AES Beaver Valley, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-3-000 (November 13, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: AES Beaver Valley did not address the full scope of required equipment in its Facility Ratings Methodology, and thus could not establish Facility Ratings for certain equipment.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through January 26, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)
AES Ironwood, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-4-000 (November 13, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: AES Ironwood did not address the full scope of required equipment in its Facility Ratings Methodology, and thus could not establish Facility Ratings for certain equipment.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable through, March 3, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violationn was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)
AES Red Oak, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-5-000 (November 13, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: AES Red Oak did not address the full scope of required equipment in its Facility Ratings Methodology, and thus could not establish Facility Ratings for certain equipment.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable through, January 26, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.
Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)
AES Shady Point, LLC, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SPP
Issue: AES Shady Point, a GO, submitted a self-report explaining that its Facility Ratings did not include equipment ratings for tubular bus conductors, circuit breakers, air disconnect switches and current transformers had not been included.
Finding: SPP RE found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because AES Shady Point has no series and shunt compensation devices and even though a portion of its terminal equipment had not been included in its Facility Ratings Methodology, terminal equipment specific to each generation train had been included, and the terminal equipment and transmission conductor that had been left out did not represent a limiting factor in the rating of its generating facility. So, the Facility Rating and the specification of the most limiting element were not changed when the terminal equipment was added. In addition, its system is just 5% of the interconnected TOP’s generating resources, plus its generation plant is connected to the BPS at 161 kV with a maximum output of 320 MW.
SPP RE considered AES Shady Point and its affiliates’ violation history and found that AES Shady Point’s affiliates had these previous violations of the same standards and requirements as the instant violations. In the ReliabilityFirst Region: AES Beaver Valley L.L.C. had a violation of PRC-005-1 R2, FAC-008-1 R1 and FAC-009-1 R1; AES Ironwood LLC had a violation of FAC-008-1 R1 and FAC-009-1 R1; AES Red Oak, L.L.C. had a violation of FAC-008-1 R1, FAC-009-1 R1, and PRC-005-1 R1 and R2; and AES Warrior Run had a violation of FAC-008-1 R1, FAC-009-1 R1, and PRC-005-1 R1 and R2. In the Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. region, AES Deepwater, Inc. had a previous violation of PRC-005-1 R1. As such, SPP RE considered the instant violations as repeat violations and applied them as an aggravating factor in the penalty determination.
Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)
AES Warrior Run, FERC Docket No. NP10-6-000 (November 13, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: AES Warrior Run did not address the full scope of required equipment in its Facility Ratings Methodology, and thus could not establish Facility Ratings for certain equipment.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable through, March 3, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.
Penalty: $15,900 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)
American Electric Power Service Corporation, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: RFC
Issue: In June 2011, American Electric Power (AEP), as a GO and a TO, self-reported that it had not established Facility Ratings for it 2870 Kilo Circular Mils Aluminum Conductor bus conductors that were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology. After undertaking a review of the 22 facilities that use those bus conductors, AEP revised the Facility Ratings of one of its circuits.
Finding: RFC found that this violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, the bus conductors at issue only represented approximately 0.76% of the bus conductors on the AEP system, and AEP only had to revise the Facility Ratings of one of its circuits related to those bus conductors. Furthermore, the bus conductors at issue are not the most limiting element on the AEP system. The duration of the violation was from December 3, 2007 through June 23, 2011. RFC considered as mitigating factors certain aspects of AEP’s compliance program, the violations being self-reported and the cooperation provided by AEP. But, AEP had a previous violation of FAC-009-1 R1, which RFC evaluated as a mitigating factor.
Penalty: $34,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: RFC
Issue: On the evening of June 23, 2010, PJM, American Electric Power Service Corporation's (AEP) Reliability Coordinator, experienced multiple outages on the AEP 138 kV system in the Benton Harbor area of southwest Michigan (the Kenzie Creek Event). During RFC's compliance investigation of the Kenzie Creek Event, RFC determined that AEP, upon a request to verify the ratings of a transmission line, had provided PJM with a rating for one of its 138 kV transmission line that was inconsistent with the temporarily derated condition of the line. AEP mistakenly provided PJM with the rating listed in the permanent ratings database, which did not reflect the temporary derating that occurred as a result of a clearance violation. AEP reported the correct rating to PJM the next day.
Finding: RFC found that this violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability as AEP and PJM were using the correct Facility Rating for the transmission line during the Kenzie Creek Event. AEP had also instituted a process for handling temporary rate changes when operational ratings differ from the rating listed in the official ratings database, although it failed to institute that procedure in this instance. The duration of the FAC-009-1 R1 violation was from June 23, 2010 through June 24, 2010. AEP admitted to the facts of the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that one of the violations was self-reported and that AEP had a compliance program in place (which was viewed as a partial mitigating factor). AEP also had two previous violations of FAC-009-1 R1. AEP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. Furthermore, AEP conducted an apparent cause analysis after the Kenzie Creek Event. In regards to the Kenzie Creek incident, one violation (FAC-009-1 R1) constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability; five violations (COM-002-2 R2, EOP-003-1 R8, IRO-001-1.1 R8, PER-002-0 R1 and TOP-001-1 R5) constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability; and four violations (EOP-001-0 R3, EOP-003-1 R1 and TOP-001-1 R1 and R2) constituted a serious and substantial risk to BPS reliability.
Total Penalty: $225,000 (aggregate for 10 violations)
FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)
American Municipal Power Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-168-000 (April 29, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: RFC
Issue: American Municipal Power Inc. (AMP), a Generation Owner, had not issued Facility Ratings for its solely and jointly owned terminal equipment and delay protective devices (including relays and voltage and current sensing devices). AMP also did possess series or shunt compensation devices. In addition, AMP had not listed the most limiting elements for its Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: RFC and AMP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby AMP agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the violation of FAC-009-1 constituted a moderate risk to bulk power system reliability since the violation involved units in three locations that totaled 287 MW (with 213 MW scheduled for retirement by the end of 2010). The duration of the FAC-009-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 18, 2011. In approving the settlement agreement and the penalty determination, NERC considered the fact that the violations were AMP’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violation of PRC-005-1 was self-reported; AMP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; AMP had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.
Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)
FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: Although Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) had a Facility Ratings Methodology, established Facility Ratings for its facilities and compiled a ratings database, BG&E was unable to produce documented ratings for three 230 kV lines when requested to do so by its Transmission Operator in October 2007.
Finding: RFC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since BG&E did actually have a Facility Ratings Methodology in place. BG&E was able to determine the Facility Ratings for those three lines and the ratings of the three lines were not the most limiting aspect of BG&E's facility. Furthermore, those three lines only comprised 6000 feet that interconnected with two substations (which represented less than .00009% of BG&E's total transmission). BG&E successfully completed a mitigation plan and this was also the first violation of this Reliability Standard by BG&E.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-177-000 (April 29, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: RFC
Issue: In June 2010, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), a Transmission Owner, self-reported that it had not rated a switch at its Rutledge Tap to Rutledge facility (and therefore had not rated all of the components at the facility as required). This resulted in a facility rating that was not consistent with the facility ratings methodology. There were also 16 instances where the facility ratings were adjusted by BGE personnel.
Finding: RFC and BGE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby BGE agreed to undertake mitigation measures. RFC found that the violation constituted a moderate risk to bulk power system reliability since the Rutledge facility is a tap line that is generally de-energized and only used as an alternate supply line. Plus, the new rating for the Rutledge facility was still in excess of BGE’s maximum customer load requirement by a factor of ten. In addition, RFC analyzed the 16 facility ratings adjustments and found that they did not constitute a serious or substantial risk. The duration of the violation was from October 7, 2009 through May 21, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that this was BGE’s second violation of the relevant Reliability Standard (which was evaluated as an aggravating factor); the violation was self-reported; BGE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; BGE had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)
Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC (BSPP), Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: ReliabilityFirst
Issue: BSPP, in its role as a GO, submitted a self-report (prior to an upcoming compliance audit) in May 2011 detailing its non-compliance with FAC-009-1 when it discovered it had not established Facility Ratings pursuant to its Facility Ratings Methodology by its failure to include terminal equipment in determining the most limiting element of its facility. RFC found that BSPP had no documented Methodology before April 22, 2008, and therefore that was a violation of the Reliability Standard. After April 22, 2008 and until April 19, 2011, BSPP used a Facility Ratings Methodology that RFC found did not include a determination of the most limiting element of the facility because the type of equipment listed in FAC-008 R1.2.1 uses different measurement units (MVA/Amps). During the compliance audit, RFC was also unable to locate ratings for relay Protection System devices and series and shunt compensation devices when reviewing the 2008 Methodology.
Finding: This violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The risk was mitigated by two things. First, even though before April 22, 2008, BSPP did not have a documented Methodology, BSPP had properly identified the gas turbine generators as the most limiting piece of facility equipment, and the updated version in 2011 did reflect that information. Second, the gas turbines’ ratings did not change in the 2011 Methodology. ReliabilityFirst considered certain parts of BSPP’s compliance program as mitigating factors in deciding on the appropriate penalty and further determined there were no aggravating factors involved.
Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for four violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)
Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP (BHCE), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: BHCE submitted a self-report in July 2012 reporting that, while preparing for an upcoming onsite Compliance Audit, it found facility rating discrepancies in its FAC-009 Facility Rating document. WECC confirmed that BHCE’s facility ratings were inconsistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology. BHCE’s FAC-009 Facility Rating document missed elements of 20 transmission lines, 2 step-up transformers, and 1 capacitor bank. The discrepancies meant that Facility Ratings, reported at the time of the violation, were greater than the correct Facility Ratings. The violation implicated 23 out of BHCE’s 78 solely or jointly owned facilities.
Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a minimal and not serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because, the system, on the fringes of the WECC region, was not relied on for flow-through power transfers. Moreover, although the correct ratings were actually lower, the incorrect Facility Ratings would not have overloaded the transmission lines above their emergency ratings in the event of any N-1 condition. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, WECC considered BHCE’s internal compliance program (ICP) as a mitigating factor. WECC also found that a similar violation by a BHCE affiliate, Black Hills Power, Inc. would not be considered an aggravating factor because it was discovered at the same time and nothing indicated that broader corporate issues were involved.
Total Penalty: $7,500
FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)
Black Hills Power, Inc. (BHP), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, WECC found BHP, as a TO and GO, violated FAC-009-1 R1 in listing Facility Ratings that were inconsistent with BHP’s Facility Ratings Methodology for elements on 13 of its 19 transmission lines. The corrected Facility Ratings were lower than the incorrect ratings.
Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a minimal risk, and not a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because, although the correct ratings represented reductions from the Facility Rankings in place, the incorrect Facility Ratings would not have overloaded the transmission lines above their emergency ratings in the event of any N-1 outage. BHP’s generally voltage limited system relies on parallel lines to re-distribute flow in an N-1 event, allowing the system to meet the N-1 contingency performance criteria. Moreover, the system, on the fringes of the WECC region, was not relied on for flow-through power transfers. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, WECC considered BHP’s internal compliance program (ICP) as a mitigating factor. WECC also found that a similar violation by a BHP affiliate, Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, would not be considered an aggravating factor because it was discovered at the same time and nothing indicated that broader corporate issues were involved.
Total Penalty: $7,500
FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)
Borger Energy Associates, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-99-000 (January 31, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: SPP
Issue: During an off-site compliance audit, SPP determined that Borger Energy Associates, LP (BEA) was in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 because its Facility Ratings were inconsistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology Procedure. BEA's Facility Ratings did not include Emergency Ratings or Normal Ratings (for most devices), nor did they include the Ambient Conditions under which the ratings were determined. Moreover, BEA did not have equipment ratings for its Generator Iso-Phase Bus, Transmission Conductors, Relay Protective Devices, and Series and Shunt Compensation Devices.
Finding: The violation posed a minimal potential and actual impact on the reliability of the bulk power system because the BEA's unit generator is the limiting element of its generation facility, and BEA had established the Normal Rating of the unit generator. The NERC BOTCC determined this was BEA's first occurrence of this type of violation, BEA had a compliance program in place, BEA was cooperative throughout the compliance enforcement process, and there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation.
Penalty: $17,000 (aggregated for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)
Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-88-000 (March 31, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not Discussed
Region: RFC
Issue: Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek, LLC (Brookfield Power) did not establish facility ratings consistent with the associated Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, until April 30, 2009, when Brookfield Power completed a mitigation plan. RFC and Brookfield Power entered a Settlement Agreement regarding the alleged violation and agreed to a $5,000 penalty for the alleged violation. In assessing this penalty, RFC considered: (1) Brookfield Power had no previous violation of non-compliance with FAC-009-1 R1; (2) Brookfield Power cooperated and was forthright during the enforcement process; (3) there was no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so; (4) Brookfield Power was focused on achieving an appropriate culture of compliance; and (5) the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since facility ratings existed even though not consistent with the Facility Ratings Methodology, and none of the lines at Brookfield Power had experienced flows above their normal ratings.
Penalty: $5,000
FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)
Burney Forest Products, A Joint Venture, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: As Burney Forest Products did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology, it was unable to establish Facility Ratings for its solely and jointly owned facilities that were consistent with this methodology. As a result, the estimates of the most limiting average real power and VAR outputs were not completed.
Finding: WECC found that this violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability due to the nature and location of Burney Forest Product's facilities. Also, Burney Forest Products did actually have Facility Ratings in place for certain of its facilities (even though the methodology was not documented and the evaluation of the ratings had not been finished as required). Burney Forest Products self-reported this violation and this was Burney Forest Product's first violation of this Reliability Standard. And, although the violation initially occurred and was reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory on June 18, 2007, Burney Forest Products had not completed a mitigation plan by that date, and thereby the violation resulted in a post-June 18 violation; however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Carr Street Generating Station, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-174-000 (September 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: NPCC
Issue: In September 2009, Carr Street Generating Station, LP (Carr Street) self-reported that, since it did not have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology, it had not rated its equipment according to its Facilities Rating Methodology.
Finding: NPCC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the relevant generation assets only total 142.5 MVA (divided among three generating sites). The duration of the violation was from August 14, 2009 through February 5, 2010. The violation was self-reported within 60 days of Carr Street receiving NPCC’s Registration Guidance Statement, and NPCC had a policy of not penalizing violations identified within 60 days of a Registered Entity receiving the Registration Guidance Statement. In addition, Carr Street was cooperative during the enforcement process, has a compliance program in place, and did not attempt to conceal the violation. NPCC found that there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors present.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)
Choctaw Gas Generation, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-7-000 (January 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SERC
Issue: An audit determined that Choctaw could not provide evidence of established Facility Ratings consistent with its documented Facility Ratings Methodology prior to December 12, 2007.
Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violations were due to a lack of documentation, and they were deemed to have a low risk for bulk power system reliability.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)
Choctaw Generation Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP09-8-000 (January 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SERC
Issue: Choctaw Generation could not provide evidence of Facility Ratings required by FAC-009-1 prior to December 12, 2007.
Finding: Penalty appropriate given that the issue was a documentation issue; Choctaw Generation had self-certified compliance, but was found not to be compliant; the period of non-compliance occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards; and Choctaw Generation agreed to provide panelists and speakers at a regional entity compliance workshop or conference on NERC compliance.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SPP
Issue: The City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission (Clarksdale), as a Generator Operator and Transmission Owner, failed to maintain Facility Ratings based upon a documented Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a $5,000 penalty for this and other Reliability Standards violations. In assessing the penalty, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: this was Clarksdale’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; Clarksdale cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Clarksdale did not attempt to conceal the violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: Cleveland Public Power (CPP) failed to establish required facility ratings for its solely and jointly owned facilities consistent with the Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) where the FRM was misapplied to certain equipment located at nine of the ten 138 kV substations on CPP's system.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through November 23, 2008. In reaching a settlement penalty, RFC considered (1) CPP self-reported the violation; (2) CPP was cooperative throughout the enforcement process; and (3) CPP committed substantial financial and personnel resources, compared to its size, in order to achieve compliance with the standard.
Penalty: $160,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)
City of Dover, FERC Docket No. NP12-2 (October 31, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC found that the City of Dover (Dover), as a GO, did not incorporate Facility Ratings or Emergency Ratings for its transmission conductors at two of its generating stations.
Finding: RFC found that the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, BPS risk was mitigated because the most limiting element of Dover’s facility is its turbine generator (which did not change once the relevant terminal equipment was added) and Dover had not derated any generation facilities. In addition, the rating for Dover’s one generating unit with blackstart capability was found to be accurate. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 30, 2010. RFC evaluated certain parts of Dover’s compliance program as mitigating factors.
Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued November 30, 2011 (no further review)
City of Homestead Electric Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: FRCC
Issue: During a FRCC audit in April 2008, it was determined that the City of Homestead Electric Utilities could not show that the Facility Ratings for some of its relays had been established consistent with its Facilities Ratings Methodology. The City of Homestead Electric Utilities was unable to produce evidence, for the period from June 18, 2007 through January 28, 2008, that it had established Facility Ratings, using its own rating methodology, for relay settings that were sensitive to system load.
Finding: FRCC found that the violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Facility Ratings for the relays added in 2007, as part of the City of Homestead Electric Utilities' limited system modification, were determined by the vendor (even though it was not done according to the City of Homestead Electric Utilities' own Facility Ratings Methodology as required). This was the City of Homestead Electric Utilities' first violation of this Reliability Standard and it completed a mitigation plan.
Penalty: $7,000 ($47,000 aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119; https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf
City of Lake Worth, FERC Docket No. NP11-96-000 (January 31, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: FRCC
Issue: During an on-site audit, FRCC determined that the City of Lake Worth (CLW) was in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 because it failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its Facility Ratings were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology for certain disconnect switches and circuit breakers during an approximate three-month time frame.
Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to reliability of the bulk power system because the devices at issue were not the limiting elements to the Facility Ratings. Moreover, the violation merely constituted a documentation violation because CLW's substations were all properly designed, but the ratings of each element were not properly documented. The NERC BOTCC determined this was CLW's first occurrence of this type of violation, the CLW was cooperative throughout the compliance enforcement process, and there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregated for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)
City of Rochelle, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: City of Rochelle self-reported that it failed to document its methodology for developing Facility Ratings.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 9, 2009. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Rochelle's first violation of this standard, the violation was self-reported, and the violation related to a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system.
Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119 (2009); https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf
City of Tallahassee, FERC Docket No. NP11-181-000 (April 29, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: FRCC
Issue: The City of Tallahassee (Tallahassee) was unable to produce documentation showing that the Facility Ratings for its generators, voltage transformers, shunt capacitors, auto transformers and temporary 115 kV transmission lines had been developed in accordance with its Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: FRCC and Tallahassee entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Tallahassee agreed to pay a penalty of $11,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. FRCC determined that the violation of FAC-009-1 only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Tallahassee had been operating its equipment according to the manufacturer’s equipment ratings. The duration of the violation was January 1, 2009 through June 10, 2010.
Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)
FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)
City of Vineland New Jersey, FERC Docket No. NP10-148-000 (July 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit in September 2008, RFC determined that the City of Vineland, New Jersey (Vineland Municipal Electric Utility – VMEU), as a Generator Owner, did not establish and communicate adequate Facility Ratings, which are required to include all of the elements associated with its generator. VMEU's Facility Ratings did not include ratings for the relay protective devices and the series and shunt compensation devices related to its generator.
Finding: RFC and VMEU entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby VMEU neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $2,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. The duration of the alleged violation of FAC-009-1 was from June 18, 2007 (when the Reliability Standards became mandatory) through December 21, 2009 (when VMEU released Facility Ratings that were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology). RFC found that the alleged violation of FAC-009-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since VMEU only has a single generator unit, which is a third-level backup blackstart unit with VMEU's Transmission Operator and is not even connected to the bulk power system. In addition, NERC considered the fact that the alleged violations were VMEU's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; VMEU was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.
Penalty: $2,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)
Colorado Green Holdings, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In June 2007, Colorado Green Holdings, LLC (CGH) self-reported that it had not properly documented its Facility Ratings Methodology, and therefore it was unable to utilize the Facility Ratings Methodology in the manner required.
Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since CGH actually had Facility Ratings in place. CGH self-reported the violation and this was CGH's first violation of this Reliability Standard. And although the violation initially occurred and was reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory on June 18, 2007, CGH did not complete its mitigation plan by then, and thereby this violation also resulted in a post-June 18 violation. Even though CGH completed its mitigation plan late, no penalty was imposed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Consumer's Power, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-69-000 (December 22, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: Consumer's Power, Inc. (Consumer's) self-reported that it had failed to establish a facilities rating for a 115 kV transmission line in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 and R2. WECC determined Consumer's had not violated R2 because ratings had been provided in prior WECC base cases prior to June 18, 2007.
Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Consumer's is relatively small, and its transmission line is primarily load serving. The duration of the violation was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through December 4, 2008.
Penalty: $1,000
FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)
Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC (Covanta Plymouth), as a GO, did not develop Facility Ratings for two of its disconnect switches and two breakers.
Finding: RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability as the generators are the most limiting factor in Covanta Plymouth’s facility. After Covanta Plymouth revised its Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not have to de-rate its facility. The duration of the violation was from October 9, 2009 through April 11, 2013. Covanta Plymouth admitted the violation. Covanta Plymouth and its affiliates’ compliance program and cooperation were viewed as mitigating factors, while the compliance history was evaluated as an aggravating factor.
Total Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)
Covanta York Renewable Energy, LLC, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Covanta York Renewable Energy, LLC (Covanta York), as a GO, did not develop Facility Ratings consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology. Covanta York established the Facility Ratings based on steam flow, but did not incorporate steam flow as one of the elements in its analysis.
Finding: RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability as the generators are the most limiting factor in Covanta York’s facility. After Covanta York revised its Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not have to de-rate its facility. The duration of the violation was from December 28, 2011 through April 11, 2013. Covanta York admitted the violation. Covanta York and its affiliates’ compliance program and cooperation were viewed as mitigating factors, while the compliance history was evaluated as an aggravating factor.
Total Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)
CPI (CP) LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-183-000 (May 26, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: CPI (CP) LLC (CPI), a Generator Owner, failed to establish facility ratings for all of its equipment, specifically circuit breakers, transformers and cabling.
Finding: NPCC assessed a penalty of $15,000 for this and other violations. In reaching this determination, NPCC considered the following: the violation constituted CPI’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; CPI self-reported the violation; CPI cooperated throughout the compliance process; CPI did not attempt to conceal the violation; the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances that would affect the assessed penalty.
Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)
FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)
DTE East China LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: DTE East China had a Facility Ratings methodology in place but did not include ratings for relay protection devices. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through August 29, 2008.
Finding: Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was DTE East China's first violation of this standard, and the violation related to a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate penalty for multiple violations)
FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119 (2009); https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf
Duke Energy Carolinas, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SERC
Issue: It was discovered in April 2008 that Duke Energy Carolinas' Facility Ratings Methodology was not being applied correctly, as it was not considering the most limiting element. This resulted in higher ratings for 11 transmission facilities than would have otherwise been calculated.
Finding: SERC found that the violation did not involve a serious or significant risk to bulk power system reliability since the methodology error only affected 11 out of over 600 facilities (2% of Duke Energy Carolinas' system). Furthermore, after the re-rating of the affected facilities, no upgrades were required in order to handle projected flows. In determining the penalty, SERC considered the fact that the violation was self-reported and this was Duke Energy Carolinas' first violation of this Reliability Standard.
Penalty: $8,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119; https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf
Duke Energy Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-20-000 (December 30, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) failed to establish the correct capacity rating on the transmission line involved in an August 8, 2007 outage due to vegetation contact.
Finding: Penalty was appropriate because Duke had cooperated in the investigation. Duke was given credit for self-reporting the related outage and for lack of a prior history of violations.
Penalty: $100,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2010 (no further review)
Duquesne Light Company (Duquesne), Docket No. NP12-26-000 (April 30, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: RFC
Issue: During preparation for an upcoming audit, Duquesne found, and self-reported, that its Facility Ratings Methodology had implementation issues, including that 14 of 98 facilities had at least one wrong Facility Rating. Duquesne reported that ten facilities had incorrect Facility Ratings because it had failed to include relays in its System Ratings Database. Specifically, when Duquesne changed from season-based Facility Ratings to temperature-based Facility Ratings, Facility Ratings were established for eight temperature sets, each set having normal, emergency and load-dumping ratings. Based on history with season-based Facility Ratings, Duquesne assumed the relays would not be the most limiting equipment and no further review was conducted. Since Duquesne was under the assumption that the relays could not be the most limiting equipment, it kept relay ratings on paper and reviewed them apart from data in its Database. Once Duquesne added the relay ratings to its Database, it found that they were in fact the most limiting equipment for certain temperature sets at ten facilities, meaning that those facilities had Facility Ratings that were wrong. Next Duquesne reported that two other facilities using a double breaker scheme also had incorrect Facility Ratings. The Database required a manual selection of the most limiting equipment for a facility with a double breaker scheme, and technicians at Duquesne selected the wrong equipment as the most limiting, affecting one emergency rating and three load dump ratings. The last issue reported was that two autotransformers had incorrect ratings in the Database leaving two facilities with incorrect Facility Ratings. Duquesne, in its role as a TO, was found to be in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 by not having in place Facility Ratings consistent with the associated Facility Ratings for all of its facilities.
Finding: The violations posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability because the affected facilities were never operated at loads exceeding any Facility Ratings. Regarding the ten facilities at which relays were the most limiting equipment and the two facilities at which double breaker schemes are in place, the incorrect ratings were to colder temperature sets. Duquesne is a summer-peaking utility, and as such, its facilities are not usually loaded to lower temperature ratings that are applicable in winter and shoulder months. Also, most of the limits affected the load-dump ratings, and those ratings reflect greater loads than the emergency ratings and are rarely reached. RFC also stated that for the ten facilities at which relays were the most limiting equipment, those relays were not the most limiting equipment for the spring, summer and fall normal temperature sets used previously or the most limiting equipment for the summer emergency temperature sets. Lastly, for the two facilities at which the autotransfomers were incorrectly rated, actual loading was never outside of acceptable amperes limits. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered Duquesne’s compliance program to be a mitigating factor. Additional mitigating credit was given because Duquesne self-reported the issues and proactively worked to mitigate the violations.
Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 2 penalties)
FERC Order: Order issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)
East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ETEC), FERC Docket No. NP17-29 (September 28, 2017)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity (SPP RE)
Issue: ETEC, a GO and TO, was determined by SPP RE to be in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 during a Compliance Audit conducted from September 9, 2015 to September 10, 2015. SPP RE determined that ETEC, as GO, did not provide a facility rating for the Harrison County Power Project (HCPP) consistent with its Facility Rating Methodology (FRM), and did not disclose adequate information as to the discrepancy. SPP RE determined the appropriate ratings and resolved all inconsistencies.
SPP RE further determined that ETEC, as TO, did not sufficiently incorporate the facility ratings of a neighboring company, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), in calculating the correct facility rating for its transmission facilities to that company. Because SPP RE could not conclusively identify SWEPCO's equipment ratings, it could not conclusively determine the most limiting element on its transmission tie lines. The root cause of ETEC's violations was a lack of internal controls governing the assessment of facility ratings and ensuring that facility ratings are reviewed periodically to guarantee accuracy.
Finding: SPP RE found the violation posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability. Although the failure to establish accurate facility ratings increased the risk of equipment damage and outages, the risk to the BPS was mitigated because: 1) the disparity in the combustion turbine ratings was for two small combustion turbine generators, 2) notwithstanding the inconsistencies, the maximum rating of the HCPP step-up transformers was the highest rating available, 3) the step-up transformers are not the most limiting element of the HCPP facility, and 4) the disparity in the tie-lines existed only in the winter normal ratings. The duration of the violation was May 1, 2009 (when the audit program began) through August 19, 2016 (completion of the Mitigation Plan). SPP RE considered ETEC's internal compliance program to be a neutral factor and determined that prior violations did not typify recurring conduct and consequently did not serve as an aggravating factor. ETEC mitigated the violation by revising its facility rating spreadsheet to accurately reflect the maximum Generator step-up transformer rating, verified other generator facility ratings, and corrected any outstanding errors. ETEC also reviewed all transmission connections and verified the ratings for lines connecting to its facilities. Further, ETEC implemented internal controls and annual verification procedures to ensure consistent and correct facility ratings from that point forward.
Penalty: $47,600
FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2017 (no further review)
Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), Docket NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SERC
Issue: In response to a SERC notice of a Compliance Audit scheduled to begin March 19, 2012, EKPC, as a Generator and Transmission Owner, self-reported violations of FAC-009-1 R1 on March 16, 2012. First, EKPC reported that the facility ratings provided for its J.S. Cooper Units #1 and #2 conflicted with its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM). The actual power factors used to determine the gross and net MW output of each unit were inconsistent with the power factors in EKPC’s ratings database. Second, EKPC also did not comply with its FRM in failing to consider the thermal current carrying ability of the relays for any of its generators, lines and transformers. SERC treated this second self-report as an expansion of scope to the first. All 107 of EKPC’s transmission facilities were in violation. With the relay thermal limit now included, EKPC lowered its Facility Ratings for 16 transmission Facilities
Finding: The violation posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk, for the following reasons: (1) EKPC only had to lower Facility Ratings for 16 (out of 107) transmission facilities, where the relays were the most limiting element. However, failure of these protective relays could cause damage, through excessive loading, that would keep them from operating correctly during faulted conditions; (2) only the stated power factor was incorrect for Units #1 and #2 at the J.S. Cooper plant, and EKPC’s Facility Ratings did not misrepresent the real and reactive power output values of these units. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, SERC considered EKPC’s ICP as a mitigating factor. No self-report credit was given because it was submitted in advance of a SERC audit.
Total Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)
Entergy, Docket No. NP12-41-000 (August 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: SERC
Issue: After a compliance audit was scheduled, Entergy self-reported a violation because it could not produce evidence that it used its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) to establish its transmission Facility Ratings. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 to March 8, 2011, when Entergy completed its Mitigation Plan.
Finding: SERC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because inaccurate Facility Ratings can lead to inaccurate modeling outputs and operating assumptions. Nevertheless, only 5% of the ratings at issue resulted in possible operational impacts, and only 1.5% of those required immediate action.
Penalty: $150,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)
FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)
EP Ocean Peaking Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP13-5 (October 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: RFC
Issue: During a 2011 compliance audit, RFC determined that EP Ocean Peaking Power, LLC (Ocean Peaking), as a GO, did not have Facility Ratings for its generator bus and generator current transformers, as required.
Finding: Ocean Peaking admitted the FAC-009-1 R1 violation. RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The step-up transformer is the most limiting element in Ocean Peaking's facility (a 350 MW gas-fired generation facility), and therefore there was no change in the limiting element of the facility after Ocean Peaking developed Facility Ratings for the above-mentioned devices. In addition, the relevant devices are able to safely withstand the generation from the Ocean Peaking system. The duration of the violation is from August 28, 2008 through July 30, 2012. RFC evaluated Ocean Peaking's compliance program as a partial mitigating factor (as it did not lead to the prompt discovery of the violations). Ocean Peaking's cooperation was also considered as a mitigating factor.
Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)
FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)
EP Rock Springs, LLC (Rock Springs), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: RFC
Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, RFC found that Rock Springs, as a GO and TO, violated FAC-009-1 R1 in failing to establish Facility Ratings for its generator relay protective devices, generator transformer high side relay protective devices, and 500 kV transmission conductors. Further, the Normal and Emergency Facility Ratings for the 500 kV station and transmission lines were different from those specified in the Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: RFC found that the violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS, but not a serious or substantial risk. After Rock Springs revised its Facility Ratings Methodology to include these devices, the most limiting element (the generator breaker) did not change, and no facility was de-rated as a result of Rock Springs’ Facility Ratings Methodology revisions. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered Rock Springs’ internal compliance program (ICP), which is managed independently of the departments responsible for ensuring Reliability Standard compliance and is annually reviewed, as a mitigating factor. The Chief Compliance Officer supervises the ICP and has independent access to the CEO and the Board of Directors.
Total Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)
Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-175-000 (September 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: NPCC
Issue: Erie self-reported that it had not established facilities ratings for its equipment in accordance with a Facilities Rating Methodology.
Finding: It was determined by NPCC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the assets at issue totaled 206.5 MVA divided among 6 individual generating sites, the largest being 62.5 MVA. The violation was self-reported within a 60 day grace period after Erie was notified it would be placed in the NPCC and NERC registry as a Generator Owner and Generator Operator, a key factor in the zero dollar penalty determination. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that the violation was a documentation issue and the first violation of this Reliability Standard.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)
Farmington Electric Utility System, FERC Docket No. NP10-40-000 (February 1, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: Farmington Electric Utility System (FEUS) self-reported that because it did not have a sufficiently detailed methodology for determining equipment ratings as required by FAC-008-1, it also violated FAC-009-1. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through February 15, 2008.
Finding: Penalty was deemed appropriate because these were FEUS' first violations of the applicable standards, FEUS self-reported eleven of the violations, and FEUS is a small generation and transmission system that had made a substantial commitment of financial and personnel resources to NERC compliance relative to its size.
Penalty: $40,250 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)
Florida Municipal Power Agency, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-24-000 (November 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: FRCC
Issue: During a compliance audit in March 2009, FRCC found that Florida Municipal Power Agency, Inc. (FMPA) had not established Facility Ratings for its generator 230 kV high side breakers in its Treasure Coast Energy Center generating facility.
Finding: FRCC and FMPA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby FMPA agreed to pay a penalty of $13,600 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. FRCC found that the violation of FAC-009-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the generator was the most limiting element in regards to the Facility Ratings (and therefore the breaker would have received Facility greater than the generator). The duration of the FAC-009-1 violation was from May 31, 2008 through June 30, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, FRCC considered the fact that these were FMPA’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; other violations were self-reported; FMPA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.
Penalty: $13,600 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)
Front Range Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In June 2007, Front Range Power Company (Front Range) self-reported that as it had not appropriately documented its Facility Ratings Methodology, it had a violation of FAC-009-1.
Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Facility Ratings were actually in place for Front Range's facilities. The violation was self-reported; this was primarily a documentation issue; and this was Front Range's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1 (three violations)
Violation Risk Factor: Medium (for all)
Violation Severity Level: Moderate (for all)
Region: RFC
Issue: Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind II Farm LLC and Fowler Ridge Wind III Farm LLC (collectively, Fowler Ridge), as GOs, self-reported that they had not incorporated their Generation Interconnection Line into their Facility Ratings (as they had incorrectly assumed that the Generation Interconnection Lines were not covered by the Reliability Standard).
Finding: RFC found that the violations constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, BPS risk was mitigated because the most limiting elements of the Facility Ratings were not changed by the addition of the Generation Interconnection Lines, and Fowler Ridge has not experienced any system disturbances in two years of operations. The duration of the violations was from March 11, 2009 through March 11, 2011 (the violation for Fowler Ridge Wind II Farm LLC started on December 18, 2009, the date it was registered on the Compliance Registry). RFC evaluated certain parts of Fowler Ridge’s compliance program as mitigating factors.
Penalty: $15,000
FERC Order: Issued November 30, 2011 (no further review)
Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-97-000 (April 28, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In December 2008, Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. (GLEC) self-reported that as it did not possess a documented Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not have Facility Ratings in place that were consistent with its documented methodology, although GLEC was operating its only transmission facility, the South Cut Bank switchyard, according to the most limiting element and the manufacturer ratings for its equipment.
Finding: WECC and GLEC reached a settlement agreement regarding multiple violations of the Reliability Standards, whereby GLEC agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation of FAC-009-1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as GLEC operated its facility according to the most limiting element, used the manufacturer ratings, and followed a standard practice of not having its equipment loaded beyond the manufacturers rating. In determining the overall penalty, WECC considered that the violations were GLEC's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; GLEC was cooperative during the investigation and compliance enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and GLEC quickly resolved the violations through a settlement agreement. In addition, the violations were deemed to be primarily documentation issues since GLEC was operating the facility according to the most limiting element and the manufacturer ratings for the equipment and a mitigation plan was completed.
Penalty: $2,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)
Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority (GCPHA), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: On August 31, 2011, GCPHA, as a TO, self-reported a violation of FAC-009-1 R1 because it did not document facility ratings in a fashion that demonstrated compliance with the Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM). Specifically, GCPHA did not develop facility rating tables documenting the rating of all of its equipment. The duration of the violation was from August 23, 2007 to September 30, 2011.
Finding: This violation posed only a minimal risk to BPS reliability because, during the violation period, where GCPHA failed to document the ratings of all equipment in the facility, it did have all of its equipment’s nameplate ratings in the FRM. GCPHA agreed/stipulated to WECC’s findings.
Penalty: $11,500 (aggregate for four violations)
FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)
Great Lakes Hydro America ME, FERC Docket No. NP10-176-000 (September 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: NPCC
Issue: Great Lakes self-reported that it had not established facilities ratings for its equipment in accordance with a Facilities Rating Methodology.
Finding: It was determined by NPCC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the assets at issue totaled 120 MVA divided among 6 individual generating sites, the largest being 42 MVA. The violation was self-reported within a 60 day grace period after Great Lakes was notified it would be placed in the NPCC and NERC registry as a Generator Owner and Generator Operator, a key factor in the zero dollar penalty determination. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that the violation was a documentation issue and the first violation of this Reliability Standard.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)
Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: FRCC
Issue: In December 2007, it was discovered that Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility (HCRRF) had not established Facility Ratings that were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology, as required, for its solely and jointly owned facilities. And as of February 2009, since HCRRF was connected to the bulk power system at less than 100 kV, it was de-registered as a Generator Owner and Operator.
Finding: FRCC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since HCRRF had actually been using the same nameplate ratings from when the 26 MW generator was placed in service 20 years before (even though HCRRF had not formally documented its Facility Ratings Methodology). Furthermore, HCRRF's Facility Ratings represent only about 0.4% of the daily generating capacity of the FRCC interconnected system. This was HCRRF's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it instituted a mitigation plan (even though this plan was completed late).
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Hopewell Cogeneration LP, FERC Docket No. NP09-6-000 (January 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SERC
Issue: Hopewell could not provide evidence of Facility Ratings required by FAC-009-1 prior to December 12, 2007.
Finding: Penalty was appropriate given that the issue was a documentation issue; Hopewell had self-certified compliance, but was found not to be compliant; and Hopewell agreed to provide panelists and speakers at a regional entity compliance workshop or conference on NERC compliance.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)
Horse Hollow Generation Tie, LLC (HHGT), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: TRE
Issue: On September 2 and 14, 2010, HHGT, as a TO, submitted a respective Self-Certification and Self-Report for violation of FAC-009-0 R1. Following the review of HHGT’s Certification and Report, TRE determined that HHGT violated FAC-009-0 R1 because the Facility Ratings for the two facilities that comprise 100% of HHGT’s facilities were not consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology. Upon discovery of this discrepancy on August 12, 2010, HHGT re-rated its facilities in accordance with the Methodology. On September 20, 2010, ERCOT, the ISO for HHGT’s service territory, was notified of HHGT’s revised facility ratings. The duration of the violation was from October 15, 2009 to August 12, 2010.
Finding: This violation posed only a minimal risk to BPS reliability because while HHGT facility ratings were inconsistent with the Facility Ratings Methodology, HHGT’s rating was more conservative than the correct Facility limits of 925 MVA. The facilities at issue are two 345 kV transmission lines that are connected via a reactive compensation station to a wind generation facility that is radially-fed. This configuration has a normal rating of 925 MVA. These lines were energized on October 15, 2009 and operated at 650 MVA until January 8, 2010 when reactive compensation equipment was installed and reactive compensation studies were completed. After the studies and installation were finalized, the facilities were run at 720 MV. On September 20, 2010, HHGT, per ERCOT’s rules, notified ERCOT of the revised ratings. Throughout the violation period there is no evidence that HHGT operated the facilities above the normal rating of 925 MVA. HHGT neither admitted nor denied TRE’s findings. In determining the appropriate penalty, TRE considered HHGT’s internal compliance program as a mitigating factor.
Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for four violations)
FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)
Hot Spring Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-9-000 (January 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SERC
Issue: An audit determined that Hot Spring Power could not provide evidence of established Facility Ratings consistent with its documented Facility Ratings Methodology prior to December 12, 2007.
Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue and was deemed to have a low risk for bulk power system reliability.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate penalty with violation of FAC-008-1)
FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)
Idaho Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In November 2007, Idaho Power Company (IPC) self-reported that it could not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its Facility Ratings were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology (as IPC could not show that its air switch ratings had been adequately evaluated during its transmission ratings process).
Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since air switches are generally not the most limiting factor. In addition, IPC actually had Facility Ratings in place (even though a subsequent evaluation found that revisions were needed). The violation was self-reported and this was IPC's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Idaho Power Company (IPCO), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: WECC
Issue: IPCO, as a TO and GO, provided WECC with a Self-Certification, acknowledging that it had violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings for its Facilities in a manner consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM). Whereas IPCO's FRM requires that all associated elements be considered in determining Facility Ratings, FRM did not include certain substation elements when it determined the operational ratings of the synchronous condensers at the Boise Bench, Brady and Kinport substations.
Finding: WECC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because IPCO had some compensating measures in place. In particular, because IPCO operates its synchronous condensers near unity, it had VAR capacity available to respond to the system's voltage variations. Only under extreme contingency conditions would the condensers approach rating limits. WECC and IPCO entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby IPCO agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. WECC considered IPCO's ICP a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination, and considered IPCO's compliance history to be an aggravating factor. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through May 1, 2012. IPCO agrees / stipulates to the R1 violation.
Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)
Kings River Conservation District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In July 2008 Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) self-certified that as it had not appropriately documented its Facility Ratings Methodology, it was unable to implement its methodology as required FAC-009-1, July 2008.
Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since KRCD did actually have Facility Ratings in place. This was KRCD's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-93-000 (January 31, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SPP
Issue: SPP determined that Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Lea County) failed to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a compliant Facility Ratings Methodology prior to June 18, 2009. SPP also determined that Lea County had not provided its Facility Ratings to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. as required by the Standard. In addition, SPP found that the Facility Ratings Lea County had not provided its Transmission Operator, Xcel-Southwestern Public Service Co., were not accurate.
Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a Settlement Agreement, including SPP’s assessment of a $15,000 financial penalty. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted Lea County’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; Lea County cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Lea County’s compliance program; Lea County did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.
Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: SERC
Issue: LG&E and KU Services Company as agent for Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (“LG&E & KU”) self-reported that, in its role as a TO, it failed to promptly notify its Reliability Coordinator of a change to a transformer rating. Specifically, during the construction of a new 138 kV Middletown-Collins transmission line, LG&E & KU reduced the facility rating of a transformer due to unplanned changes to the project. Per LG&E & KU’s Facility Rating Methodology, LG&E & KU should have recalculated the facility rating following the reconfiguration of the transmission facility. SERC determined the violation was from May 27, 2010, the date the transformer was reconfigured, through July 20, 2010, when LG&E & KU updated its Facility Ratings.
Finding: SERC determined the violation posed a moderate risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because although there was a risk that the rating of the transformer at issue could be exceeded in the event of a specific contingency, no actual real-time overloading occurred. Moreover, LG&E & KU had operating procedures in place and adequately experienced operators to react in the event such a contingency occurred.
Penalty: $75,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)
FERC Order: Issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)
LSP Whitewater LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: LSP Whitewater had a Facility Ratings methodology in place that noted relays but it did not establish ratings for relay protection devices.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 23, 2008. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was LSP Whitewater's first violation of this standard, and the violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because LSP Whitewater had identified ratings for the most limiting factors in its facilities.
Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119 (2009); https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf
Michigan Public Power Agency, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC found that Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) could not provide evidence that facilities ratings on a peaking station owned by a member city was consistent with its documented Facilities Ratings Methodology. MPPA did not believe the peaking station was a part of the BPS and, therefore, had not prepared a documented Facilities Ratings Methodology for that peaking station.
Finding: RFC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because MPPA represented that it did have facilities ratings for the peaking station and that it had correctly identified the most limiting element. In addition, there were no instances of thermal overloads or exceeding of established facility ratings since the instillation of the peaking station. RFC considered certain aspects of MPPA’s compliance program to be a mitigating factor.
Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for 4 multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)
Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, FERC Docket No. NP11-65-000 (December 22, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SPP
Issue: In August 2009, the Mississippi Delta Energy Agency (MDEA), as a Transmission Owner, self-reported that as it did not possess a documented Facility Ratings Methodology, its Facility Ratings were not based upon a documented Facility Ratings Methodology as mandated by the Reliability Standard.
Finding: SPP and MDEA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby MDEA agreed to pay a penalty of $9,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. SPP found that the FAC-009-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since MDEA did actually have normal and emergency ratings, which were based upon the manufacturers’ data, for its 23-mile transmission line. The duration of the FAC-009-1 violation was from August 24, 2007 through April 30, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that this violation was MDEA’s first violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; MDEA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; there was a compliance program in place (even though this was only considered a neutral factor); and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.
Penalty: $9,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)
NERC Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP10-159-000 (July 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: The Registered Entity did not have procedures for establishing and reporting facility ratings in accordance with its Facility Ratings Methodology, and its pre-June 18, 2007 mitigation plan was judged incomplete, making it an enforceable violation.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through December 16, 2008. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because it was a documentation issue. This was also the Registered Entity’s first violation of the Reliability Standard.
Penalty: $109,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)
Nevada Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-54-000 (March 1, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: Nevada Power failed to document that it had based its ratings for certain transmission lines on the most limiting factor as required by the standard.
Finding: Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became effective, through December 22, 2008. The violation was deemed not to pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability because it was a documentation issue and the lines appeared to have the correct ratings.
Penalty: $52,000 (aggregate penalty for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 12, 2010 (no further review)
NewCorp Electric Resources Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SPP
Issue: During a compliance audit in July 2010, SPP found that New Corp Electric Resources Cooperative (NewCorp) had not properly developed its Facility Ratings to incorporate the most limiting element for each facility. Furthermore, NewCorp had not included its buses, current transformers and relay protective devices into its Facility Ratings.
Finding: SPP and NewCorp entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations. SPP found that the FAC-009-1 violation posed only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since NewCorp had provided its Facility Ratings to its Transmission Operator (and those ratings did not change upon NewCorp’s completion of the mitigation plan). In addition, as NewCorp only operates a 300-mile 138 kV looped transmission line with two interconnections, any potential impact from a disturbance on NewCorp’s system would be limited. The duration of the violation was from August 24, 2007 through November 4, 2010.
Penalty: $4,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)
Noble Altona Windpark, LLC (Altona), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Altona, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Altona conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2006 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Altona is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Altona entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Altona agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Altona's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Altona did not have a documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Altona registered as a GO and ended when Altona completed its mitigation plan. Altona does not contest the R1 violation.
Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)
Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC (Bliss), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Bliss, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Bliss conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2006 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Bliss is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Bliss entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Bliss agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Bliss's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Bliss did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Bliss registered as a GO, and ended when Bliss completed its mitigation plan. Bliss does not contest the R1 violation.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)
Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC (Chateaugay), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Chateaugay, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Chateaugay conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2007 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Chateaugay is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Chateaugay entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Chateaugay agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Chateaugay's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Chateaugay did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Chateaugay registered as a GO, and ended when Chateaugay completed its mitigation plan. Chateaugay does not contest the R1 violation.
Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)
Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC (Clinton), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Clinton, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Clinton conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2006 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Clinton is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Clinton entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Clinton agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Clinton's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Clinton did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Clinton registered as a GO, and ended when Clinton completed its mitigation plan. Clinton does not contest the R1 violation.
Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)
Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC (Ellenburg), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Ellenburg, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Ellenburg conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2007 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Ellenburg is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Ellenburg entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Ellenburg agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Ellenburg's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Ellenburg did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Ellenburg registered as a GO, and ended when Ellenburg completed its mitigation plan. Ellenburg does not contest the R1 violation.
Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)
Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC (Wethersfield), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: NPCC
Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Wethersfield, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to establish Facility Ratings consistent with a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Wethersfield conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2007 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Wethersfield is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Wethersfield entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Wethersfield agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Wethersfield's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Wethersfield did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Wethersfield registered as a GO, and ended when Wethersfield completed its mitigation plan. Wethersfield does not contest the R1 violation.
Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)
Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1 and FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R1
Violation Risk Factor: Lower and Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe and Severe
Region: SERC
Issue: Since Elizabethtown could not produce evidence of its facility ratings methodologies, SERC found that Elizabethtown did not have such methodologies. SERC also found that Elizabethtown could not demonstrate that the facility ratings were consistent with the facility ratings methodologies.
Finding: SERC deemed this to be a documentation issue. SERC declined to assess penalties for the violation because the violation (i) occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and (ii) would not put the bulk power system reliability at a serious or substantial risk. NERC affirmed this determination since SERC deemed this violation a documentation issue rather than a finding that Elizabethtown did not have a facility rating methodology.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf
Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1 and FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R1
Violation Risk Factor: Lower and Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe and Severe
Region: SERC
Issue: Since Lumberton could not provide documentation for its current methodology used for developing Facility Ratings of its solely and jointly-owned Facilities, SERC found that Lumberton could not demonstrate that its Facility Ratings were consistent with the Facility Ratings methodologies.
Finding: SERC deemed this to be a documentation issue. SERC declined to assess penalties for the violation because the violation (i) occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and (ii) would not put the bulk power system reliability at a serious or substantial risk. NERC affirmed this determination since SERC deemed this violation a documentation issue rather than a finding that Lumberton did not have such a procedure.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf
Northern Indiana Public Service Company, FERC Docket NP10-115-000 (June 2, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit, ReliabilityFirst found that NIPSCo's plant ratings did not explicitly include the rating methodology that was used to rate its equipment, and NIPSCo could not show that its ratings were established consistent with the Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: Duration of the violation from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 28, 2009. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because it involved a documentation error and all ratings were in place. This was also NIPSCo's first violation of the standard.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Docket No. NP14-11 (Dec. 30, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1 (two violations)
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: RFC
Issue: While conducting a Compliance Audit, RFC found NIPSCO, in its role as a GO, had not established Facility Ratings for one of its generating units in accordance with its Facility Ratings Methodology. The violation time period was June 18, 2007 until June 30, 2012 when NIPSCO completed its mitigation plan. Regarding the second violation of FAC-009-1, while the Compliance Audit was underway, NIPSCO, in its role as a TO, reported that it found two instances in which the Facility Ratings of its transmission lines did not correspond to its Facility Ratings Methodology. This second violation occurred June 18, 2007 until February 10, 2012, when NIPSCO corrected the Facility Ratings.
Finding: The violations were deemed to pose a minimal risk to reliable BPS operations, but not a serious or substantial risk. With respect to NIPCO’s GO function, RFC found no other units with incorrect Facility Ratings, and the unit in question did not operate near its limit during the relevant time period because operational and environmental concerns limited the output of the unit. With respect to NIPSCO’s TO function, although a violation of the FAC-009-1 Reliability Standard has the potential to affect reliable BPS operations should a Responsible Entity operate its equipment outside the applicable Facility Rating, in this instance, the load on the line did not approach the revised rating based on the most limiting element. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered that the PRC-023-1 violation was a first occurrence and was self-reported; the prior violation of FAC-009-1 was not an aggravating factor; and the prior resolved issue concerning PRC-005-1 was not an aggravating factor. RFC gave partial mitigating credit for NIPSCO finding and reporting the issues concerning the FAC-009-1 violation.
Total Penalty: $0 (for four violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2014 (no further review)
NPCC-1, FERC Docket No. NP11-104-000 (February 1, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: NPCC
Issue: NPCC determined that an Unidentified Registered Entity (URE-NPCC1) did not possess all of the necessary documentation for its generation facilities and their associated elements (violation 1) and transmission lines and their associated elements (violation 2), including protective relays and series and shunt compensation devices, as required.
Finding: NPCC determined that the violations only caused a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability as URE-NPCC1 did possess documentation for its facility ratings methodology, even though the documentation had to be updated and revised in order to incorporate a ratings methodology for generation and to include all applicable equipment scope (such as relay protection devices and series and shunt compensation devices) in the documentation for both the transmission and generation methodology.
Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2011 (no further review)
Overton Power District #5, FERC Docket No. NP10-41-000 (February 1, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: Overton did not have a documented Facility Rating Methodology though it did have several relevant operating practices in effect.
Finding: Duration of violation from June 18, 2007, when standards became enforceable, through December 15, 2008. Penalty was determined appropriate because these were Overton's first violations of the standard, and the violations posed low risk to the bulk power system reliability.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)
Owensboro, KY Municipal Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP10-77-000 (March 31, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SERC
Issue: During an audit in November 2008, SERC discovered a possible violation of Reliability Standard FAC-009-1 based on Owensboro, KY Municipal Utilities' (OMU) failure to provide sufficient documentation concerning its Facility Ratings that were developed according to its Facility Ratings Methodology. Issues included that OMU did not possess documentation detailing all of the elements it reviewed in determining the most limiting component of each generator and substation, and OMU did not include ratings for associated equipment (i.e., transmission conductors, relay protective devices, terminal equipment, and series and shunt compensation devices). In addition to not including associated equipment, earlier versions of the Facility Ratings also did not reflect the normal and emergency ratings or detail the most limiting elements of the facility.
Finding: SERC and OMU entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues related to two alleged violations, whereby OMU neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $9,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC found that the alleged violation of Reliability Standard FAC-009-1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because OMU did develop Facility Ratings for its generators and transformers. In addition, OMU generates approximately 400 MW and only has two interconnection points with the interconnecting Transmission Owner, which would limit the impact if the Protection System did not operate as it was supposed to. In assessing the penalty, SERC considered the fact that the alleged violations were OMU's first violation of the Reliability Standards since they became mandatory; OMU was cooperative during the enforcement process; and OMU resolved the issue through a settlement agreement before a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction was issued. OMU has successfully completed a mitigation plan for the alleged violation of Reliability Standard FAC-009-1.
Penalty: $9,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In November 2007, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) self-reported that its Facility Ratings for equipment in the CAISO Transmission Register were inconsistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology as not all of relay setting limitations for 230 kV circuits and below had not been included in the equipment ratings posted in the CAISO Transmission Register.
Finding: WECC found that this violation did not cause a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as the ratings in the Transmission Register could have, in certain situations, tripped the line during reverse flow or through the clearances of other equipment. The violation was self-reported and this was PG&E's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Docket No. NP12-26-000 (April 30, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: WECC
Issue: PG&E, as a GO and TO, self-certified a violation of FAC-009-1 based upon its failure to report Facility Ratings consistent with its associated Facility Ratings Methodology. In particular, the ratings at two hydro generators were incorrect (Unit 1 was rated at 34 MW, but is correctly 33 MW; Unit 2 was rated at 79 MVA, but is correctly 69 MVA). PG&E reported it never operated at the higher levels.
Finding: The violation was found to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability. PG&E does have and uses a documented Facility Ratings Methodology; however, it mistakenly documented higher Facility Ratings for the hydro generators. As noted, the units did not generate at a higher capacity or Facility Rating as the turbines are constructed to determine the amount of power generated. Also, the small size of the generating capacity of each unit lessened any BPS risk. In determining the appropriate penalty, credit was given for PG&E’s internal compliance program, but WECC considered PG&E’s previous violation of the Reliability Standard (see NP10-2) to be an aggravating factor.
Penalty: $8,000
FERC Order: Order issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Docket No. NP12-44-000 (August 31, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: WECC
Issue: PG&E self-reported in December 2011 that it had violated the reporting provisions of FAC-009-1 R2 required of TOs and GOs. The self-report and WECC Enforcement review ultimately determined that PG&E had not reported 21 modifications to existing facilities and 6 re-ratings of existing facilities to CAISO, its Planning Authority, within seven days as set forth in the Reliability Standard.
Finding: The violation was deemed by WECC to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because PG&E does have a Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) which is in use at its facilities. For 21 of 27 modifications or replacements of specific devices or elements, there was no affect to Facility Ratings. For the other six, the Facility Rating was higher, and so no facilities would have been able to operate at a higher capacity or higher Facility Rating than that which was on file. In determining the appropriate penalty, credit was given for PG&E's internal compliance program. Partial self-report credit was given because the self-report was submitted one day prior to self-certification of compliance being due. PG&E admitted to WECC's findings.
Penalty: $10,100
FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)
PacifiCorp, FERC Docket No. NP14-3 (October 30, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: WECC found that PacifiCorp, as a GO and TO, had not established facility ratings consistent with its facility ratings methodology for 278 of its 451 lines as it did not consider 100 kV to 200 kV protective relay settings. In addition, the protective relay settings were lower than the established facility ratings in 98 instances and thereby became the most limiting element.
Finding: WECC found that the FAC-009-1 violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability as the lack of appropriate facility ratings could create confusion in grid operations (which could lead to SOL violations, transmission line overloads and/or equipment damage). But, all the relays were on 138 kV and 115 kV lines and none of the de-rated lines were on WECC-identified major transmission paths. In addition, all of the affected lines had properly maintained and tested protection systems installed. The FAC-009-1 violation started on June 18, 2007 and is ongoing. PacifiCorp agreed and stipulated to the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that PacifiCorp had a repeat violation of PRC-023-1 (which was evaluated as an aggravating factor). PacifiCorp also self-reported the violations, was cooperative during the enforcement process, complied with all applicable compliance directives, did not conceal the violations and had a compliance program in place when the violations occurred. In addition, PacifiCorp undertook additional voluntary corrective actions designed to remediate the violations and submitted a narrative to WECC which described its PRC-023 Project Management Improvement Plan.
Total Penalty: $92,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)
FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2013 (no further review)
Pasco County Resource Recovery Facility, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: FRCC
Issue: It was discovered in December 2007 that Pasco County Resource Recovery Facility (PCRRF) had not established Facility Ratings consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology for its solely and jointly owned facilities.
Finding: FRCC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since PCRRF had actually been using the same nameplate ratings from when the 26 MW generator was placed in service 16 years before (even though PCRRF had not formally documented its Facility Ratings Methodology). Furthermore, PCRRF's Facility Ratings represent only about 0.4% of the daily generating capacity of the FRCC interconnected system. This was PCRRF's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it instituted a mitigation plan (even though this plan was completed late).
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), Docket No. NP12-26-000 (April 30, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: WECC
Issue: PSCO, as a TO and GO, submitted a self-report detailing a violation of FAC-009-1 R1 based upon its finding that 47 out of 238 facilities were not rated consistent with Xcel Energy’s Facility Rating Methodology. PSCO did not have separate ratings for devices differing in operating capacity based on the season during which the devices are operating. PSCO used summer ratings for all seasons, leaving the 47 facilities with incorrect winter Facility Ratings. The summer normal ratings were correct, but the summer emergency, winter normal and winter emergency ratings should have been higher than the summer normal ratings.
Finding: The violation was found to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because PSCO has and uses an established documented Facility Ratings Methodology and the normal summer Facility Ratings are lower than the summer emergency, winter normal and winter emergency ratings, which means PSCO never reported Facility Ratings higher than the actual operating capacities for the relevant seasons, lessening any BPS risk. In determining the appropriate penalty, PSCO’s internal compliance program was considered a mitigating factor and credit was given for the self-report.
Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)
FERC Order: Order issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)
Public Service Company of New Mexico, FERC Docket No. NP10-158-000 (July 30, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: Public Service Company of New Mexico (“PNM”) self-reported that it had not developed Facility Ratings for certain newly acquired facilities consistent with its documented methodology as required by the Reliability Standard. The non-compliance was self-reported prior to June 18, 2007, but PNM’s mitigation plan was not completed in a timely manner, so the violation became enforceable.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through May 7, 2008. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system but posed a moderate risk because failure to have and follow its Facility Ratings Methodology could lead to misoperation of equipment. PNM received credit for self-reporting the violation and because it was PNM’s first occurrence of violation of this Reliability Standard.
Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)
Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: WECC
Issue: After receiving a Notice of On-site Compliance Audit, PNM, as a TO, submitted a self-report of non-compliance with FAC-009-1. Subsequently, the Audit Team confirmed the following violations: (1) PNM did not perform contingency runs for 115 kV facilities as required by its Facility Ratings Methodology. (2) In addition, WECC also determined that facility ratings at Reeves were not consistent with its revised Facility Ratings Methodology. PNM also failed to include protective relay devices in its Facility Ratings Methodology. PNM revised its Facility Ratings Methodology on December 16, 2010 but did not; however, update Facility Ratings for its Reeves Generating Station based on its revised Methodology after December 16, 2010. WECC also reported that the violation also included PNM's GO function.
Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability which was mitigated because the violation was limited to 115 kV facilities. PNM showed that its failure to revise Facility Ratings at the Reeves Generating Station did not impact its calculated Facility Rating. PNM considered the most limiting element at Reeves, and its ratings during the violation period did not change. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered PNM's internal compliance program as a mitigating factor and the repeat violation of BAL-004-WECC-01 as an aggravating factor. PNM agreed/stipulated to WECC's findings.
Penalty: $79,000 (aggregate for nine penalties)
FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)
Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: SPP
Issue: During a compliance audit in August 2010, SPP found that Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Rayburn) did not have Facility Ratings for its relay protective devices, jumpers, series and shunt compensation devices, breakers and other terminal equipment, even though those devices were incorporated into Rayburn’s Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: SPP found that the FAC-009-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Rayburn’s Transmission Facility Ratings already reflected the limiting rating of the facilities (which was determined using the nameplate ratings of its facility elements). Furthermore, only the ratings of some elements were not properly documented. The duration of the violation was from January 30, 2009 through December 30, 2010.
Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)
FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)
Rochester Public Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: MRO
Issue: Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) self-reported that its substation bus jumpers did not meet the thermal ratings required under certain scenarios established in ANSI and IEEE standards cited in RPU’s Facility Ratings Methodology. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 through May 13, 2011.
Finding: MRO determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because the jumpers were limited to below 1,200 amps only at high ambient summer temperature, and the full 1,200 amp duty is only required when the RPU ring bus is open. Moreover, peak load for RPU is only 280 MW, and RPU has only two 161 kV interconnection points and 40 miles of 161 kV transmission line in its transmission system. The Administrative Citation Notice also stated that the violation was self-reported, and noted the following mitigation activity: RPU scheduled outages to upgrade the jumpers and revised its Facility Ratings Methodology to include additional definitions and documentation of the size requirements for substation jumpers.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)
Sabine River Authority of TX/LA (Sabine), Docket No. NP12-22-000 (March 30, 2012)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SERC
Issue: During an audit, SERC was unable to confirm that Sabine, in its role as a GO, had established Facility Ratings for its facilities that were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology for generation in place before August 27, 2007. Further, once Sabine registered as a TO, it was required to have, but did not, Facility Ratings for its facilities that were consisted with its transmission Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the FRM in place was created to show the most limiting element which is the generator and the revised Facility Rating did not change. In addition, Sabine operated its facilities in accordance with the manufacturer’s ratings. At the time of the violation, Sabine did not have a formal internal compliance program, but it did subsequently implement a program, which SERC considered a neutral factor when determining the appropriate penalty. Sabine was also not credited with the self-report because SERC noted the violation was only discovered during preparation for the audit.
Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for two violations)
FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2012 (no further review)
Sierra Pacific Industries, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In July 2008, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) self-certified that as it did not have an appropriately documented Facility Ratings Methodology, it was unable to implement this methodology as required by FAC-009-1.
Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as SPI did actually have Facility Ratings in place. This was SPI's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
SUEZ Energy Generation NA Inc., FERC Docket No. NP09-4-000 (January 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: TRE
Issue: While SUEZ Energy Generation developed required Facility Ratings, there was no formalized procedure or documented methodology to define normal and emergency ratings or recognize the most limiting element. Due to the lack of documentation, SUEZ Energy Generation was unable to certify that it had established and communicated Facility Ratings as required by the standard.
Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violations were documentation issues and deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower), FERC Docket No. NP13-43 (July 31, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: WECC
Issue: Sunflower self-reported that it could not show its Facility Ratings for its Transmission Facilities were developed according to the procedures set forth in its Transmission Facility Ratings Methodology. In particular, Sunflower was unable to show that design criteria limitations and nameplate data were used to establish the equipment ratings for its Transmission Facilities. Because of that, Sunflower could not confirm that it had established its ratings accurately or that it had identified the most limiting element of its Transmission Facilities to determine the ratings. Once Sunflower corrected the issue, the ratings for 24 Transmission Facilities did not change, and the ratings were increased for 37 Transmission Facilities and decreased for 129 Transmission Facilities. SPP confirmed that Sunflower violated the FAC-009-1 R1 requirements because it was unable to show that the Facility Ratings for its 190 Transmission Facilities had been developed in accordance with its TFRM. The violation timeframe was from June 18, 2007 through September 14, 2012, when Sunflower’s Mitigation Plan was completed.
Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a serious and substantial risk to BPS reliability. Incorrect facility ratings can possibly affect system models, SCADA and EMS alarms and set points, relay settings, breaker trip settings and operating assumptions. Taken together, the possibility of equipment overloads, cascading outages and system instability increases; however, no misoperations occurred as a result of the rating errors. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered that the violation was the first FAC-009-1 R1 violation by Sunflower. Sunflower’s ICP was given mitigating credit. Sunflower self-reported the violation and was found to be cooperative during the enforcement procedures. WECC found no evidence that Sunflower attempted or intended to conceal the violation.
Total Penalty: $30,000
FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2013 (no further review)
Sunray Energy, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-81-000 (March 31, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: Sunray Energy did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology as required by FAC-008-1 R1 and therefore, its Facility Ratings were not established consistent with an associated Facility Ratings Methodology as required by FAC-009-1 R1.
Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through July 2, 2009, when Sunray Energy completed a mitigation plan. In reaching the determination, WECC considered the following factors: (1) Sunray Energy self-reported the alleged violation; (2) the alleged violation was Sunray Energy's first violation of the standard; (3) Sunray Energy was cooperative throughout the compliance enforcement process; (4) there was no evidence of any attempt to conceal a violation nor evidence of intent to do so; and (5) WECC determined that the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.
Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)
T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP11-214-000 (June 29, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit in June 2010, RFC found that T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership (T.E.S.), as a Generator Owner, had not developed Facility Ratings for its relay protective devices and transmission conductors.
Finding: RFC and T.E.S. entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby T.E.S. agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the FAC-009-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since T.E.S.’ power purchase agreement limited its operation to 60 MW. Since the rating of the most limiting piece of equipment at T.E.S.’ facility was greater than 60 MW, T.E.S.’ equipment was not the limiting factor in its operations. The duration of the FAC-009-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through July 27, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were T.E.S.’ first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards (even though T.E.S.’ affiliates had previous violation of PRC-005-1 which was viewed as an aggravating factor); T.E.S. was cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor).
Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)
FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)
The Dayton Power and Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-78-000 (December 22, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Level 1
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) failed to provide auditors with evidence that it established Facility Ratings for certain conductors connected to blackstart generators pursuant to a Facilities Rating Methodology.
Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Dayton maintained ratings for the conductors even though it had not documented the methodology for determining the ratings, and it also determined that none of the conductors was the most limiting element of the relevant facilities. In addition, NERC found that this was Dayton’s first violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; Dayton was cooperative; Dayton had a compliance program, which RFC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.
Penalty: $45,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)
The Dow Chemical Company, FERC Docket No. NP08-34-000 (June 5, 2008)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: SERC
Issue: Dow self-reported that it had failed to timely submit its self-certification though it was fully compliant with the standard.
Finding: No penalty assessed because the violations occurred during the transition period to mandatory compliance and did not put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015 (2008), https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf
Thermo Power and Electric LLC, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: Following a self-certification of non-compliance, WECC determined Thermo Power and Electric LLC (TPEL) was in violation of FAC-009-1 because it failed to develop Facility Ratings for its solely and jointly owned Facilities that were consistent with the associated Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: WECC determined that the violations posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because TPEL operates a single generating facility with a total capacity of approximately 80 MW, which is only a small percentage of the generation available to TPEL’s TOP and BA. Moreover, TPEL only operates in limited circumstances pursuant to its power purchase contracts.
Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)
FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-1-000 (October 7, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: N/A
Region: WECC
Issue: An Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) (URE) self reported a violation discovered during a self-evaluation because it failed to documented a Facilities Rating Methodology, and therefore could not base its Facilities Ratings on a documented Facility Rating Methodology per the Standard.
Finding: The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the URE had Facilities Ratings, but the methodology for determining generation plant ratings was not documented.
Penalty: $106,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued November 5, 2010 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-4-000 (October 7, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: N/A
Region: FRCC
Issue: An Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported a violation for failing to establish a Facilities Rating for facilities consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: The violation lasted from June 18, 2007 (the date the standard became enforceable) to December 31, 2010 (the date the URE is scheduled to complete its Mitigation Plan). The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because waive traps are used on the relevant line to protect the substation equipment in the case of an overload of the circuit, and an overload or loss of the wave trap would be signaled to the main control center which would prompt investigation. Other protections were also in place, including protective relays, current and voltage sensing devices. In addition, no disturbances or interruptions in service occurred to any customers.
Penalty: $250,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued November 5, 2010 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-79-000 (December 22, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: FRCC
Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported a violation of FAC-009-1 R1 because certain Emergency Ratings for transmission lines and Normal and Emergency Ratings for autotransformers were not consistent with the URE’s established Facility Ratings Methodology, which requires that a facility rating be equal to the most limiting applicable equipment.
Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to reliability of the bulk power system because URE has established a Facility Ratings Methodology and assigned ratings to equipment. Moreover, running the most limiting element would not trip the URE’s generator, and in the event the limiting element failed, URE has redundant equipment.
Penalty: $100,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-124-000 (February 23, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: RFC
Issue: RFC found that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) failed to establish Facility Ratings that were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $100,000 for this and other violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted the URE's first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the URE self-reported the violation; the URE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; the URE's compliance program; the URE did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.
Penalty: $100,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-125-000 (February 23, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: N/A
Region: RFC
Issue: RFC found that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) did not establish line ratings that were consistent with the URE's then-enforceable Facility Ratings Methodology (Revision 2) resulting in transmission lines continuing to have conductor emergency ratings used in excess of the normal rating.
Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $65,000 for this and other violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted the URE's first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the URE self-reported the violation; the URE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; the URE's compliance program; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.
Penalty: $65,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-137-000 (March 30, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: WECC
Issue: URE self-reported that its Facilities Ratings Methodology did not contain all of the elements required by the standard. These violations were self-reported prior to the date the standard became enforceable, but became enforceable because URE failed to submit an acceptable mitigation plan by the required deadline. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through April 30, 2009, when the violations were mitigated.
Finding: WECC Enforcement determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the violation was a documentation issue. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was URE’s first violation of most of the Standards involved, URE self-reported 28 of 30 violations, and URE was cooperative during the investigation.
Penalty: $106,000 (aggregate for 30 violations)
FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-166-000 (April 29, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: SPP
Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) failed to maintain a formal Facility Ratings Methodology for its generators, and the document it was using failed to note that the Facility Rating must equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating as required under R1.1 and specify the method for determining the rating as required under R1.2, R1.2.1 and R1.2.2. Since URE did not have a documented Facility Ratings as required by FAC-008-1 R1, URE’s Facility Ratings were based on an incomplete Facility Ratings Methodology which did not identify the most limiting element. As such, URE violated FAC-009-1 R1. Further, URE did not demonstrate that it consistently applied its Facility Ratings Methodology to each transmission facility element or that it selected the most limiting element to determine a rating.
Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $50,000 for this and other violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted URE’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; URE self-reported some of the violations; URE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; URE did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.
Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for 14 violations)
FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-188-000 (May 26, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: SPP
Issue: During an audit, SPP found that the URE’s transmission facility ratings did not include ratings for terminal equipment as required by the standard. Duration of the violation was June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through March 28, 2011 when the violation was mitigated.
Finding: SPP determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because the URE determined that it had accurately identified the most limiting element of its facilities. The NERC BOTCC also considered that the URE self-reported certain of the violations, and this was the URE’s first occurrence of violations of the standards.
Penalty: $16,860 (aggregate for 7 violations)
FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-198-000 (May 26, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: High
Region: SPP
Issue: During a spot check, SPP discovered that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) had not calculated Facility Ratings for its terminal equipment according to its Transmission Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: SPP and the URE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the URE agreed to pay a penalty of $17,860 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SPP found that the FAC-009-1 violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since the URE had actually been able to accurately identify the most limiting element of its transmission facilities. The duration of the FAC-009-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 28, 2011. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these violations were the URE’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the PRC-005-1 violation was self-reported; the URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; the URE had a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.
Penalty: $17,860 (aggregate for 7 violations)
FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, Docket No. NP11-270-000 (September 30, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: Based on WECC_URE1’s failure to respond to audit notices, WECC found that WECC_URE1 did not show that it had established Facility Ratings according to its Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: WECC found that the violation constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. WECC_URE1 operates a facility with a nameplate capacity of less than 30 MW and has only one interconnection with the bulk power system. In addition, WECC_URE1 sells all of its output to one entity (and does not have a significant impact on the purchaser’s electricity supply). WECC_URE1 developed a compliance program to manage its future compliance efforts (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). However, WECC_URE1 was not cooperative during the compliance audit process and did not timely complete the required self-certifications (which were evaluated as aggravating factors).
Penalty: $90,000 (aggregate for 14 violations)
FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)
Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP12-11 (January 31, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Lower
Region: WECC
Issue: URE self-reported (as well as self-certified) that 26.5% of its facilities had Facility Ratings that were higher than what the Facility Ratings should be according to its Facility Rating Methodology.
Finding: WECC found that the FAC-009-1 violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, WECC determined that the risk was mitigated as a result of the limited nature of the violation and the fact that URE had employed industry standards and practices to rate its facilities. In addition, URE’s system had performed successfully with the old Facility Ratings. In determining the penalty amount, the NERC BOTCC evaluated URE’s violation history; some of the violations were self-reported; URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; URE has a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.
Penalty: $135,000 (aggregate for 20 violations)
FERC Order: Issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)
Upper Peninsula Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP09-24-000 (May 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: MRO
Issue: While Upper Peninsula Power developed required Facility Ratings, there was no formalized procedure or documented methodology to define normal and emergency ratings or recognize the most limiting element. Due to the lack of documentation, Upper Peninsula Power was unable to certify that it had established and communicated Facility Ratings as required by the standard.
Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violations were documentation issues, and deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued May 29, 2009 (no further review)
USACE – Little Rock District, FERC Docket No. NP11-19-000 (November 5, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium (R1 and R2)
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SPP
Issue: In March 2008, USACE – Little Rock (USACE-LR) self-certified that, as it did not have a Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not establish its Facility Ratings in accordance with the Facility Ratings Methodology and therefore could not provide the required Facility Ratings to its Reliability Coordinator, Planning Authority, Transmission Planner, and Transmission Operator.
Finding: SPP found that these violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since USACE-LR’s Facility Ratings were established according to the Original Equipment Manufacturer ratings (which were substantiated based on the operational history of the generating facilities). The Facility Ratings were documented in USACE-LR’s operating criteria and in its protective systems and control equipment documentation. The duration of the violations was from July 10, 2007 through November 13, 2009. In deciding not to impose a penalty for multiple violations, SPP considered the fact that the violations represented USACE-LR’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were caused by USACE-LR not having formal procedures and policies in place; and USACE-LR did not attempt to conceal the violations. In addition, the violations were self-certified.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)
USACE – Kansas City District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SPP
Issue: USACE-Kansas City District (USACE-KC) did not have a documented Facilities Ratings Methodology, USACE-KC and therefore had not established ratings for its facilities that were consistent with the Facilities Ratings Methodology. Thereby, USACE-KC was also unable to provide those facility ratings to the identified entities.
Finding: SPP found that the violations did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since USACE-KC was still establishing ratings for its facilities based on the original equipment ratings (even though it did not have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology) and communicating them to its Transmission Operator and SPP. These were also the first violations of this Reliability Standard by USACE-KC and a mitigation plan was completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
USACE-Portland District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In January 2008, USACE-Portland District (USACE-PD) self-certified that as it did not appropriately document its Facility Ratings Methodology, it was unable to implement this methodology as required by FAC-009-1.
Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since USACE-PD did actually have Facility Ratings in place. This was USACE-PD's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
USACE – Tulsa District, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: SPP
Issue: FAC-009-1, R1 requires an entity to have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology and, as required by R2, to provide Facility Ratings for its facilities as scheduled to certain requesting entities. USACE-Tulsa self-certified that it was not compliant with these requirements of the Reliability Standard.
Finding: Although USACE-Tulsa did not have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology, USACE-Tulsa was establishing ratings for its facilities based upon original equipment ratings and was communicating these facility ratings to the Transmission Operator and SPP, therefore, determined that the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system. The duration of the violations was July 10, 2007 through March 12, 2010. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that the violations were documentation issues and were the first violations of this Reliability Standard, even though USACE-Tulsa did not complete its mitigation plan on time.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued December 16, 2010, 133 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2010), reh'g denied 137, FERC ¶ 61,044 (2010)
USACE-Walla Walla District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: WECC
Issue: In July 2008, USACE-Walla Walla District (USACE-WW) self-certified that as it had not documented its Facility Ratings Methodology, it was in violation of FAC-009-1. Although USACE-WW had developed a Facility Ratings Methodology, it had not completed its Facility Ratings process.
Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as USACE-WW did actually have Facility Ratings in place (even though the ratings were not derived from the Facility Ratings Methodology). As USACE-WW had current capability curves that demonstrated that its facility capacity and been developed and was in use, there was a reduced risk of operating outside of the parameters. This was USACE-WW's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan has been completed.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Omaha District, FERC Docket No. NP09-27-000 (June 24, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: MRO
Issue: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) - Omaha District self-certified non-compliance because although it had an internally approved Facilities Rating methodology, the Methodology was not fully compliant with the specific requirements of the standard (facilities not documented in the format required). Because it did not have a compliant methodology in place, it was unable to provide compliant Facility Ratings to the Reliability Coordinator, Planning Authority, Transmission Provider, Transmission Owner and/or Operator.
Finding: No penalty was deemed appropriate because the violations were documentation issues, and did not put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued July 27, 2009 (no further review)
Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: FRCC
Issue: Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach (New Smyrna) could not provide evidence that its Facility Ratings Methodology was employed to develop ratings for one substation and two radial lines. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through June 15, 2008.
Finding: Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was New Smyrna's first violation of this standard, and the violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because it was a documentation issue.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)
White Creek Wind I, LLC (WCW), FERC Docket No. NP12-5 (November 30, 2011)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Severe
Region: WECC
Issue: During an internal audit in November 2010, WCW found that its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) was not valid and so its facility ratings had not been developed pursuant to an FRM, as required.
Finding: WECC found the violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the facility design made the actual wind generators the most limiting element, which is how WCW system operators had been trained. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered that no other aggravating factors were present to warrant a higher penalty and that the violations are the first by WCW. WECC also noted that WCW was cooperative during the process, and WECC found no attempt to conceal the violations.
Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2011 (no further review)
Whiting Clean Energy, Inc. (WCE), Docket No. NP14-8 (Nov. 27, 2013)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: 1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Moderate
Region: RFC
Issue: While conducting a Compliance Audit, RFC found that WCE, as a GO, could not show that it had a procedure for determining the ratings of protective relay devices. RFC also found discrepancies between the Facility Ratings and the Facility Ratings Methodology that were unresolved. The violation time frame was July 9, 2008, when WCE registered as a GO, until December 12, 2012, when WCE completed a mitigation plan to resolve the issues.
Finding: This violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to reliable BPS operations, but not serious or substantial risk. WCE used instruction manuals to determine the ratings of its transmission conductors and relays. Also, a facility rating study conducted in June 2012 determined that the relays and voltage and current sensing devices were not the most limiting elements and therefore WCE did not have to change its Facility Ratings. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered several factors, including that these violations were the first by WCE of the subject Reliability Standards; one violation was self-reported; WCE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; and WCE has a compliance program in place and certain aspects were considered a mitigating factor by RFC. However, RFC determined that WCE’s performance during the Compliance Audit was an aggravating factor as WCE did not fully understand its responsibilities under NERC’s Reliability Standards nor even its own processes and procedures.
Total Penalty: $35,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)
FERC Order: Issued December 27, 2013 (no further review)
Wise County Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP09-5-000 (January 7, 2009)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1, R2
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: TRE
Issue: While Wise County Power developed required Facility Ratings, there was no formalized procedure or documented methodology to define normal and emergency ratings or recognize the most limiting element. Due to the lack of documentation, Wise County Power was unable to certify that it had established and communicated Facility Ratings as required by the standard.
Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violations were documentation issues and deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.
Penalty: $0
FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)
Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-99-000 (April 28, 2010)
Reliability Standard: FAC-009-1
Requirement: R1
Violation Risk Factor: Medium
Violation Severity Level: Not provided
Region: RFC
Issue: During a compliance audit of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (Wolverine) in June 2009, RFC discovered a potential violation of FAC-009-1 regarding Wolverine's Facility Rating not being based on the most limiting element comprising the facility. Wolverine's Facility Ratings sheets did not contain ratings for all elements of the transmission facility; the sheets did not possess consistent units (making it harder to identify the most limiting element of the facility); and the sheets did not identify the most limiting element.
Finding: RFC and Wolverine entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Wolverine neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to a penalty and to undertake mitigation measures. RFC found that the alleged violation of FAC-009-1 did not cause a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Wolverine's Facility Ratings were consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology (even though the methodology itself was not compliant with the Reliability Standard). In addition, Wolverine's Facility Ratings incorporated the most limiting element, as the information regarding the ratings, methodology, and the most limiting element was in a format accessible to Wolverine's engineering group (although the documentation was otherwise unclear). In determining the penalty, RFC considered that these multiple alleged violations were Wolverine's first occurrence of violations of the relevant Reliability Standards and that Wolverine was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations. In addition, RFC noted certain positive aspects of Wolverine's compliance program. Wolverine completed a mitigation plan for the alleged violation of FAC-009-1.
Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)
FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)
NP20-22-000: Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI)
Please search for this docket no. here ››
NP19-12-000: Consolidated Edison Co of NY, Inc. (CEOCNY)
Please search for this docket no. here ››
NP18-20-000: Alabama Power Company (APC)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERC2017017283 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Self-Report | 6/18/2007 | 4/13/2018 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
On or about November 1, 2016, APC completed a Facility Rating assessment of 67 of its transmission Facilities (approximately 10 percent of APC's total Facilities), including transmission line Facilities and autobank transformer Facilities. Out of the 67 sampled Facilities, APC identified four instances (5.97 percent) where it misidentified the Most Limiting Element (MLE) for Facility Ratings. After discovering these incorrect Facility Ratings, APC conducted an extent of condition review of 100 percent of its 399 transmission line Facilities and 69 autobank transformer Facilities. APC did not identify any discrepancies for the 69 autobank transformer elements that required changes to the MLE or overall Facility Rating. APC identified Facility Rating discrepancies for 78 of its 399 transmission line Facilities (19.55 percent). On March 24, 2017, APC submitted a Self-Report stating that it was in violation of FAC-009-1 R1. After reviewing the Self-Report and additional information, SERC determined APC did not establish Facility Ratings consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) for some of its transmission Facilities.
Finding: FAC-009-1
SERC determined that this violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). APC's planning and operating simulation-based studies depend on accurate ratings to plan construction and to establish operating criteria such that the BPS can withstand a variety of predetermined contingencies. APC used inaccurate Facility Ratings in its planning and operating studies, which compromised the validity of the studies. APC derated a total of 52 transmission line Facilities. Derates ranged from 0.5 percent to 64 percent of the prior incorrect ratings, and the highest derate was 487 MVA. APC determined the majority of the required derates were 15 MVA or less, and only five of the derates exceeded a threshold of a 10 percent difference from the correct MLE. APC typically sets first-level alarms in the energy management system (EMS) at 90 percent of the Facility Rating. Therefore, operators would have been alerted for loadings before exceeding the Facility
Rating for 47 of the 52 (90.4 percent) Facilities derated. APC experienced no operational problems due to the incorrect Facility Ratings.
Penalty: $200,000
FERC Order: Issued July 31, 2018
NP19-20-000: Ameren Services Company (Ameren)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERC2017018437 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/High | Compliance Audit | 6/18/2007 | 12/14/2018 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
During a Compliance Audit conducted from June 13, 2017 to October 3, 2017, SERC determined that Ameren, as a Transmission Owner, was in violation of FAC-008-3 R6. SERC determined that the violation started under FAC-009-1 R1 and ended under FAC-008-3 R6. Ameren did not have Facility Ratings that were consistent with its Facility Ratings methodology (FRM). During the on-site audit, the SERC audit team conducted facility walk-downs. SERC identified discrepancies between the FRM and the established element Ratings in the database for the Big River facility and the one-line drawing for the Spencer Creek facility, neither of which impacted the Facility Rating. The audit team found that Ameren had recently revised the database and substation one-line drawings. The cause of this violation was management oversight for failing to implement a change control process to verify element changes and that such changes were reflected in its ratings database and substation one-line diagrams.
Finding: FAC-009-1
This violation posed a moderate risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). Ameren's failure to establish Facility Ratings that were consistent with its FRM could have resulted in erroneous outage planning, violations of System Operating Limits, damage to Facilities, and incorrect coordination with interconnecting systems. However, the risk to the BPS was mitigated because all five facilities that exceeded the Facility Rating were limited to lower voltage, 138 kV transmission facilities. No harm is known to have occurred.
Penalty: $90,000
FERC Order: Issued July 30, 2020
NP19-20-000: Ameren Missouri (AUE)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERC2017018436 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Compliance Audit | 6/18/2007 | 12/112018 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
During a Compliance Audit conducted from June 13, 2017 to October 3, 2017, SERC determined that AUE, as a Generator Owner, was in violation of FAC-008-3 R6. SERC determined that the violation started under FAC-009-1 R1 and ended under FAC-008-3 R6. AUE did not have Facility Ratings that were consistent with its Facility Ratings methodology (FRM). During the on-site audit, the SERC audit team conducted a facility walk-down of the Peno Creek and Pinckneyville facilities, and identified discrepancies between the FRM and the established element Ratings at both generating facilities. Overall, there were 762 exceedances during this time period. This noncompliance started on June 18, 2007, when the Standard became mandatory and enforceable, and ended on December 11, 2018, when AUE corrected its last incorrect Rating. The cause of this violation was management oversight for failing to implement a change control process to verify element changes and that such changes were reflected in its ratings database and substation one-line diagrams.
Finding: FAC-009-1
This violation posed a moderate risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). AUE's failure to establish Facility Ratings that were consistent with its FRM could have resulted in the conductors, buses, and breakers overheating and failing, resulting in unit trips. The risk was moderate because the highest Facility Rating discrepancy at the AUE facilities was 70.8%, and five facilities had over 100 exceedances (161, 113, 110, 108, and 104). However, the risk was mitigated because AUE's total generation impacted by incorrect Facility Ratings was 1,436 MW, which was a small amount of generation in the MISO Reliability Coordinator (RC) area; therefore, the impact to the MISO RC area from AUE unit trips was small. Moreover, the 1,436 MW of impacted generation is 14.58% of AUE's total 9,849 net MWs of generation. No harm is known to have occurred.
Penalty: $85,000
FERC Order: Issued July 30, 2020
NP20-22-000: Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERC2016016489 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Compliance Audit | 6/18/2007 | 6/1/2019 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
SERC determined that AECI did not have Facility Ratings for its solely and jointly owned Facilities that were consistent with its associated Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM). The cause of this violation was management oversight by failing to verify the implementation of effective processes. When AECI performed its initial evaluation and physical verification of equipment ratings, it did not have the processes in place to ensure that it considered all relevant equipment. SERC determined that this violation posed a moderate risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS. AECI submitted mitigating activities to address the referenced violation. AECI certified that it had completed all mitigating activities.
Finding: FAC-009-1
According to the Settlement Agreement, AECI has assessed a penalty of four hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($430,000) for multiple violations. In reaching this determination, SERC considered that the violations in the aggregate posed a serious and substantial risk to the BPS, AECI self-reported some violations, and AECI agreed to settle the violations.
Penalty: $430,000
FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2020
NP20-5-000: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WECC2015015219 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Self-Report | 6/18/2007 | 3/15/2018 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
On September 11, 2015, BPA submitted a Self-Report after discovering that one of its current transformers (CT) was rated below the Facility Ratings of two associated transmission lines. BPA should have rated the CT as the most limiting element when BPA established Facility Ratings for the two lines. BPA's Facility Ratings Methodology considered CT equipment to be sized such that it would never be the most limiting element in a Facility. Consequently, BPA's Facility Rating database did not include any CT information, and its asset register did not include complete and accurate data concerning its CT equipment.
The root cause of this violation was inadequate internal controls to ensure that BPA's implementation of its Facility Ratings Methodology met all documented requirements. The violation posed a serious risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). BPA failed to establish Facility Ratings for its solely owned Facilities that were consistent with the associated Facility Ratings Methodology, when it did not account for 52 CTs as limiting series elements, as required by FAC-009-1 R1. These Facilities included transmission lines at 115 kV (22 lines), 161 kV (one line), 230 kV (25 lines), and 500 kV (four lines). At least six of the Facilities in scope are part of one or more WECC Major Transfer Paths. However, the mitigation resulted in derating of the affected Facilities by approximately ten percent. BPA did not have effective detective or preventive controls in place to detect or prevent this issue. However, as compensation, the first two transmission lines included in BPA's Self-Report have not operated at Amps near a System Operating Limit (SOL). Additionally, BPA operates its system using conservative assumptions, not within close proximity to an SOL.
Finding: FAC-009-1
According to the Settlement Agreement, WECC has assessed no penalty for the referenced violation. In reaching this determination, WECC considered that BPA is a federal government entity, the violation constitutes BPA's first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard, BPA self-reported the violation, BPA cooperated during the enforcement action, the violation posed a serious risk to the reliability of the BPS, there was no evidence of any attempt to conceal the violation nor evidence of intent to do so, the violation did not cause or extend a loss of load, there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances that would affect the disposition method.
Penalty: No Penalty
FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2020
NP20-18-000: Eversource Energy Service Company
Region: NPCC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC2018019893 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Moderate | Self-Log | 6/21/2007 | 5/9/2019 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
On June 21, 2018, the Eversource Energy Service Company (the entity) provided a Self-Log to NPCC stating that, as a Transmission Owner (TO), it was in noncompliance with FAC008-3 R6. During the investigation of the violation, and based on an extent of condition performed by the entity after the Self-Log, NPCC determined the violation was of moderate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system and, as such, did not qualify as a Compliance Exception. NPCC further determined that the entity was in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 from June 21, 2007 until December 31, 2012 and in violation of FAC-008-3 R6 from January 1, 2013 until May 9, 2019. For purposes of this violation, there was no substantive change in the entity's compliance obligations under the two applicable Standard Requirements.
NPCC determined that the entity was in violation of FAC-009-1 R1 from June 21, 2007 until December 31, 2012 and then was in violation of FAC-008-3 R6 from January 1, 2013 until May 9, 2019. The primary root cause of this violation was prior management's insufficient review process of historical ratings associated with the EMA area and failure to perform a comparison with the current documented FRM in use by the entity. In addition, in 2016, a documented process did not exist that would consistently ensure that transmission fieldwork results were analyzed by Transmission Line Engineering before a field project was closed out.
Finding: FAC-009-1
The violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system. The entity's failure to establish accurate Facility Ratings in 65 instances increased the potential for its Facilities to be operated outside of their correct capacity rating, creating the opportunity for equipment damage, incorrect modeling outputs and operating assumptions. In particular, the use of incorrect Facility Ratings in the Energy Management System (EMS) could negatively impact reliability under stressed system conditions as the System Operator may unknowingly operate to a higher rating than the equipment can accommodate. Planning and operating studies depend on the use of accurate book ratings such that the BES can withstand a variety of predetermined contingencies.
However, the risk posed by this violation was mitigated by a number of factors. Although there was a degree of inaccuracy involved, the EMA Facility Ratings were developed based on good utility practices using sound engineering judgement for the assumptions and methodology applied at the time. The entity provided historical data that showed that there were no instances where an effected Facility was historically operated in Real-time over its final corrected Facility Rating or its Summer or Winter 2019 Interim ratings.
Penalty: $120,000
FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2020
NP18-19-000: Georgia Power Company (GPC)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERC2015015062 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/High | Self-Report | 6/18/2007 | 10/12/2016 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
While gathering evidence in response to a SERC data request for a July 2015 Compliance Audit, GPC discovered that the Facility Rating it used for a 230/115 kV autobank transformer was not consistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM). GPC incorrectly identified the transformer bank nameplate rating of 300 MVA as the most limiting element (MLE) in the energy management system (EMS) and established an incorrect Facility Rating of 300 MVA based on that error. GPC should have established a Facility Rating for the line based on the actual MLEs, which were the connections to the main low-side bus and the main low-side bus conductors for each phase rated at 285 MVA. GPC submitted a Self-Report stating that it did not have a Facility Rating for the autobank transformer that was consistent with the associated FRM.
GPC discovered 91 discrepancies in response to a follow-up request. Of the 91 discrepancies, GPC found 74 were errors in the EMS, 16 were control center documentation errors, and one was an incorrectly applied derate. The majority of the errors occurred primarily due to GPC's EMS database having incomplete element types available at the time GPC set up the Facilities in the EMS. When an exact match was not available in the drop-down menu in the EMS, GPC personnel used professional judgment to determine which element to select as the MLE. Additionally, the control center documentation errors occurred when documentation did not contain all the elements, misidentified one or more elements, or mischaracterized one or more elements.
Finding: FAC-009-1
SERC determined that this violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). GPC's planning and operating simulation-based studies depend on accurate ratings to plan construction and to establish operating criteria such that the BPS can withstand a variety of predetermined contingencies. GPC used inaccurate Facility Ratings in its planning and operating studies, which compromised the validity of the studies.
Penalty: $200,000
FERC Order: Issued July 31, 2018
NP18-18-000: Gulf Power Company (Gulf)
Region: SERC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERC2015015061 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Self-Report | 6/18/2007 | 4/12/2016 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
On June 8, 2015, while gathering evidence in response to notice of a SERC Compliance Audit, Gulf discovered that the Facility Rating associated with a single 115 kV transmission line was inconsistent with its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM). Two years before, Gulf had removed the most limiting element (MLE) of that transmission line. Gulf reviewed the element ratings for the Facility and incorrectly identified a new MLE. Based on the incorrect MLE, Gulf established an incorrect Facility Rating of 289 MVA instead of 260 MVA. In 2015, this 115 kV transmission line operated at 121 percent of the correct Facility Rating for approximately 2 hours and 36 minutes on two separate occasions on a single day.
The primary cause of this violation was ineffective change management for Facility Ratings. Specifically, Gulf lacked a single repository for all of the Facility Rating elements and lacked a consistently applied process to communicate field changes to personnel that managed the Facility Ratings. Instead, Gulf relied on various sources of information for Facility Ratings to identify the MLE for each Facility. In the absence of definitive information to the contrary, Gulf used historical Ratings already in the energy management system. In addition, Gulf did not document a process for addressing field changes, which resulted in inconsistent application of an informal process for documenting such changes.
Finding: FAC-009-1
SERC determined that this violation posed a moderate and not serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). Gulf's planning and operating simulation-based studies depend on accurate ratings to plan construction and to establish operating criteria such that the BPS can withstand a variety of pre-determined contingencies. Gulf used inaccurate Facility Ratings in its planning and operating studies, which compromised the validity of the studies.
Penalty: $100,000
FERC Order: Issued June 31, 2018
NP20-10-000: Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC)
Region: WECC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WECC2016016683 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Self-Report | 6/18/2007 | 1/27/2017 |
Issue: FAC-009-1
WECC determined that SPPC had deficiencies in its established Facility Ratings for its solely and jointly owned Facilities. The established Facility Ratings did not include all applicable Facilities, nor did they include all required series Elements. Overall, 92 of SPPC's 210 Facilities had incorrect or no established Facility Ratings. Of the 92 Facilities, 50 Facilities, including 42 transmission lines, 6 transformers, and 2 Phase Shifters, exceeded the correct Facility Rating by an average of 130%. One of the transmission lines was a 345 kV line on a WECC Major Transfer Path. Attachment 1 includes additional facts regarding the violation. The cause of the violation was a lack of an effective process for implementation of compliance and interpretation of the Reliability Standard. Specifically, SPPC did not define clear roles and responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the Standard. Additionally, SPPC did not maintain Facility Rating information in a consistent manner, nor did it effectively implement a communication process across different business units regarding Facility Ratings and the use of its Facility Ratings Methodology.
Finding: FAC-009-1
In reaching the penalty of $153,000, WECC considered the following factors: SPPC was cooperative throughout the compliance enforcement process; SPPC self-reported the above violations in a timely manner from the date of discovery; SPPC accepted responsibility and admitted to these violations; SPPC agreed to settle these violations and penalty; the violation of FAC-009-1 R1 posed a serious and substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS; the violation of another standard posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS; there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances that would affect the assessed penalty.
Penalty: $153,000
FERC Order: Issued February 27, 2020
NP20-10-000: Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC)
Region: WECC
| NERC Violation ID | Standard | Requirement | VRF/VSL | Discovery Method | Start Date | End Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WECC2018020399 | FAC-009-1 | R1 | Medium/Severe | Compliance Audit | 6/18/2007 | Present |
Issue: FAC-009-1
During a Compliance Audit conducted August 20, 2018 through August 31, 2018, WECC determined WACM, as a Transmission Owner (TO), violated FAC-009-1 R1. WACM discovered the violation while gathering evidence in preparation for a Compliance Audit. The root cause of the violation was an insufficient process to establish and effectively document Facility Ratings. WECC determined that this violation posed a serious and substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). WACM failed to establish Facility Ratings for its solely owned Facilities that are consistent with its associated FRM. One of the samples with an incorrect Facility Rating was on a WECC Major Transfer Path. A failure to have Facility Ratings consistent with its FRM could result in WACM inaccurately identifying the most limiting Element of the Facility and lead to an incorrect Facility Rating above the most limiting Element. This can result in WACM operating equipment above appropriate ratings, resulting in overloads, unexpected outages, or operating in unstudied conditions. WACM did not implement effective preventive or detective controls; however, existing data on line loadings was examined.
Finding: FAC-009-1
According to the Settlement Agreement, WECC has assessed no penalty for the referenced violation. In reaching this determination, WECC considered the following factors: WACM is a federal government entity, and WECC and NERC are bound to follow Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in resolution of this matter; the instant violation constitutes WACM's first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; WACM did not implement effective preventative or detective controls; WACM had existing data on the line loadings, which showed the highest line loadings tend to be 50 percent of the published ratings, and Facility Rating of the most limiting Elements have been higher than the historical/actual line loadings; there was no evidence of any attempt to conceal a violation nor evidence of intent to do so; the violation of FAC-009-1 R1 posed a serious risk to the reliability of the BPS; there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances that would affect the disposition method. After consideration of the above factors, WECC determined that it would issue no penalty, in accordance with SWPA v. FERC.
Penalty: No Penalty
FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2020
