[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12484-12505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5768]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 37
[Docket No. RM95-9-001; Order No. 889-A]
Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct
Issued March 4, 1997.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final Rule; order on rehearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is revising its
policy on posting discounts to be consistent with changes in the
discount policy that we simultaneously are implementing in Order No.
888-A. Additionally, we are making other minor revisions to 18 CFR Part
37--which contains rules establishing and governing transmission
information networks and standards of conduct--to be responsive to
arguments made on rehearing and to make the regulations operate more
smoothly.
In addition, the Commission requests that the How Working Group
propose the necessary changes in the Standards and Protocols document
and the Data Dictionary by June 2, 1997 to address four issues.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 13, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information), Office of Economic Policy,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1283.
William C. Booth (Technical Information), Office of Electric Power
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-0849.
Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
Washington, DC 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 inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available 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. The full text of this order will
be available on CIPS in ASCII and Wordperfect 5.1 format. CIPS user
assistance is available at 202-208-2474.
CIPS is also available through the Fed World system. Telnet
software is required. To access CIPS via the Internet, point your
browser to the URL address: http://www.fedworld.gov and select the ``Go
to the FedWorld Telnet Site'' button. When your Telnet software
connects you, log onto the FedWorld system, scroll down and select
FedWorld by typing: 1 and at the command line then typing: /go FERC.
FedWorld may also be accessed by Telnet at the address fedworld.gov.
Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn Systems
Corporation. La Dorn Systems Corporation is also located in the Public
Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Public Reporting Burden
IV. Discussion
A. Overview of Revisions Made in This Order
B. Section 37.1--Applicability
1. Extent of the Commission's Authority to Impose Standards of
Conduct
2. The Commission's Authority to Impose Reciprocity Provision
3. Waiver Policy
C. Section 37.2--Purpose
D. Section 37.3--Definitions
E. Section 37.4--Standards of Conduct
1. Contacts Between Employees Providing Ancillary Services and
System Operators
2. Contacts Between Generation Control Employees and
Transmission Operations and Wholesale Merchant Employees
3. Monitoring the Standards of Conduct
4. Adequacy of Emergency Exception
5. Short-term Economy Energy Purchases
6. Tight Pools
7. Clarification of Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv)
8. Discounts
F. Section 37.5--Obligations of Transmission Providers and
Responsible Parties
G. Section 37.6--Information to be Posted on an OASIS
[[Page 12485]]
1. Definition of ``Posted Path''
2. Definition of ``interconnection''
3. ATC Supporting Information
a. Disclosure of Data Supporting Calculations of ATC and TTC
b. Disclosure of Data on Nonfirm ATC
c. Time Limits for Disclosure of Utility Generation Data
d. Reporting of Network Service Usage
4. Posting Firm and Nonfirm ATC Separately
5. Minimum Term of Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service
6. Posting of Discounts
7. Secondary Markets
8. Masking of Service Request Information
9. Requests for Service Made on the OASIS During Phase I
10. Delay in Posting Requests for Hourly Transmission Service
and Schedule Information
11. Liability for Accuracy of ATC/TTC Estimates
H. Section 37.7--Auditing Transmission Service Information
I. Standards and Communication Protocols
1. CCEM's Suggested Changes to the Standards and Protocols
a. Service Request Priorities
b. Clarification of the Requirement to Post, Upload, and
Download Information
c. Sequence of Data Elements Appearing in Templates
2. Standardized Format for Electronic Tariff Filings
3. Company Codes and Identification Displays
4. Common Location Codes
5. Time by Which Hourly Postings Must be Made Available
J. Mechanism For Recovering OASIS Expenses
K. Section 37.8--Implementation Schedule; Phases
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
VI. Environmental Statement
VII. Information Collection Statement
VIII. Effective Date
Regulatory Text
Attachment 1
I. Introduction
In this order, the Commission addresses the requests for rehearing
of Order No. 889, our final rule requiring public utilities that own,
control, or operate facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce to create or participate in an Open
Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) site in conformance with
the requirements set out in 18 CFR Part 37.1 Those requirements
also obligate public utilities subject to the rule to implement
standards of conduct to functionally separate transmission and
wholesale merchant functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Final Rule, Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. para.
31,037, 61 FR 21,737 (1996). Since issuance of Order No. 889, we
have issued two additional orders. These orders: (1) revise the
standards and communication protocols for OASIS nodes; and (2)
extend the date for commencing Phase I OASIS operations and
complying with the standards of conduct. See infra notes 4, 6,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated, we will grant rehearing, in part, and adopt
several suggested revisions to the OASIS final rule, but will, in main
part, deny rehearing and retain the OASIS final rule as promulgated in
Order No. 889. In addition, we request that the How Working Group
propose changes to the Standards and Protocols document and the Data
Dictionary by June 2, 1997 to address four issues described below.
II. Background
In Order No. 889, the Commission promulgated a final rule (OASIS
Final Rule) requiring Transmission Providers 2 to implement the
legal and policy determinations made concurrently in Order No. 888, the
final rule on open access transmission (Open Access Final Rule).3
Under Order No. 889, the OASIS Final Rule applies to any transmission
service offered under the Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff,
including service both to wholesale Transmission Customers and to
retail Transmission Customers that are able to receive unbundled retail
transmission service and to any entity required to provide such
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Order No. 889 and the OASIS regulations at 18 CFR 37.3
define a ``Transmission Provider'' as any public utility that owns,
operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission of
electric energy in interstate commerce. This same definition applies
to our use of this term in this order.
\3\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Order No. 888, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs. para.
31,632, 61 FR 21,540 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A,--FERC
para. --,---(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the OASIS Final Rule, Transmission Providers are required to
establish or participate in an OASIS that meets certain requirements
and must comply with prescribed standards of conduct. The standards of
conduct are designed to prevent employees of a public utility (or any
employees of its affiliates) engaged in wholesale merchant functions
(wholesale sales of electricity for resale in interstate commerce) from
obtaining preferential access to pertinent transmission-related
information.
To this end, the standards of conduct, set out in the Commission's
regulations at 18 CFR 37.4, require companies to separate their
transmission operations/reliability functions from their wholesale
marketing/merchant functions. They are intended to prevent transmission
system operators from providing wholesale merchant employees or
wholesale merchant employees of affiliates with transmission-related
information not available to all customers at the same time (through
public posting on the OASIS).
The OASIS Final Rule describes what information must be posted on
an OASIS, what procedures must be followed in responding to requests
for transmission service, and references the Commission's accompanying
Standards and Protocols document adopted by the Commission to ensure
that information is to be posted on an OASIS in a uniform manner.4
Transmission Providers are required to provide on an OASIS, in a
uniform manner, certain types of information concerning the status of
their transmission systems. The provisions of the OASIS Final Rule are
intended to work together to ensure that Transmission Customers 5
have access to transmission information, through electronic means, that
will enable them to obtain comparable, open access transmission service
on a non-discriminatory basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards
of Conduct, Order Issuing Revised OASIS Standards and Protocols
Document, 76 FERC para. 61,243, 61 FR 50,116 (1996), where the
Commission revised the Standards and Protocols document that
accompanied Order No. 889.
\5\ Order No. 889 and the OASIS regulations at 18 CFR 37.3
define a ``Transmission Customer'' as any eligible customer (or its
designated agent) that can or does execute a transmission service
agreement or can or does receive transmission service. This same
definition applies to our use of this term in this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order No. 889 established Phase I OASIS rules that required the
creation of a basic OASIS by November 1, 1996 (subsequently extended
until January 3, 1997).6 We are appreciative of the ongoing
efforts of the How Working Group and the What Working Group in helping
to develop the OASIS Standards and Protocols and in helping to resolve
numerous difficult OASIS implementation issues.7 We also, despite
setbacks encountered by some public utilities, are appreciative of the
hard work of the entire electric industry in meeting the ambitious
schedule for OASIS implementation prescribed in Order No. 889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards
of Conduct, Order Granting Request for Extension of Time, 76 FERC
para. 61,305 (1996).
\7\ The How Working Group and its companion working group, the
What Working Group, are industry-led groups, with diverse industry
and customer representatives, working to reach consensus on OASIS-
related issues. See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,740, n.13, for a
fuller description of both working groups and their activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order No. 889 also explained that Phase I implementation would be
followed by Phase II procedures
[[Page 12486]]
whereby the Commission, with ongoing industry participation, will
continue to refine and further develop the requirements for a fully
functional OASIS.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,762, we requested that
the industry prepare a report on Phase II issues due on or before
August 4, 1997 (seven months from January 3, 1997, the revised
compliance date for Phase I implementation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for rehearing relating to Order No. 889 were filed by over
40 interested persons. These include 37 requests for rehearing that
collectively list both Order Nos. 888 and 889 in their captions and ten
requests for rehearing that are aimed exclusively at Order No.
889.9 Several of the issues raised on rehearing that implicate
both Order Nos. 888 and 889 are addressed more fully in Order No. 888-
A, which is being issued contemporaneously with this order.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The requests for rehearing for AK Cities, AL EC, AL MEA,
Basin EC, Cajun, Central P&L, Central Montana EC, Cooperative Power,
FPL, Florida Power Corp, Hoosier EC, NWRTA, Santa Clara, and SWRTA
raised no direct 889 issues. The names and abbreviations of all
interested persons who filed requests for rehearing of Order No. 889
(or a combined request for rehearing of Order Nos. 888 and 889) are
listed in Attachment 1.
We also note that, in various places in this order, we identify
issues that were raised in requests for rehearing of Order No. 889,
or that were identified as pertaining to Order No. 889, that, in our
judgment, really seek rehearing of matters relating to Order No.
888. They are therefore decided in Order No. 888-A.
\10\ See Order No. 888-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Reporting Burden
This order on rehearing adopts a number of small changes, more
fully elaborated in Section IV.E.8 below, to be consistent with the
Commission's revised discount policy being announced in Order No. 888-
A. In addition, we also are making nine minor revisions to the OASIS
Final Rule and direct the How Working Group to propose changes to the
Standards and Protocols document addressing four additional issues. We
find, after reviewing these revisions, that they do not, on balance,
increase the public reporting burden.
The OASIS Final Rule contained an estimated annual public reporting
burden based on the requirements of the Final Rule and consideration of
comments from interested persons.11 Using the burden estimate
contained in the OASIS Final Rule as a starting point, we evaluated the
public burden estimate contained in the OASIS Final Rule in light of
the revisions contained in this order and assessed whether this
estimate needed revision. We have concluded, given the minor nature of
the revisions, and their offsetting nature, that our estimate of the
public reporting burden of this order on rehearing remains unchanged
from our original estimate of the public reporting burden contained in
the OASIS Final Rule. 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 required by the OASIS Final Rule as revised by this
order on rehearing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ No comments were filed in objection to the public burden
estimate contained in the OASIS Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons wishing to comment on the collections of information
required by this order on rehearing should direct their comments to the
Desk Officer for FERC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3019 NEOB,
Washington, D.C. 20503, phone 202-395-3087, facsimile: 202-395-7285 or
via the Internet at hillier__t@a1.eop.gov. Comments must be filed with
the Office of Management and Budget 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: Ms. Lois Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Room 1A, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington,
D.C. 20426. For further information, contact Michael Miller, 202-208-
1415.
IV. Discussion
A. Overview of Revisions made in this Order
In this order on rehearing of Order No. 889, the Commission has
implemented a new discounting policy, adopted and described in detail
in Order No. 888-A. This new discount policy necessitates a number of
changes to the Standards of Conduct and OASIS posting requirements:
(1) We are deleting Secs. 37.4(b)(5)(v) and 37.4(b)(5)(vi).
(2) We are adding a provision now designated as Sec. 37.6(c)(3)
to require, among other things, that any offer of a discount for
basic transmission service must be announced to all potential
customers solely by posting on the OASIS.
(3) We are revising Sec. 37.6(c)(4) to no longer treat the
posting of transmission service transactions involving the
Transmission Provider's (or any affiliate's) merchant function any
differently from the posting of transactions involving non-
affiliates except that transactions involving the Transmission
Provider's wholesale merchant function or affiliates must be
identified.
(4) We are adding a provision now designated as Sec. 37.6(d)(2)
to require, among other things, that any offer of a discount for
ancillary service provided by the Transmission Provider in support
of its provision of basic transmission service must be announced to
all potential customers solely by posting on the OASIS.
(5) We are revising Sec. 37.6(d)(3) on ancillary services
consistent with item 3 above.
(6) We are revising Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(i) to require that, except
for next-hour service, requests for transmission and ancillary
service must be posted prior to the Transmission Provider responding
to these requests.
(7) We are adding a provision, now designated as
Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(ii), that during Phase I, while requests for next-
hour service need to be posted as soon as possible and in any event
within one hour of receiving the request, they need not be posted
prior to being acted on.
(8) We are adding a provision, at Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii), that
provides that in the event that a discount is being requested for
ancillary services that are not in support of the Transmission
Provider's provision of basic transmission service, such request
need not be posted on the OASIS.
(9) We are renumbering Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(ii) as
Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iv) and are expanding the information required to be
posted on the status of requests for transmission and ancillary
service.
(10) We are deleting the provision formerly found in
Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and are revising Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(i) because we
no longer will allow the identity of parties to transactions to be
masked.
Additionally, we believe that any ``negotiation'' 12 between a
Transmission Provider and a potential customer should take place on the
OASIS, and should be visible to all market participants, and we will
revise our regulations to accomplish this as soon as practicable. To
this end, we direct the How Working Group, by no later than June 2,
1997, to propose: (1) any changes that might be necessitated to the
Standards and Protocols document; and (2) the earliest date when the
industry can meet such a requirement during Phase I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Negotiation'' would only take place if the Transmission
Provider or potential customer seeks prices below the ceiling prices
set forth in the tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also are making nine minor revisions to 18 CFR Part 37. These
include: (1) amending the definition of wholesale merchant function in
Sec. 37.3; (2) amending Secs. 37.4(b)(5)(iii) and 37.6(g)(4) to require
Transmission Providers to post on the OASIS the information that they
already are required to keep, detailing the circumstances and manner in
which they exercise their discretion under any terms of the tariff; (3)
substituting the phrase ``sales made to any person for
[[Page 12487]]
resale made by the wholesale merchant function or any affiliate'' for
the phrase ``wholesale purchases or sales made on behalf of its own
power customers, or those of an affiliate'' in Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv), to
be consistent with the revised definition of ``wholesale merchant
function'; (4) amending Sec. 37.6(b)(1) to clarify the meaning of the
term ``interconnection'' as used in the definition of posted path; (5)
amending Sec. 37.6(b)(3)(ii) to clarify that firm available
transmission capability (ATC) and nonfirm ATC for unconstrained posted
paths must be separately posted; (6) amending Sec. 37.6(e) to clarify
that the provision applies to requests for ancillary service and that
requests for service must be posted before the Transmission Provider
responds to the request; (7) amending Sec. 37.6(g)(3) to require that
notices of transfers of personnel posted on the OASIS as described in
Sec. 37.4(b)(2) remain available for the same time period as audit
information in Sec. 37.7(b); (8) amending Sec. 37.7(b) to shorten, from
90 days to 20 days, the time during which ATC/total transmission
capability (TTC) postings must remain available for download on the
OASIS (the data will, however, remain available upon request for three
years from the date when they are first posted); and (9) removing
Sec. 37.8, because the compliance date for Part 37 has already passed.
In addition, we are requesting that the How Working Group propose
changes in the Standards and Protocols document and the Data Dictionary
by June 2, 1997 necessitated by the Commission's revised discount
policy and by our findings on various requests for rehearing.
We will retain the provisions of Order No. 889 and 18 CFR Part 37
in all other respects. Below, we address the provisions of 18 CFR Part
37 in light of the issues raised in the requests for rehearing.
B. Section 37.1--Applicability
1. Extent of the Commission's Authority to Impose Standards of Conduct
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission determined that the rules
in Part 37--including the obligation to adopt standards of conduct--
would apply to any public utility that owns, operates, or controls
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate
commerce. Among other things, we concluded that we would not directly
assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities under Sec. 311 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure compliance with OASIS requirements,
including the requirement to comply with the standards of conduct.
Instead, we are relying on the reciprocity provision of the Open Access
pro forma tariff that requires a non-public utility to offer comparable
transmission service to the Transmission Provider as a condition of
obtaining open access service.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ We discuss below, in the next section of this order, issues
raised on rehearing that implicate the Commission's authority to
condition the use of public utility Open Access pro forma tariffs on
the provision of reciprocal transmission services, including
compliance with the standards of conduct and OASIS requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
ConEd argues that the Commission lacks authority to issue the
standards of conduct requiring functional unbundling.14
Specifically, ConEd argues that the Commission has exceeded its
authority by requiring ``transmission providers to functionally
separate interstate electricity transmission and wholesale merchant
functions (wholesale sales and purchases of electricity in interstate
commerce).''15 ConEd asserts that wholesale purchases of
electricity in interstate commerce on behalf of native load customers
are bundled retail electric service transactions that are local
distribution and not subject to the Commission's authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ConEd Rehearing Request at pp. 2-6.
\15\ ConEd Rehearing Request at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
We agree with ConEd to the extent that when a utility uses its own
transmission system to transmit purchased power to retail load
customers we have no jurisdiction over the transmission that is
included in the bundled sale of power to the retail native load. Upon
further consideration, we conclude that our definition of ``wholesale
merchant function'' (in Sec. 37.3(e)) should be modified to delete the
phrase, ``* * *, or purchase for resale, * * *.'' because this clause
creates confusion and is not necessary. When a utility purchases power
for its retail native load customers, this is not a sale for resale. In
contrast, when a utility purchases power for its wholesale native load,
the transmission of purchased power to the wholesale customer is really
part of a transaction that includes a wholesale sale of power to a
third party. Our authority to require functional unbundling of
interstate electricity transmission and the wholesale merchant
function, as newly defined, is fully supported in Order No. 888.
2. The Commission's Authority to Impose Reciprocity Provision
In the OASIS Final Rule, we concluded that we will not directly
assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities under Sec. 311 of the FPA
16 to ensure compliance with OASIS requirements. We concluded that
we would, instead, rely on the reciprocity provision of the Open Access
pro forma tariff that requires a non-public utility to offer comparable
transmission service to the Transmission Provider as a condition of
obtaining open access service. We found that if a non-public utility
chooses to take open access service, and therefore is subject to the
Open Access pro forma tariff reciprocity provision, it also is subject
to the OASIS and standards of conduct requirements in 18 CFR Part 37,
unless the Commission grants a waiver of the reciprocity provision. The
reciprocity provision announced in the Open Access Final Rule does not
require non-public utilities to provide transmission access, but,
instead, conditions the use of public utilities' open access services
on an agreement to offer open access services in return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 825j.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Requests
A number of non-public utilities have raised arguments on rehearing
challenging the reciprocity provision. First, some argue that,
notwithstanding the Commission's discussion of this issue in Order Nos.
888 and 889, the reciprocity provision is not voluntary. 17
Second, some argue that the Commission lacks the authority to impose
the reciprocity provision and that the Commission is trying to
accomplish indirectly what it lacks the authority to do
directly.18 Third, CAMU argues that the Commission should defer
imposing the reciprocity provision until such time as the IRS clarifies
the status of private use limitations within the context of
transmission access.19 NE Public Power District objects that Order
No. 889 contained scant discussion of the Commission's authority to
impose functional unbundling and other requirements based on the
reciprocity provision.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Requests for Rehearing of AL EC, NE Public Power
District, NRECA, and TDU Systems.
\18\ See Requests for Rehearing of Redding, NE Public Power
District, NRECA, and TDU Systems.
\19\ CAMU Rehearing Request at pp. 3-4.
\20\ This issue was fully considered and addressed in Order No.
888. NE Public Power District also raises a related issue, now moot,
concerning possible conflicts between the standards of conduct and
state freedom of information laws. Given that this issue concerns
the confidentiality provisions of Sec. 37.6(e), we will address this
issue below in section IV.G.8 of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12488]]
Other entities seeking rehearing argue that the Commission did not
go far enough in adopting and relying upon the reciprocity provision
for purposes of attaining compliance with the OASIS and standards of
conduct requirements. CCEM argues that the Commission erred by failing
to require nonjurisdictional entities providing reciprocal service to
comply with the OASIS requirements. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEI argues that the reciprocity provision requires all non-public
utilities to functionally unbundle their transmission systems,
establish an OASIS, and fully comply with the OASIS standards of
conduct. Additionally, EEI advances a number of proposals that would
expand the reciprocity provision contained in the Open Access Final
Rule.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EEI Rehearing Request at n.10 and pp. 2, 7-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana-Dakota argues that the reciprocity provision should be
expanded for non-public utilities. It argues that cooperatives should
not be able to construct barriers minimizing their obligations under
the reciprocity provision.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Montana-Dakota Rehearing Request at pp. 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
After consideration of the arguments made on rehearing, both in
this rulemaking proceeding and on rehearing of the Open Access Final
Rule, we continue to believe that it is appropriate to condition the
use of public utility open access tariffs on the agreement of the
tariff user to provide reciprocal access to the Transmission Provider.
Any eligible customer, including a non-public utility, that takes
advantage of open access transmission tariff services should not be
allowed to deny service or otherwise discriminate against the open
access provider. Moreover, we continue to believe that, absent a
waiver, the obligation to provide reciprocal, non-discriminatory
services necessarily commits the customer of open access service, even
if not a public utility, to abide by the OASIS and standards of conduct
requirements.
Contrary to arguments raised on rehearing, we are not requiring
non-public utilities to provide transmission access. Instead, we are
conditioning the use of public utility open access tariffs, by all
customers including non-public utilities, on an agreement to offer
comparable (not unduly discriminatory) services in return. It would not
be in the public interest to allow a non-public utility to take non-
discriminatory transmission service from a public utility at the same
time that it refuses to provide comparable service to the public
utility. Such a disparity would restrict the operation of robust
competitive markets and would harm the very ratepayers that Congress
has charged us to protect.
Similarly, it would not serve the public interest to compel public
utilities to have OASIS nodes and to functionally unbundle their
wholesale merchant functions from their transmission operations and
reliability functions, while allowing non-public utilities that seek
open access transmission from a public utility to evade these
responsibilities. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee
Cooper), 75 FERC para. 61,209 (1996); Central Electric Cooperative,
Inc., 77 FERC para. 61,076 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, we have provided a mechanism, equally applicable both to
small public utilities and to small non-public utilities, for them to
obtain waivers of the OASIS and separation of function requirements and
the other reciprocity requirements.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Moreover, as we discuss further below, see supra sections
IV.B.3 and V., the Commission has granted waivers to a number of
small non-public utilities from the requirements to establish and
maintain an OASIS and the requirement in the standards of conduct to
separate the wholesale merchant function from the transmission
operation and reliability function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to arguments that assert that the reciprocity condition
does not go far enough, we are unpersuaded that we should further
expand the reciprocity condition. In our view, the reciprocity
condition, as written, suffices to ensure comparability and to avoid
undue discrimination. We discuss this matter more fully in Order No.
888-A.
3. Waiver Policy
The Open Access Final Rule provides that public utilities may seek
waivers for some or all of the requirements of the Open Access Final
Rule, including waiver of the standards of conduct and OASIS
requirements. Similarly, the Open Access Final Rule provides that non-
public utilities may seek waivers of the tariff reciprocity provision
as applied to them.
Rehearing Requests
APPA argues that the Commission should revise the waiver standard
for non-public utilities (the reciprocity provision) to allow waivers
when a non-public utility lacks market power or where the cost of
compliance exceeds the annual net revenues expected to be received from
transmission and ancillary services under a reciprocity tariff. APPA
further argues that, in such circumstances, compliance with the
requirements of the Open Access and OASIS Final Rules would be anti-
competitive.26 Similarly, CAMU argues that only dominant utilities
are capable of subverting the transmission market and that, therefore,
only such larger utilities should be burdened with the costs of
compliance.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 9-11.
\27\ CAMU Rehearing Request at pp. 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge argues that the Commission should clarify that a waiver
from compliance with the requirements of Order No. 888 also gives a
waiver from compliance with the requirements of Order No. 889.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Blue Ridge Rehearing Request at p. 39. We note that the
Commission only granted waiver of Order No. 889 requirements to
those public utilities that made a specific request for waiver of
those requirements. See infra n.33, First Waiver Order, 76 FERC at
62,296-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis P&L argues that the Commission's criteria for
evaluating waiver requests are too rigid and that it probably will be
denied waiver even though it is a small system that lacks transmission
market power.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Indianapolis P&L's request for waiver was denied in the
First Waiver Order, infra n.33, see 76 FERC at 62,295. Indianapolis
P&L's request for rehearing in Docket No. OA96-81-001 currently is
pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Systems argue that small systems that lack market power in
transmission should be granted a blanket exemption from compliance with
the separation of functions requirement in the OASIS standards of
conduct, without the necessity for applying for waivers on a case-by-
case basis.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Michigan Systems Rehearing Request passim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Valley argues that the criteria in the Open Access Final Rule
for obtaining waivers from compliance with Order Nos. 888 and 889 are
too stringent and should be revised to accommodate waivers whenever
justified. 31 It argues that control area operators should not be
excluded from obtaining a waiver of the Commission's Open Access
requirements. Ohio Valley adds that the waiver process is uncertain and
that its 1953 agreement to supply power to the United States Department
of Energy should be ``grandfathered'' and exempted from compliance with
the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Ohio Valley Rehearing Request at p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAPS argues that in areas of the country where a major transmission
owner elects to set up its own OASIS, in lieu of participation in a
regional OASIS, or refuses to allow smaller utilities to participate in
an OASIS, waivers should be granted to the smaller utilities so that
they are not forced to set up their own OASIS sites, the costs of which
would be unwarranted. TAPS further argues that larger utilities that do
[[Page 12489]]
not allow smaller utilities to participate with them in a joint OASIS
should not be able to deny service to those smaller utilities on that
basis.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See related issue, discussed in section IV.F below,
concerning the argument that Transmission Providers must create
regional OASIS nodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
Since issuance of the Open Access and OASIS Final Rules, the
Commission has issued a series of orders addressing specific requests
for waiver of all or some of the requirements of the Open Access and
OASIS Final Rules, including the requirements under Order No. 889 to:
(1) establish and maintain an OASIS; and (2) comply with the standards
of conduct (including the requirement to separate the activities of,
and restrict communications between, employees performing wholesale
merchant functions and employees performing system operations and
reliability functions).33 The waiver standards enunciated by the
Commission apply to public utilities subject to the rules, as well as
to non-public utilities that seek waiver of the reciprocity provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, e.g., Northern States Power Company (MI), et al.,
Order on Requests by Public Utilities for Waivers of Order No. 888
and 889, 76 FERC para. 61,250 (1996) (First Waiver Order); order on
reh'g, Black Creek Hydro, Inc., et al., Order on Rehearing and
Granting Waivers of Order No. 889, 77 FERC para. 61,232 (1996)
(Black Creek); Midwest Energy, Inc., et al., 77 FERC para. 61,208
(1996) (Midwest); Soyland Power Cooperative Association, et al., 78
FERC para. 61,095 (1997) (Soyland); Dakota Electric Ass'n, et al.,
78 FERC ] 61,117 (1997) (Dakota). In addition, the Commission, in
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al., 77 FERC para. 61,076
(1996), reh'g pending (Central Electric); Dakota; and Niobrara
Valley Electric Membership Corporation, Docket Nos. OA96-146-001 and
ER97-1412-000 (Niobrara), addressed various requests for rulings on
exemptions from and waivers of Order Nos. 888 and 889, on the basis
that applicants are not public utilities subject to the requirements
of the Final Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Black Creek, the Commission announced modified standards used to
determine whether to grant waiver of Order Nos. 888 and 889.34
Under these modified standards, waiver of Order No. 889 would be
appropriate: (1) if the applicant owns, operates, or controls only
limited and discrete transmission facilities (rather than an integrated
transmission grid); or (2) if the applicant is a small public utility
35 that owns, operates, or controls an integrated transmission
grid. With respect to the second category, a waiver would not be
available if the utility is a member of a tight power pool, or other
circumstances are present which indicate that a waiver would not be
justified.36 The Commission, in addressing situations where waiver
is granted, further stated that:
\34\ To avoid confusion, we will discuss the waiver standards as
set out in Black Creek rather than in the First Waiver Order,
because Black Creek modified the First Waiver Order's standards for
waiver.
\35\ To qualify as a small public utility, the applicant must
meet the Small Business Administration definition of a small
electric utility, i.e., one that is independently owned and disposes
of no more than 4 million MWh annually.
\36\ Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941; see also Midwest, 77 FERC
at 61,854 (elaborating on the exception where the applicant is a
member of a tight power pool).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiver of the requirement to establish and maintain an information
system (i.e., an OASIS) will be granted unless and until an entity
evaluating its transmission needs complains that it could not get
information necessary to complete its evaluation. Waiver of the
standards of conduct will be granted unless and until an entity
complains that a public utility has used its access to information
about transmission to unfairly benefit the public utility's own or
the public utility's affiliates' sales. Compliance must be made
within 60 days of the complaint.37
\37\ Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941 (citation to First Waiver
Order omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Commission has developed waiver criteria that take into
account potential burdens on small entities and at the same time
balance the need to prevent undue discrimination and affiliate abuse in
interstate power markets. We believe that this flexible waiver approach
adequately addresses the concerns raised on rehearing.
In response to the requests for rehearing of Indianapolis P&L and
Ohio Valley, this order on rehearing is not the proper vehicle for a
company to request a company-specific waiver. Waivers are appropriately
addressed on a case-by-case basis, which permits the Commission to
review the specific facts of each waiver application and permits
affected parties to intervene and make their views known to the
Commission.38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As noted above, supra n.29, Indianapolis P&L's specific
waiver request was addressed in the First Waiver Order and is
pending rehearing. To date, Ohio Valley has not filed a specific
request for waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAPS expresses a concern that larger utilities may not allow
smaller utilities to participate with them in a joint OASIS. We do not
believe that any revisions to the OASIS Final Rule are necessary at
this time to address TAPS' concern, because: (1) if the OASIS for its
particular geographic area is unavailable, a utility may always choose
to participate in an OASIS for a different region; 39 (2) smaller
utilities should be able to meet their OASIS obligations cost-
effectively by joining with other small entities to hire the services
of private vendors collectively; and (3) as mentioned above, the
Commission will grant waivers of the OASIS requirements to small
utilities under proper circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ We note that even though a majority of the OASIS nodes are
joint nodes, these nodes nevertheless report data on a company-
specific basis that is accessed using each company's individual
Internet World Wide Web (WWW) address. Thus, the geographic location
of the Transmission Provider is irrelevant to locating data about
that company's operations on the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, we do not currently have any evidence that larger
utilities will, in fact, attempt to exclude smaller utilities from
participating in their OASIS sites. In fact, all indications are to the
contrary.
Thus, while we are not taking any steps based on TAPS' concerns, at
this time, we will revisit this issue if it appears that Commission
action is appropriate. We would also entertain a company-specific
complaint that a larger utility is misusing the reciprocity provision
to improperly withhold transmission service.
C. Section 37.2--Purpose
The requests for rehearing did not specifically address this
provision nor seek revision of this portion of the OASIS Final Rule.
D. Section 37.3--Definitions
The OASIS Final Rule contains definitions of ``Transmission
Provider'', ``Transmission Customer'', ``Responsible Party'',
``Reseller'', ``Wholesale Merchant Function'', and
``Affiliate''.40 The requests for rehearing did not specifically
address these definitions nor seek revision of this portion of the
OASIS Final Rule. However, as discussed above, we are modifying the
definition of ``wholesale merchant function'' in response to ConEd's
request for rehearing or clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Additionally, Sec. 37.6(b)(1) provides definitions of
``Posted Path'', ``Constrained Posted Path'', and ``Unconstrained
Posted Path'' as used in Sec. 37.6. As these additional terms were
defined in Sec. 37.6 of the OASIS Final Rule, we will discuss
suggestions to clarify these terms in sections IV.G.1 and IV.G.2
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Section 37.4--Standards of Conduct
In the OASIS Final Rule, we adopted standards of conduct intended
to accomplish four main objectives. First, we prohibited Transmission
Providers from giving preferential access to information related to
transmission prices and availability to employees of the public
utility, or any affiliate, engaged in wholesale merchant functions. We
accomplished this by: (a) Requiring that transmission-related
information be made available to all customers (including employees of
the public utility, and any affiliate, engaged in wholesale merchant
functions) through OASIS postings available at the same time and on an
equal basis; and (b)
[[Page 12490]]
prohibiting the employees of Transmission Providers and any affiliates
from disclosing or obtaining non-public transmission-related
information through communications not posted on the OASIS. Thus,
employees engaged in wholesale merchant functions may only obtain
information about transmission prices and availability from postings on
the OASIS or from public sources equally available to all other
customers.
Second, we mandated that employees engaged in system operations and
reliability functions must treat all customers in a fair and impartial
manner and may not give any preferential treatment to the company's (or
its affiliates') employees conducting wholesale merchant functions.
This requirement includes not disclosing market information about a
customer and its activities to other customers in the course of
responding to requests for transmission service.
Third, we required the functional unbundling of the transmission
operations and wholesale merchant functions of public utilities and
their affiliates so that those employees charged with system operations
and reliability would be free to operate the system impartially for the
benefit of all customers, including the Transmission Provider
itself.41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ As explained in the OASIS Final Rule, functional unbundling
seeks to ensure that the same employee is not responsible for
performing both wholesale merchant functions and system operation
functions at the same time. See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,744-
48. These functions are to be performed by separate employees and
the standards of conduct provide that they are prohibited from
communicating with each other about transmission-related matters
unless they do so through the OASIS. See Secs. 37.4(a) and 37.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, to ensure that the OASIS Final Rule would not compromise
reliability, we created an exemption, in emergency circumstances
affecting system reliability, that allows system operators to take
whatever steps are necessary to keep the system in operation.
Finally, we warned that the standards of conduct are to be
interpreted consistent with common sense, prudence, and caution, and
that the burden is on entities subject to the rules to design
procedures and safeguards and to take all necessary actions to ensure
compliance. Those who have questions on these issues may contact the
Enforcement Task Force Hotline at 202-208-1390 to obtain informal
advice on implementing the standards of conduct.
1. Contacts Between Employees Providing Ancillary Services and System
Operators
The OASIS Final Rule defines the ``wholesale merchant function'' at
Sec. 37.3(e). The definition contains no specific reference to, or
exclusion of, ancillary services. In the Open Access Final Rule, the
Commission concluded that six ancillary services must be included in an
open access transmission tariff.42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ These 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.
In the Open Access Final Rule, the Commission has determined
that the Transmission Provider must provide and the Transmission
Customer must purchase from the Transmission Provider the first two
services listed above, subject to conditions set out in Order No.
888. The Transmission Provider must offer the remaining four
services to the Transmission Customers upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
Allegheny argues that an employee of the Transmission Provider who
is responsible for providing customers with ancillary services mandated
by the Open Access Final Rule should not, for that reason, be deemed to
be a ``merchant employee'' excluded from contact with system operators
under Order No. 889. 43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Allegheny Rehearing Request at pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
We disagree with Allegheny's interpretation of the OASIS standards
of conduct. Under the standards of conduct, employees who are
responsible for providing ancillary services are not (without regard to
their actual job functions) uniformly deemed to be, or not to be,
wholesale merchant employees. To the contrary, whether these employees
are deemed to be wholesale merchant employees, or not, depends on the
nature of their job functions.
The Transmission Provider's sale of ancillary services in support
of its provision of basic transmission service is not a wholesale power
merchant function for purposes of Order No. 889. This is because the
provision of ancillary services is essential for providing basic
transmission service. However, the sale of ancillary service not in
support of the Transmission Provider's provision of basic transmission
service is a wholesale merchant function for purposes of Order No. 889.
Thus, if an employee is marketing an ancillary service independent of
the Transmission Provider's obligations to provide basic transmission
service, then that employee would be providing a wholesale merchant
function and would be subject to the applicable requirements pertaining
to wholesale merchant employees under the standards of conduct.
Therefore, we reject Allegheny's suggestion that our current
regulations categorically deem any employees involved in the provision
of ancillary services as not being wholesale merchant employees,
without regard to their actual job responsibilities.
2. Contacts Between Generation Control Employees and Transmission
Operations and Wholesale Merchant Employees
Among other matters, the OASIS standards of conduct preclude
employees engaged in wholesale merchant functions from improperly
communicating with employees engaged in transmission system operations
or reliability functions. However, we did not extend Order No. 888 or
the OASIS Final Rule to require the corporate unbundling of
transmission and generation control functions or to mandate the
divestiture by Transmission Providers of their generation assets.
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not drafting the standards
of conduct to preclude generation control employees from being a
conduit for improper communications between transmission operations
personnel and wholesale merchant personnel. 44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
As we stated above, in our discussion of whether employees
responsible for providing ancillary services are to be deemed wholesale
merchant employees, what limitations are placed on an employee's
conduct under the standards of conduct depends on that employee's
actual job functions and activities, rather than that employee's job
title. 45 In the same way, whom a generation control employee may
or may not communicate with depends on the respective job functions of
that generation control employee and the employee(s) with whom he or
she intends to communicate. Generation control employees whose job
responsibilities involve wholesale merchant functions would be
precluded from having pertinent off-the-OASIS communications with
employees
[[Page 12491]]
performing system operations and reliability functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See supra discussion in section IV.E.1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, notwithstanding CCEM's concerns, the standards of
conduct already preclude any employee from acting as a conduit for
improper communications between transmission operations employees and
wholesale merchant employees. Furthermore, if these activities were
carried out by a non-employee (e.g., an outside attorney or
consultant), they nevertheless would constitute a violation of the
standards of conduct by the involved transmission operations
employee(s), the involved wholesale merchant employee(s), and their
employer. This being the case, we reject CCEM's proposal as
unnecessary.
3. Monitoring the Standards of Conduct
The preamble's discussion of the standards of conduct and the
regulations at Sec. 37.4 are intentionally directed at the
responsibilities of the Transmission Providers subject to these rules
rather than the Commission's plans to monitor compliance and pursue
enforcement strategies.
Rehearing Requests
APPA and Blue Ridge argue that monitoring of the standards of
conduct is essential and that the Commission must establish and
publicize a plan to do so. 46 APPA argues that reliance on utility
self monitoring is not sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 11-19, Blue Ridge Rehearing
Request at p. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
We agree with APPA and Blue Ridge that it is important for the
Commission to monitor compliance with the standards of conduct
carefully and that self monitoring may not be fully sufficient to
accomplish this. Accordingly, we are amending Secs. 37.4(b)(5)(iii) and
37.6(g)(4) to require the posting on the OASIS of information from a
Transmission Provider that details the circumstances when it exercises
its discretion in applying any terms of the tariff (and which
Transmission Providers already are required to maintain pursuant to
Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iii)). This will assist the Commission in monitoring
whether the standards of conduct are being met. Consistent with
Sec. 37.7(b), which governs the retention period for audit data, this
information must remain available for download on the OASIS for a
specified period, and must remain available upon request for three
years from the date when such information is first posted. 47 We
request that the How Working Group propose the necessary template to be
included in the Standards and Protocols document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Under Sec. 37.7(b), all audit data currently must remain
available for download for 90 days. Later in this order, we shorten
the retention period for making ATC/TTC postings available for
download to 20 days, with the data to be made available upon request
for three years. See discussion in section IV.H below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to APPA's and Blue Ridge's specific suggestions that we should
modify the OASIS Final Rule to address the Commission's oversight plans
and functions, we do not believe that this would be appropriate.
Although the Commission is well aware of the importance of its
enforcement responsibilities, and will remain vigilant in reviewing the
operation of OASIS sites and compliance with the standards of conduct,
the purpose of the OASIS Final Rule is to detail the responsibilities
of the regulated community and not those of the Commission.
4. Adequacy of Emergency Exception
As explained above, the OASIS standards of conduct include an
exception, in emergency circumstances affecting system reliability,
that allows system operators to take whatever steps are necessary to
keep the system in operation.
Rehearing Request
El Paso argues that the standards of conduct's emergency exception
is inadequate; contingencies may arise daily that require a system
operator to react promptly to unanticipated losses of generation units.
Therefore, operators should be allowed to buy and sell current hour and
next hour power (to preserve system reliability). El Paso does not
oppose the separation of functions as applied to longer-term
transactions (i.e., transactions involving transmission service beyond
the current hour and next hour). 48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ El Paso Rehearing Request at pp. 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
We reject the proposal to allow operators to buy for resale at
wholesale and sell at wholesale next hour power on a routine basis,
without regard for the separation of functions required by the
standards of conduct. We find this proposal too broad and find that it
has too much potential for abuse. However, as explained more fully
below, the regulations do not dictate what group of employees is to
have responsibility for making purchases on behalf of bundled retail
customers. For example, the transmission operations and reliability
function may be assigned responsibility for making purchases on behalf
of bundled retail customers.
5. Short-Term Economy Energy Purchases
FIT Utilities do not object generally to functional unbundling;
however, they argue that the system operator should be allowed to make
short-term economy energy purchases in order to maintain system
reliability. 49 FIT Utilities further argue that, while the OASIS
Final Rule does not require the physical separation of transmission and
generation dispatchers, it does effectively rewrite generation
dispatchers' jobs to exclude the purchase for resale and sale at
wholesale of energy in hourly interchange markets. FIT Utilities argue
that a generation dispatcher needs to know loads on transmission lines
on an instantaneous basis to assess whether to increase or decrease
outputs from particular generation facilities. FIT Utilities argue that
generators are often run, not for energy, but for voltage support or to
otherwise stabilize the transmission system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at pp. 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They argue that, in addition to reliability concerns, system
operators also worry about keeping transactions economical. They argue
that separating the functions relating to short-term energy purchases
(for resale) makes this task harder, at a substantial cost to
consumers. They continue that allowing a dispatcher to buy power would
not hurt competition, as long as the dispatcher cannot also sell
power.50 They add that if a dispatcher buys power that offsets
higher cost utility generated power, this helps everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, FIT Utilities argue that the OASIS Final Rule
should be revised to retain a prohibition against a dispatcher selling
power while allowing the dispatcher to buy power. FIT Utilities argue
that, at a minimum, the dispatcher should be able to buy power in
hourly economic energy markets to serve load.51 They argue that if
the Commission has a concern that this would somehow be anti-
competitive, then a utility should be allowed to set up a computer
system to make such purchases automatically. They argue that the
Commission should be concerned with both reliability and price and
should aim for the lowest cost supply possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at p. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The standards of conduct's separation of functions currently
prohibit a Transmission Provider's employees engaged in transmission
system operations and reliability functions from giving preference to
wholesale
[[Page 12492]]
purchases or sales made on behalf of its own wholesale customers or
those of affiliates. The standards of conduct do not, however, dictate
whether bundled retail merchant functions are to be grouped with the
wholesale merchant function or with the transmission operations and
reliability function.
Thus, FIT Utilities' request to allow dispatchers to buy power to
serve retail load is consistent with the regulations. As discussed
above, the regulations do not prohibit Transmission Providers from
assigning the responsibility for making purchases to serve bundled
retail customers to the transmission operations and reliability
function.
To avoid any confusion, we are modifying Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv) to
substitute the phrase ``sales for resale made by the wholesale merchant
function or any affiliate'' for the phrase ``wholesale purchases or
sales made on behalf of its own power customers, or those of an
affiliate'' in Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv).
Moreover, nothing in the standards of conduct prohibits a public
utility subject to the rule from arranging to have the same data about
the company's generation sources and load simultaneously fed to both
transmission system operators and merchant employees. Thus, if the
company elects to have wholesale merchant employees perform the
function of making purchases to serve bundled retail native load, this
can be done without necessitating any change in the standards of
conduct. Data received by system operators about the activities of
third parties may not be conveyed to wholesale merchant employees
except through postings on the OASIS equally available to all OASIS
users.
6. Tight Pools
NY MU argues that the Commission erred in not requiring operational
unbundling, at least for tight pools, which NY MU asserts includes
requiring that the transmission component of retail rates be treated as
if the rates were based on the use of the pool-wide pro forma tariff of
the Open Access Final Rule.52
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ NY MU Rehearing Request at pp. 5, 7. See Open Access pro
forma tariff at p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
As further discussed in Order No. 888-A,53 the Commission
stands by its decision in the Open Access Final Rule that functional
unbundling, along with the flexible safeguards contained in the Final
Rule, is a reasonable and workable means of assuring non-discriminatory
open access transmission. The Commission has not found it necessary to
adopt a more intrusive and potentially more costly approach at this
time based on speculative allegations that functional unbundling may
not work and that more severe measures may be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Order No. 888-A at section IV.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Clarification of Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv)
As modified above, Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv) requires that a Transmission
Provider not, through its tariffs or otherwise, give preference to
sales made to any person for resale made by the wholesale merchant
function or by any affiliate, over the interests of any other wholesale
customer in matters relating to the sale of wholesale transmission
service.
Rehearing Request
SoCal Edison asks the Commission to clarify that the OASIS rule
(Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv)) was not intended to require the Transmission
Provider or network customer to charge itself for transmission for its
economy energy purchases or to assign to those purchases the same
curtailment priority assigned to other non-network, non-firm point-to-
point transactions. 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ SoCal Edison Rehearing Request at p. 24. On July 18, 1996,
SoCalGas filed a request for clarification responsive to SoCal
Edison's rehearing request, which argues that Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv),
together with the Open Access Final Rule, provide for comparability
and that: ``a Transmission Provider is not entitled to accord itself
special priority, special services, or special prices, merely
because it owns the transmission facilities, and the Transmission
Provider is not permitted to import wholesale power `for free';
however, the Transmission Provider may enjoy any priorities or
advantages provided to it and similarly situated customers by the
express terms of its transmission tariff.''
SoCalGas' arguments overlook that SoCal Edison itself concedes
that if Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv) is interpreted in harmony with
Commission precedent, it would: ``operate to ensure that the
Transmission Provider would not give preference to its own purchases
and sales over that of other similarly situated customers (e.g., by
assigning a higher curtailment priority to its own economy energy
purchases than it would assign to an identical economy energy
purchase by a network customer).'' Thus, the issues raised in
SoCalGas' request for clarification are not before us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
Turning first to the narrow issue raised by SoCal Edison's request
for rehearing, we clarify that Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv) was intended to be
consistent with the Open Access pro forma tariff provisions of Order
No. 888. Moreover, we intended that the question raised by SoCal Edison
would be answered by reference to the provisions of the Open Access pro
forma tariff. Thus, Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv) does not require the
Transmission Provider or network customer to charge itself for
transmission for its economy energy purchases. Nor does it require that
they assign to those purchases the same curtailment priority assigned
to other non-network, non-firm point-to-point transactions. Under the
Open Access pro forma tariff, if purchases are for bundled retail
sales, then the Transmission Provider is not required to charge itself
for its economy energy purchases. By contrast, if the purchases are for
wholesale sales, then the Transmission Provider must charge itself for
the transmission. The same delineation would also apply to curtailment
priority.
Moreover, we clarify that Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iv) was not intended to
rewrite the rules regarding utilities' purchases and priorities for
bundled retail customers, nor to set aside the rules prescribed in
section 1.11 of the Open Access pro forma tariff.55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Section 1.11 of the Open Access pro forma tariff is also
the subject of a number of requests for rehearing that are addressed
in Order No. 888-A at section IV.C.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Discounts
The issue of what discounts must be provided by a Transmission
Provider who offers a discount to its affiliates or its own wholesale
merchant function was addressed in the Open Access Final Rule. The
matter also was discussed in the OASIS Final Rule, but only to the
extent that it related to what information must be posted on the
OASIS.56 In Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(v), we mandated that when a
Transmission Provider offers a discount to its wholesale merchant
function or any affiliate, then it must, at the same time, post on the
OASIS an offer to provide the same discount to all Transmission
Customers on the same path and on all unconstrained transmission
paths.57 The posting requirement corresponding to this obligation
to offer discounts was contained in Sec. 37.6(c)(3). We also found, in
Sec. 37.6(c)(3), that discounts offered to non-affiliates must be
posted within 24 hours of when available transmission capability (ATC)
is adjusted in response to the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ In Order No. 889, we found that if a Transmission Provider
offers a discount to an affiliate, or attributes a discounted
transmission service rate to its own wholesale transactions, then
the Transmission Provider must, at the same time, post on the OASIS
an offer to provide the same discount to all eligible customers. If
a Transmission Provider offers discounts to non-affiliates, it must
offer to do so on a basis that is not unduly discriminatory.
\57\ In Order No. 888-A, we are addressing arguments that we
should revise the requirement to offer the same discount to all
Transmission Customers on the same path and on all unconstrained
transmission paths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requests for rehearing address both: (1) what discounts must be
offered; and (2) what postings must accompany discount offers. As
[[Page 12493]]
explained in Order No. 888-A, we have decided to revise our policy on
discounts of transmission services, and to apply this same policy, with
the exception concerning paths, to ancillary services provided by the
Transmission Provider in support of its provision of basic transmission
service. To implement this revised policy, we are making changes to the
standards of conduct and to the posting of discounts under Sec. 37.6.
We address changes to the standards of conduct here, and changes to
Sec. 37.6 in section IV.G.6 below.
Under our revised discount policy, three principal requirements are
appropriate. First, any offer of a discount for transmission and/or
ancillary services made by the Transmission Provider must be announced
to all potential customers solely by posting on the OASIS. This
requirement, which will ensure that all potential Transmission
Customers under the Open Access pro forma tariff will have equal access
to discount information, will guard against the Transmission Provider's
wholesale merchant function or an affiliate gaining an unfair timing
advantage concerning the availability of discounts.
Second, we will require that any customer-initiated requests for
discounts of transmission and/or ancillary services occur solely by
posting on the OASIS, regardless of whether the customer is the
Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function, an affiliate, or a
non-affiliate. We will permit customer-initiated requests for discounts
but will require that such requests be visible (via posting on the
OASIS) to all market participants.
Third, we will require that, once the Transmission Provider and
customer agree to a discounted transaction for transmission and/or
ancillary services, the details be immediately posted on the OASIS.
This requirement will be equally applicable regardless of whether the
customer is the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function, an
affiliate, or a non-affiliate.
Additionally, we believe that any ``negotiation'' between a
Transmission Provider and a potential customer should take place on the
OASIS, and should be visible to all market participants, and we will
revise our regulations to accomplish this as soon as practicable. To
this end, we direct the How Working Group, by no later than June 2,
1997, to propose: (1) Whatever changes are needed to the Standards and
Protocols document; and (2) the earliest date when the industry can
meet such a requirement during Phase I.
In Secs. 37.4(b)(5)(v) and 37.4(b)(5)(vi), we required Transmission
Providers to post on the OASIS any offers they made to their wholesale
merchant function or to their affiliates of a discounted price for
transmission services or ancillary services. We are now deleting these
provisions because under our revised discount policy, the distinction
between discounts to affiliates and discounts to non-affiliates has
been abandoned.
As discussed above, we are addressing the modifications to the
posting requirements in Sec. 37.6 in Section IV.G.6 below.
F. Section 37.5--Obligations of Transmission Providers and Responsible
Parties
In the OASIS regulations, the Commission requires Transmission
Providers to operate an OASIS, either individually or jointly with
other Transmission Providers. The Transmission Provider may delegate
this responsibility to a Responsible Party such as another Transmission
Provider, an Independent System Operator, a Regional Transmission
Group, a Regional Reliability Council, or a third-party operator.
Nevertheless, each Transmission Provider remains responsible for
compliance, regardless of whether it establishes its own OASIS or
participates in a joint OASIS.
Rehearing Requests
TAPS and TDU Systems argue that the Commission should require
Transmission Providers to establish a regional OASIS because individual
utility OASIS sites are inefficient. They contend that, as the number
of OASIS sites increases, OASIS postings become less meaningful and the
accomplishments of the OASIS Final Rule lessen.58
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ TAPS Rehearing Request at pp. 8-9 and TDU Systems Rehearing
Request at p. 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
At this juncture, the Commission continues to believe it
appropriate to encourage, but not require, regional OASIS sites. It is
the Commission's understanding that most utilities are participating in
regional OASIS sites. This issue can be revisited in Phase II of OASIS,
if a significant number of utilities fail to join a regional OASIS and
this results in significant inefficiency in bulk power markets.
G. Section 37.6--Information to be Posted on an Oasis
1. Definition of ``Posted Path''
Section 37.6(b)(1)(i) defines a posted path as: (1) any control
area to control area interconnection; (2) any path for which service is
denied, curtailed or interrupted for more than 24 hours in the past 12
months; and (3) any path for which a customer requests the posting of
ATC or total transmission capability (TTC). For posted paths requested
by customers, the paths must be posted for 180 days and the posting
must continue after that until 180 days elapse from the most recent
request for service over the path.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by requiring posting of ATC
solely at interfaces between control areas. CCEM further argues that
the Commission should require the posting of paths across control
areas.59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ /CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAPP argues that the Commission should reconsider the requirement
to post ATC between control areas or, in the alternative, should grant
it a waiver of this requirement. MAPP suggests that posted paths should
be defined as paths between zones determined by transmission
constraints. MAPP argues that defining posted paths in this manner
would be more consistent with the MAPP regional flow-based transmission
arrangement.60
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ /MAPP Rehearing Request at pp. 4-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEI asks the Commission to revise the criteria for a customer-
requested posted path. EEI argues that customers should have to make a
service request over the path within 180 days of asking that the path
be a posted path or face a penalty.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ /EEI Rehearing Request at p. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The Commission will not require the posting of all paths across
control areas, since customers can request to have ATC and TTC posted
for any path. Given that customers can request to have ATC and TTC
posted for any path, adopting CCEM's proposal would burden OASIS sites
with a very large number of posted paths that may have little
commercial value.
As to MAPP's request to drop the requirement for posting ATC for
paths between control areas, MAPP's concern appears to relate to
business relationships particular to the MAPP agreement. MAPP's request
for a waiver is not based on a lack of traffic over its system. It is
based on the fact that MAPP's control areas do not correspond to the
service territories of its members (MAPP has 26 utilities and 14
control areas). Some of its control areas cover the generation of more
than one utility. Other control areas overlap the same
[[Page 12494]]
geographic area, with each control area covering the generation of a
separate utility.
Under MAPP's proposal, it will provide pool-wide transmission
service based on a MW mile methodology. It proposes to determine the
transmission availability for known constrained interfaces or paths and
assess the impact on its member systems of each transaction based on
the POD and POR for each transaction. MAPP argues that the Open Access
Final Rule was intended to accommodate flow based pricing methods and
that, under the circumstances, it makes sense for its member systems to
make postings for area to area interfaces rather than control area to
control area interfaces. MAPP argues that we should either change our
rules for posting between control areas or grant it a waiver.
After reviewing MAPP's arguments, we do not believe that it would
be appropriate to modify the ATC posting requirements to address a
MAPP-specific issue. However, the Commission will grant MAPP a limited
waiver of the control area to control area ATC/TTC posting requirement
(in Sec. 37.6(b)(1)(i)) based on the particular circumstances presented
by the MAPP system. This waiver should not harm Transmission Customers
because MAPP provides pool wide transmission service using a flow based
(single MW-mile) pricing methodology for the entire system and proposes
to determine transmission availability for all known constrained
interfaces or paths. Moreover, this waiver only applies to postings for
intra-MAPP interfaces. MAPP will still be required to post ATC and TTC
for control area to control area paths that connect its member systems
with neighboring transmission systems. Finally, MAPP customers can
always request that ATC/TTC be posted for a specific path including a
control area to control area path (in which case MAPP would be required
to post the information for the path on its OASIS node).
Turning to EEI's suggested limitations on customers requesting that
paths be posted, we find that requiring a customer to request service
over any path that it asks to be posted places too heavy a burden on
customers. However, the Commission may reconsider this requirement if
we find that customers abuse the system by requesting postings for too
many paths over which no requests for service are made.
2. Definition of ``interconnection''
``Posted path'' is defined in Sec. 37.6, in part, as ``any control
area to control area interconnection.'' However, the regulation does
not provide a definition of ``interconnection''.
Rehearing Request
EEI and Public Service Co of CO ask the Commission to clarify that
the term ``interconnection'', in the definition of ``posted path'' in
Sec. 37.6, includes lines connecting two systems or control areas
rather than just one line.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 48 and Public Service Co of CO
Rehearing Request at pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
To avoid any confusion, we clarify that the term
``interconnection'' in the definition of posted path means all
facilities connecting two adjacent control areas and we are amending
Sec. 37.6 accordingly. This is consistent with the definition of
``interconnection'' in NERC's Glossary of Terms: ``the facilities that
connect two systems or Control Areas.''63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ NERC's Glossary of Terms, August 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ATC Supporting Information
The OASIS regulations require that the Responsible Party make all
data used to calculate ATC and TTC for any constrained path publicly
available within one week of the ATC/TTC posting.
a. Disclosure of Data Supporting Calculations of ATC and TTC
Rehearing Request
EEI argues that the requirement in Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(ii) to disclose
data supporting calculations of ATC and TTC provides competitors with
backdoor access to sensitive proprietary information. It claims that
the Commission intended to allow companies to keep confidential
information such as generation run status and the maintenance schedules
for generation and transmission.64
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ EEI Rehearing Request at pp. 49-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
EEI is correct that the Commission declined in the OASIS Final Rule
to require the posting of information about the run status of
generation and transmission facilities. However, EEI incorrectly
attributes the Commission's decision to a finding on the claimed
proprietary nature of this information. The Commission did not require
the same-time posting of facility status information because the
Commission did not believe this information was needed for Phase I
implementation. The OASIS Final Rule states that the Commission may
reconsider the issue in Phase II.
On rehearing, EEI argues that the same considerations about
commercial sensitivity that led the Commission to decline to order the
same-time posting of facility status also dictate that this information
should not be divulged as part of the data supporting ATC calculations.
We reject this argument for three reasons. First, as shown above, EEI's
argument is based on a false premise as to why the Commission declined
to order the same-time posting of information on facility run status.
Second, even if, arguendo, we accepted EEI's contention that the
same-time posting of facility run status is commercially sensitive,
this still would not suffice to show that making ATC supporting
information available on request and after seven days would have any
adverse competitive impact. Whatever commercial sensitivity the
information might have would be greatly diminished by the fact that
seven days need to elapse before a request for the information can be
made. In our view, this delay ensures that no realistic concern remains
about the competitive consequences of releasing this information.
Finally, the purpose of ATC supporting information is to ensure
that Transmission Customers have confidence in ATC/TTC postings. The
OASIS and the Commission's functional unbundling policy depend on
customers being able to rely upon the accuracy of ATC postings. The
availability of ATC supporting information is essential for building
and maintaining this confidence. Thus, the concerns raised by EEI about
commercial sensitivity are, in our judgment, outweighed by the public
interest served by making this information available, upon request,
after seven days. The Commission will not further restrict the
availability of information needed to support ATC/TTC calculations and
this information will continue to be available to customers upon
request after seven days.
b. Disclosure of Data on Nonfirm ATC
Rehearing Request
EEI also argues against disclosing supporting data on nonfirm ATC
because it would not exist but for the collection of data to calculate
firm ATC and TTC.65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
If, as EEI claims, data supporting the calculation of nonfirm ATC
does not exist in an independent form and is a residual of calculating
firm ATC, then
[[Page 12495]]
requiring a Transmission Provider to document how it calculates nonfirm
ATC should be relatively simple and should not require much additional
information. Therefore, the Commission requires that supporting
information for firm and nonfirm information be available as required
in Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(ii).
c. Time Limits for Disclosure of Utility Generation Data
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission rejected arguments by NUCOR
that the Commission should require data on generation costs to be
posted on OASIS on a same-time basis.66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,746. See also OASIS Final
Rule, 61 FR at 21,754-55, where we decided not to require the
posting of generator run status. Although the OASIS Final Rule does
not require the posting of utility generation data, per se, this
data may be required to be reported, after-the-fact, as part of the
Transmission Provider's supporting data for ATC calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
On rehearing, NUCOR argues again that the Commission should require
same-time disclosure of utility generation data used for economic
dispatch.67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ NUCOR Rehearing Request at pp. 15-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
In the OASIS Final Rule, we rejected the argument that we should
require the same-time disclosure of utility generation data used for
economic dispatch based on a balancing of the need for the information,
the claimed commercial sensitivity of the information, and the desire
to avoid, to the extent possible, having public utilities reporting
generation data that their competitors may not be required to report.
We concluded that the information was not necessary and that during
Phase I we would limit OASIS postings to essentials.
On rehearing, NUCOR attempts to buttress its argument by pointing
out that utilities will face financial pressure to maintain or enhance
their market share in electric generation and that the Commission's
enforcement of the standards of conduct could be enhanced by requiring
the same-time disclosure of generation data. NUCOR expresses the
concern that after-the-fact complaints, unearthed based on a review of
audit files, may be neither feasible nor practical.
NUCOR's arguments about discriminatory treatment are not new. They
highlight the need for the Commission and other OASIS users to review
this information to ensure that system operators have not conducted
system operations in violation of the OASIS standards of conduct. NUCOR
argues that only by requiring the same-time disclosure of utility
generation data used for economic dispatch can we be sure that unduly
preferential treatment by means of a Transmission Provider's own
generation will not occur. We do not quarrel with the possibility of
affiliate abuse raised by NUCOR. However, NUCOR still has not persuaded
us that it is necessary to post these data. If experience shows that
the concerns raised by NUCOR are a significant problem, we can consider
further actions in the future.68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ As to NUCOR's contention that after-the-fact review of
utility generation data would be ineffectual, we note that if we
required the contemporaneous posting of such information on the
OASIS (as proposed by NUCOR), our review of any complaint filed as a
result of such information would still be conducted after-the-fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Reporting of Network Service Usage
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not requiring Transmission
Providers to report network service usage monthly.69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
CCEM does not state what it means by monthly network service usage
or explain why the Transmission Provider should be required to report
the data. In any event, we note that the current measure of network
usage is load (i.e., billing is based on load-ratio usage). To the
extent that utilities use the monthly load data of network customers in
calculating ATC, utilities will include load data in the ATC/TTC
supporting information required in Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(ii).
4. Posting Firm and Nonfirm ATC Separately
Section 37.6(b)(3) of the OASIS regulations addresses the posting
of ATC and TTC for constrained and unconstrained posted paths. For
constrained posted paths, the regulations contain separate posting
requirements for firm and nonfirm ATC. For unconstrained posted paths,
the posting requirements for firm and nonfirm ATC are the same. Section
37.6(b)(3)(ii) does not specifically mention firm and nonfirm ATC.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM and the EPRI/NERC Working Group argue that the Commission
erred by failing to require the separate posting of firm ATC and
nonfirm ATC for unconstrained posted paths.70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 5 and EPRI/NERC Working Group
Rehearing Request at p. 9. For purposes of submitting their request
for rehearing, the How Working Group and the What Working Group
combined their efforts and submitted a joint request for rehearing
on behalf of ``the Industry Management Process on How to Implement
Transmission Services Information Networks'' (EPRI/NERC Working
Group).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The regulations inadvertently left out a reference to firm and
nonfirm ATC in the posting requirements for unconstrained posted paths.
The regulations at Sec. 37.6(b)(3)(ii) will be modified to correct this
and to clarify that firm and nonfirm ATC for unconstrained paths, like
firm and nonfirm ATC for constrained paths, must be posted separately.
5. Minimum Term of Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service
Section 13.1 of the Open Access Final Rule's pro forma tariff
specifies that the minimum required term for Firm Point-to-Point
Transmission Service is one day.71 By contrast, Sec. 37.6(b)(3)(i)
of the OASIS regulations requires the posting of firm and nonfirm ATC
on constrained paths for the next hour and for the next 168 hours
(i.e., for the next week).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ In Order No. 888-A, the Commission addresses the issue of
reducing the minimum term for firm point-to-point transmission
service from one day to one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Requests
CCEM argues that the Commission erred by not requiring Transmission
Providers to offer hourly firm transmission service.72 CCEM argues
that, if the Commission agrees to change the Open Access pro forma
tariff to allow for hourly firm transmission service, then the
requirement to post hourly transmission service requests on the OASIS
should be deferred until the reliability of OASIS sites is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPRI/NERC Working Group argues that the posting of ATC and other
information should be consistent with a utility's Open Access pro forma
tariff. They argue that, as the minimum term for firm ATC is one day
under the Open Access pro forma tariff, firm ATC should only be
required to be posted daily instead of hourly. Hourly firm ATC would be
posted only if it is offered under a revised Open Access tariff.73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The OASIS regulations currently require the posting of hourly firm
ATC even though the shortest mandated term for firm transmission
service under the Open Access pro forma tariff is one day. The
Commission believes hourly posting provides useful information to
[[Page 12496]]
customers about the availability of daily service and the likelihood of
curtailment during particular hours during the day.
If a Transmission Provider voluntarily offers hourly firm service
in its Open Access pro forma tariff, it must offer the service through
postings on its OASIS. Section 37.6(c)(1) requires Transmission
Providers to ``post prices and a summary of the terms and conditions
associated with all transmission products offered to Transmission
Customers.'' [Emphasis added]. The OASIS regulations do not, however,
control what services must be provided by Transmission Providers. This
is covered by the Open Access Final Rule.
6. Posting of Discounts
Under the OASIS Final Rule, Sec. 37.6(c)(3) of the OASIS
regulations requires a Transmission Provider to post (within 24 hours
of its adjustment of its ATC calculation) any discounts on transmission
service given to non-affiliated customers. This posting was required to
remain on the OASIS for 30 days.
Rehearing Requests
EPRI/NERC Working Group asks the Commission to clarify that the
purpose of the requirement in Sec. 37.6(c)(3) to post discount
information for 30 days is to record the discount and does not
constitute a continuing offer of a discount. They suggest dropping this
requirement since, under Sec. 37.7, audit data (including data on
discounts) must be recorded and retained.74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
As discussed above in Section IV.E.8, the Commission has adopted a
new discounting policy, which is more fully elaborated in Order No.
888-A. This new discounting policy necessitates a number of changes to
the OASIS posting requirements.
We have revised and moved the text of Sec. 37.6(c)(3) to
Sec. 37.6(c)(4) and have substituted a new Sec. 37.6(c)(3) that
requires that any offer of a discount by the Transmission Provider for
transmission service must be announced to all potential customers
solely by posting on the OASIS.
We have revised the section now designated as Sec. 37.6(c)(4) to no
longer treat the posting of transmission service transactions involving
the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function or affiliates
differently from the posting of transactions involving non-affiliates.
However, we will require that transactions involving the Transmission
Provider's wholesale merchant function or affiliates be identified. The
24-hour delay in posting non-affiliate discounts has been dropped. All
transactions for transmission service, agreed to between a Transmission
Provider and a customer, regardless of whether they involve a discount
or not, must be posted at the time when ATC must be adjusted in
response to the transaction. We also have expanded the list of
information about the transaction required to be posted.
We have revised and moved the text of Sec. 37.6(d)(2) to
Sec. 37.6(d)(3) and have substituted a new Sec. 37.6(d)(2) that
requires that any offer of a discount by the Transmission Provider for
ancillary service in support of the Transmission Provider's provision
of transmission service must be announced to all potential customers
solely by posting on the OASIS.
We have revised the section now designated as Sec. 37.6(d)(3) to no
longer treat the posting of ancillary service transactions involving
the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant function or affiliates
differently from the posting of transactions involving non-affiliates.
However, we will require that transactions involving Transmission
Provider's wholesale merchant function or affiliates be identified. The
24-hour delay in posting non-affiliate discounts has been dropped. All
transactions for ancillary service, agreed to between a Transmission
Provider and a customer, regardless of whether they involve a discount
or not, must be posted on the OASIS at the time when ATC must be
adjusted in response to an associated transmission service transaction,
if any. We also have expanded the list of information about the
transaction required to be posted.
We have revised Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(i) to require that, with the
exception of next-hour service, requests for transmission and ancillary
service must be posted prior to the Transmission Provider responding to
these requests. This will ensure that other customers can observe any
discounts being requested before they are acted on. We also are
requiring that all postings of requests be made comparably. We are
making this revision to prevent discriminatory practices.
We are revising Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(ii) to expand the information
required to be posted on the status of requests for transmission and
ancillary service to include the information required in
Sec. 37.6(c)(4) and Sec. 37.6(d)(3).
We are deleting the provision formerly found at
Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and are revising Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(i) because, under
the Commission's new discounting policy, we no longer will allow the
identity of parties to be masked.
We are adding a new provision, at Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii), that
provides that in the event that a discount is being requested for
ancillary services that are not in support of a basic transmission
service being provided by the Transmission Provider, such request need
not be posted on the OASIS. We add this provision because we are
limiting our revisions relating to the posting of discounts for
ancillary services to those ancillary services that are in support of
basic transmission service provided by a Transmission Provider.
The Phase I OASIS is a passive communication system. A customer
sends a request for a discount directly to the Transmission Provider.
But the passive nature of the Phase I OASIS prevents the Transmission
Provider from sending a reply directly to the customer. Instead, the
Transmission Provider posts the reply on the OASIS and the customer
must periodically check the node for the reply. A more active
communication system would permit the Transmission Provider to send
replies directly to customers, as well as to anyone else who is
interested. Offers and replies could be exchanged quickly, and the
unnecessary delays caused by the cumbersomeness of the passive system
would be eliminated. We, therefore, request the How Working Group to
consider adding more active capabilities to the OASIS in Phase
II.75
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Other benefits of an active system include:
Making the market more efficient by notifying customers
immediately of changes in ATC on specified paths and sending system-
wide notices directly to customers as soon as they are issued.
Making OASIS nodes more responsive by reducing the load
on the servers caused by customers periodically checking for
messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's revised discount policy necessitates certain
changes to the Standards and Protocols document. The OASIS regulations
require that prices offered by a Transmission Provider be posted and
that discounts requested by customers be posted. However, under the
current Standards and Protocols document, the templates for posting of
offered and requested prices do not identify whether these prices
constitute a discount and how much of a discount these prices
represent. We believe that this information is vitally important to
prevent discrimination.
Accordingly, we are requiring that the templates in the Standards
and Protocols document dealing with posted offerings (Sec. 4.3.2),
status of transmission service requests (Sec. 4.3.7), and status of
[[Page 12497]]
ancillary service requests (Sec. 4.3.9), be revised to include: (1) The
Transmission Provider's filed (ceiling) transmission and ancillary
services rates; (2) the Transmission Provider's offering price; (3) the
price requested by the customer; and (4) the details of the negotiated
transaction. We request that the How Working Group propose the
necessary changes in the Standards and Protocols document and the Data
Dictionary by June 2, 1997.
Turning to EPRI/NERC Working Group's request that we clarify that
the purpose of the requirement in Sec. 37.6(c)(4) (formerly found at
Sec. 37.6(c)(3)) to post discount information for 30 days is to record
the discount and does not constitute a continuing offer of a discount,
we agree that this posting requirement does not constitute an offer of
a discount. The purpose of this requirement is to document discounting
that might be considered unduly preferential or discriminatory. To
serve this purpose, it is important that Transmission Customers have
ready access to this information. Posting of discounts provides ready
access, while the audit information does not.
7. Secondary Markets
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission directed, in
Sec. 37.6(c)(4), that customers choosing to use the OASIS to offer
transmission capacity (that they have purchased) for resale must post
relevant information on the same OASIS used by that customer in
purchasing the transmission capacity. This information must be posted
on the same display page, using the same tables, as similar capability
being sold by the Transmission Provider, and the information must be
contained in the same downloadable files as the Transmission Provider's
own available capability. A customer reselling transmission capacity
without the use of an OASIS must, nevertheless, inform the original
Transmission Provider of the transaction within the time limits
prescribed by Sec. 23.1 (``Procedures for Assignment of Transmission
Service'') of the Open Access pro forma tariff.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM makes three arguments regarding secondary markets. First, CCEM
argues that the Commission erred by not allowing the assignee of
transmission capacity, or its agent, to schedule the transmission
service obtained in the secondary market. Second, CCEM argues that the
Commission should clarify that it will not impose onerous regulations
on secondary market participants. Third, CCEM argues that the
Commission erred by not excluding customers receiving service under
pre-Open Access tariffs from participation in the secondary market
until they agree to comply with the Open Access pro forma
tariff.76
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
CCEM's arguments relate more to our findings in Order No. 888 than
to the OASIS Final Rule. Accordingly, we incorporate here our findings
that we explain in greater detail in Order No. 888-A. First, the Open
Access pro forma tariff does not prohibit the assignee of transmission
capacity from scheduling transmission service with the Transmission
Provider. Second, the issues raised by CCEM with respect to the
regulation of resellers into the secondary market are fact specific and
we will decide them on a case-by-case basis. Third, we reject CCEM's
argument that customers receiving service under pre-Open Access tariffs
should be excluded from participation in the secondary market until
they agree to comply with the Open Access pro forma tariff.
8. Masking of Service Request Information
Section 37.6(e)(1)(ii) of the OASIS Final Rule requires the
Responsible Party to post certain information about the status of the
request. In Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii) of the OASIS Final Rule, the
Commission allowed the parties to mask the identity of the requester
during the negotiation period and for 30 days after the request is
accepted, denied or withdrawn.
Under Sec. 37.6(e)(1) and Sec. 37.6(e)(3), all requests for
transmission service and all transmission service curtailments or
interruptions must be posted on the Transmission Provider's OASIS in
accordance with the terms of the Transmission Provider's tariff.77
Under the OASIS Final Rule, parties to these transactions were allowed
to request that their identities be masked for 30 days. See
Secs. 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and 37.6(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The issue of the timing of when requests for transmission
service, responses thereto, curtailments, and interruptions must be
posted on the OASIS is discussed in section IV.G.9 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Requests
APPA argues that the Commission erred in permitting Transmission
Providers to withhold critical market information about requests for
transmission and ancillary services. APPA and Blue Ridge believe that
the 30-day masking period for the identity of the requester is
inappropriate. They claim that the Commission failed to require posting
of the price, quantity, and any other relevant terms or conditions
associated with a request for service at the time when the provider
accepts the request. They argue that withholding the precise terms of a
proposed transaction and the identity of parties denies other market
participants the opportunity to make informed decisions, is potentially
discriminatory, and inefficient. They argue that data provided 30 days
later are of little use to market participants.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 19-21 and Blue Ridge
Rehearing Request at p. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCEM identifies an apparent conflict between the OASIS regulations
and OASIS Final Rule preamble on the posting of denials. It asks the
Commission to clarify that Transmission Providers need not post, for
reasons other than those related to ATC, the reason for any denial of
transmission service on an OASIS. A requester can, however, request a
fuller explanation.79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEI argues that masking the identities of requesters should not
apply to system operators. EEI argues that system operators need to
know all the parties to a transaction to ensure reliability and to
ensure equity in the treatment of customers.80
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ EEI Rehearing Request at p. 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE Public Power District argues that certain provisions in the
Final Rule dealing with confidentiality (i.e., Secs. 37.6(e)(1)(iii)
and 37.6(e)(3)(i)) are in conflict with Nebraska state law. NE Public
Power District explains that it is subject to state freedom of
information laws and must disclose commercially sensitive information
such as the identity of a customer seeking transmission service, unless
the information constitutes an exempt trade secret.81 NE Public
Power District maintains that utilities subject to local freedom of
information laws should be given the option to conform their conduct to
those laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ NE Public Power District Rehearing Request at p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
We agree with APPA that the masking provision should be dropped and
we are amending our regulations accordingly. We are making this
decision as part of our new discounting policy, that we explain more
fully above and in Order No. 888-A. Consistent with this finding, we
request that the How Working Group eliminate any references in the
Standards and Protocols document to masking the identities of parties
(e.g., Sec. 4.3.7(b)). This should be done in concert with the report
to be submitted
[[Page 12498]]
no later than June 2, 1997. Moreover, EEI's concern that the masking of
parties' identities would apply to system operators is now moot. NE
Public Power District's concerns are also moot.
We agree with CCEM that language in the preamble of the OASIS Final
Rule can be interpreted as being inconsistent with the requirement in
Sec. 37.6(e)(2)(i) to provide the reasons why requests for service are
denied. However, consistent with the Commission's new discounting
policy, we will interpret Sec. 37.6(e)(2)(i) to require Transmission
Providers to post the reasons for a denial of a request for service on
the OASIS for review by all OASIS users.
We will also take this opportunity to clarify that Sec. 37.6(e)
applies not only to requests for transmission service, but also to
requests for ancillary service. Although this was the intent of the
OASIS Final Rule, it was not clearly stated. We will make the necessary
revisions to make this clear.
9. Requests for Service Made on the OASIS During Phase I
On December 23, 1996, the How Working Group filed a letter
requesting clarification of whether the Commission intended, in the
OASIS Final Rule, to require that the OASIS serve as a ``next hour''
reservation tool during Phase 1 of OASIS implementation. The letter
stated:
It was the interpretation of the How Working Group that a
Provider would accept reservation requests after 2 p.m. of the
preceding day, only if practical. Otherwise, these requests would be
accepted off-line and posted after-the-fact. It was our view that
``next hour'' functionality was not feasible in Phase 1.
In response, the Commission issued an order explaining that the OASIS
Final Rule makes a clear distinction between reserving transmission
service and scheduling transmission service.82 The Commission
further explained that the Phase 1 OASIS regulations create a mechanism
for making reservations of transmission service, while the inclusion of
energy scheduling as part of the OASIS requirements was left as a Phase
2 OASIS issue. Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledged that ``for
near-term transactions, the distinction between scheduling and
reservations tends to blur.'' This left the problem raised by the How
Working Group's letter. To wit,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See Open Access Same-time Information System and Standards
of Conduct, 77 FERC para. 61,335 at 62,491 (1996) (Clarifying
Order).
[t]he OASIS regulations provide, at 18 C.F.R. Sec. 37.6(e)(1), that
``[a]ll requests for transmission services offered by Transmission
Providers under the pro forma tariff must be made on the OASIS.''
Notwithstanding the clear language of this regulation, the How
Working Group would like to accommodate requests for service, made
after 2:00 p.m. of the day preceding the commencement of such
service, off the OASIS and states that it is not feasible to handle
such requests on the OASIS during Phase 1. [ 83]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Letter dated December 23, 1996 from the How Working Group.
The 2:00 p.m. deadline is consistent with Sec. 14.6 of the Open
Access pro forma tariff, which provides: ``Schedules for Non-Firm
Point-to-Point Transmission Service must be submitted to the
Transmission Provider no later than 2:00 p.m. . . . of the day prior
to commencement of such service. Schedules submitted after 2:00 p.m.
will be accommodated, if practicable.'' See Clarifying Order, 77
FERC at 62,492, n.4.
To resolve this difficulty, the Commission clarified in a recent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
order that,
during Phase I, 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. In all other
circumstances, requests for transmission service must be made
exclusively on the OASIS. [ 84]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Id. (Emphasis in original).
As part of the Commission's revised discount policy, see discussion
in Section IV.G.6 and Order No. 888-A, we have required Transmission
Providers to post requests for transmission and ancillary services,
including requests for discounts, on the OASIS prior to taking action
on those requests.85 This policy applies to all requests for
discounts for transmission and/or ancillary service with the exception
of requests for next-hour service during Phase I.86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(i).
\86\ See Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For next-hour service requests, the Transmission Provider, during
Phase I, must post the request for discounted service on the OASIS, as
soon as possible, but in no event later than one hour after the request
for a discount is received.
In the event that a discount is being requested for ancillary
services that are not in support of a basic transmission service being
offered by the Transmission Provider, this need not be posted on the
OASIS.87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Delay in Posting Requests for Hourly Transmission Service and
Schedule Information
Section 37.6(e) requires a Transmission Provider to post on the
OASIS requests for transmission service that is offered by that
Transmission Provider under its Open Access pro forma tariff, in
accordance with its tariff, the FPA, and Commission regulations.
Section 37.6(f) requires information about transmission service
schedules to be recorded and available for download from the OASIS.
This information must be available within seven calendar days of when
the service is scheduled.
Rehearing Requests
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that Responsible Parties
must post requests for hourly firm and nonfirm transmission within the
next hour following the request.88
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 4-5. We note that CCEM's
rehearing request regarding hourly firm transmission service is
misplaced. The Commission has rejected hourly firm point-to-point
transmission service as a mandatory service to be provided under the
Open Access pro forma tariff. See Order No. 888, FERC Stats & Regs.
at 31,752.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPA and Blue Ridge argue that the seven-day delay in posting
transmission schedule data is potentially discriminatory and makes the
data meaningless for hourly or daily transactions. They ask that
Responsible Parties post schedule information when they update postings
of ATC or, at latest, when service begins.89
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ APPA Rehearing Request at p. 23 and Blue Ridge Rehearing
Request at p. 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The OASIS regulations currently do not specify how soon the
Responsible Party must post a request for service after it is received.
However, under our new discounting policy we are requiring such
postings to be made prior to the Transmission Provider responding to
the request. Moreover, although we are not adopting a specific time
period for such postings, as requested by CCEM, we are adding a
requirement that all such postings be made on a comparable basis, to
prevent discriminatory practices.
The Phase I OASIS is a transmission information and service
application system. The Commission accepts the industry's position that
including scheduling of transmission service in the Phase I OASIS is
not possible. The Commission strongly encourages the industry to
consider including transmission service scheduling in Phase II of the
OASIS.
The reporting of schedule information serves the same purpose as
the audit information (i.e., to document discriminatory practices). The
Commission does not intend schedule information to supplement ATC
[[Page 12499]]
postings on a same-time basis during Phase I.
11. Liability for Accuracy of ATC/TTC Estimates
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission found that the
responsibility for assuring the reliability and accuracy of data
supplied by third parties rests with those third parties and not with
the public utility that posts this information on the OASIS as an
accommodation.90 As to the accuracy of a Transmission Provider's
own estimates of its ATC and TTC, the OASIS Final Rule provides that
Transmission Providers are required to post the amounts ``expected to
be available'' (Sec. 37.6(b)) but does not directly address whether
(and to what extent) Transmission Providers are liable for the accuracy
of good faith estimates made in accordance with prescribed procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See 18 CFR Sec. 37.6(g)(2) and OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at
21,755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
CSW argues that Transmission Providers should not be liable for the
accuracy of ATC & TTC estimates made in good faith and in accordance
with the company's published procedures.91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ CSW Rehearing Request at pp. 2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
As further discussed in Order No. 888-A, the Commission will not
revise the Open Access pro forma tariff, as requested by CSW, to
provide that a Transmission Provider will not be liable for errors in
an estimate made in good faith or in accordance with its published
procedure, because we believe that a utility should have the same
liability standard for operating an OASIS as it has for its other
operations.92
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See, e.g., Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 62 FERC
para. 61,015 at 61,107 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Section 37.7--Auditing Transmission Service Information
The OASIS regulations require that all OASIS database transactions,
except ``want ads'' and ``other communications'', are to be stored and
remain available for download for 90 days. After 90 days, the audit
data are available on request for three years.
Rehearing Requests
EEI argues that the retention period for audit data retained under
Sec. 37.7(b) is excessive and should be reduced from 90 days to 7 days.
EEI argues that, beyond 7 days, the data could be provided off-line,
upon request.93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ /EEI Rehearing Request at p. 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, EPRI/NERC Working Group (with APPA dissenting) argues
that the Commission should reduce the on-line availability of the ATC/
TTC data in the audit file from 90 to 10 days. They claim that the
longer time limit is burdensome and unfeasible and suggest making the
data available off-line.94
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The Commission agrees with the proposal of the EPRI/NERC Working
Group majority that we should reduce the amount of time that the audit
file remains on-line. However, we believe that ten days may not be long
enough to provide OASIS users with sufficient time to evaluate these
data. In our judgment, 20 calendar days is a period that will allow
OASIS users who wish to do so adequate time to find and download these
data (even allowing for weekends or holidays) without unduly burdening
Transmission Providers. Therefore, we will modify the regulations at
Sec. 37.7(b) to shorten--from 90 to 20 days--the time during which ATC/
TTC postings must remain available on the OASIS for download. The data
will, however, remain available (upon request) for three years from the
date on which they are first posted.
We will take this opportunity to correct an omission in
Sec. 37.6(g)(3). As written, this provision currently does not specify
the retention period for notices of employee transfers. We will correct
this omission by specifying that the posting requirements for notices
of employee transfers are the same as those provided in Sec. 37.7 for
audit data postings. We request that the How Working Group propose the
necessary template (for notices of employee transfers) to be included
in the Standards and Protocols document.
We also will take this opportunity to clarify that the audit data
required to be made available for three years under Sec. 37.7(b) are to
be made available upon request for download in the same electronic form
as used when they originally were posted on the OASIS.
I. Standards and Communication Protocols
1. CCEM's Suggested Changes to the Standards and Protocols Document
The OASIS Final Rule was accompanied by a Standards and Protocols
document, revised on September 10, 1996, to help ensure that each OASIS
will provide information in a uniform manner.95 The publication
details the Phase I requirements for technical issues related to the
implementation and use of an OASIS (i.e., a compilation of OASIS
standards and communication protocols).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission should clarify certain technical
aspects of the templates in the OASIS Standards and Protocols document.
We will discuss these various suggested revisions separately.
a. Service Request Priorities
The Open Access pro forma tariff requires Transmission Providers to
respond to customer requests for point-to-point service within a
certain time limit depending on the type of service requested.96
The OASIS Standards and Protocols document states that ``[i]f a
purchase request is approved by the Seller, then it must be again
confirmed by the Customer. Once the customer confirms an approved
purchase, a reservation for those services is considered to exist,
unless later the reservation is reassigned or displaced.'' 97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See Open Access pro forma tariff at Secs. 17.5 and 18.4.
\97\ See Standards and Protocols document at Sec. 3.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
CCEM asks the Commission to clarify priorities between competing
requests for service. They also ask that Transmission Customers be
allowed to confirm a purchase request before it has been approved by
the Transmission Provider.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPRI/NERC Working Group requests that the Commission: (1) specify a
time limit for customer confirmation of accepted requests for service;
(2) eliminate the confirmation step; or (3) handle confirmation limits
in umbrella service agreements.99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ EPRI/NERC Working Group letter dated July 3, 1996 at pp. 1-
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The requirement that a customer confirm its request for service
appears in the OASIS Standards and Protocols document (and not in the
Open Access pro forma tariff or 18 CFR Part 37). Although the easiest
approach might be to eliminate the confirmation step, the Commission is
reluctant to modify the OASIS Standards and Protocols document at this
late date. The Commission is also reluctant to specify confirmation
time limits without first soliciting the views of representative
industry segments. Accordingly, the
[[Page 12500]]
Commission requests that the industry address this issue as part of the
Phase II report due on or before August 4, 1997.
As to EPRI/NERC Working Group's suggestion of handling confirmation
limits in umbrella service agreements, we find this acceptable, for the
time being, as long as Transmission Providers treat all customers,
including their own wholesale merchant employees, comparably.
b. Clarification of the Requirement to Post, Upload, and Download
Information
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission discussed the necessity for
Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML) screen displays and stated that this
information also needed to be made available for downloading.100
The Commission also required OASIS sites to be set up in a manner that
will allow customers to upload certain information to OASIS nodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,756.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that when the OASIS Final
Rule makes an individual reference to ``uploading'', ``downloading'',
or ``posting'' requirements (without expressly making a reference to
all three of these requirements), the Commission, nevertheless,
intended to require, as appropriate, a collective requirement to
upload, download, and post the information at issue. CCEM points out
that uploading and downloading are computer to computer transactions,
while posting is an on-line function. CCEM argues that, in order for
the OASIS system to function effectively in providing open access
Transmission Customers with information through electronic means,
uploading and downloading should always be required as an alternative
to comparable on-line services.101
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
Section 4.3.1 of the revised Standards and Protocols document,
issued subsequent to CCEM's request, specifies what type of information
may be uploaded to, or downloaded from, OASIS nodes. Thus, CCEM's goal
of clarifying the requirements for uploading, downloading, and posting
has been met. We, therefore, find that it is not necessary to broadly
reinterpret the terms used in the OASIS Final Rule, as urged by CCEM.
c. Sequence of Data Elements Appearing in Templates
Section 4.2.4.2 of the revised Standards and Protocol document
discusses the format of downloadable files. The narrative in
Sec. 4.2.4.2 2.d states:
The DATA--ROWS record contains the number of data records
following the COLUMN--HEADERS. The COLUMN--HEADERS record contains
the template element name for each field that is required in the
Template, in the exact order as listed in the Template. * * *
The Template information then follows as records which
correspond one-to-one with the column headings.
Rehearing Request
CCEM requests clarification that the data elements that make up the
templates in the Standards and Protocols document are fixed in sequence
and in number. CCEM argues that because computer systems will be
established on the basis of the templates outlined in the Standards and
Protocols document, including the sequence of templates and the number
of data elements, it is important that the order of the data provided
in the templates not be shuffled. Otherwise, problems may occur in the
transfer and receipt of information between computer systems.102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
To avoid any possible confusion, we hereby clarify that the
Standards and Protocols document requires that the data elements in the
templates are fixed in sequence and number, and are not to differ from
OASIS node to OASIS node. However, the Commission will continue to
order revisions to the Standards and Protocols document periodically
(thus implementing across-the-board changes to the templates for all
OASIS nodes), as necessary.
2. Standardized Format for Electronic Tariff Filings
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission found that utilities must
provide tariff downloads from their OASIS sites in the same format that
they use to file their tariffs with the Commission. Order No. 888
permitted tariff filings to be in any word processor format.
Rehearing Request
APPA argues that the standardized electronic format for tariffs
needs to be specified and recommends the use of either ASCII or
HTML.103
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ APPA Rehearing Request at p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The Commission's order clarifying Order Nos. 888 and 889 compliance
matters resolved the issue raised by APPA by requiring that tariffs be
filed in either Wordperfect 5.1/5.2 or ASCII format.104 However,
in the near future, the Commission expects to adopt another standard
word processor for its own uses (i.e., Wordperfect 6.1). The Commission
will, therefore, modify the finding in the Clarifying Order to accept
postings of tariff filings on the OASIS in the ASCII format or in
whatever standard word processor format is currently authorized by the
Commission for its own uses.105 Once posted, a tariff posting will
remain available for download in its original format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open-Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
Conduct, Order Clarifying Order Nos. 888 and 889, 76 FERC para.
61,009 at 61,026 (1996) (Clarifying Order).
\105\ A review of CIPS, or any successor, will show what
standard word processor is currently authorized by the Commission
for its own uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Company Codes and Identification Displays
In the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission required the use of ``DUNS
numbers'' to identify transmission owning utilities and customers on
OASIS nodes.106
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ ``DUNS numbers'' refer to the Data Universal Numbering
System, maintained by Dun and Bradstreet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Requests
APPA argues that, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the use
of DUNS numbers could result in costs being incurred by OASIS users.
APPA also argues that, because Dun & Bradstreet also owns Moody's
Investors Services, DUNS numbers may somehow allow Dun & Bradstreet/
Moody's customers to obtain access to confidential information about
APPA members. Accordingly, APPA requests that the Commission use the
EIA (Energy Information Agency) UCode in lieu of DUNS numbers to
identify transmission owning utilities and OASIS customers.107
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ APPA Rehearing Request at p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that when information is
uploaded and downloaded, the DUNS number identification of the parties
be the only field required to identify a company. CCEM also requests
clarification that the Commission require that for purposes of the HTML
displays, the minimum data element to
[[Page 12501]]
be displayed should be the company's alias/initials.108
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, CCEM requests that Transmission Providers be required
to maintain an additional display containing a cross-reference of DUNS
number, full company name, and alias/initials. CCEM argues that the
cross-reference will reduce confusion on the OASIS.109
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
The industry-wide Internet site on the WWW (http:/www.tsin.com)
reports that Dun & Bradstreet will issue DUNS numbers at no charge and
provides instructions and procedures for applying for a DUNS number at
no cost. This representation is consistent with our experience in
issuing DUNS numbers for natural gas pipelines and their customers. We,
therefore, find APPA's concerns about the costs of DUNS numbers to be
unwarranted.
As to APPA's concern about DUNS numbers somehow giving Moody's
customers unrestricted access to otherwise restricted information, we
do not find this concern convincing. The Commission has several years''
experience with requiring the use of DUNS numbers for similar
identification purposes in the natural gas pipeline industry and has
not received any complaints along these lines.
We decline to adopt CCEM's proposal concerning identification
fields and a data element displays. The industry is in the midst of
implementing OASIS standards and we are reluctant to modify the
Standards and Protocols document at this time unless there is a serious
need for the modification. CCEM's proposal is one that may somewhat
improve the efficiency of OASIS operations, but an OASIS can operate
without it, and, with experience, other solutions may prove preferable.
We request that the industry consider CCEM's proposal when developing
standards for OASIS Phase II implementation.
We agree with CCEM that an additional display, such as a cross-
reference of possible business partners and their various
identification codes and symbols, would greatly enhance the industry's
ability to transact business. Subsequent to CCEM's request, the
``TSIN'' WWW site began providing such a cross-reference. As long as
this Internet site continues to provide this information for the entire
industry, there is no need for individual Transmission Providers to do
so.
4. Common Location Codes
In the preamble to the OASIS Final Rule, we stated that we were
abandoning the proposal in the RIN NOPR to require that the OASIS
incorporate a system for location codes. We requested that the industry
continue its efforts to develop a common naming convention to be
implemented as soon as practicable.
Rehearing Request
CCEM argues that the Commission should modify the OASIS Final Rule
to include a requirement that Transmission Providers provide a
downloadable on-line listing of all PORs and PODs that includes point
name, point alias, and point code. CCEM also requests that when
downloading this information, the customer should have the ability to
download only those aspects of the listing that have changed over a
user-defined time period.110
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
After CCEM filed its rehearing request, the Standards and Protocols
document was revised to require that this information be
provided.111
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See Standards and Protocols document at Sec. 4.3.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Time by Which Hourly Postings Must be Made Available
The OASIS Final Rule requires that updates of hourly postings under
Sec. 37.6(b)(3)(i)(C)(2) are to be made on the hour.
Rehearing Request
CCEM requests that the Commission clarify that all hourly postings
will be available no later than ``on the hour.'' CCEM argues that these
requirements will be critical if computer-to-computer interfaces are to
be accomplished with reliability and comparability.112
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
Subsequent to CCEM's request, the Commission issued a revised
Standards and Protocol document that defines permissible deviations
from the hourly posting requirement.113 The Transmission
Provider's most recent transmission services information must be
available on the OASIS node within five minutes of its required posting
time at least 98 percent of the time. The remaining two percent of the
time, the transmission services information must be available within
ten minutes of its scheduled posting time.114 We are satisfied
with the resolution of this issue in the revised Standards and
Protocols document, at least for the time being. However, the industry
may want to address this issue again, in Phase II, after it has more
experience transacting business on the OASIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See supra note 4.
\114\ See Standards and Protocols document at Sec. 5.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Mechanism for Recovering Oasis Expenses
In the preamble to the OASIS Final Rule, the Commission concluded
that it is appropriate that all wholesale Transmission Customers and
all unbundled retail Transmission Customers pay a share of OASIS
development costs in their rates. The costs of developing an OASIS are
to be included in unbundled transmission rates with variable costs of
operating an OASIS to be recovered, to the extent possible, in usage
fees. Recovery of OASIS costs is left to individual rate
proceedings.115
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,760-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Requests
EEI argues that the costs of operating an OASIS should be
recoverable in supplements that the Transmission Providers file to
their rate schedules on a company-specific basis. They ask that
Transmission Providers not be required to amend their approved tariffs
to seek recovery of OASIS expenses. They argue that refiling would be a
problem because it would entail unnecessary expenses, because the level
of such expenses is subject to change, and because the OASIS
requirements are still evolving and the systems are not yet
complete.116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ EEI Rehearing Request at pp. 54-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
EEI is asking the Commission to allow utilities to automatically
adjust their transmission rates to recover their OASIS costs without
filing for a change in rates. The Commission has allowed this sort of
automatic rate adjustment for fuel costs through fuel adjustment
clauses, but only because fuel costs are a significant portion of total
costs and can be volatile. OASIS costs are neither. We deny EEI's
request.
K. Section 37.8--Implementation Schedule; Phases
Order No. 889 provided that all of the requirements prescribed in
the standards of conduct were to be complied with and Phase I OASIS
sites meeting all the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule were to be
in operation by November 1, 1996.117 This compliance schedule
later was modified
[[Page 12502]]
(in response to a request from the How Working Group for a two-step
time extension) with full compliance required by January 3,
1997.118 Thus, the date for compliance with Phase I OASIS
implementation and for compliance with the standards of conduct has
elapsed and the language in Sec. 37.8 is no longer accurate, even as a
record of past events. We, therefore, will revise 18 CFR Part 37 to
delete this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,764.
\118\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rehearing Request
Union argues that it has been given insufficient time to comply and
objects to the requirement that OASIS systems must be in place by
November 1, 1996. Union argues that compliance by such an early date
will require the company to incur a considerable effort and expense and
will involve the development of intricate electronic information
functions, even though the operational requirements for OASIS sites
have not yet been completed.119
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Union Rehearing Request at pp. 53-54, 56-57. We also note
that as of the issuance of this order, Union's OASIS site is in
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Conclusion
We find Union's arguments to be moot. As noted above, after Union
filed its request for rehearing, the Commission issued a revised
Standards and Protocols document that more fully describes the
operational requirements of OASIS sites, and granted the request from
the How Working Group for a 2-month time extension for compliance with
the requirements of Order No. 889. Moreover, the Commission invited
comments from interested persons prior to issuing the revised Standards
and Protocols document.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 120 requires any proposed
or final rule issued by the Commission to contain a description and
analysis of the impact that the proposed or final rule would have on
small entities or to contain a certification that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Order No. 889 contained a
certification under Sec. 605(b) of the RFA that the OASIS Final Rule
would not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.121
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601-612.
\121\ See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,762-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRECA challenges this certification.122 NRECA recognizes that
OASIS requirements do not apply unless a non-public utility offers
reciprocal transmission service.123 However, NRECA maintains that
business necessity will force non-public utilities to file open access
tariffs, and thus subject themselves to OASIS requirements, since, if
they do not, ``they will not retain access over the long-term to the
nation's bulk power transmission grid--access they must have if they
wish to stay in business.'' 124
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ NRECA Rehearing Request at pp. 42-48. On November 1, 1996,
NRECA filed a supplement to its request for rehearing and
clarifications. We will accept NRECA's pleading as a request for
clarification and/or a motion for reconsideration, and not as a
request for rehearing, because it was not filed within the 30-day
statutory time limit for rehearing requests. See 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 8251(a).
\123\ OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,742.
\124\ NRECA Rehearing Request at pp. 42-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the OASIS Final Rule, we noted that the entities that would have
to comply with the Final Rule are public utilities. However, the
Commission under appropriate circumstances will grant waiver of the
Final Rule requirements to small public utilities. Similarly, it will
grant waiver of the reciprocity condition to small non-public
utilities. As discussed earlier, in section IV.B.3, the Commission's
waiver policy follows the SBA definition of small electric
utility.125
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 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) (1995).
In the Open Access Final Rule, we concluded that, under these
definitions, the Open Access Final Rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We
reaffirm that conclusion in Order No. 888-A, which is being issued
contemporaneously with this order on rehearing. This same conclusion
is warranted here, because Order No. 889 and this order on rehearing
only implement the OASIS requirements of the Open Access Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with NRECA that non-public utilities must publish open
access tariffs or forego access to the nation's bulk power transmission
grid. As we noted in the Open Access Final Rule, non-public utilities
do not have to offer open access tariffs in order to comply with the
open access reciprocity condition; rather, they must offer reciprocal
transmission access to those public utility Transmission Providers from
whom they receive open access service. Additionally, reciprocal service
is voluntary. If non-public utilities do not want to offer reciprocal
service, they may continue to seek voluntary, bilateral transmission
services from public utilities.126 We note that since NRECA filed
its rehearing comments, the Commission has issued several orders
addressing its waiver policy and specific waiver requests. We have
granted waivers of the reciprocity provision in the Open Access pro
forma tariffs and waivers of the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule:
approximately 17 small entities have received waivers of the Open
Access Final Rule;127 approximately 36 small entities have
received waivers of the requirement to establish and maintain an OASIS
and/or the requirement to comply with the standards of conduct
requirements of the OASIS Final Rule.128 We also have granted
waiver of the open access tariff reciprocity provision that would apply
to ten small non-public utility applicants if they chose to receive
open access transmission service, and have determined that 19 small
non-public electric utilities that requested exemption from all or part
of the Open Access Rule are not public utilities subject to the
requirement to file an open access tariff.129
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Open Access Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,540 and 21,691.
\127\ See Order No. 888-A at Section VI.
\128\ See Central Electric, 77 FERC at 61,311, 61,313-317 (3
waivers, including 2 for entities later found non-jurisdictional);
Northern States (21 waivers); Black Creek (3 waivers); Midwest (5
waivers); UtiliCorp, et al., 77 FERC 61,027 (1997) (2 waivers);
Soyland (6 waivers); and Dakota (3 waivers). Of the entities granted
waivers by these orders, at least 36 involve small public utilities.
\129\ See Central Electric; Niabrara; and Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NRECA speculates that it may be burdensome for small non-
public utilities to file for waiver of our Open Access and OASIS Final
Rules, many small public and non-public utilities have found little or
no problem in obtaining waivers when they are properly justified under
our waiver standards. As the Commission's decisions show, the
Commission is carefully evaluating 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.
Given that this order makes only minor revisions to Order No. 889,
none of which are substantive, and that we are granting waivers from
the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule to small entities where
appropriate, we reaffirm our earlier certification that the OASIS Final
Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and that no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required pursuant to Sec. 603 of the RFA.
[[Page 12503]]
VI. Environmental Statement
Order Nos. 888 and 889 were the joint subjects of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement issued in the Open Access NOPR
proceeding in Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001 on April 12, 1996.
Given that this order makes only minor revisions to Order No. 889, none
of which is substantive, no separate environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement has been prepared in this proceeding.
VII. Information Collection Statement
Order No. 889 contained an information collection statement for
which the Commission obtained approval from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). Given that this order makes only minor revisions to
Order No. 889, none of which is substantive, OMB approval for this
order will not be necessary. However, the Commission will send a copy
of this order to OMB, for informational purposes only.
The information reporting requirements under this order are
virtually unchanged from those contained in Order No. 889.130
Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements
by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 [Attention Michael Miller,
Information Services Division, (202) 208-1415], and the Office of
Management and Budget [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, (202) 395-3087].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ As discussed in section IV.E.3 above, to aid in our
monitoring efforts, we are modifying Secs. 37.4 and 37.6 to require
the posting of the Transmission Provider logs already required (by
the OASIS Final Rule) to be maintained. We also are revising the
Standards and Protocols document to specify the templates for
posting discounts to be consistent with our revised discount policy.
However, given that this information was already required to be
assembled and available for audit, these additional posting
requirements will have only a negligible effect on the information
collection requirement. Moreover, these effects are more than offset
by the revision to Sec. 37.7(b) that reduces, from 90 days to 20
days, the time during which ATC/TTC postings must remain available
for download on the OASIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Effective Date
The changes ordered in this order on rehearing will become
effective on May 13, 1997. By issuing this order, we are not further
delaying the requirement to comply with Order No. 889 by January 3,
1997. The current requirements of Part 37 will remain in full effect
until the changes required by this order become effective.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37
Electric power plants, Electric utilities.
By the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends 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. Secs. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C.
Sec. 9701; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7101-7352.
2. Section 37.3 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 37.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(e) Wholesale merchant function means the sale for resale of
electric energy in interstate commerce.
* * * * *
3. Section 37.4 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)(5)(v) and
(b)(5)(vi), and by revising paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) and (b)(5)(iv) to
read as follows:
Sec. 37.4 Standards of conduct.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) The Transmission Provider must keep a log, available for
Commission audit, detailing the circumstances and manner in which it
exercised its discretion under any terms of the tariff. The information
contained in this log is to be posted on the OASIS as provided in
Sec. 37.6(g)(4).
(iv) The Transmission Provider may not, through its tariffs or
otherwise, give preference to sales for resale by the wholesale
merchant function or by any affiliate, over the interests of any other
wholesale customer in matters relating to the sale or purchase of
transmission service (including issues of price, curtailments,
scheduling, priority, ancillary services, etc.).
* * * * *
4. Section 37.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii),
(e)(1)(iii), (e)(3)(i), and (g)(3) and by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iv),
(c)(5), (d)(5), (e)(1)(iv), and (g)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) The word ``interconnection'', as used in the definition of
``posted path'', means all facilities connecting two adjacent systems
or control areas.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Unconstrained posted paths. (A) Postings of firm and nonfirm
ATC and TTC shall be posted separately by the day, showing for the
current day and the next six days following and thereafter, by the
month for the 12 months next following. If the Transmission Provider
charges separately for on-peak and off-peak periods in its tariff, ATC
and TTC will be posted separately for the current day and the next six
days following for each period. These postings are to be updated
whenever the ATC changes by more than 20 percent of the Path's TTC.
* * * * *
(c) Posting transmission service products and prices.
* * * * *
(3) Any offer of a discount for any transmission service made by
the Transmission Provider must be announced to all potential customers
solely by posting on the OASIS.
(4) For any transaction for transmission service agreed to by the
Transmission Provider and a customer, the Transmission Provider (at the
time when ATC must be adjusted in response to the transaction), must
post on the OASIS (and make available for download) information
describing the transaction (including: price; quantity; points of
receipt and delivery; length and type of service; identification of
whether the transaction involves the Transmission Provider's wholesale
merchant function or any affiliate; identification of what, if any,
ancillary service transactions are associated with this transmission
service transaction; and any other relevant terms and conditions) and
shall keep such information posted on the OASIS for at least 30 days. A
record of the transaction must be retained and kept available as part
of the audit log required in Sec. 37.7.
(5) Customers choosing to use the OASIS to offer for resale
transmission capacity they have purchased must post relevant
information to the same OASIS as used by the one from whom the Reseller
purchased the transmission capacity. This information must be posted on
the same display page, using the same tables, as similar capability
[[Page 12504]]
being sold by the Transmission Provider, and the information must be
contained in the same downloadable files as the Transmission Provider's
own available capability. A customer reselling transmission capacity
without the use of an OASIS must, nevertheless, inform the original
Transmission Provider of the transaction within any time limits
prescribed by the Transmission Provider's tariff or in a contract or
service agreement between the Transmission Provider and a customer.
(d) Posting ancillary service offerings and prices.
* * * * *
(2) Any offer of a discount for any ancillary service made by the
Transmission Provider must be announced to all potential customers
solely by posting on the OASIS.
(3) For any transaction for ancillary service agreed to by the
Transmission Provider and a customer, the Transmission Provider (at the
time when ATC must be adjusted in response to an associated
transmission service transaction, if any), must post on the OASIS (and
make available for download) information describing the transaction
(including: date and time when the agreement was entered into; price;
quantity; length and type of service; identification of whether the
transaction involves the Transmission Provider's wholesale merchant
function or any affiliate; identification of what, if any, transmission
service transactions are associated with this ancillary service
transaction; and any other relevant terms and conditions) and shall
keep such information posted on the OASIS for at least 30 days. A
record of the transaction must be retained and kept available as part
of the audit log required in Sec. 37.7.
(4) Any other interconnected operations service offered by the
Transmission Provider may be posted, with the price for that service.
(5) Any entity offering an ancillary service shall have the right
to post the offering of that service on the OASIS if the service is one
required to be offered by the Transmission Provider under the pro forma
tariff prescribed by part 35 of this chapter. Any entity may also post
any other interconnected operations service voluntarily offered by the
Transmission Provider. Postings by customers and third parties must be
on the same page, and in the same format, as postings of the
Transmission Provider.
(e) Posting specific transmission and ancillary service requests and
responses.
(1) General rules. (i) All requests for transmission and ancillary
service offered by Transmission Providers under the pro forma tariff,
including requests for discounts, must be made on the OASIS, and posted
prior to the Transmission Provider responding to the request, except as
discussed in paragraphs (e)(1) (ii) and (iii). The Transmission
Provider must post all requests for transmission service and for
ancillary service comparably. Requests for transmission and ancillary
service, and the responses to such requests, must be conducted in
accordance with the Transmission Provider's tariff, the Federal Power
Act, and Commission regulations.
(ii) The requirement in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, to
post requests for transmission and ancillary service offered by
Transmission Providers under the pro forma tariff, including requests
for discounts, prior to the Transmission Provider responding to the
request, does not apply to requests for next-hour service made during
Phase I.
(iii) In the event that a discount is being requested for ancillary
services that are not in support of basic transmission service provided
by the Transmission Provider, such request need not be posted on the
OASIS.
(iv) In processing a request for transmission or ancillary service,
the Responsible Party shall post the same information as required in
Sec. 37.6(c)(4), Sec. 37.6(d)(3), and the following information: the
date and time when the request is made, its place in any queue, the
status of that request, and the result (accepted, denied, withdrawn).
* * * * *
(3) Posting when a transaction is curtailed or interrupted.
(i) When any transaction is curtailed or interrupted, the
Transmission Provider must post notice of the curtailment or
interruption on the OASIS, and the Transmission Provider must state on
the OASIS the reason why the transaction could not be continued or
completed.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) Notices of transfers of personnel shall be posted as described
in Sec. 37.4(b)(2). The posting requirements are the same as those
provided in Sec. 37.7 for audit data postings.
(4) Logs detailing the circumstances and manner in which a
Transmission Provider or Responsible Party exercised its discretion
under any terms of the tariff shall be posted as described in
Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(iii). The posting requirements are the same as those
provided in Sec. 37.7 for audit data postings.
5. Section 37.7 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 37.7 Auditing transmission service information.
* * * * *
(b) Audit data must remain available for download on the OASIS for
90 days, except ATC/TTC postings that must remain available for
download on the OASIS for 20 days. The audit data are to be retained
and made available upon request for download for three years from the
date when they are first posted in the same electronic form as used
when they originally were posted on the OASIS.
Sec. 37.8 [Removed]
6. Section 37.8 is removed.
[Note: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
Attachment 1
List of Requests for Rehearing of Order No. 889
(This list includes all requests for rehearing that made a
reference to Order No. 889 in their text and/or caption)
Company Name (Abbreviation)
1. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority (AL MEA)*
2. Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. and South Mississippi Electric
Power Association (AL EC)*
3. Operating Companies of American Electric Power System (AEP)
4. American Public Power Association (APPA)
5. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin EC)*
6. Blue Ridge Power Agency, Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative,
Inc., Sam Rayburn G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Tex-La
Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. (Blue Ridge)
7. Ralph R. Mabey, Trustee for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative,
Inc. (Cajun)*
8. Carolina Power & Light Company (Carolina P&L)
9. Central Power and Light Company, West Texas Utilities Company,
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power
Company (Central P&L)*
10. Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Central
Montana EC)*
11. Cities of Benton, Conway, North Little Rock, Osceola, Prescott,
West Memphis, Arkansas and the Farmers Electric Cooperative
Corporation (AK Cities)*
12. City of Redding, CA (Redding)
13. City of Santa Clara, CA (Santa Clara)*
14. Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market (CCEM)
15. Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU)
[[Page 12505]]
16. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Long Island
Lighting Company, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, and
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (ConEd)
17. Cooperative Power (Cooperative Power)*
18. Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
19. El Paso Electric Company (El Paso)
20. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC), on behalf of Industry
Management Process on ``how'' to implement Transmission Services
Information Networks (EPRI/NERC Working Group)
21. Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)*
22. Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power Corp)*
23. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Hoosier EC)*
24. Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power)
25. Indianapolis Power & Light Company (Indianapolis P&L)
26. Michigan Systems (Michigan Public Power Agency, Michigan South
Central Power Agency, and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.)
on behalf of themselves, Florida Municipal Power Agency, and Central
Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (Michigan Systems)
27. Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP)
28. Montana-Dakota Utilities Company (Montana-Dakota Utilities)
29. Municipal Electric Utilities Association of New York State (NY
MU)
30. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
31. Nebraska Public Power District (NE Public Power District)
32. New York Power Pool (NYPP)
33. Northwest Regional Transmission Association (NWRTA)*
34. Nuclear Energy Institute (Nuclear Energy Institute)
35. Nucor Corporation (Nucor)
36. Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and Indiana-Kentucky Electric
Corporation (Ohio Valley)
37. Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association and Allegheny Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (PA Coops)
38. Public Service Company of Colorado (Public Service Co of CO)
39. Southern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison)
40. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) ``'
41. Southwest Regional Transmission Association (SWRTA)*
42. Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS)
43. Transmission Dependent Utility Systems (TDU Systems)
44. Union Electric Company (Union Electric)
45. Utilities for an Improved Transition (FIT Utilities)
46. Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)
* Request for rehearing raises no direct Order No. 889 issues.
** Request for clarification.
[FR Doc. 97-5768 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
