By Holden Mann

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and Open Access Technology International (OATI) have asked FERC to clarify its order requiring public utilities to adopt the North American Energy Standards Board’s (NAESB) Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.

FERC issued Order 676-I (RM05-5-025, et al.) in February, after approving the rulemaking at its Jan. 23 open meeting. (See FERC Adopts NAESB Business, Communication Rules.) The order revises the commission’s regulations to incorporate Version 003.2 of the NAESB standards, which was approved in May 2019 by NAESB’s Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ). (See FERC Proposes Adopting NAESB Standards.)

Need Seen for Redirect Policy Revisions

In its filing, EEI suggested that some language in FERC’s order might conflict with the commission’s “Dynegy redirect policy,” a concern echoed by OATI. This policy states that “transmission customers receiving firm transmission service and requesting redirect rights do not lose rights on the original path until the redirect request is accepted by the transmission provider, confirmed by the transmission customer and passes the conditional reservation deadline.”

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC had requested comment from stakeholders on whether the policy should be extended to “conditional and non-firm transmission redirects”; its February order noted that “virtually all the comments received on this subject” opposed the extension. As a result, the commission found that “limiting the Dynegy policy to redirects from unconditional firm service is reasonable.”

However, EEI and OATI warned that the order’s statement that the policy “will extend to neither short-term firm point-to-point transmission service nor non-firm transmission service” seems to create an internal inconsistency when applied to redirect requests from “unconditional short-term firm point-to-point … parent reservations.” Similarly, OATI said that the order “introduced ambiguity as to exactly which unconditional firm parent reservations were to be afforded the protections under the Dynegy policy.”

As a result, both commenters requested that FERC clarify how the policy will apply to short-term redirect requests. OATI also requested further review of FERC’s decision to exclude text in the preambles to WEQ-001-9 and WEQ-001-10 that restricts redirects to unconditional parent reservations and allows transmission providers to specify the reservation process for redirects, saying that the omission creates confusion by implying that the standards are meant to apply to “both unconditional and conditional firm parent reservations.”

Longer Implementation Timeline Requested

Along with concerns over redirect policies, EEI and OATI also sought more information on implementation of the NAESB standards. In its order, FERC mandated that public utilities make compliance filings by May 26 and complete their implementation of the standards by July 26.

But the respondents observed that these deadlines seem to contradict the standards themselves. Specifically, WEQ-002 already includes an implementation plan requiring full compliance “no later than 18 months after adoption [of the standards] as regulation.” Both OATI and EEI requested that FERC defer to the 18-month implementation timeline. OATI in particular asserted that the NAESB standards represent “a very complex business process” that public utilities will not be able to implement and test adequately within five months, while EEI suggested that the commission allow utilities to request a waiver of its deadlines if needed.