Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations members determined that the need for a mechanism to transfer data from the tools to OASIS should be addressed as part of any industry implementation rather than as part of the standards modifications. While we encourage the industry to develop automated tools as quickly as possible, we agree that this effort should be independent from the development and implementation of the standards.
2. Incorporation of WEQ023 Standards 1.4 and 1.4.1
a. Background 25. The WEQ023 Business Practice Standards include two new standards related to contract path management not previously included in the NERC MOD
A Reliability Standards. These two Business Practice Standards, WEQ023
1.4 and WEQ0231.4.1, limit the amount of firm transmission service granted on an ATC Path and limit the interchange schedule both firm and non-firm between balancing authority areas to the contract path limit for that given path, respectively.32

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

b. Comments 26. Bonneville Power Administration Bonneville and the ISO/RTO Council ask the Commission to decline to incorporate by reference these Standards. Bonneville asserts that the WEQ0231.4 and WEQ0231.4.1
Business Practice Standards need further refinement by the industry before they are ready for incorporation by reference, if at all. Bonneville states that these Standards appear to be inconsistent with how Bonneville and other transmission service providers and system operators in the Western Interconnection operate their systems.
Bonneville explains that, for itself and others, an ATC Path is allowed to be overscheduled up to twenty minutes prior to flow, at which point interruptions of non-firm service, 32 WEQ023 1.4 states, each Transmission Service Provider shall not grant a request for Firm Transmission Service on an ATC Path that serves as an interface with another BAA if the net of the Firm Transmission Service transactions into and out of the Transmission Service Providers BAA
would exceed the sum of the Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities, to which Transmission Service Providers mutually agree they have the right to use Tie Facilities that comprise the ATC Path, between the two BAAs.
WEQ023 1.4.1 states, each Transmission Service Provider shall limit the Interchange Schedule both Firm and non-Firm of the reservations on an ATC path into and out of Transmission Service Providers BAA on an interface with another BAA such that the Net Interchange Schedule does not exceed the sum of the Facility Ratings of Tie Facilities, to which Transmission Service Providers mutually agree they have the right to use the Tie Facilities that comprise the ATC Path, between the two BAAs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:10 Jun 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

curtailments, or economic dispatches, are then performed to ensure that path limits are not exceeded. Bonneville further states that this practice allows it to maximize transmission utilization including the integration of variable resources scheduled within the hour, and that these requirements, if incorporated by reference as drafted, would restrict energy supply and transmission availability.33
27. Bonneville contends that its concerns with Business Practice Standards WEQ0231.4 and 1.4.1 are particularly relevant in light of the recent heat wave events of August and September 2020 in California.
Bonneville asserts that eliminating the practice of over-scheduling until the final twenty minutes prior to flow on transmission facilities such as the California-Oregon Intertie could artificially restrict energy supply and transmission availability.34
28. The ISO/RTO Council joins Bonneville in opposing WEQ0231.4
and 1.4.1 Business Practice Standards, stating that requiring transmission service providers to assume all firm transmission service reservations will be used in full, without accounting for the transmission customers scheduling activity, will undoubtedly result in less efficient use of the transmission system. The ISO/RTO Council also expresses concern that under system conditions which include the sudden, unexpected outage or de-rate of a transmission facility associated with an ATC path, there may not be sufficient time to adjust posted ATC or modify the current interchange, which could lead to a violation of the requirement.35
29. The ISO/RTO Council notes that WEQ0231.4 and 1.4.1 Business Practice Standards were initially rejected by the NAESB Business Practices Subcommittee, and that the ISO/RTO Council and other entities, including PJM Interconnection LLC, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Electric Reliability Council Of Texas, Inc., and the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario, raised concerns that remain unresolved.36
c. Commission Determination 30. We incorporate by reference all of the WEQ023 Modeling Business Practice Standards. The WEQ023
Business Practice Standards were filed in October 2015 and were the product of an extensive development process by 33 Bonneville
Comments at 4.
at 5.
35 ISO/RTO Council Comments at 9.
36 Id.
34 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

29495

a NAESB subcommittee with the necessary expertise to address the relevant technical issues. Although WEQ0231.4 and 1.4.1 Business Practice Standards were not in NERCs MOD A Reliability Standards, they were proposed to help address differences in how contract paths are treated that would have existed among the three methods for calculating ATC: Rated System Path Methodology, Area Interchange Methodology, and Flowgate Methodology. Declining to adopt these standards at this point could potentially loosen the requirements for nondiscriminatory calculation of ATC and may require changes to specific standards regarding particular contract paths. Given the deliberately broad nature of these standards, the record does not show that current business practices, such as a response to a sudden de-rate or outage referenced by the ISO/RTO Council, would necessarily be considered a violation of the standards.
31. Moreover, a consensus of the industry approved these standards with Bonneville, MISO and ISONE voting in favor at the WEQ stakeholders meeting, while no ISO/RTO and only one utility voted in opposition. In reviewing these standards, the Commission relies heavily on the consensus expertise of the NAESB membership.37 Concerns with the NAESB Business Practice Standards therefore should be raised within the NAESB process, and the industry should seek to resolve any issues therein and, if they cannot, the parties need to provide a factual record for the Commission to consider the issue.38
32. Bonneville and the ISO/RTO
Council have raised concerns with whether implementation of these standards in all cases will result in a loss of scheduling flexibility without the risk of overscheduling. We therefore remind these parties that, as further discussed in P 41, we remain open to examining requests for waivers of these standards when utilities make compliance filings.39 Such requests 37 Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines; Order No. 587, 61 FR 39,053, 39057 July 26, 1996, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,038, at 30.059 1996 cross-referenced at 76 FERC
61042 Since it is the industry that must operate under these standards, deferring to the considered judgment of the consensus of the industry is both reasonable and appropriate..
38 See Standards for Bus. Practices of Interstate Nat. Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587G, 63 FR 20072, 2007680 Apr. 23, 1998, FERC Stats. & Regs.
31,062, at 30,66874 1998 cross-referenced at 83
FERC 61,029 Commission resolved issue on which NAESBs predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards Board, could not reach consensus.
39 Order No. 676H, 148 FERC 61,205 at P 80.

E:FRFM02JNR1.SGM

02JNR1