NERC Case Notes: Reliability Standard FAC-008-1 | White & Case LLP International Law Firm, Global Law Practice
NERC Case Notes: Reliability Standard FAC-008-1

NERC Case Notes: Reliability Standard FAC-008-1

White & Case NERC Database

This page contains the NOP (Notice of Penalty) and ACP (Administrative Citation of Penalty) summaries. Click here to read the FFT (Find, Fix and Track) summaries.

AES Beaver Valley, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-3-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Beaver Valley's documentation of Facility Ratings Methodologies was only based on generator capability testing and voltage support service and did not include other required items such as transmission conductors, transformers or relay protective devices. Also, Normal and Emergency ratings were not clearly specified.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through January 26, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

AES Ironwood, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-4-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Ironwood's documentation of Facility Ratings Methodologies was only based on generator capability testing and did not include other required items such as transmission conductors, transformers or relay protective devices.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through March 3, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

AES Red Oak, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-5-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Red Oak's documentation of Facility Ratings Methodologies was only based on generator capability testing and voltage support service and did not include other required items such as transmission conductors, transformers or relay protective devices. Also, Normal and Emergency ratings were not clearly specified.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through January 26, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

AES Shady Point, LLC, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1/1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: AES Shady Point, a GO, submitted a self-report explaining that it did not list its transmission conductors and series and shunt compensation devices in its Facility Ratings Methodology as set forth in FAC-008-1 R1.2.1. AES Shady Point’s Facility Ratings Methodology did address terminal equipment specific to each of its generating units, however, tubular bus conductors, circuit breakers, air disconnect switches and current transformers had not been included.

Finding: SPP RE found the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because AES Shady Point has no series and shunt compensation devices and even though a portion of its terminal equipment had not been included in its Facility Ratings Methodology, terminal equipment specific to each generation train had been included, and the terminal equipment and transmission conductor that had been left out did not represent a limiting factor in the rating of its generating facility. So, the Facility Rating and the specification of the most limiting element were not changed when the terminal equipment was added. In addition, its system is just 5% of the interconnected TOP’s generating resources, plus its generation plant is connected to the BPS at 161 kV with a maximum output of 320 MW.

SPP RE considered AES Shady Point and its affiliates’ violation history and found that AES Shady Point’s affiliates had these previous violations of the same standards and requirements as the instant violations. In the ReliabilityFirst Region: AES Beaver Valley L.L.C. had a violation of PRC-005-1 R2, FAC-008-1 R1 and FAC-009-1 R1; AES Ironwood LLC had a violation of FAC-008-1 R1 and FAC-009-1 R1; AES Red Oak, L.L.C. had a violation of FAC-008-1 R1, FAC-009-1 R1, and PRC-005-1 R1 and R2; and AES Warrior Run had a violation of FAC-008-1 R1, FAC-009-1 R1, and PRC-005-1 R1 and R2. In the Texas Reliability Entity, Inc. region, AES Deepwater, Inc. had a previous violation of PRC-005-1 R1. As such, SPP RE considered the instant violations as repeat violations and applied them as an aggravating factor in the penalty determination.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

AES Warrior Run, FERC Docket No. NP10-6-000 (November 13, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: AES Warrior Run's documentation of Facility Ratings Methodologies was only based on generator capability testing and voltage support service and did not include other required items such as transmission conductors, transformers or relay protective devices. Also, Normal and Emergency ratings were not clearly specified.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through March 3, 2009. Penalty was appropriate because the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system at serious or substantial risk because the violation was limited to facility ratings for facilities that were not the limiting factor.

Penalty: $15,900 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 11, 2009 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-224-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: RFC

Issue: As a result of a compliance audit, RFC determined Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (Alcoa) violated FAC-008-1 R1 because its Facility Ratings Methodology did not address its generators and relay protective devices prior to June 16, 2009.

Finding: RFC assessed a $7,000 penalty for this and other violations. This violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk electric system as the generators had been considered when Alcoa developed its facility ratings. The NERC BOTCC determined this was Alcoa’s first occurrence of this type of violation; Alcoa was cooperative; Alcoa had a compliance program, which RFC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $7,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. - Tapoco Division (APGI-Tapoco), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Further to a compliance audit, SERC reported a violation of R1 when APGI-Tapoco, as a GO, failed to specify the Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) for Generator Step-Up (GSU) transformers. APGI-Tapoco utilizes the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Transmission Owner (TO) FRM for its GO and TO functions, and TVA's TO FRM does not address GSU transformers. However, as a GO, APGI-Tapoco did establish Facility Ratings for its GSU transformers, thus there was no FAC-009-1 R1 violation.

Finding: SERC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because APGI-Tapoco had established Facility Ratings for its GSU transformers, and although not including all applicable equipment in the FRM could generate inaccurate modeling and identification of system contingencies, the most limiting element was the generator, which did not change once the revised FRM was applied. SERC and APGI-Tapoco entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby APGI-Tapoco agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SERC considered Alcoa Inc's FERC Compliance Policy and Plan (which governs APGI-Tapoco) a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 14, 2012. APGI-Tapoco neither admits nor denies the R1 violation.

Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. - Yadkin Division (APGI-Yadkin), Docket No. NP13-8-000, November 30, 2012

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: Further to a compliance audit, SERC found a violation of R1 when APGI-Yadkin, as a GO and TO, failed to specify the Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) for its relay protective devices, in spite of specifying the Facility Ratings for all other solely and jointly owned facilities.

Finding: SERC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because when the revised FRM was applied to the relay protective devices at issue, the most limiting element identified by the company did not change. Furthermore, an element other than the protection relays was the limiting devices in the Facility Ratings. SERC and APGI-Yadkin entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby APGI-Yadkin agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. SERC considered Alcoa Inc's FERC Compliance Policy and Plan (which governs APGI-Yadkin) a mitigating factor in making its penalty determination. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 12, 2012. APGI-Yadkin neither admits nor denies the R1 violation.

Penalty: $13,000 (aggregate for 12 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 28, 2012 (no further review)

American Electric Power Services Corp., FERC Docket No. NP11-266-000 (August 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP/ReliabilityFirst

Issue: SPP and ReliabilityFirst determined through a joint compliance audit that American Electric Power Services Corp. (AEPS), as agent for a number of its affiliates, failed to include terminal equipment (disconnect switches) and relay protective devices in its generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: SPP and ReliabilityFirst found that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because the disconnect switches were considered in evaluating generator Facility Ratings, AEPS' design practice precluded using relay protective devices to establish the Facility Ratings, and AEPS' identification of the most limiting factor of the generating Facilities did not change once the generator Facility Ratings Methodology was corrected. Duration of violation was October 29, 2009 through December 31, 2009.

Penalty: $8,000

FERC Order: Issued September 30, 2011 (no further review)

American Municipal Power Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-168-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: American Municipal Power Inc. (AMP), a Generation Owner, had not properly documented the methodologies that it used to calculate the Facility Ratings for its transmission conductors, transformers, relay protective devices and terminal equipment

Finding: RFC and AMP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby AMP agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the violation of FAC-008-1 constituted a moderate risk to bulk power system reliability since the violation involved units in three locations that totaled 287 MW (with 213 MW scheduled for retirement by the end of 2010). The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through February 18, 2011. In approving the settlement agreement and the penalty determination, NERC considered the fact that the violations were AMP’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violation of PRC-005-1 was self-reported; AMP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; AMP had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, LLP, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Armstrong Energy Limited Partnership, LLP (Armstrong) violated R1 because it failed to include transmission conductors and Normal and Emergency Ratings for transmission conductors in the scope of its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: RFC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because Armstrong provided the manufacturer’s ratings for the transmission conductors during the compliance audit and modified its Facilities Ratings Methodology to mirror the manufacturer’s ratings.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI) self-reported that its Facility Rating Methodology did not include relay protective devices, terminal equipment or series and shunt compensation devices as required by the standard. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 through May 17, 2010.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because AECI’s Facility Rating Methodology reflected the most limiting element in the generating facility, and AECI never owned terminal equipment or series and shunt compensation devices. The Administrative Citation Notice also stated that the violation was self-reported, and noted the following mitigation activity: AECI updated its Facility Rating Methodology to reflect the required elements.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Beaches Energy Services of Jacksonville Beach, FERC Docket No. NP11-181-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Beaches Energy Services of Jacksonville Beach’s (BES) Facility Ratings Methodology did not include a statement specifying that the facility ratings were equal to the most limiting applicable equipment rating in the Facility. In addition, BES was unable to demonstrate that its Facility Ratings Methodology included both emergency and normal ratings and that it addressed certain other required assumptions.

Finding: FRCC and BES entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby BES agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. FRCC determined that the violation of FAC-008-1 only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since BES’s equipment ratings were from the manufacturer’s criteria and BES had been operating the system according to those ratings. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through May 4, 2009.

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC (BSPP), FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: BSPP, in its role as a GO, submitted a self-report (prior to an upcoming compliance audit) detailing its non-compliance with FAC-008-1 when it discovered it had identified its gas turbine generators as the most limiting equipment in its 2008 Facility Ratings Methodology, but had not conducted a review of the related electrical systems. During the compliance audit, ReliabilityFirst found that the 2008 Facility Ratings Methodology did not address terminal equipment, as required by the Standard, meaning that from June 18, 2007 through April 22, 2008, BSPP did not have a compliant Facility Ratings Methodology. While conducting the audit, ReliabilityFirst did find that the Methodology in force at that time, dated April 19, 2011, correctly addressed terminal equipment; therefore, from April 22, 2008, when BSPP first documented its Methodology, through April 19, 2011, the date the latest Methodology came into effect, BSPP failed to have a Methodology that included terminal equipment, as required by R1.2.1 of the Standard.

Finding: This violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The risk was mitigated by two things. First, even though before April 22, 2008, BSPP did not have a documented Methodology, BSPP had properly identified the gas turbine generators as the most limiting piece of facility equipment, and the updated version in 2011 did reflect that information. Second, the gas turbines’ ratings did not change in the 2011 Methodology. ReliabilityFirst considered certain parts of BSPP’s compliance program as mitigating factors in deciding on the appropriate penalty and further determined there were no aggravating factors involved.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for four violations)

FERC Order: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

Buckeye Power Inc., FERC Docket No. NP12-12 (January 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1/1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: Buckeye Power, as a GO, did not have the ratings methodology for its transmission conductors, relay protective devices and terminal equipment in earlier versions of its Facility Ratings Methodology. ReliabilityFirst reviewed the first three versions of Buckeye Power’s Facility Ratings Methodology and found they had no transmission conductors, relay protective devices and terminal equipment included. The most recent version of Buckeye Power’s Facility Ratings Methodology, effective on December 18, 2009, did include the equipment. ReliabilityFirst found that Buckeye Power violated the Standard by failing to include transmission conductors, relay protective devices and terminal equipment in the scope of equipment addressed within the Facility Ratings Methodology in earlier versions of the document.

Finding: ReliabilityFirst found the violation to constitute a minimal risk to BPS reliability because Buckeye Power’s Facility Ratings were based upon its most limiting element being, by design, its generators. In the first version, Buckeye Power included generators in the scope of equipment addressed in its Facility Ratings Methodology. As a result, generators are, and have always been, the most limiting element of Buckeye Power’s facility. Buckeye Power’s subsequent revisions to its Facility Ratings Methodology did not change the Facility Ratings. Buckeye Power designed its generating facilities such that the transmission elements within its system never limit a generating unit’s output. Thus, Buckeye Power's identification of the most limiting element was always correct, and thereby mitigated the risk to the BPS posed by its insufficiently detailed Facility Ratings Methodology. Buckeye Power’s internal compliance program was considered as a mitigating factor in determining the penalty.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Order issued March 1, 2012 (no further review)

Buffalo Gap Wind Farm, LLC, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Texas RE

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, Texas RE found that Buffalo Gap, as a GO, could not show that prior to April 30, 2009, it had a documented Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: Texas RE determined the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because prior to April 30, 2009, Buffalo Gap developed and submitted to its RC and TOP its Facility Ratings which were presented as a Resource Asset Registration Form/Generation Asset Registration Form. The Form had information related to protection, transformer, breaker, reactive capability and operational information. Once a Facility Ratings Methodology was formalized, the Facility Ratings were found to be consistent with the Facility Ratings previously given to the RC and TOP. In determining the appropriate penalty, Texas RE considered that this violation was a repeat violation because of Buffalo Gap’s AES affiliates previous violations of the Standard. Buffalo Gap’s internal compliance program was considered a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Buffalo Gap Wind Farm, LLC, Docket No. NP12-18 (February 29, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Texas RE

Issue: While conducting a compliance audit, Texas RE found that Buffalo Gap, as a GO, could not show that prior to April 30, 2009, it had a documented Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: Texas RE determined the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability because prior to April 30, 2009, Buffalo Gap developed and submitted to its RC and TOP its Facility Ratings which were presented as a Resource Asset Registration Form/Generation Asset Registration Form. The Form had information related to protection, transformer, breaker, reactive capability and operational information. Once a Facility Ratings Methodology was formalized, the Facility Ratings were found to be consistent with the Facility Ratings previously given to the RC and TOP. In determining the appropriate penalty, Texas RE considered that this violation was a repeat violation because of Buffalo Gap’s AES affiliates previous violations of the Standard. Buffalo Gap’s internal compliance program was considered a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 30, 2012 (no further review)

Burney Forest Products, A Joint Venture, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Burney Forest Products did not document its Facility Ratings Methodology as required and, furthermore, did not assess the ratings of all of its critical components (which is needed for a complete evaluate of the Facility Ratings).

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability due to the nature and location of Burney Forest Product’s facilities. Also, Burney Forest Products did actually have Facility Ratings in place for certain of its facilities (even though the methodology was not documented and the evaluation of the ratings had not been finished as required). Burney Forest Products self-reported this violation and this was Burney Forest Product’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. And although the violation initially occurred and was reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory on June 18, 2007, Burney Forest Products did not complete a mitigation plan by then, and thereby the violation also resulted in a post-June 18 violation, however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Caledonia Generating, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-23-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: While Caledonia had a Facility Rating Methodology, that methodology failed to include the most limiting equipment rating or the minimal Normal and Emergency ratings.

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violation occurred before the standard became mandatory, and it was deemed not to be a violations that put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. Also, Caledonia had no prior history of violations.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015; http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

California Department of Water Resources, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) self-reported that it had not properly documented the Facility Ratings Methodology that was being used by the entity who operates its four transmission lines.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since those four transmission lines did actually have ratings as they were being operated by another entity (with two of the lines being jointly owned and the other two lines being operated for CDWR). CDWR self-reported the violation and this was CDWR's first violation of this Reliability Standard. And although the violation initially occurred and was reported before the Reliability Standards became mandatory on June 18, 2007, CDWR did not complete its mitigation plan by then, and thereby this violation also resulted in a post-June 18 violation. Even though CDWR completed its mitigation plan late, no penalty was imposed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Carr Street Generating Station, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-174-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: NPCC

Issue: In September 2009, Carr Street Generating Station, LP (Carr Street) self-reported that it did not possess a documented Facilities Rating Methodology.

Finding: NPCC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the relevant generation assets only total 142.5 MVA (divided among three generating sites). The duration of the violation was from August 14, 2009 through February 5, 2010. The violation was self-reported within 60 days of Carr Street receiving NPCC’s Registration Guidance Statement, and NPCC had a policy of not penalizing violations identified within 60 days of a Registered Entity receiving the Registration Guidance Statement. In addition, Carr Street was cooperative during the enforcement process, has a compliance program in place, and did not attempt to conceal the violation. NPCC found that there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors present.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

CCI Signal Hill LLC (CCI SH), FERC Docket No. NP15-29-000 (May 28, 2015)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Texas RE

Issue: Texas RE, during a compliance audit, found that CCI SH did not have a "statement that a Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises that Facility" in its Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) document as required by FAC-008-1.

Finding: Texas RE found that this issue, along with violations of FAC-008-3 R1 and R1.2, posed a moderate risk to BPS reliability because facility ratings affect system operating limits. Additionally, two of the plant's four units were Blackstart resources, and inaccurate facility ratings involving Blackstart units could delay restoration of firm load. However, during the violations period, CCI SH did not fail a Blackstart test, the plant's two other units had the ability to support the Blackstart, and CCI SH was contracted to supply only 3.4% of ERCOT's primary Blackstart capability. To mitigate the violation, CCI SH (1) created a Facility Rating based on the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the facility's individual equipment, (2) hired a consultant to review CCI SH's internal compliance program, and (3) added an annual Facility Ratings methodology review to its tracking and notification system.

Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: FERC approved the settlement on June 26th, 2015.

Central Power and Lime Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-199-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: During an audit, FRCC determined that Central Power and Lime Company (CPL) did not possess adequate documentation showing that its Facility Ratings Methodology incorporated: (a) both normal and emergency ratings for transmission conductors, transformers, breakers, relays protective devices and switches, (b) the equipment manufacturer’s ratings for the relay protective devices and breakers, (c) design criteria for the transformers and breakers, (d) ambient conditions for the transmission conductors, transformers, breakers, relay protective devices and switches, (e) operating limitations for the transmission conductors, transformers, breakers, relay protective devices and switches, and (f) other required assumptions of the transmission conductors, transformers, breakers, relay protective devices, and switches.

Finding: FRCC and CPL entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby CPL agreed to pay a penalty of $3,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. FRCC found that the violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since CPL was operating its facility equipment according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through September 13, 2010.

Penalty: $3,000

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Champion Wind Farm, LLC, Forest Creek Wind Farm, LLC, EC&R Panther Creek I & II, LLC, Roscoe Wind Farm, LLC, Sand Bluff Wind Farm, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-104-000 (February 1, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: Texas RE

Issue: During a 2009 audit, the five named entities could not provide documented facility ratings methodology for the period from the date each entity was registered with NERC through December 3, 2008.

Finding: The violations by the entities posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the Facility Ratings established pursuant to FAC-009-1 R1 covered the entire audit period and had been developed using a methodology that included the required considerations and reflected the Facility Ratings Methodology dated December 4, 2008.

Penalty: $4,500

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2011 (no further review)

Choctaw Gas Generation, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-7-000 (January 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: An audit determined that Choctaw Gas' documentation of a Facility Ratings Methodology did not contain any statements of Facility Ratings Methodologies, and the scope of the documentation did not include all the equipment elements required by the standard.

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violation was due to a lack of documentation, and it was deemed to have a low risk for bulk power system reliability.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)

Choctaw Generation Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP09-8-000 (January 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Choctaw Generation self-certified that it was compliant with the standard requirements, but an audit revealed that its documentation did not contain any statements of Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: Violation duration was from June 18, 2007 through November 13, 2007. Penalty appropriate given that: the violation was a documentation issue; Choctaw Generation had self-certified compliance, but was found not to be compliant; the period of non-compliance occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards; and Choctaw Generation agreed to provide panelists and speakers at a regional entity compliance workshop or conference on NERC compliance.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)

Citizens Electric Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-119-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: In August 2007, Citizens Electric Corporation (Citizens) self-certified that it did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology, which would include the method used to develop the Normal and Emergency Ratings, to rate its 138 kV transmission line.

Finding: Citizens and SERC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby Citizens neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC found that the alleged violation of FAC-008-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Citizens did actually have a documented facility rating in place for its 138 kV transmission line. The duration of the alleged violation of FAC-008-1 was from June 18, 2007 through February 12, 2009, when a mitigation plan was completed. In determining the penalty amount, SERC also considered the fact that these were Citizens’ first violations of the Reliability Standards during the mandatory reliability period; Citizens was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the alleged violations; the alleged violations occurred in 2007 right after the Reliability Standards became mandatory; and Citizens did not timely complete its mitigation plans.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

City of Burbank Water and Power, FERC Docket No. NP10-107-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower (R1); Medium (R.1.1)

Violation Severity Level: LNC – Level 1

Region: WECC

Issue: In its documented Facility Ratings Methodology, the City of Burbank Water and Power (BURB) failed to include a statement that a Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises that Facility.

Finding: The duration of the alleged violation was from June 18, 2007, the date the Standards became enforceable, until July 26, 2008, when BURB completed its Mitigation Plan. WECC assessed a penalty of $44,500 for this and other alleged violations. In assessing this penalty, WECC considered these factors: (1) the alleged violations were BURB’s first occurrence of non-compliance with these NERC Reliability Standards; (2) alleged violations of other NERC Reliability Standards were self-reported after notification of upcoming off-site compliance audits; (3) BURB cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; (4) there was no attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so; and (5) the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $44,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, FERC Docket No. NP11-62-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: The City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission (Clarksdale), as a Generator Operator and Transmission Owner, failed to maintain a documented Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a $5,000 penalty for this and other Reliability Standards violations. In assessing the penalty, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: this was Clarksdale’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; Clarksdale cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Clarksdale did not attempt to conceal the violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

City of Clewiston, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: The Facility Rating Methodology used by the City of Clewiston (CLE) did not address certain criteria, conditions, limitations and assumptions for certain system components as required by FAC-008-1.

Finding: FRCC and CLE entered into a settlement agreement in which CLE agreed to a $4,500 penalty for this and other violations. FRCC found that the violation posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability because the Facility Rating Methodology was sufficiently detailed to apply the methodology to determine the most limiting factor for CLE’s facilities using the manufacturer’s nameplate data. None of the missing devices was the most limiting factor for CLE’s facilities, which was verified when CLE performed new ratings. FRCC also noted that CLE has redundant equipment for use in the event that the most limiting element would fail. Further, CLE is a small municipal with only 6 miles of 138 kV transmission serving 29 MW peak load and no generation.

Penalty: $4,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

City of Dover, FERC Docket No. NP12-2 (October 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC found that the City of Dover (Dover), as a GO, did not incorporate terminal equipment into the scope of equipment included in its Facility Ratings Methodology as required. In addition, Dover’s Facility Ratings Methodology did not have a proper ratings methodology for its relay protective devices (as Dover only listed its relay settings).

Finding: RFC found that the violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, BPS risk was mitigated because the most limiting element of Dover’s facility is its turbine generator (which did not change once the relevant terminal equipment was added) and Dover had not derated any generation facilities. In addition, the rating for Dover’s one generating unit with blackstart capability was found to be accurate. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 30, 2010. RFC evaluated certain parts of Dover’s compliance program as mitigating factors.

Penalty: $18,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 30, 2011 (no further review)

City of Homestead Electric Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: During a FRCC audit in April 2008, it was determined that the City of Homestead Electric Utilities had not documented the current methodology that it used, from June 18, 2007 through January 28, 2008, for developing Facility Ratings for substation terminal equipment and relays (as well as for normal and emergency ratings on its other facilities).

Finding: FRCC found that the violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the City of Homestead Electric Utilities did actually establish ratings for relays and terminal equipment, as well as normal and emergency ratings for its other equipment. This was the City of Homestead Electric Utilities' first violation of this Reliability Standard and it completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $1,000 ($47,000 aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119; http://www.nerc.com/files/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf

City of Lake Worth, FERC Docket No. NP11-96-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: FRCC

Issue: During an on-site audit, FRCC determined that the City of Lake Worth (CLW) was in violation of FAC-008-1 R1 because it failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its Facility Ratings Methodology covered all of its relay protective devices during a five-month period.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to reliability of the bulk power system because CLW's Protection System engineers developed the protection schemes so they would not be limiting factors; therefore, the Facility Ratings in use were correct. The NERC BOTCC determined this was CLW's first occurrence of this type of violation, that CLW was cooperative throughout the compliance enforcement process, and there was no evidence of an attempt or intent to conceal the violation.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregated for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

City of Rochelle, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: City of Rochelle self-reported that it failed to document its methodology for developing Facility Ratings.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 9, 2009. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was Rochelle's first violation of this standard, the violation was self-reported, and the violation related to a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119 (2009); http://www.nerc.com/files/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf

City of Santa Clara d/b/a Silicon Valley Power, FERC Docket No. NP11-130-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Silicon Valley Power (SVP) self-certified a violation because it did not document its Facility Ratings Methodology for developing Facility Ratings for its facilities, though later provided evidence during an audit that it operated under its Facility Ratings. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through December 1, 2008, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because SVP had documented Facility Ratings and limits, even though it did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was WECC’s first violation of the Standard, about half of the aggregate violations found were documentation issues, and SVP was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $94,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

City of Vineland New Jersey, FERC Docket No. NP10-148-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in September 2008, RFC determined that the City of Vineland, New Jersey (Vineland Municipal Electric Utility – VMEU), as a Generator Owner, did not possess a formally documented Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: RFC and VMEU entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby VMEU neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $2,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. The duration of the alleged violation of FAC-008-1 was from June 18, 2007 (when the Reliability Standards became mandatory) through December 21, 2009 (when VMEU issued its Facility Ratings Methodology). RFC found that the alleged violation of FAC-008-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since VMEU only has a single generator unit, which is a third-level backup blackstart unit with VMEU's Transmission Operator and is not even connected to the bulk power system. In addition, NERC considered the fact that the alleged violations were VMEU's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; VMEU was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $2,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

City Utilities of Springfield, MO, FERC Docket No. NP11-228-000 (June 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SPP

Issue: During a compliance audit in September 2010, SPP found that City Utilities of Springfield, MO’s (SPRM) Facility Ratings Methodology did not incorporate, within its scope of equipment, instrument transformers as required.

Finding: SPP found that the violation constituted only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since SPRM’s Generator Facility Ratings included the instrument transformers and the Facility Ratings it developed were accurate. In addition, the most limiting element was properly identified for each of SPRM’s generator facilities. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through September 30, 2010.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Consumers Energy Company, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1/1.1/1.2/1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Consumers Energy Company (Consumers), as a GO, did not have a statement within its Facility Ratings Methodology that the Facility Rating equals the most limiting component of the Facility, as Consumers’ statement included an exception for sensing devices. In addition, Consumers did not detail which of its equipment ratings are based on equipment manufacturer ratings or the method by which it calculates the ratings for the remainder of its equipment. Consumers also did not address all of the equipment, as required, in its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: RFC found that this violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, Consumers did not have to de-rate any of its facilities or make changes to its Facility Ratings after it made the revisions to its Facility Ratings Methodology. In addition, Consumers had correctly determined the most limiting element in its Facility Ratings. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through July 11, 2011. RFC considered as mitigating factors certain aspects of Consumers’ compliance program and the cooperation provided by Consumers.

Penalty: $12,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1.2/1.2.1/1.2.2

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC (Covanta Plymouth), as a GO, had not properly documents its Facility Ratings Methodology as it did not incorporate its method for determining the Facility Ratings of transmission conductors and terminal equipment (1.2.1). Covanta Plymouth also did not specify its method for establishing Emergency Ratings as part of its Facility Ratings Methodology (1.2.2).

Finding: RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability as the generators are the most limiting factor in Covanta Plymouth’s facility. After Covanta Plymouth revised its Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not have to de-rate its facility. The duration of the violation was from October 9, 2009 through December 31, 2012. Covanta Plymouth admitted the violation. Covanta Plymouth and its affiliates’ compliance program and cooperation were viewed as mitigating factors, while the compliance history was evaluated as an aggravating factor.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)

Covanta York Renewable Energy, LLC, Docket No. NP13-33 (April 30, 2013)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1.2/1.2.1/1.2.2

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC determined that Covanta York Renewable Energy, LLC (Covanta York) did not properly document its method for calculating Facility Ratings for transmission conductors, transformers, relay protection devices and terminal equipment (1.2.1). Covanta York also did not incorporate its method for establishing Emergency Ratings in its Facility Ratings Methodology as required (1.2.2).

Finding: RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability as the generators are the most limiting factor in Covanta York’s facility. After Covanta York revised its Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not have to de-rate its facility. The duration of the violation was from December 28, 2011 through December 31, 2012. Covanta York admitted the violation. Covanta York and its affiliates’ compliance program and cooperation were viewed as mitigating factors, while the compliance history was evaluated as an aggravating factor.

Total Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued May 30, 2013 (no further review)

CPI (CP) LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-183-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: CPI (CP) LLC (CPI), a Generator Owner, failed to include within its Facility Ratings Methodology a statement regarding the most limiting element of the facilities, address the full scope of all applicable equipment, address normal and emergency ratings of equipment, failed to consider design criteria of equipment, and consider operating limitations of equipment.

Finding: NPCC assessed a penalty of $15,000 for these and other violations. In reaching this determination, NPCC considered the following facts: the violations constituted CPI’s first violations of the subject Reliability Standard; CPI self-reported the violations; CPI cooperated throughout the compliance process; CPI did not attempt to conceal the violation; the violation posed a minimal risk and did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances that would affect the assessed penalty.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

The Dayton Power and Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-78-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Level 4

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) failed to provide auditors with evidence that it documented its generation Facilities Ratings Methodology because the methodology did not include the full scope of facilities solely and jointly owned by Dayton.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Dayton maintained ratings for its facilities; it just did not document the methodology for determining the ratings. In addition, NERC found that this was Dayton’s first violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; Dayton was cooperative; Dayton had a compliance program, which RFC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $45,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

DTE East China LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: DTE East China had a Facility Ratings methodology in place but did not include the required statement that "Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises that Facility."

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 23, 2008. Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was DTE East China's first violation of this standard, and the violation related to a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119 (2009); http://www.nerc.com/files/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf

Duke Energy Carolinas, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: It was discovered in April 2008 that Duke Energy Carolinas, as a Transmission Operator, did not specify that the methodology it used to determine normal ratings was the same methodology that it used to determine emergency ratings for its affiliate transmission facilities.

Finding: SERC found that the violation did not involve a serious or significant risk to bulk power system reliability since the emergency ratings were the same as already-communicated normal ratings (even though the emergency ratings were not documented). Also, the facilities impacted represented less than 2% of Duke Energy Carolinas' system. In determining the penalty, SERC considered the fact that the violation was self-reported; the violation was a documentation issue; and this was Duke Energy Carolinas' first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $8,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: 129 FERC ¶ 61,119; http://www.nerc.com/files/Omnibus_NOP_Order-11132009.pdf

Dynegy Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-98-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in October 2008, RFC discovered that Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) had not included transformers, relay protective devices, terminal equipment or series/shunt compensation devices as part of its Facility Ratings Methodology. Dynegy's Facility Ratings Methodology also did not incorporate the equipment manufacturer ratings, design criteria, ambient conditions or operating limitations.

Finding: RFC and Dynegy entered into a settlement agreement regarding the alleged violation of FAC-008-1, whereby Dynegy neither admitted nor denied the violation but agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the alleged violation did not cause a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since Dynegy had actually evaluated the ratings of all the protection system elements in their Engineering Design criteria. The violation was deemed to be primarily a documentation issue since Dynegy had considered all of the relevant information, even though it was not reflected in Dynegy's Facility Ratings Methodology. In determining the penalty, RFC considered the fact that this violation was Dynegy's first assessed non-compliance with this Reliability Standard and that Dynegy was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process and did not conceal the violation. RFC also noted that there were numerous positive aspects in Dynegy's compliance program. A mitigation plan has been completed.

Penalty: $2,500

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-17-000 (June 4, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: East Texas' Facility Ratings Methodology documentation did not state that the most limiting equipment rating of the Facility determined the Facility Rating, and the methodology for both Normal and Emergency ratings of its facilities was not defined in the documentation.

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violation was due to a lack of documentation, occurred during the period of transition to mandatory standards, and was deemed not to be a violation that put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued July 3, 2008 (no further review)

The Empire District Electric Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-122-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During an audit in Fall 2008, SPP discovered that The Empire District Electric Company (EDE) had not included certain required elements in its transmission and generation Facility Ratings Methodologies. EDE’s Facility Ratings Methodologies were lacking: discussions of the SPP Criteria; a statement that the facility rating equaled the most limiting applicable equipment rating that comprised the facility; and sufficient documentation regarding the assumptions and parameters that were used to develop the transmission facility ratings.

Finding: EDE and SPP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the alleged violation, whereby EDE neither admitted nor denied the violation but agreed to pay a penalty of $4,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SPP found that this alleged violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since no system disturbances occurred as a result, and EDE was actually following the principles of FAC-008-1 in arriving at its Facility Ratings. For example, EDE followed the SPP Criteria when establishing its transmission Facility Ratings (even though it was not referenced in the Facility Ratings Methodology) and was conducting capacity tests in order to determine generation Facility Ratings. The duration of the FAC-008-1 alleged violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 24, 2008. In determining the penalty amount, SPP also considered the fact that this alleged violation was EDE’s first violation of this Reliability Standard; EDE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the alleged violation; EDE had a positive compliance program in place; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $4,000

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

Entergy, Docket No. NP12-41-000 (August 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1.2

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Following a compliance audit, SERC determined that Entergy could not demonstrate that it had a documented Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) for its hydroelectric plants and failed to establish that the scope of equipment its FRM addressed included all components required by the standard. Instead, Entergy was applying its fossil generation FRM to hydroelectric generation plants. The scope of covered equipment was limited to generators, which Entergy considered the most limiting element in the system. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 to January 21, 2010, when Entergy completed its Mitigation Plan.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because Facility Ratings for the hydroelectric plants had been established, albeit using fossil generation procedures, and all fossil-fueled and hydroelectric unit Facility Ratings were confined to the most limiting element.

Penalty: $150,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued September 28, 2012 (no further review)

E.ON U.S. Services Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-120-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: In June 2008, E.ON U.S. Services Inc. (E.ON), as a Generator Owner, self-reported that it had not considered the ratings of its associated equipment when compiling its Facility Ratings. Instead, E.ON determined the Facility Ratings based on the generator being the most limiting equipment.

Finding: E.ON and SERC entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby E.ON neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $115,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SERC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since E.ON did actually have a Facility Ratings Methodology in place which used the capacity of its generators as the limiting element (even though the methodology did not meet all of the requirements of FAC-008-1). The duration of the FAC-008-1 alleged violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 11, 2008. In determining the penalty amount, SERC also considered the fact that these alleged violations were E.ON’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the alleged violations were self-reported; E.ON was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the alleged violations; E.ON had a compliance program in place; and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $115,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (Roxboro), FERC Docket No. NP10-155-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit, EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (EPCOR) failed to produce evidence of a written Facility Ratings Methodology that complied with R1.1 through R1.3.5.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 28, 2007 until January 16, 2009. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system due to the small size of EPCOR's generating facility and because EPCOR had been performing daily capacity tests that showed the system could handle its load. EPCOR had no prior violations of the Reliability Standard and cooperated with the audit, including starting its own internal investigation, and voluntarily resolved the issue by quickly adopting a testing and maintenance plan. While EPCOR did not fully complete its mitigation plan until after the due date, SERC determined that it had substantially completed the mitigation plan on time and no resulting impact on the penalty amount occurred.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (Southport), FERC Docket No. NP10-156-000 (July 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: During an audit, EPCOR USA North Carolina LLC (EPCOR) failed to produce evidence of a written Facility Ratings Methodology that complied with R1.1 through R1.3.5.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 28, 2007 until January 16, 2009. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system due to the small size of EPCOR's generating facility and because EPCOR had been performing daily capacity tests that showed the system could handle its load. EPCOR had no prior violations of the Reliability Standard and cooperated with the audit, including starting its own internal investigation, and voluntarily resolved the issue by quickly adopting a testing and maintenance plan. While EPCOR did not fully complete its mitigation plan until after the due date, SERC determined that it had substantially completed the mitigation plan on time and no resulting impact on the penalty amount occurred.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 27, 2010 (no further review)

EP Ocean Peaking Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP13-5 (October 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a 2011 compliance audit, RFC determined that EP Ocean Peaking Power, LLC (Ocean Peaking), as a GO, did not incorporate the method which it used to determine the ratings of certain of its transmission conductors, relay protective devices, a 230 kV bus and plant disconnect switches into its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: Ocean Peaking admitted the FAC-008-1 R1 violation. RFC found that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability. The step-up transformer is the most limiting element in Ocean Peaking's facility (a 350 MW gas-fired generation facility), and therefore there was no change in the limiting element of the facility after Ocean Peaking developed Facility Ratings for the above-mentioned devices. In addition, the relevant devices are able to safely withstand the generation from the Ocean Peaking system. The duration of the violation is from August 28, 2008 through July 30, 2012. RFC evaluated Ocean Peaking's compliance program as a partial mitigating factor (as it did not lead to the prompt discovery of the violations). Ocean Peaking's cooperation was also considered as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate for 6 violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 29, 2012 (no further review)

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP, FERC Docket No. NP10-175-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: NPCC

Issue: Erie self-reported that it did not have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology.

Finding: It was determined by NPCC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the assets at issue totaled 206.5 MVA divided among 6 individual generating sites, the largest being 62.5 MVA. The violation was self-reported within a 60 day grace period after Erie was notified it would be placed in the NPCC and NERC registry as a Generator Owner and Generator Operator, a key factor in the zero dollar penalty determination. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that the violation was a documentation issue and the first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Farmington Electric Utility System, FERC Docket No. NP10-40-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Farmington Electric Utility System (FEUS) self-reported that it did not have a sufficiently detailed methodology for determining equipment ratings as required by the standard.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through January 29, 2008. Penalty was deemed appropriate because these were FEUS' first violations of the applicable standards, FEUS self-reported eleven of the violations, and FEUS is a small generation and transmission system that had made a substantial commitment of financial and personnel resources to NERC compliance relative to its size.

Penalty: $40,250 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)

Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Association, FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: FRCC

Issue: During an audit, FRCC determined that Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Association’s (FKEC) Facility Ratings Methodology did not address the scope of the Rating that addresses and includes at a minimum Normal and Emergency Ratings, Ratings provided by equipment manufacturers, design criteria, ambient conditions, operation conditions, and any other assumptions for relay protective devices.

Finding: FRCC assessed a $1,500 penalty for this and other Reliability Standards violations. FRCC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the BPS because FKEC’s documented Facility Ratings Methodology included a statement that it was their design principle that relay protective device settings not be limiting factors on their transmission system. Moreover, FKEC operated its equipment within manufacturer’s recommendations. NERC approved the settlement in an Administrative Citation Notice of Penalty.

Penalty: $1,500 (aggregated for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Florida Municipal Power Agency, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-24-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: During a compliance audit in March 2009, FRCC found that Florida Municipal Power Agency, Inc. (FMPA) had not included its protective relays within the scope of equipment, nor did it have both Normal and Emergency Ratings, as part of its Facility Ratings Methodology for its Treasure Coast Energy Center generating facility.

Finding: FRCC and FMPA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, whereby FMPA agreed to pay a penalty of $13,600 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. FRCC found that the violation of FAC-008-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the generator was the most limiting element for the Facility Ratings Methodology (and therefore the Facility Ratings Methodology was appropriate). In addition, FMPA set the Emergency Facility Ratings at the same level as the Normal Facility Ratings, so FMPA’s Facility Ratings Methodology was actually determining both the Normal and Emergency Ratings. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from May 31, 2008 through June 30, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, FRCC considered the fact that these were FMPA’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; other violations were self-reported; FMPA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $13,600 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

Florida Public Utilities Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-253-000 (July 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Following a Self-Certification, FRCC determined Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC), as a TO, had not established a Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: FRCC assessed a $4,500 penalty for this and other Reliability Standards violations. FRCC determined that the violation posed a minimal risk but did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because FPUC was operating its equipment using manufacturer’s equipment ratings and there have been no significant changes to the design of the equipment since 2003. In addition, FPUC is very small, with less than 100 MW of load, and only 39 square miles of service territory. NERC approved the settlement in an Administrative Citation Notice of Penalty.

Penalty: $4,500 (aggregated for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Fountain Valley Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-24-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Fountain Valley's Facility Ratings Methodology did not include the specific statement that the Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises the Facility.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 22, 2008. No penalty was assessed because the violation did not put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk; this was Fountain Valley's first violation; the violation was a documentation issue only.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

Front Range Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2007, Front Range Power Company, LLC (Front Range) self-reported that it had not documented the Facility Ratings Methodology it used for developing its generator facility ratings. In addition, Front Range’s Facility Ratings Methodology did not cover Front Range’s transmission conductors, transformers, relay protective devices, terminal equipment, and series and shunt compensation devices.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Front Range did actually establish generator facility ratings. The violation was self-reported and this was Front Range’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, FERC Docket No. NP11-134-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: FRCC

Issue: Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (FTP), a Transmission Owner, did not include relay protective devices in its Facility Ratings Methodology between June 18, 2007 and April 28, 2009.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty of $2,800 for this and another violation. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts: the violation constituted FTP’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; FTP self-reported the other violation; FTP cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; FTP did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $2,800 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

GEUS, FERC Docket No. NP11-133-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: TRE

Issue: During a compliance audit, TRE determined that GEUS did not possess a documented Facility Ratings Methodology that addressed all of the required elements. GEUS did not even have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology until June 2008, and that documented methodology did not include relay protective devices, transmission conductors, series and shunt compensation devices and terminal equipment.

Finding: TRE found that the violation posed only a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since GEUS was able to show it was developing its Facility Ratings through a suitable methodology (even though when the methodology was finally documented it still did not include all of the required components). The duration of the violation was June 28, 2007 through August 16, 2010.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Gila River Power, LP – GO/GOP/PSE, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2008, Gila River Power, LP – GO/GOP/PSE (Gila River) self-reported that it had not specified in its Facility Ratings Methodology the most limiting element or the normal and emergency ratings.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the facility had 100% redundant capability (i.e., the “normal” rating was the same as the “emergency” rating). The violation was self-reported; it was primarily a documentation issue; and this was Gila River’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-97-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2008, Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. (GLEC) self-reported that it did not possess a documented Facility Ratings Methodology as required by the standard. GLEC was operating its facility using the most limiting element and the manufacturer ratings for its equipment at its only transmission facility, the South Cut Bank switchyard.

Finding: WECC and GLEC reached a settlement agreement regarding multiple violations of the Reliability Standards, whereby GLEC agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures. WECC found that the violation of FAC-008-1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system as GLEC operated its facilities according to the most limiting element, used the manufacturer ratings, and followed a standard practice of not having its equipment loaded beyond the manufacturers rating. In determining the overall penalty, WECC considered that the violations were GLEC's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; GLEC was cooperative during the investigation and compliance enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and GLEC quickly resolved the violations through a settlement agreement. In addition, the violations were primarily documentation issues since GLEC was operating the facility according to the most limiting element and the manufacturer ratings for the equipment. A mitigation plan for the violation of FAC-008-1 has been successfully completed.

Penalty: $2,500 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)

Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority (GCPHA), Docket No. NP12-40 (July 31, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: On August 31, 2011, GCPHA, as a GO, self-reported a violation of FAC-008-1 R1 for not specifically identifying the terminal equipment to be included in the Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) and not adequately addressing the Emergency Ratings. The duration of the violation was from August 23, 2007 until September 30, 2011.

Finding: This violation posed only a minimal risk to BPS reliability for four reasons. First, although GCPHA’s FRM does not specifically identify terminal equipment, the FRM does refer to mechanical and electrical equipment. Second, GCPHA’s FRM rates all terminal equipment based on the manufacturer’s nameplate rating. Third, the facility at issue is a hydro facility and does not operate in emergency conditions. Fourth, GCPHA does not operate either of its NERC-registered plants according to emergency ratings. GCPHA agreed/stipulated to WECC’s findings.

Penalty: $11,500 (aggregate for four violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 30, 2012 (no further review)

Grays Harbor County PUD, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2, R3

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2007, Grays Harbor County PUD (Grays Harbor) self-reported that it had not documented its Facility Ratings Methodology (and therefore could not provide its Facility Ratings Methodology upon request (R2) nor respond to comments concerning its methodology (R3)).

Finding: WECC found that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system Grays Harbor did actually have its facility ratings in place and was able to provide these facility ratings upon request. For the violations of R2 and R3, they were primarily documentation issues. The violations were self-reported and they were Grays Harbor’s first violations of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Great Lakes Hydro America ME, FERC Docket No. NP10-176-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: NPCC

Issue: Great Lakes self-reported that it did not have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology.

Finding: It was determined by NPCC that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the assets at issue totaled 120 MVA divided among 6 individual generating sites, the largest being 42 MVA. The violation was self-reported within a 60 day grace period after Great Lakes was notified it would be placed in the NPCC and NERC registry as a Generator Owner and Generator Operator, a key factor in the zero dollar penalty determination. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that the violation was a documentation issue and was the first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 19, 2010 (no further review)

Hardee Power Partners, Ltd., FERC Docket No. NP11-181-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Hardee Power Partners, Ltd.’s (HPP) documentation of its Facility Ratings Methodology was inadequate, as it was missing certain required elements for the generators, transmission conductors, transformers, current transformers, circuit breakers, switches, bus bar structures and wave traps.

Finding: FRCC and HPP entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the violation, whereby HPP agreed to pay a penalty of $6,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. FRCC determined that the violation only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since the HPP facility’s generating capability output remained the same after the Facility Ratings Methodology documentation was updated. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 16, 2010.

Penalty: $6,000

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Henderson Municipal Power & Light, FERC Docket No. NP10-50-000 (February 12, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Henderson Municipal Power & Light (HMPL) could not provide evidence of a documented Facility Ratings Methodology for its generation or transmission facilities for the period of the violation.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became effective, through September 2, 2008. The violation was deemed to be a documentation issue that did not pose a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability, and HMPL had rated each piece of equipment despite the lack of proper documentation.

Penalty: $35,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued on March 12, 2010 (no further action)

Hoosier Energy REC, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-190-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: ReliabilityFirst

Issue: During a compliance audit, ReliabilityFirst determined that Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. (Hoosier) failed to include a methodology for rating generators in its Facility Rating Methodology. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007 when the standard became mandatory and enforceable through March 1, 2010, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: ReliabilityFirst determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because Hoosier did utilize East Central Area Coordination Agreement Document No. 4 (Criteria and Method for the Uniform Rating of Generating Equipment) to rate its generating facilities, and these ratings did not change once Hoosier updated its Facility Rating Methodology to be consistent with the standard. The NERC BOTCC also considered that the violation constituted Hoosier’s first occurrence of violation of the standards, Hoosier self-reported the PRC-005-1 violation, and Hoosier agreed to take actions that exceed those expected to achieve and maintain baseline compliance.

Penalty: $80,000 (aggregate for 10 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Hopewell Cogeneration LP, FERC Docket No. NP09-6-000 (January 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: Hopewell self-certified that it was compliant with the standard requirements but an audit revealed that it did not have adequate evidence of its Facility Ratings Methodology for the full scope of elements required, including generators, generator capabilities, transmission conductors, transformers, relay protective devices, terminal equipment, or series and shunt compensation devices.

Finding: Violation duration was from June 18, 2007 through November 13, 2007. Penalty appropriate given that: the issue was a documentation issue; Hopewell had self-certified compliance but was found not to be compliant; Hopewell agreed to provide panelists and speakers at a regional entity compliance workshop or conference on NERC compliance.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)

Hot Spring Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP09-9-000 (January 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: An audit determined that Hot Spring Power's documentation of a Facility Ratings Methodology did not contain any statements of Facility Ratings Methodologies, and the scope of the documentation did not include all the equipment elements required by the standards.

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violations were due to a lack of documentation, and they were deemed to have a low risk for bulk power system reliability.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)

Indianapolis Power & Light Company, FERC Docket No. NP11-210-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in March 2010, RFC found that Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL), as a Transmission Owner and a Generator Owner, did not incorporate Normal and Emergency Ratings for its generators, relay protective devices, and shunt compensation devices into a previous version of its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: RFC and IPL entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby IPL agreed to pay a penalty of $70,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the FAC-008-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Normal and Emergency Ratings for IPL were the same. In addition, IPL did actually have a Facility Ratings Methodology in place that produced ratings for its generators, relay protective devices, and shunt compensation devices. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 2, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were IPL’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; IPL was cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violations; there was a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $70,000 (aggregate for 11 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Kings River Conservation District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) self-certified that it had not documented the Facility Ratings Methodology it used to develop its Facility Ratings.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since KRCD did actually have Facility Ratings in place and was providing its Facility Ratings upon request. The violation was primarily a documentation issue and this was KRCD’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Las Vegas Cogeneration LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-09-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: WECC determined that Las Vegas Cogeneration LP (LVCG), as a Generator Owner, did not include a statement that "the Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises the Facility" in its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: WECC imposed a $12,000 penalty for this and other violations. In assessing the penalty, WECC considered the following facts: the violation constituted LVCG's first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standard; the violations was self-reported; LVCG cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; LVCG did not attempt to conceal the violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP11-93-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: SPP determined that Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Lea County) failed to maintain a compliant Facility Ratings Methodology from August 24, 2007 through January 23, 2008.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a Settlement Agreement, including SPP’s assessment of a $15,000 financial penalty. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted Lea County’s first violation of the subject NERC Reliability Standards; Lea County cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; Lea County’s compliance program; Lea County did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

Michigan Public Power Agency, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, RFC found that Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) could not provide documentation of a Facilities Ratings Methodology for a peaking station owned by a member city, the City of Holland Board of Public Works. MPPA did not believe the peaking station was a part of the BPS and, therefore, had not prepared documentation of a Facilities Ratings Methodology for that peaking station.

Finding: RFC determined that the violation posed a moderate risk, but did not pose a serious or substantial risk, to the reliability of the BPS because MPPA represented that it did have facilities ratings for the peaking station and that it had correctly identified the most limiting element. In addition, there were no instances of thermal overloads and the established facility ratings were not exceeded at any time since the installation of the peaking station. RFC considered certain aspects of MPPA’s compliance program to be a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, FERC Docket No. NP11-65-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: In August 2009, the Mississippi Delta Energy Agency (MDEA) self-reported that, as a Transmission Owner, it did not possess a documented Facility Ratings Methodology as mandated by the Reliability Standard.

Finding: SPP and MDEA entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby MDEA agreed to pay a penalty of $9,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. SPP found that the FAC-008-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since MDEA did actually have normal and emergency ratings, which were based upon the manufacturers’ data, for its 23-mile transmission line. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from August 24, 2007 through July 1, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that this violation was MDEA’s first violation of the relevant Reliability Standard; the violation was self-reported; MDEA was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violation; there was a compliance program in place (even though this was only considered a neutral factor); and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $9,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Monongahela Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP10-177-000 (September 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: Monongahela failed to include relay protection devices (including current transformers) in its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: It was determined by ReliabilityFirst that the violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because facility ratings for relay protection devices were in place and in every case, rated higher than the generator they were installed to protect. The duration of the violation was from January 10, 2008 (the date Monongahela was placed in the NERC registry) through May 4, 2009. An additional factor for the penalty determination included that this was the first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $13,000

FERC Order: Issued October 29, 2010 (no further review)

Montana Dakota Utilities, FERC Docket No. NP11-104-000 (February 1, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: MRO

Issue: MRO conducted an on-site audit of Montana Dakota Utilities (MDU) in July 2010 and found that MDU's Facility Ratings Methodology document that was in place during the audit period did not address series and shunt compensation devices.

Finding: MRO determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because it involved a documentation issue. MDU updated its Facility Ratings Methodology document to identify the rating methodology to be used for series and shunt compensation devices. MRO also noted that MDU does not have any series compensation devices on its system. MDU does have a shunt device, however, and provided evidence that its ratings had been provided to the Midwest ISO, despite not being documented in the Facility Ratings Methodology.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2011 (no further review)

Morris Cogeneration, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-80-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: Morris Cogeneration, LLC self-reported a violation of FAC-008-1 R1.2.1 for failing to mention relay protective devices, terminal equipment, and transmission conductors in its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because Morris Cogeneration had correctly identified the most limiting element and revised its Facility Ratings Methodology to include all applicable devices.

Penalty: $4,000

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Naniwa Energy LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-57-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Naniwa self-reported that for the period of June 18, 2007 through December 22, 2008, it did not maintain evidence sufficient to document its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: It was determined by WECC that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because Naniwa had an existing Facility Rating Methodology during the relevant period even though it did not have sufficient documentation of its methodology. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007 through June 30, 2009, when Naniwa's mitigation plan was completed. In determining the penalty, consideration was given to the fact that Naniwa self-reported the violation, and this was Naniwa's first occurrence of violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $27,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

National Nuclear Security Administration – Los Alamos National Laboratory, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In June 2007, National Nuclear Security Administration – Los Alamos National Laboratory (NNSAL) self-reported that it had not documented the Facility Ratings Methodology that it used to develop its Facility Ratings.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since NNSAL actually had its Facility Ratings in place and had been providing its Facility Ratings upon request. The violation was self-reported; it was primarily a documentation issue; and this was NNSAL’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. Even though NNSAL completed its mitigation plan four days late, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

New Hope Power Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: It was discovered in December 2007 that New Hope Power Partnership (NHPP) did not possess a documented Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: FRCC found that this violation did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since NHPP's facility was still operating within the Facility Ratings that were provided by the equipment manufacturer. This was NHPP's first violation of this Reliability Standard and it completed a mitigation plan.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: November 13, 2009 (no further review)

New York State Electric & Gas, FERC Docket No. NP11-199-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: NPCC

Issue: During an audit, NPCC determined that New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG) had not incorporated its shunt capacitors into the scope of equipment of its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC and NYSEG entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby NYSEG agreed to pay a penalty of $5,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. NPCC found that the FAC-008-1 violation only constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since NYSEG’s failure to include the shunt capacitors did not have a direct impact on the current carrying thermal rating of the system. In addition, NYSEG was still able to produce accurate Facility Ratings. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 21, 2007 through December 21, 2009.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-16-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: TRE

Issue: During a compliance audit, TRE determined NextEra failed to include relay protective devices in its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because NextEra’s relay protection systems had Facility Ratings and were not the most limiting equipment in the Facility.

Penalty: $150,000 (aggregated for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

Noble Altona Windpark, LLC (Altona), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Altona, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Altona conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2006 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Altona is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Altona entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Altona agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Altona's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Altona did not have a documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Altona registered as a GO and ended when Altona completed its mitigation plan. Altona does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Bliss Windpark, LLC (Bliss), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Bliss, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Bliss conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2006 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Bliss is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Bliss entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Bliss agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Bliss's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Bliss did not have a documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Bliss registered as a GO and ended when Bliss completed its mitigation plan. Bliss does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Chateaugay Windpark, LLC (Chateaugay), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Chateaugay, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Chateaugay conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2007 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Chateaugay is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Chateaugay entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Chateaugay agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Chateaugay's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Chateaugay did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Chateaugay registered as a GO, and ended when Chateaugay completed its mitigation plan. Chateaugay does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Clinton Windpark, LLC (Clinton), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Clinton, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Clinton conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2006 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Clinton is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Clinton entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Clinton agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Clinton's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Clinton did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Clinton registered as a GO, and ended when Clinton completed its mitigation plan. Clinton does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Ellenburg Windpark, LLC (Ellenburg), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Ellenburg, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Ellenburg conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2007 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Ellenburg is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Ellenburg entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Ellenburg agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Ellenburg's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Ellenburg did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Ellenburg registered as a GO, and ended when Ellenburg completed its mitigation plan. Ellenburg does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

Noble Wethersfield Windpark, LLC (Wethersfield), Docket No. NP13-27, February 28, 2013

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: NPCC

Issue: Further to a Compliance Audit, NPCC determined that Wethersfield, as a GO, violated R1 by failing to have a documented generator Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: NPCC determined that the R1 violation posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because, despite not documenting a Facility Ratings Methodology, Wethersfield conducted a System Reliability Impact Study in 2007 which complied with, inter alia, applicable NERC and NPCC reliability and design standards. Facility ratings were subsequently established per the company's interconnection agreement with the TO. Additionally, because Wethersfield is a variable energy facility, the facility is not deemed critical generation, nor is it capable of being dispatched to support base load. NPCC and Wethersfield entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations whereby Wethersfield agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures to come into compliance with R1. NPCC considered Wethersfield's internal compliance program a neutral factor in making its penalty determination because, despite the existence of compliance mechanisms, Wethersfield did not have or documented compliance program at the time of the violation. The violation began when Wethersfield registered as a GO, and ended when Wethersfield completed its mitigation plan. Wethersfield does not contest the R1 violation.

Penalty: $6,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 29, 2013 (no further review)

North Carolina Power Holdings, Inc. – Elizabethtown Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-28-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1 and FAC-009-1

Requirement: R1, R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower and Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe and Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Since Elizabethtown could not produce evidence of its facility ratings methodologies, SERC found that Elizabethtown did not have such methodologies. SERC also found that Elizabethtown could not demonstrate that the facility ratings were consistent with the facility ratings methodologies. SERC deemed this to be a documentation issue.

Finding: SERC declined to assess penalties for the violation because the violation (i) occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and (ii) would not put the bulk power system reliability at a serious or substantial risk. NERC affirmed this determination since SERC deemed this violation a documentation issue rather than a finding that Elizabethtown did not have a facility rating methodology.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

North Carolina Power Holdings, Inc. – Lumberton Power, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP08-31-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1 and FAC-009-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower and Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe and Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Since Lumberton could not provide documentation for its current methodology used for developing Facility Ratings of its solely and jointly-owned Facilities, SERC found that Lumberton could not demonstrate that its Facility Ratings were consistent with the Facility Ratings methodologies. SERC deemed this to be a documentation issue.

Finding: SERC declined to assess penalties for the violation because the violation (i) occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and (ii) would not put the bulk power system reliability at a serious or substantial risk. NERC affirmed this determination since SERC deemed this violation a documentation issue rather than a finding that Lumberton did not have such a procedure.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

Northern California Power Agency, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1/1.2.1/1.2.2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: In August 2011, Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), as a GO, self-reported that it did not include the generator tie lines, generator flexible conductors and emergency ratings in its Facility Ratings Methodology. Therefore, NCPA did not incorporate the full scope of its equipment in its Facility Ratings Methodology and did not calculate both normal and emergency ratings for its generator tie lines and flexible conductors, as required.

Finding: WECC found that the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability since the generator tie lines and the generator flexible conductors are not the most limiting element of the facility and therefore there was no impact on the Facility Ratings. In addition, NCPA’s small generating capacity (with each unit between 25 MW to 125 MW) decreased the risk to BPS reliability. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 4, 2011.

Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

Northern Indiana Public Service Company, FERC Docket NP10-115-000 (June 2, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit, NIPSCo could not provide documentation of the origin or the governing standards or methodology for the ratings program used to develop transmission conductor ratings. The Generator Ratings Methodology did not contain a methodology for determining ratings based on normal or emergency conditions, and did not include certain important components.

Finding: Duration of the violation from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through July 22, 2009. The violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because it involved a documentation error and all ratings were in place for all transmission and generation facilities. This was also NIPSCo's first violation of the standard.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 2, 2010 (no further review)

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP08-32-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: Old Dominion's Facility Rating Methodology did not contain a limiting element statement as required by the standard, and did not address the full scope of equipment required by the standards.

Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue, the limiting equipment had been within the scope of Old Dominion's Facility Rating Methodology, and the violation was deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015; http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

Overton Power District #5, FERC Docket No. NP10-41-000 (February 1, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Overton Power District #5 (Overton) did not have a documented Facility Rating Methodology though it did have several relevant operating practices in effect.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through December 15, 2008. Penalty was determined appropriate because these were Overton's first violations of the standard, and the violations posed low risk to the bulk power system reliability.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2010 (no further review)

Prairie Power, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-26-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2, R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: SERC

Issue: Prairie Power's Facility Rating Methodology did not define the methodology for both the Normal and Emergency ratings.

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because the violation occurred before the standard became mandatory, and it was deemed not to be a violation that put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk. Also, Prairie Power had no prior history of violations.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015; http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Docket No. NP12-47-000 (September 28, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1/1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: After receiving a Notice of On-site Compliance Audit, PNM, as a GO, submitted a self-report of non-compliance with FAC-008-1. Subsequently, the Audit Team confirmed the following violations: (1) prior to February 22, 2011, PNM's Facility Ratings Methodology for the San Juan Generating Station did not include relay protective devices. (2) The Facility Ratings Methodologies for the Reeves and Afton Generating Stations failed to include relay protective devices.

Finding: The violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to BPS reliability which was mitigated because PNM could show that its methodology for its generation facilities and for all transmission facilities included relay protective devices listed under R1.2.1. In addition, PNM showed that its failure to include protective relay devices in its Facility Ratings Methodology did not impact the calculated Facility Ratings of the identified generating facilities because the generator ratings were based on the most limiting element, so the exclusion of relay protective devices would not have impacted the ratings. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered PNM's internal compliance program as a mitigating factor and the repeat violation of BAL-004-WECC-01 as an aggravating factor. PNM agreed/stipulated to WECC's findings.

Penalty: $79,000 (aggregate for nine penalties)

FERC Order: Issued October 26, 2012 (no further review)

Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County (LCPD) self-reported that it had not documented all of its major equipment ratings.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since LCPD did actually have a Facility Ratings Methodology in place. The violation was self-reported; it was primarily a documentation issue; and this was LCPD’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. Even though the violation occurred before the Reliability Standards became mandatory, LCPD did not timely complete a mitigation plan, turning the violation into a post-June 18, 2007 violation; however, WECC determined no penalty was appropriate.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Sabine River Authority of TX/LA (Sabine), Docket No. NP12-22-000 (March 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1/1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: Sabine self-reported that its generation Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) was not in compliance with the Standard when Sabine found that not all equipment was addressed as required. SERC subsequently found during an audit that Sabine, as a GO, could not show it had a documented generation FRM in place from the date the Standards became enforceable until August 27, 2007. After that date, the FRM in place did not discuss relay protective devices, terminal equipment, and series and shunt compensation devices. Sabine is also registered as a TO and during review of the self-report and the audit findings, SERC staff asked for Sabine’s transmission FRM. Sabine believed the generation FRM was adequate for its transmission functions as well, but SERC staff found the generation FRM did not address Facility Ratings for the TO role but only addressed Facility Ratings for the GO role meaning Sabine did not have an FRM covering its transmission equipment in compliance with FAC-008-1.

Finding: The violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the FRM in place was created to show the most limiting element which is the generator and the revised Facility Rating did not change. In addition, Sabine operated its facilities in accordance with the manufacturer’s ratings. At the time of the violation, Sabine did not have a formal internal compliance program, but it did subsequently implement a program, which SERC considered a neutral factor when determining the appropriate penalty. Sabine was also not credited with the self-report because SERC noted the violation was only discovered during preparation for the audit.

Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for two violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2012 (no further review)

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP11-173-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation (“Safe Harbor”) did not document its method for determining the facility ratings for transmission conductors, transformers, relay protective devices, terminal equipment, and series and shunt compensation devices in violation of FAC-008-1 R1.

Finding: RFC determined the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because Safe Harbor’s most limiting element were its electrical generators by design and therefore Safe Harbor’s identification of the electrical generators as the most limiting element would always be correct. The NERC BOTCC considered the following factors: it was Safe Harbor’s first violation of FAC-008-1 R1; Safe Harbor self-reported some of its violations; Safe Harbor was cooperative; Safe Harbor had a compliance procedure in place, which RFC considered a mitigating factor; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal the violations; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregated for 3 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-22-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: Sam Rayburn's methodology for developing Facility Ratings (Facility Ratings Methodology) of its solely and jointly-owned Facilities failed to specifically state that the most limiting equipment of the Facility determines the Facility Rating. The Facility Rating Methodology documentation failed to define the methodology for the Normal and Emergency ratings of facilities.

Finding: SERC declined to assess penalties for the violation because the violation (i) occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and (ii) would not put the bulk power system reliability at a serious or substantial risk. NERC affirmed SERC's exercise of discretion to not assess penalties for these reasons, and also added that the violation was the first incidence of violation by Sam Rayburn and that Sam Rayburn worked cooperatively with SERC and acted immediately to mitigate and/or correct the violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,105, http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP, FERC Docket No. NP11-246-000 (July 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: RFC

Issue: During an audit in June 2010, RFC found that, before October 22, 2009, Scrubgrass Generating Company, LP (Scrubgrass), as a Generator Owner, had not properly incorporated the normal and emergency ratings or the consideration of design criteria into its Facility Ratings Methodology as required.

Finding: RFC and Scrubgrass entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Scrubgrass agreed to pay a penalty of $10,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the FAC-008-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since this violation was primarily a documentation issue. In addition, in the Facility Ratings Methodology in effect prior to October 22, 2009, Scrubgrass had correctly identified the most limiting factor. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 25, 2007 through October 22, 2009. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were Scrubgrass’ first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; Scrubgrass was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; Scrubgrass had a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 29, 2011 (no further review)

Sierra Pacific Industries, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) self-certified that it had not documented its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since SPI actually had Facility Ratings in place and had been providing these Facility Ratings upon request. The violation was primarily a documentation issue and this was SPI’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

South Carolina Public Service Authority, FERC Docket No. NP11-100-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: During an on-site audit, SERC determined that South Carolina Public Service Authority's (SCPSA) Facility Ratings Methodology did not address all required elements of the standard for its protective relays or terminal equipment at its generating facilities, thus violating R1. Specifically, SCPSA's Facility Ratings Methodology did not specify the scope of its generation Facility Ratings to include both Normal and Emergency Ratings for this equipment, and it did not consider any other criteria, conditions or assumptions regarding Facility Ratings.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the violation was primarily a documentation issue since SCPSA rated its facilities using manufacturer nameplate data that considered the most limiting elements. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through September 14, 2010.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregate penalty for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

South Eastern Electric Development Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-30-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: South Eastern Electric Development Corporation's (SEEDCo) Facility Ratings Methodology did not include the statement required in R1.1 that "a Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises that Facility."

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because: the violation was a documentation issue; there was no serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there was no violation history. SEEDCo was also given credit for its self-report.

Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

South Eastern Generating Corporation, FERC Docket No. NP10-31-000 (December 30, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R1.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: South Eastern Generating Corporation's (SEGenCo) Facility Ratings Methodology did not include the statement required in R1.1 that "a Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises that Facility."

Finding: Penalty was appropriate because: the violations were documentation issues; there was no serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; there was no history of violations; and SEGenCo self-reported possible violations.

Penalty: $11,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 29, 2010 (no further review)

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, FERC Docket No. NP11-101-000 (January 31, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SERC

Issue: During a scheduled compliance audit, SERC determined that Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (SIPC) could not provide a documented Facility Ratings Methodology for its generating facilities for the period prior to June 12, 2008.

Finding: SERC determined that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because the violation was primarily a documentation issue since SIPC rated its facilities using manufacturer nameplate data and no change in the ratings was required as a result of mitigating the violation. The duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the standard became enforceable, through June 12, 2008.

Penalty: $12,000 (aggregate penalty for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 2, 2011 (no further review)

SRW Cogeneration Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP10-127-000 (July 6, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1 (R1.1, R1.2.1, R1.2.2)

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SERC

Issue: In advance of a compliance audit, SRW Cogeneration Limited Partnership (SRW) self-reported in June 2009 that it did not possess a sufficiently documented Facility Ratings Methodology that satisfied all of the requirements in FAC-008-1. The Facility Ratings Methodology documentation did not include, as required: a statement that the Facility Rating equaled the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment in the facility; a full description of the scope of the applicable equipment evaluated during the development of the Facility Ratings; and a statement showing that the Emergency Ratings were considered.

Finding: SERC and SRW entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple alleged violations, whereby SRW neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to pay a penalty of $20,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SRW found that the alleged violation of FAC-008-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Facility Ratings that SRW was using before its documented Facility Ratings Methodology were based upon the facility design documents. The Facility Ratings were also verified according to a facility performance test conducted before connecting to the bulk power system. In determining the penalty amount, SERC also considered the fact that the alleged violations were SRW’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the alleged violations were self-reported (after being notified of an upcoming audit); SRW was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations; SRW has a compliance program in place; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors. A mitigation plan has been completed.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued August 5, 2010 (no further review)

SUEZ Energy Generation NA Inc., FERC Docket No. NP09-4-000 (January 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2, R3

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium for R1, Lower for R2 and R3

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: While SUEZ Energy Generation developed required Facility Ratings, there was no formalized procedure or documented methodology to define normal and emergency ratings or recognize the most limiting element. Due to the lack of documentation, SUEZ Energy Generation could not provide the Facility Ratings Methodology for inspection and review by the required entities, and could not respond to any written comments on the non-existent documentation.

Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue and deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)

Sunbury Generation LP, FERC Docket No. NP12-10 (December 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2.1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in September 2010, RFC found that Sunbury Generation LP (Sunbury), as a GO, did not incorporate the Ratings Methodology for its transmission conductors and relay protective devices into its Facility Ratings Methodology.

Finding: RFC found that the FAC-008-1 violation constituted a moderate risk to BPS reliability. But, Sunbury did at least mention its transmission conductors in its Facility Rating Methodology and calculated ratings for those devices. In addition, the transmission conductors did not have an impact on the overall Facility Ratings. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through November 4, 2010. RFC evaluated Sunbury’s compliance program as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $20,000 (aggregate for three violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 27, 2012 (no further review)

Sunray Energy, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-81-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: Sunray Energy did not have all required documentation for its Facility Ratings Methodology as required by FAC-008-1 R1.

Finding: Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through July 2, 2009, when Sunray Energy completed its mitigation plan. In reaching this determination, WECC considered the following factors: (1) Sunray Energy self-reported the alleged violation; (2) the alleged violation was Sunray Energy’s first violation of the standard; (3) Sunray Energy was cooperative throughout the compliance enforcement process; (4) there was no evidence of any attempt to conceal a violation nor evidence of intent to do so; and (5) WECC determined that the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system.

Penalty: $14,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P., FERC Docket No. NP10-82-000 (March 31, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not discussed

Region: SERC

Issue: Tenaska’s Facility Ratings Methodology did not include a statement required by FAC-008-1 R1 that its Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating for the individual equipment that comprises the Facility.

Finding: SERC assessed a penalty of $2,000 for the alleged violation finding the amount appropriate in relation to the seriousness and duration of the alleged violation, which was from June 18, 2007, the date the standard became enforceable, through February 11, 2009, when Tenaska completed a mitigation plan. In reaching this determination, SERC considered the following factors: (1) the alleged violation constituted Tenaska’s first violation of the standard; (2) Tenaska cooperated in a timely and satisfactory manner throughout the enforcement process; (3) there was no evidence of any attempt to conceal a violation or evidence of intent to do so; (4) Tenaska agreed to resolve the issue via settlement before receiving a Notice of Alleged Violation and Proposed Penalty or Sanction; and (5) the alleged violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system, because although Tenaska’s Facility Ratings Methodology was missing the required statement, its actual Facility Rating respected the most limiting element in practice.

Penalty: $2,000

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2010 (no further review)

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. NP12-27 (May 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: SERC

Issue: SERC determined that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), as a TO and GO, did not have a written Facility Ratings Methodology that included protective relays and Emergency Ratings. TVA’s Facility Ratings Methodology also did not incorporate a statement noting that the Facility Rating shall equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating of the individual equipment that comprises the Facility.

Finding: SERC found that the violation constituted a minimal risk to BPS reliability since TVA’s system already reflects the most limiting element in the Facility (which is the generator). In addition, TVA only uses a single rating for its normal and emergency ratings and, in applying its Facility Ratings Methodology, it considered its protective relays in determining Facility Ratings. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through June 3, 2011. SERC evaluated TVA’s compliance program as a mitigating factor.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 4 violations)

FERC Order: Order issued June 29, 2012 (no further review)

T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership, FERC Docket No. NP11-214-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit in June 2010, RFC found that T.E.S. Filer City Station Limited Partnership (T.E.S.), as a Generator Owner, did not possess a properly documented Facility Ratings Methodology until September 2007 and, even when it did have a Facility Ratings Methodology, it did not incorporate certain terminal equipment.

Finding: RFC and T.E.S. entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby T.E.S. agreed to pay a penalty of $25,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the FAC-008-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since T.E.S.’ power purchase agreement limited its operation to 60 MW. Since the rating of the most limiting piece of equipment at T.E.S.’ facility was greater than 60 MW, T.E.S.’ equipment was not the limiting factor in its operations. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through July 27, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these were T.E.S.’ first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards (even though T.E.S.’ affiliates had previous violation of PRC-005-1 which was viewed as an aggravating factor); T.E.S. was cooperative during the enforcement proceeding and did not conceal the violations; and there was a compliance program in place (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor).

Penalty: $25,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Tex-LA Electric Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP08-25-000 (June 5, 2008)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R4

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: SERC

Issue: Tex-LA self-certified that its methodology for developing Facility Ratings ("Facility Ratings Methodology") of its solely and jointly-owned Facilities failed to specifically state that the most limiting equipment of the Facility determines the Facility Rating. Tex-LA also self-certified that its Facility Rating Methodology documentation failed to define the methodology for the Normal and Emergency ratings of facilities.

Finding: SERC declined to assess a penalty for the violation because the violation (i) occurred during the transition period to mandatory standards and (ii) would not put the bulk power system reliability at a serious or substantial risk. NERC affirmed SERC's exercise of discretion to not assess a penalty for these reasons, and also added that the violation was the first incidence of violation by Tex-LA and that Tex-LA worked cooperatively with SERC and acted immediately to mitigate and/or correct the violation.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: 124 FERC ¶ 61,015, http://www.nerc.com/files/NoticeOfPenaltyOrder.pdf< /A>

Thermo Power and Electric LLC, Docket No. NP11-270 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Following a self-certification of non-compliance, WECC determined that Thermo Power and Electric LLC (TPEL) was in violation of FAC-008-1 because it did not have a process for documenting its Facility Ratings Methodology, did not have the Facility Rating statement, did not have a method for determining a Facility Rating and the scope of equipment covered by those ratings for its solely and jointly owned facilities, and did not have Facility Ratings that considered the ratings provided by manufacturers, design criteria, ambient conditions and operating limitations.

Finding: WECC determined that the violations posed a minimal risk to the reliability of the BPS because TPEL operates a single generating facility with a total capacity of approximately 80 MW, which is only a small percentage of the generation available to TPEL’s TOP and BA. Moreover, TPEL only operates in limited circumstances pursuant to its power purchase contracts.

Penalty: $10,000 (aggregate for 5 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In December 2005, TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TransAlta) self-reported that it had not documented the Facility Ratings Methodology it used to develop its Facility Ratings.

Finding: WECC found that the violation did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since the Facility Ratings were actually established and communicated as required (even though the documentation was not fully complete). The violation was self-reported and this was TransAlta’s first violation of this Reliability Standard. A mitigation plan was completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Tri-Dam Project of the Oakdale and South Joaquin Irrigation Districts, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium/Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: WECC

Issue: In July 2008, Tri-Dam Project of the Oakdale and South Joaquin Irrigation Districts (OSJID) self-certified that it did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology for its solely and jointly owned facilities.

Finding: WECC found that this violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since OSJID did actually have Facility Ratings in place that used the manufacturer's suggested ratings and considered the most limiting factor. The duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 through December 28, 2009. This was OSJID's first violation of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued October 13, 2010 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-1-000 (October 7, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: N/A

Region: WECC

Issue: An Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) (URE) self reported a violation following a self-evaluation in which it discovered that although it had a Facilities Ratings Methodology for its equipment, it failed to document its current methodology for developing Facility Ratings of its generation plants.

Finding: The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because facility operational ratings existed; therefore the violation was simply a documentation issue.

Penalty: $106,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued November 5, 2010 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-79-000 (December 22, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-reported a violation of FAC-008-1 R1 because one of its company divisions did not have a written formal Facilities Ratings document.

Finding: The violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because it was largely a documentation issue. URE had established a Facility Rating using the same basic methodology as in its Generation Facility Ratings Methodology document, but one division had failed to document the methodology.

Penalty: $100,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued January 21, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, NPCC-1, FERC Docket No. NP11-104-000 (February 1, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: NPCC

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity, NPCC-1's (URE-NPCC1) existing ratings methodology did not specifically cite its use as the generation ratings methodology and its revised ratings methodology did not specifically cite the complete scope of elements required by FAC-008-1 R1.1.1, specifically protective relays, and series and shunt compensating devices.

Finding: NPCC determined that the violations posed minimal risk to the reliability of the bulk power system because URE-NPCC1 had in place a facility ratings methodology document, but it did not cite its use as a generation ratings methodology. Further, it needed to be updated to incorporate all applicable equipment and provide individual documentation for transmission and generation facility rating methodology.

Penalty: $5,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 3, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-116-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: As a result of a compliance audit, FRCC found that a Registered Entity's Facility Ratings Methodology: (a) did not incorporate a statement that the Facility Ratings equals the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating; (b) did not sufficiently address the required scope of equipment and did not include generators prior to December 3, 2007; (c) did not sufficiently address normal and emergency ratings all of the required equipment (e.g., generators, relay protective devices and shunt compensation devices); and (d) did not address all other items as required by the Reliability Standard for the relay protective devices.

Finding: FRCC and the Registered Entity entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the Registered Entity agreed to pay a penalty of $75,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. FRCC found that the FAC-008-1 violation did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since the Registered Entity had actually calculated its equipment ratings based on the manufacturer's criteria (which evaluated the most limiting element), and the Registered Entity was operating its system based on those ratings. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through August 1, 2008. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC considered the fact that these were the Registered Entity's first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the Registered Entity self-reported some of the violations; the Registered Entity was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; there was a compliance program in place; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $75,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-127-000 (February 23, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: FRCC

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) self-certified that its Facility Ratings documentation did not address relay protective devices, potential transformers, terminal equipment, series and shunt compensation devices or applicable generator equipment. While URE also self-reported this same non-compliance, FRCC determined that the violation was discovered through the self-certification because it was submitted first. Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through August 6, 2009, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: FRCC Enforcement determined that the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because URE used the most limiting factor and followed manufacturer ratings for these devices, and no system event occurred due to the violation. Further, the NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee concluded the penalty appropriate because, with one exception, this was URE’s first violation of the Standards, URE self reported several of the violations, numerous violations of a single standard were considered to be four instances of a single violation as opposed to separate violations, and URE was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $55,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-137-000 (March 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1 and R2

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Lower

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-reported that it did not state in its ratings process that it based Facility Ratings on the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating as required by R1. In addition, while URE used industry standards and practices to rate its facilities, it did not have documented rating methodologies for generators, transformers, terminal equipment and series and shunt capacitors as required by R1. Because it was in violation of R1, URE’s rating methodologies would not have been available for inspection and review within fifteen business days of receipt of a request for review by relevant parties in violation of R2. These violations were self-reported prior to the date the standard became enforceable, but became enforceable because URE failed to submit an acceptable mitigation plan by the required deadline. Duration of violation was June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through June 5, 2008, when the violations were mitigated.

Finding: WECC Enforcement determined that the violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the violations were documentation issues. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was URE’s first violation of most of the Standards involved, URE self-reported 28 of 30 violations, and URE was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $106,000 (aggregate for 30 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 29, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-166-000 (April 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) failed to maintain a formal Facility Ratings Methodology for its generators, and the document it was using failed to note that the Facility Rating must equal the most limiting applicable Equipment Rating as required under R1.1 and specify the method for determining the rating as required under R1.2, R1.2.1 and R1.2.2. Further, URE did not demonstrate that it consistently applied its Facility Ratings Methodology to each transmission facility element, or that it selected the most limiting element to determine a rating.

Finding: The NERC Board of Trustees Compliance Committee (NERC BOTCC) approved a settlement agreement which included a penalty in the amount of $50,000 for this and other violations. In reaching this determination, the NERC BOTCC considered the following facts, among others: the violation constituted URE’s first violation of the subject Reliability Standard; URE self-reported some of the violations; URE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; URE did not attempt to conceal a violation or intend to do so; the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors or extenuating circumstances.

Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for 14 violations)

FERC Order: May 27, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-188-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During an audit, SPP found that the URE’s generator Facility Ratings Methodology did not address relay protective devices, current and potential transformers, or terminal equipment. Moreover, URE did not document its Facility Ratings Methodology prior to 2009. Duration of the violation was June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through March 23, 2010 when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: SPP determined that the violation posed a minimal risk to the bulk power system because URE had used the SPP criteria for establishing its generating facility ratings, and these criteria produced an accurate rating for planning purposes. The NERC BOTCC also considered that the URE self-reported certain of the violations, and this was the URE’s first occurrence of violations of the standards.

Penalty: $16,860 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-198-000 (May 26, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1 (R1.1/R1.2)

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During a compliance audit, SPP discovered that the Unidentified Registered Entity (URE) did not possess, before 2009, a properly documented Facility Ratings Methodology. Even after 2009, the Facility Ratings Methodology did not incorporate relay protective devices, current and potential transformers, or terminal equipment

Finding: SPP and the URE entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby the URE agreed to pay a penalty of $17,860 and to undertake other mitigation measures. SPP found that the FAC-008-1 violation only posed a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability since the URE had actually been using the SPP Criteria to develop the ratings for its facilities (which, for planning purposes, were able to establish an accurate capacity rating). The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through March 23, 2010. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC found that these violations were the URE’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the PRC-005-1 violation was self-reported; the URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; the URE had a compliance program in place when the violations occurred (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor); and there were no additional aggravating or mitigating factors.

Penalty: $17,860 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued June 24, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered entity, FERC Docket No. NP11-223-000 (June 29, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: SPP

Issue: During a compliance audit, SPP determined the Unidentified Registered Entity’s (URE) Facilities Ratings Methodology did not comport with FAC-008-1 R1 because it did not (1) include a statement that the Facility Rating for a generator shall equal the most limiting perimeter, (2) include the scope of the equipment considered in assessing the generator Facility Ratings, (3) address Normal and Emergency Ratings, and (4) consider ratings provided by equipment manufacturers and design criteria.

Finding: SPP assessed a $30,000 penalty for this and other violations. The violations did not pose a serious or substantial risk to the reliability of the Bulk Power System because URE developed facility ratings in accordance with SPP Criteria and the failure to follow R1 previously was merely an administrative failure. The NERC BOTCC determined this was URE’s first occurrence of these types of violations; URE was cooperative; there was no evidence of any attempt or intent to conceal a violation; and there were no other mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $30,000 (aggregated for 3 violations)

FERC Order: Issued July 29, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, Docket No. NP11-270-000 (September 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: Based on WECC_URE1’s failure to respond to audit notices, WECC found that WECC_URE1 did not show that it had documented its Facility Ratings Methodology as required.

Finding: WECC found that the violation constituted a minimal risk to bulk power system reliability. WECC_URE1 operates a facility with a nameplate capacity of less than 30 MW and has only one interconnection with the bulk power system. In addition, WECC_URE1 sells all of its output to one entity (and does not have a significant impact on the purchaser’s electricity supply). WECC_URE1 developed a compliance program to manage its future compliance efforts (which was evaluated as a mitigating factor). However, WECC_URE1 was not cooperative during the compliance audit process and did not timely complete the required self-certifications (which were evaluated as aggravating factors).

Penalty: $90,000 (aggregate for 14 violations)

FERC Order: Issued October 28, 2011 (no further review)

Unidentified Registered Entity, FERC Docket No. NP12-20 (March 30, 2012)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: WECC

Issue: URE self-certified that its facility ratings methodology did not contain a statement that its facility rating will equal the most limiting applicable equipment rating.

Finding: WECC found that the FAC-008-1 violation constituted only a minimal risk to BPS as URE does not operate generation resources, systems or facilities that are needed for system restoration or systems or facilities that are needed for automatic load shedding (under common system capable of shedding 300 MW or more). URE also has a peak demand under 150 MW. In approving the settlement agreement, NERC BOTCC considered the fact that these were URE’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; URE was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not conceal the violations; and the violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to BPS reliability.

Penalty: $60,000 (aggregate for 13 violations)

FERC Order: Issued April 30, 2012 (no further review)

Upper Peninsula Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP09-24-000 (May 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2.2, R2, R3

Violation Risk Factor: Medium for R1.2.2, Lower for R2 and R3

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: MRO

Issue: While Upper Peninsula Power developed required Facility Ratings, there was no formalized procedure or documented methodology to define normal and emergency ratings or recognize the most limiting element. Due to the lack of documentation, Upper Peninsula Power could not provide the Facility Ratings Methodology for inspection and review by the required entities, and could not respond to any written comments on the non-existent documentation.

Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue and deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued May 29, 2009 (no further review)

USACE – Kansas City District, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2, R3

Violation Risk Factor: Medium (R1); Lower (R2, R3)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: USACE-Kansas City District (USACE-KC) did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology which addressed the most limiting applicable equipment rating and the method by which ratings were determined. In addition, USACE-KC did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology which addressed all of the other required considerations. USACE-KC was still utilizing the original equipment ratings and capacity in reporting its equipment ratings to its Transmission Operator.

Finding: SPP found that these violations did not involve a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since USACE-KC was still establishing ratings for its facilities (even though they were based upon the original equipment ratings) and communicating them to its Transmission Operator and SPP. These were also the first violations of this Reliability Standard by USACE-KC and a mitigation plan has been completed.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

USACE – Little Rock District, FERC Docket No. NP11-19-000 (November 5, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: Medium (R1), Lower (R2)

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: In March 2008, USACE – Little Rock (USACE-LR) self-certified that it violated Reliability Standard FAC-008-1 R1 and R2 as it did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology in place for each of its facilities.

Finding: SPP found that these violations did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since even though USACE-LR did not have a formal procedure in place detailing the methodology behind its Facility Ratings, the ratings of USACE-LR’s facilities were established according to the Original Equipment Manufacturer ratings (which were substantiated based on the operational history of the generating facilities). In addition, USACE-LR only owns hydroelectric generating facilities and the transmission facilities that are needed to connect the hydroelectric generating facilities to the grid. The duration of the violations was from July 10, 2007 through March 1, 2010. In deciding not to impose a penalty for multiple violations, SPP considered the fact that the violations represented USACE-LR’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were caused by USACE-LR not having formal procedures and policies in place; and USACE-LR did not attempt to conceal the violations. In addition, the violations were self-certified.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued December 3, 2010 (no further review)

USACE – Tulsa District, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2

Violation Risk Factor: Medium for R1; Lower for R2

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: SPP

Issue: FAC-008-1, R1 requires an entity to have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology and a method by which the ratings are determined, which USACE-Tulsa did not have in place. USACE-Tulsa reported that it was using the original equipment ratings and capacity and was providing the equipment ratings to its Transmission Operator. FAC-008-1, R2 requires an entity to have such Facility Ratings Methodology available for inspection and technical review within 15 business days of receipt of request. USACE-Tulsa self certified that it was non-compliant with both requirements.

Finding: Although USACE-Tulsa did not have a documented Facilities Rating Methodology, USACE-Tulsa was establishing ratings for its facilities based upon original equipment ratings and was communicating these facility ratings to the Transmission Operator and SPP, therefore, determined that the violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system. The duration of the violations was July 10, 2007 through October 22, 2009. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount, even though USACE-Tulsa did not complete its mitigation plan on time, included that that the violations were documentation issues and were the first violations of this Reliability Standard.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued December 16, 2010, 133 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2010), reh'g denied 137, FERC ¶ 61,044 (2010)

USACE – Tulsa District, FERC Docket No. NP10-160-000 (September 13, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2, R3

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium for R1; Lower for R2 and R3

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: FAC-008-1, R1 requires an entity to have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology and a method by which the ratings are determined, which USACE-Tulsa did not have in place, thereby also violating FAC-008-1, R2 which requires an entity to have such Facility Ratings Methodology available for inspection and technical review by specific entities within 15 business days of receipt of request. Because USACE-Tulsa did not have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology, it could not have provided it for comments as required by FAC-008-1, R3. USACE-Tulsa self-certified that it was non-compliant with the requirements of this Reliability Standard.

Finding: The violations did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system, as determined by TRE, because even though USACE-Tulsa did not have the proper documentation, ratings for the generation equipment were fully documented and established, both in operating criteria and in the protective systems and control equipment. The duration of the violations was June 28, 2007 through November 22, 2009. Additional factors for the determination of no penalty amount included that that the violations were the first of this Reliability Standard, and although USACE-Tulsa did not complete its original mitigation plan by the expected completion date it did submit a revised mitigation plan which was completed four months early.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued December 16, 2010, 133 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2010), reh'g denied 137, FERC ¶ 61,044 (2010)

Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, FERC Docket No. NP10-2-000 (October 14, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: FRCC

Issue: Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach ("New Smyrna") failed to properly document its Facility Ratings Methodology for its generation facilities. Duration of the violation was from June 18, 2007 when the standard became enforceable through October 14, 2008.

Finding: Penalty was deemed appropriate because this was New Smyrna's first violation of this standard, and the violation did not pose a serious or substantial threat to the reliability of the bulk power system because it was a documentation issue.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued November 13, 2009 (no further review)

Vandolah Power Company, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-129-000 (February 28, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: High

Region: FRCC

Issue: Vandolah Power Company, LLC’s (VPC) facility ratings methodology did not distinguish between Normal and Emergency ratings. Duration of violation was from June 18, 2007, when the Standard became enforceable, through June 15, 2008, when the violation was mitigated.

Finding: FRCC Enforcement determined that the violation did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system because the violation was a documentation issue, and VPC’s units were not contracted to any Balancing Authority during the relevant period and thus were seldom operated. Further, the NERC BOTCC concluded the penalty appropriate because this was VPC’s first violation of the Standard, VPC developed a stronger compliance program as part of its mitigation of the violation, and VPC was cooperative during the investigation.

Penalty: $23,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued March 25, 2011 (no further review)

Wellhead Power Panoche, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP11-29-000 (November 30, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: In February 2010, Wellhead Power Panoche, LLC (WHPP) self-reported that it had not documented the method it used to determine its Facility Ratings and that its Facility Ratings did not address protective relays, terminal equipment, shunt compensation devices, transmission lines, and conductors.

Finding: WHPP agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000 and to undertake other mitigation measures to resolve multiple violations. WECC found that the violation of FAC-008-1 did not constitute a serious or substantial risk to bulk power system reliability since WHPP rated its protective relays and terminal equipment based on fault conditions and WHPP did not own shunt compensation devices, transmission lines or conductors. Furthermore, WHPP did actually document its current Facility Ratings methodology. The duration of the FAC-008-1 violation was from June 18, 2007 through February 2, 2010. WECC considered the fact that these were WHPP’s first violations of the relevant Reliability Standards; the violations were self-reported; WHPP was cooperative during the enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the violations; and there were no additional mitigating or aggravating factors.

Penalty: $50,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2010 (no further review)

White Creek Wind I, LLC, FERC Docket No. NP12-5 (November 30, 2011)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Severe

Region: WECC

Issue: During an internal audit in November 2010, WCW realized it had no compliant Facility Ratings Methodology (FRM) but instead it had used a “Wind Energy Resource Assessment” document in which the generators were the most limiting element to establish its Facility Ratings. The document had data such as historical wind data, turbine placement and additional studies prepared for development of the facility, but the document did not refer to other components that are required by the Standard. Therefore, WCW self-reported it did not have an FRM meeting FAC-008-1 R1 requirements.

Finding: WECC found the violation posed a minimal risk to BPS reliability because the facility design made the actual wind generators the most limiting element, which is how WCW system operators had been trained. In determining the appropriate penalty, WECC considered that no other aggravating factors were present to warrant a higher penalty and that the violations are the first by WCW. WECC also noted that WCW was cooperative during the process and WECC found no attempt to conceal the violations.

Penalty: $7,500 (aggregate for 2 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 30, 2011 (no further review)

Whiting Clean Energy, Inc. (WCE), Docket No. NP14-8 (Nov. 27, 2013)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: 1

Violation Risk Factor: Lower

Violation Severity Level: Moderate

Region: RFC

Issue: While conducting a Compliance Audit, RFC found that WCE, as a GO, could not show that it had a procedure for determining the ratings of protective relay devices. RFC also found discrepancies between the Facility Ratings and the Facility Ratings Methodology that were unresolved. The violation time frame was July 9, 2008, when WCE registered as a GO, until December 12, 2012, when WCE completed a mitigation plan to resolve the issues.

Finding: This violation was deemed to pose minimal risk to reliable BPS operations, but not serious or substantial risk. WCE used instruction manuals to determine the ratings of its transmission conductors and relays. Also, a facility rating study conducted in June 2012 determined that the relays and voltage and current sensing devices were not the most limiting elements and therefore WCE did not have to change its Facility Ratings. In determining the appropriate penalty, RFC considered several factors, including that these violations were the first by WCE of the subject Reliability Standards; one violation was self-reported; WCE cooperated during the compliance enforcement process; and WCE has a compliance program in place and certain aspects were considered a mitigating factor by RFC. However, RFC determined that WCE’s performance during the Compliance Audit was an aggravating factor as WCE did not fully understand its responsibilities under NERC’s Reliability Standards nor even its own processes and procedures.

Total Penalty: $35,000 (aggregate for 7 violations)

FERC Order: Issued December 27, 2013 (no further review)

Wise County Power Company, FERC Docket No. NP09-5-000 (January 7, 2009)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1, R2, R3

Violation Risk Factor: Lower/Medium for R1, Lower for R2 and R3

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: TRE

Issue: While Wise County Power developed required Facility Ratings, there was no formalized procedure or documented methodology to define normal and emergency ratings or recognize the most limiting element. Due to the lack of documentation, Wise County Power could not provide the Facility Ratings Methodology for inspection and review by the required entities, and could not respond to any written comments on the non-existent documentation.

Finding: Penalty was determined appropriate because the violation was a documentation issue and deemed not to put the bulk power system reliability at serious or substantial risk.

Penalty: $0

FERC Order: Issued February 5, 2009 (no further review)

Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., FERC Docket No. NP10-99-000 (April 28, 2010)

Reliability Standard: FAC-008-1

Requirement: R1.2

Violation Risk Factor: Medium

Violation Severity Level: Not provided

Region: RFC

Issue: During a compliance audit of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (Wolverine) in June 2009, RFC discovered a potential violation of FAC-008-1 since the documentation for Wolverine's Facility Ratings Methodology did not use an acceptable method for determining the ratings for the relay protective devices. The relevant documentation only referred to the "setting" of the relay protective devices, not the "rating" as required.

Finding: RFC and Wolverine entered into a settlement agreement to resolve multiple violations, whereby Wolverine neither admitted nor denied the violations but agreed to pay a penalty and to undertake other mitigation measures. RFC found that the alleged violation of FAC-008-1 did not create a serious or substantial risk to the bulk power system since Wolverine did actually have a documented Facility Ratings Methodology. In determining the penalty, RFC considered that the multiple alleged violations were Wolverine's first occurrence of violations of the relevant Reliability Standards and that Wolverine was cooperative during the compliance enforcement process and did not attempt to conceal the alleged violations. In addition, RFC noted certain positive aspects of Wolverine's compliance program. Wolverine completed a mitigation plan for the alleged violation of FAC-008-1.

Penalty: $15,000 (aggregate for multiple violations)

FERC Order: Issued May 28, 2010 (no further review)