UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR parts 35, 37 and 38 

(Docket No. RM05-5-000; Order No. 676) 

Standards for Business Practices and 

Communication Protocols for Public Utilities 

(Issued April 25, 2006) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

ACTION: Final Rule 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations 

under the Federal Power Act to incorporate by reference the following standards 

promulgated by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant of the North American Energy 

Standards Board: Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems 

(OASIS); Business Practices for OASIS Standards and Communication Protocols; 

OASIS Data Dictionary; Coordinate Interchange; Area Control Error (ACE) Equation 

Special Cases; Manual Time Error Correction; and Inadvertent Interchange Payback. 

Incorporating these standards by reference into the Commission’s regulations will 

standardize utility business practices and transactional processes and OASIS procedures. 

DATES: This Final Rule will become effective [insert date that is 30 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.] The incorporation by reference of certain 

standards listed in this Final Rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 

of [insert date that is 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.]. Public 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 ii 

utilities must implement the standards adopted in this Final Rule by July 1, 2006, and 

must file revisions to their open access transmission tariffs (OATTs) to include these 

standards in accordance with the following schedule. On or after June 1, 2006, a public 

utility proposing OATT revisions unrelated to this rule is required to include the 

standards adopted in this Final Rule as part of that filing. (Prior to June 1, 2006, a public 

utility making OATT revisions unrelated to this rule has the option of including the 

standards adopted in this Final Rule as part of that filing.) As the standards adopted in 

this Final Rule must be implemented by July 1, 2006, the OATT revisions filed to 

comply with this rule are to include an effective date of July 1, 2006. Any requests for 

waiver of any of these standards must be filed on or before June 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marvin Rosenberg (technical issues) 

Office of Energy Markets and Reliability 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8292 

Kay Morice (technical issues) 

Office of Energy Markets and Reliability 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6507 

Gary D. Cohen (legal issues) 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 iii

(202) 502-8321 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Standards for Business Practices and 

 Communication Protocols for Public Utilities Docket No. RM05-5-000 

ORDER NO. 676 

FINAL RULE 

Issued: April 25, 2006 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Paragraph Numbers

I. Background .................................................................................................................... 2.

II. Discussion................................................................................................................... 12.

A. Business Practice Standards Complementing NERC Reliability Standards ......... 22.

1. Inadvertent Interchange Payback ........................................................................ 28.

2. Manual Time Error Correction............................................................................ 33.

3. Coordinate Interchange ....................................................................................... 36.

4. Definition of Terms ............................................................................................. 39.

B. OASIS Business Practice Standards ...................................................................... 41.

1. Redirect Standard 001-9.7 .................................................................................. 41.

2. Standard 001-10.6 ............................................................................................... 62.

3. Standard 002-4.2.10.2 and OASIS Data Dictionary ........................................... 66.

4. Standard 002-4.5.................................................................................................. 68.

5. Standards of Conduct ......................................................................................... 72.

C. Applicability, Waivers, and Variances ................................................................... 75.

1. General Principles ............................................................................................... 75.

2. Specific Issues ..................................................................................................... 82.

D. Other Issues ............................................................................................................ 91.

1. Cost Recovery...................................................................................................... 91.

2. Fees for Obtaining NAESB-WEQ Standards ..................................................... 93.

III. Implementation Dates and Procedures .................................................................... 100.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards .................................................. 103.

V. Information Collection Statement ............................................................................ 104.

VI. Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................... 113.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification ................................................................ 114.

VIII. Document Availability ........................................................................................ 117.

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification....................................................... 120.

Appendix - List of Commenters to Standards NOPR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; 

 Nora Mead Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly. 

Standards for Business Practices and 

 Communication Protocols for Public Utilities Docket No. RM05-5-000 

ORDER NO. 676 

FINAL RULE 

(Issued April 25, 2006) 

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

regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA)1

 to incorporate by reference certain 

standards promulgated by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of the North 

American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). These standards establish a set of business 

practice standards and communication protocols for the electric industry that will enable 

industry members to achieve efficiencies by streamlining utility business and 

transactional processes and communication procedures. The standards replace, with 

modifications, the Commission’s existing Business Practice Standards for Open Access 

Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) Transactions and OASIS Standards and 

Communication Protocols and Data Dictionary requirements. In addition, the standards 

include business practices to complement the North American Electric Reliability 

 1

 16 U.S.C. 791a, et seq. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 2 - 

Council’s (NERC) Version 0 reliability standards and ultimately the standards to be

adopted by the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) pursuant to Order Nos. 672 and 

672-A.2

 Adopting these standards will establish a formal ongoing process for reviewing 

and upgrading the Commission’s OASIS standards as well as adopting other electric 

industry business practice standards. 

I. Background

2. When the Commission developed its OASIS regulations, OASIS Standards and 

Communication Protocols, Data Dictionary, and OASIS Business Practice Standards, it 

relied heavily on the assistance provided by all segments of the wholesale electric power 

industry and its customers in the ad hoc working groups that came together and offered 

consensus proposals for the Commission’s consideration.3

 While this process was very 

successful, it became apparent to the Commission that ongoing issues remained that 

would be better addressed by an ongoing industry group dedicated to drafting consensus 

 2

 See 18 CFR Part 39 Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability 

Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of 

Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662 (corrected at 71 FR 11505), 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 (2006), 114 FERC 

¶ 61,328 (2006). 

3

 See Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, 

Order No. 889, 61 FR 21737, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1991-1996 

¶ 31,035 at 31,588-9 (1996), Order No. 889-A, 62 FR 12484, FERC Stats. & Regs., 

Regulations Preambles 1996-2000 ¶ 31,049 at 30,549 (1997). See Open Access SameTime Information System and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 638, 65 FR 17370, FERC 

Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1996–2000 ¶ 31,093 (2000). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 3 - 

industry standards to implement the Commission’s OASIS-related policies as well as to 

complement policies on other industry business practices. 

3. On December 19, 2001, the Commission issued an order asking the wholesale 

electric power industry to develop business practice standards and communication 

protocols by establishing a single consensus, industry-wide standards organization for the 

wholesale electric industry.4

4. Subsequently, in 2002, the Gas Industry Standards Board stepped forward and 

volunteered to play this role by modifying its organization to broaden the scope of its 

activities to address electric power standards. The result of this reorganization has been 

the emergence of NAESB’s WEQ, a non-profit, industry-driven organization working to 

reach consensus on standards to streamline the business practices and transactional 

processes within the wholesale electric industry and proposing and adopting voluntary 

communication standards and model business practices. 

5. 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 five industry 

 4

 See Electricity Market Design and Structure, 97 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2001) 

(December 2001 Order), 99 FERC ¶ 61,171 (2002) (May 2002 Order), reh’g denied, 101 

FERC ¶ 61,297 (December 2002 Order). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 4 - 

segments: transmission, generation, marketer/brokers, distribution/load serving entities, 

and end users.5

6. The Commission also urged the industry to expeditiously establish the procedures 

for ensuring coordination between NERC and NAESB, and requested NAESB and others 

to file an update on the progress on coordination between it and NERC 90 days after the 

formation of the WEQ.6

 In response to the Commission's request, NAESB and NERC 

filed a joint letter, on December 16, 2002, explaining that they had signed a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) “designed to ensure that the development of 

wholesale electric business practices and reliability standards are harmonized and that 

every practicable effort is made to eliminate overlap and duplication of efforts between 

the two organizations.” The MOU describes, among other coordination procedures, the 

establishment of a Joint Interface Committee (JIC) that will review all standards 

development proposals received by either organization and determine which organization 

should be assigned to draft the relevant standards. 

7. On January 18, 2005, NAESB submitted a status report to the Commission 

detailing the WEQ’s activities over the two years since the group’s inception, and 

 5

 Under the WEQ process, for a standard to be approved, it must receive a supermajority vote of 67 percent of the members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with 

support from at least 40 percent of each of the five industry segments. For final approval, 

67 percent of the WEQ's general membership must ratify the standards. 

6

 May 2002 Order at P 22.
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 5 - 

informed the Commission that it had adopted its first set of business practice and 

communication standards for the electric industry (Version 000). NAESB stated that 

these standards, in addition to adopting the Commission’s existing OASIS standards, 

included improvements and revisions to: (1) facilitate the redirection of transmission 

service; (2) address multiple submissions of identical transmission requests/queuing 

issues; (3) address OASIS posting requirements under Order No. 2003 (the Large 

Generator Interconnection rule);7

 and (4) provide non-substantive editing to improve the 

formatting, organization, and clarity of the text. 

8. In its report, NAESB also informed the Commission that the WEQ adopted four 

business practice standards to complement NERC’s Version 0 reliability standards.8

 

NAESB stated that these business practice standards were developed as part of a joint 

effort with NERC in which the JIC divided the existing NERC operating policies into 

 7

 See Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, 

Order No. 2003, 68 FR 49846, 68 FR 69599, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations 

Preambles ¶ 31,146 (2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A, 69 FR 15932, FERC Stats. 

& Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,160 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, 

70 FR 265, FERC Stats & Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,171 (2004), order on 

rehearing, Order No. 2003-C, 70 FR 37661, FERC & Stats. ¶ 31,190 (2005), appeal 

pending sub nom. National Ass’n of Regulatory Commissioners v. FERC, D.C. Cir. 

Nos. 04-1148, et al.

8

 These standards include: Coordinate Interchange; Area Control Error (ACE) 

Equation Special Cases; Manual Time Error Correction; and Inadvertent Interchange 

Payback. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 6 - 

reliability standards for development by NERC and business practices standards for 

development by NAESB. 

9. Further, NAESB stated that the WEQ had adopted business practice standards for 

Standards of Conduct to implement the Commission’s requirements in Order Nos. 2004, 

2004-A, and 2004-B.9

10. In response to NAESB’s report, on May 9, 2005, the Commission issued a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (Standards NOPR)10 that proposed to incorporate by reference 

the following Version 000 standards developed by the WEQ: (1) Business Practices for 

Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS), with the exception of standards 

that duplicate the Commission’s regulations; (2) Business Practices for Open Access 

Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) Standards & Communication Protocols; and 

(3) an OASIS Data Dictionary. The Commission also proposed to incorporate by 

reference the WEQ’s business practice standards on Coordinate Interchange, Area 

 9 Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 2004, 68 FR 69134, 

FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,155 (2003) (Order No. 2004), order on 

reh'g, Order No. 2004-A, 69 FR 23562, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 

¶ 31,161 (2004), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2004-B, 69 FR 48371, FERC 

Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,166 (2004), order on reh'g and clarification, 

Order No. 2004-C, 70 FR 284, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,172 

(2005), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2004-D, 110 FERC ¶ 61,320 (2005), 

appeal pending sub nom. American Gas Association v. FERC, D.C. Cir. No. 04-1178, et 

al. (filed June 9, 2004 and later). 

10 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 70 FR 28222 (May 17, 2005), FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 32,582 (2005). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 7 - 

Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases, Manual Time Error Correction, and 

Inadvertent Interchange Payback. The Commission did not propose to incorporate by 

reference Standard 001-9.7 concerning redirects of transmission service,11 because the 

standard was unclear and could be interpreted to conflict with provisions of the pro forma

open access transmission tariff (OATT).12 The Commission also did not propose to 

incorporate by reference the WEQ’s Standards of Conduct for Electric Transmission 

Providers (WEQ-009) because they duplicate the Commission’s regulations on this 

subject. 

11. Twenty-three comments were filed in response to the Standards NOPR.13 These 

comments raise a number of issues concerning the relationship of the standards to 

reliability standards, the substance of specific standards, and the availability and process 

for obtaining regional variances and waivers of the standards. 

II. Discussion

12. The Commission is pleased that the WEQ has begun the process of developing 

business practice and communication standards for the electric industry. Standardization 

 11 On November 16, 2005, NAESB filed a report notifying the Commission that 

the WEQ business practice standards had been renumbered for ease of reference and to 

ensure the uniqueness of the number, but the text of the standards had not been changed. 

References in this order are to the revised standard numbers. 

12 The Commission did, however, invite comment on this issue. 

13 The Appendix provides a list of the comments received and the abbreviations 

used to refer to individual commenters in this rule. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 8 - 

of business practices and communication processes will benefit the electric industry by 

providing for uniform methods of doing business with different transmission providers. 

Many participants in electric markets conduct business transactions involving a number 

of different transmission providers and establishing a uniform set of procedures and 

communication protocols will help make such transactions more efficient. Moreover, 

having the industry consider business practice standards through a consensus process 

may result in the industry devising ways to improve and make business practices more 

efficient. 

13. The Version 000 standards adopted by the WEQ establish the baseline upon which 

future wholesale electric business practice standards can be built. The WEQ has, for 

example, adopted the existing Commission OASIS standards, but significantly has 

modified these standards to provide customers with greater flexibility. 

14. The WEQ also adopted business practice standards that complement NERC’s 

Version 0 reliability standards. The development of such standards will be of increasing 

importance in the future as the Commission approves reliability standards under the 

recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).14 Business practice and 

reliability standards must complement each other to support an efficient grid. Companies 

need to have means of conducting business that ensure compliance with the reliability 

standards. We, therefore, are pleased NERC and NAESB have developed operating 

 14 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005), 

42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq. See Order Nos. 672 and 672-A. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 9 - 

protocols that synchronize their standards development to provide for efficient and 

coordinated implementation of their respective standards. 

15. In addition, since the electric industry relies heavily on natural gas as a fuel 

source, it is becoming increasingly important for the business practices and 

communication protocols of these industries to work together efficiently. Because 

NAESB develops business practice and communication standards for the wholesale and 

retail natural gas and electric industries, NAESB standards will enable participants in 

these industries to better coordinate their activities and improve their communications.15

16. Nonetheless, while standardization of business practice and communication 

standards will promote efficient transactions, we recognize that different regions may 

conduct business differently and regional variations may be needed. The WEQ standards 

we adopt in this order include standards recognizing such regional differences. Similarly, 

transmission providers use different business models. For example, independent system 

operators (ISOs), regional transmission organizations (RTOs), and traditional vertically 

integrated public utilities conduct business in very different ways, and the WEQ 

standards will need to recognize such differences. 

 15 Indeed, NAESB already has developed business practice standards to enable the 

wholesale gas and electric industries to communicate more effectively. See NAESB 

reports in Docket Nos. RM05-28-000, RM96-1-027, and RM05-5-001, where NAESB 

submitted to the Commission business practice standards it had adopted for the wholesale 

gas and electric industries (filed on June 27 and 28, 2005). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 10 - 

17. A number of parties have raised issues with respect to the applicability of certain 

WEQ standards to specific circumstances. In the future, we would encourage all industry 

participants to raise such issues during the standard development process so that all 

industry segments can determine whether a particular standard should recognize such 

differences. This process may resolve requests before they reach the Commission. Even 

if the request is not satisfactorily resolved by the WEQ, the process will help create a 

record should the requester seek a variance or waiver when the standard is presented to 

the Commission. 

18. We recognize that with respect to the standards being incorporated in this Final 

Rule, parties cannot seek review of their issues at the WEQ prior to implementation. 

Rather than seek to resolve these specific issues in a generic proceeding, we are 

establishing a process for those parties to file requests for waiver with respect to 

particular standards prior to implementation of this Final Rule. 

19. The specific standards developed by the WEQ that we are incorporating by 

reference in this Final Rule are as follows: 

Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems 

(OASIS) (WEQ-001, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor 

corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added 

October 3, 2005) including Standards 001-0.2 through 001-0.8, 001-2.0 

through 001-9.6.2, 001-9.8 through 001-10.8.6, and Examples 001-8.3-A, 

001-9.2-A, 001-10.2-A, 001-9.3-A, 001-10.3-A, 001-9.4.1-A, 

001-10.4.1-A, 001-9.4.2-A, 001-10.4.2-A, 001-9.5-A, 001-10.5-A, 

001-9.5.1-A, and 001-10.5.1-A; 

Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems 

(OASIS) Standards & Communication Protocols (WEQ-002, Version 000, 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 11 - 

January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and 

additional numbering added October 3, 2005) including Standards 002-1 

through 002-5.10; 

Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) Data Dictionary 

(WEQ-003, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied 

on March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 2005) 

including Standard 003-0; 

Coordinate Interchange (WEQ-004, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with 

minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional numbering 

added October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, and Standards 

004-0 through 004-13, and 004-A through 004-D; 

Area Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases Standards (WEQ-005, 

Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied on March 

25, 2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 2005) including 

Purpose, Applicability, and Standards 005-0 through 005-3.1.3, and 005-A; 

Manual Time Error Correction (WEQ-006, Version 000, January 15, 2005, 

with minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional 

numbering added October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, and 

Standards 006-0 through 006-12; and 

Inadvertent Interchange Payback (WEQ-007, Version 000, January 15, 

2005, with minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional 

numbering added October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, and 

Standards 007-0 through 007-2, and 007-A. 

20. The Commission will also require public utilities to modify their OATTs to 

include the WEQ standards that we are incorporating by reference, the next time they 

make any unrelated filing to revise their OATTs. We also clarify that, to the extent that a 

public utility’s OASIS obligations are administered by an ISO or RTO and are not 

covered in its OATT, the public utility will not need to modify its OATT to meet these 

particular requirements. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 12 - 

21. We will address below the issues raised in the comments on the standards. 

A. Business Practice Standards Complementing NERC Reliability 

Standards 

22. As explained above, when NAESB's WEQ was formed, NERC and NAESB 

signed an MOU that set up the JIC.16 The MOU was subsequently amended to include 

participation by the ISO/RTO Council.17 Among other duties, the JIC determines 

whether a proposed standard is a reliability standard to be developed by NERC or is a 

business practice standard to be developed by NAESB. 

23. The JIC unanimously approved the drafting committee’s determination that certain 

standards be developed as business practice standards by NAESB. Among them were: 

Coordinate Interchange; ACE Equation Special Cases; Manual Time Error Correction; 

and Inadvertent Interchange Payback.18 These standards previously had been part of 

NERC’s policy statements, which included both reliability and commercial components. 

The translation of the reliability and commercial components of the existing NERC 

 16 Memorandum of Understanding between North American Energy Standards 

Board and North American Electric Reliability Council, dated November 30, 2002 and 

filed in Docket No. RM01-12 on December 16, 2002. 

17 The ISO/RTO Council is comprised of the nine ISOs and RTOs in North 

America, including: Alberta Electric System Operator; California Independent System 

Operator Corporation; the Independent Electricity System of Ontario; ISO New England, 

Inc.; Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; New York Independent 

System Operator, Inc.; PJM Interconnection, LLC; the Electric Reliability Council of 

Texas (ERCOT); and the Southwest Power Pool. 

18 See NAESB Report on WEQ Business Practices, filed with the Commission on 

January 18, 2005, at 25-26. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 13 - 

policy statements into standards resulted in the NERC Version 0 reliability standards 

dealing with the reliability component and the complementary WEQ Version 000 

business practice standards dealing with the commercial component. Any changes that 

were required to bring the standards up to date were to be made in subsequent Version 1 

standards.19

Comments

24. NERC and other commenters20 supporting NERC’s position, requested that the 

Commission defer action on three of the WEQ standards designed to complement 

NERC's Version 0 reliability standards, so that these standards could be developed as 

reliability standards by NERC.21 Other commenters expressed confidence that NERC 

and NAESB could resolve any differences.22

25. Subsequently, NERC and NAESB have resolved this issue. In comments filed on 

February 21, 2006, by NERC and on February 17, 2006 by NAESB, they report that 

NERC is withdrawing its request to the Commission to defer action on the three 

standards, and NERC states that the three standards complement and are consistent with 

 19 Id. at 2. 

20 Bonneville, CAISO, EEI, ISO/RTO Council, LADWP, Midwest ISO, NY 

Transmission Owners, and Southern Companies. 

21 ACE Equation Special Cases, Manual Time Error Correction, and Inadvertent 

Interchange Payback standards. 

22 EEI, FirstEnergy, and Exelon. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 14 - 

the existing NERC Version 0 reliability standards.23 In addition, NERC and NAESB 

inform the Commission that they are in the process of finalizing new procedures for 

coordinating the development of standards in areas that affect both reliability and 

business practices. The new approach will allow reliability standards to be developed 

under the NERC process and business practices to be developed under the NAESB 

process, while the actual development work will be done by a joint team sponsored by 

NERC and NAESB. 

Commission Conclusion

26. The Commission is pleased that NERC and NAESB have reached agreement on 

how to deal with the three standards 24 and commends their efforts to develop an 

improved process for standards development. The Commission agrees that appropriate 

classification of standards between reliability and business practices is important, because 

the statutory procedures under which the Commission adopts business practice and 

reliability standards differ significantly. An improved process by NERC and NAESB for 

standards development should form a firm foundation for ensuring that standards in these 

two important areas are properly developed, classified, and coordinated so that the grid 

 23 NERC Supplementary Comments at 1. 

24 The three standards are: Area Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases, 

Manual Time Error Correction, and Inadvertent Interchange Payback. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 15 - 

can run efficiently. We look forward to hearing that the parties have finalized their 

process. 

27. The Commission incorporates by reference the four NAESB standards 

complementing NERC reliability standards: Coordinate Interchange, Area Control Error 

(ACE) Equation Special Cases, Manual Time Error Correction, and Inadvertent 

Interchange Payback. We address below issues raised in comments with respect to some 

of the standards. 

1. Inadvertent Interchange Payback

28. The Inadvertent Interchange Payback standards define the methods by which 

energy imbalances between Balancing Authorities can be repaid. Inadvertent Interchange 

occurs when a Balancing Authority is not able to fully balance generation and load within 

its area. The standards permit Balancing Authorities to repay imbalances though bilateral 

in-kind payback, unilateral in-kind payback, or “other payback methods,” e.g., through 

financial payments. 

Comments

29. In its February 17, 2006 comments, NAESB informs the Commission that based 

on the report of its Inadvertent Interchange Payback Task Force (Task Force), it does not 

recommend any additional changes to the commercial business practices for inadvertent 

interchange payback at this time. The Task Force report recognized that significant effort 

was expended by NAESB and its member organizations to develop an Inadvertent 

Interchange settlement standard that would mitigate the potential financial gain that 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 16 - 

misuse of the payback-in-kind methodology might create. However, a majority of the 

Task Force members determined that, at this time, no consensus regarding any proposed 

solutions considered by the task force could gain approval. Each of the proposed 

solutions considered had one or more significant implementation hurdles to overcome, 

including but not limited to: data acquisition and integrity; pricing; credit; funding; and 

100 percent participation of the affected interconnection. 

30. TAPS claims that the proposed business practice continues the current practice of 

“return-in-kind” payment for inadvertent energy exchange between Balancing 

Authorities/control areas, while non-control areas remain subject to a $100/MWh charge 

for energy imbalance. TAPS argues that this treatment of non-control areas is 

discriminatory compared to the treatment of control area imbalances.25 

Commission Conclusion

31. We are adopting the WEQ business practice standards (Standard WEQ-007) 

because they follow a long-standing industry practice for repaying imbalances between 

Balancing Authorities. TAPS does not claim that return-in-kind payback should not be 

used by Balancing Authorities/control area; it contends only that it is discriminatory to 

limit this approach to Balancing Authorities. TAPS has raised the same issue in the 

Commission’s rulemaking in RM05-25-000, where the Commission has issued a notice 

of inquiry to consider reforms to the Order No. 888 pro forma OATT and the OATTs of 

 25 TAPS at 3-4. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 17 - 

public utilities.26 We find the issue of whether non-control areas should be allowed inkind payback, as raised by TAPS, is more appropriately considered in the rulemaking in 

RM05-25-000, and we will address it there. 

32. We are concerned that, as reported by NAESB, the existing Inadvertent 

Interchange Payback standards are susceptible to abuse for financial gain, particularly if 

such abuse can lead Balancing Authorities to create imbalances that may jeopardize 

reliability. We urge NERC and NAESB to continue to work cooperatively to revise these 

standards to ensure that Inadvertent Interchange Payback cannot be abused and that 

reliability is not jeopardized by such actions. We emphasize that these standards refer 

only to inadvertent interchange, not to advertent actions, and that the Commission does 

not condone abusive actions taken by any party. The Commission retains authority under 

section 206 of the FPA to take actions in the event of such abuse.27

2. Manual Time Error Correction

33. The Manual Time Error Correction standards specify the procedure to be used for 

reducing a time error. The need for manual time error correction stems from the inability 

of Balancing Authorities to perfectly balance generation and load. The frequency of the 

Interconnection is normally scheduled to 60.00 Hz and Balancing Authorities attempt to 

 26 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Services, 

Notice of Inquiry, 70 FR 55796 (2005). 

27 Southern California Edison Co. v. FERC, 172 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 18 - 

balance generation and load in order to meet this objective. However, the balancing 

function is imperfect and over time the frequency will average slightly above or below 

60.00 Hz resulting in mechanical electric clocks developing an error relative to true 

time.28 

Comments

34. Bonneville and EEI claim that the chart on the second page of the Manual Time 

Error Correction standards (Standard 006-5) does not reflect a NERC waiver setting the 

Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) initiation of manual time error as plus 

or minus five seconds instead of two seconds.29

Commission Conclusion

35. We will accept the WEQ’s Manual Time Error standard (Standard WEQ-006). As 

to the concerns raised by the commenters, the waiver expired on February 8, 2004.30 If a 

different timing requirement is needed by the WECC, the WECC or its members may 

seek such a change from the WEQ and, while that change is pending, request a waiver 

 28 True time refers to the time maintained by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado. 

29 Bonneville at 7 and EEI at 4. 

30 See NERC Operating Committee letter issued on August 8, 2003 granting a 

waiver request on Western Interconnection thresholds to initiate manual corrections for 

time error.
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 19 - 

from the Commission allowing deviations from the requirements of the chart in Standard 

006-5 in appropriate circumstances. 

3. Coordinate Interchange

36. The Coordinate Interchange standards define procedures for market participants to 

request implementation of transactions crossing one or more Balancing Authority 

boundaries. 

Comment

37. The ISO/RTO Council states that Appendix A of the Coordinate Interchange 

standards (Standard 004-A), dealing with interchange transactions from the Eastern 

Interconnection through the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) to ERCOT, is out of date. 

The ISO/RTO Council states that certain provisions of SPP’s tariff recently have been 

changed and the Coordinate Interchange standards should be revised accordingly. 

Commission Conclusion

38. We expect that, given the ever changing nature of the industry, the WEQ will 

revise its standards when appropriate.31 In fact, the WEQ is already in the process of 

 31 See Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines; Order 

No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (Jul. 26, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 

¶ 31,038, at 30,060 (Jul. 17, 1996) (“standards development is not like a sculptor forever 

casting his creation in bronze, but like a jazz musician who takes a theme and constantly 

revises, enhances, and reworks it”). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 20 - 

revising the Coordinate Interchange standards, including Appendix A.32 We encourage 

the ISO/RTO Council to participate in the development of revised standards. In the 

meantime, we will accept the WEQ’s Coordinate Interchange standards (Standard WEQ004). The ISO/RTO Council, or its members, may request a waiver allowing deviations 

from the requirements of Appendix A in appropriate circumstances.

4. Definition of Terms

Comments

39. The ISO/RTO Council reports that the four NAESB standards define terms 

somewhat differently from the NERC definitions. The ISO/RTO Council would have 

NERC define reliability terms and NAESB use these definitions. In support of its 

argument, the ISO/RTO Council argues that operators should not have to understand 

more than one definition of the same item.33

Commission Conclusion

40. While we will accept the definitions associated with the four existing standards 

complementing NERC's Version 0 reliability standards so that these standards can be 

implemented, we agree with the ISO/RTO Council that in the future there should be a 

single definition of reliability terms. It is appropriate that NERC take the lead on 

 32 See WEQ request for comments at 

http://www.naesb.org/pdf2/weq_cibp010506req_com.doc . 

33 IRC at 12-13. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 21 - 

defining these terms, as they are reliability-related, and that these same definitions be 

used by the WEQ in its standards. In future versions of the standards, NAESB should use 

the NERC definitions relating to reliability. 

B. OASIS Business Practice Standards 

1. Redirect Standard 001-9.7 

41. The WEQ adopted standards intended to facilitate the redirect of transmission 

services. In the Standards NOPR, the Commission expressed concerns, and requested 

comment, about Standard 001-9.7 in relation to the policies the Commission has adopted 

in the pro forma OATT. Standard 001-9.7 states: 

42. Unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the primary provider and original 

customer, a request for Redirect on a Firm basis does not impact the [Transmission 

Customer’s] long term firm renewal rights (e.g., rollover or evergreen rights) on the 

original path, nor does it confer any renewal rights on the redirected path. 

43. In the Standards NOPR, the Commission expressed concern about how to interpret 

this standard in light of the rollover rights as defined in the pro forma OATT. The 

Commission requested comment on whether, if it determines that this standard is in 

conflict with its policies, there is an immediate need for a standard on this issue or 

whether the Commission can wait for the WEQ to reconsider this issue and develop 

alternate language. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 22 - 

Comments

44. NAESB states that, during the deliberations on Standard 001-9.7, there was a 

concern that in some instances a transmission customer may wish to retain all rollover 

rights under an existing service agreement yet still request service over alternate points of 

receipt or delivery. Because of these issues, the WEQ determined that there may be 

circumstances with respect to redirects on a firm basis where the parties may mutually 

agree as to the disposition of rollover rights. NAESB states that it will develop alternate 

language, if the Commission determines that this standard conflicts with its policy.34

45. Bonneville asserts that Standard 001-9.7 can be read in harmony with the 

pro forma OATT and urges the Commission to adopt Standard 001-9.7 with one 

suggested modification. According to Bonneville, the Commission has stated that the 

redirect requestor retains the reservation priority rights afforded by section 2.2 of the 

pro forma OATT on the parent (or original) path. In the Standards NOPR, Bonneville 

contends, the Commission has suggested that the redirect requestor holds section 2.2 

rights on both the parent path and the redirect path. Bonneville argues that, if this is 

allowed, a redirect requestor could encumber the future available transmission capability 

(ATC) of two paths for the price of one. It argues that the practical impact of requiring 

section 2.2 rights on both paths is that firm redirects will not be granted. Bonneville 

agrees with NAESB that rollover should not be given to the redirect request. However, 

 34 NAESB at 1-2. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 23 - 

Bonneville would create an exception when a long-term firm redirect reservation 

terminates when the service agreement terminates. Then Bonneville recommends 

moving the reservation priority from the original request path to the redirect request path 

and initiating a contract amendment for this type of redirect, thus allowing for contract 

modification on a firm basis with all the rights that flow with the service agreement. 

Bonneville contends that this approach will allow the redirect requestor to choose which 

path it values most, releasing the other path to new entrants.35

46. Southern Companies contends that a request by a transmission customer to 

redirect service on a firm basis does not change that customer’s rollover rights on the 

original path and does not confer rollover rights on the redirected path. However, 

Southern Companies argues that transmission providers and transmission customers 

should have the ability to mutually agree to change the rollover rights from the original 

path to the redirected path if both parties find this beneficial. Southern Companies 

believes that Standard 001-9.7 allows for this flexibility.36

47. On the other hand, Cinergy shares the Commission’s concern in the Standards 

NOPR that Standard 001-9.7 does not appear to be consistent with the pro forma OATT. 

Accordingly, Cinergy does not support its adoption. Cinergy contends that requests for 

redirect transmission service should be treated as a new transmission service request and 

 35 Bonneville at 2-5. 

36 Southern Companies at 1-2. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 24 - 

the customer should be able to indicate whether any rollover rights are requested on the 

new path. If the remaining term of service on the original path with long-term firm rights 

is requested on the redirected path, the customer should be able to request rollover rights 

on the redirected path at the time of the request. If the redirected request is approved, the 

rollover rights on the existing path should terminate for the amount of service being 

redirected on a long-term firm basis.37

48. Likewise, Exelon argues that Standard 001-9.7 not be adopted for the reasons 

stated in the Standards NOPR. In Exelon’s view, Standard 001-9.7 would permit a 

customer to relinquish rollover rights, contrary to the Commission’s policy that 

transmission customers should not be permitted to contract away rollover rights because 

transmission owners could unfairly induce customers to give up their rollover rights. 

49. Exelon also opposes adoption of Standard 001-9.7 because it would change the 

present Commission policy that allows rollover rights on a redirect of transmission. 

Exelon interprets Standard 001-9.7 to provide that a customer who is granted 

transmission on a new path would have to forego rollover rights on that new path. 

Exelon agrees with the Commission that rollover rights should be transferred to the new 

path. Exelon also states that Standard 001-9.7 begs the question of what would be the 

effect of a “request” for redirected service. Exelon believes that acceptance and 

 37 Cinergy at 3-4. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 25 - 

confirmation by the transmission provider are necessary to grant the right for redirected 

service, but Standard 001-9.7 does not make that clear.38

50. The Midwest ISO believes that there is no immediate need to change the 

Commission’s policy on redirect service and rollover rights and that the WEQ should be 

given a further opportunity to discuss with the industry any departure from the 

Commission’s policy on rollover rights.39

Commission Conclusion

51. Standard 001-9.7 does not specify clearly the parties’ responsibilities with respect 

to the ability of a customer requesting a firm redirect to obtain rollover rights on the 

redirect path.40 Under section 22.2 of the pro forma OATT, a request for a firm redirect 

is like a request for new transmission service. The transmission provider, therefore, is 

required to offer rollover rights to a customer requesting a firm redirect if rollover rights 

are available on the redirect path. However, the transmission provider may not 

operationally be able to offer rollover rights on the requested redirect path due to 

reasonably forecasted native load needs for the transmission capacity. 

 38 Exelon at 2-3. 

39 Midwest ISO at 3-4. 

40 Standard 001-9.7 appears consistent with section 22.2 of the existing pro forma

OATT insofar as it provides that a customer requesting a firm redirect does not relinquish 

its rollover rights over its primary path simply by making the request. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 26 - 

52. Standard 001-9.7 provides that “unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the 

primary provider and original customer, a request for a Redirect on a Firm basis ... [does 

not] confer any renewal rights on the redirect path.” (Emphasis added). This phrase 

could be interpreted to mean that the parties to an agreement may mutually agree to 

eliminate rollover rights and that a transmission provider may agree, but is not obligated, 

to offer rollover rights on the redirect path even when such rights are available. These 

provisions are inconsistent with the pro forma OATT and the Commission’s policies. In 

addition, the last phrase of the standard also conflicts with the last sentence of section 

22.2 of the pro forma OATT, which is limited to the period while the new request for 

service is pending. Therefore, we will not adopt Standard 001-9.7 at this time, but will 

allow the WEQ to reconsider the standard and to adopt a revised standard consistent with 

the Commission’s policies. 

53. The comments on this issue show that there is confusion in the industry regarding 

the provisions of sections 22.1 and 22.2 of the pro forma OATT. To assist the WEQ in 

developing a standard that is consistent with the Commission’s policy, we offer the 

following guidance. 

54. Section 22 of the pro forma OATT addresses changes in service specifications. 

Section 22.1 pertains to modifications on a non-firm basis and section 22.2 covers 

modifications on a firm basis. Under section 22.1, a firm point-to-point transmission 

customer may request non-firm transmission service at secondary receipt and delivery 

points (points other than those specified in the service agreement). Section 22.1(c) 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 27 - 

provides that the transmission customer shall retain its right to schedule firm point-topoint transmission service at the receipt and delivery points specified in its relevant 

service agreement in the amount of its original capacity reservation. 

55. Under section 22.2, any request by a transmission customer to modify receipt and 

delivery points on a firm basis is treated as a new request for service. This section also 

provides that, “[w]hile such new request is pending, the Transmission Customer shall 

retain its priority for service at the existing firm Receipt and Delivery Points specified in 

its Service Agreement” (emphasis added). Once the new request is accepted and 

confirmed, the transmission customer loses all rights to the original receipt and delivery 

points, including rollover rights associated with the original path. 

56. Bonneville asserts that the Commission has stated that the redirect requestor 

retains section 2.2 reservation priority rights on its original path. 41 Under section 22.1(c), 

which pertains to redirects on a non-firm basis, the transmission customer retains its right 

to schedule firm point-to-point service on its original path. This means that the 

transmission customer retains its original rights on its original path including its rollover 

 41 As explained in the notice of inquiry in Docket No. RM05-25-000, 70 FR 

55796, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,553 at P 18 (2005), section 2.2 of the pro forma OATT 

(Reservation Priority for Existing Firm Service Customers) provides that “existing firm 

service customers (wholesale requirements and transmission-only, with a contract term of 

one-year or more) have the right to continue to take transmission service from the public 

utility transmission provider when the contract expires, rolls over or is renewed. It 

specifically provides that this transmission reservation priority is independent of whether 

the existing customer continues to purchase capacity and energy from the public utility 

transmission provider or elects to purchase capacity and energy from another supplier.” 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 28 - 

rights on its original path and the requestor does not obtain new rollover rights on the 

redirected path. However, there is no similar provision in section 22.2 for redirects on a 

firm basis.42

57. Southern Companies argues that a request by a transmission customer to redirect 

service on a firm basis cannot change that customer’s rollover rights on the original path 

and does not confer rollover rights on the redirected path. We disagree. 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. In addition, at the time the transmission customer’s request for the redirected 

capacity is accepted and confirmed, the transmission customer loses all rights to the 

original receipt and delivery points, including rollover rights associated with the original 

path. 

58. As part of its process of review, NAESB identified several questions that were 

raised regarding rollover rights under the pro forma OATT during members’ 

 42 Bonneville at 2. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 29 - 

deliberations on Standard 001-9.7. These questions generally raised issues with respect 

to whether customers retain rollover rights on both the original and the redirected path. 

59. A long-term firm transmission customer may request multiple, successive redirects 

and, as provided in section 22.2 of the pro forma OATT, each such successive request is 

treated as a new request for service in accordance with section 17 of the pro forma

OATT. As a new request for service, each request is subject to the availability of 

capacity and subject to the possibility that the transmission provider may not be able to 

provide rollover rights on the new, redirected path. For example, assume a transmission 

customer with a one-year agreement for service between points A and B. If the 

transmission customer seeks to redirect on a firm basis in month 4 to points C to D and 

then redirect back to points A to B thereafter, at the end of the one year agreement the 

transmission customer would have rollover rights only with respect to points A to B.43 

With the same assumptions, if the transmission customer begins with points A to B, but 

redirects in month 4 to points C to D for the remainder of the one-year agreement, the 

transmission customer would have rollover rights only with respect to points C to D. If 

the transmission provider is unable to provide rollover rights on any redirected path, 

whether to points C to D or, thereafter, to points A to B, it would have to demonstrate at 

 43 The Commission assumes that a transmission customer would make the two 

requests to redirect to points C to D and then back to points A to B at the same time. 

Otherwise, the transmission customer would put itself at risk of not being able to redirect 

back to points A to B because of an intervening request for transmission service. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 30 - 

the time of the redirect request that it has native load growth or contracts that commence 

in the future that prevent it from providing rollover rights.44

60. If a transmission provider claims, either at the time of the original transmission 

request or at the time of a redirect request, that it is unable to provide rollover rights 

because it has native load growth or a contract that commences in the future, it must still 

offer transmission service for the time preceding the native load growth or 

commencement of the future contract. As explained above, however, it may limit 

rollover rights based on native load growth or contracts that commence in the future. 

61. Further, if a transmission customer with a long-term firm transmission agreement 

requests to redirect on a firm basis for one month and then redirect on a firm basis back to 

its original receipt and delivery points for the remainder of the term of the agreement, 

such requests do not convert its existing long-term firm transmission service agreement 

into separate short-term transmission service agreements.45 Under this scenario, the 

transmission customer has rollover rights for the original receipt and delivery points, 

because those are the points to which it has rights at the end of the agreement. 

 44 See, e.g., Tenaska Power Services Co. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 99 FERC 

61,344 (2002), reh’g denied, 102 FERC ¶ 61,140 at P 33, 38 (2003); Nevada Power 

Company, 97 FERC ¶ 61,324, at 62,492 (2001). 

45 See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co., 95 FERC ¶ 61,027 (2001). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 31 - 

2. Standard 001-10.6 

62. Standard 001-10.6 states: 

For the purposes of curtailment and other capacity reductions, confirmed 

Redirects on a Non-Firm basis shall be treated comparably to all other types 

of Non-Firm Secondary Point-to-Point Service. 

63. In this standard, the phrase “all other types” is not defined. In the Standards 

NOPR, the Commission interpreted this phrase to apply only to services that are 

comparable to non-firm secondary point-to-point service, proposed to accept the standard 

based on this interpretation, and invited comments on this interpretation. 

Comments 

64. Cinergy, the Midwest ISO and NAESB support the Commission’s interpretation 

of Standard 001-10.6 in the Standards NOPR. Cinergy also proposes that the WEQ 

consider revising the standard to read as follows: 

For the purposes of curtailment and other capacity reductions, confirmed Redirects 

on a Non-Firm basis shall be treated comparably to other Non-Firm Secondary 

Point-to-Point Service.[46]

Commission Conclusion

65. Since there is no disagreement with the Commission’s interpretation of Standard 

001-10.6 in the Standards NOPR, we will adopt this standard as proposed. We will allow 

the WEQ to determine whether this standard would be clearer if revised as Cinergy 

proposes. 

 46 Cinergy at 4-5. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 32 - 

3. Standard 002-4.2.10.2 and OASIS Data Dictionary

Comments

66. Bonneville states that the Commission’s current OASIS Standards and 

Communication Protocols and OASIS Data Dictionary and the NAESB WEQ version of 

those documents contain some definition discrepancies, most likely due to editing errors 

during the reformatting process. It proposes four minor technical revisions to Standard 

002-4.2.10.2, Status Value, for the status values for COUNTEROFFER, DECLINED, 

DISPLACED and REFUSED. In addition, Bonneville suggests that a data element 

“ANNULLED” be added to the OASIS Data Dictionary and that it be defined as 

“assigned by Provider or Seller when, by mutual agreement with the Customer, a 

confirmed reservation is to be voided (Final State).”47

Commission Conclusion

67. Bonneville’s request for the four technical revisions is moot. On March 25, 2005, 

the WEQ made the requested minor revisions to its January 15, 2005 standards. As to 

Bonneville’s suggestion that a data element “ANNULLED” be added to the OASIS Data 

Dictionary, this definition is included in Standard 002-4.2.10.2, but is not currently 

included in the Commission’s Data Dictionary. If Bonneville wishes to have this 

definition included in the OASIS Data Dictionary, it may submit a request to the WEQ to 

make such a change. In that way, the requested change will receive consideration by all 

 47 Bonneville at 5-6. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 33 - 

industry segments before it is approved. If approved, the Commission will then have the 

opportunity to incorporate the change by reference in its regulations when the WEQ 

reports the next version of its standards to the Commission. 

4. Standard 002-4.5

Comments

68. Bonneville and the ISO/RTO Council raise concerns about Standard 002-4.5, 

Information Supported by Web Page, which states: 

When a regulatory order requires informational postings on OASIS and 

there is no OASIS [Standards and Communication Protocols] template to 

support the postings or it is deemed inappropriate to use a template, there 

shall be a reference in INFO.HTM to the required information, including, 

but not limited to, references to the following ... 

For the purposes of this section, any link to required informational postings 

that can be accessed from INFO.HTM would be considered to have met the 

OASIS posting requirements, provided that the linked information meets all 

other OASIS accessibility requirements. 

69. Bonneville contends that this standard requires the exclusive use of INFO.HTM. 

It argues that as long as postings are logically organized, user friendly and transparent to 

all users, exclusive use of INFO.HTM should not be mandated to provide links to the 

required informational postings.48

70. The ISO/RTO Council recommends that the Commission consider revising the 

standard to allow the information defined in Standard 002-4.5 to be posted on either the 

OASIS Main/Home page (as customers are accustomed to that posting) or INFO.HTM – 

 48 Id. at 5. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 34 - 

rather than prescribing that they all must be on INFO.HTM. The ISO/RTO Council 

contends that very few OASIS sites use an INFO.HTM page. Thus, enforcing this 

requirement would be a new practice and would add confusion to the finding of such 

information, and may create duplicate links to the same information that would only lead 

to further confusion.49

Commission Conclusion

71. We do not interpret Standard 002-4.5 to mandate the exclusive use of INFO.HTM 

to provide links to required informational postings. While this standard requires certain 

information to be made available through a link from INFO.HTM, this does not preclude 

the posting of the same information elsewhere on OASIS, such as on the main or home 

page, as the ISO/RTO Council suggests, or, as Bonneville suggests, in a manner that is 

logically organized, user friendly and transparent to all users. Requiring informational 

postings to be available through a link from INFO.HTM provides for standardization and 

helps new users find the required information. At the same time, permitting links from 

other areas of OASIS allows flexibility. 

5. Standards of Conduct 

72. In the Standards NOPR, the Commission declined to propose adopting the WEQ’s 

Standards of Conduct for Electric Transmission Providers (WEQ-009) because they 

duplicate, with some problematic revisions, the Commission’s existing regulations 

 49 ISO/RTO Council at 9. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 35 - 

codifying the Standards of Conduct, rather than implementing these standards.50 In 

addition, the Commission stated that “it would be useful if the WEQ would adopt 

standards comparable to those NAESB adopted regarding standards of conduct on the gas 

side.”51

Comments

73. APPA supported the Commission’s proposal in the Standards NOPR not to 

incorporate duplicative standards.52 NAESB stated that it would review the wholesale 

gas quadrant standards of conduct to prepare comparable standards for the wholesale 

electric quadrant which would amend the WEQ standards.53

Commission Conclusion

74. We will not incorporate by reference the WEQ’s Standards of Conduct for Electric 

Transmission Providers (WEQ-009) since they duplicate the Commission’s regulations. 

As explained above, the WEQ has offered to revise its standards of conduct to implement 

the Commission’s standard of conduct regulations, rather than duplicate them. We look 

forward to reviewing this work product when it is completed. 

 50 See 18 CFR 358.1-358.5. 

51 Standards NOPR at P 47. 

52 APPA at 2-3. 

53 NAESB at 1-2. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 36 - 

C. Applicability, Waivers, and Variances

1. General Principles

75. The Commission proposed in the Standards NOPR to incorporate by reference in 

its regulations most of the standards adopted by the WEQ and to require that all public 

utilities revise their OATTs to include these standards. Some commenters question the 

applicability of the standards or possible waiver of the standards. These commenters 

raise issues concerning: (1) possible variances for regional practices that may be 

inconsistent with the national standards; (2) waivers of certain standards for small entities 

or for ISOs and RTOs; and (3) whether non-public utilities (including Canadian entities) 

that participate in the wholesale electric power market can generally meet the open access 

reciprocity requirement established in Order Nos. 88854 and 889 without complying with 

these standards and whether they may apply for waivers of particular standards on a caseby-case basis. 

76. The Commission recognizes, as it did in Order Nos. 888 and 889, that there is a 

need for regional variances and waivers. Certain regions may conduct business 

 54 See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access NonDiscriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by 

Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540, FERC Stats. & 

Regs., Regulations Preambles 1991-1996 ¶ 31,036 at 31,691 (1996), order on reh'g, 

Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1996-2000 

¶ 31048 (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. 2002), aff'd 

sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 37 - 

differently than other regions. The current WEQ standards recognize this. We also 

recognize that ISOs and RTOs operate using a business model for making transmission 

reservations to which certain OASIS and other standards may not be applicable. 

77. In implementing the OASIS standards, the Commission has sought to determine 

whether compliance with a standard should be required of all public utilities or whether 

waivers or variances of those standards should be allowed. In some cases, the 

Commission has insisted on uniform national standards. For example, the Commission 

has required ISOs and RTOs to comply with naming standards for paths into, through and 

out of their territory, in order to facilitate moving power across the grid.55

78. Now that the WEQ is developing these standards, we prefer that initially all 

regional and other generic requests for variances, such as to accommodate different 

business models, be raised during the WEQ standards development process, and we 

encourage participation by all interested persons in that process.56 The standards adopted 

by the WEQ recognize the need, in specific circumstances, for regional differences to be 

 55 See New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 94 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2001). 

56 NAESB has recognized the need for standards reflecting different business 

models. In developing standards for pipeline nominations, for example, NAESB 

recognized that pipelines used three different models for nominations, and it developed 

standards to fit each model. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 38 - 

recognized in a national standard.57 Having the WEQ consider requests for regional 

differences to be reflected in a specific business practice standard will allow all industry 

segments, at the outset, to determine whether the standard should recognize such 

differences. By first submitting the request to the WEQ during development of the 

standard, the request may be resolved during the WEQ process. Even if the request is not 

resolved by the WEQ, the process will help create a record should the requester seek a 

variance or waiver when the standard is presented to the Commission. 

79. We recognize that with respect to the standards being incorporated in this rule, 

some commenters request specific waivers or variances of certain of the WEQ standards 

and they cannot seek review of their issues at the WEQ prior to implementation. We do 

not have a sufficient record to resolve such issues in this proceeding. Therefore, we will 

require each public utility that wants a waiver of any standard we are incorporating by 

reference in this Final Rule to file a request for waiver. In its request for waiver the 

public utility should explain that it is seeking the waiver under this Final Rule, citing the 

caption and docket number of this proceeding, and should identify the specific 

standard(s) for which it requests waiver and make its arguments as to why the waiver 

should be granted. Utilities, including ISOs and RTOs, that have existing waivers of 

certain OASIS standards may reapply for such waivers using the following simplified 

 57 For example, the WEQ’s standards on Coordinate Interchange, Manual Time 

Error Correction, and Inadvertent Interchange Payback each recognize regional 

differences. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 39 - 

procedures. They should identify the specific standards from which they are seeking 

waivers and provide the caption, date and docket number of the proceeding in which they 

received the waiver and of this Final Rule and must certify that the circumstances 

warranting such waivers have not changed. Requests for waivers must be filed on or 

before June 1, 2006. 

80. Moreover, the exemptions previously granted by the Commission will not be 

expanded to apply to the new WEQ OASIS standards dealing with redirects and multiple 

requests because it is not clear, at this point, that all public utilities that previously 

obtained waivers of the OASIS posting requirements will need waivers of these 

standards. 

81. NY Transmission Owners argues that ISOs and RTOs should be allowed to 

upgrade from the minimally acceptable business practice required in a business practice 

standard. The business practice standards we are adopting here are minimum standards 

and all public utilities, including ISOs and RTOs, can provide customers with more 

flexibility than afforded by the standards. Such improvements must provide customers 

with increased flexibility, but should not affect customers' ability to utilize the standard 

procedure or adversely affect the rights of those not a party to the revision to meet the 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 40 - 

minimum standards criteria established.58 Any such improvement would need to be filed 

with the Commission as a request to amend the public utility’s OATT. 

2. Specific Issues

a. Compliance by ISO/RTO Members

Comment

82. NY Transmission Owners asks that public utilities that are members of ISOs and 

RTOs not be required to revise their OATTs to incorporate the proposed OASIS 

standards, because the ISOs or RTOs operate their OASIS. 

Commission Conclusion

83. We agree with NY Transmission Owners. A public utility whose OASIS is 

administered by an ISO or RTO may comply with the requirement to include the OASIS 

standards in its OATT by adding a provision to its OATT stating that the ISO or RTO 

will be performing these functions on its behalf. 

 58 The same standard has been applied to judge improvements to NAESB 

standards for natural gas pipelines. See Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 at 39062, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,038 at 30,069. For example, a NAESB 

business practice standard requires pipelines to offer three intraday nominations. 18 CFR 

284.12(a)(1)(ii) (2005). Some pipelines have improved upon this standard by offering 

hourly nominations, which the Commission accepted because they add additional 

intraday nomination times for the pipelines’ customers, but do not prevent shippers from 

relying on the three intraday nomination times required by the standard. See, e.g., 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 104 FERC ¶ 61,063 at P 88 (2003); Reliant Energy 

Gas Transmission Company, 93 FERC ¶ 61,141 at 61,430 (2000), order on reh’g, 

94 FERC ¶ 61,322 (2001). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 41 - 

b. Waivers for Small Entities 

Comments

84. Several commenters59 argue that small utilities that previously have obtained 

waivers from the Commission from compliance with the requirements of Order Nos. 888 

and 889 should be granted an automatic waiver of the OASIS-related business practice 

standards proposed to be incorporated by reference by the Standards NOPR. Moreover, 

to the extent that public utilities need to apply for a waiver of the OASIS-related business 

practice standards, TAPS requests that the Commission clarify that the waiver criteria 

provided in Order Nos. 888, 889, and 2004 should be applied to the pertinent WEQ 

standards, rather than the criteria in the two orders cited in the Standards NOPR,60 which 

relate to the stricter standard for waivers under Order No. 2001.61

 59 This argument is raised in comments filed by GCEC, Lockhart, and NRECA. 

60 Bridger Valley Electric Association, Inc., 101 FERC ¶ 61,146 (2002) and 

Sussex Rural Electric Cooperative, 103 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2003). 

61 Unitil Companies argues, alternatively, that, if entities granted waivers under 

Order No. 889 are not eligible for waivers, then the Commission should clarify that 

waivers should not be limited to entities that fall within the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) definition of "small entities." As discussed below, entities granted waivers under 

Order No. 889 are eligible, upon a proper showing, for waivers of the OASIS-related 

standards adopted in this rule. Thus, we find Unitil Companies’ alternative proposal to 

be moot. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 42 - 

Commission Conclusion

85. We will extend to small entities (that the Commission previously granted waivers 

of the Commission’s OASIS-related standards) a streamlined procedure for requesting 

waivers of the corresponding newly adopted OASIS-related standards, as long as the 

circumstances warranting such waivers remain unchanged. For small entities to obtain 

such a waiver, they must file a letter explaining that they are seeking a waiver under this 

Final Rule, citing the caption and docket number of this proceeding, and identifying the 

caption, date and docket number of the proceeding in which they received their waiver 

and certifying that the circumstances warranting such waivers have not changed. These 

waivers would not apply to newly created standards, including standards to: facilitate 

redirects of transmission service; address multiple submissions of identical transmission 

requests and queuing issues; and address Coordinate Interchange, ACE Equation Special 

Cases, Manual Time Error Correction, and Inadvertent Interchange Payback. 

86. We also note that, while the costs of creating a fully functional OASIS website 

may be beyond the resources of a small company, such a company could comply with the 

redirect standards without undue additional cost. Nevertheless, a small company that 

believes that compliance with a particular redirect or other business practice standards 

would cause it hardship may request a waiver of a particular standard for good cause. 

Such a request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In its waiver request, the 

requesting entity should specifically reference the standard at issue, describe its problems 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 43 - 

in complying with the standard, and describe how the entity intends to process such 

transactions. 

87. We agree with TAPS and clarify that the appropriate criteria governing waiver 

requests relating to OASIS-related business practice standards should be the applicable 

criteria regarding waivers under Order Nos. 888 and 889, which were laid out in Black 

Creek Hydro, Inc., 77 FERC ¶ 61,232 (1996) (Black Creek),62 and in Inland Power & 

Light Company, 84 FERC ¶ 61,301 (1998) (Inland P&L) and for the Commission’s 

Standards of Conduct under Order No. 2004,63 which were laid out in Bear Creek Storage 

Company, 108 FERC ¶ 61,011 (2004) (Bear Creek), among other cases. In Inland P&L, 

the Commission explained that waiver of Order No. 889 is appropriate: (1) if the 

applicant owns, operates, or controls only limited and discrete transmission facilities 

(rather than an integrated transmission grid); or (2) if the applicant is a small public 

utility64 that owns, operates, or controls an integrated transmission grid (unless it is a 

member of a tight power pool, or other circumstances are present that indicate that a 

waiver is not justified). The waiver would last until such time as the public utility 

 62 See also Order No. 638 at 31,451. 

63 Order No. 2004 states that transmission providers may request waivers or 

exemptions from all or some of the requirements of part 358 for good cause. See 18 CFR 

358.1(d)(2005). 

64 To qualify as a small public utility, the applicant must meet the Small Business 

Administration definition of a small electric utility, i.e., disposes of no more than four 

million Mwh annually. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 44 - 

receives a request for transmission service, at which time the public utility must file a pro

forma OATT within 60 days.65 Moreover, as the Commission explained in Inland P&L, 

the Commission has held, among other matters, that a waiver of Order No. 889 remains 

in effect until an entity evaluating its transmission needs finds that it needs the 

information not being reported (because of the waiver) and files a complaint on this 

subject with the Commission and the Commission takes action in response to the 

complaint.66

88. Finally, the Commission routinely processes requests for waivers and does not see 

a need to include a specific reference to waivers for non-public utilities in Part 38, as 

requested by NRECA. We will apply the same principles in granting waivers that the 

Commission established in Inland P&L and other relevant Commission cases. 

c. Reciprocity for Canadian Entities

Comment

89. The ISO/RTO Council argues that requiring compliance with business practice 

standards by Canadian entities, which are non-jurisdictional, through the imposition of 

reciprocity conditions is not appropriate. It contends that the open access considerations 

underlying Order No. 888 should not be assumed to apply to the business practice 

 65 84 FERC at 62,387. 

66 Id.
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 45 - 

standards. The ISO/RTO Council urges that, at a minimum, the Commission should 

defer consideration of this condition at this time, pending further review.67 

Commission Conclusion

90. The Commission previously found that OASIS-related rules are necessary for 

reciprocity tariffs of non-jurisdictional entities unless an entity has shown that a waiver is 

justified. Canadian entities have not requested any generic changes to this policy.68 

Thus, at this time, we will retain our current policy. Canadian entities with reciprocity 

tariffs that need a waiver of particular standards may request such a waiver. 

D. Other Issues

1. Cost Recovery

Comment

91. The Standards NOPR included an information collection statement that projected 

the annualized cost of complying with the proposals in the Standards NOPR and invited 

comments on this cost estimate. In response, FirstEnergy Companies states that it 

“cannot comment on the estimated cost of compliance” but requests that the Commission 

approve the recovery of the actual costs of compliance. FirstEnergy Companies argues 

 67 ISO/RTO Council at 12. 

68 We note, however, that two Canadian entities, the Alberta Electric System 

Operator and the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario, are members of the 

ISO/RTO Council, which did file comments on this issue. We also note that some 

Canadian entities are members of NAESB and are represented in the standards 

development process and Canadian non-NAESB members, like their US counterparts, 

may also participate in the NAESB process. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 46 - 

that such cost recovery is warranted because compliance with the WEQ standards will be 

mandatory.69

Commission Conclusion

92. The Commission typically allows recovery in rates of prudently incurred costs to 

comply with standards such as those promulgated by the WEQ, and we will make those 

determinations on a case-by-case basis. 

2. Fees for Obtaining NAESB-WEQ Standards 

93. In the Standards NOPR, the Commission explained that, in section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Congress 

requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus 

standards organizations, like NAESB’s WEQ, as a means to carry out policy objectives 

or activities.70 As the Commission has pointed out on several occasions,71 incorporation 

by reference is the appropriate, and indeed the required, method for adopting copyrighted 

 69 FirstEnergy Companies at 4. 

70 Pub L. No. 104-113, section 12(d), 110 Stat. 783, as amended Pub. L. No. 107-

107, Div. A Title XI, section 1115 (2001), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (2005). 

71 See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 

Order No. 587-R, 68 FR 13813, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulation Preambles ¶ 31,141 at 

P 29-37 (2003).
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 47 - 

standards material.72 The Standards NOPR also explained that, as required by the 

NTTAA, the WEQ standards are reasonably available from NAESB. 

Comments

94. Three commenters oppose the proposal to allow NAESB to charge a fee to obtain 

its copyrighted materials. They argue that these materials should be made available at no 

charge. In particular, NEPOOL cautions against mandating compliance with standards 

that are only accessible to NAESB members, to those that pay a fee or to those that travel 

to the FERC Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C., and that carry licensing 

restrictions. NEPOOL argues that these accessibility concerns extend not only to all the 

public utilities that will be affected by any final rule in this proceeding, but also to all 

customers of transmission services that need to review them. 

95. Similarly, IRH requests that the Commission remove any fee or membership 

restrictions currently placed by NAESB on obtaining access to the most current standards 

incorporated by reference by the Commission. IRH argues that these documents should 

 72 Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order 

No. 587-A , 61 FR 55208, 77 FERC ¶ 61,061, at 61,232 (1996); Order No. 587-K, 64 FR 

17276, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1996-2000 ¶ 31,072 at 30,775 

(1999). See Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(1) (2000); 1 CFR 51.7(4) 

(requirements established for incorporation by reference); Federal Participation in the 

Development and Use of Voluntary Standards, OMB Circular A-119, at 6 (a)(1) (Feb. 10, 

1998), <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html> (incorporation by 

reference appropriate means of adopting private sector standards under the NTTAA). 

Indeed, the Commission could not reproduce the WEQ standards in violation of the 

NAESB copyright. See 28 U.S.C. 1498 (government not exempt from patent and 

copyright infringement). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 48 - 

be freely available to the public. UI similarly claims that these fee and licensing 

restrictions will seriously limit the ability of entities to obtain access to applicable 

regulatory requirements pertaining to OASIS. UI argues that existing OASIS standards 

are presently available to the public, at no charge, and any amendments proposed by the 

WEQ to those standards as part of this rulemaking proceeding should also be publicly 

available. 

Commission Conclusion

96. The Commission neither determined the fees for the standards, nor are we in a 

position to waive the fees charged by NAESB. NAESB’s policies are set by the industry, 

and the industry has determined that charging fees for access to the standards is 

appropriate. To the extent the commenters wish to change this NAESB policy, they need 

to pursue this issue at NAESB to craft an approach that a consensus of the industry finds 

reasonable. 

97. As the Commission has explained in previous orders,73 the Commission cannot 

waive or otherwise change the NAESB policy. Section 12 of NTTAA establishes a 

government policy under which agencies are to rely upon, and adopt, private sector 

 73 Order No. 587-R, 68 FR 13813, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulation Preambles 

¶ 31,141 at P 29-37 (2003); Order No. 587-A , 61 FR 55208, 77 FERC ¶ 61,061 at 

61,232 (1996); Order No. 587-K , 64 FR 17276, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations 

Preambles 1996-2000 ¶ 31,072 at 30,775 (1999).
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 49 - 

standards, such as those adopted by the WEQ, whenever practicable and appropriate.74 

The Freedom of Information Act and its implementing regulations establish that the 

proper method of adopting such copyrighted material by a federal agency is to 

incorporate it by reference into the agency's regulations.75 To be eligible for 

incorporation by reference, the document must be reasonably available to the class of 

persons affected by the publication.76 Once adopted, a copy must be provided to the 

Office of the Federal Register for viewing and the material must be available and readily 

obtainable. Neither the statute nor the regulations require that the standards be available 

at no cost. Indeed, standards incorporated by reference are exempt from the requirement 

that the agency charge fees for providing copies of documents according to its fee 

schedule.77 The Office of the Federal Register has approved the WEQ standards for 

incorporation by reference. Most standards incorporated by reference in government 

regulations require a fee or charge to obtain the standards. The American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI), which administers and coordinates the U.S. voluntary 

 74 See note 71, supra. 

75 5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(1) (for the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably 

available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal 

Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the 

Federal Register); 1 CFR 51.7(4). Indeed, the Commission could not reproduce the WEQ 

standards in violation of the NAESB copyright. See 28 U.S.C. 1498 (government not 

exempt from patent and copyright infringement). 

76 1 CFR 51.7 (a)(2)-(4). 

77 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(3). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 50 - 

standardization and conformity assessment system, explains that fees for standards are 

necessary because “while most of the people working on standards development are 

volunteers, standards developers incur expense in the coordination of these voluntary 

efforts.”78

98. The Commission finds that the WEQ standards meet the test of being reasonably 

accessible to all industry members. Members of NAESB obtain access to the standards 

for free. Those who choose not to join can obtain the standards booklet for a fee of 

$100.79 The commenters do not, and cannot reasonably, contend that a $100 cost 

constitutes an extreme burden to members of the electric industry. 

99. As to NEPOOL’s argument that these standards will need to be accessed not only 

by public utilities, but also by their customers, we do not find that $100 is beyond the 

means of most customers, and the public utilities may be willing to make the standards 

available to their customers to review. In our view, the costs public utilities will incur to 

obtain these standards from NAESB are a de minimis expense since the benefits to the 

industry and the public of replacing a Commission-driven approach to standards 

development with the NAESB process far outweighs the burden of these costs. In fact, 

 78 See American National Standards Institute, Why Charge for Standards?, 

http://www.ansi.org/help/charge_standards.aspx?menuid=help (accessed 12/9/05). 

Allowing non-NAESB members free access to these standards would permit them to free 

ride off of the time and money invested by those who have joined NAESB and are 

actively participating to make the standards process beneficial to the entire industry. 

79 NAESB Home Page, http://www.naesb.org/pdf/ordrform.pdf. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 51 - 

one of the major reasons for having the WEQ develop standards is that it is far more 

efficient and cost effective for the industry than having the Commission develop 

standards, like OASIS, using Commission processes. 

III. Implementation Dates and Procedures

100. The Version 000 standards we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule 

must be implemented by July 1, 2006. Public utilities are required to include these 

standards in their OATTs. Public utilities filing proposed revisions to their OATTs to 

include these standards must do so with their next unrelated OATT filing in accordance 

with the following schedule. On or after June 1, 2006, a public utility filing proposed 

OATT revisions unrelated to this rule is required to file proposed revisions to its OATT 

to include the standards adopted in this Final Rule as part of that filing. (Prior to June 1, 

2006, a public utility filing proposed OATT revisions unrelated to this rule has the option 

of filing proposed OATT revisions to include the standards adopted in this Final Rule as 

part of that filing.) As the standards adopted in this Final Rule must be implemented by 

July 1, 2006, the OATT revisions filed to comply with this rule are to include an effective 

date of July 1, 2006.80 Any requests for waiver of any of these standards must be filed on 

or before June 1, 2006. 

 80 Please note that the standards adopted in this Final Rule must be implemented as 

of July 1, 2006, regardless of whether the public utility has yet filed OATT revisions 

incorporating these standards. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 52 - 

101. If adoption of these standards does not require any changes or revisions to existing 

OATT provisions, public utilities may comply with this rule by adding a provision to 

their OATTs that incorporates the standards adopted in this rule by reference, including 

the standard number and Version 000 to identify the standard. To incorporate these 

standards into their OATTs, public utilities must use the following language in their 

OATTs: 

• Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) 

(WEQ-001, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied on 

March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 2005) including 

Standards 001-0.2 through 001-0.8, 001-2.0 through 001-9.6.2, 001-9.8 through 

001-10.8.6, and Examples 001-8.3-A, 001-9.2-A, 001-10.2-A, 001-9.3-A, 

001-10.3-A, 001-9.4.1-A, 001-10.4.1-A, 001-9.4.2-A, 001-10.4.2-A, 001-9.5-A, 

001-10.5-A, 001-9.5.1-A, and 001-10.5.1-A; 

• Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) 

Standards & Communication Protocols (WEQ-002, Version 000, January 15, 

2005, with minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional 

numbering added October 3, 2005) including Standards 002-1 through 002-5.10; 

• Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) Data Dictionary (WEQ003, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied on March 25, 

2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 2005) including Standard 003-0; 

• Coordinate Interchange (WEQ-004, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor 

corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added 

October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, and Standards 004-0 through 

004-13, and 004-A through 004-D; 

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

000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and 

additional numbering added October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, 

and Standards 005-0 through 005-3.1.3, and 005-A; 

• Manual Time Error Correction (WEQ-006, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with 

minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 53 - 

October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, and Standards 006-0 through 

006-12; and 

• Inadvertent Interchange Payback (WEQ-007, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with 

minor corrections applied on March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added 

October 3, 2005) including Purpose, Applicability, and Standards 007-0 through 

007-2, and 007-A. 

102. If a public utility requests waiver of a standard, it will not be required to comply 

with the standard until the Commission acts on its waiver request. Therefore, if a public 

utility has obtained a waiver or has a pending request for a waiver, its proposed revision 

to its OATT should not include the standard number associated with the standard for 

which it has obtained or seeks a waiver. Instead, the public utility’s OATT should 

specify those standards for which the public utility has obtained a waiver or has pending 

a request for waiver. Once a waiver request is denied, the public utility will be required 

to include in its OATT the standard(s) for which waiver was denied. 

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

103. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (section 11) 

(February 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 WEQ. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 54 - 

V. Information Collection Statement

104. OMB’s regulations in 5 CFR 1320.11 (2005) require that it approve certain 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements (collections of information) imposed by an 

agency. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB assigns an OMB control 

number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this 

Final Rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information 

unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. 

105. This Final Rule will affect the following existing data collections: Electric Rate 

Schedule Filings (FERC-516) and Standards for Business Practices and Communication 

Protocols for Public Utilities (FERC-717) (formerly Open Access Same Time 

Information System). 

106. The following burden estimates cover compliance with this rule: 

Public Reporting Burden: 

Data Collection No. of 

Respondents 

No. of Responses 

Per Respondent 

Hours Per 

Response 

Total No. of 

Hours 

FERC-516 220 1 6 1,320

FERC-717 220 1 24 5,280

Totals 30 6,600

Total Annual Hours for Collection 

(Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 6,600 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 55 - 

Information Collection Costs: The Commission has projected the average annualized 

cost for all respondents to comply with these requirements to be the following:81

 FERC-516 FERC-717 

Annualized Capital/Startup Costs $198,000 $792,000

Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance) N/A N/A

Total Annualized Costs $198,000 $792,000 

107. The Commission sought comments on the burden of complying with the 

requirements imposed by these requirements. No comments addressed the reporting 

burden. 

108. 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 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. 

 81 The total annualized costs for the two information collections is $198,000 + 

$792,000= $990,000. This number is reached by multiplying the total hours to prepare a 

response (6,600 hours) by an hourly wage estimate of $150. $990,000= $150 x 6,600.
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 56 - 

109. OMB regulations82 require it 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. 

110. Title: Electric Rate Schedule Filings (FERC-516) 

Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities 

(FERC-717) (formerly Open Access Same Time Information System) 

Action: Proposed collections 

OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0096 and 1902-0173 

 

Respondents: Business or other for profit, (Public Utilities (Not applicable to 

small business.)) 

Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business procedures, 

capital/start-up) 

Necessity of Information: This rule upgrades the Commission's current business 

practice and communication standards to include standardized practices and 

address currently unresolved issues. The implementation of these standards and 

regulations is necessary to increase the efficiency of the wholesale electric power 

grid. 

111. The information collection requirements of this Final Rule are based on the 

transition from transactions being made under the Commission’s existing OASIS posting 

requirements and business practice standards to conducting transactions under the 

NAESB WEQ standards. This Final Rule requires utilities to include the incorporated 

standards in their respective tariffs and requires OASIS postings to be reported in forums 

that are directly accessible by industry users. The implementation of these data 

 82 5 CFR 1320.11. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 57 - 

requirements will help the Commission carry out its responsibilities under the FPA. The 

Commission will use the data in rate proceedings to review rate and tariff changes by 

public utilities, for general industry oversight, and to supplement the documentation used 

during the Commission's audit process. 

112. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director 

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426 

Tel: (202) 502-8415 / Fax: (202) 273-0873 

Email: michael.miller@ferc.gov 

or by contacting: 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Washington, D.C. 20503 

Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 (Re: OMB Control Nos. 1902-0096 & 1902-0173) 

Tel: (202) 395-4650 

E-mail: omb_submissions@omb.eop.gov

VI. Environmental Analysis

113. 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.83 As the Commission stated in the Standards NOPR, the 

 83 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, Order 

No. 486, 52 FR 47897, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 

(1987). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 58 - 

Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not 

having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in this categorical 

exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not 

substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.84 The categorical 

exclusion also includes information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.85 The 

requirements imposed by this Final Rule fall within categorical exclusions in the 

Commission’s regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for 

information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and 

transportation of electric power that requires no construction of facilities.86 As a result, 

neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

114. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)87 generally requires a description 

and analysis of any final rule that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rule adopted here imposes requirements only on public 

utilities, which are not small businesses, and, these requirements are, in fact, designed to 

benefit all customers, including small businesses. 

 84 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii). 

85 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5). 

86 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27). 

87 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 59 - 

115. The Commission has followed the provisions of both the RFA and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act on potential impact on small businesses and other small entities. 

Specifically, the RFA directs agencies to consider four regulatory alternatives to be 

considered in a rulemaking to lessen the impact on small entities: tiering or establishment 

of different compliance or reporting requirements for small entities, classification, 

consolidation, clarification or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements, 

performance rather than design standards, and exemptions. As the Commission 

originally stated in Order No. 889, the OASIS regulations now known as “Standards for 

Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities” apply only to 

public utilities that own, operate, or control transmission facilities subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction, and should a small entity be subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction, it may file for waiver of these regulations.88 As discussed above, in response 

to comments on this issue, in this order we are extending (to small entities that previously 

were granted waivers from the requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 889) waivers of the 

OASIS requirements adopted in this Final Rule, with the condition that these entities file 

a short letter identifying the case name, date, and docket number of the proceeding in 

which they received their waiver. In addition, if material circumstances change that 

 88 Small entities that qualified for a waiver from the requirements of Order Nos. 

888 and 889 may apply for a waiver of the requirement to comply with the standards 

incorporated by reference in the regulations we are adopting in this Final Rule. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 60 - 

would affect their continued qualification for a waiver, they must report this to the 

Commission. 

116. The procedures the Commission is following in this Final Rule are in keeping 

with exemption provisions of the RFA. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

RFA,89 the Commission hereby certifies that the regulations proposed herein will not 

have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Document Availability 

117. 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, N.E., Room 2A, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

118. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in the 

eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in the eLibrary both in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this 

document in eLibrary, type “RM05-5” in the docket number field. 

119. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's website during the 

Commission’s normal business hours. For assistance contact FERC Online Support at 

 89 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 61 - 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact 

(202) 502-8659.

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

120. This Final Rule will take effect [insert date that is 30 days after date of publication 

in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. The Commission has determined with the concurrence 

of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule within the meaning of 

section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.90 

The incorporation by reference of certain standards listed in this Final Rule is approved 

by the Director of the Federal Register as of [insert date that is 30 days after publication 

in the FEDERAL REGISTER.] The Commission will submit this Final Rule to both 

houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.91

List of Subjects

18 CFR part 35 

Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

18 CFR part 37 

Conflict of interests, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

 90 See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

91 See 5 U.S.C. 801(a) (1) (A). 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 62 - 

18 CFR part 38

Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

By the Commission. 

( S E A L ) 

 Magalie R. Salas, 

 Secretary. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 63 - 

 In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission revises parts 35 and 37 and 

adds part 38 in Chapter I, Title 18, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 35 - FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS 

1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 

2. In § 35.28, add paragraph (c)(1)(vi) to read as follows: 

§ 35.28 Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariffs.

* * * * * 

(c) Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariffs.

(1) * * * 

(vi) Each public utility’s open access transmission tariff must include the standards 

incorporated by reference in part 38 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 37 – OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

3. The authority citation for part 37 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 64 - 

4. In § 37.5, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: 

§ 37.5 Obligations of transmission providers and responsible parties.

* * * * * 

(b) A Responsible Party must provide access to an OASIS providing standardized 

information relevant to the availability of transmission capacity, prices, and other 

information (as described in this part) pertaining to the transmission system for which it 

is responsible. 

* * * * * 

 

5. Part 38 is added to read as follows:

PART 38 – BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION 

PROTOCOLS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 

Sec. 

38.1 Applicability. 

38.2 Incorporation by reference of North American Energy Standards Board Wholesale 

Electric Quadrant standards. 

 

§ 38.1 Applicability. 

This part applies to any public utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities 

used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and to any non-public 

utility that seeks voluntary compliance with jurisdictional transmission tariff reciprocity 

conditions. 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 65 - 

§ 38.2 Incorporation by reference of North American Energy Standards Board 

 Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards. 

 (a) All entities to which § 38.1 is applicable must comply with the following 

business practice and electronic communication standards promulgated by the North 

American Energy Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant, which are incorporated 

herein by reference: 

 (1) Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems 

(OASIS) (WEQ-001, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied 

March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 2005) with the exception of 

Standards 001-0.1, 001-0.9 through 001-0.13, 001-1.0 through 001-1.8, and 001-9.7. 

 (2) Business Practices for Open Access Same-Time Information Systems 

(OASIS) Standards & Communication Protocols (WEQ-002, Version 000, January 15, 

2005, with minor corrections applied March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added 

October 3, 2005); 

 (3) Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) Data Dictionary 

(WEQ-003, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied March 25, 

2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 2005); 

(4) Coordinate Interchange (WEQ-004, Version 000, January 15, 2005, with 

minor corrections applied March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added October 3, 

2005); 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 66 - 

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

000, January 15, 2005, with minor corrections applied March 25, 2005, and additional 

numbering added October 3, 2005); 

(6) Manual Time Error Correction (WEQ-006, Version 000, January 15, 2005, 

with minor corrections applied March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added October 

3, 2005); and 

(7) Inadvertent Interchange Payback (WEQ-007, Version 000, January 15, 

2005, with minor corrections applied March 25, 2005, and additional numbering added 

October 3, 2005). 

(b) This incorporation by reference 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, 1301 

Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, TX 77002. Copies may be inspected at the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First 

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 and 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

 
Docket No. RM05-5-000 - 67 - 

The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations: 

APPENDIX 

List of Commenters to Standards NOPR

Abbreviation Name 

APPA American Public Power Association 

Bonneville Bonneville Power Administration 

CAISO California Independent System Operator Corporation 

Cinergy Cinergy Services, Inc., et al. 

EEI Edison Electric Institute and Alliance of Energy Suppliers 

Exelon Exelon Corporation 

FirstEnergy Companies FirstEnergy Companies 

GCEC Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

IRH Interconnection Rights Holders Management Committee 

ISO/RTO Council ISO/RTO Council 

LADWP City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

Lockhart Lockhart Power Company 

Midwest ISO Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. 

NAESB North American Energy Standards Board 

NEPOOL New England Power Pool Participants Committee 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council 

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

NY Transmission Owners Indicated New York Transmission Owners 

SCE Southern California Edison Company92

Southern Companies Southern Company Services, Inc., et al.

TAPS Transmission Access Policy Study Group 

UI United Illuminating Company 

Unitil Companies Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., et al.

 92 SCE filed a motion to intervene, but no comments.