Document ID: FERC-2009-1742-0002
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Rule
Title: Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers
Posted Date: 2010-04-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 20909-20913]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-3]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 358

[Docket No. RM07-1-002; Order No. 717-C]

 
Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers

Issued April 16, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order on Rehearing and Clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued 
Order No. 717-A to address requests for rehearing and make clearer the 
Standards of Conduct as implemented by Order No. 717. The Commission 
issued Order No. 717-B to address expedited requests for rehearing and 
clarification concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A and whether an 
employee who is not making business decisions about contract non-price 
terms and conditions is considered a ``marketing function employee.'' 
This order addresses additional requests for rehearing and 
clarification concerning Order No. 717-A.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective July 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Tao, Office of the General 
Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, 
Philip D. Moeller, and John R. Norris.

Order on Rehearing and Clarification

I. Introduction

    1. On October 16, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 717 
amending the Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers (the 
Standards of Conduct or the Standards) to make them clearer and to 
refocus the rules on the areas where there is the greatest potential 
for abuse.\1\ On October 15, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 717-
A to address requests for rehearing and clarification of Order No. 717, 
largely affirming the reforms adopted in Order No. 717.\2\ On November 
16, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 717-B to address expedited 
requests for rehearing and clarification concerning paragraph 80 of 
Order No. 717-A and whether an employee who is not making business 
decisions about contract non-price terms and conditions is considered a 
``marketing function employee.'' \3\ In this order, the Commission 
grants additional clarification concerning matters petitioners raised 
regarding the Commission's determinations in Order No. 717-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 
717, 73 FR 63796 (Oct. 27, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,280 
(2008) (Order No. 717).
    \2\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 
717-A, 74 FR 54463 (Oct. 22, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,297 
(2009) (Order No. 717-A).
    \3\  Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No. 
717-B, 74 FR 60153 (Nov. 20, 2009), 129 FERC ] 61,123 (Nov. 16, 
2009) (Order No. 717-B). On October 30, 2009, EEI filed a request 
for expedited clarification of a single issue addressed in Order No. 
717-A. The Commission determined that it should address this issue 
expeditiously even though the time allowed under the regulations for 
filing rehearing requests had not yet expired. For this reason, the 
Commission issued Order No. 717-B on November 16, 2009, in which it 
addressed a single clarification request of EEI, Western Utilities, 
Otter Tail and Central Vermont. All other timely requests for 
rehearing, i.e. those filed by November 16, 2009, are addressed in 
this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requests for Clarification and/or Rehearing

    2. Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Transmission Dependent Utility 
Systems (TDUS), Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Associated Electric 
Cooperative (AEC), Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric), 
Xcel Energy Services (Xcel), E.ON U.S., Avista Corporation (Avista), 
the American Public Gas Association (APGA) and Western Utilities \4\ 
filed requests for clarification, or in the alternative, requests for 
rehearing. The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-
State) filed in support of the NRECA's request. The Electric Power 
Supply Association (EPSA) filed a motion for leave to answer and an 
answer to Western Utilities' request for clarification and 
rehearing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Western Utilities is comprised of Arizona Public Service 
Company, Avista Corporation, El Paso Electric Company, Idaho Power 
Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PacifiCorp, Portland 
General Electric Company, Puget Sound Energy, Southern California 
Edison Company, and Tucson Electric Power Company.
    \5\ EPSA objects to Western Utilities' characterization of its 
filing as a request for clarification.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 20910]]

III. Discussion

A. Procedural Matters

    3. Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure \6\ prohibits an answer to a request for rehearing unless 
otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. We will accept the 
EPSA's answer to Western Utilities' motion for clarification and/or 
request for rehearing because it provided information that assisted us 
in our decision-making process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Independent Functioning Rule

i. Transmission Function Employees
    4. In paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission clarified 
that personnel engaged in granting or denying transmission service 
requests are transmission function employees because the act of 
granting or denying transmission service requests is an integral part 
of ``planning, directing, organizing or carrying out of day-to-day 
transmission operations.'' \7\ The Commission then elaborated in this 
paragraph that the term ``transmission function employee'' includes 
``an employee responsible for performing system impact studies or 
determining whether the transmission system can support the requested 
services as this type of employee is planning, directing, organizing or 
carrying out the day-to-day transmission operations.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Order No. 717-A at P 27.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    5. EEI, Western Utilities, Xcel, Avista and Basin Electric argue 
that paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A overruled paragraph 147 of Order 
No. 717 in which the Commission stated that so long as the preparation 
of system impact studies ``do[es] not implicate the day-to-day 
operation of the transmission system, they are not transmission 
functions.'' \9\ The parties request that the Commission reconsider its 
statement in Order No. 717-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order No. 717 at P 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Western Utilities argues that in many instances, system impact 
studies have nothing to do with day-to-day operations of the 
transmission system. Western Utilities states that some studies are 
used to assess whether any additional costs may be incurred in order to 
provide the requested transmission service. Western Utilities further 
states that where such studies are required, they trigger the process 
for determining the modifications needed to provide the service at some 
future date and, thus, are not day-to-day transmission operations. 
Western Utilities requests that the Commission clarify that studies 
related to determining the upgrades necessary to the transmission 
system to provide service, including system impact studies, do not 
qualify as Transmission Function activities, because they fall under 
the category of ``long-range planning.''
    7. EPSA responds to Western Utilities' argument by stating that 
transmission system impact studies do have an impact on day-to-day 
transmission operations as these studies provide significant insight 
into non-public development plans of market participants and 
opportunities for additional investments and that these studies are a 
core function of transmission providers.
    8. Avista states that studies related to interconnection requests, 
which identify interconnection facilities needed to interconnect a new 
generator as an energy resource or network resource, do not convey any 
rights to deliver electricity to any specific customer or point of 
delivery and do not implicate the day-to-day operation of the 
transmission system.
    9. In the event that the Commission does not grant the requested 
clarification, Basin Electric asks the Commission to extend the date 
for compliance with paragraph 27 to 90 days after the date of this 
order.
    Commission Determination:
    10. We deny the requests to reconsider paragraph 27 in Order No. 
717-A. The Commission finds that paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A is not 
inconsistent with the Commission's findings in paragraph 147 of Order 
No. 717. In essence, certain protestors argue that the Commission's 
finding in Order No. 717-A that a ``transmission function employee'' 
includes an employee responsible for performing system impact studies 
is inconsistent with the Commission's finding in Order No. 717 that so 
long as the preparation of system impact studies ``do[es[ not implicate 
the day-to-day operation of the transmission system, they are not 
transmission functions.'' \10\ In order to reconcile these seemingly 
inconsistent statements, these Commission findings must be viewed in 
the context of the protestors' requests for clarification. 
Specifically, in Order No. 717 and Order No. 717-A, the Commission 
determined whether system impact studies performed pursuant to narrowly 
described fact scenarios would lead to a grant or denial of 
transmission service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. See also Order No. 717-A at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. In paragraph 147 of Order No. 717, we granted a request for 
clarification from Idaho Power Company that asked whether long-range 
planning functions such as integrated resource planning and preparation 
of system impact studies are transmission functions. The Commission 
stated that ``so long as these activities do not implicate the day-to-
day operation of the transmission system, they are not transmission 
functions.'' \11\ Thus, Order No. 717 responded to a narrow request for 
clarification concerning integrated resource planning and the conduct 
of system impact studies for long-range planning.\12\ The Commission 
did not state in Order No. 717 that the conduct of system impact 
studies is at all times a long-range planning function, but only 
recognized that, in some cases, the preparation of system impact 
studies might not implicate the day-to-day operation of the 
transmission system. The protestors are simply incorrect in their 
assertion that the Commission found in Order No. 717 that preparation 
of a system impact study can never be considered a transmission 
function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Order No. 717 at P 147.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Similarly, in paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission 
granted another narrow request for clarification, which asked whether 
transmission function employees include just the employees who post on 
the OASIS that a particular request has been granted or denied or also 
those employees who are responsible for performing the underlying 
system impact studies or otherwise determining whether the transmission 
system can support the requested services.\13\ In response, the 
Commission first clarified that personnel engaged in granting or 
denying transmission service requests are transmission function 
employees because the act of granting or denying transmission service 
requests is an integral part of ``planning, directing, organizing or 
carrying out of day-to-day transmission operations'' \14\ and then 
elaborated, in response to the second part of the clarification request 
that the term ``transmission function employee'' includes an employee 
responsible for performing system impact studies or determining whether 
the transmission system can support the requested services because the 
act of granting or denying transmission service requests is an integral 
part of ``carrying out of day-to-day transmission operations.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Order No. 717-A at P 26.
    \14\ Id. P 27.
    \15\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 20911]]

    13. While the language in paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A could 
have been more artfully worded, the Commission in this paragraph 
intended to clarify that, in the context of an employee conducting a 
system impact study to determine whether a transmission system can 
support a transmission service request, such an employee's act of 
performing a system impact study would necessarily classify that 
employee as a ``transmission function employee.'' The Commission 
intended the clarification in this paragraph to apply only to the 
situation in which an employee conducts a system impact study to 
determine whether a transmission system can support a transmission 
service request, and not to every situation in which an employee 
conducts a system impact study.
    14. In making the clarification in paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, 
the Commission focused on the Sec.  358.3(h) definition of 
``transmission function'' as the ``* * * carrying out of day-to-day 
transmission operations, including the granting and denying of 
transmission service requests.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 18 CFR 358.3(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. EEI argues that ``it is the tests that determine whether 
transmission is available, not the testers.'' \17\ As such, EEI 
contends that performing a system impact study is not day-to-day 
control over the operation of the transmission system.\18\ While a 
``tester'' may not make the determination to grant or deny transmission 
service, EEI's argument ignores the fact that it is the knowledge that 
an employee obtains while conducting a system impact study in response 
to a transmission service request that could be used to favor an 
affiliate over its competition. For this reason, we find that a 
``tester'' who grants and denies transmission service requests by 
disclosing the results of a test is engaging in ``transmission 
functions'' as defined in Sec.  358.3(h).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EEI Nov. 16, 2009 Request for Clarification at 4.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ 18 CFR 358.3(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. However, we clarify that a system impact study performed 
pursuant to a request for energy resource interconnection service or 
network resource interconnection service is similar to long-range 
planning and therefore not a transmission function, because the focus 
of such a study is to determine the impact of the proposed 
interconnection on the safety and reliability of the transmission 
provider's transmission system, but without conveying a right to 
transmission service.\20\ Accordingly, we find that the performance of 
a system impact study in the context of evaluating an energy resource 
interconnection service and network resource interconnection service is 
not a transmission function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection 
Agreements and Procedures, Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,146 (2003) (Order No. 2003), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-A, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,160, order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,171 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, 
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of 
Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007); 
see also Notice Clarifying Compliance Procedures, 106 FERC ] 61,009 
(2004). In Order No. 2003 at P 767, the Commission stated the 
following: ``Both Energy Resource Interconnection Service and 
Network Resource Interconnection Service provide for the 
construction of Network Upgrades that would allow the 
Interconnection Customer to flow the output of its Generating 
Facility onto the Transmission Provider's Transmission System in a 
safe and reliable manner. However, * * * neither Energy Resource 
Interconnection Service nor Network Resource Interconnection Service 
in and of itself conveys the right to do so. Moreover, neither type 
of Interconnection Service constitutes a reservation of transmission 
capacity. The Interconnection Customer, load or other market 
participant would have to request either point-to-point or Network 
Integration Transmission Service under the Transmission Provider's 
OATT in order to receive the delivery service that is a prerequisite 
to flowing power onto the system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Similarly, we find that the performance of a system impact 
study that is not a part of day-to-day transmission operations and 
performed solely to determine the transmission system upgrades 
necessary to provide service is a part of long-range planning. 
Accordingly, we clarify that a system impact study performed solely to 
assess what, if any, additional costs may be incurred in order to 
provide transmission service is not a transmission function so long as 
the performance of this system impact study is not carried out as part 
of day-to-day transmission operations, including the granting or 
denying of transmission service.
    18. In light of the Commission's denial of the requests to 
reconsider paragraph 27 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission grants Basin 
Electric's request to extend the date of compliance with paragraph 27 
of Order No. 717-A to ninety (90) days after the date of this order.
ii. Marketing Functions
    19. In Order No. 717-A, we clarified in paragraph 40 that ``if an 
employee of a generation and transmission cooperative simply serves 
retail load and does not engage in activities included in the 
`marketing functions' definition in Sec.  358.3, then this employee is 
not a `marketing function employee'.''
    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    20. TAPS requests clarification that a generation and transmission 
cooperative's sales to its distribution cooperative members and a 
municipal joint action agency's sales to its municipal distribution 
utility members are analogous to a vertically integrated utility's 
retail sales function and, therefore, the employees of a generation and 
transmission cooperative, as well as the employees of a municipal joint 
action agency are not ``marketing function'' employees for the purposes 
of the Standards of Conduct. Similarly, TDUS, NRECA, Tri-State, AEC and 
Basin Electric request clarification that wholesale sales of electric 
energy and capacity by generation and transmission electric 
cooperatives to their distribution cooperative members do not fall 
within the scope of marketing functions. TAPS argues that paragraph 40 
of Order No. 717-A creates ambiguity. TAPS states that generation and 
transmission cooperatives are not technically ``serv[ing] retail 
load.'' TAPS further argues that because generation and transmission 
cooperatives are engaged in functions almost identical to serving 
retail load, there is an ambiguity between what it thinks the 
Commission intended to state and the language in Order No. 717-A.
    Commission Determination:
    21. We will grant the requested clarification regarding generation 
and transmission cooperatives. In Order No. 888-A, the Commission 
clarified that if a distribution cooperative sought open access 
transmission service from a Transmission Provider, only that specific 
distribution cooperative, not its member distribution cooperatives, 
would be required to offer transmission service. The Commission 
determined that generation and transmission cooperatives were not 
affiliates of their distribution cooperatives for purposes of 
application of the ``reciprocal transmission requirement'' of Order No. 
888.\21\ Subsequently, in Order No. 2004-A, we stated that generation 
and transmission cooperatives are not subject to the Standards of 
Conduct consistent with the policies established under Order No. 
888.\22\ We find that the adoption of the employee functional approach 
in the Standards of Conduct does not warrant a change in our treatment 
of G&T cooperatives. Therefore, we clarify that sales of power by 
generation and transmission

[[Page 20912]]

cooperatives to their member generation and transmission cooperatives 
or to their member distribution cooperatives do not constitute 
marketing functions under the Standards of Conduct. Similarly, a 
municipal joint action agency, which is a public agency that provides 
power to its municipal member-owners, does not perform a marketing 
function when selling power to those members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 
July 1996-December 2000 ] 31,048 at 30,366.
    \22\ Order No. 2004-A at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Marketing Function Employees
    22. In paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A, the Commission stated the 
following:

    The Commission clarifies that an employee in the legal, finance 
or regulatory division of a jurisdictional entity, whose 
intermittent day-to-day duties include the drafting and redrafting 
of non-price terms and conditions of, or exemptions to, umbrella 
agreements is a ``marketing function employee.'' ``Marketing 
functions'' are not limited to only price terms and conditions of a 
contract, because non-price terms and conditions of a contract could 
contain information that an affiliate could use to its advantage. 
For example, delivery or hub locations in a contract are non-price 
terms that could be used to favor an affiliate. In addition, 
negotiated terms and conditions could affect the substantive rights 
of the parties. For this reason, we decline to make a generic 
finding to limit ``marketing functions'' to only price terms and 
conditions, but will consider waiver requests concerning an employee 
whose intermittent duties involve drafting non-price terms and 
conditions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Order No. 717-A at P 80.

    23. In Order No. 717-B, the Commission granted limited rehearing 
and clarification to address expedited clarification requests regarding 
paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A. Specifically, the Commission stated 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the following:

    The Commission clarifies that the language in paragraph 80 of 
Order No. 717-A was overly broad. The Commission further clarifies 
that we intended to state in paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A that an 
employee making business decisions about non-price terms and 
conditions can be considered a ``marketing function employee'' 
because that employee is actively and personally engaged in 
marketing functions. However, an employee who simply drafts or 
redrafts a contract, including non-price terms and conditions, 
without making business decisions is not a ``marketing function 
employee.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Order No. 717-B at P 6.

    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    24. Several additional parties have requested clarification 
regarding paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A since the issuance of Order 
No. 717-B, but have raised the same issues as those addressed in Order 
No. 717-B. Xcel also requests clarification that enterprise risk 
management employees may provide risk management services to both the 
wholesale sales function and the transmission function of a vertically 
integrated and/or combination utility, subject to the No Conduit Rule, 
and consistent with Order No. 717.
    Commission Determination:
    25. Since the Commission has already addressed the arguments 
concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A in Order No. 717-B, we find 
that the requests for clarification regarding paragraph 80 of Order No. 
717-A have been rendered moot. Similarly, we also find that the 
Commission's determinations in Order No. 717-B render Xcel's request 
for clarification moot. Xcel's concern regarding the application of the 
Standards of Conduct to its risk management employees stems from its 
interpretation of paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A. However, in Order 
No. 717-B, the Commission clarified that it did not intend to depart 
from the conclusions in paragraph 131 of Order No. 717. In paragraph 
131, which the Commission reiterated in Order No. 717-B, we expressly 
stated that ``a risk management employee may develop risk guidelines 
for both transmission function employees and marketing function 
employees.'' \25\ Accordingly, the Commission finds that these requests 
for rehearing concerning paragraph 80 of Order No. 717-A have been 
rendered moot.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Order No. 717 at P 131.
    \26\ We note that risk management employees remain subject to 
the No Conduit Rule, and are prohibited from providing transmission 
function information to marketing function employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Long-Range Planning, Procurement and Other Interactions
    26. In Order No. 717-A, the Commission stated that ``meetings 
including both transmission function and marketing function employees 
are not barred under the Standards of Conduct as long as the meetings 
do not relate to transmission or marketing functions.'' \27\ The 
Commission also noted that the No Conduit Rule \28\ still applies to 
these meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Order No. 717-A at P 89.
    \28\ 18 CFR 358.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requests for Rehearing and Clarification:
    27. E.ON U.S. is concerned that paragraph 89 and paragraph 90 of 
Order No. 717-A could act as a blanket prohibition on any meeting or 
communication between marketing and transmission function employees in 
which non-public transmission function information is discussed. E.ON 
U.S. requests clarification that the Commission did not eliminate 
certain exemptions in Sec.  358.7 or the meetings in which information 
shared under these exemptions occurs. Specifically, E.ON U.S. notes the 
``specific transaction information'' exemption in Sec.  358.7(b); \29\ 
the exemption allowing discussion of compliance information relating to 
Reliability Standards approved by the Commission in Sec.  
358.7(h)(2)(i); \30\ and the exemption allowing discussion of 
information necessary to restore operation of the transmission system 
or that may affect dispatch of generating units in Sec.  
358.7(h)(2)(ii).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 18 CFR 358.7(b).
    \30\ 18 CFR 358.7(h)(2)(i).
    \31\ 18 CFR 358.7(h)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Determination:
    28. We grant E.ON U.S.'s request for clarification and confirm that 
the Commission did not intend to limit or eliminate the exemptions in 
Sec.  358.7. We note that employees remain subject to the No Conduit 
Rule, and are prohibited from providing transmission function 
information to marketing function employees.
v. Seller's Own Production or Gathering or Processing Facilities
    29. In Order No. 717-A, the Commission denied the request of APGA 
to eliminate the exclusion for sales of natural gas solely from a 
seller's own production and from a seller's own gathering or processing 
facilities from the definition of ``marketing function.'' \32\ The 
Commission also noted that section 4 of the Natural Gas Act prohibits a 
pipeline from granting any undue preference or advantage to any person 
or subjecting any person to any undue prejudice or disadvantage.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Order No. 717-A at PP 55-58.
    \33\ Id. P 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Request for Clarification or Rehearing:
    30. APGA requests that the Commission clarify that, notwithstanding 
any exemption from the Standards of Conduct, a natural gas transmission 
provider's disclosure of non-public transmission function information 
to its gas sales employees or those affiliated producers, gatherers and 
processors constitutes the granting of an ``undue preference or 
advantage'' under section 4 of the Natural Gas Act. APGA argues that 
``the Commission is obligated under the Act `to prevent discrimination 
against shippers who must depend on monopolistic pipelines for 
transportation,' and the disclosure of non-public transmission function 
information by pipelines to their sales employees and those of its 
affiliates clearly constitutes improper favoritism.'' Accordingly, APGA 
asks that if the

[[Page 20913]]

Commission declines to grant the requested clarification, then it 
should grant rehearing on this issue and on rehearing amend Order No. 
717-A to state that such disclosure is unlawful.
    Commission Determination:
    31. We deny APGA's request for clarification or rehearing of Order 
No. 717-A. The Commission previously denied APGA's request for 
rehearing in Order No. 717-A and affirmed the adoption of the exclusion 
in Order No. 717. Now, for the first time, APGA asks that the 
Commission adopt a per se rule that, notwithstanding any exclusion, a 
natural gas transmission provider's disclosure of non-public 
transmission function information to its gas sales employees or its 
affiliated producers, gatherers and processors constitutes the granting 
of an ``undue preference or advantage'' under section 4 of the Natural 
Gas Act. As an initial matter, we note that APGA raises this request 
for rehearing for the first time in this proceeding. We have held 
repeatedly that it is inappropriate for a protestor to raise new issues 
in a request for rehearing because this practice is disruptive to the 
administrative process and denies parties the opportunity to 
respond.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 91 FERC ] 61,270, at 
61,922 (2000); Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 92 FERC ] 61,043, 
at 61,114 (2000); New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 97 
FERC ] 61,006, at 61,015 (2001); Carolina Power & Light Company, 106 
FERC ] 61,141, at P 15 (2004); CARE v. Calpine Energy Services, LP, 
107 FERC ] 61,238, at P 7 (2004); PJM Interconnection, LLC, 126 FERC 
] 61,030, at P 15 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. We also find that APGA's request for clarification or rehearing 
is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Although APGA describes its 
filing as a request for clarification or rehearing of Order No. 717-A, 
in fact, APGA requests that the Commission clarify section 4 of the 
Natural Gas Act.\35\ The appropriate forum to raise this request for an 
interpretation of section 4 of the Natural Gas Act would be in either a 
complaint proceeding or a petition for declaratory order. Accordingly, 
we deny APGA's request for clarification or rehearing in this 
proceeding concerning section 4 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. Sec.  717c (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Although we deny APGA's request for rehearing and 
clarification, we note that the exclusion must be read in the context 
of the whole of the Standards of Conduct. For example, section 358.2(a) 
of the Commission's regulations specifies that ``A transmission 
provider must treat all transmission customers, affiliated and non-
affiliated, on a non-discriminatory basis and must not make or grant 
any undue preference or advantage to any person or subject any person 
to any undue prejudice or disadvantage with respect to any 
transportation of natural gas. * * *'', while section 358.2(d) further 
provides that ``A transmission provider must provide equal access to 
non-public transmission function information to all its transmission 
customers, affiliated and non-affiliated, except in the case of 
confidential customer information or Critical Energy Infrastructure 
Information.''

IV. Document Availability

    34. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's 
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    35. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is 
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket 
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket 
number field.
    36. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at 
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

V. Effective Date

    37. Changes to Order No. 717-A adopted in this order on rehearing 
and clarification are effective July 21, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9264 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P