Special Protection Systems (SPS) and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)

Special Protection Systems (SPS)
and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS):

Assessment of Definition, Regional
Practices, and Application of Related
Standards
Revision 0.1 April 2013
3353 Peachtree Road NE

Suite 600, North Tower
Atlanta, GA 30326
NERC | Special Protection Systems (SPS) and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) | April 2013
404-446-2560
| www.nerc.com
1 of 48
NERCs Mission
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is an international regulatory authority established to enhance
the reliability of the bulk power system in North America. NERC develops and enforces Reliability Standards; assesses
adequacy annually via a ten-year forecast and winter and summer forecasts; monitors the bulk power system; and
educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC is the electric reliability organization for North America, subject to
1
oversight by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and governmental authorities in Canada.
NERC assesses and reports on the reliability and adequacy of the North American bulk power system, which is divided into
eight Regional areas, as shown on the map and table below. The users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system
within these areas account for virtually all the electricity supplied in the U.S., Canada, and a portion of Baja California Norte,
Mxico.
NERC Regional Entities
Note: The highlighted area between SPP RE and

SERC denotes overlapping Regional area
boundaries. For example, some load serving
entities participate in one Region and their
associated transmission owner/operators in
another.
FRCC
Florida Reliability
Coordinating Council
SERC
SERC Reliability Corporation
MRO
Midwest Reliability
Organization
SPP RE
Southwest Power Pool
Regional Entity
NPCC
Northeast Power
TRE
Texas Reliability Entity
RFC
ReliabilityFirst Corporation
WECC
Western Electricity
As of June 18, 2007, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted NERC the legal authority to enforce
Reliability Standards with all U.S. users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system, and made compliance with those
standards mandatory and enforceable. In Canada, NERC presently has memorandums of understanding in place with
provincial authorities in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Qubec, and Saskatchewan, and with the Canadian National
Energy Board. NERC standards are mandatory and enforceable in Ontario and New Brunswick as a matter of provincial law.
NERC has an agreement with Manitoba Hydro making reliability standards mandatory for that entity, and Manitoba has
recently adopted legislation setting out a framework for standards to become mandatory for users, owners, and operators
in the province. In addition, NERC has been designated as the electric reliability organization under Albertas
Transportation Regulation, and certain reliability standards have been approved in that jurisdiction; others are pending.
NERC and NPCC have been recognized as standards-setting bodies by the Rgie de lnergie of Qubec, and Qubec has the
framework in place for reliability standards to become mandatory. NERCs reliability standards are also mandatory in Nova
Scotia and British Columbia. NERC is working with the other governmental authorities in Canada to achieve equivalent
recognition.
2 of 48
Table of Contents
NERCs Mission ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Background .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
NERC Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
NERC Reliability Standards ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1 SPS Definition ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
Considerations for a Revised Definition .................................................................................................................................. 8
Other Definitions in Industry ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Common Application of SPS in Industry .............................................................................................................................. 8
Classification of SPS Types ................................................................................................................................................... 9
Common Exclusions from the SPS Definition in Industry .................................................................................................. 10
Exclusion for Operator Aides ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Voltage Threshold .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Proposed Definition ............................................................................................................................................................... 11
Definition of Significant and Limited Impact ......................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2 Design and Maintenance Requirements ................................................................................................................ 14
General Design Considerations .............................................................................................................................................. 14
SPS Single Component Failure Requirements........................................................................................................................ 14
Maintenance and Testing ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3 Study and Documentation Requirements .............................................................................................................. 16
Review and Approval of New or Modified SPS ...................................................................................................................... 16
Assessment of Existing SPS .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Study of SPS in Annual Transmission Planning Assessments ............................................................................................. 17
Periodic Comprehensive Assessments of SPS Coordination .............................................................................................. 17
Documentation Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Data Submittals by Entities that Own SPS ......................................................................................................................... 18
SPS Database ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 4 Operational Requirements ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Monitoring of Status .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Notification of Status ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Response to Failures .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Operational Documentation .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 5 Analysis of SPS Operations ..................................................................................................................................... 22
SPS Misoperation Definition .................................................................................................................................................. 22
SPS Operation Review Process .............................................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Definition ............................................................................................................................................................................... 25
3 of 48
Classification .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Applicability to Functional Model Entities ............................................................................................................................. 26
Revisions to Reliability Standards .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Standard PRC-012-1 SPS Review, Assessment, and Documentation .............................................................................. 28
Standard PRC-016-1 SPS Misoperations ......................................................................................................................... 28
Standard PRC-005-2 Protection System Maintenance and Testing ................................................................................ 28
Recommendations to Be Included in Other Standards ..................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A Modeling and Simulation Considerations ........................................................................................................... 29
General Considerations for Simulations ................................................................................................................................ 29
Use of SPS Simulations in Transmission Planning Studies ..................................................................................................... 31
Appendix B Operational Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 33
Real-time SPS Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Multiple Decision-Making Capability ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Information Management ..................................................................................................................................................... 33
Modeling Simplicity and Usability.......................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix C Mapping of Requirements from Existing Standards ............................................................................................ 35
Appendix D Standards Committee Request for Research; January 9, 2011 ........................................................................... 43
Appendix E Scope of Work Approved by the Planning Committee; June 8, 2011 .................................................................. 44
Appendix F System Analysis and Modeling Subcommittee Roster ......................................................................................... 45
Appendix G System Protection and Control Subcommittee Roster ....................................................................................... 46
Appendix H Additional Contributors ....................................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix I Revision History .................................................................................................................................................... 48
This technical document was approved by the NERC Planning Committee on March 5, 2013.
4 of 48
Executive Summary
The existing NERC Glossary of Terms definition for a Special Protection System (SPS or, as used in the Western
Interconnection, a Remedial Action Scheme or RAS) lacks clarity and specificity necessary for consistent identification and
classification of protection schemes as SPS or RAS across the eight NERC Regions, leading to inconsistent application of the
related NERC Reliability Standards. In addition, three of the related standards (PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0, and PRC-014-0) were
identified by FERC in Order No. 693 as fill-in-the-blank standards and consequently are not mandatory and enforceable.
NERC Standards Project 2010-05.2, Phase 2 of Protection Systems: SPS and RAS, will modify the current standards and
definitions related to SPS and RAS. The NERC Standards Committee has identified that prior to initiating a project to address
these issues, additional research is necessary to clearly define the problem and recommend solutions for consideration. A
request for research was submitted by the Standards Committee on January 9, 2012 (see Appendix D). The Planning
Committee had already approved a joint effort by the System Analysis and Modeling Subcommittee (SAMS) and System
2
Protection and Control Subcommittee (SPCS) on June 8, 2011 (see Appendix E) which includes issues identified in the
request for research. This report addresses all issues identified in the scope of the joint SAMS and SPCS project as well as
the Standards Committee request for research; upon approval by the Planning Committee the report should be forwarded
to the Standards Committee to support Project 2010-05.2.
This report includes recommendations for a new definition of SPS and revisions to the six SPS-related PRC standards. A
strawman definition is provided that eliminates ambiguity in the existing definition and identifies 13 types of schemes that
are not SPS, but for which uncertainty has existed in the past based on experience within the Regions. The report also
recommends that SPS should be classified based on the type of event to which the SPS responds and the consequence of
misoperation. Classification of SPS facilitates standard requirements commensurate with potential reliability risk. Four
classifications are proposed.
This report provides recommendations to address FERC concerns with PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0, and PRC-014-0, which assign
requirements to Regional Reliability Organizations. Recommendations are made to reassign requirements to specific users,
owners, and operators of the bulk power system to remedy this situation.
Project 2010-05.2 should consolidate the requirements pertaining to review, assessment, and documentation of SPS into
one standard that includes continent-wide procedures for reviewing new or modified SPS, for assessing existing SPS in
annual transmission planning assessments, and for periodic comprehensive SPS assessments. The project also should revise
requirements pertaining to analysis and reporting of SPS misoperations in a revision of standard PRC-016-0.1. Due to the
significant difference between protection systems and SPS, the subject of SPS misoperations should not be included in a
future revision of PRC-004. Given the scope of work and need for drafting team members with different subject matter
expertise it may be appropriate to sub-divide Project 2010-05.2 to address review, assessment and documentation of SPS
separately from analysis and reporting of misoperations. This report also provides recommendations for Standards
Committee consideration that are outside the scope of Project 2010-05.2. These additional recommendations pertain to
maintenance and testing and operational aspects of SPS.
The original scope of work involved the SPCS and the predecessor of SAMS, the Transmission Issues Subcommittee (TIS).
5 of 48
Introduction
Problem Statement
The existing NERC Glossary of Terms definition for a Special Protection System (SPS or, as used in the Western
Interconnection, a Remedial Action Scheme or RAS) lacks clarity and specificity necessary for consistent identification and
classification of protection schemes as SPS or RAS across the eight NERC Regions, leading to inconsistent application of the
related NERC Reliability Standards. In addition, three of the related standards (PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0, and PRC-014-0) were
identified by FERC in Order No. 693 as fill-in-the-blank standards and consequently are not mandatory and enforceable.
NERC Standards Project 2010-05.2, Phase 2 of Protection Systems: SPS and RAS, will modify the current standards and
definitions related to SPS and RAS. The NERC Standards Committee has identified that prior to initiating a project to address
these issues, additional research is necessary to clearly define the problem and recommend solutions for consideration.
Background
NERC Definitions
The existing NERC Glossary of Terms defines an SPS and RAS as:
Special Protection System (Remedial Action Scheme)
An automatic protection system designed to detect abnormal or predetermined system conditions, and take corrective
actions other than and/or in addition to the isolation of faulted components to maintain system reliability. Such action
may include changes in demand, generation (MW and Mvar), or system configuration to maintain system stability,
acceptable voltage, or power flows. An SPS does not include (a) underfrequency or undervoltage load shedding or (b)
fault conditions that must be isolated or (c) out-of-step relaying (not designed as an integral part of an SPS). Also called
Remedial Action Scheme.
In this document, use of the term SPS in general discussions and proposals for future definitions and standards apply to
both SPS and RAS. Specific references to existing practices within Regions use the term SPS or RAS as appropriate for that
Region.
The NERC Glossary of Terms defines a Protection System as:
Protection System
Protective relays which respond to electrical quantities,
Communications systems necessary for correct operation of protective functions
Voltage and current sensing devices providing inputs to protective relays,
Station dc supply associated with protective functions (including batteries, battery chargers, and non-batterybased dc supply), and
Control circuitry associated with protective functions through the trip coil(s) of the circuit breakers or other
interrupting devices.
Inclusion of the words protection system in the term Special Protection System has raised questions whether this is an
intentional reference such that SPS are a subset of Protection Systems. Use of protection system (lower case) within the SPS
definition identifies that SPS are not Protection Systems. While SPS may include the same types of components as
Protection Systems, SPS are not limited to detecting faults or abnormal conditions and tripping affected equipment. SPS
may, for example, effect a change to the operating state of power system elements to preserve system stability or to avoid
unacceptable voltages or overloads in response to system events. There are many reasons for implementing an SPS; for
example, an SPS can be implemented to ensure compliance with the TPL Reliability Standards, to mitigate temporary
operating conditions or abnormal configurations (e.g., during construction or maintenance activities), or in instances where
system operators would not be able to respond quickly enough to avoid adverse system conditions.
6 of 48
Introduction
A second area in which the existing SPS definition lacks clarity is the actions that are characteristics of SPS. The actions listed
in the definition are broad and may unintentionally include equipment whose purpose is not expressly related to preserving
system reliability in response to an event. Inclusion of any system taking corrective action other than isolation of faulted
components to maintain system reliability could be deemed to include equipment such as voltage regulators and switching
controls for shunt reactive devices. This inclusion would then make these elements subject to single component failure
considerations (sometimes referred to as redundancy considerations), coordination, reporting, and maintenance and
testing requirements that may be required in the NERC Reliability Standards related to SPS.
This report proposes a revised definition of SPS to address these issues. Development of the proposed definition considered
other definitions, common applications, and existing practices regarding classification of SPS.
NERC Reliability Standards
The NERC Reliability Standards contain six standards in the protection and control (PRC) series that specifically pertain to
SPS.
PRC-012-0: Special Protection System Review Procedure
PRC-013-0: Special Protection System Database
PRC-014-0: Special Protection System Assessment
PRC-015-0: Special Protection System Data and Documentation
PRC-016-0.1: Special Protection System Misoperations
PRC-017-0: Special Protection System Maintenance and Testing
Three of these standards are not mandatory and enforceable because FERC identified them as fill-in-the-blank standards in
Order No. 693, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System. These standards assign the Regional Reliability
Organizations responsibility to establish regional procedures and databases, and to assess and document the operation,
coordination, and compliance of SPS. The deference to regional practices, coupled with lack of clarity in the definition of
SPS, preclude consistent application of requirements pertaining to SPS. This report provides recommendations that may be
implemented through the NERC Reliability Standards Development Process to consolidate the standards and provide
greater consistency and clarity regarding requirements.
7 of 48
Chapter 1 SPS Definition

Considerations for a Revised Definition
Other Definitions in Industry
3
Several IEEE papers define a similar term to SPS: System Integrity Protection System (SIPS). Adopting the SIPS definition is
not appropriate because it is more inclusive than NERCs definition:
The SIPS encompasses special protection system (SPS), remedial action schemes (RAS), as well as other system
4
integrity schemes, such as underfrequency (UF), undervoltage (UV), out-of-step (OOS), etc.
NERC applies special consideration to UF and UV load shedding schemes in the Reliability Standards and considers OOS
relaying in the context of traditional protection systems. Thus, SIPS is not an appropriate term for use in the Reliability
Standards, and a new definition of SPS is more appropriate.
Common Application of SPS in Industry
Most SPS are used to address a range of system issues including stability, voltage, and loading concerns. Less common
applications include arresting sub-synchronous resonance and suppressing torsional oscillations. Actions taken by SPS may
include (but are not limited to): system reconfiguration, generation rejection or runback, load rejection or shedding,
reactive power or braking resistor insertion, and runback or fast ramping of HVdc.
SPS are often deployed because the operational solutions they facilitate are substantially quicker and less expensive to
implement than construction of transmission infrastructure. Permanent SPS have been implemented in some cases where
the cost associated with system expansion is prohibitive, construction is not possible due to physical constraints, or
obtaining permits is not feasible. In other cases temporary SPS have been implemented to maintain system reliability until
transmission infrastructure is constructed; or when a reliability risk is temporary (e.g., during equipment outages) and the
expense associated with permanent transmission upgrades is not justified.
The deployment of SPS adds complexity to power system operation and planning:
Although SPS deployment usually represents a less costly alternative than building new infrastructure, it carries
with it unique operational elements among which are: (1) risks of failure on demand and of inadvertent activation;
(2) risk of interacting with other SPS in unintended ways; (3) increased management, maintenance, coordination
5
requirements, and analysis complexity.
Subsequent sections of this report consider these three operational elements and provide recommendations regarding how
they should be addressed in the NERC Reliability Standards. A summary of the number of schemes identified as SPS or RAS
by Region is provided below.
Table 1: Overview of SPS by Region 6
Region
Total Number
Region
Total Number
FRCC
20
SERC
20
MRO
36
SPP
NPCC
117
TRE
24
RFC
47
WECC
192
One noteable reference, Madani, et al, IEEE PSRC Report on Global Industry Experiences with System Integrity Protection
Schemes (SIPS), IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 25, Oct. 2010.
4
Ibid.
5
McCalley, et al, System Protection Schemes: Limitations, Risks, and Management, PSERC Publication 10-19, Dec 2010.
6
Numbers for 2011 obtained from data reported in the NERC Reliability Metric ALR6-1.
8 of 48
Classification of SPS Types
Three regions classify SPS according to various criteria, including the type of event the SPS is designed to address as well as
the ability of the SPS to impact on a local versus wide-area reliability. The following information describes how NPCC, WECC
and TRE classify SPS. Please note that examples of regional practices are provided for illustration throughout this document,
but are not necessarily best practices or applicable to all Regions. Also in this context, what constitutes local versus widearea varies among Regions and is not based on the NERC glossary term Wide Area, which is specific to calculation of
7
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits (IROL).
NPCC
Type I A Special Protection System which recognizes or anticipates abnormal system conditions resulting from design
and operating criteria contingencies, and whose misoperation or failure to operate would have a significant adverse
impact outside of the local area. The corrective action taken by the Special Protection System along with the actions
taken by other protection systems are intended to return power system parameters to a stable and recoverable state.
Type II A Special Protection System which recognizes or anticipates abnormal system conditions resulting from
extreme contingencies or other extreme causes, and whose misoperation or failure to operate would have a significant
adverse impact outside of the local area.
Type III A Special Protection System whose misoperation or failure to operate results in no significant adverse impact
outside the local area.
The following terms are also defined by NPCC to assess the impact of the SPS for their classification:
Significant adverse impact With due regard for the maximum operating capability of the affected systems, one or
more of the following conditions arising from faults or disturbances, shall be deemed as having significant adverse
impact:
a.
system instability;
b.
unacceptable system dynamic response or equipment tripping;
c.
voltage levels in violation of applicable emergency limits;
d.
loadings on transmission facilities in violation of applicable emergency limits;
e.
unacceptable loss of load.
Local area An electrically confined or radial portion of the system. The geographic size and number of system
elements contained will vary based on system characteristics. A local area may be relatively large geographically with
relatively few buses in a sparse system, or be relatively small geographically with a relatively large number of buses in a
densely networked system.
W ECC
Local Area Protection Scheme (LAPS): A Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) whose failure to operate would NOT result in
any of the following:
Violations of TPL-(001 thru 004)-WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria,
Maximum load loss 300 MW,
Maximum generation loss 1000 MW.
The NERC Glossary defines Wide Area as The entire Reliability Coordinator Area as well as the critical flow and status
information from adjacent Reliability Coordinator Areas as determined by detailed system studies to allow the calculation
of Interconnected Reliability Operating Limits.
9 of 48
Wide Area Protection Scheme (WAPS): A Remedial Action Scheme (RAS) whose failure to operate WOULD result in any
of the following:
Violations of TPL-(001 thru 004)-WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria,
Maximum load loss 300 MW,
Maximum generation loss 1000 MW.
Safety Net: A type of Remedial Action Scheme designed to remediate TPL-004-0 (System Performance Following
Extreme Events Resulting in the Loss of Two or More Bulk Electric System Elements (Category D)), or other extreme
events.
TR E:
(a) A Type 1 SPS is any SPS that has wide-area impact and specifically includes any SPS that:
(i) Is designed to alter generation output or otherwise constrain generation or imports over DC Ties; or
(ii) Is designed to open 345 kV transmission lines or other lines that interconnect Transmission Service Providers
(TSPs) and impact transfer limits.
(b) A Type 2 SPS is any SPS that has only local-area impact and involves only the facilities of the owner-TSP.
These three regional classifications can be roughly mapped:
NPCC Type I = WECC WAPS = TRE Type 1
NPCC Type III = WECC LAPS = TRE Type 2
NPCC Type II = WECC Safety Net
SPS classification differentiates the reliability risk associated with SPS and provides a means to establish more or less
stringent requirements consistent with the reliability risk. For example, it may be appropriate to establish less stringent
requirements pertaining to monitoring or single component failure of SPS that present a lower reliability risk. A
recommendation for classification of SPS is included with the proposed definition and subsequent discussion of standard
requirements includes recommendations where different requirements based on classification are deemed appropriate.
Common Exclusions from the SPS Definition in Industry
Exclusions provide a means to assure that specific protection or control systems are not unintentionally included as SPS.
The NERC glossary definition of SPS states that An SPS does not include (a) underfrequency or undervoltage load shedding
or (b) fault conditions that must be isolated or (c) out-of-step relaying (not designed as an integral part of an SPS).
Even with the exclusions in the NERC definition, other commonly applied protection and control systems meet the general
language in the SPS definition. Considerable effort has been expended by industry discussing what systems are SPS. NPCC
and SERC have documented examples of exclusions to the SPS definition in their regional guidelines. NPCC explicitly
excludes Automatic underfrequency load shedding; Automatic undervoltage load shedding and manual or automatic
8
locally controlled shunt devices. SERCs SPS guideline calls out specific exclusions as follows:
a.
UFLS and/or UVLS,
b.
Fault conditions that must be isolated including bus breakup / backup / breaker failure
protection,
c.
Relays that protect for specific equipment damage (such as overload, overcurrent, hotspot,
reclose blocking, etc.),
d.
Out of step relaying,
e.
Capacitor bank / reactor controls,
NPCC Glossary of Terms Used by Directories

10 of 48
f.
Load Tap Changer (LTC) controls,
g.
Automated actions that could be performed by an operator in a reasonable amount of time,

including alternate source schemes, and
h.
Scheme that trips generation to prevent islanding
A recommended list of protection and control systems that should be excluded from classification as SPS is included with
the proposed definition.
Exclusion for Operator Aides
SAMS and SPCS considered a number of factors in discussing this subject including:
1) whether the actions are required to be completed with such urgency that it would be difficult for an operator to
react and execute in the necessary time, and
2) whether the required actions are of such complexity or across such a large area that it would be difficult for an
operator to perform the actions in the necessary time.
It is difficult to address these questions with concise and measurable terms, making it difficult to explicitly exclude them in
the definition without introducing ambiguous terms counter to the objective of providing needed clarity in the SPS
definition. Whether its existence is based upon convenience or not, any automated system with the potential to impact
bulk power system reliability should be defined and expressed to the appropriate authority (e.g., Planning Coordinator,
Reliability Coordinator) for the purposes of system modeling and coordination studies, to ensure that these systems are
properly coordinated with other protection and control systems, and to ensure that inadvertent operations do not result in
adverse system impacts.
On these bases, SAMS and SPCS decided not to provide an exclusion for schemes based on a general criterion as to whether
the scheme automates actions that an operator could perform in a reasonable amount of time or schemes installed for
operator convenience. However, SAMS and SPCS do recommend exclusions for specific applications that meet these criteria
such as automatic sequences that are initiated manually by an operator. Furthermore, any scheme that is not installed to
meet system performance requirements identified in the NERC Reliability Standards, or to limit the impact of two or more
elements removed, an extreme event, or Cascading would be excluded by definition, regardless of whether it is installed to
assist an operator.
Voltage Threshold
All elements, at any voltage level, of an SPS intended to remediate performance issues on the bulk electric system (BES), or
of an SPS that acts upon BES elements, should be subject to the NERC requirements.
Proposed Definition
The proposed definition clarifies the areas that have been interpreted differently between individual entities and within
Regions, in some cases leading to differing regional definitions of SPS. The proposed definition provides a framework for
differentiating among SPS with differing levels of reliability risk and will support the drafting of new or revised SPS
standards.
Special Protection System (SPS)
A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and automatically take corrective actions,
other than the isolation of faulted elements, to meet system performance requirements identified in the
NERC Reliability Standards, or to limit the impact of: two or more elements removed, an extreme event,
or Cascading.
Subject to the exclusions below, such schemes are designed to maintain system stability, acceptable
system voltages, acceptable power flows, or to address other reliability concerns. They may execute
actions that include but are not limited to: changes in MW and Mvar output, tripping of generators and
other sources, load curtailment or tripping, or system reconfiguration.
11 of 48
The following schemes do not constitute an SPS in and of themselves:

a)
Underfrequency or undervoltage load shedding
b) Locally sensing devices applied on an element to protect it against equipment damage for nonfault conditions by tripping or modifying the operation of that element, such as, but not limited
to, generator loss-of-field or transformer top-oil temperature
c)
Autoreclosing schemes
d) Locally sensed and locally operated series and shunt reactive devices, FACTS devices, phaseshifting transformers, variable frequency transformers, generation excitation systems, and tapchanging transformers
e)
Schemes that prevent high line voltage by automatically switching the affected line
f)
Schemes that automatically de-energize a line for non-fault operation when one end of the line is
open
g)
Out-of-step relaying
h) Schemes that provide anti-islanding protection (e.g., protect load from effects of being isolated
with generation that may not be capable of maintaining acceptable frequency and voltage)
i)
Protection schemes that operate local breakers other than those on the faulted circuit to
facilitate fault clearing, such as, but not limited to, opening a circuit breaker to remove infeed so
protection at a remote terminal can detect a fault or to reduce fault duty
j)
Automatic sequences that proceed when manually initiated solely by an operator
k)
Sub-synchronous resonance (SSR) protection schemes
l)
Modulation of HVdc or SVC via supplementary controls such as angle damping or frequency
damping applied to damp local or inter-area oscillations
m) A Protection System that includes multiple elements within its zone of protection, or that isolates
more than the faulted element because an interrupting device is not provided between the
faulted element and one or more other elements
SPS are categorized into four distinct types. These types may be subject to different requirements within
the NERC Reliability Standards.
Type PS (planning-significant): A scheme designed to meet system performance requirements

identified in the NERC Reliability Standards, where failure or inadvertent operation of the
scheme can have a significant impact on the BES.
Type PL (planning-limited): A scheme designed to meet system performance requirements

identified in the NERC Reliability Standards, where failure or inadvertent operation of the
scheme can have only a limited impact on the BES.
Type ES (extreme-significant): A scheme designed to limit the impact of two or more elements
removed, an extreme event, or Cascading, where failure or inadvertent operation of the scheme
can have a significant impact on the BES.
Type EL (extreme-limited): A scheme designed to limit the impact of two or more elements
removed, an extreme event, or Cascading, where failure or inadvertent operation of the scheme
can have only a limited impact on the BES.
An SPS is classified as having a significant impact on the BES if failure or inadvertent operation of the
scheme results in any of the following:
Non-Consequential Load Loss 300 MW

12 of 48
Aggregate resource loss (tripping or runback of generation or HVdc) > the largest Real Power
9
resource within the interconnection
Loss of synchronism between two or more portions of the system each including more than one
generating plant
Negatively damped oscillations
If none of these criteria are met, the SPS is classified as having a limited impact on the BES.
Definition of Significant and Limited Impact
The parameters used to define the bright line between significant and limited impacts are proposed to consider only
the electrical scale of the event. Defining the bright line in this way eliminates the difficulty in distinguishing the geographic
impact of an SPS as either wide or local.
NERC Standard EOP-004-1, DOE Form OE-417 Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report, establishes the criteria
by which an event is categorized as a Disturbance and requires a disturbance report. In terms of SPS, the proposed criteria
for significant impact mirrors EOP-004-1 by including a non-consequential load loss value of 300 MW.
NERC Reliability Standards require consideration of loss of any generating unit; therefore, generating unit loss would not
impact reliability of the bulk power system unless the combined capacity loss exceeds the largest unit within the
interconnection. The generation loss level was selected as a loss greater than the largest unit within an interconnection on
this basis.
Tripping multiple generating units exceeding the capacity of the largest unit within an interconnection, system separation
(loss of synchronism) that results in isolation of a portion of an interconnection, or system oscillations that increase in
magnitude (negatively-damped) are indicators of adverse impact to the reliability of an interconnection. These criteria
identify system performance indicative of the potential for instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages,
without requiring detailed analyses to confirm the extent to which instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading outages
may occur. These indicators, combined with the loss of load criterion, are proposed to identify the potential reliability risk
associated with failure of a SPS. Subsequent sections of this report recommend requirements for assessment and design of
SPS based on whether the potential reliability risk associated with the SPS are significant versus limited impacts.
The proposed thresholds differentiate between significant and limited impact. While it should be clear there is no upper
threshold on what constitutes a significant impact, there also is no lower threshold proposed as to what constitutes limited
impact. Whether a scheme is an SPS is determined by the definition; significant and limited impact are used only to classify
SPS. For example, if a scheme is installed to meet system performance requirements identified in the NERC Reliability
Standards then it is an SPS regardless of its potential impact. A failure of the SPS would result in a violation of a NERC
Reliability Standard. Thus, excluding a scheme with impact below a certain threshold would undermine the reliability
objective of the standard requirement the scheme is installed to address.
I.e., Eastern, Western, ERCOT, or Quebec Interconnection.

13 of 48
Chapter 2 Design and Maintenance Requirements

Under the proposed definition, SPS are implemented to preserve acceptable system performance, and as such may be
critical to power system reliability and therefore subject to single component failure considerations, and maintenance and
testing requirements outlined in the PRC standards.
General Design Considerations
Aside from the single component failure, and maintenance and testing considerations outlined below, Disturbance
Monitoring Equipment should be provided in the design of an SPS to permit analysis of the SPS performance following an
event. Also, as with other automated systems, the design of an SPS should facilitate its maintenance and testing.
SPS Single Component Failure Requirements
Requirement R1.3 in PRC-012-0 requires SPS owners to demonstrate an SPS is designed so that a single SPS component
failure, when the SPS was intended to operate, does not prevent the interconnected transmission system from meeting the
performance requirements defined in NERC Reliability Standards TPL-001-0, TPL-002-0, and TPL-003-0. This requirement
should be retained in future standards such that Types PS and PL SPS are required to be designed so that power system
performance meets the performance requirements of TPL-001-0, TPL-002-0, or TPL-003-0, in the event of a single
component failure. The design of Type PS and PL SPS can provide the required performance through any of the methods
outlined below, or a combination of these methods:
1.
Arming more load or generation than necessary to meet the intended results. Thus the failure of the scheme to
drop a portion of load or generation would not be an issue. In this context it is necessary to arm the tripping of
more load delivery points or generating units rather than simply arming more MW of load or generation. When
this option is used, studies of the SPS design must demonstrate that tripping the total armed amount of load or
generation will not cause other adverse impacts to reliability.
2.
Providing redundancy of SPS components listed below.
Any single ac current source and/or related input to the SPS. Separate secondary windings of a free-standing
current transformer (CT) or multiple CTs on a common bushing should be considered an acceptable level of
redundancy.
Any single ac voltage source and/or related input to the SPS. Separate secondary windings of a common
capacitance coupled voltage transformer (CCVT), voltage transformer (VT), or similar device should be
considered an acceptable level of redundancy.
Any single device used to measure electrical quantities used by the SPS.
Any single communication channel and/or any single piece of related communication equipment used by the
SPS.
Any single computer or programmable logic device used to analyze information and provide SPS operational
output.
Any single element of the dc control circuitry that is used for the SPS, including breaker closing circuits.
Any single auxiliary relay or auxiliary device used by the SPS.
Any single breaker trip coil for any breaker operated by the SPS.
Any single station battery or single charger, or other single dc source, where central monitoring is not
provided for both low voltage and battery open conditions.
14 of 48
Chapter 2 Design and Maintenance Requirements

10
3.
Using remote or time delayed actions such as breaker failure protection or alternative automatic actions to back
up failures of single components (e.g., an independent scheme that trips an element if an overload exists for
longer than the time necessary for the SPS to take action). The backup operation would still need to provide
mitigation to meet the necessary result in the required timeframe.
4.
For Type PL SPS, manual backup operation may be used to address the failure of a single SPS component if studies
are provided to show that implemented procedures will be effective in providing the required response when a
SPS failure occurs. The implemented procedures will include alarm response and manual operation time
requirements to provide the backup functions.
Some SPS utilize an Energy Management System (EMS) system for transmitting signals or calculating information necessary
for SPS operation such as the amount of load or generation to trip. Loss of the EMS system must be considered when
assessing the impact of a single component failure. For example, when the EMS is used to transmit a signal, a separate
communication path must be available. When a non-redundant EMS provides a calculated value to two otherwise
independent systems, a backup calculation or default value must be provided to the SPS in the event of an EMS failure.
Types ES and EL SPS are designed to provide system protection against extreme events. The events that Types ES and EL SPS
are intended to address have a lower probability of occurrence and the TPL standards do not require mitigation for these
events. Dependability of SPS operation is therefore not critical for these events and, consistent with the existing standards,
these SPS should not be required to perform their protection functions even with a single component failure. Design
requirements for Type ES SPS should emphasize security; however, in some cases Type ES SPS are installed to address an
event with consequences so significant (e.g., system separation or collapse of an interconnection) that consideration should
be given to both dependability and security. In consideration that the addition of redundancy in some cases might make the
11
SPS less secure, such cases may warrant implementation of a voting scheme .
Maintenance and Testing
The Project 2007-17, Protection System Maintenance and Testing, drafting team revised PRC-005 to include maintenance
12
and testing requirements for SPS contained in PRC-017-0. All of the existing requirements in PRC-017-0 that are based on
a reliability objective are mapped to PRC-005-2. However, this report identifies two subjects that are not covered in either
the existing standard or the proposed standard:
Complex SPS require different procedures than those used for maintenance of protection systems.
Maintenance of non-protection system components used in SPS is not addressed in any existing NERC Reliability
Standards.
These subjects should be addressed in a future revision of PRC-005 or development of a separate standard.
10
In this context it is not intended that breaker failure protection must be redundant; rather, that breaker failure protection
may be relied on to meet the design requirements (e.g., if an SPS required tripping a breaker with a single trip coil).
11
A voting scheme achieves both dependable and secure operation by requiring, for example, two out of three schemes to
detect the condition prior to initiating action.
12
PRC-005-2 was adopted by the NERC Board of Trustees on November 7, 2012
15 of 48
Chapter 3 Study and Documentation Requirements

Review and Approval of New or Modified SPS
Requirement R1 in PRC-012-0 requires each Regional Reliability Organization to have a documented review procedure to
ensure that SPS comply with regional criteria and NERC Reliability Standards. However, the potential for SPS interaction and
for SPS operation or misoperation to have inter-regional impacts suggests that a uniform procedure for reviewing SPS is
important to ensure bulk power system reliability. This report recommends fundamental aspects that should be included in
a continent-wide SPS review procedure and included in the revised reliability standards pertaining to SPS. The review
process should be conducted by an entity or entities with the widest possible view of system reliability, and must be a user,
owner, or operator of the bulk power system. To assure that both planning and operating views are evaluated before a new
or modified SPS is placed in service, responsibility for reviewing and approving implementation of SPS should be assigned to
the Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator. Ideally these reviews should be performed on a regional or
interconnection-wide basis. If in the future an entity is registered as the Reliability Assurer for each Region, the
responsibility for performing these reviews, or alternately for coordinating these reviews, should be assigned to the
Reliability Assurer.
A continent-wide review process should be established in a revised reliability standard that includes the following aspects:
13
The SPS owner should be required to obtain approval from its Reliability Coordinator and its Planning
14
Coordinator in whose area the SPS is installed prior to placing a new or modified SPS in service.
An entity proposing a new or modified SPS should be required to file an application with its Reliability Coordinator
and Planning Coordinator that includes the following information:
o
A document outlining the details of the SPS as specified below in the section titled, Data Submittals by Entities
that Own SPS.
Studies that demonstrate the operation, coordination, and effectiveness of the SPS, including the impacts of
correct operation, a failure to operate, and inadvertent operation. The study report should include the
15
following:
Entity conducting the SPS study
Study completion date
Study years
System conditions
Contingencies analyzed
Demonstration that the SPS meets criteria discussed in the Design Considerations chapter of this report
Discussion of coordination of the SPS with other SPS, UFLS, UVLS, and protection systems
The Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator should be required to provide copies of the application and
supporting information to Transmission Planners, Transmission Operators, and Balancing Authorities within their
area, and to adjacent Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators.
Entities receiving the application should be allowed to provide comments to the Reliability Coordinator and
Planning Coordinator.
13
In cases where more than one entity owns an SPS, the standards should designate that a designated reporting entity be
responsible for transmitting data to the Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator, while all owners retain
responsibility for other requirements such as maintenance and testing.
14
In cases where an SPS has components installed in or takes action in more than one Reliability Coordinator area or
Planning Coordinator area, all affected Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators should have approval authority.
15
The same documentation requirements should apply to Periodic Comprehensive Assessments of SPS Coordination.
16 of 48
When deciding whether to approve an SPS, the Reliability Coordinator and the Planning Coordinator in whose area
the SPS is to be installed or modified should be required to consider supporting information provided with the
application; comments from Transmission Planners, Transmission Operators, and Balancing Authorities and other
Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators; and any supplemental information provided by the SPS owner.
The basis of the Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator approval should be limited to whether all
required information has been submitted and the studies are sufficient to support that all performance
requirements are met.
Assessment of Existing SPS

Study of SPS in Annual Transmission Planning Assessments
Requirement R1 in PRC-014-0 specifically addresses assessment of the operation, coordination, and effectiveness of all SPS
and assigns this responsibility to the Regional Reliability Organization. Reliability standards must assign responsibility to
owners, operators, and users of the bulk power system. For assessments of SPS, it is important to identify an entity with the
necessary expertise in system studies and a wide-area view to facilitate coordination of SPS across the system. Instead of
assigning this responsibility to the Regional Reliability Organization or the Regional Entity, the assessment responsibility
should be assigned to the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner for SPS within their specific area.
Annually, the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner should review the operation, coordination, and effectiveness
of the SPS, including the impacts of correct operation, a failure to operate, and inadvertent operation. If system changes
have occurred which can affect the operation of the SPS, annual studies should include system conditions and
contingencies modeled in the study supporting the application for installation of or modifications to an SPS.
Any issues identified should be documented and submitted to the Reliability Coordinator and the SPS owner. The Reliability
Coordinator and Planning Coordinator should be required to determine, in consultation with the SPS owner, whether a
corrective action plan is required, and if so, whether the SPS can remain in-service or must be removed from service until a
corrective action plan is implemented. If a corrective action plan is required, the SPS owner should be required to submit an
application for a modified SPS as described above in the section titled Review and Approval of New or Modified SPS.
Periodic Comprehensive Assessments of SPS Coordination
Comprehensive assessment should occur every five years, or sooner, if significant changes are made to system topology or
operating characteristics that may impact the coordination among SPS and between SPS and UFLS, UVLS, and other
protection systems. Responsibility for the comprehensive assessment should be assigned to the Reliability Coordinator to
achieve the wide-area review necessary for a comprehensive assessment. Planning Coordinators, Transmission Planners,
Transmission Operators, Balancing Authorities, and adjacent Reliability Coordinators should be required to provide support
to the Reliability Coordinator when requested to do so. As part of the periodic review the Reliability Coordinator should be
required to request the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner to assess and document whether the SPS is still
necessary, serves its intended purpose, meets criteria discussed in the Design Considerations chapter of this report,
coordinates with other SPS, UFLS, UVLS, and protection systems, and does not have unintended adverse consequences on
reliability.
The Reliability Coordinator should be required to provide its periodic assessment to Planning Coordinators, Transmission
Planners, Transmission Operators, and Balancing Authorities in its area, and to adjacent Reliability Coordinators, and should
be required to consider comments provided by these entities. Any issues identified with an SPS should be documented and
submitted to the SPS owner. If any concerns are identified, the Reliability Coordinator and the Planning Coordinator in
whose area the SPS is installed should determine, in consultation with the SPS owner, whether a corrective action plan is
required, and if so, whether the SPS can remain in-service or must be removed from service until a corrective action plan is
implemented. If a corrective action plan is required, the SPS owner should be required to submit an application for a
modified SPS as described above in the section titled Review and Approval of New or Modified SPS.
17 of 48
Documentation Requirements
Data Submittals by Entities that Own SPS
Reliability standard PRC-015-0 establishes requirements for SPS owners to provide data for existing and proposed SPS as
specified in reliability standard PRC-013-0 Requirement R1. PRC-013-0 establishes the data provided shall include the
following:
Design Objectives Contingencies and system conditions for which the SPS was designed
Operation The actions taken by the SPS in response to Disturbance conditions
Modeling Information on detection logic or relay settings that control operation of the SPS
This requirement should be carried forward to the revised standards for the SPS owner to provide detailed information
regarding the conditions of SPS operation. However, this requirement should be modified to ensure that communication of
this information is clear and understandable to all entities that require the information to plan and operate the bulk power
system (e.g., Planning Coordinators, Transmission Planners, Reliability Coordinators, Transmission Operators, and Balancing
Authorities). Additional specificity should be added to this list of data to assure that sufficient information is provided for
entities to understand and model SPS operation.
Since SPS design and complexity vary considerably, a brief description of the action taken when certain system conditions
are detected generally does not provide a sufficient level of detail. Conversely, logic and control wiring diagrams may
provide too much detail that is not readily understood except by the SPS owners protection and control engineers. To
achieve an appropriate level of detail that provides a common understanding by the SPS owner and other entities, the SPS
owner should work with the Transmission Planner to develop a document outlining the details of the SPS operation
specifically tailored to the needs and knowledge level of the entities that require this information to plan and operate the
bulk power system. The document should include the following:
SPS name
SPS owner
Expected in-service date
Whether the SPS is intended to be permanent or temporary
SPS classification (per revised definition), and documentation or explanation of how the SPS mitigates the planning
or extreme event and why the impact is significant or limited
Logic diagram, flow chart, or truth table documenting the scheme logic and illustrating how functional operation is
accomplished
Whether the SPS logic is:
16
Event-based
Parameter-based
A combination of event-based and parameter-based
17
System performance criteria violation necessitating the SPS (e.g., thermal overload, angular instability, poor
oscillation damping, voltage instability, under-/over-voltage, slow voltage recovery)
16
Event-based schemes directly detect outages and/or fault events and initiate actions such as generator/load tripping to
fully or partially mitigate the event impact. This open-loop type of control is commonly used for preventing system
instabilities when necessary remedial actions need to be applied as quickly as possible.
17
Parameter-based schemes measure variables for which a significant change confirms the occurrence of a critical event.
This is also a form of open-loop control but with indirect event detection. The indirect method is mainly used to detect
remote switching of breakers (e.g., at the opposite end of a line) and significant sudden changes which can cause
instabilities, but may not be readily detected directly. To provide timely remedial action execution, the measured variables
may include power, angles, etc., and/or their derivatives.
18 of 48
Parameters and equipment status monitored as inputs to the SPS (e.g., voltage, current or power flow, breaker
position) and specific monitoring points and locations
Under what conditions the SPS is armed (e.g., always armed, armed for certain system conditions, actuation
thresholds)
Whether arming is accomplished automatically or manually, if required
Arming criteria analog quantities and/or equipment status monitored to determine existence of the system
condition for which SPS is armed (e.g., generation/load patterns, reactive power reserves, facility loading)
Action taken for example: transmission facilities switched in or out; generators tripped, runback, or started; load
dropped; tap setting changed (phase-shifting transformer); controller set-point changed (AVR, SVC, HVdc
converter); turbine fast valving or generator excitation forcing; braking resistor insertion
Time to operate, including intentional time delays (e.g., timer settings) and inherent delays (e.g., relay operating
time)
Information with sufficient detail necessary to model the SPS.
SPS Database
PRC-013-0, Requirement R1 requires the Regional Reliability Organization to maintain an SPS database, including data on
design objectives, operation, and modeling of each SPS. Similar to the other requirements presently assigned to the
Regional Reliability Organization, this requirement should be assigned to a user, owner, or operator of the bulk power
system. To minimize the number of databases and facilitate sharing of information with entities that require SPS data to
plan and operate the bulk power system, this requirement should be assigned to the Planning Coordinator. The Planning
18
Coordinator should be required to provide its database to NERC for the purpose maintaining a continent-wide data base
that NERC would make available to Reliability Coordinators, Transmission Operators, Balancing Authorities, Planning
Coordinators, and Transmission Planners that require this data. The database should contain information for each SPS as
described above in the section titled, Data Submittals by Entities that Own SPS.
18
The requirement in a NERC Reliability Standard would be applicable to the Planning Coordinator; the responsibility for
NERC to maintain a continent-wide database should be addressed outside the standard.
19 of 48
Chapter 4 Operational Requirements

Due to their unique nature, SPS may have special operational considerations, with potentially differing requirements among
the proposed types for monitoring, notification of status, and the response time required to address SPS failure.
Furthermore, consideration should be given to the documentation of procedures for operator interaction with SPS, and
how operators should respond to SPS failures.
One entity should be assigned primary responsibility for monitoring, coordination, and control of an SPS. Depending on the
complexity, this responsible party may be a Reliability Coordinator, Balancing Authority, or Transmission Operator. Complex
SPS may have multiple owners or affected entities, including different functional entities and the chain of notification and
control should be clearly established.
Monitoring of Status
Existing NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-3.1a, Requirement R1.1 requires Reliability Coordinators to monitor SPS.
Similarly PRC-001-1, Requirement R6 requires Balancing Authorities and Transmission Operators to monitor SPS. The SPS
standards should establish the level of monitoring capability that must be provided by the SPS owner. Classification of the
SPS will dictate its design criteria and may lend itself to different levels of monitoring.
All SPS should be monitored by SCADA/EMS with real-time status communicated to EMS that minimally includes whether
the scheme is in-service or out-of-service, and the current operational state of the scheme. For SPS that are armed
manually the arming status may be the same as whether the SPS is in-service or out-of-service. For SPS that are armed
automatically these two states are independent because an SPS that has been placed in-service may be armed or unarmed
based on whether the automatic arming criteria have been met. In cases where the classification of the SPS requires
redundancy, the minimal status indications should be provided for each system. The minimum status is sufficient for
operational purposes; however, where possible it may be useful to provide additional information regarding partial failures
or the status of critical components to allow the SPS owner to more efficiently troubleshoot a reported failure. Whether
this capability exists will depend in part on the design and vintage of equipment used in the SPS. While all schemes should
be required to provide the minimum level of monitoring, new schemes should be designed with the objective of providing
monitoring similar to what is provided for microprocessor-based protection systems.
Similarly, the SCADA/EMS presentation to the operator would need to indicate the criticality of the scheme (e.g., through
the use of audible alarms and a high priority in the alarm queue). The operator would be expected to know how to respond
depending on the nature of the issue detected, as some partial SPS failures might not result in a complete failure of the
scheme.
In cases where SPS cross ownership and operational boundaries, it is important that all entities involved with the SPS are
provided with an appropriate level of monitoring.
Notification of Status
Since the owner and operator of an SPS or component are often different organizations, and because SPS may cross entity
boundaries, it is important that the SPS status is communicated appropriately between entities. Existing NERC Reliability
Standards already require some level of notification of SPS status by Reliability Coordinators, Balancing Authorities and
19
Transmission Operators. Furthermore, SPS owners (e.g., Transmission Owner, Generator Owner) should be responsible
for communicating scheme or component issues to the operating organizations (e.g., Transmission Operator, Generator
Operator), who should then be responsible for communicating the issues to the involved Reliability Coordinator, Balancing
Authority, and other Transmission Operators or Generator Operators that might rely on the SPS (for example, in setting
operating limits).
The required timing associated with such notification will depend on the type of scheme; for example, the misoperation of
a Type PS or ES scheme would require rapid notification to all interested parties. In general, the more critical a scheme is to
the reliability of the system, the then more important its notification and response; however, it is also important that some
19
See, for example, IRO-005-3.1a Requirement R9 and PRC-001-1, Requirement R6.

20 of 48
Chapter 4 Operational Requirements
level notification be made for all schemes, due to the complex nature of SPS and their interaction with each other, to allow
entities to understand the reliability impact of a neighboring entitys SPS failure or misoperation.
Response to Failures
As with many of the other issues, the response time required to address SPS failure is tightly coupled to the potential
impact of the SPS as well as the operating conditions at the time of failure. For example, if the SPS is intended to address an
event with a significant impact such as an IROL, then any corrective action in response to a misoperation would need to be
20
taken in 30 minutes or less, consistent with the TV associated with the IROL. On the other hand, depending on the
operating conditions, a particular schemes unavailability may not result in an adverse impact to reliability. Actions taken
following an SPS failure should consider whether the failure affects dependability or security of the SPS and the potential
impact to reliability.
Generally speaking, the SPS failure modes are known and the necessary corrective actions are documented (e.g.,
contingency plans) so that the system can be placed in a safe operating state. In any case, a full or partial failure of an SPS
requires that the system performance level provided by having the SPS in service is met, or a more conservative and safe
operating condition would need to be achieved, in a timeframe appropriate for the nature of the SPS and operating
conditions. When one system of a redundant SPS fails, the action taken by the operator may depend on the system
conditions the SPS is installed to address and the operating conditions at the time of the failure. For example, an operator
may respond to failure of one system by operating to higher equipment ratings when an SPS is installed to address thermal
loading violations. However, the operator may not be able to rely on the remaining system of a redundant SPS when the
SPS is installed to prevent instability, system separation, or cascading outages, in which case the operator must reduce
transfers or take other actions to secure the system.
Operational Documentation
Operational documentation is necessary to provide the operator with enough information to understand all aspects of the
scheme and is used to provide knowledge transfer as staff changes occur. Overall documentation requirements are
identified in the section on Study and Documentation Requirements; however, the operator does not require all
information provided by the SPS owner for the database maintained by the Planning Coordinator. The operational
documentation is sometimes called a description of operations and provides the operation actions for the following
areas:
General Description This provides an overview of the purpose of the scheme including the monitoring, set points
and actions of the scheme. The operator and other stake holders can use this information to understand the need
for the scheme.
Operation This will provide the specific information concerning, arming, alarming, and actions taken by this
scheme including the monitoring points of the scheme. The operator can use this information to provide triage and
plan a course of action concerning restoration of the electric system. This information should provide an
understanding of what has operated, why these elements have been impacted, and possible mitigations or
restoration activities.
Failures, Alarms, Targeting This information will provide the operator and first responders with descriptions of
alarms and targets and the actions needed when the scheme is rendered unusable either during maintenance or
because of a failure. The instructions will guide the operator on how to respond to component failures that
partially impair the scheme or those failures that might disable entire scheme.
Regulatory agencies provide oversight of these schemes and require owners of these schemes to provide descriptions and
operational information. NERC PRC-015 requires owners to provide description of schemes and the Study and
Documentation Requirements section of this report proposes specific documentation requirements for inclusion in a
revised standard. In addition to NERC, some Regional Entities also require SPS owners to provide the Region with additional
information concerning the operations of the schemes. Some regional regulatory agencies also require the owners to verify
that they have taken certain actions after a misoperation or a failure of these schemes.
20
Specifically, TV is discussed in NERC Reliability Standard IRO-009-1, Requirement R2.

21 of 48
Chapter 5 Analysis of SPS Operations

Operations of SPS provide an opportunity to assess their performance in actual operating power systems, as opposed to
assessing the impact through a preconceived set of system studies. Analysis of SPS operations is presently addressed in
PRC-012-0 and PRC-016-0.1, which establish requirements for Regional Reliability Organizations and SPS owners
respectively. PRC-012-0 requires that each Regional Reliability Organization establish a regional definition of an SPS
misoperation (R1.6), as well as requirements for analysis and documentation of corrective action plans for all SPS
misoperations (R1.7). PRC-016-0.1 requires that SPS owners analyze their SPS operations and maintain a record of all
misoperations in accordance with their regional SPS review procedure (R1) and that SPS owners take corrective actions to
avoid future misoperations (R2).
PRC-012-0 is one of the standards identified in FERC Order No. 693 as a fill-in-the-blank standard and this standard
therefore is not mandatory and enforceable. SAMS and SPCS have not identified any rationale for having regional
definitions of an SPS misoperation or regional processes for analyzing SPS operations. Establishment of a continent-wide
definition and review process will facilitate meaningful metrics for assessing the impact of SPS misoperations on bulk power
system reliability. Rather than revising PRC-012-0 to assign responsibility for developing regional definitions and review
processes to a user, owner, or operator of the bulk power system, this report recommends that one continent-wide
definition and review process should be established through the NERC Reliability Standard Development Process, and that
criteria be established for SPS owners to follow a continent-wide review process in place of the existing requirements in
PRC-016-0.1.
SPS Misoperation Definition
Establishing a definition of an SPS misoperation must account for the many different aspects affecting whether operation of
an SPS achieves its desired effect on power system performance. In addition to aspects traditionally considered in assessing
protection system misoperations such as failure to operate and unnecessary operation, analysis of an SPS operation also
must consider whether the action was properly initiated and whether the initiated action achieved the desired power
system performance. This report proposes that a tiered definition be used to assess which aspects of an SPS operation are
reportable for metric purposes, which require analysis and reporting to the Reliability Coordinator and Planning
Coordinator, and which require a corrective action plan. The following definition is recommended for an SPS misoperation.
SPS Misoperation
A SPS Misoperation includes any operation that exhibits one or more of the following attributes:
a.
Failure to Operate Any failure of a SPS to perform its intended function within the designed time when
system conditions intended to trigger the SPS occur.
b.
Unnecessary Operation Any operation of a SPS that occurs without the occurrence of the intended system
trigger condition(s).
c.
Unintended System Response Any unintended adverse system response to the SPS operation.
d.
Failure to Mitigate Any failure of the SPS to mitigate the power system conditions for which it is intended.
The SPS review process should include requirements based on the SPS misoperation definition as follows:
The SPS owner must provide analysis of all misoperations to its Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator.
The SPS owner must develop and implement a corrective action plan for all SPS misoperations.
Reporting for reliability metric purposes should be limited to SPS misoperations that exhibit attributes (a) or (b) of
the proposed definition, but should be addressed outside PRC-016-1, in a manner similar to the process under
development for reporting protection system misoperations in Project 2010-05.1 Protection Systems: Phase 1
(Misoperations).
22 of 48
SPS Operation Review Process
The review process should be included in a revised version of PRC-016 and PRC-012-0 should be retired upon approval of a
continent-wide definition and revised PRC-016. The SPS operation review process should require that SPS owners analyze
all SPS operations in sufficient detail to determine whether or not the response of the power system to the SPS operation is
appropriate to meeting the purpose of the SPS. This requirement should be applied uniformly to all SPS types. The time
required to review each SPS operation will vary with the complexity of the SPS.
The analysis of each operation should include:
The power system conditions which triggered the SPS.
A determination of whether or not the SPS responded as designed.
An analysis of the power system response to the SPS operation.
An analysis of the effectiveness of the SPS in mitigating power system issues it was designed to address. This
analysis should identify whether or not those issues existed or were likely to occur at the time of the SPS
operation.
Any unintended or adverse power system response to the SPS operation.
For each SPS operation, the analysis should identify the power system conditions which existed at the time of the SPS
operation. These conditions should be analyzed to determine whether or not the SPS operation was appropriate. This part
of the analysis is to determine both whether or not the SPS operated as designed, and whether or not the conditions the
SPS is intended to mitigate were present at the time of SPS operation.
Some SPS use a proxy to determine the possible existence of a system problem. For example, the opening of a generator
outlet may cause an overload remote from the generator. An SPS could monitor the status of the outlet and run back
generation to avoid the possible overload, rather than monitoring the loading on the potentially impacted element. The
analysis should determine whether the SPS responded to the loss of outlet, and whether the overload actually would have
occurred without SPS operation.
The analysis should also examine the response of the system to the SPS operation. This part of the analysis is to determine
whether or not the SPS is effective in its intended mitigation, and if it has unforeseen adverse or unnecessary impacts on
the power system.
As noted with the proposed definition above, the reporting requirements for each SPS misoperation should vary based on
the attributes of the misoperation. The following discussion proposes reporting requirements and provides rationale for the
type of SPS misoperation to which each should apply.
1.
The SPS owner should be required to provide analysis of the misoperation to its Reliability Coordinator and
Planning Coordinator for all SPS misoperations. The report should be provided to the Reliability Coordinator and
the Planning Coordinator because such misoperations may require a reevaluation of the SPS under the review
process proposed in the Study and Documentation Requirements section. The report should include the corrective
action to assist the Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator in confirming whether the SPS requires
reevaluation.
2.
The SPS owner should be required to develop and implement a corrective action plan for all SPS misoperations.
Reporting details of the corrective action plan should be limited to purposes supporting reliability. As noted above,
the report to the Reliability Coordinator and Planning Coordinator should include corrective actions. If an SPS must
be removed from service or its operation is modified pending implementation of the corrective action plan, the
status must be reported to the Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator, or Balancing Authority.
3.
The SPS owner should be required to report for reliability metric purposes any SPS misoperation that involves a
failure to operate or unnecessary operation. These attributes are analogous to protection system misoperations
that must be reported and involve a failure of the SPS to operate per its installed design. The mechanism for
23 of 48
requiring reporting for reliability metric purposes should be similar to the process for reporting protection system
misoperations under development in Project 2010-05.1: Protection Systems: Phase 1 (Misoperations).
4.
The SPS owner should not be required to report or develop corrective action plans for other failures associated
with an SPS that are not associated with an SPS operation or failure to operate, such as:
Failure to Arm Any failure of a SPS to automatically arm itself for system conditions that are intended to
result in the SPS being automatically armed;
Unnecessary Arming Any automatic arming of a SPS that occurs without the occurrence of the intended
arming system condition(s); and
Failure to Reset Any failure of a SPS to automatically reset following a return of normal system conditions, if
the system design requires automatic reset.
These types of failures can be corrected by the SPS owner without involving the Reliability Coordinator and the
Planning Coordinator, and are analogous to a protection system owner identifying a failed power supply on a relay. If
the failure has not resulted in a misoperation then reporting and corrective action plans are not required. It should be
noted however, that operational requirements apply and if an SPS must be removed from service the status must be
reported to the Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator, or Balancing Authority.
24 of 48
Chapter 6 Recommendations
Definition
The existing SPS definition in the NERC glossary lacks clarity and specificity necessary for consistent identification and
classification of SPS. The following strawman definition is proposed.
Special Protection System
A scheme designed to detect predetermined system conditions and automatically take corrective actions,
other than the isolation of faulted elements, to meet system performance requirements identified in the
NERC Reliability Standards, or to limit the impact of: two or more elements removed, an extreme event,
or Cascading.
Subject to the exclusions below, such schemes are designed to maintain system stability, acceptable
system voltages, acceptable power flows, or to address other reliability concerns. They may execute
actions that include but are not limited to: changes in MW and Mvar output, tripping of generators and
other sources, load curtailment or tripping, or system reconfiguration.
The following schemes do not constitute an SPS in and of themselves:
a)
Underfrequency or undervoltage load shedding
b) Locally sensing devices applied on an element to protect it against equipment damage for nonfault conditions by tripping or modifying the operation of that element, such as, but not limited
to, generator loss-of-field or transformer top-oil temperature
c)
Autoreclosing schemes
d) Locally sensed and locally operated series and shunt reactive devices, FACTS devices, phaseshifting transformers, variable frequency transformers, generation excitation systems, and tapchanging transformers
e)
Schemes that prevent high line voltage by automatically switching the affected line
f)
Schemes that automatically de-energize a line for non-fault operation when one end of the line is
open
g)
Out-of-step relaying
h) Schemes that provide anti-islanding protection (e.g., protect load from effects of being isolated
with generation that may not be capable of maintaining acceptable frequency and voltage)
i)
Protection schemes that operate local breakers other than those on the faulted circuit to
facilitate fault clearing, such as, but not limited to, opening a circuit breaker to remove infeed so
protection at a remote terminal can detect a fault or to reduce fault duty
j)
Automatic sequences that proceed when manually initiated solely by an operator
k)
Sub-synchronous resonance (SSR) protection schemes
l)
Modulation of HVdc or SVC via supplementary controls such as angle damping or frequency
damping applied to damp local or inter-area oscillations
m) A Protection System that includes multiple elements within its zone of protection, or that isolates
more than the faulted element because an interrupting device is not provided between the
faulted element and one or more other elements
25 of 48
Classification
SPS should be classified based on the type of event to which the SPS responds and the consequence of misoperation.
Classification of SPS facilitates standard requirements commensurate with potential reliability risk. Four classifications are
proposed:
Type PS: planning significant,
Type PL: planning limited,
Type ES: extreme significant, and
Type EL: extreme limited.
The planning classification applies to schemes designed to meet system performance requirements identified in the NERC
Reliability Standards, while the extreme classification applies to schemes designed to limit the impact of two or more
elements removed, an extreme event, or Cascading.
The significant classification applies to a scheme for which a failure to operate or inadvertent operation of the scheme can
result in non-consequential load loss greater than or equal to 300 MW, aggregate resource loss (tripping or runback of
generation or HVdc) greater than the largest Real Power resource within the interconnection, loss of synchronism between
two portions of the system, or negatively damped oscillations. The limited classification applies to a scheme for which a
failure to operate or inadvertent operation would not result in a significant impact.
Applicability to Functional Model Entities
Three of the existing SPS-related reliability standards (PRC-012-0, PRC-013-0, and PRC-014-0) assign requirements to the
Regional Reliability Organization. These standards are not mandatory and enforceable because FERC identified them as fillin-the-blank standards in Order No. 693. This report recommends that requirements be reassigned to users, owners, and
operators of the bulk power system in accordance with the NERC Functional Model. The following recommendations are
included in the report:
Review of new or modified SPS assign to Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators.
SPS database maintenance assign to Planning Coordinators; have Planning Coordinators submit databases to
NERC for maintenance of a continent-wide database.
Assessment of existing SPS assign Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners responsibility to include SPS
assessments in annual transmission planning assessments; assign Reliability Coordinators responsibility to
coordinate a periodic assessment of SPS design and coordination.
Revisions to Reliability Standards
Figure 1 provides a high-level overview of recommendations related to the six PRC standards that apply to SPS.
Recommendations include consolidating the six existing standards into three standards.
Combine all requirements pertaining to review, assessment, and documentation of SPS (presently in PRC-012-0,
PRC-013-0, PRC-014-0, and PRC-015-0) in one new standard, PRC-012-1. The requirement in PRC-012-0 for regional
procedures for reviewing SPS misoperations is superseded by recommendations for revisions to PRC-016-0.1. The
requirement in PRC-012-0 for regional maintenance and testing requirements is superseded by PRC-005-2.
Requirements pertaining to analysis and reporting of SPS misoperations should be revised in a new standard, PRC016-1. Due to the significant difference between protection systems and SPS, the subject of SPS misoperations
should not be included in a future revision of PRC-004.
Requirements pertaining to maintenance and testing of SPS already have been translated to PRC-005-2 by the
Project 2007-17 Protection System Maintenance & Testing drafting team.
Additional detail is provided in Table 2 in Appendix C Mapping of Requirements from Existing Standards. This table
summarizes the recommendations for how each requirement in the existing six SPS-related standards should be mapped to
revised standards. The more significant recommendations are summarized below.
26 of 48
PRC-012-0
RRO
Review Procedure
PRC-013-0
RRO
Database
PRC-014-0
RRO
Assessment
PRC-015-0
SPS Owner
Change applicability to RC and PC

Establish a uniform continent-wide SPS
review procedure
Eliminate regional procedures for SPS
misoperations; address in PRC-016-1
Change applicability to PC
Establish continent-wide data requirements
Require PC to submit database to NERC to
establish a continent-wide database
PRC-012-1
RC, PC, TP, and
SPS Owner
Change applicability to PC and TP for annual

assessment and RC for five-year assessment
Expand assessment requirements for
coordination of SPS and protection systems
Review, Assessment,
and Documentation
Keep applicable to SPS owner

Develop detailed list of data that SPS
owners must submit
Data & Documentation
PRC-016-0.1
SPS Owner
Misoperations
PRC-017-0
SPS Owner
Maintenance & Testing
Keep applicable to SPS Owner

Continent-wide definition of SPS
misoperation
Continent-wide requirements for analysis
and reporting
PRC-016-1
Keep applicable to SPS owner

Requirements mapped to PRC-005-2
Recommend additional requirements to
address complexity of SPS and nonprotection system components used in SPS
PRC-005-2
SPS Owner
Misoperations
SPS Owner
Maintenance & Testing
Figure 1 Recommended Mapping of Existing PRC Standards
27 of 48
Standard PRC-012-1 SPS Review, Assessment, and Documentation
SPS owners should be required to design Type PL and Type PS SPS so that a single SPS component failure does not
prevent the interconnected transmission system from meeting the performance requirements defined in NERC
Reliability Standards TPL-001-0, TPL-002-0, or TPL-003-0.
Existing requirements for regional procedures for reviewing new or modified SPS should be replaced with a
continent-wide procedure assigned to Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators to assure a wide-area
view of both planning and operational aspects of SPS.
Annual transmission planning assessments should include an assessment by the Planning Coordinator and
Transmission Planner to review the operation, coordination, and effectiveness of SPS, including the effect of
correct operation, a failure to operate, and inadvertent operations.
Periodic comprehensive assessments (every five years or less) of SPS should be performed by the Reliability
Coordinator, with support as requested from other entities, to assess whether SPS are still necessary, serves their
intended purpose, meet relevant design criteria, coordinate with other SPS, UFLS, UVLS, and protection systems,
and do not have unintended adverse consequences on reliability.
Detailed continent-wide requirements for data submittals should be established for SPS owners proposing new or
modified SPS. Detailed recommendations are included in this report.
Planning Coordinators should be assigned responsibility for maintaining databases containing all information
submitted by SPS owners. Planning Coordinators should be required to submit their databases to NERC so that
NERC can maintain and make available a continent-wide SPS database.
Standard PRC-016-1 SPS Misoperations
PRC-016-1 should include a continent-wide definition of SPS misoperation based on the strawman definition
proposed in this report.
PRC-016-1 should include a continent-wide process for analysis of SPS operations and reporting SPS misoperations,
including requirements for SPS owners to develop corrective action plans and provide analysis of SPS
misoperations to Reliability Coordinators and Planning Coordinators.
Reporting SPS operation and misoperation data for reliability metric purposes should be addressed outside PRC016-1, in a manner similar to the process under development for reporting protection system misoperations in
Project 2010-05.1 Protection Systems: Phase 1 (Misoperations).
Standard PRC-005-2 Protection System Maintenance and Testing
Maintenance and testing requirements for SPS should be expanded in the NERC Reliability Standards to address
the complexity of testing SPS and the maintenance of non-protection system components used in SPS. These
subjects should be addressed in a future revision of PRC-005 or development of a separate standard.
Recommendations to Be Included in Other Standards
This report discusses some aspects of SPS that are not addressed in the six SPS-related PRC standards. Recommendations
should be incorporated in appropriate NERC Reliability Standards.
SPS owners should be required to provide disturbance monitoring equipment to permit analysis of SPS
performance following an event.
Operating entities should be required to provide operators with documentation of procedures for operator
interaction with SPS, and how operators should respond to SPS failures.
All SPS should be monitored by SCADA/EMS with real-time status communicated that minimally includes whether
the scheme is in-service, out-of-service, and the current operational state of the scheme.
One entity should be assigned responsibility for monitoring, coordination, and control of an SPS.
28 of 48
Appendix A Modeling and Simulation Considerations

The addition of two stable control systems does not necessarily result in a stable composite control system; the same is
true for SPS. Although the SPS may not be directly linked in their actions, their composite actions and effect on the electric
system for commonly-sensed system conditions or perturbations can often behave as a single control system. Therefore, it
is imperative that they be evaluated for their potential to interact with each other, particularly during a system disturbance.
The composite interaction of multiple SPS, or of SPS with UFLS, UVLS, or other protection systems could result in system
instability or cascading.
Because of the complexity of some schemes, modeling them in system simulation is currently performed most often by
monitoring their trigger conditions and manually mimicking their intended actions such as changing system configuration,
switching reactive devices, and adjusting or tripping generation. Such manual manipulations in powerflow and dynamics
studies are only effective when studying a single SPS unless an iterative process is used. Even then, manual manipulation
may not be effective and may not be possible in studying the simultaneous actions of multiple SPS that could potentially
interact with each other. The difficulty is most significant when considering the potential interaction of parameter-based
SPS, since interaction with event-based SPS would occur only if the initial event and SPS operation caused a second event to
occur.
It is sometimes possible to simulate the behavior of a single SPS through simulation tools such as user-defined scripts using
vendor-provided or open-source programming capability, or standard relay models in the typical modeling and simulation
software packages. However, doing so for the myriad of SPS that may exist, even in a portion of an interconnection, is
cumbersome. Furthermore, simulating multiple SPS in real-time operations tools (e.g., EMS) for real-time contingency
analysis is extremely difficult and often requires new and innovative algorithm and software development. In addition,
models used in real-time systems are often abridged or reduced equivalents and may not permit accurate representation of
a particular SPSs functions. All of these issues are extremely problematic given the sheer number of SPS in North American
interconnections.
To assure SPS will function in a coordinated fashion may require that they be modeled and studied from their design
inception in the planning horizon, through pre-seasonal system studies that determine transfer capabilities, and in the
operating horizon from day-ahead planning through the real-time contingency analysis that system operators depend on
for guidance. Present analysis methods are limited by the capability of the software tools and management of the SPS, and
in some cases protection system, data. The industry should put emphasis on future developments in these areas.
General Considerations for Simulations
This section puts forth a number of factors, limitations, objectives, and overall guiding principles that a standard drafting
team should consider in development of a new SPS standard with respect to the requirements for modeling and simulation,
including data and process requirements necessary to support accurate and meaningful studies of SPS by Transmission
Planners.
This report assumes that the modeling and simulation activities to be addressed are those performed for the planning
horizon by Transmission Planning personnel. It is assumed that studies are performed using commercial off-the-shelf
software packages and using databases derived from the interconnection-wide series of powerflow and dynamics cases.
Studies using EMS based tools (e.g., study tools built into state estimators, real-time contingency analysis software, etc.) for
real-time operations are not within the scope of this appendix.
It is important however, that the Transmission Planner share the results of planning horizon studies with operations
personnel such that the impacts of SPS are effectively understood for the operating horizon also. This can be accomplished
in a number of ways. Where operations support staff have similar study tools, sharing of the powerflow/dynamics cases,
models, simulation scripts and similar data would enable them to evaluate SPS operation (or misoperation) for the
operating horizon. Providing alarm or action limits for observable parameters (i.e., those that could be monitored in the
operating environment) related to SPS operation would be another possibility. In this case, the parameters may be a direct
indication or a proxy value that is indicative of the system condition of concern. Regardless of the process employed, the
overriding consideration is that study results are adequately translated into actionable intelligence that is available to and
understood by the system operator. While this is not intended to create a recommendation for a specific SPS standard
29 of 48
requirement, how this would ultimately be accomplished should be kept in mind as SPS standards are developed and
implemented.
As a general rule, SPS are conceived by transmission planning engineers and implemented by protection and control
engineers. To some extent, the engineers in these two groups are concerned with different aspects of SPS operation and
use different terminology to describe SPS (and other system) functions. For example, a transmission planner may consider a
protection system component failure to be a contingency while a protection engineer may consider this to be a design
consideration. Transmission planning engineers conceive an SPS as a solution to system-level problems. Their focus is on
the big picture functional operation of the SPS for specific system level conditions. Protection and control engineers
implement an SPS via detailed design using various sensors, relays, etc. Their focus is on efficiently implementing the
functional requirements as they understand them to be. It is imperative that the planning engineers effectively
communicate the requirements of the SPS to protection engineers and monitor the design and implementation of the
scheme to ensure that the SPS is implemented and functions as prescribed by the planner.
The planning and protection engineers should also consult with the operations personnel to ensure that possible systemlevel events which might result in unintended SPS operation are considered. Involving operations personnel at each stage of
the design process will help ensure that the range of operating conditions likely to be encountered in the real world
(including outages), as well as practical operating considerations, are also adequately considered in the SPS design and
implementation.
An explicit requirement should exist to represent the salient features of SPS operation in a form that can be readily shared
with, understood by, and used in simulations by other Transmission Planners. Simulation of SPS in powerflow or dynamic
studies may involve a combination of using standard relay models, various monitoring features, and scripts or program
code to adequately simulate the functioning of the SPS. These may include user-defined scripts using vendor-provided or
open-source programming capability, or standard relay models in the typical modeling and simulation software packages
(either executed during solution-run time or as user-written dynamic models), etc. Transmission Planners generally have
their own individual preferences as to how to reflect these functions when performing simulations. Additionally, different
Transmission Planning organizations have different levels of expertise in developing scenarios to reflect actual system
operation and performing simulations based on those scenarios. Therefore, it is important that the modeling information to
be used by other Transmission Planning engineers as input (including run scripts) in simulations be simple, understandable
and well documented. Any scripts or models provided need to be open source in nature and well-documented to enable
independent verification. The use of user models, FORTRAN object code, compiled scripts, and similar which make it
difficult for the receiving Transmission Planner to review and understand how the SPS model functions must be avoided.
In addition to providing the relay models, program code/script, and similar input as part of the database, a summary
document should be provided explaining the SPS. The information shared must include a summary and guidance document
which includes the following, as applicable.
An overview explanation of the basic functioning of the SPS, describing when and how it operates
A listing of the setpoints applicable to the SPS (e.g., relay trip settings, etc.)
A summary overview of how the SPS is being simulated via relay models, simulation scripts that may be provided
Specific bus numbers, branch identifiers, machine identifiers, etc. should be referenced to help the Transmission
Planner receiving this information understand how the SPS is being simulated
SPS modeling information should be readily available as part of the interconnection-wide modeling processes, but not an
integral part of an interconnection-wide case year database. Specific recommendations are included in the chapter on study
and documentation requirements.
Because of the special nature of SPS, it is not practical or even possible to include them in the interconnection-wide load
flow and/or dynamic database case years in the classic sense (e.g., such as one would include a generator or FACTS device
model). Additionally, it is simply not necessary to model all SPS for all simulations. The reality is that an SPS in the Northeast
will likely have very little impact on the results of simulations focused on the Southeast. Therefore, including all SPS in all
simulations places an unreasonable burden on Transmission Planners. However, due consideration should be given to the
30 of 48
interaction of a given SPS with other SPS. Note that geographical distance alone may not be sufficient justification not to
consider the interaction of several SPS.
However, it is important that information about all SPS be available for use, as deemed appropriate by the Transmission
Planners whose systems may be affected by the SPS operation (or misoperation). It is also important the relevant
parameter-based SPS be modeled concurrently in simulations to appropriately evaluate potential interactions among the
SPS.
Therefore, the data management process for providing SPS information for simulations purposes should include the
following considerations.
Sufficiently detailed SPS information and documentation as described above can be managed as part of the
interconnection-wide powerflow and dynamic case creation process.
Providing the models and simulation scripts alone is not sufficient. A functional description to assist the
Transmission Planner in understanding how these modeling/simulation elements work to emulate the SPS function
is necessary in order for the Transmission Planner to properly simulate and interpret the results of simulations
involving the SPS.
The SPS information may reside separately from the interconnection-wide powerflow and dynamic cases, but a
clear association to each case must be evident.
Each Transmission Planner will be able to select the SPS that are relevant to the simulation they are performing.
Engineering judgment, with a documented reason, for excluding SPS from simulations is acceptable.
Where included, the impact of multiple SPS and their interaction should be reasonably accounted for in the
simulation activities.
It is envisioned that Transmission Planners will generally include only those SPS that, in their judgment, are relative to the
simulations being performed and/or could potentially interact with other SPS being included in these simulations. However,
it would be prudent to have some big picture check for unintended SPS interaction. Therefore, a joint, interconnection-wide
study or assessment should be periodically performed to evaluate potential interactions among SPS across the entire
interconnection. Such a study or assessment should include modeling and simulation of all of the SPS throughout the
interconnection. A periodicity of five years for this joint study is suggested as an appropriate time frame.
Use of SPS Simulations in Transmission Planning Studies
SPS are used as alternatives to transmission infrastructure to support reliable system operation for identified concerns. As
such, these schemes must be analyzed in transmission planning analyses just as any other transmission system addition
would be, with a focus on:
Operation as expected for the design case of concern
Understanding the potential for operation beyond the original design intent
Determining if there is a potential for failure to operate to rectify the design case of concern.
In system planning, the types of studies which are typically performed to determine system performance are powerflow
and dynamic simulations and analyses. SPS need to be modeled in both of these types of studies.
Powerflow (i.e., steady-state) SPS modeling techniques which could be employed include:
Explicit modeling of the SPS monitoring and consequent actions with scripting and programming automatically
called during powerflow processing
Explicit modeling of the actuation of the SPS in contingencies which are expected to cause the SPS to actuate
Contingencies are included in the analysis with and without the SPS actuated
Monitoring of system performance to determine if system conditions would actuate an SPS
31 of 48
The monitoring occurs for all contingencies examined
Any result indicating potential actuation of an SPS is rerun with the SPS actuated
Dynamic (i.e., stability) SPS modeling techniques which could be employed include:
Explicit modeling of the SPS in the dynamic simulation with a model that includes the monitoring and consequent
actions during the dynamic simulations
Explicit modeling of the actuation of the SPS in contingencies which are expected to cause the SPS to actuate
The dynamic/stability contingencies are included in the analysis with and without the SPS actuated
Monitoring of SPS trigger elements (voltage, current, flow and/or frequency on system elements or element
status) to determine if actuation of an SPS would have actuated
o
Rerun the simulation with the SPS actuated if the monitored results indicate potential actuation of the SPS
The SPS modeling techniques used in system planning should be based upon modeling information provided by the SPS
owner which clearly describes what the SPS senses and the consequent actions taken when its triggering needs are met.
The need for accurate modeling information can be demonstrated with an example. In the example, two SPS exist in an
area. One SPS trips a large generating plant for loss of a transmission circuit due to first swing stability concerns. This SPS
acts within cycles of the initiating line loss. The second SPS inserts a series reactor into a transmission circuit to limit flow
and eliminate an overload on the circuit. The second SPS acts within seconds (5 seconds for this example) of the overload
condition occurring.
Steady state studies of the area where these SPS exist would examine the representative cases (sets of system conditions)
and contingency sets for the study in question. If the power flow software allowed, a post-solution program could be run to
test if the actuating circumstances for each SPS were met; if so, the contingent solution would be rerun and tested again for
any other SPS which would actuate. If the power flow software did not have this flexibility, the engineer could include an
SPS actuation for those contingencies expected to trigger the SPS and run that expanded contingency list; the results could
be examined with attention paid to the loading for the circuit protected by the second SPS. Any contingencies which caused
an overload on the triggering circuit could be rerun with the SPS actuated.
Since both SPS act within the dynamic simulation timeframe, the SPS should be modeled or monitored in stability
simulations. Dynamic models could exist for both SPS. Should the flow on the SPS-triggering line exceed the flow actuation
setpoint for the required time duration, the dynamic simulation would capture the impact of the reactor insertion and the
SPS actuation. If the SPS were not explicitly modeled, their trigger values could be monitored (i.e., the status or flow on the
line for the first SPS and the flow on the potentially overloaded circuit for the second SPS). The monitored data channels
would be examined after each simulation to determine if the simulation needed to be rerun while modeling the
appropriate SPS actions.
The goal for modeling SPS in studies is to confirm that they will operate to correct the intended system concerns as
necessary to preserve acceptable system performance. In addition, the analyses provide understanding for system planning
and operations on when and how the use of the SPS may change over time. This information may be critical for system
operations staff to maintain reliable system operation.
32 of 48
Appendix B Operational Considerations

This information is a high level list of important issues and concerns if performing SPS analyses in real-time operations.
Real-time SPS Evaluation
Current system conditions must be identified before evaluating whether an SPS would perform its function and achieve its
desired outcome. Results of security analysis should be required to indicate whether an SPS should be armed (if armed
manually) and whether an SPS will operate for a given contingency. Security analysis should model operation of the SPS in
addition to the initiating contingency when the SPS is armed.
SPS evaluation often cannot be done with SCADA input alone. Some non-SCADA input may be needed; for example, limits
from off-line studies are converted into inputs available in the Energy Management System (EMS). The inputs that support
SPS evaluation and operation need to be codified in operating guides and presented on operator displays for ease of use
and operation. Custom code and displays are generally required to aggregate all needed information for usage by engineers
and operators in real time.
The impact of SPS operation on facilities external to the SPS owner/operator needs to be jointly considered and
communicated to external entities and appropriately accounted for in EMS. Furthermore, the effects of external
contingencies on the SPS triggers should be accounted for within EMS and known to operators.
SPS evaluation typically involves the testing of a limited set of relevant contingencies, requiring the use Real-Time
Contingency Analysis (RTCA). In some cases, a dc solution to identify thermal issues is adequate; in other cases, a full ac
solution is required (e.g., where triggers are voltage dependent).
Some EMS are not robust enough to compute ac solutions in EMS/RTCA. Depending on the classification of an SPS (e.g.,
significant), an EMS/RTCA with such limited capability would be insufficient to evaluate the impact of the SPS. In such cases
it is necessary to establish other means, such as supplemental off-line tools or delegation of this analysis to an entity that
has this capability, to study the operational impacts of the SPS.
If the EMS/RTCA does not reach a solved state, then the SPS cannot be evaluated. For example, some EMS/RTCA will fail to
solve or fail to converge upon the creation of islands in the model. In these cases, SPS modeling may require custom
software solutions.
Multiple Decision-Making Capability
When evaluating SPS in EMS/RTCA, intermediate steps must be modeled and intermediate states must be evaluated. It
should be assumed that an SPS may suffer a full or partial failure and that system conditions will change as the SPS
operates. Adverse conditions may arise during intermediate steps that lead to undesired outcomes or put the system into
an unplanned operating state.
The post-contingency, pre-SPS-operation state must be known to assess system conditions before the SPS action can be
evaluated. For example, the loss of a large nuclear station automatically activates a large emergency core cooling load. This
new system state would require a re-solution to check post-contingent node voltage (i.e., with the load connected) before
consideration of SPS activation and results can occur. This requires that several stages and intermediate actions be modeled
in the evolution of the final system topology to ensure that the system can reach the desired end-state.
Information Management
Each SPS may have its own set of arming and activation triggers. Examples include equipment status, line loading and
voltage. These triggers may be complex, and could affect the alarming capability required of EMS.
Changes to EMS models may require long lead times before an SPS can be implemented; for example, changes to models
often require pushing through multiple staged software environments. Entities should use software designs that are flexible
to accommodate timely changes to SPS models that might not be tied to the network model database release schedule.
When implementing an SPS before the EMS model can be updated, it is necessary to establish other means, such as
33 of 48
Appendix B Operational Considerations
supplemental off-line tools or delegation of this analysis to an entity that has this capability, to study the operational
impacts of the SPS.
Modeling Simplicity and Usability
Complex SPS schemes require due diligence to maintain and support. Entities should be required to develop and document
an efficient approach to SPS control. An entitys strategy should allow for concurrent and/or consecutive SPS actions.
34 of 48
Appendix C Mapping of Requirements from Existing Standards

Table 2: Mapping of SPS-Related Requirements in Existing NERC Reliability Standards
Existing
Standard
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-012-0
R1. Each Regional Reliability Organization with a

Transmission Owner, Generator Owner, or
Distribution Providers that uses or is planning
to use an SPS shall have a documented
Regional Reliability Organization SPS review
procedure to ensure that SPSs comply with
Regional criteria and NERC Reliability
Standards. The Regional SPS review
procedure shall include:
PRC-012-1 should define a continent-wide SPS

review procedure conducted by the Reliability
Coordinator and Planning Coordinator.
See Review and Approval of New or Modified SPS

on pp. 16-17.
PRC-012-0
R1.1. Description of the process for

submitting a proposed SPS for
Regional Reliability Organization
review.
PRC-012-1 should define a continent-wide SPS

review procedure conducted by the Reliability
Coordinator and Planning Coordinator.

on pp. 16-17.
PRC-012-0
R1.2. Requirements to provide data that

describes design, operation, and
modeling of an SPS.
PRC-012-1 should define continent-wide

requirements for SPS owners to provide data that
is clear and understandable to all entities that
require this information to plan and operate the
bulk power system.
See Data Submittals by Entities that Own SPS on

pp. 18-19.
PRC-012-0
R1.3. Requirements to demonstrate that the

SPS shall be designed so that a single
SPS component failure, when the SPS
was intended to operate, does not
prevent the interconnected
transmission system from meeting
the performance requirements
defined in Reliability Standards TPL001-0, TPL-002-0, and TPL-003-0.
PRC-012-1 should require that all Type PS and PL

SPS are designed so system performance
requirements are met in the event of a single
component failure within the SPS.
See SPS Single Component Failure Requirements

on p. 14-15
35 of 48

Existing
Standard
PRC-012-0
PRC-012-0
PRC-012-0
PRC-012-0
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-012-1 should require that an entity proposing

a new or modified SPS should be required to
submit studies that demonstrate the operation,
coordination, and effectiveness of the SPS,
including the impacts of a correct operation, a
failure to operate, and inadvertent operation.

on p. 16.
R1.5. Requirements to demonstrate the

proposed SPS will coordinate with
other protection and control systems
and applicable Regional Reliability
Organization Emergency procedures.
PRC-012-1 should require that an entity proposing

a new or modified SPS should be required to
submit studies that demonstrate the operation,
coordination, and effectiveness of the SPS,
including the impacts of a correct operation, a
failure to operate, and inadvertent operation.

on p. 16.
R1.6. Regional Reliability Organization

definition of misoperation.
A continent-wide definition of an SPS

misoperation should be established.
See SPS Misoperation Definition on p. 22.
Do not carry forward to revised standards.
The need for this requirement is eliminated by

establishing continent-wide requirements in PRC016-1. See SPS Operation Review Process on pp.
23-24.
R1.4. Requirements to demonstrate that the

inadvertent operation of an SPS shall
meet the same performance
requirement (TPL-001-0, TPL-002-0,
and TPL-003-0) as that required of the
contingency for which it was
designed, and not exceed TPL-003-0.
R1.7. Requirements for analysis and

documentation of corrective action
plans for all SPS misoperations.
PRC-012-0
R1.8. Identification of the Regional Reliability

Organization group responsible for
the Regional Reliability Organizations
review procedure and the process for
Regional Reliability Organization
approval of the procedure.

establishing a continent-wide review procedure
within PRC-012-1. See Review and Approval of
New or Modified SPS on pp. 16-17.
PRC-012-0
R1.9. Determination, as appropriate, of

maintenance and testing
requirements.

establishing continent-wide maintenance and
testing requirements within PRC-005-2.
36 of 48

Existing
Standard
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-012-0
R2. The Regional Reliability Organization shall

provide affected Regional Reliability
Organizations and NERC with documentation
of its SPS review procedure on request
(within 30 calendar days).
Existing reporting requirements that have no

discernible impact on promoting the reliable
operation of the bulk electric system are being
removed from NERC Reliability Standards in
Project 2013-02 Paragraph 81. The ERO Rules of
Procedures, Section 401: 3. Data Access, provide
the ability for NERC to obtain this information.
PRC-013-0
R1. The Regional Reliability Organization that has

a Transmission Owner, Generator Owner, or
Distribution Provider with an SPS installed
shall maintain an SPS database. The database
shall include the following types of
information:
PRC-012-1 should require that each Planning

Coordinator maintain a database, and provide the
database to NERC for the purpose of maintaining
a continent-wide database.
See SPS Database on p. 19.
PRC-013-0
R1.1. Design Objectives Contingencies and

system conditions for which the SPS
was designed,
This information is included in a comprehensive

list of data requirements to be provided by the
SPS owner and maintained in a database by the

pp. 18-19 and SPS Database on p. 19.
PRC-013-0
R1.2. Operation The actions taken by the

SPS in response to Disturbance
conditions, and


PRC-013-0
R1.3. Modeling Information on detection

logic or relay settings that control
operation of the SPS.


37 of 48

Existing
Standard
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-013-0

provide to affected Regional Reliability
Organization(s) and NERC documentation of
its database or the information therein on
request (within 30 calendar days).

PRC-014-0

assess the operation, coordination, and
effectiveness of all SPSs installed in its Region
at least once every five years for compliance
with NERC Reliability Standards and Regional
criteria.
PRC-012-1 should require the Planning

Coordinator and Transmission Planner to assess
SPS in annual transmission planning assessments
and require the Reliability Coordinator to conduct
a periodic review every five years, or sooner if
significant changes are made to the system
topology or operating characteristics that may
impact the coordination among SPS and between
SPS and UFLS, UVLS, and other protection
systems.
See Periodic Comprehensive Assessments of SPS

Coordination on p. 17.
PRC-014-0

provide either a summary report or a
detailed report of its assessment of the
operation, coordination, and effectiveness of
all SPSs installed in its Region to affected
Regional Reliability Organizations or NERC on
request (within 30 calendar days).

PRC-014-0
R3. The documentation of the Regional Reliability

Organizations SPS assessment shall include
the following elements:
PRC-012-1 should require the Reliability

Coordinator to document its periodic
assessments. The documentation should include
the same elements required in a study supporting
approval of a new or modified SPS.

on pp. 16-17 and Assessment of Existing SPS on p.
17.
This list of elements includes:

Entity conducting the study

on pp. 16-17.
PRC-014-0
R3.1. Identification of group conducting the

assessment and the date the
assessment was performed.
38 of 48

Existing
Standard
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-014-0
R3.2. Study years, system conditions, and

contingencies analyzed in the
technical studies on which the
assessment is based and when those
technical studies were performed.
This list of elements includes:

Study years
System conditions
Contingencies analyzed

on pp. 16-17.
PRC-014-0
R3.3. Identification of SPSs that were found

not to comply with NERC standards
and Regional Reliability Organization
criteria.
PRC-012-1 should require the Planning

Coordinator and Transmission Planner document
and submit any issues identified in the annual
assessment to the Reliability Coordinator.
Coordinator to document and submit any issues
identified in the periodic assessment to the SPS
owner.
See Assessment of Existing SPS on p. 17.
PRC-014-0
R3.4. Discussion of any coordination

problems found between a SPS and
other protection and control systems.

Coordinator to request the Planning Coordinator
and Transmission Planner to assess and document
whether the SPS is still necessary, serves its
intended purpose, meets performance criteria,
coordinates with other SPS, UFLS, UVLS, and
protection systems, and does not have
unintended adverse consequences on reliability.
See Periodic Comprehensive Assessments of SPS

Coordination on p. 17.
PRC-014-0
R3.5. Provide corrective action plans for noncompliant SPSs.
PRC-012-1 should require that if issues are

identified in an annual or periodic assessment,
the Reliability Coordinator and Planning
Coordinator determine, in consultation with the
SPS owner, whether a corrective action plan is
required, and if so, whether the SPS can remain in
service until a corrective action plan is
implemented.
If a corrective action plan is required, PRC-012-1
should require the SPS owner to submit an
application for a new or modified SPS.
See Assessment of Existing SPS on p. 17.
39 of 48

Existing
Standard
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-015-0
R1. The Transmission Owner, Generator Owner,

and Distribution Provider that owns an SPS
shall maintain a list of and provide data for
existing and proposed SPSs as specified in
Reliability Standard PRC-013-0_R1.
PRC-012-1 should define continent-wide

requirements for SPS owners to provide data that
is clear and understandable to all entities that
require this information to plan and operate the
bulk power system.

pp. 18-19.
PRC-015-0

shall have evidence it reviewed new or
functionally modified SPSs in accordance with
the Regional Reliability Organizations
procedures as defined in Reliability Standard
PRC-012-0_R1 prior to being placed in
service.
Do not carry forward to revised standards. PRC012-1 should have a requirement for the SPS
owner to file an application for approval of an
SPS, which assures that the SPS is reviewed in
accordance with the continent-wide review
procedure prior to being placed in service.

on pp. 16-17.
PRC-015-0

shall provide documentation of SPS data and
the results of Studies that show compliance
of new or functionally modified SPSs with
NERC Reliability Standards and Regional
Reliability Organization criteria to affected
Regional Reliability Organizations and NERC
on request (within 30 calendar days).

PRC-016-0.1

shall analyze its SPS operations and maintain
a record of all misoperations in accordance
with the Regional SPS review procedure
specified in Reliability Standard PRC-0120_R1.
PRC-016-1 should establish a continent-wide

process for analyzing and reporting SPS
misoperations.
See SPS Operation Review Process on pp. 23-24.
40 of 48

Existing
Standard
Requirement
Proposal
Comments
PRC-016-0.1

shall take corrective actions to avoid future
misoperations.
PRC-016-1 should establish a requirement that

the SPS owner should be required to develop and
implement a corrective action plan for SPS
misoperations.
See SPS Operation Review Process on pp. 23-24.
PRC-016-0.1

shall provide documentation of the
misoperation analyses and the corrective
action plans to its Regional Reliability
Organization and NERC on request (within 90
calendar days).


shall have a system maintenance and testing
program(s) in place. The program(s) shall
include:
Addressed by Project 2007-17, Protection System

See PRC-005-2, R1.

See PRC-005-2, Tables 1-1 1-5, and Table 2.
PRC-017-0
PRC-017-0
21
R1.1. SPS identification shall include but is

not limited to:
PRC-017-0
R1.1.1. Relays.

See PRC-005-2, Table 1-1.
PRC-017-0
R1.1.2. Instrument transformers.

PRC-017-0
R1.1.3. Communications systems,

where appropriate.

21
Mapping for requirements in PRC-017-0 are adapted from the mapping document developed by the Project 2007-17 Protection System Maintenance & Testing
drafting team.
41 of 48

Existing
Standard
PRC-017-0
Requirement
R1.1.4. Batteries.
Proposal
Comments

PRC-017-0
R1.2. Documentation of maintenance and

testing intervals and their basis.

See PRC-005-2, R1 and R2.
PRC-017-0
R1.3. Summary of testing procedure.

See PRC-005-2, R1, Tables 1-1 1-5, and Table 2.
PRC-017-0
R1.4. Schedule for system testing.

See PRC-005-2, R1 and R2.
PRC-017-0
R1.5. Schedule for system maintenance.

See PRC-005-2, R1 and R2
PRC-017-0
R1.6. Date last tested/maintained.

See PRC-005-2, R3 and associated Measures, R4

and associated Measure, and Data Retention.

Maintenance and Testing; this requirement is not
carried forward to the revised standard.

PRC-017-0

shall provide documentation of the program
and its implementation to the appropriate
Regional Reliability Organizations and NERC
on request (within 30 calendar days).
42 of 48
Appendix D Standards Committee Request for Research;

January 9, 2011
Request for Research
Project 2010-05.2
Phase 2 of Protection Systems: SPS and RAS
Introduction
NERCs Standards Committee has tentatively identified this project for initiation in late 2012. Prior to then, there is a need
for additional research and scoping of the project to determine:
What is the problem that this project will try to solve?
Is the development of a standard the appropriate manner to solve that problem, or should alternative approaches
be used?
If a standard is appropriate, what is the recommended solution to the problem?
Results based standards projects use the approach of defining the needs, goals, and objectives for the project. For this
project, we would like your assistance in this effort. Below is a draft problem statement for your consideration.
Need (Problem )
Special Protection Systems (SPS) and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS) can misoperate and negatively impact the
reliability of the BES.
Does the need above correctly document the concern described in the attached draft SAR?
Do you agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed?
Is a standard the appropriate vehicle to address this problem, or should an alternative approach be used? If an alternative,
is recommended, what would that alternative be?
If development of a standard is appropriate, then please consider the following Goal
Goal (Solution)
Require the analysis, reporting, and correction of Misoperations of SPS and RAS.
Request
Please provide the Standards Committee with the following information:
An updated Need/Problem (or a statement of concurrence with the draft presented here)
A statement indicating whether or not you believe this problem is one which needs to be addressed
If you agree the problem needs to be addressed, a suggestion for how to address the problem
If you suggest a standard be developed to address the problem, then please provide
o An updated goal (or a statement of concurrence with the draft presented here)
o A set of objectives in support of that goal
o If you have any suggested changes to the attached draft SAR, please propose them
o If you have specific recommendations for requirements language or additional information, please include
them
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
43 of 48
Appendix E Scope of Work Approved by the Planning

Committee; June 8, 2011
As s e s s m e n t o f Sp e cia l P r o t e ct io n Sys t e m St a n d a r d s a n d Re g io n a l
P r a ct ice s
Proposal:
The SPCS proposes to conduct an assessment of the SPS-related PRC standards and definition of SPS, conduct an
assessment of existing regional practices summarizing commonality and differences, and to document its findings in a
report to the Planning Committee that can serve as a reference document for a standard drafting team that ultimately will
be assigned to review these standards. If deemed appropriate, the report could be used to support a Compliance
Application Notice (CAN) to address part of this issue until a revised definition and standard(s) are developed. The SPCS
further proposes this activity should be a joint effort with the Transmission Issues Subcommittee (TIS).
Rationale:
The SPCS scope calls for providing subject matter expertise for NERC Standards related to protection systems and
controls, and the SPCS work plan includes an assignment to review all existing PRC-series Reliability Standards, to
advise the Planning Committee of its assessment, and to develop Standards Authorization Requests, as appropriate, to
address any perceived deficiencies.
The SPCS has reviewed all PRC standards except the group of SPS standards. The SPCS had started assessment of these
standards, but the assessment was deferred due to other priority work such as the Power Plant and Transmission
System Protection Coordination technical reference document.
The SPCS has reviewed its work plan and determined that this is the next logical project for the SPCS. Work on the
Transmission System Phase Backup Protection reliability guideline is wrapping up at this time and the SPCS can make
the SPS review one of two priority activities for this year (the other is the document addressing operation of protection
systems in response to power swings).
The SPCS believes that a thorough review of SPS-related PRC standards would benefit from the expertise of TIS and the
SPCS recommends a joint SPCS/TIS effort coordinated by the SPCS. This proposal has been reviewed with and is
supported by TIS.
The SPCS proposes to conduct an assessment of the standards and definition of SPS, and conduct an assessment of
existing regional practices summarizing commonality and differences among the various regional practices.
The SPCS believes that differences among regional practices must be resolved through a formal process; a consensus
opinion of what constitutes an SPCS would lack standing unless it is vetted through a stakeholder process. The SPCS
proposes to document its findings in a report that can serve as a reference document for a standard drafting team that
ultimately will be assigned to review these standards. If deemed appropriate, the report could be used to support a
CAN to address part of this issue until a revised standard(s) is developed.
The scope of work for such a review is significant and direction should come through the NERC Planning Committee as
the body to which SPCS and TIS report.
The SPCS believes that an appropriate time frame for completing this report would be to submit a draft to the Planning
Committee at its March 2012 meeting. The SPCS and TIS believe this schedule is appropriate to support a thorough
review.
Approved by the NERC Planning Committee

June 8, 2011
44 of 48
Appendix F System Analysis and Modeling Subcommittee

Roster
John Simonelli
Chair
Director - Operations Support Services
ISO New England
Jonathan E Hayes
RE SPP
Reliability Standards Development Engineer
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
K. R Chakravarthi
Vice Chair
Manager, Interconnection and Special Studies
Southern Company Services, Inc.
Kenneth A. Donohoo
RE TRE
Director System Planning
Oncor Electric Delivery
G Brantley Tillis, P.E.

RE FRCC
Manager, Transmission Planning Florida
Progress Energy Florida
Hari Singh
RE WECC
Transmission Asset Management
Xcel Energy, Inc.
Kiko Barredo
RE FRCC Alternate
Manager, Bulk Transmission Planning
Florida Power & Light Co.
Kent Bolton
RE WECC Alternate
Staff Engineer
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
Thomas C. Mielnik
RE MRO
Manager Electric System Planning
MidAmerican Energy Co.
Digaunto Chatterjee
ISO/RTO
Manager of Transmission Expansion Planning
Midwest ISO, Inc.
Salva R. Andiappan
RE MRO Alternate
Manager - Modeling and Reliability Assessments
Midwest Reliability Organization
Patricia E Metro
Cooperative
Manager, Transmission and Reliability Standards
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Donal Kidney
RE NPCC
Manager, System Compliance Program Implementation
Northeast Power Coordinating Council
Eric Mortenson, P.E.

Investor-Owned Utility
Principal Rates & Regulatory Specialist
Exelon Business Services Company
Bill Harm
RE RFC
Senior Consultant
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Amos Ang, P.E.

Engineer, Transmission Interconnection Planning
Southern California Edison
Mark Byrd
RE SERC
Manager - Transmission Planning
Progress Energy Carolinas
Bob Cummings
NERC Staff Coordinator
Senior Performance and Analysis Engineer
NERC
Gary T Brownfield
RE SERC Alternate
Supervising Engineer, Transmission Planning
Ameren Services
45 of 48
Appendix G System Protection and Control Subcommittee

Roster
William J. Miller
Chair
Principal Engineer
Exelon Corporation
Samuel Francis
RE TRE
System Protection Specialist
Oncor Electric Delivery
Philip B. Winston
Vice Chair
Chief Engineer, Protection and Control
Southern Company
David Penney, P.E.

RE TRE Alternate
Senior Reliability Engineer
Texas Reliability Entity
Michael Putt
RE FRCC
Manager, Protection and Control Engineering Applications
Florida Power & Light Co.
Baj Agrawal
RE WECC
Principal Engineer
Arizona Public Service Company
Mark Gutzmann
RE MRO
Manager, System Protection Engineering
Xcel Energy, Inc.
Miroslav Kostic
Canada Provincial
P&C Planning Manager, Transmission
Hydro One Networks, Inc.
Richard Quest
RE MRO Alternate
Principal Systems Protection Engineer
Midwest Reliability Organization
Sungsoo Kim
Canada Provincial
Section Manager Protections and Technical Compliance
Ontario Power Generation Inc.
George Wegh
RE NPCC
Manager
Northeast Utilities
Michael J. McDonald
Principal Engineer, System Protection
Ameren Services Company
Quoc Le
RE NPCC -- Alternate
Manager, System Planning and Protection
NPCC
Jonathan Sykes
Manager of System Protection
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Jeff Iler
RE RFC
Principal Engineer, Protection and Control Engineering
American Electric Power
Charles W. Rogers
Transmission Dependent Utility
Principal Engineer
Consumers Energy Co.
Therron Wingard
RE SERC
Principal Engineer
Southern Company
Joe T. Uchiyama
U.S. Federal
Senior Electrical Engineer
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
David Greene
RE SERC -- Alternate
Reliability Engineer
SERC Reliability Corporation
Daniel McNeely
U.S. Federal Alternate
Engineer - System Protection and Analysis
Tennessee Valley Authority
Lynn Schroeder
RE SPP
Manager, Substation Protection and Control
Westar Energy
Philip J. Tatro
NERC Staff Coordinator
Senior Performance and Analysis Engineer
NERC
46 of 48
Appendix H Additional Contributors

Forrest Brock
Transmission Compliance Specialist
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
Robert Creighton
Sr. Engineering Specialist, Transmission Planning
Nova Scotia Power, Inc.
Tom Gentile
Senior Director, Transmission Northeast
Quanta Technology
Bryan Gwyn
Senior Director, Protection and Control Asset Management
Quanta Technology
Gene Henneberg
Staff Protection Engineer
NV Energy
Greg Henry (formerly NERC Staff Coordinator for SAMS)
Lead Engineer, Smart Integrated Infrastructure
Black & Veatch
Bobby Jones
Planning Manager Stability
Southern Company Services
John OConnor
Principal Engineer
Progress Energy Carolinas
Slobodan Pajic
Senior Engineer, Energy Consulting
GE Energy Management
47 of 48
Appendix I Revision History

Revision History
Version
Date
Modification(s)
March 5, 2013
Initial Document
0.1
April 18, 2013
Appendix A Correction to remove trade names and replace with generic language
in the section, General Considerations for Simulation
48 of 48

Special Protection Systems (SPS) and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Protection Systems (SPS) and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Protection Systems (SPS) and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is NERC's mission?

What is NERC's mission?

How is the North American bulk power system divided?

How is the North American bulk power system divided?

Special Protection Systems (SPS)

and Remedial Action Schemes (RAS):

3353 Peachtree Road NE

NERC Regional Entities

Note: The highlighted area between SPP RE and

Protective relays which respond to electrical quantities,

Communications systems necessary for correct operation of protective functions

Voltage and current sensing devices providing inputs to protective relays,

NERC Reliability Standards

PRC-012-0: Special Protection System Review Procedure

PRC-013-0: Special Protection System Database

PRC-014-0: Special Protection System Assessment

PRC-015-0: Special Protection System Data and Documentation

PRC-016-0.1: Special Protection System Misoperations

PRC-017-0: Special Protection System Maintenance and Testing

Chapter 1 SPS Definition

Common Application of SPS in Industry

Chapter 1 SPS Definition

Classification of SPS Types

unacceptable system dynamic response or equipment tripping;

voltage levels in violation of applicable emergency limits;

loadings on transmission facilities in violation of applicable emergency limits;

unacceptable loss of load.

Violations of TPL-(001 thru 004)-WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria,

Maximum load loss 300 MW,

Maximum generation loss 1000 MW.

Chapter 1 SPS Definition

Violations of TPL-(001 thru 004)-WECC-1-CR System Performance Criteria,

Maximum load loss 300 MW,

Maximum generation loss 1000 MW.

These three regional classifications can be roughly mapped:

NPCC Type I = WECC WAPS = TRE Type 1

NPCC Type III = WECC LAPS = TRE Type 2

NPCC Type II = WECC Safety Net

Common Exclusions from the SPS Definition in Industry

UFLS and/or UVLS,

Out of step relaying,

Capacitor bank / reactor controls,

NPCC Glossary of Terms Used by Directories

Chapter 1 SPS Definition

Load Tap Changer (LTC) controls,

Automated actions that could be performed by an operator in a reasonable amount of time,

Scheme that trips generation to prevent islanding

Exclusion for Operator Aides

Chapter 1 SPS Definition

The following schemes do not constitute an SPS in and of themselves:

Underfrequency or undervoltage load shedding

Automatic sequences that proceed when manually initiated solely by an operator

Sub-synchronous resonance (SSR) protection schemes

Type PS (planning-significant): A scheme designed to meet system performance requirements

Type PL (planning-limited): A scheme designed to meet system performance requirements

Non-Consequential Load Loss 300 MW

Chapter 1 SPS Definition

Negatively damped oscillations

Definition of Significant and Limited Impact