131 FERC ¶ 61,081 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 37 

[Docket No. RM10-22-000] 

Promoting a Competitive Market for Capacity Reassignments 

(April 29, 2010) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Based on the Commission’s experience to date and a two-year study, 

released April 15, 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to lift the price cap for all transmission customers 

reassigning transmission capacity beyond October 1, 2010. The reforms proposed in this 

order are intended to facilitate the development of a market for capacity reassignments as 

a competitive alternative to primary capacity. 

DATES: Comments are due [insert date that is 60 days after publication in the 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any of the 

following methods: 

 Agency Web Site: Documents created electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a 

scanned format. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 2 - 

 Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must 

mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Hyde (Technical Information) 

Office of Energy Market Regulation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8146 

A. Cory Lankford (Legal Information) 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6711 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Promoting a Competitive Market for Capacity 

Reassignments 

Docket No. RM10-22-000 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

(April 29, 2010) 

1. Based on the Commission’s experience to date and a two-year study, released 

April 15, 2010,1

 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to lift the price cap for all transmission 

customers reassigning transmission capacity beyond October 1, 2010. The reforms 

proposed in this order are intended to facilitate the development of a market for capacity 

reassignments as a competitive alternative to primary capacity. 

I. Background

2. In Order No. 888, the Commission concluded that a transmission provider’s 

pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) must explicitly permit the voluntary 

reassignment of all or part of a holder’s firm point-to-point capacity rights to any eligible 

customer.2

 The Commission also found that allowing holders of firm transmission 

 

1

 FERC Staff, Staff Findings on Capacity Reassignment (2010), available at: 

http://www.ferc.gov (Staff Report). 

2 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory 

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

(continued...) 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 2 - 

capacity rights to reassign capacity would help parties manage the financial risks 

associated with their long-term commitment, reduce the market power of transmission 

providers by enabling customers to compete, and foster efficient capacity allocation. 

3. With respect to the appropriate rate for capacity reassignment, the Commission 

concluded it could not permit reassignments at market-based rates because it was unable 

to determine that the market for reassigned capacity was sufficiently competitive so that 

assignors would not be able to exert market power. Instead, the Commission capped the 

rate at the highest of (1) the original transmission rate charged to the purchaser 

(assignor), (2) the transmission provider’s maximum stated firm transmission rate in 

effect at the time of the reassignment, or (3) the assignor’s own opportunity costs capped 

at the cost of expansion (price cap). The Commission further explained that opportunity 

cost pricing had been permitted at “the higher of embedded costs or legitimate and 

verifiable opportunity costs, but not the sum of the two (i.e., ‘or’ pricing is permitted; 

‘and’ pricing is not).”3

 In Order No. 888-A, the Commission explained that opportunity 

 

and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,036, at 31,696 (1996), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 

(Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-B, 

81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), 

aff’d in relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 

F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 

3

 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,740. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 3 - 

costs for capacity reassigned by a customer should be measured in a manner analogous to 

that used to measure the transmission provider’s opportunity cost.4

4. To foster the development of a more robust secondary market for transmission 

capacity, the Commission, in Order No. 890, concluded that it was appropriate to lift the 

price cap for all transmission customers reassigning transmission capacity.5

 The 

Commission stated that this would allow capacity to be allocated to those entities that 

value it most, thereby sending more accurate price signals to identify the appropriate 

location for construction of new transmission facilities to reduce congestion.6

 The 

Commission also found that market forces, combined with the requirements of the 

pro forma OATT as modified in Order No. 890, would limit the ability of assignors to 

exert market power, including affiliates of the transmission provider. 

5. To enhance oversight and monitoring activities, the Commission adopted reforms 

to the underlying rules governing capacity reassignments.7

 First, the Commission 

 4

 Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 at 30,224. 

5 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, Order 

No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, at P 808 (2007), 

order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,261 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on 

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

129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009). 

6

 Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at P 808. 

7 Id. P 815. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 4 - 

required that all sales or assignments of capacity be conducted through or otherwise 

posted on the transmission provider’s OASIS on or before the date the reassigned service 

commences.8

 Second, the Commission required that assignees of transmission capacity 

execute a service agreement prior to the date on which the reassigned service 

commences.9

 Third, in addition to existing OASIS posting requirements, the 

Commission required transmission providers to aggregate and summarize in an electric 

quarterly report the data contained in these service agreements.10 

6. The Commission also directed staff to closely monitor the reassignment-related 

data submitted by transmission providers in their quarterly reports to identify any 

problems in the development of the secondary market for transmission capacity and, in 

particular, the potential exercise of market power.11 Thus, the Commission directed staff 

to prepare, within six months of receipt of two years of quarterly reports, a report 

summarizing its findings.12 In addition, the Commission encouraged market participants 

to provide feedback regarding the development of the secondary capacity market and, in 

particular, to contact the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline if concerns arise. 

 8 Id.

9 Id. P 816. 

10 Id. P 817. 

11 Id. P 820. 

12 Id.
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 5 - 

7. In Order No. 890-A, the Commission affirmed its decision to remove the price cap 

on reassignments of transmission capacity but granted rehearing to limit the period during 

which reassignments may occur above the cap.13 The Commission concluded that it 

would be most appropriate to lift the price cap on reassignments of capacity only to 

accommodate the Commission staff study period. Accordingly, the Commission 

amended section 23.1 of the pro forma OATT to reinstate the price cap as of October 1, 

2010.14 The Commission stated that, upon review of the staff report and any feedback 

from the industry, the Commission would determine whether it would be appropriate to 

continue to allow reassignments of capacity above the price cap beyond that date. 

8. The Commission also clarified that, as of the effective date of the reforms adopted 

in Order No. 890, all reassignments of capacity must take place under the terms and 

conditions of the transmission provider’s OATT. As a result, there was no longer a need 

for the assigning party to have on file with the Commission a rate schedule governing 

reassigned capacity. To the extent that a reseller has a market-based rate tariff on file, the 

provisions of that tariff, including a price cap or reporting obligations, will not apply to 

the reassignment since such transactions no longer take place pursuant to the 

authorization of that tariff. 

 13 Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 at P 388, 390. 

14 Id. P 390. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 6 - 

9. In Order No. 890-B, the Commission clarified that the pro forma OATT does not, 

and will not, permit the withholding of transmission capacity by the transmission 

provider and that it effectively establishes a price ceiling for long-term reassignments at 

the transmission provider’s cost of expanding its system.15 The Commission further 

found that the fact that a transmission provider’s affiliate may profit from congestion on 

the system does not relieve the transmission provider of its obligation to offer all 

available transmission capacity and expand its system as necessary to accommodate 

requests for service.16 The Commission pointed out that customers that do not wish to 

participate in the secondary market may continue to take service from the transmission 

provider directly, just as if the price cap had not been lifted.17 

10. With regard to the report to be prepared by Commission staff, the Commission 

clarified that staff should focus on the competitive effects of removing the price cap for 

reassigned capacity.18 The Commission stated that staff should consider the number of 

reassignments occurring over the study period, the magnitude and variability of resale 

prices, the term of the reassignments, and any relationship between resale prices and 

price differentials in related energy markets. In addition, the Commission directed staff 

 15 Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 at P 78. 

16 Id.

17 Id. P 79. 

18 Id. P 83. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 7 - 

to examine the nature and scope of reassignments undertaken by the transmission 

provider’s affiliates and include in its report any evidence of abuse in the secondary 

market for transmission capacity, whether by those affiliates or other customers. 

11. The Commission also granted rehearing and directed transmission providers to 

include in their electric quarterly reports the identity of the reseller and indicate whether 

the reseller is affiliated with the transmission provider.19 The Commission also directed 

each transmission provider to include in their electric quarterly reports the rate that would 

have been charged under its OATT had the secondary customer purchased primary 

service from the transmission provider for the term of the reassignment.20 The 

Commission directed transmission providers to submit this additional data for all resales 

during the study period and to update, as necessary, any previously-filed electric 

quarterly reports on or before the date they submitted their next electric quarterly reports. 

II. Discussion

12. Based on the Commission’s experience and the two-year study, the Commission 

proposes to permanently remove the price cap on the reassignments of capacity and 

revise section 23 of the pro forma OATT accordingly, as indicated in Appendix A. In 

addition, the Commission proposes to direct transmission providers to submit 

 19 Id. P 84. 

20 Id.
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 8 - 

corresponding revisions to their OATT’s within 30 days of publication of the Final Rule 

in the Federal Register. 

13. The secondary market for capacity reassignments experienced strong growth 

during the study period. Both the number of transactions and capacity volume reassigned 

rose throughout the two and one half year time span. The number of reassignments 

increased dramatically from just over 200 in 2007 to almost 32,000 in 2009. Almost 

36 TWh flowed on reassigned paths in 2009, up from 3 TWh in 2007. Moreover, the 

majority of resale prices, 99 percent, were at or below the price cap. While few of the 

reassignments were at prices above the cap, it appears from the data that reassignment 

prices comported with pricing differentials between markets. For instance, there were 

numerous reassignments between points in New England and Quebec with prices 

comparable to the average spread in energy prices between the regions. These data 

suggest that resale prices reflect market fundamentals rather than the exercise of market 

power. 

14. During the study period, there were 32 transactions of reassigned capacity by an 

affiliate of a transmission provider reassigned for more than the tariff rate. However, the 

percentage of such over-cap reassignments (0.5 percent) was in line with that of over-cap 

reassignments by non-affiliates (0.4 percent), leading us to believe that affiliate abuse is 

not an issue. For these reasons, the Commission proposes to find that the Staff Report 

supports the Commission’s decision to lift the price cap beyond October 1, 2010 on all 

capacity reassignments. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 9 - 

15. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Additionally, given that the 

levels of reassignment and growth of reassignment varies substantially across 

transmission providers, we believe that there is significant potential for further growth in 

the reassignment of capacity. Accordingly, the Commission also seeks comments as to 

whether there are any other reforms that it should undertake to create a more efficient and 

vibrant secondary market for transmission capacity. Are there non-price limitations or 

regional factors that may be continuing to limit the utility of reassignment? To the extent 

any limitations exist, the Commission seeks comment on how they should be addressed. 

For example, are there reforms to the redirect process that would enable all firm 

customers to use their firm capacity more flexibly and thereby facilitate capacity 

reassignment by making point changes by the buyer of reassigned capacity more 

efficient? In the natural gas industry, the Commission has established a system of 

secondary firm point priorities to provide greater flexibility in the use of firm capacity.21 

 21 Secondary firm priority means that the shipper has scheduling rights to a new 

point that are superior to interruptible service but inferior to primary firm service for 

shippers using points specified in their contract. The use of secondary firm service 

enables shippers obtaining reassigned capacity to establish alternate firm capacity points. 

See Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing SelfImplementing Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial 

Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 636, 57 FR 13,267 (Apr. 16, 1992), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 30,939, at 30,428 (1992), order on reh’g, Order No. 636-A, 57 FR 36,128 (Aug. 12, 

1992), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,950 (1992), order on reh’g, Order No. 636-B, 57 FR 

57,911 (Dec. 8, 1992), 61 FERC ¶ 61,272 (1992), order on reh’g, 62 FERC ¶ 61,007 

(1993), aff’d in part and remanded in part sub nom. United Distribution Cos. v. FERC, 88 

F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1996), order on remand, Order No. 636-C, 62 FR 10,204 (Mar. 6, 

1997), 78 FERC ¶ 61,186 (1997); see also Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas

Transportation Services and Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Transportation Services, 

(continued...) 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 10 - 

We request comment on whether such an approach could be used effectively in the 

electric industry and what impact, if any such an approach would have on system 

operations. 

16. As discussed above, we propose to find that the Commission Staff Report supports 

the Commission’s belief that there are no significant market power concerns to justify 

retaining price caps for any transmission customer.22 With regard to affiliate abuse, the 

Staff Report finds that less than one percent of transactions performed by affiliates during 

the study period were transacted above the tariff rate during the study period. While staff 

did not detect affiliate abuse associated with reassignment by affiliates of the 

transmission provider during the study period, the Commission seeks comment on 

whether market participants have experienced any such affiliate abuse that would argue 

for maintaining the price cap on affiliates of the transmission provider, or if other 

 

Order No. 637, 65 FR 10,156 (Feb. 25, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,091, at 31,304-

31,306, clarified, Order No. 637-A, 65 FR 35,706 (June 5, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,099, reh'g denied, Order No. 637-B, 65 FR 47,284 (Aug. 2, 2000), 92 FERC ¶ 

61,062 (2000), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom. Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of

America v. FERC, 285 F.3d 18, 350 U.S. App. D.C. 366 (D.C. Cir. 2002), order on 

remand, 101 FERC ¶ 61,127 (2002), order on reh'g, 106 FERC ¶ 61,088 (2004), aff'd sub 

nom. American Gas Ass'n v. FERC, 428 F.3d 255, 368 U.S. App. D.C. 176 (D.C. Cir. 

2005).

22 See Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at P 809 (stating that based 

on ten years of experience regulating capacity reassignments, the Commission believes 

there are no significant market power concerns to justify retaining the price caps for any 

transmission customer). 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 11 - 

safeguards are needed for such reassignments. How should reassignment by a 

transmission provider’s retail service function (that is not a separate affiliate) be treated? 

17. Based on the Commission’s experience and the two-year study, the Commission 

believes that the absence of a price cap for transmission capacity reassignment does not 

present any major market concerns. Nevertheless, the Commission is committed to 

ensuring just and reasonable transmission service that is not unduly discriminatory or 

preferential and, therefore, will continue to monitor the secondary market of capacity 

reassignments for evidence of abuse of market power. The Commission receives 

sufficient information to monitor the secondary market for capacity reassignment because 

pursuant to section 23 of the pro forma OATT: (1) all sales of capacity must be 

conducted through or otherwise posted on the transmission provider’s OASIS on or 

before the date of service; and, (2) assignees of transmission capacity must execute a 

service agreement prior to the date on which the reassigned service commences. In 

addition, transmission providers must aggregate and summarize in an electric quarterly 

report the data contained in these service agreements.23 

III. Information Collection Statement

18. The following collection of information contained in this proposed rule is subject 

to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the 

 23 18 CFR 35.10b; see also, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at 

P 817; Notice Providing Guidance on the Filing of Information on Transmission Capacity 

Reassignments in Electric Quarterly Reports, 124 FERC ¶ 61,244 (2008). 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 12 - 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.24 OMB’s regulations require OMB to approve certain 

information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.25

Burden Estimate: The public reporting and records retention burdens for the proposed 

reporting requirements and the records retention requirement are as follows.26 

Data 

Collection 

Number of 

Respondents 

Number of 

Responses 

Hours per 

Response 

Total Annual 

Hours 

Conforming 

tariff changes 

176 1 10 1,760

Cost to Comply: $200,640 

1,760 hours @ $114 an hour (average cost of attorney ($200 per hour), 

consultant ($150), technical ($80), and administrative support ($25)) 

OMB’s regulations require it to approve certain information collection requirements 

imposed by an agency rule. The Commission is submitting notification of this proposed 

rule to OMB. If the proposed requirements are adopted they will be mandatory 

requirements. 

Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings; 

FERC-717, Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities. 

 24 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d) (2000). 

25 5 CFR 1320.11 (2009). 

26 These burden estimates apply only to this NOPR and do not reflect upon all of 

FERC-516 or FERC-717. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 13 - 

Action: Proposed Collections. 

OMB Control Nos. 1902-0096 and 1902-0173. 

Respondents: Transmission Providers. 

Frequency of responses: One time. 

Necessity of the Information: 

19. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is proposing amendments to the pro 

forma OATT to ensure that transmission services are provided on a basis that is just, 

reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to strengthen the pro forma OATT by encouraging more robust 

competition. We propose to achieve this goal by removing the price cap previously 

imposed on reassignments of transmission capacity. 

20. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 

Phone: (202) 502-8415, fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov] 

21. For submitting comments concerning the collections of information and the 

associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the contact listed above and 

to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4650, fax: (202) 395-7285. Due to 

security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following e-mail 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 14 - 

address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference the docket number of this 

proposed rulemaking in your submission. 

IV. Environmental Analysis

22. 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.27 The Commission concludes that neither an Environmental 

Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required for this NOPR under 

section 380.4(a)(15) of the Commission’s regulations, which provides a categorical 

exemption for approval of actions under sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the 

filing of schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale subject to 

the Commission’s jurisdiction, plus the classification, practices, contracts and regulations 

that affect rates, charges, classifications and services.28

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

23. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)29 generally requires a description 

and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed rule would apply to public utilities that own, 

control or operate interstate transmission facilities, not to electric utilities per se. The 

 27 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy

Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-

1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

28 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15) (2009). 

29 5 U.S.C. § 601-612. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 15 - 

total number of public utilities that, absent waiver, would have to modify their current 

OATTs by filing the revised pro forma OATT is 176.30 Of these only six public utilities, 

or less than two percent, dispose of four million MWh or less per year.31 The 

Commission does not consider this a substantial number, and in any event, these small 

entities may seek waiver of these requirements.32 Moreover, the criteria for waiver that 

would be applied under this rulemaking for small entities is unchanged from that used to 

evaluate requests for waiver under Order Nos. 888 and 889. Thus, small entities who 

have received waiver of the requirements to have on file an open access tariff or to 

operate an OASIS would be unaffected by the requirements of this proposed rulemaking. 

VI. Comment Procedures

24. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and 

issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative 

 30 The sources for this figure are FERC Form No. 1 and FERC Form No. 1-F data. 

31 Id.

32 The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines a "small entity" as "one which is 

independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." 

See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3) and 601(6)(2000); 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1) (2000). In Mid-Tex 

Elec. Coop. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 340-343 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the court accepted the 

Commission's conclusion that, since virtually all of the public utilities that it regulates do 

not fall within the meaning of the term "small entities" as defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission did not need to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

in connection with its proposed rule governing the allocation of costs for construction 

work in progress (CWIP). The CWIP rules applied to all public utilities. The revised 

pro forma OATT will apply only to those public utilities that own, control or operate 

interstate transmission facilities. These entities are a subset of the group of public 

utilities found not to require preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for the CWIP 

rule. 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 16 - 

proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due [insert date that is 

60 days from publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments must refer to 

Docket No. RM10-22-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. 

25. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling 

link on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts 

most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not 

in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper 

filing. 

26. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an 

original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. 

27. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, 

printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section 

below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments 

on other commenters. 

VII. Document Availability

28. 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 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 17 - 

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

29. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft 

Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in 

eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

30. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s web site during normal 

business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-

3676) or e-mail at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 37 

By direction of the Commission. 

 ( S E A L ) 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 18 - 

Appendix A

RM05-17-001, -002 & RM05-25-001, -002 

(Issued) 

PRO FORMA OPEN ACCESS 

TRANSMISSION TARIFF 

23 Sale or Assignment of Transmission Service 

23.1 Procedures for Assignment or Transfer of Service: 

(a) Subject to Commission approval of any necessary filings, aA

Transmission Customer may sell, assign, or transfer all or a portion of its 

rights under its Service Agreement, but only to another Eligible Customer (the 

Assignee). The Transmission Customer that sells, assigns or transfers its 

rights under its Service Agreement is hereafter referred to as the Reseller. 

Compensation to Resellers shall not exceed the higher of (i) the original rate 

paid by the Reseller, (ii) the Transmission Provider’s maximum rate on file at 

the time of the assignment, or (iii) the Reseller’s opportunity cost capped at 

the Transmission Provider’s cost of expansion; provided that, for service prior 

to October 1, 2010, cCompensation to Resellers shall be at rates established by 

agreement between the Reseller and the Assignee. 

(b) The Assignee must execute a service agreement with the Transmission 

Provider governing reassignments of transmission service prior to the date on 

which the reassigned service commences. The Transmission Provider shall 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 19 - 

charge the Reseller, as appropriate, at the rate stated in the Reseller’s Service 

Agreement with the Transmission Provider or the associated OASIS schedule 

and credit the Reseller with the price reflected in the Assignee’s Service 

Agreement with the Transmission Provider or the associated OASIS schedule; 

provided that, such credit shall be reversed in the event of non-payment by the 

Assignee. If the Assignee does not request any change in the Point(s) of 

Receipt or the Point(s) of Delivery, or a change in any other term or condition 

set forth in the original Service Agreement, the Assignee will receive the same 

services as did the Reseller and the priority of service for the Assignee will be 

the same as that of the Reseller. The Assignee will be subject to all terms and 

conditions of this Tariff. If the Assignee requests a change in service, the 

reservation priority of service will be determined by the Transmission 

Provider pursuant to Section 13.2. 

23.2 Limitations on Assignment or Transfer of Service: 

If the Assignee requests a change in the Point(s) of Receipt or Point(s) of 

Delivery, or a change in any other specifications set forth in the original 

Service Agreement, the Transmission Provider will consent to such change 

subject to the provisions of the Tariff, provided that the change will not impair 

the operation and reliability of the Transmission Provider's generation, 

transmission, or distribution systems. The Assignee shall compensate the 

Transmission Provider for performing any System Impact Study needed to 
Docket No. RM10-22-000 - 20 - 

evaluate the capability of the Transmission System to accommodate the 

proposed change and any additional costs resulting from such change. The 

Reseller shall remain liable for the performance of all obligations under the 

Service Agreement, except as specifically agreed to by the Transmission 

Provider and the Reseller through an amendment to the Service Agreement. 

23.3 Information on Assignment or Transfer of Service: 

In accordance with Section 4, all sales or assignments of capacity must be 

conducted through or otherwise posted on the Transmission Provider’s OASIS 

on or before the date the reassigned service commences and are subject to 

Section 23.1. Resellers may also use the Transmission Provider's OASIS to 

post transmission capacity available for resale.