title: nerc facility ratings alert - umn ccaps · nerc regional entities with serc highlighted....
TRANSCRIPT
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
Title: NERC Facility Ratings Alert Author’s Name: Andrew Lucero
Address: 7235 Island Lake Falls Road, Duluth MN 55803
Phone Number: 218-721-4034 Fax Number: 218-721-3764
E-mail Address: [email protected]
Recommendation to Industry: Consideration of Actual Field
Conditions in Determination of Facility Ratings
I. Introduction
The Northeast Blackout of 2003 was a widespread power outage that occurred throughout parts of
the Northeastern and Midwestern United States and Ontario, Canada on Thursday, August 14,
2003, just before 4:10 p.m. EDT. It was the third most widespread blackout in history, after the
1999 Southern Brazil blackout and the 2012 India black out. The blackout affected an estimated
10 million people in Ontario and 45 million people in eight U.S. states. The map below shows the
areas affected.
In February 2004, the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force released their final report,
placing the causes of the blackout into four groups.
First, that FirstEnergy (FE) and its reliability council "failed to assess and understand the
inadequacies of FE’s system, particularly with respect to voltage instability and the
vulnerability of the Cleveland-Akron area, and FE did not operate its system with
appropriate voltage criteria".
Second, that FirstEnergy "did not recognize or understand the deteriorating condition of
its system".
Third, that FirstEnergy "failed to manage adequately tree growth in its
transmission rights-of-way".
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
Finally, the "failure of the interconnected grid’s reliability organizations to provide
effective real-time diagnostic support."
The report states that a generating plant in Eastlake, Ohio (a suburb of Cleveland) went offline
amid high electrical demand, putting a strain on high-voltage power lines (located in a distant
rural setting) which later went out of service when they came in contact with "overgrown
trees". The cascading effect that resulted ultimately forced the shutdown of more than 100 power
plants.
II. NERC FAC for Actual Field Condition vs. Design Standards
In part the Northeast blackout and the reasons behind it, but mostly due to spot check results on
an entity in SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC), where a vegetation contact by a Transmission
Owner identified actual field conditions that varied significantly from design assumptions to
the point where some facility ratings were considered inaccurate or in question. Where the
follow-up resulted in the conclusion that this situation was not restricted to one entity or
region and resulted in NERC’s issuance of an Alert (Recommendation) to proactively identify
other such conditions and promote corrective actions. The map below shows all eight of the
NERC Regional Entities with SERC highlighted. SERC was not actually part of the 2003
Blackout affected areas.
On October 7, 2010 NERC provided a Recommendation to Industry entitled “Consideration of
Actual Field Conditions in Determination of Facility Ratings” and was updated on November 30,
2010. NERC recommended to the Transmission Owners and Generator Owners of bulk electric
system facilities a review of their current facility ratings methodology for their transmission lines.
This was intended to verify the methodology used was based on actual field conditions and
determine if their ratings methodology would produce appropriate ratings when considering
differences between design and field conditions. If entities have not previously verified that the
facility design, installation, and field conditions are within design tolerances when the facilities
are loaded at their ratings, entities are required by January 18, 2011, to describe its plans to
complete such an assessment of all its transmission lines, with the highest priority lines assessed
by December 31, 2011, medium priority lines by December 31, 2012, and the lowest priority by
December 31, 2013. At the conclusion of each year, each Transmission Owner and Generator
Owner must report to its Regional Entity a summary of the assessments and identification of all
transmission facilities where as-built conditions are different from design conditions, resulting in
incorrect ratings, and their associated mitigation timelines. Remediation is expected within one
year from identification of the issue or on a schedule approved by the Regional Entity if longer
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
than a year. Owners are also expected to coordinate with their respective operating and planning
organizations to coordinate interim mitigation strategies.
III. Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO) Response
The MRO, one of NERC’s Regional Entities covering the upper Midwest and two Canadian
provinces, has 25 distinct Transmission Owners who fall under the Alert’s Recommendation.
In July 2011 the MRO, received the first reports from the Transmission Owners on their findings
from the review of clearances of their “High Priority” transmission lines. In January 2012 the
final findings were due. In the MRO, 1381 discrepancies were reported over the 6497 miles of
High Priority transmission lines which encompass 309 circuits. A discrepancy is defined as a
single span not meeting clearance requirements.
The table shown below contains the July 2011 updated detailed finding in the MRO region for the
16 Transmission Owners who reported regarding High Priority lines.
Transmission Owner HP Miles
HP Circuits
HP Discrepancies
# Lines De-Rated
Mitigation Complete
Mitigation In Process
Mitigation Not
Started
1 284.32 27 10 8 7 3 0
2 825.19 3 0
3 0.00 0 0
4 0.38 1 0
5 560.17 6 42 1 42 0 0
6 682.50 55 714 35 506 208 0
7 130.50 18 22 0 21 1 0
8 74.00 1 4 0 0 0 4
9 610.00 79 5 2 2 3 0
10 7.79 1 0
11 288.00 6 0
12 273.20 9 58 3 0 43 15
13 422.00 11 0
14 453.80 27 199 17 90 109 0
15 309.31 3 13 5 13
16 1576.00 62 314 29 129 145 40
6497.16 309 1381 100 797 525 59
In July 2012 the MRO received the first reports from 14 Transmission Owners on their findings
from the review of clearances of their “Medium Priority” transmission lines. The table below
reflects the findings to date; final findings are due in January 2013. In the MRO, more than 207
discrepancies were reported on over the 9515 miles of Medium Priority transmission lines which
encompass 306 circuits.
The table shown below contains the July 2012 details of the finding in the MRO region for
Medium Priority lines.
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
MRO has granted several Transmission Owners extensions to either complete their assessments or their
mitigation efforts based on their specific needs or circumstances.
Transmission Owner
MP Miles
MP Circuits
MP Discrepancies
# Lines De-
Rated Mitigation Complete
Mitigation In Process
Mitigation Not
Started
1 197.98 6 6 4 1 5 0
2 577.44 30 0 0
3 0.00
4 523.40 23 128 3 7 121 0
5 699.40 45 9 4 9 0 0
6 0.00
7 208.27 2 7 0 0 0 7
7 1092.67 19 7 0 7
8 807.05 20 50 4 50
9 336.00 0 0
10 165.60 49 0
11 482.16 13 0
12 0.00
13 3822.36 48 0
14 603.00 51 0
9515.33 306 207 15 74 126 7
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
IV. NERC Wide Data
The next few pages include NERC’s data from the February 2012 graphs for the High Priority
lines as well as data from the August 2012 graphs for the Medium Priority lines, showing the
aggregate of findings across the NERC (some are depicted by Regional Entity) foot print with all
NERC Regional Entities reporting. These graphs are fairly self explanatory.
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
15%
25%
30%
27%
21%
26%
19%
31%
% of High Priority Circuits with Discrepancies
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
3% 6%
15%
9%
18%
2% 5% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
% of Medium Priority Circuits with Discrepancies Through July 16, 2012
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
6%
22%
19%
32%
29% 31%
40%
24%
38%
1%
7%
11% 9%
15%
12%
3%
42%
61%
44%
39%
52%
32%
22%
50%
0% 0%
14%
1% 1% 0%
9%
0%
14% 15%
7%
15%
9% 10% 11%
18%
HP Discrepancy Category Breakdown by Region
Clearance to Underbuild Conductor -Conductor Clearance Ground / Structure Clearance
Other (explain in detail field) Transmission crossing
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
2% 2% 1%
17%
10%
61% 61%
2%
59%
0% 0%
4% 1% 0%
14%
0%
36%
92%
47%
70%
79%
29%
18%
82%
0%
5%
29%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
3% 2% 0%
10%
1% 3%
0% 1%
16%
6%
10%
0% 0%
13%
0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
6%
0% 0% 0%
4%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
MP Discrepancy Breakdown by Region
Clearance to Underbuild Conductor-Conductor Clearance
Ground / Structure Clearance Other
Transmission Crossing Underbuild
Uneven Terrain Various Discrepancies Types
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
88%
66% 73% 76%
86% 86% 83% 87%
% of Mile Assessed for High Priority Lines
37%
46%
52%
60% 60%
53%
67%
58%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
% of Miles Assessed for Medium Priority Lines Through July 2012
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FRCC MRO NPCC RFC SERC SPP TRE WECC
7%
32%
65% 62% 66%
21%
39% 26%
25%
65%
23% 32% 26%
57%
40% 61%
68%
3% 11% 6% 9%
22% 21% 13%
Remediation Status by Region
Complete In Progress Not Started
Complete 38%
In Progress
52%
Not Started
10%
Medium: Remediation Status Breakdown
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
LiDAR / PLS-CADD 59%
Field Inspection 15%
LiDAR, PLS-CADD, Field Inspection
14%
Ground Survey 6%
Survey, LiDAR /
PLS-CADD
6%
High: Top 5 Inspection Type
Field Inspection
9%
Ground Survey
13%
LiDAR / PLS-CADD 58%
Combination of Methods
20%
Medium: Top Inspection Types
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
Raised Transmission
Structure 28%
Underbuild Lowered
22%
Derated 21%
Increase Conductor to
Conductor Clearance
17%
Other (explain in detail field)
12%
High: Top 5 Remediation Category
Combination of Remediation
Types 56%
Removed Object or Graded
18%
Raised Transmission
Structure 17%
Transmission Structure Installed
5% Derated 4%
Medium: Top 5 Remediation Categories
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
Complete 42%
In Progress 44%
Not Started
14%
High Remediation Status Breakdown
Complete 38%
In Progress
52%
Not Started
10%
Medium: Remediation Status Breakdown
MRO/Lucero Consulting LLC
In conclusion, overall, the MRO is on schedule and on par with the other Regional
Entities in NERC for this NERC Alert.