[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35784-35785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17007]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM95-9-013]


Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct

Issued June 29, 2001.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order Denying Request for Experimental Business Practice 
Standard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is denying a request 
to authorize a 6-month experiment implementing a business practice 
standard that would allow transmission providers, at the time of 
reservation request deadlines, to retract their prior acceptances of 
unconfirmed customer requests for daily firm transmission service and 
substitute pending pre-confirmed requests for such service, in order of 
queue time, up to the amount of daily firm available transmission 
capability remaining.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs, 
and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1283.
Paul Robb (Technical Information), Office of Markets, Tariffs, and 
Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 219-2702.
Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal

[[Page 35785]]

Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 
20426,(202) 208-0321.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order Denying Request for Experimental Business Practice Standard

    We will deny the request from the Market Interface Committee of the 
North American Electric Reliability Council (MIC) for expedited 
approval of its proposed experiment on the treatment of unconfirmed 
requests for daily, firm transmission service, for the reasons stated 
below.

Background

    On May 29, 2001, the MIC filed a request to modify the Commission's 
OASIS Business Practice Standards adopted in Order No. 638,\1\ to add a 
new business practice standard dealing with accepted daily, firm point-
to-point transmission service that has not been confirmed and to modify 
a related footnote to Table 4-2 on Reservation Timing Limits. The MIC 
requests that the Commission implement this proposal on a mandatory, 
experimental basis for six months beginning no later than June 30, 
2001. The MIC further states that, within four months of the effective 
date, it will provide the Commission with an assessment of the 
experiment and whether it should be revised, discontinued, or made 
permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of 
Conduct, Order No. 638, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 
1996-2000 para. 31,092 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 5, 2001, the Commission issued a notice of filing and 
request for comments regarding the MIC filing (66 FR 31234, June 11, 
2001). The notice gave a brief description of the MIC proposal and 
invited comments on or before June 11, 2001.\2\ Comments were invited 
on the MIC proposal generally and specifically on whether Commission 
action is needed by June 30, 2001, as requested by the MIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This shortened comment period was used to accommodate the 
MIC's request for action on or before June 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 2001, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. and Coral Power, LLC 
(collectively ``Dynegy/Coral'') jointly filed a protest opposing the 
MIC request. Dynegy/Coral argue that the MIC proposal should not be 
granted on an expedited basis and that it should be rejected outright. 
Dynegy/Coral's protest was the sole comment filed in response to the 
June 5, 2001 notice and request for comments.

Discussion

    We will deny the MIC's request for expedited approval of its 
proposed experiment on the treatment of unconfirmed requests for daily, 
firm transmission service for three reasons. First, although the MIC 
requests expedited approval of its proposed experiment, the MIC's 
proposal presents no reason why expedited treatment is needed. 
Moreover, although our June 5, 2001 notice specifically invited comment 
on this issue, no comments were filed in support of expedited treatment 
or giving reasons why prompt action is needed. In fact, Dynegy/Coral's 
protest, the sole comment filed, argued against expedited approval of 
the proposed experiment both because it opposed approval of the 
experiment outright, and because Dynegy/Coral argues that 
implementation during the summer peak period would cause problems for 
customers denied service under the MIC's proposal. Given the absence of 
a showing of need for expedited treatment, we will reject MIC's request 
for expedited approval of its proposed experiment.
    The MIC proposal would allow transmission providers, at reservation 
request deadlines, to retract their prior acceptance of unconfirmed 
customer requests for daily, firm transmission service and substitute 
pending pre-confirmed requests for such service, in order of queue 
time, up to the amount of daily, firm available transmission capability 
remaining. The proposal includes phrases such as, ``the transmission 
provider has the right to move to a retracted status'' and ``after 
which time that request may be retracted.'' These phrases do not 
provide a standard for the transmission provider to use in deciding 
whether to retract customers' unconfirmed accepted requests for daily, 
firm point-to-point transmission service. Careful monitoring would be 
necessary to insure that the proposal is not implemented in a 
discriminatory manner. A customer whose request for transmission 
service had been accepted would have no way to predict whether a 
transmission provider might choose to retract its acceptance, which 
would make it difficult for the customer to make alternative 
arrangements.
    Dynegy/Coral argues that the proposed standard addresses the 
problem of unused transmission capacity caused by some customers not 
confirming accepted transmission requests, but does not address the 
underlying problem caused by the practice of some transmission 
providers of delaying their acceptance of requests for daily, firm 
transmission service, even when customers submit their requests early. 
Dynegy/Coral contends this practice puts customers in a bind that 
forces them to make alternative arrangements as a protective mechanism. 
Dynegy/Coral argues that customers should not be punished for taking 
such precautions, even if they result in some unused transmission 
capacity. Dynegy/Coral argues that a better solution to avoid unused 
capacity would be for transmission providers to more uniformly respond 
to requests for daily, firm transmission service on a timely basis, 
rather than by taking the unwarranted step of giving greater priority 
to pre-confirmed service requests. Further, Dynegy/Coral argues that 
the MIC proposal would force customers to purchase transmission 
services they will be unable to use.
    We agree with Dynegy/Coral that the MIC proposal does not address 
whether the time period for transmission providers to evaluate requests 
for daily, firm transmission service needs to be clarified or shortened 
and that this is a relevant issue. If transmission providers would all 
respond to requests for daily, firm transmission service on a timely 
basis, then customers would have adequate time to confirm before 
reservations are scheduled, and the MIC's proposed business practice 
might not be needed. We request that the MIC reconsider its motion in 
light of the concerns raised by Dynegy/Coral. After considering these 
issues, the MIC may, at its option, make a revised request for an 
experimental business practice standard.

The Commission orders

    The request by MIC for expedited approval of a proposed experiment 
on the treatment of unconfirmed requests for daily, firm transmission 
service is hereby denied without prejudice, as discussed in the body of 
this order.

By the Commission.
(SEAL)

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-17007 Filed 7-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P