FAC-010-3 – System Operating Limits Methodology for the Planning Horizon
4.1. Planning Authority
5. Effective Date: See Implementation Plan for the Revised Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme”
R1.1. Be applicable for developing SOLs used in the planning horizon.
R1.2. State that SOLs shall not exceed associated Facility Ratings.
R1.3. Include a description of how to identify the subset of SOLs that qualify as IROLs.
R2.1. In the pre-contingency state and with all Facilities in service, the BES shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits. In the determination of SOLs, the BES condition used shall reflect expected system conditions and shall reflect changes to system topology such as Facility outages.
R2.2. Following the single Contingencies1 identified in Requirement 2.2.1 through Requirement 2.2.3, the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be operating within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits; and Cascading or uncontrolled separation shall not occur.
R2.2.2. Loss of any generator, line, transformer, or shunt device without a Fault.
R2.2.3. Single pole block, with Normal Clearing, in a monopolar or bipolar high voltage direct current system.
R2.3. Starting with all Facilities in service, the system’s response to a single Contingency, may include any of the following:
R2.3.1. Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local network customers connected to or supplied by the Faulted Facility or by the affected area.
R2.3.2. System reconfiguration through manual or automatic control or protection actions.
R2.4. To prepare for the next Contingency, system adjustments may be made, including changes to generation, uses of the transmission system, and the transmission system topology.
R2.5. Starting with all Facilities in service and following any of the multiple Contingencies identified in Reliability Standard TPL-003 the system shall demonstrate transient, dynamic and voltage stability; all Facilities shall be operating within their Facility Ratings and within their thermal, voltage and stability limits; and Cascading or uncontrolled separation shall not occur.
R2.6. In determining the system’s response to any of the multiple Contingencies, identified in Reliability Standard TPL-003, in addition to the actions identified in R2.3.1 and R2.3.2, the following shall be acceptable:
R2.6.1. Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted Firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power Transfers.
R3. The Planning Authority’s methodology for determining SOLs, shall include, as a minimum, a description of the following, along with any reliability margins applied for each:
R3.1. Study model (must include at least the entire Planning Authority Area as well as the critical modeling details from other Planning Authority Areas that would impact the Facility or Facilities under study).
R3.2. Selection of applicable Contingencies.
R3.3. Level of detail of system models used to determine SOLs.
R3.4. Allowed uses of Remedial Action Schemes.
R3.5. Anticipated transmission system configuration, generation dispatch and Load level
R5. If a recipient of the SOL Methodology provides documented technical comments on the methodology, the Planning Authority shall provide a documented response to that recipient within 45 calendar days of receipt of those comments. The response shall indicate whether a change will be made to the SOL Methodology and, if no change will be made to that SOL Methodology, the reason why. (Retirement approved by FERC effective January 21, 2014.)
If the recipient of the SOL Methodology provides documented comments on its technical review of that SOL methodology, the Planning Authority that distributed that SOL Methodology shall have evidence that it provided a written response to that commenter within 45 calendar days of receipt of those comments in accordance with Requirement 5. (Retirement approved by FERC effective January 21, 2014.)
1. Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1 Compliance Monitoring Responsibility
1.2. Compliance Monitoring Period and Reset Time Frame
Each Planning Authority shall self-certify its compliance to the Compliance Monitor at least once every three years. New Planning Authorities shall demonstrate compliance through an on-site audit conducted by the Compliance Monitor within the first year that it commences operation. The Compliance Monitor shall also conduct an on-site audit once every nine years and an investigation upon complaint to assess performance.
The Performance-Reset Period shall be twelve months from the last non-compliance.
1.3. Data Retention
The Planning Authority shall keep all superseded portions to its SOL Methodology for 12 months beyond the date of the change in that methodology
and shall keep all documented comments on its SOL Methodology and associated responses for three years. In addition, entities found non-compliant shall keep information related to the non-compliance until found compliant. (Deleted text retired-Retirement approved by FERC effective January 21, 2014.)
The Compliance Monitor shall keep the last audit and all subsequent compliance records.
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
The Planning Authority shall make the following available for inspection during an onsite audit by the Compliance Monitor or within 15 business days of a request as part of an investigation upon complaint:
1.4.1 SOL Methodology. Documented comments provided by a recipient of the SOL Methodology on its technical review of a SOL Methodology, and the associated responses. (Retirement approved by FERC effective January 21, 2014.)
1.4.2 Superseded portions of its SOL Methodology that had been made within the past 12 months.
1.4.3 Evidence that the SOL Methodology and any changes to the methodology that occurred within the past 12 months were issued to all required entities.
2. Levels of Non-Compliance for Western Interconnection: (To be replaced with VSLs once developed and approved by WECC)
2.1. Level 1: There shall be a level one non-compliance if either of the following conditions exists: 2.1.1 The SOL Methodology did not include a statement indicating that Facility Ratings shall not be exceeded.
2.1.2 No evidence of responses to a recipient’s comments on the SOL Methodology. (Retirement approved by FERC effective January 21, 2014.)
2.2. Level 2: The SOL Methodology did not include a requirement to address all of the elements in R2.1 through R2.3 and E1.
2.3. Level 3: There shall be a level three non-compliance if any of the following conditions exists:
2.3.1 The SOL Methodology did not include a statement indicating that Facility Ratings shall not be exceeded and the methodology did not include evaluation of system response to one of the three types of single Contingencies identified in R2.2.
2.3.2 The SOL Methodology did not include a statement indicating that Facility Ratings shall not be exceeded and the methodology did not include evaluation of system response to two of the seven types of multiple Contingencies identified in E1.1.
2.3.3 The System Operating Limits Methodology did not include a statement indicating that Facility Ratings shall not be exceeded and the methodology did not address two of the six required topics in R3.
2.4. Level 4: The SOL Methodology was not issued to all required entities in accordance with R4
E. Regional Differences
1.1. As governed by the requirements of R2.5 and R2.6, starting with all Facilities in service, shall require the evaluation of the following multiple Facility Contingencies when establishing SOLs:
1.1.1 Simultaneous permanent phase to ground Faults on different phases of each of two adjacent transmission circuits on a multiple circuit tower, with Normal Clearing. If multiple circuit towers are used only for station entrance and exit purposes, and if they do not exceed five towers at each station, then this condition is an acceptable risk and therefore can be excluded.
1.1.2 A permanent phase to ground Fault on any generator, transmission circuit, transformer, or bus section with Delayed Fault Clearing except for bus sectionalizing breakers or bus-tie breakers addressed in E1.1.7
1.1.4 The failure of a circuit breaker associated with a Remedial Action Scheme to operate when required following: the loss of any element without a Fault; or a permanent phase to ground Fault, with Normal Clearing, on any transmission circuit, transformer or bus section
1.1.6 A common mode outage of two generating units connected to the same switchyard, not otherwise addressed by FAC-010.
1.1.7 The loss of multiple bus sections as a result of failure or delayed clearing of a bus tie or bus sectionalizing breaker to clear a permanent Phase to Ground Fault.
1.2.1 All Facilities are operating within their applicable Post-Contingency thermal, frequency and voltage limits.
1.2.2 Cascading does not occur.
1.2.3 Uncontrolled separation of the system does not occur.
1.2.4 The system demonstrates transient, dynamic and voltage stability.
1.2.5 Depending on system design and expected system impacts, the controlled interruption of electric supply to customers (load shedding), the planned removal from service of certain generators, and/or the curtailment of contracted firm (nonrecallable reserved) electric power transfers may be necessary to maintain the overall security of the interconnected transmission systems.
1.2.6 Interruption of firm transfer, Load or system reconfiguration is permitted through manual or automatic control or protection actions.
1.3. SOLs shall be established such that for multiple Facility Contingencies in E1.1.6 through E1.1.7 operation within the SOL shall provide system performance consistent with the following with respect to impacts on other systems:
1.3.1 Cascading does not occur.
1.4. The Western Interconnection may make changes (performance category adjustments) to the Contingencies required to be studied and/or the required responses to Contingencies for specific facilities based on actual system performance and robust design. Such changes will apply in determining SOLs.
- The Contingencies identified in R2.2.1 through R2.2.3 are the minimum contingencies that must be studied but are not necessarily the only Contingencies that should be studied. ↩