21736 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

7The policy adopted with respect to Situation 3

is that the Commission would only be a forum for

hearing stranded costs issues in the narrow

circumstance where ‘‘the state regulatory authority

does not have authority under state law to address

stranded costs when the retail wheeling is

required.’’ The majority fails to address what would

happen if a legislature addresses the issue of

stranded costs directly without delegating the task

to a state regulatory authority. I would hope that the

Commission would not set itself up for

confrontation with a state legislature and I would

have preferred that to also exclude those

circumstances ‘‘where the state otherwise addresses

the issue’’ from the circumstances in which the

Commission would act in Situation 3.

8This argument is made both by commenters

arguing that the Commission has no jurisdiction

over stranded costs in Situation 2 or 3 (California

Public Utilities Commission Initial Comments at 7)

and by commenters arguing that the Commission

should assert primary jurisdiction over stranded

costs in both Situations (see e.g., Edison Electric

Institute Initial Comments at IV–13; Coalition For

Economic Competition Initial Comments at 22;

Utilities For An Improved Transition Initial

Comments at 16–26).

First, in both Situations 2 and 3, retail

power costs are stranded by customers who

gain access to FERC jurisdictional

transmission tariffs via state action. In

Situation 2, state municipalization law

governs. In Situation 3, the state has

authorized retail wheeling by statute or

regulation, or both. Notwithstanding the need

for state authorization in both cases, the

majority decides that the Commission should

be the ‘‘primary forum’’ in Situation 2, but

that a much more narrow approach to retail

stranded costs in Situation 3.7 The more

aggressive ‘‘primary forum’’ approach to

municipalization is predicated on the view

that any strandings are a result of an

inducement (i.e., market options) created by

this Commission’s Open Access Rule. Yet,

since both wholesale transmission customers

and retail transmission customers are

‘‘eligible customers’’ under the tariffs

required by this Rule, if the Rule induces the

stranding of retail power costs in one

situation, it obviously does it in both.

As commenters have noted, the

relationship between FERC-regulated

transmission service and retail power

customers is generally the same in both

Situations 2 and 3.8 The similarity runs first

to the actions that actually cause costs to be

stranded. While it is true that retail wheeling

will only occur pursuant to state legislative

or regulatory action, it is also true that a retail

customer can only convert to wholesale

status (e.g., municipalize) pursuant to state

law. This process sometimes may occur in

the absence of regulatory or other oversight

(e.g., municipalization under pre-established

statutory scheme), or with direct and

immediate review and approval. The current

evidence reflects active state commission

oversight, typically. In this latter case, there

is even less reason to distinguish between

these Situations.

The majority implicitly seeks to delimit the

area of appropriate state authority over

stranded costs according to whether the state

acts directly and by current enactments to

authorize retail wheeling, on one hand, or

less directly through established state

municipalization laws, on the other.

However, costs could be stranded under state

law by either action. Under the former

scenario, however, a state is presumed to be

more willing and capable of dealing with

stranded costs. Under the latter, it is

presupposed to be less interested. This

distinction is specious.

A second similarity pertains to the

jurisdictional status of transmission service.

The Commission has been clear and

consistent that the FPA gives the

Commission exclusive jurisdiction over

interstate transmission service, regardless of

whether the customer is a wholesale or a

retail wheeling customer. It is this authority

upon which we rely to claim jurisdiction

over transmission assets and related costs

originally incurred to provide customers at

the retail level with bundled service. New

wheeling customers in both Situations 2 and

3 will take service under FERC open access

tariffs. There are identical cost-causational

facts in Situations 2 and 3, yet the majority

adopts very different outcomes in each case

under the Final Rule.

D. The ‘‘Primary Forum’’ Approach is More

Subject to Legal Challenge

In my view, our disagreement involves

more than a policy choice. The majority’s

chosen approach clearly makes our stranded

cost recovery approach more vulnerable to a

legal challenge. The cost recovery scheme

which would result from the majority’s

approach will render a FERC-ordered

transmission surcharge to recover retail

stranded costs susceptible to legal challenge

on the basis that it is anti-competitive and

unduly discriminatory. The ‘‘primary forum’’

approach imposes upon a retail-turnedwholesale customer something akin to

double jeopardy. In other words, a departing

customer might have to pay both an exit fee

for the retail costs which the state

commission finds it has stranded and, in

addition, an entry fee for wholesale access in

the amount of the additional retail stranded

costs which FERC determines are

inadequately covered by state proceedings.

This, in my view, makes the Final Rule

more susceptible to challenges that FERC’s

transmission surcharge is anti-competitive.

E.g., Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v.

FERC, 28 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The

second-guessing of states inherent in the

‘‘primary forum’’ approach makes any

arguments that stranded cost recovery is anticompetitive more difficult to overcome than

if the stranded costs resulted from wholesale

customers simply changing wholesale

suppliers. This is because, unlike wholesaleto-wholesale strandings, the Commission

cannot plausibly argue that the costs incurred

were originally addressed in the context of its

own rate decisions or were previously part of

its responsibility for administering wholesale

service obligations.

I am strongly persuaded that the

Commission would be on much stronger

legal ground if we were to treat state

authority over stranded costs with the same

deference in the municipalization or ‘‘retailturned-wholesale’’ situation in the same

manner as the Final Rule prescribes for

situations where retail wheeling occurs. In

the latter case, the Commission ought to

provide a forum where neither the state

legislature nor the state commission attempts

to address this important transition issue.

James J. Hoecker,

Commissioner.

Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-Discriminatory

Transmission Services by Public Utilities

Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public

Utilities and Transmitting Utilities

[Docket No. RM95–8–000; Docket No. RM94–

7–001]

Issued April 24, 1996.

MASSEY, Commissioner, dissenting in

part:

I support all of the provisions of this rule

save one, the provision on stranded costs

arising from retail competition and from

municipalization. When the Commission

issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, I

stated that the Commission should treat

stranded costs arising from retail competition

and municipalizations similarly, as follows:

For either retail competition or

municipalization, when the state commission

has authority to address the issue, and uses

such authority to decide the recoverability of

the stranded costs, the state’s decision should

not be second-guessed by this Commission.

However, when a state commission does not

have the authority to decide the

recoverability of stranded costs, or has

authority but does not use it, this

Commission should act on requests for

stranded cost recovery.

My approach would assure utilities of

getting a decision on the merits of their

claim. Costs would not be stranded for lack

of a regulatory decision. At the same time,

this Commission would allow states to make

decisions, when they have authority, on

issues of critical concern to their local

utilities and ratepayers. Only if states lack, or

fail to use, such authority would this

Commission step in to assure the utility of

receiving a decision on the merits.

For the reasons I stated then, I still disagree

with the rule’s approach to stranded costs

arising from retail competition or

municipalization. In all other respects, I

support this rule.

William L. Massey,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–10694 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21737

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 37

[Docket No. RM95–9–000; Order No. 889]

Open Access Same-Time Information

System (Formerly Real-Time

Information Networks) and Standards

of Conduct

April 24, 1996.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is adding rules

establishing and governing an Open

Access Same-time Information System

(OASIS) (formerly real-time information

networks) and prescribing standards of

conduct. Under this final rule, each

public utility (or its agent) that owns,

controls, or operates facilities used for

the transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce will be required to

create or participate in an OASIS that

will provide open access transmission

customers and potential open access

transmission customers with

information, provided by electronic

means, about available transmission

capacity, prices, and other information

that will enable them to obtain open

access non-discriminatory transmission

service. This final rule requires each

public utility subject to the rule to

implement standards of conduct to

functionally separate transmission and

wholesale power merchant functions

and the creation of a basic OASIS

system. In addition, some of the

standards and formats for OASIS nodes

are prescribed in a document entitled

OASIS Standards and Communication

Protocols that is being issued with the

final rule. The Commission also is

establishing further procedures to

complete the standards for displays and

formats. The development of OASIS

requirements will continue in a Phase II,

in which the Commission will continue

to develop the requirements for a fully

functional OASIS.

Effective Date: This final rule will

become effective on July 9, 1996.

Compliance Date: Compliance with

the standards of conduct and operation

of an OASIS meeting the requirements

of this final rule must commence on or

before November 1, 1996.

Conference Date: A technical

conference on any remaining issues will

be held on June 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The technical conference

will be held at the Commission’s

headquarters at 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC. 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marvin Rosenberg (Technical

Information), Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

1283

William C. Booth (Technical

Information), Office of Electric Power

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208–

0849

Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information),

Office of the General Counsel, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., 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, NE., Washington, DC 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. CIPS is also

available through the Fed World system

(by modem or Internet). 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 indefinitely in ASCII and

Wordperfect 5.1 format. The complete

text on diskette in WordPerfect format

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor, La Dorn

Systems Corporation, also located in the

Public Reference Room at 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Public Reporting Burden

III. Discussion

A. Background

B. Summary of the Regulations and Their

Implementation

C. Section 37.1—Applicability

D. Section 37.2—Purpose

E. Section 37.3—Definitions

F. Section 37.4—Standards of Conduct

1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities for

Exemptions from the Standards of

Conduct

2. Suggested Revisions to the Standards of

Conduct and Timing

3. Whether to Require the Separation of

Generation and Transmission Functions

G. Section 37.5—Obligations of

Transmission Providers

H. Section 37.6—Information To Be Posted

on an Oasis

1. Oasis Objectives

2. Posting Available Transmission Capacity

a. ATC for Network Integration Service

b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC

c. Methodology for Calculating ATC and

TTC

d. Accommodating Flow-Based Pricing

e. Actual Flow Data

f. Providing Supporting Information

g. Long-Term Studies

3. Posting Transmission Service Products

and Prices

4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and

Prices

5. Posting Transmission Service Requests

and Responses

a. Posting Curtailments and Interruptions

b. Posting Denials of Requests for Service

c. Transaction Anonymity

6. Posting Facility Status Information

7. Posting Transmission Service Schedules

Information

8. Posting Other Transmission-Related

Communications

I. Section 37.7—Auditing Transmission

Service Information

J. Standards and Communication Protocols

1. Summary of Standards and

Communication Protocol Requirements

2. Number of OASIS Nodes

3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes

4. Value-Added OASIS Services Provided

by Transmission Providers or

Responsible Parties

5. Transmission Services Information

Timing Requirements

6. Common Codes

a. Company Codes

b. Common Location Codes

7. Data Definitions and File Formats Not

Covered by the How Report

a. Offers to Provide Ancillary Services

Provided by an Entity Other Than the

Transmission Provider

b. Offering of Primary and Secondary

Capacity

8. Formats for Downloadable Files Not

Covered in the How Report

a. Standard Format for Data Used in

Calculating ATC

b. Standard Formats for Transmission

Studies

c. Standard Format for Electronic

Submission to the Commission of

Transmission Tariffs

9. Communication Protocol Issues

a. Internet Browsers

b. Bandwidth of Node Connections to the

Internet

c. Data Compression Standards

d. Other Communication Protocol Issues

Raised by Commenters

i. The Requirement to Use FTP for File

Transfers

ii. Field Size for Path Names

iii. Files Containing More Than 100,000

Bytes

K. Cost Recovery Issues
21738 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of

Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting

Utilities, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036

(April 24, 1996); this document is being published

concurrently in the Federal Register.

2Real-Time Information Networks and Standards

of Conduct, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR

66182 (December 21, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 32,516 (December 13, 1995).

3 In the notice of technical conference that

initiated this proceeding, see infra n. 12, we chose

the term ‘‘Real-Time Information Network’’ to

describe the electronic information system

envisioned by that notice. We invited comments on

whether we should substitute another term in place

of RIN. In response, a number of commenters

suggested that ‘‘RIN’’ was not a suitable name for

the electronic information network envisioned by

the RIN NOPR, mainly because while some RIN

postings may be made ‘‘real-time’’ most will not

and that, therefore, RIN is a misnomer.

After a review of suggested replacements

presented in the comments, we will abandon the

name ‘‘RIN’’ in favor of Open Access Same-time

Information System, suggested by Virginia Electric

Power Company (VEPCO), for several reasons. First,

as noted above, the information system being

developed in this proceeding actually will be a

‘‘same-time’’ information system, and not a ‘‘realtime’’ system. Second, VEPCO correctly points out

that the system will be part of an existing network

(the Internet) and not a new network. Third, the

name ‘‘OASIS’’ highlights that the system relates to

open access.

4Any entity may, for good cause, seek a waiver

of the requirements established by this final rule,

either as to the creation of an OASIS or for reporting

requirements.

5See, infra, n. 13.

6Attached to this document is a list of the

commenters and the abbreviations used to designate

them. Several of the comments were filed late. We,

nevertheless, will consider these comments.

7NRECA also submitted a letter to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) that raised the

same issue.

1. Costs of Developing and Running an

OASIS

2. Cost of Posting Resales of Capacity on

the OASIS

3. Cost of Posting Ancillary Services on the

OASIS

L. Section 37.8—Implementation in Phases

1. Phase I Implementation

2. Phase II Implementation

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

V. Environmental Statement

VI. Information Collection Statement

VII. Effective Date

Regulatory Text

Attachments

♦ List of Commenters to RIN NOPR

♦ Standards and Communication

Protocols for Open Access Same-time

Information System with Appendix A—

Data Element Dictionary and Appendix

B—Request (Query) Variables

I. Introduction

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) is

promulgating new regulations amending

18 CFR to add Part 37 containing rules

establishing and governing transmission

information networks and standards of

conduct. The Commission is issuing this

final rule in tandem with its final rule

on Open Access Transmission and

Stranded Costs (Open Access Final

Rule).1 This final rule applies to any

public utility that offers open access

transmission services under the Open

Access Final Rule pro forma tariff.

Under the Open Access Final Rule, the

open access pro forma tariff may be

used by wholesale transmission

customers and by retail transmission

customers that are able to receive

unbundled retail transmission either

voluntarily from the public utility or as

a result of a state retail access program.

This final rule is being issued after a

review of the comments filed in

response to the Commission’s notice of

proposed rulemaking issued in this

proceeding on December 13, 1995 (RIN

NOPR).2

This final rule becomes effective on

July 9, 1996. By November 1, 1996, all

affected public utilities must file

procedures with the Commission that

will enable customers and the

Commission to determine whether they

are in compliance with the standards of

conduct requirements contained herein.

Additionally, under this final rule,

each public utility as defined in section

201(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16

U.S.C. 824(e) (1994), (or its agent) that

owns, controls, or operates facilities

used for the transmission of electric

energy in interstate commerce (each

Transmission Provider) must develop or

participate in an Open Access Sametime Information System (OASIS).3 This

final rule establishes Phase I OASIS

rules that require the creation of a basic

OASIS.4 The basic OASIS required by

this final rule must be in place and

operational by November 1, 1996. The

development of OASIS requirements

will continue in Phase II, during which

the Commission will develop the

requirements for a fully functional

OASIS.

While the final rule set forth in this

order is consistent with the proposal

described in the RIN NOPR, it also

resolves certain issues that were

described in the RIN NOPR but left

undecided, and adds clarifications and

revisions, as suggested by the

comments. As proposed in the RIN

NOPR, the final rule describes what

information must be provided on an

OASIS, how an OASIS must be

implemented and used, and contains a

code of conduct applicable to all

transmission providing public utilities.

As proposed in the RIN NOPR, we are

issuing this final rule along with a

separate document entitled OASIS

Standards and Communication

Protocols (Standards and Protocols) to

help ensure that each OASIS will

provide information in a uniform

manner. However, the standards and

protocols are not yet complete.

Consequently, we are inviting the How

Group 5 to submit an additional report,

on or before May 28, 1996, to help us

resolve these deficiencies. We will also

hold a technical conference on June 17,

1996 to resolve any remaining issues

and to allow input from interested

persons. We will issue a revised

Standards and Protocols document as

soon as possible thereafter.

We are moving promptly to complete

the standards and protocols to ensure

that the OASIS will be operational and

in compliance with this final rule by

November 1, 1996. In selecting this date,

we have balanced the need to have a

functional system of fair and nondiscriminatory information in place to

support the Open Access Final Rule

against the comments that argued that

implementation of an OASIS could not

be accomplished in 60 days and to

avoid implementation during the peak

winter or summer months.

II. Public Reporting Burden

The final rule requires Transmission

Providers to participate in an OASIS

designed to provide open access

transmission users and potential open

access transmission users with

information by electronic means about

available transmission capacity and

prices.

The RIN NOPR contained an

estimated annual public reporting

burden associated with a final rule

consistent with the RIN NOPR. In

response to the RIN NOPR, NRECA 6

filed comments with the Commission

that argued that the Commission’s

estimated public reporting burden

should have taken into account that

Question 45 of the RIN NOPR asked

whether OASIS rules should be

extended to apply to non-public utilities

that own or control facilities used for

the transmission of electric power in

interstate commerce.7 Based on this

inquiry, NRECA argued that the public

burden estimate should have been based

on the assumption that the proposed

OASIS rules would be extended to

apply to non-public utilities (even

though this was not proposed by the

Commission).

The Commission’s task in preparing a

public burden estimate at the NOPR

stage was to estimate the annual public

reporting burden associated with a final

rule consistent with the RIN NOPR. This

is what the Commission did. An
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21739

8As explained in the Open Access Final Rule,

non-public utilities that do not want to meet the

reciprocity condition may choose not to take service

under an open access tariff. In that circumstance,

the public utility may, if it chooses, voluntarily

provide transmission service on a unilateral basis

to the non-public utility.

9How Group comments at 19.

10See 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c).

11See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission

Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of

Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting

Utilities, Notice and Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 17662 (April 7, 1995),

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶32,514 (March 29, 1995).

12Real-Time Information Networks, Notice of

Technical Conference and Request for Comments,

60 FR 17726 (April 7, 1995).

estimate based on deviations from the

NOPR proposal, as NRECA suggested,

would have been inappropriate. At the

same time, however, by asking Question

45, we identified the issue and gave the

commenters an opportunity to be heard

before making a final decision.

Our final rule, like the RIN NOPR,

applies only to public utilities, and not

to non-public utilities. However, as

discussed in this order and as

commented upon by various non-public

utilities, in the Open Access Final Rule

we are including a reciprocity provision

in public utility open access tariffs

under which all those who elect to take

service under the open access tariff

(including non-public utilities) will

have to offer reciprocal service

including an information network,

unless they are granted a waiver of the

reciprocity provision in the tariff.8

Consequently, we have increased the

estimate of number of respondents in

this rulemaking to reflect the additional

burden on those non-public utilities that

seek service under open access tariffs.

However, this is offset by our current

expectation that there will be far fewer

OASIS sites than we originally

anticipated in the RIN NOPR. The How

Group estimates there will be between

20–35 OASIS sites nationwide.9 Using

the higher number, the burden of

running each OASIS will be shared, on

average, by four respondents. This is

reflected in the burden hour and cost

estimates.

Our burden hour and cost estimates

include the information gathering

requirements imposed on public

utilities that do not develop their own

OASIS. Additionally, we have refined

our estimate of the annual public

reporting burden to account for

revisions that this final rule makes to

the RIN NOPR.

Estimated Annual Burden:

Data collection

No. of respondents

No. of responsesHours per

response

Total annual

hours

Reporting .......................................................................................................................................... 140 1 1879 263,060

Recordkeeping .................................................................................................................................. 140 1 418 58,520

Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting + Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 321,580.

Data collection costs: The Commission projects the average annualized cost per respondent to be the following:

Annualized Capital/Startup Costs—$47,500.

Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance)—$142,250.

Total Annualized Costs—$189,750.

Internal Review

The Commission has reviewed the

collection of information required by

this final rule and has determined that

the collection of information is

necessary and conforms to the

Commission’s plan, as described in this

final rule, for the collection, efficient

management, and use of the required

information. The Commission has

assured itself, by means of its internal

review, that there is specific, objective

support for the information burden

estimate set forth above.10

Persons wishing to comment on the

collections of information required by

this final rule should direct their

comments to the Desk Officer FERC,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 3019NEOB, Washington, D.C.

20503, phone 202–395–3087, facsimile:

202–395–7285 or via the Internet at

hillierlllt@a1.eop.gov. Comments

must be filed with the Office of

Management and Budget within 60 days

of publication of this document in the

Federal Register. A copy of any

comments filed with the Office of

Management and Budget also should be

sent to the following address at the

Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Information Services

Division, Room 41–17, 888 First Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426. For further

information, contact Michael Miller,

202–208–1415.

III. Discussion

A. Background

This proceeding began with the

issuance of our proposed Open Access

rule (Open Access NOPR) 11 and a notice

of technical conference to consider

whether a RIN (now an OASIS) or some

other option would be the best means to

ensure that potential customers of

transmission services could obtain

access to transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis. 12 The notice of

technical conference was followed by

procedures and input (described in the

RIN NOPR) that led to the issuance of

the RIN NOPR.

Open access non-discriminatory

transmission service requires that

information about the transmission

system must be made available to all

transmission customers at the same

time. This means that public utilities

must make available to others the same

transmission information that is

available to their own employees and

that is pertinent to decisions they make

involving the sale or purchase of

electricity. The RIN NOPR suggested

requirements representing the first steps

towards accomplishing these objectives.

The RIN NOPR addressed four main

issues: the types of information that

need to be posted on an OASIS;

technical issues concerning the

development and implementation of an

OASIS; the development of a basic

OASIS in Phase I and the development

of a fully functional OASIS in Phase II;

and proposed standards of conduct to

prevent employees of a public utility (or

any of its affiliates) engaged in

marketing functions from obtaining

preferential access to OASIS-related

information.
21740 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

13The North American Electric Reliability

Council (NERC) acted as a facilitator for an

industry-led independent working group,

representing diverse interests, to help participants

reach consensus, and to help them prepare a report

to the Commission on what information should be

posted on a RIN (the ‘‘What Group’’). The Electric

Power Research Institute (EPRI) facilitated a similar

working group (the ‘‘How Group’’) that sought

consensus on how to implement a system that

would accomplish these objectives. Both groups

submitted reports to the Commission describing

their progress in reaching consensus on their

respective issues. As explained in the RIN NOPR,

after determining that the working groups had

balanced representation from diverse interests and

had operated in an open, inclusive manner, the

Commission used the working groups’

recommendations as the starting point for

developing the RIN NOPR.

A fuller description of the working groups’

composition and activities is contained in the RIN

NOPR and in the reports that those groups

submitted to the Commission for its review

(attached to the RIN NOPR as Appendices ‘‘A’’ and

‘‘B’’ and made publicly available at the

Commission’s offices and through the Commission

Issuance Posting System (CIPS)).

14For example, the information about ancillary

services that must be posted on an OASIS depends

on what ancillary services a public utility must

provide. Likewise, the information about discounts

that must be posted on an OASIS depends on

whether discounting is allowed.

15 In the discussion that follows, our references to

comments are illustrative and not inclusive. While

we have intended to identify all of the major issues

raised by the commenters, we have not attempted

to identify all commenters in instances where more

than one comment makes the same point.

16The participants in the How Group submitted

a report entitled Consensus Comments of the

Wholesale Electric Power Industry on behalf of the

‘‘industry management process (interim) on how to

implement transmission services information

networks?’’

17For example, a number of smaller public

utilities and non-public utilities have argued that

they should be exempted from the OASIS

requirements. The Open Access Final Rule provides

that public utilities may seek waivers of some or all

of the requirements of the Open Access rules. This

would include the OASIS requirement. Similarly,

the Open Access Final Rule provides that nonpublic utilities may seek waivers of the tariff

reciprocity provision as applied to them.

18This title differs slightly from the title we

suggested for this document in the RIN NOPR. We

are making this change to reflect more accurately

the contents of the document as it has evolved.

The Commission’s consideration of

the first two of these issues relied

heavily on the efforts of two industryled working groups that presented

recommendations to the Commission. 13

Additionally, the RIN NOPR invited

commenters to address specific

questions on various issues and invited

comments generally on the entire

proposal.

As discussed in the RIN NOPR, the

handling of various types of information

that might be posted on an OASIS

depends on substantive determinations

being made in the Commission’s Open

Access rulemaking proceeding.14 For

this reason, the RIN NOPR attempted to

identify the issues that might be affected

by decisions that would be made in the

Open Access rulemaking and invited

comment on the mechanics of

implementing whatever determinations

ultimately would be reached in the

Open Access rulemaking, without

attempting to prejudge the merits of the

underlying legal and policy issues.

Additionally, the RIN NOPR included

(as Appendix ‘‘C’’) a set of upload and

download templates for comment to

ensure that all data definitions are the

same and that the information presented

on the OASIS will be uniform and

clearly understood.

The Commission’s RIN NOPR, issued

on December 13, 1995, invited

comments on enumerated questions,

along with general comments.

Comments were filed by over 100

commenters. These comments were

generally favorable to the OASIS

concept, although numerous

disagreements remained as to the

details. The comments will be discussed

below on an issue-by-issue basis.15

In the RIN NOPR, we invited the two

industry-led working groups to continue

their efforts to reach consensus and to

report to us on their progress. On March

7, 1996, the How Group submitted a

report giving proposed revisions to their

original report.16 The How Group also

submitted a report on April 15, 1996

making recommendations on additional

issues on which the group had reached

consensus.

B. Summary of the Regulations and

Their Implementation

The Commission is issuing this final

rule with the Open Access Final Rule to

implement the legal and policy

determinations being made in the Open

Access Final Rule.17 This final rule

contains three basic provisions that,

taken together, will ensure that

transmission customers have access to

transmission information enabling them

to obtain open access transmission

service on a non-discriminatory basis.

This final rule is necessary, therefore, to

meet the legal requirement, discussed in

the Open Access Final Rule, that the

Commission remedy undue

discrimination in interstate

transmission services by public utilities.

The first provision establishes

standards of conduct. These standards

are designed to ensure that a public

utility’s employees (or any of its

affiliates’ employees) engaged in

transmission system operations function

independently of the public utility’s

employees (or of any of its affiliates’

employees) who are engaged in

wholesale purchases and sales of

electric energy in interstate commerce.

Such separation is vital if we are to

ensure that the utility does not use its

access to information about

transmission to unfairly benefit its own

or its affiliates’ sales. Entities subject to

these rules are to achieve compliance

with the standards of conduct by

November 1, 1996.

The second provision sets out basic

rules requiring that jurisdictional

utilities that own or control

transmission systems set up an OASIS.

Under these rules, the utilities are

required to provide certain types of

information on that electronic

information system as to the status of

their transmission systems and are

required to do so in a uniform manner.

With these requirements, we are

opening up the ‘‘black box’’ of utility

transmission system information. When

in place, the OASIS will allow

transmission customers to determine the

availability of transmission capacity and

will help ensure that public utilities do

not use their ownership, operation, or

control of transmission to deny access

unfairly. Entities subject to this rule are

to have a basic OASIS, meeting the

requirements of this final rule, in

operation by November 1, 1996.

The third component involves the

various standards and protocols

referenced in the regulations that are

necessary to ensure that the OASIS

system presents information in a

consistent and uniform manner. As

proposed in the RIN NOPR, this final

rule references a publication entitled

OASIS Standards and Communication

Protocols.18 This publication contains

the above-mentioned standards and

communication protocols. 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). Because of their level of

detail, the standards and protocols

referenced in the regulations will be

contained in the Standards and

Protocols document and will not be set

out in the Code of Federal Regulations.

In developing the standards and

protocols, we have been greatly assisted

by the industry. However, more work

needs to be done before the necessary

standards and protocols are complete.

For this we will again look to the

industry and its working groups. The

Commission believes a standard or

uniform set of protocols is essential. The

industry is best situated not only to

develop the necessary standards but to

develop them where possible with a

consensus. Consequently, we are asking

the How Group to provide us with
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21741

19To the contrary, our experience with the

natural gas pipeline industry persuades us that an

expedited schedule is more likely with active

Commission oversight than otherwise.

20We are, however, modifying this provision to

clarify that it is intended to include public utilities

that ‘‘operate’’ facilities used for the transmission of

electric energy in interstate commerce. We are also

clarifying that these regulations apply to

transactions performed under the pro forma tariff

required in Part 35 of the Commission’s regulations.

additional recommendations on those

technical issues remaining to be

resolved. After receiving this report, we

will hold a technical conference. In the

meantime, to enable utilities to begin

the process of implementing their

OASIS, we will publish the standards

and protocols that have been developed

to date.

We must also provide for the

contingency that, over time, the

standards and protocols may need to be

revised. To this end, NERC, in its

comments, proposed to continue the

industry-based process for developing

OASIS requirements begun by the two

industry working groups. NERC argued

that the Commission should abandon its

intention to approve standards

developed by industry-wide consensus

and to make decisions in those areas

where consensus is not achieved.

Instead, NERC argued that the

Commission should authorize an

industry group, facilitated by NERC and

EPRI, to set and enforce detailed

standards under broad policy guidelines

fixed by the Commission.

As we have needed the contributions

of the industry to develop the standards

and protocols, we will continue to need

that assistance in the future to develop

a consensus wherever possible. We need

to strike a balance between

standardization to make OASIS work

and encouraging innovation. To this end

we encourage all industry participants

to continue seeking consensus and

reporting proposals to the Commission

for our consideration. We welcome the

continued work of all industry

participants on revising and improving

standards and establishing appropriate

methods for recommending standards in

the future. We will continue to give

careful consideration to all consensus

recommendations presented by the

industry group(s), provided that they

continue to invite balanced

participation in an open process.

However, we reject entirely the notion

that the Commission need not approve

the Standards and Protocols and that

these matters can be left to the industry

for implementation and self-policing.

Although we continue to seek industry

consensus, the Commission must

reserve final decisions to itself. We

cannot turn over the process of

approving and enforcing OASIS

requirements to the industry. The

Commission does not believe that

resolution of the outstanding issues or

future changes will occur more quickly

without Commission oversight.19 Nor

do we believe that merely by

announcing broad policy guidelines we

would be creating a mechanism that

would be sufficient to allow the

Commission to revise regulations

quickly. Accordingly, we will not

abdicate our responsibility to decide

these issues ourselves; nor shall we

delegate responsibility for making these

decisions to anyone else.

With respect to the as yet unresolved

technical issues, we invite the How

Group to report to us on or before May

28, 1996 on these issues (and to attach

any comments it has received from any

interested person with opposing views).

Prior to issuing a revised Standards and

Protocols document, we will hold a

technical conference on these issues on

June 17, 1996. This short time frame is

necessary if the OASIS is to be properly

operational by November 1, 1996.

The Commission recognizes that the

standards and protocols necessarily will

evolve over time. The Commission is

committed to a process for reviewing

and, if necessary, revising and

improving the Standards and Protocols

on a regular basis after implementation.

We are sensitive to the fact that business

practices and technology will continue

to change under open access and that a

mechanism to make changes to the

regulations and to the accompanying

standards and protocols on an expedited

basis may be needed. It would be

premature at this time, however, to

determine the appropriate mechanism

for making such changes, because the

method could vary depending on the

type of change contemplated. In filing

its report, we ask that the How Group

advise us on this issue. We will

welcome discussions and comments on

mechanisms for revising the standards

and protocols on an ongoing basis at the

June 17, 1996 technical conference.

In the sections that follow, we

discuss, section-by-section, the

regulations we are adopting with this

final rule; how the costs of

implementing the requirements of these

regulations are to be recovered; and the

details of implementation.

C. Section 37.1—Applicability

This section is unchanged

substantively from what we proposed in

the RIN NOPR. As proposed previously,

the rules in Part 37 apply to any public

utility that owns or controls facilities

used for the transmission of electric

energy in interstate commerce.20

In proposing these regulations, we

stated that issues relating to potential

gaps in providing comparable open

access to wholesale transmission

services or to transmission information

that may arise because the requirements

do not apply to non-public utilities

would be addressed in the Open Access

rulemaking proceeding. We also invited

comment on whether the Commission

should extend OASIS requirements to

non-public utilities that own or control

facilities used for the transmission of

electric energy in interstate commerce

(Question 45) and on whether the

reciprocity condition of the proposed

Open Access rule dictates that a nonpublic utility should have an OASIS

(Question 46).

Comments

The responses to Question 45 split

along industry lines. Generally, public

utilities subject to OASIS rules

advocated that the Commission should

impose OASIS requirements on nonpublic utilities. They argued that

applying OASIS requirements to nonpublic utilities would promote

competition and a ‘‘level playing field.’’

These commenters argue that all

companies should pay the costs of

developing and operating an OASIS and

should be required to divulge

information to their competitors on it.

Along these lines, Allegheny argued

that, in order to provide a level playing

field between public utilities and their

competitors, the proposed standards of

conduct should be expanded to include

personnel of any entity that trades on an

OASIS. Allegheny suggested, therefore,

that the standards of conduct be

rewritten to be applicable to non-public

utilities through a requirement that they

sign confidentiality agreements as a

condition of obtaining access to OASIS.

Those favoring applying OASIS rules

to non-public utilities argued that a

significant portion of the wholesale

transmission market is owned by nonpublic utilities (ConEd estimates that

non-public utilities, excluding

cooperatives, control about 25 percent

of the circuit miles of transmission lines

nationwide). They argued that, without

information about these lines, accurate

calculations of available transmission

capability cannot be made. However,

those advocating that the Commission

should assert jurisdiction over nonpublic utilities were divided between

those who maintained that the

Commission has authority to do so

directly under § 311 of the Federal
21742 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

21 16 U.S.C. § 825j. Section 311 authorizes the

Commission to obtain information (and conduct

appropriate investigations) about, among other

matters, the transmission of electric energy

throughout the United States, regardless of whether

such transmission is otherwise subject to the

Commission’s jurisdiction, and to report to

Congress the results of any investigations it carries

out under the authority of this provision.

22See discussion of Question 46, infra.

23The discussion of questions 45 and 46 by

commenters often overlapped.

Power Act (FPA) 21 and those who

maintained that the Commission does

not have such authority. The latter

group suggested that the Commission’s

authority is not clearcut and, to avoid

needless delay and litigation, the

Commission should rely on the

reciprocity condition in the pro forma

tariffs to extend OASIS requirements to

non-public utilities.22 ConEd argued

that we should state that compliance

with OASIS requirements is required by

both § 311 and reciprocity.

The larger non-public utilities argued

that, while the Commission lacks

authority to impose OASIS rules under

§ 311 of the FPA, they nevertheless will

voluntarily comply with the rules

because this would be in their own best

interest. By contrast, a number of small

non-public utilities argued that they

should be exempt from OASIS rules,

particularly the standards of conduct,

for the same reasons that smaller public

utilities argued that they should be

exempted from the requirements of the

Open Access Final Rule. The smaller

non-public utilities stressed that they do

not ‘‘control’’ many of their

transmission lines and that many of

their lines lack commercial interest.

They recommended the development of

a joint or regional OASIS that would

make participation in an OASIS easier

and argued that, as to smaller nonpublic utilities, the rules requiring a

separation of functions are unduly

burdensome and their scant benefits

would be outweighed by their costs to

consumers.

NRECA argued that the availability of

transmission service under § 211 of the

FPA is sufficient to prevent abuses. By

contrast, Com Ed argued that

Commission orders in § 211 proceedings

come too late to prevent abuses.

In Question 46 of the RIN NOPR, we

asked whether, based on reciprocity, we

should require non-public utilities to

develop or participate in an OASIS.23

The responses to this question generally

are split along the same lines as the

responses to Question 45, with nonpublic utilities pointing out that most

would participate voluntarily in an

OASIS because it would be in their best

interest to do so.

APPA asserted that voluntary

participation would suffice to

accomplish the Commission’s goals and

seeks assurance that compliance with

OASIS requirements by non-public

utilities would be deemed by the

Commission to satisfy the reciprocity

condition in the pro forma tariffs. APPA

also asserted that participation in a

regional OASIS would make compliance

easier for non-public utilities and would

help them deal better with operational

issues such as parallel flows. At the

same time, NE Public Power District

argued that, although it is willing to

participate in an OASIS voluntarily, the

Commission lacks authority to compel

publicly-owned non-public utilities to

comply with OASIS regulations.

In contrast, a number of public

utilities maintained that non-public

utilities cannot provide comparable

open-access non-discriminatory service

unless they comply with the same

OASIS rules as do public utilities. PJM

argued that, although public utilities

and non-public utilities differ in their

ownership, this does not provide a

rational basis to exclude non-public

utilities from participation in an OASIS.

Carolina P&L argued that the same

concerns that motivated the

Commission to propose the standards of

conduct dictate that the rules should

apply equally to non-public utilities.

Others argued that, if non-public

utilities need not comply with the same

OASIS rules applicable to public

utilities, the non-public utilities would

have the benefit of an uneven playing

field that would give them a competitive

advantage. Along these lines, EGA

argued that, in pursuing a competitive

wholesale market, the Commission

should apply OASIS rules equally to all

entities that own wholesale

transmission facilities. Mid-American

stressed the need for reciprocity by

pointing out (as others did in response

to Question 45) that a significant portion

of wholesale transmission facilities

nationwide, including some in pivotal

areas, are owned by non-public utilities.

VEPCO urged that any entity that owns

transmission facilities, is affiliated with

an entity that owns transmission

facilities, controls transmission facilities

through a lease or contract, or signs a

contract for transmission services,

should be required to establish or

participate in an OASIS that is

compatible with the industry standards

established by the Commission in the

final rule in this proceeding as a

condition of being eligible to use a

Transmission Provider’s OASIS.

OK Com stated that it would support

the Commission’s assertion of

jurisdiction over non-public utilities,

provided that the Commission makes a

finding that the non-participation of a

transmission owning entity in an OASIS

would have a substantial detrimental

impact on potential customers attaining

open-access non-discriminatory service

throughout the Nation. Com Ed argued

that the Commission needs to ensure

that non-public utilities do not

circumvent the rule by making

purchases and sales through

intermediaries.

Larger non-public utilities, such as

Public Generating Pool, suggested that

the participation of larger non-public

utilities is much more important, in

terms of promoting competition in the

wholesale market, than is participation

by smaller non-public utilities, whose

systems are predominantly small

distribution systems that are not

essential to the larger regional power

market. Public Generating Pool

proposed that small non-public utilities

should be able to seek an exemption and

that regional transmission groups

should decide whether it is necessary

for a small non-public utility to

participate in the regional OASIS.

Public Generating Pool also suggested

that, if the Commission prefers,

decisions as to who is required to

implement an OASIS could be based on

objective factors, such as market share

or concentration. Other non-public

utilities, such as Seattle and

Tallahassee, stress the need for

flexibility (in providing sufficient time

for compliance and in allowing

deviations from the rule) in any

requirement that non-public utilities

make changes to their system.

Discussion

After reviewing these comments we

have concluded that we will not directly

assert jurisdiction over non-public

utilities under § 311 of the FPA to

ensure compliance with OASIS

requirements. We will, instead, rely on

the reciprocity provision of the 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. If a non-public utility chooses

to take open access service, and

therefore is subject to the tariff

reciprocity condition, it will need to

meet the OASIS requirements in new

Part 37, unless the Commission grants a

waiver of this condition. Although, as

pointed out by ConEd, non-public

utilities control a significant percentage

of the circuit miles of transmission lines

nationwide, and fully accurate

calculations of available capacity on

public utilities’ lines cannot be made

without information about these lines,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21743

24Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K.

25MidAmerican Energy suggested, however, that

a definition for ‘‘Transmission System Operator’’ be

added. We will not do so because we do not use

this term anywhere in the OASIS regulations.

MidAmerican’s purpose in making this suggestion

may have been to exclude the posting on the OASIS

of transactions involving the use of transmission for

purchases made for native load (this issue was also

brought up by CCEM, EGA, MidAmerican, NYPP,

and NIEP). We address the issue of native load

purchases in the Open Access Final Rule.

26 In the RIN NOPR, the proposed standards of

conduct were set out in § 37.6. See RIN NOPR text

at section III.E (60 FR at 66196) and the proposed

regulation at 18 CFR § 37.6 (60 FR at 66199). We

are renumbering this provision as § 37.4 in this final

rule.

27Because the Open Access Final Rule pro forma

tariff may include certain retail transmission

customers, this final rule’s OASIS information

requirements will apply to applicable retail as well

as wholesale services and information.

28Among the over 100 comments filed, only

Dayton P&L, among public utilities, questioned the

Commission’s underlying authority to mandate

control room unbundling. Dayton P&L’s short

conclusory statements in this proceeding were not

accompanied by even a cursory explanation of its

reasoning or by any legal analysis or supporting

citations.

Although Dayton P&L offered no support for its

position in this proceeding, it did (along with other

parties) devote extensive discussion to the more

general issue of the Commission’s authority to order

open access transmission in its initial comments in

the Open Access rulemaking proceeding. We reject

Dayton P&L’s unsubstantiated conclusion, urged in

this proceeding, that we lack authority to order

control room unbundling for the same reasons that

we reject their more general and more extensive

arguments on the Commission’s authority in the

Open Access Final Rule. See Open Access Final

Rule at section IV.B.

we believe reciprocity provides a

sufficient incentive for non-public

utilities to meet the OASIS requirements

imposed on public utilities.

We note that in our Open Access

Final Rule we have concluded that

certain of the requirements we are

imposing on public utilities may not be

appropriate for small utilities. This

conclusion applies equally to the

treatment of small public utilities and

small non-public utilities. Accordingly,

we have established a mechanism in the

Open Access proceeding that allows

small public utilities and small nonpublic utilities to seek waivers based on

the same criteria.24

D. Section 37.2—Purpose

Section 37.2 sets out the fundamental

purpose of this part—to ensure that all

potential customers of open access

transmission service have access to the

information that will enable them to

obtain transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis. Comments in

response to the RIN NOPR did not take

issue with the proposed language of

§ 37.2 and we are adopting this

provision largely without change.

We wish to clarify, however, that

while the OASIS requirements imposed

by this final rule establish a mechanism

by which Transmission Customers may

reserve transmission capacity, they do

not require the replacement of existing

systems for scheduling transmission

service and conducting transmission

system operations at this time. We

believe that it may be appropriate to

include energy scheduling as part of the

OASIS requirements developed for

Phase II. In the meantime, if we

conclude that an existing system is

operated in an unduly discriminatory

manner, we will pursue changes to such

a system in a separate proceeding.

E. Section 37.3—Definitions

This section defines six terms used

throughout this Part—‘‘Transmission

Provider’’, ‘‘Transmission Customer’’,

‘‘Responsible Party’’, ‘‘Resellers’’,

‘‘Wholesale Merchant Function’’, and

‘‘Affiliate’’. The comments in response

to the RIN NOPR did not take issue with

the proposed definitions. 25

Consequently, this final rule adopts

these definitions largely without

change. To prevent confusion, the

definition of Transmission Customer

has been revised to include potential

customers, i.e., those who can execute

service agreements or can receive

services as well as those who actually

do so. And, we have modified the

definition of ‘‘Affiliate’’ to more closely

track provisions of the FPA and the

Public Utility Holding Company Act.

F. Section 37.4—Standards of Conduct

This section sets out the standards of

conduct necessary to ensure that

Transmission Providers do not use their

unique access to information unfairly to

favor their own merchant functions, or

those of their affiliates, in selling

electric energy in interstate commerce.

Although preserving the substance of

what was proposed, the final rule has

been reorganized.

Paragraph (a) sets out the general

rules that require the separation of

transmission and merchant functions

and that recognize in emergency

circumstances system operators may

take whatever steps are necessary to

keep the system in operation.

Paragraph (b) sets out the specific

rules governing employee conduct

under five headings covering prohibited

practices, transfers of employees, access

to information, disclosure, and conduct

in implementing tariffs. These

provisions correspond to elements of

paragraph (a), as well as paragraphs (b)

through (h) and (j) of the standards

proposed in the RIN NOPR.

Paragraph (c) requires that there be

written procedures implementing the

standards of conduct and that these

must be kept in a public place and filed

with the Commission. Paragraph (c)

corresponds to paragraph (k) of the

standards proposed in the RIN NOPR.

In the RIN NOPR, the Commission

proposed standards of conduct for

public utilities patterned after those

promulgated for natural gas pipelines.26

The proposed standards of conduct

would require Transmission Providers

to separate their wholesale merchant

functions (i.e., wholesale purchases or

wholesale sales of electric energy in

interstate commerce) from their

wholesale transmission system

operations and reliability functions.

Employees performing wholesale

merchant functions would be required

to obtain information on wholesale

transmission services only through an

OASIS, on the same basis available to

all other OASIS users. The standards of

conduct were intended to prevent

employees of the Transmission Provider

that perform wholesale merchant

functions or employees of any affiliate

from having preferential access to any

relevant information about the

Transmission Provider’s wholesale

transmission availability and costs, or

uses or possible uses of the

Transmission Provider’s transmission

system by non-affiliates.27

We accompanied this proposal with

two questions that asked whether the

proposed standards of conduct should

be modified and whether they

sufficiently addressed functional

unbundling (Questions 41 and 42). We

also asked whether our proposal might

interfere with system reliability (see

Question 43).

The responses basically fell into three

categories.28 First, a number of smaller

public utilities argued that they should

be granted waivers (or be deemed

exempt) from the proposed standards of

conduct because these standards would

compel them to hire additional staff not

justified by their small market share or

by the small revenues they derive from

providing wholesale transmission

services. These comments suggested

that the standards should not apply to

public utilities that lack operational

control over the facilities used for

wholesale transmission service, or to

public utilities that do not exceed given

thresholds for market share, percent of

revenues, or total revenues from

wholesale transmission services.

Second, a number of large utilities

basically were satisfied with the

proposed rules and offered specific

suggestions for revisions. Third,

commenters raised the issue of whether

to require the separation of generation
21744 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

29A number of comments raised the issue of

whether the OASIS regulations would promote

ISOs (independent system operators) and whether

participation in an ISO would exempt an entity

from compliance with OASIS requirements. In this

regard, a number of comments suggested that the

proposed standards of conduct will result in the

widespread transfer of transmission functions to the

control of ISOs and predicted that the need for the

standards of conduct will diminish as ISOs become

more prevalent. In this context, IN Com supported

the formation of ISOs, because this would reduce

the need for state commissions to monitor

functional unbundling and would help in resolving

jurisdictional questions.

The concept of ISOs is addressed in the Open

Access Final Rule. As to the prediction that the rise

in the number of ISOs will make the standards of

conduct unnecessary, or should offer a basis for an

exemption from the standards of conduct, we

would characterize the potential of ISOs somewhat

differently. In our view, a properly constituted ISO

could be a mechanism, not for an exemption, but

as a means to comply with the standards of

conduct.

30Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K.

31 Id.

and transmission functions.29 We

discuss these three categories below.

1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities

for Waivers From the Standards of

Conduct

Turning first to the arguments of

smaller public utilities that they should

be exempt from the standards of

conduct, we note that this issue also

arose in the Commission’s Open Access

rulemaking proceeding. As described in

the Open Access Final Rule, we will

publish a list of jurisdictional public

utilities that must comply with these

rules. At the same time, we establish a

mechanism that allows small public

utilities to seek a waiver. In appropriate

circumstances, the Commission would

waive some or all of the Open Access

requirements, subject to future

reconsideration as warranted by

circumstances.30

A related issue involves the concerns

of small non-public utilities about their

obligation under the reciprocity

condition. We have decided in the Open

Access rulemaking proceeding that we

would use these same criteria to decide

whether a small non-public utility

should be granted a waiver from all or

part of the reciprocity condition

contained in public utility open access

tariffs. Such waivers could be sought of

the requirements to have open access

tariffs, provide ancillary services,

establish an OASIS, or separate

functions.

A full explanation of the waiver

mechanism is contained in the Open

Access Final Rule.31 We will use these

same standards to determine whether

small public utilities have complied

with the OASIS requirements and to

determine whether small non-public

utilities have met their contractual

obligation to comply with OASIS

requirements as a condition of service

under open access tariff reciprocity

provisions.

2. Suggested Revisions to the Standards

of Conduct and Timing

For the most part, we have adopted

the standards of conduct as proposed,

making technical and conforming

revisions. In a few instances, in

response to comments, we have made

substantive changes. These changes, and

the suggestions that led us to make

them, are discussed below, along with

some suggestions that we rejected.

1. As proposed, the regulations would

prohibit preferential access to the

system control room and ‘‘other

facilities of the public utility’’ that

differs from the access available to other

potential transmission users. AEP

suggested that it is not clear whether

this was intended to restrict access to all

other facilities or is meant to restrict

access to other similar facilities, (i.e.,

those facilities that, like the control

room, are involved in transmission

operations and reliability functions).

Consistent with this latter

interpretation, AEP suggested that the

restriction be modified to apply to the

system control room and ‘‘similar

facilities used for transmission

operations or reliability functions.’’ We

agree with AEP’s interpretation of the

scope of this restriction and adopt the

suggested revision in section

37.4(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule.

2. Section 37.4(c) of the proposed

standards of conduct would prohibit

contacts (off OASIS) between employees

of the public utility engaged in

transmission system operations and

employees of the public utility engaged

in wholesale marketing functions, and

employees of any affiliate no matter

how employed. AEP, Com Ed, and Ohio

Edison argued that this provision is too

broad and would exclude contacts

between transmission system operators

and employees of affiliates engaged in

various activities, many of which are

unrelated to a public utility’s merchant

functions. For example, an energy

services subsidiary might be engaged in

building a power plant in a foreign

country. AEP argued that there would

be no reason to deny employees engaged

in such an activity access to utility

personnel involved in transmission or

reliability functions. Com Ed suggested

that this provision should be modified

to prevent contacts between system

operators and employees engaged in

wholesale marketing functions,

regardless of whether those marketing

employees are engaged in those

activities on behalf of either the utility

or its affiliates. Thus, under this

argument, contacts between system

operators and affiliate employees not

engaged in wholesale marketing

functions would not be prohibited.

We agree with AEP, Com Ed, and

Ohio Edison that our proposed

standards of conduct were overly broad

because they prohibited contacts

between system operators and affiliate

employees engaged in functions

completely unrelated to a public

utility’s wholesale power and energy

marketing functions. We will revise the

proposed standards of conduct

accordingly.

AEP also argued that employees of the

affiliate may be involved in the

wholesale merchant function, but not in

the utility’s market area. For example,

an employee of an affiliate might be

involved in a different geographic area,

far from the system’s transmission grid.

AEP argued that there would be no need

to isolate such activities from the

utility’s transmission operations. To

cover such situations, AEP suggested

that the language be modified to read

‘‘employees of any affiliate of the public

utility, to the extent that such

employees are engaged in wholesale

merchant functions in the utility’s

market area.’’

We reject AEP’s suggestion. Although

public utilities may still have the ability

to exert market dominance in particular

markets, they also will now have the

ability to participate in transactions

across the nation. We fully expect—and

our experience with the WSPP

demonstrates—that in the move to a

competitive wholesale bulk power

market, public utilities will have

extensive market areas in which to make

offers. Thus, there is no reason to limit

the scope of the standards of conduct as

recommended by AEP.

We also have clarified section

37.4(b)(3)(i) to explain that employees

engaged in merchant trading functions

must not have preferential access to any

information about the Transmission

Provider’s transmission system that is

not available to all users of an OASIS.

However, the standards of conduct do

not foreclose customers, including

merchant employees, from obtaining

information about the status of their

particular contracted for transaction

from Transmission Provider employees

engaged in system operation and

reliability functions. The information

provided in status reports must present

the same types of information, in the

same level of detail, to any customer

presenting a similar request. The

standards do, however, preclude

merchant employees from obtaining

preferential access to information about
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21745

32See § 37.4(b)(4)(iii); see text accompanying n.

33, infra.

the Transmission Provider’s system (not

directly linked to their particular

transaction) from any nonpublic source

as well as market information acquired

from nonaffiliated customers or

potential nonaffiliated customers or

developed by the Transmission Provider

in its role as a Transmission Provider

(except to the limited extent that this

information is required to be posted on

the OASIS).32

3. APPA argued that the rules should

prohibit preferential treatment of

wholesale purchases or sales by any

utility. APPA interpreted the originally

proposed language to mean that

preferential treatment would be

permitted, as long as the preference

would not be extended to the public

utility itself or an affiliate. APPA and

Com Ed argued that preferential

treatment of any wholesale customer

over the interests of any other wholesale

customer must not be allowed. Com Ed

adds that absent clarification,

relationships of reciprocal favoritism

could develop in the industry, to the

detriment of all other customers.

We find this contingency is possible.

While the standards of conduct set

guidelines for Transmission Providers

and their affiliates in handling their

wholesale merchant functions; public

utilities are also governed by section

205(b) of the Federal Power Act. Section

205(b) prohibits public utilities from

granting any undue preference or

advantage to any person or subjecting

any person to any undue prejudice or

disadvantage with respect to any

transmission or sale subject to the

jurisdiction of the Commission. This

provision remains in full force and

effect and prohibits preferential

treatment in transactions regardless of

whether those transactions are

specifically addressed in the standards

of conduct.

4. In section 37.6(i) of the RIN NOPR

we proposed that public utilities offer

customers discounts comparable to

those that the public utility offers to its

own power customers or those of an

affiliate. AEP suggested that this

limitation on allowable discounts be

expressly limited to discounts on

wholesale transmission services. We

agree and are revising this provision

accordingly. Discounts for jurisdictional

power sales are not governed by this

final rule but by section 205(b) of the

FPA and related precedent on power

sales.

5. Allegheny suggested that the

Commission should find that there will

no longer be a presumption of

discriminatory dealing between utility

affiliates in generation and transmission

services when network owners comply

with the standards of conduct.

Allegheny has presented no basis for

making such a finding and we decline

to do so.

6. Com Ed, Duke, and NEPOOL

suggested that the proposed standards

should not be interpreted to prevent

employees of the utility engaged in

wholesale marketing functions from

obtaining information about their

competitors from non-affiliated third

party sources such as the trade press.

Com Ed also suggested that the utility

should be allowed freedom to give out

information about its transmission

functions off OASIS (e.g., in briefings at

public meetings) as long as the utility’s

wholesale marketing employees do not

obtain preferential access to those

forums. Ohio Edison suggested that the

proposed standards of conduct should

be revised to preclude only ‘‘substantive

access’’ to the system control room.

Ohio Edison argued that access for

matters unrelated to transmission

matters, such as training programs,

should be permitted.

We have two points we wish to make

regarding these related suggestions.

First, we clarify that the rules do not

prohibit access to information

contemporaneously available without

restriction to other members of the

general public. (See section 37.4(b)(1)(ii)

dealing with access to information).

Second, these rules are intended to be

interpreted consistent with common

sense, prudence, and caution.

Our standards of conduct are

intended to prevent preferential access

to information related to transmission

prices and availability by employees of

the public utility or any affiliate

engaged in wholesale merchant

functions. Preferential access means that

information is obtained from those with

access to information about the public

utility’s transmission system operations

that is not equally available to other

customers. It is obvious, at least to us,

that this does not bar wholesale

merchant employees from reading the

trade press or from sitting in the

audience of a publicly-announced and

available lecture delivered by the public

utility’s transmission operator or a third

party in an open forum. However, the

onus is on the public utilities subject to

these standards to conduct their affairs

in compliance with these rules, and

they should exercise care and prudence

in so doing.

We decline, therefore, to specify in

these regulations whether, for example,

a ‘‘public meeting’’ must be preceded by

advance notice, to whom that notice

must be provided, and what that notice

would need to spell out. We do not

believe that it would be appropriate to

burden our rules with this kind of

minutiae in a misplaced effort to

anticipate every possible contingency.

Such regulatory overkill is unwarranted

and counterproductive. Moreover, those

subject to the regulations may, like other

members of the public, call the

Enforcement Task Force Hotline to

obtain informal advice on implementing

the standards of conduct.

7. VEPCO suggested that, rather than

prohibiting contacts between system

operators and employees of the public

utility and any affiliates engaged in

wholesale merchant functions, the

Commission could reach the same result

by allowing system operators to

disclose, through informal

communications, information about the

status of the transmission system,

provided that they then post this

information on OASIS.

We find this suggestion untenable.

First, such disclosures would

necessarily be posted after-the-fact, and

thus the information would not be

conveyed to all potential customers at

the same time. Second, such a provision

would be very difficult to enforce.

Third, the same information could just

as easily be divulged on the OASIS to

all customers, rather than ‘‘reported’’ on

the OASIS after-the-fact.

8. Com Ed suggested that the

reference in subsections (a) and (d) of

the proposed standards to ‘‘reliability

functions’’ should be clarified to apply

only to transmission functions and not

to generation functions. We disagree. As

discussed below, system operations and

reliability functions include both

transmission and generation functions.

9. Con Ed suggested that the standards

of conduct should include a disclaimer

that utilities will not be liable for the

reliability or accuracy of data posted on

the OASIS as an accommodation to

third parties. We agree 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. We do not, however,

view this as a standard of conduct issue.

Instead, we address this point in our

discussion of what information is to be

posted under § 37.6(g).

10. Ohio Edison suggested that

posting the names of personnel

transferring between departments would

make these employees targets for

recruitment by competitors.

Notwithstanding this concern, we

believe that this information must be

posted on the OASIS to make possible
21746 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘gaming of the system’’ through

spurious revolving door tactics more

visible.

11. Ohio Edison also suggested that

the phrase in subsection (b) of the

proposed standards ‘‘* * * must rely

upon the same information relied upon

by the public utility’s wholesale

transmission customers’’ should be

modified to read ‘‘* * * must have

available only the same information

available to the public utility’s

wholesale transmission customers.’’

Ohio Edison argued that the

Transmission Provider has no way of

knowing what information its customers

‘‘relied upon’’ and that it should not be

held to an undefinable subjective

standard. We agree. Accordingly, we

adopt Ohio Edison’s suggestion in

section 37.4(b)(3)(i) of the final rule and

omit the phrase ‘‘rely upon.’’

12. Ohio Edison also suggested that if

its suggestion (in the previous item) is

adopted, then the language in section

37.4(b) beginning with the language in

parenthesis becomes redundant and

should be deleted. We disagree and will

retain that language in section

37.4(b)(3)(ii) of the final rule. We

believe the language adds necessary

clarification.

13. Montana Power suggested that, if

off-OASIS communications between the

utility’s system operators and wholesale

marketing personnel are prohibited,

these kinds of communications should

also be prohibited between system

operators and all transmission users.

Montana Power would prefer, however,

that these communications be

permissible. Likewise, Duke suggested

that we change the regulations so that if

an employee of an unrelated third party

calls the transmission-related

employees, for example, to better

understand the public utility’s

transmission system, such

communications should be permitted to

be conducted off the OASIS. Duke

maintains that the free flow of

information should not be discouraged

so long as functional unbundling is

implemented and affiliate abuse is

avoided. NEPOOL suggested that the

rules dictating the Transmission

Provider’s release of information should

apply to all Transmission Customers,

not just to the Transmission Provider’s

employees, as affiliates, engaged in

wholesale merchant functions.

Our proposed standards of conduct

were designed, and our final standards

are being implemented, to prevent

Transmission Providers from giving

themselves an undue preference over

their customers through the exchange of

‘‘insider’’ information between the

company’s system operators and

employees of the public utility, or any

affiliate, engaged in wholesale

marketing functions. Thus, the rules

place restrictions on preferential

communications from the system

operators to only those merchant

employees. The rules were not designed

to prevent system operators from having

communications with third parties. We

do not generally see this as an area that

needs regulatory oversight. As discussed

above, we have revised the regulations

to ensure no discriminatory treatment

and we remind public utilities subject to

these regulations that section 205(b) of

the FPA prohibits undue

discrimination. This should suffice.

14. NUSCO suggested that the

Commission should distinguish: (1) The

functional separation of generation

marketing related to operation of the

transmission system and administration

of transmission tariffs (which are

relatively short-term activities); from (2)

the coordination of marketing with the

system planning function (a long-term

activity encompassing both generation

and transmission). Similarly, the FL

Com is concerned that the standards of

conduct might impede system

reliability, and argued that marketers

and system operators should be able to

confer concerning the company’s longterm planning activities that require

knowledge about the company’s

generation and transmission systems.

NEPOOL expresses similar concerns.

By contrast, Com Ed suggested that

the proposed standards of conduct will

not impair planning because, like a oneway street, they allow information to be

conveyed from employees engaged in

merchant functions to system operators,

while at the same time prohibiting

information to be conveyed in the

opposite direction. Com Ed submitted

that the inter-relationship between the

areas of strategic planning, resource

planning and long-range transmission

planning require the flow of information

to transmission personnel. Future

acquisitions of capacity may constitute

a resource taken into account in

planning and may have an impact on

the transmission system that needs to be

accounted for by transmission planners.

Thus, Com Ed argued that there should

be no restriction on the flow of

information about future purchases or

sales from the merchant function to the

transmission function, although

restrictions on the flow of information

to the merchant function should be

adopted as proposed.

We agree with Com Ed that, as we

proposed in the RIN NOPR, the flow of

information, through the OASIS, from

employees engaged in wholesale

merchant functions to system operators

should remain permissible, to allow

proper system planning, while at the

same time restricting information being

conveyed off the OASIS from system

operators to utility and affiliate

employees engaged in wholesale

merchant functions, to prevent

preferential access to transmission

information. Consequently, we reject the

proposals offered by NUSCO, FL Com,

and NEPOOL in this regard.

15. Omaha PPD argued that

information regarding the scheduling of

power transfers, economic dispatch, and

economic conditions have nothing to do

with the information that is needed

regarding the availability of

transmission capability. Omaha PPD

suggested, therefore, that any

information relating to economic

operation or the commercial state of a

utility be removed from the standards of

conduct. By contrast, NUCOR suggested

that, since economic dispatch is

premised on real-time marginal

production cost data and generating unit

economics, the comparability standard

mandates that utilities provide the same

generation cost data to other market

participants. Similarly, NUCOR argued

that, because economic dispatch also is

dependent on the economics of offsystem purchases and sales, data

pertaining to such purchases and sales

also must be made generally available.

Except for postings for certain

ancillary services, the RIN NOPR did

not propose the posting on an OASIS of

data on generation and we are not

persuaded, at this juncture, to do more.

Our decision is 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.

16. VEPCO suggested that the

regulations should prohibit system

operators from disclosing information to

wholesale marketing employees or other

customers about the ancillary services

offered by third parties because they are

not permitted to disclose the same

information about their companies’ own

products. VEPCO further suggested that

the prohibition against discussing the

companies’ own products should be

removed.

We find these suggestions

inconsistent with the kinds of

safeguards we are trying to provide

through these standards of conduct. In

any event, as discussed below in our

discussion of items to be posted on the

OASIS, we are requiring that this kind

of information be posted on the OASIS,

and thus companies will be able to get
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21747

33See, e.g., Illinova Power Marketing, Inc., 74

FERC ¶ 61,313, slip op. at 4–6 (1996); USGen Power

Services, L.P., 73 FERC ¶ 61,302 at 61,845 (1995).

their message out that these services are

available.

17. Duke suggested that the proposed

subsection dealing with the impartial

application of tariff provisions should

be revised to make clear it is the

customer (and not the employees) who

is to be treated on a fair and impartial

basis. We agree and the final rule in

section 37.4(b)(5)(ii) adopts this

suggestion.

18. VEPCO suggested that the rules

requiring a separation of functions

should be suspended if additional

employees trained in system operations

(but normally assigned to marketing

functions) should be needed to assist in

handling system operation functions

during emergencies affecting system

reliability. VEPCO also suggested that

the Commission should allow

transmission and generation operators

to engage in emergency energy

transactions and hourly non-firm energy

transactions.

It is not the purpose of these rules to

compromise reliability. In emergency

circumstances affecting system

reliability, system operators may take

whatever steps are necessary to keep the

system in operation. Consequently, we

are adding a provision to the standards

of conduct that specifically grants

system operators the authority to take

whatever steps are necessary to

maintain system reliability during an

emergency, notwithstanding that this

could otherwise constitute a violation of

the standards of conduct. Transmission

Providers will be required to report to

the Commission and on the OASIS each

emergency that resulted in any

deviation from the standards of conduct,

within 24 hours of such deviation. If we

see a pattern of activities that suggested

that ‘‘emergencies’’ are not authentic,

we will take strong action against the

offending public utilities.

Because we are adding a provision

that allows actions to be taken in

response to emergencies, we are

deleting the phrase ‘‘to the maximum

extent practicable’’ that had appeared in

section 37.6(a) of the standards of

conduct proposed in the RIN NOPR.

19. Continental Power Exchange

argued that, just as merchant traders

should be prohibited from access to the

control center, system operators should

be prohibited from access to the trading

floor. United Illuminating agreed that

separation of functions needs to apply

to separation of transmission and

customer supply functions. Continental

Power Exchange also suggested that

discounts should be offered unilaterally

to all customers without prior notice

and without two-way negotiation.

Continental Power Exchange further

suggested that short-term transactions

should be deemed approved upon

request, unless the utility specifically

notifies the customer that the

transaction will be denied. Continental

Power Exchange argued that this would

streamline the proposed procedures and

make OASIS transactions faster and

more manageable.

We will not, at this time, adopt

Continental Power Exchange’s

suggestion to create an absolute

prohibition against system operators

having access to the trading floor

because we are concerned about

information divulged by system

operators and not about information

acquired by them. However, any nonpublic contacts between system

operators and merchant traders creates

the risk that there will be improper

communications between these

employees and the burden is on

Transmission Providers subject to the

standards of conduct to devise

procedures that will prevent improper

contacts. We expect, therefore, that the

Transmission Providers themselves will

devise procedures that will either

prohibit or, at a minimum, severely

restrict access to the trading floor by

system operators.

As to Continental Power Exchange’s

other suggestions, we will not adopt

these suggestions at this time, but may

come back to them as the process

evolves and the feasibility of back and

forth negotiations is tested by

experience.

20. SoCal Edison and Tucson Power

suggested that, while the proposed 60-

day deadline for filing procedures to

implement the standards is adequate,

the Commission needs to be flexible on

implementing other changes, such as

reconfiguring and relocating control

rooms and other facilities, and training

and recruiting new employees.

Although we originally proposed to

require compliance with the standards

of conduct starting 60 days from the

publication of this final rule, on further

consideration we have decided to put

off the requirement that they be

implemented until the implementation

of OASIS, that is by November 1, 1996.

As a practical matter, the standards of

conduct cannot be implemented apart

from the electronic communication

systems of a functioning OASIS; the two

work together. In addition, the extra

time will permit utilities the

opportunity to fully implement the

requirements of the standards of

conduct. Although the result will be a

window of time during which open

access transmission tariffs will not be

supported by standards of conduct (or

OASIS), we must recognize that the

changes we are mandating for the

industry cannot be implemented

overnight; a transition period is

required.

21. Finally, after a review of the

comments, we have added an additional

provision to the standards of conduct

(section 37.4(b)(4)(iii) of the final rule)

dealing with the posting of any

additional market information

developed by a Transmission Provider

in its role as a Transmission Provider

and shared with employees of its, or an

affiliate’s, merchant function.

We have expressed concern in a

number of recent orders about the

possibility of the dissemination of

market information by a public utility

with market-based rate authority.33 To

guard against the possibility of affiliate

abuse, we have required such public

utilities to commit in their codes of

conduct with affiliates to share market

information only if they make the same

information publicly available to nonaffiliates at the same time. We have not

dictated the means by which public

utilities are to make this information

simultaneously available to all.

This same concern for the unequal

distribution of market information, in a

manner that may benefit select

recipients with commercial or

competitive information that is not

equally available to others, leads us,

after a review of the comments, to

extend the standards of conduct to cover

any market information gathered by

Transmission Providers in the course of

responding to transmission or ancillary

service inquiries.

Our concern, based in part on our

experience with implementing and

monitoring electronic bulletin boards

developed for use by the natural gas

pipeline industry, is that there remains

the incentive for a Transmission

Provider to share with its own merchant

employees, or those of an affiliate, any

information it has developed (not

limited to transmission system

information) in responding to requests

made over the OASIS. This is

particularly a concern with respect to

market information developed in the

course of denying a request for

transmission service.

While we have developed procedures

dealing with the obligations of

Transmission Providers in responding

to requests for service, we believe that

these procedures, alone, may not be

sufficient to eliminate the possibility of

an unfair competitive advantage to

employees of the Transmission Provider
21748 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

34The commenters nearly universally focused

their presentations on why the Commission should

not order an unbundling of generation and

transmission operations, rather than addressing the

precise topic we set out. In any event, the issue is

now moot, as we have decided not to order

Transmission Providers to separate their generation

and transmission operations at this time. If,

however, with experience we discover that the

steps we are ordering here are not adequate to

remedy undue discrimination, we can revisit this

issue.

35NRECA commented that the Commission

should ensure that expenses by a joint OASIS are

subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction and audit

authority. We agree. We will treat this as a normal

ratemaking expense issue and will allocate such

costs on a case-by-case basis when such expenses

are presented to us for our review.

36 16 U.S.C. § 824.

37See, e.g., Bechtel Power Corporation, order

granting declaratory order and disclaiming

jurisdiction, 60 FERC ¶61,156 at 61,572 (1992) (on

control issue), and FPC v. Florida Power & Light

Company, 404 U.S. 453 (1972) (on defining

jurisdictional facilities).

(or an affiliate) engaged in merchant

functions, by virtue of access to market

information not shared with others.

Accordingly, we will add to the

standards of conduct a provision that

precludes a Transmission Provider from

sharing market information acquired

from nonaffiliated Transmission

Customers or potential nonaffiliated

Transmission Customers or developed

in the course of responding to requests

for transmission or ancillary service. In

this manner, we can be better assured

that employees of the Transmission

Provider or an affiliate engaged in

merchant operations do not develop a

competitive advantage by virtue of

operation of an OASIS. The

Transmission Provider may only reveal

information about transmission requests

as provided in the provisions of this

rule (section 37.6 (e)) dealing, generally,

with responses to transmission and

ancillary service requests and,

specifically, with transaction

confidentiality (except to the limited

extent that this information is required

to be posted on the OASIS).

3. Whether To Require the Separation of

Generation and Transmission Functions

In the RIN NOPR we proposed

standards of conduct that would require

Transmission Providers and their

affiliates to separate system operation

and reliability functions from wholesale

merchant functions. Both transmission

and generation functions are included

within system operation and reliability

functions. The RIN NOPR,

notwithstanding Questions 42 and 43,

did not propose that these functions

(transmission and generation) be

separated. Nor did we propose that

Transmission Providers divest their

ownership of generation assets.

We received numerous comments in

response to our questions 42 and 43 that

asked whether, if the Commission

would go beyond unbundling

transmission and generation merchant

functions to order the unbundling of

generation and transmission operations,

this would necessitate revision of the

proposed standards of conduct and

whether this would adversely affect

reliability.34 After reviewing the

comments, we conclude that we should

require—with these final rules—only

the unbundling of the transmission

operations and wholesale marketing

functions of public utilities and their

affiliates, as proposed in the RIN NOPR.

We do not extend these rules to require

the unbundling of transmission and

generation control functions or to

mandate the divestiture by

Transmission Providers of their

generation assets.

We will require the functional

unbundling of transmission operations

and wholesale marketing functions

because we are persuaded that this will

prevent abuses based on preferential

access to information and other

discriminatory behavior, without

compromising system reliability. The

standards of conduct are designed to

accomplish this: (a) By requiring that

transmission-related information be

made available to all customers

(including employees of the public

utility, and any affiliate, engaged in

merchant functions) through OASIS

postings available to all customers at the

same time and on an equal basis; and (b)

by 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.

G. Section 37.5—Obligations of

Transmission Providers

This section of the final rule adopts,

without substantive change, the

provisions proposed as section 37.4

(Standardization of Data Sets and

Communication Protocols) and section

37.5 (Obligations of Transmission

Providers) in the RIN NOPR. The final

rule requires, in paragraph (a), that a

Transmission Provider must provide for

the operation of an OASIS either

individually or jointly with other

Transmission Providers and it must do

so in accord with the requirements of

Part 37. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that

the OASIS must give access to relevant

standardized information pertaining to

the status of the transmission system as

well as to the types and prices of

services. Finally, in paragraph (b)(2), the

rule requires that the OASIS must be

operated in compliance with the

protocols set out in the publication,

OASIS Standards and Communication

Protocols.

In the RIN NOPR, we explained that

each Transmission Provider would be

responsible for compliance, regardless

of whether it establishes its own OASIS

or participates in a joint OASIS.35 The

final rule does not change this. In a

related provision, we proposed, in

§ 37.1, that Part 37 would apply to any

public utility that owns, operates, or

controls facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce. However, as noted

by many commenters, it is quite

probable that individual public utilities

may turn the operation of their

transmission system and information

system over to an ISO or other joint or

regional entity. (This has been provided

for in the definition of the term

‘‘Responsible Party’’). This raises the

issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction

over such entities.

Under section 201(e) of the FPA, a

‘‘public utility’’ means,

Any person who owns or operates facilities

subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission

under this Part (other than facilities subject

to such jurisdiction solely by reason of

section 210, 211, or 212).36

To the extent that anyone is given

control and decision making authority

over the transmission operations of a

public utility’s transmission facilities, it

clearly would ‘‘operate’’ public

facilities, within the meaning of section

201(e), and therefore would be subject

to the Commission’s jurisdiction.37 To

the extent that a public utility turns over

its operations to an ISO or any other

joint entity to satisfy the Open Access

and OASIS requirements, the ISO or any

other entity would fall within the

definition of a ‘‘public utility’’ under

§ 201 of the FPA and thus would be

subject to the OASIS regulations of Part

37.

H. Section 37.6—Information To Be

Posted on an Oasis

In the RIN NOPR, we proposed, in

sections 37.7 through 37.14, rules

governing: (1) The information that

must be posted on an OASIS; (2) the

procedures for the posting and updating

of information on the OASIS; (3) the

posting of discounts; (4) procedures for

Transmission Providers to respond to

customer requests for transmission

service; (5) procedures for

communicating denials of requests for

service and curtailments; and (6) the

posting of information about scheduling

and affiliate transactions. These
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21749

38See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66188) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.7

(60 FR 66200).

39See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66188).

40See Open Access Final Rule at sections IV.G

and IV.H.

41See, e.g., Arizona, ConEd, NEPOOL, NE Public

Power District, NERC and Western Group

comments.

42See Basin EC, Duke, NE Public Power District,

Tallahassee, Union Electric, and VEPCO comments.

Only Arizona said it was a bad idea because it

would be too subjective and confusing.

43See Central Illinois Public Service, Detroit

Edison, Omaha PPD, PSNM, Texas Utilities, Union

Electric, and VEPCO comments.

provisions have been consolidated and

are now covered in § 37.6 of the

regulations adopted by this final rule.

As discussed in more detail below,

section 37.6 has eight paragraphs.

Paragraph (a) lists the objectives of an

OASIS. Paragraph (b) lists what must be

posted for public transmission

capability—that is, available

transmission capability (ATC) and total

transmission capability (TTC)—as well

as how and when this information is to

be updated. Paragraph (c) sets out the

requirements for posting transmission

service products, including resold

capacity as well as their prices.

Paragraph (d) provides the same for

offerings of ancillary services. Paragraph

(e) sets out the requirements for posting

transmission service requests and

responses including service denials and

curtailment or interruption of

transmission. Paragraph (f) provides

requirements for posting transmission

service schedules. Paragraph (g) deals

with posting other transmission-related

communications. Finally, paragraph (h)

sets out the requirements for auditing

information.

Some of the proposed provisions have

not been adopted. These include

requirements concerning an application

procedure for requesting transmission

service (§ 37.9(b)(5) of the proposed

regulations); requirements imposed on

the reseller to notify the Transmission

Provider of certain information

(§ 37.9(c)(3) of the proposed

regulations); and the steps that must be

followed by the Transmission Provider

and Requester in their negotiations

(§ 37.12 of the proposed regulations).

These did not prescribe information that

must be posted; rather, they were

concerned with how parties should

conduct business in an open access

environment. These matters are

considered in the Open Access Final

Rule.

1. OASIS Objectives (§ 37.6(a))

The Commission proposed five

objectives for the OASIS in the RIN

NOPR.38 Few comments were received

on these objectives; none were

substantive. Thus, we adopt these

objectives without substantive revision

in the final rule.

2. Posting Transmission Capability

(§ 37.6(b))

a. ATC for Network Integration

Service. The RIN NOPR discussed

requiring the posting of available

transmission capability for network

service. As we acknowledged in the RIN

NOPR,39 before-the-fact measurement of

the availability of network transmission

service is difficult. Nonetheless, it is

important to give potential network

customers under the Commission’s pro

forma tariff (as discussed in the Open

Access Final Rule) 40 an easy-tounderstand indicator of service

availability. To this end, the

Commission requested comments on

how best to post the availability of

network transmission service on the

OASIS (Question 3).

NERC reiterated the statement in the

What Group report that ‘‘it does not

seem possible to post the availability of

Network Integration Transmission

Service’’ on an OASIS. No other

commenter disagreed.

NERC went on to describe some of the

challenges involved with calculating

available transmission capability (ATC)

for network integration service. Network

service is a complex, long-term

relationship between a requester and

provider that must be investigated in

detail because it involves the

specification of multiple points of

receipt or delivery or both. Because of

the long-term nature of network service,

the planning process involves a

complex interrelationship of future

loads and resources, with an impact on

the network that is extremely location

dependent. A major difficulty in

estimating network ATC is the lack of

specific locations for which to calculate

an impact on the network. Each network

service request would be unique, with

different sets of integrated loads and

generating stations affecting the

network, including its constrained

paths, differently.

The Commission also asked if there

were any alternative service that is more

suitable to measurement than the

current version of network service.

Some commenters said that it might be

possible to devise a concept which

supports better measurement of

network-like service availability, but

devising and implementing such a new

concept within the proposed initial

implementation time line for OASIS is

not feasible. The Commission is not, at

this time, persuaded to require the

posting of ATC for network service.

b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC

(§§ 37.6(b) (1) and (3)). In the RIN

NOPR, the Commission requested

comments on ways to minimize the

burden of ATC calculations, while

ensuring that wholesale Transmission

Customers have the information they

need (Question 5).

Commenters suggested a number of

ways to minimize the reporting of ATC,

including less frequent updates,

developing standardized methods for

calculating ATC, and encouraging

regional efforts. Most of the comments

discussed ways to limit the number of

paths for which ATC has to be posted.

The What Group proposed that ATC

be posted only for paths as ‘‘business

needs’’ arise. This proposal was

intended to limit the number of paths

for which ATC must be posted. A

‘‘business need’’ was defined, in part, by

a Transmission Customer requesting

information about a path. A number of

commenters supported the proposal to

limit paths based on ‘‘business need.’’ 41

The Commission suggested in the RIN

NOPR a different approach to the

problem. Calculating ATC and updating

frequency could be based, instead, on

the level of activity and constraints on

a given path. This approach was

supported by a number of

commenters.42 A number of commenters

wanted to leave to the Transmission

Provider the decision of which paths to

post ATC.43

Detroit Edison, Oklahoma G&E and

PSNM suggested that customers could

also identify paths, along with a process

for deleting them. NEPOOL and Detroit

Edison stated that they will post ATC

for all control area interfaces and any

internal constraints. The Western Group

had a similar proposal.

NE Public Power District, NERC and

NSP commented that ATCs should be

posted only for constrained paths. PJM

and WP&L proposed that, for

unconstrained paths, static numbers or

limits could be used and would be

updated infrequently. VEPCO suggested

that paths be coded by the quality of the

ATC calculation used and that high

quality effort be used only when ATC is

less than 25 percent of the total

transmission capability. ConEd

suggested that posting could be sorted

by frequency of update so that busier

paths would be at the top of the list.

Dayton P&L suggested mandatory

information on ATC be limited to: (1)

Identification of the interface; (2) firm

and non-firm ATC (hourly for the

current day, daily for the next seven
21750 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

44The terms ‘‘firm point-to-point transmission

service’’ and ‘‘non-firm point-to-point transmission

service’’ are defined in the definition section of the

pro forma tariff for point-to-point service.

45See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66188) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR

37.9(b)(2) (60 FR 66200).

46The pro forma tariff in the Open Access Final

Rule provides that Transmission Providers must

develop a method for calculating ATC and TTC and

must include a description of this methodology in

their tariffs.

47See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66186).

48See, e.g., Consumers Power, Basin EC, ERCOT,

NEPOOL, PA Com, How Group, NIEP, NYPP,

NERC, Ohio Com, OK Com, Oklahoma G&E, PSNM,

Texas Utilities, Western Group, PacifiCorp, and PJM

comments.

49See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66191).

50See, e.g., Allegheny, Arizona, Central Illinois

Public Service, Carolina P&L, Florida Power Corp,

days, weekly for the next four weeks,

monthly for the next 12 months); and (3)

price for each service.

MAPP summarized the issue well

when it stated ‘‘[t]he burden of ATC

calculations will be determined by the

number of paths for which ATC is being

calculated and posted, the accuracy

needed and the frequency of required

update.’’

The proposed regulations have been

modified to implement the alternative

approach suggested by the Commission

in the RIN NOPR. The regulations in

§ 37.6(b)(1) define the paths for which

ATC and TTC must be posted. These are

called ‘‘posted paths.’’

A transmission path becomes a

‘‘posted path’’ in one of three ways.

First, ATC and TTC must be posted for

any path between two control areas.

Second, posting is required for any path

for which transmission service has been

denied, curtailed or subject to

interruption during any hour or part of

an hour for a total of 24 hours in the last

12 months. In counting up to 24,

curtailment for any part of an hour

counts for a whole hour. Finally,

Transmission Customers can request

that ATC and TTC be posted for any

other transmission path. Customer

requested postings may be dropped if no

customer has taken service on the path

in the last 180 days.

The regulations in § 37.6(b)(3) define

two classes of posted paths based on

usage: ‘‘unconstrained’’ and

‘‘constrained’’. A constrained posted

path is one for which ATC has been less

than or equal to 25 percent of TTC for

at least one of the last 168 hours or is

calculated to be 25 percent or less of its

associated posted TTC during the next

7 days. An unconstrained posted path is

any posted path that is not a constrained

posted path.

For constrained posted paths, ATC

and TTC for firm and non-firm service

would have to be posted for the next

168 hours and, thereafter, to the end of

a 30-day period. In addition, ATC and

TTC for firm and non-firm service must

be posted for the current month and the

next twelve months. However, this

monthly posting for ATC and TTC for

non-firm service is required only if

requested by a customer. If the

Transmission Provider charges

separately for on-peak and off-peak

periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will

be posted daily for each period. A

posting for a constrained posted path

must be updated when transmission

service on the path is reserved or service

ends or when the path’s TTC changes by

more than 10 percent.

For an unconstrained posted path,

ATC and TTC for firm transmission

service and non-firm transmission

service would be required to be posted

for the next seven days and for the

current month and the next twelve

months.44 If the Transmission Provider

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

will be posted for the current day and

the next six days following for each

period. Postings for an unconstrained

posted path must be updated when the

ATC changes by more than 20 percent

of the path’s TTC.

We will not require ATC and TTC to

be posted on the OASIS more than

thirteen months in advance, with the

following exception. If planning and

specific requested transmission studies

have been done, seasonal capability

shall be posted for the year following

the current year and for each year

following to the end of the planning

horizon, but not to exceed 10 years.

c. Methodology for Calculating ATC

and TTC (§ 37.6(b)(2)). In the RIN

NOPR, the Commission discussed the

requirements for calculating ATC and

TTC.45 Recognizing that formal methods

do not currently exist to calculate ATC

and TTC, the Commission requested

comment on how to develop a

consistent, industry-wide method of

calculation (Question 4).

Most commenters recommended that

the Commission defer to NERC

regarding the development of a

consistent, industry-wide method of

calculation. NERC, in turn,

recommended that the Commission give

deference to NERC’s ongoing, industrywide effort. NERC’s Transmission

Transfer Capability Task Force (TTC

Task Force), with an expanded roster to

include representation from all

segments of the electric industry, was

formed to develop uniform definitions

for determining ATC and related terms.

Because the TTC Task Force will not be

finished with its assignment until May

1996, NERC recommended that the

OASIS final rule not contain specific

definitions of terms such as ATC, but

instead be limited to a general

framework within which the same

information can be made available to all

transmission users at the same time.

The Commission encourages industry

efforts to develop consistent methods

for calculating ATC and TTC.

Consequently, the final rule follows the

proposed regulations in requiring that

ATC and TTC be calculated based on a

methodology described in the

Transmission Provider’s tariff and that it

be ‘‘based on current industry practices,

standards and criteria.’’ (Section

37.6(b)(2)(i)).46

As provided in the pro forma tariff,

Transmission Providers may themselves

purchase only transmission capability

that is posted as available. This

requirement should create an adequate

incentive for them to calculate ATC and

TTC as accurately and as uniformly as

possible.

d. Accommodating Flow-Based

Pricing. In the RIN NOPR, the

Commission asked for comment on

what requirements would have to be

changed if the electric power industry

moves to regional pricing, flow-based

pricing, or other pricing models that

depart from the ‘‘contract path’’

approach (Question 2).47

Many commenters expressed the need

for OASIS flexibility to support both

contract path and actual flow models.48

Com Ed stated that, so long as the

OASIS is flexible, appropriate postings

involving ATC, price, and related

information will develop for use with

tariffs using flow-based pricing.

The Commission concludes that the

proposed regulations were general

enough to accommodate flow-based

pricing methods. Therefore, we have

provided no special provision regarding

flow-based pricing in the final rule. Any

OASIS-related issue that arises when

flow-based proposals are made can be

dealt with at that time. We cannot

accurately foresee what issues may arise

concerning flow-based pricing because

this is an evolving area.

e. Actual Flow Data. The RIN NOPR

proposed the posting of actual path flow

data to better inform Transmission

Customers about the true network

impacts of taking service on a contract

path basis.49 The Commission asked

whether there are any difficulties,

technical or otherwise, associated with

posting actual path flows (Question 20).

In response, commenters stated that

such posting is technically difficult, but

possible. However, they question the

value and usefulness of such postings.50
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21751

Montana Power, NERC, Omaha PPD, Texas

Utilities, Union Electric, and VEPCO comments.

51See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66190) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR

37.9(b)(6) (60 FR 66200).

52See, e.g., Allegheny, Central Illinois Public

Service, Continental Power Exchange, EPRI, Florida

Power Corp, MAPP, NERC, NE Public Power

District, NYPP, Ohio Edison, PSNM, VEPCO,

Western Group, and WP&L comments.

53See, e.g., Allegheny, ConEd, Detroit Edison,

Duke, EPRI, Idaho, MAPP, NEPOOL, NE Public

Power District, Ohio Edison, PSNM, VEPCO, and

Western Group comments.

54See, e.g., Duke, EPRI, Idaho, PSNM, Western

Group comments.

55See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66191) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR

37.8(c) (60 FR 66200).

Commenters stated that information on

actual path flows is voluminous,

excessive, and burdensome to post.

Allegheny stated that actual flow

information could be commercially

sensitive depending on the degree to

which a generator’s output can be

determined from it. Oklahoma G&E

stated that actual flows are meaningless

unless accompanied by voltage, line

thermal limits, and line first

contingency incremental transfer

capability. NERC commented that actual

path flow postings would be irrelevant

or even misleading to the Transmission

Customer and should not be required.

NERC added, however, that the

Commission should not preclude such

postings either. The How Group pointed

out that, from a technical standpoint,

posting actual path flows significantly

increases the level of detail in

information about transmission service.

APPA answered that some regions

already have the capability to post

actual flows, but functional separation

diminished the need for the

Commission to require the posting of

actual flows.

The final rule does not require the

posting of actual path flows. As long as

ATC and TTC are calculated to reflect

network conditions, including parallel

path constraints, actual flow data need

not be posted. The Commission may

reassess this issue after reviewing the

proposals of the TTC Task Force on

methods for calculating ATC and TTC

expected in May 1996.

f. Providing Supporting Information

(§ 37.6(b)(2)(ii)). In the RIN NOPR, we

proposed that public utilities must post

all data used in calculating the ATC and

TTC and make such data publicly

available.51 The Commission received a

number of comments on this proposal.

A majority of commenters stated that

supporting data should not be available

on the OASIS.52 About half of the

commenters argued that the data should

be available off-line.53 Others suggested

that procedures and software used in

calculating ATC and TTC must be

posted.54 NYPP suggested that a

bibliography of supporting information

should be maintained on the OASIS.

Having this information available is

essential for building and maintaining

trust in the information posted on the

OASIS. Transmission Providers

generally seem willing to provide this

information after-the-fact and off-line.

Since this information would be used

only after-the-fact and can be

voluminous, the final regulations

require that ATC and TTC supporting

information be made available by the

Responsible Party within one week of

posting, on request, in their original

electronic format and at the cost of

reproducing the materials. A

requirement specifying how long the

information must be retained also has

been added.

g. Long-Term Studies

(§ 37.6(b)(2)(iii)). The RIN NOPR

proposed that any planning or

specifically requested studies of the

transmission network performed by the

Transmission Provider be posted on a

same-time basis.55 This would include

only those parts of customer-specific

interconnection studies that relate to

network impacts.

The majority of commenters

responded that transmission planning

studies should not be posted on the

OASIS. ConEd and MAPP suggested an

index to be maintained on the OASIS.

NEPOOL, Tallahassee, and Montana

Power suggested that summaries should

be maintained on the OASIS.

As with the ATC supporting

information, having this information

available is essential for building and

maintaining trust in the ATC and TTC

posted on the OASIS. Since this

information would be used only afterthe-fact and can be voluminous, the

final regulations require that final

transmission studies be available from

the Responsible Party on request in

original electronic format and at the cost

of reproducing the materials. A list of

available studies is to be posted on the

OASIS. A requirement specifying how

long the studies must be retained also

has been added.

3. Posting Transmission Service

Products and Prices (§ 37.6(c))

Paragraph 37.6(c) of the regulations

adopts several of the proposed

provisions. It requires Transmission

Providers to post prices and a summary

of the terms and conditions of

transmission products. In addition,

Transmission Providers must provide a

downloadable file of their complete

tariffs. Furthermore, customers who use

an OASIS to resell transmission

capacity must submit relevant

information about their resale

transactions to the Transmission

Provider for posting to the same OASIS

as used by the Transmission Provider in

originally offering that capacity. As

proposed in the RIN NOPR, the

Transmission Provider must post this

information about resales on the same

display page, using the same tables, as

similar capacity being sold by it.

Similarly, the information must be

contained in the same downloadable

files as the Transmission Provider’s own

available capacity. A customer who

does not use an OASIS to arrange a

resale of transmission capacity must,

nevertheless, inform the original

Transmission Provider of the

transaction within the time limits

prescribed by the ‘‘Sale or Assignment

of Transmission Service’’ section of the

pro forma tariff.

The proposed standards of conduct

required a Transmission Provider that

offers any discount on behalf of its

power customers or those of an affiliate,

to post offers for similar service

containing comparable discounts, at the

same time, to all Transmission

Customers.

As to discounts that the Transmission

Provider has agreed to give to any

Transmission Customer (affiliated or

unaffiliated), the Commission proposed

requiring that these discounts be posted

within 24 hours after the agreement is

entered (measured from when ATC is

adjusted in response to the agreement),

and that they remain posted for 30 days.

The Commission sought comment on

whether all transmission discounts

should be posted on the OASIS, or only

those provided to the Transmission

Provider or its affiliates (Question 14).

Most commenters, including

representatives with diverse interests

such as APPA, EEI, Continental Power

Exchange, EGA, EEI, NIEP, and NRECA,

argued that discounts must be made

available to all customers. NRECA

especially, was concerned about the

potential for selective discounting. The

Ohio Com, clearly concerned about

allowing Transmission Providers to

negotiate privately, asked that we clarify

how discounting would work, and EGA

raised some practical concerns about

how the Commission’s proposal would

work. EGA asked whether, when a

discount is offered to an affiliate,

discounts must be offered to others on

the same path, all paths, or only paths

needed to get to the buyer to whom the

affiliate is selling. This issue is

addressed in the Open Access Final

Rule, which concludes that such
21752 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

56See ERCOT, MidAmerican, NUCOR, and Public

Generating Pool comments.

57See CCEM, OK Com, and Tallahassee

comments.

58See generally Open Access Final Rule at

sections IV.D and IV.G.

59See generally Open Access Final Rule at

section IV.D.

60See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66190).

61The Open Access Final Rule discusses

curtailments at section IV.G and provides that a

company’s curtailment policy is to be described in

its tariff.

62 ‘‘Curtailments’’ are service cutbacks made for

system reliability reasons and are distinguishable

from ‘‘interruptions’’, which are made pursuant to

tariff conditions.

63See APS, NERC, and NIEP comments.

discounts must be offered to all

customers on all unconstrained paths.

Several commenters were against

discounting, but would accept discounts

if they were made available to all

customers.56 Several commenters agreed

with the proposal to require posting of

discounts offered to affiliates and

delaying the reporting of discounts to

others.57 However, CCEM wants to

change the 24-hour delay period to 30

days.

SCE&G and Union Electric would

allow discounting but not post them on

the OASIS. Central Hudson would post

only affiliate discounts. SMUD argued

that selective discounting is good and

stated that, if public utilities must offer

discounts to everyone, no discounts

would be offered to anyone.

The question of whether discounts

may be offered is discussed in the Open

Access Final Rule.58 If a Transmission

Provider offers a discount for

transmission service to its own power

customers or those of an affiliate, it

must, at the same time, post on the

OASIS an offer to provide the same

discount to all eligible customers on the

same path and on all unconstrained

transmission paths. As to discounts for

ancillary services, if a Transmission

Provider offers a rate discount to an

affiliate, or attributes a discounted

ancillary service rate to its own

transactions, 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. Any discounts under

§ 37.6(c)(3) offered to affiliates or to the

Transmission Provider’s own power

customers must be posted on the OASIS

when they are offered pursuant to

§ 37.4(b)(5)(v). Discounts offered to nonaffiliates must be posted within 24

hours of when ATC is adjusted in

response to the transaction.

4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings

and Prices (§ 37.6(d))

Transmission Providers are required

to post on the OASIS information about

all ancillary services required by the

Open Access Final Rule to be provided

or offered to customers.59 A

Transmission Provider may, at its

discretion, post information on the

OASIS about other interconnected

operation services, offered by itself or

third parties, that are not services

required by the Open Access Final Rule

to be offered to customers. However, if

a Transmission Provider elects to post

these optional services for any party,

including itself, then it must post on its

OASIS, for a reasonable cost based fee,

the same type of information about

comparable optional ancillary services

offered by third parties.

In the RIN NOPR, we proposed the

posting of price and other information

about ancillary services.60 We requested

comment on: (1) The information

needed about ancillary services

(Question 12); (2) how often the

information should be updated

(Question 13); and (3) where on the

information network offers of ancillary

services by entities other than the

Transmission Provider should be placed

(Question 9).

While there is near consensus among

commenters on the need to update

ancillary services information as it

changes, there is widespread

disagreement on what information about

ancillary services should be posted and

where on the OASIS offers by other

entities to provide ancillary services

should be placed. Some commenters

request that the Commission allow

flexibility because the information

requirement may depend upon the

industry structure that develops in

response to the Open Access Final Rule.

NERC asserted that it is impractical to

expect the initial OASIS to be the

vehicle for posting information on the

availability and price of all ancillary

services.

Ancillary service providers are

required to post all pertinent

information about their ancillary service

offerings (e.g., a description of the

service being offered, its availability,

and its price) so that Transmission

Customers may compare offers and

decide which offer best suits their

needs. Information about ancillary

services should be updated as it

changes. Postings by customers and

third parties should be on the same

page, and in the same format, as

postings of the Transmission Provider.

5. Posting Transmission Service

Requests and Responses (§ 37.6(e))

Section 37.6(e) requires that all

requests by customers for transmission

service that the Transmission Provider

offers under the pro forma tariff must be

made on the OASIS. The Responsible

Party is required to provide to others on

the OASIS the essential information

relating to such requests, with the

identity of the parties masked, if

requested. Additionally, the section sets

out the steps that must be followed in

processing such requests, including the

posting of curtailments, interruptions,

or denials of service.61 The final OASIS

regulations require that a record of

transactions not resulting in agreements

also be kept for audit purposes. We now

discuss some special issues arising

under this provision and the comments

relating to those provisions.

a. Posting Curtailments and

Interruptions (§ 37.6(e)(3)). We proposed

requiring that, when a transaction is

curtailed, a Transmission Provider must

post the reason that the transaction was

curtailed and the available options, if

any, for adjusting the operation of the

Transmission Provider’s system to

increase transfer capability in order to

accommodate the transaction.62 Since

scheduling and the curtailment of

schedules would not be done through

the information network initially, this

curtailment data would be for

information purposes only.

The Commission requested comments

on what information about curtailments

should be communicated on an OASIS

(Question 7). Only Union Electric,

among the commenters who answered

this question, argued against posting

information about curtailments or

recording this information in an audit

file. Among those who supported

posting or recording, the differences

were in how much information should

be provided, where the information

should be placed, and who should have

access to the information.

The comments expressed support for

a Transmission Provider setting out in

its tariff, or elsewhere, curtailment or

interruption rules or constraint relief

protocols.63 This would let a customer

know what to expect when there is a

constraint and would allow the

Transmission Provider to be held to a

formal set of procedures. Then, when a

curtailment occurs, postings on the

OASIS can refer to steps and reasons

defined in the curtailment procedures.

Many commenters agreed that at least

some basic information about

curtailments needs to be posted or

documented in the audit file. Several

commenters pointed out that there may
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21753

64See Allegheny, Com Ed, CSW, NERC, NRECA,

and SCE&G comments.

65See, e.g., Allegheny and Central Illinois Public

Service comments.

66See Allegheny and Central Illinois Public

Service comments.

67See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66191) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR

37.14(d) (60 FR 66201).

68See, e.g., Allegheny, Detroit Edison, El Paso,

NorAm, and OK Com comments.

69See Allegheny, CCEM, El Paso, Oklahoma G&E,

PJM, PSNM, and Western Group comments.

70See APPA, Continental Power Exchange,

MidAmerican Energy, and NIEP comments.

71See Arizona, ConEd, and NorAm comments.

72EGA, NUCOR, NRECA, Omaha PPD, and PJM

supported the proposition that the data are not

commercially sensitive. Arizona, Central Illinois

Public Service, Detroit Edison, OK Com, PSNM,

Seattle, and Western Group argued that the data are

commercially sensitive.

73See Carolina P&L and El Paso comments.

74See Central Illinois Public Service and OK Com

comments.

75See Allegheny, Carolina P&L, CSW, Detroit

Edison, EGA, NE Public Power District, and PJM

comments.

76See, e.g., Allegheny and WP&L comments.

77See Central Illinois Public Service comments.

78See Allegheny comments.

be some lag before these postings are

placed on the OASIS because control

room personnel may need time to

determine and resolve the problem.64

Some commenters believed that these

postings should be made available only

to those curtailed.65

The proposed regulations addressed

curtailments and denials of service

together. In this final rule, denials are

distinguished from curtailments of

service. Transmission Providers are not

required to offer options for making

capacity available to those curtailed, but

if options are offered, they must be

offered to curtailed and interrupted

customers at the same time.

As discussed in the Open Access

Final Rule, transmission tariffs must

include rules for curtailment and

interruption of service, including clear

steps or stages in the process for

relieving constraints, and transmission

service agreements must clearly identify

the service’s priority relative to

concurrent services. Consistent with

these requirements, the final rule here

provides that, when curtailments or

interruptions take place, they must be

posted as soon as possible and must

include identification of the service

(with the identity of the customer

masked), the reason for the curtailment

or interruption, and the tariff-defined

step in the curtailment and interruption

process. In the event that an emergency

situation affecting system reliability

delays this posting, the posting must be

made as soon as practicable thereafter

along with an explanation for the

delayed posting.

Curtailments and interruptions will

be recorded for audit purposes. This

audit data should contain enough

information about the timing of

superseding requests and changes in

ATC to document the reason for a

curtailment or interruption. The final

rule also provides that customers have

the right to request an explanation of the

reason for a curtailment or interruption.

b. Posting Denials of Requests for

Service (§ 37.6(e)(2)). In the RIN NOPR,

we proposed requiring that, when

requests for service are denied,

Transmission Providers must

communicate to Transmission

Customers through the OASIS: the

reason(s) that the transaction(s) could

not be accommodated; and the available

options, if any, for adjusting the

operation of the Transmission

Provider’s system to increase transfer

capability to accommodate the

transaction(s). The Commission

requested comments on what

information about denials of requests for

service should be communicated on an

OASIS (Question 7).

As with curtailments, only Union

Electric out of the commenters who

answered this question opposed posting

information about denials of service on

the OASIS or recording this information

in an audit file. Many commenters

agreed that at least some basic

information about denials should be

posted. Some commenters believed that

these postings should be available only

to those denied service.66

Service can be denied for two basic

reasons: either (1) the customer

requested more than the posted ATC or

(2) after the request for service was

made, conditions changed due to

preexisting requests or unforeseen

events reducing capacity. Denials

should be handled as part of the request

and response process. A requester

should receive a standardized reason for

denial as part of the response. Denials

would not be posted. Instead, denials

must be recorded for audit purposes and

maintained as provided in section

37.7(b). This data should contain the

information about a denial needed to

explain the reason for a denial. Under

the final rules, customers have the right

to request an explanation of the

standardized reason for a denial.

c. Transaction Anonymity

(§ 37.6(e)(3)(i)). In the RIN NOPR, we

proposed that, generally, information

concerning negotiations on transmission

requests need not be posted unless an

agreement to provide the transmission is

reached.67 This information would be

available only after-the-fact in the audit

file. In addition, if an agreement is

reached, the identity of parties to

transmission transactions would be

masked until 30 days after the date

when the Transmission Provider’s ATC

was adjusted in response to the

transaction. (This might be after the date

when service begins). After that date, all

transaction data would be made

available. In addition, we proposed that

transmission transaction prices be

included in the information in the audit

file. Price information concerning costbased transmission services would not

be considered commercially sensitive.

The Commission requested comment

on what information should be

considered commercially sensitive, the

30-day release period proposal, and on

how and when commercially sensitive

information should be released to

concerned parties before the standard

release period and whether affiliated

transactions should be treated

differently (Question 24).

Several commenters agreed that

information about negotiations that do

not reach agreement should not be

reported.68 No commenter argued for

making this information public.

A number of commenters supported

the 30-day delay on providing

commercially sensitive information.69

Several, however, thought the

information should be provided as soon

as possible.70 Others thought it should

be provided quarterly.71 WP&L

proposed a 60-day delay. Dayton P&L

said that the delay should depend on

contract length. Union Electric

suggested a delay of 30 days after the

transaction begins and not after the ATC

is adjusted.

Commenters split on the question of

whether price data are commercially

sensitive.72 Commenters listed several

items as commercially sensitive that

were proposed to be posted. These are

ATC supporting information,73

transmission schedule information,74

generation run status,75 amount

provided,76 terms and conditions,77 and

duration.78

NE Public Power District argued for

full disclosure of all but generator

information because, as a public entity,

it must disclose such information. NIEP

stated that comparability should be the

ruling principle in information

disclosure.

The final rule adopts the NOPR

proposal and provides that the identity

of parties to an agreement are

confidential during ongoing

negotiations and for 30 days from the

time ATC is adjusted. Although not

explicitly required in the new Part 37,

the price of services offered on and
21754 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

79We note, in this regard, that § 205(c) of the FPA

requires public utilities to have their prices on file

with the Commission and available for public

inspection.

80See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66191).

81See Allegheny, Central Illinois Public Service,

Com Ed, CSW, Dayton P&L, Detroit Edison, Duke,

Montana Power, NERC, NYPP, Ohio Edison, PJM,

PSNM, Texas Utilities, VEPCO, and WP&L

comments.

82See Allegheny, Arizona, Central Illinois Public

Service, ConEd, Carolina P&L, CSW, Dayton P&L,

Detroit Edison, Florida Power Corp, NEPOOL, NE

Public Power District, NERC, NYPP, Oklahoma

G&E, Omaha PPD, PJM, Texas Utilities, Union

Electric, VEPCO, and WP&L comments.

83See Central Illinois Public Service, Carolina

P&L, and Ohio Edison comments.

84See ConEd, CSW, Florida Power Corp, NYPP,

Ohio Edison, and PSNM comments.

85See APPA, CCEM, EGA, NCEMC, NIEP, OK

Com, Seattle, Tallahassee, and United Illuminating

comments.

86See Arizona, Dayton P&L, MidAmerican,

NEPOOL, PJM, and Western Group comments.

87See Arizona, CCEM, Central Illinois Public

Service, Com Ed, ConEd, CSW, Detroit Edison,

NEPOOL, NE Public Power District, VEPCO, and

WP&L comments.

88See APPA, Arizona, CCEM, Idaho, NEPOOL,

Oklahoma Com, Seattle, and SoCal Edison

comments.

89See Allegheny, Com Ed, Detroit Edison, NERC,

NE Public Power District, Ohio Edison, SCE&G,

Texas Utilities, Union Electric, and VEPCO

comments.

agreed to through the OASIS are not

considered commercially sensitive.79

6. Posting Facility Status Information

The RIN NOPR discussed the fact that

the ATC of some transmission paths

depends on generator run status or

megawatt output, or both, as well as on

other system elements.80 We proposed

requiring Transmission Providers to

post information about those system

elements that have a direct and

significant impact on ATC. Such

elements could include generators,

transmission lines, phase shifters, series

and shunt capacitors, static VAR

compensators, special protection

systems or remedial action schemes.

We, therefore, requested comment on

whether it is sufficient to provide

information only about planned outages

and (for both planned and forced

outages) return dates for system

elements deemed to have a direct and

significant impact on ATC and whether

posting this information would cause

any confidentiality concerns (Question

18). We also requested comment on how

‘‘significant and direct impact’’ should

be defined (Question 19).

Additionally, we requested comment

on whether it would be sufficient to

post the changes to ATC corresponding

to the planned outage or return dates of

generators (Question 21); and whether,

if operating guides, nomograms,

operating studies, and similar

information were posted, the run status

of those generators with a significant

and direct impact on ATC could be

deduced (Question 22).

Comments

A number of commenters stated that

the posting of facility status information

should not be a requirement.81 These

commenters reasoned that the posted

ATC and TTC values would reflect

facility status impacts and that posting

status information therefore would be

unnecessary and burdensome, and

would render the information network

unmanageable. With regard to generator

status and outage information, a number

of respondents argued that generator

status and outage-related information is

commercially sensitive and

confidential.82 They stated that posting

generator-related information would

give an unfair advantage to competitors.

Some opposing the posting of

generation-related information also

added that the Commission’s proposed

standards of conduct would make it

unnecessary to post this information

because the Transmission Customer’s

and the Transmission Provider’s

wholesale marketing functions would

rely on the same information.83 A

number of Transmission Providers

believed that facility status data can be

archived and made available for afterthe-fact audits.84

A second group of commenters

believed that facility status information

should be posted on the OASIS.85 With

regard to generator status and outage

data, Seattle responded that planned

generator outage data should be updated

as it changes and that an explanation of

the impact of typical outage

configurations should be made available

to all transmission users in advance.

APPA stated that the run status (on-line

or off-line) of any generating unit should

not be kept confidential. APPA argued

that keeping such information

confidential, under the guise of

competitive necessity, is an excuse to

protect opportunities to game the

market. NCEMC stated that, because the

transmission user needs to be able to do

a reliability and risk assessment of

various available power supply sources

and transmission paths, it probably is

not sufficient to post ATC changes

corresponding to generation outages.

A third group of commenters

suggested that, while generator statusrelated information should not be

posted, information about transmission

facilities with direct and significant

impact on ATC and TTC could be

posted.86 There were diverging views

among the commenters as to whether

posted ATC or TTC values would reveal

the run status of generators if operating

guides, nomograms, operating studies,

and similar information were posted. A

number of commenters responded that

ATC and TTC are affected by many

variables and, even though in some

cases it may be possible to deduce the

run status of certain generators from the

posted ATC or TTC, these deductions

would be uncertain.87

NERC responded that it may be

possible, over time, to recognize

patterns and supporting data that would

indicate which generator went off-line,

but not whether the reason is a planned

outage, forced outage, reserve

shutdown, or other reasons. NERC

explained that a run status so deduced

would itself be an estimate and not as

commercially sensitive as knowing the

reason for that status. Florida Power

Corp and Montana Power responded

that customers will be able to deduce

generation-related information from

changes in ATC if guides, nomograms,

or studies are posted and, therefore,

such information should not be posted.

By contrast, a number of commenters

stated that nomograms, derating tables,

and operating studies can be used to

identify equipment that has a direct and

significant impact on ATC and TTC. 88

The Western Group responded that,

where study results have been

summarized in nomograms, derating

tables, and operating guidelines and

procedures, these summary forms

should be made available as information

on the OASIS.

A number of respondents answered

that it is not necessary to define

‘‘significant and direct impact’’ because

ATC and TTC are the only quantities

that need to be posted. 89 ConEd stated

that the definition of ‘‘significant’’

should be consistent with local and

regional procedures. Duke and Florida

Power Corp commented that the

Commission should work through NERC

in developing appropriate definitions.

NYPP, on the other hand, stated that

‘‘significant and direct impact’’ can be

determined only on a case-by-case basis.

Montana Power defined the term as a

reduction of ATC that results in the

denial of service. Continental Power

Exchange proposed that any system

element affecting ATC more than 10

percent should be considered

significant. CSW proposed a 50 percent

threshold. CSW further proposed to

include those elements that can cause a

reduction of more than 25 percent of the

normal flows across an interface.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21755

90See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66191) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.14

(60 FR 66201).

Discussion

Additional information about the state

of the transmission system will enable

Transmission Customers to make better

decisions about the quality of the

transmission service they intend to

purchase. However, the development

and implementation of Phase I OASIS,

in what is a relatively short period of

time, requires that we limit the posting

requirements of the OASIS to the

essentials. We believe that audit data

and information required to be provided

about the reasons for curtailments and

interruptions will make it possible to

document unduly discriminatory

practices concerning facilities critical to

transmission capability. Also, as

pointed out by APPA, the standards of

conduct that we put in place with this

rule lessen the urgency of posting

additional information concerning

generating unit status and transmission

component status. Consequently, the

Commission will not require the posting

of information about the run status of

generation and transmission facilities

for a Phase I OASIS. We may reconsider

this subject for Phase II OASIS

depending on the Phase I experience.

7. Posting Transmission Service

Schedules Information (§ 37.6(f))

The final rule consolidates and

renumbers §§ 37.14(b) and (c) of the RIN

NOPR as § 37.6(f). This provision

requires information on scheduled

transmission service to be recorded by

the entity scheduling the transmission

service and requires that the

information be made available for

download on the OASIS by interested

parties. It also provides that postings

must be made within one week of the

start of the transmission service

schedule agreed upon by the parties.

The comments in response to the RIN

NOPR did not take issue with the

proposal. Thus, the provision is adopted

without substantial revision.

8. Posting Other Transmission-Related

Communications (§ 37.6(g))

Section 37.6(g) basically adopts what

we proposed for the posting of ‘‘want

ads’’ and ‘‘other communications’’ in

§ 37.9(f) of the RIN NOPR. Postings

made in this section carry no obligation

to respond on the part of any market

participant.

This section provides that ‘‘other

communications related to transmission

services’’ (such as using the OASIS as a

transmission-related conference space

or to provide transmission-related

messaging services between OASIS

users) and ‘‘want ads’’ must be posted

by the Responsible Party.

We received comments that urged the

Commission to issue a disclaimer to the

effect that, although Transmission

Providers are responsible for posting

other transmission-related

communications at the request of third

parties, it is the responsibility of the

third parties requesting such postings to

ensure the accuracy of the information

to be posted. We agree that such a

disclaimer is appropriate. We provide it

in § 37.6(g)(2).

In addition, the final rule requires that

transfers of personnel between the

transmission and marketing functions

are to be posted on the OASIS

(§ 37.6(g)(3)). This incorporates the

requirements of the standards of

conduct at § 37.4(b)(2).

I. Section 37.7—Auditing Transmission

Service Information

In the RIN NOPR, we proposed

procedures that would govern the

availability of records about auditing

transmission service transactions. 90 The

Commission proposed requiring that

historical data on postings, updates, and

request/response communications be

recorded for audit purposes, be

downloadable from the OASIS in an

appropriate format for 60 days, and be

available for download on a rolling basis

for three years from entry on the OASIS.

These provisions are now contained in

§ 37.7 of the final rule. However, we

have increased the time during which

audit data must be available for

download from 60 days to 90 days

because this provides greater protection

to customers.

ConEd suggested that the Commission

should provide assurance to

Transmission Providers that they will

not be liable if they post data under the

proposed audit provisions that is

considered confidential by their

customers. We do not believe that it

would be appropriate for the

Commission to issue this sort of blanket

disclaimer in the absence of any

particular facts or controversy.

However, to the extent that a

Transmission Provider posts data

because this is required by the

Commission’s regulations, the

Transmission Provider may, of course,

assert this as a defense against any legal

action brought against it based on the

disclosure.

J. Standards and Communication

Protocols

In this section, we discuss the major

issues raised in response to our

proposed standards and protocols. As

proposed, these are being issued in the

separate Standards and Protocols

document that we are issuing together

with this final rule. As already

described, the final rule states explicitly

that information is to be posted on the

OASIS in conformance with the

specifications of the Standards and

Protocols.

The most recent How Report (filed on

April 15, 1996) shows great strides

toward reaching consensus on a set of

implementable standards. However, it

needs to be augmented in two ways.

First, there are some internal

inconsistences. For example, there are

data elements that appear in the data

dictionary that do not appear in the

templates and vice versa. The data

elements for DUNS numbers that appear

in the data dictionary need to be added

to the appropriate templates. Data

elements for DUNS numbers for

resellers need to be added to both the

data dictionary and the appropriate

templates. The October 16, 1995 How

Report contained standards for

Transmission Services Information

Timing Requirements. The most recent

report substantially changed these

requirements. We request that the report

we are asking the How Group to submit

by May 28, 1996 reinstate these

requirements or explain why they

should be changed.

Second, and not surprisingly, the

standards and protocols must now be

conformed to the requirements of the

final rule. For example, necessary

changes include developing file and

display templates for curtailments and

interruptions, developing file and

display templates to place primary and

resale capacity on the same displays and

in the same downloadable files, and

developing file and display templates to

place ancillary services provided by the

primary provider and others on the

same display page and in the same

downloadable files.

Under procedures we are instituting

today, we expect the recommendations

for standards and protocols to be

conformed to the requirements of the

final rule and for inconsistencies to be

corrected in the next few months. We

are issuing portions of the standards and

protocols now to provide as much

information as possible to allow the

industry to begin the work of building

necessary systems to make their OASIS

nodes operational. This information,

coupled with the requirements of the

Open Access Final Rule and our

additional procedures to complete the

Standards and Protocols, should result

in the OASIS nodes being operational
21756 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

91The World Wide Web is a system of computer

resources that are accessed through the Internet.

A Browser is a computer program for retrieving

and reading hypermedia documents from the

WWW. A hypermedia document can contain text,

graphics, video, sound or data. These documents

are often linked to other documents.

92ASCII refers to the American Standard Code for

Information Interchange, a code for character

representation.

93See, e.g., Allegheny, Central Hudson, Central

Illinois Public Service, Com Ed, Continental Power

Exchange, How Group, Florida Power Corp,

Montana Power, NERC, NYPP, Ohio Edison, OK

Com, PJM, PSNM, Seattle, Texas Utilities, and

VEPCO comments.

94See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, CSW, and MAPP

comments.

95How Group comments at 19.

96For example, a private network could connect

to one or more OASIS nodes and offer users off-theInternet connections at faster speeds. Third parties

could gather OASIS information and repackage it

into customized displays favored by individual

users.

within six months of the publication of

this final rule in the Federal Register.

The April 15, 1996 How Report

contains references to a yet to be

established industry group, the [OASIS]

Management Organization, that will

maintain a registry of [OASIS] node

names and perhaps perform other

functions associated with maintaining a

functioning [OASIS]. We agree that

there is a need for an industry group to

maintain a registry of OASIS node

names and perform similar functions

and expect that such a group will be

established by the industry prior to the

implementation of the OASIS

requirements. The Standards and

Protocols, therefore, contains a reference

to this function. We expect that such a

group would be composed of

representatives of all segments of the

electric industry and we expect to be

apprised of the group’s activities.

1. Summary of Standards and

Communication Protocol Requirements

The Standards and Protocols, which

we are adopting together with this final

rule, require Transmission Providers to

make their OASIS nodes accessible

through the Internet. Each Responsible

Party’s OASIS is considered to be a

separate node. An OASIS operated

jointly by several utilities would be

considered one node. By connecting

each node through the Internet,

transmission service information

provided by each utility becomes part of

a network.

We are requiring that nodes must

support the use of Internet tools. The

specific tools are described in the

Standards and Protocols. OASIS users

will access nodes using World Wide

Web (WWW) browsers.91 Each node will

display information using the Hypertext

Mark-up Language (HTML) protocol

required by World Wide Web browsers.

Screen displays will consist of a series

of pages that may be viewed by

customers without requiring the page to

be downloaded and viewed by separate

software. The information on each page,

but not the actual displays, will be

standardized. Information must also be

made available for downloading, in a

standardized ASCII 92 format.

In Phase I, customers will have access

to the information required to be posted

by this rule and will be able to use the

OASIS to reserve transmission capacity.

They will be able to request capacity

either by completing a standardized

form contained in an on-line HTML

page or by uploading a filled-out form

using HTTP. Customers who want to

resell transmission capacity will upload

(post) the relevant information to the

same OASIS node used by the primary

provider from whom they purchased the

ATC. Customers will also be able to

upload other communications (e.g.,

Want Ads) containing such information

as requests to purchase transmission

capacity.

OASIS nodes must provide direct

connections to private networks if

requested to do so. The cost of the

connections will be paid for by the

requestor and the networks are required

to use Internet tools.

The Standards and Protocols contain

a model of the information requirements

that must be provided at each OASIS

node. Customers are limited to

obtaining information from HTML text

displays and selecting from menus of

downloadable files. Customers will

receive the information either as HTML

pages or as ASCII files in a

predetermined form and layout.

For security purposes, and as an aid

in auditing performance and

transactions, all customers are required

to register with the Responsible Party

before they are permitted access to the

utility’s transmission service

information on the OASIS. As registered

subscribers, they will be allowed to read

and download information, make

requests for transmission service, place

‘‘Want Ads’’ and offer transmission

service for resale. Commission staff and

staff of state regulatory authorities are to

obtain free ‘‘read only’’ access to the

OASIS and members of the general

public will also be provided ‘‘read only’’

access to the OASIS for the same usage

fee paid by customers, once they have

complied with the requisite registration

procedures.

Responsible Parties are required to

meet a number of performance

standards and security precautions.

Performance requirements include

sizing OASIS nodes to handle the

loading of registered subscribers,

responding to subscriber requests,

backing up the system, and other areas

that are necessary for the system to

function as desired.

2. Number of OASIS Nodes (Question

35)

The Commission proposed that

Transmission Providers be permitted to

combine their separate OASIS nodes

into a single node. Thus, while there

could be as many nodes as there are

transmission-owning utilities, if utilities

choose to combine together to create

joint nodes, we could end up with a

small number of nodes.

A small number of nodes would

minimize the networking management

requirements for the OASIS and would

help ensure access to the information

systems. On the other hand, the

advantages of a small number of

separate nodes must be weighed against

the greater complexity and size of a joint

node that would handle transactions for

several large transmission-owning

utilities at one node. The Commission

requested comments on whether a small

or large number of OASIS nodes should

be encouraged.

The majority of commenters preferred

a small number of nodes, but would not

necessarily have the Commission

require a small number of nodes.93

Some commenters advocated regional

nodes.94 PJM speculated that, even if the

Commission does not encourage a small

number of nodes, economies of scale

and market efficiencies will lead to

smaller numbers in the normal course of

events. The How Group reported that

significant consolidation is already

occurring:

it appears there may be 1 node in ERCOT,

13–14 nodes in the Eastern Interconnection,

and 6–20 nodes in the Western

Interconnection. The resulting 20–35 nodes

[nationwide] is a manageable number for

Customers maneuvering through the system

and at the same time minimizes the impact

of possible security breaches or system

failures by being sufficiently distributed.95

Given these comments, we believe

that the question of whether there

should be a small number of nodes is

one best left to the industry. At this

stage, flexibility in such matters is

important.

3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes

(Question 36)

The Commission explained in the RIN

NOPR that private networks and third

party services can provide valuable

contributions to the successful

operation of an OASIS.96 The

Commission, therefore, proposed to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21757

97See, e.g., Allegheny, Com Ed, Montana, NERC,

Ohio Edison, OK Com, PJM, PSNM, and VEPCO

comments.

98See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, Continental Power

Exchange, How Group, and PJM comments.

99See, e.g., APPA, Duke, How Group, Florida

Power Corp, NYPP, and OK Com comments.

100See CCEM, Com Ed, Continental Power

Exchange, PSNM, and Western Group comments.

require utilities to provide direct

connections to the OASIS without the

need to obtain access through the

Internet. We also proposed that the cost

of these connections be paid for by the

customers making the requests and that

the networks be required to use the

same Internet tools as the Internet

connections.

Most commenters preferred that the

Commission not require third-party

connections to the OASIS in Phase I.97

Com Ed asserted that direct connections

would provide only marginal benefits to

the development of an OASIS, and that

adding such non-essential goals to

OASIS requirements would jeopardize

utilities’ ability to implement an OASIS

on time. Montana Power argued that

direct connections would provide

affluent large marketers with

information ahead of smaller users, and

thus would give them market power.

On the other hand, other commenters

argued that such connections are

important. ConEd argued that direct

connections would help minimize the

number of different connections

customers must have. Continental

Power Exchange sees direct connections

as allowing third parties to provide

services that will add valuable

contributions to the successful

operation of an OASIS. The How Group

reported that discussions among the

parties in the group indicated that direct

connections would not be a problem as

long as the Responsible Party is

compensated for the additional service

and given a reasonable time to make the

connection.

All commenters addressing the

subject of who should pay for direct

connections agreed that the cost should

be paid by the requesting party.98

CCEM and OK Com agreed that the

direct connections should be required to

use the Internet tools required for the

Internet connection.

Finally, APPA asserted that, if private

networks are created to provide direct

connections that are operated by

partners or affiliates of utilities, these

networks could provide significant

performance advantages for the

Transmission Provider’s merchant

affiliates. APPA would require full

public disclosure of such partnership or

affiliate relationships by the service

provider.

We find that the How Group’s

position is reasonable. Direct

connections are feasible if the provider

is compensated for the additional

service and is given a reasonable time to

make the connection. We will, therefore,

require direct connections in Phase I,

upon request.

Moreover, such connections must be

made available on an equal basis to all

requesting customers. We note,

however, that to the extent that the

Transmission Provider is not the

Responsible Party, a direct connection is

available only from the Responsible

Party. This being the case, APPA’s

concern that the Transmission

Provider’s merchant services may gain

an advantage from an affiliate with a

direct connection or private network

does not appear to be warranted, as

anyone can obtain a direct connection

or the services of a private network.

4. Value-Added OASIS Services

Provided by Transmission Providers or

Responsible Parties

The Commission proposed in the RIN

NOPR to permit Transmission Providers

or Responsible Parties to provide valueadded OASIS services, such as higher

speed connections and automatic

notification of changed data.

NTEC argued that, unless these

services are offered on a nondiscriminatory basis, public utilities

could gain a competitive advantage by

offering these services solely to

affiliates. NTEC also requested the

Commission to monitor the ‘‘basic’’ and

‘‘premium’’ service packages to ensure

that customers need not pay a

‘‘premium’’ price to obtain basic

services.

TAPS argued against any offering of

value-added services. They argued that

smaller customers may not be able to

afford such services and that price could

be used to discriminate against them.

TAPS proposed that instead of

permitting value-added services, the

Commission should include all OASIS

costs in transmission rates.

We agree with NTEC that value-added

OASIS services should be offered on a

non-discriminatory basis. If a valueadded service is offered to anyone, it

should be offered to everyone on the

same terms and conditions. Regarding

NTEC’s concern over basic and

premium services, we believe that the

standards setting process will ensure

that the basic package of OASIS services

will provide all pertinent information

and the means to retrieve it that are

necessary for the functioning of the

Open Access program.

The Commission will allow these

services on a non-discriminatory basis.

Such services will remain cost-based

until the Commission is satisfied that

market-based (value added) rates should

be allowed for such services. Requests

for market-based rates for such services

will be addressed on a case-by-case

basis.

5. Transmission Services Information

Timing Requirements (Question 37)

In the NOPR, the Commission

requested comments on several timing

requirements for posting transmission

service information. These are:

(1) Transmission Service Information

Availability: The most recent Provider

transmission service information,

including updates reflecting power

system changes, shall be available to all

Customers within 5 minutes of its

scheduled posting time at least 98

percent of the time. The remaining 2

percent of the time the transmission

service information shall be available

within 10 minutes of its scheduled

posting time;

(2) Notification of Posted or Changed

Transmission Service Information:

Notification of transmission service

information posted or changed by a

Provider shall be made available within

60 seconds to all subscribed Customers

who are currently connected; and

(3) Acknowledgment by the

Transmission Service Information

Provider: Acknowledgment by the

transmission service information

provider of the receipt of Customer

purchase request/response requests

shall occur within 1 minute for Phase I.

The actual negotiations and agreements

on purchase request/response requests

do not have time constraints. For Phase

II, acknowledgment shall occur within

30 seconds.

Most commenters supported the

Commission’s proposals as proposed 99

or with some modification.100 CCEM

asserted that the proposed requirements

for updating transmission service

information contained in Item (1) would

lead to stale information, and would

result in customers using the telephone

and not the OASIS. CCEM asserted that

the Phase I tolerances should be

reduced to 30 seconds and one minute

respectively.

Continental Power Exchange asserted

that items (1) and (2) are good starting

points. The Western Group suggested

that Item (1) would be adequate if it can

be accomplished automatically.

Otherwise, it would recommend

reducing the 98 percent compliance

requirement to 85 percent.

Some commenters agreed with the

need for such standards, but opposed
21758 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

101 DUNS numbers refer to the Data Universal

Numbering System, maintained by Dun and

Bradstreet.

102See Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards

Required Under Part 284 of the Commission’s

Regulations, Docket No. RM93–4–001, Order 563–

A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles,

¶ 30,994 at 31,034 (1994).

103See, e.g., Allegheny, CCEM, Com Ed,

Continental Power Exchange, How Group, OK Com,

and PJM comments.

104See Seattle, VEPCO, and Western Group

comments.

105See Allegheny, APPA, CCEM, Continental

Power Exchange, Duke, How Group, ERCOT,

Florida Power Corp, NERC, PJM, VEPCO, and

Western Group comments.

106See How Group, FPC, and NERC comments.

107See How Group, PSNM, and Western Group

comments.

incorporating timing performance

standards in Phase I standards. VEPCO

asserted that these standards are too

ambitious for Phase I. Tallahassee

argued that these timing requirements

may be too restrictive for small utilities

whose staff and technology capabilities

will be strained by this rule. Central

Hudson proposed that response times be

determined after OASIS is implemented

and users are comfortable with what

they would expect as adequate

performance.

Most commenters agreed on the need

for standards for how quickly providers

should post transmission service

information. Commenters argued that

the requirements should be stricter, that

they are too strict, or that they are just

right.

The Commission stated that

information posting performance

requirements are needed to ensure that

information is disseminated in a timely

manner by Transmission Providers. The

comments do not persuade us to change

the proposed requirements. We note

that the April 15, 1996 How Report

drops these requirements. We request

the How Group to reinstate these

requirements in the report we are

inviting them to file on or before May

28, 1996, or to explain why these

requirements should be dropped.

Commenters raise several additional

points that need to be addressed. First,

Com Ed and others argued that these

requirements should not be in force

during emergencies. The Commission

agrees.

Second, several commenters pointed

out that the phrase ‘‘available to all

Customers’’ contained in Item (1) is

ambiguous and request that it should be

replaced by ‘‘available on the [OASIS].’’

We agree.

Third, some commenters suggested

that transmission service requests and

schedules be approved automatically,

on a first come, first served basis. The

industry does not generally do business

in this manner today, and the

Commission will not require it in Phase

I. We request the industry to address

this issue when developing

requirements for Phase II.

6. Common Codes

a. Company Codes

The Commission’s experience with

implementing standards for file

transfers and electronic bulletin boards

in the natural gas industry shows that

the use of a common system of

identifying companies enhances the

efficiency of data transfers. The

Commission is satisfied with the results

of using DUNS numbers 101 as the

standard to uniquely identify pipelines

and shippers in the natural gas

transactions.102 The Commission

proposed to require the use of DUNS

numbers to identify transmissionowning utilities and customers on

OASIS nodes.

Most commenters believed that DUNS

numbers alone or DUNS numbers in

combination with names should be

used.103 The How Group asserted that

using DUNS numbers will enhance the

management of data from a computer

perspective and allow flexibility of

business applications of OASIS in the

future. The How Group also asserted

that having commonly used names is

more user friendly and proposed that

the list of names and DUNs numbers be

maintained on a centralized registry.

Others believed that names alone

would be sufficient.104 NERC and Ohio

Edison believed that such

standardization should be left to the

industry.

APPA asserted that DUNS numbers

are primarily for private companies and

do not include many public power

systems. Instead of using DUNS

numbers, APPA recommended using a

numbering system derived from Energy

Information Administration forms: EIA–

861 (‘‘Annual Electric Utility Report’’)

and EIA–867 (‘‘Annual Nonutility

Power Producer Report’’) as these forms

appear to be the most all-encompassing

existing numbering system that could be

used for OASIS identification. Dun and

Bradstreet have informed staff that they

will assign DUNS numbers, free of

charge, to any entity requesting a

number.

The Commission will require the

DUNS numbers as the unique numerical

identification of OASIS participants.

The industry can proceed to develop a

naming convention as suggested in the

comments.

b. Common Location Codes

The Commission’s experience in the

natural gas industry demonstrates that a

common method of uniquely identifying

location points will be needed to

facilitate movement of power across the

grid. The Commission proposed to use

a system to identify locations and paths

on the electric transmission grid.

Nearly all commenters who discussed

the issue argued that the Commission

should not require common location

codes.105 Several commenters argued

that providing longitude and latitude

information for power plants and

substations raises serious national

security issues.106

Many commenters see the need for a

common naming convention for paths

and other facilities, such as that

currently under development by the

How Working Group.107

The Commission is persuaded to drop

the requirement for a system for location

codes and requests the industry to

continue development of a common

naming convention to be implemented

as soon as practicable.

7. Data Definitions and File Formats Not

Covered by the Revised How Report

a. Offers to Provide Ancillary Services

Provided by an Entity Other Than the

Transmission Provider (Question 11)

In the RIN NOPR, the Commission

requested the specifications needed to

post this information in HTML displays

and the formats needed to standardize

uploadable and downloadable files

containing this information. This final

rule requires that information about

ancillary services provided by an entity

other than the Transmission Provider be

posted on the OASIS by Responsible

Parties and be displayed on the same

page and in the same file format as that

of the Transmission Provider.

Although we did receive comments

on this issue from various parties, this

was not an issue resolved by the revised

How Report. We would prefer that the

How Group attempt to reach consensus

on this issue before we impose our own

solution. Therefore, we will include this

issue among those that we are

requesting further input on before we

address this issue in the Standards and

Protocols.

b. Offering of Primary and Secondary

Capacity

The Commission requested comments

on how to redesign the download

templates in Appendix C of the NOPR

so that primary and secondary capacity

can be offered through downloadable

files that have the same format. The

Commission also requested comments

on how primary and secondary capacity
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21759

108See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at

66186) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR

37.9(c)(1) (60 FR 66200).

109See, e.g., Allegheny, APPA, CCEM, and How

Group comments.

110 JAVA is a language that enables a browser to

run programs embedded in a WWW page.

111How Report at § 3.4.3.

112See, e.g., Allegheny, APPA, CSW, OK Com,

PJM, and Seattle comments.

113See ConEd, How Group, and Ohio Edison

comments.

can be displayed in the same tables on

an OASIS node. Posting secondary

capacity requires more information than

for primary capacity and, thus, using the

same formats would require many more

fields. We need information on the

design of those fields before we can set

standards for the display of this

information.

Although we did receive comments

on this issue from various parties, this

was not an issue resolved by the revised

How Report. We would prefer that the

How Group attempt to reach consensus

on this issue before we impose our own

solution. Therefore, we will include this

issue among those that we are

requesting further comment on before

we address this issue in the Standards

and Protocols.

8. Formats for Downloadable Files Not

Covered in the How Report

a. Standard Format for Data Used in

Calculating ATC (Question 16)

The Commission requested comments

on how the data used in calculating

ATC should be formatted and asked

whether the information should be in

free form text, predefined tables, or

comma delimited ASCII files. We also

asked whether, if the information is in

free form text, it should be in plain

ASCII text or in a word processor

format, such as WordPerfect or Word.

We deal with both of these issues in

section H(2)(f) of this final rule and in

the regulations at § 37.6(b)(2)(ii).

b. Standard Formats for Transmission

Studies (Question 23)

The Commission requested comments

on how transmission studies should be

formatted for download from the

OASIS. We deal with this issue in

section H(2)(g) of this final rule and in

the regulations at § 37.6(b)(2)(iii).

c. Standard Format for Electronic

Submission to the Commission of

Transmission Tariffs (Question 6)

In the RIN NOPR, the Commission

proposed requiring that Transmission

Providers provide downloadable files of

their complete tariffs on the OASIS.108

The Commission requested that

commenters propose a standard format

for electronic submission of

transmission tariffs to the Commission.

New formats continually are being

developed by the computer industry

and it would be worthwhile to address

this issue again when the Commission

addresses Phase II or remaining OASIS

issues.

We will require utilities to provide

tariff downloads from their OASIS in

the same format that they use to file

with the Commission.

9. Communication Protocol Issues

a. Internet Browsers

There are a large number of Internet

browsers available commercially and in

the public domain. The How Report

proposed that browsers support ‘‘at

least’’ HTML version 3 and ‘‘optionally’’

support Secure Sockets Layer. The

HTML standards used by browsers

change from time to time, and, in

addition, various browsers can support

different extensions to the standards.

The Commission does not want to stifle

innovation, but at the same time it does

want uniformity on the OASIS. The

Commission does not want customers to

be forced to use different browsers for

different OASIS nodes. The Commission

wants to ensure that a customer will be

able to choose a browser and use it to

access all OASIS nodes.

To this end, the Commission

requested comments on how to ensure

that a customer will be able to choose

a browser and use it to access all OASIS

nodes.

Most commenters agreed that

requiring browsers to support HTML 3

would be sufficient to meet the needs of

OASIS nodes and customers at this

time.109

CSW reported that while the

specifications for HTML 3 are still in

draft mode, it is the first version of

HTML to support the table feature for

browsing that the How Working Group

wants to use. NYPP would add

encryption capabilities to the list of

standards. Ohio Edison would require

JAVA-enabled browsers.110

OK Com recommended that the

Commission adopt a primary browser

and two alternative browsers for use on

OASIS nodes. PJM asserted that, by

requiring OASIS nodes to accommodate

browsers in common use, OASIS nodes

would be able to become more

sophisticated as the Internet itself

becomes more sophisticated.

Com Ed, ConEd and PSNM would

leave the standard to the How Group or

an industry-wide OASIS Management

Organization.

Most commenters agreed with the

How Report that, requiring OASIS

nodes to support HTML 3 will allow

browsers supporting this standard to

view documents on the OASIS. The

Commission will adopt the

recommendation for HTML 3 contained

in the How Report.

b. Bandwidth of Node Connections to

the Internet

At issue is the speed at which OASIS

users will receive information from

OASIS nodes. A major determinant of

the speed are the bandwidth

connections between the OASIS node

and the Internet. The How Report

proposed a formula to compute the

required minimum bandwidth based on

the number of registered users of the

node and the number of bits per second

to be received by users during HTML

displays and downloads of files.111

These information transfers would

include both the receipt of HTML

displays and downloads of files. The

How Report proposed to use a rate of

8,000 bits per second to determine

bandwidth. In the RIN NOPR, the

Commission noted that an 8,000 bit per

second transfer rate is a much slower

rate than the 28,800 bit per second

transfer rate for telephone connections

that many private individuals and

customers use to connect to the Internet.

The Commission expressed concern that

using 8,000 bit per second as the basis

for the bandwidth calculation will lead

to connections that are too slow and

proposed to use 28,800 bits per second.

Many commenters agreed with the

Commission.112 Com Ed reported that a

T1 communications line (1.54 million

bits per second) could support 500

simultaneous customers using the

Commission’s proposal of using 28,800

bits per second in the bandwidth

formula. Com Ed concluded that it is

unlikely that an OASIS node will

experience 500 simultaneous users and

that a T1 line is a reasonable upper

limit, at this time. The How Group

reported that its members are currently

paying between $1,500 and $3,000 per

month for T1 connections and

concludes that it may be cost effective

to oversize the bandwidth even though

a high bandwidth does not

automatically translate into higher

access speeds or download rates.

Several commenters preferred the

8,000 bits per second originally

proposed by the How Group.113 Ohio

Edison suggested that using a speed of

28,800 will dramatically increase costs

and may make joint OASIS nodes less

attractive. The How Group asserted that

experience has shown that 8,000 bits

per second is a reasonable average rate
21760 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

114How Report § 3.3.8(c).

115See APPA, CCEM, ConEd, and PSNM

comments.

116See NERC and Ohio Edison comments.

for users of the Internet. VEPCO stated

that, while many customers will

initially use modems rated at 28,800 bits

per second, their average data transfer

rate will be lower due to a number of

factors. Nevertheless, VEPCO asserted

that an average of 8,000 bits per second

is on the low end of acceptability,

especially if large files are to be

downloaded or if graphics files are to be

viewed. Continental Power Exchange

proposed that the 19,200 bits per second

be used in the formula. It asserted that

this is the fastest modem speed

achievable with Microsoft’s Windows

3.1.

APPA speculated that there may some

areas in remote locations that cannot

secure a connection to the Internet with

adequate bandwidth to support the

28,800 bit per second standard.

After considering the comments, the

Commission continues to believe that

8,000 bits per second is too slow,

especially when large files must be

transferred and when information is

needed promptly for business decisions.

The Commission, therefore, will require

that a rate of 28,800 bits per second be

used in the minimum bandwidth

calculation.

c. Data Compression Standards

In the RIN NOPR, the Commission

expressed agreement with the How

Report that data compression will speed

up the transmission of files.114 We also

expressed the belief that communication

of OASIS information would be

enhanced if every OASIS node used the

same compression techniques. The

Commission requested comments on

what data compression technique or

techniques should be made standard for

all OASIS nodes.

Most commenters recommended that

the ‘‘ZIP’’ file compression standard be

adopted as the common OASIS

standard.115 The How Group pointed

out that the ZIP format is available for

most computer platforms. Some

commenters, however, suggested that

setting a common compression

technique is too detailed for a

Commission rulemaking.116

Most commenters supported using the

‘‘ZIP’’ file compression standard on

OASIS. This format is widely used for

data communication and the necessary

software is available for most computer

platforms. The Commission will,

therefore, require that the ZIP standard

be the data compression standard on

OASIS nodes. The Commission agrees

that requiring compression for files

created for each HTTP request may be

too complex for Phase I. However,

utilities may want to compress large

files that would be infrequently

updated, such as tariffs. These files will

benefit from file compression and will

not be subject to the complexities of

compressing the dynamically created

HTTP files. The Commission will

require that static files residing on

OASIS nodes be compressed.

d. Other Communication Protocol Issues

Raised by Commenters

i. The Requirement to Use FTP for File

Transfers

The October 16, 1995 How Report

recommended requiring OASIS nodes to

use the Internet File Transfer Protocol

(FTP) for file uploads and downloads. In

its comments, the How Group

recommended changing the file transfer

method originally proposed in the How

Report from the FTP to the HTTP for

data access, including files upload and

download to and from OASIS nodes. We

will accept this recommendation.

ii. Field Size for Path Names

The How Report proposed that path

names be a 12-character alphanumeric

string. The March 7, 1996 filing by its

How Group recommends that the 12

characters be changed to 50

alphanumeric characters. Subsequent to

the How Report, the How Group found

that 12 characters were insufficient to

accommodate path names and the

associated regional identifiers.

We will await final recommendations

concerning file formats before ruling on

this issue.

iii. Files Containing More Than 100,000

Bytes

The How Report recommended that

customers not be required to download

any single file that is larger than 100,000

bytes in order to access transmission

information in electronic form. The

implication is that all files larger than

100,000 bytes must be broken into subfiles.

Detroit Edison argued that there is no

easy way to download only a section of

a file and that customers may prefer to

download one large file rather than 20

small ones.

We agree and will not require files to

be broken into 100,000 byte segments at

this time. In the event that a restriction

on file size becomes needed, it can be

addressed in Phase II.

K. Cost Recovery Issues

1. Costs of Developing and Running an

OASIS (Question 34)

Transmission-owning public utilities

are entitled to recover the costs of

developing and running an OASIS.

Generally, these costs will be fixed costs

not attributable to individual users. In

the NOPR, the Commission proposed to

include these costs in wholesale

transmission rates. The Commission

also proposed to allow costs that can be

identified as varying with usage to be

charged as usage fees to individual

customers.

The commenters were nearly evenly

split between those favoring and

opposing the Commission’s proposals.

NIEP argued that rolling-in OASIS costs

would distribute costs among all

transmission users equally and would

be the only fair method of allocating the

cost of an OASIS. NIEP concludes that,

if costs were directly assigned to

individual transmission users, these

users would be penalized by forcing

them to pay the cost of providing

information which is available to, and

used by, all transmission users.

Many commenters objected to

including OASIS costs in wholesale

transmission rates. They argued that it

is inappropriate to require network

service customers (who may not

participate in wholesale sales

transactions) to absorb the cost of the

OASIS. Indianapolis P&L claimed that it

has no significant, unique transmission

paths and uses its transmission assets to

serve its native load customers.

Consequently, most of its OASIS costs

would be borne by its native load

customers.

Many commenters suggested

alternatives to rolling in OASIS costs.

ConEd argued that, if all OASIS costs

were included in wholesale

transmission rates, OASIS costs might

not be fully recovered since

transmission use varies. To remedy this,

ConEd proposed rolling in part of the

costs with the remainder to be recovered

through a monthly access fee. MAPP

suggested usage fees based on cost

causation, such as time access charges,

fixed fees for transmission requests and

fees based on energy scheduled over

transmission secured on the OASIS.

NSP suggested a fee structure like other

on-line information services, such as

America On Line, CompuServe, and

Prodigy.

Several commenters saw other

problems associated with utility

recovery of OASIS costs. Some called

attention to potential problems in

recovering the costs of a joint OASIS.

MAPP pointed out that a jointly
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21761

117See Open Access Final Rule generally at

section IV.D.

operated OASIS will not have

composite transmission tariffs from

which to recover costs and that a

method was needed for utilities to

recover joint expenses.

Detroit Edison speculated that a large

number of the general public could be

connected to an OASIS at one time and

thus limit OASIS access to transmission

users. To prevent this problem, Detroit

Edison proposed that fees be established

to prevent misuse or overuse of an

OASIS.

It is appropriate that all wholesale

transmission customers and all

unbundled retail transmission

customers should pay a share of OASIS

development costs in their rates.

Therefore, the Commission concludes

that the cost of developing an OASIS

should be included in unbundled

transmission rates with variable costs of

operating an OASIS to be recovered, to

the extent possible, in usage fees.

Individual rate proceedings will

determine which OASIS costs can be

identified as varying with usage and

how to set the fees.

2. Costs of Posting Resales of Capacity

on the OASIS (Question 40)

The Commission proposed that

resales of capacity be posted on the

same page, and using the same display

and downloadable tables, as capacity

being sold by the Transmission

Provider. This posting incurs an

expense on the part of the Responsible

Party. The Commission proposed that

each reseller must, therefore, pay the

costs of posting its own offering.

Most commenters believed that those

posting secondary services should pay

the cost of posting. APPA proposed that

the incremental cost of posting should

be recovered as a special fee in the

primary contract of transmission

service. Ohio Edison proposed a fee for

each posting with a ‘‘true up’’

mechanism to ensure that over time

actual costs are recovered. Com Ed and

WP&L suggested a fee that is a

percentage of revenue received from the

secondary postings.

NEPOOL suggested that this expense

is unlikely to be significant and,

therefore, could be included in rates.

NRECA and NCEMC warned that

posting fees not be set so high as to

discourage resale of capacity. OK Com

argued that it would be inappropriate to

charge resellers of transmission capacity

for posting if the Transmission Provider

is not also required to pay a fee for

posting.

After considering the comments, we

have decided that there should be no

added fee for posting capacity resales.

All OASIS users, including the

Transmission Provider, who post

capacity pay all the fixed costs of OASIS

in wholesale rates and pay usage-related

variable costs in access fees. Thus, the

costs of posting resale capacity are

already recovered. To require resellers

to pay additional fees for posting their

products would provide OASIS

operators with a cost advantage.

3. Costs of Posting Ancillary Services on

the OASIS

The Commission proposed that

entities posting offers to provide

ancillary services on the OASIS should

pay the costs associated with posting

this information and requested

comments on how to determine these

costs.

Commenters proposed various fee

schemes to recover these costs. Some

were based on the cost of developing

and maintaining posting services, others

were based solely on the incremental

cost of posting a notice. Some proposed

to roll the costs into wholesale

transmission rates. Others proposed that

utilities be allowed make a profit from

this service.

Arizona proposed an incentive

scheme to keep costs down, while

Continental Power Exchange suggested

that the method of calculating these

costs be left to the industry. PJM

proposed a fee based on the amount of

person-hours and computer usage

required by such posting. ConEd argued

that utilities should be allowed to earn

a profit on this service.

CSW submitted that posting costs

cannot be broken out individually and

proposed that the costs for an OASIS

should be borne by all market

participants on a fair basis. Florida

Power Corp argued that an OASIS is not

a newspaper, and that Transmission

Providers are not in the publishing

business; therefore, OASIS services,

including the posting of ancillary

services, should not be sold like

classified ads. It proposed that the cost

of operating an OASIS should be rolled

into wholesale transmission rates.

VEPCO also suggested that the cost of

posting ancillary services should be

included in the cost of the OASIS, with

costs of specific evaluations of ancillary

service offers to be determined and

posted on the OASIS.

After assessing the comments, we find

that the cost of developing the facilities

needed to post ancillary services

required to be provided by the Open

Access Final Rule should be recovered

through unbundled transmission rates.

Any variable costs of posting these

services will be included in the general

OASIS usage fees. As for those ancillary

services not required to be provided,117

OASIS operators may charge a cost

based fee to those offering these services

for the cost of posting.

L. Section 37.8—Implementation in

Phases

1. Phase I Implementation

Implementation of this rule and the

initial standards and protocols will

ensure that sufficient information is

available to transmission customers to

achieve comparable access to

transmission information. They do not,

however, provide all the desired

performance requirements.

Because of the complexity of

developing an OASIS, and the need to

begin the transmission open access

program promptly, the Commission

proposed a phased approach to OASIS

implementation. We proposed to require

implementation of a Phase I OASIS as

of the effective date of the final rule on

non-discriminatory open access

transmission and stranded costs (i.e., 60

days from publication of this order in

the Federal Register).

Comments

Many commenters argued that the

proposed 60-day implementation period

is unrealistic in light of the amount of

work that must be done. ERCOT

suggested that only portions of the

Phase I implementation could be

accomplished within the 60-day period.

A vast majority of commenters

suggested that an implementation

period of six months would be required.

Arizona and ConEd pointed out that,

while plans for implementation can

begin in advance of the final rule, final

specifications and designs depend on

the resolution of several major Open

Access Final Rule issues. ConEd also

argued that all new systems require a

‘‘Beta’’ test stage in which the system

can be tested before it is used in a

production environment, and that a 60-

day implementation period will not

permit such testing. Similarly, NERC

argued that more time is needed to make

sure workable administrative

procedures are in place for consistency

in calculating, posting, and coordinating

ATC. NEPOOL echoed these comments,

reporting that an implementation period

of less than six months would result in

the development of OASIS nodes across

the nation that lack uniformity as each

region complies within a short deadline

without time to coordinate with other

areas.

Duke argued that a full six months

will be needed because, in addition to
21762 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

118NERC made this same point in its comments.

119 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612.

120See 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). In

addition, 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, issued

contemporaneously with this final rule, we

conclude that, under these definitions, the Open

Access Final Rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a significant number of small

entities. As this final rule only implements the

OASIS requirements of the Open Access Final Rule,

the same conclusion is warranted here, for the same

reasons.

the difficult task of implementing

OASIS, the Open Access Final Rule will

change the way the industry does

business. Duke argued that the

coordination of resources necessary to

accommodate all of the discussions and

decisions in developing joint OASIS

nodes is a more lengthy process than

development of an OASIS by each

individual company. Duke asserted that

a six-month implementation period is

needed to permit joint OASIS projects to

develop. 118

SoCal Edison requested that the

Commission delay implementation until

the requirements of the CA Com’s

California Restructuring Order have

been fully identified. Public Generating

Pool argued that the Northwest

governors have organized a review of

the Northwest Power Act, the

Bonneville Power Act, and the

northwest electric system in general, to

be completed by November 1996. Public

Generating Pool argued that the

Commission should consider possible

contributions to be made by this

forthcoming report and urged that the

Commission not ignore this work based

on a need to meet self-imposed

unreasonable and unrealistic OASIS

implementation dates.

The How Group, the Western Group

and VEPCO suggested that, if the

Commission cannot extend the

implementation period to six months,

then Phase I should itself be

implemented in stages. The How Group

suggested a three-stage process that

would begin with a requirement for

primary providers, within 120 days after

issuance of the final rule, to post

estimates of ATC and secondary

capacity for resale that might not be

accurate. This would be followed,

within 180 days after issuance of the

final rule, by the posting of fully

accurate secondary capacity information

and ATC information, and with

Transmission Providers certifying,

within 210 days of the final rule, that all

functionality and performance

requirements for OASIS have been met.

ConEd and Carolina P&L noted that

OASIS implementation will cause

changes to utility operations, and

requested that the Commission schedule

implementation during off-peak

seasons, such as the spring or fall, when

they claim transmission systems are

under less stress.

Public Generating Pool and

Tallahassee speculated that, if publiclyowned utilities are considered to be

under the Commission’s jurisdiction for

OASIS purposes, they will need more

than a six-month implementation period

because they may be required to obtain

funding approval from state or local

oversight commissions.

Discussion

Commenters make persuasive

arguments for permitting a six-month

implementation period. They raise

concerns that a shorter period will not

permit adequate time to design, build

and thoroughly test an OASIS. They

also raise concerns that a shorter period

will inhibit the development of joint

OASIS and OASIS with a common look

and feel. The Commission shares these

concerns. We also want to take into

account commenters’ requests that

implementation not be required during

the peak winter or summer months. For

this reason, we are requiring compliance

by November 1, 1996, a specific date

about six months from when we expect

this final rule to become effective,

chosen to avoid the winter and summer

peak months. This date is provided in

§ 37.8 of the final rule, which modifies

the provision originally set out in

§ 37.15 of the RIN NOPR.

In addition, we will provide

additional procedures to allow the

development of the remaining initial

standards and protocols. As described

above, we invite the How Group to

report to us on or before May 28, 1996

on these issues (and to attach any

comments it has received from any

interested person with opposing views).

For these reasons, the Commission

will require implementation of Phase I

of OASIS to be operational by November

1, 1996.

2. Phase II Implementation

Once Phase I becomes operational,

and the industry and public gain

experience with it, the full information

and functional requirements needed to

support open access transmission

service will become clearer. In the RIN

NOPR, the Commission stated that it

envisioned that Phase II would build on

Phase I and requested that the industry

continue the process of developing

standards, and provide a consensus

report to the Commission on Phase II

recommendations by January 1, 1997.

Most commenters argued that the

proposed January 1997 date is too

ambitious. Southern argued that this

date does not provide enough time for

the industry to gain experience with

Phase I. Tallahassee and others

suggested that Phase II should not be

implemented until at least one year after

Phase I is implemented. Continental

Power Exchange asserted that Phase II

will be a continuum of development

from the first day of Phase I

implementation. NRECA suggested that,

if Phase I turns out to be inadequate,

then Phase II should be accelerated.

We are sensitive to commenters’

concerns about the time between the

implementation of Phase I and Phase II.

At the same time, the need for the

additional functions and performance

requirements proposed for Phase II will,

we believe, need to be implemented

quickly. Accordingly, the industry

should continue the process of

developing standards, and attempt to

develop a consensus report on Phase II

recommendations by no later than seven

months after implementation of Phase I

June 4, 1997. We anticipate that this

report would be the basis for

supplemental OASIS proceedings to

Phase II OASIS requirements. The

additional time should permit the

industry to obtain sufficient experience

with Phase I before it recommends

specifications for Phase II.

We believe that it may be appropriate

to require the scheduling of energy

transfers on the OASIS in Phase II.

Electronic scheduling of energy

transfers over the OASIS would increase

efficiency. We, therefore, request that

the industry incorporate standards for

the scheduling of energy transfers on

OASIS into the Phase II report.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA) 119 requires the Commission to

describe the impact that any proposed

or final rule would have on small

entities or to certify that the rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The entities

that would have to comply with the

final rule are public utilities and

transmitting utilities that do not fall

within the RFA’s definition of small

entities.120 Therefore, under section

605(b) of the RFA, the Commission

hereby certifies that this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on small entities within the meaning of

the RFA. Accordingly, no regulatory
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21763

121Regulations Implementing National

Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR

47897 (Dec. 17, 1987); 1986–90 Regulations

Preambles, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶30,783 (Dec. 10,

1987) (codified at 18 CFR Part 380).

122See supra (discussion quoted from How Report

at 80). 123 5 CFR 1320.11.

flexibility analysis is required pursuant

to section 603 of the RFA.

In its comments, NRECA questioned

the Commission’s conclusion that the

RIN NOPR did not need to be

accompanied by an RFA analysis.

NRECA’s argument was based on its

concern that the Commission might

extend OASIS requirements to nonpublic, not-for-profit cooperative

utilities. NRECA argued that, if this

were to happen, the Commission would

then have to analyze the effect of the

OASIS requirements on these utilities

and show that the requirements would

not have a substantial economic impact

upon them. However, as proposed in the

RIN NOPR, the Commission’s OASIS

regulations will apply only to public

utilities that own, operate, or control

transmission facilities subject to the

Commission’s jurisdiction. As noted

immediately above, public utilities do

not fall within the RFA’s definition of

a ‘‘small entity.’’ In addition, as

discussed earlier, and as discussed in

the Open Access Final Rule, there will

be a provision for a waiver for small

entities. This responds to NRECA’s

concerns.

V. Environmental Statement

Commission regulations require that

an environmental assessment or an

environmental impact statement be

prepared for a Commission action that

may have a significant effect on the

human environment. 121 Although this

final rule does not directly affect any

physical transmission facilities, but

merely requires the electronic posting

by computers of certain information

about transmission availability and

prices, it nevertheless is covered by 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.

Thus, no separate environmental

assessment or environmental impact

statement has been prepared in this

proceeding.

VI. Information Collection Statement

There are now approximately 328

public utilities, including marketers and

wholesale generation entities. The

Commission estimates that

approximately 166 of these utilities

own, operate, or control facilities used

for the transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce and thus are

subject to this rule. However, since the

operation of an OASIS will be closely

associated with control areas, we

assume that an OASIS will be

developed at the control area level and

not by each public utility that owns,

operates, or controls interstate

transmission facilities. We also expect

that some additional OASIS nodes will

be created voluntarily by non-public

utilities subject to these regulations

under the reciprocity condition of the

pro forma tariffs. We estimate, therefore,

that 140 respondents will be required to

collect information. We believe that this

estimate is conservative (on the high

side) because some regions are likely to

develop a region-wide OASIS that will

cover more than one control area. 122

This estimate is higher than the one

we included in the RIN NOPR, where

we estimated that there would be 84

respondents. We have adjusted our

estimate in response to the arguments

advanced by NRECA and NE Public

Power District, in separate letters to

OMB, that the Commission’s

Information Collection Statement

contained in the RIN NOPR failed to

account for the proposal in the Open

Access NOPR that, because of the

reciprocity requirement, non-public

utilities and cooperatives entering

contracts for open access transmission

services would be required to establish

their own OASIS nodes or participate in

a regional OASIS node.

NRECA also argued that the

Commission’s analysis must include not

only those entities that are developing

their own OASIS node, but also those

entities who, while they are not

developing and operating their own

OASIS node, nevertheless will

contribute data to their control area

operators or regional OASIS operators.

NRECA argued, therefore, that the

Commission’s estimate of the number of

respondents should have taken this into

account. It did.

Although not explicitly stated in the

RIN NOPR, the Commission’s

Information Collection Statement, both

in this final rule and in the RIN NOPR,

has been based not only on the efforts

by the respondents who will directly

operate OASIS nodes but also reflects

the collection of information from all

significant participants in the

transmission market.

Information Collection Statement

Title: FERC–717, Real-Time

Information Network Standards.

Action: Final Rule

OMB Control No: 1902–0173.

Respondents: Public Utilities that

own and/or control facilities used for

the transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce.

Frequency of Responses: On Occasion

Necessity of the information: The final

rule requires affected public utilities to

comply with requirements for an Open

Access Same-time Information System

(OASIS) established by the Commission

to give potential customers access to

information, by electronic means, that

would ensure the availability of open

access wholesale transmission service

on a non-discriminatory basis. These

requirements would support

arrangements made for wholesale sales

and purchases for third parties. Public

utilities or their agents will be required

to give competitors and other users of

the transmission system access to the

same information available to public

utility personnel who initiate the

acquisition or disposition of power in

the wholesale market and at the same

time. The Commission will use the

information to monitor the networks to

ensure that potential purchasers of

transmission services obtain the services

on a non-discriminatory basis. This final

rule was developed after a review of

comments filed in response to issuance

of a notice of public rulemaking.

The Office of Management and

Budget’s (OMB) regulations, 123 require

OMB to approve certain information

collection requirements imposed by

agency rule. The information collection

requirements in the final rule will be

reported directly to transmission users

and will be subject to subsequent audit

by the Commission. The distribution of

these data will help the Commission

carry out its responsibilities under Part

II of the FPA.

The Commission is submitting

notification of this final rule to OMB.

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 to the Office of

Management and Budget [Attention:

Desk Officer for the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (202) 395–

3087].

VII. Effective Date

The regulations of new part 37 will

become effective on July 9, 1996. The

Commission has determined, with the

concurrence of the Administrator of the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs of OMB, that the Open Access

Final Rule and the OASIS final rule

together constitute a ‘‘major rule’’ as
21764 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

124 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).

defined in section 351 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of

1996.124 The rule will be submitted to

both Houses of Congress and the

Comptroller General prior to its

publication in the Federal Register. All

of the requirements prescribed in the

standards of conduct must be complied

with and Phase I OASIS sites that meet

the requirements prescribed in this final

rule must be in operation by November

1, 1996.

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 chapter I of title

18, Code of Federal Regulations, to add

a new part 37, as set forth below:

PART 37—OPEN ACCESS SAME-TIME

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Sec.

37.1 Applicability.

37.2 Purpose.

37.3 Definitions.

37.4 Standards of conduct.

37.5 Obligations of Transmission Providers

and Responsible Parties.

37.6 Information to be posted on an OASIS.

37.7 Auditing Transmission Service

Information.

37.8 Implementation schedule for OASIS

requirements; phases.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791–825r, 2601–2645;

31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.

§ 37.1 Applicability.

This part applies to any public utility

that owns, operates, or controls facilities

used for the transmission of electric

energy in interstate commerce and to

transactions performed under the pro

forma tariff required in part 35 of this

chapter.

§ 37.2 Purpose.

(a) The purpose of this part is to

ensure that potential customers of open

access transmission service receive

access to information that will enable

them to obtain transmission service on

a non-discriminatory basis from any

Transmission Provider. These rules

provide standards of conduct and

require the Transmission Provider (or its

agent) to create and operate an Open

Access Same-time Information System

(OASIS) that gives all users of the open

access transmission system access to the

same information.

(b) The OASIS will provide

information by electronic means about

available transmission capability for

point-to-point service and will provide

a process for requesting transmission

service. OASIS will enable

Transmission Providers and

Transmission Customers to

communicate promptly requests and

responses to buy and sell available

transmission capacity offered under the

Transmission Provider’s tariff.

§ 37.3 Definitions.

(a) Transmission Provider means any

public utility that owns, operates, or

controls facilities used for the

transmission of electric energy in

interstate commerce.

(b) Transmission Customer means any

eligible customer (or its designated

agent) that can or does execute a

transmission service agreement or can

or does receive transmission service.

(c) Responsible party means the

Transmission Provider or an agent to

whom the Transmission Provider has

delegated the responsibility of meeting

any of the requirements of this part.

(d) Reseller means any Transmission

Customer who offers to sell

transmission capacity it has purchased.

(e) Wholesale merchant function

means the sale for resale, or purchase

for resale, of electric energy in interstate

commerce.

(f) Affiliate means:

(1) For any exempt wholesale

generator, as defined under section 32(a)

of the Public Utility Holding Company

Act of 1935, as amended, the same as

provided in section 214 of the Federal

Power Act; and

(2) For any other entity, the term

affiliate has the same meaning as given

in § 161.2(a) of this chapter.

§ 37.4 Standards of conduct.

A Transmission Provider must

conduct its business to conform with

the following standards:

(a) General rules. (1) Except as

provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, the employees of the

Transmission Provider engaged in

transmission system operations must

function independently of its

employees, or the employees of any of

its affiliates, who engage in Wholesale

Merchant Functions.

(2) Notwithstanding any other

provisions in this section, in emergency

circumstances affecting system

reliability, Transmission Providers may

take whatever steps are necessary to

keep the system in operation.

Transmission Providers must report to

the Commission and on the OASIS each

emergency that resulted in any

deviation from the standards of conduct,

within 24 hours of such deviation.

(b) Rules governing employee

conduct. (1) Prohibitions. Any employee

of the Transmission Provider, or any

employee of an affiliate, engaged in

wholesale merchant functions is

prohibited from:

(i) Conducting transmission system

operations or reliability functions; and

(ii) Having access to the system

control center or similar facilities used

for transmission operations or reliability

functions that differs in any way from

the access available to other open access

Transmission Customers.

(2) Transfers. Employees engaged in

either wholesale merchant functions or

transmission system operations or

reliability functions are not precluded

from transferring between such

functions as long as such transfer is not

used as a means to circumvent the

standards of conduct of this section.

Notices of any employee transfer to or

from transmission system operations or

reliability functions must be posted on

the OASIS as provided in § 37.6(g)(3).

The information to be posted must

include: the name of the transferring

employee, the respective titles held

while performing each function (i.e., on

behalf of the Transmission Provider and

wholesale merchant or affiliate), and the

effective date of the transfer. The

information posted under this section

must remain on the OASIS for 90 days.

(3) Information access. Any employee

of the Transmission Provider, or of any

of its affiliates, engaged in wholesale

merchant functions:

(i) Shall have access to only that

information available to the

Transmission Provider’s open access

transmission customers (i.e., the

information posted on an OASIS), and

must not have preferential access to any

information about the Transmission

Provider’s transmission system that is

not available to all users of an OASIS;

and

(ii) Is prohibited from obtaining

information about the Transmission

Provider’s transmission system

(including information about available

transmission capability, price,

curtailments, ancillary services, and the

like) through access to information not

posted on the OASIS that is not

otherwise also available to the general

public without restriction, or through

information through the OASIS that is

not also publicly available to all OASIS

users.

(4) Disclosure. A Transmission

Provider is responsible for ensuring

compliance with the following

provisions:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21765

(i) Any employee of the Transmission

Provider, or any employee of an

affiliate, engaged in transmission system

operations or reliability functions may

not disclose to employees of the

Transmission Provider, or any of its

affiliates, engaged in wholesale

merchant functions any information

concerning the transmission system of

the Transmission Provider or the

transmission system of another

(including information received from

non-affiliates or information about

available transmission capability, price,

curtailments, ancillary services, etc.)

through non-public communications

conducted off the OASIS, through

access to information not posted on the

OASIS that is not at the same time

available to the general public without

restriction, or through information on

the OASIS that is not at the same time

publicly available to all OASIS users

(such as E-mail).

(ii) If an employee of the

Transmission Provider engaged in

transmission system operations or

reliability functions discloses

information not posted on the OASIS in

a manner contrary to the requirements

of the standards of conduct, the

Transmission Provider must

immediately post such information on

the OASIS.

(iii) A Transmission Provider may not

share any market information, acquired

from nonaffiliated Transmission

Customers or potential nonaffiliated

Transmission Customers, or developed

in the course of responding to requests

for transmission or ancillary service on

the OASIS, with its own employees (or

those of an affiliate) engaged in

merchant functions, except to the

limited extent information is required to

be posted on the OASIS in response to

a request for transmission service or

ancillary services.

(5) Implementing tariffs. (i)

Employees of the Transmission Provider

engaged in transmission system

operations or reliability functions must

strictly enforce all tariff provisions

relating to the sale or purchase of open

access transmission service, if these

provisions do not provide for the use of

discretion.

(ii) Employees of the Transmission

Provider engaged in transmission

system operations must apply all tariff

provisions relating to the sale or

purchase of open access transmission

service in a fair and impartial manner

that treats all customers (including the

public utility and any affiliate) in a nondiscriminatory manner, if these

provisions involve discretion.

(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.

(iv) The Transmission Provider may

not, through its tariffs or otherwise, give

preference to wholesale purchases or

sales made on behalf of its own power

customers, or those of an 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.).

(v) If the Transmission Provider offers

a discount on purchases of transmission

service made on behalf of its own power

customers or those of any affiliate, then,

at the same time, it must 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.

(vi) If the Transmission Provider

offers a rate discount on ancillary

services to an affiliate, or attributes a

discounted ancillary service rate to its

own transactions, the Transmission

Provider must, at the same time, post on

the OASIS an offer to provide the same

discount to all eligible customers.

(6) Books and records. A

Transmission Provider must maintain

its books of account and records (as

prescribed under parts 101 and 125 of

this chapter) separately from those of its

affiliates and these must be available for

Commission inspection.

(c) Maintenance of written

procedures. The Transmission Provider

must maintain in a public place, and file

with the Commission, current written

procedures implementing the standards

of conduct in such detail as will enable

customers and the Commission to

determine that the Transmission

Provider is in compliance with the

requirements of this section.

§ 37.5 Obligations of Transmission

Providers and Responsible Parties.

(a) Each Transmission Provider is

required to provide for the operation of

an OASIS, either individually or jointly

with other Transmission Providers, in

accordance with the requirements of

this Part. The Transmission Provider

may delegate this responsibility to a

Responsible Party such as another

Transmission Provider, an Independent

System Operator, a Regional

Transmission Group, or a Regional

Reliability Council.

(b) A Responsible Party must:

(1) Provide access to an OASIS

providing standardized information

relevant to the availability of

transmission capacity, prices, and other

information (as described in this part)

pertaining to the transmission system

for which it is responsible; and

(2) Shall operate the OASIS in

compliance with the standardized

procedures and protocols found in

OASIS Standards and Communication

Protocols, which can be obtained from

the Public Reference and Files

Maintenance Branch, Room 2A, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

(c) Transmission Providers must

provide ‘‘read only’’ access to the

OASIS to Commission staff and the

staffs of State regulatory authorities, at

no cost, after such staff members have

complied with the requisite registration

procedures.

§ 37.6 Information to be posted on an

OASIS.

(a) The information posted on the

OASIS must be in such detail as to

allow Transmission Customers to:

(1) Make requests for transmission

services offered by Transmission

Providers, Resellers and other providers

of ancillary services;

(2) View and download in standard

formats, using standard protocols,

information regarding the transmission

system necessary to enable prudent

business decision making;

(3) Post, view, upload and download

information regarding available

products and desired services;

(4) Clearly identify the degree to

which their transmission service

requests or schedules were denied or

interrupted; and

(5) Obtain access, in electronic format,

to information to support available

transmission capability calculations and

historical transmission service requests

and schedules for various audit

purposes.

(b) Posting transmission capability.

The transmission capability that is

expected to be available on the

Transmission Provider’s system (ATC)

and the total transmission capability

(TTC) of that system shall be calculated

and posted for each Posted Path as set

out in this section.

(1) Definitions. For purposes of this

section the terms listed below have the

following meanings:

(i) Posted path means any control area

to control area interconnection; any

path for which service is denied,

curtailed or interrupted for more than

24 hours in the past 12 months; and any

path for which a customer requests to

have ATC or TTC posted. For this last

category, the posting must continue for

180 days and thereafter until 180 days

have elapsed from the most recent

request for service over the requested

path. For purposes of this definition, an
21766 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

hour includes any part of an hour

during which service was denied,

curtailed or interrupted.

(ii) Constrained posted path means

any posted path having an ATC less

than or equal to 25 percent of TTC at

any time during the preceding 168

hours or for which ATC has been

calculated to be less than or equal to 25

percent of TTC for any period during

the current hour or the next 168 hours.

(iii) Unconstrained posted path

means any posted path not determined

to be a constrained posted path.

(2) Calculation methods, availability

of information, and requests. (i)

Information used to calculate any

posting of ATC and TTC must be dated

and time-stamped and all calculations

shall be performed according to

consistently applied methodologies

referenced in the Transmission

Provider’s transmission tariff and shall

be based on current industry practices,

standards and criteria.

(ii) On request, the Responsible Party

must make all data used to calculate

ATC and TTC for any constrained

posted paths publicly available

(including the limiting element(s) and

the cause of the limit (e.g., thermal,

voltage, stability)) in electronic form

within one week of the posting. The

information is required to be provided

only in the electronic format in which

it was created, along with any necessary

decoding instructions, at a cost limited

to the cost of reproducing the material.

This information is to be retained for six

months after the applicable posting

period.

(iii) System planning studies or

specific network impact studies

performed for customers to determine

network impacts are to be made

publicly available in electronic form on

request and a list of such studies shall

be posted on the OASIS. A study is

required to be provided only in the

electronic format in which it was

created, along with any necessary

decoding instructions, at a cost limited

to the cost of reproducing the material.

These studies are to be retained for two

years.

(3) Posting. The ATC and TTC for all

Posted Paths must be posted in

megawatts by specific direction and in

the manner prescribed in this

subsection.

(i) Constrained posted paths—(A) For

Firm ATC and TTC. (1) The posting

shall show ATC and TTC for a 30-day

period. For this period postings shall be:

by the hour, for the current hour and the

168 hours next following; and

thereafter, by the day. If the

Transmission Provider charges

separately for on-peak and off-peak

periods in its tariff, ATC and TTC will

be posted daily for each period.

(2) Postings shall also be made by the

month, showing for the current month

and the 12 months next following.

(3) If planning and specific requested

transmission studies have been done,

seasonal capability shall be posted for

the year following the current year and

for each year following to the end of the

planning horizon but not to exceed 10

years.

(B) For Non-Firm ATC and TTC. The

posting shall show ATC and TTC for a

30-day period by the hour and days

prescribed under paragraph

(b)(3)(i)(A)(1) of this section and, if so

requested, by the month and year as

prescribed under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A)

(2) and (3) of this section.

(C) Updating Posted Information for

Constrained Paths.

(1) The capability posted under

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of this

section must be updated when

transactions are reserved or service ends

or whenever the TTC estimate for the

Path changes by more than 10 percent.

(2) All updating of hourly information

shall be made on the hour.

(ii) Unconstrained Posted Paths. (A)

Postings of ATC and TTC shall be 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 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.

(B) If planning and specific requested

transmission studies have been done,

seasonal capability shall be posted for

the year following the current year and

for each year following until the end of

the planning horizon but not to exceed

10 years.

(c) Posting Transmission Service

Products and Prices. (1) Transmission

Providers must post prices and a

summary of the terms and conditions

associated with all transmission

products offered to Transmission

Customers.

(2) Transmission Providers must

provide a downloadable file of their

complete tariffs in the same electronic

format as the tariff that is filed with the

Commission.

(3) A Transmission Provider, within

24 hours of agreeing to sell transmission

service to a non-affiliate at a discount

(as measured from 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, 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. With respect to any

discount offered to its own power

customers or its affiliates, the

Transmission Provider 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.

(4) 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

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 the ‘‘Sale or

Assignment of Transmission Service’’

section of the pro forma tariff.

(d) Posting Ancillary Service Offerings

and Prices. (1) Any ancillary service

required to be provided or offered under

the pro forma tariff prescribed by part

35 of this chapter must be posted with

the price of that service.

(2) A Transmission Provider, within

24 hours of agreeing to sell an ancillary

service to a non-affiliate at a discount,

must post on the OASIS (and make

available for download) information

describing the transaction (including

price, quantity, 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. As to discounts for

ancillary services, if a Transmission

Provider offers a rate discount to an

affiliate, or attributes a discounted

ancillary service rate to its own

transactions, the Transmission Provider

must, at the same time, post on the

OASIS an offer to provide the same

discount to all eligible customers.

(3) Any other interconnected

operations service offered by the

Transmission Provider may be posted,

with the price for that service.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21767

(4) 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

Service Requests and Responses.

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

transmission service offered by

Transmission Providers under the pro

forma tariff must be made on the

OASIS. Requests for transmission

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) In processing a request for

transmission or ancillary service, the

Responsible Party shall post 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).

(iii) The identity of the parties will be

masked—if requested—during the

negotiating period and for 30 days from

the date when the request was accepted,

denied or withdrawn.

(2) Posting when a request for

transmission service is denied. (i) When

a request for service is denied, the

Responsible Party must provide the

reason for that denial as part of any

response to the request.

(ii) Information to support the reason

for the denial, including the operating

status of relevant facilities, must be

maintained for 60 days and provided,

upon request, to the potential

Transmission Customer.

(iii) Any offer to adjust operation of

the Transmission Provider’s System to

accommodate the denied request must

be posted and made available to all

Transmission Customers at the same

time.

(3) Posting when a transaction is

curtailed or interrupted.

(i) When any transaction is curtailed

or interrupted, the curtailment or

interruption must be posted (with the

identities of the parties masked as

required in § 37.6(e)(1)(iii)) and must

state the reason why the transaction

could not be continued or completed.

(ii) Information to support any such

curtailment or interruption, including

the operating status of the facilities

involved in the constraint or

interruption, must be maintained for 60

days and provided, upon request, to the

curtailed or interrupted customer.

(iii) Any offer to adjust the operation

of the Transmission Provider’s system to

restore a curtailed or interrupted

transaction must be posted and made

available to all curtailed and interrupted

Transmission Customers at the same

time.

(f) Posting Transmission Service

Schedules Information. Information on

transmission service schedules must be

recorded by the entity scheduling the

transmission service and must be

available on the OASIS for download.

Transmission service schedules must be

posted no later than seven calendar days

from the start of the transmission

service.

(g) Posting Other TransmissionRelated Communications. (1) The

posting of other communications related

to transmission services must be

provided for by the Responsible Party.

These communications may include

‘‘want ads’’ and ‘‘other

communications’’ (such as using the

OASIS as a Transmission-related

conference space or to provide

transmission-related messaging services

between OASIS users). Such postings

carry no obligation to respond on the

part of any market participant.

(2) The Responsible Party is

responsible for posting other

transmission-related communications in

conformance with the instructions

provided by the third party on whose

behalf the communication is posted. It

is the responsibility of the third party

requesting such a posting to ensure the

accuracy of the information to be

posted.

(3) Notices of transfers of personnel

shall be posted as described in

§ 37.4(b)(2).

§ 37.7 Auditing Transmission Service

Information.

(a) All OASIS database transactions,

except other transmission-related

communications provided for under

§ 37.6(g)(2), must be stored, dated, and

time stamped.

(b) Audit data must remain available

for download on the OASIS for 90 days.

The audit data are to be retained and

made available upon request for three

years from the date when they are first

posted.

§ 37.8 Implementation schedule for OASIS

requirements; phases.

Each Transmission Provider must

develop or participate in an OASIS that

meets the requirements of this part and

that is in operation by November 1,

1996. Each Transmission Provider must

be in compliance with the standards of

conduct prescribed in § 37.4 by

November 1, 1996.

[NOTE: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

ATTACHMENT 1.—LIST OF COMMENTERS TO RIN NOPR

Number Commenter name Abbreviation

1 ................................. ABB Systems Control ........................................................................................... (ABB)

2 ................................. Allegheny Power Service Corporation .................................................................. (Allegheny)

3 ................................. American Electric Power ...................................................................................... (AEP)

4 ................................. American Public Power Association ..................................................................... (APPA)

5 ................................. City of Anaheim, CA ............................................................................................. (Anaheim)

6 ................................. Arizona Public Service Company ......................................................................... (Arizona)

7 ................................. Bangor Hydro-Electric Company .......................................................................... (Bangor)

8 ................................. Basin Electric Power Cooperative ........................................................................ (Basin EC)

9 ................................. Bonneville Power Administration .......................................................................... (BPA)

10 ............................... California PUC ...................................................................................................... (CA Com)

11 ............................... Carolina Power & Light Company ........................................................................ (Carolina P&L)

12 ............................... Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp ................................................................... (Central Hudson)

13 ............................... Central Illinois Public Service Company .............................................................. (Central Illinois Public Service)

14 ............................... CINergy Corporation ............................................................................................. (CINergy)

15 ............................... Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market .......................................................... (CCEM)

16 ............................... Colorado Springs Utilities ..................................................................................... (CSU)

17 ............................... Commonwealth Edison Company ........................................................................ (Com Ed)

18 ............................... Consolidated Edison Company ............................................................................ (ConEd)
21768 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

[NOTE: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

ATTACHMENT 1.—LIST OF COMMENTERS TO RIN NOPR

Number Commenter name Abbreviation

19 ............................... Consumers Power Company ................................................................................ (Consumers Power)

20 ............................... Continental Power Exchange ............................................................................... (Continental Power Exchange)

21 ............................... CSW Companies .................................................................................................. (CSW)

22 ............................... Dayton Power and Light Company ...................................................................... (Dayton P&L)

23 ............................... Detroit Edison Company ....................................................................................... (Detroit Edison)

24 ............................... Duke Power Company .......................................................................................... (Duke)

25 ............................... Edison Electric Institute ........................................................................................ (EEI)

26 ............................... El Paso Electric Company .................................................................................... (El Paso)

27 ............................... Electric Generation Association ............................................................................ (EGA)

28 ............................... Electric Reliability Council of Texas ..................................................................... (ERCOT)

29 ............................... Entergy Services, Inc ............................................................................................ (Entergy)

30 ............................... Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group .......................................................... (Florida CG)

31 ............................... Florida Power Corporation .................................................................................... (Florida Power Corp)

32 ............................... Florida PSC .......................................................................................................... (FL Com)

33 ............................... Fuel Managers Association .................................................................................. (Fuel Managers)

34 ............................... ‘‘How’’ Industry Working Group (EPRI) ................................................................ (How Group)

35 ............................... Idaho Power Company ......................................................................................... (Idaho)

36 ............................... Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ................................................................. (IN Com)

37 ............................... Indianapolis Power & Light Company .................................................................. (Indianapolis P&L)

38 ............................... Klein, Stanley A .................................................................................................... (Klein)

39 ............................... Long Island Lighting Company ............................................................................. (LILCO)

40 ............................... Madison Gas and Electric Company .................................................................... (Madison G&E)

41 ............................... Maine Public Service Company ........................................................................... (Maine Public Service)

42 ............................... MidAmerican Energy Company ............................................................................ (MidAmerican)

43 ............................... Mid-Continent Area Power Pool ........................................................................... (MAPP)

44 ............................... Minnesota Power & Light Company ..................................................................... (Minnesota P&L)

45 ............................... Missouri Public Service Commission ................................................................... (MO & AK Com’s)

46 ............................... Montana Power Company .................................................................................... (Montana Power)

47 ............................... National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners .................................. (NARUC)

48 ............................... National Independent Energy Producers ............................................................. (NIEP)

49 ............................... National Rural Electric Cooperative Association .................................................. (NRECA)

50 ............................... Nebraska Public Power District ............................................................................ (NE Public Power District)

51 ............................... New England Power Pool ..................................................................................... (NEPOOL)

52 ............................... New York Mercantile Exchange ........................................................................... (NYMEX)

53 ............................... New York Power Pool .......................................................................................... (NYPP)

54 ............................... New York State Electric & Gas Corp ................................................................... (NYSEG)

55 ............................... New York State PSC ............................................................................................ (NY Com)

56 ............................... NorAm Energy Services, Inc ................................................................................ (NorAm)

57 ............................... North American Electric Reliability Council .......................................................... (NERC)

58 ............................... North Carolina Electric Membership Corp ............................................................ (NCEMC)

59 ............................... Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc ........................................................... (NTEC)

60 ............................... Northeast Utilities .................................................................................................. (NU)

61 ............................... Northern States Power Companies ...................................................................... (NSP)

62 ............................... Nucor Corporation ................................................................................................ (Nucor)

63 ............................... Oak Ridge National Lab, Energy Division ............................................................ (Oak Ridge)

64 ............................... Ohio Edison Company .......................................................................................... (Ohio Edison)

65 ............................... Ohio PUC .............................................................................................................. (Ohio Com)

66 ............................... Oklahoma Corporation Commission ..................................................................... (OK Com)

67 ............................... Oklahoma Gas & Electric ..................................................................................... (Oklahoma G&E)

68 ............................... Omaha Public Power District ................................................................................ (Omaha PPD)

69 ............................... Ontario Hydro ....................................................................................................... (Ontario Hydro)

70 ............................... Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc ....................................................................... (Orange & Rockland)

71 ............................... Oregon Trail Electric Consumers Cooperative ..................................................... (Oregon EC)

72 ............................... Otter Tail Power Company ................................................................................... (Otter Tail)

73 ............................... Pacific Gas and Electric Company ....................................................................... (PG&E)

74 ............................... PacifiCorp ............................................................................................................. (PacifiCorp)

75 ............................... Pennsylvania—New Jersey—Maryland Power Pool ............................................ (PJM)

76 ............................... Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ............................................................... (PA Com)

77 ............................... Public Generating Pool ......................................................................................... (Public Generating Pool)

78 ............................... Public Service Company of New Mexico ............................................................. (PSNM)

79 ............................... Sacramento Municipal Utility District .................................................................... (SMUD)

80 ............................... Salt River Project .................................................................................................. (Salt River)

81 ............................... San Diego Gas & Electric Company .................................................................... (San Diego G&E)

82 ............................... Seattle City Light .................................................................................................. (Seattle)

83 ............................... Services-Oriented Open Network Technologies, Inc. .......................................... (SONETECH)

84 ............................... Sierra Pacific Power Company ............................................................................. (Sierra)

85 ............................... South Carolina Electric & Gas Company ............................................................. (SCE&G)

86 ............................... South Carolina Public Service Authority .............................................................. (SC Public Service Authority)

87 ............................... Southern California Edison Company .................................................................. (SoCal Edison)

88 ............................... Southern Company Services, Inc ......................................................................... (Southern)

89 ............................... Southwest Transmission Dependent Utility Group ............................................... (Southwest TDU Group)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21769

[NOTE: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

ATTACHMENT 1.—LIST OF COMMENTERS TO RIN NOPR

Number Commenter name Abbreviation

90 ............................... Southwestern Public Service Company ............................................................... (Southwestern)

91 ............................... Sunflower Electric Power Cooperative ................................................................. (Sunflower)

92 ............................... City of Tallahassee, FL ......................................................................................... (Tallahassee)

93 ............................... Tampa Electric Company ..................................................................................... (Tampa)

94 ............................... Tennessee Valley Authority .................................................................................. (TVA)

95 ............................... Texas Utilities Electric Company .......................................................................... (Texas Utilities)

96 ............................... Transmission Access Policy Study Group ........................................................... (TAPS)

97 ............................... Tucson Power Electric Power Company .............................................................. (Tucson Power)

98 ............................... Union Electric Company ....................................................................................... (Union Electric)

99 ............................... United Illuminating Company ................................................................................ (United Illuminating)

100 ............................. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research ..................................... (DOE)

101 ............................. UTC, The Telecommunications Association ........................................................ (UTC)

102 ............................. Virginia Electric and Power Company .................................................................. (VEPCO)

103 ............................. Western Group ..................................................................................................... (Western Group)

104 ............................. Wisconsin Power & Light ...................................................................................... (WP&L)

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
21770 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21771
21772 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21773
21774 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21775
21776 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21777
21778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21779
21780 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21781
21782 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21783
21784 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21785
21786 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21787
21788 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21789
21790 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21791
21792 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21793
21794 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21795
21796 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21797
21798 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21799
21800 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21801
21802 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21803
21804 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21805
21806 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21807
21808 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21809
21810 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21811
21812 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21813
21814 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21815
21816 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21817
21818 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21819
21820 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21821
21822 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21823
21824 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21825
21826 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21827
21828 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21829
21830 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21831
21832 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21833
21834 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21835
21836 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21837
21838 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21839
21840 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21841
21842 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21843
21844 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21845
21846 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 96–10693 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C