[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5206-5237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2388]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 37
[Docket No. RM95-9-003]
Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct
January 27, 1999.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission)
proposes to adopt a set of uniform business practices implementing the
Commission's policies on transmission service price negotiation and
improving interactions between transmission providers and customers
over OASIS nodes and proposes to revise 18 CFR 37.5 to require
compliance with these practices. In addition, the Commission proposes a
consistent naming convention for path names, proposes to replace the
Data Dictionary Element ``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' in the OASIS Standards
and Communication Protocols Document (Version 1.3) with the term
``AS__TYPE,'' and proposes to clarify the terms ``DISPLACED,''
``SUPERSEDED,'' and ``REFUSED'' in Sec. 4.2.10.2 of that same document
and in the Data Dictionary Element.
DATES: Written comments (an original and 14 paper copies) must be
received by April 5, 1999. In addition, the Commission encourages the
filing of a copy of the comments on computer diskette or by E-Mail by
the same date.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information), Office of Economic Policy,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-1283.
Paul Robb (Technical Information), Office of Electric Power Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 219-2702.
Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-0321.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
[[Page 5207]]
inspect or copy the contents of this document during normal business
hours in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A,
Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to
the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission. CIPS can be
accessed via Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.fed.us)
using the CIPS Link or the Energy Information Online icon. The full
text of this document will be available on CIPS in ASCII and
WordPerfect 6.1 format. CIPS is also available through the Commission's
electronic bulletin board service at no charge to the user and may be
accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing 202-208-
1397, if dialing locally, or 1-800-856-3920, if dialing long distance.
To access CIPS, set your communications software to 19200, 14400,
12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8
data bits and 1 stop bit. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474
or by E-mail to cipsmaster@ferc.fed.us.
This document is also available through the Commission's Records
and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and
retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission
after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present
can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference
Room or remotely via Internet through FERC's Home Page using the RIMS
link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is
available at 202-208-2222, or by E-mail to [email protected]
Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International,
Inc. RVJ International, Inc. is located in the Public Reference Room at
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Public Reporting Burden
III. Discussion
A. Overview
B. Background
C. Composition of CPWG Membership
D. Business Practices for OASIS Phase IA Transactions
1. Recommended Voluntary Guides and Recommended Mandatory
Standards
2. Need for Standard Terminology (Section 2A of the June 19
Report)
3. Attribute Values Defining the Period of Service (Section 2B
of the June 19 Report)
4. Attribute Values Defining Service Class and Type (Section 2C
of the June 19 Report)
5. Curtailment Priorities (Section 2D of the June 19 Report)
6. Other Service Attribute Values (Section 2E of the June 19
Report)
7. Scheduling Period (Section 2F of the June 19 Report)
8. Maintenance of Industry Home Page (Section 3A of the June 19
Report)
9. Identification of Parties (Section 3A of the June 19 Report)
10. Registering Non-Standard Service Attributes (Section 3B of
the June 19 Report)
11. Registering Points of Receipt and Delivery (Section 3C of
the June 19 Report)
12. On-line Price Negotiation in Short-term Markets (Section 4A
of the June 19 Report)
13. Diagram Depicting the Negotiation Process (Section 4B of the
June 19 Report)
14. Negotiations Without Competing Bids (Section 4C of July 19
Report)
15. Negotiations with Competing Bids for Constrained Resources
(When Customer Has Not Yet Confirmed a Provider's Acceptance)
(Section 4D of June 19 Report)
16. Transmission Provider Requirements (Section 5B of June 19
Report)
17. Transmission Customer Requirements (Section 5C of June 19
Report)
E. Recommended Revisions to Pro Forma Tariff (Appendix A of the
June 19 Report)
1. Section 14.2--Reservation Priority
2. Section 14.7--Curtailment or Interruption of Service
3. Section 17.5--Response to a Completed Application
F. September 15th Filing of Standards for Naming Transmission
Paths
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
V. Environmental Statement
VI. Information Collection Statement
VII. Public Comment Procedure
Attachment A--``Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time
Information System (OASIS) Phase IA Transactions''
Attachment B--quotes sections 13.2, 14.2, 14.7, and 17.5 of the pro
forma tariff.
Attachment C--quotes section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document.
I. Introduction
In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes a set of uniform business
practices implementing the Commission's policies on transmission
service price negotiation and improving interactions between
transmission providers and customers over Open Access Same-Time
Information System (OASIS) nodes and proposes to revise 18 CFR 37.5 to
require compliance with these practices. In addition, we propose a
consistent naming convention for path names, propose to replace the
Data Dictionary Element ``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' in the OASIS Standards
and Communication Protocols Document, Version 1.3 (S&CP Document) with
the term ``AS__TYPE,'' and propose to clarify the terms ``DISPLACED,''
``SUPERSEDED,'' and ``REFUSED'' in the Data Dictionary Element and in
section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See attached ``Business Practice Standards and Guides for
OASIS Transactions'' (BPS&G). We expect that, with assistance from
the industry, we will make improvements in these business practices
over time, in the same way that we have made changes to the S&CP
Document since its original issuance in 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Reporting Burden
The proposed rule would require a transmission provider to comply
with a set of uniform business practices to implement the Commission's
policies on transmission service price negotiation and improve
interactions between transmission providers and customers over OASIS
nodes. The proposed business practices are divided between mandatory
standards and voluntary best practice guides. Under this proposal, the
best practice guides would not be mandatory; but a transmission
provider electing to follow them would be bound to follow them on a
consistent non-discriminatory basis. By necessity, a transmission
provider already follows business practices in the operation of its
OASIS node. The NOPR merely proposes to make these practices more
uniform across the industry.
On December 1, 1998, the Commission issued a proposed information
collection and request for comments in Docket No. IC99-717-000 that
covered all information collected under the requirements of FERC-717
``Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct''
(OMB No. 1902-0173) over the next three years, including the
implementation of OASIS Phase IA and any information collected under
this NOPR.\2\ The burden estimate submitted on December 1, 1998 for all
OASIS requirements was as follows: ``Burden Statement: Public reporting
burden for this collection is estimated as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See note 11, infra, where we elaborate on matters covered by
OASIS Phase IA.
[[Page 5208]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Average burden Total annual
respondents responses per hours per burden hours
annually (1) respondent (2) response (3) (1)x(2)x(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
140.............. 1 1,418 198,520
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated total cost to respondents is $21,157,500.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The estimated total cost of $21,157,500 was computed as
follows:
The Commission has assumed that 4.5 personnel are necessary for
staffing and using a total personnel cost of $109,889, the result is
$494,501. To get the total cost, add annual ongoing costs of
$110,000 plus staffing costs [$110,000 + $494,501] for a total of
$604,501 divided by 4 = $151,125). The estimated total cost of the
OASIS requirement is 140 respondents x $151,125 or $21,157,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not preparing a separate estimate covering this NOPR only,
because we find that the NOPR would not significantly alter the
estimate contained in the December 1, 1998 notice. The December 1, 1998
burden estimate gave the Commission's estimate of OASIS-related
information requirements over the next three years, and this estimate
contemplated the Commission's issuance of uniform business practices
during this time frame. In any event, if a separate estimate were
prepared, it would not be substantial, because the proposal in this
NOPR, if promulgated, would not create any direct information
collection requirements and because transmission providers already will
need to have business practices in place to conduct OASIS transactions
under the Phase IA S&CP Document that becomes effective on March 1,
1999. By announcing this proposal before March 1, 1999, the burden of
making changes from already established business practices will be
minimized.
The following collection of information contained in this NOPR has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3507(d). For copies of the OMB submission, contact Michael Miller at
202-208-1415.
Internal Review
The Commission has conducted an internal review of this conclusion
and has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for this information burden estimate.
Moreover, the Commission has reviewed the collection of information
proposed by this NOPR and has determined that the collection of
information is necessary and conforms to the Commission's plan, as
described in this order, for the collection, efficient management, and
use of the required information.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
A. Overview
In this NOPR, we propose a set of uniform business practices, set
out in the attached BPS&G document, for use by transmission providers
in conjunction with OASIS transactions. Moreover, to ensure compliance,
we are proposing a revision to 18 CFR 37.5(b) proposing that
responsible parties must comply with the requirements set out in the
BPS&G document. In main part, the uniform business practices we propose
are those recommended by an industry group in two recent filings.
However, as discussed below, we have made certain revisions to those
recommendations, to reflect Commission policy, add clarity, and address
initial comments received from interested persons.5 In
addition, the Commission proposes a consistent naming convention for
path names, proposes to replace the Data Dictionary Element
``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' in the S&CP Document with the term ``AS__TYPE,''
and proposes to clarify the terms ``DISPLACED,'' ``SUPERSEDED,'' and
``REFUSED'' in the Data Dictionary Element and in section 4.2.10.2 of
the S&CP Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Throughout this document we have shown additions and
recommended revisions with italics and boldface and deletions and
recommended deletions with [italics and brackets].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background
The OASIS rulemaking process began with the Commission's issuance
of a notice of technical conference and request for comments (RIN
Notice) 6 in conjunction with the Commission's previously
proposed Open Access Rule.7 The RIN Notice announced that
the Commission was considering establishing rules to effectuate the
non-discrimination goals of the Open Access NOPR, through the creation
of a real-time information network (RIN) or other options to ensure
that potential and actual transmission service customers would receive
adequate access to pertinent information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Real-Time Information Networks, Notice of Technical
Conference and Request for Comments, FERC Stats. & Regs. para.35,026
(1995).
\7\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. para.32,514 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's staff held a technical conference on RINs (RINs
Technical Conference) in Washington, D.C. on July 27 and 28, 1995.
During the discussion at the RINs Technical Conference, a consensus
developed that two industry working groups should be formed, one
dealing with ``what'' information should be posted on a RIN and the
other dealing with ``how'' to design a RIN to communicate this
information to the industry and what, if any, national standards this
would require.8 The ``what'' group would be facilitated by
the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the ``how''
group would be facilitated by the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Real-Time Information Networks, Notice of Timetable and
Opportunity for Participation in Industry Working Groups, FERC
Stats. & Regs. para.35,029 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 1995, both working groups submitted their reports to
the Commission. The Commission used the two industry reports and
associated comments as the starting point for a notice of proposed
rulemaking (RIN NOPR).9 Under the RIN NOPR, each public
utility that owned and/or controlled facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce would be
required to develop and/or participate in a RIN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, the Commission issued Order No. 889, a final rule
establishing the OASIS requirements.10 This order required
jurisdictional public utilities that own or control transmission
systems (transmission providers) to set up an OASIS. It also
established standards of conduct designed to ensure that a public
utility's employees (or any of its affiliates' employees) engaged in
transmission system operations function independently of the public
utility's employees (or of any of its affiliates' employees) who are
engaged in wholesale merchant functions. Finally, the order issued a
set of communication standards and protocols to ensure that
[[Page 5209]]
the OASIS system presents information in a consistent and uniform
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,035 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules established in Order No. 889 were for a basic (Phase I)
OASIS. The Order also contemplated that an enhanced (Phase II) OASIS
would be established in the future. The current Phase IA rules improve
the operations of the basic Phase I OASIS prior to the development of
the enhanced OASIS Phase II system.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OASIS ``Phase IA'' is a label devised by the industry to
refer to revisions to the OASIS Phase I requirements that the
Commission asked industry to devise to implement the Commission's
findings in the OASIS Final Rule requiring the on-line negotiation
of discounts. See Open Access Same-Time Information System and
Standards of Conduct, 83 FERC para. 61,360 at 62,452 (1998) (June 18
Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Order No. 889-A, the Commission addressed the requests for
rehearing of Order No. 889 and requested that the industry prepare a
report on Phase II issues.12 In response to this request, on
November 3, 1997, the Commercial Practices Working Group (CPWG),
together with the How Group (jointly ``CPWG/How Group''), submitted a
document entitled ``Industry Report to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission on the Future of OASIS'' (November 1997 Report). The
November 1997 Report stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,049 at
30,549, n.8 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC para.
61,253 (1997).
[t]here are inconsistencies in business practices across the nodes.
In fact, OASIS serves to underscore the differences in practices as
customers try to access information and reserve transmission in a
familiar way, but find procedures vary from provider to provider.
Some of the variations . . . include packaging of ancillary
services, application of discounts, use of ``sliding windows'' of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
transmission service, and customer confirmation time limits.
The November 1997 Report contained an action plan that included a
commitment to file a report with the Commission proposing draft
guidelines to clarify OASIS Phase IA business practices. Consistent
with this commitment, on June 19, 1998, CPWG/How Group tendered for
filing a report entitled ``Industry Report to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission on OASIS Phase IA Business Practices'' (June 19
Report). CPWG/How Group state that the recommendations in the June 19
Report are based on a consensus among participants from various
industry segments with diverse interests and viewpoints who chose to
participate in the CPWG/How Group process. The June 19 Report offers
for Commission adoption a set of business practice standards and
guidelines.
The June 19 Report states that the recommended business practice
standards and guides are intended to enable the Commission to implement
its policy directives related to on-line price negotiation and to
improve the commercial operation of OASIS. It also is stated that the
recommended standards and guides are intended to support FERC
regulations, the pro forma tariff, and the S&CP Document. Finally, the
June 19 Report maintains that, in a few instances, revisions to the pro
forma tariff are required to support the recommended business practices
and offers recommended tariff changes consistent with the recommended
business practices for Commission review and approval.
The June 19 Report describes how many OASIS-related business
practice implementation details were left for transmission providers to
determine for themselves, based on their interpretations of Order Nos.
888 and 889, the S&CP Document, and individual tariffs. The June 19
Report contends that this flexibility has resulted in significant
variation among business practices across OASIS nodes that influence
the development of markets.
CPWG/How Group argue that the recommended ``Phase IA Business
Practice Standards and Guides'' (Business Practices) in the June 19
Report provide an important step toward achieving greater consistency
in the implementation of the Commission's open access policy and OASIS.
CPWG/How Group request that the Commission adopt the recommended
Business Practices to support the implementation of Phase IA OASIS.
CPWG/How Group maintain that the recommended Business Practices are
consistent with existing FERC regulations, the pro forma tariff, and
the Phase IA S&CP Document, except where specific tariff revisions are
requested.
On July 6, 1998, the Commission issued a notice of the filing of
the June 19 Report that invited interested persons to comment on the
CPWG/How Group recommendations on or before July 31, 1998.13
Timely comments were filed by Electric Clearinghouse, Inc. (ECI),
Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy), and Enron Power Marketing Inc.
(EPMI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 63 FR 38641 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 1998, CPWG/How Group filed a letter with the
Commission requesting implementation of the recommended Business
Practices on March 1, 1999.
On September 15, 1998, CPWG/How Group filed a letter with the
Commission recommending standards for transmission path naming and
requesting Commission approval coincident with the start of OASIS Phase
IA (to begin on March 1, 1999). On October 14, 1998, the Commission
issued a notice of the filing of the proposed standards for
transmission path naming that invited comments by interested persons on
or before October 28, 1998.14 Timely comments were filed by
American Public Power Association (APPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 63 FR 56022 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Composition of CPWG Membership
In previous orders,15 we have noted that the Commission
would heed recommendations from industry working groups only to the
extent that the views of those groups reflected an open process with
input from diverse industry segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., RIN NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 32,516 at
33,173-74; Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,035 at
31,589, n.13; Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,049 at
30,549, n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
ECI argues that even though the CPWG has made valuable
contributions, that group is not a forum ``with balanced industry
segment representation.'' 16 ECI disagrees with the
statement in the June 19 Report that the CPWG ``is an independent forum
with balanced industry segment representation.'' 17 In ECI's
experience, the composition of the CPWG is unbalanced and is heavily
dominated by transmission providers. ECI argues that the unbalanced
composition of CPWG membership has resulted in the group functioning
more effectively as a barometer for, and not as the definitive
statement of, electric power industry views. ECI also argues that
claims of CPWG consensus should be viewed with skepticism and that the
heavy representation of public utility organizations (estimated by ECI
as 68 of 78 representatives) in the process encourages resolution of
problems through a least common denominator approach. Thus, ECI argues
that recommendations from the CPWG do not deserve the Commission's
unqualified deference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ECI Comments at 5-7.
\17\ June 19 Report at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We agree with ECI that unqualified deference should not be given to
the recommendations of any industry group whose decisions are not made
in an open inclusive process with balanced
[[Page 5210]]
representation reflecting a broad consensus of views from all industry
segments. Moreover, rather than giving ``unqualified deference'' to
recommendations from the CPWG, we here are issuing a NOPR that invites
comment from any interested person before taking any further action on
this matter. Further, we recently have been informed that the CPWG has
been reconstituted and its functions taken over by a replacement
industry group, the Interim Market Interface Committee (IMIC),
sponsored by NERC.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Minutes of September 22-23, 1998 CPWG Meeting, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, in the future, IMIC (or any other industry group) would like
the Commission to consider its recommendations to reflect the views of
the entire industry, then it is incumbent on it to demonstrate to the
Commission that: (1) its membership is drawn from all industry segments
in an open inclusive process; (2) it makes its decisions in a manner
that gives fair voice to participants with diverse viewpoints from all
industry segments; and (3) its activities are conducted in an open
inclusive manner.
D. Business Practices for OASIS Phase IA Transactions
1. Recommended Voluntary Guides and Recommended Mandatory Standards
The June 19 Report distinguishes between recommended OASIS business
practice ``standards'' and best practices ``guides.'' The June 19
Report states that while the ``standards'' are offered to the
Commission for adoption as mandatory requirements, the ``guides'' are
recommended as voluntary best practices. The CPWG/How Group advances
several reasons why some practices have been offered as guides instead
of as standards. First, they argue there may be majority support for
the practice, but not an overwhelming consensus. Second, they argue
reasonable alternatives may exist. Third, they argue customers and
providers need time to adapt computer systems and processes. Fourth,
they argue adoption of a practice as a standard may conflict with
existing tariffs and require tariff changes prior to adoption as a
standard. Fifth, they argue the practice may be a suggested, but not
required, action. CPWG/How Group stated that it plans to file
additional recommendations for standards and guides over time and, as
appropriate, request that existing guides be upgraded to mandatory
standards.
Comments
ECI argues that ``voluntary best practices'' must be enforceable
standards.19 Otherwise, ECI argues, these ``voluntary best
practices'' will foster the problem that CPWG identified in its
November 1997 report to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ECI Comments at 7.
There are inconsistencies in business practices across the nodes. In
fact, OASIS serves to underscore the differences in practices as
customers try to access information and reserve transmission in a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
familiar way, but find procedures vary from provider to provider.
ECI argues that the recommendation of ``voluntary best practices''
defeats the chief objective of the June 19 Report--to impose a uniform
and consistent set of business practices across the board in the
electric power industry.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, as discussed below, both EPMI and Cinergy argue that
specific recommended guides (recommended Guides 4.2 and 4.3--cited by
EPMI, and recommended Guide 4.1--cited by Cinergy) should be adopted as
mandatory standards for all transmission providers and not merely as
discretionary ``best practice'' guides.
Discussion
Notwithstanding concerns about the fairness and representativeness
of CPWG's decision making process, the distinction between mandatory
standards and voluntary guides helped the participants in its process
reach agreement on the issues. Similarly, we propose to maintain the
same distinction between standards and guides in this NOPR, although
(as discussed further below) we invite comment on this issue.
However, we agree with Cinergy that uniform and consistent business
practices across the board in the electric power industry are a desired
result, and that consistency can best be achieved through mandatory
standards rather than suggested guidelines.
Accordingly, although this NOPR proposes to follow the June 19
Report's general recommendation--that we distinguish between mandatory
standards and voluntary ``best practice'' guides--we invite commenters
to this NOPR to address whether particular proposals should be adopted
as standards or guidelines and whether the commenter recommends the
adoption of any additional standards or guides not contained in the
June 19 Report. Specifically, we invite those who agree with the
tentative classification of guideline vs. standard, as proposed in this
NOPR, to present their arguments as to why those classifications should
be retained (in the final rule) and invite those that disagree with the
current classifications to present their arguments as to why those
classifications should be changed (in the final rule). Commenters
should be aware that we are considering making all of the
recommendations mandatory standards, including those now proposed as
guidelines in this NOPR.
As written, the proposed guidelines would only apply to
transmission providers that choose to follow them, even where words
such as ``must'' or ``shall'' are used. However, a transmission
provider choosing to follow the guidelines is bound to apply them on a
uniform non-discriminatory basis.
2. Need for Standard Terminology (Section 2A of the June 19 Report)
In the November 1997 Report, CPWG/How Group identified inconsistent
use of terminology as an area for improvement in OASIS. In the June 19
Report, CPWG/How Group recommend that we establish a standard set of
attribute values to provide clarity and consistency in the labeling of
transmission services.
Comments
Comments were received from ECI, Cinergy, and EPMI in support of
standard attributes. However, as discussed in detail below, ECI finds
fault with several of the specific proposals put forth in the June 19
Report. Cinergy supports the needs of the marketplace to give
flexibility for individual transmission providers to use non-standard
attributes if they are clearly defined by the provider on the OASIS.
EPMI generally supports standardization and formulation of practices
that improve consistency of customer-provider interactions across OASIS
nodes, but suggests revisions to particular provisions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPMI Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Section 2.A of the June 19 Report does not recommend any specific
guides or standards. It argues, however, that standard attribute values
should be used in OASIS transactions to the greatest extent possible.
All of the comments addressing this issue support this approach and we
agree. ECI and EPMI oppose the authorization of non-standard
attributes, because they fear that they will be compelled to purchase
services they do not want.\22\ However,
[[Page 5211]]
there is an important distinction that must be drawn between allowing a
service to be offered and compelling a customer to purchase that
service. Providers are encouraged to offer new products within the
marketplace that are permitted within approved tariffs (i.e., services
that are consistent with or superior to the pro forma tariff services).
However, this does not mean that customers are required to purchase
these products. The non-standard attributes only describe the products
so that OASIS users will be better informed of available services.
Allowing the use of non-standard attributes would not by itself
constitute approval for a transmission provider offering a particular
services to its customers or compel its purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. and ECI Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Attribute Values Defining the Period of Service (Section 2B of the
June 19 Report)
On September 29, 1998, the Commission issued a revised OASIS S&CP
Document for Phase IA implementation.\23\ The Phase IA S&CP Document
developed data templates, but did not provide a definition for each
attribute value. CPWG/How Group recommend standards and guides for
service attribute value definitions to be implemented with Phase IA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, 84 FERC para. 61,329 (1998) (September 29 Order). Version
1.3 of the S&CP Document is posted on the Commission Issuance
Posting System (accessed through the Commission's Internet Home Page
at http://ferc.fed.us) or may be inspected in the Commission's
Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 19 Report, CPWG/How Group recommended that the
Commission establish a standard set of attribute values (i.e., service
characteristics) to provide clarity and consistency in the labeling of
transmission services. Table 1-1 of the June 19 Report identifies the
definitions that are recommended as standard terminology in Phase IA
for the attributes SERVICE__INCREMENT (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly,
and Yearly) and WINDOW (Fixed, Sliding, and Extended).\24\ Recommended
Table 1-1 provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ What is referred to here as ``WINDOW'' is referred to as
``TS__WINDOW'' in the S&CP Data Dictionary.
Table 1-1--Standard Service Attribute Definitions Required in Phase IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Sliding Extended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly........................ X N/A N/A
Daily......................... X X X
Weekly........................ X X X
Monthly....................... X X X
Yearly........................ X X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[footnote omitted, see note 21, infra].
CPWG/How Group argue that a definition is required for each
combination of SERVICE__INCREMENT and WINDOW, except ``Hourly Sliding''
and ``Hourly Extended,'' which are not considered by the CPWG to be
sufficiently common in the market to require standard definitions.
CPWG/How Group advocate that the Commission add the characteristic
``Extended'' as a permissible value for WINDOW, which at the time the
report was submitted, would have required a modification to the S&CP
Document.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Subsequent to the submittal of the June 19 Report, the
Commission incorporated a value for ``EXTENDED'' under the
definition of TS__WINDOW in Version 1.3 of the S&CP Document. See
S&CP Document, Version 1.3, Data Element Dictionary at A-18. For
this reason, we have omitted a footnote from the recommended Table
1-1 suggesting that this change is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 19 Report provides that the existence of a definition in
this table does not imply the services must be offered by a
transmission provider. It further provides that requirements as to
which services must be offered are defined by regulation and tariffs
and are not addressed by this report. Nor does the report imply that
there is an implication as to the curtailment priority or price caps
for these services. CPWG/How Group also suggest that transmission
providers offer new products that meet the needs of transmission
customers, when an appropriate standard attribute is not available.
CPWG/How Group recommend the terms ``fixed,'' ``sliding,'' and
``extended'' to describe periods of service. ``Fixed'' defines service
periods that align with calendar periods such as a day, week, or month.
``Sliding'' defines service periods that are fixed in duration, such as
a week or month, but the start and stop time may slide. For example, a
``sliding'' week could start on a Tuesday and end on the following
Monday. ``Extended'' defines service periods for which the start time
may ``slide'' and with a longer than standard duration. For example, an
``extended'' week of service could be nine consecutive days. These
definitions are contained in recommended Standards 2.1-2.1.13, which
provide as follows:
Standard 2.1: A Transmission Provider shall use the values and
definitions below for the attributes Service__Increment and Window
for all transmission services offered on OASIS, or shall post
alternative attribute values and associated definitions on the OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com, or shall use existing attribute values
and definitions posted by other Transmission Providers. (See Section
3 of this report for registration requirements.)
2.1.1: Fixed Hourly--The service starts at the beginning of a
clock hour and stops at the end of a clock hour.
2.1.2: Fixed Daily--The service starts at 00:00 and stops at
24:00 of the same calendar date (same as 00:00 of the next
consecutive calendar date).
2.1.3: Fixed Weekly--The service starts at 00:00 on Monday and
stops at 24:00 of the following Sunday (same as 00:00 of the
following Monday).
2.1.4: Fixed Monthly--The service starts at 00:00 on the first
date of a calendar month and stops at 24:00 on the last date of the
same calendar month (same as 00:00 of the first date of the next
consecutive month).
2.1.5: Fixed Yearly--The service starts at 00:00 on the first
date of a calendar year and ends at 24:00 on the last date of the
same calendar year (same as 00:00 of the first date of the next
consecutive year).
2.1.6: Sliding Daily--The service starts at the beginning of any
hour of the day and stops exactly 24 hours later at the same time on
the next day.
2.1.7: Sliding Weekly--The service starts at 00:00 of any date
and stops exactly 168 hours later at 00:00 on the same day of the
next week.
2.1.8: Sliding Monthly--The service starts at 00:00 of any date
and stops at 00:00 on the same date of the next month (28-31 days
later). If there is no corresponding date in the following month,
the service stops at 24:00 on the last day of the next month.
For example: Sliding Monthly starting at 00:00 on January 30
would stop at 24:00 on February 28 (same as 00:00 March 1).
[[Page 5212]]
2.1.9: Sliding Yearly--The service starts at 00:00 of any date
and stops at 00:00 on the same date of the following year. If there
is no corresponding date in the following year, the service stops at
24:00 on the last day of the same month in the following year.
For example Sliding Yearly service starting on February 29 would
stop on February 28 of the following year.
2.1.10: Extended Daily--The service starts at any hour of a day
and stops more than 24 hours later and less than 48 hours later.
2.1.11: Extended Weekly--The service starts at 00:00 of any date
and stops at 00:00 more than one week later, but less than two weeks
later.
2.1.12: Extended Monthly--The service starts at 00:00 of any
date and stops at 00:00 more than one month later but less than two
months later.
2.1.13: Extended Yearly--The service starts at 00:00 of any date
and stops at 00:00 more than one year calendar year later but less
than two calendar years later.
Definitions are recommended as standard terminology in Phase IA for
the attributes SERVICE__INCREMENT (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and
Yearly) and WINDOW (Fixed, Sliding, and Extended). A definition is
recommended for each combination of SERVICE__INCREMENT and WINDOW. The
September 29 Order includes ``EXTENDED'' as a permissible value of the
data element ``TS__WINDOW.'' 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As noted above, supra note 25, the Commission incorporated
a value for ``EXTENDED'' under the definition of TS__WINDOW in
Version 1.3 of the S&CP Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
ECI and Cinergy filed comments on this issue. ECI disagrees with
the term ``extended'' and states that this term is not contained in the
pro forma tariff. ECI also asserts that the term ``sliding'' is
appropriate while the term ``fixed'' is unnecessary. Cinergy argues
that non pro-forma rate designs approved by the Commission should have
service attribute definitions defined for Table 1-1.27 For
example, it argues the information provided in Table 1-1 should include
service attribute definitions for locational marginal pricing and
megawatt-mile pricing.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Cinergy Comments at 2.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We propose that Standards 2.1 through 2.1.13, as shown in the
attached BPS&G document, be adopted. While the term ``extended'' is not
included in the pro forma tariff, the marketplace is evolving to the
point where offerings of extended daily, extended weekly, and extended
monthly services are products that can serve a useful market niche.
While not covered by the pro forma tariff, there is no prohibition
against these services being provided under transmission providers'
individual open access tariffs. This being the case, it is appropriate
that the standards proposed in this NOPR should provide such
definitions. Furthermore, the terms ``sliding'' and ``fixed'' also help
to improve communications in the contracting for transmission services.
We note that the Phase IA S&CP Document, approved in the September 29
Order, provided for the inclusion of ``fixed,'' ``sliding,'' and
``extended'' transmission service period definitions.
Cinergy has not persuaded us that the definitions of ``fixed,''
``sliding,'' and ``extended'' should be expanded to include service
attribute definitions for locational marginal pricing and megawatt-mile
pricing, since these attributes are intended to describe types of
services, not prices or rate designs for services. However, we invite
additional comment on this issue in the comments to this NOPR.
4. Attribute Values Defining Service Class and Type (Section 2C of the
June 19 Report)
The Phase IA S&CP Document issued in the September 29 Order
included data templates that refer to service class and type, but do
not define these attributes. CPWG/How Group recommend definitions for
Service Class (recommended Standard 2.2) (i.e., Firm Transmission
Service (recommended Standard 2.2.1) and Non-Firm Transmission Service
(recommended Standard 2.2.2)) and for Service Type (recommended
Standard 2.3) (i.e., Point-to-Point Transmission Service (recommended
Standard 2.3.1) and Network Integration Transmission Service
(recommended Standard 2.3.2)). These recommended definitions provide as
follows:
Standard 2.2: A Transmission Provider shall use the values and
definitions below to describe the service CLASS for transmission
services offered on OASIS, or shall post alternative attribute
values and associated definitions on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com, or shall use the attribute values and definitions
posted by other Providers. (See Section 3 for registration
requirements.)
2.2.1: Firm--Transmission service that always has a priority
over Non-Firm transmission service and has equal priority with
Native Load Customers and Network Customers, in accordance with FERC
regulations.
2.2.2: Non-Firm--Transmission service that is reserved and/or
scheduled on an as-available basis and is subject to curtailment or
interruption at a lesser priority compared to Firm transmission
service, Native Load Customers, and Network Customers.
Standard 2.3: A Transmission Provider shall use the values and
definitions below to describe the service TYPE for transmission
services offered on OASIS, or shall post alternative attribute
values and associated definitions on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com, or shall use the attribute values and definitions
posted by other Providers. (See Section 3 for registration
requirements.)
2.3.1: Point-to-point--Transmission service that is reserved
and/or scheduled between specified Points of Receipt and Delivery
pursuant to Part II of the FERC pro forma tariff.
2.3.2: Network--Network Integration Transmission Service that is
reserved and/or scheduled to serve a Network Customer load pursuant
to Part III of the FERC pro forma Tariff.
Comments
Comments were offered by ECI and EPMI. ECI comments that the
recommended definitions are unnecessary because the terms are defined
in the pro forma tariff. EPMI offers a revised definition to indicate
that there should be no differing priorities within the firm classes of
service.
Discussion
In general, we believe that these recommended definitions (2.2.1,
2.2.2, 2.3.1, and 2.3.2) should be included in the standards. However,
to avoid any misunderstanding, we propose to add a disclaimer to each
definition stating in each instance that the service is to be offered
``in accordance with the definitions in the pro forma tariff.''
We do not find ECI's argument, that the recommended definitions are
unnecessary (because they are included in the pro forma tariff), to be
persuasive. In instances where a term is defined in the pro forma
tariff, we will incorporate--verbatim--the definition from the pro
forma tariff--into the BPS&G document. In instances where the term is
not defined in the pro forma tariff, we will use the recommended
definitions, so long as we find them consistent with the definitions of
related terms in the pro forma tariff.
The standards proposed herein have been proposed to improve the
communications in conducting business on the OASIS. Therefore,
terminology used in communications over the OASIS should clearly be
defined in the BPS&G document, so long as those definitions are
consistent with those in the pro forma tariff. We propose to adopt the
suggested revision offered by EPMI to recommended Standard 2.2.1
because it clarifies the definition of Firm Transmission Service. As
revised, Standard 2.2.1 will read as follows:
Standard 2.2.1: FIRM--Transmission service that always has [a]
priority over NON-
[[Page 5213]]
FIRM transmission service [and has equal priority with] and includes
Native Load Customers, [and] Network Customers, and any transmission
service not classified as non-firm in accordance with the
definitions in the pro forma tariff [FERC regulations].
Moreover, we find the definitions in sections 2.2-2.3.2, as
revised, to be consistent with the pro forma tariff.
5. Curtailment Priorities (Section 2D of the June 19 Report)
Included in the S&CP Document for Phase IA implementation is a data
dictionary element entitled ``Curtailment Procedures.'' A business
practice has not previously been defined for this data element.
Recommended Standard 2.4 on curtailment policies provides as follows:
Standard 2.4: A Transmission Provider shall use the curtailment
priority definitions in NERC Policy 9 Security Coordinator
Procedures for NERC CURTAILMENT PRIORITY (1-7) for all transmission
services offered on OASIS, or shall post alternative attribute
values and associated definitions on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com, or shall use attribute values and definitions posted
by another Provider. (See Section 3 for registration requirements.)
Comments
ECI objects to the CPWG/How Group's proposal, on the basis that the
Commission in its pro forma tariff has established the curtailment
priorities for transmission service. ECI comments that the curtailment
priorities under NERC procedures are unreasonable and anticompetitive.
To the extent the Commission intends to address the merits of NERC's
proposal here, ECI incorporates by reference its July 20, 1998 protest
filed in Docket No. EL98-52-000.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ECI's protest argues, among other things, that: (1) NERC's
Tagging requirements must be applied to all transactions; (2) NERC's
proposed revisions to Policy 9 (on curtailment) are contrary to the
pro forma tariff; and (3) NERC security coordinators must be subject
to enforceable Standards of Conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPMI offers revisions to the recommended standard to remove the
option of posting alternative attribute values and definitions.
Discussion
We have not been persuaded to propose the adoption of Standard 2.4
as recommended in the June 19 Report in the NOPR. There is still
considerable work to be accomplished in the area of developing
procedures/definitions for establishing curtailment policy.
The Commission recently ruled on a petition for declaratory order
(Petition) filed by NERC regarding NERC's proposed Transmission Loading
Relief (TLR) procedures.30 The Commission found that these
procedures, which address multi-system transactions and unscheduled
flows, are generally consistent with or superior to the pro forma
tariff curtailment provisions, but that further efforts by NERC and
industry participants are necessary. The Commission also found that the
TLR procedures must be on file with the Commission, and adopted NERC's
suggestion to establish an efficient mechanism for public utilities to
incorporate the TLR procedures into their individual open access
tariffs.31 As policies evolve, we can revisit the notion of
adding a curtailment definition at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ North American Electric Reliability Council, 85 FERC para.
61,353 (1998) (NERC Order).
\31\ By contrast, in Mid-Continent Area Power Pool, 85 FERC
para. 61,352 (1998), reh'g pending (MAPP Order), the Commission
rejected line load relief procedures that were not consistent with
or superior to the pro forma tariff. See Coalition Against Private
Tariffs, 83 FERC para. 61,015 at 61,039, reh'g denied, 84 FERC para.
61,050 at 61,235-36 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prevent confusion, this NOPR reserves section 2.4 for future use
(in the numbering of sections in the attached BPS&G document) so that
we do not have to renumber sections 2.5-2.5.9 and so that the section
numbers in the NOPR will continue to match up with the section numbers
used in the June 19 report.
6. Other Service Attribute Values (Section 2E of the June 19 Report)
In Order No. 888, the Commission concluded that six ancillary
services must be included in an open access tariff.32 Other
services may be offered pursuant to filed tariffs, or as specified in a
customer's service agreement with the transmission
provider.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The six ancillary services defined in the pro forma tariff
are: (1) Scheduling, System Control, and Dispatch Service; (2)
Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service;
(3) Regulation and Frequency Response Service; (4) Energy Imbalance
Service; (5) Operating Reserve--Spinning Reserve Service; and (6)
Operating Reserve--Supplemental Reserve Service. See Secs. 3.1-3.6
of the pro forma tariff.
\33\ FERC Stats. & Regs. para.31,036 at 31,705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 19 Report recommends the data element
ANCILLARY__SERVICE__TYPE in the S&CP Document be changed to AS__TYPE.
This name is less restrictive and may be used to denote ancillary or
additional services that are not pro forma tariff ancillary services.
This name is also comparable to the use for transmission service of TS,
for example TS__TYPE. Consistent with this recommendation, the June 19
Report recommends Standard 2.5, to describe the AS__TYPES offered on
OASIS. Recommended Standard 2.5 provides as follows:
Standard 2.5: A Transmission Provider shall use the definitions
below to describe the AS__TYPES offered on OASIS, or shall post
alternative attribute values and associated definitions on the OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com, or shall use attribute values and
definitions posted by another Provider. (See Section 3 for
registration requirements.)
In addition, the June 19 Report recommends FERC Ancillary Services
Definitions for: Scheduling, System Control, and Dispatch Service;
Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service;
Regulation and Frequency Response Service; Energy Imbalance Service;
Operating Reserve--Spinning Reserve Service; Operating Reserve--
Supplemental Reserve Service; and other services which may be offered
to transmission customers such as Dynamic Transfer, Real Power
Transmission Losses, and System Black Start Capability. Specifically,
recommended sections 2.5.1-2.5.9 provide the following definitions:
Ancillary Services Definitions
2.5.1: Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service (SC)--is
the provision of (i) interchange schedule confirmation and
implementation with other control areas, including intermediary
control areas that are providing transmission service, and (ii)
actions to ensure the operational security during interchange
transaction.
2.5.2: Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation
Sources Service (RV)--is the provision of reactive power and voltage
control by generating facilities.
2.5.3: Regulation and Frequency Response Service (RF)--is the
provision of resources to follow a Transmission Customer's load
changes and to supply power to meet any difference between a
Customer's actual and scheduled generation.
2.5.4: Energy Imbalance Service (EI)--supplies any hourly
mismatch between a Transmission Customer's energy supply and the
load being served in the control area. This service makes up for any
net mismatch over an hour between the scheduled delivery of energy
and the actual load that the energy serves in the control area.
2.5.5: Operating Reserve--Spinning Reserve Service (SP)--is the
provision of resources, which are on-line and loaded at less than
maximum output, to serve load in case there is an unplanned event
such as loss of generation.
2.5.6: Operating Reserve--Supplemental Reserve Service (SU)--is
the provision of resources that may not be available
instantaneously, including generating units that are on-line, quick
start units, and customer-interrupted load, to serve load in case
there is an unplanned event such as loss of generation.
2.5.7: Dynamic Transfer (DT)--is the provision of the real-time
monitoring,
[[Page 5214]]
telemetering, computer software, hardware, communications,
engineering, and administration required to electronically move all
or a portion of the real energy services associated with a generator
or load out of its Host Control Area into a different Electronic
Control Area.
2.5.8: Real Power Transmission Losses (TL)--is the provision of
capacity and energy to replace energy losses associated with
transmission service on the Transmission Provider's system.
2.5.9: System Black Start Capability (BS)--is the provision of
generating equipment that, following a system blackout, is able to
start without an outside electrical supply. Furthermore, Black Start
Capability is capable of being synchronized to the transmission
system such that it can provide a startup supply source for other
system capacity that can then be likewise synchronized to the
transmission system to supply load as part of a process of re-
energizing the transmission system.
Comments
ECI objects to the recommended change on the basis that ancillary
services are defined in the pro forma tariff. Cinergy comments that,
for clarity, the words ``according to FERC pro forma tariff'' or
``pursuant to the transmission provider's open access transmission
tariff'' should be included when addressing ancillary services. As an
alternate approach, Cinergy suggests including a blanket introductory
statement indicating that the ancillary services definitions refer to
those services offered pursuant to the transmission provider's open
access transmission tariff.
EPMI comments that the Commission should not authorize unspecified
``alternative attribute values,'' and that the Commission must approve
ancillary services.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ EPMI Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We agree with ECI that, in instances where terms are defined in the
pro forma tariff, we should use that same definition for conducting
OASIS-related business. Accordingly, we will revise the definitions in
recommended sections 2.5.1-2.5.6 to match those in the pro forma
tariff. We therefore propose as follows:
FERC Ancillary Services Definitions
2.5.1: Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service (SC)--is
necessary to the provision of basic transmission service within
every control area. This service can be provided only by the
operator of the control area in which the transmission facilities
used are located. This is because the service is to schedule the
movement of power through, out of, within, or into the control
area.35 This service also includes the dispatch of
generating resources to maintain generation/load balance and
maintain security during the transaction and in accordance with
section 3.1 (and Schedule 1) of the pro forma tariff.36
[(i) interchange schedule confirmation and implementation with other
control areas, including intermediary control areas that are
providing transmission service, and (ii) actions to ensure the
operational security during interchange transaction.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles, January 1991-
June 1996 at 31,716.
\36\ Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para.31,048 at 30,227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.2: Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation
Sources Service (RV)--is the provision of reactive power and voltage
control by generating facilities under the control of the control
area operator.37 This service is necessary to the
provision of basic transmission service within every control area
and in accordance with section 3.2 (and Schedule 2) of the pro forma
tariff.38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. at 30,228.
\38\ FERC Stats. & Regs. para.31,036 at 31,716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.3: Regulation and Frequency Response Service (RF)--is
provided for transmission within or into the transmission provider's
control area to serve load in the area. Customers may be able to
satisfy the regulation service obligation by providing generation
with automatic generation control capabilities to the control area
in which the load resides and in accordance with section 3.3 (and
Schedule 3) of the pro forma tariff.39 [the provision of
resources to follow a Transmission Customer's load changes and to
supply power to meet any difference between a Customer's actual and
scheduled generation.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id. at 31,717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.4: Energy Imbalance Service (EI) [supplies any hourly
mismatch between a Transmission Customer's energy supply and the
load being served in the control area. This service makes up for any
net mismatch over an hour between the scheduled delivery of energy
and the actual load that the energy serves in the control area.] is
the service for transmission within and into the transmission
provider's control area to serve load in the area. Energy imbalance
represents the deviation between the scheduled and actual delivery
of energy to a load in the local control area over a single hour and
in accordance with section 3.4 (and Schedule 4) of the pro forma
tariff.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.5: Operating Reserve--Spinning Reserve Service (SP)--[is the
provision of resources, which are on-line and loaded at less than
maximum output, to serve load in case there is an unplanned event
such as loss of generation.] is provided by generating units that
are on-line and loaded at less than maximum output. They are
available to serve load immediately in an unexpected contingency,
such as an unplanned outage of a generating unit and in accordance
with section 3.5 (and Schedule 5) of the pro forma
tariff.41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id. at 31,708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5.6: Operating Reserve--Supplemental Reserve Service (SU)--[is
the provision of resources that may not be available
instantaneously, including generating units that are on-line, quick
start units, and customer-interrupted load, to serve load in case
there is an unplanned event such as loss of generation.] is
generating capacity that can be used to respond to contingency
situations. Supplemental reserve, is not available instantaneously,
but rather within a short period (usually ten minutes). It is
provided by generating units that are on-line but unloaded, by
quick-start generation, and by customer interrupted load and in
accordance with section 3.6 (and Schedule 6) of the pro forma
tariff.42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id.
We agree with Cinergy's suggestion that we add the blanket
statement ``ancillary service definitions may be offered pursuant to an
individual transmission provider's specific tariff filings'' and will
add language to this effect to the paragraph about ``other service
definitions'' preceding Standard 2.5.7 in the attached BPS&G Document.
We propose to adopt recommended Standard 2.5, because we agree that
the term ``AS__TYPE'' is less restrictive than the term
``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' and would allow this data element to be used to
offer additional services (beyond the six ancillary services denoted in
the pro forma tariff) if the services are authorized by a transmission
provider's individual open access tariff. We also propose to add a
qualifier to Standards 2.5.1-2.5.6 clarifying that the various
ancillary services are in accordance with the definitions of ancillary
services in the pro forma tariff. Consistent with this proposal, we
also propose to replace the Data Dictionary Element
``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' in the S&CP Document with the term ``AS__TYPE.''
The comments to this NOPR should identify specifically all of the
places in the S&CP Document where this change should be made.
7. Scheduling Period (Section 2F of the June 19 Report)
Recommended Guides 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6.2 are recommended by the
June 19 Report as business practice guides, related to on-line price
negotiations and bumping rules in short-term markets, SAME-DAY (2.6.1)
and NEXT-HOUR (2.6.2). They provide as follows:
Guide 2.6: A Transmission Provider should use the definitions
below to describe the scheduling period leading up to the start time
of a transaction:
2.6.1: Same-day is (i) after 2 p.m. of the preceding day and
(ii) more than one hour prior to the service start time.
2.6.2: Next-hour is one hour or less prior to the service start
time.
These definitions do not apply to a specific data element in the Phase
IA S&CP Document.
[[Page 5215]]
Comments
No comments were offered on these definitions.
Discussion
Recommended Guides 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6.2 refer to definitions
established for the next-hour experiment, which begins November 1, 1998
and terminates March 1, 1999, with a report due to the Commission by
March 31, 1999. It is premature to propose the adoption of these guides
at this time, pending the outcome of the industry experiment.
8. Maintenance of Industry Home Page (Section 3A of the June 19 Report)
The June 19 Report would require all users of individual OASIS
sites to register with the industry-wide OASIS Home Page (www.tsin.com)
to obtain access to any individual OASIS site (Standard 3.1). The June
19 Report also recommends that the Commission permit a nominal
registration fee to be charged to defray the cost of the registration
process and to cover the maintenance of the site. In addition, the
industry-wide Home Page is referenced in recommended Standards 2.1,
2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 and in recommended Guides 3.3 and
6.4. However, the June 19 Report does not identify the party who will
operate and maintain the industry-wide OASIS Home Page. Nor does the
proposal discuss how the Commission can ensure that it is maintained in
accordance with Commission regulations.
Comments
ECI agrees with the June 19 Report that all users of OASIS should
register their identity at the ``OASIS Home Page.'' However, ECI
disagrees with the June 19 Report's proposal to charge a registration
fee to defray the registration and maintenance costs of the OASIS Home
Page. ECI argues that a ``nominal'' fee is ambiguous and questions
whether such a fee is FERC jurisdictional and whether it would be cost-
based. It asserts that, consistent with Order No. 889, the costs
associated with the OASIS Home Page should be collected through a
transmission provider's cost of service.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ECI Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We are concerned that the proposal could have a non-public utility
setting fees for the use of the industry-wide OASIS home page (in
contrast to fees for individual transmission provider OASIS sites). We
are concerned that this proposal would allow an unidentified, non-
public utility to be the sole gatekeeper of who may use individual
OASIS sites.\44\ We cannot allow access to individual OASIS sites to be
controlled by an unidentified, possibly non-public utility party.
However, this concern would be alleviated if the relationship between
the industry-wide OASIS Home Page and the individual OASIS sites
operated or controlled by public utilities is such that: (1) The
operator of the industry-wide OASIS Home Page acts as an agent for the
individual transmission providers on whose behalf it acts; and (2) in
the event that a user or potential user fails to comply with the
registration procedures followed by the industry-wide OASIS Home Page,
the operator of the industry-wide OASIS Home Page would take no
independent action denying access to any individual OASIS site, but
would merely pass along this assessment to the operators of the
individual OASIS sites, who would then determine whether to deny access
to their individual OASIS sites. The user or potential user could then
file a complaint with the Commission if dissatisfied with this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ This is distinguishable from an individual transmission
provider using a nonjurisdictional entity as its agent to operate
its OASIS site because, in that instance, the transmission provider
ultimately still is responsible for the actions of its agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this scenario, the individual transmission providers, could
collectively contribute to the operation and maintenance of an
industry-wide OASIS Home Page, but this would not diminish their
responsibility to provide access to their individual OASIS site to
users and potential users who comply with applicable registration
requirements. Such a contractual arrangement would also permit
transmission providers to recover reasonable fees they paid for the
operation and maintenance of the industry-wide OASIS Home Page.
We, therefore, propose to allow the use of an industry-wide OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com, keeping in mind that the operator of the
Home Page may only act as an agent of the transmission providers, and
that this provision in no way undermines the responsibilities of
individual transmission providers to make their individual OASIS sites
accessible to users and potential users and to operate their OASIS
sites in compliance with all applicable Commission orders and
regulations. As long as transmission providers pay reasonable fees to
the third party for operating and maintaining the industry-wide OASIS
Home Page, they will be able to recover these fees in their
transmission rates.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ As provided in 18 CFR 37.5(c), access to OASIS is to be
provided to Commission staff and the staffs of State regulatory
authorities at no cost. This provision governs access to both
individual OASIS sites and to any industry-wide OASIS Home Page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Identification of Parties (Section 3A of the June 19 Report)
The OASIS S&CP Document specifies what information is necessary to
communicate among the parties, and how the information must be
communicated, for the Commission's Open Access program to work. The
June 19 Report identifies instances where the information requirements
are not always sufficiently defined. For example, transactions
generally require the identification of receipt and delivery points,
but it is left to each transmission provider to name the receipt and
delivery points on their system. The lack of standardized transmission
path names and service points often causes confusion when customers
attempt to reserve service.
The June 19 Report states that, for OASIS to succeed, there must be
an unambiguous identification of the parties to a transaction. Further,
it contends that factors such as mergers, reorganizations, and name
changes often result in confusion as to the identification of parties.
The June 19 Report recommends, in Standard 3.1, to keep parties
informed about parties' name changes by requiring all transmission
providers and users of OASIS to register at an Internet web site,
www.tsin.com, and to renew the registration annually. Recommended
Standard 3.1 provides as follows:
Standard 3.1: All entities or persons using OASIS shall register
the identity of their organization or person at the OASIS Home Page
at www.tsin.com. Registration shall be completed prior to the
commencement of Phase 1-A and renewed annually thereafter.
Comment
ECI agrees that all OASIS users should register their identity at
the industry-wide OASIS Home Page.
Discussion
The June 19 Report proposal discusses how name changes and the use
of ambiguous names caused by mergers can make the identification of
parties difficult. The June 19 Report recommends eliminating the
problem by requiring each entity to annually renew its registration. We
believe this proposal for annual renewal may not be sufficient to avoid
ambiguity. Thus, we propose to require that registration be renewed
within 48 hours of any changes in
[[Page 5216]]
identification and propose a specific date each year by which
registration must be accomplished.\46\ Accordingly, we propose to adopt
recommended Standard 3.1 as modified below:
\46\ The change in identification includes both name and DUNS
number of a party. DUNS numbers, a proprietary service of DUN &
Bradstreet, are a means of uniquely identifying commercial entities
and their use is required by the S&CP Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard 3.1: All entities or persons using OASIS shall register
the identity of their organization (including DUNS number) or person
at the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com. Registration shall be
completed prior to the commencement of Phase IA and renewed annually
by January 1st of each year thereafter and within 48 hours of any
changes in identification.
10. Registering Non-Standard Service Attributes (Section 3B of the June
19 Report)
The June 19 Report also maintains that standardized identification
of service products is needed. It maintains that inconsistencies in the
names of services can inhibit moving power across the power grid. For
example, if three transmission providers offer weekly firm service that
can begin on any day of the week and one calls its service ``sliding
weekly firm'', and the second calls it ``enhanced weekly firm'' and the
third calls it ``moveable weekly firm'', customers can become confused.
The S&CP Document defines standard services using attributes. However,
the S&CP Document does not define the attributes. The June 19 Report
proposes standard attribute definitions.47 Sections III.D.2-
D.4 and III.D.6-D.7 above address the proposed standard definitions.
The June 19 Report also provides for instances where standardized
attributes and definitions are not appropriate. Specifically,
recommended Standard 3.2 and recommended Guide 3.3 provide as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See June 19 Report at Section 2.
Standard 3.2: Providers of transmission and ancillary services
shall use only attribute values and definitions that have been
registered on the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com for all
transmission and ancillary services offered on their OASIS.
Guide 3.3: Providers of transmission and ancillary services may
use on their OASIS attribute values and definitions that have been
posted by other Providers on the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com.
Under this proposal, transmission providers register new attributes
and definitions on the industry-wide home page (www.tsin.com).
Transmission providers would be free to use attributes and definitions
developed by other transmission providers.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ June 19 Report at 10. However, changes to filed rates would
require a filing under section 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 19 Report states that the CPWG will monitor the
registration process to ``ensure the attributes and definitions do not
undermine the goal of promoting consistent terminology.'' 49
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
EPMI recommends that monitoring of the attribute registration
process not be left to the CPWG as it is not clear that the CPWG will
even exist in the future.50 Cinergy expresses concern that
there may be real or perceived conflicts if the CPWG monitors the
attribute registration process. Cinergy proposes that the process be
monitored by the Commission or an organization that is not so involved
in the process.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ EPMI Comments at 4.
\51\ Cinergy Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The Commission agrees with the June 19 Report that monitoring is
needed to ensure that the non-standard attribute naming process is not
abused. The CPWG has volunteered to monitor the process, but as
discussed above and as predicted by EPMI, the IMIC, a group we are not
yet familiar with, has taken over the functions of the
CPWG.52 Although, we continue to believe that an industry
group is the logical body to monitor the process, the proper group to
undertake this task needs to be identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ This makes moot Cinergy's argument that it would be
inappropriate for the CPWG to monitor the process because of real or
perceived conflicts of interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we invite comment on which group would be the proper
group to perform this function, whether that group would be agreeable
to performing this function, how it organizes itself, and how it
conducts its business, before deciding whether it would be able to
perform this function in a fair evenhanded manner. We will consider
these comments before deciding who should perform this monitoring
function.
We propose to adopt recommended Standard 3.2, and recommended Guide
3.3, with modifications. Recommended Guide 3.3 states that transmission
providers may use attribute values and definitions that have been
posted by other transmission providers. We believe that in order to
minimize the number of attribute values and definitions, transmission
providers should use attribute values and definitions that have been
posted by other transmission providers whenever possible. Accordingly,
we propose a modified Guide 3.3 that would read as follows:
Guide 3.3: Providers of transmission and ancillary services
[may] should endeavor to use on their OASIS attribute values and
definitions that have been posted by other Providers on the OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com whenever possible.
These revisions would more strongly encourage transmission providers to
use attribute values posted by other providers.
11. Registering Points of Receipt and Delivery (Section 3C of the June
19 Report)
OASIS Phase I requires transmission providers to define and post,
on their OASIS sites, transmission paths and associated transfer
capabilities. The June 19 Report recommends Standards 3.4 and 3.5 and
Guide 3.6 as follows: [53]
\53\ The subject of path names is also the subject of a separate
September 15, 1998 submittal from CPWG/How Group, discussed below in
section III.F, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard 3.4: A Transmission Provider shall register and
thereafter maintain on the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com all
Points of Receipt and Delivery to and from which a Transmission
Customer may reserve and schedule transmission service.
Standard 3.5: For each reservable Path posted on their OASIS
node, Transmission Providers shall indicate the available Point(s)
of Receipt and Delivery for that Path. These Points of Receipt and
Delivery shall be from the list registered on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com.
Guide 3.6: When two or more Transmission Providers share a
common Points of Receipt or Delivery, or when a Path connects Points
of Receipt and Delivery in neighboring systems, the Transmission
Providers owning and/or operating those facilities should apply
consistent names for those connecting or common Paths on OASIS.
The June 19 Report maintains that for the most part, paths and
service points have been defined from each individual transmission
provider's perspective. The June 19 Report states that the lack of
standards results in confusion about the feasibility of connecting
paths to move power from one system and region to another. The June 19
Report recommends the following business practices to improve
coordination of path naming and enhance identification of commercially
available connection points between transmission providers and regions:
Transmission Providers register (at the industry-wide
OASIS home page) all service points (Points of Receipt and Delivery)
for which transmission service is available over OASIS.
[[Page 5217]]
Each Provider would indicate on its OASIS node, for
each Path posted on its OASIS node, the Points of Receipt and
Delivery to which each Path is connected.
These principles are incorporated in recommended Standards 3.4 and
3.5, and recommended Guide 3.6.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
No comments were received on this issue.
Discussion
With a slight revision, we propose to adopt Standards 3.4 and 3.5
and Guide 3.6 as recommended.\55\ We agree with the principle behind
Guide 3.6, that transmission providers should be encouraged to apply
consistent names for connecting paths or common paths and request that
transmission providers do so whenever possible. We also request that
the comments to this NOPR address what would be the proper entity to
monitor this process and whether this function should be performed in
tandem with the monitoring of the registration of standard attributes
(as discussed above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ As shown in Attachment A to this NOPR, we are making a
grammatical correction to recommended Guide 3.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. On-line Price Negotiation in Short-term Markets (Section 4A of the
June 19 Report)
Negotiations on the OASIS. Order No. 889-A requires negotiations
between transmission providers and potential customers to take place on
the OASIS and be visible to all market participants. The OASIS Phase IA
S&CP Document specifies the information needed for negotiations and how
the information will be communicated between the parties. With the
exception of reservations for next-hour service (which it separately
discusses in recommended Guide 4.2 and 4.3, discussed below), the June
19 Report incorporates the requirement in Order No. 889-A that all
reservations and price negotiations be made directly on the OASIS. This
is stated explicitly in recommended Guide 4.1 as follows:
Guide 4.1: Consistent with FERC policy and regulations, all
reservations and price negotiations should be conducted on OASIS.
Comments
Cinergy argues that recommended Guide 4.1 should be a standard
because the guide implements the Commission policy that all
reservations and price negotiations be conducted on the OASIS.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Cinergy Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We agree with Cinergy that this provision merely restates existing
Commission policy. Accordingly, we propose adoption of recommended
Guide 4.1 as Standard 4.1.
Next-Hour Transactions and Electronic Entry of Reservation and
Scheduling Requests. At the industry's request, to permit development
of the next-hour market, the Commission issued an order on December 27,
1996,\57\ clarifying how reservations for next-hour service would be
made during OASIS Phase I. The Commission stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, 77 FERC para. 61,335 (1996) (December 27, 1996 Order).
A request for transmission service made after 2:00 p.m. of the day
preceding the commencement of such service, will be ``made on the
OASIS'' if it is made directly on the OASIS or, if it is made by
facsimile or telephone and promptly (within one hour) posted on the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS by the Transmission Provider.\58\
\58\ December 27, 1996 Order, 77 FERC at 62,492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is Commission policy that all reservation requests be made
on the OASIS, the clarification allows any request made after 2:00 p.m.
on the day preceding the start of service to be made by telephone or
facsimile as long as the request is posted on the OASIS within one hour
of receipt. However, the June 19 Report expresses the fear that next-
hour transactions will have to be treated differently from other same-
day transactions.\59\ Therefore, the June 19 Report recommends Guides
4.2 and 4.3, which provide as follows:
\59\ June 19 Report at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guide 4.2: The following is considered ``on the OASIS'' during
Phase 1-A: For a transmission service of hourly duration, requested
within the next-hour, a Customer should have the option, subject to
the exception allowed by Guide 4.3, of entering a reservation and
schedule request electronically on the Provider's OASIS and
scheduling system (if such electronic transactions are allowed on
the Provider's scheduling system), or arranging the reservation and
schedule verbally with the Provider. If a transmission reservation
is confirmed verbally, the Provider should have the option of
requiring the Customer to enter the reservation on OASIS
electronically within one hour after the start of the reservation.
Guide 4.3: If a Provider's OASIS and scheduling processes allow
that a Customer's reservation and scheduling requests will be
accepted or refused within 15 minutes of the queue time, then the
Provider may require that reservations and schedules be entered
electronically by the Customer prior to the established scheduling
deadline. If in any case the Provider has not responded to the
reservation and schedule request within 15 minutes, the Customer has
the option of calling the Provider to verbally confirm the
reservation and schedule.
Comments
EPMI recommends that recommended Guides 4.2 and 4.3 be made
mandatory standards and not merely voluntary best practice guides.\60\
However, EPMI sees an inconsistency between the time limits recommended
in Guide 4.3 and those in Table 4-2 and recommends that this
discrepancy be resolved.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ EPMI Comments at 5.
\61\ Table 4-2 also is discussed in section III.D.14 below,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The June 19 Report's proposal is essentially the same as the
proposal made in the June 1998 CPWG/How Group letter to the Commission
requesting a four-month next-hour experiment and approved by the
Commission in the September 29 Order. We will defer a decision on this
issue until we have had an opportunity to evaluate the outcome of that
experiment. Consistent with our practice elsewhere in this NOPR, we
will reserve the applicable section numbers (4.2 and 4.3) so that the
references in Attachment A will continue to match-up with the June 19
report.
13. Diagram Depicting the Negotiation Process (Section 4B of the June
19 Report)
The June 19 Report recommends a process state diagram, Guide 4.4,
that defines transmission provider and customer interactions when
negotiating for transmission service. The diagram defines allowable
steps in the reservation request, negotiation, approval, and
confirmation processes. The June 19 Report also recommends a table,
Guide 4.5, that defines the terms used in the diagram. Recommended
Guides 4.4 and 4.5 provide as follows:
Guide 4.4: The following state transitions in Figure 4-1 are
recommended practice in OASIS Phase 1-A.
[[Page 5218]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE99.052
Guide 4.5: The following definitions in Table 4-1 should be
applied to the process states in OASIS Phase 1-A.
Table 4-1--OASIS Phase 1-A State Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queued The request has been received by OASIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invalid...................... An invalid request (improper POR, POD,
source, sink, increment, combination of
duration and increment, etc.). (Final
state.)
Received..................... The request has been received by Provider/
Seller.
Study........................ The request is being evaluated by the
Provider/Seller.
Accepted..................... The Provider has determined that the
request is valid, there is sufficient
transfer capability, and the price is
acceptable.
Refused...................... The request is denied due to lack of
availability of transfer capability.
(Final state.)
Declined..................... The Provider has determined that the
price being proposed by the Customer is
unacceptable and that negotiations are
terminated. (Final state.)
Counteroffer................. The Provider/Seller is proposing a
different price than was bid by the
Customer.
Rebid........................ The Customer responds to a Provider's
ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER price with a
new bid price.
Retracted.................... The Provider has (prior to Customer
confirmation) determined that the
Customer's time limit has expired.
(Final state.)
Superseded................... A request which has not yet been
CONFIRMED is preempted by another
reservation request. (Final state.)
Withdrawn.................... The Customer withdraws the request (prior
to confirmation). (Final state.)
Confirmed.................... The Customer consummates the reservation
which has been ACCEPTED or is in
COUNTEROFFER by the Provider. (Final
state unless later ANNULLED or
DISPLACED.)
Annulled..................... The request is terminated after reaching
the CONFIRMED state. This can only be
done if both the Customer and Provider
agree. The annulment should be confirmed
on OASIS by both the Provider/Seller and
Customer. (Final state.)
Displaced.................... A CONFIRMED reservation has been
terminated because a reservation of
higher priority has preempted it. (Final
state.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5219]]
Comments
Cinergy argues that the definition of ``REBID'', in recommended
Guide 4.5, which provides that ``[t]he customer responds to a
Provider's ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER price with a new bid price'', is
confusing. Cinergy contends that the confusion arises from defining
``REBID'' in terms of ``ACCEPTED''. It asserts that once a transmission
provider ``accepts'' a customer's offer, a customer would have no
reason to rebid.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Cinergy Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinergy also argues that there is an inconsistency between the
definition of ``rebid'' recommended in Guide 4.5 and the statement
recommended in Guide 4.26 that if, during the negotiation process
(i.e., before confirmation of the deal by the customer), the
transmission provider receives a pre-confirmed request with a higher
bid price, the transmission provider may counteroffer the price and
potentially prompt a rebid.63 Cinergy requests either that:
(1) the language be clarified; or (2) a cross reference be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Guide 4.26 is quoted below at section III.D.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI argues that the June 19 Report proposal would revise the
process state diagram appearing in the S&CP Document by adding
SUPERSEDED to indicate that a request is preempted prior to
confirmation by the customer. ECI further argues that this change
results in a contradiction between June 19 Report's process state
diagram in Guide 4.4 (Figure 4-1), and an order issued by the
Commission on July 17, 1998.64 ECI argues that the July 17
Order holds that ``there is no right to supersede while engaged in
negotiations (i.e., pending), until there is a refusal to
match.''65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Electric Clearinghouse, Inc. v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C., 84 FERC para. 61,045 (1998) (July 17 Order).
\65\ ECI Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI also argues that the definition of SUPERSEDED recommended in
Guide 4.5 (Table 4-1) is inconsistent with findings in the July 17
Order regarding section 13.2 of the proforma tariff.66 ECI
states,
\66\ For convenience, Section 13.2 of the pro forma tariff is
quoted in full in Attachment B to this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]n the complaint, ECI asserted that PJM violated Section 13.2 of
its open access transmission tariff when it granted a transmission
customer (PP&L), who had made a request for service that had not
been confirmed, a right of first refusal to match a subsequent
longer-term request for service that ECI had made.67
\67\ ECI Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this same point, ECI further argues that the Commission found, in
the July 17 Order, that ECI's interpretation of the tariff is
erroneous. ECI quotes from the July 17 Order:
For purposes of section 13.2, reservations are considered to
have been made when the request for service is made. PP&L had a
conditional reservation for one-week service that was made when it
requested service via PJM's OASIS. As such, it had the right of
first refusal to match any later longer-term reservation before
losing its reservation priority.68
\68\ 84 FERC at 61,196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI also argues that the process state diagram's treatment of
counteroffers needs revision. In discussing this change, the June 19
Report states:
These state changes are necessary in the event the Provider
needs to change a price during negotiation prior to hearing a
response from the Customer. For example, a discount may be given to
another Customer after negotiations started with a first Customer
(price is lowered by the Provider without a response from the first
Customer) or the Provider may allow the Customer to match a
competing bid that would preempt the current price being negotiated
(price is raised by the Provider).69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ June 19 Report at 14.
ECI argues that, in order to be consistent with the Commission's
first-come-first-served and right to match processes, the diagram
should reflect a right to match a subsequent acceptable request for
service.70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ECI Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Cinergy sees a conflict or inconsistency between associating REBID
with ACCEPTED in recommended Guide 4.4 and recommended Guide 4.26. We
disagree. In our view, the pairing of REBID with ACCEPTED is not
inconsistent with recommended Guide 4.26. Once a transmission provider
accepts a customer's offer (but before confirmation) a transmission
provider can make a counteroffer based on a new higher offer it
receives from another customer. Under these circumstances, a customer
might wish to rebid.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ In the comments to this NOPR, we invite comment on whether
rebid should be limited to price, as proposed in this NOPR, or
whether it would be feasible and/or desirable to allow a rebid
lengthening the duration of the requested service or a rebid wtih
both a higher price and longer duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI has raised a number of objections to Part 4B of the June 19
Report (i.e., ``Phase IA Negotiation Process State Transition
Diagram''). One of ECI's objections is that the proposal in the June 19
Report would revise the process state diagram in the S&CP Document.
While this was true at the time when ECI filed its comments, it is true
no longer. Subsequent to the filing of ECI's comments, the Commission
approved a revised S&CP Document that contains the same process state
diagram recommended by the June 19 Report.72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See note 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, ECI contends that the addition of ``SUPERSEDED'' to the
report's process state transition diagram (at Figure 4-1) is
inconsistent with the Commission's denial of ECI's complaint against
PJM in the July 17 Order,73 because ECI maintains that the
July 17 Order held that ``there is no right to supersede [a pending
request for service] while engaged in negotiations (i.e., pending)
until there is a refusal to match.'' 74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See 84 FERC at 61,196.
\74\ ECI Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI misapprehends the holding of the July 17 Order.75
The Commission's findings in the July 17 Order conformed to
determinations in Order No. 888-A, that: (1) Long-term firm point-to-
point service is available on a first-come-first-served basis; (2) as
to requests for short-term non-firm transmission service, those
requesting service for a longer duration have priority over requests
for short-term non-firm transmission service over a shorter duration;
76 and (3) in dealing with requests for short-term firm
point-to-point transmission service, a customer should be given an
opportunity to match a subsequent request for short-term firm point-to-
point transmission service for a longer time period before being
preempted.77 However, the July 17 Order did not make any
finding that requests for service could not be superseded for other
reasons. In fact, the July 17 Order did not address this issue. Thus,
the June 19 Report's addition of ``SUPERSEDED'' to the process state
transition diagram is not inconsistent with the Commission's precedent
on this issue.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ ECI raises its argument about alleged inconsistencies
between the July 17 Order and the June 19 Report's proposals in a
number of contexts. We will address these arguments as they apply in
various contexts.
\76\ See pro forma tariff at Secs. 13,2 and 14.2.
\77\ Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. Sec. 31,048 at 30,277-
78.
\78\ See June 19 Report, Guide 4.4, Figure 4-1, shown in Section
III.D.13 above, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, ECI argues that the report's treatment of counteroffers needs
revision to allow a right to match a subsequent request for service. We
disagree. A review of Table 4-1's REBID definition discloses that a
customer may respond to a transmission provider's
[[Page 5220]]
counteroffer with a new bid price.79 This mechanism meets
the concerns raised by ECI's comments on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ We note that as a REBID is only made on the basis of price,
see definition in Guide 4.5, Table 4-1, the time limits in Guide
4.13, Table 4-2 ought to be adequate. Any objections to these time
limits should be raised in comments to this NOPR. See note 72,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, ECI argues that the report's definition of ``SUPERSEDED''
should be rejected because it does not state, as ECI argues is required
by the July 17 Order, that a customer has a right to match subsequent
longer-term requests for service before a requester loses its
reservation priority. In our view, the findings in the July 17 Order
need not be restated in the BPS&G to remain in effect. Table 4-1 is not
incorporated into the proposed BPS&G document (see Attachment A at
Section 4.2) and, in any event, Table 4-1's definition of SUPERSEDED is
silent as to why and when an unconfirmed request might be preempted. It
neither confers nor denies a customer's right to match. When a request
for transmission service has been superseded, this occurs before the
customer's confirmation.80 Therefore, the customer has no
right to match.81 Additionally, a customer whose request for
transmission service has been superseded may make a new request for
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ After requests for transmission are confirmed, they may be
preempted under Table 4-3.
\81\ See Sec. 14.2 of the pro forma tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review, the definition of ``SUPERSEDED'' in the Data Element
Dictionary and in section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document could be
improved. We propose to revise the definition by substituting the word
``preempted'' in place of ``displaced.'' We invite the comments to this
NOPR to address this issue.
Version 1.3 of the S&CP Document, adopted by the Commission in the
September 29 Order, currently contains the same process state diagram
contained in recommended Guide 4.4 of the June 19 Report.82
To avoid any possible future conflict between the two documents, we
will incorporate by reference Exhibit 4-1 of the S&CP Document into the
attached BPS&G, rather than proposing to adopt the recommended diagram
itself as part of the attached BPS&G. This will assure that any changes
to this diagram in the S&CP Document automatically will be reflected in
the BPS&G document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ S&CP Document, Version 1.3, Exhibit 4-1, State Diagram of
Purchase Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Guide 4.5 (Table 4-1) of the June 19 Report contains
definitions of the process states appearing in Guide 4.4. These
definitions differ slightly from the definitions of the same terms
appearing at Section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document.83 To
avoid any inconsistency between these definitions, and because the
definitions in the S&CP Document are more complete, we will incorporate
by reference the definitions in Section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document
in the attached BPS&G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ For convenience, these provisions are quoted in Attachment
C to this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we are incorporating by reference the version of Table 4-1
that appears in S&CP Document, we are not including Table 4-1 from the
June 19 Report in the attached BPS&G. However, as we did with section
2.4, we will reserve for future use a blank Table 4-1, so that Tables
4-2 and 4-3 as shown in the attached BPS&G will continue to have the
same designations as in the June 19 Report without any renumbering.
14. Negotiations Without Competing Bids (Section 4C of July 19 Report)
In our June 18, 1998 order on OASIS-related issues, we asked the
CPWG to examine the development of predetermined deadlines for
acceptances by transmission providers of transmission service requests
and confirmation by customers of acceptances of their
requests.84 We did this because comments received from PECO
and NRECA convinced us that the parties to negotiations require
decisions to be made quickly and in a known time frame. The CPWG/How
Group responded to this concern by proposing Recommended Guide 4.6 that
provides as follows:
\84\ June 18 Order at 62, 464-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guide 4.6: A Transmission Provider/Seller shall respond to a
Customer's service request, consistent with filed tariffs, within
the ``Provider Response Time Limit'' defined in Table 4-2
Reservation Timing Requirements. The time limit is measured from the
time the request is QUEUED. A Provider may respond by setting the
state of the reservation request to one of the following:
INVALID
DECLINED
REFUSED
COUNTEROFFER
ACCEPTED
STUDY (when the tariff allows), leading to REFUSED,
COUNTEROFFER, or ACCEPTED
This provision provides that, consistent with filed tariffs,
transmission providers/sellers shall respond to customer requests
within the time limits appearing in Table 4-2, contained in recommended
Guide 4.13. Recommended Table 4-2 specifies how long transmission
providers may take to respond to a request for service and how long
customers may take to confirm the transmission provider's acceptance.
In addition, the June 19 Report recommends reservation timing
guidelines in Guide 4.13 as follows:
Guide 4.13: The following timing requirements should apply to
all reservation requests:
Table 4-2--Reservation Timing Guidelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer confirmation
Time QUEUED prior to Provider evaluation time limit after Provider counter time
Class Service increment start time limit \1\ ACCEPTED or limit after REBID \3\
COUNTEROFFER \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Firm........................... Hourly................ <1 hour..............="" best="" effort..........="" 5="" minutes............="" 5="" minutes.="" non-firm...........................="" hourly................="">1 hour.............. 30 minutes........... 5 minutes............ 5 minutes.
Non-Firm........................... Daily................. N/A.................. 30 minutes........... 2 hours.............. 10 minutes.
Non-Firm........................... Weekly................ N/A.................. 4 hours.............. 24 hours............. 4 hours.
Non-Firm........................... Monthly............... N/A.................. 2 days............... 24 hours............. 4 hours.
Firm............................... Daily................. < 24="" hours...........="" best="" effort..........="" 2="" hours..............="" 30="" minutes.="" firm...............................="" daily.................="" n/a..................="" 30="" days\4\...........="" 24="" hours.............="" 4="" hours.="" firm...............................="" weekly................="" n/a..................="" 30="" days\4\...........="" 48="" hours.............="" 4="" hours.="" firm...............................="" monthly...............="" n/a..................="" 30="" days\4\...........="" 4="" days...............="" 4="" hours.="" firm...............................="" yearly................="" n/a..................="" 30="" days..............="" 15="" days..............="" 4="" hours.="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" notes="" for="" table="" 4-2:="" \1\="" consistent="" with="" regulations="" and="" filed="" tariffs,="" measurement="" starts="" at="" the="" time="" the="" request="" is="" queued.="" [[page="" 5221]]="" \2\="" measurement="" starts="" at="" the="" time="" the="" request="" is="" first="" moved="" to="" either="" accepted="" or="" counteroffer.="" the="" time="" limit="" does="" not="" reset="" on="" subsequent="" changes="" of="" state.="" \3\="" measurement="" starts="" at="" the="" time="" the="" transmission="" customer="" changes="" the="" state="" to="" rebid.="" the="" measurement="" resets="" each="" time="" the="" request="" is="" changed="" to="" rebid.="" \4\="" subject="" to="" expedited="" time="" requirements="" of="" section="" 17.1="" of="" the="" pro="" forma="" tariff.="" transmission="" providers="" should="" make="" best="" efforts="" to="" respond="" within="" 72="" hours,="" or="" prior="" to="" the="" scheduling="" deadline,="" whichever="" is="" earlier,="" to="" a="" request="" for="" daily="" firm="" service="" received="" during="" period="" 2-30="" days="" ahead="" of="" the="" service="" start="" time.="" the="" report="" also="" contains="" several="" guides="" (recommended="" guides="" 4.7-="" 4.12)="" dealing="" with="" the="" rights="" and="" obligations="" of="" the="" parties="" during="" negotiations.="" recommended="" guides="" 4.7-4.12="" provide="" as="" follows:="" guide="" 4.7:="" prior="" to="" setting="" a="" request="" to="" accepted,="" counteroffer,="" or="" refused="" a="" provider="" shall="" evaluate="" the="" appropriate="" resources="" and="" ascertain="" that="" the="" requested="" transfer="" capability="" is="" (or="" is="" not)="" available.="" guide="" 4.8:="" for="" any="" request="" that="" is="" refused="" or="" invalid,="" the="" transmission="" provider="" should="" indicate="" in="" the="" comments="" field="" the="" reason="" the="" request="" was="" refused="" or="" invalid.="" guide="" 4.9:="" the="" customer="" may="" change="" a="" request="" to="" withdrawn="" at="" any="" time="" prior="" to="" confirmed.="" guide="" 4.10:="" from="" accepted="" or="" counteroffer,="" a="" customer="" may="" change="" the="" status="" to="" confirmed,="" withdrawn,="" or="" rebid.="" the="" customer="" has="" the="" amount="" of="" time="" designated="" as="" ``customer="" confirmation="" time="" limit''="" in="" table="" 4-2="" reservation="" timing="" requirements="" to="" change="" the="" state="" of="" the="" request="" to="" confirmed.="" the="" customer="" time="" limit="" is="" measured="" from="" the="" first="" time="" the="" request="" is="" moved="" to="" accepted="" or="" counteroffer,="" and="" is="" not="" reset="" with="" subsequent="" iterations="" of="" negotiation.="" guide="" 4.11:="" after="" expiration="" of="" the="" ``customer="" confirmation="" time="" limit,''="" specified="" in="" table="" 4-2="" reservation="" timing="" requirements,="" the="" provider="" has="" a="" right="" to="" move="" the="" request="" to="" the="" retracted="" state.="" guide="" 4.12:="" should="" the="" customer="" elect="" to="" respond="" to="" a="" provider's="" counteroffer="" by="" moving="" a="" reservation="" request="" to="" rebid,="" the="" provider="" shall="" respond="" by="" taking="" the="" request="" to="" a="" declined,="" accepted,="" or="" counteroffer="" state="" within="" the="" ``provider="" counter="" time="" limit,''="" specified="" in="" table="" 4-2="" reservation="" timing="" requirements.="" the="" provider="" response="" time="" is="" measured="" from="" the="" most="" recent="" rebid="" time.="" comments="" recommended="" guide="" 4.8="" suggests="" that="" when="" a="" request="" is="" refused="" or="" invalid="" the="" transmission="" provider="" should="" indicate="" in="" the="" comments="" field="" the="" reason="" the="" request="" was="" refused="" or="" found="" invalid.="" cinergy="" argues="" that="" a="" transmission="" provider="" should="" not="" be="" required="" to="" enter="" a="" special="" reason="" in="" the="" comment="" section="" for="" a="" ``refused''="" response,="" since="" the="" definition="" of="" ``refused''="" means="" that="" the="" request="" is="" denied="" due="" to="" lack="" of="" availability="" of="" transfer="">85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI supports recommended Guide 4.9, which states that a customer
may change a request to WITHDRAWN at any time prior to confirmation. It
asserts that this concept should be incorporated into the pro forma
tariff.86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ ECI Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Recommended Guide 4.8 would have transmission providers give an
explanation of why a request is refused. Cinergy argues that no reason
other than REFUSED is needed to explain why a service request is
rejected. We disagree. Even though backup information is available upon
request to the customer,87 there is a delay before this
information is provided. Any timely information from the transmission
provider which can explain the reason(s) for refusal will be useful to
the customer in assessing the competitiveness of the bid, establishing
a level of confidence in the transmission provider's ATC posting, and
detecting any instances of undue discrimination.88 For
example, the reason for the lack of ATC may be that another customer
has made a simultaneous bid for a longer duration short-term
transmission service. Having this information available in a timely
manner would allow the first customer to make a revised request for
service that might be accepted. Another example would be where a
transmission provider had not yet updated its ATC posting and thus its
OASIS node would still show available ATC even though this was no
longer true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ A NOPR on expanding the availability of this back-up
information is pending in Docket No. RM98-3-000. See Open Access
Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, FERC Stats. &
Regs. para. 32,531 (1998).
\88\ Upon review, the definition of ``REFUSED'' in the Data
Element Dictionary and in section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document is
unclear. We propose to clarify the definition by inserting the words
``lack of'' before the word ``availability.'' We invite the comments
to this NOPR to address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI agrees with recommended Guide 4.9 of the June 19 Report that,
in the absence of competing bids, a customer may change a request to
WITHDRAWN any time prior to it being confirmed. However, ECI contends
that, under the July 17 Order, this may require a revision to Sec. 13.2
of the pro forma tariff because this provision is silent as to the
withdrawal of a request for transmission.
We disagree. When we addressed the issue of reservation time limits
in the June 18 Order, we agreed with commenters that on-line
negotiation of discounts requires predetermined time limits on
responses by transmission providers and customers.89 We
asked the CPWG to examine the development of such deadlines and to make
recommendations to us. The deadlines appearing in recommended Guide
4.13 on the time limits for customers and transmission providers at
different stages of the reservation process reflects the
recommendations of the CPWG/How Group and appear to us to be
reasonable. Any objections to these proposed time limits should be
raised in comments to this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 83 FERC at 62,464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with ECI that the timing requirements in Table 4-2 of
Guide 4.13 are inconsistent with section 17.5 of the pro forma tariff.
Section 17.5 requires a response to a completed application ``as soon
as practicable.'' In our view, Guide 4.13 sets forth the practicable
time limits for responses to various reservation requests. We find this
provision to be consistent with the pro forma tariff.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ We also note that in the Wisconsin Electric case cited in
note 89, supra, the Commission approved a revision to WEPCO's
individual open access tariff setting a time limit on customer
confirmations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also find unpersuasive ECI's argument that the statement, in
recommended Guide 4.13, that,
it is possible that an unconfirmed request with an earlier QUEUED
time could be preempted (SUPERSEDED). For this to occur, the
subsequent request would be of higher priority or of greater price *
* * \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ June 19, Report at 18.
is inconsistent with the July 17 Order and needs revision to include a
right to match the subsequent request. As discussed above, the silence
of recommended Guide 4.13 and Table 4.1 on this point do not abrogate
the Commission's findings in the July 17 Order. These findings still
hold.
Accordingly, we propose to adopt the June 19 Report's recommended
Guides 4.6-4.13 in the attached BPS&G.
15.
Negotiations With Competing Bids for Constrained Resources (When Customer Has Not Yet Confirmed a Provider's Acceptance) (Section 4D of June 19 Report)
Section 4D of the June 19 Report contains recommended sections
4.14-
[[Page 5222]]
4.27 dealing with the procedures for negotiations over the OASIS when
there are competing bids for constrained resources prior to a customer
confirming the transmission provider's acceptance. For the reasons
stated below, we propose to adopt recommended Guides 4.14--4.26, with
certain modifications, and to reject recommended Guide 4.27.
When competing bids for reservations on constrained resources are
received, the June 19 Report generally recommends awarding the
reservation on a first-come-first-served basis. Exceptions to this rule
are recommended for competing bids for short-term transmission service
that have a higher priority,\92\ solely because they request service
for a longer duration, and in the case of non-firm point-to-point
transmission service, requests that are of the same duration, but at a
higher price. In some situations, the right of first refusal is
permitted. We will now discuss the provisions on negotiations for
competing bids for constrained resources on a section-by-section basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Recommended Guide 4.14 specifies the service request
priority tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4.14--Service Request Priority Tiers
Consistent with regulations and filed tariffs, Guide 4.14 divides
transmission service into five tiers of successive priority when
competing bids are negotiating for transmission service.\93\ Highest
priority is given to native load, network, or long-term firm service
(subsection 4.4.1). Second highest priority is given to short-term firm
service (subsection 4.4.2). Third highest priority is given to network
service on non-designated resources (subsection 4.4.3). Fourth highest
priority is given to non-firm service (subsection 4.4.4). Fifth highest
priority is given to service over secondary receipt and delivery points
(subsection 4.4.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ These priorities are not meant to govern curtailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
None of the comments take issue with these priorities.
Discussion
We propose to adopt the priorities laid out in Guide 4.14 as
recommended.
Section 4.15--First-Come First-Served
Consistent with regulations and filed tariffs, recommended Guide
4.15 provides that reservation requests should be handled on a first-
come-first-served basis based on queue time.
Comments
EPMI notes that under the June 19 Report's proposal, requests for
capacity will no longer be pro-rated if there is a lack of available
transmission capacity. Instead, requests will be evaluated on a first-
come-first-served basis. EPMI supports this change, but is concerned
about affiliate transactions. EPMI fears that an affiliate of the
transmission provider could obtain all of the available transmission
capacity, rather than having it pro-rated if there is a constraint.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ EPMI Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
EPMI's argument is based on an incorrect premise. Currently, under
the pro forma tariff, transmission is allocated on a first-come-first-
served basis and is not pro-rated.
Nor, for two reasons, do we find persuasive EPMI's contention that
the allocation of capacity on a first-come-first-served basis would
allow an affiliate of a transmission provider to obtain all available
transmission capacity. First, the S&CP Document TRANSSTATUS template
contains the queue time of a request. Customers can monitor requests
and detect any undue discrimination. Suspected violations can be
reported to the Commission. As long as capacity is awarded on a non-
discriminatory basis, which gives the affiliate no undue preference,
the award of capacity should not be an issue. Second, EPMI's prediction
is contradicted by the fact that transmission already is allocated on a
first-come-first-served basis and it does not appear that EPMI's
scenario has come to pass.
Section 4.16--Priorities for Competing Reservation Requests
Recommended Guide 4.16, which includes Table 4-3, describes the
relative priorities of competing service requests and rules for
offering a right of first refusal, consistent with Commission
regulations and filed tariffs. Specifically, it states:
Guide 4.16: Consistent with regulations and filed tariffs, Table
4-3 describes the relative priorities of competing service requests
and rules for offering right-of-first-refusal. While the table
indicates the relative priorities of two competing requests, it is
intended to also be applied in the more general case of more than
two competing requests.
Table 4-3 [95]--Priorities for Competing Reservation Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is preempted by Right of first
Row Request 1 request 2 refusal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......... Tier 1: Long- N/A--Not preempted N/A.
term Firm, by a subsequent
Native Load, request.
and Network
Firm.
2.......... Tier 2: Short- Tier 1: Long-term No.
term Firm. Firm, Native Load,
and Network Firm),
while Request 1 is
conditional. Once
Request 1 is
unconditional, it
may not be
preempted.
3.......... Tier 2: Short- Tier 2: Short-term Yes, while Request 1
term Firm. Firm of longer term is conditional.
(duration), while Once Request 1 is
Request 1 is unconditional, it
conditional. Once may not be
Request 1 is preempted and right
unconditional, it of first refusal is
may not be not applicable.
preempted.
4.......... Tier 3: Network Tiers 1 and 2: All No.
Service From Firm (including
Non-Designated Network).
Resources.
5.......... Tier 4: All Non- Tiers 1 and 2: All No.
Firm PTP. Firm (including
Network).
6.......... Tier 4: All Non- Tier 3: Network No.
Firm PTP. Service from Non-
Designated
Resources.
7.......... Tier 4: All Non- Tier 4: Non-firm PTP Yes.
Firm PTP. of a longer term
(duration) \1\.
Except in the last
hour prior to start
(see Standard 4.23).
[[Page 5223]]
8.......... Tier 4: All Non- Tier 4: Non-firm PTP No.
Firm PTP. of equal term
(duration) \1\ and
higher price, when
Request 1 is still
unconfirmed and
Request 2 is
received pre-
confirmed. A
confirmed non-firm
PTP may not be
preempted for
another non-firm
request of equal
duration. (See
Standards 4.22 and
4.25.).
9.......... Tier 5: PTP Tier 5 can be No.
Service over preempted by Tiers
secondary 1 through 4.
receipt and
delivery
points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Longer duration, in addition to being higher SERVICE__INCREMENT
(i.e., WEEKLY has priority over DAILY), also may mean more multiples
of the same SERVICE__INCREMENT (i.e., 3 Days may have priority over 2
Days).
\95\ For clarity, we have identified the rows in Table 4-3.
Guide 4.16 would allocate requests for Tier 1 services (native
load, network, long-term firm) and Tier 2 services (short-term firm) on
a first-come-first-served basis. A request for Tier 1 service could not
be preempted. A request for Tier 2 service that is ``conditional''
could be preempted by a request for Tier 1 service without any right of
first refusal.\96\ A request for Tier 2 service that is ``conditional''
could also be preempted by a request for longer term Tier 2 service
but, under this circumstance, it would receive the right of first
refusal.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ The distinction between conditional and unconditional
service, as related to firm point-to-point service, is discussed in
Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,036 at 31,746, where we
stated:
Accordingly, the Final Rule pro forma tariff provides a
mechanism to address this concern while safeguarding the rights of
potential customers to obtain access to unused capacity. The tariff
provides that reservations for short-term firm point-to-point
service (less than one year) will be conditional until one day
before the commencement of daily service, one week before the
commencement of weekly service, and one month before the
commencement of monthly service. These conditional reservations may
be displaced by competing requests for longer-term firm point-to-
point service. For example, a reservation for daily firm point-to-
point service could be displaced by a request for weekly firm point-
to-point service during an overlapping period. Before the applicable
reservation deadline, a holder of a conditional firm point-to-point
reservation would have the right of first refusal to match any
longer-term firm point-to-point reservation before being displaced.
After the deadline, the reservation becomes unconditional, and the
service would be entitled to the same priorities as any long-term
point-to-point or network firm service.
Conditional reservations also are discussed in Madison Gas &
Electric Company v. Wisconsin Power & Light Company, 80 FERC para.
61,331 at 62,102-03 (1997), reh'g denied, 82 FERC para. 61,099 at
61,372-73(1998).
\97\ The rights of first refusal shown in Table 4-3 should not
be confused with the right of first refusal available to a customer
with a pre-existing expiring contract under Order No. 888, see FERC
Stats. & Regs. para. 31,036 at 31,745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3 service (network service from non-designated resources)
could be preempted by requests for either Tier 1 or Tier 2 service and
would not receive the right of first refusal. Tier 4 service (all non-
firm PTP) could be preempted by requests for Tier 1, 2, or 3 service
and would receive the right of first refusal. A Tier 4 request could be
preempted (except in the hour before service begins) by a longer
duration Tier 4 service and would receive the right of first refusal.
Until a Tier 4 request is confirmed, it could be preempted by a
preconfirmed Tier 4 request of equal duration and higher price.\98\ The
request would not receive the right of first refusal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Under Table 4-3, requests for transmission service may be
superseded before they are confirmed. After they are confirmed, they
may be preempted (as provided).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Cinergy asks how the terms ``conditional'' and ``unconditional''
appearing in Table 4-3 should be defined.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Cinergy Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI asserts that the concept in recommended Guide 4.16 (footnote 2
to Table 4-3), that ``[l]onger duration, in addition to being higher
SERVICE__INCREMENT (i.e., WEEKLY has priority over DAILY), also may
mean more multiples of the same SERVICE__INCREMENT (i.e., 3 Days may
have priority over 2 Days),'' should also apply to firm service.
Discussion
Recommended Guide 4.16 defines the priorities of longer duration
for non-firm PTP service to include both a higher service increment
(weekly service has priority over daily service) and multiples of the
same service increment (three day service has priority over two day
service). ECI requests that this definition also be applied to firm
service. We agree with ECI that multiple service increments should have
similar priority for short-term firm service.\100\ Accordingly, we will
revise Table 4-3 of recommended Guide 4.16 so that the footnote, now
referencing rows 7 and 8 of column 2 of Table 4-3, will also refer to
row 3, column 2 of the table. Moreover, we find these reservation
priorities to be consistent with section 14.2 of the pro forma tariff,
which, by its terms, applies only to non-firm point-to-point
transmission service. Accordingly, we propose to adopt Guide 4.16 as
revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Except in cases where firm service becomes unconditional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find unpersuasive Cinergy's argument that Table 4-3 should
define ``conditional'' and ``unconditional.'' As seen in note 100, the
concepts of conditional and unconditional service are complicated and
would be cumbersome to define in a table.
Section 4.17--Required Posting When a Reservation Request Is Preempted
This section provides that when a reservation request is preempted,
the transmission provider must post the assignment reference number of
the reservation that preempts the reservation request.
Comments
None of the comments take issue with this recommendation.
Discussion
We propose to adopt Guide 4.17 as recommended.
Section 4.18--Displaced and Superseded Pending Requests for
Transmission Service
This section lays out the circumstances when a transmission
provider may displace or supersede pending requests for service based
on the priorities laid out in Table 4-3 (Guide 4.16). Recommended Guide
4.18, which addresses counteroffers, provides as follows:
Guide 4.18: Given competing requests for a limited resource and
a right-of-first-refusal is not required to be offered, the Provider
may immediately move requests in the CONFIRMED state to DISPLACED,
or from an ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER state to SUPERSEDED, if the
competing request is of
[[Page 5224]]
higher priority, based on the rules represented in Table 4-3. These
state changes require dynamic notification to the Customer if the
Customer has requested dynamic notification on OASIS.
Comments
Cinergy states that, under recommended Guide 4.18, when there are
competing requests for constrained resources, a provider may change a
confirmed reservation from the CONFIRMED status to DISPLACED status, if
the competing request is of higher priority, based on the rules
represented in Table 4-3. Cinergy asks--when does the transmission
provider displace a request? Is it when the transmission provider
accepts the offer from a second customer or when the second customer
confirms the deal? Cinergy's suggested answer is that the transmission
provider should displace a request at the time the second customer
confirms the deal.101 Cinergy also questions when ATC should
be decremented. Cinergy argues that ATC should not be decremented until
the customer confirms acceptance of the transmission provider's award
of its capacity. It argues that a customer should not have rights to a
transmission path or an amount of capacity until the customer commits
to pay for it.102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Cinergy Comments at 4.
\102\ Cinergy Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Guide 4.18 would have transmission providers
voluntarily use dynamic notification to notify their customers of
changes in their requests from the CONFIRMED state to DISPLACED or from
the ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER to SUPERSEDED.103 ECI would
require transmission providers to use dynamic notification to notify
their customers of these events.104
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ In OASIS Phase IA, transmission providers use the Internet
to notify customers automatically of when the status of a
reservation request has changed.
\104\ ECI Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ECI cites the statement in the June 19 Report that,
it is possible that an unconfirmed request with an earlier QUEUED
time could be preempted (SUPERSEDED). For this to occur, the
subsequent request would be of higher priority or of greater price.
ECI argues that the Commission's ruling in the July 17 Order requires
that customers get the right of first refusal in this situation.
Otherwise, ECI argues, this proposal is inconsistent with the
Commission's decision in its complaint against PJM.105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See discussion of PJM complaint in Section III.D.13,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
First, Cinergy, referring to recommended Guide 4.18, asks when an
accepted request for service is displaced by a transmission provider.
Guide 4.18 states that, when there are competing requests for
constrained resources, a provider may change a confirmed reservation
from the CONFIRMED status to DISPLACED status, if the competing request
is of higher priority, based on the priorities laid out in Table 4-3.
Cinergy's view is that the first request should be displaced when the
displacing customer confirms the deal. We agree. Otherwise, the
displacing customer can walk away from a transaction, leaving the first
customer with no service and the transmission provider with unused
capacity.
Second, Cinergy also maintains that a customer should not have
rights to capacity until it commits to pay for it. We agree. A
customer's confirmation already is a commitment to pay and a customer's
confirmation is what gives the customer its rights to capacity. After
reviewing recommended Guide 4.18, we do not believe that any revision
is needed to accommodate Cinergy's concern.
Third, as to Cinergy's specific question as to when ATC is
decremented (when there are competing bids for constrained resources),
we propose that the transmission provider decrement ATC when it accepts
a request (without waiting for the customer's confirmation). Otherwise,
a transmission provider could be placed in the awkward position of
having accepted 10 requests for the same constrained capacity and
having several customers confirm the deal at the same time.
Nevertheless, we also invite specific comment on whether ATC should be
decremented upon acceptance by a transmission provider of the
customer's request or upon the customer's confirmation of its request,
following acceptance.
Consistent with our findings in Order No. 889, however, ATC
postings should be updated when the transmission service is reserved
(after confirmation).106 In Order No. 889, we stated,
\106\ The transmission provider adjusts its calculation of ATC
internally before it is required to post a revised ATC on the OASIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a] posting for a constrained posted path must be updated when
transmission service on the path is reserved or service ends or when
the path's TTC changes by more than 10 percent.107
\107\ Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,035 at 31,606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI reads recommended Guide 4.18 to allow transmission providers to
provide customers with dynamic notification of changes in the status of
their reservation requests on a ``best practice'' basis. It requests
that such notification be made mandatory. We note that dynamic
notification of changes in reservation status is required by the June
18 Order for customers requesting such notification.108 It
is not mandatory for those who do not make such a request. We believe
that our finding in the June 18 Order is sufficient to address ECI's
concern and are not proposing in this NOPR any extension of dynamic
notification beyond that contained in Guide 4.18 as recommended by the
June 19 Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ 83 FERC at 62,463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECI argues that the statement in the June 19 Report that ``it is
possible that an unconfirmed request with an earlier QUEUED time could
be preempted (SUPERSEDED),'' is inconsistent with the Commission's
findings in the July 17 Order. As discussed above, although the July 17
Order held that a customer making a request for short-term firm point-
to-point service is to be afforded an opportunity to match a
reservation for short-term firm point-to-point service of a longer
duration, before losing its reservation priority, that order did not
address other circumstances under which an unconfirmed request may be
preempted.109 Thus, ECI's comments provide no basis to
reject Guide 4.18 and we propose its adoption as
recommended.110
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 84 FERC at 61,196.
\110\ Upon review, the definition of ``DISPLACED'' in the Data
Element Dictionary and in section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document is
unclear. We propose to clarify the definition by inserting the words
``if any'' after the word ``refusal'' to make clear that the
existence of a status value for ``DISPLACED'' in the S&CP Document
is not meant to confer any right of first refusal. In addition, we
propose to substitute the word ``replaced'' for the word
``displaced'' in the text of the definition. We invite the comments
to this NOPR to address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4.19--Counteroffers When Right of First Refusal Is Required
Section 4.19 provides that, in instances where the customer is
entitled to a right of first refusal, the transmission provider is to
notify the customer through the use of a COUNTEROFFER of the
opportunity to match the subsequent offer.
Comments
None of the comments address this issue.
Discussion
We propose to adopt Guide 4.19 as recommended.
[[Page 5225]]
Section 4.20--Time Limits for Right of First Refusal
When we addressed the issue of reservation time limits in the June
18 Order, we agreed with commenters that on-line negotiation of
discounts requires predetermined time limits on responses by
transmission providers and customers.111 We asked the CPWG
to examine the development of such deadlines and to make
recommendations to us. The deadlines appearing in recommended Guides
4.13 and 4.20 reflect the recommendations of the CPWG/How
Group.112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 83 FERC at 62,464.
\112\ Recommended Guide 4.13 (Table 4-2) is discussed above in
Section III.D.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
ECI argues that the confirmation time limits in recommended Guide
4.20 are inconsistent with the 24-hour time limit in the pro forma
tariff. ECI argues that the pro forma tariff should be revised to match
recommended Guide 4.20. Recommended Guide 4.20 provides as follows:
Guide 4.20: A Customer who has been extended a right-of-first-
refusal should have a confirmation time limit equal to the lesser of
a) the Customer Confirmation Time Limit in Table 4-2 or b) 24 hours.
ECI reports that section 4.2 of the pro forma tariff provides a
confirmation time limit of 24 hours and suggests that the tariff be
revised in accordance with recommended Guide 4.20.
Discussion
ECI identifies what it asserts is an inconsistency between
recommended Guide 4.20 and the pro forma tariff. Recommended Guide 4.20
provides that a customer who has been given the right of first refusal
must respond in a time period equal to the lesser of the confirmation
time in Guide 4.13 (Table 4-2) or 24 hours. The pro forma tariff
provides, at section 17.5, that a response to a completed application
be made ``as soon as possible.''
We already addressed this issue in connection with our discussion
of Guide 4.13 and Table 4-2. As we explained above,113 we
find the time limits prescribed in Guide 4.13 to be both reasonable and
consistent with the pro forma tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See discussion in Section III.D.14 above, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4.21--Non-discriminatory Right of First Refusal Comments
This recommended standard requires transmission providers to apply
all rights of first refusal in a non-discriminatory and open manner.
Comments
None of the comments address this issue.
Discussion
This provision is entirely consistent with the provisions in 18 CFR
37.4(b)(5) that require transmission providers to operate their OASIS
sites in an even handed non-discriminatory manner. We propose the
adoption of Standard 4.21 as recommended.
Sections 4.22 & 4.23--When Confirmed Requests Shall Not Be Displaced
Recommended Standards 4.22 and 4.23 provide as follows:
Standard 4.22: Once a non-firm PTP request has been confirmed,
it shall not be displaced by a subsequent non-firm PTP request of
equal duration and higher price.
Standard 4.23: A confirmed, non-firm PTP reservation for the
next hour shall not be displaced within one hour of the start of the
reservation by a subsequent non-firm PTP reservation request of
longer duration.
This section does not distinguish between requests that are pre-
confirmed and requests that are confirmed after acceptance. Once
confirmed, both requests are treated alike.
Comments
None of the comments address this issue.
Discussion
We propose to adopt Standards 4.22 and 4.23 as recommended.
Section 4.24--Requests on Unconstrained Paths
Recommended Guide 4.24 provides as follows:
Guide 4.24: A Transmission Provider should honor any reservation
request submitted for an unconstrained Path if the Customer's bid
price is equal to or greater than the Provider's posted offer price
at the time the request was queued, even if later requests are
submitted at a higher price. This guide applies even when the first
request is still unconfirmed, unless the Customer Confirmation Time
Limit has expired for the first request.
Comments
None of the comments address this issue.
Discussion
We propose to adopt Guide 4.24 as recommended.
Section 4.25--Pre-Confirmation and Pre-Emption
Recommended Guide 4.25 would permit Tier 4 (non-firm point-to-
point) service of equal term with a higher bid price to preempt a
request for the same term and lower bid price, as long as the lower bid
request is not confirmed and the higher bid request is preconfirmed.
Specifically, the provision provides as follows:
Guide 4.25: Once an offer to provide non-firm PTP transmission
service at a given price is extended to a Customer by the Provider,
and while this first request is still unconfirmed but within the
Customer Confirmation Time Limit, the Provider should not preempt or
otherwise alter the status of that first request on receipt of a
subsequent request of the same Tier and equal duration at a higher
price, unless the subsequent request is submitted as pre-confirmed.
Comments
ECI asks that recommended Guide 4.25 be rejected for two reasons.
First, it argues the guide introduces the concept of pre-confirmed
requests for transmission service, a concept that does not appear in
the pro forma tariff.114 Second, it argues that the concept
violates the first-come-first-served principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Under this concept, customers would be able to make pre-
confirmed requests for service that would lock them into
automatically confirming their requests for service (and committing
them to take service) in the event transmission providers accept
their requests for service. A pre-confirmed reservation would be
finalized when the transmission provider accepts the customer's
request for service, without the need (or opportunity) for
subsequent customer confirmation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
ECI requests that we reject recommended Guide 4.25 because the
concept of pre-confirmed requests for transmission service is not
addressed in the pro forma tariff and because it violates the principle
of first-come-first-served. We disagree for two reasons. First, the
first-come-first-served reservation priority of section 14.2 of the pro
forma tariff applies from the time when a request for transmission
service is made, not from the time when a request is confirmed. Thus,
the recommended confirmation policy in Guide 4.25 would not change any
reservation priorities under section 14.2 of the pro forma tariff.
Second, we find the concept of pre-confirmed requests in Guide 4.25 to
be consistent with the reservation priorities in section 14.2 of the
pro forma tariff. If approved, the recommended pre-confirmation policy
advocated by the CPWG/How Group would, however, have an impact on the
displacement of requests for service by subsequent requests for service
at a higher price or for a longer duration.115
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5226]]
Section 4.26--Right of Customer Making Pre-Confirmed Request To Match a
Subsequent Pre-Confirmed Request at Higher Price
Recommended Guide 4.26 provides as follows:
Guide 4.26: If during a negotiation of service (i.e., prior to
Customer confirmation) a subsequent pre-confirmed request for
service over the same limited resource of equal duration but higher
price is received, the Provider may COUNTEROFFER the price of
service on the prior COUNTEROFFER or ACCEPTED price to match the
competing offer, in order to give the first Customer an opportunity
to match the offer. This practice must be implemented in a non-
discriminatory manner. [Emphasis in original.]
Comments
ECI suggests a wording change in recommended Guide
4.26.116 ECI argues that to be consistent with the first-
come-first-served and right of first refusal process, transmission
providers electing to follow this guide must be required to offer a
COUNTEROFFER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ ECI Comments at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
ECI requests that the word ``may'' in recommended Guide 4.26 be
changed to ``must.'' Recommended Guide 4.26 states that under certain
circumstances, ``the Provider may COUNTEROFFER the price of service on
the prior COUNTEROFFER or ACCEPTED price to match the competing offer,
in order to give the first Customer an opportunity to match the
offer.'' ECI argues that, to achieve consistency with the first-come-
first-served and right to match process, transmission providers must be
required to offer a COUNTEROFFER. We agree with ECI for two reasons.
First, customers must know what to expect from a transmission provider.
If a transmission provider allows some customers the right to match, it
must allow all customers the right to match. Second, even though the
recommended guide provides that the ``practice must be implemented in a
non-discriminatory manner,'' there is too much room for discrimination
if providing the right to match is optional.
As we are proposing that Guide 4.26 be adopted as a guide rather
than as a standard, a transmission provider would have the option not
to follow this guideline. However, by proposing to adopt the suggested
language change, we seek to assure that if the transmission provider
elects to follow this guide, it will do so uniformly and not
selectively.
Section 4.27--Curtailment of Nonfirm PTP Service
Recommended Guide 4.27 provides that curtailment of non-firm point-
to-point transmission service should not be based on price.
Specifically, it provides as follows:
Guide 4.27: Curtailment of non-firm PTP should not consider
price.
Comments
Cinergy argues that curtailments are not within the scope of the
Business Practices Report.
Discussion
Cinergy notes that recommended Guide 4.27, which recommends that
curtailment of non-firm PTP not be based on price, is outside the scope
of Phase IA business practices. We agree that the definition of
curtailment practices is beyond the scope of this proceeding. In the
June 18 Order, we agreed to displaying curtailment priority information
in certain templates contained in the S&CP Document.\117\ However, we
specifically cautioned that,
\117\ 83 FERC at 62,462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
our adoption of a place on the OASIS for these data elements does
not constitute an approval of the NERC or other curtailment
priorities.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Id.
As we stated in Coalition Against Private Tariffs,\119\ curtailment
priorities are governed by the pro forma tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 83 FERC at 61,043. See discussion of NERC and MAPP Orders
in Section III.D.6 and notes 27-28, above, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we do not propose to adopt recommended Guide 4.27 for
the reasons discussed above. Commenters disagreeing with this view
should address this matter in their comments to this NOPR.
16. Transmission Provider Requirements (Section 5B) of June 19 Report)
Phase IA OASIS data templates allow the coupling of ancillary
service arrangements with the purchase of transmission service for the
purpose of simplifying the overall process for customers. Transmission
providers must indicate (consistent with filed tariffs) what services
are MANDATORY (must be taken from the Primary Provider), REQUIRED (must
be provided for but may be procured from alternative sources), or
OPTIONAL (not required as a condition of transmission service). While
these interactions are available in the Phase IA S&CP Document, there
is a need to clarify the associated BPS&G. The associated recommended
Standards and Guides 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 apply to services defined
in filed tariffs. Recommended Standards 5.1 and 5.3, and recommended
Guides 5.2 and 5.4, provide as follows:
Standard 5.1: The Transmission Provider shall designate which
ancillary services are MANDATORY, REQUIRED, or OPTIONAL for each
offered transmission service to the extent these requirements can be
determined in advance of the submittal of a reservation request on a
specific Path by a Transmission Customer.
Guide 5.2: A Transmission Provider may modify a Transmission
Customer's service request to indicate the Transmission Provider as
the SELLER of any ancillary service, which is MANDATORY, to be taken
from the Transmission Provider.
Standard 5.3: For REQUIRED and OPTIONAL services, the
Transmission Provider shall not select a SELLER of ancillary service
without the Transmission Customer first selecting that SELLER.
Guide 5.4: A Transmission Provider may accept a Transmission
Customer's request for an ancillary service, which is not MANDATORY
or REQUIRED, but shall indicate to the Transmission Customer at the
time of acceptance under PROVIDER COMMENTS that the service is not
MANDATORY or REQUIRED.
Comments
With regard to section 5B of the June 19 Report, Cinergy asserts
that ancillary services cannot be easily categorized as ``MANDATORY,''
``REQUIRED,'' or ``OPTIONAL'' on the basis of transmission service.
Instead, it suggests that services be categorized on the basis of path
because different ancillary services are required depending on whether
the service is into, out of, or across, a system.120
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Cinergy Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We propose to adopt recommended Standards 5.1 and 5.3 and
recommended Guides 5.2 and 5.4. Cinergy's concern that services be
categorized on the basis of path would add undue complexity at this
time and has not been shown to be needed since only Cinergy is seeking
such information. Thus, no modification of these recommended Standards
and Guides is warranted. Moreover, ancillary services are an essential
part of a transmission service contract. Therefore, the process for
making transmission contracts on the OASIS is improved through the
proposed definitions and processes that spell out the mandatory,
required, and optional ancillary services related to the transmission
reservation.
[[Page 5227]]
17. Transmission Customer Requirements (Section 5C of June 19 Report)
The June 19 Report recommends that the transmission customer should
make known to the transmission provider (at the time of the reservation
request) certain options related to arrangement of ancillary services,
including taking all the MANDATORY and REQUIRED ancillary services from
the primary provider, taking REQUIRED ancillary services from a third
party seller, purchasing OPTIONAL services, and arranging for ancillary
services in the future (prior to scheduling). The June 19 Report then
recommends Guides 5.5 and 5.6. Recommended Guides 5.5 and 5.6 provide
as follows:
Guide 5.5: The Transmission Customer should indicate with the
submittal of a transmission reservation request, the preferred
options for provision of ancillary services, such as the desire to
use an alternative resource.
Guide 5.6: A Transmission Customer may, but is not required to,
indicate a third party SELLER of ancillary services, if these
services are arranged by the Transmission Customer off the OASIS and
if such arrangements are permitted by the Transmission Provider's
tariff.
Comments
No specific comments were filed on these guides.
Discussion
We propose to adopt recommended Guides 5.5 and 5.6.
E. Recommended Revisions to Pro Forma Tariff (Appendix A of the June 19
Report)
Based on the business practices recommended above, the June 19
Report recommends that we modify three sections, 14.2, 14.7 and 17.5,
of the pro forma tariff.121 As discussed below, we view the
recommended revisions as either unwarranted or unnecessary and are not
persuaded to make any modifications to the pro forma tariff at this
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ For convenience, sections 14.2, 14.7, and 17.5 of the pro
forma tariff are provided in Attachment B to this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Section 14.2--Reservation Priority
Section 14.2 of the pro forma tariff provides, in pertinent part:
A higher priority will be assigned to reservations with a longer
duration of service. In the event the Transmission System is
constrained, competing requests of equal duration will be
prioritized based on the highest price offered by the Eligible
Customer for the Transmission Service. Eligible Customers that have
already reserved shorter term service have the right of first
refusal to match any longer term reservation before being
preempted.122
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,048 at
30,518.
The CPWG/How Group argues that this creates problems. While not
disputing that requests for service of greater duration or for a higher
price should have priority over requests for shorter duration or lower
price, the June 19 Report expresses a concern that a last-minute
subsequent request for non-firm transmission service could displace an
earlier request for non-firm transmission service without leaving the
first bidder time to make alternate arrangements. CPWG/How Group
recommends that customers be allowed to make pre-confirmed requests for
service, locking themselves into automatically confirming their
requests for service (and committing them to take service) in the event
the transmission provider accepts their request for service. Although
transmission providers could reject the request if a competing bid at a
higher price or for a longer duration is received before the
transmission provider accepts the request from the first customer, it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is recommended that,
once an Eligible Customer confirms a reservation at a given price, a
subsequent request of equal duration but at a higher price will not
be allowed to displace the confirmed reservation.123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ This proposal stems from recommended Standard 4.22 and
recommended Guide 4.25 and the priorities appearing on row 8, Table
4-3 (recommended Guide 4.16).
As to subsequent requests for a longer duration, it is recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that,
once an Eligible Customer confirms a reservation, a subsequent
request of longer duration made within an hour of the scheduled
start of the confirmed reservation will not be allowed to displace
the confirmed reservation for that next hour.124
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ This proposal stems from recommended Standard 4.23 and the
priorities appearing on row 7, Table 4-3 (recommended Guide 4.16).
Thus, under these proposals, if a customer makes a pre-confirmed
reservation, it would obtain protection from displacement from
competing bids earlier than if it waits to confirm its request after
the transmission provider accepts the request. However, even without
pre-confirmation, after confirmation, any customer confirming its
request would receive the same protection against displacement from
subsequent requests for service.
CPWG/How Group also recommends that the right to match subsequent
requests for service (first refusal), currently guaranteed by Sec. 14.2
of the pro forma tariff (to match subsequent requests for hourly non-
firm transmission service of longer duration if matched
``immediately''), be extended to allow matching within five
minutes.125
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ This change stems from the reservation timing guidelines
appearing on row 1, Table 4-2 (recommended Guide 4.13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement these proposals, CPWG advocates revising Sec. 14.2 of
the pro forma tariff to read as follows:
14.2 Reservation Priority: Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service shall be available from transmission capability in excess of
that needed for reliable service to Native Load Customers, Network
Customers and other Transmission Customers taking Long-Term and
Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service. A higher
priority will be assigned to reservations with a longer duration of
service, except that once an Eligible Customer confirms a
reservation, a subsequent request of longer duration made within an
hour of the scheduled start of the confirmed reservation will not be
allowed to displace the confirmed reservation for that next hour. In
the event the Transmission System is constrained, competing requests
of equal duration will be prioritized based on the highest price
offered by the Eligible Customer for the Transmission Service,
except that once an Eligible Customer confirms a reservation at a
given price, a subsequent request of equal duration but at a higher
price will not be allowed to displace the confirmed reservation.
Eligible Customers that have already reserved shorter-term service
have the right of first refusal to match any longer-term reservation
before being preempted. A longer-term competing request for Non-Firm
Point-To-Point Transmission Service will be granted if the Eligible
Customer with the right of first refusal does not agree to match the
competing request: (a) immediately within five minutes for hourly
Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service after notification by
the Transmission Provider; and, (b) within 24 hours (or earlier if
necessary to comply with the scheduling deadlines provided in
Sec. 14.6) for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service other
than hourly transactions after notification by the Transmission
Provider. Transmission service for Network Customers from resources
other than designated Network Resources will have a higher priority
than any Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service. Non-Firm
Point-To-Point Transmission Service over secondary Point(s) of
Receipt and Point(s) of Delivery will have the lowest reservation
priority under the Tariff.
Comments
ECI argues that this provision needs to be reconciled with the
Commission's findings in the July 17 Order.
Discussion
We agree with CPWG/How Group that it might be beneficial to allow
customers to ``hedge'' their requests for service by making pre-
confirmed requests for service. However, we disagree that this
[[Page 5228]]
requires any modification to Sec. 14.2 of the pro forma tariff.
Section 14.2 creates reservation priorities based on price and
duration that we have no inclination to revise. However, nothing in
Sec. 14.2 either condones or condemns the use of pre-confirmed
reservations. In evaluating competing requests for transmission
service, we believe that Sec. 14.2 properly directs the transmission
provider to give priority to requests for service at a higher price or
for a longer duration. However, Sec. 14.2 does not address displacement
of an accepted and confirmed request for transmission service upon
receipt of a subsequent request for service.
The remaining question, therefore, is whether transmission
providers need to file a revision to their individual open access
tariff to implement the pre-confirmation proposals outlined in CPWG/How
Group's recommended revisions to Sec. 14.2 of the pro forma tariff.
Given the silence of Sec. 14.2 on this subject, to the extent that a
transmission provider seeks to add a pre-confirmation procedure, it
would need to file, for Commission approval, a revision to its
individual open access tariff.
As to the proposal that we revise section 14.2 of the pro forma
tariff to allow a matching response to a competing request for hourly
non-firm point-to-point transmission service within five minutes of
notification by the transmission provider, we find this recommended
revision unnecessary. Currently, section 14.2 requires an eligible
customer with the right of first refusal to match the competing request
immediately for non-firm point-to-point transmission service. A
matching response required within five minutes of notification by the
transmission provider would satisfy the intent of section 14.2 that a
matching response be made immediately.
As to ECI's argument that the recommended revisions to section 14.2
of the pro forma tariff need to be reconciled with the Commission's
findings in the July 17 Order,\126\ we find that these concerns are
moot in light of our determination to leave section 14.2
unchanged.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Discussed in Section III.D.13 above, supra.
\127\ As discussed in Section III.D.13, supra, we also find that
ECI misinterprets the July 17 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Section 14.7--Curtailment or Interruption of Service
The June 19 Report recommends that we revise section 14.7 of the
pro forma tariff to prevent the interruption of non-firm transmission
service in favor of non-firm transmission service of the same duration,
but at a higher price (for the same reasons advanced regarding similar
changes to section 14.2). Specifically, the June 19 Report recommends
that we revise section 14.7 of the pro forma tariff to provide as
follows:
14.7 Curtailment or Interruption of Service: The Transmission
Provider reserves the right to Curtail, in whole or in part, Non-
Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under the Tariff
for reliability reasons when, an emergency or other unforeseen
condition threatens to impair or degrade the reliability of its
Transmission System. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to
Interrupt, in whole or in part, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service provided under the Tariff for economic reasons in order to
accommodate (1) a request for Firm Transmission Service, (2) a
request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service of greater
duration, or (3) [a request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service of equal duration with a higher price, or (4)] transmission
service for Network Customers from non-designated resources. The
Transmission Provider also will discontinue or reduce service to the
Transmission Customer to the extent that deliveries for transmission
are discontinued or reduced at the Point(s) of Receipt. Where
required, Curtailments or Interruptions will be made on a non-
discriminatory basis to the transaction(s) that effectively relieve
the constraint, however, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service shall be subordinate to Firm Transmission Service. If
multiple transactions require Curtailment or Interruption, to the
extent practicable and consistent with Good Utility Practice,
Curtailments or Interruptions will be made to transactions of the
shortest-term (e.g., hourly non-firm transactions will be Curtailed
or Interrupted before daily non-firm transactions and daily non-firm
transactions will be Curtailed or Interrupted before weekly non-firm
transactions). Transmission service for Network Customers from
resources other than designated Network Resources will have a higher
priority than any Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service under
the Tariff. Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service over
secondary Point(s) of Receipt and Point(s) of Delivery will have a
lower priority than any Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service
under the Tariff. The Transmission Provider will provide advance
notice of Curtailment or Interruption where such notice can be
provided consistent with Good Utility Practice.
Comments
Cinergy recommends that the recommended change not be made.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Cinergy Comments at 6. Cinergy gives no reason for this
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We agree with Cinergy that the recommended change should not be
made. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, the June 19
Report (see pages A-4 and A-5) fails to provide any support for the
proposal. Second, as discussed above, we have not been persuaded to
revise the reservation priorities in section 14.2 and thus there is no
need to revise section 14.7, for consistency. Third, in any event,
curtailments and reservation priorities are completely distinct
subjects. Thus, even if we were to revise the reservation priorities in
section 14.2, we would need more of a reason than that to revise the
curtailment priorities in section 14.7. Moreover, as we discussed in
Section III.D.5 above, this order does not disturb the curtailment
priorities of section 14.7 of the pro forma tariff.
3. Section 17.5--Response to a Completed Application
The recommended change to Section 17.5 would require transmission
providers to use best efforts to respond promptly to applications for
daily firm service made within 24 hours of start of the transaction.
The June 19 Report recommends that section 17.5 of the pro forma tariff
be revised to provide as follows:
17.5 Response to a Completed Application: Following receipt of a
Completed Application for Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service,
the Transmission Provider shall make a determination of available
transmission capability as required in Section 15.2. [The] Except
for a Completed Application for Daily Firm service received less
than 24 hours prior to the commencement of the transmission service,
the Transmission Provider shall notify the Eligible Customer as soon
as practicable, but not later than thirty (30) days after the date
of receipt of a Completed Application either (I) if it will be able
to provide service without performing a System Impact Study or (ii)
if such a study is needed to evaluate the impact of the Application
pursuant to Section 19.1. For a Completed Application for Daily Firm
service received less than 24 hours prior to the commencement of the
transmission service, the Transmission Provider shall use its best
efforts to respond promptly to notify the Eligible Customer if it
will be able to provide the service. Responses by the Transmission
Provider must be made as soon as practicable to all completed
applications (including applications by its own merchant function)
and the timing of such responses must be made on a non-
discriminatory basis.
Comments
No comments were received on this issue.
Discussion
We do not agree that any revision to the pro forma tariff is needed
to accommodate this proposal. Section 17.5 requires a response as soon
as practicable. It would not be reasonable to interpret ``as soon as
practicable,'' in
[[Page 5229]]
dealing with a response for daily service, as allowing a transmission
provider to take up to thirty days in responding to a request for
service. The ``not longer than thirty (30) days'' language was not
intended to allow transmission providers to stall in giving timely
responses to requests for shorter duration services. The analysis
needed to respond to requests for shorter duration service is simpler
and can be accomplished much faster. We need not revise section 17.5 to
require ``best efforts'' to respond promptly to customers requesting
daily service, because that requirement already is implicit in the
requirement to respond ``as soon as practicable.''
F. September 15th Filing of Standards for Naming Transmission Paths
In its July 1998 OASIS order, the Commission requested that CPWG/
How Group recommend a consistent naming convention for transmission
paths. On September 15, 1998, CPWG/How Group made a joint filing
proposing such standards.
The existing S&CP Document contains a path naming convention. Paths
are designated using a 50-character alphanumeric string:
RegionCode/transmissionProviderCode/ PathName/Optional From-to (POR-
POD)/Spare
CPWG/How Group asserts that the structure of the string is
appropriate, but that more specificity is needed to assure consistency
among transmission providers in the designation of path names. Since a
single transaction may span multiple providers, consistent names will
make it easier to move power across the systems of several transmission
providers.
Specifically, CPWG/How Group recommend:
Standard 6.1: A transmission provider shall use the path naming
convention defined in the S&CP Data Dictionary for the naming of all
reservable paths posted on OASIS.
Standard 6.2: A transmission provider shall use the third field
in the path name to indicate the sending and receiving control
areas. The control areas shall be designated using standard NERC
codes for the control areas, separated by a hyphen. For example, the
first three fields of the path name will be:
RR/TPTP/CAXX-CAYY/
Standard 6.3: A transmission provider shall use the fourth field
of the path name to indicate POR and POD separated by a hyphen. For
example, a path with a specific POR/POD would be shown as:
RR/TPTP/CAXX-CAYY/ PORPORPORPOR-PODPODPODPOD/
If the POR and POD are designated as control areas, then the
fourth field may be left blank (as per the example in 6.2).
Guide 6.4: A transmission provider may designate a sub-level for
Points of Receipt and Delivery. For example, a customer reserves a
path to POD AAAA. The ultimate load may be indeterminate at the
time. Later, the customer schedules energy to flow to a particular
load that may be designated by the transmission provider as a sub-
level Point of Delivery. This option is necessary to ensure certain
providers are not precluded from using more specific service points
by the inclusion of the POR/POD in the path name. All sub-level PORs
and PODs must be registered as such on www.tsin.com.
Comments
APPA was the only commenter. While APPA has some reservations about
the recommended standards, it recommends that the standards be adopted.
APPA's qualms are due to its fear that the standards could be used to
impose anticompetitive burdens on market participants by requiring a
higher degree of POR-POD specificity for customers than for the
transmission providers' own use of their systems. APPA requests that
the Commission remain vigilant and hear customer complaints if the
standard is used to disadvantage competitors.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ APPA Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
We propose to adopt the standards (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3) and guide
(6.4) on this subject recommended by CPWG/How Group in their September
15, 1998 submittal. The approach which has been in use permitted
flexibility in the use of optional fields, but has resulted in
inconsistent path naming. The recommended standards and guides, which
use the previously optional fields to specify control area codes for
Point of Receipt and Point of Delivery, will provide consistency in
path naming, and improve efficiency in the reservation process. There
were no commenters objecting to the recommended standards and guides.
We acknowledge APPA's concerns about the potential for abuse, and we
will be responsive to complaints about possible abuses which might
result from the requirement to specify control areas for POR-POD when
making transmission reservations.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),130 requires the
Commission to describe the impact a proposed rule would have on small
entities or to certify that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mandatory standards and voluntary best practices guides
proposed in this NOPR would be applicable to the same entities subject
to the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule (i.e., public
utilities).131 As we explained in Order No. 889-A, however,
under appropriate circumstances the Commission will grant waiver of the
OASIS Final Rule requirements to small public utilities. We further
explained that the Commission's waiver policy follows the SBA
definition of small electric utility 132 and that 34 small
entities had received waivers of the requirement to establish and
maintain an OASIS and five small entities had received waivers of the
OASIS Standards of Conduct requirements.133 These decisions
show that the Commission carefully evaluates the effect of the OASIS
Final Rule on small electric utilities and is granting waivers where
appropriate, thus mitigating the effect of that rule on small public
and non-public utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ In the OASIS Final Rule, we noted that the entities that
would have to comply with the OASIS Final Rule are public utilities.
See Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs para. 31,049 at 30,578.
\132\ See 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601(3) and 601(6) and 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 632(a). The RFA defines a small entity as one that is
independently owned and not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. Sec. 632(a). The Small Business Administration defines a
small electric utility as one that disposes of 4 million MWh or less
of electric energy in a given year. See 13 CFR 121.601 (Major Group
49--Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services).
In the Open Access Final Rule, we concluded that, under these
definitions, the Open Access Final Rule and the OASIS Final Rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. We reaffirmed that conclusion in Order Nos. 888-A
and 889-A.
\133\ See Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,049 at
30,578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules here proposed would merely increase the uniformity of the
business practices public utilities would have to adopt in any event to
comply with Order Nos. 888 and 889 and other Commission orders. This
being the case, under section 605(b) of RFA, the Commission hereby
certifies that this proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of RFA. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required pursuant to section 603 of RFA.
V. Environmental Statement
Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement be prepared for a Commission action
that may have a significant effect on the
[[Page 5230]]
human environment.134 In the Commission's view, the
environmental impact of this proposal is negligible. Transmission
providers necessarily already follow business practices in conducting
their OASIS transactions. This proposal merely adds some uniformity to
the process. Accordingly, we find that this NOPR does not propose any
action that may have a significant effect on the human environment and
that no environmental impact statement is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987); 1986-90 Regs.
Preambles FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 30,783 (Dec. 10, 1987) (codified
at 18 CFR Part 380).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Information Collection Statement
Based on our experience in OASIS implementation over the past four
years, the Commission refined the estimate of reporting entities
covered by OASIS regulations. Our latest estimate is that 140
respondents are required to collect information under the OASIS
regulations. However, as discussed above, this NOPR does not impose any
new information collection burdens. Collectively, the OASIS rulemaking
information collection is covered by FERC-717 as covered by our
December 1, 1998 proposed information collection and request for
comments in Docket No. IC99-717-000 as follows:
Information Collection Statement:
Title: FERC-717, Open Access Same-time Information Systems and
Standards of Conduct.
Action: Proposed Collection.
OMB Control No: 1902-0173.
Respondents: Business or other for profit, including small
business.
Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
Necessity of the information: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
solicits public comments to respond to the proposed issuance of uniform
business practices for OASIS Phase IA transactions and path name
conventions, on replacing the Data Dictionary Element
``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' in the OASIS Standards and Communication
Protocols Document (Version 1.3) with the term ``AS__TYPE,'' and on
clarifying the terms ``DISPLACED,'' ``SUPERSEDED,'' and ``REFUSED'' in
the Data Dictionary Element and Sec. 4.2.10.2. These requirements would
support arrangements made for wholesale sales and purchases for third
parties. Public utilities and/or their agents would operate under more
uniform business practices. This would improve the operation of OASIS
sites.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations,\135\
require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements
imposed by agency rule. The information collection requirements in the
proposed rule will be reported directly to transmission users and will
be subject to subsequent audit by the Commission. The distribution of
these data will help the Commission carry out its responsibilities
under Part II of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is submitting notification of this proposed rule to
OMB. Persons wishing to comment on the collections of information
proposed by this NOPR should direct their comments to the Desk Officer
for FERC, OMB, Room 10202 NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, phone 202-395-
3087, facsimile 202-395-7285. Comments must be filed with OMB within 30
days of publication of this document in the Federal Register. Three
copies of any comments filed with the Office of Management and Budget
also should be sent to the following address: Mr. David P. Boergers,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Room 1A, 888 First
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. For further information on the
reporting requirements, contact Michael Miller at (202) 208-1415.
VII. Public Comment Procedure
This NOPR gives notice of our intention to issue a set of uniform
business practices implementing the Commission's policies on
transmission service price negotiation and improving interactions
between transmission providers and customers over Open Access Same-Time
Information System (OASIS) nodes. In addition, we propose a consistent
naming convention for path names, propose to replace the Data
Dictionary Element ``ANC__SERVICE__TYPE'' in the OASIS Standards and
Communication Protocols Document (Version 1.3) with the term
``AS__TYPE,'' and propose to clarify the terms ``DISPLACED,''
``SUPERSEDED,'' and ``REFUSED'' in the Data Dictionary Element and in
section 4.2.10.2. of the S&CP Document.
Prior to taking final action on this proposed rulemaking, we are
inviting comments from interested persons on the proposals discussed in
this preamble and compiled in Attachment A to this NOPR. Additionally,
the Commission specifically invites comments on whether any of the best
practice guides proposed in this NOPR should instead be issued as
mandatory standards and whether any mandatory standards proposed in
this NOPR should instead be issued as best practice guides. The
Commission invites interested persons to submit written comments on the
matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any
related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to
discuss.
The original and 14 copies of such comments must be received by the
Commission by [insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal
Register]. Comments should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C. 20426 and should refer to Docket No. RM95-9-003.
In addition to filing paper copies, the Commission encourages the
filing of comments either on computer diskette or via Internet E-Mail.
Comments may be filed in the following formats: WordPerfect 6.1 or
lower version, MS Word Office 97 or lower version, or ASCII format.
For diskette filing, include the following information on the
diskette label: Docket No. RM95-9-003; the name of the filing entity;
the software and version used to create the file; and the name and
telephone number of a contact person.
For Internet E-Mail submittal, comments should be submitted to
comment.rm@ferc.fed.us'' in the following format. On the subject
line, specify Docket No. RM95-9-003. In the body of the E-Mail message,
include the name of the filing entity; the software and version used to
create the file, and the name and telephone number of the contact
person. Attach the comment to the E-Mail in one of the formats
specified above. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgment
to the sender's E-Mail address upon receipt. Questions on electronic
filing should be directed to Brooks Carter at 202-501-8145, E-Mail
address brooks.carter@ferc.fed.us.
Commenters should take note that, until the Commission amends its
rules and regulations, the paper copy of the filing remains the
official copy of the document submitted. Therefore, any discrepancies
between the paper filing and the electronic filing or the diskette will
be resolved by reference to the paper filing.
All written comments will be placed in the Commission's public
files and will be available for inspection in the Commission's Public
Reference room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426, during
regular business hours. Additionally, comments may be viewed and
printed remotely via the Internet through FERC's Home Page using the
RIMS link or the Energy Information
[[Page 5231]]
Online icon. User assistance is available at 202-208-2222, or by E-Mail
to rimsmaster@ferc.fed.us.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37
Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to adopt
the attached ``Business Practice Standards and Guides for Open Access
Same-time Information System (OASIS) Transactions'' and to amend Part
37 in Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below.
PART 37--OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS OF
CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 37 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
2. Section 37.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 37.5 Obligations of Transmission Providers and Responsible
Parties.
* * * * *
(b) A Responsible Party must: (1) Provide access to an OASIS
providing standardized information relevant to the availability of
transmission capacity, prices, and other information (as described in
this part) pertaining to the transmission system for which it is
responsible;
(2) Operate the OASIS in compliance with the standardized
procedures and protocols found in OASIS Standards and Communication
Protocols, which can be obtained from the Public Reference and Files
Maintenance Branch, Room 2A, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426; and
(3) Operate the OASIS in compliance with the Business Practice
Standards and Guides for Open Access Same-time Information System
(OASIS) Transactions, which can be obtained at the same address as
provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
[Note: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
Attachment A--Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, business
practice standards and guides for open access same-time information
system (oasis) transactions draft, version 1.0 (January 27, 1999)
Table of Contents
Section 1--Introduction
1.1 Business Practice Standards vs. Guides
Section 2--Standard Terminology for Transmission and Ancillary
Services
2.1 Attribute Values Defining the Period of Service
2.2 Attribute Values Defining Service Class
2.3 Attribute Values Defining Service Types
2.4 Intentionally left Blank
2.5 Other Service Attribute Values
Section 3--OASIS Registration Procedures
3.1 Entity Registration
3.2 Process to Register Non-Standard Service Attribute Values
3.3 Registration of Points of Receipt and Delivery
Section 4--On-line Negotiation and Confirmation Process
4.1 On-line Price Negotiation in Short-term Markets
4.2 Phase IA Negotiation Process State Transition Diagram
4.3 Negotiations--Without Competing Bids
4.4 Negotiations--With Competing Bids for Constrained Resources
Section 5--Procurement of Ancillary and Other Services
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Transmission Provider Requirements
5.3 Transmission Customer Requirements
Section 6--Pathnaming Standards
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Transmission Provider Requirements
Section 1--Introduction
This document contains business practice standards and guides
designed to implement the Commission's policy related to on-line
price negotiation and to improve the commercial operation of the
Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS).
Section 1.1 Business Practice Standards and Guides
This document distinguishes between OASIS business practice
standards and ``best practices'' guides. The standards are adopted
as mandatory requirements, while the guides are offered as voluntary
best practices. However, in the event that a transmission provider
elects to follow the voluntary practice guides, it must do so on a
uniform, non-discriminatory basis.
Section 2--Standard Terminology for Transmission and Ancillary Services
Section 2.1 Attribute Values Defining the Period of Service
The data templates of the Phase IA Standards & Communication
Protocols (S&CP) Document have been developed with the use of
standard service attributes in mind. What the Phase IA S&CP Document
does not offer are specific definitions for each attribute value.
This section offers standards and guides for these service attribute
definitions to be used in conjunction with the Phase IA data
templates.
``Fixed'' services are associated with transmission services
whose periods align with calendar periods such as a day, week, or
month. ``Sliding'' services are fixed in duration, such as a week or
month, but the start and stop time may slide. For example a
``sliding'' week could start on Tuesday and end on the following
Monday. ``Extended'' allows for services in which the start time may
``slide'' and also the duration may be longer than a standard
length. For example an ``extended'' week of service could be nine
consecutive days. Various transmission service offerings using these
terms are defined in Standards 2.1.1 through 2.1.13 below.
Table 1-1 identifies the definitions that are proposed as
standard terminology in OASIS Phase IA for the attributes
SERVICE__INCREMENT (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Yearly) and
WINDOW (Fixed, Sliding, and Extended). A definition is required for
each combination of SERVICE__INCREMENT and WINDOW, except Hourly
Sliding and Hourly Extended, which, at the present, are not
sufficiently common in the market to require standard definitions.
Table 1-1.--Standard Service Attribute Definitions Required in Phase IA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Sliding Extended*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly....................................................... X N/A N/A
Daily........................................................ X X X
Weekly....................................................... X X X
Monthly...................................................... X X X
Yearly....................................................... X X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Included in the Phase IA S&CP Data Dictionary, Version 1.3, issued September 29, 1998.
The existence of a definition in this table does not imply the
services must be offered by a Transmission Provider. Requirements as
to which services must be offered are defined by regulation and
tariffs.
[[Page 5232]]
Each definition assumes a single time zone specified by the
Transmission Provider. It is recognized that daylight time switches
must be accommodated in practice, but they have been omitted in the
definitions for the purpose of simplicity.
Standard 2.1: A Transmission Provider shall use the values and
definitions below for the attributes Service__Increment and Window
for all transmission services offered on OASIS, or shall post
alternative attribute values and associated definitions on the OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com, or shall use existing attribute values
and definitions posted by other Transmission Providers. (See Section
3 for registration requirements.)
Standard 2.1.1: Fixed Hourly--The service starts at the
beginning of a clock hour and stops at the end of a clock hour.
Standard 2.1.2: Fixed Daily--The service starts at 00:00 and
stops at 24:00 of the same calendar date (same as 00:00 of the next
consecutive calendar date).
Standard 2.1.3: Fixed Weekly--The service starts at 00:00 on
Monday and stops at 24:00 of the following Sunday (same as 00:00 of
the following Monday).
Standard 2.1.4: Fixed Monthly--The service starts at 00:00 on
the first date of a calendar month and stops at 24:00 on the last
date of the same calendar month (same as 00:00 of the first date of
the next consecutive month).
Standard 2.1.5: Fixed Yearly--The service starts at 00:00 on the
first date of a calendar year and ends at 24:00 on the last date of
the same calendar year (same as 00:00 of the first date of the next
consecutive year).
Standard 2.1.6: Sliding Daily--The service starts at the
beginning of any hour of the day and stops exactly 24 hours later at
the same time on the next day.
Standard 2.1.7: Sliding Weekly--The service starts at 00:00 of
any date and stops exactly 168 hours later at 00:00 on the same day
of the next week.
Standard 2.1.8: Sliding Monthly--The service starts at 00:00 of
any date and stops at 00:00 on the same date of the next month (28-
31 days later). If there is no corresponding date in the following
month, the service stops at 24:00 on the last day of the next month.
For example: Sliding Monthly starting at 00:00 on January 30
would stop at 24:00 on February 28 (same as 00:00 March 1).
Standard 2.1.9: Sliding Yearly--The service starts at 00:00 of
any date and stops at 00:00 on the same date of the following year.
If there is no corresponding date in the following year, the service
stops at 24:00 on the last day of the same month in the following
year.
For example Sliding Yearly service starting on February 29 would
stop on February 28 of the following year.
Standard 2.1.10: Extended Daily--The service starts at any hour
of a day and stops more than 24 hours later and less than 48 hours
later.
Standard 2.1.11: Extended Weekly--The service starts at 00:00 of
any date and stops at 00:00 more than one week later, but less than
two weeks later.
Standard 2.1.12: Extended Monthly--The service starts at 00:00
of any date and stops at 00:00 more than one month later but less
than two months later.
Standard 2.1.13: Extended Yearly--The service starts at 00:00 of
any date and stops at 00:00 more than one calendar year later but
less than two calendar years later.
Section 2.2 Attribute Values Defining Service Class
Standard 2.2: A Transmission Provider shall use the values and
definitions below to describe the service CLASS for transmission
services offered on OASIS, or shall post alternative attribute
values and associated definitions on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com, or shall use the attribute values and definitions
posted by other Providers. (See Section 3 for registration
requirements.)
Standard 2.2.1: Firm--Transmission service that always has
priority over NON-FIRM transmission service and includes Native Load
Customers, Network Customers, and any transmission service not
classified as non-firm in accordance with the definitions in the pro
forma tariff.
Standard 2.2.2: Non-Firm--Transmission service that is reserved
and/or scheduled on an as-available basis and is subject to
curtailment or interruption at a lesser priority compared to Firm
transmission service, Native Load Customers, and Network Customers
in accordance with the definitions in the pro forma tariff.
Section 2.3 Attribute Values Defining Service Types
Standard 2.3: A Transmission Provider shall use the values and
definitions below to describe the service TYPE for transmission
services offered on OASIS, or shall post alternative attribute
values and associated definitions on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com, or shall use the attribute values and definitions
posted by other Providers. (See Section 3 for registration
requirements.)
Standard 2.3.1: Point-to-point--Transmission service that is
reserved and/or scheduled between specified Points of Receipt and
Delivery pursuant to Part II of the pro forma tariff and in
accordance with the definitions in the pro forma tariff.
Standard 2.3.2: Network--Network Integration Transmission
Service that is provided to serve a Network Customer load pursuant
to Part III of the pro forma tariff and in accordance with the
definitions in the pro forma tariff.
Section 2.4
Reserved for Future Use.
Section 2.5 Other Service Attribute Values
The Commission has defined six ancillary services in Order No.
888. Other services may be offered pursuant to filed tariffs.
Standard 2.5: A Transmission Provider shall use the definitions
below to describe the AS__TYPEs offered on OASIS, or shall post
alternative attribute values and associated definitions on the OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com, or shall use attribute values and
definitions posted by another Provider. (See Section 3 for
registration requirements.)
FERC Ancillary Services Definitions
Standard 2.5.1: Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service
(SC)--is necessary to the provision of basic transmission service
within every control area. This service can be provided only by the
operator of the control area in which the transmission facilities
used are located. This is because the service is to schedule the
movement of power through, out of, within, or into the control area.
This service also includes the dispatch of generating resources to
maintain generation/load balance and maintain security during the
transaction and in accordance with section 3.1 (and Schedule 1) of
the pro forma tariff.
Standard 2.5.2: Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from
Generation Sources Service (RV)--is the provision of reactive power
and voltage control by generating facilities under the control of
the control area operator. This service is necessary to the
provision of basic transmission service within every control area
and in accordance with section 3.2 (and Schedule 2) of the pro forma
tariff.
Standard 2.5.3: Regulation and Frequency Response Service (RF)--
is provided for transmission within or into the transmission
provider's control area to serve load in the area. Customers may be
able to satisfy the regulation service obligation by providing
generation with automatic generation control capabilities to the
control area in which the load resides and in accordance with
section 3.3 (and Schedule 3) of the pro forma tariff.
Standard 2.5.4: Energy Imbalance Service (EI)--is the service
for transmission within and into the transmission provider's control
area to serve load in the area. Energy imbalance represents the
deviation between the scheduled and actual delivery of energy to a
load in the local control area over a single hour and in accordance
with section 3.4 (and Schedule 4) of the pro forma tariff.
Standard 2.5.5: Operating Reserve-Spinning Reserve Service
(SP)--is provided by generating units that are on-line and loaded at
less than maximum output. They are available to serve load
immediately in an unexpected contingency, such as an unplanned
outage of a generating unit and in accordance with section 3.5 (and
Schedule 5) of the pro forma tariff.
Standard 2.5.6: Operating Reserve-Supplemental Reserve Service
(SU)--is generating capacity that can be used to respond to
contingency situations. Supplemental reserve, is not available
instantaneously, but rather within a short period (usually ten
minutes). It is provided by generating units that are on-line but
unloaded, by quick-start generation, and by customer interrupted
load and in accordance with section 3.6 (and Schedule 6) of the pro
forma tariff.
Other Service Definitions
Other services may be offered to Transmission Customers through
individual filed tariffs. Examples of other services that may be
offered include the Interconnected Operations Services described
below in Guides 2.5.7, 2.5.8, and 2.5.9. Ancillary service
definitions may be offered pursuant to an individual transmission
provider's specific tariff filings.
[[Page 5233]]
Guide 2.5.7: Dynamic Transfer (DT)--is the provision of the
real-time monitoring, telemetering, computer software, hardware,
communications, engineering, and administration required to
electronically move all or a portion of the real energy services
associated with a generator or load out of its Host Control Area
into a different Electronic Control Area.
Guide 2.5.8: Real Power Transmission Losses (TL)--is the
provision of capacity and energy to replace energy losses associated
with transmission service on the Transmission Provider's system.
Guide 2.5.9: System Black Start Capability (BS)--is the
provision of generating equipment that, following a system blackout,
is able to start without an outside electrical supply. Furthermore,
Black Start Capability is capable of being synchronized to the
transmission system such that it can provide a startup supply source
for other system capacity that can then be likewise synchronized to
the transmission system to supply load as part of a process of re-
energizing the transmission system.
Section 3--OASIS Registration Procedures
Section 3.1 Entity Registration
Operation of OASIS requires unambiguous identification of
parties.
Standard 3.1: All entities or persons using OASIS shall register
the identity of their organization (including DUNS number) or person
at the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com. Registration shall be
completed prior to the commencement of Phase IA and renewed annually
and whenever changes in identification occur and thereafter. An
entity or person not complying with this requirement may be denied
access by a provider to that provider's OASIS node.
The registration requirement applies to any entity logging onto
OASIS for the purpose of using or updating information, including
Transmission Providers, Transmission Customers, Observers, Control
Areas, Security Coordinators, and Independent System Operators.
Section 3.2 Process to Register Non-Standard Service Attribute
Values
Section 2 of the OASIS business practice standards and guides
addresses the use of standard terminology in defining services on
OASIS. These standard definitions for service attribute values will
be posted publicly on the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com and may be
used by all Providers to offer transmission and ancillary services
on OASIS. If the Provider determines that the standard definitions
are not applicable, the Provider may register new attribute values
and definitions on the OASIS Home Page. Any Provider may use the
attribute values and definitions posted by another Provider.
Standard 3.2: Providers of transmission and ancillary services
shall use only attribute values and definitions that have been
registered on the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com for all
transmission and ancillary services offered on their OASIS.
Guide 3.3: Providers of transmission and ancillary services
should endeavor to use on their OASIS nodes attribute values and
definitions that have been posted by other Providers on the OASIS
Home Page at www.tsin.com whenever possible.
Section 3.3 Registration of Points of Receipt and Delivery
In order to improve coordination of path naming and to enhance
the identification of commercially available connection points
between Providers and regions, the business practice for Phase IA
OASIS requires that:
Transmission Providers register at the OASIS Home Page
at www.tsin.com, all service points (Points of Receipt and Delivery)
for which transmission service is available over the OASIS.
Each Provider would then indicate on its OASIS node,
for each Path posted on its OASIS node, the Points of Receipt and
Delivery to which each Path is connected.
A Transmission Provider is not required to register specific
generating stations as Points of Receipt, unless they were available
as service points for the purposes of reserving transmission service
on OASIS. The requirement also does not include registration of
regional flowgates, unless they are service points for the purposes
of reserving transmission on OASIS.
Standard 3.4: A Transmission Provider shall register and
thereafter maintain on the OASIS Home Page at www.tsin.com all
Points of Receipt and Delivery to and from which a Transmission
Customer may reserve and schedule transmission service.
Standard 3.5: For each reservable Path posted on their OASIS
nodes, Transmission Providers shall indicate the available Point(s)
of Receipt and Delivery for that Path. These Points of Receipt and
Delivery shall be from the list registered on the OASIS Home Page at
www.tsin.com.
Guide 3.6: When two or more Transmission Providers share common
Points of Receipt or Delivery, or when a Path connects Points of
Receipt and Delivery in neighboring systems, the Transmission
Providers owning and/or operating those facilities should apply
consistent names for those connecting paths or common paths on the
OASIS.
Section 4--On-Line Negotiation and Confirmation Process
Section 4.1 On-Line Price Negotiation in Short-Term Markets
Standard 4.1: Consistent with FERC policy and regulations, all
reservations and price negotiations should be conducted on OASIS.
Guide 4.2: Reserved.
Guide 4.3: Reserved.
Section 4.2 Phase IA Negotiation Process State Transition Diagram
The Phase IA S&CP Document provides a process state diagram to
define the Customer and Provider interactions for negotiating
transmission service. This diagram defines allowable steps in the
reservation request, negotiation, approval and confirmation.
Guide 4.4: The state diagram appearing in Exhibit 4-1 in Section
4.2.10.2 of the Version 1.3 of the S&CP Document constitutes a
recommended business practice in OASIS Phase IA.
Guide 4.5: The definitions in Section 4.2.10.2 of the Version
1.3 of the S&CP Document (status values) should be applied to the
process states in OASIS Phase IA.
Table 4-1--Reserved.
Section 4.3 Negotiations--Without Competing Bids
The following practices are defined in order to enhance
consistency of the reservation process across OASIS Phase IA nodes.
Guide 4.6: A Transmission Provider/Seller shall respond to a
Customer's service request, consistent with filed tariffs, within
the ``Provider Response Time Limit'' defined in Table 4-2
``Reservation Timing Requirements''. The time limit is measured from
the time the request is QUEUED. A Provider may respond by setting
the state of the reservation request to one of the following:
INVALID
DECLINED
REFUSED
COUNTEROFFER
ACCEPTED
STUDY (when the tariff allows), leading to REFUSED,
COUNTEROFFER, or ACCEPTED
Guide 4.7: Prior to setting a request to ACCEPTED, COUNTEROFFER,
or REFUSED a Provider shall evaluate the appropriate resources and
ascertain that the requested transfer capability is (or is not)
available.
Guide 4.8: For any request that is REFUSED or INVALID, the
Transmission Provider should indicate in the COMMENTS field the
reason the request was refused or invalid.
Guide 4.9: The Customer may change a request to WITHDRAWN at any
time prior to it being CONFIRMED.
Guide 4.10: From ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER, a Customer may change
the status to CONFIRMED, WITHDRAWN, or REBID. The Customer has the
amount of time designated as ``Customer Confirmation Time Limit'' in
Table 4-2 ``Reservation Timing Requirements'' to change the state of
the request to CONFIRMED. The Customer time limit is measured from
the first time the request is moved to ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER, and
is not reset with subsequent iterations of negotiation.
Guide 4.11: After expiration of the ``Customer Confirmation Time
Limit,'' specified in Table 4-2 ``Reservation Timing Requirements'',
the Provider has a right to move the request to the RETRACTED state.
Guide 4.12: Should the Customer elect to respond to a Provider's
COUNTEROFFER by moving a reservation request to REBID, the Provider
shall respond by taking the request to a DECLINED, ACCEPTED, or
COUNTEROFFER state within the ``Provider Counter Time Limit,''
specified in Table 4-2 ``Reservation Timing Requirements''. The
Provider response time is measured from the most recent REBID time.
Guide 4.13: The following timing requirements should apply to
all reservation requests:
[[Page 5234]]
Table 4-2.--Reservation Timing Guidelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer
confirmation time Provider counter
Class Service increment Time QUEUED prior to Provider evaluation limit after time limit after
start time limit \1\ ACCEPTED or REBID \3\
COUNTEROFFER \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Firm..................................... Hourly.............. <1 hour.............="" best="" effort........="" 5="" minutes..........="" 5="" minutes="" non-firm.....................................="" hourly..............="">1 hour............. 30 minutes......... 5 minutes.......... 5 minutes
Non-Firm..................................... Daily............... N/A................. 30 minutes......... 2 hours............ 10 minutes
Non-Firm..................................... Weekly.............. N/A................. 4 hours............ 24 hours........... 4 hours
Non-Firm..................................... Monthly............. N/A................. 2 days............. 24 hours........... 4 hours
Firm......................................... Daily............... <24 hours...........="" best="" effort........="" 2="" hours............="" 30="" minutes="" firm.........................................="" daily...............="" n/a.................="" 30="" days="" \4\........="" 24="" hours...........="" 4="" hours="" firm.........................................="" weekly..............="" n/a.................="" 30="" days="" \4\........="" 48="" hours...........="" 4="" hours="" firm.........................................="" monthly.............="" n/a.................="" 30="" days="" \4\........="" 4="" days.............="" 4="" hours="" firm.........................................="" yearly..............="" n/a.................="" 30="" days............="" 15="" days............="" 4="" hours="" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\="" consistent="" with="" regulations="" and="" filed="" tariffs,="" measurement="" starts="" at="" the="" time="" the="" request="" is="" queued.="" \2\="" measurement="" starts="" at="" the="" time="" the="" request="" is="" first="" moved="" to="" either="" accepted="" or="" counteroffer.="" the="" time="" limit="" does="" not="" reset="" on="" subsequent="" changes="" of="" state.="" \3\="" measurement="" starts="" at="" the="" time="" the="" transmission="" customer="" changes="" the="" state="" to="" rebid.="" the="" measurement="" resets="" each="" time="" the="" request="" is="" changed="" to="" rebid.="" \4\="" subject="" to="" expedited="" time="" requirements="" of="" section="" 17.1="" of="" the="" pro="" forma="" tariff.="" transmission="" providers="" should="" make="" best="" efforts="" to="" respond="" within="" 72="" hours,="" or="" prior="" to="" the="" scheduling="" deadline,="" whichever="" is="" earlier,="" to="" a="" request="" for="" daily="" firm="" service="" received="" during="" period="" 2-30="" days="" ahead="" of="" the="" service="" start="" time.="" section="" 4.4="" negotiations--with="" competing="" bids="" for="" constrained="" resources="" competing="" bids="" exist="" when="" multiple="" requests="" cannot="" be="" accommodated="" due="" to="" a="" lack="" of="" available="" transmission="" capacity.="" one="" general="" rule="" is="" that="" oasis="" requests="" should="" be="" evaluated="" and="" granted="" priority="" on="" a="" first-come-first-served="" basis="" established="" by="" oasis="" queued="" time.="" thus,="" the="" first="" to="" request="" service="" should="" get="" it,="" all="" else="" being="" equal.="" exceptions="" to="" this="" first-come-first-served="" basis="" occur="" when="" there="" are="" competing="" requests="" for="" limited="" resources="" and="" the="" requests="" have="" different="" priorities="" established="" by="" ferc="" regulations="" and="" filed="" tariffs.="" prior="" to="" the="" introduction="" of="" price="" negotiations,="" the="" attribute="" values="" that="" have="" served="" as="" a="" basis="" for="" determining="" priority="" include:=""> Type (Network, Point-to-point)
Class (Firm, Non-Firm)
Increment (Hourly, Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Yearly)
Duration (the amount of time between the Start Date and
the Stop Date)
Amount (the MW amount)
Under a negotiation model, price can also be used as an
attribute for determining priority. The negotiation process
increases the possibility that a Provider will be evaluating
multiple requests that cannot all be accommodated due to limited
resources. In this scenario, it is possible that an unconfirmed
request with an earlier QUEUED time could be preempted (SUPERSEDED).
For this to occur, the subsequent request would be of higher
priority or of greater price.
Guide 4.14: Consistent with regulations and filed tariffs, the
following are recommended relative priorities of Service Request
Tiers.\1\ Specific exceptions may exist in accordance with filed
tariffs. The priorities refer only to negotiation of service and do
not refer to curtailment priority.
\1\ Note: The term Tier is introduced to avoid confusion with
existing terms such as TS__CLASS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4.1. Service Request Tier 1: Native load, Network, or Long-term
Firm
4.4.2. Service Request Tier 2: Short-term Firm
4.4.3. Service Request Tier 3: Network on Non-designated Resources
4.4.4. Service Request Tier 4: Non-firm
4.4.5. Service Request Tier 5: Service over secondary receipt and
delivery points
Guide 4.15: Consistent with regulations and filed tariffs,
reservation requests should be handled in a first-come-first-served
order based on QUEUE__TIME.
Guide 4.16: Consistent with regulations and filed tariffs, Table
4-3 describes the relative priorities of competing service requests
and rules for offering right-of-first-refusal. While the table
indicates the relative priorities of two competing requests, it also
is intended to be applied in the more general case of more than two
competing requests.
Table 4-3.--Priorities for Competing Reservation Requests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request 1 Is preempted by request 2 Right of first refusal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1: Long-term Firm, Native N/A--Not preempted by a subsequent request..... N/A.
Load, and Network Firm.
Tier 2: Short-term Firm............ Tier 1: Long-term Firm, Native Load, and No.
Network Firm), while Request 1 is conditional.
Once Request 1 is unconditional, it may not be
preempted.
Tier 2: Short-term Firm............ Tier 2: Short-term Firm of longer term Yes, while Request 1 is
(duration) \2\, while Request 1 is conditional. Once Request
conditional. Once Request 1 is unconditional, 1 is unconditional, it
it may not be preempted. may not be preempted and
right of first refusal is
not applicable.
Tier 3: Network Service From Non- Tiers 1 and 2: All Firm (including Network).... No.
Designated Resources.
Tier 4: All Non-Firm PTP........... Tiers 1 and 2: All Firm (including Network).... No.
Tier 4: All Non-Firm PTP........... Tier 3: Network Service from Non-Designated No.
Resources.
Tier 4: All Non-Firm PTP........... Tier 4: Non-firm PTP of a longer term Yes.
(duration) 2. Except in the last hour prior to
start (see Standard 4.23).
[[Page 5235]]
Tier 4: All Non-Firm PTP........... Tier 4: Non-firm PTP of equal term (duration) No.
\2\ and higher price, when Request 1 is still
unconfirmed and Request 2 is received pre-
confirmed. A confirmed non-firm PTP may not be
preempted for another non-firm request of
equal duration. (See Standards 4.22 and 4.25.).
Tier 5: PTP Service over secondary Tier 5 can be preempted by Tiers 1 through 4... No.
receipt and delivery points.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Longer duration, in addition to being higher SERVICE__INCREMENT (i.e., WEEKLY has priority over DAILY), also
may mean more multiples of the same SERVICE__INCREMENT (i.e., 3 Days may have priority over 2 Days).
Guide 4.17: For a reservation request that is preempted, the
Transmission Provider should indicate the Assignment Reference
Number of the reservation that preempted the reservation request.
Guide 4.18: Given competing requests for a limited resource and
a right-of-first-refusal is not required to be offered, the Provider
may immediately move requests in the CONFIRMED state to DISPLACED,
or from an ACCEPTED or COUNTEROFFER state to SUPERSEDED, if the
competing request is of higher priority, based on the rules
represented in Table 4-3. These state changes require dynamic
notification to the Customer if the Customer has requested dynamic
notification on OASIS.
Guide 4.19: In those cases where right-of-first-refusal is
required to be offered, the Provider shall notify the Customer,
through the use of a COUNTEROFFER, of the opportunity to match the
subsequent offer.
Guide 4.20: A Customer who has been extended a right-of-first-
refusal should have a confirmation time limit equal to the lesser of
a) the Customer Confirmation Time Limit in Table 4-2 or b) 24 hours.
Standard 4.21: A Transmission Provider shall apply all rights-
of-first-refusal in a non-discriminatory and open manner for all
Customers.
Standard 4.22: Once a non-firm PTP request has been confirmed,
it shall not be displaced by a subsequent non-firm PTP request of
equal duration and higher price.
Standard 4.23: A confirmed, non-firm PTP reservation for the
next hour shall not be displaced within one hour of the start of the
reservation by a subsequent non-firm PTP reservation request of
longer duration.
Guide 4.24: A Transmission Provider should honor any reservation
request submitted for an unconstrained Path if the Customer's bid
price is equal to or greater than the Provider's posted offer price
at the time the request was queued, even if later requests are
submitted at a higher price. This guide applies even when the first
request is still unconfirmed, unless the Customer Confirmation Time
Limit has expired for the first request.
Guide 4.25: Once an offer to provide non-firm PTP transmission
service at a given price is extended to a Customer by the Provider,
and while this first request is still unconfirmed but within the
Customer Confirmation Time Limit, the Provider should not preempt or
otherwise alter the status of that first request on receipt of a
subsequent request of the same Tier and equal duration at a higher
price, unless the subsequent request is submitted as pre-confirmed.
Guide 4.26: If during a negotiation of service (i.e., prior to
Customer confirmation) a subsequent pre-confirmed request for
service over the same limited resource of equal duration but higher
price is received, the Provider must COUNTEROFFER the price of
service on the prior COUNTEROFFER or ACCEPTED price to match the
competing offer, in order to give the first Customer an opportunity
to match the offer. This practice must be implemented in a non-
discriminatory manner.
Section 5--Procurement of Ancillary and Other Services
Section 5.1 Introduction
Phase IA OASIS data templates allow the coupling of ancillary
service arrangements with the purchase of transmission service for
the purpose of simplifying the overall process for Customers.
Transmission Providers must indicate (consistent with filed
tariffs), which services are MANDATORY (must be taken from the
Primary Provider), REQUIRED (must be provided for but may be
procured from alternative sources), or OPTIONAL (not required as a
condition of transmission service).
The Transmission Customer should make known to the Transmission
Provider at the time of the reservation request certain options
related to arrangement of ancillary services. The Transmission
Customer may indicate:
I will take all the MANDATORY and REQUIRED ancillary
services from the Primary Provider.
I will take REQUIRED ancillary services from Third
Party Seller ``X''.
I would like to purchase OPTIONAL services.
I will self provide ancillary services.
I will arrange for ancillary services in the future
(prior to scheduling).
While these interactions are available in the Phase IA S&CP
Document, there is a need to clarify the associated business
practices. The standards in Section 5 apply to services defined in
filed tariffs.
Section 5.2 Transmission Provider Requirements
Standard 5.1: The Transmission Provider shall designate which
ancillary services are MANDATORY, REQUIRED, or OPTIONAL for each
offered transmission service to the extent these requirements can be
determined in advance of the submittal of a reservation request on a
specific Path by a Transmission Customer.
Guide 5.2: A Transmission Provider may modify a Transmission
Customer's service request to indicate the Transmission Provider as
the SELLER of any ancillary service, which is MANDATORY, to be taken
from the Transmission Provider.
Standard 5.3: For REQUIRED and OPTIONAL services, the
Transmission Provider shall not select a SELLER of ancillary service
without the Transmission Customer first selecting that SELLER.
Guide 5.4: A Transmission Provider may accept a Transmission
Customer's request for an ancillary service, which is not MANDATORY
or REQUIRED, but shall indicate to the Transmission Customer at the
time of acceptance under PROVIDER COMMENTS that the service is not
MANDATORY or REQUIRED.
Section 5.3 Transmission Customer Requirements
Guide 5.5: The Transmission Customer should indicate with the
submittal of a transmission reservation request, the preferred
options for provision of ancillary services, such as the desire to
use an alternative resource.
Guide 5.6: A Transmission Customer may, but is not required to,
indicate a third party SELLER of ancillary services, if these
services are arranged by the Transmission Customer off the OASIS and
if such arrangements are permitted by the Transmission Provider's
tariff.
Section 6--Pathnaming Standards
Section 6.1 Introduction
The Data Element Dictionary of the OASIS S&CP Document, Version
1.3, defines a path name in terms of a 50-character alphanumeric
string:
RR/TPTP/PATHPATHPATH/OPTIONALFROM-OPTIONALTOTO/SPR
RegionCode/TransmissionProviderCode/PathName/OptionalFrom-To(POR-POD)/
Spare
This definition leaves it to the Transmission Providers to name
the paths from their own perspective. The following standards
provide an unambiguous convention for naming paths and will produce
more consistent path names.
[[Page 5236]]
Section 6.2 Transmission Provider Requirements
Standard 6.1: A transmission provider shall use the path naming
convention defined in the S&CP Data Dictionary for the naming of all
reservable paths posted on OASIS.
Standard 6.2: A transmission provider shall use the third field
in the path name to indicate the sending and receiving control
areas. The control areas shall be designated using standard NERC
codes for the control areas, separated by a hyphen. For example, the
first three fields of the path name will be:
RR/TPTP/CAXX-CAYY/
Standard 6.3: A transmission provider shall use the fourth field
of the path name to indicate POR and POD separated by a hyphen. For
example, a path with a specific POR/POD would be shown as:
RR/TPTP/CAXX-CAYY/PORPORPORPOR-PODPODPODPOD/
If the POR and POD are designated as control areas, then the
fourth field may be left blank (as per the example in 6.2).
Guide 6.4: A transmission provider may designate a sub-level for
Points of Receipt and Delivery. For example, a customer reserves a
path to POD AAAA. The ultimate load may be indeterminate at the
time. Later, the customer schedules energy to flow to a particular
load that may be designated by the transmission provider as a sub-
level Point of Delivery. This option is necessary to ensure certain
providers are not precluded from using more specific service points
by the inclusion of the POR/POD in the path name. All sub-level PORs
and PODs must be registered as such on www.tsin.com.
[Note: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
Sections 13.2, 14.2, 14.7, and 17.5 of the pro forma tariff
provide as follows:
13.2 Reservation Priority: Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point
Transmission Service shall be available on a first-come, first-
served basis i.e., in the chronological sequence in which each
Transmission Customer has reserved service. Reservations for Short-
Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service will be conditional
based upon the length of the requested transaction. If the
Transmission System becomes oversubscribed, requests for longer term
service may preempt requests for shorter term service up to the
following deadlines; one day before the commencement of daily
service, one week before the commencement of weekly service, and one
month before the commencement of monthly service. Before the
conditional reservation deadline, if available transmission
capability is insufficient to satisfy all Applications, an Eligible
Customer with a reservation for shorter term service has the right
of first refusal to match any longer term reservation before losing
its reservation priority. A longer term competing request for Short-
Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service will be granted if the
Eligible Customer with the right of first refusal does not agree to
match the competing request within 24 hours (or earlier if necessary
to comply with the scheduling deadlines provided in section 13.8)
from being notified by the Transmission Provider of a longer-term
competing request for Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service. After the conditional reservation deadline, service will
commence pursuant to the terms of Part II of the Tariff. Firm Point-
To-Point Transmission Service will always have a reservation
priority over Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service under the
Tariff. All Long-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service will
have equal reservation priority with Native Load Customers and
Network Customers. Reservation priorities for existing firm service
customers are provided in Section 2.2.
14.2 Reservation Priority: Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service shall be available from transmission capability in excess of
that needed for reliable service to Native Load Customers, Network
Customers and other Transmission Customers taking Long-Term and
Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service. A higher
priority will be assigned to reservations with a longer duration of
service. In the event the Transmission System is constrained,
competing requests of equal duration will be prioritized based on
the highest price offered by the Eligible Customer for the
Transmission Service. Eligible Customers that have already reserved
shorter term service have the right of first refusal to match any
longer term reservation before being preempted. A longer-term
competing request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service
will be granted if the Eligible Customer with the right of first
refusal does not agree to match the competing request: (a)
immediately for hourly Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service
after notification by the Transmission Provider; and, (b) within 24
hours (or earlier if necessary to comply with the scheduling
deadlines provided in section 14.6) for Non-Firm Point-To-Point
Transmission Service other than hourly transactions after
notification by the Transmission Provider. Transmission service for
Network Customers from resources other than designated Network
Resources will have a higher priority than any Non-Firm Point-To-
Point Transmission Service. Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service over secondary Point(s) of Receipt and Point(s) of Delivery
will have the lowest reservation priority under the Tariff.
14.7 Curtailment or Interruption of Service: The Transmission
Provider reserves the right to Curtail, in whole or in part, Non-
Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service provided under the Tariff
for reliability reasons when, an emergency or other unforeseen
condition threatens to impair or degrade the reliability of its
Transmission System. The Transmission Provider reserves the right to
Interrupt, in whole or in part, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service provided under the Tariff for economic reasons in order to
accommodate (1) a request for Firm Transmission Service, (2) a
request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service of greater
duration, (3) a request for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service of equal duration with a higher price, or (4) transmission
service for Network Customers from non-designated resources. The
Transmission Provider also will discontinue or reduce service to the
Transmission Customer to the extent that deliveries for transmission
are discontinued or reduced at the Point(s) of Receipt. Where
required, Curtailments or Interruptions will be made on a non-
discriminatory basis to the transaction(s) that effectively relieve
the constraint, however, Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service shall be subordinate to Firm Transmission Service. If
multiple transactions require Curtailment or Interruption, to the
extent practicable and consistent with Good Utility Practice,
Curtailments or Interruptions will be made to transactions of the
shortest term (e.g., hourly non-firm transactions will be Curtailed
or Interrupted before daily non-firm transactions and daily non-firm
transactions will be Curtailed or Interrupted before weekly non-firm
transactions). Transmission service for Network Customers from
resources other than designated Network Resources will have a higher
priority than any Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service under
the Tariff. Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service over
secondary Point(s) of Receipt and Point(s) of Delivery will have a
lower priority than any Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service
under the Tariff. The Transmission Provider will provide advance
notice of Curtailment or Interruption where such notice can be
provided consistent with Good Utility Practice.
17.5 Response to a Completed Application: Following receipt of a
Completed Application for Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service,
the Transmission Provider shall make a determination of available
transmission capability as required in Section 15.2. The
Transmission Provider shall notify the Eligible Customer as soon as
practicable, but not later than thirty (30) days after the date of
receipt of a Completed Application either (i) if it will be able to
provide service without performing a System Impact Study or (ii) if
such a study is needed to evaluate the impact of the Application
pursuant to Section 19.1. Responses by the Transmission Provider
must be made as soon as practicable to all completed applications
(including applications by its own merchant function) and the timing
of such responses must be made on a non-discriminatory basis.
[Note: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
Section 4.2.10.2 of the S&CP Document provides as follows:
4.2.10.2 Status Values: The possible STATUS values are:
QUEUED = initial status assigned by TSIP on receipt of
``customer services purchase request''.
INVALID = assigned by TSIP or Provider indicating an invalid
field in the request, such as improper POR, POD, source, sink, etc.
(Final state).
RECEIVED = assigned by Provider or Seller to acknowledge QUEUED
requests and indicate the service request is being evaluated,
including for completing the required ancillary services.
STUDY = assigned by Provider or Seller to indicate some level of
study is required or being performed to evaluate service request.
REFUSED = assigned by Provider or Seller to indicate service
request has been denied
[[Page 5237]]
due to availability of transmission capability. SELLER__COMMENTS
should be used to communicate details for denial of service. (Final
state).
COUNTEROFFER = assigned by Provider or Seller to indicate that a
new OFFER__PRICE is being proposed.
REBID = assigned by Customer to indicate that a new BID__PRICE
is being proposed.
SUPERSEDED = assigned by Provider or Seller when a request which
has not yet been confirmed is displaced by another reservation
request. (Final state).
ACCEPTED = assigned by Provider or Seller to indicate the
service request at the designated OFFER__PRICE has been approved/
accepted. If the reservation request was submitted PRECONFIRMED the
OASIS Node shall immediately set the reservation status to
CONFIRMED. Depending upon the type of ancillary services required,
the Seller may or may not require all ancillary service reservations
to be completed before accepting a request.
DECLINED = assigned by Provider or Seller to indicate that the
BID__PRICE is unacceptable and that negotiations are terminated.
SELLER__COMMENTS should be used to communicate reason for denial of
service. (Final state).
CONFIRMED = assigned by Customer in response to Provider or
Seller posting ``ACCEPTED'' status, to confirm service. Once a
request has been ``CONFIRMED'', a transmission service reservation
exists. (Final state, unless overridden by DISPLACED or ANNULLED
state).
WITHDRAWN = assigned by Customer at any point in request
evaluation to withdraw the request from any further action. (Final
state).
DISPLACED = assigned by Provider or Seller when a ``CONFIRMED''
reservation from a Customer is displaced by a longer term
reservation and the Customer has exercised right of first refusal
(i.e., refused to match terms of new request). (Final state).
ANNULLED = assigned by Provider or Seller when, by mutual
agreement with the Customer, a confirmed reservation is to be
voided. (Final state).
RETRACTED = assigned by Provider or Seller when the Customer
fails to confirm or withdraw the request within the required time
period. (Final state).
[FR Doc. 99-2388 Filed 2-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
