CIP Version 5 Transition Program - NERC Highlights nad Minutes... · 2015-02-05 · April 2015: R4...

CIP Version 5 Transition ProgramSteven Noess, Director of Compliance AssuranceMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015

RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY2

Purpose of the Transition Program

“Support all entities in the timely, effective, and efficient transition to CIP Version 5”

Implementation Readiness

Clarify Compliance

Expectations

Resource Requirement

AlignmentConsistent

Enforcement

Support Industry

Confidence


Key Accomplishments

• CIP V5 Transition Advisory Group Convenes every 4-8 weeks Highlights useful topics to address common implementation questions Authored sections of the Implementation Study Report (Q4)

• Lessons Learned and FAQs Comments solicited on drafts to increase transparency Posted drafts and planned topics outlined on CIP Version 5 web page


Key Accomplishments (cont.)

• Compliance and Enforcement Clarity – additional documents posted to address compliance questions during transition Transition period compliance monitoring Application of the risk-based compliance and enforcement concepts

• Outreach and Training Increased outreach and training for industry and ERO Enterprise staff

2015 Dates Type LocationFebruary 25 Industry outreach event AtlantaMarch 25 Industry outreach event AtlantaApril 22 Industry outreach event Atlanta


• Continued industry outreach and ERO Enterprise staff training Pre-enforcement audits and individualized outreach sessions Small group advisory sessions Regionally-coordinated CIP curriculum and workshops CIP auditor training workshops every two months Final RSAW distribution and training

• Emphasis on timely, well-informed lessons learned and FAQs Approximately 15 lessons learned will be posted in 2015 Advisory group anticipates most critical topics complete by early Q2

Next Steps and Action Items

Physical Security Reliability Standard ImplementationSteven Noess, Director of Compliance AssuranceMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015


CIP-014 Implementation Program

Implementation Readiness

Clarify Compliance

Expectations

Understanding Scoping and 3rd

Party RelianceConsistent

Enforcement

Increased Industry

Awareness

“Support all entities in the timely, effective, and efficient implementation of CIP-014”


• Order 802 directed NERC to address the following: Remove the term “widespread” in Requirement R1 Informational filing to assess whether “High Impact” control centers

should be protected under CIP-014-1

• Standard drafting team Met face-to-face in January 2015 Anticipated posting of revised standard in late February 2015

FERC Order 802


• Key enforcement dates: Requirement R1 is enforceable on October 1, 2015 Requirements R2 through R6 must be completed after R1 according to the

timelines specified in the standard

• Collaboration with NATF and other groups on guidance• Expected guidance posting dates: February 2015: R1, R2, R3 (Risk Assessment and Verification) April 2015: R4 and R5 (Threat Evaluation / Physical Security Plans) July 2015: R6 (Threat and Evaluation / Security Plan Verifications)

Increasing Industry’s Understanding


• Clarifies understanding of applicability to standard• Detailed explanation on sound approaches NATF Existing guidance TPL standards

• Leverages transmission-focused expertise of industry• Not exclusive (i.e., builds confidence in ERO Enterprise’s

viewpoint on approach, but not the only acceptable approach)• Focus on effectiveness of application

Risk Assessment (R1) Guidance


• Number of assets critical under the standard• Defining characteristics of the assets identified as critical• Scope of security plans• Timelines for implementing security and resiliency measures• Industry’s progress in implementing the standard

ERO to Monitor Implementation


• Industry webinar occurred December 18, 2014• Additional outreach activities for 2015• Auditor training (began September 2014) Additional workshops ongoing in 2015 Coordinated with release of guidance

Outreach and Training

Essential ReliabilityServices Task Force Measures Framework Report Thomas Burgess, Vice President and Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance AnalysisMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015


• Develop an approach and framework for the long-term assessment of essential reliability services (ERS)

• Identify parameters and performance expectations for each ERS• Develop relevant measures to understand impacts of changing

resource mix on reliability• Identify any gaps and recommendations for NERC

ERSTF Objectives

Resource Adequacy

Essential Reliability Services

Reliable Bulk Power System


• Framework report endorsed by Operating and Planning Committees (OC/PC) in December 2014

• Subgroups identified nine possible measures at this point in time Four measures approved to commence data gathering and analysis (pilot) Five measures currently being evaluated to integrate into pilot

Update


• Synchronous Inertial Response [interconnection] (Measure 1)• Initial Frequency Deviation following largest contingency

[interconnection] (Measure 2)• Synchronous Inertial Response [Balancing Authority] (Measure 3)• Ramping Variability needs [Balancing Authority] (Measure 6)

Measures Endorsed for Piloting


• Frequency Nadir at Minimum Synchronous Inertial Response Conditions (Measure 4)

• Real-Time Inertia and Voltage Stability Limits (Measure 5)• System Dynamic and Static Reactive Capability (Measure 7)• System Voltage Performance in Planning and Operations

(Measure 8) • Reactive Margin and Overall Voltage Operating Performance

(Measure 9)

Measures Being Refined for Pilot


Pilot Timeline

December2014

February2015

December2015

June2015

Preliminary analysis: Presented to OC/PC

• “Hand in hand” approach with industry stakeholders to determine effectiveness and practical adoption of such measures

• Analysis by ERSTF to determine emerging trends and benchmarks

Overall assessment and final report:

Validate or refine all measures and formulate final

recommendations

Pilot Continues: Request for volunteer

data (5 Measures)

Pilot Begins: Request for volunteer

data (4 Measures)


• Consider technical aspects of ERS when making decisions related to interconnecting new resources or market and tariff oversight

• Policy decisions have direct influence on changes in the resource mix, and thus can also affect the reliability of the bulk power system

• Goal is to inform, educate, and build awareness on the implications of the changing resource mix and how industry can evolve the system in a reliable manner

Message for Policy Makers


• Measures 1 and 3 identify the parameters and data required to measure historical inertia at an Interconnection and Balancing Authority level respectively

• The historical data can then be used to project future trends

Measures 1 & 3

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4x 10

5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Kin

etic

ene

rgy,

MW

s

at max wind penetration, historic

at max wind penetration, projected based on SGIAs

∗ at max wind penetration, projected based on SGIAs and FCs


• Measure 2 is extrapolated from Measure 1 and can be achieved for Interconnection level data

• This measure utilizes a framework to calculate a Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF) of an interconnection. This measure is intended for planning horizon level

Measure 2


• Measure 6 identifies each Balancing Authority's net demand ramping variability needs by calculating the historical and projected maximum one-hour up, one-hour down, three-hour up and three-hour down net load ramps (actual load less production from VERs) using one-minute data

Measure 6

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Hourly

Net Lo

ad Ram

ps, MW

Yearly 1-Hour Ramp Distribution

-14,000-12,000-10,000

-8,000-6,000-4,000-2,000

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

Hourly

Net L

oad Ra

mps, M

W

Yearly 3-Hour Ramp Distribution

Risk-Based RegistrationPhase IIEarl Shockley, Senior Director, Compliance Analysis and CertificationMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015


• Differentiate entities exhibiting different levels of risk: Clear thresholds Registration using consistent risk assessment methods Focused Reliability Standard requirements

• Align with: Bulk Electric System (BES) definition Risk-based compliance monitoring Reliability Standards reform

Risk-Based Registration Vision


• Align registration and compliance with reliability impacts • Reduce registration burden while sustaining BES reliability• Enhance electric reliability organization (ERO) program

consistency• Provide feedback to Reliability Standards development • Improve use of NERC, Regional Entity and industry resources

Risk-Based Registration Benefits


Key Tasks to Support Phase II

• To determine necessary studies to test feasibility of proposed risk profiles and sub-sets of applicable standards

Technical Conferences

• RBR Advisory Group, Technical Task Force, Regional Entities, Forums and Trade Organizations

Regional & Industry Engagement

• Feedback on proposed risk profiles and sub-sets of applicable standards

Feedback & Outreach

• Technical report with recommendations presented to NERC Board of Trustees at November 2015 meetingTechnical Report


2014 2015

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

TO/TOP Technical Conferences

GO/GOP Technical Conferences

Communication, Training, Feedback and Outreach

Q3 Q4

Proposed Timeline

Report and Recommendations Presented to Board

Commence Studies

Study Results Submitted

Comment Period

Determine Feasibility of Phase II Based on Studies

MRC Policy Input

Q4Q3Q2Q1

EPA Special Assessment Status UpdateThomas Burgess, Vice President and Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance AnalysisMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015


Initial Reliability ReviewBackground and Overview

• Released in November 2014• Provided an evaluation of the EPA’s Building Block assumptions

for the proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP)• Highlighted potential reliability impacts of the target-driven

emission assumptions resulting from the following: Accelerated changes to the resource mix Impacts ERS characteristics and increased dependence on natural gas Displacement or retirement of baseload capacity Expansion of natural gas and variable energy resources Meeting Reference Margin Levels Potential transmission needs and large power transfer changes

• Served as a platform to inform policy discussions on bulk power system (BPS) reliability


• Part 1: Resource Adequacy Quantitative assessment focused on generation dispatch Aurora model (zonal, economic dispatch) Publicly available data inputs where available Sensitivity analysis on gas prices Stakeholder review of assumptions and approach (Planning Committee

EPA advisory group)

• Part 2: Transmission Adequacy Evaluation of BPS transmission adequacy with projected resource mix

change Identify transmission congestion and generation deficient areas

• Part 3: Review of Existing Studies Independent evaluation of existing regional/area-specific studies

Phase I Study Three Part Assessment


Phase I Study Scheduled Milestones

Date Milestone

Early December Finalize study scope

Mid-December – February Resource Adequacy Modeling

Mid-January – Mid-February Transmission Adequacy Modeling

Mid-February – Mid-March Development of report’s findings and conclusions

Early April Target release


November 2014

April2015

December2016

December2015

EPA Special Assessment

Phase III• Placeholder for

assessment completed once SIPs are developed (some single state, some multi-state)


Initial Reliability Review

• High-level reliability considerations

• Assessment of EPA’s rule assumptions


Phase II• Additional

assessment of emerging SIPs

• Reflects final rule• Conventional

reliability assessment based on known requirements

• Complete before states submit (SIPs)

EPA Special AssessmentPhase I

• Evaluation of resource and transmission adequacy

• Sensitivity analysis used to provide range of potential outcomes

EPA Reliability Impacts AssessmentMultiple Phase Approach

Event Information Sharing

James Merlo, Director of Reliability Risk ManagementMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015


Event Information Sharing

EOP-004OE-417Other

ERO Event Analysis Process

Voluntary Compliance Assessment

ERO Closure Letter and

Acknowledgement

Post Brief Reports on NERC Secure

Portal

• Acknowledgement of desired behavior

• Indication of strong internal controls

• Feedback and closure

• Self critical review• Indicative of a

high Reliability Organization

• Consistent process and assessment for all events

• Informs industry and regulator

• Mandatory• Largely aligned

to EA process• Not all

occurrences are a qualified event

• Technical details• Reinforces

lesson learned• Builds trust and

promotes collaboration

Advisory for Generator Governor Frequency ResponseJames Merlo, Director of Reliability Risk ManagementMember Representatives Committee MeetingFebruary 11, 2015


• Intended for Generator Owners and Operators for facilities with facility aggregate ratings greater than 75 MVA

• Not intended to supersede any technical or operational considerations, nor regional guidance

• Dead bands should not exceed +/- 36 mHz• Droop characteristic should not exceed 5%, with continuous,

proportional (non-step) response• Related outer-loop controls within the Distributed Control

System should be set to avoid early withdrawal of primary frequency response

Industry Advisory –Generator Governor Frequency Response


• Published in November 2012• Available at:

http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20200712%20Frequency%20Response%20DL/FRI_Report_10-30-12_Master_w-appendices.pdf

Frequency Response Initiative Report

http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20200712%20Frequency%20Response%20DL/FRI_Report_10-30-12_Master_w-appendices.pdf

CIP Version 5 Transition Program - NERC Highlights nad Minutes... · 2015-02-05 · April 2015: R4...

Documents

Transcript of CIP Version 5 Transition Program - NERC Highlights nad Minutes... · 2015-02-05 · April 2015: R4...