[dynoman]

Bingo! Here’s the FERC Field Test document;

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/2007-12_BAL-003-1_FR_Field_Test_Document_20110204.pdf

Here’s the operative quote;

“BAL-003-1 proposes to bring Frequency Bias Settings closer to Frequency Response. The drafting team proposes to reduce the minimum Frequency Bias Settings over a period of years. The drafting team proposes to establish a new minimum Frequency Bias Setting in 2011 (-0.8% of peak/0.1Hz, compared to the present -1% of peak/0.1Hz). The drafting team, NERC and the Resources Subcommittee will observe the impact on frequency and will implement a reversion plan as necessary.”

Looks to me like they are proposing tighter not looser frequency control and reading the other docs mainly between interconnections.

[dynoman]

Another doc that outlines the proposed standards;

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/2007-12_BAL-003-1_Implementation_Plan_20110204.pdf

Again the operative numbers;

• May 2011 through December 2011 -0.8% of peak/0.1 Hz
• January 2012 through December 2012 -0.6% of peak/0.1 Hz
• January 2013 through December 2013 -0.4% of peak/0.1 Hz
• January 2014 through December 2014 -0.2% of peak/0.1 Hz
• January 2015 through -0.0% of peak/0.1 Hz

The attachment A doc explains that caculation and implies the current guideline is -1% of peak/0.1Hz;

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/2007-12_BAL-003-1_Attachment_A_20110204.pdf

I’ve seen enough to conclude the AP and linked article authors don’t know what they are talking about.

[meyer]

Looks to me like they are proposing tighter not looser frequency control and reading the other docs mainly between interconnections.

They are, though that's a somewhat different issue from the experimental elimination of time error correction. And they should - I watch the frequency as part of my job, and I would agree that tightening the frequency response requirements might be a good idea.