Commission Findings Clause Samples

Commission Findings. We accept sections 3.4 and 5 of the Uniform Compliance Program. For the reasons discussed below, we find that NERC’s procedures generally comply with the requirements of the ERO Certification Order. We also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC.

Commission Findings. We accept section 5.1(iv) of the Uniform Compliance Program, without revision. GSOC’s recommendation that notices of an alleged violation should be required to state whether the alleged violator saw its violation as an economic choice is unnecessary. While the ERO Certification Order required that a Regional Entity or NERC justify a penalty determination, in part, on these grounds, a section 5.1(iv) notice may not be the appropriate forum for doing so. A notice of alleged violation, rather, is a notice that the compliance enforcement authority concludes that evidence exists that an entity violated one or more requirements of a reliability standard, not a determination of penalty. Such a notice, then, need not address this factor.

Commission Findings. 125. We accept sections 3.4 and 9.3 of the Uniform Compliance Program. We find that, in general, sections 3.4 and 9.3 set forth procedures that will protect confidentiality, consistent with the requirements of the ERO Certification Order. However, we also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC.

Commission Findings. We find that the MRO bylaws and the representations made in Exhibit B of the MRO Delegation Agreement satisfy the governance requirements of FPA section 215 and the pro forma Exhibit B Governance Criteria. We also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC and MRO. We note that MRO is not a user, owner, or operator of bulk-power system facilities. Moreover, the MRO board will be comprised of directors chosen from all industry segments, with no two sectors able to control a vote. No single sector will be able to veto a measure, given MRO’s quorum and voting protocols. As such, MRO’s board composition and voting protocols are designed to ensure that MRO will be governed by an appropriate balance of stakeholder interests. 274. However, membership fees, which are set by the board on an annual basis, could upset this balance, particularly if set too high. Accordingly, in order to provide the Commission the opportunity to review them, any fees that MRO proposes to charge members must be identified in its annual budget and business plan.

Commission Findings. 104. We accept section 5.4 of the Uniform Compliance Program. We also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC. We find that, in general, section 5.4 sets out procedures that will encourage settlements when appropriate, consistent with the requirements of the ERO Certification Order. However, the time period specified in section 5.4 during which settlement may be pursued warrants revision to include the period prior to the issuance of a notice of alleged violation. Accordingly, we direct NERC to modify section 5.4 to state that settlement negotiations may occur at any time until a notice of penalty is filed with the Commission or an applicable governmental authority.

Commission Findings. We accept sections 6 and 7 of the Uniform Compliance Program. We also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC. The ERO Certification Order held that remedial actions would be required to: (i) achieve prospective compliance with reliability standards; and (ii) reduce the risk to bulk-power system reliability if actions that appear to be in violation of reliability standards are not corrected.62 Sections 6 and 7 of the Uniform Compliance Program generally satisfy these objectives.

Commission Findings. We find that section 3.8 sets out procedures that will promote the fair and judicious processing of complaints, consistent with the requirements of the ERO Certification Order. Accordingly, we accept section 3.8 of the Uniform Compliance Program. We also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC. First, where NERC is required to review a complaint and conduct an investigation, due to its being “related to Regional Entities,” we construe the scope of that disqualification to include the Regional Entity and any of its affiliates, divisions, committees or subordinate structures. 117. In addition, the use of the term “Alleged Violation,” in section 3.8.2, in reference to the allegations made in an anonymous complainant is inconsistent with NERC’s

Commission Findings. 297. We find that the NPCC bylaws and the representations made in Exhibit B of the NPCC Delegation Agreement satisfy the governance requirements of FPA section 215 and the pro forma Exhibit B Governance Criteria. First, we note that NPCC is not a user, owner, or operator of bulk-power system facilities. Moreover, the NPCC board will be comprised of directors chosen from all industry segments, with no two sectors able to control a vote. No single sector will be able to veto a measure, given NPCC’s quorum and voting protocols. As such, NPCC’s board composition and voting protocols are designed to ensure that NPCC will be governed by an appropriate balance of stakeholder interests. 298. We clarify, however, that the NPCC bylaws are “rules,” under our regulations, which are subject to NERC approval and, if approved by NERC, Commission approval.167

Commission Findings. 41. We find that NERC’s proposed compliance audit procedures satisfy the requirements of the ERO Certification Order. As discussed below, we also identify modifications to be addressed by NERC. As required by the ERO Certification Order, we find that NERC has included the necessary language in its audit procedures, at section 3.1.5, stating that no restrictions will be placed on the participation of Commission Staff in a compliance audit. We also find that NERC’s compliance audit procedures are generally consistent with GAO procedures.37 However, we direct NERC to review 36 The relevant language provides that “in the event the audit report identifies Alleged Violations, the final audit report, or pertinent part thereof, shall not be released to the public until after such Alleged Violations have been addressed and finally determined by the Compliance Enforcement Authority. . .” (emphasis added). GSOC asserts that the italicized phrase should be deleted. judgment); ¶ 3.39 through 3.42 (competence); ¶ 3.45 through ¶ 3.48 (continuing professional education); ¶ 3.49 through ¶ 3.56 (quality control and assurance), and additional provisions addressing reporting and field work procedures. annually whether any changes to the GAO Standards have occurred and to address in its annual audit plan whether any changes in its audit procedures are appropriate. 42. With respect to section 3.1.1, we note that a compliance audit team will be authorized to conduct an audit subject to NERC “audit guides.” However, NERC has not filed these guides for our approval, nor is it clear whether these audit guides have as yet been developed by NERC. Accordingly, we direct NERC to submit the audit guides and to explain whether they should be incorporated into the Uniform Compliance Program. 43. We also agree with GSOC that the footnote to section 3.1.1 appears to be circular. Accordingly, NERC must consider a clarification. 44. We decline, as unnecessary, Xcel’s request that an audited entity be permitted to review an audit report before it is finalized. Section 3.1 allows for sufficient input, both in the audit team exit briefing and in the audited entity’s subsequent review of and opportunity to comment on the draft audit report. We also reject GSOC’s request regarding the use of consistent terms with respect to the time deadlines referenced in section 3.1. We find that these deadlines are clearly identified and are not otherwise confusing. Likewise, we find that the procedures and sch...