99-15061. Open Access Same-Time Information System  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 34117-34125]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-15061]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
    
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    
    18 CFR Part 37
    
    [Docket No. RM98-3-000; Order No. 605]
    
    
    Open Access Same-Time Information System
    
    Issued May 27, 1999.
    AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
    amending its regulations to: Extend the retention period and 
    availability of information on curtailments and interruptions; allow 
    the Commission staff and the public to access the supporting 
    information on curtailments and interruptions, upon request; codify 
    that OASIS users are allowed to make file transfers and queries as 
    defined in the Standards and Communications Protocols (S&CP) Document; 
    clarify that Responsible Parties are required to provide access to 
    their OASIS sites for OASIS users making automated queries for 
    extensive amounts of data; add a provision to allow Responsible 
    Parties, under certain circumstances, to limit a user's access to an 
    OASIS node; and add a provision to require OASIS users to notify 
    Responsible Parties one month in advance of initiating a significant 
    amount, or significantly increasing the use, of automated queries. The 
    Commission believes that additional information about the state of the 
    transmission system will enable customers to make better decisions 
    about the quality of the transmission service they intend to purchase.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 26, 1999.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    
    Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information), Office of Economic Policy, 
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
    Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-1283
    Paul Robb (Technical Information), Office of Electric Power Regulation, 
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
    Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 219-2702
    Andrea Weinstein (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
    Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-1017
    
    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., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426.
        The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to 
    the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission from November 
    14, 1994, to the present. CIPS can be accessed via Internet through 
    FERC's Home page (http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the CIPS Link or the 
    Energy Information Online icon. Documents will be available on CIPS in 
    ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474 
    or by E-mail to cipsmaster@ferc.fed.us.
        This document is also available through the Commission's Records 
    and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and 
    retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission 
    after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present 
    can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference 
    Room or
    
    [[Page 34118]]
    
    remotely via Internet through FERC's Home page using the RIMS link or 
    the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is available at 
    202-208-2222, or by E-mail to rimsmaster@ferc.fed.us.
        Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be 
    purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International, 
    Inc. RVJ International, Inc. is located in the Public Reference Room at 
    888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, 
    William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr.
    
    Background
    
        This proceeding began with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking (NOPR) on July 29, 1998.1 The NOPR addressed 
    three main Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) 
    2 issues: (1) The retention period and availability of 
    information about curtailments and interruptions; (2) the ability of 
    OASIS users to make file transfers and automated computer-to-computer 
    file transfers and queries; and (3) limiting a user's access to an 
    OASIS node.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Open Access Same-Time Information System, Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 32,531 (1998); 63 FR 42296, 
    August 7, 1998.
        \2\ Open Access Same-Time Information System (Formerly Real-Time 
    Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC 
    Stats. & Regs. para. 31,035 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 889-A, 
    FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,049 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 
    889-B, 81 FERC para. 61,253 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        We invited comments on enumerated issues, along with general 
    comments. Comments were filed by 16 commenters. These comments were 
    generally favorable to the proposed changes, although numerous 
    disagreements remained as to the details. The comments will be 
    discussed below on an issue-by-issue basis.3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ In the discussion that follows, our references to comments 
    are illustrative and not exhaustive. While we have identified all of 
    the major issues raised by the commenters, we have not attempted to 
    identify all commenters in instances where more than one comment 
    makes the same point.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        This final rule is being issued after a review of the comments 
    filed in response to the Commission's NOPR issued in this proceeding on 
    July 29, 1998. The final rule becomes effective on July 26, 1999.
    
    Discussion
    
        In this final rule, we are making revisions to 18 CFR Part 37. 
    These revisions include: (1) Amending the retention period for 
    supporting information about curtailments and interruptions in 
    Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(ii); (2) amending Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(ii) to allow the 
    Commission staff and the public access to the supporting information on 
    curtailments and interruptions, upon request; (3) amending 
    Sec. 37.6(a)(6) to allow OASIS users to make file transfers and queries 
    as defined in the S&CP Document; (4) adding Sec. 37.5(c) to require 
    Responsible Parties to provide access to their OASIS sites for OASIS 
    users making automated queries for extensive amounts of data; (5) 
    adding Sec. 37.5(d) and Sec. 37.5(e) to allow Responsible Parties, 
    under certain circumstances, to limit a user's access to an OASIS node; 
    and (6) adding Sec. 37.8(a) to require OASIS users to notify 
    Responsible Parties one month in advance of initiating a significant 
    amount, or significantly increasing the use, of automated queries.
    
    A. Access to, and Retention of Supporting Information on Curtailments 
    and Interruptions
    
    1. Retention Period
        The first issue is whether to extend the retention period of 
    supporting information on curtailments and interruptions. Currently, 
    our regulations at 18 CFR 37.6(e)(ii) require that Transmission 
    Providers make available supporting information about curtailments and 
    interruptions for 60 days after the occurrence of the curtailment or 
    interruption, upon request by the affected customer. Our regulations at 
    Sec. 37.6(e)(i) require that a Transmission Provider post notice of the 
    curtailment or interruption on the OASIS and state why the transaction 
    could not be continued or completed. Furthermore, Sec. 37.6(e)(ii) 
    required that information to support the curtailment and the operating 
    status of the facilities involved in the constraint must be maintained.
        In the NOPR, we noted that issues concerning curtailments and 
    interruptions have been the subject of a number of informal complaints 
    to the FERC Enforcement Hotline. Accordingly, we proposed to revise our 
    regulations to require that Transmission Providers retain supporting 
    information about curtailments and interruptions for three years.
    
    Comments
    
        A number of commenters supported the Commission's proposal to 
    require Transmission Providers to retain the supporting information 
    about curtailments and interruptions for three years. Numerous 
    commenters believe that several aspects of the Commission's proposal 
    need clarification.
        The How Group 4 recognizes that supporting data can be 
    voluminous and it recommends the following clarification: OASIS systems 
    are still required to provide curtailment information on-line in the 
    current templates for ninety (90) days [18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(i)], and 
    supporting information must be retained off-line for three 
    years.5 The How Group notes that their recommendation is 
    consistent with the retention requirements for audit data. Cal ISO, 
    MAIN and Southwest support the How Group's proposal.6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ During a technical conference held by the Commission's staff 
    in July 1995, a consensus developed that two industry groups should 
    be formed, one dealing with ``what'' information should be posted on 
    the network and the other dealing with ``how'' to design the OASIS. 
    The ``what'' group would be facilitated by the North American 
    Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the ``how'' group would be 
    facilitated by the Electric Power Research Institute. See Real-Time 
    Information Networks, Notice of Timetable and Opportunity for 
    Participation in Industry Working Groups, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 
    35,029 (1995).
        \5\ How Group comments at 2.
        \6\ A list of Commenters' full names and corresponding 
    abbreviations is contained in Attachment 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Cinergy is unclear as to where the information needs to be 
    maintained. Cinergy requests that, if storage of the supporting 
    information is to be off-line, then the Commission should require the 
    Transmission Providers to provide near-term curtailment and 
    interruption data on-line for at least 120 days.7
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\ See Cinergy comments at 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPSA supports the Commission's proposal to amend its regulations to 
    require that Transmission Providers retain supporting information about 
    curtailments and interruptions for three years. EPSA, however, argues 
    that three years may be insufficient in some circumstances. EPSA argues 
    that Transmission Providers should be required to maintain the 
    supporting data for so long as necessary if such data relates to a 
    complaint pending before the Commission, or otherwise is needed to 
    resolve issues in an ongoing proceeding.8
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\ EPSA comments at 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        CSW and VEPCO argue that a three-year retention period is too long 
    and that Transmission Providers would be transformed into 
    archivists.9 CSW asserts that a one-year retention period is 
    a more cost-effective approach. VEPCO recommends that the Commission 
    keep the 60-day retention requirement. However, VEPCO notes that at a 
    maximum, requiring retention for one year might be useful in
    
    [[Page 34119]]
    
    comparing curtailments and interruptions on a seasonal basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \9\ See CSW comments at 2; VEPCO comments at 5-6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        After considering the comments, we continue to believe that three 
    years is an appropriate period for maintaining supporting information 
    about curtailments and interruptions. As the How Group notes, the 
    proposed three-year retention period for supporting curtailment and 
    interruption data is consistent with the retention period for audit 
    data.10 Therefore, we will modify the regulations at 18 CFR 
    37.6(e)(3)(ii) to require that the information to support a curtailment 
    or interruption must be retained off-line for three years. In our 
    judgment, a three-year retention period is useful in comparing 
    curtailments and interruptions over time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \10\ See 18 CFR 37.7 (1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In response to EPSA, we note that under the Federal Power Act, 
    public utilities have record-keeping and reporting obligations and are 
    subject to the Commission's investigation and enforcement 
    powers.11 These requirements provide safeguards for the 
    handling of documents during pending cases. In any event, we see no 
    need at this time to adopt regulations specifically on retention of 
    information relevant to pending proceedings on curtailments or 
    interruptions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \11\ See Federal Power Act, Section 301 (making and preservation 
    of accounts, records, and memoranda; Commission's right to inspect 
    and examine); Section 304 (periodic and special reports; obstruction 
    of the making or keeping of required information unlawful); Section 
    307 (investigations) and Section 314 (enforcement). These Sections 
    are codified at 16 U.S.C. 825, 825c, 825f and 825m.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    2. Access to and Availability of Supporting Information
        Currently, our regulations at Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(ii) give access to 
    the supporting curtailment and interruption information to affected 
    customers, upon request. In the NOPR, we expressed concern that the 
    regulations did not allow the Commission staff and the public access to 
    the supporting information. We noted that lack of access to the 
    supporting information limits the Commission's ability to audit the 
    circumstances under which a curtailment or interruption occurs, as well 
    as the Commission's ability to identify compliance problems and resolve 
    complaints. Therefore, we proposed to make the supporting information 
    about curtailments and interruptions available on request, not only to 
    affected customers, but also to the Commission staff and the public.
    
    Comments
    
        EPMI strongly supports the Commission's proposal to require 
    Transmission Providers to make the supporting information relating to 
    curtailments and interruptions available to affected customers, the 
    Commission Staff and the public. Due to the commercial sensitivity of 
    the supporting curtailment and interruption information, however, EPMI 
    proposes that the information not be made available for at least 30 
    days after the end of the month in which the curtailment or 
    interruption was imposed.
        EEI recommends that access to information on curtailments and 
    interruptions should only be available to Transmission Customers. EEI 
    argues that there are serious risks to the reliability of the 
    interconnected transmission system that could result from disclosure to 
    the general public. EEI recommends that the Commission modify 
    Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(ii) to provide the information to ``any other 
    transmission customer who: (i) Demonstrates a legitimate basis for 
    requesting the information and (ii) agrees to keep the information on 
    curtailment or interruptions confidential, provided that the 
    information may be disclosed to the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 
    388.112.'' 12 VEPCO recommends the same modifications to 
    this section of our regulations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \12\ EEI comments at 3-4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        First, disclosure of supporting curtailment and interruption data 
    to the Commission will provide useful information for discerning 
    patterns of undue discrimination. With access to the additional 
    information, the Commission will have a greater ability to examine the 
    circumstances under which a curtailment or interruption occurred. This 
    in turn, will lead to early identification of compliance problems and 
    faster resolution of complaints. Accordingly, we will revise 
    Sec. 37.6(3)(ii) to include the Commission staff.
        Second, commenters raised two types of arguments concerning the 
    Commission's proposal to allow the public access to the supporting 
    information on curtailments and interruptions, upon request: (1) 
    Commercial sensitivity; and (2) reliability of the transmission system.
        We have given careful consideration to the possible harmful 
    commercial effects of disclosing supporting curtailment and 
    interruption information to the public. We believe that the disclosure 
    of this information to the public will provide useful information to 
    the public for discerning any patterns of undue discrimination in the 
    rendering of transmission services. Thus, disclosure to the public 
    should promote non-discrimination and lead to better competitive 
    utilization of transmission systems.
        The Commission considers the reliability of the interconnected 
    transmission system to be of utmost importance. NERC and the industry 
    have made significant efforts to ensure that reliability of the 
    transmission system is maintained and that reliability criteria are 
    compatible with competitive markets.13 NERC and its member 
    Regional Reliability Councils have worked cooperatively and effectively 
    to provide reliability standards for public utilities. Furthermore, 
    these entities have not cited any risks to reliability from disclosure 
    of this information. Currently, Transmission Providers already post 
    curtailment-related information on the OASIS including the Available 
    Transmission Capacity for a constrained path. Also, section 213(b) of 
    the Federal Power Act requires transmitting utilities to make annual 
    filings informing the ``public of potentially available transmission 
    capacity and known constraints.'' 14 However, we are taking 
    the precaution of requesting the Market Interface Committee (MIC) 
    15 to review and specify the supporting information about 
    curtailments and interruptions that should be maintained.16 
    In these circumstances, the Commission believes that the disclosure of 
    information on curtailments and interruptions to the public is 
    appropriate at this time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \13\ See Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,048 at 
    30,185 (1997).
        \14\ 16 U.S.C. 8241 (1994).
        \15\ The Commercial Practices Working Group (CPWG) was an 
    independent industry-initiated and managed group committed to 
    providing an open forum dedicated to the development and consensus-
    based business practices in support of reliable and competitive bulk 
    electricity markets. CPWG's membership included members from various 
    segments of the wholesale electric industry, including Transmission 
    Providers and Customers. Recently, the CPWG has been reconstituted 
    and its functions taken over by a replacement group, the MIC, 
    sponsored by NERC.
        \16\ See infra section 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    3. Additional Information on the Congested Path
    
        In the NOPR, we proposed that the information under 18 CFR 
    37.6(e)(3)(ii) should include information on any other uses of the 
    congested path at the time of the curtailment or interruption. We noted 
    that it would be helpful to know whether the curtailment or 
    interruption was imposed on other
    
    [[Page 34120]]
    
    users. Furthermore, information on any other uses of the congested path 
    at the time of the curtailment or interruption would not be burdensome 
    to assemble.
    
    Comments
    
        Many commenters supported the Commission's proposal to include 
    additional information on other uses of the congested path at the time 
    of curtailment or interruption. Many commenters argued that the 
    supporting information must be clearly defined and consistent across 
    all nodes.
        Cinergy asserts that it is not always possible for Transmission 
    Providers to know all of the uses of a given path due to the dynamic 
    nature of the power system.17 Cinergy recommends that the 
    Commission clarify that the information furnished for congested paths 
    be scheduled uses only.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \17\ See Cinergy comments at 2-3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Dynegy states that OASIS operators should be required to provide 
    information with respect to the depth of transmission loading relief 
    (TLR) cuts, i.e., whether transactions are being cut hourly or daily, 
    as well as the number of transactions and the total amount in megawatts 
    of each curtailment.18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \18\ See Dynegy comments at 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        EPMI proposes that the Commission require hourly load data and 
    generation output levels. EPMI further proposes that the names of 
    impacted parties to the curtailment and the magnitude of the 
    curtailment should be disclosed.19
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \19\ See EPMI comments at 3-4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        PECO submits that each Transmission Provider's OASIS site should 
    identify, for each incident for which transmission TLR procedures are 
    invoked, resulting in a halting or curtailment: (1) Each transaction 
    that is halted or curtailed; (2) the time at which halting or 
    curtailment commenced; (3) the time at which the halting or curtailment 
    terminated; (4) which Security Coordinator instituted the TLR 
    procedures that led to such a halt or curtailment; (5) the name of the 
    transmission facility or flowgate for which the TLR procedures were 
    instituted; (6) what level in the TLR procedures has been called; (7) 
    what paths are affected by the TLR procedures; (8) the quantity of 
    megawatts per hour necessary to halt or curtail in order to achieve the 
    desired relief for the constrained transmission facility or flowgate; 
    (9) the total aggregate of megawatts per hour halted or curtailed; and 
    (10) the quantity of megawatts per hour that are made available as a 
    result of such halt or curtailment that would not have otherwise been 
    available.20
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \20\ See PECO comments at 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        We believe that additional information about the state of the 
    transmission system will enable customers to make better decisions 
    about the quality of the transmission service they intend to purchase. 
    We further believe that additional supporting information concerning 
    curtailments and interruptions will make it easier to document unduly 
    discriminatory practices concerning facilities critical to transmission 
    capacity. However, a thorough consideration of this issue necessitates 
    a more extensive record than we have before us at this time. To this 
    end, we conclude that the industry is best situated to identify what 
    other supporting information concerning curtailments and interruptions 
    would be helpful and appropriate. We request that the MIC and the How 
    Group prepare a report within three months from the date of publication 
    of this final rule in the Federal Register outlining what additional 
    supporting information about curtailments and interruptions should be 
    posted on the OASIS and available for query. This report should address 
    the scope of the information to support curtailments and interruptions 
    and also include templates for queries of the additional information 
    and for responses containing the information.
    
    B. File Transfers, Automated Queries, and Extensive Requests for Data
    
        When the Commission first proposed OASIS, it envisioned two primary 
    methods of accessing information on OASIS. First, small customers would 
    generally retrieve and post information using the interactive features 
    of OASIS. Second, medium and large customers would generally use 
    computer-to-computer communications to upload and download files. Using 
    computer-to-computer communications, a customer could send a request 
    (automated query) to an OASIS node's computer and the node's computer 
    would respond with the requested files (download). To facilitate these 
    file uploads and downloads, the Commission previously requested that 
    the How Group develop standardized templates for OASIS transactions.
    1. File Transfers and Automated Queries
        In the NOPR, the Commission noted that it received Hotline calls 
    showing misunderstandings about the use of file transfers and automated 
    queries. In the NOPR, we proposed to add 18 CFR 37.6(a)(6) to allow 
    OASIS users to make file transfers and automated computer-to-computer 
    file transfers and queries of the nodes.
    
    Comments
    
        Cal ISO, MAPP and the How Group submitted comments on this issue. 
    All three note that the S&CP Document has definitions and standards for 
    ``file transfers'' and they recommend that the Commission replace 
    references to ``file transfers'' with references to the upload and 
    download specifications in the S&CP.
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        At the outset, we note that the commenters correctly recognize that 
    the S&CP Document contains definitions and standardized procedures for 
    file transfers. The Commission did not intend to propose file transfers 
    that were not defined in the S&CP Document. Accordingly, we will amend 
    Sec. 37.6 (a)(6) to clarify that OASIS nodes must allow OASIS users to 
    make file transfers and queries as defined in the S&CP Document.
    2. Extensive Requests for Data and Limits on OASIS Use
        In the NOPR, we proposed to add a provision, 18 CFR Sec. 37.5(c), 
    to clarify that Responsible Parties are required to provide access to 
    their OASIS sites for OASIS users making automated queries and 
    extensive requests for data. In the NOPR, we also proposed to add a 
    provision, 18 CFR 37.5(d), to permit Responsible Parties, under certain 
    circumstances, to restrict access by OASIS users who use the system in 
    a grossly inefficient manner and degrade the performance of the node. 
    We suggested that if a Responsible Party and an OASIS user could not 
    resolve the matter informally, the Responsible Party would be able to 
    seek Commission approval to limit the grossly inefficient use of the 
    system. Comments on this issue fall into three categories: (a) 
    Disagreements with the proposal to require Commission approval before 
    limits can be placed on individual OASIS users; (b) limits on heavy 
    OASIS usage; and (c) the meaning of grossly inefficient use.
        a. Prior Commission Approval for OASIS Limits. In the NOPR, we 
    proposed that Commission approval be needed for imposition of limits on 
    a user's access to OASIS because we wanted to avoid unwarranted limits 
    on access. Furthermore, we wished to assure OASIS users that they would 
    not be disconnected without cause.
    
    [[Page 34121]]
    
    Comments
    
        All commenters recognize that there are circumstances under which a 
    user's automated query capability should be limited. However, 
    commenters disagree over whether limits should be imposed before or 
    after notification and concurrence by the Commission.
        EPSA, EPMI and Power Navigator agree with the Commission's proposal 
    to require Transmission Providers to obtain Commission approval before 
    limiting a user's access to an OASIS node for grossly inefficient 
    usage. Dynegy cautions that permitting Transmission Providers to limit 
    OASIS use presents the potential for abuse and Transmission Providers 
    could punish certain customers.21
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \21\ See Dynegy comments at 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The How Group, Cal ISO, Cinergy, MAPP, VEPCO, Southern Company and 
    Southwest support allowing Responsible Parties to limit access to an 
    OASIS node prior to Commission notification and approval. The How Group 
    states that because OASIS nodes operate 24 hours a day, seven days a 
    week and process transmission requests as they are received, the nodes 
    are vulnerable to excessive demands by individual customers and 
    therefore, limits on access should be available without Commission 
    authorization.22
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \22\ See How Group comments at 3-4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Furthermore, MAPP, MAIN, Cinergy, VEPCO and the How Group argue 
    that mistakes and bugs in computer programs used to make the automated 
    requests can inadvertently result in a request for more information 
    than the user desires or the same data is repeatedly requested. These 
    commenters argue that node performance could be seriously impaired 
    unless Responsible Parties have the ability to limit a user's access 
    before obtaining Commission concurrence. MAPP further cites the rapid 
    responses associated with computer-to-computer communications and 
    claims that a delay in disconnecting requests due to mistakes or bugs 
    can inadvertently bring down a whole OASIS node.23 Cinergy 
    proposes that requests be terminated when it is clear that computer 
    bugs or mistakes have occurred.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \23\ See MAPP comments at 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        MAIN proposes that when a user's request seriously impacts node 
    performance, the Responsible Party administering the node and the user 
    should try to resolve the problem together. Cal ISO proposes that 
    Responsible Parties should follow specific procedures, including 
    promptly notifying the Commission about OASIS limits, working with the 
    user to solve the problem and providing the Commission with a closure 
    report that describes the problem and the resolution.24 The 
    How Group and MAPP also propose specific procedures for Responsible 
    Parties to follow when they block access to OASIS nodes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \24\ See Cal ISO comments at 7-8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        We are persuaded that Responsible Parties should be permitted, 
    without prior Commission concurrence, to limit access by users who 
    seriously degrade node performance. At the same time, we must ensure 
    that limits on usage are imposed for good reason and that reasonable 
    efforts are made by both parties to resolve problems. Restrictions and 
    disconnections from OASIS should occur in only very limited 
    circumstances. When a problem arises due to grossly inefficient use, 
    all parties should first attempt to resolve the problem in a 
    cooperative manner without OASIS restriction or limitation. If the 
    problem is not resolved in a timely fashion, a Responsible Party can 
    limit a user's access without prior Commission approval. Notification 
    of the restriction must be made to the Commission within two business 
    days of the incident and include a description of the problem and 
    whether a resolution was reached. A closure report describing how the 
    problem was resolved must be filed with the Commission within one week 
    of the incident.
        If the problem requires Commission resolution, the Responsible 
    Party will have the obligation to demonstrate to the Commission that 
    the limited user seriously impacted the performance of the node, the 
    node is properly sized for the number of users and types of customers 
    and that the Responsible Party made a good faith effort to resolve the 
    problem. In response, the user will have the obligation of 
    demonstrating to the Commission that its queries were efficient and 
    were the result of reasonable business needs. We anticipate in cases 
    where a Responsible Party has no interest in generation that these 
    types of disputes can be resolved without resort to Commission 
    processes.
        Similarly, for errors in queries, the Responsible Party can block 
    the affected query and notify the user of the nature of the error. 
    Users should correct the error before making any additional query. If 
    there is a dispute over whether an error occurred, then the rules for 
    grossly inefficient use would apply.
        b. Limits on Heavy Use of OASIS. In the NOPR, the Commission 
    proposed not to limit heavy use of automated computer-to-computer 
    uploads and downloads (queries and responses) that arise from 
    legitimate ordinary course of business needs. The NOPR distinguished 
    between heavy use in the ordinary course of business and grossly 
    inefficient use.
    
    Comments
    
        Detroit Edison, Southern Company, EPMI and EPSA agree with the 
    Commission that heavy use alone should not justify disconnection from 
    an OASIS node. Southern Company notes that the Commission's 
    requirements regarding automated queries are consistent with the 
    industry's movement toward conducting business on a moment-to-moment 
    basis. Southern Company argues that moment-to-moment transactions can 
    only be accommodated if large volumes of automated information can be 
    transmitted by an OASIS node. Southern requests that the Commission 
    emphasize automated query access over browser access.25
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \25\ See Comments of Southern Company at 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Power Navigator describes its experiences with OASIS nodes when 
    using automated queries. Power Navigator states that it has been 
    disconnected from an OASIS node, as a punitive measure after a problem 
    was resolved and also, Power Navigator has been restricted by a node to 
    only one automated query a day.26 Furthermore, Power 
    Navigator was disconnected from an OASIS node because of queries deemed 
    inefficient without notice and the opportunity to make the query more 
    efficient.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \26\ See Comments of Power Navigator at 1-2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Southern Company reports that it has also experienced problems 
    using automated queries and file transfers on several OASIS nodes. 
    Southern argues that the ``inability of these OASIS nodes to meet the 
    minimum requirements of the S&CP Document regarding automated queries 
    and file transfers increases the transaction costs of market 
    participants by increasing manpower and the time required to gather and 
    analyze information.'' 27 Southern notes that the Commission 
    has not sufficiently defined ``minimum performance requirements'' and 
    that the lack of specificity has resulted in some OASIS nodes lacking 
    sufficient capacity to accommodate bulk transactions. Southern Company 
    requests that the Commission develop, or encourage the industry to 
    develop, a benchmark program to determine if a node satisfies
    
    [[Page 34122]]
    
    the minimum performance requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \27\ Comments of Southern Company at 6-7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        MAIN argues that even well-designed automated queries can 
    significantly degrade OASIS performance. MAIN states that OASIS 
    requires a substantial database and MAIN maintains the database on a 
    daily basis. During periods of maintenance, the ability of computer 
    systems to respond to queries and requests is inherently limited. Thus, 
    MAIN claims that even well-designed automated queries can significantly 
    degrade OASIS performance during periods of database maintenance. 
    28 MAIN notes that it was forced to put limits on ``traffic 
    from particular Internet addresses that sent repeated and multiple 
    queries to the MAIN OASIS node.''29 The result is that MAIN 
    restricts access by automated queries ten and one-half hours a day. 
    MAIN suggests that some problems caused by automated queries could be 
    reduced if users were required to furnish Transmission Providers with 
    adequate and timely advance notice of usage requirements. MAIN would 
    use this information in planning for system upgrades and other system 
    modifications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \28\ See comments of MAIN at 6-7.
        \29\ Id. at 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The How Group raises the question of what constitutes basic service 
    and disagrees with the Commission's interpretation that the basic 
    service level agreement allows large volume, computer-to-computer usage 
    of OASIS to meet ordinary legitimate business needs of users. The How 
    Group argues that the basic service level agreement only provides for 
    average or normal uses of the system. The How Group further argues that 
    the performance requirements in the S&CP Document are based on average, 
    expected usage levels and cover average or normal users of the 
    system.30
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \30\ See comments of How Group at 6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        We continue to believe that large volume usage and automated 
    computer-to-computer file transfers and queries do not constitute the 
    kind of excessive use of resources warranting limitation or 
    disconnection, as discussed in the previous section. Thus, a particular 
    user's heavy use of an OASIS node, even if it would require the node to 
    be upgraded, would not, by itself, be a basis for limitation or 
    disconnection.
        However, based on the comments, we are convinced that the standards 
    for node performance and bandwidth need refinement. We therefore 
    request the MIC and the How Group to develop standards for node 
    response time, node capabilities and the bandwidth of the node's 
    connection to the Internet. We further request that the MIC and the How 
    Group report back to the Commission within three months from the date 
    of publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. The 
    standards should explicitly incorporate the concept of requiring nodes 
    to meet the legitimate, ordinary course of business needs of users.
        The new standards should take into account the industry's 
    experience with OASIS. The MIC and How Group have the option of 
    proposing a redefinition of the existing standards 31 or if 
    appropriate, they can develop a new approach. If the existing approach 
    is used, the MIC and the How Group should consider that the assumption 
    in the existing standard of 5 percent of customers in communication 
    with a node at any time was developed before OASIS was implemented. The 
    MIC should determine if a higher or lower percentage is more 
    appropriate. Furthermore, the 28,800 bps/customer, used in the existing 
    standards was a relatively fast modem speed in 1996 when the OASIS 
    standards were formulated. 32 Today, many customers use 
    faster connections to the Internet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \31\ The existing standards are as follows:
        Transmission Services Information Providers can only be 
    responsible for the response capabilities of two portions of the 
    Internet-based OASIS network:
         The response capabilities of the OASIS node server to 
    process interactions with users; and
         The bandwidth of the connection(s) between the OASIS 
    node server and the Internet.
        Therefore, the OASIS response time requirements are as follows:
        a. OASIS Node Server Response Time: The OASIS node server shall 
    be capable of supporting its connection(s) to users with an average 
    aggregate data rate of at least ``A'' bits per second. ``A'' is 
    defined as follows:
    
        A = N * R bits/sec
        Where: N = 5% of registered Customers and R = 28,800 bits/sec 
    per Customer.
    
        b. OASIS Node Network Connection Bandwidth: The bandwidth ``B'' 
    of the OASIS node connection(s) to the Internet shall be at least:
    
        See Standards & Communications Protocol Document (Version 1.3) 
    at section 5.3 (1998). Version 1.3 of the S&CP Document is posted on 
    the Commission Issuance Posting System (accessed through the 
    Commission's Internet Home Page at http://ferc.fed.us) or may be 
    inspected in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
        \32\ See Order No. 889, FERC Stats & Regs. at 31,623.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Furthermore, we agree with MAIN's suggestion that OASIS nodes would 
    better meet user needs for automated queries if users notify 
    Responsible Parties prior to increasing their demands significantly. We 
    will, therefore, require users to notify a node of anticipated usage 
    one month in advance of initiating a significant amount of queries or 
    when users expect their use of automated queries to increase 
    significantly. We believe it is appropriate to allow each node to 
    determine reasonable criteria for such notification because nodes have 
    varying requirements. Responsible Parties will post on their OASIS 
    nodes the criteria under which users must notify them of increased 
    usage of automated queries.
        c. ``Grossly Inefficient'' Usage of OASIS. In the NOPR, we proposed 
    to not limit heavy use of automated queries that arose from legitimate, 
    ordinary business needs. We distinguished between legitimate OASIS uses 
    and grossly inefficient uses. By using the term grossly inefficient, we 
    intended to address situations where a user fails to adopt more 
    efficient methods of accessing a node or obtaining information in favor 
    of very inefficient methods that may needlessly degrade or damage the 
    node.
    
    Comments
    
        Cinergy, Detroit Edison, MAIN, Southern Company and VEPCO argue 
    that unless the Commission clarifies the definition of ``grossly 
    inefficient'' and what constitutes degradation of service on an OASIS 
    node, there will be continued disputes over automated queries.
    
    Commission Conclusion
    
        We continue to believe that it would be impracticable to delineate 
    all instances of ``gross inefficiency''. At the same time, we have 
    narrowed the definition of grossly inefficient use by adding the new 
    error category, by clarifying that heavy volume usage and automated 
    computer-to-computer file transfers and queries do not constitute 
    grossly inefficient use and by requiring OASIS users to notify 
    Responsible Parties in advance of substantial increases in automated 
    query usage. We believe that these actions reduce the areas of dispute.
        Examples of grossly inefficient use include: (1) When a user seeks 
    data in a resource-intensive wasteful way even though the same data 
    could be obtained as quickly in a far less resource-consuming manner; 
    and (2) when an OASIS user seeks updates more frequently than 
    information on the OASIS is updated. This list, however, is not 
    exhaustive and questions as to whether a particular user's access or 
    use of the node is ``grossly inefficient'' will be resolved on a case-
    by-case basis. We also believe that Responsible Parties should use the 
    disconnection procedures as a last resort.
    
    [[Page 34123]]
    
    C. Other Issues
    
        MAIN proposed that users of automated query systems be charged for 
    their use.33 Similarly, CSW proposes an industry-wide OASIS 
    usage charge whereby subscribers pay more when they use an OASIS node 
    continuously and/or intensively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \33\ MAIN comments at 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        We note that the issue of OASIS cost recovery was addressed in 
    Orders No. 889 34 and 889-A.35 In those orders, 
    we concluded that the cost of developing an OASIS should be included in 
    unbundled transmission rates and that variable costs of operating an 
    OASIS should be recovered, to the extent possible, in usage fees. We 
    left it to individual rate proceedings to determine which OASIS costs 
    can be identified as varying with usage and how to set the recovery of 
    these fees. However, the concept of automated queries has been a basic 
    part of the functionality of OASIS since its inception and special 
    charges for legitimate, ordinary course of business queries should not 
    be imposed.36
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \34\ See Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,035 at 
    31,624-26.
        \35\ See Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,049 at 
    30,576-77.
        \36\ This would also include automated queries by the public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        A few other commenters raised issues that were not discussed in the 
    NOPR. For example, Dynegy asks the Commission to revisit the posting of 
    generator run status on OASIS nodes.37 In addition, Southern 
    Company complains that some Transmission Providers require users of 
    their system to purchase expensive proprietary security software from 
    third party vendors and that this practice imposes limits on OASIS. 
    EPMI requests that the Commission require Transmission Providers to 
    acknowledge receipt of faxed or electronically transferred OASIS 
    requests when the request is received.38
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \37\ Dynegy comments at 5.
        \38\ EPMI comments at 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        All of these issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding and 
    therefore, we will not address them at this time. Commenters will have 
    the opportunity to raise these issues, as well as submit comments on 
    additional issues, during the OASIS Phase II proceedings.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 39 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 section 605(b) of the RFA that the OASIS Final Rule 
    would not have a significant economic impact on small entities within 
    the meaning of the RFA.40
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \39\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
        \40\ See Order No. 889, FERC State. & Regs. at 31,628.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        As discussed above, this final rule will make minor revisions to 
    Part 37. Given that we do not expect these minor revisions to have any 
    significant economic impact and given that we have granted waivers from 
    the requirements of the OASIS Final Rule to small entities where 
    appropriate, and will continue to do so, we hereby certify that the 
    changes in 18 CFR Part 37 will not have a significant economic impact 
    on a substantial number of small entities and that no regulatory 
    flexibility analysis is required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603.
    
    Environmental Statement
    
        As explained in Order Nos. 888-A and 889-A, Order Nos. 888 and 889 
    were the joint subjects of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
    issued in Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001 on April 12, 1996. 
    Given that this final rule makes only minor changes in the regulations, 
    none of which would have any environmental impact, no separate 
    environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is being 
    prepared for this final rule.
    
    Public Reporting Burden
    
        As discussed previously, this final rule makes minor revisions to 
    18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii). We do not believe that extending the retention 
    period or extending the category of persons who may request the 
    information on curtailments or interruptions will measurably increase 
    the public reporting burden.
        Nor do we believe our rule to amend 18 CFR 37.5 and 37.6 to clarify 
    the required minimum access that Responsible Parties must provide to 
    OASIS users, or to allow (under certain circumstances) limitations on 
    access by grossly inefficient users, will increase the public reporting 
    burden.
        Consequently, the public reporting burden associated with issuance 
    of this final rule is unchanged from our estimation in Order Nos. 889, 
    889-A, and 889-B.41 The Commission has conducted an internal 
    review of this conclusion and thereby has assured itself that there is 
    specific, objective support for this information burden estimate. 
    Moreover, the Commission has reviewed the collection of information 
    required by Order Nos. 889, 889-A, and 889-B, and has determined that 
    the collection of information is necessary and conforms to the 
    Commission's plan, as described in those prior orders, for the 
    collection, efficient management, and use of the required information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \41\ Order No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,035 at 31,587-
    88, Order No. 889-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,049 at 30,549-50, 
    Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC para. 61,253 at 62,171 (1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Information Collection Statement
    
        As explained in Order Nos. 889-A and 889-B, Order No. 889 contained 
    an information collection statement for which the Commission obtained 
    approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).42 
    Given that the changes on curtailments and interruptions make only 
    minor revisions to the regulations, we do not believe that these 
    changes would require any revision to the information collection 
    statement approved by OMB for Order No. 889. Nor do we believe that our 
    revisions to 18 CFR 37.5 and 37.6, to clarify the required minimum 
    access Responsible Parties must provide to OASIS users, or to allow 
    (under certain circumstances) limitations on access by grossly 
    inefficient users, would require any revision to the information 
    collection statement approved by OMB for Order No. 889. Accordingly, we 
    conclude that OMB approval for this final rule will not be necessary. 
    However, the Commission will send a copy of this final rule to OMB, for 
    informational purposes only.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \42\ OMB Control No. 1902-0173.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
    requirements and associated burden estimates by contacting the Federal 
    Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
    20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Chief Information 
    Officer, (202) 208-1415], and the Office of Management and Budget 
    [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
    (202) 395-3087 (telephone), 202-395-7285 (facsimile)]. In addition, 
    interested persons may file written comments on the collections of 
    information required by this rule and associated burden estimates by 
    sending written comments to the Desk Officer for FERC at: Office of 
    Management and Budget, Room 10202 NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, 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: Secretary,
    
    [[Page 34124]]
    
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Room 1A, 888 First Street, N.E., 
    Washington, D.C. 20426.
    
    Effective Date and Congressional Notification
    
        This rule will take effect on July 26, 1999. The Commission has 
    determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of 
    Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, that this rule is not a ``major rule'' within the meaning of 
    section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
    of 1996.43 The Commission will submit the rule to both 
    houses of Congress and the Comptroller General prior to its publication 
    in the Federal Register.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \43\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        This final rule will not have an adverse effect on Year 2000 
    readiness. This rule makes only minor revisions to our regulations and 
    no major system changes to OASIS are required. Furthermore, commenters 
    did not cite any adverse effects of the rule on their Year 2000 
    preparation.
        In this rule, we are extending the retention period and the 
    availability of supporting information on curtailments and 
    interruptions. These changes will not jeopardize work on the Year 2000 
    problem. Currently, our regulations require that the supporting 
    information about curtailments and interruptions be maintained for 60 
    days and available to affected customers. We are extending the 
    retention period to three years and we are allowing the Commission 
    Staff and the public access to the information. Because Transmission 
    Providers already must maintain information on curtailments and 
    interruptions, extending the retention period and the access to this 
    information will not affect Year 2000 preparations.
        In addition, we are asking the How Group/MIC to prepare a report 
    outlining what additional supporting information about curtailments and 
    interruptions should be posted on the OASIS. We request that the report 
    be prepared within 3 months from the date of publication of this final 
    rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, the report will be received by 
    the Commission in early September and final implementation, including 
    the adoption of new templates, will not occur until after January 2000.
        We also believe that the provision to allow (under certain 
    circumstances) limitations on OASIS access by grossly inefficient users 
    will not have any effect on Year 2000 readiness. The procedures we are 
    adopting in 18 CFR 37.5(d) and 37.5(e) will not add any new information 
    technology requirements. Instead, these regulations enable Responsible 
    Parties to disconnect or limit an OASIS user's access to the node.
        Finally, we are adopting a new procedure whereby OASIS users notify 
    Responsible Parties one month prior to increasing their automated query 
    demands. Each OASIS node will determine reasonable criteria for such 
    notification and the methods for notification will be posted on the 
    OASIS. We believe that this new provision will not hinder Year 2000 
    efforts. Posting the notification criteria on the OASIS is only a minor 
    administrative change and this requirement should not divert resources 
    from Year 2000 efforts.
    
    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37
    
        Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities, 
    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    
        By the Commission. Commissioner Bailey concurred with a separate 
    statement attached.
    Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
    Acting 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. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 
    U.S.C. 7101-7352.
    
        2. Section 37.5 is amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as 
    paragraph (f), and by adding paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 37.5  Obligations of Transmission Providers and Responsible 
    Parties.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) A Responsible Party may not deny or restrict access to an OASIS 
    user merely because that user makes automated computer-to-computer file 
    transfers or queries, or extensive requests for data.
        (d) In the event that an OASIS user's grossly inefficient method of 
    accessing an OASIS node or obtaining information from the node 
    seriously degrades the performance of the node, a Responsible Party may 
    limit a user's access to the OASIS node without prior Commission 
    approval. The Responsible Party must immediately contact the OASIS user 
    to resolve the problem. Notification of the restriction must be made to 
    the Commission within two business days of the incident and include a 
    description of the problem. A closure report describing how the problem 
    was resolved must be filed with the Commission within one week of the 
    incident.
        (e) In the event that an OASIS user makes an error in a query, the 
    Responsible Party can block the affected query and notify the user of 
    the nature of the error. The OASIS user must correct the error before 
    making any additional queries. If there is a dispute over whether an 
    error has occurred, the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section 
    apply.
    * * * * *
        3. Section 37.6 is amended by revising the section heading and 
    paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(4), (a)(5), and (e)(3)(ii), and 
    adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 37.6  Information to be posted on the OASIS.
    
        (a) The information posted on the OASIS must be in such detail and 
    the OASIS must have such capabilities as to allow Transmission 
    Customers to:
    * * * * *
        (4) Clearly identify the degree to which transmission service 
    requests or schedules were denied or interrupted;
        (5) Obtain access, in electronic format, to information to support 
    available transmission capability calculations and historical 
    transmission service requests and schedules for various audit purposes; 
    and
        (6) Make file transfers and automated computer-to-computer file 
    transfers and queries as defined by the Standards and Communications 
    Protocols Document.
    * * * * *
        (e) * * *
        (3) * * *
        (ii) Information to support any such curtailment or interruption, 
    including the operating status of the facilities involved in the 
    constraint or interruption, must be maintained and made available upon 
    request, to the curtailed or interrupted customer, the Commission's 
    Staff, and any other person who requests it, for three years.
    * * * * *
        4. Section 37.8 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 37.8  Obligations of OASIS users.
    
        Each OASIS user must notify the Responsible Party one month in 
    advance of initiating a significant amount of automated queries. The
    
    [[Page 34125]]
    
    OASIS user must also notify the Responsible Party one month in advance 
    of expected significant increases in the volume of automated queries.
    
        Note: The following attachments will not appear in the Code of 
    Federal Regulations.
    
                  Attachment 1.--List of Commenters to the NOPR
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Number/Commenter name                    Abbreviation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (1) California Independent System    (Cal ISO).
     Operator, Corp.
     (2) Cinergy Services, Inc..........  (Cinergy).
     (3) CSW Operating Companies........  (CSW).
     (4) Detroit Edison Company.........  (Detroit Edison).
     (5) Dynegy, Inc....................  (Dynegy).
     (6) Edison Electric Institute......  (EEI).
     (7) Electric Power Supply            (EPSA).
     Association.
     (8) Enron Power Marketing, Inc.....  (EPMI).
     (9) Mid-America Interconnected       (MAIN).
     Network, Inc.
    (10) Mid-Continent Area Power Pool..  (MAPP).
    (11) OASIS How Working Group........  (How Group).
    (12) PECO Energy Co-Power Team......  (PECO).
    (13) Power Navigator................  (Power Navigator).
    (14) Southern Company Services, Inc.  (Southern Company).
    (15) Southwest Power Pool...........  (Southwest).
    (16) Virginia Electric & Power Co...  (VEPCO).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Attachment 2--Concurring Statement by Commissioner Bailey
    
    Issued May 27, 1999.
    Bailey, Commissioner, concurring
    
        I support this rulemaking, which amends the Commission's 
    regulations to improve in several respects the operation and 
    effectiveness of OASIS sites. I write separately only to explain my 
    support for one aspect of the final rule.
        The Commission revises its OASIS regulations to allow access to 
    supporting information on curtailments and interruptions, upon 
    request, to Commission staff and the public, as well as to affected 
    customers. Slip op. at 8-10. The Commission makes this revision 
    despite the articulated concern of two intervenors--EPMI and EEI--
    that this type of information is commercially sensitive (EPMI) and, 
    if disclosed, might impair the reliability of the interconnected 
    transmission system (EEI).
        In my judgment, the Commission's and the public's need for this 
    type of information--for the purpose of detecting any undue 
    discrimination in any pattern or practice of transmission 
    curtailment--outweighs the articulated concern for the commercial 
    and reliability implications of disclosure. Significantly, 
    intervenor concerns of commercial and reliability sensitivity here 
    are presented with little explanation and vigor.
        In contrast, I have dissented in other cases where the 
    commercial and competitive implications of information disclosure 
    have been well defined and vigorously argued. See Open Access Same-
    Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, 83 FERC para. 
    61,360 at 62,467-69 (1998), reh'g denied, 85 FERC para. 61,139 at 
    61,493 (1999); American Electric Power Company and Central and South 
    West Corp., 86 FERC para. 61,091 at 61,334 (1999). I continue to 
    believe that it is important for the Commission, when confronted 
    with concern for the competitive implications of information 
    disclosure, to balance carefully those concerns against the 
    usefulness of that information in fulfilling the Commission's 
    regulatory responsibilities. Here, unlike in other cases in which I 
    have dissented, I am comfortable with the Commission's conclusion 
    that the balance tips in favor of immediate disclosure.
    Vicky A. Bailey,
    Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 99-15061 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/26/1999
Published:
06/25/1999
Department:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-15061
Dates:
This final rule is effective on July 26, 1999.
Pages:
34117-34125 (9 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. RM98-3-000, Order No. 605
PDF File:
99-15061.pdf
CFR: (7)
18 CFR 37.6(a)(6)
18 CFR 37.6(e)(i)
18 CFR 37.6(e)(3)(ii)
18 CFR 37.6(3)(ii)
18 CFR 37.5
More ...