UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Communications Reliability Standards)Docket No. RM14-13-000

COMMENTS OF THE ISO/RTO COUNCIL

The ISO/RTO Council (the “IRC”) respectfully submits these joint comments in order to respond to certain questions posed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on September 18, 2014 in the captioned proceeding (the “NOPR”).1

I.IDENTIFICATION OF FILING PARTIES

The IRC is comprised of the Alberta Electric System Operator (“AESO”); California
Independent System Operator Corporation (“CAISO”); Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”); the Independent Electricity System Operator (“IESO”); ISO New England Inc. (“ISO-NE”); Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”); New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”); and
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (“SPP”).2

II.BACKGROUND

In the NOPR, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) proposes
to approve Communications Reliability Standard COM-001-2 and Operating Personnel
Communications Protocols Reliability Standard COM-002-4, developed by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”). In addition, the Commission proposes to approve

1 Communications Reliability Standards, 148 FERC ¶ 61,210 (2014).

2 AESO and IESO are not FERC-jurisdictional. AESO is not participating in these comments.

three new terms to be added to the NERC Glossary of Terms,3 and the violation risk factors, violation severity levels, and proposed implementation plan for both revised standards.
As described in the NOPR:

Proposed Reliability Standard COM-001-2 is intended to establish a clear set of
requirements for the communications capabilities that applicable functional
entities must have in place and maintain. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-
002-4 requires applicable entities to develop communication protocols with
certain minimum requirements, including use of three-part communication when
issuing Operating Instructions. Proposed Reliability Standard COM-002-4 also
sets out certain communications training requirements for all issuers and
recipients of Operating Instructions, and establishes a flexible enforcement
approach for failure to use three-part communication during non-emergencies and
a “zero-tolerance” enforcement approach for failure to use three-part
communications during an emergency.4

III.COMMENTS

In the NOPR, the Commission poses a number of questions and seeks comment regarding specific provisions of the proposed standards. The IRC provides responsive information through the comments below.

A.Operating Instructions

In paragraphs 26 and 27 of the NOPR, respectively, the Commission asks: (1) whether
there are instances in which Transmission Owners (“TOs”) or Generator Owners (“GOs”) may
receive and act on “Operating Instructions,” such as in areas operated by an Independent System
Operator (“ISO”) or Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”), and (2) if an operating entity
such as a Transmission Operator (“TOP”) communicates an Operating Instruction to a TO or
GO, which entity (if any) is responsible if the TO or GO fails to perform three-part
communication properly?

3 Capitalized terms used but not defined in these Comments shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the NERCpromulgated Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards.

4 NOPR at P 2 (footnote omitted).

1.Operating Instructions to TOs and GOs

The answer to the question posed in paragraph 26 is “yes.” In some ISO/RTO regions,
some entities who have elected to register only as a TO or GO (and not as both TO and TOP, or
both GO and Generator Operator (“GOP”)) may receive and act on an Operating Instruction
from an ISO/RTO. The proposed definition of Operating Instruction is a “command by
operating personnel responsible for the Real-time operation of the interconnected Bulk Electric
System to change or preserve the state, status, output, or input of an Element of the Bulk Electric
System or Facility of the Bulk Electric System. (A discussion of general information and of
potential options or alternatives to resolve Bulk Electric System operating concerns is not a
command and is not considered an Operating Instruction.)”5 In these instances, the ISOs/RTOs
have market rules, operating procedures and protocols in place for communicating Operating
Instructions to utilities and market participants in their footprint, and any failure to follow
Operating Instructions by those utilities and market participants is a violation of such market
rules, operating procedures and protocols.

While the ISOs/RTOs know how their TOs have registered, TOs and Regional Entities
make the final determination on their registration. For generation resources, the ISOs/RTOs
typically do not have the resources to track how companies owning, operating or representing
generation resources have registered with NERC. This is because the NERC Compliance
Registry does not specify the “resources” registered - only the entities that own, operate or
represent those resources. And, the tolling agreements that companies that own, operate or
otherwise represent generation resources have in place may result in a different company
registering with NERC than the company that is registered in the markets of the ISO or RTO.

5 NOPR at P 2, fn. 2.

It must also be noted that NERC Reliability Standards contemplate that a Reliability

Coordinator (“RC”), Balancing Authority (“BA”) or TOP issues commands to TOPs or GOPs in
Real-time, and not to TOs or GOs. Because the definition of “Operating Instruction” applies to
“Real-time” operations, Operating Instructions are only those commands issued by RCs, BAs
and TOPs when they carry out activities regulated by pertinent NERC Reliability Standards.
Accordingly, the core reliability issue at hand is determining whether the RC, BA or TOP
command was followed by the relevant recipient. To this point, the IRC members emphasize
that they provide both reliability services and market services, each governed by separate sets of
rules and protocols - but both of which require strict adherence by the recipient. By the same
token, the Reliability Standards require TOPs and GOPs to follow RC, BA, and TOP commands
and, of course, the filed rate of the ISOs/RTOs requires utilities and market participants to follow
the commands of the ISOs/RTOs. For this reason, applying the requirements of the standard to
GOs and/or TOs, especially in the case of the ISOs/RTOs, seems to address an administrative
concern as opposed to a reliability concern.

2.Responsibility for Incorrect Communication

With respect to the question posed in paragraph 27, regarding the responsibility for

incorrect three-part communications when issuing Operating Instructions to a TO or GO, COM-
002-4 as drafted is only applicable to communication protocols for entities performing the RC,
BA, TOP, GOP or Distribution Provider (“DP”) functions. If an ISO or RTO issues a command
to an entity that is not registered as a TOP or GOP and there is a three-part communication
failure resulting in an enforcement action, then the NERC Rules of Procedure (“ROP”) should be
applied to hold that entity responsible. Specifically, NERC ROP Appendix 4C, Section 5.11,
allows for an ISO or RTO to include - in an enforcement proceeding - Third Parties that cause
or contribute to an alleged violation of a Reliability Standard by an ISO or RTO.

B.Communications Capability and Performance

In paragraph 33 of the NOPR, the Commission observes that the definitions of

Interpersonal Communication and Alternative Interpersonal Communication “do not state

explicitly a minimum expectation of communication performance such as speed and quality,”

and that “it is unclear whether the definition of Interpersonal Communications includes mediums
used directly to exchange or transfer data.” The Commission seeks further explanation from
NERC and other interested commenters regarding acceptable (and unacceptable) performance of
communication for both Interpersonal and Alternative Interpersonal Communications.
First, the IRC believes that the Commission should not require that a minimum technical specification for the speed and quality of communication performance be added to COM-001-2. Including such a minimum “tech spec” standard could result in entities selecting the least
expensive - instead of the best available - medium to comply with the requirement. The IRC
members have long had requirements in place with their stakeholders on proper and necessary
technical requirements for the voice/data exchange of information.6 There is no reliability need
for a Reliability Standard specifying communication equipment performance. In addition,
registered entities are obligated to choose the appropriate performance to meet the core reliability
requirements.

Second, COM-001-2 addresses Interpersonal Communication but, as observed by the
Commission, the definition of that term does not specify mediums used directly to exchange or
transfer of data. The Standard Drafting Team explained during the standards development
process for COM-001-2 that data communication is covered, instead, under Requirement R3 of

6 See, e.g., ISO-NE Operating Procedures 2 and 18, available on the web at http://www.iso-ne.com/static-
assets/documents/rules_proceds/operating/isone/op2/op2_rto_final.pdf and http://www.iso-ne.com/static-
assets/documents/rules_proceds/operating/isone/op18/op18_rto_final.pdf, respectively.

IRO-010-1,7 which currently states that “[e]ach Balancing Authority, Generator Owner,

Generator Operator, Interchange Authority, Load-serving Entity, Reliability Coordinator,

Transmission Operator, and Transmission Owner shall provide data and information, as

specified, to the Reliability Coordinator(s) with which it has a reliability relationship.” A new version of IRO-010 (IRO-010-2) is being developed in NERC Project 2014-03, and adds a requirement for mutually agreeable data communication mediums:8

R3. Each Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, Generator Owner,

Generator Operator, Load-Serving Entity, Transmission Operator, Transmission Owner, and Distribution Provider receiving a data specification in Requirement R2 shall satisfy the obligations of the documented specifications using: (Violation Risk Factor: Medium) (Time Horizon: Operations Planning, Same-Day
Operations, Real-time Operations)

3.1 A mutually agreeable format

3.2 A mutually agreeable process for resolving data conflicts

3.3 A mutually agreeable security protocol

In response to comments received during the standards development process, the Project 2014-03 Standard Drafting Team explained that the proposed requirements in IRO-010-2 as
written cover both unique data requests and regularly scheduled automatic data submittals. IRO010-2 received overwhelming support (85.49%) during the last balloting period.9 Finally, data exchange and transfer capability are also addressed in other Reliability Standards.10

7 See Consideration of Comments on Draft Standards for Reliability Coordination - Project 2006-06, at 16 (Exhibit M to NERC’s filing in this proceeding).

8 The new version of Requirement R2 in IRO-010 states that “[t]he Reliability Coordinator shall distribute its data specification to entities that have data required by the Reliability Coordinator’s Operational Planning Analyses, Real-time monitoring, and Real-time Assessments.” The new version of Requirement R3 also adds Distribution Providers to the list of those receiving data specifications.

9 See Quarterly Status Report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Third Quarter 2014, Docket Nos. RM13-12-000, RM13-14-000, and RM13-15-000, at 3-4 (filed October 1, 2014).

10 See, e.g., BAL-004-0.2b, R14 (“The Balancing Authority shall provide its operating personnel with sufficient

instrumentation and data recording equipment to facilitate monitoring of control performance, generation response,
and after-the-fact analysis of area performance. As a minimum, the Balancing Authority shall provide its operating
personnel with real-time values for ACE, Interconnection frequency and Net Actual Interchange with each Adjacent
Balancing Authority Area.”); IRO-002-2, R1 (“Each Reliability Coordinator shall have adequate communications

(continued...)

IV.COMMUNICATIONS

Correspondence and communications regarding this filing should be addressed to the

undersigned as follows:

Matthew Morais*Raymond W. Hepper

Director, Federal PolicyVice President, General Counsel and Corporate

Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.Secretary

2705 West Lake DriveTheodore J. Paradise*

Taylor, Texas 76574Assistant General Counsel - Operations and

mmorais@ercot.comPlanning

Margoth R. Caley
Regulatory Counsel

ISO New England Inc.

One Sullivan Road

Holyoke, MA 01040-2841

tparadise@iso-ne.com

Stephen G. Kozey*Paul Suskie*

Senior Vice-President, Legal andExecutive Vice President, Regulatory Policy and

Compliance Services, General Counsel andGeneral Counsel

SecretarySouthwest Power Pool, Inc.

Midcontinent Independent System201 Worthen Drive

Operator, Inc.Little Rock, AR 72223

P.O. Box 4202psuskie@spp.org

Carmel, Indiana 46082-4202

skozey@midwestiso.org

________________________

(...continued)

facilities (voice and data links) to appropriate entities within its Reliability Coordinator Area. These communications facilities shall be staffed and available to act in addressing a real-time emergency condition.”); TOP-006-2, R1
(“Each Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority shall know the status of all generation and transmission
resources available for use.”); id. at R6 (“Each Balancing Authority and Transmission Operator shall use sufficient metering of suitable range, accuracy and sampling rate (if applicable) to ensure accurate and timely monitoring of operating conditions under both normal and emergency situations.”).

Roger E. CollantonCarl F. Patka*

General CounselAssistant General Counsel

Anna A. McKenna*Raymond Stalter

Assistant General Counsel-RegulatoryDirector, Regulatory Affairs

California Independent System OperatorChristopher R. Sharp

CorporationCompliance Attorney

250 Outcropping WayNew York Independent System Operator,

Folsom, California 95630Inc.

amckenna@caiso.com10 Krey Blvd.

Rensselaer, New York 12144

cpatka@nyiso.com

Craig Glazer*Jessica Savage*

Vice President - Federal Government PolicySupervisor, Government and Regulatory Affairs

Robert EckenrodIndependent Electricity System Operator

Senior CounselStation A, Box 4474

PJM Interconnection, LLCToronto, Ontario M5W 4E5

1200 G Street, N.W. Suite 600jessica.savage@ieso.ca

Washington, D.C. 20005

glazec@pjm.com

*/ = persons identified for service

/s/ Matthew Morais

Matthew Morais

Director, Federal Policy

Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.

2705 West Lake Drive
Taylor, Texas 76574

/s/ Stephen G. Kozey

Stephen G. Kozey

Senior Vice-President, Legal and
Compliance Services, General Counsel and Secretary

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

P.O. Box 4202

Carmel, Indiana 46082-4202

/s/ Anna McKenna

Roger E. Collanton
General Counsel
Anna A. McKenna

Assistant General Counsel-Regulatory

California Independent System Operator Corporation

250 Outcropping Way
Folsom, California 95630

/s/ Theodore J. Paradise

Raymond W. Hepper

Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

Theodore J. Paradise

Assistant General Counsel - Operations and Planning

Margoth R. Caley
Regulatory Counsel

ISO New England Inc.

One Sullivan Road

Holyoke, MA 01040-2841

/s/ Paul Suskie

Paul Suskie

Executive Vice President, Regulatory Policy and General Counsel

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

201 Worthen Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205

/s/ Carl F. Patka

Carl F. Patka

Assistant General Counsel Raymond Stalter

Director, Regulatory Affairs Christopher R. Sharp

Compliance Attorney

New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.

10 Krey Blvd.

Rensselaer, New York 12144

/s/ Craig Glazer/s/ Jessica Savage

Craig GlazerJessica Savage

Vice President - Federal Government PolicySupervisor, Government and Regulatory Affairs

Robert EckenrodIndependent Electricity System Operator

Senior CounselStation A, Box 4474

PJM Interconnection, LLCToronto, Ontario M5W 4E5

1200 G Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005

December 1, 2014