133 FERC ¶ 61,066 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 40 

Docket No. RM10-10-000 

Planning Resource Adequacy Assessment Reliability Standard 

(Issued October 21, 2010) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to approve a regional Reliability Standard, 

BAL-502-RFC-02, Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and 

Documentation, developed by ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC) and submitted to the 

Commission by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The 

proposed regional Reliability Standard requires planning coordinators within the RFC 

geographical footprint to analyze, assess and document resource adequacy for load in the 

RFC footprint annually, to utilize a “one day in ten year” loss of load criterion, and to 

document and post load and resource capability in each area or transmission-constrained 

sub-area identified. 

DATES: Comments are due [Insert date that is 60 days after publication in the

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and in 

accordance with the requirements posted on the Commission’s web site, 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 2 - 

http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: 

 Electronic Submission: Documents created electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format, and not in a 

scanned format, at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 

 Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail 

or hand deliver an original copy of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 

20426. These requirements can be found on the Commission’s website, see, e.g., the 

“Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions,” available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or via phone from FERC Online Support 

at 202-502-6652 or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karin L. Larson (Legal Information) 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8236 

Scott Sells (Technical Information) 

Office of Electric Reliability 

Division of Policy Analysis and Rulemaking 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6664 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
133 FERC ¶ 61,066 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Planning Resource Adequacy Assessment 

Reliability Standard 

Docket No. RM10-10-000 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

(Issued October 21, 2010) 

1. Under section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission proposes to approve a regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-

RFC-02 (Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation), 

developed by ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC) and submitted to the Commission by 

the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The proposed regional 

Reliability Standard requires planning coordinators within the RFC geographical 

footprint to analyze, assess and document resource adequacy for load in the RFC 

footprint annually, to utilize a “one day in ten year” loss of load criterion, and to 

document and post load and resource capability in each area or transmission-constrained 

sub-area identified. 

I. Background

A. Mandatory Reliability Standards

2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability 

Organization (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 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 2 - 

Commission independently.1

 In July 2006, the Commission certified NERC as the 

ERO.2

 

3. Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include 

Reliability Standards that are developed by a Regional Entity.3

 A Regional Entity is an 

entity that has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under 

delegated authority from the ERO.4

 In Order No. 672, the Commission urged uniformity 

of Reliability Standards, but recognized a potential need for regional differences.5

 

Accordingly, the Commission stated that: 

As a general matter, we will accept the following two types of 

regional differences, provided they are otherwise just, 

reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in 

the public interest, as required under the statute: (1) a 

regional difference that is more stringent than the continentwide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that 

addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard 

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

2 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062 (ERO 

Certification Order), order on reh’g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d 

sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

3

 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4). 

4 Id. at 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4). 

5 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and 

Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability 

Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, at P 290; order on reh’g, 

Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006). 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 3 - 

does not; and (2) a regional Reliability Standard that is 

necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power 

System.6

 

4. Consistent with section 215 of the FPA, the Commission will approve proposed 

regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 if the Commission finds it is just, 

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

B. ReliabilityFirst

5. On April 19, 2007, the Commission approved delegation agreements between 

NERC and eight Regional Entities.7

 Pursuant to such agreements, the ERO delegated 

responsibility to the Regional Entities to enforce the mandatory, Commission-approved 

Reliability Standards. In addition, the Commission approved, as part of each delegation 

agreement, a Regional Entity process for developing regional Reliability Standards. In 

the Delegation Agreement Order, the Commission accepted RFC as a Regional Entity 

and accepted RFC’s Standards Development Manual which sets forth the process for 

RFC’s development of regional Reliability Standards.8

 The RFC region is a less than 

interconnection-wide region that covers all or portions of 14 states and the District of 

Columbia. 

 6

 Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 at P 291. 

7 See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,060, at P 316-350 

(Delegation Agreement Order), order on reh’g, 120 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007). 

8 Id. P 339 (clarifying that the RFC Standards Development Manual embodies 

“rules” which are subject to NERC approval and, if approved by NERC, Commission 

approval). 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 4 - 

II. RFC Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02

6. On December 14, 2009, NERC submitted for Commission approval, in accordance 

with section 215(d)(1) of the FPA,9

 regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 and 

four associated new definitions.10 The stated purpose of regional Reliability Standard 

BAL-502-RFC-02 is to establish common criteria, based on “one day in ten year” loss of 

load expectation principles, for the analysis, assessment and documentation of resource 

adequacy in the RFC region.11 NERC states that the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard establishes requirements for planning coordinators in the RFC region regarding 

resource adequacy assessment, which subject matter is not currently addressed in 

NERC’s continent-wide Reliability Standards.12

7. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 contains two 

Requirements, which are applicable to each planning coordinator within the RFC 

footprint.13 Requirement R1 requires each planning coordinator to perform and 

 

(continued...) 

9

 16 U.S.C. 824o. 

10 NERC Petition for Approval of Proposed RFC Regional Reliability Standard 

BAL-502-RFC-02, Docket No. RM10-10-000 (Dec. 14, 2009) (Petition). 

11 NERC Petition at 7. 

12 Id. at 7. NERC notes that it has a pending continent-wide project, Project 2009-

05, Resource Adequacy Assessments, that is intended to address resource adequacy 

assessments. This NERC project has a targeted completion date of third quarter 2011. 

13 According to the RFC April 16, 2010 organization registration (available at 

http://rfirst.org/Compliance/Registration.aspx), there are four registered planning 

coordinators in the RFC region, each of which is a RFC member. See RFC’s 

January 11, 2010 list of member companies by sector, available at
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 5 - 

document an annual resource adequacy analysis.14 The seven Sub-requirements define 

the criteria to be used for the resource adequacy analysis. Sub-requirement R1.1 sets 

forth the “one day in ten year” criteria to be used to calculate the planning reserve 

margin. Sub-requirement R1.2 specifies the planning years to be studied. Subrequirement R1.3 defines system characteristics to be included in the analysis. Subrequirements R1.4 and R1.5 require the consideration of resource availability and 

transmission outage plans. Sub-requirements R1.6 and R1.7 require documentation that 

capacity resources and load were properly accounted for in the analysis. Requirement R2 

requires each planning coordinator to annually document the projected load and resource 

capability for each area and transmission constrained sub-area identified in the analysis. 

Sub-requirements R2.1 through R2.3 set forth the specific documentation requirements. 

Each of the main Requirements (R1 and R2) are assigned a violation risk factor (VRF) 

and violation severity level (VSL). However, RFC did not assign VRFs or VSLs to the 

Sub-requirements. 

8. NERC also proposes to add the following four new definitions, which would be 

applicable in the RFC region only: 

 

http://rfirst.org/MiscForms/AboutUs/Membership.aspx. The four registered planning 

coordinators are American Transmission Co., LLC; International Transmission Company 

(ITC Transmission); Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest 

ISO); and PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). 

14 NERC notes that the proposed Reliability Standard does not require the building 

or acquisition of new generating capacity. See NERC Petition at 9. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 6 - 

Resource Adequacy: The ability of supply-side and demand-side 

resources to meet the aggregate electrical demand (including losses). 

Net Internal Demand: Total of all end-use customer demand and electric 

system losses within specified metered boundaries, less Direct Control 

Load Management and Interruptible Demand. 

Peak Period: A period consisting of two (2) or more calendar months but 

less than seven (7) calendar months, which includes the period during 

which the responsible entity’s annual peak demand is expected to occur. 

Year One: The planning year that begins with the upcoming annual Peak 

Period. 

NERC states that these four terms do not presently appear in the NERC Glossary of 

Terms Used in Reliability Standards (Glossary) and they do not conflict with existing 

terms.15

9. NERC states that on February 24, 2009, RFC submitted the proposed Reliability 

Standard to NERC for evaluation and approval. On April 17, 2009, NERC provided RFC 

its evaluation of BAL-502-RFC-02 which highlighted several concerns regarding the 

proposed standard. NERC’s concerns included: (1) missing time horizons, (2) effective 

date not meeting NERC’s template language, (3) complex sub-requirements, (4) the 

addition of new defined terms, (5) the assignment of VRFs and VSLs only to the 

Reliability Standard’s two main Requirements and not the sub-requirements, and 

(6) technical clarity. On June 8, 2009, RFC submitted a response to NERC addressing 

NERC’s concerns. 

 15 The NERC Glossary (updated Apr. 20, 2010) is available at

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/rs/Glossary_of_Terms_2010April20.pdf. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 7 - 

10. NERC concludes that the proposed RFC regional Reliability Standard addresses 

matters not currently covered in a continent-wide NERC Reliability Standard and thus 

meets the Commission’s criteria for consideration of a regional Reliability Standard. 

NERC asserts that the proposed regional Reliability Standard satisfies all of the criteria 

set forth in Order No. 672 that the Commission applies to determine whether a proposed 

Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in 

the public interest.16 As such, NERC requests approval of proposed regional Reliability 

Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 and the related definitions. 

III. Discussion

11. As discussed below, the Commission proposes to approve BAL-502-RFC-02. The 

proposed regional Reliability Standard will improve the reliable operation of the BulkPower System by ensuring use in the RFC region of a common criterion, the “one day in 

ten year” principle, to assess resource adequacy during the planning horizon. The 

Commission also proposes to accept the four related definitions for inclusion in NERC’s 

Glossary for use with RFC’s regional Reliability Standards.17 The Commission further 

proposes to defer discussion on the proposed VRFs and VSLs for the regional Reliability 

Standard. 

 16 Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 at P 323-337. 

17 NERC’s Glossary lists each term that has been defined for use in one or more of 

NERC’s continent-wide or regional Reliability Standards. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 8 - 

12. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 is “more stringent” in 

that NERC’s continent-wide standards currently do not address assessment of Resource 

Adequacy in the planning horizon. The Commission notes the current continent-wide 

Reliability Standard TOP-002-2a, Requirement R7 requires Balancing Authorities to plan 

to meet capacity and energy reserve requirements, including the deliverability/capability 

for any single contingency.18 Reliability Standard TOP-002-2 ensures that resources and 

operational plans are in place to enable system operators to maintain the Bulk-Power 

System in a reliable state.19 Thus Reliability Standard TOP-002-2 is a continent-wide 

Reliability Standard that addresses requirements for reserves during the operations 

timeframe whereas proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 addresses 

the assessment of resource adequacy (or planning reserves) during the planning 

timeframe. If NERC develops a continent-wide Reliability Standard that addresses 

assessment of resource adequacy in the planning horizon and such Reliability Standard is 

approved by the Commission, RFC should reevaluate the continuing need for regional 

Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02. 

 18 Reliability Standard TOP-002-2a, Requirement R7. 

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

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, at P 1590, order on reh’g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC 

¶ 61,053 (2007). See also the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM06-16-

000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations 2004-2007, ¶ 32,608 (2006) (Order 

No. 693 NOPR). 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 9 - 

A. Order No. 672 Criteria

13. Order No. 672 provides that a Reliability Standard must be designed to achieve a 

specified reliability goal and must contain a technically sound means to achieve this 

goal.20 Likewise, the Reliability Standard should be based on actual data and lessons 

learned from actual operations.21 According to NERC and RFC, proposed regional 

Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 is clear and unambiguous regarding what is 

required and who is required to comply (planning coordinator). NERC and RFC also 

state that BAL-502-RFC-02 has clear and objective measures for compliance and 

achieves a reliability goal (namely, providing a common framework for resource 

adequacy analysis, assessment, and documentation) effectively and efficiently. Based on 

the Commission’s understanding of the proposed regional Reliability Standard, explained 

below, the Commission believes that BAL-502-RFC-02 satisfies the Order No. 672 

criteria. 

B. RFC’s Proposed Resource Adequacy Reliability Standard 

Requirements

14. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 requires planning 

coordinators to perform an annual Resource Adequacy analysis and calculate a planning 

reserve margin that meets the “one day in ten year” criterion. The analysis must be 

“performed or verified separately” for (i) Year One, (ii) for one year falling in the second 

 20 Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 at P 324. 

21 Id.
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 10 - 

through fifth years, and (iii) at least one year in the sixth through tenth years.22 The 

regional Reliability Standard further requires the planning coordinators to calculate the 

planning reserve margin by assessing each of the integrated peak hours for each day 

within the year being analyzed to determine the probability that generation and demandside resources cannot meet the demand during that hour for that day (which would result 

in a loss of load).23 The calculated planning reserve margin is to be expressed as a 

percentage of the median forecast peak demand (not including direct control load 

management and interruptible demand). Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC02 states that this median forecast is expected to have a 50 percent probability that the 

projected load is too high and 50 percent probability that the projected load is too low.24 

In order to determine the appropriate load forecast, the planning coordinators must 

consider multiple factors including: (i) variability in the load forecast such as weather 

and regional economic forecasts, (ii) load diversity, (iii) seasonal load variations, 

(iv) firm load and (v) interruptible load including contractual arrangements concerning 

curtailable and/or interruptible demand.25 In addition, the planning coordinator must 

document that all load in its area is accounted for in the analysis.26 

 22 See proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, Requirement R1.2. 

23 See id. at Requirement R1.1. 

24 See id. at Requirement R1.1.2 n.2. 

25 See id. at Requirement R1.3.1. 

26 See id. at Requirements R1.7. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 11 - 

15. Further, the planning coordinator must determine the probability of resources that 

will be online and available, determine the distribution of the peak load for each day, and 

include impacts of known transmission limitations.27 To determine the probability of 

available resources the planning coordinator must consider multiple factors. Such factors 

include: (i) the historic resource performance, (ii) seasonal resource ratings, (iii) firm 

capacity purchases from and sales to entities outside of the planning coordinator area, 

(iv) resource planned outage schedules, (v) deratings and retirements, (vi) assumptions of 

intermittent and energy limited resources (such as wind and cogeneration), (vii) criteria 

for including planned resource additions, (viii) availability and delivery of fuel, 

(ix) common mode outages that affect resource availability, (x) environmental and 

regulatory restrictions of resources, (xi) available demand response programs, 

(xii) sensitivity to resource outage rates, (xiii) extreme weather/drought condition impacts 

on resource availability, (xiv) assumptions for emergency operation procedures in order 

to make reserves available, and (xv) uncommitted resources within the planning 

coordinator area.28 Also, the planning coordinator must document that all capacity 

resources in the planning coordinator area are appropriately accounted for in the 

analysis.29 

 27 See id. at Requirements R1.3.1, R1.3.2, and R1.3.3. 

28 See id. at Requirements R1.3.2 and R1.4. 

29 See id. at Requirement R1.6. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 12 - 

16. The planning coordinator is also required to consider the impacts of transmission 

limitations that could prevent the delivery of generation to the load including criteria for 

including planned transmission facilities in the study as well as transmission maintenance 

outage schedules.30 Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, 

Requirement R1.3.4 requires planning coordinators to include in their assessment of 

transmission limits assistance from other interconnected systems including multi-area 

assessment considering transmission limitations into the study area. 

17. Overall, the Commission believes that factors to be considered in the resource 

adequacy analysis as set forth in Requirement R1 and, as discussed above, are a 

technically sound means to set up the analysis for the probability of not having enough 

resources in order to meet demand and avoid loss of load. However, the Commission 

questions or seeks clarity on three details of the resource adequacy analysis: (i) the loss 

of load calculation, (ii) use of capacity benefit margin; and (iii) meaning of common 

mode outages. 

18. Requirement R1.1 states that the assessment shall calculate a planning reserve 

margin that will result in the sum of probabilities for loss of load for each planning year 

equal to 0.1, or comparable to “one day in ten years” when available capacity will not 

meet the load. With respect to the loss of load calculation, proposed regional Reliability 

Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 specifically identifies two circumstances that will not count 

 30 See id. at Requirements R1.3.3, R1.3.3.1, R1.3.3.2 and R1.5. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 13 - 

in the loss of load calculation: (1) utilization of direct control load management31 and 

(2) curtailment of interruptible load.32 Notwithstanding these two exceptions to the loss 

of load calculation, the Commission seeks comment on how other actions that could be 

taken by a system operator, such as voltage reduction or other, non-voluntary, types of 

load reduction plans, would be modeled and documented in this analysis. 

19. With respect to the capacity benefit margin, the Commission notes that the 

requirements do not explicitly state whether planning coordinators may rely upon 

capacity benefit margin33 to satisfy BAL-502-RFC-02’s Requirements. During the 

standard development posting period, RFC received comments regarding potential 

conflicts or lack of coordination between BAL-502-RFC-02 and MOD-004-1 – Capacity 

Benefit Margin.34 The Commission does not believe the proposed regional Reliability 

 31 NERC defines direct control load management (DCLM) as “Demand-Side 

Management that is under the direct control of the system operator. DCLM may control 

the electric supply to individual appliances or equipment on customer premises. DCLM 

as defined here does not include Interruptible Demand.” 

32 NERC defines Interruptible Load as “Demand that the end-use customer makes 

available to its Load-Serving Entity via contract or agreements for curtailment.” 

33 The NERC Glossary defines capacity benefit margin (CBM) as “the amount of 

firm transmission transfer capability preserved by the transmission provider for LoadServing Entities (LSE), whose loads are located on that Transmission Service Provider’s 

system, to enable access by the LSEs to generation from interconnected systems to meet 

generation reliability requirements. Preservation of CBM for an LSE allows that entity to 

reduce its installed generating capacity below that which may otherwise have been 

necessary without interconnections to meet its generation reliability requirements. The 

transmission transfer capability preserved as CBM is intended to be used by the LSE only 

in times of emergency generation deficiencies.” 

34 See NERC Petition, Exhibit C, comments from ITC Transmission. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 14 - 

Standard is in conflict with the continent-wide Reliability Standard, but does note there 

could be some confusion regarding whether capacity benefit margin could or could not be 

used in order to meet the Requirements of BAL-502-RFC-02.35 Accordingly, we seek 

comment on whether capacity benefit margin may be used to satisfy BAL-502-RFC-02’s 

Requirements. 

20. With respect to Requirement R1.4, which requires the resource adequacy analysis 

to consider resource availability characteristics including “common mode outages that 

affect resource availability,” the Commission seeks comment on whether planning 

coordinators, when evaluating “common mode outages that affect resource availability” 

will consider only outages within the generation facility, or if the analysis will also 

include outages of transmission facilities that would have an impact on resource or 

generator availability. 

C. Missing Time Horizons

21. NERC’s Petition notes its concern that the proposed regional Reliability Standard 

BAL-502-RFC-02 does not identify time horizons for each Requirement. Time horizons 

are used as a factor in determining the size of a sanction. If an entity violates a 

Requirement and there is no time to mitigate the violation because the Requirement takes 

 35 Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 addresses capacity benefit margin, or a 

capacity preserved for firm transmission transfer capability. Conversely, the 

Requirements in proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 address an analysis 

regarding the capability of generation to serve the projected load. While capacity benefit 

margin could be a method of meeting the requirements of BAL-502-RFC-02, the two 

standards do not contradict each other. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 15 - 

place in real-time, then the sanction associated with the violation is higher than it would 

be for violation of a Requirement that could be mitigated over a longer period of time.36 

According to NERC’s template for Reliability Standards, each main Requirement in a 

Reliability Standard should be assigned one of the following time horizons: (1) LongTerm Planning (a planning horizon of one year or longer), (2) Operations Planning

(operating and resource plans from day-ahead up to and including seasonal), (3) Sameday Operations (routine actions required within the timeframe of a day, but not realtime), (4) Real-time Operations (actions required within one hour or less to preserve the 

reliability of the bulk electric system), and (5) Operations Assessment (follow-up 

evaluations and reporting of real time operations). 

22. According to NERC, time horizons are used for compliance assessments as 

described in NERC’s Sanctions Guidelines.37 Time horizons are used when determining 

the severity of a violation risk factor and for determining the penalty for a violation. RFC 

states that it did not include time horizons because its Reliability Standards Development 

Procedure (RSDP) does not include time horizons in its template for Reliability 

Standards. The RFC RSDP sets forth the required elements of a Standard and includes a 

Reliability Standard template. RFC’s RSDP does not include “time horizons” as a 

 36 See NERC’s “Time Horizons” document, available on NERC’s website at 

http://www.nerc.com/files/Time_Horizons.pdf. 

37 NERC Petition at 22. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 16 - 

required element.38 Thus, RFC states that including time horizons in BAL-502-RFC-02 

would have been a deviation from its Commission-approved Standards template. RFC 

also notes that “the standard focuses on ‘planning oriented’ subject matter for one year 

and beyond,” and, as such, the “appropriate time horizons are relatively straight 

forward.”39 

23. The Commission agrees with NERC that it is important to identify the time 

horizons for each Reliability Standard. However, time horizons are not critical to our 

determination of whether to approve this proposed Reliability Standard. As the 

Commission has previously stated, the “most critical element of a Reliability Standard is 

the Requirements.”40 Moreover, the Commission notes that with respect to proposed 

regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, the time horizon “Long-Term Planning” 

can be gleaned from the context of the standard for the purpose of determining the 

severity of a violation risk factor, or for determining the penalty for a violation. 

However, the Commission notes that RFC currently is in the process of modifying its 

RSDP such that it will be required to use the most current version of the approved NERC 

 38 RFC Reliability Standards Development Procedure, at 3 (May 22, 2008) 

available at

http://www.rfirst.org/Documents/Standards/Reliability%20Standards%20Developmental

%20Procedure.pdf. 

39 NERC Petition at 24. 

40 Order No. 693 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations 2004-2007, 

¶ 32,608 at P 105. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 17 - 

Reliability Standard template when developing a RFC regional Reliability Standard.41 

NERC’s “Template Guide for New Standards,” “Template Quality Review of Standards,” 

and “Time Horizons” documents all call for the inclusion of time horizons in new 

Reliability Standards.42 Thus RFC’s proposed change to its RSDP would require RFC to 

tag each new Reliability Standard Requirement with a time horizon. We believe that the 

identification of the appropriate time horizon for each Requirement is useful and 

improves clarity and consistency in compliance assessments. Because RFC appears to be 

moving toward requiring the assignment of time horizons as part of its standard drafting 

process, as well as the benefits of assigning time horizons, the Commission proposes to 

direct RFC to add time horizons to the two main Requirements when RFC reviews 

regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 in its scheduled five-year review. 

D. Proposed Effective Date

24. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02’s stated effective date is 

“upon RFC Board approval,” which occurred on December 4, 2008. NERC raises the 

concern that “[t]he effective date should follow the latest language found in the [NERC] 

standards template to meet the needs of the compliance program.”43 NERC’s “standards 

 41 RFC project SDP-501-RFC-03 was posted for 15-day category ballot the “Draft 

2 Standards Development Procedure” on Sept. 1, 2010 and can be found on RFC’s 

website at http://rsvp.rfirst.org/SDP501RFC03/default.aspx. 

42 The “Template Guide for New Standards,” “Template Quality Review of 

Standards,” and “Time Horizons” documents can all be found on the NERC website at 

http://www.nerc.com/commondocs.php?cd=2. 

43 NERC Petition at 22. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 18 - 

template” provides that the effective date should be “the first day of the first quarter after 

regulatory approval.”44 RFC responded that the proposed RFC Board approval effective 

date set forth in BAL-502-RFC-02 is appropriate because of the regional nature of the 

Standard and because the Requirements under BAL-502-RFC-02 are already being 

implemented. Specifically, RFC noted that upon RFC Board approval, BAL-502-RFC02 became effective and enforceable with respect to RFC members under their “Terms of 

Membership” contained in RFC’s bylaws.45 Because BAL-502-RFC-02 only applies to 

planning coordinators within RFC’s region, all of which are RFC members, BAL-502-

RFC-02’s Requirements are currently effective. As such, no additional implementation 

time is required.46 RFC acknowledges that upon Commission approval, the Reliability 

Standard will be mandatory and enforceable, and that non-compliance will be subject to 

financial penalties. 

25. We propose to find that with respect to proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-

RFC-02, no additional implementation time is required as the four registered planning 

coordinators in the RFC region, as RFC members, are already operating under the 

 44 Id.

45 Pursuant to RFC’s bylaws, RFC members are subject to a regional Reliability 

Standard once the Standard is approved by the RFC Board. Although a Board-approved 

Standard is enforceable under the RFC bylaws as a term of membership, a member would 

not be subject to potential financial penalties. See NERC Petition at 25. 

46 Id. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 19 - 

Standard.47 There are no other planning coordinators to whom the requirements will 

apply after Commission approval. While we note that reliability standards are generally 

implemented prospectively, in this case the real impact of Commission-approval is to 

make BAL-502-RFC-02 prospectively enforceable through civil penalties. Accordingly, 

the Commission proposes that Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 will become 

mandatory and enforceable on the effective date of the Commission’s final rule 

approving the Reliability Standard. 

E. Provision of Data 

26. Proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 requires planning coordinators to 

perform a resource adequacy analysis and assessment. Gathering data is a necessary 

component of doing so. The Commission is concerned that proposed Reliability 

Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 does not require other entities (load-serving entities, 

balancing authorities, transmission operators, resource planners, or transmission 

planners) to provide the planning coordinators subject to BAL-502-RFC-02 the necessary 

data for the resource adequacy analysis. In short, the Commission is concerned that 

planning coordinators will be subject to a mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standard 

without the necessary tools to fulfill the Standard’s Requirements. The Commission 

 47 The Commission notes that under the current NERC compliance registry entities 

register as “planning authorities,” not “planning coordinators.” NERC defines “planning 

coordinator” in its Glossary by simply referencing “See Planning Authority.” The 

Commission understands that for reliability purposes planning authorities and planning 

coordinators are interchangeable. Thus any entity registered with NERC as a planning 

authority is subject to any Reliability Standard that applies to planning coordinators. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 20 - 

recognizes that this concern is somewhat alleviated by the fact that, within the RFC, 

many of the planning coordinators are also the entities that would have the needed data,48

or may obtain some of the needed data as a result of some continent-wide Reliability 

Standards’ Requirements.49 The Commission invites comment on whether the planning 

coordinators have encountered problems with collecting necessary data in order to 

complete the resource adequacy assessment that is the subject of BAL-502-RFC-02. 

F. Regional Definitions

27. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 includes four new 

definitions that apply only to the RFC region: Resource Adequacy, Net Internal Demand, 

 48 The four planning coordinators currently registered in RFC are also registered as 

other functional entities. American Transmission Co., LLC and ITC Transmission are 

both registered as transmission owners, transmission operators and transmission planners. 

Midwest ISO is registered as a balancing authority, interchange authority, reliability 

coordinator and transmission service provider. PJM is registered as balancing authority, 

interchange authority, reliability coordinator, resource planner, transmission operator, 

transmission planner, and transmission service provider. 

49 For example, it appears that the following continent-wide Reliability Standards 

allow planning coordinators to obtain data needed to conduct the resource adequacy 

analysis and assessment: (i) MOD-001, Requirement R9 (requires transmission service 

providers to provide data regarding available transfer capability or available flowgate 

capability calculations to the planning coordinator upon request); (ii) MOD-004, 

Requirement R9 (requires transmission service providers and transmission planners to 

provide data used for determining or allocating CBM to the planning coordinator upon 

request); (iii) MOD-008, Requirement R3 (requires transmission operators to provide the 

TRM implementation document to the planning coordinator upon request); (iv) PRC-023, 

Requirements R2 and R3 (gives planning coordinators access to facility ratings and the 

identification of facilities critical to reliability); and (v) TPL-001, TPL-002, TPL-003 and 

TPL-004 (gives planning coordinators access to data related to the determination of 

whether the transmission system is planned to meet firm demand under certain 

conditions). 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 21 - 

Peak Period, and Year One. NERC plans to publish the definitions in a distinct section of 

the NERC Glossary noting their limited applicability to entities within RFC. 

28. The Commission proposes to accept the four new defined terms to be applicable 

only in the RFC region. However, the Commission cautions NERC and the Regional 

Entities to be aware of “a potential re-proliferation of regional terminology, and 

consequently, the need to prevent possible inconsistent use of terminology among 

regions.”50 

29. For example, the Commission notes that RFC’s proposed term “Resource 

Adequacy” is used in NERC’s continent-wide Reliability Standard MOD-004-151 as well 

as in NERC’s definitions of “Generation Capability Import Requirement”52 and 

“Resource Planner”53 as set forth in NERC’s Glossary. While RFC’s definition of 

 50 Western Electricity Coordinating Council Regional Reliability Standard 

Regarding Automatic Time Error Correction, Order No. 723, 127 FERC ¶ 61,176, at 

P 39 (2009) (Final Rule). 

51 Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 – Capacity Benefit Margin, Requirements 

R4.1, R5.1 and R6.1 each include a bullet stating: “Reserve margin or resource 

adequacy requirements established by other entities, such as municipalities, state 

commissions, regional transmission organizations, independent system operators, 

Regional Reliability Organizations, or regional entities.” (Emphasis added). 

52 “Generation Capability Import Requirement” is defined in the Glossary as: 

“The amount of generation capability from external sources identified by a Load-Serving 

Entity (LSE) or Resource Planner (RP) to meet its generation reliability or resource 

adequacy requirements as an alternative to internal resources.” 

53 “Resource Planner” is defined as: “The entity that develops a long-term 

(generally one year and beyond) plan for the resource adequacy of specific loads 

(customer demand and energy requirements) within a Planning Authority Area.” 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 22 - 

“Resource Adequacy” does not appear to conflict with the use of this term within the 

continent-wide Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 or in NERC’s Glossary, the addition of 

“Resource Adequacy” as a defined regional term highlights the need for NERC to remain 

vigilant regarding re-proliferation of regional terminology. This is particularly relevant 

with respect to terms like “Resource Adequacy” where other Regional Entities may have 

differing definitions of resource adequacy and differing understandings of how those 

definitions apply to the continent-wide Reliability Standard MOD-004-1 and NERC’s 

defined terms “generation capability import requirement” and “resource planner.” 

Accordingly, the Commission urges NERC and the Regional Entities to be vigilant to 

assure that any proposed regional definition is consistent with both NERC definitions and 

the approved terms used in other regions. 

G. Technical Recommendation (Resources Beyond RFC Footprint)

30. With respect to proposed BAL-502-RFC-02, NERC raises the concern of “how 

entities within RFC that have load and resources outside the RFC footprint account for 

these resources in their [resource adequacy] analysis.”54 Specifically, NERC asked RFC 

to clarify if planning coordinators within the RFC footprint are expected to only include 

RFC load and resources in the analysis. RFC responded to NERC’s technical 

recommendation stating: 

The intent is to cover all load within the RFC footprint. 

Planning Coordinators may include load outside the RFC 

footprint as deemed appropriate. Even if a Planning 

 54 NERC Petition at 24. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 23 - 

Coordinator has load outside of the ReliabilityFirst footprint, 

as long as it operates as a single area, the adequacy of that 

Planning Coordinator area will indicate adequacy of the part 

of the area within the ReliabilityFirst footprint. From a 

converse perspective, if the Planning Coordinator operates as 

a single area, that area must be assessed as a whole or the 

assessment will be inadequate for the area within the RFC 

footprint. (If transmission constraints exist, the Planning 

Coordinator’s constrained areas would have to be addressed 

separately in any event.)55 

The Commission generally agrees with the response provided by RFC. However, as 

discussed in detail below, the Commission expects that a planning coordinator may 

benefit from a common process for including resources and loads outside of the RFC 

footprint in its resource adequacy analysis. 

31. As RFC noted in its response to NERC on this issue that in order to perform a 

valid assessment, it may be necessary to represent a portion of areas outside of the RFC 

footprint in order to determine the impact those areas may have on the footprint being 

analyzed. RFC has incorporated into the proposed regional Reliability Standard a high 

level of detail necessary to perform a valid assessment. Similarly, the Commission notes 

how NERC’s continent-wide transmission planning Reliability Standards56 require a 

 55 NERC Petition at Exhibit C, NERC’s April 17, 2009 Quality Assurance Review 

Summary at 4. 

56 Transmission Planning Reliability Standards TPL-001 Requirement R1, TPL002 Requirement R1, TPL-003 Requirement R1, and TPL-004 Requirement R1 all 

require a valid assessment stating: “The Planning Authority and Transmission Planner 

shall each demonstrate through a valid assessment....” Further, the sub-requirements 

under Requirement R1 of each of the above-identified transmission planning Reliability 

Standards detail what is expected in order to have a valid assessment. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 24 - 

valid assessment, and explicitly state in the Standard what is expected to be completed in 

order to have a valid assessment. One important aspect of a valid assessment is that it 

should include an appropriate model of areas outside of the area being analyzed in order 

for the analysis to accurately represent what could be expected during actual operation.57 

Otherwise, the resource adequacy analysis could be skewed by showing adequacy within 

the RFC footprint while leaving out an inadequate area outside of the RFC footprint. To 

avoid this potential issue, the Commission expects that a RFC planning coordinator 

would have a common process or procedure that addresses the planning reserves 

assessments, which could include either (i) a methodology to determine whether or how 

the planning coordinator would include resources and loads outside of the RFC footprint 

in its resource adequacy analysis or (ii) models which the resource adequacy assessment 

should utilize that would already include the appropriate modeling of external areas. The 

Commission seeks comments on any concerns or suggestions to address load and 

resources outside of the RFC footprint during a planning assessment and also seeks 

comments on how entities currently perform this task or other similar planning tasks 

where load and resources occur outside of boundaries required by the assessment. 

 57 Requirement R1.3.5 of Reliability Standards TPL-001 through TPL-003 and 

Requirement 1.3.4 of Reliability Standard TPL-004 state that in order to have a valid 

assessment, the simulation shall “have all projected firm transfers modeled.” This is one 

example of how areas outside of the area being analyzed must be appropriately modeled 

in order to simulate the impact on the area being analyzed. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 25 - 

H. Planning Gap Identification

32. Proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 includes two main 

Requirements: (1) to annually perform and document resource adequacy analysis (R1); 

and (2) to annually document the projected load and resource capability for each area 

identified in the resource adequacy analysis (R2). BAL-502-RFC-02 does not include a 

Requirement to document any gap between the planning reserve margin calculated in 

R1.1 (the amount of planning reserve needed to ensure a “one day in ten year” criterion) 

and the actual planning reserve determined in the resource adequacy analysis. 

33. The Commission believes that it would be useful for planning coordinators to 

identify and document a deficiency in planning reserves. Identification of a planning gap 

could help ensure that entities are aware of potential risks regarding the capability to 

balance resources and demand in a planning timeframe. Acknowledging potential risk to 

the Bulk-Power System during the planning time frame would allow affected entities 

time to develop a solution before the identified deficiency in planning reserves leads to 

adverse reliability impacts. For example, NERC’s continent-wide transmission planning 

Reliability Standards58 include Requirements for entities to develop a corrective action 

plan when system simulations indicate an inability of the systems to respond as 

prescribed in the Standards. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to direct RFC, when 

reviewing BAL-502-RFC-02 during its scheduled five-year review, to consider 

 58 See Reliability Standards TPL-001-0, Requirements R2 and R3; TPL-002-0, 

Requirements R2 and R3; TPL-003-0, Requirements R2 and R3; and TPL-004-0, 

Requirements R2 and R3. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 26 - 

modifying BAL-502-RFC-02 to include a Requirement to identify any gap between the 

needed amount of planning reserves defined in Requirement R1.1 and the planning 

reserves determined from the resource adequacy analysis. This would be a 

documentation Requirement only and would not require entities to install additional 

generation or transmission capacity. 

I. Violation Risk Factors/Violation Security Levels

34. To determine a base penalty amount for a violation of a Requirement within a 

Reliability Standard, NERC, or in this case RFC as the developer of proposed Reliability 

Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, must first determine an initial range for the base penalty 

amount. To do so, RFC is to assign a VRF to each Requirement and sub-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. The Commission has 

established guidelines for evaluating the validity of each VRF assignment.59

35. The Reliability Standard developer also is to assign each Requirement and subRequirement one of four VSLs – low, moderate, high, and severe – as measurements for 

 59 See North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ¶ 61,145, order on 

reh’g, 120 FERC ¶ 61,145, at P 8-13 (2007) (Violation Risk Factor Rehearing Order). 

The guidelines are: (1) consistency with the conclusions of the Blackout Report; 

(2) consistency within a Reliability Standard; (3) consistency among Reliability 

Standards; (4) consistency with NERC’s definition of the violation risk factor level; and 

(5) treatment of requirements that co-mingle more than one obligation. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 27 - 

the degree to which the Requirement was violated in a specific circumstance. On 

June 19, 2008, the Commission issued an order establishing four guidelines for the 

development of VSLs.60 

36. With respect to proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02, RFC assigned 

VRFs only to the two main Requirements and did not propose VRFs for any of the subRequirements.61 Requirement R1 of BAL-502-RFC-02 is assigned a “medium” VRF and 

Requirement R2 is assigned a “lower” VRF. Similarly, RFC assigned VSLs only to the 

main Requirements, R1 and R2, of proposed BAL-502-RFC-02, and not to any of the 

sub-Requirements. NERC notes that RFC’s assignment of both VRFs and VSLs only to 

the main Requirements is consistent with NERC’s August 10, 2009 Informational Filing 

Regarding the Assignment of VRFs and VSLs.62

 60 North American Electric Reliability Corp., 123 FERC ¶ 61,284, at P 20-35 

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

(2008). The guidelines provide that VSL assignments should: (1) not lower the current 

level of compliance; (2) ensure uniformity and consistency in the determination of 

penalties; (3) be consistent with the corresponding requirement; and (4) be based on a 

single violation. 

61 We note that in Version Two Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance 

Reliability Standards, Order No. 722, 126 FERC ¶ 61,255, at P 45 (2009), the ERO 

proposed to develop VRFs and VSLs for Requirements but not sub-requirements. The 

Commission denied the proposal as “premature” and, instead, encouraged the ERO to 

“develop a new and comprehensive approach that would better facilitate the assignment 

of violation severity levels and violation risk factors.” As directed, on March 5, 2010, 

NERC submitted a comprehensive approach that is currently pending with the 

Commission in Docket No. RR08-4-005. 

62 NERC Petition at 24. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 28 - 

37. On May 5, 2010, NERC incorporated by reference into Docket No. RR08-4-005,63

its August 10, 2009 information filing in which NERC proposes assigning VRFs and 

VSLs only to the main Requirements in each Reliability Standard, and not to the subRequirements. Because the VRFs and VSLs for both Requirements R1 and R2 of 

proposed Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 are affected by the NERC’s pending 

petition, we propose to defer discussion on the proposed VRFs and VSLs assigned to 

BAL-502-RFC-02 until after we act on NERC’s petition in Docket No. RR08-4-005. 

J. Summary

38. In summary, proposed regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 appears to 

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

Accordingly, the Commission proposes to approve regional Reliability Standard BAL502-RFC-02 as mandatory and enforceable and to accept the four related defined terms as 

terms applicable to the RFC region only. In addition, the Commission proposes to defer 

discussion on the proposed VRFs and VSLs, as described above. The Commission 

invites comments on these proposals. 

IV. Information Collection Statement

39. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval of 

certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.64 Upon approval 

 63 Docket No. RR08-4-005 comprises NERC’s March 5, 2010 Violation Severity 

Level Compliance Filing submitted in response to Order No. 722. See Order No. 722, 

126 FERC ¶ 61,255 at P 45. 

64 5 CFR 1320.8. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 29 - 

of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and a

expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not 

be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the 

collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA)

n 

 

65 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval 

before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or 

contained in a rule of general applicability.66 

40. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to 

OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are 

solicited on the Commission’s need for this information, whether the information will 

have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing the respondent’s burden, including the use of automated information 

techniques. 

41. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposes to approve one new 

regional Reliability Standard, BAL-502-RFC-02, that was developed by RFC, a Regional 

Entity, and submitted by NERC as the ERO. The proposed regional Reliability Standard 

requires planning coordinators within the RFC geographical footprint to analyze, assess 

65 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 

66 OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) require that “Any recordkeeping, 

reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed 

to involve ten or more persons.” 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 30 - 

and document resource adequacy, annually, and to document and post projected load and 

resource capability in each area and transmission-constrained sub-area identified in the 

resource adequacy assessment. The proposed regional Reliability Standard, which 

applies to approximately four planning coordinators located in the eastern portion of the 

U.S., does not require planning coordinators to file information with the Commission. It 

does require planning coordinators to develop, document, publically post, and retain 

certain information, subject to compliance monitoring by RFC. However, the 

Commission does not believe that approval of the RFC regional Reliability Standard will 

result in a substantive increase in reporting burdens because it implements the current 

practices in RFC. As RFC has represented, the affected RFC-member planning 

coordinators have been subject to these requirements since August 2009 and would 

continue to be subject to them even if the Commission did not approve BAL-502-RFC-02 

as a regional Reliability Standard. Thus, the Commission finds that the requirement to 

develop, document, and maintain information in the regional Reliability Standard is a 

current and ongoing requirement for RFC members and, therefore, the Commission’s 

proposed action in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would not impose any additional 

burden on RFC-member planning coordinators. The Commission therefore concludes 

that this proposed rule will not substantively increase the reporting burden nor impose 

any additional information collection requirements. The proposed regional Reliability 

Standard is a new standard and was not included in the original standards submitted for 

review and approval by OMB. In addition, Commission approval of proposed regional 

Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 makes the standard mandatory and enforceable. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 31 - 

Therefore, the Commission will submit this proposed rule to OMB for review and 

approval of the reporting requirements and propose a de minimis burden to reflect the 

prior implementation by RFC as part of its region’s standard practices. 

42. The Commission does not foresee any impact on the reporting burden for small 

businesses. 

43. Based on currently available information and the fact that the burden is an existing 

part of the business process for registered planning coordinators in the RFC region, the 

Commission estimates that the increased Public Reporting Burden is de minimis as 

follows: 

Proposed Data 

Collection 

FERC-725-H 

No. of 

Respondents 

No. of 

Responses 

Hours Per 

Respondent 

Total Annual 

Hours 

Registered 

planning 

coordinators67 in 

the RFC region 

4 1 10 40 

Total 40 

Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply 

with these requirements. 

 Total annual costs = $2,651.41 ((40 hours/2080 hours/year)x$137,874/year). 

 67 At this time, there are only four registered planning coordinators in the RFC 

region. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 32 - 

 Title: (proposed) FERC-725-H, Regional Reliability Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 

(Planning Resource Adequacy Analysis, Assessment and Documentation). 

 Action: Proposed Collection of Information. 

 OMB Control No: To Be Determined. 

 Respondents: Registered planning coordinators in the RFC region. 

 Frequency of Responses: On Occasion. 

 Necessity of the Information: The proposed Regional Reliability Standard 

requires planning coordinators to document and maintain, for two years, their resource 

adequacy analyses and the projected load and resource capability subject to review by the 

Commission, NERC, and RFC to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standard. 

 Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed regional Reliability 

Standard BAL-502-RFC-02 and believes it to be just, reasonable, not unduly 

discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The Commission has assured 

itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden 

estimates associated with the information requirements. 

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

contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 

DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, Phone: 

(202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov]. Comments on 

the requirements of this order may also be sent to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 33 - 

[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security 

reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Please reference FERC-725H and the docket number of this proposed rulemaking in your 

submission. 

V. Environmental Analysis

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

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

on the human environment.68 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

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

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

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

amended.69 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

46. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)70 generally requires a description 

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

number of small entities. The entities to which the requirements of this Rule would 

apply; i.e., planning coordinators within the RFC region, do not fall within the definition 

 68 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 

¶ 30,783 (1987). 

69 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

70 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 34 - 

of small entities.71 Moreover, the proposed regional Reliability Standards reflect a 

continuation of existing resource planning assessment requirements for these planning 

coordinators and are “new” only with respect to the fact that once approved by the 

Commission, they would be subject to enforcement by either NERC or the Commission. 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission certifies that this Rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required. 

VII. Comment Procedures

47. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and 

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

proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due [Insert date that is 60 

days from publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments must refer to Docket 

No. RM10-10-000, and must include the commenter’s name, the organization they 

represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. 

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

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

most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word 

 71 The RFA definition of “small entity” refers to the definition provided in the 

Small Business Act (SBA), 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. According to the SBA, a small electric utility is defined as one that has a 

total electric output of less than four million MWh in the preceding year. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 35 - 

 processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not 

in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper 

filing. 

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

original copy of their comments to:72 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary 

of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. 

50. All comments will be placed in the Commission’s public files and may be viewed, 

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

below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments 

on other commenters. 

VIII. Document Availability

51. 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. 

52. 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 

 72 The number of copies to be filed is set forth in the Commission’s “Quick 

Reference Guide for Paper Submissions” (as updated), available at

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 
Docket No. RM10-10-000 - 36 - 

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. 

53. 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. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary.