Docket No. RM15-11-000 Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance

Docket No. RM15-11-000 Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance

Docket No. RM15-11-000 Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events

Technical Conference March 1, 2016

Notes

In May 2013 FERC issued Order 779 directing NERC to address GMD in two phases. Stage 1 required submittal of a standard that required applicable registered entities to develop and implement Operating Procedures that can mitigate the effects of GMD events. This was completed in June 2014 with FERC approval of EOP-010-1 (Geomagnetic Disturbance Operations). Stage 2 required submittal of a standard that required applicable registered entities to conduct initial and on-going assessments of the potential impact of benchmark GMD events on their respective system. Standard TPL-007-1 (Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events) was approved by the NERC BOT in December 2014 and submitted to FERC in May 2015.

In May 14, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the above-captioned docket, the Commission proposed to approve TPL-007-1. In addition, the Commission proposed to direct the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC): (1) to develop certain revisions to proposed standard; and (2) to submit a work plan, and subsequently one or more informational filings, that address specific GMD-related research areas. The Commission sought and received comments on these proposals including the NOPR proposal: (1) to develop modifications to the benchmark GMD event definition set forth in Attachment 1 of the proposed standard so that the definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data; and (2) to revise proposed standard to require the installation of monitoring equipment (i.e., geomagnetically-induced current (GIC) monitors and magnetometers) to the extent there are any gaps in existing GIC monitoring and magnetometer networks. FERC established additional comment period in October 2015.

Mark Bardee.-Director of the FERC Office of Electrical Reliability served as Moderator. In his opening remarks he stated the purpose of this conference was to clarify issues, share information, and determine appropriate ways to address issues raised in the NOPR and various other studies on these issues. He also stated that development of the standard has been an unusually controversial and even confrontational process compared to usual FERC or NERC standard development process. He expected presenters to give their views in good faith and keep any disagreements professional.

Prior to the first panel each of the FERC Commissioners present gave their thoughts on the issue. Attending were Chairman Norman Bay, Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur and Commissioner Colette Honorable. All expressed that this was a very important issue for each of them and as Chairman Bay said we need to get our arms around this classic black swan event, low frequency-high impact event. Commissioner LaFleur was particularly interested in the discussions of the benchmark event and status of GIC monitoring. Also echoed Bardee’s comments on conduct. Commissioner Honorable also was particularly interested in the benchmark event especially the establishment of thresholds. In addition interested in better understanding of the true risk to the power system.

Panel 1: Benchmark GMD Event(s) Definitions

Panelists were asked to provide information, including next steps and timing of future work and/or research, concerning the benchmark GMD event definition in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. Panelists were encouraged to address two main areas: Geomagnetic fields and Earth Conductivity. Comments ranged from respective rationale for supporting moving ahead with the NERC Standard to respective rationale of deficiencies with the standard.

After all the panelists gave their remarks Chairman Bay asked the panelists to engage in the following thought exercise. “We were trying to do a certain thing, we plan for it, it turns out our plan is wrong. it is a year later. We had these plans, we thought we prepared, something went wrong. Let's say it is a geomagnetic disturbance and there are widespread outages across the United States. Ask the people at the table to tell you what they think went wrong.” After all panelist responded, Chairman Bay asked a follow up question ”Given the nature of the problems that you have identified, what would be your top two or three pieces of advice for regulators on what we can do to avoid the very issue or explanation for the problem that you provided to us?” (My comment: The responses to this question I thought provided the type of useful information staff and Commissioners could really use.)

Chairman Bay summarized what he heard. He stated that all panelists were saying that we understand the science well enough to take action, that the science is evolving and we are learning more each year.

Commission LaFleur spoke and said that she sees four options for moving forward which were: 1) Approve the Standard before FERC and build in a process for updating on some kind of timeline, 2) Direct changes to the standard or process to set up changes, 3) Send NERC Standard Drafting Team back to the drawing board or 4) Don’t have enough to do a standard. Option 4 she has an extremely strong bias against. Option 3 she has a fairly strong bias against. She then asked the panelists if they had any other options. (My comment: The responses to this question I thought showed that the panelists not supporting the standard were willing to move to supporting Option 1 or 2 as the Commissioner stated.)

Commissioner LaFleur noted that during the session that there was a reoccurring theme of difficulty to access GIC data. She wanted to know what could be done. (My comment: A very lively discussion took place. Two major issues raised which were a) need for confidentiality and b) need to be sure requester of data understood the data and how to analyze it.)

Panel 2: Vulnerability Assessments

Panelists were asked to provide information, including next steps and timing of future work and/or research, about the GMD Vulnerability Assessments and transformer thermal impact assessments in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. Panelists were encouraged to address Harmonics and vibrational effects during benchmark GMD events, State of knowledge and modeling capabilities regarding transformer thermal assessments and Non-uniform geoelectric fields. (My comment: NERC panelist discussed standard content on assessing GMD impact on equipment. Rest of panelists gave their (or their company’s) experience in performing GMD impact studies on equipment and what was learned.)

Commissioner LaFleur asked the panelists how to make transformers more resilient. Commissioner Honorable would like to see uniformity in transformer design.

FERC Staffer asked panelists to comment on what corrective actions could be taken now.

Panel 3: Monitoring and Future Work

Panelists were asked to provide information, including next steps and timing of future work and/or research, about GIC monitoring and magnetometers. Panelists are encouraged to address Current State of Monitoring, Potential for Additional Monitoring and Availability of Monitored data. (My comment: Panelists effectively addressed where the industry is now in monitoring and what is planned. As one panelist commented setting up a monitoring system for GMD has to be done with care.)

Commissioner LaFleur asked the panelists what they would recommend FERC do to improve monitoring. (My comment: The responses ranged from NERC rep stating pass the standard and this will result in more research being done to couple of panelists wanting FERC to use its influence to get the White House to approve needed funding. Two issues brought up were a) access to the data and b) who best to collect the data)

Attachment 1

Panel 1: Benchmark GMD Event(s) Definition

  1. Mark Lauby (Senior Vice President and Chief Reliability Officer, North American Electric Reliability Corporation)
  2. Antti Pulkkinen (Standard Drafting Team, NASA Research Astrophysicist)
  3. Dr. Scott Backhaus (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
  1. Dr. Jeffrey Love (Research Geophysicist, U.S. Geological Survey)
  2. Prof. Adam Schultz (Professor, Oregon State University)
  3. David Boteler (Head, Space Weather Group, Natural Resources Canada)
  4. David Roodman (Senior Advisor at the Open Philanthropy Project )
  5. John Kappenman (Principal Consultant, Storm Analysis Consultants)

Panel 2: Vulnerability Assessments

  1. Mark Lauby (Senior Vice President and Chief Reliability Officer, North American Electric Reliability Corporation)
  2. Dr. Luis Marti (Standard Drafting Team, Director of Reliability Studies, Standards and Compliance at Hydro One Networks)
  3. Michael Steckelberg (Senior Transmission Planning Engineer, Great River Energy)
  4. Randy Horton (Standard Drafting Team, Planning Manager, Southern Company Services, Inc.)
  5. Prof. Thomas Overbye (Fox Family Professor, University of Illinois)
  6. Prof. Trevor Gaunt (University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa)
  7. Terry Volkmann (President, Volkmann Consulting, Inc.)

Panel 3: Monitoring and Future Work

  1. Mark Lauby (Senior Vice President and Chief Reliability Officer, North American Electric Reliability Corporation)
  2. David Boteler (Head, Space Weather Group, Natural Resources Canada)
  3. Dr. Jeffrey Love (Research Geophysicist, U.S. Geological Survey)
  4. Prof. Trevor Gaunt (University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa)
  5. Dr. Luis Marti (Standard Drafting Team, Director of Reliability Studies, Standards and Compliance at Hydro One Networks)
  6. Frank Koza (Standard Drafting Team Chair, Executive Director, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.)
  7. Jerry Schuman (PingThings, Inc.)
  8. Thomas Popik (Chairman, Foundation for Resilient Societies)

1

Top View