[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21736-21846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10693]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21737]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 37
[Docket No. RM95-9-000; Order No. 889]
Open Access Same-Time Information System (Formerly Real-Time
Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct
April 24, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is adding rules
establishing and governing an Open Access Same-time Information System
(OASIS) (formerly real-time information networks) and prescribing
standards of conduct. Under this final rule, each public utility (or
its agent) that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce will be required
to create or participate in an OASIS that will provide open access
transmission customers and potential open access transmission customers
with information, provided by electronic means, about available
transmission capacity, prices, and other information that will enable
them to obtain open access non-discriminatory transmission service.
This final rule requires each public utility subject to the rule to
implement standards of conduct to functionally separate transmission
and wholesale power merchant functions and the creation of a basic
OASIS system. In addition, some of the standards and formats for OASIS
nodes are prescribed in a document entitled OASIS Standards and
Communication Protocols that is being issued with the final rule. The
Commission also is establishing further procedures to complete the
standards for displays and formats. The development of OASIS
requirements will continue in a Phase II, in which the Commission will
continue to develop the requirements for a fully functional OASIS.
Effective Date: This final rule will become effective on July 9,
1996.
Compliance Date: Compliance with the standards of conduct and
operation of an OASIS meeting the requirements of this final rule must
commence on or before November 1, 1996.
Conference Date: A technical conference on any remaining issues
will be held on June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The technical conference will be held at the Commission's
headquarters at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information), Office of Economic Policy,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1283
William C. Booth (Technical Information), Office of Electric Power
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208-0849
Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-0321
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to
the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by
dialing 202-208-1397 if dialing locally or 1-800-856-3920 if dialing
long distance. CIPS is also available through the Fed World system (by
modem or Internet). To access CIPS, set your communications software to
19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex,
no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. The full text of this order will
be available on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and Wordperfect 5.1 format.
The complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn Systems
Corporation, also located in the Public Reference Room at 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Public Reporting Burden
III. Discussion
A. Background
B. Summary of the Regulations and Their Implementation
C. Section 37.1--Applicability
D. Section 37.2--Purpose
E. Section 37.3--Definitions
F. Section 37.4--Standards of Conduct
1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities for Exemptions from the
Standards of Conduct
2. Suggested Revisions to the Standards of Conduct and Timing
3. Whether to Require the Separation of Generation and
Transmission Functions
G. Section 37.5--Obligations of Transmission Providers
H. Section 37.6--Information To Be Posted on an Oasis
1. Oasis Objectives
2. Posting Available Transmission Capacity
a. ATC for Network Integration Service
b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC
c. Methodology for Calculating ATC and TTC
d. Accommodating Flow-Based Pricing
e. Actual Flow Data
f. Providing Supporting Information
g. Long-Term Studies
3. Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices
4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and Prices
5. Posting Transmission Service Requests and Responses
a. Posting Curtailments and Interruptions
b. Posting Denials of Requests for Service
c. Transaction Anonymity
6. Posting Facility Status Information
7. Posting Transmission Service Schedules Information
8. Posting Other Transmission-Related Communications
I. Section 37.7--Auditing Transmission Service Information
J. Standards and Communication Protocols
1. Summary of Standards and Communication Protocol Requirements
2. Number of OASIS Nodes
3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes
4. Value-Added OASIS Services Provided by Transmission Providers
or Responsible Parties
5. Transmission Services Information Timing Requirements
6. Common Codes
a. Company Codes
b. Common Location Codes
7. Data Definitions and File Formats Not Covered by the How
Report
a. Offers to Provide Ancillary Services Provided by an Entity
Other Than the Transmission Provider
b. Offering of Primary and Secondary Capacity
8. Formats for Downloadable Files Not Covered in the How Report
a. Standard Format for Data Used in Calculating ATC
b. Standard Formats for Transmission Studies
c. Standard Format for Electronic Submission to the Commission
of Transmission Tariffs
9. Communication Protocol Issues
a. Internet Browsers
b. Bandwidth of Node Connections to the Internet
c. Data Compression Standards
d. Other Communication Protocol Issues Raised by Commenters
i. The Requirement to Use FTP for File Transfers
ii. Field Size for Path Names
iii. Files Containing More Than 100,000 Bytes
K. Cost Recovery Issues
[[Page 21738]]
1. Costs of Developing and Running an OASIS
2. Cost of Posting Resales of Capacity on the OASIS
3. Cost of Posting Ancillary Services on the OASIS
L. Section 37.8--Implementation in Phases
1. Phase I Implementation
2. Phase II Implementation
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
V. Environmental Statement
VI. Information Collection Statement
VII. Effective Date
Regulatory Text
Attachments
List of Commenters to RIN NOPR
Standards and Communication Protocols for Open Access
Same-time Information System with Appendix A--Data Element
Dictionary and Appendix B--Request (Query) Variables
I. Introduction
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
promulgating new regulations amending 18 CFR to add Part 37 containing
rules establishing and governing transmission information networks and
standards of conduct. The Commission is issuing this final rule in
tandem with its final rule on Open Access Transmission and Stranded
Costs (Open Access Final Rule).1 This final rule applies to any
public utility that offers open access transmission services under the
Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff. Under the Open Access Final
Rule, the open access pro forma tariff may be used by wholesale
transmission customers and by retail transmission customers that are
able to receive unbundled retail transmission either voluntarily from
the public utility or as a result of a state retail access program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs. para. 31,036 (April 24,
1996); this document is being published concurrently in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule is being issued after a review of the comments
filed in response to the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking
issued in this proceeding on December 13, 1995 (RIN NOPR).2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Real-Time Information Networks and Standards of Conduct,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 66182 (December 21, 1995), FERC
Stats. & Regs. para. 32,516 (December 13, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule becomes effective on July 9, 1996. By November 1,
1996, all affected public utilities must file procedures with the
Commission that will enable customers and the Commission to determine
whether they are in compliance with the standards of conduct
requirements contained herein.
Additionally, under this final rule, each public utility as defined
in section 201(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (1994),
(or its agent) that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce (each
Transmission Provider) must develop or participate in an Open Access
Same-time Information System (OASIS).3 This final rule establishes
Phase I OASIS rules that require the creation of a basic OASIS.4
The basic OASIS required by this final rule must be in place and
operational by November 1, 1996. The development of OASIS requirements
will continue in Phase II, during which the Commission will develop the
requirements for a fully functional OASIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the notice of technical conference that initiated this
proceeding, see infra n. 12, we chose the term ``Real-Time
Information Network'' to describe the electronic information system
envisioned by that notice. We invited comments on whether we should
substitute another term in place of RIN. In response, a number of
commenters suggested that ``RIN'' was not a suitable name for the
electronic information network envisioned by the RIN NOPR, mainly
because while some RIN postings may be made ``real-time'' most will
not and that, therefore, RIN is a misnomer.
After a review of suggested replacements presented in the
comments, we will abandon the name ``RIN'' in favor of Open Access
Same-time Information System, suggested by Virginia Electric Power
Company (VEPCO), for several reasons. First, as noted above, the
information system being developed in this proceeding actually will
be a ``same-time'' information system, and not a ``real-time''
system. Second, VEPCO correctly points out that the system will be
part of an existing network (the Internet) and not a new network.
Third, the name ``OASIS'' highlights that the system relates to open
access.
\4\ Any entity may, for good cause, seek a waiver of the
requirements established by this final rule, either as to the
creation of an OASIS or for reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the final rule set forth in this order is consistent with the
proposal described in the RIN NOPR, it also resolves certain issues
that were described in the RIN NOPR but left undecided, and adds
clarifications and revisions, as suggested by the comments. As proposed
in the RIN NOPR, the final rule describes what information must be
provided on an OASIS, how an OASIS must be implemented and used, and
contains a code of conduct applicable to all transmission providing
public utilities.
As proposed in the RIN NOPR, we are issuing this final rule along
with a separate document entitled OASIS Standards and Communication
Protocols (Standards and Protocols) to help ensure that each OASIS will
provide information in a uniform manner. However, the standards and
protocols are not yet complete. Consequently, we are inviting the How
Group 5 to submit an additional report, on or before May 28, 1996,
to help us resolve these deficiencies. We will also hold a technical
conference on June 17, 1996 to resolve any remaining issues and to
allow input from interested persons. We will issue a revised Standards
and Protocols document as soon as possible thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, infra, n. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are moving promptly to complete the standards and protocols to
ensure that the OASIS will be operational and in compliance with this
final rule by November 1, 1996. In selecting this date, we have
balanced the need to have a functional system of fair and non-
discriminatory information in place to support the Open Access Final
Rule against the comments that argued that implementation of an OASIS
could not be accomplished in 60 days and to avoid implementation during
the peak winter or summer months.
II. Public Reporting Burden
The final rule requires Transmission Providers to participate in an
OASIS designed to provide open access transmission users and potential
open access transmission users with information by electronic means
about available transmission capacity and prices.
The RIN NOPR contained an estimated annual public reporting burden
associated with a final rule consistent with the RIN NOPR. In response
to the RIN NOPR, NRECA 6 filed comments with the Commission that
argued that the Commission's estimated public reporting burden should
have taken into account that Question 45 of the RIN NOPR asked whether
OASIS rules should be extended to apply to non-public utilities that
own or control facilities used for the transmission of electric power
in interstate commerce.7 Based on this inquiry, NRECA argued that
the public burden estimate should have been based on the assumption
that the proposed OASIS rules would be extended to apply to non-public
utilities (even though this was not proposed by the Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Attached to this document is a list of the commenters and
the abbreviations used to designate them. Several of the comments
were filed late. We, nevertheless, will consider these comments.
\7\ NRECA also submitted a letter to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) that raised the same issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's task in preparing a public burden estimate at the
NOPR stage was to estimate the annual public reporting burden
associated with a final rule consistent with the RIN NOPR. This is what
the Commission did. An
[[Page 21739]]
estimate based on deviations from the NOPR proposal, as NRECA
suggested, would have been inappropriate. At the same time, however, by
asking Question 45, we identified the issue and gave the commenters an
opportunity to be heard before making a final decision.
Our final rule, like the RIN NOPR, applies only to public
utilities, and not to non-public utilities. However, as discussed in
this order and as commented upon by various non-public utilities, in
the Open Access Final Rule we are including a reciprocity provision in
public utility open access tariffs under which all those who elect to
take service under the open access tariff (including non-public
utilities) will have to offer reciprocal service including an
information network, unless they are granted a waiver of the
reciprocity provision in the tariff.8 Consequently, we have
increased the estimate of number of respondents in this rulemaking to
reflect the additional burden on those non-public utilities that seek
service under open access tariffs. However, this is offset by our
current expectation that there will be far fewer OASIS sites than we
originally anticipated in the RIN NOPR. The How Group estimates there
will be between 20-35 OASIS sites nationwide.9 Using the higher
number, the burden of running each OASIS will be shared, on average, by
four respondents. This is reflected in the burden hour and cost
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As explained in the Open Access Final Rule, non-public
utilities that do not want to meet the reciprocity condition may
choose not to take service under an open access tariff. In that
circumstance, the public utility may, if it chooses, voluntarily
provide transmission service on a unilateral basis to the non-public
utility.
\9\ How Group comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our burden hour and cost estimates include the information
gathering requirements imposed on public utilities that do not develop
their own OASIS. Additionally, we have refined our estimate of the
annual public reporting burden to account for revisions that this final
rule makes to the RIN NOPR.
Estimated Annual Burden:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Data collection No. of No. of Hours per annual
respondents responses response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting......................................................... 140 1 1879 263,060
Recordkeeping..................................................... 140 1 418 58,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting + Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 321,580.
Data collection costs: The Commission projects the average annualized cost per respondent to be the following:
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs--$47,500.
Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance)--$142,250.
Total Annualized Costs--$189,750.
Internal Review
The Commission has reviewed the collection of information required
by this final rule and has determined that the collection of
information is necessary and conforms to the Commission's plan, as
described in this final rule, for the collection, efficient management,
and use of the required information. The Commission has assured itself,
by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective
support for the information burden estimate set forth above.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons wishing to comment on the collections of information
required by this final rule should direct their comments to the Desk
Officer FERC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3019NEOB,
Washington, D.C. 20503, phone 202-395-3087, facsimile: 202-395-7285 or
via the Internet at [email protected]. Comments must be filed
with the Office of Management and Budget within 60 days of publication
of this document in the Federal Register. A copy of any comments filed
with the Office of Management and Budget also should be sent to the
following address at the Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Information Services Division, Room 41-17, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For further information, contact
Michael Miller, 202-208-1415.
III. Discussion
A. Background
This proceeding began with the issuance of our proposed Open Access
rule (Open Access NOPR) 11 and a notice of technical conference to
consider whether a RIN (now an OASIS) or some other option would be the
best means to ensure that potential customers of transmission services
could obtain access to transmission service on a non-discriminatory
basis. 12 The notice of technical conference was followed by
procedures and input (described in the RIN NOPR) that led to the
issuance of the RIN NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access
Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and
Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting
Utilities, Notice and Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60
FR 17662 (April 7, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. para.32,514 (March 29,
1995).
\12\ Real-Time Information Networks, Notice of Technical
Conference and Request for Comments, 60 FR 17726 (April 7, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open access non-discriminatory transmission service requires that
information about the transmission system must be made available to all
transmission customers at the same time. This means that public
utilities must make available to others the same transmission
information that is available to their own employees and that is
pertinent to decisions they make involving the sale or purchase of
electricity. The RIN NOPR suggested requirements representing the first
steps towards accomplishing these objectives.
The RIN NOPR addressed four main issues: the types of information
that need to be posted on an OASIS; technical issues concerning the
development and implementation of an OASIS; the development of a basic
OASIS in Phase I and the development of a fully functional OASIS in
Phase II; and proposed standards of conduct to prevent employees of a
public utility (or any of its affiliates) engaged in marketing
functions from obtaining preferential access to OASIS-related
information.
[[Page 21740]]
The Commission's consideration of the first two of these issues
relied heavily on the efforts of two industry-led working groups that
presented recommendations to the Commission. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
acted as a facilitator for an industry-led independent working
group, representing diverse interests, to help participants reach
consensus, and to help them prepare a report to the Commission on
what information should be posted on a RIN (the ``What Group''). The
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) facilitated a similar
working group (the ``How Group'') that sought consensus on how to
implement a system that would accomplish these objectives. Both
groups submitted reports to the Commission describing their progress
in reaching consensus on their respective issues. As explained in
the RIN NOPR, after determining that the working groups had balanced
representation from diverse interests and had operated in an open,
inclusive manner, the Commission used the working groups'
recommendations as the starting point for developing the RIN NOPR.
A fuller description of the working groups' composition and
activities is contained in the RIN NOPR and in the reports that
those groups submitted to the Commission for its review (attached to
the RIN NOPR as Appendices ``A'' and ``B'' and made publicly
available at the Commission's offices and through the Commission
Issuance Posting System (CIPS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the RIN NOPR invited commenters to address specific
questions on various issues and invited comments generally on the
entire proposal.
As discussed in the RIN NOPR, the handling of various types of
information that might be posted on an OASIS depends on substantive
determinations being made in the Commission's Open Access rulemaking
proceeding.14 For this reason, the RIN NOPR attempted to identify
the issues that might be affected by decisions that would be made in
the Open Access rulemaking and invited comment on the mechanics of
implementing whatever determinations ultimately would be reached in the
Open Access rulemaking, without attempting to prejudge the merits of
the underlying legal and policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For example, the information about ancillary services that
must be posted on an OASIS depends on what ancillary services a
public utility must provide. Likewise, the information about
discounts that must be posted on an OASIS depends on whether
discounting is allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the RIN NOPR included (as Appendix ``C'') a set of
upload and download templates for comment to ensure that all data
definitions are the same and that the information presented on the
OASIS will be uniform and clearly understood.
The Commission's RIN NOPR, issued on December 13, 1995, invited
comments on enumerated questions, along with general comments. Comments
were filed by over 100 commenters. These comments were generally
favorable to the OASIS concept, although numerous disagreements
remained as to the details. The comments will be discussed below on an
issue-by-issue basis.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In the discussion that follows, our references to comments
are illustrative and not inclusive. While we have intended to
identify all of the major issues raised by the commenters, we have
not attempted to identify all commenters in instances where more
than one comment makes the same point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the RIN NOPR, we invited the two industry-led working groups to
continue their efforts to reach consensus and to report to us on their
progress. On March 7, 1996, the How Group submitted a report giving
proposed revisions to their original report.16 The How Group also
submitted a report on April 15, 1996 making recommendations on
additional issues on which the group had reached consensus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The participants in the How Group submitted a report
entitled Consensus Comments of the Wholesale Electric Power Industry
on behalf of the ``industry management process (interim) on how to
implement transmission services information networks?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of the Regulations and Their Implementation
The Commission is issuing this final rule with the Open Access
Final Rule to implement the legal and policy determinations being made
in the Open Access Final Rule.17 This final rule contains three
basic provisions that, taken together, will ensure that transmission
customers have access to transmission information enabling them to
obtain open access transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis.
This final rule is necessary, therefore, to meet the legal requirement,
discussed in the Open Access Final Rule, that the Commission remedy
undue discrimination in interstate transmission services by public
utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For example, a number of smaller public utilities and non-
public utilities have argued that they should be exempted from the
OASIS requirements. The Open Access Final Rule provides that public
utilities may seek waivers of some or all of the requirements of the
Open Access rules. This would include the OASIS requirement.
Similarly, the Open Access Final Rule provides that non-public
utilities may seek waivers of the tariff reciprocity provision as
applied to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first provision establishes standards of conduct. These
standards are designed to ensure that a public utility's employees (or
any of its affiliates' employees) engaged in transmission system
operations function independently of the public utility's employees (or
of any of its affiliates' employees) who are engaged in wholesale
purchases and sales of electric energy in interstate commerce. Such
separation is vital if we are to ensure that the utility does not use
its access to information about transmission to unfairly benefit its
own or its affiliates' sales. Entities subject to these rules are to
achieve compliance with the standards of conduct by November 1, 1996.
The second provision sets out basic rules requiring that
jurisdictional utilities that own or control transmission systems set
up an OASIS. Under these rules, the utilities are required to provide
certain types of information on that electronic information system as
to the status of their transmission systems and are required to do so
in a uniform manner. With these requirements, we are opening up the
``black box'' of utility transmission system information. When in
place, the OASIS will allow transmission customers to determine the
availability of transmission capacity and will help ensure that public
utilities do not use their ownership, operation, or control of
transmission to deny access unfairly. Entities subject to this rule are
to have a basic OASIS, meeting the requirements of this final rule, in
operation by November 1, 1996.
The third component involves the various standards and protocols
referenced in the regulations that are necessary to ensure that the
OASIS system presents information in a consistent and uniform manner.
As proposed in the RIN NOPR, this final rule references a publication
entitled OASIS Standards and Communication Protocols.18 This
publication contains the above-mentioned standards and communication
protocols. The publication details the Phase I requirements for
technical issues related to the implementation and use of an OASIS
(i.e., a compilation of OASIS standards and communication protocols).
Because of their level of detail, the standards and protocols
referenced in the regulations will be contained in the Standards and
Protocols document and will not be set out in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This title differs slightly from the title we suggested for
this document in the RIN NOPR. We are making this change to reflect
more accurately the contents of the document as it has evolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the standards and protocols, we have been greatly
assisted by the industry. However, more work needs to be done before
the necessary standards and protocols are complete. For this we will
again look to the industry and its working groups. The Commission
believes a standard or uniform set of protocols is essential. The
industry is best situated not only to develop the necessary standards
but to develop them where possible with a consensus. Consequently, we
are asking the How Group to provide us with
[[Page 21741]]
additional recommendations on those technical issues remaining to be
resolved. After receiving this report, we will hold a technical
conference. In the meantime, to enable utilities to begin the process
of implementing their OASIS, we will publish the standards and
protocols that have been developed to date.
We must also provide for the contingency that, over time, the
standards and protocols may need to be revised. To this end, NERC, in
its comments, proposed to continue the industry-based process for
developing OASIS requirements begun by the two industry working groups.
NERC argued that the Commission should abandon its intention to approve
standards developed by industry-wide consensus and to make decisions in
those areas where consensus is not achieved. Instead, NERC argued that
the Commission should authorize an industry group, facilitated by NERC
and EPRI, to set and enforce detailed standards under broad policy
guidelines fixed by the Commission.
As we have needed the contributions of the industry to develop the
standards and protocols, we will continue to need that assistance in
the future to develop a consensus wherever possible. We need to strike
a balance between standardization to make OASIS work and encouraging
innovation. To this end we encourage all industry participants to
continue seeking consensus and reporting proposals to the Commission
for our consideration. We welcome the continued work of all industry
participants on revising and improving standards and establishing
appropriate methods for recommending standards in the future. We will
continue to give careful consideration to all consensus recommendations
presented by the industry group(s), provided that they continue to
invite balanced participation in an open process.
However, we reject entirely the notion that the Commission need not
approve the Standards and Protocols and that these matters can be left
to the industry for implementation and self-policing. Although we
continue to seek industry consensus, the Commission must reserve final
decisions to itself. We cannot turn over the process of approving and
enforcing OASIS requirements to the industry. The Commission does not
believe that resolution of the outstanding issues or future changes
will occur more quickly without Commission oversight.\19\ Nor do we
believe that merely by announcing broad policy guidelines we would be
creating a mechanism that would be sufficient to allow the Commission
to revise regulations quickly. Accordingly, we will not abdicate our
responsibility to decide these issues ourselves; nor shall we delegate
responsibility for making these decisions to anyone else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ To the contrary, our experience with the natural gas
pipeline industry persuades us that an expedited schedule is more
likely with active Commission oversight than otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the as yet unresolved technical issues, we invite
the How Group to report to us on or before May 28, 1996 on these issues
(and to attach any comments it has received from any interested person
with opposing views). Prior to issuing a revised Standards and
Protocols document, we will hold a technical conference on these issues
on June 17, 1996. This short time frame is necessary if the OASIS is to
be properly operational by November 1, 1996.
The Commission recognizes that the standards and protocols
necessarily will evolve over time. The Commission is committed to a
process for reviewing and, if necessary, revising and improving the
Standards and Protocols on a regular basis after implementation. We are
sensitive to the fact that business practices and technology will
continue to change under open access and that a mechanism to make
changes to the regulations and to the accompanying standards and
protocols on an expedited basis may be needed. It would be premature at
this time, however, to determine the appropriate mechanism for making
such changes, because the method could vary depending on the type of
change contemplated. In filing its report, we ask that the How Group
advise us on this issue. We will welcome discussions and comments on
mechanisms for revising the standards and protocols on an ongoing basis
at the June 17, 1996 technical conference.
In the sections that follow, we discuss, section-by-section, the
regulations we are adopting with this final rule; how the costs of
implementing the requirements of these regulations are to be recovered;
and the details of implementation.
C. Section 37.1--Applicability
This section is unchanged substantively from what we proposed in
the RIN NOPR. As proposed previously, the rules in Part 37 apply to any
public utility that owns or controls facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We are, however, modifying this provision to clarify that
it is intended to include public utilities that ``operate''
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce. We are also clarifying that these regulations
apply to transactions performed under the pro forma tariff required
in Part 35 of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing these regulations, we stated that issues relating to
potential gaps in providing comparable open access to wholesale
transmission services or to transmission information that may arise
because the requirements do not apply to non-public utilities would be
addressed in the Open Access rulemaking proceeding. We also invited
comment on whether the Commission should extend OASIS requirements to
non-public utilities that own or control facilities used for the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce (Question 45)
and on whether the reciprocity condition of the proposed Open Access
rule dictates that a non-public utility should have an OASIS (Question
46).
Comments
The responses to Question 45 split along industry lines. Generally,
public utilities subject to OASIS rules advocated that the Commission
should impose OASIS requirements on non-public utilities. They argued
that applying OASIS requirements to non-public utilities would promote
competition and a ``level playing field.'' These commenters argue that
all companies should pay the costs of developing and operating an OASIS
and should be required to divulge information to their competitors on
it.
Along these lines, Allegheny argued that, in order to provide a
level playing field between public utilities and their competitors, the
proposed standards of conduct should be expanded to include personnel
of any entity that trades on an OASIS. Allegheny suggested, therefore,
that the standards of conduct be rewritten to be applicable to non-
public utilities through a requirement that they sign confidentiality
agreements as a condition of obtaining access to OASIS.
Those favoring applying OASIS rules to non-public utilities argued
that a significant portion of the wholesale transmission market is
owned by non-public utilities (ConEd estimates that non-public
utilities, excluding cooperatives, control about 25 percent of the
circuit miles of transmission lines nationwide). They argued that,
without information about these lines, accurate calculations of
available transmission capability cannot be made. However, those
advocating that the Commission should assert jurisdiction over non-
public utilities were divided between those who maintained that the
Commission has authority to do so directly under Sec. 311 of the
Federal
[[Page 21742]]
Power Act (FPA) \21\ and those who maintained that the Commission does
not have such authority. The latter group suggested that the
Commission's authority is not clearcut and, to avoid needless delay and
litigation, the Commission should rely on the reciprocity condition in
the pro forma tariffs to extend OASIS requirements to non-public
utilities.\22\ ConEd argued that we should state that compliance with
OASIS requirements is required by both Sec. 311 and reciprocity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 825j. Section 311 authorizes the Commission
to obtain information (and conduct appropriate investigations)
about, among other matters, the transmission of electric energy
throughout the United States, regardless of whether such
transmission is otherwise subject to the Commission's jurisdiction,
and to report to Congress the results of any investigations it
carries out under the authority of this provision.
\22\ See discussion of Question 46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The larger non-public utilities argued that, while the Commission
lacks authority to impose OASIS rules under Sec. 311 of the FPA, they
nevertheless will voluntarily comply with the rules because this would
be in their own best interest. By contrast, a number of small non-
public utilities argued that they should be exempt from OASIS rules,
particularly the standards of conduct, for the same reasons that
smaller public utilities argued that they should be exempted from the
requirements of the Open Access Final Rule. The smaller non-public
utilities stressed that they do not ``control'' many of their
transmission lines and that many of their lines lack commercial
interest. They recommended the development of a joint or regional OASIS
that would make participation in an OASIS easier and argued that, as to
smaller non-public utilities, the rules requiring a separation of
functions are unduly burdensome and their scant benefits would be
outweighed by their costs to consumers.
NRECA argued that the availability of transmission service under
Sec. 211 of the FPA is sufficient to prevent abuses. By contrast, Com
Ed argued that Commission orders in Sec. 211 proceedings come too late
to prevent abuses.
In Question 46 of the RIN NOPR, we asked whether, based on
reciprocity, we should require non-public utilities to develop or
participate in an OASIS.\23\ The responses to this question generally
are split along the same lines as the responses to Question 45, with
non-public utilities pointing out that most would participate
voluntarily in an OASIS because it would be in their best interest to
do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The discussion of questions 45 and 46 by commenters often
overlapped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPA asserted that voluntary participation would suffice to
accomplish the Commission's goals and seeks assurance that compliance
with OASIS requirements by non-public utilities would be deemed by the
Commission to satisfy the reciprocity condition in the pro forma
tariffs. APPA also asserted that participation in a regional OASIS
would make compliance easier for non-public utilities and would help
them deal better with operational issues such as parallel flows. At the
same time, NE Public Power District argued that, although it is willing
to participate in an OASIS voluntarily, the Commission lacks authority
to compel publicly-owned non-public utilities to comply with OASIS
regulations.
In contrast, a number of public utilities maintained that non-
public utilities cannot provide comparable open-access non-
discriminatory service unless they comply with the same OASIS rules as
do public utilities. PJM argued that, although public utilities and
non-public utilities differ in their ownership, this does not provide a
rational basis to exclude non-public utilities from participation in an
OASIS. Carolina P&L argued that the same concerns that motivated the
Commission to propose the standards of conduct dictate that the rules
should apply equally to non-public utilities.
Others argued that, if non-public utilities need not comply with
the same OASIS rules applicable to public utilities, the non-public
utilities would have the benefit of an uneven playing field that would
give them a competitive advantage. Along these lines, EGA argued that,
in pursuing a competitive wholesale market, the Commission should apply
OASIS rules equally to all entities that own wholesale transmission
facilities. Mid-American stressed the need for reciprocity by pointing
out (as others did in response to Question 45) that a significant
portion of wholesale transmission facilities nationwide, including some
in pivotal areas, are owned by non-public utilities. VEPCO urged that
any entity that owns transmission facilities, is affiliated with an
entity that owns transmission facilities, controls transmission
facilities through a lease or contract, or signs a contract for
transmission services, should be required to establish or participate
in an OASIS that is compatible with the industry standards established
by the Commission in the final rule in this proceeding as a condition
of being eligible to use a Transmission Provider's OASIS.
OK Com stated that it would support the Commission's assertion of
jurisdiction over non-public utilities, provided that the Commission
makes a finding that the non-participation of a transmission owning
entity in an OASIS would have a substantial detrimental impact on
potential customers attaining open-access non-discriminatory service
throughout the Nation. Com Ed argued that the Commission needs to
ensure that non-public utilities do not circumvent the rule by making
purchases and sales through intermediaries.
Larger non-public utilities, such as Public Generating Pool,
suggested that the participation of larger non-public utilities is much
more important, in terms of promoting competition in the wholesale
market, than is participation by smaller non-public utilities, whose
systems are predominantly small distribution systems that are not
essential to the larger regional power market. Public Generating Pool
proposed that small non-public utilities should be able to seek an
exemption and that regional transmission groups should decide whether
it is necessary for a small non-public utility to participate in the
regional OASIS. Public Generating Pool also suggested that, if the
Commission prefers, decisions as to who is required to implement an
OASIS could be based on objective factors, such as market share or
concentration. Other non-public utilities, such as Seattle and
Tallahassee, stress the need for flexibility (in providing sufficient
time for compliance and in allowing deviations from the rule) in any
requirement that non-public utilities make changes to their system.
Discussion
After reviewing these comments we have concluded that we will not
directly assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities under Sec. 311
of the FPA to ensure compliance with OASIS requirements. We will,
instead, rely on the reciprocity provision of the pro forma tariff that
requires a non-public utility to offer comparable transmission service
to the Transmission Provider as a condition of obtaining open access
service. If a non-public utility chooses to take open access service,
and therefore is subject to the tariff reciprocity condition, it will
need to meet the OASIS requirements in new Part 37, unless the
Commission grants a waiver of this condition. Although, as pointed out
by ConEd, non-public utilities control a significant percentage of the
circuit miles of transmission lines nationwide, and fully accurate
calculations of available capacity on public utilities' lines cannot be
made without information about these lines,
[[Page 21743]]
we believe reciprocity provides a sufficient incentive for non-public
utilities to meet the OASIS requirements imposed on public utilities.
We note that in our Open Access Final Rule we have concluded that
certain of the requirements we are imposing on public utilities may not
be appropriate for small utilities. This conclusion applies equally to
the treatment of small public utilities and small non-public utilities.
Accordingly, we have established a mechanism in the Open Access
proceeding that allows small public utilities and small non-public
utilities to seek waivers based on the same criteria.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Section 37.2--Purpose
Section 37.2 sets out the fundamental purpose of this part--to
ensure that all potential customers of open access transmission service
have access to the information that will enable them to obtain
transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis. Comments in
response to the RIN NOPR did not take issue with the proposed language
of Sec. 37.2 and we are adopting this provision largely without change.
We wish to clarify, however, that while the OASIS requirements
imposed by this final rule establish a mechanism by which Transmission
Customers may reserve transmission capacity, they do not require the
replacement of existing systems for scheduling transmission service and
conducting transmission system operations at this time. We believe that
it may be appropriate to include energy scheduling as part of the OASIS
requirements developed for Phase II. In the meantime, if we conclude
that an existing system is operated in an unduly discriminatory manner,
we will pursue changes to such a system in a separate proceeding.
E. Section 37.3--Definitions
This section defines six terms used throughout this Part--
``Transmission Provider'', ``Transmission Customer'', ``Responsible
Party'', ``Resellers'', ``Wholesale Merchant Function'', and
``Affiliate''. The comments in response to the RIN NOPR did not take
issue with the proposed definitions. 25 Consequently, this final
rule adopts these definitions largely without change. To prevent
confusion, the definition of Transmission Customer has been revised to
include potential customers, i.e., those who can execute service
agreements or can receive services as well as those who actually do so.
And, we have modified the definition of ``Affiliate'' to more closely
track provisions of the FPA and the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ MidAmerican Energy suggested, however, that a definition
for ``Transmission System Operator'' be added. We will not do so
because we do not use this term anywhere in the OASIS regulations.
MidAmerican's purpose in making this suggestion may have been to
exclude the posting on the OASIS of transactions involving the use
of transmission for purchases made for native load (this issue was
also brought up by CCEM, EGA, MidAmerican, NYPP, and NIEP). We
address the issue of native load purchases in the Open Access Final
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Section 37.4--Standards of Conduct
This section sets out the standards of conduct necessary to ensure
that Transmission Providers do not use their unique access to
information unfairly to favor their own merchant functions, or those of
their affiliates, in selling electric energy in interstate commerce.
Although preserving the substance of what was proposed, the final rule
has been reorganized.
Paragraph (a) sets out the general rules that require the
separation of transmission and merchant functions and that recognize in
emergency circumstances system operators may take whatever steps are
necessary to keep the system in operation.
Paragraph (b) sets out the specific rules governing employee
conduct under five headings covering prohibited practices, transfers of
employees, access to information, disclosure, and conduct in
implementing tariffs. These provisions correspond to elements of
paragraph (a), as well as paragraphs (b) through (h) and (j) of the
standards proposed in the RIN NOPR.
Paragraph (c) requires that there be written procedures
implementing the standards of conduct and that these must be kept in a
public place and filed with the Commission. Paragraph (c) corresponds
to paragraph (k) of the standards proposed in the RIN NOPR.
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission proposed standards of conduct for
public utilities patterned after those promulgated for natural gas
pipelines.26 The proposed standards of conduct would require
Transmission Providers to separate their wholesale merchant functions
(i.e., wholesale purchases or wholesale sales of electric energy in
interstate commerce) from their wholesale transmission system
operations and reliability functions. Employees performing wholesale
merchant functions would be required to obtain information on wholesale
transmission services only through an OASIS, on the same basis
available to all other OASIS users. The standards of conduct were
intended to prevent employees of the Transmission Provider that perform
wholesale merchant functions or employees of any affiliate from having
preferential access to any relevant information about the Transmission
Provider's wholesale transmission availability and costs, or uses or
possible uses of the Transmission Provider's transmission system by
non-affiliates.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the RIN NOPR, the proposed standards of conduct were set
out in Sec. 37.6. See RIN NOPR text at section III.E (60 FR at
66196) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR Sec. 37.6 (60 FR at
66199). We are renumbering this provision as Sec. 37.4 in this final
rule.
\27\ Because the Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff may
include certain retail transmission customers, this final rule's
OASIS information requirements will apply to applicable retail as
well as wholesale services and information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We accompanied this proposal with two questions that asked whether
the proposed standards of conduct should be modified and whether they
sufficiently addressed functional unbundling (Questions 41 and 42). We
also asked whether our proposal might interfere with system reliability
(see Question 43).
The responses basically fell into three categories.\28\ First, a
number of smaller public utilities argued that they should be granted
waivers (or be deemed exempt) from the proposed standards of conduct
because these standards would compel them to hire additional staff not
justified by their small market share or by the small revenues they
derive from providing wholesale transmission services. These comments
suggested that the standards should not apply to public utilities that
lack operational control over the facilities used for wholesale
transmission service, or to public utilities that do not exceed given
thresholds for market share, percent of revenues, or total revenues
from wholesale transmission services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Among the over 100 comments filed, only Dayton P&L, among
public utilities, questioned the Commission's underlying authority
to mandate control room unbundling. Dayton P&L's short conclusory
statements in this proceeding were not accompanied by even a cursory
explanation of its reasoning or by any legal analysis or supporting
citations.
Although Dayton P&L offered no support for its position in this
proceeding, it did (along with other parties) devote extensive
discussion to the more general issue of the Commission's authority
to order open access transmission in its initial comments in the
Open Access rulemaking proceeding. We reject Dayton P&L's
unsubstantiated conclusion, urged in this proceeding, that we lack
authority to order control room unbundling for the same reasons that
we reject their more general and more extensive arguments on the
Commission's authority in the Open Access Final Rule. See Open
Access Final Rule at section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, a number of large utilities basically were satisfied with
the proposed rules and offered specific suggestions for revisions.
Third, commenters raised the issue of whether to require the separation
of generation
[[Page 21744]]
and transmission functions.\29\ We discuss these three categories
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A number of comments raised the issue of whether the OASIS
regulations would promote ISOs (independent system operators) and
whether participation in an ISO would exempt an entity from
compliance with OASIS requirements. In this regard, a number of
comments suggested that the proposed standards of conduct will
result in the widespread transfer of transmission functions to the
control of ISOs and predicted that the need for the standards of
conduct will diminish as ISOs become more prevalent. In this
context, IN Com supported the formation of ISOs, because this would
reduce the need for state commissions to monitor functional
unbundling and would help in resolving jurisdictional questions.
The concept of ISOs is addressed in the Open Access Final Rule.
As to the prediction that the rise in the number of ISOs will make
the standards of conduct unnecessary, or should offer a basis for an
exemption from the standards of conduct, we would characterize the
potential of ISOs somewhat differently. In our view, a properly
constituted ISO could be a mechanism, not for an exemption, but as a
means to comply with the standards of conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities for Waivers From the Standards
of Conduct
Turning first to the arguments of smaller public utilities that
they should be exempt from the standards of conduct, we note that this
issue also arose in the Commission's Open Access rulemaking proceeding.
As described in the Open Access Final Rule, we will publish a list of
jurisdictional public utilities that must comply with these rules. At
the same time, we establish a mechanism that allows small public
utilities to seek a waiver. In appropriate circumstances, the
Commission would waive some or all of the Open Access requirements,
subject to future reconsideration as warranted by circumstances.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A related issue involves the concerns of small non-public utilities
about their obligation under the reciprocity condition. We have decided
in the Open Access rulemaking proceeding that we would use these same
criteria to decide whether a small non-public utility should be granted
a waiver from all or part of the reciprocity condition contained in
public utility open access tariffs. Such waivers could be sought of the
requirements to have open access tariffs, provide ancillary services,
establish an OASIS, or separate functions.
A full explanation of the waiver mechanism is contained in the Open
Access Final Rule.\31\ We will use these same standards to determine
whether small public utilities have complied with the OASIS
requirements and to determine whether small non-public utilities have
met their contractual obligation to comply with OASIS requirements as a
condition of service under open access tariff reciprocity provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Suggested Revisions to the Standards of Conduct and Timing
For the most part, we have adopted the standards of conduct as
proposed, making technical and conforming revisions. In a few
instances, in response to comments, we have made substantive changes.
These changes, and the suggestions that led us to make them, are
discussed below, along with some suggestions that we rejected.
1. As proposed, the regulations would prohibit preferential access
to the system control room and ``other facilities of the public
utility'' that differs from the access available to other potential
transmission users. AEP suggested that it is not clear whether this was
intended to restrict access to all other facilities or is meant to
restrict access to other similar facilities, (i.e., those facilities
that, like the control room, are involved in transmission operations
and reliability functions). Consistent with this latter interpretation,
AEP suggested that the restriction be modified to apply to the system
control room and ``similar facilities used for transmission operations
or reliability functions.'' We agree with AEP's interpretation of the
scope of this restriction and adopt the suggested revision in section
37.4(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule.
2. Section 37.4(c) of the proposed standards of conduct would
prohibit contacts (off OASIS) between employees of the public utility
engaged in transmission system operations and employees of the public
utility engaged in wholesale marketing functions, and employees of any
affiliate no matter how employed. AEP, Com Ed, and Ohio Edison argued
that this provision is too broad and would exclude contacts between
transmission system operators and employees of affiliates engaged in
various activities, many of which are unrelated to a public utility's
merchant functions. For example, an energy services subsidiary might be
engaged in building a power plant in a foreign country. AEP argued that
there would be no reason to deny employees engaged in such an activity
access to utility personnel involved in transmission or reliability
functions. Com Ed suggested that this provision should be modified to
prevent contacts between system operators and employees engaged in
wholesale marketing functions, regardless of whether those marketing
employees are engaged in those activities on behalf of either the
utility or its affiliates. Thus, under this argument, contacts between
system operators and affiliate employees not engaged in wholesale
marketing functions would not be prohibited.
We agree with AEP, Com Ed, and Ohio Edison that our proposed
standards of conduct were overly broad because they prohibited contacts
between system operators and affiliate employees engaged in functions
completely unrelated to a public utility's wholesale power and energy
marketing functions. We will revise the proposed standards of conduct
accordingly.
AEP also argued that employees of the affiliate may be involved in
the wholesale merchant function, but not in the utility's market area.
For example, an employee of an affiliate might be involved in a
different geographic area, far from the system's transmission grid. AEP
argued that there would be no need to isolate such activities from the
utility's transmission operations. To cover such situations, AEP
suggested that the language be modified to read ``employees of any
affiliate of the public utility, to the extent that such employees are
engaged in wholesale merchant functions in the utility's market area.''
We reject AEP's suggestion. Although public utilities may still
have the ability to exert market dominance in particular markets, they
also will now have the ability to participate in transactions across
the nation. We fully expect--and our experience with the WSPP
demonstrates--that in the move to a competitive wholesale bulk power
market, public utilities will have extensive market areas in which to
make offers. Thus, there is no reason to limit the scope of the
standards of conduct as recommended by AEP.
We also have clarified section 37.4(b)(3)(i) to explain that
employees engaged in merchant trading functions must not have
preferential access to any information about the Transmission
Provider's transmission system that is not available to all users of an
OASIS. However, the standards of conduct do not foreclose customers,
including merchant employees, from obtaining information about the
status of their particular contracted for transaction from Transmission
Provider employees engaged in system operation and reliability
functions. The information provided in status reports must present the
same types of information, in the same level of detail, to any customer
presenting a similar request. The standards do, however, preclude
merchant employees from obtaining preferential access to information
about
[[Page 21745]]
the Transmission Provider's system (not directly linked to their
particular transaction) from any nonpublic source as well as market
information acquired from nonaffiliated customers or potential
nonaffiliated customers or developed by the Transmission Provider in
its role as a Transmission Provider (except to the limited extent that
this information is required to be posted on the OASIS).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Sec. 37.4(b)(4)(iii); see text accompanying n. 33,
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. APPA argued that the rules should prohibit preferential
treatment of wholesale purchases or sales by any utility. APPA
interpreted the originally proposed language to mean that preferential
treatment would be permitted, as long as the preference would not be
extended to the public utility itself or an affiliate. APPA and Com Ed
argued that preferential treatment of any wholesale customer over the
interests of any other wholesale customer must not be allowed. Com Ed
adds that absent clarification, relationships of reciprocal favoritism
could develop in the industry, to the detriment of all other customers.
We find this contingency is possible. While the standards of
conduct set guidelines for Transmission Providers and their affiliates
in handling their wholesale merchant functions; public utilities are
also governed by section 205(b) of the Federal Power Act. Section
205(b) prohibits public utilities from granting any undue preference or
advantage to any person or subjecting any person to any undue prejudice
or disadvantage with respect to any transmission or sale subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission. This provision remains in full force
and effect and prohibits preferential treatment in transactions
regardless of whether those transactions are specifically addressed in
the standards of conduct.
4. In section 37.6(i) of the RIN NOPR we proposed that public
utilities offer customers discounts comparable to those that the public
utility offers to its own power customers or those of an affiliate. AEP
suggested that this limitation on allowable discounts be expressly
limited to discounts on wholesale transmission services. We agree and
are revising this provision accordingly. Discounts for jurisdictional
power sales are not governed by this final rule but by section 205(b)
of the FPA and related precedent on power sales.
5. Allegheny suggested that the Commission should find that there
will no longer be a presumption of discriminatory dealing between
utility affiliates in generation and transmission services when network
owners comply with the standards of conduct. Allegheny has presented no
basis for making such a finding and we decline to do so.
6. Com Ed, Duke, and NEPOOL suggested that the proposed standards
should not be interpreted to prevent employees of the utility engaged
in wholesale marketing functions from obtaining information about their
competitors from non-affiliated third party sources such as the trade
press. Com Ed also suggested that the utility should be allowed freedom
to give out information about its transmission functions off OASIS
(e.g., in briefings at public meetings) as long as the utility's
wholesale marketing employees do not obtain preferential access to
those forums. Ohio Edison suggested that the proposed standards of
conduct should be revised to preclude only ``substantive access'' to
the system control room. Ohio Edison argued that access for matters
unrelated to transmission matters, such as training programs, should be
permitted.
We have two points we wish to make regarding these related
suggestions. First, we clarify that the rules do not prohibit access to
information contemporaneously available without restriction to other
members of the general public. (See section 37.4(b)(1)(ii) dealing with
access to information). Second, these rules are intended to be
interpreted consistent with common sense, prudence, and caution.
Our standards of conduct are intended to prevent preferential
access to information related to transmission prices and availability
by employees of the public utility or any affiliate engaged in
wholesale merchant functions. Preferential access means that
information is obtained from those with access to information about the
public utility's transmission system operations that is not equally
available to other customers. It is obvious, at least to us, that this
does not bar wholesale merchant employees from reading the trade press
or from sitting in the audience of a publicly-announced and available
lecture delivered by the public utility's transmission operator or a
third party in an open forum. However, the onus is on the public
utilities subject to these standards to conduct their affairs in
compliance with these rules, and they should exercise care and prudence
in so doing.
We decline, therefore, to specify in these regulations whether, for
example, a ``public meeting'' must be preceded by advance notice, to
whom that notice must be provided, and what that notice would need to
spell out. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to burden our
rules with this kind of minutiae in a misplaced effort to anticipate
every possible contingency. Such regulatory overkill is unwarranted and
counterproductive. Moreover, those subject to the regulations may, like
other members of the public, call the Enforcement Task Force Hotline to
obtain informal advice on implementing the standards of conduct.
7. VEPCO suggested that, rather than prohibiting contacts between
system operators and employees of the public utility and any affiliates
engaged in wholesale merchant functions, the Commission could reach the
same result by allowing system operators to disclose, through informal
communications, information about the status of the transmission
system, provided that they then post this information on OASIS.
We find this suggestion untenable. First, such disclosures would
necessarily be posted after-the-fact, and thus the information would
not be conveyed to all potential customers at the same time. Second,
such a provision would be very difficult to enforce. Third, the same
information could just as easily be divulged on the OASIS to all
customers, rather than ``reported'' on the OASIS after-the-fact.
8. Com Ed suggested that the reference in subsections (a) and (d)
of the proposed standards to ``reliability functions'' should be
clarified to apply only to transmission functions and not to generation
functions. We disagree. As discussed below, system operations and
reliability functions include both transmission and generation
functions.
9. Con Ed suggested that the standards of conduct should include a
disclaimer that utilities will not be liable for the reliability or
accuracy of data posted on the OASIS as an accommodation to third
parties. We agree that the responsibility for assuring the reliability
and accuracy of data supplied by third parties rests with those third
parties and not with the public utility that posts this information on
the OASIS as an accommodation. We do not, however, view this as a
standard of conduct issue. Instead, we address this point in our
discussion of what information is to be posted under Sec. 37.6(g).
10. Ohio Edison suggested that posting the names of personnel
transferring between departments would make these employees targets for
recruitment by competitors. Notwithstanding this concern, we believe
that this information must be posted on the OASIS to make possible
[[Page 21746]]
``gaming of the system'' through spurious revolving door tactics more
visible.
11. Ohio Edison also suggested that the phrase in subsection (b) of
the proposed standards ``* * * must rely upon the same information
relied upon by the public utility's wholesale transmission customers''
should be modified to read ``* * * must have available only the same
information available to the public utility's wholesale transmission
customers.'' Ohio Edison argued that the Transmission Provider has no
way of knowing what information its customers ``relied upon'' and that
it should not be held to an undefinable subjective standard. We agree.
Accordingly, we adopt Ohio Edison's suggestion in section 37.4(b)(3)(i)
of the final rule and omit the phrase ``rely upon.''
12. Ohio Edison also suggested that if its suggestion (in the
previous item) is adopted, then the language in section 37.4(b)
beginning with the language in parenthesis becomes redundant and should
be deleted. We disagree and will retain that language in section
37.4(b)(3)(ii) of the final rule. We believe the language adds
necessary clarification.
13. Montana Power suggested that, if off-OASIS communications
between the utility's system operators and wholesale marketing
personnel are prohibited, these kinds of communications should also be
prohibited between system operators and all transmission users. Montana
Power would prefer, however, that these communications be permissible.
Likewise, Duke suggested that we change the regulations so that if an
employee of an unrelated third party calls the transmission-related
employees, for example, to better understand the public utility's
transmission system, such communications should be permitted to be
conducted off the OASIS. Duke maintains that the free flow of
information should not be discouraged so long as functional unbundling
is implemented and affiliate abuse is avoided. NEPOOL suggested that
the rules dictating the Transmission Provider's release of information
should apply to all Transmission Customers, not just to the
Transmission Provider's employees, as affiliates, engaged in wholesale
merchant functions.
Our proposed standards of conduct were designed, and our final
standards are being implemented, to prevent Transmission Providers from
giving themselves an undue preference over their customers through the
exchange of ``insider'' information between the company's system
operators and employees of the public utility, or any affiliate,
engaged in wholesale marketing functions. Thus, the rules place
restrictions on preferential communications from the system operators
to only those merchant employees. The rules were not designed to
prevent system operators from having communications with third parties.
We do not generally see this as an area that needs regulatory
oversight. As discussed above, we have revised the regulations to
ensure no discriminatory treatment and we remind public utilities
subject to these regulations that section 205(b) of the FPA prohibits
undue discrimination. This should suffice.
14. NUSCO suggested that the Commission should distinguish: (1) The
functional separation of generation marketing related to operation of
the transmission system and administration of transmission tariffs
(which are relatively short-term activities); from (2) the coordination
of marketing with the system planning function (a long-term activity
encompassing both generation and transmission). Similarly, the FL Com
is concerned that the standards of conduct might impede system
reliability, and argued that marketers and system operators should be
able to confer concerning the company's long-term planning activities
that require knowledge about the company's generation and transmission
systems. NEPOOL expresses similar concerns.
By contrast, Com Ed suggested that the proposed standards of
conduct will not impair planning because, like a one-way street, they
allow information to be conveyed from employees engaged in merchant
functions to system operators, while at the same time prohibiting
information to be conveyed in the opposite direction. Com Ed submitted
that the inter-relationship between the areas of strategic planning,
resource planning and long-range transmission planning require the flow
of information to transmission personnel. Future acquisitions of
capacity may constitute a resource taken into account in planning and
may have an impact on the transmission system that needs to be
accounted for by transmission planners. Thus, Com Ed argued that there
should be no restriction on the flow of information about future
purchases or sales from the merchant function to the transmission
function, although restrictions on the flow of information to the
merchant function should be adopted as proposed.
We agree with Com Ed that, as we proposed in the RIN NOPR, the flow
of information, through the OASIS, from employees engaged in wholesale
merchant functions to system operators should remain permissible, to
allow proper system planning, while at the same time restricting
information being conveyed off the OASIS from system operators to
utility and affiliate employees engaged in wholesale merchant
functions, to prevent preferential access to transmission information.
Consequently, we reject the proposals offered by NUSCO, FL Com, and
NEPOOL in this regard.
15. Omaha PPD argued that information regarding the scheduling of
power transfers, economic dispatch, and economic conditions have
nothing to do with the information that is needed regarding the
availability of transmission capability. Omaha PPD suggested,
therefore, that any information relating to economic operation or the
commercial state of a utility be removed from the standards of conduct.
By contrast, NUCOR suggested that, since economic dispatch is premised
on real-time marginal production cost data and generating unit
economics, the comparability standard mandates that utilities provide
the same generation cost data to other market participants. Similarly,
NUCOR argued that, because economic dispatch also is dependent on the
economics of off-system purchases and sales, data pertaining to such
purchases and sales also must be made generally available.
Except for postings for certain ancillary services, the RIN NOPR
did not propose the posting on an OASIS of data on generation and we
are not persuaded, at this juncture, to do more. Our decision is based
on a balancing of the need for the information, the claimed commercial
sensitivity of the information, and the desire to avoid, to the extent
possible, having public utilities reporting generation data that their
competitors may not be required to report.
16. VEPCO suggested that the regulations should prohibit system
operators from disclosing information to wholesale marketing employees
or other customers about the ancillary services offered by third
parties because they are not permitted to disclose the same information
about their companies' own products. VEPCO further suggested that the
prohibition against discussing the companies' own products should be
removed.
We find these suggestions inconsistent with the kinds of safeguards
we are trying to provide through these standards of conduct. In any
event, as discussed below in our discussion of items to be posted on
the OASIS, we are requiring that this kind of information be posted on
the OASIS, and thus companies will be able to get
[[Page 21747]]
their message out that these services are available.
17. Duke suggested that the proposed subsection dealing with the
impartial application of tariff provisions should be revised to make
clear it is the customer (and not the employees) who is to be treated
on a fair and impartial basis. We agree and the final rule in section
37.4(b)(5)(ii) adopts this suggestion.
18. VEPCO suggested that the rules requiring a separation of
functions should be suspended if additional employees trained in system
operations (but normally assigned to marketing functions) should be
needed to assist in handling system operation functions during
emergencies affecting system reliability. VEPCO also suggested that the
Commission should allow transmission and generation operators to engage
in emergency energy transactions and hourly non-firm energy
transactions.
It is not the purpose of these rules to compromise reliability. In
emergency circumstances affecting system reliability, system operators
may take whatever steps are necessary to keep the system in operation.
Consequently, we are adding a provision to the standards of conduct
that specifically grants system operators the authority to take
whatever steps are necessary to maintain system reliability during an
emergency, notwithstanding that this could otherwise constitute a
violation of the standards of conduct. Transmission Providers will be
required to report to the Commission and on the OASIS each emergency
that resulted in any deviation from the standards of conduct, within 24
hours of such deviation. If we see a pattern of activities that
suggested that ``emergencies'' are not authentic, we will take strong
action against the offending public utilities.
Because we are adding a provision that allows actions to be taken
in response to emergencies, we are deleting the phrase ``to the maximum
extent practicable'' that had appeared in section 37.6(a) of the
standards of conduct proposed in the RIN NOPR.
19. Continental Power Exchange argued that, just as merchant
traders should be prohibited from access to the control center, system
operators should be prohibited from access to the trading floor. United
Illuminating agreed that separation of functions needs to apply to
separation of transmission and customer supply functions. Continental
Power Exchange also suggested that discounts should be offered
unilaterally to all customers without prior notice and without two-way
negotiation. Continental Power Exchange further suggested that short-
term transactions should be deemed approved upon request, unless the
utility specifically notifies the customer that the transaction will be
denied. Continental Power Exchange argued that this would streamline
the proposed procedures and make OASIS transactions faster and more
manageable.
We will not, at this time, adopt Continental Power Exchange's
suggestion to create an absolute prohibition against system operators
having access to the trading floor because we are concerned about
information divulged by system operators and not about information
acquired by them. However, any non-public contacts between system
operators and merchant traders creates the risk that there will be
improper communications between these employees and the burden is on
Transmission Providers subject to the standards of conduct to devise
procedures that will prevent improper contacts. We expect, therefore,
that the Transmission Providers themselves will devise procedures that
will either prohibit or, at a minimum, severely restrict access to the
trading floor by system operators.
As to Continental Power Exchange's other suggestions, we will not
adopt these suggestions at this time, but may come back to them as the
process evolves and the feasibility of back and forth negotiations is
tested by experience.
20. SoCal Edison and Tucson Power suggested that, while the
proposed 60-day deadline for filing procedures to implement the
standards is adequate, the Commission needs to be flexible on
implementing other changes, such as reconfiguring and relocating
control rooms and other facilities, and training and recruiting new
employees.
Although we originally proposed to require compliance with the
standards of conduct starting 60 days from the publication of this
final rule, on further consideration we have decided to put off the
requirement that they be implemented until the implementation of OASIS,
that is by November 1, 1996. As a practical matter, the standards of
conduct cannot be implemented apart from the electronic communication
systems of a functioning OASIS; the two work together. In addition, the
extra time will permit utilities the opportunity to fully implement the
requirements of the standards of conduct. Although the result will be a
window of time during which open access transmission tariffs will not
be supported by standards of conduct (or OASIS), we must recognize that
the changes we are mandating for the industry cannot be implemented
overnight; a transition period is required.
21. Finally, after a review of the comments, we have added an
additional provision to the standards of conduct (section
37.4(b)(4)(iii) of the final rule) dealing with the posting of any
additional market information developed by a Transmission Provider in
its role as a Transmission Provider and shared with employees of its,
or an affiliate's, merchant function.
We have expressed concern in a number of recent orders about the
possibility of the dissemination of market information by a public
utility with market-based rate authority.33 To guard against the
possibility of affiliate abuse, we have required such public utilities
to commit in their codes of conduct with affiliates to share market
information only if they make the same information publicly available
to non-affiliates at the same time. We have not dictated the means by
which public utilities are to make this information simultaneously
available to all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, e.g., Illinova Power Marketing, Inc., 74 FERC para.
61,313, slip op. at 4-6 (1996); USGen Power Services, L.P., 73 FERC
para. 61,302 at 61,845 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This same concern for the unequal distribution of market
information, in a manner that may benefit select recipients with
commercial or competitive information that is not equally available to
others, leads us, after a review of the comments, to extend the
standards of conduct to cover any market information gathered by
Transmission Providers in the course of responding to transmission or
ancillary service inquiries.
Our concern, based in part on our experience with implementing and
monitoring electronic bulletin boards developed for use by the natural
gas pipeline industry, is that there remains the incentive for a
Transmission Provider to share with its own merchant employees, or
those of an affiliate, any information it has developed (not limited to
transmission system information) in responding to requests made over
the OASIS. This is particularly a concern with respect to market
information developed in the course of denying a request for
transmission service.
While we have developed procedures dealing with the obligations of
Transmission Providers in responding to requests for service, we
believe that these procedures, alone, may not be sufficient to
eliminate the possibility of an unfair competitive advantage to
employees of the Transmission Provider
[[Page 21748]]
(or an affiliate) engaged in merchant functions, by virtue of access to
market information not shared with others.
Accordingly, we will add to the standards of conduct a provision
that precludes a Transmission Provider from sharing market information
acquired from nonaffiliated Transmission Customers or potential
nonaffiliated Transmission Customers or developed in the course of
responding to requests for transmission or ancillary service. In this
manner, we can be better assured that employees of the Transmission
Provider or an affiliate engaged in merchant operations do not develop
a competitive advantage by virtue of operation of an OASIS. The
Transmission Provider may only reveal information about transmission
requests as provided in the provisions of this rule (section 37.6 (e))
dealing, generally, with responses to transmission and ancillary
service requests and, specifically, with transaction confidentiality
(except to the limited extent that this information is required to be
posted on the OASIS).
3. Whether To Require the Separation of Generation and Transmission
Functions
In the RIN NOPR we proposed standards of conduct that would require
Transmission Providers and their affiliates to separate system
operation and reliability functions from wholesale merchant functions.
Both transmission and generation functions are included within system
operation and reliability functions. The RIN NOPR, notwithstanding
Questions 42 and 43, did not propose that these functions (transmission
and generation) be separated. Nor did we propose that Transmission
Providers divest their ownership of generation assets.
We received numerous comments in response to our questions 42 and
43 that asked whether, if the Commission would go beyond unbundling
transmission and generation merchant functions to order the unbundling
of generation and transmission operations, this would necessitate
revision of the proposed standards of conduct and whether this would
adversely affect reliability.\34\ After reviewing the comments, we
conclude that we should require--with these final rules--only the
unbundling of the transmission operations and wholesale marketing
functions of public utilities and their affiliates, as proposed in the
RIN NOPR. We do not extend these rules to require the unbundling of
transmission and generation control functions or to mandate the
divestiture by Transmission Providers of their generation assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The commenters nearly universally focused their
presentations on why the Commission should not order an unbundling
of generation and transmission operations, rather than addressing
the precise topic we set out. In any event, the issue is now moot,
as we have decided not to order Transmission Providers to separate
their generation and transmission operations at this time. If,
however, with experience we discover that the steps we are ordering
here are not adequate to remedy undue discrimination, we can revisit
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will require the functional unbundling of transmission
operations and wholesale marketing functions because we are persuaded
that this will prevent abuses based on preferential access to
information and other discriminatory behavior, without compromising
system reliability. The standards of conduct are designed to accomplish
this: (a) By requiring that transmission-related information be made
available to all customers (including employees of the public utility,
and any affiliate, engaged in merchant functions) through OASIS
postings available to all customers at the same time and on an equal
basis; and (b) by prohibiting the employees of Transmission Providers
and any affiliates from disclosing (or obtaining) non-public
transmission-related information, through communications not posted on
the OASIS.
G. Section 37.5--Obligations of Transmission Providers
This section of the final rule adopts, without substantive change,
the provisions proposed as section 37.4 (Standardization of Data Sets
and Communication Protocols) and section 37.5 (Obligations of
Transmission Providers) in the RIN NOPR. The final rule requires, in
paragraph (a), that a Transmission Provider must provide for the
operation of an OASIS either individually or jointly with other
Transmission Providers and it must do so in accord with the
requirements of Part 37. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that the OASIS must
give access to relevant standardized information pertaining to the
status of the transmission system as well as to the types and prices of
services. Finally, in paragraph (b)(2), the rule requires that the
OASIS must be operated in compliance with the protocols set out in the
publication, OASIS Standards and Communication Protocols.
In the RIN NOPR, we explained that each Transmission Provider would
be responsible for compliance, regardless of whether it establishes its
own OASIS or participates in a joint OASIS.\35\ The final rule does not
change this. In a related provision, we proposed, in Sec. 37.1, that
Part 37 would apply to any public utility that owns, operates, or
controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce. However, as noted by many commenters, it is quite
probable that individual public utilities may turn the operation of
their transmission system and information system over to an ISO or
other joint or regional entity. (This has been provided for in the
definition of the term ``Responsible Party''). This raises the issue of
the Commission's jurisdiction over such entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ NRECA commented that the Commission should ensure that
expenses by a joint OASIS are subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction and audit authority. We agree. We will treat this as a
normal ratemaking expense issue and will allocate such costs on a
case-by-case basis when such expenses are presented to us for our
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 201(e) of the FPA, a ``public utility'' means,
Any person who owns or operates facilities subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission under this Part (other than
facilities subject to such jurisdiction solely by reason of section
210, 211, or 212).\36\
\36\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that anyone is given control and decision making
authority over the transmission operations of a public utility's
transmission facilities, it clearly would ``operate'' public
facilities, within the meaning of section 201(e), and therefore would
be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.\37\ To the extent that a
public utility turns over its operations to an ISO or any other joint
entity to satisfy the Open Access and OASIS requirements, the ISO or
any other entity would fall within the definition of a ``public
utility'' under Sec. 201 of the FPA and thus would be subject to the
OASIS regulations of Part 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See, e.g., Bechtel Power Corporation, order granting
declaratory order and disclaiming jurisdiction, 60 FERC para. 61,156
at 61,572 (1992) (on control issue), and FPC v. Florida Power &
Light Company, 404 U.S. 453 (1972) (on defining jurisdictional
facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Section 37.6--Information To Be Posted on an Oasis
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed, in sections 37.7 through 37.14, rules
governing: (1) The information that must be posted on an OASIS; (2) the
procedures for the posting and updating of information on the OASIS;
(3) the posting of discounts; (4) procedures for Transmission Providers
to respond to customer requests for transmission service; (5)
procedures for communicating denials of requests for service and
curtailments; and (6) the posting of information about scheduling and
affiliate transactions. These
[[Page 21749]]
provisions have been consolidated and are now covered in Sec. 37.6 of
the regulations adopted by this final rule.
As discussed in more detail below, section 37.6 has eight
paragraphs. Paragraph (a) lists the objectives of an OASIS. Paragraph
(b) lists what must be posted for public transmission capability--that
is, available transmission capability (ATC) and total transmission
capability (TTC)--as well as how and when this information is to be
updated. Paragraph (c) sets out the requirements for posting
transmission service products, including resold capacity as well as
their prices. Paragraph (d) provides the same for offerings of
ancillary services. Paragraph (e) sets out the requirements for posting
transmission service requests and responses including service denials
and curtailment or interruption of transmission. Paragraph (f) provides
requirements for posting transmission service schedules. Paragraph (g)
deals with posting other transmission-related communications. Finally,
paragraph (h) sets out the requirements for auditing information.
Some of the proposed provisions have not been adopted. These
include requirements concerning an application procedure for requesting
transmission service (Sec. 37.9(b)(5) of the proposed regulations);
requirements imposed on the reseller to notify the Transmission
Provider of certain information (Sec. 37.9(c)(3) of the proposed
regulations); and the steps that must be followed by the Transmission
Provider and Requester in their negotiations (Sec. 37.12 of the
proposed regulations). These did not prescribe information that must be
posted; rather, they were concerned with how parties should conduct
business in an open access environment. These matters are considered in
the Open Access Final Rule.
1. OASIS Objectives (Sec. 37.6(a))
The Commission proposed five objectives for the OASIS in the RIN
NOPR.38 Few comments were received on these objectives; none were
substantive. Thus, we adopt these objectives without substantive
revision in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.7 (60 FR 66200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Posting Transmission Capability (Sec. 37.6(b))
a. ATC for Network Integration Service. The RIN NOPR discussed
requiring the posting of available transmission capability for network
service. As we acknowledged in the RIN NOPR,39 before-the-fact
measurement of the availability of network transmission service is
difficult. Nonetheless, it is important to give potential network
customers under the Commission's pro forma tariff (as discussed in the
Open Access Final Rule) 40 an easy-to-understand indicator of
service availability. To this end, the Commission requested comments on
how best to post the availability of network transmission service on
the OASIS (Question 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188).
\40\ See Open Access Final Rule at sections IV.G and IV.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERC reiterated the statement in the What Group report that ``it
does not seem possible to post the availability of Network Integration
Transmission Service'' on an OASIS. No other commenter disagreed.
NERC went on to describe some of the challenges involved with
calculating available transmission capability (ATC) for network
integration service. Network service is a complex, long-term
relationship between a requester and provider that must be investigated
in detail because it involves the specification of multiple points of
receipt or delivery or both. Because of the long-term nature of network
service, the planning process involves a complex interrelationship of
future loads and resources, with an impact on the network that is
extremely location dependent. A major difficulty in estimating network
ATC is the lack of specific locations for which to calculate an impact
on the network. Each network service request would be unique, with
different sets of integrated loads and generating stations affecting
the network, including its constrained paths, differently.
The Commission also asked if there were any alternative service
that is more suitable to measurement than the current version of
network service. Some commenters said that it might be possible to
devise a concept which supports better measurement of network-like
service availability, but devising and implementing such a new concept
within the proposed initial implementation time line for OASIS is not
feasible. The Commission is not, at this time, persuaded to require the
posting of ATC for network service.
b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC (Secs. 37.6(b) (1) and (3)). In
the RIN NOPR, the Commission requested comments on ways to minimize the
burden of ATC calculations, while ensuring that wholesale Transmission
Customers have the information they need (Question 5).
Commenters suggested a number of ways to minimize the reporting of
ATC, including less frequent updates, developing standardized methods
for calculating ATC, and encouraging regional efforts. Most of the
comments discussed ways to limit the number of paths for which ATC has
to be posted.
The What Group proposed that ATC be posted only for paths as
``business needs'' arise. This proposal was intended to limit the
number of paths for which ATC must be posted. A ``business need'' was
defined, in part, by a Transmission Customer requesting information
about a path. A number of commenters supported the proposal to limit
paths based on ``business need.'' 41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See, e.g., Arizona, ConEd, NEPOOL, NE Public Power
District, NERC and Western Group comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission suggested in the RIN NOPR a different approach to
the problem. Calculating ATC and updating frequency could be based,
instead, on the level of activity and constraints on a given path. This
approach was supported by a number of commenters.42 A number of
commenters wanted to leave to the Transmission Provider the decision of
which paths to post ATC.43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Basin EC, Duke, NE Public Power District, Tallahassee,
Union Electric, and VEPCO comments. Only Arizona said it was a bad
idea because it would be too subjective and confusing.
\43\ See Central Illinois Public Service, Detroit Edison, Omaha
PPD, PSNM, Texas Utilities, Union Electric, and VEPCO comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Edison, Oklahoma G&E and PSNM suggested that customers
could also identify paths, along with a process for deleting them.
NEPOOL and Detroit Edison stated that they will post ATC for all
control area interfaces and any internal constraints. The Western Group
had a similar proposal.
NE Public Power District, NERC and NSP commented that ATCs should
be posted only for constrained paths. PJM and WP&L proposed that, for
unconstrained paths, static numbers or limits could be used and would
be updated infrequently. VEPCO suggested that paths be coded by the
quality of the ATC calculation used and that high quality effort be
used only when ATC is less than 25 percent of the total transmission
capability. ConEd suggested that posting could be sorted by frequency
of update so that busier paths would be at the top of the list.
Dayton P&L suggested mandatory information on ATC be limited to:
(1) Identification of the interface; (2) firm and non-firm ATC (hourly
for the current day, daily for the next seven
[[Page 21750]]
days, weekly for the next four weeks, monthly for the next 12 months);
and (3) price for each service.
MAPP summarized the issue well when it stated ``[t]he burden of ATC
calculations will be determined by the number of paths for which ATC is
being calculated and posted, the accuracy needed and the frequency of
required update.''
The proposed regulations have been modified to implement the
alternative approach suggested by the Commission in the RIN NOPR. The
regulations in Sec. 37.6(b)(1) define the paths for which ATC and TTC
must be posted. These are called ``posted paths.''
A transmission path becomes a ``posted path'' in one of three ways.
First, ATC and TTC must be posted for any path between two control
areas. Second, posting is required for any path for which transmission
service has been denied, curtailed or subject to interruption during
any hour or part of an hour for a total of 24 hours in the last 12
months. In counting up to 24, curtailment for any part of an hour
counts for a whole hour. Finally, Transmission Customers can request
that ATC and TTC be posted for any other transmission path. Customer
requested postings may be dropped if no customer has taken service on
the path in the last 180 days.
The regulations in Sec. 37.6(b)(3) define two classes of posted
paths based on usage: ``unconstrained'' and ``constrained''. A
constrained posted path is one for which ATC has been less than or
equal to 25 percent of TTC for at least one of the last 168 hours or is
calculated to be 25 percent or less of its associated posted TTC during
the next 7 days. An unconstrained posted path is any posted path that
is not a constrained posted path.
For constrained posted paths, ATC and TTC for firm and non-firm
service would have to be posted for the next 168 hours and, thereafter,
to the end of a 30-day period. In addition, ATC and TTC for firm and
non-firm service must be posted for the current month and the next
twelve months. However, this monthly posting for ATC and TTC for non-
firm service is required only if requested by a customer. If the
Transmission Provider charges separately for on-peak and off-peak
periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will be posted daily for each
period. A posting for a constrained posted path must be updated when
transmission service on the path is reserved or service ends or when
the path's TTC changes by more than 10 percent.
For an unconstrained posted path, ATC and TTC for firm transmission
service and non-firm transmission service would be required to be
posted for the next seven days and for the current month and the next
twelve months.44 If the Transmission Provider charges separately
for on-peak and off-peak periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will be
posted for the current day and the next six days following for each
period. Postings for an unconstrained posted path must be updated when
the ATC changes by more than 20 percent of the path's TTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The terms ``firm point-to-point transmission service'' and
``non-firm point-to-point transmission service'' are defined in the
definition section of the pro forma tariff for point-to-point
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will not require ATC and TTC to be posted on the OASIS more than
thirteen months in advance, with the following exception. If planning
and specific requested transmission studies have been done, seasonal
capability shall be posted for the year following the current year and
for each year following to the end of the planning horizon, but not to
exceed 10 years.
c. Methodology for Calculating ATC and TTC (Sec. 37.6(b)(2)). In
the RIN NOPR, the Commission discussed the requirements for calculating
ATC and TTC.45 Recognizing that formal methods do not currently
exist to calculate ATC and TTC, the Commission requested comment on how
to develop a consistent, industry-wide method of calculation (Question
4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.9(b)(2) (60 FR 66200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters recommended that the Commission defer to NERC
regarding the development of a consistent, industry-wide method of
calculation. NERC, in turn, recommended that the Commission give
deference to NERC's ongoing, industry-wide effort. NERC's Transmission
Transfer Capability Task Force (TTC Task Force), with an expanded
roster to include representation from all segments of the electric
industry, was formed to develop uniform definitions for determining ATC
and related terms. Because the TTC Task Force will not be finished with
its assignment until May 1996, NERC recommended that the OASIS final
rule not contain specific definitions of terms such as ATC, but instead
be limited to a general framework within which the same information can
be made available to all transmission users at the same time.
The Commission encourages industry efforts to develop consistent
methods for calculating ATC and TTC. Consequently, the final rule
follows the proposed regulations in requiring that ATC and TTC be
calculated based on a methodology described in the Transmission
Provider's tariff and that it be ``based on current industry practices,
standards and criteria.'' (Section 37.6(b)(2)(i)).46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The pro forma tariff in the Open Access Final Rule provides
that Transmission Providers must develop a method for calculating
ATC and TTC and must include a description of this methodology in
their tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided in the pro forma tariff, Transmission Providers may
themselves purchase only transmission capability that is posted as
available. This requirement should create an adequate incentive for
them to calculate ATC and TTC as accurately and as uniformly as
possible.
d. Accommodating Flow-Based Pricing. In the RIN NOPR, the
Commission asked for comment on what requirements would have to be
changed if the electric power industry moves to regional pricing, flow-
based pricing, or other pricing models that depart from the ``contract
path'' approach (Question 2).47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66186).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters expressed the need for OASIS flexibility to support
both contract path and actual flow models.48 Com Ed stated that,
so long as the OASIS is flexible, appropriate postings involving ATC,
price, and related information will develop for use with tariffs using
flow-based pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See, e.g., Consumers Power, Basin EC, ERCOT, NEPOOL, PA
Com, How Group, NIEP, NYPP, NERC, Ohio Com, OK Com, Oklahoma G&E,
PSNM, Texas Utilities, Western Group, PacifiCorp, and PJM comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission concludes that the proposed regulations were general
enough to accommodate flow-based pricing methods. Therefore, we have
provided no special provision regarding flow-based pricing in the final
rule. Any OASIS-related issue that arises when flow-based proposals are
made can be dealt with at that time. We cannot accurately foresee what
issues may arise concerning flow-based pricing because this is an
evolving area.
e. Actual Flow Data. The RIN NOPR proposed the posting of actual
path flow data to better inform Transmission Customers about the true
network impacts of taking service on a contract path basis.49 The
Commission asked whether there are any difficulties, technical or
otherwise, associated with posting actual path flows (Question 20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, commenters stated that such posting is technically
difficult, but possible. However, they question the value and
usefulness of such postings.50
[[Page 21751]]
Commenters stated that information on actual path flows is voluminous,
excessive, and burdensome to post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See, e.g., Allegheny, Arizona, Central Illinois Public
Service, Carolina P&L, Florida Power Corp, Montana Power, NERC,
Omaha PPD, Texas Utilities, Union Electric, and VEPCO comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny stated that actual flow information could be commercially
sensitive depending on the degree to which a generator's output can be
determined from it. Oklahoma G&E stated that actual flows are
meaningless unless accompanied by voltage, line thermal limits, and
line first contingency incremental transfer capability. NERC commented
that actual path flow postings would be irrelevant or even misleading
to the Transmission Customer and should not be required. NERC added,
however, that the Commission should not preclude such postings either.
The How Group pointed out that, from a technical standpoint, posting
actual path flows significantly increases the level of detail in
information about transmission service. APPA answered that some regions
already have the capability to post actual flows, but functional
separation diminished the need for the Commission to require the
posting of actual flows.
The final rule does not require the posting of actual path flows.
As long as ATC and TTC are calculated to reflect network conditions,
including parallel path constraints, actual flow data need not be
posted. The Commission may reassess this issue after reviewing the
proposals of the TTC Task Force on methods for calculating ATC and TTC
expected in May 1996.
f. Providing Supporting Information (Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(ii)). In the
RIN NOPR, we proposed that public utilities must post all data used in
calculating the ATC and TTC and make such data publicly
available.51 The Commission received a number of comments on this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66190) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.9(b)(6) (60 FR 66200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of commenters stated that supporting data should not be
available on the OASIS.52 About half of the commenters argued that
the data should be available off-line.53 Others suggested that
procedures and software used in calculating ATC and TTC must be
posted.54 NYPP suggested that a bibliography of supporting
information should be maintained on the OASIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See, e.g., Allegheny, Central Illinois Public Service,
Continental Power Exchange, EPRI, Florida Power Corp, MAPP, NERC, NE
Public Power District, NYPP, Ohio Edison, PSNM, VEPCO, Western
Group, and WP&L comments.
\53\ See, e.g., Allegheny, ConEd, Detroit Edison, Duke, EPRI,
Idaho, MAPP, NEPOOL, NE Public Power District, Ohio Edison, PSNM,
VEPCO, and Western Group comments.
\54\ See, e.g., Duke, EPRI, Idaho, PSNM, Western Group comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having this information available is essential for building and
maintaining trust in the information posted on the OASIS. Transmission
Providers generally seem willing to provide this information after-the-
fact and off-line. Since this information would be used only after-the-
fact and can be voluminous, the final regulations require that ATC and
TTC supporting information be made available by the Responsible Party
within one week of posting, on request, in their original electronic
format and at the cost of reproducing the materials. A requirement
specifying how long the information must be retained also has been
added.
g. Long-Term Studies (Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(iii)). The RIN NOPR proposed
that any planning or specifically requested studies of the transmission
network performed by the Transmission Provider be posted on a same-time
basis.55 This would include only those parts of customer-specific
interconnection studies that relate to network impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.8(c) (60 FR 66200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of commenters responded that transmission planning
studies should not be posted on the OASIS. ConEd and MAPP suggested an
index to be maintained on the OASIS. NEPOOL, Tallahassee, and Montana
Power suggested that summaries should be maintained on the OASIS.
As with the ATC supporting information, having this information
available is essential for building and maintaining trust in the ATC
and TTC posted on the OASIS. Since this information would be used only
after-the-fact and can be voluminous, the final regulations require
that final transmission studies be available from the Responsible Party
on request in original electronic format and at the cost of reproducing
the materials. A list of available studies is to be posted on the
OASIS. A requirement specifying how long the studies must be retained
also has been added.
3. Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices (Sec. 37.6(c))
Paragraph 37.6(c) of the regulations adopts several of the proposed
provisions. It requires Transmission Providers to post prices and a
summary of the terms and conditions of transmission products. In
addition, Transmission Providers must provide a downloadable file of
their complete tariffs. Furthermore, customers who use an OASIS to
resell transmission capacity must submit relevant information about
their resale transactions to the Transmission Provider for posting to
the same OASIS as used by the Transmission Provider in originally
offering that capacity. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, the Transmission
Provider must post this information about resales on the same display
page, using the same tables, as similar capacity being sold by it.
Similarly, the information must be contained in the same downloadable
files as the Transmission Provider's own available capacity. A customer
who does not use an OASIS to arrange a resale of transmission capacity
must, nevertheless, inform the original Transmission Provider of the
transaction within the time limits prescribed by the ``Sale or
Assignment of Transmission Service'' section of the pro forma tariff.
The proposed standards of conduct required a Transmission Provider
that offers any discount on behalf of its power customers or those of
an affiliate, to post offers for similar service containing comparable
discounts, at the same time, to all Transmission Customers.
As to discounts that the Transmission Provider has agreed to give
to any Transmission Customer (affiliated or unaffiliated), the
Commission proposed requiring that these discounts be posted within 24
hours after the agreement is entered (measured from when ATC is
adjusted in response to the agreement), and that they remain posted for
30 days. The Commission sought comment on whether all transmission
discounts should be posted on the OASIS, or only those provided to the
Transmission Provider or its affiliates (Question 14).
Most commenters, including representatives with diverse interests
such as APPA, EEI, Continental Power Exchange, EGA, EEI, NIEP, and
NRECA, argued that discounts must be made available to all customers.
NRECA especially, was concerned about the potential for selective
discounting. The Ohio Com, clearly concerned about allowing
Transmission Providers to negotiate privately, asked that we clarify
how discounting would work, and EGA raised some practical concerns
about how the Commission's proposal would work. EGA asked whether, when
a discount is offered to an affiliate, discounts must be offered to
others on the same path, all paths, or only paths needed to get to the
buyer to whom the affiliate is selling. This issue is addressed in the
Open Access Final Rule, which concludes that such
[[Page 21752]]
discounts must be offered to all customers on all unconstrained paths.
Several commenters were against discounting, but would accept
discounts if they were made available to all customers.\56\ Several
commenters agreed with the proposal to require posting of discounts
offered to affiliates and delaying the reporting of discounts to
others.\57\ However, CCEM wants to change the 24-hour delay period to
30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See ERCOT, MidAmerican, NUCOR, and Public Generating Pool
comments.
\57\ See CCEM, OK Com, and Tallahassee comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCE&G and Union Electric would allow discounting but not post them
on the OASIS. Central Hudson would post only affiliate discounts. SMUD
argued that selective discounting is good and stated that, if public
utilities must offer discounts to everyone, no discounts would be
offered to anyone.
The question of whether discounts may be offered is discussed in
the Open Access Final Rule.\58\ If a Transmission Provider offers a
discount for transmission service to its own power customers or those
of an affiliate, it must, at the same time, post on the OASIS an offer
to provide the same discount to all eligible customers on the same path
and on all unconstrained transmission paths. As to discounts for
ancillary services, if a Transmission Provider offers a rate discount
to an affiliate, or attributes a discounted ancillary service rate to
its own transactions, the Transmission Provider must, at the same time,
post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same discount to all eligible
customers. If a Transmission Provider offers discounts to non-
affiliates, it must offer to do so on a basis that is not unduly
discriminatory. Any discounts under Sec. 37.6(c)(3) offered to
affiliates or to the Transmission Provider's own power customers must
be posted on the OASIS when they are offered pursuant to
Sec. 37.4(b)(5)(v). Discounts offered to non-affiliates must be posted
within 24 hours of when ATC is adjusted in response to the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See generally Open Access Final Rule at sections IV.D and
IV.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and Prices (Sec. 37.6(d))
Transmission Providers are required to post on the OASIS
information about all ancillary services required by the Open Access
Final Rule to be provided or offered to customers.\59\ A Transmission
Provider may, at its discretion, post information on the OASIS about
other interconnected operation services, offered by itself or third
parties, that are not services required by the Open Access Final Rule
to be offered to customers. However, if a Transmission Provider elects
to post these optional services for any party, including itself, then
it must post on its OASIS, for a reasonable cost based fee, the same
type of information about comparable optional ancillary services
offered by third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See generally Open Access Final Rule at section IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed the posting of price and other
information about ancillary services.\60\ We requested comment on: (1)
The information needed about ancillary services (Question 12); (2) how
often the information should be updated (Question 13); and (3) where on
the information network offers of ancillary services by entities other
than the Transmission Provider should be placed (Question 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66190).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there is near consensus among commenters on the need to
update ancillary services information as it changes, there is
widespread disagreement on what information about ancillary services
should be posted and where on the OASIS offers by other entities to
provide ancillary services should be placed. Some commenters request
that the Commission allow flexibility because the information
requirement may depend upon the industry structure that develops in
response to the Open Access Final Rule. NERC asserted that it is
impractical to expect the initial OASIS to be the vehicle for posting
information on the availability and price of all ancillary services.
Ancillary service providers are required to post all pertinent
information about their ancillary service offerings (e.g., a
description of the service being offered, its availability, and its
price) so that Transmission Customers may compare offers and decide
which offer best suits their needs. Information about ancillary
services should be updated as it changes. Postings by customers and
third parties should be on the same page, and in the same format, as
postings of the Transmission Provider.
5. Posting Transmission Service Requests and Responses (Sec. 37.6(e))
Section 37.6(e) requires that all requests by customers for
transmission service that the Transmission Provider offers under the
pro forma tariff must be made on the OASIS. The Responsible Party is
required to provide to others on the OASIS the essential information
relating to such requests, with the identity of the parties masked, if
requested. Additionally, the section sets out the steps that must be
followed in processing such requests, including the posting of
curtailments, interruptions, or denials of service.\61\ The final OASIS
regulations require that a record of transactions not resulting in
agreements also be kept for audit purposes. We now discuss some special
issues arising under this provision and the comments relating to those
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The Open Access Final Rule discusses curtailments at
section IV.G and provides that a company's curtailment policy is to
be described in its tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Posting Curtailments and Interruptions (Sec. 37.6(e)(3)). We
proposed requiring that, when a transaction is curtailed, a
Transmission Provider must post the reason that the transaction was
curtailed and the available options, if any, for adjusting the
operation of the Transmission Provider's system to increase transfer
capability in order to accommodate the transaction.\62\ Since
scheduling and the curtailment of schedules would not be done through
the information network initially, this curtailment data would be for
information purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ``Curtailments'' are service cutbacks made for system
reliability reasons and are distinguishable from ``interruptions'',
which are made pursuant to tariff conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested comments on what information about
curtailments should be communicated on an OASIS (Question 7). Only
Union Electric, among the commenters who answered this question, argued
against posting information about curtailments or recording this
information in an audit file. Among those who supported posting or
recording, the differences were in how much information should be
provided, where the information should be placed, and who should have
access to the information.
The comments expressed support for a Transmission Provider setting
out in its tariff, or elsewhere, curtailment or interruption rules or
constraint relief protocols.\63\ This would let a customer know what to
expect when there is a constraint and would allow the Transmission
Provider to be held to a formal set of procedures. Then, when a
curtailment occurs, postings on the OASIS can refer to steps and
reasons defined in the curtailment procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See APS, NERC, and NIEP comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters agreed that at least some basic information about
curtailments needs to be posted or documented in the audit file.
Several commenters pointed out that there may
[[Page 21753]]
be some lag before these postings are placed on the OASIS because
control room personnel may need time to determine and resolve the
problem.\64\ Some commenters believed that these postings should be
made available only to those curtailed.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Allegheny, Com Ed, CSW, NERC, NRECA, and SCE&G
comments.
\65\ See, e.g., Allegheny and Central Illinois Public Service
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulations addressed curtailments and denials of
service together. In this final rule, denials are distinguished from
curtailments of service. Transmission Providers are not required to
offer options for making capacity available to those curtailed, but if
options are offered, they must be offered to curtailed and interrupted
customers at the same time.
As discussed in the Open Access Final Rule, transmission tariffs
must include rules for curtailment and interruption of service,
including clear steps or stages in the process for relieving
constraints, and transmission service agreements must clearly identify
the service's priority relative to concurrent services. Consistent with
these requirements, the final rule here provides that, when
curtailments or interruptions take place, they must be posted as soon
as possible and must include identification of the service (with the
identity of the customer masked), the reason for the curtailment or
interruption, and the tariff-defined step in the curtailment and
interruption process. In the event that an emergency situation
affecting system reliability delays this posting, the posting must be
made as soon as practicable thereafter along with an explanation for
the delayed posting.
Curtailments and interruptions will be recorded for audit purposes.
This audit data should contain enough information about the timing of
superseding requests and changes in ATC to document the reason for a
curtailment or interruption. The final rule also provides that
customers have the right to request an explanation of the reason for a
curtailment or interruption.
b. Posting Denials of Requests for Service (Sec. 37.6(e)(2)). In
the RIN NOPR, we proposed requiring that, when requests for service are
denied, Transmission Providers must communicate to Transmission
Customers through the OASIS: the reason(s) that the transaction(s)
could not be accommodated; and the available options, if any, for
adjusting the operation of the Transmission Provider's system to
increase transfer capability to accommodate the transaction(s). The
Commission requested comments on what information about denials of
requests for service should be communicated on an OASIS (Question 7).
As with curtailments, only Union Electric out of the commenters who
answered this question opposed posting information about denials of
service on the OASIS or recording this information in an audit file.
Many commenters agreed that at least some basic information about
denials should be posted. Some commenters believed that these postings
should be available only to those denied service.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Allegheny and Central Illinois Public Service comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service can be denied for two basic reasons: either (1) the
customer requested more than the posted ATC or (2) after the request
for service was made, conditions changed due to preexisting requests or
unforeseen events reducing capacity. Denials should be handled as part
of the request and response process. A requester should receive a
standardized reason for denial as part of the response. Denials would
not be posted. Instead, denials must be recorded for audit purposes and
maintained as provided in section 37.7(b). This data should contain the
information about a denial needed to explain the reason for a denial.
Under the final rules, customers have the right to request an
explanation of the standardized reason for a denial.
c. Transaction Anonymity (Sec. 37.6(e)(3)(i)). In the RIN NOPR, we
proposed that, generally, information concerning negotiations on
transmission requests need not be posted unless an agreement to provide
the transmission is reached.\67\ This information would be available
only after-the-fact in the audit file. In addition, if an agreement is
reached, the identity of parties to transmission transactions would be
masked until 30 days after the date when the Transmission Provider's
ATC was adjusted in response to the transaction. (This might be after
the date when service begins). After that date, all transaction data
would be made available. In addition, we proposed that transmission
transaction prices be included in the information in the audit file.
Price information concerning cost-based transmission services would not
be considered commercially sensitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.14(d) (60 FR 66201).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requested comment on what information should be
considered commercially sensitive, the 30-day release period proposal,
and on how and when commercially sensitive information should be
released to concerned parties before the standard release period and
whether affiliated transactions should be treated differently (Question
24).
Several commenters agreed that information about negotiations that
do not reach agreement should not be reported.\68\ No commenter argued
for making this information public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See, e.g., Allegheny, Detroit Edison, El Paso, NorAm, and
OK Com comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of commenters supported the 30-day delay on providing
commercially sensitive information.\69\ Several, however, thought the
information should be provided as soon as possible.\70\ Others thought
it should be provided quarterly.\71\ WP&L proposed a 60-day delay.
Dayton P&L said that the delay should depend on contract length. Union
Electric suggested a delay of 30 days after the transaction begins and
not after the ATC is adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See Allegheny, CCEM, El Paso, Oklahoma G&E, PJM, PSNM, and
Western Group comments.
\70\ See APPA, Continental Power Exchange, MidAmerican Energy,
and NIEP comments.
\71\ See Arizona, ConEd, and NorAm comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters split on the question of whether price data are
commercially sensitive.\72\ Commenters listed several items as
commercially sensitive that were proposed to be posted. These are ATC
supporting information,\73\ transmission schedule information,\74\
generation run status,\75\ amount provided,\76\ terms and
conditions,\77\ and duration.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ EGA, NUCOR, NRECA, Omaha PPD, and PJM supported the
proposition that the data are not commercially sensitive. Arizona,
Central Illinois Public Service, Detroit Edison, OK Com, PSNM,
Seattle, and Western Group argued that the data are commercially
sensitive.
\73\ See Carolina P&L and El Paso comments.
\74\ See Central Illinois Public Service and OK Com comments.
\75\ See Allegheny, Carolina P&L, CSW, Detroit Edison, EGA, NE
Public Power District, and PJM comments.
\76\ See, e.g., Allegheny and WP&L comments.
\77\ See Central Illinois Public Service comments.
\78\ See Allegheny comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE Public Power District argued for full disclosure of all but
generator information because, as a public entity, it must disclose
such information. NIEP stated that comparability should be the ruling
principle in information disclosure.
The final rule adopts the NOPR proposal and provides that the
identity of parties to an agreement are confidential during ongoing
negotiations and for 30 days from the time ATC is adjusted. Although
not explicitly required in the new Part 37, the price of services
offered on and
[[Page 21754]]
agreed to through the OASIS are not considered commercially
sensitive.79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ We note, in this regard, that Sec. 205(c) of the FPA
requires public utilities to have their prices on file with the
Commission and available for public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Posting Facility Status Information
The RIN NOPR discussed the fact that the ATC of some transmission
paths depends on generator run status or megawatt output, or both, as
well as on other system elements.80 We proposed requiring
Transmission Providers to post information about those system elements
that have a direct and significant impact on ATC. Such elements could
include generators, transmission lines, phase shifters, series and
shunt capacitors, static VAR compensators, special protection systems
or remedial action schemes. We, therefore, requested comment on whether
it is sufficient to provide information only about planned outages and
(for both planned and forced outages) return dates for system elements
deemed to have a direct and significant impact on ATC and whether
posting this information would cause any confidentiality concerns
(Question 18). We also requested comment on how ``significant and
direct impact'' should be defined (Question 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we requested comment on whether it would be
sufficient to post the changes to ATC corresponding to the planned
outage or return dates of generators (Question 21); and whether, if
operating guides, nomograms, operating studies, and similar information
were posted, the run status of those generators with a significant and
direct impact on ATC could be deduced (Question 22).
Comments
A number of commenters stated that the posting of facility status
information should not be a requirement.81 These commenters
reasoned that the posted ATC and TTC values would reflect facility
status impacts and that posting status information therefore would be
unnecessary and burdensome, and would render the information network
unmanageable. With regard to generator status and outage information, a
number of respondents argued that generator status and outage-related
information is commercially sensitive and confidential.82 They
stated that posting generator-related information would give an unfair
advantage to competitors. Some opposing the posting of generation-
related information also added that the Commission's proposed standards
of conduct would make it unnecessary to post this information because
the Transmission Customer's and the Transmission Provider's wholesale
marketing functions would rely on the same information.83 A number
of Transmission Providers believed that facility status data can be
archived and made available for after-the-fact audits.84
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See Allegheny, Central Illinois Public Service, Com Ed,
CSW, Dayton P&L, Detroit Edison, Duke, Montana Power, NERC, NYPP,
Ohio Edison, PJM, PSNM, Texas Utilities, VEPCO, and WP&L comments.
\82\ See Allegheny, Arizona, Central Illinois Public Service,
ConEd, Carolina P&L, CSW, Dayton P&L, Detroit Edison, Florida Power
Corp, NEPOOL, NE Public Power District, NERC, NYPP, Oklahoma G&E,
Omaha PPD, PJM, Texas Utilities, Union Electric, VEPCO, and WP&L
comments.
\83\ See Central Illinois Public Service, Carolina P&L, and Ohio
Edison comments.
\84\ See ConEd, CSW, Florida Power Corp, NYPP, Ohio Edison, and
PSNM comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second group of commenters believed that facility status
information should be posted on the OASIS.85 With regard to
generator status and outage data, Seattle responded that planned
generator outage data should be updated as it changes and that an
explanation of the impact of typical outage configurations should be
made available to all transmission users in advance. APPA stated that
the run status (on-line or off-line) of any generating unit should not
be kept confidential. APPA argued that keeping such information
confidential, under the guise of competitive necessity, is an excuse to
protect opportunities to game the market. NCEMC stated that, because
the transmission user needs to be able to do a reliability and risk
assessment of various available power supply sources and transmission
paths, it probably is not sufficient to post ATC changes corresponding
to generation outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See APPA, CCEM, EGA, NCEMC, NIEP, OK Com, Seattle,
Tallahassee, and United Illuminating comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third group of commenters suggested that, while generator status-
related information should not be posted, information about
transmission facilities with direct and significant impact on ATC and
TTC could be posted.86 There were diverging views among the
commenters as to whether posted ATC or TTC values would reveal the run
status of generators if operating guides, nomograms, operating studies,
and similar information were posted. A number of commenters responded
that ATC and TTC are affected by many variables and, even though in
some cases it may be possible to deduce the run status of certain
generators from the posted ATC or TTC, these deductions would be
uncertain.87
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See Arizona, Dayton P&L, MidAmerican, NEPOOL, PJM, and
Western Group comments.
\87\ See Arizona, CCEM, Central Illinois Public Service, Com Ed,
ConEd, CSW, Detroit Edison, NEPOOL, NE Public Power District, VEPCO,
and WP&L comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERC responded that it may be possible, over time, to recognize
patterns and supporting data that would indicate which generator went
off-line, but not whether the reason is a planned outage, forced
outage, reserve shutdown, or other reasons. NERC explained that a run
status so deduced would itself be an estimate and not as commercially
sensitive as knowing the reason for that status. Florida Power Corp and
Montana Power responded that customers will be able to deduce
generation-related information from changes in ATC if guides,
nomograms, or studies are posted and, therefore, such information
should not be posted.
By contrast, a number of commenters stated that nomograms, derating
tables, and operating studies can be used to identify equipment that
has a direct and significant impact on ATC and TTC. 88 The Western
Group responded that, where study results have been summarized in
nomograms, derating tables, and operating guidelines and procedures,
these summary forms should be made available as information on the
OASIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See APPA, Arizona, CCEM, Idaho, NEPOOL, Oklahoma Com,
Seattle, and SoCal Edison comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of respondents answered that it is not necessary to define
``significant and direct impact'' because ATC and TTC are the only
quantities that need to be posted. 89 ConEd stated that the
definition of ``significant'' should be consistent with local and
regional procedures. Duke and Florida Power Corp commented that the
Commission should work through NERC in developing appropriate
definitions. NYPP, on the other hand, stated that ``significant and
direct impact'' can be determined only on a case-by-case basis. Montana
Power defined the term as a reduction of ATC that results in the denial
of service. Continental Power Exchange proposed that any system element
affecting ATC more than 10 percent should be considered significant.
CSW proposed a 50 percent threshold. CSW further proposed to include
those elements that can cause a reduction of more than 25 percent of
the normal flows across an interface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Allegheny, Com Ed, Detroit Edison, NERC, NE Public
Power District, Ohio Edison, SCE&G, Texas Utilities, Union Electric,
and VEPCO comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 21755]]
Discussion
Additional information about the state of the transmission system
will enable Transmission Customers to make better decisions about the
quality of the transmission service they intend to purchase. However,
the development and implementation of Phase I OASIS, in what is a
relatively short period of time, requires that we limit the posting
requirements of the OASIS to the essentials. We believe that audit data
and information required to be provided about the reasons for
curtailments and interruptions will make it possible to document unduly
discriminatory practices concerning facilities critical to transmission
capability. Also, as pointed out by APPA, the standards of conduct that
we put in place with this rule lessen the urgency of posting additional
information concerning generating unit status and transmission
component status. Consequently, the Commission will not require the
posting of information about the run status of generation and
transmission facilities for a Phase I OASIS. We may reconsider this
subject for Phase II OASIS depending on the Phase I experience.
7. Posting Transmission Service Schedules Information (Sec. 37.6(f))
The final rule consolidates and renumbers Secs. 37.14(b) and (c) of
the RIN NOPR as Sec. 37.6(f). This provision requires information on
scheduled transmission service to be recorded by the entity scheduling
the transmission service and requires that the information be made
available for download on the OASIS by interested parties. It also
provides that postings must be made within one week of the start of the
transmission service schedule agreed upon by the parties. The comments
in response to the RIN NOPR did not take issue with the proposal. Thus,
the provision is adopted without substantial revision.
8. Posting Other Transmission-Related Communications (Sec. 37.6(g))
Section 37.6(g) basically adopts what we proposed for the posting
of ``want ads'' and ``other communications'' in Sec. 37.9(f) of the RIN
NOPR. Postings made in this section carry no obligation to respond on
the part of any market participant.
This section provides that ``other communications related to
transmission services'' (such as using the OASIS as a transmission-
related conference space or to provide transmission-related messaging
services between OASIS users) and ``want ads'' must be posted by the
Responsible Party.
We received comments that urged the Commission to issue a
disclaimer to the effect that, although Transmission Providers are
responsible for posting other transmission-related communications at
the request of third parties, it is the responsibility of the third
parties requesting such postings to ensure the accuracy of the
information to be posted. We agree that such a disclaimer is
appropriate. We provide it in Sec. 37.6(g)(2).
In addition, the final rule requires that transfers of personnel
between the transmission and marketing functions are to be posted on
the OASIS (Sec. 37.6(g)(3)). This incorporates the requirements of the
standards of conduct at Sec. 37.4(b)(2).
I. Section 37.7--Auditing Transmission Service Information
In the RIN NOPR, we proposed procedures that would govern the
availability of records about auditing transmission service
transactions. 90 The Commission proposed requiring that historical
data on postings, updates, and request/response communications be
recorded for audit purposes, be downloadable from the OASIS in an
appropriate format for 60 days, and be available for download on a
rolling basis for three years from entry on the OASIS. These provisions
are now contained in Sec. 37.7 of the final rule. However, we have
increased the time during which audit data must be available for
download from 60 days to 90 days because this provides greater
protection to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66191) and the
proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.14 (60 FR 66201).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ConEd suggested that the Commission should provide assurance to
Transmission Providers that they will not be liable if they post data
under the proposed audit provisions that is considered confidential by
their customers. We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the
Commission to issue this sort of blanket disclaimer in the absence of
any particular facts or controversy. However, to the extent that a
Transmission Provider posts data because this is required by the
Commission's regulations, the Transmission Provider may, of course,
assert this as a defense against any legal action brought against it
based on the disclosure.
J. Standards and Communication Protocols
In this section, we discuss the major issues raised in response to
our proposed standards and protocols. As proposed, these are being
issued in the separate Standards and Protocols document that we are
issuing together with this final rule. As already described, the final
rule states explicitly that information is to be posted on the OASIS in
conformance with the specifications of the Standards and Protocols.
The most recent How Report (filed on April 15, 1996) shows great
strides toward reaching consensus on a set of implementable standards.
However, it needs to be augmented in two ways.
First, there are some internal inconsistences. For example, there
are data elements that appear in the data dictionary that do not appear
in the templates and vice versa. The data elements for DUNS numbers
that appear in the data dictionary need to be added to the appropriate
templates. Data elements for DUNS numbers for resellers need to be
added to both the data dictionary and the appropriate templates. The
October 16, 1995 How Report contained standards for Transmission
Services Information Timing Requirements. The most recent report
substantially changed these requirements. We request that the report we
are asking the How Group to submit by May 28, 1996 reinstate these
requirements or explain why they should be changed.
Second, and not surprisingly, the standards and protocols must now
be conformed to the requirements of the final rule. For example,
necessary changes include developing file and display templates for
curtailments and interruptions, developing file and display templates
to place primary and resale capacity on the same displays and in the
same downloadable files, and developing file and display templates to
place ancillary services provided by the primary provider and others on
the same display page and in the same downloadable files.
Under procedures we are instituting today, we expect the
recommendations for standards and protocols to be conformed to the
requirements of the final rule and for inconsistencies to be corrected
in the next few months. We are issuing portions of the standards and
protocols now to provide as much information as possible to allow the
industry to begin the work of building necessary systems to make their
OASIS nodes operational. This information, coupled with the
requirements of the Open Access Final Rule and our additional
procedures to complete the Standards and Protocols, should result in
the OASIS nodes being operational
[[Page 21756]]
within six months of the publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register.
The April 15, 1996 How Report contains references to a yet to be
established industry group, the [OASIS] Management Organization, that
will maintain a registry of [OASIS] node names and perhaps perform
other functions associated with maintaining a functioning [OASIS]. We
agree that there is a need for an industry group to maintain a registry
of OASIS node names and perform similar functions and expect that such
a group will be established by the industry prior to the implementation
of the OASIS requirements. The Standards and Protocols, therefore,
contains a reference to this function. We expect that such a group
would be composed of representatives of all segments of the electric
industry and we expect to be apprised of the group's activities.
1. Summary of Standards and Communication Protocol Requirements
The Standards and Protocols, which we are adopting together with
this final rule, require Transmission Providers to make their OASIS
nodes accessible through the Internet. Each Responsible Party's OASIS
is considered to be a separate node. An OASIS operated jointly by
several utilities would be considered one node. By connecting each node
through the Internet, transmission service information provided by each
utility becomes part of a network.
We are requiring that nodes must support the use of Internet tools.
The specific tools are described in the Standards and Protocols. OASIS
users will access nodes using World Wide Web (WWW) browsers.91
Each node will display information using the Hypertext Mark-up Language
(HTML) protocol required by World Wide Web browsers. Screen displays
will consist of a series of pages that may be viewed by customers
without requiring the page to be downloaded and viewed by separate
software. The information on each page, but not the actual displays,
will be standardized. Information must also be made available for
downloading, in a standardized ASCII 92 format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ The World Wide Web is a system of computer resources that
are accessed through the Internet.
A Browser is a computer program for retrieving and reading
hypermedia documents from the WWW. A hypermedia document can contain
text, graphics, video, sound or data. These documents are often
linked to other documents.
\92\ ASCII refers to the American Standard Code for Information
Interchange, a code for character representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase I, customers will have access to the information required
to be posted by this rule and will be able to use the OASIS to reserve
transmission capacity. They will be able to request capacity either by
completing a standardized form contained in an on-line HTML page or by
uploading a filled-out form using HTTP. Customers who want to resell
transmission capacity will upload (post) the relevant information to
the same OASIS node used by the primary provider from whom they
purchased the ATC. Customers will also be able to upload other
communications (e.g., Want Ads) containing such information as requests
to purchase transmission capacity.
OASIS nodes must provide direct connections to private networks if
requested to do so. The cost of the connections will be paid for by the
requestor and the networks are required to use Internet tools.
The Standards and Protocols contain a model of the information
requirements that must be provided at each OASIS node. Customers are
limited to obtaining information from HTML text displays and selecting
from menus of downloadable files. Customers will receive the
information either as HTML pages or as ASCII files in a predetermined
form and layout.
For security purposes, and as an aid in auditing performance and
transactions, all customers are required to register with the
Responsible Party before they are permitted access to the utility's
transmission service information on the OASIS. As registered
subscribers, they will be allowed to read and download information,
make requests for transmission service, place ``Want Ads'' and offer
transmission service for resale. Commission staff and staff of state
regulatory authorities are to obtain free ``read only'' access to the
OASIS and members of the general public will also be provided ``read
only'' access to the OASIS for the same usage fee paid by customers,
once they have complied with the requisite registration procedures.
Responsible Parties are required to meet a number of performance
standards and security precautions. Performance requirements include
sizing OASIS nodes to handle the loading of registered subscribers,
responding to subscriber requests, backing up the system, and other
areas that are necessary for the system to function as desired.
2. Number of OASIS Nodes (Question 35)
The Commission proposed that Transmission Providers be permitted to
combine their separate OASIS nodes into a single node. Thus, while
there could be as many nodes as there are transmission-owning
utilities, if utilities choose to combine together to create joint
nodes, we could end up with a small number of nodes.
A small number of nodes would minimize the networking management
requirements for the OASIS and would help ensure access to the
information systems. On the other hand, the advantages of a small
number of separate nodes must be weighed against the greater complexity
and size of a joint node that would handle transactions for several
large transmission-owning utilities at one node. The Commission
requested comments on whether a small or large number of OASIS nodes
should be encouraged.
The majority of commenters preferred a small number of nodes, but
would not necessarily have the Commission require a small number of
nodes.93 Some commenters advocated regional nodes.94 PJM
speculated that, even if the Commission does not encourage a small
number of nodes, economies of scale and market efficiencies will lead
to smaller numbers in the normal course of events. The How Group
reported that significant consolidation is already occurring:
\93\ See, e.g., Allegheny, Central Hudson, Central Illinois
Public Service, Com Ed, Continental Power Exchange, How Group,
Florida Power Corp, Montana Power, NERC, NYPP, Ohio Edison, OK Com,
PJM, PSNM, Seattle, Texas Utilities, and VEPCO comments.
\94\ See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, CSW, and MAPP comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
it appears there may be 1 node in ERCOT, 13-14 nodes in the Eastern
Interconnection, and 6-20 nodes in the Western Interconnection. The
resulting 20-35 nodes [nationwide] is a manageable number for
Customers maneuvering through the system and at the same time
minimizes the impact of possible security breaches or system
failures by being sufficiently distributed.95
\95\ How Group comments at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these comments, we believe that the question of whether there
should be a small number of nodes is one best left to the industry. At
this stage, flexibility in such matters is important.
3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes (Question 36)
The Commission explained in the RIN NOPR that private networks and
third party services can provide valuable contributions to the
successful operation of an OASIS.96 The Commission, therefore,
proposed to
[[Page 21757]]
require utilities to provide direct connections to the OASIS without
the need to obtain access through the Internet. We also proposed that
the cost of these connections be paid for by the customers making the
requests and that the networks be required to use the same Internet
tools as the Internet connections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ For example, a private network could connect to one or more
OASIS nodes and offer users off-the-Internet connections at faster
speeds. Third parties could gather OASIS information and repackage
it into customized displays favored by individual users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters preferred that the Commission not require third-
party connections to the OASIS in Phase I.97 Com Ed asserted that
direct connections would provide only marginal benefits to the
development of an OASIS, and that adding such non-essential goals to
OASIS requirements would jeopardize utilities' ability to implement an
OASIS on time. Montana Power argued that direct connections would
provide affluent large marketers with information ahead of smaller
users, and thus would give them market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See, e.g., Allegheny, Com Ed, Montana, NERC, Ohio Edison,
OK Com, PJM, PSNM, and VEPCO comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, other commenters argued that such connections
are important. ConEd argued that direct connections would help minimize
the number of different connections customers must have. Continental
Power Exchange sees direct connections as allowing third parties to
provide services that will add valuable contributions to the successful
operation of an OASIS. The How Group reported that discussions among
the parties in the group indicated that direct connections would not be
a problem as long as the Responsible Party is compensated for the
additional service and given a reasonable time to make the connection.
All commenters addressing the subject of who should pay for direct
connections agreed that the cost should be paid by the requesting
party.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, Continental Power Exchange, How
Group, and PJM comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCEM and OK Com agreed that the direct connections should be
required to use the Internet tools required for the Internet
connection.
Finally, APPA asserted that, if private networks are created to
provide direct connections that are operated by partners or affiliates
of utilities, these networks could provide significant performance
advantages for the Transmission Provider's merchant affiliates. APPA
would require full public disclosure of such partnership or affiliate
relationships by the service provider.
We find that the How Group's position is reasonable. Direct
connections are feasible if the provider is compensated for the
additional service and is given a reasonable time to make the
connection. We will, therefore, require direct connections in Phase I,
upon request.
Moreover, such connections must be made available on an equal basis
to all requesting customers. We note, however, that to the extent that
the Transmission Provider is not the Responsible Party, a direct
connection is available only from the Responsible Party. This being the
case, APPA's concern that the Transmission Provider's merchant services
may gain an advantage from an affiliate with a direct connection or
private network does not appear to be warranted, as anyone can obtain a
direct connection or the services of a private network.
4. Value-Added OASIS Services Provided by Transmission Providers or
Responsible Parties
The Commission proposed in the RIN NOPR to permit Transmission
Providers or Responsible Parties to provide value-added OASIS services,
such as higher speed connections and automatic notification of changed
data.
NTEC argued that, unless these services are offered on a non-
discriminatory basis, public utilities could gain a competitive
advantage by offering these services solely to affiliates. NTEC also
requested the Commission to monitor the ``basic'' and ``premium''
service packages to ensure that customers need not pay a ``premium''
price to obtain basic services.
TAPS argued against any offering of value-added services. They
argued that smaller customers may not be able to afford such services
and that price could be used to discriminate against them. TAPS
proposed that instead of permitting value-added services, the
Commission should include all OASIS costs in transmission rates.
We agree with NTEC that value-added OASIS services should be
offered on a non-discriminatory basis. If a value-added service is
offered to anyone, it should be offered to everyone on the same terms
and conditions. Regarding NTEC's concern over basic and premium
services, we believe that the standards setting process will ensure
that the basic package of OASIS services will provide all pertinent
information and the means to retrieve it that are necessary for the
functioning of the Open Access program.
The Commission will allow these services on a non-discriminatory
basis. Such services will remain cost-based until the Commission is
satisfied that market-based (value added) rates should be allowed for
such services. Requests for market-based rates for such services will
be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
5. Transmission Services Information Timing Requirements (Question 37)
In the NOPR, the Commission requested comments on several timing
requirements for posting transmission service information. These are:
(1) Transmission Service Information Availability: The most recent
Provider transmission service information, including updates reflecting
power system changes, shall be available to all Customers within 5
minutes of its scheduled posting time at least 98 percent of the time.
The remaining 2 percent of the time the transmission service
information shall be available within 10 minutes of its scheduled
posting time;
(2) Notification of Posted or Changed Transmission Service
Information: Notification of transmission service information posted or
changed by a Provider shall be made available within 60 seconds to all
subscribed Customers who are currently connected; and
(3) Acknowledgment by the Transmission Service Information
Provider: Acknowledgment by the transmission service information
provider of the receipt of Customer purchase request/response requests
shall occur within 1 minute for Phase I. The actual negotiations and
agreements on purchase request/response requests do not have time
constraints. For Phase II, acknowledgment shall occur within 30
seconds.
Most commenters supported the Commission's proposals as proposed
99 or with some modification.100 CCEM asserted that the
proposed requirements for updating transmission service information
contained in Item (1) would lead to stale information, and would result
in customers using the telephone and not the OASIS. CCEM asserted that
the Phase I tolerances should be reduced to 30 seconds and one minute
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See, e.g., APPA, Duke, How Group, Florida Power Corp, NYPP,
and OK Com comments.
\100\ See CCEM, Com Ed, Continental Power Exchange, PSNM, and
Western Group comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Power Exchange asserted that items (1) and (2) are good
starting points. The Western Group suggested that Item (1) would be
adequate if it can be accomplished automatically. Otherwise, it would
recommend reducing the 98 percent compliance requirement to 85 percent.
Some commenters agreed with the need for such standards, but
opposed
[[Page 21758]]
incorporating timing performance standards in Phase I standards. VEPCO
asserted that these standards are too ambitious for Phase I.
Tallahassee argued that these timing requirements may be too
restrictive for small utilities whose staff and technology capabilities
will be strained by this rule. Central Hudson proposed that response
times be determined after OASIS is implemented and users are
comfortable with what they would expect as adequate performance.
Most commenters agreed on the need for standards for how quickly
providers should post transmission service information. Commenters
argued that the requirements should be stricter, that they are too
strict, or that they are just right.
The Commission stated that information posting performance
requirements are needed to ensure that information is disseminated in a
timely manner by Transmission Providers. The comments do not persuade
us to change the proposed requirements. We note that the April 15, 1996
How Report drops these requirements. We request the How Group to
reinstate these requirements in the report we are inviting them to file
on or before May 28, 1996, or to explain why these requirements should
be dropped.
Commenters raise several additional points that need to be
addressed. First, Com Ed and others argued that these requirements
should not be in force during emergencies. The Commission agrees.
Second, several commenters pointed out that the phrase ``available
to all Customers'' contained in Item (1) is ambiguous and request that
it should be replaced by ``available on the [OASIS].'' We agree.
Third, some commenters suggested that transmission service requests
and schedules be approved automatically, on a first come, first served
basis. The industry does not generally do business in this manner
today, and the Commission will not require it in Phase I. We request
the industry to address this issue when developing requirements for
Phase II.
6. Common Codes
a. Company Codes
The Commission's experience with implementing standards for file
transfers and electronic bulletin boards in the natural gas industry
shows that the use of a common system of identifying companies enhances
the efficiency of data transfers. The Commission is satisfied with the
results of using DUNS numbers 101 as the standard to uniquely
identify pipelines and shippers in the natural gas
transactions.102 The Commission proposed to require the use of
DUNS numbers to identify transmission-owning utilities and customers on
OASIS nodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ DUNS numbers refer to the Data Universal Numbering System,
maintained by Dun and Bradstreet.
\102\ See Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required
Under Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations, Docket No. RM93-4-
001, Order 563-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles, para.
30,994 at 31,034 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters believed that DUNS numbers alone or DUNS numbers in
combination with names should be used.103 The How Group asserted
that using DUNS numbers will enhance the management of data from a
computer perspective and allow flexibility of business applications of
OASIS in the future. The How Group also asserted that having commonly
used names is more user friendly and proposed that the list of names
and DUNs numbers be maintained on a centralized registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See, e.g., Allegheny, CCEM, Com Ed, Continental Power
Exchange, How Group, OK Com, and PJM comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others believed that names alone would be sufficient.104 NERC
and Ohio Edison believed that such standardization should be left to
the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See Seattle, VEPCO, and Western Group comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPA asserted that DUNS numbers are primarily for private companies
and do not include many public power systems. Instead of using DUNS
numbers, APPA recommended using a numbering system derived from Energy
Information Administration forms: EIA-861 (``Annual Electric Utility
Report'') and EIA-867 (``Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report'') as
these forms appear to be the most all-encompassing existing numbering
system that could be used for OASIS identification. Dun and Bradstreet
have informed staff that they will assign DUNS numbers, free of charge,
to any entity requesting a number.
The Commission will require the DUNS numbers as the unique
numerical identification of OASIS participants. The industry can
proceed to develop a naming convention as suggested in the comments.
b. Common Location Codes
The Commission's experience in the natural gas industry
demonstrates that a common method of uniquely identifying location
points will be needed to facilitate movement of power across the grid.
The Commission proposed to use a system to identify locations and paths
on the electric transmission grid.
Nearly all commenters who discussed the issue argued that the
Commission should not require common location codes.\105\ Several
commenters argued that providing longitude and latitude information for
power plants and substations raises serious national security
issues.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Allegheny, APPA, CCEM, Continental Power Exchange,
Duke, How Group, ERCOT, Florida Power Corp, NERC, PJM, VEPCO, and
Western Group comments.
\106\ See How Group, FPC, and NERC comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters see the need for a common naming convention for
paths and other facilities, such as that currently under development by
the How Working Group.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See How Group, PSNM, and Western Group comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is persuaded to drop the requirement for a system
for location codes and requests the industry to continue development of
a common naming convention to be implemented as soon as practicable.
7. Data Definitions and File Formats Not Covered by the Revised How
Report
a. Offers to Provide Ancillary Services Provided by an Entity Other
Than the Transmission Provider (Question 11)
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission requested the specifications needed
to post this information in HTML displays and the formats needed to
standardize uploadable and downloadable files containing this
information. This final rule requires that information about ancillary
services provided by an entity other than the Transmission Provider be
posted on the OASIS by Responsible Parties and be displayed on the same
page and in the same file format as that of the Transmission Provider.
Although we did receive comments on this issue from various
parties, this was not an issue resolved by the revised How Report. We
would prefer that the How Group attempt to reach consensus on this
issue before we impose our own solution. Therefore, we will include
this issue among those that we are requesting further input on before
we address this issue in the Standards and Protocols.
b. Offering of Primary and Secondary Capacity
The Commission requested comments on how to redesign the download
templates in Appendix C of the NOPR so that primary and secondary
capacity can be offered through downloadable files that have the same
format. The Commission also requested comments on how primary and
secondary capacity
[[Page 21759]]
can be displayed in the same tables on an OASIS node. Posting secondary
capacity requires more information than for primary capacity and, thus,
using the same formats would require many more fields. We need
information on the design of those fields before we can set standards
for the display of this information.
Although we did receive comments on this issue from various
parties, this was not an issue resolved by the revised How Report. We
would prefer that the How Group attempt to reach consensus on this
issue before we impose our own solution. Therefore, we will include
this issue among those that we are requesting further comment on before
we address this issue in the Standards and Protocols.
8. Formats for Downloadable Files Not Covered in the How Report
a. Standard Format for Data Used in Calculating ATC (Question 16)
The Commission requested comments on how the data used in
calculating ATC should be formatted and asked whether the information
should be in free form text, predefined tables, or comma delimited
ASCII files. We also asked whether, if the information is in free form
text, it should be in plain ASCII text or in a word processor format,
such as WordPerfect or Word. We deal with both of these issues in
section H(2)(f) of this final rule and in the regulations at
Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(ii).
b. Standard Formats for Transmission Studies (Question 23)
The Commission requested comments on how transmission studies
should be formatted for download from the OASIS. We deal with this
issue in section H(2)(g) of this final rule and in the regulations at
Sec. 37.6(b)(2)(iii).
c. Standard Format for Electronic Submission to the Commission of
Transmission Tariffs (Question 6)
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission proposed requiring that
Transmission Providers provide downloadable files of their complete
tariffs on the OASIS.\108\ The Commission requested that commenters
propose a standard format for electronic submission of transmission
tariffs to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66186) and
the proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.9(c)(1) (60 FR 66200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New formats continually are being developed by the computer
industry and it would be worthwhile to address this issue again when
the Commission addresses Phase II or remaining OASIS issues.
We will require utilities to provide tariff downloads from their
OASIS in the same format that they use to file with the Commission.
9. Communication Protocol Issues
a. Internet Browsers
There are a large number of Internet browsers available
commercially and in the public domain. The How Report proposed that
browsers support ``at least'' HTML version 3 and ``optionally'' support
Secure Sockets Layer. The HTML standards used by browsers change from
time to time, and, in addition, various browsers can support different
extensions to the standards. The Commission does not want to stifle
innovation, but at the same time it does want uniformity on the OASIS.
The Commission does not want customers to be forced to use different
browsers for different OASIS nodes. The Commission wants to ensure that
a customer will be able to choose a browser and use it to access all
OASIS nodes.
To this end, the Commission requested comments on how to ensure
that a customer will be able to choose a browser and use it to access
all OASIS nodes.
Most commenters agreed that requiring browsers to support HTML 3
would be sufficient to meet the needs of OASIS nodes and customers at
this time.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See, e.g., Allegheny, APPA, CCEM, and How Group comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSW reported that while the specifications for HTML 3 are still in
draft mode, it is the first version of HTML to support the table
feature for browsing that the How Working Group wants to use. NYPP
would add encryption capabilities to the list of standards. Ohio Edison
would require JAVA-enabled browsers.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ JAVA is a language that enables a browser to run programs
embedded in a WWW page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Com recommended that the Commission adopt a primary browser and
two alternative browsers for use on OASIS nodes. PJM asserted that, by
requiring OASIS nodes to accommodate browsers in common use, OASIS
nodes would be able to become more sophisticated as the Internet itself
becomes more sophisticated.
Com Ed, ConEd and PSNM would leave the standard to the How Group or
an industry-wide OASIS Management Organization.
Most commenters agreed with the How Report that, requiring OASIS
nodes to support HTML 3 will allow browsers supporting this standard to
view documents on the OASIS. The Commission will adopt the
recommendation for HTML 3 contained in the How Report.
b. Bandwidth of Node Connections to the Internet
At issue is the speed at which OASIS users will receive information
from OASIS nodes. A major determinant of the speed are the bandwidth
connections between the OASIS node and the Internet. The How Report
proposed a formula to compute the required minimum bandwidth based on
the number of registered users of the node and the number of bits per
second to be received by users during HTML displays and downloads of
files.\111\ These information transfers would include both the receipt
of HTML displays and downloads of files. The How Report proposed to use
a rate of 8,000 bits per second to determine bandwidth. In the RIN
NOPR, the Commission noted that an 8,000 bit per second transfer rate
is a much slower rate than the 28,800 bit per second transfer rate for
telephone connections that many private individuals and customers use
to connect to the Internet. The Commission expressed concern that using
8,000 bit per second as the basis for the bandwidth calculation will
lead to connections that are too slow and proposed to use 28,800 bits
per second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ How Report at Sec. 3.4.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters agreed with the Commission.\112\ Com Ed reported
that a T1 communications line (1.54 million bits per second) could
support 500 simultaneous customers using the Commission's proposal of
using 28,800 bits per second in the bandwidth formula. Com Ed concluded
that it is unlikely that an OASIS node will experience 500 simultaneous
users and that a T1 line is a reasonable upper limit, at this time. The
How Group reported that its members are currently paying between $1,500
and $3,000 per month for T1 connections and concludes that it may be
cost effective to oversize the bandwidth even though a high bandwidth
does not automatically translate into higher access speeds or download
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See, e.g., Allegheny, APPA, CSW, OK Com, PJM, and Seattle
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters preferred the 8,000 bits per second originally
proposed by the How Group.\113\ Ohio Edison suggested that using a
speed of 28,800 will dramatically increase costs and may make joint
OASIS nodes less attractive. The How Group asserted that experience has
shown that 8,000 bits per second is a reasonable average rate
[[Page 21760]]
for users of the Internet. VEPCO stated that, while many customers will
initially use modems rated at 28,800 bits per second, their average
data transfer rate will be lower due to a number of factors.
Nevertheless, VEPCO asserted that an average of 8,000 bits per second
is on the low end of acceptability, especially if large files are to be
downloaded or if graphics files are to be viewed. Continental Power
Exchange proposed that the 19,200 bits per second be used in the
formula. It asserted that this is the fastest modem speed achievable
with Microsoft's Windows 3.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See ConEd, How Group, and Ohio Edison comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPA speculated that there may some areas in remote locations that
cannot secure a connection to the Internet with adequate bandwidth to
support the 28,800 bit per second standard.
After considering the comments, the Commission continues to believe
that 8,000 bits per second is too slow, especially when large files
must be transferred and when information is needed promptly for
business decisions. The Commission, therefore, will require that a rate
of 28,800 bits per second be used in the minimum bandwidth calculation.
c. Data Compression Standards
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission expressed agreement with the How
Report that data compression will speed up the transmission of
files.114 We also expressed the belief that communication of OASIS
information would be enhanced if every OASIS node used the same
compression techniques. The Commission requested comments on what data
compression technique or techniques should be made standard for all
OASIS nodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ How Report Sec. 3.3.8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters recommended that the ``ZIP'' file compression
standard be adopted as the common OASIS standard.115 The How Group
pointed out that the ZIP format is available for most computer
platforms. Some commenters, however, suggested that setting a common
compression technique is too detailed for a Commission
rulemaking.116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, and PSNM comments.
\116\ See NERC and Ohio Edison comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commenters supported using the ``ZIP'' file compression
standard on OASIS. This format is widely used for data communication
and the necessary software is available for most computer platforms.
The Commission will, therefore, require that the ZIP standard be the
data compression standard on OASIS nodes. The Commission agrees that
requiring compression for files created for each HTTP request may be
too complex for Phase I. However, utilities may want to compress large
files that would be infrequently updated, such as tariffs. These files
will benefit from file compression and will not be subject to the
complexities of compressing the dynamically created HTTP files. The
Commission will require that static files residing on OASIS nodes be
compressed.
d. Other Communication Protocol Issues Raised by Commenters
i. The Requirement to Use FTP for File Transfers
The October 16, 1995 How Report recommended requiring OASIS nodes
to use the Internet File Transfer Protocol (FTP) for file uploads and
downloads. In its comments, the How Group recommended changing the file
transfer method originally proposed in the How Report from the FTP to
the HTTP for data access, including files upload and download to and
from OASIS nodes. We will accept this recommendation.
ii. Field Size for Path Names
The How Report proposed that path names be a 12-character
alphanumeric string. The March 7, 1996 filing by its How Group
recommends that the 12 characters be changed to 50 alphanumeric
characters. Subsequent to the How Report, the How Group found that 12
characters were insufficient to accommodate path names and the
associated regional identifiers.
We will await final recommendations concerning file formats before
ruling on this issue.
iii. Files Containing More Than 100,000 Bytes
The How Report recommended that customers not be required to
download any single file that is larger than 100,000 bytes in order to
access transmission information in electronic form. The implication is
that all files larger than 100,000 bytes must be broken into sub-files.
Detroit Edison argued that there is no easy way to download only a
section of a file and that customers may prefer to download one large
file rather than 20 small ones.
We agree and will not require files to be broken into 100,000 byte
segments at this time. In the event that a restriction on file size
becomes needed, it can be addressed in Phase II.
K. Cost Recovery Issues
1. Costs of Developing and Running an OASIS (Question 34)
Transmission-owning public utilities are entitled to recover the
costs of developing and running an OASIS. Generally, these costs will
be fixed costs not attributable to individual users. In the NOPR, the
Commission proposed to include these costs in wholesale transmission
rates. The Commission also proposed to allow costs that can be
identified as varying with usage to be charged as usage fees to
individual customers.
The commenters were nearly evenly split between those favoring and
opposing the Commission's proposals. NIEP argued that rolling-in OASIS
costs would distribute costs among all transmission users equally and
would be the only fair method of allocating the cost of an OASIS. NIEP
concludes that, if costs were directly assigned to individual
transmission users, these users would be penalized by forcing them to
pay the cost of providing information which is available to, and used
by, all transmission users.
Many commenters objected to including OASIS costs in wholesale
transmission rates. They argued that it is inappropriate to require
network service customers (who may not participate in wholesale sales
transactions) to absorb the cost of the OASIS. Indianapolis P&L claimed
that it has no significant, unique transmission paths and uses its
transmission assets to serve its native load customers. Consequently,
most of its OASIS costs would be borne by its native load customers.
Many commenters suggested alternatives to rolling in OASIS costs.
ConEd argued that, if all OASIS costs were included in wholesale
transmission rates, OASIS costs might not be fully recovered since
transmission use varies. To remedy this, ConEd proposed rolling in part
of the costs with the remainder to be recovered through a monthly
access fee. MAPP suggested usage fees based on cost causation, such as
time access charges, fixed fees for transmission requests and fees
based on energy scheduled over transmission secured on the OASIS. NSP
suggested a fee structure like other on-line information services, such
as America On Line, CompuServe, and Prodigy.
Several commenters saw other problems associated with utility
recovery of OASIS costs. Some called attention to potential problems in
recovering the costs of a joint OASIS. MAPP pointed out that a jointly
[[Page 21761]]
operated OASIS will not have composite transmission tariffs from which
to recover costs and that a method was needed for utilities to recover
joint expenses.
Detroit Edison speculated that a large number of the general public
could be connected to an OASIS at one time and thus limit OASIS access
to transmission users. To prevent this problem, Detroit Edison proposed
that fees be established to prevent misuse or overuse of an OASIS.
It is appropriate that all wholesale transmission customers and all
unbundled retail transmission customers should pay a share of OASIS
development costs in their rates. Therefore, the Commission concludes
that the cost of developing an OASIS should be included in unbundled
transmission rates with variable costs of operating an OASIS to be
recovered, to the extent possible, in usage fees. Individual rate
proceedings will determine which OASIS costs can be identified as
varying with usage and how to set the fees.
2. Costs of Posting Resales of Capacity on the OASIS (Question 40)
The Commission proposed that resales of capacity be posted on the
same page, and using the same display and downloadable tables, as
capacity being sold by the Transmission Provider. This posting incurs
an expense on the part of the Responsible Party. The Commission
proposed that each reseller must, therefore, pay the costs of posting
its own offering.
Most commenters believed that those posting secondary services
should pay the cost of posting. APPA proposed that the incremental cost
of posting should be recovered as a special fee in the primary contract
of transmission service. Ohio Edison proposed a fee for each posting
with a ``true up'' mechanism to ensure that over time actual costs are
recovered. Com Ed and WP&L suggested a fee that is a percentage of
revenue received from the secondary postings.
NEPOOL suggested that this expense is unlikely to be significant
and, therefore, could be included in rates. NRECA and NCEMC warned that
posting fees not be set so high as to discourage resale of capacity. OK
Com argued that it would be inappropriate to charge resellers of
transmission capacity for posting if the Transmission Provider is not
also required to pay a fee for posting.
After considering the comments, we have decided that there should
be no added fee for posting capacity resales. All OASIS users,
including the Transmission Provider, who post capacity pay all the
fixed costs of OASIS in wholesale rates and pay usage-related variable
costs in access fees. Thus, the costs of posting resale capacity are
already recovered. To require resellers to pay additional fees for
posting their products would provide OASIS operators with a cost
advantage.
3. Costs of Posting Ancillary Services on the OASIS
The Commission proposed that entities posting offers to provide
ancillary services on the OASIS should pay the costs associated with
posting this information and requested comments on how to determine
these costs.
Commenters proposed various fee schemes to recover these costs.
Some were based on the cost of developing and maintaining posting
services, others were based solely on the incremental cost of posting a
notice. Some proposed to roll the costs into wholesale transmission
rates. Others proposed that utilities be allowed make a profit from
this service.
Arizona proposed an incentive scheme to keep costs down, while
Continental Power Exchange suggested that the method of calculating
these costs be left to the industry. PJM proposed a fee based on the
amount of person-hours and computer usage required by such posting.
ConEd argued that utilities should be allowed to earn a profit on this
service.
CSW submitted that posting costs cannot be broken out individually
and proposed that the costs for an OASIS should be borne by all market
participants on a fair basis. Florida Power Corp argued that an OASIS
is not a newspaper, and that Transmission Providers are not in the
publishing business; therefore, OASIS services, including the posting
of ancillary services, should not be sold like classified ads. It
proposed that the cost of operating an OASIS should be rolled into
wholesale transmission rates. VEPCO also suggested that the cost of
posting ancillary services should be included in the cost of the OASIS,
with costs of specific evaluations of ancillary service offers to be
determined and posted on the OASIS.
After assessing the comments, we find that the cost of developing
the facilities needed to post ancillary services required to be
provided by the Open Access Final Rule should be recovered through
unbundled transmission rates. Any variable costs of posting these
services will be included in the general OASIS usage fees. As for those
ancillary services not required to be provided,117 OASIS operators
may charge a cost based fee to those offering these services for the
cost of posting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ See Open Access Final Rule generally at section IV.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Section 37.8--Implementation in Phases
1. Phase I Implementation
Implementation of this rule and the initial standards and protocols
will ensure that sufficient information is available to transmission
customers to achieve comparable access to transmission information.
They do not, however, provide all the desired performance requirements.
Because of the complexity of developing an OASIS, and the need to
begin the transmission open access program promptly, the Commission
proposed a phased approach to OASIS implementation. We proposed to
require implementation of a Phase I OASIS as of the effective date of
the final rule on non-discriminatory open access transmission and
stranded costs (i.e., 60 days from publication of this order in the
Federal Register).
Comments
Many commenters argued that the proposed 60-day implementation
period is unrealistic in light of the amount of work that must be done.
ERCOT suggested that only portions of the Phase I implementation could
be accomplished within the 60-day period. A vast majority of commenters
suggested that an implementation period of six months would be
required.
Arizona and ConEd pointed out that, while plans for implementation
can begin in advance of the final rule, final specifications and
designs depend on the resolution of several major Open Access Final
Rule issues. ConEd also argued that all new systems require a ``Beta''
test stage in which the system can be tested before it is used in a
production environment, and that a 60-day implementation period will
not permit such testing. Similarly, NERC argued that more time is
needed to make sure workable administrative procedures are in place for
consistency in calculating, posting, and coordinating ATC. NEPOOL
echoed these comments, reporting that an implementation period of less
than six months would result in the development of OASIS nodes across
the nation that lack uniformity as each region complies within a short
deadline without time to coordinate with other areas.
Duke argued that a full six months will be needed because, in
addition to
[[Page 21762]]
the difficult task of implementing OASIS, the Open Access Final Rule
will change the way the industry does business. Duke argued that the
coordination of resources necessary to accommodate all of the
discussions and decisions in developing joint OASIS nodes is a more
lengthy process than development of an OASIS by each individual
company. Duke asserted that a six-month implementation period is needed
to permit joint OASIS projects to develop. 118
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ NERC made this same point in its comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SoCal Edison requested that the Commission delay implementation
until the requirements of the CA Com's California Restructuring Order
have been fully identified. Public Generating Pool argued that the
Northwest governors have organized a review of the Northwest Power Act,
the Bonneville Power Act, and the northwest electric system in general,
to be completed by November 1996. Public Generating Pool argued that
the Commission should consider possible contributions to be made by
this forthcoming report and urged that the Commission not ignore this
work based on a need to meet self-imposed unreasonable and unrealistic
OASIS implementation dates.
The How Group, the Western Group and VEPCO suggested that, if the
Commission cannot extend the implementation period to six months, then
Phase I should itself be implemented in stages. The How Group suggested
a three-stage process that would begin with a requirement for primary
providers, within 120 days after issuance of the final rule, to post
estimates of ATC and secondary capacity for resale that might not be
accurate. This would be followed, within 180 days after issuance of the
final rule, by the posting of fully accurate secondary capacity
information and ATC information, and with Transmission Providers
certifying, within 210 days of the final rule, that all functionality
and performance requirements for OASIS have been met.
ConEd and Carolina P&L noted that OASIS implementation will cause
changes to utility operations, and requested that the Commission
schedule implementation during off-peak seasons, such as the spring or
fall, when they claim transmission systems are under less stress.
Public Generating Pool and Tallahassee speculated that, if
publicly-owned utilities are considered to be under the Commission's
jurisdiction for OASIS purposes, they will need more than a six-month
implementation period because they may be required to obtain funding
approval from state or local oversight commissions.
Discussion
Commenters make persuasive arguments for permitting a six-month
implementation period. They raise concerns that a shorter period will
not permit adequate time to design, build and thoroughly test an OASIS.
They also raise concerns that a shorter period will inhibit the
development of joint OASIS and OASIS with a common look and feel. The
Commission shares these concerns. We also want to take into account
commenters' requests that implementation not be required during the
peak winter or summer months. For this reason, we are requiring
compliance by November 1, 1996, a specific date about six months from
when we expect this final rule to become effective, chosen to avoid the
winter and summer peak months. This date is provided in Sec. 37.8 of
the final rule, which modifies the provision originally set out in
Sec. 37.15 of the RIN NOPR.
In addition, we will provide additional procedures to allow the
development of the remaining initial standards and protocols. As
described above, we invite the How Group to report to us on or before
May 28, 1996 on these issues (and to attach any comments it has
received from any interested person with opposing views).
For these reasons, the Commission will require implementation of
Phase I of OASIS to be operational by November 1, 1996.
2. Phase II Implementation
Once Phase I becomes operational, and the industry and public gain
experience with it, the full information and functional requirements
needed to support open access transmission service will become clearer.
In the RIN NOPR, the Commission stated that it envisioned that Phase II
would build on Phase I and requested that the industry continue the
process of developing standards, and provide a consensus report to the
Commission on Phase II recommendations by January 1, 1997.
Most commenters argued that the proposed January 1997 date is too
ambitious. Southern argued that this date does not provide enough time
for the industry to gain experience with Phase I. Tallahassee and
others suggested that Phase II should not be implemented until at least
one year after Phase I is implemented. Continental Power Exchange
asserted that Phase II will be a continuum of development from the
first day of Phase I implementation. NRECA suggested that, if Phase I
turns out to be inadequate, then Phase II should be accelerated.
We are sensitive to commenters' concerns about the time between the
implementation of Phase I and Phase II. At the same time, the need for
the additional functions and performance requirements proposed for
Phase II will, we believe, need to be implemented quickly. Accordingly,
the industry should continue the process of developing standards, and
attempt to develop a consensus report on Phase II recommendations by no
later than seven months after implementation of Phase I June 4, 1997.
We anticipate that this report would be the basis for supplemental
OASIS proceedings to Phase II OASIS requirements. The additional time
should permit the industry to obtain sufficient experience with Phase I
before it recommends specifications for Phase II.
We believe that it may be appropriate to require the scheduling of
energy transfers on the OASIS in Phase II. Electronic scheduling of
energy transfers over the OASIS would increase efficiency. We,
therefore, request that the industry incorporate standards for the
scheduling of energy transfers on OASIS into the Phase II report.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 119 requires the
Commission to describe the impact that any proposed or final rule would
have on small entities or to certify that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The entities that would have to comply with the final
rule are public utilities and transmitting utilities that do not fall
within the RFA's definition of small entities.120 Therefore, under
section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small
entities within the meaning of the RFA. Accordingly, no regulatory
[[Page 21763]]
flexibility analysis is required pursuant to section 603 of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601-612.
\120\ See 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601(3) and 601(6) and 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 632(a). The RFA defines a small entity as one that is
independently owned and not dominant in its field of operation. See
15 U.S.C. Sec. 632(a). In addition, the Small Business
Administration defines a small electric utility as one that disposes
of 4 million MWh or less of electric energy in a given year. See 13
CFR 121.601 (Major Group 49-Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services)
(1995).
In the Open Access Final Rule, issued contemporaneously with
this final rule, we conclude that, under these definitions, the Open
Access Final Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
significant number of small entities. As this final rule only
implements the OASIS requirements of the Open Access Final Rule, the
same conclusion is warranted here, for the same reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments, NRECA questioned the Commission's conclusion that
the RIN NOPR did not need to be accompanied by an RFA analysis. NRECA's
argument was based on its concern that the Commission might extend
OASIS requirements to non-public, not-for-profit cooperative utilities.
NRECA argued that, if this were to happen, the Commission would then
have to analyze the effect of the OASIS requirements on these utilities
and show that the requirements would not have a substantial economic
impact upon them. However, as proposed in the RIN NOPR, the
Commission's OASIS regulations will apply only to public utilities that
own, operate, or control transmission facilities subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction. As noted immediately above, public utilities
do not fall within the RFA's definition of a ``small entity.'' In
addition, as discussed earlier, and as discussed in the Open Access
Final Rule, there will be a provision for a waiver for small entities.
This responds to NRECA's concerns.
V. Environmental Statement
Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement be prepared for a Commission action
that may have a significant effect on the human environment. 121
Although this final rule does not directly affect any physical
transmission facilities, but merely requires the electronic posting by
computers of certain information about transmission availability and
prices, it nevertheless is covered by the Final Environmental Impact
Statement issued in the Open Access NOPR proceeding in Docket Nos.
RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001 on April 12, 1996. Thus, no separate
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement has been
prepared in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987); 1986-90 Regulations
Preambles, FERC Stats. & Regs. para.30,783 (Dec. 10, 1987) (codified
at 18 CFR Part 380).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Information Collection Statement
There are now approximately 328 public utilities, including
marketers and wholesale generation entities. The Commission estimates
that approximately 166 of these utilities own, operate, or control
facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate
commerce and thus are subject to this rule. However, since the
operation of an OASIS will be closely associated with control areas, we
assume that an OASIS will be developed at the control area level and
not by each public utility that owns, operates, or controls interstate
transmission facilities. We also expect that some additional OASIS
nodes will be created voluntarily by non-public utilities subject to
these regulations under the reciprocity condition of the pro forma
tariffs. We estimate, therefore, that 140 respondents will be required
to collect information. We believe that this estimate is conservative
(on the high side) because some regions are likely to develop a region-
wide OASIS that will cover more than one control area. 122
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ See supra (discussion quoted from How Report at 80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This estimate is higher than the one we included in the RIN NOPR,
where we estimated that there would be 84 respondents. We have adjusted
our estimate in response to the arguments advanced by NRECA and NE
Public Power District, in separate letters to OMB, that the
Commission's Information Collection Statement contained in the RIN NOPR
failed to account for the proposal in the Open Access NOPR that,
because of the reciprocity requirement, non-public utilities and
cooperatives entering contracts for open access transmission services
would be required to establish their own OASIS nodes or participate in
a regional OASIS node.
NRECA also argued that the Commission's analysis must include not
only those entities that are developing their own OASIS node, but also
those entities who, while they are not developing and operating their
own OASIS node, nevertheless will contribute data to their control area
operators or regional OASIS operators. NRECA argued, therefore, that
the Commission's estimate of the number of respondents should have
taken this into account. It did.
Although not explicitly stated in the RIN NOPR, the Commission's
Information Collection Statement, both in this final rule and in the
RIN NOPR, has been based not only on the efforts by the respondents who
will directly operate OASIS nodes but also reflects the collection of
information from all significant participants in the transmission
market.
Information Collection Statement
Title: FERC-717, Real-Time Information Network Standards.
Action: Final Rule
OMB Control No: 1902-0173.
Respondents: Public Utilities that own and/or control facilities
used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.
Frequency of Responses: On Occasion
Necessity of the information: The final rule requires affected
public utilities to comply with requirements for an Open Access Same-
time Information System (OASIS) established by the Commission to give
potential customers access to information, by electronic means, that
would ensure the availability of open access wholesale transmission
service on a non-discriminatory basis. These requirements would support
arrangements made for wholesale sales and purchases for third parties.
Public utilities or their agents will be required to give competitors
and other users of the transmission system access to the same
information available to public utility personnel who initiate the
acquisition or disposition of power in the wholesale market and at the
same time. The Commission will use the information to monitor the
networks to ensure that potential purchasers of transmission services
obtain the services on a non-discriminatory basis. This final rule was
developed after a review of comments filed in response to issuance of a
notice of public rulemaking.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations, 123
require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements
imposed by agency rule. The information collection requirements in the
final rule will be reported directly to transmission users and will be
subject to subsequent audit by the Commission. The distribution of
these data will help the Commission carry out its responsibilities
under Part II of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is submitting notification of this final rule to
OMB. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 [Attention Michael
Miller, Information Services Division, (202) 208-1415], and to the
Office of Management and Budget [Attention: Desk Officer for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (202) 395-3087].
VII. Effective Date
The regulations of new part 37 will become effective on July 9,
1996. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that the Open Access Final Rule and the OASIS final rule together
constitute a ``major rule'' as
[[Page 21764]]
defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act
of 1996.124 The rule will be submitted to both Houses of Congress
and the Comptroller General prior to its publication in the Federal
Register. All of the requirements prescribed in the standards of
conduct must be complied with and Phase I OASIS sites that meet the
requirements prescribed in this final rule must be in operation by
November 1, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37
Electric power plants, Electric utilities.
By the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends chapter I
of title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, to add a new part 37, as set
forth below:
PART 37--OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS OF
CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
Sec.
37.1 Applicability.
37.2 Purpose.
37.3 Definitions.
37.4 Standards of conduct.
37.5 Obligations of Transmission Providers and Responsible Parties.
37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.
37.7 Auditing Transmission Service Information.
37.8 Implementation schedule for OASIS requirements; phases.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Sec. 37.1 Applicability.
This part applies to any public utility that owns, operates, or
controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce and to transactions performed under the pro forma
tariff required in part 35 of this chapter.
Sec. 37.2 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this part is to ensure that potential customers
of open access transmission service receive access to information that
will enable them to obtain transmission service on a non-discriminatory
basis from any Transmission Provider. These rules provide standards of
conduct and require the Transmission Provider (or its agent) to create
and operate an Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) that
gives all users of the open access transmission system access to the
same information.
(b) The OASIS will provide information by electronic means about
available transmission capability for point-to-point service and will
provide a process for requesting transmission service. OASIS will
enable Transmission Providers and Transmission Customers to communicate
promptly requests and responses to buy and sell available transmission
capacity offered under the Transmission Provider's tariff.
Sec. 37.3 Definitions.
(a) Transmission Provider means any public utility that owns,
operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission of electric
energy in interstate commerce.
(b) Transmission Customer means any eligible customer (or its
designated agent) that can or does execute a transmission service
agreement or can or does receive transmission service.
(c) Responsible party means the Transmission Provider or an agent
to whom the Transmission Provider has delegated the responsibility of
meeting any of the requirements of this part.
(d) Reseller means any Transmission Customer who offers to sell
transmission capacity it has purchased.
(e) Wholesale merchant function means the sale for resale, or
purchase for resale, of electric energy in interstate commerce.
(f) Affiliate means:
(1) For any exempt wholesale generator, as defined under section
32(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended,
the same as provided in section 214 of the Federal Power Act; and
(2) For any other entity, the term affiliate has the same meaning
as given in Sec. 161.2(a) of this chapter.
Sec. 37.4 Standards of conduct.
A Transmission Provider must conduct its business to conform with
the following standards:
(a) General rules. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, the employees of the Transmission Provider engaged in
transmission system operations must function independently of its
employees, or the employees of any of its affiliates, who engage in
Wholesale Merchant Functions.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this section, in
emergency circumstances affecting system reliability, Transmission
Providers may take whatever steps are necessary to keep the system in
operation. Transmission Providers must report to the Commission and on
the OASIS each emergency that resulted in any deviation from the
standards of conduct, within 24 hours of such deviation.
(b) Rules governing employee conduct. (1) Prohibitions. Any
employee of the Transmission Provider, or any employee of an affiliate,
engaged in wholesale merchant functions is prohibited from:
(i) Conducting transmission system operations or reliability
functions; and
(ii) Having access to the system control center or similar
facilities used for transmission operations or reliability functions
that differs in any way from the access available to other open access
Transmission Customers.
(2) Transfers. Employees engaged in either wholesale merchant
functions or transmission system operations or reliability functions
are not precluded from transferring between such functions as long as
such transfer is not used as a means to circumvent the standards of
conduct of this section. Notices of any employee transfer to or from
transmission system operations or reliability functions must be posted
on the OASIS as provided in Sec. 37.6(g)(3). The information to be
posted must include: the name of the transferring employee, the
respective titles held while performing each function (i.e., on behalf
of the Transmission Provider and wholesale merchant or affiliate), and
the effective date of the transfer. The information posted under this
section must remain on the OASIS for 90 days.
(3) Information access. Any employee of the Transmission Provider,
or of any of its affiliates, engaged in wholesale merchant functions:
(i) Shall have access to only that information available to the
Transmission Provider's open access transmission customers (i.e., the
information posted on an OASIS), and must not have preferential access
to any information about the Transmission Provider's transmission
system that is not available to all users of an OASIS; and
(ii) Is prohibited from obtaining information about the
Transmission Provider's transmission system (including information
about available transmission capability, price, curtailments, ancillary
services, and the like) through access to information not posted on the
OASIS that is not otherwise also available to the general public
without restriction, or through information through the OASIS that is
not also publicly available to all OASIS users.
(4) Disclosure. A Transmission Provider is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the following provisions:
[[Page 21765]]
(i) Any employee of the Transmission Provider, or any employee of
an affiliate, engaged in transmission system operations or reliability
functions may not disclose to employees of the Transmission Provider,
or any of its affiliates, engaged in wholesale merchant functions any
information concerning the transmission system of the Transmission
Provider or the transmission system of another (including information
received from non-affiliates or information about available
transmission capability, price, curtailments, ancillary services, etc.)
through non-public communications conducted off the OASIS, through
access to information not posted on the OASIS that is not at the same
time available to the general public without restriction, or through
information on the OASIS that is not at the same time publicly
available to all OASIS users (such as E-mail).
(ii) If an employee of the Transmission Provider engaged in
transmission system operations or reliability functions discloses
information not posted on the OASIS in a manner contrary to the
requirements of the standards of conduct, the Transmission Provider
must immediately post such information on the OASIS.
(iii) A Transmission Provider may not share any market information,
acquired from nonaffiliated Transmission Customers or potential
nonaffiliated Transmission Customers, or developed in the course of
responding to requests for transmission or ancillary service on the
OASIS, with its own employees (or those of an affiliate) engaged in
merchant functions, except to the limited extent information is
required to be posted on the OASIS in response to a request for
transmission service or ancillary services.
(5) Implementing tariffs. (i) Employees of the Transmission
Provider engaged in transmission system operations or reliability
functions must strictly enforce all tariff provisions relating to the
sale or purchase of open access transmission service, if these
provisions do not provide for the use of discretion.
(ii) Employees of the Transmission Provider engaged in transmission
system operations must apply all tariff provisions relating to the sale
or purchase of open access transmission service in a fair and impartial
manner that treats all customers (including the public utility and any
affiliate) in a non-discriminatory manner, if these provisions involve
discretion.
(iii) The Transmission Provider must keep a log, available for
Commission audit, detailing the circumstances and manner in which it
exercised its discretion under any terms of the tariff.
(iv) The Transmission Provider may not, through its tariffs or
otherwise, give preference to wholesale purchases or sales made on
behalf of its own power customers, or those of an affiliate, over the
interests of any other wholesale customer in matters relating to the
sale or purchase of transmission service (including issues of price,
curtailments, scheduling, priority, ancillary services, etc.).
(v) If the Transmission Provider offers a discount on purchases of
transmission service made on behalf of its own power customers or those
of any affiliate, then, at the same time, it must post on the OASIS an
offer to provide the same discount to all Transmission Customers on the
same path and on all unconstrained transmission paths.
(vi) If the Transmission Provider offers a rate discount on
ancillary services to an affiliate, or attributes a discounted
ancillary service rate to its own transactions, the Transmission
Provider must, at the same time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide
the same discount to all eligible customers.
(6) Books and records. A Transmission Provider must maintain its
books of account and records (as prescribed under parts 101 and 125 of
this chapter) separately from those of its affiliates and these must be
available for Commission inspection.
(c) Maintenance of written procedures. The Transmission Provider
must maintain in a public place, and file with the Commission, current
written procedures implementing the standards of conduct in such detail
as will enable customers and the Commission to determine that the
Transmission Provider is in compliance with the requirements of this
section.
Sec. 37.5 Obligations of Transmission Providers and Responsible
Parties.
(a) Each Transmission Provider is required to provide for the
operation of an OASIS, either individually or jointly with other
Transmission Providers, in accordance with the requirements of this
Part. The Transmission Provider may delegate this responsibility to a
Responsible Party such as another Transmission Provider, an Independent
System Operator, a Regional Transmission Group, or a Regional
Reliability Council.
(b) A Responsible Party must:
(1) Provide access to an OASIS providing standardized information
relevant to the availability of transmission capacity, prices, and
other information (as described in this part) pertaining to the
transmission system for which it is responsible; and
(2) Shall operate the OASIS in compliance with the standardized
procedures and protocols found in OASIS Standards and Communication
Protocols, which can be obtained from the Public Reference and Files
Maintenance Branch, Room 2A, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
(c) Transmission Providers must provide ``read only'' access to the
OASIS to Commission staff and the staffs of State regulatory
authorities, at no cost, after such staff members have complied with
the requisite registration procedures.
Sec. 37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.
(a) The information posted on the OASIS must be in such detail as
to allow Transmission Customers to:
(1) Make requests for transmission services offered by Transmission
Providers, Resellers and other providers of ancillary services;
(2) View and download in standard formats, using standard
protocols, information regarding the transmission system necessary to
enable prudent business decision making;
(3) Post, view, upload and download information regarding available
products and desired services;
(4) Clearly identify the degree to which their transmission service
requests or schedules were denied or interrupted; and
(5) Obtain access, in electronic format, to information to support
available transmission capability calculations and historical
transmission service requests and schedules for various audit purposes.
(b) Posting transmission capability. The transmission capability
that is expected to be available on the Transmission Provider's system
(ATC) and the total transmission capability (TTC) of that system shall
be calculated and posted for each Posted Path as set out in this
section.
(1) Definitions. For purposes of this section the terms listed
below have the following meanings:
(i) Posted path means any control area to control area
interconnection; any path for which service is denied, curtailed or
interrupted for more than 24 hours in the past 12 months; and any path
for which a customer requests to have ATC or TTC posted. For this last
category, the posting must continue for 180 days and thereafter until
180 days have elapsed from the most recent request for service over the
requested path. For purposes of this definition, an
[[Page 21766]]
hour includes any part of an hour during which service was denied,
curtailed or interrupted.
(ii) Constrained posted path means any posted path having an ATC
less than or equal to 25 percent of TTC at any time during the
preceding 168 hours or for which ATC has been calculated to be less
than or equal to 25 percent of TTC for any period during the current
hour or the next 168 hours.
(iii) Unconstrained posted path means any posted path not
determined to be a constrained posted path.
(2) Calculation methods, availability of information, and requests.
(i) Information used to calculate any posting of ATC and TTC must be
dated and time-stamped and all calculations shall be performed
according to consistently applied methodologies referenced in the
Transmission Provider's transmission tariff and shall be based on
current industry practices, standards and criteria.
(ii) On request, the Responsible Party must make all data used to
calculate ATC and TTC for any constrained posted paths publicly
available (including the limiting element(s) and the cause of the limit
(e.g., thermal, voltage, stability)) in electronic form within one week
of the posting. The information is required to be provided only in the
electronic format in which it was created, along with any necessary
decoding instructions, at a cost limited to the cost of reproducing the
material. This information is to be retained for six months after the
applicable posting period.
(iii) System planning studies or specific network impact studies
performed for customers to determine network impacts are to be made
publicly available in electronic form on request and a list of such
studies shall be posted on the OASIS. A study is required to be
provided only in the electronic format in which it was created, along
with any necessary decoding instructions, at a cost limited to the cost
of reproducing the material. These studies are to be retained for two
years.
(3) Posting. The ATC and TTC for all Posted Paths must be posted in
megawatts by specific direction and in the manner prescribed in this
subsection.
(i) Constrained posted paths--(A) For Firm ATC and TTC. (1) The
posting shall show ATC and TTC for a 30-day period. For this period
postings shall be: by the hour, for the current hour and the 168 hours
next following; and thereafter, by the day. If the Transmission
Provider charges separately for on-peak and off-peak periods in its
tariff, ATC and TTC will be posted daily for each period.
(2) Postings shall also be made by the month, showing for the
current month and the 12 months next following.
(3) If planning and specific requested transmission studies have
been done, seasonal capability shall be posted for the year following
the current year and for each year following to the end of the planning
horizon but not to exceed 10 years.
(B) For Non-Firm ATC and TTC. The posting shall show ATC and TTC
for a 30-day period by the hour and days prescribed under paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(A)(1) of this section and, if so requested, by the month and
year as prescribed under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) (2) and (3) of this
section.
(C) Updating Posted Information for Constrained Paths.
(1) The capability posted under paragraphs (b)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of
this section must be updated when transactions are reserved or service
ends or whenever the TTC estimate for the Path changes by more than 10
percent.
(2) All updating of hourly information shall be made on the hour.
(ii) Unconstrained Posted Paths. (A) Postings of ATC and TTC shall
be by the day, showing for the current day and the next six days
following and thereafter, by the month for the 12 months next
following. If the Transmission Provider charges separately for on-peak
and off-peak periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will be posted for the
current day and the next six days following for each period. These
postings are to be updated whenever the ATC changes by more than 20
percent of the Path's TTC.
(B) If planning and specific requested transmission studies have
been done, seasonal capability shall be posted for the year following
the current year and for each year following until the end of the
planning horizon but not to exceed 10 years.
(c) Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices. (1)
Transmission Providers must post prices and a summary of the terms and
conditions associated with all transmission products offered to
Transmission Customers.
(2) Transmission Providers must provide a downloadable file of
their complete tariffs in the same electronic format as the tariff that
is filed with the Commission.
(3) A Transmission Provider, within 24 hours of agreeing to sell
transmission service to a non-affiliate at a discount (as measured from
when ATC must be adjusted in response to the transaction), must post on
the OASIS (and make available for download) information describing the
transaction (including price, quantity, and any other relevant terms
and conditions) and shall keep such information posted on the OASIS for
at least 30 days. A record of the transaction must be retained and kept
available as part of the audit log required in Sec. 37.7. With respect
to any discount offered to its own power customers or its affiliates,
the Transmission Provider must, at the same time, post on the OASIS an
offer to provide the same discount to all Transmission Customers on the
same path and on all unconstrained transmission paths.
(4) Customers choosing to use the OASIS to offer for resale
transmission capacity they have purchased must post relevant
information to the same OASIS as used by the one from whom the Reseller
purchased the transmission capacity. This information must be posted on
the same display page, using the same tables, as similar capability
being sold by the Transmission Provider, and the information must be
contained in the same downloadable files as the Transmission Provider's
own available capability. A customer reselling transmission capacity
without the use of an OASIS must, nevertheless, inform the original
Transmission Provider of the transaction within the time limits
prescribed by the ``Sale or Assignment of Transmission Service''
section of the pro forma tariff.
(d) Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and Prices. (1) Any
ancillary service required to be provided or offered under the pro
forma tariff prescribed by part 35 of this chapter must be posted with
the price of that service.
(2) A Transmission Provider, within 24 hours of agreeing to sell an
ancillary service to a non-affiliate at a discount, must post on the
OASIS (and make available for download) information describing the
transaction (including price, quantity, and any other relevant terms
and conditions) and shall keep such information posted on the OASIS for
at least 30 days. A record of the transaction must be retained and kept
available as part of the audit log required in Sec. 37.7. As to
discounts for ancillary services, if a Transmission Provider offers a
rate discount to an affiliate, or attributes a discounted ancillary
service rate to its own transactions, the Transmission Provider must,
at the same time, post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same
discount to all eligible customers.
(3) Any other interconnected operations service offered by the
Transmission Provider may be posted, with the price for that service.
[[Page 21767]]
(4) Any entity offering an ancillary service shall have the right
to post the offering of that service on the OASIS if the service is one
required to be offered by the Transmission Provider under the pro forma
tariff prescribed by part 35 of this chapter. Any entity may also post
any other interconnected operations service voluntarily offered by the
Transmission Provider. Postings by customers and third parties must be
on the same page, and in the same format, as postings of the
Transmission Provider.
(e) Posting Specific Transmission Service Requests and Responses.
(1) General rules. (i) All requests for transmission service
offered by Transmission Providers under the pro forma tariff must be
made on the OASIS. Requests for transmission service, and the responses
to such requests, must be conducted in accordance with the Transmission
Provider's tariff, the Federal Power Act, and Commission regulations.
(ii) In processing a request for transmission or ancillary service,
the Responsible Party shall post the following information: the date
and time when the request is made, its place in any queue, the status
of that request, and the result (accepted, denied, withdrawn).
(iii) The identity of the parties will be masked--if requested--
during the negotiating period and for 30 days from the date when the
request was accepted, denied or withdrawn.
(2) Posting when a request for transmission service is denied. (i)
When a request for service is denied, the Responsible Party must
provide the reason for that denial as part of any response to the
request.
(ii) Information to support the reason for the denial, including
the operating status of relevant facilities, must be maintained for 60
days and provided, upon request, to the potential Transmission
Customer.
(iii) Any offer to adjust operation of the Transmission Provider's
System to accommodate the denied request must be posted and made
available to all Transmission Customers at the same time.
(3) Posting when a transaction is curtailed or interrupted.
(i) When any transaction is curtailed or interrupted, the
curtailment or interruption must be posted (with the identities of the
parties masked as required in Sec. 37.6(e)(1)(iii)) and must state the
reason why the transaction could not be continued or completed.
(ii) Information to support any such curtailment or interruption,
including the operating status of the facilities involved in the
constraint or interruption, must be maintained for 60 days and
provided, upon request, to the curtailed or interrupted customer.
(iii) Any offer to adjust the operation of the Transmission
Provider's system to restore a curtailed or interrupted transaction
must be posted and made available to all curtailed and interrupted
Transmission Customers at the same time.
(f) Posting Transmission Service Schedules Information. Information
on transmission service schedules must be recorded by the entity
scheduling the transmission service and must be available on the OASIS
for download. Transmission service schedules must be posted no later
than seven calendar days from the start of the transmission service.
(g) Posting Other Transmission-Related Communications. (1) The
posting of other communications related to transmission services must
be provided for by the Responsible Party. These communications may
include ``want ads'' and ``other communications'' (such as using the
OASIS as a Transmission-related conference space or to provide
transmission-related messaging services between OASIS users). Such
postings carry no obligation to respond on the part of any market
participant.
(2) The Responsible Party is responsible for posting other
transmission-related communications in conformance with the
instructions provided by the third party on whose behalf the
communication is posted. It is the responsibility of the third party
requesting such a posting to ensure the accuracy of the information to
be posted.
(3) Notices of transfers of personnel shall be posted as described
in Sec. 37.4(b)(2).
Sec. 37.7 Auditing Transmission Service Information.
(a) All OASIS database transactions, except other transmission-
related communications provided for under Sec. 37.6(g)(2), must be
stored, dated, and time stamped.
(b) Audit data must remain available for download on the OASIS for
90 days. The audit data are to be retained and made available upon
request for three years from the date when they are first posted.
Sec. 37.8 Implementation schedule for OASIS requirements; phases.
Each Transmission Provider must develop or participate in an OASIS
that meets the requirements of this part and that is in operation by
November 1, 1996. Each Transmission Provider must be in compliance with
the standards of conduct prescribed in Sec. 37.4 by November 1, 1996.
[Note: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]
Attachment 1.--List of Commenters to RIN NOPR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Commenter name Abbreviation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... ABB Systems Control................................. (ABB)
2..................................... Allegheny Power Service Corporation................. (Allegheny)
3..................................... American Electric Power............................. (AEP)
4..................................... American Public Power Association................... (APPA)
5..................................... City of Anaheim, CA................................. (Anaheim)
6..................................... Arizona Public Service Company...................... (Arizona)
7..................................... Bangor Hydro-Electric Company....................... (Bangor)
8..................................... Basin Electric Power Cooperative.................... (Basin EC)
9..................................... Bonneville Power Administration..................... (BPA)
10.................................... California PUC...................................... (CA Com)
11.................................... Carolina Power & Light Company...................... (Carolina P&L)
12.................................... Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.................. (Central Hudson)
13.................................... Central Illinois Public Service Company............. (Central Illinois Public Service)
14.................................... CINergy Corporation................................. (CINergy)
15.................................... Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market......... (CCEM)
16.................................... Colorado Springs Utilities.......................... (CSU)
17.................................... Commonwealth Edison Company......................... (Com Ed)
18.................................... Consolidated Edison Company......................... (ConEd)
[[Page 21768]]
19.................................... Consumers Power Company............................. (Consumers Power)
20.................................... Continental Power Exchange.......................... (Continental Power Exchange)
21.................................... CSW Companies....................................... (CSW)
22.................................... Dayton Power and Light Company...................... (Dayton P&L)
23.................................... Detroit Edison Company.............................. (Detroit Edison)
24.................................... Duke Power Company.................................. (Duke)
25.................................... Edison Electric Institute........................... (EEI)
26.................................... El Paso Electric Company............................ (El Paso)
27.................................... Electric Generation Association..................... (EGA)
28.................................... Electric Reliability Council of Texas............... (ERCOT)
29.................................... Entergy Services, Inc............................... (Entergy)
30.................................... Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group........... (Florida CG)
31.................................... Florida Power Corporation........................... (Florida Power Corp)
32.................................... Florida PSC......................................... (FL Com)
33.................................... Fuel Managers Association........................... (Fuel Managers)
34.................................... ``How'' Industry Working Group (EPRI)............... (How Group)
35.................................... Idaho Power Company................................. (Idaho)
36.................................... Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission............... (IN Com)
37.................................... Indianapolis Power & Light Company.................. (Indianapolis P&L)
38.................................... Klein, Stanley A.................................... (Klein)
39.................................... Long Island Lighting Company........................ (LILCO)
40.................................... Madison Gas and Electric Company.................... (Madison G&E)
41.................................... Maine Public Service Company........................ (Maine Public Service)
42.................................... MidAmerican Energy Company.......................... (MidAmerican)
43.................................... Mid-Continent Area Power Pool....................... (MAPP)
44.................................... Minnesota Power & Light Company..................... (Minnesota P&L)
45.................................... Missouri Public Service Commission.................. (MO & AK Com's)
46.................................... Montana Power Company............................... (Montana Power)
47.................................... National Association of Regulatory Utility (NARUC)
Commissioners.
48.................................... National Independent Energy Producers............... (NIEP)
49.................................... National Rural Electric Cooperative Association..... (NRECA)
50.................................... Nebraska Public Power District...................... (NE Public Power District)
51.................................... New England Power Pool.............................. (NEPOOL)
52.................................... New York Mercantile Exchange........................ (NYMEX)
53.................................... New York Power Pool................................. (NYPP)
54.................................... New York State Electric & Gas Corp.................. (NYSEG)
55.................................... New York State PSC.................................. (NY Com)
56.................................... NorAm Energy Services, Inc.......................... (NorAm)
57.................................... North American Electric Reliability Council......... (NERC)
58.................................... North Carolina Electric Membership Corp............. (NCEMC)
59.................................... Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc........... (NTEC)
60.................................... Northeast Utilities................................. (NU)
61.................................... Northern States Power Companies..................... (NSP)
62.................................... Nucor Corporation................................... (Nucor)
63.................................... Oak Ridge National Lab, Energy Division............. (Oak Ridge)
64.................................... Ohio Edison Company................................. (Ohio Edison)
65.................................... Ohio PUC............................................ (Ohio Com)
66.................................... Oklahoma Corporation Commission..................... (OK Com)
67.................................... Oklahoma Gas & Electric............................. (Oklahoma G&E)
68.................................... Omaha Public Power District......................... (Omaha PPD)
69.................................... Ontario Hydro....................................... (Ontario Hydro)
70.................................... Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.................. (Orange & Rockland)
71.................................... Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative......... (Oregon EC)
72.................................... Otter Tail Power Company............................ (Otter Tail)
73.................................... Pacific Gas and Electric Company.................... (PG&E)
74.................................... PacifiCorp.......................................... (PacifiCorp)
75.................................... Pennsylvania--New Jersey--Maryland Power Pool....... (PJM)
76.................................... Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.............. (PA Com)
77.................................... Public Generating Pool.............................. (Public Generating Pool)
78.................................... Public Service Company of New Mexico................ (PSNM)
79.................................... Sacramento Municipal Utility District............... (SMUD)
80.................................... Salt River Project.................................. (Salt River)
81.................................... San Diego Gas & Electric Company.................... (San Diego G&E)
82.................................... Seattle City Light.................................. (Seattle)
83.................................... Services-Oriented Open Network Technologies, Inc.... (SONETECH)
84.................................... Sierra Pacific Power Company........................ (Sierra)
85.................................... South Carolina Electric & Gas Company............... (SCE&G)
86.................................... South Carolina Public Service Authority............. (SC Public Service Authority)
87.................................... Southern California Edison Company.................. (SoCal Edison)
88.................................... Southern Company Services, Inc...................... (Southern)
89.................................... Southwest Transmission Dependent Utility Group...... (Southwest TDU Group)
[[Page 21769]]
90.................................... Southwestern Public Service Company................. (Southwestern)
91.................................... Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative................ (Sunflower)
92.................................... City of Tallahassee, FL............................. (Tallahassee)
93.................................... Tampa Electric Company.............................. (Tampa)
94.................................... Tennessee Valley Authority.......................... (TVA)
95.................................... Texas Utilities Electric Company.................... (Texas Utilities)
96.................................... Transmission Access Policy Study Group.............. (TAPS)
97.................................... Tucson Power Electric Power Company................. (Tucson Power)
98.................................... Union Electric Company.............................. (Union Electric)
99.................................... United Illuminating Company......................... (United Illuminating)
100................................... U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research (DOE)
101................................... UTC, The Telecommunications Association............. (UTC)
102................................... Virginia Electric and Power Company................. (VEPCO)
103................................... Western Group....................................... (Western Group)
104................................... Wisconsin Power & Light............................. (WP&L)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[[Page 21770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.001
[[Page 21771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.002
[[Page 21772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.003
[[Page 21773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.004
[[Page 21774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.005
[[Page 21775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.006
[[Page 21776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.007
[[Page 21777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.008
[[Page 21778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.009
[[Page 21779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.010
[[Page 21780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.011
[[Page 21781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.012
[[Page 21782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.013
[[Page 21783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.014
[[Page 21784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.015
[[Page 21785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.016
[[Page 21786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.017
[[Page 21787]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.018
[[Page 21788]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.019
[[Page 21789]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.020
[[Page 21790]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.021
[[Page 21791]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.022
[[Page 21792]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.023
[[Page 21793]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.024
[[Page 21794]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.025
[[Page 21795]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.026
[[Page 21796]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.027
[[Page 21797]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.028
[[Page 21798]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.029
[[Page 21799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.030
[[Page 21800]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.031
[[Page 21801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.032
[[Page 21802]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.033
[[Page 21803]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.034
[[Page 21804]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.035
[[Page 21805]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.036
[[Page 21806]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.037
[[Page 21807]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.038
[[Page 21808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.039
[[Page 21809]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.040
[[Page 21810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.041
[[Page 21811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.042
[[Page 21812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.043
[[Page 21813]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.044
[[Page 21814]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.045
[[Page 21815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.046
[[Page 21816]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.047
[[Page 21817]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.048
[[Page 21818]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.049
[[Page 21819]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.050
[[Page 21820]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.051
[[Page 21821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.052
[[Page 21822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.053
[[Page 21823]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.054
[[Page 21824]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.055
[[Page 21825]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.056
[[Page 21826]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.057
[[Page 21827]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.058
[[Page 21828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.059
[[Page 21829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.060
[[Page 21830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.061
[[Page 21831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.062
[[Page 21832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.063
[[Page 21833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.064
[[Page 21834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.065
[[Page 21835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.066
[[Page 21836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.067
[[Page 21837]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.068
[[Page 21838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.069
[[Page 21839]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.070
[[Page 21840]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.071
[[Page 21841]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.072
[[Page 21842]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.073
[[Page 21843]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.074
[[Page 21844]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.075
[[Page 21845]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10MY96.076
[[Page 21846]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY96.077
[FR Doc. 96-10693 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C