Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, 63288-63307 [E9-28619]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63288
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF GUIDANCE FOR CERTAIN FSLS—Continued
The FSL identified in
Lockheed Service Bulletin
093–28–098, Revision 1,
dated January 22, 2008, in
paragraph—
Refers to Lockheed Service Bulletin—
For—
2.B.(1)(e) ..............................
093–28–095, dated September 13, 2006 .......................
2.B.(1)(f) ...............................
093–28–096, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2006 ..............
2.B.(1)(g) ..............................
093–28–097, dated August 3, 2006 ...............................
Inspecting the airplane fuel tanks and vent boxes for
cleanliness and evidence of deteriorated or damaged
fuel/vent tubes and components; inspecting bonding
jumpers for proper installation, corrosion, frayed or
broken strands, and the condition of the environmental sealing or bonding clamps and hardware; correcting any discrepant conditions; adding bonding
jumpers to the fuel/vent tube fittings; and inspecting
the bonding jumpers on the fuel/vent tube fittings.
Inspecting the wiring harnesses of the No. 1 and No. 3
engine tank valves for evidence of damage and fuel
contamination; replacing any damaged wire with new
wire; and repairing or replacing any contaminated
wires as applicable.
Identifying the wiring harnesses for the fuel quantity indicator system (FQIS); inspecting the FQIS wiring
harnesses for any visible damage, wear, chafing, or
indications of electrical arcing; and replacing or repairing any damaged wires as applicable.
No Reporting Requirement
(i) Although Lockheed Service Bulletin
093–28–095, dated September 13, 2006;
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–28–096,
Revision 2, dated June 23, 2006; and
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093–28–097,
dated August 3, 2006; specify to notify
Lockheed of any discrepancies found during
inspection or any evidence of damage or wire
replacement, this AD does not require that
action.
No Alternative Inspections, Inspection
Intervals, or CDCCLs
(j) After accomplishing the actions
specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD,
no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the
inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are
approved as an AMOC in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of
this AD.
New Information
Explanation of CDCCL Requirements
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Note 5: Notwithstanding any other
maintenance or operational requirements,
components that have been identified as
airworthy or installed on the affected
airplanes before the revision of the FAAapproved maintenance program, as required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not need to
be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs.
However, once the FAA-approved
maintenance program has been revised,
future maintenance actions on these
components must be done in accordance
with the CDCCLs.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(k)(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Robert Bosak,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch,
ACE–118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404)
474–5583; fax (404) 474–5606.
(2) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin
093–28–098, Revision 1, dated January 22,
2008, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
previously approved the incorporation by
reference of this service information on June
25, 2008 (73 FR 29410 May 21, 2008).
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Lockheed Continued
Airworthiness Project Office, Attention
Airworthiness, 86 South Cobb Drive,
Marietta, Georgia 30063–0567; telephone
770–494–5444; fax 770–494–5445; e-mail
ams.portal@lmco.com; Internet https://
www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/
TechPubs.html.
(3) You may review copies of the service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152.
(4) You may also review copies of the
service information that is incorporated by
reference at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October
26, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9–28301 Filed 12–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 38
[Docket No. RM05–5–013; Order No. 676–
E]
Standards for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public
Utilities
Issued November 24, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
revising its regulations to incorporate by
reference in its regulations at 18 CFR
38.2 the latest version (Version 002.1) of
certain business practice standards
adopted by the Wholesale Electric
Quadrant of the North American Energy
Standards Board (NAESB). NAESB’s
Version 002.1 Standards include
standards adopted by NAESB in
response to Order Nos. 890, 890–A, and
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
890–B. The Version 002.1 Standards we
are incorporating by reference in this
Final Rule modify NAESB’s Commercial
Timing Table (WEQ–004 Appendix D)
and Transmission Loading Relief
Standards (WEQ–008) to provide clarity
and align NAESB’s business practice
standards with the reliability standards
adopted by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, and amend
certain ancillary services definitions
appearing in the Open Access SameTime Information Systems Standards
(WEQ–001) relating to the inclusion of
demand response resources as potential
providers of ancillary services.
Incorporating these revised standards by
reference into the Commission’s
regulations will provide customers with
information that will enable them to
obtain transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis and will assist the
Commission in supporting needed
infrastructure and the reliability of the
interstate transmission grid.
DATES: Effective Date: This Final Rule
will become effective on January 4,
2010. Dates for implementation of the
standards are provided in the Final
Rule. The Director of the Federal
Register has approved the incorporation
by reference of the standards addressed
in the Final Rule effective January 4,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce McAllister (technical issues),
Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
63289
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8296.
Valerie Roth (technical issues), Office of
Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–8538.
Ryan M. Irwin (technical issues), Office
of Energy Policy and Innovation,
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
6454.
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of
the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–8321.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Paragraph
numbers
I. Background ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
II. Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................................
B. Issues Raised by Commenters ....................................................................................................................................................
1. Available Transfer Capability-Related Standards ..............................................................................................................
2. Conditional Firm Service Standards ...................................................................................................................................
3. Other Issues ..........................................................................................................................................................................
III. Implementation Dates and Procedures ............................................................................................................................................
A. Commission Determination .......................................................................................................................................................
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards ..........................................................................................................................
V. Information Collection Statement .....................................................................................................................................................
VI. Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification .........................................................................................................................................
VIII. Document Availability ...................................................................................................................................................................
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification ...............................................................................................................................
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) is amending
its regulations under the Federal Power
Act (FPA) 1 to incorporate by reference
the latest version (Version 002.1) of
certain business practice standards
adopted by the Wholesale Electric
Quadrant (WEQ) of the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB).
These revised standards update an
earlier version of the standards that the
Commission previously incorporated by
reference into its regulations at 18 CFR
38.2 in Order No. 676–C.2
2. The new and revised standards that
NAESB adopted in the Version 002.1
standards enable public utilities to
implement requirements of Order Nos.
890, 890–A, and 890–B.3 In addition,
1 16
U.S.C. 791a, et seq.
for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, Order
No. 676–C, FERC Stats. & Regs., ¶ 31,274 (2008),
order on clarification and reh’g, Order No. 676–D,
124 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2008).
3 Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007); order on reh’g,
Order No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
2 Standards
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
these standards modify the Commercial
Timing Table (WEQ–004 Appendix D)
and Transmission Loading Relief
Standards (WEQ–008) to provide clarity
and align NAESB’s business practice
standards with the reliability standards
adopted by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), and
amend certain ancillary services
definitions appearing in the Open
Access Same-Time Information Systems
(OASIS) Standards (WEQ–001) relating
to the inclusion of demand response
resources as potential providers of
ancillary services.4
I. Background
3. NAESB is a non-profit standards
development organization established in
January 2002 that serves as an industry
(2007); order on reh’g and clarification, Order No.
890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008).
4 The Version 002.1 Standards also revise the
Manual Time Error Correction Standards (WEQ–
006) to maintain consistency with revised NERC
Standard BAL–004, but we are not incorporating
this standard by reference because the
Commission’s consideration of the revised BAL–
004 is still pending. Thus, the earlier version of
WEQ–006 will remain in force.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3
10
10
18
18
57
83
122
126
131
132
142
144
146
149
forum for the development of business
practice standards that promote a
seamless marketplace for wholesale and
retail natural gas and electricity.5 Since
1995, NAESB and its predecessor, the
Gas Industry Standards Board, have
been accredited members of the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), complying with ANSI’s
requirements that its standards reflect a
consensus of the affected industries.6
4. NAESB’s standards include
business practices that streamline the
transactional processes of the natural
gas and electric industries, as well as
communication protocols and related
standards designed to improve the
efficiency of communication within
each industry. NAESB supports all four
quadrants of the gas and electric
industries—wholesale gas, wholesale
electric, retail gas, and retail electric. All
participants in the gas and electric
industries are eligible to join NAESB
5 See Standards for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public Utilities,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 32,612, at P 3 (2007) (Version 2.1 NOPR).
6 Id.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63290
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and participate in standards
development.7
5. NAESB’s procedures are designed
to ensure that all industry members can
have input into the development of a
standard, whether or not they are
members of NAESB, and each standard
NAESB adopts is supported by a
consensus of the six industry segments:
transmission, generation, marketer/
brokers, distribution/load serving
entities, end users, and independent
grid operators/planners. Under the WEQ
process, for a standard to be approved,
it must receive a super-majority vote of
67 percent of the members of the WEQ’s
Executive Committee with support from
at least 40 percent of each of the six
industry segments.8 For final approval,
67 percent of the WEQ’s general
membership must ratify the standards.9
6. On September 2, 2008, NAESB
reported to the Commission that its
WEQ Executive Committee had
approved Version 002.0 of its business
practice standards.10 NAESB states that
its leadership responded to Order Nos.
890, 890–A, and 890–B, by requesting
that its Electronic Scheduling
Subcommittee/Information Technology
Subcommittee (ESS/ITS) and its
Business Practice Subcommittee (BPS)
coordinate efforts to address the issues
raised by those orders. NAESB states
that the ESS/ITS and BPS worked in
close coordination with the pertinent
NERC committees to draft business
practice standards on Order No. 890
issues that complement the NERC
reliability standards related to these
issues, so that the standards for both
organizations would be consistent.11
7. On February 19, 2009, NAESB
notified the Commission that the WEQ
Executive Committee had approved its
Version 002.1 standards, which include
both new standards and modifications
to existing Version 002.0 standards.12
The Version 002.1 standards include
7 Id.
P 4.
NAESB’s procedures, interested persons
may attend and participate in NAESB committee
meetings, and phone conferences, even if they are
not NAESB members.
9 Version 2.1 NOPR, P 5.
10 See NAESB supplemental report dated Nov. 14,
2008.
11 The Commission is addressing the associated
reliability standards adopted by NERC in a
companion final rule being issued in Docket No.
RM08–19–000. Mandatory Reliability Standards for
the Calculation of Available Transfer Capability,
Capacity Benefit Margins, Transmission Reliability
Margins, Total Transfer Capability, and Existing
Transmission Commitments and Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs. 129 FERC ¶ 61,155
(ATC Final Rule).
12 On March 12, 2009, NAESB submitted a report
to the Commission documenting its ratification of
the Version 002.1 standards.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
8 Under
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
new standards related to capacity
benefit margin and rollover rights, and
were developed in response to Order
Nos. 890, 890–A, and 676–C. Additional
modifications included in the Version
002.1 standards include: (1)
Modifications to existing standards
pertaining to rollover rights; (2)
modifications to the Coordinate
Interchange Timing Tables contained in
Appendix D of the Coordinate
Interchange Standards (WEQ–004) to
clarify the differences in timing
requirements for the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council and all other
interconnections, complementary to the
NERC reliability standards; and (3)
modifications to the Transmission
Loading Relief—Eastern Interconnection
Standards (WEQ–008) to add clarity and
ensure that the business practice
standards are consistent with NERC
reliability standard IRO–006. The
Version 002.1 standards supersede and
fully replace Version 002.0. To simplify
our discussion, unless otherwise stated,
we will refer to the new standards
collectively as Version 002.1.
8. On March 19, 2009, the
Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)
proposing to incorporate by reference in
its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 certain 13
NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 Business
Practice Standards.14 In response to this
notice, thirteen timely comments, and
one late-filed reply comment were
filed.15
9. On July 7, 2009, and October 9,
2009, NAESB filed reports with the
Commission stating that it made minor
corrections to Standards WEQ–001,
WEQ–003, WEQ–004, and WEQ–008,
and corrections to Standard WEQ–008,
which consisted of it deleting WEQ–
008–1.4 and WEQ–008 Appendix D
from Standard WEQ–008. These
13 See
infra n.6.
for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public Utilities,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 74 FR 16160 (Apr.
9, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,640 (Mar. 19,
2009) (WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR).
15 The Commission will consider all the
comments filed in response to the WEQ Version
002.1 NOPR, including Arizona Public Service
Company’s (APS) late-filed reply comment. The
Commission received comments from the following
entities: American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA); APS; Bonneville Power Administration
(Bonneville); Duke Energy Corporation (Duke);
Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA); Entergy
Services, Inc. (Entergy); ISO/RTO Council (IRC);
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA) and American Public Power Association
(APPA) (collectively, NRECA/APPA); New York
Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO); North
Carolina Electric Membership Corporation
(NCEMC); Open Access Technology International,
Inc. (OATI); TranServ International, Inc. (TranServ);
and Transmission Access Policy Study Group
(TAPS).
14 Standards
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
corrections were ratified by NAESB’s
members and unanimously adopted by
WEQ’s Executive Committee.
II. Discussion
A. Overview
10. In this Final Rule, the Commission
is amending its regulations under the
FPA to incorporate by reference the
NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 standards
that the Commission proposed to
incorporate in the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR.16 Most of the changes included
in the Version 002.1 standards were
made to support the requirements that
the Commission established in Order
Nos. 890, 890–A, and 890–B, in which
the Commission took action to prevent
undue discrimination under the pro
forma open access transmission tariff
(OATT).
11. In Order No. 890, the Commission
specifically requested that NAESB seek
to develop business practice standards
governing the terms and conditions of
conditional firm service and the posting
requirements for available transfer
capability, its calculation, and other
values. We recognize that NAESB was
faced with a difficult task in seeking to
develop industry consensus for
standards that establish a set of business
practice and communication standards
to govern an entirely new service
(conditional firm service), as well as the
other changes envisioned by Order No.
890. For the most part, the industry has
16 Consistent with our proposal in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR, we are not revising our
regulations to incorporate by reference the
following standards: Standards of Conduct for
Electric Transmission Providers (WEQ–009);
Contracts Related Standards (WEQ–010); and WEQ/
WGQ eTariff Related Standards (WEQ–014). We are
not incorporating WEQ–009 into the Commission’s
regulations because it contains no substantive
standards and merely serves as a placeholder for
future standards. We are not incorporating WEQ–
010 into the Commission’s regulations because this
standard contains an optional NAESB contract
regarding funds transfers and the Commission does
not require utilities to use such contracts. We are
not incorporating WEQ–014, eTariff Related
Standards, into the Commission’s regulations,
because the Commission already has adopted
standards and protocols for electronic tariff filing
based on the NAESB standards. See Electronic
Tariff Filings, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 (2008).
We are not incorporating NAESB’s interpretation of
its standards on Gas/Electric Coordination (WEQ–
011) into the Commission’s regulations because,
while interpretations may provide useful guidance,
they are not determinative and we will not require
utilities to comply with interpretations. Further, as
discussed more specifically below, we are
incorporating by reference into the Commission’s
regulations portions of WEQ–001, but are not
incorporating the entire standard. Finally, we are
not at this time incorporating by reference NAESB’s
Manual Time Error Correction Standards (WEQ–
006) because this standard was developed to
maintain consistency with NERC Standard BAL–
004, and the Commission’s review of BAL–004 is
still pending. Thus, the existing version of WEQ–
006 will remain in force.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
reached a remarkable level of consensus
on these standards. We recognize that
not every standard enjoys universal
support, and that standardization, by its
very nature, requires the reconciliation
of different interests and needs. The
Commission is satisfied that NAESB’s
process was open and fair. We therefore
find that deference to the considered
judgment of the consensus of the
industry is both reasonable and
appropriate. Although we give great
weight to the industry consensus, we
also have reviewed these standards
alongside our Order No. 890
requirements and find that they satisfy
these requirements, except in a small
number of cases discussed below.
12. In the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1
standards, NAESB has included
business practice and technical
standards to support conditional firm
service, which will provide additional
transmission and flexibility to
customers. Additionally, NAESB has
developed standards that govern the
posting requirements for available
transfer capability-related information,
including narratives explaining changes
in available transfer capability and total
transfer capability, and explaining
underlying load forecast assumptions
for available transfer capability
calculations and actual peak load. This
will improve transparency for customers
and allows them to validate available
transfer capability calculations.
13. As to the minor corrections that
the NAESB Executive Committee filed
with the Commission on May 29, 2009
and October 9, 2009, the Commission
agrees with NAESB that these
corrections are non-substantive errata
corrections, and we will incorporate
these corrections by reference to ensure
the standards we adopt are as accurate
and up-to-date as possible.
14. The specific NAESB standards
that we are incorporating by reference in
this Final Rule are:
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS), Version
1.5 (WEQ–001, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009); 17
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS) Standards
17 With the exception of Standards 001–0.1, 001–
0.9 through 001–0.13, 001–1.0, 001–9.7, 001–14.1.3,
and 001–15.1.2. The Version 1.5 OASIS standards
(WEQ–001, WEQ–002, WEQ–003, and WEQ–013)
are included in the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1
Standards. While they are now developed by
NAESB, the OASIS standards were initially
developed by an industry working group, and are
therefore designated as both Version 1.5 and
Version 002.1. Version 1.5 references an update to
the designation applied by the original working
group, and Version 002.1 references their inclusion
in the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 Standards.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
& Communications Protocols, Version
1.5 (WEQ–002, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS) Data
Dictionary, Version 1.5 (WEQ–003,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
• Coordinate Interchange (WEQ–004,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
• Area Control Error (ACE) Equation
Special Cases (WEQ–005, Version 002.1,
March 11, 2009, with minor corrections
applied May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009);
• Inadvertent Interchange Payback
(WEQ–007, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
• Transmission Loading Relief—
Eastern Interconnection (WEQ–008,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
• Gas/Electric Coordination (WEQ–
011, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009,
with minor corrections applied May 29,
2009 and September 8, 2009);
• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
(WEQ–012, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
and
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS)
Implementation Guide, Version 1.5
(WEQ–013, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009).
15. The NAESB WEQ approved the
Version 002.1 Standards under NAESB’s
consensus procedures.18 As the
Commission found in Order No. 587,
adoption of consensus standards is
appropriate because the consensus
process helps ensure the reasonableness
of the standards by requiring that the
standards draw support from a broad
spectrum of industry participants
representing all segments of the
industry. Moreover, since the industry
itself has to conduct business under
these standards, the Commission’s
regulations should reflect those
standards that have the widest possible
support. In section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), Congress
affirmatively requires federal agencies to
18 This process first requires a super-majority vote
of 17 out of 25 members of the WEQ’s Executive
Committee with support from at least 40 percent of
each of the five industry segments. For final
approval, 67 percent of the WEQ’s general
membership voting must ratify the standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63291
use technical standards developed by
voluntary consensus standards
organizations, like NAESB, as means to
carry out policy objectives or
activities.19
16. The Commission will require
public utilities to modify their open
access transmission tariffs (OATTs) to
include the standards that we are
incorporating by reference in this Final
Rule. In the past, to reduce the filing
burden, we allowed public utilities to
postpone making a separate tariff filing
making this tariff modification and
allowed them to include this revision as
part of an unrelated subsequent tariff
filing.20 In this case, however, as
compliance with the standards will not
be required for more than a year from
the issuance of this rule, we will require
the tariff filing to be made at least 90
days before the compliance date (i.e., on
or before the first day of the first quarter
occurring 365 days after approval of the
NERC Reliability Standards being
addressed in Docket No. RM08–19–000
by all applicable regulatory authorities).
Public utilities may still, at their option,
combine this tariff filing with an
unrelated separate tariff filing, so long
as the tariff filing is made at least 90
days before the compliance date. As we
did in Order No. 676,21 we clarify that,
to the extent a public utility’s OASIS
obligations are administered by an
independent system operator (ISO) or
regional transmission operator (RTO)
and are not covered in the public
utility’s OATT, the public utility will
not need to modify its OATT to include
the OASIS standards.
17. The following sections address the
issues raised by the commenters.22
19 Public Law 104–113, section 12(d), 110 Stat.
775 (1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
20 See Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,216, P 100 (2006). As discussed further below,
in order to align the implementation date for the
NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 standards with that of
the related NERC reliability standards being
addressed in the proceeding in Docket No. RM08–
19–000, we are not requiring compliance with the
standards we are incorporating by reference in this
Final Rule until the first day of the first quarter
occurring 365 days after approval of the referenced
Reliability Standards by all applicable regulatory
authorities. In making its required tariff filing, each
filing utility is to use the language specified later
in this order, see infra P 129.
21 Standards for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, Final
Rule, Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,216,
P 20 (2006).
22 In the discussion below, we will discuss the
issues raised by commenters. We are incorporating
by reference without further discussion those
standards that were not the subject of any adverse
comments.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63292
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
B. Issues Raised by Commenters
1. Available Transfer Capability-Related
Standards
18. In Order No. 890, we directed
public utilities, working through NERC
reliability standards and NAESB
business practices development
processes, to produce workable
solutions to complex and contentious
issues surrounding improving the
consistency and transparency of
available transfer capability
calculations.23 As described in the
NOPR, NAESB developed several
standards related to available transfer
capability in response to Order No. 890.
First, NAESB modified WEQ–001 to
support the transparency reporting and
related functions required by Order No.
890. Second, in response to the
available transfer capability related
posting requirements established by the
Commission in Order No. 890, NAESB
has developed business practice
standards in WEQ–001 (including
Standards 001–14, 001–15, 001–17,
001–18, 001–19, 001–20 and Appendix
D), WEQ–002, WEQ–003 and WEQ–013
(including Appendices A and B).24 We
address below the comments filed with
respect to these standards.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
a. Standard 001–13.1.5 (ATC
Information Link)
19. NAESB developed Standard 001–
13.1.5, which provides for an ATC
Information Link on OASIS, in close
coordination with the NERC available
transfer capability drafting team.
Standard 001–13.1.5 replaces NERC
MOD–003, which NERC and NAESB
determined were better classified as
business practice standards than
reliability standards.
20. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR,
the Commission proposed to
incorporate by reference Standard 001–
13.1.5, which provides for an ATC
Information Link on OASIS and requires
Transmission Providers to post links to
their Available Transfer Capability
Implementation Document, Capacity
Benefit Margin Implementation
Document, and Transmission Reserve
Margin Implementation Document (as
specified in NERC reliability standards
MOD–001–1, MOD–004–1, and MOD–
008–1, respectively). Under NERC
Standard MOD–001–1 R3.2, the
Available Transfer Capability
Implementation Document must include
a ‘‘description of the manner in which
the Transmission Service Provider will
account for counterflows.’’
23 Order
24 Id.
No. 890, P 196.
P 369 and 371.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
21. In addition, the Commission made
clear in the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR
that it expected that the provision in
Standard 001–13.1.5 affording
Transmission Providers the ability to
redact sensitive information would be
implemented by Transmission Providers
subject to the OATT in a manner
consistent with the Transmission
Provider’s obligation to make that
information available to those with a
legitimate need to access the
information, subject to appropriate
confidentiality restrictions.
i. Comments
22. Several commenters 25 request that
the implementation date for posting the
Available Transfer Capability
Information Link required by Standard
001–13.1.5 coincide with the effective
implementation date for implementing
the NERC reliability standards relating
to available transfer capability currently
before the Commission, as the
documents to which links must be
provided under Standard 001–13.1.5 are
described in these NERC standards.
23. TAPS 26 supports the
Commission’s interpretation of the
proposed business practices,
particularly Standard 001–13.1.5.27
TAPS states that it is essential for
customers to have timely access to
available transfer capability- and service
request-related information. This will
allow customers to verify the amount of
transmission that appears to be available
for purchase, thereby enhancing the
Commission’s goals of transparency,
reliability, and competition.
24. EPSA is critical of Standard 001–
13.1.5. EPSA comments that the
standard affords transmission providers
the ability to redact certain information
due to market, security or reliability
sensitivity concerns, but provides no
definition or guidance as to what
constitutes such concerns, thereby
allowing transmission providers the
flexibility to post whatever information
they so choose.28 EPSA requests that the
Commission make explicit that nothing
in these standards limits customers’
ability to specifically request available
transfer capability-related information
subject to appropriate confidentiality
protections and Critical Energy
Infrastructure Information (CEII)
requirements, as specified in Order No.
890–A.29
25. EPSA also argues that Standard
001–13.1.5 results in a ‘‘fill-in-the25 APS
at 2–3, Duke at 4, and Entergy at 6–7.
is an association of transmissiondependent utilities in more than 30 states.
27 TAPS at 3–4.
28 EPSA at 16.
29 Order No. 890–A, P 148.
26 TAPS
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
blank’’ standard governing the treatment
of counterflows. EPSA claims that the
standard will result in different
calculation methodologies by different
transmission providers. Because
Standard 001–13.1.5 permits
transmission providers to redact
information due to market, security, or
reliability sensitivity concerns, EPSA
also contends that transmission
providers will have unfettered
discretion with respect to their
obligations to post the methodology that
they use to account for counterflows.30
26. APS requests that the Commission
clarify that the Implementation
Documents and Postback Methodology
in the NAESB and NERC standards
fulfill the requirements and detail
specified in Order No. 890 for
Attachment C. If the Commission does
not believe that the Implementation
Documents and Postback Methodology
from the NERC and NAESB standards
meet the requirements of Order No. 890
for the purpose of Attachment C, APS
requests that the Commission clarify the
difference between the Order No. 890
requirements and the documentation
requirements found in the NERC and
NAESB standards.
27. Additionally, APS asks for
clarification that the statement in Order
No. 890 that a ‘‘revised Attachment C to
[the] Open Access Transmission Tariff
(OATT) be made within 60 days of
completion of the NERC and NAESB
process’’ means that a revised
Attachment C to the OATT must be filed
within 60 days of the later effective date
of the NERC standards or NAESB
standards.31
ii. Commission Determination
28. NAESB’s Standard 001–13.1.5
represents a consensus approach
agreeable to all six segments of the
industry, and is not inconsistent with
Commission policies. Therefore, we will
incorporate the standard by reference as
proposed in the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR.
29. In response to EPSA’s concerns
relating to the redaction of information
under Standard 001–13.1.5, we reiterate
the statement we made in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR that we expect the
provision for a transmission provider to
redact sensitive information from
postings to be implemented by a
transmission provider subject to the
OATT in a manner consistent with its
obligation to make that information
available to those with a legitimate need
to access the information, subject to
appropriate confidentiality
30 EPSA
31 APS
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
at 17.
at 3.
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
restrictions.32 We also clarify that these
standards do not limit transmission
customers’ ability to request nor relieve
transmission providers of their
obligation to provide, subject to
appropriate confidentiality protections
and CEII requirements, data relating to
the calculation of available transfer
capability, as required by the
Commission in Order Nos. 890 and 890–
A.33 With these clarifications, we will
incorporate Standard 001–13.1.5 into
our regulations as we proposed in the
WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR.
30. As to EPSA’s argument that
Standard 001–13.1.5 allows
transmission providers unfettered
discretion with respect to their
obligations to post the methodology that
they use to account for counterflows, we
again emphasize that we expect
transmission providers subject to the
OATT to implement this standard in a
manner consistent with their obligation
to make any redacted information
available to those with a legitimate need
to access it, subject to appropriate
confidentiality restrictions. Moreover,
Order No. 890 did not prescribe the
exact methodology to account for
counterflows, nor did it find that there
could only be a single acceptable
methodology for determining this
available transfer capability component.
The NAESB standards address the
posting requirements for the document.
Responsibility for developing the
methodology to account for
counterflows rests with NERC, and not
NAESB.34
31. APS requests clarification that the
Implementation Documents and
Postback Methodology required to be
posted on OASIS by Standard 001–
13.1.5 fulfill the requirements and detail
specified in Order No. 890 for
Attachment C. The information that the
Commission requires transmission
providers to include in their Attachment
C and the information that transmission
providers are required to include in
their Implementation Documents under
NERC reliability standards MOD–001–1,
MOD–004–1, and MOD–008–1 and
Postback Methodology under NAESB
Standard 001–18 (Postback
Requirements) are not identical.
32. For example, some of the required
components of an Attachment C include
a detailed description of the specific
mathematical algorithm used to
calculate firm and non-firm available
32 See Order No. 890, P 403–04 (requiring the
development of standard disclosure for timely
disclosure of CEII information to those with a
legitimate need for it).
33 See Order No. 890, P 348 and Order No. 890–
A, P 148.
34 See MOD–008–1.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
transfer capability/available flowgate
capacity for the transmission provider’s
scheduling horizon, operating horizon,
and planning horizon; a process flow
diagram that illustrates the various steps
through which available transfer
capability/available flowgate capacity is
calculated; and a detailed explanation of
how each of the available transfer
capability components (including total
transfer capability, existing transmission
commitments, capacity benefit margin,
and transmission reserve margin) is
calculated for both the operating and
planning horizons. In contrast, some of
the requirements of the Implementation
Documents include a description of how
the available transfer capability/
available flowgate capacity calculation
methodology is implemented; a
description of how the transmission
provider will account for counterflows;
the other transmission providers and/or
transmission operators from which a
given transmission provider receives
data or to which it supplies data; the
procedure and assumptions that a
transmission provider uses to establish
capacity benefit margin; the process
through which a load-serving entity can
request to set aside or use capacity
benefit margin; and the components
used to calculate transmission reserve
margin. Thus, we clarify here that the
Implementation Documents and
Postback Methodology are not sufficient
to satisfy the requirements and detail
specified in Order No. 890 for
Attachment C, as the information that
they require to be posted is not the same
as the information that Commission
requires to be included in Attachment
C.
33. Moreover, the Commission has
determined that it is necessary for the
information presented in Attachment C
to be included in the tariff, not simply
to be posted on OASIS as is required of
the information included in the
Implementation Documents and
Postback Methodology by the Standard
001–13.1.5. In Order No. 890, the
Commission rejected proposals to
address the transparency of available
transfer capability methodology by
merely referencing business practices
and reliability standards. Specifically,
the Commission found that because
available transfer capability calculations
have a direct and tangible effect on the
granting of open access transmission
service, ‘‘an accurate and detailed
statement of the methodology and its
components that defines how the
transmission provider determines
available transfer capability belongs in
the transmission provider’s OATT as the
means of holding the transmission
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63293
provider accountable for following nondiscriminatory procedures for granting
service, not in the business practices
kept by the transmission provider.’’ 35
Thus, we likewise clarify here that the
Implementation Documents and
Postback Methodology that must be
posted on OASIS under Standard 001–
13.1.5 are separate and distinct from the
requirements and detail specified in
Order No. 890 for Attachment C, which
must be included in the transmission
provider’s OATT.36
34. Lastly, we clarify that the NAESB
Version 002.1 standards and the related
NERC reliability standards will have the
same implementation date.37 In
addition, the revised Attachment C to
the OATT should be filed early enough
so that it is approved and in place by
the time the NERC reliability standards
become enforceable. This being the case,
we are directing public utilities to file
a revised Attachment C to the OATT on
or before 275 days after approval of the
NERC Reliability Standards being
addressed in Docket No. RM08–19–000
by all applicable regulatory authorities.
This will leave 90 days for review and
approval of these filings before the
NERC reliability standards become
enforceable.
b. Standards 001–14 and 001–15
(Available Transfer Capability
Narratives)
35. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR,
the Commission proposed to
incorporate by reference Standard 001–
14, which was developed by NAESB to
meet the requirement in Order No. 890
for transmission providers to post a
narrative in instances when available
transfer capability remains unchanged
at a value of zero for six months or
longer. In addition, the Commission also
proposed to incorporate by reference
Standard 001–15, which requires
transmission providers to post a brief
narrative that explains the reason for a
change in monthly or yearly available
transfer capability values on a
constrained path when a monthly or
yearly available transfer capability value
changes as a result of a 10 percent
change in total transfer capability.
i. Comments
36. Entergy requests that the
Commission clarify that, where a
transmission provider is not required to
convert available flowgate capability
35 Order
No. 890, P 325.
also note that in the companion rulemaking
in Docket No. RM08–19–000 the Commission found
that the requirement to provide this information is
not overly burdensome. See ATC Final Rule at P
147.
37 See supra P 16 & n.20.
36 We
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63294
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
values to available transfer capability
values for posting, the values to be used
to fulfill the posting requirements set
forth in Standard 001–14 and 001–15
are the values calculated and posted by
the transmission provider, i.e., in
Entergy’s circumstance, available
flowgate capability values. Entergy
submits that this interpretation is
supported not only by the Commission’s
statement in Order No. 890–B, but also
by the NERC reliability standards, the
inclusion of ‘‘Other’’ as reasons for zero
available transfer capability in Standard
001–14, and the specific inclusion of
total flowgate capacity as an underlying
assumption in Standard 001–15.38
37. EPSA contends that Standard
001–15, while consistent with the
requirements of Order No. 890, does not
reflect the underlying goals of the
Commission in Order No. 890.39 EPSA
argues that the standard allows
transmission providers five business
days to post a narrative, provides no
linkage between the duration of the
contingency that has caused the
reduction in total transfer capability and
the resulting changes in available
transfer capability/available flowgate
capability, and does not require a
narrative posting by a transmission
provider when an outage on an adjacent
system affects the original transmission
provider’s available transfer capability.
EPSA states that these current
requirements are insufficient to promote
market transparency.
ii. Commission Determination
38. In this Final Rule, we will
incorporate by reference Standards 001–
14 and 001–15, with the exception of
Standards 001–14.1.3 and 001–15.1.2.
As explained further below, we decline
to incorporate Standards 001–14.1.3 and
001–15.1.2 by reference, as they permit
transmission providers to post an
available transfer capability change
narrative within five business days of
meeting the criteria under which a
narrative is required to be posted, which
is inconsistent with the Commission’s
rejection in Order No. 890 of delays in
posting data.40
39. In regards to Entergy’s question of
whether the transmission provider’s
calculated and posted available flowgate
capability values should be used to
fulfill the posting requirements set forth
in Standard 001–14 and 001–15 in
instances where there is no requirement
to convert this calculation to available
transfer capability values, we agree with
Entergy that this requirement can be met
38 Entergy
at 7–8.
at 13.
40 Order No. 890, P 370.
39 EPSA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
by the transmission provider posting its
available flowgate capability values. As
to EPSA’s argument that Standard 001–
15 falls short of the goals of Order No.
890, we find that, with the exception of
Standard 001–15.1.2, compliance with
Standard 001–15 provides all of the
information required by Order No. 890.
However, Standards 001–14.1.3 and
001–15.1.2 permit transmission
providers to post an available transfer
capability change narrative within five
business days of meeting the criteria
under which a narrative is required to
be posted. In Order No. 890, the
Commission rejected calls for delays
prior to posting data and required
posting as soon as possible.41 We do not
find the NAESB standard meets this
criterion and therefore decline to
incorporate Standards 001–14.1.3 and
001–15.1.2 by reference. Transmission
providers must post their narratives as
soon as feasibly possible. Posting within
one day would appear in most cases to
be reasonable.
c. Standard 001–16.1 (Available
Transfer Capability or Available
Flowgate Capability Methodology
Questions)
40. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR,
we proposed to incorporate by reference
Standard 001–16.1, which requires
transmission providers to respond to
questions about the methodology for
calculating available transfer capability
and available flowgate capability. In the
NOPR, we interpreted this standard as
requiring the transmission provider to
provide data when necessary to respond
to the methodology questions in order to
be consistent with the requirement in
Order No. 890 that transmission
providers must, upon request, ‘‘make
available all data used to calculate
[available transfer capability] and [total
transfer capability] for any constrained
paths and any system planning studies
or specific network impact studies
performed for customers.’’ 42
i. Comments
41. TAPS supports the Commission’s
interpretation of the proposed business
practices for the disclosure of available
transfer capability and transmission
service related data. It also supports the
Commission’s pro-transparency
interpretation of NAESB Standard 001–
16.1 which requires transmission
providers to provide data used to
calculate available transfer capability
41 Id. P 370, where the Commission rejected calls
for delays prior to posting data, finding that
commenters supporting delay had ‘‘proffered no
evidence to support the allegation of potential
harm.’’
42 Id. P 348.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and total transfer capability for any
constrained path upon request. TAPS
states that timely access to available
transfer capability and service request
information and a transparent and
accurate available transfer capability
calculation process will encourage
competition.
ii. Commission Determination
42. Standard 001–16.1 represents a
consensus approach agreeable to all six
segments of the industry, and, as we
interpret the standard, is not
inconsistent with Commission policies.
Therefore, as proposed in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR, we will
incorporate Standard 001–16.1 by
reference into our regulations. We
reiterate our interpretation of this
standard, as described in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR. We expect that
transmission providers will implement
this standard in a manner consistent
with the requirement in Order No. 890
that transmission providers must, upon
request, ‘‘make available all data used to
calculate [available transfer capability]
and [total transfer capability] for any
constrained paths and any system
planning studies or specific network
impact studies performed for
customers’’ 43 by providing data when
necessary to respond to methodology
questions.
d. Actual and Forecasted Load Posting
43. Standard 001–17 is one of the
standards that NAESB developed in
response to Order No. 890 and
addresses the obligations of
transmission providers and ISOs and
RTOs to post information concerning
their actual and forecasted peak load.44
Specifically, Standard 001–17.2.1 and
Standard 001–17.4.1 require
transmission providers and ISOs and
RTOs respectively to post a single
maximum hourly megawatt (MW) value
for peak load. Standard 001–17.6.5
requires transmission providers and
ISOs and RTOs to post on the available
transfer capability Information Link a
descriptive statement of the current
underlying load forecast assumptions,
which must include all weather
variables used (e.g., temperature,
humidity, wind speed, number of
measuring points).
i. Comments
44. Several of EPSA’s comments relate
to the actual and forecasted load posting
requirements described in Standard
001–17. EPSA contends that Standard
001–17.2.1, Standard 001–17.4.1, and
43 Order
44 Id.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
No. 890, P 348.
P 413.
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Standard 001–17.6.5 limit transparency
in that they require the posting of only
a single number for peak loads, even
where a transmission provider’s internal
processes produce multiple (in many
cases hourly) peak forecasts.45 In
addition, EPSA is concerned that
transmission providers may post the
information required by Standard 001–
17.2.1 at a time subject to their
discretion.46 With regard to Standard
001–17.6.5, EPSA questions whether a
document that includes the weather
variables used to forecast load without
providing the assumed values for each
weather variable in a particular forecast
adds any useful information, and
therefore any enhanced transparency, to
the load forecasting process.47
ii. Commission Determination
45. Standard 001–17 represents a
consensus approach agreeable to all six
segments of the industry. Contrary to
EPSA’s representations, we find that
this standard satisfies the requirement
in Order No. 890 to post load forecasts
and actual daily peak load.48
46. In Order No. 890, the Commission
required transmission providers to post
their load forecasts and actual daily
peak load for both system-wide load
(including native load) and native
load,49 not the data concerning multiple
peaks requested by EPSA. In Order No.
890–B, the Commission clarified that it
did not intend for transmission
providers to post all economic and other
data that underlies each and every daily
load forecast, but rather the underlying
factors used to make load forecasts that
have a significant impact on
calculations, such as temperature
forecasts.50
47. Therefore, we will incorporate
Standard 001–17 by reference into our
regulations.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
e. Grandfathered Agreements
48. In response to Order No. 890,51
NAESB has developed posting
requirements for some of the
components included in the amount of
transfer capability that a transmission
provider can set aside for its native load
and other committed uses. As part of
this package, Standard 001–19,
establishes a mechanism for posting the
grandfathered agreements component of
existing transmission commitments
associated with the available transfer
45 EPSA
at 9 and 14.
46 Id. at 18.
47 Id. at 9.
48 See Order No. 890, P 416, Order No. 890–A, P
143, and Order No. 890–B, P 34–35.
49 Order No. 890, P 416.
50 Order No. 890–B, P 35.
51 Order No. 890, P 244.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
capability value posted on OASIS.
Under Standard 001–19.1, transmission
providers using available transfer
capability calculation methodologies
other than the Flowgate Methodology
must post the aggregate MW value for
the grandfathered agreements. Such data
must be posted so that it can be viewed
and queried using the system data
template. Standard 1–19.1.2 does not
require transmission providers using the
Flowgate Methodology to post an
aggregate MW value that can be viewed
and queried using the system data
template. Instead, it requires that the
transmission provider must post a list of
Grandfathered Agreements with MW
values that are expected to be scheduled
or expected to flow.
i. Comments
49. TranServ recommends that all
transmission providers should be
required to post a list of the
grandfathered agreements that are
factored into their available transfer
capability methodology, as is required
of transmission providers using the
Flowgate Methodology under Standard
001–19.1.2. TranServ argues that the
requirement to post a single aggregate
MW value representing the impact of all
grandfathered agreements on available
transfer capability has little additional
value, and that those transmission
providers using Flowgate Methodology
may have difficulties identifying the
specific impacts of grandfathered
agreements from the aggregate impacts
of network and native load service on
their transmission system.
50. EPSA contends that the
requirement to post a single aggregate
MW value for all grandfathered
agreements provides insufficient
transparency, particularly as
grandfathered agreements represent
allocations of transmission capacity that
pre-date the open access environment
and may include non-standard
provisions. Thus, transmission
providers may need to make
accommodations to incorporate these
commitments into the current structure
of OASIS reservations and available
transfer capability calculations. To
promote transparency, EPSA argues that
the standard should require information
concerning the duration, MW capacity
and the associated point of receipt/point
of delivery and source/sink
combinations, the resulting allocation of
the contract provisions to specific
transmission interfaces, and the
resulting calculation of the available
transfer capability/available flowgate
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63295
capability associated with each
contract.52
ii. Commission Determination
51. One of the Commission’s
objectives in Order No. 890 was to
reduce the potential for transmission
providers to unduly discriminate when
they provide transmission service by
limiting their discretion to calculate
available transfer capability using
unknown assumptions and
methodologies.53 For this reason, the
Commission found that ‘‘all [Available
Transfer Capability] components (i.e.,
[total transfer capability], [existing
transmission commitments], [capacity
benefit margin], and [transmission
reliability margin]) and certain data
inputs, data exchange, and assumptions
be consistent and that the number of
industry-wide ATC calculation formulas
be few in number, transparent and
produce equivalent results.’’ 54 In Order
No. 890, the Commission required that
grandfathered transmission rights be
included as committed uses of the
transmission system under the
definition of Existing Transmission
Commitments.55
52. As we pointed out in the NOPR,
the NAESB standards adopt two
different methods of posting
grandfathered agreements, depending
on whether the flowgate methodology is
used. Because of the nature of the
flowgate methodology, the standards
exempt it from the requirement to post
an aggregate MW value that can be
viewed and queried using the system
data template. Instead, the standards
require the transmission provider to
post a list of grandfathered agreements
with MW values that are expected to be
scheduled or expected to flow.
Transmission providers using available
transfer capability calculation
methodologies other than the flowgate
methodology are required to make this
data accessible through the system data
template.
53. EPSA and TranServ argue that the
complete data on grandfathered
agreements needs to be provided even
for those systems that do not utilize the
flowgate methodology. Order No. 890
does not require the posting of complete
data for grandfathered agreements. It
required only that grandfathered
agreements be included in the Existing
52 EPSA
at 9–11.
Commission reasoned that the potential for
discrimination is not primarily in the choice of an
available transfer capability calculation
methodology, but rather in the inconsistent
application of its components. Order No. 890, P
208.
54 Id. P 207.
55 Id. P 244.
53 The
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63296
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Transmission Commitments component
of available transfer capability. All six
segments of the industry concluded that
for transmission providers not using the
flowgate methodology, inclusion of the
aggregate information in the
calculations is sufficient, and we find
reasonable the distinctions they have
drawn and their determination that
inclusion of grandfathered agreements
in the system data template provides
sufficient transparency. Moreover, as we
discuss below, transmission providers
must, upon request, provide the basis
upon which they calculate available
transfer capability should such
information be requested in a particular
circumstance.56
f. Availability of Data Used in Available
Transfer Capability Calculations
54. Standard 001–16.1 requires
Transmission Providers to respond to
questions about the methodology for
calculating available transfer capability
and available flowgate capability. In the
WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, we stated
that we interpreted this standard as
requiring the Transmission Provider to
provide data when necessary to respond
to the methodology questions in order to
be consistent with the requirement in
Order No. 890 that transmission
providers must, upon request, ‘‘make
available all data used to calculate
[available transfer capability] and [total
transfer capability] for any constrained
paths and any system planning studies
or specific network impact studies
performed for customers.’’ 57
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
i. Comments
55. EPSA is concerned that there is a
lack of transparency for the data items
used in available transfer capability
calculations, and contends that this
issue was not adequately addressed
through the NAESB process.
Specifically, EPSA urges the
Commission to require not only that
data be made available, but that all
underlying data supporting available
transfer capability calculations be
required to be posted.
ii. Commission Determination
56. Standard 001–16.1 represents a
consensus approach agreeable to all six
segments of the industry, and satisfies
the requirement in Order No. 890 to
make data used in available transfer
capability calculations available.
Therefore, as proposed in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR, we will
incorporate Standard 001–16.1 by
56 WEQ
Standard 001–16.1. See also WEQ
Standard 001–13.1.5.
57 WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, P 21.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
reference into our regulations. As
described above, we interpret Standard
001–16.1 as requiring the Transmission
Provider to provide data when
necessary to respond to the
methodology questions in order to be
consistent with the requirement in
Order No. 890 that transmission
providers must, upon request, ‘‘make
available all data used to calculate
[available transfer capability] and [total
transfer capability] for any constrained
paths and any system planning studies
or specific network impact studies
performed for customers.’’ 58 Since such
data will be available on request, we see
no need to impose a more onerous
ongoing posting requirement as
requested by EPSA.
2. Conditional Firm Service Standards
57. In the OASIS Standards, NAESB
has included a number of standards that
support conditional firm service as
envisioned by the Commission in Order
Nos. 890 and 890–A. NAESB has
developed business practice standards
to facilitate the implementation of
conditional firm service, relying on the
Commission’s description of the
attributes of that service in Order No.
890.59 Specifically, NAESB developed
Standards 001–21 through 001–21.5.5
on the Conditional Curtailment Option,
the term that NAESB uses to describe
conditional firm service. These
standards address: (1) The limitations
and conditions under which the
Conditional Curtailment Option is
offered; (2) the posting requirements for
information concerning a Conditional
Curtailment Option reservation and its
curtailment criteria; (3) the process for
performing the biennial reassessment;
(4) the curtailment of a Conditional
Curtailment Option reservation; and (5)
the redirect, transfer, and resale of a
Conditional Curtailment Option
reservation.
58. Additionally, NAESB has
developed other standards related to
conditional firm service in response to
the Commission’s requests for the
development of specific standards in
Order Nos. 890 and 890–A.60
Specifically, NAESB has developed
Standard 001–21.1.6, which requires
that transmission providers offer shortterm firm service to conditional firm
customers as capacity (that would
alleviate the constraints associated with
a Conditional Curtailment Option
reservation) becomes available. In
response to Order No. 890–A, NAESB
has created and modified standards in
58 Order
No. 890, P 348.
59 Id. P 1043–47.
60 Id. P 1078; Order No. 890–A, P 592.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
WEQ–001, Appendix C to WEQ–001,
WEQ–002, WEQ–003, WEQ–008 and
WEQ–013, to provide a consistent set of
tracking capabilities and business
practices for tagging, as a means to
implement conditional firm service.
59. The following addresses the
comments received on these proposals.
a. Resales of Transmission Service
60. Standard 001–11.3.2 governs the
conditions under which multiple
transmission service reservations may
be aggregated to support a resale of
transmission service. Under Standard
001–11.3.2, transmission service
reservations subject to the terms of a
Conditional Curtailment Option 61 may
not be aggregated to support a resale of
transmission service.
i. Comments
61. In their comments, both AWEA
and EPSA argue that there is no basis for
treating resales of conditional firm
service differently from resales of other
long-term firm service.62 Therefore,
AWEA and EPSA request that the
Commission direct NAESB to remove
the restriction on aggregating
reservations subject to the Conditional
Curtailment Option to support a resale.
ii. Commission Determination
62. We will incorporate by reference
into our regulations NAESB’s revisions
to Standard 001–11.3.2. NAESB’s
standard does not preclude the resale of
conditional firm service. Such service
can be resold as separate transactions.
Unlike other types of long-term firm
service, the conditions imposed in a
conditional firm reservation are specific
to the reservation, identified in the
system impact study, and documented
in the service agreement. The service
agreement is a customer-specific, nonconforming agreement that must be filed
with the Commission for review and
approval. Because the contract terms for
conditional firm service are likely to be
different, we find reasonable NAESB’s
determination not to create standards
for the aggregation of such transactions.
b. Standard 001–21.1.6
63. NAESB has developed Standard
001–21.1.6 in response to Order No.
890, in which the Commission directed
transmission providers to work through
NAESB to develop appropriate
communication protocols to assign
short-term firm service to conditional
firm customers as the service becomes
61 ‘‘Conditional Curtailment Option’’ is the term
that NAESB uses to describe conditional firm
service.
62 AWEA at 5–6, EPSA at 20.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
available.63 Standard 001–21.1.6
requires that transmission providers
offer any available short-term firm
capability that would alleviate the
constraint(s) associated with a
conditional firm reservation to the
conditional firm customer prior to
offering such capability to other
customers.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
i. Comments
64. In its comments, AWEA is
concerned about the ability to interpret
this standard in various ways, and
suggests modifications to the standard
to ensure that short-term firm capability
is not double counted.64 Both EPSA and
AWEA contend that firm available
transfer capability should be
decremented when a conditional firm
reservation is provided with short-term
firm transfer capability before any
additional short-term firm capability is
offered to other transmission
customers.65 EPSA requests that the
Commission indicate to NAESB that
Standard 001–21.1.6 should be modified
to reflect their proposal.
65. AWEA is also apprehensive that
the proposed NAESB standard does not
address an important aspect of the
Conditional Curtailment Option: How
new long-term available transfer
capability will be allocated to
Conditional Curtailment Option
customers when it becomes available.66
AWEA points out that there may be
instances when long-term capacity
becomes available after a customer signs
a conditional firm contract. Since Order
No. 890 states that conditional firm will
be charged at the same rate as long-term
service, AWEA states that conditional
firm customers should have rights to
long-term firm available transfer
capability when it becomes available.
Accordingly, AWEA urges the
Commission to require clarification of
the methodology for allocating such
available transfer capability in the
conditional firm service standard, as it
believes this practice should not be left
up to the transmission provider’s
discretion and should instead be
consistent across the industry.
ii. Commission Determination
66. Standard 001–21.1.6 is consistent
with the Commission’s directive in
Order No. 890 67 that transmission
providers assign short-term firm service
to conditional firm customers as the
service becomes available and
63 Order
No. 890, P 1078.
at 6–7.
65 EPSA at 21.
66 AWEA at 7.
67 Order No. 890, P 1078.
64 AWEA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
represents a consensus approach
agreeable to all six segments of the
industry. Therefore, as proposed in the
WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, we will
incorporate Standard 001–21.1.6 by
reference into our regulations.
67. Both EPSA and AWEA are
concerned that available transfer
capability will not be properly
decremented to reflect the assignment of
short-term firm service to conditional
firm customers. AWEA suggests that the
standard should be modified to ensure
that double-counting does not occur.68
68. As to the concerns raised over
how new long-term available transfer
capability will be allocated to
conditional firm customers when it
becomes available, as AWEA recognizes,
in Order No. 890, the Commission
established that conditional firm
customers have priority relative to short
term firm capability, and did not
provide such priority with respect to
long term firm capability. AWEA did
not raise this issue in the Order No. 890
proceeding, and if it seeks a change to
the priority order established in the
rule, it should do so through an
appropriate filing with the Commission.
Since NAESB’s standard complies with
the requirement of Order No. 890, we
are adopting it here.
c. Biennial Reassessment
69. NAESB developed Standards 001–
21 through 001–21.5.5 to facilitate the
implementation of conditional firm
service, relying on the Commission’s
description of the attributes of that
service in Order No. 890. In its
discussion of conditional firm service,
the Commission specified that
transmission providers shall have the
right to perform a biennial 69
reassessment of their ability to continue
to reliably provide conditional firm
service for those transmission customers
taking conditional firm service who are
unwilling to commit to a facilities study
or the payment of network upgrade
costs. When conducting a biennial
reassessment, the transmission provider
reassesses the conditions under which
conditional firm service may be
curtailed for those conditional firm
service reservations subject to the
system-conditions criteria or the
maximum number of hours that service
can be curtailed for those reservations
subject to the number-of-hours criteria.
The Commission also determined that a
68 The
issue of double-counting data inputs to
available transfer capability calculations affects the
reliability of the Bulk Power System, and is
addressed in the companion ATC Final Rule at P
183. See n.11 supra.
69 Biennial is every two years, in contrast to
biannual, which is twice a year.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63297
transmission provider is permitted to
waive or extend its right to reassess the
availability of conditional firm
service,70 so that transmission providers
may offer conditional firm service for a
period of longer than two years without
reassessment.
i. Comments
70. Bonneville raises objections to the
incorporation by reference of Standard
001–21.3.1.2, which allows a
transmission provider to waive its right
to perform a biennial reassessment.
Bonneville states that Standard 001–
21.3.1.2 is inconsistent with the
Commission’s policy. Bonneville argues
that the standard should allow a
Transmission Provider the right to
extend its reassessment of the
conditions for conditional firm service.
Bonneville proposes to modify the
NAESB standard so that it permits
transmission providers to extend their
right to perform the biennial
reassessment as well as to waive such
right.
ii. Commission Determination
71. Nothing in Standard 001–21.3.1.2
prevents a Transmission Provider from
extending its right to reassess the
availability of conditional firm service.
The standard states that a transmission
provider is permitted to waive its right
to conduct a biennial reassessment, not
that a transmission provider is
prohibited from extending the
assessment period. Thus, we do not find
the requirements of this standard
inconsistent with the requirement in
Order No. 890 that a transmission
provider may extend its right to reassess
the availability of conditional firm
service and, as proposed in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR, will incorporate
Standard 001–21.3.1.2 by reference into
our regulations.
72. However, we reiterate here the
Commission’s finding in Order No. 890
that a transmission provider is
permitted to extend its right to reassess
the availability of conditional firm
service.71 Since the Version 002.1
Standards do not specifically address
this issue, we would ask the industry,
working through NAESB, to continue to
look at additional business practice
standards facilitating a transmission
provider’s extension of its right to
perform a reassessment.
d. Posting System Conditions
73. As part of the overall Version
002.1 Standards, the Commission
proposed to incorporate by reference
70 Order
No. 890, P 985.
71 Id.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63298
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Standard 001–21.4.2.1, which is part of
a set of standards detailing the business
practices for managing and curtailing
transmission service with a conditional
curtailment option. Standard 001–
21.4.2.1 requires transmission providers
to post on OASIS the reduction in each
impacted conditional firm reservation
prior to or coincident with any
curtailments of conditional firm service
at the conditional curtailment priority
level. The conditional curtailment
priority level is equal to that of
secondary network transmission service,
and is applied when conditional firm
service is not firm in accordance with
the terms of the transmission service
agreement. For a conditional firm
service reservation subject to the system
conditions criteria, the conditional
curtailment priority level is applied to
a conditional firm service reservation
under system conditions specified in
the transmission service agreement. For
a conditional firm service reservation
subject to the number of hours criteria,
it is applied due to reliability concerns
when the maximum number of hours
that service can be curtailed under the
transmission service agreement has not
yet been reached.
i. Comments
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
74. Entergy seeks Commission
clarification on whether this standard
requires the posting of any curtailment
of conditional firm service actually be
made ‘‘prior to or coincident with’’ the
implementation of the curtailment, in
light of the difficulty of making such
postings while managing the reliability
of the transmission system in a
congested situation. Entergy urges the
Commission to clarify that the same
posting requirements currently in the
regulations at 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3) are
appropriate for posting curtailments of
conditional firm service.72
75. Both AWEA and EPSA contend
that the standards governing the
provision of conditional firm service
lack adequate transparency due to a
deficiency of posting requirements
regarding system conditions. Under a
conditional curtailment option subject
to the systems-condition criteria,
conditional firm service can be curtailed
based on pre-identified system
conditions. To inform their business
decisions and to evaluate the firmness
72 Entergy
at 5–6. Entergy’s comments refer to 18
CFR 33.6, which is the regulation covering form of
notice. We presume that Entergy intends to refer to
18 CFR 37.6(e)(3). To the extent Entergy’s
comments are aimed at 18 CFR 33.6, we see no
merit in its argument, because this regulation
governs form of notice for applications pursuant to
section 203 of the Federal Power Act, which appear
to be inapplicable to this issue.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
of their reservation at any given time,
AWEA and EPSA argue that
transmission customers taking
conditional firm service require the
maximum amount of information
practical as to the risk that their service
will be curtailed. Therefore, AWEA and
EPSA claim that transmission providers
should be required to post information
pertaining to the system conditions in
effect at any given time, even if the
event of a single condition alone will
not reduce the priority of the service to
non-firm.73
redirects of conditional firm service do
not affect the conditions applicable to
the parent reservation.
ii. Commission Determination
76. Standard 001–21.4.2.1 represents
a consensus approach agreeable to all
six segments of the industry, and is not
inconsistent with Commission policies.
Therefore, as proposed in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR, we will
incorporate Standard 001–21.4.2.1 by
reference into our regulations. As to
Entergy’s contention that Standard 001–
21.4.2.1 should allow postings
consistent with 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3), we
note that 18 CFR 37.6(e)(3) does not
include any specific time requirements
for the posting. We believe that the
timing of when information must be
posted is an important element in
providing for transparency and
accountability surrounding the
provision of conditional firm service.
Revising the standards to remove any
requirement as to when information
must be posted would severely diminish
the achievement of both of those goals.
Thus, we will require the posting to be
made ‘‘prior to or coincident with’’ as
provided in the standard.
77. As to the concern raised by AWEA
and EPSA about the lack of
transparency regarding the conditions
leading to curtailments, these
commenters failed to persuade a
majority of NAESB members to adopt
their requests to impose posting
obligations that exceed the requirements
of Order No. 890. The requested
postings would appear to impose a
continuous burden on transmission
providers which, in light of the noncurtailment status of the system for most
of the time intervals, does not appear to
be warranted. Given that the current
NAESB standard satisfies the Order No.
890 requirements, we will incorporate
the standard by reference.
ii. Commission Determination
80. Standard 001–21.5.2.1 represents
a consensus approach agreeable to all
six segments of the industry, and is not
inconsistent with Commission policies.
Therefore, as proposed in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR, we will
incorporate Standard 001–21.5.2.1 by
reference into our regulations, as we
proposed in the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR. As to Entergy’s request for
clarification, we find no reason why the
condition should apply if the evaluation
of a request for redirect of conditional
firm service shows that such redirected
service can be provided without
conditions. We note, however, that
under Standard 001–21.5.2.1, the
condition would remain on the parent
reservation.
e. Redirects of Conditional Firm Service
78. NAESB developed and adopted
Standard 001–21.5.2.1 as part of its
response to the Commission’s directive
in Order No. 890 to implement
conditional firm service; it provides that
i. Comments
79. When the evaluation of a request
for a redirect of conditional firm service
indicates that such redirected service
can be provided without conditions,
Entergy requests clarification that under
Standard 001–21.5.2.1 ‘‘such service
may be granted without the application
of conditions so long as conditions are
retained on the Parent Reservation.’’ 74
f. Accounting for Conditional Firm
Service in Available Transfer Capability
Calculations
i. Comments
81. EPSA contends that there is no
standard governing the treatment of
conditional firm service in available
transfer capability calculations or
requiring transmission providers to post
the methodology that they use to
account for conditional firm service in
these calculations. Thus, EPSA argues
that the Version 002.1 Standards give
the transmission provider too much
discretion.75
ii. Commission Determination
82. We agree with EPSA that the
Version 002.1 standards do not provide
a uniform methodology for treating
conditional firm service in available
transfer capability calculations. But
Order No. 890 did not request NAESB
to develop the methodology for transfer
capability calculations. NERC has
developed Standard MOD–001–1 which
requires that the Available Transfer
Capability Implementation Document
(required by NAESB Standard 001–
13.1.5 to be posted on OASIS) includes
74 Entergy
73 AWEA
PO 00000
at 4–5, EPSA at 18–19.
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
75 EPSA
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
at 6.
at 20–21.
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
information describing how the
available transfer capability
methodology is implemented ‘‘in such
detail that, given the same information
used by the Transmission Service
Provider, the results of the [available
transfer capability] or [available
flowgate capacity] calculations can be
validated.’’ 76 Therefore, the
methodology used to calculate available
transfer capability or available flowgate
capability as described in the Available
Transfer Capability Implementation
Document will be posted on OASIS and
should include the treatment of
conditional firm service if such
calculations are to be replicable. We
also note that pursuant to the
requirements of Order No. 890 and
Standard 001–16.1, this information
nevertheless must be provided upon
request. Because the methodology used
to account for conditional firm service
in available transfer capability
calculations could affect the reliability
of the Bulk-Power System, the
appropriate forum for addressing
EPSA’s concern relating to the lack of a
standard governing the treatment of
conditional firm service in such
calculations is the NERC standards
development process.
3. Other Issues
a. Transmission Request Priority
83. NAESB revised Standard 001–4.16
to complement the Commission’s
policies regarding pre-confirmed
transmission service requests,77 as
articulated in Order No. 890. As
required by Order No. 890, NAESB
standards ‘‘give priority only to preconfirmed non-firm point-to-point
transmission service requests and shortterm firm point-to-point transmission
service requests’’ 78 and provide that
‘‘longer duration requests for
transmission service will continue to
have priority over shorter duration
requests for transmission service, with
pre-confirmation serving as a tie-breaker
76 NERC
Standard MOD–001–1 R3.1.
the OATT, there are two types of
transmission service requests. One type of request
involves three steps: (1) A prospective shipper
requesting service; (2) the transmission operator
processing that request and responding; and (3) the
prospective shipper ‘‘confirming’’ its request. The
second type of request has only two steps: (1) The
prospective shipper ‘‘pre-confirms’’ its request with
the initial submission; and (2) if the transmission
operator unconditionally grants the request, it is
deemed confirmed without further contractual
communications. Thus, pre-confirmed transmission
service requests are those requests for which the
transmission customer commits to purchasing the
requested transmission service if the transmission
provider grants the full amount of capability
requested for the full duration requested.
78 Order No. 890, P 1401.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
77 Under
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
for requests of equal duration.’’ 79 In
addition, as requested by the
Commission in Order No. 890, NAESB
has developed a consensus solution to
the question of whether a transmission
customer should be prohibited from
changing a request into a pre-confirmed
request.80
84. The issue raised in the comments
relates to whether daily network service
can preempt short-term firm service
under Standard 001–4.16. This standard
includes Table 4–3, which illustrates
the relative queue priorities of
competing transmission service requests
and reservations. In addition, the table
describes the conditions under which a
subsequent request can preempt a
previously queued request or
reservation, as well as the rules for
offering a right-of-first-refusal.
85. Two previously adopted standards
also address the queue priority for nonfirm transmission service requests, i.e.,
Standards 001–4.22 and 001–4.25.
Standard 001–4.22 states that, once
confirmed, a non-firm point-to-point
request may not be displaced by a
subsequent non-firm point-to-point
request of equal duration and higher
price. After a transmission provider has
offered to provide non-firm
transmission service to a transmission
customer at a given price, the
transmission customer is afforded a
prescribed time limit within which to
confirm the request. Standard 001–4.25
states that a transmission provider may
not pre-empt a customer’s request in
favor of a subsequent request of the
same Tier and equal duration at a higher
price while the customer considers
whether to confirm its request during
the Customer Confirmation Time Limit,
unless the subsequent request is
submitted as pre-confirmed.
i. Comments
86. TranServ claims that, under Table
4–3, a request for designation of a new
network resource for a single day could
potentially preempt all confirmed (but
conditional) short-term firm point-topoint reservations, and that those
transmission customers whose
reservations were displaced would be
unable to retain their service. TranServ
suggests that designation of a new
network resource for terms less than 12
months should be considered for
preemption on a par with point-to-point
services. At a minimum, it argues that
requests to designate a new network
resource should be eligible to preempt
only those point-to-point reservations of
equal or shorter duration. In addition,
TranServ requests Commission
guidance as to whether longer term
point-to-point requests should have any
rights to preempt a shorter term network
resource designation and whether a
transmission customer whose point-topoint reservation has been displaced by
a longer term request to designate a
network resource has a right-of-firstrefusal to modify its request to match
the requested longer duration of the
competing service request so it can
retain its service priority.81
87. In its reply comments, APS
opposes TranServ’s proposal to allow
point-to-point services the same queue
priority as network customers,
contending it diminishes the value of
network service, which is a long term
service, to be on par with that of shorter
term point-to-point service requests.
88. TranServ also notes that while
confirmed but conditional short-term
firm reservations may be preempted
based on price, confirmed non-firm
reservations and unconfirmed (but
within the Customer Confirmation Time
Limit) non-firm requests in response to
which the transmission provider has
offered service may not be preempted by
subsequent requests based on price, as
described in Standards 001–4.22 and
001–4.25. TranServ requests that the
Commission advise the industry as to
whether this disparate treatment of firm
and non-firm service with regard to
preemption based on price should be
eliminated from the standards.
Specifically, TranServ asks if Table
4–3 should be revised to include the
preemption of non-firm reservations
based on price and if Standards 001–
4.22 and 001–4.25 should be removed.82
ii. Commission Determination
89. TranServ’s comments raise two
separate arguments. First, TranServ
argues that daily network service should
not displace short-term firm
reservations while those requests are
still conditional. Standard 001–4.16 and
Table 4–3, which govern the queue
priorities of competing transmission
service requests and reservations,
reflects the Commission’s policies
articulated in Order No. 890,83 and are
consistent with our determinations in
that order. As specified in the pro forma
OATT, network service (regardless of
contract duration) and long-term firm
service (over a year) have equal
reservation priority that is higher than
any short-term firm service. Both
network and long-term firm service can
preempt short-term firm service before
81 TranServ
at 4–5.
at 5–6.
83 See Order No. 890, P 1505.
79 Id.
80 Id.
PO 00000
82 Id.
P 1392.
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63299
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63300
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
the conditional reservation deadlines
have expired (i.e., one day before the
commencement of daily service, one
week before the commencement of
weekly service, and one month before
the commencement of monthly
service).84 In Order No. 890, the
Commission clarified that the minimum
term for the designation of new network
resources should be the same as the
minimum time period used for firm
point-to-point service (i.e., daily).85
90. Because the priority of network
service of any duration is higher than
that of short-term firm service, it will
preempt short-term firm service during
the conditional reservation period even
if the short-term firm service is of longer
duration. Therefore, the queue priority
described in Standard 001–4.16 and
Table 4–3 is consistent with the pro
forma OATT, and we will incorporate
by reference Standard 001–4.16 and
Table 4–3 as proposed in the NOPR.
Moreover, under the pro forma OATT,
a customer whose reservation has been
preempted does not have a right to
modify its request to match the priority
of the competing service request.
91. Second, TranServ contends that
previously adopted standards should be
modified to allow non-firm reservations
to be preempted based on price. It
argues that the same pricing rules that
apply to firm services, which permit
preemption based on price during the
conditional reservation period, also
should apply to non-firm service.
92. We note that the standards in
question, Standards 001–4.22 and 001–
4.25 (governing the queue priority for
non-firm transmission service requests),
were incorporated by reference in Order
No. 676,86 issued in 2006. These
standards are not revised in Version
002.0 or 002.1 of the standards. Thus,
TransServ’s contention is beyond the
scope of this proceeding.
93. In addition, we note that these
standards are consistent with the pro
forma OATT and prior Commission
determinations. Under the pro forma
OATT, the conditional reservation
period applies only to firm requests for
service, not to non-firm service.87
Therefore, the NAESB standards are
consistent with the Commission
policies.
b. Rollover Rights for Redirects
94. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR,
the Commission proposed to
incorporate by reference new and
84 Pro
forma OATT, section 13.2.
No. 890, P 1505.
86 See Order No. 676, P 19.
87 Open Access Same-Time Information System
and Standards of Conduct, Final Rule, Order No.
638, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,093, at 31,437 (2000).
85 Order
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
modified standards that relate to
rollover rights. The Commission
recognized that the filed NAESB
standards represented only the first part
of a two part process through which
NAESB will fully develop standards
that are consistent with the
Commission’s policy on rollover rights
as articulated in Order Nos. 676, 890,
and 890–A. In the Version 002.1
Standards submitted to the Commission
as part of the first part of the
aforementioned two part process,
NAESB included a new definition for
Unexercised Rollover Rights in WEQ–
001, as well as other modifications to
existing standards in WEQ–001, WEQ–
003, and WEQ–013. In its Version 002.1
filing letter of February 19, 2009,
NAESB stated that the second part of
this process would include
modifications to Standard 001–9.7, as
directed by Order No. 890. NAESB also
indicated that it anticipates that the
results of the second part of the process
will be included in a new Version 002.2
set of business practice standards,
which NAESB expects will be published
in the first quarter of 2010.
i. Comments
95. Two commenters requested that
the Commission not incorporate by
reference standards related to rollover
rights for redirects.88 Duke states that
the standards developed in the first part
of the process were ratified by the
NAESB membership with the
understanding that they would not be
significantly modified during the
second part of the process. However, as
Duke points out, certain standards were
substantially revised and a new
definition for ‘‘Unexercised Rollover
Rights’’ was created and included in the
recommendation posted for formal
comment by the Electronic Scheduling
Subcommittee/Information Technology
Subcommittee of NAESB. Therefore,
Duke requests that the Commission
defer action on these standards until the
second installment of the standards is
submitted. IRC agrees.
ii. Commission Determination
96. We recognize that the standards
relating to rollover rights for redirects
included in the Version 002.1 Standards
represent only the first part of a two-part
process. In addition, we understand that
both Duke and IRC are concerned that
the standards currently before the
Commission have been substantially
revised in the second part of the two
part process. However, neither Duke nor
IRC has expressed any substantive
concerns with the standards currently
88 Duke
PO 00000
at 5; ISO Council at 4–5.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
before the Commission, or offered any
suggested alternative to the filed
standards. Given these circumstances
and because we find no inconsistency
between the standards governing
rollover rights for redirects of
transmission service in the Version
002.1 Standards and Order No. 890 and
the Commission’s regulations, we will
incorporate these standards by
reference. We expect that should Duke,
IRC, or any other party have concerns
with the standards being developed
during the second part of the process
that they will be able to raise these
concerns within the NAESB process and
work to achieve a consensus solution
acceptable to all industry segments. We
reserve judgment on any phase two
standards governing rollover rights for
redirects of transmission service until
such time as these standards are
developed and filed with the
Commission for review.
c. Standard 002–5.10
97. Standard 002–5.10 requires that
all template interactions with OASIS be
updated to reflect the Version 1.5
OASIS standards within six months of
the Version 002.1 Standards becoming
effective.89 During this six month
implementation period, the standards
require that OASIS nodes must also
continue to support the Version 1.4
templates. The WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR did not propose a specific
implementation date for compliance
with any standards incorporated by
reference by the Commission in a final
rule.
i. Comment
98. Entergy requests clarification that
Standard 002–5.10 is applicable only to
the actual implementation of updated
templates and not to the additional
required OASIS functionalities
proposed in the Version 002.1
Standards, which may require
modification to or development of
supporting software applications.90
ii. Commission Determination
99. The Commission will grant the
requested clarification. The Commission
finds that Standard 002–5.10 is
applicable only to the actual
implementation of updated templates
and not to the additional required
OASIS functionalities proposed in the
Version 002.1 Standards, which may
require modification to or development
of supporting software applications. As
discussed in the Implementation section
89 As explained above, see n.17 supra, the Version
1.5 OASIS Standards form part of the Version 002.1
Business Practice Standards package.
90 Entergy at 4–5.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
of this Final Rule,91 the Commission is
not requiring compliance with the
OASIS requirements established in this
rule before the first day of the first
quarter occurring 365 days after
approval of the referenced NERC
Reliability Standards by all applicable
regulatory authorities.
d. Order No. 717 Issues
100. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR,
the Commission recognized that a
specific standard, Standard 001–13.1.2,
contained references to Commission
regulations regarding the posting of
Standards of Conduct-related
information. These regulations were
revised by Order No. 717.92 The
Commission went on to acknowledge
that the references in the standard were
no longer accurate and did not conform
to the Commission’s current
requirements, and therefore did not
propose to require public utilities to
comply with any portion of the standard
that was inconsistent with Order No.
717.
i. Comments
101. Duke 93 requests that the
Commission not adopt NAESB
standards that conflict with Order No.
717, and instead adopt the revised
NAESB standards whenever they are
filed with the Commission.94 Or, in the
alternative, Duke states the Commission
should provide greater clarity that
transmission service providers do not
have to comply with any posting or
other requirements in the approved
NAESB standards that have been
revised by Order No. 717.95 Similarly,
APS requests that the Commission
decline to incorporate by reference
Standard 001–21.3.1.2.2 (which states
that waivers of the Biennial
Reassessment be posted on OASIS as a
discretionary action) because such
posting of discretionary actions is no
longer required under Order No. 717.96
ii. Commission Determination
102. We addressed this concern in the
WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, in which we
stated that ‘‘we do not propose to
91 See
infra P 126.
of Conduct for Transmission
Providers, Order No. 717, 73 FR 63796, FERC Stats.
& Regs ¶ 31,280 (2008).
93 Duke at 3–4.
94 Duke states that NAESB’s Executive Committee
approved modifications to the business practices to
make them consistent with Order No. 717 on May
12, 2009, and they believe NAESB will ‘‘file these
standards with the Commission soon.’’
95 For instance, Duke references standards WEQ
001–13.1.2, WEQ 001–21.3.1.2.2, WEQ 001–13.1,
and WEQ 002–3.4b(ii) as examples of standards
containing posting requirements that are no longer
required by Order No. 717.
96 APS at 4.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
92 Standards
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
require public utilities to comply with
any portion of the standard that requires
information to be posted in a manner
inconsistent with Order No. 717.’’ While
this statement related directly to
Standard 001–13.1.2, we clarify here
that we will not require public utilities
to comply with any portion of the
Version 002.1 standards that requires
information to be posted in a manner
inconsistent with Order No. 717.
e. Coordination of Requests Across
Multiple Transmission Systems
103. In Order No. 890, the
Commission directed transmission
providers, working through NAESB, ‘‘to
develop business practice standards
related to coordination of requests
across multiple transmission
systems.’’ 97
i. Comments
104. North Carolina Electric
Membership Cooperative (NCEMC)
urges the Commission to monitor
closely NAESB’s progress on developing
standards for the coordination of
transmission service requests across
multiple transmission systems,
including requiring status reports as
appropriate. NCEMC argues that they
have experienced difficulties when
trying to conduct transactions across
two transmission providers’ systems.
Because this issue was originally
addressed by the Commission in
response to comments filed by TDU
Systems almost three years ago, NCEMC
believes that it is necessary for the
Commission to exert more pressure on
NAESB to develop this standard, as they
have yet to begin drafting it.
ii. Commission Determination
105. We agree that insufficient
progress has been made on this issue.
While we acknowledge that
development of standards addressing
this issue is included in NAESB’s 2009
WEQ Annual Plan,98 we nevertheless
urge NAESB to address this issue as
soon as possible. Accordingly, we
request that NAESB provide the
Commission with a status report
concerning its progress on this issue
every six months, counting from the
date this final rule is published in the
Federal Register, until NAESB’s
adoption of the applicable standard(s).
f. Waivers
106. NYISO asks the Commission to
take the opportunity to reconsider its
position regarding the process for filing
waivers. NYISO states that it currently
PO 00000
No. 890, P 1377.
2, (a), (iii), 1.
is required to make a waiver filing every
time the Commission incorporates a
revised NAESB standard. It asks the
Commission to revise this process so
that recipients of waivers only need to
file requests to renew their waivers
when NAESB adopts (and the
Commission incorporates by reference)
new standards or revises existing ones
in a substantive way. NYISO argues that
tracking, analyzing and making frequent
waiver filings are burdensome tasks and
do not benefit NYISO.
i. Commission Determination
107. When the Commission adopts
new requirements, it is incumbent on a
public utility that wishes to maintain an
existing waiver to making a showing to
the Commission that, based on the
particular facts at issue, the waiver
should continue. The determination of
whether a waiver from a prior
requirement should apply to a revised
requirement is one that needs to be
made on a case-by-case basis. We do not
agree that waivers should automatically
be extended without Commission
review and approval. Accordingly, we
deny NYISO’s request.
g. Suggestion To Develop Revised
Standards on Available Flowgate
Capability/Total Flowgate Capability
Postings
108. NERC Standard MOD–030–02
R11 provides definitions of Available
Flowgate Capacity and Total Flowgate
Capability and a formula to convert
Available Flowgate Capacity to
Available Transfer Capability. In Order
No. 890, the Commission directed
public utilities, working through NERC,
to develop in the MOD–001 standard a
rule to convert available flowgate
capacity into available transfer
capability values.99
i. Comments
109. TranServ comments they are not
in support of posting of flow-based
Available Flowgate Capacity and the
related transmission system metrics
used to convert Available Flowgate
Capacity to an effective Available
Transfer Capability. It seeks clarification
on how the requirements of 18 CFR 37.6
to post Available Transfer Capability,
Total Transfer Capability, Capacity
Benefit Margin and Transmission
Reliability Margin are to be addressed
by a Transmission Provider selecting to
use the Flow-based Available Transfer
Capability Methodology as specified in
NERC Standard MOD–030. It further
states there is no guidance on how the
Transmission Provider is to convert a
97 Order
98 Item
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
99 Order
Sfmt 4700
63301
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
No. 890, P 211.
03DER1
63302
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Total Flowgate Capability to an effective
path Total Transfer Capability, nor how
to convert flowgate Capacity Benefit
Margin or Transmission Reliability
Margin into an equivalent path-based
value. TranServ also requests that the
Commission direct either NAESB or
NERC to provide the necessary
computational standards to meet the
Commission’s posting requirements of
18 CFR 37.6.
ii. Commission Determination
110. Responsibility for developing an
acceptable formula to convert available
flowgate capacity to available transfer
capability rests with NERC, and not
NAESB. Our focus in this rulemaking is
to evaluate NAESB’s revised business
practice standards, and the comments
filed in response to our NOPR, to
determine whether we should
incorporate NAESB’s revised standards
by reference into our regulations. Thus,
we find that this issue is beyond the
scope of this proceeding.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
h. Incorporation by Reference
i. Comments
111. While NRECA and APPA100 do
not object to the substance of the
NAESB standards, they oppose the
Commission’s proposal to incorporate
by reference non-public standards into
its regulations and the OATTs of public
utilities. NRECA and APPA claim that
by incorporating standards by reference,
the Commission is depriving those
industry participants that are unable to
participate in the time- and resourceintensive NAESB standards
development process of adequate notice
or a reasonable opportunity to comment
on the standards before they are
enacted. They argue that the
Commission’s ordinary notice and
comment rulemaking process is more
cost-effective for smaller stakeholders,
as they are provided with the
opportunity to submit comments before
a neutral arbiter without incurring the
costs involved in the time- and
resource-intensive private standards
development process. In addition,
NRECA and APPA contend that,
because these standards are
incorporated by reference, industry
participants without knowledge of, or
practical access to, these rules may have
to defend themselves against
enforcement action by the Commission
based on alleged noncompliance with
the standards. Specifically, NRECA and
APPA cite the enhancement of the
Commission’s civil penalty authority in
EPAct 2005 and the possibility that such
100 NCEMC supports the comments filed by
NRECA and APPA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
penalties could be enforced against
transmission customers for violations of
the OATT.
112. Additionally, NRECA and APPA
claim that the Commission has taken the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA)
out of context, as it applies to practices
regarding federal procurement contracts
and places no affirmative obligations on
agencies outside of that context.
113. Therefore, they contend that the
Commission can and should reproduce
the content of the standards in order to
provide for greater transparency and
compliance.
114. To address these issues, NRECA
and APPA recommend that the
Commission ‘‘(1) cease incorporating
NAESB standards by reference into the
pro forma OATT and instead
promulgate its standards by ordinary
notice and comment rulemaking; (2)
provide substantially greater access to
those materials that are promulgated in
regulations; (3) or, at a minimum, clarify
that FERC will not attempt to assess
civil penalties on transmission
customers for violations of standards
that have merely been incorporated by
reference into regulations and OATTs of
public utilities.’’ 101 To support their
position for Commission publication of
the standards, NRECA and APPA claim
that the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit clarified that the
contents of privately developed
standards are not subject to copyright
protections once incorporated.102
ii. Commission Determination
115. When the Commission first
began to establish technical standards
for communication protocols and
business practices for the gas and
electric industries, the Commission
sponsored technical conferences and
meetings at which all industry
participants were entitled to participate.
For example, when the Commission
sponsored the process leading up to the
OASIS standards adopted in Order No.
889, it relied on two ad hoc committees
comprised of volunteers who offered to
host and conduct their own meetings,
open to participants from various
industry sectors and attended by staff
observers, to seek consensus on
proposed OASIS standards. These
101 NRECA
and APPA at 7.
and APPA at 9. These commenters
cite Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress
International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002),
cert. denied, 539 U.S. 969 (2003) (Veeck) for the
proposition that a model code incorporated into the
law becomes part of the ‘‘public domain’’ and,
therefore, is not copyrightable. They also cite John
G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-Conant Properties,
Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 39 (1st Cir. 2003) (Danielson) as
supporting this proposition.
102 NRECA
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
committees had no formal structure or
voting rules.
116. The NAESB process for both the
gas and electric industries resulted in
streamlining the standards development
process and making it more efficient by
creating regularized procedures and
voting rules. Under the NAESB
approved ANSI consensus procedures,
each industry segment is represented
and it is no longer necessary for all
participants to attend conferences at the
Commission in order to ensure their
votes are heard. They can now
participate either directly or indirectly
through their industry representatives at
NAESB. From our experience, the
NAESB process is far more efficient and
cost effective method of developing
technical standards for the industries
involved than the use of a notice and
comment rulemaking process involving
numerous technical conferences in
Washington that all believe they have to
attend.
117. While the NAESB process
includes numerous volunteers from the
industries, NAESB incurs
administrative expenses which it must
cover. Membership dues and fees for
obtaining standards provide a
reasonable means of obtaining the
necessary revenue stream.103 When the
Commission weighed the advantages
achieved by the NAESB standards
development process against the cost to
the Commission and the industry of
developing these standards through
notice and comment rulemaking, we
found, and continue to find, that the
benefits of having a well-established,
consensus process outweigh whatever
costs non-members may incur in having
to obtain copies of the standards.
118. In choosing to take advantage of
the efficiency of the NAESB process, we
followed the government regulations
that require the use of incorporation by
reference. These rules appropriately
balance the interest of the standards
organization and the expediency of
governmental use of privately
developed standards. Under section
552(a) of title 5, material may be
incorporated by reference when such
material is reasonably available to the
public. Under the regulations adopted
by the Federal Register, material
incorporated by reference is maintained
at the Office of the Federal Register for
public viewing.104 As part of the
103 American National Standards Institute, Why
Charge for Standards, https://www.ansi.org/help/
charge_standards.aspx?menuid=help. Without such
a revenue source, the Commission would have to
consider imposing mandatory charges, similar to
the mandatory charges to support NERC. 18 CFR
39.4(e).
104 1 CFR 51.3.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
incorporation process, the material also
must be available and obtainable by the
user.105 As we have pointed out in past
orders, the NAESB standards are easily
and readily available from NAESB, as
well as being available at the
Commission and the Office of the
Federal Register. For example, for those
who want to view the standards in order
to make comments with the
Commission, NAESB makes the
standards available for free for a three
day period.106 Even for those nonmembers seeking to purchase a copy,
the standards are available for $900,
which we do not find prohibitive, given
the costs of otherwise participating in a
notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding, including the hiring of legal
counsel.107
119. The Veeck case cited by the
commenters dealt only with a thirdparty reprinting of local law derived
from incorporation of a model building
code. The case did not invalidate the
copyrights held by the organization over
their standards, nor did it require, nor
authorize the government to provide
copies of private sector standards either
prior to or after incorporation by
reference.108
120. Indeed, OMB Circular A–119
requires government agencies
incorporating privately developed
standards to ‘‘observe and protect the
rights of the copyright holder and any
other similar obligations.’’ 109 In
105 1
III. Implementation Dates and
Procedures
122. OATI 112 supports the
Commission’s proposed actions and has
no immediate concerns with any of the
proposed standards. Both OATI and
TranServ suggest that the Commission
CFR 51.9.
106 https://www.naesb.org/misc/NAESB_
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
addition to copyright, the Commission
also is barred contractually from
reproducing the standards for
distribution to third parties.110
121. Nor do we find that the need for
public utilities to obtain standards to
comply with Commission regulations is
a sufficient reason to reconsider the
Commission’s reliance on the NAESB
process. Public utilities must incur
numerous fees as a cost of doing
business, including the payment of
Commission annual charges, the filing
of mandated reports and forms, and the
costs incurred in having to maintain
those records. As to commenters’
argument that the Commission has
misinterpreted section 12d of the
NTT&AA, we find that the Act and the
accompanying regulations are not
limited to procurement specifications,
as suggested in the comments, but
include adoption of standards ‘‘as a
means to carry out policy objectives or
activities.’’ 111 In any event, as discussed
above, we see benefits to the continued
role of NAESB in developing electronic
communication and business practice
standards for public utilities, whether
required by NTT&AA or not.
Nonmember_Evaluation_LockLizard.pdf.
107 The cost of obtaining the standards likely
would be no higher than the legal cost to prepare
the pleading at issue. https://www.usdoj.gov/usao/
dc/Divisions/Civil_Division/Laffey_Matrix_3.html.
($180–$380/hour depending on experience under
the Laffey Matrix estimation procedure); https://
www.altmanweil.com/index.cfm/fa/r.resource_
detail/oid/87716caa-56df-4ad9-b3759e9366ba6d60/resource/New_Survey_Provides_
Snapshot_of_Law_Firm_Economics_Across_
US.cfm. (2007 median Washington DC legal rates of
$455/hour for partners and $295/hour for
associates).
108 Veeck, 293 F.3d at 803 (case deals only with
the ‘‘relationship between non-federal government
entities and copyright holders’’). The court also
emphasized that it was not dealing with extrinsic
standards that government agencies incorporate by
reference as part of the technical requirements of a
government regulation, similar to our use of the
NAESB standards as technical implementation of
the Commission’s OASIS regulations. Veeck, 293
F.3d at 84; see CCC Info. Services v. Maclean
Hunter Market Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61 (2nd Cir.
1994); and Practice Management Info. Corp. v.
American Medical Ass’n, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir.
1997), opinion amended by 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.
1998). Unlike Veeck, NAESB does not solicit
incorporation by reference. Veeck, 293 F.3d at 805.
Likewise, in Danielson, the court found that
architectural drawings were not made into judicial
decisions and statutes in the public domain merely
because they were referenced in a recorded deed.
109 OMB Circular No. A–119 (Revised February
10, 1998), at 6J, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
rewrite/circulars/a119/a119.html. See 28
U.S.C.§ 1498 (federal government may be liable for
copyright infringement). Other government agencies
similarly have denied requests to publish copies of
privately developed standards. See Updating OSHA
Standards Based on National Consensus Standards,
74 FR 46350–46361 (September 9, 2009) (‘‘OSHA
notes that copyright laws protect national
consensus standards’’); Airworthiness Directives;
Airbus Model A300 Airplanes, 72 FR 6923 (Feb. 14,
2007) (finding that incorporated by reference
materials ‘‘do not lose their copyright protection’’).
Taken to its logical extreme, NRECA and APPA’s
argument would require that a school system’s
decision to require children to acquire and read the
novel ‘‘Fahrenheit 451’’ over summer vacation
operates to vitiate the copyright and obligates the
system to reprint the text of the novel. See Veeck,
293 F.3d at 804–805 (copyrighted works do not
‘‘become law’’ merely because a statute refers to
them); CCC Info. Servs. 44 F.3d at 74 (‘‘It scarcely
extends CCC’s argument to require that all such
assigned books lose their copyright—as one cannot
comply with the legal requirements without using
the copyrighted works’’).
110 Agreement Granting Permission to Copy
Standards (August 9, 1996), https://www.naesb.org/
pdf4/gisb_copy_permission_to_ferc_080996.pdf.
111 Public Law 104–113, 12(d), 110 Stat. 775
(1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997). OMB Circular
A–119 (agency ‘‘must use voluntary consensus
standards, both domestic and international, in its
regulatory’’ as well as procurement activities).
112 Open Access Technology International, Inc.
(OATI) is a supplier of software for the electric
industry, including OASIS and back-office
supporting systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63303
should defer implementation of WEQ–
002, WEQ–003, and WEQ–013 for a
minimum of six to nine months to allow
transmission providers sufficient time to
modify their existing OASIS systems
and make necessary changes to their
processes, procedures, and other
supporting software systems. Both also
suggest avoiding implementation during
the summer or winter peak seasons.
123. APS argues that because the
postings for the ATC Information Link
and Postback Requirements relate to the
Implementation Documents required by
the NERC standards, there should not be
an effective requirement to post items
related to these documents prior to the
date on which the underlying NERC
rules take effect. Therefore, APS
requests that the requirements of
Standards 001–18 through 001–18.2
have the same effective date as the
NERC available transfer capability
related standards.
124. Entergy argues that because
Standards 001–13.1.5, 001–14.1, and
001–15.1 relate to, and potentially
depend on, the NERC reliability
standards, the Commission should
consider the need to coordinate the
effective dates of these two sets of
standards.113
125. While Entergy acknowledges the
difficulty of developing a single
industry methodology for implementing
Standard 001–21.1.6, because Entergy
believes that it does not provide
significant guidance as to how
transmission providers should
implement this standard, Entergy argues
that its implementation will require
significant software development. To
address this issue, Entergy asks that the
Commission set the effective date of this
provision to coincide with the date at
which the OASIS vendors will have
developed the appropriate software
modifications necessary to implement
this standard.114
A. Commission Determination
126. In light of the time needed to
plan and complete the complex tasks
involved in implementing the standards
we are adopting in this Final Rule, as
well as the desirability of aligning the
implementation of the requirements in
these standards that relate to the NERC
standards being adopted in Docket No.
RM08–19–000, we will make the
implementation date for compliance
with the NAESB standards we are
incorporating by reference in this Final
Rule coincident with the
implementation date applicable to the
NERC reliability standards that the
113 Entergy
114 Id.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
at 6–7.
at 4–5.
03DER1
63304
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
commission approved in an order being
issued concurrently with this order.
Accordingly, public utilities subject to
these requirements will not be required
to comply with these standards until the
first day of the first quarter occurring
365 days after approval of the
referenced Reliability Standards by all
applicable regulatory authorities.
127. However, as we stated above, a
revised Attachment C to the OATT must
be filed on or before 275 days after
approval of the NERC Reliability
Standards being addressed in Docket
No. RM08–19–000 by all applicable
regulatory authorities.
128. Consistent with our regulation at
18 CFR 35.28(c)(vi), each electric utility
must revise its OATT to include the
Version 002.1 WEQ standards that we
are incorporating by reference herein.
For standards that do not require
implementing tariff provisions, the
Commission will allow the utility to
incorporate the WEQ standard by
reference in its OATT. Moreover, as we
proposed in the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR, to lighten the burden associated
with a stand-alone filing of a revised
tariff reflecting the standards
incorporated by reference in this Final
Rule, we are giving public utilities the
option of including these changes as
part of an unrelated tariff filing,
provided that the revised tariff is filed
with the Commission at least ninety
days before the prescribed date for
compliance with the revised standards
(the first day of the first quarter
occurring 365 days after approval of the
referenced Reliability Standards by all
applicable regulatory authorities). In
addition, consistent with our prior
practice, if a public utility fails to file
the required tariff revisions prior to the
compliance date, it nonetheless must
abide by these standards even before it
has updated its tariff to incorporate
these changes.
129. If adoption of these standards
does not require any changes or
revisions to existing OATT provisions,
public utilities may comply with this
rule by adding a provision to their
OATTs that incorporates the standards
adopted in this rule by reference,
including the standard number and
Version 002.1 to identify the standard.
To incorporate these standards into
their OATTs, public utilities must use
the following language in their
OATTs: 115
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS), Version
1.5 (WEQ–001, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009),
with the exception of Standards 001–
0.1, 001–0.9 through 001–0.13, 001–1.0,
001–9.7, 001–14.1.3, and 001–15.1.2;
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS) Standards
& Communications Protocols, Version
1.5 (WEQ–002, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS) Data
Dictionary, Version 1.5 (WEQ–003,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
• Coordinate Interchange (WEQ–004,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
• Area Control Error (ACE) Equation
Special Cases (WEQ–005, Version 002.1,
March 11, 2009, with minor corrections
applied May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009);
• Manual Time Error Correction
(WEQ–006, Version 001, October 31,
2007, with minor corrections applied on
Nov. 16, 2007);
• Inadvertent Interchange Payback
(WEQ–007, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
• Transmission Loading Relief—
Eastern Interconnection (WEQ–008,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
• Gas/Electric Coordination (WEQ–
011, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009,
with minor corrections applied May 29,
2009 and September 8, 2009);
• Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
(WEQ–012, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
and
• Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS)
Implementation Guide, Version 1.5
(WEQ–013, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009).
130. If a public utility requests waiver
of a standard, it will not be required to
comply with the standard until the
Commission acts on its waiver request.
Therefore, if a public utility has
115 As shown, the tariff language to be used
should reference Version 001 of WEQ–006, as we
are not incorporating by reference Version 002.1 of
WEQ–006 at this time.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
obtained a waiver or has a pending
request for a waiver, its proposed
revision to its OATT should not include
the standard number associated with the
standard for which it has obtained or
seeks a waiver. Instead, the public
utility’s OATT should specify those
standards for which the public utility
has obtained a waiver or has pending a
request for waiver. Once a waiver
request is denied, the public utility will
be required to include in its OATT the
standard(s) for which waiver was
denied.
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards
131. Office of Management and
Budget Circular A–119 (section 11)
(February 10, 1998) provides that when
a federal agency issues or revises a
regulation containing a standard, the
agency should publish a statement in
the Final Rule stating whether the
adopted standard is a voluntary
consensus standard or a governmentunique standard. In this rulemaking, the
Commission is incorporating by
reference voluntary consensus standards
developed by the WEQ.
V. Information Collection Statement
132. OMB’s regulations in 5 CFR
1320.11 (2005) require that it approve
certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of
information) imposed by an agency.
Upon approval of a collection of
information, OMB assigns an OMB
control number and an expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of this Final Rule will not
be penalized for failing to respond to
this collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
valid OMB control number.
133. This Final Rule will affect the
following existing data collections:
Standards for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public
Utilities (FERC–717) and Electric Rate
Schedule Filings (FERC–516).
134. The following burden estimate is
based on the projected costs for the
industry to implement revisions to the
WEQ Standards currently incorporated
by reference into the Commission’s
regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 and to
implement the new standards adopted
by NAESB that we are incorporating by
reference in this Final Rule.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Number of
responses per
respondent
Number of
respondents
Data collection
Hours per
response
63305
Total number
of hours
FERC–516 .......................................................................................
FERC–717 .......................................................................................
176
176
1
1
6
30
1,056
5,280
Totals ........................................................................................
............................
............................
............................
6,336
Total Annual Hours for Collection:
(Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if
appropriate)) = 6336 hours.
Information Collection Costs: The
Commission projects the average
annualized cost for all respondents to be
the following: 116
FERC–516
FERC–717
$390,720
N/A
$2,344,320
............................
Total Annualized Costs ............................................................................................................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs ....................................................................................................................
Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance) ..............................................................................................
390,720
2,344,320
135. The Commission sought
comments on the burden of complying
with the requirements imposed by these
requirements. No comments were filed
addressing the reporting burden.117
136. The Commission’s regulations
adopted in this rule are necessary to
establish a more efficient and integrated
wholesale electric power grid. Requiring
such information ensures both a
common means of communication and
common business practices that provide
entities engaged in the wholesale
transmission of electric power with
timely information and uniform
business procedures across multiple
transmission providers. These
requirements conform to the
Commission’s goal for efficient
information collection, communication,
and management within the electric
power industry. The Commission has
assured itself, by means of its internal
review, that there is specific, objective
support for the burden estimates
associated with the information
requirements.
137. OMB regulations 118 require OMB
to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by
agency rule. The Commission is
submitting notification of this proposed
rule to OMB. These information
collections are mandatory requirements.
Title: Standards for Business Practices
and Communication Protocols for
Public Utilities (formerly Open Access
Same Time Information System) (FERC–
717); Electric Rate Schedule Filings
(FERC–516).
Action: Final Rule.
OMB Control No.: 1902–0096 (FERC–
516); 1902–0173 (FERC–717).
Respondents: Business or other for
profit (Public Utilities—Not applicable
to small businesses).
Frequency of Responses: One-time
implementation (business procedures,
capital/start-up).
Necessity of the Information: This
rule will upgrade the Commission’s
current business practice and
communication standards to comply
with the Commission’s determinations
in Order Nos. 676–C, 890, 890–A, and
890–B, to explicitly include demand
resources in the definitions of certain
ancillary services, to clarify parties’
rollover rights, to clarify the differences
in timing requirements for the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council and all
other interconnections by modifying the
Coordinate Interchange Timing Tables
contained in Appendix D of the
Coordinate Interchange Standards
(WEQ–004), and to modify the
Transmission Loading Relief—Eastern
Interconnection Standards (WEQ–008)
to add clarity and ensure that the
business practice standards are
consistent with NERC reliability
standard IRO–006.
138. These changes will ensure that
potential customers of open access
transmission service receive access to
information that will enable them to
obtain transmission service on a nondiscriminatory basis, will assist the
Commission in maintaining a safe and
reliable infrastructure and also will
assure the reliability of the interstate
transmission grid. The implementation
of these standards and regulations is
necessary to increase the efficiency of
the wholesale electric power grid.
139. The information collection
requirements of this Final Rule are
based on the transition from
transactions being made under the
Commission’s existing business practice
standards to conducting such
transactions under the proposed
revisions to these standards and to
account for the burden associated with
the new standard(s) being proposed
here.
140. Internal Review: The
Commission has reviewed the revised
business practice standards and has
made a determination that the revisions
adopted in this Final Rule are necessary
to maintain consistency between the
business practice standards and
reliability standards on this subject. The
Commission has assured itself, by
means of its internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the
burden estimate associated with the
information requirements.
141. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Attn: Michael Miller,
Office of the Executive Director, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
Tel: (202) 502–8415/Fax: (202) 273–
0873, E-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov.
116 The total annualized cost for the information
collections is $2,344,320. This number is reached
by multiplying the total hours to prepare responses
(6,336) by an hourly wage estimate of $370 (a
composite estimate that includes legal, technical
and support staff rates, $250 + $95 + $25 = $370),
6,336 hours × $370/hour = $2,344,320.
117 We note, however, that two comments argued
that it would be too costly for small entities to
obtain copies of the NAESB Standards from
NAESB. We addressed these comments in the
preamble of this Final Rule.
118 5 CFR 1320.11.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
VI. Environmental Analysis
142. The Commission is required to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement
for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
63306
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
environment.119 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from these requirements as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment.120
143. The actions required by this
Final Rule fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission’s
regulations for rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural, for
information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination, and for sales, exchange,
and transportation of electric power that
requires no construction of facilities.121
Therefore, an environmental assessment
is unnecessary and has not been
prepared in this Final Rule.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
144. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA)122 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulations adopted here
impose requirements only on public
utilities, which are not small businesses,
and, these requirements are, in fact,
designed to benefit all customers,
including small businesses.
145. The Commission has followed
the provisions of both the RFA and the
Paperwork Reduction Act on potential
impact on small business and other
small entities. Specifically, the RFA
directs agencies to consider four
regulatory alternatives to be considered
in a rulemaking to lessen the impact on
small entities: tiering or establishment
of different compliance or reporting
requirements for small entities,
classification, consolidation,
clarification or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements,
performance rather than design
standards, and exemptions. As the
Commission originally stated in Order
No. 889, the OASIS regulations now
known as Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, apply only to public
utilities that own, operate, or control
transmission facilities subject to the
Commission’s jurisdiction and should a
small entity be subject to the
Commission’s jurisdiction, it may file
for waiver of the requirements.123 This
119 Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 52 FR
47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs.
Preambles ¶ 30,783 (1987).
120 18 CFR 380.4.
121 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5),
380.4(a)(27).
122 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
123 We also have provided for requests of waiver
in instances where compliance would be very
burdensome and a waiver would not diminish the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
is consistent with the exemption
provisions of the RFA. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 605(b) of the
RFA,124 the Commission hereby certifies
that the regulations proposed herein
will not have a significant adverse
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
VIII. Document Availability
146. 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 (https://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.
147. From FERC’s Home Page on the
Internet, this information is available in
the eLibrary. The full text of this
document is available in the eLibrary
both in PDF and Microsoft Word format
for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document
in eLibrary, type the docket number
excluding the last three digits of this
document in the docket number field.125
148. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the FERC’s website during
our normal business hours. For
assistance contact FERC Online Support
at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or tollfree at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY,
contact (202) 502–8659.
IX. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
149. This Final Rule will become
effective January 4, 2010. The
Commission has determined with the
concurrence of the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, that this rule is not a major rule
within the meaning of section 251 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.126
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 38
Conflict of interests, Electric power
plants, Electric utilities, Incorporation
by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
overall benefits of the standards. See supra P 107,
130.
124 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
125 NAESB’s Dec. 26, 2007 submittal is also
available for viewing in eLibrary. The link to this
file is as follows: https://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/
doc_info.asp?document_id=13566661.
126 See 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Commission amends Chapter I, Title 18,
part 38 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
■
PART 38—BUSINESS PRACTICE
STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION
PROTOCOLS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 38
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791–825r, 2601–2645;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.
2. Amend § 38.2 by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(5) and (a)(7) through (a)(11) as set
forth below.
■ b. Amending paragraph (b) to add the
phrase ‘‘(713) 356–0060, https://
www.naesb.org’’ after the phrase
‘‘77002’’ and adding ‘‘(202) 502–8371’’
after the phrase ‘‘20426.’’
■
■
§ 38.2 Incorporation by reference of North
American Energy Standards Board
Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.
(a) * * *
(1) Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS), Version
1.5 (WEQ–001, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009,
with the exception of Standards 001–
0.1, 001–0.9 through 001–0.13, 001–1.0,
001–9.7, 001–14.1.3, and 001–15.1.2);
(2) Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS) Standards
& Communication Protocols, Version 1.5
(WEQ–002, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
(3) Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS) Data
Dictionary, Version 1.5 (WEQ–003,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
(4) Coordinate Interchange (WEQ–
004, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009,
with minor corrections applied May 29,
2009 and September 8, 2009);
(5) Area Control Error (ACE) Equation
Special Cases (WEQ–005, Version 002.1,
March 11, 2009, with minor corrections
applied May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009);
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Inadvertent Interchange Payback
(WEQ–007, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
(8) Transmission Loading Relief—
Eastern Interconnection (WEQ–008,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009
and September 8, 2009);
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Gas/Electric Coordination (WEQ–
011, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009,
with minor corrections applied May 29,
2009 and September 8, 2009);
(10) Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
(WEQ–012, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
and
(11) Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems (OASIS)
Implementation Guide, Version 1.5
(WEQ–013, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied
May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–28619 Filed 12–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 17
RIN 2900–AM82
Community Residential Care Program
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document amends the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Community Residential Care regulations
to update the standards for VA approval
of facilities, including standards for fire
safety and heating and cooling systems.
This rule also establishes a 12-month
duration for VA approvals and would
authorize provisional approval of
certain facilities. Finally, this rule
eliminates the statement of needed care
requirement and clarifies that it is the
care providers at the facility that
determine the services needed by a
particular veteran.
DATES: Effective Date: This amendment
is effective January 4, 2010. The Director
of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this rule as of
January 4, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Schoeps, Office of Geriatrics and
Extended Care Services (114), Veterans
Health Administration, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461–
6763. (This is not a toll-free number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
document published in the Federal
Register on November 26, 2008 (73 FR
71999), VA proposed to amend its
community residential care regulations,
which are codified at 38 CFR 17.61
through 17.72. The regulations
implement 38 U.S.C. 1730, which
provides that VA health care personnel
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
may assist veterans by referring them for
placement in a privately or publiclyowned community residential care
facility if certain criteria are met. As a
condition of approval, the regulations
require facilities to meet industry-wide
fire safety standards and to have safe
and functioning systems for heating. We
proposed to amend the regulations to
update the standards for VA approval of
community residential care facilities
and clarify program requirements.
We received two comments on the
proposed rule. Both commenters fully
supported the proposed rule and
discussed generally the importance of
VA’s requirement that community
residential care facilities comply with
certain provisions of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Life
Safety Code (2006 edition), and the
NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative
Approaches to Life Safety (2007
edition). We are grateful to the
commenters for their submissions, and
make no changes based on the
comments.
This final rule amends § 17.63 to
ensure that veterans who are placed in
privately or publicly owned community
residential care facilities are provided
safe living conditions by making VA’s
approval contingent upon a facility’s
implementation of the NFPA fire safety
guidelines in chapters 1–11, 32–33, 43,
and Annex A of the NFPA 101, NFPA’s
Life Safety Code Handbook, Tenth
Edition (2006 edition), and NFPA 101A,
Guide on Alternative Approaches to Life
Safety (2007 edition). These documents
are incorporated by reference in this
final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Further, the
final rule amends § 17.63(a)(3) to require
safe and functioning heating and
cooling systems. VA intends that
facilities will meet the standard for
heating and cooling systems in the
county, parish, or other similar
jurisdiction where a facility is located.
These provisions will help to ensure
that veterans referred by VA to an
approved facility for community care
are provided with safe and comfortable
living conditions.
The final rule removes the ‘‘statement
of needed care’’ requirement in
§ 17.63(b) and (i)(2)(i) for veterans
referred by VA to a community
residential care facility. We are
removing this requirement because VA
does not determine or control the care
that is provided to a veteran in an
approved facility under this program.
This amendment clarifies that VA relies
on the heath care professionals
employed by the facility and facility
officials to determine the care that a
particular veteran needs.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63307
We are also removing § 17.64, which
prescribes exceptions to VA standards
for community residential care facilities
that participated in VA’s program prior
to the effective date of regulations
promulgated in 1989. There are no
facilities that currently qualify for the
exceptions and there are no facilities
that could qualify for an exception in
the future.
Regarding VA approval of facilities,
we clarify that such approvals shall be
for a 12-month period if all the
standards in § 17.63 are met. We also
clarify that VA may grant a provisional
approval if the facility does not meet
one or more of the standards in § 17.63,
provided that the deficiencies do not
jeopardize the health or safety of the
residents and that the facility
management and VA have agreed to a
plan for correcting any deficiencies in a
specified amount of time. The
provisional approval provision allows
VA to continue recommending facilities
with temporary deficiencies when it is
in the best interest of residents to do so.
These amendments will help to ensure
that approvals are based on current
information and, given VA’s practice of
inspecting each facility at least once in
each 12-month period, should not
impose an additional burden on VA or
on facilities.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
expenditure by the State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any given year. This final rule will have
no such effect on State, local and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives, and
when regulation is necessary to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The
Order classifies a ‘‘significant regulatory
action,’’ requiring review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), as
any regulatory action that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect in
a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 231 (Thursday, December 3, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63288-63307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28619]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 38
[Docket No. RM05-5-013; Order No. 676-E]
Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for
Public Utilities
Issued November 24, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
revising its regulations to incorporate by reference in its regulations
at 18 CFR 38.2 the latest version (Version 002.1) of certain business
practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant of the
North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). NAESB's Version 002.1
Standards include standards adopted by NAESB in response to Order Nos.
890, 890-A, and
[[Page 63289]]
890-B. The Version 002.1 Standards we are incorporating by reference in
this Final Rule modify NAESB's Commercial Timing Table (WEQ-004
Appendix D) and Transmission Loading Relief Standards (WEQ-008) to
provide clarity and align NAESB's business practice standards with the
reliability standards adopted by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, and amend certain ancillary services
definitions appearing in the Open Access Same-Time Information Systems
Standards (WEQ-001) relating to the inclusion of demand response
resources as potential providers of ancillary services. Incorporating
these revised standards by reference into the Commission's regulations
will provide customers with information that will enable them to obtain
transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis and will assist the
Commission in supporting needed infrastructure and the reliability of
the interstate transmission grid.
DATES: Effective Date: This Final Rule will become effective on January
4, 2010. Dates for implementation of the standards are provided in the
Final Rule. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the
incorporation by reference of the standards addressed in the Final Rule
effective January 4, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce McAllister (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8296.
Valerie Roth (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8538.
Ryan M. Irwin (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6454.
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502-8321.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Paragraph
numbers
I. Background.............................................. 3
II. Discussion............................................. 10
A. Overview............................................ 10
B. Issues Raised by Commenters......................... 18
1. Available Transfer Capability-Related Standards. 18
2. Conditional Firm Service Standards.............. 57
3. Other Issues.................................... 83
III. Implementation Dates and Procedures................... 122
A. Commission Determination............................ 126
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards......... 131
V. Information Collection Statement........................ 132
VI. Environmental Analysis................................. 142
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification.............. 144
VIII. Document Availability................................ 146
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.......... 149
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations under the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ to
incorporate by reference the latest version (Version 002.1) of certain
business practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant
(WEQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). These
revised standards update an earlier version of the standards that the
Commission previously incorporated by reference into its regulations at
18 CFR 38.2 in Order No. 676-C.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 791a, et seq.
\2\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-C, FERC Stats. & Regs., ] 31,274
(2008), order on clarification and reh'g, Order No. 676-D, 124 FERC
] 61,317 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The new and revised standards that NAESB adopted in the Version
002.1 standards enable public utilities to implement requirements of
Order Nos. 890, 890-A, and 890-B.\3\ In addition, these standards
modify the Commercial Timing Table (WEQ-004 Appendix D) and
Transmission Loading Relief Standards (WEQ-008) to provide clarity and
align NAESB's business practice standards with the reliability
standards adopted by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), and amend certain ancillary services definitions
appearing in the Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS)
Standards (WEQ-001) relating to the inclusion of demand response
resources as potential providers of ancillary services.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241
(2007); order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,261 (2007); order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 890-B,
123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008).
\4\ The Version 002.1 Standards also revise the Manual Time
Error Correction Standards (WEQ-006) to maintain consistency with
revised NERC Standard BAL-004, but we are not incorporating this
standard by reference because the Commission's consideration of the
revised BAL-004 is still pending. Thus, the earlier version of WEQ-
006 will remain in force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
3. NAESB is a non-profit standards development organization
established in January 2002 that serves as an industry forum for the
development of business practice standards that promote a seamless
marketplace for wholesale and retail natural gas and electricity.\5\
Since 1995, NAESB and its predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards
Board, have been accredited members of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), complying with ANSI's requirements that its standards
reflect a consensus of the affected industries.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,612, at P 3 (2007) (Version 2.1 NOPR).
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. NAESB's standards include business practices that streamline the
transactional processes of the natural gas and electric industries, as
well as communication protocols and related standards designed to
improve the efficiency of communication within each industry. NAESB
supports all four quadrants of the gas and electric industries--
wholesale gas, wholesale electric, retail gas, and retail electric. All
participants in the gas and electric industries are eligible to join
NAESB
[[Page 63290]]
and participate in standards development.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. P 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. NAESB's procedures are designed to ensure that all industry
members can have input into the development of a standard, whether or
not they are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is
supported by a consensus of the six industry segments: transmission,
generation, marketer/brokers, distribution/load serving entities, end
users, and independent grid operators/planners. Under the WEQ process,
for a standard to be approved, it must receive a super-majority vote of
67 percent of the members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with support
from at least 40 percent of each of the six industry segments.\8\ For
final approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's general membership must ratify
the standards.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Under NAESB's procedures, interested persons may attend and
participate in NAESB committee meetings, and phone conferences, even
if they are not NAESB members.
\9\ Version 2.1 NOPR, P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. On September 2, 2008, NAESB reported to the Commission that its
WEQ Executive Committee had approved Version 002.0 of its business
practice standards.\10\ NAESB states that its leadership responded to
Order Nos. 890, 890-A, and 890-B, by requesting that its Electronic
Scheduling Subcommittee/Information Technology Subcommittee (ESS/ITS)
and its Business Practice Subcommittee (BPS) coordinate efforts to
address the issues raised by those orders. NAESB states that the ESS/
ITS and BPS worked in close coordination with the pertinent NERC
committees to draft business practice standards on Order No. 890 issues
that complement the NERC reliability standards related to these issues,
so that the standards for both organizations would be consistent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See NAESB supplemental report dated Nov. 14, 2008.
\11\ The Commission is addressing the associated reliability
standards adopted by NERC in a companion final rule being issued in
Docket No. RM08-19-000. Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Calculation of Available Transfer Capability, Capacity Benefit
Margins, Transmission Reliability Margins, Total Transfer
Capability, and Existing Transmission Commitments and Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Final Rule, FERC
Stats. & Regs. 129 FERC ] 61,155 (ATC Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. On February 19, 2009, NAESB notified the Commission that the WEQ
Executive Committee had approved its Version 002.1 standards, which
include both new standards and modifications to existing Version 002.0
standards.\12\ The Version 002.1 standards include new standards
related to capacity benefit margin and rollover rights, and were
developed in response to Order Nos. 890, 890-A, and 676-C. Additional
modifications included in the Version 002.1 standards include: (1)
Modifications to existing standards pertaining to rollover rights; (2)
modifications to the Coordinate Interchange Timing Tables contained in
Appendix D of the Coordinate Interchange Standards (WEQ-004) to clarify
the differences in timing requirements for the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council and all other interconnections, complementary to
the NERC reliability standards; and (3) modifications to the
Transmission Loading Relief--Eastern Interconnection Standards (WEQ-
008) to add clarity and ensure that the business practice standards are
consistent with NERC reliability standard IRO-006. The Version 002.1
standards supersede and fully replace Version 002.0. To simplify our
discussion, unless otherwise stated, we will refer to the new standards
collectively as Version 002.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ On March 12, 2009, NAESB submitted a report to the
Commission documenting its ratification of the Version 002.1
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. On March 19, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to incorporate by reference in its
regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 certain \13\ NAESB WEQ Version 002.1
Business Practice Standards.\14\ In response to this notice, thirteen
timely comments, and one late-filed reply comment were filed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See infra n.6.
\14\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 74 FR
16160 (Apr. 9, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,640 (Mar. 19, 2009)
(WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR).
\15\ The Commission will consider all the comments filed in
response to the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, including Arizona Public
Service Company's (APS) late-filed reply comment. The Commission
received comments from the following entities: American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA); APS; Bonneville Power Administration
(Bonneville); Duke Energy Corporation (Duke); Electric Power Supply
Association (EPSA); Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy); ISO/RTO
Council (IRC); National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA) and American Public Power Association (APPA) (collectively,
NRECA/APPA); New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO);
North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation (NCEMC); Open Access
Technology International, Inc. (OATI); TranServ International, Inc.
(TranServ); and Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. On July 7, 2009, and October 9, 2009, NAESB filed reports with
the Commission stating that it made minor corrections to Standards WEQ-
001, WEQ-003, WEQ-004, and WEQ-008, and corrections to Standard WEQ-
008, which consisted of it deleting WEQ-008-1.4 and WEQ-008 Appendix D
from Standard WEQ-008. These corrections were ratified by NAESB's
members and unanimously adopted by WEQ's Executive Committee.
II. Discussion
A. Overview
10. In this Final Rule, the Commission is amending its regulations
under the FPA to incorporate by reference the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1
standards that the Commission proposed to incorporate in the WEQ
Version 002.1 NOPR.\16\ Most of the changes included in the Version
002.1 standards were made to support the requirements that the
Commission established in Order Nos. 890, 890-A, and 890-B, in which
the Commission took action to prevent undue discrimination under the
pro forma open access transmission tariff (OATT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Consistent with our proposal in the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR,
we are not revising our regulations to incorporate by reference the
following standards: Standards of Conduct for Electric Transmission
Providers (WEQ-009); Contracts Related Standards (WEQ-010); and WEQ/
WGQ eTariff Related Standards (WEQ-014). We are not incorporating
WEQ-009 into the Commission's regulations because it contains no
substantive standards and merely serves as a placeholder for future
standards. We are not incorporating WEQ-010 into the Commission's
regulations because this standard contains an optional NAESB
contract regarding funds transfers and the Commission does not
require utilities to use such contracts. We are not incorporating
WEQ-014, eTariff Related Standards, into the Commission's
regulations, because the Commission already has adopted standards
and protocols for electronic tariff filing based on the NAESB
standards. See Electronic Tariff Filings, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,276 (2008). We are not incorporating NAESB's interpretation of
its standards on Gas/Electric Coordination (WEQ-011) into the
Commission's regulations because, while interpretations may provide
useful guidance, they are not determinative and we will not require
utilities to comply with interpretations. Further, as discussed more
specifically below, we are incorporating by reference into the
Commission's regulations portions of WEQ-001, but are not
incorporating the entire standard. Finally, we are not at this time
incorporating by reference NAESB's Manual Time Error Correction
Standards (WEQ-006) because this standard was developed to maintain
consistency with NERC Standard BAL-004, and the Commission's review
of BAL-004 is still pending. Thus, the existing version of WEQ-006
will remain in force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. In Order No. 890, the Commission specifically requested that
NAESB seek to develop business practice standards governing the terms
and conditions of conditional firm service and the posting requirements
for available transfer capability, its calculation, and other values.
We recognize that NAESB was faced with a difficult task in seeking to
develop industry consensus for standards that establish a set of
business practice and communication standards to govern an entirely new
service (conditional firm service), as well as the other changes
envisioned by Order No. 890. For the most part, the industry has
[[Page 63291]]
reached a remarkable level of consensus on these standards. We
recognize that not every standard enjoys universal support, and that
standardization, by its very nature, requires the reconciliation of
different interests and needs. The Commission is satisfied that NAESB's
process was open and fair. We therefore find that deference to the
considered judgment of the consensus of the industry is both reasonable
and appropriate. Although we give great weight to the industry
consensus, we also have reviewed these standards alongside our Order
No. 890 requirements and find that they satisfy these requirements,
except in a small number of cases discussed below.
12. In the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 standards, NAESB has included
business practice and technical standards to support conditional firm
service, which will provide additional transmission and flexibility to
customers. Additionally, NAESB has developed standards that govern the
posting requirements for available transfer capability-related
information, including narratives explaining changes in available
transfer capability and total transfer capability, and explaining
underlying load forecast assumptions for available transfer capability
calculations and actual peak load. This will improve transparency for
customers and allows them to validate available transfer capability
calculations.
13. As to the minor corrections that the NAESB Executive Committee
filed with the Commission on May 29, 2009 and October 9, 2009, the
Commission agrees with NAESB that these corrections are non-substantive
errata corrections, and we will incorporate these corrections by
reference to ensure the standards we adopt are as accurate and up-to-
date as possible.
14. The specific NAESB standards that we are incorporating by
reference in this Final Rule are:
Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS), Version
1.5 (WEQ-001, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with minor corrections
applied May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009); \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ With the exception of Standards 001-0.1, 001-0.9 through
001-0.13, 001-1.0, 001-9.7, 001-14.1.3, and 001-15.1.2. The Version
1.5 OASIS standards (WEQ-001, WEQ-002, WEQ-003, and WEQ-013) are
included in the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 Standards. While they are
now developed by NAESB, the OASIS standards were initially developed
by an industry working group, and are therefore designated as both
Version 1.5 and Version 002.1. Version 1.5 references an update to
the designation applied by the original working group, and Version
002.1 references their inclusion in the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1
Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS)
Standards & Communications Protocols, Version 1.5 (WEQ-002, Version
002.1, March 11, 2009, with minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and
September 8, 2009);
Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS) Data
Dictionary, Version 1.5 (WEQ-003, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with
minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
Coordinate Interchange (WEQ-004, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009);
Area Control Error (ACE) Equation Special Cases (WEQ-005,
Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with minor corrections applied May 29,
2009 and September 8, 2009);
Inadvertent Interchange Payback (WEQ-007, Version 002.1,
March 11, 2009, with minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and
September 8, 2009);
Transmission Loading Relief--Eastern Interconnection (WEQ-
008, Version 002.1, March 11, 2009, with minor corrections applied May
29, 2009 and September 8, 2009);
Gas/Electric Coordination (WEQ-011, Version 002.1, March
11, 2009, with minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009);
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) (WEQ-012, Version 002.1,
March 11, 2009, with minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and
September 8, 2009); and
Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS)
Implementation Guide, Version 1.5 (WEQ-013, Version 002.1, March 11,
2009, with minor corrections applied May 29, 2009 and September 8,
2009).
15. The NAESB WEQ approved the Version 002.1 Standards under
NAESB's consensus procedures.\18\ As the Commission found in Order No.
587, adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the
consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by
requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of
industry participants representing all segments of the industry.
Moreover, since the industry itself has to conduct business under these
standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards
that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), Congress
affirmatively requires federal agencies to use technical standards
developed by voluntary consensus standards organizations, like NAESB,
as means to carry out policy objectives or activities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This process first requires a super-majority vote of 17 out
of 25 members of the WEQ's Executive Committee with support from at
least 40 percent of each of the five industry segments. For final
approval, 67 percent of the WEQ's general membership voting must
ratify the standards.
\19\ Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Commission will require public utilities to modify their
open access transmission tariffs (OATTs) to include the standards that
we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule. In the past, to
reduce the filing burden, we allowed public utilities to postpone
making a separate tariff filing making this tariff modification and
allowed them to include this revision as part of an unrelated
subsequent tariff filing.\20\ In this case, however, as compliance with
the standards will not be required for more than a year from the
issuance of this rule, we will require the tariff filing to be made at
least 90 days before the compliance date (i.e., on or before the first
day of the first quarter occurring 365 days after approval of the NERC
Reliability Standards being addressed in Docket No. RM08-19-000 by all
applicable regulatory authorities). Public utilities may still, at
their option, combine this tariff filing with an unrelated separate
tariff filing, so long as the tariff filing is made at least 90 days
before the compliance date. As we did in Order No. 676,\21\ we clarify
that, to the extent a public utility's OASIS obligations are
administered by an independent system operator (ISO) or regional
transmission operator (RTO) and are not covered in the public utility's
OATT, the public utility will not need to modify its OATT to include
the OASIS standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,216, P 100
(2006). As discussed further below, in order to align the
implementation date for the NAESB WEQ Version 002.1 standards with
that of the related NERC reliability standards being addressed in
the proceeding in Docket No. RM08-19-000, we are not requiring
compliance with the standards we are incorporating by reference in
this Final Rule until the first day of the first quarter occurring
365 days after approval of the referenced Reliability Standards by
all applicable regulatory authorities. In making its required tariff
filing, each filing utility is to use the language specified later
in this order, see infra P 129.
\21\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Final Rule, Order No. 676, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,216, P 20 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The following sections address the issues raised by the
commenters.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the discussion below, we will discuss the issues raised
by commenters. We are incorporating by reference without further
discussion those standards that were not the subject of any adverse
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63292]]
B. Issues Raised by Commenters
1. Available Transfer Capability-Related Standards
18. In Order No. 890, we directed public utilities, working through
NERC reliability standards and NAESB business practices development
processes, to produce workable solutions to complex and contentious
issues surrounding improving the consistency and transparency of
available transfer capability calculations.\23\ As described in the
NOPR, NAESB developed several standards related to available transfer
capability in response to Order No. 890. First, NAESB modified WEQ-001
to support the transparency reporting and related functions required by
Order No. 890. Second, in response to the available transfer capability
related posting requirements established by the Commission in Order No.
890, NAESB has developed business practice standards in WEQ-001
(including Standards 001-14, 001-15, 001-17, 001-18, 001-19, 001-20 and
Appendix D), WEQ-002, WEQ-003 and WEQ-013 (including Appendices A and
B).\24\ We address below the comments filed with respect to these
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Order No. 890, P 196.
\24\ Id. P 369 and 371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Standard 001-13.1.5 (ATC Information Link)
19. NAESB developed Standard 001-13.1.5, which provides for an ATC
Information Link on OASIS, in close coordination with the NERC
available transfer capability drafting team. Standard 001-13.1.5
replaces NERC MOD-003, which NERC and NAESB determined were better
classified as business practice standards than reliability standards.
20. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, the Commission proposed to
incorporate by reference Standard 001-13.1.5, which provides for an ATC
Information Link on OASIS and requires Transmission Providers to post
links to their Available Transfer Capability Implementation Document,
Capacity Benefit Margin Implementation Document, and Transmission
Reserve Margin Implementation Document (as specified in NERC
reliability standards MOD-001-1, MOD-004-1, and MOD-008-1,
respectively). Under NERC Standard MOD-001-1 R3.2, the Available
Transfer Capability Implementation Document must include a
``description of the manner in which the Transmission Service Provider
will account for counterflows.''
21. In addition, the Commission made clear in the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR that it expected that the provision in Standard 001-13.1.5
affording Transmission Providers the ability to redact sensitive
information would be implemented by Transmission Providers subject to
the OATT in a manner consistent with the Transmission Provider's
obligation to make that information available to those with a
legitimate need to access the information, subject to appropriate
confidentiality restrictions.
i. Comments
22. Several commenters \25\ request that the implementation date
for posting the Available Transfer Capability Information Link required
by Standard 001-13.1.5 coincide with the effective implementation date
for implementing the NERC reliability standards relating to available
transfer capability currently before the Commission, as the documents
to which links must be provided under Standard 001-13.1.5 are described
in these NERC standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ APS at 2-3, Duke at 4, and Entergy at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. TAPS \26\ supports the Commission's interpretation of the
proposed business practices, particularly Standard 001-13.1.5.\27\ TAPS
states that it is essential for customers to have timely access to
available transfer capability- and service request-related information.
This will allow customers to verify the amount of transmission that
appears to be available for purchase, thereby enhancing the
Commission's goals of transparency, reliability, and competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ TAPS is an association of transmission-dependent utilities
in more than 30 states.
\27\ TAPS at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. EPSA is critical of Standard 001-13.1.5. EPSA comments that the
standard affords transmission providers the ability to redact certain
information due to market, security or reliability sensitivity
concerns, but provides no definition or guidance as to what constitutes
such concerns, thereby allowing transmission providers the flexibility
to post whatever information they so choose.\28\ EPSA requests that the
Commission make explicit that nothing in these standards limits
customers' ability to specifically request available transfer
capability-related information subject to appropriate confidentiality
protections and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)
requirements, as specified in Order No. 890-A.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPSA at 16.
\29\ Order No. 890-A, P 148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. EPSA also argues that Standard 001-13.1.5 results in a ``fill-
in-the-blank'' standard governing the treatment of counterflows. EPSA
claims that the standard will result in different calculation
methodologies by different transmission providers. Because Standard
001-13.1.5 permits transmission providers to redact information due to
market, security, or reliability sensitivity concerns, EPSA also
contends that transmission providers will have unfettered discretion
with respect to their obligations to post the methodology that they use
to account for counterflows.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPSA at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. APS requests that the Commission clarify that the
Implementation Documents and Postback Methodology in the NAESB and NERC
standards fulfill the requirements and detail specified in Order No.
890 for Attachment C. If the Commission does not believe that the
Implementation Documents and Postback Methodology from the NERC and
NAESB standards meet the requirements of Order No. 890 for the purpose
of Attachment C, APS requests that the Commission clarify the
difference between the Order No. 890 requirements and the documentation
requirements found in the NERC and NAESB standards.
27. Additionally, APS asks for clarification that the statement in
Order No. 890 that a ``revised Attachment C to [the] Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT) be made within 60 days of completion of the
NERC and NAESB process'' means that a revised Attachment C to the OATT
must be filed within 60 days of the later effective date of the NERC
standards or NAESB standards.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ APS at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Commission Determination
28. NAESB's Standard 001-13.1.5 represents a consensus approach
agreeable to all six segments of the industry, and is not inconsistent
with Commission policies. Therefore, we will incorporate the standard
by reference as proposed in the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR.
29. In response to EPSA's concerns relating to the redaction of
information under Standard 001-13.1.5, we reiterate the statement we
made in the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR that we expect the provision for a
transmission provider to redact sensitive information from postings to
be implemented by a transmission provider subject to the OATT in a
manner consistent with its obligation to make that information
available to those with a legitimate need to access the information,
subject to appropriate confidentiality
[[Page 63293]]
restrictions.\32\ We also clarify that these standards do not limit
transmission customers' ability to request nor relieve transmission
providers of their obligation to provide, subject to appropriate
confidentiality protections and CEII requirements, data relating to the
calculation of available transfer capability, as required by the
Commission in Order Nos. 890 and 890-A.\33\ With these clarifications,
we will incorporate Standard 001-13.1.5 into our regulations as we
proposed in the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Order No. 890, P 403-04 (requiring the development of
standard disclosure for timely disclosure of CEII information to
those with a legitimate need for it).
\33\ See Order No. 890, P 348 and Order No. 890-A, P 148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. As to EPSA's argument that Standard 001-13.1.5 allows
transmission providers unfettered discretion with respect to their
obligations to post the methodology that they use to account for
counterflows, we again emphasize that we expect transmission providers
subject to the OATT to implement this standard in a manner consistent
with their obligation to make any redacted information available to
those with a legitimate need to access it, subject to appropriate
confidentiality restrictions. Moreover, Order No. 890 did not prescribe
the exact methodology to account for counterflows, nor did it find that
there could only be a single acceptable methodology for determining
this available transfer capability component. The NAESB standards
address the posting requirements for the document. Responsibility for
developing the methodology to account for counterflows rests with NERC,
and not NAESB.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See MOD-008-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. APS requests clarification that the Implementation Documents
and Postback Methodology required to be posted on OASIS by Standard
001-13.1.5 fulfill the requirements and detail specified in Order No.
890 for Attachment C. The information that the Commission requires
transmission providers to include in their Attachment C and the
information that transmission providers are required to include in
their Implementation Documents under NERC reliability standards MOD-
001-1, MOD-004-1, and MOD-008-1 and Postback Methodology under NAESB
Standard 001-18 (Postback Requirements) are not identical.
32. For example, some of the required components of an Attachment C
include a detailed description of the specific mathematical algorithm
used to calculate firm and non-firm available transfer capability/
available flowgate capacity for the transmission provider's scheduling
horizon, operating horizon, and planning horizon; a process flow
diagram that illustrates the various steps through which available
transfer capability/available flowgate capacity is calculated; and a
detailed explanation of how each of the available transfer capability
components (including total transfer capability, existing transmission
commitments, capacity benefit margin, and transmission reserve margin)
is calculated for both the operating and planning horizons. In
contrast, some of the requirements of the Implementation Documents
include a description of how the available transfer capability/
available flowgate capacity calculation methodology is implemented; a
description of how the transmission provider will account for
counterflows; the other transmission providers and/or transmission
operators from which a given transmission provider receives data or to
which it supplies data; the procedure and assumptions that a
transmission provider uses to establish capacity benefit margin; the
process through which a load-serving entity can request to set aside or
use capacity benefit margin; and the components used to calculate
transmission reserve margin. Thus, we clarify here that the
Implementation Documents and Postback Methodology are not sufficient to
satisfy the requirements and detail specified in Order No. 890 for
Attachment C, as the information that they require to be posted is not
the same as the information that Commission requires to be included in
Attachment C.
33. Moreover, the Commission has determined that it is necessary
for the information presented in Attachment C to be included in the
tariff, not simply to be posted on OASIS as is required of the
information included in the Implementation Documents and Postback
Methodology by the Standard 001-13.1.5. In Order No. 890, the
Commission rejected proposals to address the transparency of available
transfer capability methodology by merely referencing business
practices and reliability standards. Specifically, the Commission found
that because available transfer capability calculations have a direct
and tangible effect on the granting of open access transmission
service, ``an accurate and detailed statement of the methodology and
its components that defines how the transmission provider determines
available transfer capability belongs in the transmission provider's
OATT as the means of holding the transmission provider accountable for
following non-discriminatory procedures for granting service, not in
the business practices kept by the transmission provider.'' \35\ Thus,
we likewise clarify here that the Implementation Documents and Postback
Methodology that must be posted on OASIS under Standard 001-13.1.5 are
separate and distinct from the requirements and detail specified in
Order No. 890 for Attachment C, which must be included in the
transmission provider's OATT.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Order No. 890, P 325.
\36\ We also note that in the companion rulemaking in Docket No.
RM08-19-000 the Commission found that the requirement to provide
this information is not overly burdensome. See ATC Final Rule at P
147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Lastly, we clarify that the NAESB Version 002.1 standards and
the related NERC reliability standards will have the same
implementation date.\37\ In addition, the revised Attachment C to the
OATT should be filed early enough so that it is approved and in place
by the time the NERC reliability standards become enforceable. This
being the case, we are directing public utilities to file a revised
Attachment C to the OATT on or before 275 days after approval of the
NERC Reliability Standards being addressed in Docket No. RM08-19-000 by
all applicable regulatory authorities. This will leave 90 days for
review and approval of these filings before the NERC reliability
standards become enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See supra P 16 & n.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Standards 001-14 and 001-15 (Available Transfer Capability
Narratives)
35. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, the Commission proposed to
incorporate by reference Standard 001-14, which was developed by NAESB
to meet the requirement in Order No. 890 for transmission providers to
post a narrative in instances when available transfer capability
remains unchanged at a value of zero for six months or longer. In
addition, the Commission also proposed to incorporate by reference
Standard 001-15, which requires transmission providers to post a brief
narrative that explains the reason for a change in monthly or yearly
available transfer capability values on a constrained path when a
monthly or yearly available transfer capability value changes as a
result of a 10 percent change in total transfer capability.
i. Comments
36. Entergy requests that the Commission clarify that, where a
transmission provider is not required to convert available flowgate
capability
[[Page 63294]]
values to available transfer capability values for posting, the values
to be used to fulfill the posting requirements set forth in Standard
001-14 and 001-15 are the values calculated and posted by the
transmission provider, i.e., in Entergy's circumstance, available
flowgate capability values. Entergy submits that this interpretation is
supported not only by the Commission's statement in Order No. 890-B,
but also by the NERC reliability standards, the inclusion of ``Other''
as reasons for zero available transfer capability in Standard 001-14,
and the specific inclusion of total flowgate capacity as an underlying
assumption in Standard 001-15.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Entergy at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. EPSA contends that Standard 001-15, while consistent with the
requirements of Order No. 890, does not reflect the underlying goals of
the Commission in Order No. 890.\39\ EPSA argues that the standard
allows transmission providers five business days to post a narrative,
provides no linkage between the duration of the contingency that has
caused the reduction in total transfer capability and the resulting
changes in available transfer capability/available flowgate capability,
and does not require a narrative posting by a transmission provider
when an outage on an adjacent system affects the original transmission
provider's available transfer capability. EPSA states that these
current requirements are insufficient to promote market transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ EPSA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Commission Determination
38. In this Final Rule, we will incorporate by reference Standards
001-14 and 001-15, with the exception of Standards 001-14.1.3 and 001-
15.1.2. As explained further below, we decline to incorporate Standards
001-14.1.3 and 001-15.1.2 by reference, as they permit transmission
providers to post an available transfer capability change narrative
within five business days of meeting the criteria under which a
narrative is required to be posted, which is inconsistent with the
Commission's rejection in Order No. 890 of delays in posting data.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Order No. 890, P 370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. In regards to Entergy's question of whether the transmission
provider's calculated and posted available flowgate capability values
should be used to fulfill the posting requirements set forth in
Standard 001-14 and 001-15 in instances where there is no requirement
to convert this calculation to available transfer capability values, we
agree with Entergy that this requirement can be met by the transmission
provider posting its available flowgate capability values. As to EPSA's
argument that Standard 001-15 falls short of the goals of Order No.
890, we find that, with the exception of Standard 001-15.1.2,
compliance with Standard 001-15 provides all of the information
required by Order No. 890. However, Standards 001-14.1.3 and 001-15.1.2
permit transmission providers to post an available transfer capability
change narrative within five business days of meeting the criteria
under which a narrative is required to be posted. In Order No. 890, the
Commission rejected calls for delays prior to posting data and required
posting as soon as possible.\41\ We do not find the NAESB standard
meets this criterion and therefore decline to incorporate Standards
001-14.1.3 and 001-15.1.2 by reference. Transmission providers must
post their narratives as soon as feasibly possible. Posting within one
day would appear in most cases to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id. P 370, where the Commission rejected calls for delays
prior to posting data, finding that commenters supporting delay had
``proffered no evidence to support the allegation of potential
harm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Standard 001-16.1 (Available Transfer Capability or Available
Flowgate Capability Methodology Questions)
40. In the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, we proposed to incorporate by
reference Standard 001-16.1, which requires transmission providers to
respond to questions about the methodology for calculating available
transfer capability and available flowgate capability. In the NOPR, we
interpreted this standard as requiring the transmission provider to
provide data when necessary to respond to the methodology questions in
order to be consistent with the requirement in Order No. 890 that
transmission providers must, upon request, ``make available all data
used to calculate [available transfer capability] and [total transfer
capability] for any constrained paths and any system planning studies
or specific network impact studies performed for customers.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Id. P 348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Comments
41. TAPS supports the Commission's interpretation of the proposed
business practices for the disclosure of available transfer capability
and transmission service related data. It also supports the
Commission's pro-transparency interpretation of NAESB Standard 001-16.1
which requires transmission providers to provide data used to calculate
available transfer capability and total transfer capability for any
constrained path upon request. TAPS states that timely access to
available transfer capability and service request information and a
transparent and accurate available transfer capability calculation
process will encourage competition.
ii. Commission Determination
42. Standard 001-16.1 represents a consensus approach agreeable to
all six segments of the industry, and, as we interpret the standard, is
not inconsistent with Commission policies. Therefore, as proposed in
the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, we will incorporate Standard 001-16.1 by
reference into our regulations. We reiterate our interpretation of this
standard, as described in the WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR. We expect that
transmission providers will implement this standard in a manner
consistent with the requirement in Order No. 890 that transmission
providers must, upon request, ``make available all data used to
calculate [available transfer capability] and [total transfer
capability] for any constrained paths and any system planning studies
or specific network impact studies performed for customers'' \43\ by
providing data when necessary to respond to methodology questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Order No. 890, P 348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Actual and Forecasted Load Posting
43. Standard 001-17 is one of the standards that NAESB developed in
response to Order No. 890 and addresses the obligations of transmission
providers and ISOs and RTOs to post information concerning their actual
and forecasted peak load.\44\ Specifically, Standard 001-17.2.1 and
Standard 001-17.4.1 require transmission providers and ISOs and RTOs
respectively to post a single maximum hourly megawatt (MW) value for
peak load. Standard 001-17.6.5 requires transmission providers and ISOs
and RTOs to post on the available transfer capability Information Link
a descriptive statement of the current underlying load forecast
assumptions, which must include all weather variables used (e.g.,
temperature, humidity, wind speed, number of measuring points).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id. P 413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Comments
44. Several of EPSA's comments relate to the actual and forecasted
load posting requirements described in Standard 001-17. EPSA contends
that Standard 001-17.2.1, Standard 001-17.4.1, and
[[Page 63295]]
Standard 001-17.6.5 limit transparency in that they require the posting
of only a single number for peak loads, even where a transmission
provider's internal processes produce multiple (in many cases hourly)
peak forecasts.\45\ In addition, EPSA is concerned that transmission
providers may post the information required by Standard 001-17.2.1 at a
time subject to their discretion.\46\ With regard to Standard 001-
17.6.5, EPSA questions whether a document that includes the weather
variables used to forecast load without providing the assumed values
for each weather variable in a particular forecast adds any useful
information, and therefore any enhanced transparency, to the load
forecasting process.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ EPSA at 9 and 14.
\46\ Id. at 18.
\47\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Commission Determination
45. Standard 001-17 represents a consensus approach agreeable to
all six segments of the industry. Contrary to EPSA's representations,
we find that this standard satisfies the requirement in Order No. 890
to post load forecasts and actual daily peak load.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Order No. 890, P 416, Order No. 890-A, P 143, and Order
No. 890-B, P 34-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. In Order No. 890, the Commission required transmission
providers to post their load forecasts and actual daily peak load for
both system-wide load (including native load) and native load,\49\ not
the data concerning multiple peaks requested by EPSA. In Order No. 890-
B, the Commission clarified that it did not intend for transmission
providers to post all economic and other data that underlies each and
every daily load forecast, but rather the underlying factors used to
make load forecasts that have a significant impact on calculations,
such as temperature forecasts.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Order No. 890, P 416.
\50\ Order No. 890-B, P 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Therefore, we will incorporate Standard 001-17 by reference
into our regulations.
e. Grandfathered Agreements
48. In response to Order No. 890,\51\ NAESB has developed posting
requirements for some of the components included in the amount of
transfer capability that a transmission provider can set aside for its
native load and other committed uses. As part of this package, Standard
001-19, establishes a mechanism for posting the grandfathered
agreements component of existing transmission commitments associated
with the available transfer capability value posted on OASIS. Under
Standard 001-19.1, transmission providers using available transfer
capability calculation methodologies other than the Flowgate
Methodology must post the aggregate MW value for the grandfathered
agreements. Such data must be posted so that it can be viewed and
queried using the system data template. Standard 1-19.1.2 does not
require transmission providers using the Flowgate Methodology to post
an aggregate MW value that can be viewed and queried using the system
data template. Instead, it requires that the transmission provider must
post a list of Grandfathered Agreements with MW values that are
expected to be scheduled or expected to flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Order No. 890, P 244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Comments
49. TranServ recommends that all transmission providers should be
required to post a list of the grandfathered agreements that are
factored into their available transfer capability methodology, as is
required of transmission providers using the Flowgate Methodology under
Standard 001-19.1.2. TranServ argues that the requirement to post a
single aggregate MW value representing the impact of all grandfathered
agreements on available transfer capability has little additional
value, and that those transmission providers using Flowgate Methodology
may have difficulties identifying the specific impacts of grandfathered
agreements from the aggregate impacts of network and native load
service on their transmission system.
50. EPSA contends that the requirement to post a single aggregate
MW value for all grandfathered agreements provides insufficient
transparency, particularly as grandfathered agreements represent
allocations of transmission capacity that pre-date the open access
environment and may include non-standard provisions. Thus, transmission
providers may need to make accommodations to incorporate these
commitments into the current structure of OASIS reservations and
available transfer capability calculations. To promote transparency,
EPSA argues that the standard should require information concerning the
duration, MW capacity and the associated point of receipt/point of
delivery and source/sink combinations, the resulting allocation of the
contract provisions to specific transmission interfaces, and the
resulting calculation of the available transfer capability/available
flowgate capability associated with each contract.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ EPSA at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Commission Determination
51. One of the Commission's objectives in Order No. 890 was to
reduce the potential for transmission providers to unduly discriminate
when they provide transmission service by limiting their discretion to
calculate available transfer capability using unknown assumptions and
methodologies.\53\ For this reason, the Commission found that ``all
[Available Transfer Capability] components (i.e., [total transfer
capability], [existing transmission commitments], [capacity benefit
margin], and [transmission reliability margin]) and certain data
inputs, data exchange, and assumptions be consistent and that the
number of industry-wide ATC calculation formulas be few in number,
transparent and produce equivalent results.'' \54\ In Order No. 890,
the Commission required that grandfathered transmission rights be
included as committed uses of the transmission system under the
definition of Existing Transmission Commitments.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The Commission reasoned that the potential for
discrimination is not primarily in the choice of an available
transfer capability calculation methodology, but rather in the
inconsistent application of its components. Order No. 890, P 208.
\54\ Id. P 207.
\55\ Id. P 244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. As we pointed out in the NOPR, the NAESB standards adopt two
different methods of posting grandfathered agreements, depending on
whether the flowgate methodology is used. Because of the nature of the
flowgate methodology, the standards exempt it from the requirement to
post an aggregate MW value that can be viewed and queried using the
system data template. Instead, the standards require the transmission
provider to post a list of grandfathered agreements with MW values that
are expected to be scheduled or expected to flow. Transmission
providers using available transfer capability calculation methodologies
other than the flowgate methodology are required to make this data
accessible through the system data template.
53. EPSA and TranServ argue that the complete data on grandfathered
agreements needs to be provided even for those systems that do not
utilize the flowgate methodology. Order No. 890 does not require the
posting of complete data for grandfathered agreements. It required only
that grandfathered agreements be included in the Existing
[[Page 63296]]
Transmission Commitments component of available transfer capability.
All six segments of the industry concluded that for transmission
providers not using the flowgate methodology, inclusion of the
aggregate information in the calculations is sufficient, and we find
reasonable the distinctions they have drawn and their determination
that inclusion of grandfathered agreements in the system data template
provides sufficient transparency. Moreover, as we discuss below,
transmission providers must, upon request, provide the basis upon which
they calculate available transfer capability should such information be
requested in a particular circumstance.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ WEQ Standard 001-16.1. See also WEQ Standard 001-13.1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Availability of Data Used in Available Transfer Capability
Calculations
54. Standard 001-16.1 requires Transmission Providers to respond to
questions about the methodology for calculating available transfer
capability and available flowgate capability. In the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR, we stated that we interpreted this standard as requiring the
Transmission Provider to provide data when necessary to respond to the
methodology questions in order to be consistent with the requirement in
Order No. 890 that transmission providers must, upon request, ``make
available all data used to calculate [available transfer capability]
and [total transfer capability] for any constrained paths and any
system planning studies or specific network impact studies performed
for customers.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ WEQ Version 002.1 NOPR, P 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Comments
55. EPSA is concerned that there is a lack of transparency for the
data items used in available transfer capability calculations, and
contends that this issue was not adequately addressed through the NAESB
process. Specifically, EPSA urges the Commission to require not only
that data be made available, but that all underlying data supporting
available transfer capability calculations be required to be posted.
ii. Commission Determination
56. Standard 001-16.1 represents a consensus approach agreeable to
all six segments of the industry, and satisfies the requirement in
Order No. 890 to make data used in available transfer capability
calculations available. Therefore, as proposed in the WEQ Version 002.1
NOPR, we will incorporate Standard 001-16.1 by reference into our
regulations. As described above, we interpret Standard 001-16.1 as
requiring the Transmission Provider to provide data when necessary to
respond to the methodology questions in order to be consistent with the
requirement in Order No. 890 that transmission providers must, upon
request, ``make available all data used to calculate [available
transfer capability] and [total transfer capability] for any
constrained paths and any system planning studies or specific network
impact studies performed for customers.'' \58\ Since such data will be
available on request, we see no need to impose a more onerous ongoing
posting requirement as requested by EPSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Order No. 890, P 348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Conditional Firm Service Standards
57. In the OASIS Standards, NAESB has included a number of
standards that support conditional firm service as envisioned by the
Commission in Order Nos. 890 and 890-A. NAESB has developed business
practice standards to facilitate the implementation of conditional firm
service, relying on the Commission's description of the attributes of
that service in Order No. 890.\59\ Specifically, NAESB developed
Standards 001-21 through 001-21.5.5 on the Conditional Curtailment
Option, the term that NAESB uses to describe conditional firm service.
These standards address: (1) The limitations and conditions under which
the Conditional Curtailment Option is offered; (2) the posting
requirements for information concerning a Conditional Curtailment
Option reservation and its curtailment criteria; (3) the process for
performing the biennial reassessment; (4) the curtailment of a
Conditional Curtailment Option reservation; and (5) the redirect,
transfer, and resale of a Conditional Curtailment Option reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id. P 1043-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. Additionally, NAESB has developed other standards related to
conditional firm service in response to the Commission's requests for
the development of specific standards in Order Nos. 890 and 890-A.\60\
Specifically, NAESB has developed Standard 001-21.1.6, which requires
that transmission providers offer short-term firm service to
conditional firm customers as capacity (that would alleviate the
constraints associated with a Conditional Curtailment Option
reservation) becomes available. In response to Order No. 890-A, NAESB
has created and modified standards in WEQ-001, Appendix C to WEQ-001,
WEQ-002, WEQ-003, WEQ-008 and WEQ-013, to provide a consistent set of
tracking capabilities and business practices for tagging, as a means to
implement conditional firm service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Id. P 1078; Order No. 890-A, P 592.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. The following addresses the comments received on these
proposals.
a. Resales of Transmission Service
60. Standard 001-11.3.2 governs the conditions under which multiple
transmission service reservations may be aggregated to support a resale
of transmission service. Under Standard 001-11.3.2, transmission
service reservations subject to the term
