126 FERC ¶ 61,255 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM08-11-000; Order No. 722] 

Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards 

(Issued March 20, 2009) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final Rule 

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

approves 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. In addition, the Commission approves, with modifications, the violation 

severity levels for the three Reliability Standards. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [insert date that is 30 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER] 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cory Lankford (Legal Information) 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 2 -

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6711 

Cynthia Pointer (Technical Information) 

Office of Electric Reliability 

Division of Reliability Standards 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, D.C. 20426 

(202) 502-6069 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and 

Maintenance Reliability Standards 

Docket No. RM08-11-000 

ORDER NO. 722 

FINAL RULE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background................................................................................................................... 2.

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards.............................................................................. 2.

B. NERC’s Proposed Version Two FAC Reliability Standards................................... 3.

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking............................................................................... 5.

II. Discussion .................................................................................................................... 9.

A. Load Greater Than Studied .................................................................................... 12.

B. Cascading Outages ................................................................................................. 17.

C. Loss of Consequential Load ................................................................................... 21.

D. Violation Severity Levels....................................................................................... 26.

1. General Matters .................................................................................................. 32.

2. Assignment of Violation Severity Levels to Sub-Requirements........................ 37.

3. Removal of Unnecessary Violation Severity Level Assignments...................... 47.

4. Compliance with the Commission’s Violation Severity Level Guidelines........ 51.

a. Requirement R1 of FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2............................................ 54.

b. FAC-010-2 Requirement R4 .......................................................................... 60.

c. FAC-011-2, Requirement R3 ......................................................................... 66.

d. FAC-011-2, Requirement R4 ......................................................................... 72.

e. FAC-014-2, Requirements R1 through R4..................................................... 76.

f. FAC-014-2, Requirement R5.......................................................................... 82.

g. FAC-014-2, Requirement R6 ......................................................................... 85.

E. Violation Risk Factors ............................................................................................ 90.

F. WECC Regional Differences.................................................................................. 94.

G. Effective Date....................................................................................................... 101.

III. Information Collection Statement....................................................................... 102.

IV. Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................... 104.
Docket No. RM08-11-000 ii

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act...................................................................................... 105.

VI. Document Availability .......................................................................................... 108.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification................................................. 111.
126 FERC ¶ 61,255 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; 

 Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, 

 and Philip D. Moeller. 

Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and 

Maintenance Reliability Standards 

Docket No. RM08-11-000 

ORDER NO. 722 

FINAL RULE 

(Issued March 20, 2009) 

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

 the Commission approves three 

revised Reliability Standards concerning Facilities Design, Connections 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. In addition, the Commission approves, with modifications, the violation 

severity levels for the three Reliability Standards. 

 1

 16 U.S.C. 824o. 
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.2

 

B. NERC’s Proposed Version Two FAC Reliability Standards

3. In Order No. 705, the Commission approved three “version one” FAC Reliability 

Standards, FAC-010-1, FAC-011-1, and FAC-014-1,3

 which require planning authorities 

and reliability coordinators to establish methodologies to determine system operating 

limits for the Bulk-Power System in the planning and operation horizons.4

 In addition, 

the Commission directed the ERO to develop modifications to the Reliability Standard; 

and remanded the ERO’s proposed definition of “Cascading Outage.” 

 2

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

3

 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.” 

4 Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability Standards, Order 

No. 705, 73 FR 1770 (Jan. 9, 2008), 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 (2007), order on reh’g and 

clarification, 123 FERC ¶ 61,239 (2008). 
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:5

System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon - FAC-010-2, System 

Operating Limits Methodology for the Operations Horizon - FAC-011-2, and Establish 

and Communicate System Operating Limits - FAC-014-2. NERC requests that 

FAC-010-2 be made effective on July 1, 2008, FAC-011-2 on October 1, 2008, and 

FAC-014-2 on January 1, 2009, consistent with the implementation dates of version one 

of these Reliability Standards. 

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

5. On October 16, 2008, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) proposing to approve the revised FAC Reliability Standards.6

 In addition, the 

Commission expressed concern with several of NERC’s proposed assignments of 

violation severity levels and proposed modifications. Further, the Commission proposed 

to apply the violation risk factors associated with the version one FAC Reliability 

Standards to the version two Reliability Standards approved here. 

 5

 The FAC Reliability Standards are not codified in the CFR and are not attached 

to the Final Rule. They are, however, available on the Commission’s eLibrary document 

retrieval system in Docket No. RM08-11-000 and are available on the ERO’s website, 

http://www.nerc.com. 

6 Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability 

Standards, 73 FR 63105 (Oct. 23, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 (2008) (NOPR). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 4 -

6. In the NOPR, the Commission required that comments be filed within 30 days 

after publication in the Federal Register, or November 24, 2008. Five parties filed 

comments in response to the FAC NOPR: NERC, the Midwest Independent System 

Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO ), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the United 

States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation), and 

the Independent Electric System Operator of Ontario (IESO). The Commission addresses 

these comments below. 

7. On October 15, 2008, NERC filed violation risk factors for the version two FAC 

Reliability Standards and a regional difference for the Western Interconnection. The 

violation risk factors filed by NERC are identical to the violation risk factors assigned to 

the version one FAC Reliability Standards. 

8. Notice of NERC’s October 15, 2008 filing was published in the Federal Register, 

74 FR 8082 (2009), with comments due on March 5, 2009. None was filed. 

II. Discussion

9. As discussed below, the Commission finds the three FAC Reliability Standards to 

be just, reasonable not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 

Further, the proposed Reliability Standards are consistent with our directives in Order 

No. 705. The Commission therefore approves Reliability Standards FAC-010-2, 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 5 -

FAC-011-2, and FAC-014-2, effective 30 days after publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register.

7

 

10. In addition, as discussed below, we approve the ERO’s proposed violation severity 

levels and violation risk factors for the three FAC Reliability Standards and direct the 

ERO to make certain modifications to the violation severity levels within 30 days of the 

effective date of this final rule. 

11. In the sections below, we address each of the proposed revisions to the FAC 

Reliability Standards as well as comments received in response to the FAC NOPR. 

A. Load Greater Than Studied

12. Sub-requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-1 (the “version 1” standard) provided that the 

system’s response to a single contingency may include, inter alia, “[i]nterruption of other 

network customers, only if 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

 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 (Feb. 7, 2008), 122 FERC 

¶ 61,040 (2008) at n.190. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 6 -

13. In Order No. 705, the Commission disagreed with NERC’s explanation of FAC011-1, sub-Requirement R2.3.2 and use 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 clear without the phrase. 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.”9

NERC Filing

14. In response to the Commission’s directive, NERC revised the Reliability Standard 

to remove the phrase “e.g. load greater than studied” from Requirement R2.3.2. NERC 

described the phrase as an example and stated that its removal does not materially change 

the requirement. 

NOPR Proposal

15. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve NERC’s removal of the 

phrase “e.g., load greater than studied” from sub-requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-2. The 

Commission noted that NERC’s revision in FAC-011-2 appeared reasonable and did not 

 8

 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 70. 

9 Id.
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 7 -

appear to change or conflict with the stated requirements set forth in the version one 

Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 705. 

Commission Determination

16. The Commission approves the ERO’s removal of the phrase “e.g., load greater 

than studied” from sub-requirement R2.3.2 of FAC-011-2. As we explained in the 

NOPR, while NERC described the phrase “load greater than studied” as simply an 

example and its removal does not materially change the requirement, Order No. 705 

found that the operating conditions referred to in sub-Requirement R2.3.2 exacerbated 

circumstances that were distinct from the actual contingency to be addressed that is 

referred to in Requirement R2.3. Further, the Commission, in Order No. 705, did not 

support treating “load greater than studied” as a contingency.10 Rather, correcting for 

load forecast error is not accomplished by treating the error as a contingency, but is 

addressed under other Reliability Standards.11 The removal of the phrase “load greater 

than studied” resolves our concern and, accordingly, we approve the revision. 

B. Cascading Outages

17. 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, 

 10 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 at P 10 (citing Order No. 705, 121 FERC 

¶ 61,296 at P 69). 

11 Id. (citing Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 68, which states 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.”). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 8 -

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

previously-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.

12

NERC Proposal

18. In response, NERC proposed to withdraw the definition of Cascading Outages. 

Further, NERC revised Reliability Standards FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 by removing 

the term Cascading Outages and replacing it with Cascading. 

NOPR Proposal

19. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to approve NERC’s substitution of 

Cascading for Cascading Outage in the FAC Reliability Standards.13 The Commission 

noted that NERC’s proposed revisions to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 appeared 

reasonable and did not appear to change or conflict with the stated requirements set forth 

in the version one Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 705. 

 12 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 111. 

13 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 at P 13. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 9 -

Commission Determination

20. The Commission approves the ERO’s decision to withdraw the definition of 

Cascading Outage, and to remove the term Cascading Outage from the FAC Reliability 

Standards and replace it with the term Cascading. This approach is consistent with Order 

No. 705 and provides further clarity to the FAC Reliability Standards. 

C. Loss of Consequential Load

21. Reliability Standard FAC-010-1 (version 1) Requirement R2.3, 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.”14 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. 

22. 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 

 14 Identical language appears in FAC-011-1, Requirement R2.3. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 10 -

cascading failures.”15 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 

FAC-010-1, 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.16

NERC Filing

23. NERC, in its June 30, 2008 filing, stated its belief that revisions to the term “loss 

of consequential load” is best addressed in its ongoing project to modify the transmission 

planning (TPL) group of Reliability Standards. NERC explains that the term “loss of 

consequential load” is intrinsic to the scope of the project to revise the TPL Reliability 

Standards and will be addressed there. 

NOPR Proposal

24. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to allow the ERO to address revisions to 

the term “loss of consequential load” in the modification being made to the TPL 

Reliability Standards. The Commission advised that such revisions should be consistent 

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

72 FR 16416 (Apr. 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1788, order on reh’g, 

Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 

16 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 53. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 11 -

with the Commission’s prior determinations in Order Nos. 693 and 705.17 The 

Commission preliminarily found that FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 were clearly 

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

“loss of consequential load,”18 and that NERC’s proposal to deal with “loss of 

consequential load” in a more related project was appropriate. 

Commission Determination

25. The Commission adopts its NOPR proposal approving the ERO’s proposal to 

address revisions to the term “loss of consequential load” in the modification being made 

to the TPL Reliability Standards. 

D. Violation Severity Levels

26. 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. 

 17 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 at P 17 (citing Order No. 705, 

121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 53); Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 at P 1788 

& n.461. 

18 See id. P 53. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 12 -

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

risk factors for the version one FAC Reliability Standards and directed NERC to file 

violation severity level assignments before the version one FAC Reliability Standards 

become effective.19 Subsequently, NERC developed violation severity levels for each 

requirement of the Commission-approved FAC Reliability Standards, as measurements 

for the degree to which the requirement was violated in a specific circumstance. 

28. 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. 693.20 In that order, the Commission offered four guidelines for evaluating the 

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

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

conformance 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;21 (3) violation severity level assignments should be consistent 

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

20 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ¶ 61,284 (Violation 

Severity Level Order), order on reh’g, 125 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2008) (Violation Severity 

Level Order on Rehearing and Clarification). 

21 Guideline 2 contains two sub-parts: (a) the single violation severity level 

assignment category for binary requirements should be consistent and (b) violation 

severity levels assignments should not contain ambiguous language. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 13 -

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

be based on a single violation, not a cumulative number of violations.22 The Commission 

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

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, to provide an additional level of 

analysis to determine the validity of violation severity level assignments. 

NERC Filing

29. In its initial filing, NERC identified violation severity levels for FAC-010-2, 

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

severity levels prior to the issuance of the Violation Severity Level Order. NERC asked 

the Commission to accept its violation severity levels, as filed, for the version two FAC 

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

guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order. NERC committed to 

assessing the violation severity levels for the FAC Reliability Standards in the six-month 

compliance filing required by the Violation Severity Level Order.23 

 22 Id. P 17. 

23 NERC June 30, 2008 Filing, Docket No. RM07-3-000 at 5 (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 - 14 -

NOPR Proposal

30. The NOPR proposed to approve, with modification, NERC’s proposed violation 

severity levels for FAC-010-2, FAC-011-2, and FAC-014-2.24 The Commission 

acknowledged that NERC assigned its proposed violation severity levels before the 

Commission established the four guidelines for evaluating the validity of violation 

severity levels, and preliminarily found that certain proposed violation severity levels for 

the version two FAC Reliability Standards would not meet our guidelines. The 

Commission therefore proposed certain modifications to the violation severity levels to 

form a complete set of violation severity levels. The Commission acknowledged that 

NERC committed to assessing the violation severity levels in the compliance filing 

required by the Violation Severity Level Order and encouraged NERC to do so.25 If, 

however, NERC did not include an assessment of its FAC violation severity levels in its 

six-month evaluation following the issuance of the Violation Severity Level Order, the 

Commission proposed 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. 

 24 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 at P 22. 

25 The Violation Severity Level Order also, among other things, directed that the 

ERO submit a compliance filing within six months certifying that it had reviewed each of 

the violation severity levels for consistency with Guidelines 2b, 3, and 4, validating the 

assignments that meet those guidelines and proposing revisions to those that do not. The 

Violation Severity Level Order on Rehearing and Clarification extended the submission 

of ERO’s compliance filing by six months to September 18, 2009. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 15 -

31. In the sections below, the Commission addresses comments and approves, with 

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

1. General Matters

Comments

32. NERC requests clarification regarding the Commission’s direction in paragraph 24 

of the NOPR. In that paragraph, the Commission states that it is concerned with several 

of the proposed violation severity levels and then provides two examples. NERC asks 

the Commission to clarify whether or not this was intended as a generic statement to 

preface later paragraphs of the NOPR. NERC also asks if the Commission has identified 

additional violation severity levels that need revision beyond those identified in the body 

of the NOPR. 

33. As a general matter, IESO supports the NERC’s proposed modifications to the 

FAC Reliability Standards, including the associated violation risk factors and violation 

severity levels and asks the Commission to accept them as filed. IESO states that the 

violation risk factors and violation severity levels were developed in a stakeholder 

process with active industry participation through NERC’s standards development 

process. IESO contends that the industry has the resources, technical capability, and the 

experience necessary to develop violation risk factors and violation severity levels that 

reflect the requirements embedded in the various reliability standards. IESO 

recommends that the Commission accept the industry developed and balloted violation 

risk factors and violation severity levels where these are established by NERC and the 

industry in adherence to a timely and due process. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 16 -

34. By contrast, the Bureau of Reclamation advocates that because the violation 

severity levels require refinement, the Commission should not approve NERC’s proposed 

Reliability Standards. The Bureau of Reclamation states that the Commission relies on 

NERC to develop Reliability Standards and in the event a standard is found to be 

inadequate, the Commission should remand the standard back to NERC. The Bureau of 

Reclamation asks the Commission to rely on the existing version until the proposed 

changes are made and resubmitted to the Commission for approval. Otherwise, the 

Bureau of Reclamation contends, it will be difficult for regulating entities to enforce 

uncertain Reliability Standards. 

Commission Determination

35. In response to NERC’s comment, we clarify that the Commission’s statement in 

paragraph 24 of the NOPR that it is concerned with several of the proposed violation 

severity levels was intended as a generic statement to preface later paragraphs. In 

general, the Commission approves the violation severity levels proposed by NERC. As 

discussed in the NOPR, however, the Commission identified several violation severity 

levels that appeared either unclear or inconsistent with the Commission’s guidelines for 

violation severity levels. In this final rule, the Commission approves certain violation 

severity levels as proposed by NERC and directs certain modifications, as discussed 

below. 

36. The Commission disagrees with IESO’s proposal that because the violation 

severity levels proposed by NERC in this proceeding were developed by industry 

participants through NERC’s standard development process, the Commission should 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 17 -

approve the violation severity levels as filed. The Commission has previously 

determined that, similar to violation risk factors, violation severity levels are not part of 

the Reliability Standard and, thus, are appropriately treated as an appendix to NERC’s 

Rules of Procedure.26 Revisions of violation severity levels do not modify the Reliability 

Standard. Accordingly, NERC is not required to comport with the Reliability Standards 

development provisions of Federal Power Act section 215 when revising a violation 

severity level assignment.27 It is for this reason that the Commission also rejects the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s request that the Commission not approve the proposed 

Reliability Standards because the proposed violation severity levels applicable to them 

require additional work. 

2. Assignment of Violation Severity Levels to Sub-Requirements

NERC Filing

37. NERC did not propose any violation severity level assignments for subrequirements. 

NOPR Proposal

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

requirement and sub-requirement of each Reliability Standard.28 The Commission 

 26 Violation Severity Level Order, 123 FERC ¶ 61,284 at P 15. 

27 See North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 120 FERC ¶ 61,145, at 

P 16 (2007). 

28 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,248 at P 80 (June 

2007 Order), order on clarification, 120 FERC ¶ 61,239 (2007). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 18 -

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

the proposed sub-requirements.29 In Order No. 705, the Commission found that the 

binary approach is appropriate for certain violation severity level assignments.30 In this 

instance, the Commission determined that the binary approach is appropriate because the 

violation severity level of the base requirement is established by whether a subrequirement is violated or not, not to the extent a sub-requirement is violated. Thus, the 

Commission preliminarily found that the proposed binary requirements satisfy 

guideline 3, 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 system operating limit methodology shall “[b]e applicable 

for developing system operating limits used in the planning horizon.”31 Because NERC 

did not propose any violation severity levels for this sub-requirement, the Commission 

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

planning authority system operating limit methodology is not applicable for developing 

system operating limits in the planning horizon. The Commission stated that this binary 

approach for sub-requirements provides clear criteria to determine the violation severity 

level for a violation of the sub-requirement. The Commission proposed to direct the 

 29 Binary requirements of Reliability Standards define compliance in terms of 

“pass” or “fail.” 

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

31 NERC June 30, 2008 Filing, Docket No. RM07-3-000, ex. A. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 19 -

ERO to file the revised violation severity levels within 30 days of the final rule in this 

proceeding. 

Comments

39. NERC states that it did not intend to assign a penalty or sanction based on the 

violation of each sub-requirement of a Reliability Standard separate and distinct from the 

base requirement it supports. Where a sub-requirement is phrased like a requirement and 

addresses a different reliability objective from the base requirement, NERC agrees that it 

is appropriate to assign a violation risk factor to the primary requirement and to each subrequirement that addresses differing reliability objectives. NERC contends, though, that 

the version two FAC Reliability Standards do not include any sub-requirements serving a 

reliability objective separate from the base requirement. NERC states that each of these 

sub-requirements is crafted as an integral component of the base requirement, and is not 

intended to be assessed for compliance independent of the base requirement. NERC 

states that each base requirement is assigned a violation risk factor and a set of violation 

severity levels that incorporates each sub-requirement, irrespective of the number of subrequirements associated with the base requirement. Thus, NERC contends, the severity 

of violating the reliability objective of the base requirement and its associated subrequirements is best assessed on the whole at the base requirement level rather than on 

the individual sub-requirement level. 

40. NERC disagrees with the Commission’s statement that NERC did not propose any 

violation severity level assignments for sub-requirements. NERC states that it proposed 

violation severity levels for each sub-requirement by reference in the associated base 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 20 -

requirement of the related sub-requirement. NERC also disagrees with the Commission’s 

proposal to direct the ERO to assign “Severe” binary violation severity levels for all of 

the proposed sub-requirements of the base requirement. NERC contends that the 

assignment of “Severe” binary violation severity levels for all of the proposed subrequirements of a base requirement will create an overlap of violation severity levels 

between the base and sub-requirements that will have the unintended consequence of 

confusing the application of the NERC sanction guidelines to a particular set of 

circumstances that involves compliance with a particular sub-requirement as part of the 

base requirement. NERC further contends that its proposed application of violation 

severity levels relative to base and sub-requirements is consistent with the Commission’s 

criterion for approving Reliability Standards.32 NERC contends that the approach 

proposed by the Commission would create inconsistencies in the application of the 

violation severity levels, contrary to the Commission’s guidelines in Order No. 672. 

NERC further contends that the Commission’s proposed approach fails to acknowledge 

that the purpose of the sub-requirement is to support the singular reliability objective of, 

 32 See Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; 

Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of Electric Reliability 

Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662 (Feb. 17, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 

(2006); order on reh’g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 (Apr. 18, 2006), FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006). Order No. 672 states that “[t]he possible consequences, including 

range of possible penalties, for violating a proposed Reliability Standard should be clear 

and understandable by those who must comply.” Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,204 at P 326. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 21 -

and is a component of, the total intent of the base requirement and, as such, is not to be 

assessed independently from the base requirement. 

41. IESO and Midwest ISO agree with NERC that the application of violation severity 

levels should be consistent and that the Commission should not require the assignment of 

a violation severity level to every sub-requirement. Midwest ISO contends that, in the 

event a sub-requirement covers a different reliability objective than the base requirement 

and therefore does need its own violation severity level, the Commission should direct 

NERC to strike the sub-requirement and rewrite it as a separate base requirement. 

Midwest ISO also requests Commission confirmation that a penalty should be assessed 

through the main requirement rather than through the criteria in the sub-requirements. 

Further, Midwest ISO contends that, because the violation severity levels of these base 

requirements cover the violation of the criteria in the sub-requirements, the violation risk 

factors associated with the sub-requirements should be removed, eliminating the need for 

additional violation severity levels for sub-requirements. 

Commission Determination

42. NERC’s proposal to assign a penalty or sanction for a violation of a subrequirement based on the violation severity level of the corresponding main requirement 

is not consistent with Commission precedent or with NERC’s Sanction Guidelines. The 

Commission has directed NERC to develop violation severity levels for every 

requirement and sub-requirement.33 In addition, the Violation Severity Level Order 

 33 June 2007 Order, 119 FERC ¶ 61,248 at P 80. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 22 -

stated that each requirement assigned a violation risk factor also must be assigned at least 

one violation severity level.34 As set forth in the NERC’s Sanction Guidelines, the 

intersection of these two factors is the first step in the determination of a monetary 

penalty for a violation of a requirement of a Reliability Standard. The ERO and Regional 

Entities may assess penalties that relate to violations of particular sub-requirements of a 

requirement, where appropriate. For these reasons, the Commission disagrees with 

commenters who argue that the Commission should not require the assignment of 

violation severity levels to every sub-requirement. 

43. The Commission understands that the Reliability Standards (Version 0 and 

Version 1) approved in Order No. 693 are, for the most part, a direct translation of the 

then voluntary NERC Operating Policies and Planning Standards, which employed a 

numbering hierarchy that does not consistently facilitate the assignment of violation risk 

factors and, consequently, violation severity levels. This numbering hierarchy, carried 

over during the translation, is at the heart of the distinction between “main” and “sub” 

requirements with respect to compliance with mandatory Reliability Standards.35 

44. The Commission appreciates the ERO’s initiative to develop an alternative 

approach to facilitate the assignment of factors necessary for its compliance and 

 34 Violation Severity Level Order, 123 FERC ¶ 61,284 at P 3 (citing June 2007 

Order, 119 FERC ¶ 61,248 at P 74). 

35 NERC November 24, 2008 Comments at 6. As NERC points out in its 

comments, some requirements assigned to Version 0 Reliability Standards included subrequirements that were phrased like a separate requirement and, in fact, addressed a 

separate reliability objective. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 23 -

enforcement program. As NERC acknowledges, some Reliability Standards include 

requirements with sub-requirements that address a different reliability objective from the 

main requirement. The Commission understands that the varied nature of the relationship 

between the main requirements and sub-requirements throughout the Reliability 

Standards has created concern whether a violation of a sub-requirement is also a violation 

of the requirement itself. Due to these concerns, the Commission believes that it is 

premature to change its current policy in the current proceeding, which is limited to the 

three FAC Reliability Standards submitted by NERC. 

45. Rather, the Commission encourages the ERO to develop a new and comprehensive 

approach that would better facilitate the assignment of violation severity levels and 

violation risk factors both prospectively and to existing, Commission-approved, 

Reliability Standards. The ERO could raise its proposal for an alternative approach in a 

separate filing. This would allow the Commission to better understand the implications 

of the proposed change in approach, as opposed to having to act on an ad hoc basis. 

46. The Commission expects that the ERO’s filing of its alternative approach would 

include a more detailed description of the proposal to assign violation severity levels for 

main requirements that would apply to sub-requirements, as well as the specific 

conditions under which its application would or would not be appropriate.36 The 

Commission also expects that the ERO’s filing would propose implementation of its 

 36 The Commission understands that this approach would also be applied in the 

assignment of violation risk factors to requirements of Reliability Standards. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 24 -

approach comprehensively to all requirements of approved Reliability Standards and how 

that implementation would be accomplished. The ERO’s filing of its alternative 

approach, however, must not postpone or preclude the Guideline 2b, 3, and 4 compliance 

filing which is due in September 2009. Therefore, until the Commission has an 

opportunity to review such a proposal, the Commission directs the ERO to submit 

violation severity levels for all requirements and sub-requirements at issue in this 

proceeding within 30 days from the effective date of this final rule, as discussed below 

and as indicated in Attachment A. In light of concerns raised in the comments, the 

Commission has also made minor clarifying edits to the violation severity levels for 

certain of the requirements and sub-requirements approved in this proceeding.37 These 

clarifying edits are also reflected in Attachment A. 

3. Removal of Unnecessary Violation Severity Level Assignments

NERC Filing

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

Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2. Requirements R2 of FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 require 

planning authorities and reliability coordinators to include in their system operating limit 

 37 In particular, the Commission directs clarifying revisions to the violation 

severity levels that the Commission proposed to assign to sub-requirements R2.1, R2.2 

and R2.5 of FAC-010-2 and R2.1 and R2.2 of FAC-011-2. In addition, the Commission 

has made several typographical revisions to the violation severity levels the Commission 

proposed to assign to other sub-requirements. As noted above, these revisions are set 

forth in full in Attachment A to this order. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 25 -

methodology a requirement that the system operating limits provide bulk electric system 

performance consistent with the terms established in the sub-requirements. 

NOPR Proposal

48. In Order No. 705, the Commission found that Requirement R2 of FAC-010-1 and 

Requirement R2 of FAC-011-1, without their sub-requirements, include no required 

performance or outcome.38 As such, no violation severity levels need to be assigned to 

these requirements. The Commission therefore proposed to delete the proposed violation 

severity levels for Requirement R2 of FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2. 

Comments

49. NERC disagrees with the Commission’s proposal to remove the violation severity 

levels assigned to Requirement R2 of FAC-010-2 and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2. 

NERC states that it did not intend to assign a penalty or sanction based on the violation of 

each sub-requirement of a Reliability Standard. NERC states that although it has 

assigned a violation risk factor to every base requirement and sub-requirement to comply 

with a Commission directive, it continues to expect that the compliance enforcement 

authority will assess each base requirement in total, irrespective of the number of subrequirement associated with the base requirement. 

Commission Determination

50. As discussed above, each requirement that is assigned a violation risk factor also 

must be assigned at least one violation severity level. If the ERO does not assign a 

 38 Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 159. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 26 -

violation risk factor to a requirement, it should not assign violation severity levels. The 

NOPR identified requirements belonging to the proposed Reliability Standards that do 

not establish a required outcome or performance. In the Violation Risk Factor Order, the 

Commission described these types of requirements as explanatory statements, phrases 

and/or text, and determined that violation risk factors need not be assigned to such 

requirements.39 The Commission finds that Requirements R2 and R2.6 of FAC-010-2 

and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2 are such explanatory statements as they include no 

required performance or outcome. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the NOPR 

proposal and directs the ERO to remove violation severity level assignments for 

Requirements R2 and R2.6 of FAC-010-2 and Requirement R2 of FAC-011-2. The ERO 

shall submit its revisions to the Commission within 30 days from the issuance of this 

final rule, as discussed above and as indicated in Attachment A. 

4. Compliance with the Commission’s Violation Severity Level 

Guidelines

51. The Commission offers the following clarifications regarding its proposals for 

compliance with the guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order. As an 

initial matter, it has come to the Commission’s attention that, in the NOPR, certain 

discussions were based on a draft version rather than the filed version of the ERO’s 

proposed violation severity levels. As a result, some of the Commission’s proposed 

 39 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 119 FERC ¶ 61,145 at P 45 

(Violation Risk Factor Order), order on reh’g, 120 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2007) (Violation Risk 

Factor Order on Rehearing and Clarification); Order No. 705, 121 FERC ¶ 61,296 at P 

159. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 27 -

revisions would not be appropriate to adopt here. Upon further examination of the 

ERO’s filed violation severity levels, the Commission revises its earlier statements where 

appropriate, as discussed below. 

52. Since the Commission’s concerns in these instances were not discussed in the 

NOPR for comment, the Commission approves the violation severity levels for those 

requirements as filed by the ERO. However, to ensure that the violation severity levels 

approved for those requirements are consistent with the guidelines established in the 

Violation Severity Level Order in a timely manner, the Commission directs the ERO to 

review those requirements for consistency with Violation Severity Level Order 

Guidelines 2b, 3, and 4 and submit the results of its review the earlier of six months of 

the effective date of the final rule or in its Violation Severity Level Order Guideline 2b, 

3, and 4 compliance filing due in September 2009, whichever is earlier. 

53. Not all of the Commission’s proposed modifications of the violation severity 

levels were based on an unfiled draft of the violation severity levels. Where appropriate, 

the Commission clarifies its proposed modifications and adopts the NOPR proposal, as 

discussed below. 

a. Requirement R1 of FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2

NERC Filing

54. Requirement R1 of FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 require planning authorities and 

reliability coordinators to establish a documented system operating limit methodology 

that satisfies the elements detailed in the sub-requirements. NERC proposed violation 

severity levels for both of these requirements based on whether the applicable entity has a 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 28 -

documented system operating limit methodology and, if it does, the number of elements, 

from the sub-requirements, the planning authority or reliability coordinator was missing 

from its system operating limit methodology. 

NOPR Proposal

55. In the NOPR, the Commission commented on a lack of uniformity between 

FAC-010-2 Requirement R1 and FAC-011-2 Requirement R1. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposed 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. The Commission reasoned that this 

uniformity would assist in the compliance and enforcement of these Reliability Standards 

because it is logical that nearly identical requirements should have nearly identical 

violation severity level structures. 

Comments

56. NERC states that the violation severity levels it filed with the Commission for 

FAC-010-2 Requirement R1 matched the set of violation severity levels balloted for 

FAC-011-2 Requirement R1. NERC therefore contends that the Commission’s proposed 

modification to FAC-011-2 is unnecessary. Midwest ISO agrees that Requirement R1 of 

FAC-010-2 and Requirement R1 of FAC-011-2 were consistent as filed. 

57. Midwest ISO also asks the Commission to direct the ERO to remove the violation 

risk factors associated with the sub-requirements of Requirement R1 of FAC-010-2 and 

Requirement R1 of FAC-011-2. Midwest ISO states that these sub-requirements 

represent criteria that the system operating limit methodology must contain that are 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 29 -

already considered and encompassed in the violation severity levels associated with the 

main requirement. Removing the violation risk factors associated with the subrequirements, Midwest ISO contends, would eliminate the need for additional violation 

severity levels that would be duplicative of the violation severity level associated with the 

main requirement. Further, Midwest ISO requests that the Commission confirm that a 

penalty should be assessed through the main requirement rather than through the criteria 

in the sub-requirements. 

Commission Determination

58. FAC-010-2 Requirement R1 and FAC-011-2 Requirement R1 establish the same 

requirements for the planning authority and reliability coordinator, respectively. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes that the ERO should assign similar violation 

severity levels for these requirements, which it did. The Commission therefore approves 

the violation severity levels assigned to FAC-010-2 Requirement R1 and FAC-011-2 

Requirement R1 as filed by the ERO. 

59. Midwest ISO’s request to eliminate violation severity levels for sub-requirements 

and assess a penalty through the violation severity level and violation risk factor assigned 

to the main requirements is similar to NERC’s proposed alternative approach for 

assigning violation severity levels, which the Commission addresses above. For the same 

reasons discussed above, the Commission rejects Midwest ISO’s request to remove 

violation risk factors for sub-requirements. Also, for the reasons discussed above, the 

Commission finds that Midwest ISO’s request is a Reliability Standards compliance issue 

best addressed in the context of a Reliability Standards compliance proceeding. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 30 -

b. FAC-010-2 Requirement R4

NERC Filing

60. FAC-010-2 Requirement R4 requires the planning authority to issue its system 

operating limit methodology, and any change to that methodology, to several identified 

entities prior to the effectiveness of the change. Sub-requirements R4.1 through R4.3 list 

the required entities to which the planning authority should provide the system operating 

limit methodology. NERC’s proposed violation severity level assignments for 

FAC-010-2 Requirement R4 measure compliance based, in part, on the number of days 

the applicable entity failed to provide it system operating limit methodology to the 

required entities. 

NOPR Proposal

61. The Commission stated that it is difficult to discern which conditions trigger 

specific violation severity levels assigned to FAC-010-2 Requirement R4. The 

Commission therefore proposed to direct the ERO to make modifications to clarify those 

conditions without changing the substance of the violation severity levels. 

Comments

62. NERC does not oppose the Commission’s proposed change to the violation 

severity levels for FAC-010-2 Requirement R4, because, NERC states, the proposed 

modifications do not change the intent of the categories of the violation severity levels. 

NERC contends, however, that the Commission’s proposed revisions are inconsistent 

with other violation severity levels already approved by the Commission. NERC also 

questions why the Commission would identify the violation severity levels for 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 31 -

FAC-010-2 in paragraph 23 of the NOPR among other proposed assignments that are 

consistent with the Commission’s violation severity level guidelines, and then propose 

modification in the following paragraph. 

63. IESO states that there is a time factor in question with respect to Requirement R4 

of FAC-010-2 that requires a planning authority to issue to appropriate entities its system 

operating limit methodology, and any change to that methodology, prior to the 

effectiveness of the change. IESO contends that NERC’s proposed violation severity 

level for Requirement R4 of FAC-010-2 accurately captures this requirement. 

Commission Determination

64. The Commission approves the violation severity levels for Requirement R4, as 

filed by NERC because the NOPR was silent as to NERC’s proposal. However, to 

ensure that the violation severity levels approved for Requirement R4 are consistent with 

the guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order in a timely manner, the 

Commission directs the ERO to review the violation severity levels assigned to 

Requirement R4 for consistency with Violation Severity Level Order Guidelines 2b, 3, 

and 4 within six months of the effective date of the final rule or in its Violation Severity 

Level Order Guideline 2b, 3, and 4 compliance filing, whichever is earlier.40 

 

(continued) 

40 Based on the record to date, the Commission believes that NERC’s proposed 

violation severity level assignment may not be consistent with Guideline 3, which 

requires that violation severity levels be consistent with the text of the corresponding 

requirement. The text of Requirement R4 states that, “[t]he planning authority shall issue 

its system operating limit methodology, to all of the following prior to the effectiveness 

of the change.” To whom the methodology must be issued is described in each of the 

sub-requirements R4.1 through R4.3. The violation severity levels NERC proposes, 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 32 -

65. Although the Commission approves the violation severity levels assigned to 

Requirement R4 as filed by NERC, the Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal to 

direct the ERO to assign binary violation severity levels to each sub-requirement. Subrequirements R4.1 through R4.3 are binary requirements and should be assigned a single 

violation severity level. The ERO shall submit its revisions to sub-requirements R4.1 

though R4.3 to the Commission within 30 days from the issuance of this final rule, as 

discussed above and as indicated in Attachment A. 

c. FAC-011-2, Requirement R3

NERC Filing

66. Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 requires a reliability coordinator to include in its 

methodology for determining system operating limits a description of the elements listed 

in the sub-requirements, ranging from R3.1 through R3.7, along with any reliability 

margins applied for each. NERC proposed to assign a “Severe” violation severity level if 

the reliability coordinator’s methodology for determining system operating limits is 

missing a description of three or more of the sub-requirements. At the same time, NERC 

proposed to assign a “High” violation severity level if the reliability coordinator’s 

 

however, would base compliance, in part, on the number of days the planning authority 

failed to deliver its system operating limit methodology to the required entities. The 

Commission believes that, consistent with Guideline 3, violation severity levels for 

Requirement R4 should be assigned based on the number of R4 sub-requirements that are 

not met. For example, since there are three sub-requirements, a “Moderate” violation 

severity level would be triggered if the applicable entity did not comply with one of the 

three required sub-requirements; a “High” violation severity level if the applicable entity 

did not comply with two of the three sub-requirements; and, a “Severe” violation severity 

level if the applicable entity did not comply with any of the sub-requirements. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 33 -

methodology for determining system operating limits includes a description for all but 

three sub-requirements within the same range. 

NOPR Proposal

67. In the NOPR, the Commission pointed out that, under NERC’s proposed violation 

severity level assignments, if a reliability coordinator’s methodology for determining 

system operating limits is missing a description of three sub-requirements, the resulting 

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

eliminate this overlap, the Commission proposed 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, within the range of 

R3.1 through R3.7, from its methodology for determining system operating limits. 

Comments

68. NERC states that it agrees with the Commission’s proposed modification to the 

violation severity level for Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2. 

69. Although Midwest ISO states that the Commission’s proposal is reasonable, 

Midwest ISO requests that the Commission direct the ERO to assign violation severity 

levels for Requirement R3 based on the quartile approach.41 Midwest ISO argues that 

 41 In general, a quartile approach measures compliance in 25 percent intervals by 

either using straight percentages around a determined value or 100 percent or by defining 

a minimum value and applying quartiles between the minimum value and 100 percent. 

NERC, Violation Severity Level Guidelines Criteria, Project 2007-23 at 18 (2008), 

available at: 

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/VSLDT_Guidelines_Final_Draft_08Jan08.pdf. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 34 -

NERC’s internal violation severity level development guidelines encourage a multicomponent or quartile methodology for assigning violation severity levels where the 

requirement has multiple sub-components or sub-requirements that direct the responsible 

entity to comply with a multiple number of sub-requirements or sub-sub-requirements. 

Accordingly, Midwest ISO requests that the Commission direct the ERO to modify the 

violation severity levels for Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 as detailed in the table below. 

Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

FAC-011-2 R3 The 

Reliability 

Coordinator 

has a 

methodology 

for 

determining 

[system 

operating 

limits] that 

includes a 

description 

for all but one 

or two of the 

following: 

3.1 through 

R3.7. 

The 

Reliability 

Coordinator 

has a 

methodology 

for 

determining 

[system 

operating 

limits] that 

includes a 

description 

for all but 

three of the 

following: 

3.1 through 

R3.7. 

The 

Reliability 

Coordinator 

has a 

methodology 

for 

determining 

[system 

operating 

limits] that 

includes a 

description 

for all but 

four or five of 

the following: 

3.1 through 

R3.7. 

The 

Reliability 

Coordinator 

has a 

methodology 

for 

determining 

[system 

operating 

limits] that 

includes a 

description 

for all but six 

or seven of 

the following: 

3.1 through 

R3.7. 

Commission Determination

70. The Commission directs the ERO to modify Requirement R3 of FAC-011-2 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, within 

the range of R3.1 through R3.7, from its methodology for determining system operating 

limits. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 35 -

71. The Commission finds that Midwest ISO proposed violation severity levels are not 

appropriate for this requirement. In the Violation Severity Level Order, the Commission 

expressed concern that, in some instances, although consistent with NERC’s guidelines, 

the quartile approach could result in the arbitrary assignment of violation severity levels 

and a reduction of the current levels of compliance.42 The assignment of violation 

severity levels is arbitrary when based on nothing other than ensuring an even 

distribution of the full range of missed sub-requirements to each of the four violation 

severity level categories under the premise of applying NERC’s quartile approach. The 

Commission therefore adopts the NOPR proposal agreed to by NERC and directs the 

ERO to file revised violation severity levels for FAC-011-2, Requirement R3 within 

30 days of the issuance of this final rule, as discussed above and as indicated in 

Attachment A. 

d. FAC-011-2, Requirement R4

NERC Filing

72. Requirement R4 requires the reliability coordinator to issue its system operating 

limit methodology and any changes to that methodology, prior to the effectiveness or 

change of the methodology to all of the required entities identified in sub-requirements 

R4.1 through 4.3. NERC’s proposed violation severity levels for the subject requirement 

incorporate as a measure of compliance the number of days the applicable entity failed to 

 42 Violation Severity Level Order on Rehearing and Clarification, 125 FERC 

¶ 61,212 at P 25. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 36 -

issue its system operating limits methodology and any changes to that methodology, prior 

to the effectiveness or change of the methodology to the required entities. 

NOPR Proposal

73. The Commission did not discuss this requirement in the NOPR. 

Commission Determination

74. The Commission approves the violation severity levels for Requirement R4, as 

filed by the ERO because the NOPR was silent as to NERC’s proposal. However, to 

ensure that the violation severity levels approved for Requirement R4 are consistent with 

the guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order in a timely manner, the 

Commission directs the ERO to review the violation severity levels assigned to 

Requirement R4 for consistency with Violation Severity Level Order Guidelines 2b, 3, 

and 4 and submit the results of the review either within six months of the effective date of 

the final rule or in its Violation Severity Level Order Guideline 2b, 3, and 4 compliance 

filing, whichever is earlier.43 

 

(continued) 

43 Based on the record to date, the Commission believes that NERC’s proposed 

violation severity level assignment for FAC-011-2 Requirement R4 may not be consistent 

with Guideline 3, which requires that violation severity levels be consistent with the text 

of the corresponding requirement. The text of Requirement R4 states that, “[t]he 

planning authority shall issue its system operating limit methodology, to all of the 

following prior to the effectiveness of the change.” To whom the methodology must be 

issued is described in each of the sub-requirements R4.1 through R4.3. The violation 

severity levels NERC proposes, however, would base compliance, in part, on the number 

of days the reliability coordinator failed to deliver its system operating limit methodology 

to the required entities. The Commission believes that, consistent with Guideline 3, 

violation severity levels for Requirement R4 should be assigned based on the number of 

R4 sub-requirements that are not met. For example, since there are three subrequirements, a “Moderate” violation severity level would be triggered if the applicable 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 37 -

75. Although the Commission approves the violation severity levels assigned to 

Requirement R4 as filed by NERC, the Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal to 

direct the ERO to assign binary violation severity levels to each sub-requirement. Subrequirements R4.1 through R4.3 are binary requirements and should be assigned a single 

violation severity level. The ERO shall submit its revisions to sub-requirements R4.1 

though R4.3 to the Commission within 30 days from the issuance of this final rule, as 

discussed above and as indicated in Attachment A. 

e. FAC-014-2, Requirements R1 through R4

NERC Filing

76. Requirements R1 through R4 of FAC-014-2 address the development of system 

operating limits and interconnection reliability operating limits consistent with the 

methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2. NERC proposed to assign 

violation severity levels to these requirements based on a quartile division of the total 

number of inconsistencies between the assigned system operating limits and the system 

operating limits that would be produced using the methodologies outlined in FAC-010-2 

and FAC-011-2. For example, NERC proposed to assign a “Lower” violation severity 

level where 1 to 25 percent of a registered entity’s system operating limits are 

inconsistent with the applicable entity’s system operating limit methodology. 

 

entity did not comply with one of the three required sub-requirements; a “High” violation 

severity level if the applicable entity did not comply with two of the three subrequirements; and, a “Severe” violation severity level if the applicable entity did not 

comply with any of the sub-requirements. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 38 -

NOPR Proposal

77. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed its belief that each time a system 

operating limit is inconsistent with the applicable entity’s system operating limit 

methodology, the applicable entity violates the pertinent requirement of FAC-014-2. The 

Commission stated that its 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 

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

Requirement R1 through R4 based on the percentage of deviation from the system 

operating limit methodology for each violation. 

Comments

78. NERC contends that the Commission’s application of Guideline 4 is confusing 

and inconsistent. NERC points to the approved violation severity levels for Reliability 

Standard VAR-001-1, where the Commission allowed NERC to use percentage ranges 

relating to the number of violations of system operating limits to define the violation 

severity levels. By contrast, NERC states, the Commission proposed in the NOPR to 

require every single violation of system operating limit to have a single penalty. 

79. Midwest ISO agrees with NERC that referencing percentage ranges relating to the 

number of violations of system operating limits is consistent with Guideline 4. Midwest 

ISO also contends that the use of percentage ranges facilitates enforcement. Because an 

entity may have tens of thousands of system operating limits, Midwest ISO contends that 

it is not practical to set a single penalty for every single violation of a system operating 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 39 -

limit. Midwest ISO contends that a requirement with multiple sub-components or 

requirements should have a quartile approach applied to the violation severity levels, 

considering the full range of missed sub-components or requirements possibilities. 

80. In addition, NERC states that the Commission’s proposed modifications to the 

violation severity levels for Requirements R1 through R4 of FAC-014-02 are inconsistent 

with the modifications indicated in Attachment A to the NOPR. NERC states that the 

Commission’s proposed modifications to the violation severity levels, set forth in 

Attachment A to the NOPR, includes some typographical errors. For example, NERC 

states that there appears to be an errant “75%” in the text of the “Severe” category for 

Requirement R1. NERC also points out that the “Severe” category for Requirement R4 

includes both the NERC-proposed text and the Commission-inserted text. NERC 

requests that the Commission clarify its direction on these points. If the Commission 

decides to direct the ERO to modify its violation severity levels for FAC-014-2 

Requirements R1 through R4 based on the percentage of deviation from system operating 

limit methodology for each violation, NERC requests additional clarification on the 

specific methodology to be used to determine the percentage of deviation from the 

system operating limit. 

Commission Determination

81. The Commission approves the violation severity levels for Requirement R1 

through R4, as filed by the ERO because the NOPR was silent as to NERC’s proposal. 

However, to ensure that the violation severity levels approved for Requirement R1 

through R4 are consistent with the guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 40 -

Order in a timely manner, the Commission directs the ERO to review the violation 

severity levels assigned to the subject requirements for consistency with Violation 

Severity Level Order Guidelines 2b, 3, and 4 and submit the results of its review either 

within six months of the effective date of the final rule or in its Violation Severity Level 

Order Guideline 2b, 3, and 4 compliance filing, whichever is earlier.44 

 

(continued) 

44 Based on the record to date, the Commission believes that the violation severity 

levels assigned by NERC to Requirement R1 through R4 of FAC-014-2 may not be 

consistent with Guideline 4 because they evaluate compliance based on a cumulative 

number of violations instead of on a single violation. Since the Commission believes 

compliance with this requirement hinges on whether or not the applicable entity 

established its system operating limits and interconnection reliability operating limits 

consistent with its methodology (“pass”) or did not do so (“fail”), a binary approach is 

most appropriate for this requirement. By contrast, Requirement R10 of Reliability 

Standard VAR-001-1 requires each transmission operator to correct violations of 

interconnection reliability operating limits or system operating limits resulting from 

reactive resources deficiencies (interconnection reliability operating limit violations must 

be corrected within 30 minutes) and complete the required interconnection reliability 

operating limit or system operating limit violation reporting. 

In the Violation Severity Level Order, the Commission directed revisions to VAR001-1 Requirement R10 that assigned violation severity levels based on the percentage of 

interconnection reliability operating limit and system operating limit violations that the 

applicable entity did not correct and/or report. Since a reactive resource deficiency may 

result in more than one violation of an interconnection reliability operating limit and 

system operating limit, the Commission believes the aggregate treatment, in this instance, 

of interconnection reliability operating limit and system operating limit violations 

attributable to a single deficiency in reactive resources for the purpose of assigning 

violation severity levels is appropriate. This treatment is consistent with the provisions of 

NERC’s Sanction Guidelines, which states at section 3.21, “[s]ome Reliability Standards 

may not support the assessment of penalties on a “per day, per violation” basis, but 

instead should have penalties calculated based on an alternative penalty frequency or 

duration.” With regard to Reliability Standard FAC-014-2 Requirements R1 through R4, 

the Commission believes that each instance that the applicable entity did not establish a 

system operating limit or interconnection reliability operating limit consistent with the 

applicable entity’s methodology would be a violation. Thus, the Commission’s 

adherence to Guideline 4 has been consistent as applied to the Commission’s revisions of 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 41 -

f. FAC-014-2, Requirement R5

NERC Filing

82. Requirement R5 requires that the reliability coordinator, planning authority, and 

transmission planner shall each provide its system operating limits and interconnection 

reliability operating limits 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 

described in sub-Requirements 5.1 through 5.4. NERC’s proposed violation severity 

levels for the subject requirements factor in, as measure of compliance, the number of 

days the applicable entity failed to issue its system operating limits methodology and any 

changes to that methodology, prior to the effectiveness or change of the methodology to 

the required entities. 

NOPR Proposal

83. The Commission did not comment on this requirement in the NOPR. 

Commission Determination

84. The Commission finds that the consideration of the time period for which an entity 

failed to issue its system operating limits methodology, as it relates to Requirement R5 of 

FAC-014-2, is not consistent with the text of the requirement and, thus, not consistent 

with Guideline 3. The Commission believes that the violation severity levels for 

Requirements R5 should be assigned based on the number of required elements, as 

identified in the relevant sub-requirements, with which the applicable entity did not 

 

violation severity levels assigned to VAR-001-1 Requirement R10 and its concerns with 

the violation severity levels NERC assigned to FAC-014-2 Requirement R1 through R4. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 42 -

comply. Sub-requirements R4.1 through R4.3 and sub-requirements R5.1 through R5.4 

are binary requirements and should be assigned a single violation severity level. Since 

the Commission’s proposals for this requirement were not discussed in the NOPR for 

comment, the Commission approves the violation severity levels for Requirement R4, as 

filed by the ERO. To ensure that the violation severity levels approved for Requirement 

R4 are consistent with the guidelines established in the Violation Severity Level Order in 

a timely manner, the Commission directs the ERO to review the violation severity levels 

assigned to Requirement R4 for consistency with Violation Severity Level Order 

Guidelines 2b, 3, and 4 and submit the results of its review either within six months of 

the effective date of the final rule or in its Violation Severity Level Order Guideline 2b, 

3, and 4 compliance filing, whichever is earlier. 

g. FAC-014-2, Requirement R6

NERC Filing

85. Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 requires a planning authority to identify the subset 

of multiple contingencies (if any) from Reliability Standard TPL-003, which results in 

stability limits. Sub-requirements R6.1 and R6.2 require that the planning authority 

provide the list to the reliability coordinator, or if no multiple contingencies exist, to 

notify the reliability coordinator, respectively. NERC assigned violation severity levels 

based on a combination of compliance scenarios relevant to sub-requirements R6.1 and 

R6.2. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 43 -

NOPR Proposal

86. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that the violation severity levels 

assigned to FAC-014-2 Requirement R6 do not address a scenario where the planning 

authority fails to provide a complete subset of contingencies to the reliability coordinator 

and proposed a revision of the violation severity level assignments. The Commission 

expressed concern that this omission could prevent the reliability coordinator from 

having the information it needs for its situational awareness that system operating limits 

and interconnection reliability operating limits that impact the reliable operation of the 

Bulk-Power System are being exceeded. The Commission therefore proposed 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 proposed 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.45 The 

Commission stated that the proposed revisions would make the violation severity level 

assignments for Requirement R6 consistent with NERC’s own guidelines for the 

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

R6. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 44 -

development of violation severity levels related to communication or coordination 

requirements.46 

Comments

87. NERC disagrees with the Commission’s assertion that the proposed violation 

severity levels for Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 do not identify a situation where a 

planning authority fails to provide a complete subset of contingencies to the reliability 

coordinator. NERC contends that the “High” and “Severe” violation severity levels for 

Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2 satisfy the Commission’s concerns by stating that 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 or 

more reliability coordinators that monitor the facilities associated with these limits. 

NERC contends that a planning authority will fail to comply with sub-requirement R6.1 

of FAC-014-2 if they do not provide the complete set of contingencies to the reliability 

coordinator. 

88. The Bureau of Reclamation and IESO separately take issue with the 

Commission’s proposed revisions to violation severity levels applicable to Requirement 

R6 of FAC-014-2. The Bureau of Reclamation contends that the Commission’s proposal 

 46 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 - 45 -

would require auditors to perform studies independent from the planning authority in 

order to determine whether all contingencies were considered. IESO contends that both 

the “High” and “Severe” violation severity levels address the planning authority’s failure 

to communicate multiple contingency scenarios to the reliability coordinator. IESO, 

however, agrees with the Commission that there should not be a gap in the violation 

severity levels and states that the “Lower” violation severity level for FAC-014-2 

Requirement R6 should be assigned a “Moderate” violation severity level. 

Commission Determination

89. The Commission agrees with NERC that a planning authority’s requirement to 

provide the reliability coordinator with a complete set of contingencies is addressed in the 

“High” and “Severe” violation severity levels assigned to Requirement R6 of FAC-014-2. 

However, the Commission also believes that it is appropriate to apply a binary, pass/fail 

approach to the violation severity levels because a planning authority either will or will 

not satisfy this requirement. As proposed by NERC, violations of the sub-requirements 

are addressed only in the violation severity levels assigned to the main requirement. In 

keeping with the Commission’s decision that the ERO must assign a violation severity 

level to every sub-requirement, the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal and directs 

the ERO to assign binary violation severity levels to Requirement R6 and subrequirements R6.1 and R6.2. Although the enforcement of Requirement R6, and its subrequirements, may require the use of auditors, this is a compliance issue best addressed 

on a case-by-case basis in the context of a compliance proceeding. The Commission 

directs the ERO to file revised violation severity levels for Reliability Standard 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 46 -

FAC-014-2 Requirement R6 within 30 days of the effective date of this final rule, as 

discussed above and indicated in Attachment A. 

E. Violation Risk Factors

90. NERC did not submit violation risk factors for the version two FAC Reliability 

Standards in its original filing. On October 15, 2008, NERC filed violation risk factors 

for the version two FAC Reliability Standards. 

NOPR Proposal

91. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that the Commission approved the majority 

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

in Order No. 705.47 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 proposed 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. With respect to the Western Interconnection regional difference, 

the Commission proposed to direct Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) to 

apply the NERC violation risk factors to the Western Interconnection regional difference 

until after WECC develops its own violation risk factors and they are approved by the 

ERO and the Commission. 

 47 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 at P 31 (citing Order No. 705, 121 FERC 

¶ 61,296 at P 137). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 47 -

NERC’s Violation Risk Factor Filing

92. On October 15, 2008, NERC filed violation risk factors for the proposed version 

two FAC Reliability Standards. These violation risk factors were identical to the version 

one violation risk factors. NERC asked the Commission to apply the violation risk 

factors and violation severity levels filed for FAC-010-2, Requirements R2.4 and R2.5, 

and FAC-011-2, Requirement R3.3, to the Western Interconnection regional differences 

for these same requirements. 

Commission Determination

93. The Commission approves the violation risk factors filed by NERC for the version 

two FAC Reliability Standards. Because these violation risk factors are identical to the 

violation risk factors approved for the version one FAC Reliability Standards, this 

approval is consistent with our direction in the NOPR. 

F. WECC Regional Differences

NERC Filing

94. 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 its initial filing. On 

October 15, 2008, NERC filed violation risk factors for the version two FAC Reliability 

Standards and asked the Commission to accept the violation risk factors and violation 

severity levels filed for FAC-010-2, Requirements R2.4 and R2.5, and FAC-011-2, subrequirement R3.3, to apply to the WECC regional difference. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 48 -

NOPR Proposal

95. The Commission proposed to adopt the proposed regional differences for FAC010-2 and FAC-011-2. The Commission also proposed to direct NERC to modify the 

violation severity levels assigned to the national versions of FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 

to accommodate the regional differences. The Commission noted that, 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 

apply to the Western Interconnection regional difference.48 In the interim, the 

Commission approved WECC’s proposal to assign the same violation risk factors to the 

WECC regional difference as are assigned to NERC sub-requirement R2.4 and R2.5 in 

FAC-010-1 and sub-requirement R3.3 in FAC-011-1. The Commission directed WECC 

to file its violation risk factors and violation severity levels no later than the effective date 

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

July 1, 2008 and FAC-011-1 became effective on October 1, 2008 without violation 

severity levels or violation risk factors. 

96. To remedy this deficiency, the Commission proposed modifications to the 

violation severity level assignments assigned to FAC-010-2 and FAC-011-2 that address 

the Western Interconnection regional differences. Consistent with our decision in Order 

No. 705, the Commission also proposed to direct WECC to apply the NERC violation 

 48 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,637 at P 32 (citing Order No. 705, 121 FERC 

¶ 61,296 at P 146). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 49 -

risk factors to the Western Interconnection regional difference until after WECC 

develops its own violation risk factors for the difference and they are approved by the 

ERO and the Commission.49 The Commission noted that WECC is still obligated to 

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

and violation severity levels addressing the Western Interconnection regional difference. 

Comments

97. BPA requests that the Commission direct the ERO to designate the regional 

differences section of FAC-011-2 as section “E.” BPA points out that the requirement 

makes multiple references to the regional differences section for the Western 

Interconnection as section “E,” but there is no corresponding designation of the regional 

differences section as section “E.” 

Commission Determination

98. The Commission agrees with BPA’s comment relevant to designating the 

Regional Differences section of FAC-011-2 as section “E” and directs the ERO to file 

this revision within 30 days of the effective date of this final rule. 

99. As discussed above, the Commission approves the violation risk factors filed by 

NERC for the version two FAC Reliability Standards. These violation risk factors are 

identical to those approved for the version one FAC Reliability Standards. The 

Commission also adopts the NOPR proposal with respect to the Western Interconnection 

regional difference and directs WECC to apply the violation risk factors approved for 

 49 Id. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 50 -

FAC-010-1 Requirements R2.4 and R2.5 and FAC-011-1 Requirement R3.3 to the 

WECC regional difference version of FAC-010-2 Requirements 1.1 through 1.3 and 

FAC-011-2 Requirement 1.1 through 1.3.50 With regard to the WECC regional 

differences FAC-010-2 Requirement 1 and Requirement 1.4 and FAC-011-2 

Requirement 1 and 1.4, the Commission believes that these requirements are explanatory 

statements and that a violation risk factor need not be assigned. 

100. The Commission finds that each of the WECC regional difference requirements is 

a binary requirement and, therefore, a single violation severity level is appropriate. 

Accordingly, until such time as WECC develops and submits violation severity levels for 

the version two FAC Reliability Standards, the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal 

and directs WECC to assign a “Severe” violation severity level to the WECC regional 

difference FAC-010-2 Requirement 1.1 and FAC-011-2 Requirement 1.1. In addition, 

the Commission directs WECC to apply a “Severe” violation severity level to the WECC 

regional difference FAC-010-2 Requirement 1.2 through 1.3 and FAC-011-2 

Requirements 1.2 through 1.3. These revisions will create a complete and consistent 

penalty setting mechanism for the WECC regional difference requirements. The 

Commission directs the ERO to file revised violation risk factors and violation severity 

levels for the regional difference within 30 days of the effective date of this final rule, as 

discussed above and indicated in Attachment A. 

 50 This direction is consistent with NERC’s October 15, 2008 proposal. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 51 -

G. Effective Date

101. NERC requested that the Commission make the version two FAC Reliability 

Standards effective according to a staggered schedule, consistent with the implementation 

dates of the version one FAC Reliability Standards. NERC’s proposed effective dates 

have all since passed. Accordingly, the version two FAC Reliability Standards shall 

become effective [insert date that is 30 days after publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

III. Information Collection Statement

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

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

agency.51 The information contained here is also subject to review under section 3507(d) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.52 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 and, 

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. 

 51 5 CFR 1320.11. 

52 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 52 -

Action: Proposed Collection. 

OMB Control No.: 1902-0247 

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

Frequency of Responses: On Occasion. 

Necessity of the Information: This final rule approves 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 for the Bulk-Power System in the 

planning and operation horizons. This final rule finds the Reliability Standards and 

interpretations just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the 

public interest. 

103. 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, DC 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. 1902-0247), Washington, DC 20503, 

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

IV. Environmental Analysis

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

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 53 -

on the human environment.53 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

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

environment. The actions directed here fall within the categorical exclusion in t

Commission’s regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective or procedural, fo

information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.

he 

r 

sessment is required. 

54 Accordingly, neither an 

environmental impact statement nor environmental as

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

105. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 198055 generally requires a description and 

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

of small entities. Most of the entities, i.e., planning authorities, reliability coordinators, 

transmission planners and transmission operators, to which the requirements of this final 

rule apply do not fall within the definition of small entities.56 

106. As indicated above, based on available information regarding NERC’s compliance 

registry, approximately 250 entities will be responsible for compliance with the three 

revised Reliability Standards. It is estimated that one-third of the responsible entities, 

 53 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 

486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

54 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 

55 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 

56 The definition of “small entity” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act refers to 

the definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a “small business 

concern” as a business that is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant 

in its field of operation. See 15 U.S.C. 632. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 54 -

about 80 entities, would be municipal and cooperative organizations. The approved 

Reliability Standards apply to planning authorities, transmission planners, transmission 

operators and reliability coordinators, which tend to be larger entities. Thus, the 

Commission believes that only a portion, approximately 30 to 40 of the municipal and 

cooperative organizations to which the approved Reliability Standards apply, qualify as 

small entities.57 The Commission does not consider this a substantial number. 

Moreover, as discussed above, the approved Reliability Standards will not be a burd

the industry since most if not all of the applicable entities currently perform system 

operating limit calculations and the approved Reliability Standards will simply provide a 

common methodology for those calculations. Accordingly, the Commission certifies

the approved Reliability Standards will not have a significant adverse impact on a 

substantial number of small 

en on 

 that 

entities. 

 

107. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required. 

57 According to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), there were 3,284 electric utility companies in the United States in 

2005, and 3,029 of these electric utilities qualify as small entities under the SBA 

definition. Among these 3,284 electric utility companies are: (1) 883 cooperatives of 

which 852 are small entity cooperatives; (2) 1,862 municipal utilities, of which 1842 are 

small entity municipal utilities; (3) 127 political subdivisions, of which 114 are small 

entity political subdivisions; and (4) 219 privately owned utilities, of which 104 could be 

considered small entity private utilities. See Energy Information Administration 

Database, Form EIA-861, DOE (2005), available at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 55 -

VI. Document Availability

108. 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 business 

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington DC 20426. 

109. 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 Microsoft 

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

eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

110. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s website during normal 

business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-

8371, TTY (202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

111. These regulations are effective [insert date that is 30 days from publication in 

Federal Register]. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule 
Docket No. RM08-11-000 - 56 -

is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 

By the Commission. 

( S E A L ) 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 
Attachment A
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

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

The Planning Authority Methodology for use in its Planning Authority Aaddress R1.1. OR The Planning Authority Methodology for use in its Planning Authority A

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

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

applicable for developinhorizon.

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

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

state that SOLs shall noFacility 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 

include a description of subset of SOLs that qua

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’

requires that SOLs are performance in the precdoes not require that SOBES performance specsingle contingencies (Rrequire that SOLs be seperformance specified fcontingencies. (R2.5-R2
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

FAC-010-2 R2.1. In the precontingency state and with all Facilities in service, 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 expected system conditions and shall reflect changes to system topology such as Facility outages. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Planning Authority’

include a requirement thperformance consistent R2.1. 

FAC-010-2 R2.2. Following the single Contingencies 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 Planning Authority’

include a requirement thperformance consistent R2.2.

FAC-010-2 R2.2.1. Single line to ground or three-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 

ground or 3-phase Faulsevere), with Normal Clgenerator, line, transfor

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 

any generator, line, tranwithout 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 

block, with Normal Cleabipolar high voltage dire

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 

of the following: 2.3.1. t
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

starting with all Facilitieresponse to a single Coplanned or controlled insupply to radial customenetwork customers conthe Faulted Facility or b

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 

starting with all Facilitieresponse to a single CoSystem reconfiguration automatic control or pro

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 

order to prepare for the system adjustments machanges to generation, system, and the transm

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 

requirement that SOLs performance consistent R2.5. 

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: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

determining the systemmultiple Contingencies, Standard TPL-003, in aidentified in R2.3.1 and controlled interruption ocustomers (load sheddifrom service of certain gcurtailment of contractereserved) electric poweacceptable.

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 through R3.6. 

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 determining SOLs that of four or more of the foR3.6. 

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. The methodology does 

model that includes the Area, and the critical moPlanning Authority Areafacility or facilities unde

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

of applicable Contingen

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

detail of system models SOLs.

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

uses of Special ProtectAction Plans. 

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

description of anticipateconfiguration, generatiolevel.
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

of the criteria for determSOL qualifies as an InteOperating Limit (IROL) developing any associa

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: The Planning Authority issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities. 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: 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 The Planning 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 

One of the following: 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 The Planning 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 30 calendar days or more, but less than 60 calendar days after the effectiveness of the 

One of the following: The Planning Authority Methodology and changto more than three of thThe Planning Authority Methodology and changto all but one of the reqchange in methodologymethodology was provimore after the effectiveOR The Planning Authority Methodology and changto all but two of the requchange in methodologymethodology was provimore, but less than 90 ceffectiveness of the chaOR The Planning Authority Methodology and changto all but three of the rechange in methodologymethodology was provimore, but less than 60 ceffectiveness of the chaAuthority issued its SOL changes to that methodthe required entities ANmethodology, the changprovided up to 30 caleneffectiveness of the cha
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

the effectiveness of the change. 

change. OR 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. 

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 

Methodology and any cmethodology, prior to thchange, to each adjaceeach Planning Authority reliability-related need f

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 

Methodology and any cmethodology, prior to th

change, to each Reliab

Transmission Operator of the Planning AuthoritArea.

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 

Methodology and any cmethodology, prior to thchange, to each Transmworks in the Planning AAuthority Area prior to tchange.
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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. 

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 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. 

The Planning Authority technical comments on and provided a completperiod that was 90 caleOR The Planning Authority’documented technical cMethodology did not indwill be made to the SOL 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1. The following Interconnection-wide Regional Difference shall be applicable in the Western Interconnection: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

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. The methodology fails t

evaluations listed in 1.1

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following were excl

SOLs; simultaneous peFaults on different phasadjacent transmission ccircuit tower, with Norm

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 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following were excl

SOLs; a permanent phaany generator, transmisor bus section with Delaexcept for bus sectionabreakers addressed in E

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.1.3. Simultaneous permanent loss of both poles of a direct current bipolar Facility without an alternating current Fault.

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs; simultaneous pepoles of a direct current an alternating current F
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs; the failure of a ciwith a Special Protectiowhen required followingwithout a Fault; or a perFault, with Normal Cleacircuit, transformer or b

WECC -- FAC-010-2 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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs; a non-three phasClearing on common madjacent circuits on sepevent frequency is deteone 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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs; a common mode generating units connecswitchyard, not otherwis010.

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs; the loss of multipresult of failure or delayor bus sectionalizing brpermanent Phase to Gr

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: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology fails t

evaluations listed in 1.2

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.2.1. All Facilities are operating within their applicable Post-Contingency thermal, frequency and voltage limits. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: All Facwithin their applicable Pthermal, frequency and 

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.2.2. Cascading does not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: cascad
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.2.3. Uncontrolled separation of the system does not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: uncontrsystem does not occur.

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.2.4. The system demonstrates transient, dynamic and voltage stability. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: the systransient, dynamic and 

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: dependand expected system iminterruption of electric sshedding), the planned certain generators, and/contracted firm (non-recpower transfers may be the overall security of thtransmission systems.

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.2.6. Interruption of firm transfer, Load or system reconfiguration is permitted through manual or automatic control or protection actions. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: interrupLoad or system reconfigthrough manual or autoprotection 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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: to prepaContingency, system adincluding changes to getransmission system toplimits.

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: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology fails t

evaluations listed in 1.3

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.3.1. Cascading does not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL methodology 

cascading does not occ

WECC -- FAC-010-2 R1.4. The Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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. 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

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

The Reliability CoordinaSOL Methodology for uswithin its Reliability Coonot address R1.1. OR The Reliability CoordinaSOL Methodology for uswithin its Reliability Coo

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Reliability Coordina

not applicable for develooperations horizon.

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Reliability Coordina

did not state that SOLs associated Facility Ratin

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. The Reliability Coordina

did not include a descripthe subset of SOLs that 

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 pre-contingency 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 Coordina

does not require that SOperformance in either thand does not require thaBES performance follow(R2.1 through R2.4) 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

FAC-011-2 R2.1. In the precontingency 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 SOL methodology d

requirement that SOLs pconsistent with sub-requ

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 SOL methodology d

requirement that SOLs pconsistent with sub-requ

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 

provide BES performancline to ground or 3-phasmore severe), with NormFaulted generator, line, 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 

any generator, line, tranwithout 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 

block, with Normal Cleabipolar high voltage dire
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

of the following 2.3.1. th

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 

determining the systems contingency, Planned oelectric supply to radial network customers connthe Faulted Facility or by 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 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

determining the systems contingency, Interruptiocustomers is acceptablehas already been adjustfollowing at least one prreal-time operating condthan anticipated in the c

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 

determining the systems contingency, system recmanual or automatic cois acceptable.

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 

prepare for the next Conadjustments may be mageneration, uses of the the transmission system 

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 

The Reliability Coordinator has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but two of the 

The Reliability Coordinator has a methodology for determining SOLs that includes a description for all but three of the following: 

The Reliability Coordinafor determining SOLs thdescription of three four 

R3.1 through R3.7. 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

following: R3.1 through R3.7. 

following: R3.1 through R3.7. 

R3.1 through R3.7. 

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. The methodology does 

of the study model to be include the entire Reliaband the critical details oCoordinator areas that wor facilities under study

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

of applicable Contingen

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 

of a process for determilimits associated with thcontingencies (provided Authority in accordance Requirement 6) are appoperating horizon given system conditions. 

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 de

address the need to moin R3.3, the list of limits, multiple contingencies.

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Methodology does not d

of system models used 

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

uses of Special ProtectiAction Plans.

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

anticipated transmission generation dispatch and 

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology does 

determining when violatInterconnection Reliabilcriteria for developing a
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

and criteria for developing any associated IROL Tv. 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 : The Reliability Coordinator issued its SOL Methodology and changes to that methodology to all but one of the required entities. 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 : 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 The Reliability 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. 

One of the following : 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 The Reliability 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 30 calendar days or more, but less than 60 calendar days after the effectiveness of the change. OR The Reliability Coordinator issued 

One of the following: The Reliability CoordinaMethodology and changto more than three of the The Planning Authority Methodology and changto all but one of the requchange in methodology, methodology was providmore after the effectivenOR The Reliability CoordinaMethodology and changto all but two of the requchange in methodology, methodology was providmore, but less than 90 ceffectiveness of the chaOR The Reliability CoordinaMethodology and changto all but three of the reqchange in methodology, methodology was providmore, but less than 60 ceffectiveness of the chaOR The Reliability CoordinaMethodology and changto all but four of the requchange in methodology, methodology was providdays after the effectiven
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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. 

FAC-011-2 R4.1. Each adjacent Reliability Coordinator and each Reliability Coordinator that indicated it has a reliability-related need for the methodology. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Reliability Coordina

Methodology or any chamethodology to each adCoordinator and each Rindicated it has a reliabimethodology.

FAC-011-2 R4.2. Each Planning Authority and Transmission Planner that models any portion of the Reliability Coordinator’s Reliability Coordinator Area.

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Reliability Coordina

Methodology or any chamethodology to each PlTransmission Planner ththe Reliability CoordinatCoordinator Area.

FAC-011-2 R4.3. Each Transmission Operator that operates in the Reliability Coordinator Area.

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The Reliability Coordina

Methodology or any chamethodology to each Troperates in the Reliabilit

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 

The Reliability Coordinator received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period 

The Reliability Coordinator received documented technical comments on its SOL Methodology and provided a complete response in a time period 

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 

 The Reliability Coordinadocumented technical cMethodology and providin a time period that was longer. OR The Reliability Coordinadocumented technical cMethodology did not indwill be made to the SOL 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

Methodology and, if no change will be made to that SOL Methodology, the reason why. 

that was longer than 45 calendar days but less than 60 calendar days. 

that was 60 calendar days or longer but less than 75 calendar days. 

longer but less than 90 calendar days. OR 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. 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

WECC -- FAC-011-2 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. The methodology fails t

evaluations listed in 1.1

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following were excl

SOLs: simultaneous peFaults on different phasadjacent transmission ccircuit tower, with Norm

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 Clearing except for bus sectionalizing breakers or bus-tie breakers addressed in E1.1.7 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following were excl

SOLs: a permanent phaany generator, transmisor bus section with Delaexcept for bus sectionabreakers addressed in E

WECC -- FAC-011-2 R1.1.3. Simultaneous permanent loss of both poles of a direct current bipolar Facility without an alternating current Fault.

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs: simultaneous pepoles of a direct current an alternating current F
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs: the failure of a ciwith a Special Protectiowhen required followingwithout a Fault; or a perFault, with Normal Cleacircuit, transformer or b

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs: a non-three phasClearing on common madjacent circuits on sepevent frequency is deteone in thirty years.

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-010. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs; a common mode generating units connecswitchyard, not otherwis010.

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The following was exclu

SOLs: the loss of multipresult of failure or delayor bus sectionalizing brpermanent Phase to Gr

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: 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology fails t

evaluations listed in 1.2

WECC -- FAC-011-2 R1.2.1. All Facilities are operating within their applicable Post-Contingency thermal, frequency and voltage limits. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: All Facwithin their applicable Pthermal, frequency and 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

WECC -- FAC-011-2 R1.2.2. Cascading does not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: cascad

WECC -- FAC-011-2 R1.2.3. Uncontrolled separation of the system does not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: uncontrsystem does not occur.

WECC -- FAC-011-2 R1.2.4. The system demonstrates transient, dynamic and voltage stability. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: the systransient, dynamic and 

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: dependand expected system iminterruption of electric sshedding), the planned certain generators, and/contracted firm (non-recpower transfers may be the overall security of thtransmission 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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: interrupLoad or system reconfigthrough manual or autoprotection 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 transmission system topology when determining limits. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. SOLs do not provide sy

consistent with: to prepaContingency, system adincluding changes to getransmission system toplimits.

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 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The methodology fails t

evaluations listed in 1.3
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

other systems: WECC -- FAC-011-2 R1.3.1. Cascading does not occur. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The SOL methodology 

cascading does not occ

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. 

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable.
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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) 

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) 

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) 

There are SOLs for the Area, but one or more oinconsistent with the ReSOL Methodology. (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) 

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) 

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) 

The Transmission OperSOLs for its portion of tArea, but 75% or more inconsistent with the ReSOL Methodology. (R2) 

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) 

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) 

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) 

There are SOLs, for the Area, but 75% or more inconsistent with the PlaSOL Methodology. (R3) 
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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) 

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) 

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) 

The Transmission PlanSOLs for its portion of tArea, but one or more oinconsistent with the PlaSOL Methodology. (R4) 

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 reliabilityrelated 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: The responsible entity provided its SOLs to all but one of the requesting entities within the schedules provided. (R5) Or 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 The supporting information provided with the IROLs does not address 5.1.4 

One of the following: The responsible entity provided its SOLs to all but two of the requesting entities within the schedules provided. (R5) Or 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 The supporting information provided with the IROLs does not address 5.1.3 

One of the following: The responsible entity fto more than two of the 45 calendar days of the (R5) OR The supporting informaIROLs does not addres
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 reliability-related 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 Coordina

SOLs (including the subIROLs) to adjacent ReliReliability Coordinators related need for those lTransmission OperatorsPlanners, Transmission Planning Authorities witCoordinator 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 Relia

provide the Identificatioassociated Facility (or g(are) critical to the deriv

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 Relia

provide the value of the Tv.

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

Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. For any IROL, the Relia

provide the associated 

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 Relia

provide the type of limitIROL (e.g., voltage colla

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 Oper

complete set of SOLs it Reliability Coordinator aService Providers that sReliability Coordinator A
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

complete set of SOLs (iSOLs that are IROLs) to Authorities, and to TranTransmission Service POperators and Reliabilitwithin its Planning Auth

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 Plan

complete set of SOLs (iSOLs that are IROLs) to Reliability CoordinatorsOperators, and Transmthat work within its Tranand to adjacent Transm

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 

Not applicable.

Not applicable. 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) 

Not applicable.

The Planning Authority subset of multiple contin

stability limits. (R6) OR 

The Planning Authority 

multiple contingencies wlimits but did not provide contingencies and assoone Reliability CoordinaFacilities associated wit
Text of Requirement Lower Moderate High Severe 

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 

subset of multiple continthat resulted in stability complete list of multiple associated stability limitCoordinators that monitassociated with these c

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 

Reliability Coordinator tstability-related multiple