Common use of Commission Findings Clause in Contracts

Commission Findings. 22. We accept NERC’s proposal to include, in Exhibit C of the pro forma Delegation Agreement, 34 Common Attributes that govern the development of reliability standards. These Common Attributes are generally consistent with NERC’s procedures for the development of reliability standards that the Commission has approved in the ERO Certification Order.27 We also find that these Common Attributes will serve as a useful benchmark in identifying the procedural elements necessary to ensure an open and fair process capable of producing reliability standards that are both technically sound and able to achieve a valuable reliability goal. We also agree that it will be appropriate, consistent with the flexibility afforded by FPA section 215, to consider, on a case-by-case basis (as we do below), the specific voting procedures applicable to this standards development process. 23. However, while we accept as reasonable NERC’s Common Attributes as part of the pro forma Delegation Agreement and as an appropriate mechanism for NERC to evaluate a proposed reliability standards development process, we will look to the statute, e.g., section 215(c) and (e), Order No. 672, and other Commission precedent to determine whether a proposed reliability standard is appropriate and whether the regional development process is acceptable. Thus, in reviewing Exhibit C in a given case (e.g., in the context of the individual Delegation Agreements considered below in section V), we will consider the underlying documentation (i.e., the bylaws or manuals approved by each proposed Regional Entity’s board of directors), not only the narrative explanation accompanying each Common Attribute that appears in the individual Delegation Agreements. The scope of these Common Attributes will not limit the factors that we consider and our assessment of the requirements for a standards development process may be different from that provided by NERC’s Common Attributes. 24. We disagree with GSOC that the Common Attributes are vague and require clarification. The term “functional classes of entities,” as used in Common Attribute 32, is clearly referring to the types or categories of entities to which a reliability standard would apply.28 Likewise, the purpose and function of the term “measures,” as used in Common Attribute 33, has been clarified by NERC and discussed by the Commission in

Commission Findings. 22. We accept NERC’s proposal to include, in Exhibit C of the pro forma Delegation Agreement, 34 Common Attributes that govern the development of reliability standards. These Common Attributes are generally consistent with NERC’s procedures for the development of reliability standards that the Commission has approved in the ERO Certification Order.27 We also find that these Common Attributes will serve as a useful benchmark in identifying the procedural elements necessary to ensure an open and fair process capable of producing reliability standards that are both technically sound and able to achieve a valuable reliability goal. We also agree that it will be appropriate, consistent with the flexibility afforded by FPA section 215, to consider, on a case-by-case basis (as we do below), the specific voting procedures applicable to this standards development process. 23. However, while we accept as reasonable NERC’s Common Attributes as part of the pro forma Delegation Agreement and as an appropriate mechanism for NERC to evaluate a proposed reliability standards development process, we will look to the statute, e.g., section 215(c) and (e), Order No. 672, and other Commission precedent to determine whether a proposed reliability standard is appropriate and whether the regional development process is acceptable. Thus, in reviewing Exhibit C in a given case (e.g., in the context of the individual Delegation Agreements considered below in section V), we will consider the underlying documentation (i.e., the bylaws or manuals approved by each proposed Regional Entity’s board of directors), not only the narrative explanation accompanying each Common Attribute that appears in the individual Delegation Agreements. The scope of these Common Attributes will not limit the factors that we consider and our assessment of the requirements for a standards development process may be different from that provided by NERC’s Common Attributes. 24. We disagree with GSOC that the Common Attributes are vague and require clarification. The term “functional classes of entities,” as used in Common Attribute 32, is clearly referring to the types or categories of entities to which a reliability standard would apply.28 Likewise, the purpose and function of the term “measures,” as used in Common Attribute 33, has been clarified by NERC and discussed by the Commission inin 27 See NERC Rules of Procedure, App. 3A. 28 See Order No. 693, 118 FERC ¶ 61,218 at P 94. Order No. 693.29 Finally, while we agree that NERC should consider the editorial and typographical revisions identified by GSOC, along with any other clarifications of this nature, we will not direct that any particular change be made.