Talk:North American Electric Reliability Corporation

.

Fair use rationale for Image:Nerc logo.JPG
Image:Nerc logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Addressed issue on the image's page. Fjbfour (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias
The large sections at the head of the articel contain alot of questionable assertions with no backup. EG: "NERC undoubtedly played a significant role in minimizing the impact and frequency of these events.". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC) === The map shown here does not agree with that on the FERC site which would seem to be more likely correct. The map can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/gen-info/transmission-grid.pdf#xml=http://search.atomz.com/search/pdfhelper.tk?sp_o=12,100000,0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The map shown on the FERC site represents the historic (the DOE report is dated 2002) manner in which the Quebec Interconnection has been managed. However, they recently requested that they be recognized as a separate interconnection. The map included with the article is correct. --205.247.122.228 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Relation to ISO/RTO
It would be helpful to include a description of how NERC regions relate to regional transmission operators (RTOs)/Independant System Operators (ISOs) such as ISO-NE, NYISO, PJM, MISO, SPP, ERCOT, NBSO or CAISO. General readers of this page could use this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Questions (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Official representative with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
I am a Communications Specialist with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. At the directive of our executive staff, this page is now updated with several edits and key initiatives, which includes informed content on the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Understanding the Grid and Reliability Standards. The information included on this page mirrors the NERC website and is intended to inform readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinahm1325 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Response
Content that "mirrors your web page" is generally not acceptable for Wikipedia. An encyclopedia contains material the general public will want to know; a web page contains material the organization will want to tell them. There's a difference. An encyclopedia contains material written in a neutral encyclopedic tone, without adjectives of  praise or importance; a web page contains material written to demonstrate the importance of the organization. Again, there's a difference. By our usual standards, much of the material added about the structure of the company is written in a style too much like a press release, and with too much detail about internal matters.

In particular, general material about the stability of the electrical grid does not belong in the article about the company; it belongs in a general article on the subject. We already have a number of such articles: see the two sets of articles listed at the bottom of the article: Electrical grid. Possibly the article should be divided into an article about the current structure of the grid, and an article about the organization itself. Some of the material you have added could be used in one or the other location.

In addition, it seems that we may not have an adequate general article on the History of the Electrical Grid in the United State sand Canada. This needs to be developed, but it should be done with greater emphasis of academic sources than is apparently provided by any of our current articles. This could probably best be done by someone with a broad but thorough understanding of both the technological and the social aspects of the history.

I am working on the current contents to see what needs to be rewritten, and what is best eliminated.  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Response from NERC

I am happy to have you review our content. I’m sure you will find it to be technically/factually written – no adjectives or praise. As the regulator for the bulk power system and a not-for-profit business, we are not in the business of “selling” or “touting” anything. Our goal was to update outdated information that had not been maintained, to eliminate incorrect information and as you have stated, get rid of “flowery” language that we found in the previous posting. Grid stability and reliability are our mission – everything we do is to assure the lights remain on. We also want to establish the vast difference between bulk power oversight vs. distribution oversight, which falls to the states.

We are happy to receive your feedback as I know our goals are similar in wanting the site to have the most accurate information. Thanks for your prompt attention.

Cambodia???
It says in the insert that the organisation is "Named after Cambodia Electric Reliability Corporation". Is that vandalism?--Achim Hering (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)