Southwest Power Pool
REGIONAL TARIFF WORKING GROUP
DFW / Hyatt – Venus Room / East Tower
March 14 - 15, 2001
Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order & Receipt of Proxies
Chair Ricky Bittle called the Regional Tariff Working Group (RTWG) meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
with a round of introductions. Other RTWG members in attendance were:
Gene Anderson (OMPA),
Dennis Bethel (AEP),
Betsy Carr for Kim Casey (Dynegy),
Mark Foreman (TNSK),
David Grover (Xcel Energy),
John Gunesch (OG&E),
Rick Henley (CWL Jonesboro, AR),
Ron Kite (KCPL),
Wayne Miller (ETEX)
Ron McNamara (Enron),
Dennis Reed (WERE),
Rick Rucker (Coral),
Jim Sherwood (SWPA),
Pat Bourne (SPP),
Roy Sundman (SPP).
Others in attendance included: Mark MacDonald and Lynn Ferry (CLECO); Matt Wolf, David
McNeill and Jon de la Houssaye (Entergy); Tracey Hannon and Darrell Gilliam (SWPA); Barbara
DelGrosso (SPRA); Brett Bradford and Hardy Thompson (CLWC Paragould); Les Brown (OG&E);
Terri Gallup (AEP); Walt Shumate (Shumate & Assoc.); Wes Berger (Xcel Energy); Kit Pevoto
(PUCT Staff); Mark McMurray (Coral); Maria Farinella (Dickstein Shapiro – DENA); Bill Dowling
(Midwest Energy) and Bill Spears (TXU Energy Services).
Agenda Item 2 – Agenda Discussion
There were no additional agenda items.
Agenda Item 3 – Approval Minutes
Minutes of the March 1, 2001 meeting were reviewed. It was noted that John Gunesch had
attended the meeting but was not listed as present. With that correction, Ron McNamara (Enron)
moved that the minutes be approved. John Gunesch (OG&E) seconded the motion. The
minutes were approved unopposed.
Agenda Item 4 – Update on SPP Filings/Activities
Inter-RTO Seams Collaborative Meeting Report – Pat Bourne (SPP Staff) reported that the rate
reciprocity issue had been discussed at a meeting on March 5, 2001. Additionally, Pat mentioned
that SPP Staff will soon begin negotiating an Inter-RTO Cooperation Agreement with the Alliance.
Future meetings of the seams collaborative include, March 26, 2001 in Atlanta at the Courtyard
Marriott from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and another scheduled for April 9, 2001 in St. Louis.
Axia Complaint: Pat reported that the complaint had been filed and summarized its nature and
importance. SPP’s answer will be filed on March 21, 2001.
Agenda Item 5 – Modification of SPP Tariff
Sections 2.2 and 22:
Ricky Bittle (Chair) referred to language SPP Staff distributed by email exploder on Tuesday,
March 13, dated 03-14-01. Roy Sundman (SPP Staff) described minor modifications made by
SPP Counsel and the rationale for them. After significant discussion regarding language
revisions, Ricky asked if there was any motion to modify the language approved on March 1,
other than the revision previously distributed to the email exploder by Mark Foreman (TNSK).
SPP RTWG Minutes
03/14-15/01
None was offered. Mark raised two issues: First, he agreed that an incumbent customer ought to
match the term of a competing request, but should not be required to match the amount of the
request, as the proposed language provides; Second, in the event that a competing request is
made less than 60 days prior to notification required of the incumbent customer pursuant to 2.3
(b), the time otherwise provided to the incumbent customer to provide notification may be
extended. Mark proposed that the incumbent customer be required to exercise its ROFR on or
before the earlier of 60 days before the end to the current term or within 60 days after notification
of contingent service agreement execution by the competing customer. After extensive
discussion of the impact of such a change on the incumbent customer, Ricky suggested that the
two issues be separated for further discussion and decision. Mark moved that Section 2.3 (a) of
the staff-proposed language be modified by deleting the words “ . . . for the amount of the
competing request . . .”. Gene Anderson (OMPA) seconded the motion. The motion was
adopted without opposition and one abstention. Thereafter, Mark moved that language changes
to affect his second proposal be adopted. Rick Rucker (Coral) seconded the motion. Two votes
were cast for the motion with the remaining RTWG members opposing it. The motion failed. The
revision of Tariff Sections 2.2 and 22 adopted by the RTWG is attached (Attachment 1).
Modifications to Accommodate Retail Access – Texas Pilot:
Kit Pevoto (PUCT Staff) distributed and described a new Texas non-ERCOT Transmission Billing
Straw Man Proposal (Attachment 2). It provides for transmission provider billings directed to REP
under three rate classes, depending on the metering used to measure end-use customer load.
Customers are separated into those whose loads are measured by interval demand metering,
non-interval demand metering and energy only metering. Additionally, Kit indicated that the
PUCT Staff would prefer a specific reference in the Tariff to the Texas REP as an eligible
customer to assure that a REP can obtain point-to-point service. After discussion of the proposal
from the PUCT Staff, Ricky Bittle (Chair) asked whether there is any inclination to move to a
three-class rate proposal rather than the current one-class policy of the RTWG. No change
proposal was offered. Ricky indicated there would be continued discussion with three nonERCOT utilities on this matter.
Dennis Reed (WERE) stated that with the advent of retail access in Texas and potential for load
shifts between REPs, we need to develop a network service rate design more responsive to
these conditions. Dennis Bethel (AEP) stated that his proposal for a fixed rate for network service
would address this question and suggested it be discussed in this context. Generally, the idea is
to replace the load ratio share billing methodology with a single stated rate, expressed in $/kW.
The associated billing determinant would be the customer’s contribution to monthly coincident
peak. Dennis Bethel mentioned that a stated rate for network service had been accepted for filing
for the Alliance RTO. Dennis Bethel moved that “the RTWG support the use of a fixed stated rate
for network service by zone with such rate remaining in effect until a revision is accepted for filing
by the FERC”. John Gunesch (OG&E) seconded the motion. Dennis Bethel stated that details
like appropriated divisor for the rate, and treatment of revenue credits will need to be worked out.
The motion passed with 10 for, 0 against, and 3 abstentions. Transmission Owners will each
review their situation and be prepared to discuss specific details about the manner used to
include such rates in the Tariff at the March 22, 2001 meeting.
Ricky Bittle (Chair) referred to the Tariff change proposal document prepared by SPP Staff. Pat
Bourne (SPP Staff) explained that Section 7.1 had been modified to permit estimated bills and
subsequent adjustments to reflect actual data, when such data becomes available. The
proposed language was modified during discussion. Any limitation on the time frame for
correction remains to be decided. The proposed modification to the network service preamble
was designed to accommodate a billing attachment, a form of network service agreement and a
form of network operating agreement, all applicable to service provided to a retail provider.
Action on the preamble language change was deferred until the attachments to which it refers are
considered. There was discussion concerning the proposed language change in Section 29.2
(vii), to handle minimum term of service. Dave Grover (Xcel Energy) moved that the language
2
SPP RTWG Minutes
03/14-15/01
modification be deleted. Dennis Bethel (AEP) seconded the motion. The motion failed with 2 for,
7 against, and 2 abstentions.
Ricky Bittle (Chair) turned to the proposed retail network service agreement. This proposed new
Attachment Z is designed to modify the current network service agreement, Attachment F, to
include retail-specific exceptions to standard network service. After extensive discussion of the
proposal, Ricky asked whether there was any objection to using the currently accepted
Attachment F, modified as necessary to accommodate retail access, for service to retail
providers. There was no objection.
SPP Staff distributed a proposed modification to Tariff Section 1.11, definition of Eligible
Customer. The insertion was proposed to provide a specific reference to a retail electric provider
as an eligible customer. After discussion, the RTWG decided to strike the proposed insertion and
approved a modification to 1.11 which adds the phrase “…or eligible person…” to subsection (ii)
so that it reads “(ii) Any retail customer or eligible person taking unbundled transmission service
pursuant to a state requirement…”.
Upon review of proposed revisions to the Network Operating Agreement previously distributed by
SPP Staff, RTWG again concluded that a retail-specific form of agreement is not preferred.
Rather, the current Attachment G should be modified to accommodate retail provider service in a
single agreement attachment. Specifically, proposed section 8.4 should be included within a
rewrite of Attachment G. Dennis Reed (WERE) volunteered to revise the Network Operating
Agreement in order to accommodate metering associated with service to retail providers. Since it
has been determined that there is no need for new Tariff attachments, the proposed modification
to the network service preamble was stricken. Attached are the base Tariff sections reflecting the
agreed upon changes (Attachment 3).
Modifications to Attachment J, Recovery of Costs Associated with New Facilities:
Pat Bourne (SPP Staff) referred to modifications to Tariff Attachment J, previously distributed. He
described rationale for the change and noted that some of the proposed changes in Attachment L
were related. The modifications to staff language, distributed by Sterling Taylor (AEP), were
considered at the same time. Sterling explained that basically, the AEP proposal is designed to
decouple “or pricing” from the defined Transition Period. He contended that the end of the
Transition Period was too soon to begin roll-in of new facilities. Ricky Bittle (Chair) asked
whether there was any objection to the staff-proposed language. There was none. The staffproposed language was adopted (Attachment J - Attachment 4). Dennis Bethel (AEP) moved
that the AEP modification to the staff-proposed language be adopted. There was no second to
the motion.
Modifications to Attachment L, Treatment of Revenues:
Pat Bourne (SPP Staff) described the nature and rationale for the proposed changes to Tariff
Attachment L, previously distributed. After extensive discussion of the proposed changes, Pat
indicated that staff would bring back a revision to the modification proposal. No action was taken.
Dennis Reed (Vice Chair) led the meeting for the remainder of the session.
Rates for Firm Redirection of Firm Service (Tariff Section 22):
Proposed changes to Tariff Section 22 were discussed with no action taken.
Modifications to Section 11, Creditworthiness:
Staff-proposed changes in Tariff Section 11 and a proposed addition to Section 17.2 were
discussed together. After discussion of the proposed changes to Section 11, Dennis Reed (Vice
Chair) asked if there was any objection to them. There were no objections to the proposed
Section 11 language and it was approved (Section 11 - Attachment 5). Discussion of the
proposed addition to Section 17.2 was deferred.
3
SPP RTWG Minutes
03/14-15/01
Modifications to Section 17.3, et al., Alternatives to Customer Deposits:
Pat Bourne (SPP Staff) reviewed content and rationale for proposed Tariff changes related to the
issue of requiring alternative forms of deposit. Decision on proposed changes was deferred until
the March 22, 2001 meeting.
Agenda Item 6 – Pro forma SPP Generation Interconnection Agreement
Betsy Carr (Dynegy) distributed an electronic copy of a draft comparison of three agreement
formats under consideration by the RTWG. The purpose of this comparison is to assist with the
selection of one document as a base, from which a pro forma SPP generation interconnection
agreement would be developed.
Agenda Item 7 – SPP Business Practices
Discussion and action on SPP Business Practices was deferred until Rick Rucker (Coral) was
available to discuss this issue.
Agenda Item 10 – Future Meetings
Meetings have been scheduled for March 22 and April 2. Both will be held at the DFW Hyatt.
Agenda Item 11 - Adjournment
Vice-Chair Dennis Reed (WERE) adjourned the meeting at 2:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Pat Bourne
RTWG Secretary
4
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 1 Revised
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
2.2
Reservation Priority For Existing Firm Service Customers:
Existing firm service customers (wholesale requirements and
transmission-only, with a contract term of one-year or more,
and retail) of the Transmission Owner(s) or Transmission
Provider have the right to continue to take transmission
service from the Transmission Provider when the contract
expires, rolls over or is renewed.
This transmission
reservation priority is independent of whether the existing
customer continues to purchase capacity and energy from the
Transmission Owner(s) or elects to purchase capacity and
energy from another supplier.
If at {the end of} [any time
during] the contract term, the Transmission Provider's
Transmission System cannot accommodate all of the requests for
transmission service, the existing firm service customer must
agree to accept a contract term at least equal to {a} [the
longest term] competing request by any new Eligible Customer
and to pay the current just and reasonable rate, as approved
by the Commission, for such service.
This transmission
reservation priority for existing firm service customers is an
ongoing right that may be exercised at the end of all firm
contract terms of one-year or longer.
This reservation
priority only applies to the facilities of the Transmission
Owner(s) where such facility costs have been included as part
of the firm service rates that the firm service customer has
been paying.
If competing existing firm service requirements
customers apply for service that cannot be fully provided, the
priority rights will be ranked in accordance with first-come,
first-served principles.
If firm service customers tie, then
5
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 1 Revised
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
the capacity for which they receive priority rights under this
Tariff shall be apportioned on a pro rata basis.
[2.3
Procedures For Exercising Transmission Reservation Priority
Rights:
(a)
If, at any time, the Transmission Provider receives a
request from an Eligible Customer for new firm
transmission service that the Transmission Provider
determines it could not accept without performing a
System Impact Study if an existing customer were to
exercise its transmission reservation priority pursuant
to Section 2.2, the Transmission Provider shall notify
such Eligible Customer that execution of a contingent
service agreement shall be required within fifteen (15)
days of such notification.
Such service agreement shall
be contingent on the outcome of these procedures.
The
Transmission Provider shall concurrently notify the
existing customer of the new request.
Within sixty (60)
days after written notification by the Transmission
Provider of execution of a contingent service agreement
by the competing customer, the existing customer must
inform the Transmission Provider whether it exercises
its reservation priority pursuant to Section 2.2 and
agrees to accept a contract term at least equal to the
new request.
For amounts of service in excess of those
sought in the competing request(s), the existing
customer shall maintain its reservation priority without
taking any further action except for those actions
required under Section 2.3 (b) or in response to future
6
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 1 Revised
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
competing requests.
In the event an existing customer
does not exercise its reservation priority or fails to
respond within such time period, the existing firm
service customer shall forfeit its reservation priority
to the competing customer(s).
In the event that the
competing customer(s) do not reserve all of the
forfeited rights of the existing customer, the
reservation priority will return to the existing
customer.
(b)
In the event an existing firm service customer does
not receive a notification pursuant to Section 2.3(a),
then the existing customer must notify Transmission
Provider no later than sixty (60) days prior to the end
of the term of its firm transmission contract that it is
exercising its transmission reservation priority and
will take transmission service for an additional term of
one year or longer; otherwise it shall forfeit the
transmission reservation priority associated with the
contract.]
7
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 1 Revised
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
22
Changes in Service Specifications
22.1
Modifications On a Non-Firm Basis:
The Transmission
Customer taking Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service
may request the
provision of transmission service on a
non-firm basis over Receipt and Delivery Points other than
those specified in the Service Agreement for Long-Term Firm
Transmission Service or the confirmed Application for
Short-Term Transmission Service ("Secondary Receipt and
Delivery Points"), in amounts not to exceed its firm
capacity reservation, without incurring an additional NonFirm Point-to-Point Transmission Service charge (except as
provided in Section 22.1a) or executing a new Service
Agreement for Long-Term Firm Transmission Service or
submitting a new Application for Short-Term Firm
Transmission Service, subject to the following conditions.
(a)
Service provided over Secondary Receipt and Delivery
Points will be non-firm only, on an as-available basis
and will not displace any firm or non-firm service
reserved or scheduled by third-parties under the Tariff
or under any other transmission tariff or agreement
where the service is being provided by the Transmission
Owner or by the Transmission Owner on behalf of its
(their) Native Load Customers.
(b)
The sum of all Firm and Non-Firm Point-To-Point
Transmission Service provided to the Transmission
Customer at any time pursuant to this section shall not
exceed the Reserved Capacity in the relevant Service
Agreement for Long-Term Firm Transmission or Application
8
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 1 Revised
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
for Short-Term Firm Transmission Service under which
such services are provided.
(c)
The Transmission Customer shall retain its right to
schedule Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service at
the Receipt and Delivery Points specified in the
relevant Service Agreement for Long-Term Firm
Transmission or Application for Short-Term Firm
Transmission Service in the amount of its original
capacity reservation.
(d)
Service over Secondary Receipt and Delivery Points on
a non-firm basis shall not require the filing of an
Application for Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission
Service under the Tariff.
However, all other
requirements of Part II of the Tariff (except as to
transmission rates) shall apply to transmission
service on a non-firm basis over Secondary Receipt
and Delivery Points.
22.1a Additional Charge To Prevent Abuse:
If a Transmission
Customer making the modifications in Section 22.1
takes
service over a transmission path that costs more than the
path the Transmission Customer initially reserved, then for
the service the Transmission Customer schedules, the
Transmission Customer shall pay in addition to the amounts
based on its initial reservation the additional costs
(i.e., the difference between the zonal rates) associated
with the new path.
In addition, the Transmission Customer
shall replace losses (in accordance with Attachment M) and
pay for any redispatch costs (as determined in accordance
9
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 1 Revised
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
with Attachment K) based on the actual transmission path
used.
22.2
Modification On a Firm Basis:
Any request by a
Transmission Customer to modify Receipt and Delivery Points
on a firm basis shall be treated as a new request for
service in accordance with Section 17 hereof, except that
such Transmission Customer shall not be obligated to pay
any additional deposit if the capacity reservation does not
exceed the amount reserved in the existing Service
Agreement for Long-Term Firm Transmission Service or
confirmed Application for Short-Term Firm Transmission
Service.
While such new request is pending, the
Transmission Customer shall retain its priority for service
at the existing firm Receipt and Delivery Points specified
in its Service Agreement for Long-Term Firm Transmission
Service or confirmed Application for Short-Term Firm
Transmission Service.
[In any instance where the remaining
term of service, after modification pursuant to this
provision, is less than twelve (12) months the transmission
customer will maintain existing rights of reservation
priority on the original reservation.]
10
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 2
CONFIDENTIAL
March 13, 2001
NON-ERCOT TRANSMISSION BILLING
Strawman Proposal
Transmission Provider bills REP Directly for Transmission Service, under
Three Rates Based on Metering Capability
This document represents an effort to resolve issues prior to litigation. This document and its
contents may not be used in any litigation by any party, except as evidence of a settlement that
has been reached in accordance with its terms.
I.
Proposal
In order to facilitate Texas’ Retail Access Program, and to comply with the PUCT’s Order No. 40
and consistent with FERC precedent, non-ERCOT transmission rates should be set for three
classes based on metering technology: IDR metered, non-IDR demand metered, and nondemand metered. The OATT rate will be disaggregated into these separate rates and billed to
REPs based on the mix of retail customers served, as addressed below.
II.
Major Assumptions

Distribution Service Utilities and Transmission Providers are separate
entities. The Distribution Service Utility provides distribution service through
a Texas State jurisdictional Distribution Service Tariff. The Transmission
Provider provides transmission service through a FERC jurisdictional Open
Access Transmission Tariff (“OATT”). For the Non-ERCOT regions of Texas,
those entities are as follows:
Distribution Service Utility
Entergy Gulf States
Southwestern Electric Power Company
Southwestern Public Service Company
West Texas Utilities
Transmission Provider
Transco/SPP RTO*
Southwest Power Pool RTO
Southwest Power Pool RTO
Southwest Power Pool RTO
* Assumes FERC Approval of SPP RTO/Transco Hybrid

Each Transmission Provider will agree to modify its OATT to utilize the three
retail customer class rates for Network Integration Transmission Service to
Texas Retail Electric Providers (“REPs”). Such modified rate will be fixed for
at least one year.

The three rate classes are IDR metered, non-IDR demand metered, and nondemand metered.

FERC will approve the OATT modifications as proposed.
11
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 2
III.
CONFIDENTIAL
March 13, 2001

The applicable service area for each respective amended OATT will be
limited to the service area of the associated Distribution Service utility.

Each REP will be a customer receiving transmission service from the
Transmission Provider and will be eligible for both Network Integration and
Point to Point Service.

The Transmission Provider will bill each REP directly for all transmission
services required by the REP’s customers.
FERC Filing Requirements
Each Transmission Provider in the Non-ERCOT regions will file with FERC to
modify its FERC jurisdictional OATT to include provisions for Transmission Service to
REPs. If a Transmission Provider has already filed for an OATT rate, the Texas
Commission and the Transmission Provider will develop and present a joint
recommendation to the FERC. Those modifications will include the following:
IV.

Defining a Texas REP as an eligible customer under the OATT for both
Network Integration and Point to Point Service.

Establishing Transmission Service capacity charges applicable to Texas
REPs who take Network Integration Service. Charges are to be derived from
the corresponding OATT rate applicable in 2002 for each of the three
delivery service rate classes reflecting different metering capabilities.
Customers with IDR metering shall be billed the same rate per kW as the
OATT for the type of transmission service requested by a REP for these
customers. All other rates shall be derived by allocating the Transmission
Provider’s approved revenue requirements to the non-IDR classes using the
same allocation method used to allocate transmission facility costs. The
billing determinants for these classes shall be consistent with PUCT Order
No. 40.

Any other modification to the OATT that are necessary to provide
transmission service to Texas REPs.
Required Agreements
Each REP will enter into a standard Service Agreement for Network
Integration and/or Point-to-Point Transmission Service under the
Transmission Provider’s FERC jurisdictional OATT. The Transmission
Provider will provide transmission service directly to each REP under the
Transmission Provider’s OATT. All terms and conditions of service under
the OATT shall apply to the REP.
12
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 2
I.
CONFIDENTIAL
March 13, 2001
Billing Mechanics
The Transmission Provider will acquire billing information for each REP through
the same or comparable settlement process that is being established for other RTO
resident load serving entities.
The Transmission Provider will prepare a bill for transmission service
provided to each REP, and render that bill directly to the REP on a
monthly basis. That bill will include all charges applicable under the
OATT.
The REP will be responsible for payment of the entire bill directly to
the Transmission Provider unless other arrangements have been made
with the REP’s customers.
13
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 3
SPP Tariff changes – Network Service to Retail Providers – Revised 3-22-01
1.11
Eligible Customer:
(i) Any electric utility (including the
Transmission Owner(s) and any power marketer), Federal
power marketing agency or any person generating electric
energy for sale for resale.
Electric energy sold or
produced by such entity may be electric energy produced in
the United States, Canada or Mexico.
However, with respect
to transmission service that the Commission is prohibited
from ordering by Section 212(h) of the Federal Power Act,
such entity is eligible only if the service is provided
pursuant to a state requirement that a Transmission Owner
offer the unbundled transmission service, or pursuant to a
voluntary offer of such service by a Transmission Owner.
(ii) Any retail customer or eligible person taking
unbundled transmission service pursuant to a state
requirement that a Transmission Owner offer the
transmission service, or pursuant to a voluntary offer of
such service by a Transmission Owner, is an Eligible
Customer under the Tariff.
14
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 3
SPP Tariff changes – Network Service to Retail Providers – Revised 3-22-01
7
7.1
Billing and Payment
Billing Procedure:
Within a reasonable time after the first day
of each month, the Transmission Provider shall submit an invoice to the
Transmission Customer for the charges for all services furnished under
the Tariff during the preceding month.
The invoice shall be paid by
the Transmission Customer within twenty (20) days of receipt.
All
payments shall be made in immediately available funds payable to the
Transmission Provider, or by wire transfer to a bank named by the
Transmission Provider.
[Invoices may be issued using estimated data,
to the extent actual data is not available by the 5th working day of the
month following service. Adjustments reflecting the difference in
billing between the estimated and actual data will be included on the
next regular invoice, with such adjustment being due when that invoice
is due. Any other corrections found to be necessary will be made on the
next regular monthly invoice. 29.2
Application Procedures:
An
Eligible Customer requesting service under Part III of the Tariff must
submit an Application, with a deposit approximating the charge for one
month of service; provided, however, the Transmission Provider shall
have the right to waive deposits on a nondiscriminatory basis for
service requests if the Transmission Provider determines that the
Transmission Customer is creditworthy.
Unless subject to the
procedures in Section 2, Completed Applications for Network Integration
Transmission Service will be assigned a priority according to the date
and time the Application is received, with the earliest Application
receiving the highest priority.
Applications should be submitted by
entering the information listed below on the Transmission Provider's
OASIS. A Completed Application shall provide all of the information
included in 18 CFR § 2.20 including but not limited to the following:
15
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 3
SPP Tariff changes – Network Service to Retail Providers – Revised 3-22-01
(i)
The identity, address, telephone number and facsimile
number of the party requesting service;
(ii)
A statement that the party requesting service is, or
will be upon commencement of service, an Eligible
Customer under the Tariff;
(iii) A description of the Network Load at each delivery
point. This description should separately identify
and provide the Eligible Customer's best estimate of
the total loads to be served at each transmission
voltage level, and the loads to be served from each
Transmission Provider substation at the same
transmission voltage level. The description should
include a ten (10) year forecast of summer and winter
load and resource requirements beginning with the
first year after the service is scheduled to
commence;
(iv) The amount and location of any interruptible loads
included in the Network Load. This shall include the
summer and winter capacity requirements for each
interruptible load (had such load not been
interruptible), that portion of the load subject to
interruption, the conditions under which an
interruption can be implemented and any limitations
on the amount and frequency of interruptions. An
Eligible Customer should identify the amount of
interruptible customer load (if any) included in the
10 year load forecast provided in response to (iii)
above;
(v)
A description of Network Resources (current and 10year projection), which shall include, for each
Network Resource:
Unit size and amount of capacity from that unit
to be designated as Network Resource
VAR capability (both leading and lagging) of
all generators
Operating restrictions
Any periods of restricted operations
throughout the year
Maintenance schedules
Minimum loading level of unit
Normal operating level of unit
Any must-run unit designations required
for system reliability or contract
reasons
Approximate variable generating cost ($/MWH)
for redispatch computations
Arrangements governing sale and delivery of
power to third parties from generating
facilities located in the Transmission Provider
Control Area, where only a portion of unit
output is designated as a Network Resource
16
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 3
SPP Tariff changes – Network Service to Retail Providers – Revised 3-22-01
-
(vi)
Description of purchased power designated as a
Network Resource including source of supply,
Control Area location, transmission
arrangements and delivery point(s) to the
Transmission Provider's Transmission System;
Description of Eligible Customer's transmission system:
Load flow and stability data, such as real and
reactive parts of the load, lines,
transformers, reactive devices and load type,
including normal and emergency ratings of all
transmission equipment in a load flow format
compatible with that used by the Transmission
Provider
Operating restrictions needed for reliability
Operating guides employed by system operators
Contractual restrictions or committed uses of
the Eligible Customer's transmission system,
other than the Eligible Customer's Network
Loads and Resources
Location of Network Resources described in
subsection (v) above
10 year projection of system expansions or
upgrades
Transmission System maps that include any
proposed expansions or upgrades
Thermal ratings of Eligible Customer's Control
Area ties with other Control Areas; and
(vii) Service Commencement Date and the term of the
requested Network Integration Transmission Service.
The minimum term for Network Integration Transmission
Service is one year [; however, if service is
provided hereunder pursuant to a state retail pilot
program, the minimum term may be the lesser of one
year or the remainder of the pilot, but not less than
one month.] Unless the Parties agree to a different
time frame, the Transmission Provider must
acknowledge the request within ten (10) days of
receipt. The acknowledgment must include a date by
which a response, including a Service Agreement, will
be sent to the Eligible Customer. If an Application
fails to meet the requirements of this section, the
Transmission Provider shall notify the Eligible
Customer requesting service within fifteen (15) days
of receipt and specify the reasons for such failure.
Wherever possible, the Transmission Provider will
attempt to remedy deficiencies in the Application
through informal communications with the Eligible
Customer. If such efforts are unsuccessful, the
Transmission Provider shall return the Application
without prejudice to the Eligible Customer filing a
new or revised Application that fully complies with
the requirements of this section. The Eligible
17
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 3
SPP Tariff changes – Network Service to Retail Providers – Revised 3-22-01
Customer will be assigned a new priority consistent
with the date of the new or revised Application. The
Transmission Provider shall treat this information
consistent with the standards of conduct contained in
Part 37 of the Commission's regulations.
The Transmission Provider may, on a non-discriminatory
basis, waive the requirements of subsections 29.2 (iii),
(iv), (v) and (vi), to the extent such information is not
applicable or, in the case of service being requested for
retail access load, is unknown at the time of the
application.
29.3
Technical Arrangements to be Completed Prior to
Commencement of Service:
Network Integration Transmission
Service shall not commence until the Transmission Provider,
the affected Transmission Owner(s), and the Network
Customer, or a third party, have completed installation of
all equipment specified under the Network Operating
Agreement consistent with Good Utility Practice and any
additional requirements reasonably and consistently imposed
to ensure the reliable operation of the Transmission
System.
The Transmission Provider and the affected
Transmission Owner(s) shall exercise reasonable efforts, in
coordination with the Network Customer, to complete such
arrangements as soon as practicable taking into
consideration the Service Commencement Date.
18
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 4
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
DRAFT 2-6-01
Southwest Power Pool
FERC Electric Tariff
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1
Original Sheet No. 163
ATTACHMENT J
Recovery Of Costs Associated With New Facilities
1.
Direct Assignment Facilities
Where a System Impact and/or Facilities Study indicates the need to construct Direct Assignment
Facilities to accommodate a request for Transmission Service, the Transmission Customer shall be charged
the full cost of such Direct Assignment Facilities. Such costs shall be specified in a Service Agreement.
2.
Network Upgrades
a. The costs of completed Network Upgrades shall be handled as follows:
i. During the Transition Period:
The Transmission Customer(s) requesting Transmission Service which requires Network
Upgrades shall pay the costs associated with those Network Upgrades to the extent consistent with
Commission policy. Such costs shall be specified in a Service Agreement to be filed with the Commission.
ii. After the Transition Period:
All Network Upgrades constructed for service under this Tariff shall be rolled-in with all other
transmission facilities. There shall be no direct assignment of Network Upgrade costs to Transmission
Customers. However, the Transmission Provider shall not allow the construction and roll-in of a Network
Upgrade when the Transmission Provider finds more economic or efficient alternatives. This roll-in of
Network Upgrade costs shall not include the portion of any such Network Upgrades paid for during the
Transition Period through direct assignment to Transmission Customer(s).
19
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 4
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
DRAFT 2-6-01
Southwest Power Pool
FERC Electric Tariff
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1
Original Sheet No. 163
b. The costs of Network Upgrades that are not completed shall be handled as follows:
If a proposed Network Upgrades was included in a Transmission Provider-approved Transmission Plan,
required by the Transmission Provider, or otherwise accepted or approved by the Transmission Provider, the
Transmission Owner(s) that incurred the costs shall be reimbursed for those costs by the Transmission Provider.
These costs shall include, but are not limited to: the costs associated with attempting to obtain all necessary
approvals for the project and studies and any construction costs. The Transmission Provider shall develop a
mechanism to recover those costs which will be filed with the Commission on a case by case basis.
20
RTWG Minutes 03-15-01 Meeting - Attachment 5
RTWG Language – Adopted 03-15-01
DRAFT 2-6-01
Southwest Power Pool
FERC Electric Tariff
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1
11
Original Sheet No. ___
Creditworthiness
For the purpose of determining the ability of the entity seeking the service or the Transmission Customer to
meet its obligations related to service hereunder, the Transmission Provider may require compliance with reasonable
credit review procedures and standards at any time beginning at the application stage through the end of the service.
The procedures and standards shall be consistent with standard commercial practices. In addition, the Transmission
Provider may require the entity seeking the service or the Transmission Customer to provide and maintain in effect
during the term of the Service Agreement, an unconditional and irrevocable letter of credit as security to meet its
responsibilities and obligations under the Tariff, or an alternative form of security proposed by the entity or the
Transmission Customer and acceptable to the Transmission Provider and consistent with commercial practices
established by the Uniform Commercial Code that protects the Transmission Provider against the risk of nonpayment. The Transmission Provider shall develop creditworthiness procedures and standards and publish them on
the OASIS.
21