1Comment Form for:
1Comment Form for: Draft 7 of the SERC Underfrequency Load Shedding (UFLS)Regional Reliability Standard (PRC-006-SERC-01)Please use this form to submit comments on Draft 7 of the SERC UFLS Regional ReliabilityStandard. ong>Commentsong> must be submitted by March 24, 2011. You must submit the completedform by e-mailing it to the SERC manager of Reliability Standards at firstname.lastname@example.org withthe words SERC UFLS in the subject line. If you have questions, please contact Pat Huntley(704-940-8228) or email@example.com.DO:DO NOT:Do use punctuation and capitalization as needed.Do use more than one form if responses do not fit in the spaces provided.Do submit any formatted text or markups in a separate WORD file.Do not submit a response in an unprotected copy of this form.Commenter InformationGroup Name (if applicable):Contact Name:Carol GerouOrganization:Midwest Reliability OrganizationTelephone: 651-855-1735Email:firstname.lastname@example.orgBackground:SERC plans to develop regional reliability standards as required to supplement NERCstandards using the SERC Regional Standards Development Procedure. Development ofthese standards will be in accordance with NERC’s schedule. This includes development ofa SERC regional standard addressing UFLS.From July 2, 2008 through August 15, 2008, NERC posted for comments draft requirementsfor regional UFLS standards in a document titled, “UFLS Regional Reliability StandardCharacteristics.” From April 21, 2009 through May 21, 2009, NERC posted for commentsthe second draft of the UFLS program requirements, including a proposed continent-widestandard. Draft 3 of the NERC standard was posted for a 35-day comment period from June11, 2010 through July 16, 2010, with an initial ballot the last 10 days of the period. Draft 3was not approved. Draft 4 was developed in response to the comments received, and wasballoted from July 24, 2010 through August 3, 2010. Draft 4 was not approved. The NERCstandard drafting team developed Draft 5 of the standard and posted it for ballot. The ballotpassed and the NERC Board of Trustees subsequently approved the standard onNovember 4, 2010.Notes for draft SERC UFLS Standard;Draft 1 of the SERC UFLS standard only contained the applicability section and therequirements. It was posted for comments from September 19, 2008 through October 20,
22008. Draft 2 incorporated revisions to address industry comments and to include themeasures and compliance elements. Draft 2 of the standard and a draft implementation planwere posted for comments from November 21, 2008 through December 22, 2008. Draft 3 ofthe standard was developed to address industry comments. It was posted for information onFebruary 9, 2009. Draft 3a SERC UFLS Standard was designed to meet the applicabilityand performance characteristics specified in the then latest NERC draft UFLS Standard. Itwas posted for comments from September 15, 2009 through October 15, 2009. Draft 4 ofthe standard was developed to address industry comments and was posted for ballot fromNovember 13-23, 2009. Draft 4 was not approved.Draft 5 of the standard was developed to address industry comments listed on the Draft 4ballots. The requirement for generators that do not coordinate with the underfrequencyperformance curves to provide compensatory load shedding was removed. To address theindustry comments on timing, additional work on the SERC standard was delayed until theinitial ballot on the NERC continent-wide UFLS standard was scheduled. Draft 5 was alsore-formatted to be consistent with the Results-based Reliability Standards template. Draft 5was posted for comment. Draft 6 was developed in response to comments received andwas posted for ballot from December 9-20, 2011. Draft 6 was not approved. Draft 7 hasbeen developed in response to comments received on the ballot.The SERC UFLS Standard Drafting Team (SDT) is requesting your comments on Draft 7 ofthe SERC UFLS standard.Please enter all comments in simple text format.Insert a “check’ mark in the appropriate boxes by clicking the gray areas.1. Requirement R1 has been modified to allow the PC to adjust island boundaries to differ fromsubregional boundaries where necessary for the sole purpose of producing a contiguoussubregional island more suitable for simulation. Do you agree with Requirement R1, itsmeasures, and its VSLs?YesNoong>Commentsong>: It's not clear how this requirement will be additional to the PRC-006-1R2.3 requirement? A Planning Coordinator may decide to study what they want.The last sentence from the PRC-006-1 R2.3 gives the Planning Coordinator thisflexiblility. The last sentence reads, "Planning Coordinators may adjust islandboundaries to differ from Regional Entity area boundaries by mutual consentwhere necessary for the sole purpose of producing contiguous regional islandsmore suitable for simulation."2. Requirement R2 has been modified for additional clarity. Do you agree with RequirementR2, its measures, and its VSLs?