Enforcement Explained: Trends in vegetation management

As we turn the calendar to August, a key activity that many utilities have been undertaking in the warm weather is vegetation management. This edition of Enforcement Explained explores recent trends in vegetation management, and FAC-003 (Transmission Vegetation Management) violations specifically, and offers a reminder on how critical vegetation management programs are to the reliability of the Bulk Electric System (BES). Effective vegetation management is a fundamental expectation for all applicable transmission owners and generator owners, and registered entities should have no tolerance for vegetation contacts.

Vegetation management background

This is especially relevant to point out on the Aug. 14 anniversary of 2003 Northeast Blackout. Ineffective vegetation management (specifically a failure to adequately manage tree growth within transmission rights-of-way (ROW)) was a key cause of the blackout and directly led to the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which created the ERO Enterprise (NERC and the Regions) and mandatory NERC Reliability Standards.¹ FAC-003-1 (Transmission Vegetation Management Program) became effective on June 18, 2007. FAC-003-5 (Transmission Vegetation Management) is the current Standard that governs vegetation management, and this version became effective on April 1, 2024. FAC-003-5 R1 specifies that each applicable Transmission Owner and applicable Generator Owner shall manage vegetation to prevent encroachments into the Minimum Vegetation Clearance Distance (MVCD) of its applicable line(s).

Given that entities have been required to comply with versions of FAC-003 for more than 18 years, implementing an effective vegetation management program should be easier in 2025 than it was in 2007, in part, because of years of experience, sharing of best practices among utilities, and technological developments (such as advancements in LiDAR, higher quality cameras and video equipment, and improved sharing of video, photographs, and data from the field). Recent data, however, reveals that challenges with vegetation management continue to persist.

FAC-003 violation root causes

From Jan. 1, 2020, through Aug. 1, 2025, the ERO Enterprise has processed eight violations of FAC-003-3 R2 and FAC-003-4 R2 (predecessor versions of FAC-003-5 R1) in Settlement Agreements.² Three of these eight violations occurred in the ReliabilityFirst footprint. The ERO Enterprise is also actively processing multiple violations of FAC-003-5.

The most common root cause of these recent violations was an ineffectively designed and implemented Transmission Vegetation Management Plan (TVMP). As examples, TVMPs:

1. did not adequately address local conditions such as fast-growing trees or terrain that was difficult to access and monitor;
2. allowed for too much time between inspections;
3. permitted vegetation inspections during times of the year that foliage was not visible;
4. included an overreliance on visual cues and professional and historical knowledge to assess the zones where complete clearing was not required;
5. permitted inspections at too great a distance; and
6. incorrectly calculated transmission line sag and sway.

Entities have also failed to implement their TVMP due to challenges caused by customers and property owners adjacent to ROWs, including difficulties with enforcing easement rights. Another root cause involved a deficient process that did not adequately capture and integrate asset information into existing programs and databases resulting in failures to add transmission lines to the entity’s TVMP for scheduled clearing. One other root cause stemmed from an ineffective use of modeling tools, which resulted in the entity not sufficiently modeling conductor loops located at transmission poles.

One consistent theme that emerged from these violations was a significant reliance on vendors to perform vegetation inspections and clearings as part of an entity’s TVMP. Utilizing vendors to help perform vegetation management can be part of an effective strategy, but many entities struggled with vendor management and oversight. Some entities outsourced nearly all vegetation management activities to vendors without providing sufficient oversight. Another problem was ineffective training of vendor personnel performing vegetation clearing and other vegetation management activities.

From a mitigation standpoint, common measures implemented to address these recent violations included:

1. increased vendor management oversight;
2. retraining personnel performing vegetation management;
3. redesigning TVMPs with additional verification and validation controls to ensure vegetation management was being performed adequately and timely; and
4. investment in additional tools (such as LiDAR) and resources.

Vegetation management is foundational and fundamental to the reliability of the BES. Entities must remain proactive, vigilant, and invested in the oversight and implementation of their vegetation management programs. Penalties associated with these publicly-filed violations are designed, in part, to reiterate the critical importance of vegetation management.

Vegetation management takeaways

The examples above reveal the ongoing challenges of performing effective vegetation management and remaining compliant with FAC-003. That data is a reminder that all entities need to remain active in reviewing their vegetation management programs to ensure that: (a) their programs are properly resourced (with both personnel and tools); and (b) effective oversight is being performed. Since 2020, violations of FAC-003 have the highest average penalty per violation of any non-CIP NERC Reliability Standard and have been found to pose a serious risk to the reliability of the BES more frequently than any other non-CIP NERC Reliability Standard.³ These statistics reinforce that vegetation management is fundamental to the reliability of the BES, and there is no tolerance for violations of FAC-003-5 R1.

Although the 2003 Northeast Blackout was more than 20 years ago, vegetation management is no less important now than it was then, and ReliabilityFirst will continue to enforce violations of FAC-003 in a way that reflects that importance.

If any entities are interested in getting help with their vegetation management, please reach out to your Case Manager or submit an Assist Visit request to RF’s Entity Engagement Department.

If you want to discuss the information provided above, any topics you would like to see addressed in Enforcement Explained, or anything enforcement-related, please reach out to your case manager or you can email me at Maxwell.Reisinger@rfirst.org. Finally, have a wonderful rest of summer.

 

---

¹Final Report on the Aug. 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations (https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ch1-3.pdf).

²In addition to violation information, NERC collects data quarterly on vegetation outages caused by vegetation falling into applicable lines from outside the ROW. From 2020-2025, there have been approximately 28 of these outages a year across the ERO. Although these outages are beyond the scope of FAC-003, RF encourages entities to consider taking action (increased monitoring of vegetation on the border of the ROW and building relationships with property owners adjacent to the ROW) that can help reduce the number of these outages. The referenced data is current through Aug. 1, 2025, and is publicly available through NERC’s website (https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Pages/CMEP%20and%20Vegetation%20Reports.aspx).

³Average penalty per violation of more than $200,000 and approximately 58% of FAC-003 violations processed in Settlements posed a serious risk in this timeframe. The referenced data is current through Aug. 1, 2025, and is publicly available through NERC’s website in NERC’s Searchable Spreadsheet Notice of Penalty (https://www.nerc.com/pa/comp/CE/Pages/Enforcement-and-Mitigation.aspx).