148 FERC ¶ 61,205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Parts 2 and 38

[Docket No. RM05-5-022; Order No. 676-H]

Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities

(Issued September 18, 2014)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its 

regulations to incorporate by reference, with certain enumerated exceptions, the latest 

version (Version 003) of the Standards for Business Practices and Communication 

Protocols for Public Utilities adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of the 

North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) as mandatory enforceable 

requirements. These standards update NAESB’s WEQ Version 002 and Version 002.1 

Standards to reflect policy determinations made by the Commission in the Order Nos. 890 

series of orders and other orders. In addition, the Commission is listing informationally, as 

guidance, NAESB’s Smart Grid Standards (WEQ-016 through WEQ-020) in Part 2 of the 

Commission’s regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [Insert_Date thirty days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. Dates for implementation are provided in 

the Final Rule. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 -iiapproved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [insert date thirty days after 

publication in the Federal Register].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tony Dobbins (Technical Issues)

Office of Energy Policy and Innovation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6630

Gary D. Cohen (Legal Issues)

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8321

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket No. RM05-5-022 -iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background ............................................................................................................................4.

II. Discussion .............................................................................................................................18.

A. Overview ..........................................................................................................................18.

B. Issues Raised by Commenters..........................................................................................22.

1. Five-Day Required Posting (Standards WEQ-001-14.1.3 and WEQ-001-15.1.2) ......23.

2. Redirects (Standards WEQ-001-9.1.3.1, WEQ-001-9.5, WEQ-001.9.7

andWEQ-001-10.3.1) ........................................................................................................31.

3. Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) .....................................................50.

4. Service Across Multiple Transmission Systems (SAMTS) .........................................60.

5. Conflicts between Standards and Approved Tariffs.....................................................70.

C. Smart Grid Standards ......................................................................................................74.

1. Should Smart Grid Standards be Incorporated by Reference Into Commission’s 

Regulations as Mandatory Requirements? ........................................................................74.

2. Appropriate Version of WEQ-019 to be Listed Informationally as Guidance.............79.

III. Compliance and Implementation Issues..............................................................................83.

A. Applicability of NITS Standards to ISOs and RTOs.......................................................83.

1. Comments ....................................................................................................................83.

2. Commission Determination..........................................................................................84.

B. Waiver Requests...............................................................................................................86.

C. Implementation Schedule for NITS OASIS Template Interactions and for Other 

Requirements in this Final Rule.............................................................................................91.

1. NOPR Proposal ............................................................................................................91.

2. Comments.....................................................................................................................92.

3. Commission Determination..........................................................................................93.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards..............................................................96.

V. Information Collection Statement ........................................................................................97.

VI. Environmental Analysis......................................................................................................107.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act .................................................................................................108.

VIII. Document Availability .....................................................................................................110.

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification...................................................................113.
148 FERC ¶ 61,205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Chairman;

 Philip D. Moeller, Tony Clark,

and Norman C. Bay.

Standards for Business Practices and Communication 

Protocols for Public Utilities

Docket No. RM05-5-022

ORDER NO. 676-H

Final Rule

(Issued September 18, 2014)

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its 

regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA)1 to incorporate by reference into its 

regulations as mandatory enforceable requirements, with certain enumerated exceptions,

the latest version (Version 003) of the Standards for Business Practices and 

Communication Protocols for Public Utilities adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant 

(WEQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and filed with the 

Commission as a package on September 18, 2012 (September 18 Filing), as modified in a 

report filed with the Commission on January 30, 2013. In addition, the Commission is 

listing informationally, as guidance, NAESB’s Smart Grid Standards (Standards 

 1 16 U.S.C. 791a, et seq.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 2 -

WEQ-016, WEQ-017, WEQ-018, WEQ-019 and WEQ-020) in Part 2 of the 

Commission’s Regulations.

2. These revised standards update earlier versions of these standards that the 

Commission previously incorporated by reference into its regulations at 18 CFR § 38.2. 

These new and revised standards include modifications to support Order Nos. 890, 890-A, 

890-B and 890-C,2 including the standards to support Network Integration Transmission 

Service on an Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), Service Across 

Multiple Transmission Systems (SAMTS), standards to support the Commission’s policy 

regarding rollover rights for redirects on a firm basis, standards that incorporate the 

functionality for Transmission Providers to credit redirect requests with the capacity of the 

parent reservation and standards modifications to support consistency across the 

OASIS-related standards.

3. The Version 003 Standards also include modifications to the OASIS-related 

standards that NAESB states support Order Nos. 676, 676-A, 676-E and 717 and add 

consistency.3

 In addition, NAESB states that it made modifications to the Coordinate 

 2 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order 

No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 890-A, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 

(2008), order on reh’g and clarification, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2009) 

(Order No. 890-C). The Version 002 standards also included revisions made in response to 

Order No. 890.

3 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,216, (2006), reh’g denied, Order 

No. 676-A, 116 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2006), Final Rule, Order No. 676-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 3 -

Interchange standards to complement the updates to the e-Tag specifications,4

modifications to the Gas/Electric Coordination standards to provide consistency between 

the two markets5 and re-organized and revised definitions to create a standard set of terms, 

definitions and acronyms applicable to all NAESB WEQ standards.6

 NAESB states that 

the Version 003 Standards also include standards related to Demand Side Management and 

Energy Efficiency,7 which the Commission incorporated by reference in Docket No. 

RM05-5-0208 after NAESB filed its Version 003 report, and Smart Grid-related standards 

that NAESB previously filed with the Commission in Docket No. RM05-5-021.9

 

¶ 31,246 (2007), Final Rule, Order No. 676-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,274 (2008), 

order granting clarification and denying reh’g, Order No. 676-D, 124 FERC ¶ 61,317 

(2008), Final Rule, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 (2009) (Order 

No. 676-E); Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 717, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 (2008) (Order No. 717).

4 September 18 Filing, transmittal at 2 (citing NAESB WEQ Electronic Tagging –

Functional Specifications, Version 1.8.1).

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676-G, 78 FR 14654 (Mar. 7, 2013), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,343 

(2013). In this rule, the Commission incorporated by reference into its regulations updated 

business practice standards adopted by NAESB’s WEQ to categorize various products and 

services for demand response and energy efficiency and to support the measurement and 

verification of these products and services in organized wholesale electric markets. These 

same standards are included without revision in the Version 003 standards.

9 These standards were originally cited in a NAESB July 2011 report filed with the 

Commission and were resubmitted as part of WEQ Version 003. See Report of the North 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 4 -

I. Background

4. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization established in January 

2002 that serves as an industry forum for the development and promotion of business 

practice standards that promote a seamless marketplace for wholesale and retail natural gas 

and electricity. Since 1995, NAESB and its predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards 

Board, have been accredited members of the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI), complying with ANSI’s requirements that its standards reflect a consensus of the 

affected industries.

5. NAESB’s standards include business practices that streamline the transactional 

processes of the natural gas and electric industries, as well as communication protocols and 

related standards designed to improve the efficiency of communication within each 

industry. NAESB supports all four quadrants of the gas and electric industries – wholesale 

gas, wholesale electric, retail gas, and retail electric. All participants in the gas and electric 

industries are eligible to join NAESB and participate in standards development.

6. NAESB develops its standards under a consensus process so that the standards draw 

support from a wide range of industry members. NAESB’s procedures are designed to 

ensure that all industry members can have input into the development of a standard, 

whether or not they are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is 

 

American Energy Standards Board on Smart Grid Related Standards, Docket 

No. RM05-5-021 (filed July 7, 2011); NAESB September 18 Filing at 2.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 5 -

supported by a consensus of the relevant industry segments. Standards that fail to gain 

consensus support are not adopted.

7. In Order No. 676, the Commission not only adopted business practice standards and 

communication protocols for the wholesale electric industry, it also established a formal 

ongoing process for reviewing and upgrading the Commission’s OASIS standards and 

other wholesale electric industry business practice standards. In later orders in this series, 

the Commission incorporated by reference: (1) the Version 001 Business Practice 

Standards;10 (2) the Version 002.1 Business Practice Standards;11 (3) business practice 

standards categorizing various demand response products and services;12 and 

(4) OASIS-related Business Practice Standards related to Demand Side Management and 

Energy Efficiency.13

 10 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,274, reh’g denied, Order No. 676-D, 

124 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2008).

11 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 (2009). This order also 

incorporated revisions made in response to Order Nos. 890, 890-A, and 890-B.

12 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676-F, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,309 (2010).

13 Order No. 676-G, see supra n.8.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 6 -

8. In Order No. 890, the Commission revisited the pro forma Open Access 

Transmission Tariff (OATT) first established in Order No. 88814 and adopted a revised pro 

forma OATT designed to better achieve the objectives of preventing undue discrimination 

and providing greater specificity and transparency. In later orders in this series, the 

Commission affirmed, with clarifications, the basic findings that it made in Order No. 890.

9. A number of the findings made by the Commission in the Order No. 890 series of 

orders necessitated revisions to the Business Practice Standards for Public Utilities so that 

there would be no inconsistency between the requirements of Order No. 890 and the 

Business Practice Standards. Accordingly, NAESB set up a work project to review the 

existing business practice standards, identify which standards would need revision to 

prevent any inconsistencies with the Order No. 890 requirements, and develop and adopt 

the needed revised standards. Those revised standards form part of the package of 

revisions included in the WEQ Version 003 Standards. These revisions are in addition to 

the Order No. 890-related revisions incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-E.

10. The Version 003 standards include five categories of standards not previously 

incorporated by reference by the Commission that were developed by NAESB in response 

 14 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory 

Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities 

and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on 

reh'g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), order on reh'g, Order 

No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 

(1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 

225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 7 -

to the Order No. 890 series of orders. These include: (1) standards that NAESB previously 

submitted to support SAMTS;15 (2) part two of the standards modifications to the 

WEQ-001-9.7 Business Practice Standard requested in Order No. 890-A16 related to 

rollover rights to requests for redirect on a firm basis; (3) the WEQ-001-9.1.3.1 and 

WEQ-001-10.3.1.1 Business Practice Standards that provide for Transmission Providers to 

process redirect requests in a manner that counts the available transfer capability 

encumbered by the parent reservation as available for the redirected request;17 

(4) standards to support Network Integration Transmission Service on the OASIS;18 and 

(5) standards modifications to support consistency across the NAESB OASIS standards.19

11. In Order No. 717, the Commission made several modifications related to the 

posting requirements associated with the Standards of Conduct. Specifically, the 

Commission discontinued the requirement for public utilities to post standards of conduct 

 15 See September 18 Filing at 3 & n.13 (citing submittal of NAESB Standards 

Development to Support Coordination of Requests for Transmission Service Across 

Multiple Transmission Systems (Docket No. RM05-5-013) on October 7, 2011, with 

minor corrections on January 25, 2012).

16 See September 18 Filing at 3 (citing NAESB WEQ Business Practices Standards 

Crediting Redirect Requests with the Capacity of the Parent Reservation).

17 Id. 3.

18 Id.

19 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 8 -

information on their OASIS sites.20 In response, WEQ’s Business Practice Subcommittee 

modified the WEQ-001, WEQ-002 and WEQ-003 Business Practice Standards to remove 

reference to the standards of conduct-related obligations with the exception of a few 

template structures that may be implemented at the option of the Transmission Provider. 

WEQ’s OASIS Subcommittee also modified standards WEQ-013-2.6.81 and 

WEQ-013-2.6.82 to clarify the listing of service types, modified standards 

WEQ-001-14.1.3 and WEQ-001-15.1.2 regarding the timing of required postings of 

narratives, and made modifications to standards WEQ-001, WEQ-002 and WEQ-003 

(concerning standards of conduct posting requirements) in response to Order No. 717.

12. The Joint Electric Scheduling Subcommittee (JESS), a standing joint subcommittee 

made up of participants from NAESB and the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC), has been tasked with coordinating efforts to maintain and modify, as 

needed, the coordinate interchange business practice standards in WEQ-004 with their 

associated reliability standards. JESS now leads the effort to harmonize the Coordinate 

Interchange (WEQ-004) standards with the WEQ-001, WEQ-003 and WEQ-013 Business 

Practice Standards in light of revisions made to the Electronic Tagging Functional 

Specification, previously maintained by NERC, and now maintained and updated, as 

needed, by NAESB. The WEQ adopted additional modifications to the WEQ-004 

 20 Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,280 at PP 213–218 and PP 235–239.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 9 -

standards to use abbreviations, acronyms, definitions and terms consistent with those in 

Standard WEQ-000 and to provide consistency across all WEQ standards.

13. WEQ adopted modifications to support consistency between the WEQ business 

practice standards and the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) Gas/Electric Coordination 

standards. In addition, WEQ made modifications to the business practice standards to 

harmonize the terms and definitions contained within the WEQ business practice standards 

with the definitions of those terms used in the business practice standards for other 

quadrants. These changes were also coordinated to be consistent with definitions and 

terms contained in the NERC Glossary.

14. Also included in the WEQ Version 003 standards are standards developed to 

support Smart Grid applications as well as standards related to the measurement and 

verification of Demand Response (DR) and Energy Efficiency (EE) products. These 

standards have been referenced in earlier reports filed with the Commission before the 

completion of the WEQ Version 003 standards. The Smart Grid application standards had 

been referenced in a report filed with the Commission on July 7, 2011 in Docket No. 

RM05-5-021. The DR and EE measurement and verification standards were referenced in 

a report filed with the Commission on May 2, 2011 in Docket No. RM05-5-021 and have 

been the subject of Commission action.21

 21 Order No. 676-G, supra n.8.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 10 -

15. NAESB’s September 18 Filing includes an interpretation of standards 

WEQ-001-9.1 and WEQ-001-10.1 and recites the results of a quadrant-wide effort to 

provide a common location for all abbreviations, acronyms and definitions of terms that 

created the WEQ-000 Business Practice Standards and addresses both internal 

inconsistencies and inconsistencies between the standards and terms and definitions in the 

NERC Glossary.

16. In a notice of proposed rulemaking issued on July 18, 2013, the Commission 

proposed to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference, with certain enumerated 

exceptions, the WEQ Version 003 Standards.22 In response to the WEQ Version 003 

NOPR, 11 comments and one reply comment were filed.23

17. Finally, on November 27, 2013 NAESB filed a report with the Commission stating 

that it made minor corrections to Standards WEQ-000, WEQ-001, WEQ-002, WEQ-003, 

WEQ-013, and WEQ-014. The Commission considers these corrections non-substantive 

and we will incorporate these corrections by reference to ensure the standards we adopt are 

as accurate and up-to-date as possible.

 22 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 FR 45,096 (July 26, 2013), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 32,698 (2013) (WEQ Version 003 NOPR).

23 Commenters on the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, and the abbreviations used in this 

Final Rule to identify them, are listed in the Appendix.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 11 -

II. Discussion

A. Overview

18. The specific NAESB standards that we are incorporating by reference in this Final 

Rule are:

• WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms, WEQ Version 003, 

July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);

• WEQ-001, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), OASIS Version 

2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013) 

with the exception of Standards WEQ-001-9.5, WEQ-001-10.5, WEQ-001-14.1.3,

WEQ-001-15.1.2 and WEQ-001-106.2.5;

24

• WEQ-002, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Business 

Practice Standards and Communication Protocols (S&CP), OASIS Version 2.0,

WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);

• WEQ-003, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Data Dictionary 

Business Practice Standards, OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with 

minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);

• WEQ-004, Coordinate Interchange, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (as modified 

by NAESB final actions ratified on December 28, 2012);

• WEQ-005,Area Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases, WEQ Version 003, 

July 31, 2012);

• WEQ-006, Manual Time Error Correction, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-007,Inadvertent Interchange Payback, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-008,Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) – Eastern Interconnection, WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 28, 2012);

• WEQ-011, Gas / Electric Coordination, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-012, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012, as 

modified by NAESB final actions ratified on October 4, 2012);

 24 The latest version of NAESB’s OASIS Standards (Standards WEQ-001, 

WEQ-002 and WEQ-003) have been designated by NAESB as the Version 2.0 OASIS 

Standards, even though they are also part of the WEQ Version 003 Business Practice 

Standards.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 12 -

• WEQ-013, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Implementation 

Guide, OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections 

applied November 26, 2013);

• WEQ-015, Measurement and Verification of Wholesale Electricity Demand 

Response, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012; and

• WEQ-021, Measurement and Verification of Energy Efficiency Products, WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012.

19. In addition, in this Final Rule, we will list informationally, in Part 2 of our 

regulations, as non-mandatory guidance:

• WEQ-016, NAESB Specifications for Common Electricity Product and Pricing

Definition, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-017, Specifications for Common Schedule Communication Mechanism for 

Energy Transactions, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-018, Specifications for Wholesale Standard Demand Response Signals,

WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-019, NAESB Customer Energy Usage Information Communication WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012 (as amended on March 21, 2013); and

• WEQ-020, Smart Grid Standards Data Element Table, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 

2012.

These standards define use cases, data requirements, and a common model to represent 

customer energy usage.25

 25 In its report to the Commission, NAESB stated that the subcommittee working on 

these standards “developed a set of use cases to describe price communication scenarios 

related to shifts in demand and environmental and economic changes. These use cases 

were then used to develop the price attributes and product identification information or 

data requirements necessary to communicate price. As a second phase, the subcommittee 

refined both the use cases and the data requirements in an effort to create a more complete 

robust standard.” NAESB Smart Grid Report in Docket No. RM05-5-021 (July 7, 2011) at 

3.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 13 -

20. In a change from our prior practice, we are requiring public utilities and those 

entities with reciprocity tariffs to modify their open access transmission tariffs (OATTs) to 

include the WEQ standards that we are incorporating by reference by making a compliance 

filing by December 1, 2014.

26 Any waiver requests must be filed at the same time or in a 

separate FPA section 205 filing. Additionally, consistent with the timeline prescribed in

Standard 002-5.10.3, we have established a separate 18-month compliance schedule for 

implementation of the Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS) OASIS 

templates, with a compliance filing due two months before that.

21. NAESB approved the standards under its consensus procedures.27 Adoption of 

consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps ensure the 

reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards draw support from a broad 

spectrum of all segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry itself has to conduct 

 26 To the extent a public utility’s OASIS obligations are administered by an 

independent system operator or regional transmission operator (RTO) and are not covered 

in the public utility’s OATT, the public utility will not need to modify its OATT to include 

the OASIS standards. Such a public utility will, however, be required to comply with these 

standards unless granted a waiver by the Commission.

27 The WEQ’s procedures ensure that all industry members can have input into the 

development of a business practice standard, whether or not they are members of NAESB, 

and each standard it adopts is supported by a consensus of the seven industry segments: 

transmission, generation, marketer/brokers, distribution/load serving entities, end users, 

independent grid operators/planners, and technology services. Under the WEQ process, 

for a standard to be approved, it must receive a super-majority vote of 67 percent of the 

members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with support from at least 40 percent of each 

of the seven industry segments. For final approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's general 

membership must ratify the standards.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 14 -

business under these standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those 

standards that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), Congress affirmatively 

requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus 

standards organizations, like NAESB, as a means to carry out policy objectives or 

activities.28

B. Issues Raised by Commenters

22. Comments in response to the WEQ Version 003 NOPR were filed by eleven

commenters and one reply commenter. A number of comments expressed general support 

for the Commission’s proposals

29 and no comments were received opposing the basic 

direction of the NOPR, although comments were received taking issue with specific details 

of the NOPR proposals. Specifically, there were concerns raised by a few commenters 

about, among other matters, the appropriate implementation schedule for the requirements 

of the rule and there was a split among the comments as to whether the Commission should 

incorporate the standards on redirects. We will incorporate by reference into the 

Commission’s regulations without further discussion all of the WEQ Version 003 Business 

Practice Standards that we proposed for incorporation in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR that 

 28 Pub L. No. 104-113, 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997).

29 EEI, ISO/RTO Council, OATI, PJM, Tacoma Power, and TDU Systems. 

Bonneville specifically endorses the WEQ Version 003 NOPR proposals incorporating 

business practice standards on Public Key Infrastructure and Smart Grid. Bonneville at 6, 

7.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 15 -

did not occasion comment and we will separately discuss each of the issues raised by 

commenters.

1. Five-Day Required Posting (Standards WEQ-001-14.1.3 and 

WEQ-001-15.1.2)

a. NOPR Proposal

23. In Order No. 676-E, the Commission declined to incorporate by reference NAESB 

Standards WEQ-001-14.1.3 and WEQ-001-15.1.2 (both related to ATC Narrative) because 

these standards did not meet the Commission’s requirement to post the ATC narrative “as 

soon as feasible.”30 In the WEQ-003 NOPR, we explained that NAESB modified those 

two standards to correct this deficiency by adding language providing that Transmission 

Providers should strive to post their ATC narratives within one business day and are 

required to make this posting within five business days. We explained that NAESB’s 

report does not present any reason why a Transmission Provider would need five business 

days to post an ATC narrative and that we remained concerned that the five-business day 

requirement does not meet the Commission’s requirement to post the ATC narrative as 

soon as feasible. We invited comments on the necessity for taking longer than one day to 

post the ATC narrative.

 30 Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 at P 39.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 16 -

b. Comments

24. PJM believes that the proposed one-day posting goal and five-day posting 

requirement are reasonable.31 PJM believes that the posting timing requirements set forth 

in the proposed standards strikes an appropriate balance in encouraging postings within 

one business day, but still allowing the flexibility to post within five business days.32 It 

maintains that more stringent requirements simply do not take into account system outages 

and application failures that could prevent a Transmission Provider from meeting a strict 

one day posting requirement.33

25. PJM states that, in the event that the Commission would prefer a strict one-day 

posting requirement, it could specify that an entity could avoid self-reports of 

administrative violations of the rule so long as the average missed postings per year does 

not exceed a set value (e.g., 75 percent of postings) and does not exceed, for example, three 

days for posting. PJM states that, with such a structure, a preference for one-day posting 

could be implemented, while avoiding the need for administratively burdensome 

self-reporting in those instances where, due to unforeseen circumstances, the Transmission 

Provider is unable to meet the requirement.34

 31 PJM at 5.

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 PJM at 6.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 17 -

26. In Duke Energy’s view there are instances when a Transmission Provider will need 

longer than one day to post an ATC narrative.35 Thus, Duke Energy concludes that the 

deadlines in WEQ-001-14.1.3 and WEQ-001-15.1.2 are reasonable.36 Duke Energy

explains that these deadlines take into account the (1) large volume of data underlying the 

ATC values, (2) complexity of the ATC calculations, (3) inability to utilize an automated 

process to produce an accurate and coherent narrative that meets relevant standards, 

(4) limited number of Transmission Provider subject matter experts that analyze such data 

and calculations to post the narratives, and (5) time consuming nature of such analytical 

processes.

37

27. TDU Systems expressed concern with the timetable in Standard WEQ-001-14.1.3 

and WEQ-001-15.1.2 encouraging the Transmission Provider to strive to post a zero ATC 

narrative for each Constrained Posted Path within one business day and the requirement to

post the narrative within five business days and urges that Transmission Providers post this 

information as soon as feasible. In addition TDU Systems indicates the requirement 

should be for Transmission Providers to post the zero ATC narrative and the ATC change 

narrative at the same time that the ATC results are published.38 TDU Systems urges this 

 35 Duke Energy at 5.

36 Id. at 5-6.

37 Id.

38 TDU Systems at 9.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 18 -

deadline because it considers this information critical to allowing the transmission 

customer to audit the results and to find alternative means to acquire the transmission that 

they need. In TDU Systems’ view, requiring that Transmission Providers “strive” to post 

the narratives within one business day while actually requiring posting of the narrative

within five business days is meaningless as a standard. It argues that there is absolutely no 

incentive for Transmission Providers to do anything other than wait until the last possible 

minute, i.e., five business days later, to make these postings. It further argues that the 

burden on the Transmission Provider to post the ATC narrative is negligible at most. But 

TDU Systems asserts the harm to customers that are denied transmission service because 

of a lack of ATC can be substantial.39

c. Commission Determination

28. As we did in Order No. 676-E, in this Final Rule the Commission will decline to 

incorporate Standards 001-14.1.3 (on the posting of zero ATC narratives) and 001-15.1.2 

(on the posting of ATC change narratives) by reference, as they permit Transmission 

Providers to post an available transfer capability change narrative within five business days 

of meeting the criteria under which a narrative is required to be posted, which is 

inconsistent with the Commission’s rejection in Order No. 890 of delays in posting data.40 

In Order No. 890, the Commission stated that posting within one day appears reasonable. 

 39 Id.

40 Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 at PP 38-39 & n.41.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 19 -

In light of the change to those standards in Version 003 requiring utilities to “strive” to post 

that data within one day while requiring the data to be posted within five days, the 

Commission invited comments as to the necessity for taking longer than one day to post the 

ATC narrative.

29. The two comments challenging a one-day posting requirement for ATC narratives 

did not provide a compelling reason why longer than one day would be necessary to post 

this narrative under normal circumstances. Commenters’ examples of times when 

extenuating circumstances would require additional time to post the narrative could arise,

but would likely not reflect a normal circumstance. While we would be receptive to 

incorporating a revised standard that would create a self-reporting mechanism to deal with 

instances when special circumstances have prevented timely postings, we would not be 

receptive to a standard with an expansive exception from self-reporting, as suggested by 

PJM. Nor are we satisfied that the revised Standard adopted in WEQ Version 003 is 

adequate to ensure the timely posting of ATC narratives. Thus, we will decline to 

incorporate Standards 001-14.1.3 and 001-15.1.2 by reference and request that NAESB 

revise these standards to provide for a one-day posting requirement.

30. TDU Systems not only argues that the postings required by Standards 001-14.1.3 

and 001-15.1.2 should be required to be made more promptly, it also argues they should be 

required to be made at the same time the Transmission Provider publishes its ATC results. 

We find, however, that TDU Systems has not demonstrated why simultaneous posting is 

necessary, nor has it informed us of any efforts it has made to build a consensus within 

NAESB for this suggested requirement. Nor has TDU Systems shown that the Standard, as 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 20 -

adopted by NAESB is unreasonable. If TDU Systems believes that its proposal would 

improve upon the standards adopted by NAESB, we encourage it to work through the 

NAESB process to build consensus for its position and implement this change at the time 

when NAESB works on revisions to Standards 001-14.1.3 and 001-15.1.2 to implement 

our policy in Order No. 890 that data be posted without unreasonable delay.

41 Meanwhile, 

consistent with our findings in Order No. 676-E, each public utility and each utility with a 

reciprocity OATT, is expected to timely post this information as soon as feasible and, in 

most cases, one day would appear to be a reasonable timeframe to accomplish this.

42

2. Redirects (Standards WEQ-001-9.1.3.1, WEQ-001-9.5, 

WEQ-001.9.7 andWEQ-001-10.3.1)

a. NOPR Proposal

31. As we explained in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, in the Version 003 standards, 

NAESB modified WEQ-001-9.7 so that it would conform to the Commission’s policy 

granting rollover rights to requests for redirect on a firm basis.43 We also explained that 

NAESB added standards WEQ-001-10.3.1.1 and WEQ- 001-9.1.3.1, which provide that 

Transmission Providers are to process redirect requests in a manner that considers the 

available transfer capability encumbered by the parent reservation as available for the 

 41 See Order No. 890 at P 370.

42 See Order No 676-E at P 39.

43 WEQ Version 003 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,698 at P 25.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 21 -

redirected request. The revised standards were designed to avoid violation of first-come, 

first-served queue priority principles.

32. NAESB modified the WEQ-001-9 Business Practice Standards (Requirements for 

Dealing with Redirects on a Firm Basis) and modified the definition of Unexercised 

Rollover Rights and added a definition for Capacity Eligible for Rollover to make the 

NAESB standards consistent with the Commission’s regulations. NAESB also made 

relevant modifications to standards WEQ-001, WEQ-002 and WEQ-013 and provided 

examples for the conveyance of rollover rights with a redirect on a firm basis provided in 

Appendix B of the WEQ-001 standards. Our discussion in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR 

also took note of our precedent in Entergy Services, Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,143, at P 25 

& n.68 (2013) (Entergy) and in Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., 99 FERC ¶ 61,054, at P 9

(2002) (Dynegy). NAESB’s standards in this area aroused considerable interest.

b. Comments

33. Bonneville sees a conflict between the Commission’s policy in Entergy and Dynegy

related to rollover rights and Standards WEQ-001-9.1.3, WEQ-001-9.5.3, 

WEQ-001-9.6.1, WEQ-001-9.6.2, WEQ-001-10.1.4, WEQ-001-11.6, 001-11.7 and 

WEQ-013-3.2.6.5.1 and suggests that the Commission not incorporate these standards 

until it decides the Entergy rehearing and directs NAESB to revise such standards in order 

to align them with applicable Commission guidance.44 Putting this aside, however, 

 44 Bonneville at 3-5.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 22 -

Bonneville also expresses strong support for the outcome in Standards WEQ-001-9.1.3.1 

and WEQ-001-10.3.1.1 that allows the crediting of ATC to firm and non-firm redirect 

requests respectively based on the capacity encumbered by the parent reservation that is 

also needed by the redirect request.45 Bonneville agrees with the Commission that these 

standards do not violate first-come, first-served principles.46 OATI supports the inclusion 

of WEQ-001-9.7 with the rest of the WEQ-001-9 standards.47

34. Duke Energy argues that standard WEQ-001-9.7 does not reflect the guidance 

provided by the Commission in Entergy48 and notes the standards were drafted prior to the 

dissemination of the Commission’s guidance in such case.49 Instead, Duke Energy

maintains that the NAESB Version 003 standards reflect the guidance that the Commission 

provided in Dynegy50 and in Order No. 890 and its progeny.51 As a result, Duke Energy

comments that the NAESB Version 003 standards are blatantly contradictory to the 

 45 WEQ Version 003 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,698 at P 6.

46 Id.

47 Id. PP 6-7. OATI notes that WEQ-001-9.7 is not impacted by the Entergy ruling 

as long-term firm point-to-point transmission service is not subject to a conditional time 

period.47

48 Entergy Services, Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,143 (2013).

49 Duke Energy at 8.

50Id.

51 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 23 -

guidance the Commission provided in the Entergy case.52 Similarly, EEI comments that 

the Commission should not incorporate by reference Standard WEQ-001-9.7 into its 

regulations because it is inconsistent with policy announced in Entergy.

53

35. Seattle is concerned that NAESB Version 003 standard WEQ-001-9.7 does not 

align with the Commission’s policy regarding when a customer requesting a redirect loses 

its rights on the parent path.54 Seattle comments that, in Entergy, the Commission affirmed 

an earlier ruling from 2002 where it held that a transmission customer receiving firm 

transmission service does not lose its rights to its original path until the redirect request 

satisfies all of the following criteria: (1) it is accepted by the Transmission Provider; (2) it 

is confirmed by the transmission customer; and (3) it passes the conditional reservation 

deadline under tariff section 13.2.3.

55 Seattle comments that the Commission also held in 

Entergy that a redirect for the “full remaining term” of the parent reservation receives the 

reservation priority of the parent.56 Seattle believes NAESB Version 003 

WEQ-001-10.3.1.1 and WEQ-001-9.1.3.1, which provide for ATC crediting for redirect 

 52 Id.

53 EEI at 6-7.

54 Seattle at 2.

55 Id.

56 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 24 -

requests are appropriate mechanisms to apply in evaluating those requests.57 But it 

requests guidance from the Commission on how the crediting process should be 

implemented to follow Entergy.

58

36. TDU Systems comment that Standard WEQ 001-9.7.11 does not fully conform to 

the Commission’s policy granting rollover rights to requests for redirect on a firm basis.59 

In the view of TDU Systems, this standard does not include the third criterion of the 

Commission’s policy, i.e., that the redirect request has passed the conditional reservation 

deadline under OATT section 13.2.60 Additionally, TDU Systems seek clarification of the 

scope of this standard.61 They ask if standard WEQ 001-9.7 only applies to long-term firm 

point-to-point service, or whether it applies to short-term point-to-point service as well.62

37. Tacoma Power encourages the Commission to adopt recently proposed standards by 

NAESB that provide for the crediting of transmission capacity toward redirect requests.63 

Tacoma Power strongly supports the Commission’s proposed incorporation of 

WEQ-001-9.1.3.1 and WEQ-001-10.3.1.1 because they enable greater and more efficient 

 57 Id.

58 Id.

59 TDU Systems at 4.

60 Id. at 8.

61 Id.

62 Id.

63 Tacoma Power at 2.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 25 -

utilization of transmission systems without violating the important principle of first-come, 

first-served when granting requests for firm transmission service.64 Tacoma Power 

supports the comments submitted by the Bonneville Power Administration in the present 

docket that relate to the crediting of existing transmission rights to redirect requests.65

38. Clark Public Utilities comments that several standards, including WEQ-001-9.1.3, 

WEQ-001-9.1.3.1, WEQ-001.9.5.3, WEQ-001-9.6.2, WEQ-001-10.1.4, WEQ-001-11.6, 

WEQ-001-11.7, and WEQ-013-2.6.5.1, also are inconsistent with the Commission’s 

decision in Entergy.

66 In Clark Public Utilities’ view, Entergy institutes sweeping changes 

that are not reflected in NAESB’s Version 003 Standards.67 Clark Public Utilities suggests 

that the Commission should take a more critical look at the NAESB standards given that 

agreement for these standards was reached prior to issuance of Entergy.

68 As a result of the 

numerous conflicts between the Commission’s guidance and the draft NAESB Version 

003 standards identified above, Clark Public Utilities respectfully requests that the 

Commission not incorporate by reference in its regulations the NAESB Version 003 

standards that bear upon redirects until a final decision is reached in the Entergy case 

 64 Id. at 3.

65 Id. at 2.

66 Clark Public Utilities at 3.

67 Id. at 2.

68 Id. at 6.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 26 -

and/or NAESB is directed by the Commission to revise such standards in order to align 

them with the Commission’s recent guidance and software is available to facilitate the 

changes.69

39. The ISO/RTO Council requests that the Commission clarify that, under Standard 

WEQ-001-9.5, capacity on original path is released for resale when a Transmission 

Provider confirms a redirect request.70

40. On redirects, OATI notes the inconsistency between the standards and the 

Commission’s findings in Entergy and observes that in most, if not all OASIS 

implementations, the release of capacity from the original path occurs on confirmation of 

the redirect request by the transmission customer.71 OATI comments that implementation 

of the policy set forth in Entergy will require modification to a number of the NAESB 

WEQ-001-9 standards in addition to significant software and business process changes in 

OASIS.72 OATI further requests that any changes to the current NAESB WEQ-001-9 

standards and associated OASIS implementation of those standards not be required until 

such later time as (i) a final agency decision is provided in the ongoing Entergy matter and 

 69 Id.

70 ISO/RTO Council at 4.

71 OATI at 4.

72 Id. at 4-5.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 27 -

(ii) the Commission directs NAESB to revise such standards in order to align them with 

applicable Commission guidance.73

41. Snohomish supports the comments that argue that the Commission should not 

incorporate standards bearing on redirects (Seattle, Bonneville, Duke Energy and Clark

Public Utilities).74 Snohomish comments that, as suggested by other commenters in this 

proceeding, the Commission should direct NAESB to revise proposed Version 003 

Standard WEQ-013-2.6.5.1 to align it with the Commission’s policy regarding redirects

and should hold off on incorporating these standards until this is done.

75

c. Commission Determination

42. The Commission has issued three separate orders incorporating by reference into 

the Commission’s regulations the Business Practice Standards of NAESB’s WEQ.76 In all 

of these final rules, the Commission declined to incorporate Standard WEQ-001-9.7 

 73 Id. at 7.

74 Snohomish at 3.

75 Id. at 4.

76 The Commission incorporated by reference the WEQ Version 000 Business 

Practice Standards in Order No. 676 (issued in 2006), the Version 001 Business Practice 

Standards in Order No. 676-C (see n.12 & P 52) (issued July 2008), and the WEQ Version 

002.1 Business Practice Standards in Order No. 676-E (issued in Nov. 2009). See supra

n.3.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 28 -

dealing with rollover rights on redirects, because it failed to match up with the 

Commission’s prevailing policies as explained in Order No. 676.

77

43. In Order No. 676, the Commission rejected NAESB Standard WEQ-001-9.7, which 

stated in pertinent part that, unless the transmission owner agrees, a request to redirect does 

not “confer any renewal rights on the redirected path.” The Commission explained that 

this standard (WEQ-001-9.7) did not meet the requirements of section 22.2 of the 

Commission’s pro forma OATT. The Commission explained that:

Section 22.2 provides that, while a transmission customer’s 

request for new service on a firm basis is pending, the 

transmission customer retains its priority for service on its 

existing path, including rollover rights on its existing path.

However, once a transmission customer’s request for firm 

transmission service at new receipt and delivery points is 

accepted and confirmed, the new reservation governs the rights 

at the new receipt and delivery points and the transmission 

customer can obtain rollover rights with respect to the 

redirected capacity.78

44. NAESB sought to correct this deficiency by revising Standard WEQ-001-9.7 to 

make clear that a customer can obtain rollover rights on the redirected path. The revised 

Standard WEQ-001-9.7 states:

A Transmission Customer holding long-term firm PTP that is 

eligible for continued rollover rights of service may convey 

those rights to an alternate path or PORs and PODs through a 

 77 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,216 (2006).

78 Id. P 57.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 29 -

request to Redirect on a firm basis subject to the following 

requirements.

45. We find that the revised Standard WEQ-001-9.7 meets the requirements of Order 

No. 676 by providing a customer with the ability to obtain rollover rights on a redirected 

path. We, therefore, will incorporate this standard by reference into our regulations.

46. In the past, the Commission has incorporated by reference Standard WEQ-001-9.5. 

However, as reinforced in the Commission’s recent order in Entergy Services, Inc., 

137 FERC ¶ 61,199 (2011), order on reh’g and compliance, 143 FERC ¶ 61,143 (2013),

79

upon further review it is clear that Standard WEQ-001-9.5 does not meet the standard set in 

Dynegy. In Dynegy, the Commission held that “a transmission customer does not lose its 

rights to its original path until the redirect request satisfies all of the following criteria: 

(1) it is accepted by the Transmission Provider; (2) it is confirmed by the transmission 

customer; and (3) it passes the conditional reservation deadline under section 13.2.”80

47. In light of the comments filed and our additional evaluation of the standards, we will 

decline to incorporate by reference Standard WEQ-001-9.5 into the Commission’s 

regulations. We reach this decision because the confirmation criteria in Standard 

WEQ-001-9.5 do not satisfy all the factors delineated in Dynegy.

81 As currently written, 

 79 A further order on compliance and rehearing, affirming our policy in Dynegy, is 

being issued in Docket No. ER05-1065-008 concurrently with issuance of this Final Rule.

80 Dynegy, 99 FERC ¶ 61,054 at 61,233.

81 Standard WEQ-001-9.5 states: “Upon confirmation of the request to Redirect on 

a firm basis, the Capacity Available to Redirect shall be reduced by the amount of the 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 30 -

the Capacity Available to Redirect in Standard WEQ-001-9.5 would be reduced before a 

redirect has passed the conditional reservation deadline, contrary to the Commission’s 

findings in Entergy and Dynegy.

82 As we found in these orders, reducing the capacity 

available to redirect prior to the passage of the conditional reservation deadline could lead 

to a customer paying firm transmission charges and losing capacity on both its original 

path and its redirect path. The Dynegy policy, as reinforced in Entergy, effects a 

reasonable balancing of interests between the customer and the transmission owner by 

ensuring that the customer does not potentially lose rights to capacity, while at the same 

time still permitting the transmission owner to sell available capacity on a short term basis 

until the redirect becomes unconditional.

48. Standard WEQ-001-10.5 provides that the capacity available for a redirect will be 

reduced at the time when the request for a firm redirect is confirmed, which precedes 

expiration of the conditional reservation deadline.83 Thus, this standard is also inconsistent 

with the Commission’s redirect policy in Dynegy.

 

redirected capacity granted for the time period of that Redirect. An example is shown in 

Business Practice Standard WEQ-001-B.”

82 We note that our incorporation by reference here, with enumerated exceptions, of 

the WEQ Version 003 Standards effectively revokes our current incorporation of the WEQ 

Version 002 iteration of the standards, so no version of Standard WEQ-001-9.5 will any 

longer be a Commission-incorporated standard once this rule becomes effective.

83 Standard WEQ-001-10.5 provides: “[u]pon confirmation of the request to 

Redirect on a non-firm basis, the Capacity Available to Redirect shall be reduced by the 

amount of the redirected capacity granted for the time period of that Redirect. An example 

is shown in Business Practice Standard WEQ-001-B.”
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 31 -

49. To ensure that the NAESB standards conform to the Commission’s Dynegy policy, 

we request that NAESB revise Standards WEQ-001-9.5, WEQ-001-10.5, and any other 

standards affected by these standards, to conform to the Dynegy policy.

84 Having NAESB 

revise all of its standards to accommodate the Commission’s policy in this area will help 

avoid confusion by public utilities as to their responsibilities under the Commission`s

policy and under the NAESB standards. Accordingly, we request that NAESB make this 

project a priority.

3. Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS)

a. NOPR Proposal

50. As explained in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, NITS allows a Network Customer to 

integrate and economically dispatch and regulate its current and planned Network 

Resources to serve its Network Load in a manner comparable to the way a Transmission 

Provider uses its Transmission System to serve its Native Load Customers. In the WEQ 

Version 003 Standards, NAESB has included new and revised standards related to NITS 

within the WEQ-000, WEQ-001, WEQ-002 and WEQ-003 Business Practice Standards. 

We also explained that NAESB has proposed Standard WEQ-001-106.2.5, which appears 

to contemplate a Transmission Provider refusing a request to terminate a secondary 

 84 As our policy in Dynegy and Entergy reflects our interpretation of the pro forma

OATT, we expect transmission providers to adhere to this policy while NAESB develops 

conforming standards. See, e.g., Transmission Loading Relief Reliability Standard and 

Curtailment Priorities, 139 FERC ¶ 61,218, at P 9 (2012) (noting that all transmission 

providers are required to comply with the Commission’s pro forma OATT).
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 32 -

network service.85 We invited comment on the purpose of this standard and on whether the 

Commission should incorporate this standard by reference. We further noted that, in Order 

No. 890-A, the Commission found that it was not appropriate to allow a Transmission 

Provider to deny requests to terminate network resource designations, although Order 

No. 890-A did not directly address the issue of terminating secondary network service.86

b. Comments

51. Duke Energy comments that the Commission should incorporate Standard 

WEQ-001-106.2.5, so that Transmission Providers can deny termination of scheduled 

(tagged) capacity associated with a reservation for Secondary Network Service.87 This 

refusal is acceptable when the capacity requested for termination is still scheduled upon.88

When the non-firm network reservation is terminated, the Transmission Provider reinstates 

the capacity to its ATC offering.89 Based on this rationale, Duke Energy submits that the 

Commission should incorporate this standard by reference in its regulations.90 Duke 

 85 WEQ Version 003 NOPR at P 23.

86 Id. P 950.

87 Duke Energy at 4.

88 Id.

89 Id.

90 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 33 -

Energy further encourages the Commission to permit Transmission Providers to deny the 

undesignation of tagged network resource designations for the same reason.91

52. APPA believes that Standard WEQ-001-106.2.5 as drafted may not accurately 

reflect its intended application.92 It argues that the standard should be revised to ensure 

that it will not inadvertently limit network customers’ ability to modify either their 

secondary network service reservations or their actual use of the transmission capacity 

available to them under such reservations.93 APPA finds the language of Standard 

WEQ-001-106.2.5 confusing and comments that the focus of Standard WEQ-001-106.2.5 

properly should be on the Transmission Provider’s treatment of capacity that becomes 

available when a customer terminates all or part of its unscheduled capacity and there 

should be no question as to whether the transmission customer can reduce unscheduled 

capacity associated with a secondary network service reservation as, in APPA’s view, this 

right is without question.

94

53. Thus, APPA asserts that the Commission should require NAESB to clarify its 

proposed Standard WEQ-001-106.2, and Standard WEQ-001-106.2.5 in particular, to 

avoid unduly restricting network customers’ flexibility in their use of secondary network 

 91 Id.

92 APPA at 4.

93 Id.

94 Id. at 4-5.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 34 -

service and should give the Transmission Provider the ability to restrict the release on the 

OASIS of that terminated capacity if, for some reason, it is subsequently unavailable, 

rather than allowing a Transmission Provider to refuse the transmission customer’s request 

to “terminate” the unscheduled portion of an existing secondary network service 

reservation.

95

54. Consistent with this change, APPA argues other sections also would need to be 

reworded.

96 For example, proposed Standard WEQ-001-106.2.6 should also focus on the 

release of transmission capacity, and proposed Standard WEQ-001-106.2.7 should make 

clear that the reduction in the network customer’s reservation is not contingent on the 

Transmission Provider’s finding that the “capacity is available to be terminated.”97 APPA

also urges that the Commission clarify that the standard does not in any way restrict a 

network customer from revising its tags (within whatever timing requirements apply to 

tagging changes) to reduce its scheduled use of a secondary network service reservation.98

55. EEI supports incorporation by reference of Standard WEQ-001-106.25.99 EEI 

believes that the Commission should incorporate this standard by reference into its 

 95 Id. at 5.

96 Id. at 8.

97 Id.

98 Id.

99 EEI at 5.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 35 -

regulations, allowing Transmission Providers the ability to refuse a termination request 

under these specific circumstance (of customer requesting termination of more capacity 

than the customer had reserved), which may compromise the stability of the electric power 

system.100 EEI notes that, in that circumstance, the transmission customer has the option of 

submitting a revised and accurate termination request for approval.101 Bonneville’s 

comments also express support for the Commission’s incorporation of the proposed 

standards regarding NITS on OASIS.102

56. OATI comments that the intent of Standard WEQ-001-106.2.5 was to allow 

Transmission Providers to refuse requests for termination of a secondary network resource 

where the requested amount of capacity to be terminated is in excess of that amount of 

reserved capacity that has not been scheduled, and therefore not free to be released to 

available transfer capability as stipulated in WEQ-001-106.2.6.103 OATI states that the 

release of terminated capacity from a secondary network resource to non-firm available 

transfer capability that is still scheduled for energy delivery would likely pose a reliability 

concern for the Transmission Provider.

104 WEQ-001-106.2.5 provides the condition upon 

 100 Id. at 6.

101 Id. at 5-6.

102 Bonneville at 2.

103 OATI at 3-4.

104 Id. at 4.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 36 -

which the Transmission Provider could refuse such a request. For these reasons, OATI 

supports incorporation of WEQ-001-106.2.5 in the Commission’s ruling.105

57. TDU Systems suggests that the Commission should direct NAESB to revise the 

NITS Standards to eliminate the discretion of a Transmission Provider to refuse a request 

to terminate secondary network service and to eliminate discretion in tracking designated 

network resource scheduling rights.

106 They also suggest directing NAESB to establish

guidelines for processing applications including a Transmission Provider’s discretion to 

determine what information is required to establish the queue time for the NITS application 

or for the response to the application.107

c. Commission Determination

58. Standard WEQ-001-16.2.5 as currently adopted by NAESB is unclear in its 

application and could be read to allow Transmission Providers discretion to deny requests 

to terminate service in situations where this might not be warranted. The differing 

comments on the application and use of this standard highlight the lack of clarity in this 

area. Therefore, the Commission declines to incorporate WEQ-001-106.2.5 by reference 

at this time because, as currently drafted, it is not clear how and when this standard should 

be applied.

 105 Id.

106 TDU Systems at 4-6.

107 Id. at 7.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 37 -

59. Thus, the Commission will incorporate by reference all of the NITS standards 

proposed for incorporation in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR with the exception of Standard

WEQ-001-106.2. We encourage NAESB to revise and clarify this entire standard and 

resubmit it to the Commission with changes that make clear when and how it should be 

applied.

4. Service Across Multiple Transmission Systems (SAMTS)

a. NOPR Proposal

60. In the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, the Commission proposed SAMTS business 

practice standards to provide a process for customers to complete cross-regional 

transactions. As explained in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, the SAMTS standards address 

the coordination of point-to-point transmission service and/or network transmission 

service requests across multiple transmission systems. The process requires each affected 

provider independently to evaluate its portion of the linked request with the opportunity for 

reconciliation by the customer once all the evaluations are complete. The customer then 

communicates reconciled information to each of the affected providers.

b. Comments

61. Bonneville generally supports the proposed standards allowing transmission 

customers to link requests and reservations over multiple transmission systems on OASIS 

through coordinated groups.108 But Bonneville asks the Commission to clarify that a 

 108 Bonneville at 2.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 38 -

transmission customer is required to update the status of a coordinated group when a 

conditional reservation is displaced through preemption under sections 13.2 or 14.2 of the 

pro forma tariff so that updates regarding the disposition of requests and conditional 

reservations included in a coordinated group that are preempted are treated comparably.109

62. PJM supports the initiative to develop a coordinated process for SAMTS, but PJM 

expresses concern that the proposed standards addressing SAMTS may result in it taking 

longer to evaluate Transmission Service Requests with no discernible benefit to 

customers.110 For example, PJM maintains that the 24 hour attestation period for approvals 

could cause delays in evaluating a request and subsequent requests, which could be 

addressed by an automated system, if allowed.111

63. TDU Systems believes that the SAMTS standards are a step in the right direction 

and generally support them.112 However, TDU Systems urges the Commission to require 

Transmission Providers to create a dispute resolution mechanism for transmission 

customers to use in case there are disagreements over implementation of the SAMTS 

standards.113 TDU Systems asserts that, because the standards address practices across 

 109 Id.

110 PJM at 3.

111 Id. at 3.

112 TDU Systems at 3.

113 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 39 -

regions, it is not obvious that any particular Transmission Provider’s tariff dispute 

resolution procedures would govern, and, therefore, there may be no clear avenue for 

resolving disputes. TDU Systems urges the Commission to direct NAESB to correct this 

omission in its final rule.

64. TDU Systems also recommends that the Commission direct NAESB to broaden the 

applicability of the SAMTS standards.114 TDU Systems believe that treatment of the 

Coordinated Requests as “linked” should not be limited to the purpose of procurement of 

service.115 Rather, these Coordinated Requests should continue to be “linked” after 

evaluations for application of service are complete. In particular, it believes these 

transmission services should be linked for purposes of long-term planning and conveying 

rollover rights.116 Finally, TDU Systems argues the Commission should require 

Transmission Providers that deny a request under the new SAMTS process to post 

information including an explanation of why the service was denied and the expected

duration of the constraint.117 Such a requirement, it argues, would be consistent with 

 114 Id.

115 Id.

116 Id.

117 Id. at 4.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 40 -

section 37.6(e)(2) of the Commission’s OASIS regulations and the transparency 

requirements of Order No. 890.118

c. Commission Determination

65. After consideration of the SAMTS Standards and the comments, the Commission 

will incorporate by reference NAESB’s SAMTS standards. We note, however, that we 

find reasonable Bonneville’s request to treat a conditional point-to-point reservation 

included in a coordinated group displaced through preemption comparably to a reservation

that is superseded as a result of preemption. Thus, we request that NAESB consider this 

suggestion as part of its ongoing standards development process so that both actions are 

updated similarly. This can be reported in the next relevant WEQ standards update report 

filed by NAESB with the Commission.

66. PJM has raised a concern that this standard may significantly expand the time that 

will be required to evaluate Transmission Service Requests without any benefit to 

customers. We note that, consistent with Commission precedent, PJM may request a 

waiver and attest that its policies are “consistent with or superior” to specific newly 

incorporated NAESB standards. In such a proceeding, PJM would have the opportunity to 

substantiate its claim that these regulations would adversely affect its timeframe to 

evaluate Transmission Service Requests, with no discernable benefit to customers. 

Waivers are evaluated on a case by case basis and any waiver request from PJM will be 

 118 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 41 -

evaluated on its individual merits. We make no determination here as to the outcome of 

such a request.

67. We will deny TDU Systems’ request to require Transmission Providers to create a 

dispute resolution mechanism for transmission customers to use in case there are 

disagreements over implementation of the SAMTS, as we find no necessity to make this 

change at this time. Thus, we will adopt the standards as adopted by NAESB, which 

reflects the industry consensus and we will not at this time request that NAESB make the 

modifications to the standard recommended by TDU Systems. We reach this decision 

because we find the standard as adopted by NAESB to be reasonable and see no evidence 

that this process will not be successful in addressing and resolving disputes between 

transmission customers and Transmission Providers. Under the SAMTS Standards 

included in WEQ Version 003, a customer will have access to each transmission owner’s 

dispute resolution process and also will be able to file a complaint with the Commission if 

the dispute resolution process does not resolve the problems presented. We find it 

premature to modify the newly adopted SAMTS standard without any evidence that it will 

not be successful as is. Moreover, there has been an industry consensus for the standard as 

adopted by NAESB. TDU Systems may raise this issue at NAESB in the future if it finds 

that a sufficient number of complaints warrant seeking a consensus for revisions to this 

standard within NAESB. As a general matter, we encourage participation in the NAESB 

process in the first instance. Those advocating changes to NAESB standards would be well 

advised to first participate in the NAESB process and seek consensus support for their 

positions within the NAESB process.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 42 -

68. TDU Systems also requests that we broaden the applicability of the SAMTS 

standards and that these Coordinated Requests should continue to be “linked” after 

evaluations for application of service are complete. TDU Systems provides no justification 

for extending linkage beyond the procurement of service and a consensus of the industry 

saw no need for such a change. Thus, we find the consensus standard reasonable without 

such an expansion. Adoption of such a modification should not be implemented until 

NAESB has had an opportunity to consider whether an industry consensus supports the 

standard. Once again, we encourage TDU Systems to seek support for its positions within 

the NAESB process.

69. As noted by TDU Systems, 18 CFR § 37.6(e)(2) already requires that “[w]hen a 

request for service is denied, the Responsible Party must provide the reason for that denial 

as part of any response to the request....” We see no need for a further change to the 

standards as, at this point, the standards are not inconsistent with the Commission’s 

regulation and parties are required to comply with the Commission’s regulations.

5. Conflicts between Standards and Approved Tariffs

a. Comments

70. PJM requests clarification that, if there is a conflict between terms of a 

Commission-approved tariff and NAESB Business Practice Standards, the tariff takes 

precedence and that an ISO/RTO following the terms of its Commission-approved tariff 

need not seek waiver of specific NAESB standards to avoid being deemed in violation of 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 43 -

the standards.119 PJM notes that specific NAESB language contemplates the precedence of 

Commission-approved tariffs over NAESB standards in the event of conflict. PJM 

requests the Commission “recognize” this interaction between the NAESB Business 

Practice Standards and RTO/ISO tariffs. PJM goes on to request that the Commission 

clarify that ISO/RTO Transmission Providers do not need to seek specific waivers of those 

NAESB rules that are inconsistent with Commission-approved tariff rules or market 

designs. Alternatively, PJM requests that the Commission grant waivers if a tariff is 

consistent with or superior to the requirements of the standards.120

b. Commission Determination

71. As discussed earlier, the Commission previously permitted a public utility to defer 

making its compliance filing until it makes an unrelated filing with the Commission to 

reduce the burden on filers of a stand-alone filing.

121 As PJM’s comments indicate, this 

policy may result in confusion as to whether the tariff or the standards apply to the extent 

they are inconsistent.122 For this reason, we are revising our policy to follow our practice 

with respect to the standards for natural gas pipelines, and will require compliance filings

 119 PJM at 2. PJM cites to “WEQ-001-C Appendix C, relating to OASIS Business 

Practice Standards Exemptions. ‘In the event of conflict between NAESB Business 

Practice Standards and an individual Commission approved tariff or Commission approved 

market design, the tariff or market design shall prevail.’”

120 Id.

121 See, e.g., Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 at P 128.

122 PJM at 2.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 44 -

on the requirements not related to Standard WEQ-002-5.10.3 to be made by December 1, 

2014. We will, however, allow public utilities that want to incorporate the complete set of 

NAESB standards into their tariffs without modification to specify in their compliance 

filing that they are incorporating into their tariff all the standards incorporated by reference 

by the Commission as specified in Part 38 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure as updated and revised. This will mean that those public utilities may not need 

to make compliance filings in future years to incorporate the standards so long as they 

continue to abide by all the newly incorporated standards. It would also obviate the need 

for a compliance filing related to Standard WEQ-002-5.10.3.

72. Public utilities may seek waiver of the standards for newly developed or newly 

revised standards and for the renewal of existing waivers. Our policy on when these 

waivers will be granted or denied is not being changed in this Final Rule. All requests for 

waiver and requests for renewals of prior granted waiver requests must be submitted by 

December 1, 2014, the same date on which the compliance filing is due.

73. Furthermore, consistent with previous practice, the Commission does not 

automatically extend existing waivers without Commission review and approval. When 

the Commission adopts new requirements, it is incumbent on a public utility that wishes to 

maintain a previously granted waiver applicable to the previous version of the standard to 

make a showing to the Commission that, based on the particular facts presented, the waiver 

should continue. The determination of whether a waiver from a prior requirement should 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 45 -

apply to a revised requirement is one that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis.123 If 

PJM believes that its circumstances warrant a waiver of any particular NAESB Business 

Practice Standards that the Commission is incorporating by reference into its regulations in 

this Final Rule, it may file a request for a waiver wherein it can detail the circumstances 

that it believes warrant a waiver. The Commission will decide on any such waiver request 

on a case-by-case basis and we decline to prejudge those circumstances in the context of 

this rulemaking.

C. Smart Grid Standards

1. Should Smart Grid Standards be Incorporated by Reference Into 

Commission’s Regulations as Mandatory Requirements?

a. NOPR Proposal

74. In the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by 

reference five Smart Grid standards (WEQ-016, WEQ-017, WEQ-018, WEQ-019 and 

WEQ-020) into the Commission’s regulations. The Commission also invited comment on 

what version of Standard WEQ-019 should be incorporated (discussed below).

b. Comments

75. Bonneville supports the Commission’s incorporation of the proposed standards 

regarding Smart Grid.124 By contrast, while EEI and its members fully support the 

development of Smart Grid technologies, EEI believes that adoption of these standards 

 123 Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 at P 107.

124 Bonneville at 7.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 46 -

(standards WEQ-016, WEQ-017, WEQ-018, WEQ-019 and WEQ-020) by the 

Commission would be contrary to Commission precedent and to the express terms of the 

standards themselves, and would chill future Smart Grid Standards development.125 EEI 

comments that, if the Commission does adopt any WEQ Smart Grid Standards, it should 

expressly clarify that their use is optional and that incorporation by reference of any of the 

WEQ Smart Grid Standards into utility tariffs would not negate or limit the optionality or 

informative nature of the WEQ Smart Grid Standards.126 EEI also asserts that in no event 

should the Commission adopt WEQ-019 because that standard only applies to end-use 

customers and, accordingly, is outside the Commission's jurisdiction.127 Further, EEI 

maintains that, if the Commission adopts any of the Smart Grid Standards, the Commission 

should clarify that some of the standards only apply in certain markets due to their 

nature.128 Finally, EEI argues that, in no event should these NAESB smart grid standards 

be incorporated by reference into the Commission's regulations in the Code of Federal 

 125 EEI at 7-9.

126 Id. 12.

127 Id. 13.

128 Id. For example, EEI states that WEQ-017 and WEQ-018 should only apply, if 

at all, in markets with wholesale demand response and WEQ-019 should not apply to 

utilities that haven’t adopted the optional “Green Button.”
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 47 -

Regulations, claiming that to do so would, at a minimum, create ambiguity and confusion, 

or worse, could impose the inappropriate mandatory application of these standards.129

76. The ISO/RTO Council suggests that the Commission could confirm that the 

NAESB smart grid standards would not impose enforceable compliance mandates, 

particularly on ISOs and RTOs.

130 Specifically, with respect to Standard WEQ-019, the 

ISO-RTO Council suggests that the standard "is meant to define a set of business processes 

that would serve as an input into the development of a broader smart grid information 

model."131 The ISO/RTO Council claims that enforceable requirements would be 

unworkable at the present time.132 The ISO/RTO Council also asserts, however, that 

"NAESB's proposed Smart Grid-related standards have value and are likely to promote the 

development of future standards."133 In support of its arguments that these Smart Grid 

Standards should not be enforceable, the ISO/RTO Council quotes from the Commission's 

 129 Id. at 14. EEI notes that “18 C.F.R section 38.2(a) provides that ‘[a]ll entities to 

which section 38.1 is applicable must comply with the following business practice . . . 

standards . . .’ (emphasis added).”

130 ISO/RTO Council at 2, 5.

131 Id. at 7.

132 Id.

133 Id. at 9.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 48 -

statement in Order No. 693 that for a standard to be enforceable, the standard must "be 

sufficiently clear so that an entity is aware of what it must do to comply."134

c. Commission Determination

77. The Commission agrees with Bonneville and the ISO/RTO Council that the 

NAESB Smart Grid Standards have value and that their use by public utilities should be 

encouraged by the Commission. At the same time, however, we also find merit in EEI’s 

arguments against incorporating these standards by reference into the Commission's 

regulations and in ISO/RTO Council’s arguments against making these standards 

enforceable and mandatory. Thus, rather than incorporating these standards by reference 

as mandatory enforceable standards (as proposed in the WEQ Version 003 NOPR), the 

Commission instead will list these standards informationally in Part 2 of our regulations as 

non-mandatory guidance.135 The NAESB Smart Grid Standards will thus be available for 

use, but we are not requiring them to be used by public utilities, and declining to use the 

standards will not be considered a violation of Commission regulations.

 134 Id. at 9, n.12.

135 In 18 CFR Part 2, the Commission has set out various statements of general 

policy and interpretations. We will house the guidance we are listing informationally on 

Smart Grid issues within a separate undesignated heading within Part 2 of our regulations. 

In the next section of this preamble, we will separately address the question of which 

version of Standard WEQ-019 (i.e, the version contained in the WEQ Version 003 

Standards or the version ratified by NAESB on March 21, 2013) should be the one listed 

informationally as guidance in Part 2 of the Commission’s regulations.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 49 -

78. We are listing informationally the five Smart Grid Standards, as non-mandatory 

guidance, rather than incorporating them by reference into our regulations as mandatory 

requirements, because we agree with commenters that the five standards at issue were 

meant to provide encouragement for the development of new technologies and to foster 

Smart Grid interoperability by defining a set of business processes that would serve as an 

input into the development of a broader Smart Grid information model. In addition, we 

agree with the ISO/RTO Council that these NAESB standards “are building blocks that 

support ongoing efforts to develop future smart grid standards.”136 Thus, for all these 

reasons, we are not mandating compliance with these standards; but nonetheless are 

informationally listing these standards as non-mandatory guidance. Our action here is 

intended to encourage further developments in interoperability, technological innovation 

and standardization in this area.

2. Appropriate Version of WEQ-019 to be Listed Informationally as 

Guidance

a. NOPR Proposal

79. In the WEQ Version 003 NOPR, the Commission noted that NAESB had ratified 

changes to Standard WEQ-019 on March 21, 2013 that were provided for energy usage 

information consistent with the Green Button Initiative, promoted by the White House 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Commission then invited comment on 

whether the Commission should incorporate by reference the version of Standard 

 136 ISO/RTO Council at 8.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 50 -

WEQ-019 ratified by NAESB membership on March 21, 2013, rather than the version 

contained in Version 003.

b. Comments

80. Bonneville supports the Commission’s incorporation of the version of the Standards 

ratified by NAESB on March 21, 2013.137 By contrast, Duke Energy comments that it 

disagrees with some details of the Green Button Initiative to allow customers access to 

their energy usage information because it believes this would burden Transmission 

Providers without necessarily providing useful information to transmission customers.138 

For this reason, Duke Energy requests that the Commission incorporate by reference the

version of Standard WEQ-019 ratified by NAESB membership in Version 003, without the 

revisions ratified on March 21, 2013.139 In addition, for these same reasons it opposes 

incorporation by reference of Standard WEQ-019 as a mandatory standard.140 However, it 

would not oppose incorporation of this standard as an optional business practice.141

 137 Bonneville at 7.

138 Duke Energy at 6.

139 Id. at 7.

140 Id.

141 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 51 -

81. The ISO/RTO Council takes no position on which version of WEQ-019 be used.142 

EEI opposes any form of incorporation by reference or adoption of WEQ-019 and thus 

does not state a preference for either version of the standard.143

c. Commission Determination

82. All of the concerns raised about our incorporation by reference of the version of 

Standard WEQ-019 ratified by NAESB on March 21, 2013 hinge on the concern that we 

might incorporate this standard as a mandatory enforceable standard. Given our decision 

to only list these standards informationally, as guidance, there is no remaining reason not to 

go with the most up-to-date version (i.e., the version ratified by NAESB on March 21, 

2013) and that is the version we are listing informationally, as guidance, in this Final Rule.

III. Compliance and Implementation Issues

A. Applicability of NITS Standards to ISOs and RTOs

1. Comments

83. PJM asks the Commission to continue to acknowledge in its final rule in this matter 

that NAESB’s business practice standards associated with NITS do not apply to PJM’s 

market construct as the NITS Standards and Order No. 890 requirements were developed 

to eliminate undue discrimination in the provision of transmission service and were not 

designed to address the more stringent requirements that necessarily apply to resources 

 142 ISO/RTO Council at 6.

143 EEI at 13.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 52 -

designated under a capacity construct, such as PJM’s.144 In addition, ISO/RTO Council 

asks the Commission to confirm that it will give substantial weight to NAESB statements 

regarding the applicability of business practice standards when considering future 

ISO/RTO exemption requests.145

2. Commission Determination

84. Once again, if PJM believes that its circumstances warrant a continued waiver of the 

regulations, it may file a request for a waiver wherein it can detail the circumstances that it 

believes warrant a waiver. The Commission will decide on any such waiver request on a 

case-by-case basis and we decline to prejudge those circumstances in the context of this 

rulemaking. Absent a Commission-approved waiver, compliance with the standards is 

required by all public utilities.

85. The ISO/RTO Council requests “the Commission attach substantial weight to 

applicability and scope provisions included in the WEQ standards when it considers 

individual ISO/RTO waiver requests.”146 The Commission reviews waiver requests on a 

case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances presented in each individual 

waiver justification, as appropriate, and we will not prejudge any such circumstances in the 

context of this rulemaking.

 144 PJM at 5.

145 ISO/RTO Council at 13.

146 ISO/RTO Council at 13.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 53 -

B. Waiver Requests

86. Any public utility seeking a waiver of these requirements must still comply with the 

requirement to file a revised tariff acknowledging its obligation to comply with the newly 

incorporated by reference Business Practice Standards. While it may additionally file a 

written request for waiver, such waiver request will not excuse compliance with the 

standards until such time as its waiver request is approved by the Commission. Thus, 

waiver requests should be filed by December 1, 2014, which is early enough to allow for 

Commission review prior to the compliance date. Waiver requests should identify the 

specific requirements from which waiver is sought and should state the reasons why a 

waiver is warranted. Requests for waiver related to Standard WEQ-002-5.10.3 must be 

filed by [insert date 16 months after effective date of this Final Rule].

87. In the past, the Commission has allowed a public utility to defer the filing of a 

revised tariff acknowledging its obligation to comply with the newly incorporated by 

reference Business Practice Standards until it makes an unrelated tariff filing. In this Final 

Rule, we have reconsidered that policy and find that, given the broader coverage of the 

NAESB standards, as well as the waiver requests received, the deferral policy may lead to 

confusion over the standards applicable to particular public utilities. Moreover, deferral of 

the filings may lead to NAESB standards being included in FPA section 205 filings, 

making review of the standards and waiver requests more difficult to process. We have 

concluded, therefore, that, as we do with respect to incorporation of the NAESB standards 

for natural gas, all public utilities will need to make a compliance filing that will permit 

uniform review of the filings and all requests for waiver. For those public utilities that 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 54 -

want to incorporate the complete set of NAESB standards into their tariffs without 

modification, we will permit their initial compliance filing to specify that they are 

incorporating into their tariff all the standards as specified in Part 38 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure as updated and revised.147 This will mean that those 

public utilities will not need to make compliance filings in future years to incorporate the 

standards so long as they continue to abide by all of the NAESB WEQ Business Practice 

Standards and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities that the Commission has 

incorporated by reference into its regulations.

88. Consistent with this determination, we are requiring each public utility to make the 

required tariff filing acknowledging its obligation to comply with the newly incorporated 

by reference Business Practice Standards. It may, however, if it wishes, also file a request 

for a waiver that identifies the specific provisions from which waiver is sought, along with 

its reasons supporting the request. Waiver requests should be filed by December 1, 2014 to 

allow time for a Commission decision on the waiver request before the compliance date. 

To be in compliance with their tariffs, public utilities submitting a late-filed waiver request 

must comply with the newly incorporated standards until such time as their requests are 

acted on.

 147 Public utilities adopting this option should include the following language in 

their tariff: “The current versions of the NAESB WEQ Business Practice Standards 

incorporated by reference into the Commission’s regulations as specified in Part 38 of the 

Commission’s regulations (18 CFR Part 38) are incorporated by reference into this tariff.”
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 55 -

89. Those public utilities that choose not to revise their tariffs to include the statement 

referenced above acknowledging their obligation to comply with the latest version of the 

Business Practice Standards incorporated by reference by the Commission must use the 

following language in their OATTs:

• WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms, WEQ Version 003, 

July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied Nov. 26, 2013);

• WEQ-001, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), OASIS Version 

2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November

26, 2013) excluding Standards WEQ-001-9.5, WEQ-001-10.5, WEQ-001-14.1.3,

WEQ-001-15.1.2 and WEQ-001-106.2.5;

• WEQ-002, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Business 

Practice Standards and Communication Protocols (S&CP), OASIS Version 2.0,

WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 

2013);

• WEQ-003, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Data Dictionary 

Business Practice Standards, OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 

(with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);

• WEQ-004, Coordinate Interchange, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with Final 

Action ratified on December 28, 2012);

• WEQ-005, Area Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases, WEQ Version 003, 

July 31, 2012;
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 56 -

• WEQ-006, Manual Time Error Correction, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-007, Inadvertent Interchange Payback, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-008, Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) – Eastern Interconnection,

WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 28, 

2012);

• WEQ-011, Gas / Electric Coordination, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

• WEQ-012, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012, as 

modified by NAESB final actions ratified on Oct. 4, 2012);

• WEQ-013, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Implementation 

Guide, OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor 

corrections applied November 26, 2013);

• WEQ-015, Measurement and Verification of Wholesale Electricity Demand 

Response, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012; and

• WEQ-021, Measurement and Verification of Energy Efficiency Products,

WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012.

90. Public utilities should not incorporate the Smart Grid Standards (WEQ-016, 

WEQ-017, WEQ-018, WEQ-019 and WEQ-020) by reference, as the Commission is not 

incorporating these standards by reference as mandatory requirements.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 57 -

C. Implementation Schedule for NITS OASIS Template Interactions and 

for Other Requirements in this Final Rule

1. NOPR Proposal

91. In Standard WEQ-002-5.10, NAESB proposed an implementation schedule for 

NITS OASIS template interactions that would allow public utilities 18 months after the 

effective date of this Final Rule to transition to posting transmission customers’ NITS 

service arrangements on the Version 2.0 NITS OASIS templates. In the WEQ Version 003 

NOPR, while we discussed the details of the standards adopted by NAESB, we did not 

specifically address its proposed implementation schedule for NITS OASIS templates. We 

did, however, propose, consistent with past Commission practice, to allow public utilities

the option of including these changes as part of an unrelated tariff filing in order to reduce 

the filing burden.148 Several comments were filed on the appropriate implementation 

schedule to be allowed by the Commission.

2. Comments

92. Duke Energy supports an 18-month development plan, plus 6 months for testing, as 

the implementation timeline for business practice standards associated with service across 

multiple transmission systems (SAMTS) and network integration transmission service 

 148 WEQ Version 003 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,698 at P 44. As discussed 

in greater detail in section II.B.6 above, the Commission is no longer allowing public 

utilities to defer the filing of a revised tariff acknowledging their obligation to comply with 

the Business Practice Standards incorporated by reference in this Final Rule.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 58 -

(NITS).149 ISO/RTO Council requests that the Commission clarify that Transmission 

Providers will have 24 months to come into compliance with the new standards on 

redirects and Public Key Infrastructure.

150 Likewise, EEI seeks clarification that 

implementation will not be required until at least 18 months after a new standard is adopted 

as a regulation, as proposed by NAESB in Standard WEQ-002-5.10.151 OATI finds

NAESB’s 18-month implementation plan aggressive, but attainable, citing the complexity 

and significant efforts involved to design and implement the needed software and business 

process revisions.152 Thus, OATI requests an additional 6 months (beyond the original 18 

months) for testing and system updates (for a total of 24 months before implementation is 

required).

153

3. Commission Determination

93. Consistent with Order No. 676-E,

154 the Commission notes that Standard 

WEQ-002-5.10 is applicable only to the actual implementation of updated templates and 

not to the additional required OASIS functionalities proposed in the WEQ Version 003 

 149 Duke Energy at 3.

150 ISO/RTO Council at 5.

151 EEI at 4.

152 OATI at 2.

153 Id. at 3.

154 Order No. 676-E, Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,299 at P 99.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 59 -

Standards, which may require modification to, or development of, supporting software 

applications.

94. However, an 18-month implementation period appears sufficient to implement the 

NAESB standards incorporated by reference related to the NITS OASIS templates and 

commenters have not provided compelling evidence as to why additional time would be 

necessary. The timeline laid out in Standard WEQ-002-5.10.3 was a product of NAESB’s 

consensus process that has been designed to require support from a wide range of industry 

members. As noted above, NAESB’s procedures are designed to ensure that all industry 

members can have input into the development of a standard, whether or not they are 

members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is supported by a consensus of the 

relevant industry segments. Standards that fail to gain consensus support are not adopted. 

Therefore, we will adopt as the implementation schedule for all standards relating to the 

transition to the NITS OASIS template, the schedule included in Standard 

WEQ-002-5.10.3, which we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule and decline 

the requests to add an additional six months for testing and implementation to the 

compliance schedule. Compliance filings for Standard WEQ-002-5.10.3 must be filed by 

[Insert date 16 months after publication of this Final Rule in the Federal Register]. 

This will allow two months between the compliance filing and the compliance date for this 

requirement. As mentioned above, a separate compliance filing on this requirement will 

not be needed if the filer uses the language prescribed in n.145 in its tariff.

95. As to the other requirements of this Final Rule, we will require compliance with the 

requirements of this rule that are not related to the transition to the NITS OASIS template 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 60 -

beginning on February 2, 2015. Compliance filings and all waiver requests, including 

renewal of waiver requests, must be filed by December 1, 2014. Those utilities that want to 

incorporate the complete set of NAESB standards into their tariffs without modification, 

may submit a compliance filing using the following language: “The current versions of the 

NAESB WEQ Business Practice Standards incorporated by reference into the 

Commission’s regulations as specified in Part 38 of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR 

Part 38) are incorporated by reference into this tariff.” This will mean that those public 

utilities that add this provision to their tariffs will not need to make subsequent compliance 

filings in future years to incorporate the standards incorporated by reference by the 

Commission in future rulemakings so long as they continue to abide by all the newly 

incorporated standards. Nor will they need to make a separate tariff filing related to 

Standard WEQ-002.10.5.3.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

96. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11) (Feb. 10, 1998) 

provides that when a federal agency issues or revises a regulation containing a standard, the 

agency should publish a statement in the Final Rule stating whether the adopted standard is 

a voluntary consensus standard or a government-unique standard. In this rulemaking, the 

Commission is incorporating by reference voluntary consensus standards developed by the 

NAESB’s WEQ.

V. Information Collection Statement

97. The following collections of information contained within this Final Rule are 

subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 3507(d) 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 61 -

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB’s regulations require approval of certain 

information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.

98. The Commission solicits comments from the public on the Commission’s need for 

this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the 

burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information 

collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents’ burden,

including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks 

that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by 

sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.

99. Comments concerning the information collection promulgated in this Final Rule 

and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Commission in this docket and 

may also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at the 

following e-mail address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference FERC-516 

(OMB Control No. 1902-0096) and FERC-717 (OMB Control No. 1902-0173) and the 

docket number of this Final Rule (Docket No. RM05-5-022) in your submission.

100. This Final Rule will affect the following existing data collections: Standards for 

Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities (FERC-717) and 

Electric Rate Schedule Filings (FERC-516). The following burden estimate is based on the 

projected costs for the industry to implement revisions to the WEQ Standards currently 

incorporated by reference into the Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR § 38.1 and to 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 62 -

implement the new standards adopted by NAESB that we are incorporating by reference in 

this Final Rule.

RM05-5-022 (Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities)

Number of 

Respondents

(1)

Annual 

Number of 

Responses 

per 

Respondent

(2)

Total 

Number of 

Responses 

(1)*(2)=(3)

Average 

Burden & 

Cost Per 

Response

(4)

Total Annual 

Burden 

Hours & 

Total Annual 

Cost

(3)*(4)=(5)

Average Cost 

per 

Respondent

($)

(5)÷(1)

FERC-516

(one-time)

132 1 132 6

$436

792

$57,552

$436

FERC-717

(one-time)

132 1 132 10

$727

1,320

$95,964

$727

TOTAL 264 2,112

$153,516155

$1,165

101. The Commission sought comments on the burden of complying with the 

requirements imposed by these requirements. No comments were filed addressing the 

reporting burden.156

102. The Commission’s regulations adopted in this rule are necessary to establish a more 

efficient and integrated wholesale electric power grid. Requiring such information ensures 

both a common means of communication and common business practices that provide 

 155 The total annualized costs for the information collection is $153,516. This 

number is reached by multiplying the total hours to prepare responses (2,112) by an 

average hourly wage estimate of $72.67 (a composite estimate that includes legal, 

technical and support staff rates, $128.39 + $60.70 + $28.93 = $218.02 ÷ 3 = $72.67), 

2,112 hours x $72.67/hour = $153,516.

156 We note, however, that two comments argued that it would be too costly for 

small entities to obtain copies of the NAESB Standards from NAESB. We addressed these 

comments in the preamble of this Final Rule.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 63 -

entities engaged in the wholesale transmission of electric power with timely information 

and uniform business procedures across multiple Transmission Providers. These 

requirements conform to the Commission's goal for efficient information collection, 

communication, and management within the electric power industry. The Commission has 

assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for 

the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

103. OMB regulations

157 require OMB to approve certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is submitting notification of this 

Final Rule to OMB. These information collections are mandatory requirements.

Title: Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities 

(formerly Open Access Same Time Information System) (FERC-717); Electric Rate 

Schedule Filings (FERC-516).

Action: Final Rule.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0096 (FERC-516); 1902-0173 (FERC-717).

Respondents: Business or other for profit, (Public Utilities - Not applicable to small 

businesses).

Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business procedures, 

capital/start-up).

 157 5 CFR 1320.11.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 64 -

Necessity of the Information: This rule will upgrade the Commission’s current business 

practice and communication standards. Specifically, these standards include several 

modifications to the existing business practice standards as well as creating new standards 

to provide additional functionality for OASIS transactions, transmission loading relief and 

public key infrastructure. The standards will assist in providing greater security for 

business transactions over the Internet, identify the business practices to be used to relieve 

potential or actual loading on a constrained facility and facilitate the transfer of electric 

energy between entities responsible for balancing load and generation. These practices 

will 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 and will assist the Commission in maintaining a safe and reliable infrastructure and 

also will assure the reliability of the interstate transmission grid. The implementation of 

these standards and regulations is necessary to increase the efficiency of the wholesale 

electric power grid. This Final Rule also informationally lists NAESB’s Smart Grid 

Standards as non-mandatory guidance. This guidance will promote the development of 

new technologies and standards.

104. The information collection requirements of this Final Rule are based on the 

transition from transactions being made under the Commission’s existing business practice 

standards to conducting such transactions under the standards incorporated by reference in 

this Final Rule and to account for the burden associated with the new standard(s) being 

incorporated by reference here (e.g., WEQ-000).
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 65 -

105. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the revised business practice 

standards and has made a determination that the revisions adopted in this Final Rule are 

necessary to maintain consistency between the business practice standards and reliability 

standards on this subject. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal 

review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimate associated with the 

information requirements.

106. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, [Attn: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

e-mail: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873.

VI. Environmental Analysis

107. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment.158 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions 

from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment.159 

The actions adopted here fall within categorical exclusions in the Commission’s 

regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering 

 158 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order 

No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 

1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

159 18 CFR 380.4.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 66 -

analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and transportation of natural gas and 

electric power that requires no construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental 

assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this Final Rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

108. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)160 generally requires a description 

and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As shown in the information collection section, this Final Rule 

applies to 132 entities. More specifically, this Final Rule imposes the latest version 

(Version 003) of the Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for 

Public Utilities adopted by the WEQ and the associated financial burden upon these 

entities. Comparison of the applicable entities with the Commission’s small business data 

indicates that approximately 26 are small entities161 or 19.5 percent of the respondents 

affected by this Final Rule.

 160 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

161 The Small Business Administration sets the threshold for what constitutes a 

small business. Public utilities may fall under one of several different categories, each with 

a size threshold based on the company’s number of employees, including affiliates, the 

parent company, and subsidiaries. For the analysis in this Final Rule, we are using a 500 

employee threshold for each affected entity. Each entity is classified as Electric Bulk 

Power Transmission and Control (NAICS code 221121).
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 67 -

109. The Commission estimates that each of the small entities to whom the Final Rule 

applies will incur one-time costs of $1,163.

162 The Commission does not consider the 

estimated costs per small entity to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Document Availability

110. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business 

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,

DC 20426.

111. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. 

The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format 

for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

112. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s website during normal 

business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, 

 162 $153,516 (total annual cost) ÷ 132 (number of small entities) = $1,163/small 

entity. 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 68 -

TTY (202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

113. These regulations are effective [insert date 30 days from publication in Federal 

Register]. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major 

rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996.

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 2

Electric utilities, Guidance and policy statments.

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 38

Business practice standards, Electric utilities, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

By the Commission.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 69 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 2, 

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 2- GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432, 16 U.S.C. 792-828c, 

2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.

An undesignated center heading is added after section 2.26 to read as follows:

NON-MANDATORY GUIDANCE ON SMART GRID STANDARDS

Section 2.27 is added to read as follows:

§ 2.27 Availability of North American Energy Standards Board Smart Grid 

Standards as Non-Mandatory Guidance.

The Commission informationally lists the following NAESB Business Practices Standards 

as non-mandatory guidance:

(a) WEQ-016, Specifications for Common Electricity Product and Pricing 

Definition, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

(b) WEQ-017, Specifications for Common Schedule Communication 

Mechanism for Energy Transactions, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

(c) WEQ-018, Specifications for Wholesale Standard Demand Response 

Signals, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

(d) WEQ-019, Customer Energy Usage Information Communication , WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012, as amended on March 21, 2013; and

(e) WEQ-020, Smart Grid Standards Data Element Table, WEQ Version 003, 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 70 -

July 31, 2012.

(f) Copies of these standards may be obtained from the North American Energy 

Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX 77002, Tel: (713) 356-0060. 

NAESB's Web site is at http://www.naesb.org/. Copies may be inspected at the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Tel: (202) 502-8371, http://www.ferc.gov.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 38, 

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 38 – BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION 

PROTOCOLS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES

The authority citation for Part 38 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

Revise § 38.1 to read as follows:

§ 38.1 Incorporation by reference of North American Energy Standards Board

Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.

(a) Any public utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the 

transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce or for the sale of electric energy at 

wholesale in interstate commerce and any non-public utility that seeks voluntary 

compliance with jurisdictional transmission tariff reciprocity conditions must comply with 

the business practice and electronic communication standards promulgated by the North 

American Energy Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant that are incorporated by 
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 71 -

reference in paragraph (b) of this section. The material incorporated by reference in this 

section was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards may be obtained from the North 

American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX 

77002, Tel: (713) 356-0060. NAESB's Web site is at http://www.naesb.org/. Copies of 

these standards may be inspected at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public 

Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

Tel: (202) 02-8371, http://www.ferc.gov, or at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202-741-6030, or go to: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(b) The business practice and electronic communication standards the Commission 

incorporates by reference are as follows:

(1) WEQ-000, Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definition of Terms, WEQ Version 003, 

July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);

(2) WEQ-001, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS), OASIS Version 

2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013) 

excluding Standards 001-9.5, 001-10.5, 001-14.1.3, 001-15.1.2 and 001-106.2.5;

(3) WEQ-002, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Business 

Practice Standards and Communication Protocols (S&CP), OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 72 -

(4) WEQ-003, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Data Dictionary 

Business Practice Standards, OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with 

minor corrections applied November 26, 2013);

(5) WEQ-004, Coordinate Interchange, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with Final 

Action ratified December 28, 2012);

(6) WEQ-005, Area Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases, WEQ Version 003, 

July 31, 2012;

(7) WEQ-006, Manual Time Error Correction, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

(8) WEQ-007, Inadvertent Interchange Payback WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

(9) WEQ-008, Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) – Eastern Interconnection, WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections applied November 28, 2012);

(10) WEQ-011, Gas / Electric Coordination, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012;

(11) WEQ-012, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with 

Final Actions ratified on October 4, 2012);

(12) WEQ-013, Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) Implementation 

Guide, OASIS Version 2.0, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012 (with minor corrections 

applied November 26, 2013);

(13) WEQ-015, Measurement and Verification of Wholesale Electricity Demand 

Response, WEQ Version 003, July 31, 2012; and

(14) WEQ-021, Measurement and Verification of Energy Efficiency Products, WEQ 

Version 003, July 31, 2012.
Docket No. RM05-5-022 - 73 -

NOTE: The Following Appendix Will Not Be Published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.

List of Entities Filing Comments on WEQ Version 003 NOPR in Docket No. RM05-5-022, 

and the Abbreviations Used to Identify Them

• Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville)

• Clark Public Utilities (Clark Public Utilities)

• Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy)

• Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

• ISO/RTO Council 

• American Public Power Association, together with Florida Municipal Power 

Agency (APPA)

• Open Access Technology International (OATI)

• PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)

• City of Seattle, City Light Department (Seattle)

• Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County (Snohomish) (reply comments)

• City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities, Light Division (Washington), dba 

Tacoma Power (Tacoma Power)

• Transmission Dependent Utility Systems (TDU Systems)

163

 163 These comments were submitted on behalf of four rural electric generation and 

transmission cooperatives (Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation; Kansas Electric 

Power Cooperative, Inc.; North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation; and Seminole 

Electric Cooperative, Inc.).