12484 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to

Regulations Governing Self-Implementing

Transportation Under Part 284 of the Commission’s

Regulations and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines

After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 636–C,

78 FERC ¶ 61,186 (1997).

2Mechanisms for Passthrough of Pipeline Takeor-Pay Buyout and Buydown Costs, Order No. 528–

A, 54 FERC ¶ 61,095 (1991).

Deference in this context is a slippery

proposition for other reasons, too. Naturally,

states may perceive equity considerations,

cost causation principles, 1 and market risk

factors2 differently than the Commission, and

consequently they may not share the

Commission’s view that utilities are entitled

to full recovery of stranded costs here.

Because of this potential difference of

opinion, I suspect that the amount of

deference that the Commission provides to

the states may be directly proportional to the

level of stranded cost recovery that states

grant the utilities.

In sum, the majority’s ingenious attempt to

federalize stranded cost claims arising from

municipalization, while admirable in terms

of the need to resolve transition cost issues

expeditiously, is more likely to cause greater

uncertainty and more argument about the

appropriate standard to apply than it is to

promote settlement of the matter.

I therefore respectfully dissent in small

part to Order No. 888–A.

James J. Hoecker,

Commissioner.

Promoting Wholesale Competition

Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory

Transmission Services by Public Utilities.

Docket No. RM95–8–001.

Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public

Utilities and Transmitting Utilities. Docket

No. RM94–7–002.

Order No. 888–A

(Issued March 4, 1997)

MASSEY, Commissioner, dissenting in part:

I dissent in part, from this otherwise

excellent rule, on a single issue. I continue

to believe, as I stated in my dissent to Order

No. 888, that the Commission should treat

stranded costs arising from retail competition

and municipalizations similarly.

Municipalization occurs under state rather

than federal law. The majority’s decision in

Order No. 888 that FERC should be the

primary forum for addressing the recovery of

stranded costs caused by municipalization

boldly and unnecessarily preempts legitimate

state authority. Today’s order perpetuates

and compounds this error by extending

federal preemption to stranded costs arising

from municipal annexations as well.

Many state commissions have express

legislative authority to address these issues

and should not be prohibited from doing so

by federal regulators. It is only when a state

commission does not have the authority, or

has the authority and fails to use it, that the

Commission should be available as a

stranded cost recovery forum of last resort.

On this one issue, I respectfully dissent.

William L. Massey,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 97–5767 Filed 3–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 37

[Docket No. RM95–9–001; Order No. 889–

A]

Open Access Same-Time Information

System and Standards of Conduct

Issued March 4, 1997.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final Rule; order on rehearing.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is revising its

policy on posting discounts to be

consistent with changes in the discount

policy that we simultaneously are

implementing in Order No. 888–A.

Additionally, we are making other

minor revisions to 18 CFR Part 37—

which contains rules establishing and

governing transmission information

networks and standards of conduct—to

be responsive to arguments made on

rehearing and to make the regulations

operate more smoothly.

In addition, the Commission requests

that the How Working Group propose

the necessary changes in the Standards

and Protocols document and the Data

Dictionary by June 2, 1997 to address

four issues.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marvin Rosenberg (Technical

Information), Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

1283.

William C. Booth (Technical

Information), Office of Electric Power

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0849.

Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information),

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, DC

20426, (202) 208–0321.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

document during normal business hours

in the Public Reference Room at 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing 202–208–1397 if

dialing locally or 1–800–856–3920 if

dialing long distance. To access CIPS,

set your communications software to

19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800,

2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no

parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. The

full text of this order will be available

on CIPS in ASCII and Wordperfect 5.1

format. CIPS user assistance is available

at 202–208–2474.

CIPS is also available through the Fed

World system. Telnet software is

required. To access CIPS via the

Internet, point your browser to the URL

address: http://www.fedworld.gov and

select the ‘‘Go to the FedWorld Telnet

Site’’ button. When your Telnet software

connects you, log onto the FedWorld

system, scroll down and select

FedWorld by typing: 1 and at the

command line then typing: /go FERC.

FedWorld may also be accessed by

Telnet at the address fedworld.gov.

Finally, the complete text on diskette

in WordPerfect format may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation. La Dorn Systems

Corporation is also located in the Public

Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Background

III. Public Reporting Burden

IV. Discussion

A. Overview of Revisions Made in This

Order

B. Section 37.1—Applicability

1. Extent of the Commission’s Authority to

Impose Standards of Conduct

2. The Commission’s Authority to Impose

Reciprocity Provision

3. Waiver Policy

C. Section 37.2—Purpose

D. Section 37.3—Definitions

E. Section 37.4—Standards of Conduct

1. Contacts Between Employees Providing

Ancillary Services and System Operators

2. Contacts Between Generation Control

Employees and Transmission Operations

and Wholesale Merchant Employees

3. Monitoring the Standards of Conduct

4. Adequacy of Emergency Exception

5. Short-term Economy Energy Purchases

6. Tight Pools

7. Clarification of § 37.4(b)(5)(iv)

8. Discounts

F. Section 37.5—Obligations of

Transmission Providers and Responsible

Parties

G. Section 37.6—Information to be Posted

on an OASIS
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12485

1Open Access Same-Time Information System

and Standards of Conduct, Final Rule, Order No.

889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,037, 61 FR 21,737

(1996). Since issuance of Order No. 889, we have

issued two additional orders. These orders: (1)

revise the standards and communication protocols

for OASIS nodes; and (2) extend the date for

commencing Phase I OASIS operations and

complying with the standards of conduct. See infra

notes 4, 6, respectively.

2Order No. 889 and the OASIS regulations at 18

CFR 37.3 define a ‘‘Transmission Provider’’ as any

public utility that owns, operates, or controls

facilities used for the transmission of electric energy

in interstate commerce. This same definition

applies to our use of this term in this order.

3Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of

Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting

Utilities, Order No. 888, Final Rule, FERC Stats. &

Regs. ¶ 31,632, 61 FR 21,540 (1996), order on reh’g,

Order No. 888–A,—FERC ¶ —,—-(1997).

4See Open Access Same-Time Information

System and Standards of Conduct, Order Issuing

Revised OASIS Standards and Protocols Document,

76 FERC ¶ 61,243, 61 FR 50,116 (1996), where the

Commission revised the Standards and Protocols

document that accompanied Order No. 889.

5Order No. 889 and the OASIS regulations at 18

CFR 37.3 define a ‘‘Transmission Customer’’ as any

eligible customer (or its designated agent) that can

or does execute a transmission service agreement or

can or does receive transmission service. This same

definition applies to our use of this term in this

order.

6See Open Access Same-Time Information

System and Standards of Conduct, Order Granting

Request for Extension of Time, 76 FERC ¶ 61,305

(1996).

7The How Working Group and its companion

working group, the What Working Group, are

industry-led groups, with diverse industry and

customer representatives, working to reach

consensus on OASIS-related issues. See OASIS

Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,740, n.13, for a fuller

description of both working groups and their

activities.

1. Definition of ‘‘Posted Path’’

2. Definition of ‘‘interconnection’’

3. ATC Supporting Information

a. Disclosure of Data Supporting

Calculations of ATC and TTC

b. Disclosure of Data on Nonfirm ATC

c. Time Limits for Disclosure of Utility

Generation Data

d. Reporting of Network Service Usage

4. Posting Firm and Nonfirm ATC

Separately

5. Minimum Term of Firm Point-to-Point

Transmission Service

6. Posting of Discounts

7. Secondary Markets

8. Masking of Service Request Information

9. Requests for Service Made on the OASIS

During Phase I

10. Delay in Posting Requests for Hourly

Transmission Service and Schedule

Information

11. Liability for Accuracy of ATC/TTC

Estimates

H. Section 37.7—Auditing Transmission

Service Information

I. Standards and Communication Protocols

1. CCEM’s Suggested Changes to the

Standards and Protocols

a. Service Request Priorities

b. Clarification of the Requirement to Post,

Upload, and Download Information

c. Sequence of Data Elements Appearing in

Templates

2. Standardized Format for Electronic

Tariff Filings

3. Company Codes and Identification

Displays

4. Common Location Codes

5. Time by Which Hourly Postings Must be

Made Available

J. Mechanism For Recovering OASIS

Expenses

K. Section 37.8—Implementation

Schedule; Phases

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

VI. Environmental Statement

VII. Information Collection Statement

VIII. Effective Date

Regulatory Text

Attachment 1

I. Introduction

In this order, the Commission

addresses the requests for rehearing of

Order No. 889, our final rule requiring

public utilities that own, control, or

operate facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce to create or

participate in an Open Access SameTime Information System (OASIS) site

in conformance with the requirements

set out in 18 CFR Part 37.1 Those

requirements also obligate public

utilities subject to the rule to implement

standards of conduct to functionally

separate transmission and wholesale

merchant functions.

For the reasons stated, we will grant

rehearing, in part, and adopt several

suggested revisions to the OASIS final

rule, but will, in main part, deny

rehearing and retain the OASIS final

rule as promulgated in Order No. 889.

In addition, we request that the How

Working Group propose changes to the

Standards and Protocols document and

the Data Dictionary by June 2, 1997 to

address four issues described below.

II. Background

In Order No. 889, the Commission

promulgated a final rule (OASIS Final

Rule) requiring Transmission Providers 2

to implement the legal and policy

determinations made concurrently in

Order No. 888, the final rule on open

access transmission (Open Access Final

Rule).3 Under Order No. 889, the OASIS

Final Rule applies to any transmission

service offered under the Open Access

Final Rule pro forma tariff, including

service both to wholesale Transmission

Customers and to retail Transmission

Customers that are able to receive

unbundled retail transmission service

and to any entity required to provide

such service.

Under the OASIS Final Rule,

Transmission Providers are required to

establish or participate in an OASIS that

meets certain requirements and must

comply with prescribed standards of

conduct. The standards of conduct are

designed to prevent employees of a

public utility (or any employees of its

affiliates) engaged in wholesale

merchant functions (wholesale sales of

electricity for resale in interstate

commerce) from obtaining preferential

access to pertinent transmission-related

information.

To this end, the standards of conduct,

set out in the Commission’s regulations

at 18 CFR 37.4, require companies to

separate their transmission operations/

reliability functions from their

wholesale marketing/merchant

functions. They are intended to prevent

transmission system operators from

providing wholesale merchant

employees or wholesale merchant

employees of affiliates with

transmission-related information not

available to all customers at the same

time (through public posting on the

OASIS).

The OASIS Final Rule describes what

information must be posted on an

OASIS, what procedures must be

followed in responding to requests for

transmission service, and references the

Commission’s accompanying Standards

and Protocols document adopted by the

Commission to ensure that information

is to be posted on an OASIS in a

uniform manner.4 Transmission

Providers are required to provide on an

OASIS, in a uniform manner, certain

types of information concerning the

status of their transmission systems. The

provisions of the OASIS Final Rule are

intended to work together to ensure that

Transmission Customers 5 have access to

transmission information, through

electronic means, that will enable them

to obtain comparable, open access

transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Order No. 889 established Phase I

OASIS rules that required the creation

of a basic OASIS by November 1, 1996

(subsequently extended until January 3,

1997).6 We are appreciative of the

ongoing efforts of the How Working

Group and the What Working Group in

helping to develop the OASIS Standards

and Protocols and in helping to resolve

numerous difficult OASIS

implementation issues.7 We also,

despite setbacks encountered by some

public utilities, are appreciative of the

hard work of the entire electric industry

in meeting the ambitious schedule for

OASIS implementation prescribed in

Order No. 889.

Order No. 889 also explained that

Phase I implementation would be

followed by Phase II procedures
12486 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

8 In the OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,762, we

requested that the industry prepare a report on

Phase II issues due on or before August 4, 1997

(seven months from January 3, 1997, the revised

compliance date for Phase I implementation).

9The requests for rehearing for AK Cities, AL EC,

AL MEA, Basin EC, Cajun, Central P&L, Central

Montana EC, Cooperative Power, FPL, Florida

Power Corp, Hoosier EC, NWRTA, Santa Clara, and

SWRTA raised no direct 889 issues. The names and

abbreviations of all interested persons who filed

requests for rehearing of Order No. 889 (or a

combined request for rehearing of Order Nos. 888

and 889) are listed in Attachment 1.

We also note that, in various places in this order,

we identify issues that were raised in requests for

rehearing of Order No. 889, or that were identified

as pertaining to Order No. 889, that, in our

judgment, really seek rehearing of matters relating

to Order No. 888. They are therefore decided in

Order No. 888–A.

10See Order No. 888–A.

11No comments were filed in objection to the

public burden estimate contained in the OASIS

Final Rule.

12 ‘‘Negotiation’’ would only take place if the

Transmission Provider or potential customer seeks

prices below the ceiling prices set forth in the tariff.

whereby the Commission, with ongoing

industry participation, will continue to

refine and further develop the

requirements for a fully functional

OASIS.8

Requests for rehearing relating to

Order No. 889 were filed by over 40

interested persons. These include 37

requests for rehearing that collectively

list both Order Nos. 888 and 889 in their

captions and ten requests for rehearing

that are aimed exclusively at Order No.

889.9 Several of the issues raised on

rehearing that implicate both Order Nos.

888 and 889 are addressed more fully in

Order No. 888–A, which is being issued

contemporaneously with this order.10

III. Public Reporting Burden

This order on rehearing adopts a

number of small changes, more fully

elaborated in Section IV.E.8 below, to be

consistent with the Commission’s

revised discount policy being

announced in Order No. 888–A. In

addition, we also are making nine minor

revisions to the OASIS Final Rule and

direct the How Working Group to

propose changes to the Standards and

Protocols document addressing four

additional issues. We find, after

reviewing these revisions, that they do

not, on balance, increase the public

reporting burden.

The OASIS Final Rule contained an

estimated annual public reporting

burden based on the requirements of the

Final Rule and consideration of

comments from interested persons.11

Using the burden estimate contained in

the OASIS Final Rule as a starting point,

we evaluated the public burden estimate

contained in the OASIS Final Rule in

light of the revisions contained in this

order and assessed whether this

estimate needed revision. We have

concluded, given the minor nature of

the revisions, and their offsetting nature,

that our estimate of the public reporting

burden of this order on rehearing

remains unchanged from our original

estimate of the public reporting burden

contained in the OASIS Final Rule. The

Commission has conducted an internal

review of this conclusion and has

assured itself, by means of its internal

review, that there is specific, objective

support for this information burden

estimate. Moreover, the Commission has

reviewed the collection of information

required by the OASIS Final Rule as

revised by this order on rehearing and

has determined that the collection of

information is necessary and conforms

to the Commission’s plan, as described

in this order, for the collection, efficient

management, and use of the required

information.

Persons wishing to comment on the

collections of information required by

this order on rehearing should direct

their comments to the Desk Officer for

FERC, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 3019 NEOB, Washington,

D.C. 20503, phone 202–395–3087,

facsimile: 202–395–7285 or via the

Internet at hillierlt@a1.eop.gov.

Comments must be filed with the Office

of Management and Budget within 30

days of publication of this document in

the Federal Register. Three copies of

any comments filed with the Office of

Management and Budget also should be

sent to the following address: Ms. Lois

Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Room 1A, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426. For further information, contact

Michael Miller, 202–208–1415.

IV. Discussion

A. Overview of Revisions made in this

Order

In this order on rehearing of Order

No. 889, the Commission has

implemented a new discounting policy,

adopted and described in detail in

Order No. 888–A. This new discount

policy necessitates a number of changes

to the Standards of Conduct and OASIS

posting requirements:

(1) We are deleting §§ 37.4(b)(5)(v) and

37.4(b)(5)(vi).

(2) We are adding a provision now

designated as § 37.6(c)(3) to require, among

other things, that any offer of a discount for

basic transmission service must be

announced to all potential customers solely

by posting on the OASIS.

(3) We are revising § 37.6(c)(4) to no longer

treat the posting of transmission service

transactions involving the Transmission

Provider’s (or any affiliate’s) merchant

function any differently from the posting of

transactions involving non-affiliates except

that transactions involving the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function or

affiliates must be identified.

(4) We are adding a provision now

designated as § 37.6(d)(2) to require, among

other things, that any offer of a discount for

ancillary service provided by the

Transmission Provider in support of its

provision of basic transmission service must

be announced to all potential customers

solely by posting on the OASIS.

(5) We are revising § 37.6(d)(3) on ancillary

services consistent with item 3 above.

(6) We are revising § 37.6(e)(1)(i) to require

that, except for next-hour service, requests

for transmission and ancillary service must

be posted prior to the Transmission Provider

responding to these requests.

(7) We are adding a provision, now

designated as § 37.6(e)(1)(ii), that during

Phase I, while requests for next-hour service

need to be posted as soon as possible and in

any event within one hour of receiving the

request, they need not be posted prior to

being acted on.

(8) We are adding a provision, at

§ 37.6(e)(1)(iii), that provides that in the

event that a discount is being requested for

ancillary services that are not in support of

the Transmission Provider’s provision of

basic transmission service, such request need

not be posted on the OASIS.

(9) We are renumbering § 37.6(e)(1)(ii) as

§ 37.6(e)(1)(iv) and are expanding the

information required to be posted on the

status of requests for transmission and

ancillary service.

(10) We are deleting the provision formerly

found in § 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and are revising

§ 37.6(e)(3)(i) because we no longer will

allow the identity of parties to transactions

to be masked.

Additionally, we believe that any

‘‘negotiation’’ 12 between a

Transmission Provider and a potential

customer should take place on the

OASIS, and should be visible to all

market participants, and we will revise

our regulations to accomplish this as

soon as practicable. To this end, we

direct the How Working Group, by no

later than June 2, 1997, to propose: (1)

any changes that might be necessitated

to the Standards and Protocols

document; and (2) the earliest date

when the industry can meet such a

requirement during Phase I.

We also are making nine minor

revisions to 18 CFR Part 37. These

include: (1) amending the definition of

wholesale merchant function in § 37.3;

(2) amending §§ 37.4(b)(5)(iii) and

37.6(g)(4) to require Transmission

Providers to post on the OASIS the

information that they already are

required to keep, detailing the

circumstances and manner in which

they exercise their discretion under any

terms of the tariff; (3) substituting the

phrase ‘‘sales made to any person for
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12487

13We discuss below, in the next section of this

order, issues raised on rehearing that implicate the

Commission’s authority to condition the use of

public utility Open Access pro forma tariffs on the

provision of reciprocal transmission services,

including compliance with the standards of

conduct and OASIS requirements.

14ConEd Rehearing Request at pp. 2–6.

15ConEd Rehearing Request at p. 2.

16 16 U.S.C. § 825j.

17See Requests for Rehearing of AL EC, NE Public

Power District, NRECA, and TDU Systems.

18See Requests for Rehearing of Redding, NE

Public Power District, NRECA, and TDU Systems.

19CAMU Rehearing Request at pp. 3–4.

20This issue was fully considered and addressed

in Order No. 888. NE Public Power District also

raises a related issue, now moot, concerning

possible conflicts between the standards of conduct

and state freedom of information laws. Given that

this issue concerns the confidentiality provisions of

Continued

resale made by the wholesale merchant

function or any affiliate’’ for the phrase

‘‘wholesale purchases or sales made on

behalf of its own power customers, or

those of an affiliate’’ in § 37.4(b)(5)(iv),

to be consistent with the revised

definition of ‘‘wholesale merchant

function’; (4) amending § 37.6(b)(1) to

clarify the meaning of the term

‘‘interconnection’’ as used in the

definition of posted path; (5) amending

§ 37.6(b)(3)(ii) to clarify that firm

available transmission capability (ATC)

and nonfirm ATC for unconstrained

posted paths must be separately posted;

(6) amending § 37.6(e) to clarify that the

provision applies to requests for

ancillary service and that requests for

service must be posted before the

Transmission Provider responds to the

request; (7) amending § 37.6(g)(3) to

require that notices of transfers of

personnel posted on the OASIS as

described in § 37.4(b)(2) remain

available for the same time period as

audit information in § 37.7(b); (8)

amending § 37.7(b) to shorten, from 90

days to 20 days, the time during which

ATC/total transmission capability (TTC)

postings must remain available for

download on the OASIS (the data will,

however, remain available upon request

for three years from the date when they

are first posted); and (9) removing

§ 37.8, because the compliance date for

Part 37 has already passed.

In addition, we are requesting that the

How Working Group propose changes in

the Standards and Protocols document

and the Data Dictionary by June 2, 1997

necessitated by the Commission’s

revised discount policy and by our

findings on various requests for

rehearing.

We will retain the provisions of Order

No. 889 and 18 CFR Part 37 in all other

respects. Below, we address the

provisions of 18 CFR Part 37 in light of

the issues raised in the requests for

rehearing.

B. Section 37.1—Applicability

1. Extent of the Commission’s Authority

to Impose Standards of Conduct

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission determined that the rules

in Part 37—including the obligation to

adopt standards of conduct—would

apply to any public utility that owns,

operates, or controls facilities used for

the transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce. Among other

things, we concluded that we would not

directly assert jurisdiction over nonpublic utilities under § 311 of the

Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure

compliance with OASIS requirements,

including the requirement to comply

with the standards of conduct. Instead,

we are relying on the reciprocity

provision of the Open Access pro forma

tariff that requires a non-public utility to

offer comparable transmission service to

the Transmission Provider as a

condition of obtaining open access

service.13

Rehearing Request

ConEd argues that the Commission

lacks authority to issue the standards of

conduct requiring functional

unbundling.14 Specifically, ConEd

argues that the Commission has

exceeded its authority by requiring

‘‘transmission providers to functionally

separate interstate electricity

transmission and wholesale merchant

functions (wholesale sales and

purchases of electricity in interstate

commerce).’’15 ConEd asserts that

wholesale purchases of electricity in

interstate commerce on behalf of native

load customers are bundled retail

electric service transactions that are

local distribution and not subject to the

Commission’s authority.

Commission Conclusion

We agree with ConEd to the extent

that when a utility uses its own

transmission system to transmit

purchased power to retail load

customers we have no jurisdiction over

the transmission that is included in the

bundled sale of power to the retail

native load. Upon further consideration,

we conclude that our definition of

‘‘wholesale merchant function’’ (in

§ 37.3(e)) should be modified to delete

the phrase, ‘‘* * *, or purchase for

resale, * * *.’’ because this clause

creates confusion and is not necessary.

When a utility purchases power for its

retail native load customers, this is not

a sale for resale. In contrast, when a

utility purchases power for its

wholesale native load, the transmission

of purchased power to the wholesale

customer is really part of a transaction

that includes a wholesale sale of power

to a third party. Our authority to require

functional unbundling of interstate

electricity transmission and the

wholesale merchant function, as newly

defined, is fully supported in Order No.

888.

2. The Commission’s Authority to

Impose Reciprocity Provision

In the OASIS Final Rule, we

concluded that we will not directly

assert jurisdiction over non-public

utilities under § 311 of the FPA 16 to

ensure compliance with OASIS

requirements. We concluded that we

would, instead, rely on the reciprocity

provision of the Open Access pro forma

tariff that requires a non-public utility to

offer comparable transmission service to

the Transmission Provider as a

condition of obtaining open access

service. We found that if a non-public

utility chooses to take open access

service, and therefore is subject to the

Open Access pro forma tariff reciprocity

provision, it also is subject to the OASIS

and standards of conduct requirements

in 18 CFR Part 37, unless the

Commission grants a waiver of the

reciprocity provision. The reciprocity

provision announced in the Open

Access Final Rule does not require nonpublic utilities to provide transmission

access, but, instead, conditions the use

of public utilities’ open access services

on an agreement to offer open access

services in return.

Rehearing Requests

A number of non-public utilities have

raised arguments on rehearing

challenging the reciprocity provision.

First, some argue that, notwithstanding

the Commission’s discussion of this

issue in Order Nos. 888 and 889, the

reciprocity provision is not voluntary. 17

Second, some argue that the

Commission lacks the authority to

impose the reciprocity provision and

that the Commission is trying to

accomplish indirectly what it lacks the

authority to do directly.18 Third, CAMU

argues that the Commission should

defer imposing the reciprocity provision

until such time as the IRS clarifies the

status of private use limitations within

the context of transmission access.19 NE

Public Power District objects that Order

No. 889 contained scant discussion of

the Commission’s authority to impose

functional unbundling and other

requirements based on the reciprocity

provision.20
12488 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 37.6(e), we will address this issue below in

section IV.G.8 of this order.

21CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 10.

22EEI Rehearing Request at n.10 and pp. 2, 7–15.

23Montana-Dakota Rehearing Request at pp. 2–4.

24See South Carolina Public Service Authority

(Santee Cooper), 75 FERC ¶ 61,209 (1996); Central

Electric Cooperative, Inc., 77 FERC ¶ 61,076 (1996).

25Moreover, as we discuss further below, see

supra sections IV.B.3 and V., the Commission has

granted waivers to a number of small non-public

utilities from the requirements to establish and

maintain an OASIS and the requirement in the

standards of conduct to separate the wholesale

merchant function from the transmission operation

and reliability function.

26APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 9–11.

27CAMU Rehearing Request at pp. 2–3.

28Blue Ridge Rehearing Request at p. 39. We note

that the Commission only granted waiver of Order

No. 889 requirements to those public utilities that

made a specific request for waiver of those

requirements. See infra n.33, First Waiver Order, 76

FERC at 62,296–97.

29 Indianapolis P&L’s request for waiver was

denied in the First Waiver Order, infra n.33, see 76

FERC at 62,295. Indianapolis P&L’s request for

rehearing in Docket No. OA96–81–001 currently is

pending.

30Michigan Systems Rehearing Request passim.

31Ohio Valley Rehearing Request at p. 12.

Other entities seeking rehearing argue

that the Commission did not go far

enough in adopting and relying upon

the reciprocity provision for purposes of

attaining compliance with the OASIS

and standards of conduct requirements.

CCEM argues that the Commission erred

by failing to require nonjurisdictional

entities providing reciprocal service to

comply with the OASIS requirements. 21

EEI argues that the reciprocity

provision requires all non-public

utilities to functionally unbundle their

transmission systems, establish an

OASIS, and fully comply with the

OASIS standards of conduct.

Additionally, EEI advances a number of

proposals that would expand the

reciprocity provision contained in the

Open Access Final Rule.22

Montana-Dakota argues that the

reciprocity provision should be

expanded for non-public utilities. It

argues that cooperatives should not be

able to construct barriers minimizing

their obligations under the reciprocity

provision.23

Commission Conclusion

After consideration of the arguments

made on rehearing, both in this

rulemaking proceeding and on rehearing

of the Open Access Final Rule, we

continue to believe that it is appropriate

to condition the use of public utility

open access tariffs on the agreement of

the tariff user to provide reciprocal

access to the Transmission Provider.

Any eligible customer, including a nonpublic utility, that takes advantage of

open access transmission tariff services

should not be allowed to deny service

or otherwise discriminate against the

open access provider. Moreover, we

continue to believe that, absent a

waiver, the obligation to provide

reciprocal, non-discriminatory services

necessarily commits the customer of

open access service, even if not a public

utility, to abide by the OASIS and

standards of conduct requirements.

Contrary to arguments raised on

rehearing, we are not requiring nonpublic utilities to provide transmission

access. Instead, we are conditioning the

use of public utility open access tariffs,

by all customers including non-public

utilities, on an agreement to offer

comparable (not unduly discriminatory)

services in return. It would not be in the

public interest to allow a non-public

utility to take non-discriminatory

transmission service from a public

utility at the same time that it refuses to

provide comparable service to the

public utility. Such a disparity would

restrict the operation of robust

competitive markets and would harm

the very ratepayers that Congress has

charged us to protect.

Similarly, it would not serve the

public interest to compel public utilities

to have OASIS nodes and to

functionally unbundle their wholesale

merchant functions from their

transmission operations and reliability

functions, while allowing non-public

utilities that seek open access

transmission from a public utility to

evade these responsibilities. 24

Moreover, we have provided a

mechanism, equally applicable both to

small public utilities and to small nonpublic utilities, for them to obtain

waivers of the OASIS and separation of

function requirements and the other

reciprocity requirements.25

Turning to arguments that assert that

the reciprocity condition does not go far

enough, we are unpersuaded that we

should further expand the reciprocity

condition. In our view, the reciprocity

condition, as written, suffices to ensure

comparability and to avoid undue

discrimination. We discuss this matter

more fully in Order No. 888–A.

3. Waiver Policy

The Open Access Final Rule provides

that public utilities may seek waivers

for some or all of the requirements of

the Open Access Final Rule, including

waiver of the standards of conduct and

OASIS requirements. Similarly, the

Open Access Final Rule provides that

non-public utilities may seek waivers of

the tariff reciprocity provision as

applied to them.

Rehearing Requests

APPA argues that the Commission

should revise the waiver standard for

non-public utilities (the reciprocity

provision) to allow waivers when a nonpublic utility lacks market power or

where the cost of compliance exceeds

the annual net revenues expected to be

received from transmission and

ancillary services under a reciprocity

tariff. APPA further argues that, in such

circumstances, compliance with the

requirements of the Open Access and

OASIS Final Rules would be anticompetitive.26 Similarly, CAMU argues

that only dominant utilities are capable

of subverting the transmission market

and that, therefore, only such larger

utilities should be burdened with the

costs of compliance.27

Blue Ridge argues that the

Commission should clarify that a waiver

from compliance with the requirements

of Order No. 888 also gives a waiver

from compliance with the requirements

of Order No. 889.28

Indianapolis P&L argues that the

Commission’s criteria for evaluating

waiver requests are too rigid and that it

probably will be denied waiver even

though it is a small system that lacks

transmission market power.29

Michigan Systems argue that small

systems that lack market power in

transmission should be granted a

blanket exemption from compliance

with the separation of functions

requirement in the OASIS standards of

conduct, without the necessity for

applying for waivers on a case-by-case

basis.30

Ohio Valley argues that the criteria in

the Open Access Final Rule for

obtaining waivers from compliance with

Order Nos. 888 and 889 are too stringent

and should be revised to accommodate

waivers whenever justified. 31 It argues

that control area operators should not be

excluded from obtaining a waiver of the

Commission’s Open Access

requirements. Ohio Valley adds that the

waiver process is uncertain and that its

1953 agreement to supply power to the

United States Department of Energy

should be ‘‘grandfathered’’ and

exempted from compliance with the

requirements of Order Nos. 888 and 889.

TAPS argues that in areas of the

country where a major transmission

owner elects to set up its own OASIS,

in lieu of participation in a regional

OASIS, or refuses to allow smaller

utilities to participate in an OASIS,

waivers should be granted to the smaller

utilities so that they are not forced to set

up their own OASIS sites, the costs of

which would be unwarranted. TAPS

further argues that larger utilities that do
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12489

32See related issue, discussed in section IV.F

below, concerning the argument that Transmission

Providers must create regional OASIS nodes.

33See, e.g., Northern States Power Company (MI),

et al., Order on Requests by Public Utilities for

Waivers of Order No. 888 and 889, 76 FERC

¶ 61,250 (1996) (First Waiver Order); order on reh’g,

Black Creek Hydro, Inc., et al., Order on Rehearing

and Granting Waivers of Order No. 889, 77 FERC

¶ 61,232 (1996) (Black Creek); Midwest Energy, Inc.,

et al., 77 FERC ¶ 61,208 (1996) (Midwest); Soyland

Power Cooperative Association, et al., 78 FERC

¶ 61,095 (1997) (Soyland); Dakota Electric Ass’n, et

al., 78 FERC ¿ 61,117 (1997) (Dakota). In addition,

the Commission, in Central Electric Cooperative,

Inc., et al., 77 FERC ¶ 61,076 (1996), reh’g pending

(Central Electric); Dakota; and Niobrara Valley

Electric Membership Corporation, Docket Nos.

OA96–146–001 and ER97–1412–000 (Niobrara),

addressed various requests for rulings on

exemptions from and waivers of Order Nos. 888 and

889, on the basis that applicants are not public

utilities subject to the requirements of the Final

Rules.

34To avoid confusion, we will discuss the waiver

standards as set out in Black Creek rather than in

the First Waiver Order, because Black Creek

modified the First Waiver Order’s standards for

waiver.

35To qualify as a small public utility, the

applicant must meet the Small Business

Administration definition of a small electric utility,

i.e., one that is independently owned and disposes

of no more than 4 million MWh annually.

36Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941; see also

Midwest, 77 FERC at 61,854 (elaborating on the

exception where the applicant is a member of a

tight power pool).

37Black Creek, 77 FERC at 61,941 (citation to First

Waiver Order omitted).

38As noted above, supra n.29, Indianapolis P&L’s

specific waiver request was addressed in the First

Waiver Order and is pending rehearing. To date,

Ohio Valley has not filed a specific request for

waiver.

39We note that even though a majority of the

OASIS nodes are joint nodes, these nodes

nevertheless report data on a company-specific

basis that is accessed using each company’s

individual Internet World Wide Web (WWW)

address. Thus, the geographic location of the

Transmission Provider is irrelevant to locating data

about that company’s operations on the Internet.

40Additionally, § 37.6(b)(1) provides definitions

of ‘‘Posted Path’’, ‘‘Constrained Posted Path’’, and

‘‘Unconstrained Posted Path’’ as used in § 37.6. As

these additional terms were defined in § 37.6 of the

OASIS Final Rule, we will discuss suggestions to

clarify these terms in sections IV.G.1 and IV.G.2

below.

not allow smaller utilities to participate

with them in a joint OASIS should not

be able to deny service to those smaller

utilities on that basis.32

Commission Conclusion

Since issuance of the Open Access

and OASIS Final Rules, the Commission

has issued a series of orders addressing

specific requests for waiver of all or

some of the requirements of the Open

Access and OASIS Final Rules,

including the requirements under Order

No. 889 to: (1) establish and maintain an

OASIS; and (2) comply with the

standards of conduct (including the

requirement to separate the activities of,

and restrict communications between,

employees performing wholesale

merchant functions and employees

performing system operations and

reliability functions).33 The waiver

standards enunciated by the

Commission apply to public utilities

subject to the rules, as well as to nonpublic utilities that seek waiver of the

reciprocity provision.

In Black Creek, the Commission

announced modified standards used to

determine whether to grant waiver of

Order Nos. 888 and 889.34 Under these

modified standards, waiver of Order No.

889 would be 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 utility 35 that owns,

operates, or controls an integrated

transmission grid. With respect to the

second category, a waiver would not be

available if the utility is a member of a

tight power pool, or other circumstances

are present which indicate that a waiver

would not be justified.36 The

Commission, in addressing situations

where waiver is granted, further stated

that:

Waiver of the requirement to establish and

maintain an information system (i.e., an

OASIS) will be granted unless and until an

entity evaluating its transmission needs

complains that it could not get information

necessary to complete its evaluation. Waiver

of the standards of conduct will be granted

unless and until an entity complains that a

public utility has used its access to

information about transmission to unfairly

benefit the public utility’s own or the public

utility’s affiliates’ sales. Compliance must be

made within 60 days of the complaint.37

Thus, the Commission has developed

waiver criteria that take into account

potential burdens on small entities and

at the same time balance the need to

prevent undue discrimination and

affiliate abuse in interstate power

markets. We believe that this flexible

waiver approach adequately addresses

the concerns raised on rehearing.

In response to the requests for

rehearing of Indianapolis P&L and Ohio

Valley, this order on rehearing is not the

proper vehicle for a company to request

a company-specific waiver. Waivers are

appropriately addressed on a case-bycase basis, which permits the

Commission to review the specific facts

of each waiver application and permits

affected parties to intervene and make

their views known to the Commission.38

TAPS expresses a concern that larger

utilities may not allow smaller utilities

to participate with them in a joint

OASIS. We do not believe that any

revisions to the OASIS Final Rule are

necessary at this time to address TAPS’

concern, because: (1) if the OASIS for its

particular geographic area is

unavailable, a utility may always choose

to participate in an OASIS for a different

region; 39 (2) smaller utilities should be

able to meet their OASIS obligations

cost-effectively by joining with other

small entities to hire the services of

private vendors collectively; and (3) as

mentioned above, the Commission will

grant waivers of the OASIS

requirements to small utilities under

proper circumstances.

Moreover, we do not currently have

any evidence that larger utilities will, in

fact, attempt to exclude smaller utilities

from participating in their OASIS sites.

In fact, all indications are to the

contrary.

Thus, while we are not taking any

steps based on TAPS’ concerns, at this

time, we will revisit this issue if it

appears that Commission action is

appropriate. We would also entertain a

company-specific complaint that a

larger utility is misusing the reciprocity

provision to improperly withhold

transmission service.

C. Section 37.2—Purpose

The requests for rehearing did not

specifically address this provision nor

seek revision of this portion of the

OASIS Final Rule.

D. Section 37.3—Definitions

The OASIS Final Rule contains

definitions of ‘‘Transmission Provider’’,

‘‘Transmission Customer’’, ‘‘Responsible

Party’’, ‘‘Reseller’’, ‘‘Wholesale

Merchant Function’’, and ‘‘Affiliate’’.40

The requests for rehearing did not

specifically address these definitions

nor seek revision of this portion of the

OASIS Final Rule. However, as

discussed above, we are modifying the

definition of ‘‘wholesale merchant

function’’ in response to ConEd’s

request for rehearing or clarification.

E. Section 37.4—Standards of Conduct

In the OASIS Final Rule, we adopted

standards of conduct intended to

accomplish four main objectives. First,

we prohibited Transmission Providers

from giving preferential access to

information related to transmission

prices and availability to employees of

the public utility, or any affiliate,

engaged in wholesale merchant

functions. We accomplished this by: (a)

Requiring that transmission-related

information be made available to all

customers (including employees of the

public utility, and any affiliate, engaged

in wholesale merchant functions)

through OASIS postings available at the

same time and on an equal basis; and (b)
12490 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

41As explained in the OASIS Final Rule,

functional unbundling seeks to ensure that the same

employee is not responsible for performing both

wholesale merchant functions and system operation

functions at the same time. See OASIS Final Rule,

61 FR at 21,744–48. These functions are to be

performed by separate employees and the standards

of conduct provide that they are prohibited from

communicating with each other about transmissionrelated matters unless they do so through the

OASIS. See §§ 37.4(a) and 37.4(b).

42These are: (1) Scheduling, system control and

dispatch service; (2) reactive supply and voltage

control from generation sources service; (3)

regulation and frequency response service; (4)

energy imbalance service; (5) operating reserve—

spinning reserve service; and (6) operating

reserve—supplemental reserve service.

In the Open Access Final Rule, the Commission

has determined that the Transmission Provider

must provide and the Transmission Customer must

purchase from the Transmission Provider the first

two services listed above, subject to conditions set

out in Order No. 888. The Transmission Provider

must offer the remaining four services to the

Transmission Customers upon request.

43Allegheny Rehearing Request at pp. 9–10.

44CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 10–11.

45See supra discussion in section IV.E.1 above.

prohibiting the employees of

Transmission Providers and any

affiliates from disclosing or obtaining

non-public transmission-related

information through communications

not posted on the OASIS. Thus,

employees engaged in wholesale

merchant functions may only obtain

information about transmission prices

and availability from postings on the

OASIS or from public sources equally

available to all other customers.

Second, we mandated that employees

engaged in system operations and

reliability functions must treat all

customers in a fair and impartial

manner and may not give any

preferential treatment to the company’s

(or its affiliates’) employees conducting

wholesale merchant functions. This

requirement includes not disclosing

market information about a customer

and its activities to other customers in

the course of responding to requests for

transmission service.

Third, we required the functional

unbundling of the transmission

operations and wholesale merchant

functions of public utilities and their

affiliates so that those employees

charged with system operations and

reliability would be free to operate the

system impartially for the benefit of all

customers, including the Transmission

Provider itself.41

Fourth, to ensure that the OASIS

Final Rule would not compromise

reliability, we created an exemption, in

emergency circumstances affecting

system reliability, that allows system

operators to take whatever steps are

necessary to keep the system in

operation.

Finally, we warned that the standards

of conduct are to be interpreted

consistent with common sense,

prudence, and caution, and that the

burden is on entities subject to the rules

to design procedures and safeguards and

to take all necessary actions to ensure

compliance. Those who have questions

on these issues may contact the

Enforcement Task Force Hotline at 202–

208–1390 to obtain informal advice on

implementing the standards of conduct.

1. Contacts Between Employees

Providing Ancillary Services and

System Operators

The OASIS Final Rule defines the

‘‘wholesale merchant function’’ at

§ 37.3(e). The definition contains no

specific reference to, or exclusion of,

ancillary services. In the Open Access

Final Rule, the Commission concluded

that six ancillary services must be

included in an open access transmission

tariff.42

Rehearing Request

Allegheny argues that an employee of

the Transmission Provider who is

responsible for providing customers

with ancillary services mandated by the

Open Access Final Rule should not, for

that reason, be deemed to be a

‘‘merchant employee’’ excluded from

contact with system operators under

Order No. 889. 43

Commission Conclusion

We disagree with Allegheny’s

interpretation of the OASIS standards of

conduct. Under the standards of

conduct, employees who are responsible

for providing ancillary services are not

(without regard to their actual job

functions) uniformly deemed to be, or

not to be, wholesale merchant

employees. To the contrary, whether

these employees are deemed to be

wholesale merchant employees, or not,

depends on the nature of their job

functions.

The Transmission Provider’s sale of

ancillary services in support of its

provision of basic transmission service

is not a wholesale power merchant

function for purposes of Order No. 889.

This is because the provision of

ancillary services is essential for

providing basic transmission service.

However, the sale of ancillary service

not in support of the Transmission

Provider’s provision of basic

transmission service is a wholesale

merchant function for purposes of Order

No. 889. Thus, if an employee is

marketing an ancillary service

independent of the Transmission

Provider’s obligations to provide basic

transmission service, then that

employee would be providing a

wholesale merchant function and would

be subject to the applicable

requirements pertaining to wholesale

merchant employees under the

standards of conduct.

Therefore, we reject Allegheny’s

suggestion that our current regulations

categorically deem any employees

involved in the provision of ancillary

services as not being wholesale

merchant employees, without regard to

their actual job responsibilities.

2. Contacts Between Generation Control

Employees and Transmission

Operations and Wholesale Merchant

Employees

Among other matters, the OASIS

standards of conduct preclude

employees engaged in wholesale

merchant functions from improperly

communicating with employees

engaged in transmission system

operations or reliability functions.

However, we did not extend Order No.

888 or the OASIS Final Rule to require

the corporate unbundling of

transmission and generation control

functions or to mandate the divestiture

by Transmission Providers of their

generation assets.

Rehearing Request

CCEM argues that the Commission

erred by not drafting the standards of

conduct to preclude generation control

employees from being a conduit for

improper communications between

transmission operations personnel and

wholesale merchant personnel. 44

Commission Conclusion

As we stated above, in our discussion

of whether employees responsible for

providing ancillary services are to be

deemed wholesale merchant employees,

what limitations are placed on an

employee’s conduct under the standards

of conduct depends on that employee’s

actual job functions and activities,

rather than that employee’s job title. 45

In the same way, whom a generation

control employee may or may not

communicate with depends on the

respective job functions of that

generation control employee and the

employee(s) with whom he or she

intends to communicate. Generation

control employees whose job

responsibilities involve wholesale

merchant functions would be precluded

from having pertinent off-the-OASIS

communications with employees
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12491

46APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 11–19, Blue

Ridge Rehearing Request at p. 39.

47Under § 37.7(b), all audit data currently must

remain available for download for 90 days. Later in

this order, we shorten the retention period for

making ATC/TTC postings available for download

to 20 days, with the data to be made available upon

request for three years. See discussion in section

IV.H below.

48El Paso Rehearing Request at pp. 1–4.

49FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at pp. 39–40.

50FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at p. 42.

51FIT Utilities Rehearing Request at p. 43.

performing system operations and

reliability functions.

Additionally, notwithstanding

CCEM’s concerns, the standards of

conduct already preclude any employee

from acting as a conduit for improper

communications between transmission

operations employees and wholesale

merchant employees. Furthermore, if

these activities were carried out by a

non-employee (e.g., an outside attorney

or consultant), they nevertheless would

constitute a violation of the standards of

conduct by the involved transmission

operations employee(s), the involved

wholesale merchant employee(s), and

their employer. This being the case, we

reject CCEM’s proposal as unnecessary.

3. Monitoring the Standards of Conduct

The preamble’s discussion of the

standards of conduct and the

regulations at § 37.4 are intentionally

directed at the responsibilities of the

Transmission Providers subject to these

rules rather than the Commission’s

plans to monitor compliance and pursue

enforcement strategies.

Rehearing Requests

APPA and Blue Ridge argue that

monitoring of the standards of conduct

is essential and that the Commission

must establish and publicize a plan to

do so. 46 APPA argues that reliance on

utility self monitoring is not sufficient.

Commission Conclusion

We agree with APPA and Blue Ridge

that it is important for the Commission

to monitor compliance with the

standards of conduct carefully and that

self monitoring may not be fully

sufficient to accomplish this.

Accordingly, we are amending

§§ 37.4(b)(5)(iii) and 37.6(g)(4) to require

the posting on the OASIS of information

from a Transmission Provider that

details the circumstances when it

exercises its discretion in applying any

terms of the tariff (and which

Transmission Providers already are

required to maintain pursuant to

§ 37.4(b)(5)(iii)). This will assist the

Commission in monitoring whether the

standards of conduct are being met.

Consistent with § 37.7(b), which governs

the retention period for audit data, this

information must remain available for

download on the OASIS for a specified

period, and must remain available upon

request for three years from the date

when such information is first posted. 47

We request that the How Working

Group propose the necessary template

to be included in the Standards and

Protocols document.

As to APPA’s and Blue Ridge’s

specific suggestions that we should

modify the OASIS Final Rule to address

the Commission’s oversight plans and

functions, we do not believe that this

would be appropriate. Although the

Commission is well aware of the

importance of its enforcement

responsibilities, and will remain

vigilant in reviewing the operation of

OASIS sites and compliance with the

standards of conduct, the purpose of the

OASIS Final Rule is to detail the

responsibilities of the regulated

community and not those of the

Commission.

4. Adequacy of Emergency Exception

As explained above, the OASIS

standards of conduct include an

exception, in emergency circumstances

affecting system reliability, that allows

system operators to take whatever steps

are necessary to keep the system in

operation.

Rehearing Request

El Paso argues that the standards of

conduct’s emergency exception is

inadequate; contingencies may arise

daily that require a system operator to

react promptly to unanticipated losses

of generation units. Therefore, operators

should be allowed to buy and sell

current hour and next hour power (to

preserve system reliability). El Paso

does not oppose the separation of

functions as applied to longer-term

transactions (i.e., transactions involving

transmission service beyond the current

hour and next hour). 48

Commission Conclusion

We reject the proposal to allow

operators to buy for resale at wholesale

and sell at wholesale next hour power

on a routine basis, without regard for

the separation of functions required by

the standards of conduct. We find this

proposal too broad and find that it has

too much potential for abuse. However,

as explained more fully below, the

regulations do not dictate what group of

employees is to have responsibility for

making purchases on behalf of bundled

retail customers. For example, the

transmission operations and reliability

function may be assigned responsibility

for making purchases on behalf of

bundled retail customers.

5. Short-Term Economy Energy

Purchases

FIT Utilities do not object generally to

functional unbundling; however, they

argue that the system operator should be

allowed to make short-term economy

energy purchases in order to maintain

system reliability. 49 FIT Utilities further

argue that, while the OASIS Final Rule

does not require the physical separation

of transmission and generation

dispatchers, it does effectively rewrite

generation dispatchers’ jobs to exclude

the purchase for resale and sale at

wholesale of energy in hourly

interchange markets. FIT Utilities argue

that a generation dispatcher needs to

know loads on transmission lines on an

instantaneous basis to assess whether to

increase or decrease outputs from

particular generation facilities. FIT

Utilities argue that generators are often

run, not for energy, but for voltage

support or to otherwise stabilize the

transmission system.

They argue that, in addition to

reliability concerns, system operators

also worry about keeping transactions

economical. They argue that separating

the functions relating to short-term

energy purchases (for resale) makes this

task harder, at a substantial cost to

consumers. They continue that allowing

a dispatcher to buy power would not

hurt competition, as long as the

dispatcher cannot also sell power.50

They add that if a dispatcher buys

power that offsets higher cost utility

generated power, this helps everyone.

For these reasons, FIT Utilities argue

that the OASIS Final Rule should be

revised to retain a prohibition against a

dispatcher selling power while allowing

the dispatcher to buy power. FIT

Utilities argue that, at a minimum, the

dispatcher should be able to buy power

in hourly economic energy markets to

serve load.51 They argue that if the

Commission has a concern that this

would somehow be anti-competitive,

then a utility should be allowed to set

up a computer system to make such

purchases automatically. They argue

that the Commission should be

concerned with both reliability and

price and should aim for the lowest cost

supply possible.

Commission Conclusion

The standards of conduct’s separation

of functions currently prohibit a

Transmission Provider’s employees

engaged in transmission system

operations and reliability functions from

giving preference to wholesale
12492 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

52NY MU Rehearing Request at pp. 5, 7. See Open

Access pro forma tariff at p. 5.

53See Order No. 888–A at section IV.A.

54SoCal Edison Rehearing Request at p. 24. On

July 18, 1996, SoCalGas filed a request for

clarification responsive to SoCal Edison’s rehearing

request, which argues that § 37.4(b)(5)(iv), together

with the Open Access Final Rule, provide for

comparability and that: ‘‘a Transmission Provider is

not entitled to accord itself special priority, special

services, or special prices, merely because it owns

the transmission facilities, and the Transmission

Provider is not permitted to import wholesale

power ‘for free’; however, the Transmission

Provider may enjoy any priorities or advantages

provided to it and similarly situated customers by

the express terms of its transmission tariff.’’

SoCalGas’ arguments overlook that SoCal Edison

itself concedes that if § 37.4(b)(5)(iv) is interpreted

in harmony with Commission precedent, it would:

‘‘operate to ensure that the Transmission Provider

would not give preference to its own purchases and

sales over that of other similarly situated customers

(e.g., by assigning a higher curtailment priority to

its own economy energy purchases than it would

assign to an identical economy energy purchase by

a network customer).’’ Thus, the issues raised in

SoCalGas’ request for clarification are not before us.

55Section 1.11 of the Open Access pro forma

tariff is also the subject of a number of requests for

rehearing that are addressed in Order No. 888–A at

section IV.C.1.

56 In Order No. 889, we found that if a

Transmission Provider offers a discount to an

affiliate, or attributes a discounted transmission

service rate to its own wholesale transactions, then

the Transmission Provider must, at the same time,

post on the OASIS an offer to provide the same

discount to all eligible customers. If a Transmission

Provider offers discounts to non-affiliates, it must

offer to do so on a basis that is not unduly

discriminatory.

57 In Order No. 888–A, we are addressing

arguments that we should revise the requirement to

offer the same discount to all Transmission

Customers on the same path and on all

unconstrained transmission paths.

purchases or sales made on behalf of its

own wholesale customers or those of

affiliates. The standards of conduct do

not, however, dictate whether bundled

retail merchant functions are to be

grouped with the wholesale merchant

function or with the transmission

operations and reliability function.

Thus, FIT Utilities’ request to allow

dispatchers to buy power to serve retail

load is consistent with the regulations.

As discussed above, the regulations do

not prohibit Transmission Providers

from assigning the responsibility for

making purchases to serve bundled

retail customers to the transmission

operations and reliability function.

To avoid any confusion, we are

modifying § 37.4(b)(5)(iv) to substitute

the phrase ‘‘sales for resale made by the

wholesale merchant function or any

affiliate’’ for the phrase ‘‘wholesale

purchases or sales made on behalf of its

own power customers, or those of an

affiliate’’ in § 37.4(b)(5)(iv).

Moreover, nothing in the standards of

conduct prohibits a public utility

subject to the rule from arranging to

have the same data about the company’s

generation sources and load

simultaneously fed to both transmission

system operators and merchant

employees. Thus, if the company elects

to have wholesale merchant employees

perform the function of making

purchases to serve bundled retail native

load, this can be done without

necessitating any change in the

standards of conduct. Data received by

system operators about the activities of

third parties may not be conveyed to

wholesale merchant employees except

through postings on the OASIS equally

available to all OASIS users.

6. Tight Pools

NY MU argues that the Commission

erred in not requiring operational

unbundling, at least for tight pools,

which NY MU asserts includes

requiring that the transmission

component of retail rates be treated as

if the rates were based on the use of the

pool-wide pro forma tariff of the Open

Access Final Rule.52

Commission Conclusion

As further discussed in Order No.

888–A,53 the Commission stands by its

decision in the Open Access Final Rule

that functional unbundling, along with

the flexible safeguards contained in the

Final Rule, is a reasonable and workable

means of assuring non-discriminatory

open access transmission. The

Commission has not found it necessary

to adopt a more intrusive and

potentially more costly approach at this

time based on speculative allegations

that functional unbundling may not

work and that more severe measures

may be needed.

7. Clarification of § 37.4(b)(5)(iv)

As modified above, § 37.4(b)(5)(iv)

requires that a Transmission Provider

not, through its tariffs or otherwise, give

preference to sales made to any person

for resale made by the wholesale

merchant function or by any affiliate,

over the interests of any other wholesale

customer in matters relating to the sale

of wholesale transmission service.

Rehearing Request

SoCal Edison asks the Commission to

clarify that the OASIS rule

(§ 37.4(b)(5)(iv)) was not intended to

require the Transmission Provider or

network customer to charge itself for

transmission for its economy energy

purchases or to assign to those

purchases the same curtailment priority

assigned to other non-network, non-firm

point-to-point transactions. 54

Commission Conclusion

Turning first to the narrow issue

raised by SoCal Edison’s request for

rehearing, we clarify that § 37.4(b)(5)(iv)

was intended to be consistent with the

Open Access pro forma tariff provisions

of Order No. 888. Moreover, we

intended that the question raised by

SoCal Edison would be answered by

reference to the provisions of the Open

Access pro forma tariff. Thus,

§ 37.4(b)(5)(iv) does not require the

Transmission Provider or network

customer to charge itself for

transmission for its economy energy

purchases. Nor does it require that they

assign to those purchases the same

curtailment priority assigned to other

non-network, non-firm point-to-point

transactions. Under the Open Access

pro forma tariff, if purchases are for

bundled retail sales, then the

Transmission Provider is not required to

charge itself for its economy energy

purchases. By contrast, if the purchases

are for wholesale sales, then the

Transmission Provider must charge

itself for the transmission. The same

delineation would also apply to

curtailment priority.

Moreover, we clarify that

§ 37.4(b)(5)(iv) was not intended to

rewrite the rules regarding utilities’

purchases and priorities for bundled

retail customers, nor to set aside the

rules prescribed in section 1.11 of the

Open Access pro forma tariff.55

8. Discounts

The issue of what discounts must be

provided by a Transmission Provider

who offers a discount to its affiliates or

its own wholesale merchant function

was addressed in the Open Access Final

Rule. The matter also was discussed in

the OASIS Final Rule, but only to the

extent that it related to what

information must be posted on the

OASIS.56 In § 37.4(b)(5)(v), we

mandated that when a Transmission

Provider offers a discount to its

wholesale merchant function or any

affiliate, then it must, at the same time,

post on the OASIS an offer to provide

the same discount to all Transmission

Customers on the same path and on all

unconstrained transmission paths.57 The

posting requirement corresponding to

this obligation to offer discounts was

contained in § 37.6(c)(3). We also found,

in § 37.6(c)(3), that discounts offered to

non-affiliates must be posted within 24

hours of when available transmission

capability (ATC) is adjusted in response

to the transaction.

The requests for rehearing address

both: (1) what discounts must be

offered; and (2) what postings must

accompany discount offers. As
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12493

58TAPS Rehearing Request at pp. 8–9 and TDU

Systems Rehearing Request at p. 85.

59 /CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 7–8.

60 /MAPP Rehearing Request at pp. 4–10.

61 /EEI Rehearing Request at p. 53.

explained in Order No. 888–A, we have

decided to revise our policy on

discounts of transmission services, and

to apply this same policy, with the

exception concerning paths, to ancillary

services provided by the Transmission

Provider in support of its provision of

basic transmission service. To

implement this revised policy, we are

making changes to the standards of

conduct and to the posting of discounts

under § 37.6. We address changes to the

standards of conduct here, and changes

to § 37.6 in section IV.G.6 below.

Under our revised discount policy,

three principal requirements are

appropriate. First, any offer of a

discount for transmission and/or

ancillary services made by the

Transmission Provider must be

announced to all potential customers

solely by posting on the OASIS. This

requirement, which will ensure that all

potential Transmission Customers

under the Open Access pro forma tariff

will have equal access to discount

information, will guard against the

Transmission Provider’s wholesale

merchant function or an affiliate gaining

an unfair timing advantage concerning

the availability of discounts.

Second, we will require that any

customer-initiated requests for

discounts of transmission and/or

ancillary services occur solely by

posting on the OASIS, regardless of

whether the customer is the

Transmission Provider’s wholesale

merchant function, an affiliate, or a nonaffiliate. We will permit customerinitiated requests for discounts but will

require that such requests be visible (via

posting on the OASIS) to all market

participants.

Third, we will require that, once the

Transmission Provider and customer

agree to a discounted transaction for

transmission and/or ancillary services,

the details be immediately posted on the

OASIS. This requirement will be

equally applicable regardless of whether

the customer is the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function,

an affiliate, or a non-affiliate.

Additionally, we believe that any

‘‘negotiation’’ between a Transmission

Provider and a potential customer

should take place on the OASIS, and

should be visible to all market

participants, and we will revise our

regulations to accomplish this as soon

as practicable. To this end, we direct the

How Working Group, by no later than

June 2, 1997, to propose: (1) Whatever

changes are needed to the Standards

and Protocols document; and (2) the

earliest date when the industry can meet

such a requirement during Phase I.

In §§ 37.4(b)(5)(v) and 37.4(b)(5)(vi),

we required Transmission Providers to

post on the OASIS any offers they made

to their wholesale merchant function or

to their affiliates of a discounted price

for transmission services or ancillary

services. We are now deleting these

provisions because under our revised

discount policy, the distinction between

discounts to affiliates and discounts to

non-affiliates has been abandoned.

As discussed above, we are

addressing the modifications to the

posting requirements in § 37.6 in

Section IV.G.6 below.

F. Section 37.5—Obligations of

Transmission Providers and

Responsible Parties

In the OASIS regulations, the

Commission requires Transmission

Providers to operate an OASIS, either

individually or jointly with other

Transmission Providers. The

Transmission Provider may delegate

this responsibility to a Responsible

Party such as another Transmission

Provider, an Independent System

Operator, a Regional Transmission

Group, a Regional Reliability Council, or

a third-party operator. Nevertheless,

each Transmission Provider remains

responsible for compliance, regardless

of whether it establishes its own OASIS

or participates in a joint OASIS.

Rehearing Requests

TAPS and TDU Systems argue that

the Commission should require

Transmission Providers to establish a

regional OASIS because individual

utility OASIS sites are inefficient. They

contend that, as the number of OASIS

sites increases, OASIS postings become

less meaningful and the

accomplishments of the OASIS Final

Rule lessen.58

Commission Conclusion

At this juncture, the Commission

continues to believe it appropriate to

encourage, but not require, regional

OASIS sites. It is the Commission’s

understanding that most utilities are

participating in regional OASIS sites.

This issue can be revisited in Phase II

of OASIS, if a significant number of

utilities fail to join a regional OASIS

and this results in significant

inefficiency in bulk power markets.

G. Section 37.6—Information to be

Posted on an Oasis

1. Definition of ‘‘Posted Path’’

Section 37.6(b)(1)(i) defines a posted

path as: (1) any control area to control

area interconnection; (2) any path for

which service is denied, curtailed or

interrupted for more than 24 hours in

the past 12 months; and (3) any path for

which a customer requests the posting

of ATC or total transmission capability

(TTC). For posted paths requested by

customers, the paths must be posted for

180 days and the posting must continue

after that until 180 days elapse from the

most recent request for service over the

path.

Rehearing Requests

CCEM argues that the Commission

erred by requiring posting of ATC solely

at interfaces between control areas.

CCEM further argues that the

Commission should require the posting

of paths across control areas.59

MAPP argues that the Commission

should reconsider the requirement to

post ATC between control areas or, in

the alternative, should grant it a waiver

of this requirement. MAPP suggests that

posted paths should be defined as paths

between zones determined by

transmission constraints. MAPP argues

that defining posted paths in this

manner would be more consistent with

the MAPP regional flow-based

transmission arrangement.60

EEI asks the Commission to revise the

criteria for a customer-requested posted

path. EEI argues that customers should

have to make a service request over the

path within 180 days of asking that the

path be a posted path or face a

penalty.61

Commission Conclusion

The Commission will not require the

posting of all paths across control areas,

since customers can request to have

ATC and TTC posted for any path.

Given that customers can request to

have ATC and TTC posted for any path,

adopting CCEM’s proposal would

burden OASIS sites with a very large

number of posted paths that may have

little commercial value.

As to MAPP’s request to drop the

requirement for posting ATC for paths

between control areas, MAPP’s concern

appears to relate to business

relationships particular to the MAPP

agreement. MAPP’s request for a waiver

is not based on a lack of traffic over its

system. It is based on the fact that

MAPP’s control areas do not correspond

to the service territories of its members

(MAPP has 26 utilities and 14 control

areas). Some of its control areas cover

the generation of more than one utility.

Other control areas overlap the same
12494 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

62EEI Rehearing Request at p. 48 and Public

Service Co of CO Rehearing Request at pp. 1–2.

63NERC’s Glossary of Terms, August 1996.

64EEI Rehearing Request at pp. 49–52. 65EEI Rehearing Request at p. 52.

geographic area, with each control area

covering the generation of a separate

utility.

Under MAPP’s proposal, it will

provide pool-wide transmission service

based on a MW mile methodology. It

proposes to determine the transmission

availability for known constrained

interfaces or paths and assess the impact

on its member systems of each

transaction based on the POD and POR

for each transaction. MAPP argues that

the Open Access Final Rule was

intended to accommodate flow based

pricing methods and that, under the

circumstances, it makes sense for its

member systems to make postings for

area to area interfaces rather than

control area to control area interfaces.

MAPP argues that we should either

change our rules for posting between

control areas or grant it a waiver.

After reviewing MAPP’s arguments,

we do not believe that it would be

appropriate to modify the ATC posting

requirements to address a MAPPspecific issue. However, the

Commission will grant MAPP a limited

waiver of the control area to control area

ATC/TTC posting requirement (in

§ 37.6(b)(1)(i)) based on the particular

circumstances presented by the MAPP

system. This waiver should not harm

Transmission Customers because MAPP

provides pool wide transmission service

using a flow based (single MW-mile)

pricing methodology for the entire

system and proposes to determine

transmission availability for all known

constrained interfaces or paths.

Moreover, this waiver only applies to

postings for intra-MAPP interfaces.

MAPP will still be required to post ATC

and TTC for control area to control area

paths that connect its member systems

with neighboring transmission systems.

Finally, MAPP customers can always

request that ATC/TTC be posted for a

specific path including a control area to

control area path (in which case MAPP

would be required to post the

information for the path on its OASIS

node).

Turning to EEI’s suggested limitations

on customers requesting that paths be

posted, we find that requiring a

customer to request service over any

path that it asks to be posted places too

heavy a burden on customers. However,

the Commission may reconsider this

requirement if we find that customers

abuse the system by requesting postings

for too many paths over which no

requests for service are made.

2. Definition of ‘‘interconnection’’

‘‘Posted path’’ is defined in § 37.6, in

part, as ‘‘any control area to control area

interconnection.’’ However, the

regulation does not provide a definition

of ‘‘interconnection’’.

Rehearing Request

EEI and Public Service Co of CO ask

the Commission to clarify that the term

‘‘interconnection’’, in the definition of

‘‘posted path’’ in § 37.6, includes lines

connecting two systems or control areas

rather than just one line.62

Commission Conclusion

To avoid any confusion, we clarify

that the term ‘‘interconnection’’ in the

definition of posted path means all

facilities connecting two adjacent

control areas and we are amending

§ 37.6 accordingly. This is consistent

with the definition of ‘‘interconnection’’

in NERC’s Glossary of Terms: ‘‘the

facilities that connect two systems or

Control Areas.’’63

3. ATC Supporting Information

The OASIS regulations require that

the Responsible Party make all data

used to calculate ATC and TTC for any

constrained path publicly available

within one week of the ATC/TTC

posting.

a. Disclosure of Data Supporting

Calculations of ATC and TTC

Rehearing Request

EEI argues that the requirement in

§ 37.6(b)(2)(ii) to disclose data

supporting calculations of ATC and TTC

provides competitors with backdoor

access to sensitive proprietary

information. It claims that the

Commission intended to allow

companies to keep confidential

information such as generation run

status and the maintenance schedules

for generation and transmission.64

Commission Conclusion

EEI is correct that the Commission

declined in the OASIS Final Rule to

require the posting of information about

the run status of generation and

transmission facilities. However, EEI

incorrectly attributes the Commission’s

decision to a finding on the claimed

proprietary nature of this information.

The Commission did not require the

same-time posting of facility status

information because the Commission

did not believe this information was

needed for Phase I implementation. The

OASIS Final Rule states that the

Commission may reconsider the issue in

Phase II.

On rehearing, EEI argues that the

same considerations about commercial

sensitivity that led the Commission to

decline to order the same-time posting

of facility status also dictate that this

information should not be divulged as

part of the data supporting ATC

calculations. We reject this argument for

three reasons. First, as shown above,

EEI’s argument is based on a false

premise as to why the Commission

declined to order the same-time posting

of information on facility run status.

Second, even if, arguendo, we

accepted EEI’s contention that the sametime posting of facility run status is

commercially sensitive, this still would

not suffice to show that making ATC

supporting information available on

request and after seven days would have

any adverse competitive impact.

Whatever commercial sensitivity the

information might have would be

greatly diminished by the fact that seven

days need to elapse before a request for

the information can be made. In our

view, this delay ensures that no realistic

concern remains about the competitive

consequences of releasing this

information.

Finally, the purpose of ATC

supporting information is to ensure that

Transmission Customers have

confidence in ATC/TTC postings. The

OASIS and the Commission’s functional

unbundling policy depend on customers

being able to rely upon the accuracy of

ATC postings. The availability of ATC

supporting information is essential for

building and maintaining this

confidence. Thus, the concerns raised

by EEI about commercial sensitivity are,

in our judgment, outweighed by the

public interest served by making this

information available, upon request,

after seven days. The Commission will

not further restrict the availability of

information needed to support ATC/

TTC calculations and this information

will continue to be available to

customers upon request after seven

days.

b. Disclosure of Data on Nonfirm ATC

Rehearing Request

EEI also argues against disclosing

supporting data on nonfirm ATC

because it would not exist but for the

collection of data to calculate firm ATC

and TTC.65

Commission Conclusion

If, as EEI claims, data supporting the

calculation of nonfirm ATC does not

exist in an independent form and is a

residual of calculating firm ATC, then
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12495

66See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,746. See also

OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,754–55, where we

decided not to require the posting of generator run

status. Although the OASIS Final Rule does not

require the posting of utility generation data, per se,

this data may be required to be reported, after-thefact, as part of the Transmission Provider’s

supporting data for ATC calculations.

67NUCOR Rehearing Request at pp. 15–18.

68As to NUCOR’s contention that after-the-fact

review of utility generation data would be

ineffectual, we note that if we required the

contemporaneous posting of such information on

the OASIS (as proposed by NUCOR), our review of

any complaint filed as a result of such information

would still be conducted after-the-fact.

69CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 10.

70CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 5 and EPRI/

NERC Working Group Rehearing Request at p. 9.

For purposes of submitting their request for

rehearing, the How Working Group and the What

Working Group combined their efforts and

submitted a joint request for rehearing on behalf of

‘‘the Industry Management Process on How to

Implement Transmission Services Information

Networks’’ (EPRI/NERC Working Group).

71 In Order No. 888–A, the Commission addresses

the issue of reducing the minimum term for firm

point-to-point transmission service from one day to

one hour.

72CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 3–4.

73EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request

at p. 9.

requiring a Transmission Provider to

document how it calculates nonfirm

ATC should be relatively simple and

should not require much additional

information. Therefore, the Commission

requires that supporting information for

firm and nonfirm information be

available as required in § 37.6(b)(2)(ii).

c. Time Limits for Disclosure of Utility

Generation Data

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission rejected arguments by

NUCOR that the Commission should

require data on generation costs to be

posted on OASIS on a same-time

basis.66

Rehearing Request

On rehearing, NUCOR argues again

that the Commission should require

same-time disclosure of utility

generation data used for economic

dispatch.67

Commission Conclusion

In the OASIS Final Rule, we rejected

the argument that we should require the

same-time disclosure of utility

generation data used for economic

dispatch based on a balancing of the

need for the information, the claimed

commercial sensitivity of the

information, and the desire to avoid, to

the extent possible, having public

utilities reporting generation data that

their competitors may not be required to

report. We concluded that the

information was not necessary and that

during Phase I we would limit OASIS

postings to essentials.

On rehearing, NUCOR attempts to

buttress its argument by pointing out

that utilities will face financial pressure

to maintain or enhance their market

share in electric generation and that the

Commission’s enforcement of the

standards of conduct could be enhanced

by requiring the same-time disclosure of

generation data. NUCOR expresses the

concern that after-the-fact complaints,

unearthed based on a review of audit

files, may be neither feasible nor

practical.

NUCOR’s arguments about

discriminatory treatment are not new.

They highlight the need for the

Commission and other OASIS users to

review this information to ensure that

system operators have not conducted

system operations in violation of the

OASIS standards of conduct. NUCOR

argues that only by requiring the sametime disclosure of utility generation data

used for economic dispatch can we be

sure that unduly preferential treatment

by means of a Transmission Provider’s

own generation will not occur. We do

not quarrel with the possibility of

affiliate abuse raised by NUCOR.

However, NUCOR still has not

persuaded us that it is necessary to post

these data. If experience shows that the

concerns raised by NUCOR are a

significant problem, we can consider

further actions in the future.68

d. Reporting of Network Service Usage

Rehearing Request

CCEM argues that the Commission

erred by not requiring Transmission

Providers to report network service

usage monthly.69

Commission Conclusion

CCEM does not state what it means by

monthly network service usage or

explain why the Transmission Provider

should be required to report the data. In

any event, we note that the current

measure of network usage is load (i.e.,

billing is based on load-ratio usage). To

the extent that utilities use the monthly

load data of network customers in

calculating ATC, utilities will include

load data in the ATC/TTC supporting

information required in § 37.6(b)(2)(ii).

4. Posting Firm and Nonfirm ATC

Separately

Section 37.6(b)(3) of the OASIS

regulations addresses the posting of

ATC and TTC for constrained and

unconstrained posted paths. For

constrained posted paths, the

regulations contain separate posting

requirements for firm and nonfirm ATC.

For unconstrained posted paths, the

posting requirements for firm and

nonfirm ATC are the same. Section

37.6(b)(3)(ii) does not specifically

mention firm and nonfirm ATC.

Rehearing Requests

CCEM and the EPRI/NERC Working

Group argue that the Commission erred

by failing to require the separate posting

of firm ATC and nonfirm ATC for

unconstrained posted paths.70

Commission Conclusion

The regulations inadvertently left out

a reference to firm and nonfirm ATC in

the posting requirements for

unconstrained posted paths. The

regulations at § 37.6(b)(3)(ii) will be

modified to correct this and to clarify

that firm and nonfirm ATC for

unconstrained paths, like firm and

nonfirm ATC for constrained paths,

must be posted separately.

5. Minimum Term of Firm Point-toPoint Transmission Service

Section 13.1 of the Open Access Final

Rule’s pro forma tariff specifies that the

minimum required term for Firm Pointto-Point Transmission Service is one

day.71 By contrast, § 37.6(b)(3)(i) of the

OASIS regulations requires the posting

of firm and nonfirm ATC on constrained

paths for the next hour and for the next

168 hours (i.e., for the next week).

Rehearing Requests

CCEM argues that the Commission

erred by not requiring Transmission

Providers to offer hourly firm

transmission service.72 CCEM argues

that, if the Commission agrees to change

the Open Access pro forma tariff to

allow for hourly firm transmission

service, then the requirement to post

hourly transmission service requests on

the OASIS should be deferred until the

reliability of OASIS sites is established.

EPRI/NERC Working Group argues

that the posting of ATC and other

information should be consistent with a

utility’s Open Access pro forma tariff.

They argue that, as the minimum term

for firm ATC is one day under the Open

Access pro forma tariff, firm ATC

should only be required to be posted

daily instead of hourly. Hourly firm

ATC would be posted only if it is

offered under a revised Open Access

tariff.73

Commission Conclusion

The OASIS regulations currently

require the posting of hourly firm ATC

even though the shortest mandated term

for firm transmission service under the

Open Access pro forma tariff is one day.

The Commission believes hourly

posting provides useful information to
12496 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

74EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request

at p. 10.

75Other benefits of an active system include:

• Making the market more efficient by notifying

customers immediately of changes in ATC on

specified paths and sending system-wide notices

directly to customers as soon as they are issued.

• Making OASIS nodes more responsive by

reducing the load on the servers caused by

customers periodically checking for messages.

customers about the availability of daily

service and the likelihood of

curtailment during particular hours

during the day.

If a Transmission Provider voluntarily

offers hourly firm service in its Open

Access pro forma tariff, it must offer the

service through postings on its OASIS.

Section 37.6(c)(1) requires Transmission

Providers to ‘‘post prices and a

summary of the terms and conditions

associated with all transmission

products offered to Transmission

Customers.’’ [Emphasis added]. The

OASIS regulations do not, however,

control what services must be provided

by Transmission Providers. This is

covered by the Open Access Final Rule.

6. Posting of Discounts

Under the OASIS Final Rule,

§ 37.6(c)(3) of the OASIS regulations

requires a Transmission Provider to post

(within 24 hours of its adjustment of its

ATC calculation) any discounts on

transmission service given to nonaffiliated customers. This posting was

required to remain on the OASIS for 30

days.

Rehearing Requests

EPRI/NERC Working Group asks the

Commission to clarify that the purpose

of the requirement in § 37.6(c)(3) to post

discount information for 30 days is to

record the discount and does not

constitute a continuing offer of a

discount. They suggest dropping this

requirement since, under § 37.7, audit

data (including data on discounts) must

be recorded and retained.74

Commission Conclusion

As discussed above in Section IV.E.8,

the Commission has adopted a new

discounting policy, which is more fully

elaborated in Order No. 888–A. This

new discounting policy necessitates a

number of changes to the OASIS posting

requirements.

We have revised and moved the text

of § 37.6(c)(3) to § 37.6(c)(4) and have

substituted a new § 37.6(c)(3) that

requires that any offer of a discount by

the Transmission Provider for

transmission service must be announced

to all potential customers solely by

posting on the OASIS.

We have revised the section now

designated as § 37.6(c)(4) to no longer

treat the posting of transmission service

transactions involving the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function

or affiliates differently from the posting

of transactions involving non-affiliates.

However, we will require that

transactions involving the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function

or affiliates be identified. The 24-hour

delay in posting non-affiliate discounts

has been dropped. All transactions for

transmission service, agreed to between

a Transmission Provider and a

customer, regardless of whether they

involve a discount or not, must be

posted at the time when ATC must be

adjusted in response to the transaction.

We also have expanded the list of

information about the transaction

required to be posted.

We have revised and moved the text

of § 37.6(d)(2) to § 37.6(d)(3) and have

substituted a new § 37.6(d)(2) that

requires that any offer of a discount by

the Transmission Provider for ancillary

service in support of the Transmission

Provider’s provision of transmission

service must be announced to all

potential customers solely by posting on

the OASIS.

We have revised the section now

designated as § 37.6(d)(3) to no longer

treat the posting of ancillary service

transactions involving the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function

or affiliates differently from the posting

of transactions involving non-affiliates.

However, we will require that

transactions involving Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function

or affiliates be identified. The 24-hour

delay in posting non-affiliate discounts

has been dropped. All transactions for

ancillary service, agreed to between a

Transmission Provider and a customer,

regardless of whether they involve a

discount or not, must be posted on the

OASIS at the time when ATC must be

adjusted in response to an associated

transmission service transaction, if any.

We also have expanded the list of

information about the transaction

required to be posted.

We have revised § 37.6(e)(1)(i) to

require that, with the exception of nexthour service, requests for transmission

and ancillary service must be posted

prior to the Transmission Provider

responding to these requests. This will

ensure that other customers can observe

any discounts being requested before

they are acted on. We also are requiring

that all postings of requests be made

comparably. We are making this

revision to prevent discriminatory

practices.

We are revising § 37.6(e)(1)(ii) to

expand the information required to be

posted on the status of requests for

transmission and ancillary service to

include the information required in

§ 37.6(c)(4) and § 37.6(d)(3).

We are deleting the provision

formerly found at § 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and

are revising § 37.6(e)(3)(i) because,

under the Commission’s new

discounting policy, we no longer will

allow the identity of parties to be

masked.

We are adding a new provision, at

§ 37.6(e)(1)(iii), that provides that in the

event that a discount is being requested

for ancillary services that are not in

support of a basic transmission service

being provided by the Transmission

Provider, such request need not be

posted on the OASIS. We add this

provision because we are limiting our

revisions relating to the posting of

discounts for ancillary services to those

ancillary services that are in support of

basic transmission service provided by

a Transmission Provider.

The Phase I OASIS is a passive

communication system. A customer

sends a request for a discount directly

to the Transmission Provider. But the

passive nature of the Phase I OASIS

prevents the Transmission Provider

from sending a reply directly to the

customer. Instead, the Transmission

Provider posts the reply on the OASIS

and the customer must periodically

check the node for the reply. A more

active communication system would

permit the Transmission Provider to

send replies directly to customers, as

well as to anyone else who is interested.

Offers and replies could be exchanged

quickly, and the unnecessary delays

caused by the cumbersomeness of the

passive system would be eliminated.

We, therefore, request the How Working

Group to consider adding more active

capabilities to the OASIS in Phase II.75

The Commission’s revised discount

policy necessitates certain changes to

the Standards and Protocols document.

The OASIS regulations require that

prices offered by a Transmission

Provider be posted and that discounts

requested by customers be posted.

However, under the current Standards

and Protocols document, the templates

for posting of offered and requested

prices do not identify whether these

prices constitute a discount and how

much of a discount these prices

represent. We believe that this

information is vitally important to

prevent discrimination.

Accordingly, we are requiring that the

templates in the Standards and

Protocols document dealing with posted

offerings (§ 4.3.2), status of transmission

service requests (§ 4.3.7), and status of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12497

76CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 6–7.

77The issue of the timing of when requests for

transmission service, responses thereto,

curtailments, and interruptions must be posted on

the OASIS is discussed in section IV.G.9 below.

78APPA Rehearing Request at pp. 19–21 and Blue

Ridge Rehearing Request at p. 39.

79CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 11–12.

80EEI Rehearing Request at p. 49.

81NE Public Power District Rehearing Request at

p. 14.

ancillary service requests (§ 4.3.9), be

revised to include: (1) The Transmission

Provider’s filed (ceiling) transmission

and ancillary services rates; (2) the

Transmission Provider’s offering price;

(3) the price requested by the customer;

and (4) the details of the negotiated

transaction. We request that the How

Working Group propose the necessary

changes in the Standards and Protocols

document and the Data Dictionary by

June 2, 1997.

Turning to EPRI/NERC Working

Group’s request that we clarify that the

purpose of the requirement in

§ 37.6(c)(4) (formerly found at

§ 37.6(c)(3)) to post discount

information for 30 days is to record the

discount and does not constitute a

continuing offer of a discount, we agree

that this posting requirement does not

constitute an offer of a discount. The

purpose of this requirement is to

document discounting that might be

considered unduly preferential or

discriminatory. To serve this purpose, it

is important that Transmission

Customers have ready access to this

information. Posting of discounts

provides ready access, while the audit

information does not.

7. Secondary Markets

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission directed, in § 37.6(c)(4),

that customers choosing to use the

OASIS to offer transmission capacity

(that they have purchased) for resale

must post relevant information on the

same OASIS used by that customer in

purchasing the transmission capacity.

This information must be posted on the

same display page, using the same

tables, as similar capability being sold

by the Transmission Provider, and the

information must be contained in the

same downloadable files as the

Transmission Provider’s own available

capability. A customer reselling

transmission capacity without the use of

an OASIS must, nevertheless, inform

the original Transmission Provider of

the transaction within the time limits

prescribed by § 23.1 (‘‘Procedures for

Assignment of Transmission Service’’)

of the Open Access pro forma tariff.

Rehearing Requests

CCEM makes three arguments

regarding secondary markets. First,

CCEM argues that the Commission erred

by not allowing the assignee of

transmission capacity, or its agent, to

schedule the transmission service

obtained in the secondary market.

Second, CCEM argues that the

Commission should clarify that it will

not impose onerous regulations on

secondary market participants. Third,

CCEM argues that the Commission erred

by not excluding customers receiving

service under pre-Open Access tariffs

from participation in the secondary

market until they agree to comply with

the Open Access pro forma tariff.76

Commission Conclusion

CCEM’s arguments relate more to our

findings in Order No. 888 than to the

OASIS Final Rule. Accordingly, we

incorporate here our findings that we

explain in greater detail in Order No.

888–A. First, the Open Access pro

forma tariff does not prohibit the

assignee of transmission capacity from

scheduling transmission service with

the Transmission Provider. Second, the

issues raised by CCEM with respect to

the regulation of resellers into the

secondary market are fact specific and

we will decide them on a case-by-case

basis. Third, we reject CCEM’s argument

that customers receiving service under

pre-Open Access tariffs should be

excluded from participation in the

secondary market until they agree to

comply with the Open Access pro forma

tariff.

8. Masking of Service Request

Information

Section 37.6(e)(1)(ii) of the OASIS

Final Rule requires the Responsible

Party to post certain information about

the status of the request. In

§ 37.6(e)(1)(iii) of the OASIS Final Rule,

the Commission allowed the parties to

mask the identity of the requester

during the negotiation period and for 30

days after the request is accepted,

denied or withdrawn.

Under § 37.6(e)(1) and § 37.6(e)(3), all

requests for transmission service and all

transmission service curtailments or

interruptions must be posted on the

Transmission Provider’s OASIS in

accordance with the terms of the

Transmission Provider’s tariff.77 Under

the OASIS Final Rule, parties to these

transactions were allowed to request

that their identities be masked for 30

days. See §§ 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and

37.6(e)(3)(i).

Rehearing Requests

APPA argues that the Commission

erred in permitting Transmission

Providers to withhold critical market

information about requests for

transmission and ancillary services.

APPA and Blue Ridge believe that the

30-day masking period for the identity

of the requester is inappropriate. They

claim that the Commission failed to

require posting of the price, quantity,

and any other relevant terms or

conditions associated with a request for

service at the time when the provider

accepts the request. They argue that

withholding the precise terms of a

proposed transaction and the identity of

parties denies other market participants

the opportunity to make informed

decisions, is potentially discriminatory,

and inefficient. They argue that data

provided 30 days later are of little use

to market participants.78

CCEM identifies an apparent conflict

between the OASIS regulations and

OASIS Final Rule preamble on the

posting of denials. It asks the

Commission to clarify that Transmission

Providers need not post, for reasons

other than those related to ATC, the

reason for any denial of transmission

service on an OASIS. A requester can,

however, request a fuller explanation.79

EEI argues that masking the identities

of requesters should not apply to system

operators. EEI argues that system

operators need to know all the parties to

a transaction to ensure reliability and to

ensure equity in the treatment of

customers.80

NE Public Power District argues that

certain provisions in the Final Rule

dealing with confidentiality (i.e.,

§§ 37.6(e)(1)(iii) and 37.6(e)(3)(i)) are in

conflict with Nebraska state law. NE

Public Power District explains that it is

subject to state freedom of information

laws and must disclose commercially

sensitive information such as the

identity of a customer seeking

transmission service, unless the

information constitutes an exempt trade

secret.81 NE Public Power District

maintains that utilities subject to local

freedom of information laws should be

given the option to conform their

conduct to those laws.

Commission Conclusion

We agree with APPA that the masking

provision should be dropped and we are

amending our regulations accordingly.

We are making this decision as part of

our new discounting policy, that we

explain more fully above and in Order

No. 888–A. Consistent with this finding,

we request that the How Working Group

eliminate any references in the

Standards and Protocols document to

masking the identities of parties (e.g.,

§ 4.3.7(b)). This should be done in

concert with the report to be submitted
12498 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

82See Open Access Same-time Information

System and Standards of Conduct, 77 FERC

¶ 61,335 at 62,491 (1996) (Clarifying Order).

83Letter dated December 23, 1996 from the How

Working Group. The 2:00 p.m. deadline is

consistent with § 14.6 of the Open Access pro forma

tariff, which provides: ‘‘Schedules for Non-Firm

Point-to-Point Transmission Service must be

submitted to the Transmission Provider no later

than 2:00 p.m. . . . of the day prior to

commencement of such service. Schedules

submitted after 2:00 p.m. will be accommodated, if

practicable.’’ See Clarifying Order, 77 FERC at

62,492, n.4.

84 Id. (Emphasis in original).

85See § 37.6(e)(1)(i).

86See § 37.6(e)(1)(ii).

87See § 37.6(e)(1)(iii).

88CCEM Rehearing Request at pp. 4–5. We note

that CCEM’s rehearing request regarding hourly

firm transmission service is misplaced. The

Commission has rejected hourly firm point-to-point

transmission service as a mandatory service to be

provided under the Open Access pro forma tariff.

See Order No. 888, FERC Stats & Regs. at 31,752.

89APPA Rehearing Request at p. 23 and Blue

Ridge Rehearing Request at p. 40.

no later than June 2, 1997. Moreover,

EEI’s concern that the masking of

parties’ identities would apply to

system operators is now moot. NE

Public Power District’s concerns are also

moot.

We agree with CCEM that language in

the preamble of the OASIS Final Rule

can be interpreted as being inconsistent

with the requirement in § 37.6(e)(2)(i) to

provide the reasons why requests for

service are denied. However, consistent

with the Commission’s new discounting

policy, we will interpret § 37.6(e)(2)(i) to

require Transmission Providers to post

the reasons for a denial of a request for

service on the OASIS for review by all

OASIS users.

We will also take this opportunity to

clarify that § 37.6(e) applies not only to

requests for transmission service, but

also to requests for ancillary service.

Although this was the intent of the

OASIS Final Rule, it was not clearly

stated. We will make the necessary

revisions to make this clear.

9. Requests for Service Made on the

OASIS During Phase I

On December 23, 1996, the How

Working Group filed a letter requesting

clarification of whether the Commission

intended, in the OASIS Final Rule, to

require that the OASIS serve as a ‘‘next

hour’’ reservation tool during Phase 1 of

OASIS implementation. The letter

stated:

It was the interpretation of the How

Working Group that a Provider would accept

reservation requests after 2 p.m. of the

preceding day, only if practical. Otherwise,

these requests would be accepted off-line and

posted after-the-fact. It was our view that

‘‘next hour’’ functionality was not feasible in

Phase 1.

In response, the Commission issued an

order explaining that the OASIS Final

Rule makes a clear distinction between

reserving transmission service and

scheduling transmission service.82 The

Commission further explained that the

Phase 1 OASIS regulations create a

mechanism for making reservations of

transmission service, while the

inclusion of energy scheduling as part of

the OASIS requirements was left as a

Phase 2 OASIS issue. Nevertheless, the

Commission acknowledged that ‘‘for

near-term transactions, the distinction

between scheduling and reservations

tends to blur.’’ This left the problem

raised by the How Working Group’s

letter. To wit,

[t]he OASIS regulations provide, at 18 C.F.R.

§ 37.6(e)(1), that ‘‘[a]ll requests for

transmission services offered by

Transmission Providers under the pro forma

tariff must be made on the OASIS.’’

Notwithstanding the clear language of this

regulation, the How Working Group would

like to accommodate requests for service,

made after 2:00 p.m. of the day preceding the

commencement of such service, off the

OASIS and states that it is not feasible to

handle such requests on the OASIS during

Phase 1. [ 83]

To resolve this difficulty, the

Commission clarified in a recent order

that,

during Phase I, a request for transmission

service made after 2:00 p.m. of the day

preceding the commencement of such

service, will be ‘‘made on the OASIS’’ if it

is made directly on the OASIS, or, if it is

made by facsimile or telephone and promptly

(within one hour) posted on the OASIS by

the Transmission Provider. In all other

circumstances, requests for transmission

service must be made exclusively on the

OASIS. [ 84]

As part of the Commission’s revised

discount policy, see discussion in

Section IV.G.6 and Order No. 888–A, we

have required Transmission Providers to

post requests for transmission and

ancillary services, including requests for

discounts, on the OASIS prior to taking

action on those requests.85 This policy

applies to all requests for discounts for

transmission and/or ancillary service

with the exception of requests for nexthour service during Phase I.86

For next-hour service requests, the

Transmission Provider, during Phase I,

must post the request for discounted

service on the OASIS, as soon as

possible, but in no event later than one

hour after the request for a discount is

received.

In the event that a discount is being

requested for ancillary services that are

not in support of a basic transmission

service being offered by the

Transmission Provider, this need not be

posted on the OASIS.87

10. Delay in Posting Requests for Hourly

Transmission Service and Schedule

Information

Section 37.6(e) requires a

Transmission Provider to post on the

OASIS requests for transmission service

that is offered by that Transmission

Provider under its Open Access pro

forma tariff, in accordance with its

tariff, the FPA, and Commission

regulations. Section 37.6(f) requires

information about transmission service

schedules to be recorded and available

for download from the OASIS. This

information must be available within

seven calendar days of when the service

is scheduled.

Rehearing Requests

CCEM requests that the Commission

clarify that Responsible Parties must

post requests for hourly firm and

nonfirm transmission within the next

hour following the request.88

APPA and Blue Ridge argue that the

seven-day delay in posting transmission

schedule data is potentially

discriminatory and makes the data

meaningless for hourly or daily

transactions. They ask that Responsible

Parties post schedule information when

they update postings of ATC or, at

latest, when service begins.89

Commission Conclusion

The OASIS regulations currently do

not specify how soon the Responsible

Party must post a request for service

after it is received. However, under our

new discounting policy we are requiring

such postings to be made prior to the

Transmission Provider responding to

the request. Moreover, although we are

not adopting a specific time period for

such postings, as requested by CCEM,

we are adding a requirement that all

such postings be made on a comparable

basis, to prevent discriminatory

practices.

The Phase I OASIS is a transmission

information and service application

system. The Commission accepts the

industry’s position that including

scheduling of transmission service in

the Phase I OASIS is not possible. The

Commission strongly encourages the

industry to consider including

transmission service scheduling in

Phase II of the OASIS.

The reporting of schedule information

serves the same purpose as the audit

information (i.e., to document

discriminatory practices). The

Commission does not intend schedule

information to supplement ATC
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12499

90See 18 CFR § 37.6(g)(2) and OASIS Final Rule,

61 FR at 21,755.

91CSW Rehearing Request at pp. 2–6.

92See, e.g., Texas Eastern Transmission

Corporation, 62 FERC ¶ 61,015 at 61,107 (1993).

93 /EEI Rehearing Request at p. 52.

94EPRI/NERC Working Group Rehearing Request

at pp. 9–10.

95See supra note 4.

96See Open Access pro forma tariff at §§ 17.5 and

18.4.

97See Standards and Protocols document at

§ 3.6(b).

98CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 7.

99EPRI/NERC Working Group letter dated July 3,

1996 at pp. 1–2.

postings on a same-time basis during

Phase I.

11. Liability for Accuracy of ATC/TTC

Estimates

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission found that the

responsibility for assuring the reliability

and accuracy of data supplied by third

parties rests with those third parties and

not with the public utility that posts this

information on the OASIS as an

accommodation.90 As to the accuracy of

a Transmission Provider’s own

estimates of its ATC and TTC, the

OASIS Final Rule provides that

Transmission Providers are required to

post the amounts ‘‘expected to be

available’’ (§ 37.6(b)) but does not

directly address whether (and to what

extent) Transmission Providers are

liable for the accuracy of good faith

estimates made in accordance with

prescribed procedures.

Rehearing Request

CSW argues that Transmission

Providers should not be liable for the

accuracy of ATC & TTC estimates made

in good faith and in accordance with the

company’s published procedures.91

Commission Conclusion

As further discussed in Order No.

888–A, the Commission will not revise

the Open Access pro forma tariff, as

requested by CSW, to provide that a

Transmission Provider will not be liable

for errors in an estimate made in good

faith or in accordance with its published

procedure, because we believe that a

utility should have the same liability

standard for operating an OASIS as it

has for its other operations.92

H. Section 37.7—Auditing Transmission

Service Information

The OASIS regulations require that all

OASIS database transactions, except

‘‘want ads’’ and ‘‘other

communications’’, are to be stored and

remain available for download for 90

days. After 90 days, the audit data are

available on request for three years.

Rehearing Requests

EEI argues that the retention period

for audit data retained under § 37.7(b) is

excessive and should be reduced from

90 days to 7 days. EEI argues that,

beyond 7 days, the data could be

provided off-line, upon request.93

Similarly, EPRI/NERC Working Group

(with APPA dissenting) argues that the

Commission should reduce the on-line

availability of the ATC/TTC data in the

audit file from 90 to 10 days. They claim

that the longer time limit is burdensome

and unfeasible and suggest making the

data available off-line.94

Commission Conclusion

The Commission agrees with the

proposal of the EPRI/NERC Working

Group majority that we should reduce

the amount of time that the audit file

remains on-line. However, we believe

that ten days may not be long enough

to provide OASIS users with sufficient

time to evaluate these data. In our

judgment, 20 calendar days is a period

that will allow OASIS users who wish

to do so adequate time to find and

download these data (even allowing for

weekends or holidays) without unduly

burdening Transmission Providers.

Therefore, we will modify the

regulations at § 37.7(b) to shorten—from

90 to 20 days—the time during which

ATC/TTC postings must remain

available on the OASIS for download.

The data will, however, remain

available (upon request) for three years

from the date on which they are first

posted.

We will take this opportunity to

correct an omission in § 37.6(g)(3). As

written, this provision currently does

not specify the retention period for

notices of employee transfers. We will

correct this omission by specifying that

the posting requirements for notices of

employee transfers are the same as those

provided in § 37.7 for audit data

postings. We request that the How

Working Group propose the necessary

template (for notices of employee

transfers) to be included in the

Standards and Protocols document.

We also will take this opportunity to

clarify that the audit data required to be

made available for three years under

§ 37.7(b) are to be made available upon

request for download in the same

electronic form as used when they

originally were posted on the OASIS.

I. Standards and Communication

Protocols

1. CCEM’s Suggested Changes to the

Standards and Protocols Document

The OASIS Final Rule was

accompanied by a Standards and

Protocols document, revised on

September 10, 1996, to help ensure that

each OASIS will provide information in

a uniform manner.95 The publication

details the Phase I requirements for

technical issues related to the

implementation and use of an OASIS

(i.e., a compilation of OASIS standards

and communication protocols).

Rehearing Request

CCEM argues that the Commission

should clarify certain technical aspects

of the templates in the OASIS Standards

and Protocols document. We will

discuss these various suggested

revisions separately.

a. Service Request Priorities

The Open Access pro forma tariff

requires Transmission Providers to

respond to customer requests for pointto-point service within a certain time

limit depending on the type of service

requested.96 The OASIS Standards and

Protocols document states that ‘‘[i]f a

purchase request is approved by the

Seller, then it must be again confirmed

by the Customer. Once the customer

confirms an approved purchase, a

reservation for those services is

considered to exist, unless later the

reservation is reassigned or

displaced.’’ 97

Rehearing Request

CCEM asks the Commission to clarify

priorities between competing requests

for service. They also ask that

Transmission Customers be allowed to

confirm a purchase request before it has

been approved by the Transmission

Provider.98

EPRI/NERC Working Group requests

that the Commission: (1) specify a time

limit for customer confirmation of

accepted requests for service; (2)

eliminate the confirmation step; or (3)

handle confirmation limits in umbrella

service agreements.99

Commission Conclusion

The requirement that a customer

confirm its request for service appears

in the OASIS Standards and Protocols

document (and not in the Open Access

pro forma tariff or 18 CFR Part 37).

Although the easiest approach might be

to eliminate the confirmation step, the

Commission is reluctant to modify the

OASIS Standards and Protocols

document at this late date. The

Commission is also reluctant to specify

confirmation time limits without first

soliciting the views of representative

industry segments. Accordingly, the
12500 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

100See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,756.

101CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 12.

102 Id.

103APPA Rehearing Request at p. 25.

104Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open-Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of

Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting

Utilities, Open Access Same-Time Information

System and Standards of Conduct, Order Clarifying

Order Nos. 888 and 889, 76 FERC ¶ 61,009 at 61,026

(1996) (Clarifying Order).

105A review of CIPS, or any successor, will show

what standard word processor is currently

authorized by the Commission for its own uses.

106 ‘‘DUNS numbers’’ refer to the Data Universal

Numbering System, maintained by Dun and

Bradstreet.

107APPA Rehearing Request at p. 25.

Commission requests that the industry

address this issue as part of the Phase

II report due on or before August 4,

1997.

As to EPRI/NERC Working Group’s

suggestion of handling confirmation

limits in umbrella service agreements,

we find this acceptable, for the time

being, as long as Transmission Providers

treat all customers, including their own

wholesale merchant employees,

comparably.

b. Clarification of the Requirement to

Post, Upload, and Download

Information

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission discussed the necessity for

Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML)

screen displays and stated that this

information also needed to be made

available for downloading.100 The

Commission also required OASIS sites

to be set up in a manner that will allow

customers to upload certain information

to OASIS nodes.

Rehearing Request

CCEM requests that the Commission

clarify that when the OASIS Final Rule

makes an individual reference to

‘‘uploading’’, ‘‘downloading’’, or

‘‘posting’’ requirements (without

expressly making a reference to all three

of these requirements), the Commission,

nevertheless, intended to require, as

appropriate, a collective requirement to

upload, download, and post the

information at issue. CCEM points out

that uploading and downloading are

computer to computer transactions,

while posting is an on-line function.

CCEM argues that, in order for the

OASIS system to function effectively in

providing open access Transmission

Customers with information through

electronic means, uploading and

downloading should always be required

as an alternative to comparable on-line

services.101

Commission Conclusion

Section 4.3.1 of the revised Standards

and Protocols document, issued

subsequent to CCEM’s request, specifies

what type of information may be

uploaded to, or downloaded from,

OASIS nodes. Thus, CCEM’s goal of

clarifying the requirements for

uploading, downloading, and posting

has been met. We, therefore, find that it

is not necessary to broadly reinterpret

the terms used in the OASIS Final Rule,

as urged by CCEM.

c. Sequence of Data Elements Appearing

in Templates

Section 4.2.4.2 of the revised

Standards and Protocol document

discusses the format of downloadable

files. The narrative in § 4.2.4.2 2.d

states:

The DATA—ROWS record contains the

number of data records following the

COLUMN—HEADERS. The COLUMN—

HEADERS record contains the template

element name for each field that is required

in the Template, in the exact order as listed

in the Template. * * *

The Template information then follows as

records which correspond one-to-one with

the column headings.

Rehearing Request

CCEM requests clarification that the

data elements that make up the

templates in the Standards and

Protocols document are fixed in

sequence and in number. CCEM argues

that because computer systems will be

established on the basis of the templates

outlined in the Standards and Protocols

document, including the sequence of

templates and the number of data

elements, it is important that the order

of the data provided in the templates

not be shuffled. Otherwise, problems

may occur in the transfer and receipt of

information between computer

systems.102

Commission Conclusion

To avoid any possible confusion, we

hereby clarify that the Standards and

Protocols document requires that the

data elements in the templates are fixed

in sequence and number, and are not to

differ from OASIS node to OASIS node.

However, the Commission will continue

to order revisions to the Standards and

Protocols document periodically (thus

implementing across-the-board changes

to the templates for all OASIS nodes), as

necessary.

2. Standardized Format for Electronic

Tariff Filings

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission found that utilities must

provide tariff downloads from their

OASIS sites in the same format that they

use to file their tariffs with the

Commission. Order No. 888 permitted

tariff filings to be in any word processor

format.

Rehearing Request

APPA argues that the standardized

electronic format for tariffs needs to be

specified and recommends the use of

either ASCII or HTML.103

Commission Conclusion

The Commission’s order clarifying

Order Nos. 888 and 889 compliance

matters resolved the issue raised by

APPA by requiring that tariffs be filed

in either Wordperfect 5.1/5.2 or ASCII

format.104 However, in the near future,

the Commission expects to adopt

another standard word processor for its

own uses (i.e., Wordperfect 6.1). The

Commission will, therefore, modify the

finding in the Clarifying Order to accept

postings of tariff filings on the OASIS in

the ASCII format or in whatever

standard word processor format is

currently authorized by the Commission

for its own uses.105 Once posted, a tariff

posting will remain available for

download in its original format.

3. Company Codes and Identification

Displays

In the OASIS Final Rule, the

Commission required the use of ‘‘DUNS

numbers’’ to identify transmission

owning utilities and customers on

OASIS nodes.106

Rehearing Requests

APPA argues that, notwithstanding

claims to the contrary, the use of DUNS

numbers could result in costs being

incurred by OASIS users. APPA also

argues that, because Dun & Bradstreet

also owns Moody’s Investors Services,

DUNS numbers may somehow allow

Dun & Bradstreet/Moody’s customers to

obtain access to confidential

information about APPA members.

Accordingly, APPA requests that the

Commission use the EIA (Energy

Information Agency) UCode in lieu of

DUNS numbers to identify transmission

owning utilities and OASIS

customers.107

CCEM requests that the Commission

clarify that when information is

uploaded and downloaded, the DUNS

number identification of the parties be

the only field required to identify a

company. CCEM also requests

clarification that the Commission

require that for purposes of the HTML

displays, the minimum data element to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12501

108CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 13.

109 Id.

110 Id.

111See Standards and Protocols document at

§ 4.3.5.

112CCEM Rehearing Request at p. 13.

113See supra note 4.

114See Standards and Protocols document at

§ 5.7.

115See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,760–61.

116EEI Rehearing Request at pp. 54–55.

117See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,764.

be displayed should be the company’s

alias/initials.108

In addition, CCEM requests that

Transmission Providers be required to

maintain an additional display

containing a cross-reference of DUNS

number, full company name, and alias/

initials. CCEM argues that the crossreference will reduce confusion on the

OASIS.109

Commission Conclusion

The industry-wide Internet site on the

WWW (http:/www.tsin.com) reports

that Dun & Bradstreet will issue DUNS

numbers at no charge and provides

instructions and procedures for

applying for a DUNS number at no cost.

This representation is consistent with

our experience in issuing DUNS

numbers for natural gas pipelines and

their customers. We, therefore, find

APPA’s concerns about the costs of

DUNS numbers to be unwarranted.

As to APPA’s concern about DUNS

numbers somehow giving Moody’s

customers unrestricted access to

otherwise restricted information, we do

not find this concern convincing. The

Commission has several years’’

experience with requiring the use of

DUNS numbers for similar

identification purposes in the natural

gas pipeline industry and has not

received any complaints along these

lines.

We decline to adopt CCEM’s proposal

concerning identification fields and a

data element displays. The industry is

in the midst of implementing OASIS

standards and we are reluctant to

modify the Standards and Protocols

document at this time unless there is a

serious need for the modification.

CCEM’s proposal is one that may

somewhat improve the efficiency of

OASIS operations, but an OASIS can

operate without it, and, with

experience, other solutions may prove

preferable. We request that the industry

consider CCEM’s proposal when

developing standards for OASIS Phase II

implementation.

We agree with CCEM that an

additional display, such as a crossreference of possible business partners

and their various identification codes

and symbols, would greatly enhance the

industry’s ability to transact business.

Subsequent to CCEM’s request, the

‘‘TSIN’’ WWW site began providing

such a cross-reference. As long as this

Internet site continues to provide this

information for the entire industry,

there is no need for individual

Transmission Providers to do so.

4. Common Location Codes

In the preamble to the OASIS Final

Rule, we stated that we were

abandoning the proposal in the RIN

NOPR to require that the OASIS

incorporate a system for location codes.

We requested that the industry continue

its efforts to develop a common naming

convention to be implemented as soon

as practicable.

Rehearing Request

CCEM argues that the Commission

should modify the OASIS Final Rule to

include a requirement that

Transmission Providers provide a

downloadable on-line listing of all PORs

and PODs that includes point name,

point alias, and point code. CCEM also

requests that when downloading this

information, the customer should have

the ability to download only those

aspects of the listing that have changed

over a user-defined time period.110

Commission Conclusion

After CCEM filed its rehearing

request, the Standards and Protocols

document was revised to require that

this information be provided.111

5. Time by Which Hourly Postings Must

be Made Available

The OASIS Final Rule requires that

updates of hourly postings under

§ 37.6(b)(3)(i)(C)(2) are to be made on

the hour.

Rehearing Request

CCEM requests that the Commission

clarify that all hourly postings will be

available no later than ‘‘on the hour.’’

CCEM argues that these requirements

will be critical if computer-to-computer

interfaces are to be accomplished with

reliability and comparability.112

Commission Conclusion

Subsequent to CCEM’s request, the

Commission issued a revised Standards

and Protocol document that defines

permissible deviations from the hourly

posting requirement.113 The

Transmission Provider’s most recent

transmission services information must

be available on the OASIS node within

five minutes of its required posting time

at least 98 percent of the time. The

remaining two percent of the time, the

transmission services information must

be available within ten minutes of its

scheduled posting time.114 We are

satisfied with the resolution of this issue

in the revised Standards and Protocols

document, at least for the time being.

However, the industry may want to

address this issue again, in Phase II,

after it has more experience transacting

business on the OASIS.

J. Mechanism for Recovering Oasis

Expenses

In the preamble to the OASIS Final

Rule, the Commission concluded that it

is appropriate that all wholesale

Transmission Customers and all

unbundled retail Transmission

Customers pay a share of OASIS

development costs in their rates. The

costs of developing an OASIS are to be

included in unbundled transmission

rates with variable costs of operating an

OASIS to be recovered, to the extent

possible, in usage fees. Recovery of

OASIS costs is left to individual rate

proceedings.115

Rehearing Requests

EEI argues that the costs of operating

an OASIS should be recoverable in

supplements that the Transmission

Providers file to their rate schedules on

a company-specific basis. They ask that

Transmission Providers not be required

to amend their approved tariffs to seek

recovery of OASIS expenses. They argue

that refiling would be a problem

because it would entail unnecessary

expenses, because the level of such

expenses is subject to change, and

because the OASIS requirements are

still evolving and the systems are not

yet complete.116

Commission Conclusion

EEI is asking the Commission to allow

utilities to automatically adjust their

transmission rates to recover their

OASIS costs without filing for a change

in rates. The Commission has allowed

this sort of automatic rate adjustment for

fuel costs through fuel adjustment

clauses, but only because fuel costs are

a significant portion of total costs and

can be volatile. OASIS costs are neither.

We deny EEI’s request.

K. Section 37.8—Implementation

Schedule; Phases

Order No. 889 provided that all of the

requirements prescribed in the

standards of conduct were to be

complied with and Phase I OASIS sites

meeting all the requirements of the

OASIS Final Rule were to be in

operation by November 1, 1996.117 This

compliance schedule later was modified
12502 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

118See supra note 6.

119Union Rehearing Request at pp. 53–54, 56–57.

We also note that as of the issuance of this order,

Union’s OASIS site is in operation.

120 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612.

121See OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,762–63.

122NRECA Rehearing Request at pp. 42–48. On

November 1, 1996, NRECA filed a supplement to its

request for rehearing and clarifications. We will

accept NRECA’s pleading as a request for

clarification and/or a motion for reconsideration,

and not as a request for rehearing, because it was

not filed within the 30-day statutory time limit for

rehearing requests. See 16 U.S.C. § 8251(a).

123OASIS Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,742.

124NRECA Rehearing Request at pp. 42–43.

125See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3) and 601(6) and 15

U.S.C. § 632(a). The RFA defines a small entity as

one that is independently owned and not dominant

in its field of operation. See 15 U.S.C. § 632(a). The

Small Business Administration defines a small

electric utility as one that disposes of 4 million

MWh or less of electric energy in a given year. See

13 CFR 121.601 (Major Group 49–Electric, Gas and

Sanitary Services) (1995).

In the Open Access Final Rule, we concluded

that, under these definitions, the Open Access Final

Rule would not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities. We

reaffirm that conclusion in Order No. 888–A, which

is being issued contemporaneously with this order

on rehearing. This same conclusion is warranted

here, because Order No. 889 and this order on

rehearing only implement the OASIS requirements

of the Open Access Final Rule.

126Open Access Final Rule, 61 FR at 21,540 and

21,691.

127See Order No. 888–A at Section VI.

128See Central Electric, 77 FERC at 61,311,

61,313–317 (3 waivers, including 2 for entities later

found non-jurisdictional); Northern States (21

waivers); Black Creek (3 waivers); Midwest (5

waivers); UtiliCorp, et al., 77 FERC 61,027 (1997)

(2 waivers); Soyland (6 waivers); and Dakota (3

waivers). Of the entities granted waivers by these

orders, at least 36 involve small public utilities.

129See Central Electric; Niabrara; and Dakota.

(in response to a request from the How

Working Group for a two-step time

extension) with full compliance

required by January 3, 1997.118 Thus,

the date for compliance with Phase I

OASIS implementation and for

compliance with the standards of

conduct has elapsed and the language in

§ 37.8 is no longer accurate, even as a

record of past events. We, therefore, will

revise 18 CFR Part 37 to delete this

provision.

Rehearing Request

Union argues that it has been given

insufficient time to comply and objects

to the requirement that OASIS systems

must be in place by November 1, 1996.

Union argues that compliance by such

an early date will require the company

to incur a considerable effort and

expense and will involve the

development of intricate electronic

information functions, even though the

operational requirements for OASIS

sites have not yet been completed.119

Commission Conclusion

We find Union’s arguments to be

moot. As noted above, after Union filed

its request for rehearing, the

Commission issued a revised Standards

and Protocols document that more fully

describes the operational requirements

of OASIS sites, and granted the request

from the How Working Group for a 2-

month time extension for compliance

with the requirements of Order No. 889.

Moreover, the Commission invited

comments from interested persons prior

to issuing the revised Standards and

Protocols document.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA) 120 requires any proposed or final

rule issued by the Commission to

contain a description and analysis of the

impact that the proposed or final rule

would have on small entities or to

contain a certification that the rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Order No. 889

contained a certification under § 605(b)

of the RFA that the OASIS Final Rule

would not impose a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities within the

meaning of the RFA.121

NRECA challenges this

certification.122 NRECA recognizes that

OASIS requirements do not apply

unless a non-public utility offers

reciprocal transmission service.123

However, NRECA maintains that

business necessity will force non-public

utilities to file open access tariffs, and

thus subject themselves to OASIS

requirements, since, if they do not,

‘‘they will not retain access over the

long-term to the nation’s bulk power

transmission grid—access they must

have if they wish to stay in

business.’’ 124

In the OASIS Final Rule, we noted

that the entities that would have to

comply with the Final Rule are public

utilities. However, the Commission

under appropriate circumstances will

grant waiver of the Final Rule

requirements to small public utilities.

Similarly, it will grant waiver of the

reciprocity condition to small nonpublic utilities. As discussed earlier, in

section IV.B.3, the Commission’s waiver

policy follows the SBA definition of

small electric utility.125

We disagree with NRECA that nonpublic utilities must publish open

access tariffs or forego access to the

nation’s bulk power transmission grid.

As we noted in the Open Access Final

Rule, non-public utilities do not have to

offer open access tariffs in order to

comply with the open access reciprocity

condition; rather, they must offer

reciprocal transmission access to those

public utility Transmission Providers

from whom they receive open access

service. Additionally, reciprocal service

is voluntary. If non-public utilities do

not want to offer reciprocal service, they

may continue to seek voluntary,

bilateral transmission services from

public utilities.126 We note that since

NRECA filed its rehearing comments,

the Commission has issued several

orders addressing its waiver policy and

specific waiver requests. We have

granted waivers of the reciprocity

provision in the Open Access pro forma

tariffs and waivers of the requirements

of the OASIS Final Rule: approximately

17 small entities have received waivers

of the Open Access Final Rule;127

approximately 36 small entities have

received waivers of the requirement to

establish and maintain an OASIS and/

or the requirement to comply with the

standards of conduct requirements of

the OASIS Final Rule.128 We also have

granted waiver of the open access tariff

reciprocity provision that would apply

to ten small non-public utility

applicants if they chose to receive open

access transmission service, and have

determined that 19 small non-public

electric utilities that requested

exemption from all or part of the Open

Access Rule are not public utilities

subject to the requirement to file an

open access tariff.129

Although NRECA speculates that it

may be burdensome for small nonpublic utilities to file for waiver of our

Open Access and OASIS Final Rules,

many small public and non-public

utilities have found little or no problem

in obtaining waivers when they are

properly justified under our waiver

standards. As the Commission’s

decisions show, the Commission is

carefully evaluating the effect of the

OASIS Final Rule on small electric

utilities and is granting waivers where

appropriate, thus mitigating the effect of

that rule on small public and non-public

utilities.

Given that this order makes only

minor revisions to Order No. 889, none

of which are substantive, and that we

are granting waivers from the

requirements of the OASIS Final Rule to

small entities where appropriate, we

reaffirm our earlier certification that the

OASIS Final Rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities and

that no regulatory flexibility analysis is

required pursuant to § 603 of the RFA.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12503

130As discussed in section IV.E.3 above, to aid in

our monitoring efforts, we are modifying §§ 37.4

and 37.6 to require the posting of the Transmission

Provider logs already required (by the OASIS Final

Rule) to be maintained. We also are revising the

Standards and Protocols document to specify the

templates for posting discounts to be consistent

with our revised discount policy. However, given

that this information was already required to be

assembled and available for audit, these additional

posting requirements will have only a negligible

effect on the information collection requirement.

Moreover, these effects are more than offset by the

revision to § 37.7(b) that reduces, from 90 days to

20 days, the time during which ATC/TTC postings

must remain available for download on the OASIS.

VI. Environmental Statement

Order Nos. 888 and 889 were the joint

subjects of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement issued in the Open

Access NOPR proceeding in Docket Nos.

RM95–8–000 and RM94–7–001 on April

12, 1996. Given that this order makes

only minor revisions to Order No. 889,

none of which is substantive, no

separate environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement has

been prepared in this proceeding.

VII. Information Collection Statement

Order No. 889 contained an

information collection statement for

which the Commission obtained

approval from the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). Given that this order

makes only minor revisions to Order

No. 889, none of which is substantive,

OMB approval for this order will not be

necessary. However, the Commission

will send a copy of this order to OMB,

for informational purposes only.

The information reporting

requirements under this order are

virtually unchanged from those

contained in Order No. 889.130

Interested persons may obtain

information on the reporting

requirements by contacting the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426 [Attention Michael Miller,

Information Services Division, (202)

208–1415], and the Office of

Management and Budget [Attention:

Desk Officer for the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, (202) 395–

3087].

VIII. Effective Date

The changes ordered in this order on

rehearing will become effective on May

13, 1997. By issuing this order, we are

not further delaying the requirement to

comply with Order No. 889 by January

3, 1997. The current requirements of

Part 37 will remain in full effect until

the changes required by this order

become effective.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 37

Electric power plants, Electric

utilities.

By the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission amends Part 37 in Chapter

I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below.

PART 37—OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR

PUBLIC UTILITIES

1. 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.

2. Section 37.3 is amended by revising

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 37.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(e) Wholesale merchant function

means the sale for resale of electric

energy in interstate commerce.

* * * * *

3. Section 37.4 is amended by

removing paragraphs (b)(5)(v) and

(b)(5)(vi), and by revising paragraphs

(b)(5)(iii) and (b)(5)(iv) to read as

follows:

§ 37.4 Standards of conduct.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) * * *

(iii) The Transmission Provider must

keep a log, available for Commission

audit, detailing the circumstances and

manner in which it exercised its

discretion under any terms of the tariff.

The information contained in this log is

to be posted on the OASIS as provided

in § 37.6(g)(4).

(iv) The Transmission Provider may

not, through its tariffs or otherwise, give

preference to sales for resale by the

wholesale merchant function or by any

affiliate, over the interests of any other

wholesale customer in matters relating

to the sale or purchase of transmission

service (including issues of price,

curtailments, scheduling, priority,

ancillary services, etc.).

* * * * *

4. Section 37.6 is amended by revising

paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A), (c)(3), (c)(4),

(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii),

(e)(1)(iii), (e)(3)(i), and (g)(3) and by

adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iv), (c)(5),

(d)(5), (e)(1)(iv), and (g)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 37.6 Information to be posted on an

OASIS.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) The word ‘‘interconnection’’, as

used in the definition of ‘‘posted path’’,

means all facilities connecting two

adjacent systems or control areas.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Unconstrained posted paths. (A)

Postings of firm and nonfirm ATC and

TTC shall be posted separately by the

day, showing for the current day and the

next six days following and thereafter,

by the month for the 12 months next

following. If the Transmission Provider

charges separately for on-peak and offpeak periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC

will be posted separately for the current

day and the next six days following for

each period. These postings are to be

updated whenever the ATC changes by

more than 20 percent of the Path’s TTC.

* * * * *

(c) Posting transmission service

products and prices.

* * * * *

(3) Any offer of a discount for any

transmission service made by the

Transmission Provider must be

announced to all potential customers

solely by posting on the OASIS.

(4) For any transaction for

transmission service agreed to by the

Transmission Provider and a customer,

the Transmission Provider (at the time

when ATC must be adjusted in response

to the transaction), must post on the

OASIS (and make available for

download) information describing the

transaction (including: price; quantity;

points of receipt and delivery; length

and type of service; identification of

whether the transaction involves the

Transmission Provider’s wholesale

merchant function or any affiliate;

identification of what, if any, ancillary

service transactions are associated with

this transmission service transaction;

and any other relevant terms and

conditions) and shall keep such

information posted on the OASIS for at

least 30 days. A record of the

transaction must be retained and kept

available as part of the audit log

required in § 37.7.

(5) Customers choosing to use the

OASIS to offer for resale transmission

capacity they have purchased must post

relevant information to the same OASIS

as used by the one from whom the

Reseller purchased the transmission

capacity. This information must be

posted on the same display page, using

the same tables, as similar capability
12504 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

being sold by the Transmission

Provider, and the information must be

contained in the same downloadable

files as the Transmission Provider’s own

available capability. A customer

reselling transmission capacity without

the use of an OASIS must, nevertheless,

inform the original Transmission

Provider of the transaction within any

time limits prescribed by the

Transmission Provider’s tariff or in a

contract or service agreement between

the Transmission Provider and a

customer.

(d) Posting ancillary service offerings

and prices.

* * * * *

(2) Any offer of a discount for any

ancillary service made by the

Transmission Provider must be

announced to all potential customers

solely by posting on the OASIS.

(3) For any transaction for ancillary

service agreed to by the Transmission

Provider and a customer, the

Transmission Provider (at the time

when ATC must be adjusted in response

to an associated transmission service

transaction, if any), must post on the

OASIS (and make available for

download) information describing the

transaction (including: date and time

when the agreement was entered into;

price; quantity; length and type of

service; identification of whether the

transaction involves the Transmission

Provider’s wholesale merchant function

or any affiliate; identification of what, if

any, transmission service transactions

are associated with this ancillary service

transaction; and any other relevant

terms and conditions) and shall keep

such information posted on the OASIS

for at least 30 days. A record of the

transaction must be retained and kept

available as part of the audit log

required in § 37.7.

(4) Any other interconnected

operations service offered by the

Transmission Provider may be posted,

with the price for that service.

(5) Any entity offering an ancillary

service shall have the right to post the

offering of that service on the OASIS if

the service is one required to be offered

by the Transmission Provider under the

pro forma tariff prescribed by part 35 of

this chapter. Any entity may also post

any other interconnected operations

service voluntarily offered by the

Transmission Provider. Postings by

customers and third parties must be on

the same page, and in the same format,

as postings of the Transmission

Provider.

(e) Posting specific transmission and

ancillary service requests and responses.

(1) General rules. (i) All requests for

transmission and ancillary service

offered by Transmission Providers

under the pro forma tariff, including

requests for discounts, must be made on

the OASIS, and posted prior to the

Transmission Provider responding to

the request, except as discussed in

paragraphs (e)(1) (ii) and (iii). The

Transmission Provider must post all

requests for transmission service and for

ancillary service comparably. Requests

for transmission and ancillary service,

and the responses to such requests,

must be conducted in accordance with

the Transmission Provider’s tariff, the

Federal Power Act, and Commission

regulations.

(ii) The requirement in paragraph

(e)(1)(i) of this section, to post requests

for transmission and ancillary service

offered by Transmission Providers

under the pro forma tariff, including

requests for discounts, prior to the

Transmission Provider responding to

the request, does not apply to requests

for next-hour service made during Phase

I.

(iii) In the event that a discount is

being requested for ancillary services

that are not in support of basic

transmission service provided by the

Transmission Provider, such request

need not be posted on the OASIS.

(iv) In processing a request for

transmission or ancillary service, the

Responsible Party shall post the same

information as required in § 37.6(c)(4),

§ 37.6(d)(3), and the following

information: the date and time when the

request is made, its place in any queue,

the status of that request, and the result

(accepted, denied, withdrawn).

* * * * *

(3) Posting when a transaction is

curtailed or interrupted.

(i) When any transaction is curtailed

or interrupted, the Transmission

Provider must post notice of the

curtailment or interruption on the

OASIS, and the Transmission Provider

must state on the OASIS the reason why

the transaction could not be continued

or completed.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(3) Notices of transfers of personnel

shall be posted as described in

§ 37.4(b)(2). The posting requirements

are the same as those provided in § 37.7

for audit data postings.

(4) Logs detailing the circumstances

and manner in which a Transmission

Provider or Responsible Party exercised

its discretion under any terms of the

tariff shall be posted as described in

§ 37.4(b)(5)(iii). The posting

requirements are the same as those

provided in § 37.7 for audit data

postings.

5. Section 37.7 is amended by revising

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 37.7 Auditing transmission service

information.

* * * * *

(b) Audit data must remain available

for download on the OASIS for 90 days,

except ATC/TTC postings that must

remain available for download on the

OASIS for 20 days. The audit data are

to be retained and made available upon

request for download for three years

from the date when they are first posted

in the same electronic form as used

when they originally were posted on the

OASIS.

§ 37.8 [Removed]

6. Section 37.8 is removed.

[Note: This attachment will not appear in

the Code of Federal Regulations.]

Attachment 1

List of Requests for Rehearing of Order No.

889

(This list includes all requests for rehearing

that made a reference to Order No. 889 in

their text and/or caption)

Company Name (Abbreviation)

1. Alabama Municipal Electric Authority (AL

MEA)*

2. Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. and

South Mississippi Electric Power

Association (AL EC)*

3. Operating Companies of American Electric

Power System (AEP)

4. American Public Power Association

(APPA)

5. Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin

EC)*

6. Blue Ridge Power Agency, Northeast Texas

Electric Cooperative, Inc., Sam Rayburn

G&T Electric Cooperative, Inc., and TexLa Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc.

(Blue Ridge)

7. Ralph R. Mabey, Trustee for Cajun Electric

Power Cooperative, Inc. (Cajun)*

8. Carolina Power & Light Company (Carolina

P&L)

9. Central Power and Light Company, West

Texas Utilities Company, Public Service

Company of Oklahoma, and

Southwestern Electric Power Company

(Central P&L)*

10. Central Montana Electric Power

Cooperative, Inc. (Central Montana EC)*

11. Cities of Benton, Conway, North Little

Rock, Osceola, Prescott, West Memphis,

Arkansas and the Farmers Electric

Cooperative Corporation (AK Cities)*

12. City of Redding, CA (Redding)

13. City of Santa Clara, CA (Santa Clara)*

14. Coalition for a Competitive Electric

Market (CCEM)

15. Colorado Association of Municipal

Utilities (CAMU)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 50 / Friday, March 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 12505

16. Consolidated Edison Company of New

York, Inc., Long Island Lighting

Company, New York State Electric & Gas

Corporation, and Rochester Gas and

Electric Corporation (ConEd)

17. Cooperative Power (Cooperative Power)*

18. Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

19. El Paso Electric Company (El Paso)

20. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

and North American Electric Reliability

Council (NERC), on behalf of Industry

Management Process on ‘‘how’’ to

implement Transmission Services

Information Networks (EPRI/NERC

Working Group)

21. Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)*

22. Florida Power Corporation (Florida

Power Corp)*

23. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric

Cooperative, Inc. (Hoosier EC)*

24. Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power)

25. Indianapolis Power & Light Company

(Indianapolis P&L)

26. Michigan Systems (Michigan Public

Power Agency, Michigan South Central

Power Agency, and Wolverine Power

Supply Cooperative, Inc.) on behalf of

themselves, Florida Municipal Power

Agency, and Central Minnesota

Municipal Power Agency (Michigan

Systems)

27. Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP)

28. Montana-Dakota Utilities Company

(Montana-Dakota Utilities)

29. Municipal Electric Utilities Association

of New York State (NY MU)

30. National Rural Electric Cooperative

Association (NRECA)

31. Nebraska Public Power District (NE

Public Power District)

32. New York Power Pool (NYPP)

33. Northwest Regional Transmission

Association (NWRTA)*

34. Nuclear Energy Institute (Nuclear Energy

Institute)

35. Nucor Corporation (Nucor)

36. Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and

Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation

(Ohio Valley)

37. Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association

and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(PA Coops)

38. Public Service Company of Colorado

(Public Service Co of CO)

39. Southern California Edison Company

(SoCal Edison)

40. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal

Gas) ‘‘’

41. Southwest Regional Transmission

Association (SWRTA)*

42. Transmission Access Policy Study Group

(TAPS)

43. Transmission Dependent Utility Systems

(TDU Systems)

44. Union Electric Company (Union Electric)

45. Utilities for an Improved Transition (FIT

Utilities)

46. Virginia Electric and Power Company

(VEPCO)

*Request for rehearing raises no direct

Order No. 889 issues.

**Request for clarification.

[FR Doc. 97–5768 Filed 3–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P