NERC Case Notes: Reliability Standard PRC-005-1

 

AES Alamitos, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: After being notified of an upcoming audit, AES Alamitos, a GO, reported a violation of PRC-005-1. AES Alamitos could not show it had performed maintenance and testing on Protection System devices (one set of batteries accounting for less that 25% of all batteries) according to the time frame specified in its Maintenance and Testing (M&T) program. AES Alamitos had evidence to show the batteries had been tested, but the evidence did not show that the testing occurred within the intervals defined in AES Alamitos’ M&T program.

Finding: WECC found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Although AES Alamitos had not tested the batteries according to the time specified in its M&T program, the batteries had been tested. Also, any malfunction of the batteries would set off an alarm alerting employees to a problem. The duration of the violation was June 18, 2007 through March 31, 2011. WECC took the following under consideration when determining the appropriate penalty amount: AES Alamitos took appropriate measures to fix the problem; the violation was self-reported; AES Alamitos’ compliance program; the violation was not a repeat violation; AES Alamitos was cooperative during the compliance process; there was no evidence AES Alamitos attempted to hide the violation or that it was intentional; and there were no aggravating factors.

Penalty: $8,700

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

AES Beaver Valley, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-3-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Beaver Valley failed to test its Protective Relay devices within the required period.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through October 10, 2008. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

AES Deepwater, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-255-000 (August 11, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: During a compliance audit, TRE discovered that AES Deepwater, Inc. (Deepwater) had no defined interval for maintenance and testing of its station batteries in its compliance program. Duration of violation was June 28, 2007 through October 28, 2008.

Finding: TRE determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system, but had a moderate impact, because Deepwater performed battery tests in 2005 and the batteries were found to be operating satisfactorily when tested again in 2008, and because of the modest amount of generation involved (140 MW). The NERC BOTCC also considered that the violation was Deepwater’s first occurrence of violation, Deepwater cooperated with TRE, and there was no evidence Deepwater tried to conceal the violation.

Penalty: $7,000

FERC Order: Issued September 9, 2011 (no further review)

AES Red Oak, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-5-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Red Oak failed to document that it had in place a valid Protection System maintenance program, and failed to provide evidence that it had tested its Protective Relay devices within the required five-year period.

Finding: Duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through January 26, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violations were deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because they were limited to a single unit with small generating capacity.

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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1/1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: AES Shady Point, a GO, submitted a self-report explaining that its generation Protection System maintenance and testing program did not provide a description of the basis for its three-year interval for testing on its 85 relays in violation of the Standard. Also, 2 associated communication systems, 45 instrument transformers, 1 station battery bank and 20 DC control circuits were found to have no documented testing intervals or the basis for those intervals. This violation encompassed 100% of AES Shady Point’s Protection System devices.

Finding: SPP RE found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because it had to do with the failure to have a comprehensive formal program for the scheduling and documentation of all of the facility’s Protection System maintenance and testing. The relay maintenance was being performed by AES Shady Point according to the manufacturer's recommendation. AES Shady Point had documentation to show monthly visual inspections and voltage checks for its batteries had taken place from 2010 forward and that battery load tests took place on a six-year interval. The instrument transformers received visual inspections during outages and while at the switch-yard, and AES Shady Point provided proof of commissioning tests. The relevant communication systems were tested by AES Shady Point’s TOP/GOP in 1999 and 2011. In addition, its system is continuously monitored by station operators and the facility 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 Shady Point, LLC, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SPP

Issue: AES Shady Point, a GO, submitted a self-report explaining that its generation Protection System maintenance and testing program had not been implemented as required by the Standard. AES Shady Point had no documentation providing maintenance dates on 4 relays, 2 associated communication systems, 1 battery bank, 20 DC control circuits and 45 instrument transformers. This violation encompassed 47% (72 out of 153) of AES Shady Point’s Protection System devices.

Finding: SPP RE found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because it had to do with the failure to have a comprehensive formal program for the scheduling and documentation of all of the facility’s Protection System maintenance and testing. The relay maintenance was being performed by AES Shady Point according to the manufacturer's recommendation. AES Shady Point had documentation to show monthly visual inspections and voltage checks for its batteries had taken place from 2010 forward and that battery load tests took place on a six-year interval. The instrument transformers received visual inspections during outages and while at the switch-yard, and AES Shady Point provided proof of commissioning tests. The relevant communication systems were tested by AES Shady Point’s TOP/GOP in 1999 and 2011. In addition, its system is continuously monitored by station operators and the facility 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 Thames LLC (AES Thames), Docket No. NP12-26-000 (April 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High (both)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (both)

Region: NPCC

Issue: While conducting a Spot Check, NPCC found that AES Thames, as a GO, was in violation of PRC-005-1 based on its failure to have defined testing intervals for voltage and current sensing devices (CTs/PTs) in its Protection System maintenance and testing procedure. AES Thames stated only that maintenance to CTs/PTs was to be performed on an “as needed” basis, which does not meet the requirement that maintenance and testing intervals and their basis be specifically stated. (R1).

An additional violation of PRC-005-1 was self-reported to NPCC by AES Thames reporting that AES Thames, in its role as a GO, could not show that maintenance and testing on its generation Protection System devices was being performed on a schedule meeting the requirements of the Reliability Standard. AES Thames also reported that it had no documentation showing the last date each Protection System device was maintained and tested. All AES Thames could show is that its protective relay calibration test was to be undertaken “annually,” although the calibration testing performed was ultimately found to be within a 15-month interval and outside the 2010 calendar year. NPCC Enforcement found that the required testing was not performed timely because the requirement in place was that testing would be undertaken “as needed.” On December 28, 2011, AES Thames was closed and sold to a salvage company.

Finding: The violation was determined to pose a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the facility was not in service and was classified as being in a “wet layup” status meaning it would only be called into service if the RTO had an emergency. AES Thames had performed all other generator maintenance and testing, and those test results were satisfactory, just not its CTs/PTs. Even though the facility was sold to a salvage company, NPCC elected to hold AES Thames responsible by the filing of the Notice of Penalty.

Penalty: $0 (for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)

AES Warrior Run, FERC Docket No. NP10-6-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Warrior Run failed to document that it had in place a valid Protection System maintenance program and failed to provide evidence that it had tested its Protective Relay devices within the required five-year period.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through May 14, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violations were deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violations were limited to a single unit with small generating capacity.

Penalty: $15,900 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

Alabama Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-34-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Alabama Power self-reported its failure to document the testing and inspection of certain Protection System device batteries within the intervals identified in its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: Alabama Power did have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program (the same program that is used by all of its parent company's, Southern Company, operating companies). Alabama Power and SERC entered into a settlement agreement whereby Alabama Power neither admitted nor denied the alleged violation, but agreed to pay a penalty of $7,500, as well as to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC determined that the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since testing and maintenance was still being performed on all the battery systems (even though less frequently than was required), no batteries were missing documentation for all the intervals, 23 out of 60 batteries had full documentation for all intervals and the other batteries only had random gaps in documentation, and at ten of Alabama Power's generation facilities all of the batteries had full documentation. SERC considered the fact that the alleged violation was self-reported, Alabama Power actively cooperated during the investigation, and Alabama Power did not intend to conceal the alleged violation, and Alabama Power adopted a maintenance and testing program, Alabama Power worked quickly to promptly resolve the issue and institute mitigation measures.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued March 15, 2010 (no further review)

Alabama Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-169-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Alabama Power Company ("APC") self-reported three violations of PRC-005-1 R2 for failing to perform maintenance or testing on certain protective relays within intervals set out in APC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program at four plants. Five protective relays were not timely maintained or tested at both Plant Gaston and Plant Theodore, six protective relays were not timely maintained or tested at Plant Jordon Dam, and four protective relays associated with the Main Generator Neutral Ground Fault Protection Relays at the Farley nuclear power station were not timely maintained or tested.

Finding: SERC determined the violations posed a minimal risk to the Bulk Power System because the number of protective relays that were not timely maintained or tested represented less than 0.1% of each facility’s total relay production, and each relay was promptly tested and found to be properly functioning once the violations were discovered. The NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: APC self-reported the violations; APC previously filed violations of PRC-005-1 R2 for other affiliates, but this was not considered an aggravating factor; APC was cooperative; APC had a compliance procedure in place, which SERC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal the violations; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $12,500 (aggregate for 3 penalties)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Alabama Power Company, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: In May 2012, Alabama Power Company (APC), as a GO, self-reported that it had not properly maintained and tested six battery banks at its Plant Farley as required by the Plant Farley Protection System maintenance and testing program. Four of the battery banks were not included in the testing data sheets in the maintenance and testing procedures, and two of the battery banks were subject to a different method of verifying battery connection integrity than was specified in the maintenance and testing procedures. This violation affected 2.6% of APC’s station batteries (6 out of 234 batteries).

Finding: SERC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. APC had maintained and tested four of the station batteries according to its electrical maintenance procedures, which is similar to the Protection System maintenance and testing procedures but contains longer intervals. In addition, battery connection resistance tests were performed every 18 months for two of the batteries and every 22 months for four of the batteries. Plant Farley’s batteries and chargers were also continuously monitored by APC’s control room. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 15, 2012. APC admitted the violation. ACP’s internal compliance program was viewed as a mitigating factor, but APC and its affiliates’ prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 were evaluated as an aggravating factor.

Total Penalty: $14,000

FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-224-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue:: As a result of a compliance audit, RFC determined Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (Alcoa) violated PRC-005-1 R1 because it did not include within its maintenance and testing program maintenance and testing intervals and their basis for 14 out of 117 Protection System Devices. RFC also determined Alcoa violated PRC-005-1 R2 because it could not produce evidence that it maintained and tested 11 of its 79 DC control circuits and instrument transformers within defined intervals.

Finding: RFC assessed a $7,000 penalty for these and other violations. These violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the Bulk Power System because the Protection System devices at issue were maintained and tested, and Alcoa has other means for monitoring for malfunctions and abnormal conditions pertaining to the devices. The NERC BOTCC determined this was Alcoa’s first occurrence of these types of violations; Alcoa was cooperative; Alcoa 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: $7,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. -Tapoco Division, FERC Docket No. NP10-91-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI-Tapoco) failed to identify DC Control Circuitry as a component of its Protection System.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, until September 17, 2008, when APGI-Tapoco completed a mitigation plan. SERC and APGI-Tapoco entered a settlement agreement regarding the alleged violation and agreed to a $2,000 penalty. In assessing the penalty, SERC considered: (1) APGI-Tapoco had no previous violations of NERC Reliability Standards; (2) APGI-Tapoco was cooperative during the enforcement process; (3) there was no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so; (4) APGI-Tapoco agreed to address this issue through settlement prior to receiving a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction; and (5) the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because, although APGI-Tapoco's maintenance and testing program failed to specifically mention DC Control Circuitry, APGI-Tapoco performed functional testing on its relays throughout the course of relay maintenance by confirming breaker operation in response to appropriate input parameters and therefore it was effectively testing its relay DC Control Circuitry.

Penalty: $2,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. - Tapoco Division (APGI-Tapoco), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: APGI-Tapoco, as a TO and GO, self-reported violations of R2 arising from two relays not having been tested within defined intervals, from a failure to located certain battery maintenance records, and the possible loss of some additional data due to a computer failure. Subsequent to a scheduled compliance audit thereafter and a compilation of defined maintenance and testing intervals, most recent test dates and previous test dates for each Protection System device, SERC reported a further violation of R2. APGI –Tapoco had failed to provide evidence of testing and maintenance intervals for seven such Protection System devices and did not have a record for when six of its current transformers and potential transformers had last been tested and maintained. There was also no test record for the company's 178 DC control circuitry.

Finding: SERC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because the company's electronic relays, DC control circuitry and battery chargers were constantly monitored with an alarm system, allowing for timely response in the event of a failure. In addition, no issues were identified following a functional test on all missed Protection system devices, suggesting that the devices would have performed properly if needed. Lastly, the fact that an adjacent utility currently serves APGI-Tapoco's total system load reduces the risk to the BPS. SERC and APGI-Tapoco entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby APGI-Tapoco agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SERC considered Alcoa Inc's FERC Compliance Policy and Plan (which governs APGI-Tapoco) a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 6, 2012. APGI-Tapoco neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. -Yadkin Division, FERC Docket No. NP10-92-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. – Yadkin Division (APGI-Yadkin) failed to identify DC Control Circuitry as a component of its Protection System.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, until September 17, 2008, when APGI-Yadkin completed a mitigation plan. SERC and APGI-Yadkin entered a settlement agreement regarding the alleged violation and agreed to a $2,000 penalty. In assessing the penalty, SERC considered: (1) APGI-Yadkin had no previous violations of NERC Reliability Standards; (2) APGI-Yadkin was cooperative during the enforcement process; (3) there was no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so; (4) APGI-Yadkin agreed to address this issue through settlement prior to receiving a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction; and (5) the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because, although APGI-Yadkin’s maintenance and testing program failed to specifically mention DC Control Circuitry, APGI-Yadkin performed functional testing on its relays throughout the course of relay maintenance by confirming breaker operation in response to appropriate input parameters and therefore it was effectively testing its relay DC Control Circuitry.

Penalty: $2,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. - Yadkin Division (APGI-Yadkin), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Further to a compliance audit and a compilation of defined maintenance and testing intervals, most recent test dates and previous test dates for each Protection System device, SERC reported violations of R2 when APGI-Yadkin, as a TO and GO, failed to provide evidence of testing and maintenance intervals for the last test dates for some of its Protection System devices. In particular, 13 protective relays and two station batteries had been tested outside of their defined intervals. Additionally, there were no test records of the most recent testing / maintenance for 48 protective relays, eight voltage and current sensing devices, and 40 DC control circuits.

Finding: SERC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because the company's electronic relays, communications systems and battery chargers were constantly monitored with an alarm system, allowing for timely response in the event of a failure. In addition, no issues were identified following a functional test on all missed Protection system devices, suggesting that the devices would have performed properly if needed. Lastly, the fact that the load being served is limited to the internal APGI-Yadkin makes restoration a business interruption factor and reduces the risk to the BPS. SERC and APGI-Yadkin entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby APGI-Yadkin agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SERC considered Alcoa Inc's FERC Compliance Policy and Plan (which governs APGI-Yadkin) a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through February 10, 2012. APGI-Yadkin neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $13,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. - Yadkin Division (APGI-Yadkin), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: APGI-Yadkin, as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 when it discovered that two protection schemes (with 8protective relays, 2 current transformers, and 8 DC control circuits) were missing from the maintenance and testing program of PRC-005 Protection System devices. This discovery occurred two months following the completion of a mitigation plan for an earlier violation of PRC-005-1R2 which arose following a compliance audit. In particular,

Finding: SERC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because the primary line electronic relays were constantly monitored by a basic alarm and supervisory control and data acquisition system, allowing for timely response in the event of a failure. In addition the protection schemes at issue monitor the bus of a power distribution house feeding a small system interruptible load to only one internal customer. Finally, no issues were identified following a functional test on the DC control circuits and following calibration / maintenance tests on the relays, suggesting that the Protective System devices would have performed properly if needed. SERC and APGI-Yadkin entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby APGI-Yadkin agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SERC considered Alcoa Inc's FERC Compliance Policy and Plan (which governs APGI-Yadkin) a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination, and considered the company's previous violation of PRC-005-1 R2 to be an aggravating factor. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through June 16, 2012. APGI-Yadkin neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $13,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-186-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower; Higher

Region: RFC

Issue: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (AE Supply), a Generator Owner, failed to perform maintenance or testing at its AE12-13 and Buchannan 1-2 facilities within the defined intervals of its Battery Inspection and Testing Program for 6 of 31 station batteries. Also, AE Supply failed to perform maintenance or testing at its AE 1-2, AE 3-4-5, AE 8-9, Armstrong, Harrison, Hatfield, Lake Lynn, Mitchell and Pleasants facilities within defined intervals for 25 of 31 station batteries.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) approved a penalty assessment of $20,000 for these violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violations constituted AE Supply’s first and second violations of the subject Reliability Standard; AE Supply cooperated throughout the compliance process; AE Supply did not attempt to conceal the violations; the violations 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: $20,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Allegheny Energy Supply Company (AE Supply), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: RFC found AE Supply to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R1 when, while conducting a compliance audit during October 2011, it found that AE Supply, a registered GO, failed to include current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) in its Protection System maintenance and testing program nor did it have an acceptable basis for the three-year interval for maintenance and testing of Protection System relays and DC control circuitry in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk. RFC found that the violation posed a moderate risk because AE Supply should have updated its Protection System maintenance and testing program in a timely manner to include CTs and PTs. The risk was mitigated by several factors including that at the time of installation AE Supply verified the output and accuracy of its CTs and PTs. Also, AE Supply’s three-year interval for maintenance and testing of its relays and DC control circuitry is in line with the other Protection System maintenance and testing programs in the industry, and AE Supply’s failure to include a basis for its three-year interval within its Protection System maintenance and testing program was a documentation error. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of AE Supply’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and AE Supply follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. AE Supply and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Allegheny Energy Supply Company (AE Supply), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2; 2.1; 2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: RFC found AE Supply to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R2 when, while conducting a compliance audit during October 2011, it found that AE Supply, a registered GO, was following manufacturer’s maintenance and testing procedures, not the maintenance and testing procedures detailed in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Also, AE Supply was unable to show that it performed maintenance and testing for 18 Protection System relays within its three-year interval. Lastly, AE Supply was unable to give the auditors the last date on which it performed maintenance and testing on its CTs and PTs.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk, which was mitigated because the manufacturer’s maintenance and testing procedures were similar to those maintenance and testing activities described within AE Supply’s Protection System maintenance and testing program except that AE Supply’s Protection System maintenance and testing program was not updated to include maintenance and testing for one type of battery. Finally, for the CTs and PTs, while AE Supply provided no evidence of periodic maintenance and testing, it reported that testing was conducted on the devices when they were installed. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of AE Supply’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and AE Supply follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. AE Supply and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Alliant Energy – East (ALTE), Docket No. NP12-36-000 (June 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1/1.2; R2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1.1/1.2); Lower (R2.1/2.2)

Region: MRO

Issue: ALTE, a DP and GO, self-certified in July 2010 that it was not in compliance with PRC-005-1 R1 as its Protection System maintenance and testing procedure failed to address DC Control Circuitry. ALTE found its most recent version of its Protection System maintenance and testing procedure, dated March 2009, did not include a reference to conducting functional testing (DC control circuitry) of the Protection System that was previously included in its 2007 version. In October 2010, ALTE, in its roles as a DP and GO, submitted a self-report stating that it had failed to maintain and test 17 station batteries as required by PRC-005-1 R2. MRO subsequently requested ALTE provide all of its maintenance and testing records for its 1,527 Protection System devices subject to the Reliability Standard and received all except for the 17 self-reported by ALTE. The 17 station batteries represent 1% of total devices and 85% of total station batteries.

Finding: The R1 violation was found to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because it was documentation related, and ALTE had conducted all required maintenance and testing and provided MRO with all testing records for DC control circuitry. The R2 violation was found to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability due to the high voltage ties and the size of the units involved. The untested station batteries at issue were located at multiple generating units, including two black-start units. The generating units involved produce approximately 2,200 MW, and several large units had no annual station battery test records for two to three years, and no visual check to subsets of the units had been performed either. ALTE performed an analysis at each station to determine any impact to the system or the BPS due to a battery misoperation, and at all of the generating stations where this analysis was completed, there were no branch overloads or voltage violations. In addition, battery voltage at the generating sites is monitored and includes a low battery voltage alarm, and ALTE reported that all of the devices tested performed as expected without any issues. ALTE’s internal compliance program (ICP) at the time of the violation was considered a neutral factor in determining the penalty amount. ALTE admitted to the violations.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Alliant Energy – West (ALTW), Docket No. NP12-36-000 (June 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1/1.2; R2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1.1/1.2); Lower (R2.1/2.2)

Region: MRO

Issue: ALTW, a DP and GO, self-certified in July 2010 that it was not in compliance with PRC-005-1 R1 as its Protection System maintenance and testing procedure failed to address DC Control Circuitry. ALTW found its most recent version of its Protection System maintenance and testing procedure, dated March 2009, did not include a reference to conducting functional testing (DC control circuitry) of the Protection System that was previously included in its 2007 version. ALTW has 455 DC Control Circuitry and 1333 Protection System devices total. In May 2010, ALTW, a DP and GO, submitted a self-report stating that it had failed to maintain and test 15 station batteries as required by PRC-005-1 R2. MRO subsequently requested ALTW provide all of its maintenance and testing records for its 1,527 Protection System devices subject to the Reliability Standard and received all except for the 15 self-reported by ALTW. The 15 station batteries represent 1% of total devices and 78.95% of total station batteries.

Finding: The R1 violation was found to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because it was documentation related, and ALTW had conducted all required maintenance and testing and provided MRO with all testing records for DC control circuitry. The R2 violation was found to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability due to the high voltage ties and the size of the units involved. The untested station batteries at issue were located at multiple generating units, including two black-start units. The generating units involved produce approximately 2,100 MW, and several large units had no annual station battery test records for two to three years, and no visual check to subsets of the units had been performed either. ALTW performed an analysis at each station to determine any impact to the system or the BPS due to a battery misoperation, and at all of the generating stations where this analysis was completed, there were no branch overloads or voltage violations. In addition, battery voltage at the generating sites is monitored and includes a low battery voltage alarm, and ALTW reported that all of the devices tested performed as expected without any issues. ALTW’s internal compliance program (ICP) at the time of the violations was considered a neutral factor in determining the penalty amount. ALTW admitted to the violations.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Ameren Missouri (Ameren), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2; R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Ameren, as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 when it discovered that it had failed to perform annual maintenance and testing in 2008 on ten battery systems which served as generation Protection System devices. SERC further identified 46 protective relays that lacked current test records and fell outside of the defined testing interval.

Finding: SERC determined that the R2 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS. This risk was partially mitigated because 41 of the 46 protective relays at issue were confined to a single generating unit and if they misoperated, causing a false trip, the outage would have been localized. Additionally, the majority of the Protection System functions were alarmed and monitored; the control room operators would therefore have been alerted in the event of a failure. Finally, the affected station batteries were subsequently tested on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis and no issues were identified. SERC and Ameren entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby Ameren agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SERC considered the internal compliance program of Ameren Corporation (Ameren's parent company), Ameren's Self-Report, and the GO's cooperation during the investigation to be mitigating factors in making its penalty determination. The same issue which arose and was resolved at an affiliate of Ameren was considered a neutral factor in the determination. The duration of the violation was from January 1, 2009 through June 29, 2012. Ameren neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

American Electric Power Service Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP11-164-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: Following the submission of a self-report, RFC determined American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP) failed to maintain complete records of maintenance and testing activities for transmission protection systems, and could not produce records that the devices were maintained and tested within the defined intervals.

Finding: RFC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because the relays for which AEP could not produce sufficient evidence were in good condition both prior to and following the missed test intervals. AEP also has both a primary and backup relays, which mitigates any risk resulting from the missed testing. Moreover, the protection systems were monitored continuously by SCADA, and AEP performs monthly station inspections and takes corrective actions as appropriate on these occasions. In approving the settlement between AEP and RFC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: AEP self reported the violations; AEP was cooperative; AEP had a compliance program in effect at the time of the violation, which RFC considered a mitigating factor, there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; RFC determined the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $35,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 27, 2011 (no further review)

American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP), Docket No. NP12-30-000 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (RFC)/Lower (RFC/SPP/TRE)

Region: RFC (1)/SPP (2)/TRE (1)

Issue: AEP, in its roles as a TO, GO and DP, submitted self-reports to each of the three Regions reporting violations of PRC-005-1 R2 based on its finding that it failed to perform maintenance and testing on certain Protection System devices according to prescribed intervals within each Region.

In RFC, AEP reported through two self-reports (dated October 2010 and September 2011) that (1) because its asset tracking database did not include all Transmission Protection devices, it had missed several maintenance and testing intervals on the untracked devices; and (2) it had not tested 198 (10.1%) out of 1,964 Generation Protection System relays. Also, one inspection date in the database for a battery had been entered incorrectly and, therefore, that battery missed its required maintenance and testing date by over one month. Based on the reports, in RFC, AEP did not test 31 of 17,034 (or 0.2%) transmission Protection System relays and one of 828 (or 0.1%) station batteries. The duration of the violation was found to be August 17, 2010 until March 31, 2012, when all maintenance testing had been completed.

In SPP, AEP submitted two self-reports (dated October 2009 and April 2011) stating that (1) AEP had not tested 7 of 654 (or 1.1%) Generation Protection System relays because the relevant relays were not included in its asset tracking program and as such AEP was unaware the equipment was due for maintenance and testing, and (2) one relay that was scheduled to be replaced was missing from its asset tracking database. Based on the reports, in SPP, AEP did not test 60 of 5,762 (or 1.0%) transmission Protection System relays and 25 of 322 (or 7.8%) transmission station batteries. The duration of the violation was found to be June 18, 2001 until May 10, 2011, when all maintenance and testing had been completed.

In TRE, AEP self-reported that its asset tracking database contained incorrect testing dates which resulted in AEP not testing 15 of 7,844 (or 0.2%) transmission Protection System relays. The duration of the violation was found to be June 18, 2007 until March 25, 2011, when all maintenance and testing had been completed.

Finding: The violations were deemed to constitute moderate risk to BPS reliability because AEP has backup protection for all devices and redundant protection at certain locations. All devices were eventually tested (except for four) and all were operating correctly. In addition, no misoperations occurred during the relevant time period. The one battery which had not been tested in RFC was tested some 40 days after the due date. In determining the appropriate penalty, AEP’s Internal Compliance Program was considered a mitigating factor, as well as the fact that AEP self-reported the violations. AEP was cooperative during the enforcement process and timely completed mitigation plans to remediate the violations. The Regions found no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of any intent to conceal a violation. The violations in RFC and SPP were considered repeat violations of PRC-005-1 and were considered an aggravating factor in reaching the penalty figure. There were no other mitigating or aggravating factors affecting the penalty determination.

Penalty: $42,999 (aggregate for 8 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

American Electric Power Service Corp, FERC Docket No. NP13-37-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: TRE determined that American Electric Power Service Corp (AEP), as agent for AEP Texas North Co, AEP Texas Central Co, and Public Service Company of Oklahoma, did not follow the initial commissioning verification procedures specified in its maintenance and testing procedures when certain Protection System equipment was installed on its Carbide-PUB Loma Alta M1210/M220 line and the Airline Substation CB 7370 relays.

Finding: TRE found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability since AEP installed and placed in-service equipment that was not fully tested. This was part of AEP’s broader problem related to its failure to test and its inadequate misoperations program. The failure to perform required commissioning verification testing resulted in multiple misoperations that compromised BPS reliability. But, AEP only failed to test 0.1% of its total transmission Protection System elements (25 elements out of a total of 24,864). In addition, all the equipment was found to be functional and within the required tolerances once the wiring problems were corrected. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through October 28, 2011. AEP neither admits nor denies the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that AEP had a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). And while AEP had prior violations of the Reliability Standards, it was not viewed as an aggravating factor since the prior violations did not indicate that there were any broader corporate issues involved. AEP was also cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. The violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability.

Total Penalty: $200,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

American Electric Power Service Corp, FERC Docket No. NP13-37-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: TRE determined that American Electric Power Service Corp (AEP), as agent for AEP Texas North Co, AEP Texas Central Co, and Public Service Company of Oklahoma, did not follow the initial commissioning verification procedures specified in its maintenance and testing procedures when certain Protection System equipment was installed on its Carbide-PUB Loma Alta M1210/M220 line and the Airline Substation CB 7370 relays.

Finding: TRE found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability since AEP installed and placed in-service equipment that was not fully tested. This was part of AEP’s broader problem related to its failure to test and its inadequate misoperations program. The failure to perform required commissioning verification testing resulted in multiple misoperations that compromised BPS reliability. But, AEP only failed to test 0.1% of its total transmission Protection System elements (25 elements out of a total of 24,864). In addition, all the equipment was found to be functional and within the required tolerances once the wiring problems were corrected. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through October 28, 2011. AEP neither admits nor denies the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that AEP had a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). And while AEP had prior violations of the Reliability Standards, it was not viewed as an aggravating factor since the prior violations did not indicate that there were any broader corporate issues involved. AEP was also cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. The violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability.

Total Penalty: $200,000 (aggregate for 6 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: In January 2010, American Municipal Power Inc. (AMP), a Generation Owner, self-reported that it had not conducted the required maintenance and testing within the defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program for 15 (out of 175) Protection System devices. In addition, AMP did not possess sufficient documentation of the implementation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

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 PRC-005-1 only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since only 8.6% of AMP’s Protection System devices had not been tested or maintained with the preceding four years. In addition, AMP was actually conducting the testing and maintenance according to intervals that were consistent with typical industry practice. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 31, 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)

American Transmission Co., LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-7-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: American Transmission self-reported that in its relay testing program, a very small percentage (less than 1%) of the total protection relays had not been tested according to established testing intervals.

Finding: MRO determined that no penalty for the violation was warranted since the violation occurred during the transition to mandatory standards and the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. American Transmission had established variable testing intervals for its relay testing program and only 58 of the 6,700 relays were overdue for testing. By September 28, 2007, all of the relays were tested. In affirming MRO's penalty determination, NERC also considered the fact that no system disturbances resulted from the violation, the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk, the violation occurred when NERC was directed by the Commission to focus on the most serious reliability violations, this was the first violation by American Transmission of this Reliability Standard, American Transmission was cooperative and acted immediately to mitigate the violation, and American Transmission's mitigation measures ensured that reliability was maintained.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (ASTI), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: ATSI, a registered TO, reported to RFC through self-certification that it could not show that maintenance and testing (M&T) had been undertaken for 12 relay schemes, consisting of 96 Protection System devices, and it could not locate records showing that 66 breaker functional tests had been performed within the established intervals listed in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk. RFC found that the violation posed a moderate risk because besides not having complete records, ATSI also did not schedule M&T of Protection System devices within established intervals. The issue of no M&T records was deemed documentation related. ATSI reported it had undertaken the required maintenance and testing, but those maintenance and testing records were lost during the change from paper to digital record keeping. Additionally, ATSI completed all breaker functional tests between August 27, 2010 and December 31, 2012, which revealed all equipment was in proper working order throughout the duration of the violation. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of ATSI’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and ATSI follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. ATSI and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-252-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2010, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (AEPC) self-reported, as a Generator Owner, that it did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it conducted the required annual maintenance and testing on three (out of five) of its batteries and that it performed maintenance and testing within the defined intervals of its Protection System maintenance and testing program on seven (out of 36) of the electromechanical relays on Steam Unit #2 at its Apache Generation Station.

Finding: WECC and AEPC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby AEPC agreed to pay a penalty of $15,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since AEPC’s control room is always monitoring the battery chargers and inverters at the Apache Generation Station, as well as there being additional checks by AEPC’s operations personnel and plant electricians. In addition, since each turbine at the Apache Generation Station has its own batteries, even if there is a battery failure, it would only affect that turbine and not cause a total generator outage. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 4, 2011. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was AEPC’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; AEPC was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Arizona Public Service Company, Docket No. NP10-66-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In November 2008, Arizona Public Service Company (AZPS) self-reported a possible violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R2 since it did not complete all of the testing for its Protection System as required by its Testing, Maintenance, and Inspection Plan. AZPS stated that the violation was the result of multiple tracking systems and people that were responsible for monitoring the relay maintenance schedule.

Finding: WECC found that AZPS failed to test or maintain 196 of its Protection System devices (less than 25% of AZPS' applicable devices) within the defined intervals. Although WECC determined that this violation created an increased risk to system operability, WECC concluded that it caused minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since AZPS actually tested or maintained all 196 of those Protection System devices within a month after discovering the violation. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered the fact that this was AZPS' first violation of this Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported (even though AZPS was preparing for a self-certification); and AZPS was cooperative through the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation. AZPS has successfully completed its mitigation plan.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

Arlington Valley, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-2 (October 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2 (2 violations)

Violation Risk Factor: High (both violations)

Violation Severity Level: Medium (one violation), High (one violation)

Region: WECC

Issue: Arlington Valley, LLC, as a GO, self-reported that it did not perform the required maintenance and testing for 8 (out of 25) electromechanical relays within the defined intervals (R2 – first violation). Arlington Valley also self-reported that it did not perform the required maintenance and testing for 3 (out of 5) station batteries according to the defined intervals (R2 – second violation).

Finding: WECC found that the violations constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability. In terms of the first violation, the relevant protective relays were tested only four months after the defined interval and were found to be in good working condition. The duration of the first violation was from February 18, 2009 through June 18, 2009. In terms of the second violation, the batteries received the required maintenance and testing only four days after the defined interval. The duration of the second violation was September 26, 2010 through September 30, 2010. In addition, Arlington Valley only has three generating units totaling 599 MW, so any loss of Arlington Valley’s generation would only cause a minimal impact on the BPS. But, as Arlington Valley’s predecessor had a prior violation of the same standard, WECC evaluated the violations as repeat violations, which is an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $44,000

FERC Order: Issued November 30, 2011 (no further review)

Arlington Valley, LLC - AVBA, FERC Docket No. NP13-9 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: AVBA self-reported, as a TO, that it did not have a transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program, as required.

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. In regards to the PRC-005-1 R1 violation, AVBA included transmission line protection as part of its generator Protection System maintenance and testing program (even though it was not properly documented as a transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program). The duration of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation was from November 5, 2007 through February 25, 2008. AVBA stipulated to the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these violations were AVBA's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were not intentional and were promptly mitigated once discovered; and AVBA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. In addition, all but one of AVBA's violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 43 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, LLP, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, LLP (Armstrong) violated R1 because it failed to include the basis for any of its maintenance and testing (M&T) intervals in its Protection System M&T program, nor did it include a summary of M&T procedures for communication systems for approximately 23 days.

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 the violation lasted less than one month and did not result in Armstrong missing any M&T intervals. In addition, Armstrong has systems in place to alert personnel of abnormal conditions, including alarms voltage and sensing devices, relays, and station batteries, as well as a daily walk down inspection of the plant.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Avangrid Renewables, FERC Docket No. NP16-25 (August 31, 2016)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2; R2.1; R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Avangrid Renewables (Avangrid), a GO, was determined by WECC to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R2 during a Compliance Audit conducted from June 5, 2014 through June 6, 2014. WECC determined that Avangrid could not provide documentation of maintenance and testing records for thirteen relays and 9 instrument transformers. Additionally, Avangrid could not provide documentation of maintenance and testing for 100% of its DC Circuitry at Klamath, 100% of its Potential Transformers and Current Transformers (CTs) at Klamath, one of the CTs and one of the relays at Pebble Springs.

Finding: WECC found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Although Avangrid did not have a complete Protection System Maintenance Plan (PSMP) for its Klamath Co-generation Facility, Avangrid's other facilities all fall under the corporate PSMP, which had no deficiencies. Further, equipment at the Klamath Co-generation facility is continually monitored, visually inspected and periodically tested on a regular basis.

Although WAUW had not tested the batteries according to the time specified in its M&T program, WAUW monitors all of its battery chargers and battery voltages via its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Any malfunction of the batteries would set off an alarm alerting employees to a problem. The duration of the violation was June 18, 2007 through October 28, 2009. WECC considered WAUW's internal compliance program to be a neutral factor in determining the disposition track. WECC considered WAUW's compliance history and determined there were no relevant instances of noncompliance.

Penalty: No Penalty

FERC Order: Issued October 31, 2016 (no further review)

Avista Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-26-000 (December 31, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Avista had 522 relays that were behind schedule for maintenance and testing, or 37% of its protective relay system. Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, until November 19, 2007.

Finding: Avista was given credit for it being the first violation of this standard. Because it is surrounded by the Bonneville Power Administration system, it was determined that this violation was unlikely to place the bulk power system a serious risk.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

Avista Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP11-108-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: Avista Corporation (Avista) self reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2/2.1 because, as a Generation Owner owning a generation Protection System, and a Transmission Owner and Distribution Provider owning a transmission Protection System, it was unable to provide documentation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program for the period June 2007 through April 2009.

Finding: WECC and Avista entered into a Settlement Agreement in which Avista stipulated to the facts of the violations and agreed to the assessed penalty. WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk, but not a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the bulk power system because every station had been inspected during the timeframe in question. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee considered the following in determining the penalty: the violation was the second violation of PRC-005-1, R2/2.1 (although it involved a different type of Protection System component than the first violation) and was deemed an aggravating factor; the violation was self-reported; Avista was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process; Avista has a compliance program which WECC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors that would affect the penalty amount.

Penalty: $18,000 (for two violations of Reliability Standards)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-150-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1, R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation

Issue: Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE), as a Transmission Owner and a Distribution Provider, failed to produce documentation to show the maintenance and testing of eight 115 kV-associated Protection Systems.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became mandatory and enforceable, until November 4, 2009, when BGE finished all Protection Systems testing. ReliabilityFirst imposed a $10,000 penalty for this violation. In assessing the penalty, ReliabilityFirst considered these factors: this was BGE’s first alleged violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; BGE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; BGE's compliance program; BGE did not attempt to conceal the violation or intend to do so; the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no aggravating factors that would impact the penalty assessment.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc. FERC Docket No. NP08-3-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: While Bandera Electric Cooperative had a protection maintenance and testing program, the protection system devices were not maintained and tested within the defined intervals.

Finding: TRE did not assess a penalty for the violations because (1) they occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards; and (2) the violations were deemed by TRE not to be violations that put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015; https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

Barney M Davis Unit 1, FERC Docket No. NP11-40-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: Texas RE

Issue: Texas RE determined Barney M Davis Unit 1 ("Barney Davis"), as a Generator Owner that owns a generation Protection System that affects the reliability of the bulk power system, failed to provide sufficient basis documentation for maintenance and testing intervals or a sufficient summary of maintenance and testing procedures for some relays.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee ("BOTCC") imposed a $18,000 penalty for this violation. In reaching this determination, the BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted Barney Davis’ first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; Barney Davis cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Barney Davis 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: $18,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO)

Issue: Following a Compliance Audit, MRO found that BEPC, as a DP and TO, as well as three of its member cooperatives, failed to have a Protection System maintenance and testing program with intervals and the basis for the intervals, as well as a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for several device types, such as station batteries, current and voltage sensing devices, DC circuitry, and associated communications systems.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a minimal, but not serious or substantial, risk to the reliability of the BPS. BEPC and the three cooperative members did maintain and keep testing records for over 99% of their Protection System devices. In determining the appropriate penalty, MRO considered BEPC’s internal compliance program (ICP) and the fact that BEPC contracted with a third-party NERC compliance consultant to develop for BEPC and its members a software-based solution for monitoring the ICP and activities required by the applicable NERC Reliability Standards. This included training for BEPC and cooperative employees on the compliance system. MRO also gave credit to the fact that BEPC invested over $750,000 in an effort to improve the ICP.

Total Penalty: $0 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: MRO

Issue: BEPC self-reported on December 13, 2011to MRO that it violated PRC-005-1 R1 in its capacity as DP and TO, as two member cooperatives failed to include in their Protection System maintenance and testing programs a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for protective relays. This was required by a Mitigation Plan for an earlier violation, and rather than request an extension, BEPC self-reported.

Finding: MRO found that the violation posed a minimal risk, but not a serious or substantial risk, to BPS reliability. Two cooperatives did have maintenance and testing records for more than 99% of their Protection System devices. In determining the appropriate penalty, MRO considered BEPC’s internal compliance program (ICP) and the fact that BEPC contracted with a third-party NERC compliance consultant to develop for BEPC and its members a software based solution for monitoring the ICP and activities required by the applicable NERC Reliability Standards. This included training for BEPC and cooperative employees on the compliance system. MRO also gave credit to the fact that BEPC invested over $750,000 in an effort to improve the ICP.

Total Penalty: $0 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2; 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: MRO found after a Compliance Audit that BEPC, as a Distribution Provider and Transmission Owner, violated PRC-005-1 R2.1 in failing to keep evidence that it maintained and tested Protection System devices within the intervals defined in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. One of BEPC’s cooperative members, in particular, found 15 Protection System relays that missed, by less than 30 days, the six-year maintenance and testing cycle. After a full inventory, BEPC and its cooperatives found that 15 Protection System relays lacked maintenance and testing records, less than 1% of BEPC’s of 1,829 Protection System devices.

Finding: MRO found that the violation posed a minimal risk, but not a serious or substantial risk, to BPS reliability. The maintenance and testing intervals were missed by less than 30 days. Moreover, the 15 affected relays are located at one substation and affected only 115 kV transmission circuits. In determining the appropriate penalty, MRO considered BEPC’s internal compliance program (ICP) and the fact that BEPC contracted with a third-party NERC compliance consultant to develop for BEPC and its members a software based solution for monitoring the ICP and activities required by the applicable NERC Reliability Standards. This included training for BEPC and cooperative employees on the compliance system. MRO also gave credit to the fact that BEPC invested over $750,000 in an effort to improve the ICP.

Total Penalty: $0 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Batavia Municipal Electric Utility, FERC Docket No. NP11-219-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1, R2.1)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in November 2009, RFC found that Batavia Municipal Electric Utility (Batavia), a Distribution Provider, did not possess sufficient documentation to show that, prior to September 26, 2008, it had implemented a Protection System maintenance and testing program. Furthermore, the September 2008 Protection System maintenance and testing program did not incorporate the bases for its maintenance and testing intervals nor a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for the communication systems and DC control circuits (R1). In addition, Batavia also did not have sufficient documentation showing that it performed the maintenance and testing within the defined intervals (R2.1).

Finding: RFC and Batavia entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Batavia agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since all of Batavia’s circuit breakers, transformers, and DC systems are subject to monitoring (including weekly visual inspections) to detect malfunction or abnormal conditions. In addition, Batavia’s facilities are only connected to the bulk power system through radial lines. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations started on September 17, 2007 and is ongoing (to end upon the completion of the mitigation plan, which is scheduled to occur on September 8, 2011). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were Batavia’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; Batavia was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Batavia had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Beaches Energy Services of Jacksonville Beach, FERC Docket No. NP11-181-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Beaches Energy Services of Jacksonville Beach (BES) did not possess a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program that: (a) specified a basis for the maintenance and testing intervals for the protective relays, station batteries, associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices; (b) incorporated the maintenance and testing intervals for the associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices; or (c) had a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for the associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: FRCC and BES entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby BES agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. FRCC determined that the violation of PRC-005-1 only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since BES affirmed that it was actually conducting testing and maintenance on its Protection System equipment according to the more stringent of the manufacturer’s recommendations, the insurance carrier’s recommendations, or industry standards. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through June 20, 2009.

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Big Brown Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: R2
• Violation Risk Factor: Lower
• Violation Severity Level: Lower
• Region: TRE
• Issue: In September 2010, Big Brown, a GO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 as a result of its failure to perform maintenance and testing on 10 of 58 devices (17.24% of all devices) related to generator breaker failure protection as required by its Protection System Maintenance and Testing (M&T) program.
• Finding: TRE found the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. The majority of the untested devices (relays and instrument transformers) are micro-processor based and they self-monitor. The subject devices were housed in a switchyard used by both the generating units and the TO until 2001, when ownership of the switchyard devices was separated. Prior to that time, the devices were tested and maintained by the TO according to NERC and industry standards (every five to 12 years). After ownership transferred, Big Brown did not always include the devices in its M&T program which led to their being overlooked for testing. The duration of the violation was January 31, 2008 through November 16, 2011. Big Brown is a subsidiary of Luminant Generation Company, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Energy Futures Holding Corp. (EFH). EFH’s compliance program was considered a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.
• Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for three violations by Big Brown, Tradinghouse Power Company, LLC, and Luminant)
• FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC (BSPP), FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: BSPP, in its role as a GO, submitted a self-report (prior to an upcoming compliance audit) detailing its non-compliance with PRC-005-1 R1 by the fact that it did not have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program (Program), as required by the Standard. ReliabilityFirst found that the program in place, dated April 22, 2008, simply repeated the Standard rather than setting forth Program specific to BSPP’s system. An updated Program did include a basis for all Protection system devices. Based on that, from the time period June 18, 2007 through May 6, 2011, BSPP did not adequately document its Program and from May 6, 2011 through July 18, 2011, the Program did not have an acceptable basis for maintenance and testing of voltage and current sensing devices. Regarding R2.1, BSPP had no evidence that it maintained its DC Control Circuits within defined intervals, in violation of this Standard. The DC Control Circuits were included in the updated Maintenance and Testing program.

Finding: This violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability which was mitigated by four reasons. First, BSPP had been performing the proper maintenance to relays and batteries even though it had no documented Program. Second, maintenance and testing on the Protection System relays occurred on a four-year interval schedule, which was acceptable. Third, the maintenance and testing of batteries was performed on annual and quarterly intervals, which was acceptable. Fourth, BSPP reviewed all plant events and had not misoperations during the relevant time period. 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: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

Black Hills-Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: It was determined in February 2008 that Aquila, Inc. (which has been acquired by Black Hills-Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP (BHCE)) did not maintain and test 22 of its Protection System relays (out of 146 total protective system devices) within the defined intervals.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the relevant relays are electronic or micro-processor based, which provide alerts upon failure of the power supply and/or relay problems. In addition, BHCE is only a small system in southeastern Colorado. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 (when the Reliability Standards became mandatory) through December 26, 2008 (when BHCE completed the mitigation plan). This was BHCE's first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-208-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue:: During a compliance audit in August 2009, RFC found that Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP (BHCE) did not possess sufficient documentation showing that all of its transmission Protection System devices were being maintained and tested according to the defined 5-year intervals.

Finding: WECC and BHCE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby BHCE agreed to pay a penalty of $8,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since only two transmission Protection System devices in WECC’s audit sample were missing the required maintenance and testing records (representing only 3% of the audit sample). In addition, even if those two Protection System devices were to fail, it would only impact one 115 kV transmission line. The duration of the violation was from September 18, 2008 through December 1, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was BHCE’s second violation of this Reliability Standard; BHCE was cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violation; there was a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $8,000

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Black River Generation, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-15-000 (March 31, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not proved

Region: NPCC

Issue: On June 24, 2007, Black River Generation, LLC self-certified that it was in violation of PRC-005-1 R1 because while it was testing and maintaining its Protection Systems, it lacked the required documentation for a summary of maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: NPCC did not assess a penalty for the violation because it determined the failure to include a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures was a documentation issue, as the maintenance on the generating facility was being performed. In reaching the decision, NPCC determined (1) the violation occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards; (2) relay maintenance and testing of the Generation Protection System was occurring, therefore the documentation violation did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk; and (3) the violation was the first incidence of violation by the Black River Generation, which at the time was a newly registered entity.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2009 (no further review)

Board Of Public Utilities - Kansas City KS (BPU), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, SPP discovered a violation of R1 when BPU, as a GO and TO, failed to state maintenance and testing intervals for all of the Protection System devices in its Protection System maintenance and testing policy and procedure (Procedure). In particular, the Procedure lacked maintenance and testing intervals for its relays, associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries, and DC control circuitry. BPU further lacked procedures regarding testing and maintenance of its associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries and DC control circuitry.

Finding: SPP determined that the R1 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because BPU's employees and contractors had no guidance to follow in conducting tests and maintenance of the Protection System devices. They had no direction on the devices to be tested, the types of tests to conduct, the appropriate testing procedures, or the testing intervals. However, BPU's employees were trained to conduct, record, and report their findings from visual inspections of the devices conducted every three months, which lead to some repair work orders. SPP and BPU entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby BPU agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SPP considered BPU's internal compliance program to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through July 31, 2012. BPU neither admits nor denies the R1 violation.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, FERC Docket No. NP11-215-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue:: In July 2010, Boise-Kuna Irrigation District (BKID), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it had not conducted annual or quarterly maintenance and testing within the defined intervals specified in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program on both of the battery banks at its Lucky Peak Power Plant.

Finding: WECC and BKID entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby BKID agreed to pay a penalty of $7,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since the DC bus contains alarms for low voltage (which send an alert if there is a battery failure). Furthermore, both battery banks are used for only one DC bus and each battery bank, independently, can provide sufficient power for station service. The duration of the violation was from February 9, 2009 through October 1, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was BKID’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported (although it was submitted during a self-certification period); BKID was cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violation; there was a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Borger Energy Associates, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-99 -000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During an off-site compliance audit and post-audit proceedings, SPP determined that Borger Energy Associates, LP (BEA) was in violation of PRC-005-1 R1 because it did not have a documented maintenance and testing program or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures, and it could not provide testing records to prove testing occurred within established intervals for any of its Protection Systems in violation of PRC-005-1 R2.

Finding: The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because BEA has a small generating capacity of 230 MW and is connected to a low-voltage (115 kV) substation that is owned and operated by BEA's transmission service provider. The substation has its own protection systems that serve as a redundant protection system for BEA. The NERC BOTCC determined this was BEA's first occurrence of violations of the subject Reliability Standards, 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 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Bosque Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-266-000 (August 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: Texas RE

Issue: Bosque Power Company, LLC (Bosque) self-reported that the prior generation Protection System testing and maintenance procedure used by Bosque did not include testing intervals for instrument transformers, DC circuitry, communication systems and a technical basis for intervals as required by R1. Bosque also did not perform functional testing of trip circuits as required by R2, and 23% of the plant lockout relays and protective relays were non-compliant.

Finding: Texas RE found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because actual testing on Protection System devices was performed, and a testing and maintenance procedure existed (even though it was missing several elements). With respect to the failure to undergo functional testing of 23% of Bosque's trip circuits, no misoperations were discovered when the trip circuits were tested in November 2009. Duration of violation was May 1, 2008 through May 6, 2011 (R1) and May 1, 2008 through November 30, 2009 (R2).

Penalty: $13,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2011 (no further review)

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP09-45-000 (September 25, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: During a 2008 audit, the 2007 maintenance records of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos) showed that Brazos had not met scheduled interval testing for four 138 kV panels (out of 207) as required by the standard.

Finding: The violation of PRC-005-1 R2 existed from June 28, 2007 until November 14, 2007. TRE and Brazos entered a settlement agreement in which TRE assessed no monetary penalty because: (1) the preliminary alleged violation occurred while Brazos was changing its 2006 maintenance program and procedures to be compliant with NERC Reliability Standards; (2) no deferred maintenance was allowed from 2007 and beyond; (3) all subject relays were eventually tested and found to be operating as required by the end of 2007; (4) the four subject relays comprised 2 percent of total relay panels; (5) the four subject relays operated properly during the audit period; (6) Brazos showed there were internal programs to validate all relay operations during system events as correct or that it had the ability to initiate expedited maintenance if not correct; (7) failure of any of the relays would not pose substantial or serious risk to the reliability of the bulk power system; (8) Brazos had not prior violation of this Reliability Standard; (8) no misrepresentation or concealment of facts was evident; and (9) Brazos compliance program promotes a culture of compliance throughout the company.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 23, 2009 (no further review)

Brazos Wind, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-185-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1); Severe (R2)

Region: Texas RE

Issue: Brazos Wind, LP (Brazos Wind), a Generator Owner (GO), failed to have maintenance and testing intervals for associated communication systems and the basis for maintenance and testing intervals for all the components of the its protection system. Further, Brazos Wind failed to maintain summarized maintenance and testing procedures for associated communication systems in its Protection System Program, as required by PRC-005-1 R1. Also, Brazos Wind, as a GO, only had records pertaining to the maintenance and testing of batteries, but not testing records for relays, associated communication systems, current and potential transformers or DC control circuitry for 2008, in violation of PRC-005-1 R2.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) approved a penalty assessment of $22,000. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following: the violations constituted Brazos Wind’s first violations of the subject Reliability Standards; Brazos Wind self-reported the violations; Brazos Wind cooperated throughout the compliance process; Brazos Wind did not attempt to conceal the violations; the violations 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: $22,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Brownsville Public Utility Board Calpine, FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: TRE

Issue:: During a compliance audit in February 2010, TRE determined that a previous version of Brownsville Public Utility Board Calpine’s (BPUB Calpine) Protection System maintenance and testing program did not address the intervals and their bases for the voltage and current sensing devices and the DC control circuitry.

Finding: TRE found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since this was primarily a documentation

Issue: and the protection system devices were actually being maintained and tested. The duration of the violation was from December 31, 2007 through August 26, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Brownsville Public Utility Board Silas Ray, FERC Docket No. NP11-162-000 (March 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: TRE

Issue: During an audit, TRE determined that Brownsville Public Utility Board Silas Ray (BPUB Silas Ray) had not incorporated into its Protection System maintenance and testing program the intervals and their bases for its associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries or DC control circuitry and a summary of these maintenance and testing procedures (R1). Of the 330 devices in the Protection System maintenance and testing program, 51.7% of them (110 instrument transformers and 45 DC control circuitry) were not tested (R2).

Finding: BPUB Silas Ray agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. TRE found that the violations only posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system since the protection system relays were actually being maintained and tested. In addition, while completing the mitigation plan, all of BPUB Silas Ray’s Protection System devices were tested and were determined to possess acceptable functionality. The duration of the violations was from June 28, 2007 through September 30, 2010.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Buckeye Power, Inc., Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Buckeye Power, Inc. (BPI) violated R1 because it failed to include maintenance and testing (M&T) intervals in its Protection System M&T program for current and voltage sensing devices, nor did it include a summary of M&T procedures for these devices. This violation pertained to 100% of its voltage and current sensing devices and 27.6% of all of Buckeye’s total Protection System devices. The violation lasted from June 18, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2011.

Finding: In assessing the impact on reliability, RFC considered the importance of current and voltage sensing devices, the fact that Buckeye did not have any redundant protection systems or back up protections in place for these devices, and Buckeye could not produce any evidence that it had conducted M&T on the devices. RFC considered Buckeye’s formal compliance program a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $25,000

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Buffalo Gap Wind Farm, LLC, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Texas RE

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, Texas RE found that Buffalo Gap, as a GO, had no generation Protection System maintenance and testing program (Program) in place before July 22, 2009 meaning Buffalo Gap had no Program addressing testing of its 98 current sensing devices and 15 voltage sensing devices, making up 38.1% of all Protection System devices. Even though Buffalo Gap had no Program addressing this Standard, the equipment was new and testing is not required for several years on the devices.

Finding: Texas RE determined the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because industry testing standards had not been exceeded for the relevant devices and other protection system devices were being tested and maintained as required. In addition, the devices in question are new and not scheduled for maintenance or testing for several years. In determining the appropriate penalty, Texas RE considered that this violation was a repeat violation because of Buffalo Gap’s AES affiliates’ previous violations of the Standard. Buffalo Gap’s internal compliance program was considered a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Burney Forest Products, FERC Docket No. NP11-107-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Burney Forest Products (BFP) self reported violations of PRC-005-1 because, as a Generator Owner, 77 of its 137 Protection System devices had no Transmission Maintenance Inspection Plan, and all current transformers, potential transformers and station batteries were not tracked in BFP's computerized maintenance management system in violation of R.1. BFP further self-reported that it had no evidence to prove the equipment was maintained or tested within defined intervals in violation of R.2.

Finding: WECC and BFP entered into a Settlement Agreement in which BFP stipulated to the facts of the violations and agreed to the assessed penalty. WECC determined that the violations posed a minimal risk, but not a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the bulk power system because, upon inspection, the equipment was functioning properly. BFP completed a mitigation plan addressing the violations. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee considered the following in determining the penalty: the violations were the first of the subject Reliability Standard and were self-reported; BFP was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors that would affect the penalty amount.

Penalty: $17,500

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

California Department of Water Resources, FERC Docket No. NP11-154-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: California Department of Water Resources (CWR) self-reported that it had provided maintenance and testing for the wrong battery bank at one of its generation stations, so it did not have evidence that it had maintained and tested the correct Protection System battery bank within the defined interval. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through April 12, 2010 when the mitigation plan was completed.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because subsequent tests showed the battery bank to be in good condition, and the battery bank was alarmed, helping to identify the compliance issue. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was CWR’s second violation of the Standard involved, CWR self-reported the violation, and CWR was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $11,900

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

California Department of Water Resources, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Lower/High (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In February 2008, the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) self-reported that it did not have a formal Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program that included maintenance and testing intervals or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for the batteries, current and voltage sensing devices, relay calibration and DC control circuitry (R1). As a result, CDWR did not have sufficient documentation showing that its Protection System devices had been tested within the defined intervals or the last date that each Protection System device was maintained or tested (R2).

Finding: WECC found that these violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since maintenance and testing for the Protection System devices was actually being performed, even though not as required by the Reliability Standard and not within the defined intervals. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 (when the Reliability Standards became mandatory) through November 25, 2009 and February 26, 2010 (when CDWR completed the mitigation plans for its violations of R1 and R2, respectively). In addition, the violations were self-reported, and they were CDWR’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standard. Furthermore, the violation of R1 was a documentation issue. Even though CDWR completed its mitigation plan late (as a result of mandatory furloughs), WECC decided not to impose a penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

CalPeak Power Panoche LLC, Docket No. NP10-62-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: CalPeak Power Panoche LLC (CPPA) self-reported a violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R2.1 as it did not possess sufficient documentation that it maintained and tested its Protection System devices within the defined intervals as mandated by its maintenance and testing program. CPPA could not provide adequate evidence to show that between 50 -75% of its applicable devices had received the appropriate maintenance and testing within the defined intervals.

Finding: WECC found that CPPA's failure to have documented maintenance and testing intervals for Protection System devices created an increased risk of system inoperability. WECC concluded that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability. CPPA submitted a mitigation plan, which is scheduled to be completed in May 2010. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered the fact that the violation was self-reported; this was CPPA's first violation of this Reliability Standard; CPPA was cooperative during the compliance process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; and there was no evidence that the violation was intentional.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

CalPeak Power Vaca Dixon LLC, Docket No. NP10-63-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In February 2009, CalPeak Power Vaca Dixon LLC (CPVD) self-reported a violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R2.1 since CPVD could not present sufficient evidence that it had maintained and tested its Protection System devices within the defined intervals as required by its maintenance and testing program. As new ownership began in May 2006, CPVD was unable to provide sufficient data on the maintenance and testing that occurred under the previous ownership. CPVD could not provide adequate evidence to show that between 50-75% of its applicable devices had received the appropriate maintenance and testing within the defined intervals.

Finding: WECC found that CPVD's failure to have documented maintenance and testing intervals for Protection System devices created an increased risk of system inoperability. WECC concluded that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability. CPVD submitted a mitigation plan, which is scheduled to be completed in May 2010. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered the fact that the violation was self-reported; this was CPVD's first violation of this Reliability Standard; CPVD was cooperative during the compliance process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; and there was no evidence that the violation was intentional.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

Calpine Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-44-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC conducted a compliance audit of Calpine Corporation between June 9, 2008 and June 12, 2008. SERC alleged that Calpine violated PRC-005-1, R1 and R2 because it failed to (i) provide its maintenance and testing intervals or basis or a summary of its maintenance and testing intervals and (ii) demonstrate that its protection system devices were maintained and tested appropriately and the date on which its protection system devices were most recently tested/maintained for each of its facilities.

Finding: In proposing an aggregate penalty of $140,000 for multiple violations, SERC took into consideration the following factors: (i) Calpine self-reported non-compliance with PRC-005-1 R1 and R2, and mitigated its non-compliance; (ii) the non-compliance was incurred and reported by Calpine prior to Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 becoming mandatory, and Calpine had not had any violations of the Reliability Standards since they became mandatory; (iii) Calpine was eventually able to provide the information required in the format required by SERC; (iv) Calpine agreed to the settlement; (v) Calpine implemented a wide-range of mitigation measures to prevent future violations; and (vi) Calpine had no intent to commit or conceal the violations. NERC approved the penalty for these reasons, and further found that Calpine's violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system for these reasons.

Penalty: $140,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)

Calpine Corporation and Calpine Power Management, LP, Docket No. NP12-32-000 (June 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: TRE

Issue: Following a Self-Report, TRE determined that Calpine Corporation (“Calpine Corp.”) violated R2.1 because it failed to timely maintain and test 23.2% of its generation Protection System devices. The duration of the violation was from June 28, 2007, the date the Requirement first applied to Calpine Corp., to March 27, 2012, when maintenance and testing was completed on all of Calpine Corp.’s past-due equipment.

Finding: TRE determined that the violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because the improperly maintained and tested devices could cause an event impacting reliability. The violation was mitigated, however, by the following factors: approximately 35 of Calpine Corp.’s 44 generating units in ERCOT use microprocessor-based protective relays that have self-diagnostic and output failure alarms that are monitored by plant staff daily; 76.8% of Calpine Corp.’s Protection System devices in ERCOT were maintained and tested within the defined interval at the time the Self-Report was submitted; the number of startups, shutdowns and operating hours of each generating unit indicated reliable operations of the Protection Systems; and once all of the past-due devices were maintained and tested, they were found to be within acceptable tolerances.

Penalty: $100,000 (aggregate for four violations between Calpine Corp. and its subsidiary, Calpine Power Management, LP)

FERC Order: Issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Castleton Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-82-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1), Severe (R2)

Region: NPCC

Issue: In May 2009, Castleton Energy Center (CSP) acquired the equity interests in EPCOR (Power) Castleton LLC n/k/a CSP. CSP performed a self-audit after acquiring the asset and subsequently self-reported that, as a Generator Owner, it was not compliant with PRC-005-1 R1, which requires a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program. NPCC Enforcement further determined that CSP had no record that current transformer (CT) and potential transformer (PT) circuits had been tested prior to acquiring the asset, and therefore CSP was not in compliance with PRC-005-1 R2, which requires evidence that Protection System devices are maintained and tested within defined intervals and the date on which testing/maintenance occurred.

Finding: NPCC Enforcement determined that the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because CSP was performing annual maintenance and testing on all of its generators, except for the CT and PT testing, which subsequently tested satisfactorily. Further, prior to testing, had there been any abnormalities with the CTs or PTs, they would have shown in protective relay testing data. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) assessed a $10,000 penalty for the violations of PRC-005-1 and the violation of PRC-001-1. In reaching its determination, the NERC BOTCC considered that the subject violations were CSP's first occurrence of violation of the subject Reliability Standard; CSP cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; CSP had an internal compliance program; and there was no evidence CPS attempted to conceal the violations.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1/R1.2, R2.1/R2.2 (two violations)

Violation Risk Factor: High (for all violations)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1.1/1.2), Lower (for both R2.1/2.2 violations)

Region: SERC

Issue:: SERC determined that an older version of Catalyst Old River Hydroelectric Limited Partnership’s (CORHLP) Protection System maintenance and testing program did not include intervals for station batteries, the bases for the maintenance and testing intervals, a statement specifying that CORHLP did not possess associated communication systems, nor a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures as required (R1.1/1.2). SERC also found that CORHLP had not conducted maintenance and testing on certain of its protective relays and DC control circuits and all of its voltage and current sensing devices within its defined intervals (R2.1/2.2 – one violation). In addition, SERC later found that CORHLP had one potential transformer for the static distance relay on its 115 kV transmission line that was not included in the last round of transformer testing conducted by the contractor (R2.1/2.2 – one violation).

Finding: MRO found that the violations constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since CORHLP only has a generation capacity of 192 MW and is interconnected to the bulk power system, at 115 kV, in only one place, which would limit any potential impact on the bulk power system. The duration of the violations was from June 28, 2007 through January 29, 2010 (for R1.1/1.2 and one violation of R2.1/2.2) and November 18, 2010 (for one violation of R2.1/2.2).

Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC (CCWE), Docket No. NP12-42 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Based on a compliance audit in May 2010, WECC found that CCWE, as a TO, had not conducted monthly battery tests pursuant to its Protection System Maintenance and Testing program until June 2008 (even though its facility started commercial operation in November 2007).

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. CCWE only owns a 72-mile 230 kV transmission line that connects its wind generation facility to a neighboring entity, and CCWE does not serve any load. As CCWE’s facility is connected to the neighboring entity through a ring bus, any problem on the CCWE line would be isolated and not impact the continuity of the neighboring entity’s system. CCWE also has only one station battery, which was less than four years old and therefore not likely to fail. In addition, the neighboring entity operators also have the authorization to undertake necessary actions on the CCWE line, which would mitigate any CCWE failure, and the neighboring entity has a protection system that could isolate CCWE’s line. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from November 20, 2007 through June 1, 2008. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these were CCWE’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; CCWE was cooperative during the enforcement process (complying with all applicable compliance directives) and did not conceal the violations; the violations were not intentional; the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 10 violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

Cedar Falls Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP11-109-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: As the result of a compliance audit, MRO determined that Cedar Falls Utilities (CFU), as a Transmission Owner, had not summarized maintenance and testing procedures for station batteries in its Protection System maintenance and testing program in effect June 18, 2007 until January 22, 2009 in violation of PRC-005-1 R1. CFU also violated PRC-005-1 R2 as it could not provide proof that battery maintenance had been performed during the first quarter of 2009 at two substations, and it had not performed specific gravity testing on those batteries between January 19, 2009 and July 23, 2009.

Finding: MRO and CFU entered into a Settlement Agreement in which CFU admitted to multiple violations and agreed to the assessed penalty. MRO determined that the violations posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the bulk power system. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee considered the following in determining the penalty: the violations were the first of the subject Reliability Standard, CFU was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors that would affect the penalty amount.

Penalty: $3,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Central Lincoln People's Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In January 2008, Central Lincoln People's Utility District (CLPD) self-reported that it did not possess the required Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program or its necessary documentation.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability due to the nature and location of CLPD's facilities (i.e., CLPD is a small utility). CLPD self-reported the violation; this was CLPD first violation of this Reliability Standard; and a mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Central Lincoln People's Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In January 2008, Central Lincoln People's Utility District (CLPD) self-reported that it had not initiated its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability due to the nature and location of CLPD's system (i.e., CLPD is a small utility). CLPD self-reported the violation; this was CLPD first violation of this Reliability Standard; and a mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Choctaw Generation LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Choctaw Generation LP (Choctaw) self-reported that it did not have complete documentation of the maintenance and testing performed for the Red Hills Plant Protection System. As a result, SERC determined that 101 out of a total of 104 Protection System devices were either maintained and tested outside the defined interval, or no test records were available. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 through June 15, 2010.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because the local Transmission Owner/Transmission Operator provided circuit breakers and bus within 75 yards of the generating facility that had a dedicated protection scheme independent of Choctaw’s protection systems. Moreover, Choctaw’s generators were also protected by two independent microprocessor protection systems with directional power and differential current protections, and both relays functioned independently from the systems involved in the violation. No misoperations of the relevant systems were identified upon review, indicating that they likely would have operated as needed during the period of the violation. The Administrative Citation Notice also stated that the violation was self-reported, and noted the following mitigation activity: Choctaw tested and maintained its Protection System devices in April 2010, created a scope of work template for vendors performing maintenance and testing, and added retention protocols for testing records to its work order system.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Citizens Electric Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-119-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: In August 2007, Citizens Electric Corporation (Citizens) self-certified that it possessed incomplete documentation concerning its transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program as it did not have documentation of its maintenance and testing schedule and their intervals, bases or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: Citizens and SERC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby Citizens neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC found that the alleged violation of PRC-005-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Citizens was actually conducting the required maintenance and testing (even though it did not have the proper documentation). In addition, Citizens only serves a peak load of approximately 220 MW and has only approximately 69 miles of a 138 kV transmission line. The duration of the alleged violation of PRC-005-1 was from June 18, 2007 through July 24, 2008. In determining the penalty amount, SERC also considered the fact that these were Citizens’ first violations of the Reliability Standards during the mandatory reliability period; Citizens was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the alleged violations; and Citizens did not timely complete its mitigation plans.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

City of Austin dba Austin Energy, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1/1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: Texas RE

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, Texas RE found that Austin Energy, as a TO and a DP, did not have documentation describing the basis for changing the maintenance and testing intervals from four to five years for 301 of its electromechanical relays, and from four to six years for 61 of its microprocessor-based relays in violation of PRC-005-1 R1.1. Also, in anticipation of the audit, Austin Energy submitted a self-report explaining that the first version of its Protection System Maintenance Program did not have a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for associated communication systems in violation of PRC-005-1 R1.2.

Finding: Texas RE determined the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability because the impact on reliability from the failure to provide documentation in its Program of the basis for increasing the maintenance and testing intervals was for only approximately 9% of the devices. The remainder were maintained and tested. The increased maintenance schedule did not exceed the maximum acceptable intervals, as provided in PRC-005-2 Protection System Maintenance Supplementary Reference dated July 2009. Also, relay failure rates were not considered to be affected by the increased maintenance and testing intervals, and a subsequent review found that only four out of 381 relays were outside of acceptable testing periods. Regarding R1.2, Austin Energy was conducting the testing and maintenance on its communication systems and was following a maintenance and testing procedure, it was simply undocumented. In considering the appropriate penalty, Texas RE noted that Austin Energy has a strong compliance program; however, Texas RE did note that Austin Energy had a previous violation of another Reliability Standard although it was not considered as an aggravating factor since it did not involve the same Standard.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for three violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

City of Austin dba Austin Energy, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: Texas RE

Issue: In anticipation of an audit, Austin Energy, as a TO and DP, submitted a self-report addressing its failure to test 348 electromechanical relays according to defined intervals set forth in a previous version of its Protection System Maintenance Program. The relays represent 9.1% of the total number (3,837) of Protection System devices. The testing was out of date for 51 relays by less than a month to a maximum time period of 39 months for 6 relays. Austin Energy reported 71 relays had been tested within the defined four-year timeframe but it could not provide supporting documents to prove its claim.

Finding: Texas RE determined the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability because only 4 relays, representing 1.1% out of 348 total relays, were found to be outside tolerance and without documented maintenance and testing. Also, testing and maintenance on the communications associated with the Protection Systems was being conducted, so Austin Energy was in fact following a maintenance and testing procedure, it simply was not documented. In considering the appropriate penalty, Texas RE noted that Austin Energy has a strong compliance program, and some credit was given for the self-report. Texas RE noted that Austin Energy had a previous violation of another Reliability Standard although it was not considered as an aggravating factor since it did not involve the same Standard.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for three violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

City of Burbank Water and Power, FERC Docket No. NP10 -107-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: LNC – Level 4

Region: WECC

Issue: The City of Burbank Water and Power (BURB) could not present evidence of a Protection System maintenance and testing program or the documentation related to that program within 30 days of a request.

Finding: The duration of the alleged violations was from June 18, 2007, the date the Standards became enforceable, until June 12, 2008, when BURB’s Mitigation Plan was completed. WECC assessed a penalty of $44,500 for these and other alleged violations. In assessing this penalty, WECC considered these factors: (1) the alleged violations were BURB’s first occurrence of non-compliance with these NERC Reliability Standards; (2) alleged violations of other NERC Reliability Standards were self-reported after notification of upcoming off-site compliance audits; (3) BURB cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; (4) there was no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so; and (5) the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $44,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, FERC Docket No. NP11-62-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: The City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission (Clarksdale), as a Generator Operator and Distribution Provider, failed to have a documented transmission and generation Protection System maintenance and testing program. In addition, Clarksdale, as a Generator Operator, Transmission Owner and Distribution Provider, failed to have documentation that it had tested and maintained two transmission protection relays, four current transformers, and one potential transformer. Further, after the adoption of its Protection System maintenance and testing program in December 2009, Clarksdale did not meet the intervals established in its newly adopted program for 20 generation relays, two communication systems, six DC control circuits and five battery banks.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a $5,000 penalty for these and other Reliability Standards violations. In assessing the penalty, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: these were Clarksdale’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; Clarksdale cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Clarksdale did not attempt to conceal the violations 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: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

City of Cleveland, Dept. of Public Utilities, Division of Cleveland Public Power, FERC Docket No. NP10-21-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Cleveland Public Power (CPP) failed to provide documentation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program by the time required in its mitigation plan for violations occurring before the standard became enforceable. CPP's documentation failure was caused by its decision to replace certain outdated equipment that it determined needed to be replaced in the best interest of reliability even though the equipment was compliant with the letter of the standard.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through June 5, 2009. 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 Clewiston, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: City of Clewiston (CLE) had no evidence of a Protection System testing and maintenance program required to be in place by the Reliability Standards (R1). Also, CLE’s transmission operator responsible for inspecting, testing and maintaining the protection system equipment at one of CLE’s substations did not perform the regularly scheduled visual inspection on one occasion (R2).

Finding: FRCC and CLE entered into a settlement agreement in which CLE agreed to a $4,500 penalty for this and other violations. FRCC found that the violations posed only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability because routine testing and maintenance was being conducted as recommended by the manufacturer, although CLE did not have documentation of that testing. Also, protection system equipment was monitored through the SCADA system, which would set off an alarm if a problem arose, and any alarms would have been investigated by the transmission operator’s technicians. Further, when tests were performed, no problems were detected.

Penalty: $4,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

City of Dover, FERC Docket No. NP12-2 (October 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1, R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC found that the City of Dover (Dover), as a Distribution Provider (DP) that owns a transmission Protection System, did not incorporate maintenance and testing intervals for its station batteries and voltage and current sensing devices, bases for all of its maintenance and testing intervals, nor a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures for its voltage and current sensing devices in its transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program. Further, Dover, as a GO that owns a generation Protection System, also did not incorporate maintenance and testing intervals for its station batteries, DC control circuits, and voltage and current sensing devices, bases for all of its maintenance and testing intervals, nor the summaries of its maintenance and testing procedures for its station batteries and voltage and current sensing devices in its generation Protection System maintenance and testing program. (R1) In addition, Dover, as a DP, did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it had maintained and tested its station batteries and voltage and current sensing devices according to the defined intervals and the date it last maintained and tested its voltage and current sensing devices. Dover, as a GO, also did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it had maintained and tested its station batteries, DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices and the date it last maintained and tested its station voltage and current sensing devices. (R2).

Finding: RFC found that the violations constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability as Dover experienced a misoperation on November 25, 2008 at one of its substations. But, BPS risk was mitigated because the substation has redundant and back-up protections (including alarms continuously monitored by the control room) and Dover was actually monitoring its Protection Systems. In addition, Dover’s one unit with blackstart capability had triple redundant protection and is inspected at least daily. Furthermore, SCADA alarms monitor the DC control circuitry and the station batteries, and Dover did not discover any issues when it next tested the station batteries and voltage and current sensing devices. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through September 1, 2010 (R1) and August 30, 2010 (R2). 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 Dover, Ohio, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that the City of Dover, Ohio (Dover) violated R1 because it failed to include maintenance and testing (M&T) intervals in its Protection System M&T program for current and voltage sensing devices, and it did not include a summary of M&T procedures for any of its current and voltage sensing devices or its battery system. The violation lasted form June 27, 2007 to June 7, 2011.

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 Dover conducted monthly inspections of its Protection System relays, battery systems and voltage and current sensing devices. In addition, Dover had other protective measures in place designed to detect abnormal conditions, including monitoring by a SCADA system and state estimator and monthly inspections of substations. Further, personnel that Dover contracted with performed visual inspections of all meters, potential indicating lights, and any alarm functions. No abnormalities were reported during the violation period. RFC considered aspects of Dover’s compliance program to be mitigating factors.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

City of Grand Island, NE, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: City of Grand Island (CGI) did not complete its testing and maintenance plan by the compliance self -certification date, and there was insufficient evidence that CGI was conducting sufficient testing and maintenance.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through June 17, 2009 for R1 and through July 1, 2009 for R2. Penalty was deemed appropriate because the violation was CGI's first and did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

City of Hamilton, OH, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: City of Hamilton failed to maintain its records related to the maintenance and testing program appropriately.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through December 28, 2007. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Hamilton'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 Hamilton was performing maintenance and testing properly.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

City of Homestead Electric Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

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' Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not provide for the testing of communication systems, voltage and sensing devices, battery systems and DC control systems.

Finding: FRCC found that the violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the relevant Protection System equipment (i.e., relays and station batteries) was still being maintained and tested. This was the City of Homestead Electric Utilities' first violation of this Reliability Standard and it completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $4,000 ($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 Lansing by its Board of Water and Light, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: City of Lansing by its Board of Water and Light (Lansing) was late in testing 15% of its relays.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through April 22, 2008. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Lansing'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 since all the relays were found to be in working operation.

Penalty: $6,500

FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119; https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf

City of Niles Light Department, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R2), Severe/High (R1)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in October 2010, RFC found that the City of Niles Light Department (Niles), as a DP, did not specify in its Protection System maintenance and testing program the bases for its maintenance and testing intervals for its two DC Control Circuits (R1). Niles also did not possess maintenance and testing records for its DC Control Circuits as required (R2).

Finding: RFC found that the violations constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Niles is a municipal utility with a peak load of 68 MW and it affirmed that it had actually conducted testing on its DC Control Circuit when it installed them in May 2007. Once Niles tested the DC Control Circuits, they were found to be in satisfactory condition. The duration of the violations was from September 28, 2010 through June 22, 2011 (R1) and May 27, 2011 (R2). While Niles did not have a formal compliance program in place, RFC found that there were no aggravating or mitigating factors present.

Penalty: $4,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

City of Orangeburg Department of Public Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP08-21-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: On September 10, 2007, City of Orangeburg self-reported that its documentation of existing Transmission Protection System maintenance and testing records, as well as maintenance intervals and their basis, was insufficient to comply with the requirements of this Reliability Standard.

Finding: SERC found the violation was a documentation issue and determined that no penalty was warranted since the violation occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. In affirming SERC's determination, NERC considered the fact that the violation was a documentation issue, no system disturbance occurred, the violation did not place the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk, the violation occurred in the period when the Commission directed NERC to focus on the most serious violations, it was the first violation by City of Orangeburg of this Reliability Standard, City of Orangeburg was cooperative, City of Orangeburg acted promptly to mitigate the violation, and City of Orangeburg's mitigation plan ensured that reliability was maintained.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

City of Palo Alto, FERC Docket No. NP10-67-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Palo Alto's maintenance and testing plan did not include the basis for maintenance and testing intervals and failed to address maintenance and testing for certain station batteries.

Finding: The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became effective, through December 16, 2008. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Palo Alto was in fact maintaining and testing its facilities. Palo Alto received credit for being a small entity, cooperation with the investigation and having no prior history of violations.

Penalty: $24,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued on March 31, 2010 (no further review)

City of Redding (RDNG), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1/1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Following an off-site Compliance Audit, WECC determined that RDNG was in violation of R1 because RDNG had performance-based testing intervals for its current sensing devices, rather than a defined time-based testing interval. WECC determined that because the devices were not continuously monitored, they were required to comply with time-based maintenance intervals documented in the Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: WECC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because RDNG had been employing a performance-based method for testing its current sensing devices founded on RDNG's principle of reliability, and informed by a variety of sources, including industry technical recommendations, maintenance errors, equipment history, that provides for greater protection than the Standard. WECC further found that RDNG also had time-based maintenance intervals for all other protective devices and that its maintenance and testing records were current. Finally, RDNG is a municipal utility that has both generation and distribution. WECC and RDNG entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby RDNG agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. WECC considered RDNG's ICP to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 2, 2011. RDNG agrees/stipulates to the R1 violation.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

City of Redding (RDNG), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Following an off-site Compliance Audit, WECC determined that RDNG (as a GO and a DP) had a violation of R2 because RDNG's Protection System maintenance and testing program had performance-based maintenance and testing intervals rather than defined, time-based maintenance intervals for its 246 current sensing devices. Correspondingly, RDNG did not test or maintain such devices according to defined, time-based intervals. RDNG self-reported a further violation of PRC-005-1 R2 when it discovered that two monthly battery inspections had exceeded the defined testing interval by two and four days, respectively, due to an automated scheduling error in its computerized maintenance management system.

Finding: WECC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because RDNG had been employing defined, time-based maintenance intervals for all other protective devices, and its maintenance and testing records were current. Furthermore, RDNG's computerized maintenance management system alerts RDNG of upcoming maintenance schedules. Finally, RDNG is a municipal utility that has both generation and distribution, that performs random checks, physical inspections, and walkthroughs after current circuit disturbances. WECC and RDNG entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby RDNG agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. WECC considered RDNG's ICP to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through the present. RDNG agrees/stipulates to the R2 violation.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

City of Rochelle, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: City of Rochelle (Rochelle) did not incorporate an interconnected utility's maintenance and testing program into its own program when performing maintenance and testing activities on the interconnected utility's system.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 9, 2009. Penalty was deemed appropriate because the violation was self-reported, was Rochelle's first violation of this standard, and was a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system since all the relays were found to be in working operation.

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 Santa Clara d/b/a Silicon Valley Power, FERC Docket No. NP11-130-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: During an off-site compliance audit, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) failed to provide evidence of a transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program in violation of R1. SVP also failed to provide documentation that its protective devices were maintained and tested within defined intervals or the dates each device was last tested. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through February 19, 2010 (for R1) and January 5, 2011 (for R2), when the violations were mitigated.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined that the violations posed a moderate risk to the bulk power system because failure to maintain and test devices in accordance with a testing program could lead to lapses in testing or maintenance. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was SVP’s first violation of the Standard, about half of the aggregate violations found were documentation issues, and SVP was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $94,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Clallam County PUD No. 1, FERC Docket No. NP11-30-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1 and R2/2.1)

Violation Severity Level: High (for R1 and R2/2.1)

Region: WECC

Issue: In February and March 2009, Clallam County PUD No. 1 (CCPD) self-reported that, as a Distribution Provider, it did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program in place (R1) and that it had not performed the required maintenance and testing on its relevant Protection System devices (R2).

Finding: WECC and CCPD entered into a settlement agreement, whereby CCPD agreed to pay a penalty of $15,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. WECC found that the violations of PRC-005-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since any consequences resulting from CCPD's lack of maintenance and testing would likely be isolated due to the nature of CCPD's system (which has a peak load of only 200 MW). The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from November 15, 2008 through June 30, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, WECC considered the fact that these were CCPD's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported (even though the report for the PRC-005-1 R2 violation was only made after WECC rejected CPPD's original PRC-005-1 R1 mitigation plan); CCPD was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Clatskanie People’s Utility District, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: WECC determined during an off-site audit that CPUD, as a DP, was in violation of this Standard because prior to August 18, 2007 no maintenance and testing program was in place for CPUD. CPUD believed that its distribution facilities were radial only and so were not subject to the Standard. However, one substation was connected to the distribution side and therefore was subject to NERC’s PRC requirements.

During the off-site audit, WECC found that CPUD had not maintained 7 of its 8 relays (87.5%) within the four-year intervals established in its Maintenance and Testing Program. Also, no current transformers (100%) had been maintained during the same four-year interval. WECC found that some of CPUD’s Protection System components had not been tested or maintained since the Reliability Standards initial compliance date (June 18, 2007).

Finding: WECC found the violations constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the relevant protection devices are located at a single 230 kV/13.8 kV station connected the BPS, with a limited generation output of 52 MW. WECC noted that CPUD has assigned an officer to ensure testing and maintenance compliance. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC found no aggravating factors but considered that CPUD voluntarily corrected the violations; there were no previous violations of the Standard; CPUD cooperated throughout the off-site audit; no evidence was found that CPUD attempted to hide the violations and the violation were not intentional.

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Clearwater Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Clearwater Power Company (CLPC) self -reported that it did not have sufficient documentation for its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program as required.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since CLPC was actually performing the required maintenance and testing (even though it did not possess the necessary documentation). WECC determined that the violation was primarily a documentation issue. CLPC self-reported the violation, and this was CLPC's first violation of this Reliability Standard. Although the violation initially occurred and was reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory on June 18, 2007, CLPC did not complete a mitigation plan by then, and thereby this violation also resulted in a post -June 18 violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Clearwater Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Clearwater Power Company (CLPC) self -reported that it did not have sufficient documentation for its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program as required.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since CLPC was actually performing the required maintenance and testing (even though it did not possess the necessary documentation). WECC determined that this violation was primarily a documentation issue. CLPC self-reported the violation and this was CLPC'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, CLPC did not complete its mitigation plan by then, and thereby this violation also resulted in a post-June 18 violation. Even though CLPC completed its mitigation plan three months late, no penalty was imposed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp., FERC Docket No. NP11-266-000 (August 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC determined through an on-site audit that Cogentrix Virginia Leasing Corp. (Cogentrix) failed to have a procedure that included associated communication systems or maintenance and testing intervals for its Protection System devices, though all devices were being maintained and tested.

Finding: SERC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Cogentrix's devices were being maintained and tested according to manufacturer guidelines, and it does not have any associated communication systems. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 through November 27, 2007.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2011 (no further review)

Coleto Creek Power, LP (CCP), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. (Texas RE)

Issue: CCP self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 when, while conducting an internal maintenance and testing (M&T) records review, it found that for 35 current transformers (CTs), 3 direct current (DC) circuits, and 1 neutral ground transformer (PT) it had no M&T records. The devices represent 46.43% of all of CCP’s generation devices.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk, which was partially mitigated because the CTs that were not tested were associated with the Generation Step-Up and auxiliary transformer differential protection scheme. Should one of the CTs fail, the differential protection would trip the transformer off. In addition, CCP stated that the DC circuitry to the generator breaker is regularly monitored during shut down to help ensure its reliability. Finally, there were no reported misoperations during the violation period. In determining the appropriate penalty, Texas RE considered CCP’s internal compliance program a mitigating factor.

Total Penalty: $9,000

FERC Order: Issued July 26, 2013 (no further review)

Colorado Green Holdings, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2007, Colorado Green Holdings, LLC (CGH) self-reported that it did not possess the necessary documentation to support its System Maintenance and Testing Program as required.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Protection System and Maintenance was being done by the Generator Operator (even though not by CGH). 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)

Colorado Springs Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP16-20 (May 31, 2016)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2; R2.1; R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), a TO, DP, and GO, Self-Reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2. Following recommendations from a peer review conducted by the North American Transmission Forum, CSU conducted a thorough review of all relay settings in its electronic database. CSU's review identified six electromechanical relays that were omitted from its work management system and had not been tested in accordance with its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

WECC conducted an on-site Compliance Audit to review the details of the Self-Report from April 27 to May 8, 2015. During the audit, WECC uncovered incomplete maintenance records for two additional relays, three battery banks, and for DC control circuitry at two stations. Accordingly, WECC expanded the scope of the Self-Report to include the incomplete records.

Finding: WECC found the violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The duration of the violation was June 18, 2017 (when the Standard became mandatory and enforceable) through January 15, 2016 (when the Mitigation Plan was completed). WECC considered the fact that CSU Self-Reported the violation, CSU's Mitigation Plan, and CSU's "above and beyond" actions and investments to be a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued May 31, 2016 (no further review)

Colorado Springs Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP10-190-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Colorado Springs did not maintain and test five protection system devices according to the required intervals.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the relays that were not tested represented a small percent of all protection systems maintained by Colorado Springs. Duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through July 1, 2008. In determining the penalty amount, WECC also considered that this was Colorado Springs' first violation of the standard, and that it had self-reported or self -certified 6 of the 9 violations that gave rise to the penalty.

Penalty: $31,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: WECC

Issue: CSU submitted a self-certification in January 2011 claiming that as a TO, GO and DP it was not compliant with the maintenance and testing requirements of PRC-005-1 for generator Protection Systems. CSU's Protection System maintenance and testing program sets forth three-year intervals (not to exceed four calendar years) for maintenance and testing of electromechanical relays on its generator Protection Systems; however, CSU failed to test two of its 11 (18.18%) generator Protection Systems within the three-year interval and instead did not test and maintain two electromechanical relays until November 2010. WECC found the violation duration to be January 1, 2009, when testing was due, until November 5, 2010, when maintenance and testing took place.

CSU additionally submitted a self-report in March 2012 disclosing another violation of PRC-005-1 R2 upon its finding that an electromechanical relay and a solid-state relay also had not been maintained and tested within defined intervals. This self-report was dismissed by WECC because CSU was in the process of completing its PRC-005-1 R2 Mitigation Plan addressing the first violation and amended that Mitigation Plan to include the newly found untested equipment. WECC found the second PRC-005-1 R2 violation duration to be January 1, 2011 until July 10, 2011.

Finding: The violations were deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because, in the first instance, the electromechanical relays on the two generator Protection Systems have backup relays that work as the backup to generator primary protective relaying. Those backup relays had been tested so that in the event of an incident, the generators would have disconnected from the BPS with minimal impact. In addition, the two generators are infrequently operated peaker units. Regarding the second instance, the electromechanical and solid-state fault current detector relays are in place as the backup within the breaker failure relay scheme, and so they have no additional backup relays. WECC also noted that CSU is a small entity having both residential and industrial load consisting of 11 generators with a total generator of 670 MW. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC did not review CSU's internal compliance program; however, WECC considered CSU's prior PRC-005-1 violation in NP10-190 to be an aggravating factor. CSU agreed/stipulated to WECC's findings.

Penalty: $12,000

FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)

Columbia River People's Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2007, Columbia River People's Utility District (CRPUD) self-reported that it did not have the proper documentation for its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since CRPUD did actually have a Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program in place (even though the program was not properly documented). WECC determined that this was primarily a documentation issue. Also, CRPUD self-reported the violation; this was CRPUD's first violation of this Reliability Standard; and it completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Columbia River People's Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2007, Columbia River People's Utility District (CRPUD) self-reported that it did not have the proper documentation to show that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program was being performed as required.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since CRPUD was actually conducting the needed maintenance and testing. WECC determined that this violation was primarily a documentation issue. Also, CRPUD self-reported the violation; this was CRPUD's first violation of this Reliability Standard; and CRPUD completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Columbia Rural Electric Association, FERC Docket No. NP11-221-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue:: During a compliance audit in June 2010, WECC found that, prior to February 2009, Columbia Rural Electric Association (CREA), as a Distribution Provider, did not possess a separate written program that included the bases for its Protection System maintenance and testing intervals as required.

Finding: WECC and CREA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby CREA agreed to pay a penalty of $2,750 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since this was primarily a documentation

Issue: as CREA was following the manufacturer’s recommendations (which called for a five-year intervals) in maintaining and testing its Protection System devices. In addition, this Reliability Standard only applies to one substation that CREA has. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through February 1, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found this was CREA’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; CREA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; although CREA did have a compliance program in place, it was not evaluated by WEDD and therefore did not qualify as a mitigating factor; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $2,750

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC, Docket No. NP12-14 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1; R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1); Moderate (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: Following the submission of a Self-Report, RFC determined Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC (“CCC”) could not provide evidence that it maintained and tested 31 of its 70 Protection System relays within the 5-year intervals set forth in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program (“Program”) in violation of R2. Of the 31 Protection System relays at issue, CCC could not provide documentation that 7 of the relays had ever been maintained or tested. The duration of the violation was from March 11, 2008 through September 30, 2010. During a subsequent compliance audit, RFC found CCC violated R1 because it did not include maintenance and testing intervals for voltage and current sensing devices within its Program. RFC determined that the duration of the violation of R1 was from March 11, 2008 to December 11, 2011.

Finding: RFC determined that the violations posed a moderate risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS. The risk caused by the violation of R2 was mitigated because CCC conducted daily visual inspections of all Protection System relays and immediately logs and corrects any identified issues. CCC did not identify any issues during the duration of the violation. Once it discovered the violation, it performed maintenance and testing on the 31 relays at issue and found that 26 were in good condition, 4 were inoperable, and one functioned intermittently. The risk caused by the violation of R2 was mitigated because CCC conducted testing on its voltage and current sensing devices in 2000 and 2001 and found they were in good condition at that time.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Commonwealth Edison Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Commonwealth Edison discovered an error in its maintenance scheduling tool causing automatic notifications to schedule work for certain items not to be generated. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through December 10, 2008.

Finding: Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Commonwealth Edison's first violation of this standard, it was self-reported, and subsequent studies showed that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Commonwealth Edison Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-157 -000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: Commonwealth Edison Company ("ComEd") self-reported that it had identified protection system substation battery inspection and maintenance tasks but did not complete them within the time interval set by its program.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through June 16, 2009. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because ComEd's program includes a series of testing periods (monthly, quarterly and annually) that overlap with respect to associated tasks, such that maintenance and testing was completed even though not within the required intervals. The violation was ComEd’s second occurrence of this Reliability Standard, but in an unrelated area. ComEd was given credit for self-reporting.

Penalty: $23,000

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-182-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1 and R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Conectiv self-reported that, in violation of R1, it could not provide evidence of its maintenance and testing intervals, the basis for such intervals, or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for 1,033 protection system devices that had not been included in its protection system maintenance and testing program. Conectiv further self-reported that it could not provide evidence that 1,494 protection system devices in its system were maintained and tested as required by the standard, in violation of R2.

Finding: It was determined by ReliabilityFirst that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Conectiv had in place overlapping "zones" of protection that provided redundancy to its protection systems. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through October 10, 2009. Additional factors for the penalty determination included that the violation was the first violation of this Reliability Standard by Conectiv, and Conectiv self-reported the violations.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Consumer's Power, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In May 2007, Consumer's Power self-reported that it did not have the required documentations for its' Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Consumer's Power was actually conducted the needed maintenance and testing. WECC determined that this violation was primarily a documentation issue. Consumer's Power self-reported the violation and this was Consumer's Power'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, Consumer's Power did not complete its mitigation plan by then, and thereby this violation also resulted in a post-June 18 violation. Even though Consumer's Power completed its mitigation plan late, no penalty was imposed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Consumers Energy Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-80-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: On September 16, 2008, Consumers Energy self-reported its failure to include in its Generation Reliability Compliance Program voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries, and DC control circuits associated with protective relays in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program as required by PRC-005-1 R1.

Finding: RFC determined the duration of the alleged violation to be from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through December 31, 2008, the date that Consumers Energy completed a mitigation plan. RFC and Consumers Energy entered a settlement agreement regarding the violation, which assessed a penalty of $15,000 for the violation. In reaching the determination, RFC considered the following factors: (1) Consumers Energy self-reported the alleged violation; (2) Consumers Energy was cooperative and open throughout the enforcement process; (3) there was no serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and (4) Consumers Energy has no prior violation of the standard or any closely-related standard.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Consumers Energy Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-112-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: In the end of 2009, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers), as a Distribution Provider and Generator Owner, self-reported several instances where it had not maintained and tested its station batteries and DC control circuits within the defined intervals specified in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: RFC and Consumers entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Consumers agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the multiple violations. In terms of the PRC-005-1 violation, RFC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Consumers was conducting monthly visual inspections at all of its substations and had alarms installed in all of the affected substations (which would serve to alert the System Control Center of any potential problems with the batteries or DC control circuitry). In addition, succeeding monthly inspections (after the missed ones) verified that there were not any functional issues with the station batteries or DC control circuits. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from January 1, 2009 through February 23, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC recognized that this was Consumers’ second violation of PRC-005-1 (which was evaluated as an aggravating factor); Consumers self-reported all violations; Consumers was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Consumers had a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Consumers Energy Company, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1/1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Consumers Energy Company (Consumers), as a DP, did not have appropriate maintenance and testing intervals and the bases for its voltage and current sensing devices in its Protection System maintenance and testing program for its DP function (which was in effect from June 18, 2007 through December 1, 2009). This represented approximately 30% of Consumers’ protection system devices. Consumers also did not have a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures for all of its current sensing devices.

Finding: RFC found that this violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, based on reviews of its SCADA and state estimator, Consumers did not discover any problems with the relevant voltage and current sensing devices. The voltage and current sensing devices also have redundant or backup protection. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, which is the TOP for Consumers, isolates faults on the BPS from Consumers’ distribution system, performing the same function as Consumers’ BPS for its distribution system. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 1, 2009. RFC considered as mitigating factors certain aspects of Consumers’ compliance program and the cooperation provided by Consumers.

Penalty: $12,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-66-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2009, Coos-Curry Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CCEC), as a Distribution Provider, self-reported that it had not incorporated the high-side substation transformer Protection Systems at its Morrison, Sumner and Geisel Monument Substations into a proper maintenance and testing program. CCEC was also unable to produce documentation showing that its Protection System devices had been maintained and tested within the defined intervals or the dates that the devices had last received maintenance and testing.

Finding: WECC and CCEC entered into a settlement agreement, whereby CCEC agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since CCEC was actually conducting routine maintenance and testing in 2008. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through November 17, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these violations were CCEC’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; CCEC was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Cordova Energy Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-196 -000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1 (R1.1/R1.2)

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in September 2010, it was discovered that Cordova Energy Company, LLC (Cordova), as a Generator Owner, did not possess an adequately documented Protection System maintenance and testing program before January 10, 2008. Furthermore, once Cordova’s documented Protection System maintenance and testing program came into effect on January 10, 2008, it still did not incorporate, as required, the testing intervals and their basis for all of its current and voltage sensing devices nor a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for the current and voltage sensing devices.

Finding: RFC and Cordova entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby Cordova agreed to pay a penalty of $20,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability as Cordova was actually incorporating maintenance and testing tasks in its electronic work management program prior to January 10, 2008. In regards to the current and voltage sensing devices, they were each connected to relays or alarms which, when if confronted with problems, would send alerts or remove the relevant unit from service. The current and voltage sensing devices were also tested prior to facility going into service in 2001, and were retested as part of the mitigation plan. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through April 27, 2011. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this violation was Cordova’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; Cordova was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; Cordova had a compliance program in place when the violation occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Coso Finance Partners, FERC Docket No. NP11-119-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2009, Coso Finance Partners (COSF), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess a Generation Maintenance and Inspection Plan (GMIP) that incorporated all of the components of COSF's generation Protection System (R1). In addition, COSF self-reported that it did not have documentation showing that it had conducted maintenance and testing on its Protection System devices within the defined intervals or records of the dates when it had last tested its Protection System devices (R2).

Finding: WECC and COSF entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations, whereby COSF agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as COSF did actually have a routine maintenance and testing program in place for the breaker that maintains the interconnection point and COSF had not experienced a failures at this breaker in 20 years of operation. Furthermore, COSF owns renewable energy generating units, with only a single point of interconnection to the bulk power system. The duration of the R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 24, 2010. The violation of R2 started on June 18, 2007 and is continuing (as the mitigation plan is not yet complete). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were COSF’s first violations of the Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; COSF was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). In addition, WECC had previously determined that Terra Gen Power, LLC's transmission and generation entities (including those of its affiliates such as COSF) were not subject to PRC-005. Therefore, when calculating the penalty amount, WECC considered this as a mitigating factor since COSF was only notified that it was subject to PRC-005 on December 28, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Coso Energy Developers, FERC Docket No. NP11-120-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2009, Coso Energy Developers (COSE), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess a Generation Maintenance and Inspection Plan (GMIP) that incorporated all of the components of COSE's generation Protection System (R1). In addition, COSE self-reported that it did not have documentation showing that it had conducted maintenance and testing on its Protection System devices within the defined intervals or records of the dates when it had last tested its Protection System devices (R2).

Finding: WECC and COSE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations, whereby COSE agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as COSE did actually have a routine maintenance and testing program in place for the breaker that maintains the interconnection point and COSE had not experienced a failures at this breaker in 20 years of operation. Furthermore, COSE owns renewable energy generating units, with only a single point of interconnection to the bulk power system. The duration of the R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 24, 2010. The violation of R2 started on June 18, 2007 and is continuing (as the mitigation plan is not yet complete). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were COSE's first violations of the Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; COSE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). In addition, WECC had previously determined that Terra Gen Power, LLC’s transmission and generation entities (including those of its affiliates such as COSE) were not subject to PRC-005. Therefore, when calculating the penalty amount, WECC considered this as a mitigating factor since COSE was only notified that it was subject to PRC-005 on December 28, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Coso Power Developers, FERC Docket No. NP11-121-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2009, Coso Power Developers (COSP), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess a Generation Maintenance and Inspection Plan (GMIP) that incorporated all of the components of COSP's generation Protection System (R1). In addition, COSP self-reported that it did not have documentation showing that it had conducted maintenance and testing on its Protection System devices within the defined intervals or records of the dates when it had last tested its Protection System devices (R2).

Finding: WECC and COSP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations, whereby COSP agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as COSP did actually have a routine maintenance and testing program in place for the breaker that maintains the interconnection point and COSP had not experienced a failures at this breaker in 20 years of operation. Furthermore, COSP owns renewable energy generating units, with only a single point of interconnection to the bulk power system. The duration of the R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 24, 2010. The violation of R2 started on June 18, 2007 and is continuing (as the mitigation plan is not yet complete). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were COSP's first violations of the Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; COSP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). In addition, WECC had previously determined that Terra Gen Power, LLC’s transmission and generation entities (including those of its affiliates such as COSP) were not subject to PRC-005. Therefore, when calculating the penalty amount, WECC considered this as a mitigating factor since COSP was only notified that it was subject to PRC-005 on December 28, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Cottonwood Energy, LP, FERC Docket No. NP08-14-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: After conducting a compliance audit, SERC determined that Cottonwood Energy's (Cottonwood) Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not cover maintenance intervals, the basis for intervals, and summary procedures for DC Control Circuits. Cottonwood stated that its failure to address the DC Control Circuits was because of an administrative oversight.

Finding: Since Cottonwood already had a program in place (and was performing maintenance and testing on the DC Control Circuits in conjunction with relay maintenance), SERC determined that this violation was a documentation issue. The evidence presented by Cottonwood showed that while maintenance was being performed, the related documentation was incomplete. Exercising its discretion, SERC determined that no penalty was warranted since the violation occurred during the transition to mandatory standards and the violation was found not to have placed bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. In affirming SERC's determination, NERC considered the fact that no system disturbance occurred as a result, the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk, the violation occurred during the period when the Commission directed NERC to focus on the most serious violations, this is the first violation of this Reliability Standard by Cottonwood, Cottonwood was cooperative, Cottonwood acted quickly to mitigate the violations (as was verified by SERC Reliability Corporation), and Cottonwood's mitigation plan ensured that reliability was maintained.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

Covanta, Fairfax, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-123-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC determined that Covanta, Fairfax, Inc. (Covanta), as a Generator Owner, failed to maintain documentation of Protection System maintenance and testing intervals to be performed for DC control circuits, associated communication systems or voltage and current sensing devices. Covanta also failed to maintain a summary of maintenance and testing procedures. SERC also determined that Covanta, as a Generation Owner, could not provide evidence that its station battery bank was maintained in the third quarter of 2008 or the first quarter of 2009 within the intervals defined in Covanta's Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $3,000 for these violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: the violations constituted Covanta's first violations of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; Covanta cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Covanta 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: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy LLC, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: In October 2011, Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy LLC (Covanta Plymouth), as a GO, self-reported that as a result of confusion over ownership of certain facilities after acquiring the generation plant, it had not maintained and tested 9 of its 38 relays pursuant to the specified intervals.

Finding: RFC found that this violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Once it discovered the problem, Covanta Plymouth promptly performed the required maintenance and testing. In addition, the violation was discovered as a result of Covanta Plymouth following its maintenance and testing intervals. The duration of the violation was from October 9, 2009 through November 17, 2011. RFC considered as mitigating factors certain aspects of Covanta Plymouth’s compliance program and that the violations were self-reported. And, while Covanta Plymouth had no history of prior violations, one of its affiliates (Covanta Fairfax, Inc.) has received a prior violation of PRC-005-1 R2, which RFC factored in when choosing the disposition track for this violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1/1.1/1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

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 include in its Protection System maintenance and testing program the maintenance and testing intervals and their bases and a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for current and potential sensing devices and DC control circuitry.

Finding: RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Covanta Plymouth performed all of the required testing on its protective system devices during the three-year relay calibration testing cycle and found no misoperations or faulty conditions. Covanta Plymouth also has a real-time alert system that monitors its protection system devices. The duration of the violation was from October 9, 2009 through February 24, 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 Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC (Covanta Plymouth), as a GO, had not performed all of the monthly and quarterly battery maintenance and testing specified in its Protection System maintenance and testing plan. The Protection System maintenance and testing plan did not differentiate between vented lead acid batteries and sealed batteries, even though the sealed batteries cannot be tested by sampling the specific gravity for individual cells as required by the Protection System maintenance and testing plan.

Finding: RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability since Covanta Plymouth performed all of the technically feasible tasks for its sealed batteries during each maintenance and testing interval. The duration of the violation was from October 9, 2009 through February 14, 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)

CPI (CP) LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-183-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: CPI (CP) LLC (CPI), a Generator Owner, failed to maintain an established maintenance and testing program for Protections Systems devices.

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)

CPS Energy, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: In November 2010, CPS Energy (CPS), as a GO, self-reported that it had not performed a calibration test on one of its generator protection relays according to the specified intervals in its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: TRE found that the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability since the relay at issue is a third level protection device only intended to protect the generator from system conditions and would disconnect the generator from the grid if it sensed a fault on the transmission system. CPS has a total of 404 relays in its Generation Protection System. The duration of the violation was from June 28, 2007 through October 26, 2010. TRE evaluated CPS’ compliance program and its compliance culture as mitigating factors. In addition, CPS enacted additional measures to ensure compliance with its maintenance and testing program.

Penalty: $1,000

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Craven County Wood Energy, LP, FERC Docket No. NP08-27-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: After a compliance audit, SERC determined that Craven County's Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program, because of incomplete documentation, did not identify Battery, DC Control Circuits, Instrument Transformer maintenance and testing intervals, the basis for these intervals, and a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: SERC found that this was a documentation issue, since maintenance was actually being performed. SERC decided that no penalty was warranted since the violation occurred during the transition to mandatory reliability standards and the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. In affirming SERC's determination, NERC considered the fact that the violation was mainly a documentation issue, no system disturbances occurred as a result, the violation was deemed not to have placed bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk, the violation occurred during the period when the Commission directed NERC to focus on the most serious violations, the violation was Craven County's first violation of this Reliability Standard, Craven County was cooperative, Craven County acted promptly to mitigate the violation, and Craven County's mitigation plan ensured that reliability was maintained.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

Cuyahoga Falls Electric System, FERC Docket No. NP11-38-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: ReliabilityFirst determined that Cuyahoga Falls Electric System (Cuyahoga Falls), as a Distribution Provider that owns a transmission Protection System, failed to provide evidence that Protection System devices for two 138 kV substations were maintained and tested within the defined intervals or the date each Protection System device was last tested or maintained.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) imposed a $5,000 penalty for this violation. In reaching this determination, the BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted Cuyahoga Falls' first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; Cuyahoga Falls cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Cuyahoga Falls self-reported the violation; Cuyahoga Falls' compliance program; Cuyahoga Falls 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: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Dairyland Power Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP09-29-000 (July 10, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: During a scheduled on-site audit in 2008, Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) was unable to produce a document that provided a summary of the protection system maintenance and testing procedures, including testing intervals and their basis as required by PRC-005-1 R1.

Finding: MRO assessed a $10,000 penalty (aggregate for multiple violations) considering: (1) DPC was cooperative and forthcoming throughout the audit; (2) DPC demonstrated a commitment to compliance throughout the process; (3) this was the first incidence of violation by DPC of PRC-005-1 R1; and (4) the violation did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk as the protection system maintenance and testing was being performed, but the comprehensive program and UFLS equipment maintenance program were not adequately documented.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 7, 2009 (no further review)

Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C. (Dearborn), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 1/1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: Dearborn, a registered GO, filed a self-report in June 2012 explaining that it had not implemented maintenance and testing intervals for station batteries and direct current control circuitry in accordance with NERC’s guidelines and PRC-005-1.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a minimal, but not serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability. RFC noted that the station battery systems were alarmed and metered and monitored regularly by operators. In addition, Dearborn was found to have performed tests on the relevant devices, just not at appropriately established intervals. In determining the appropriate penalty, Dearborn’s ICP was considered a mitigating factor. Dearborn quickly reported the findings in accordance with its ICP. In an effort to encourage self-reporting, RFC determined a zero penalty was warranted under these particular circumstances. Dearborn’s previous violation history was considered an aggravating factor; however, RFC considered all information and found that any penalty amount would be offset by the mitigating credit given for Dearborn’s ICP and self-report.

Total Penalty: $0 (for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 26, 2013 (no further review)

Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C. (Dearborn), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: Dearborn, a registered GO, filed a self-report explaining that it was unable to find testing documents for 3 of 30 protective relays during a five-year interval. And, Dearborn found it had not conducted maintenance and testing on 4 of 42 direct current control circuits within a five-year interval.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a moderate, but not serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability. The years involved in the violation are 2007, 2008 and 2009. Dearborn was found to have been testing all of its protective relays, but for the equipment noted above. The three protective relays were tested with no issues found. The direct current control circuits were being tested, but not on a regular schedule. In determining the appropriate penalty, Dearborn’s ICP was considered as a mitigating factor. Dearborn quickly reported the findings in accordance with its ICP. In an effort to encourage self-reporting, RFC determined a zero penalty was warranted under these particular circumstances. Dearborn’s previous violation history was considered an aggravating factor; however, RFC considered all information and found that any penalty amount would be offset by the mitigating credit given for Dearborn’s ICP and self-report.

Total Penalty: $0 (for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 26, 2013 (no further review)

Delmarva Power & Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Delmarva Power & Light Company (Delmarva) failed to test 2 out of 588 relays by the required test completion date.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from July 2, 2007 through May 30, 2008. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Delmarva's first violation of this standard, it was self-reported, and the violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because the relays were working.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Dogwood Energy, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-126-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SPP

Issue: SPP determined that Dogwood Energy, LLC (Dogwood), as a Generator Owner, failed to demonstrate 64 percent of its Protection System devices, specifically its current and voltage sensing devices, had been tested in accordance with the defined three-year interval set forth in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $30,000 for this violation In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted Dogwood's second violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; Dogwood self-reported the violation; Dogwood cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Dogwood 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: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Dogwood Energy, LLC (Dogwood), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP

Issue: Following a Compliance Audit, SPP determined that Dogwood (a GO) had a Protection System maintenance and testing program that violated R1. Dogwood's maintenance table did not include procedures for testing the GO's two Generator Step-Up (GSU) relays, and the program did not include the basis for the GSU relay testing intervals.

Finding: SPP determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS for a variety of reasons: (1) the GO's generator Protection System removed the facility from service due to various trip events during the life of the plant, thus effectively protecting the generator; (2) the last tests of the DC control circuitry and instrument transformers were in October 2007 and November 2007, respectively; (3) the violation covered only 4% of the GO's Protective relays and less than 1% of total Protection System devices; and (4) even though the GO did not have a summary and testing basis for its GSU relays, it had nonetheless been testing these two relays in accordance with the interval. SPP and Dogwood entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Dogwood agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SPP considered Dogwood's internal compliance program a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination, and deemed the GO's one prior self-reported and promptly mitigated violation of PRC-005-1 R2 to be a neutral factor in determining the penalty. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 15, 2011. Dogwood neither admits nor denies the R1 violation.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Dogwood Energy, LLC (Dogwood), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP

Issue: Dogwood, in its role as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 after discovering that 15 relays and associated DC circuitry, 2 current transformers (CTs), 2 potential transformers (PTs), and 2 station battery banks had not been tested within the 36-month interval defined in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. The GO also lacked evidence that four CTs, one auxiliary relay and the load test for one station battery had been tested.

Finding: SPP determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS. First, although Dogwood could not provide evidence of having tested the three station batteries within the time interval established by its Protection System maintenance and testing program, all of the GO's installed station batteries face continuous monitoring by the inverter and charging systems which would have sounded an alarm if a normal parameter had been exceeded, and no such incidents occurred. Second, the 36-month testing intervals established in Dogwood's Protection System maintenance and testing program are far more conservative than industry best practices, which establish 54-month (ANSI standards) and 90-month intervals (NERC Technical Reference on Protection System Maintenance), and the tests for Dogwood's DC control circuitry and instrument transformers occurred well within the industry standard intervals. SPP and Dogwood entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Dogwood agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SPP considered Dogwood's compliance program a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination, and deemed the GO's one prior self-reported and promptly mitigated violation of PRC-005-1 R2 to be a neutral factor in determining the penalty. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 15, 2011. Dogwood neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Doyle I, LLC (Doyle), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: From June 18, 2007 until November 13, 2008, Doyle did not have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program, in violation of PRC-005-1 R1. Even after the program was in place, Doyle failed to set the basis for the established maintenance and testing intervals as required by R1.1. Doyle's self-reported these violations in response to the SERC’s inquiry during an assessment of Doyle's PRC-005-1 R2 self-reported violation.

Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk for the following reasons: (1) before the establishment of its documented Protection System maintenance and testing program, Doyle did conduct maintenance and testing activities; (2) Staff managed these maintenance and testing activities with spreadsheets; (3) the total capacity of Doyle’s five-unit Combustion Turbine (CT) peaking power plant is only 355 MW and, over the summer peak, averages around ten starts for 150 fired hours on each CT. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, SERC considered Doyle’s internal compliance program (ICP), which calls for training of Doyle management and operations staff at least once a year. Careless or flagrant violators of NERC or SERC compliance requirements are reported to the Plant Manager and subject to reprimand or dismissal. The Plant Manager also has direct access to senior management and oversees a Compliance Manager, who, in turn, carries out the ICP. No credit was given to Doyle’s Self-Report, which followed SERC’s assessment of Doyle’s PRC-005-1 R2 violation.

Total Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Doyle I, LLC (Doyle), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Doyle self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2. Doyle’s Protection System maintenance and testing plan requires it to test its voltage and current sensing devices when testing protective relays, but Doyle failed to do so during testing that occurred in December 2010. Doyle used a contractor to test its relays but failed to include tests of the voltage and current sensing devices within the scope of the contracted work. SERC found that Doyle’s personnel lacked experience with protective relay delays which caused them to not realize when reviewing test reports that the voltage and current sensing devices were not being tested. Doyle could not produce records of the last maintenance or testing date for all 163 of its voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability but not a serious or substantial risk. The risk was minimal because (1) lines to Doyle’s generating plants are protected by circuit breakers operated by its TO/TOP, which is independent from Doyle’s operations; (2) after the violation, Doyle’s test of the missing voltage and current sensing devices showed that they were functioning properly; and (3) the total capacity of Doyle’s five-unit Combustion Turbine (CT) peaking power plant is only 355 MW and, over the summer peak, averages around ten starts for 150 fired hours on each CT. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, SERC considered Doyle’s internal compliance program (ICP), which calls for training of Doyle management and operations staff at least once a year. Careless or flagrant violators of NERC or SERC compliance requirements are reported to the Plant Manager and subject to reprimand or dismissal. The Plant Manager also has direct access to senior management and oversees a Compliance Manager, who, in turn, carries out the ICP.

Total Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-51-000 (February 12, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Duke self-reported that it did not have records demonstrating that all 23 bulk power system relays located in a switchyard were maintained or tested as required due to a documentation gap created by a transfer of responsibility for testing and maintenance between business units within the company.

Finding: Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became effective, through September 21, 2008. The violation was deemed not to pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability, and Duke was given credit for the self-report and for no prior history of violations.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued March 12, 2010 (no further review)

Duke Energy Carolinas (Duke), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Duke, as a TO and a GO, self-reported four violations of R2. A subsequent Compliance Investigation revealed a fifth violation. With regards to Duke's TO function, SERC found that 378 protective relays, 6 associated communication systems, 57 voltage current sensing devices, 1 station battery, and 10 DC control circuits were outside of the defined testing interval. All devices had previous test records. Regarding Duke's GO function, 305 protective relays were outside of the defined interval, but all such relays had previous test records.

Finding: SERC determined that the R2 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS. While devices that are tested outside of the defined intervals increase the chances of malfunction, numerous factors were present to mitigate the risk. In particular, the vast majority of the affected TO devices fell within Duke's acceptance criteria, indicating that they fell within Duke's acceptable risk tolerance level. Most of the devices that fell outside of the tolerance level were determined to be capable of providing a minimum level of protection. Furthermore, both the GO and TO relays had backup protection. Finally, SERC determined that all devices, except 4 of the TO relays, were working and would have performed as needed. SERC and Duke entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby Duke agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SERC considered Duke Energy Corporation's NERC Reliability Standards Compliance Policy, which governs Duke, to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through April 20, 2012. Duke neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $22,000

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC), Docket No. NP13-20 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: On August 25, 2007, a disturbance occurred on DEC’s portion of the BPS that ultimately resulted in the tripping offline of about 900 MW of generation and the temporary outage of five 230 kV transmission lines. The disturbance was exacerbated due to the failure of Protection System design. DEC’s transmission and generation Protection System maintenance and testing program documents were unsatisfactory because they failed to properly summarize maintenance and testing procedures – such as effective dates, revision history tables, signatures, DEC logos, or other indicia that they reflected corporate policy - as required by R1.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation posted a minimal and not a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because DEC properly maintained a vast majority of its Protection System devices despite a lack of formal documented procedures. DEC’s previous violations of the same or similar standards were not considered aggravating factors because the facts and circumstances of the prior violations were not related to the current violation. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through February 19, 2011.

Total Penalty: $17,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Duke Energy Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP12-2 (October 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), as a TO, self-reported that it did not test 20 relays at its combustion turbine peaking facility (representing 0.2% of it total relays) according to the defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Duke purchased the facility in 2005, but did not incorporate those 20 relays into its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: RFC found that the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, BPS risk was mitigated because the facility’s relays were previously tested in 2003 and determined to be in good working condition and found to be in the same condition when tested again in 2010. In addition, there were no misoperations or system events caused by these relays and all of the relays had a back-up protection system. The duration of the violation was from October 7, 2009 through October 28, 2010. RFC evaluated certain parts of Dover’s compliance program as mitigating factors.

Penalty: $14,000

FERC Order: Issued November 30, 2011 (no further review)

Duke Energy Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP13-5 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: In September 2011, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke), as a GO, self-reported that it did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it performed the required maintenance and testing on 10% of the relays at its Dicks Creek generating station according to the defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. This violation implicated less than 0.1% of Duke's total relays.

Finding: Duke admitted the violation. RFC found that the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. The Dicks Creek generating station has a total generating capacity of 189.2 MW and is only used as a peaking facility. The relevant relays had back-up and redundant protection systems, and there were no misoperations during the course of the violation. The violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 26, 2011. RFC evaluated parts of Duke's compliance program as mitigating factors. RFC also considered the fact that the violation was self-reported and that Duke had a prior violation of this Reliability Standard (and that an affiliate in the SERC region also had a prior violation), which RFC viewed as an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Dynegy, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-152-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower (R2); High (R2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Dynegy, Inc. (Dynegy), as a Generator Owner, failed to maintain and test its batteries as required by its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, until July 15, 2009, when Dynegy completed maintenance and testing of batteries in all of its plants located in the SERC region. SERC imposed a $12,500 penalty for this violation. In assessing the penalty, SERC considered these factors: this was Dynegy's first alleged violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; Dynegy cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Dynegy’s compliance program; Dynegy did not attempt to conceal the violation or intend to do so; the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no aggravating factors that would impact the penalty assessment.

Penalty: $12,500

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

Dynegy, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-178-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Dynegy self-reported that it did not test its batteries at two stations within the required intervals dictated by its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: It was determined by ReliabilityFirst that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because operating personnel at the plants checked the batteries during daily rounds and both plants had battery monitoring alarms installed. The duration of the violation was from July 1, 2008, the beginning of the first quarter in which testing was missed, through June 9, 2009. Additional factors for the penalty determination included that the violation was the first violation of this Reliability Standard in the ReliabilityFirst region (though Dynegy had reported similar violations in other regions) and that Dynegy self-reported the violation.

Penalty: $12,500

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Dynegy, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-183-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Dynegy self-reported that it did not maintain and test its station batteries as required by its maintenance and testing program, missing or performing late various monthly and quarterly tests.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the health of Dynegy’s batteries was continuously monitored by Dynegy’s control room. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through June 30, 2009. Additional factors for the penalty determination included that that the violation was the first violation of this Reliability Standard by Dynegy in the WECC region (though violations in other regions were noted), and Dynegy self-reported the violations. WECC also noted that Dynegy had self-certified compliance with the standard six months prior to its self-report, even though it was not maintaining and testing all of its batteries as required by the standard.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Dynegy Power, LLC, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: Dynegy Power, LLC (Dynegy), as a GO, self-reported that it was unable to locate testing records for an April 25, 2007 load test at one of its battery banks at its Kendall generation facility. Dynegy also failed to timely perform certain monthly and quarterly battery tests from September 2009 through November 2011 at the Kendall and Ontelaunee generation facilities.

Finding: RFC found that this violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, the load test on the battery bank demonstrated that the battery’s capacity was acceptable, and daily, monthly and quarterly inspections of the battery bank would have identified any problems. Dynegy also continuously monitors the battery banks at the Kendall and Ontelaunee facilities through a general alarm connected to the control room. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 20, 2011. RFC evaluated as mitigating factors certain aspects of Dynegy’s compliance program, that the violations were self-reported and that Dynegy was cooperative during the compliance proceeding. As Dynegy and its corporate affiliate have previously violated PRC-005-1, RFC evaluated Dynegy’s compliance history as an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $25,000

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Dynegy Power LLC (DYN), Docket No. NP14-9 (Nov. 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In compliance with the Self-Certification process, DYN self-reported that it had not completed a five-year station battery bank load test on five station battery banks containing 300 individual battery cells at its Morro Bay facility. Further review by WECC determined that in total DYN failed to test four out of 16 battery banks, which included 240 out of 1,192 individual cells at the Morro Bay facility. WECC also found that DYN did not timely perform the required monthly and quarterly testing of station batteries at its Moss Landing substation.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to reliable BPS operations because DYN’s station battery design incorporates full redundancy that provides safe shutdown in the event of a battery failure. Even though DYN was not testing the batteries on time, it was inspecting the batteries monthly, testing them quarterly, and equalizing them annually. Also, Morro Bay has not been operational since October 4, 2012. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered the following: DYN previously violated this Standard and Requirement, which was an aggravating factor. Self-reporting credit was not given because the self-report was provided during the Self-Certification process.

Total Penalty: $70,000

FERC Order: Issued December 27, 2013 (no further review)

Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: On February 21, 2012, EKPC, as a GO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R1, following SERC’s initial notice of a compliance audit. EKPC reported that it lacked established maintenance and testing intervals for relaying instrument transformers. Instead, EKPC noted that its relaying instrument transformers readings were continuously monitored in the control room. Although EKPC’s procedure states that generator current transformers and potential transformers are fully and continuously monitored by the plant distributed control system and plant operators, EKPC found that the relaying instrument transformers on two of its generator units were not continuously monitored.

Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk, for the following reasons: (1) any malfunction or failure from this omission in EKPC’s procedures would be limited to the two generators; and (2) EKPC’s system, in compliance with the Reliability Standards, is operated to withstand the loss of a single generator. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, SERC considered EKPC’s ICP as a mitigating factor. SERC did not give EKPC self-reporting credit for this violation 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)

Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC), Docket NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2, 2.1, 2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: EKPC, as a TO, self-reported multiple violations of PRC-005-1 throughout 2011 and 2012 when it tested the multiple Protection System devices outside of the defined testing intervals. First, EKPC also did not document, during the defined nine-year interval, the maintenance and testing of a substation relay in violation of PRC-005-1. Second, EKPC, as a GO and TO, violated PRC-005-1 R2, in failing to follow its own maintenance and testing procedures when: 1) EKPC had no evidence it conducted infrared inspections of its Protection System battery every two years or visual inspections every three months; and 2) EKPC did not test, within a five-year interval, some of its Protection System potential sensing devices and DC control circuitry. SERC treated these violations as an expansion of scope to the initial violations reported in the April 8, 2011 Self-Report. SERC determined that 10.7% (384 out of 3,584) of its Protection System devices were non-compliant.

Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk, because: (1) many of EKPC’s Protection System devices are equipped with alarming capabilities; (2) all of its voltage sensing devices were tested, with a now-approved method, during the required intervals; (3) with the exception of infrared tests, EKPC tested its station batteries in line with its procedures; (4) any disturbance caused by voltage or current sensing device failure would be localized; (5) EKPC’s later tests of the missed Protection System devices showed the devices were within acceptable tolerances. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, SERC considered EKPC’s Internal Compliance Program (ICP) as a mitigating factor.

Total Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Eastman Cogeneration Limited Partnership (Eastman), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, SPP discovered a violation of R1 when Eastman, as GO, lacked a documented generation Protection System maintenance and testing program (PSMTP). Furthermore, there were numerous omissions in the PSMTP presented to SPP during the Audit. Specifically, the PSMTP did not include the GO's 3 station batteries, 151 instrument transformers, and 161 direct current (DC) control circuits, nor did it include the basis for the 3-year maintenance and testing interval established for Eastman's protective relays.

Finding: SPP determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Eastman was able to provide evidence that it had tested all generation Protection System devices when its facility was commissioned, and conducted additional testing on its protective relays in 2007 and 2008, and on its station batteries in 2008 and 2009. Additionally, Eastman's monitored alarm system on its protective relays would have alerted the company in the event of a failure. While the GO is connected to the BPS, the primary user of its generation is Eastman's own chemical plant, and the GO, therefore only supplies 260MW of output to the BPS. Finally, no devices failed or misoperated during the violation period. SPP and Eastman entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Eastman agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SPP considered the program for managing and reporting performance to regulatory entities established by Eastman's majority owner, Eastman Chemical Company, to be a neutral factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 15, 2011. Eastman neither admits nor denies the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Eastman Cogeneration Limited Partnership (Eastman), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, SPP discovered a violation of R2 when Eastman, as GO, lacked maintenance and testing documentation for 317 of its 346 generation Protection System devices. Specifically, there was no documentation or 1 battery bank, 151 instrument transformers, or 161 of its direct current (DC) control circuits in its generation Protection System maintenance and testing program (PSMTP). SPP also discovered that 4 protective relays had been tested well outside of the defined testing interval.

Finding: SPP determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Eastman was able to provide evidence that it had tested all generation Protection System devices when its facility was commissioned, and conducted additional testing on its protective relays in 2007 and 2008, and on its station batteries in 2008 and 2009. Additionally, Eastman's monitored alarm system on its protective relays would have alerted the company in the event of a failure. While the GO is connected to the BPS, the primary user of its generation is Eastman's own chemical plant, and the GO, therefore only supplies 260MW of output to the BPS. Finally, no devices failed or misoperated during the violation period. SPP and Eastman entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Eastman agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SPP considered the program for managing and reporting performance to regulatory entities established by Eastman's majority owner, Eastman Chemical Company, to be a neutral factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through June 1, 2012. Eastman neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ETEC), FERC Docket No. NP17-29 (September 28, 2017)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1, R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity (SPP RE)

Issue: ETEC, a TO, was found by SPP RE to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R2, R2.1, and R2.2 during a Compliance Audit that was conducted from September 9, 2015 to September 10, 2015. SPP RE determined that ETEC failed to maintain its battery chargers in accordance with its Protection System Maintenance Program (PSMP). SPP RE further determined that ETEC failed to maintain additional transmission and generation protection system devices in accordance with its PSMP. ETEC revised its PSMP multiple times throughout the audit period and elected to establish a bifurcated PSMP with separate procedures for Transmission and Generation protection system devices. SPP RE observed that ETEC did not maintain many components of its transmission substation, including battery banks, instrument transformers, DC circuitry, and generation protective relays. The root cause of the violations was a lack of guidance provided to its technicians, supervisors, and contractors on the requirements to maintain protection system equipment in addition to inadequate reporting mechanisms and internal communication.

Finding: SPP RE found the violation posed minimal risk to BPS reliability. Although ETEC was not maintaining its protection system devices in accordance with its PSMP, SPP RE determined that because ETEC operates a relatively small system, failure of any of its protection system devices would have minimal impact on the BPS. Moreover, ETEC relies on microprocessor based relays which are inherently more reliable. The duration of the violation was May 1, 2009 (when the audit program began) through August 12, 2016 (completion of maintenance and testing of UFLS relays). SPP RE considered ETEC's internal compliance program to be a neutral factor; however, SPP RE also considered the negative compliance history of ETEC via multiple Notices of Confirmed Violation pertaining to PRC-005-1. ETEC mitigated the violation by reviewing the testing records for all transmission and generation facility elements under PRC-005, testing those elements identified in the review, and creating new testing schedules and new guidance and independent reporting requirements.

Penalty: $47,600

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2017 (no further review)

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-17-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: East Texas Electric Cooperative's Protection System maintenance and testing program did not include maintenance cycles for the components specified in the standard and also did not include a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue, occurred during the transition period of to mandatory standards, and did not put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-162-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (R1), Severe (R2)

Region: SPP

Issue: East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.’s (ETEC) Protection Systems maintenance and testing procedures did not include 10 of its 18 Protection Systems instrument transformers and PRC-005-1 R2 ETEC could not provide proof that its instrument transformers had been tested and maintained consistent with the intervals identified in its Protection System, Maintenance, Testing and Misoperations Program. ETEC also failed to include its 7 associated communication systems in its Protection Systems maintenance and testing program. Further, ETEC was not testing its associated communication systems.

Finding: SPP imposed a $15,000 penalty for this violation. In assessing the penalty, SPP determined that the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system for the following reasons: ETEC has a peak load of 92 MW; ETEC has 47 Protection Systems devices in its system; of ETEC’s 47 Protection System devices, ETEC’s maintenance and testing program failed to address only 10 instrument transformers and 7 associated communication systems, and ETEC had failed to test those specific instrument transformers and associated communication systems; if one of the instrument transformers failed, the loss of signal would have been communicated to ETEC personnel through an associated microprocessor relay which is continuously monitored; and the communication systems are continuously monitored through a loss of signal alarm and ETEC personnel would be notified in the event of a communications system failure.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

East Texas Electric Cooperative Inc. (ETEC), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Further to a mock audit, ETEC, as a GO, self-reported two violations of R1 when it was unable to locate a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for station batteries, maintenance and testing intervals, or the basis for the intervals for any of the elements of the Protection System for two of its facilities. Although it was able to locate a procedure for the initial commissioning tests of its Protection System devices at the facility, SERC determined that such a procedure did not fulfill R1.

Finding: SERC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because the facilities' Protection System devices had been tested upon commissioning in 2009 and 2010, the testing intervals in the commissioning procedure control were such that the DC control circuitry, relays and instrument transformers were not yet due for testing, and the batteries at each facility are checked either daily or weekly as part of the plant operator's walk down procedure. In addition, the relays are alarmed through the distributed control system and are observed during daily rounds, and no alarms or abnormalities have been found since commissioning. Finally, the facilities are peaking units with a range of annual capacity factors from 4.4% to 14.7%. SERC and ETEC entered into a settlement agreement to whereby ETEC agreed to undertake mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SERC considered ETEC's internal compliance program a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The violation began when the San Jacinto facility became commercially operational, and ended when ETEC completed its mitigation plan. ETEC admits the R1 violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Ebensburg Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-89-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Ebensburg Power Company (Ebensburg) failed to conduct five months of battery tests and did not maintain and test its Protection System devices within the specified intervals for those devices.

Finding: The violation occurred from August 22, 2007, the date Ebensburg was registered on the NERC Compliance Registry, through June 30, 2008, when Ebensburg repaired its maintenance scheduling software. RFC assessed a penalty of $5,000 considering: (1) Ebensburg had no previous violations of NERC Reliability Standards; (2) Ebensburg cooperated during the enforcement process; (3) the alleged violation was not misrepresented, concealed or intentional; and (4) the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-75-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: MRO

Issue: Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. (EMMT) self-certified noncompliance with PRC-005-1 R2 of the Reliability Standard because it did not have evidence that it had maintained and tested 20 protective relays at its Storm Lake generating facility according to the intervals defined in its protection system maintenance and testing program. The required testing and maintenance was completed about five weeks late.

Finding: It was determined by MRO that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because EMMT completed its testing only five weeks late, the relays were all microprocessor -based relays that provided self-test diagnostics and relay trouble alarming, and it was determined upon inspection that all of the protective relays would have performed appropriately. The duration of the violation was September 27, 2009, when the testing should have been complete, through November 3, 2009.

Penalty: $2,500

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-187-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. self-reported that in 24 cases, it failed to test batteries within their defined intervals in violation of the Standard. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 when the standard became mandatory and enforceable through July 30, 2010, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: ReliabilityFirst determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because EMMT tested the batteries before and after the missed intervals and the batteries were fully functional. The NERC BOTCC also considered that the violation constituted a repeat violation of the standard, and EMMT self-reported the violation.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-194-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: After receiving a self-report from Edison Mission Marketing & Trading, Inc. (Edison), WECC determined that Edison could not provide evidence that it maintained and tested its Protection System devices, including 100% of its batteries, within defined intervals at its Mountain Wind facility, in violation of R2.1.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because Edison provided attestations that maintenance and testing were completed, and the protection system equipment is equipped with automated systems that would have issued an alarm if the equipment at issue required maintenance or testing. In approving the settlement between Edison and WECC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: this violation did not constitute a repeat violation; Edison self-reported the violation; Edison was cooperative; Edison had a compliance program since Aug. 2009, which WECC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; WECC determined the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Elk Hills Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-124-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: During a compliance audit in June 2008, WECC discovered that Elk Hills Power, LLC (EHP) could not produce documentation for its Protection System maintenance and testing program for its generation Protection Systems that addressed associated communication, current and potential sensing devices, and station batteries. In addition, EHP was also unable to produce documentation showing that all of its generation Protection System devices were maintained and tested with the defined intervals and the dates on which the devices were last tested and/or maintained.

Finding: WECC determined the duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became effective, through September 19, 2008, when EHP completed a mitigation plan. EHP and WECC entered into a settlement agreement, whereby EHP neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $30,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the alleged violation of PRC-005-1 R1 (on generation Protection System maintenance and testing program documentation) posed a moderate risk, even though it did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as EHP’s generation maintenance is handled by computer software (which used intervals based on the manufacturer ratings) and contractors were actually performing the maintenance and testing. Otherwise, EHP did not possess a comprehensive list of generation Protection System devices and the dates the devices were maintained and tested. EHP also did not have procedures in place that addressed maintenance and testing intervals, their basis, or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures as required. WECC found that the alleged violation of PRC-005-1 R2 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since EHP showed, through screen shots and reports from its computer software program, that maintenance was being performed and tracked for the facility – even though EHP was unable to show the last date on which testing had been performed for equipment not properly identified as Protection System devices and EHP had not established intervals for this missing equipment. In determining the penalty amount, WECC also considered the fact that the alleged violations were EHP’s first violation of this Reliability Standard and that EHP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

Elwood Energy, LLC, Kincaid Generation, LLC, State Line Energy, LLC and Fairless Energy, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-220-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1 (four violations), R2.1 (two violations)

Violation Risk Factor: High (for all violations)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for all violations)

Region: RFC

Issue:: In September 2010, Elwood Energy, LLC (Elwood), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess sufficient documentation to show that it had performed maintenance and testing for all 10 of its batteries within the intervals specified in its maintenance and testing program (R2.1 – one violations). State Line Energy, LLC (State Line), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it also did not possess adequate documentation proving that it had conducted maintenance and testing for all 3 of its batteries within its defined intervals (R2.1 – one violation). During a September 2010 compliance audit, RFC found that Elwood had not incorporated, from June 2007 through May 2010, defined intervals into its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1 – one violation). In January 2011, Kincaid Generation, LLC (Kincaid) self-reported that it also, from June 2007 to May 2010, had not incorporated defined intervals into its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1 – one violation). State Line also self-reported it did not have, from June 2007 through August 2010, defined intervals as part of its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1 – one violation). Fairless Energy, LLC (Fairless) self-reported that it also did not incorporate, from June 2007 through June 2010, defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1 – one violation).

Finding: RFC and the Dominion Entities (Elwood, State Farm, Kincaid, and Fairless) entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all the violations, whereby the Dominion Entities agreed to pay a penalty of $15,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 violations constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. In regards to Elwood, Elwood’s Protection System devices (including its batteries) are equipped with alarms that monitor for abnormal conditions (and which were never triggered during the violation period). In regards to State Line, State Line was monitoring its battery voltage through voltage meters (which were checked during each personnel shift). In addition, the batteries were tested at least once a month and all three of its battery bankers were replaced between 2006 and 2010. Plus, Kincaid, Fairless and State Line installed alarms tied to its control rooms that monitor their Protection System devices (and which were never triggered during the violation periods). The duration of the PRC-005-1 R2.1 violations was from August 28, 2008 through September 22, 2010 for Elwood and from June 18, 2007 through September 30, 2010 for State Line. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through May 26, 2010 for Elwood, June 18, 2007 through May 27, 2010 for Kincaid, from June 28, 2007 through August 16, 2010 for State Line, and from June 18, 2007 through June 25, 2010 for Fairless. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that Virginia Electric Power Company – Fossil and Hydro (an affiliate of the Dominion Entities through Dominion Resources, their parent company) had a prior violation of PRC-005-1 R2.1 (even though this was not evaluated as an aggravating factor); five of the violations were self-reported; the Dominion Entities were cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; the Dominion Entities had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Emerald People's Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP11-91-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2.1)

Region: WECC

Issue: During a self-certification process in April 2010, the Emerald People's Utility District (EPD) self-reported that, as a Distribution Provider, it did not possess a Transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program which included the maintenance and testing intervals and their basis for EPD's 7 station batteries and 22 relays, DC control circuits, associated communication systems and voltage and current sensing devices. The Transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program also did not include a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures (R1). In addition, EPD was unable to show that it had performed the required maintenance and testing on all 7 of its batteries and 10 out of 22 of its relays (45%), DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices within the defined intervals (R2.1).

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since EPD only violated the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard as a Distribution Provider and had actually performed maintenance and testing on a majority of its Transmission Protection System devices (even though it did not have a formal program). Furthermore, problems with EPD's documentation were caused by the switch from paper records to an electronic database tracking system. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through December 10, 2009 (for R1) and October 14, 2010 (for R2.1). In approving this disposition, NERC found that these were EPD's first violations of this Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported (during the self-certification period and during the time when WECC had enhanced discretion in applying penalties); EPD was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Entergy, FERC Docket No. NP13-10 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1 (2 violations)

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC determined that Entergy, as a GO, had not properly documented, as required, the bases for the maintenance and testing intervals for its batteries, DC control circuits, current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) at certain of its plants from June 18, 2007 through July 15, 2009. Entergy also had not documented the maintenance and testing intervals for its batteries or summaries of its maintenance and testing procedures for its batteries and DC control circuits (Violation 1). In addition, SERC found that Entergy’s GO maintenance and testing program did not incorporate intervals, basis or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for its nine associated communication devices. Entergy was not previously aware that it had associated communication devices and only discovered the devices during a self-report assessment (Violation 2).

Finding: SERC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation (Violation 1) constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. By not having an adequate maintenance and testing program for its batteries in place, its batteries could potentially have prevented other Protection System devices from operating. But, Entergy did have a sufficient maintenance and testing program for its relays and appropriate maintenance and testing intervals for its PTs and CTs and DC control circuits. SERC found that Violation 2 only constituted a minimal risk to BPS. The associated communication devices were all alarmed and were located at peaking generating units that had an average capacity of 170 MW. Also, no issues with the associated communication devices were discovered upon testing. Entergy neither admitted nor denied the violations. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through July 15, 2009 (Violation 1) and from June 18, 2007 through October 7, 2012 (Violation 2). In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC found that there were second occurrences of Entergy’s violations of PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 (which was viewed as repetitive conduct warranting aggravation). SERC found the violations of PRC-005-1 R2 constituted a serious and substantial risk to BPS (even though the violations of PRC-005-1 R1 did not constitute such a risk). Entergy also submitted useful information to SERC in its self-report and had a compliance program in place, which were evaluated as mitigating factors. Entergy was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations.

Total Penalty: $275,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Entergy, FERC Docket No. NP13-10 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1, 2

Violation Risk Factor: High (2.1), Lower (2)

Violation Severity Level: Lower (2.1), Severe (2)

Region: SERC

Issue: Entergy, as a GO and TO, self-reported that, as a result of its Protection System maintenance program allowing for the deferral of maintenance tasks, numerous devices (approximately 3.4%) were tested outside of their defined intervals, including protective relays, associated communication systems, potential transformers and current transformers, station batteries and DC control circuits (R2.1). The R2.1 violation was not properly mitigated and additional issues were discovered. As a result, SERC determined that Entergy had 7,692 Protection System devices (out of 42,921 devices, or approximately 17.9%) that were tested outside of the defined intervals or had no previous test records on filed. The affected devices included relays (1,056 (GO), 629 (TO)), associated communication devices (9 (GO), 74 (TO)), current transformers and potential transformers (2039 (GO), 2179 (TO)), station batteries (7 (GO), 137 (TO)), and DC control circuits (455 (GO), 1940 (TC)) (R2).

Finding: SERC found that the PRC-005-1 R2.1/2 violations constituted a serious and substantial risk to BPS reliability. According to SERC, there were a total of 7,692 devices that received maintenance and testing outside of their defined intervals or did not have any previous test records on file. SERC found that a significant number of Entergy’s Protection System devices (especially for a 30,000 MW entity that would have a considerable impact on the SERC region) had not been properly tested and that this was representative of Entergy’s inattention to testing and maintenance of its Protection System devices (reinforced by the fact that Entergy did not have an accurate inventory of its Protection System devices). Also, some of the relays were not tested until 18 months after the required interval. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through October 7, 2012. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC found that there were second occurrences of Entergy’s violations of PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 (which was viewed as repetitive conduct warranting aggravation). SERC found the violations of PRC-005-1 R2 constituted a serious and substantial risk to BPS (even though the violations of PRC-005-1 R1 did not constitute such a risk). Entergy also submitted useful information to SERC in its self-report and had a compliance program in place, which were evaluated as mitigating factors. Entergy was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations.

Total Penalty: $275,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

E.ON U.S. Services Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-120-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2 (R2.1 and R2.2)

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Moderate (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: In June 2008, E.ON U.S. Services Inc. (E.ON) self-reported that it was unable to produce sufficient documentation showing that its generation and transmission Protection System maintenance and testing programs included all of the required Protection System components, the maintenance and testing intervals, and a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures. E.ON also self-reported that it did not possess adequate documentation showing that all of the required components of its generation and transmission protection systems had been properly tested and maintained.

Finding: E.ON and SERC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby E.ON neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $115,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC found that even though the alleged violations posed a moderate risk to the bulk power system, they did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability. E.ON was actually testing all of its protective relays and batteries in its transmission Protection System, as well as the majority of the protective relays and batteries in its generation Protection System. But, a number of the relevant devices still did not have properly documented testing. The alleged violations lasted from June 18, 2007 through June 24, 2009. In determining the penalty amount, SERC also considered the fact that these alleged violations were E.ON’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the alleged violations were self-reported; E.ON was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the alleged violations; E.ON had a compliance program in place; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $115,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (Roxboro), FERC Docket No. NP10-155-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit, EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (EPCOR) was not able to provide evidence of compliance with the Reliability Standard. The general manager did not believe that EPCOR was required to maintain its generation Protection System equipment since another entity maintained and tested the transmission protective devices on the transmission high side bus in EPCOR's switchyard.

Finding: Duration of the violations was from June 28, 2007 until November 10, 2008. The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system due to the small size of EPCOR's generating facility. EPCOR had no prior violations of the Reliability Standard and cooperated with the audit, including starting its own internal investigation, and voluntarily resolved the issue by quickly adopting a testing and maintenance plan. While EPCOR did not fully complete its mitigation plan until after the due date, SERC determined that it had substantially completed the mitigation plan on time and no resulting impact on the penalty amount occurred.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (Southport), FERC Docket No. NP10-156-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit, EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (EPCOR) was not able to provide evidence of compliance with the Reliability Standard. The general manager did not believe that EPCOR was required to maintain its generation Protection System equipment since another entity maintained and tested the transmission protective devices on the transmission high side bus in EPCOR's switchyard.

Finding: Duration of the violations was from June 28, 2007 until November 10, 2008. The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system due to the small size of EPCOR's generating facility. EPCOR had no prior violations of the Reliability Standard and cooperated with the audit, including starting its own internal investigation, and voluntarily resolved the issue by quickly adopting a testing and maintenance plan. While EPCOR did not fully complete its mitigation plan until after the due date, SERC determined that it had substantially completed the mitigation plan on time and no resulting impact on the penalty amount occurred.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

EP Ocean Peaking Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP13-5 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1, 2

Violation Risk Factor: High (1), Lower (2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (1, 2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a 2011 compliance audit, RFC determined that EP Ocean Peaking Power, LLC's (Ocean Peaking) Protection System maintenance and testing program did not incorporate the intervals or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for the communication systems or voltage and current sensing devices. This violation involved 27% of Ocean Peaking's Protection System devices (1). In addition, Ocean Peaking did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it conducted the required maintenance and testing on its voltage and current sensing devices, direct current control circuitry, and communication systems according to the defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Ocean Parking also did not have a list of dates when it had last tested its voltage and current sensing devices, direct current control circuitry, and communications system. This violation involved 62% of Ocean Peaking's Protection System devices (2).

Finding: Ocean Peaking admitted the PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 violations. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Ocean Peaking had redundant relays, current transformers and communication systems and had installed an alarm to continuously monitor its Protection System devices. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 R2 violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, Ocean Peaking affirmed that it had actually performed the required maintenance and testing. The PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 violations started on August 28, 2008 and are still ongoing (with an approved completion dates on March 31, 2013). 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1, 1.1, 1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, RFC found the Rock Springs, as a Generator and Transmission Owner, violated CIP-005-1 R1 in failing to include maintenance and testing intervals, their basis for all batteries and communication systems testing intervals, and summary of maintenance and testing procedures for all voltage and current sensing devices within its Protection System maintenance and testing program. 18.9% of Rock Springs’ 3,502 total Protection System devices, including 352 batteries, 4 communication systems, and 306 voltage and current sensing devises, were implicated in the violation.

Finding: The violation posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk. Every four years, Rock Springs did test and complete scheduled maintenance on its out-of-compliance Protection System devices and performed daily testing and maintenance on its communication systems. Additionally, Rock Springs demonstrated that its direct current control circuitry, voltage and current sensing devices, and all generator protective devices were fully functional in later testing. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, 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. Also, Rock Springs and its affiliates did not have a compliance history of repeat or continuing conduct.

Total Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

EP Rock Springs, LLC (Rock Springs), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2; 2.1; 2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, RFC found that Rock Springs, as a Generator and Transmission Owner, violated CIP-005-1 R1 in failing to maintain and test, or provide the date of the last test, for Protection System devices, including batteries, voltage and current sensing devices, relays, communication systems, and DC control circuitry, within the intervals defined in their Protection System maintenance and testing program. All of Rock Springs’ 352 batteries, 2 of 4 of its communication systems, all 306 of its voltage and current sensing devices, 23 of its 1,297 relays, and 1,164 of 1,297 DC control circuitry, were implicated in the violation.

Finding: The violation posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk. Further, RFC took into account that Rock Springs continuously monitored its transmission relay systems, the internal monitoring alarms of its generation Protection Systems, and its voltage and current sensing devices. Also, Rock Springs utilized both primary and secondary relay protection schemes for other devices, including transformer protection relays on the 500 kV switchyard. Rock Springs performed some maintenance and testing on these Protection System devices, even though it did not keep documentation of this maintenance. Rock Springs did have some testing records for the daily testing and maintenance it performed on its communication systems. Post-violation testing showed Rock Springs’ DC control circuitry, voltage and current sensing devices, and all generator protective devices in working condition and fully functional. In determining the appropriate penalty and approving the settlement agreement, RFC considered Rock Springs’ internal compliance program (ICP), which is managed independent 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. Rock Springs and its affiliates did not have a compliance history of repeat or continuing conduct.

Total Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Eugene Water & Electric Board, FERC Docket No. NP10-23-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) failed to test some of its Protection System relays in accordance with defined maintenance and testing intervals.

Finding: WECC and EWEB entered into a settlement agreement regarding the alleged violation whereby EWEB agreed to a $6,000 penalty (aggregate with violation of PRC-008-0). In determining the penalty amount, WECC considered that: (1) EWEB had no previous violations of NERC Reliability Standards; (2) there was no evidence of any attempt to conceal a violation nor evidence of intent; (3) EWEB cooperated during the enforcement process; and (4) the alleged violation of PRC-005-1 R2 did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system. The duration of the violation was determined to be from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through March 20, 2008, when EWEB completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-5-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: Exelon self-reported that although it had documentation concerning a protection maintenance and testing program in place at its LaPorte Generating Station (as required by PRC-005-1 R2), the protection system devices were not maintained and tested within the defined intervals (as required by PRC-005-1 R2.1). Exelon discovered that a vendor it hired in 2004 to calibrate and to functionally test all of the LaPorte digital relays did not fully perform its task, but had only checked the terminal connections and downloaded the relay set point data.

Finding: TRE determined that no penalty was warranted since the violation occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. In affirming the determination of TRE, NERC considered the fact that Exelon did have a protection maintenance and testing program in place, no system disturbances occurred as a result, the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk, the violation occurred when NERC was directed to focus on the most serious violations, it was the first violation by Exelon, and Exelon was cooperative and acted immediately to mitigate the violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

ExxonMobil – Baton Rouge (ExxonMobil), Docket No. NP12-36-000 (June 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (both)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1); High (R2)

Region: SERC

Issue: In May 2010, ExxonMobil, a GO and TO, submitted two self-reports discussing violations of PRC-005-1 R1 and R2. Regarding R1, ExxonMobil reported that prior to August 2009 it had not included voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry in its maintenance and testing program as required. SERC staff review found that ExxonMobil was not using the same Protection System maintenance and testing procedures for its GO and TO functions. ExxonMobil used the Generator Operator’s Procedures System maintenance and testing procedures for GO compliance, and it used internal procedures for TO compliance. The program used for the GO function did not list the interval basis or summary of maintenance and testing procedures for its voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry, but it did list the testing intervals for the devices. Also, the procedures did not address battery maintenance and testing before June 2009 and did not address associated communication systems maintenance and testing before February 2011. The program used for the TO function had not been approved until nine months after ExxonMobil had registered as a TO. SERC staff found it did not have the interval basis for Protection System devices, although it did have maintenance intervals and a summary of Protection System maintenance and testing. The program also stated that ExxonMobil had no associated communication system devices. Regarding the violation of R2, ExxonMobil reported it did not test or calibrate several relays within prescribed intervals; it could not produce documentation of battery testing for a four-month period in 2007; and it did not test batteries monthly as required for approximately 15 months. Final figures showed that 16 of 159 protective relays; 276 of 337 voltage and current sensing devices; and 1 of 19 station batteries had not been tested pursuant to ExxonMobil’s procedures. SERC also found that no test records could be provided for 394 of 598 Protection System devices (approximately 66%), including 2 of 158 protective relays; 1 of 2 associated communication systems, 22 of 337 voltage and current sensing devices, and 76 of 82 DC control circuitry devices.

Finding: The violations were deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because ExxonMobil’s system has redundancy built in to lessen any risk of failure, and the system is monitored 24/7 and has indicator lights as well to ensure any events are responded to in a timely fashion. Monthly visual inspections are also conducted by ExxonMobil. There were no alarms during the violation period. ExxonMobil owns a cogeneration plant with approximately 30 MW of surplus generation capacity. The facility is Qualifying Facility under PURPA. During the most recent testing, no issues were found with the Protection System devices. In determining the appropriate penalty, SERC noted that ExxonMobil did not have a compliant internal compliance program in place during the period of violation which was a neutral factor; however, affiliates of ExxonMobil have previously violated the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard, and therefore, RFC considered that to be an aggravating factor in ExxonMobil’s compliance history. Wolf Hills neither admitted nor denied SERC’s findings.

Penalty: $7,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation – Beaumont Refinery, FERC Docket No. NP10-90-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation – Beaumont Refinery (ExxonMobil) could not produce evidence demonstrating that it performed quarterly and yearly inspections of its generation Protection System station batteries.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, until June 30, 2009, when ExxonMobil finished a mitigation plan. SERC and ExxonMobil entered a settlement agreement regarding the alleged violation and agreed to a $10,000 penalty (aggregate with violations of IRO-004-1 and TOP-002-2). In assessing the penalty, SERC considered: (1) the alleged violation was self-reported; (2) ExxonMobil had no previous violations of the NERC Reliability Standards; (3) ExxonMobil cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; (4) no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so was found; (5) ExxonMobil maintained an effective compliance program and culture; and (6) the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: TRE

Issue: After receiving notice of an upcoming audit by TRE, ExxonMobil, a GO, self-reported it did not perform maintenance and testing on 403 (or 71%) of 569 system devices (station batteries, protective relays, and current and potential transformers) at its facility in the timeframe specified in its maintenance and testing program. And, ExxonMobil could not provide documentation of test results as required.

Finding: TRE found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability as any failure or misoperation of the devices would be limited to ExxonMobil’s facility. ExxonMobil also has redundant relaying schemes and the subject facility is small (50 MW capacity operating at ~20% capacity factor). The duration of the violation was June 28, 2007 through July 15, 2011. TRE determined the violation was a repeat violation of the Standard. TRE did not consider ExxonMobil’s compliance program a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate penalty.

Penalty: $13,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Fall River Rural Electric/PNGC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: R1-High, R2-Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In April 2008, Fall River Rural Electric/PNGC (FRRE) self-certified that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not include the maintenance and testing for sub-components of the Protection Systems, such as station batteries, as required. Therefore, FRRE also did not have documentation of its program with regard to the station batteries.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since FRRE’s Maintenance and Testing Program included all of the other equipment that is required by Reliability Standard PRC-005 -1 and FRRE had no previous violations of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Farmington Electric Utility System, FERC Docket No. NP10-40-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High for R1, Lower for R2

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Farmington Electric Utility System's (FEUS) maintenance and testing procedures for its generation and transmission protection systems were incomplete due to a misinterpretation of the requirements, and it could not provide documentation that it had tested and maintained all of its relays within the defined intervals.

Finding: Duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through June 10, 2008 for R1 and through March 30, 2009 for R2. Penalty was deemed appropriate because these were FEUS' first violations of the applicable standard, 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)

Fayetteville Public Works Commission, FERC Docket No. NP11-58-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Fayetteville self-reported that, in preparation for an upcoming SERC audit, it determined that its Protection System maintenance and testing program documentation incorrectly stated that it has no communication equipment on the reportable system. It determined that it did have certain associated communication system facilities, and thus its documentation did not identify maintenance and testing intervals, interval basis, or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for those facilities as required by the Reliability Standard.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Fayetteville was performing maintenance and testing on the associated communication system facilities. The duration of the violation was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became mandatory, through February 1, 2010, when Fayetteville's mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

FERC Docket No. NP11-111-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: MRO

Issue: MRO conducted an audit of a Registered Entity in which it determined that the Registered Entity was unable to provide documentation of its maintenance and testing program, within its defined intervals, for 48.4 percent of its total Protection System devices (R2). In addition, the Registered Entity could not produce documentation showing that its Protection System maintenance and testing program incorporated maintenance and testing intervals and their bases and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for the CTs, PTs and DC control circuitry. The Protection System maintenance and testing program also did not incorporate the bases for the defined intervals for the protective relays and the station batteries (R1).

Finding: MRO and the Registered Entity entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the Registered Entity agreed to pay a penalty of $120,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the multiple violations. In terms of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation, MRO found that the violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. For the PRC-005-1 R2 violation, MRO determined that the violation constituted a moderate risk to bulk power system reliability as a result of the large number of protection system devices that had not received maintenance and testing with the Registered Entity's defined three-year interval. The record evidence showed that the Registered Entity was actually conducting maintenance and testing on 94 percent of its relay protection systems within a five-year interval (which is consistent with NERC's guidelines). Furthermore, the other 6 percent of relays that had not received the appropriate maintenance and testing were located in several different substations where there were other protection system devices present that had received the appropriate maintenance and testing within the five-year interval. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations were from June 18, 2007 through June 1, 2009 (R1) and March 19, 2010 (R2). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were the Registered Entity's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the Registered Entity was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; the remedies that the Registered Entity adopted in response to the violations were considered a mitigating factor; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $120,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

FERC Docket No. NP11-116-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower (R2.1); Moderate (R1)

Region: FRCC

Issue: In August 2008, a Registered Entity self-reported that it had not tested certain of its protective relays (1.0%) and plant batteries (13.6%, or 22 out of 1,952 relays) within the intervals specified in its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R2.1). In addition, as a result of a compliance audit, FRCC discovered that the Registered Entity was unable to produce documentation for: (1) its maintenance and testing intervals for its associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, station batteries, and voltage and current sensing devices; (2) the basis of its maintenance and testing intervals for its associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices; (3) a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for its associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, station batteries, and voltage and sensing devices, and (4) the basis of its maintenance and testing intervals for its station batteries (R1).

Finding: FRCC and the Registered Entity entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the Registered Entity agreed to pay a penalty of $75,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. FRCC found that the PRC-005-1 R2.1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as the relays were actually tested with the intervals recommended by NERC (even though not according to the four-year intervals specified in the Registered Entity's Protection System maintenance and testing program). The violation also did not cause any disturbances. In addition, FRCC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Registered Entity had actually been performing maintenance and testing on around 85% of its Protection System components (even though it had not developed a complete documented Protection System maintenance and testing program). The duration of the PRC -005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through August 18, 2008 (R2.1) and December 19, 2008 (R1). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were the Registered Entity’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the Registered Entity self-reported some of the violations; the Registered Entity was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; there was a compliance program in place; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $75,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (FE Genco), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: FE Genco, a registered GO, reported to RFC through self-certification that the impedance testing and other bi-monthly testing on two Protection System battery units was performed outside of the intervals set forth in its protection system maintenance and testing program on four occasions. In addition, FE Genco discovered it did not perform impedance testing on seven battery units at another generating station.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk, which was mitigated because FE Genco performed all the required maintenance and testing and found no performance issues with the battery units at issue. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of FE Genco’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and FE Genco follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. FE Genco and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Flat Ridge Wind Energy, LLC (Flat Ridge), Docket No. NP12-36-000 (June 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP

Issue: Flat Ridge, a GO, self-certified in January 2011, and supplemented by self-report in March 2011, that two out of 24 total Protection System devices (8.3%) were not tested according to prescribed intervals in Flat Ridge’s Protection System maintenance and testing program (Program). One battery bank should have received an impedance test on a semi-annual basis according to the Program. Flat Ridge stated it never intended for semi-annual testing and so missed the testing interval. Flat Ridge stated the semi-annual interval was a documentation error and that all other required testing to its devices had taken place on time. The second untested device was the Universal Power Line Carrier (UPLC) system. Because this device had not been tested or maintained as required, it was unknown that an antenna cable associated with the device was disconnected which ultimately was found to be the cause of an outage to the Medicine-Lodge Harper transmission line. The antenna cable had been disconnected since the Flat Ridge commercial operations date of March 13, 2009. Flat Ridge stated that it was unaware the antenna was not connected and that maybe the original connection was done incorrectly or that maybe a contractor adjusting relays in March 2009 disconnected the antenna and did not reconnect it when the service was complete. According to Flat Ridge’s Program, the disconnect of that antenna cable should have sounded an alarm to alert Flat Ridge operators to a problem. Flat Ridge was found to have not installed the software that would have alarmed the device. The antenna cable had been disconnected for 22 months and caused the outage of approximately 30 miles of 138 kV transmission infrastructure, as well as the isolation of the Flat Ridge facility. From January 17 to January 19, 2011, Flat Ridge technicians inspected the facility including the UPLC and reconnected the antenna during the inspection. Flat Ridge returned to service on January 19, 2011.

Finding: SPP determined the issue posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability. SPP does not consider Flat Ridge, a 50 MW wind-powered variable energy facility, a “critical asset” for system support or restoration, and Flat Ridge was offline during the misoperation. However, failing to monitor the UPLC as required by its Program, led to a 27-minute outage of the 138 kV Medicine Lodge-Harper transmission line, although no loss of load occurred. SERC stated that even if Flat Ridge had been online during the event, the risk would have stayed moderate based on Flat Ridge being a wind facility with variable output. The missed battery impedance testing was mitigated by the fact that Flat Ridge technicians perform weekly visual inspections. The batteries are always monitored for low voltage, and in the event of a low voltage, local and remote alarms sound, which require immediate response by a technician. In determining the appropriate penalty, SERC considered that Flat Ridge self-certified the violation and that neither Flat Ridge nor its affiliates have previously violated PRC-005-1 or similar Reliability Standards. Flat Ridge’s internal compliance program was a mitigating factor as well as the cooperation of staff during the review process. Flat Ridge neither admitted nor denied SPP’s findings.

Penalty: $8,000

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Flathead Electric Coop., Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-2 -000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Prior to when the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Flathead Electric Coop., Inc. (Flathead) self-reported that it had not documented its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Flathead was still performing maintenance and testing of its Protection System, even though the program was not documented. In deciding not to assess a penalty, WECC considered the fact that the violations were self-reported; the violations were primarily documentation issues; and Flathead had no previous violations of this Reliability Standard. Although the violations were self-reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Flathead did not timely complete its Mitigation Plan, which resulted in post-June 18, 2007 violations. The Mitigation Plan has since been completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Florida Power & Light Co., FERC Docket No. NP10-2 -000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: In December 2007, errors in Florida Power & Light Co.'s (FPL) maintenance and testing program were discovered, which resulted in FPL's testing and maintenance occurring outside of the program intervals.

Finding: The violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since FPL was actually performing maintenance and testing on its generation and transmission Protection Systems (even though 360 relays, out of 6417, were not tested in the required intervals – with some relays being tested up to 17 months outside of the schedule). Once the violation was discovered, FPL tested and maintained those relays without delay. This was FPL's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Florida Public Utilities Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Following a Self-Certification, FRCC determined Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC), as a TO, did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program that included maintenance and testing intervals and their basis and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: FRCC assessed a $4,500 penalty for this and other Reliability Standards violations. FRCC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because FPUC was performing maintenance and testing of its equipment using manufacturer’s recommendations, and FPUC performed weekly inspections of the substation Protective System equipment. In addition, FPUC is very small, with less than 100 MW of load and only 39 square miles of service territory. NERC approved the settlement in an Administrative Citation Notice of Penalty.

Penalty: $4,500 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

FPL Energy, LLC (now, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC), FERC Docket No. NP09-17-000 (March 31, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High for R1; High/Lower for R2

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC found that FPL Energy, LLC (FPL Energy) failed to establish a sufficient Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the bulk electric system. Specifically, SERC found that FPL Energy's maintenance and testing procedures failed to include: (i) a description of the program or (ii) testing intervals and their basis.

Finding: SERC found that FPL Energy's failure to document Protection System maintenance and testing and its insufficient sabotage reporting program was a "low actual and foreseen risk to bulk power system reliability." SERC's Compliance Enforcement Staff therefore determined that a single, aggregate penalty of $250,000 bore a reasonable relationship to the duration and seriousness alleged violations. In determining the penalty, SERC considered FPL Energy's efforts to remedy the violations in a timely manner and its willingness to remedy the issue through settlement. NERC approved SERC's penalty recommendation, and noted that: (i) FPL Energy self-reported the original violations, (ii) FPL Energy was cooperative during the investigation, (iii) the violations were primarily documentation -related, and (iv) FPL Energy revamped and improved its compliance program. NERC also listed the following "aggravating circumstances": (i) FPL Energy failed to provide evidence supporting the completion of its mitigation plan when required, (ii) FPL Energy did not respond to SERC's request for evidence of the completion of its mitigation program for a four-month period, and (iii) FPL Energy certified that it had successfully completed its mitigation program when it, in fact, had not completed the program successfully.

Penalty: $250,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2009 (no further review)

Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, FERC Docket No. NP11-134-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FTP), a Transmission Owner, did not test a carrier set within the defined interval as identified in FTP’s Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty of $2,800 for this and another violation. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted FTP’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; FTP self-reported the violation; FTP cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; FTP 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: $2,800 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Gainesville Regional Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP11-105-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1); Lower (R2)

Region: FRCC

Issue: During a compliance audit, FRCC reported that Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), as a Generator and Transmission Owner, was unable to produce documentation sufficient to show that its Protection System maintenance and testing program included an interval for the maintenance and testing of its Protection Systems that affect the bulk power system nor could it provide sufficient documentation showing that its program included a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for the Protection Systems in violation of PRC-005-1 R1. FRCC further found that GRU violated PRC-005-1 R2 when it was unable to provide evidence that it had maintained and tested ten of its Protection System devices within the defined intervals. In addition, GRU self-reported that one transmission relay was out of the test interval from March 2 through June 23, 2008.

Finding: FRCC and GRU entered into a Settlement Agreement in which GRU neither admitted nor denied the violations, but agreed to the assessed penalty. FRCC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because GRU had performed testing and maintenance on its Protection Systems based on manufacturer recommendations. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee considered the following in determining the penalty: the violation of PRC-005-1 R2 was a repeat violation; GRU self-reported one of the violations; GRU was cooperative during the enforcement process; and there was no evidence that GRU intended to conceal or intentionally violate the Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $45,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

GEN TEX Power Corp (Gen Tex), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: Gen Tex, in its role as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 for failing to perform a quarterly battery maintenance activity on two battery banks in December 2007 and one annual battery maintenance activity on two battery banks in December 2009. Gen Tex's instrument transformer records were also insufficient to validate the implementation of a Protection System maintenance and training program.

Finding: TRE determined that the R2 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS for two reasons: instrument transformer testing is a performance issue, and the combination of insufficient records of such testing with the missed battery maintenances constitutes a failure to follow Protection System maintenance and testing procedures. Without proper testing records, failures to properly maintain instrument transformers could be concealed. The risk to the reliability of the BPS was partially mitigated by the short time frame of the missed battery maintenances and the discovery, when maintenance resumed, that the battery banks were not in fact degraded. Furthermore, the relay testing procedures incorporated instructions to test the outputs of instrument transformers and to report any failures to pass these tests. TRE and Gen Tex entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Gen Tex agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. TRE considered Gen Tex's compliance program to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 16, 2010. Gen Tex neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $26,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Georgia Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-20-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: In a November 2008 response to a spot check from SERC, Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power) reported that it did not have proper documentation regarding its monthly inspection of batteries (with 373 records missing out of 1,386 monthly intervals) for 48 (out of 82) batteries at 31 of its generating facilities (first violation). In addition, in December 2008, Georgia Power self-reported that it had failed to test a newly installed Current Transformer (CT), in accordance with its maintenance and testing program, during the initial start-up of the Generator Step-Up transformer at its Hatch Nuclear Power Station (second violation). Furthermore, in April 2009, Georgia Power self-reported that it had not performed the mandated functional testing, as required by its maintenance and testing program, when installing its new CTs at its Vogtle Nuclear Power Station (third violation).

Finding: SERC and Georgia Power entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby Georgia Power agreed to pay a penalty of $30,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. SERC found the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the required testing and maintenance was being performed for most of the batteries and no batteries lacked testing and maintenance documentation for all of the intervals. The gaps in documentation showed that there were not any systematic program problems. In addition, all of the batteries at six of Georgia Power’s generating facilities had all of the required documentation for the monthly intervals, as well as 34 (out of 82) batteries at Georgia Power’s other plants. Furthermore, for the other two violations, prior to the delivery of the CTs, the vendor performed the required functional test. The duration of the violations was from: June 18, 2007 through February 28, 2009 (first violation); March 20, 2008 through September 1, 2009 (second violation); and April 24, 2008 through June 30, 2010 (third violation). In deciding on the penalty amount, SERC considered the fact that Georgia Power self-reported two of the violations; Georgia Power was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; Georgia Power resolved the issue through a settlement agreement before a Notice of Alleged Violation was issued; and Georgia Power did have three violations of the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

GEUS, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: TRE

Issue: During a compliance audit, TRE determined that GEUS was unable to provide documentation showing that its Protection System maintenance and testing program, during the entire audit period, incorporated the bases for its maintenance and testing intervals for all of the components on its Protection System.

Finding: TRE found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since there were actually maintenance and testing intervals in place for all of the Protection System equipment and the required maintenance and testing was being performed. The intervals met industry standards and the violation was primarily a documentation issues. The duration of the violation was June 28, 2007 through June 14, 2010.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Gila River Power, L.P., FERC Docket No. NP11-197-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In April 2010, Gila River Power, L.P (Gila River), as a Generator Owner, submitted a self-certification stating that it had not conducted the required maintenance on its December 8, 2009 interval date (as specified in its Protection System maintenance and testing program) on all of its relays, potential transformers, current transformers, and DC circuits and communications systems

Finding: WECC and Gila River entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby Gila River agreed to pay a penalty of $20,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. The duration of the violation was from March 9, 2010 (the expiration of the grace period) through June 30, 2010. WECC found that the violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability as the relevant generating units that did not receive the required annual maintenance were only used for less than 20% of the available hours during the first quarter of 2010. In addition, Gila River only missed one maintenance interval date and had self-imposed a conservative 90 -day maintenance interval grace periods. The relays are also equipped with a watchdog alarm that engages in continuous self-monitoring. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this violation was Gila River’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; Gila River was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: R1-High, R2-Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. (GEC) self-reported that it had not documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program or retained records showing that the maintenance and testing were occurring as required.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since GEC was actually performing the required maintenance and testing. In deciding not to assess a penalty, WECC considered the fact that the violations were self-reported; they were primarily documentation issues; and GEC had no previous violations of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority (GCPHA), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1; R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: On August 31, 2011, GCPHA self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R1 and R2. WECC confirmed the violation of R1, holding that GCPHA failed to include three required aspects of its Protection System maintenance and testing program: (i) a basis for its relay maintenance and testing interval; (ii) maintenance and testing intervals and basis for its CTs and PTs; and (iii) a basis for its DC circuitry maintenance and testing interval. WECC also noted GCPHA violated R2.1 and R2.2 because it failed to (a) perform required maintenance and testing within defined intervals for all PTs and CTs and 48 of 59 DC circuitry, and (b) provide the date when 39 of 59 of its DC circuitry devices were last tested. The duration of the violation for R1 was from August 23, 2007 to September 1, 2011, and for R2, August 23, 2007 to December 15, 2011.

Finding: These violations posed only a minimal risk to BPS reliability for five reasons. First, although GCPHA’s Protection System maintenance and testing program did not define the interval and basis for its PT and CT maintenance and testing, GCPHA at least annually conducted switchyard inspections that included checking CTs and PTs for insulator problems, oil leaks, and periodic infrared inspections. Second, GCPHA implemented alarms to detect alerts and reduce risk. Third, GCPHA routinely inspected internal CTs during maintenance and testing of generators, transformers, and circuit breakers of enclosed cubicle bus works. Fourth, even though GCPHA did not delineate the basis for its maintenance and testing, it did partially comply with this Standard by defining the interval as two years. Fifth, the risk posed by the unit is further minimized because it is a seasonal generation facility and only on-line for seven months a year. As such, it is not essential to mitigate voltage, frequency or stability constraints, and the unit is not included in any regional restoration plan. GCPHA agreed/stipulated to WECC’s findings.

Penalty: $11,500 (aggregate for four violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II, LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III, LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC (Grand Ridge), Docket No. NP12-22-000 (March 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: Grand Ridge, a GO, did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program for its wind farm, as required by PRC-005-1 until October 8, 2010 when Grand Ridge began use of its Substation Maintenance Plan, which contained intervals and bases for testing and maintenance of Protection System devices. Before that date, Grand Ridge contracted for maintenance and testing services, but the plan in use by the vendor was not compliant with NERC requirements and the vendor was not aware of what NERC required in maintenance and testing programs.(R1) Regarding R2, Grand Ridge was unable to show that it had tested and maintained its communications systems associated with Protection Systems (two of 37 total Protection System devices (5.4%)) in accordance with defined intervals and was unable to show on what date the devices had last been tested and maintained.

Finding: The violations posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability because, other than the backup communications systems, all other Protection System devices had been maintained and tested as required since start-up of the facility. Grand Ridge has system protection and testing measures actively in place and its Energy Protection System is programmed to alert system operators of trips or communication loss. In addition, the interconnecting utility is protected through its SCADA system. Grand River has backup and reduction protection as well and has had no misoperations since registering with NERC. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered certain aspects of Grand Ridge’s compliance program as a mitigating factor and that Grand Ridge was cooperative during the audit process. RFC noted that the violations were discovered during an audit, and not self-reported. RFC considered as an aggravating factor Grand Ridge’s compliance history because affiliates of Grand Ridge previously violated the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for two violations; for each of Grand Ridge, Grand Ridge II, Grand Ridge III, Grand Ridge IV)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2012 (no further review)

Granite Ridge Energy, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-83-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Granite Ridge Energy, LLC (GRE) did not perform DC circuit tests for three transmission lines within defined intervals. NPCC conducted an offsite audit of GRE and found that GRE was five and a half years behind schedule for the testing of the relevant DC circuits, which are required to be tested every two years.

Finding: NPCC Enforcement determined that the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because protective relays associated with the lines were tested but the relays associated with the DC circuits were not. Further, the subject DC relay circuits are continuously monitored and operators are alerted to any disturbances that would affect the continuity of the circuitry. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) assessed a $30,000 penalty for the violation. In reaching its determination, the NERC BOTCC considered that the violation was GRE's first occurrence of violation of the subject Reliability Standard; GRE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; and there was no evidence GRE attempted to conceal the violation.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Grays Harbor County PUD, FERC Docket NP10-117-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: On June 9, 2008, WECC conducted a spot-check on Grays Harbor County PUD ("Grays Harbor") to determine the applicability of PRC-005-1 to Grays Harbor, determining at that time that Grays Harbor did not have protection systems that could effect the reliability of the bulk power system such that it would not be subject to the standard. During a subsequent audit, WECC reversed its position, finding that Grays Harbor actually had three protection systems devices that could impact the bulk power system and was thus subject to the standard. Grays Harbor did not have a protection system maintenance and testing program for its protection systems in place, and did not have documentation of maintenance and testing for the specified devices as required by the standard.

Finding: Duration of violations from June 19, 2009 through July 31, 2010. The violations did not cause a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because each primary protection relay had a redundant backup relay, but the violations could cause a moderate risk because of Grays Harbor location on the grid. Due to WECC's initial advice that Grays Harbor did not need to comply with PRC -005-1, however, and because this was Grays Harbor's first violation of the standard, WECC determined that a zero penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

Grays Harbor Energy LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-170-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Grays Harbor Energy LLC ("GHE") self -reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R1 because it did not have a protection system maintenance and testing plan including intervals and their bases or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because GHE was maintaining and testing its protection systems pursuant to the International Electrical Testing Association specifications. Moreover, the facility only has a historical capacity of 20.7 MW and was only synchronized to the grid in 2008. Functional testing was a part of commissioning so at plant start-up everything was in known working order. The NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: GHE self-reported the violation; this was GHE’s first violation of PRC-005-1; GHE was cooperative; GHE had a compliance procedure in place, which WECC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal the violation; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $16,550 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Great River Energy, FERC Docket No. NP10-111-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2 (R2.1, R2.2)

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1 and R2 – R2 has a Lower Violation Risk Factor, but R2.1 and R2.2 have a High Violation Risk Factor)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: During a compliance audit in January 2009, MRO discovered that Great River Energy's (GRE) Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not incorporate: (1) testing intervals for the associated communications system, voltage and current sensing devices, and DC control circuitry; (2) the basis for the maintenance and testing intervals; and (3) a summary of the Protection Systems maintenance and testing procedures. In addition, while GRE was able to produce the testing and maintenance records showing the last maintenance date, as well as the next scheduled maintenance date, for all of its protection system devices, GRE could not produce the actual test results for 34% of its relays, associated communication system, and DC control circuitry.

Finding: MRO and GRE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby GRE agreed to pay a penalty of $125,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. MRO found that the violations of PRC-005-1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since GRE did actually have a Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program in place (even though GRE did not possess sufficient documentation). In addition, GRE was able to show the last test date for each protection system device and could produce documentation showing that the majority of its protection system devices were tested within their defined intervals. But, MRO did find that by GRE not having maintenance and testing intervals for its protection system devices, it did pose a higher risk of system inoperability and cause a high risk to bulk power system reliability. In determining the penalty amount, MRO considered the fact the violations were GRE's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards and GRE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations. GRE has completed its mitigation plan for the violation of R1, and is schedule to complete its mitigation plan for the violation of R2 in October 2010. GRE has also undertaken other efforts to strengthen its compliance program.

Penalty: $125,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

Guadalupe Valley Electric Co Op Inc. (GVEC), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1; 1.1; 1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: Texas RE

Issue: GVEC, as a DP and TO, self-reported on October 31, 2011 a violation of PRC-005-1 R1 that it discovered during a routine compliance self-assessment. GVEC’s Transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program lacked language covering the interval of maintenance and testing procedures for station batteries, associated communication devices, direct current circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices. This implicated 253 out of GVEC’s 363 devices.

Finding: The violations were deemed to pose a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS, but not a serious or substantial risk, because GVEC still monitored its Protection System regularly through microprocessor relays and the GVEC supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. In determining the appropriate penalty, Texas RE gave credit to GVEC’s internal compliance program.

Total Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Guadalupe Valley Electric Co Op Inc. (GVEC), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2; 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: Texas RE

Issue: GVEC, as a DP and TO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2 on October 31, 2011. GVEC found that it did not keep complete maintenance and testing records associated with: communications devices, direct current circuitry and certain voltage and current sensing devices. GVEC discovered this as part of a routine compliance self-assessment. Though GVEC failed to keep records of current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) testing, it continuously monitored the devices.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS, but not a serious or substantial risk, because GVEC still tested and continuously monitored its Transmission Protection System elements with microprocessor relays and its supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. No other problems were identified after GVEC finished its station instrument verifications. In determining the appropriate penalty, Texas RE gave credit to GVEC’s internal compliance program ICP.

Total Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Gulf Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-32-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: The inspection of Gulf Power Company’s Plant Scholz battery was being performed on a quarterly basis instead of the monthly interval as defined in the Protection System maintenance and testing program, and Gulf Power lacked documentation for the monthly inspection of batteries at Plant Crist and Plant Lansing Smith.

Finding: SERC and Gulf Power entered a settlement agreement regarding the violations and agreed to a $15,000 penalty. In determining the penalty, SERC considered that Gulf Power (1) had no prior violations of the standard or any closely related standard; (2) self-reported the violations; (3) was cooperative during the investigation; (4) showed no intent to commit or to conceal the alleged violations; (5) adopted a maintenance and testing program; (6) agreed to resolve the issue via settlement and initiated mitigation actions and preventative measures prior to receiving a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction from SERC; (7) implemented preventative measures for future compliance; and (8) completed a mitigation plan designed to protect against future violations of the same or similar requirements.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued August 7, 2009 (no further review)

Hardee Power Partners Limited, FERC Docket No. NP10-2 -000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: It was discovered in January 2008 that Hardee Power Partners Limited (Hardee) had not completed relay testing for one of its generators (as 3 out of the 357 relays were tested three months late) in Fall 2007.

Finding: FRCC found that this violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Hardee did actually have a Maintenance and Testing program in place and, as only 3 relays were tested 3 months outside of the required interval, this violation only led to a short duration or risk exposure and involved only a small quantity of relays. This was Hardee's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Hardee Power Partners Limited, FERC Docket No. NP11-23-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1 and R2)

Violation Severity Level: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: FRCC

Issue: In November 2008, Hardee Power Partners Limited (HPP) self-reported that its Protection Systems maintenance and testing program did not include: (a) maintenance and testing intervals, the basis for the intervals, or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for its voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry; (b) maintenance and testing intervals for its station batteries; or (c) a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for its protective relays (R1). In addition, HPP self-reported that it did not possess proper documentation concerning the appropriate maintenance and testing on 35 protective relays and 7 batteries, intervals for the station batteries, and testing for the voltage and current sensing devices and the DC control circuitry (R2).

Finding: FRCC and HPP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby HPP agreed to pay a penalty of $15,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. FRCC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since many of the components in HPP's Protection System were relatively new as the switchyard had undergone a thorough breaker replacement project in 2006. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through August 28, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, FRCC considered the fact this was HPP's first violation of PRC-005-1 R1 but a repeat violation of PRC-005-1 R2; the violations were self-reported; HPP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors. Even though HPP did have a documented compliance program in place, it had not been approved by an Authorized Entity Officer (and therefore it was only considered as a neutral factor).

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Henderson Municipal Power & Light, FERC Docket No. NP10-50-000 (February 12, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Henderson Municipal Power & Light (HMPL) self-reported that it did not have documentation of its generation Protection System maintenance and testing program for its generating facility as well as certain elements of its Transmission Protection System.

Finding: Duration of violations was from June 18, 2007 when the standard became effective through April 8, 2009. The violations were deemed to be documentation issues that did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability, as HMPL had performed maintenance and testing on these systems in the past. HMPL was given credit for the self-report and for no prior history of violations.

Penalty: $35,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued on March 12, 2010 (no further review)

Hermiston Generating Co., L.P., FERC Docket No. NP10-133-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: Hermiston Generating Co., L.P. (HERM) (1) failed to maintain a documented maintenance and testing program for its Protection System; (2) failed to have a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures; and (3) was unable to provide the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals for some relays, DC circuitry, Current and Potential Transformers. Further, HERM (1) failed to maintain documentation that it implemented a maintenance and testing program for its Protection System; (2) could not produce evidence it maintained and tested its protective devices during defined intervals; and (3) failed to provide the date when it conducted maintenance and testing on approximately 75% of its protective devices.

Finding: The alleged violation of PRC-005-1 R1 occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the Standard became enforceable, until August 27, 2009. The alleged violation of PRC -005-1 R2 occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the Standard became enforceable, and is expected to be mitigated by October 31, 2010. WECC imposed a $59,500 penalty for these and other alleged violations. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered these factors: this was HERM’s first alleged violations of the Reliability Standards; HERM cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; HERM did not attempt to conceal the violations or intend to do so; the Violation Severity Levels and Violation Risk Factors, the durations of the violations, the lack of aggravating factors that would justify a higher penalty, and WECC found that the alleged violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $59,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: After receiving notice of an upcoming off-site WECC Compliance Audit, HHWP self-reported in May 2011 that it had not complied with the requirement of PRC-005-1 in that, as a GO, it discovered 25 circuit tests and four battery capacity tests were missing documentation or had not been performed as required during 2009. WECC review of the self-certification confirmed that HHWP was in violation of the Reliability Standard for being unable to produce documentation of testing for 25 of 299 DC control circuitry devices (8.36% of total devices) and for not having conducted the five-year tests on all 4 of its station batteries.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because HHWP's relaying systems have local and remote back up available should a relay fail. Regarding the batteries, HHWP had conducted annual impedance tests which showed the ability of the batteries to work as expected should the AC power be lost. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC gave credit for supplying the additional information and HHWP's internal compliance program was also mitigating factor. Although HHWP had previously violation this Standard, it was not considered an aggravating factor because it was reported prior to the effective date of the Reliability Standards. The Mitigation Plan associated with that violation was certified complete on May 13, 2009. It was determined that the noncompliance for the instant violation was covered by the prior confirmed violation and accepted Mitigation Plan. HHWP agreed/stipulated to WECC's finding.

Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for six violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)

High Trail Wind Farm, LLC and Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-217-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1 (two violations)

Violation Risk Factor: High (for both violations)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for both violations)

Region: RFC

Issue:: RFC found that High Trail Wind Farm, LLC (High Trail) and Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC (Old Trail) (collectively, Twin Groves Wind Farms), as Generator Owners, each did not possess a Protection System maintenance and testing program that incorporated maintenance and testing intervals for their voltage and current sensing devices, the bases for the intervals for all of their Protection System devices, and a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for their batteries and voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: RFC and Twin Groves Wind Farms entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations, whereby Twin Groves Wind Farms agreed to pay a penalty of $7,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Twin Groves Wind Farms were actually conducting maintenance and testing on their Protection System devices according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The Protection System devices were also connected to a monitoring system that sends alerts of potential

Issue:s to the relevant personnel. The duration of High Trail’s violation was from August 22, 2007 through July 8, 2008, and the duration of Old Trail’s violation was from November 13, 2007 through July 8, 2008. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were Twin Groves Wind Farms’ first violations of this Reliability Standard; after Old Trail’s violation was discovered through an audit, High Trail self-reported its violation; Twin Groves Wind Farms were cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violations; there was a compliance program in place for Twin Groves Wind Farms (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Hoosier Energy REC, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-190-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. (Hoosier) self-reported that it did not test 27 relays at its Bloomington transmission station within defined intervals, it did not test a total of 125 relays at its Worthington station within defined intervals, and it failed to trip check two 138 kV circuit breakers at the Worthington station. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 when the standard became mandatory and enforceable through November 17, 2009, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: ReliabilityFirst determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because the Bloomington station does not serve as a critical interchange location, and both the Bloomington and Worthington stations have primary and backup relay protection. The NERC BOTCC also considered that the violation constituted Hoosier’s first occurrence of violation of the standards, Hoosier self-reported the PRC-005-1 violation, and Hoosier aggred to take actions that exceed those expected to achieve and maintain baseline compliance.

Penalty: $80,000 (aggregate for 10 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Iberdrola Renewables, FERC Docket No. NP11-258-000 (August 11, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: During an audit in 2010, TRE found that Iberdrola Renewables (Iberdrola), as a Generator Owner, did not possess sufficient documentation regarding the bases for the testing intervals for its station batteries, instrument transformers, associated communication devices, protective relays and DC control circuitry in its Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Procedure.

Finding: TRE and Iberdrola entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Iberdrola agreed to pay a penalty of $7,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. TRE found that the PRC-005-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Iberdrola was actually performing the required maintenance and testing on its protection system devices at regular intervals. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from July 14, 2008 through December 22, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were Iberdrola’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; Iberdrola was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Iberdrola had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $7,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 9, 2011 (no further review)

Idaho Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In February 2008, Idaho Power Company (IPC) self-reported that it did not test 21 of its 303 Protection System relays.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since IPC had tested the vast majority of its relays and was monitoring its Protection System. In deciding not to assess a penalty, WECC considered the fact that the violation was self-reported and this was IPC’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2; R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: IPCO, as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 to WECC for failing to provide evidence of maintaining and testing four communication devices in 2009 within the annual defined testing interval noted in the GO's Protection System maintenance and testing program. Although the devices were tested as required, the testing evidence was overwritten with other data due to a database error.

Finding: WECC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because IPCO continuously monitors its relay operations and has back-up systems in place. In addition, the devices at issue were localized at one generating facility and IPCO was able to provide evidence of tests conducted in 2008 and 2010. Finally, the devices were in fact tested in 2009 although no evidence was available. 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 R2. WECC considered IPCO's ICP to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination, and considered the GO's compliance history to be an aggravating factor in the determination. The duration of the violation was from October 12, 2009 through December 31, 2010. IPCO agrees/stipulates the R2 violation.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Imperial Irrigation District, FERC Docket No. NP11-148-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2010, Imperial Irrigation District (IID) self-reported that, as a Transmission Owner, it had not tested two of its Protection System devices (relays) at one of its substations according to the maintenance intervals contained in its maintenance and testing plan.

Finding: IID agreed to pay a total penalty of $23,223 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. IID determined that the two relays had backup protection that was functional and in service and had been tested according to its maintenance and testing plan. WECC found that the violation of PRC-005-1 only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from October 19, 2009 through April 27, 2010. In determining the penalty amount, NERC considered the fact that the violations were self-reported; IID was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $23,223 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Independence Power & Light, Missouri (Independence), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1; R1.1; R1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP RE

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, SPP RE determined that Independence, as a DP, a GO, and a TO, was in violation of R1 when it discovered that the company's documented Protection System maintenance and testing program lacked a procedure to address DC control circuitry, failed to define a testing interval for instrument transformers, and failed to indicate the basis for any of the identified testing intervals. These violations corresponded to a failure to document maintenance and testing of 55.0% Protection System devices.

Finding: SPP RE determined that the R1 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite the deficiencies with the Protection System maintenance and testing program, the company had assigned intervals for protective relays, associated communication devices, and station batteries that were consistent with the 2007 NERC Protection System Maintenance - A Technical Reference. In addition, Independence's peak load at the time of the violation was 315 MW and it owned only three transmission lines at 100 kV or above. SPP RE and Independence entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Independence agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SPP RE considered Independence's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination, given that it was not established at the time of the violation. The violation began when the Standard became mandatory and enforceable, and ended when Independence completed its mitigation plan. Independence neither admits nor denies the R1 violation.

Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Independence Power & Light, Missouri (Independence), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2 R2.1; R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP RE

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, SPP RE determined that Independence, as a DP, a GO, and a TO, was in violation of R2 when it discovered that the company had not adhered to the testing intervals set forth in its documented Protection System maintenance and testing program. Of the company's 333 Protection System devices, 94% were either out of testing intervals or had missing test data. These devices included protective relays, associated communications systems, instrument transformers, station batteries, and DC control circuits.

Finding: SPP RE determined that the R1 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because Independence adhered to its defined testing intervals and maintained test data for a portion of its Protection System devices. Independence's communications systems are also remotely monitored and any failures of these systems would have triggered an alarm. In addition, Independence conducted periodic coordinated communications tests with neighboring utilities which would have identified failures in the communications systems. Furthermore, Independence routinely performs visual inspections of the station batteries which would have revealed certain battery failures. Finally, Independence's peak load at the time of the violation was 315 MW and it owned only three transmission lines at 100 kV or above. SPP RE and Independence entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Independence agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SPP RE considered Independence's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination, given that it was not established at the time of the violation. The violation began when the Standard became mandatory and enforceable. Independence neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Indian River Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-44-000 (September 25, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Indian River Power self-reported its failure to complete and document battery testing within defined intervals as required by PRC-005-1 R2.1.

Finding: RFC assessed a penalty of $20,000 for the violation considering that Indian River Power: (1) self-reported the violation; (2) timely remedied the violation; and (3) cooperated during the investigation. RFC also considered there was no serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system and further found no aggravating circumstances.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Issued October 23, 2009 (no further review)

Indiana Municipal Power Agency, FERC Docket No. NP11-36-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2.1)

Violation Severity Level: High (R1); Lower (R2.1)

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: ReliabilityFirst determined that Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA), as a Generator Owner, did not conduct maintenance and testing on six breaker failure relays on generator protection breakers in accordance with the defined intervals of its Protection System maintenance and testing program. ReliabilityFirst also determined that IMPA did not include maintenance and testing intervals and other required information in its Protection System program for potential transformers, current transformers, station batteries and DC control circuitry.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) imposed a $22,000 penalty for this and other violations. In reaching this determination, the BOTCC considered the following facts: the violations constituted IMPA’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standards; IMPA cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; IMPA self-reported two of the three violations; IMPA’s compliance program; IMPA 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; the violation occurred during the initial discretionary transition period; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $22,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Indianapolis Power & Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-165-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: In March 2010, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) self-reported that it had not: (1) given an adequate explanation of the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals nor provided summaries of the maintenance and testing procedures for its 31 generator batteries as well as for its direct current control circuitry at its Petersburg, Harding Street, and Eagle Valley generating stations (R1); (2) been able to produce proper documentation showing that it had conducted the required maintenance and testing on the batteries and direct current control circuitry at two of its generating plants (R2); (3) given an adequate explanation of the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals for the batteries used in transmission (R1); and (4) been able to produce proper documentation showing that it had conducted the required maintenance and testing on the 31 batteries at three of its transmission substations (R2).

Finding: RFC and IPL entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby IPL agreed to pay a penalty of $30,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC determined that the violations of PRC-005-1 constituted a moderate risk to bulk power system reliability. While IPL did actually conduct regular tests and maintenance, it did not possess the required documentation (since even though the work orders are automatically generated by a computerized maintenance management system, IPL lacked verification that the ordered tests and maintenance actually took place). The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through January 25, 2010 (R1) and June 30, 2010 (R2). In approving the settlement agreement and the penalty determination, NERC considered the fact that these violations were IPL’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; some of the violations were self-reported (which led to the full review); IPL was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; IPL had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Inland Power and Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-55-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Inland Power and Light Company (INPL) self-reported that it did not test a 125 V DC battery bank at a substation within 12 calendar months as required by INPL's testing procedure.

Finding: The violation period was determined to be April 1, 2009 until May 14, 2009, when INPL completed a mitigation plan. WECC assessed a penalty of $8,000 for the violation. In reaching the determination, WECC considered the following mitigating factors: (1) INPL self-reported the violation; (2) the violation was INPL’s first violation of PRC-005-1 R2.1; (3) INPL was cooperative throughout the compliance process; and (4) there was no evidence of any attempt by INPL to conceal the violation or that the violation was intentional.

Penalty: $8,000

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

Invenergy Cannon Falls, FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1/R1.2, R2.1/R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1.1/1.2, R2.1/2.2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1.1/1.2), Lower (for R2.1/2.2)

Region: MRO

Issue:: In July 2010, Invenergy Cannon Falls (ICF) self-reported that its Protection System maintenance and testing program did not incorporate maintenance and testing intervals and their bases nor a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures (R1.1/1.2). In September 2010, ICF also self-reported that it did not possess all of the proper documentation regarding the maintenance and testing records for its station batteries (R2.1/2.2).

Finding: MRO found that the violations constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since ICF was actually performing maintenance and testing on approximately 96.4% of its Protection System devices based on the guidelines in the NERC Protection System Technical Reference. Furthermore, ICF is a small, peaking facility that is only interconnected to the transmission system at 115 kV. Regarding the batteries, ICF was actually monitoring and recording the battery voltage every day. The duration of the violation was from April 22, 2008 through July 31, 2010.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Jersey Central Power & Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-52-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: FirstEnergy self-reported on behalf of Jersey Central Power & Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company that it could not locate records for maintenance and testing of 15 relays for Jersey Central and 3 relays for Pennsylvania Electric.

Finding: It was determined by SERC that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because 18 relays for which test records were not located were spread across seven relay schemes and were a small number compared to the total number of relays maintained by FirstEnergy companies; moreover, none of the 18 relays had experienced operational problems since June 18, 2007. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through April 2, 2009.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L), Docket No. NP13-26-000 (February 28, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NERC as CEA

Issue: NERC determined that JCP&L did not properly implement its commissioning procedures according to its Protection System maintenance and testing program, which resulted in loss of service to 11,780 customers on November 13, 2009. A fault occurred on November 13, 2009 near the Morristown Substation when an aluminum carport blew into the Morristown-Whippany 230 kV transmission line. During the commissioning of the breakers associated with the Morristown-Whippany 230 kV transmission line, there were wiring errors and an improper current transformer (CT) ratio (due to incorrect design information given to the commissioning engineer), which prevented the breaker from tripping as it was supposed to for the line fault. As result, other transmission lines and transformers at the Morristown Substation over-tripped, which caused 11,780 of JCP&L’s customers to lose service. According to its substation practices document, JCP&L should have conducted a complete trip checking of the circuit breaker prior to commissioning the breaker, which it did not do.

Finding: NERC found that the violation constituted a serious and substantial risk to BPS reliability since if JCP&L’s Protection System had operated as designed, the opening of the breaker at the Morristown Substation would have isolated the event and 11,780 customers would not have experienced sustained outages. JCP&L had a 42.5 MW sustained outage, as well as an additional 30 MW that experienced a momentary outage. JCP&L did take immediate corrective actions, initiating a close operation on the Bus Tie 230 kV Breaker B83 at the Morristown Substation approximately 15 minutes after the fault to restore the transmission system to its normal configuration. This event also represented an isolated incident that impacted a single panel and presented no danger of cascading outages or rolling blackouts. In addition, all of JCP&L’s other facilities properly tripped out. The duration of the violation was from October 21, 2008 through March 31, 2013. JCP&L neither admitted nor denied the violation. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC did not view JCP&L’s prior violation of PRC-005-1 R2 (or its previous violations of other Reliability Standards) as an aggravating factor. Parts of JCP&L’s internal compliance program were evaluated as a mitigating factor. JCP&L was also cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations.

Total Penalty: $40,000

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCPL), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: Jersey Central, a registered GO, TO and DP, self-reported to RFC that (1) one battery installation at a generating station had not received the quarterly battery maintenance and testing (M&T), and (2) it was unable to find records showing that scheduled M&T had been undertaken for two relay schemes, consisting of five Protection System devices at one substation. Further to those violations, while RFC was conducting a Compliance Audit, Jersey Central could not show test records for M&T on its current transformers (CTs) and voltage transformers (PTs) or DC control circuitry. Although the M&T had been performed, Jersey Central did not record the test results, only the test dates.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a moderate, but not serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability. Jersey Central stated that the CTs and PTs had received M&T at the same time relays were calibrated, and Jersey Central gave RFC the M&T dates, but it had no testing results. Also, although the quarterly testing had not been performed on the batteries, monthly testing had taken place according to its Protection System M&T program. No performance issues were discovered upon testing. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of Jersey Central’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and Jersey Central follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. Jersey Central and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. In this instance, Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Kern River Cogeneration Company (KRCC), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: 2
• Violation Risk Factor: High
• Violation Severity Level: Severe
• Region: WECC
• Issue: KRCC self-reported in March 2012 that it had not complied with the requirement of PRC-005-1 R2 in that, as a GO, it could not provide a compliant documented Protection System maintenance and testing program. KRCC's existing records of its maintenance and testing program were incomplete and showed that certain testing and maintenance activities had not been followed pursuant to stated intervals. During an internal compliance review, KRCC found that four backup field overvoltage relays included in the maintenance and testing program had not been subject to testing due to the relay technician's failure to understand the testing requirement and testing the wrong relays. An off-site Compliance Audit performed by WECC on KRCC's facilities determined that KRCC failed to maintain and test three of twelve DC control circuit devices (25%) within established intervals and that KRCC had not tested or maintained four generator backup field overvoltage relays, totaling 51 relays (7.8%) as required by its program.
• Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because KRCC consists of one generating facility with four 75 MW gas turbine generators. The four subject relays were part of KRCC's maintenance and testing program. The relay technician responsible for maintenance and testing mistakenly tested the wrong relays. While the violation was ongoing, no problems occurred on the 59E overvoltage relays. And, the three DC control circuitry devices did receive maintenance and testing; however, that was done approximately three months past the eight-year testing interval. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered as a mitigating factor that KRCC on its own took corrective steps to remediate the violation. WECC found no other aggravating factors to warrant a higher penalty. KRCC cooperated during the enforcement process, completed all applicable compliance instructions, and showed no evidence that it was attempting to conceal the violation. WECC stated that a generator owner affiliated with KRCC at the corporate level had also submitted a self-report explaining a possible violation of PRC-005-1. WECC found the violations to be concurrent and treated them separately. As such, this violation was not considered a repeat. WECC also considered KRCC's positive compliance history. KRCC did not contest WECC's findings.
• Penalty: $12,000
• FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)

KGen Hot Spring LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-199-000 (May 26, 2011)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: R2
• Violation Risk Factor: High
• Violation Severity Level: Lower
• Region: SERC
• Issue: KGen Hot Spring LLC (KGen) self-reported that its three valve-regulated lead-acid batteries had not been maintained and tested within the defined intervals specified in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.
• Finding: KGen agreed to pay a penalty of $2,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. SERC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since KGen’s Protection System contained several levels of redundancy (i.e., the relevant batteries represented the fourth line of protection that would provide DC power to the Protection System devices in the event of a power loss). The duration of the violation was from June 28, 2007 through October 29, 2010.
• Penalty: $2,000
• FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Kings River Conservation District, FERC Docket No. NP12-2 (October 31, 2011)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: R2.1
• Violation Risk Factor: High
• Violation Severity Level: Severe
• Region: WECC
• Issue: Kings River Conservation District (KRCD), as a GO, self-reported that it was not conducting the required maintenance and testing at one of its generating stations according to the defined intervals.
• Finding: WECC found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability since KRCD had actually conducted most of its maintenance and testing according to the specifications in its Protection System maintenance and testing plan. In addition, KRCD’s battery voltages were being continuously monitored, and no low voltage alarms were set off during the violation. The duration of the violation was from February 1, 2008 through December 7, 2010. WECC evaluated KRCD’s compliance program as a mitigating factor.
• Penalty: $9,000
• FERC Order: Issued November 30, 2011 (no further review)

Kissimmee Utility Authority, FERC Docket No. NP09-20-000 (May 1, 2009)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: R2
• Violation Risk Factor: High
• Violation Severity Level: Not provided
• Region: FRCC
• Issue: While Kissimmee had tested and calibrated certain relays, it had not done so within its self-imposed three-year requirement for testing stated in its protection system maintenance and testing program.
• Finding: Violation duration was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through October 2, 2007. No penalty was assessed because the violation had occurred during the transition period to enforceable standards and because the violation had only a minimal impact on the reliability of the bulk power system.
• Penalty: $0
• FERC Order: Issued May 29, 2009 (no further review)

Lafayette Utilities Systems (LAFA), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: 1; 1.1; 1.2
• Violation Risk Factor: High
• Violation Severity Level: High
• Region: SPP RE
• Issue: LAFA self-reported a violation PRC-005-1 R1 because its Protection System Maintenance and Testing procedure lacked a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for 544 instrument transformers. LAFA also did not define the basis for such instrument transformer intervals in its procedure. Finally, the procedure did not cover testing and maintenance, testing intervals, or their basis for association communications systems. In total, 70% of LAFA’s Protection System devices were implicated.
• Finding: SPP RE found that the violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk, because LAFA has the following Protection Systems in place (1) monitoring, through analog readings, some current and potential values; (2) utilization of microprocessor-based relays for line or bus protection to any voltage or current input failures; (3) use of associated communication systems with a protection and control module with a continuous self-test feature. LAFA also implemented weekly substation inspections. The potential BPS impact was also mitigated by LAFA’s size. In determining the appropriate penalty, SPP RE considered the fact that LAFA convenes quarterly an Internal Compliance Committee (ICC) comprised of both LAFA employees and consultants, even though LAFA did not have a formal internal compliance program (ICP) at the time of the violation. Compliance is also handled by LAFA’s Electric Reliability Department, and through annual self-assessments and mock audits.
• Total Penalty: $8,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)
• FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Lafayette Utilities System (LAFA), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2; 2.1; 2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP RE

Issue: LAFA self-reported that it violated PRC-005-1 R2 as a TO, GO and DP failed to test and conduct maintenance for its 518 current transformers (CT) and its 94 potential transformers (PT). LAFA could neither provide the dates for each CT and PT testing (R2.2) nor demonstrate that it had defined intervals for testing the CT and PTs (R2.1). LAFA also could not demonstrate that it performed monthly and annual testing for its generation station batteries as required by its Protection Systems maintenance and testing procedure. LAFA was non-compliant with these standards, to some degree, in February, March, April, June, September, October, and November 2009. There also was no evidence LAFA tested 2 of its 12 battery banks in March 2010.

Finding: SPP RE found that the violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk, because LAFA still had systems that continuously monitored values and alerted if values were outside the proper parameters. LAFA monitored, through analog readings, certain CT and PT values and utilized microprocessor-based relays to alarm it of any voltage or current input and associated communication systems that featured a protection and control module with a continuous self-test feature. LAFA also inspected substations weekly during the violation period. In determining the appropriate penalty, SPP RE considered the fact that LAFA convenes quarterly an Internal Compliance Committee (ICC) comprised of both LAFA employees and consultants, even though LAFA did not have a formal internal compliance program (ICP) at the time of the violation. Compliance is also handled by LAFA’s Electric Reliability Department, and through annual self-assessments and mock audits.

Total Penalty: $8,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Lafayette Utilities System (LAFA), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1.1; 1.2; 1.3

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP RE

Issue: LAFA self-reported it did not include four communications devices associated with its Protection System for four line segments of its transmission system in its Protection System maintenance and testing program (Program) in violation of PRC-005-1 R1. The 4 devices (1 microwave communication system, 1 wavetrap, and 2 mirrored bit communications devices) constitute 25% of LAFA’s Protection System associated communication devices and less than 1% of LAFA’s total Protection System devices.

Finding: SPP RE found that this violation posed a minimal, but not a serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability. LAFA system operators continuously monitored these four devices, which also were equipped with alarms. LAFA’s size, with only a peak load of 478 MW, also mitigated risk. In assessing the appropriate penalty, SPP RE credited LAFA’s internal compliance program (ICP) which was developed and improved with consulting input. LAFA utilizes an internal compliance committee (ICC), comprised of both employees and consultants, to update its ICP. LAFA also has a separate Electric Reliability Department dedicated to compliance and reliability matters. LAFA uses SharePoint sites to enhance document and record management and yearly self-assessments and mock audit to detect compliance issues.

Total Penalty: $34,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Lafayette Utilities System (LAFA), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2; 2.1; 2.2

Violation Risk Factor:High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SPP RE

Issue: LAFA, as a Distribution Provider, Generator Owner and Transmission Owner, self-reported that it failed to test certain instrument transformers and DC control circuitry within the intervals defined in its Protection System maintenance and testing program in violation of PRC-005-1 R2. 12.7% of LAFA’s total inventory of Protection System devices was implicated in the violation. LAFA self-reported on August 26, 2011.

Finding: SPP RE found that this violation posed a minimal, but not a serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability, because for 76 of the 102 devices at issue testing had been conducted in April 2005, at the maximum interval of seven years allowed by the NERC Protection System Maintenance A Technical Reference. 19 of the remaining 26 devices not testing in April 2005 were located in a generating facility that had not been on line since June 2009. No violations were reported during the time period of the violation. LAFA’s size, with only a peak load of 478 MW, also mitigated risk. In assessing the appropriate penalty, SPP RE credited LAFA’s internal compliance program (ICP) which was developed and improved with consulting input. LAFA utilizes an internal compliance committee, comprised of both employees and consultants, to update its ICP. LAFA also has a separate Electric Reliability Department dedicated to compliance and reliability matters. LAFA uses SharePoint sites to enhance document and record management and yearly self-assessments and mock audit to detect compliance issues.

Total Penalty: $34,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Lakeland Electric, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: It was discovered in December 2007 that Lakeland Electric did not possess adequate evidence demonstrating the basis for its testing and maintenance intervals for its station batteries in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: FRCC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Lakeland Electric was actually performing the tests on the station batteries. As Lakeland Electric was concerned that its old testing equipment was harming the batteries when testing maximum load capacity, it ordered new testing equipment and, while waiting for this new equipment to arrive, it suspended its testing and maintenance related to maximum load capacity (and thereby caused the testing to occur outside of the required intervals). The remaining components of Lakeland Electric's battery testing and maintenance program continued to be performed as required. This was Lakeland Electric's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it implemented a mitigation plan (even though the plan was finished two days late).

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Lakeland Electric, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: It was discovered in December 2007 that Lakeland Electric did not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate that, as part of its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program, its station batteries were load tested within the defined intervals.

Finding: FRCC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Lakeland Electric was still performing tests on its station batteries (even though it did not include the basis for this testing and maintenance in its documentation). This was Lakeland Electric's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it implemented a mitigation plan (even though the plan was finished two days late).

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Lane Electric Cooperative, Inc./PNGC, FERC Docket No. NP11-68-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Lane Electric Cooperative, Inc./PNGC (Lane) self-reported that it reconsidered its initial belief that it did not own or operate any protection systems subject to the Reliability Standards based on WECC clarifications of its definitions of certain facilities during workshops. Lane's failure to include certain facilities in its maintenance and testing program constituted a violation of R1, and therefore Lane could not provide documentation that these facilities were tested and maintained according to its maintenance and testing program in violation of R2.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Lane performed maintenance and testing at the relevant facilities in 2007 and 2008, even though they were not included in its program. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through November 17, 2009.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Las Vegas Cogeneration LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-09-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.2, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: WECC determined that Las Vegas Cogeneration LP (LVCG), as a Generator Owner, did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program that included a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for DC control circuitry, 86 auxiliary relays, and breaker failure relays and for verification of voltage and current sensing devices. WECC also determined that LVCG did not have proof of testing for DC control circuitry, 86 relays and breaker failure relays or of verification of voltage and current sensing devices. LVCG also did not have the date of the last test for a dual transformer overcurrent protection relay.

Finding: WECC imposed a $12,000 penalty for this and other violations. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered the following facts: the violations constituted LVCG's first violations of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; LVCG cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; LVCG 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: $12,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-93-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High, Moderate

Region: SPP

Issue: SPP found that Lea County’s Protection System maintenance and testing procedures did not include associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries, and DC control circuitry as required. While Lea County had established the maintenance and testing intervals for its relays and batteries, it failed to document the basis for such intervals. The summary of maintenance and testing procedures was provided in Relay Testing Guidelines – Field Test Procedures for Protective Relays for Lea County’s relays, but its Station Battery Monitoring & Testing Guidelines did not provide such a summary for batteries. None of the documentation required by R1.1 and R1.2 was provided for associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries, or DC control circuitry. Further, SPP found that Lea County could not provide evidence that its associated communication systems, voltage and current system devices, station batteries, and DC control circuitry were maintained and tested within the defined intervals. SPP also determined that Lea
County was missing the date each Protection System device was last tested and maintained for its associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices and its DC control circuitry.

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)

Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-07-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: FRCC

Issue: FRCC determined that Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LCEC), as a Transmission Owner, failed to include in its Protection System maintenance and testing program (1) a basis for the maintenance and testing interval of associated communication systems, DC control circuitry, voltage and current sensing devices, and station batteries; (2) an interval for station batteries and associated communication systems; or (3) a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for station batteries and associated communications systems. FRCC also determined that LCEC failed to maintain and test, within LCEC's defined interval, seven electro -mechanical relays out of fifty-nine total protective relays.

Finding: FRCC imposed a $30,000 penalty for these and other violations. FRCC determined that the violation of PRC-005-1 R1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system (BPS) because although LCEC did not have a complete PRC-005-1 program in place, each of LCEC's communication systems, DC control circuitry, voltage and current sensing devices and station batteries were inspected monthly by LCEC field crews. FRCC also determined that the violation of PRC-005-1 R2 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the BPS because although LCEC failed to maintain and test the seven relays within its defined intervals, LCEC performed maintenance and testing on the relays within the 60-month interval for unmonitored relays. In assessing the penalty, FRCC considered the following facts: the violations constituted LCEC first violations of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; LCEC cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; LCEC's compliance program; LCEC did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Lee County Resource Recovery, FERC Docket No. NP11-61 -000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: FRCC

Issue: Lee County Resource Recovery (LCRR), as a Generator Owner, could not provide documentation of a maintenance and testing program for its Protection System with intervals and their basis for the maintenance and testing of its DC control circuitry and voltage and current sensing devices; and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for the maintenance and testing of its DC control circuitry, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries and protective relays.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a $4,500 penalty for this violation. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted LCRR’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; LCRR cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; LCRR agreed to improve its compliance program; LCRR 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: $4,500

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-126-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in March 2009, RFC discovered that Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC (LGF) had not performed maintenance and testing on its voltage sensing devices within the defined intervals and could not produce the dates on which the voltage sensing devices were last maintained or tested.

Finding: The duration of the violation was determined to be from June 18, 2007 through July 23, 2009, when LGF completed testing of the subject equipment. Although LGF was not included on the NERC Compliance Registry until January 11, 2008, LGF accepted June 18, 2007 (the date the Reliability Standards became effective) as the date the violation began as part of a settlement agreement with RFC, whereby LGF neither admitted nor denied the violation but agreed to pay a penalty of $4,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the alleged violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since if a problem with the sensing devices occurred, the unit or facility would shut down (and if the problem happened during startup, the units would need maintenance before synchronizing to the grid). Furthermore, LGF is a peaking facility, with low operating hours and very low dispatch. In determining the penalty amount, RFC also considered the fact that the alleged violation was LGF’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; LGF was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; LGF had a compliance program in place; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors. A mitigation plan has been completed.

Penalty: $4,500

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, FERC Docket No. NP10-141-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: During an audit, WECC determined that LADWP’s program for compliance with the standard did not consider Protection Systems located within stations to be included in the scope of the standard, and so such systems were not included in the maintenance and testing procedures. In addition, LADWP could not provide evidence that it was maintaining and testing all of its Protection System devices as required.

Finding: Duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through December 19, 2008. The violations posed a serious risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because LADWP had not been maintaining and testing 41% of its relays and associated communication systems, including those that were providing protection to its high voltage stations.

Penalty: $225,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 8, 2010 (no further review)

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Docket No. NP-12-40 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: After reviewing LADWP’s Self-Report submitted on December 30, 2010, WECC determined LADWP violated PRC-005-1 R2, R2.1 because LADWP failed to maintain or test batteries supporting its Protection Systems according to the defined interval. WECC determined the scope of the violation was limited to LADWP’s station batteries in holding that LADWP missed its maintenance interval for 24 of its 110 station batteries, representing 22% of LADWP’s total Protection System batteries. WECC based its findings on LADWP’s inability to demonstrate that it maintained all of its batteries according to the prescribed quarterly testing interval for station batteries. The duration of the violation was from November 8, 2009 until December 30, 2010.

Finding: This violation posed only a minimal risk to BPS reliability for three reasons. First, during the violation period, LADWP conducted over 95% of its scheduled quarterly battery inspections, missing 19 out of a total of 499 inspections. Second, LADWP equipped alarms on its station batteries to alert for shortages, including the 24 at issue in this violation. Third, LADWP takes a conservative approach to its station battery use in diligently monitoring the battery usage and replacing batteries when they are run down to 60% conductivity. LADWP agreed/stipulated to WECC’s findings. In determining the proper penalty, WECC determined LADWP’s previous violation of PRC-005-1 R2 constituted only a partial aggravating factor. WECC took this position because LADWP’s previous failure to test Protection System relays and associated communication systems was different from the failure to maintain and test batteries in that separate teams from different departments were responsible for testing the relays and batteries. As a mitigating factor, WECC considered LADWP’s internal compliance program.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for five violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Louisiana Generating LLC (LaGen), Docket No. NP12-36-000 (June 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: In September and November 2011, LaGen, a GO and TO, submitted self-reports first stating that direct current (DC) functional trip checks on three devices were performed late according to the intervals set forth in LaGen’s transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program (Program). The second report stated that DC functional trip checks with the associated bushing current transformer (CT) saturation tests and station battery test also did not meet the intervals required by the Program. SERC determined that the November self-report was a supplement to the issue in the September self-report. While assessing the violation, SERC audit staff found more Protection System devices had missed the prescribed intervals in the Program. Final figures by SERC reported that La Gen had missed the testing interval for 3 of 583 protective relays (0.5%); 81 of 776 voltage and current sensing devices (10.4%); 16 of 54 station batteries (29.6%); and 89 of 660 DC control circuitry devices (13.5%). LaGen has 2,103 Protection System devices, and SERC reported that 189 or 8.99% missed the testing date.

Finding: The violation was deemed by SERC to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because the subject devices are monitored at all times by SCADA alarms and visual inspections. There were no alarms reported during the violation period. LaGen has sufficient procedures to respond to any alarms. LaGen conducted testing on all of the relevant devices and no problems were found, and in addition, no misoperations occurred during the violation period. In considering the appropriate penalty, SERC considered that the internal compliance program in use by LaGen (its parent company’s) to be a mitigating factor. LaGen neither admitted nor denied SERC’s findings.

Penalty: $3,500

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: In April 2011, Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (LG&E/KU), as a GO and TO, self-reported that it had not been testing its Protection System devices according to the defined intervals its Protection System maintenance and testing program or did not possess certain of the required maintenance and testing records. LG&E/KU belatedly added the generator auxiliary instruments to its list of devices to be tested. LG&E/KU also determined that the Protection System devices at the GO/TO interface had not been properly tested as a result of confusion over who was responsible for testing those devices. This violation affected less than 2% of the protective relays and less than 7% of the voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: SERC found that this violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The majority of LG&E/KU’s protective relays are single-phase relays that monitor one of three phases, so if one phase relay failed, the BPS equipment would still be protected by the other two phase relays. In addition, two-thirds of LG&E/KU’s protective relays provide overlapping protection for other relays and their current transformers are part of differential protection circuits that trigger alerts when there are problems with the circuits. The violation started on June 18, 2007 and will be concluded upon the completion of the mitigation plan. LG&E/KU neither admitted nor denied the violation. LG&E/KU’s internal compliance program was viewed as a neutral factor. LG&E/KU had a prior violation of PRC-005-1 R2, which was evaluated as an aggravating factor.

Total Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)

Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: TRE

Issue: LCRA, in its role as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 for failing to maintain records to validate the implementation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program for instrument transformers (CTs and PTs) at 21 of its generating units. These units were missing testing documentation on 31 of 37 batteries, 9 out of 403 relays, and 400 out of 858 instrument transformers.

Finding: TRE determined that the R2 violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS since the lack of testing evidence establishes a possibility of incorrect settings and since problems with the instrument transformers would have been quickly discovered due to their use for many purposes beyond their inputs to protective relays. TRE and Gen Tex entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Gen Tex agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. TRE considered LCRA's internal compliance program to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 14, 2011. LCRA neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $26,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Lower Valley Energy (LVE), FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: LVE, as a TO and DP, self-certified that it did not maintain all of its current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) within specified intervals. Specifically, LVE was required by its transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program to compare its current outputs to SCADA values, which LVE had not done. All other maintenance and testing had been performed as required.

Finding: The violation was found to constitute a minimal risk to BPS reliability because only one test had not been performed and all of the CTs and PTs are monitored by LVE’s SCADA system and LVE is a small, 115 kV transmission system.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

LSP-Cottage Grove, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: LSP-Cottage Grove (LSPCG) self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1, R2 upon finding, during an internal audit, that one solid-state relay had not been tested in 2007 and 2008 as required. LSPCG reported that the subject relay is not located where all the other combustion turbine relays reside and so the relay was not properly identified as part of the generator protection at the time and not tested by the third-party contractor in the specified time period.

Finding: MRO determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. MRO found LSPCG’s prior testing interval for solid-state relays was more stringent than the recommended interval in the NERC Protection System Maintenance and Testing Technical Reference Guide. Additionally, tests in September 2009 and July 2010 both showed that this protective relay was operating normally with no problems identified.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

LSP Whitewater LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: LSP Whitewater's maintenance and testing program documentation did not contain specific maintenance and testing intervals. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through January 16, 2009.

Finding: 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 the relays had been tested within the past three years and were in working order.

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

LSP-Cottage Grove, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-266-000 (August 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: LSP-Cottage Grove, LP (LSP) self-reported that its Protection System maintenance and testing program did not address maintenance and testing intervals and basis, or testing procedures for voltage and current sensing devices (VCSDs) and DC control circuitry.

Finding: MRO found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because LSP functionally tested all DC control circuitry up to the trip coil on associated circuit breakers, and VCSDs were tested during equipment commissioning and continuously monitored thereafter. No misoperations were identified during a comprehensive review of protection system components. Duration of violation was from July 11, 2007 through March 31, 2011.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2011 (no further review)

Lubbock Power and Light, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SPP

Issue: Lubbock Power and Light (Lubbock) self-reported that its transmission Protection System maintenance and testing (M&T) program did not include current and potential transformers. During a subsequent compliance audit, SPP determined that Lubbock’s Protection System M&T program did not include M&T procedures for associated communication systems, current and potential transformers, and DC control circuitry and did not include sufficient battery testing procedures in violation of R1. In addition, SPP found that Lubbock could not provide evidence of testing for its associated communication systems, instrument transformers, and DC control circuitry and could not provide evidence of adequate battery testing in violation of R2. SPP later determined that Lubbock did not own any associated communication systems and that its DC control circuitry is tested as part of its 230 kV breaker inspection procedure. Therefore, the violation of R1 and R2 was limited to Lubbock’s 48 instrument transformers and 4 230 kV station battery banks. The violation of R1 lasted from August 24, 2007 to January 18, 2011, and the violation of R2 lasted from August 24, 2007 to December 30, 2012.

Finding: SPP determined that the violations posed a minimal risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because Lubbock’s instrument transformers were initially tested when placed into service and their outputs were constantly monitored by Lubbock’s SCADA system. Lubbock was also conducting monthly inspections of its battery banks which included a visual inspection and recording of the battery voltage.

Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for 8 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Luminant Generation Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: In September 2010, Luminant, a GO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 as a result of its failure to perform maintenance and testing on 76 of 1,068 devices (7.12% of all devices) related to generator breaker failure protection as required by its Protection System Maintenance and Testing (M&T) program.

Finding: TRE found the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. The majority of the untested devices (relays and instrument transformers) are micro-processor based and they self-monitor. The subject devices were housed in a switchyard used by both the generating units and the TO until 2001, when ownership of the switchyard devices was separated. Prior to that time, the devices were tested and maintained by the TO according to NERC and industry standards (every five to 12 years). After ownership transferred, Luminant did not always include the devices in its M&T program which led to their being overlooked for testing. The duration of the violation was January 31, 2008 through November 16, 2011. Luminant is a subsidiary of Energy Futures Holding Corp. (EFH), and EFH’s compliance program was considered a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for three violations by Luminant and its two subsidiaries, Big Brown Power Company, LLC and Tradinghouse Power Company, LLC))

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Mackinaw Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-42-000 (September 25, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Mackinaw Power failed to include a description of the maintenance and testing being performed on the associated communication systems in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program documentation.

Finding: The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through May 20, 2008, the date that Mackinaw Power completed a mitigation plan. SERC did not assess a penalty for the violation. In its determination of whether a penalty should be assessed, SERC considered the following factors: 1) the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system; 2) this was Mackinaw Power's first alleged violation of this standard or any closely related standard; 3) Mackinaw Power did not intend to commit or to conceal the alleged violation; and 5) mackinaw power cooperated during the investigation process.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 23, 2009 (no further review)

Magic Valley Electric Coop, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue:: TRE determined that Magic Valley Electric Coop, Inc. (Magic Valley) did not possess adequate documentation regarding the Protection System maintenance and testing results for 4 (out of its 528) relays.

Finding: TRE found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since less than 1% of Magic Valley’s relays were missing the required testing reports. The duration of the violation was from November 14, 2007 through January 27, 2009.

Penalty: $2,000

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Manchief Power Company LLC (MCPC), Docket No. NP12-44-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: MCPC submitted a self-report detailing its non-compliance with PRC-005-1 when it discovered, in preparation for a compliance audit, that it had failed to include voltage and current sensing devices in its Generation Protection System maintenance and testing program (Program) for the audit period of June 18, 2007 to April 10, 2012. The discovery was made as a result the latest change in upstream ownership of the facility which led to a compliance review of MCPC operations. MCPC initially reported non-compliance in August 2009 when it submitted its annual self-certification statement. In late 2009, however, WECC review determined there was no violation of PRC-005-1 during the period June 18, 2007 to December 21, 2009; but in April 2011, MCPC conducted an internal review of its Program and determined WECC was incorrect in its finding based on its discovery that voltage and current sensing devices were not included in testing criteria. WECC had erroneously determined that MCPC was compliant with PRC-005-1 R1 as of December 21, 2009, but in fact MCPC was not fully compliant until April 2012.

Finding: WECC Enforcement deemed the risk to BPS reliability as minimal. Review of MCPC testing records confirmed that the voltage and current sensing devices had not been tested and maintained based on the maximum allowable testing interval (7 years) established for the type of protection system in place at MCPC's facility. The devices were tested upon plant commissioning in 2000. MCPC included the seven-year testing interval in its Program in 2011. WECC ultimately determined that MCPC had maintained and tested 100% of its protection system devices within stated intervals. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered that MCPC self-reported the violation and the fact that WECC had mistakenly found MCPC to be in compliance with the standard despite MCPC reporting otherwise. MCPC did not contest WECC's findings.

Penalty: $1,000

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

Mason County PUD No. 3, FERC Docket No. NP11-92-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: During an off-site compliance audit in March 2010, WECC found that Mason County PUD No. 3 (MCPD), as a Distribution Provider, did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program in place as required for its Protection Systems that affect bulk power system reliability. Therefore, MCPD also did not possess the required documentation showing that its Protection Systems were maintained and tested within the defined intervals as required.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability based on the nature and location of the MCPD system and the fact that MCPD was actually conforming to general industry practices for performing maintenance and testing. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through October 12, 2010. In approving the disposition, NERC found that these were MCPD's first violations of this Reliability Standard; MCPD was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors. In addition, if WECC had initially decided that MCPD had relevant Protection System devices that affect bulk power system reliability (as it first ruled that this Reliability Standard did not apply to MCPD), the violations would have been processed during the discretionary period.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Merced Irrigation District, FERC Docket No. NP11-10-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Merced self-reported that it failed to perform maintenance and testing on 17% of all required Protection System devices.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Merced is a small entity with only one interconnection and has backup protection relays in place. The duration of violation was from June 18, 2007 through April 16, 2009.

Penalty: $8,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Mesquite Power LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-35 (June 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: During a spot check in March 2008, WECC found that Mesquite Power LLC (Mesquite), as a GO, did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program that incorporated the testing procedures for DC circuitry, as required. Mesquite also did not include the bases for its maintenance and testing intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. (R1) In addition, Mesquite did not possess documentation of the test dates and results from its testing of the DC circuitry.

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violations only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability since Mesquite’s Protection System maintenance and testing program included all other components of the protection system (other than the DC circuitry). In addition, Mesquite was later able to produce documentation showing that it had actually maintained and tested its DC circuitry within the defined intervals. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through June 30, 2008. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these were Mesquite’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standard; one of the violations (VAR-002-1 R3) was self-reported; Mesquite was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Mesquite did have a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); there were two violations of the same Reliability Standard (PER-003-0 R1) that demonstrated the repeat nature of the violation (which was evaluated as an aggravating factor); the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 26 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Metropolitan Edison Company (MetEd), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2; 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: RFC found MetEd to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R2 when, while conducting a compliance audit during October 2011, it found that MetEd, a registered DP and TO, could not show that it completed maintenance and testing of its current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) and DC control circuits. MetEd stated that all maintenance and testing had been current until 2010, but it had no other records to show that after 2010 testing had been completed.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk, which was mitigated because maintenance and testing had been performed as required, but no records had been kept to show as evidence. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of MetEd’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and MetEd follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. MetEd and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Miami Dade – Resource Recovery, FERC Docket No. NP11-25-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: FRCC

Issue: During a spot check in May 2009, it was found that Miami Dade – Resource Recovery (MDC) did not have a Protection System maintenance and testing program in place that contained a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for the protective relays and station batteries.

Finding: FRCC and MDC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby MDC agreed to pay a penalty of $4,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. FRCC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since MDC was conducting the testing and maintenance on the protection system devices according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Furthermore, MDC is a small Generator Owner that accounts for less than 1% of the region's generating capacity. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through June 30, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, FRCC considered the fact this was MDC's first violation of this Reliability Standard; the violation was initially self-reported as a pre-June 18, 2007 violation (even though it became a post-June 18, 2007 violation since it was not sufficiently corrected); MDC was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; MDC expressed its commitment to improving its compliance program (even though it did not possess a fully documented compliance program when the violation occurred); and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $4,500

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Michigan Public Power Agency, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1); Severe (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC found that Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) could not provide documentation of a protection system maintenance and testing (M&T) program for a peaking station owned by a member city, the City of Holland Board of Public Works. MPPA did not believe the peaking station was a part of the BPS and, therefore, had not prepared documentation of an M&T program for that peaking station. Consequently, MPPA violated R1 because it could not produce a comprehensive document including M&T intervals and their basis and a summary of M&T procedures for protection system devices. RFC found that MPPA violated R2 because MPPA did not submit sufficient evidence that all the protection system devices were timely maintained and tested within four-year intervals. The violation of R1 lasted from June 18, 2007 to May 26, 2010. The violation of R2 lasted from June 18, 2007 to Oct. 22, 2010.

Finding: RFC determined that the violations posed a moderate risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because there were multiple protective relays and breakers configured to minimize the risk to the BPS in the event of a failure of the peaking station. Moreover, MPPA reported that no relay malfunctions had occurred since their installation. RFC considered certain aspects of MPPA’s compliance program to be a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

MidAmerican Energy Company, FERC Docket No. NP09-33-000 (July 31, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: MidAmerican Energy Company (MEC) self-reported non-compliance with PRC-005-1 R2.1 for its failure to maintain and test Protection System devices within defined intervals.

Finding: MRO assessed no penalty for this violation because: (1) it involved only eight protection relays for one 515 MW unit, representing less than .50% of MEC’s entire relay population and battery testing at two black start combustion turbines connected to the system out of the battery bank population of 213; (2) it was self-reported; (3) MEC had demonstrated increasing compliance and document management efforts and had no repetitive or negative compliance history of PRC-005-1; (4) the related equipment was tested for proper functioning within one week once the violation was discovered; (5) MEC expended significant personnel hours in order to gather, verify and upload data to a common storage site for maintaining generation and substation relay maintenance and test records; and (6) the violation did not put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2009 (no further review)

Midland Cogeneration Venture, Limited Partnership, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1); Lower (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Midland Cogeneration Venture, Limited Partnership (Midland) had a deficient protection system maintenance and testing (M&T) program in violation of R1 because it could not produce evidence of M&T intervals and their basis for any of its Protection System devices that affect reliability. Midland also failed to include a summary of M&T procedures for protection system devices from December 9, 2008 to August 30, 2010. Midland revised its M&T program effective August 30, 2010, but failed to include M&T intervals and their basis and a summary of M&T procedures for communications systems, voltage and current sensing devices, batteries, and DC control circuitry until March 30, 2011. Prior to the compliance audit, Midland self reported a violation of R2, and RFC determined that Midland failed to have complete documentation of M&T on 15.7% of its protective relays within their defined intervals and also failed to provide the date it last performed M&T on its protective relays.

Finding: RFC determined that the violations posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because Midland had back up and redundant systems in place for all protected generation equipment such as regular visual inspections and alarms. In addition, the violation of R1 only affected 5.8% of Midland’s Protection System devices, and upon discovering the violation of R2, Midland tested all of its Protection System Devices and found them all to be functional.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Midway Sunset Cogeneration Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Midway Sunset Cogeneration Company (MSCC) self-certified that it was unable to present sufficient evidence to show that it had tested voltage and current sensing devices within defined intervals.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system due to the nature and location of MSCC’s system and because MSCC’s relay protection scheme is designed will full redundancy. In deciding not to assess a penalty, WECC considered the fact that the violation was primarily a documentation issue and MSCC had no previous violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Minnesota Power (Allete, Inc.), FERC Docket No. NP11-08-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: MRO

Issue: MRO determined that Minnesota Power (Allete, Inc.) (MP), as a Transmission Owner, Distribution Provider and Generator Owner, did not ensure that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program addressed maintenance and testing of station batteries and DC control circuitry.

Finding: MRO imposed a $62,500 penalty for this and other violations. In assessing the penalty, MRO considered the following facts: the violations constituted MP's first violations of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; MP cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; MP's compliance program; MP 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: $62,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Mirant Bowline, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1, R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1/1.1, R2/2.1/2.2)

Violation Severity Level: Lower (R1/1.1), Severe (R2/2.1/2.2)

Region: NPCC

Issue: During a compliance audit in October 2009, NPCC found that Mirant Bowline, LLC, as a GO, did not have specified maintenance and testing intervals for its current transformer (CT) and potential transformer (PT) generation Protection System devices. Mirant Bowline has 408 Protection System devices, with its CTs and PTs accounting for less that 25% of those devices (R1/1.1). Mirant Bowline also did not have testing records for its CTs and PTs (R2/2.1/2.2).

Finding: NPCC found that the violations constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. The duration of the violations was from June 21, 2007 through February 25, 2010 (R1/1.1) and May 3, 2011 (R2/2.1/2.2). The relevant CTs and PTs did not experience any misoperation events or show any indication of failure during the violation periods. Once the devices were tested, they were all found to be in satisfactory condition. Mirant Bowline also has back-up relays that would provide protection if the primary systems fail. Mirant Bowline has an internal compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a neutral factor). While affiliates of Mirant Bowline have prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2.1, NPCC did not consider these prior violations as an aggravating factor for Mirant Bowline since Mirant Bowline’s conduct was not repetitive of the affiliates’ conduct and there were no broader corporate issues involved.

Penalty: $17,500 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Mirant Delta, LLC, Docket No. NP10-65-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: During an audit in April 2009, WECC discovered a potential violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005 -1 resulting from Mirant Delta, LLC's (MIDE) failure to maintain and test 20 relays in its Protection System for its Pittsburg Unit 7 generating unit. MIDE could demonstrate that it tested the relays for its Pittsburg Unit 7 generator in March 2009, but it was unable to provide dates for previous testing results.

Finding: WECC and MIDE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues arising from the violation, whereby MIDE agreed to pay a penalty of $11,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures. In determining the penalty amount, WECC considered the fact that this violation was MIDE's first violation of this Reliability Standard and MIDE was cooperative during the compliance process and did not attempt to conceal the violation. And although WECC found that the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system, it also determined that the violation did present a moderate risk the reliability of the bulk power system since MIDE's Pittsburg 7 Unit is a 682 MW generator that is connected to the transmission system at 230 kV, and if a protective device operated incorrectly, it could inadvertently trip the generator. MIDE successfully completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $11,500

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-25-000 (May 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: On August 31, 2007, Mirant self-certified a possible violation of the standard and submitted a Relay Tracking Log which summarized details of each relay maintained and tested as well as a history detailing the dates of the last three calibrations. The Relay Tracking Log indicated that for the time period from June 18, 2007 (when the standard became mandatory and enforceable) to August 31, 2007, 41 relays exceeded the four-year interval of testing by one year or less.

Finding: RFC did not assess a penalty for the violation, finding the violation was a solitary violation limited to a single unit in one of Mirant's two generating facilities and did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk, because the unit in violation would have had minimal impact on the bulk power system (147 megawatts generation), and there were no misoperations or outages during the exceeded test interval, and all relays tested successfully during the mitigation process. Also, although Mirant had not completed relay maintenance and testing on 41 of 355 total relays within the defined four-year interval, all 41 relays had been calibrated and functionally tested since 2002 and therefore exceeded the defined testing and maintenance interval by one year or less. Mirant cooperated during the violation assessment phase and corrected of the violation within four months of discovery.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued June 12, 2009 (no further review)

Mirant Potomac River, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Mirant Potomac River failed to test and perform maintenance work on 17% of its relays within the required timeframe.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through May 30, 2008. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Mirant Potomac'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 all relays functioned properly. However, Mirant Potomac incorrectly certified that it had completed its mitigation plan by the required date when it had not, resulting in an assessed penalty.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119; https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf

Mirant Potrero, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-88-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2009, Mirant Potrero, LLC (MIPO), as a Generator Owner, self-certified that it had not conducted the required maintenance on 23 out of 61 of its relays and the required testing on 48 out of 61 of its DC circuits (which involved, in total, 3 of MIPO's 4 generating units within its Protection System). MIPO also did not possess the mandated documentation showing that it performed functional testing on the protective relays of those generating units.

Finding: WECC and MIPO entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby MIPO agreed to pay a penalty of $12,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. WECC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since all of the relays had been maintained and two-thirds of the DC circuits had been tested by the time MIPO submitted the self-certification. In addition, the three generating units are peaking units (which only operate 1-2% of the time) and consist of only 60 MVA each. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through January 28, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was MIPO's first violation of this Reliability Standard; the violation was self-certified; MIPO was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $12,500

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, FERC Docket No. NP11 -65-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2)

Region: SPP

Issue: In August 2009, the Mississippi Delta Energy Agency (MDEA) self-reported that, as a Transmission Owner, it did not possess a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1). In addition, in January 2010, MDEA self-reported that it also did not possess proper maintenance and testing records for certain of its transmission Protection System devices for the maintenance and testing that was performed under MDEA’s freshly documented transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program (R2).

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 PRC-005-1 violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since MDEA’s transmission Protection System equipment was being continuously monitored and evidence showed MDEA was testing and maintaining its devices (even though it did not possess the required documentation). In addition, if there was a problem with the Protection System, an alarm would be triggered, through the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System, that goes to a 24-hour manned control center. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from August 24, 2007 through December 29, 2009 (R1) and April 30, 2010 (R2). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these violations were MDEA’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; MDEA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; 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)

Mississippi Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-33-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (PRC-005-1 R2 has a Lower VRF, but its sub-requirement PRC-005-1 R2.1 has a High VRF)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: On November 21, 2008, Mississippi Power self-reported its failure to have adequate documentation concerning the inspection and testing within the identified intervals of its batteries as part of its maintenance and testing program. During an internal review, Mississippi Power found that it did not possess sufficient documentation concerning the monthly testing of 21 out of its 22 Protection System device batteries at four of its five generating plants (as records were missing for 152 of the 374 monthly tests that were required to be conducted between June 2007 and October 2008). Mississippi Power adopted the maintenance and testing program used by all of its parent company's, Southern Company, operating companies.

Finding: SERC and Mississippi Power entered into a settlement agreement whereby Mississippi Power neither admitted nor denied the alleged violation but agreed to a penalty of $7,500, as well as other mitigation measures. Pursuant to an investigation, SERC determined that the alleged violation was caused by the failure of technical services supervisors to clearly communicate to the relevant plant personnel that the station batteries were required to be inspected and tested monthly and that these inspections and testing had to be properly documented. SERC determined that the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since testing and maintenance was still being performed (even though not as frequently as required), one battery had all of the proper documentation for the monthly intervals, and the other batteries only had random gaps in their documentation. In determining the penalty, SERC considered the fact that Mississippi Power had no prior violations of this Reliability Standard, the alleged violation was self-reported, Mississippi Power actively cooperated with SERC, Mississippi Power did not attempt to conceal the problem, Mississippi Power adopted a maintenance and testing program that has previously been reviewed by SERC, the issue was promptly resolved, and Mississippi Power has already instituted formal compliance goals for all of its plants as well as various other mitigation measures designed to prevent future recurrences of the problems. In addition to the measures detailed in its mitigation plan, Mississippi Power also agreed to other actions, such as the hiring of a full-time Compliance Coordinator and the development of an interactive ERO Compliance website, which are designed to improve its compliance. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that the alleged violation was self-reported as a result of review initiated by Mississippi Power, it was Mississippi Power's first violation of the Reliability Standards, Mississippi Power did have a maintenance and testing program in place (even though it was not being run as frequently as required), the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability, Mississippi Power was cooperative, and Mississippi Power has enacted a wide variety of measures to address the issue.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued March 15, 2010 (no further review)

Modesto Irrigation District, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: During an on-site audit WECC found that MID, as a GO and TO, could not provide evidence that Protection System devices were maintained and tested according to established intervals. Three protective relays at two substations had not been maintained or tested as required. MID did not believe its internal 115 kV system was part of the bulk electric system (the 115 kV lines are radial and loop into a common bus) and so the relevant relays were not included in the BES database. WECC’s final assessment indicated that 3 of 503 of the relays on MID’s system had not been tested as set forth in its Program, accounting for approximately 0.6% of its relay devices.

Finding: WECC found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because of the small number of devices at issue. Two of the three relays had been tested in 2006, the third in 2004. The risk was also reduced because of the configuration of the 115 kV lines. And, no misoperations occurred on these relays during the relevant time period.

Penalty: $3,600

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Monongahela Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-177-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Monongahela did not maintain and test about 10 percent of its batteries within the required intervals dictated by its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: It was determined by ReliabilityFirst that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because both stations affected involved had only missed testing deadlines in the second quarter of 2009 (they had been appropriately tested in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2009). The duration of the violation was from April 1, 2009, the beginning of the quarter in which testing was missed, through June 20, 2009. An additional factor for the penalty determination included that the violation was the first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $13,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Monongahela Power Company, Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company, d/b/a Allegheny Power, FERC Docket No. NP11-110-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: HighViolation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: In June 2009, Monongahela Power Company, Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company, d/b/a Allegheny Power (Allegheny Power) self-reported to RFC noncompliance with PRC-005-1 R2.1 because, as a Transmission Owner and a Distribution Provider owning a transmission Protection System, it failed to maintain and test Protection System devices with established intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. In January 2010, Allegheny Power discovered and self-reported additional Protection System devices that also had not been tested within the defined intervals.

Finding: RFC and Allegheny Power entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby Allegheny Power neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to the assessed penalty. RFC determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system. The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee considered the following in determining the penalty: the original violation was the first of the subject Reliability Standard for Allegheny Power, but the January 2010 violation was the second of the same Standard, which RFC considered an aggravating factor; Monongahela Power Company had a prior violation of the same Reliability Standard, which was also considered an aggravating factor; Allegheny Power self-reported the violations; Allegheny Power was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process; Allegheny Power's compliance program at the time of the violation was considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors that would affect the penalty amount.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Monongahela Power Company (Monongahela), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: Monongahela, a GO, reported to RFC through self-certification that it did not include current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk. RFC found that the violation posed a moderate risk because Monongahela should have updated its Protection System maintenance and testing program to include CTs and PTs, but the risk was mitigated because at the time of installation, Monongahela verified the output and accuracy of its CTs and PTs. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of Monongahela’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and Monongahela follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. Monongahela and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-45-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: Montana-Dakota Utilities Company (MDU) self-reported that it had not complied with the requirement to perform hydrometer readings on substation storage batteries every three months.

Finding: MRO determined a $4,000 penalty was appropriate where MDU self reported the alleged violation; there was no evidence that MDU made any attempt to conceal the alleged violation; MDU demonstrated its commitment to reliability through internal compliance programs and taking corrective actions in a timely fashion; MDU fully cooperated with the MRO and provided requested additional information in a timely manner; the violation did not pose a serious or significant risk to the bulk power system because MDU performed the hydrometer readings every six months for 36 of its 46 substations; and it was the first violation of the standard by MDU. Additionally, MDU performed monthly voltage readings on each of the batteries at all 46 of its substations, therefore, through the monthly voltage readings, MDU staff would have been alerted to any sign of battery cell weakness or failure.

Penalty: $4,000

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-109-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a (MDUM) did not perform specific gravity tests on all of its batteries within defined intervals as required by its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, the date the Standard became enforceable, until September 14, 2009, when MDUM finished its Mitigation Plan. NPCC imposed a $5,000 penalty for the alleged violations. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered these factors: this was MDUM’s first alleged violations of NERC Reliability Standards in the WECC region; MDUM cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; MDUM did not attempt to conceal the violations or intend to do so; and WECC found that the alleged violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., FERC Docket No. NP11-73 -000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: MRO

Issue: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) self-reported that it had not identified the basis for the maintenance and testing intervals in its transmission protection systems maintenance plan in effect since June 18, 2007. It also self-reported that it failed to include all required elements in its transmission and generation protection systems maintenance plans.

Finding: It was determined by MRO that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because MDU was following manufacturer recommended maintenance and testing procedures, and it provided documentation showing that the elements not contained in its transmission and generation protection systems maintenance plans were nonetheless being maintained. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through March 3, 2010.

Penalty: $2,500

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Montville Power LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NPCC

Issue:: Montville Power did not perform quarterly checks of the batteries as described in the relay maintenance program and set forth in the battery maintenance plan procedure. A full annual battery inspection was performed in December, 2009 and it was assumed that satisfied the first quarterly requirements for 2010.

Finding: NPCC assessed no penalty for the violation and determined that it posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability because weekly testing was ongoing during the period and the quarterly testing was performed three weeks after the end of the first quarter of 2010. That testing showed no abnormalities. Further, battery voltage is monitored continuously with alarms for abnormal conditions.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Morgantown Energy Associates, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Low

Region: RFC

Issue: Morgantown Energy Associates (MEA) self-reported non-compliance with PRC-005-1 R1 and R2. RFC found MEA violated R1 because its documented M&T program was deficient as it failed to define an M&T program for its batteries, which constituted less than 1% of MEA’s total Protection System devices. RFC ultimately determined, however, that MEA did not violate R2 because it had documented implementation of its maintenance and testing program. The violations lasted from June 25, 2007 to November 14, 2008.

Finding: RFC determined that the violations posed minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because MEA was operating the generator in the automatic power factor control mode. Moreover, MEA monitored its voltage and facility limits at all times and only has a single 138 kV connection to the BPS. In addition, MEA is a minimal power production entity of only 50 MW.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Mt. Tom Generating Co. LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-266-000 (August 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1, R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Mt. Tom Generating Co. LLC (Mt. Tom) self-reported that during an internal audit it found that its station protection system relays were not maintained and tested within the intervals defined by its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: NPCC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because all relay systems were within their correct specifications and operated correctly with the exception of one generator negative phase sequence relay that was later replaced and satisfactorily tested. In addition, Mt. Tom's relay maintenance and testing program specified testing every 2 years, which is more frequent than industry standard. Duration of violation was January 4, 2008 through May 6, 2011.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2011 (no further review)

Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc. (MTWP), Docket No. NP12-26-000 (April 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: While performing an off-site audit of MTWP in July 2011, WECC Audit Team discovered that MTWP did not implement or provide documentation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program in accordance with the Reliability Standards. In particular, MTWP could not provide a complete list of maintenance and testing dates for 100% of 12 devices associated with transmission line protection. MTWP could not show the date of the last testing and maintenance for relays and voltage and current sensing devices. WECC Enforcement found that MTWP was in violation of the relevant Standard based on its failure to maintain and test the devices according to established intervals (R2.1) and maintain documentation providing the date each Protection system device was last tested and maintained (R2.2).

Finding: The violation was determined to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability. Had the relevant devices failed, other breakers are set to operate to maintain system integrity and to isolate MTWP’s fault conditions. Also, one of the relevant transmission lines serves as an industrial end user only and the other is part of a larger transmission system within its own primary Protection System. WECC determined that due to the size of MTWP and the fact that the ownership responsibility of the transmission lines lies with NV Energy, any event would have minimal impact to the overall BPS reliability. No Internal Compliance Program was reviewed for MTWP and so no mitigating credit was given when determining the appropriate penalty.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Order issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, FERC Docket No. NP10-49-000 (February 12, 2010)

• Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1
• Requirement: R1, R2
• Violation Risk Factor: High
• Violation Severity Level: Not provided
• Region: SERC
• Issue: Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG) did not conduct daily, monthly and annual tests of its batteries within the time period as required by R2.1. MEAG also did not have a documented generation Protection System maintenance and testing program that contained all of the required elements as required by R1.
• Finding: Duration of R1 violation from June 18, 2007 when the standards became effective through December 7, 2009. Duration of R2.1 violation was from June 26, 2007, the date the first daily test was missed, through December 7, 2009. The violation of R1 was deemed to be a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability, as MEAG had performed maintenance and testing on its systems in the past. The violation of R2.1 was deemed not to pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because MEAG's batteries had alarms to inform operators of abnormal operations, most of the missed tests occurred when the generating facility was not operational, and tests occurred before and after the missed tests that indicated the batteries were operational. MEAG was given credit for the self-report and for no prior history of violations.
• Penalty: $3,000
• FERC Order: Issued March 12, 2010 (no further review)

Murray City Corporation (MUPD), Docket No. NP12-44-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit in February 2012, WECC found that MUPD, as a DP with a transmission Protection System, had not maintained and tested 3 of 25 relays within established intervals. The last time the relays had been tested was 2006, and testing was due in 2011.

Finding: The violation was deemed by WECC to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability. Even though the three relays were not tested in a timely manner, MUPD had conducted over 95% of total maintenance and testing activities on its 80 Protection System devices. In addition, MUPD is a small system consisting of a single 138 kV transmission line, connected to a power line through one substation and four distribution substations having a total summer peak demand of 106 MW. The relays in question are also isolated to one substation only so any failure or misoperation would cause the breakers to trip leaving the MUPD system protected. MUPD agreed/stipulated to WECC's findings.

Penalty: $8,400

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

Muscatine Power and Water, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue:: Muscatine Power and Water (MPW) self-reported non-compliance with PRC-005-1 R2 as it did not performed protection system maintenance and testing intervals for a substation’s batteries, as set forth in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: MRO assessed no penalty for the violation and determined that it posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability because the violation related to batteries at only one substation and the testing interval was missed by only approximately 5 weeks. Also, the MPW system load is only 146 MW and 33 miles of 161 kV transmission lines with a small number of generating facilities.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Naniwa Energy LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-57-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: Naniwa self-certified that it failed to identify the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals for its protective elements listed in its maintenance and testing program. Separately, Naniwa also self-reported that its Protection System maintenance and testing program did not include maintenance and testing intervals or a summary of maintenance procedures for current and voltage sensing devices. In addition, Naniwa self-reported that its maintenance and testing program did not include a sufficient basis for maintenance and testing intervals for relays, batteries, DC circuitry, voltage or current sensing devices. Moreover, its documentation of the maintenance and testing program did not provide evidence that devices were maintained and tested within the defined intervals required by the program.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Naniwa had a documented testing and maintenance program in place, and because Naniwa's facility is relatively small, ran for only 17.8 hours during 2008 and did not run at all in 2009. The duration of the self-certified violation was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became mandatory through August 8, 2008, when Naniwa's mitigation plan was completed. The duration of the self-reported violations was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became mandatory, through July 21, 2009, when Naniwa's mitigation plan was completed. In determining the penalty, consideration was given to the fact that Naniwa self-reported certain violations, and these were Naniwa's first occurrence of violations of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $27,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

National Grid Generation LLC (NGG), FERC Docket No. NP10-128-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1, R1.2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1.1, R1.2 and R2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Lower (for R1.1, R1.2); Moderate (for R2.1)

Region: NPCC

Issue: In June 2009, National Grid Generation LLC (NGG) self-reported that its relay testing and calibration program for its Northport Power Station did not include verification of the integrity of potential transformers and current transformers. In addition, 29 of the relays (out of 95) in the Northport Generator Protection System had not been calibrated within the two-year period, as required by NGG’s Protective Relay Testing and Maintenance Program, and the battery maintenance and testing at the Northport Power Station was not performed, according to NGG’s procedures, during the second half of 2008.

Finding: The duration of the violations was from June 21, 2007 (when NGG was included on the NERC Compliance Registry) until October 6, 2009 (when NGG completed a mitigation plan). NPCC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since NGG was still conducting trip testing on a two-year interval, as required by its procedures for generating facility (even though 29 relays were not calibrated). After an interval review, NGG determined that a four-year interval for testing was more appropriate than a two-year interval (as two years was found to be too restrictive). All of the generating relays had actually been tested within the four-year interval and NGG has since adopted a new relay maintenance program. Furthermore, NGG was still verifying, on a routine basis, the integrity of its potential transformers and current transformers -through secondary readings on potential transformer fuses done as part of the local start-up procedure for generating facilities.

Penalty: $40,000

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

National Grid USA (NG), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NPCC

Issue: NPCC found that NG, after a self-report, violated PRC-005-1 R2.1, in its capacity as a TO. NG failed to perform monthly testing of the directional comparison blocking carrier systems in the interval as defined in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. NG, after undertaking a Mitigation Plan, found a monthly test was not conducted on another 345 kV transmission line. These three communication systems accounted for 2.59% of NG’s communication systems. NG could not provide documentation that monthly testing had occurred on these lines from March 2009 until March 2012.

Finding: NPCC found that this violation posed a moderate risk, but not a serious or substantial risk, to BPS reliability. Without performing the monthly testing, it could not be determined if the carrier system would function normally or was at risk for misoperations. However, NT did conduct tests on these lines, though not monthly. Also, no problems were found during annual testing of the directional comparison blocking carrier systems. No misoperations were record during the period of violation. In determining an appropriate penalty, NPCC took note of NG’s internal compliance program. Moreover, because the prior violation did not involve same or similar conduct as the instant case and was filed as an FFT with minimal risk, NPCC found that it would not aggravate the penalty. Finally, NPCC assessed a $0 penalty after NG agreed to the violation and the annual testing was performed on the directional comparison blocking carrier system.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

National Nuclear Security Administration – Los Alamos National Laboratory, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In April 2008, the National Nuclear Security Administration – Los Alamos National Laboratory (NNSAL) self-reported that it had not been properly testing or maintaining all of its Protection System devices, including performing testing or maintenance within the defined intervals. NNSAL also did not have the required documentation for its Protection System maintenance and testing.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since NNSAL's non-compliance only involved the Protection System devices on its 115 kV system (and any failure on the 115 kV system would be prevented from impacting the bulk power system by the Protection System devices on NNSAL's 230 kV system). The violation was self-reported, and this was NNSAL's first violation of this Reliability Standard. Even though NNSAL completed its mitigation plan late, WECC decided not to impose a penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Lower/High (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In March 2008, Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NPEC) self-reported that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not contain maintenance and testing intervals (or their basis) or the maintenance and testing procedures. As a result, NPEC did not maintain and test its Protection System devices at the Navopache Coronado Substation delivery point in St. Johns, Arizona within the defined intervals as required.

Finding: WECC found that these violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since NPEC was limited to one facility that is only connected to the bulk power system at one radial connection. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 to October 22, 2009. Furthermore, the violations were self-reported, and they were NPEC’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standard. Even though NPEC completed its mitigation plan late, WECC decided not to impose a penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NPEC), FERC Docket No. NP12-5 (November 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: While performing an off-site Compliance Audit in June 2010, WECC found that NPEC, as a DP, was in violation of PRC-005-1 R1 as it did not have maintenance and testing intervals established for its voltage and current sending devices nor did its maintenance and testing program discuss DC circuitry. In addition, NPEC was unable to provide proof that it had tested its DC circuitry and voltage/current sensing devices nor did it have proof showing the dates on which the equipment had been tested and maintained in violation of PRC-005-1 R2.

Finding: The violations were found to pose a minimal risk to BPS reliability because NPEC has the same protective systems as Salt River Project (SRP) and the SRP system is protected against an outage beyond the 500 kV line, which reduces the risk to the BPS should any NPEC transmission protection devices fail. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC noted that the violation of R1 was NPEC’s second, however, no aggravating factor consideration was applied because in accepting the Mitigation Plan for the previous violation, WECC failed to ensure NPEC’s maintenance and testing program contained all required elements. WECC found NPEC’s second violation of PRC-005-1 R2 as an aggravating factor. NPEC’s Internal Compliance Program was not reviewed by WECC and so no mitigating credit was applied.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2011 (no further review)

Nebraska Public Power District, FERC Docket No. NP10-39-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) self-certified non-compliance with the standard because 13 protection system relays had not been tested within the required testing interval at the time of self-certification.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from April 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. Penalty was appropriate because it was NPPD's first violation, and the violation of PRC-005-1 did not pose a serious risk to bulk power system reliability due to the small percentage of NPPD's relays affected by the violation.

Penalty: $70,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)

NERC Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP10-137-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not discussed

Region: WECC

Issue: The NERC Registered Entity’s maintenance and testing procedures created in its September 2008 documentation failed to specifically address voltage devices, current sensing devices, and DC circuitry. WECC did confirm that these devices were tested and maintained. Further, the NERC Registered Entity failed to implement maintenance and testing program for 246 devices, representing approximately 13.5% of the sub-transmission Protection System devices.

Finding: WECC required the NERC Registered Entity to amend its Generation and Transmission Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program to include voltage devices, current sensing devices, and DC circuitry basis. The NERC Registered Entity was also required to test and maintain the subject devices on its 138 kV system with specified milestones and completion dates. No further publicly available information was provided.

Penalty: $39,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

NERC Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP10-159-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High for R1, Lower for R2

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: The Registered Entity was not able to demonstrate that its maintenance and testing program included the appropriate intervals and basis for testing of relevant associated communication systems. It also could not document that maintenance and testing had been done on bus protection, bank protection and breaker failure devices within defined intervals.

Finding: Duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through August 20, 2009. The violations posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because failure of the protection systems due to communication problems could result in reliability problems spreading to neighboring entities. These were the Registered Entity’s first violations 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Nevada Power had not performed maintenance and testing on certain protection system equipment within the required intervals. Finding: Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through August 25, 2008. The violation was deemed not to pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability because the protection system elements that Nevada Power had not maintained and tested as required were mainly those with a lower impact on reliability.

Penalty: $52,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 12, 2010 (no further review)

Nevada Sun-Peak, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-117-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2009, Nevada Sun-Peak, LP (NVSP), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess a Generation Maintenance and Inspection Plan (GMIP) that incorporated all of the components of NVSP's generation Protection System (R1). In addition, NVSP self-reported that it did not have documentation showing that it had conducted maintenance and testing on its Protection System devices within the defined intervals or records of the dates when it had last tested its Protection System devices (R2).

Finding: WECC and NVSP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations whereby NVSP agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as NVSP did actually have a routine maintenance and testing program in place for the breaker that maintains the interconnection point, and NVSP had not experienced a failures at this breaker in 20 years of operation. Furthermore, NVSP only owns three generating units, with only a single point of interconnection to the bulk power system. The duration of the R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through April 23, 2010. The violation of R2 started on June 18, 2007 and is continuing (as the mitigation plan is not yet complete). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were NVSP's first violations of the Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; NVSP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). In addition, WECC had previously determined that Terra Gen Power, LLC's transmission and generation entities (including those of its affiliates such as NVSP) were not subject to PRC-005. Therefore, when calculating the penalty amount, WECC considered this as a mitigating factor since NVSP was only notified that it was subject to PRC-005 on December 28, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

New Covert Generating Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-235-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a Compliance Audit, RFC determined New Covert Generating Company, LLC (New Covert) did not include maintenance and testing intervals and their basis for all of its voltage and current sensing devices in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. The Voltage and Current sensing devices constituted 78% of all of New Covert’s Protection System devices.

Finding: RFC assessed a $12,500 penalty for this violation. RFC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS) because New Covert had other protection systems in place, including redundant and backup protection, alarms to alert the control room of any issues, continuous monitoring, and relay metering indicators. In addition, New Covert did not experience any misoperations during the relevant time period. In approving the settlement between New Covert and RFC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: the violation did not constitute a repeat violation, but RFC considered a prior violation of an affiliate to be an aggregating factor; New Covert was cooperative; New Covert had a shared compliance program in place with another entity at the time of the violation, which RFC considered some aspects to be a mitigating factor, but the program did not relate to compliance with PRC-005; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; RFC determined the violation posed a moderate risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $12,500

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

New Hope Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-60-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Level 3

Region: FRCC

Issue: New Hope Power Company (NHPC), as a Generator Owner, did not have a maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that included maintenance and testing intervals and their basis and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for protective relays, station batteries, DC control circuitry, associated communication systems, and voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a penalty in the amount of $7,500 for this violation. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted NHPC’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; NHPC self-reported the violation; NHPC cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; NHPC 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: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

New York State Electric & Gas, FERC Docket No. NP11-199-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NPCC

Issue: During an audit, NPCC determined that New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) did not possess documentation that demonstrated that the station batteries at its Liberty Division Coopers Corner facility were tested before November 2009.

Finding: NPCC and NYSEG entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby NYSEG agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. NPCC found that the PRC-005-1 violation only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since the relevant batteries are monitored by a NYSEG Energy Control Center that is staffed 24/7 and responds to individual alarms. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from June 21, 2007 through November 20, 2009.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

NextEra Companies, FERC Docket No. NP11-18-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: NPCC

Issue: After being notified of a pending Spot-Check, a member of the NextEra companies self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2.1 and submitted associated evidence to NPCC. During the review of the evidence, NPCC determined that eight of the NextEra companies were in violation of both PRC-005 -1 R1 and R2.1 because they did not have a satisfactory protective system maintenance and testing program. NPCC determined the documented program was only a draft, and it was deficient because it only addressed relay settings and did not address the other protection system devices. Moreover, NPCC found that the entities could not provide evidence that certain protection system devices had been consistently tested pursuant to the intervals set out in the draft protection system maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation of R1 extended from June 21, 2007, the date the NextEra companies were included on NERC’s Compliance Registry, through November 11, 2008, the date the NextEra companies’ documented Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing program was revised and executed. The violation of R2 extended until August 6, 2009, the date the companies completed their Mitigation Plan. NPCC found the violations created a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system both because of the breath of entities affected by the lack of a corporate policy for the maintenance and testing of protection system devices and because the entities did not have any measures in place to mitigate the potential failure of Protection System Devices.

Penalty: $450,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-104-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra) self-reported violations of PRC-005-1 with respect to four facilities, and later certified that mitigation plans regarding the violations had been completed. On August 22, 2008, in the midst of an SPP spot check verifying completion of the mitigation plans, NextEra self-reported that Protection System maintenance and testing had not been completed within the three-year interval required by its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program at three of its facilities. At two facilities that shared common facilities, maintenance on ten Protection System relays had not been timely completed; at a third facility, fourteen such relays had not been timely maintained.

Finding: Duration of alleged violation at the two facilities sharing common facilities was from June 18, 2007 when the standards became enforceable until October 24, 2008. Duration of alleged violation at the third facility was from February 16, 2008 until October 24, 2008. SPP determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system, and NextEra had established and dedicated resources to an enterprise-wide compliance program, but that the violations were a continuation of violations NextEra had certified were previously cured, and while NextEra self-reported the violations the self-report had been prompted by an SPP spot check.

Penalty: $137,500

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-16-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: TRE

Issue: NextEra self-reported non-compliance for failing to test line relays within the intervals required by its Thermal/Hydro Relay Maintenance and Testing Program. During a subsequent Compliance Audit, TRE discovered an additional violation of PRC-005-1 R2 because NextEra did not perform maintenance and testing for 12 protection system relays at its wind farms pursuant to the intervals required by its wind farm maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the primary line relays that were not maintained and tested were backed up by redundant microprocessor relays, all the relays were closely monitored by relay personnel, and even though the relays were not calibrated per NextEra’s maintenance and testing program, they were calibrated within the general guidelines issued by NERC.

Penalty: $150,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-159-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: WECC

Issue: NextEra Energy Resources, LLC ("NextEra") submitted a self-report that led to WECC’s determination that NextEra did not perform maintenance and testing on 29.7% of Protection System devices per NextEra’s maintenance and testing program.

Finding: WECC determined the violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the Bulk Power System because it could not verify maintenance and testing on a substantial portion of its Protection System devices, some of which were substantial points of interconnection at or above 230 kV. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk because NextEra had trained operators in its control center and continuously monitored relay operations. In addition, the loss of a single generation site would only drop the aggregate amount of wind generation between 90 MW and 300 MW, which would not have a substantial affect on the BPS. The NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: this was NextEra’s first violation; NextEra self-reported the violation and was cooperative; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal the violations; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-244-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1, R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R2.1, R1.1)

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (R2.1), Lower (R1.1)

Region: RFC

Issue: In September 2010, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra) self-reported, as a Generator Owner, that it had not performed the maintenance and testing of the relays and battery banks at its Sayreville and Marcus Hook generation facilities according to the defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing plan (R2.1). In addition, during a compliance audit in 2010, RFC found that NextEra failed to incorporate appropriate maintenance and testing intervals and their bases for its voltage and current sensing devices in its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1.1).

Finding: RFC and NextEra entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby NextEra agreed to pay a penalty of $60,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Protection System maintenance and testing program (including the provisions on testing intervals) that NextEra had in place was more stringent than the typical industry standard. In addition, there were both primary and secondary relay protection schemes in place (including redundant current transformers), and an alarm to the control room would be triggered if a potential transformer malfunctioned. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through March 5, 2009 (R2.1) and March 31, 2011 (R1.1). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was NextEra’s first violation of PRC-001-1 R3.1 (even though it had previous violations of PRC-005-1 R1.1 and R2.1); one of the violations was self-reported; NextEra was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; NextEra had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Docket No. NP14-13-000 (December 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: MRO

Issue: This violation involves a facility owned by NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, the FPL-DA Duane Arnold Energy Center, a NERC-registered GO. FPL-DA, a 750 MVA nuclear generating facility connected to the BPS by two 345 kV transmission lines, self-reported that it had not maintained or tested all Protection System devices within prescribed intervals. During an internal review of Protection System maintenance records, FPL-DA found that six out of 438 relay devices, 112 out of 618 voltage and current sensing devices and all nine of its DC control circuits had not received maintenance and testing as required. Also, FPL-DA found that 12 current transformers (CTs) had failed and required replacement. In total, FPL-DA had not maintained or tested approximately 12% of its total devices.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a serious or substantial risk to BPS operations. The failure of a CT could potentially cause a relay to misoperate based on inaccurate input. Events such as that open the possibility of a nuclear facility coming offline and possibly removing nearby facilities from service as well. Testing had not been performed on 12% of FPL-DA’s Protection System devices or any of its DC control circuits. In determining the appropriate penalty, MRO considered that the violation was FPL-DA’s first of this Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; FPL-DA cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; there was no evidence or attempt to conceal a violation; and no other mitigating or aggravating factors were apparent to affect the penalty amount. FPL-DA’s compliance program was considered a neutral factor.

Total Penalty: $45,000

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2014 (no further review)

Noble Altona Windpark, LLC (Altona), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Altona, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that have an impact on Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the BES, Altona maintained a spreadsheet with relay and battery testing intervals based on the American National Standards Institute/InterNational Electrical Testing Association standards and NPCC Directory D-3. 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 or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Altona registered as a GO, and ended when Altona documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Altona does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Altona Windpark, LLC (Altona), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Altona, as a GO, violated R2 by failing to provide evidence of monthly inspections and annual battery testing as required by its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Altona was able to provide evidence of battery testing in 2008 when the facility was commissioned. Furthermore, the particular batteries employed by the company are described as maintenance-free type units by the manufacturer. In addition, 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 R2. 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 or 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 R2 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Bliss, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that have an impact on Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the BES, Bliss maintained a spreadsheet with relay and battery testing intervals based on the American National Standards Institute/ InterNational Electrical Testing Association standards and NPCC Directory D-3. 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 documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program. 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Chateaugay, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that have an impact on Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the BES, Chateaugay maintained a spreadsheet with relay and battery testing intervals based on the American National Standards Institute/InterNational Electrical Testing Association standards and NPCC Directory D-3. 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 documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Chateaugay does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC (Chateaugay), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Chateaugay, as a GO, violated R2 by failing to provide evidence of monthly inspections and annual battery testing which are by its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Chateaugay was able to provide evidence of battery testing in 2010 when the facility was commissioned. In addition, 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 R2. 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 R2 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Clinton, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that have an impact on Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the BES, Clinton maintained a spreadsheet with relay and battery testing intervals based on the American National Standards Institute/InterNational Electrical Testing Association standards and NPCC Directory D-3. 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 documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Clinton 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Clinton, as a GO, violated R2 by failing to provide evidence of monthly inspections and annual battery testing which are by its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Clinton was able to provide evidence of battery testing in 2008 when the facility was commissioned. Furthermore, the particular batteries employed by the company are described as maintenance-free type units by the manufacturer. In addition, 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 R2. 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 R2 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Ellenburg, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that have an impact on Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the BES, Ellenburg maintained a spreadsheet with relay and battery testing intervals based on the American National Standards Institute/InterNational Electrical Testing Association standards and NPCC Directory D-3. 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 documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Ellenburg 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Ellenburg, as a GO, violated R2 by failing to provide evidence of complete battery testing.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Ellenburg was able to provide evidence of battery testing in 2010 when the facility was commissioned. In addition, 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 R2. 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 R2 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Wethersfield, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that have an impact on Bulk Electric System (BES) reliability.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the BES, Wethersfield maintained a spreadsheet with relay and battery testing intervals based on the American National Standards Institute/InterNational Electrical Testing Association standards and NPCC Directory D-3. 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 documented its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Wethersfield 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Wethersfield, as a GO, violated R2 by failing to provide evidence of complete DC circuit testing, which is required by its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Wethersfield was able to provide evidence of testing for major components of the tripping circuit, and Wethersfield conducted testing on the entire relay systems in 2008 when the facility was commissioned. In addition, 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 R2. 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 R2 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

North Carolina Power Holdings, Inc. – Elizabethtown Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-28-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Elizabethtown Power could not produce evidence of its protection system maintenance plan and schedule for the relays and batteries, therefore it was determined that Elizabethtown Power did not have such a plan or schedule.

Finding: 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 Power did not have such a plan or schedule.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

North Carolina Power Holdings, Inc. – Lumberton Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-31-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Since Lumberton Power could not produce evidence of a maintenance plan and testing program schedule for its Protection System, SERC determined that Lumberton Power did not have such a plan or schedule.

Finding: SERC declined to assess a penalty 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 Power 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 California Power Agency, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: In August 2011, Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), as a GO, self-reported that it did not have sufficient documentation showing that all of its Protection System devices were tested and maintained according to the specified intervals and the dates that each protection system device was last tested or maintained. NCPA did not perform the required maintenance and testing on 10 out of its 203 relays, 9 out of its 30 DC circuitry, 14 out of its 134 station batteries and 2 out of its 428 voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: WECC found that the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the violation was considered primarily documentation related and since NCPA only has a small amount of generating capacity (with each unit between 25 MW to 125 MW) and there was a relatively low percentage of missing records. Of those missing records, the majority related to the commissioning of the facilities when the devices were being tested according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through January 13, 2012.

Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Docket No. NP14-11 (Dec. 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: RFC

Issue: While conducting a Compliance Audit, RFC found NIPSCO to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R1 as its Protection System maintenance and testing (M&T) program did not set forth an M&T interval, the basis for such interval, or a summary of M&T procedures for current transformers (CTs) or potential transformers (PTs). The violation time period was determined to be June 18, 2007 through April 13, 2012, the date NIPSCO corrected its M&T program to include such information.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a minimal risk to reliable BPS operations, but not a serious or substantial risk. The CTs and PTs had been tested upon installation. RFC found the generators were protected by redundant PTs monitored by voltage balance protection that would alert system operators to any discrepancies. 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)

Northern Lights/PNGC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Northern Lights/PNGC (NL/PNGC) self-reported that it had not documented its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since NL/PNGC was actually performing the maintenance and testing. The violations were self-reported and they were NL/PNGC’s first violations of this Reliability Standard. Although the violations were self-reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, NL/PNGC did not timely complete a mitigation plan, which turned the violations into post-June 18, 2007 violations, however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Northern States Power (Xcel Energy) (NSP), FERC Docket No. NP13-44 (July 31, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: While MRO was conducting a pre-audit documentation review, NSP reported that it could not show that all Protection System components had been tested in a timely manner. The violation time period was determined to be November 1, 2008 through April 30, 2012, when NSP completed all maintenance and testing.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose a moderate, but not serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability. The violation continued for two years at NSP’s nuclear generating plants which have a generation capability of approximately 1700 MW. Risk was mitigated because NSP has primary and back up Protection Systems to safeguard its generators. Also, once testing was finished, no issues were present. NSP neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to a settlement with the MRO. In determining the appropriate penalty, NSP’s compliance history was considered an aggravating factor. NSP cooperated during the enforcement procedure, and there was no evidence that NSP tried to conceal the violations nor was there evidence the violations were intentional. MRO also considered NSP’s internal compliance program.

Total Penalty: $250,000 (aggregate for four violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2013 (no further review)

Northern Wasco County People’s Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In April 2008, Northern Wasco County People’s Utility District (Northern Wasco PUD), a small entity, self-certified that while it did own and operate Transmission Protection Systems, it did not have a documented maintenance and testing program in place.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Northern Wasco PUC’s Protection Systems were actually being maintained and tested (even though the program was not sufficiently documented). In addition, if there was a Protection System failure, Northern Wasco PUD’s customers would be looped and fed by another transmission line. This was Northern Wasco PUD’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. Even though a mitigation plan was completed three months late, WECC decided not to impose a penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

NorthWestern Corporation (NWC), FERC Docket No. NP13-42 (July 31, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: NWC reported through self-reports that it had not conducted maintenance and testing on (1) 12 relays; (2) batteries at 21 substations; (3) a microprocessor; and (4) 4 communication devices within the required timeframe as set forth in its maintenance and testing program. Subsequently, WECC conducted a compliance audit and found an additional 241 devices had no testing records. NWC and WECC disputed the number of devices included in this violation and ultimately determined that NWC failed to perform M&T on 260 devices. The violation occurred from June 18, 2007 to date.

Finding: WECC found the violation posed moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS. NWC had conducted monthly and quarterly checks at the substations, despite missing the seven- and four-year intervals. NWC was able to show that those checks were sufficient in insuring no power failures occurred at the substations. Also, the substations are alarmed to signal the occurrence of a Protection System malfunction or misoperation, and NWC employs a full-time operator responsible for monitoring relay operations/misoperations. NWC has equipment malfunction procedures in place as well. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered that NWC self-reported the violations. NWC implemented programs to ensure future PRC compliance, which was considered a mitigating factor; however, this violation was the fourth violation of PRC-005-1 R2, which was an aggravating factor. WECC found NWC to be cooperative during the enforcement procedures and no evidence of an attempt to conceal a violation nor evidence of intent to do so.

Total Penalty: $130,000

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2013 (no further review)

NRG Texas Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-162-000 (March 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: During an audit, TRE determined that the bases provided by NRG Texas Power, LLC (NRG) for testing intervals for voltage/current sensing devices, DC control circuitry, and station battery parts of its System Protection Program were not consistent with the testing intervals that NRG actually used. In addition, NRG did not possess documentation showing the intervals, and their bases, for the associated communications part of its System Protection Program.

Finding: NRG agreed to pay a penalty of $6,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. TRE found that the violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since NRG was actually conducting testing on the relevant equipment (even though it was not following properly documented intervals). The duration of the violation was from September 18, 2007 through November 24, 2009.

Penalty: $6,000

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Ocala Utility Services, FERC Docket No. NP10-154-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: Ocala Utility Services (OUS), as a Distribution Provider and Transmission Owner, failed to include voltage sensing devices in its Protection System maintenance and testing program and, further, had not performed maintenance and testing on its six protective relays during a defined two-year interval. As such, OUS would not be able to provide upon request documentation reflecting its compliance with the two-year testing interval as required by PRC-005-1.

Finding: The alleged violations occurred from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standards became mandatory and enforceable, until August 15, 2008, when OUS completed a mitigation plan. FRCC imposed a $13,500 penalty for the violations determining that, in this case, the penalty amount was appropriate based on the seriousness and duration of the violations. In assessing the penalty, FRCC considered these factors: these were OUS’ first alleged violations of NERC Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; OUS cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; OUS’ compliance program; OUS did not attempt to conceal the violations or intend to do so; the alleged violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances that would impact the penalty assessment.

Penalty: $13,500

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Docket No. NP10-76-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit in August 2008, SERC discovered a possible violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1 since Occidental Chemical Corporation's (OCC) failed to specifically include associated communications systems as part of its maintenance and testing procedures. OCC did produce evidence showing that it actually performed testing of its associated communications systems.

Finding: SERC and OCC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues related to the alleged violation, whereby OCC neither admitted nor denied the alleged violation but agreed to pay a penalty of $20,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC determined that the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as the other components of OCC's Generation Protection System were included in OCC's maintenance and testing protocol. Also, OCC only has a single interconnection point with its interconnecting Transmission Owner, which would limit the impact on the bulk power system if the Protection System did not operate as it is supposed to. In determining the penalty amount, SERC considered the fact that OCC has no prior violation of this or any closely related Reliability Standards and that OCC has a corporate compliance program which coordinates compliance activities between all of its relevant facilities. OCC has successfully completed its mitigation plan.

Penalty: $20,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: On May 28, 2010, OPC, as a GO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R1. OPC discovered, during an internal review, that maintenance responsibilities assignments for interconnection facilities and components at two generating plants were vague. As a result, the procedures did not reflect the performed maintenance and testing. In its review of OPC’s facility-specific Protection System maintenance and testing procedures for the two generating facilities, SERC determined that associated communications systems (ACS) devices were left unaddressed. Also, at one facility the procedure left out the 230 kV collector bus devices. As facility-specific procedures prescribe maintenance and testing intervals for individual devices, rather than by device type, ACS devices, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries and DC control circuitry were left without interval designations for protective relays.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk, but not a serious or substantial risk to the BPS. The facilities did have facility-specific procedures, although some ACS devices were not covered. Furthermore, OPC did regularly test all collector bus generation protection equipment, even though 230 kV collector bus devices were not included in one facility’s procedures. In assessing the penalty, SERC took into account OPC’s internal compliance program (ICP), that requires internal self-audits and disciplinary action and/or training for employee violations. The ICP is overseen on a day-to-day basis by OPC’s Director of Contracts and Regulatory Oversight. OPC also seats an electric reliability organization Steering Committee, made up of senior executives, that regularly reviews and provides insight into the ICP. OPC’s Risk Management Committee also has oversight of the OCP and other quality assurance matters.

Total Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued January 30, 2012 (no further review)

Oglethorpe Power Corp. (OPC), Docket No. NP13-12-000 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: OPC, as a GO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2 on May 28, 2010, after it found, during an internal review, that it lacked documentation for the maintenance and testing of some of its batteries and DC control circuitry. OPC reported an additional violation of PRC-005-1 R2 on April 17, 2012, after it found discrepancies in its Mitigation Plan to address the May 28, 2010 violations. SERC treated the additional violations as an expansion of scope to the violations self-reported on May 28, 2010. After SERC reviewed OPC’s report of testing dates of its Protection System devices (including protective relays, associated communication system devices, voltage and current sensing devices, station batters, and DC control circuitry devices), SERC found 37% (448 out of 1,212) of OPC’s Protection System devices were not tested within defined intervals, and OPC lacked testing or maintenance records for 5.2% (63 out of 1,212) Protection System devices.

Finding: SERC found that the violation posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not a serious or substantial risk. The risk was moderate because the Protection System devices that lacked testing or maintenance records for defined intervals made up a significant portion of OPC’s total Protection System devices. However, half of OPC’s protective relays, batteries, DC control circuitry, and PTs/CTs have alarms triggered by malfunctions such as loss of power. OPC also inspects the devices on a daily and weekly basis. Moreover, 86.9 % of the noncompliant Protection System devices were routinely tested. Finally, with a single exception, OPC’s post-violation tests of the Protection System devices showed no additional issues. In assessing the penalty, SERC took into account OPC’s internal compliance program.

Total Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Ohio Edison Company (OE), Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: Ohio Edison, a registered DP, reported to RFC through self-certification that it did not have the required documentation to show that maintenance and testing (M&T) had been performed on four out of 5,100 relay schemes, or 0.08% of total relays, on time between the years 2005 through 2010 and pursuant to its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal, but not serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability, which was mitigated because the violation involved a minor number of devices involved and the limited time period involved. Ohio Edison did the required M&T on the four relay schemes at issue only 20 days outside of the required interval. Once M&T was completed, it was determined the devices would have performed as expected during the violation time period. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of Ohio Edison’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and Ohio Edison follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. Ohio Edison and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP08-32-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not include voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: No penalty was determined appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue only as maintenance records showed such devices were being maintained regularly, and the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015; https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2 (2 violations)

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: In October 2011, OPPD, as a TO, self-reported that it did not possess the required documentation showing that its Protection System devices were maintained and tested according to defined intervals or the date each device was last tested and maintained. This violation involved 4% of OPPD’s Protection System devices: 49 Protection System relays (out of 1,722 relays), 137 DC control circuits (out of 1,722 circuits), and 101 station batteries (all of its station batteries). MRO also determined that OPPD had not fully performed the required specific gravity testing for 13% of its generation station batteries (13 out of 101).

Finding: MRO found that the violations only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The relays associated with the 161 kV circuits were being maintained and tested within the manufacturer’s recommended intervals. For eight (out of nine) relays associated with the 345 kV circuits, they received maintenance and testing by December 2007 and only missed by one month the maintenance and testing interval. OPPD performs monthly inspections of panel lights, and it did not discovery any problems with its DC control circuits during these inspections. In regards to the station batteries and the specific gravity testing, OPPD was conducting semi-annual cell voltage tests and annual internal cell, connection resistance and impendence tests, as well as always monitoring the battery bank voltage through its SCADA system. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through June 15, 2012 (first violation) and August 20, 2012 (second violation). OPPD admitted the violations. OPPD’s compliance program (which included the hiring of a full-time engineer to focus on PRC-related maintenance issues and combining the generation and transmission maintenance functions) was viewed as a mitigating factor.

Total Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor), Docket No. NP12-26-000 (April 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: Oncor, a DP and TO, submitted self-reports reporting a violation of PRC-005-1 due to its failure to test 23 relay systems pursuant to defined intervals which was caused by a misidentification in Oncor’s maintenance tracking and scheduling database. The 23 relay systems (out of 1,762 total relay protection systems) included 116 protective relays (out of 5,597 total protective relays); 179 DC Control Circuits (out of 6,534 DC Control Circuits), 345 Voltage or Current Sensing Devices (out of 22,012 total Voltage or Current Sensing Devices), and no communication systems.

Finding: The violation was found to pose a moderate risk to BPS reliability because the non-tested equipment consists of important components for BPS reliability, in particular during stressed or critical conditions, although the systems represent only 1.3% of Oncor’s total Relay Protection Systems. All battery systems had been tested as required. No misoperations occurred as a result of the missed testing. RFC noted that Oncor has in place controls to prevent or mitigate any problems that may have occurred during the violation time period. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered Oncor’s compliance program as a mitigating factor. No credit was given for the self-report because the violation was found during preparation for an upcoming audit by TRE.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 3 penalties)

FERC Order: Order issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)

Optim Energy Twin Oaks, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: During a compliance audit, TRE determined that Optim Energy Twin Oaks, LP (Twin Oaks) was unable to provide documentation for the entire audit period showing the bases for some of its maintenance and testing intervals for its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: TRE found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Twin Oaks was actually performing the required maintenance and testing (even though the 15% of the affected Protection System devices had to be tested more frequently than the general industry standard). The duration of the violation was June 28, 2007 through June 10, 2010.

Penalty: $4,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP10-105-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Prior to the effective date of the standard, Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative (OTEC) self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 because it did not have a delegation agreement in place with larger neighboring entities that performed maintenance and testing of OTEC's Protection System. OTEC proposed a mitigation plan for this violation but requested numerous extensions of the deadline for completing its mitigation plan, the last of which was denied by WECC. Because OTEC did not complete its mitigation plan by the required deadline, as extended, the violation became a "post-June 18 violation."

Finding: Duration of violation from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through March 19, 2009, when OTEC completed its mitigation plan. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because maintenance and testing was being performed despite the lack of a formal delegation agreement, and it was OTEC's first violation of this standard.
Penalty: $8,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)

Orlando Utilities Commission, FERC Docket No. NP10-161-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) did not perform monthly testing and maintenance of transmission station batteries consistent with OUC’s defined maintenance and testing program interval. In addition, OUC did not include generation station batteries in its Protection System
maintenance and testing program.

Finding: FRCC imposed a $60,500 penalty for these and violations. In assessing the penalty, FRCC determined that the alleged violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because OUC had been performing routine maintenance and testing on its generating station batteries although the batteries were not included in OUC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program. In addition, FRCC found that OUC system operators constantly monitor alarms related to station batteries and station battery chargers. If a station battery alarm was received, OUC would have dispatched crews to investigate the alarm.

Penalty: $60,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Otter Tail Power Company (OTP), Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: OTP, a TO and DP, did not have the required documentation to show that maintenance and testing had been performed for thirty protective microprocessor and solid state relays at seven transmission substations and two station batteries at two generating stations. OTP has 781 Protection System devices subject to the Standard, including 265 transmission protective relays, 27 generation protective relays, 28 transmission station batteries and 5 generation station batteries in its system.

Finding: MRO determined the violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability because even though OTP did not have maintenance and testing records for thirty relays at seven substations and two station batteries at two generation stations, OTP did give testing records of specific gravity, temperature testing, and annual battery inspections during the violation period (January 24, 2011 through July 1, 2011). Also, OTP has systems to alarm operators of any low voltage condition. It was noted that 50% of the relays were back-up relays and all but one were associated with 115 kV substations. Once battery impedance and strap resistance was tested, no relay misoperations were found on the relevant relay devices.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Owensboro, KY Municipal Utilities, Docket No. NP10-77 -000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit in November 2008, SERC discovered a possible violation by Owensboro, KY Municipal Utilities (OMU) of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1 due to a potential gap in OMU's documentation for Protection System maintenance and testing programs for its generation Protection Systems. Prior to October 1, 2008, OMU's maintenance and testing procedures only covered protective relays and batteries and did not address additional classes of devices (such as DC control circuitry, voltage and current sending devices, and associated communication systems) and the details for the maintenance and testing intervals as required.

Finding: SERC and OMU entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues concerning two alleged violations of the Reliability Standards, whereby OMU neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to pay a penalty and undertake other mitigation measures. In determining the penalty, SERC considered the fact that these were OMU's first violations of the Reliability Standards since they became mandatory; OMU was cooperative during the compliance process; and OMU timely agreed to a settlement before receiving a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction. SERC found that the alleged violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since OMU's protective maintenance and testing program did include batteries and relays and the testing was current. Also, OMU, which generates approximately 400 MW, only has two interconnection points with its interconnecting Transmission Owner, which would limit the impact on the bulk power system if its Protection System does not operate as it is supposed to. OMU has successfully completed its mitigation plan for its alleged violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1.

Penalty: $9,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Overton Power District #5, FERC Docket No. NP10-41-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Overton did not have a documented Protection System Testing and Maintenance Program in place because it was under the impression that Nevada Power, as Transmission Operator for its 230 kV line, was obligated to meet the requirement.

Finding: Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through December 23, 2008. Penalty was determined appropriate because it was Overton's first violation of the standard, and while violation of PRC-005-1 was deemed a severe risk to the bulk power system reliability, the violations to other Reliability Standards by Overton 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)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-96-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) self-reported that it did not maintain 92 out of approximately 12,000 of its Protection System devices within the maintenance intervals specified in PG&E's Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The alleged violation of PRC-005-1 occurred from March 7, 2009, the oldest past due date for PG&E’s maintenance of its Protection System devices, until November 1, 2009, when PG&E completed a mitigation plan. WECC imposed an aggregate penalty of $85,000 for multiple violations of NERC Reliability Standards. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered that the violations were self-reported; this was PG&E first incident involving this Reliability Standard; PG&E cooperated during the compliance enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; the violations were not intentional; and the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $85,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)

PacifiCorp, FERC Docket No. IN11-6 (December 1, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2 (2 violations)

Issue: On February 14, 2008, a short circuit occurred on a transformer at PacifiCorp’s Huntington generation plant in Utah, which triggered an immediate loss of approximately 2800 MW of generation across PacifiCorp’s East Balancing Authority Area (“PacifiCorp East” – which consists of Utah, southeast Idaho and western Wyoming) and the shedding of approximately 183 MW of firm load in Utah. While a local protection system at the Huntington generation plan detected a fault caused by the transformer fire, the Huntington Lockout Relay failed to operate and the protection system at Huntington did not clear the fault. PacifiCorp did not possess sufficient documentation showing that the Huntington Lockout Relay had been properly tested (1 violation). Prior to the February 14, 2008 disturbance, PacifiCorp self-reported to WECC a violation of PRC-005-1 R2 related to its protection system maintenance and testing program (1 violation).

Finding: On December 1, 2011, FERC approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement between FERC Office of Enforcement (“Enforcement”), NERC and PacifiCorp regarding PacifiCorp’s actions as a BA and TOP surrounding the February 14, 2008 disturbance. In terms of the PRC-005-1 R2 violation related to the disturbance, PacifiCorp was unable to demonstrate that it had properly tested the Huntington Lockout Relay that failed and thereby started the chain of events that led to the emergency situation. After the disturbance, Enforcement and NERC investigated PacifiCorp’s compliance with the PRC standards, even though PacifiCorp had completed relevant mitigation plans. Enforcement and NERC found that PacifiCorp had insufficient documentation regarding its protection system maintenance and testing. In addition, Enforcement and NERC identified three overall deficiencies with PacifiCorp’s maintenance management system: (a) lack of verification of the data when it changed maintenance plan databases, (b) failure to oversee data entry and other changes made to the database, and (c) lack of proper managerial controls and oversight of the maintenance system. These problems cause PacifiCorp to have missing data and inaccurate maintenance cycles.

Penalty: $3,925,000 (aggregate for 23 violations)

FERC Order: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=12829507

Panda Brandywine LP, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Panda Brandywine LP (Panda) violated R1 because it did not include maintenance and testing (M&T) intervals and their basis or a summary of M&T procedures for any of its 15 DC control circuits in its Protection System M&T Program. In addition, RFC determined Panda violated R2 because it had not conducted M&T of its voltage and current sensing devices within seven years per its M&T program. Panda stated that it had believed the calculation of the defined intervals began on the first day of mandatory compliance, and therefore, it did not believe that it missed the seven-year interval.

Finding: RFC determined that the violations posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS, because Panda visually inspected all voltage sensing devices and DC control circuits that are not enclosed within other equipment on a daily basis, which accounted for approximately 40% of the DC control circuits and 50% of voltage sensing devices. Moreover, Panda conducted a full testing of these devices and determined they were all in working order. Panda’s voltage sensing devices have alarms to alert personnel of abnormal conditions and such alarms were not triggered at any point during the violation period. The violation of R1 lasted from June 18, 2007 to Nov. 23, 2010. The violation of R2 lasted from June 18, 2007 to Nov. 19, 2010.

Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Panoche Energy Center LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-242-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: In November 2010, Panoche Energy Center LLC (PENG), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program that incorporated the maintenance and testing intervals, the bases for the intervals, or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures as required (R1). PENG also self-reported that it had not properly implemented its Protection System maintenance and testing program and had not performed the required maintenance and testing within defined intervals (R2.1).

Finding: WECC and PENG entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations, whereby PENG agreed to pay a penalty of $15,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violations constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since PENG’s generation Protection System was only two years old and received testing before it entered commercial operation in July 2009. In addition, PENG was actually conducting weekly battery inspections according to best industry practices (even though the inspections were not properly documented). The duration of the violations was from July 31, 2009 through May 1, 2010 (R1) and February 28, 2011 (R2.1). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was PENG’s first violation of the Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; PENG was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; PENG had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); PENG undertook corrective actions in response to the violations; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 8 violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Pasco County Resource Recovery (COV4), FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Pasco County Resource Recovery (COV4), a Generator Owner, failed to include a basis, interval and summary of maintenance and testing procedures for bulk power system protection equipment.

Finding: FRCC found that the violation posed only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability, because even though COV4 could not provide a basis, interval or summary of maintenance and testing procedures, it was able to show testing and maintenance had been performed on protection equipment based on manufacturer recommendations. Further, alarms would have notified COV4 technicians of any protection system failures.

Penalty: $1,800

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

PECO Energy Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-151-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation

Issue: PECO Energy Company (PECO), as a Distribution Provider and Transmission Owner, identified a number of protection system substation battery inspection and maintenance tasks that had been completed, but not within the time interval set by PECO's Preventive and Predictive Maintenance Program.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 27, 2007, when PECO was included on the NERC Compliance Registry, until March 18, 2009, when all outstanding maintenance tasks identified in a mitigation plan were completed. ReliabilityFirst imposed a $15,000 penalty for this violation. In assessing the penalty, ReliabilityFirst considered these factors: this was PECO’s first alleged violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; PECO cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; PECO's compliance program; PECO did not attempt to conceal the violation or intend to do so; the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; less than 10% of tasks were missed and PECO initiated a Root Cause investigation; and there were no aggravating factors that would impact the penalty assessment.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

Pend Oreille County Public Utility District No. 1, FERC Docket No. NP11-11-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Pend Oreille failed to provide evidence that 29 of its 47 Protection System devices were maintained in accordance with the intervals in its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Pend Oreille's system is small and the devices that were not tested correctly are associated with a single 115 kV line and surrounding systems could support the loss of its line. The duration of violation was from December 25, 2008 through July 24, 2009.

Penalty: $26,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: R1-High, R2-Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Plumas-Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative (Plumas-Sierra) self-reported that it had not implemented a Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program for its newly installed Protection System and did not possess documentation showing that it was performing maintenance and testing for its newly installed facilities.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the newly installed facilities had not yet received any maintenance or testing that needed to be documented. The violations were self-reported; they were primarily documentation issues; and these were Plumas-Sierra’s first violations of this Reliability Standard. Although the violations were self-reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Plumas-Sierra did not timely complete a mitigation plan, which turned the violations into post-June 18, 2007 violations, however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Portland General Electric Co., FERC Docket No. NP15-28-000 (April 30, 2015)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: WECC found, during a compliance audit, that PGE had failed to "create a list of BES company-specific reliability-related tasks performed by its System Operators" because its list did not include all the tasks that met PGE’s definition of a reliability-related task. Although PGE’s list covered tasks performed in emergency and abnormal situations, it did not cover the reliability-related tasks performed in normal conditions.

Finding: WECC found that this issue posed a minimal, but not a serious or substantial, risk to BPS reliability. PGE’s list did not include many tasks that would prevent BPS reliability threats, but PGE did train its system operators for some reliability-related tasks that were excluded from the list. WECC also considered PGE’s internal compliance program for meeting reliability standards as a factor that mitigated the penalty determination. To further mitigate this violation, PGE (1) added to its list of reliability-related tasks, (2) submitted the revised list to WECC, and (3) made changes to its operations training program.

Penalty: $97,000 (aggregate for 8 violations)

FERC Order: FERC approved the settlement on May 29, 2015.

Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-19-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, Inc. (PVEA) did not have evidence of a Protection System maintenance and testing program for all types of Protection Systems as required by PRC-005-1 R1 and PVEA was missing records of Protection System maintenance and testing as required by PRC-005-1 R2.

Finding: WECC and PVEA entered a settlement agreement regarding the two violations, and WECC assessed an aggregated penalty for both violations of $25,000. In reaching its penalty decision, WECC considered: (1) PVEA had no prior non -compliance with PRC-005-1; (2) PVEA was cooperative during the audit and investigation; (3) PVEA completed a mitigation plan; and (4) there was no evidence PVEA attempted to conceal a violation or evidence of intent.

Penalty: $25,000

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

PPG Industries, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP09-39-000 (September 25, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: PPG indicated that its documentation demonstrating implementation of its Generation Protection System maintenance and testing program was incomplete and/or implementation was not on schedule with respect to the following requirements of the standard: (1) Generation Protection System identification; (2) documentation of maintenance and testing intervals and their basis; and (3) summary of testing procedure.

Finding: SERC assessed no penalty because the violation occurred during the transition period prior to December 31, 2007. SERC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliable operation of the bulk power system. Furthermore, it was determined that there were no aggravating factors, no repetitive violations, no negative relevant compliance history, no applicable compliance directives, no evidence of any attempt by PPG to conceal the violation, and no evidence that the violation was intentional. SERC noted that PPG was cooperative in the investigation and mitigated the issue within three months of discovery.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 23, 2009 (no further review)

PPG Industries, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-122-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1), Moderate (R2.1)

Region: SERC

Issue: In April 2009 (in responding to a pending compliance audit), PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it had not conducted the required testing and maintenance on the relays in its generation Protection System relays within the defined intervals (R2.1). During the compliance audit in July 2009 of PPG, SERC also discovered that PPG's generation Protection System maintenance and testing program did not incorporate the required intervals, or their bases, and a summary of testing procedures for the voltage and current sensing devices and the associated communication systems. PPG's generation Protection System maintenance and testing program also did not address the basis for the intervals for its DC control circuitry (R1).

Finding: SERC and PPG entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby PPG agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. SERC found that the PRC-005-1 violations only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since PPG's generation units are only connected to the bulk power system through one 69/230 kV step-up transformer, which would limit any impact on the bulk power system. With regard to PRC-005-1 R2.1, all of the protective relays were found to have been within the specified tolerance. In terms of PRC-005-1 R1, PPG was actually performing maintenance and testing of the protective relays, batteries, voltage and current sensing devices, associated communications, and DC control circuits (even though PPG did not possess adequate documentation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program). The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from July 20, 2007 through July 31, 2009 (R2.1) and November 19, 2009 (R1). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that this was PPG's second violation of PRC-005-1 R1 (even though that was not considered to be an aggravating factor); one of the violations was self-reported (even though it was submitted in anticipation of an audit); PPG was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Docket No. NP10-71-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: In September 2009, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL EU) self-certified that it was non-compliant with Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1 because of its failure to perform maintenance and testing on relays for facilities in its sub-transmission system under its Protection System Testing and Maintenance Program. PPL EU mistakenly believed that the Reliability Standard did not apply to its sub-transmission and distribution facilities (since they were below the bulk power system definition voltage threshold of 100 kV), until RFC issued its official interpretation of its "Bulk Electric System" definition. Two hundred devices (out of 5,800) were not maintained or tested as required by the PPL EU's Maintenance and Testing Program testing interval.

Finding: RFC and PPL EU entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues related to numerous alleged violations, whereby PPL EU neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $290,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. The bulk of penalty amount was due to the alleged violations of FAC-003-1. RFC also found that PPL EU has a culture of compliance. RFC determined that alleged violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as the PPL EU system had been designed to allow for the failed low side non-bulk power system equipment to be isolated and then to have the bulk power system facilities to return to normal functioning. PPL has submitted a mitigation plan, which it is scheduled to complete in June 2010.

Penalty: $290,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

PPL Montana, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-57-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: PPL Montana failed to complete quarterly battery maintenance for the first quarter of 2008 at a generation facility in accordance with its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from January 1, 2008, the beginning date of the quarter PPL Montana failed to conduct quarterly battery testing, through March 31, 2008, when the subject quarter ended. WECC assessed a penalty of $5,000 for the violation. In reaching the determination, WECC considered the following mitigating factors: (1) the violation was deemed not to be a violation that put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk; (2) the violation was PPL Montana’s first violation of this standard; (3) there were no aggravating factors warranting a higher penalty; (4) PPL Montana was cooperative throughout the compliance process; (5) there was no evidence of any attempt by PPL Montana to conceal the violation; and (6) there was no evidence that PPL Montana’s violation was intentional.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

PPL Brunner Island, LLC, Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC, PPL Holtwood, LLC, PPL Martins Creek, LLC, and PPL Montour, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-74-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: PPL Generation, on behalf of each registered entity listed above, submitted a self-report stating that each registered entity had battery testing and maintenance plans in place, but the tests were not conducted as frequently as indicated in the respective plans, and there was no test deferral option documented in the plans.

Finding: It was determined by ReliabilityFirst that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because no batteries failed due to missed battery tests, the batteries were continuously monitored in the respective plant control rooms, and the batteries were subjected to daily or weekly visual inspections. In addition, each of the registered entity's plans exceeded the suggested battery monitoring and testing bases set forth in NERC technical reference guides. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through December 15, 2009.

Penalty: $25,000

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL EU), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: RFC found that PPL EU, after the company’s self-report, violated PRC-005-1 R2 as a Transmission Owner. PPL EU failed to keep documentation that its Protection System devices were maintained and tested within the defined intervals. During a planned outage of its generating facility, Northampton Generating Company (NGC) inquired with PPL EU, which it interconnects with, whether PPL EU would like to use the outage to test its relays. PPL EU believed that NGC owned and maintained all the facility’s relays. Though PPL EU did not confirm the ownership of the relays, NGC and PPL EU agreed to use the outage to test the relays in accordance with PPL EU Relay Protection System maintenance and testing program. 16 of the 18 relays in question were overdue for maintenance and testing, but the test showed that all Protection System components were functioning properly.

Finding: RFC found that this violation posed a moderate risk, but not a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). The tests showed that the relays were functioning as designed and only .26% of PPL EU’s relays were affected. No misoperations were associated with these relays, which were also had alarms and back up protection. In determining an appropriate remedy, RFC credited PPL EU’s internal compliance program (ICP) which encourages employees to identify possible compliance problems. RFC found that the penalty was also mitigated by PPL EU’s assumption of responsibility for the maintenance and testing of these relays and its efforts to determine their ownership. Although RFC noted PPL EU’s earlier violation of this standard was an aggregating factor, it was offset by these mitigating factors. RFC also gave credit to PPL EU quick identification of the violation, resulting from use of the ICP procedures. For these reasons, RFC assessed a $0 penalty.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Progress Energy Carolinas, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: In December 2009, Progress Energy Carolinas (PEC), as a TO, self-reported that it did not incorporate the appropriate basis for its battery maintenance intervals into its Protection System maintenance and testing program. PEC updated its work order management system to implement new maintenance and testing intervals, but did not properly update the corresponding procedures (R1/1.1).

Finding: SERC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability. In terms of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation, PEC had revised its procedures in its work order management system in order to ensure that the battery maintenance and testing was performed in accordance with the defined intervals. In addition, PEC was continuously monitoring all battery voltages, and an alarm was triggered to detect abnormal voltage and to initiate maintenance activity. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation was from August 1, 2009 through January 11, 2010 and the R2 violation was from July 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. SERC evaluated PEC’s compliance program as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Progress Energy Carolinas, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Progress Energy Carolinas (PEC), as a TO, self-reported on three occasions that (1) it had not included two Coupling-Capacitor Voltage Transformers (CCVTs) in its Protection System assets database, and as such, the CCVTs had not received required maintenance on time; (2) it had not included a column ground relay in its equipment database, and it did not have evidence to show that calibrations had been done within the timeframe established in its maintenance and testing program; and (3) a battery had not been reclassified as a Protection System device in PEC’s equipment database, and it did not have evidence to show that required maintenance had been done within the timeframe established in its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: SERC found that the PRC-005-1 R2 violations constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. First, the CCVTs are back-up protection for elements of the BPS and testing and maintenance was performed, just not as scheduled per PEC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program (and the main protection devices were tested and maintained as scheduled). Second, the column ground relay is back-up protection, and when testing was performed no recalibration was needed. Also, the PEC system has many layers of built-in protection (such as redundant fast-tripping line protection systems for breaker faults). Third, the battery testing took place only two weeks late, and PEC watches battery voltage levels in real time and would be alerted to any under-voltage problems. SERC evaluated PEC’s compliance program as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Progress Energy Florida, FERC Docket No. NP11-256-000 (August 11, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: Following a Self-Report, FRCC determined Progress Energy Florida (PEF) did not perform maintenance and testing within defined intervals on 41 of its 9,561 Protection Systems devices, including 36 voltage and current sensing devices, 4 batteries, and 1 relay. Following a subsequent Self-Report two months later, FRCC found that PEF did not perform maintenance and testing on 7 battery banks within defined intervals.

Finding: FRCC assessed a $40,000 penalty for the violation. FRCC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS) because the violation concerned less than 1% of PEF’s total Protection System devices, and all of the devices were continuously monitored through PEF’s SCADA systems, which would have prompted technicians to investigate any alarms that would have occurred in the event of any malfunctions. In approving the settlement between PEF and FRCC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: the violation constituted PEF’s second violation of PRC-005-1, which increased the monetary penalty; PEF self-reported the violation; PEF was cooperative; PEF had a compliance program at the time of the violation, which FRCC viewed as a neutral factor; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; FRCC determined the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $40,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 9, 2011 (no further review)

Provo City Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP11-195-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Following notification of an upcoming compliance audit, Provo City Corporation ("Provo") submitted a self-report of violations of R1 and R2. WECC determined that Provo had not established either intervals or the basis for the maintenance and testing of its protective relays, associated communication systems, and voltage and current sensing devices, and it had intervals but no basis for maintaining and testing its batteries and DC Control circuitry. As a result, WECC concluded Provo did not have a comprehensive maintenance and testing program for its Protection Systems in violation of R1. In addition, WECC found that Provo was in violation of R2 because it could not provide evidence that its Protection System devices were maintained within defined intervals.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because Provo maintained a spreadsheet to track and flag the date some equipment and devices were last tested and maintained. Moreover, Provo is tapped off the BPS at two locations, with five breakers that connect directly, three of which have self-test capabilities and two of which feed step down transformers. In approving the settlement between Provo and WECC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: this violation did not constitute a repeat violation; Provo self-reported the violation in the course of preparing for an audit; Provo was cooperative; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; WECC determined the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

PSEG Fossil LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-35-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: ReliabilityFirst determined that PSEG Fossil LLC (PSEG Fossil), as a Generator Owner, did not provide records of having conducted maintenance and testing in accordance with the intervals of its Protection System maintenance and testing program for 23 protective relays out of a total of approximately 1,890 bulk power system Protection System devices as required by PSEG Fossil’s protective relay maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (BOTCC) imposed a $15,000 penalty for this violation. In reaching this determination, the BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted PSEG Fossil’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; PSEG Fossil cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; PSEG Fossil self-reported the violation; PSEG Fossil’s compliance program; PSEG Fossil 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: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-15-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NPCC

Issue: PSEG self-certified that it could not provide evidence that it tested 4 of 155 relays at its New Haven Harbor generating facility according to its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the entity at the other end of the transmission line was testing its relays so any fault would have been isolated. The duration of violation was from June 21, 2007 through June 18, 2009.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), Docket No. NP14-10 (Nov. 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: PSCO self-certified that it was not in compliance with the requirements of PRC-005-1 R2 that apply to PSCO as a DP, GO and TO. During an internal review in anticipation of PRC-005 Version 2, PSCO initially found that for six relays installed in four generating plants no testing documentation could be produced to show that testing had occurred pursuant to prescribed intervals. Ultimately, however, further investigation by PSCO found an additional 173 Protection System elements and three Protection System components had no testing or maintenance as required.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to reliable BPS operations. The violation time frame ran June 18, 2007 through August 13, 2013 when PSCO completed a Mitigation Plan. WECC review found that 81 of 4,389 relays (1.85%); 72 of 5,502 voltage and current sensing devices (1.31%) and 29 or 3, 779 DC circuitry elements (0.77%) could not be shown to have been maintained or tested within prescribed testing intervals. Not testing the devices increases the risk that the devices would not operate as expected during a system emergency. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered the following: PSCO’s failure to initially determine the extent of the issue was a significant aggravating factor. PSCO’s violation history was also an aggravating factor. The initial discovery and report regarding the six relays was a neutral factor. Mitigating factors include that PSCO took steps to quickly correctly the issues; PSCO has an internal compliance program; there was no attempt to conceal the violation; and PSCO was cooperative during the enforcement process.

Total Penalty: $215,000

FERC Order: Issued December 27, 2013 (no further review)

Public Service Company of New Mexico, FERC Docket No. NP10-158-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Public Service Company of New Mexico ("PNM") self-reported that it did not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with its maintenance and testing program because the basis for maintenance intervals was not stated in its documentation, and the description of its testing and maintenance procedures was incomplete. Moreover, PNM self-reported that certain equipment maintenance intervals exceeded the intervals assigned in its maintenance and testing program. 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 of R1 was from June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through March 29, 2010. Duration of the violation of R2 was from February 1, 2008 through October 22, 2009. The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because only a small number of PNM’s protection system elements were not maintained within the defined intervals, and they were less critical facilities. PNM received credit for self-reporting the violations and because they were 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, FERC Docket No. NP11-240-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: Following a Self-Report, WECC determined Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) could not produce evidence of maintenance and testing within defined intervals for 1.4% of relays, 11% of communication devices, and 19% of batteries, totaling less than 6% of PNM’s total Protection System devices.

Finding: WECC assessed a $13,000 penalty for this violation. WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS) because the violation concerned less than 6% of PNM’s total Protection System devices, and none of the devices was associated with 230 kV+ transmission facilities, WECC rated paths, or assets designated as a reliability must-run unit. In approving the settlement between PNM and WECC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: the violation constituted PNM’s second violation of PRC-005-1; PNM self-reported the violation; PNM was cooperative; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; WECC determined the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $13,900

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Public Service Electric & Gas Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-38-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (PRC-005-1 R2 has a VRF of Lower, but its sub-requirement PRC-005-1 R2.1 has a VRF of High)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) discovered, through an internal assessment, that it had failed to properly maintain documentation as required for some of its maintenance and testing for its Protection System devices. PSE&G was unable to present evidence for 16 applicable Protection System relay devices (out of around 5,700 devices) showing that they were tested within their defined intervals. This happened as a result of clerical errors that occurred during the switch from a manual to a computerized maintenance and testing program. PSE&G self-reported the violation and, as part of its mitigation plan, conducted a "walk -down" inspection in which it discovered an additional 72 Protection System devices in which it was missing documentation for test intervals or they were miscoded in the electric system. All testing on the untested Protection System devices was completed by June 16, 2009 and PSE&G updated its mitigation plan.

Finding: PSE&G and RFC entered into a settlement agreement whereby PSE&G neither admitted nor denied the alleged violation but agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000. In reaching its penalty determination, RFC considered the fact that the alleged violation was primarily a documentation issue (since documentation was available for associated Protection System devices, the devices in question were probably tested and the documentation simply misplaced) and once the devices were retested they were found to be fully functional and operational. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that the alleged violation was self-reported, this was PSE&G's first violation of the Reliability Standards, the alleged violation was mainly a documentation issue, PSE&G was cooperative during the investigation and did not attempt to conceal anything, and the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)

Public Utility District No. 1 of Benton County (BCPD), Docket No. NP12-44-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: BCPD submitted a self-certification that, as a Distribution Provider owning a transmission Protection System, it had failed to maintain and test certain Protection System devices within defined intervals. WECC review of BCPD's self-certification confirmed that, as well as that BCPD did not have appropriate documentation to show the dates of such maintenance and testing activities.

Finding: The violation was deemed by WECC to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because the configuration of the Protection Systems provided that any failure at one terminal would be backed up by adjacent entity's Protection Systems. Also, the Protection System equipment that is the subject of the self-certification is auxiliary equipment related to an adjacent small wind generating facility – a non-dispatchable source of generation.

Penalty: $6,650

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

Public Utility District No. 1 Douglas County, FERC Docket No. NP10-167-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: TBD

Region: WECC

Issue: PUD No. 1 of Douglas County (DOPD), as a Distribution Provider and Transmission Owner that owns a transmission Protection System, did not maintain and test 52 of its protective devices within DOPD’s defined intervals.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, when the Standard became mandatory and enforceable, until September 30, 2008. WECC imposed a $70,000 penalty for this and other violations. In assessing the penalty, WECC determined that the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because DOPD had been testing its devices according to testing intervals recommended by the manufacturers and was in the process of transitioning to a more stringent three-year testing interval.

Penalty: $70,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (listed for both R1 and R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County (LCPD) self-reported that it had not documented its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program for its Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric Project and did not possess documentation showing that it had performed the maintenance and testing.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the Cowlitz Falls Hyrdroelectric Project, and the associated transmission lines, had a typical protection scheme for plants of its size. Contract relay technicians had conducted maintenance and testing of the electrical relays and equipment and project personnel had conducted maintenance and testing on the generation equipment (with assistance from outside vendors). The violations were self-reported; they involved primarily documentation issues; and these were LCPD’s first violations of this Reliability Standard. Although the violations were self-reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, LCPD did not timely complete a mitigation plan, which turned the violations into post-June 18, 2007 violations; however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, FERC Docket No. NP11-147-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2 (two violations of sub-requirement R2.1)

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower (first violation); High (second violation)

Region: WECC

Issue: Regarding the first violation, in March 2010, the Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (SNPD) self-reported that, as a Distribution Provider, Generation Owner and Transmission Owner, it had not been maintaining or testing its breaker failure timing relay within the defined interval specified in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Regarding the second violation, in May 2010, SNPD self-reported that it had not conducted the required maintenance or testing at 11 of its substations and the Jackson Hydro Plant on 48% of its 664 batteries, on 53% of its 395 potential transformers or on 59% of its 359 DC circuitry. In addition, SNPD did not possess documentation showing that it was performing the maintenance and testing with its defined intervals.

Finding: SNPD agreed to pay a penalty of $31,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations of PRC-005-1 posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. With respect to the first violation, even if there was a loss in generation as a result of the failure to properly maintain the breaker failure timing relay, there are significant generation resources in the Pacific Northwest to cover the loss of SNDP’s 112 MW hydro-electric project. Regarding the second violation, although SNDP did not possess the required documentation, it was able to show that it had actually conducted some maintenance and testing based on its maintenance and testing plan. Furthermore, SNDP has a SCADA system in place that remotely monitors all of its applicable batteries for bank voltage. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 23, 2009 through March 23, 2010 (first violation) and from June 18, 2007 to the completion of the mitigation plan (proposed to be on September 30, 2011) (second violation). In determining the penalty amount, NERC considered the fact that the second violation of PRC-005-1 served as an aggravating factor; SNPD was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $31,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (CHPD), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2; 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: CHPD self-reported on December 14, 2012 a violation of PRC-005-1 R2 in its capacity of Distribution Provider, Generator Owner, and Transmission Owner. CHPD failed to keep documentation that certain of its Protection System devices were maintained and tested at the intervals outlined in its CHPD’s Protection System maintenance and testing program. Improper classification of relays led them to be tested at the incorrect intervals. This affected 8 of 511 relays, 17 of 586 current and voltage sensing devices, 2 of the 65 communication channels, and 7 of the 241 DC control circuits. In total 2.4% CHPD’s Protection System devices were not maintained or tested within the required intervals.

Finding: WECC found that this violation posed a minimal, but not a serious or substantial, risk to the BPS reliability. The devises were tested during prior intervals, and required visual inspections occurred. All maintenance and testing intervals are maintained in an electronic database. Under CHPD’s device specific testing approach, testing of devices was based on the device’s reliability importance and function. Further, breaker failure protection and backup generator and line protection backed up all protective circuits. Finally, CHPD did a review of all its Protection System devices after finding out that the devices in question had not been tested. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC credited CHPD’s internal compliance program (ICP), which was comprehensive, widely disseminated (including to contractors and vendors), and included a mechanism for updating the ICP as the Standards change. The ICP provides for an annual internal self-audit. The ICP encourages swift detection and self-reporting of Reliability Standards violations. The ICP also lists specific and measurable benchmarks for compliance, as well as disciplinary procedures for non-compliance. CHPD has a compliance officer and another position that exclusively handles FERC/NERC compliance. WECC also credited CHPD participation in outreach compliance programs.

Total Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Raft River Rural Electric Coop/PNGC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In April 2008, Raft River Rural Electric Coop/PNGC (RRRE), a small entity, self-certified that it had not fully documented its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program for its transmission protection devices, as it did not address the sub-components, and therefore it was not performing its maintenance and testing according to its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since RRRE was actually performing the maintenance and testing. These were RRRE’s first violations of this Reliability Standard. Even though RRRE completed its Mitigation Plan 4 months late, WECC decided not to impose any penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue:: During a compliance audit in August 2010, SPP found that Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Rayburn) did not possess sufficient documentation for its Protection System maintenance and testing program, including on its maintenance and testing procedures and the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals.

Finding: SPP found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Rayburn used NERC and the International Electrical Testing Association manuals to develop its maintenance and testing procedures and the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals. Rayburn was also testing its protection system devices according to the procedures and intervals specified in these manuals. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 22, 2010.

Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Reliant Energy Wholesale Generation, FERC Docket No. NP08-10-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Under this Reliability Standard, Reliant, since it owns a Protection System that affects the reliability of the bulk power system, is required to have a Power System maintenance and testing program in place. After conducting a compliance audit, SERC determined that Reliant's Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not identify battery maintenance and testing intervals, the basis for these intervals and did not provide a summary of maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: SERC found that this violation was a documentation issue as Reliant presented the evidence for most of the battery maintenance being performed. SERC determined that no penalty was warranted since the violation occurred during the transition to mandatory standards and the violation was found not to have put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. In affirming SERC's determination, NERC considered the fact that no system disturbances occurred as a result, the violation did not place bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk, the violation occurred during the time period when the Commission directed NERC to focus on the most serious violations, this was the first violation by Reliant of this Reliability Standard, Reliant was cooperative, Reliant acted immediately to mitigate the violation (as verified by SERC), and Reliant's mitigation plan ensured that reliability was maintained.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

Ripon Cogeneration LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-231-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: During an off-site compliance audit, WECC determined Ripon Cogeneration LLC (RIPO) failed to provide battery maintenance records for 8 out of 11 quarters prior to June 2009 pursuant to its stated quarterly maintenance intervals for station batteries.

Finding: WECC assessed a $12,500 penalty for the violation. WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS) but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because RIPO provided evidence that it has adhered to the maintenance interval for batteries since June 2009 and evidence that other Protection System devices were maintained. In addition, the loss of the 49.5 MW generator at issue would have minimal impact on the BPS. In approving the settlement between RIPO and WECC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: the violation did not constitute a repeat violation; RIPO was cooperative; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; WECC determined the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $12,500

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Rochester Public Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP11-254-000 (August 11, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (R2); Lower (R1)

Region: MRO

Issue: During a compliance audit, MRO determined that Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) did not identify any violations, but provided MRO with a prior version of its generation and transmission Protection System maintenance and testing program document that did not have a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for current and voltage sensing devices, maintenance and testing intervals for current and voltage sensing devices, or the basis for maintenance and testing intervals for the Protection System devices all in violation of R1. With regard to R2, based on a random sampling of maintenance and testing records for 65 protective relays, MRO determined that RPU failed to provide evidence that protective relays and associated components were maintained and tested within required intervals. As a result, MRO required a full inventory of RPU’s Protection System devices and ultimately determined that about 49.5% of RPU’s Protection System devices were not maintained and tested in accordance with required intervals. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 through July 16, 2009 (for R1) and October 15, 2010 (for R2).

Finding: MRO determined that the violation of R1 posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because the violation related to a prior version of the maintenance and testing program document and the current version was in compliance; it was also minimal because of the small size and geographic location of RPU’s facilities. The violation of R2 posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because of RPU’s small size and because no misoperations of the facilities that were not properly maintained/tested were found. The NERC BOTCC also considered that: MRO originally assessed a penalty for the violations but reduced it to $0 because RPU’s proposed mitigating actions went above and beyond those required to bring RPU into compliance (RPU’s above and beyond activities include the planned purchase of $68,340 in new testing equipment and training); RPU was cooperative throughout the investigation; RPU created a compliance committee in response to the findings; and there was no evidence RPU attempted to conceal the violations

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued September 9, 2011 (no further review)

RRI Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC, RRI Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC and Orion Power Mirant Midwest, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-87-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: RRI Energy Wholesale Generation, LLC (Wholesale), RRI Energy Wholesale Generation LLC (Seward) (which later became part of Wholesale), Orion Power Mirant Midwest, LP (Orion), and RRI Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC (Mid-Atlantic) (together, RRI Entities) failed to conduct scheduled battery tests and did not maintain and test Protection System devices within specified intervals.

Finding: The violations of PRC-005-1 occurred during separate periods from 2007 through 2008. The parties entered a settlement agreement regarding the alleged violations whereby they agreed to a combined penalty of $8,000. In assessing the penalty, RFC considered: (1) the alleged violations were self-reported; (2) the RRI Entities had no previous violations of NERC Reliability Standards; (3) the alleged violations were corrected in a timely manner and mitigation plans were completed; (4) the RRI Entities were cooperative and forthright during the compliance enforcement process; (5) there was no evident misrepresentation or concealment of facts; and (6) the alleged violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $8,000 ($2,000 per entity)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Sacramento Municipal Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP12-8 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NCEA

Issue: During a compliance investigation regarding a December 26, 2008 incident where Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) lost substation DC control voltage supply at its Orangevale (ORV) substation, NCEA determined that SMUD’s protection system maintenance and testing program specified quarterly intervals for ORV’s batteries, but that ORV’s electrician did not perform all of the required battery maintenance and testing throughout 2008. Therefore, SMUD did not fully complete its third quarter review of ORV’s batteries (since the relevant test data was incomplete) and therefore did not detect, and take the needed corrective action for, the batteries’ declining voltage before the December 26, 2008 incident.

Finding: NCEA found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability since a fault on SMUD’s ORV BPS equipment would not likely have caused cascading outages since the relevant facilities are of lesser significance to BPS reliability in the area (especially as none of the relevant SMUD BPS elements are part of a WECC Path or Nomogram). Any impact would likely be limited to the local vicinity of SMUD’s own system facilities and would not spread throughout the Western Interconnection. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from October 1, 2008 through December 26, 2008. SMUD has also invested over $1.17 million to install redundant measures in its backup systems in a number of its substations. In determining the aggregate penalty amount, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these violations were SMUD’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; one of the violations was self-reported; SMUD was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; SMUD had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $100,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP11-173-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1), Moderate (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation ("Safe Harbor") violated PRC-005-1 R1 for failure to state the basis for maintenance and testing intervals for 100% of its protection systems in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Further, Safe Harbor self-reported violation of R2 for failing to perform maintenance or testing on 45.6% of its Protection System devices within the defined intervals.

Finding: RFC determined the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Safe Harbor’s maintenance and testing intervals were equal to or better than certain industry technical standards, and RFC had an automated system to issue maintenance and testing program plans on appropriate intervals. Moreover, all of the devices at issue that missed an interval were found to be in working order unless they were out of service, and Safe Harbor’s one-year testing interval for protective relays is so aggressive that even if such intervals were missed, the devices were still tested more frequently than dictated by various industry standards. The NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: Safe Harbor self-reported the violation of R2; Safe Harbor was cooperative; Safe Harbor had a compliance procedure in place, which RFC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal the violations; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Salem Electric, FERC Docket No. NP11-12-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Salem self-reported that it did not have a formal program in place for the maintenance and testing of its transmission Protection Systems as required by the standard. It also could not produce documentation of the program implementation showing that all such systems were maintained appropriately in violation of R2.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Salem is a small electric cooperative and the prior owner of Salem's facilities at issue had tested the equipment appropriately up until the time Salem bought them. The duration of violation was from June 18, 2007 through June 18, 2010.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Docket No. NP10-70-000 (March 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2008, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) self-reported a possible violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R2 for its failure to test 29 relays as required by its Relay Maintenance Plan. The 29 relays account for less than 1% of SRP's total relays. For 28 of the relays in SRP's Agua Fria Generating Units, the failure to timely test was the result of a software error. For the one relay in the Navajo Generating Station, SRP mistakenly believed that the relay was the responsibility of the Transmission Operator that operates the 500 kV switchyard.

Finding: WECC and SRP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues from the alleged violation, whereby SRP agreed to pay a penalty of $15,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC determined that the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the relays in question were not related to critical circuits in the Western Interconnection. The one missed relay in the Navajo Generating Station only serves a radially-connected load associated with the generating station. For the relays in the Agua Fria Generating Units, SRP barely runs those units due to their high heat rates and operating costs. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered the fact that the alleged violation was self-reported; it was SRP's first violation of this Reliability Standard; and SRP did not attempt to conceal the alleged violation. SRP successfully completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued March 31, 2010 (no further review)

Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-22-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: Sam Rayburn's Protection System maintenance and testing program failed to include (i) maintenance cycles or their basis and (ii) a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: 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 SERC's exercise of discretion to not assess penalties for these reasons, and also added that the violation was the first incidence of violation by Sam Rayburn and that Sam Rayburn worked cooperatively with SERC and acted immediately to mitigate and/or correct the violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,105, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-103-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: Prior to an on-site compliance audit, Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative Inc. (Rayburn) self-reported a violation of R1 because it was missing maintenance and testing procedures for its circuit breaker bushing current transformers. Rayburn also self-reported a violation of R2 because nine circuit breakers in its transmission protection system had not been tested within required intervals, and the remaining circuit breakers had been tested but on a modified, stand-alone current transformer procedure. During the audit, SERC determined that Rayburn also violated R1 because Rayburn's maintenance and testing program did not include the interval, basis or summary of maintenance and testing procedures for its transformers or associated communications systems. SERC also found additional equipment during its audit that either did not have prior test records available or had been tested outside the required intervals.

Finding: SERC determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the violations were primarily documentation issues, and Rayburn had been testing most of its facilities albeit outside the defined intervals. With respect to the facilities that had not been tested, SERC concluded that testing of related components provided no indication that the untested components were not functioning properly. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through March 5, 2010.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

San Diego Gas & Electric, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In March 2008, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDGE), a medium-sized entity, self-reported that testing and maintenance for one of its batteries was performed outside of the defined intervals in the Protective System Maintenance and Testing Program. A scheduled two-year maintenance in October 2005 for this battery was never performed (even though quarterly maintenance was conducted).

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since SDGE was still performing quarterly maintenance on the battery. The violation was self-reported and this was SDGE’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

San Diego Gas & Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-146-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: During a compliance audit in October 2009, WECC determined that San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE), as a Generator Owner, had not, during the third quarter of 2009, maintained and tested the battery bank at its Palomar Generating Station's Steam Generating Unit #3 within the defined quarterly intervals of its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. The rest of SDGE's battery banks had been maintained and tested as required within the defined intervals.

Finding: WECC found that this violation caused a moderate risk to the bulk power system since if the relevant battery bank was unable to perform its intended function, the Palomar generator protection would also be unable to operate correctly, which would require the use of backup Time Delayed Relaying to isolate the generator. Therefore, a battery failure could result in the faulty operation of the generator protection and the unnecessary loss of the generator. The duration of the violation was from July 1, 2009 (the beginning of the quarter when the testing was not performed) though November 6, 2009 (when the mitigation plan was completed). Furthermore, NERC considered the fact that this was SDGE's second violation of this Reliability Standard; SDGE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; SDGE had a positive compliance program in place; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $30,000

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SMEC), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2; R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: SMEC, as a GO, self-reported a violation of R 2 to TRE for not performing maintenance and testing for 57 battery stations during the defined monthly intervals between September 2008 and April 2011 due to administrative scheduling errors. No issues were revealed when the station batteries were eventually tested.

Finding: TRE determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because maintenance and testing was performed outside of the defined intervals and SMEC indeed did have a Protection System maintenance and testing program in place . Furthermore, of all of its Protection System devices, only 1.5% was affected by the scheduling errors. Finally, no issues were revealed when the batteries and related systems were eventually tested. TRE and SMEC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby SMEC agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. TRE considered a number of "above and beyond measures" to be mitigating factors in making its penalty determination. Specifically, a NERC Reliability Standard consultant was hired specifically to help the GO to achieve full compliance, the GO produced an ICP manual following the violation, the GO created and filled a new position of Reliability Compliance Manager to ensure future compliance, a Reliance Compliance Officer was assigned to ensure that SMEC was in full compliance with NERC Standards, the GO installed new software to address the administrative scheduling error that caused the violation; and finally, the GO sponsored a subject matter expert to participate in a TRE workshop. The duration of the violation was from September 3, 2008 through May 22, 2011. SMEC neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $6,000

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-246-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During an audit in June 2010, RFC found that, before April 22, 2010, Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP (Scrubgrass), as a Generator Owner, has not incorporated maintenance and testing intervals, and their basis, or a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures into its Protection System maintenance and testing program as required. In addition, in its revised Protection System maintenance and testing program issued on April 22, 2010, Scrubgrass still did not include the maintenance and testing intervals for its voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: RFC and Scrubgrass entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Scrubgrass agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since, before April 22, 2010, Scrubgrass was conducting maintenance and testing according to the defined intervals specified in its Maintenance Management System. These intervals were documented into the Protection System maintenance and testing program on April 22, 2010. In addition, Scrubgrass was conducting regular maintenance and testing on its voltage and current sensing devices. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from June 25, 2007 through March 18, 2011. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were Scrubgrass’ first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; Scrubgrass was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Scrubgrass had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Shady Hills Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-164-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Shady Hills Power Company, LLC (SHP) failed to maintain a written Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the bulk power system.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from June 18, 2007, when the Standard became mandatory and enforceable, until August 27, 2009. FRCC imposed a $25,000 penalty for this violation. In assessing the penalty, FRCC considered these factors: this was SHP’s first alleged violation of this NERC Reliability Standard; SHP cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; SHP’s compliance program; SHP did not attempt to conceal the violations or intend to do so; the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no aggravating factors that would impact the penalty assessment.

Penalty: $25,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Sierra Pacific Industries, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) self-certified that the documentation for its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not include the basis for the maintenance intervals.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk the bulk power system since the maintenance intervals used by SPI were within the range for normal intervals. This violation was primarily a documentation issue and it was SPI’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Sierra Pacific Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In February 2008, Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC) self-reported that it did not fully perform the testing under its protective relay maintenance plan within the defined intervals. SPPC discovered that 49 relays out of 461 had not been tested by the required date.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since all of the overlooked relays were microprocessor-based and were always running self-diagnostics. An actual fault line (i.e., real-world tests) occurred and these overlooked relays operated properly by correctly detecting and clearing the fault. There were also both primary and backup relay schemes. The violation was self-reported and it was SPPC’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC), d/b/a, NV Energy, FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: SPPC, as a TO, DP and GO, did not maintain 12 transmission station batteries and an additional 4 generation station batteries, representing less than 20% of all of SPPC’s Protection System batteries, within the intervals set forth in its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation was found to constitute a minimal risk to BPS reliability. SPPC does conduct battery inspections quarterly and this violation related to annual testing. SPPC missed its annual inspection, but not quarterly inspections. SPPC operators would be aware of any potential problems based on those quarterly inspections. In addition, the batteries support only a small fraction of SPPC’s transmission Protection System and an even smaller fraction of SPPC's generation Protection System. System protection engineers regularly review the battery maintenance records. Even though the violation of the Reliability Standard was the fault of an SPPC affiliate, Enforcement found the SPPC affiliate violation occurred concurrent to a previous SPPC violation. Enforcement considered as an aggravating factor that this violation is SPPC’s second assessed violation of PRC-005-1 R2. SPPC’s internal compliance program was considered a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate penalty amount.

Penalty: $16,400 (aggregate for four violations)

FERC Order: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

Silver Star I Power Partners, LLC (Silver Star), Docket No. NP12-22-000 (March 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: TRE

Issue: Silver Star self-reported that 3 out of its 54 Protection System devices (5.6% of Silver Star’s total Protection System devices) had not undergone infrared testing within the six-month testing requirement. Silver Star, as a GO, did not follow its Protection System maintenance and testing program when it missed the October 2009 test date for its capacitor coupled voltage transformers (CCVTs). Silver Star did not have an automated work order system that would have alerted it that testing was due.

Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability because it only involved a small portion of Silver Star’s Protection System devices and when the next testing took place no problems were found. Also, Silver Star is only 60 MW of total ERCOT generation. In determining the appropriate penalty, TRE considered Silver Star’s internal compliance program as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $2,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2012 (no further review)

Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, FERC Docket No. NP11-28-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: During a spot check in May 2009, FRCC found that the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County (SWA), as a Generator Owner, did not possess a Protection System maintenance and testing program that contained bases, intervals or summaries of maintenance and testing procedures for protective relays, station batteries, DC control circuitry, associated communication systems, and voltage and current sensing devices.

Finding: FRCC and SWA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby SWA agreed to pay a penalty of $4,500 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. FRCC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since SWA was actually performing testing and maintenance on its protection relay equipment according to the manufacturer's or the insurance carrier's recommendations (whichever one was more stringent). Furthermore, SWA accounts for less than 1% of the region's generating capacity. The duration of the violation was from July 11, 2007 through September 30, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, FRCC considered the fact this was SWA's first violation of this Reliability Standard; the violation was discovered through a spot check; SWA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; SWA expressed a commitment to improve its compliance program (as it did not have a fully documented compliance program in place when the incident occurred); and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $4,500

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

South Carolina Public Service Authority, FERC Docket No. NP11-100-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1), Moderate (R2)

Region: SERC

Issue: During an on-site compliance audit, SERC identified a violation of R1 because South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA) failed to provide evidence of maintenance and testing intervals or its basis for intervals related to voltage and current sensing devices and station batteries at certain generating facilities prior to November 30, 2007. For the period from November 30, 2007 through September 17, 2009, SCPSA provided a document stating maintenance and testing intervals but could not provide a basis for certain intervals; after September 17, 2009, SCPSA's documentation provided appropriate maintenance and testing intervals and the bases for same. SERC also found a violation of R2 because SCPSA could not provide evidence that its voltage and current sensing devices and station batteries were maintained and tested within defined intervals as required by the Reliability Standard. SCPSA also self-reported a violation of R2 because a monthly inspection scheduled for November 2009 was completed outside the appropriate interval.

Finding: SERC determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the types of systems for which SCPSA had a deficient maintenance and testing program did not require frequent maintenance and testing and are continuously monitored; in addition, the violations were primarily documentation issues. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 became enforceable, through September 17, 2009 (R1) and September 23, 2010 (R2).

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate penalty for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

South Eastern Electric Development Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-30-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: South Eastern Electric Development Corporation (SEEDCo) failed to document the bases for its maintenance and testing intervals of its protective relays identified in its maintenance and testing program. In addition, auditors were unable to verify through documentation that maintenance and testing was being performed on associated communication systems and DC control circuitry (though auditors confirmed during an on-site visit that such maintenance and testing had been performed).

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because: the violation was a documentation issue; there was no serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and no violation history. SEEDCo was also given credit for its self-report.

Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

South Eastern Generating Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-31-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: South Eastern Generating Corporation (SEGenCo) failed to document the bases for its maintenance and testing intervals of its protective relays identified in its maintenance and testing program. In addition, auditors were unable to verify through documentation that maintenance and testing was being performed on associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry (though auditors confirmed during an on-site visit that such maintenance and testing had been performed).

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because: the violation was a documentation issue; there was no serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

South Feather Power Project (SFPP), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: SFPP self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R1 in its capacity as Generator Owner (GO) on August 2, 2012. SFPP lacked its own Protection System maintenance and testing program for every component of its Protection Systems, instead using another entity’s Standards and guidelines. WECC in reviewing SFPP’s self-certification found that that SFPP was applying its contracting transmission owner’s (TO) Protection System maintenance and testing program procedures to its station battery systems rather than having one of its own. WECC later found that SFPP did have a Protection System maintenance and testing program with defined intervals and a summary of procedures, but still lacked a basis for the intervals.

Finding: WECC found that this violation posed a minimal, but not a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system (BPS) reliability. For one, the issue only affected quarterly battery testing. Further, SFPP did have a written policy statement concerning Protection System maintenance and testing, though it was not its own. SFPP followed the policy’s guidelines through the violation period, which mandated application of standards developed by the TO for routine testing of protective devices, and maintained and tested its relays and voltage and current sensing devices within those procedures’ defined intervals. In determining an appropriate penalty, WECC credited SFPP’s Internal Compliance Program (ICP) which identifies and lists all applicable Reliability Standards. The ICP provides a mechanism for updating as the Standards evolve, as well as procedures to encourage quick detection and self-reporting of Reliability Standards violations. The ICP has operational independence from staff involved in NERC compliance. WECC also credited SFPP’s participation in outreach compliance programs.

Total Penalty: $7,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

South Feather Power Project (SFPP), Docket No. NP13-39-000 (May 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: SFPP submitted a Self-Certification on July 19, 2012 that it, as a Generator Owner (GO), violated PRC-005-1 R2. From January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011, SFPP failed to record battery cell voltages at its Forbestown Powerhouse. This plant was shut down and cleared for replacement of the turbine shut-off valve during this period, which resulted in SFPP missing the required quarterly battery test.

Finding: WECC found that the violation posed a minimal, but not a serious or substantial, risk to the bulk power system’s reliability. SFPP did perform daily checks and kept logs of the battery voltages during the period of violation, even though it could not produce evidence of quarterly battery cell inspections during one quarter. Moreover, during this time, the batteries were still inspected by the operator. In determining an appropriate penalty, WECC credited SFPP’s Internal Compliance Program (ICP) which identifies and lists all applicable Reliability Standards. The ICP provides a mechanism for updating as the Standards evolve, as well as procedures to encourage quick detection and self-reporting of Reliability Standards violations. The ICP has operational independence from staff involved in NERC compliance. WECC also credited SFPP’s participation in outreach compliance programs.

Total Penalty: $7,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 28, 2013 (no further review)

Southern California Edison – Generation – Power Production Business Unit, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2008, Southern California Edison – Generation – Power Production Business Unit (SCEG) self -reported that it had 59 protective relays (accounting for less than 5% of its total relays) which were not maintained and tested in accordance with the dates contained in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. SCEG attributed this violation to its maintenance program not including a formal escalation procedures when frequency was going to be missed, not emphasizing the importance of maintenance, incomplete maintenance documentation, problems with work prioritization and preventative maintenance backlog review, issues with management oversight, and an inadequate work management system.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since all of the relays had the benefit of back-up protection. The violation was self-reported and this was SCEG’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Southern California Edison–Generation–Power Production Business Unit (SCEG), FERC Docket No. NP12-23-000 (April 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: During a self-evaluation, SCEG, a GO, discovered a violation of PRC-005-1 which it self-reported. SCEG noted that all of its 12 generating facilities did not have documentation to prove monthly tests had been performed on batteries as required by the SECG Battery Inspection and Maintenance Department Order (Department Order), and several facilities also did not have evidence of periodic tests and inspections required by the Department Order. Three months later, after further assessment of all protection system components, SCEG discovered that at one of its generating facilities there was a failure to conduct Current Transformer (CT) and Potential Transformer (PT) testing as outlined in its Department Order. SCEG self-reported this second violation, and both violations were combined into one proceeding.

Finding: WECC determined the violations posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability. First, the battery systems are continuously monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in one of SCEG’s three control rooms. Due to this monitoring, any drop in voltage would trigger an alarm which would lead to immediate corrective action. Second, though SCEG did not comply with the Department Order’s CT and PT testing procedure, SCEG did conduct visual inspections that met industry standards and any abnormalities in the Protection System would trigger an alarm. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through February 11, 2011, the date SCEG completed its Mitigation Plan. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered the following mitigating factors. The violations were self-reported, SCEG had a Mitigation Plan in place at the time of settlement, SCEG was cooperative throughout WECC’s evaluation, and there was neither evidence that SCEG attempted to conceal the violation nor that the violation was intentional. WECC also considered that SCEG complied with all applicable compliance directives, and that Southern California Edison, SCEG’s parent company, had an Internal Compliance Program at the time of the violation. The violation was a repeat violation which was considered an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $70,000

FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2012 (no further review)

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP11-101-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: During a scheduled compliance audit, SERC determined that Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (SIPC) did not include the interval and basis, or a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures, in its Maintenance and Testing program documentation in violation of R1. After the audit concluded, SIPC provided additional evidence that would have supported a finding of compliance with R1 if provided during the audit. With respect to R2, SIPC failed to provide evidence that voltage and current sensing devices or DC control circuitry were tested within specified intervals, though interviews with personnel and peripheral evidence provided after the audit suggested the tests had been completed.

Finding: SERC determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the violations were primarily documentation issues and there was some evidence, though not conclusive with respect to R2, to show that SIPC was compliant with R1 and R2. The duration of violation of R1 was from March 19, 2009 at 9am (when the audit team concluded its audit without documentation of compliance) through March 19, 2009 at 4:50pm (when SIPC delivered documentation of compliance). The duration of violation of R2 was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through November 21, 2009.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate penalty for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, FERC Docket No. NP10-112-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: During a compliance audit in February 2009, MRO discovered a potential violation of PRC-005-1 as Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) was unable to produce documentation that included all of the required elements of PRC-005-1 (e.g., the intervals and their basis and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures) from two of the five entities it contracted with to provide operations and maintenance services for its Protection System maintenance and testing. In addition, three of these entities were unable to provide a complete copy of all the relevant documentation dating back from the time the Reliability Standards became mandatory. One of the entities was responsible for approximately 27% of SMMPA's Protection System devices.

Finding: MRO and SMMPA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby SMMPA agreed to undertake mitigation measures and no penalty was imposed. MRO found that this violation of PRC-005-1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the actual testing and maintenance was being performed and SMMPA was able to produce documentation showing the last as well as the next test dates. This violation was primarily a documentation issue. In deciding not to impose a penalty, MRO considered the fact that the multiple violations were SMMPA's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards and SMMPA was cooperative through the compliance process and did not attempt to conceal the violations. SMMPA has completed a mitigation plan for the violation of PRC-005-1 and has undertaken other efforts to strength its compliance program.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (SMGT), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: WECC confirmed SMGT’s December 3, 2011 self-reported violation of PRC-005-1 because SMGT failed to have a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program for its new Highwood Generating Station. SMGT energized the Highwood Generation Station’s 46 MVA generator on September 7, 2011, utilizing a 230 kV connection to the BPS. While the generation Protection System, including its relays, was tested during commissioning, SMGT did not create a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program in time for the station’s start. The duration of the violation was from September 7, 2011 through May 11, 2012.

Finding: This violation posed only a minimal risk to BPS reliability for two reasons. First, because the newly constructed Highwood Generating Station’s generation Protection Systems and all applicable components were tested during commissioning, they were properly maintained during the violation period. Second, SMGT’s generator’s size, 46 MVA, and location reduced the risk posed by the lack of a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program. SMGT did not contest WECC’s findings.

Penalty: $1,500

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Southern Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-35-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (PRC-005-1 R2 has a Lower VRF, but its sub-requirement PRC-005-1 R2.1 has a High VRF)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Southern Power self-reported its failure, as a Generator Owner, to have documents available showing that its maintenance and testing program inspected the batteries and tested them within the identified intervals. Southern Power did have in place a documented Protection System maintenance and testing program whereby station batteries were inspected and tested on a monthly basis to evaluate the integrity of the batteries. During an internal review, Southern Power found documentation problems in its five generating plants concerning the monthly testing of 32 out of its 40 Protection System device batteries (as the records were missing for 135 out of the 680 monthly interval tests that should have been conducted on the batteries between June 2007 and October 2008).

Finding: Southern Power and SERC entered into a settlement agreement whereby Southern Power neither admitted nor denied the alleged violation but agreed to a penalty of $7,500. SERC determined that the alleged violation occurred because of a failure by Southern Power to communicate with plant personnel that the station batteries need to be inspected and tested monthly and that this inspection and testing must be sufficiently documented. SERC determined that the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since testing and maintenance were still being performed for all of the battery systems (even though less frequently than required), there was testing and maintenance documentation for some intervals, eight batteries had all of their proper documents, and the other 32 batteries only had random gaps in their documentation. In assessing the penalty, SERC considered the fact that Southern Power had no prior violation of this or any related Reliability Standard, Southern Power self-reported the alleged violation, Southern Power actively cooperated with SERC during the investigation and had no intent to conceal the alleged violation, Southern Power adopted the maintenance and testing program of its parent corporation, Southern Company (which has previously been reviewed by the SERC's Staff), Southern Power promptly resolved the issue and instituted various mitigation measures, and Southern Power implemented formal compliance goals in 2009 for all of its plants as well as a wide range of other measures to prevent the recurrence of this problem. In addition to the measures detailed in its mitigation plan, Southern Power also agreed to other actions, such as the hiring of a full-time Compliance Coordinator and the development of an interactive ERO Compliance website, designed to improve its compliance. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that Southern Power self-reported the violation as a result of a self-initiated review of its maintenance and testing activities, it was Southern Power's first violation of the Reliability Standards, Southern Power did have a maintenance and testing program in place (even though it was not functioning at the required monthly intervals), the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability, Southern Power was cooperative during the investigation, and Southern Power had enacted a wide range of measures in response to the alleged violation.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued March 15, 2010 (no further review)

Southern Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-06-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: FRCC determined that Southern Power Company (SPC), as a Generator Owner, failed to test two sets of station batteries at its DeSoto facility within the time intervals as specified in SPC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program (first violation), and SPC failed to produce documentation to confirm that the station batteries at its Oleander and Stanton generating stations were tested within the time intervals established by SPC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program (second violation).

Finding: The alleged violations occurred from June 18, 2007, when the standard became mandatory and enforceable, until September 9, 2008 (first violation) and between June 18, 2007 and February 27, 2009 (second violation). FRCC imposed a $15,000 penalty for these violations. FRCC determined that the first violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system (BPS) because although SPC failed to maintain station batteries on a monthly basis as defined in its Protection System maintenance and testing program, SPC tested and maintained the station batteries on a quarterly basis. FRCC also determined that the second violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the BPS because although SPC failed to confirm station battery maintenance and testing at its Oleander and Stanton generating stations, SPC did perform certain maintenance and testing activities after discovery of this violation and SPC discovered that the station batteries were in good working order at the time of the inspection. In assessing the penalty, FRCC considered the following facts: the violations constituted two occurrences of violations of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; SPC cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; SPC’s compliance program; SPC did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $15,000

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc., Docket No. NP10-79-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: During a spot check of Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (SWTC) in January 2008, WECC discovered a potential violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005 -1 R1 due to SWTC's failure to produce sufficient documentation concerning its testing of DC control circuitry, maintenance and testing intervals, and a summary of its Protection System maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: WECC and SWTC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues resulting from numerous alleged violations, whereby SWTC agreed to pay a penalty of $44,000 for multiple violations and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC determined that the alleged violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1 did not cause a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since SWTC was current with its Protection System maintenance and testing program and did define the time intervals for the testing of its Protection Systems (even though it had not documented the methodology it used to come up with the intervals used). In reaching its penalty decision, WECC considered the fact that these alleged violations were SWTC's first assessed non-compliance with the relevant Reliability Standards; SWTC was cooperative through the compliance process; and SWTC has a good internal compliance program. SWTC successfully completed its mitigation plan for the alleged violation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 R1.

Penalty: $44,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Southwest Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (SWTC), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: WECC

Issue: After reviewing SWTC’s Self-Report submitted on December 15, 2011, WECC confirmed that SWTC violated PRC-005-1 R2.1 for failing to maintain and test both its Sandario Substation’s battery bank and six of its Apache Substation’s electromechanical relays within their respective 12-14 month and 18-20 month intervals as prescribed in SWTC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program. In preparation for its on-site compliance audit scheduled for February 2012, SWTC discovered that the battery bank at its Sandario Substation, 1 of 22 such battery banks, had not been tested since September 3, 2009. Additionally, SWTC discovered six of its Apache Substation’s electromechanical relays were last tested on January 1, 2008. The duration of the violation for the failure to test the electromechanical relays was from October 1, 2009 through February 13, 2010. The duration of the violation for the failure to test the battery bank was from November 13, 2010 through December 27, 2010.

Finding: The violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS because SWTC’s failure to maintain 6 of the 14 electromechanical relays at the Apache Substation created the possibility that SWTC could fail to properly detect or respond to false operations or other service failures on SWTC’s system. SWTC’s testing and monitoring failure put 598 MW of generation at risk of a service or operation failure. This risk was mitigated by three factors. First, SWTC did perform inconsistent maintenance and testing on the battery bank and relays. Second, SWTC’s battery systems were continuously monitored through the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and the Energy Management System (EMS). These mechanisms, designed to signal the Control System Center in the case of any problems, indicated no issues during the violation period with the Sandario Substation delivering its 115/25 kV customer load to member cooperatives or operating at its peak load of 9.7 MW. Third, SWTC’s relay systems were also monitored with the SCADA system and alarms. Similarly, no issues were found when the Apache Substation relays were tested, and no system disturbances related to the missed relay maintenance were reported during the violation period. SWTC did not contest the WECC’s findings. In determining the proper penalty, WECC applied cooperation credit because the Audit Notice prompted SWTC to review its Protection System devices which led to the report. Additionally, WECC viewed SWTC’s internal compliance program (ICP) as a mitigating factor. WECC did consider SWTC’s previous violation of PRC-005-1 R1 as a potential aggravating factor, but determined that the factual differences between the violations and the lack of evidence of broader corporate issues made aggravation inappropriate. In differentiating the instant and previous violations, WECC highlighted that the previous violation involved SWTC’s failure to have a procedure for testing DC circuitry for circuit breakers or DC power for relays, whereas the instant violation involved SWTC overlooking the existing procedures entirely in failing to test within the prescribed intervals.

Penalty: $25,100

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Springfield Utility Board, FERC Docket No. NP11-227-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: Springfield Utility Board (Springfield) missed testing or could not provide evidence of testing for 281 of its 446 Protection System devices as required by PRC-005-1.

Finding: WECC and Springfield entered into a settlement agreement whereby Springfield agreed to pay a penalty of $9,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Springfield owns only one interconnection point to the bulk power system connecting a single 115 kV line. In addition, Springfield’s neighboring entities provided evidence that if Springfield’s protection devices malfunctioned, that would not affect their systems. In approving the penalty amount, NERC found that these were the Springfield’s first violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; Springfield was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Springfield had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $9,000

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further action)

SRW Cogeneration Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP10-127-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1 (R1.1, R1.2), R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: In advance of a compliance audit, SRW Cogeneration Limited Partnership (SRW) self-reported in June 2009 that its Protection System maintenance and testing program that was in effect from June 25, 2007 through January 20, 2009 did not meet all of the requirements of the Reliability Standard. That version of the Protection System maintenance and testing program did not incorporate the testing of associated communication systems and DC control circuitry, the basis for maintenance and testing intervals for each category of Protection System components, or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for each category of Protection Systems. In addition, SRW also self-reported that it had not performed weekly testing on its gas turbine generator Packaged Electrical and Electronic Control Compartment batteries, 5 kV batteries, and associated DC control circuitry, as required by its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The duration of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation was from June 25, 2007, the date SRW was required to comply with the Reliability Standards, through June 4, 2009, when a revised Protection System maintenance and testing program went into effect. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R2 violation was from June 25, 2007 through July 21, 2009, when SRW completed a mitigation plan. SERC and SRW entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby SRW neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $20,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC found that the alleged violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as the Generator Owner is a single 420 MW Qualifying Facility that mainly provides thermal energy to its host, and only places residual power on the bulk power system through a single 138 kV connection (which would limit the impact if the generation Protection System failed). In determining the penalty amount, SERC also considered the fact that the alleged violations were SRW’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the alleged violations were self-reported (after being notified of an upcoming audit); SRW was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations; SRW has a compliance program in place; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

Sunbury Generation LP, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2/2.1/2.2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1, R2/2.1/2.2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in September 2010, RFC found that Sunbury Generation LP (Sunbury), as a GO, did not list in its Protection System maintenance and testing program the maintenance and testing intervals, as well their bases, for its voltage and current sensing devices and the summaries of its maintenance and testing procedures for its voltage and current sensing devices and its DC control circuits (R1). In addition, Sunbury did not test its DC control circuitry according to the defined intervals and did not specify the dates that its DC control circuits were last tested (R2).

Finding: RFC found that the PRC-005-1 violations constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. Sunbury employs redundant protections, including alarms that ring in both the plant control room and the plant control house when there is a loss of power or other similar malfunction. In addition, Sunbury tested the rest of its Protection System devices according to the defined intervals and the devices were all found to be in satisfactory condition. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through October 20, 2010. RFC evaluated Sunbury’s compliance program as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for three violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Docket No. NP12-21, March 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SPP

Issue: Following a compliance audit, SPP found that Sunflower Electric Power Corporation’s (“Sunflower”) Protection System Testing and Maintenance Program within its Transmission Protection System Procedure was deficient because it failed to adequately document 38% of Sunflower’s 1,267 protection system devices.

Finding: SPP determined that the violation posed a minimal risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because Sunflower provided evidence that it was testing and maintaining the missing protection devices. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 to February 11, 2011.

Penalty: $135,000 (aggregate for 16 violations)

FERC Order: Order Issued April 30, 2012 (no further action)

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower) and Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC (Mid-Kansas), FERC Docket No. NP13-13 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During a compliance audit, SPP determined that Mid-Kansas did not have the required maintenance and testing records or had performed the maintenance and testing outside of the defined intervals for many of its Protection System devices. This violation covers 35% of its protective relays (152 out of 435 relays), 36% of its associated communication devices (19 out of 53 devices), 98% of its current and voltage sensing devices (366 out of 374 devices), 98% of its DC control circuits (423 out of 432 devices), and 22% of its station batteries (7 out of 32 devices).

Finding: SPP found that this violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability as Mid-Kansas did not have the required maintenance and testing records or had performed the maintenance and testing outside of the defined intervals for 71% of its Protection System devices (937 of its 1,326 devices). But, over half of Mid-Kansas’ current and voltage sensing devices are tied to microprocessor relays and monitored through the SCADA system, which triggers an alarm to an operations center if a device goes outside its normal range. The associated communication devices are also monitored by the SCADA system. In addition, Mid-Kansas’ DC control circuits that are connected to microprocessor relays are monitored through the SCADA system, while those DC control circuits not monitored by the SCADA system are reviewed during monthly substation checks. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R2 violation was from August 24, 2007 through August 30, 2012. Sunflower and Mid-Kansas neither admitted nor denied the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered the fact that some of the violations were self-reported and Sunflower’s compliance program (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). Sunflower and Mid-Kansas were also cooperative during the compliance process and did not conceal the violations. Sunflower’s prior violations of TOP-002-2 R11 and TOP-004-1 R6 were viewed as an aggravating factor.

Total Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower) and Mid-Kansas Electric Company, LLC (Mid-Kansas), FERC Docket No. NP13-13 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During a compliance audit, SPP found that Sunflower did not have Protection System maintenance and testing records or did not perform maintenance and testing according to its defined intervals for 17% of its protective relays (86 out of 517 devices), 77% of its associated communication system devices (23 out of 30 devices), 98% of its current and voltage sensing devices (455 out of 465 devices), 99% of its DC control circuitry (497 out of 504 devices) and 32% of its station batteries (11 out of 34 batteries).

Finding: SPP found that this violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability as Sunflower did not have testing records or did not follow its maintenance and testing intervals for 69% of its Protection System devices (1,072 out of 1,550 devices). But, a large number of Sunflower’s current and voltage sensing devices, DC control circuits and associated communication systems are monitored through Sunflower’s SCADA system, which would provide an alert if the Protection System devices fall out of normal ranges. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R2 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 30, 2012. Sunflower and Mid-Kansas neither admitted nor denied the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered the fact that some of the violations were self-reported and Sunflower’s compliance program (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). Sunflower and Mid-Kansas were also cooperative during the compliance process and did not conceal the violations. Sunflower’s prior violations of TOP-002-2 R11 and TOP-004-1 R6 were viewed as an aggravating factor.

Total Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Sunray Energy, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-81-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Sunray Energy did not have a documented generation Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through July 2, 2009, when Sunray Energy completed its mitigation plan. In reaching this 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)

SWG Colorado, LLC (formerly Black Hills Colorado, LLC), FERC Docket No. NP10-163-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: SWG Colorado, LLC (BHC) did not trip test the circuit breakers at its Arapahoe and Valmont facilities in accordance with its Protection System Maintenance and Testing program.

Finding: The alleged violation occurred from January 1, 2008, when the circuit breakers should have been trip tested, until July 13, 2009. WECC imposed a $12,000 penalty for this violation. In assessing the penalty, WECC determined that the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because, even though a failure of the Protection System to isolate a generator disturbance could remove a bulk power system transmission line from service, loss of the subject lines could easily be absorbed by the interconnected system, since the lines are not part of a WECC "path." Further, the Arapahoe plant and the Valmont plant are relatively small generation sources.

Penalty: $12,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Sycamore Cogeneration Company (SYCC), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: WECC

Issue: After reviewing SYCC’s Self-Report submitted on March 12, 2012, WECC determined that SYCC violated PRC-005-1 R2 for failing to meet the requirements of its Protection System maintenance and testing program for four of its 59 generator backup field overvoltage relays. The four relays at issue perform a backup function to the generator excitation control systems on each of the four 75 MW units that comprise SYCC’s 300 MW facility. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 until March 23, 2012.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation posed only a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS for three reasons. First, the four overvoltage relays at issue were properly included in SYCC's maintenance and testing program. The relays were not tested because of an oversight by the relay technicians. Second, the control system that the overvoltage relays support functioned normally during the violation period. Third, SYCC demonstrated that its other protective devices, notably the generator neutral and phase overcurrent relays, were properly maintained and tested during the intervals prescribed by SYCC’s Protection System maintenance and testing program. SYCC did not contest WECC’s findings.

Penalty: $4,500

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Tennessee Valley Authority, FERC Docket No. NP09-36-000 (September 25, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Tennessee Valley Authority's Protection System maintenance and testing procedure documentation failed to specify the intervals for maintenance and testing, and the basis on which the intervals were determined, for all of its applicable relays.

Finding: The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 31, 2008. SERC did not assess a penalty for this violation considering that the violation occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and that the violation did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 23, 2009 (no further review)

Tennessee Valley Authority, FERC Docket No. NP09-36-000 (September 25, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Tennessee Valley Authority reported a power distributor failed to produce evidence to show that its relevant Protection System devices associated with transmission systems were maintained and tested within defined intervals.

Finding: The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 31, 2008. SERC did not assess a penalty for this violation considering that the violation occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and that the violation did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 23, 2009 (no further review)

Tennessee Valley Authority, FERC Docket No. NP10-180-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: TVA self-reported that it did not perform a quarterly inspection of a microwave repeater station containing relay circuitry. TVA also reported that it did not have evidence that batteries at 17 generating facilities were maintained and tested within the intervals defined in its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: It was determined by SERC that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because (1) the microwave repeater station had a backup alarm to alert TVA to failures at the station and TVA only missed one quarter of inspections, and (2) TVA could monitor battery status at the 17 generating facilities remotely and only a few battery readings were missed. The duration of the first violation was from October 7, 2008 through January 13, 2009. The duration of the second violation was from April 30, 2008 through June 11, 2009. Additional factors for the penalty determination included that the violation was the second violation of this Reliability Standard by TVA, though SERC did not find the instant violations to be repeat violations, and TVA self-reported the violations.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

NP18-17-000: Tennessee Valley Authority

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation ID: SERC2015014914

Method of Discovery: Self-Report

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: On February 10, 2015, SERC sent TVA an audit detail letter notifying TVA of a Compliance Audit scheduled to begin on May 11, 2015. TVA discovered this violation on April 14, 2015, while preparing for the audit, and found additional instances of noncompliance while performing an extent of condition review as part of its Mitigation Plan. Shortly before and then following the Compliance Audit, TVA submitted a series of Self-Reports stating that it was in violation of PRC-005-1.1b R2. TVA failed to test and maintain several Protection System devices, including relays, batteries, DC control circuitry, and voltage and current sensing devices within the defined intervals. Some of the Protection System devices had not been tested since they were installed, which occurred before the Reliability Standard became mandatory and enforceable. To evaluate the violation, SERC randomly sampled approximately 10 percent of TVA's Protection System device inventory, revealing additional instances of missed maintenance and testing. To mitigate this violation, TVA performed a PRC-005 asset inventory verification for all of its transmission and generation sites. TVA reported to SERC that it could not provide evidence that it tested and maintained 1,917 of 45,868 Protection System devices (4.2 percent) within the defined intervals.

Finding: SERC determined this violation posed a serious risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). TVA's failure to maintain and test Protection System devices within the defined intervals could lead to devices not operating as intended, potentially leading to false trips, remote clearing, delayed clearing, the overreach of protective relays, a loss of generating units, or reliance on other registered entities' Protection System devices to respond to a fault. The devices identified were associated with transmission and generation facilities across TVA's footprint, including multiple 161 kV, 230 kV, and 500 kV substations and switching stations and multiple coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear generation plants with a collective generation capacity of approximately 29,000 MW out of TVA's total generation capacity of approximately 36,400 MW.

Penalty: $852,000

Duration of Violation: 18 June 2007 through 4 August 2017

FERC Order: Issued July 31, 2018 (no further review) 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Prior to a scheduled Compliance Audit, TVA self-reported that one of its distributors was four months late in conducting tests of seven relays, thus violating R2. During the audit, SERC determined that TVA had further violated R2 by failing to maintain and test three batteries and one relay within the defined testing intervals. TVA then self-reported that nine direct current circuits and one associated protective relay that had not been tested within the testing interval. SERC also determined that TVA had violated R2 by owning 146 Protection System devices that tested outside the defined interval. These included 22 protective relays, 81 voltage and current sensing devices, 34 station batteries, and 9 DC control circuits.

Finding: SERC determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS since the protective relays which tested outside of the defined interval either had self-diagnostic capabilities that would have alerted operators of failures or were associated with a distributor's network. In addition, no battery had been tested outside of the defined interval, and TVA had failed only to conduct maintenance inspections. With more than half of the missed testing associated with capacitance coupled voltage transformers, TVA would likely have been alerted to failures by the loss of the secondary voltage signal to the associated devices. Lastly, prompt testing of the identified devices revealed them to be functioning properly, thus indicating that they should have been performing properly during the missed testing periods. SERC and TVA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby TVA agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. SERC considered TVA's documented internal compliance program a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination and found that TVA's compliance history was not an aggravating factor. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 1, 2012. TVA neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-118-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2009, Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC (CADV), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it did not possess a Generation Maintenance and Inspection Plan (GMIP) that incorporated all of the components of CADV’s generation Protection System (R1). In addition, CADV self-reported that it did not have documentation showing that it had conducted maintenance and testing on its Protection System devices within the defined intervals or records of the dates when it had last tested its Protection System devices (R2).

Finding: WECC and CADV entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violations whereby CADV agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability as CADV did actually have a routine maintenance and testing program in place for the breaker that maintains the interconnection point, and CADV had not experienced a failures at this breaker in 20 years of operation. Furthermore, CADV only owns one renewable energy generating unit, with a single point of interconnection to the bulk power system. The duration of the R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 24, 2010. The violation of R2 started on June 18, 2007 and is continuing (as the mitigation plan is not yet complete). In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were CADV’s first violations of the Reliability Standard; the violations were self-reported; CADV was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). In addition, WECC had previously determined that Terra Gen Power, LLC’s transmission and generation entities (including those of its affiliates such as CADV) were not subject to PRC-005. Therefore, when calculating the penalty amount, WECC considered this as a mitigating factor since CADV was only notified that it was subject to PRC-005 on December 28, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP11-214-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2)

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, did not develop maintenance and testing intervals and their bases for 2 DC control circuitry and 28 voltage and current sensing devices and did not incorporate a summary of its Protection System maintenance and testing procedures for its DC control circuitry and voltage and current sensing devices (R1). In addition, T.E.S. did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it maintained its DC control circuitry and voltage and current sensing devices with the defined intervals and did not have the date each of those devices were last tested and maintained (R2).

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 PRC-005-1 violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since T.E.S. was conducting relay testing that would likely pick up any defective DC control circuitry. In addition, the relevant equipment is inside the facility, and therefore is less likely to deteriorate since it is not exposed to outside elements. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through December 21, 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)

Tex-LA Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-25-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: Tex-LA self-certified that its Protection System maintenance and testing program failed to include (i) maintenance cycles or their basis and (ii) a summary of its maintenance and testing procedures.

Finding: SERC declined to assess a penalty 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 SERC's exercise of discretion to not assess a penalty for these reasons, and also added that the violation was the first incidence of violation by Tex-LA and that Tex-LA worked cooperatively with SERC and acted immediately to mitigate and/or correct the violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-27-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1 and R2)

Violation Severity Level: High (for R1), Severe (for R2)

Region: SPP

Issue: In January 2009, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (Tex-La), as Distribution Provider and Transmission Owner, self-reported that its Protection Systems maintenance and testing program did not provide for routine maintenance and testing of the relevant instrument transformers (R1). In addition, Tex-La self-reported that it did not possess sufficient documentation to show that its Protection System devices were maintained within the defined intervals in its Protection Systems maintenance and testing program (R2).

Finding: SPP and Tex-La entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby Tex-La agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. SPP found that the violations of PRC-005-1 posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Tex-La is only responsible for testing seven Protection Systems and these Protection System devices are continuously monitored. Even if one of the Protection Systems devices failed, this failure would have been communicated to the necessary personnel through the microprocessor relay. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations were from June 18, 2007 through March 4, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, SPP considered the fact that this was Tex-La's first violation of PRC-005-1 R2 but the second violation of PRC-005-1 R1; the PRC-005-1 violations were self-reported; Tex-La was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Texas Municipal Power Agency, FERC Docket No. NP11-114-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: TRE

Issue: During an audit in January 2010, TRE discovered that Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA), as a Generation Owner, had not incorporated maintenance and testing intervals, and their basis, for instrument transformers in its original Protection System maintenance and testing program associated with its Gibbons Creek Steam Electric Station.

Finding: TRE and TMPA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby TMPA agreed to pay a penalty of $16,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. TRE found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since TMPA's main control room was essentially conducting functional testing for the instrument transformers via its monitoring of the readings from the sensing devices and alarms. The duration of the violation was from September 3, 2008 through December 1, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that this was TMPA's first violation of this Reliability Standard; TMPA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $16,000

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

The Dayton Power and Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-78-000 (December 22, 2010

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Level 3 (R1); Level 4 (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) failed to provide auditors with complete documentation of the existence or implementation of a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program, including maintenance and testing intervals and a summary of testing procedures for its voltage and current sensing devices (R1) and evidence its batteries and DC control circuitry were maintained and tested within defined intervals (R2).

Finding: The violations did not pose a serious or substantial threat to reliability of the bulk power system because the voltage and current sensing devices were historically highly reliable, and Dayton represented that these devices were visually inspected monthly during routine substation inspections. Moreover, Dayton stated that its practice was to test batteries and direct current control circuitry, and therefore the lack of evidence of these tests represented a mere documentation issue. The devices were all found to be properly functioning once Dayton conducted maintenance and testing following the audit. 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 Detroit Edison Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-232-000, July 28, 2011

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: RFC

Issue: Following a Self-Report, RFC determined The Detroit Edison Company (DECo) could not produce evidence that it documented the maintenance and testing within defined intervals of 37 of 711 Protection System devices in 2007 and 34 of 2,194 Protection System devices in 2008.

Finding: RFC assessed a $5,000 penalty for this violation. RFC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS) because DECo had monitoring systems with alarm capabilities in place that would have alerted DECo’s operating center of any issues. Moreover, no alarms were triggered at the locations at issue during the relevant timeframe, there were no related BPS system misoperations during the relevant timeframe, and DECo tested the batteries at issue before and after the missed intervals and found them to be functioning correctly. In approving the settlement between DECo and RFC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: the violation did not constitute a repeat violation; DECo self reported the violation; DECo was cooperative; DECo had a compliance program in place at the time of the violation, which RFC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; RFC determined the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

The Detroit Edison Company, FERC Docket No. NP13-5 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1/1.1, 1, 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (1/1.1, 1, 2/2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Lower (1/1.1), High (1), Severe (2/2.1)

Region: RFC

Issue: In March 2011, the Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison), as a GO and DP, self-reported that it did not incorporate maintenance and testing intervals, as well as their basis, in its Protection System maintenance and testing program for nine stub bus relays. As a result of the divestiture of its transmission assets to ITC Transmission Company (ITC) in 2003, Detroit Edison and ITC concluded an ownership agreement in regards to certain devices, but the agreement did not specify the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the nine stub bus relays. Detroit Edison assumed responsibility for these nine stub bus relays on a going forward basis (1/1.1). During a March 2011 compliance audit, RFC determined that Detroit Edison's GO Protection System maintenance and testing plan did not incorporate an interval and the basis for that interval for its voltage and current sensing devices and did not include the bases for the intervals for its relays, associated communication systems, and direct current control circuitry (1). RFC also found that, as a result of a misunderstanding over the scope of the transition plan regarding the revised definition of bulk electric system, Detroit Edison did not perform the required maintenance and testing by July 2008 on all the devices that were newly added to its Protection System maintenance and testing program (2/2.1).

Finding: Detroit Edison neither admitted nor denied the PRC-005-1 R1/1.1, R1 and R2/2.1 violations. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 R1/1.1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The relevant relays' zone of protection was already covered by existing relays that are already part of Detroit Edison's Protection System maintenance and testing program. And once tested, the relays were found to be in proper condition. The PRC-005-1 R1/1.1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 31, 2010. RFC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 and R2/2.1 violations constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability since the violations increased the risk that an important Protection System device was not being properly maintained and tested. But, in regards to R1, Detroit Edison was properly maintaining and testing its devices according to its defined five year intervals as required. Furthermore, there were no problem issues identified during the maintenance and testing and no relevant misoperations of the devices occurred during the violation. For R2/2.1, there are 13 Protection System that have not received the proper maintenance and testing and all of these systems have multiple relay protections schemes or multiple protective elements (which provide redundant protection). As arranging the maintenance and testing for these systems will be complicated, Detroit Edison committed to complete the required maintenance and testing by June 1, 2017. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through January 18, 2011 and the R2/2.1 violation started on July 18, 2008 and is continuing. RFC evaluated parts of Detroit Edison's compliance program as a mitigating factor. RFC also considered the fact that the R1/1.1 violation was self-reported, right before a compliance audit, as a partial mitigating factor. Detroit Edison's cooperation was also considered as a mitigating factor. Detroit Edison had a prior violation of PRC-005-1 R2.1, which was evaluated as an aggravating factor. RFC also gave mitigating credit to Detroit Edison for assuming responsibility for the maintenance and testing of the relays at issue in PRC-005-1 R1/1.1.

Penalty: $24,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

The Dow Chemical Company, FERC Docket No. NP08-34-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: Dow self-reported that one of its generating units had not been included in its protection system maintenance and documentation program.

Finding: No penalty assessed because the violation 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

Thermal Energy Development Partnership, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Thermal Energy Development Partnership, LP (TEDP) self-reported that while it had a hired a third party to perform its Protection System maintenance and testing, it had not documented that third-party’s maintenance and testing procedures into its own Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the third-party contractor was actually performing the maintenance and testing. The violation was self-reported; it was primarily a documentation issue; and it was TEDP’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. Although the violation occurred before the Reliability Standard became mandatory, TEDP did not timely complete a mitigation plan, and the violation turned into a post-June 18, 2007 violation, however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Thermo Power and Electric LLC (TPE), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: While preparing for an offsite compliance audit, TPE discovered that it did not have a formal generation Protection System maintenance and testing Program for the audit period of June 18, 2007 through October 1, 2009. Subsequently, TPE submitted a self-report detailing its finding. WECC Enforcement reviewed the Self-Report and the Audit Team findings and confirmed that TPE failed to have a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program, including maintenance and testing intervals, the basis for intervals, and a summary of maintenance and testing procedures, in violation of PRC-005-1 R1.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability. TPE provided evidence that most of its Protection System devices were being tested following an "informal" program for the two-year period that a formal program was not documented. Additionally, TPE is a small cogeneration facility located in an isolated part of the Western Interconnection. The two combustion turbines and steam generator have a combined capacity of only72 MW, thereby lessening the risk to the BPS. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC gave credit for TPE's self-report. TPE agreed/stipulated to WECC's findings.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for two penalties)

FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)

Thermo Power and Electric LLC (TPE), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: While preparing for an offsite compliance audit, TPE determined that it did not fully implement its generation Protection System maintenance and testing Program. TPE stated it failed to maintain and test 16 relays and 56 current and voltage devices within defined intervals since June 18, 2007. The WECC Audit Team confirmed that TPE did not create its program until October 1, 2009, and therefore, did not implement a program with defined intervals which meant that all devices were noncompliant for the period of June 18, 2007 until October 1, 2009. It was also found that 16 relays that were tested in 2003 and 2005 were not tested again until 2009, outside of the defined three-year interval. In addition, TPE could not provide any maintenance and testing records for 48 current transformers (CTs) and 8 potential transformers (PTs).

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability. Even though TPE did not have a documented maintenance and testing program until October 1, 2009, it did maintain and test all of its batteries and DC circuitry within defined intervals since the implementation of its program on October 1, 2009. In addition, TPE consistently maintained and tested these devices pre-2009 under an informal program. The testing was for batteries, communication devices, and DC circuitry. TPE tested per an informal program within intervals until October 1, 2009, when TPE created its formal program. TPE is a small cogeneration facility located in an isolated part of the Western Interconnection. TPE's two combustion turbines and steam generator have a combined capacity of only 72 MW. Based on the size of TPE's three generating units, combined with its connection voltage of 115 kV in an isolated part of the Western Interconnection, and the fact that the relays had some maintenance and testing performed, WECC determined that this violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC gave credit for TPE's self-report. TPE agreed/stipulated to WECC's findings.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for two penalties)

FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)

Tillamook People’s Utility District, FERC Docket No. NP11-142-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Tillamook People’s Utility District (TPD), a Distribution Provider, failed to maintain a maintenance and testing program for its Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the bulk power system (BPS). Further, TPD failed to provide evidence that its Protection System devices were maintained and tested within the defined intervals, or the date each Protection System device was last tested/maintained, for its Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the BPS.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $7,500 for these violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted TPD’s first violation of most of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; TPD self-reported the violations; TPD cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; TPD 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: $7,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Toledo Edison Company, Docket No. NP13-41-000 (June 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement(s): 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC)

Issue: Toledo Edison, a registered DP, reported to RFC through self-certification that for the time period June 2004 through June 2009 it could not find records showing that four breaker functional tests had been undertaken within the intervals established in its maintenance and testing program; however, RFC found no violation to have occurred since the time period in question was prior to the mandatory compliance date. Toledo Edison identified one instance where it performed a DC control circuit functional test on November 11, 2003, and subsequently performed the functional test on August 2, 2010, thereby exceeding the six-year and six-month interval.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk, which was mitigated because it was limited to one instance, and upon testing, the relevant DC control circuit operated as expected. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered aspects of Toledo Edison’s internal compliance program (ICP), including that the ICP is overseen by its parent company, FirstEnergy, and Toledo Edison follows FirstEnergy’s Reliability and Compliance Policy, which RFC found to be a mitigating factor. Toledo Edison and certain of its affiliates previously violated various Reliability Standards, and although all previous violations were properly mitigated, the repeat infractions and the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history were viewed as an aggravating factor, but RFC determined the FirstEnergy entities’ compliance history did not warrant a financial penalty. Jersey Central’s prior violation was an isolated incident involving less than 1% of its Protection System relays which RFC took into consideration. Also, RFC considered that Monongahela’s and AE Supply’s prior violations of PRC-005-1 R2 occurred prior to FirstEnergy’s February 25, 2011 acquisition of Monongahela and AE Supply.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 26, 2013 (no further review)

Tradinghouse Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: TRE

Issue: In September 2010, Tradinghouse Power Company, LLC (TPC), then a GO, self-reported a violation of PRC-005-1 as a result of its failure to perform maintenance and testing on 8 of 29 devices (27.59% of all devices) related to generator breaker failure protection as required by its Protection System Maintenance and Testing (M&T) program.

Finding: TRE found the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. The majority of the untested devices (relays and instrument transformers) are micro-processor based and they self-monitor. The subject devices were housed in a switchyard used by both the generating units and the TO until 2001, when ownership of the switchyard devices was separated. Prior to that time, the devices were tested and maintained by the TO according to NERC and industry standards (every five to 12 years). After ownership transferred, TPC did not always include the devices in its M&T program which led to their being overlooked for testing. The duration of the violation was January 31, 2008 through December 31, 2010, when TPC was removed from NERC’s registry. TPC is a subsidiary of Luminant Generation Company, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Energy Futures Holding Corp. (EFH). EFH’s compliance program was considered a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for three violations by Tradinghouse, Big Brown Power Company, LLC, and Luminant)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2007, TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TransAlta) self-reported that it had not documented its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program as required.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since TransAlta was actually performing regular maintenance and testing of its generation protection systems (even though the Maintenance and Testing Program was not complete or documented). This violation was self-reported; it was primarily a documentation issue; and this was TransAlta’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TACG) self-reported that it had not included five relay types in its generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. As a result, TACG was unable to provide sufficient documentation concerning its implementation of the Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program for those five relay types (such as information on the maintenance and testing within the defined intervals and the date each Protection System device was last tested or maintained).

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since all of the relays in TACG's Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program were actually tested. The relays that were not included were for the five TACG Big Hanaford units, which only runs for a maximum of three months, and all of the untested relays (except one) were continuously monitored, had alarm monitoring systems, or had back-up relays. The duration of the violation was from August 10, 2007 through July 10, 2009. This violation was self-reported and was TACG's first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TransAlta), Docket No. NP13-2 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: TransAlta self-certified that it failed to timely maintain and test certain Protection System components that were omitted from its list of Protection System devices within its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Specifically, TransAlta failed to timely maintain and test 8.14% of its relays, 71.4% of its DC circuitry devices, and 26% of its PTs and CTs. WECC found TransAlta was in violation of R2 from August 10, 2007 to December 22, 2009.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because without regular maintenance and testing it was hard to determine whether the devices were reliable. The violation was mitigated because the protection systems were fully functional when they were last maintained and tested. Moreover, alarm systems monitored the devices, and TransAlta reported that there were no alarms, false trips, or failures to trip for the duration of the violation. In addition, TransAlta took voluntary corrective action to remediate the violation, TransAlta did not fail to follow any relevant compliance directives, TransAlta had no negative compliance history and was cooperative during the enforcement process, there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation, nor that the violation was intentional.

Penalty: $40,000

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TACG), Docket No. NP14-15-000 (December 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: During the course of an off-site compliance audit, WECC found that TACG, as a TO, had not performed the required maintenance and testing (M&T) on five of ten transmission Protection System relays. Subsequent to that audit, TACG reported three other relays had not been tested. In the end, it was determined by WECC that eight of ten, i.e., 80%, of all relays had not been tested pursuant to established testing criteria. The violation ran from May 26, 2011, the date M&T was scheduled to be performed, through May 23, 2012, the date the M&T was completed.

Finding: These violations were deemed to pose a moderate risk to BPS reliability, but not serious or substantial risk. The violation involved 80% of TACG’s Protection System relays, and TACG did not finish testing until nearly six months beyond the grace period given. WECC found this violation to be evidence of a breakdown in compliance with M&T scheduling and monitoring. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered that, regarding the FAC-001 circumstances, TACG has stated to WECC and NERC that the requirements of FAC-001 are not applicable to TACG and has self-certified that FAC-001 is not applicable to it. TACG also has an internal compliance program that WECC considered a mitigating factor. However, the PRC-005-1 R2 violation is the third violation of that Reliability Standard, which was an aggravating factor in penalty assessment.

Total Penalty: $0 (for the two FAC violations; $97,500 for the PRC violation)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2014 (no further review)

Transmission Agency of Northern California, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2008, the Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) self-reported that it did not test one of its new relays according to the schedule specified in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. TANC’s Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not contain an exception to the maintenance and testing intervals for new equipment.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since TANC was conducting maintenance and testing on the one-year old relay as required. The violation was self-reported and was TANC's first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Tri-Dam Project of the Oakdale and South Joaquin Irrigation Districts, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Lower/High (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Tri-Damn Project of the Oakdale and South Joaquin Irrigation Districts (OSJID) self-certified that it did not possess the required Protection System and Maintenance Program. As a result, OSJID was unable to provide sufficient documentation to WECC, within 30 days as required, concerning its maintenance and testing and the dates on which its Protection System devices were last tested.

Finding: WECC found that these violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system based on the nature and location of OSJID's system. Furthermore, OSJID did actually have some maintenance procedures in place and was conducting maintenance on its Protection Systems (even though not as required by the Reliability Standard). The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through December 28, 2009 (for R1) and February 25, 2010 (for R2). The violations were OSJID's first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. -Reliability, FERC Docket No. NP10-108-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: Prior to April 16, 2009, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.’s (TSGT) Protection System maintenance and testing program did not include a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for DC control circuitry.

Finding: The alleged violations occurred from July 11, 2007, when TSGT was placed on the NERC registry as a Transmission Operator, through April 16, 2009, when TSGT amended its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. WECC imposed a $26,000 penalty for these and other alleged violation. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered these factors: this was TSGT’s first instance of non-compliance with these standards; TSGT cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; TSGT did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; and WECC found that the alleged violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $26,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

Troy Energy, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-207-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue:: During a compliance audit in November 2009, RFC found that Troy Energy, LLC (Troy), as a Generator Owner, did not possess sufficient documentation showing that its Protection System devices (consisting of 284 batteries) were being maintained and tested according to the defined intervals specified in its maintenance and testing program.

Finding: RFC and Troy entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby Troy agreed to pay a penalty of $8,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Troy had alarms on the batteries for grounds and undervoltage and alarms monitoring the functionality of each of the relevant chargers for the batteries. These alarms were not triggered during the violation time period and the batteries were in good condition. The duration of the violation was from October 1, 2008 through April 16, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that this was Troy’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; Troy was cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violation; there was a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $8,000

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Troy Energy LLC, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: Troy Energy LLC (Troy) self-reported a violation of R2.1 and upon review RFC determined that Troy failed to perform monthly battery maintenance and testing (M&T) pursuant to its M&T program for the month for December 2010, and Troy failed to perform quarterly battery maintenance within the intervals defined in its M&T program in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Finding: RFC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS, because the monthly and quarterly M&T intervals were missed by only three and six days, respectively, and the late maintenance did not reveal any abnormal conditions. Moreover, Troy’s generators did not operate during the time of the violations, and Troy had alarms associated with its batteries that would notify operators of ground faults, low voltage or charger problems.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

UGI Utilities, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-181-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: UGI self-reported that it failed to maintain test records for 7 of its 63 system protection devices, as required by the standard as a Distribution Provider and Transmission Owner.

Finding: It was determined by ReliabilityFirst that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because all 7 relays functioned properly and were within their manufacturer specified parameters. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through December 21, 2009. Additional factors for the penalty determination included that the violation was the first violation of this Reliability Standard by UGI, and UGI self-reported the violations.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

UGI Utilities, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-191-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High (R1); Lower (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined UGI Utilities, Inc. ("UGI") misclassified nine electronic relays as microprocessor-based relays and failed to define maintenance and testing intervals and their basis for these relays, failed to provide a basis for maintenance and testing intervals for communication systems and substation batteries. In addition, UGI could not provide evidence that it tested two batteries at UGI’s Mountain substation within the two -week test interval set forth in its maintenance and testing program in violation of R2.

Finding: RFC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because: 1) UGI tested the nine misclassified relays on the same intervals as if they had been properly classified; 2) UGI tested its instrument transformers at the time of installation, and tested the substitution batteries at least monthly, even though it did not follow the stricter-than-necessary intervals in its Program; 3) batteries were tested within monthly intervals prescribed by their manufacture, each battery is part of a redundant set of batteries, and testing of the substation batteries was only off by 64 days. In approving the settlement between UGI and RFC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: this was the second time UGI violated this reliability standard, which RFC considered an aggravating factor; UGI was cooperative; UGI had a compliance program in effect since Nov. 18, 2009, which RFC considered a mitigating factor, there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; RFC determined the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association, FERC Docket No. NP11-67-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1, R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: In August 2008, Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association (UMEC), as a Transmission Owner, self-reported that it had not incorporate the high side Protection Systems at the Coyote Springs, Chemical, Feedville, Hermiston Butte, Juniper Canyon, Power City, Sandpoint, Umatilla and Westland Substations into its Protection Systems maintenance and testing program. UMEC was also unable to produce records showing that that the Protection System devices were maintained and tested within the defined intervals or the dates the Protection System devices last received maintenance and testing.

Finding: WECC and UMEC entered into a settlement agreement, whereby UMEC agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violations. WECC found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since a failure of UMEC’s Protection System device would only impact UMEC’s 115 kV system. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through March 31, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these violations were UMEC’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; UMEC was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-5-000 (October 7, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit, SERC determined an Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) failed to include station batteries, DC control circuitry, voltage and current sensing devices or associated communication systems in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. The program also did not identify any basis for relay testing.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the URE was conducting maintenance and testing of the systems.

Penalty: $16,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 7, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-63-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not discussed

Region: WECC

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) did not include communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry in its maintenance and testing program. Further, URE did not demonstrate that it had maintained and tested its protective devices within defined intervals, and it failed to include communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry in its maintenance and testing program as required by PRC-005-1 R1. URE also had not documented (1) evidence that these Protection System devices were maintained and tested within defined intervals and (2) the date each Protection System device was last tested and maintained as required by PRC-005-1 R2.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a penalty in the amount of $80,000 for this and other Reliability Standards violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: the violations constituted URE’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; the URE self-reported most of the violations; URE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; URE’s compliance program; URE did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so. WECC determined that the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $80,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-70-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: WECC

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported that it did not have documentation of regular monthly and quarterly testing of the majority of its protection system station batteries in violation of PRC-005-1 R2. During an audit, WECC determined that the URE had a second violation of R2 because it failed to provide documentation that it tested all of its protection system devices during the audit; the URE subsequently produced such documentation.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the first violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the percentage of batteries that were not tested was small relative to the total number of battery tests performed (while the URE had missed some monthly/quarterly tests, it had performed others). WECC determined that the first violation did pose a moderate risk because the batteries are intended to provide redundancy to station service to the protection systems. The second violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because it was a documentation issue. The duration of the first violation was June 18, 2007, when the Reliability Standard became enforceable, through April 15, 2008. The duration of the second violation was June 2, 2008 through July 25, 2008.

Penalty: $55,000 (aggregate with other violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entities 1 and 2, FERC Docket No. NP11-81-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: MRO (URE-1); SPP (URE-2)

Issue: Two Unidentified Registered Entities (UREs), both wholly owed subsidiaries of the same Parent Company, self-reported noncompliance with PRC-005-1 R2 for failing to document or perform certain required monthly and quarterly battery inspections.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to reliability of the bulk power system because both UREs had Protection System Maintenance and Testing programs that contained monthly testing intervals for protection system batteries, and the testing intervals exceeded the recommended quarterly testing intervals recommended in the NERC Technical Reference Guide for Protection System maintenance and testing. In addition, the UREs conduct discharge tests and replace any batteries identified as having unacceptable battery performance according to industry standards.

Penalty: $50,000 (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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower (R1), Moderate (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: RFC found that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) could not provide justification for the maintenance and testing intervals or a summary of maintenance and testing procedures in its Protection System maintenance and testing program for 19 out of 244 of its DC Control Circuitry devices. RFC also found that the URE, as a Generator Owner that owns a generation Protection System, could not provide evidence that two of its seven batteries were maintained and tested in the second quarter of 2008 as required by the URE's Protection System maintenance and testing program.

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 these and other violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violations constituted the URE's first violations of the subject Reliability Standard; the URE self-reported 11 of the 16 violations; 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 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: $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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: RFC

Issue: RFC found that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) did not perform quarterly and semi-annual battery testing of Protection System devices as required by the URE’s generation battery inspection and testing program.

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. NP11-125-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: SPP

Issue: SPP found that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) did not perform quarterly testing of Protection System devices as required by the URE's generation battery inspection and testing program.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $12,000 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: $12,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-127-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: FRCC discovered during a spot check, and Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) subsequently self-reported, that (1) its protection system maintenance and testing program did not include a summary of procedures for maintenance and testing of DC control circuitry and voltage and current sensing devices in violation of R1; (2) two sets of transmission relays at one substation were outside URE’s defined maintenance and testing interval in violation of R2; (3) it did not have evidence of the date each device was last tested or maintained for current and voltage sensing devices, station batteries and some protective relays in a second violation of R2; (4) it discovered that 44 protective relays at one substation and one protective relay at another substation were not tested during the defined testing and maintenance interval required in a third violation of R2; and (5) it had not performed power factor testing on its coupling capacitor voltage transformers at one substation in a fourth violation of R2. Duration of violation of R1 was from June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through July 15, 2009, when the violation was mitigated. Duration of first violation of R2 was from April 19, 2008, when the testing was due under URE’s protection system plan, through October 21, 2008, when the violation was mitigated. Duration of second violation of R2 was from June 18, 2007 through June 24, 2010. Duration of third violation of R2 was from June 18, 2007 through February 24, 2009, when the violation was mitigated. Duration of fourth violation of R2 was from June 18, 2007 through April 1, 2009, when the facilities were tested.

Finding: FRCC Enforcement determined that the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because (1) with respect to the violation of R1, URE continuously monitored its DC control circuitry and voltage/current sensing devices; (2) with respect to the first violation of R2, the relays functioned normally once tested, no system event occurred during the period the relays were out of their test period, and all other protection system equipment at the substation had been tested within their defined maintenance and testing periods; (3) with respect to the second violation of R2, URE verified that few components were actually out of interval, no system events occurred due to the violation, and URE promptly tested each component out of interval to bring them back into interval; (4) with respect to the third violation of R2, URE’s test results of the protective relays that had not been tested properly showed that they all passed; and (5) with respect to the fourth violation of R2, URE continuously monitored its coupling capacitor voltage transformer devices, and test results showed all relays functioning normally. Further, the NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee concluded the penalty appropriate because, with one exception, this was URE’s first violation of the Standards, URE self reported several of the violations, numerous violations of a single standard were considered to be four instances of a single violation as opposed to separate violations, and URE was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $55,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-128-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported a violation of R2 prior to the effective date of the Requirement (June 18, 2007) because, although it was maintaining and testing some of its Protection System devices, it did not implement a comprehensive relay maintenance and testing program between 2003 and 2007.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined URE had a violation of R2 because it failed to complete its Mitigation Plan and continued to have deficient maintenance and testing on devices at the time of a compliance audit in 2008. The violation posed a moderate risk to the bulk power system because URE did not test and maintain devices in accordance with the defined intervals set out in URE’s relay protection maintenance and testing program. In determining the penalty amount, the NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee considered the following factors: this was URE’s first occurrence of this type of violation; URE was cooperative; and the number and nature of the violations.

Penalty: $450,000 (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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-reported a violation of R2 because it was not conducting and documenting all required maintenance and testing of covered Protection System equipment within intervals required by the Standard, and it was not meeting maintenance and testing goals for 60% of its transmission Protection Systems within defined intervals. An on-site compliance audit discovered that, prior to January 1, 2008, URE did not have a maintenance and testing plan for it system protection devices that met the requirements of R1. URE self-reported the violation of R2 prior to the date the Standard became enforceable, but the violation became enforceable because URE failed to submit an acceptable mitigation plan by the deadline. Duration of the violation of R1 was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through January 1, 2008, when the violation was mitigated. Duration of the violation of R2 was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through December 31, 2009, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the violations were documentation issues. 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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1/1.1, R1/1.2, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate, Lower, Moderate

Region: SPP

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) failed to document the maintenance and testing intervals and basis for 43% of its Protection System devices as required by R1.1; failed to maintain a summary of maintenance and testing procedures for 8% of its Protection System devices as required by R1.2; failed to provide evidence that 33% of its Protection System devices were maintained and tested within defined intervals as required by R2.1; and failed to substantiate the dates that 20% of its Protection System devices were last tested and maintained as required by R2.2.

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 violations constituted URE’s first violations 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 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: $50,000 (aggregate for 14 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-176-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: In September 2009, the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported that it was 105 days late in testing the one third-level backup relay on a 345 kV transmission line.

Finding: WECC and the URE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the URE agreed to pay a penalty of $80,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation of PRC-005-1 only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since there were still two primary sets of relays on the relevant transmission line that had been properly tested within their defined intervals. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from May 25, 2009 through September 7, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement and the penalty determination, NERC considered the fact that the violations were self-reported; the URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; the URE had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); the violations of IRO-005-2 R13 and TOP-004-2 R1 resulted from a single noncompliance occurrence; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $80,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-188-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP

Issue: URE self-reported that from December 2008 through September 2009, it did not perform all of its two-month battery inspections for 100% of its station batteries. Duration of the violation was December 1, 2008 when the first two-month inspection was not performed through August 25, 2010 when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: SPP determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because during the duration of the violation, the URE performed its four-month and six-month maintenance and testing cycles, and no misoperations of the batteries occurred. 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. NP11-193-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: After receiving a self-report from URE, WECC determined that URE had a violation of R2 because URE did not include 2 substations with 9 radial Protection Systems in its maintenance and testing program, and consequently could not provide evidence that 73 protective devices, less than 1% of URE’s total Protection System devices, were tested within defined intervals.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because the 9 radial protection systems at issues are associated with 100 kV lines that are party of a distribution network. Moreover, all maintenance and testing activities were complete, they were just not conducted pursuant to the maintenance and testing program interval. WECC found URE was prepared in the event of a Protection System failure. In approving the settlement between URE and WECC, the NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: this violation was URE’s first violation of all but one of the Reliability Standards at issue in this NOP; URE self-reported three of the violations; URE was cooperative; URE had a compliance program, which WECC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation; WECC determined the all but one of the violations posed a minimal risk, one violation posed a moderate risk, and none posed a serious or substantial risk to the BPS; there were no other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-198-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP

Issue: An Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported that it had not conducted its two-month battery inspection for all of its station batteries as required. This maintenance failure affected 1.7% of the URE’s Protection System devices.

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 PRC-005-1 violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since the URE abided by its four and six-month maintenance and testing cycles (which involve more thorough testing than the two-month inspection). In addition, no operations failure occurred as a result of the missed two-month interval and the station batteries are continuously monitored for voltage drop or loss of direct current. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violation was from December 1, 2008 through August 25, 2010. 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, FERC Docket No. NP11-218-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: WECC

Issue:: The Registered Entity self-reported that it did not possess adequate documentation showing that it performed maintenance and testing on 32% of its batteries according to its defined intervals.

Finding: WECC and the Registered Entity entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the Registered Entity agreed to pay a penalty of $130,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since this violation was primarily a documentation

Issue: as the Registered Entity was actually conducting the required testing and maintenance on its station batteries. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from March 28, 2009 through July 9, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that there were three instances of noncompliance with Regional Reliability Standard PRC-STD-005-1 WR1 (which was evaluated as an aggravating factor); some of the violations were self-reported; the Registered Entity was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; the Registered Entity had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); the penalties for the violations of Reliability Standards EOP-001-0 R6 and EOP-005-1 R2 were aggregated since both penalties were based on a single act of noncompliance; the penalties for the violations of Reliability Standards PRC-STD-005-1 WR1 and VAR-STD-002b-1 WR1 were based on the respective Sanction Tables; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $130,000 (aggregate for 27 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, Docket No. NP11-270-000 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1, R2.1)

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 a Protection System maintenance and testing program that incorporated maintenance and testing intervals and their bases and a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures (R1). WECC_URE1 also did not produce documentation showing that the protection systems were appropriately maintained and tested within the defined intervals and the date the protection systems were last tested or maintained (R2.1).

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violations constituted a moderate risk to bulk power system reliability. In terms of R1, WECC_URE1 had hired outside technical support to conduct the protection system maintenance and testing, but WECC found that additional documentation was needed in regards to the DC circuitry, station batteries, associated communication equipment and voltage and current sensing devices. In terms of R2.1, WECC_URE1 affirmed that it had actually been performing maintenance and testing on the protection system devices. Furthermore, WECC_URE1 operates a facility with a nameplate capacity of less than 30 MW and has only one interconnection with the bulk power system. 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. NP12-3 (November 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R2.1/2.2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R2.1), High (R2.2)

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-reported that it had not conducted all of its monthly visual inspections for its internal current transformers (“CTs”) included in its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Those CTs it did not inspect were imbedded in its breaker and therefore it was not technically feasible to inspect them after the initial commissioning of the breaker. After an audit, WECC also found that URE did not possess sufficient records showing that it had maintained and tested 29% of its protective relays, 7% of its associated communication systems, 59% of its voltage and current sensing devices, 45% of its station batteries, and 74% of its DC control circuitry devices within the defined intervals and/or the last test date.

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability since an annual infrared imaging inspection was performed on the relevant CTs that produced definitive preventive maintenance results. In addition, URE implemented an aggressive plan to maintain and test all of its Protection System equipment. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC evaluated the following mitigating factors: URE’s PRC violations were self-reported; URE had a compliance program in place; URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability. But, NERC BOTCC considered URE’s violation history as an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $125,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP12-11 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-reported (as well as self-certified) that the required maintenance and testing was not being conducted according to the defined intervals on all of its Protection System devices. URE noted that it was not following the maintenance and testing schedule for 19% of its protective relays, 6% of its communication devices, and 100% of its batteries, current transformers, potential transformers, and DC circuitry.

Finding: WECC found that the PCR-005-1 violation constituted a moderate risk to the BPS since the number of Protection System devices not being properly maintained and tested increased the likelihood of a protective device failure. But, URE had performed the required testing on the majority of its relays and the majority of the battery inspections that were missed consisted of monthly and quarterly tests. 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)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP12-20 (March 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1, R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1, R2)

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-certified that its protection system maintenance and testing program did not cover the maintenance and testing of its potential transformers and current transformers as required (R1). URE also self-certified that it did not have proper documentation showing that it had performed maintenance and testing on its batteries and its relays according to the defined intervals in its protection system maintenance and testing program (R2).

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 violations constituted only a minimal risk to BPS reliability. URE, a small electric cooperative that consists mainly of distribution, has a peak demand under 150 MW, only two transmission lines that are considered part of the bulk power system, and no generation. Therefore, the loss of its system facilities (including through a relay failure) would not cause a significant impact on the BPS. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these were URE’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 13 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2012 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, Docket No. NP12-37 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: An Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported that it was in violation of R1.1 because it did not establish maintenance and testing intervals for new protection equipment, namely digital protection relays, within 90 days of commissioning the relevant equipment as required in its Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. WECC determined the duration of the violation was 40 days, because URE established maintenance and testing intervals for the installed relays 40 days after the 90-day deadline expired.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS. The protective relays at issue were new and had been tested upon commissioning. They were not due for maintenance for two years.

Penalty: $134,350 (aggregate for 10 violations among 4 UREs)

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity (URE), Docket No. NP12-43-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-certified a violation of R2.1 for failing to maintain and test Protection System devices within intervals defined by its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. URE initially self-reported the possible violation three weeks before the self-certification was due, then submitted the self-certification nine days later. WECC, in the course of reviewing URE's self-certification, established that URE was non-compliant in testing and maintaining 71% of its Relay Protection System devices and 68% of its voltage and current sensing devices, but discovered no issues in testing or maintaining its batteries, DC circuitry or associated communication systems.

Finding: WECC determined this issued posed a moderate risk to the reliability of the BPS for two reasons. First, while URE failed to maintain and test 71% of its relays and 68% of its voltage and current sensing devices in accordance with its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program, URE did maintain and test all of its devices in accordance with industry practice. Second, URE had alarms to notify personnel when Protection System circuits, including voltage sensing devices and relay circuitry, evidenced a loss of integrity. These alarms would notify URE staff in the event Protection System devices were not in operable condition. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC and the NERC BOTCC took the following under consideration as mitigating factors: URE was cooperative during the enforcement process; the CIP violation was self-reported; URE's internal compliance program; the violation was not a result of URE failing to abide by compliance directives; URE did not attempt to conceal a violation nor was there evidence of any intent to do so; and the subject violations did not pose serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability. One violation was a repeat violation and so URE's prior compliance history was considered an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $70,000 (aggregate for two penalties)

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity (URE), Docket No. NP12-44-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: After receiving notice of a WECC Self-Certification process, URE submitted a self-report and self-certification stating that it had not performed pre-operational testing of current transformer (CT)/potential transformer (PT) devices prior to their being returned to service for two units at its facility. Further investigation found that the units were scheduled for testing; however, they were taken out of service prior to the testing date. When the units were returned to service, no pre-operational CT/PT load testing had been performed in violation of the Standard.

Finding: The violation was deemed by WECC to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because all testing for all other devices at the facility had been performed. Subsequent testing found the units in good working condition. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered as aggravating factors that URE previously violated PRC-005-1 R2 on two occasions.

Penalty: $27,800 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, Docket No. NP13-1 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: Following a self-report, WECC determined URE violated R2 because it could not provide evidence that it maintained and tested 4.7% of batteries and one communication device pursuant to the intervals specified in URE's protection systems maintenance and testing program.

Finding: WECC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS. The risk was mitigated because the devices at issue were maintained and tested shortly after the defined period, and the affected transmission systems were protected by redundant systems. In approving the Settlement Agreement between WECC and URE, NERC BOTCC considered the following: URE's violation history, 11 of the 12 violations were self-reported, URE was cooperative, URE had a compliance program in place at the time of the violation, which was considered a mitigating factor, and there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation, nor that the violation was intentional.

Penalty: $200,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity (URE), Docket No. NP13-16 (December 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: During an audit, WECC found that URE failed to provide evidence of annual testing for all substation batteries subject to this standard and failed to provide evidence of semi-annual maintenance and testing for some types of batteries consisting of ten percent of substation batteries subject to URE’s program.

Finding: WECC decided the violation posted a minimal and not a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because risks were offset by proper maintenance of other protection system equipment and URE did provide evidence of monthly battery testing. Also, the testing failures related to only ten percent of URE’s batteries. Duration of violation was from the day following certification of a mitigation plan completion for a prior violation through when URE completed its new mitigation plan.

Total Penalty: $207,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 30, 2013 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP13-22 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1, 2

Violation Risk Factor: High (1, 2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (1, 2)

Region: WECC

Issue: During an off-site audit, WECC found that URE's Protection System maintenance and testing program did not properly specify the maintenance and testing intervals, as well as the bases for those intervals, and a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for its voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry (1). In addition, URE was not properly maintaining and testing, within defined intervals, its potential transformers, current transformers and DC control circuitry devices (2).

Finding: WECC found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability, but the PRC-005-1 R2 violation constituted a moderate risk (as sporadic and inconsistent testing can undermine BPS reliability). URE was continuously monitoring its Protection System equipment during the times its generators were operating. URE was also conducting the necessary maintenance and testing on some of its potential transformers, current transformers and DC control circuitry devices. URE agreed to treat the violations as confirmed violations. In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered as mitigating factors URE's internal compliance program, including the continuous improvements in URE's compliance culture and URE's enactment of all applicable compliance directives. URE was also cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal any violations. In regards to the CIP violations, URE undertook voluntary corrective actions and self-reported the violations within a week of WECC's compliance audit. WECC evaluated as an aggravating factor a previous violation of PRC-005-1 R1 by one of URE's affiliate. But, URE had no reoccurring violations or relevant negative compliance history.

Penalty: $115,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 1, 2013 (no further review)

Union Power Partners, L.P., FERC Docket No. NP10-8-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Union Power Partners failed to document its battery maintenance and testing intervals or the bases in its Protection System program as required by the standard, even though it provided evidence that battery maintenance had been performed.

Finding: Violation duration was from June 18, 2007 through February 14, 2008. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed a documentation issue; Union Power Partners remedied the violation in a timely manner and cooperated throughout the audit process; and Union Power Partners had no prior history of violating this standard.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

United Illuminating Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NPCC

Issue: United Illuminating Company (UIC) did not maintain two electronic relays for a 115 kV transmission line within the defined interval. Duration of violation was January 1, 2008 through August 31, 2010.

Finding: NPCC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because there were backup relays in place and no misoperations occurred during the duration of the violation. The Administrative Citation Notice also stated that the violation was self-reported, and noted the following mitigation activity: UIC performed maintenance on the relays that were previously missed and added a step to its maintenance plan to improve communication between engineering and system maintenance groups.

Penalty: $2,500

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Upper Peninsula Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP09-24-000 (May 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: Upper Peninsula Power did not have a Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program in place until after the required date of self-certification, and therefore could not provide documentation of such a program.

Finding: Duration of the violations from June 18, 2007, the date the standards became enforceable, to December 31, 2007. Penalty was determined appropriate because the violation was related to small generating units with 22 MVA base ratings, and some maintenance and testing was being performed based on operational reviews and unit availability, and thus the violations were 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 – Kansas City District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: USACE-Kansas City District’s (USACE-KC) Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not contain adequate testing documentation for its protective relays (133 of which were identified in USACE-KC’s program, with 26 being new microprocessor relays). Although USACE-KC was testing its electromechanical relays on a 2-year basis and its microprocessor relays on a 5-year basis, it did not possess, and therefore could not provide, sufficient documentation for these historical tests.

Finding: SPP found that the violations did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since USACE-KC did have a comprehensive Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program in place and was actually performing tests on its relays. USACE-KC also enhanced system reliability by replacing numerous of its mechanical Protection System relays with microprocessor relays. In addition, the potential impact on bulk power system reliability was limited to two small hydroelectric generating facilities. 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 – Little Rock District, FERC Docket No. NP11-19-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1 and R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: In March 2008, USACE – Little Rock (USACE-LR) self-certified that it did not possess a formal Protection System maintenance and testing program (R1), and therefore it was unable to produce documentation demonstrating the implementation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program (R2).

Finding: SPP found that these violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as, during generating facility maintenance outages, USACE -LR routinely tested, according to the recommendations of the equipment manufacturers, its Protection System equipment. The duration of the violations was from July 10, 2007 through August 19, 2010 and September 10, 2010, for the violations of R1 and R2, respectively. 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 – Portland District, FERC Docket No. NP16-25 (August 31, 2016)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: USACE – Portland District (UNWP), a GO, Self-Reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2. UNWP reported that it discovered that it failed to maintain documentation of testing for the following generation protection system devices during an internal audit: 2 of 517 (0.4%) protective relays, 236 of 900 (26.2%) voltage and current sensing devices, 16 of 982 (1.6%) DC control circuits, and 7 of 21 (33.3%) station batteries. Also, UNWP was unable to verify battery maintenance at four Willamette Valley plants and the John Day Dam because it did not retain the test documentation. The primary causes for the violations were the lack of proper test equipment, test procedures, and understanding of the priority associated with the completion of these tasks.

Finding: WECC found the violations posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability. UNWP, a large GO with 29 generating plants capable of producing 15,569 MW, was unable to provide the missing maintenance and testing documentation for 10% of its total Protection System devices, and it missed 33% of its scheduled battery maintenance. Although UNWP missed the aforementioned maintenance and testing, UNWP did have compensating measures in place. UNWP has job plans for maintenance and testing, and UNWP's SMEs affirmed that certain maintenance and testing checks were completed during bi-annual scheduled line outages. The duration of the violation was August 10, 2007 through January 8, 2014. WECC considered UNWP's prior compliance history an aggravating factor.

Penalty: No Penalty

FERC Order: Issued October 31, 2016 (no further review)

USACE-Portland District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: R1-High, R2-Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In January 2008, USACE-Portland District self-certified that it had not been testing all of its Protection System equipment according to its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program, as its program did not include equipment such as wiring, DC circuits and CTs. Therefore, USACE-Portland District also self-certified that it did not have the documentation to show that it was testing all of its Protection System equipment according to its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since USACE-Portland District did have a Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program in place and had documentation from the program covering the majority of the relevant devices (with the equipment that was excluded only having a minimal impact). These violations were USACE-Portland District’s first for this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

USACE-Portland District, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1); Lower/High (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2008, USACE-Portland District self-certified that it had not included voltage and current sensing devices and DC control circuitry in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. As a result, USACE-Portland District was not conducting the required testing on those Protection System devices.

Finding: WECC found that these violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since USACE-Portland District did actually have a Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program in place that included protective relays, associated communication systems, and station batteries. The duration of the violations was from August 10, 2007 through December 31, 2008. Even though USACE-Portland District had a prior violation of this Reliability Standard, WECC decided not to impose a penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

USACE – Seattle District, FERC Docket No. NP16-25 (August 31, 2016)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1; R1.1; R1.2; R2; R2.1;

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: USACE – Seattle District (UNWS), a GO, was determined by WECC to be in violation of PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 during a Compliance Audit conducted from April 15, 2013 through April 19, 2013. WECC determined that 14 of 111 (12%) instrument transformers were not included in the UNWW maintenance and testing plans. The Transformer Bushing Potential Devices that were not included were located at Chief Joseph Dam. During the same audit, UNWS was unable to provide maintenance and testing records for 16 devices, including Current Transformers (CTs), at Libby Dam Unit 1. Ultimately, UNWS could not provide documentation of maintenance and testing records for 30 of 111 (27%) sets of instrument transformers.

Finding: WECC found the violations constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. UNWS was unable to provide the missing maintenance and testing documentation for 30 of 111 (27%) sets of instrument transformers from August 10, 2007 to August 22, 2013. Failure to test the devices per the program meant they could not be certified to effectively limit the effects of disturbances on the transmission system and/or generation plants.

Although not specified in the plan, UNWS did have compensating measures in place. UNWS performed inspections and parallel monitoring of Protection System elements and the associated facilities. Also, UNWS was able to provide the last test date for 12 of the 30 devices based on testing performed as part of upgrades of the associated relays. Moreover, upgrade and testing of all of the relays and associated instrument transformers was completed by September 20, 2013. WECC considered UNWS' prior compliance history an aggravating factor.

Penalty: No Penalty

FERC Order: Issued October 31, 2016 (no further review)

USACE-Seattle District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, USACE-Seattle District, a large entity, self-certified that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not contain sufficient information concerning the intervals and their bases and that USACE-Seattle District’s records for its Protection System maintenance and testing did not include intervals.

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since USACE-Seattle District was following the maintenance and testing schedule for its Protection System (even though the process and dates were not included in the Maintenance and Testing Program as required). These were USACE-Seattle District’s first violations of this Reliability Standard. Even though a mitigation plan was completed eight months late, WECC imposed no penalty.

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: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Omaha District (COE) self-certified non-compliance because although it had a program for testing and maintenance, the basis for the program was not adequately identified and documented.

Finding: No penalty was assessed because the violation was a documentation issue, and it did not put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 27, 2009 (no further review)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Tulsa District, FERC Docket No. NP09-26-000 (June 24, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: During a 2007 annual self-certification, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) – Tulsa District reported non-compliance with PRC-005-1 R1.1 because, although it had a program for testing and maintenance, the testing and maintenance program did not include the basis used to establish testing intervals.

Finding: TRE assessed no penalty for this violation determining that COE – Tulsa District had a testing program in place with intervals for testing, but that COE – Tulsa District was unsure if documentation was available to serve as a basis for the testing intervals. TRE determined the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliable operation of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 27, 2009 (no further review)

USACE – Tulsa District, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High for R1, Lower for R2

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: PRC-005-1, R1 requires an entity to have a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that impact the reliability of the bulk power system and further include a program of maintenance and testing intervals and their basis, as well as a summary of maintenance and testing procedures. USACE-Tulsa self-certified that it was non-compliant with this requirement. PRC-005-1, R2 requires an entity to include documentation of testing for its protective relays in its maintenance and testing program. Although USACE-Tulsa was testing its relays on an annual basis, it did not have complete documentation regarding the historical tests and, therefore, could not provide the documentation upon request.

Finding: The violations were determined by SPP not to create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because USACE-Tulsa had a comprehensive Protection System maintenance and testing program, although it did not have a documented program that met all of the requirements of the standard, and USACE-Tulsa was conducting the testing for its relays. The duration of the violations was July 10, 2007 through April 29, 2009. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that that the violations were the first violation of this Reliability Standard and USACE-Tulsa completed a mitigation plan, 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, FERC Docket No. NP16-25 (August 31, 2016)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1; R1.1; R1.2; R2; R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: USACE – Walla Walla District (UNWW), a GO, Self-Reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R1. During an internal review that was conducted to complete a compliance Self-Certification for WECC, UNWW discovered that the implementation of a new maintenance database delayed it from generating and standardizing Preventative Maintenance across its facilities. Consequently, UNWW had not developed a compliant Protection System maintenance and testing program.

On July 28, 2008, WECC conducted an Off-Site Audit on UNWW for GO and GOP function. During the Audit, WECC reviewed UNWW's "Facility Equipment Maintenance (FEM) & Testing Matrix." UNWW did not provide documentation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program for more than 60 days following the request.

Finding: WECC found that UNWW failed to include maintenance and testing intervals and their basis, as well as a summary of maintenance and testing procedures in violation of R1.1 and R1.2. WECC cited a lack of compliance understanding as the cause. The duration of the R1.1 and R1.2 violations was August 10, 2007 through December 19, 2008. WECC also found UNWW to be in violation of R2 due to its inability to provide documentation of its Protection System maintenance and testing program within 60 days. The duration of the R2 and R2.1 violations was August 10, 2007 through October 30, 2009. The violations posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability.

Despite the shortcomings of UNWW's processes and procedures, UNWW stated that basic maintenance and testing was being performed under facility-specific processes. WECC believed UNWW performed the basic maintenance and testing, but it was unable to provide evidence of testing as required by the Standard. The preventative maintenance was performed within the maintenance schedule, but lacked standardization across the fleet. WECC considered UNWW's compliance history and determined there were no relevant instances of noncompliance.

Penalty: No Penalty

FERC Order: Issued October 31, 2016 (no further review)

Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach's ("New Smyrna") Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not cover its generation facilities, and did not adequately cover all aspects of its transmission facilities. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through May 7, 2009.

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)

Vandolah Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-129 -000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Vandolah Power Company, LLC (VPC) failed to provide documentation that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program included a maintenance and testing interval or basis for associated communication systems, DC control circuitry or voltage and current sensing devices. Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through June 5, 2009, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: FRCC Enforcement determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because VPC performed tests and maintenance on the applicable system components during the relevant period based on manufacturer recommendations. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was VPC’s first violation of the Standard, VPC developed a stronger compliance program as part of its mitigation of the violation, and VPC was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $23,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Virginia Electric and Power Company – Fossil and Hydro (GO, GOP), FERC Docket No. NP10-84-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Virginia Electric and Power Company – Fossil and Hydro (VEPCO) reported that certain Protection System devices were not maintained and tested within defined intervals established by VEPCO’s Protection System battery maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The duration of the alleged violation was determined to be from June 18, 2007, the date PRC-005-1 became enforceable, through August 15, 2009, when VEPCO completed a mitigation plan. SERC assessed a penalty of $7,500 for the alleged violation. In reaching this determination, SERC considered the following factors: (1) the alleged violation was self-reported; (2) VEPCO had no prior violations of PRC-005-1 or any closely related standard; (3) VEPCO cooperated in a timely and satisfactory manner through the enforcement process; (4) VEPCO agreed to resolve this issue via settlement before receiving a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction; (5) VEPCO initiated improvements to its compliance program based on its experience from the discovery of the alleged violation and the associated enforcement process; and (6) the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because all of the batteries had been maintained and tested, although outside the designated intervals. Further, all batteries had routine operator inspections and 93% of the batteries were continuously monitored by alarm systems such that any impending potential failure of the batteries would have been identified and corrective actions could have been promptly undertaken.

Penalty: $7,500

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Wadsworth Electric & Communications (WEC), FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: WEC, in its role as a Distribution Provider, submitted a self-report (prior to a scheduled compliance audit) detailing a violation of PRC-005-1 R2 when it failed to maintain transmission relays as specified in its Program. WEC reported it had failed to test all ten of its transmission relays within a five-year interval. While conducting the compliance audit, ReliabilityFirst found that all other protection system devices were tested and maintained within the required intervals. ReliabilityFirst found that WEC violated the Standard by failing to include evidence of the last maintenance and testing, and documentation of the last date of testing and maintenance for relays.

Finding: It was found the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability, which was offset by mitigating factors. First, WEC’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system has alarms in place which would notify the appropriate parties to any device failures. Also, once the late maintenance and testing took place in April 2011, no problems were discovered with the devices. WEC also indicated that it had tested the relays in November 2005. WEC’s internal compliance program was considered as a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

Weatherford Municipal Utility System, FERC Docket No. NP11-181-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: TRE

Issue: Weatherford Municipal Utility System (Weatherford) did not have a documented maintenance and testing program until January 2008. Even after Weatherford developed a documented maintenance and testing program, its program did not incorporate the basis for its maintenance and testing intervals.

Finding: Weatherford and TRE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby Weatherford agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. TRE determined that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since Weatherford had actually been performing maintenance and testing on its equipment according to intervals that comported with acceptable industry practice. The violation was primarily a documentation issue. The duration of the violation was from June 27, 2007 through October 8, 2009.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Wellhead Power Panoche, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-29-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High (for R1 and R2/2.1)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (for R1 and R2/2.1)

Region: WECC

Issue: In February 2010, Wellhead Power Panoche, LLC (WHPP) self-reported that in its maintenance and testing program it did not include intervals, their bases, or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures for voltage and current sensing devices or station batteries (R1). In addition, WHPP self-reported that it had not maintained and tested, within the defined intervals in its Protection System maintenance and testing program, its current transformers and potential transformers (R2/2.1).

Finding: WHPP agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. WECC found that the violations of PRC-005-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since WHPP is a small generator (with only a simple cycle peaking unit rated at 56 MW and with a single 115 kV interconnection point), therefore, any loss of supply that would occur would be small compared to the total generation available in WHPP's area. The duration of the PRC-005-1 violations was from June 18, 2007 through February 2, 2010 and March 8, 2010, for the violations of R1 and R2/2.1 respectively. WECC considered the fact that these were WHPP's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; WHPP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Western Area Power Administration – Rocky Mountain Region, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Western Area Power Administration – Rocky Mountain Region (WACM) self-reported that it did not possess sufficient documentation concerning its maintenance and testing at three of its substations that were part of jointly owned transmission facilities. For the jointly owned transmission facilities, WACM owned the terminal equipment, and the maintenance was conducted by another utility. But as the agreements pre-dated the existing NERC and WECC Reliability Standards, the agreements did not specify which party was responsible for compliance with the Reliability Standards. Although WACM stated that the protection equipment was maintained within the defined intervals as required by its Maintenance and Testing Program, some test reports from before 2007 (representing less than 2% of WACM’s protection systems) could not be located. WACM was able to produce completed work order records that showed that the tests were completed as required.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system, since the maintenance and testing was actually being performed on the facilities. The violation was self-reported prior to when the Reliability Standards became mandatory and it was WACM’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. Although the violation was self-reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, WACM did not timely complete a mitigation plan, which turned the violation into a post-June 18, 2007 violation, however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Western Area Power Administration – Sierra Nevada Region, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2008, Western Area Power Administration – Sierra Nevada Region (WASN) self-reported that its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not have an exception for new equipment in terms of its maintenance and testing intervals. WASN had stopped testing relays within a year of installation (as no problems were found), but it did not document this change in its Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program. WASN determined that three microprocessor-based relays had not been tested one year after installation.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since WASN was actually performing the required testing and maintenance (even though it had not documented its revised intervals). The violation was self-reported and this was WASN’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Western Area Power Administration–Upper Great Plains Region and Western Area Power Administration–Upper Great Plains East (WAPA-UGPR), FERC Docket No. NP14-33 (February 27, 2014)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1/1.1/1.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: MRO

Issue: During a WECC-MRO compliance audit in June 2010, audit staff determined WAPA-UGPR Protection System maintenance and testing (M&T) program did not incorporate a schedule for the M&T of DC control circuitry, discuss how microprocessor-based relays are continuously monitored, or cover verification of the microprocessor inputs. While WAPA-UGPR used a reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) program for its Protection System M&T program, WAPA-UGPR did not adequately identify the elements or functions included in the self-monitoring process, state how often the self-monitoring process runs or mandate verification of inputs and outputs to the microprocessors. There were also several discrepancies between the RCM studies and the Protection System M&T program (involving equipment such as station batteries, current and voltage sensing devices and DC control circuitry). WAPA-UGPR did not have appropriate defined M&T intervals or a complete summary of M&T procedures and intervals and their bases.

Finding: MRO found that the PRC-005-1 R1 violation constituted a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability since the failure of Protection Systems to properly operate could result in equipment damage, personnel hazards, wide area disturbances and/or unnecessary customer outages. The risk was aggravated based on the number of WAPA-UGPR’s Protection System components, the location of the components, the associated voltage, and the number of devices affected. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 19, 2011. WAPA-UGPR admits the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that WAPA-UGPR engaged in above and beyond mitigation activities (such as training system operators, hiring additional compliance staff and replacing relays at a substation) and other actions to facilitate future compliance with the Reliability Standards. In addition, these were WAPA-UGPR’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards, and WAPA-UGPR conducted a compliance assessment after the June 17, 2010 Eastern Montana-Western North Dakota Disturbance. WAPA-UGPR has a compliance program in place, which was evaluated as a mitigating factor. WAPA-UGPR was also cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. Certain of the violations constituted a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability. In addition, although it lost multiple Bulk Electric System elements during the Eastern Montana-Western North Dakota Disturbance, it did not lose any generation or customer load as a result of the PRC-001-1 R2 violation.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 28, 2014 (no further review)

Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains Region and Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains East (WAPA UGPR), FERC Docket No. NP14-33 (February 27, 2014)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: MRO

Issue: On October 28, 2009, WAPA-UGPR self-certified that for three consecutive months, it did not perform monthly battery testing at multiple locations in South Dakota and Montana. During a WECC-MRO compliance audit, WAPA-UGPR also discovered 34 microprocessor-based relays that had not received testing or maintenance within the mandated 12-year interval. WAPA-UGPR also had insufficient documentation for the defined interval monthly battery maintenance and testing for 32 (out of 79) of its substation locations and the 2007 annual battery maintenance for one substation. In addition, WAPA-UGPR did not conduct complete maintenance and testing on all of its current and voltage sensing devices, associated communication systems, and DC control circuitry.

Finding: MRO found that the PRC-005-1 R2 violation constituted a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability since the failure of Protection Systems to properly operate could result in equipment damage, personnel hazards, wide area disturbances and/or unnecessary customer outages. In addition, MRO was unable to identify how many devices did not have the recommended testing procedures and intervals, and the Protection System components not being maintained and tested pursuant to recommended procedures far exceeded the Protection System components WAPA-UPGR identified as part of its review. The risk was aggravated based on the number of Protection System components, the location of the components, the associated voltage, and the number of devices affected. The duration of the PRC-005-1 R2 violation was from June 18, 2007 through May 2, 2012. WAPA-UGPR admits the violations. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that WAPA-UGPR engaged in above and beyond mitigation activities (such as training system operators, hiring additional compliance staff and replacing relays at a substation) and other actions to facilitate future compliance with the Reliability Standards. In addition, these were WAPA-UGPR’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards, and WAPA-UGPR conducted a compliance assessment after the June 17, 2010 Eastern Montana-Western North Dakota Disturbance. WAPA-UGPR has a compliance program in place, which was evaluated as a mitigating factor. WAPA-UGPR was also cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. Certain of the violations constituted a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability. In addition, although it lost multiple Bulk Electric System ES elements during the Eastern Montana-Western North Dakota Disturbance, it did not lose any generation or customer load as a result of the PRC-001-1 R2 violation.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 28, 2014 (no further review)

Western Farmers Electric Cooperative (WFEC), Docket No. NP12-44-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SPP RE

Issue: WFEC self-reported that it did not perform 76 out of 504 scheduled monthly visual battery inspections during 2011. As such, WFEC had no documentation recording the inspections. The failure to visually inspect the batteries affected 25 of 40 total battery banks, or 62.5%. The longest time period an inspection was missed was three months. Also, WFEC reported that 18 of 97, or 18.6%, associated communications systems had not been tested within the six-month testing interval set forth in its maintenance and testing program. SPP RE found that WFEC has not tested or visually inspected 43 out of a total of 1,612 (2.7%) Protection System devices.

• Finding: The violation was deemed by SPP RE to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability because the batteries are continuously monitored by system operators through WFEC's energy management system so operators would be alerted to battery failures. In addition, the relevant batteries were testing during the relevant time period, even though the maintenance intervals were skipped. Most of the associated communications systems were testing during the subsequent six-month period. Those not tested during the established testing period were tested within three months of the due date lessening any BPS reliability risks. The late visual inspections and communication system testing resulted in no Protection System failures, misoperations or other adverse effects to WFEC's system or the overall BPS. In determining the appropriate penalty, SPP RE considered that the violation was self-reported as a mitigating factor; WFEC's compliance history was considered an aggravating factor; and WFEC's internal compliance program was not considered a mitigating factor. WFEC neither admitted to nor denied SPP RE's findings.

Penalty: $2,500

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

West Georgia Generating Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-19-000 (June 5, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC found that West Georgia violated PRC-005-1 R.1 because West Georgia's Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program for Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the bulk power system failed (i) to identify a summary of relay maintenance procedures and (ii) to include Current and Voltage Sensing devices.

Finding: SERC declined to assess a penalty 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 also noted that it affirmed SERC's decision not to assess penalties because the violation was the first incidence of violation by West Georgia and because West Georgia worked cooperatively with SERC and acted immediately to mitigate and/or correct the violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,105, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

West Georgia Generating Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-19-000 (June 5, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: West Georgia submitted a self-report to SERC explaining that it missed the 3-year interval associated with testing digital relays by 11 months due to a miscommunication between the relay testing contractor and the plant personnel.

Finding: SERC declined to assess a penalty 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 also noted that it affirmed SERC's decision not to assess a penalty because the violation was the first incidence of violation by West Georgia and because West Georgia worked cooperatively with SERC and acted immediately to mitigate and/or correct the violation.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,105, https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf

Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains Region, FERC Docket No. NP17-4 (October 31, 2016)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2; R2.1; R2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: Western Area Power Administration – Upper Great Plains Region (WAUW), a TO, Self-Reported a violation of PRC-005-1 R2. WAUW reported that it discovered missing records for monthly battery maintenance at ten substations and non-compliance with the maintenance and testing interval of its maintenance and testing program (M&T program) for 13 of its Protection System devices during the transition to a new document management system

Finding: WECC found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. Although WAUW had not tested the batteries according to the time specified in its M&T program, WAUW monitors all of its battery chargers and battery voltages via its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Any malfunction of the batteries would set off an alarm alerting employees to a problem. The duration of the violation was June 18, 2007 through October 28, 2009. WECC considered WAUW's internal compliance program to be a neutral factor in determining the disposition track. WECC considered WAUW's compliance history and determined there were no relevant instances of noncompliance.

Penalty: No Penalty

FERC Order: Issued October 31, 2016 (no further review)

Westmoreland Partners, FERC Docket No. NP10-9-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC found that Westmoreland could not produce evidence that its maintenance and testing programs for its Protection System included procedures for the maintenance and testing of all aspects of its Protection System. SERC further determined that Westmoreland only had in place maintenance intervals and their bases for relays and batteries but not for all of the Protection System components. SERC determined that the violation lasted from June 18, 2007 through June 12, 2008.

Finding: NERC approved SERC's decision to impose a $10,000 fine on Westmoreland for its violation of two reliability standards. NERC considered several factors, including: (i) the violations were related to documentation issues; (ii) the non-compliance began in 2007 and was remedied by early 2008; (iii) Westmoreland was cooperative during the process; (iv) Westmoreland had not previously violated these or similar requirements; (v) Westmoreland did not attempt to hide its violations; (vi) Westmoreland did not intentionally violate the reliability standards; and (vii) Westmoreland agreed to the settlement.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

Wharton County Generation, LLC (Wharton County), Docket No. NP13-5-000 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 2/2.1/2.2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: TRE

Issue: Wharton County, in its role as a GO, self-reported a violation of R2 after discovering that its voltage and sensing devices, including 20 current transformers (CTs)/potential transformers (PTs) and 4 DC circuits, had not been tested during the 2010 Protection System testing outage and had fallen outside of the interval testing window. Wharton County further reported that it was missing evidence of monthly and quarterly maintenance of its station batteries. 25 untested devices out of a total of 58 devices were affected by the violation.

Finding: TRE determined that the R2 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS due to three primary factors. First, Wharton County could have been informed of issues with its CTs/PTs during other relay testing activities, since the microprocessor relay testing would have indicated faults with the current and voltage inputs to the relays. In addition, no issues were discovered during the subsequent instrument transformer testing, thus the voltage and current sensing devices were performing their intended reliability function during the violation period. Second, Wharton County's monitored battery bank system sets off alarms to a monitored control room in the event of faults, which would have alerted the GO if any battery had become weak and if voltage dropped on the low voltage system. Furthermore, the performance tests upon installation of the battery system, which was brand new, as well as the vendor's semi-annual maintenance on the battery bank and monthly battery maintenance, showed the batteries to be in good working condition. Third, the GO is a peaking facility with a very low capacity and a small capacity rating; this offsets the number of noncompliant devices. TRE and Wharton County entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Wharton County agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R2. TRE considered the internal compliance program at Wharton County's sister company, IPR-GDF SUEZ Generation North America, Inc. (GENCO) to be a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination because Wharton County uses GENCO's ICP. Both Wharton County and GENCO are wholly owned subsidiaries of IPR-GDF SUEZ North America, Inc. The duration of the violation was from December 19, 2007 through January 16, 2012. Wharton County neither admits nor denies the R2 violation.

Penalty: $6,500

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Wheelabrator North Broward (WTI-NB), FERC Docket No. NP11-37-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: FRCC determined that Wheelabrator North Broward ("WTI-NB"), as a Generator Owner, failed to maintain documentation that voltage and current sensing devices were tested and maintained within the intervals defined by WTI-NB’s Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee ("BOTCC") imposed a $1,000 penalty for this violation. In reaching this determination, the BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted WTI-NB’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; WTI-NB cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; WTI-NB 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: $1,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Wheelabrator-South Broward, FERC Docket No. NP11-26-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: FRCC

Issue: During a spot check in May 2009, it was found that Wheelbrator-South Broward (WTI-SB) did not possess sufficient documentation showing that it was performing testing and maintenance of its voltage and current sensing devices within the defined intervals of its Protection System maintenance and testing program.

Finding: FRCC and WTI-SB entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby WTI-SB agreed to pay a penalty of $1,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve the violation. FRCC found that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since WTI-SB stated that it was actually performing the required maintenance and testing on its voltage and current sensing devices. Furthermore, WTI-SB accounts for less than 1% of the region's generating capacity. The duration of the violation was from December 31, 2007 through July 10, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, FRCC considered the fact this was WTI-SB's first violation of this Reliability Standard; WTI-SB was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $1,000

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Whiting Clean Energy, Inc. (WCE), Docket No. NP14-8 (Nov. 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1, 2

Violation Risk Factor: High (both)

Violation Severity Level: High (R1); Severe (R2)

Region: RFC

Issue: In July 2012, WCE submitted a self-report of a possible violation of PRC-005-1 R1 because WCE was relying on an outside source to conduct its Protection System maintenance and testing (M&T). The self-report led to WCE being found to have violated PRC-005-1 R1 by it not having a Protection System maintenance and testing (M&T) program in effect for its systems that could affect reliable BPS operations. A subsequent compliance audit determined a WCE had a violation of PRC-005-1 R2 because it could not show RFC that M&T on Protection System devices had been undertaken according to prescribed intervals. In addition, WCE would not show that any M&T had been performed on its current and voltage sensing devices during the violation time period. RFC determined the violation period to be July 9, 2008, the date WCE registered as a GO, until October 31, 2012, when a Mitigation Plan was completed.

Finding: These violations were deemed to be primarily documentation related and therefore posed minimal risk to reliable BPS operations, but not serious or substantial risk. From 2009 until 2012, M&T was provided by outside contractors and in accordance with NERC’s “Technical Reference” manual. Issues were addressed as needed according to work orders prepared by a preventative and corrective maintenance software package. 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)

Willmar Municipal Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP13-7 (November 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: 1, 2

Violation Risk Factor: High (1, 2.1/2.2), Medium (2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (1, 2)

Region: MRO

Issue: In November 2010, Willmar Municipal Utilities (Willmar Municipal), as a DP and TO, self-reported that its Protection System maintenance and testing program did not include the maintenance and testing intervals and their bases or a summary of the maintenance and testing procedures as required (1). During a compliance audit in 2011, MRO found that Willmar Municipal did not possess sufficient maintenance and testing records as required by its Protection System maintenance and testing program. Willmar Municipal did not properly perform maintenance and testing on its station battery bank (as required to do on October 8, 2009, January 11, 2010 and March 2, 2010). This station battery bank caused there to be a delayed power restoration of Willmar Municipal's system after a problem with a scheduled switching procedure resulted in the loss of DC and a firm load loss for two hours of more than 50% of Willmar Municipal's load. MRO determined that Willmar Municipal did not perform the required maintenance and testing for almost half of its devices (i.e., 5 relays, 1 station battery bank, 5 current transformers and 5 DC control circuits) (2).

Finding: MRO found that the PRC-005-1 R1 and R2 violations only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. In regards to R1, Willmar Municipal was able to produce the maintenance and testing schedules for all of its 36 Protection System devices. In addition, Willmar Municipal has a peak load of 60 MW and is only connected to BPS by two 230 kV transmission lines (which have a total length of 13 miles), so the only impact of there being a failure of Willmar Municipal's Protection System devices would be on Willmar Municipal's own load. For R2, although the relevant station battery caused there to be a delay in the restoration of firm load, Willmar Municipal did not have to shed any load because of its failure to properly maintain and test its Protection System devices. In addition, the outage did not affect any BPS lines besides the 13 miles of 230 kV transmission lines that connect Willmar Municipal to the BPS. The delay in restoring power only affected Willmar Municipal's own load. Willmar Municipal admitted both violations. The duration of the violations was from June 18, 2007 through December 27, 2010 (1) and from June 18, 2007 through May 24, 2011 (2). In approving the settlement agreement, the NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these violations were Willmar Municipal's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; one of the violations was self-reported; and Willmar Municipal was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations. While Willmar Municipal did not have a compliance program in place when the violations occurred, it has since created a compliance program and undertaken above and beyond activities to assist with its compliance, which MRO evaluated as a mitigating factor. MRO also considered the delayed restoration caused by the station battery bank to be an aggravating factor.

Penalty: $2,500

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: During a compliance audit, ReliabilityFirst found that Wisconsin Electric, in its roles as a Distribution Provider (DP) and Generator Owner (GO), violated PRC-005-1 R1 by failing to include maintenance and testing intervals and a basis for those intervals and by failing to include summaries of maintenance and testing procedures for all of Wisconsin Electric’s 243 transmission current sensing devices, 51 transmission station batteries and 111 transmission direct current control circuits (51.9% of its 779 total transmission Protection System devices). Wisconsin Electric’s DP Program did not include voltage sensing devices or communication systems, since Wisconsin Electric has no DP voltage sensing devices and no DP communications systems. The current version of Wisconsin Electric’s DP Program required maintenance and testing on current transformers at installation only, thus the documentation did not have an acceptable maintenance and testing interval or an acceptable basis for that interval for current sensing devices. Also, the current version did not include summaries of maintenance and testing procedures for all of Wisconsin Electric’s transmission current sensing devices (31% of its 779 total transmission Protection System devices). The documentation for Wisconsin Electric’s generation Protection System maintenance and testing program had no maintenance and testing interval or any basis for that interval for voltage and current sensing devices. Also, the GO Program had no summaries of maintenance and testing procedures for all 72 generation voltage sensing devices and 408 generation current sensing devices (28.6% of its total 1,678 generation Protection System devices).

Finding: This violation posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability, which was mitigated by the fact that Wisconsin Electric performed maintenance and testing on its other Protection System devices in accordance with its current DP Program throughout the period of violation. Although the 2010 Program was not in place during the entire period of violation, Wisconsin Electric had been performing maintenance and testing on all devices except sensing devices; the current Program documented those activities. In addition, Wisconsin Electric had tested its voltage and current sensing devices based upon the manufacturers’ recommendations, and Wisconsin Electric routinely performed substation inspections, which included visual checks and infrared scans of the voltage and current sensing devices. Wisconsin Electric continuously monitors its voltage sensing devices for proper operation which are alarmed to alert the appropriate parties of any potential issues before any loss of protection or interruption of service occurs. Wisconsin Electric’s voltage and current sensing devices were found to be in working condition throughout the duration of the violation. Wisconsin Electric’s internal compliance program was considered as a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

Penalty: $10,000

FERC Order: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP09-21-000 (May 1, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) self-certified that although it had a Protection System maintenance and testing program in place, the testing of the generator protection systems was not performed according to defined intervals and therefore it was unable to produce evidence of testing as required by PRC-005-1 R2.1.

Finding: MRO did not assess a penalty because: (1) the violation was deemed a documentation issue; (2) WPSC was able to show that the devices had been tested in previous years; (3) WPSC completed a mitigation plan; and (4) the violation did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk because there was a testing system in place.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 15, 2009 (no further review)

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP09-21-000 (May 1, 2009)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: Wisconsin Public Service Company (WPSC) self-certified that its documented Protection System Maintenance and Testing Program did not include maintenance and testing intervals and maintenance and testing procedures were not completed.

Finding: MRO did not assess a penalty because: (1) the violation was deemed a documentation issue as WPSC had a testing system in place and equipment had been tested and maintained, although not on schedule; (2) WPSC completed a mitigation plan; and (3) the violation did not put bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk because there was a testing system in place.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 15, 2009 (no further review)

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP11-17-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R2/2.1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: MRO

Issue: During an on-site compliance audit, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) notified MRO that it had not conducted maintenance and testing on 6 of its 493 protection system devices pursuant to the intervals established in its protection system maintenance and testing program.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because most of the protection system devices were properly maintained and tested, and one of the deficient devices was a back-up relay and the primary relay was properly maintained and tested. In addition, WPS was cooperative, had an effective compliance program, and there was no evidence of an intention or attempt to conceal the violation, all of which were considered mitigating factors.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Wise County Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-266-000 (August 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: High (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Severe (R1), Lower (R2)

Region: Texas RE

Issue: Wise County Power Company, LLC (Wise) self-reported that it was unable to provide evidence that a generation Protection System maintenance and testing program existed and was in place from June 28, 2007 through November 12, 2007 in violation of R1. Wise also self-reported that it had not performed maintenance and testing on some of its generation Protection System devices within defined intervals in violation of R2. Of 150 Protection System devices, 10.7% were completed outside the defined intervals and 13.3% had incomplete documentation on prior tests.

Finding: Texas RE found that the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because a written Protection System maintenance and testing program was not in place for five months yet actual tests on most of the equipment was performed. Duration of violation was June 28, 2007 through November 13, 2007 (R1) and June 28, 2007 through March 1, 2010 (R2).

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2011 (no further review)

Wolf Hills Energy, LLC (Wolf Hills), Docket No. NP12-36-000 (June 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: High

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: Wolf Hills, a GO, submitted a self-report in September 2011 stating it did not have a documented maintenance and testing program for its Protection System devices, which consist of 11 relays, 96 voltage and current sensing devices, five battery banks, and 11 DC Control Circuits.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose moderate risk to BPS reliability because even though Wolf Hills did not have a documented maintenance and testing program, Wolf Hill reported that it had performed all required maintenance during the previous two years. Wolf Hills also reported that it had had no previous Protection System misoperations. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered certain aspects of Wolf Hill’s internal compliance program as mitigating factors and credit was given for the self-report; however, affiliates of Wolf Hills have previously violated the PRC-005-1 R1 Reliability Standard, and therefore, RFC considered that to be an aggravating factor in Wolf Hills’ compliance history. Wolf Hills neither admitted nor denied RFC’s findings.

Penalty: $5,000

FERC Order: Order issued July 27, 2012 (no further review)

Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-99-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: PRC-005-1

Requirement: R1.1, R2 (2.1 and 2.2)

Violation Risk Factor: High (listed for both R1.1 and R2; R2 is classified by NERC as having a Lower Violation Risk Factor, but both R2.1 and R2.2 have a High Violation Risk Factor)

Violation Severity Level: Moderate (R2) (not provided for the alleged violation of R1.1)

Region: RFC

Issue: In advance of an RFC compliance audit in June 2009, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (Wolverine) self-reported a potential violation of PRC-005-1 R2 as Wolverine was unable to demonstrate, or provide dates, for the testing and maintenance within defined intervals for 64 of its 1,024 Protection System devices at its Wayland Substation (including current transformers and DC circuitry that sense or trip faults on facilities related to the bulk power system). During the compliance audit, RFC also discovered a potential violation of PRC-005-1 R1.1 since Wolverine's maintenance and testing program did not contain the basis for the relay maintenance and testing intervals.

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 PRC-005-1 R2 did not cause a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as Wolverine actually had operational Station Supervisory Control and Data acquisition monitoring in place for the Wayland Substation. The Wayland Substation was also subject to mid-month inspections. Also, there were no incidents of misoperations involving the relevant Protection System devices and when the devices were tested, they were determined to be fully functional and operable. RFC also found that the alleged violation of PRC-005-1 R1.1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Wolverine had actually documented, in an audit guide document, the basis for its relay maintenance and testing intervals. In determining the penalty, RFC considered that the 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 violations of PRC-005-1.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)