOL Methodology and changes to methodology to all but two of the entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prcalendar days or more, but less thcalendar days after the effectivenchange. OR 4) The Reliability Coordinator issu

SOL Methodology and changes to methodology to all but three of the 
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 25 of 37

Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but two of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided up to 30 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. 

and changes to that methodology to all but two of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided 30 calendar days or more, but less than 60 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR 3) The Reliability 

Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but three of the required entities AND for a change in methodology, the changed methodology was provided up to 30 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. 

entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prcalendar days or more, but less thcalendar days after the effectivenchange. The Reliability Coordinatits SOL Methodology and changemethodology to all but four of the entities AND for a change in meththe changed methodology was prto 30 calendar days after the effecof the change 
VSL Matrix for FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 26 of 37

FAC-011-2 R5. If a recipient of the SOL Methodology provides documented technical comments on the methodology, the Reliability Coordinator shall provide a documented response to that recipient within 45 calendar days of receipt of those comments. The response shall indicate whether a change will be made to the SOL Methodology and, if no change will be made to that SOL Methodology, the reason why. 

The Reliability Coordinator received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period that was longer than 45 calendar days but less than 60 calendar days. 

The Reliability Coordinator received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period that was 60 calendar days or longer but less than 75 calendar days. 

One of the two following situations applies: 1) The Reliability Coordinator received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period that was 75 calendar days or longer but less than 90 calendar days. OR 2) The Reliability Coordinator’s response to documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology indicated that a change will not be made, but did not include an explanation of why the change will not be made. 

One of the two following situation1) The Reliability Coordinator recedocumented technical comments SOL Methodology and provided a response in a time period that wacalendar days or longer. OR 2) The Reliability Coordinator’s redocumented technical comments SOL Methodology did not indicate a change will be made to the SOL Methodology. 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 27 of 37

WECC FAC-011-2 R1. The following Interconnectionwide Regional Difference shall be applicable in the Western Interconnection: WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1. As 

governed by the requirements of R3.3, starting with all Facilities in service, shall require the evaluation of the following multiple Facility Contingencies when establishing SOLs: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology fails to address any 

evaluations listed in 1.1.1 through 

WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.1 Simultaneous permanent phase to ground Faults on different phases of each of two adjacent transmission circuits on a multiple circuit tower, with Normal Clearing. If multiple circuit towers are used only for station entrance and exit purposes, and if they do not exceed five towers at each station, then this condition is an acceptable risk and therefore can be excluded. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.2 A permanent phase to ground Fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer, or bus section with Delayed Fault 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 28 of 37

Clearing except for bus sectionalizing breakers or bus-tie breakers addressed in E1.1.7 WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.3 Simultaneous permanent loss of both poles of a direct current bipolar Facility without an alternating current Fault. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.4 The failure of a circuit breaker associated with a Special Protection System to operate when required following: the loss of any element without a Fault; or a permanent phase to ground Fault, with Normal Clearing, on any transmission circuit, transformer or bus section. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.5 A non-three phase Fault with Normal Clearing on common mode Contingency of two adjacent circuits on separate towers unless the event frequency is determined to be less than one in thirty years. 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 29 of 37

WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.6 A common mode outage of two generating units connected to the same switchyard, not otherwise addressed by FAC-011. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.1.7 The loss of multiple bus sections as a result of failure or delayed clearing of a bus tie or bus sectionalizing breaker to clear a permanent Phase to Ground Fault. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2. SOLs shall be established such that for multiple Facility Contingencies in E1.1.1 through E1.1.5 operation within the SOL shall provide system performance consistent with the following: WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.1 All Facilities are operating within their applicable PostContingency thermal, frequency and voltage limits. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.2 Cascading does not occur. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.3 Uncontrolled separation of the system does not occur. 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 30 of 37

WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.4 The system demonstrates transient, dynamic and voltage stability. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.5 Depending on system design and expected system impacts, the controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power transfers may be necessary to maintain the overall security of the interconnected transmission systems. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.6 Interruption of firm transfer, Load or system reconfiguration is permitted through manual or automatic control or protection actions. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.2.7 To prepare for the next Contingency, system adjustments are permitted, including changes to generation, Load and the 
VSL Matrix for WECC FAC-011-2 

Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Page 31 of 37

transmission system topology when determining limits. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.3. SOLs shall be established such that for multiple Facility Contingencies in E1.1.6 through E1.1.7 operation within the SOL shall provide system performance consistent with the following with respect to impacts on other systems: WECC FAC-011-2 R1.3.1 Cascading does not occur. WECC FAC-011-2 R1.4. The Western Interconnection may make changes (performance category adjustments) to the Contingencies required to be studied and/or the required responses to Contingencies for specific facilities based on actual system performance and robust design. Such changes will apply in determining SOLs. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 

FAC-014-2 R1. The Reliability Coordinator shall ensure that SOLs, including Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROLs), for its Reliability Coordinator Area are established and that the SOLs (including Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits) are consistent with its SOL Methodology. 

There are SOLs, 

for the Reliability Coordinator Area, but from 1% up to but less than 25% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R1) Not applicable.

There are SOLs, 

for the Reliability Coordinator Area, but 25% or more, but less than 50% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R1) Not applicable. 

There are SOLs, for 

the Reliability Coordinator Area, but 50% or more, but less than 75% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R1) Not applicable. 

There are SOLs for the Reliability Coordinator Area, but 75% One othese the SOLs are inconsistent wReliability Coordinator’s SOL Met(R1) 

FAC-014-2 R2. The Transmission Operator shall establish SOLs (as directed by its Reliability Coordinator) for its portion of the Reliability Coordinator Area that are consistent with its Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. 

The 

Transmission Operator has established SOLs for its portion of the Reliability Coordinator Area, but from 1% up to but less than 25% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R2) Not applicable. 

The Transmission 

Operator has established SOLs for its portion of the Reliability Coordinator Area, but 25% or more, but less than 50% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R2) Not applicable. 

The Transmission 

Operator has established SOLs for its portion of the Reliability Coordinator Area, but 50% or more, but less than 75% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Reliability Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R2) Not applicable. 

The Transmission Operator has e

SOLs for its portion of the ReliabiCoordinator Area, but 75% or moSOLs are inconsistent with the ReCoordinator’s SOL Methodology. Transmission Operator has not esone or more SOLs for its portion oReliability Coordinator Area that aconsistent with the Reliability CooSOL Methodology. (R2) 

Page 32 of 37
Docket No. RM08-11-000 

FAC-014-2 R3. The Planning Authority shall establish SOLs, including IROLs, for its Planning Authority Area that are consistent with its SOL Methodology 

There are SOLs, 

for the Planning Coordinator Area, but from 1% up to, but less than, 25% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R3) Not applicable.

There are SOLs, 

for the Planning Coordinator Area, but 25% or more, but less than 50% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R3)

Not applicable.

There are Sols for 

the Planning Coordinator Area, but 10% or more, but less than 75% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R3) Not applicable.

There are SOLs, for the Planning Coordinator Area, but 75% or mothese SOLs are inconsistent with Planning Coordinator’s SOL Meth(R3) In the Planning Coordinators 

or more of the SOL(s) are inconsithe Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R3) 

FAC-014-2 R4. The Transmission Planner shall establish SOLs, including IROLs, for its Transmission Planning Area that are consistent with its Planning Authority’s SOL Methodology. 

The 

Transmission Planner has established SOLs for its portion of the Planning Coordinator Area, but up to 25% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R4) Not applicable.

The Transmission 

Planner has established SOLs for its portion of the Planning Coordinator Area, but 25% or more, but less than 50% of these SOLs are inconsistent with the Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R4) Not applicable.

The Transmission 

Planner has established SOLs for its portion of the Reliability Coordinator Area, but 50% or more, but less than 75% of these SOLs are

inconsistent with the 

Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R4) Not applicable.

The Transmission Planner has esSOLs for its portion of the PlanninCoordinator Area, but 75% or moSOLs are inconsistent with the PlCoordinator’s SOL Methodology. its area, Transmission Planner haestablished SOLs that are consistthe Planning Coordinator’s SOL Methodology. (R4) 

Page 33 of 37
Docket No. RM08-11-000 

FAC-014-2 R5. The Reliability Coordinator, Planning Authority and Transmission Planner shall each provide its SOLs and IROLs to those entities that have a reliability-related need for those limits and provide a written request that includes a schedule for delivery of those limits as follows: 

The responsible entity provided its SOLs to all the requesting entities but missed meeting one or more of the schedules by less than 15 calendar days. (R5) 

One of the following situations 

applies: 

1) The responsible 

entity provided its SOLs to all but one of the requesting entities within the schedules provided. (R5) Or 

2) The responsible 

entity provided its SOLs to all the requesting entities but missed meeting one or more of the schedules for 15 or more but less than 30 calendar days. (R5) OR

3) The supporting 

information provided with the IROLs does not address 5.1.4 

One of the following situations applies: 

1) The responsible 

entity provided its SOLs to all but two of the requesting entities within the schedules provided. (R5) Or 

2) The responsible 

entity provided its SOLs to all the requesting entities but missed meeting one or more of the schedules for 30 or more but less than 45 calendar days. (R5) OR 3) The 

supporting information provided with the IROLs does not address 5.1.3 

One of the following situations ap

1) The responsible entity failed to 

its SOLs to more than two of the rentities within 45 calendar days oassociated schedules. (R5) OR 

2) The supporting information pro

the IROLs does not address 5.1.1 5.1.2. 

Page 34 of 37
Docket No. RM08-11-000 

FAC-014-2 R5.1. The Reliability Coordinator shall provide its SOLs (including the subset of SOLs that are IROLs) to adjacent Reliability Coordinators and Reliability Coordinators who indicate a reliabilityrelated need for those limits, and to the Transmission Operators, Transmission Planners, Transmission Service Providers and Planning Authorities within its Reliability Coordinator Area. For each IROL, the Reliability Coordinator shall provide the following supporting information: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Reliability Coordinator did no

its SOLs (including the subset of Sare IROLs) to adjacent Reliability Coordinators and Reliability Coorwho indicate a reliability-related nthose limits, and to the TransmissOperators, Transmission PlannerTransmission Service Providers aPlanning Authorities within its RelCoordinator Area. 

FAC-014-2 R5.1.1. Identification and status of the associated Facility (or group of Facilities) that is (are) critical to the derivation of the IROL. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. For any IROL, the Reliability Coo

did not provide the Identification aof the associated Facility (or grou

Facilities) that is (are) critical to th

derivation of the IROL.

FAC-014-2 R5.1.2. The value of the IROL and its associated Tv. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. For any IROL, the Reliability Coo

did not provide the value of the IRits associated Tv.

FAC-014-2 R5.1.3. The associated Contingency (ies). 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. For any IROL, the Reliability Coo

did not provide the associated Co(ies).

FAC-014-2 R5.1.4. The type of limitation represented by the IROL (e.g., voltage collapse, angular stability). 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. For any IROL, the Reliability Coo

did not provide the type of limitatiorepresented by the IROL (e.g., vocollapse, angular stability).

Page 35 of 37
Docket No. RM08-11-000 

FAC-014-2 R5.2. The Transmission Operator shall provide any SOLs it developed to its Reliability Coordinator and to the Transmission Service Providers that share its portion of the Reliability Coordinator Area. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Transmission Operator did no

the complete set of SOLs it develReliability Coordinator and to the Transmission Service Providers thits portion of the Reliability CoordArea.

FAC-014-2 R5.3. The Planning Authority shall provide its SOLs (including the subset of SOLs that are IROLs) to adjacent Planning Authorities, and to Transmission Planners, Transmission Service Providers, Transmission Operators and Reliability Coordinators that work within its Planning Authority Area. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority did not pro

complete set of SOLs (including tof SOLs that are IROLs) to adjacePlanning Authorities, and to TransPlanners, Transmission Service PTransmission Operators and ReliaCoordinators that work within its PAuthority Area. 

FAC-014-2 R5.4. The Transmission Planner shall provide its SOLs (including the subset of SOLs that are IROLs) to its Planning Authority, Reliability Coordinators, Transmission Operators, and Transmission Service Providers that work within its Transmission Planning Area and to adjacent Transmission Planners. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Transmission Planner did not 

its complete set of SOLs (includinsubset of SOLs that are IROLs) to Planning Authority, Reliability CooTransmission Operators, and TraService Providers that work within Transmission Planning Area and adjacent Transmission Planners.

Page 36 of 37
Docket No. RM08-11-000 

Page 37 of 37

FAC-014-2 R6. The Planning Authority shall identify the subset of multiple contingencies (if any), from Reliability Standard TPL-003 which result in stability limits. 

The Planning 

Authority failed to 

notify the Reliability Coordinator in accordance with R6.2 The Planning 

Authority failed to 

provide a complete subset of contingencies to the RC in accordance to R6 

Not applicable. The Planning Authority failed to notify the Reliability Coordinator in accordance with R6.2 

The Planning Authority identified the subset of multiple contingencies which result in stability limits but did not provide the list of multiple contingencies and associated limits to one Reliability Coordinator that monitors the Facilities associated with these limits. (R6.1) 

One of the following situations ap1) The Planning Authority did not the subset of multiple contingenciresult in stability limits. (R6) OR 2) The Planning Authority identifiesubset of multiple contingencies wresult in stability limits but did not the list of multiple contingencies aassociated limits to more than one Reliability Coordinator that monitoFacilities associated with these lim(R6.1) 

FAC-014-2 R6.1. The Planning Authority shall provide this list of multiple contingencies and the associated stability limits to the Reliability Coordinators that monitor the facilities associated with these contingencies and limits. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority did not ide

subset of multiple contingencies, 003 that resulted in stability limits provide the complete list of multipcontingencies and the associated limits to the Reliability Coordinatomonitor the facilities associated wcontingencies and limits.

FAC-014-2 R6.2. If the Planning Authority does not identify any stability-related multiple contingencies, the Planning Authority shall so notify the Reliability Coordinator. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority did not no

Reliability Coordinator that it did nany stability-related multiple conti