On July 19, 2006, in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California, following a plea of guilty, George Charles Budenz II (“Budenz” or “Respondent”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2000)) (“AECA”). Budenz pled guilty to knowingly and willfully exporting and causing to be exported from the United States to Malaysia and Belgium military aircraft parts which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained a license from the Department of State for such export, or other written authorization for such an export. Budenz was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment and fined $10,000, followed by three years of supervised release.

Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (currently codified at 50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (the “Act”)  1 and § 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“Regulations”)  2 provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of * * * Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act,” for a period not to exceed 10 years from the date of conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(a) and (d). In addition § 750.8 of the Regulations states that BIS's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any BIS licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

I have received notice of Budenz's conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Budenz to make a written submission to the Bureau of Industry and Security as provided in § 766.25 of the Regulations. Having received no submission from Budenz, I, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, have decided to deny Budenz's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Budenz's conviction.

In addition, pursuant to §§ 766.25(h) and 766.23 of the Regulations, the Director, Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director, Office of Export Enforcement, may take action to name persons related to the Respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business in order to prevent evasion of the Order. I gave notice to Richard Scott Tobey (“Tobey”), notifying him that his export privileges under the Regulations could be denied for up to 10 years as BIS believes that he is related to Arif Ali Durrani (“Durrani”) and Budenz and including him in an Order is necessary to prevent evasion. I have decided to include Tobey in the Budenz Order. The basis for naming Tobey to the Budenz Order is that Tobey pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the AECA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, for conspiring to export controlled military aircraft parts to the United Arab Emirates and Canada without the required licenses from the Department of State. Tobey was placed on probation for five years and fined $10,000.00. Based upon these facts, Tobey is related to Budenz by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business and he needs to be named to any Budenz Denial Order to prevent evasion of it.

Having received no submission from Tobey, I have decided, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, to name Tobey as a related person to the Budenz Denial Order, thereby denying his export privileges for five years from the date of Budenz's conviction.

I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Budenz and Tobey had an interest at the time of Budenz's conviction. The five-year denial period ends on July 19, 2011.

Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered

I. Until July 19, 2011, George Charles Budenz II, 94394-198, FDC SEATAC, Federal Detention Center, P.O. Box 13900, Seattle, WA 98198, and with an address at: 25143 Jack Rabbit Acres, Escondido, CA 92026, and when acting for or on his behalf, his employees, agents or representatives, (“the Denied Person”) and the following person related to the Denied Person as defined by Section 766.23 of the Regulations, Richard Scott Tobey, 42079 Humber Drive, Temecula, CA 92591, and when acting for or on his behalf, his employees, agents or representatives, (“the Related Person”) (together, the Denied Person and the Related Person are “Persons Subject To This Order”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Persons Subject To This Order any item subject to the Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Persons Subject To This Order of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Persons Subject To This Order acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Persons Subject To This Order of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

D. Obtain from the Persons Subject To This Order in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Persons Subject To This Order, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Persons Subject To This Order if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

III. In addition to the Related Person named above, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Budenz by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.

V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until July 19, 2011.

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Budenz may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

VII. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Tobey may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

VIII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to Budenz and the Related Person. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register .

On June 5, 2005, in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California, Arif Ali Durrani (“Durrani”) was found guilty of four counts of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2000)) (“AECA”). Specifically, the Court found that Durrani knowingly and willfully exported from the United States to Malaysia and Belgium controlled military aircraft parts which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained a license from the Department of State for such export, or written authorization for such an export. In addition, Durrani was also found guilty on one count of conspiracy. Durrani was sentenced to 150 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised released.

Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (currently codified at 50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420 (2000)) (“Act”)  1 and § 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations  2 (“Regulations”) provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of * * * Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act,” for a period not to exceed 10 years from the date of conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(a) and (d). In addition, § 750.8 of the Regulations states that BIS's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any BIS licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest at the time of his conviction.

I have received notice of Durrani's conviction for violating the AECA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Durrani to make a written submission to the Bureau of Industry and Security as provided in § 766.25 of the Regulations. Having received no submission from Durrani, I, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, have decided to deny Durrani's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of ten years from the date of Durrani's conviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered:

I. Until June 5, 2015, Arif Ali Durrani, Registration #09027-014, Victorville Medium I, Federal Correctional Institute, P.O. Box 5300, Adelanto, CA 92301, and when acting for or on behalf of Durrani, his representatives, assigns, agents, or employees, (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Denied Person”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

C. Benefiting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.203 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to ARIF Ali Durrani by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions or this Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.

V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 5, 2015.

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Durrani may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

VII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to Durrani. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective July 7, 2007:

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets with a proposed effective date of September 1, 2007:

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, effective September 1, 2007:

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on June 1, 2007, Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for disclosure, a transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule FT entered into by Great Lakes and ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) (FT Service Agreement). The FT Service Agreement being filed reflects a negotiated rate arrangement between Great Lakes and ANR commencing January 1, 2008.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on June 6, 2007, Hardy Storage Company, LLC (Hardy) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective July 6, 2007.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on June 1, 2007, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency filed a revised tariff sheet for Rate Schedule No. 1, in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) Order No. 614, 18 CFR 35.7 and the Commission's May 3, 2007 Order, “Order Approving Uncontested Settlement Agreement,” 119 FERC ¶ 61,112 (2007).

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2007.

Take notice that on May 31, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, 102nd Revised Sheet No. 9, to become effective June 1, 2007.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

1. On March 26, 2007, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted for approval eight proposed regional Reliability Standards for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). The proposed regional Reliability Standards would apply in the Western Interconnection in addition to the 83 mandatory Reliability Standards developed by NERC that will take effect on a nationwide basis beginning in June 2007. 1 The proposed regional Reliability Standards would allow the continuation of certain reliability practices that are currently in effect in the Western Interconnection. As discussed below, pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission approves the proposed regional Reliability Standards. As a separate action, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission directs WECC to develop several specific modifications to the regional Reliability Standards when WECC develops, through its Reliability Standards development process, permanent, replacement Reliability Standards.

2. In August 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law. 2 EPAct 2005 adds a new section 215 to the FPA, which requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards. 3 Before a Reliability Standard may take effect, the ERO must submit the standard to the Commission and obtain the Commission's approval. 4 Once approved, the Reliability Standard can be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission can independently enforce the Reliability Standard. 5

3. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA. 6 Pursuant to Order No. 672, the Commission certified one organization, NERC, as the ERO. 7 Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a Regional Entity. 8 A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority from the ERO. 9 When the ERO reviews a regional Reliability Standard that would be applicable on an Interconnnection-wide basis and that has been proposed by a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis, the ERO must rebuttably presume that the regional Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 10

4. When the ERO submits a proposed Reliability Standard to the Commission, the ERO must: (1) Describe the basis and purpose of the Reliability Standard; (2) summarize the development and review proceedings that led to the Reliability Standard; and (3) demonstrate that the Reliability Standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 11

5. In reviewing the ERO's submission, the Commission will give due weight to the ERO's technical expertise, except concerning the effect of a proposed Reliability Standard on competition. 12 The Commission will also give due weight to the technical expertise of a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis with respect to a proposed Reliability Standard to be applicable within that Interconnection. 13 Moreover, the Commission may give “due deference” to the advice of a Regional Advisory Body that is organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. 14

6. The Commission may approve a proposed Reliability Standard if the Commission finds it is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. 15 In addition, the Commission explained in Order No. 672 that “uniformity of Reliability Standards should be the goal and the practice, the rule rather than the exception.”  16 Yet, the Commission recognized that “the goal of greater uniformity does not, however, mean that regional differences cannot exist. 17 The Commission then provided the following guidance:

7. WECC is responsible for overseeing transmission system reliability in the Western Interconnection since 2002, when WECC was formed from predecessor reliability organizations. The WECC region encompasses nearly 1.8 million square miles, including 14 western U.S. states, the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and the northern portion of Baja California in Mexico. WECC developed a Reliability Management System (RMS) pursuant to which transmission operators in the Western Interconnection agreed by contract to be bound by the WECC reliability criteria and sanctions for non-compliance. According to WECC, the criteria are recognized by all WECC members but are contractually binding only on members that signed an RMS Agreement. 19

8. In an April 19, 2007 order, the Commission accepted delegation agreements between NERC and each of eight Regional Entities. 20 In the April 19 Order, the Commission accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. In addition, the Commission accepted WECC's Standards Development Manual which sets forth WECC's Reliability Standards development process. 21 The Commission also directed WECC to make certain clarifications to its Standards Development Manual in a filing to be submitted within 180 days of the order.

9. NERC has submitted for the Commission's approval the following eight regional Reliability Standards that were proposed to NERC by WECC to apply in the Western Interconnection:

10. In its March 26, 2007 filing (NERC Filing), NERC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standards are translations of existing reliability criteria under WECC's RMS program. According to NERC, WECC developed most of the criteria in the late 1990s in response to a series of black-outs in the Western Interconnection. 22 The proposed regional Reliability Standards would make eight of those RMS criteria binding on the applicable subset of users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System in the United States portion of the Western Interconnection, as identified in each proposed standard. The regional Reliability Standards would supplement rather than replace the Commission-approved Reliability Standards developed by the ERO that will take effect in June 2007.

11. In translating WECC's existing practices to proposed regional Reliability Standards, WECC proceeded as follows. 23 In 2006, a WECC task force identified criteria in the RMS Agreement that, in the task force's view, should be binding on all users, owners and operators of the regional Bulk-Power System. The task force chose eight of the identified criteria that have the highest priority and that can be implemented in the near term. WECC then used expedited procedures to develop the eight regional Reliability Standards. WECC's rules provide that, when WECC develops a Reliability Standard under expedited procedures, WECC must later develop a permanent, replacement standard using more extensive procedures.

12. On October 5, 2006, using its expedited procedures, WECC solicited comment on whether the eight regional Reliability Standards accurately reflect practices under the RMS Agreement. Commenters raised concerns that sanctions under the eight regional Reliability Standards are inconsistent with NERC Reliability Standards, do not provide clear guidance for measuring compliance, and might be applied in an anti-competitive manner. 24 The task force responded that the regional Reliability Standards would remain in effect for at most one year and that WECC would consider the commenters' concerns when developing permanent, replacement standards. 25 WECC's Board of Directors approved the eight regional Reliability Standards on January 5, 2007.

13. On December 22, 2006, in anticipation of approval by its board, WECC submitted the proposed regional Reliability Standards to NERC. On January 9, 2007, NERC responded with detailed comments. According to NERC, its primary concern was that the sanctions in the proposed regional Reliability Standards were inconsistent with NERC Sanction Guidelines. 26 NERC's January 9 report also identified NERC's preferred nomenclature for Reliability Standards, identified NERC's preferred format for submission, and identified language in the proposed regional Reliability Standards that NERC found ambiguous or incorrect. 27 By letter dated February 28, 2007, WECC responded by committing to address the shortcomings that NERC had identified when WECC develops permanent, replacement standards. 28

14. Also in response to WECC's submission, NERC initiated a 45-day comment period. NERC received six sets of comments. NERC found that WECC had addressed the commenters' concerns by committing to correct shortcomings in the proposed regional Reliability Standards within one year of Commission approval. NERC generally applied a rebuttable presumption that the proposed regional Reliability Standards meet applicable requirements. However, because each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards contains a sanction table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanction Guidelines, the NERC board concluded that the rebuttable presumption was overcome with respect to this one component of the proposed standards. 29 Finally, NERC found that the proposed one-year term was inconsistent with the Commission's prior invalidation of automatic expiration dates for Reliability Standards. 30

15. On February 8, 2007, the Western Interconnection Regional Advisory Body (WIRAB) advised NERC that it should approve the proposed regional Reliability Standards as necessary for Reliable Operation of the Western Interconnection and as meeting the legal standard for approval set forth in section 215 of the FPA. 31

16. On March 2007, NERC approved the proposed regional Reliability Standards on the conditions that WECC: (1) Remove the one-year term limitation; (2) address the shortcomings  32 in the standards within one year of approval by the Commission, including removing the sanctions table that conflicts with the NERC Sanction Guidelines; (3) until the WECC sanction table is removed, follow the NERC Sanction Guidelines to the maximum extent possible within the limits of the WECC sanction table; and (4) monitor and enforce the standards under a delegation agreement between NERC and WECC, once that agreement is approved. 33

17. NERC submitted its present request for the Commission's approval on March 26, 2007. In April 2007, the Commission approved 83 ERO Reliability Standards that apply nation-wide, except for Alaska and Hawaii. NERC and WECC request that the proposed regional Reliability Standards take effect as soon as practical and, if possible, on the same day as the nation-wide Reliability Standards.

18. Notice of the NERC Filing was published in the Federal Register , 72 Fed. Reg. 17,544 (April 9, 2007), with interventions, comments and protests due on or before April 17, 2007. Motions to intervene were filed by Modesto Irrigation District, New York Transmission Owners, Southern California Edison Company, and Transmission Agency of Northern California. Motions to intervene and comment or protest were filed by PacifiCorp, WECC, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (Xcel), PPL EnergyPlus, LLC and PPL Montana, LLC (PPL), and Cogeneration Association of California and Energy Producers and Users Coalition (California Cogeneration). WIRAB submitted timely advice to the Commission regarding the NERC Filing. An untimely motion to intervene was filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

19. WECC states that the proposed regional Reliability Standards, which are exact translations of existing regional criteria, either address matters not addressed in the Commission-approved ERO Reliability Standards or contain more stringent requirements than the ERO standards. 34 WECC states that, with the exception of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, the WECC regional Reliability Standard that implements the West's unique approach to mitigation of unscheduled flow, which the Commission approved as superior to the ERO Reliability Standard, 35 none of the regional Reliability Standards in any way displace the ERO requirements approved by the Commission. Rather, users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection will still be required to comply with all of the requirements of the approved ERO Reliability Standards.

20. WECC contends that the eight regional Reliability Standards satisfy the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria for approval. It states that only a few commenters raised substantive concerns in the WECC standard development process regarding several potentially ambiguous terms such as “load responsibility,” “firm transactions,” and “Receiver;” and that WECC has committed to address these issues in developing permanent regional Reliability Standards.

21. WECC acknowledges that the sanctions tables in the proposed regional Reliability Standards differ from the NERC Sanction Guidelines. WECC states that it plans to propose replacement standards that incorporate the NERC Sanction Guidelines and address other concerns of NERC and stakeholders. WECC also explains that the regional sanctions would apply only when an offense was not covered by a sanction under the ERO Reliability Standards and that the regional Reliability Standards preclude the possibility of being sanctioned under both the WECC and ERO Reliability Standards for the same non-compliance occurrence.

22. WIRAB advises that the proposed regional Reliability Standards are necessary for the Reliable Operation of the Western Interconnection and should take effect on the effective date of the 83 ERO Reliability Standards. WIRAB also advises reinstatement of the one-year term limitation, noting that WECC approved the regional Reliability Standards only as interim standards. WIRAB suggests that it is unclear that NERC has authority to eliminate the one-year term limitation. Finally, WIRAB expresses concern that NERC effectively disregarded the statutory rebuttable presumption without sufficient legal analysis. 36

23. PacifiCorp states that, given the unique nature of the Western transmission system, it supports the eight regional Reliability Standards as necessary for addressing reliability concerns of the Western Interconnection.

24. Xcel, PPL and California Cogeneration filed protests or comments in opposition to one or more of the proposed regional Reliability Standards. California Cogeneration objects to proposed regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 (Operating Reserves), which, in relevant part, requires balancing authorities to maintain operating reserves equal to a stated percentage of “load responsibility.” According to California Cogeneration, “load responsibility” should not include behind-the-meter load that a cogenerator serves at its industrial or commercial host. It asserts that a balancing authority is not obligated to serve that load in the case of an outage on the Bulk-Power System and therefore should not be required to maintain associated reserves. 37

25. PPL, which owns and operates electrical facilities and markets electricity in the Western Interconnection, objects to WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, addressing the mitigation of unscheduled flows. According to PPL, WECC has not justified the need for this regional Reliability Standard, which imposes requirements on “receivers” that are not identified as an applicable entity, and improperly imposes mitigation obligations on load-serving entities (LSEs) and marketers that lack authority or ability to comply with those obligations.

26. Xcel, which owns generation and transmission facilities and serves electricity customers in the Western Interconnection, argues that the Commission lacks authority to review the proposed regional Reliability Standards because WECC was not a Regional Entity at the time it submitted the proposed regional Reliability Standards to NERC. Xcel asserts that the WECC Reliability Standards development process used to develop these eight regional Reliability Standards would be invalid to the extent that the Commission directs changes to that process. Xcel contends that NERC, in eliminating the one-year interim status of the regional Reliability Standards, has effectively approved the regional Reliability Standards on a permanent instead of interim basis. Further, Xcel raises substantive objections that are discussed below in the context of the relevant regional Reliability Standard.

27. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2006), the timely, unopposed motions to intervene serve to make the entities that filed them parties to this proceeding. We will grant PG&E's late motion to intervene, given the early stage of this proceeding and the absence of undue delay, prejudice or burden to the parties.

28. As discussed above, Xcel argues that the Commission only has the authority to consider Reliability Standards proposed by the ERO or a Regional Entity. On April 19, 2007, subsequent to Xcel's protest, the Commission accepted the proposed Regional Delegation Agreements, and accepted WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. 38 Thus, we consider this objection by Xcel to be moot.

29. Xcel also contends that “to the extent the Commission directs changes to WECC's standards development process that differ from the process used to develop these WECC Standards, those standards will have been developed pursuant to processes that were inconsistent with WECC's own rules.”  39 The Commission, in the April 19 Order, accepted WECC's Standards Development Manual, 40 and WECC's eight proposed regional Reliability Standards were developed using the process set forth in this manual. The Commission also directed WECC to develop several changes to the manual. 41 However, the record of WECC's development of the proposed regional Reliability Standards indicates that Xcel had full opportunity to participate and raise its concerns in the (what is now a Commission-approved) stakeholders process, as well in the NERC posting of the WECC regional Reliability Standards for comment. 42 Accordingly, we deny Xcel's protest on this issue.

30. As discussed above, WECC had proposed that the regional Reliability Standards would be interim standards that would remain in effect for a maximum of one year after Commission approval. Specifically, each regional Reliability Standard includes a statement that it will remain in effect “for one year from the date of Commission approval or until a North American Standard or a revised [WECC] Regional Reliability Standard goes into place, whichever occurs first.” During the interim, WECC would develop permanent standards that, upon Commission approval, would replace the interim standards.

31. NERC, however, accepted the regional Reliability Standards on the condition that “the standards shall remain mandatory and enforceable until they are revised, replaced or withdrawn in a subsequent standards action, including approval of the revision, replacement, or withdrawal by the Commission.”  43 NERC explained that it imposed this condition to be consistent with a Commission order which provided that, with regard to a similar provision in NERC's standards development procedure, once a Reliability Standard is made effective under section 215 of the FPA, it can only be revised, replaced or withdrawn by a further action that requires Commission approval.

32. WECC, WIRAB and Xcel object to NERC's elimination of the one-year expiration date. WECC and WIRAB state that the entities that voted in favor of the regional Reliability Standards did so with the understanding that they were voting for temporary standards, not standards that would continue indefinitely until replaced. 44 WIRAB states that, while it agrees with the policy that urgent action standards should not have sunset dates, it is concerned that imposing the rule with respect to the eight WECC regional Reliability Standards will abridge the due process of WECC members that approved them. Likewise, Xcel remarks that WECC postponed substantive responses to stakeholders' comments based on the rationale that it was proposing the standards on an interim basis.

33. We affirm NERC's decision to eliminate the one-year term limitation. NERC's decision is consistent with our precedent. In the ERO Certification Order , the Commission directed NERC to establish a process for adopting an interim Reliability Standard on an expedited basis, where the standard might be adopted later on a permanent basis, without any possibility that the interim standard would expire in the interim. 45 NERC subsequently revised its “urgent action” procedures to remove the automatic one year expiration provision. In accepting this revision, the Commission explained that “It is sufficient * * * to allow the interim Reliability Standard to remain in effect until it is made permanent or replaced by a permanent Reliability Standard, or possibly even its withdrawal as a Reliability Standard so long as it is understood that these actions are all subject to Commission approval.”  46 WECC developed the eight regional Reliability Standards pursuant to its Expedited Process for Urgent Action Interim Standards (Expedited Process). 47 Thus, our concerns regarding NERC's urgent action procedures apply equally to WECC's Expedited Process.

34. The commenters, however, are mistaken that the elimination of the one-year expiration date necessarily converts these from interim to permanent regional Reliability Standards. WECC is still committed pursuant to its Expedited Process to completing the development of permanent replacement standards. 48 Moreover, as another condition of approval, NERC required WECC to “meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified in the standards * * * over the course of the next year.”  49 Thus, we disagree with the commenters that NERC, in eliminating the one-year expiration date, has made the regional Reliability Standards permanent or thwarted due process. NERC's decision will assure that, if WECC is unable to develop permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standards within one year, the interim standards that WECC represents are crucial for reliability within the Western Interconnection will not automatically expire.

35. Section 215(d)(3) of the FPA provides that, when a Reliability Standard is submitted to the ERO by an Interconnection-wide Regional Entity, the ERO must rebuttably presume that the standard meets statutory criteria for approval. 50 In Order No. 672, the Commission explained that the rebuttable presumption refers to the burden of proof before the ERO. 51 Thus, a party that objects to a proposed Reliability Standard before the ERO must demonstrate that it does not meet criteria for approval. If the ERO finds that the presumption is not adequately rebutted, it must accept the proposed Reliability Standard from a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. 52

36. Here, NERC correctly applied the rebuttable presumption to WECC as a Regional Entity organized on an Interconnection-wide basis. However, the NERC Board found that “[b]ecause each of the proposed standards contains a sanctions table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanctions Guidelines, the proposed standards have lost the rebuttable presumption that such standards would otherwise have.”  53 NERC then approved the proposed regional Reliability Standards with the condition that WECC conform the sanctions table to NERC's Sanction Guidelines and that, in the interim, WECC follow the NERC guidelines to the maximum extent possible.

37. WIRAB disagrees with the manner in which NERC dismissed the statutory presumption. It asserts that NERC failed to provide an adequate analysis regarding the reasonableness, potential discriminatory impacts, or the broader public interest at stake to support a finding that rebuts the presumption.

38. In the first instance, WIRAB's concern is only hypothetical since NERC, after determining that the rebuttable presumption should not apply, determined that the regional Reliability Standards met the statutory criteria for approval. Moreover, it appears that WIRAB interprets NERC as having completely disregarded the rebuttable presumption. The Commission believes that the better understanding, supported by NERC's filing, is that NERC determined that the rebuttable presumption was overcome “with respect to this component of the proposed standards,” i.e. , the sanctions table. 54 NERC supported this determination by explaining that NERC staff and industry stakeholders identified a number of shortcomings, the most significant of which is the sanction table that is inconsistent with the NERC Sanction Guidelines. 55 Although NERC's explanation is succinct, the Commission concludes that NERC has articulated a sufficient rationale for finding that the rebuttable presumption with regard to this one component was overcome. In general, however, NERC should provide a robust discussion of its reasoning for finding that the rebuttable presumption has been overcome.

39. Xcel protests that the proposed WECC regional Reliability Standards impose an unfair burden because, according to Xcel, the proposed standards are duplicative of Commission-approved NERC Reliability Standards. Thus, Xcel contends that the regional Reliability Standards present the risk of dual penalties for the same offense.

40. We reject Xcel's protest on this issue. Each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards provides that “[a]t no time shall this regional Standard be enforced in addition to a similar North American Standard.”  56 WECC, in its comments, makes clear that the intent of this language is to ensure that there would not be dual sanctions for the same offense. 57 Thus, we conclude that the regional Reliability Standards will not result in duplicative penalties resulting from the same non-compliance event.

41. In reviewing a proposed Reliability Standard, we consider, in relevant part, whether it would address a reliability goal. 58 Here, WECC, WIRAB and NERC each represent that the proposed regional Reliability Standards would enhance regional reliability by making binding, throughout the United States portion of the Western Interconnection, reliability practices that are currently implemented in the Western Interconnection on a voluntary basis. As noted above, those practices are currently legally binding only on signatories to the RMS Agreement. WECC and NERC explain that Commission approval would extend the compliance obligations of the regional Reliability Standards beyond the RMS signatories to all applicable users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection. According to NERC, having the regional Reliability Standards approved as mandatory under section 215 of the FPA provides significant additional authority for compliance and enforcement.

42. Xcel, on the other hand, asserts that the proposed standards are unnecessary, reasoning that the RMS Agreement will remain in effect and is sufficient to protect reliability.

43. We agree with WECC, WIRAB and NERC that approval of the proposed regional Reliability Standards under section 215 would enhance reliability in the Western Interconnection by making WECC's current practices binding on all relevant entities in the region and by strengthening WECC's compliance and enforcement authority. WECC's current practices were developed in response to concrete and significant reliability problems in the Western Interconnection in the mid-1990s. According to WECC, reliability in the region has improved since the practices have been in effect. When we first approved the practices in 1999, we lacked full jurisdiction over reliability and therefore could not impose the practices on a mandatory basis. While we laud WECC members for their voluntary compliance by contract, we believe that statutorily-based and mandatory Reliability Standards will better ensure the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

44. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires that adequate generating capacity be available at all times to maintain scheduled frequency and avoid loss of firm load following transmission or generation contingencies. The regional Reliability Standard applies to balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups (RSGs) with provision for agents to provide administrative duties. A balancing authority or reserve sharing group must maintain minimum operating reserves, defined as the sum of: (1) Regulating reserves; (2) contingency reserves; (3) additional reserve for interruptible imports; and (4) additional reserve for on-demand obligations. WECC requires balancing authorities to maintain an amount of contingency reserves:

Further, the contingency reserve must be composed of at least 50 percent spinning reserves, which must be capable of ramping and being fully deployed within ten minutes.

45. WECC's regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC's Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 (Disturbance Control Performance), which requires a balancing authority (either directly or by participating in a reserve sharing group) to use its contingency reserves to balance resources and demand and return Interconnection frequency to within defined limits following a reportable disturbance. Requirement 3 of NERC's BAL-002-0 requires each balancing authority or reserve sharing group to “carry at least enough Contingency Reserve to cover the most severe contingency.”

46. As with all eight regional Reliability Standards, NERC approved WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. 59 With regard to WECC-BAL-STD-002-0, NERC identified various formatting concerns including the need to specify individual Requirements and corresponding Measures, consistent with the format of the NERC Reliability Standards. NERC also stated that WECC's regional Reliability Standard defines the terms “automatic generation control,” “disturbance,” “frequency bias,” and “non-spinning reserve” differently from NERC's Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (NERC glossary). 60 NERC also identifies a number of shortcomings that apply generally to all of the WECC regional Reliability Standards including the sanction tables that conflict with the NERC Sanction Guidelines, failure to include Violation Severity Levels (levels of non-compliance) and Violation Risk Factors, an “excuse of performance” provision  61 that is not included in NERC's Reliability Standards template, and additional substantive and formatting concerns.

47. WECC explains that NERC Reliability Standard BAL-002-0 requires an applicable entity to have the ability to supply reserves equal to the most severe single contingency. According to WECC, while applicable users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with BAL-002-0, the corresponding regional Reliability Standard goes further and requires each balancing authority in the West to provide a minimum reserve of five percent of the loads served by hydro generation and seven percent of the loads served by thermal generation. WECC states that this regional minimum reserve requirement was developed to assure that there would be sufficient generation to sustain acceptable power system performance for various contingencies. Further, WECC explains that WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 is more stringent because NERC's BAL-002-0 requires contingency reserves to be restored within 90 minutes following a disturbance while WECC requires restoration within 60 minutes.

48. As noted above, WECC requires balancing authorities to maintain contingency reserves equal to the greater of the loss of generating capacity resulting from the most severe single contingency or the sum of five percent of load responsibility served by hydro generation and seven percent of the load responsibility served by thermal generation. Both Xcel and California Cogeneration protest that the term “load responsibility” as used by the WECC is ambiguous and could lead to inconsistent interpretations of the regional Reliability Standard. California Cogeneration states that Commission Opinion No. 464 determined that a qualifying facility's (QF) net load is the only relevant load for the purposes of calculating the operating reserve responsibility of the QF. 62 It expresses concern that the term load responsibility could be interpreted to include gross load in conflict with Opinion No. 464 and, thus, asks the Commission to remand the regional Reliability Standard so that it can be modified to include a definition of load responsibility consistent with Opinion No. 464.

49. Xcel also argues that the term load responsibility is overly vague. It quotes a WECC document that defines load responsibility as “[a] control area's firm load demand plus those firm sales minus those firm purchases for which reserve capacity is provided by the supplier.”  63 According to Xcel, WECC has not adequately defined the term “firm” embedded in its definition of load responsibility and, likewise, has not adequately defined the related term “interruptible.”

50. Xcel notes that WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires the purchaser of interruptible power to carry additional reserves to replace interruptible imports. Xcel posits that, while the definition of “interruptible” is unclear, application of a narrow interpretation of the term could have adverse impacts on competition and reliability. Specifically, it claims that to avoid application of the “adder” some entities avoid purchasing “economy power,” or interruptible power, thereby impeding competition. Xcel also claims that this practice may result in entities utilizing local units that are subject to failure or curtailment, resulting in less reliable operations. Xcel further argues that certain entities may try to claim that most “firm” transactions, as interpreted by the Commission in Order No. 890, are potentially curtailable and thus “interruptible” under a “very narrow interpretation.” Xcel adds that there is no evidence to show that “economy transactions” are less reliable thus warranting the need for extra reserves.

51. Xcel also opposes the 60-minute restoration period that would be required under BAL-STD-002-0. Xcel asserts that BAL-STD-002-0 would require restoration of contingency reserves within 60 minutes rather than the 90 minutes permissible under the corresponding NERC standard. According to Xcel, in adopting 60 minutes of restoration time, WECC and NERC disregarded Requirement R6.2 of BAL-002-0 that established a default contingency reserve restoration period of 90 minutes and allows adjustment of this period “to better suit the reliability targets of the Interconnection based on analysis approved by the NERC Operating Committee.” Xcel contends that WECC failed to obtain approval of the NERC Operating Committee. Xcel also claims that WECC's proposed 60-minute restoration period will have a dampening effect on competition because the shortened restoration period will provide little time for market participants to procure alternative resources outside of the host balancing authority.

52. Further, Xcel argues that WECC has not justified the requirements of the regional Reliability Standard and thus the technical expertise of WECC should not be given any weight in the Commission's evaluation of the regional Reliability Standard.

53. The Commission approves regional Reliability Standard WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission finds that the proposed regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, BAL-002-0, because WECC requires a more stringent minimum reserve requirement than the nation-wide requirement. 64 Further, WECC's requirement to restore contingency reserves within 60 minutes is more stringent than the 90 minute restoration period set forth in NERC's BAL-002-0. While we agree with Xcel that NERC's filing did not adequately explain the need for WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 or why it was more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standards, WECC provides an adequate explanation in its comments for the Commission to make a reasoned determination. 65

54. The Commission agrees with the shortcomings identified by NERC regarding WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 and expects WECC in developing a permanent, replacement standard to address these shortcomings as it has committed to do. For example, for each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards, (1) Regional definitions should conform to the definitions set forth in the NERC glossary, unless a specific deviation has been justified; and (2) documents that are referenced in the Reliability Standard should be attached to the Reliability Standard. Likewise, with respect to this and each of the proposed regional Reliability Standards, we agree with NERC that WECC must remove the sanctions table that is inconsistent with NERC's Sanction Guidelines and develop Violation Risk Factors (levels of non-compliance) and Violation Severity Levels that conform to corresponding NERC standards. In approving NERC's Sanction Guidelines, the Commission emphasized the need to achieve consistency in the assessment of penalties across the regions. Elimination of the WECC sanctions table will further this goal. 66

55. Further, it is important that regional Reliability Standards and NERC Reliability Standards achieve a reasonable level of consistency in the structure of a Reliability Standard so that there is a common understanding of the elements. In particular, we agree with NERC that WECC should eliminate the “excuse of performance” provision of the regional Reliability Standards, which is inconsistent with NERC's format. While the factors identified in the excuse of performance provision may be legitimate mitigating factors for WECC to consider when assessing a penalty on a case-by-case basis, the Commission disagrees that a Reliability Standard should contain a blanket waiver or excuse for non-compliance. 67 We expect WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement standard, to address these concerns of both NERC and the Commission. In general, with respect to both the eight proposed Reliability Standards as well as other standards that are being developed by WECC, it is essential that WECC employ a higher level of precision and consistency.

56. In Order No. 672, the Commission, in discussing the factors it would consider in determining whether a proposed Reliability Standard met the statutory standard for approval, explained that a proposed Reliability Standard should be clear and unambiguous regarding what is required and who is required to comply. 68 Xcel and California Cogeneration contend that the Commission should remand WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 because of ambiguities in the terms “load responsibility” and “firm transaction.” As discussed above, the Commission believes that the regional Reliability Standard is sound, as it provides greater stringency than NERC's reserve requirements and meets a need of the Western Interconnection. While commenters identify potential ambiguities, we do not believe that these potential uncertainties demonstrate a degree of ambiguity within the regional Reliability Standard that requires us to remand it. 69 Rather, as WECC indicated in its response to stakeholders in the regional Reliability Standards development process, WECC will provide an opportunity to address these concerns when developing a permanent, replacement standard. The Commission agrees that this is a reasonable approach and will expect WECC's submission of a replacement standard to adequately address these stakeholder concerns.

57. California Cogeneration raised concerns that the term load responsibility must be defined consistent with the Commission's Opinion No. 464, which issued in a proceeding under section 205 of the FPA that addressed treatment of QFs under the CAISO open access transmission tariff. The Commission agrees that a QF's load responsibility should be interpreted consistent with Opinion No. 464, which provided in relevant part that:

58. Thus, from an economic perspective under section 205, the UDC must pay for the reserves associated with the backup power provided by the UDC by contract. While operating reserves may be required for behind the meter load in a Regional Reliability Standard for reliability reasons, a QF is not required to buy operating reserve for the load that has standby service. It remains the responsibility of the host utility that provides the QF's normal stand-by or back-up power to supply those reserves. We believe this explanation addresses California Cogeneration's concern.

59. In regard to Xcel's concern about the definition of interruptible imports, while it is possible that the term may require refinement by WECC to address specific contexts, the meaning of the term “interruptible” is generally well understood in the industry, i.e. , transmission or generation subject to interruption at the provider's discretion. Xcel's claims that the provision, under a narrow interpretation, could have adverse impacts on competition and reliability are highly speculative.

60. The Commission rejects Xcel's protest regarding the 60-minute contingency reserve restoration period. This is useful stringency that benefits reliability in the Western Interconnection by shortening the time after a disturbance that the balancing authority might not have sufficient reserves to meet its reliable obligations in the Interconnection. Xcel's concern that this provision harms competition is speculative. Moreover, the Commission notes that NERC Reliability Standard EOP-001, Requirement R1 requires entities to have pre-existing arrangements. Balancing authorities should not use the reserve restoration period to shop for better prices but to be concerned about restoring the reserves so the Bulk-Power System remains reliable.

61. Finally, while Xcel may be technically correct that the current NERC BAL-002-2 requires approval of the NERC Operating Committee to change the restoration period, we do not believe this is a sufficient reason to remand WECC's proposal. First, in Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to modify this Requirement to replace “NERC Operating Committee” with “ERO.”  71 NERC board approval of WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 suffices. Second, WECC did not increase but, rather, decreased the restoration period, making the WECC standard include a more stringent requirement than NERC's comparable requirement.

62. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 applies to transmission operators, balancing authorities, and load serving entities within the Western Interconnection. Under WECC's plan for congestion management, responsible entities must comply with requests from operators of qualified transmission paths to reduce unscheduled flow on the path. The regional Reliability Standard identifies when an operator shall request curtailments, states that responsible entities shall comply in a timely manner with a request for curtailments, and establishes procedures for reducing flows. In particular, it requires that:

63. NERC's Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 (Transmission Loading Relief), which the Commission approved in Order No. 693 subject to certain modifications, 73 requires a reliability coordinator experiencing potential or actual System Operating Limit (SOL) or Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL) violations to take appropriate actions pursuant to established procedures to relieve transmission loading. For the Eastern Interconnection, balancing authorities must follow the established transmission loading relief (TLR) procedures to take appropriate actions pursuant to established procedures to relieve transmission loading. Requirement R2.2 of IRO-006-3 identifies “the equivalent Interconnection-wide transmission loading relief procedure for use in the Western Interconnection is the ‘WSCC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan.’ ”

64. NERC approved WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 on the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address specified shortcomings concerning formatting, use of standard terms, and the need for greater specificity in the actions that a responsible entity must take. In addition, NERC noted that the requirements should be part of the regional Reliability Standard rather than being embedded in a filing.

65. According to WECC, WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 is essential because it is the only source of a mandatory process for mitigating overloads due to unscheduled line flows in the Western Interconnection. WECC notes that, in developing the regional Reliability Standard, stakeholders commented that the term “receiver” as defined in the standard should more closely match the NERC Functional Model and should not include market entities. WECC states that it intends to address these issues in developing a permanent, replacement standard. 74

66. PPL protests the applicability of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, noting that NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 applies to reliability coordinators, transmission operators and balancing authorities. PPL contends that WECC has, without explanation, significantly broadened the scope of the regional Reliability Standard by requiring compliance by LSEs. According to PPL, market entities such as LSEs may be unable to meet the requirements of WECC-IRO-STD-006-0. Second, PPL protests that certain requirements apply to “receivers,” which are not identified in the applicability section of the regional Reliability Standard. PPL contends that receivers (1) May lack the authority or ability to comply with a directive to reduce flows and (2) may include functional entities beyond LSEs such as “purchasing selling entities” that are not identified in the applicability section of the regional Reliability Standard.

67. PPL recommends that the Commission limit applicability to those entities identified in NERC Reliability Standard IRO-006-3 and clarify that the assessment of penalties is limited to the entities to which the regional Reliability Standard is applicable. PPL asks that, if the Commission decides that it is appropriate to include load-serving entities, the applicability should be limited to LSEs as defined by NERC  75 and to LSEs that meet NERC's compliance registry criteria.

68. Xcel protests that no justification has been provided for the WECC regional Reliability Standard. Xcel recognizes that one benefit of the WECC unscheduled flow mitigation procedures is the coordinated use of phase shifters to provide some relief on an overburdened transmission path without the economic impact of schedule curtailments. Xcel suggests that, as an alternative, the WECC procedures could be modeled after the TLR procedures, while retaining this initial step.

69. We approve WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 as mandatory and enforceable for the Western Interconnection. The regional Reliability Standard provides that practices under WECC's Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan—including directions thereunder to reduce flows—are enforceable against all Transmission Operators, Balancing Authorities and Load-Serving Entities in the Western Interconnection. In Order No. 693, we found that the WECC's Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Plan (which relies on phase angle regulators, series capacitors and back-to-back DC lines to mitigate contingencies without curtailing transactions) is superior to the national Reliability Standard. 76 Accordingly, the Commission finds that WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 is adequately justified. In developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard, WECC may consider Xcel's suggestion to model the WECC procedures after the TLR procedures, however, we will not mandate such an approach.

70. The Commission shares PPL's concern that, while the applicability of the regional Reliability Standard identifies LSEs, the requirements refer to receivers. As indicated by PPL, the term “receiver” may refer to LSEs as well as other market participants. While WECC states that WECC-IRO-STD-006 is an exact translation of existing WECC RMS criteria, an entity cannot be subject to a compliance action if it has not been clearly identified in the applicability section of the Reliability Standard. 77 Thus, in approving the regional Reliability Standard, we expect a continuation of the existing practices for transmission line relief in the Western Interconnection. However, an entity that is not clearly identified in the applicability provision of a regional Reliability Standard may not be subject to penalties for non-compliance. Moreover, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA and section 39.5(f) of the Commission's regulations, 78 we direct that WECC in developing a permanent, replacement Reliability Standard, clarify the term “receiver” and the applicability of the standard.

71. We also share PPL's concerns regarding the identification of LSEs as applicable entities. While the expansion of the WECC regional Reliability Standard beyond the applicability of the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard is not in itself problematic, we are concerned regarding PPL's contention that LSEs may not be able to meet the Requirements of the regional Reliability Standard. While we are approving WECC-IRO-STD-006 as mandatory and enforceable, we direct WECC to address PPL's concerns in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard.

72. We also expect that WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard, will address the shortcomings identified by NERC.

73. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 applies to transmission operators or transmission owners of 40 specified transmission paths. 79 The regional Reliability Standard requires these entities to certify to WECC that all (1) Protective relay applications and (2) protective relay settings and logic are appropriate for the specified transmission paths. It also requires these entities to certify that “relay operations since the last certification or during the last three-year period have been analyzed for correctness and appropriate corrective action taken. * * *”

74. NERC Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 (System Protection Coordination), which addresses protection systems, requires transmission operators and generator operators to notify appropriate entities of relay or equipment failures and to coordinate when installing new or modified protection systems. 80

75. NERC approved WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC, including several formatting concerns.

76. WECC states that applicable users, owners and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with the Requirements of the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard. The WECC regional Reliability Standard requires, in addition, that transmission owners and transmission operators analyze and certify all relay settings and operations on specified paths to determine whether operations were correct, and that current information on relays is provided to the transmission operators. WECC explains that these requirements were developed to address root causes of a July 1996 system disturbance in which undesirable relay operations due to incorrect settings and undetected relay problems resulted in cascading outages in the Western Interconnection.

77. Xcel argues that no justification for WECC's certification requirement has been provided. According to Xcel, regional differences are intended to provide reliability protection in situations where physical differences in the Bulk-Power System justify additional stringency. It claims that WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 appears to be driven by a desire for an attestation, not an actual physical difference in the Western Interconnection and that, to the extent the attestation is needed, it is appropriate for the NERC Reliability Standards rather than a regional difference. Xcel further argues that the proposed regional Reliability Standard does not create any additional reliability benefit but, rather, needlessly compounds the requirements of the NERC Reliability Standards.

78. The Commission approves WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission expects WECC, in developing replacement standards, to address the shortcomings identified by NERC.

79. The Commission disagrees with Xcel's contentions that the need for the regional Reliability Standard has not been justified and that it does not create any additional reliability benefits. While the NERC filing did not elaborate on the reliability benefit of WECC-PRC-STD-001-1, WECC explains that it goes beyond the related NERC Reliability Standard by requiring certification that all relay settings and operations on specified transmission paths are appropriate for the Bulk-Power System. The certification requirement provides an additional level of assurance that protection systems will operate as they should to provide for Bulk-Power System reliability. It is appropriate to give due weight to WECC's technical expertise in its representation that the requirements of this regional Reliability Standard will address the problems identified as a root cause of prior cascading outages in the Western Interconnection. 81

80. Further, Xcel incorrectly characterizes the Commission's previous statements regarding when a regional difference may be justified. The Commission has identified two types of regional differences that it will accept, provided they otherwise satisfy the statutory requirements for approval: (1) A regional difference that is more stringent than the continent-wide Reliability Standard, including a regional difference that addresses matters that the continent-wide Reliability Standard does not; and (2) a regional Reliability Standard that is necessitated by a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. 82 Xcel incorrectly combines the two appropriate types of regional differences as a single standard category where a regional difference sets forth a stringency needed to address a physical difference in the Bulk-Power System. Thus, we reject Xcel's argument that WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 should not be approved because it is not based on an actual physical difference in the Western Interconnection.

81. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 has the purpose of ensuring that protection system misoperations are analyzed and mitigated. 83 This regional Reliability Standard applies to the owners and operators of 40 specific transmission paths that are identified in Attachment A of the standard. The regional Reliability Standard requires the removal and repair of protection systems after a misoperation within specified time frames.

82. The WECC regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC's Reliability Standard PRC-003-1, which also relates to protective system misoperations. 84 Requirement 1 of NERC's PRC-003-1 provides that each regional reliability organization, i.e. , Regional Entity, must establish procedures for review, analysis, reporting and mitigation of protection system misoperations. WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 states that it meets Requirement 1 of NERC Reliability Standard PRC-003-1.

83. As with all eight regional Reliability Standards, NERC approved WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address the shortcomings identified by NERC in a January 9, 2007 letter to WECC. With regard to WECC-PRC-STD-003-1, NERC noted, inter alia, that the WECC definition of “disturbance” is not identical to the NERC glossary definition. It also identified a WECC Measure that refers to the filing of a form for reporting misoperations, without a corresponding requirement.

84. In its comments, WECC explains that the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard PRC-003-1 requires the analysis of misoperations within 90 days and the submission of corrective action plans. WECC states that the applicable users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System in the West must comply with the requirement of NERC's PRC-003-1. In addition, the WECC regional Reliability Standard goes further and requires the applicable entities in the West: (1) To remove equipment that has misoperated within 22 hours; and (2) to repair or replace equipment that has misoperated within 20 business days for the specific transmission paths identified in the WECC regional Reliability Standard. WECC explains that these requirements were developed as a result of a 345 kV line relay misoperation in July 1996 when virtually the same outage occurred the next day because the faulty equipment had not been isolated.

85. Xcel points out that, in Order No. 693, the Commission stated that it would neither approve nor remand NERC Reliability Standard PRC-003-1 until NERC submits additional information regarding regional procedures on misoperations. 85 The Commission also directed NERC to consider whether greater consistency can be achieved as NERC modifies PRC-003-1 to provide the missing information. Xcel asserts that Commission approval of WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 would allow WECC to side-step the process directed by the Commission to achieve greater uniformity with regard to NERC's PRC-003-1. 86 Xcel also contends that WECC has not explained the physical differences in the Western Interconnection necessitating the regional difference and, thus, WECC's technical expertise should be given no weight in evaluating the WECC regional Reliability Standard.

86. The Commission approves WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission agrees with WECC that the proposed regional Reliability Standard goes beyond the corresponding NERC standards because no current NERC Reliability Standard includes the equipment removal and repair requirements set forth in this regional Reliability Standard. Moreover, while we agree with Xcel that NERC's filing did not adequately explain the need for WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 or why it is more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standards, WECC has provided an adequate explanation in its comments, as discussed above.

87. We note that upon failure of protective relays, NERC Reliability Standard PRC-001-1 requires transmission operators and generator operators to take corrective actions as soon as possible (within thirty minutes as directed by Order No. 693). 87 Order No. 693 clarifies that “corrective actions” do not refer to the repair of protective relays, but instead to actions that ensure the reliability of the system, such as lowering IROLs and SOLs. The proposed regional Reliability Standard does not relieve compliance with this requirement but, rather, adds more stringency by defining a maximum timeframe for removal and repair of protective equipment.

88. The Commission disagrees with Xcel's assertion that approval of WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 would sidestep the Commission's directive that NERC consider whether greater consistency can be achieved as NERC modifies PRC-003-1. Approval of the WECC regional Reliability Standard does not preclude the development of an appropriate level of uniformity on a nationwide basis. The Commission expects that all of the regions, including WECC, will work together to develop greater uniformity with regard to reporting procedures for misoperation of relays and remedial action schemes.

89. The Commission agrees with the shortcomings identified by NERC regarding WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 and expects WECC in developing a permanent, replacement standard to address these shortcomings as it has committed to do. In particular, we believe that regional definitions should conform to the definitions set forth in the NERC glossary unless a specific deviation has been justified. Likewise, each Requirement should have a corresponding Measure and, in this case, vice versa .

90. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires each transmission owner and transmission operator of specified transmission paths to perform maintenance and inspection on those paths as described by its Transmission Maintenance and Inspection Plan (TMIP). The regional Reliability Standard identifies specific contents that each applicable transmission owner and transmission operator must include in its TMIP. For example, a TMIP must include the scheduled interval for time-based maintenance, describe maintenance and inspection methods, provide relevant checklists or forms and provide criteria for assessing the condition of a facility. Each applicable entity must retain all pertinent maintenance and inspection records for at least five years. Further, each applicable entity must annually certify to WECC staff that it has developed, documented and implemented a TMIP.

91. WECC's regional Reliability Standard corresponds to NERC Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 (Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing), which requires transmission owners, generator owners and distribution providers that own transmission protection systems to have a protection system maintenance and testing program for protection systems that affect the reliability of the bulk electric system.

92. NERC approved WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address identified shortcomings. With regard to WECC-PRC-STD-005-1, NERC identified various formatting concerns including the need to specify individual requirements instead of one formal requirement with multiple subparts (including statements and comments that do not read as requirements).

93. WECC states that the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, PRC-005-1, requires a maintenance and inspection plan limited to relays, monitoring equipment, and special protection systems. WECC explains that relevant users, owners and operators must comply with the requirements of the NERC Reliability Standard. According to WECC, the proposed regional Reliability Standard goes further by requiring, for specified transmission paths, a highly detailed TMIP for all transmission and substation equipment components, including circuit breakers, relays, transformers, reactive devices, and transmission lines. It also requires applicable entities to maintain five years of maintenance records to verify compliance.

94. Xcel argues that WECC has failed to justify the need for this regional Reliability Standard based on physical differences in the bulk power system.

95. The Commission approves regional Reliability Standard WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. As explained by WECC, the applicable users, owner and operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with NERC's PRC-003-1 and, in addition, the regional Reliability Standard. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the regional Reliability Standard satisfies the statutory standard for approval because it is more stringent than the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard by requiring, for specified transmission paths, a highly detailed maintenance and inspection plan for all transmission and substation equipment components. WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 imposes requirements well beyond the NERC Reliability Standards and improves reliability because disciplined maintenance on equipment such as transmission lines, circuit breakers, power transformers and regulators will help prevent failures during operation.

96. Moreover, WECC in its comments provided a persuasive need for the regional Reliability Standard as well as a demonstration that the regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the corresponding NERC standard. Thus, we reject Xcel's protest on this issue.

97. Requirement WR1.b(i)(a)(2) of the regional Reliability Standard requires the TMIP to describe the maintenance practices for station equipment including remedial action scheme (RAS) systems, which are also referred to as “special protection systems.”  88 This regional Requirement corresponds more closely to NERC Reliability Standard PRC-017-0 (Special Protection System Maintenance and Testing). It appears that the NERC Reliability Standard includes slightly more specificity in that it requires a special protection system maintenance program to include, among other things, batteries and instrument transformers, which are not specified in WECC-PRC-STD-005-1. Because WECC's regional Reliability Standards are in addition to the NERC Reliability Standards, we would expect the maintenance plans of applicable entities in the West to include these details identified in NERC Reliability Standard PRC-017-0.

98. The Commission agrees with NERC's concerns regarding the format and content of WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 and expects WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement standard, to address these concerns, including but not limited to inclusion of all relevant documents.

99. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 applies to transmission operators of 40 specified transmission paths. The goal of this regional Reliability Standard is to ensure that the operating transfer capability limits requirements of the Western Interconnection are not exceeded. 89 It includes a Measure that provides “actual power flow on all transmission paths shall at no time exceed the [operating transfer capability] for more than 20 minutes for paths that are stability limited, or for more than 30 minutes for paths that are thermally limited.”

100. The corresponding NERC Reliability Standard, TOP-007-0, requires that violations of SOL and IROL be promptly reported to the reliability coordinator so that it can direct corrective action and inform other affected systems. It also requires a transmission operator to mitigate an IROL violation as soon as possible but no longer than 30 minutes. In Order No. 693, the Commission approved TOP-007-0 as mandatory and enforceable. 90

101. NERC approved WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address identified shortcomings, including formatting concerns and inconsistency between the NERC and WECC definition of the term “disturbance.”

102. WECC comments that NERC Reliability Standard TOP-007-0 requires transmission operators to return the system to within IROL limits for each incident in which an IROL is exceeded. While transmission operators in the Western Interconnection must comply with the NERC requirement, WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 “goes further in limiting the time period of an Operational Transfer Capability (which is more conservative than an IROL) exceedance to no more than 20 minutes when the limit is based on potential voltage or transient stability.”  91 WECC explains that the 20-minute limit was developed after two major disturbances in 1996 that caused the system to break up rapidly. WECC also states that the regional Reliability Standard applies to 40 clearly defined transmission paths, many of which would not be defined by NERC as having IROL requirements.

103. Xcel protests that no technical justification has been provided for WECC-TOP-STD-007-0.

104. The Commission approves WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. WECC has provided an adequate explanation of the need for this regional Reliability Standard and also adequately explained how the Requirements are more stringent than the Requirements of the corresponding NERC Reliability Standard. In particular, the imposition of a 20-minute limit is more restrictive than NERC's TOP-007-0 and is a prudent means of limiting the risk of blackouts, consistent with sound engineering principles. Thus, we disagree with Xcel that WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 has not been adequately justified.

105. The Commission is concerned regarding a possible inconsistency within WECC-TOP-STD-007-0. As background, NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-1 (Reliability Coordination—Current Day Operations) provides, inter alia, that “if a potential or actual IROL violation cannot be avoided through proactive intervention, the Reliability Coordinator shall initiate control actions or emergency procedures to relieve the violation without delay, and no longer than 30 minutes.” In Order No. 693, the Commission expressed concern that IRO-005-1 could be interpreted as allowing a system operator to respect IROLs in one of two ways: (1) Allowing IROL to be exceeded during normal operations, i.e. , prior to a contingency, provided that corrective actions are taken within 30 minutes; or (2) allowing IROL to be exceeded only after a contingency and subsequently returning the system to a secure condition as soon as possible, but no longer than 30 minutes. 92 The Commission explained that the system could be one contingency away from potential cascading failure if operated under the first interpretation and two contingencies away from cascading failure under the second interpretation. The Commission directed NERC to conduct a survey on IROL practices and actual operating experiences of managing within IROL. The survey results will provide guidance on the frequency, duration and magnitude of IROL violations and whether these IROL violations occur during normal or contingency conditions.

106. With regard to WECC-TOP-STD-007-0, Requirement WR1.b. provides that “[t]he interconnected power system shall remain stable upon loss of any one single element without system cascading that could result in the successive loss of additional elements.” This Requirement suggests that WECC expects that IROLs will be addressed in such a manner that the system is two contingencies away from a cascading failure, which is consistent with the more conservative interpretation of the NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-1. 93

107. However, Measure WM1 of WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 may not be consistent with Requirement WR1.b since it states “[a]ctual power flow on all transmission paths shall at no time exceed the OTC for more than 20 minutes for paths that are stability limited, or more than 30 minutes for paths that are thermally limited.” This Measure is more consistent with the first interpretation of NERC Reliability Standard IRO-005-1. Simply put, it could be interpreted that WECC Requirement WR1.b results in the power system being operated two contingencies away from a cascading outage while WECC Measure WM1 results in the power system being operated one contingency away from a cascading outage.

108. Thus, it is possible to understand the WECC Measure as less stringent than NERC's IRO-005-1, if the latter is interpreted conservatively. While the Commission has stated that a Requirement of a Reliability Standard sets forth the obligations of the applicable users, owners and operators, 94 the Commission is concerned regarding the circumstances under which WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 would be implemented and the amount of time an entity is allowed to be in violation of an IROL without the possibility of being found in non-compliance. Accordingly, the Commission directs NERC to submit a filing within 30 days of the date of this order explaining whether Requirement WR1.b is consistent with the second interpretation of IRO-005-1 (two contingencies away from cascading failure). 95

109. Moreover, Measure WM1 of WECC-TOP-STD-007-0, which sets forth the 20 and 30 minutes time limits for exceeding operating transfer capability, states responsibilities of applicable entities and, thus, is more appropriately a requirement than a Measure. Accordingly, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA and section 39.5(f) of the Commission's regulations, we direct that WECC in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard: (1) Clarify any inconsistency between the Requirement WR1.b and corresponding Measure WM1; and (2) ensure that the requirements currently set forth in Measures WM1 are set forth in the Requirements and that corresponding Measures simply quantify the frequency, duration and magnitude of the violations as determined by the Requirements.

110. In addition, we expect that WECC will address the shortcomings identified by NERC in developing a permanent, replacement regional Reliability Standard.

111. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 applies to generator operators of synchronous generating units equipped with Automatic Voltage Regulators in the Western Interconnection. 96 The stated purpose of the regional Reliability Standard is to ensure that automatic voltage control equipment on synchronous generators shall be kept in service at all times, except in specified circumstances, and that outages of such equipment must be coordinated. It requires that generator operators must normally operate automatic voltage control equipment in voltage control mode and set to respond effectively to voltage deviations.

112. Related NERC Reliability Standard VAR-002-1 (Generator Operation for Maintaining Network Voltage Schedules) requires generator operators to operate each generator connected to the interconnected transmission grid in the automatic voltage control mode unless the generator operator has notified the transmission operator. 97 Unless exempted by the transmission operator, the generator operator must maintain voltage or reactive power output as directed by the transmission operator.

113. NERC approved WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 with the condition that WECC meet its commitment to address identified format-related shortcomings.

114. WECC comments that, in addition to compliance with the related NERC Reliability Standard, the WECC regional Reliability Standard requires automatic voltage regulators to be in service and in voltage control mode with very limited exceptions. WECC explains that it instituted this requirement after a 1996 disturbance, which was caused by insufficient supply of reactive power from generators, including automatic voltage regulators that were not operating in voltage control mode. As a result of this experience, WECC determined that there should be only very limited circumstances where a generator should remove its unit from AVR operation.

115. Xcel asserts that WECC has not provided any technical justification for the regional Reliability Standard.

116. The Commission approves Reliability Standard WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The Commission agrees with WECC that this regional Reliability Standard is more stringent than the related NERC Reliability Standard. WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 requires all synchronous generators to have their voltage regulator in service at all times with only exceptions for specified circumstances. The related NERC Reliability Standard, VAR-002-1, permits a generator to remove its automatic voltage regulator from service for additional reasons. The regional standard is appropriate to avoid the root causes of prior disturbances in the Western Interconnection. We reject Xcel's protest as WECC has adequately justified the need for this regional Reliability Standard.

117. As with the other regional Reliability Standards, we expect that WECC, in developing a permanent, replacement standard, will address the shortcomings identified by NERC regarding WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1.

118. Regional Reliability Standard WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 applies to generator operators with generators equipped with power system stabilizers. A power system stabilizer is part of the excitation control system of a generator used to increase power transfer levels by improving power system dynamic performance. It requires that power system stabilizers on generators must be kept in service at all times, except in specified circumstances, and that the power system stabilizers must be “properly tuned” in accordance with WECC requirements. This standard does not have a corresponding NERC Reliability Standard.

119. NERC approved WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 and identified several format-related shortcomings for WECC to address.

120. WECC states that WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 requires generator operators to always have power system stabilizers in service with very limited exceptions. It explains that this requirement was developed after the August 1996 disturbance in the Western Interconnection in which oscillations that could possibly have been attenuated by power system stabilizers were a factor.

121. Xcel states the proposed standard is deficient because it does not define “power system stabilizers” and because WECC has not provided a technical justification for the standard.

122. The Commission approves WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 as mandatory and enforceable in the Western Interconnection. The regional Reliability Standard is justified as it addresses matters that are not addressed by a NERC Reliability Standard. Moreover, WECC explains that the regional Reliability Standard is justified as a means to avoid oscillations that contributed to previous disturbances in the Western Interconnection.

123. We reject Xcel's protest since the term “power system stabilizer” is generally understood as described above, and Xcel has not provided any explanation why the regional Reliability Standard is deficient without a formal definition. Finally, as with the other regional standards, we expect WECC to address the shortcomings identified by NERC when developing a permanent, replacement standard.

124. As requested by NERC and WECC, the proposed regional Reliability Standards shall take effect on June 18, 2007 to coincide with the effective date of the Reliability Standards that were approved in Order No. 693.

125. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. 98 Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)  99 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons, or continuing a collection for which OMB approval and validity of the control number are about to expire. 100

126. This order approves eight regional Reliability Standards that were submitted by NERC as the ERO. Section 215 of the FPA authorizes the ERO to submit Reliability Standards to provide for the Reliable Operation of the Bulk-Power System. Pursuant to the statute, the ERO must submit each Reliability Standard that it proposes to be made effective to the Commission for approval. 101

127. The eight proposed Reliability Standards do not require responsible entities to file information with the Commission. However, the standards do require responsible entities to file periodic reports with WECC and to develop and maintain certain information for a specified period of time, subject to inspection by WECC. WECC-BAL-STD-002-0 requires balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups to submit to WECC quarterly reports on operating reserves as well as reports after any instance of non-compliance. WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 requires transmission operators, balancing authorities and load-serving entities to document and report to WECC actions taken in response to direction to mitigate unscheduled flow. The standard also requires transmission operators to document required actions that are and are not taken by responsible entities. WECC-PRC-STD-001 requires certain transmission operators to submit to WECC annual certifications of protective equipment. WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 requires certain transmission operators to report to WECC any misoperation of relays and remedial action schemes. WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires certain transmission operators to maintain, in stated form, maintenance and inspection records pertaining to their transmission facilities. The standard also requires operators to certify to WECC that the operator is maintaining the required records. WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 requires certain transmission operators to submit to WECC quarterly reports on transfer capability data and compliance as well as reports after an instance of non-compliance. WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 and WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 require certain generators to submit quarterly reports to WECC on automatic voltage control and power system stabilizers. All of the foregoing regional Reliability Standards require the reporting entity to retain relevant data in electronic form for one year or for a longer period if the data is relevant to a dispute or potential penalty, except that WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires retention of maintenance and inspection records for five years and retention of other data for four years.

128. We do not believe our approval of the WECC Regional Reliability Standards will result in a significant increase in reporting burdens as compared to current practices in WECC. As NERC and WECC explain, the eight Regional Reliability Standards are translations of existing WECC criteria pursuant to its RMS program. The eight proposed standards: (1) Reflect practices that are currently in place on a contractual or voluntary basis; (2) represent discrete differences from nation-wide, mandatory Reliability Standards that will take effect on June 18, 2007; and (3) will be replaced by permanent standards developed by WECC. Moreover, with only limited exceptions, the reporting requirements in the regional Reliability Standards apply to large entities that have been complying with those standards for several years. The only possible exception is WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, which requires applicable entities to comply with transmission operators' directions to reduce unscheduled flows. Our approval of this regional Reliability Standard might result in reporting requirements for load-serving entities that did not previously comply with WECC practices in this regard. We do not believe that the associated reporting requirement is significant. Under WECC-IRO-STD-006-0, applicable entities must document and report to WECC actions that those entities take in response to direction to reduce unscheduled flow. We do not expect that the number of occurrences or nature of the documentation will result in significant reporting burdens.

129. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated information techniques.

130. Our Estimates below are based on the total reporting burdens that arise under the approved standards, including reporting burdens that were already in place under WECC practices. Thus, the Estimates exceed the incremental burdens that result from our approval of the standards. The Estimates are based on the NERC compliance registry as of April 2007. For the Western Interconnection that is overseen by WECC, NERC and WECC have identified approximately 30 balancing authorities, 146 generator operators, 104 load-serving entities, 41 transmission operators, and 66 transmission owners * * * While NERC has registered 104 load-serving entities in the U.S. portion of WECC, we believe that only 50 load-serving entities will be affected by the reporting requirements that apply to load-serving entities (under WECC-IRO-STD-006-0) because those requirements apply only in relation to “qualified transfer paths” and because the number of such paths are limited. Similarly, although NERC has registered 41 transmission operators and 66 transmission owners in the U.S. portion of WECC, we believe only the 14 transmission operators and owners that operate 40 designated paths will be affected by reporting requirements under this order. We note that some transmission operators operate up to seven paths. This has been taken into account in our estimate in the line “Transmission Operators/Owners” in the table below.

131. NERC's compliance registry indicates that there is a significant amount of overlap among the entities that perform these functions. In some instances, a single entity may be registered under all four of these functions. Thus, the Commission estimates that the total number of entities required to comply with the information “reporting” or development requirements of the proposed Reliability Standards is approximately 180-200 entities.

Burden Estimate: The Public Reporting burden for the requirements in the present order is as follows:

Total Annual Hours for Collection: 4,160 reporting + 416 recordkeeping = 4,576 hours.

Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average annualized cost to be $515,840 as shown below:

Reporting = 4,160 hours @ $120/hour = $499,200.

Recordkeeping = 416 hours @ $40/hour = $16,640.

Total Costs = Reporting ($499,200) + Recordkeeping ($16,640) = $515,840.

Title: FERC-725E Regional Reliability Standards (WECC).

Action: Proposed Collection of Information.

OMB Control No.: To be determined.

Respondents: Business or other for profit, and/or not for profit institutions.

Frequency of Responses: Periodic and intermittent.

Necessity of the Information: The eight Reliability Standards would implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System.

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System and determined the proposed requirements are necessary to meet the statutory provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

132. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone: (202) 502-8415, fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov] . Comments on the requirements of this order may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], e-mail: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov .

133. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  102 generally requires a description and analysis of rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated above, based on available information regarding NERC's compliance registry, approximately 180-200 entities will be responsible for compliance with the eight regional Reliability Standards. Most of those entities, i.e. , balancing authorities, generator operators, transmission owners and operators, do not fall within the definition of small entities. 103 About one-fifth of the approximately 50 load-serving entities that are subject to the approved standards might qualify as small entities.

134. Based on this understanding, the Commission certifies that the approved standards will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

The Commission orders:

(A) The proposed regional Reliability Standards are hereby approved, as discussed in the body of this order.

(B) NERC is directed to submit a compliance filing within 30 days of this order, as discussed in the body of this order.

(C) WECC is directed to develop, for each of its regional Reliability Standards, sanctions that follow NERC guidelines as discussed in the body of this order.

(D) WECC is directed to develop modifications to regional Reliability Standards WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 and WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 through its Reliability Standards development process when developing permanent, replacement standards.

Take notice that on June 1, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective August 1, 2007:

Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to comply with Commission requirements issued in its April 10, 2007 order in Docket Nos. CP06-89 et al. related to the abandonment by sale of the West Hugoton facilities.

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2007.

Take notice that on May 23, 2007, Ripon Cogeneration LLC filed a request for temporary waiver of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's operating and efficiency standards for a topping-cycle qualifying cogeneration facility for calendar years 2006 and 2007, pursuant to 18 CFR 292.205(c) and 292.205(a).

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 18, 2007.

Take notice that on June 5, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) tendered for filing its annual report of the incidental operational gas purchase/sale transactions for the previous calendar year as required by Section 13.7 of the General Terms and conditions of its tariff.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail F ERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time June 15, 2007.

Take notice that on June 6, 2007, Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C. (Saltville) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix B to the filing, to become effective July 7, 2007.

Saltville states that the purpose of this filing is to make miscellaneous clean-up changes to various sections of the Saltville Tariff.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail F ERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on June 7, 2007, Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 10, to become effective July 9, 2007.

Tuscarora states that this tariff sheet is being submitted to add tariff language that will clarify the pipeline's ability to offer firm transportation service with differing Maximum Transportation Quantity levels throughout a shipper's contract term.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

Docket Numbers: EC07-39-001.

Applicants: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Description: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc's response to FERC Staff's deficiency letter issued on 2/26/07.

Filed Date: 05/14/2007 & 05/15/2007.

Accession Number: 20070514-5146 & 20070521-0579.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

Docket Numbers: ER91-569-037.

Applicants: EWO Marketing, LP.

Description: EWO Marketing, LP submits a revised FERC Electric Tariff 3 in conformance with Order 614 pursuant to the April 25, 2007 order.

Filed Date: 05/24/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0203.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 14, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER96-2495-029; ER97-4143-017; ER97-1238-024; ER98-2075-023; ER98-542-019.

Applicants: AEP Power Marketing Inc; AEP Service Corporation; AEP Energy Partners, LP; CSW Energy Services, Inc.; Central and South West Services, Inc.

Description: AEP Power Marketing, Inc et al submit a notice of Change in Status in connection with their authority to make sales at negotiated market-based rates.

Filed Date: 05/25/2007.

Accession Number: 20070531-0125.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER99-3426-007.

Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits a notice of change in status in connection with a net increase in its generation capacity pursuant to section 35.27(c) of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070531-0086.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER00-1049-008; ER02-506-008; ER98-2783-011; ER99-3822-011; ER07-841-001; ER01-140-007; ER07-842-001; ER00-1895-009; ER07-843-001; ER07-844-001; ER07-845-001; ER07-846-001; ER99-4160-012; ER01-141-007; ER07-847-001; ER00-3696-008; ER01-943-007; ER05-1266-005; ER01-3109-009; ER01-1044-008; ER99-2157-008; ER02-553-007; ER02-2202-011; ER03-42-012.

Applicants: Bridgeport Energy, LLC; Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C.; Calcasieu Power, LLC; Casco Bay Energy Company, LLC; Dynegy Arlington Valley, LLC; Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C.; Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC; Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.; Dynegy Mohave, LLC; Dynegy Morro Bay, LLC; Dynegy Moss Landing, LLC; Dynegy Oakland, LLC; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; Dynegy Roseton, L.L.C.; Dynegy South Bay, LLC; Griffith Energy LLC; Heard County Power, L.L.C.; Ontelaunee Power Operating Company, LLC; Renaissance Power, L.L.C.; Riverside Generating, L.L.C.; Rocky Road Power, LLC; Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.; Sithe Energy Marketing, L.P.; sithe/Independence Power Partners.

Description: Bluegrass Generation Co, LLC's et al CD containing the Workpapers of Julie R Soloman to its Notice of non-material change in status, request to synchronize Triennial Market Power Analysis due dates etc under ER02-506 et al.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070531-4019.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER01-1263-008; ER03-160-007; ER02-900-007; ER02-537-008; ER02-1052-007; ER96-1947-021.

Applicants: Mirant Las Vegas, LLC; Mirant Sugar Creek, LLC; Mirant Zeeland, L.L.C.

Description: Mirant Las Vegas Power Company, LLC et al informs FERC of certain changes in status with respect to the characteristics upon which the Commission previously relied in granting market-based rate authority.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0204.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER04-734-002.

Applicants: Barclays Bank PLC.

Description: Barclays Bank PLC submits its Triennial Updated Market Power Analysis.

Filed Date: 06/01/2007.

Accession Number: 20070605-0192.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER06-451-021; ER06-1467-003.

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an errata to its 4/2/07 compliance filing.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0159.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER06-1367-003; ER07-239-002; ER99-1714-006; ER06-745-002.

Applicants: BG Dighton Power, LLC; BG Energy Merchants, LLC; Lake Road Generating Company, L.P.; MASSPOWER.

Description: BG Dighton Power LLC et al submits a notification of change in status to inform FERC of a non-material departure from the characteristics and on 5/31/07 submits a correction to this filing.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007; 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0094; 20070601-0095.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-153-002.

Applicants: Ameren Services Company.

Description: Ameren Services Company on behalf of Central Illinois Light Company dba AmerenCILCO et al submits revisions to the Ameren Illinois Operating Companies' Ancillary Services Tariff, effective 1/1/07.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0104.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-445-002.

Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.

Description: Duke Energy Corporation submits the Interim Agreement as a supplemental response to the data request from Commission Staff.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0202.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-502-001.

Applicants: PacifiCorp.

Description: Refund Report of PacifiCorp submits a Refund Report pursuant to Commission's order issued March 30, 2007.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070530-5036.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-641-001.

Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits substitute sheets that designates their rate schedule for reactive power service from the Goldendale Facility as Rate Schedule 425.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0214.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-717-001.

Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

Description: Entergy Services Inc submits an Amendment to its 4/5/07 notice of adoption of revised North American Electric Reliability Council's Transmission Loading Relief Procedures.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0100.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-764-001.

Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits a compliance filing correcting the designation of its rate schedule in accordance with Order No. 614.

Filed Date: 05/14/2007.

Accession Number: 20070514-5084.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 14, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-829-001.

Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.

Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits the corrected Confirmation Letter and requests that it replace the Confirmation Letter dated 4/27/07.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0099.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 8, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-953-000.

Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a newly executed Generator Special Facilities Agreement in accordance with section 205(d) of the FPA.

Filed Date: 05/25/2007.

Accession Number: 20070531-0170.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-955-000.

Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits an explanatory Statement to its Settlement Agreement w/Los Angeles Department of Water & Power and on 6/1/06 submits an errata to this filing.

Filed Date: 05/29/2007; 06/01/07.

Accession Number: 20070531-0171.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-956-000.

Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.

Description: Entergy Operating Companies submits rates to implement the decision of the Commission as contained in Opinion 480 and 480-A and the 5/25/07 Order.

Filed Date: 05/29/2007.

Accession Number: 20070531-0240.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-957-000.

Applicants: Southern Power Company.

Description: Southern Power Co submits a application seeking authorization to make market-based rate wholesale power sales to its affiliate Gulf Power Co.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0041.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-959-000.

Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

Description: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc submits a notice of cancellation of its Open Access Transmission Tariff.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0083.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-960-000.

Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.

Description: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc submits an executed Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement with Tower Kleber Limited Partnership.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0082.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-961-000.

Applicants: MASSPOWER.

Description: MASSPOWER submits an amendment to its market-based rate schedule, FERC Electric Tariff 1, pursuant to Order 671.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0081.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-962-000.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits Service Agreement 192 to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 with the City of Wathena, Kansas.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0080.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-963-000.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits Service Agreement 193 under its FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 6 with the City of Iola, Kansas.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0079.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-964-000.

Applicants: UNS Electric, Inc.

Description: UNS Electric Inc submits a Market-Based Rate Tariff for the sale of electric energy and capacity etc.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0078.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-965-000.

Applicants: EnergyCo Marketing and Trading, LLC.

Description: EnergyCo LLC submits a Market Based Rate Tariff for sale of electric energy, capacity, ancillary services, and firm transmission rights, etc.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0077.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-966-000.

Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.

Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Co submits a petition requesting authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate, The Potomac Edison Co.

Filed Date: 05/30/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0085.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-967-000.

Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits an unexecuted amended Owners Coordinated Operation Agreement among itself and Southern California Edison Company et al.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0122.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-968-000.

Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits a Certificate of Concurrence to its 5/31/07 filing of an amendment to the 12/1/95 Interconnection Agreement with PacifiCorp designated as Rate Schedule 195.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0121.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-969-000.

Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company on behalf of Southern California Edison Company et al. submits a notice of cancellation of FERC Rate Schedule 38 et al.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0120.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-970-000.

Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with American Transmission Company, LLC et al.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0076.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-971-000.

Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits a Generator Imbalance Service Agreement with Pacific Industries, Inc pursuant to 18 CFR Part 35 and section 205 of the Federal Power Act etc.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0075.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-972-000.

Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits this transmittal letter along with counterpart signature pages dated as of September 1, 1971.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-0074.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-973-000.

Applicants: PacifiCorp.

Description: PacifiCorp submits an Amendment to the 12/1/95 Interconnection Agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, U.S.C. 824d and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0206.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-974-000.

Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits a fully-executed Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement with the City of Norway, Michigan pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Commission's Regulations.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0208.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

Docket Numbers: EC07-101-000.

Applicants: AES Central Valley, L.L.C.; AES Delano, Inc.; Covanta Holding Corporation.

Description: AES Central Valley, LLC, AES Delano, Inc and Covanta Holdings Corp submit for approval of a transaction wherein Covanta Holding will acquire from Central Valley six wholly owned direct & indirect subsidiaries etc.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0194.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: EC07-102-000.

Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower II LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; High Trail Wind Farm, LLC; EDP-Energias De Portugal, S.A.

Description: Blue Canyon Windpower II, LLC et al submits an application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional facilities etc.

Filed Date: 06/01/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0196.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings

Docket Numbers: ER00-1857-007.

Applicants: Split Rock Energy LLC.

Description: Split Rock Energy LLC, Notice of Non-Material Change in Status.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-5063.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER01-2508-002.

Applicants: ENMAX Energy Marketing, Inc.

Description: ENMAX Energy Marketing, Inc submits a notice of change in status that reflects a departure from the facts relied upon in the grant of market-based rate authority.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0188.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER06-700-004.

Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation submits Substitute Alternate First Revised Sheet 264 et al in compliance w/FERC's order on rehearing and compliance filings issued on 4/19/07.

Filed Date: 05/31/2007.

Accession Number: 20070604-0201.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER06-1355-002.

Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power, LLC.

Description: Errata to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Evergreen Wind Power, LLC.

Filed Date: 06/01/2007.

Accession Number: 20070601-5061.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-596-001.

Applicants: E. ON U.S., LLC.

Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Company et al submits information required by the 5/3/07 deficiency letter & informs of changes that after consideration & in response to the deficiency letter they propose to make to the original filing.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0186.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-883-001.

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits First Revised Service Agreement 1267 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Tariff 1.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0183.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-946-001.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in clean and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending the existing Agreement, with City of Holton, KS, through 9/30/07.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0187.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-947-001.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in clear and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending the existing Agreement through 9/30/07.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0169.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-948-001.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in clean and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending the existing Agreement through 9/30/07.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0184.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-995-000.

Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

Description: Request of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc for waiver of business practice standard re Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0185.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-996-000.

Applicants: Goldendale Energy Center, LLC.

Description: Goldendale Energy Center, LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0171.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-997-000.

Applicants: Calpine Fox LLC.

Description: Calpine Fox LLC submits a notice of cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0170.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-998-000.

Applicants: CPN Pleasant Hill, LLC.

Description: CPN Pleasant Hill, LLC et al submits a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0173.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-999-000.

Applicants: MEP Pleasant Hill, LLC.

Description: MEP Pleasant Hill, LLC submits a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0172.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1000-000; ER07-1001-000; ER07-1002-000.

Applicants: Las Vegas Power Company, LLC; Sugar Creek Power Company, LLC; Zeeland Power Company, LLC.

Description: Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, et al. informs FERC that as a result of name changes they have succeeded to the market-based rate tariffs of Mirant Las Vegas, LLC et al.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0174.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1003-000.

Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.

Description: Southern Company Services, Inc agent for Alabama Power Co et al. submits this 5/22/07, Revision 2 to the Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service for Alabama Municipal Electric Authority dated 12/29/05.

Filed Date: 06/01/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0175.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1004-000.

Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Upper Peninsula Power Company.

Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company et al. submit revisions to the Balancing Area Operations Coordination Agreement.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0176.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1005-000.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation Agreement w/ the City of Sabetha dated as of 5/29/07 pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulation.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0180.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1006-000.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation Agreement with the City of Minneapolis dated as of 5/29/07 pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0181.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1007-000.

Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation Agreement with the City of Holton, Kansas dated as of 5/21/07 pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0182.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1008-000.

Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.

Description: Kentucky Utilities Company submits Amendment #1 to Contract for Electric Service with the City of Madisonville, Kentucky pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA etc.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0177.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1009-000.

Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.

Description: Cleco Power LLC submits an Amendment to its OATT pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, 16 USC, 824d and to Part 35 of FERC's Regulations.

Filed Date: 06/04/2007.

Accession Number: 20070606-0179.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

Docket Numbers: ER07-1010-000.

Applicants: Sumas Cogeneration Co LP.