cip version 5 transition program - nerc highlights nad minutes... · 2015-02-05 · april 2015: r4...
TRANSCRIPT
CIP Version 5 Transition ProgramSteven Noess, Director of Compliance AssuranceMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
Purpose of the Transition Program
“Support all entities in the timely, effective, and efficient transition to CIP Version 5”
Implementation Readiness
Clarify Compliance
Expectations
Resource Requirement
AlignmentConsistent
Enforcement
Support Industry
Confidence
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
Key Accomplishments
• CIP V5 Transition Advisory Group Convenes every 4-8 weeks Highlights useful topics to address common implementation questions Authored sections of the Implementation Study Report (Q4)
• Lessons Learned and FAQs Comments solicited on drafts to increase transparency Posted drafts and planned topics outlined on CIP Version 5 web page
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Key Accomplishments (cont.)
• Compliance and Enforcement Clarity – additional documents posted to address compliance questions during transition Transition period compliance monitoring Application of the risk-based compliance and enforcement concepts
• Outreach and Training Increased outreach and training for industry and ERO Enterprise staff
2015 Dates Type LocationFebruary 25 Industry outreach event AtlantaMarch 25 Industry outreach event AtlantaApril 22 Industry outreach event Atlanta
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Continued industry outreach and ERO Enterprise staff training Pre-enforcement audits and individualized outreach sessions Small group advisory sessions Regionally-coordinated CIP curriculum and workshops CIP auditor training workshops every two months Final RSAW distribution and training
• Emphasis on timely, well-informed lessons learned and FAQs Approximately 15 lessons learned will be posted in 2015 Advisory group anticipates most critical topics complete by early Q2
Next Steps and Action Items
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Physical Security Reliability Standard ImplementationSteven Noess, Director of Compliance AssuranceMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
CIP-014 Implementation Program
Implementation Readiness
Clarify Compliance
Expectations
Understanding Scoping and 3rd
Party RelianceConsistent
Enforcement
Increased Industry
Awareness
“Support all entities in the timely, effective, and efficient implementation of CIP-014”
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Order 802 directed NERC to address the following: Remove the term “widespread” in Requirement R1 Informational filing to assess whether “High Impact” control centers
should be protected under CIP-014-1
• Standard drafting team Met face-to-face in January 2015 Anticipated posting of revised standard in late February 2015
FERC Order 802
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
• Key enforcement dates: Requirement R1 is enforceable on October 1, 2015 Requirements R2 through R6 must be completed after R1 according to the
timelines specified in the standard
• Collaboration with NATF and other groups on guidance• Expected guidance posting dates: February 2015: R1, R2, R3 (Risk Assessment and Verification) April 2015: R4 and R5 (Threat Evaluation / Physical Security Plans) July 2015: R6 (Threat and Evaluation / Security Plan Verifications)
Increasing Industry’s Understanding
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Clarifies understanding of applicability to standard• Detailed explanation on sound approaches NATF Existing guidance TPL standards
• Leverages transmission-focused expertise of industry• Not exclusive (i.e., builds confidence in ERO Enterprise’s
viewpoint on approach, but not the only acceptable approach)• Focus on effectiveness of application
Risk Assessment (R1) Guidance
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
• Number of assets critical under the standard• Defining characteristics of the assets identified as critical• Scope of security plans• Timelines for implementing security and resiliency measures• Industry’s progress in implementing the standard
ERO to Monitor Implementation
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
• Industry webinar occurred December 18, 2014• Additional outreach activities for 2015• Auditor training (began September 2014) Additional workshops ongoing in 2015 Coordinated with release of guidance
Outreach and Training
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
Essential ReliabilityServices Task Force Measures Framework Report Thomas Burgess, Vice President and Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance AnalysisMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Develop an approach and framework for the long-term assessment of essential reliability services (ERS)
• Identify parameters and performance expectations for each ERS• Develop relevant measures to understand impacts of changing
resource mix on reliability• Identify any gaps and recommendations for NERC
ERSTF Objectives
Resource Adequacy
Essential Reliability Services
Reliable Bulk Power System
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Framework report endorsed by Operating and Planning Committees (OC/PC) in December 2014
• Subgroups identified nine possible measures at this point in time Four measures approved to commence data gathering and analysis (pilot) Five measures currently being evaluated to integrate into pilot
Update
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
• Synchronous Inertial Response [interconnection] (Measure 1)• Initial Frequency Deviation following largest contingency
[interconnection] (Measure 2)• Synchronous Inertial Response [Balancing Authority] (Measure 3)• Ramping Variability needs [Balancing Authority] (Measure 6)
Measures Endorsed for Piloting
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
• Frequency Nadir at Minimum Synchronous Inertial Response Conditions (Measure 4)
• Real-Time Inertia and Voltage Stability Limits (Measure 5)• System Dynamic and Static Reactive Capability (Measure 7)• System Voltage Performance in Planning and Operations
(Measure 8) • Reactive Margin and Overall Voltage Operating Performance
(Measure 9)
Measures Being Refined for Pilot
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Pilot Timeline
December2014
February2015
December2015
June2015
Preliminary analysis: Presented to OC/PC
• “Hand in hand” approach with industry stakeholders to determine effectiveness and practical adoption of such measures
• Analysis by ERSTF to determine emerging trends and benchmarks
Overall assessment and final report:
Validate or refine all measures and formulate final
recommendations
Pilot Continues: Request for volunteer
data (5 Measures)
Pilot Begins: Request for volunteer
data (4 Measures)
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY7
• Consider technical aspects of ERS when making decisions related to interconnecting new resources or market and tariff oversight
• Policy decisions have direct influence on changes in the resource mix, and thus can also affect the reliability of the bulk power system
• Goal is to inform, educate, and build awareness on the implications of the changing resource mix and how industry can evolve the system in a reliable manner
Message for Policy Makers
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY8
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY9
• Measures 1 and 3 identify the parameters and data required to measure historical inertia at an Interconnection and Balancing Authority level respectively
• The historical data can then be used to project future trends
Measures 1 & 3
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4x 10
5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kin
etic
ene
rgy,
MW
s
at max wind penetration, historic
at max wind penetration, projected based on SGIAs
∗ at max wind penetration, projected based on SGIAs and FCs
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY10
• Measure 2 is extrapolated from Measure 1 and can be achieved for Interconnection level data
• This measure utilizes a framework to calculate a Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF) of an interconnection. This measure is intended for planning horizon level
Measure 2
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY11
• Measure 6 identifies each Balancing Authority's net demand ramping variability needs by calculating the historical and projected maximum one-hour up, one-hour down, three-hour up and three-hour down net load ramps (actual load less production from VERs) using one-minute data
Measure 6
-8,000
-6,000
-4,000
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Hourly
Net Lo
ad Ram
ps, MW
Yearly 1-Hour Ramp Distribution
-14,000-12,000-10,000
-8,000-6,000-4,000-2,000
02,0004,0006,0008,000
10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000
Hourly
Net L
oad Ra
mps, M
W
Yearly 3-Hour Ramp Distribution
Risk-Based RegistrationPhase IIEarl Shockley, Senior Director, Compliance Analysis and CertificationMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Differentiate entities exhibiting different levels of risk: Clear thresholds Registration using consistent risk assessment methods Focused Reliability Standard requirements
• Align with: Bulk Electric System (BES) definition Risk-based compliance monitoring Reliability Standards reform
Risk-Based Registration Vision
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Align registration and compliance with reliability impacts • Reduce registration burden while sustaining BES reliability• Enhance electric reliability organization (ERO) program
consistency• Provide feedback to Reliability Standards development • Improve use of NERC, Regional Entity and industry resources
Risk-Based Registration Benefits
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Key Tasks to Support Phase II
• To determine necessary studies to test feasibility of proposed risk profiles and sub-sets of applicable standards
Technical Conferences
• RBR Advisory Group, Technical Task Force, Regional Entities, Forums and Trade Organizations
Regional & Industry Engagement
• Feedback on proposed risk profiles and sub-sets of applicable standards
Feedback & Outreach
• Technical report with recommendations presented to NERC Board of Trustees at November 2015 meetingTechnical Report
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
2014 2015
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
TO/TOP Technical Conferences
GO/GOP Technical Conferences
Communication, Training, Feedback and Outreach
Q3 Q4
Proposed Timeline
Report and Recommendations Presented to Board
Commence Studies
Study Results Submitted
Comment Period
Determine Feasibility of Phase II Based on Studies
MRC Policy Input
Q4Q3Q2Q1
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
EPA Special Assessment Status UpdateThomas Burgess, Vice President and Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance AnalysisMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
Initial Reliability ReviewBackground and Overview
• Released in November 2014• Provided an evaluation of the EPA’s Building Block assumptions
for the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP)• Highlighted potential reliability impacts of the target-driven
emission assumptions resulting from the following: Accelerated changes to the resource mix Impacts ERS characteristics and increased dependence on natural gas Displacement or retirement of baseload capacity Expansion of natural gas and variable energy resources Meeting Reference Margin Levels Potential transmission needs and large power transfer changes
• Served as a platform to inform policy discussions on bulk power system (BPS) reliability
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Part 1: Resource Adequacy Quantitative assessment focused on generation dispatch Aurora model (zonal, economic dispatch) Publicly available data inputs where available Sensitivity analysis on gas prices Stakeholder review of assumptions and approach (Planning Committee
EPA advisory group)
• Part 2: Transmission Adequacy Evaluation of BPS transmission adequacy with projected resource mix
change Identify transmission congestion and generation deficient areas
• Part 3: Review of Existing Studies Independent evaluation of existing regional/area-specific studies
Phase I Study Three Part Assessment
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4
Phase I Study Scheduled Milestones
Date Milestone
Early December Finalize study scope
Mid-December – February Resource Adequacy Modeling
Mid-January – Mid-February Transmission Adequacy Modeling
Mid-February – Mid-March Development of report’s findings and conclusions
Early April Target release
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY5
November 2014
April2015
December2016
December2015
EPA Special Assessment
Phase III• Placeholder for
assessment completed once SIPs are developed (some single state, some multi-state)
EPA Special Assessment
Initial Reliability Review
• High-level reliability considerations
• Assessment of EPA’s rule assumptions
EPA Special Assessment
Phase II• Additional
assessment of emerging SIPs
• Reflects final rule• Conventional
reliability assessment based on known requirements
• Complete before states submit (SIPs)
EPA Special AssessmentPhase I
• Evaluation of resource and transmission adequacy
• Sensitivity analysis used to provide range of potential outcomes
EPA Reliability Impacts AssessmentMultiple Phase Approach
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY6
Event Information Sharing
James Merlo, Director of Reliability Risk ManagementMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
Event Information Sharing
EOP-004OE-417Other
ERO Event Analysis Process
Voluntary Compliance Assessment
ERO Closure Letter and
Acknowledgement
Post Brief Reports on NERC Secure
Portal
• Acknowledgement of desired behavior
• Indication of strong internal controls
• Feedback and closure
• Self critical review• Indicative of a
high Reliability Organization
• Consistent process and assessment for all events
• Informs industry and regulator
• Mandatory• Largely aligned
to EA process• Not all
occurrences are a qualified event
• Technical details• Reinforces
lesson learned• Builds trust and
promotes collaboration
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
Advisory for Generator Governor Frequency ResponseJames Merlo, Director of Reliability Risk ManagementMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2
• Intended for Generator Owners and Operators for facilities with facility aggregate ratings greater than 75 MVA
• Not intended to supersede any technical or operational considerations, nor regional guidance
• Dead bands should not exceed +/- 36 mHz• Droop characteristic should not exceed 5%, with continuous,
proportional (non-step) response• Related outer-loop controls within the Distributed Control
System should be set to avoid early withdrawal of primary frequency response
Industry Advisory –Generator Governor Frequency Response
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY3
• Published in November 2012• Available at:
http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20200712%20Frequency%20Response%20DL/FRI_Report_10-30-12_Master_w-appendices.pdf
Frequency Response Initiative Report
RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY4