THE HONORABLE

ANDREA M. BOLAND OF MAINE

The Role of the States in Protecting their

Electric Grids from EMP and GMD

-- The Maine Experience

Key Points of this Presentation

• States have regulatory authority over transmission.

• State actions are leading the way.

• National experts are helping

• Costs are modest, failure unacceptable.

• Regulatory capture is blocking progress.

• Political will is needed.

Maine LD 131, now considered a model study

to guide policy, became law in 2013

• The Maine Public Utilities Commission was to

examine GMD and EMP, and report back on:

• The most vulnerable components of the Maine system;

• Potential mitigation measures;

• Estimates of costs – low, medium, and high costs;

• Time frame for adoption of mitigation measures;

• Policy implications

Regulatory Resistance

• In doing the study, the Maine PUC:

• Dragged its feet, assigned it minimal staff;

• Did not accept offers of expert help from FERC’s

Office of Energy Infrastructure Security;

• Refused to investigate EMP;

• Had completion of the study shifted to industry

control;

2015 Maine Legislation

• We ended up with two reports at the end of 2014, one

authored by Central Maine Power Company (CMP), using

a faulty NERC benchmark, one authored by Emprimus,

Inc., developer of INL-tested protective equipment.

• Senator David Miramant introduced LD 1363 to

require the power companies to install protections

recognized by both studies.

• The industry opposed it. It passed strongly in the House,

but failed in the Senate, by one vote.

Other States Got Active

Some state actions being employed.

Maine – Passed first legislation, task force

continuing; GIS monitoring being piloted.

New York – installing micro-grids, work at

municipal & county levels pushing State

Colorado – 2015 EMP legislation failed;

strong public advocates working hard.

Virginia – passed emergency preparedness

legislation. Electric utilities studying.

North Carolina – legislation a public priority.

Arizona – passed emergency preparedness

legislation

Texas – submitted 4 bills; finding funds in

State budget, focus: economic development.

all failed.

Florida – working on executive branch action. Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana,

New Mexico, and South Carolina

are engaged in seeking action.

Industry Blocks Federal Protections

• NERC, the North American Electric Reliability

Corporation represents the interests of the private

electric utility owners (about 70% of all utilities), and

has sole authority to write electric grid reliability

standards that govern their own operations.

• .

• FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

can only approve or remand them. Result: accept

weak standards or delay getting any at all. Either fails to

protect the public.

Kappenman & Birnbach Comments to NERC on

Draft Standard TPL-007-1, Oct. 10, 2014 -- Compare power of 1921 event to NERC profile standard

Central Maine Power’s tariff, like that of

other states, limits its public liability.

• “…In no event shall Central Maine be liable for any incidental, consequential, multiple, punitive, special, exemplary, or indirect damages, or loss of revenue or profits, attorney’s fees or costs arising out of, or connected in any way with the performance or non-performance of this Schedule 21-CMP or any Service Agreement hereunder, even if such damages are foreseeable or the damaged party has advised Central Maine of the possibility of such damages and regardless of whether any such damages are deemed to result from the failure or inadequacy of any exclusive or other remedy.”

CMP, like other electric utilities, enjoys a healthy guaranteed rate

of return on its investments. In Maine it is 11.74%.

We need to link guaranteed R.O.R. to higher protective standards.

Moving Forward in Maine, and a Caution

• The Study Task Force continues to convene. Central Maine Power reports on activities and takes input. I am a member.

• Central Maine Power is making investments in the more costly mitigations noted in the studies, and piloting GMD GIC (geomagnetically-induced current) monitors – a critical step.

• Central Maine Power turned down the less costly, most robust protections against GMD – neutral ground blockers. Maine is considered likely the most vulnerable state to severe GMD.

• CMP is still not addressing manmade EMP.

• CMP is inching forward. It’s not easy within their tight, resistant industry, but the public deserves far better, and the survival of the United States demands it. We salute their efforts.

Comparison of CMP and EMPRIMUS Recommendations for Maine GMD and EMP Grid Protection*

Vulnerability Fix Cost Time Frame CMP Inadequate monitoring Add 16 GMD monitors $576,000 None given

Electromechanical relays Replace with microprocessor type $1M for 4 relays None given

can trip from harmonics to filter harmonics: for capacitor control

All Electromechanical Replace with microprocessor type: $20.25M for 81 relays None given

relays for all substations

Capacitor recovery time Install Independent Pole Operating $21 million None given

(IPO) breakers at 9 locations

Excessive transformer heat- Install GIC transformer blocking devices $400,000 each: None given

ing due to higher GIC flows 7 for $2.8M (20V/km, their 100 Yr. Storm)

9 for $3.6M (29V/km, their 500 Yr. Storm)

Note: No simulations done for EMP E-1 and E-2. “As this topic develops, substations, control centers and other power system components

should be tested for their vulnerabilities.”

Emprimus System vulnerable, even Install neutral blocking at 12 $400,000 per blocking unit; None given

without voltage collapse. Substations (18 transformers.) 18 transformers: $7.2M

High GIC’s danger to Neutral blockers relieve CMP from Saves approx. $8.6M per None given

Transformers & Generators reliance on procedures which are year (net savings $1.4M first

shown by Emprimus modeling to be year, $8.6 succeeding years)

ineffective

Harmonics and. Install 30 neutral blocking devices $12M ($4.8M additional) None given

EMP E3. total to add this protection.

Other EMP Install EMP/IEMI detectors and None given None given

protective cabinets at key substations None given None given

Note: Loss to revenue of utilities and customers, public health and safety, and damaged transformers and customer equipment offset costs.

Rep. Andrea Boland, updated 3-2-15

*My extract of their reports, as I understand them. See CMP and Emprimus full reports.

CENTRAL MAINE POWER IS PLANNING GMD PROTECTIONS IN 2015-2016

1. -- installing series capacitors on two high voltage transmission lines, one a

1000 MW DC line from Canada, to remove GICs from parts of the 345 kV system;

2. -- add reactive power capacity where voltage drops are a risk and reactive

power is needed – at Coopers Mills, a major substation;

3. -- resume modeling neutral ground blocking options for Maine’s large

transformers (345kV), but not until spring 2016 at the earliest. Neutral ground blockers

could have taken care of (1) and reduced some demand for extra reactive power (2).

4. -- The big, and excellent development is that CMP will install a pilot

synchrophasor unit (PMU) to develop GMD monitoring and management options.

This will include monitoring of harmonics and DC flows (via a Hall Effect sensor). An

independent outside firm, Ping Things, will do data analytics, which they call ground-

breaking, as it is being done nowhere else in the country -- capturing data at high

frequency and allowing for cumulative monitoring.

Initial findings will be reported to Maine Advisory Committee in December 2015.

For Further Information

• Call the Maine Public Utilities Commission, (207)

– 287-3831, and ask to be registered to view the

online docket #2013-00415, - or –

• Call the Maine State law Library, (207) – 286-

1600, and ask for a copy of the LD 131 legislative

file from the 126th Legislature to be emailed to

you.

• Andrea Boland: (207)-324-4459;

sixwings@metrocast.net

Thank You!