Another victory at FERC!

Although Enron did not file a protest in this docket, nor was a signatory to 
the joint Coral/Dynegy protest, I worked with Dynegy on forming the arguments 
against the proposed change to OASIS (first to confirm after scheduling 
deadline) at NERC.   Dynegy and Enron and a few others voted against the NERC 
request but lost the vote thus leading to the NERC filing.  In my opinion, 
such a practice would advantage incumbent utilities and their affiliate 
marketers who tend to buy pre-confirmed Firm service.

One of the main arguments I made at NERC and a chief reason why FERC denied 
the request is cited in the order:

"Dynegy/Coral argues that the proposed standard addresses the problem of 
unused transmission capacity caused by some customers not confirming accepted 
transmission requests, but does not address the underlying problem caused by 
the practice of some transmission providers of delaying their acceptance of 
requests for daily, firm transmission service, even when customers submit 
their requests early. "

FERC further acknowleded:
"If transmission providers would all respond to requests for daily,firm 
transmission service on a timely basis, then customers would have adequate 
time to confirm before reservations are scheduled, and the MIC's proposed 
business practice might not be needed."

This is the correct message for FERC to send back to NERC - to put the burden 
on the transmission providers to expedite requests - not penalize the 
customers for getting OASIS requests in early. 


---------------------- Forwarded by Charles Yeung/HOU/ECT on 07/02/2001 02:59 
PM ---------------------------


"Grabiak, Terri J." <TGrabia@alleghenypower.com>@nerc.com on 07/02/2001 
01:39:42 PM
Sent by: owner-mips@nerc.com
To: "'mips@nerc.com'" <mips@nerc.com>
cc:  

Subject: Business Practice Ruling



For those of you that haven't seen this.  FERC denied our request.

T





 95 FERC 4  61,492
                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

     Before Commissioners: Curt H'bert, Jr., Chairman;
                          William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt,
                          Pat Wood, III and Nora Mead Brownell.


     Open Access Same-time Information
       System (OASIS) and Standards of           Docket No. RM95-9-013
       Conduct


     ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARD

                           (Issued June 29, 2001)

          We will deny the request from the Market Interface Committee

     of the North American Electric Reliability Council (MIC) for

     expedited approval of its proposed experiment on the treatment of

     unconfirmed requests for daily, firm transmission service, for

     the reasons stated below.

     BACKGROUND

          On May 29, 2001, the MIC filed a request to modify the

     Commission's OASIS Business Practice Standards adopted in Order
             1
     No. 638,  to add a new business practice standard dealing with

     accepted daily, firm point-to-point transmission service that has

     not been confirmed and to modify a related footnote to Table 4-2

     on Reservation Timing Limits.  The MIC requests that the

     Commission implement this proposal on a mandatory, experimental

     basis for six months beginning no later than June 30, 2001.  The

     MIC further states that, within four months of the effective

     date, it will provide the Commission with an assessment of the

               1
                Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of
          Conduct, Order No. 638, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations
          Preambles 1996-2000 4 31,092 (2000).







          Docket No. RM95-9-013     -2-

     experiment and whether it should be revised, discontinued, or

     made permanent.

          On June 5, 2001, the Commission issued a notice of filing

     and request for comments regarding the MIC filing.  The notice

     gave a brief description of the MIC proposal and invited comments
                                2
     on or before June 11, 2001.   Comments were invited on the MIC

     proposal generally and specifically on whether Commission action

     is needed by June 30, 2001, as requested by the MIC.

          On June 11, 2001, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. and Coral

     Power, LLC (collectively "Dynegy/Coral") jointly filed a protest

     opposing the MIC request.

     Dynegy/Coral argue that the MIC proposal should not be granted on

     an expedited basis and that it should be rejected outright.

     Dynegy/Coral's protest was the sole comment filed in response to

     the June 5, 2001 notice and request for comments.

     DISCUSSION

          We will deny the MIC s request for expedited approval of its

     proposed experiment on the treatment of unconfirmed requests for

     daily, firm transmission service for three reasons.  First,

     although the MIC requests expedited approval of its proposed

     experiment, the MIC s proposal presents no reason why expedited

     treatment is needed.  Moreover, although our June 5, 2001 notice

     specifically invited comment on this issue, no comments were

     filed in support of expedited treatment or giving reasons why


               2
                This shortened comment period was used to accommodate the
          MIC's request for action on or before June 30, 2001.







          Docket No. RM95-9-013     -3-

     prompt action is needed.  In fact, Dynegy/Coral s protest, the

     sole comment filed, argued against expedited approval of the

     proposed experiment both because it opposed approval of the

     experiment outright, and because Dynegy/Coral argues that

     implementation during the summer peak period would cause problems

     for customers denied service under the MIC s proposal.  Given the

     absence of a showing of need for expedited treatment, we will

     reject MIC s request for expedited approval of its proposed

     experiment.

          The MIC proposal would allow transmission providers, at

     reservation request deadlines, to retract their prior acceptance

     of unconfirmed customer requests for daily, firm transmission

     service and substitute pending pre-confirmed requests for such

     service, in order of queue time, up to the amount of daily, firm

     available transmission capability remaining.  The proposal

     includes phrases such as, "the transmission provider has the

     right to move to a retracted status" and "after which time that

     request may be retracted."  These phrases do not provide a

     standard for the transmission provider to use in deciding whether

     to retract customers' unconfirmed accepted requests for daily,

     firm point-to-point transmission service.  Careful monitoring

     would be necessary to insure that the proposal is not implemented

     in a discriminatory manner.  A customer whose request for

     transmission service had been accepted would have no way to

     predict whether a transmission provider might choose to retract







          Docket No. RM95-9-013     -4-

     its acceptance, which would make it difficult for the customer to

     make alternative arrangements.

          Dynegy/Coral argues that the proposed standard addresses the

     problem of unused transmission capacity caused by some customers

     not confirming accepted transmission requests, but does not

     address the underlying problem caused by the practice of some

     transmission providers of delaying their acceptance of requests

     for daily, firm transmission service, even when customers submit

     their requests early.  Dynegy/Coral contends this practice puts

     customers in a bind that forces them to make alternative

     arrangements as a protective mechanism.  Dynegy/Coral argues that

     customers should not be punished for taking such precautions,

     even if they result in some unused transmission capacity.

     Dynegy/Coral argues that a better solution to avoid unused

     capacity would be for transmission providers to more uniformly

     respond to requests for daily, firm transmission service on a

     timely basis, rather than by taking the unwarranted step of

     giving greater priority to pre-confirmed service requests.

     Further, Dynegy/Coral argues that the MIC proposal would force

     customers to purchase transmission services they will be unable

     to use.

          We agree with Dynegy/Coral that the MIC proposal does not

     address whether the time period for transmission providers to

     evaluate requests for daily, firm transmission service needs to

     be clarified or shortened and that this is a relevant issue.  If

     transmission providers would all respond to requests for daily,







          Docket No. RM95-9-013     -5-

     firm transmission service on a timely basis, then customers would

     have adequate time to confirm before reservations are scheduled,

     and the MIC's proposed business practice might not be needed.  We

     request that the MIC reconsider its motion in light of the

     concerns raised by Dynegy/Coral.  After considering these issues,

     the MIC may, at its option, make a revised request for an

     experimental business practice standard.

     The Commission orders:

          The request by MIC for expedited approval of a proposed
     experiment on the

     treatment of unconfirmed requests for daily, firm transmission
     service is hereby denied

     without prejudice, as discussed in the body of this order.

     By the Commission.

     ( S E A L )



                                        David P. Boergers,
                                              Secretary.

Terri J. Grabiak
General Manager, Transmission Marketing

Allegheny Power
800 Cabin Hill Drive, Room B101
Greensburg, PA  15601

(724) 838-6748
(724) 838-6156 - fax

mailto:tgrabia@alleghenypower.com <mailto:tgrabia@alleghenypower.com>