UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 75 FERC 61,078 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 CFR Part 37 [Docket No. RM95-9-000] Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-Time Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct ORDER NO. 889 FINAL RULE (Issued April 24, 1996) AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending 18 CFR to add Part 37 containing rules establishing and governing an Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) (formerly real- time information networks) and prescribing standards of conduct. Under this final rule, each public utility (or its agent) that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce will be required to create or participate in an OASIS that will provide open access transmission customers and potential open access transmission customers with information, provided by electronic means, about available transmission capacity, prices, and other information that will enable them to obtain open access non-discriminatory transmission service. This final rule requires (1) each public utility subject to the rule to implement standards of conduct to functionally separate transmission and wholesale power merchant functions and (2) the creation of a basic OASIS system. In - ii - addition, some of the standards and formats for OASIS nodes are prescribed in a document entitled OASIS Standards and Communication Protocols that is being issued with the final rule. The Commission also is establishing further procedures to complete the standards for displays and formats. The development of OASIS requirements will continue in a Phase II, in which the Commission will continue to develop the requirements for a fully functional OASIS. EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule will become effective on [insert date 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register]. Compliance with the standards of conduct and operation of an OASIS meeting the requirements of this final rule must commence on or before November 1, 1996. A technical conference on any remaining issues will be held on June 17, 1996. ADDRESSES: The technical conference will be held at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Rosenberg (Technical Information) Office of Economic Policy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208-1283 William C. Booth (Technical Information) Office of Electric Power Regulation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208-0849 Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information) Office of the General Counsel - iii - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 (202) 208-0321 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing 202-208-1397 if dialing locally or 1-800-856-3920 if dialing long distance. CIPS is also available through the Fed World system (by modem or Internet). To access CIPS, set your communications software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. The full text of this order will be available on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and Wordperfect 5.1 format. The complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. - iv - TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PUBLIC REPORTING BURDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C. SECTION 37.1 -- APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . 17 D. SECTION 37.2 -- PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E. SECTION 37.3 -- DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 F. SECTION 37.4 -- STANDARDS OF CONDUCT . . . . . . . . 26 1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities for Exemptions from the Standards of Conduct . . . 29 2. Suggested Revisions to the Standards of Conduct and Timing . . . . . . . . 30 3. Whether to Require the Separation of Generation and Transmission Functions . . . . . . . . . . 49 G. SECTION 37.5 -- OBLIGATIONS OF TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 H. SECTION 37.6 -- INFORMATION TO BE POSTED ON AN OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1. OASIS Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 2. Posting Available Transmission Capacity . . . . 54 a. ATC for Network Integration Service . . . 54 b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC . . . . . 56 c. Methodology for Calculating ATC and TTC . 60 d. Accommodating Flow-Based Pricing . . . . . 62 e. Actual Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 f. Providing Supporting Information . . . . . 64 - v - g. Long-Term Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3. Posting Transmission Service Products and Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4. Posting Ancillary Service Offerings and Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5. Posting Transmission Service Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 a. Posting Curtailments and Interruptions . . 71 b. Posting Denials of Requests for Service . 74 c. Transaction Anonymity . . . . . . . . . . 75 6. Posting Facility Status Information . . . . . . 78 7. Posting Transmission Service Schedules Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 8. Posting Other Transmission-Related Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 I. SECTION 37.7 -- AUDITING TRANSMISSION SERVICE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 J. STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS . . . . . . . 86 1. Summary of Standards and Communication Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2. Number of OASIS Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3. Direct Connections to OASIS Nodes . . . . . . . 92 4. Value-Added OASIS Services Provided by Transmission Providers or Responsible Parties . 94 5. Transmission Services Information Timing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6. Common Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 a. Company Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 b. Common Location Codes . . . . . . . 100 7. Data Definitions and File Formats Not Covered by the How Report . . . . . . . 101 - vi - a. Offers to Provide Ancillary Services Provided by an Entity Other Than the Transmission Provider . . . . . . . 101 b. Offering of Primary and Secondary Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 8. Formats for Downloadable Files Not Covered in the How Report . . . . . . . . 102 a. Standard Format for Data Used in Calculating ATC . . . . . . . . . . 102 b. Standard Formats for Transmission Studies . . . . . . . 103 c. Standard Format for Electronic Submission to the Commission of Transmission Tariffs . . . . . . . 103 9. Communication Protocol Issues . . . . . . . . 103 a. Internet Browsers . . . . . . . . . 103 b. Bandwidth of Node Connections to the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 c. Data Compression Standards . . . . 107 d. Other Communication Protocol Issues Raised by Commenters . . . . . . . 108 i. The Requirement to Use FTP for File Transfers . . . . . . 108 ii. Field Size for Path Names . . 109 iii. Files Containing More Than 100,000 Bytes . . . . . . . . . 109 K. COST RECOVERY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 1. Costs of Developing and Running an OASIS . . . . . . . . . . 110 2. Cost of Posting Resales of Capacity on the OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 3. Cost of Posting Ancillary Services on the OASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 - vii - L. SECTION 37.8 -- IMPLEMENTATION IN PHASES . . 114 1. Phase I Implementation . . . . . . . . . 115 2. Phase II Implementation . . . . . . . . 118 IV. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 V. ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 VI. INFORMATION COLLECTION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 122 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 REGULATORY TEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127-144 ATTACHMENTS  List of Commenters to RIN NOPR  Standards and Communication Protocols for Open Access Same-time Information System with Appendix A -- Data Element Dictionary and Appendix B -- Request (Query) Variables - viii - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne Moler, Chair; Vicky A. Bailey, James J. Hoecker, William L. Massey, and Donald F. Santa, Jr. Open Access Same-time Information ) System (formerly Real-time ) Docket No. RM95-9-000 Information Networks) and ) Standards of Conduct ) ORDER NO. 889 FINAL RULE (Issued April 24, 1996) I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is promulgating new regulations amending 18 CFR to add Part 37 containing rules establishing and governing transmission information networks and standards of conduct. The Commission is issuing this final rule in tandem with its final rule on Open Access Transmission and Stranded Costs (Open Access Final Rule). 1/ This final rule applies to any public utility that offers open access transmission services under the Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff. Under the Open Access Final Rule, the open access pro forma tariff may be used by wholesale transmission customers and by retail transmission customers that are able to receive unbundled retail transmission either 1/ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non- Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Final Rule, FERC Stats. & Regs.  31,036 (April 24, 1996); this document is being published concurrently in the Federal Register. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - ix - - ix - voluntarily from the public utility or as a result of a state retail access program. This final rule is being issued after a review of the comments filed in response to the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking issued in this proceeding on December 13, 1995 (RIN NOPR). 2/ This final rule becomes effective on [insert date 60 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register]. By November 1, 1996, all affected public utilities must file procedures with the Commission that will enable customers and the Commission to determine whether they are in compliance with the standards of conduct requirements contained herein. Additionally, under this final rule, each public utility as defined in section 201(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) (1994), (or its agent) that owns, controls, or operates facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce (each Transmission Provider) must develop or participate in an Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS). 3/ This final rule establishes Phase I OASIS rules 2/ Real-Time Information Networks and Standards of Conduct, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 66182 (December 21, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs.  32,516 (December 13, 1995). 3/ In the notice of technical conference that initiated this proceeding, see infra n. 12, we chose the term "Real-Time Information Network" to describe the electronic information system envisioned by that notice. We invited comments on whether we should substitute another term in place of RIN. In response, a number of commenters suggested that "RIN" was not a suitable name for the electronic information network envisioned by the RIN NOPR, mainly because while some RIN (continued...) Docket No. RM95-9-000 - x - - x - that require the creation of a basic OASIS. 4/ The basic OASIS required by this final rule must be in place and operational by November 1, 1996. The development of OASIS requirements will continue in Phase II, during which the Commission will develop the requirements for a fully functional OASIS. While the final rule set forth in this order is consistent with the proposal described in the RIN NOPR, it also resolves certain issues that were described in the RIN NOPR but left undecided, and adds clarifications and revisions, as suggested by the comments. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, the final rule describes what information must be provided on an OASIS, how an OASIS must be implemented and used, and contains a code of conduct applicable to all transmission providing public utilities. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, we are issuing this final rule along with a separate document entitled OASIS Standards and 3/(...continued) postings may be made "real-time" most will not and that, therefore, RIN is a misnomer. After a review of suggested replacements presented in the comments, we will abandon the name "RIN" in favor of Open Access Same-time Information System, suggested by Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCO), for several reasons. First, as noted above, the information system being developed in this proceeding actually will be a "same-time" information system, and not a "real-time" system. Second, VEPCO correctly points out that the system will be part of an existing network (the Internet) and not a new network. Third, the name "OASIS" highlights that the system relates to open access. 4/ Any entity may, for good cause, seek a waiver of the requirements established by this final rule, either as to the creation of an OASIS or for reporting requirements. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xi - - xi - Communication Protocols (Standards and Protocols) to help ensure that each OASIS will provide information in a uniform manner. However, the standards and protocols are not yet complete. Consequently, we are inviting the How Group 5/ to submit an additional report, on or before May 28, 1996, to help us resolve these deficiencies. We will also hold a technical conference on June 17, 1996 to resolve any remaining issues and to allow input from interested persons. We will issue a revised Standards and Protocols document as soon as possible thereafter. We are moving promptly to complete the standards and protocols to ensure that the OASIS will be operational and in compliance with this final rule by November 1, 1996. In selecting this date, we have balanced the need to have a functional system of fair and non-discriminatory information in place to support the Open Access Final Rule against the comments that argued that implementation of an OASIS could not be accomplished in 60 days and to avoid implementation during the peak winter or summer months. II. PUBLIC REPORTING BURDEN The final rule requires Transmission Providers to participate in an OASIS, designed to provide open access transmission users and potential open access transmission users with information by electronic means about available transmission capacity and prices. 5/ See, infra, n. 13. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xii - - xii - The RIN NOPR contained an estimated annual public reporting burden associated with a final rule consistent with the RIN NOPR. In response to the RIN NOPR, NRECA 6/ filed comments with the Commission that argued that the Commission's estimated public reporting burden should have taken into account that Question 45 of the RIN NOPR asked whether OASIS rules should be extended to apply to non-public utilities that own or control facilities used for the transmission of electric power in interstate commerce. 7/ Based on this inquiry, NRECA argued that the public burden estimate should have been based on the assumption that the proposed OASIS rules would be extended to apply to non-public utilities (even though this was not proposed by the Commission). The Commission's task in preparing a public burden estimate at the NOPR stage was to estimate the annual public reporting burden associated with a final rule consistent with the RIN NOPR. This is what the Commission did. An estimate based on deviations from the NOPR proposal, as NRECA suggested, would have been inappropriate. At the same time, however, by asking Question 45, we identified the issue and gave the commenters an opportunity to be heard before making a final decision. Our final rule, like the RIN NOPR, applies only to public utilities, and not to non-public utilities. However, as 6/ Attached to this document is a list of the commenters and the abbreviations used to designate them. Several of the comments were filed late. We, nevertheless, will consider these comments. 7/ NRECA also submitted a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that raised the same issue. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xiii - - xiii - discussed in this order and as commented upon by various non- public utilities, in the Open Access Final Rule we are including a reciprocity provision in public utility open access tariffs under which all those who elect to take service under the open access tariff (including non-public utilities) will have to offer reciprocal service including an information network, unless they are granted a waiver of the reciprocity provision in the tariff. 8/ Consequently, we have increased the estimate of number of respondents in this rulemaking to reflect the additional burden on those non-public utilities that seek service under open access tariffs. However, this is offset by our current expectation that there will be far fewer OASIS sites than we originally anticipated in the RIN NOPR. The How Group estimates there will be between 20-35 OASIS sites nationwide. 9/ Using the higher number, the burden of running each OASIS will be shared, on average, by four respondents. This is reflected in the burden hour and cost estimates. Our burden hour and cost estimates include the information gathering requirements imposed on public utilities that do not develop their own OASIS. Additionally, we have refined our 8/ As explained in the Open Access Final Rule, non-public utilities that do not want to meet the reciprocity condition may choose not to take service under an open access tariff. In that circumstance, the public utility may, if it chooses, voluntarily provide transmission service on a unilateral basis to the non-public utility. 9/ How Group comments at 19. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xiv - - xiv - estimate of the annual public reporting burden to account for revisions that this final rule makes to the RIN NOPR. Estimated Annual Burden: Data No. of No. of Hours per Total annual Collection Respondents Responses Response hours Reporting 140 1 1879 263,060 Recordkeeping 140 1 418 58,520 Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting + Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 321,580 Data collection costs: The Commission projects the average annualized cost per respondent to be the following: Annualized Capital/Startup Costs $ 47,500 Annualized Costs (Operations & $ 142,250 Maintenance) Total Annualized Costs $ 189,750 Internal Review The Commission has reviewed the collection of information required by this final rule and has determined that the collection of information is necessary and conforms to the Commission's plan, as described in this final rule, for the collection, efficient management, and use of the required information. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the information burden estimate set forth above. 10/ 10/ See 44 U.S.C.  3506(c). Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xv - - xv - Persons wishing to comment on the collections of information required by this final rule should direct their comments to the Desk Officer FERC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3019NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, phone 202-395-3087, facsimile: 202-395-7285 or via the Internet at hillier__t@a1.eop.gov. Comments must be filed with the Office of Management and Budget within 60 days of publication of this document in the Federal Register. A copy of any comments filed with the Office of Management and Budget also should be sent to the following address at the Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Information Services Division, Room 41-17, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC. 20426. For further information, contact Michael Miller, 202-208-1415. III. DISCUSSION A. BACKGROUND This proceeding began with the issuance of our proposed Open Access rule (Open Access NOPR) 11/ and a notice of technical conference to consider whether a RIN (now an OASIS) or some other option would be the best means to ensure that potential customers of transmission services could obtain access to transmission 11/ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non- Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities and Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Notice and Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 17662 (April 7, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs.  32,514 (March 29, 1995). Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xvi - - xvi - service on a non-discriminatory basis. 12/ The notice of technical conference was followed by procedures and input (described in the RIN NOPR) that led to the issuance of the RIN NOPR. Open access non-discriminatory transmission service requires that information about the transmission system must be made available to all transmission customers at the same time. This means that public utilities must make available to others the same transmission information that is available to their own employees and that is pertinent to decisions they make involving the sale or purchase of electricity. The RIN NOPR suggested requirements representing the first steps towards accomplishing these objectives. The RIN NOPR addressed four main issues: the types of information that need to be posted on an OASIS; technical issues concerning the development and implementation of an OASIS; the development of a basic OASIS in Phase I and the development of a fully functional OASIS in Phase II; and proposed standards of conduct to prevent employees of a public utility (or any of its affiliates) engaged in marketing functions from obtaining preferential access to OASIS-related information. The Commission's consideration of the first two of these issues relied heavily on the efforts of two industry-led working 12/ Real-Time Information Networks, Notice of Technical Conference and Request for Comments, 60 FR 17726 (April 7, 1995). Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xvii - - xvii - groups that presented recommendations to the Commission. 13/ Additionally, the RIN NOPR invited commenters to address specific questions on various issues and invited comments generally on the entire proposal. As discussed in the RIN NOPR, the handling of various types of information that might be posted on an OASIS depends on substantive determinations being made in the Commission's Open Access rulemaking proceeding. 14/ For this reason, the RIN NOPR attempted to identify the issues that might be affected by decisions that would be made in the Open Access rulemaking and invited comment on the mechanics of implementing whatever 13/ The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) acted as a facilitator for an industry-led independent working group, representing diverse interests, to help participants reach consensus, and to help them prepare a report to the Commission on what information should be posted on a RIN (the "What Group"). The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) facilitated a similar working group (the "How Group") that sought consensus on how to implement a system that would accomplish these objectives. Both groups submitted reports to the Commission describing their progress in reaching consensus on their respective issues. As explained in the RIN NOPR, after determining that the working groups had balanced representation from diverse interests and had operated in an open, inclusive manner, the Commission used the working groups' recommendations as the starting point for developing the RIN NOPR. A fuller description of the working groups' composition and activities is contained in the RIN NOPR and in the reports that those groups submitted to the Commission for its review (attached to the RIN NOPR as Appendices "A" and "B" and made publicly available at the Commission's offices and through the Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS)). 14/ For example, the information about ancillary services that must be posted on an OASIS depends on what ancillary services a public utility must provide. Likewise, the information about discounts that must be posted on an OASIS depends on whether discounting is allowed. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xviii - - xviii - determinations ultimately would be reached in the Open Access rulemaking, without attempting to prejudge the merits of the underlying legal and policy issues. Additionally, the RIN NOPR included (as Appendix "C") a set of upload and download templates for comment to ensure that all data definitions are the same and that the information presented on the OASIS will be uniform and clearly understood. The Commission's RIN NOPR, issued on December 13, 1995, invited comments on enumerated questions, along with general comments. Comments were filed by over 100 commenters. These comments were generally favorable to the OASIS concept, although numerous disagreements remained as to the details. The comments will be discussed below on an issue-by-issue basis. 15/ In the RIN NOPR, we invited the two industry-led working groups to continue their efforts to reach consensus and to report to us on their progress. On March 7, 1996, the How Group submitted a report giving proposed revisions to their original report. 16/ The How Group also submitted a report on April 15/ In the discussion that follows, our references to comments are illustrative and not inclusive. While we have intended to identify all of the major issues raised by the commenters, we have not attempted to identify all commenters in instances where more than one comment makes the same point. 16/ The participants in the How Group submitted a report entitled Consensus Comments of the Wholesale Electric Power Industry on behalf of the "industry management process (interim) on how to implement transmission services information networks." Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xix - - xix - 15, 1996 making recommendations on additional issues on which the group had reached consensus. B. SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION The Commission is issuing this final rule with the Open Access Final Rule to implement the legal and policy determinations being made in the Open Access Final Rule. 17/ This final rule contains three basic provisions that, taken together, will ensure that transmission customers have access to transmission information enabling them to obtain open access transmission service on a non-discriminatory basis. This final rule is necessary, therefore, to meet the legal requirement, discussed in the Open Access Final Rule, that the Commission remedy undue discrimination in interstate transmission services by public utilities. The first provision establishes standards of conduct. These standards are designed to ensure that a public utility's employees (or any of its affiliates' employees) engaged in transmission system operations function independently of the public utility's employees (or of any of its affiliates' employees) who are engaged in wholesale purchases and sales of electric energy in interstate commerce. Such separation is vital 17/ For example, a number of smaller public utilities and non- public utilities have argued that they should be exempted from the OASIS requirements. The Open Access Final Rule provides that public utilities may seek waivers of some or all of the requirements of the Open Access rules. This would include the OASIS requirement. Similarly, the Open Access Final Rule provides that non-public utilities may seek waivers of the tariff reciprocity provision as applied to them. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xx - - xx - if we are to ensure that the utility does not use its access to information about transmission to unfairly benefit its own or its affiliates' sales. Entities subject to these rules are to achieve compliance with the standards of conduct by November 1, 1996. The second provision sets out basic rules requiring that jurisdictional utilities that own or control transmission systems set up an OASIS. Under these rules, the utilities are required to provide certain types of information on that electronic information system as to the status of their transmission systems and are required to do so in a uniform manner. With these requirements, we are opening up the "black box" of utility transmission system information. When in place, the OASIS will allow transmission customers to determine the availability of transmission capacity and will help ensure that public utilities do not use their ownership, operation, or control of transmission to deny access unfairly. Entities subject to this rule are to have a basic OASIS, meeting the requirements of this final rule, in operation by November 1, 1996. The third component involves the various standards and protocols referenced in the regulations that are necessary to ensure that the OASIS system presents information in a consistent and uniform manner. As proposed in the RIN NOPR, this final rule references a publication entitled OASIS Standards and Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxi - - xxi - Communication Protocols. 18/ This publication contains the above-mentioned standards and communication protocols. The publication details the Phase I requirements for technical issues related to the implementation and use of an OASIS (i.e., a compilation of OASIS standards and communication protocols). Because of their level of detail, the standards and protocols referenced in the regulations will be contained in the Standards and Protocols document and will not be set out in the Code of Federal Regulations. In developing the standards and protocols, we have been greatly assisted by the industry. However, more work needs to be done before the necessary standards and protocols are complete. For this we will again look to the industry and its working groups. The Commission believes a standard or uniform set of protocols is essential. The industry is best situated not only to develop the necessary standards but to develop them where possible with a consensus. Consequently, we are asking the How Group to provide us with additional recommendations on those technical issues remaining to be resolved. After receiving this report, we will hold a technical conference. In the meantime, to enable utilities to begin the process of implementing their OASIS, we will publish the standards and protocols that have been developed to date. 18/ This title differs slightly from the title we suggested for this document in the RIN NOPR. We are making this change to reflect more accurately the contents of the document as it has evolved. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxii - - xxii - We must also provide for the contingency that, over time, the standards and protocols may need to be revised. To this end, NERC, in its comments, proposed to continue the industry-based process for developing OASIS requirements begun by the two industry working groups. NERC argued that the Commission should abandon its intention to approve standards developed by industry- wide consensus and to make decisions in those areas where consensus is not achieved. Instead, NERC argued that the Commission should authorize an industry group, facilitated by NERC and EPRI, to set and enforce detailed standards under broad policy guidelines fixed by the Commission. As we have needed the contributions of the industry to develop the standards and protocols, we will continue to need that assistance in the future to develop a consensus wherever possible. We need to strike a balance between standardization to make OASIS work and encouraging innovation. To this end we encourage all industry participants to continue seeking consensus and reporting proposals to the Commission for our consideration. We welcome the continued work of all industry participants on revising and improving standards and establishing appropriate methods for recommending standards in the future. We will continue to give careful consideration to all consensus recommendations presented by the industry group(s), provided that they continue to invite balanced participation in an open process. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxiii - - xxiii - However, we reject entirely the notion that the Commission need not approve the Standards and Protocols and that these matters can be left to the industry for implementation and self- policing. Although we continue to seek industry consensus, the Commission must reserve final decisions to itself. We cannot turn over the process of approving and enforcing OASIS requirements to the industry. The Commission does not believe that resolution of the outstanding issues or future changes will occur more quickly without Commission oversight. 19/Nor do we believe that merely by announcing broad policy guidelines we would be creating a mechanism that would be sufficient to allow the Commission to revise regulations quickly. Accordingly, we will not abdicate our responsibility to decide these issues ourselves; nor shall we delegate responsibility for making these decisions to anyone else. With respect to the as yet unresolved technical issues, we invite the How Group to report to us on or before May 28, 1996 on these issues (and to attach any comments it has received from any interested person with opposing views). Prior to issuing a revised Standards and Protocols document, we will hold a technical conference on these issues on June 17, 1996. This short time frame is necessary if the OASIS is to be properly operational by November 1, 1996. 19/ To the contrary, our experience with the natural gas pipeline industry persuades us that an expedited schedule is more likely with active Commission oversight than otherwise. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxiv - - xxiv - The Commission recognizes that the standards and protocols necessarily will evolve over time. The Commission is committed to a process for reviewing and, if necessary, revising and improving the Standards and Protocols on a regular basis after implementation. We are sensitive to the fact that business practices and technology will continue to change under open access and that a mechanism to make changes to the regulations and to the accompanying standards and protocols on an expedited basis may be needed. It would be premature at this time, however, to determine the appropriate mechanism for making such changes, because the method could vary depending on the type of change contemplated. In filing its report, we ask that the How Group advise us on this issue. We will welcome discussions and comments on mechanisms for revising the standards and protocols on an ongoing basis at the June 17, 1996 technical conference. In the sections that follow, we discuss, section-by-section, the regulations we are adopting with this final rule; how the costs of implementing the requirements of these regulations are to be recovered; and the details of implementation. C. SECTION 37.1 -- APPLICABILITY This section is unchanged substantively from what we proposed in the RIN NOPR. As proposed previously, the rules in Part 37 apply to any public utility that owns or controls Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxv - - xxv - facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. 20/ In proposing these regulations, we stated that issues relating to potential gaps in providing comparable open access to wholesale transmission services or to transmission information that may arise because the requirements do not apply to non- public utilities would be addressed in the Open Access rulemaking proceeding. We also invited comment on whether the Commission should extend OASIS requirements to non-public utilities that own or control facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce (Question 45) and on whether the reciprocity condition of the proposed Open Access rule dictates that a non-public utility should have an OASIS (Question 46). Comments The responses to Question 45 split along industry lines. Generally, public utilities subject to OASIS rules advocated that the Commission should impose OASIS requirements on non-public utilities. They argued that applying OASIS requirements to non- public utilities would promote competition and a "level playing field." These commenters argue that all companies should pay the costs of developing and operating an OASIS and should be required to divulge information to their competitors on it. 20/ We are, however, modifying this provision to clarify that it is intended to include public utilities that "operate" facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. We are also clarifying that these regulations apply to transactions performed under the pro forma tariff required in Part 35 of the Commission's regulations. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxvi - - xxvi - Along these lines, Allegheny argued that, in order to provide a level playing field between public utilities and their competitors, the proposed standards of conduct should be expanded to include personnel of any entity that trades on an OASIS. Allegheny suggested, therefore, that the standards of conduct be rewritten to be applicable to non-public utilities through a requirement that they sign confidentiality agreements as a condition of obtaining access to OASIS. Those favoring applying OASIS rules to non-public utilities argued that a significant portion of the wholesale transmission market is owned by non-public utilities (ConEd estimates that non-public utilities, excluding cooperatives, control about 25 percent of the circuit miles of transmission lines nationwide). They argued that, without information about these lines, accurate calculations of available transmission capability cannot be made. However, those advocating that the Commission should assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities were divided between those who maintained that the Commission has authority to do so directly under  311 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 21/ and those who maintained that the Commission does not have such authority. The latter group suggested that the Commission's 21/ 16 U.S.C.  825j. Section 311 authorizes the Commission to obtain information (and conduct appropriate investigations) about, among other matters, the transmission of electric energy throughout the United States, regardless of whether such transmission is otherwise subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, and to report to Congress the results of any investigations it carries out under the authority of this provision. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxvii - - xxvii - authority is not clearcut and, to avoid needless delay and litigation, the Commission should rely on the reciprocity condition in the pro forma tariffs to extend OASIS requirements to non-public utilities. 22/ ConEd argued that we should state that compliance with OASIS requirements is required by both  311 and reciprocity. The larger non-public utilities argued that, while the Commission lacks authority to impose OASIS rules under  311 of the FPA, they nevertheless will voluntarily comply with the rules because this would be in their own best interest. By contrast, a number of small non-public utilities argued that they should be exempt from OASIS rules, particularly the standards of conduct, for the same reasons that smaller public utilities argued that they should be exempted from the requirements of the Open Access Final Rule. The smaller non-public utilities stressed that they do not "control" many of their transmission lines and that many of their lines lack commercial interest. They recommended the development of a joint or regional OASIS that would make participation in an OASIS easier and argued that, as to smaller non-public utilities, the rules requiring a separation of functions are unduly burdensome and their scant benefits would be outweighed by their costs to consumers. NRECA argued that the availability of transmission service under  211 of the FPA is sufficient to prevent abuses. By 22/ See discussion of Question 46, infra. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxviii - - xxviii - contrast, Com Ed argued that Commission orders in  211 proceedings come too late to prevent abuses. In Question 46 of the RIN NOPR, we asked whether, based on reciprocity, we should require non-public utilities to develop or participate in an OASIS. 23/ The responses to this question generally are split along the same lines as the responses to Question 45, with non-public utilities pointing out that most would participate voluntarily in an OASIS because it would be in their best interest to do so. APPA asserted that voluntary participation would suffice to accomplish the Commission's goals and seeks assurance that compliance with OASIS requirements by non-public utilities would be deemed by the Commission to satisfy the reciprocity condition in the pro forma tariffs. APPA also asserted that participation in a regional OASIS would make compliance easier for non-public utilities and would help them deal better with operational issues such as parallel flows. At the same time, NE Public Power District argued that, although it is willing to participate in an OASIS voluntarily, the Commission lacks authority to compel publicly-owned non-public utilities to comply with OASIS regulations. In contrast, a number of public utilities maintained that non-public utilities cannot provide comparable open-access non- discriminatory service unless they comply with the same OASIS 23/ The discussion of questions 45 and 46 by commenters often overlapped. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxix - - xxix - rules as do public utilities. PJM argued that, although public utilities and non-public utilities differ in their ownership, this does not provide a rational basis to exclude non-public utilities from participation in an OASIS. Carolina P&L argued that the same concerns that motivated the Commission to propose the standards of conduct dictate that the rules should apply equally to non-public utilities. Others argued that, if non-public utilities need not comply with the same OASIS rules applicable to public utilities, the non-public utilities would have the benefit of an uneven playing field that would give them a competitive advantage. Along these lines, EGA argued that, in pursuing a competitive wholesale market, the Commission should apply OASIS rules equally to all entities that own wholesale transmission facilities. Mid- American stressed the need for reciprocity by pointing out (as others did in response to Question 45) that a significant portion of wholesale transmission facilities nationwide, including some in pivotal areas, are owned by non-public utilities. VEPCO urged that any entity that owns transmission facilities, is affiliated with an entity that owns transmission facilities, controls transmission facilities through a lease or contract, or signs a contract for transmission services, should be required to establish or participate in an OASIS that is compatible with the industry standards established by the Commission in the final rule in this proceeding as a condition of being eligible to use a Transmission Provider's OASIS. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxx - - xxx - OK Com stated that it would support the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over non-public utilities, provided that the Commission makes a finding that the non-participation of a transmission owning entity in an OASIS would have a substantial detrimental impact on potential customers attaining open-access non-discriminatory service throughout the Nation. Com Ed argued that the Commission needs to ensure that non-public utilities do not circumvent the rule by making purchases and sales through intermediaries. Larger non-public utilities, such as Public Generating Pool, suggested that the participation of larger non-public utilities is much more important, in terms of promoting competition in the wholesale market, than is participation by smaller non-public utilities, whose systems are predominantly small distribution systems that are not essential to the larger regional power market. Public Generating Pool proposed that small non-public utilities should be able to seek an exemption and that regional transmission groups should decide whether it is necessary for a small non-public utility to participate in the regional OASIS. Public Generating Pool also suggested that, if the Commission prefers, decisions as to who is required to implement an OASIS could be based on objective factors, such as market share or concentration. Other non-public utilities, such as Seattle and Tallahassee, stress the need for flexibility (in providing sufficient time for compliance and in allowing deviations from Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxi - - xxxi - the rule) in any requirement that non-public utilities make changes to their system. Discussion After reviewing these comments we have concluded that we will not directly assert jurisdiction over non-public utilities under  311 of the FPA to ensure compliance with OASIS requirements. We will, instead, rely on the reciprocity provision of the pro forma tariff that requires a non-public utility to offer comparable transmission service to the Transmission Provider as a condition of obtaining open access service. If a non-public utility chooses to take open access service, and therefore is subject to the tariff reciprocity condition, it will need to meet the OASIS requirements in new Part 37, unless the Commission grants a waiver of this condition. Although, as pointed out by ConEd, non-public utilities control a significant percentage of the circuit miles of transmission lines nationwide, and fully accurate calculations of available capacity on public utilities' lines cannot be made without information about these lines, we believe reciprocity provides a sufficient incentive for non-public utilities to meet the OASIS requirements imposed on public utilities. We note that in our Open Access Final Rule we have concluded that certain of the requirements we are imposing on public utilities may not be appropriate for small utilities. This conclusion applies equally to the treatment of small public utilities and small non-public utilities. Accordingly, we have Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxii - - xxxii - established a mechanism in the Open Access proceeding that allows small public utilities and small non-public utilities to seek waivers based on the same criteria. 24/ D. SECTION 37.2 -- PURPOSE Section 37.2 sets out the fundamental purpose of this part -- to ensure that all potential customers of open access transmission service have access to the information that will enable them to obtain transmission service on a non- discriminatory basis. Comments in response to the RIN NOPR did not take issue with the proposed language of  37.2 and we are adopting this provision largely without change. We wish to clarify, however, that while the OASIS requirements imposed by this final rule establish a mechanism by which Transmission Customers may reserve transmission capacity, they do not require the replacement of existing systems for scheduling transmission service and conducting transmission system operations at this time. We believe that it may be appropriate to include energy scheduling as part of the OASIS requirements developed for Phase II. In the meantime, if we conclude that an existing system is operated in an unduly discriminatory manner, we will pursue changes to such a system in a separate proceeding. E. SECTION 37.3 -- DEFINITIONS 24/ Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxiii - - xxxiii - This section defines six terms used throughout this Part -- "Transmission Provider", "Transmission Customer", "Responsible Party", "Resellers", "Wholesale Merchant Function", and "Affiliate". The comments in response to the RIN NOPR did not take issue with the proposed definitions. 25/ Consequently, this final rule adopts these definitions largely without change. To prevent confusion, the definition of Transmission Customer has been revised to include potential customers, i.e., those who can execute service agreements or can receive services as well as those who actually do so. And, we have modified the definition of "Affiliate" to more closely track provisions of the FPA and the Public Utility Holding Company Act. F. SECTION 37.4 -- STANDARDS OF CONDUCT This section sets out the standards of conduct necessary to ensure that Transmission Providers do not use their unique access to information unfairly to favor their own merchant functions, or those of their affiliates, in selling electric energy in interstate commerce. Although preserving the substance of what was proposed, the final rule has been reorganized. 25/ MidAmerican Energy suggested, however, that a definition for "Transmission System Operator" be added. We will not do so because we do not use this term anywhere in the OASIS regulations. MidAmerican's purpose in making this suggestion may have been to exclude the posting on the OASIS of transactions involving the use of transmission for purchases made for native load (this issue was also brought up by CCEM, EGA, MidAmerican, NYPP, and NIEP). We address the issue of native load purchases in the Open Access Final Rule. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxiv - - xxxiv - Paragraph (a) sets out the general rules that require the separation of transmission and merchant functions and that recognize in emergency circumstances system operators may take whatever steps are necessary to keep the system in operation. Paragraph (b) sets out the specific rules governing employee conduct under five headings covering prohibited practices, transfers of employees, access to information, disclosure, and conduct in implementing tariffs. These provisions correspond to elements of paragraph (a), as well as paragraphs (b) through (h) and (j) of the standards proposed in the RIN NOPR. Paragraph (c) requires that there be written procedures implementing the standards of conduct and that these must be kept in a public place and filed with the Commission. Paragraph (c) corresponds to paragraph (k) of the standards proposed in the RIN NOPR. In the RIN NOPR, the Commission proposed standards of conduct for public utilities patterned after those promulgated for natural gas pipelines. 26/ The proposed standards of conduct would require Transmission Providers to separate their wholesale merchant functions (i.e., wholesale purchases or wholesale sales of electric energy in interstate commerce) from their wholesale transmission system operations and reliability functions. Employees performing wholesale merchant functions 26/ In the RIN NOPR, the proposed standards of conduct were set out in  37.6. See RIN NOPR text at section III.E (60 FR at 66196) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR  37.6 (60 FR at 66199). We are renumbering this provision as  37.4 in this final rule. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxv - - xxxv - would be required to obtain information on wholesale transmission services only through an OASIS, on the same basis available to all other OASIS users. The standards of conduct were intended to prevent employees of the Transmission Provider that perform wholesale merchant functions or employees of any affiliate from having preferential access to any relevant information about the Transmission Provider's wholesale transmission availability and costs, or uses or possible uses of the Transmission Provider's transmission system by non-affiliates. 27/ We accompanied this proposal with two questions that asked whether the proposed standards of conduct should be modified and whether they sufficiently addressed functional unbundling (Questions 41 and 42). We also asked whether our proposal might interfere with system reliability (see Question 43). The responses basically fell into three categories. 28/ 27/ Because the Open Access Final Rule pro forma tariff may include certain retail transmission customers, this final rule's OASIS information requirements will apply to applicable retail as well as wholesale services and information. 28/ Among the over 100 comments filed, only Dayton P&L, among public utilities, questioned the Commission's underlying authority to mandate control room unbundling. Dayton P&L's short conclusory statements in this proceeding were not accompanied by even a cursory explanation of its reasoning or by any legal analysis or supporting citations. Although Dayton P&L offered no support for its position in this proceeding, it did (along with other parties) devote extensive discussion to the more general issue of the Commission's authority to order open access transmission in its initial comments in the Open Access rulemaking proceeding. We reject Dayton P&L's unsubstantiated conclusion, urged in this proceeding, that we lack authority (continued...) Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxvi - - xxxvi - First, a number of smaller public utilities argued that they should be granted waivers (or be deemed exempt) from the proposed standards of conduct because these standards would compel them to hire additional staff not justified by their small market share or by the small revenues they derive from providing wholesale transmission services. These comments suggested that the standards should not apply to public utilities that lack operational control over the facilities used for wholesale transmission service, or to public utilities that do not exceed given thresholds for market share, percent of revenues, or total revenues from wholesale transmission services. Second, a number of large utilities basically were satisfied with the proposed rules and offered specific suggestions for revisions. Third, commenters raised the issue of whether to require the separation of generation and transmission functions. 29/ We discuss these three categories below. 28/(...continued) to order control room unbundling for the same reasons that we reject their more general and more extensive arguments on the Commission's authority in the Open Access Final Rule. See Open Access Final Rule at section IV.B. 29/ A number of comments raised the issue of whether the OASIS regulations would promote ISOs (independent system operators) and whether participation in an ISO would exempt an entity from compliance with OASIS requirements. In this regard, a number of comments suggested that the proposed standards of conduct will result in the widespread transfer of transmission functions to the control of ISOs and predicted that the need for the standards of conduct will diminish as ISOs become more prevalent. In this context, IN Com supported the formation of ISOs, because this would reduce the need for state commissions to monitor functional unbundling and would help in resolving jurisdictional (continued...) Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxvii - - xxxvii - 1. Requests by Smaller Public Utilities for Waivers from the Standards of Conduct Turning first to the arguments of smaller public utilities that they should be exempt from the standards of conduct, we note that this issue also arose in the Commission's Open Access rulemaking proceeding. As described in the Open Access Final Rule, we will publish a list of jurisdictional public utilities that must comply with these rules. At the same time, we establish a mechanism that allows small public utilities to seek a waiver. In appropriate circumstances, the Commission would waive some or all of the Open Access requirements, subject to future reconsideration as warranted by circumstances. 30/ A related issue involves the concerns of small non-public utilities about their obligation under the reciprocity condition. We have decided in the Open Access rulemaking proceeding that we would use these same criteria to decide whether a small non- public utility should be granted a waiver from all or part of the reciprocity condition contained in public utility open access tariffs. Such waivers could be sought of the requirements to 29/(...continued) questions. The concept of ISOs is addressed in the Open Access Final Rule. As to the prediction that the rise in the number of ISOs will make the standards of conduct unnecessary, or should offer a basis for an exemption from the standards of conduct, we would characterize the potential of ISOs somewhat differently. In our view, a properly constituted ISO could be a mechanism, not for an exemption, but as a means to comply with the standards of conduct. 30/ Open Access Final Rule at section IV.K. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxviii - - xxxviii - have open access tariffs, provide ancillary services, establish an OASIS, or separate functions. A full explanation of the waiver mechanism is contained in the Open Access Final Rule. 31/ We will use these same standards to determine whether small public utilities have complied with the OASIS requirements and to determine whether small non-public utilities have met their contractual obligation to comply with OASIS requirements as a condition of service under open access tariff reciprocity provisions. 2. Suggested Revisions to the Standards of Conduct and Timing For the most part, we have adopted the standards of conduct as proposed, making technical and conforming revisions. In a few instances, in response to comments, we have made substantive changes. These changes, and the suggestions that led us to make them, are discussed below, along with some suggestions that we rejected. 1. As proposed, the regulations would prohibit preferential access to the system control room and "other facilities of the public utility" that differs from the access available to other potential transmission users. AEP suggested that it is not clear whether this was intended to restrict access to all other facilities or is meant to restrict access to other similar facilities, (i.e., those facilities that, like the control room, are involved in transmission operations and reliability 31/ Id. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xxxix - - xxxix - functions). Consistent with this latter interpretation, AEP suggested that the restriction be modified to apply to the system control room and "similar facilities used for transmission operations or reliability functions." We agree with AEP's interpretation of the scope of this restriction and adopt the suggested revision in section 37.4(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule. 2. Section 37.4(c) of the proposed standards of conduct would prohibit contacts (off OASIS) between employees of the public utility engaged in transmission system operations and employees of the public utility engaged in wholesale marketing functions, and employees of any affiliate no matter how employed. AEP, Com Ed, and Ohio Edison argued that this provision is too broad and would exclude contacts between transmission system operators and employees of affiliates engaged in various activities, many of which are unrelated to a public utility's merchant functions. For example, an energy services subsidiary might be engaged in building a power plant in a foreign country. AEP argued that there would be no reason to deny employees engaged in such an activity access to utility personnel involved in transmission or reliability functions. Com Ed suggested that this provision should be modified to prevent contacts between system operators and employees engaged in wholesale marketing functions, regardless of whether those marketing employees are engaged in those activities on behalf of either the utility or its affiliates. Thus, under this argument, contacts between system Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xl - - xl - operators and affiliate employees not engaged in wholesale marketing functions would not be prohibited. We agree with AEP, Com Ed, and Ohio Edison that our proposed standards of conduct were overly broad because they prohibited contacts between system operators and affiliate employees engaged in functions completely unrelated to a public utility's wholesale power and energy marketing functions. We will revise the proposed standards of conduct accordingly. AEP also argued that employees of the affiliate may be involved in the wholesale merchant function, but not in the utility's market area. For example, an employee of an affiliate might be involved in a different geographic area, far from the system's transmission grid. AEP argued that there would be no need to isolate such activities from the utility's transmission operations. To cover such situations, AEP suggested that the language be modified to read "employees of any affiliate of the public utility, to the extent that such employees are engaged in wholesale merchant functions in the utility's market area." We reject AEP's suggestion. Although public utilities may still have the ability to exert market dominance in particular markets, they also will now have the ability to participate in transactions across the nation. We fully expect -- and our experience with the WSPP demonstrates -- that in the move to a competitive wholesale bulk power market, public utilities will have extensive market areas in which to make offers. Thus, there Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xli - - xli - is no reason to limit the scope of the standards of conduct as recommended by AEP. We also have clarified section 37.4(b)(3)(i) to explain that employees engaged in merchant trading functions must not have preferential access to any information about the Transmission Provider's transmission system that is not available to all users of an OASIS. However, the standards of conduct do not foreclose customers, including merchant employees, from obtaining information about the status of their particular contracted for transaction from Transmission Provider employees engaged in system operation and reliability functions. The information provided in status reports must present the same types of information, in the same level of detail, to any customer presenting a similar request. The standards do, however, preclude merchant employees from obtaining preferential access to information about the Transmission Provider's system (not directly linked to their particular transaction) from any nonpublic source as well as market information acquired from nonaffiliated customers or potential nonaffiliated customers or developed by the Transmission Provider in its role as a Transmission Provider (except to the limited extent that this information is required to be posted on the OASIS). 32/ 3. APPA argued that the rules should prohibit preferential treatment of wholesale purchases or sales by any utility. APPA interpreted the originally proposed language to mean that 32/ See  37.4(b)(4)(iii); see text accompanying n. 33, infra. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlii - - xlii - preferential treatment would be permitted, as long as the preference would not be extended to the public utility itself or an affiliate. APPA and Com Ed argued that preferential treatment of any wholesale customer over the interests of any other wholesale customer must not be allowed. Com Ed adds that absent clarification, relationships of reciprocal favoritism could develop in the industry, to the detriment of all other customers. We find this contingency is possible. While the standards of conduct set guidelines for Transmission Providers and their affiliates in handling their wholesale merchant functions; public utilities are also governed by section 205(b) of the Federal Power Act. Section 205(b) prohibits public utilities from granting any undue preference or advantage to any person or subjecting any person to any undue prejudice or disadvantage with respect to any transmission or sale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. This provision remains in full force and effect and prohibits preferential treatment in transactions regardless of whether those transactions are specifically addressed in the standards of conduct. 4. In section 37.6(i) of the RIN NOPR we proposed that public utilities offer customers discounts comparable to those that the public utility offers to its own power customers or those of an affiliate. AEP suggested that this limitation on allowable discounts be expressly limited to discounts on wholesale transmission services. We agree and are revising this provision accordingly. Discounts for jurisdictional power sales are not Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xliii - - xliii - governed by this final rule but by section 205(b) of the FPA and related precedent on power sales. 5. Allegheny suggested that the Commission should find that there will no longer be a presumption of discriminatory dealing between utility affiliates in generation and transmission services when network owners comply with the standards of conduct. Allegheny has presented no basis for making such a finding and we decline to do so. 6. Com Ed, Duke, and NEPOOL suggested that the proposed standards should not be interpreted to prevent employees of the utility engaged in wholesale marketing functions from obtaining information about their competitors from non-affiliated third party sources such as the trade press. Com Ed also suggested that the utility should be allowed freedom to give out information about its transmission functions off OASIS (e.g., in briefings at public meetings) as long as the utility's wholesale marketing employees do not obtain preferential access to those forums. Ohio Edison suggested that the proposed standards of conduct should be revised to preclude only "substantive access" to the system control room. Ohio Edison argued that access for matters unrelated to transmission matters, such as training programs, should be permitted. We have two points we wish to make regarding these related suggestions. First, we clarify that the rules do not prohibit access to information contemporaneously available without restriction to other members of the general public. (See section Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xliv - - xliv - 37.4(b)(1)(ii) dealing with access to information). Second, these rules are intended to be interpreted consistent with common sense, prudence, and caution. Our standards of conduct are intended to prevent preferential access to information related to transmission prices and availability by employees of the public utility or any affiliate engaged in wholesale merchant functions. Preferential access means that information is obtained from those with access to information about the public utility's transmission system operations that is not equally available to other customers. It is obvious, at least to us, that this does not bar wholesale merchant employees from reading the trade press or from sitting in the audience of a publicly-announced and available lecture delivered by the public utility's transmission operator or a third party in an open forum. However, the onus is on the public utilities subject to these standards to conduct their affairs in compliance with these rules, and they should exercise care and prudence in so doing. We decline, therefore, to specify in these regulations whether, for example, a "public meeting" must be preceded by advance notice, to whom that notice must be provided, and what that notice would need to spell out. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to burden our rules with this kind of minutiae in a misplaced effort to anticipate every possible contingency. Such regulatory overkill is unwarranted and counterproductive. Moreover, those subject to the regulations Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlv - - xlv - may, like other members of the public, call the Enforcement Task Force Hotline to obtain informal advice on implementing the standards of conduct. 7. VEPCO suggested that, rather than prohibiting contacts between system operators and employees of the public utility and any affiliates engaged in wholesale merchant functions, the Commission could reach the same result by allowing system operators to disclose, through informal communications, information about the status of the transmission system, provided that they then post this information on OASIS. We find this suggestion untenable. First, such disclosures would necessarily be posted after-the-fact, and thus the information would not be conveyed to all potential customers at the same time. Second, such a provision would be very difficult to enforce. Third, the same information could just as easily be divulged on the OASIS to all customers, rather than "reported" on the OASIS after-the-fact. 8. Com Ed suggested that the reference in subsections (a) and (d) of the proposed standards to "reliability functions" should be clarified to apply only to transmission functions and not to generation functions. We disagree. As discussed below, system operations and reliability functions include both transmission and generation functions. 9. Con Ed suggested that the standards of conduct should include a disclaimer that utilities will not be liable for the reliability or accuracy of data posted on the OASIS as an Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlvi - - xlvi - accommodation to third parties. We agree that the responsibility for assuring the reliability and accuracy of data supplied by third parties rests with those third parties and not with the public utility that posts this information on the OASIS as an accommodation. We do not, however, view this as a standard of conduct issue. Instead, we address this point in our discussion of what information is to be posted under  37.6(g). 10. Ohio Edison suggested that posting the names of personnel transferring between departments would make these employees targets for recruitment by competitors. Notwithstanding this concern, we believe that this information must be posted on the OASIS to make possible "gaming of the system" through spurious revolving door tactics more visible. 11. Ohio Edison also suggested that the phrase in subsection (b) of the proposed standards . . . must rely upon the same information relied upon by the public utility s wholesale transmission customers should be modified to read . . . must have available only the same information available to the public utility s wholesale transmission customers. Ohio Edison argued that the Transmission Provider has no way of knowing what information its customers relied upon and that it should not be held to an undefinable subjective standard. We agree. Accordingly, we adopt Ohio Edison's suggestion in section 37.4(b)(3)(i) of the final rule and omit the phrase "rely upon." 12. Ohio Edison also suggested that if its suggestion (in the previous item) is adopted, then the language in section 37.4(b) Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlvii - - xlvii - beginning with the language in parenthesis becomes redundant and should be deleted. We disagree and will retain that language in section 37.4(b)(3)(ii) of the final rule. We believe the language adds necessary clarification. 13. Montana Power suggested that, if off-OASIS communications between the utility's system operators and wholesale marketing personnel are prohibited, these kinds of communications should also be prohibited between system operators and all transmission users. Montana Power would prefer, however, that these communications be permissible. Likewise, Duke suggested that we change the regulations so that if an employee of an unrelated third party calls the transmission-related employees, for example, to better understand the public utility's transmission system, such communications should be permitted to be conducted off the OASIS. Duke maintains that the free flow of information should not be discouraged so long as functional unbundling is implemented and affiliate abuse is avoided. NEPOOL suggested that the rules dictating the Transmission Provider's release of information should apply to all Transmission Customers, not just to the Transmission Provider's employees, as affiliates, engaged in wholesale merchant functions. Our proposed standards of conduct were designed, and our final standards are being implemented, to prevent Transmission Providers from giving themselves an undue preference over their customers through the exchange of "insider" information between the company's system operators and employees of the public Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlviii - - xlviii - utility, or any affiliate, engaged in wholesale marketing functions. Thus, the rules place restrictions on preferential communications from the system operators to only those merchant employees. The rules were not designed to prevent system operators from having communications with third parties. We do not generally see this as an area that needs regulatory oversight. As discussed above, we have revised the regulations to ensure no discriminatory treatment and we remind public utilities subject to these regulations that section 205(b) of the FPA prohibits undue discrimination. This should suffice. 14. NUSCO suggested that the Commission should distinguish: (1) the functional separation of generation marketing related to operation of the transmission system and administration of transmission tariffs (which are relatively short-term activities); from (2) the coordination of marketing with the system planning function (a long-term activity encompassing both generation and transmission). Similarly, the FL Com is concerned that the standards of conduct might impede system reliability, and argued that marketers and system operators should be able to confer concerning the company's long-term planning activities that require knowledge about the company's generation and transmission systems. NEPOOL expresses similar concerns. By contrast, Com Ed suggested that the proposed standards of conduct will not impair planning because, like a one-way street, they allow information to be conveyed from employees engaged in merchant functions to system operators, while at the same time Docket No. RM95-9-000 - xlix - - xlix - prohibiting information to be conveyed in the opposite direction. Com Ed submitted that the inter-relationship between the areas of strategic planning, resource planning and long-range transmission planning require the flow of information to transmission personnel. Future acquisitions of capacity may constitute a resource taken into account in planning and may have an impact on the transmission system that needs to be accounted for by transmission planners. Thus, Com Ed argued that there should be no restriction on the flow of information about future purchases or sales from the merchant function to the transmission function, although restrictions on the flow of information to the merchant function should be adopted as proposed. We agree with Com Ed that, as we proposed in the RIN NOPR, the flow of information, through the OASIS, from employees engaged in wholesale merchant functions to system operators should remain permissible, to allow proper system planning, while at the same time restricting information being conveyed off the OASIS from system operators to utility and affiliate employees engaged in wholesale merchant functions, to prevent preferential access to transmission information. Consequently, we reject the proposals offered by NUSCO, FL Com, and NEPOOL in this regard. 15. Omaha PPD argued that information regarding the scheduling of power transfers, economic dispatch, and economic conditions have nothing to do with the information that is needed regarding the availability of transmission capability. Omaha PPD suggested, therefore, that any information relating to economic Docket No. RM95-9-000 - l - - l - operation or the commercial state of a utility be removed from the standards of conduct. By contrast, NUCOR suggested that, since economic dispatch is premised on real-time marginal production cost data and generating unit economics, the comparability standard mandates that utilities provide the same generation cost data to other market participants. Similarly, NUCOR argued that, because economic dispatch also is dependent on the economics of off-system purchases and sales, data pertaining to such purchases and sales also must be made generally available. Except for postings for certain ancillary services, the RIN NOPR did not propose the posting on an OASIS of data on generation and we are not persuaded, at this juncture, to do more. Our decision is based on a balancing of the need for the information, the claimed commercial sensitivity of the information, and the desire to avoid, to the extent possible, having public utilities reporting generation data that their competitors may not be required to report. 16. VEPCO suggested that the regulations should prohibit system operators from disclosing information to wholesale marketing employees or other customers about the ancillary services offered by third parties because they are not permitted to disclose the same information about their companies' own products. VEPCO further suggested that the prohibition against discussing the companies' own products should be removed. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - li - - li - We find these suggestions inconsistent with the kinds of safeguards we are trying to provide through these standards of conduct. In any event, as discussed below in our discussion of items to be posted on the OASIS, we are requiring that this kind of information be posted on the OASIS, and thus companies will be able to get their message out that these services are available. 17. Duke suggested that the proposed subsection dealing with the impartial application of tariff provisions should be revised to make clear it is the customer (and not the employees) who is to be treated on a fair and impartial basis. We agree and the final rule in section 37.4(b)(5)(ii) adopts this suggestion. 18. VEPCO suggested that the rules requiring a separation of functions should be suspended if additional employees trained in system operations (but normally assigned to marketing functions) should be needed to assist in handling system operation functions during emergencies affecting system reliability. VEPCO also suggested that the Commission should allow transmission and generation operators to engage in emergency energy transactions and hourly non-firm energy transactions. It is not the purpose of these rules to compromise reliability. In emergency circumstances affecting system reliability, system operators may take whatever steps are necessary to keep the system in operation. Consequently, we are adding a provision to the standards of conduct that specifically grants system operators the authority to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain system reliability during an emergency, Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lii - - lii - notwithstanding that this could otherwise constitute a violation of the standards of conduct. Transmission Providers will be required to report to the Commission and on the OASIS each emergency that resulted in any deviation from the standards of conduct, within 24 hours of such deviation. If we see a pattern of activities that suggested that "emergencies" are not authentic, we will take strong action against the offending public utilities. Because we are adding a provision that allows actions to be taken in response to emergencies, we are deleting the phrase "to the maximum extent practicable" that had appeared in section 37.6(a) of the standards of conduct proposed in the RIN NOPR. 19. Continental Power Exchange argued that, just as merchant traders should be prohibited from access to the control center, system operators should be prohibited from access to the trading floor. United Illuminating agreed that separation of functions needs to apply to separation of transmission and customer supply functions. Continental Power Exchange also suggested that discounts should be offered unilaterally to all customers without prior notice and without two-way negotiation. Continental Power Exchange further suggested that short-term transactions should be deemed approved upon request, unless the utility specifically notifies the customer that the transaction will be denied. Continental Power Exchange argued that this would streamline the proposed procedures and make OASIS transactions faster and more manageable. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - liii - - liii - We will not, at this time, adopt Continental Power Exchange's suggestion to create an absolute prohibition against system operators having access to the trading floor because we are concerned about information divulged by system operators and not about information acquired by them. However, any non-public contacts between system operators and merchant traders creates the risk that there will be improper communications between these employees and the burden is on Transmission Providers subject to the standards of conduct to devise procedures that will prevent improper contacts. We expect, therefore, that the Transmission Providers themselves will devise procedures that will either prohibit or, at a minimum, severely restrict access to the trading floor by system operators. As to Continental Power Exchange's other suggestions, we will not adopt these suggestions at this time, but may come back to them as the process evolves and the feasibility of back and forth negotiations is tested by experience. 20. SoCal Edison and Tucson Power suggested that, while the proposed 60-day deadline for filing procedures to implement the standards is adequate, the Commission needs to be flexible on implementing other changes, such as reconfiguring and relocating control rooms and other facilities, and training and recruiting new employees. Although we originally proposed to require compliance with the standards of conduct starting 60 days from the publication of this final rule, on further consideration we have decided to put Docket No. RM95-9-000 - liv - - liv - off the requirement that they be implemented until the implementation of OASIS, that is by November 1, 1996. As a practical matter, the standards of conduct cannot be implemented apart from the electronic communication systems of a functioning OASIS; the two work together. In addition, the extra time will permit utilities the opportunity to fully implement the requirements of the standards of conduct. Although the result will be a window of time during which open access transmission tariffs will not be supported by standards of conduct (or OASIS), we must recognize that the changes we are mandating for the industry cannot be implemented overnight; a transition period is required. 21. Finally, after a review of the comments, we have added an additional provision to the standards of conduct (section 37.4(b)(5)(vi) of the final rule) dealing with the posting of any additional market information developed by a Transmission Provider in its role as a Transmission Provider and shared with employees of its, or an affiliate's, merchant function. We have expressed concern in a number of recent orders about the possibility of the dissemination of market information by a public utility with market-based rate authority. 33/ To guard against the possibility of affiliate abuse, we have required such public utilities to commit in their codes of conduct with affiliates to share market information only if they make the same 33/ See, e.g., Illinova Power Marketing, Inc., 74 FERC  61,313, slip op. at 4-6 (1996); USGen Power Services, L.P., 73 FERC  61,302 at 61,845 (1995). Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lv - - lv - information publicly available to non-affiliates at the same time. We have not dictated the means by which public utilities are to make this information simultaneously available to all. This same concern for the unequal distribution of market information, in a manner that may benefit select recipients with commercial or competitive information that is not equally available to others, leads us, after a review of the comments, to extend the standards of conduct to cover any market information gathered by Transmission Providers in the course of responding to transmission or ancillary service inquiries. Our concern, based in part on our experience with implementing and monitoring electronic bulletin boards developed for use by the natural gas pipeline industry, is that there remains the incentive for a Transmission Provider to share with its own merchant employees, or those of an affiliate, any information it has developed (not limited to transmission system information) in responding to requests made over the OASIS. This is particularly a concern with respect to market information developed in the course of denying a request for transmission service. While we have developed procedures dealing with the obligations of Transmission Providers in responding to requests for service, we believe that these procedures, alone, may not be sufficient to eliminate the possibility of an unfair competitive advantage to employees of the Transmission Provider (or an Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lvi - - lvi - affiliate) engaged in merchant functions, by virtue of access to market information not shared with others. Accordingly, we will add to the standards of conduct a provision that precludes a Transmission Provider from sharing market information acquired from nonaffiliated Transmission Customers or potential nonaffiliated Transmission Customers or developed in the course of responding to requests for transmission or ancillary service. In this manner, we can be better assured that employees of the Transmission Provider or an affiliate engaged in merchant operations do not develop a competitive advantage by virtue of operation of an OASIS. The Transmission Provider may only reveal information about transmission requests as provided in the provisions of this rule (section 37.6 (e)) dealing, generally, with responses to transmission and ancillary service requests and, specifically, with transaction confidentiality (except to the limited extent that this information is required to be posted on the OASIS). 3. Whether to Require the Separation of Generation and Transmission Functions In the RIN NOPR we proposed standards of conduct that would require Transmission Providers and their affiliates to separate system operation and reliability functions from wholesale merchant functions. Both transmission and generation functions are included within system operation and reliability functions. The RIN NOPR, notwithstanding Questions 42 and 43, did not propose that these functions (transmission and generation) be Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lvii - - lvii - separated. Nor did we propose that Transmission Providers divest their ownership of generation assets. We received numerous comments in response to our questions 42 and 43 that asked whether, if the Commission would go beyond unbundling transmission and generation merchant functions to order the unbundling of generation and transmission operations, this would necessitate revision of the proposed standards of conduct and whether this would adversely affect reliability. 34/ After reviewing the comments, we conclude that we should require -- with these final rules -- only the unbundling of the transmission operations and wholesale marketing functions of public utilities and their affiliates, as proposed in the RIN NOPR. We do not extend these rules to require the unbundling of transmission and generation control functions or to mandate the divestiture by Transmission Providers of their generation assets. We will require the functional unbundling of transmission operations and wholesale marketing functions because we are persuaded that this will prevent abuses based on preferential access to information and other discriminatory behavior, without compromising system reliability. The standards of conduct are 34/ The commenters nearly universally focused their presentations on why the Commission should not order an unbundling of generation and transmission operations, rather than addressing the precise topic we set out. In any event, the issue is now moot, as we have decided not to order Transmission Providers to separate their generation and transmission operations at this time. If, however, with experience we discover that the steps we are ordering here are not adequate to remedy undue discrimination, we can revisit this issue. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lviii - - lviii - designed to accomplish this: (a) by requiring that transmission- related information be made available to all customers (including employees of the public utility, and any affiliate, engaged in merchant functions) through OASIS postings available to all customers at the same time and on an equal basis; and (b) by prohibiting the employees of Transmission Providers and any affiliates from disclosing (or obtaining) non-public transmission-related information, through communications not posted on the OASIS. G. SECTION 37.5 -- OBLIGATIONS OF TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS This section of the final rule adopts, without substantive change, the provisions proposed as section 37.4 (Standardization of Data Sets and Communication Protocols) and section 37.5 (Obligations of Transmission Providers) in the RIN NOPR. The final rule requires, in paragraph (a), that a Transmission Provider must provide for the operation of an OASIS either individually or jointly with other Transmission Providers and it must do so in accord with the requirements of Part 37. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that the OASIS must give access to relevant standardized information pertaining to the status of the transmission system as well as to the types and prices of services. Finally, in paragraph (b)(2), the rule requires that the OASIS must be operated in compliance with the protocols set out in the publication, OASIS Standards and Communication Protocols. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lix - - lix - In the RIN NOPR, we explained that each Transmission Provider would be responsible for compliance, regardless of whether it establishes its own OASIS or participates in a joint OASIS. 35/ The final rule does not change this. In a related provision, we proposed, in  37.1, that Part 37 would apply to any public utility that owns, operates, or controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce. However, as noted by many commenters, it is quite probable that individual public utilities may turn the operation of their transmission system and information system over to an ISO or other joint or regional entity. (This has been provided for in the definition of the term "Responsible Party"). This raises the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction over such entities. Under section 201(e) of the FPA, a "public utility" means, any person who owns or operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under this Part (other than facilities subject to such jurisdiction solely by reason of section 210, 211, or 212). [36/] To the extent that anyone is given control and decision making authority over the transmission operations of a public utility's transmission facilities, it clearly would "operate" public facilities, within the meaning of section 201(e), and therefore 35/ NRECA commented that the Commission should ensure that expenses by a joint OASIS are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction and audit authority. We agree. We will treat this as a normal ratemaking expense issue and will allocate such costs on a case-by-case basis when such expenses are presented to us for our review. 36/ 16 U.S.C.  824. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lx - - lx - would be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 37/ To the extent that a public utility turns over its operations to an ISO or any other joint entity to satisfy the Open Access and OASIS requirements, the ISO or any other entity would fall within the definition of a "public utility" under  201 of the FPA and thus would be subject to the OASIS regulations of Part 37. H. SECTION 37.6 -- INFORMATION TO BE POSTED ON AN OASIS In the RIN NOPR, we proposed, in sections 37.7 through 37.14, rules governing: (1) the information that must be posted on an OASIS; (2) the procedures for the posting and updating of information on the OASIS; (3) the posting of discounts; (4) procedures for Transmission Providers to respond to customer requests for transmission service; (5) procedures for communicating denials of requests for service and curtailments; and (6) the posting of information about scheduling and affiliate transactions. These provisions have been consolidated and are now covered in  37.6 of the regulations adopted by this final rule. As discussed in more detail below, section 37.6 has eight paragraphs. Paragraph (a) lists the objectives of an OASIS. Paragraph (b) lists what must be posted for public transmission capability -- that is, available transmission capability (ATC) and total transmission capability (TTC) -- as well as how and 37/ See, e.g., Bechtel Power Corporation, order granting declaratory order and disclaiming jurisdiction, 60 FERC  61,156 at 61,572 (1992) (on control issue), and FPC v. Florida Power & Light Company, 404 U.S. 453 (1972) (on defining jurisdictional facilities). Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxi - - lxi - when this information is to be updated. Paragraph (c) sets out the requirements for posting transmission service products, including resold capacity as well as their prices. Paragraph (d) provides the same for offerings of ancillary services. Paragraph (e) sets out the requirements for posting transmission service requests and responses including service denials and curtailment or interruption of transmission. Paragraph (f) provides requirements for posting transmission service schedules. Paragraph (g) deals with posting other transmission-related communications. Finally, paragraph (h) sets out the requirements for auditing information. Some of the proposed provisions have not been adopted. These include requirements concerning an application procedure for requesting transmission service ( 37.9(b)(5) of the proposed regulations); requirements imposed on the reseller to notify the Transmission Provider of certain information ( 37.9(c)(3) of the proposed regulations); and the steps that must be followed by the Transmission Provider and Requester in their negotiations ( 37.12 of the proposed regulations). These did not prescribe information that must be posted; rather, they were concerned with how parties should conduct business in an open access environment. These matters are considered in the Open Access Final Rule. 1. OASIS Objectives ( 37.6(a)) Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxii - - lxii - The Commission proposed five objectives for the OASIS in the RIN NOPR. 38/ Few comments were received on these objectives; none were substantive. Thus, we adopt these objectives without substantive revision in the final rule. 2. Posting Transmission Capability ( 37.6(b)) a. ATC for Network Integration Service The RIN NOPR discussed requiring the posting of available transmission capability for network service. As we acknowledged in the RIN NOPR, 39/ before-the-fact measurement of the availability of network transmission service is difficult. Nonetheless, it is important to give potential network customers under the Commission's pro forma tariff (as discussed in the Open Access Final Rule) 40/ an easy-to-understand indicator of service availability. To this end, the Commission requested comments on how best to post the availability of network transmission service on the OASIS (Question 3). NERC reiterated the statement in the What Group report that it does not seem possible to post the availability of Network Integration Transmission Service on an OASIS. No other commenter disagreed. NERC went on to describe some of the challenges involved with calculating available transmission capability (ATC) for 38/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188) and the proposed regulation at 18 CFR 37.7 (60 FR 66200). 39/ See RIN NOPR text at section III.C (60 FR at 66188). 40/ See Open Access Final Rule at sections IV.G and IV.H. Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxiii - - lxiii - network integration service. Network service is a complex, long- term relationship between a requester and provider that must be investigated in detail because it involves the specification of multiple points of receipt or delivery or both. Because of the long-term nature of network service, the planning process involves a complex interrelationship of future loads and resources, with an impact on the network that is extremely location dependent. A major difficulty in estimating network ATC is the lack of specific locations for which to calculate an impact on the network. Each network service request would be unique, with different sets of integrated loads and generating stations affecting the network, including its constrained paths, differently. The Commission also asked if there were any alternative service that is more suitable to measurement than the current version of network service. Some commenters said that it might be possible to devise a concept which supports better measurement of network-like service availability, but devising and implementing such a new concept within the proposed initial implementation time line for OASIS is not feasible. The Commission is not, at this time, persuaded to require the posting of ATC for network service. b. Minimizing the Reporting of ATC ( 37.6(b)(1) and (3)) In the RIN NOPR, the Commission requested comments on ways to minimize the burden of ATC calculations, while ensuring that Docket No. RM95-9-000 - lxiv - - lxiv - wholesale Transmission Customers have the information they need (Question 5). Commenters suggested a number of ways to minimize the reporting of ATC, including less frequent updates, developing standardized methods for calculating ATC, and encouraging regional efforts. Most of the comments discussed ways to limit the number of paths for which ATC has to be posted. The What Group proposed that ATC be posted only for paths as "business needs" arise. This proposal was intended to limit the number of paths for which ATC must be posted. A "business need" was defined, in part, by a Transmission Customer requesting information about a path. A number of commenters supported th