Reliability Standards-PRC-010-1

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
A. Introduction
1.

Title: Undervoltage Load Shedding

2.

Number: PRC‐010‐1

3.

Purpose: To establish an integrated and coordinated approach to the design,
evaluation, and reliable operation of Undervoltage Load Shedding Programs (UVLS
Programs).

4.

Applicability:
4.1. Functional Entities:
4.1.1 Planning Coordinator
4.1.2 Transmission Planner
4.1.3 Undervoltage load shedding (UVLS) entities – Distribution Providers and
Transmission Owners responsible for the ownership, operation, or control
of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program established by the
Transmission Planner or Planning Coordinator.

5.

Background:
PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding is a consolidation and revision of the
following Reliability Standards:


PRC‐010‐0 – Assessment of the Design and Effectiveness of UVLS Program



PRC‐020‐1 – Under‐Voltage Load Shedding Program Database



PRC‐021‐1 – Under‐Voltage Load Shedding Program Data



PRC‐022‐1 – Under‐Voltage Load Shedding Program Performance

The UVLS Standard Drafting Team (or drafting team) developed the revised PRC‐010‐1
to meet the following objectives:


Address the FERC directive in Order No. 693, Paragraph 1509 to modify PRC‐010‐
0 to require an integrated and coordinated approach to all protection systems.



Replace the applicability to and involvement of the Regional Reliability
Organization (RRO) in PRC‐020‐1 and PRC‐021‐1.



Consolidate the UVLS‐related standards into one comprehensive standard
(similar to the construct of FERC‐approved PRC‐006‐1– Automatic
Underfrequency Load Shedding).



Clearly identify and separate centrally controlled undervoltage‐based load
shedding due to the reliability requirements needed for this type of load
shedding as compared to other UVLS systems.



Create a single results‐based standard that addresses current reliability issues
associated with UVLS.

Page 1 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
B. Requirements and Measures
R1. Each Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner that is developing a UVLS Program
shall evaluate its effectiveness and subsequently provide the UVLS Program’s
specifications and implementation schedule to the UVLS entities responsible for
implementing the UVLS Program. The evaluation shall include, but is not limited to,
studies and analyses that show: [Violation Risk Factor: High] [Time Horizon: Long‐term
Planning]
1.1. The implementation of the UVLS Program resolves the identified undervoltage
issues that led to its development and design.
1.2. The UVLS Program is integrated through coordination with generator voltage
ride‐through capabilities and other protection and control systems, including,
but not limited to, transmission line protection, autoreclosing, Remedial Action
Schemes, and other undervoltage‐based load shedding programs.
M1. Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, date‐stamped studies and
analyses, reports, or other documentation detailing the effectiveness of the UVLS
Program, and date‐stamped communications showing that the UVLS Program
specifications and implementation schedule were provided to UVLS entities.
R2. Each UVLS entity shall adhere to the UVLS Program specifications and
implementation schedule determined by its Planning Coordinator or Transmission
Planner associated with UVLS Program development per Requirement R1 or with
any Corrective Action Plans per Requirement R5. [Violation Risk Factor: High] [Time
Horizon: Long‐term Planning]
M2. Acceptable evidence must include date‐stamped documentation on the completion
of actions and may include, but is not limited to, identifying the equipment armed
with UVLS relays, the UVLS relay settings, associated Load summaries, work
management program records, work orders, and maintenance records.
R3. Each Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner shall perform a comprehensive
assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of each of its UVLS Programs at least once
every 60 calendar months. Each assessment shall include, but is not limited to,
studies and analyses that evaluate whether: [Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time
Horizon: Long‐term Planning]
3.1. The UVLS Program resolves the identified undervoltage issues for which
the UVLS Program is designed.
3.2. The UVLS Program is integrated through coordination with generator voltage
ride‐through capabilities and other protection and control systems, including,
but not limited to, transmission line protection, autoreclosing, Remedial
Action Schemes, and other undervoltage‐based load shedding programs.
M3. Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, date‐stamped reports or
other documentation detailing the assessment of the UVLS Program.
R4. Each Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner shall, within 12 calendar
Page 2 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
months of an event that resulted in a voltage excursion for which its UVLS
Program was designed to operate, perform an assessment to evaluate whether its
UVLS Program resolved the undervoltage issues associated with the event.
[Violation Risk Factor: Medium] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning]
M4. Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, date‐stamped event data,
event analysis reports, or other documentation detailing the assessment of the
UVLS Program.
R5. Each Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner that identifies deficiencies in its
UVLS Program during an assessment performed in either Requirement R3 or R4
shall develop a Corrective Action Plan to address the deficiencies and subsequently
provide the Corrective Action Plan, including an implementation schedule, to UVLS
entities within three calendar months of completing the assessment. [Violation Risk
Factor: Medium] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning]
M5. Acceptable evidence must include a date‐stamped Corrective Action Plan that
addresses identified deficiencies and may also include date‐stamped reports or other
documentation supporting the Corrective Action Plan. Evidence should also include
date‐stamped communications showing that the Corrective Action Plan and an
associated implementation schedule were provided to UVLS entities.
R6. Each Planning Coordinator that has a UVLS Program in its area shall update a database
containing data necessary to model the UVLS Program(s) in its area for use in event
analyses and assessments of the UVLS Program at least once each calendar year.
[Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations Planning]
M6. Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, date‐stamped spreadsheets,
database reports, or other documentation demonstrating a UVLS Program database
was updated.
R7.

Each UVLS entity shall provide data to its Planning Coordinator according to the
format and schedule specified by the Planning Coordinator to support maintenance of
a UVLS Program database. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon: Operations
Planning]

M7. Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, date‐stamped emails, letters,
or other documentation demonstrating data was provided to the Planning
Coordinator as specified.
R8.

Each Planning Coordinator that has a UVLS Program in its area shall provide its UVLS
Program database to other Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners within its
Interconnection, and other functional entities with a reliability need, within 30
calendar days of a written request. [Violation Risk Factor: Lower] [Time Horizon:
Operations Planning]

M8. Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, date‐stamped emails, letters,
or other documentation demonstrating that the UVLS Program database was
provided within 30 calendar days of receipt of a written request.
Page 3 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
C. Compliance
1.

Compliance Monitoring Process
1.1. Compliance Enforcement Authority
As defined in the NERC Rules of Procedure, “Compliance Enforcement Authority”
means NERC or the Regional Entity in their respective roles of monitoring and
enforcing compliance with the NERC Reliability Standards.
1.2. Evidence Retention
The following evidence retention periods identify the period of time an entity is
required to retain specific evidence to demonstrate compliance. For instances
where the evidence retention period specified below is shorter than the time
since the last audit, the Compliance Enforcement Authority may ask an entity to
provide other evidence to show that it was compliant for the full‐time period
since the last audit.
The Planning Coordinator, Transmission Planner, Distribution Provider, and
Transmission Owner shall keep data or evidence to show compliance as
identified below unless directed by its Compliance Enforcement Authority to
retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an investigation.
The applicable entity shall retain documentation as evidence for six calendar years.
If an applicable entity is found non‐compliant, it shall keep information related
to the non‐compliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the time
specified above, whichever is longer.
The Compliance Enforcement Authority shall keep the last audit records and all
requested and submitted subsequent audit records.
1.3. Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes:
“Compliance Monitoring and Assessment Processes” refers to the identification
of the processes that will be used to evaluate data or information for the
purpose of assessing performance or outcomes with the associated reliability
standard.
1.4. Additional Compliance Information
None

Page 4 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
Table of Compliance Elements
R#

Time Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

R1

Long‐term
Planning

High

N/A

N/A

N/A

The applicable entity
that developed the
UVLS Program failed to
evaluate the program’s
effectiveness and
subsequently provide
the UVLS Program’s
specifications and
implementation
schedule to UVLS
entities in accordance
with Requirement R1,
including the items
specified in Parts 1.1
and 1.2.

R2

Long‐term
Planning

High

N/A

N/A

The applicable entity
failed to adhere to the
UVLS Program
specifications in
accordance with
Requirement R2.

The applicable entity
failed to adhere to the
UVLS Program
specifications and
implementation
schedule in accordance
with Requirement R2.

OR
The applicable entity
failed to adhere to the
implementation
schedule in accordance
with Requirement R2.

Page 5 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
R#

Time Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

Severe VSL

R3

Long‐term
Planning

Medium

N/A

N/A

N/A

The applicable entity
failed to perform an
assessment at least
once during the 60
calendar months in
accordance with
Requirement R3,
including the items
specified in Parts 3.1
and 3.2.

R4

Operations
Planning

Medium

The applicable entity
performed an
assessment in
accordance with
Requirement R4 within
a time period greater
than 12 calendar
months but less than or
equal to 13 calendar
months after an
applicable event.

The applicable entity
performed an
assessment in
accordance with
Requirement R4 within
a time period greater
than 13 calendar
months but less than or
equal to 14 calendar
months after an
applicable event.

The applicable entity
performed an
assessment in
accordance with
Requirement R4 within
a time period greater
than 14 calendar
months but less than or
equal to 15 calendar
months after an
applicable event.

The applicable entity
performed an
assessment in
accordance with
Requirement R4 within
a time period greater
than 15 calendar
months after an
applicable event.
OR
The applicable entity
failed to perform an
assessment in
accordance with
Requirement R4.

Page 6 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
R#

R5

Time Horizon

Operations
Planning

VRF

Medium

Violation Severity Levels
Lower VSL

Moderate VSL

High VSL

The applicable entity
developed a Corrective
Action Plan and
provided it to UVLS
entities in accordance
with Requirement R5
but was late by less than
or equal to 15 calendar
days.

The applicable entity
developed a Corrective
Action Plan and
provided it to UVLS
entities in accordance
with Requirement R5
but was late by more
than 15 calendar days
but less than or equal to
30 calendar days.

The applicable entity
developed a Corrective
Action Plan and
provided it to UVLS
entities in accordance
with Requirement R5
but was late by more
than 30 calendar days
but less than or equal to
45 calendar days.

Severe VSL

The applicable entity
developed a Corrective
Action Plan and
provided it to UVLS
entities in accordance
with Requirement R5
but was late by more
than 45 calendar days.
OR
The responsible entity
failed to develop a
Corrective Action Plan
or provide it to UVLS
entities in accordance
with Requirement R5.

R6

Operations
Planning

Lower

The applicable entity
updated the database in
accordance with
Requirement R6 but was
late by less than or
equal to 30 calendar
days.

The applicable entity
updated the database in
accordance with
Requirement R6 but was
late by more than 30
calendar days but
less than or equal to 60
calendar days.

The applicable entity
updated the database in
accordance with
Requirement R6 but was
late by more than 60
calendar days but
less than or equal to 90
calendar days.

The applicable entity
updated the database in
accordance with
Requirement R6 but was
late by more than 90
calendar days.
OR
The applicable entity
failed to update the
database in accordance
with Requirement R6.

Page 7 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
R#

Time Horizon

VRF

Violation Severity Levels
Lower VSL

R7

Operations
Planning

Lower

The applicable entity
provided data in
accordance with
Requirement R7 but
was late by less than or
equal to 30 calendar
days per the specified
schedule.
OR

Moderate VSL

The applicable entity
provided data in
accordance with
Requirement R7 but
was late by more than
30 calendar days but
less than or equal to 60
calendar days per the
specified schedule.

High VSL

The applicable entity
provided data in
accordance with
Requirement R7 but
was late by more than
60 calendar days but
less than or equal to 90
calendar days per the
specified schedule.

Operations
Planning

Lower

The applicable entity
provided its UVLS
Program database in
accordance with
Requirement R8 but
was late by less than or
equal to 15 calendar
days.

The applicable entity
provided data in
accordance with
Requirement R7 but was
late by more than 90
calendar days per the
specified schedule.
OR
The applicable entity
failed to provide data in
accordance with
Requirement R7.

The applicable entity
provided data in
accordance with
Requirement R7 but the
data was not provided
according to the
specified format.
R8

Severe VSL

The applicable entity
provided its UVLS
Program database in
accordance with
Requirement R8 but
was late by more than
15 calendar days but
less than or equal to 30
calendar days.

The applicable entity
provided its UVLS
Program database in
accordance with
Requirement R8 but
was late by more than
30 calendar days but
less than or equal to 45
calendar days.

The applicable entity
provided its UVLS
Program database in
accordance with
Requirement R8 but was
late by more than 45
calendar days.
OR
The applicable entity
failed to provide its
UVLS Program database
in accordance with
Requirement R8.
Page 8 of 21

PRC‐010‐1 – Undervoltage Load Shedding
D. Regional Variances
None.
E. Interpretations
None.
F. Associated Documents
None.

Page 9 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Guidelines and Technical Basis
Introduction
PRC‐010‐1 is a single, comprehensive standard that addresses the same reliability principles
outlined in its legacy standards, PRC‐010‐0, PRC‐020‐1, PRC‐021‐1, and PRC‐022‐1. The standard
also addresses a FERC directive from Order No. 693, Paragraph 1509. This paragraph directs
NERC to develop a modification to PRC‐010‐0 that requires an integrated and coordinated
approach to all protection systems, including generators and transmission lines, generators’ low
voltage ride‐through capabilities, and underfrequency load shedding (UFLS) and UVLS programs.
Since FERC‐approved PRC‐006‐1 – Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding was developed
under a similar construct of combining existing standards and addressing a FERC Order No. 693
directive, the drafting team looked to this standard as a guide. With the understanding that
UVLS and UFLS systems have fundamental differences, the drafting team adopted PRC‐006‐1’s
industry‐vetted reliability principles and language as applicable to UVLS Programs.
The drafting team’s established purpose for PRC‐010‐1 is to clearly define the responsibilities of
applicable entities to pursue an integrated and coordinated approach to the design, evaluation,
and reliable operation of UVLS Programs. Since the need for and design of UVLS Programs is
unique to each system preservation footprint, the intent of the standard is to provide a
framework of reliability requirements for such programs to which each individual entity can
apply its program’s specific considerations and characteristics. The drafting team emphasizes
that PRC‐010‐1 does not require a mandatory UVLS Program, nor does this standard address
the need to have a UVLS Program. PRC‐010‐1 applies only after an entity has determined the
need for a UVLS Program as a result of its own planning studies.
The drafting team provides the following discussion to support the approach to the standard.
The information is meant to enhance the understanding of the reliability needs and deliverable
expectations of each requirement, supported as necessary by technical principles and industry
experience.
The design and characteristics of a centrally controlled undervoltage‐based load shedding
system are commensurate with a Special Protection System (SPS) or Remedial Action Scheme
(RAS), therefore, the drafting team maintains that this type of load shedding should be
covered by SPS-or-RAS‐related Reliability Standards. Therefore, PRC‐010‐1 introduces a new
Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards term, UVLS Program, to establish the
applicability of PRC‐010‐1 to automatic load shedding programs consisting of distributed relays
and controls used to mitigate undervoltage conditions impacting the Bulk Electric System
(BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading. Undervoltage-based load
shedding that does not have such an impact as determined by the Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner is not included. It is further noted that this term excludes centrally
controlled undervoltage‐based load shedding.
Subsequently, since the current Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards
definition of Special Protection System excludes UVLS, concurrent Project 2010‐05.2 – Special
Protection Systems (Phase 2 of Protection Systems) will adjust the definition to exclude only
UVLS Programs as defined above and therefore include centrally controlled undervoltage‐
Page 10 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
based load shedding. Of note, the drafting team for Project 2010‐05.2 is proposing to change
the term from Special Protection System to Remedial Action Scheme. Accordingly, PRC‐010‐1
uses the term Remedial Action Scheme instead of Special Protection System. In the current
inventory of NERC Reliability Standards, there is one instance of the term undervoltage load
shedding program, which is in NUC‐001‐2.1. Project 2012‐13–Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination has adjusted the language of this reference in proposed NUC‐001‐3 to eliminate
any potential confusion of a lowercase usage of a defined term. Likewise, future projects
containing standards that feature variations of the term (e.g., undervoltage load shedding
system) will also be advised to consider the newly defined term.
Requirements of the revised Reliability Standard PRC‐010‐1 meet the following objectives:
•

Evaluate a UVLS Program’s effectiveness prior to implementation, including the
program’s coordination with other protection systems and generator voltage ride‐
through capabilities.

•

Adhere to UVLS Program specifications and implementation schedule.

•

Perform periodic assessment and performance analysis of UVLS Programs and resolve
identified deficiencies.

•

Maintain and share UVLS Program data.

Also of note, Project 2009‐03 – Emergency Operations is proposing EOP‐011‐1, which, as part
of the overall revisions, retires specific requirements from EOP‐003‐2 – Load Shedding Plans to
eliminate identified redundancy between PRC‐010‐1 and EOP‐003‐2. In addition, the UVLS
drafting team’s intention is for PRC‐004 to address Misoperations of UVLS Programs that are
intended to trip one or more BES Elements. A change to make these types of UVLS Programs
explicitly applicable to PRC‐004 will be addressed once PRC‐004‐3 – Protection System
Misoperation Identification and Correction is completed under Project 2010‐05.1 –
Misoperations (Phase 1 of Protection Systems).

Page 11 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Guidelines for UVLS Program Definition
The definition for the term UVLS Program includes automatic load shedding programs that
utilize only voltage inputs at locations where action is taken to shed load. As such, the failure of
a single component is unlikely to affect the reliable operation of the program.
The definition for the term UVLS Program excludes centrally controlled undervoltage‐based load
shedding, which utilizes inputs from multiple locations and may also utilize inputs other than
voltages (such as generator reactive reserves, facility loadings, equipment statuses, etc.). The
design and characteristics of a centrally controlled undervoltage‐based load shedding system are
the same as that of a RAS, wherein load shedding is the remedial action. Therefore, just like for
a RAS, the failure of a single component can compromise the reliable operation of centrally
controlled undervoltage‐based load shedding.
To ensure that the applicability of the standard is to only those undervoltage‐based load shedding
systems whose performance has an impact on system reliability, a UVLS Program must mitigate
risk of one or more of the following: voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading impacting
the BES. An example of a program that would not fall under this category is undervoltage‐based
load shedding installed to mitigate damage to equipment or local loads that are directly affected
by the low voltage event.
Below is an example of a BES subsystem for which UVLS system could be used as a solution
to mitigate various issues following the loss of the 345 kV double circuit line between bus A
and bus B. If the consequence of this Contingency does not impact the BES by leading to
voltage instability, voltage collapse, or Cascading involving the BES, UVLS system (installed at
either, or both, bus B and D) used to mitigate this case would not fall under the definition of a
UVLS Program. However, if this same UVLS system would be used to mitigate Adverse Reliability
Impact outside this contained area, it would be classified as a wide‐area undervoltage
problem and would fall under the definition of UVLS Program.

Page 12 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
High Level Requirement Overview
Adhere to
Program
Specifications
and Schedule

Perform
Program
Assessment
(Periodic or
Performance)

Develop a
CAP to
Address
Program
Deficiencies

Update
and/or
Share
Program
Data

Requirement

Entity

Evaluate
Program
Effectiveness

R1

PC or TP

X

R2

UVLS entity

R3

PC or TP

X

X

R4

PC or TP

X

X

R5

PC or TP

R6

PC

X

R7

UVLS entity

X

R8

PC

X

X

X

Guidelines for Requirement R1:
A UVLS Program may be developed and implemented to either serve as a safety net system
protection measure against unforeseen extreme Contingencies or to achieve specific system
performance for known transmission Contingencies for which dropping of load is allowed under
Transmission Planning (TPL) Reliability Standards. Regardless of the purpose, it is important that
the UVLS Program being implemented is effective in terms that it mitigates undervoltage
conditions impacting the Bulk Electric System (BES), leading to voltage instability, voltage
collapse, or Cascading. Consideration should be given to voltage set points and time delays, rate
of voltage decay or recovery, power flow levels, etc. when designing a UVLS Program.
For the UVLS Program to be effective in achieving its goal, it is also necessary that the UVLS
Program is coordinated with generator voltage ride‐through capabilities and other protection
and control systems that may have an impact on the performance of the UVLS Program. Some of
these protection and control systems may include, but are not limited to, transmission line
protection, RAS, other undervoltage‐based load shedding programs, autoreclosing, and controls
of shunt capacitors, reactors, and static var systems (SVSs).
For example, if the purpose of a UVLS Program is to mitigate fault‐induced delayed voltage
recovery (FIDVR) events in a large load center that also includes local generation, it is important
that such a UVLS Program is coordinated with local generators’ voltage ride‐through capabilities.
Generators in the vicinity of a load center are critical to providing dynamic voltage support to the
system during FIDVR events. To maximize the benefit of on-line generation, the best practice may
be to shed load prior to generation trip. However, occasionally, it may be best to let generation
trip prior to load shed. Therefore, the impact of generation tripping should be considered while
designing a UVLS Program.

Page 13 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Another example that can be highlighted is the coordination of a UVLS Program with automatic
shunt reactor tripping devices if there are any on the system. Most likely, any shunt reactors on
the system will trip off automatically after some time delay during low voltage conditions. In such
cases, shunt reactors should be tripped before the load is shed to preserve the system. This may
require coordination of time delays associated with the UVLS Program with shunt reactor tripping
devices.
Examples given above demonstrate that, for a UVLS Program to be effective, proper
consideration should be given to coordination of a UVLS Program with generator ride‐through
capabilities and other protection and control systems.
Guidelines for Requirement R2:
Once a Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner has identified a need for a UVLS Program,
the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner will develop a program that includes
specifications and an implementation schedule, which are then provided to UVLS entities per
Requirement R1. Specifications may include voltage set points, time delays, amount of load to
be shed, the location at which load needs to be shed, etc. If UVLS entities do not implement the
UVLS Program according to the specifications and schedule provided, the UVLS Program may
not be effective and may not achieve its intended goal. The UVLS entity must document that all
necessary actions were completed to implement the UVLS Program.
Similarly, when a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to address UVLS Program deficiencies is
developed by the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner and provided to UVLS entities
per Requirement R5, UVLS entities must comply with the CAP and its associated
implementation schedule to ensure that the UVLS Program is effective. The UVLS entity is
required to complete the actions specified in the CAP, document the plan implementation, and
retain the appropriate evidence to demonstrate implementation and completion.
Deferrals or other relevant changes to the UVLS Program specifications or CAP need to be
documented so that the record includes not only what was planned, but what was
implemented. Depending on the planning and documentation format used by the responsible
entity, evidence of a successful execution could consist of signed‐off work orders, printouts
from work management systems, spreadsheets of planned versus completed work,
timesheets, work inspection reports, paid invoices, photographs, walk‐through reports, or
other evidence.
For example, documentation of a CAP provides an auditable progress and completion
confirmation for the identified UVLS Program deficiency:
CAP Example 1 ‐ Corrective actions for a quick triggering problem; preemptive
actions for similar installations:
PC or TP obtains fault records from a UVLS entity that participates in its UVLS
Program that indicate a group of UVLS relays triggered at the appropriate
undervoltage level but with shorter delays than expected. The PC or TP
directed the UVLS entity to schedule on‐site inspections within three weeks.
Page 14 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
The results of the inspection confirmed that the delay-time programmed on
the relays was 60 cycles instead of 90 cycles. The PC or TP then directed the
UVLS entity to correct to a 90‐cycle time delay setting of the UVLS relays
identified to have shorter time delay settings within eight weeks.
Applicability to other UVLS relays: The PC or TP then developed a
schedule with the UVLS entity to verify and adjust all remaining UVLS
relays time delay settings within a one‐year period.
The PC or TP verified completion of verification and adjustment of the
time delay settings for all of the UVLS entity’s equipment that
participates in the PC or TP UVLS Program
CAP Example 2 ‐ Corrective actions for a firmware problem; preemptive
actions for similar installations:
PC or TP obtains fault records on 6/4/2014 from a UVLS entity that
participates in its UVLS Program. The UVLS entity also provided the fault records
to the manufacturer, who responded on 6/11/2014 that the misoperation
of the UVLS relay was caused by a bug in version 2 firmware, and
recommended installing version 3 firmware. The PC or TP approved the
UVLS entity’s plan to schedule Version 3 firmware installation on
6/12/2014.
Applicability to other UVLS relays: The PC or TP then developed a schedule with
the UVLS entity to install firmware version 3 at all of the UVLS entity’s UVLS
relays that are determined to be programmed with version 2 firmware. The
completion date was scheduled no-later-than 12/31/2014.
The firmware replacements were completed on 12/4/2014.
Guidelines for Requirement R3:
In addition to the initial studies required to develop a UVLS Program, periodic comprehensive
assessments (detailed analyses) are required to ensure its continued effectiveness. This
assessment should be completed at least once every 60 calendar months to capture the
accumulated effects of minor changes to the system that have occurred since the last
assessment was completed. However, at any point in time, a Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner may also determine that a material change to system topology or
operating conditions affects the performance of the UVLS Program and therefore necessitates
the same comprehensive assessment. Regardless of the trigger, each assessment should
include an evaluation of each UVLS Program to ensure the continued integration through
coordination.
This comprehensive assessment supplements the TPL‐001‐4 annual assessment requirement to
evaluate the impact of protection systems. The 60-month period is the same time frame used in
TPL‐001‐4 and in PRC‐006‐1.
Page 15 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
With respect to situations in which a material change to system and topology or operating
conditions would necessitate a comprehensive assessment of the UVLS Program, it is
understood that the term material change is not transportable on a continent‐wide basis. This
determination must be made by the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner and should
be accompanied by documentation to support the technical rationale for determining material
changes.
As specified in Requirement R3, a comprehensive assessment must be performed at least once
every 60 calendar months. If a Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner conducts a
comprehensive assessment sooner for the reasons discussed above, the 60‐month time period
would restart upon completion of this assessment.
Guidelines for Requirement R4:
The goal of the assessment required in Requirement R4 is to evaluate whether the UVLS Program
resolved the undervoltage issues for an event that occurred on the system. It is expected that
the assessment should include event data analysis, such as the relevant sequence of events
leading to the undervoltage conditions (e.g., Contingencies, operation of protection systems, and
RAS) and field measurements useful to analyzing the behavior of the system. A comprehensive
description of the UVLS Program operation should be presented, including conditions of the
trigger (e.g., voltage levels, time delays) and amount of load shed for each affected substation.
Assessment of the event shall be performed to evaluate the level of performance of the program
for the event of interest and to identify deficiencies to be included in a CAP per Requirement R5.
The studies and analyses showing the effectiveness of the UVLS Program can be similar to what
is required in Requirements R1 and R3, but should include a clear link between the evaluation of
effectiveness (in studies using simulations) and the analysis of the event (with measurements
and event data) that actually occurred. For example, differences between the expected and
actual system behavior for the event of interest should be discussed and modeling assumptions
should be evaluated. Important discrepancies between the simulations and the actual event
should be investigated.
Considering the importance of an event that involves the operation of a UVLS Program, the 12‐
calendar‐month period provides adequate time to analyze the event and perform an assessment
while identifying deficiencies within a reasonable time. This time period is also required in PRC‐
006‐1.
Guidelines for Requirement R5:
Requirement R5 promotes the prudent correction of an identified problem during assessment
evaluations of each UVLS Program. Per Requirements R3 and R4, an assessment of an active
UVLS Program is triggered:


Within 12 calendar months of an event that resulted in a voltage excursion for which
the program was designed to operate.



At least once every 60 months. The default time frame of 60 months or less between
assessments has the intention to assure that the cumulative changes to the network and
operating condition affecting the UVLS Program are evaluated.
Page 16 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis

Since every UVLS is unique, if material changes are made to system topology or operating
conditions, the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner will decide the degree to which the
change in topology or operating condition becomes a material change sufficient to trigger an
assessment of the existing UVLS Program.
A CAP is a list of actions and an associated timetable for implementation to remedy a specific
problem. It is a proven tool for resolving operational problems. Per Requirement R5, the
Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner is required to develop a CAP and provide it to
UVLS entities to accomplish the purpose of this requirement, which is to prevent future
deficiencies in the UVLS Program, thereby minimizing risk to the system. Determining the cause of
the deficiency is essential in developing an effective CAP to avoid future re‐occurrence of the
same problem. A CAP can be revised if additional causes are found.
Based on industry experience and operational coordination timeframes, the drafting team
believes that within three calendar months from the date an assessment is completed is a
reasonable time frame for development of a CAP, including time to consider alternative
solutions and coordination of resources. The “within three calendar months” time frame is solely
to develop a CAP, including its implementation schedule, and provide it to UVLS entities. It does
not include the time needed for its implementation by UVLS entities. This implementation time
frame is dictated within the CAP’s associated timetable for implementation, and the execution of
the CAP according to its schedule is required in Requirement R2.
Guidelines for Requirements R6–R8
An accurate UVLS Program database is necessary for the Planning Coordinator or Transmission
Planner to perform system reliability assessment studies and event analysis studies. Without
accurate data, there is a possibility that annual reliability assessment studies that are
performed by the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner can lead to erroneous results
and therefore impact reliability. Also, without the accurate data, it is very difficult for the
Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner to duplicate a UVLS event and determine the
root cause of the problem.
To support a UVLS Program database, it is necessary for each UVLS entity to provide accurate
data to its Planning Coordinator. Each UVLS entity will provide the data according to the
specified format and schedule provided by the Planning Coordinator. This is required in order for
the Planning Coordinator to maintain and support a comprehensive UVLS Program database. By
having a comprehensive database, the Planning Coordinator can embark on a reliability
assessment or event analysis/benchmarking studies, identify the issues with the UVLS Program,
and develop remedial action plans.
The UVLS Program database may include, but is not limited to the following:



Owner and operator of the UVLS Program
Size and location of customer load, or percent of connected load, to be interrupted

Page 17 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis





Corresponding voltage set points and clearing times
Time delay from initiation to trip signal
Breaker operating times
Any other schemes that are part of or impact the UVLS Programs, such as related
generation protection, islanding schemes, automatic load restoration schemes,
UFLS, and RAS.

Additionally, the UVLS Program database should be updated annually (once every calendar
year) by the Planning Coordinator. The intent here is for UVLS entities to review the data
annually and provide changes to the Planning Coordinators so that Planning Coordinators can
keep the databases current and accurate for performing event analysis and other assessments.
Finally, a Planning Coordinator is required to provide information to other Planning
Coordinators and Transmission Planners within its Interconnection, and other functional
entities with a reliability need, within 30 calendar days of receipt of a written request. Thirty
calendar days was selected as the time frame as it is considered to be reasonable and well‐
accepted by the industry. Also, this requirement of sharing the database with applicable
functional entities supports the directive provided by FERC that requires an integrated and
coordinated approach to UVLS programs (Paragraph 1509 of FERC Order No. 693).

Version History
Version

Date

Action

0

April 1, 2005

Effective Date

0

February 8,
2005

Adopted by NERC Board of
Trustees

0

March 16, 2007 Approved by FERC

0

February 7,
2013

R2 and associated elements
approved by NERC Board of
Trustees for retirement as part of
the Paragraph 81 project (Project
2013-02) pending applicable
regulatory approval.

0

November 21,
2013

R2 and associated elements
approved by FERC for retirement
as part of the Paragraph 81
project (Project 2013-02)

Change Tracking
New

Page 18 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
1
November 13,
2014

1

November 19,
2015

Adopted by NERC Board of
Trustees

Revisions made
under Project 200802: Undervoltage
Load Shedding
(UVLS) &
Underfrequency
Load Shedding
(UFLS) to address
directive issued in
FERC Order No.
763. Completed
revision, merged
and updated PRC‐
010‐0, PRC‐020‐1,
PRC‐ 021‐1, and
PRC‐022‐1.

FERC approved PRC-010-1. Docket
Nos. RM15-7-000, RM15-12-000,
and RM15-13-000. Order No. 818

Rationale:

During development of this standard, text boxes were embedded within the standard to explain the
rationale for various parts of the standard. Upon BOT approval, the text from the rationale text boxes
was moved to this section.
Rationale for Applicability
This standard is applicable to Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners that have or are
developing a UVLS Program, and to Distribution Providers and Transmission Owners responsible for
the ownership, operation, or control of UVLS equipment as required by the UVLS Program
established by the Transmission Planner or Planning Coordinator. These Distribution Providers and
Transmission Owners are referred to as UVLS entities for the purpose of this standard.
The applicability includes both the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner because either
may be responsible for designing and coordinating the program based on agreements,
memorandums of understanding, or tariffs.
The phrase “Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner” provides the latitude for applicability to
the entity that will perform the action. The expectation is not that both parties will perform the
action, but rather that the Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner will engage in discussion
to determine the appropriate responsible entity.
Rationale for R1
Page 19 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
In Paragraph 1509 from Order No. 693, FERC directed NERC to require an integrated and coordinated
approach to all protection systems. The drafting team agrees that a lack of coordination among
protection systems is a key risk to reliability, and that each Planning Coordinator or Transmission
Planner that develops a UVLS Program should evaluate the program’s viability and effectiveness prior
to implementation. This evaluation should include studies and analyses used when developing the
program that show implementation of the program resolves the identified undervoltage conditions
that led to its design. These studies and analyses should also show that the UVLS Program is
integrated through coordination with generator voltage ride‐through capabilities and other
protection and control systems. Though presented as separate items, the drafting team recognizes
that the studies that show coordination considerations and that the program addresses undervoltage
issues may be interrelated and presented as one comprehensive analysis.
In addition, Requirement R1 also requires the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner to
provide the UVLS Program’s specifications and implementation schedule to applicable UVLS
entities to implement the program. It is noted that studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the
program should be completed prior to providing the specifications and schedule.
Rationale for R2
UVLS entities must implement a UVLS Program or address any necessary corrective actions for a UVLS
Program according to the specifications and schedule provided by the Planning Coordinator or
Transmission Planner. If UVLS entities do not implement the UVLS Program according to the
specifications and schedule provided, the UVLS Program may not be effective and may not achieve its
intended goal.
Rationale for R3
A periodic comprehensive assessment (detailed analysis) should be conducted to identify and
catalogue the accumulated effects of minor changes to the system that have occurred since the last
assessment was completed, and should include an evaluation of each UVLS Program to ensure the
continued integration through coordination. This comprehensive assessment supplements the NERC
Reliability Standard TPL‐001‐4 annual assessment requirement to evaluate the impact of protection
systems.
Based on the drafting team’s knowledge and experience, and in keeping with time frames contained
in similar requirements from other PRC Reliability Standards, 60 calendar months was determined to
be the maximum amount of time allowable between assessments. Assessments will be performed
sooner than the end of the 60‐calendar month period if the Planning Coordinator or Transmission
Planner determines that there are material changes to system topology or operating conditions that
affect the performance of a UVLS Program. Note that the 60‐calendar‐month time frame would reset
after each assessment.
Rationale for R4
A UVLS Program not functioning as expected during a voltage excursion event for which the UVLS
Program was designed to operate presents a critical risk to system reliability. Therefore, a timely
assessment to evaluate whether the UVLS Program resolved the undervoltage issues associated with
the applicable event is essential. The 12 calendar months (from the date of the event) provides
adequate time to coordinate with other Planning Coordinators, Transmission Planners, Transmission
Page 20 of 21

Guidelines and Technical Basis
Operators, and UVLS entities, simulate pre‐ and post‐event conditions, and complete the
performance assessment.
Rationale for R5
If program deficiencies are identified during an assessment of a UVLS Program performed in either
Requirement R3 or R4, the Planning Coordinator or Transmission Planner must develop a
Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to address the deficiencies. Based on the drafting team’s knowledge
and experience with UVLS studies, three calendar months was determined to provide a judicious
balance between the reliability need to address deficiencies expeditiously and the time needed to
consider potential solutions, coordinate resources, develop a CAP and implementation schedule,
and provide the CAP and schedule to UVLS entities.
It is noted that the three‐month time frame is only to develop the CAP and provide it to UVLS
entities and does not encompass the time UVLS entities have to implement the CAP. Requirement
R2 requires UVLS entities to execute the CAP according to the schedule provided by the Planning
Coordinator or Transmission Planner.
Rationale for R6
Having accurate and current data is required for the Planning Coordinator to perform undervoltage
studies and for use in event analyses. Requirement R6 supports this reliability need by requiring the
Planning Coordinator to update its UVLS Program database at least once each calendar year.
Rationale for R7
Having accurate and current data is required for the Planning Coordinator to perform
undervoltage studies and for use in event analyses. Requirement R7 supports this reliability
need by requiring the UVLS entity to provide UVLS Program data in accordance with
specified parameters.
Rationale for R8
Requirement R8 supports the integrated and coordinated approach to UVLS programs directed by
Paragraph 1509 of Order No. 693 by requiring that UVLS Program data be shared with neighboring
Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners within a reasonable time period. Requests for the
database should also be fulfilled for those functional entities that have a reliability need for the data
(such as the Transmission Operators that develop System Operating Limits and Reliability
Coordinators that develop Interconnection Reliability Operating Limits).

Page 21 of 21